Relativity and the reality factor
ABSTRACT:
The era of the scientific observer "spectator" has ended with the theory of Relativity more than 80
years ago. We have not since replaced this observer by a new and better one. In other words, we
have not understood that this was the signal for the next logical step in the evolution of human
consciousness. The author intends to describe this next step by addressing the following question:
" How do we alter the real universe in order to make our reality possible?" This alteration
process can be inferred from the differences between a real universe, as described by relativity,
and our everyday perception of things. Science needs to make a clear distinction between our
reality and the real universe in order to be able to question the underlying nature of his reality.
Introduction
There are various definitions for reality and different realities. This text will be concerned with the
reality as understood generally by science. Science bases its definition of reality on observation,
prediction, repeatability and the usual dimensions of mass time and length. Or, so it was during
the time between Newton and Einstein. There was this simple "spectator" type of relationship
between the observer and the universe where he didn't have to be concerned by his own presence
and existence. What he sees and touches, is. Space and time, the two pillars of our reality, were
realities symbolized by the clock and yardstick.
And then there was Einstein and the theory of relativity. The clocks and yardsticks were not
absolute anymore but relative. After Einstein, we were left without a definition of reality that was
consistent with relativity. We couldn't figure out the connection between the two, or we couldn't
accept it. Also, we did not redefine a new observer in a way that would be consistent with the
new knowledge brought by this theory. What could we make of it? At the time, this was too
scientific for philosophers and too philosophical for scientists. And, more than 80 years after, it
still is. There have been many scientific and philosophical interpretations of relativity. I will
present here another interpretation that is both scientific and philosophical. For making the
connection between our reality and the real universe we must first define this real universe from
the consequences of the theory of relativity.
Consequences of the theory of relativity
Relativity tells us that time and space are not absolute, but relative to us, to the way we observe
the universe and at what relative speed we do it. It tends to indicate that time and space don't
have a real existence of their own and are tools we create and use to navigate and position
ourselves in our reality. These tools are created from our relative interaction with a real universe.
Relativity didn't show the limits of the universe, but those of the observer, the limits of this type
of relationship with the universe. The extent of our questioning has surpassed what this type of
spectator-relationship with the universe could give. Time and space are just tools, and nobody
ever prove that the universe was in fact made of these tools. So, when one tries to understand the
underlying nature of the "universe", these tools may not be adequate anymore. It is the difference
between understanding the universe as we perceive it and understanding it, as it is. The solution to
this is not in the universe but in our perception of it.
Our reality was not changed by relativity. But the status of the observer was changed. Yet, it
was not replaced by a new one. We missed it. The next logical step would have been to go back
to the definition of the observer, and answer the following question"; How do we alter the real
universe in order to make our reality possible?". One way to answer this, is to extract from the
consequences of the theory of relativity an understanding of what the real universe is like. Then
we can walk our way back to our everyday perception, deducing what kind of transformation we
effect on the information of the real universe to produce our reality. What are these
transformations?
Our transformation of information
Here we cannot summarize these transformations by way of the usual concept of the black box
between us and the universe; we are, the black box. What we are makes our reality, a reality so
well adapted that the word "illusion" is not an honest description for it. Our reality is a
transformed subset of the information available in the real universe. Here is a simple example of
an illusion commonly applied in our reality and that makes use of one of these transformations. In
theatres everywhere, we see motion pictures, when in fact, these are still images presented to us at
a rate of around 30 images per seconds. The slow response time of our eyes and mind integrate
this variation in time, to give the illusion of motion. Yet, ask anyone, and it moves! What is the
reality here? Well, we like to see and believe in the motion of pictures, yet we know in our
understanding that these are still images. Our knowledge allows us to go beyond the illusion.
Similarly, a new way of understanding things can help us go beyond the motion picture of our
reality. Next, we will examine space and time, the tools of our reality. For what they really are
defines this real universe.
The tools of our reality
SPACE
Let's look at the notion of space. Space is made of dimensions or distances, and a distance is
basically represented by a line. But, to see or even think of a line requires us to consider all the
points of that line as at the same moment. This requires instantaneity, which is not allowed by the
finite value of the speed of light. To sit at the centre of a circle would provide us with points all
at the same time "distance" from us, but at a different time "distance" from each other, therefore
not constituting a single moment. It is a "can't win" situation. Space doesn't exist and a moment
is only a very small points, a position. Space is just a concept, a tool that has no existence or
meaning in the real universe, only in our reality. There are those who will say that the time
between any two points of a line on a blackboard is insignificantly small, negligible. Well, the
word "insignificant" is anthropocentric, and relates only to the observer. Every time such words
are used to cut short a discussion, empiricism is introduced and presented as a solution. No rules
should have to change between atoms and galaxies. If it appears to change, it is only relative to
us. If the concept is not always true, it never was. And to scrutinize our perception consists in
removing this empiricism relative to our position and size as spectators.
It is interesting to see in science the concepts of our reality and those of the real universe
indiscriminately mixed together in the same ideas and equations. The common words "Space-time" is such an example. As we saw above, our perception makes space. On the other hand,
time is something of both worlds.
TIME
There are many types of time, and as many words to describe them. There is the psychological
time of the observer, the time of his clocks, the time of the events he observes etc. In relativity, at
speeds close to that of light, the event and the observer have different clocks that run at different
paces. The times on the two clocks are not related and therefore, do not follow a universal time
flow. The two clocks simply do not share the same time. Not sharing time, appears to us at great
speeds because it exacerbates this fact to the point of making it measurable for us. And, if time is
not shared in that circumstance, it never is, or was. Otherwise, at what exact lower speed would
the time of the two clocks become suddenly shared, and part of the same frame of reference? It
never does. The observer and the event have both their own clocks and time, which time is never
common or shared with the other in any way. There is no time between the observer and the
event, except that carried by the event that is the light information between the two. The time
between the two clocks still runs, but no time duration or dimension exists without an event to
support it. When we measure the time of an event, we make a relative comparison between two
clocks not running necessarily at the same paces. They are not tied by any causal relationship or
common beat. Time is therefore an intrinsic dimension of an event, and this means that we can
and may isolate the time factor in any equation where it appears, in its own right, as a true
dimension. This isolated time factor is our concept of energy, and it is hidden in our equations as
such. It is as if there was a universal pace for time, but a pace that varies locally as part of an
event. If we assume that the universe is expanding, it is therefore an unfinished event, which event
time dimension is still changing, and we are in it. At every second, the universe gets older. This
varying time dimension gives us a universal pace or speed of time, but that varies locally,
according to speed or as in a gravitational field. I have to resist here the temptation to speculate
any further. I have tried this notion on physics, biology and especially thermodynamic and found
new ways to understand various phenomena, as gravitation, the origin of life and spontaneous
events.
The new observer
Now, that discourse is not leaving us much to hang on to in this real universe. As there are no
space, no universal time and a flow of time that varies locally. This may seem to reduce the
universe to not much, but the simplicity is there. If we can't look at this kind of answer without
feeling our own annihilation, we will never look at it. Tomorrow, cars will still run, and people
will still laugh and nothing will be changed. There is no risk for our reality in this vision.
We saw above that the observer must effect a certain number of transformations on the
information he receives to convert this simple real universe into his complex reality. It all comes
down to tracking back the path of the information from the real universe to our reality. Among
these transformations, he has to select a portion of that universe by way of structure or process,
and has to integrate in time enough of the signal for detection. The slow response time of our
senses integrates in time the variations too rapid for detection as in cinema. He also interprets
everything in his field of vision as in one moment, when what he actually perceives is the
coincidence of various signals reaching his eyes. The light of the star shining in the sky and the
light of the headlights of the car under it come from millions of years apart. They happen to reach
our eyes at the same moment, and are part of the same moment of perception, but from events
happening at different moments. We do the same with very short intervals of time, and perceive
distance. A photograph showing different subjects at different depth of field is an integration of
separate moments in one coincidence on the film. To compare sequential memories of this field of
vision in time, gives us change as past and present. One can understand that by adding a few more
levels of structural and/or functional integration of this information, six maybe seven, in
retroaction with lower levels of integration, you could reach consciousness and logic. I leave the
details for later. The new scientific observer understands these processes, and before all, knows
what the real universe looks like. Only then can he study a phenomenon more clearly by removing
his own influence on it. It is imperative that the new observer realises that he is standing
right now in this weird real universe, and that it is not just a "close to light speed" freak
phenomenon. What he studies follows the rules of the real universe, not that of his sensory
created reality.
Conclusion
To go back and reflect on how our perception transforms the real universe into our reality is
certainly, the next logical step in the evolution of human consciousness. Just as a child discovers
himself, we get to acknowledge our existence beyond the message of our senses. We get to
accept that our limitations transform actively the information to create our complex reality, almost
from nothingness. But to refuse a closer introspection into these transformations is to deny our
own existence and role as part of this universe. Ignoring the real universe, is to believe in the
pretense of our own perfection. It is rather our own imperfections and slowness that make our
reality happen. The real perfection is in the fact that the same transformations that make us actors
in the process of being, also make our reality, a consistency that both the scientist and the laymen
can enjoy. We never were just spectators. We must leave to God the only seat available for a
spectator. These last 80 years of confusion were caused by the lack of a new philosophy that
would indicate and support a new direction for the understanding of our existence in the real
universe, as revealed by the theory of relativity.
"Science never makes an advance until philosophy authorizes it and encourages it to do so."
Thomas Mann
As newly redefined observers, I would like to wish you all, the greatest of journeys.
Marcel-Marie LeBel
98-11-29
