uncertainty?

[jajrussel]

I was watching a video about uncertainty. The man said, "Wide in time, narrow in frequency." Then, the inverse of the statement...

So if a moving clock is observed as ticking slower, as the observer where would I fit in that thought? I'm thinking the inverse since the clock I am observing is moving, I keep thinking of the seconds widening as the clock moves faster. Then I keep thinking maybe I've got it backwards?

I seem to be trying to apply the explanation in the video to relativity, but I keep getting confused  when I start trying to figure out what my position as the observer would be.

Here is the video maybe what I am trying rationalize makes sense? Maybe not?

 

 

 

[jajrussel]

 

 

I keep thinking that I should be able to apply the wave explanation to the relationship between the observer and the moving clock, as well as to the moving clock and the effect it's movement has on it's presentation of time? 

[MigL]

That quote applies to the wave nature inherent in Quantum Mechanics.
You are trying to apply it to relativity, which is a purely classical theory.
IE not applicable.

[jajrussel]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

That quote applies to the wave nature inherent in Quantum Mechanics.
You are trying to apply it to relativity, which is a purely classical theory.
IE not applicable.

You are usually right, so I am going to try and figure out why you are right. It took me forever to figure out that the moving clocks time is always observed as moving slower. Then there was mention of  t over f , or t/f and the statement that you can't affect one without effecting the other, and I was trying to figure out how to relate the thought. Speed the clock up momentum wise... the effect is slower time observed. Slow the clock down momentum wise, the clocks  observed time moves closer to our own clocks time. That seems like a wave pattern to me. I'm trying to remember... There was a book called how to teach quantum physics to your dog, which I started to read, but then lost, so I was unable to really study it, the initial gist I got was that quantum physics relates waves to everything trees, rabbits, etc, so i pretty much figured the thought was okay at the minimum. I guess I'll buy the book again, so I can study it then understand why quantum theory and classical theory can't overlap.

I didn't realize that there was such a difference as to be not applicable. I was thinking that the hardest thing I was going to have to do was to figure out how to put what I was thinking into words, and decide if I wanted to concentrate on just the wave pattern effect of an accelerating clocks observed time...basically I needed to figure out how to think of it before I could write it down.I thought that would be the hard part.

One other question though, is frequency basically momentum? Cause I thought I got that it was from the video.

Thank you...

[swansont]

8 hours ago, jajrussel said:

You are usually right, so I am going to try and figure out why you are right. It took me forever to figure out that the moving clocks time is always observed as moving slower. Then there was mention of  t over f , or t/f and the statement that you can't affect one without effecting the other, and I was trying to figure out how to relate the thought. Speed the clock up momentum wise... the effect is slower time observed. Slow the clock down momentum wise, the clocks  observed time moves closer to our own clocks time. That seems like a wave pattern to me. I'm trying to remember... There was a book called how to teach quantum physics to your dog, which I started to read, but then lost, so I was unable to really study it, the initial gist I got was that quantum physics relates waves to everything trees, rabbits, etc, so i pretty much figured the thought was okay at the minimum. I guess I'll buy the book again, so I can study it then understand why quantum theory and classical theory can't overlap.

Momentum doesn't really enter into it. Any object in uniform linear motion can be treated as if it were at rest. Relativity is a transformation between reference frames.

As MigL points out, relativity is a classical theory. It's not that it doesn't apply, but as energy is not invariant, you would have to transform the components of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle into the new frame. A clock, having some timing uncertainty would have a smaller uncertainty if it were running slower. e.g. A clock that gains or loses 1 sec after running for a time T will lose less time if it has only run for T/2 according to some other frame. Or a system that transitions to the ground state with some lifetime T has a corresponding frequency width of that transition. That takes longer if measured by some other frame, and the frequency width would be correspondingly smaller if the HUP applies unaltered.  

 

 

 

[jajrussel]

On 10/9/2018 at 5:59 AM, swansont said:

Momentum doesn't really enter into it. Any object in uniform linear motion can be treated as if it were at rest. Relativity is a transformation between reference frames.

As MigL points out, relativity is a classical theory. It's not that it doesn't apply, but as energy is not invariant, you would have to transform the components of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle into the new frame. A clock, having some timing uncertainty would have a smaller uncertainty if it were running slower. e.g. A clock that gains or loses 1 sec after running for a time T will lose less time if it has only run for T/2 according to some other frame. Or a system that transitions to the ground state with some lifetime T has a corresponding frequency width of that transition. That takes longer if measured by some other frame, and the frequency width would be correspondingly smaller if the HUP applies unaltered.  

 

 

 

Hmm, I have not thought about this long enough that I have forgotten what I was originally thinking/questioning, but this answer kind of confuses me. So, I basically need to start over from the beginning, but from the hip if I observe a moving clock display slower time, I assume relatively explaines the time difference ? And I can think of many reasons why when measuring energy the measure being measured might be different but is it due to reasons, but can you be sure that energy is not invariant?

How can you expect your clocks to be predictably precise if energy is not invariant?

 I would think that something would have to interfere with that predictable invariance in order for the clock to display a variance.

 I think the initial problem with my thought was that I was invisioning each continuous tick of the clock as a frequency, thus being able to present as a wave pattern , but I pretty much have to start over. Is it wrong to think of each second as a complete cycle then transition that thought into a wavelength pattern?

Maybe someone can explain why the speed of light is invariant if energy isn’t?

Please understand I am not challenging Einstein...

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

Hmm, I have not thought about this long enough that I have forgotten what I was originally thinking/questioning, but this answer kind of confuses me. So, I basically need to start over from the beginning, but from the hip if I observe a moving clock display slower time, I assume relatively explaines the time difference ? And I can think of many reasons why when measuring energy the measure being measured might be different but is it due to reasons, but can you be sure that energy is not invariant?

It's trivial to show that it's not.

If you and I are in relative motion but you are in an automobile so my mass is 100 kg and yours is 1000 kg, the KE in my frame will not be the same as the KE in your frame. They will be different by a factor of 10.

if that speed is 1 m/s, then my KE is 50 J while yours is 500 J. Let's say we know 50 J of work was done on me to get me moving at 1 m/s. And yet you now have 500 J of KE in my frame! It's not an issue, because you can't mix frames like that. Energy is not invariant.

Quote

How can you expect your clocks to be predictably precise if energy is not invariant?

Because the operation of the clocks is not dependent on energy being invariant.

Quote

 I would think that something would have to interfere with that predictable invariance in order for the clock to display a variance.

 I think the initial problem with my thought was that I was invisioning each continuous tick of the clock as a frequency, thus being able to present as a wave pattern , but I pretty much have to start over. Is it wrong to think of each second as a complete cycle then transition that thought into a wavelength pattern?

Your output frequency will be different if measured in another frame. Relativity makes a contribution to the doppler shift.

Quote

Maybe someone can explain why the speed of light is invariant if energy isn’t?

Please understand I am not challenging Einstein...

"speed of light" and "energy" aren't the same thing. There is no reason to expect them to behave the same.