{"id":2856,"date":"2010-10-01T09:03:16","date_gmt":"2010-10-01T08:03:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/?p=2856"},"modified":"2010-10-01T09:03:16","modified_gmt":"2010-10-01T08:03:16","slug":"mogens-true-wegener-the-idea-of-a-cosmic-time%e2%80%9d","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/mogens-true-wegener-the-idea-of-a-cosmic-time%e2%80%9d\/","title":{"rendered":"Mogens True Wegener: „THE IDEA OF A COSMIC TIME\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Es folgt jetzt ein weiterer Beitrag von Mogens True Wegener<\/span><\/a> <\/strong>(D\u00e4nemark).\u00a0
\nQuelle<\/strong>: <\/strong>RELATIVITY & COSMOLOGY<\/span><\/a>\u00a0
\n<\/strong>Kommentar:
\n\u201cThese papers contain the reflections of a Danish philosopher of science on basic issues of physics. They represent the British Tradition in relativity and relativistic cosmology as opposed to that of Einstein.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

Zitat: <\/strong><\/p>\n

THE IDEA OF A COSMIC TIME
\n<\/em><\/strong>Revised version (2010) of paper printed in: ‚Foundations of Physics‘ 34, pp.1777-99, 2004.
\n<\/em>Mogens True Wegener, emeritus professor of philosophy Aarhus University, Danmark.\u00a0
\n<\/em>Introduction
\n<\/strong><\/em>Einstein on Time
\n<\/strong><\/em>The British Tradition
\n<\/strong><\/em>One Universe Only
\n<\/em>Conclusion\u00a0
\n<\/em><\/strong>This paper was written in honour of Franco Selleri, faithful defender of reason in physics, who committed his efforts to „the liberation of time from the enslavement to space“.\u00a0 <\/em>\n<\/p>\n

Pointing to the cleft between the idea of a temporal evolution<\/em>, central to modern biology<\/em>, and the idea of the timelessness of reality <\/em>derived from the relativization of simultaneity and followed by the fusion of space and time into space-time, both fundamental to modern physics<\/em>, the paper demonstrates that the standard definition of time at a distance is beset with ambiguities that might be solved by making a fresh start which takes its point of departure in the idea of a Cosmic Time <\/em>as proposed by the British Tradition <\/em>of relativistic cosmology.<\/p>\n

Keywords:
\ntemporal evolution, timelessness of reality, relativistic cosmology, cosmic time\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

1. INTRODUCTION
\n<\/strong>In a special issue of Scientific American <\/em>dedicated to time <\/em>(vol.287 no.3, september 2002) a notable sceptic makes fun of the fact that smart people often believe weird things. The innocent reader may be surprised to learn that this ironical remark – targeting at phenomena like astrology, clairvoyance, magnetotherapy, and ufology – is also applicable to some of the allegedly ’scientific‘ views which are promoted in that issue, such as the opinion reported below:\n<\/p>\n

Scientific American <\/em>is generally acknowledged to be a serious magazine and Paul Davies, scientist of high repute, is considered to be one of the more reliable mediators of modern physics. Nevertheless Paul Davies makes himself a spokesman of the opinion that, from the point of view of science, the idea of temporal flux <\/em>is nothing but an illusion. He even tries to underpin this view by appealing to the special theory of relativity<\/em>, invoking the creator of that theory as his main witness. Indeed, Einstein made a queer attempt to comfort the widow after his deceased friend Besso by reminding her of the delusive character of all temporal phenomena!<\/p>\n

In contradistinction to physics, which is clearly neither capable of explaining what it means that „time is passing“ nor qualified to ascribe a direction to „the arrow of time“ (a felicitous phrase coined by A.S. Eddington), there is a large number of other sciences which not merely presuppose the passage of time, hence also its direction, but which in their own way prosper by describing it. At the same time it is equally clear that these historical disciplines – whether they belong to the arts and humanities, or to the social or the natural sciences – would lack all scientific legitimacy if the metaphor of time-in-flow <\/em>could be shown to be meaningless or indefensible.<\/p>\n

Turning our eyes towards a science like biology, it is immediately evident that something as fundamental as the doctrine of natural evolution must appear completely nonsensical, devoid of any rational meaning, if the very notion of time’s passage cannot be accorded any scientific status. That it cannot is argued by J. Barbour in his book The End of Time <\/em>(1999) which I take to be the final apotheosis of Einstein’s programme: to reduce everything in physics to „spacelike concepts“. It is paradoxical and highly problematic that the most recent results of natural science force us to choose between physics and biology (Barbour’s own way of „solving“ their manifest incompatibility, of course, is totally unacceptable). But a similar conflict can be found within <\/em>physics.<\/p>\n

Provisionally accepting the view that modern cosmology began with the general theory of relativity and peaked in the scientific dogma of a big bang it is not only conspicuous, but indeed sensational, how radically the prevailing cosmological paradigm is contradicted by the tendency to deny the physical reality of time. According to the big bang hypothesis our universe originated some 14 billion years ago in a huge explosion that marked the absolute beginning of time (X=!). But the arguments against time, which in antiquity were provided by the philosopher Parmenides and his ally Zeno, are nowadays derived from \u2026 Einstein’s two theories of relativity!<\/p>\n

Hence, according to the unanimous verdict of modern cosmology and biology, everything we observe or experience today, including ourselves, is just the prolonged effects of an evolution that was initiated by the creation of the universe which happened about 14 billion years ago. Nevertheless, referring to the authority of Einstein, certain physicists want to persuade us not just that the passage of time is an illusion, but that the very concept of time lacks all scientific foundation!<\/p>\n

The question is: How can we thrust a science that not merely denies what everyone is capable of observing from instant to instant, but which also is in blatant conflict with itself?\u00a0<\/p>\n

2. EINSTEIN ON TIME
\n<\/strong>In order to throw new light upon all these problems we shall have to reconsider the ideas about time in physics which dominate the heritage from Einstein. How was Einstein’s own view? To the philosophical question What is time? <\/em>he responded as a scientist by neglecting philosophy, appealing to what everyone can see by observing a watch, viz. clock-readings <\/em>(numbers marking the counting of time). This answer, of course, is just as ingenious as it is natural and simple.\n<\/p>\n

However, his answer says nothing about the difficulty of deciding whether the observed clock shows the right time. Still less does it inform us about the crucial problem which is this one: how do we mark off a clock that works from one that does not? This, of course, is the condition for deciding whether a clock tells the right time, since a standing clock is „right“ once or twice a day. But in consequence of his response, as mentioned above, Einstein simply determined the time of an event as the number immediately read off a clock closely associated with an observer.<\/p>\n

From his considerations as described in several publications one can, however, deduce the following distinction:
\n1) if the observer is close to the event, his reading represents its local time<\/em>,
\n2) if the observer is far from the event, his reading represents its time at a distance<\/em>, which may be compared to its local time by a calculation taking account of the finite value of the speed of light. That the speed of light seems to be independent of the motion of its source is here decisive.\n<\/p>\n

Now scientific objectivity hinges on the independent verification of data by several observers, so Einstein assumed that all observers agree to calculate time at a distance using the same method. He furthermore prudently stressed the obvious fact that any rational comparison of clock-readings, or epochs, necessarily presupposes that the clocks concerned all go at the same rate (1952 ch.viii): „It (is) assumed that all these clocks go at the same rate if they are of identical construction“.<\/p>\n

The statement quoted is remarkable for other reasons than its admission of a flowing time: it is put forward before the definition of simultaneity, but after the introduction of the famous trainexperiment where train and embankment are struck by two lightnings; and the succeeding argumentation aims precisely at showing that if the two flashes are assumed to be simultaneous with respect to the embankment as a frame of reference they cannot also be supposed to be simultaneous relative to the moving train as a frame of reference, and vice versa.<\/p>\n

The clocks referred to belong partly to the train, partly to the embankment, two frames in relative inertial motion, and the statement just quoted therefore concerns clocks in relative motion. It is these clocks that are assumed to be of identical construction and hence to keep the same rate.<\/p>\n

In other words: the special theory of relativity, including its suspension of the classical notion of simultaneity, explicitly relies on this premise concerning clocks in motion that not only do they go, thereby indicating the flow of time, but being identical they even keep the same rate<\/em>!<\/p>\n

It is precisely on account of this premise Einstein can claim that correctly synchronized clocks will mutually appear to be retarded relative to each other, and that correctly calibrated rods will mutually seem to be contracted relative to each other, both as a consequence of their relative motion!<\/p>\n

From Einstein’s interpretation of LT (i.e., the Lorentz transformations which constitute the mathematical contents of the special theory of relativity) it follows that the contraction will disappear if the motion is brought to a halt whereas the retardation, being one-sided, leads to an absolute effect. In this way we are confronted with an obvious paradox: a theory which is explicitly based on the premise that all clocks involved are of identical construction, and hence keep the same rate, entails the result that moving clocks do not count the same intervals of time after all<\/em>!<\/p>\n

Mathematically the theory is consistent<\/em>. Physically it is supported <\/em>not merely by numerous experiments, but even by the most diverse kinds of experiment. It therefore seems impeccable.
\nNevertheless it is reasonable to make the following reservations:
\n1) No theory contains more truth than the premises it is based on; hence mere lack of contradiction is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for scientific truth.
\n2) Although a theory may be falsified conclusively, it can never be verified conclusively; therefore no kind of observational support should ever be taken to exclude the possibility that other premises might lead to even more plausible consequences<\/span><\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

How can we tackle the fact that an apparently impeccable theory can be so full of paradox? In order to comprehend this we have to probe for a fuller understanding of Einstein’s two theories. Making this effort we shall disclose a serious ambiguity <\/em><\/strong>inherent in his definition of time.
\n(Zitatende,<\/strong> Hervorhebungen in ROT<\/span> von Friebe)<\/p>\n

Lesen Sie bitte hier<\/span><\/a><\/strong> weiter!
\nBeste Gr\u00fc\u00dfe Ekkehard Friebe<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Es folgt jetzt ein weiterer Beitrag von Mogens True Wegener (D\u00e4nemark).\u00a0 Quelle: RELATIVITY & COSMOLOGY\u00a0 Kommentar: \u201cThese papers contain the reflections of a Danish philosopher of science on basic issues of physics. They represent the British Tradition in relativity and relativistic cosmology as opposed to that of Einstein.\u201d Zitat: THE IDEA OF A COSMIC TIME […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-englischsprachige-kritik-der-relativitatstheorie"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2856"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}