gravimotion

[gravimotion]

If there are two observers, they measure one trajectory, but according to relativity they get different answers, i.e. length and time, depending on their reference frame. If you have a system where you get the same answer, regardless of your frame, please present it.

 

Now, can we get back to my question about how we can tell what our motion is relative to this absolute reference frame of yours?

 

OK ... OK ... I am wrong...

 

I was considering earth's motion around the sun ONLY.

And one must also consider the motion of the sun within the milky way galaxy, and I guess that is what you have in mind.

Now when the earth (while circling around the sun) is moving against the sun's motion within the galaxy, a clock on earth will run faster than when the earth is moving along the sun's motion within the galaxy.

 

And the original question was: why do we not see that time dilation?

The reason has to be that we do not see it because we decided that our atomic reference clock which is pinned to the ground of earth beats at 9,192,631,770 cycles per second no matter what.

But it turns out that these 9,192,631,770 cycles are not constant, they beat faster when the motion of earth goes against the motion of the sun within the galaxy. And they take longer in the opposite case. Yet we do not see that dilation because we decided to count 9,192,631,770 cycles no matter what.

The atomic clock itself is depending on its motion, and is not an absolute ticking reference.

 

To answer your last question, the motion I call motion is not physics "relative speed" referenced to a frame reference.

The motion I consider is defined from inside not from outside.

You have something similar in physics, it is the speed (which is a speed) of light. No matter your reference system the speed of light does what it pleases and that is 300,000km/sec.

[Spyman]

Yet we do not see that dilation because we decided to count 9,192,631,770 cycles no matter what.

Earth is spinning around its axis so we can compare clock ticks on the day side with clock ticks on the night side.

[swansont]

I would think that if there is an absolute frame, that our choice of a timing reference wouldn't matter. Basically it seems you have declared that clocks don't measure time. And yet we do see variations in time that are predicted by relativity. Why does motion with respect to the absolute frame not follow relativity? Why does relativity work?

 

 

 

Earth is spinning around its axis so we can compare clock ticks on the day side with clock ticks on the night side.

 

We could also see if the time it takes to go halfway around the sun is the same as the time it takes to go around the other half.

[gravimotion]

Earth is spinning around its axis so we can compare clock ticks on the day side with clock ticks on the night side.

 

The cesium-133 atomic clock is precisely tuned to the rate of 9,192,631,770 cycles when and only when the clock is on the ground on earth or when it rides the motion of earth.

 

Once you decided that there is 9,192,631,770 beats in one second (on earth) whether these 9,192,631,770 beats stretch their own cycling motion or shorten that motion, doesn't make a difference as far as your count counts! You always count 9,192,631,770 and you call it a second.

To have a different count you would have to move the clock in a different way than it moves on earth, which is precisely what happened in the experiment of time dilation.

As a reminder we are talking about the page:

time-Einstein-gravimotion

Edited June 11, 2011 by gravimotion

[swansont]

The cesium-133 atomic clock is precisely tuned to the rate of 9,192,631,770 cycles when and only when the clock is on the ground on earth or when it rides the motion of earth.

 

Once you decided that there is 9,192,631,770 beats in one second (on earth) whether these 9,192,631,770 beats stretch their own cycling motion or shorten that motion, doesn't make a difference as far as your count counts! You always count 9,192,631,770 and you call it a second.

To have a different count you would have to move the clock in a different way than it moves on earth, which is precisely what happened in the experiment of time dilation.

As a reminder we are talking about the page:

time-Einstein-gravimotion

 

But you can compare the clocks, and how long it takes to count those oscillations. If one reaches 9,192,631,770 before the other, you can measure it. That's how (in general terms) they actually compare the clocks.

[gravimotion]

I would think that if there is an absolute frame...

The difference between gravimotion and physics is that there is no absolute frame in gravimotion.

 

Basically it seems you have declared that clocks don't measure time.

Yes , actually inspired by Einstein, I think that time doesn't exist, only the motion that activate clocks exist.

 

And yet we do see variations in time that are predicted by relativity.

You call variation in time, what is ONLY physically a variation occurring in a physical mechanism. A mechanism made of the display of the clock (either metallic or electronic) and a source of motion (mechanic such as spring or quartz or sub atomic vibrations such as the emitting frequency of an atom).

Everybody sees time, within the display of a clock, I only see a mechanical or electronic mechanism involving motion.

 

Why does motion with respect to the absolute frame not follow relativity?

May I ask you to rephrase you question, somehow I can only make comments not answer it.

I think that relative speed is at the base of relativity, so motion (in physics) follows relativity.

Everybody says that motion occurs with respect to a frame (you mention absolute frame).

Motion (relative speed) in physics follows relativity.

In gravimotion there is no frame.

Motion not relative to a frame is a different entity than relative speed.

 

Why does relativity work?

Relativity is based on the observation of motion.

That observation is as real as motion itself.

The display of a clock is as real as the internal motion mechanism of the clock.

Relativity works because it is based on the observation of the internal and external motions of the clocks, the internal (physical) motion being called time.

Where relativity and gravimotion part is that in relativity the mechanical display of a clock is called time, whereas gravimotion calls it a mechanical display only.

Gravimotion is based on the reality of motion, not on the observation of motion.

 

Earth is spinning around its axis so we can compare clock ticks on the day side with clock ticks on the night side.

 

You can only compare clocks when they are side by side and at the same time.

Here in your example, it is a clock that is running during the day that you compare to the same clock which is running during the night.

You would need at least 2 clocks and then they would run together in unison no matter what.

If 2 clocks remain side by side they run in unison no matter their internal variations.

Edited June 11, 2011 by gravimotion

[swansont]

The difference between gravimotion and physics is that there is no absolute frame in gravimotion.

 

Yet you speak of "absolute rest" which seems contradictory

 

Yes , actually inspired by Einstein, I think that time doesn't exist, only the motion that activate clocks exist.

 

I don't even know what that means. Some of the best clocks involve no motion at all.

 

You call variation in time, what is ONLY physically a variation occurring in a physical mechanism. A mechanism made of the display of the clock (either metallic or electronic) and a source of motion (mechanic such as spring or quartz or sub atomic vibrations such as the emitting frequency of an atom).

Everybody sees time, within the display of a clock, I only see a mechanical or electronic mechanism involving motion.

 

Why do differing systems see the same effect? BTW these "subatomic vibrations" are state changes, not physical motion. Why should a Rb atom be affected the same way as a Cs atom or H atom? Why should they be affected the same way as a piece of quartz?

 

Motion (relative speed) in physics follows relativity.

In gravimotion there is no frame.

Motion not relative to a frame is a different entity than relative speed.

 

I have no idea what that means.

 

Relativity is based on the observation of motion.

That observation is as real as motion itself.

The display of a clock is as real as the internal motion mechanism of the clock.

Relativity works because it is based on the observation of the internal and external motions of the clocks, the internal (physical) motion being called time.

Where relativity and gravimotion part is that in relativity the mechanical display of a clock is called time, whereas gravimotion calls it a mechanical display only.

Gravimotion is based on the reality of motion, not on the observation of motion.

 

What is the "reality of motion" if not the acknowledgement that there is absolute motion/rest and a preferred frame of reference?

 

 

You can only compare clocks when they are side by side and at the same time.

Here in your example, it is a clock that is running during the day that you compare to the same clock which is running during the night.

You would need at least 2 clocks and then they would run together in unison no matter what.

If 2 clocks remain side by side they run in unison no matter their internal variations.

 

Patently false. I can compare clocks that are far away and moving with respect to each other. You send out a signal e.g. a fiber, or a radio signal, when they hit each second. Do it in both directions so the paths are identical and any outside influences cancel.

[gravimotion]

To lemur

Once I am through publishing this post I will remove the internet file from which you could download my book for free.

On June 5, I provided the readers of this forum the opportunity to get my book for free as a gesture to thank you and this forum for your open mind.

But now I think it is unfair to those who buy my book from my website not knowing they can get it free here!

I learned something though, next time I do such a free offering, I will extend the offer to everyone across the board!

In any case thank you again, I appreciate the fact you considered the idea of gravimotion.

I intend to continue to discuss gravimotion's idea though as long as you and the other desire to do so...

 

Yet you speak of "absolute rest" which seems contradictory

 

 

 

I don't even know what that means. Some of the best clocks involve no motion at all.

 

 

 

Why do differing systems see the same effect? BTW these "subatomic vibrations" are state changes, not physical motion. Why should a Rb atom be affected the same way as a Cs atom or H atom? Why should they be affected the same way as a piece of quartz?

 

 

 

I have no idea what that means.

 

 

 

What is the "reality of motion" if not the acknowledgement that there is absolute motion/rest and a preferred frame of reference?

 

 

 

 

Patently false. I can compare clocks that are far away and moving with respect to each other. You send out a signal e.g. a fiber, or a radio signal, when they hit each second. Do it in both directions so the paths are identical and any outside influences cancel.

 

 

Obviously we entered in a phase of open conflict.

Some aspects of gravimotion's idea are departing from conventional thinking; a point I always mention and a point on which we obviously both agree; therefore there should be no reason to be in conflict!

I think that rather than fighting endlessly over numerous topics it would be more interesting to get straight at the heart of the discord.

I think (and let me know if you disagree):

1. In physics the reality of motion is ignored.
   In physics inertia, and mass exist then forces move these entities within space, motion is only an elusive byproduct of forces and inertia.
   Please read (1min30sec): motion is ignored in physics
2. Yet motion is real, click (also less than 2 min reading): air-temperature, sound-waves, chaotic motion, space, light-waves

[ajb]

I think that rather than fighting endlessly over numerous topics it would be more interesting to get straight at the heart of the discord.

I think (and let me know if you disagree):

1. In physics the reality of motion is ignored.
   In physics inertia, and mass exist then forces move these entities within space, motion is only an elusive byproduct of forces and inertia.
   Please read (1min30sec): motion is ignored in physics
2. Yet motion is real, click (also less than 2 min reading): air-temperature, sound-waves, chaotic motion, space, light-waves

 

1. Kinematics describes the motion of particles and systems of particles without reference to forces. It some sense this is "very basic motion" and maps [math]\mathbb{R} \rightarrow M[/math] where [math]M[/math] is the configuration space of the system are the fundamental objects. One defines velocity and acceleration in terms of taking derivatives of these maps. Dynamics deals with forces, interaction of objects and their motion. Here mass, inertia and force are fundamental ideas.
   
2. This I do not understand. Yes, we see physical bodies in motion relative to us and relative to each other. We mathematically model this which is really what physics is largely about. I am missing your point.
   

[swansont]

Obviously we entered in a phase of open conflict.

Some aspects of gravimotion's idea are departing from conventional thinking; a point I always mention and a point on which we obviously both agree; therefore there should be no reason to be in conflict!

I think that rather than fighting endlessly over numerous topics it would be more interesting to get straight at the heart of the discord.

I think (and let me know if you disagree):

1. In physics the reality of motion is ignored.
   In physics inertia, and mass exist then forces move these entities within space, motion is only an elusive byproduct of forces and inertia.
   Please read (1min30sec): motion is ignored in physics
2. Yet motion is real, click (also less than 2 min reading): air-temperature, sound-waves, chaotic motion, space, light-waves

 

I do not agree that the reality of motion is ignored in physics. Motion is relative; in inertial systems one cannot say who is at rest and who is moving, but motion is observed — it's always relative to something else. Your first link shows a profound misunderstanding of physics and contains some serious errors of logic.

 

Tap-dancing around the objections to your thesis is in violation of speculations rule #1. What I want to know is whether gravimotion makes any testable predictions that distinguish it from physics. You appear to have made one with the claim that clocks run infinitely fast when at absolute rest. But you stall and tap-dance now that you've been asked to clarify what this means. The tests that have been proposed would seem to falsify the claim, and you keep trying to change the subject rather than address this issue.

[gravimotion]

I do not agree that the reality of motion is ignored in physics. Motion is relative; in inertial systems one cannot say who is at rest and who is moving, but motion is observed — it's always relative to something else. Your first link shows a profound misunderstanding of physics and contains some serious errors of logic.

 

Tap-dancing around the objections to your thesis is in violation of speculations rule #1. What I want to know is whether gravimotion makes any testable predictions that distinguish it from physics. You appear to have made one with the claim that clocks run infinitely fast when at absolute rest. But you stall and tap-dance now that you've been asked to clarify what this means. The tests that have been proposed would seem to falsify the claim, and you keep trying to change the subject rather than address this issue.

 

 

Just as in physics time stops at speed of light, a speed which cannot be reached, in gravimotion time runs infinitely fast at rest which cannot be reached!

Because everything is made of motion in gravimotion, getting at rest is same as disappearing or being annihilated.

Gravimotion makes other predictions that are listed at:

gravimotion predictions

 

You state (as everybody after Einstein) : Motion is relative;

Then you state: but motion is observed...

So I conclude (and that is logical) that "the observation of motion is relative"

And I add : The OBSERVATION OF MOTION is relative, motion per se is not relative, MOTION IS PHYSICAL, which is different.

And all of that doesn't deny a bit of Einstein theories!

Einstein theories are based on observation of motion.

Edited June 12, 2011 by gravimotion

[ajb]

Just as in physics time stops at speed of light...

 

This is an oversimplification that is probably coursing some misunderstanding. Really what physics says is that there is no notion of a proper time for massless particles. In this sense "time stops".

 

Massive particles have a rest frame in which one can define such notions as proper time and proper length. This is not so for massless particles; there is no good notion of an inertial rest frame.

[swansont]

Well, that's kind of odd

 

Daily time dilation

For the same reason our body weight varies along the day, the time given by a clock varies along the day.

A clock at the equator has opposite directions at 6am and 6pm. In between these 2 specific times the whole motion of the clock either increases or decreases due to the compounding of earth's spin and earth's revolution around the sun.

The motion of a clock at the equator is about .5km/sec, yet that is negligible with respect to earth's overall motion that includes the circling around the sun, but also the motion of the sun in the galaxy and more.

 

Which is exactly the observation that Spyman made earlier, and yet you claimed you would not be able to measure this.

 

When I made a similar observation of the motion around the sun, you first denied this would be an effect — the clocks would not vary — because the motion is constant, then you said we could not measure it. You haven't addressed why a two-way link would not measure this effect.

 

You also mention temperature time dilation. This is not observed as you predict. State-of-the-art clocks use cold atoms which make measurements more precise, but there is no shift in frequency when compared to clocks using hot atoms, other than the expected relativistic corrections. The relativistic effects from the thermal motion of the atoms are opposite of your claim; in fact you contradict yourself, twice saying that cold clocks slow down and later saying that Einstein agrees, because increased temperature slows clocks down.

 

You aren't even making self-consistent claims about your conjecture.

[gravimotion]

The relativistic effects from the thermal motion of the atoms are opposite of your claim; in fact you contradict yourself, twice saying that cold clocks slow down and later saying that Einstein agrees, because increased temperature slows clocks down.

You aren't even making self-consistent claims about your conjecture.

 

 

OK on this particular point it's not my description that is not clear, I have to think more about it.

In a word you've cornered me good...

I do not pretend to have worked out all the details of gravimotion...

Furthermore I can make mistakes.

But there are too many coincidences to make me change my mind.

I am in the process of reconsidering your points one by one and recognize where I am mistaking and where I am not.

 

 

You haven't addressed why a two-way link would not measure this effect.

 

 

I have also to work on this one.

Forgive me but you push me into lots of corners I did not think of yet.

 

Please note that physics is full of contradictions too...

For instance why is the concept of position and reference so important in relativity when totally denied at quantum scale?

Why is space absolutely empty for translation of light and full of energy in quantum vacuum?

And many other.

 

I am not tap-dancing, I only request you apply the same rules to everyone!

That is, I am requesting you be as forgiving for new ideas as you are for physics...

After all physicists are the first to recognize that physics is a science in the making, every day new discoveries are made that come and put into question the theories....

 

In any case I take it as an honor the fact that you are questioning gravimotion's idea.

Now I'm going back to work.

[ajb]

For instance why is the concept of position and reference so important in relativity when totally denied at quantum scale?

 

This claim I do not understand. One does have quantum theorises that are invariant under the Galilean or Poincare groups. The point is because they are invariant one can go back and fore between special classes of frames without any problems.

 

 

Why is space absolutely empty for translation of light and full of energy in quantum vacuum?

 

The classical propagation of light is described as you state with a classical empty vacuum. The quantum notion of a vaccine is not truly the same as the classical one. When one wants to describe the quantum theory things are more complicated.

 

Both descriptions are "true" in the sense that they both describe the physics very well within specified domains of validity. One should not really think of classical and quantum as competing ideas in the way you seem to do. I do not see contradictions here.

[Spyman]

Earth is spinning around its axis so we can compare clock ticks on the day side with clock ticks on the night side.

The cesium-133 atomic clock is precisely tuned to the rate of 9,192,631,770 cycles when and only when the clock is on the ground on earth or when it rides the motion of earth.

 

Once you decided that there is 9,192,631,770 beats in one second (on earth) whether these 9,192,631,770 beats stretch their own cycling motion or shorten that motion, doesn't make a difference as far as your count counts! You always count 9,192,631,770 and you call it a second.

To have a different count you would have to move the clock in a different way than it moves on earth, which is precisely what happened in the experiment of time dilation.

Earth is spinning around its axis so we can compare clock ticks on the day side with clock ticks on the night side.

You can only compare clocks when they are side by side and at the same time.

Here in your example, it is a clock that is running during the day that you compare to the same clock which is running during the night.

You would need at least 2 clocks and then they would run together in unison no matter what.

If 2 clocks remain side by side they run in unison no matter their internal variations.

What I tried to say was that we can compare TWO clocks located close to the equator but on opposite sides of Earth.

 

I don't see any reason why we would be unable to exchange signals with and compare the rate of these two clocks.

 

The clocks are always moving in opposite directions, if we compare them when one is on the night side and the other one is on the day side and make a new comparison after twelve hours when they have switched places so we can check if the difference is consistent between the locations, then we can determine if there is an absoulute frame of reference.

[gravimotion]

Patently false. I can compare clocks that are far away and moving with respect to each other. You send out a signal e.g. a fiber, or a radio signal, when they hit each second. Do it in both directions so the paths are identical and any outside influences cancel.

 

 

The idea that 2 clocks that are running different times have to be reunited before comparison came from the experiment done with planes in the 70's about time dilation (and repeated since).

The suggestion you make concerns differed simultaneity. You would compare signals after the fact, after the radio waves transmitting the information have traveled. Maybe the Doppler effects are symmetrical in the sense that they cancel each other in their opposite directions and maybe you're right.

 

But I had also in mind this thought of Einstein about simultaneity:

Read Einstein chapter 8 (which is fairly short):

http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html

Then chapter 9:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

up to

Quote:

Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity

 

Now considering 2 clocks one traveling at night the other during the day (traveling simultaneously pinned down on the very surface of earth) these 2 clocks do not have the same overall motion, as the motion due to earth's spin is combined to earth's motion around the sun.

As such even though they are on earth (one body) their 2 reference systems (on earth) are not moving at the same rate, and Einstein idea suggests that the simultaneity (that would allow you to compare the signals rather than the clocks themselves) is

" incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity. "

This is the reason I had in the back of my mind, to suggest that clocks have to be side by side to be compared.

Edited June 13, 2011 by gravimotion

[swansont]

The idea that 2 clocks that are running different times have to be reunited before comparison came from the experiment done with planes in the 70's about time dilation (and repeated since).

The suggestion you make concerns differed simultaneity. You would compare signals after the fact, after the radio waves transmitting the information have traveled. Maybe the Doppler effects are symmetrical in the sense that they cancel each other in their opposite directions and maybe you're right.

 

The Hafele-Keating experiment compared them after the fact because that was the method available to them, and because one set of clocks was fixed, being located at the USNO. If you wanted to compare clocks in remote locations, you did the same basic thing: synchronized a transportable clock with your master clock and go on a plane and visited the other clock, making the necessary relativistic corrections for speed and altitude that the H-K experiment confirmed were present.

 

Nowadays we have two-way satellite time transfer and (over shorter distances, currently) fiber links. You could also use common-view, by both clocks simultaneously looking at a third clock they can both see, such as a GPS satellite, and see if they are running fast or slow relative to it.

 

All of this is done in accordance with Einstein clock synchronization protocols.

[rigney]

This claim I do not understand. One does have quantum theorises that are invariant under the Galilean or Poincare groups. The point is because they are invariant one can go back and fore between special classes of frames without any problems.

 

 

 

 

The classical propagation of light is described as you state with a classical empty vacuum. The quantum notion of a vaccine is not truly the same as the classical one. When one wants to describe the quantum theory things are more complicated.

 

Both descriptions are "true" in the sense that they both describe the physics very well within specified domains of validity. One should not really think of classical and quantum as competing ideas in the way you seem to do. I do not see contradictions here.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcyiQ5mbJ-Y&feature=related. The reasoning for this goes back a few years, but makes a lot more sense. Edited June 13, 2011 by rigney

[gravimotion]

If you wanted to compare clocks in remote locations, you did the same basic thing: synchronized a transportable clock with your master clock and go on a plane and visited the other clock, making the necessary relativistic corrections for speed and altitude that the H-K experiment confirmed were present.

 

 

OK. You convinced me!

With this method that differs from the H-K experiment in that the clocks you are comparing are not side by side, in order to verify the time dilation mathematical theory you are compelled to use these very time dilation calculations though.

My point is that if you do not verify two clocks side by side, you are no longer dealing with a direct physical comparison, and the measure is not absolutely experimental. It involves some theory.

Your point is that should the physical results match (and they will) that is all we need to prove the theory is valid.

 

Now I still think that a measure that is 100% experimental, is not possible in case of 2 clocks that are positioned respectively on the night and day sides of earth. Simply because they cannot be re-united without involving some time dilation calculations at least on one of them.

The only remaining alternative in order to perform a measure which is 100% experimental is a simultaneous comparison between the 2 clocks, for instance from high above in a satellite.

And according to Einstein book chapter 9, the fact that the events (the 2 clocks and the observer) run on differing reference systems (moving with respect to each other) prevents any "simultaneous" comparison.

I recognize that that point has no effects as far as you're concerned.

But it is important to me!

 

The idea behind gravimotion is to explain things through physical phenomenon. And the building block chosen to explain things is motion.

It turns out that Einstein discoveries and theories allow me to explain physically (that is using motion as a building block) our human concept of time and its dilation.

 

Gravimotion is not physics, yet would not exist without physics.

I remember when at school and learning about the inertia law, that is from the very beginning of my own learning (about physics) and thinking, that I have always been convinced that uniform motion occurs through motion and not through inertia.

By the way should the scientists at CERN discover the Higgs bozon or field, they would prove that mass and maybe inertia do exist and then gravimotion is history!

Gravimotion rests on motion, and that mandates that inert mass, or inertia and mass do not exist in gravimotion.

And I have to thank you for your comments about my alleged temperature dilation. I just removed that item from my gravimotion predictions page.

 

This claim I do not understand. One does have quantum theorises that are invariant under the Galilean or Poincare groups. The point is because they are invariant one can go back and fore between special classes of frames without any problems.

 

The bare truth is that the concept of position is essential in relativity.

The bare truth is that the concept of position totally fades away in quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics a subatomic particle has no position. The more restricted is the average position of a particle the higher its motion (the less it has a position).

By the way, the concept of position, which is related to reference system, is banned from beginning in gravimotion. Because the reality of motion, in which (our alleged concept of) time is lasting by a finite amount and in which (our concept of space) is stretched, that reality of motion forbids any position.

Without going in such details as the concept of position, please admit the fact that quantum and relativity theories are at odds with each other. Actually that is a major problem that physicists themselves recognize that has to be dealt with.

As far as I am concerned both describe Nature in an exquisite way!

But please recognize that you are indulgent with physics theories, when you mention there are no "problems" there!

 

 

Both descriptions are "true" in the sense that they both describe the physics very well within specified domains of validity. One should not really think of classical and quantum as competing ideas in the way you seem to do. I do not see contradictions here.

 

I do not see relativity and quantum as competing either.

I just say what I read every where and that is that they are incompatible.

You see no contradictions. I say you're indulgent in saying so.

Edited June 14, 2011 by gravimotion

[swansont]

OK. You convinced me!

With this method that differs from the H-K experiment in that the clocks you are comparing are not side by side, in order to verify the time dilation mathematical theory you are compelled to use these very time dilation calculations though.

My point is that if you do not verify two clocks side by side, you are no longer dealing with a direct physical comparison, and the measure is not absolutely experimental. It involves some theory.

Your point is that should the physical results match (and they will) that is all we need to prove the theory is valid.

 

Now I still think that a measure that is 100% experimental, is not possible in case of 2 clocks that are positioned respectively on the night and day sides of earth. Simply because they cannot be re-united without involving some time dilation calculations at least on one of them.

The only remaining alternative in order to perform a measure which is 100% experimental is a simultaneous comparison between the 2 clocks, for instance from high above in a satellite.

And according to Einstein book chapter 9, the fact that the events (the 2 clocks and the observer) run on differing reference systems (moving with respect to each other) prevents any "simultaneous" comparison.

I recognize that that point has no effects as far as you're concerned.

But it is important to me!

 

 

The clock-travel technique suffers from that shortcoming, but not a two-way signal experiment. The signal path is retraced, so there will be no net effect from any kind of outside influence (which is why you do it this way), i.e. there are no relativistic corrections that need to be made.

 

A common-view experiment could probably also be done without such corrections.

[gravimotion]

The clock-travel technique suffers from that shortcoming, but not a two-way signal experiment. The signal path is retraced, so there will be no net effect from any kind of outside influence (which is why you do it this way), i.e. there are no relativistic corrections that need to be made.

 

A common-view experiment could probably also be done without such corrections.

 

 

Intuitively I would think too.

But think. The intention is to measure the time dilation that occurs between 2 clocks which are moving with respect to each other. And the 2 readings have to occur at the same time (if I may express myself that way) that is the 2 readings have to occur together (even if those readings are subsequently compared through a compensated delay) or the 2 readings have to be made at a same instantaneous simultaneous instant.

Consider that you are physically on one side of the two-way signal experiment and I am on the other side.

You are now comparing the signal received, which coincides to a measure that has been done in the past, to the local reading that occurs now. Same for me.

So both of us have to apply some kind of calculations to rectify for the (common) delay that the signals introduced on their way.

 

So this is why, if one (like me) wants to make a purely experimental measure one has to observe the 2 clocks simultaneously.

And even if one places oneself on a satellite precisely in the middle of the 2 clocks (as in chapter 8 of Einstein) because the 3 events are not running in the same reference system (they are moving with respect to each other) the "simultaneity" of the measure is no longer valid, according to Einstein chapter 9.

 

May be you will find out that my reasoning could further be questioned ...

Because there is a flaw (I think) in my reasoning but I let you find it...

All this to say that your comment "a common-view experiment could probably be done" might just be true after all!

 

This specific debate reminds me the famous Michelson Morley experiment in the 1890's which (allegedly) proves beyond any doubt that light travels in an absolutely empty space.

If you study the details of the "theory", which in physics justifies the final conclusion in the name of the "experiment", you find out that there is a breakdown in the "procedure" used. The theory coinciding to the experiment starts with calculations but then ends with an empirical, in the sense of hypothetical or intuitive and non mathematical, statement.

 

All in all extracting the pure logic that is no doubt hidden within physics mathematics is not evident.

 

I am surprised you did not fire at me about my stand on the inertia law...

And I thank you for it.

I really thought that would be used to dismiss me from this forum, as I have been kicked out of many other for much less!

[ajb]

The bare truth is that the concept of position is essential in relativity.

 

Relativity, both Einsteinian and Galilean do indeed require the notion of position. By position we mean a choice of coordinates?

 

 

The bare truth is that the concept of position totally fades away in quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics a subatomic particle has no position. The more restricted is the average position of a particle the higher its motion (the less it has a position).

 

This is not true. What is true is the position of a particle is now described probabilistically and in terms of expectation values. One has to worry about the uncertainty principle for sure, but we do not lose the notion of where a particle is completely. In essence the wave function attaches a probability of finding the particle at a given point to every point in space. This seems very different to the classical case for sure.

 

By the way, the concept of position, which is related to reference system...

 

Sure, and the notion of coordinates is also fundamental in quantum mechanics.

 

 

But please recognize that you are indulgent with physics theories, when you mention there are no "problems" there!

 

Not the problems that you are suggesting.

 

 

I just say what I read every where and that is that they are incompatible.

 

It depends on what you mean by relativity and quantum physics being incompatible.

 

 

On flat space-times one can formulate quantum field theories that respect Poincare invariance. Really these are very special theories for some very technical reasons.

 

On curved space-times that are globally hyperbolic one too can formulate quantum field theories. Issues relating to renormalisation are not as well settled as on Minkowski space-time, but still. On more general space-times things are more complicated, but an algebraic approach helps here.

 

Now by incompatible you mean we have no well-defined quantum theory of gravity? If so, then I agree.

[gravimotion]

Now by incompatible you mean we have no well-defined quantum theory of gravity? If so, then I agree.

 

 

 

 

OK At least we agree on one point!

Let us dig on that point we agree on...

Boltzmann is at the origin of the entropy law.

Through Planck who was the first to seriously use the concept, and through many many more highly gifted scientists the entropy law became the foundation of the quantum theory.

Boltzmann based his entropy law on the chaotic motion of the molecules which are confined within an isolated body. And that isolated body situation is essential to the law, it has since been in force in all situations that involve the theory. The universe taken as a whole is considered an isolated body and as such must obey the entropy law.

Now please notice the very simple fact that has nevertheless never been mentioned by a single physicist that Boltzmann forgot to include gravity in his original design of isolated body!

So now the universe that is supposed to follow the entropy law, is supposed to do it without that fundamental phenomenon that is gravity and that is nevertheless definitely part of its own system!

The origin of that lack of "well defined quantum theory of gravity" is actually right there in the very foundation of the quantum theory.

I have always been appalled by the fact that theorists scientists are wondering about that "theoretical problem" when there is such an evident "theoretical reason" to that problem!

And to tell you the truth, it is the first time I write about that "theoretical reason", even though I had the idea to do it for a long time...

That last comment is really to thank you for giving me the opportunity to express ideas that are on the back burner...

Edited June 16, 2011 by gravimotion

[ajb]

Through Planck who was the first to seriously use the concept, and through many many more highly gifted scientists the entropy law became the foundation of the quantum theory.

 

Can you explain what you mean by this? For sure one can talk about entropy for a collection of "quantum particles". Thermodynamics and quantum theory have aspects that have crossed over. For example the partition function of statistical mechanics and the generating functional of QFT are very similar. Phase transitions are also something they both have in common.

 

 

The universe taken as a whole is considered an isolated body and as such must obey the entropy law.

 

I think it is generally believed the Universe obeys thermodynamics, so ok.

 

Now please notice the very simple fact that has nevertheless never been mentioned by a single physicist that Boltzmann forgot to include gravity in his original design of isolated body!

 

Well Boltzmann was not thinking about gravitational physics in this context, so we will forgive him.

 

So now the universe that is supposed to follow the entropy law, is supposed to do it without that fundamental phenomenon that is gravity and that is nevertheless definitely part of its own system!

The origin of that lack of "well defined quantum theory of gravity" is actually right there in the very foundation of the quantum theory.

 

There is a link between black holes and entropy first uncovered by Bekenstein. It is suspected that this relation is deeper and maybe a feature of quantum gravity. One would like to relate the macroscopic entropy with microscopic thermodynamics of states. In the setting of black holes these states were quite elusive and the answer is found in string theory or loop quantum gravity. Both approaches reproduce Hawking's results. This is an active area of research.

 

In short, you maybe right; there seems to be a link between entropy and foundational issues of quantum theory.