Are string theorists already trying to hijack the OPERA neutrino experiment?

[Myuncle]

String theory really has little if anything to do with all of this — you have not mentioned how string theorists have attempted to hijack anything related to the OPERA experiment, and string theory is barely mentioned at all in the discussion. What has been said is "Time doesn't exist, it's not a dimension at all, only movement exists in reality." which, in combination with the rest of the OP, does actually sound a lot like "relativity sucks". But that doesn't really matter — if you want to build a theory on this and show it to be so, go for it. Show what the implications are and how this concept can be tested.

 

But if you say you aren't trying to formulate a theory, then I say that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah to announce all of this while simultaneously being ignorant of the science and the evidence supporting it. I'm not sure why the burden of showing this is upon me and why you take none upon yourself. It's doubly confusing that from this position of ignorance you can make a decision that a theory is wrong.

 

People in this thread (including me) have tried to draw you out, asking questions and giving examples that show how your position is untenable, but you have dodged those questions thus far and now accuse me of not providing you with any proof. But you can't even come up with a consistent position to address — in one post you say time doesn't exist, and then you admit that the coordinate exists but is only due to motion. The latter contradicts the former. So, which position are you taking?

 

———

BTW, my role as a moderator is to enforce the rules. My role as a scientist is to explain science. Both of those roles involve asking for evidence to support claims. I "defend" mainstream science because of the enormous weight of evidence that supports it. I "defend" science in general because it has shown itself to be the best way to explain how nature behaves.

 

 

I gave my explanation on post #6, I copy and paste so you can't ignore it or pretend to ignore it:

"When I say time doesn't exist, I mean only as a dimension, I have no doubt that time exists as human idea, it's a very useful one, just like all math is based on the idea that something can be identical to something, but in reality we have never found two things identical to each other. Both the idea of time and math are very useful for us humans, by agreeing on these concepts we make our lives much more comfortable. Time exists only in our mind but not in reality. "Time" it's just another convenient practical idea and convenient agreement (exactly like the concept that in math every "unity" is identical to another unity), but this is just in our mind, not in reality. Time is a measurement of movement and chemical change, is nothing more than a tool created by men to keep track of movements/changes, to describe the passing of events. Time is essentially nothing (apart from being a human idea). You cannot add, subtract, slow, or speed up time. That's why I see no substance in Relativity theory. Of course I have the maximum respect for Einstein, initially he made a brilliant discovery by proving the light bending effect during the eclipse. After this amazing discovery all the media hype for Einstein began, and the Relativity is a result of that media hype, we are still clapping our hands for a theory without substance.

Regarding the clock on the satellite, the reason that happens is again not because of time but because gravity distorts the fabric of space. You would be right absolutely if you just mention gravity and keep the fabric of time away. If we see the stars in the sky 100 light years away from us, does it mean that time is running slower for these stars only because we can see only their 100 years old light? No.

And, again, imatfaal, I am not putting the cart in front of the horse, I just want to be shown some substance from the theoretical physics."

This is my clarification, no numbers, no useless equations are needed. I don't want the "burden" of proving time=clock to fall on you, it can be anyone to prove this of course. I ask again: how can you prove that time is slowing down for a satellite only because its clock it's running faster?

I haven't dodged any question, I hope you (or anybody) don't feel like a fish out of water only because I didn't provide any useless equation. I am not good with math, if you ask me 6x8 I don't even remember, I need the calculator for that. But at least I made the effort to explain what time is. I am still waiting for any proof from anyone, feel free to dodge it, that's what happened for so many years after all, nothing new. I love science, but I am very disappointed by big part of theoretical phisycs and their brainwashing approach.

[Ophiolite]

You are the one proposing a non-standard idea. The burden of proof, or at least of counter evidence, lies with you. If you do not wish to provide that evidence, or a more comprehensive reasoned argument, I for one an quite happy to let you wallow in an ignorance of your own choosing.

[Iggy]

I ask again: how can you prove that time is slowing down for a satellite only because its clock it's running faster?

Read the first sentence of wikipedia -- Time in physics. That is the scientific definition of time. Time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock measures.

 

Your question then... clocks in orbit run at a different rate from identical clocks on the ground. How does that prove that time is lengthened on the ground relative to orbit? Clocks measure time by definition. Think about it.

[swansont]

I gave my explanation on post #6, I copy and paste so you can't ignore it or pretend to ignore it:

 

OK, I'll quote the response I gave to that post, so you can't continue to pretend that I did ignore it.

 

"Length is a concept, too, but for some reason nobody has a problem with length being "real". Similarly for a lot of physics. The concepts are useful. Isn't that enough? "

 

"When I say time doesn't exist, I mean only as a dimension, I have no doubt that time exists as human idea, it's a very useful one, just like all math is based on the idea that something can be identical to something, but in reality we have never found two things identical to each other. Both the idea of time and math are very useful for us humans, by agreeing on these concepts we make our lives much more comfortable. Time exists only in our mind but not in reality. "Time" it's just another convenient practical idea and convenient agreement (exactly like the concept that in math every "unity" is identical to another unity), but this is just in our mind, not in reality. Time is a measurement of movement and chemical change, is nothing more than a tool created by men to keep track of movements/changes, to describe the passing of events. Time is essentially nothing (apart from being a human idea). You cannot add, subtract, slow, or speed up time. That's why I see no substance in Relativity theory. Of course I have the maximum respect for Einstein, initially he made a brilliant discovery by proving the light bending effect during the eclipse. After this amazing discovery all the media hype for Einstein began, and the Relativity is a result of that media hype, we are still clapping our hands for a theory without substance.

Regarding the clock on the satellite, the reason that happens is again not because of time but because gravity distorts the fabric of space. You would be right absolutely if you just mention gravity and keep the fabric of time away. If we see the stars in the sky 100 light years away from us, does it mean that time is running slower for these stars only because we can see only their 100 years old light? No.

OK, now go through that and substitute "length" for "time". The statements have equal merit.

 

What does it mean for something to "exist in reality"?

 

I can't add time? Waiting for one minute and waiting for two minutes is somehow indistinguishable?

 

Media hype? You don't build experiments and entire industries on media hype. The success of physics is neither an illusion nor an accident. The success of GPS, of high-speed data transfer, and spread spectrum communication security didn't happen because the designers got lucky.

[Myuncle]

thanks, as I expected, no shred of proof or evidence from a standard theory at all. Clock is speeding up therefore time is slowing down. Let's go back to Ionesco... "All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat".

[Iggy]

"All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat".

No, "Felix is a cat. All cats die. Felix dies."

 

What part of post 53 confused you the most?

[questionposter]

thanks, as I expected, no shred of proof or evidence from a standard theory at all. Clock is speeding up therefore time is slowing down. Let's go back to Ionesco... "All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat".

 

Clocks measure time, clocks speed up, therefore the difference between the clock's speed and speed of time's flow must be less.

Edited October 30, 2011 by questionposter

[Iggy]

+1 (i think) on the sentiment, but perhaps better worded: clocks measure time. Identical clocks making different measurements necessitates a difference in time.

 

Time in science is literally defined as "that which clocks measure". If someone reads that and is left thinking that changes between the measurements of identical clocks proves nothing about changes in time then they are... well.. I don't want to insult.

 

 

Relativity suggests, at most, that time is usefully represented as a dimension. Einstein himself defined time as: "The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event[1]"

 

To say that time *is* a dimension would be metaphysical. Science doesn't swim in that shit, and any attempt at attributing that kind of thing to science is spotted straight away for the strawman that it is.

 

Does this not make sense?

Edited October 30, 2011 by Iggy

[swansont]

thanks, as I expected, no shred of proof or evidence from a standard theory at all. Clock is speeding up therefore time is slowing down. Let's go back to Ionesco... "All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat".

 

Thanks, as I expected, you did not clarify your position, so I can't answer your question without being sure of not getting a "gotcha" response. But here goes:

 

In physics, time is a dimension and you can solve problems with it as part of an orthonormal coordinate system. The speed of light is an invariant, both in electrodynamic theory and by observation. Using that as a postulate, along with physics following the same rules in all inertial reference frames, you can analyze the travel of a photon along a path. Observers in different frames will see a different path length for the photon as it makes a reflection, but since the speed of light is constant the length of travel and elapsed time in the two frames cannot agree.

 

No clock mechanism, no mechanical or electrical effects at all.

 

Now, since c is an invariant, you could call a photon bouncing between mirrors a clock, since it fits all of the requirements. So people call this a light clock. But the effect has nothing to do with any faulty parts or environmental effects.

http://Galileo.phys.Virginia.EDU/classes/109N/lectures/srelwhat.html

 

That's the prediction. And it is confirmed by a number of experiments — muon decay, relativistic atomic theory matching observation, and thousands (if not millions) of atomic clock comparisons, among others.

[Myuncle]

Still not addressing my question. Anyway I wasn't expecting any clever answer, just the same old parroting of the lesson. So I just invite you to think with your head not with the head of someone else. Whether you reject my invitation or not it's another story, at least I tried, and my conscience is clear.

[uncool]

Still not addressing my question. Anyway I wasn't expecting any clever answer, just the same old parroting of the lesson. So I just invite you to think with your head not with the head of someone else. Whether you reject my invitation or not it's another story, at least I tried, and my conscience is clear.

And all of us are inviting you to actually answer any of the responses in this thread, which you have consistently refused. Whether you reject our invitation or not is another story; at least we tried, and our conscience is clear. Your "ideas" will get nowhere until you actually sit down and think about what other people are saying.

=Uncool-

[Iggy]

In physics, time is a dimension...

Do you mean in all of physics... which is to say, in every mainstream theory time is represented as a dimension?

[Daedalus]

Still not addressing my question. Anyway I wasn't expecting any clever answer, just the same old parroting of the lesson. So I just invite you to think with your head not with the head of someone else. Whether you reject my invitation or not it's another story, at least I tried, and my conscience is clear.

Myuncle, it seems to me that you are getting wrapped up in the semantics of relativity. My idea on what time is may not be what is accepted by mainstream science. But... just because speed and gravity affects a clock's measurement of time, does not necessarily mean that "time", whatever it may actually be, is truly slowing down or speeding up. It simply states that our measurements of time are affected by these things due to the constancy of the speed of light, which in turn affects our physical nature and our perception of reality. Just because GPS satellites have a higher speed which affects their clock does not mean that the satellites are moving towards the future faster than we are and therefore measure a shorter time. It's not the same as a car that moves outside of your view because it is moving faster or slower and arrives at a destination sooner or later. In other words, the GPS satellites remain observable and do not disappear from our view leaving us behind while racing into the future.

 

Even though relativity describes completely different phenomena, you can compare its effects similar to how temperature affects a measuring rod which will either contract or expand the rod. This changing of the rod's length due to temperature not only affects your measurements, but also affects any calculations of area, volume, speed, etc..., that you derive using those measurements. The greater the temperature differences between two identical rods, the greater the difference in measurements obtained by each rod. Your measurements and calculations are "relative" to your measuring rod. If we both have identical rods, I could use an equation that takes into consideration the temperature of both rods and derive the values you would measure by converting the measurements of my rod using the equation. The difference between relativity and this analogy is that, according to relativity, we would actually perceive a difference in time and space. In the above analogy, the difference in the measurements are due to temperature's effect on the rods and not that of perception.

 

When I say time doesn't exist, I mean only as a dimension, I have no doubt that time exists as human idea, it's a very useful one, just like all math is based on the idea that something can be identical to something, but in reality we have never found two things identical to each other. Both the idea of time and math are very useful for us humans, by agreeing on these concepts we make our lives much more comfortable. Time exists only in our mind but not in reality.

Just because we have invented clocks to measure time does not mean that the actual phenomenon of time is just an idea that we invented to facilitate our needs. My theory of Temporal Uniformity describes time as motion through a fourth spatial dimension. It doesn't mean that I am correct, but I try to back up my claims with either evidence or mathematical reasoning instead of just stating that time is as I say it is.

 

I ask again: how can you prove that time is slowing down for a satellite only because its clock it's running faster?

The proof that you seek is as swansont has stated:

 

... it is confirmed by a number of experiments — muon decay, relativistic atomic theory matching observation, and thousands (if not millions) of atomic clock comparisons, among others.

However, as I have stated above, it is up to one's interpretation of perception to whether or not the phenomenon of time speeds up or slows down due to speed or gravity.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Daedalus

[Iggy]

My idea on what time is may not be what is accepted by mainstream science. But... just because speed and gravity affects a clock's measurement of time, does not necessarily mean that "time", whatever it may actually be, is truly slowing down or speeding up.

Right, this is my point to MyUncle as well.

 

If time is defined as "grape jam" then GPS clocks don't necessarily prove that time gets lengthened. Until time gets defined, we really don't know.

 

In science time is defined as "that which gets measured by a clock". In that light, GPS (as well as Hafele - Keating and similar experiments) proves unequivocally that time dilates with gravitational potential and velocity. There is no room for interpretation because the definition is entierly empirical and non-metaphysical.

[swansont]

Right, this is my point to MyUncle as well.

 

If time is defined as "grape jam" then GPS clocks don't necessarily prove that time gets lengthened. Until time gets defined, we really don't know.

 

In science time is defined as "that which gets measured by a clock". In that light, GPS (as well as Hafele - Keating and similar experiments) proves unequivocally that time dilates with gravitational potential and velocity. There is no room for interpretation because the definition is entierly empirical and non-metaphysical.

 

I would add that this, like all measurements, does not include any loophole to include flawed measurements. e.g. using an example of a clock running fast or slow because of a temperature change, but which would vary with clocks of differing design and/or construction — this is after all of those effects have been mitigated.

[michel123456]

A fast-moving truck can be at the same coordinates as you. I worry that a truck and I will be at the same coordinates simultaneously, which makes time a very real concern for me. How do you distinguish the situations without a fourth orthonormal coordinate?

 

I was wondering on your comment.

An then I made the following thought: why is the fourth coordinate called "time"? If the fourth coordinate was a spatial one, what would be the difference?

The truck at coordinates W,x,y,z will crash you if you are at the same W,x,y,z coordinates, but if you are at a different spatial coordinate W2,x,y,z, the truck will not crash upon you (I put intentionaly W instead of T).

 

Then I thought the only difference between x,y,z and W would be the arrow of time: W coordinates are always changing, always growing, in such a way that you cannot go back twice to the same coordinates.

 

But that does not make this fourth coordinate "unreal". It makes the W coordinate more real than anything else: it represents something that is happening very deep in our essence as material objects.

 

So I agree with Swansont. On this point.

 

BUT if "time is slowing" in some circumstances, one could tell what is the regular speed of time ?

Edited November 1, 2011 by michel123456

[Iggy]

I would add that this, like all measurements, does not include any loophole to include flawed measurements. e.g. using an example of a clock running fast or slow because of a temperature change, but which would vary with clocks of differing design and/or construction — this is after all of those effects have been mitigated.

Agree completely.

 

I was wondering on your comment.

An then I made the following thought: why is the fourth coordinate called "time"? If the fourth coordinate was a spatial one, what would be the difference? ...arrow of time...

The arrow of time is certainly something. We can move left or right without trouble. We (whatever we are) are limited with respect to time.

 

Two events that have quite a lot of time between them but hardly any space can have a causal relationship. Events that have a lot o space between them and next-to-no time can't have a causal relationship between them. Space and time are different in that respect.

 

A space-time metric goes something like + x^s2 + y² + z² - t² = s^s. If you look at the sign (+ or -) in front of the spatial dimensions you'll see that it is different from the sign in front of the temporal dimension.

 

Also, time is different because you measure it with a clock and measure space with a ruler or rod.

[Daedalus]

I would add that this, like all measurements, does not include any loophole to include flawed measurements. e.g. using an example of a clock running fast or slow because of a temperature change, but which would vary with clocks of differing design and/or construction — this is after all of those effects have been mitigated.

 

Agreed. Which is why I pointed out the difference between relativity and clocks vs. the effect temperature has on a measuring rod. Relativity shows us that time dilation and length contraction is not based on flaws in the devices used to measure the phenomena, but an actuality of nature which affects our perception of reality.

[swansont]

Agreed. Which is why I pointed out the difference between relativity and clocks vs. the effect temperature has on a measuring rod. Relativity shows us that time dilation and length contraction is not based on flaws in the devices used to measure the phenomena, but an actuality of nature which affects our perception of reality.

 

Yes. This is something that escapes many criticizers of relativity.

 

I was wondering on your comment.

An then I made the following thought: why is the fourth coordinate called "time"? If the fourth coordinate was a spatial one, what would be the difference?

The truck at coordinates W,x,y,z will crash you if you are at the same W,x,y,z coordinates, but if you are at a different spatial coordinate W2,x,y,z, the truck will not crash upon you (I put intentionaly W instead of T).

 

Then I thought the only difference between x,y,z and W would be the arrow of time: W coordinates are always changing, always growing, in such a way that you cannot go back twice to the same coordinates.

 

But that does not make this fourth coordinate "unreal". It makes the W coordinate more real than anything else: it represents something that is happening very deep in our essence as material objects.

 

So I agree with Swansont. On this point.

 

BUT if "time is slowing" in some circumstances, one could tell what is the regular speed of time ?

 

It doesn't matter which coordinate is different, but we see that merely having the same spatial coordinates is not enough to ensure a collision. So I would say time is as real (or unreal) as the spatial dimensions.

[owl]

Since this has become another 'what is time?' thread, I would again like to raise the ontological question which the physics standard definition, "Time is that which clocks measure..." does not answer.

 

By the same principle we could validate the existence of "the human aura" as "that which 'aura-meters' measure," but that is just another tautology which does not in fact validate the "human aura."

 

I think that Justinw nailed it in on 28 October 2011 - 09:47 AM, (post 29):

It's not like a clock is a time detector. So would it be fair to say that motion is the reality and time is man made?

My bold!

I think so. Time is the concept that motion (everything moves) 'takes time', not that it creates something called time or, as above "detects" time.

The faster one thing moves relative to another thing, the more its rate of internal system dynamics slows down relative to the slower moving system.

 

This echos, I think, what michel123456 said:

BUT if "time is slowing" in some circumstances, one could tell what is the regular speed of time ?

...

 

except that there is no standard time speed, just faster and slower physical processes relative to each other, depending (for the relativity effect) on relative velocity of each system, gravitational field of each physical system, etc.

 

To revisit 'another time, another thread, another thought experiment'...

It takes Earth 'a year' to orbit the Sun. But if a rocket blasted off from Earth and went near lightspeed out for an Earth year and back for another Earth year, the rocket's clock/calendar might show that only one 'speeding rocket year' had elapsed, because its clock had slowed down with high velocity relative to Earth. The voyagers would have, I presume, only aged a year as well, while folks on Earth would have aged two Earth years.

This is, I think, consistent with relativity without making "time itself" into "something" besides different relative rates of physical motion for Earth and its inhabitants vs a speeding rocket and its passengers.

[Myuncle]

Myuncle, it seems to me that you are getting wrapped up in the semantics of relativity.

 

 

If It's just semantics, I would agree with you, but at the same time semantics here is very important. After so many years there is too much confusion over what Einstein means when he talks about time as a dimension and slowing down of the time. It looks like the Relativity supporters give a different interpretation, most of them say time is slowing down for real, some of them say the opposite, there is too much confusion, it sounds like a theory without coherence and clarity. If the clocks on a satellite are running faster because of gravity, and there is no slowing down of time then ask you: what's the big deal of relativity? We are going back to Newton then, and that would be better, because his theory is holding up very well even after centuries, and it doesn't give any space to misinterpretation.

If the supporters themselves are so confused there must be a strong problem with relativity itself. In science time is defined as "that which gets measured by a clock", it doesn't make sense at all (it would make sense only in a human social way of speaking, but not in a physics context). It would be more precise to define time as a human concept used to keep track of the atoms and subatomic particles movement in their sequence and progression, that would solve a lot of complications. If all physics including relativity supporters would agree on this definition of time there wouldn't be any space for misinterpretation, nobody would disagree on semantics, and the anti-relativity threads would disappear. But in this case, if relativity is without a sensational fourth dimension, it wouldn' be trendy at all, and it would be ignored. It looks like, now, even four dimensions are not enough, it's not trendy enough and you are not going to sell any books with four dimensions, the more dimensions you add the "cooler" you become. That's why I would like to see some clarity, not about Einstein (he was a genius anyway just for the light bending discovery), but about Relativity.

Edited November 1, 2011 by Myuncle

[pantheory]

If It's just semantics, I would agree with you, but at the same time semantics here is very important. After so many years there is too much confusion over what Einstein means when he talks about time as a dimension and slowing down of the time. It looks like the Relativity supporters give a different interpretation, most of them say time is slowing down for real....

I believe I understand your point but also think that semantic problems are an unnecessary part of this as well as many threads. When relativists say that time slows down in a moving time frame relative to a gravitational field, what they mean is that from the perspective of those in that time frame that time, and a clock in that time frame, would be running at a slower rate than for those in a non-moving time frame relative to that same field. Einstein's point and maths relate to no preferred time frame. As an example, the rates that clocks run here on Earth is a little slower than if you went out to the distance of the moon, for instance. The implication is that you can set up any time frames that you want as being preferred, such as Earth meantime, solar meantime, Milky Way meantime, etc. Einstein's contention was that there is no absolute time frame, that the frame of reference concerning time is a matter of choice or perspective.

 

It would be more precise to define time as a human concept used to keep track of the atoms and subatomic particles movement in their sequence and progression

I think you are missing something at the end of your definition. Instead you might define time by saying: time is a human concept which is used to keep track of atoms, subatomic particles, other subatomic particles, and other movement in their sequences and progressions, concerning any particular measured or conceptualized time frames. Time frames can be defined by there relative motion to a particular gravitational field(s).

 

By using this definition of time I think you would get much more agreement for your proposal and definition. There will still be many that will not agree upon this definition either since in quantum physics today, time becomes a much more complicated animal. Some theorists even believe that time is such a complicated subject that it might take decades or even a century before we might come up with a "modern theory of it." I think you are arguing against the modern physics which make such proposals

..

Edited November 2, 2011 by pantheory

[Phi for All]

Since this has become another 'what is time?' thread, I would again like to raise the ontological question which the physics standard definition, "Time is that which clocks measure..." does not answer.

!

Moderator Note

Please, no. This thread was not meant to be ontological in nature, let's not go there. Please stay on topic to keep this thread in the proper section.

[Myuncle]

When relativists say that time slows down in a moving time frame relative to a gravitational field, what they mean is that from the perspective of those in that time frame that time, and a clock in that time frame, would be running at a slower rate than for those in a non-moving time frame relative to that same field.

 

I have no problems if you put it this way, but:

1) most relativists will argue that not just clock is speeding up, but time is slowing down for real, and time travel is even possible.

2) You are violating relativity at its core, you are just going back to Newton: clock is speeding up just because of gravity.

[JustinW]

Couldn't time be a constant and gravity just affects the mechanism or substance that is being measured, because gravity affects anything with mass? And, if gravity affects time then wouldn't time itself have mass? If not, then time is a steady constant and everything else is affected. Right?