Has science hit the buffers about time

[siarad]

OK I'm not a scientist but just can't make sense of 'relativity'.<br />Please shoot me down, I can take it in my ignorance, as it may help me see sense <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />It seems science has been side-tracked & even hit the buffers with the motor turned off by people happily <i>believing</i> in 'the twins paradox'.<br />This being against Einsteins famous reciprocity & should be a dazzling flashing red light signalling 'hey boys you've got it wrong'.<br />Remember his famous 'trains' whereby passengers couldn't tell which was moving without a reference 'platform' so what is this platform for the twins.<br />Take the second flashing red light, clocks show time has slowed for travellers, against the rule of physics whereby everything happening on Earth is 'universal'. So how come an <b>atomic</b> clock disobeys this but the moving stars don't & nobody cares.<br />I don't think clocks measure the <i>passage</i> of time at all, we simply define it as such but have never 'discovered' time. This is surely a giant red herring.

 

[dragon04]

You'll agree that the "twins paradox" indicates that <b>something</b> causes two identical chronometers to record an event differently relative to their locations and velocities, yes?<br /><br />You'll agree that Einstein predicted that as relative velocity increases with respect to a "static" observer that the above <i>observed</i> phenomenon would occur, yes?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Take the second flashing red light, clocks show time has slowed for travellers, against the rule of physics whereby everything happening on Earth is 'universal'.</font><br /><br />There's part of your problem. "Everything on Earth" that is moving relative to Earth, be it on the ground, in the air, or in the water with respect to good old Dragon sitting here in his chair <b>is</b> experiencing time dilation even if it's on the order of femtoseconds or less.<br /><br />Even good old Dragon sitting in his chair as Earth goes whizzing around the Sun that's whizzing around the galactic core, that's receeding from other galaxies at relativistic velocities is experiencing the passage of time more slowly than Spirit and Opportunity are.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I don't think clocks measure the passage of time at all, we simply define it as such but have never 'discovered' time. This is surely a giant red herring.</font><br /><br />Maybe a better way to think about it is that you clock, my clock, and atomic clocks are measuring the duration of ongoing events. Events that are ubiquitously discrete to each and every person or thing being measured.<br /><br />I think you're confusing ideas here.<br /><br />An atomic clock is "calibrated" using the resonant frequency of the duration of a Cesium 133 atom's radiation going from one highest energy state to its opposite energy state with respect to its ground state.<br /><br />Think about an oscilliscope and good old 60 cycle AC that runs your computer (or 50 cycle depending on where you live).<br /><br />It takes a defined amount of t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<font color="yellow">Maybe a better way to think about it is that your clock, my clock, and atomic clocks are measuring the duration of ongoing events.</font><br /><br />more precisely, the atomic (and mine and yours) clocks are an event periodically occuring by means of which we measure other events<br /><br />in effect we measure events by means of one particular specially chosen event which has highly regular periodic recurence<br /><br />atomic oscillation is an event we take as standard of 'change' and by means of it we measure rate of changes occuring in other events<br /><br />that's similar to picking one particular stable length as 'one meter' and then measuring - comparing other lengths to it<br /><br />there is no such thing as 'length' in existence, only objects of various dimensions... and similarly there is no such thing as time in existence, only objects that undergo change (at some rate)<br /><br />if somehow objects of existence would stop changing and everything would be static and stand still, we could then say that time has stopped<br /><br />time is a concept of things changing, we have personal sense of time passing because we are dynamical entities - consciousness as such is activity that by definition cannot become still except in death, hence the inner sense of time we have<br /><br />and accordingly we have sense of outer time because the world is changing and we denote such changes generally by concept of time<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>siarad: we simply define it as such but have never 'discovered' time.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />maybe you will now understand that there is nothing to discover, no entity called time exists, same as no entity called length exists<br /><br />============<br /><br />special relativity then puts the passing of time on scientific basis but it contains a deep or should we say very basic flaw which prevents people from really understanding it, deep down they feel something is wro <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siarad]

Thanks for both your replies but my point is the laws of physic are <b>universal</b> so an atomic clock <b>can't</b> beat slower no matter where it is.<br />I know it does as the BBC sent one to Hong Kong & back & it recorded less time than it's mate in London.<br />If time slows with travel then the sun has been going around the earth for a loong time so it's atomic clock must be so slow that it'll freezing not hot, as with all the other stars which should be invisibly black.<br />Also I recall an experiment decades ago whereby an atomic particle, muon?, produced on Earth lasted 2s but one produced by a near light-speed cosic ray lasted 17s. (times represntative not true)<br />Further any satellite transmitter & receiver frequencies must be reducing in concert with the 'newtime' but my SatNav is several years old & still works, I know they reset the clocks but how can crystal oscillators be changed as they are clocks too.<br />The logical conclusions:<br />I don't understand how atomic clocks work - seems most likely<br />dilated time doesn't exist & clocks show the <b>amount</b> of time not it's passage which is universal i.e. there's more time to use but at the universal rate - fits with universal laws of physics.<br />I'm missing something so simple I can't see it coz I'm looking for the complicated <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[lostshootinstar]

Its just a matter of letting your mind wrap around the fact that time is relative to the observer.<br /><br />An atomic clock works no differently than any other man made time peice (obviously the interworkings are different, but the concept is the same)<br /><br />The only way to measure "Universal" time, is to measure the MBR. Thats the only way we know the age of the universe. and the age of the universe is "universal", the same everywhere.

 

[siarad]

Ah I've been unclear sorry.<br />I appreciate time is an invention not a discovery.<br />By universal time I mean the time scientists tell me happens at a standard rate throughout the universe i.e. the burning of all stars happens just as on earth as does any chemical action. Now this is atomic action <b>unaffected by time dilation</b>, so how come an atomic clock is? Therein lies my confusion as the clock has definately gone more slowly, proved by repatriation.<br />I've found nothing on Google about resetting the SaNav transmitter frequency nor on NASA about Voyager frequency drift. These transmitters are clocks just as atomic clocks.<br />I have to use a library for WWW connexion which time-limits me so could easily have missed something. Maybe I should jump up & down to gain time <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[usn_skwerl]

my physics teacher summed it up when i was in high school:<br /><br />a boy is sitting in the window of a train going 60 mph, playing with a paddle-ball, bouncing happily away, boing boing, boing....<br /><br />youre sitting at a train crossing as that boys train crosses. you see him in the window, and for the split second, you see his paddleball, oddly appearing frozen, suspended in midair, before losing sight of him. with basic thought, it appears time has stopped on that train from your perspective. the ball didnt stop, it wasnt suspended. hes been bouncing it the whole time. his mom got tired of watching junior bouncing his ball, and looked out the window for some relief. as shes looking, she sees you in mid-yawn. as far as she knows, you are choking on your pine tree air freshener or perhaps you dont have a jaw hinge.<br /><br />its all relative. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lostshootinstar]

The atomic action you specified IS affected by time dilation. What makes you think that its not? <br /><br />Perhaps you are confused because those stars you are speaking of, are NOT moving relative to earth. we move in unicin.<br /><br />Like i said in my last post, the ONLY, "Universal" time is that of the MBR. The reason for that is because verything in the universe is moving at the same speed away from the "beginning". I like to use the expanding Balloon universe model. If the center of the expanding balloon is the "big bang", than all points on the surface of the balloon (which would be "now"), are all moving at the same speed away from the center.

 

[siarad]

Thanks for the answers.<br />Firstly I've already said the satellite transmitters are clocks so their frequency must be reducing along with the extra time i.e. frequency is cycles per second & the seconds are becoming longer! Now confusingly I've never heard of this happening.<br />May I put the problem another way:<br />Our star burns at the standard rate & so does an equivalent star way out on the edge of the universe. <br />It has gained a lot of extra time during it's travels, proved by bringing a moving clock back to base by BBC above so reciprocity didn't change both clocks.<br />Now this star burns at the standard rate but for <b>much longer,</b> so where has the extra energy/mass come from to accomplish this? <br />Surely we can't use an atomic clock <b>slowing down</b> i.e. not at the standard rate & then say everything happens at the standard rate.<br />I'm missing something but what or am I the only one on Earth to get it right <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why did the star gain a lot of time?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Coz earth satellites do, the reason for this topic, as do long-living high speed atmospheric muons above.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why do you say the star travel?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Isn't The Milkyway travelling towards the grear attracter?<br />Again earth satellites gain time so surely must any star orbitting the Milky Way & they do it at varying speeds. Such gain time differentially as proved by the BBC above.<br />Further I thought the red shift came from 3 sources, don't forget the 'forest' shift, sorry don't know it's full name, showing travel against the expansion of space I think.<br />

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Milky way is moving towards the great atractor, but that does not mean that we fuse hydrogen faster than a star in the great atractor. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes that's my problem.<br />It's clearly <i>seen</i> that laws of physics are universal except for the twins paradox more easily seen, to me, by the time paradox of satellites's clocks, where the atomic clock isn't obeying this.<br />I still can't find anything about the transmitter's frequency which <i>has</i> to fall too but I'm sure doesn't. This leads me to think that clocks don't measure time at all or maybe the <i>counters</i> used to display time are going wrong.

 

[origin]

A big part of the problem here, I think, is that the velocities of say the movement of the glaxy is so slow relative to the speed of light that the time dialation effects are minimal. For instance, if in the Twin Paradox the one twin traveled for 60 years at the phenominal rate of 10,000,000 MPH he would age 12 days less in that 60 years than his twin. <br /> <br />Satelites DO have to take into account the effects of time dialation. If that was not taken into account the Global positioning system would be much less accurate. The time dialation for the satelites is not due to speed however it is due to the difference in gravity, which is covered in general relativity.<br /><br />PS. I am pretty sure my math is right on the modified twin paradox.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siarad]

Thanks.<br />Satellites take account of many changes in time, Sun, Moon, Earth gravity, Earth orbit eccentricity, speed etc I think, adding around 34us a day to the clock.<br />The BBC, above, proved travelling adds time as the clock <b>was</b> behind when returned to base.<br />There's the paradox I can't resolve, as physics laws are universal but the clock disobeyed them by working more slowly than the universal laws say.<br />If it's atomic action slowed, as indicated by it's counter, then all the stars must burn differently too.<br />Those passenger aircraft travel that route a large number of times a year for years but I've seen nothing about the crystal oscillators going off-tune.<br />OK we're talking billionths of a second here so may be un-noticable but Satellites travel much further & faster but their clocks slow measurably <i>every</i> day so the crystal transmitter frequency must change measurably, say over a year but I see nothing of this.<br />I just wish we had a sattellite engineer here <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br />There is no reciprocity as per 'Einsteins trains.'

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">There's the paradox I can't resolve, as physics laws are universal but the clock disobeyed them by working more slowly than the universal laws say. <br />If it's atomic action slowed, as indicated by it's counter, then all the stars must burn differently too. </font><br /><br />I'm not sure I understand which universal laws are being disobeyed. If we accept that time passes more slowly in accelerated frames of reference then I'd expect the atomic reactions occuring in stars, deep in their gravity well, to occur slower than they would outside of said gravity well. Who says this isn't the case ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[siarad]

Everything I've read seems to calculate the life & radiance of stars according to Earth time.<br />If this isn't so then my problem <i>may</i> be solved.<br />However this would mean red-shift was caused partly by <b>integrated</b> not just insantaneous recessionary motion. <br />How can the rate of time be calculated for distant stars to allow for this.

 

[jaxtraw]

You can work out the rate of time of a distant star if you know the hubble constant, and its redshift. There are several components. A distant galaxy will be moving away from us due to the expansion of the universe. Additionally, it will probably have a proper motion; i.e. it has a velocity as well as the hubble expansion.<br /><br />If current understanding is correct, space is expanding, so galaxies move apart although they are not moving relative to their "local space". The proper motion is an additional motion over and above that, which may be towards us or away from us. Perhaps an analogy would be two people on trains moving in opposite directions. The hubble expansion is the increasing separation of the trains, but if somebody gets up from their seat and walks to the buffet car, they have a proper motion along the train. Bad analogy, closest I could think of, sorry <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Imagine that a galaxy has no proper motion. Then it is moving away from us just due to the expansion of space. Since it has no proper motion, its clock would tick at the same rate as ours.<br /><br />However, it would appear to tick slower because of doppler shift. Imagine you're on one train and a clock you're watching through a telescope is on another, rushing away from you at very high speed. You see the clock tick; a second later it ticks again; however, it is farther away so the light from the second tick takes a little longer to reach you than from the first tick- so it <i>appears</i> to be ticking slower to you. But the effect isn't real. The other clock isn't actually going slower.<br /><br />Now, if we introduce a proper motion, which <i>is</i> subject to special relativity, now there is some real time dilation and the clock will actually tick slower. So to work out what that speed is, you'd need to calculate the proper motion of the galaxy you're looking at, which would be its measured speed minus the recession due to the hubble expansion. Note that y

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">... accept that physics seems to be the same everywhere in the universe. <br /></font><br /><br />True and a good assumption to keep in mind. But what else can we do ? {rhetorical}<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[siarad]

Yes I'm only concerned with proper motion or disconcerted more likely.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also, note that the situation is reciprocal. If you calculate that the other galaxy's clocks are running at 90% of your own clock, they will think your clock is running at 90% of the speed of theirs.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well there's the problem:<br />BBC <i>proved</i> the travelling clock ticked more slowly by it's return. If there were reciprocity wouldn't they be sychronised.<br />It can't be coz we're in different frames as everything started together with the Big Bang.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Now, if we introduce a proper motion, which is subject to special relativity, now there is some real time dilation and the clock will actually tick slower.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That agrees with the BBC experiment but not the first quote or am I being dense <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Well it bugs me that I'm misunderstanding something & pleases me you guys are taking time to enlighten me thanks.<br />You seem to have cleared up my problem over stars running more slowly, it seems they just never live long enough to fade to black. (or is that black matter)<br />Not quite sure my reply makes sense & as I've very little time, having to use a local library for WWW access, so will copy this & cogitate over the closed weekend.

 

[arkady]

<font color="yellow">"BBC proved the travelling clock ticked more slowly by it's return."</font><br /><br />No, the clock had lost time. It still ticked at the same rate however. I'm inclined to believe that you allready realize this, but felt I had to object nonetheless. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[siarad]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If the clock is not returning, there will be no real dilation, only a reciprocal observation of dilation. <br />(according to SR that is) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Ah but that's my stumbling block.<br />Satnav satellites don't return but have to be time-corrected so where's the reciprocity.<br />I just wish I could discover what happens to the transmitter frequency, if it doesn't change then clocks don't measure time at all <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Voyager frequency must have noticably shifted by now but I find nothing about it <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <br /><br />Who knows from whence commeth ideas but I've got it into my head that a superconducting clock may measure time differently.

 

[siarad]

Hm can't quite reconcile that...<br />Thanks to jaxtraw I was wrong about starshine, there is a fourth redshift, so that's solved.<br />An experiment.<br />Gravity isn't affected by time nor is it consumable so:<br />measure the repetition-time of a pulsar<br />a year later, having gone around our sun, measure it again.<br />As we've gained time it our cicumnavigation the Pulsar repetition-time should have slowed.<br />Pity I don't have the ability to carry this out <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br />

 

[R1]

in the prior posts we probably should also consider that the clocks tick slower the closer they are to <br />gravity <br /><br />and the stronger the gravitational field the slower they tick<br /><br /><br />so It appears to me that a clock on a Voyager spacecraft is actually ticking faster than it's identical clock<br />on the surface of Jupiter if they both were moving at equal speeds.<br /><br /><br />so does that mean that a star that is a million times more massive than another is actually burning fuel at a slower rate? I do believe so, as long as they're both moving at equal speeds, clocks tick slower the greater the<br />gravitational field they're in.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

time dilation due to speed I don't understand as well, though,<br /><br />and it causes questions, does that mean that the universe is actually extremely young and almost un-aged?<br /><br />the logic comes from the speed, I mean if the galaxies in the universe are separating at high speed, then<br />the clocks at those high speed galaxies are slow, correct?<br /><br />the furthest galaxies that are moving at the speed of light in fact have not aged at all?<br /><br />would that mean the beginning of the universe is actually still now? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[siarad]

I appreciate the difference between <i>real</i> motion against the background & motion <i>with</i> the background.<br />The problem is the lack of reciprocity as per Einsteins 'trains', time being the 'platform' to guage who's in motion but how does time do this?

 

[R1]

I do know they took clocks up in planes or something and upon their return they were nanoseconds ahead<br />of their twin clocks here on the ground, so it does make me wonder what a Voyager clock says right now <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>