Boy of Age 16 Asks Me about Relativity, etc. 21. Does Time Really Exist? What Is Time?

Relativity of simultaneity: Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and occurs later in the red frame (Ref. 1). The original PNG file of the figure was created by Army1987; Acdx converted it to SVG. (GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0), via Wikimedia Commons.

A friend of mine on Twitter, Aaron (a pseudonym), is an overseas, 16-year old boy, who seriously admires Albert Einstein and wants to become a physicist. He continually writes me (Ted, also a pseudonym) questions about the theory of relativity and related topics, and I am sending answers. In this series of blog posts, those questions and answers are reproduced with modifications. I am not an expert in the fields of physics related to relativity. So, my answers might contain errors. If you find any error, please do not hesitate to write a comment for the benefit, not only of the boy and me, but also of other readers.

Aaron: Do we control in time? Or does it control in us?

Ted: I do not understand what you exactly mean by the words "control in" in your question. The question sounds like a philosophical one rather than that of physics. But I can say this: Time is one of physical dimensions connected to the Universe or Nature. Therefore, human being can do nothing to affect it. However, "psychological time" (duration of time one feels about a definite length of physical time under different situations) can be controlled by the adjustment of one's mind. Am I talking in the wrong direction than you expected?

Aaron: Sorry, I want to know if time really exists. In relativity, time also seems to be relative, right? A body that travels at a speed close to that of light can slow time, right? So, what is time?

Ted: I see, Aaron. Time is one of dimensions of the physical framework of the Universe, "spacetime," and is the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them. It has a definite meaning when we consider the movement of something. If there were nothing moving around in the Universe, time would be meaningless and could be said that it does not exist. However, the real Universe includes a lot of moving things. So, time is a meaningful and useful concept. Duration of events and simultaneity depend on the coordinate system (reference frame) on which it is measured (see the figure above), but this does not deny the reality of time.

By the way, the slowing-down of the passage of time (time dilation) occurs for the fast-moving body, as you mentioned, but this occurs for the moving system as a whole, i.e., your biological activity and ability also slow down. So, you cannot do much more thing during the high-speed flight in a rocket compared with what you can do on the earth in the same duration of time. You cannot be the master of time but remain to be its slave.

It would be another problem to ask if time is a fundamental concept. There is a growing movement to create a theory that shows spacetime is emergent, i.e., not fundamental (see for example Ref. 1). In this respect, time is one of things still mysterious.

References

1. "Time," Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (February 19, 2013, at 06:41).
2. Graeme Stemp-Morlock, Melting Spacetime, Web site FQXi Community (April 30, 2012).

(Originally written on October 14, 2011)

Boy of Age 16 Asks Me about Relativity, etc. 20. Have You Heard about Naruto?

Cover of the first Japanese Naruto manga volume.

A friend of mine on Twitter, Aaron (a pseudonym), is an overseas, 16-year old boy, who seriously admires Albert Einstein and wants to become a physicist. He continually writes me (Ted, also a pseudonym) questions about the theory of relativity and related topics, and I am sending answers. In this series of blog posts, those questions and answers are reproduced with modifications. I am not an expert in the fields of physics related to relativity. So, my answers might contain errors. If you find any error, please do not hesitate to write a comment for the benefit, not only of the boy and me, but also of other readers.

Aaron: I just wanted to ask you if you have heard about Naruto.

Ted: What I think of from the word "Naruto" is tidal whirlpools in the Naruto Strait, Japan. However, this is probably not what you mean. Perhaps, you mean this (though it is not related to the physics of relativity): Naruto (ナルト), an ongoing Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Masashi Kishimoto. I don't know about it. So, I quote a passage from a Wikipedia page (Ref.1): "The plot tells the story of Naruto Uzumaki (note by Ted: Uzumaki means tidal whirlpools), an adolescent ninja who constantly searches for recognition and dreams to become the Hokage, the ninja in his village who is acknowledged as the leader and the strongest of all. The series is based on a one-shot comic by Kishimoto that was published in the August 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump."

Aaron: Yes, it's one of the best Japanese anime series. Ninjas can travel near the speed of light.

Ted: Oh, Naruto has then a relationship to relativity. Ha-ha!

Reference

1. Naruto, Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (January 24, 2013 at 19:01).

(Originally written on October 7, 2011)

Boy of Age 16 Asks Me about Relativity, etc. 19. Do All the Forces in Nature Travel at the Same Speed as That of Light?

The Feynman diagram for the beta-minus decay of a neutron (n) into a proton (p) , due to the weak force, i.e., via an intermediate heavy W⁻ boson. One of down quarks (d) in the neutron decays into an up quark (u) to make a proton, emitting an electron and an electron anti-neutrino. By Joel Holdsworth (Joelholdsworth) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

A friend of mine on Twitter, Aaron (a pseudonym), is an overseas, 16-year old boy, who seriously admires Albert Einstein and wants to become a physicist. He continually writes me (Ted, also a pseudonym) questions about the theory of relativity and related topics, and I am sending answers. In this series of blog posts, those questions and answers are reproduced with modifications. I am not an expert in the fields of physics related to relativity. So, my answers might contain errors. If you find any error, please do not hesitate to write a comment for the benefit, not only of the boy and me, but also of other readers.

Aaron: Do all the forces in nature travel at the same speed as that of light?

Ted: There are four known fundamental interactions in nature to cause fundamental forces in the universe: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear interactions. Among these interactions, the mediators of three interactions, i.e., the gluon for the strong interaction, the photon for electromagnetic interaction and the graviton for the gravitational interaction, have (or assumed to have) zero mass. Therefore, the forces based on these interactions are transmitted by the speed of light. The remaining one interaction, weak interaction, is mediated by the heavy W and Z bosons and cannot be transmitted by the speed of light. However, the effective range of the weak force is quite short (around 10⁻¹⁷–10⁻¹⁶; Ref. 1), so that we can regard that the weak force is transmitted almost instantaneously for it actually to work.

Reference

1. J. Christman. The Weak Interaction, Physnet (Michigan State University, 2001) p. 2.

(Originally written on October 1, 2011)

Boy of Age 16 Asks Me about Relativity, etc.18. Why Is the Speed of Light Constant?

Albert Einstein in 1931 by Doris Ulmann [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

A friend of mine on Twitter, Aaron (a pseudonym), is an overseas, 16-year old boy, who seriously admires Albert Einstein and wants to become a physicist. He continually writes me (Ted, also a pseudonym) questions about the theory of relativity and related topics, and I am sending answers. In this series of blog posts, those questions and answers are reproduced with modifications. I am not an expert in the fields of physics related to relativity. So, my answers might contain errors. If you find any error, please do not hesitate to write a comment for the benefit, not only of the boy and me, but also of other readers.

Aaron: Why doesn't the speed of light change?

Ted: It is gratifying that you think so deeply as to want to know the reason for the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum. However, no one knows the reason. It was initially Albert Einstein's assumption in developing the special theory of relativity. Then, many experiments have confirmed the correctness of the theory, and the assumption has been accepted as one of true facts. So, presently there is no reason or cause to which physicists attribute the constancy of the speed of light.

By the way, I have learned, on Twitter this morning, the Reuters news that neutrinos were found to break the speed of light by a group of physicists working on an experiment dubbed OPERA, which was run jointly by the CERN particle research center and the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy. If this experiment be confirmed to be correct, it will make an immense challenge to theoretical physicists.

Aaron: The news is extremely serious. The title of the report says, "Finding could overturn laws of physics." But it would not invalidate the theory of relativity, right?

Ted: Yes, it would do so, to some extent. Namely, if the neutrino experiment were correct, it would require a correction of the theory of relativity. However, many experiments and observations have been consistent with that theory. Further, neutrinos produced by the explosion of the 1987 supernova arrived at the earth not earlier than light from the same source. So, I highly doubt the correctness of the experiment just reported.

(Originally written on September 23 and 24, 2011, except for "Note" below)

Note about "faster-than-light neutrino" measurements:

In March 2012, the OPERA team confirmed that the measurements first announced in September 2011 were skewed by a combination of a faulty cable and flawed timing in the experiment’s master clock (Ref. 1). The group repeated its measurement and have reported the final results that are consistent with the special theory of relativity (Ref. 2; see also Ref. 3 for the whole story about the measurement of the neutrino speed).

I was not surprised at reading the news of possibly wrong measurements because I had once encountered a paper that reported the results of erroneous measurements in the prestigious journal Physical Review (the author's name was Dressel). The results were inconsistent not only with many previous authors' but also with my own that had just been obtained. Thus, I was able timely to publish my results in the same journal, pointing out possible causes of errors in Dressel's measurements. (You can see the abstract of my paper here.) Later, Dressel found the real cause of errors by himself. Some or many scientists believe "it is right to release an 'uncomfortable' result for scrutiny and then seek an instrumental or methodological effect that might explain it," as the OPERA spokesman Antonio Ereditato is reported to have said (Ref. 1).

References

1. E. S. Reich, "Embattled neutrino project leaders step down," Nature (April 2012).
2. The OPERA Collaboration, "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam using the 2012 dedicated data," arXiv:1212.1276 [hep-ex] (December 2012).
3. "Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia (15 December 2012 at 14:07).

(Originally written on September 23 and 24, 2011)

Boy of Age 16 Asks Me about Relativity, etc.17. What Is Golden Physics?

Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World explains methods to help distinguish between ideas that are considered valid science, and ideas that can be considered pseudoscience. — "The Demon-Haunted World," Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (November 12, 2012 at 02:36).

A friend of mine on Twitter, Aaron (a pseudonym), is an overseas, 16-year old boy, who seriously admires Albert Einstein and wants to become a physicist. He continually writes me (Ted, also a pseudonym) questions about the theory of relativity and related topics, and I am sending answers. In this series of blog posts, those questions and answers are reproduced with modifications. I am not an expert in the fields of physics related to relativity. So, my answers might contain errors. If you find any error, please do not hesitate to write a comment for the benefit, not only of the boy and me, but also of other readers.

Aaron: I just wanted to ask you about golden physics. What is it?

Ted: I have never heard of the phrase "golden physics" and would like to confirm if you mean "golden age of physics." If you mean any other thing, please let me know where, or in relation to what, you got the phrase.

Aaron: Have you heard about the physicist Mohamed El Naschie? It is his theory.

Ted: I have heard the name Mohamed El Naschie for the first time and made a search on the Internet. The "Mohamed El Naschie" page (Ref. 1) of RationalWiki gives useful information. The essence is given below:

—Mohamed El Naschie is an Egyptian mathematician, physicist and engineer. He served as editor-in-chief of the journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. His research centers on a theory of everything called "E-infinity theory", a "fractal cosmology model" which he developed in 1994. El Naschie characterizes his theory as follows: "This models a harmonic production of quarks and elementary particles through a golden section [Note by Ted: Here "golden" appears] centered Cantorian fractal spacetime." El Naschie's theories are regarded as not even wrong by almost all physicists and mathematicians.—

The page mentioned has the link to the El Naschie Watch Web site (Ref. 2). This is the blog site that describes critically about this man in detail and includes the words, 'Dr. Mohamed El Naschie is pseudoscientist crackpot who makes grandiose claims about being a "paradigm-shifting" high-energy physicist' (Ref. 3). From the descriptions of his work on Ref. 1, I believe that the words "pseudoscientist crackpot" is quite true and do not recommend you to learn about his physics.

(See also Ref. 4, which probably appeared after my original reply had been written.)

References

1. "Mohamed El Naschie," RationalWiki (August 21, 2012, at 16:56).
2. El Naschie Watch, Blog site.
3. "Introduction to Mohamed El Naschie," El Naschie Watch (May 6, 2010).
4. "Mohamed El Naschie," Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (December 13, 2012 at 12:58).

(Originally written on September 16 and 17, 2011)