Why is time considered to be dilated, rather than molecular activity slowed down?

[Realitycheck]

As a clock travels around the world, the outside world does not slow down, so it can only be concluded that the molecular activity in the clock slows down, causing the arrow to move slower. This is one of those semantics deals. Absolute universal time is not relativistic, only the relationship between two obects can be. Anybody have any simple descriptions on why or how the clock slows down?

[Realitycheck]

I'm not sure if I missed your point here but we discussed this earlier in the thread we talked about muon decay. The observed half-life of "high speed muons" is longer. (But the half-life of the muon in it's own resting frame is always the same.)

 

There is nothing magic about the clock devices as such, so if you prefer, you can loosely think of decaying muons a moving "muon clocks".

 

Thus one can picture it so that speeding clocks "run slower", when compared _on the fly_ to a resting clock.

 

/Fredrik

 

This seems to kind of fit in with that conclusion. Any comments?

[fredrik]

Here are some comments...

 

a) If the time units are defined by cycles of the clock device, the rate of time is reflected by the rate of change in the clock device. But this is always measure with a reference, and is thus relative. The clock device is just a "sample system" which you observe and whos relative change you use to parametrize the rest of your observations. The parametrization of the relative evolution is time.

 

b) I wonder do you _define_"absolute universal time"?

 

/Fredrik

[monthir]

time always carry the concept of ( rate of change) so as there is slownness in molecular activity there will be slowness in change which means in time also .However.there is also a real dilatation in time,that is conceived when you consider light as the tool to measure time as its speed is the only stationary speed despite other variables in universe.

also you could conceive ,slowness of change,time dilatation at very high speeds as such :at very high speeds things & particles become more resistant to change (e.g it is easier to stop slow subject than rapid one even if they contain the same amount of substance) which mean they will recquire more energy to achieve changes upon them so changes upon them going slowly

[Klaynos]

"Absolute universal time"

 

There is no absolute reference frame.

[swansont]

Anybody have any simple descriptions on why or how the clock slows down?

 

Not me. Relativity is usually not considered simple.

[Realitycheck]

Can it be considered that as the clock travels around the world, it finds a shortcut through time, solely because it is moving, while the comparison clock is not? Whereas, since it is moving, it reaches the same point in time at a faster rate, hence the clock will be behind upon comparison? It seems that the only determinant variable is relative velocity.

[Realitycheck]

How about this.

 

If the clock that travels away from the stationary clock goes only halfway around the world, somewhere other than back to the stationary clock, the time still becomes dilated upon comparison of the two clocks with the help of a cell phone call, right? Relative velocity between the two frames of reference is the sole determinant, correct?

[swansont]

Yes, the determining factor of the time you see in another frame is that frame's velocity relative to you. The reason that it's not considered to be a change in molecular activity (or a mechanical process) is that the dilation is symmetric when the frames are inertial. The clocks-on-a-plane experiment had one clock speed up and one slow down, since one went at a higher speed and the other a lower (eastbound vs westbound), with respect to an inertial observer.

[foodchain]

Yes, the determining factor of the time you see in another frame is that frame's velocity relative to you. The reason that it's not considered to be a change in molecular activity (or a mechanical process) is that the dilation is symmetric when the frames are inertial. The clocks-on-a-plane experiment had one clock speed up and one slow down, since one went at a higher speed and the other a lower (eastbound vs westbound), with respect to an inertial observer.

 

What all receives a clock though, everything, every last point, or particle, or energy?

[swansont]

What all receives a clock though, everything, every last point, or particle, or energy?

 

Can you rephrase this?

[m4rc]

I have had a physics professor that had unconventional ideas about relativity. He considered time dilation more as a slowing of clocks than a change in the flow of time. He has shown that time dilation can be considered to be the slowing down of clocks as a result of the mass change of the object http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/kinetic/length.html .

 

For example, as an object moves at close to the speed of light, it's mass is different, and so is the mass of the electrons in the object. This increased mass of the electrons would make the electrons move closer to the centre of their atoms and also move more slowly (this is the calculation of the Bohr radius). Any clock that is based on the motion of electrons (and all clocks are) would be slowed down in the same way. In his opinion this explains both the length contraction and time dilation.

 

As far as I know there is no current experimental way of distinguishing the results of this theory, however I find this explanation more rational than the conventional theories which although accurately model the situation don't explaining things very well.

[Sisyphus]

But the dilation/contraction is reciprocal. Doesn't that preclude that explanation?

[swansont]

I have had a physics professor that had unconventional ideas about relativity. He considered time dilation more as a slowing of clocks than a change in the flow of time. He has shown that time dilation can be considered to be the slowing down of clocks as a result of the mass change of the object http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/kinetic/length.html .

 

For example, as an object moves at close to the speed of light, it's mass is different, and so is the mass of the electrons in the object. This increased mass of the electrons would make the electrons move closer to the centre of their atoms and also move more slowly (this is the calculation of the Bohr radius). Any clock that is based on the motion of electrons (and all clocks are) would be slowed down in the same way. In his opinion this explains both the length contraction and time dilation.

 

As far as I know there is no current experimental way of distinguishing the results of this theory, however I find this explanation more rational than the conventional theories which although accurately model the situation don't explaining things very well.

 

Most atomic clocks are based on spin-flip interactions, which is a magnetic effect. The hyperfine splitting is mass-dependent, which means the frequency should increase, not decrease. This is apparently not addressed in your link (neither "hyperfine" nor "spin" appear)

 

Marmet's work does not inspire a lot of confidence.

[fredrik]

Anybody have any simple descriptions on why or how the clock slows down?

 

First I think simple may be relative to your preferences, and second I haven't consider it important yet to work out the details at this stage but I can picture a what I consider a fairly simple mechanism.

 

A loose lineout is..

 

a) The first step is to acknowledge time as parametrization of relative change. This can be formalized in terms of relative frequences or probabilities, of cylic clock events and an equiprobable evolution of the general state of information. Time evolution can be pictured as

 

b) If one then presumes space, and further identifies a geometry of space with our prior information, one comes up with the association that the distance metric can be though of as a probabilistic transition probability.

 

c) Then working out the relations (or prior connections) between momenta (taking that as the fourier transforms) and the prior basic geometry. I think one will find the prior connections that defines the time dilation between the basic spacetime transformations.

 

I haven't done this yet, but it's on the todo list to work out, and I definitely think it's possible, even though there are details to work out that is much harder than the above.

 

If this proves out to work like I think, the time dilation effects can be considered to originate from an abstracted relativity of information, and it's actually quite understandable, which is exactly what I think we need.

 

I'd expect that one can show that our conditional probability of the clock events in the moving clock is lower than the same clock at rest. This means as per the construction that moving clocks seems to move slower.

 

The proof I picture, would rely on a mathematical connection of the prior distributions between the moving and nonmoving frames. This would also be entangled with the concept of moving. Since time is devised from scratch one can not simply without care introduce the concept of velocity as it relies on speed. That's why momenta via fourier patterns can be exploited for a systematic introduction. The last thing then that bugs me is the choice of this pattern. I'm looking for a systematic inference argumentation there. This is missing.

 

I hope to be work that out later, but my strategy is to not make leaps and before I get there the dimensionality of spacetime needs to be defined too.

 

/Fredrik

[Realitycheck]

It seems to me that there are two possible probabilities that lead to this phenomenon. Either 1) space (ie. spacetime) has anomalistic qualities, or 2) the effect that relative speed/velocity has on a moving object.

 

Theoretically, the speed that an object is moving should not have any effect on its molecular activity, since speed/velocity is just a measurement variable relative to another point in space. This continues to lead me to the conclusion that space is the culprit.

 

I am going to kind of go out on a limb here. If an object remains stationary in space relative to another object which takes action and moves, then somehow, the moving object is defying stasis with respect to spacetime. If everything were predictable, if the future aspect of spacetime was known, if the universe was full of nothing but cosmic swirly things, then this law probably would not be useful. It probably only applies to objects that take action. Even though this phenomenon is quantifiable, it certainly seems that spacetime has some fuzzy aspects with regards to unpredicted actions.

 

Comments?

[foodchain]

Can you rephrase this?

 

Anything physical that can be discerned and studied, for instance an electron in an electron cloud around a nucleus for instance, would that also receive a clock, and of course for every subsequent electron in the cloud have a clock, and then if possible the cloud have a clock, and the nucleus and every particle that makes up the nucleus, and then more so say for quarks in those particles, they can get a clock also right, even the strong nuclear force.

 

Basically what can get a clock?

[swansont]

I don't understand what you mean by "get a clock." Are you asking what is affected by time dilation?

[swansont]

It seems to me that there are two possible probabilities that lead to this phenomenon. Either 1) space (ie. spacetime) has anomalistic qualities, or 2) the effect that relative speed/velocity has on a moving object.

 

Theoretically, the speed that an object is moving should not have any effect on its molecular activity, since speed/velocity is just a measurement variable relative to another point in space. This continues to lead me to the conclusion that space is the culprit.

 

I am going to kind of go out on a limb here. If an object remains stationary in space relative to another object which takes action and moves, then somehow, the moving object is defying stasis with respect to spacetime. If everything were predictable, if the future aspect of spacetime was known, if the universe was full of nothing but cosmic swirly things, then this law probably would not be useful. It probably only applies to objects that take action. Even though this phenomenon is quantifiable, it certainly seems that spacetime has some fuzzy aspects with regards to unpredicted actions.

 

Comments?

 

But saying that space is the culprit sounds suspiciously like there should be a preferred reference frame, i.e. you can be at rest with respect to space. Experiment suggests otherwise.

[foodchain]

I don't understand what you mean by "get a clock." Are you asking what is affected by time dilation?

 

Yes, but in essence basically if that everything is effected by such. I mean if that’s true does that not on its own destroy the concept of locality on some level.

[Realitycheck]

OK, so there is no defying the nature of spacetime since everything is already a part of nature.

 

However, the sole determinant in quantifying this "anomaly" remains the relative velocity between one object and another. What exactly makes the clock tick slower/trip shorter? In a different sense, it still seems that space is fuzzy when other objects are moving with relation to each other, ie. the very act of moving somehow shortens or lengthens the trip, making space relative. What exactly changes the trip length for the moving object?

[Realitycheck]

Recorded time is relative to movement when compared to another reference frame, but why? Speed or velocity is the only significant variable. Why does this have an effect on spacetime between two objects?

[fredrik]

Yes, but in essence basically if that everything is effected by such. I mean if that’s true does that not on its own destroy the concept of locality on some level.

 

I think I understand your thinking and it's a good question.

 

Clearly a system evolves even if nonone has assigned a clock device, or is looking at the clock device, but in the abstract sense any system can define a "clock". But it's hard to compare a human with an elementary particle since an elementary particle is presumable not as perceptive as a human is, due to it's limited complexity. The clock from a human point of view is merely a way to quantify and probe the evolution, and define time units.

 

But you are still onto something that at some level of chaos, the concept of time gets pretty fuzzy. And there are speculations that at the planck domain spacetime and dimensionality itself gets all fuzzy. This is in fact consistent or expected if you consider time as a parametrization of random dynamics. One possible speculative branch of theories, consider spacetime and it's geometry as beeing statistical in nature, and thus fluctuates. At the macroscale this strucutre appears rigid and classical, but in certain domains this IS fuzzy. And at some point it's so fuzzy that the concept of space and time does not make sense. But this is not really a problem! It's a feature. Because it can even in theory explain away spacetime, as well as possibly in reverse explain how dimensions are born. (But I am still working on this, so I pass commenting)

 

/Fredrik

[fredrik]

I can't speak with authority by I can just add my point of view to the discussion for anyone to make up their own point of view, here some further personal comments from my preferred perspective.

 

Speed or velocity is the only significant variable. Why does this have an effect on spacetime between two objects?

 

I'd say because speed by definition is a sort of pattern of change. If you know there is a relative velocty it really means that you have a particular repeating pattern of changes in your observations. Ie. there is an event space where the events keep drifting, but the drift has an identifyable pattern that is constant. This adds a constraint to the moving clock devices and defines a connection back to you which can be interpreted as a probability, and specifically a measure of the chance of that you mix up the information of the resting and moving clock with each other. This probability is often nonzero.

 

I think this can be consistently understood if you accept that the clock device is not a classical absolute device. The clock device itself, follows the same fuzzy laws as does everything else, and there is an uncertainty in the identification of the clock device itself. So the information about the clock is twisted when it speeds. Because the speeding itself, can be given an interpretation in terms of information change.

 

So your prior information is that the other clock is moving away. Moving away can be abstracted as a connection between two different event spaces, thus relating them.

 

This analogy is really silly and incorrect! but to give a somewhat simpler picture consider that you play dice. Playing dice with a speeding dice, can technically be interpreted as adding another dice. You throw one dice for the "speeding". But the dices aren't classical dices, the dices themselves are fuzzy and has evolved through experience or past data, defining your prior. So your current information "defines the dice" which you play with.

 

/Fredrik

[swansont]

Yes, but in essence basically if that everything is effected by such. I mean if that’s true does that not on its own destroy the concept of locality on some level.

 

As far as we can tell, yes, everything is effected. The moving things are in a different frame, so I don't see a problem with locality.