The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Down

Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?

  • 147 Replies
  • 68916 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 396
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?
« Reply #140 on: 05/06/2010 16:11:02 »
Quote from: JP on 05/06/2010 04:26:28
Before someone goes out and spends money on a book that's been poorly reviewed, I would suggest they read up on it. This seems like a pretty good review: http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700861p.pdf
I'm afraid it isn't. Stachel muddies the water and evades the essential point in order to defend an unsupported position via circular argument.

Quote from: JP on 05/06/2010 04:26:28
Also, you certainly have very little evidence for telling people that the mainstream view of time is "wrong."
I've given ample evidence in Time Explained. If you disagree, try to show where the evidence I offer is incorrect.   

Quote from: JP on 05/06/2010 04:26:28
What you're claiming is philosophy with no mathematics to back it up. Science is about making predictions and observations...
As I've said, the mathematics is unchanged. And it certainly isn't philosophy, it's phenomenology. Because science is about observations, and there are no observations whatsoever to support the idea that time flows or that we travel through it. If you beg to differ, I challenge you to offer some. 

Quote from: JP on 05/06/2010 04:26:28
The validity of a theory is based on how well it seems to model reality and how well it matches experiments. Your philosophy doesn't offer any predictions, so it isn't science.  It's not even clear that it's consistent with the mainstream view of time as a dimension of space-time. Therefore, claiming that your philosophy is a scientific fact supported by evidence is misleading.
No it isn't misleading, and again it is not philosophy. The observational evidence tells us what's scientific fact, and I adhere to it whilst adhering to special relativity. See page 31 of The Meaning of Relativity where Einstein says "The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space co-ordinates with the time co-ordinate". I'm giving you the science. The flow of time and travelling through time is the philosophy that leads to the reductio-ad-absurdum of the grandfather paradox.

Time travel isn't mainstream, JP. It's science fiction. The "stasis box" is science-fiction too, but it's useful to point out the obvious: get in the box, and the "stasis field" prevents all motion, even at the atomic level. So you can't move, your heart doesn't beat, and you can't even think. When I open the box five hundred years later, to you it's like I opened the box as soon as you got in. You "travelled" to the future by not moving at all. Instead everything else did. And all that motion, be it the motion of planets or people or atoms or light, was through space.
« Last Edit: 05/06/2010 16:14:15 by Farsight »
Logged
 



Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 396
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?
« Reply #141 on: 05/06/2010 16:21:25 »
Quote from: Geezer on 04/06/2010 18:19:39
If A is a function of B, B is automatically a function of A. The justification is inescapable.
Not so. The temperature of a gas is a function of molecular motion involving an average. The opposite is not true, because a single molecule has a velocity, not a temperature. Your assertion puts cause on an equal footing with effect, and places emergent properties on a par with fundamental properties. It doesn't hold.
Logged
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 706
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 21 times
    • View Profile
Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?
« Reply #142 on: 05/06/2010 16:59:48 »
Quote from: Farsight on 05/06/2010 16:11:02
If you disagree, try to show where the evidence I offer is incorrect. 
Over the breadth of the internet there is a veritable book about how wrong your argument is.

The funniest is that the same "mathematics" that you use to show that time is circularly defined shows that space is circularly defined and shows that every physical quantity is circularly defined. But philosophers of science have known this for decades if not centuries.

The best argument against your argument is that you ignore your own circularity as pointed out by your favourite source for quotation  mining: Einstein. As Einstein points out in 1905, we cannot provide a measurement of space without providing some definition of what it means to be "the same time" as different points that are separated by a distance. Only once we do that can we have a real physical definition of measured distance and only then can we have a definition of motion and at rest. But Einstein also points out that we are perfectly free to chose from an infinite number of ways of setting up, physically, what is "the same time" at different distances. This means that there are an infinite number of measurements of space and thus an infinite number of ways of defining any given motion (or even whether or not there is motion). But we cannot have a physical idea of motion without some previous definition of space and time. This is just the conceptual facts.

Just because what we metaphorically call "movement through time" and "movement through spacetime" is different from what we call movement through space does not obviate us from actually understanding what these phrases mean and it does not make the science and philosophy behind the real meaning of the phrases incorrect.

One incorrect idea about relativity that has its origin in the popular press is that relativity tells us that the universe changes when we are in motion. This is incorrect. In different circumstances, certain descriptions of the universe might be easier to describe or be easier for us to describe using certain measurement devices, but these descriptions are correct regardless of the motion or not of any given observer. To claim that the universe changes because of an observer is incorrect. It is just as incorrect to say that anything changes for a given observer or particle because they are in motion. Time goes on for any given particle just as it always does, what changes is the relationship between events as timed out for one description and events as timed out for another description. Without accepting this, the mathematics of relativity theory simply does not work.

Finally, what Einstein believed or did not believe about relativity theory is irrelevant. What matters is the actual science as handed down to the scientific community and as tested over and over again by careful study. That theory is not a theory without time, it is a theory with a very special relationship between space and time. To trust one's knowledge of this theory to comeone unwilling to actually learn or discuss the mathematics is foolish.
Logged
Naked Scientists values: support moderators who try to demean posters by suggesting that they are Catholic, support moderators who ignore homophobic and transphobic threads, support moderators who promote climate change denial.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 8314
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?
« Reply #143 on: 05/06/2010 19:48:38 »
Quote from: Farsight on 05/06/2010 16:21:25
Quote from: Geezer on 04/06/2010 18:19:39
If A is a function of B, B is automatically a function of A. The justification is inescapable.
Not so. The temperature of a gas is a function of molecular motion involving an average. The opposite is not true, because a single molecule has a velocity, not a temperature. Your assertion puts cause on an equal footing with effect, and places emergent properties on a par with fundamental properties. It doesn't hold.

Farsight:

Apparently my opinion on the subject of functions is a commonly held belief. As Wikipedia is not necessarily the most reliable source, feel free to identify any errors in the following, or did you mean to say something other than "function" when you said that time was a function of motion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function

Perhaps you can also reduce your statement regarding gas molecules to a mathematical relationship so that we can test its validity?
« Last Edit: 06/06/2010 04:13:41 by Geezer »
Logged
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.
 

Offline JP

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 3346
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?
« Reply #144 on: 06/06/2010 03:48:04 »
Quote from: Farsight on 05/06/2010 16:11:02
Quote from: JP on 05/06/2010 04:26:28
Also, you certainly have very little evidence for telling people that the mainstream view of time is "wrong."
I've given ample evidence in Time Explained. If you disagree, try to show where the evidence I offer is incorrect.   

When you have to defend your theory with "show me where it's wrong," it's not a theory.  There's a reason that scientific theories are required to make mathematical predictions that are then verified by experiment.  You still have no mathematics and no physical theory.  You're giving us quotes from a variety of sources with no mathematics to back them up and asking us to overturn a successful theory that has plenty of mathematics and nearly a century of successful quantitative predictions. 

Quote from: PhysBang on 05/06/2010 16:59:48
Finally, what Einstein believed or did not believe about relativity theory is irrelevant. What matters is the actual science as handed down to the scientific community and as tested over and over again by careful study. That theory is not a theory without time, it is a theory with a very special relationship between space and time. To trust one's knowledge of this theory to comeone unwilling to actually learn or discuss the mathematics is foolish.
I agree with PhysBang 100% on this.  Einstein also disagreed with quantum mechanics, and yet it would be absurd to claim quantum mechanics was wrong because Einstein once said so.  Quantitative predictions backed up by experiments are needed, not quotes.
Logged
 



Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 396
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?
« Reply #145 on: 06/06/2010 09:49:32 »
Geezer: you brought up "function", not me. I only used the word in response to your usage. I said time is an emergent property of motion like heat is an emergent property of motion, time being a cumulative measure whilst temperature is an average.

Quote from: JP on 06/06/2010 03:48:04
When you have to defend your theory with "show me where it's wrong," it's not a theory. There's a reason that scientific theories are required to make mathematical predictions that are then verified by experiment. You still have no mathematics and no physical theory. You're giving us quotes from a variety of sources with no mathematics to back them up and asking us to overturn a successful theory that has plenty of mathematics and nearly a century of successful quantitative predictions.
I'm certainly not asking you to overturn relativity. I've already said that the mathematics is unchanged. What I'm asking you to do is look at the scientific evidence and appreciate that there is no evidence for travelling through time. The mathematics doesn't support it either, because we plot lines in Minkowski spacetime rather than moving through it.     

Quote from: JP on 06/06/2010 03:48:04
Quote from: PhysBang on 05/06/2010 16:59:48
Finally, what Einstein believed or did not believe about relativity theory is irrelevant. What matters is the actual science as handed down to the scientific community and as tested over and over again by careful study. That theory is not a theory without time, it is a theory with a very special relationship between space and time. To trust one's knowledge of this theory to comeone unwilling to actually learn or discuss the mathematics is foolish.
I agree with PhysBang 100% on this. Einstein also disagreed with quantum mechanics, and yet it would be absurd to claim quantum mechanics was wrong because Einstein once said so. Quantitative predictions backed up by experiments are needed, not quotes.
What Einstein believed about relativity is most certainly relevant! And I'm  not doing away with time, I'm saying it exists like heat exists, but isn't something you travel through. Observations and scientific experiments back ME up, not time machines. Note that Einstein didn't disagree with quantum mechanics, he was in on the ground floor in 1905. That's what he got his Nobel Prize for. What he disagreed with was the Copenhagen Interpretation, the "meaning" of the mathematics. 
Logged
 

Offline Geezer

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 8314
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?
« Reply #146 on: 06/06/2010 16:34:35 »
Quote from: Farsight on 06/06/2010 09:49:32
Geezer: you brought up "function", not me.

Farsight: Then why did you say "time is a function of motion, not the other way around" here? Was that just a "figure of speech" too?

Quote from: Farsight on 01/06/2010 13:56:57
One doesn't need a new terminology for this, just an adherence to the observational evidence and an appreciation that some of the things we say are figures of speech, because time is a function of motion, not the other way around. 
« Last Edit: 06/06/2010 16:42:16 by Geezer »
Logged
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 8314
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?
« Reply #147 on: 07/06/2010 06:43:34 »
Looks like this is going nowhere. Thread locked.
Logged
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

Is there a "force of gravity"?

Started by GeezerBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 51
Views: 26878
Last post 19/03/2020 20:01:02
by Bored chemist
How does the water in a water balloon behave in zero gravity?

Started by paul.frBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 7
Views: 9012
Last post 10/02/2020 22:18:15
by chiralSPO
Does anti-matter produce anti-gravity?

Started by kenhikageBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 12
Views: 8954
Last post 31/07/2017 20:40:35
by Kryptid
Why is it called dark matter instead of dark gravity?

Started by IAMREALITYBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 25
Views: 8824
Last post 19/05/2020 19:13:04
by Professor Mega-Mind
Did Einstein "kick the can" on gravity?

Started by OutcastBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 47
Views: 22945
Last post 27/03/2020 20:42:14
by yor_on
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.208 seconds with 51 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.