A Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of the Consequences of Special Relativity

[DanMP]

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I don’t get your point, because that is precisely what we directly observe.

Yes, time intervals are what we measure/observe. For this reason I said that time has a meaning when it's about time intervals. No disagreement here

Regarding "time as a dimension" and its role in gravity: 

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

When you feel ordinary gravity holding you down, then this happens because of the principle of extremal ageing - objects tend to follow world lines that extremise proper time, so again this wouldn’t happen if time wasn’t part of spacetime.

I'm not so convinced, probably because I don't know/understand enough. By the way, I admire your knowledge and the fact that you take the time to share it with us. I have some questions about spacetime (how/why exactly is warped around massive objects and why/how "the principle of extremal ageing" is imposed) but I don't want to hijack the thread, so don't answer this questions here if you think that this is not the right place.

[studiot]

36 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I'm not so convinced, probably because I don't know/understand enough. By the way, I admire your knowledge and the fact that you take the time to share it with us. I have some questions about spacetime (how/why exactly is warped around massive objects and why/how "the principle of extremal ageing" is imposed) but I don't want to hijack the thread, so don't answer this questions here if you think that this is not the right place.

 

That's good, so please start your own thread.  +1

 

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

No. What actually happens is that the relationship between these frames in spacetime changes - clocks don’t “slow down”, and rulers don’t “shorten”, only the way they are related changes (in the case of SR, that’s mostly just a hyperbolic rotation in spacetime about some angle). All clocks always tick at “1 second per second”, and all rulers always measure “1 meter per meter”; its only when you compare two of these in relative motion, that you find that they no longer share the same concept of simultaneity, and thus that their frames are rotated with respect to one another. But because the laws of physics precisely are about relationships between events in spacetime, this has measurable physical consequences, which are quite real.

Also no. Experiment and observation tell us precisely the opposite, namely that Lorentz invariance is a fundamental local symmetry of the world; this has been so thoroughly tested (see above) that it is beyond any reasonable doubt. Given this, spacetime has to be locally Minkowskian, which implies that the metric is invariant. Therefore the “number of events” - which is the geometric length of the clock’s world line in spacetime -  is also invariant. It does not change and cannot change, and all observers agree on it - this is mathematical fact, and not subject to any “interpretations”. The only thing that changes with relative motion is the way two frames are related to one another.

 

It should be noted that Markus is talking about spacetime ,not separate space and time.

What he is also referring to is the invariant quadratic

[math]{{{\left( {\Delta x} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta y} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta z} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta ict} \right)}^2}}[/math]

or its square root which is called 'the interval' and is what is rotated in the Lorenz transformation rotations.

[math]\sqrt {{{\left( {\Delta x} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta y} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta z} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\Delta ict} \right)}^2}} [/math]

What he means is that the projection of this invariant length onto each axis changes with the rotation.

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by studiot

[jamesfairclear]

5 hours ago, Ghideon said:

(Emphasis mine)

Just curious: Without time, how do you relate the observations of number of events for two clocks? When comparing the number of events for each clock there has to be some concept of starting and ending the counting of events? 

You bring the clocks to a given location and observe the values displayed on their respective  displays. 

[studiot]

21 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

You bring the clocks to a given location and observe the values displayed on their respective  displays. 

But you have specified that one clock is moving relative to the other.

5 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

In an experiment with 2 atomic clocks where 1 clock is in motion relative to the other

[Ghideon]

12 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

You bring the clocks to a given location and observe the values displayed on their respective  displays. 

But then you still rely on time in the observations and also describe a different experiment? Also note that your experiment seems to give the same result for two different setups:
A: two clocks deviating due to time dilation as per Relativity theories
B: two clocks deviating due to one of them running slow caused by setup issues*

 

 

*) Fictive example to highlight the issues, @swansont would most likely be able to provide something better 

[jamesfairclear]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If the events are ticks of the clock, I don’t see your point. You get fewer ticks because time slowed down.

There’s no physical mechanism in play that could cause this. If you have an alternative model, you need to present it. Your “quantum events” description is far too nebulous to count as a model, and you have presented no evidence to support it.

Ok to clarify the point we substitute the clock with a dripping tap. In the case of the moving tap we record 50 drips and in the case of the relatively stationary tap we record 100 drips. Again you can choose to explain the difference in the number of events by stating that time has slowed down for the moving tap.

You state without any substantiation that "There’s no physical mechanism in play that could cause this". How do you conclude this? I could equally state that there is no physical mechanism in place to cause time to slow down. Einstein stated that Time must slow down in order to satisfy the equations without offering any explanation as to the underlying processes or substantiating the existence of time as a medium that is capable of slowing down.

My postulation of a Relative Frequency of Quantum events between inertial frames of reference is not yet a detailed description of the underlying processes but is more specific than simply stating that Time slows down and is substantiated by the observational evidence that fewer atomic decays occur in a moving atomic clock than in a relatively stationary atomic clock.

 

9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

But then you still rely on time in the observations and also describe a different experiment? Also note that your experiment seems to give the same result for two different setups:
A: two clocks deviating due to time dilation as per Relativity theories
B: two clocks deviating due to one of them running slow caused by setup issues*

 

 

*) Fictive example to highlight the issues, @swansont would most likely be able to provide something better 

You bring the clocks to a given location and observe the values displayed on their respective  displays. How is this relying on time in the experiment?

Multiple highly accurate atomic clocks are tested to remain synchronous in a single inertial frame of reference and the experiment is repeated sufficiently to obtain accurate results.

[Ghideon]

18 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

You bring the clocks to a given location and observe the values displayed on their respective  displays. How is this relying on time in the experiment?

You said the clocks were moving. How do you decide when to take the reading that you later wish to compare? 
You also seem rely on time since you expect the clocks tick at a specified frequency. 

[studiot]

18 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

Ok to clarify the point we substitute the clock with a dripping tap. In the case of the moving tap we record 50 drips and in the case of the relatively stationary tap we record 100 drips. Again you can choose to explain the difference in the number of events by stating that time has slowed down for the moving tap.

Clocks or taps it makes no difference.

You are describing a version of the 'Twins Paradox' but leaving half the details out.

How do you explain the other half of the experiment.

This is the second time I have asked you this so I am reporting your post for failure to engage.

[jamesfairclear]

31 minutes ago, studiot said:

But you have specified that one clock is moving relative to the other.

The sequence of events is:

1. Synchronise clock A and Clock B in a given location at rest

2. Set clock A in motion

3. Move clock A back to the location of Clock B

4. Read the displays of both clocks 

 

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Clocks or taps it makes no difference.

You are describing a version of the 'Twins Paradox' but leaving half the details out.

How do you explain the other half of the experiment.

This is the second time I have asked you this so I am reporting your post for failure to engage.

The sequence of events using taps or clocks is:

1. Synchronise clock A and Clock B in a given location at rest

2. Set clock A in motion

3. Move clock A back to the location of Clock B

4. Read the displays of both clocks 

No steps have been left out. This is how copious such experiments have been done.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

The sequence of events is:

1. Synchronise clock A and Clock B in a given location at rest

2. Set clock A in motion

3. Move clock A back to the location of Clock B

4. Read the displays of both clocks 

 

Thank you for this extra information,

But this is now the third time I have asked what would be the count on each clock if you had left clock A at the given 'location' and moved the rest of the universe in motion somewhere and then back to the given location  ?

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

The sequence of events is:

1. Synchronise clock A and Clock B in a given location at rest

2. Set clock A in motion

3. Move clock A back to the location of Clock B

4. Read the displays of both clocks 

For convenience and simplicity, you're describing the Hafele-Keating experiment here. I'm sure others are clear on the process. Try to focus on why they're asking what they are asking you.

[jamesfairclear]

7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You said the clocks were moving. How do you decide when to take the reading that you later wish to compare? 
You also seem rely on time since you expect the clocks tick at a specified frequency. 

All that is required is to bring the clocks together such that a difference between the readings can be observed.

The atomic clocks are instruments that count decay events of Cesium 133 atoms very accurately. So the clocks measure quantities of events. An arbitrary number of decays has been designated to represent 1 second of time.  

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

For convenience and simplicity, you're describing the Hafele-Keating experiment here. I'm sure others are clear on the process. Try to focus on why they're asking what they are asking you.

Perhaps you can elucidate?

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

You state without any substantiation that "There’s no physical mechanism in play that could cause this".

Yes, because you can’t prove a negative

Quote

How do you conclude this?

Because this effect does not depend on the details of the clock. You can’t engineer a way to reduce or eliminate the effect

Quote

I could equally state that there is no physical mechanism in place to cause time to slow down.

And you would be right. It’s not a physical mechanism.

 

Quote

Einstein stated that Time must slow down in order to satisfy the equations without offering any explanation as to the underlying processes or substantiating the existence of time as a medium that is capable of slowing down.

Sure he did: c is the same in all inertial frames, and physics is, too. Time dilation and length contraction are consequences of that.

 

 

Quote

My postulation of a Relative Frequency of Quantum events between inertial frames of reference is not yet a detailed description of the underlying processes but is more specific than simply stating that Time slows down and is substantiated by the observational evidence that fewer atomic decays occur in a moving atomic clock than in a relatively stationary atomic clock.

But that’s not evidence that supports your idea, since it also supports relativity. You need a prediction that works only for your idea.

Quote

Ok to clarify the point we substitute the clock with a dripping tap. In the case of the moving tap we record 50 drips and in the case of the relatively stationary tap we record 100 drips. Again you can choose to explain the difference in the number of events by stating that time has slowed down for the moving tap.

You should be aware that water clocks were/are actual clocks. Not great ones, in the scheme of things, but people used them to tell time.

 

 

33 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

The sequence of events is:

1. Synchronise clock A and Clock B in a given location at rest

2. Set clock A in motion

3. Move clock A back to the location of Clock B

4. Read the displays of both clocks 

Like in the Hafele-Keating experiment. Which confirmed relativity. (edit: xpost)

17 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

The atomic clocks are instruments that count decay events of Cesium 133 atoms very accurately. So the clocks measure quantities of events. An arbitrary number of decays has been designated to represent 1 second of time.  

Technically not the way they work, but it’s not particularly relevant to the discussion.

[jamesfairclear]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

I don’t get your point, because that is precisely what we directly observe.
When you observe an elementary particle come into existence and then decay, you have observed an interval in time (and in most cases also in space). Whether you can freely move in that direction or not is immaterial, as that ability does not form part of what makes a dimension.
When you feel ordinary gravity holding you down, then this happens because of the principle of extremal ageing - objects tend to follow world lines that extremise proper time, so again this wouldn’t happen if time wasn’t part of spacetime.
When a photon gets frequency-shifted along a radial trajectory towards Earth, then this happens only because the spacetime manifold has a time dimension - this is as real as space, because without the time dimension, there would be no tidal gravity (the Weyl tensor vanishes identically in 1,2,3 dimensions).  

And so on.

On a more direct level, we know from experiment and observation beyond any reasonable doubt that the world has local Lorentz invariance as a fundamental symmetry - which would of course not be possible if time wasn’t part of spacetime. So saying time is real, but denying that it is a geometric dimension within spacetime, is both physically and mathematically meaningless.
 

You state "When you observe an elementary particle come into existence and then decay, you have observed an interval in time"

No. You have only actually observed an elementary particle come into existence and then decay. If you had a clock running you could add that you observed further events being 2 ticks of the clock which you could choose to characterise as an interval of 2 seconds. 

You state "When you feel ordinary gravity holding you down, then this happens because of the principle of extremal ageing".

No. The process of biological ageing is currently thought to be linked to free radicals. 

You state "When a photon gets frequency-shifted along a radial trajectory towards Earth, then this happens only because the spacetime manifold has a time dimension - this is as real as space, because without the time dimension, there would be no tidal gravity (the Weyl tensor vanishes identically in 1,2,3 dimensions). " 

You state "On a more direct level, we know from experiment and observation beyond any reasonable doubt that the world has local Lorentz invariance as a fundamental symmetry - which would of course not be possible if time wasn’t part of spacetime. So saying time is real, but denying that it is a geometric dimension within spacetime, is both physically and mathematically meaningless."

These are both issues of terminology. Einstein famously characterised time as a 4th dimension but the label spacetime is really just a convenient way of describing a region of space along with its local gravitational field.  Remember I am substituting the notion of time with relative frequency of quantum events (Rq) such that all calculations of trajectories will remain the same.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, jamesfairclear said:

Remember I am substituting the notion of time with relative frequency of quantum events (Rq)

So Rq is your clock?  Still sounds like time to me.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Bufofrog

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

All that is required is to bring the clocks together such that a difference between the readings can be observed.

Ok. But if the experiment is supposed to be totally independent of time then it would be ok if one of the clocks is standing still, or randomly change ticking? That does of course not sound correct so you probably mean something else. But that "something else" seems to be time.

2 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

The atomic clocks are instruments that count decay events of Cesium 133 atoms very accurately. So the clocks measure quantities of events. An arbitrary number of decays has been designated to represent 1 second of time.  

But the number is not allowed to change arbitrarily? The number of events is very highly tied to time; maybe you have a definition of frequency that is not depending on time? 

[jamesfairclear]

56 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. But if the experiment is supposed to be totally independent of time then it would be ok if one of the clocks is standing still, or randomly change ticking? That does of course not sound correct so you probably mean something else. But that "something else" seems to be time.

But the number is not allowed to change arbitrarily? The number of events is very highly tied to time; maybe you have a definition of frequency that is not depending on time? 

The experiment is done without making any assumptions about time. 

The numbers displayed on each clock are the numbers of decay events registered in the experiment. The numbers are tied to quantities of events not time and do not change arbitrarily. 

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

The experiment is done without making any assumptions about time. 

The numbers displayed on each clock are the numbers of decay events registered in the experiment. The numbers are tied to quantities of events not time and do not change arbitrarily. 

Relativity already predicts this. 

Can you derive the Lorentz factor for time dilation from quantum theory? Otherwise this path has no substance to it. It’s all hand-waving.

[Ghideon]

13 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

The numbers are tied to quantities of events not time

Ok. Doesn't the clocks have to have a stable frequency? If the numbers are not tied to time there is also no frequency, just a quantity of events recorded?

[jamesfairclear]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Relativity already predicts this. 

Can you derive the Lorentz factor for time dilation from quantum theory? Otherwise this path has no substance to it. It’s all hand-waving.

No. SR predicts that time dilates in a moving inertial frame of reference. This experiment can be interpreted as either substantiating Time Dilation or substantiating a reduction in the frequency of events.

All calculations relating to Time dilation remain the same except that time is substituted with  a relative Frequency of Quantum Events. 

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. Doesn't the clocks have to have a stable frequency? If the numbers are not tied to time there is also no frequency, just a quantity of events recorded?

Atomic clocks are highly predictable in that the decay events they count are highly predictable but significantly decay events are not totally predictable. Thus 2 atomic clocks side by side in the same stationary location will count very slightly differing numbers of events. 

[studiot]

54 minutes ago, jamesfairclear said:

No. SR predicts that time dilates in a moving inertial frame of reference

 

SR  most certainly predicts no such thing.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, jamesfairclear said:

No. SR predicts that time dilates in a moving inertial frame of reference. This experiment can be interpreted as either substantiating Time Dilation or substantiating a reduction in the frequency of events.

The results that you are describing are those of relativity, which means that it will not support your model

Quote

All calculations relating to Time dilation remain the same except that time is substituted with  a relative Frequency of Quantum Events. 

Then there’s no way to confirm your model with a clock experiment

 

Quote

Atomic clocks are highly predictable in that the decay events they count are highly predictable but significantly decay events are not totally predictable. Thus 2 atomic clocks side by side in the same stationary location will count very slightly differing numbers of events. 

They aren’t decay events. That’s not how typical Cs atomic clocks using the Ramsey method work.

And it’s well-known in the community that no two clocks will remain synchronized. There’s always frequency noise. This is ignored in relativity, though, since you’re looking at an idealized system. In a practical sense, it means your clock stability needs to be sufficient so that the random walk is small compared to the accumulated phase from the dilation.

So this is irrelevant to the discussion 

What is relevant is if you can derive the Lorentz factor for time dilation from quantum theory. 

[Markus Hanke]

12 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

You have only actually observed an elementary particle come into existence and then decay.

Since creation and annihilation are not simultaneous in the rest frame of the particle, what you have observed is an interval of time. You don’t need another external clock for this.

12 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

The process of biological ageing is currently thought to be linked to free radicals.

I didn’t say anything about biological ageing, which is a different matter.
The principle of extremal ageing means that a test particle under the influence of gravity will tend to trace out that world line in spacetime which represents an extremum of proper time, i.e. that world line which represents an extremum of geometric length. So gravity is intrinsically linked to time being a dimension within spacetime. If this wasn’t so there would be no gravity, at least not in the way we observe it in the real world.

12 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

These are both issues of terminology.

No, they are issues of physical reality.

12 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

Einstein famously characterised time as a 4th dimension but the label spacetime is really just a convenient way of describing a region of space along with its local gravitational field.

Again, you cannot have Einsteinian gravity (which is what we observe in the real world) without time being a dimension. If there was only 3-space but no time dimension, there could not be any tidal gravity; clearly, the presence of tidal gravity is what we observe.  

16 hours ago, DanMP said:

I have some questions about spacetime (how/why exactly is warped around massive objects and why/how "the principle of extremal ageing" is imposed) but I don't want to hijack the thread, so don't answer this questions here if you think that this is not the right place.

Feel free to open a new thread and ask your questions there - we, as a community (there are others here who know more than I do), will be happy to attempt to answer them.

[Bufofrog]

16 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

This experiment can be interpreted as either substantiating Time Dilation or substantiating a reduction in the frequency of events.

What is the difference between time dilation and a 'reduction in the frequency events'?

[DanMP]

8 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

 

21 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

The process of biological ageing is currently thought to be linked to free radicals.

I didn’t say anything about biological ageing, which is a different matter.
The principle of extremal ageing means that a test particle under the influence of gravity will tend to trace out that world line in spacetime which represents an extremum of proper time,...

(Emphasis mine)

Why "a test particle" would do something so elaborate? And how it knows how to do it, or to "tend" to do it?

 

9 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

If there was only 3-space but no time dimension, there could not be any tidal gravity;

Why not?

 

18 hours ago, jamesfairclear said:

2 atomic clocks side by side  ...

This reminds me something that may interest you: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630