COMMENSAL ISSUE 87

Anthony Owens mistakenly conceives of instantaneous actions at a distance as a long metal bar which when twisted at one end is immediately seen to twist at the other. However, if the metal bar was 186,000 miles long, he would see the observer at the far end turn the bar one second after he observes it turn at his end and this applies fractionally less to all shorter bars. This is the reason why simultaneous observations by two observers were deemed impossible by Einstein. He (ie. Anthony Owens, not Einstein ... Ed) then says that the timeless photon whose start and end are simultaneous is irreconcilable with his first point. On the contrary, for the photon travelling the length of the bar, both ends twist at the same time which is what he originally postulated.

What is meant be simultaneous action at a distance is the "spooky" phenomenon, that Einstein derided, of one particle determining the action of another when there is no physical connection or force observable or inferable.

He then speaks of space-time as past, present and future and space. However space-time’s four dimensions are the three spatial dimensions plus time. As I wrote in Commensal 86 there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the past or the future at the same time as any present moment. The editor commented on this : "to say the whole of space-time exists doesn’t mean all events in it are continually happening". But how can an event be existing if it is not happening ? Can the editor give an example ? Does both the kettle that boiled yesterday and the kettle that will boil tomorrow exist in each of many successive stages of boiling in suspended animation like a series of movie frames, only three dimensional, awaiting the projectionist of the present ?

Let me make a bold challenge. I believe there are no problems about our experience of time that are not of our own making. If you think otherwise, put it to the test by setting a puzzle about our experience of time for our on-going 100-word competition. If not, lets drop the discussion for ever, or rather for the present, or rather for the foreseeable future or rather for the unforeseen future, or for the time being, of for ......

Roger Farnworth

Roger : I agree that all philosophical problems are of our own making, and that it is philosophy’s job to unravel them. My reason for saying that the past exists is that it is "just" a 4th dimension of space-time. As places I’m not at exist, so times I’m not at exist. However, I don’t claim to understand much of this and am more than willing to let the matter drop until we’ve all had time to do some more research into the matter. Maybe we could develop a research programme - decide which giants’ shoulders to stand on so we might see a little further ? Suggestions please, else remind me to suggest something next time.

Theo