2

It's clear and evident that no particular place in space is special, and nor any particular direction.

It is also true (ignoring relativity) that there is no absolute rest; we cannot determine whether a particle is at rest.

Is this tied to the fact that there is no fixed origin of space? Ie conceiving space as a Cartesian grid then there is a point of origin of the axes; but in actual fact there is no such place.

For supposing that there is such a place, then given a particle in that space we can measure the distance of the particle from it with time; and if this doesn't change we can say the particle is at rest.

Is this a good argument?

(In Aristotelian terms we can say that every Place the particle can occupy is identical).

Mozibur Ullah
  • 47,073
  • 14
  • 93
  • 243
  • Because motion is by its very essence relative. It makes no sense to describe something as in motion without a conception of what it is in motion with respect to. Sometimes, the motion is relative to an implicit background so ubiquitous we may take it for granted to the extent that we are not even aware we are doing so, but nevertheless there it is. Or it may be a conceptual background, such as the one you've painted with your absolute origin. But nevertheless, even in your scenario, the object is in motion, or not, relative to that origin. – Dan Bron Apr 24 '15 at 09:18
  • 1
    Thought experiment: picture an endless, featureless, gray expanse of utterly empty space. Now picture yourself zipping along at a million miles through it. You wouldn't even be aware you were moving. What's "a mile"? For that matter, what's "an hour"? There is nothing to measure your "progress" against. You wouldn't even be aware of any progress; progress is meaningless. Now, superimpose your imaginary grid on the space such that you can see it. Suddenly, you're moving again! (Note the implicit assumption of constant velocity; acceleration changes everything, but requires energy.) – Dan Bron Apr 24 '15 at 09:23
  • @bron: sure - it seems that you're just rephrasing the argument above? So I take we're in agreement. I'd suggest all forms of uniform motions are forms of 'rest'; in the same way that it doesn't matter how I position a box in space - it's still a box. ie taking symmetry into account; and I'd oppose rest to accelerative motion; because in rest nothing fundamental changes - whereas in motion it does; and that's confirmed as you say, that in the first case energy does not change, and in the second it doesn't. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 24 '15 at 10:30
  • What I said may or may not be a rephrasal of your argument: what I was trying to underscore is that the notion of relativity is inextricably baked into the concept of motion. The lack of a universal set of coordinates or origin seems a different question to me, except in the sense that absolutism may be a misguided in the broadest sense. Note that my argument would permit the existence of an "absolute box", alone and by itself, because the definition of "box" permits that. Nothing in its conception requires comparison to an external entity. Motion does. – Dan Bron Apr 24 '15 at 10:36
  • Well, there is an absolute motion - light? So it's not entirely misguided; it's not my argument as such, I expect it's been already discussed in the literature - but I'm not aware of it; so in effect that's what I am asking for. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 24 '15 at 10:40
  • No. The concept of "absolute motion" is absurd. Senseless. A self-contradiction. An oxymoron. Light is a physical phenomenon. But motion is abstract. Motion is space travelled over time. But both space and time are determined - defined - created - arise from - markers. Things distinguished from one another. Relative differences. Go back to my 2nd comment with the thought experiment and change "a million miles an hour" to "c". What changes? Nothing. (And yes, I didn't mean "your argument" in the sense of "one that belongs to you" but "one you presented"; I simply needed a pronoun.) – Dan Bron Apr 24 '15 at 10:48
  • I"m not particularly interested in entering this argument, but I think half of it is an argument about mechanics and how we calculate motion, and the other half is a philosophical argument about whether all such motion is arbitrary or there is an absolute motion and rest (as far as I can tell, this actually can be the case both on classical and quantum mechanical views -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space)... – virmaior Apr 24 '15 at 12:11
  • @bron: motion is physical; the question is to what extent is it determined a priori; I can't agree that nothing changes when a million miles an hour is changed to c; you are right so long as we stick to Galilean Relativity, but this in fact is not what is observed; ignoring gravity, light moves no matter how you measure it at the same speed - this is what is meant by absolute here. The question I'm asking is how to understand this; and I'm starting by asking what do we mean by rest. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 24 '15 at 13:35
  • @virmaior: right; I'm trying to refine my understanding of motion in an a priori sense; in the same way Kant did with Newtons laws. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 24 '15 at 13:37
  • @bron: as a conceptual category - you are right; there can't be an absolute motion; yet physically there is - the question is how to square them. In a certain sense, if one considers all uniform motion as rest; then light is at rest - and this is what I'm contemplating. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 24 '15 at 13:45
  • If that concept is used, then even if everything is moving at uniform speed they're all at rest - and that absolutely; of course it's a different sense of rest, and absoluteness - but related. It's definitely not directly physical. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 24 '15 at 13:51
  • In your featureless desert not only can you not detect uniform motion; no motion at all can be detected ie acceleration; Now the main difference between your conception and mine, I suggest is that motion is relative in yours to what Aristotle would call the Place of a Body; all Places are the same thus as you say they cannot be distinguished - thus motion as a category loses coherence; whereas I'm not considering a grid but solely a point of space that can be distinguished - and which I know perfectly well isn't physically plausible. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 24 '15 at 14:06
  • I mean, I'm not even sure quite what we are arguing over here: the first line of my question is 'no place in space is special'; which really is no different from your featureless space. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 24 '15 at 14:19
  • @MoziburUllah I won't get notifications of your comments unless you @-mention my full username or a prefix of it which is unique (among all the other users participating in this thread). So @ Dan would work, but @ Bron doesnt. Anyway, I'm not sure if your last few comments about the desert were directed at me or not, but I've said what I've had to say on the subject, more or less. My last comment is that in a physical sense, velocity and acceleration differ: even in a featureless void, you would notice acceleration due to the fact that it would create an up/down direction, and use up energy. – Dan Bron Apr 24 '15 at 17:39
  • @bron: ok, I thought SE was smart enough to pick up either part of a name; thanks for letting me know. I don't think our positions are that far different; I'd add as a gloss to your distinction between uniform motion and acceleration, that this is the key distinction ie rest vs non-rest; being in the first case nothing essential changes, and the second something essential does - and as you remarked - that being indicated by energy. – Mozibur Ullah Apr 24 '15 at 18:02
  • What do you mean by "ignoring relativity" – Nathan Day Dec 08 '15 at 00:25
  • @nathan day: I can't quite recall now - I should perhaps have put more detail into the question when I wrote it; I don't think I meant absolute rest, in the sense pre-relativity, the luminiferous ether was at absolute rest; I suspect I meant that light was the signifier for absolute rest - taking into account uniform motion is also rest; ie I could have said the absolute motion. – Mozibur Ullah Dec 08 '15 at 00:41
  • Everyrhing (for the human mind) is relative. This includes the human mind's ability to comprehend relativity! –  Oct 29 '20 at 03:26

3 Answers3

3

If constant change, even when not traversing space, is not rest, then it is a consequence of Heisenberg, and more basically of 'frequency' as an essential aspect of matter due to deBroglie, that there is no absolute rest.

Things either have a frequency, or they cannot be detected. Interference with another thing with a frequency is the only way of detecting things. And to a certain degree, things with no effects do not exist in the same way that detectable things exist. To admit them ontologically opens you up to a profusion of nonsense.

I don't think this is tied to the relativity of space in any important way.

If time is measured as accumulating entropy, then this may have to do with the relativity of the arrow of time. My pet Boltzmann-inspired way of looking at quantum frequency is that what is increasing and decreasing at that frequency is the local component of entropy, and so what is 'waving' is time.

2

Newton defined relative motion, relative space, and relative time as measurements. You can read that here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html

Therefore, anything we measure is by definition relative. You cannot measure absolute rest or motion a priori.

MikeHelland
  • 141
  • 4
-1

I think it is entirely possible that the speed of light is, in fact, absolute rest. The way I can logically understand entanglement, quantum eraser, and time dilation is only if massless particles at the speed of light are in absolute universal rest.

I think this goes against any current theory and intuition because the speed of light gives the impression of motion. However, if we think the speed of light is absolute rest and classical rest is the opposite, then other "spooky" phenomena becomes less problematic (e.g. that all inertial frames of reference observe the same quantity of C, zero time at the speed of light, instantaneous information with entanglement, and retroactive quantum erasure).

I wrote a note about this here: https://etherplan.com/2020/10/22/the-speed-of-light-is-absolute-rest-not-motion/13306/

It's only the product of reason, no formal development of the idea.

Donald McIntyre
  • 1
  • 1
  • Read and very much appreciate your point about infinite rest on your blog. Since it sounds paradoxical many will wither mock or run from your very enlightening observation. Spinoza was accused of positing paradoxical hypotheses. Ironically, some of the most certain and relevant observations can only be expressed clearly in what appears to be, but is not, a paradoxical format –  Oct 29 '20 at 03:38