2

  1. Is space time a Kantian concept – that is, just a concept of the mind at work? That is that there is no ‘out there’ – it’s in the ‘mind’?

  2. Relativity might work but it certainly requires a stretch of the imagination to accept for example that the speed of light is constant. Think about that, that if we rode on a photon all of the past and all of the future would happen at once. Sure it is all mathematically sound, but does that really mean that there is something ‘out there’ as Kant’s conceptual world?

  3. And if you don’t agree, then why is light singled out for this special, and very odd treatment?

  4. Did Einstein place space time ‘out there’ and with that acceptance create the problem of non–local phenomena like entanglement? What about the Quantum Zeno Effect?

  5. Was Einstein with all his brilliance casting a shadow over quantum mechanics, after all Max Planck once said: ‘This mind is the matrix of all matter.’ While Schrödinger asked ‘Who are we?’

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Remco
  • 29

2 Answers2

2

  1. Give a physically distinguishable definition of "out there" vs. "in the mind" and we can try to discuss this further.

  2. As jinawee comments, there are no frames of reference that move with the speed of light, since the photon we "ride on" would have no speed at all by definition of a comoving reference frame, and that contradicts the constancy of the speed of light in all frames.

  3. I think this amounts to asking why the laws of physics are, well, the laws of physics, which is a debate I think you should take to the philosophers. That the speed of light is the limit, that the metric of spacetime is really to a good approximation the Minkowski metric is really just the way the world is.

  4. Again, what is "out there"? Also, what about entanglement and the Zeno effect? They are phenomena of quantum physics, which can be empirically tested. How could Einstein create them?

  5. Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics, that much is true. He disliked it for its non-determinism, famously saying "Gott würfelt nicht" ("God does not play dice"). Discussions of the mind/consciousness and of the nature of humankind are off-topic for this SE, as they are not part of any physical theory. I again direct you to the philosophers for this one.

ACuriousMind
  • 124,833
  • Regarding 5. Roger Penrose, IIRC, said that a grand unified theory would have to explain consciousness as well. Also Max Tegmark published a paper where consciousness is treated just as another state of matter. So, not all people among physicists agree with this SE. – stathisk Jul 04 '14 at 10:51
  • 1
    @Zet note that these publications are not part of mainstream physics, and therefore off-topic on physics.SE – Danu Jul 04 '14 at 13:54
  • I understand that they are offtopic for this SE, since the question was blocked. All I'm saying is that they are ontopic as far as real science is concerned. Also, to add to the previous two, I just remembered an article from Nanopoulos about brain function and QM published ~20 years ago. – stathisk Jul 04 '14 at 14:50
  • Thank you.Please also read my comment above re philosophy.
  • Re your point 4. What if those phenomena were just the way the mind processes information on the Kantian model? How do you know there is distance travelled and what is speed without distance? Are we too much trapped in a Newtonian mindset, having only partly moved thanks to Einstein? Einstein took a big jump in 1905, but it seems to me, it was only a partial one. Had QM evolved before Relativity, would we doing different calculations today?

    • I suggest we need fresh eyes and not those of an iconic man with a 1905 mindset.

    – Remco Jul 05 '14 at 05:41
  • @Zet: Penrose's (or any modern) ideas about (proving) consciousness are wrong. Man as he is has no consciousness. To understand fundamental laws of the universe man has to study the universe AND himself at the same time. The same fundamental laws govern stars/galaxies AND man's psychology (say, all organic life). It is the greatest illusion that man thinks he is conscious. It's a nature's trick for a man unable to see reality as it is. Among scientists Einstein/Tesla (and some other) felt this, but didn't have a chance/luck to find some clues about exact knowledge of man/universe. – sabiland Jul 05 '14 at 07:24
  • @user52761: QM and Relativity are not disjoint, the whole QFT rests on SR, it's GR we have trouble with. I cannot speak for the whole SE, but I think that we are a "shut up and calculate forum" because the different interpretations are not physically distinguishable (that's why we call them interpretations and not different theories). You can believe all you want about the MWI or Kopenhagen, the "actual" existence of spacetime or whatever - it doesn't matter. The machinery works no matter how our puny minds choose to think of it, and thus I think discussing these choices is pointless. – ACuriousMind Jul 05 '14 at 12:17