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

[swansont]

Swansont. Any standard scientific definition of time does not say that it is a physical thing. Time is defined as a measurement of motion. Time is a consideration. You have not shown any evidence to the contrary.

 

No, time is defined as a measurement of an oscillation. In atomic clocks these involve stationary states of the atom — they don't evolve in time, and don't depend on motion.

[Eric 5]

No, time is defined as a measurement of an oscillation. In atomic clocks these involve stationary states of the atom — they don't evolve in time, and don't depend on motion.

 

 

Have you looked up the word time yet?

 

The term oscillation is defined as a movement, look up the definition. Also, look up atomic clock, you seem to have a misunderstanding on how an atomic clock works.

[thedarkshade]

Movement is a characteristic of matter, living or non-living, organic or inorganic.

[Eric 5]

Movement is a characteristic of matter, living or non-living, organic or inorganic.

 

 

Were you trying to make a point in regards to the idea that time is a physical thing, or what swansont said about atomic clocks?

[iNow]

Were you trying to make a point in regards to the idea that time is a physical thing, or what swansont said about atomic clocks?

 

I ask you in return if you are doing anything more than trolling, as definitions in a dictionary are hardly applicable in all contexts, and your attacks on swansont regarding atomic clocks are downright comedic considering his experience with them.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I ask you in return if you are doing anything more than trolling, as definitions in a dictionary are hardly applicable in all contexts, and your attacks on swansont regarding atomic clocks are downright comedic considering his experience with them.

 

You mean considering that he builds them.

[Eric 5]

I ask you in return if you are doing anything more than trolling, as definitions in a dictionary are hardly applicable in all contexts, and your attacks on swansont regarding atomic clocks are downright comedic considering his experience with them.

 

Attacks! Calm down. I have not attacked anyone. You go look up the word atomic clock and atom. Tell me if swansont is right. An atom by definition is composed of motion. Atoms are not still or motionless.

 

You say that dictionary definitions are hardly applicable in ALL contexts. That is incorrect. Looks like you need to get a better understanding of what a dictionary is, and its uses.

 

Now other than that, do you have anything constructive to add to this conversation?

 

You mean considering that he builds them.

 

 

So you agree with swansont and his statement regarding the operation of an atomic clock. Look up atom and atomic clock.

 

 

Now back to the topic at hand, is time a real physical thing.

 

Time is actually a consideration based on our perception of the movement of objects. There is a distance, there is a velocity of the objects travel, and that movement of that object or particle in relationship to its starting point and in relationship to its ending point is what gives us the idea of time. Time is a manifestation which has no existence beyond the idea of time brought about by the motion of objects, where an object may be either energy or matter. Time is not a thing that flows. Time does not move or cause things to move. It is this perception of motion which gives us the idea of time.

 

Do you agree or disagree?

[Klaynos]

oh FFS!

 

Dictionaries are not the source nor the guardians of all human knowledge!

[iNow]

You mean considering that he builds them.

 

Precisely my point.

Have you, perchance, compared Eric's IP against that used by Fred56? He had a real hard on for dictionaries as well. However, even if it's not the same guy, he's clearly heading for the same ending...

[swansont]

Attacks! Calm down. I have not attacked anyone. You go look up the word atomic clock and atom. Tell me if swansont is right. An atom by definition is composed of motion. Atoms are not still or motionless.

 

Well, to be fair, I can see how some here would take "you seem to have a misunderstanding on how an atomic clock works" to be an attack. I also know on whom they would bet, if the contest were between the two of us, on who knows more about atomic clocks.

 

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.

 

In a standard atomic clock (Cs or Rb), you use the hyperfine splitting of the ground state — put half of the atoms in one state, and the other half in the other state. Because of the peculiarities of quantum physics, the ensemble is in a superposition of the two states, and behaves like it is oscillating between them. But none of that implies any physical motion of the electron. The difference between the states is the spin orientation of the electron.

 

 

You say that dictionary definitions are hardly applicable in ALL contexts. That is incorrect. Looks like you need to get a better understanding of what a dictionary is, and its uses.

 

What is the definition of "coincidence" in the dictionary vs its use in science (particularly physics)?

 

 

Now back to the topic at hand, is time a real physical thing.

 

You're hung up on "physical" for some reason. Something can be real without being physical. Is energy real? Is it physical?

[Eric 5]

oh FFS!

 

Dictionaries are not the source nor the guardians of all human knowledge!

 

 

So go to whatever your source or guardian of human knowledge is and tell me what it says about time. You have to understand that when someone writes a book they have to use the commonly defined words that can be found in a standard dictionary. If they have some other definition of a term then they need to put that definition in the glossary or foot notes. If you have seen some other definition of time then is stated in any standard dictionary then let me know of this reference. Otherwise, the standard definition of time stands.

 

Go and show me your evidence that time is a real tangible thing.

[iNow]

Eric 5,

 

Are you now simply ignoring the responses to your questions which don't fit with your worldview?

 

You've asked the same question numerous times, and received a response each time, yet you continue on as if your question is unanswered.

[ydoaPs]

So go to whatever your source or guardian of human knowledge is and tell me what it says about time. You have to understand that when someone writes a book they have to use the commonly defined words that can be found in a standard dictionary. If they have some other definition of a term then they need to put that definition in the glossary or foot notes. If you have seen some other definition of time then is stated in any standard dictionary then let me know of this reference. Otherwise, the standard definition of time stands.

Dictionary=/=technical resource

Go and show me your evidence that time is a real tangible thing.

Time dilation?

[Eric 5]

Well, to be fair, I can see how some here would take "you seem to have a misunderstanding on how an atomic clock works" to be an attack. I also know on whom they would bet, if the contest were between the two of us, on who knows more about atomic clocks.

 

Go ahead and look up a reference on atomic clocks and show me I am mistaken. Stop with the chatter and put your evidence on the table. I take that bet. Show your cards.

 

 

 

An atom is not "composed of motion." It is composed of neutrons, protons and electrons.

 

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.

 

 

One can argue whether the electrons are in motion or not

 

No. There is no argument. They vibrate.

 

 

 

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.

 

Wrong. Research atomic clocks.

 

 

 

Motion adds time dilation effects — the best clocks use atoms or ions that are as close to motionless as possible.

 

Wrong. Atoms vibrate. Atoms and ions are interchangeable. Look it up.

 

In a standard atomic clock (Cs or Rb), you use the hyperfine splitting of the ground state — put half of the atoms in one state, and the other half in the other state.

Because of the peculiarities of quantum physics, the ensemble is in a superposition of the two states, and behaves like it is oscillating between them.

 

There is your motion, oscillation.

 

 

But none of that implies any physical motion of the electron. The difference between the states is the spin orientation of the electron.

 

Look up the definition of electron, get a good understanding of this topic. Atoms move. Spin is motion.

 

 

What is the definition of "coincidence" in the dictionary vs its use in science (particularly physics)?

 

Looking for the physics definition of time. Your question is off topic.

 

 

 

 

You're hung up on "physical" for some reason. Something can be real without being physical. Is energy real? Is it physical?

 

Yes it can. those things are thoughts, emotions, ideas, considerations. Which brings this whole topic back to the fact that time is a consideration and not a real physical thing.

 

Thank You.

[ydoaPs]

Wrong. Research atomic clocks.

Lolly Roffles

[Eric 5]

Dictionary=/=technical resource

 

Time dilation?

 

What is the reference that states time is a real physical thing?

 

 

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.

 

Go to this web site. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm

 

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.

 

Lolly Roffles

 

What is this?

[ydoaPs]

What is the reference that states time is a real physical thing?

Gravitation good enough for you?

[Eric 5]

Gravitation good enough for you?

 

 

I do not have this book. Quote from the book the section that states time is a real thing. If I do not have the book at hand you will have to state what the book says that proves your point.

[ydoaPs]

I do not have this book. Quote from the book the section that states time is a real thing. If I do not have the book at hand you will have to state what the book says that proves your point.

 

It's THE DEFINATIVE relativity text. Are you sure it is us who should study up?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

[swansont]

Looking for the physics definition of time. Your question is off topic.

 

You're looking for the physics definition of time, and yet you insist on looking in a dictionary. My suggestion of looking up "coincidence" would point out that the dictionary definition is basically opposite that of the physics definition, demonstrating that the dictionary is not a technical resource. Which has been stated a number of times before.

 

 

Yes it can. those things are thoughts, emotions, ideas, considerations. Which brings this whole topic back to the fact that time is a consideration and not a real physical thing.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

Wrong. Research atomic clocks.

 

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.

 

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

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

 

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.

 

Swansont. Any standard scientific definition of time does not say that it is a physical thing.

...

Time is a consideration. You have not shown any evidence to the contrary.

 

I keep pointing out that this is a false dichotomy.

 

There is your motion, oscillation.

 

The oscillation is in the wave function, which is not real. The atoms are placed in either one state or the other. But this is QM, so it's really not profitable to try and glean classical meaning from what's going on.

[abateNth]

I was woundering why time slows down when you go faster then the speed of light

 

Observation from particle physics. Where theory became reality.

Someone, somewhere, some day of the week said to themselves.

 

"What is the rate of decay, these things I push so wildly..."

 

Scoffed at first they were. Impossible. To indicated at immortality and such.

Then, phenomenon were sought. Still, to this day, electrons yield the best info. What with most equipment having ability to interface with electrical devices.

 

Beta Decay...is your next subject...So, so interesting.

[thedarkshade]

Observation from particle physics. Where theory became reality.

First you cannot go at the speed of light, and faster is just impossible, just like reaching c is. And there is no experiment when physicist have managed to send particles at the full speed of light.

[abateNth]

First you cannot go at the speed of light, and faster is just impossible, just like reaching c is. And there is no experiment when physicist have managed to send particles at the full speed of light.

 

Except, light of course. And its induced plane.

 

Answer, no 8-ball configuration please, then; These Black Holes, where light is absorbed. As it cannot escape what theorists believe dense gravitational fields.

 

What's its rate of acceleration/deceleration? Where's the light.

 

Don't approach via worm hole connected with webs of strings' neither. I await...

[Klaynos]

We don't know, GR breaks down at the event horizon, to answer your question we need a more complete gravitation theory.