Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 15, 2013 1:13 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Pentcho Valev

Posts: 4,305
Registered: 12/13/04
Posted: Jan 15, 2013 1:13 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Lee Smolin: "The scientific case for time being an illusion is formidable. That is why the consequences of adopting the view that time is real are revolutionary. (...) Einstein's theories of relativity make even stronger arguments that time is inessential to a fundamental description of the world, as I'll discuss in chapter 6. Relativity strongly suggests that the whole history of the world is a timeless unity; present, past, and future have no meaning apart from human subjectivity. Time is just another dimension of space, and the sense we have of experiencing moments passing is an illusion behind which is a timeless reality. (...) In Part I, I will present the case from science for believing that time is an illusion. In Part II, I will demolish those arguments and show why time must be taken to be real if fundamental physics and cosmology are to overcome the crises they currently face."

Special relativity is a deductive theory so if it makes "even stronger arguments" in favour of something that Smolin and his brothers Einsteinians do not accept, it does so based on some false postulate. Has Smolin identified it in his new book? In a previous book he did expose the false postulate:

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Pentcho Valev

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum 1994-2015. All Rights Reserved.