Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Petrochemicals on 20/03/2017 00:49:16
-
As einsteins time varies with energy etc while newtons is absolute, is there anything that proves one over the other ?
I know in relativity you have to be having time travel faster for velocity to make sense but given wave particle duqlity is still unexplained, the photo is still not proven to be massless(i believe it is due to the forces all seeming to travel at the constant) is there anything that definatley proves time travels at different speeds ? A quote i read also spoke of an observqtion of light as being pre programmed so does this raise questions about how the forces interact. Without understanding the forces in entirety can we understand anything
I know about the clocks in plnes but surely this is not categorical proof due to the fact we do not understand gravity, and the satelites are no where near precice enough to measure the infinitesimal small distance that would prove relative time correct.
Pete
-
Sorry to disappoint you Pete, time dilation's are a proven fact. Just check out NIST clock experiments. That doesn't take away a 'absolute time' though, not locally defined. In its new settings 'absolute time' can be seen as a 'relation of sorts', to each one of us, a description of ones life span. That 'life span' never change for you. You can sit in a satellite or on Earth, doesn't matter. Your life span will be the same generally speaking, relative your wrist watch. Time becoming a 'local invariant', instead of Newtons 'universal invariant'. If you think of it you change gravitational potential each time you stand up. that doesn't seem to change your life span though.
=
Now, if you reason this way, the question then becomes. Is this local 'invariance' representing a 'constant'?
Yep, and the proof of it is in joining a same frame of reference.
Alternatively you can connect your local clock to 'c', if you find the idea of needing a same frame of reference questionable. Both express the exact same to me, presenting you with a local constant. To reproduce a experiment you need the same approximate circumstances/setup, well practically speaking. Theoretically the 'exact same'. Physics presume that you should be able to reproduce a experiment anywhere, and anytime, assuming you doing a 'exact' replica of the original. That's called creating a 'repeatable experiment', and is what science builds on. What it also suggest is that your computer, presuming you have energy for it, must work anywhere in our universe, and at any time.
-
I was looking into why we could not make a speed dial with a light gun to find in which direction the earth was travelling and at what speed. I found the aether experiments of mickelson
I know about radioactive clocks and I would say schrodeingers cat has an even chance depending on the radioactive decay, If it where not for the fact that the same clock always looses time .I understand the equivilance principle through the acceleration idea with light being constant, and gravitational potential, but how do these require time if light is preprogrammed ? As i said this and the wave particle dual slit experiment leads me to suspect that light is not understood, and due to the fact that gravity is not understood, how can time dilation be decided upon for the cause of increaced radioactive decay in less gravity ? Alot of people doubt time dilation. Until there is some more conclusive proof ie shroedingers cat got old and died whilst waiting for you to get there with your radioactive isotope, can you actually say that yes it is beond doubt. I am not bothered either way but there are too many arguments to the contrary for me to say yes or no. Also there is no definitive proof i can find.
As for experiments the light experiment i am thinking of, it was where light was fired at opposite directions in relation to the earth inexpectation of a doppler shift, exept there was none. The light travelled in both directions in an equal velocity, which i do not quite understand how the constant C was maintained, but it sounds like the researcher did not either ! Its the idea of firing a photon across a box , does the box move or the photon ? In a moving box if you fire photons from the centre to the two sides to the moving box , one to the side where the box is heading towards and the other to the side where the box is moving away from, the box will be unaffected but, you would expect a red/blue shift, but you do not see one. When the photons strike the side they strike at the same time and cancel each other out. It seems to render the headlights parable being useless at the speed of light null and void. Would the light would be going twice 'C' to the observer ? Or Simultanious viewing of 2 time frames ?
-
Light is not 'pre programmed', although I like the idea, well, sort of :)
The speed of light in a vacuum is a local measurement that is true anywhere, unless we want to discus accelerations. A constant is something that is locally constant. If it happens to be so, and you include everyone that measures it so, then it is a constant.The question then becomes, is there any way to globally define it otherwise?
No
-
The reason why I say no is because you then will question everything we built through experiments.
-
If you do so you will need a new foundation, and you can't use the experiments, as you just invalidated their conclusions. So you will need to create a theoretical foundation, without experiments. you could argue that a Big Bang is just that kind of idea, but if you do you forget that a Big Bang is a result of experiments and observations already made. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it will demand the genius of several Einsteins and Newtons etc.
-
Furthermore, constants will still be constants, if you go by the way we build science. Weird, isn't it :) even if you made a totally new way of looking at the universe, constants still will exist.
-
And, I don't know? If one look at the conclusions from a 'Big Bang'
It's 'no where'/ any where.
It's inside you, it's 'local'
-
It's in some way a description of a 'equilibrium', it's like the idea of physics being the same at any time, and every where.
-
exchange that and you meet chaos.
I prefer constants
-
It seems like you agree with the doubt or perchance is it a forum glitch ?
I do not really see any necessity in having relitavistic time. No singular proof that is not easily countered.
-
due to the fact that gravity is not understood, how can time dilation be decided upon for the cause of increased radioactive decay in less gravity?
When you say "gravity is not understood", I assume that you are referring to "the conflict between general relativity and quantum gravity theories in the strong gravitational regime"? ie current theories of quantum gravity don't have finite solutions in the immediate vicinity of a black hole's event horizon.
However, away from the event horizon of a black hole (on the outside), gravity is really quite well understood. That includes all of our Solar system. And, it seems, that includes regions within 30km of a black hole, if the recent discoveries about gravitational waves are any indication.
Within our solar system, the effects of gravitation on time dilation have been measured to enormous accuracy - and in fact, you rely on it when you use the mapping app on your smartphone, or use the location that your camera records with a photo.
This is because the GPS satellites take into account both time dilation due to velocity and time dilation due to gravity. If either of these effects were ignored, the GPS system would quickly build up some significant errors (about 10 km/day).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_General_Relativity
-
I agree, although under certain restrictions. A 'absolute time' is local, it's not Newtons idea building on a universal 'Absolute' time. Rather Einsteins, although he probably would question it.
You can build it this way.
1. set your local clock as equivalent to 'c' (becoming that unchanging 'life span' I refer to.)
2. 'c' is already defined as a local constant.
3. Then that local clock also becomes one.
4. Defined over all local measurements it now represent an idea of the equivalence of all 'local clocks', animate or inanimate etc.
( and one proof of it is joining a same frame of reference, in where all local clocks must agree.)
It's a different way of defining it though, and it does not support the older ideas of what a universe 'is'. It becomes 'universal' in the exact same manner of a 'constant' being so. But that is what I think this universe builds from, 'constants'.
-
As for us not needing 'relativistic time'.
I'm afraid we need it. My definition is about a 'ground setting', and so about a theoretical local equivalence of all clocks. But it's not a definition of our ' seamlessly existing universe'. To get to that you definitely will need to add a lot more, as Einsteins stress energy tensor, time dilation's and LorentzFitzgerald contractions. They are needed as soon as you step out of a strict local definition.
-
We see the effects of gravity, like a caveman saw the effects of blowing on a fire, but as the caveman did not know of oxidisers, we do not know what mechanism gravity works by.
And the gps thing is a gimmick. Bill clinton is responsible for that being on board, he ordered the doubting top brass to include it. The actual measureable loss due to dilation is negligibly small, if it exists. The inaccuracies in the syetem are far larger.
The contractions seems a good example with muons through the atmosphere.
But if you where on a moving body and shot 2 light beams , one concurrent with your progression and the other opposite, an observer could see you having 2 constants simultaniously ?
-
And the gps thing is a gimmick. Bill clinton is responsible for that being on board, he ordered the doubting top brass to include it. The actual measureable loss due to dilation is negligibly small, if it exists. The inaccuracies in the syetem are far larger.
I'm afraid you are misinformed. The system was built with a switch to turn the correction on or off, it was run initially without the correction which soon showed that the correction was necessary and it was then switched on.
If you wish to continue your misunderstanding of physics please do so in New Theories or just chat. Thank you.
-
If you are going to be rude and antagonistic you could at least read the earlier posts first and try not to look ignorant.
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm
Also gps has a reset on the clocks and a buffer far cigger for time abnormalities due to leap seconds.
I won't waist any more time on you, start your own thread.
One other thing, where's the ignore button?
-
the gps thing is a gimmick. Bill clinton is responsible for that being on board, he ordered the doubting top brass to include it. The actual measureable loss due to dilation is negligibly small, if it exists. The inaccuracies in the syetem are far larger.
I'm afraid you are misinformed. The system was built with a switch to turn the correction on or off
I am bit puzzled by this exchange.
The first of the GPS satellites were launched in 1978.
Bill Clinton became president in 1993. There is no way he could order anyone to include a new hardware feature on a satellite that had been launched 15 years earlier.
Perhaps what you are talking about is "Selective Availability" (SA), a feature that introduced intentional jitter into the timing of the transmitted signals, so that civilian receivers had degraded accuracy? However, military receivers were able to cancel this added jitter.
What President Clinton did was to instruct the military to remotely disable the SA feature already present in the GPS satellites. This improved the accuracy of civilian receivers to the point where it could (in theory) be used for things like landing an aeroplane on a runway in zero visibility. You can see a graph of the GPS timing accuracy at the moment SA was disabled here (http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/).
In reality, many applications requiring greater accuracy had already introduced "differential GPS", where a carefully surveyed site transmitted corrections to the GPS satellite signals. So there was already an effective countermeasure for SA.
Even the earliest GPS satellites had corrections for both Special & General relativity built into their manufacture. That design is continued in the latest satellites. But the latest satellites don't have SA.
See, for example: https://www.cnet.com/au/news/celebrating-10-years-of-gps-for-the-masses/
-
I am bit puzzled by this exchange.
The first of the GPS satellites were launched in 1978.
Bill Clinton became president in 1993. There is no way he could order anyone to include a new hardware feature on a satellite that had been launched 15 years earlier.
Perhaps what you are talking about is "Selective Availability" (SA),
Yes. the OP is confusing SA switch off with the need for the general correction.
There are a number of myths circulating that the correction is unnecessary, but they are untrue.
-
Not sure what you mean there "But if you where on a moving body and shot 2 light beams , one concurrent with your progression and the other opposite, an observer could see you having 2 constants simultaneously ?"
First of all, it would be very tricky to observe both light beams. you might consider it from some theoretical point of view though in which case the only difference would be a blue shift relative a red shift, although I don't see how to set such a experiment up. The speed you would measure would be 'c' in both cases though. (This presuming a uniformly moving body, where from both light beams are sent in opposite directions.)
-
There is always the ratio between time and distance measured by an atomic clock. This indirect method would need relativity math to measure the out of sync readings on the clocks. This method seems like circular reasoning until you circle the globe and bring them together.
-
A person travelling in a direction to you posi5ion, fires two beqms of light one concurrent with the direction you percieve them to be travveling, and one opposite to the direction you percieve them to be travveling. Tio them both light beams appear normal, no difference in speed.
You are watching them travel, so are they in two time frames simultaniously as you watch them? Are you each in a timeframe and the speed of light relative(or pre programmed)
Also clocks running faster is not disputed, only whether this necessitates the idea of vqriable time?
-
Not sure what you mean there "But if you where on a moving body and shot 2 light beams , one concurrent with your progression and the other opposite, an observer could see you having 2 constants simultaneously ?"
First of all, it would be very tricky to observe both light beams. you might consider it from some theoretical point of view though in which case the only difference would be a blue shift relative a red shift, although I don't see how to set such a experiment up. The speed you would measure would be 'c' in both cases though. (This presuming a uniformly moving body, where from both light beams are sent in opposite directions.)
The experiment can be realized with a stationary mirror, but the result will be as you described. One light pulse will be red-shifted. The other will be blue shifted. Both will arrive at the bystander at the same time if the traveller compensates for the longer path length by emitting the forward pulse slightly ahead of the backward one. This thought experiment gets screwy when the traveller reaches light speed because, in that case, traveller time stops relative to bystander time so it is impossible for the traveller to emit any light in the 1st place.
It was actually a variation on this scenario that led Einstein to E=mc2. The gist of it is that light has momentum that depends on its frequency. The traveller perceives both light rays to be of the same frequency, but the bystander sees red shift and blue shift so the light has net momentum in that reference frame. There is no change in traveller velocity so the only possible conclusion is that the bystander perceives traveller mass differently.
-
If your interested it may have something to do with
"relative time dilation"
Wikipedia have something on it to the effect of two ships passing each other, each percieving the other as slower time, i suppose as they are gaining in distance between.
The problem is that whilst you can have 2 time frames for two observer, as you say it brings complications with the speed of light.
-
In answer to your original question, yes: absolute time is still credible, but it cannot be pinned down. Light may be passing us in different directions at different speeds too, but there is no experiment that has ever been designed that can measure its speed in a single direction, so it is always measured on a round trip (thereby hiding its true relative speeds and giving us the same value every time instead). One philosophical approach is to say that because we can't measure the difference and can't pin down an absolute time, there is no absolute time and the speed of light cannot be different in different directions, but that is really bad philosophy (not least because it leads them to tolerate contradictions in this case). The other philosophical approach is to say that reality may involve things that we can't pin down and that it would be wrong to rule them out just because they're beyond reach. So, it's up to each individual to decide which camp they're in, but on this one special issue they've somehow managed to let a holy cow get tangled up in things, so if you want to be taken seriously in the physics world, they require you to pretend that you're one of the in crowd and to chant all the right mantras - anyone who questions the holy cow is guilty of blasphemy.
-
Thanks David, I was just wondering if it had been proved beyond resonable doubt like things such as higgs bosons existance and gravitational waves. There seems to be a lot of theory but no conclusive proof.
Also it seems unecesarry as no theorys seem to rely on it, even relativity seems to need it as a mere after thought, and that seems to have various reasons.
When you think stationary mass weighs less at altitude (I can think of at least 2 possible causes) I do not see why radioactive decay is down to time.
I suppose why it is so contentious as it seems to target at relativity in general, without time dilations relativity seems to be threatened!
Thanks again for the clarifyer!
-
Thanks David, I was just wondering if it had been proved beyond resonable doubt like things such as higgs bosons existance and gravitational waves. There seems to be a lot of theory but no conclusive proof.
With both of those examples, experiments are producing numbers that make it very hard to deny them. What is still open to argue about is which theories/models are right, and it's fully possible for an incorrect model to make correct predictions.
Also it seems unecesarry as no theorys seem to rely on it, even relativity seems to need it as a mere after thought, and that seems to have various reasons.
If "it" means absolute time, some theories do depend on it, and others which claim not to depend on it also depend on it if you push them into places where they break. If "it" means time dilation, then all theories have to include this in some form if they are to fit the results of experiments.
When you think stationary mass weighs less at altitude (I can think of at least 2 possible causes) I do not see why radioactive decay is down to time.
If the functionality of any object slows down when it's moved fast or placed deep in a gravity well, that slowing will apply to the rate of its radioactive decay too. We know from experiments that this slowing occurs, so we have to accept that it happens and make sure our theories conform to the real universe rather than coming up with theories that disagree with reality.
I suppose why it is so contentious as it seems to target at relativity in general, without time dilations relativity seems to be threatened!
There is nothing contentious about the actuality of time dilation - it happens. What is contentious is the mechanism by which it supposedly happens, although most people in the physics world don't accept that it is contentious at all because they're happy to work with a model that's irrational so long as it predicts all the right numbers to match up with the data generated by experiments.
-
Thanks David, I was just wondering if it had been proved beyond resonable doubt like things such as higgs bosons existance and gravitational waves. There seems to be a lot of theory but no conclusive proof.
With both of those examples, experiments are producing numbers that make it very hard to deny them. What is still open to argue about is which theories/models are right, and it's fully possible for an incorrect model to make correct predictions.
yep but with atomic structure there is a need , and a lot of proof over a century . Light over a century has stuck at the double slit and got no further. It seems that time is just as badly understoodand with no real necessity for a theory being takenice as proven OR IS THERE?Also it seems unecesarry as no theorys seem to rely on it, even relativity seems to need it as a mere after thought, and that seems to have various reasons.
If "it" means absolute time, some theories do depend on it, and others which claim not to depend on it also depend on it if you push them into places where they break. If "it" means time dilation, then all theories have to include this in some form if they are to fit the results of experiments.
"it" means time dilationWhen you think stationary mass weighs less at altitude (I can think of at least 2 possible causes) I do not see why radioactive decay is down to time.
If the functionality of any object slows down when it's moved fast or placed deep in a gravity well, that slowing will apply to the rate of its radioactive decay too. We know from experiments that this slowing occurs, so we have to accept that it happens and make sure our theories conform to the real universe rather than coming up with theories that disagree with reality.
those where 5he ones this thought of tooI suppose why it is so contentious as it seems to target at relativity in general, without time dilations relativity seems to be threatened!
There is nothing contentious about the actuality of time dilation - it happens. What is contentious is the mechanism by which it supposedly happens, although most people in the physics world don't accept that it is contentious at all because they're happy to work with a model that's irrational so long as it predicts all the right numbers to match up with the data generated by experiments.
time dilation actually happens with proof? that's what I'm after. But do not say radio active clocks.
-
The evidence we have of time dilation comes from comparing pairs of highly accurate clocks. If we move one of the clocks away from the other and back, the one that moved runs slow. If we move one clock higher than the other, the lower one runs slow. Other evidence comes from short-lived particles lasting longer in particle accelerators when they're moved at high speed, and their extension in lifetime fits with our rules of time dilation.
If time dilation seems magical to you, then that's probably because of the assertion the mainstream attaches to it where they talk about time running slow, but that is just an interpretation (and an irrational one). Movement slows the functionality of a clock for entirely rational reasons without slowing time, as you can see from the interactive diagrams of the MMX at the top of this page: http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/relativity.html - the red dots represent light pulses and they move across the screen at the same speed at all times (except when trapped in the detector or before being sent through the laser). Compare the stationary MMX apparatus on the left with the moving versions on the right and see how if you were to use it as a clock it would tick much more slowly when moving, even though the light is moving through it at full speed. Functionality is slowed, but not time.
-
The clock experiment.
Does the velocity affect it?
Has it ever been performed with both clocks in low gravity?
I f one clock was moved away from the other and then back hypothetically this should give the same resultant time difference as the clocks both in a high gravity environment. I do not know if on a circular return path from one clock this would have the same effect/ the clock orentation depending on design of the clock. If the clock moved backwards and forwards a set ammount in a low gravity showed identical dilation than a high gravity it would prove that gravity is merely causing iradioactive decay to happen faster?
-
The clock experiment.
Does the velocity affect it?
Has it ever been performed with both clocks in low gravity?
It's been tested by clocks in space probes sent far out into the solar system - they all perform as expected and would not do so if clocks weren't slowed by movement. We have sent atomic clocks round the Earth at high speed in planes too, but the gravitation effect is stronger and has to be corrected for before the slowing caused by movement shows up. Particles decaying more slowly than normal in particle accelerators have been the best test though as they can be sent at speeds close to the speed of light, slowing their "clock" so much that they last hundreds of times longer (or thousands, or possibly more - I can't remember, but you can research that for yourself to check).
If one clock was moved away from the other and then back hypothetically this should give the same resultant time difference as the clocks both in a high gravity environment. I do not know if on a circular return path from one clock this would have the same effect/ the clock orentation depending on design of the clock. If the clock moved backwards and forwards a set ammount in a low gravity showed identical dilation than a high gravity it would prove that gravity is merely causing iradioactive decay to happen faster?
Both factors cause clocks to run slow, their functionality taking longer to act as the parts that need to move either have their journeys lengthened or because the speed of light is either lower or different in the up and down directions in a gravity well. Whichever of those is the cause of slowed functionality, the slowed functionality then leads to delayed decay. With anything sitting on the Earth, the functionality of clocks, atoms and everything else is slowed both by movement and by gravity. It's similar to the way higher temperature speeds up reactions and lower temperature preserves food longer.
-
...The actual measureable loss due to dilation is negligibly small, if it exists. The inaccuracies in the syetem are far larger...
That's just not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_General_Relativity
If the GPS drifted by 10 Km a day it would be practically useless.
The fact that you don't understand how good modern clocks are is your problem , not a phisics problem.
-
Firs of all The gps system has inaccuracies in it. These lead to a daily reset from a ground station. And inbetween resets, the difference in time is far outweighed by these inaccuracys. For this to be truly tested a far more accurate system is needed, down to an accuracy of mm rather than metres. In 2 or 3 generations it may be possible. When the computer system was designed it was the 80s and today's mobile phones are umteen times more powerful. I had heard that bill clinton ordered it to be put in to the system after the brass said no, the remaining satelites where all launched during the 90s
http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
Secondly,
I'm not arguing that clocks run faster in less gravity.
End.