Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: timey on 20/06/2016 01:06:39
-
(MODERATOR NOTE: this thread was created out posts from http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67283.0)
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
What is proven is that:
A measuring system, (ie: atomic clock), will run faster in a higher gravity potential relative to a measuring system at a lower gravity potential.
An observer and all of his belongings with the elevated clock will experience an increase in the timing of their own systems, (in keeping with the measuring system in elevation), relative to the timing their systems experience in the lower gravity potential. (equivalence principle)
That a measuring system (and the observer with all his belongings) that is in motion relative to another measuring system, will experience a slower rate of time than the measuring system that is not in relative motion.
These are proven phenomenon.
Despite the mathematical fit of Einstein's predictions of General Relativity and time dilation, time slowing or stopping for a black hole, or for light, is just a supposition.
It's important to understand where the 'actual' knowledge ends in physics and the hypothesis begins.
-
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
What is proven is that:
A measuring system, (ie: atomic clock), will run faster in a higher gravity potential relative to a measuring system at a lower gravity potential.
An observer and all of his belongings with the elevated clock will experience an increase in the timing of their own systems, (in keeping with the measuring system in elevation), relative to the timing their systems experience in the lower gravity potential. (equivalence principle)
That a measuring system (and the observer with all his belongings) that is in motion relative to another measuring system, will experience a slower rate of time than the measuring system that is not in relative motion.
These are proven phenomenon.
Despite the mathematical fit of Einstein's predictions of General Relativity and time dilation, time slowing or stopping for a black hole, or for light, is just a supposition.
It's important to understand where the 'actual' knowledge ends in physics and the hypothesis begins.
I'd say general relativity has more than stood the test of time enough to be accepted as valid, and for all intents and purposes all the knowledge we have states that the curvature of spacetime around a black hole will indeed slow time. This is accepted science, not just some wacky prediction. It was a perfectly valid answer given to the poster. Please don't try and make it as if it holds no water and is just like a "ehhh, some say this, some say that, no one really knows," as if all is equal. Relativity and the curvature of spacetime are accepted by any physicist worth their salt. So why water down the issue as if it isn't? Again, my reply to the poster stands, and hopefully he'll be able to come to the right conclusion.
-
IAMREALITY - please, do you have to take it so personally?
With regards to what mainstream physicists are currently saying about General Relativity, please refer to Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy', for one example.
I'm sure the op understands that GR is our best working hypothesis of the cosmos...
But again, I re-iterate that it is important that there is a distinction made between proven reality and hypothesis. I stand most firmly by my post and am of the opinion that you should not in any shape or form take it personally that I state where phenomenon are proven and where they are not...
-
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Nothing could be further from the truth for black holes. That time slows down in a gravitational field is something that's been measured by experiment at Harvard University in 1906 by Pound and Rebka. GR is based on solid observation/experimentation and is a well verified theory. Black holes have been detected and that time slows down more and more the closer one gets to the event horizon is based on solid theoretical predictions based on verified theory. The gravitational field outside a black hole is just a strong gravitational field and we know how time behaves in a gravitational field.
Layman all too often use the term conjecture or speculation when speaking of things which are based on solid, tested and therefore accepted and trusted theory. I advise learning the meaning of each of those terms so you know when each applies.
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
What the Pound Rebka proved is that the velocity of a man made Doppler shift in a test signal can be matched by 'something' in the gravitational field. And that is 'end of story' over what was 'proven'!
The fact that this type of velocity of frequency of the gravitational shift phenomenon was actually predicted by Einstein within General Relativity, in relation to what the Pound Rebka 'did' actually prove ushered in more precise testing of gravitational time dilation.
Gravitational time dilation has been tested, but all that was really proven within these tests is that time runs faster at elevation for the measuring device that we measure time with. It does NOT prove that time runs faster in a weaker gravitational field. ***That is in fact a supposition.***. That an observer and all his belongings with the elevated caesium atomic clock will experience their own rate of time as in keeping with the clock, suggests that the atoms that are the make up of the observer and his belongings also experience an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.
This is NOT a measure of what time does in open space. If it can be proven that time runs faster 'for' a location of weaker gravity field, rather than for an atom elevated 'in' a location of weaker gravity field, then it will be proven that time runs slower for bodies of mass and the 'conjecture' concerning time running slow for black holes will, of course, then be fact. So far this is actually unproven, and is only a hypothesis of General Relativity.
It is important to distinguish between that which is proven and that which is not.
Edit: In return I advise you to have a watch of a program called 'Horizon' 'the mystery of dark energy'... and then we may talk about tried and trusted theories in context.
-
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Nothing could be further from the truth for black holes. That time slows down in a gravitational field is something that's been measured by experiment at Harvard University in 1906 by Pound and Rebka. GR is based on solid observation/experimentation and is a well verified theory. Black holes have been detected and that time slows down more and more the closer one gets to the event horizon is based on solid theoretical predictions based on verified theory. The gravitational field outside a black hole is just a strong gravitational field and we know how time behaves in a gravitational field.
Layman all too often use the term conjecture or speculation when speaking of things which are based on solid, tested and therefore accepted and trusted theory. I advise learning the meaning of each of those terms so you know when each applies.
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
What the Pound Rebka proved is that the velocity of a man made Doppler shift in a test signal can be matched by 'something' in the gravitational field. And that is 'end of story' over what was 'proven'!
The fact that this type of velocity of frequency of the gravitational shift phenomenon was actually predicted by Einstein within General Relativity, in relation to what the Pound Rebka 'did' actually prove ushered in more precise testing of gravitational time dilation.
Gravitational time dilation has been tested, but all that was really proven within these tests is that time runs faster at elevation for the measuring device that we measure time with. It does NOT prove that time runs faster in a weaker gravitational field. ***That is in fact a supposition.***. That an observer and all his belongings with the elevated caesium atomic clock will experience their own rate of time as in keeping with the clock, suggests that the atoms that are the make up of the observer and his belongings also experience an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.
This is NOT a measure of what time does in open space. If it can be proven that time runs faster 'for' a location of weaker gravity field, rather than for an atom elevated 'in' a location of weaker gravity field, then it will be proven that time runs slower for bodies of mass and the 'conjecture' concerning time running slow for black holes will, of course, then be fact. So far this is actually unproven, and is only a hypothesis of General Relativity.
It is important to distinguish between that which is proven and that which is not.
Edit: In return I advise you to have a watch of a program called 'Horizon' 'the mystery of dark energy'... and then we may talk about tried and trusted theories in context.
Ok, I can't lie... I am VERY much looking forward to PmbPhy's reply to this lol. I know he's gonna do a heck of a lot better job skewering it than I would've been able to at my best!
-
Bring it on... (she growled)
Prove that an atomic clock is not just measuring what time dilation does for it's own self...
-
Will all participants in this thread please read http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
-
I'm sorry Colin. There 'is' no New Theory here... Just General Relativity concerning what is proven and what is not... If we can't talk about what is proven and what is not concerning General Relativity, this then renders the physics board as a farce and General Relativity as a 'religion'.
-
I'm sorry Colin. There 'is' no New Theory here...
No need to apologise.
Just saying that we don't want posts wandering off into new theories. We've had a lot of problems with certain individuals and are firming up the rules.
I suspect one of the first things PmbPhy will say will be along the lines of physics is not about proving things. But I won't preempt his words [;)]
Kasparovitch's request is a reasonable one, this thread is drifting.
-
I'm sorry Colin. There 'is' no New Theory here... Just General Relativity concerning what is proven and what is not... If we can't talk about what is proven and what is not concerning General Relativity, this then renders the physics board as a farce and General Relativity as a 'religion'.
PREVIOUS POST OF MINE:
I'm afraid this topic is not about the epistemology of any theory.
I ask a concrete question which assumes the theories concerned are hypothetically correct.
If you think they aren't or that they need fine tuning, I think you should discuss it in a topic about that subject, or create it.
[:)]
Assuming a theory is hypothetically correct for the sake of discussion is neither farce nor religion, I think.
Once again, if you have something to add to the theory itself, or subtract from it, do it elsewhere in the forum.
You have already been told by an extremely concrete relativist (Pete), who does actually know his onions, that your question has no meaning in physics.
I would say that assessment is subject to being proven for the reasons I am postulating. The reasons are not New Theory, they are consequence of valid experimentation of what is proven and what is not.
But have it your own way. Discuss your concrete question all you like.
Colin, I'd like to hear what Pete has to say in reply to my post... If you would, could you please split the thread?
-
The higher the gravity, the faster the speed, the slower time advances. That's why the observer in normal gravity at rest can age thousands of years in what would be minutes for the person standing at the event horizon of a black hole. Time goes slower for them relative to the observer at rest at normal gravity. In the time it took thousands of years to go by, only minutes or hours or days went by for that at the black hole. Time was slower for them.
Imagine a satellite orbiting a black hole near event horizon. To get stable orbital trajectory, it has to move at nearly the light speed.
But it will make it experience micro gravity, considering what happens to people in ISS.
The question is, what cause time dilation of a clock inside the satellite, is it the gravity field, the movement speed, or both? (or none?)
What if the satellite is not moving relative to the black hole nor an external observer, by canceling force of gravity using some kind of propeller?
I'm not sure if I'm fully grasping the question correctly, but I would think that any factor contributing to the energy/momentum of the system in question would be responsible for its relative time dilation (if I'm saying that all correctly).
What I mean is, according to GR, a free fall body in a gravity field feels the same as floating in space with no gravity. And a satellite orbiting a black hole is equal to free fall body, hence should feel no effect from gravity.
-
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
timey - I never used the term proved in that post because there's a good reason for it. The science of physics is not about "proving" anything. What I said was something that's been measured by experiment. That means that photons were emitted from a source and detected at a detector. The results showed that there was a difference in frequency which was consistent with what Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted it to be.
-
Extensive tests of the validity of general relativity have been carried out and are ongoing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity)
So it is not simply a case that everyone just hasn't noticed a glaring error in the theory by all sitting on their hands for decades.
-
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
timey - I never used the term proved in that post because there's a good reason for it. The science of physics is not about "proving" anything. What I said was something that's been measured by experiment. That means that photons were emitted from a source and detected at a detector. The results showed that there was a difference in frequency which was consistent with what Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted it to be.
MOD NOTE:
Note, Timey has suggested an alternative explanation to the experimental results which is discussed (extensively) here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66751.0
and here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66831.0
Anyone wishing to discuss these alternatives is welcome to join these discussions.
-
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
I think the word you should be using is objective and not conjecture. Conjecture is what we do all the ''time'' on here.
-
GR only impacts the wavelength and frequency of photons, but not the speed of light. The speed of light is the same in all references. How is that possible? How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?
The easiest explanation is the speed of light is the ground state of the universe; zero point. All inertial references will define potential relative to this ground state.
As an analogy, sea level is the ground state for all the water on the surface and atmosphere of the earth. Differences in elevation, from clouds, to mountains, to streams to lakes, to rivers, will create different potentials with sea level; same water but with differences in potential. However, sea level does not change and is the same for all these references. Sea level is the place where the water becomes zero potential; rest.
To make matter and anti-matter, in the lab, we need to begin with very energetic photons. You can't make matter and anti-matter from single photons of visible light or radio waves, because the potential of the energy is too low to define sub-particles. The matter phases exist at the top of the potential curve, not at the bottom.
In the sea level analogy, as water gains potential from sea level; evaporates and gains elevation into the atmosphere, it will eventually condense into liquid and solid; rain and hail. Now it will lower potential and will return back to C-level, which is the same place at all times in its journey back.
How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?
Relative to question at hand, about photon time on its journey from the sun to earth; Since sea level does not change, there is no motion or change of state in terms of this perpetual ground state. Therefore, time does not apply, per se. It only applies if you use inertial as relative reference; wavelength/frequency changes, that assumes matter is the ground state. This will create problems with your universal energy balance and flow of potential that may not allow one to explain why the speed of light is the same in all inertial references.
How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?
-
GR only impacts the wavelength and frequency of photons, but not the speed of light. The speed of light is the same in all references. How is that possible? How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?
Hi Puppy, to understand ''things'' you have to know what the question and answer means. The perception of what Einstein said, that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, only relates to a measurement in a vacuum. Mediums have an affect on the speed of light, so if your inertial reference frame was always filled with a dense atmosphere, you would indeed measure a slower speed in your inertial frame.
So the answer is, it is the same speed in a vacuum measured in any inertial reference frames.
-
MOD NOTE:
Note, Timey has suggested an alternative explanation to the experimental results which is discussed (extensively) here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66751.0
and here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66831.0
Anyone wishing to discuss these alternatives is welcome to join these discussions.
Firstly - Thank you Colin. It was my intention to remain within the remit of current physics and the physics board, and only discuss GR in relation to what is proven and what is not via experiment.
However, it is probably just as well to put my 'angle' ;) into context with the inclusion of the other 2 New Theories threads where I've been discussing my 'new notion'.
So thanks for taking the time to post these other links as well...
Above and beyond mate!
-
How does consensus theory explain why the speed of light is the same in all references?
Via the Lorentz transformations, that stretches or contracts 'distance', I do believe...(?)
P.S. I'm really liking your sea level analogy!
-
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
timey - I never used the term proved in that post because there's a good reason for it. The science of physics is not about "proving" anything. What I said was something that's been measured by experiment. That means that photons were emitted from a source and detected at a detector. The results showed that there was a difference in frequency which was consistent with what Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted it to be.
Ok look, this is the post in question.
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Nothing could be further from the truth for black holes. That time slows down in a gravitational field is something that's been measured by experiment at Harvard University in 1906 by Pound and Rebka. GR is based on solid observation/experimentation and is a well verified theory. Black holes have been detected and that time slows down more and more the closer one gets to the event horizon is based on solid theoretical predictions based on verified theory. The gravitational field outside a black hole is just a strong gravitational field and we know how time behaves in a gravitational field.
Layman all too often use the term conjecture or speculation when speaking of things which are based on solid, tested and therefore accepted and trusted theory. I advise learning the meaning of each of those terms so you know when each applies.
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
What the Pound Rebka proved is that the velocity of a man made Doppler shift in a test signal can be matched by 'something' in the gravitational field. And that is 'end of story' over what was 'proven'!
The fact that this type of velocity of frequency of the gravitational shift phenomenon was actually predicted by Einstein within General Relativity, in relation to what the Pound Rebka 'did' actually prove ushered in more precise testing of gravitational time dilation.
Gravitational time dilation has been tested, but all that was really proven within these tests is that time runs faster at elevation for the measuring device that we measure time with. It does NOT prove that time runs faster in a weaker gravitational field. ***That is in fact a supposition.***. That an observer and all his belongings with the elevated caesium atomic clock will experience their own rate of time as in keeping with the clock, suggests that the atoms that are the make up of the observer and his belongings also experience an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.
This is NOT a measure of what time does in open space. If it can be proven that time runs faster 'for' a location of weaker gravity field, rather than for an atom elevated 'in' a location of weaker gravity field, then it will be proven that time runs slower for bodies of mass and the 'conjecture' concerning time running slow for black holes will, of course, then be fact. So far this is actually unproven, and is only a hypothesis of General Relativity.
It is important to distinguish between that which is proven and that which is not.
Edit: In return I advise you to have a watch of a program called 'Horizon' 'the mystery of dark energy'... and then we may talk about tried and trusted theories in context.
When you start referring to matters in terms of truths and untruths this gives the impression that the Pound Rebka experiment has unequivocally proved that time runs faster in space.
It has not! All it proved was that when the correct velocity of Doppler shift was applied to the test signal, this 'correct velocity' was matched by 'something' in the gravitational field that cancelled the gravitational energy shift and allowed the photon to be absorbed by the receiver.
And... if you start thinking in scientific terms, rather than in terms of making observation fit to theory, it is clear that the NIST gravitational time dilation tests via atomic clocks have not 'actually' unequivocally proven that time runs faster out in space either. Especially when considering that for an observer with the elevated clock, the timing of all the atoms that make up his physique are ageing in keeping with the clock, suggesting that they too, in line with the caesium atom, are experiencing an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.
None of what I have said above is 'New Theory'... All I have done is observe 'fact' provided by valid experimentation.
Now the fact of the observer with the elevated clock's atoms electron energy transitions being in keeping with the clock, and in proportion to the clock as they were at ground level, under the remit of the equivalence principle, suggests that GR gravitational time dilation may be only measuring what gravitational time dilation is doing for mass in relation to mass, and that what gravitational time dilation is doing for the gravitational field of 'space' in relation to mass may be different.
That is 'New Theory'...
-
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
timey - I never used the term proved in that post because there's a good reason for it. The science of physics is not about "proving" anything. What I said was something that's been measured by experiment. That means that photons were emitted from a source and detected at a detector. The results showed that there was a difference in frequency which was consistent with what Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted it to be.
Ok look, this is the post in question.
That time runs slower for a black hole is purely conjecture.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Conjecture is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. Nothing could be further from the truth for black holes. That time slows down in a gravitational field is something that's been measured by experiment at Harvard University in 1906 by Pound and Rebka. GR is based on solid observation/experimentation and is a well verified theory. Black holes have been detected and that time slows down more and more the closer one gets to the event horizon is based on solid theoretical predictions based on verified theory. The gravitational field outside a black hole is just a strong gravitational field and we know how time behaves in a gravitational field.
Layman all too often use the term conjecture or speculation when speaking of things which are based on solid, tested and therefore accepted and trusted theory. I advise learning the meaning of each of those terms so you know when each applies.
The Pound Rebka proved no such thing in the slightest.
What the Pound Rebka proved is that the velocity of a man made Doppler shift in a test signal can be matched by 'something' in the gravitational field. And that is 'end of story' over what was 'proven'!
The fact that this type of velocity of frequency of the gravitational shift phenomenon was actually predicted by Einstein within General Relativity, in relation to what the Pound Rebka 'did' actually prove ushered in more precise testing of gravitational time dilation.
Gravitational time dilation has been tested, but all that was really proven within these tests is that time runs faster at elevation for the measuring device that we measure time with. It does NOT prove that time runs faster in a weaker gravitational field. ***That is in fact a supposition.***. That an observer and all his belongings with the elevated caesium atomic clock will experience their own rate of time as in keeping with the clock, suggests that the atoms that are the make up of the observer and his belongings also experience an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.
This is NOT a measure of what time does in open space. If it can be proven that time runs faster 'for' a location of weaker gravity field, rather than for an atom elevated 'in' a location of weaker gravity field, then it will be proven that time runs slower for bodies of mass and the 'conjecture' concerning time running slow for black holes will, of course, then be fact. So far this is actually unproven, and is only a hypothesis of General Relativity.
It is important to distinguish between that which is proven and that which is not.
Edit: In return I advise you to have a watch of a program called 'Horizon' 'the mystery of dark energy'... and then we may talk about tried and trusted theories in context.
When you start referring to matters in terms of truths and untruths this gives the impression that the Pound Rebka experiment has unequivocally proved that time runs faster in space.
It has not! All it proved was that when the correct velocity of Doppler shift was applied to the test signal, this 'correct velocity' was matched by 'something' in the gravitational field that cancelled the gravitational energy shift and allowed the photon to be absorbed by the receiver.
And... if you start thinking in scientific terms, rather than in terms of making observation fit to theory, it is clear that the NIST gravitational time dilation tests via atomic clocks have not 'actually' unequivocally proven that time runs faster out in space either. Especially when considering that for an observer with the elevated clock, the timing of all the atoms that make up his physique are ageing in keeping with the clock, suggesting that they too, in line with the caesium atom, are experiencing an increase in the frequency of their electron energy transitions.
None of what I have said above is 'New Theory'... All I have done is observe 'fact' provided by valid experimentation.
Now the fact of the observer with the elevated clock's atoms electron energy transitions being in keeping with the clock, and in proportion to the clock as they were at ground level, under the remit of the equivalence principle, suggests that GR gravitational time dilation may be only measuring what gravitational time dilation is doing for mass in relation to mass, and that what gravitational time dilation is doing for the gravitational field of 'space' in relation to mass may be different.
That is 'New Theory'...
'Proven' can be such a technicality sometimes... But the important part to consider is the confidence that something is in fact correct. Just because a threshold of 'proven' hasn't been met doesn't then make the contrary opinion have a 50% confidence level and the thing attempted to be proven having a 50% confidence level. In many of the new theory type of cases I see discussed here, it's probably like a 99.99999% confidence level for the accepted and .00001% confidence for the contrary. I think it's clear then why the majority of the best and brightest side with the accepted.
-
'Proven' can be such a technicality sometimes... But the important part to consider is the confidence that something is in fact correct. Just because a threshold of 'proven' hasn't been met doesn't then make the contrary opinion have a 50% confidence level and the thing attempted to be proven having a 50% confidence level. In many of the new theory type of cases I see discussed here, it's probably like a 99.99999% confidence level for the accepted and .00001% confidence for the contrary. I think it's clear then why the majority of the best and brightest side with the accepted.
Well dear oh me - your comment actually works as an analogy with respect to the definition of 'truth' as a social phenomenon...lol! A fact of life that I personally find truly upsetting. (Do the brightest and the best really side with the accepted, or is it the sheep?)
But in the world of science, for something to be considered as truth it must be already proven beyond doubt. If it is not a truth, it's a theory and theories should not be extrapolated as absolutes!
-
'Proven' can be such a technicality sometimes... But the important part to consider is the confidence that something is in fact correct. Just because a threshold of 'proven' hasn't been met doesn't then make the contrary opinion have a 50% confidence level and the thing attempted to be proven having a 50% confidence level. In many of the new theory type of cases I see discussed here, it's probably like a 99.99999% confidence level for the accepted and .00001% confidence for the contrary. I think it's clear then why the majority of the best and brightest side with the accepted.
(Do the brightest and the best really side with the accepted, or is it the sheep?)
No, rest assured, it's the best and brightest...
But in the world of science, for something to be considered as truth it must be already proven beyond doubt. If it is not a truth, it's a theory and theories should not be extrapolated as absolutes!
Just because something isn't absolute doesn't make it risky to speak about in a way that regards it with a similar respect. Like I said, if something has a confidence of 99.99999%, there is very good reason to give it such respect, to regard it with such respect, to initiate discussion with that respect as the basis.
A statement of "if it's not truth, it's theory!" in the way you imply it, makes it seem as if as soon as it becomes theory it gets cast in some 50/50 bucket, where its respect drops significantly to one of "ehhh, we simply don't know. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't". But that's not reality at all. All theories are not equal in credibility, not by a long shot. And in this case, if we're talking about GR, it gets cast in the bucket of "it's not technically an absolute, but we're 99.999999% sure of it". And I'm content with siding with something like that.
-
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"... to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.
Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:
http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html
I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...
Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted. If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.
-
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"... to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.
Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:
http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html
I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...
Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted. If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.
Are you equating yourself with Einstein? Really?
Einstein was an exceptional mind, exceptional thinker, and if anyone had what it took intellectually to recognize the .0001% or less position as the one worth taking it was him. And that was also a long time ago, when so much less was known, and there was such a greater probability that what was theorized at the time was wrong. They did not have the sort of advanced tests we have today. So trying to use that to bolster your argument isn't really credible.
And for every one of your best and brightest I could link to 1000.
Furthermore, that documentary was widely regarded as a bunch of bunk, by those who know better, wasn't it?
-
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"... to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.
Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:
http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html
I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...
Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted. If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.
Are you equating yourself with Einstein? Really?
Einstein was an exceptional mind, exceptional thinker, and if anyone had what it took intellectually to recognize the .0001% or less position as the one worth taking it was him. And that was also a long time ago, when so much less was known, and there was such a greater probability that what was theorized at the time was wrong. They did not have the sort of advanced tests we have today. So trying to use that to bolster your argument isn't really credible.
And for every one of your best and brightest I could link to 1000.
Furthermore, that documentary was widely regarded as a bunch of bunk, by those who know better, wasn't it?
No - I am not equating myself with Einstein... On the basis that Einstein quoted:
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open"
...I have an idea.
If my idea is correct (unlikely, but there is more probability of my being correct in this idea, than my lottery ticket matching the correct lottery numbers) ...then others 'will' be equating me with Einstein.
(Edit: in fact that is not quite true - if my notion is correct it leads to a fully described cyclic universe and a theory of everything - if it is correct and my suggested experiment and prediction holds true - 'others' will not be equating me with Einstein.... what they will be saying is that I have by far outclassed him!
On the other hand (highly more likely) it could just be one of the best worst theories ever (chuckle)...
And hey, brownie points for trying, right?)
Who said the documentary was a load of old...? The quandary of physics has been being discussed by theoretical physicists amongst themselves for eons. The fact that physicists are now publicly stating their concerns in programs such as Horizon and other science media is surely a sign of the times, as Nima states in his interview, with respect to the situation of physics post LHC expectations.
-
Or said physicists are being paid to be on telly. Nothing like cash to sway opinion. Only joking.
-
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"... to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.
Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:
http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html
I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...
Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted. If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.
Are you equating yourself with Einstein? Really?
Einstein was an exceptional mind, exceptional thinker, and if anyone had what it took intellectually to recognize the .0001% or less position as the one worth taking it was him. And that was also a long time ago, when so much less was known, and there was such a greater probability that what was theorized at the time was wrong. They did not have the sort of advanced tests we have today. So trying to use that to bolster your argument isn't really credible.
And for every one of your best and brightest I could link to 1000.
Furthermore, that documentary was widely regarded as a bunch of bunk, by those who know better, wasn't it?
No - I am not equating myself with Einstein... On the basis that Einstein quoted:
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open"
...I have an idea.
If my idea is correct (unlikely, but there is more probability of my being correct in this idea, than my lottery ticket matching the correct lottery numbers) ...then others 'will' be equating me with Einstein.
(Edit: in fact that is not quite true - if my notion is correct it leads to a fully described cyclic universe and a theory of everything - if it is correct and my suggested experiment and prediction holds true - 'others' will not be equating me with Einstein.... what they will be saying is that I have by far outclassed him!
On the other hand (highly more likely) it could just be one of the best worst theories ever (chuckle)...
And hey, brownie points for trying, right?)
Who said the documentary was a load of old...? The quandary of physics has been being discussed by theoretical physicists amongst themselves for eons. The fact that physicists are now publicly stating their concerns in programs such as Horizon and other science media is surely a sign of the times, as Nima states in his interview, with respect to the situation of physics post LHC expectations.
Interesting post, Thank you!
Alan
-
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"... to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.
Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:
http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html
I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...
Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted. If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.
You are absolutely correct , especially as far as Albert Einstein is concerned he is not just "One of the brightest: He was by far the brightest ever!
Thank you
Alan
-
No - I am not equating myself with Einstein... On the basis that Einstein quoted:
"The mind is like a parachute, it works best when open"
...I have an idea.
If my idea is correct (unlikely, but there is more probability of my being correct in this idea, than my lottery ticket matching the correct lottery numbers) ...then others 'will' be equating me with Einstein.
(Edit: in fact that is not quite true - if my notion is correct it leads to a fully described cyclic universe and a theory of everything - if it is correct and my suggested experiment and prediction holds true - 'others' will not be equating me with Einstein.... what they will be saying is that I have by far outclassed him!
On the other hand (highly more likely) it could just be one of the best worst theories ever (chuckle)...
And hey, brownie points for trying, right?)
Who said the documentary was a load of old...? The quandary of physics has been being discussed by theoretical physicists amongst themselves for eons. The fact that physicists are now publicly stating their concerns in programs such as Horizon and other science media is surely a sign of the times, as Nima states in his interview, with respect to the situation of physics post LHC expectations.
Interesting post, Thank you!
Alan
May I inquire greater details as to specifically what parts of the above you found interesting and why?
-
Perhaps you should also have a watch of the program "Horizon 'the mystery of dark energy"... to see what some of the best and brightest are saying in relation to GR.
Also please see what one of the best and brightest within the multiverse camp are saying:
http://www.livescience.com/48685-physics-field-revolution.html
I could post many, many more links to the brightest and best talking about their confidence in GR...
Einstein was considered one of the brightest and the best on account of the fact that he did NOT side with the accepted. If he had of done so we would not even have a General Relativity to debate over.
You are absolutely correct , especially as far as Albert Einstein is concerned he is not just "One of the brightest: He was by far the brightest ever!
Thank you
Alan
I also ask here, what parts were you saying were correct? Do you also believe that GR is not a sound theory? Just curious.
As far as Einstein goes, I was actually the one that called attention to his being exceptional, while timey tried to elaborate on that by saying his greatness was because he bucked the standard. I'd actually argue his mind was exceptional for far more reasons than that alone. On the flipside though, I would argue to the contrary that he was by far the brightest ever. From an IQ standpoint, he wasn't even close. But if we are talking instead not about 'the brightest', but his contribution to science, then even that is up for significant debate. I'm sure you would get many different answers from many different perspectives, but none of course would be definitive since of course the exercise is subjective. But one thing I think would be agreed on by most is that even if Einstein won out, it wouldn't be by far.
(edited to add: For what it's worth, my vote would in fact go to Einstein)
-
Yeah, ok Alan M, firstly I thank you kindly for your positive comments. You are however mistaken about IAMREALITY (IAR). IAR was not insulting Pete, he was saying that Pete was going to be shredding my post with his superior knowledge. Therefore actually IAR was actually insulting me. (Although in fact I wasn't insulted, I purchased elephant skin (fake) on e-bay some time ago now and it serves me well, (chuckle)... I'm a woman btw IAR)
It is true that Pete has superior knowledge. However he has not skewered my post as IAR suggested he might because (I suspect) he cannot. The logic (I believe) is sound. This does not mean that my alternative theory is correct... Only that my observations of general relativity in relation to experiment concerning what is proven, and what is not, are correct.
-
Yeah, ok Alan M, firstly I thank you kindly for your positive comments. You are however mistaken about IAMREALITY (IAR). IAR was not insulting Pete, he was saying that Pete was going to be shredding my post with his superior knowledge. Therefore actually IAR was actually insulting me. (Although in fact I wasn't insulted, I purchased elephant skin (fake) on e-bay some time ago now and it serves me well, (chuckle)... I'm a woman btw IAR)
It is true that Pete has superior knowledge. However he has not skewered my post as IAR suggested he might because (I suspect) he cannot. The logic (I believe) is sound. This does not mean that my alternative theory is correct... Only that my observations of general relativity in relation to experiment concerning what is proven, and what is not, are correct.
Oh, you're not Pete? lmao. My apologies for the assumption! I didn't realize that Pmb was in fact Pete! How in the heck could that post have been confused as an insult towards him??? Ehhh, who cares lol. But I'm glad you weren't offended by it either, as I wouldn't have thought you would've been. If it's one thing I've seen from ya, regardless of how I feel about your positions, it's that you most certainly can handle strong debate and have a thick skin!
I will also attest to Pete's superior knowledge. He's quickly become my favorite poster to read, due to how much I can learn from his posts. That's really the reason I was looking so forward to his reply, because they are usually filled with so much detail!
And on Edit: Oh, you're a woman Timey? My apologies on that front as well!
-
Ok, I can't lie... I am VERY much looking forward to PmbPhy's reply to this lol.
Why are you looking forward to my reply so much? And what is it that you wish to read my reply to exactly?
I know he's gonna do a heck of a lot better job skewering it than I would've been able to at my best!
Why do you think that I'm going to criticize something when I haven't even paid much attention to this thread? I've said what needed to be said to answer the OPs question and that's all I'm interested in nowadays.
-
When you start referring to matters in terms of truths and untruths this gives the impression that the Pound Rebka experiment has unequivocally proved that time runs faster in space.
In the first place it's correct to say that physics is not about proving things. The reason is because it's not possible to say that a law of physics has been proven to be correct. However that in no way means that a law of physics can't be proven to be wrong. And when I said that your statement was the furthest thing from the truth I was saying that it's wrong and that is a perfectly fine statement that can be made in physics.
Suggestion: I recommend that you try to make the distinction between ways of using common phrases in English to express oneself and the use of terms to make a scientific point. I simply didn't think it was necessary to have to phrase it otherwise so that readers didn't assume I was speaking of scientific truths, of which there aren't any. I simply don't wish to triple the time I spend posting so as to make sure that people don't get confused on such points. I always talk to my physics colleagues using phrases like that and so do they. Especially since in this particular case it's actually a real "truth" as in a fact. By that I mean that you misused the phrase purely conjecture. That is a false statement because there's nothing conjectural about that prediction. As I explained before, the term "conjecture" is define to mean "opinion" and the slowing of time near a black hole cannot be referred to as an opinion. Mere opinion is distinctly different from a theoretical prediction.
timey - When you started posting here and making all sorts of assertions and posting your theories it's assumed that you have a basic understanding of the philosophy of science and the scientific method. Comments and mistakes like these demonstrate otherwise. Please understand that I'm most certainly not trying insult you or put you down or anything negative at all. What I'm trying very hard to do is to bring you up to speed with how physics and any other science as a matter of fact, works. To understand physics it is absolutely necessary to understand the philosophy of physics. I'm not being arrogant by any means. This is from having over 30 years experience as a physicist.
I recommend reading the following to get you started: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/philosophy_of_physics.pdf
As far as the rest of your argument goes, I'm not interested in discussing it any further. I said what I had to say and I see no reason to add more. What I said is correct and I stand by it. I used to get into long protracted discussions with people when they either couldn't understand the physics or found it difficult to admit they made a mistake. In this case it appears that you have a poor grasp of the philosophy of physics as well as how it pertains to the subject matter. You show no desire for asking for help so there's no point in me saying anything else. I will say this - Your problem might be in not understanding that when you measure a clock slowing down it means exactly this, nothing more and nothing less, than its time itself which is slowing down.
However, if you're able to find a textbook on general relativity that agrees with you I'll be more than happy to read that part which pertains to this subject.
Again, please understand that I don't mean to be offensive or to insult you. I'm strictly going by what you've written ever since you've arrived here and started posting.
-
Ok, I can't lie... I am VERY much looking forward to PmbPhy's reply to this lol.
Why are you looking forward to my reply so much? And what is it that you wish to read my reply to exactly?
I know he's gonna do a heck of a lot better job skewering it than I would've been able to at my best!
Why do you think that I'm going to criticize something when I haven't even paid much attention to this thread? I've said what needed to be said to answer the OPs question and that's all I'm interested in nowadays.
This thread was split off another thread, so the context was lost. In the originating thread, you were in fact going back and forth with timey, and you were on the same side of the argument that I had been on. In one you gave a reply that I had been very impressed with. So when I saw a reply from timey that I found in my opinion to have multiple scientific misstatements, I merely was looking forward to your reply to it, since you were my favorite poster who I considered to have the most capability on the forum, and figured you would have much to say on it and that I'd also learn a lot in the process (as I usually do from your posts). Had the thread not been split, the context would've been clearer.
Still though, it did make me laugh a bit that you actually seemed to be offended by having a fan of your mental prowess. I promise to not compliment you in the future, lest I offend you any further lol. [:P]
-
It is true that Pete has superior knowledge. However he has not skewered my post as IAR suggested he might because (I suspect) he cannot.
timey - That's a very kind thing of you to say. I'm very honored by it. That said, please do me a favor and refrain from suggesting that because I choose not to continue debating something with you its because I'm unable to or unable to prove your assertions wrong. I stopped because I long ago came to recognize that point where the other person either can't understand what I'm trying to explain to them or will not take the time to learn the reasons why I said they made a mistake. Sometimes that can be quite involved and would require sitting down and spending a month or so studying the subject or the philosophy of physics behind it. So when that comes I simply stop trying. However in each and ever case when that happens the other person gloats saying that I stopped discussing the subject with them because I was unable to prove them wrong. Can you understand exactly how irritating that can be? Please do me a favor and don't be one of those people. Allow me to simply stop posting when the time comes when I realize that I won't get anywhere with you. Okay? Thanks.
-
This thread was split off another thread, so the context was lost. In the originating thread, you were in fact going back and forth with timey, and you were on the same side of the argument that I had been on. In one you gave a reply that I had been very impressed with. So when I saw a reply from timey that I found in my opinion to have multiple scientific misstatements, I merely was looking forward to your reply to it, since you were my favorite poster who I considered to have the most capability on the forum, and figured you would have much to say on it and that I'd also learn a lot in the process (as I usually do from your posts). Had the thread not been split, the context would've been clearer.
Okay. I understand now. Thanks.
Still though, it did make me laugh a bit that you actually seemed to be offended by having a fan of your mental prowess. I promise to not compliment you in the future, lest I offend you any further lol. [:P]
I recommend that in the future you don't jump to such conclusions. Someone send me a PM quoting you about this "skewering" thing. The person who sent it to me said that you posted an insult directed towards me. However when I read the post I was confused and couldn't understand how someone could say that it was an insult. However I will admit that when the person said it was an insult that biased me so when I read it with a biased mind. That's why I asked you the questions that I did. It was the term "skewering" that confused me for some reason. I misread it for this reason. In my mind, and with the assertion that this was supposed to be an insult towards me, I thought that you were saying that I was going to skew something, as in confuse it.
Can you see how all of this arose now? In the future I recommend that you get the full story from someone before passing judgment on them. Many people won't be able to admit when they make a mistake. I'm not like that. In fact I take pride in the fact that I do my best to admit my mistakes as soon as I realize that I made it.
And thanks to both of you for such kind sentiments. I do my very best because that's why I'm here, i.e. to help people learn physics. When I get compliments like both of you so kindly posted it makes me feel very good about myself, makes my day in fact, because it tells me that I'm accomplishing the goals that I set out for myself. I'll do my best to keep it up in the future. Thanks again.
-
This thread was split off another thread, so the context was lost. In the originating thread, you were in fact going back and forth with timey, and you were on the same side of the argument that I had been on. In one you gave a reply that I had been very impressed with. So when I saw a reply from timey that I found in my opinion to have multiple scientific misstatements, I merely was looking forward to your reply to it, since you were my favorite poster who I considered to have the most capability on the forum, and figured you would have much to say on it and that I'd also learn a lot in the process (as I usually do from your posts). Had the thread not been split, the context would've been clearer.
Okay. I understand now. Thanks.
Still though, it did make me laugh a bit that you actually seemed to be offended by having a fan of your mental prowess. I promise to not compliment you in the future, lest I offend you any further lol. [:P]
I recommend that in the future you don't jump to such conclusions. Someone send me a PM quoting you about this "skewering" thing. The person who sent it to me said that you posted an insult directed towards me. However when I read the post I was confused and couldn't understand how someone could say that it was an insult. However I will admit that when the person said it was an insult that biased me so when I read it with a biased mind. That's why I asked you the questions that I did. It was the term "skewering" that confused me for some reason. I misread it for this reason. In my mind, and with the assertion that this was supposed to be an insult towards me, I thought that you were saying that I was going to skew something, as in confuse it.
Can you see how all of this arose now? In the future I recommend that you get the full story from someone before passing judgment on them. Many people won't be able to admit when they make a mistake. I'm not like that. In fact I take pride in the fact that I do my best to admit my mistakes as soon as I realize that I made it.
And thanks to both of you for such kind sentiments. I do my very best because that's why I'm here, i.e. to help people learn physics. When I get compliments like both of you so kindly posted it makes me feel very good about myself, makes my day in fact, because it tells me that I'm accomplishing the goals that I set out for myself. I'll do my best to keep it up in the future. Thanks again.
Lol I know who the poster was. They stated the same thing in this thread yesterday and attacked me without reason, and it was all deleted. Yeah, several of us were boggled by how that could've been interpreted as having been an attack on you lol. But I digress. I'm stunned that the poster actually went to the degrees of trying to start trouble by sending it through PM as well, but maybe I shouldn't be.
To be clear though, I do want you to know that my last part above was meant as just a light hearted ribbing meant in good humor, which is why I put the cute little tongue smiley. I didn't mean it passive aggressively or anything, just was bein a lighthearted wiseguy hehehe.
But in all seriousness, I meant the compliments with sincerity. I haven't been on the board long, but yet have learned so much from your replies already and that is truly why I look forward to your posts. You explain things so well and support those things with such factual detail that it's impossible to not learn from them, and I find myself in awe of how much you know. Fact is, I love to learn, about anything, always. And physics and the like are one of my greatest interests, and that's what led me to this board to begin with. And it's that love of learning and love of physics that have made me such a fan of yours, cause holy hell, do you know what you're talking about and like I said, I've learned so much from you already! So please know I was intending to just bust harmlessly with that last statement, and that you have nothing but the utmost respect from me. :)
-
But in all seriousness, I meant the compliments with sincerity. I haven't been on the board long, but yet have learned so much from your replies already and that is truly why I look forward to your posts. You explain things so well and support those things with such factual detail that it's impossible to not learn from them, and I find myself in awe of how much you know. Fact is, I love to learn, about anything, always. And physics and the like are one of my greatest interests, and that's what led me to this board to begin with. And it's that love of learning and love of physics that have made me such a fan of yours, cause holy hell, do you know what you're talking about and like I said, I've learned so much from you already! So please know I was intending to just bust harmlessly with that last statement, and that you have nothing but the utmost respect from me. :)
Wonderful! I appreciate people such as yourself, i.e. those who go to forums such as this to learn physics because they love it.
It may appear to many people that I myself don't learn a great deal from discussing physics in these forums. Unfortunately there are disgusting people out there who use questions that I post as some sort of "proof" that I'm completely ignorant on the subject that I ask about. Anybody, including the gnats who infest the internet, can claim that the topic I asked a question on was something that every freshman knows and for that reason I've proven to the world that I don't know physics. Or something dumb like that. And its been done several times. Fortunately for everyone here I don't do that myself. Or at least I make a conscious effort not to.
-
But in all seriousness, I meant the compliments with sincerity. I haven't been on the board long, but yet have learned so much from your replies already and that is truly why I look forward to your posts. You explain things so well and support those things with such factual detail that it's impossible to not learn from them, and I find myself in awe of how much you know. Fact is, I love to learn, about anything, always. And physics and the like are one of my greatest interests, and that's what led me to this board to begin with. And it's that love of learning and love of physics that have made me such a fan of yours, cause holy hell, do you know what you're talking about and like I said, I've learned so much from you already! So please know I was intending to just bust harmlessly with that last statement, and that you have nothing but the utmost respect from me. :)
Wonderful! I appreciate people such as yourself, i.e. those who go to forums such as this to learn physics because they love it.
It may appear to many people that I myself don't learn a great deal from discussing physics in these forums. Unfortunately there are disgusting people out there who use questions that I post as some sort of "proof" that I'm completely ignorant on the subject that I ask about. Anybody, including the gnats who infest the internet, can claim that the topic I asked a question on was something that every freshman knows and for that reason I've proven to the world that I don't know physics. Or something dumb like that. And its been done several times. Fortunately for everyone here I don't do that myself. Or at least I make a conscious effort not to.
There was somebody on Quora that earlier mocked someone for asking a question, and I just posted this in reply maybe an hour ago:
Not sure why this is so upvoted, when you did nothing more than to act like an arrogant intellectual bully for no reason, to a poster who asked a question with innocence. Physical bullies do so because they have the physical strength greater than their peers, and use it to make themselves feel superior because they actually suffer from voids of emptiness and inferiority. Intellectual bullies might have greater mental prowess, but engage in their bullying for the same reasons.
Fact is, the poster asked with innocence. Of course they don’t know all the intellectual aspects that apply or they wouldn’t need to ask the question to begin with. Instead they put their trust in those with greater knowledge to guide them and help them learn. You completely violated that trust by choosing the route of arrogance and intellectual bullying that you had.
Why mock the poster? Why make them feel inferior and stupid? Do you really need to put others down, or their ideas down, in order to make yourself feel worthwhile? So what, the poster didn’t think certain things through, or have the knowledge required to accurately assess the question. So what?? That means he or she should be publicly mocked merely because they sought out guidance and clarity? Do you really think mocking someone for such reasons is respectable, honorable or cool? It’s none of those things. In fact, to EVER confront someone willing to learn, wanting to learn, with an attitude of arrogance, condescension and mockery, is just downright pathetic; I must say…
I have no problem (obviously) with harshly critiquing opposing views when I find those views are set forth not inquisitively, not with an open mind, but instead from a standpoint of their being right when they're obviously wrong, and not put forth as a question, or with an intent of learning anything, but instead from a standpoint of trying to ram their position down others throats etc. I also don't mind attacking flawed logic put forth as solid. But I think a question asked with innocence, with an intention of seeking knowledge, clarity or understanding, should never be mocked and always addressed with wisdom if such wisdom is available. Because ultimately we all should always be asking questions, always seeking greater understanding, always willing to learn, admit wrong, and become more aware. So I'm sorry some use your questions that way. Unfortunately, the internet will always be the internet lol.
-
When you start referring to matters in terms of truths and untruths this gives the impression that the Pound Rebka experiment has unequivocally proved that time runs faster in space.
In the first place it's correct to say that physics is not about proving things. The reason is because it's not possible to say that a law of physics has been proven to be correct. However that in no way means that a law of physics can't be proven to be wrong. And when I said that your statement was the furthest thing from the truth I was saying that it's wrong and that is a perfectly fine statement that can be made in physics.
Suggestion: I recommend that you try to make the distinction between ways of using common phrases in English to express oneself and the use of terms to make a scientific point. I simply didn't think it was necessary to have to phrase it otherwise so that readers didn't assume I was speaking of scientific truths, of which there aren't any. I simply don't wish to triple the time I spend posting so as to make sure that people don't get confused on such points. I always talk to my physics colleagues using phrases like that and so do they. Especially since in this particular case it's actually a real "truth" as in a fact. By that I mean that you misused the phrase purely conjecture. That is a false statement because there's nothing conjectural about that prediction. As I explained before, the term "conjecture" is define to mean "opinion" and the slowing of time near a black hole cannot be referred to as an opinion. Mere opinion is distinctly different from a theoretical prediction.
timey - When you started posting here and making all sorts of assertions and posting your theories it's assumed that you have a basic understanding of the philosophy of science and the scientific method. Comments and mistakes like these demonstrate otherwise. Please understand that I'm most certainly not trying insult you or put you down or anything negative at all. What I'm trying very hard to do is to bring you up to speed with how physics and any other science as a matter of fact, works. To understand physics it is absolutely necessary to understand the philosophy of physics. I'm not being arrogant by any means. This is from having over 30 years experience as a physicist.
I recommend reading the following to get you started: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/philosophy_of_physics.pdf
As far as the rest of your argument goes, I'm not interested in discussing it any further. I said what I had to say and I see no reason to add more. What I said is correct and I stand by it. I used to get into long protracted discussions with people when they either couldn't understand the physics or found it difficult to admit they made a mistake. In this case it appears that you have a poor grasp of the philosophy of physics as well as how it pertains to the subject matter. You show no desire for asking for help so there's no point in me saying anything else. I will say this - Your problem might be in not understanding that when you measure a clock slowing down it means exactly this, nothing more and nothing less, than its time itself which is slowing down.
However, if you're able to find a textbook on general relativity that agrees with you I'll be more than happy to read that part which pertains to this subject.
Again, please understand that I don't mean to be offensive or to insult you. I'm strictly going by what you've written ever since you've arrived here and started posting.
I've read the pages provided in your link and am in complete agreement with your outlook on the philosophy of physics! I've read this point of view from many prominent physicists...
However, I find it most confusing indeed that it would seem your attitude in posting on the forum does not correspond with the views that are portrayed in the link, and I am going to show you not only where this is occurring but also why this is confusing in particular with regards to your attitude regarding my posts.
I will acquiesce that perhaps I need to (or at least could) make an adjustment to my use of terminology, so instead of saying that time running slow for a black hole is a 'conjecture', I rephrase this statement to:
"Time running slow for a black hole is a mathematical consequence of the theory of general relativity."
Ok - so, in line with the terminology provided in your link, when introducing a new notion into physics that fits observation and becomes experimentally proven, either abstractly via mathematics, or physically via experiment, we see a pattern of the superseded theory, or theories, becoming the 'covering theory' for the superseding theory. Whereas the superseding theory becomes the more general theory. Clearly any theory that supersedes general relativity and quantum is going to have to include both of the premiss for these theories as cover theories to the more general theory of the superseding theory... and that the superseding theory must contain a new idea that can precipitate itself as a more general theory of both quantum and relativity, both mathematically and in prediction of experiment.
You also say that the consequence of this philosophy is that there will be nothing actually 'wrong' with the covering theory. I would agree that this is the norm, but that in very special and rare cases, if the premiss of the covering theory is wrong in the exact opposite and opposing way to the superseding theory, that a covering theory can be rendered wrong by a superseding theory. The geocentric model being superseded by the heliocentric model being a classic example.
Now that we are clear on the rules, I'd like to examine your links views on experiment:
Taking into consideration your dialogue on pages 1, 2, and top of page 3, ending in the words:
"Nevertheless, it should be realised that from the logical point of view the final product is an axiomatic, deductive, logical-mathematical system."
So with regards to the logic and mathematical mechanics of GR gravitational time dilation in relation to time running slower for a black hole:
The frequency of the energy transitions of the caesium atom increases in the higher gravity potential. For the frequency of the energy transitions to be higher, a higher energy level is required, and provided us mathematically by the addition of gravity potential energy. (this is logical)
For an observer with the elevated clock, his time also increases. For this to be a physical process for the observer, all of the atoms that are his physical make up will also require that a higher energy level is occurring in keeping with the clock. The atoms that make up the observer will not operate at the same energy level as the clocks caesium atom mechanism, or each other, (as the human form is made of different types of atoms), and via the equivalence principle we can see that the proportionality in energy level of these atoms of the observer in relation to the caesium atom, and each other, will remain constant in proportion to each other with addition or subtraction of gravity potential energy due to location in the gravitational field. (this is logical)
Now we have arrived at the point where the logic starts coming askew. The amount of gravity potential energy an object has is dependant on
it's mass and its height above the greater body of mass. We already know what time does in Earth's gravitational field. If we move Earth to the region of a greater gravity field than Earth's, such as a black hole, the energy level of Earth will increase and the frequency that the caesium atoms energy transitions operate at on Earth at ground level will also increase. Based directly on experiment and observation of the caesium atoms behaviour of an increase in energy causing an increase in frequency of electron energy transition and therefore the rate of time of the clock increasing, now we should look at the energy of the black hole. Well quite clearly e=mc^2, where e is rest energy and we can say m is the mass of the black hole. The black hole should have more energy than the Earth, therefore the gravity potential energy at elevation from a black hole should be even higher.
And hey... don't we ***already*** have a little problem with black holes concerning the conservation of energy law, and the second law of thermodynamics?
So we can see that despite the mathematical fit of general relativity to working experiment, that the requirements necessary to state that "we can be reasonably certain" are not met, in that we have not arrived at an axiomatic, deductive, logical-mathematical system that agrees with laws and experiment that we know from observation to hold true.
Ok, a while back I was posting about the Pound Rebka and you said this:
Actually I can't be bothered to trek back and properly quote you, but you said that you didn't know why in the Pound Rebka they had to add a time variance to the test signal. That you were not an experimentalist expert but you knew someone or dome people that are and you would ask them. A week or so later you posted back, saying that you were sorry, but you just didn't know.
Presumably you asked your friends about the question.
If there is no tangible answer to the question, then of course you can attribute the velocity of the Doppler shift matched by 'something' in the gravitation gradient as being the equivalent to the velocity of the Doppler shifts of redshift being the speed a light source is expanding away from us at, as per Hubble's law. But again we can see that when we examine the consequences of everything expanding away being everything originating from a point, we run into trouble explaining where it all came from.
(to be fair, my model, despite the creation moment being placed in the region of microscopic making it entirely more feasible, still has a huge problem with the mechanics of the initial creation process.)
Therefore again, as we have no proofs of expansion, only observations that mathematically fit theory, and we have problems describing the mechanics of the Big Bang and creation of energy and mass, it would seem to me that Hubble's 'law' is a bit of an overstatement. All we can legitimately state is that "on the basis of" a mathematical fit to theory and observation, IF redshift means that light sources are expanding away from us, then we live in an expanding universe. This being because the requirements necessary to state "we can be reasonably certain" have again not been met by an axiomatic, deductive, logical-mathematical system.
I believe that I have remained within the remit of discussing relativity in context without straying into the realms of "New Theory".
Now please, don't get me wrong Pete. I am in full admiration of General Relativity, it's a brilliant piece of work, but I'm not going to let this admiration stop me from red flagging illogicalities concerning GR on the physics board, or putting forward my alternative on the "New Theories" board, along with my request for assistance.
You are correct that I don't really require any advise with the intention of changing my mind about the illogicalities that GR presents. These ilogicalities have been my main point of study for many years now. What I am requesting is mathematical assistance with my alternate model.
I don't suppose your going to help me with the maths, aye...;) ?
-
It is true that Pete has superior knowledge. However he has not skewered my post as IAR suggested he might because (I suspect) he cannot.
timey - That's a very kind thing of you to say. I'm very honored by it. That said, please do me a favor and refrain from suggesting that because I choose not to continue debating something with you its because I'm unable to or unable to prove your assertions wrong. I stopped because I long ago came to recognize that point where the other person either can't understand what I'm trying to explain to them or will not take the time to learn the reasons why I said they made a mistake. Sometimes that can be quite involved and would require sitting down and spending a month or so studying the subject or the philosophy of physics behind it. So when that comes I simply stop trying. However in each and ever case when that happens the other person gloats saying that I stopped discussing the subject with them because I was unable to prove them wrong. Can you understand exactly how irritating that can be? Please do me a favor and don't be one of those people. Allow me to simply stop posting when the time comes when I realize that I won't get anywhere with you. Okay? Thanks.
I am not of the nature to gloat. I view gloating as an unnecessary means of demeaning of ones own self, and quite simply see no reason here that wound even validate such if I were of the nature...
I state simple fact. You have not answered the question:
"Is an atomic clock measuring what time dilation is doing for the location of gravity field it is elevated in, or is it just measuring what time is doing for its own self when elevated at that location of gravity field?"
If you answer via the 'theory' of general relativity you are forced to say that it is the location being measured. But the principle of the maths of gravity potential energy, the experimentation of caesium atomic clocks, and due logical process concerning the atoms of an observer with the elevated clock, suggest it is the clocks own experience of time dilation that is being measured.
I am really quite sure that my asking this question does not throw my understanding of physics into question in any shape or form, (I'm extremely well read), and does not reflect any type of misunderstanding or need for being 'educated'.
It's a perfectly reasonable, well thought out, and logical question that has potentially an extremely beneficial reason for being asked.
I can promise you that I am not one of those people you mention. If you do not enjoy the discussion then just say so, I won't harass you. I will be disappointed though because if you would just stop trying to 'get anywhere' with me, in that you are mistakenly assessing the fact that I am raising question as to, or making alteration to current theory as my having misunderstood current theory. (I've been studying physics for 8 years. I might not be qualified but I am really rather well read), ...then I believe you would make for an interesting input if you could engage yourself without bias within the notion.
-
Physics and mathematics are inseparable. To truly understand a theory is to have a grasp of the mathematics that underpin it. Otherwise the consequences arising from the theory cannot be clearly thought through. To be able to modify or completely change a theory it is absolutely necessary to have a thorough understanding of the mathematical framework as a prerequisite.
-
...or be able to visually construct a geometrical representation of the mechanism being described, and to change that geometrical structure via running visual representations of the consequent changes in the geometry through to their conclusion. Which is, (not forgetting that geometry is indeed mathematics in its purest form), and to make an analogy, akin to being able to play or compose music without understanding how to read or write notation...
Not everyone's brain works the same!
Actually I do very much understand mathematics, it's the rules of manipulation that are fuzzy, in that they exist and I don't know them.
-
If you do not enjoy the discussion then just say so, I won't harass you.
I've been trying to tell you that all this time? No. I don't want to discuss this with you.
-
If you'd like, I'll do the same.
Actually, I just want to have a discussion, not a pissing contest. I already know that you are intelligent enough to bother talking with.
I'm not with my books but I'll try to remember. I started out by reading Bill Bryson, a history of everything. Went on to read e=mc^ by Brian Cox and Mike somebody or another. The trouble with physics by Lee Smolin, a book called time about relativity, by I can't remember, Quantum by Manjit Kumar (?), a brief history of time by Steven Hawking, another book on time by Sean Carol, antiparticles by can't remember, something with time in the title by Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin's more recent book on time, chaos theory by James G(?), quantum dynamics(?) by Richard Feynman, string theory by Bruan Green, a classic book on thermodynamics called heat, sacred geometry by can't remember, a whole pile of other books on geometry, geometry in relation to harmonics, geometry in relation to planetary motions, etc, a book called All done with mirrors by John Neal about metrology, plus more books on really far out there theories, (edit: a book called the primes by somebody or another, a book called the five great equations by can't remember, the Poincare prize book), (second edit: a translation of Einstein's own papers on special and general relativity, a book called the Big Bang by can't remember), plus reams and reams of all kinds of Internet PDF, science news, Wikipedia, all of Susskind's relativity lectures, Susskind's quantum lectures, the Feynman lectures, wonders of the solar system, cosmos, all manner of documentaries, forum posts, etc, oh, and my sons GCSE text books.
I'm sorry, I should have said 'one' would be forced to. I didn't specifically mean you. I don't think the question can be answered with current theory, so I wasn't expecting you to be able to answer it...
When one is measuring gravitational time dilation at ground level with clocks 1 meter apart. The clocks are in separate reference frames from each other, but the observer is in 1 reference frame with both clocks and is measuring a difference in time between the clocks. Therefore it is not necessary to state a reference frame in order to address the question. The elevated clock ticks marginally faster than the lower clock, and we can say that the clock is measuring a shorter second. My question is concerning whether the shorter second is a measurement of what time is doing for the location of elevation, or a measurement of what time is for the mechanism of the clock, being the caesium atom, when elevated at that location.
You have said you do not wish to talk about time dilation with me, and if you do not answer this post, I will not trouble you any further.
-
Oh - it would seem that you have edited out the majority of your post that I was responding to.
Tis ok, just forget it, good day to you!
-
...When one is measuring gravitational time dilation at ground level with clocks 1 meter apart. The clocks are in separate reference frames from each other, but the observer is in 1 reference frame with both clocks and is measuring a difference in time between the clocks. Therefore it is not necessary to state a reference frame in order to address the question.
Particularly since a reference frame is an abstract thing that has no actual physical existence. However, those clocks do.
The elevated clock ticks marginally faster than the lower clock, and we can say that the clock is measuring a shorter second.
You can, but if you did you'd be missing the trick. Those clocks are likely to be NIST optical clocks, as mentioned here (http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/scientist/transcripts/wineland.html): "But nowadays the precision of the clocks is such that we have to worry, when we compare clocks, if one clock in one lab is 30 centimeters higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at."
My question is concerning whether the shorter second is a measurement of what time is doing for the location of elevation, or a measurement of what time is for the mechanism of the clock, being the caesium atom, when elevated at that location.
The caesium clock uses microwaves. It's still an optical clock of sorts. And inside an optical clock, there is no literal time flowing in there, or "doing" anything. When an optical clock goes slower when it's lower, it's because light goes slower when it's lower. See the second paragraph here (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22):
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2F8KXbI.jpg&hash=412e9becd778557cb37b075314c6a05c)
I'm afraid some of those books you've been reading are popscience books which do not get to the heart of the physics. You should read the Einstein digital papers (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/) instead.
-
Let's see what pop science books I have read. Algebra A complete introduction Hugh McNeill. Calculus A complete introduction Hugh Neill. Calculus For Dummies Mark Ryan. Global Edition Phyisics Principles with Applications Douglas C Giancoli. A student's Guide To Maxwell's Equations Daniel Fliesch. Applied Linear Algebra Ben Noble/James W Daniel. The battery on my tablet is running low so will continue later.
-
Charger plugged in now where was I. Advanced Calculus second edition David V Widder. Differential Forms and the Geometry of General RelativitY Tevian Dray. A Course in Group Theory John F Humphreys. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics David J Griffiths. Introduction to Elementary Particles revised second edition David Griffiths. Numerical Relativity Solving Einstein's Equations on the Computer Thomas W Baumgarte & Stuart L Shapiro.
Now I have also read The Quantum story by Jim Baggott and one of Smolin's books. Let me ask you this John. Which tomes have you read that gives you the right to criticise others in their reading habits? If you simply say the Einstein paper then you are far too out of date to make such statements and should apologise like a gentleman. You are a gentleman aren't you?
-
John I do apologise I omitted some of the titles I have read. I know how you like accuracy. A Student's Guide to Lagrangians and Hamiltonians Patrick Hamill. Galaxy Formation second edition Malcolm S Longair. Tensor Calculus J L Synge & A schild. Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem Dwight E Neuenschwander. The last one I found was The Absolute Differential Calculus (Calculus of Tensors) Tullio Levi-Civito.
The Smolin book was Three Roads To Quantum Gravity. Maybe this one is a teensy bit pop science.
-
...When one is measuring gravitational time dilation at ground level with clocks 1 meter apart. The clocks are in separate reference frames from each other, but the observer is in 1 reference frame with both clocks and is measuring a difference in time between the clocks. Therefore it is not necessary to state a reference frame in order to address the question.
Particularly since a reference frame is an abstract thing that has no actual physical existence. However, those clocks do.
The elevated clock ticks marginally faster than the lower clock, and we can say that the clock is measuring a shorter second.
You can, but if you did you'd be missing the trick. Those clocks are likely to be NIST optical clocks, as mentioned here (http://www.learner.org/courses/physics/scientist/transcripts/wineland.html): "But nowadays the precision of the clocks is such that we have to worry, when we compare clocks, if one clock in one lab is 30 centimeters higher than the clock in the other lab, we can see the difference in the rates they run at."
My question is concerning whether the shorter second is a measurement of what time is doing for the location of elevation, or a measurement of what time is for the mechanism of the clock, being the caesium atom, when elevated at that location.
The caesium clock uses microwaves. It's still an optical clock of sorts. And inside an optical clock, there is no literal time flowing in there, or "doing" anything. When an optical clock goes slower when it's lower, it's because light goes slower when it's lower. See the second paragraph here (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22):
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2F8KXbI.jpg&hash=412e9becd778557cb37b075314c6a05c)
I'm afraid some of those books you've been reading are popscience books which do not get to the heart of the physics. You should read the Einstein digital papers (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/) instead.
Yes, I think you are right, a reference frame is an abstract concept. A clock isn't. But a reference frame of a location that doesn't have anything of mass in it, is still a physical location.
...yes of course the NIST (which is what I was talking about) observer observes the clocks running at a different rate. That is my whole point. We don't need to attribute the clocks different reference frames, we can say the gravity field is the singular reference frame and that changes in the gravitational gradient causes all mass to have a change in energy and frequency of physical events. And that based on the observation of the caesium atom, that it is a higher energy level that will 'increase' the frequency of physical events.
You make an interesting point on the microwave aspect of the mechanism of the clock. The relativistic mass calculation of the light will not be affected by gravity potential energy. The mass of the electron in its relationship and energy proportionality, with respect to the rest of the particle constituents of the atom, will be affected by gravity potential energy.
Of course a translation of Einstein's papers is a translation and I have read the papers. I'm delighted that you have posted that particular passage of Einstein's writings. I found it to be of great interest to me.
I don't know why people spit the words pop-science as though the books this describes are filled with miss-information. The majority of the books I have read by prominent physicists have been written with both the lay person and the physicist in mind, also providing concise description of mathematical process in word format for the non-mathematician.
-
I am awaiting John's list of reading material with great interest. I am not being at all flippant either. I am hoping he has read something other than some historical artifacts. Things have moved on considerably in the intervening years.
-
Karl Schwarzschild found two solutions to the field equations in 1916. One was an exterior solution and the other an interior solution. That was the start of the community development of gr. That was only months after Einstein's publication. No man is an island and in physics that is particularly so. Today we have numerical relativists that could not have existed in Einstein's day since the technology didn't exist.
-
Yes, I think you are right, a reference frame is an abstract concept. A clock isn't. But a reference frame of a location that doesn't have anything of mass in it, is still a physical location.
No problem with the location. But do note lower down in that paragraph (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/156?highlightText=%22spatially%20variable%22) where Einstein says special relativity is "nowhere precisely realized in the real world". That's because the inertial reference frame where you measure the local speed of light in the room you're in, is a region of infinitesimal extent.
...yes of course the NIST (which is what I was talking about) observer observes the clocks running at a different rate. That is my whole point. We don't need to attribute the clocks different reference frames, we can say the gravity field is the singular reference frame and that changes in the gravitational gradient causes all mass to have a change in energy and frequency of physical events.
That's pretty much what Einstein was saying. Unfortunately some people rather mangle relativity. They said "Einstein said x" when actually he said the opposite. Then when you pick them up on it, they come out with things like "things have moved on since Einstein's day".
You make an interesting point on the microwave aspect of the mechanism of the clock. The relativistic mass calculation of the light will not be affected by gravity potential energy. The mass of the electron in its relationship and energy proportionality, with respect to the rest of the particle constituents of the atom, will be affected by gravity potential energy.
Correct. That's why we have the mass deficit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy#Mass-energy_relation). When you drop an electron gravity converts some of its mass-energy into kinetic energy, which is typically dissipated. The mass-energy of the electron at the lower elevation is less than what it was at the higher elevation. You do work on the electron to lift it back up, and add energy to it.
Of course a translation of Einstein's papers is a translation and I have read the papers. I'm delighted that you have posted that particular passage of Einstein's writings. I found it to be of great interest to me.
There's other references like that. See for example the penultimate paragraph here (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-trans/271?highlightText=%22writer%20of%20these%20lines%22).
I don't know why people spit the words pop-science as though the books this describes are filled with miss-information. The majority of the books I have read by prominent physicists have been written with both the lay person and the physicist in mind, also providing concise description of mathematical process in word format for the non-mathematician.
I'm afraid they sometimes do contain misinformation. But you only appreciate this when you do your own research and read the original material:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2FIlSrh.jpg&hash=1613bec4ee18c7dafb26d2447d986a69)
Anyhow, what happens to the passage of time near a black hole? It stops. You might prefer to say light stops, because the "coordinate" speed of light is zero at the event horizon. But either way, gravitational time dilation goes infinite. This formation and growth of black holes (http://mathpages.com/rr/s7-02/7-02.htm) on mathpages makes for interesting reading:
"...These two views are operationally equivalent outside event horizons, but they tend to lead to different conceptions of the limit of gravitational collapse. According to the field interpretation, a clock runs increasingly slowly as it approaches the event horizon (due to the strength of the field), and the natural "limit" of this process is that the clock asymptotically approaches "full stop" (i.e., running at a rate of zero). It continues to exist for the rest of time, but it's "frozen" due to the strength of the gravitational field. Within this conceptual framework there's nothing more to be said about the clock's existence."
This "Baez" (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html) article is worth a read too. It's written by relativist Don Koks from Adelaide.
"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."
-
John it is obvious to anyone reading this that you are avoiding any question that has a bearing on your background knowledge. You cannot learn physics by reading Einstein's correspondence or his published papers. They are but a small part of the picture. I have asked you on several occasions to answer specific questions on topics you have posted links to to back up your assertions. All remain unanswered. Now you seem unwilling to establish the extent of your knowledge of physics. Until you do so may I ask you to go and sit on the naughty step for 1 minute for every year of your age. Then when you can act like a grown up maybe we will make some progress.
-
this "Baez" article is worth a read too. It's written by relativist Don Koks from Adelaide.
Ok - John. Well yes, you do happen to pick up on exactly the parts of Einstein's writings that interest me. Let's not forget that he added a cosmological constant which he then retracted. Hubble postulated that the velocities of the Doppler shift of redshift was indicative of the speed at which a light source is travelling away from us at, and the concept of a static universe faded as the Big Bang theory was born.
My question was not 'what happens to the passage of time near a black hole', Colin named the thread when he split it. I know full well that the consequence of the maths of GR is that time runs slow for the black hole.
My question is:
"When the elevated atomic clock measures a faster rate of time (relative to a clock placed lower), is it measuring what time dilation is doing 'for' the location it is elevated in, or is it just measuring what time dilation is doing for its own self when elevated at that location?"
P.S. I will read the article, thanks.
-
In the Baez article the paragraph following the one John posted says this.
"In special relativity, the speed of light is constant when measured in any inertial frame. In general relativity, the appropriate generalisation is that the speed of light is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the not-quite-well-defined "speed" of light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers."
This is NOT what John implied. Caveat Lector.
-
John I do apologise I omitted some of the titles I have read. I know how you like accuracy. A Student's Guide to Lagrangians and Hamiltonians Patrick Hamill. Galaxy Formation second edition Malcolm S Longair. Tensor Calculus J L Synge & A schild. Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem Dwight E Neuenschwander. The last one I found was The Absolute Differential Calculus (Calculus of Tensors) Tullio Levi-Civito.
The Smolin book was Three Roads To Quantum Gravity. Maybe this one is a teensy bit pop science.
Jeff - In each and every science book that I have read, the author fully cites his source of information in the index. If one is further interested one simply investigates the cited material.
I'm afraid you are behind the times with your conceptions on education. Anyone with an interest can investigate and learn about anything these days just by cross referencing the Internet. Things have moved on... don't you realise?
-
In the Baez article the paragraph following the one John posted says this.
"In special relativity, the speed of light is constant when measured in any inertial frame. In general relativity, the appropriate generalisation is that the speed of light is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small enough that tidal effects can be neglected). In this passage, Einstein is not talking about a freely falling frame, but rather about a frame at rest relative to a source of gravity. In such a frame, the not-quite-well-defined "speed" of light can differ from c, basically because of the effect of gravity (spacetime curvature) on clocks and rulers."
This is NOT what John implied. Caveat Lector.
I haven't had a chance to read the link, but I've heard that passage before Jeff, so I have probably read similar already.
Yes - it is the curvature in relation to the mention of variability in the speed of light that interests me. Clearly the curvature of space via the theory of GR is caused by the proportionality of time dilation in relation to the Lorentz transformations and is based on the concept of the caesium atomic clock measuring what time dilation is doing 'for' the location of gravity field it is placed in. (logic that comes unstuck when the energy transitions of the atoms that make up the physique of an observer with the clock are also considered)
-
The problem is anyone can set up a website and start writing their interpretation of physics. They may have no qualifications or the required background to do so. They can often make it very convincing by plagiarising other online sources. Then you have psuedoscience.
What is the expression? No pain, no gain. It can seem like pain at times studying physics the correct way but the alternative is to pick up lots of misconceptions and misunderstand the material. You have to practice at anything to become accomplished at it. In terms of physics that is practice at mathematics.
-
I am at the moment a web developer so I am well aware of what is available online. I am so up with the times you wouldn't believe yet my argument still stands. Ask any physicist. There are some hanging around here I believe.
-
My question is:
"When the elevated atomic clock measures a faster rate of time (relative to a clock placed lower), is it measuring what time dilation is doing 'for' the location it is elevated in, or is it just measuring what time dilation is doing for its own self when elevated at that location?"
It's not really doing either. A clock features some kind of regular cyclical local motion, be it the motion of an oscillating crystal or microwaves or something else. The inner mechanism of a clock isn't called a movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_(clockwork)) for nothing. It then uses gears or electronics or something else to summarise this motion to give some kind of cumulative display that "shows the time". The upper clock goes faster because electromagnetic processes go faster at that higher elevation. That includes light, piezoelectric crystals, and, because of the wave nature of matter, electrochemical signals in your brain and body, and ordinary clockwork.
All this might sound unfamiliar, but it's in line with Einstein. Have a look at A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein (https://www.amazon.co.uk/World-without-Time-Forgotten-Einstein/dp/0465092942). Note though that IMHO the message isn't time does not exist, it's time exists like heat exists.
Clearly the curvature of space via the theory of GR is caused by the proportionality of time dilation
It isn't quite like that. Light curves because the speed of light varies, and we model this as curved spacetime, but curved spacetime is a curvature of the metric, not a curvature of space and time. It's like a curvature in your plot of clock rates at different elevations. See this Baez article (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node2.html):
"Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial. "
-
The problem is anyone can set up a website and start writing their interpretation of physics. They may have no qualifications or the required background to do so. They can often make it very convincing by plagiarising other online sources. Then you have psuedoscience.
What is the expression? No pain, no gain. It can seem like pain at times studying physics the correct way but the alternative is to pick up lots of misconceptions and misunderstand the material. You have to practice at anything to become accomplished at it. In terms of physics that is practice at mathematics.
Yes there are a load of old rubbish websites. I'm quite certain that no load of old rubbish websites have been cited as sources of information by "any" of the authors of the books I've mentioned. These are highly respected "working' physicists, or writers, who have reputations to upkeep. Get a grip will you...!
And, it's a load of old rubbish that you need to know maths to contribute to physics. Non- mathematicians have clearly contributed.
What is your problem? Can't you just have an actual discussion about the topic in hand?
-
It's not really doing either.
Ah - but it has to be doing one or the other John. The clocks mechanism of electron energy transitions are affected by the gravity potential the atoms are subject to at elevation. The location that the clock is elevated at is not affected by gravity potential energy, as the location has no mass to be affected by such.
-
John has just stated that gravity is not a force. Do you agree with him Timey? Whatever your answer is what do you base your answer on? This is at the heart of the matter so is not a trivial point. You may decide not to answer. That is your choice. John hides from difficult questions.
-
Ah - but it has to be doing one or the other John. The clocks mechanism of electron energy transitions are affected by the gravity potential the atoms are subject to at elevation. The location that the clock is elevated at is not affected by gravity potential energy, as the location has no mass to be affected by such.
See this description by Einstein (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22). A concentration of energy in the guise of a massive planet "conditions" the surrounding space, affecting its properties. This effect diminishes with distance in a non-linear fashion, such that higher and higher clocks are affected less and less. Imagine you could place clocks throughout an equatorial slice through the Earth and the surrounding space, then plot clock rates such that faster clocks gave a datapoint higher up in a 3D plot. Your plot would end up looking like the depiction of Newtonian gravitational potential here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential). This is akin to the depiction in the Wikipedia Riemann curvature tensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor) article.
-
John has just stated that gravity is not a force. Do you agree with him Timey? Whatever your answer is what do you base your answer on? This is at the heart of the matter so is not a trivial point. You may decide not to answer. That is your choice. John hides from difficult questions.
John was quoting from the last paragraph of the pages on the link he provided. I'm not sure if that actually means this is 'his' view, or if he is pointing out that the author has this view. On either case I don't see whether he agrees with this view or not as pertinent to the discussion.
General relativity has an incredibly complex description of what is going on between gravity and mass to cause curvature.
I have already given my far more 'simple and elegant' alternate in New Theories, and with respect to Colin's input in this thread, and the forum rules, I will not discuss it here.
I can say that yes gravity is a force. And that it is the acceleration of gravity that I am looking at.
-
Timey, have a look at the Einstein digital papers (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/~searchResults?searchMode=quick&searchText=%22gravitational+force%22&context=-2&sortField=Sort) for places where Einstein says "gravitational force".
I'm afraid Jeffrey is one of those popscience physicists whose physics knowledge is rather scant. And he isn't making a sincere contribution to this thread I'm afraid. Sorry.
-
When you were last posting to this forum John you said the graviton didn't exist and yet we have subsequently had two detections of gravitational waves. Since the electromagnetic wave is evidence of the photon then I would expect the gravitational wave to be evidence of the graviton. A spin 2 force carrying boson. I suppose you are now going to rubbish all the physicists involved in LIGO. Force carriers are evidence of what? Speak up John they can't hear you at the back.
-
John I think people have learnt a lot from my contribution. They can also search other forums to see what your reception was there too.
-
Now here is an old thread from thephysicsforum.com where John was going be the name Farsight. It is informative to note that not only did a retired physics professor have problems with John's contributions but the only reason they didn't ban him was that they thought it would be useful to use his posts to correct misconceptions in physics. He also resorted to the Einstein papers on that forum too. I would have no problem with John if he was honest about his knowledge and was willing to learn physics. However he thinks that mentioning Einstein enough will improve his brand in the same way a baked bean manufacturer will bombard you with adverts about their product. Ultimately John would like nothing more than his name being synonynmous with that of Einstein. The following link will be enlightening.
http://www.thephysicsforum.com/special-general-relativity/5591-mass-can-converted-energy.html (http://www.thephysicsforum.com/special-general-relativity/5591-mass-can-converted-energy.html)
-
Ah - but it has to be doing one or the other John. The clocks mechanism of electron energy transitions are affected by the gravity potential the atoms are subject to at elevation. The location that the clock is elevated at is not affected by gravity potential energy, as the location has no mass to be affected by such.
See this description by Einstein (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192?highlightText=%22neither%20homogeneous%22). A concentration of energy in the guise of a massive planet "conditions" the surrounding space, affecting its properties. This effect diminishes with distance in a non-linear fashion, such that higher and higher clocks are affected less and less. Imagine you could place clocks throughout an equatorial slice through the Earth and the surrounding space, then plot clock rates such that faster clocks gave a datapoint higher up in a 3D plot. Your plot would end up looking like the depiction of Newtonian gravitational potential here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential). This is akin to the depiction in the Wikipedia Riemann curvature tensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor) article.
John - in this stating of the clock being less and less affected by the gravity potential of its elevation above the greater mass, this is describing a relationship between the mass of the clock and the mass of the earth.
*** It does not describe a relationship between mass and open space. ***
The sole reason that it is thought that time runs slow for a black hole is because time runs faster out in open space. If there is any other reason that a black holes time is thought to run slow, someone, anyone, please, for goodness sake speak up now!!!
P.S. I'm sorry, I have to disagree...(although 'in this particular instance' perhaps not where the contribution is concerned /: ...) Jeff is a indeed a conundrum, but I maintain my assessment of him as being 'potentially' quite brilliant, but so far completely wasted in application.
-
Jeff - I don't know what John is selling, if anything, and tbh, I don't care. He just seems to be quoting Einstein, and providing respectable (if they can be called that) wiki links as far as I can see. What is observable is that he is remaining within the context of the thread, and you, I don't know what's got into you, you are acting like child. You don't give 2 hoots what John thinks, so what's it all about mate?
-
I do care that questioners posting here get accurate answers based on firmly established physics.
-
Read through some of Evan's posts. That is the gold standard. Then compare with John's. Do you ever see Evan writing "Refer to the Einstein digital papers." or does he simply give an excellent answer for its own sake?
-
Firmly established physics is based on Einstein's papers... In that I am looking at how and why the maths are put together the way they are, and questioning the physicality of what an elevated clock is measuring, referring back to what Einstein said is highly relevant.
Anyone would be hard pushed to match the calibre of Evans posts, in particular the way he retains a completely unbiased attitude to the subject matter, and correctly distinguishes between where experimental evidence ends and theory begins.
I'd love for Evan to interject with a response to the question of what an elevated atomic clock is measuring: the time dilation of the elevated location, or the time dilation of the clocks mechanism's own self when elevated at that location?
However, just because John's input may not be of Evan's calibre, does not discount him from joining in a discussion.