An Experiment With Clocks.

[sigurdV]

I'd suggest starting your quest for an answer in one of the first threads you started here almost two years ago, Age and Relativity.

Thanx! That was a nice comment, but I didnt succeed in solving my problem at that time...

(So it took me almost two years...Hmmm?)

Oh... well... said is said... Heres my suggestion:

 

Time IS compressed by speed but if time is quantified then minutes consisting ultimately of consecutive quanta cant be compressed so theres no room for more than 59 minutes... meaning no missing minute!

 

Well... Im probably wrong anyway... so what mechanism do you suggest?

[JMJones0424]

Pretty sure I've already answered, but if you want it worded another way, the missing minute is in Russel's teapot.

 

I think you have incorrectly identified the novelty of your experiment versus the twin paradox. No observer simultaneously observes both clocks in either experiment. Where your experiment is novel, at least as I see it, is that in explaining the twin paradox, the easy route is usually taken and it is assumed that both clocks are in inertial frames. Your experiment makes this shortcut impossible.

 

Time is compressed by speed when observed by an outside observer. If instead you set a clock on the table and hopped into the centrifuge and went for a spin, you'd instead be asking where did the extra minute come from. The answer is that there is no extra minute. There is no absolute time from which to determine that a minute is missing. Time is a local phenomenon.

[sigurdV]

This is not my understanding. There cannot be a concept called 'the velocity of time'. Why ? Velocity is a vector, it has both distance and direction, whereas time is a scalar, it lacks direction.

 

But, you could change the wording to "the speed of" time.....; because speed is also a scalar as is time.

 

But, I do not agree that the degree of time dilation is due to the "speed of time", I find that it results from "speed of the clocks". Change or movement is only in the thing that changes, and time is not a thing. Time is equally everywhere and with all things. In your thought experiment it is the change in the motion of clocks that is SLOW or FAST, and it is the change in time relative to motion that is LONG or SHORT. The words fast and slow are defined by time, thus FAST = that which moves much in a SHORT time. SLOW = that which moves little in a LONG time.

 

Consider the various definitions for the word 'dilation' in Webster: To expand, widen, or make longer. So, to say that time dilation is the result of your thought experiment is to say time has been made LONGER for some object in motion that has moved SLOWER (e.g. your number 60) relative to another object that has moved FASTER over the same distance where time has been made SHORTER (your number 59).

 

Consider at speed of light c, we say time stops. OK. For me this means time is the very SHORT indeed, t = 0. In other words, time cannot be a measure of motion of the photon because for time to measure motion the motion must be within time, but the photon is not within time, it is 'within' a moment. Time for a photon is not slow at the c, time is SHORT (the number 0) because the photon is very FAST (the number c). We can say the photon is 'external' to time because it is 'internal' to a moment [recall your suggestion that external and internal relate somehow to time].

 

===

 

OK, the rotating clock has 59/60 = 0.983 factor and stationary clock factor of 1.000, so we say the time is SHORTER for the rotating clock because ratio is smaller due to the motion being FASTER, relative to stationary clock

 

But, why would we have any reason to think the personal time of the observer, sitting next to table and watching experiment for 60 minutes would accordingly be dilated, or dilated at all as the two clocks are, unless the person was spinning slower or faster than the "outside" entity ? You never said in your OP that the observer was in motion relative to something "outside" the experiment. So, I suggest this claim is based on a false premise and thus the rest of your presentation cannot hold true. But, perhaps I did not understand your explanation assumptions.

I have read your post through for the secomd time...and I found no real disagreements to worry about...there seems to be some, but I think they are results of the differentnces in our conceptual systems... So ill leave that for my return since I liked the feelings I get while reading it.

 

So did you get anywhere with the question of detecting outside time? Generalizing a solution makes it possible in principle to detect an external time to our universe, doesnt it?

 

The problem is to detect variations in ones local time and it seems impossible Id say. But moving the rotation axis to become parallell to the Earth axis might produce variations in centrifugal time detectable while comparing lab time and centrifugal time on the screen in the lab. But im not sure there are any such variations in centrifugal time after the rearrangement of the centrifugal rotational axis. So I thought I should drop by here and ask the experts.

Edited April 14, 2013 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

Pretty sure I've already answered, but if you want it worded another way, the missing minute is in Russel's teapot.

Are you sure you understand the differences between a riddle, a seance and an answer?

 

 

I think you have incorrectly identified the novelty of your experiment versus the twin paradox.

No observer simultaneously observes both clocks in either experiment.

 

Below Im quoting what I said earlier, take a close look at the text in bold:

 

"Instead of imagining a hawkeyed observer able to actually see the arrow on the rotating clock we alter the clock:

It has no visible arrow now, instead it sends a continuous report to something, some advanced computer? ,

able to produce an image of what the clock should tell us if we could observe it directly,

on a screen conveniently placed in front of the observer sitting at the table.

 

Lets do the same for the other clock so theres on the screen pictures of both the clockfaces...and by all means let there also be

 

a superimposed picture so any differences between the speed of the arrows is easily spotted

 

...and let the computer be able to represent the information from the clocks as two parallell arrows growing in the tempo of each clock...

or any other interesting and convenient way of presenting the recieved information from the clocks."

 

Please prove that the superimposed picture is NOT presenting a simultaneous view of the clocks?!

[Rade]

is to understand HOW the mechanism shortening the time segment actually works! What made it shorter? Is it compressed or is it cut? Do you KNOW?

Hello. I'll take a stab at this question.

 

So, let their be two notions of time, your two clocks, one longer than another, call them A (longer) and B (shorter), and they have end points that we will call 'moments or boundary', using symbol (.), and each _ is a one minute tick of time recorded in some fashion, perhaps by a computer, etc., as per your experiment design.

 

A ._ _ _ _ _ _.

 

B ._ _ _ _ _.

 

So, to your question. What makes TIME B shorter in relation to TIME A, is B (1) compressed, (2) cut, (3) both possible, (4) neither possible, some other explanation needed ? This is a wonderful question.

 

===

 

I vote for (2), time has been cut. :unsure: Why ?

 

1. First, we look at the words you offer, compressed and cut. Another meaning of the word compressed is to be compact. To cut, means to remove or break apart. OK, definitions out of the way.

 

2. It is requirement the Einstein GR theory that space and time must be united, as space-time. It is known that space can be compacted using Lorentz Transformation, with length contraction = Lo/gamma factor. From the fundamental theorem of exterior calculus it is known that any dimension region that can be compacted must not have bits of it removed or cut away, but that an infinite number of points can compress to a single point, the accumulation point. This is the understanding of space for Einstein GR theory.

 

3. However, the same GR theory predicts that time is not so compacted, because the Lorentz Transformation for time results in a completely different solution, with time dilation = To * gamma factor.

 

4. Thus, since proven mathematically by Lorentz that time cannot be compacted as is space, the only option on the table for your experiment is that time is CUT.

 

5. But, what does it mean to say 'time is cut' for an object moving FASTER relative to another moving SLOWER ? This would require that: (1) time must be continuous, (2) time must be that which can be divided (3) time must have boundary conditions that can be made SHORTER for some circumstance under investigation. All of these conditions obtain for time when time is defined as: that which is intermediate between moments, with the moments = boundary conditions of time.

 

Now, time B has two moments as boundary conditions, and if we cut away one tick of time of 1 minute duration between these moments, _ , we see that time is SHORTER for the clock in your experiment that moved FASTER.

 

Thus, TIME is always cut, never contracted...SPACE is never cut, always contracted. More beauty revealed in the symmetry of Einstein GR theory.

 

Let me know where I error.

 

Edit: It occurs to me you may next ask, who does the cutting of time ? It would be any observer, human, machine, etc. who is able to simultaneously observe the boundary moments and recognize that there must be something intermediate between them related to motion that can be measured as a number, e.g., time.

 

Edit2: Concerning concept of 'missing minute'. From A and B above, suppose we want to claim that 1 min is missing from B, relative to A. So, keeping score, we are minus 1 minute. However, simultaneous, GR theory requires that we consider than 1 min has been added to A relative to B, so, we are back to where we began on scorecard. Stated mathematically (-) + (+1) = 0.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Rade

[JMJones0424]

Are you sure you understand the differences between a riddle, a seance and an answer?

Quite

Please prove that the superimposed picture is NOT presenting a simultaneous view of the clocks?!

This is an old argument as well. Simultaneity is frame dependent. While the centrifuge is running, the two clocks are not in the same frame. Ignoring engineering technicalities, let's say the observer notices 30 minutes into the experiment that the centrifuge clock reads 29:30. At the end of the experiment the observer notes that his clock reads 1:00:00 and the centrifuge clock reads 59:00. Both measurements happened simultaneously to the observer. I don't see how this is relevant to the experiment unless you are continuing to insist that there's something wrong with two clocks epxeriencing time differently due to their vastly different speeds. There is no reason to expect both clocks to read the same unless they are in the same frame of reference. After the experiment is over, as long as both clocks are kept side by side, the one minute differential will be maintained.

 

Perhaps you'd be interested in reading about muon particles and how their fixed lifespan supports time dilation due to special relativity. With a few modifications, it is an analog to your experiment that has actually been conducted.

[phision]

this link may give another angle on where the missing minute went to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rExaKLEoU

[sigurdV]

this link may give another angle on where the missing minute went to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rExaKLEoU

My problem is that ppl looks at objects from the perspective of the theory

and they see only what the theory predicts is there to see...

 

Are the clocks in the lab for an equally long time or not?

 

Is my first question. Answer it yes or no! Dont hide behind talk of reference frames.

Were the clocks entering the lab simoultaneously and did they spend an equally long time there

independenly of what they were doing WITHIN THE LABORATORY.

 

And was the observator there all the time whether he was in stasis or not...

maybe he is not aging one second while in the lab

but that does not alter the simple fact that he has been 60 minutes in the lab

when the experiment ends... the condition he is in then does not matter!

Dead or alive, within any possible reference frame within the lab: HE WAS THERE ALL THE TIME!

 

That said...anger out of my system... I will happily watch the video kindly provided for me ;)

 

I dont remember which one of the lectures found in the link below showed how to calculate the lifetimes of muons. Whats wrong with ppl is not lacking the will to help. Its rather the assumption that it is lacking knowledge of theory that is my problem. Im not adressing you now phision. its just a general feeling of mine...

 

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=sv&q=%0D%0ATime+Dilation+and+Length+Contraction+%5BModern+Physics%3A+2nd+Year+University+Tutoring%5D+-+YouTube+

 

EDIT: That was a great lecture. I have to report that I consider him a ally!

He forgot to mention Henri Bergson though. I will go into the matter somewhere else,

since ... the question of how to unite Statics and Dynamics needs a thread of its own.

I will probably open it with this lecture since it saves me a lot of time...he he.

Edited April 15, 2013 by sigurdV

[Moontanman]

My problem is that ppl looks at objects from the perspective of the theory

and they see only what the theory predicts is there to see...

 

Are the clocks in the lab for an equally long time or not?

 

Is my first question. Answer it yes or no! Dont hide behind talk of reference frames.

Were the clocks entering the lab simoultaneously and did they spend an equally long time there

independenly of what they were doing WITHIN THE LABORATORY.

 

And was the observator there all the time whether he was in stasis or not...

maybe he is not aging one second while in the lab

but that does not alter the simple fact that he has been 60 minutes in the lab

when the experiment ends... the condition he is in then does not matter!

Dead or alive, within any possible reference frame within the lab: HE WAS THERE ALL THE TIME!

 

That said...anger out of my system... I will happily watch the video kindly provided for me ;)

 

I dont remember which one of the lectures found in the link below showed how to calculate the lifetimes of muons. Whats wrong with ppl is not lacking the will to help. Its rather the assumption that it is lacking knowledge of theory that is my problem. Im not adressing you now phision. its just a general feeling of mine...

 

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=sv&q=%0D%0ATime+Dilation+and+Length+Contraction+%5BModern+Physics%3A+2nd+Year+University+Tutoring%5D+-+YouTube+

 

 

Obviously from both reference frames the clocks were in the lab for an equally long time, why is this difficult to see? One clock experienced less time in it's frame of reference but saying it was in the lab less time makes no sense. The clock that experienced less time was compressed in the direction of motion as well, are you going to tell me it was shorter too while in motion? Not in it's frame of reference... Any measurement of that clock is frame dependent...

[JMJones0424]

Are the clocks in the lab for an equally long time or not?

 

Is my first question. Answer it yes or no! Dont hide behind talk of reference frames.

There is no talk of time without reference frames. The theory that you find so inconvenient exists due to actual observations and is not dependent on your notions of an absolute time.

 

Were the clocks entering the lab simoultaneously and did they spend an equally long time there

independenly of what they were doing WITHIN THE LABORATORY.

Sure they entered the lab simultaneously, and in this case your experiment is exactly the same as the twin paradox. However, as soon as your experiment begins, until it ends, the clocks are no longer "in the same place (and time)" because they are no longer in the same reference frame, so your question is as meaningless as asking what is the flavor of blue.

 

And was the observator there all the time whether he was in stasis or not...

maybe he is not aging one second while in the lab

but that does not alter the simple fact that he has been 60 minutes in the lab

when the experiment ends... the condition he is in then does not matter!

He observes himself to be in the lab for sixty seconds. Every observer experiences one second per second, no matter their state. The observer watching the centrifuge experiences one second per second. The observer (or clock) in the centrifuge experiences on second per second. Using Lorentz transformation, they can correlate their coordinate system and compare their times, but because they are in different reference frames, there is no reason to expect their clocks to match.

 

Dead or alive, within any possible reference frame within the lab: HE WAS THERE ALL THE TIME!

No ****. No one has argued otherwise.

[sigurdV]

Obviously from both reference frames

the clocks were in the lab for an equally long time,

why is this difficult to see?

 

One clock experienced less time in it's frame of reference

but saying it was in the lab less time makes no sense.

 

The clock that experienced less time was compressed in the direction of motion as well,

are you going to tell me it was shorter too while in motion?

Not in it's frame of reference... Any measurement of that clock is frame dependent...

What is there to argue about here... i think you see what I see,

and the question of interpreting observations may arise but...

If we interprete the facts differently...then let it be so...

We agree on the observations and that is ALL I am interested in for now!

 

I would like some more future confirmation that we agree on the observational level...

I will however unless contradicted by you assume we are in basic agreement of the facts in this case!

I also believe Rade agrees on basic facts...so Im convinced Im not hallucinating observationally!

Thank you!

[phision]

 

 

Are the clocks in the lab for an equally long time or not?

 

You really need to define time to answer this question but instinctively I would say NO!

 

What is there to argue about here... i think you see what I see,

and the question of interpreting observations may arise but...

If we interprete the facts differently...then let it be so...

We agree on the observations and that is ALL I am interested in for now!

 

 

There are many ways of interpreting what you described! My personal favourite is that time doesn't exist and clocks only count changes, therefor the two clocks only incremented a different amount of change. The slower(the one with the lowest reading) of the two clocks being so, due to the increase in relativistic mass!

 

You may enjoy reading some of this:

 

http://scienceforums...nature-of-time/

[sigurdV]

There is no talk of time without reference frames.

So i cant say that the time is twelve oclock?

 

The theory that you find so inconvenient exists due to actual observations

I wonder what theory I find inconvenient? I am not aware of any inconvenient theory!

except maybe the theory that there are inconvenient theories...

 

and is not dependent on your notions of an absolute time.

Again: what notion of an absolute time am I having?

Why dont you ask before you assume?

Not only theory seems to prevent you from confronting Reality.

 

 

 

Sure they entered the lab simultaneously, and in this case your experiment is exactly the same as the twin paradox.

Perhaps your right for a change...

 

 

 

However, as soon as your experiment begins, until it ends, the clocks are no longer "in the same place (and time)"

So you say...but you cant prove it!

 

because they are no longer in the same reference frame,

One point of my experiment is to show that objects in the same room

can exist within different reference frames

and still stay in the room for an equally long time.

If your theory does not allow for that then I think that

either you interprete the theory incorrectly or the theory is wrong...

Since I might have use for the theory I presume YOU are wrong.

 

so your question is as meaningless as asking what is the flavor of blue.

Sorry but for a group of ppl having synesthetic ability, or "curse" depending how you theorize about it:

(Im not sure I translate correctly from Swedish.) They actually experience colors having flavors...

numbers having sounds and other strange sense connections.

So when the psychiatrist asks them what the flavor of blue is he is NOT making a meaningful question you claim?

 

He observes himself to be in the lab for sixty seconds.

Arent you speeding minutes up a little here?

 

 

Every observer experiences one second per second, no matter their state.

How does a dead observer do that? Isnt it rather his ghost doing the experiencing?

I thought you said you understood the difference between seances and...

 

 

The observer watching the centrifuge experiences one second per second.

This confirms my theory that 60 times 60

divided by 60 equals 60 and the stationary clock

is not dilated with respect to itself.

Are you aware of collecting unnecessary evidence for my theory?

(if I have one)

 

The observer (or clock) in the centrifuge experiences on second per second.

Yawn!Snore...

 

Using Lorentz transformation, they can correlate their coordinate system and compare their times,

Well I took a coffe brake at a cafe and noticed a severe lack of ppl comparing their lorentz transformations there...

I guess they should if they only could...better be safe than sorry.

 

 

but because they are in different reference frames, there is no reason to expect their clocks to match.

 

Theres always prejudice if you lack reasons...

Sorry for being flippant old pal but this was boring.

Theories and opinions are like maps they are good for navigation

but Reality is what they must conform to!

Edited April 15, 2013 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

sigurdV, on 15 April 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

 

Are the clocks in the lab for an equally long time or not?

 

 

You really need to define time to answer this question but instinctively I would say NO!

 

Its not instinct:

Its paradigmic behaviour.

 

If you are a victim of a paradigm

then you have difficulties

in understanding a proof

that the paradigm is wrong.

[phision]

sigurdV, on 15 April 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

If you are a victim of a paradigm

then you have difficulties

in understanding a proof

that the paradigm is wrong.

 

You really must watch the video I linked, in the earlier post, before assigning paradigmatic attributes.

[LaurieAG]

Are the clocks in the lab for an equally long time or not?

I'm not sure about your clocks but these two digital counters would show the same count regardless of how fast the glass plate was spinning. Each count is created by connecting an electric current between A and B that increments the equidistant counters, the wires run under the glass plate and each wire is permanently connected to the central spindle by frictionless brushes, or whatever, on different sides of the plate.

[sigurdV]

You really must watch the video I linked, in the earlier post, before assigning paradigmatic attributes.

Ahem...baaah...youre perfectly right of course...my excuse is that it was late at night and I was not in my sunniest mood so I ASSUMED before asking that you consider a rotating object within a laboratory not to be inside the lab. To be honest I think the theory of the disappearance of rotating objects doesnt survive scientific examination:

 

1 What then reflects light from a rotating object in the laboratory?

 

First a cup of coffeee than Ill watch the video , meanwhile thinking of further methods to verify that the centrifuge indeed remains in the lab no matter its condition. Kick it? Weigh it? Call for Sherlock Holmes?

Edited April 15, 2013 by sigurdV