Guillermo Angeris Professor Thorsby Introduction to Philosophy 04 July 2011 Of and On General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics Most

of us may never have thought of questioning, what time and matter are, or what our perception of them is. But, now, lets put forth the problem of matter and of time as our present question and try to define the implications of each in basis of the perfect world we call mathematics, to see how far in deep we can clarify what they are, and, maybe more importantly, how we perceive this which appears to solidly make up and organize the universe around us. Let us begin to clarify what our perception is by first focusing on an important aspect of life, one that organizes and gives logical sequence to, and one we always appear to be running out of: time. Now, time itself, one might think, is just an ongoing process, likely unchanging and exactly similar to all humans on earth, of course, this appears true, because when one sets a time for a date in a specific place, its not usual for your partner to show up the next day, readily wondering where one is, but instead, either they do not show up, or they show up in a small timeframe that we might deem late, early, or on time. Let us first state a truth about this fourth dimension: time is purely relative and can be manipulated, its progression is completely dependent on the object from whose perspective it is being observed. But, the question that comes to mind is why? What exactly does this mean? What does this imply for us? And this I will answer with a series of thought experiments. In this case, Brian Greene provides a very clear explanation on how one can see what it means for such to happen.

For this purpose we introduce the worlds conceptually simplest (yet most impractical) clock. It is known as a light clock and consists of two small mirrors mounted on a bracket facing one another, with a single photon of light bouncing back and forth between them. If the mirrors are about six inches apart, it will take the photon about a billionth of a second to complete one round-trip journeya billion ticks [round-trip journeys] means that one second has elapsed. [] [Now] imagine that we are idly watching the passage of time by looking at a ticking light clock placed on a nearby table. Then, all of a sudden, a second light clock slides by on the table moving at a constant velocity. The question we ask is whether the moving light clock will tick at the same rate as the stationary light clock?1

From what has been before stated, it appears that it should not, but, again, why? To understand the situation, let us trace the photon moving inside each clock from our perspective: the stationary clocks photon is simply bouncing up and down in a straight line (any other factors that could affect this have been tossed aside for the matters of this experiment), but, when we observe the photon of the constantly-moving clock, we notice that it is not actually moving in a straight line, but, is, insteadfrom our perspectivemoving in a diagonal because, as the photon moves up and down, the clock itself is moving in a sideways motion. This up or down and sideways pattern (which, once pictured, resembles a hypotenuse of a triangle) creates the aforementioned diagonal trajectory and causes the photon to have to travel longer distance before performing a tick, hence, from our perspective, time is slower on the moving clock. So, now that we have that anything under constant motion is affected by it in terms of time-progression, what other implications could we draw of this? For this, I bring the reader to a second thought-experiment devised to draw out a second conclusion that can be observed due to this. Let us assume one more item before continuing to the next experiment: space and time all rest2 on one same, universal membrane hence spacetime, which, as we have previously observed, is deformed (as time itself is changing) by a moving object of mass. Let us imagine a rather different set up: there is a stretched out fabric on which rests a metal ball of a determinate

Greene, B.. The elegant universe: superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for the ultimate theory. New York: W.W. Norton, 1999. (pg. 38) 2 Rest, here, is used in the loosest sensein more elaborate terms, they are the fabric, but it is much easier to imagine if they are only dependent on a fabric-like substance.

size. First, let us agree that we take for granted that an object undergoing constant acceleration is undergoing exactly the same effect as it would by being in a gravitational field causing proportional acceleration.3 But, referring back to our previous light-clock experiment, anything which has motion warps this space time fabric, so then, therefore, what does this mean about gravity? We know that gravity is the same as an object undergoing constant acceleration, which is the same as an object undergoing motion; therefore, we can draw the conclusion that gravity also warps spacetime, causing time to slow down as it nears a field of gravitation. Now, to gain a better picture, imagine our previously presented (but unfinished) experiment, the ball, once placed on the outstretched fabricthe fabric is to represent spacetimewarps it, and not only just the position where the ball is at, but, alsoin decreasing intervals as the distance between the center of the ball and a given point on the plane increasearound it.4 These past two experiments, although significant, just barely give an explanation of what the concept of time really is, and, although it would do us well to delve deeper into what more conditions it implies, this very small but very solid base should give enough proof for one to realize that, now, the question that we all ask daily, what time is it? is very much more complex than what it initially appears like. The concept of time, as important as it is to reality, is simply a relativistic concept: it directly proves a skeptics viewmore specifically that of philosophers such as Hume, because of their doubt that one can know something (time, as shown here) with complete certaintysince there is no such thing as an absolute time. Stating otherwise would be the same as stating that all matter is exactly the same, or that all leaves on a

3 If the reader wishes more evidence, I shall give simple example of this for ease of mind. Imagine that one is in an elevator that is rising, as the elevator increases in velocity (undergoes constant acceleration) as it ascends, the feeling one gets is indiscernible from that of gravity, thus, if it is unknown that there was, in fact, acceleration

going on in the first place, one would mistake it to be gravity. (as presented in Wheeler, John Archibald. A journey into gravity and spacetime. New York: Scientific American Library, 1999. Print. (ch. 2)) For the more mathematically-inclined reader, this is only a two-dimensional cross-section of a plane in the threedimensional space surrounding the sphere.
4

tree are exactly the same, which, obviously, is not the case. So, in a sense, any concept of experiments does not rely on only a set of constants in the experiment, but it also relies heavily on the fact that there is symmetry between the observers. Of course, one should come to no despair about this, because, unless a millionth (or much less) of a second is the difference between a typical life and death situation, it is unlikely one will ever be radically affected by the matter. Let us switch from the world of the very large to that of the very small: the quantum. And, to begin this next section, I will present the reader with a very famous thought experiment, presented by the Austrian physicist, Erwin Schrdinger: one where the set-up is that of a box which contains a cat and a decaying atom5 that is measured by a Geiger counter, this being connected to a metal hammer set to break a flask with hydrocyanic acid; if the atom decays in time (of which it has only 50% chance of), then the counter will go off and the hammer will be

actuated, causing the flask to break and the cat to die, otherwise, the cat is to remain unharmed. What is the point of this experiment? As Schrdinger states, It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation6. This might seem like a lot, especially without a solid base to stand on, but let us present what this microscopic domain means. The realm of the very small (sub-atomic) deals with the fact that there is a set amount of uncertainty in any given set of possibilities, to put it in other words, a particle exists only in a probable state until observed. The cat has only a 50% chance of living or dying at time , so

For the more mathematically-inclined reader, the atom has a 50% probability of decaying at time t, but, for any

time t, this probability more accurately becomes

6

Schrdinger, Erwin. Schroedinger: The Present Situation in Quantum Mechanics. Translator: John Trimmer. Technische Universitt Hamburg - Hamburg. http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/QM/cat.html (accessed July 5, 2011).

therefore (and, this might originally sound a bit far-fetched, but it will make sense later on) one can say that the cat is both dead and alive until observed. This makes no experiential sense, though; it seems that the cat is either dead or alive, due to chance but we can only know once we open the box, hence collapsing onto one possibility until observed7. Lets put it another way, let us flip a coin, this flipping has, ideally, 2 possible outcomes, but, while the coin is in mid-air, it is both possible outcomes.8 This will become more apparent once the next experiment is shown. Lets also state Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, what may perhaps be the base of quantum mechanics:

First, let us define

as the uncertainty in position , define as

as the uncertainty of the

momentum in direction , and, lastly, define

, the reduced Planck constant.9,10 This linear

inequality implies the following: one, the certainty for which one can know only a single measurement for an arbitrary precision (i.e. momentum or location) is inversely proportional to the precision of the other property, and, two, the act of observing a particle, quite literally, changes its properties. The last of the requirements of this experiment would be to remember that light is not a wave, but, instead is a set of packets or quanta, which we describe as photons, and each are themselves a particle; in a sense, light is a stream of particles.

For further research, this is the superposition principle of the wave-collapse function, based on the Copenhagen interpretation.
8

Lawrence, Jay, and Stephan Riemersma. "Schrdinger's Cat by siftpodcast on SoundCloud." SoundCloud Your Sound, At The Heart. http://soundcloud.com/siftpodcast/schr-dingers-cat (accessed July 5, 2011).
9

This formula also applies equally as well to any other dimension (e.g.

)

Holzner, Steven. "Quantum Physics For Dummies Cheat Sheet - For Dummies." How-To Help and Videos - For Dummies. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/quantum-physics-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html (accessed July 6, 2011).

10

Youngs double-slit experiment gives a physical association to this formula that can be easily observed, as follows: In a laboratory, a very thin sheet of a material is placed with two slits which are very close together in the center. This sheet of material is placed directly between a point light source and photographic film, and, first, one of the slits is closed. Once the light source is turned on, the pattern formed on the film is a simple diffraction pattern, as would be expected when light behaves like a wave; this appears normal also when both slits are open, as the result is simply an interference pattern.11 The problem comes when one repeats the experiment firing each photon one at a time: the same pattern is formed on both cases, regardless whether it is fired as a single particle at a time or as a stream. Of course, the logical thing to do following this experiment would be to observe the particle as it transverses through the slit to see which slit a particle goes through, there is a problem that is blatantly obvious once this is attempted: the film, instead of showing an interference pattern, shows a simple two-band pattern, as expected if light was a set of classical particles, not the original wave-like interference pattern. One way to explain this is to say that particles exist as a wave-function12: they exist only as a set of probabilities which are randomly picked (the collapse) once observed. Therefore, if unobserved, the particles appear to have superpositiona property originally thought was possible only in wavesand, therefore, travel only as a set of wave-function potentials which interfere, hence, the wave-pattern on the photographic film. But, notice that this interference relates back to the original uncertainty principle: we know there are two very specific positions for which the particle can travel through: the left or right slit13: if we know which, for a particle that has been observed, the momentum (in our previous experiment, a wave-function) of the particle is
11

Schombert, James. "Two-Slit Experiments." University of Oregon. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html (accessed July 6, 2011).
12

Although there are a few theories to explain this problem (e.g. many-world interpretation), we will be concerned with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, as is continually explained. 13 For the more careful reader, this statement is implying the slits are thin enough for the experiment to apply.

radically changed therefore causing the particle to not create the originally-given interference pattern.14 In conclusion, the mere act of observing something causes its collapse to a visible, particle-like, solid object or outcome15, and the implications that emerge from this conclusion are rather baffling. George Berkeley stated esse est percipi or to be is to be perceived16, which, in what appears to be a much more generalized perspective17, is very true if we look at the essence of quantum mechanics, that which describes our world. When one is not observing an object, the object exists in space only as a set of wave-functions or probabilities, which, only when perceived, truly collapse onto an outcome which allows our perception of reality to be as it is. Of course, this comes with implications that the uncertainty of a function is ridiculously small (hence, there is no random shift in the moon by miles if it is accidentally unobserved), but, the problem is not such, it is, instead, that the moon simply does not exist as matter as we know it if it is unobserved, it exists only as a version of matter we could say is smeared: it lies proportionally to its wave functionacross that set of points. All in all, using observations from our universe, we see that our very concept of time, something so important to our everyday lives, is completely and utterly relative to the observer, while our concept of solid matter almost quite literally falls apart when it is not presented with an observer, to which we conclude by saying that the world abides by a set of rules, but, the final

This statement does not cause a contradiction with the previous wave-function collapse statement if carefully scrutinized. It is, rather, a parallel to the previous statement. 15 For more relevance to the previous cat experiment, one would notice that the experiment, at time , is a perfectly spaced-out wave-function, hence the cat being in both a dead and alive (smeared, if you pardon the expression) state at the same time before the box is opened and observed. Throughout repetition of this experiment (say, 1000 times) the results near that of the wave-function (50% chance of the event happening), which is analogous to firing the photon of the enhanced double slit experiment, multiple times (as it nears its probability-density function of an interference pattern), but, Im sure in the case of the cat experiment, the ASPCA would not approve.

14

"esse est percipi doctrine (philosophy) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/193050/esse-est-percipi-doctrine (accessed July 7, 2011).
17

16

Than what is given in the doctrine.

question to ask is: after all, does the observer rely on the world, or does the world rely on the observer?18

18

This final statement is an edit from the original paper; it is reversed.