Spacetime and Reality: Facing the Ultimate Judge

We put forward a new view of relativity theory that makes the existence of a flow of time compatible with the four-dimensional block universe. To this end, we apply the creation-discovery view elaborated for quantum mechanics to relativity theory and in such a way that time and space become creations instead of discoveries and an underlying non temporal and non spatial reality comes into existence. We study the nature of this underlying non temporal and non spatial reality and reinterpret many aspects of the theory within this new view. We show that data of relativistic measurements are sufficient to derive the three-dimensionality of physical space. The nature of light and massive entities is reconsidered, and an analogy with human cognition is worked out.

The Frontiers Collection, 2009

Springer eBooks, 2009

An often repeated account of the genesis of special relativity tells us that relativity theory was to a considerable extent the fruit of an operationalist philosophy of science. Indeed, Einstein's 1905 paper stresses the importance of rods and clocks for giving concrete physical content to spatial and temporal notions. I argue, however, that it would be a mistake to read too much into this. Einstein's operationalist remarks should be seen as serving rhetoric purposes rather than as attempts to promulgate a particular philosophical position-in fact, Einstein never came close to operationalism in any of his philosophical writings. By focussing on what could actually be measured with rods and clocks Einstein shed doubt on the empirical status of a number of pre-relativistic concepts, with the intention to persuade his readers that the applicability of these concepts was not obvious. This rhetoric manoeuvre has not always been rightly appreciated in the philosophy of physics. Thus, the influence of operationalist misinterpretations, according to which associated operations strictly define what a concept means, can still be felt in present-day discussions about the conventionality of simultaneity. The standard story continues by pointing out that Minkowski in 1908 supplanted Einstein's approach with a realist spacetime account that has no room for a foundational role of rods and clocks: relativity theory became a description of a four-dimensional "absolute world." As it turns out, however, it is not at all clear that Minkowski was proposing a substantivalist position with respect to spacetime. On the contrary, it seems that from a philosophical point of view Minkowski's general position was not very unlike the one in the back of Einstein's mind. However, in Minkowski's formulation of special relativity it becomes more explicit that the content of spatiotemporal concepts relates to considerations about the form of physical laws. If accepted, this position has important consequences for the discussion about the conventionality of simultaneity.

Convergetics Research Center , 2024

This article explores Hermann Minkowski's groundbreaking 1908 lecture Space and Time, which introduced the concept of four-dimensional spacetime. Contrary to popular belief, Minkowski's Theory of the Absolute World proposed a multispace paradigm, suggesting that reality consists of multiple independent spacetimes. This theory challenges the conventional singular spacetime continuum and addresses fundamental questions in physics and cosmology, including wave-particle duality, the constancy of the speed of light, and quantum entanglement. The article examines the misinterpretation of Minkowski's theory by the scientific community and its implications for modern physics. Key concepts such as worldpoint, worldlines, and proper time are explained. Practical applications of the multispace paradigm, like electromagnetic travel, are also discussed. Minkowski's work provides new insights into unresolved issues and has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe. "While there exists an unanimous consensus on the mathematical significance of spacetime for theoretical physics, for a hundred years there has been no consensus on the nature of spacetime itself."-Vesselin Petkov[1] I dedicate this work to Hermann Minkowski, who discovered the Paradigm of Multispace Reality. I hope this contribution will help the world recognize his exceptional genius. License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 Contents 7 References 9 Notes 9

Pier Sandro Scano, 2024

The topic is whether the 4-dimensional structure constitutes a proven theory and whether it completely and effectively describes space-time phenomena. Spacetime is almost universally assumed as the basic structure for physical and cosmological thinking. Its meaning lies in the fusion of time and space into a unified entity. In the article, the theoretical foundation and mathematical formalism are analysed. The theory is confirmed by an incontrovertible quantity of experimental verifications. However reasons for reflection emerge, starting from the one-way character of time. The conclusion is that on space and time we know little, in the state, to be able to affirm a definitive and testable theory. Further research is necessary on what is assumed to be indisputable. Finally, it doesn't seem sustainable that Special Relativity, supplemented by General Relativity, constitutes a complete theory of spatiotemporal relations.

viXra, 2015

The change of the state of motion of physical systems is characterized by the change of its velocity; an important aspect of Relativity Theory (RT). Quantum mechanics (QM) implies space-time itself may be quantum in nature if QM is to comply with RT geometrically; i.e. Loop quantum gravity theory (LQG) as a quantum space-time. The nature of time and its intimate relationship with space as described by RT is not so obviously defined but dealt with as an abstract entity that exists in physical reality. But physical reality demands similar dynamical space-time notion as mostly expressed by LQG. Here, following the concept of quantum space-time, I describe time as a numerical value of space such that the rules of RT are satisfied. Length contraction, time dilation and the forward arrow of time are explained accordingly. The intention here is to add dynamical aspect to the notion of time by defining it as a property of the dynamical space itself under the rules of RT but adding a dynamic...

2001

The Frontiers Collection, 2009

The goal of the present paper is to reconstruct the history of Minkowski spacetime, focusing on the specific understanding that Minkowski had of his own model in the context of his worldview. To achieve it, we will first take a look at Minkowski’s personal academic history. By exploring his scientific development, certain key elements in his approach to mathematics and physics will be highlighted, so that his worldview is put into perspective and supported by evidence. Afterwards, a brief summary of Einstein’s work on special relativity is presented, with the aim to speculate on Einstein’s own way of interpreting spacetime. This will also set up the foundation for a comparison with Minkowski. Then, we will analyze the main lectures through which Minkowski presented his geometric model of spacetime to the German scientific community, focusing especially on Raum und Zeit. Here, Minkowski’s worldview is further articulated. Last but not least, we will endorse that, despite Minkowski’s work becoming crucial for Einstein and Einstein's interpretation of spacetime most likely growing closer to Minkowski's, the two scientists ultimately shared crucial differences in weltanschauung.

Journal of Philosophy, 1996

If two different authors use the words "red," "hard," or "disappointed," no one doubts that they mean approximately the same thing.... But in the case of words such as "place" or "space"...there exists a far-reaching uncertainty of interpretation.-Albert Einstein' T Nhere is supposed to be a problem concerning the metaphysics of space and time (or space-time), which, following Lawrence Sklar,2 goes by the name the substantivalist-relationist controversy. What is presumably at stake is whether we should be realists in some suitably robust sense about space and time (space-time), or whether no such entities exist over and above the objects and events of the material world. Insofar as this question is intended to have anything to do with physics, I shall argue that it is no longer a meaningful one. In the course of its development, physical theory simply lost touch with the categories necessary for the original formulation of the problem. One might, of course, seek judicious criteria for projecting old categories onto new terrain. Part of my project is to explain why, given the relevant historical developments, one should be skeptical that there is any such natural or preferred projection in this case. The other part is to make evident that the current controversy reduces to verbal disputes occasioned by arbitrary preference for one manner of projection over another. I. AN EINSTEIN "PUZZLE" * Work on this was supported by National Science Foundation grant # SBR-9310561. Frank D6ring was most kind to proof the translations from German. I would also like to thank Peter Achinstein and Steve Gimbel for helpful comments on an earlier draft. I am grateful to the Albert Einstein Archives at the Hebrew University ofJerusalem for granting permission to quote from the Einstein papers. ' "Forward," to Max Jammer, Concepts of Space (New York: Dover, 1993, 3rd ed.), p. xiv. 2 Space, Time, and Spacetime (Berkeley: California UP, 1974).