11Prompt - Special theory of relativity

The One

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 11 Aug 2024 07:14:29 +0000

The two theories of special and general relativity clearly show the relationship between space, time, energy, and matter. Special relativity has shown that energy and matter are equivalent; energy can be converted into matter, and matter into energy. Again, general relativity shows that space, time, and matter are so interrelated that there cannot be any space-time without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without soace-time.

Since there cannot be any space-time without matter, and since there can neither be any matter without soace-time, therefore it can be asserted that space-time and matter have originated from one single source only. If the source of space-time and the source of matter were different, then there could not be such an interrelation between space-time and matter. Again, since energy and matter are identical, therefore we can assert that space, time, energy, and matter have originated from one single source only.

This interrelation between space-time and matter shows us that at the root of all things is the One, and that One is neither space, nor time, nor energy, nor matter, though space, time, energy, and matter have originated from that One only. If that One is neither space, nor time, nor energy, nor matter, then what is that One? It is not possible for anyone to say anything about that One, which is why Indian philosophy has only said neti, neti about that One; it is not this, it is not that, etc.

Why spacetime is not fundamental

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 14 May 2022 10:38:48 +0000

Now, we all know that spacetime is not fundamental, because physicists are saying so. But, do we know the reason why spacetime cannot be fundamental?

This is a physics question as well as a philosophy question.

If we say that X is a fundamental ingredient of the universe, then we will have to admit that whatever will exist in it, will need X for its existence. Nothing can exist without it.

However, if there is something in the universe that does not need X for its existence, then X cannot be called a fundamental ingredient of the universe.

Now, we want to know why spacetime is not fundamental. So, we will ask this question now: Is spacetime a fundamental ingredient of the universe? And we will try to find out an answer to this question.

Our task is very simple here. We will ask just one more question here: Is there anything in the universe that does not need spacetime for its existence?

If the answer is yes, then we know for sure that spacetime is not a fundamental ingredient of the universe.

And the answer is yes here, because there is at least one entity in the universe that does not need any spacetime for its existence. That entity is light. Einstein’s special theory of relativity has shown that a photon occupies zero space for zero time because both the travel time and the travel distance become zero for light.

It is also true that we cannot do anything without light; light is so much essential for us. And the irony is that this most essential entity for us does not need any spacetime for its existence. It can do without it.

So, how can we say that spacetime is a fundamental ingredient of the universe? How can we say that it is fundamental?

Do time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:17:16 +0000

So far as I can remember, there are these two equations in Einstein’s special theory of relativity:
l1 = l(1-v2/c2)1/2……. (1)
t1 = t((1-v2/c2)1/2……. (2)

From the above two equations, two conclusions can be drawn that are as follows:
1) Time and distance are not absolute, they are relative;
2) At light speed, both travel time and travel distance become zero.

Now reality may be such that
1) Time and distance are only relative, but in no circumstances they become zero (A);
2) Time and distance are not only relative but at one particular case, they also become zero (B).

If reality is A, then the above two equations are not required at all to represent that reality; it can be equally represented by the following two equations:
l1 = l(1-v2/xc2)1/2……. (3)
t1 = t((1-v2/xc2)1/2……. (4)

In (3) and (4) above, x will have a value greater than one but less than infinity. But it cannot have a value equal to one or infinity. If the value of x is one, then we will go back to Einstein’s equations, whereas if its value equals infinity, then we will have Newton’s equations instead. From (3) and (4) above, it can clearly be seen that time and distance will be relative as before, but they will never be zero even at the speed of light due to the presence of the factor 1/x in the equations.

Now, I know very well that it is not possible to experimentally demonstrate what is actually happening at the speed of light and so, it is reasonable to doubt whether time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed. However, there is an alternate way to verify it.

Suppose scientists have repeated the Michelson-Morley experiment or any newer version of it, and suppose that they have arrived at equations (3) and (4) instead of equations (1) and (2). Then, based on these two equations (3) and (4), they can say that the shrinkage of time and distance to zero at light-speed is only a myth.

But, nature knows better than any one of us what is actually happening at the speed of light and so, whenever an actual experiment is performed with light and an interferometer, it is always returning us equations (1) and (2) only and not equations (3) and (4) even for a single time. This is nature’s indirect way to inform us that we are not doing any mistake when we are saying that time and distance become zero for light.

Scientists usually do not question this and so, we can find such statements in their writings on SR:
1) ‘For the light itself, the whole universe is only zero millimeters long.’ – Sascha Vongehr, in The Fundamental Nature of Light, Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011);
2) ‘At the speed of light there’s no time to cover any distance, but there’s also no distance to cover.’ – Ask a Mathematician/Ask a Physicist

There is a reason as to why scientists do not question this. The reason is that they know very well that they are in the domain of physics, and not in the domain of metaphysics. In the domain of physics, if they want to challenge something, then they cannot do so by using logic and reason only. Rather, they will have to experimentally demonstrate that that particular thing is wrong; they will have to experimentally demonstrate that equations (1) and (2) must be replaced by equations (3) and (4). So far, no one has been able to do this. So far, no one has been able to falsify SR.

There is one more reason why we can say that time and distance indeed shrink to zero at light-speed. Main-stream physicists are now saying that spacetime is not fundamental, but emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, by stating that spacetime is emergent, physicists have already acknowledged the existence of something spaceless and timeless in nature from which our known spacetime has emerged. I know that physicists are describing this source as non-spatiotemporal, but I also know this that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ is only a new scientific term that replaces our old term ‘spaceless and timeless.’ If there is something spaceless and timeless in nature, then it is quite obvious that science would show how anything can be spaceless and timeless, because it is the job of science to provide an explanation for every phenomenon, event and effect in nature. In SR, we get those requisite explanations for spacelessness and timelessness. So, although we cannot directly verify whether time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed, yet we can say that emergent spacetime is an indirect validation of it.

Addendum:
[Once I posted a question in a Facebook Discussion Group (Great Philosophical Questions): ‘If God does not exist, then it can be said that it is the big bang that has brought everyone and everything within the universe into existence. Whatever has been brought into existence by the big bang has been given certain life-span. Many stars in the sky have a life-span of several billion years; we human beings have a life-span of a few decades; some insects have a life-span of a single day only. Can we think of anything that has also been brought into existence by the big bang, but that has been given no life-span?’

One commentator Race Dowling replied to the above with this: ‘What you are asking in essence is if anyone provide an example of something that exists that never existed. The answer to that is no.’

Me to Race Dowling: ‘You have correctly understood my question, but your answer was incorrect. It is a fact of nature that light has also been brought into existence, but that light has been given no lifetime. As per SR, the travel time and travel distance become zero for light and so, light occupies zero space for zero time. This is as good as saying that light does not exist. But, on the other hand, we cannot see anything without light.’

Race Dowling to me: ‘It is a legitimate conjecture that photons have no spatial dimensions along their path of travel making them essentially two dimensional, but it hasn’t been proved. (I wish it were because I postulated that in grad school). Likewise baryons have the appearance of being 4 dimensional as they have spins of ½, you need to rotate them 730 degrees to see the same face. All of these dimensional conjectures are controversial and have their detractors.’

So, I have to write this article in order to making it clear to Dowling that the shrinkage of time and distance to zero at light-speed is neither conjectural nor controversial, after reading which he could not utter a single word against my rebuttal.]

For an extraordinary claim, there is extraordinary evidence

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Fri, 29 Nov 2019 07:39:24 +0000

In one YouTube comment thread, someone has written: 'Furthermore, the concept of being spaceless and timeless is the same as not existing at all'.

God is said to be spaceless and timeless. As this is an extraordinary claim, so a shred of extraordinary evidence is required for it.

Happily, a shred of extraordinary evidence for it has been kept in nature for the non-believers in general by the creative force of the universe.

There are two theories in science that are treated by the scientists not only as a theory but as a fact as well. These two theories are Darwin’s theory of evolution and Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Darwin’s theory of evolution is not relevant here for our discussion and so, I will not say anything about it.

Below is a quote about the special theory of relativity:

‘Special relativity has been exhaustively tested (relativistic effects have been verified all the way down to walking speed), and works so perfectly that it is now held up as the yardstick against which all new theories are tested.’
(Ref: Q: How/Why are Quantum Mechanics and Relativity incompatible? Ask a mathematician/Ask a physicist)

In the special theory of relativity (SR), there are two equations that show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that any distance light has to travel becomes zero for it. Even infinite distance becomes zero for light! If a certain volume of space (say, a room) is filled up with light only, then due to these two properties of the light volume of that room would become zero and time also would totally stop there. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then in that case also the volume of the entire universe would be zero. As zero volume means no space, so in this way, a spaceless and timeless state would obtain.

As human beings, we have a physical body. This physical body has a certain volume. So, as human beings, we occupy a certain amount of space within the universe that is equal to the volume of our physical body. And we will occupy that amount of space for so long we will remain alive.

If we claim about the light that it is within the space-time of the universe, then we will have to specify these two things about light: how much space does it occupy and for how long does it occupy that space.

Let us take one concrete example. A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of ten billion light-years from the earth will take ten billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. As per SR, the distance from the place of origin of light to its ultimate destination is zero and time taken for light to arrive at its destination from its place of origin is also zero. That means as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. Similarly, for light, there is no time to exist because its total travel time has also become zero. So, as per SR for these entire 10 billion years of earth’s time light will occupy zero space for zero time within the space-time of the universe. This is as good as saying that for this entire length of earth’s time light will be neither in space nor in time. Then it will be absorbed by someone or something on the surface of the earth.

So, if one claims that for something to exist it must be within some space and time, then as per her light does not exist.

However, one can claim that as a theory SR is wrong because it shows light occupies zero space for zero time. In that case, she will have to provide an alternate theory that will replace SR and that will show that light occupies some space for some time.

Below is a suggestion on how SR can be modified:

So far as I can remember, there are these two equations in Einstein’s special theory of relativity:
l1 = l(1-v2/c2)1/2……. (1)
t1 = t((1-v2/c2)1/2……. (2)

From the above two equations two conclusions can be drawn that are as follows:
1) Time and distance are not absolute, they are relative;
2) At light speed, both time and distance become unreal.

Now reality may be such that
1) Time and distance are only relative, but nowhere unreal (A),
2) Time and distance are relative as well as unreal (somewhere) (B).

From (3) and (4) above, it can clearly be seen that time and distance will be relative as before, but they will never be unreal even at the speed of light due to the presence of the factor 1/x in the equations.

Newton’s equations have been rejected because now we have come to realize that there are no such things as absolute space or absolute time.

If reality is A, but not B, then the time has also come to reject Einstein’s equations as well, and to replace them with (3) and (4) above.

Einstein’s equations will be required if, and only if, it is agreed upon that somewhere out there, there is a region where space and time are unreal (an ideal abode for a spaceless and timeless God).

Was emergent spacetime fundamental at the beginning of the universe?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:14:16 +0000

In one YouTube comment thread one atheist has remarked that it is really infuriating that all the apologist arguments that he has seen presented so far have ultimately failed to provide any proof for the existence of god. All their arguments are nothing but playing around with definitions of words and literally just throwing an explanation into the gaps of our knowledge, thus showing that every single god argument is essentially a god of the gaps argument, or that they feel good or special by being able to give that argument. Although it is not the case that he does not want there to be a god, yet he hopes that this god will not be the genocidal maniac presented in the Bible.

I replied to him in the following manner:

‘If there is a God at all, then that God is not the God of this earth only, that God is the God of the entire universe. On this earth, many myths have been created around this God, but these myths cannot have any meaning and significance to the other civilizations, if there are any in the outer space, as the myths if created by the other civilizations in the outer space will not have any meaning and significance to us. So God should not at all be judged by any myths created by any religion on earth. This point should always be remembered.

‘Regarding the question as to whether there is any evidence for the existence of God, you can read my article ‘God, the full and final version’ here:

https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/577

‘However, one cautionary remark here. Please do not try to misinterpret me, either willingly or unwillingly, because atheists are very much prone to do that. In the above article, I have shown as to why a creator of the universe will always be spaceless and timeless. Then I have also shown that scientists in the 21st century have come to the conclusion that spacetime is not fundamental at all and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless in nature.

‘So, this much is confirmed by science up till now that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature and I have also shown that God will always be spaceless and timeless.

‘Nothing further has been claimed or asserted by me that this shows there is a God. Rather, I have written that in order to come to the conclusion that this spaceless and timeless thing has got consciousness, we will have to wait for the delivery of the requisite goods from the scientists.’

After getting my reply, this atheist becomes silent. But it is not so easy to silence all the atheists at the same time and so there immediately appears another atheist in the scene and states that my understanding of present-day cosmology is biased and outdated. This is because there are at least two cosmological models that do not require a first cause. These are: 1) Hawking’s no boundary proposal and 2) Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology. Both of these models are mathematically coherent and the Penrose model may even have some physical evidence.

My reply to this atheist was a bit lengthy, but he also became silent after getting the reply. Below it is:

‘Your comment shows that perhaps you have not yet fully understood what it means that spacetime is emergent. An entity is emergent means it cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some pre-existing entity or entities only. In the case of spacetime, this pre-existing entity is something non-spatiotemporal. In brief, we can call it NSE (non-spatiotemporal entity).

‘This NSE must be pre-existent in each and every cosmological model of the universe in which it is an accepted fact that the universe is expanding from an initial zero size and that it is not static. In some of the models, the expansion of the universe will stop after some time and then it will begin to contract and eventually it will come to a zero size. From there another phase of the universe will begin. In some other models, this expansion does not stop and nobody knows for how long the universe will go on expanding. But in every cosmological model that has been presented to us so far, this expansion of the universe from an initial zero size is there. That means in each and every cosmological model presented to us, spacetime has a beginning. Spacetime being emergent cannot begin/emerge from anything else other than NSE. Here there will be no beginning of spacetime, rather the emergence of spacetime from some pre-existing entity.

‘Here it might be objected: why can it not be the case that spacetime was fundamental at the beginning of the expansion of the universe and that it became emergent later on only? Here our question will be: Not from any theory, but from the external world, can scientists give any concrete evidence that spacetime was fundamental at the beginning of the expansion of the universe?

‘Here I will give you one example for making my point clear. In the special theory of relativity, there are two equations that show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even an infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. So, it can be said that SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. It can also be shown by some simple logic that a timeless entity is also a deathless entity. So, we can now say SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless, timeless and immortal. Based on this, can we jump to the conclusion that there is a spaceless, timeless and immortal being, aka God? Will anybody allow us? Will you allow us?

‘Here you will say: “We want some concrete evidence that there is a God. Only theory or maths will not do.”

‘We are saying the same thing here also: “We want some concrete evidence that spacetime was fundamental at the beginning of the expansion of the universe. Only theory or maths will not do.”’

My remark: There is a difference between science and religion. In religion, everything is accepted by faith alone, no evidence being required for any claim made. But in science, this is not so, because in science we do not accept anything by faith; we require some evidence for every claim made by the scientists. So, if scientists now claim that spacetime was fundamental when the universe began to expand, then they must provide some suitable evidence in support of their contention that it was fundamental at that time.

Is there any spacetime outside our universe

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Tue, 13 Nov 2018 04:02:13 +0000

From special theory of relativity we come to know that matter and energy are equivalent. And from general theory of relativity we come to know that space, time and matter are interlinked and that there cannot be any space and time without matter. As matter and energy are equivalent, so we can also say here that there cannot be any space and time (or spacetime) without energy.

Dr. Sten Odenwald has provided the following information on behalf of NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program:

‘General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.’1

Here we see what is stated in theory is also supported by sound observation.

Below are five links where it has been shown mathematically that the total energy of the universe is zero:

1) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/368258/pdf (V. Faraoni and F. I. Cooperstock)
2) http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-97332010000100001&script=sci_a... (A. A. Sousa; J. S. Moura; R. B. Pereira)
3) http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-vii-more-about-zer... (Aron Wall)
4) http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf (Marcelo Samuel Berman)
5) http://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/all_zilch_much_ado_about_noth... (Johannes Koelman)

Below are another six links where also it has been very clearly stated that the total energy of the universe is zero:

1) https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ (Alexei V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff)
2) http://mxplx.com/meme/2098/ (Stephen Hawking)
3) http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardpf719034..html
(Richard P Feynman)
4) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936 (Lawrence Krauss)
5) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/is-the-universe-a-free-l... (Paul Davies)
6) http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/did-the-universe-begin-iv-quantum-eternit... (Aron Wall)

So we can with some confidence say that the total energy of the universe is indeed zero.

So far we have come to know two things:

1) There cannot be any space and time without energy; and
2) The total energy of the universe is zero.

Now we want to know as to whether there is any spacetime outside our universe. If we claim that there is, then the question is: Which energy would justify the existence of that spacetime? This is because the universe as a whole does not have any energy. So this universe cannot justify the existence of any spacetime outside it, because without energy there cannot be any spacetime. So it is very much doubtful as to whether there is any spacetime at all outside our universe. As the total energy of the universe has always remained zero, so it is also very much doubtful as to whether there was any spacetime outside our universe at any time. This is as per the knowledge acquired from the present universe.

If it is still argued by anybody else that there could be other kinds of spacetime outside our known spacetime about which we do not know anything, then our question to that person will be this: From where has she acquired the knowledge that there can be spacetime without energy? Is it from the present universe? Or is it from some supernatural source? Or is it her own intuition?

If there cannot be any spacetime outside our universe, then can there be other universes beyond our universe?

Reference:
1. https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

How Atheists Suppress Their Opponent’s Voice

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 13:15:17 +0000

In an earlier article1 I have shown how an atheist tries to suppress his opponent’s voice. Recently I have come across another instance of this.

In one YouTube video comment section one person has written that theists are hilarious because they demand evidence for a multiverse, although they cannot provide any evidence for their God. He has also written that at least multiverse has intensely strong mathematical support behind it.

In reply I have to write to him that if multiverse has mathematical support behind it, then God also has mathematical support behind him, because two equations of SR have already shown how it is possible to be spaceless, timeless and immortal. I also write to him that scientists are heavily biased and partial in their search for truth, because they consider multiverse as highly probable based on the mathematics of inflation theory, but these same scientists totally ignore God as probable, although there is mathematical support behind God also.

Here comes another person saying that I am kidding and that there is no math that even hints at the existence of my particular God and that a fair amount of shoehorning is going on there.

As he has commented that there is no math that hints at the existence of my particular God, so I have to explain to him in detail that the two equations of SR shows how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. As God is called spaceless and timeless and as SR has also shown how a state of spacelessness and timelessness can obtain, so from this it can be said that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable there is a God.

But this fails to convince him and he sticks to his opinion that I am shoehorning God into science. He also says that if I claim the probable existence of my God in this way, then in a similar way one can also claim the probable existence of other gods like the Greek Primordial Entity Chaos or the Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, or the Egyptian god Atum, any of which could be this Universe's creator instead of my particular God.

So I have to write to him that in the whole history of mankind only one God has been described as spaceless and timeless and that this God is the traditional God of almost all the religions all over the world. I also mention that even mystics have described their God as spaceless and timeless. I also write to him that if one wants to put all the other mythical gods in the same bracket with this traditional God, then one will definitely be mistaken. I also request him to mention one single god other than the traditional God of the religions who has been described as spaceless and timeless.

But he does not comply. Rather he asks me to point to the text in my Bible that contains the terms 'timeless' and 'spaceless'.

Below are the two replies of mine that have been deleted:

Reply one: Perhaps you are not much educated. That is why you think that every person who believes in God is a Christian and that the Bible is his/her religious text. I am a Hindu, but I do not depend on any religious text for my belief.

Here is a quote from Dr. William Lane Craig who is well known as a Christian apologist and a good debater:

“And then on the rest of the page it’s fairly obvious how I deduce the remainder of these attributes which form the central core of the theistic notion of God: a personal Creator, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and intelligent. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, this is what everybody means by God.”1

Ref:
1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-smith-debate-199...

In the above quote it has been mentioned that God is spaceless and timeless.

Reply 2: You can also read the book ‘Mysticism and Philosophy’ by W. T. Stace, Chapter 2, Section 11: Conclusions, pages 131-132, by google search.

Ref: WT Stace: Mysticism and Philosophy-wudhi.com

As the above two replies of mine have been deleted, so the impression one will get after going through the whole dialogue is that I have failed to establish my point because I could not produce the required text from the Bible which will further imply that the atheist has the last laugh here.

The truth is that atheists cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that one scientific theory (SR) has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless and that at the same time religions have also described their God as spaceless and timeless. So either they try to show that SR is not a valid scientific theory2, or they try to show that mystics’ timelessness and scientists’ timelessness are not the same3, or when they cannot do anything of these, they directly suppress their opponent’s voice.

Reference:
1. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/510/551
2. http://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/546
3. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/439/490

Are Scientists Biased?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Fri, 10 Mar 2017 05:58:42 +0000

Mathematical equations of SR and their implications are very simple to understand; one’s limited intelligence is sufficient for that purpose and not much help from the big peers is required in this case. These equations show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. For light this universe is zero millimeters long and light takes zero time for traversing the entire span of the universe, starting from its one end to the other end. If certain portion of space is filled up with light only, then due to these properties of light volume of that space will be zero and time will also stop there. As zero volume means no space, so in this way a spaceless and timeless state will obtain. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then in that case the volume of the entire universe will also be zero. That is why it can be said that SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. As God is called spaceless and timeless and as SR has also shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless, so from this it can also be said that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. Here we are not at all claiming that mathematics of SR shows that there is a God; rather we are merely saying that mathematics of SR suggests it is highly probable that there is a God. So nobody should misunderstand us here, either intentionally or unintentionally.

This case is exactly similar to the case of the multiverse. Up till now there is no demonstrable evidence that there are other universes beyond our universe. But there is the inflation theory and its mathematical equations. Here scientists claim that the equations of inflation theory suggest that it is highly probable that there are other universes. If equations of inflation theory can suggest that probably there are other universes, then following the path taken by the scientists we can also equally claim here that equations of SR suggest that probably there is a God.

Scientists consider multiverse as highly probable, because mathematics of inflation theory suggests there may be other universes. But these same scientists refuse to consider God as probable, although in this case also there is the mathematical support of SR behind this God. This shows that scientists are heavily biased and partial in their search for truth.

If one supports the claim made by the scientists about the probable existence of the multiverse, then how will he/she oppose our claim about the probable existence of God, without being partial and biased?

Is not SR a Valid Scientific Theory? Part I

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sun, 25 Dec 2016 15:50:34 +0000

Atheists do have some deep basic convictions. When science does in no way contradict these basic convictions of them, they are whole-heartedly with science. However if any scientific theory contradicts in any way any single basic conviction of them, they do not hesitate to go against science.

The two most basic convictions of the atheists are:
• There is nothing supernatural; and
• Whatever exists, exists within space-time only. So nothing can exist outside space-time.

However SR has shown that light exists neither in space nor in time, because travel time and travel distance become zero for light. So for light there is neither any space to exist nor any time to exist. This directly contradicts one of the two basic convictions of the atheists that nothing can exist outside space-time. So the attitude of the atheists towards SR is really very peculiar and ambiguous as will be evident from the interactions that I had with some atheists.

In one YouTube comment section one atheist wrote that if space-time began, there is no room for a deity. From here started the exchange of arguments and counterarguments between the two of us.

Me
‘If space-time began, there’s no room for a deity.’

This is not true. If this deity is spaceless and timeless, then it can exist spacelessly and timelessly without needing any space-time for it to exit.

The atheist
“If this deity is spaceless and timeless” Then definitionally it doesn’t exist. Do you understand? Existence means within space-time. There is nothing “outside”. That’s a comparative concept that doesn’t apply.

Me
Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. So will you say that light does not exist? Here is an example: A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.

The atheist
“There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space” Well.. that’s fundamentally wrong.. and we have been able to slow down photons and examine them, you know.

“So will you say that light does not exist?” We have a specific definition for the em spectrum, and we measure it.

“But from the reference frame of light” Heh.. light doesn’t have a reference frame. That’s another place you went wrong.

“Similarly for light there is no time to exist, because from its own reference frame the travel time has also become zero for it.” You understand that traveling at lightspeed isn’t going to matter when you are playing these imaginary games, right? Everything moves at the speed of light if you use light as a reference point. Can you see how that just doesn’t work? Also, you assume the speed of light in a vacuum is special, the entire em spectrum moves without regard for the higgs field.

Not sure how this in any way relates to your assertion that a nothing deity can exist. Your page is more philosophy than science.

Me
From your reply it appears that in order to not address the main issue here you have to discuss so many things about light that is not in any way warranted by my reply. I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth. I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not. If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)? So the main issue here is simply this: do TD and TT really become zero for light, as the two equations of SR show? Or, do they not? So it was most essential for me to know whether I was wrong in my assertion here or not. But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer. So, without trying to sidetracking the real issue here, if you can answer this question just in one word only, then that will be enough and sufficient for me: am I wrong, or am I not? No one has requested you to take a science class here.

The atheist
“I have given one example in my reply: light coming from a star situated at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth.” That still has nothing to do with your assertion of a deity, try to stay focused.

“I have also written that the travel distance (TD) and the travel time (TT) from the star to the earth become zero for light. Either I am wrong in my assertion here, or I am not.”

In simple terms:
1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
2. The EM spectrum is not sentient, it cannot have a “perspective” as EM is just information packets, not mass.
3. Mass cannot travel the speed of light, so your modality is flawed.

“If I am not wrong, then the two legitimate scientific questions that can be asked here are these: in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?” These questions sound like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light). Of course none of this is relevant to the assertion that a deity exists.

“But from your reply it is in no way possible for me to know this, because there is no clear-cut answer.” Because your questions are not cogent. You need to take a basic cosmology course, understand that there’s a lot more going on than simple trigonometry.

Me
Equations of SR show that travel time and travel distance become zero for light. On the basis of this I have asked these two questions: “in which space does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth (TD is zero)? And for how long does it exist (TT is also zero)?”

But you have written that I “have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of space-time. Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix. Distance is variable as space-time expands (and it will eventually expand faster than light)”.

So do you mean to say here that if the two facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable are properly taken into consideration, then we will find that travel time and travel distance do not actually become zero for light? As whatever I have written is based on the two equations of SR only, so do you mean to say that SR has not taken into consideration these two facts and that that is the reason why it has arrived at some equations that are wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light? Do you mean to say that if an actual experiment is conducted with light coming from a distant star, then we will be able to arrive at some other equations completely different from those of SR and that will be able to show that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light?

Has any such experiment been conducted by any scientist? Can you give any citation? Otherwise how do we come to know that these are not just your personal opinions having no valid scientific basis?

On the basis of which scientific evidence are you saying that travel time and travel distance do not become zero for light when the equations of SR are showing that they do become zero?

Here there are only two possibilities:
1) Either SR has not taken into consideration the facts that space-time is not static and that distance is also variable and that is why it is wrongly showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light;
2) Or SR has properly taken into consideration the above two facts and despite that it is showing that travel time and travel distance become zero for light.

If 1), then SR is not a valid scientific theory and therefore it should be immediately replaced by some other better theory.

If 2), then my two questions are fully legitimate questions.

Up till now he has not replied although more than two weeks have already elapsed.

Here the atheist is not directly saying that SR is not a valid scientific theory. That much courage he does not possess. He knows very well that if he says so, then he will have to substantiate it by some actual experimental evidence as otherwise no one will believe his words. But neither is it possible for him to digest that one well-established scientific theory is showing that light exists neither in space nor in time and so he brings in all sorts of arguments to point out that this cannot be the case:

1) Space is not a perfect vacuum:
2) Space-time is not static, it’s an infinitely variable matrix: and
3) Distance is also variable.

Below is the case of another atheist who is bold enough to say that math of SR is wrong.

The atheist
So how can a god that exists outside time interact with stuff inside time? At best you have a deist god, but doesn’t this result in another version of the interaction problem?

Me
Please read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011) here:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

There it has been shown that light exists for zero time in zero space, because as per the special theory of relativity both the travel time and the travel distance becomes zero for light. Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time. Still being neither in space nor in time light can have effects on things within space and time.

The atheist
‘Therefore as per SR light is in no space for no time.’

That’s not at all what SR says. Just that light doesn’t ‘experience’ time. It still has location in spacetime(duh, photons is how we see stuff), which means it exists in spacetime.

So you’ve not solved this interaction problem, you’ve just demonstrated you’ve no idea what it’s about, and why SR debunks A-theory of time.

Me
A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from the earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero. This is as per one of the equations of SR. So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist. So please specify in which particular space-point does light exist during its transition from the star to the earth. Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.

The atheist
‘But from the reference frame of light the distance from the star to the earth is zero.’

Yes, dr^2 and such, but the particle still exists in space-time now does it.

Again, no frame of reference doesn’t mean no space-time-allocation.

‘So as per SR there is no space in between the star and the earth for light to exist.’

No, just that photons don’t experience time.

‘Just saying that light exists in space-time will not do.’

If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.

Me
‘If observation defeats math, math is wrong, not observation.’

So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong. Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR? If you do have such a theory, then please present it to the peers and get it accepted.

The atheist
‘So you are saying that math of SR is wrong, because observation cannot be wrong.’

No. Both theory and observation are subject to fallabilism. That doesn’t mean observation isn’t key to physics. I’d refer you to Kuhn’s 5 ways for theory choice.

‘Can you offer a better theory that will be able to replace SR?’

No, nor do I see why I should, that’s not my job. SR is still less wrong than what came before, and very useful. It’s just not complete.

Me
There are two theories of science that are also considered as facts by the scientific community. These two theories are:

1) Darwin’s theory of evolution: and
2) Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

A theory can be falsified at any time, but a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. So perhaps you are daydreaming if you think that one day SR will be replaced by some other better theory.

Not Only the Believers but the Atheists as Well Can Be Close-Minded

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 06:33:52 +0000

It is not that only believers are close-minded; there are lots of atheists and non-believers who are close-minded as well. I will give just one example here.

In one YouTube channel presentation someone argued that God does not exist, because God is neither in space nor in time. For him in order to exist someone or something must have to be in space and time. In reply I wrote to him that there is an instance in nature that something can still exist even if it is neither in space nor in time. In SR it has been shown that both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So long SR is not replaced by some other better theory, we will have to accept that its mathematical equations are correct and that therefore whatever conclusions can be drawn from these equations are also correct.

So as per SR a photon originating in a distant star and coming towards earth will be neither in space nor in time during its total transition period, which may be anything, even billions of years, depending on the distance of the star from the earth. But due to this reason that light is neither in space nor in time during the transition we cannot say that light does not exist, because we can see the star. Twice my comment was deleted. So I posted it for the third time and then only it was answered. The reply was that the mathematics of SR is wrong, because it contradicts our observation. As we can see the light, so it must be in some space-time. So I had to write to him that If he had any new theory that could replace SR, then he should present it to the peers and get it accepted. This comment was also deleted.

So I cannot accept that only believers are close-minded; non-believers can also be close-minded.

11Prompt - Special theory of relativity

The One

Tags:

Why spacetime is not fundamental

Tags:

Do time and distance really shrink to zero at light-speed?

Tags:

For an extraordinary claim, there is extraordinary evidence

Tags:

Was emergent spacetime fundamental at the beginning of the universe?

Tags:

Is there any spacetime outside our universe

Tags:

How Atheists Suppress Their Opponent’s Voice

Tags:

Are Scientists Biased?

Tags:

Is not SR a Valid Scientific Theory? Part I

Tags:

Not Only the Believers but the Atheists as Well Can Be Close-Minded

Tags: