0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
On the one hand what I observe is that there is a school of thought that states that a caesium atomic clock placed at a higher gravity potential only 'appears' to have a higher frequency from the perspective of the lower gravity potential...And that if one places oneself at the higher gravity potential with the clock, then the frequency of the clock will be the same as it was in the lower gravity potential, and that it will now 'appear' to you that the lower gravity potential clock has a lower frequency.This is a direct consequence of the equivalence principle, and the concept that a caesium atom will be equivalent in each reference frame....and it would seem that the same school of thought is prevalent regarding SR time dilation...This being that one's atomic clock aboard a rocket in relative motion will also be observed by oneself to be ticking 'normally', and it is the stationary rocket who's clock is observed to be running slow.But if one were to place oneself on the stationary rocket, the stationary rocket's atomic clock would be ticking normally, and you would observe the rocket in relative motion's clock as ticking slow.Then on the other hand - there is the school of thought that a person will age in keeping with their time dilated clock as described in the NIST link above, and the link below.http://science.howstuffworks.com/humans-age-in-space.htmPhysically it just isn't possible for both concepts to reside in 'sensible' physics.Of course there is a way of turning the equivalence principle on its head to describe why a person ages in keeping with their clock, that also retains the speed of light in each reference frame, but it requires that one take the school of thought that what one observes of the other reference frame is not just an appearance and that the other clock really is running at a differing rate.
The only linear relation is f max=kT, max freq is proportional to absolute temp.
The discrepancy I am suggesting exists is concerning the fact that time runs faster out in "space', where I am pointing out that the experimental evidence is only proving that time runs faster for mass out in space. i.e. m in M's gravity field.
Light under the remit of SR is being calculated via a time dilation factor. Time is said to stop for anything travelling at light speed. Or, it is said that light does not experience time. Whichever way one chooses to approach the subject, it is not light's own experience of time that is causing it to be bent towards mass.
GR states that time 'in space' gets slower near mass, yet we observe that there is a phenomenon called gravitational acceleration that accelerates all bodies m near M. If time gets slower nearer to M then why is m's motion accelerated as it gets closer to M? Whichever way one chooses to approach the subject, it is not a GR time dilation of space that causes accelerated motion...
SR is used to describe light travelling in space, but time has no meaning for the light itself, so what is SR describing? If time has no meaning for light itself then SR is just describing a dilation of space in which light is being what? Is it describing that the 'length' of light is being contracted while describing that the 'length' of space is being dilated?
: Lee SmolinProblem 1: "Problem of quantum gravity" - Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature.Problem 2: "The foundation problems of quantum mechanics" - Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense.Problem 3: "The unification of the particles and forces" - Determine whether or not various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single fundamental entity.Problem 4: "The constants of the standard model" - Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen by nature.Problem 5: "Cosmological mysteries" - Explain dark matter and dark energy. Or, if they don't exist, determine how and why gravity is modified on large scales. More generally, explain why the constants of the standard model of cosmology, including dark energy, have the values that they do.
SR describes the effects of motion on observers of physical events and provides coordinate transformations between observers based on their relative velocities. Light is a measuring tool.
The difference between the theories...Special relativity was first (1905) and deals with how motion, the perception of time and velocity are relative not absolute and dependent on the relative velocity of the observers. This includes E=mc^2, the way time is experienced differently by different observers moving at different fractions of the speed of light, the way that velocities add and thus how no particle with mass can ever go (or exceed) the speed of light, etc.General relativity (1915) is a theory of gravity which replaces Newton's universal law of gravity (and reduces to it for large distances) and is a mathematical framework that describes how space-time is curved and bent by the presence of mass and how this structure effects the motion of particles. It is called general relativity because its solution in flat space (i.e. ones with no masses around) reduces to the equations of special relativity, thus special relativity is a "special" case of general relativity.Thus, if people are talking about: Atomic clocks on space-ships not experiencing the same time, the twin-paradox, the inability to exceed the speed of light, the contraction of an object as it approaches the speed of light, etc. They're talking about special relativity.If people are talking about: Space-time curvature due to a star or a planet, the bending of light around a star, planet or galaxy (gravitational lensing), the expansion of the universe, the big bang, etc. They're talking about general relativity. Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/difference-between-sr-and-gr.568598/
:wikiMilgrom's law can be interpreted in two different ways. One possibility is to treat it as a modification to the classical law of inertia (Newton's second law), so that the force on an object is not proportional to the particle's acceleration a but rather to μ(a/a0)a. In this case, the modified dynamics would apply not only to gravitational phenomena, but also those generated by other forces, for example electromagnetism.[10] Alternatively, Milgrom's law can be viewed as leaving Newton's Second Law intact and instead modifying the inverse-square law of gravity...
The most significant issue I have with your model is time.Time is not a causative factor. Flipping a coin is a sequence of physical events, but the outcome is independent of time. It's a correlation/measuring tool.
In any case phyti - when I very first met you here on line at the forum talking to Box on his thread, I asked what you would say if I told you I thought I had a theory of everything, and you said that that you would say "show me the maths".
:Lee SmolinWe are not accustomed to thinking of space as an entity with properties of it's own, but it certainly is. Space has three dimensions and it also has a particular geometry, which we learn in school. Called Euclidean geometry - after Euclid, who worked out its postulates and axioms more than 2000 years ago - it is the study of the properties of space itself. The theorems of Euclidean geometry tell us what happens to triangles, circles, and lines drawn in space. But they hold for all objects real or imagined.A consequence of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is that light rays move in straight lines. Thus it makes sense to use light rays when tracing the geometry of space. But if we adopt this idea, we see immediately that Einstein's theory has great implications. For light rays are bent by gravitational fields, which, in turn, respond to the presence of matter. The only conclusion to draw is that the presence of matter affects the geometry of space.In Euclidean geometry, if two straight lines are initially parallel, the can never meet. But two light rays that are initially parallel can meet in the real world, because if they pass on each side of a star, they will be bent towards each other. So Euclidean geometry is not true in the real world. Moreover, the geometry is constantly changing, because matter is constantly moving. The geometry of space is not like a flat infinite plane. It is like the surface of the ocean - incredibly dynamic, with great waves and small ripples in it.Thus, the geometry of space was revealed to be just another field. Indeed, the geometry of space is almost the same as the gravitational field. To explain why, we have to recall the partial unification of space and time that Einstein achieved in special relativity. In this unification, space and time together make up a four-dimensional entity called spacetime. This has a geometry analogous to Euclidean geometry, in the following precise way.Consider a straight line in space. Two particles can travel along it, but one travels at uniform speed, while the other is constantly accelerating. As far as space is concerned, the two particles travel on the same path. But they travel on diferent paths in spacetime. The particle with a constant speed travels on a straight line, not only in space but in space time. The accelerating particle travels on a curved path in spacetime.Hence, just as the geometry of space can distinguish a straight line from a curved path, the geometry of spacetime can distinguish a particle moving at a constant speed from one that is accelerating.But Einstein's equivalence principle tells us that the effects of gravity cannot be distinguished, over small distances, from the effects of acceleration. Hence, by telling which trajectories are accelerated and which are not, the geometry of spacetime is therefore the gravitational field.Thus the double unification given by the equivalence principle becomes a triple unification: All motions are equivalent once the effects of gravity are taken into account, gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, and the gravitational field is unified with the geometry of space and time. When worked out in detail, this became Einstein's general theory of relativity, which he published in full form in 1915.
:Lee Smolinthe geometry of space can distinguish a straight line from a curved path, the geometry of spacetime can distinguish a particle moving at a constant speed from one that is accelerating
:Lee SmolinA consequence of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism is that light rays move in straight lines
:Lee SmolinBut two light rays that are initially parallel can meet in the real world, because if they pass on each side of a star, they will be bent towards each other
:Lee SmolinEinstein's equivalence principle tells us that the effects of gravity cannot be distinguished, over small distances, from the effects of acceleration. Hence, by telling which trajectories are accelerated and which are not, the geometry of spacetime is therefore the gravitational field.
:Lee SmolinEinstein's equivalence principle tells us that the effects of gravity cannot be distinguished, over small distances, from the effects of acceleration.
:Lee SmolinEinstein succeeded in unifying all kinds of motion. Uniform motion is indistinguishable from rest. And acceleration is no different to being at rest but with a gravitational field turned on.
:Lee SmolinNotice here that, as in the successful unification's discussed earlier, more than one unification is happening at once. Two different kinds of motion are being unified; there is no longer a need to distinguish uniform from accelerated motion. And the effects of acceleration are being unified with the effects of gravity.
:Lee SmolinAfter the idea of unifying all four fundamental forces failed, most theoretical physicists gave up on the idea of relating gravity to the other forces, a decision that made sense because gravity is so much weaker than the other three. Their attention was drawn instead to the zoo of elementary particles that the experimentalists were discovering in their particle accelerators. They searched the data for new principles that could at least unify all the different kinds of particles.Ignoring gravity meant taking a step backward, to the understanding of space and time before Einstein's general theory of relativity. This was a dangerous thing to do in the long run, as it meant working with ideas that had already been superseded. But there was also an advantage, in that this approach led to a great simplification of the problem. The chief lesson of general relativity was that there is no fixed background for space and time; ignoring this meant that you could simply choose the background. This sent us back to a Newtonian point of view, in which particles and fields inhabit a fixed background of space and time - a background whose properties are fixed eternally. Thus, the theories that developed from ignoring gravity are background-dependent.However, it was not necessary to go all the way back to Newton. One could work within the description of space and time given by Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity. According to it, the geometry of space is that given by Euclid, which many of us study in junior high school; however, space is mixed with time, in order to accommodate Einstein's two postulates, the relativity of observers and the constancy of the speed of light. The theory cannot accommodate gravity, but it's the right setting for Maxwell's theory of the electric and magnetic fields.Once quantum mechanics was fully formulated, the quantum theorists turned their attention to unifying electromagnetism with quantum theory. As the basic phenomenon of electromagnetism are fields, the unification that would eventually result is called quantum field theory. And because Einstein's special theory of relativity is the right setting for electromagnetism, these theories can also be seen as unification of quantum theory with special relativity.
:Lee Smolinbecause Einstein's special theory of relativity is the right setting for electromagnetism, these theories can also be seen as unification of quantum theory with special relativity.
:Lee SmolinHowever, it was not necessary to go all the way back to Newton. One could work within the description of space and time given by Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity. According to it, the geometry of space is that given by Euclid.
If you take a body of mass travelling at a constant speed through positions in space that are running at differing rates of time, the constant speed of the mass will be affected by the rate of time of the space it is travelling through. As the rate of time in the space increases, shorter seconds, the constant speed of the mass travelling through the space will be accelerated. As the rate of time in the space decreases, longer seconds, the constant speed of the mass travelling through the space will be decelerated. This looks to me as though time, or more precisely differing rates of time, can be causative of motion.Note that I am making a distinction between what time is doing in the space the mass is travelling through, and what time is doing in the mass that is being traveled through space. I can expand, but lets avoid overload in this post...
How would a clock in empty space change its rate if the rate in space is constant?
Enter the light clock.
Guess I'm not the only one who interprets time this way.