Tag Archives: l'espace et le temps

What Does it Feel Like to be a Bat?

It is a sensible question: What does it feel like to be a bat? Although we can never really know the answer (because we can never be bats), we know that there is an answer. It feels like something to be a bat. Bien, at least we think it does. We think bats have conscience and conscious feelings. D'autre part, it is not a sensible question to ask what it feels like to be brick or a table. It doesn’t feel like anything to be an inanimate object.

Continuer la lecture

What is Unreal Blog?

Tell us a little about why you started your blog, and what keeps you motivated about it.

As my writings started appearing in different magazines and newspapers as regular columns, I wanted to collect them in one place — as an anthology of the internet kind, pour ainsi dire. That’s how my blog was born. The motivation to continue blogging comes from the memory of how my first book, L'Unreal Univers, took shape out of the random notes I started writing on scrap books. I believe the ideas that cross anybody’s mind often get forgotten and lost unless they are written down. A blog is a convenient platform to put them down. Et, since the blog is rather public, you take some care and effort to express yourself well.

Do you have any plans for the blog in the future?

I will keep blogging, roughly at the rate of one post a week or so. I don’t have any big plans for the blog per se, but I do have some other Internet ideas that may spring from my blog.

Philosophy is usually seen as a very high concept, intellectual subject. Do you think that it can have a greater impact in the world at large?

This is a question that troubled me for a while. And I wrote a post on it, which may answer it to the best of my ability. To repeat myself a bit, philosophy is merely a description of whatever intellectual pursuits that we indulge in. It is just that we don’t often see it that way. Par exemple, if you are doing physics, you think that you are quite far removed from philosophy. The philosophical spins that you put on a theory in physics is mostly an afterthought, it is believed. But there are instances where you can actually apply philosophy to solve problems in physics, and come up with new theories. This indeed is the theme of my book, L'Unreal Univers. It asks the question, if some object flew by faster than the speed of light, what would it look like? With the recent discovery that solid matter does travel faster than light, I feel vindicated and look forward to further developments in physics.

Do you think many college students are attracted to philosophy? What would make them choose to major in it?

Dans le monde d'aujourd'hui, I am afraid philosophy is supremely irrelevant. So it may be difficult to get our youngsters interested in philosophy. I feel that one can hope to improve its relevance by pointing out the interconnections between whatever it is that we do and the intellectual aspects behind it. Would that make them choose to major in it? In a world driven by excesses, it may not be enough. Puis à nouveau, it is world where articulation is often mistaken for accomplishments. Perhaps philosophy can help you articulate better, sound really cool and impress that girl you have been after — to put it crudely.

More seriously, bien que, what I said about the irrelevance of philosophy can be said about, dire, physics as well, despite the fact that it gives you computers and iPads. Par exemple, when Copernicus came up with the notion that the earth is revolving around the sun rather than the other way round, profound though this revelation was, in what way did it change our daily life? Do you really have to know this piece of information to live your life? This irrelevance of such profound facts and theories bothered scientists like Richard Feynman.

What kind of advice or recommendations would you give to someone who is interested in philosophy, and who would like to start learning more about it?

I started my path toward philosophy via physics. I think philosophy by itself is too detached from anything else that you cannot really start with it. You have to find your way toward it from whatever your work entails, and then expand from there. Au moins, that’s how I did it, and that way made it very real. When you ask yourself a question like what is space (so that you can understand what it means to say that space contracts, par exemple), the answers you get are very relevant. They are not some philosophical gibberish. I think similar paths to relevance exist in all fields. See for example how Pirsig brought out the notion of quality in his work, not as an abstract definition, but as an all-consuming (and eventually dangerous) obsession.

À mon avis, philosophy is a wrapper around multiple silos of human endeavor. It helps you see the links among seemingly unrelated fields, such as cognitive neuroscience and special relativity. Of what practical use is this knowledge, I cannot tell you. Puis à nouveau, of what practical use is life itself?

Seule une question de temps

Bien que nous parlons de l'espace et le temps dans le même souffle, ils sont très différents à bien des égards. L'espace est quelque chose que nous percevons autour de nous. Nous voyons (rather, objets qu'il contient), nous pouvons passer la main à travers elle, et nous savons que si notre genou tente d'occuper le même espace que, dire, la table basse, il va faire mal. En d'autres termes, nous avons corrélats sensorielles à notre notion d'espace, à partir de notre plus précieux sens de la vue.

Time, d'autre part, n'a pas le soutien sensorielle directe. Et pour cette raison, il devient très difficile d'avoir une emprise sur elle. Quelle heure est-? Nous sentons indirectement par le changement et le mouvement. Mais il serait stupide de définir le temps en utilisant les concepts de changement et de mouvement, parce qu'ils comprennent déjà la notion de temps. La définition serait cyclique.

En supposant, pour l'instant, qu'aucune définition est nécessaire, nous allons essayer une autre question peut-être plus traitable. D'où vient ce fort sentiment de temps viennent de? une fois que je postulé que cela vient de notre connaissance de notre disparition — ce don douteux que nous possédons tous. Toutes les durées de temps que nous connaissons sont mesurés à l'aune de notre durée de vie, peut-être pas toujours consciemment. Je me demande maintenant si ce postulat est assez ferme, et d'autres ruminations sur cette question me ont convaincu que je suis tout à fait ignorant de ces choses et besoin de plus de connaissances. Ah.. seulement si j'avais plus de temps. 🙂

Dans tout les cas, même cette question plus restreinte de l'origine du temps ne semble pas être que traitable, après tout. Physique a un autre problème profond avec le temps. Il a à voir avec la directionnalité. Il ne peut pas expliquer facilement pourquoi le temps a une direction — une flèche, pour ainsi dire. Cette flèche ne se présente pas dans les lois fondamentales régissant les interactions physiques. Toutes les lois de la physique sont réversibles temps. Les lois de la gravité, électromagnétisme ou la mécanique quantique sont invariantes par rapport à un retournement temporel. C'est-à-dire, ils regardent la même chose avec le temps aller de l'avant ou vers l'arrière. Donc, ils ne donnent aucune indication quant à la raison pour laquelle nous expérimentons la flèche du temps.

Encore, nous savons que le temps, comme nous l'expérimentons, est directionnel. Nous pouvons rappeler le passé, mais pas l'avenir. Ce que nous pouvons maintenant affecter l'avenir, mais pas le passé. Si nous jouons une cassette vidéo en arrière, la séquence d'événements (morceaux brisés comme de verre qui se réunissent pour un vase) se penchera drôle à nous. Cependant, si nous avons enregistré le mouvement des planètes dans un système solaire, ou le nuage d'électrons dans un atome, et joué vers l'arrière pour un physicien, il ne serait pas trouver quelque chose de drôle dans les séquences parce que les lois physiques sont réversibles.

Physique considère la flèche du temps une propriété émergente des collections statistiques. Pour illustrer cette explication thermodynamique du temps, nous allons examiner un conteneur vide où nous plaçons la glace sèche. Après un certain temps, nous nous attendons à une distribution uniforme de gaz de dioxyde de carbone dans le récipient. Une fois étalé, nous ne prévoyons pas le gaz dans le récipient à coaguler dans de la glace sèche solide, peu importe combien de temps nous attendons. La vidéo de CO2 d'étalement uniforme dans le récipient est naturel. Joué en arrière, la séquence du gaz de CO2 dans le récipient de congélation de la glace solide sec dans un coin ne serait pas l'air naturel pour nous, car elle viole notre sens de la flèche du temps.

L'uniformité apparente de CO2 dans le récipient est dû à la quantité statistiquement significative de la glace carbonique nous y placés. Si nous parvenons à mettre une petite quantité, dire cinq molécules de CO2, nous pouvons nous attendre pleinement de voir l'assemblée des molécules dans un seul endroit une fois dans un certain temps. Ainsi, la flèche du temps se manifeste comme une propriété statistique ou thermodynamique. Bien que la directionnalité du temps semble émerger des lois physiques réversibles, son absence dans les lois fondamentales ne ressemble moins que satisfaisante philosophiquement.

Un demi-seau d'eau

Nous avons tous voir et sentir l'espace, mais ce qui est vraiment? L'espace est une de ces choses fondamentales qu'un philosophe peut envisager une “intuition.” Lorsque philosophes regardent rien, ils obtiennent un peu technique. Est-espace relationnel, comme dans l', défini en termes de relations entre les objets? Une entité relationnelle est comme votre famille — vous avez vos parents, frères et sœurs, époux, enfants etc. formant ce que vous considérez votre famille. Mais votre famille elle-même ne est pas une entité physique, mais seulement un ensemble de relations. L'espace est aussi quelque chose comme ça? Ou est-il plus comme un conteneur physique où les objets résident et font leur chose?

Vous pouvez considérer la distinction entre les deux juste un autre de ces hairsplittings philosophiques, mais il ne est vraiment pas. Quel espace est, et même ce type d'espace d'entité est, a d'énormes implications en physique. Par exemple, se il est de nature relationnelle, puis, en l'absence de la matière, il n'y a pas d'espace. Tout comme en l'absence de membres de sa famille, vous avez pas de famille. D'autre part, si ce est une entité de type conteneur, l'espace existe même si vous enlevez toutes les matières, attendre un peu de matière à comparaître.

Et alors, vous demandez? Bien, nous allons jeter un demi-seau d'eau et de spin autour. Une fois l'eau dans les captures sur, sa surface se former une forme parabolique — vous savez, force centrifuge, pesanteur, la tension superficielle et que toutes. Maintenant, arrêter le seau, et tourner tout l'univers autour de lui à la place. Je sais, il est plus difficile. Mais imaginez que vous le faites. Sera la surface de l'eau est parabolique? Je pense que ce sera, parce qu'il n'y a pas beaucoup de différence entre le tournant de seau ou tout l'univers tourner autour d'elle.

Maintenant, imaginons que nous vidons l'univers. Il n'y a rien, mais ce seau à moitié plein. Maintenant, il tourne autour. Qu'advient-il de la surface de l'eau? Si l'espace est relationnelle, en l'absence de l'univers, il n'y a pas d'espace à l'extérieur du godet et il n'y a aucun moyen de savoir qu'il est en rotation. surface de l'eau doit être plat. (En fait, il devrait être sphérique, mais ils ignorent que, pour une seconde.) Et si l'espace est semblable à un conteneur, le seau de filature devrait se traduire par une surface parabolique.

Bien sûr, nous ne avons aucun moyen de savoir de quelle manière il va être parce que nous ne avons aucun moyen de vider l'univers et filer un seau. Mais cela ne nous empêche pas de deviner la nature de l'espace et de la construction de théories fondées sur elle. L'espace de Newton est semblable à un conteneur, tout en leur cœur, Les théories d'Einstein ont une notion relationnelle de l'espace.

Si, vous voyez, La philosophie ne importe.

Pourquoi la vitesse de la lumière?

What is so special about light that its speed should figure in the basic structure of space and time and our reality? This is the question that has nagged many scientists ever since Albert Einstein published On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies about 100 years ago.

In order to understand the specialness of light in our space and time, we need to study how we perceive the world around us and how reality is created in our brains. We perceive our world using our senses. The sensory signals that our senses collect are then relayed to our brains. The brain creates a cognitive model, a representation of the sensory inputs, and presents it to our conscious awareness as reality. Our visual reality consists of space much like our auditory world is made up of sounds.

Tout comme les sons sont une expérience perceptive plutôt qu'une propriété fondamentale de la réalité physique,,en,l'espace est aussi une expérience,,en,ou une représentation cognitive des entrées visuelles,,en,pas un aspect fondamental de,,en,le monde,,en,nos sens essayent de sentir,,en,L'espace et le temps forment ensemble ce que la physique considère comme la base de la réalité,,en,La seule façon de comprendre les limites de notre réalité est d'étudier les limites de nos sens eux-mêmes.,,en,À un niveau fondamental,,en,comment fonctionnent nos sens,,en,Notre sens de la vue opère en utilisant la lumière,,en,et l'interaction fondamentale impliquée dans la vue tombe dans le électromagnétique,,en,MS,,pt,catégorie parce que la lumière,,en,ou photon,,en,est l'intermédiaire des interactions EM,,en,L'exclusivité de l'interaction EM ne se limite pas à notre sens de la vision à longue distance,,en,tous les sens à court terme,,en,toucher,,en,goût,,en, space also is an experience, or a cognitive representation of the visual inputs, not a fundamental aspect of “the world” our senses are trying to sense.

Space and time together form what physics considers the basis of reality. The only way we can understand the limitations in our reality is by studying the limitations in our senses themselves.

At a fundamental level, how do our senses work? Our sense of sight operates using light, and the fundamental interaction involved in sight falls in the electromagnetic (EM) category because light (or photon) is the intermediary of EM interactions. The exclusivity of EM interaction is not limited to our the long range sense of sight; all the short range senses (touch, taste, odeur et audition,,en,sont également EM dans la nature,,en,Comprendre les limites de notre perception de l'espace,,en,nous n'avons pas besoin de mettre en évidence la nature EM de tous nos sens,,en,L'espace est,,en,le résultat de notre sens de la vue,,en,Mais il est utile de garder à l'esprit que nous n'aurions pas de détection,,en,et en effet pas de réalité,,en,en l'absence d'interactions EM,,en,Comme nos sens,,en,toutes nos extensions technologiques à nos sens,,en,tels que les radiotélescopes,,en,microscopes électroniques,,en,mesures redshift et même lentilles gravitationnelles,,en,utiliser les interactions EM exclusivement pour mesurer notre univers,,en,nous ne pouvons pas échapper aux contraintes de base de notre perception, même lorsque nous utilisons des instruments modernes,,en,Le télescope Hubble peut voir un milliard d'années-lumière plus loin que nos yeux nus,,en,Notre réalité perçue,,en,si construit sur les entrées sensorielles directes ou technologiquement améliorées,,en) are also EM in nature. To understand the limitations of our perception of space, we need not highlight the EM nature of all our senses. Space is, dans l'ensemble, the result of our sight sense. But it is worthwhile to keep in mind that we would have no sensing, and indeed no reality, in the absence of EM interactions.

Like our senses, all our technological extensions to our senses (such as radio telescopes, electron microscopes, redshift measurements and even gravitational lensing) use EM interactions exclusively to measure our universe. Ainsi, we cannot escape the basic constraints of our perception even when we use modern instruments. The Hubble telescope may see a billion light years farther than our naked eyes, mais ce qu'il voit est encore un milliard d'années de plus que ce que nos yeux voient. Our perceived reality, whether built upon direct sensory inputs or technologically enhanced, est un sous-ensemble de particules électromagnétiques et d'interactions seulement,,en,C'est une projection de particules et d'interactions EM dans notre espace sensoriel et cognitif,,en,une projection éventuellement imparfaite,,en,Cette déclaration sur l'exclusivité des interactions EM dans notre réalité perçue est souvent rencontrée avec un peu de scepticisme,,en,principalement en raison d'une idée fausse que nous pouvons sentir la gravité directement,,en,Cette confusion provient du fait que nos corps sont soumis à la gravité,,en,Il y a une belle distinction entre,,en,être soumis à,,en,être capable de sentir,,en,force gravitationnelle,,en,Cette différence est illustrée par une simple expérience de pensée,,en,Imaginez un sujet humain placé devant un objet entièrement fait de matière noire cosmologique,,en,Il n'y a pas d'autre matière visible nulle part le sujet peut le voir,,en. It is a projection of EM particles and interactions into our sensory and cognitive space, a possibly imperfect projection.

This statement about the exclusivity of EM interactions in our perceived reality is often met with a bit of skepticism, mainly due to a misconception that we can sense gravity directly. This confusion arises because our bodies are subject to gravity. There is a fine distinction between “being subject to” et “being able to sense” gravitational force.

This difference is illustrated by a simple thought experiment: Imagine a human subject placed in front of an object made entirely of cosmological dark matter. There is no other visible matter anywhere the subject can see it. Étant donné que la matière noire exerce une force gravitationnelle sur le sujet,,en,Sera-t-il capable de sentir sa présence,,en,Il sera tiré vers lui,,en,mais comment va-t-il savoir qu'il est tiré ou qu'il se déplace,,en,Il peut éventuellement concevoir un engin mécanique pour détecter la gravité de l'objet de la matière noire,,en,Mais alors, il va sentir l'effet de la gravité sur une certaine matière en utilisant des interactions EM,,en,il peut être en mesure de voir son accélération inexpliquée,,en,effet de la gravité sur son corps,,en,ce qui est EM question,,en,par rapport aux objets de référence tels que les étoiles,,en,Mais la partie sensible ici,,en,voir les étoiles,,en,implique des interactions EM,,en,Il est impossible de concevoir un engin mécanique pour détecter une gravité dépourvue de matière électromagnétique,,en,La détection de la gravité dans nos oreilles mesure à nouveau l'effet de la gravité sur la matière électromagnétique,,en, will he be able to sense its presence? He will be pulled toward it, but how will he know that he is being pulled or that he is moving? He can possibly design some mechanical contraption to detect the gravity of the dark matter object. But then he will be sensing the effect of gravity on some matter using EM interactions. Par exemple, he may be able to see his unexplained acceleration (effect of gravity on his body, which is EM matter) with respect to reference objects such as stars. But the sensing part here (seeing the stars) involves EM interactions.

It is impossible to design any mechanical contraption to detect gravity that is devoid of EM matter. The gravity sensing in our ears again measures the effect of gravity on EM matter. En l'absence d'interaction EM,,en,il est impossible de sentir la gravité,,en,ou toute autre chose d'ailleurs,,en,Les interactions électromagnétiques sont responsables de nos entrées sensorielles,,en,La perception sensorielle conduit à la représentation de notre cerveau que nous appelons la réalité,,en,Toute limitation dans cette chaîne conduit à une limitation correspondante de notre sens de la réalité,,en,Une limitation de la chaîne des sens à la réalité est la vitesse finie du photon,,en,qui est le boson de jauge de nos sens,,en,La vitesse finie de la modalité sensorielle influence et déforme notre perception du mouvement,,en,Parce que ces distorsions sont perçues comme faisant partie de notre réalité même,,en,la cause profonde de la distorsion devient une propriété fondamentale de notre réalité,,en,C'est ainsi que la vitesse de la lumière devient une constante si importante dans notre espace-temps,,en, it is impossible to sense gravity, or anything else for that matter.

Electromagnetic interactions are responsible for our sensory inputs. Sensory perception leads to our brain’s representation that we call reality. Any limitation in this chain leads to a corresponding limitation in our sense of reality. One limitation in the chain from senses to reality is the finite speed of photon, which is the gauge boson of our senses. The finite speed of the sense modality influences and distorts our perception of motion, l'espace et le temps. Because these distortions are perceived as a part of our reality itself, the root cause of the distortion becomes a fundamental property of our reality. This is how the speed of light becomes such an important constant in our space time. Le caractère sacré de la lumière n'est respecté que dans notre réalité perçue,,en,Si nous faisons confiance à la perception imparfaite et essayons de décrire ce que nous ressentons aux échelles cosmologiques,,en,nous nous retrouvons avec des vues du monde telles que la théorie du big bang dans la cosmologie moderne et les théories générales et spéciales de la relativité,,en,Ces théories ne sont pas fausses,,en,et le but de ce livre n'est pas de leur prouver le contraire,,en,juste pour souligner qu'ils sont des descriptions d'une réalité perçue,,en,Ils ne décrivent pas les causes physiques derrière les entrées sensorielles,,en,Les causes physiques appartiennent à une réalité absolue au-delà de nos sens,,en,La distinction entre la réalité absolue et notre perception de celle-ci peut être développée et appliquée à certains,,en,astrophysique spécifique,,en,phénomènes cosmologiques,,en.

If we trust the imperfect perception and try to describe what we sense at cosmological scales, we end up with views of the world such as the big bang theory in modern cosmology and the general and special theories of relativity. These theories are not wrong, and the purpose of this book is not to prove them wrong, just to point out that they are descriptions of a perceived reality. They do not describe the physical causes behind the sensory inputs. The physical causes belong to an absolute reality beyond our senses.

The distinction between the absolute reality and our perception of it can be further developed and applied to certain specific astrophysical et cosmological phenomena. Quand il s'agit de la physique qui se passe bien au-delà de nos gammes sensorielles,,en,L'univers tel que nous le voyons n'est qu'un modèle cognitif créé à partir des photons tombant sur notre rétine ou sur les photodétecteurs du télescope Hubble,,en,notre perception est déformée de manière à nous donner l'impression que l'espace et le temps obéissent à la relativité restreinte,,en,Ils ne sont qu'une partie du,,en,c'est notre perception d'une réalité inconnaissable,,en,Ceci est encore un extrait édité de mon livre,,en,expérience perceptuelle,,en,entrées visuelles,,en,réalité visuelle,,en,Entrées sensorielles Archives,,en, nous devons vraiment prendre en compte le rôle que notre perception et le jeu de la cognition à les voir. The universe as we see it is only a cognitive model created out of the photons falling on our retina or on the photo sensors of the Hubble telescope. En raison de la vitesse limitée du support d'informations (à savoir photons), our perception is distorted in such a way as to give us the impression that space and time obey special relativity. Ils le font, mais l'espace et le temps ne sont pas la réalité absolue. They are only a part of the unreal universe that is our perception of an unknowable reality.

[This again is an edited excerpt from my book, L'Unreal Univers.]

What is Space?

This sounds like a strange question. We all know what space is, it is all around us. When we open our eyes, we see it. Si voir c'est croire, then the question “Qu'est-ce que l'espace?” indeed is a strange one.

Pour être juste, we don’t actually see space. We see only objects which we assume are in space. Plutôt, we define space as whatever it is that holds or contains the objects. It is the arena where objects do their thing, the backdrop of our experience. En d'autres termes, experience presupposes space and time, and provides the basis for the worldview behind the currently popular interpretations of scientific theories.

Although not obvious, this definition (or assumption or understanding) of space comes with a philosophical baggage — that of realism. The realist’s view is predominant in the current understanding of Einstien’s theories as well. But Einstein himself may not have embraced realism blindly. Why else would he say:

In order to break away from the grip of realism, we have to approach the question tangentially. One way to do it is by studying the neuroscience and cognitive basis of sight, which after all provides the strongest evidence to the realness of space. Espace, dans l'ensemble, is the experience associated with sight. Another way is to examine experiential correlates of other senses: What is sound?

When we hear something, what we hear is, naturellement, son. We experience a tone, an intensity and a time variation that tell us a lot about who is talking, what is breaking and so on. But even after stripping off all the extra richness added to the experience by our brain, the most basic experience is still a “sound.” We all know what it is, but we cannot explain it in terms more basic than that.

Now let’s look at the sensory signal responsible for hearing. As we know, these are pressure waves in the air that are created by a vibrating body making compressions and depressions in the air around it. Much like the ripples in a pond, these pressure waves propagate in almost all directions. They are picked up by our ears. By a clever mechanism, the ears perform a spectral analysis and send electric signals, which roughly correspond to the frequency spectrum of the waves, to our brain. Noter que, so far, we have a vibrating body, bunching and spreading of air molecules, and an electric signal that contains information about the pattern of the air molecules. We do not have sound yet.

The experience of sound is the magic our brain performs. It translates the electrical signal encoding the air pressure wave patterns to a representation of tonality and richness of sound. Sound is not the intrinsic property of a vibrating body or a falling tree, it is the way our brain chooses to represent the vibrations or, more precisely, the electrical signal encoding the spectrum of the pressure waves.

Doesn’t it make sense to call sound an internal cognitive representation of our auditory sensory inputs? If you agree, then reality itself is our internal representation of our sensory inputs. This notion is actually much more profound that it first appears. If sound is representation, so is smell. So is space.

Figure
Figure: Illustration of the process of brain’s representation of sensory inputs. Odors are a representation of the chemical compositions and concentration levels our nose senses. Les sons sont une cartographie des ondes de pression d'air produites par un objet qui vibre. En vue, notre représentation de l'espace, et éventuellement le temps. Cependant, we do not know what it is the representation of.

We can examine it and fully understand sound because of one remarkable fact — we have a more powerful sense, namely our sight. Sight enables us to understand the sensory signals of hearing and compare them to our sensory experience. En vigueur, sight enables us to make a model describing what sound is.

Why is it that we do not know the physical cause behind space? Après tout, we know of the causes behind the experiences of smell, son, etc. The reason for our inability to see beyond the visual reality is in the hierarchy of senses, best illustrated using an example. Let’s consider a small explosion, like a firecracker going off. When we experience this explosion, we will see the flash, hear the report, smell the burning chemicals and feel the heat, if we are close enough.

The qualia of these experiences are attributed to the same physical event — the explosion, the physics of which is well understood. Maintenant, let’s see if we can fool the senses into having the same experiences, in the absence of a real explosion. The heat and the smell are fairly easy to reproduce. The experience of the sound can also be created using, par exemple, a high-end home theater system. How do we recreate the experience of the sight of the explosion? A home theater experience is a poor reproduction of the real thing.

In principle at least, we can think of futuristic scenarios such as the holideck in Star Trek, where the experience of the sight can be recreated. But at the point where sight is also recreated, is there a difference between the real experience of the explosion and the holideck simulation? The blurring of the sense of reality when the sight experience is simulated indicates that sight is our most powerful sense, and we have no access to causes beyond our visual reality.

Visual perception is the basis of our sense of reality. All other senses provide corroborating or complementing perceptions to the visual reality.

[This post has borrowed quite a bit from my book.]

Voyage dans le Temps légers effets et fonctionnalités cosmologiques

This unpublished article is a sequel to my earlier paper (also posted here as “Sont des sources radio et Gamma Ray Bursts Luminal Booms?“). Cette version de blog contient le résumé, introduction et conclusions. La version complète de l'article est disponible sous forme de fichier PDF.

.

Résumé

Light travel time effects (LTT) are an optical manifestation of the finite speed of light. They can also be considered perceptual constraints to the cognitive picture of space and time. Based on this interpretation of LTT effects, we recently presented a new hypothetical model for the temporal and spatial variation of the spectrum of Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) and radio sources. Dans cet article,, we take the analysis further and show that LTT effects can provide a good framework to describe such cosmological features as the redshift observation of an expanding universe, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. The unification of these seemingly distinct phenomena at vastly different length and time scales, avec sa simplicité conceptuelle, can be regarded as indicators of the curious usefulness of this framework, if not its validity.

Introduction

The finite speed of light plays an important part in how we perceive distance and speed. This fact should hardly come as a surprise because we do know that things are not as we see them. The sun that we see, par exemple, is already eight minutes old by the time we see it. This delay is trivial; si nous voulons savoir ce qui se passe sur le soleil maintenant, tout ce que nous avons à faire est d'attendre huit minutes. Nous, nonetheless, have to “correct” for this distortion in our perception due to the finite speed of light before we can trust what we see.

Ce qui est surprenant (et rarement mis en évidence) est que quand il s'agit de détecter le mouvement, nous ne pouvons pas rétro-calculer de la même façon dont nous prenons le retard en voyant le soleil. Si nous voyons un corps céleste se déplaçant à une vitesse incroyablement élevée, nous ne pouvons pas comprendre comment rapide et dans quelle direction il est “vraiment” déplacer sans faire d'autres hypothèses. One way of handling this difficulty is to ascribe the distortions in our perception of motion to the fundamental properties of the arena of physics — l'espace et le temps. Un autre cours de l'action est d'accepter la déconnexion entre notre perception et le sous-jacent “réalité” et de traiter avec elle d'une certaine façon.

Exploring the second option, we assume an underlying reality that gives rise to our perceived picture. We further model this underlying reality as obeying classical mechanics, and work out our perceived picture through the apparatus of perception. En d'autres termes, we do not attribute the manifestations of the finite speed of light to the properties of the underlying reality. Plutôt, we work out our perceived picture that this model predicts and verify whether the properties we do observe can originate from this perceptual constraint.

Espace, the objects in it, and their motion are, dans l'ensemble, the product of optical perception. One tends to take it for granted that perception arises from reality as one perceives it. Dans cet article,, we take the position that what we perceive is an incomplete or distorted picture of an underlying reality. Further, we are trying out classical mechanics for the the underlying reality (for which we use terms like absolute, noumenal or physical reality) that does cause our perception to see if it fits with our perceived picture (which we may refer to as sensed or phenomenal reality).

Note that we are not implying that the manifestations of perception are mere delusions. They are not; they are indeed part of our sensed reality because reality is an end result of perception. This insight may be behind Goethe’s famous statement, “Illusion d'optique est la vérité optique.”

We applied this line of thinking to a physics problem recently. We looked at the spectral evolution of a GRB and found it to be remarkably similar to that in a sonic boom. Using this fact, we presented a model for GRB as our perception of a “luminale” boom, with the understanding that it is our perceived picture of reality that obeys Lorentz invariance and our model for the underlying reality (causing the perceived picture) may violate relativistic physics. The striking agreement between the model and the observed features, cependant, extended beyond GRBs to symmetric radio sources, which can also be regarded as perceptual effects of hypothetical luminal booms.

Dans cet article,, we look at other implications of the model. We start with the similarities between the light travel time (LTT) effects and the coordinate transformation in Special Relativity (SR). These similarities are hardly surprising because SR is derived partly based on LTT effects. We then propose an interpretation of SR as a formalization of LTT effects and study a few observed cosmological phenomena in the light of this interpretation.

Similarities between Light Travel Time Effects and SR

Special relativity seeks a linear coordinate transformation between coordinate systems in motion with respect to each other. We can trace the origin of linearity to a hidden assumption on the nature of space and time built into SR, comme l'a dit Einstein: “En premier lieu, il est clair que les équations doivent être linéaire en raison des propriétés d'homogénéité que nous attribuons à l'espace et le temps.” En raison de cette hypothèse de linéarité, the original derivation of the transformation equations ignores the asymmetry between approaching and receding objects. Tant l'approche et les objets recul peut être décrite par deux systèmes qui sont toujours s'éloigne de l'autre coordonnée. Par exemple, si un système K se déplace par rapport à un autre système k le long de l'axe X positif de k, alors un objet au repos dans K à un positif x is receding while another object at a negative x est l'approche d'un observateur à l'origine de k.

The coordinate transformation in Einstein’s original paper is derived, en partie, a manifestation of the light travel time (LTT) effects and the consequence of imposing the constancy of light speed in all inertial frames. Ceci est particulièrement évident dans la première expérience de pensée, where observers moving with a rod find their clocks not synchronized due to the difference in light travel times along the length of the rod. Cependant, in the current interpretation of SR, la transformation de coordonnées est considéré comme une propriété fondamentale de l'espace et le temps.

One difficulty that arises from this interpretation of SR is that the definition of the relative velocity between the two inertial frames becomes ambiguous. S'il s'agit de la vitesse de la structure mobile, telle que mesurée par l'observateur, then the observed superluminal motion in radio jets starting from the core region becomes a violation of SR. If it is a velocity that we have to deduce by considering LT effects, then we have to employ the extra ad-hoc assumption that superluminality is forbidden. These difficulties suggest that it may be better to disentangle the light travel time effects from the rest of SR.

In this section, nous allons considérer l'espace et du temps dans le cadre du modèle cognitif créé par le cerveau, and argue that special relativity applies to the cognitive model. La réalité absolue (of which the SR-like space-time is our perception) does not have to obey the restrictions of SR. En particulier, les objets ne sont pas limités à des vitesses Subluminal, but they may appear to us as though they are restricted to subluminal speeds in our perception of space and time. If we disentangle LTT effects from the rest of SR, nous pouvons comprendre un large éventail de phénomènes, as we shall see in this article.

Unlike SR, considérations fondées sur les effets LTT entraînent ensemble intrinsèquement différente des lois de transformation des objets qui s'approchent un observateur et ceux qui s'éloignent de lui. Plus généralement, la transformation dépend de l'angle entre la vitesse de l'objet et le champ de vision de l'observateur,. Depuis les équations de transformation basé sur les effets LTT traitent l'approche et le recul des objets asymétrique, ils offrent une solution naturelle pour le paradoxe des jumeaux, par exemple.

Conclusions

Parce que l'espace et le temps sont une partie d'une réalité créée des apports de lumière à nos yeux, certaines de leurs propriétés sont des manifestations d'effets LTT, en particulier sur notre perception du mouvement. L'absolu, physical reality presumably generating the light inputs does not have to obey the properties we ascribe to our perceived space and time.

We showed that LTT effects are qualitatively identical to those of SR, noting that SR only considers frames of reference receding from each other. This similarity is not surprising because the coordinate transformation in SR is derived based partly on LTT effects, et en partie sur le principe que la lumière se déplace à la même vitesse par rapport à toutes les trames d'inertie. En le traitant comme une manifestation de LTT, we did not address the primary motivation of SR, qui est une formulation covariante des équations de Maxwell. Il peut être possible d'isoler la covariance de l'électrodynamique de la transformation de coordonnées, bien qu'il ne soit pas tenté dans cet article.

Unlike SR, LTT effets sont asymétriques. Cette asymétrie fournit une résolution au paradoxe des jumeaux et une interprétation des violations présumées de causalité associé à superluminality. En outre, la perception de superluminality est modulée par les effets LTT, and explains gamma ray bursts and symmetric jets. Comme nous l'avons montré dans l'article, perception of superluminal motion also holds an explanation for cosmological phenomena like the expansion of the universe and cosmic microwave background radiation. LTT effets doivent être considérés comme une contrainte fondamentale dans notre perception, et par conséquent, en physique, plutôt que comme une explication commode pour des phénomènes isolés.

Étant donné que notre perception est filtré à travers des effets LTT, nous devons les déconvolution de notre réalité perçue afin de comprendre la nature de l'absolu, la réalité physique. Cette déconvolution, cependant, résultats dans de multiples solutions. Ainsi, l'absolu, la réalité physique est hors de notre portée, et toute supposé propriétés de la réalité absolue ne peuvent être validées par la façon dont la résultante perçue la réalité est d'accord avec nos observations. Dans cet article,, we assumed that the underlying reality obeys our intuitively obvious classical mechanics and asked the question how such a reality would be perceived when filtered through light travel time effects. Nous avons démontré que ce traitement particulier pourrait expliquer certains phénomènes astrophysiques et cosmologiques que nous observons.

The coordinate transformation in SR can be viewed as a redefinition of space and time (ou, plus généralement,, réalité) in order to accommodate the distortions in our perception of motion due to light travel time effects. One may be tempted to argue that SR applies to the “réel” l'espace et le temps, pas notre perception. Cette argumentation peut se poser la question, ce qui est réel? Reality is only a cognitive model created in our brain starting from our sensory inputs, stimuli visuels étant la plus importante. Espace lui-même est une partie de ce modèle cognitif. Les propriétés de l'espace sont une cartographie des contraintes de notre perception.

The choice of accepting our perception as a true image of reality and redefining space and time as described in special relativity indeed amounts to a philosophical choice. The alternative presented in the article is inspired by the view in modern neuroscience that reality is a cognitive model in the brain based on our sensory inputs. Adoption de cette option nous réduit à deviner la nature de la réalité absolue et en comparant sa projection prédit à notre perception réelle. It may simplify and elucidate some theories in physics and explain some puzzling phenomena in our universe. Cependant, cette option est encore une autre position philosophique contre la réalité absolue inconnaissable.

The Philosophy of Special RelativityA Comparison between Indian and Western Interpretations

Résumé: The Western philosophical phenomenalism could be treated as a kind of philosophical basis of the special theory of relativity. The perceptual limitations of our senses hold the key to the understanding of relativistic postulates. The specialness of the speed of light in our phenomenal space and time is more a matter of our perceptual apparatus, than an input postulate to the special theory of relativity. The author believes that the parallels among the phenomenological, Western spiritual and the Eastern Advaita interpretations of special relativity point to an exciting possibility of unifying the Eastern and Western schools of thought to some extent.

Editor

Key Words: Relativity, Speed of Light, Phénoménalisme, Advaita.

Introduction

The philosophical basis of the special theory of relativity can be interpreted in terms of Western phenomenalism, which views space and time are considered perceptual and cognitive constructs created out our sensory inputs. From this perspective, the special status of light and its speed can be understood through a phenomenological study of our senses and the perceptual limitations to our phenomenal notions of space and time. A similar view is echoed in the BrahmanMaya distinction Advaita. If we think of space and time as part of Maya, we can partly understand the importance that the speed of light in our reality, as enshrined in special relativity. The central role of light in our reality is highlighted in the Bible as well. These remarkable parallels among the phenomenological, Western spiritual and the Advaita interpretations of special relativity point to an exciting possibility of unifying the Eastern and Western schools of thought to a certain degree.

Special Relativity

Einstein unveiled his special theory of relativity2 a little over a century ago. In his theory, he showed that space and time were not absolute entities. They are entities relative to an observer. An observer’s space and time are related to those of another through the speed of light. Par exemple, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. In a moving system, time flows slower and space contracts in accordance with equations involving the speed of light. Lumière, donc, enjoys a special status in our space and time. This specialness of light in our reality is indelibly enshrined in the special theory of relativity.

Where does this specialness come from? What is so special about light that its speed should figure in the basic structure of space and time and our reality? This question has remained unanswered for over 100 ans. It also brings in the metaphysical aspects of space and time, which form the basis of what we perceive as reality.

Noumenal-Phenomenal and BrahmanMaya Distinctions

Dans l' Advaita3 view of reality, what we perceive is merely an illusion-Maya. Advaita explicitly renounces the notion that the perceived reality is external or indeed real. It teaches us that the phenomenal universe, our conscious awareness of it, and our bodily being are all an illusion or Maya. They are not the true, absolute reality. The absolute reality existing in itself, independent of us and our experiences, est Brahman.

A similar view of reality is echoed in phenomenalism,4 which holds that space and time are not objective realities. Ils ne sont que le support de notre perception. Dans ce point de vue, all the phenomena that happen in space and time are merely bundles of our perception. Space and time are also cognitive constructs arising from perception. Ainsi, the reasons behind all the physical properties that we ascribe to space and time have to be sought in the sensory processes that create our perception, whether we approach the issue from the Advaita or phenomenalism perspective.

This analysis of the importance of light in our reality naturally brings in the metaphysical aspects of space and time. In Kant’s view,5 space and time are pure forms of intuition. They do not arise from our experience because our experiences presuppose the existence of space and time. Ainsi, we can represent space and time in the absence of objects, but we cannot represent objects in the absence of space and time.

Kant’s middle-ground has the advantage of reconciling the views of Newton and Leibniz. It can agree with Newton’s view6 that space is absolute and real for phenomenal objects open to scientific investigation. It can also sit well with Leibniz’s view7 that space is not absolute and has an existence only in relation to objects, by highlighting their relational nature, not among objects in themselves (noumenal objects), but between observers and objects.

We can roughly equate the noumenal objects to forms in Brahman and our perception of them to Maya. Dans cet article,, we will use the termsnoumenal reality,” “absolute reality,” ou “la réalité physique” interchangeably to describe the collection of noumenal objects, their properties and interactions, which are thought to be the underlying causes of our perception. De même, we willphenomenal reality,” “perceived or sensed reality,” et “perceptual realityto signify our reality as we perceive it.

As with Brahman causing Maya, we assume that the phenomenal notions of space and time arise from noumenal causes8 through our sensory and cognitive processes. Note that this causality assumption is ad-hoc; there is no a priori reason for phenomenal reality to have a cause, nor is causation a necessary feature of the noumenal reality. Despite this difficulty, we proceed from a naive model for the noumenal reality and show that, through the process of perception, we can “dériver” a phenomenal reality that obeys the special theory of relativity.

This attempt to go from the phenomena (l'espace et le temps) to the essence of what we experience (a model for noumenal reality) is roughly in line with Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology.9 The deviation is that we are more interested in the manifestations of the model in the phenomenal reality itself rather than the validity of the model for the essence. Through this study, we show that the specialness of the speed of light in our phenomenal space and time is a consequence of our perceptual apparatus. It doesn’t have to be an input postulate to the special theory of relativity.

Perception and Phenomenal Reality

The properties we ascribe to space and time (such as the specialness of the speed of light) can only be a part of our perceived reality or Maya, dans Advaita, not of the underlying absolute reality, Brahman. If we think of space and time as aspects of our perceived reality arising from an unknowable Brahman through our sensory and cognitive processes, we can find an explanation for the special distinction of the speed of light in the process and mechanism of our sensing. Our thesis is that the reason for the specialness of light in our phenomenal notions of space and time is hidden in the process of our perception.

Nous, donc, study how the noumenal objects around us generate our sensory signals, and how we construct our phenomenal reality out of these signals in our brains. The first part is already troublesome because noumenal objects, par définition,, have no properties or interactions that we can study or understand.

These features of the noumenal reality are identical to the notion of Brahman dans Advaita, which highlights that the ultimate truth is Brahman, the one beyond time, space and causation. Brahman is the material cause of the universe, but it transcends the cosmos. It transcends time; it exists in the past, present and future. It transcends space; it has no beginning, middle and end. It even transcends causality. For that reason, Brahman is incomprehensible to the human mind. The way it manifests to us is through our sensory and cognitive processes. This manifestation is Maya, the illusion, qui, in the phenomenalistic parlance, corresponds to the phenomenal reality.

For our purpose in this article, we describe our sensory and cognitive process and the creation of the phenomenal reality or Maya10 as follows. It starts with the noumenal objects (or forms in Brahman), which generate the inputs to our senses. Our senses then process the signals and relay the processed electric data corresponding to them to our brain. The brain creates a cognitive model, a representation of the sensory inputs, and presents it to our conscious awareness as reality, which is our phenomenal world or Maya.

This description of how the phenomenal reality created ushers in a tricky philosophical question. Who or what creates the phenomenal reality and where? It is not created by our senses, brain and mind because these are all objects or forms in the phenomenal reality. The phenomenal reality cannot create itself. It cannot be that the noumenal reality creates the phenomenal reality because, in that case, it would be inaccurate to assert the cognitive inaccessibility to the noumenal world.

This philosophical trouble is identical in Advaita aussi. Our senses, brain and mind cannot create Maya, because they are all part of Maya. Si Brahman created Maya, it would have to be just as real. This philosophical quandary can be circumvented in the following way. We assume that all events and objects in Maya have a cause or form in Brahman or in the noumenal world. Ainsi, we postulate that our senses, mind and body all have some (unknown) forms in Brahman (or in the noumenal world), and these forms create Maya in our conscious awareness, ignoring the fact that our consciousness itself is an illusory manifestation in the phenomenal world. This inconsistency is not material to our exploration into the nature of space and time because we are seeking the reason for the specialness of light in the sensory process rather than at the level of consciousness.

Space and time together form what physics considers the basis of reality. Space makes up our visual reality precisely as sounds make up our auditory world. Just as sounds are a perceptual experience rather than a fundamental property of physical reality, space also is an experience, or a cognitive representation of the visual inputs, not a fundamental aspect of Brahman or the noumenal reality. The phenomenal reality thus created is Maya. La Maya events are an imperfect or distorted representation of the corresponding Brahman events. Depuis Brahman is a superset of Maya (ou, equivalently, our senses are potentially incapable of sensing all aspects of the noumenal reality), not all objects and events in Brahman create a projection in Maya. Our perception (ou Maya) is thus limited because of the sense modality and its speed, which form the focus of our investigation in this article.

In summary, it can be argued that the noumenal-phenomenal distinction in phenomenalism is an exact parallel to the BrahmanMaya distinction Advaita if we think of our perceived reality (ou Maya) as arising from sensory and cognitive processes.

Sensing Space and Time, and the Role of Light

The phenomenal notions of space and time together form what physics considers the basis of reality. Since we take the position that space and time are the end results of our sensory perception, we can understand some of the limitations in our Maya by studying the limitations in our senses themselves.

At a fundamental level, how do our senses work? Our sense of sight operates using light, and the fundamental interaction involved in sight falls in the electromagnetic (EM) category because light (or photon) is the intermediary of EM interactions.11

The exclusivity of EM interaction is not limited to our long-range sense of sight; all the short-range senses (touch, taste, odeur et audition,,en,sont également EM dans la nature,,en,Comprendre les limites de notre perception de l'espace,,en,nous n'avons pas besoin de mettre en évidence la nature EM de tous nos sens,,en,L'espace est,,en,le résultat de notre sens de la vue,,en,Mais il est utile de garder à l'esprit que nous n'aurions pas de détection,,en,et en effet pas de réalité,,en,en l'absence d'interactions EM,,en,Comme nos sens,,en,toutes nos extensions technologiques à nos sens,,en,tels que les radiotélescopes,,en,microscopes électroniques,,en,mesures redshift et même lentilles gravitationnelles,,en,utiliser les interactions EM exclusivement pour mesurer notre univers,,en,nous ne pouvons pas échapper aux contraintes de base de notre perception, même lorsque nous utilisons des instruments modernes,,en,Le télescope Hubble peut voir un milliard d'années-lumière plus loin que nos yeux nus,,en,Notre réalité perçue,,en,si construit sur les entrées sensorielles directes ou technologiquement améliorées,,en) are also EM in nature. In physics, the fundamental interactions are modeled as fields with gauge bosons.12 In quantum electrodynamics13 (the quantum field theory of EM interactions), photon (or light) is the gauge boson mediating EM interactions. Electromagnetic interactions are responsible for all our sensory inputs. To understand the limitations of our perception of space, we need not highlight the EM nature of all our senses. Space is, dans l'ensemble, the result of our sight sense. But it is worthwhile to keep in mind that we would have no sensing, and indeed no reality, in the absence of EM interactions.

Like our senses, all our technological extensions to our senses (such as radio telescopes, electron microscopes, red shift measurements and even gravitational lensing) use EM interactions exclusively to measure our universe. Ainsi, we cannot escape the basic constraints of our perception even when we use modern instruments. The Hubble telescope may see a billion light years farther than our naked eyes, mais ce qu'il voit est encore un milliard d'années de plus que ce que nos yeux voient. Our phenomenal reality, whether built upon direct sensory inputs or technologically enhanced, is made up of a subset of EM particles and interactions only. What we perceive as reality is a subset of forms and events in the noumenal world corresponding to EM interactions, filtered through our sensory and cognitive processes. Dans l' Advaita parlance, Maya can be thought of as a projection of Brahman through EM interactions into our sensory and cognitive space, quite probably an imperfect projection.

The exclusivity of EM interactions in our perceived reality is not always appreciated, mainly because of a misconception that we can sense gravity directly. This confusion arises because our bodies are subject to gravity. There is a fine distinction between “being subject to” et “being able to sense” gravitational force. The gravity sensing in our ears measures the effect of gravity on EM matter. En l'absence d'interaction EM,,en,il est impossible de sentir la gravité,,en,ou toute autre chose d'ailleurs,,en,Les interactions électromagnétiques sont responsables de nos entrées sensorielles,,en,La perception sensorielle conduit à la représentation de notre cerveau que nous appelons la réalité,,en,Toute limitation dans cette chaîne conduit à une limitation correspondante de notre sens de la réalité,,en,Une limitation de la chaîne des sens à la réalité est la vitesse finie du photon,,en,qui est le boson de jauge de nos sens,,en,La vitesse finie de la modalité sensorielle influence et déforme notre perception du mouvement,,en,Parce que ces distorsions sont perçues comme faisant partie de notre réalité même,,en,la cause profonde de la distorsion devient une propriété fondamentale de notre réalité,,en,C'est ainsi que la vitesse de la lumière devient une constante si importante dans notre espace-temps,,en, it is impossible to sense gravity, or anything else for that matter.

This assertion that there is no sensing in the absence of EM interactions brings us to the next philosophical hurdle. One can always argue that, in the absence of EM interaction, there is no matter to sense. This argument is tantamount to insisting that the noumenal world consists of only those forms and events that give rise to EM interaction in our phenomenal perception. En d'autres termes, it is the same as insisting that Brahman is made up of only EM interactions. What is lacking in the absence of EM interaction is only our phenomenal reality. Dans l' Advaita notion, in the absence of sensing, Maya does not exist. The absolute reality or Brahman, cependant, is independent of our sensing it. Encore, we see that the Eastern and Western views on reality we explored in this article are remarkably similar.

The Speed of Light

Knowing that our space-time is a representation of the light waves our eyes receive, we can immediately see that light is indeed special in our reality. In our view, sensory perception leads to our brain’s representation that we call reality, ou Maya. Any limitation in this chain of sensing leads to a corresponding limitation in our phenomenal reality.

One limitation in the chain from senses to perception is the finite speed of photon, which is the gauge boson of our senses. The finite speed of the sense modality influences and distorts our perception of motion, l'espace et le temps. Because these distortions are perceived as a part of our reality itself, the root cause of the distortion becomes a fundamental property of our reality. This is how the speed of light becomes such an important constant in our space-time.

The importance of the speed of light, cependant, is respected only in our phenomenal Maya. Other modes of perception have other speeds the figure as the fundamental constant in their space-like perception. The reality sensed through echolocation, par exemple, has the speed of sound as a fundamental property. En fait, it is fairly simple to establish14 that echolocation results in a perception of motion that obeys something very similar to special relativity with the speed of light replaced with that of sound.

Theories beyond Sensory Limits

The basis of physics is the world view called scientific realism, which is not only at the core of sciences but is our natural way of looking at the world as well. Scientific realism, and hence physics, assume an independently existing external world, whose structures are knowable through scientific investigations. To the extent observations are based on perception, the philosophical stance of scientific realism, as it is practiced today, can be thought of as a trust in our perceived reality, and as an assumption that it is this reality that needs to be explored in science.

Physics extends its reach beyond perception or Maya through the rational element of pure theory. Most of physics works in thisextendedintellectual reality, with concepts such as fields, forces, light rays, atomes, particules, etc, the existence of which is insisted upon through the metaphysical commitment implied in scientific realism. Cependant, it does not claim that the rational extensions are the noumenal causes or Brahman giving raise to our phenomenal perception.

Scientific realism has helped physics tremendously, with all its classical theories. Cependant, scientific realism and the trust in our perception of reality should apply only within the useful ranges of our senses. Within the ranges of our sensory perceptions, we have fairly intuitive physics. An example of an intuitive picture is Newtonian mechanics that describe “normal” objects moving around at “normal” speeds.

When we get closer to the edges of our sensory modalities, we have to modify our sciences to describe the reality as we sense it. These modifications lead to different, and possibly incompatible, theories. When we ascribe the natural limitations of our senses and the consequent limitations of our perception (and therefore observations) to the fundamental nature of reality itself, we end up introducing complications in our physical laws. Depending on which limitations we are incorporating into the theory (par exemple, small size, large speeds etc.), we may end up with theories that are incompatible with each other.

Our argument is that some of these complications (et, avec espoir, incompatibilities) can be avoided if we address the sensory limitations directly. Par exemple, we can study the consequence of the fact that our senses operate at the speed of light as follows. We can model Brahman (the noumenal reality) as obeying classical mechanics, and work out what kind of Maya (phenomenal reality) we will experience through the chain of sensing.

The modeling of the noumenal world (as obeying classical mechanics), bien sûr, has shaky philosophical foundations. But the phenomenal reality predicted from this model is remarkably close to the reality we do perceive. Starting from this simple model, it can be easily shown our perception of motion at high speeds obeys special relativity.

The effects due to the finite speed of light are well known in physics. Nous savons, par exemple, that what we see happening in distant stars and galaxies now actually took place quite awhile ago. A moreadvancedeffect due to the light travel time15 is the way we perceive motion at high speeds, which is the basis of special relativity. En fait, many astrophysical phenomena can be understood16 in terms of light travel time effects. Because our sense modality is based on light, our sensed picture of motion has the speed of light appearing naturally in the equations describing it. So the importance of the speed of light in our space-time (as described in special relativity) is due to the fact that our reality is Maya created based on light inputs.

Conclusion

Almost all branches of philosophy grapple with this distinction between the phenomenal and the absolute realities to some extent. Advaita Vedanta holds the unrealness of the phenomenal reality as the basis of their world view. Dans cet article,, we showed that the views in phenomenalism can be thought of as a restatement of the Advaita postulates.

When such a spiritual or philosophical insight makes its way into science, great advances in our understanding can be expected. This convergence of philosophy (or even spirituality) and science is beginning to take place, most notably in neuroscience, which views reality as a creation of our brain, echoing the notion of Maya.

Science gives a false impression that we can get arbitrarily close to the underlying physical causes through the process of scientific investigation and rational theorization. An example of such theorization can be found in our sensation of hearing. The experience or the sensation of sound is an incredibly distant representation of the physical causenamely air pressure waves. We are aware of the physical cause because we have a more powerful sight sense. So it would seem that we can indeed go from Maya (son) to the underlying causes (air pressure waves).

Cependant, it is a fallacy to assume that the physical cause (the air pressure waves) est Brahman. Air pressure waves are still a part of our perception; they are part of the intellectual picture we have come to accept. This intellectual picture is an extension of our visual reality, based on our trust in the visual reality. It is still a part of Maya.

The new extension of reality proposed in this article, again an intellectual extension, is an educated guess. We guess a model for the absolute reality, ou Brahman, and predict what the consequent perceived reality should be, working forward through the chain of sensing and creating Maya. If the predicted perception is a good match with the Maya we do experience, then the guesswork for Brahman is taken to be a fairly accurate working model. The consistency between the predicted perception and what we do perceive is the only validation of the model for the nature of the absolute reality. En outre, the guess is only one plausible model for the absolute reality; there may be different suchsolutionsto the absolute reality all of which end up giving us our perceived reality.

It is a mistake to think of the qualities of our subjective experience of sound as the properties of the underlying physical process. In an exact parallel, it is a fallacy to assume that the subjective experience of space and time is the fundamental property of the world we live in. The space-time continuum, as we see it or feel it, is only a partial and incomplete representation of the unknowable Brahman. If we are willing to model the unknowable Brahman as obeying classical mechanics, we can indeed derive the properties of our perceived reality (such as time dilation, length contraction, light speed ceiling and so on in special relativity). By proposing this model for the noumenal world, we are not suggesting that all the effects of special relativity are mere perceptual artifacts. We are merely reiterating a known fact that space and time themselves cannot be anything but perceptual constructs. Thus their properties are manifestations of the process of perception.

When we consider processes close to or beyond our sensor limits, the manifestations of our perceptual and cognitive constraints become significant. Donc, when it comes to the physics that describes such processes, we really have to take into account the role that our perception and cognition play in sensing them. The universe as we see it is only a cognitive model created out of the photons falling on our retina or on the photosensors of the Hubble telescope. En raison de la vitesse limitée du support d'informations (namely light), our perception is distorted in such a way as to give us the impression that space and time obey special relativity. Ils le font, but space and time are only a part of our perception of an unknowable realitya perception limited by the speed of light.

The central role of light in creating our reality or universe is at the heart of western spiritual philosophy as well. Un univers dépourvu de lumière n'est pas simplement un monde où vous avez éteint les lumières. Il est en effet un univers dépourvu de lui-même, un univers qui n'existe pas. It is in this context that we have to understand the wisdom behind the notion that “la terre était sans forme, and void'” jusqu'à ce que Dieu a fait la lumière soit, en disant “Que la lumière soit.” Quran also says, “Allah is the light of the heavens.The role of light in taking us from the void (le néant) to a reality was understood for a long, longtemps. Is it possible that the ancient saints and prophets knew things that we are only now beginning to uncover with all our advances in knowledge? Whether we use old Eastern Advaita views or their Western counterparts, we can interpret the philosophical stance behind special relativity as hidden in the distinction between our phenomenal reality and its unknowable physical causes.

Références

  1. Dr. Manoj Thulasidas graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology (ITI), Madras, dans 1987. He studied fundamental particles and interactions at the CLEO collaboration at Cornell University during 1990-1992. After receiving his PhD in 1993, he moved to Marseilles, France and continued his research with the ALEPH collaboration at CERN, Genève. During his ten-year career as a research scientist in the field of High energy physics, il co-auteur de plus de 200 publications.
  2. Einstein, A. (1905). Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. (On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies). Annales de Physique, 17, 891-921.
  3. Radhakrishnan, S. & Moore, C. A. (1957). Source Book in Indian Philosophy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NY.
  4. Chisolm, R. (1948). The Problem of Empiricism. The Journal of Philosophy, 45, 512-517.
  5. Allison, H. (2004). Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Yale University Press.
  6. Rynasiewicz, R. (1995). By Their Properties, Causes and Effects: Newton’s Scholium on Time, Espace, Place and Motion. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26, 133-153, 295-321.
  7. Calkins, M. Dans. (1897). Kant’s Conception of the Leibniz Space and Time Doctrine. The Philosophical Review, 6 (4), 356-369.
  8. Janaway, C., ed. (1999). The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Schmitt, R. (1959). Husserl’s Transcendental-Phenomenological Reduction. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 20 (2), 238-245.
  10. Thulasidas, M. (2007). L'Unreal Univers. Asian Books, Singapour.
  11. Electromagnetic (EM) interaction is one of the four kinds of interactions in the Standard Model (Griffths, 1987) of particle physics. It is the interaction between charged bodies. Despite the EM repulsion between them, cependant, the protons stay confined within the nucleus because of the strong interaction, whose magnitude is much bigger than that of EM interactions. The other two interactions are termed the weak interaction and the gravitational interaction.
  12. In quantum field theory, every fundamental interaction consists of emitting a particle and absorbing it in an instant. These so-called virtual particles emitted and absorbed are known as the gauge bosons that mediate the interactions.
  13. Feynman, R. (1985). Quantum Electrodynamics. Addison Wesley.
  14. Thulasidas, M. (2007). L'Unreal Univers. Asian Books, Singapour.
  15. Rees, M. (1966). Appearance of Relativistically Expanding Radio Sources. Nature, 211, 468-470.
  16. Thulasidas, M. (2007un). Sont des sources radio et Gamma Ray Bursts Luminal Booms? International Journal of Modern Physics D, 16 (6), 983-1000.