<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3>Chris Burford wrote:<BR><BR>> Einstein's
science I suggest has significant idealist features.<BR>><BR>> His
reliance on thought experiments presupposes an ideal simple logical<BR>>
structure to the universe. His lifelong search for a unified field
theory<BR>> is of the same character.<BR>><BR>> His difficulty in
accepting empirical evidence in support of quantum<BR>theory<BR>> is
essentially idealist.<BR><BR>Einstein was a firm believer in the Platonic
religion of geometry. He<BR>wanted a purely geometrical theory of the
universe, while quantum physics<BR>sought out a materialistic theory.
Einstein referred to geometry as<BR>"marble" and particles as "wood." He
believed in a universe of marble that<BR>merely takes on the illusion of
wood.<BR><BR>The rift between geometry and particles has apparently been solved
by<BR>superstring theory. According to this theory, every type of matter
is<BR>simply a different resonance of tiny, vibrating strings. Just as the
voice<BR>resolves itself into discrete notes, superstrings take on a
particular<BR>sequence of vibrations, corresponding to the various types of
particles.<BR>The important thing is that the movements of the strings are
self-consistent<BR>rather than force-consistent. Nothing outside of the
string causes it to<BR>vibrate the way it does. Rather, its vibration
arises from "within." Once<BR>self-consistency is posited, then the math
describing the primary<BR>manifestation of the strings turns out to be *exactly*
the same set of<BR>equations Einstein wrote out years ago for
gravity.<BR><BR>But superstring doesn't vindicate Einstein over quantum
physics. Instead it<BR>unites them. Michio Kaku offers a nice
metaphor to explain this. The<BR>universe was originally a perfect gem,
smooth (marble) on the outside and<BR>rough (wood) on the inside. All the
current fields, such as gravity,<BR>electro-magnetic, "strong" and electro-weak,
were unified into a single<BR>field-- that is, the "gem" had an unbroken outer
surface. But it existed in<BR>nine spatial dimensions. A fraction of
a second after the big bang, the gem<BR>exploded. Six of the dimensions
contracted while the other three expanded.<BR>The exploding gem littered our
three dimensional universe with its<BR>fragments, the smooth sides of which are
the various fields, while the rough<BR>sides are the atoms.<BR><BR>> The
proprositions that time can run backwards is not unique to him but is<BR>>
common to the simplistic mathematical modelling of that approach to<BR>>
science, and I suggest is a fundamentally idealist, non-materialist<BR>>
assumption. (i.e. I suggest that along with a basic assumption
that<BR>reality<BR>> exists, a materialist approach needs to posit that time
runs forwards, and<BR>> cannot run backwards.)<BR><BR>Einstein equated time
with space for the simple reason that they can both<BR>appear on the same
graph. If you want to graph velocity, let x equal space<BR>and y equal
time. You can see how easy it is to fall into the trap of<BR>regarding
time as essentially equivalent to space. Past and future are<BR>reduced to
left and right, but for some mysterious reason we're stuck in our<BR>awareness
of what lies to the "left" while always being oriented toward
the<BR>"right." If we would only see with God's eyes, we'd see all of time
laid<BR>out just like space, and we could move about it however we
pleased.<BR>Einstein once said, "People like us, who believe in physics, know
the<BR>distinction between past, present, and future is only a
stubbornly<BR>persistent illusion." This is a beautiful example of
auto-deconstruction.<BR>If time is an illusion, how can it be "stubbornly
persistent"? What is it<BR>persisting through?<BR><BR>Actually, Einstein
had nothing to say about time. He was describing an<BR>ideal abstraction
of time. He could never get inside time but could only<BR>describe the way
things in space relate to it. A clock in a rocket<BR>traveling near the
speed of light will tick more slowly. Does that mean<BR>time itself has
slowed down inside the rocket? No. It just means that the<BR>way the
rocket relates to time differs from the way the rest of the universe<BR>relates
to it. Time is not merely its exterior, i.e. its relation to
space.<BR>Time is absolute, as demonstrated by the living occupant of the
rocket,<BR>whose intrinsic sense of time is unaltered, regardless of the
velocity.<BR><BR>Many contemporary physicists believe they've stumbled upon the
key to<BR>building a time machine that will take us into the past. With
enough<BR>energy, we ought to be able to initiate a "wormhole," the near end of
which<BR>is stationary while the far end travels near the speed of light.
This means<BR>that the far end is traveling through time more slowly than the
near end.<BR>Since the wormhole is merely stretching a tiny bit of space, when
you enter<BR>the near end you pop out almost instantaneously on the other end,
no matter<BR>how far it's traveled. Let's say you inititate the wormhole
at twelve<BR>o'clock. At one o'clock, it's still only 12:30 at the far
end, which is<BR>going through time only half as quickly. Thus, if you
enter the wormhole<BR>where it's stationary, you'll emerge from the far end half
an hour earlier.<BR>But have you really traveled backward in time? Not
really. It just means<BR>you've gone back in time *relative to the other
end of the wormhole.* You<BR>cannot go backwards through absolute
time. You cannot come out of the far<BR>end of the wormhole at a moment
prior to the construction of the wormhole<BR>itself.<BR><BR>> His assertion
that the speed of light never changes is arbitrary and<BR>> strange. It seems
to me linked to the idealist thread I am suggesting<BR>> existed in his
thinking.<BR><BR>The mistake here is believing that laws of physics are
absolute. Really a<BR>better word would be "habits" of physics.
Every so-called "law" of physics<BR>had to be established historically.
There's no transcendent "ideal" realm<BR>from which laws could be given prior to
the big bang.<BR><BR>Ted</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>