An essay in futility, too long to read :)

  • 2911 Replies
  • 293233 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1150 on: 20/05/2013 21:21:45 »
So let's go back to that event horizon. What would you see, defining it such as you have a constant called 'c' that also becomes a 'clock' of sorts split into Planck scale. The universe would have to speed up for you, would you agree to that? But the light coming at you would still be 'c'. It can't be anything else in this universe I assume. Let's say, just for the argument, that one minute to you locally would represent a million years for some sun, close enough but free from the gravity well you're in.

What happens with the light it produce? One million years of light for it, whatever amount reaching you doing so in one minute of your locally defined time? You can't 'time travel' locally. Your lifespan never change, locally measured. And we define, create, and measure experiments locally. That's how a repeatable experiment works, and works out for all others testing its truth.

What happens to that light?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1151 on: 20/05/2013 21:37:43 »
It is a paradox to me. Assuming the light produced under one million years (locally defined) to reach you in one minute. Either you have to define that light as propagating ftl, 'locally defined' which directly will contradict my statement that what you measure still will be 'c'. Or you will need a way to describe it that won't allow for a blueshifted 'curtain of light'. There might be one third statement possible though, and that is that what you measure is your reality, and in that one you must get a blue shifted curtain of light, coming at you at 'c', creating some sort of singularity isolating you from the rest of the universe.

That one should then define it such as when something not physically correct happens, as fitting the laws we find regulating a universe, then we must get a singularity. Or do you have a third, eh, fourth suggestion?
=

Thinking of it as 'slow time' as defined locally then?
In what way would you expect it to be different for you at the event horizon measuring?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1152 on: 20/05/2013 21:50:53 »
Reminds me of Olber's Paradox,  that one seems explained by there not being enough starlight reaching us, and that there never can be, as we have a expansion as well as stars dying, and entropy. But in this case I think we need another answer, accepting the stipulations I made.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1153 on: 20/05/2013 21:59:46 »
And that's another thing I've been wondering about. If the event horizon could be described as a equivalence to 'c'. Passing it no light paths can point 'back' to where you came from, and that becomes a 'singularity'. so sending a light signal back to where you come from, just as you pass, won't let it through. But if I assume it to be a equivalence then no mass should ever be able to pass a event horizon, not as matter at least.
« Last Edit: 20/05/2013 23:42:44 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1154 on: 20/05/2013 22:10:56 »
You could possibly get around that one defining matter as compressing, also passing the event horizon under that compression, making it impossible to radiate 'back out' to the universe we can measure on. Or using tidal forces possibly to define matter as breaking down, finally becoming radiation, still inside a event horizon though. Because I would expect a measurable radiation, if it happened outside a event horizon.
=

This one will be very interesting to measure I think
http://astronomy.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=58381&p=3&topicID=48519156
« Last Edit: 20/05/2013 22:15:37 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1155 on: 20/05/2013 23:30:37 »
From locality we have a logic that might define some few local parameters, And then 'c' locally defined, also becoming your information carrier between those frames of reference. But 'c' as a global presentation of a universe is not really the same in my description as in main-stream definitions, in where we go out from presuming a 'global universe', although with observer dependencies.

If I would make some stipulations for explaining it from locality I would state that you would need to consider 'c' from its local representation solely, using it as a local constant. It's not really a 'global' perspective to me. But it should mean that no representation can be made other than locally, and that all local descriptions are limited by the same (local) constants.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1156 on: 20/05/2013 23:58:35 »
Do 'c' notice frames of reference in a propagation? It follows geodesics, but can you define a geodesic as something untouched by gravity? If gravity is the metric of space? To me gravity must be existent in a 'flat space' too. Would a 'space' without gravity exist on its own?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1157 on: 21/05/2013 00:54:47 »
We measure a locally invariant 'clock', meaning it keeping a constant time, its oscillations the same in all uniform motion, no matter your speed. And when you measure other frames of reference you do it against that clock, no other. And defined from that view it is the 'universe' that change, not you. Your ruler and clock becoming something of 'local constants', defining all experiments, together with 'c'.
=

And your lifespan use that local 'constant' clock too.
It's called 'Relativity' ;-)

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1158 on: 21/05/2013 02:28:22 »
heh.

Let's use light clocks to define a event horizon. In SR you can think of it as 'light' bouncing between two mirrors at a right angle to you. That becomes your clock. The contraption moving away, relative you, will force the light bouncing between the mirrors to 'traverse' more space as it does so, making for a slower 'clock', as defined by you staying at home. A simple idea that works.

Then you just put this light clock in a uniform constant acceleration, and watch it tick. That's gravity according to the equivalence principle. And GR.

So will that light clock tick slower for a far observer, watching it placed at a event horizon?
It should, as that is equivalent to uniform constant acceleration.

Now place yourself there looking out at the stars. Place one more imaginary light clock, 'at rest' with you, away from the event horizon, close but not too close to that sun we discussed earlier. Will the clock speed up, or will it be the same as your clock? There are two ways to see that, no, it won't. Or yes, it will, but only relative you. Assuming a global universe the 'sun clock' has no reason to speed up, as it is at rest with you, but placed outside your gravity well. But as we found that far observer observing your clock to go slow, you can now imagine that observer sitting on our 'sun (light)clock' looking back at you, observing your 'event horizon clock' still ticking slower than his local sun clock. So, what will you observe (at the event horizon)?

Well, which clock are you going to use to define his clock? your local one right? At the event horizon. And according to that one the 'sun clock' must have a faster pace. It is equivalent to a twin experiment loosely described, in where one twin accelerate to then come back, finding his earthbound twin older than himself traveling.
=

This is where there might be room for argument. although the far observer defines your clock to go slow, can I really assume a equivalence in where his then must go faster, as defined from my local clock (at the event horizon)? Logic and the equivalence principle seems to demand it though.
=

But none of them, locally measured, found anything to differ in lights speed. And that you define the sun clock to 'tick faster', does that mean that all will agree on it? Not to someone in a same gravitational potential, also being 'at rest', with the sun clock. To him it should 'tick' the same as his own. There should be a better way to define this one. But let's sleep on it and see if we can find some other way :)

One thing one can wonder about though, is if there exist some limit to those 'ticks' more than 'c', locally defined. What i mean is if there could be some 'minimum ground state' for a 'tick', as defined between frames of reference. but that hasn't really anything to do with the question at hand, has it :)
« Last Edit: 21/05/2013 03:07:55 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1159 on: 21/05/2013 02:33:05 »
And, thinking of it, how does the Higgs field handle this equivalence? Does it allow it or destroy it, and how does it define time?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1160 on: 21/05/2013 14:13:39 »
Although there is a added complication to it. You being at rest with a event horizon is not in 'uniform motion' anymore. To stay there you must 'accelerate' constantly, and if we want to be very practical it can't even be a uniform constant acceleration as you should have to fight tidal 'forces'. But we can imagine you to accelerate uniformly and constantly, hovering above it. Now that is a equivalence to a gravity, and you doing it constantly uniformly can then be seen as 'adding' to the gravity, or if you like, negating the black holes gravity. In the end it should come to a same situation, as I think, though. You being at rest with that horizon. If you now imagine yourself hovering as it being described by gravitational arrows you can draw one arrow pointing to the black holes 'center' (ideally) representing the gravitational potential the dark hole act on you. Then another arrow coming from that black hole, going in the opposite direction, representing the 'force' your uniform constant acceleration act upon the 'space' and black holes gravity, countermanding it.

So, will you be weightless :) Two arrows, taking each other out. If now gravity is a 'force'?
« Last Edit: 21/05/2013 14:15:43 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1161 on: 21/05/2013 16:24:41 »
The point made here is that there is several experiments validating the equivalence principle. Gravitational red and blue shifts for example, and NIST. It works and it predicts effects on a regular basis practically. So I expect it to be true that a clock in a gravity well must be slower, as measured by a far observer. Can you see why I question the Higg? You can't keep both GR and Higg bosons, at least not as I get it.

Now read this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/black-hole-firewall-theory-paradox-einstein-equivalence_n_3036733.html

And this one that I got by the grace of Jarek :)
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Hestenes_Electron_time_essa.pdf

It's very interesting, discussing 'clocks'
=

And one more thing, I'm interested in the logic describing something. I don't really need it to be 'here', as long as the logic makes sense. That's why non propagating light makes sense to me. And that's why I might assume the way it exist as 'rhythm' instead of a propagation to describe a arrow. What we need for defining a 'clock' is here though, lights speed in a vacuum.
« Last Edit: 21/05/2013 17:02:36 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1162 on: 21/05/2013 17:11:28 »
Then we have the idea that information can't be destroyed. If you write a equation on a clump of ice, is that information? Does that matter to the ice? What patterns you or nature inscribe? And thoughts, are those information?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1163 on: 21/05/2013 17:17:17 »
Why not define it such as logic can't be destroyed instead? Because that is what we build on, logic. Statistics is our final frontier proving a logic, and statistics and the logic it delivers also prove the concept of time. Because statistics is something belonging to the history of something, a past. That past we use to define a future. Whatever statistics you use will always be a past, brought into the 'present' by you handling it. How else would you get a probability of something, not using histories?

So what is probability a proof of?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1164 on: 21/05/2013 17:22:34 »
A super position is probability of outcomes. A outcome is the finish of a super position. And I relate that concept to scales. Because I don't think you can define a macroscopic object as being in a super position, as a piece of wood.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1165 on: 21/05/2013 17:32:06 »
Using scales as our tool we get a geometry, defining super positions at one end, the opposite end defining macroscopic objects. We also get something 'time less' at one end, a existent arrow on the other. Do motion need a arrow?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1166 on: 21/05/2013 18:21:03 »
... although the far observer defines your clock to go slow, can I really assume a equivalence in where his then must go faster, as defined from my local clock (at the event horizon)? Logic and the equivalence principle seems to demand it though.
I can't comment on this sun/event-horizon/clock arrangement, because I can't picture exactly what you mean, but just because you see his clock run slow doesn't mean he must see your clock run fast. Consider the twins paradox: (assuming the bulk of the out and return legs are at constant velocity) each sees the other's clock run slow during the outward and return journey; the temporal difference when they meet is due to the turn-around phase of the travelling twin.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1167 on: 21/05/2013 18:23:22 »
So, will you be weightless :)
A joke? It seems to me you'll only be weightless under constant acceleration if you're in orbital freefall.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1168 on: 21/05/2013 18:30:34 »
... I don't think you can define a macroscopic object as being in a super position, as a piece of wood.
How big is macroscopic? visible to the naked eye?

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1169 on: 22/05/2013 00:40:57 »
That you can define several ways dlorde. I refer to a piece of wood here, but you can argue for that all matter are 'matter waves' if you like. You can also point out that we ideally can hear a molecule and, almost, see a single photon. Think there has been experiments pointing to that. To me it's a question of scales and I refer superpositions to the microscopic scale, not to that wood. It's not so much a question of defining where a macroscopic scale 'is', as you can manipulate it by super cooling it etc. as in that experiment you pointed me too "O'Connell's experiments required delicate control and a temperature of just 25 millikelvin to measure the state in the few nanoseconds before it was broken down by disruptive influences from outside." But you should be able to use scales for defining where you find it normally on earth.

Maybe it need to be defined? Then I would refer that to the amount of relations that restricts it, from a quantum mechanical point of view. And that should differ for what type of material it is, as well as temperature, etc. but you won't get a ordinary stick to be in a superposition, as far as I know that is :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1170 on: 22/05/2013 00:43:26 »
And yep, it was a joke :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1171 on: 22/05/2013 01:04:22 »
And no, not to me. It's not the acceleration/deceleration that makes the time dilation for the guy traveling, relative his twin staying at home. Different uniform motions must give you time dilations and Lorentz contractions too. I think I've discussed that before in this thread, and if you use light clocks for it, you find a very handy description for it.

But I've seen some arguments supporting your view, and in a way it would be much easier for me if I could agree on it just being accelerations/decelerations that creates it. A relative motion is always relative something else, and that is what creates time dilations, two objects in relative motion. to me that might be seen as another proof of 'motion' existing, but depending on how you define a universe, globally, or strictly locally? From a local definition we have 'constants' with one, 'c', also communicating between those local instances. All as I see it.

Pete expressed it very well when he pointed out to me that relativity always must be about 'something, relative, something else'. When I'm discussing 'locality' I'm trying to see if you can find something constant for just one frame of reference. And what I think is 'constants', (of a sort:), that I then refer as equivalent 'constants' for all frames of reference locally defined.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1172 on: 22/05/2013 01:25:22 »
From my point of view then, 'c' is a clock to me, locally definable as a constant. And a time dilation is created when you introduce two such clocks, both locally definable to be 'c', comparing one to the other, using relative motion, accelerations(decelerations), and mass. I'm avoiding 'energy' for now, and I'm also not discussing relative mass, even though both definitions are valid according to relativity. And it is a mystery to me, that a local constant, interacting over frames of reference create both time dilations and Lorentz contractions, so I try scales :) to see if it makes sense defining it this way. And that's also why I want a definition of a scale for a smallest, physically meaningful, frame of reference. Because you have two definitions as i see it. Being 'at rest' with something else, and defining frames of reference as points defined by a (local) arrow and position in three dimensions. But that does not state if a frame of reference has a scale by itself, we might refer it to a string, if we can't agree on where that frame loses its coherence. I use Planck scale.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1173 on: 22/05/2013 02:37:33 »
But yes, I'm also wondering if there would be a possibility of defining it as not being a symmetry, but if you consider uniform motion, measuring some other clock, we find a symmetry in that both should define the other ones clock as going slow. And it doesn't matter what speed you define the other object to have, it will still be a symmetry. But then we have the question if 'motion' exist, to consider.

And assuming that I can accelerate close to 'c', to then uniformly move, can I now expect a Lorentz contraction to disappear? If so maybe I can ignore a locally defined time dilation relative some other frame of reference too, as it according to my first definition then must be a illusion, caused by 'relative motion'.

To me it doesn't matter how I got that speed, even though I normally defined need a 'acceleration' of some sort to get to such a speed. The fact still stays that those two descriptions are contradictory when put together. And as I define everything relative my own 'clock' I find uniform motion to be as responsible for a time dilation, and Lorentz contraction, as a acceleration. The MMX experiment was done in uniform motion, and it was from that Lorentz first defined a Lorentz contraction.

But there is one more thing to it. I assume a Lorentz contraction and a time dilation to be complementary, you need both to define that muon for example, depending on what frame of reference you use. That may be wrong, although I expect it to be true.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1174 on: 22/05/2013 03:06:38 »
The  weirdest thing with my 'constants' dlorde is that I think that I can define 'c' (clock), uniform motion, and accelerations(decelerations) as being 'local constants'. And there I also can define, at least provisionally, uniform motion as being equivalent to locally 'still'. But introduce one single little frame of reference more, and we must find 'motion', or 'relative motion' as it is called. Frames of reference are weird.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1175 on: 22/05/2013 09:51:40 »
And no, not to me. It's not the acceleration/deceleration that makes the time dilation for the guy traveling, relative his twin staying at home.
You seem to be confusing time dilation with the age discrepancy when the twins are reunited. Both twins see the other's time dilated during the outward and inward journeys, that's a simple consequence of relative motion. The reason for the age discrepancy at the end is that the travelling twin has undergone asymetrical acceleration. Wikipedia has quite a thorough treatment.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1176 on: 22/05/2013 14:41:50 »
You want the aging to be a result of the equivalence principle right? A higher gravitational field as you accelerate/decelerate. Using this I would refer it to a same principle as standing on a mass, a 'gravity well' locally 'slowing' your time relative a comparison to some other frame of reference. That's not my definition, I use 'c' as a clock. According to my definition there is no such thing as 'time pockets' and your 'time' never change locally. If you want to avoid uniform motion (and I've tried too, as I would prefer a simpler definition) creating a same effect as a acceleration, meaning Lorentz contractions and time dilations, you need to show me how they are non existent in uniform motions.

What will you see close to 'c', uniformly moving, locally defined?

Will a universe contract for you (Lorentz contraction)?
Will there be a time dilation relative other frames of reference (the universe)?

Logically one can ask oneself if it then should matter what type of acceleration one make, as long as they locally give you a same amount of 'acceleration' for that time. Half a G under ten minutes, or one G under five minutes, and I'm sure you can think up other tests of that one.

But the main thing is that I define a local clock as a constant, using 'c', and if that clock defines other clocks to differ from yours local, then it's telling you a local truth, and you have a time dilation. And that's why I find 'motion' so weird too, as well as 'frames of reference'. Locally it's simple. Think this one lifts up a similar description, although from a 'global' point of view. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=425215
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1177 on: 22/05/2013 14:46:37 »
If you tell me that there is no time dilation, but a Lorentz contraction (uniformly moving in a geodesic), you also need to prove that those two isn't complementary btw. Meaning that depending on your choice of coordinate system you can describe it from one or the other, as with the muon.
=

If you use a light clock for it, you can see why they need to be complementary, at least as I think. I'll look for that one and link it. It's a 'geometry' of sorts. And there is one more point. The idea of it being a 'turnaround' that create a time dilation should then ignore the amount of traveling uniformly. So you accelerating for one month, should then present a same amount of time dilation relative that twin, coming back home, no matter how many light-years you traveled uniformly in between. Going at 99 % (uniformly) light speed in a vacuum for ten years, locally defined naturally, should then be equivalent to doing the same for a week, time dilation wise relative that twin (assuming a 'equivalent' turnaround).
« Last Edit: 22/05/2013 16:02:21 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1178 on: 22/05/2013 15:46:12 »
This is in new theories for a reason dlorde :)
It's my own thoughts.

It may become clearer to see why I look at it the way I do, if you look at what we use to define a experiment. We want it repeatable, under similar conditions. We do it locally, using a local time keeping, using a local ruler. And when the experiment agree for different people doing it 'locally' we find it to be true.

That's the exact way I treat it too, as I think. I define a constant time keeping, and ruler (locally unchanging relative you). I state that all 'frames of reference', locally, must be equivalent. And you need that to make those 'repeatable experiments' true. If it isn't that way you will need to prove what quirk of nature creates those 'repeatable experiments'.

That's not as clear as I would like it. What I mean is that we have unchanging constants, locally defined. They shouldn't change for you, wherever you might go. But we also have have 'motion', and mass, accelerations, 'energy' etc, they becoming parameters too. It's a little as using a mirror, thought wise, turning it around using one definition of constants, not discussing how 'frames of reference' joins into one seamlessly same universe, although I do that too :) hard not too..

So, even though I'm discussing 'relativity', I'm doing it from a very closed perspective, looking at one single frame of reference, trying to find 'constants' that join those. And the only thing I know joining one frame of reference to another is 'c', although you have forces microscopically (matter) that may cover frames of reference too, using Planck scale for defining one. It's my mind game, and it keeps me interested.
« Last Edit: 22/05/2013 16:09:08 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1179 on: 22/05/2013 16:17:37 »
Reading you again I'm getting unsure what you mean btw? I define all clocks differing from mine as 'time dilated'. Did you read me otherwise? I'm not discussing a global definition of a universe, so I have no problem with defining it this way.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1180 on: 22/05/2013 17:46:18 »
You want the aging to be a result of the equivalence principle right?

I want the best explanation: one that works physically, fits observation, and has predictive power. I have no preference as to which explanation that might be.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1181 on: 22/05/2013 17:59:41 »
I define all clocks differing from mine as 'time dilated'. Did you read me otherwise?
I'm OK with that, you'll observe a clock in relative motion to be time dilated. When you said :"It's not the acceleration/deceleration that makes the time dilation for the guy traveling, relative his twin staying at home", I took you to mean, from the context, the difference in their ages at reunion. If you meant that it isn't the acceleration that causes each to see his twin's clock dilated while they are in uniform relative motion, then I apologise for misunderstanding you; but both twins (not just the traveller) see time dilation of the other's clock, and that time dilation doesn't explain the discrepancy in ages once they meet.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1182 on: 22/05/2013 22:28:25 »
True, you and me are alike dlorde. We're both willing to discard what we don't find to work, trying it out :) And that's the way it should be. Pride has nothing to do in science, or in this thread, it only slows one down. On the other hand I'm rather slow as it is :) so that might not be noticeable. As for defining it as a acceleration being the culprit for discrepancy in age, you and me see it differently.

First of all I think I would have to 'split' a Lorentz contraction from a 'time dilation', if defining it as solely accelerations  creating a 'real measurable time-dilations'. Because I see them as complementary effects. And as they exist in a uniform (relativistic) motion too?

Then I only use one frame of reference defining it, and there your clock is defined to be 'c'. So whenever I find another clock to be 'out of sync' with mine I must define that as giving a equal result, locally measured. To do otherwise would make me have to define two types of, let's say, 'slow clocks'. One that is 'real' as in the twin experiment, the other a 'illusion' as in a uniform motion. And I don't know how to define that one. But if I would want it to be only accelerations that create this 'real' discrepancy in age I would, by necessity, need to be able to define how one description from force carriers ( light- 'c') locally measured over frames of reference would be a illusion, while another won't?

A definition using two definitions of a equivalent measurement (clocks) can only relate to a global description in where you then must be able to define why one clock reading would be more 'real' than another.

SR did not use GR to define time dilations and Lorentz contractions, and muon's do not use accelerations as I get it, they come into existence at the speed they are, and where the inertial observer define them as 'time dilated' the 'muon' itself has only one choice, and that is the complementary Lorentz contraction. Well, as far as I can see.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1183 on: 22/05/2013 23:41:32 »
Maybe this one? It's interesting and one can flip to the next page using " [Top] [Intro] [Prev] [Next] " above and under, in the window.
The Twin Paradox: The Equivalence Principle Analysis.
=

And here's a guy I'm enjoying immensely  Spacetime and the Relativity of Simultaneity.

Another way to define it.
« Last Edit: 23/05/2013 00:03:57 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1184 on: 26/05/2013 23:05:22 »
One could look at it this way. Define a arrow as a local constant, equivalent to a locally measured 'c'. You then have a simple definition of what arrow is, for each one of us. Define time dilations as something giving you equivalent 'true' readings relative your local clock, no matter accelerations or uniform motions. I see the arrow as a local constant, treating it as a global 'common' gives in my view the wrong information. And looking at it this way the same must be true for 'c'. Local definitions all, making the global view we think us observe a mosaic. It also makes Einsteins definition of a arrow as a 'illusion' comprehensible, he considered a 'global universe' just as most of the experiments we do, be it QM or relativity. And it is global, as we do communicate, but what we use for defining it is still local constants, well, as I see it :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1185 on: 27/05/2013 11:58:03 »
And then we have the question of symmetries and a closed universe. I mean, they do seem to 'hang together'? Although, maybe that could be considered two ways, globally relative locally? From a global point of view, how can you have the universe as a 'symmetry', if it's not closed? Because most, or maybe all, of what I think I see see becomes 'symmetries' to me? Action and reaction is a symmetry, a photons recoil becomes a symmetry, etc etc.

So, could you have it two ways 'simultaneously'? What about a uniform motion relative a acceleration? Or a 'speed' relative a 'clock'? Ah well, I don't know.

If I would imagine a universe a a symmetry, then I also would need to define what allow that symmetry to be defined as 'work done' etc. Because a symmetry doesn't necessarily state 'changes' to me, I would probably want to define that as something 'time less' , although, to us, caught in the 'middle' of that/those symmetry(ies) it sure does. And that's the problem with ideas, they tend to move from what we see, to what we imagine. And it is possible to imagine this universe as existing without a arrow.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1186 on: 27/05/2013 12:01:13 »
Then again, to do so we first need a universe, like what we exist in. It's from that universe we can define super positions, entanglements, Quantum mechanics, Relativity, speeds and clocks, rulers and dimensions.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1187 on: 27/05/2013 14:21:31 »
... this one? It's interesting and one can flip to the next page using " [Top] [Intro] [Prev] [Next] " above and under, in the window.
The Twin Paradox: The Equivalence Principle Analysis.
They say: "...the Equivalence Principle analysis makes short work of Time Gap and Distance Dependence Objections.  The Time Gap Objection invites us to consider the limit of an instantaneous turnaround.  But in that limit, the pseudo gravitational field becomes infinitely strong, and so does the time dilation.  So Terence ages years in an instant—physically unrealistic, but so is instantaneous turnaround.
Which supports my explanation that it's the turnaround that makes the difference.

Quote
And here's a guy I'm enjoying immensely  Spacetime and the Relativity of Simultaneity.
You'll no doubt have noticed that he explains the Twins Paradox as I have indicated.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2013 14:26:49 by dlorde »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1188 on: 27/05/2013 15:03:22 »
What I can agree on is that acceleration/deceleration will present more of that 'compared aging', as defined from a inertial observer, dlorde :) What I can't agree on, is if one would define it to be only accelerations/decelerations creating it. And there is a problem more discussing this, as accelerations/deceleration is how we define a 'change' from a uniform motion in SpaceTime. It becomes very hard to find examples ignoring a acceleration involved in different 'relative motions'. That's one simple reason why I use clocks to define time dilations, more or less ignoring the comparative stage, twins meeting again. And the muon example is, to me, one describing it from a uniform motion, not acceleration, although one might want to argue a gravitational acceleration being involved.

You need to see from where I define it. I assume a 'clock' as a local constant, equivalent to splitting 'c' in even chunks of 'time'.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1189 on: 27/05/2013 15:44:47 »
What I can agree on is that acceleration/deceleration will present more of that 'compared aging', as defined from a inertial observer, dlorde :) What I can't agree on, is if one would define it to be only accelerations/decelerations creating it.
...
You need to see from where I define it. I assume a 'clock' as a local constant, equivalent to splitting 'c' in even chunks of 'time'.

Unfortunately, I can't critique your theory or point out where you may have gone adrift, because I haven't been able to follow any of it. I can only point out explicit contradictions of relativity where I see them.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1190 on: 27/05/2013 15:46:19 »
Where you read Michael Weiss to state that it is 'accelerations/decelerations', I read him differently :). I find it easy to argue for my view in that, if we define the 'turnaround' to be equivalent for two travels as stated earlier in this thread, I also would need to presume that it won't make a difference for that 'final comparative twin measurement' what time, locally defined for the traveling twin, he found himself to travel uniformly at relativistic speeds, be it one month, or ten years.

Assuming it to be the acceleration/deceleration solely creating a 'real temporal discrepancy between twins', also assuming the turnarounds being equivalent for both travels, the uniform relativistic motion shouldn't have a importance for our final measurement.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1191 on: 27/05/2013 16:26:54 »
One more thing dlorde, it's not a theory. At most it's assumptions I make. And I will assume that you jumped into this thread, not bothering to read where from I got to those ideas :) which I willingly admit to be quite understandable, considering the amount of posts preceding this.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1192 on: 27/05/2013 17:07:50 »
There is one thing simplifying it possibly.

A twin experiment build on the notion of a 'before' and a 'after', relating to one common frame of reference . The 'before' is where you set the clocks at 'null', synchronizing them with each other (the twins originally). To then 'compare' you must introduce acceleration to allow the traveling twin to return to that 'origin' from where they again can compare their 'biological clocks'.

Defined this way you can't make a same experiment in a uniform motion, as you only will have the possibility of a 'before', meaning our twins, somehow uniformly moving in opposite directions passing each other, momentarily 'at rest' with each other (strictly speaking not even this though), to synchronize their clocks. But they should not be able to join a same frame of reference again to compare clocks after as that must involve accelerations.

(although if now the universe is 'closed' somehow? You might be able to, making me foresee a lot of interesting arguments, and heated discussions :)
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1193 on: 27/05/2013 19:34:25 »
I can't define it both ways. Either I will trust the readings I get relative my local clock or I won't. If I doesn't then I will need to define what it is that differs in the measurements. Both accelerations, as well as uniform motion, can be defined by me using my local clock, comparing it to 'c' (light clocks), over frames of reference. Using gravitational time dilations we can define it to different 'heights' or 'gravitational potentials', represented by a geometry (gravity as a metric of SpaceTime). Using uniform motion you have a same description, namely a geometry now represented by the relative motion you define that far away object to have, making the light clock traverse more 'space' between 'end points', as measured by you. In both cases I think you can relate it to a geometry though.

Assuming that time dilations are symmetric under SR does not state that they won't exist. Just use different 'relative motions' (versus you) and compare your clock readings. Time dilations must measurably be different, telling you that even though you can define them as 'symmetric' in each isolated 'system' they do differ when comparing 'systems', even in uniform motions, just as one 'relative motion' can differ versus another 'relative motion', as measured relative yourself (the 'inertial observer'). Defining a uniformly moving time dilation from experiments becomes tougher as we can't use uniformly spinning, and we can't 'force' a 'uniformly moving twin experiment'. Although we can use what our clock tells us about other clocks, comparing. In the end it comes down to how you define this universe. If you expect the far away light clocks 'ticks' to tell you that clocks 'local truth', or not. Experimentally though, there are no locally defined time dilations, anywhere. Only the one found comparing your clock to another 'frame of reference'.

Assuming one would like to define ones readings of 'far away clocks' as also being their 'local truth', no matter if one would be uniformly moving or accelerating, should then allow me to, depending on my choice of 'frame of reference' (clock), equivalently so, be able to define myself instead as having a awful lot of different 'local time dilations', simultaneously.

Or you define it to your comparison. Which I refer to as 'relations' between frames of reference, trusting in those experiments that tells you that locally your clock never change pace, no matter where you are, or at what speed relative some other frame.

Doing so, also assuming that all other clocks locally defined behave the same, and as testable by them joining your frame of reference, 'at rest'¨with you. You then are free to use 'c' as your local clock, one 'Plank Length' at one 'Plank time' minimally defined as a 'clock tick'.  And doing so, the arrow becomes a 'illusion' globally, if expected to be of one 'magnitude' over a universe, and a 'constant' related to 'c' locally..
« Last Edit: 27/05/2013 19:55:10 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1194 on: 27/05/2013 20:04:20 »
One more thing dlorde, it's not a theory. At most it's assumptions I make.
Sorry, I was careless; I should have said 'ideas'. Confused by the topic title, I guess...

Quote
And I will assume that you jumped into this thread, not bothering to read where from I got to those ideas :)
To be frank, it makes little difference; I can't follow (make sense of) the majority of your posts. No offence intended, but I can't get to grips with your writing style.
« Last Edit: 27/05/2013 20:19:58 by dlorde »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1195 on: 27/05/2013 20:08:40 »
Then ignore them :)

It's okay, we're all allowed our own taste.
Well, I hope?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1196 on: 27/05/2013 20:13:05 »
... if now the universe is 'closed' somehow? You might be able to, making me foresee a lot of interesting arguments, and heated discussions :)

That's an interesting question. If the travelling twin follows a geodesic that traverses the closed universe, returning to his point of departure, each twin would see the other apparently much younger due to the uniform time dilation over the whole journey. Quite how that is resolved when the travelling twin decelerates to match frames, I don't know.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1452
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1197 on: 27/05/2013 20:18:40 »
Then ignore them :)

No problem - I took the thread title at face value ;)

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1198 on: 27/05/2013 20:58:12 »
Well, assuming my definition ones life span should, locally defined, always be the same. And expanding this definition of 'locality' to other frames, the same must go for the inhabitant measuring there. But what those 'frames of reference' would find, comparing their local clock to the other ones? You might imagine them as passing each other twice, very close, a light signal sent from the exact middle in between, setting (synchronizing), to then subsequently stopping, those local clocks. Possibly, that is, not sure how it should work as they are not at rest with each other, going in opposite directions.

And that should then be what I call 'relations' :) giving me quite some headache, as it is a result of comparisons over frames of reference, not related to your 'local arrow, relative life-span', locally defined. And to see how I think one need to imagine this definition true for all 'frames of reference', locally described. It becomes a fragmented universe to me, each frame describing it differently.

It also goes down to how to look at different uniform motions. As describing a difference, or not. From a global perspective, which is the one used, they are measurably of different speeds, although 'equivalent' locally measured. From my 'local definitions' :) they are equivalent though. But then again, I'm just using local definitions, not stating how and why they become the 'common universe' we share. Although I can use 'c' for it, but that doesn't answer it, just describes it.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #1199 on: 27/05/2013 21:15:17 »
And if you want to up the difficulty one can try to define what a minimal 'frame of reference' should be seen as. We have 'at rest' but people seem to forget that, 'what' is at rest? :) Because using my local definitions and relativity as a whole, a frame of reference should be able to be defined relative motion and gravity. What I mean is that if I would define a frame of reference to a certain 'scale', I then must find all distances, locally measured, over that scale as introducing gravitational time dilations and Lorentz contractions, complicating any description 'globally', as well as 'motion' of course.

But the main point with different relative motions, to me, is that globally described I don't see how I can call them 'relative' any more? if I find them to differ between 'systems', a 'system' being you locally measuring another object in 'relative motion'. It's okay if we only had two objects in this universe, but it's slightly more.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."