Yrael wrote:
"De-Mystifying" Theoretical Physics

I am not a professional physicist. I am nothing but an enthusiastic
amateur. Neither am I a professional mathematician. I would rate my level
of mathematical knowledge as probably just above A-Level standard. So I am
unable to manipulate the tensors of String Theory,

Well, tensors already appear well below String theory...


and I am also unable to
completely understand the technical details behind most Quantum Physics
experiments. But I believe that my lack of formal knowledge may have
actually helped me to uncover certain valid identifications of semantic and
philosophical errors in Theoretical Physics which many esteemed
professionals either seem to deliberately ignore or not consider as
important.

Uh oh. Doesn't sound like a good start.

Essentially you are saying "because I don't know much about physics, I
am better able to judge errors in physics than the actual physicists".



I, however, feel that identifying and explaining these semantic
and philosophical errors is extremely important. My identifications are not
"earth shattering". They don't contain anything which is not already
totally obvious to any professional physicist. So I don't believe for one
second that any explanations I write here will help any professional
physicists with their actual research or anything like that. My ego is not
that big! But I do believe that these explanations may help (some)
professional physicists when they write their "popular science" books and
attempt to "de-mystify" Theoretical Physics for the general public. I have
come to the conclusion that some of the explanations I have read in "popular
science" books do not actually "explain" anything at all. And I have also
read some attempts at "de-mystification" which have actually left me feeling
more "mystified" than I was in the first place!

Well, I have to agree with that.



We may not know exactly how the "Universe" works, but most of us know how
"politics" works. Politicians want to stay in Office, and to do this they
must gain public support. It is not in the politicians' own self interest
to give research grant money to something which the general public feels
"alienated" from. This is obviously why Theoretical Physics must be made
more accessible and interesting to the general public. And explanations
written by top scientists which do not actually "explain" anything are not
really helping matters.

I, and thousands of other enthusiasts, would love to see a "Supercollider"
built with an energy capacity which may be capable of proving the existence
of the "Higgs Boson" or something similar.

Well, such a collider is already built: the LHC. Ever heard of it?


So my "de-mystifying"
identifications and explanations are my, unfortunately miniscule,
contributions to the cause.

The first thing I would like to address is the way the "mystery" which
physicists call "The Arrow of Time" is treated in most popular science
books. In their "Arrow of Time" discussions, many esteemed physicists pose
the question of: "Why does time always flow forwards?" Or, stated another
way: "Why does time never flow backwards?" And they then go on to attempt
to answer these questions by talking about thermodynamics and entropy etc.
I will show that even asking these questions is semantically and
philosophically incorrect. And I will also show that their
thermodynamic/entropic explanations are actually attempting to answer a
completely different (but semantically valid) question. Furthermore, I will
give a totally complete and correct answer to the semantically and
philosophically ridiculous question of "Why does time never flow backwards?"
in just one short sentence. There is no need for a whole chapter of a book
to answer this question; one short sentence is completely sufficient. But I
have never read this "one sentence explanation" in any popular science book,
and I really don't know why it is not used in ALL physics related popular
science books!

In order for the "Arrow of Time mystery" to become totally non-mysterious,
we first need to understand what time actually is.

For physicists, time is that which is measured by clock.


Some esteemed physicists
do not seem to fully understand a principle called "The Map is not the
Territory". Time appears in their equations along with other variables like
mass etc which actually exist in reality; and because of this, they seem to
see time as a real facet of existence (like mass etc).

Sorry, I don't see the difference. If you say that "time" is merely a
property of the "map", but does not actually exist in reality, I think
you have to say the same about mass. And vice versa.


And, consequently,
they seem to think that they can use time to explain things in the same way
as they would use other real facets of existence (like mass etc) to explain
things. This is the problem! It isn't, so they can't!

And the basis for that claim is what?


And if they do,
their explanations are worthless because they are not actually "explaining"
anything at all! I have actually read a book in which an esteemed physicist
attempted to answer the "Why does time never flow backwards?" question by
referring to a thermodynamic equation (in which "time" was one of the
variables) as part of his explanation. This is patently ridiculous. You
can't explain the properties of a "something" by using that same "something"
as part of the explanation.

Err, why not? How on earth could I explain the properties of *any*
physical "thing" without referring to equations in which this "thing"
appears?


Even if the "something" is actually real, you
are not actually explaining anything at all if you do that. And what makes
this physicist's "explanation" even more ridiculous is the fact that he was
using an equation which exhibits "time-reversal symmetry" (as do all these
type of equations) in an attempt to show why "time never flows backwards"!

There are lots of equations in thermodynamics which are *not*
time-reversal symmetric. What equation was he using, specifically?
What book are you talking about?


What this physicist was actually attempting to do was to answer this
completely different (but semantically valid) question, as I mentioned
earlier.

And that completely different question is?


I cannot believe that he didn't seem to realise that this was what
he was actually doing! So I can only assume that he was deliberately
ignoring it, or didn't feel that it was important.

Did you ever consider the possibility that his explanation was perhaps
perfectly valid, but you simply misunderstood him?


Anyway, the point I am
making is that this "non-explanation" didn't help the general reader at all.

Even the great Albert Einstein made a subtle variation of this same
fundamental philosophical "error" in his theories of special and general
relativity. And this error caused Einstein (and everyone else) to draw
inferences about the "structure of reality" which are actually totally
opposite to the inferences they could have drawn if this fundamental error
had not been made. I will fully explain Einstein's fundamental
philosophical "error" shortly. But, as I said earlier, in order to
understand "The Arrow of Time" and Einstein's fundamental philosophical
error, you will first need to be armed with a complete understanding of what
time actually is. So, here we go!

What actually is time?

This is an "official" definition of time:

"Time is a dimension that enables two otherwise identical events that occur
at the same point in space to be distinguished.
-- A Dictionary of Physics (ISBN: 0-19-280030-2)"

Looks sensible, in a way, but not very useful; and I don't think it is
really entirely valid. I told you already above what definition
physicists actually use.


I believe that calling time a "dimension" is seriously misleading to the
general public. To include time as a dimension along with the other three
dimensions of height, width and depth to make four dimensional "space-time"
creates a major area of "misunderstanding" for the general public.

Well, it's a fact that time is a dimension. Do you suggest we lie to
the public?


It
allows people to believe that they can treat the "dimension" of "time" in
the same way as they can treat the other three dimensions. And, therefore,
it allows people to ask totally illogical questions like: "Why does time
never run backwards? etc.

So far, you have still not told us why that question is illogical.

Additionally, I don't see why treating time as a dimension should lead
to this question.


Most people do not realise that four dimensional
"space-time" is nothing but a "mathematical model" which happens to be
extremely good at predicting the results of various experiments.

Err, if you did not notice: three-dimensional space is in the same
sense "nothing but a mathematical model which happens to be
extremely good at predicting the results of various experiments".


In fact,
Einstein's equations were so successful at predicting the results of
experiments that people started believing that these "mathematical models"
actually WERE REALITY and not just representations of reality.

Well, you appear to believe the same thing about three-dimensional
space, aren't you?


But, however
accurate at predicting "reality" Einstein's equations are, they are NOT
actually REALITY. They are nothing but mathematical REPRESENTATIONS OF
REALITY which happen to be able to predict ACTUAL REALITY extremely well.
To confuse a "representation of reality" with "actual reality" is to fail to
understand a principle called "The Map is not the Territory". I believe
that "The Map is not the Territory" type of misunderstanding is very common
among the general public. And even some esteemed physicists seem to fall
victim to it on the odd occasion.

Anyway, back to my question: What actually is time?

Here are some "semantically and philosophically correct"
definitions/descriptions of what time actually is:

And who judges if these definitions are correct? You?


Unlike other "things" like mass etc, time does not actually exist.

Wow. So past, present and future don't exist, too?


Time is
definitely not a "dimension" in the same sense as the other three
"dimensions" of height, width and depth.

It is. It has merely another signature in the metric.


In fact, time is nothing but a
totally man-invented "concept", and it has no "real" existence in the fabric
of the universe whatsoever.

Time is nothing but a "concept" which we human beings (unconsciously)
invented in order to make "changing patterns of existence" intelligible and
quantifiable to us.

So, for animals, plants, and non-living objects, time does not pass?
Past, present and future are one and the same for them?


Or, stated in another way, "Time IS changing patterns
of existence". To talk about time outside of the context of existence (or
more correctly: "changing patterns of existence") would be completely
nonsensical and totally invalid.

In the last paragraph, I gave a precise definition/description of time.

Do you mean the sentence "Time IS changing patterns of existence"? I
wouldn't call that a "precise definition".


[snip lots more]

I don't think this leads anywhere useful.


Bye,
Bjoern