Gravity is Time

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We are talking of length contraction here, so the length of the bench has to contract from a prior length. The bench has a length before it contracts. What is the length of the bench before any observer from any frame of reference measures it? The bench contracted from an initial length, a length that was present before it was observed.

 

Suppose we have an alien in a spaceship with a telescope watching the bench being made and built from the very beginning. There is no longer a "before." It has been observed by two different observers from the start, and they disagree on the length.

 

You cannot find an "intrinsic length" in such a situation.

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

So is the bench at the train station a physical object?

 

 

Yes.

 

So we will agree that the bench has an atomic structure and so much quantity of this atomic structure, in other words, this bench is a physical object that has existed before anyone encountered it and this bench has a finite size. The object can and does exist without the dependence of an observer. So the bench has a finite length before it is observed from any frame of reference. That is the size of the bench, the size that it was before it appears to contract. Now just to be clear here, you are suggesting that physical objects physically contract just to fit the frame of reference of an observer, right?

 

 

 

originally posted by Eric 5

Does the bench occupy a location in space?

 

 

Depending on your frame of reference there can be disagreement about how much space it occupies.

 

If it is physical then it occupies a location in space. It occupies that space whether it is being observed or not. The bench is physical, the bench occupies a finite amount of space, and has a size before it is observed. There is a size from which this bench contracts from. This original size that the bench is before anyone observed it is the size of the bench. That is the length of the bench.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Eric 5

Did the bench have a length before the trains passed? If so how long was it?

 

 

 

It is different for anyone in non-mutual reference frames.

 

I notice you didn't answer the questions I gave you with the bench example. One person measures it as 8m and the other as 6m. So how long is the bench, Eric?

 

There is a length that this physical bench has before anyone observes it. That is the length of the bench. The bench has to have a length before it can contract.

 

Yes I have not answered your question because I asked you what the length of the bench was before the trains arrived. The bench as you said is a physical object. This bench has an atomic structure, the quantity of this atomic structure is finite. So this bench has a finite size before it is observed. That size will tell you the length of the bench.

 

originally posted by Eric 5

From your above statement it sounds like objects appear to contract, but do not physically contract, is that what you are saying? If not, then by responding to the above questions you could clear things up on how the "point of view" is very straightforward.

 

 

If an object changes shape then we try to discern why it changes shape. We don't exclaim "it didn't really change shape though".

 

So what exactly are you saying? Does the bench really physically change shape or not? This is what I would like you to make clear please. If the bench just appears to change length then that is fine, but if you are suggesting that the bench physically changes length and goes from one physical length to another shorter length, then this is what I have to question.

 

 

 

 

 

In my hand I have an object. How long is it, Eric?

 

You don't know? Then how can we know if anything has any dimensions unless we look at it in some way? Your question "Does the bench have a length when no one is looking?" is an insensible question as it assumes we can know something before we know it.

 

Important question. Are you suggesting that all objects can only exist or have a size AFTER they are observed? And are you suggesting that AFTER an object is no longer being observed that it ceases to have a size? An object only has a size when being observed?

 

You said the bench is a physical object. This object has a finite size. This size exists and occupies a finite amount of space regardless if it is being observed or not. This object has a size before it is observed. Right?

 

We only know the length of the bench from measuring it and, has been relayed to you countless times, the length depends on your frame of reference.

 

Look, you say the bench is a physical object. This object existed as a finite size before it was observed. All observations of that object are based on the fact that that object exists with an original finite size. All other ideas, appearances, measurements of that object are based off the original size of that physical object. The original unobserved size is the reference from which all preceding measurements are based off of. Right?

 

As Swanson told you: the "best" you can do is find its proper length. ie. the length you measure it to be when you are in the same reference frame as the bench.

 

You say that the bench is a physical object, we will take that as a fact in this word problem. So the fact is that the bench is a physical object, so it would follow that this physical object has a finite size. That finite size is the size of the object prior to any and all preceding observations. There is a size of this object and that is the size before the trains passed it.

 

With all that said:

 

This can all be cleared up now that you say that the bench is a physical object. I do not recall if you said the bench physically contracts so this would be the primary question I would ask you.

 

Does the bench physically contract?

 

If so, then the physical bench had a length before it was observed. From this size you can determine its original length.

 

Put another way:

 

You say the bench is a physical object so this has been established for the word problem.

 

From this fact that the bench is a physical object, do you agree that this object exists as a finite size regardless of whether or not it is being observed?

Yes/No

 

If yes, then fine, I agree and all is as it should be according to the laws of nature.

 

If no, then you will have to elaborate on how a physical object can exist without a size and how this size suddenly comes into being by the mere fact that it is being measured from an observer and this measurement is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer. Basically the object would have to know in advance what size to be so as to satisfy the observers frame of reference.

 

 

 

 

So I guess the first point I would like you to make clear is if you are suggesting that the physical bench is physically contracted?

 

 

Thank You.

 

Eric 5

 

Only relative to an external observer. Length is not an inherent property, as has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you.

 

 

Again, length is not an inherent property of the bench, but a measurement relative to the reference frame of the observer.

 

Once you wrap your head around the fact that there is no absolute reference frame much of your confusion will be ameliorated.

 

 

 

Well, since length is dependent on reference frame, I suggest that your question is meaningless (trying to describe length without using a frame of reference).

 

 

 

 

Relative to whom?

 

 

I know it's not intuitive, but it's still true. People here will try to help you resolve your confusion, but you have to put the same effort in return.

 

Slinkey has stated the bench is a physical object, what does that mean to you? Are physical objects those things that are waiting to be given a size by an observer? And do not exist or have a size without some observer?

 

We can clear this up with a simple question. Do physical objects exist without being observed? Yes/No

 

Suppose we have an alien in a spaceship with a telescope watching the bench being made and built from the very beginning. There is no longer a "before." It has been observed by two different observers from the start, and they disagree on the length.

 

You cannot find an "intrinsic length" in such a situation.

 

An "intrinsic length" cannot be found in such a situation. GREAT! glad to hear it. I am not talking about situations, just the basic facts.

 

Can a physical object exist without being observed? Yes/No

 

Do physical objects have a size without ever being observed? Yes/No

 

Is it possible that there are physical objects that exist with a finite shape that have never been observed? Yes/No

[iNow]

The bench has to have a length before it can contract.

 

Let me speak plainly.

 

The concept of length is a relative one.

Different observers will observe different lengths.

None of those observers has a preferred or "more absolute" reference frame... they are all equally valid.

Length is NOT an inherent property of an object.

 

Ipso facto, your question is meaningless, misguided, and annoying.

 

We can clear this up with a simple question. Do physical objects exist without being observed? Yes/No

 

Your question does nothing to clear up the issue.

 

Depending on your definition of existence, the answer could be either yes or no that the bench exists outside of observation.

 

If you posit that observation and the collapse of the wave function is the heart of existence, then it must be first observed to exist.

 

If you posit that perception is a subset of reality, then the bench exists regardless of it's observation.

 

Regardless, you've failed to put parameters around your concept of observation and existence. How about we start there, eh?

[Graviphoton]

The universe has mass. This mass creates a gravitational field that spans the Universe. Whether the Universe is flat (very doubtful), open, or closed is still very much in debate (although recent research suggests an open universe doomed to a cold death), but one thing that is clear in all three scenarios is that gravity exists.

 

Gravitational fields warp time. It is well known in GR that bodies in stronger gravitational fields appear to move more slowly if the the observer is in a weaker gravitational field.

 

Gravity is not range-limited. It's effect falls off by 1/4 if the distance is doubled from the gravity source. It may get incalculably weak at massive distances but is never zero.

 

Someone once said that time exists to stop everything happening at once. I submit that the reason we have time and eveything does not happen at once is because of gravity.

 

Simply put: gravity = time.

 

1. Conclusive results show that our universe is almost flat.

 

2. The fact that acceleration has speeded up, suggests our universe is open.

 

There is very little doubt among physicists and astrophysicists that the universe isn't almost flat and open. So i do not know where you derived these conclusions.

 

Now, gravity is nothing but distortions in spacetime. You can say that gravity is the product of spacetime distortions, so in a sense you can call them the same. Since relativity, we where not aware that space, time, energy and matter where all interlinked, like four different sides to the same coin... so in a sense, you are right. But you are saying that gravity and time are the same thing, through conclusions based on that gravity slows time down. This conclusion would be wrong.

 

But on the whole, the notion is partially correct.

 

** If anyone finds that hard to swallow, i can offer proof that not only space and time are one thing, but if you removed all the energy in the vacuum, the vacuum of spacetime would also disappear.

[Slinkey]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

So we will agree that the bench has an atomic structure and so much quantity of this atomic structure, in other words, this bench is a physical object that has existed before anyone encountered it and this bench has a finite size.

 

You seem to be falling over right at the start. The bench, before anyone observes it, has undefined dimensions. Until we measure something we can say nothing about it. Depending on your frame of reference different observers may report different measurements.

 

The object can and does exist without the dependence of an observer.

 

That is more of a philosophical stance than a scientific stance. Whether an objects exists before we view it is irrelevant. When we measure the object observers in different frames of reference will report different measurements.

 

 

So the bench has a finite length before it is observed from any frame of reference. That is the size of the bench, the size that it was before it appears to contract. Now just to be clear here, you are suggesting that physical objects physically contract just to fit the frame of reference of an observer, right?

 

No. I'm saying that depending on your frame of reference your measurements will disagree with people in different frames of reference measuring the same object.

 

Most of the rest is you just saying the same thing over and over again. Sorry you're having such a hard time understanding this. Maybe you should become a carpenter instead.

[Graviphoton]

Sorry to hijack one thread, but can i ask, can anyone tell me, if they disagree with the moving of a post, how does one go about to stand their point?

[iNow]

PM a staff member (or, more than one if needed) and discuss it in private.

[Graviphoton]

And who is that exactly? Are you a mod?

[Klaynos]

The people with bold blue or red nicknames. You want super moderators or admins in this list:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showgroups.php

[Graviphoton]

Thank you

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

So is the bench at the train station a physical object?

 

Does the bench occupy a location in space?

 

Did the bench have a length before the trains passed? If so how long was it?

 

From your above statement it sounds like objects appear to contract, but do not physically contract, is that what you are saying? If not, then by responding to the above questions you could clear things up on how the "point of view" is very straightforward.

 

 

 

 

 

The length of the bench depends on what frame you are in. It does not have an intrinsic length that can be absolutely determined. The best you can do is define its proper length.

 

 

O.K. The LENGTH of the bench depends on what frame of reference you are in. You are talking of the LENGTH of an object, not the object itself. We have to agree that there is an object to measure or view. Now the question is, what is the size of the object before we observe it? You admit that there is an object that can be viewed from many different frames of reference, so this object exists physically right? The proper length is dependent on the observers frame of reference, but the object is a physical object that reflects light so it interacts with the physical universe. This object has some bearing on how much light it reflects before we can observe it. It has a finite size and reflects a finite amount of light before we can observe it. Right? Tell me, do you think that physical objects physically contract through this phenomenon called length contraction?

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

The bench has to have a length before it can contract.

 

 

 

Let me speak plainly.

 

The concept of length is a relative one.

Different observers will observe different lengths.

None of those observers has a preferred or "more absolute" reference frame... they are all equally valid.

Length is NOT an inherent property of an object.

 

Ipso facto, your question is meaningless, misguided, and annoying.

 

 

 

The concept of length is a relative one.

 

I agree, length is a concept, but the object has been established as existing as a physical object, so the bench is not a concept. The bench is a thing that exists in the physical universe.

 

 

 

Different observers will observe different lengths.

None of those observers has a preferred or "more absolute" reference frame... they are all equally valid.

 

Different observers will observe different lengths of the SAME object. The observations differ, not the object. The observations of the object do not come before the existance of the object. The object physically exists as a constant for all frames of reference. It is the frame that changes when measuring the object, not the object changing for the frame. Agreed?

 

 

 

 

Your question does nothing to clear up the issue.

 

Depending on your definition of existence, the answer could be either yes or no that the bench exists outside of observation.

 

If you posit that observation and the collapse of the wave function is the heart of existence, then it must be first observed to exist.

 

If you posit that perception is a subset of reality, then the bench exists regardless of it's observation.

 

YOU are the one who needs to make up your mind if a physical object can exist without being observed. YOU are the one who has to gain some certainty on how you would answer the question. This question was posed and YOU need to make up your mind, your above considerations on the question did not give an answer of yes or no. If you were just thinking out loud than just post your answer when YOU figure it out. I already have an answer. Yes objects can physically exist with a finite size without ever being observed. Now YOU just need to decide for yourself on an answer to the question:

 

Can physical objects exist without ever being observed? Yes/No. What do YOU think?

 

Regardless, you've failed to put parameters around your concept of observation and existence. How about we start there, eh?

 

Look, YOU are the one who decides the parameters around YOUR concept of observation and existance. It is all up to you. YOU decide. What do you think? What is YOUR answer. I have not found this to be a difficult question, everyone should have an answer to this question.

 

Eric 5

[iNow]

You are giving the bench's reference frame preference. I also have no interest in debating the nature of existence with you.

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

So we will agree that the bench has an atomic structure and so much quantity of this atomic structure, in other words, this bench is a physical object that has existed before anyone encountered it and this bench has a finite size.

 

 

You seem to be falling over right at the start. The bench, before anyone observes it, has undefined dimensions. Until we measure something we can say nothing about it. Depending on your frame of reference different observers may report different measurements.

 

The bench has undefined dimensions before anyone observers it, agreed, the physical object has not been given the man measurements that define its dimensions for man. The physical object does exist though without being measured. A physical object has to exist before man can see it or measure it. The dimensions come after the fact that the physical object exists. Agreed?

 

You say that "until we measure something we can say NOTHING about it"

 

This is a very general and incorrect statement, I cannot understand why you would make such a bold statement when you can see that it is wrong.

 

These are the things that we CAN say about something (this something being a physical object) before we measure it.

 

What we can say of this something:

 

What color it is.

Where it is located in reference to us.

How big it is compared to other objects that we can imagine.

We can say that it indeed exists.

We can say its shape.

How much light it reflects.

 

There are numerous things we can say about a physical something without ever measuring it.

 

Again, the dimensions may be undefined but the object is what it is regardless of being measured or not.

 

YOU need to make up your mind on if an object can exist physically without being measured. Then from that point YOU need to decide if a physical object can exist without being observed.

 

 

Originally posted by Eric 5

The object can and does exist without the dependence of an observer.

 

 

 

 

That is more of a philosophical stance than a scientific stance. Whether an objects exists before we view it is irrelevant. When we measure the object observers in different frames of reference will report different measurements.

 

 

"That is more of a philosophical stance than a scientific stance. Whether an objects exists before we view it is irrelevant." Are you serious? You think that this is a philosophical question and has no basis in science. How could this question be irrelevant, to be irrelevant would mean that it has no bearing on the out come of the ideas put forward by S.R. It has everything to with the outcome and process by which length contraction is supposed to occur. There has to be physical objects that exist to be measured, so my question is basically asking you if you think that objects can exist BEFORE they are measured, or do physical objects come into existance AFTER they are measured. Think about it. In order for an observer to measure a physical object that observer has to see it. In order for that observer to see the physical object light has to reflect off of that object and travel to the observer with the information of the size, color, shape, etc, of that object. This information carried in the light is what the object was when the light reflected off of it, BEFORE an observer received that information. So the size and all that information of the object was established before the light hit it. The object is a something that reflects light. If you say that the object's size and shape and everything that goes along with it are not determined until the light hits it, well that would be a new discovery in science and I would have to ask you for a reference that describes this occurrence, but even still. if this was the fact, the object would still have a finite size and shape before it was measured.

 

So my question to you is, do you personally think that physical objects can exist and have a finite size without ever being observed or measured? In other words, did physical objects exist before life?

 

This is the ground floor on which the length contraction idea rests on. The whole idea depends on the existance of physical objects being around to be observed and if they exist as a finite things in their natural undisturbed state at all times. Or does this natural state of physical objects depend on life to observe it to give it existance (ie. size, shape, color etc)

 

So what do you think?

 

Eric 5.

 

You are giving the bench's reference frame preference.

 

NO! I am asking you if you think physical objects can exist without being observed. This is a very basic question that I think that you can answer, you have to have an opinion on this question. Come on, I know you have an answer. It is a simple yes/no question. Your lack of an answer is surprising. I can say that you either can not answer this question or you will not answer this question because of the problems it causes in your belief in the idea of length contraction. The fact that you have no answer to a basic physics question is most telling. How could you not have an answer to this question? It is most humorous that a persons with 2,799 posts on this forum since Aug 2007, a person who obviously has an opinion on many subjects and makes these opinions known freely, has no opinion on the existance of physical objects. The humorous part is the fact that you are avoiding answering the question. Is this a question on which you just have no opinion on? Are you stumped?

 

 

I also have no interest in debating the nature of existence with you.

 

This is not a debate. For it to be a debate, you would have to state your point of view on the question "Can physical objects exist without being observed?" You have not even given an answer yet. This whole subject that we are talking about got started with a word problem that was presented to me about a bench at a train station. All I wanted to know is if the bench existed before it was ever measured, what is so hard about that question that you cannot give an answer? Maybe you have given this question much thought and decided that in order to keep your ready made, unexamined ideas of length contraction safe and undisturbed, you would just avoid the consequences of answering a most simple question. Looks like there is a lot of unresolved issues regarding the whole concept of length contraction in your mind. Just try and see if you can answer the question and see what happens. I promise that you will survive it and come out O.K.

 

I might have gotten a bit carried away with this, if you feel harassed, sorry, I just find it a bit amusing that you have hit a roadblock on such a simple question and now you are looking for a detour away from such a question.

 

Honestly, if you just can not answer this question, I apologize for pushing the issue, I would not want to upset your beliefs. After all, the only way someone can keep their beliefs valid is to not examine them too closely.

 

Alright, I will stop. This is such an interesting reaction that you have to this simple question.

 

Eric 5

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The question of whether physical objects exist when not observed is an unanswered one because quantum physics doesn't have a satisfactory answer (according to the books I've read).

[Eric 5]

The question of whether physical objects exist when not observed is an unanswered one because quantum physics doesn't have a satisfactory answer (according to the books I've read).

 

 

Finally, I was wondering when someone would bring up quantum physics when answering this question. The uncertainty principle, you have just expanded this topic to a very interesting place. Thank You. Lets see what the rest of the participants in this discussion think of this new direction.

 

Eric 5.

[Klaynos]

What color it is.

Where it is located in reference to us.

How big it is compared to other objects that we can imagine.

We can say that it indeed exists.

We can say its shape.

How much light it reflects.

 

You don't seem to take note of what people have told you before which I think is mainly a conceptual issue.

 

Everything you have listed there is something which you don't infact know unless you've measured them. How do you know what colour something is unless you reflect photons off of it, which is an observation/measurement.

[iNow]

Finally, I was wondering when someone would bring up quantum physics when answering this question. The uncertainty principle, you have just expanded this topic to a very interesting place. Thank You. Lets see what the rest of the participants in this discussion think of this new direction.

 

You don't seem to take note of what people have told you before which I think is mainly a conceptual issue.

 

Preciesely. For example, I can't see how I referenced the collapsing wave function in post #103 and then later in post #116 he goes on to say that nobody had yet brought up QM in this thread. I can only conclude that he's not reading, not understanding, or not paying attention to the answers he is given.

[Slinkey]

The guy is either unable to learn or a troll. For his sake I hope it is the latter.

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

So we will agree that the bench has an atomic structure and so much quantity of this atomic structure, in other words, this bench is a physical object that has existed before anyone encountered it and this bench has a finite size.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. This is classic trolling behaviour. I agreed to no such thing and if you had actually bothered reading and thinking about what people are writing to you, you might actually see the irrelevance of your statements.

 

You say that "until we measure something we can say NOTHING about it"

 

This is a very general and incorrect statement, I cannot understand why you would make such a bold statement when you can see that it is wrong.

 

It is quite clear your level of understanding. This rant shows precisely why....

 

These are the things that we CAN say about something (this something being a physical object) before we measure it.

 

What we can say of this something:

 

What color it is.

Where it is located in reference to us.

How big it is compared to other objects that we can imagine.

We can say that it indeed exists.

We can say its shape.

How much light it reflects.

 

There are numerous things we can say about a physical something without ever measuring it.

 

These all class as observations. In science this is the same as saying measurement your lack of precision notwithstanding.

 

Again, the dimensions may be undefined but the object is what it is regardless of being measured or not.

 

YOU need to make up your mind on if an object can exist physically without being measured. Then from that point YOU need to decide if a physical object can exist without being observed.

 

I have no idea if objects exist before they are observed/measured, and I don't need to make up my mind either as this is completely irrelevant.

 

Originally posted by Eric 5

The object can and does exist without the dependence of an observer.

 

And you intend to prove this how?

 

"That is more of a philosophical stance than a scientific stance. Whether an objects exists before we view it is irrelevant." Are you serious? You think that this is a philosophical question and has no basis in science.

How could this question be irrelevant, to be irrelevant would mean that it has no bearing on the out come of the ideas put forward by S.R.

 

No, I didn't say it had no basis in science. I said depending on your interpretation of QM this question is unresolved to a satisfactory degree. For the purposes of length contraction it is however completely irrelevant.

 

It has everything to with the outcome and process by which length contraction is supposed to occur.

 

It has nothing to do with length contraction.

 

There has to be physical objects that exist to be measured, so my question is basically asking you if you think that objects can exist BEFORE they are measured, or do physical objects come into existance AFTER they are measured. Think about it. In order for an observer to measure a physical object that observer has to see it. In order for that observer to see the physical object light has to reflect off of that object and travel to the observer with the information of the size, color, shape, etc, of that object.

 

If SR is correct then from the perspective of light there is no passage of time (this is however an assumption as no one knows). Thus light leaving a source takes no time to reach an object and the reflected light takes no time to reach your eye andt herefore the object does not have to exist before the light hits it - from the perspective of a photon that is.

 

So, no. I could argue that the object does not need to exist before the light hits our eye. It depends on your reference frame.

 

This information carried in the light is what the object was when the light reflected off of it, BEFORE an observer received that information. So the size and all that information of the object was established before the light hit it. The object is a something that reflects light. If you say that the object's size and shape and everything that goes along with it are not determined until the light hits it, well that would be a new discovery in science and I would have to ask you for a reference that describes this occurrence, but even still. if this was the fact, the object would still have a finite size and shape before it was measured.

 

Check out QM and the Copenhagen Interpretation. You might have a seizure.

 

And, no, that is not wishful thinking you lot!

 

So my question to you is, do you personally think that physical objects can exist and have a finite size without ever being observed or measured? In other words, did physical objects exist before life?

 

What I personally think with regard to this existential question has no bearing on length contraction.

 

This is the ground floor on which the length contraction idea rests on.

 

URRR-urrrr. Sorry, but no it doesn't. The "ground floor" of length contraction is the constant speed of light in vacuo regardless of reference frame. As you are being told: the existence of an object and whether it was there before we observed/measured it is irrelevant to length contraction.

 

The whole idea depends on the existance of physical objects being around to be observed and if they exist as a finite things in their natural undisturbed state at all times.

 

If something is in its "natural undistubred state" then it is not being observed or measured and we can say nothing about it.

 

Or does this natural state of physical objects depend on life to observe it to give it existance (ie. size, shape, color etc)

 

As far as we on earth are concerned if we don't know about it then we don't know about it. How about on your planet?

 

So what do you think?

 

Have you considered bricklaying?

 

Eric 5.

 

It wont get you in MENSA.

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

What color it is.

Where it is located in reference to us.

How big it is compared to other objects that we can imagine.

We can say that it indeed exists.

We can say its shape.

How much light it reflects.

 

 

 

You don't seem to take note of what people have told you before which I think is mainly a conceptual issue.

 

Everything you have listed there is something which you don't in fact know unless you've measured them. How do you know what colour something is unless you reflect photons off of it, which is an observation/measurement.

 

 

WOW! What a statement! You are saying that observation and measurement are very similar. I could post definitions for observation and measurement to show you that they have very different meanings, but you can do that if you do not agree.

 

Light will reflect off of an object regardless if you observe it or not. Right? Think of all the distant objects that we are just now seeing the light from that were around before we were.

 

Look, my point is that objects exist before light reflects off of them. Objects have a finite size before light reflects off of them.

 

 

Originally posted by Klaynos #57

Eric 5 seems to feel that there is an absolute size of things... shame that isn't true.

 

So, you think that physical objects do not have an absolute size.

 

Lets examine your statement.

 

When you observe a physical object you observe it to have a finite size. Yes/No?

 

If yes, then the physical object had a finite size when the light reflected off of it. Agreed?

 

If no, well you would have to explain what you do see when you look at the world around you, it would be quite entertaining.

 

Objects do not need to have someone observe them so that light can reflect off of them. Physical objects will reflect light without being observed. Yes/No

 

Preciesely. For example, I can't see how I referenced the collapsing wave function in post #103 and then later in post #116 he goes on to say that nobody had yet brought up QM in this thread. I can only conclude that he's not reading, not understanding, or not paying attention to the answers he is given.

 

Sorry, I forgot that you wrote that when I made the QM post.

 

Since you did make the statement about collapsing wave function in response to my query of if physical objects exist without being observed, I would like to hear from you on how you think this applies to my question.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by iNow #84

 

Eric,

 

You still appear to be approaching this issue as if "length" is somehow an inherent property of objects. It's not, as has been repeated several times in this over 80 post thread.

 

No matter how many times you continue asking the same question, the answer will remain the same.

 

 

 

Originally posted by iNow #100

Again, length is not an inherent property of the bench, but a measurement relative to the reference frame of the observer.

 

Once you wrap your head around the fact that there is no absolute reference frame much of your confusion will be ameliorated.

 

Well, since length is dependent on reference frame, I suggest that your question is meaningless (trying to describe length without using a frame of reference).

 

 

 

Originally posted by iNow #103

Let me speak plainly.

 

The concept of length is a relative one.

Different observers will observe different lengths.

None of those observers has a preferred or "more absolute" reference frame... they are all equally valid.

Length is NOT an inherent property of an object.

 

Ipso facto, your question is meaningless, misguided, and annoying.

 

 

Your question does nothing to clear up the issue.

 

Depending on your definition of existence, the answer could be either yes or no that the bench exists outside of observation.

 

If you posit that observation and the collapse of the wave function is the heart of existence, then it must be first observed to exist.

 

If you posit that perception is a subset of reality, then the bench exists regardless of it's observation.

 

Regardless, you've failed to put parameters around your concept of observation and existence. How about we start there, eh?

 

With all that said, You have still not given a definative answer on if YOU think physical objects can exist without being observed. Just a simple yes or no. I have given my stance on this. What is your stance?

[Slinkey]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

Look, my point is that objects exist before light reflects off of them. Objects have a finite size before light reflects off of them.

 

Please provide some evidence of this assertion.

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

So we will agree that the bench has an atomic structure and so much quantity of this atomic structure, in other words, this bench is a physical object that has existed before anyone encountered it and this bench has a finite size.

 

 

Don't put words in my mouth. This is classic trolling behaviour. I agreed to no such thing and if you had actually bothered reading and thinking about what people are writing to you, you might actually see the irrelevance of your statements.

 

 

The following quotes are from post # 98, a post that Slinkey created.

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

So is the bench at the train station a physical object?

 

Response from Slinkey to this question.

 

Yes

 

From Slinkey’s answer it has been established that Slinkey is stating that the bench at the train station is a physical object .

 

 

So what do you disagree with in the statement about the bench?

 

Do you disagree that the bench is a physical object?

 

Do you disagree that the bench has a finite quantity of atoms?

 

Do you disagree that the bench existed before anyone encountered it?

 

 

 

Continuing with current post.

 

 

Originally posted by Eric 5

These are the things that we CAN say about something (this something being a physical object) before we measure it.

 

What we can say of this something:

 

What color it is.

Where it is located in reference to us.

How big it is compared to other objects that we can imagine.

We can say that it indeed exists.

We can say its shape.

How much light it reflects.

 

There are numerous things we can say about a physical something without ever measuring it.

 

 

These all class as observations. In science this is the same as saying measurement your lack of precision notwithstanding.

 

To be exact, if you think science treats the definition of observation the same as measurement, then they would not have two different words for the same definition. So I would say that science has different definitions for each word. You may think that science treats those two terms the exact same way, that would just mean that you have a misunderstanding of the two terms. Just grab your dictionary and clear up the terms.

 

Besides, all you are doing is arguing semantics.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Eric 5

Again, the dimensions may be undefined but the object is what it is regardless of being measured or not.

 

YOU need to make up your mind on if an object can exist physically without being measured. Then from that point YOU need to decide if a physical object can exist without being observed.

 

 

I have no idea if objects exist before they are observed/measured, and I don't need to make up my mind either as this is completely irrelevant.

 

 

YOU HAVE NO IDEA! None? A complete blank? Nothing? WOW!

 

Well this is a good revelation on your part, now you have a good starting point from which to learn more about physics. You see physical objects are those things that either have existed before life arrived in the universe or all of these physical objects in the universe came into existance after life came on to the scene. This is something for you to think about.

 

Now, This forum is a place where people can come and get some their questions answered or at least have a discussion on those things they have no idea about. You know, like your situation regarding the nature of physical objects. Someone in your position who is interested in resolving their lack of any idea on the nature of physical objects could benefit from discussing this topic on this forum. Yet you say that you do not want to make up your mind. You would rather just not know? That is too bad.

 

Lastly, your statement that knowing if a physical object exists without being observed is irrelevant, that statement is absurd, and unusual coming from someone who spends his time on a physics forum. It is irrelevant to you, but it is not irrelevant.

 

Just think if Werner Heisenberg, or Niels Bohr had that same lack of desire to find out the true essence or existance of physical matter. Where would science be today without Quantum Mechanics. I think that my question is quite relevant, so do many other inquisitive minds. After all, the desire to know is what has driven science and man's understanding of the universe.

A lack of that desire is not really compatible with the spirit of science.

 

I would like you to be able to have some idea about the nature of physical objects, so I hope that you will change your attitude toward learning and find out for yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Eric 5

 

"That is more of a philosophical stance than a scientific stance. Whether an objects exists before we view it is irrelevant." Are you serious? You think that this is a philosophical question and has no basis in science.

How could this question be irrelevant, to be irrelevant would mean that it has no bearing on the out come of the ideas put forward by S.R.

 

 

 

 

No, I didn't say it had no basis in science. I said depending on your interpretation of QM this question is unresolved to a satisfactory degree. For the purposes of length contraction it is however completely irrelevant.

 

I ask if a physical object exists before it contracts, and you say that this question is irrelevant in regards to length contraction. Asking if an object whose length is being contracted ever existed is irrelevant to you?

I would have to say that in order for a physical object to contract that object has to exist. It has to exist before it was contracted. How do you know if an object contracts if you can not compare it to the size it was BEFORE it contracted. There is the size of the object before the object contracts and the size after it contracts. The object has a size before it contracts.

 

 

 

It has nothing to do with length contraction.

 

There has to be an object that physically exists before it can contract.

 

 

 

If SR is correct then from the perspective of light there is no passage of time (this is however an assumption as no one knows).

 

Thus light leaving a source takes no time to reach an object and the reflected light takes no time to reach your eye and therefore the object does not have to exist before the light hits it - from the perspective of a photon that is.

 

So, no. I could argue that the object does not need to exist before the light hits our eye. It depends on your reference frame.

 

 

Your line of reasoning is goofy. You start out with an assumption and from there you go on to show that an object does not have to exist before light hits it, that is from the perspective of light. Lets have some fun with this.

 

First, I am not talking about perspectives of anything. You see you are just re-wording my question from observation to perspective. So my question would still be the same. Can a physical object exist without observation or perspective of anything? If you really want to have something to mentally chew on then try this idea. You say that from the perspective of light there is no time. Well we can agree that light is not alive so it does not really have a perspective of anything, you can just imagine the concept that light has a perspective, but that is beside the point. You say that light has a perspective and from that perspective there is no time. So what about the perspective of the physical object the light is reflecting off of? What about this poor little lonely object just sitting out in space. Are you going to suggest that the physical object does not have a perspective before the light hit it, you see from the objects perspective it takes some time for the light to reach it. So the object had to exist before the light hit it. Think about it. If it takes light lets say eight minutes to reach an object that means the object was in existance at least eight minutes prior to the arrival of light.

 

Also, your explanation does nothing to explain if an object can exist in total darkness. You see I am not basing the existance of an object on the existance of something else. I might be tempted to then ask if a physical object can exist without the existance of anything else.

 

So before light leaves it’s source the object may not exist, you reason.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Eric 5

The whole idea depends on the existance of physical objects being around to be observed and if they exist as a finite things in their natural undisturbed state at all times.

 

 

 

If something is in its "natural undisturbed state" then it is not being observed or measured and we can say nothing about it.

 

This is an nice example of avoiding the question. I ask if a physical object can exist without being observed and your answer is if we don’t measure or observe something then we can say nothing about it. Right, if you don’t see the object or know that it exists then you can say nothing about it. But this thing that you know nothing about, can it still exist? How about this, can a physical object exist without anyone knowing it exists? This is such a simple basic question and you guys are making it so difficult.

 

 

 

 

As far as we on earth are concerned if we don't know about it then we don't know about it.

 

Man, you are having a hard time with this aren’t you. What is your point? Are you saying that we have to know about something before it exists?

 

Before we knew about Jupiter did it exist? Or did Jupiter come into existance AFTER we knew about it?

 

I am sorry, but I have to tell you that your line of reasoning is quite amusing.

 

Just think about it, maybe everything exists AFTER we know about it. Lets see how this would work. We don’t know of something, then we know of it, THEN that thing comes into existance. Is this the idea you are trying to express?

 

 

 

I wonder if the rest of the crew will agree with your point of view. See how I made that rhyme, do you?

(Ha, Ha,) This whole topic has really put a smile on my face, thanks.

 

Just remember not to take this too seriously, it is after all just a forum for people to engage in conversation and discuss their take on the world around them. Peace out. (Ha, Ha)

 

I am sure you guys will have a field day with this post. By all means tear into it.

 

Eric 5ive.

[Slinkey]

Yep. You're a troll. End of convo.

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

Look, my point is that objects exist before light reflects off of them. Objects have a finite size before light reflects off of them.

 

 

Originally Posted by Slinkey

Please provide some evidence of this assertion.

 

 

Look at all of the physical objects around you right now. They all have a finite size, right? Light carries the information of the object's physical properties after it reflects off that object. It takes time for light to leave it's source and arrive at the object. The object either exists before the light hits it, or after the light hits it. There is no evidence that states physical objects are created after light comes in contact...... You know if the object does not exist before the light hits it then what is going to cause the light to reflect at that particular location? Why would light decide to just stop traveling in one direction and then go off into a different direction if there was nothing there to cause this change in direction. It takes energy to cause a change in a physical thing, matter is just condensed energy, so there has to be some energy that exists before the light arrives at that location in order for the light to change direction. The object is in existance before the light arrives.

 

Go into a room where it has only one source of light. Turn the light off and the objects stiil exist. Turn the light on and the objects are still there, they were there before the light went on. If you were to dig up a rock and break it open, guess what, all of that physical matter existed before the light hit it. There are caves on this planet that have not been throughly explored by man, yet I am sure that the physical things in those cave that have never had any light reflect off of them exist all the same.

 

Look, It seems a bit odd that you want proof that physical objects exist before light reflects off them, but whatever, there are some examples.

 

Are you asking for evidence of physical objects existing before light hits them, because you do not think that this is the case? If so, then can you explain to me what your idea of a physical object is and it's ability to persist in time regardless of it surrounding conditions.

 

Do you think that light has some bearing on the creation of all physical matter? Is that why you are making such an odd request?

 

Okay. Yes. Now, STFU.

 

 

 

BRILLIANT!

 

Yep. You're a troll. End of convo.

 

 

 

Very nice! So do you think that you can answer the question, or are you still unsure. You do not want to be stumped by a troll do you? I have stated my case very simply and straight forward, I have responded to your posts with detailed explainations many times, you have come at my assertion that physical objects exist without our observation of them with your counterpoints and now that I have made a perfectly valid statement about the nature of matter, and have done so in a clear and concise manner, it looks like you have run out of ways to try and invalidate my view on this topic. So now what? just stop. There was much to respond to in that post, do not get discouraged. Are you just going to resort to name calling and insults again?

 

After all you have said, this is what it comes down to for you. Just think, if I was not playing the devil’s advocate on this issue, you would have nothing to do but agree with the others, all you guys would be left in the position of just massaging each others egos. This way you can test your concepts and look at them from a different angle. You have to realize that you and the others do not like to have your beliefs shaken. If someone were to suggest a differing view than yours you will go on the offensive to the point of insulting and name calling.

 

Look if you guys just can’t decide how to think about the nature of objects, than I will drop it for a while and we can discuss the original topic, that of length contraction. I do not recall if anyone has answered my question regarding if they thought that physical objects physically contract or if they just appear to contract.

 

The data that you guys are operating from, do you just accept that data on the authority of the person, or do you decide for yourself on what is true or real?

[Klaynos]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

What color it is.

Where it is located in reference to us.

How big it is compared to other objects that we can imagine.

We can say that it indeed exists.

We can say its shape.

How much light it reflects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WOW! What a statement! You are saying that observation and measurement are very similar. I could post definitions for observation and measurement to show you that they have very different meanings, but you can do that if you do not agree.

 

I'm not saying they're very similar I'm saying they're pretty much identical, and I don't care what your dictionary says, as has been told to you time and time again that is NOT the same definitions that physics uses.

 

Light will reflect off of an object regardless if you observe it or not. Right? Think of all the distant objects that we are just now seeing the light from that were around before we were.

 

The light reflecting off of it counts as an observation.

 

Look, my point is that objects exist before light reflects off of them. Objects have a finite size before light reflects off of them.

 

 

 

 

So, you think that physical objects do not have an absolute size.

 

I KNOW they don't have an absolute size, because there is no absolute frame, I want you to read this line over and over again.

 

They don't have an absolute size, because there is no absolute frame.

They don't have an absolute size, because there is no absolute frame.

They don't have an absolute size, because there is no absolute frame.

They don't have an absolute size, because there is no absolute frame.

They don't have an absolute size, because there is no absolute frame.

 

Lets examine your statement.

 

When you observe a physical object you observe it to have a finite size. Yes/No?

 

Yep, in your reference frame.

 

If yes, then the physical object had a finite size when the light reflected off of it. Agreed?

 

If you used photons to measure it, then in your reference frame, yes.

 

If no, well you would have to explain what you do see when you look at the world around you, it would be quite entertaining.

 

Of course if someone else in a difference reference frame from me measures the object then the finite length they measure will be different to the one I measure.

 

Objects do not need to have someone observe them so that light can reflect off of them. Physical objects will reflect light without being observed. Yes/No

 

That would count as an observation, you don't really need a human to do it.... the measurement frame can contain anything. A muon in a particle accelerator decays in fractions of a second in it's rest frame but to another test particle in the accelerator which is stationary the muons decay time would appear to be hours....