Why does speed time slow down when you go fast then the speed of light

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

"If you define the term time in your reference book and research time dilation you will see that time does not actually slow down, it appears to slow down."

 

 

 

 

What, exactly, is the difference?

 

If the effects are the same (clocks slow down, aging occurs differently, etc.), then there's no difference between the two except in the metaphysical.

 

 

Here is the difference:

 

 

 

APPEAR

To become visible: a plane appearing in the sky.

To come into existence: New strains of viruses appear periodically.

To seem or look to be: appeared unhappy. See Synonyms at seem.

To seem likely: They will be late, as it appears.

To come before the public: has appeared in two plays; appears on the nightly news.

 

 

ACTUALLY

In fact; in reality: That tree is actually a fir, not a pine.

Used to express wonder, surprise, or incredulity: I actually won the lottery!

 

As an actual or existing fact; really.

 

 

In time dilation the moving clock appears (is seen) to be out of synch with the stationary clock. The clock does not actually (in reality) slow down.

 

This whole time dilation idea is based on the fact that it takes light longer to reach the stationary observer from the moving clock (which is further away) than the light from the clock that is nearer to the stationary observer. This is what causes the moving clock to look or appear to be slower.

 

Time dilation according to the Special Theory of Relativity is a term that refers to the loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer, time appears to move slower on a moving object from the viewpoint of a stationary observer. Many people today think that this thing called time actually slows down. Well, these people have a misunderstanding of the Special Theory of Relativity, it states that time APPEARS to move slower to a stationary observer.

 

 

If you want to say that time dilation is a real actual occurrence then you would have to show evidence or proof that time is a physical thing. The physical things in this world are either composed of particles or waves. Time would have to be defined as one of these.

 

Next you would have to show that a clock measures this physical thing called time.

[swansont]

In time dilation the moving clock appears (is seen) to be out of synch with the stationary clock. The clock does not actually (in reality) slow down.

 

No, because "in reality" assumes there is a frame of reference that is "reality" which one can objectively determine with a physics experiment or test.

 

This whole time dilation idea is based on the fact that it takes light longer to reach the stationary observer from the moving clock (which is further away) than the light from the clock that is nearer to the stationary observer. This is what causes the moving clock to look or appear to be slower.

 

Nope. The finite speed of light is not the source of time dilation — it remains after one removes the d/c delay from the signal of a remote clock. This claim is falsified by many experiments where the clocks were compared after accumulating a delay, but were compared to other clocks at close proximity.

 

Time dilation according to the Special Theory of Relativity is a term that refers to the loss of time of a moving clock as observed by a stationary observer, time appears to move slower on a moving object from the viewpoint of a stationary observer. Many people today think that this thing called time actually slows down. Well, these people have a misunderstanding of the Special Theory of Relativity, it states that time APPEARS to move slower to a stationary observer.

 

 

If you want to say that time dilation is a real actual occurrence then you would have to show evidence or proof that time is a physical thing. The physical things in this world are either composed of particles or waves. Time would have to be defined as one of these.

 

Next you would have to show that a clock measures this physical thing called time.

 

I think you are the only one calling time a "physical thing" in these threads. But you continue to base your objections on a preferred reference frame, one of several persistent misconceptions you have about relativity.

 

Clocks measure the thing we call time. Time is not an absolute, and the transformation between reference frames is not linear.

[Eric 5]

Is energy just a consideration? Something need not be physical to be real, and it can still be something other than a "consideration." You're looking for metaphysical answers to questions. Science isn't going to give them to you.

 

The term time is used in physics, I am looking for how you define time when you say that it is physical. Time is defined in physics, check your reference books. This should be easy for you since your profile says that you are a physicist, and your blog says that you build atomic clocks. What I am asking has nothing to do with the metaphysical, it is a pure scientific question.

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

Go and look up the definition of atom and tell everyone reading this that atoms are not in motion. Show the definition of atom. Atoms are not motionless. They move (vibrate). You are incorrect.

 

You said they were composed of motion, which is clearly, well, laughable.

 

As a physicist you should be familiar with the structure of the atom, very little mass and a lot of motion. Atoms are not motionless or stationary. You should know this.

 

 

Here is what you posted in #85 of this thread:

 

"An atom is not "composed of motion." It is composed of neutrons, protons and electrons. One can argue whether the electrons are in motion or not — QM describes a probability function of where they might be found, but that's beside the point. I said that the atomic clocks don't depend on the motion. Motion adds time dilation effects — the best clocks use atoms or ions that are as close to motionless as possible.

 

 

Look, your blog states that you build atomic clocks, yet you say that atomic clocks do not depend on motion. You are wrong and i have no idea why you would make such a statement. And what do you mean one can argue whether the electrons are in motion or not. It is standard scientific knowledge that electrons are in motion. Look in your reference books. There is no arguing the point.

 

 

 

Here are the links you posted to help explain atomic clocks to me.

I say that atomic clocks measure motion and convert that motion to a number that is to signify a man made unit of time. You say that atomic clocks do not depend on motion. Lets see what your links say.

 

 

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/mercury_atomic_clock.htm

The optical oscillations of the essentially motionless ion are used to produce the "ticks" or "heartbeat" of the world's most stable and accurate clock.

 

 

Quote from the above link.

"The experimental clock, which measures the oscillations of a mercury ion (an electrically charged atom) held in an ultra-cold electromagnetic trap, produces “ticks” at optical frequencies. Optical frequencies are much higher than the microwave frequencies measured in cesium atoms in NIST-F1, the national standard and one of the world’s most accurate clocks. Higher frequencies allow time to be divided into smaller units, which increases precision."

 

 

 

It states right here that the clock measures oscillations. That is motion.

 

FREQUENCY--- in physics, number of periodic oscillations, vibrations, or waves occuring per unit of time.

 

That all describes motion.

 

 

 

 

Link number two with your comment.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22097

 

swansont "The ideal frequency reference would be a single, motionless atom, unperturbed by any interactions with other atoms or the environment"

 

 

This does not even make any logical sense. A frequency of a motionless atom? Per the definition of frequency this would not be possible, and per the definition of atom there can not be a motionless atom.

 

Here is a quote from your second link:

 

"Optical clocks

Invented 50 years ago this month, atomic clocks have revolutionized how we measure time. But optical clocks, which use light rather than microwaves, promise to be even more accurate and could lead to the second being redefined"

 

Both types of clocks depend on motion, a frequency. Again, I am right when I say atomic clocks depend on motion and time is the measurement or perception of motion.

 

 

 

Here is your third link and your comments.

 

http://whyfiles.org/078time/index.php?g=2.txt

"The cold, slow-moving, atoms are measured in the microwave chamber on the way up and back down, using the same general technique we've already seen. The improved precision results from the reduced Doppler effect and an increase in measurement time.

 

i.e. there is an improvement in making the atoms move slower. Motion is not the basis of the measurement."

 

 

This is wrong. Motion is the basis of time measurement.

 

 

Quote from third link.

 

"Like most clocks, atomic clocks create and then count periodic movements, or oscillations. In the old pendulum clocks, a weight swung back and forth at a steady frequency, so the clockmaker only had to invent a mechanism to count the swings and drive the clock's hands. It wasn't too accurate, but it beat watching water leak from a tank.

 

In an atomic clock, the oscillations occur in an electromagnetic field that causes transitions between the two possible quantum-mechanical conditions of an atom. In the commonly used cesium 133 atoms, these occur about 9.19 billion times per second."

 

"Atoms can have one of two "hyperfine states," and this is the basis of the atomic clock. The magnetic field of the outermost electron must either point in the same direction as the magnetic field of the nucleus, or in the opposite direction. The laws of quantum physics forbid other orientations.

 

Generally, an atom remains in its hyperfine state. But when prodded by electromagnetic radiation at a specific frequency, it will go through the "hyperfine transition" and switch into the other state. The idea of building a clock around hyperfine states was proposed by physicist Isador Rabi in 1945.

 

Essentially, an electronic clock selects cesium atoms in one hyperfine state and exposes them to radiation that causes them to switch to the other state. The exact frequency of radiation -- 9,192,631,770 hertz -- needed to cause the transition becomes the regular beat that the clock counts to register time. Only when the atoms "hear" that exact beat will they change hyperfine states. And after you create that beat you just count it. After every 9,192,631,770 beats, another second has passed."

 

This is what I have been saying about clocks and time. Swansont, you have been very helpfull in proving my point, thank you.

 

As I have said before, Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man.

 

 

 

 

So tell me, where are you getting the idea that time is a physical thing and atomic clocks do not depend on motion? As a person who claims to be a builder of atomic clocks where do you get the idea that the atom is not in motion and atomic clocks do not depend on motion? Your links state otherwise.

[barbie.=^.^=]

I like the expplanation that if you were wearing a watch and were going at the speed of light the time n your watch would stay the same it would not sped up with so time makes you go slower.

[Klaynos]

Eric.

 

Swansont explained to you Eric that it was oscillations and explained how these oscillations where NOT motion.

 

You seem unwilling to take note of what anyone in a position of knowledge is telling you, and are just ignoring all comments.

 

Also atoms are not motion! The electrons are not orbiting/in motion if they where they would be accelerating and accelerating charges radiate, and atoms do not radiate.

[Eric 5]

I think you are the only one calling time a "physical thing" in these threads. But you continue to base your objections on a preferred reference frame, one of several persistent misconceptions you have about relativity.

 

Clocks measure the thing we call time. Time is not an absolute, and the transformation between reference frames is not linear.

 

 

I have not called time a physical thing, you say that clocks measure this thing called time. My question to you has been, what is this thing that clocks are measuring? In order for a physical object like a clock to measure some outside influence that you want to call time, this time thing would have to be a physical thing. Use your reference books, ask your co-workers at your place of employment as a physicist. Tell me what any clock measures, what do clocks actually measure, what motivates them to get a number? All definitions and references on time will tell you that time is a measurement of motion, not a thing that is measured. The links that you provided me to explain how atomic clocks work all said that the clocks measure motion, not time. The measurement of this motion is what gives the idea of time. It is not a measurement of a physical thing, entity, or particle called time. So what is the thing you claim clocks are measuring?

 

Eric. Swansont explained to you Eric that it was oscillations and explained how these oscillations where NOT motion.

 

Oscillation by definition is a motion. If someone uses the term oscillation then they are going to use how that term is defined. The links that swansont provided on atomic clocks all say that the clocks measure motion of an object. Swansont and you can explain all you want about how an oscillation is not a motion, but that would be contrary to the standard physics definition of oscillation. Explain all you want, I know what the definition of an oscillation is, do you?

 

 

 

 

Also atoms are not motion! The electrons are not orbiting/in motion if they where they would be accelerating and accelerating charges radiate, and atoms do not radiate.

 

 

Your statement that atoms are not motion and electrons are not orbiting /in motion is completely wrong and contrary to established scientific knowledge. I am going to have to ask you to back up this claim you have made with some proof.

 

Also atoms are not motion! The electrons are not orbiting/in motion if they where they would be accelerating and accelerating charges radiate, and atoms do not radiate.

 

 

 

Klaynos, this link will explain your concern about how accelerating charges radiate and atoms do not radiate so electrons are not in motion. It shows that electrons do orbit and answers your concern about radiation. Anybody reading this post who wants to see how Klaynos was a bit mistaken about his claim that atoms are not in motion and electrons are not orbiting should watch this video.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Oscillation by definition is a motion. If someone uses the term oscillation then they are going to use how that term is defined. The links that swansont provided on atomic clocks all say that the clocks measure motion of an object. Swansont and you can explain all you want about how an oscillation is not a motion, but that would be contrary to the standard physics definition of oscillation. Explain all you want, I know what the definition of an oscillation is, do you?

I quote:

In a standard atomic clock, a beam of caesium-133 atoms is probed by microwaves that have a frequency of about 9.2 x 109 Hz. When the microwave frequency is adjusted to a value of exactly 9192 631 770 Hz, the photons have an energy that is equal to the energy difference between the two very closely spaced energy levels that make up the ground state of the caesium atoms. The atoms absorb the microwaves and a signal generated from the absorption is fed back to the microwave source, which stops it drifting from this specific frequency. The stability imposed on the microwave source by the atoms is what allows us to define the second as "the duration of 9192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom".

Where's the oscillation?

 

Your statement that atoms are not motion and electrons are not orbiting /in motion is completely wrong and contrary to established scientific knowledge. I am going to have to ask you to back up this claim you have made with some proof.

You are basing your claims on the Bohr model, which is obsolete. I refer you to any good book on quantum mechanics or chemistry. For example, Zumdahl Chemistry, 5th edition, page 306: "Electrons do not move around the nucleus in circular orbits."

 

Klaynos, this link will explain your concern about how accelerating charges radiate and atoms do not radiate so electrons are not in motion. It shows that electrons do orbit and answers your concern about radiation. Anybody reading this post who wants to see how Klaynos was a bit mistaken about his claim that atoms are not in motion and electrons are not orbiting should watch this video.

That video explains the Bohr model. Page 306 of Zumdahl Chemistry: "Although some attempts were made to adapt the [bohr] model using elliptical orbits, it was concluded that Bohr's model is fundamentally incorrect."

[swansont]

In atomic clocks, you place the atoms in a coherent superposition between two states — in standard clocks used today these are hyperfine states (cutting edge devices have started to use optical transitions). What that means is you put half of the atoms in one state, and half remain in the other. The quantum-mechanical state you create — the wave function — oscillates at the frequency characteristic of the energy difference between the states. You can't interpret this classically, and trace it back to physical motion. You just can't.

 

I have not called time a physical thing, you say that clocks measure this thing called time. My question to you has been, what is this thing that clocks are measuring? In order for a physical object like a clock to measure some outside influence that you want to call time, this time thing would have to be a physical thing.

 

See? Right there, you called time a physical thing. Nobody else is doing that

 

You didn't answer my question before: is energy a physical thing?

 

 

 

Klaynos, this link will explain your concern about how accelerating charges radiate and atoms do not radiate so electrons are not in motion. It shows that electrons do orbit and answers your concern about radiation. Anybody reading this post who wants to see how Klaynos was a bit mistaken about his claim that atoms are not in motion and electrons are not orbiting should watch this video.

 

I think anyone who presents a video of the Bohr atom as support for their position simply can't lecture anyone about "standard scientific knowledge."

[stevo247]

In atomic clocks, you place the atoms in a coherent superposition between two states — in standard clocks used today these are hyperfine states (cutting edge devices have started to use optical transitions). What that means is you put half of the atoms in one state, and half remain in the other. The quantum-mechanical state you create — the wave function — oscillates at the frequency characteristic of the energy difference between the states. You can't interpret this classically, and trace it back to physical motion. You just can't.

 

 

Thanks for the clear explanation on how the atomic clock works. I was beginning to think that I may never understand how it operates.

 

The definition of time that I have always used (and it may be more philosophical than scientific) is that time is the way that we measure “change”. It looks like the atomic clock is expressive of a regular movement of energy and I assume that the movement is measured. Does that mean then that time has energetic properties rather than physical properties, or does time have energetic and physical properties? Is time itself something other than a measurement of physical or energetic “change” or motion? I am having a hard time even getting a sense of what that could be. Unless time is “change” itself, without being measured.

[swansont]

I wouldn't say that time has energetic or physical properties, just as I wouldn't say that length had those properties, either. An object has properties. Time and length are dimensions; real but not physical, at least in my sense of the word.

[stevo247]

Could you explain what the dimension of time is, in a simplified manner for a layman? I could google it, but I tend to get lost in superfluous information.

[swansont]

My favorite college professor explained it by whacking a desk with a meter stick, just moments after a student had moved their hand out of the way. The spatial coordinates of where both the hand and stick had been the same, but the student was spared injury because the time coordinates weren't also the same.

[thedarkshade]

Could you explain what the dimension of time is, in a simplified manner for a layman? I could google it, but I tend to get lost in superfluous information.

This is a fragment from a lecture in "Physics For Future Presidents" physics course, lectured by Richard Muller

 

Events – and “the fourth dimension”

 

Time is often called the “fourth dimension.” That turns out to be a useful

definition' date=' not an observable fact. And it is not something super mysterious

or deeply abstract. In fact, when used in that way, the word “dimension” is

being used in a very technical and narrow way: the “dimension” of a

quantity is the number of different numbers you need to describe it.

Suppose you wish to specify a location on the Earth. You can do that

with three coordinates, such as latitude, longitude, and altitude. Or you

could use a system with x, y, and z. The key thing is that you need only

three numbers. Any two objects that have the same set of three numbers

must be at the same location. In math, we say that a location is a 3-

dimensional number. That’s all that the fancy word dimension actually

means. Space is three dimensional.

If you want to specify an event, rather than a location, then it is

sufficient to give the location and the time of the event. Suppose I were to

tell you that there is an event at my house at 8 pm tonight. Then there is no

confusion; you might not know what is going to happen, but you have

located it in both time and space. The event can have a name, such as

“Elizabeth’s birthday party” or “Melinda goes to bed.” But to be unique

(Elizabeth has a birthday each year, and Melinda goes to bed almost every

night) you also specify the time. Events are specified by four numbers. So

we say that events are four dimensional. That’s not deep. It is trivial. That’s

is the entire meaning of saying that time is the fourth dimension.

That is not what is interesting about time. What is interesting is that the

amount of time can change depending on the velocity that an object is

moving in the three dimensions of space. That idea is deep, and requires

some explanation.[/quote']

 

I like the expplanation that if you were wearing a watch and were going at the speed of light the time n your watch would stay the same it would not sped up with so time makes you go slower.

That indeed is a rough 'explained idea' for reasons that we all know!

[stevo247]

Thanks for the examples. I appreciate the simplicity.

 

So, in an absolutely empty space, with no energy or substance, would the time dimension still exist? Or does the time dimension, and the ability to plot co-ordinates, become real with the manifestation of substance or motion?

[thedarkshade]

So, in an absolutely empty space, with no energy or substance, would the time dimension still exist?

IMO no! Time is considered as subjective idealism which means that its existence is depended from the observer, it cannot just exist on its own.

[swansont]

There's no such thing as absolutely empty space, so it's a dangerous path to tread. Normal "empty" space is flat, so yes, time should exist, just as the three spatial dimensions should.

[pioneer]

If I am not mistaking, the original experiments, to show time dilation was real, used radioactive materials with a known half life and gave them relativistic velocity. The result was a change in half-life that correlated to the predictions of SR. To make this happen, we needed to input energy into the system. It was not a relative reference affect since the standards in the lab stayed the same. A real or tangible relativistic affect requires the input of energy. This shows a connection between energy and time. Or the amount of energy inputted had a direct connection to the added time potential, i.e., more time.

[swansont]

If I am not mistaking, the original experiments, to show time dilation was real, used radioactive materials with a known half life and gave them relativistic velocity. The result was a change in half-life that correlated to the predictions of SR. To make this happen, we needed to input energy into the system. It was not a relative reference affect since the standards in the lab stayed the same. A real or tangible relativistic affect requires the input of energy. This shows a connection between energy and time. Or the amount of energy inputted had a direct connection to the added time potential, i.e., more time.

 

The energy was already there. Muons were created by cosmic ray interactions in the upper atmosphere.

 

Knowing that there was an acceleration tells you that the reference frames are different, but if you synchronize clocks after the acceleration (or energy input, though I think there may be problems with looking at it that way) then you eliminate the effect from that. The accumulated dilation depends on how long the measurement interval is and the speed, and not on the acceleration.

[Eric 5]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

Oscillation by definition is a motion. If someone uses the term oscillation then they are going to use how that term is defined. The links that swansont provided on atomic clocks all say that the clocks measure motion of an object. Swansont and you can explain all you want about how an oscillation is not a motion, but that would be contrary to the standard physics definition of oscillation. Explain all you want, I know what the definition of an oscillation is, do you?

 

 

 

I quote:

 

( Originally Posted by http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/22097 )

 

In a standard atomic clock, a beam of caesium-133 atoms is probed by microwaves that have a frequency of about 9.2 x 109 Hz. When the microwave frequency is adjusted to a value of exactly 9192 631 770 Hz, the photons have an energy that is equal to the energy difference between the two very closely spaced energy levels that make up the ground state of the caesium atoms. The atoms absorb the microwaves and a signal generated from the absorption is fed back to the microwave source, which stops it drifting from this specific frequency. The stability imposed on the microwave source by the atoms is what allows us to define the second as "the duration of 9192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom".

 

 

Where's the oscillation?

 

In physics frequency is defined as a number of periodic oscillations, vibrations, or waves occurring per unit of time. My point is that atomic clocks measure motion. They have been built to translate a frequency, a certain number of vibrations, or oscillations to a number that is defined as a second. This is what I been saying about clocks, they measure motion and not a thing called time. Clocks convert motion to a specific number. That number is predetermined by man.

 

 

You are basing your claims on the Bohr model, which is obsolete. I refer you to any good book on quantum mechanics or chemistry. For example, Zumdahl Chemistry, 5th edition, page 306: "Electrons do not move around the nucleus in circular orbits."

 

That video explains the Bohr model. Page 306 of Zumdahl Chemistry: "Although some attempts were made to adapt the [bohr] model using elliptical orbits, it was concluded that Bohr's model is fundamentally incorrect."

 

I stand corrected, on my explaination. The latest explaination of the atom still states that there is motion in the atom. A wave. Even though my example is outdated, my point was that atoms have motion.

 

For those of you interested in the explaination of what an atom looks like or how it operates, here are some web sites.

 

 

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PETROLGY/WhatAtomsLookLike.HTM

 

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom8.htm

 

 

 

Eric 5

 

In atomic clocks, you place the atoms in a coherent superposition between two states — in standard clocks used today these are hyperfine states (cutting edge devices have started to use optical transitions). What that means is you put half of the atoms in one state, and half remain in the other. The quantum-mechanical state you create — the wave function — oscillates at the frequency characteristic of the energy difference between the states. You can't interpret this classically, and trace it back to physical motion. You just can't.

 

A frequency is energy in motion. There is motion that is being detected by the atomic clock.

 

 

Originally Posted by Eric 5

I have not called time a physical thing, you say that clocks measure this thing called time. My question to you has been, what is this thing that clocks are measuring? In order for a physical object like a clock to measure some outside influence that you want to call time, this time thing would have to be a physical thing.

 

 

See? Right there, you called time a physical thing. Nobody else is doing that

 

No, I am not saying time is a physical thing. You stated in post #61 of this thread that "time is what is measured by a clock" So in order for a mechanical device to measure something, that something has to be in some form either as matter or energy. For a clock to actually measure a thing, that thing would have to have the capacity to do work. For example, if readings on a clock are due to the measurement of this thing called time, then this time thing would need to have the ability to motivate the clock. Time would have to exist as something that has the capacity to do work. That is what I am saying.

 

You didn't answer my question before: is energy a physical thing?

 

I think that you are asking this question because I was asking you if time was a physical thing or a conception, and you wanted to show me that somethings are hard to pin down when it comes to a choice between physical or concept. Right? Well, anyway, Energy and time are two different things. No matter what definition I gave for energy it would still not address the topic of time. We both know that time and energy exist, but my question has been in what way does time exist. You say that clocks measure time, so I would have to assume that you think that this thing called time exists in some way as to have the ability to motivate a mechanical device. This would require time to be some form of energy, but time is not defined as energy. We both know that time is not a form of energy.

 

Just to satisfy your question about energy, I will say that energy is a potential of motion or power. It would be a force or flow or the potential force or flow from something to something; or the ability to accomplish work;or the ability to make motion or movement. It is a potential or actual motion or force. Energy is not a thing that exists as an independent physical object or form. It does not have an atomic structure, it would be the motions or potential motions that are derived from those things with an atomic structure. Forms and objects can posses energy. Energy is a capacity to do work and can be harnessed by man. Energy unlike time is something that exists without having to be measured. Energy can be percieved through our senses. Time does not have a capacity to do work. I would like to continue on , but this is getting off topic. There is already a thread dedicated to defining time and now I am getting into energy on this thread. I hope that this answered your question about energy.

 

Eric 5

[swansont]

Originally Posted by Eric 5

 

For those of you interested in the explaination of what an atom looks like or how it operates, here are some web sites.

 

 

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PETROLGY/WhatAtomsLookLike.HTM

Quoting from the site:

 

"Orbitals do not describe the path of some tiny particle whizzing around. The electron is a diffuse entity that occupies the whole orbital."

"If you're thinking of the electron wandering around like Waldo and hanging around some places more than others, that's false. "

 

The s- and p-orbital explanations say

"Remember, the electron occupies the whole orbital at once. It does not travel a circular path." and "Remember, the orbital does not travel two looping paths, or loop around one side, through the nucleus, then the other side. It occupies both lobes simultaneously."

 

The site you think supports your idea of motion doesn't actually do so.

 

A frequency is energy in motion.

 

[...]

 

Energy is not a thing that exists as an independent physical object or form.

 

If it's not a physical thing, how can it be in motion?

 

Your answer to "what is energy" confirms that it is neither a physical thing nor a "consideration." Same thing with time.

 

No, I am not saying time is a physical thing. You stated in post #61 of this thread that "time is what is measured by a clock" So in order for a mechanical device to measure something, that something has to be in some form either as matter or energy. For a clock to actually measure a thing, that thing would have to have the capacity to do work. For example, if readings on a clock are due to the measurement of this thing called time, then this time thing would need to have the ability to motivate the clock. Time would have to exist as something that has the capacity to do work. That is what I am saying.

 

If I measure a length, does the length have to "do something" to my ruler in order to be measured? Is a length in the form of matter or energy?

 

 

—————

 

mod note: Zephir's recent posts have been moved as they were off-topic for this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=32445

[Eric 5]

Swansont. Do you want to continue this discussion on time here? Or do you want to move it to the thread Defining TIme in the general physics section?

 

I would like to respond to your most recent post, but do not want to have a discussion on time in two different threads.

[Farsight]

You can't interpret this classically, and trace it back to physical motion. You just can't.

Wanna bet?

[swansont]

Wanna bet?

 

And have it be meaningful? Sure. Knock yourself out — the speculations section awaits your posts.

[Eric 5]

Quoting from the site:

 

"Orbitals do not describe the path of some tiny particle whizzing around. The electron is a diffuse entity that occupies the whole orbital."

"If you're thinking of the electron wandering around like Waldo and hanging around some places more than others, that's false. "

 

The s- and p-orbital explanations say

"Remember, the electron occupies the whole orbital at once. It does not travel a circular path." and "Remember, the orbital does not travel two looping paths, or loop around one side, through the nucleus, then the other side. It occupies both lobes simultaneously."

 

The site you think supports your idea of motion doesn't actually do so.

 

No, I was referring to that site to support your idea of an atom. I went to that site and got the understanding of what you were trying to tell me.

[Zephir]

And have it be meaningful?

What's the criterion of meaningfulness? The fact, something gives testable predictions, which agree with reality and you cannot refute it by logical way.