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

[Myuncle]

This seems contradictory. "You can draw the coordinate" implies that the dimension exists. You state without proof or evidence that the length dimensions are "real", but that time is not, and have yet to address the points I brought up. All we have so far is assertions.

 

 

 

 

I don't know. Do you have formulas which quantify it? Can you show the orthonormality of love to some other dimension? Does it have a commutation relation?

 

You can quantify love with a formula, the problem is that too many people would struggle with it, too many people would disagree on this. It's easy to agree on a formula regarding time because it's based on atoms moving under the eyes of everyone: the spinning of our planet is easy to agree on. Love it's based on atoms moving inside our nervous system, and nobody can see them or quantify them, so it's impossible to agree on them.

[swansont]

Still not addressing the points I brought up, I see.

[John Cuthber]

Still not addressing the points I brought up, I see.

 

To be fair, he can only answer them after you ask them and, since he doesn't believe in time, he doesn't know what "after" means.

Perhaps he will answer the questions I asked yesterday at Easter.

[JustinW]

Would time possibly just be a persons perseption of motion? I've seen a study that was trying to link time perseption in the brain to schytsophrinia. Also told a story of a person who seemed to slow down in time and the world around him was moving impossibly faster than he was. He subsequentially died of a brain tumor sometime later. I also never liked the clock analigy. I've heard people say that the higher the altitude, the slower the clock would tick. I assumed the clock would still be powered by the same battery. 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?

 

 

[Myuncle]

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?

 

It's not just fair, but it's evidence. Saying that time is slowing down for a satellite it's like saying that if we live longer with cell stems therapy then time is slowing down. Is like saying that if you put your food in the fridge time is slowing down because the rotting is slower.

This just reminds the silly syllogism of a Ionesco’s play: "All cats die. Socrates is dead. Therefore Socrates is a cat".

[swansont]

It's not just fair, but it's evidence. Saying that time is slowing down for a satellite it's like saying that if we live longer with cell stems therapy then time is slowing down. Is like saying that if you put your food in the fridge time is slowing down because the rotting is slower.

 

No, actually, it's not at all like that. It's OK to have objections to a theory — that can be discussed — but it's not OK to have objections to a straw man version of a theory.

[owl]

No, actually, it's not at all like that. It's OK to have objections to a theory — that can be discussed — but it's not OK to have objections to a straw man version of a theory.

Swansont's version of a debate: "No, actually, it's not at all like that."

(You are wrong and I am right.) Your objections are "strawman" arguments. Period. No specifics as to how your argument is invalid. Just, 'strawman, strawman!'

I know. I have been accused of the same. This may get me kicked out, as Swansont is packing "iron" to blow me out of here, quite the forum bully. I'd like to see scientific dialogue prevail here without the heavy handed "mainstream must not be questioned" tactics enforced by Swansont.

[Iggy]

The useful fourth coordinate that we call "time" is possible only thanks to atoms movement, and not vice versa.

What is 'an amount of movement'? Or, 'the amount of an atom's movement'.

 

If movement is real then we should be able to define what an amount of it means... like how an amount of distance, volume, mass, or momentum can be defined, measured, and compared.

 

Can you define what an amount of movement is and give a couple numerical examples so that your idea might be better understood?

 

Thank you.

[swansont]

Swansont's version of a debate: "No, actually, it's not at all like that."

(You are wrong and I am right.) Your objections are "strawman" arguments. Period. No specifics as to how your argument is invalid. Just, 'strawman, strawman!'

I know. I have been accused of the same. This may get me kicked out, as Swansont is packing "iron" to blow me out of here, quite the forum bully. I'd like to see scientific dialogue prevail here without the heavy handed "mainstream must not be questioned" tactics enforced by Swansont.

Ironic to have an accusation of heavy handed "mainstream must not be questioned" tactics in response to a post where I said "It's OK to have objections to a theory — that can be discussed"

 

When you misrepresent what a theory (or person) says and then use that to dismiss the theory, that is a straw man argument. That's the definition of a straw man argument. Making a straw man stems from either being unfamiliar with/misunderstanding the theory, or from lying. If the former, the question is whether you want to learn the actual theory before objecting to it. If not, or it's the latter, then one is being intellectually dishonest, and debate is not worthwhile — there can be no scientific dialogue.

[Myuncle]

What is 'an amount of movement'? Or, 'the amount of an atom's movement'.

 

If movement is real then we should be able to define what an amount of it means... like how an amount of distance, volume, mass, or momentum can be defined, measured, and compared.

 

Can you define what an amount of movement is and give a couple numerical examples so that your idea might be better understood?

 

Thank you.

 

 

I am a layperson, I am not your teacher nor a scientist and you will find so many books and people to explain the subject much better than me, but as a layperson I can encourage you not to be brainwashed by the media or professionals who play the "it's too difficult for you to understand" card, and they end up clapping their hands for a theory, without understanding even the most simple things. I agree with Newton's Three Laws of Motion. That doesn't mean I am a sucker for the relative motion, and of course I am not so gullible to believe that time is a dimension or can be slowed down only because you can measure it with a clock.

Anyway no matter how good is your clock, it can be an hourglass or an atomic clock, it will never be perfect. You know you can measure a distance covered over a period of time with a clock. You can measure the distance with a ruler or an odometer, the speed with a speedometer, the velocity and direction witha vector. I just hope you are not going to answer me that since you can use the clock therefore time is a dimension and can be slowed down. You can measure gravity, is gravity a dimension?

[Iggy]

Can you define what an amount of movement is and give a couple numerical examples so that your idea might be better understood?

 

Thank you.

 

I am a layperson, I am not your teacher nor a scientist and you will find so many books and people to explain the subject much better than me, but as a layperson I can encourage you not to be brainwashed by the media or professionals who play the "it's too difficult for you to understand" card, and they end up clapping their hands for a theory, without understanding even the most simple things.

Wow!

 

I thought you might explain what you meant by motion and time. I didn't expect you to be ranting and pulling your hair out. That was really something.

 

I hear Lewis Black's voice when I read your post now.

 

You know you can measure a distance covered over a period of time with a clock. You can measure the distance with a ruler or an odometer, the speed with a speedometer, the velocity and direction witha vector.

Ok, my understanding was that you believe motion is real and a fundamental property of the universe while time is neither.

 

You explain how to measure "distance covered over a period of time", "speed" (although I think the former is somewhat of a definition of the latter), and "velocity". Are those things meant to be properties of motion or descriptions of motion?

 

I just hope you are not going to answer me that since you can use the clock therefore time is a dimension and can be slowed down.

no, that's a strawman. I can't imagine anyone would say anything close to that.

 

I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by 'motion' and 'time'. Can you define them well enough to give quantitative examples?

[Myuncle]

Wow!

 

I thought you might explain what you meant by motion and time. I didn't expect you to be ranting and pulling your hair out. That was really something.

 

I hear Lewis Black's voice when I read your post now.

 

 

Ok, my understanding was that you believe motion is real and a fundamental property of the universe while time is neither.

 

You explain how to measure "distance covered over a period of time", "speed" (although I think the former is somewhat of a definition of the latter), and "velocity". Are those things meant to be properties of motion or descriptions of motion?

 

 

no, that's a strawman. I can't imagine anyone would say anything close to that.

 

I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by 'motion' and 'time'. Can you define them well enough to give quantitative examples?

 

Ranting? Me? I don't see any ranting in my posts, just a polite debate. I tried to explain time throughout this thread in my own way, if it doesn't help, I can't do anything else for you.

[John Cuthber]

"I tried to explain time throughout this thread in my own way, if it doesn't help, I can't do anything else for you. "

 

Yes you can; you could answer the points that have been put to you.

Why can't you tell me next weeks lottery numbers?

[Myuncle]

"I tried to explain time throughout this thread in my own way, if it doesn't help, I can't do anything else for you. "

 

Yes you can; you could answer the points that have been put to you.

Why can't you tell me next weeks lottery numbers?

 

I don't know how atoms will move in our three dimension, most of them are unpredictable, so I can't know the next week lottery numbers. Why such a question anyway?

[Iggy]

Ranting? Me? I don't see any ranting in my posts, just a polite debate.

Do you think I'm trying to debate you?

 

I tried to explain time throughout this thread in my own way, if it doesn't help, I can't do anything else for you.

Can you point me to where you define what you mean by motion and time. If not, can you define them well enough that anyone competent would be able to read the definition and use it to measure the thing you're talking about?

[John Cuthber]

I don't know how atoms will move in our three dimension, most of them are unpredictable, so I can't know the next week lottery numbers. Why such a question anyway?

Because you can tell me last week's numbers and the only difference between them is time.

[Phi for All]

Swansont's version of a debate: "No, actually, it's not at all like that."

(You are wrong and I am right.) Your objections are "strawman" arguments. Period. No specifics as to how your argument is invalid. Just, 'strawman, strawman!'

I know. I have been accused of the same. This may get me kicked out, as Swansont is packing "iron" to blow me out of here, quite the forum bully. I'd like to see scientific dialogue prevail here without the heavy handed "mainstream must not be questioned" tactics enforced by Swansont.

!

Moderator Note

No personal attacks, please. The comment swansont made WAS based on a reply that used a strawman argument. No foul there.

 

Your attempt to conflate his avatar with a non-existent, overly aggressive stance is ludicrous. No one on staff is more fair-minded than he is. And his involvement in this discussion precludes his making staff decisions regarding it.

 

And swansont's stance, as long as I've know him, is not that mainstream theory mustn't be questioned, but rather that it must be accepted as having the most support and therefore provides the best explanation available at this time. This difference should be noteworthy.

[Myuncle]

Do you think I'm trying to debate you?

 

I don't even think about it, I just don't care.

 

Can you point me to where you define what you mean by motion and time. If not, can you define them well enough that anyone competent would be able to read the definition and use it to measure the thing you're talking about?

 

I told you already I am not here to be your teacher. I am here to debate and learn, not to teach. Take it or leave it. It's up to you.

 

Because you can tell me last week's numbers and the only difference between them is time.

 

So what? Does it mean that you can predict the movement of every atom? What's the point you are trying to make?

[owl]

Sorry about my above criticism of Swansont. It won't happen again.

 

I would like to distinguish between the concepts of time slowing down ("time dilation") and physical processes slowing down, whether the rate of clocks' "ticking" or the possible slowing down of the human aging process in high speed space travelers relative to those on Earth they left behind.

Maybe it's just semantics, but if science claims that time dilation is different than clocks and physical processes slowing down then I would like to see that distinction made clear in the interest of the ontology of time, i.e., what it is that is supposed to be 'dilating.'

[Myuncle]

Sorry about my above criticism of Swansont. It won't happen again.

 

I would like to distinguish between the concepts of time slowing down ("time dilation") and physical processes slowing down, whether the rate of clocks' "ticking" or the possible slowing down of the human aging process in high speed space travelers relative to those on Earth they left behind.

Maybe it's just semantics, but if science claims that time dilation is different than clocks and physical processes slowing down then I would like to see that distinction made clear in the interest of the ontology of time, i.e., what it is that is supposed to be 'dilating.'

 

 

Exactly, do whatever measurement you want but make clear if you seriously are confusing time with our clock, if you believe that time is a fourth dimension and can be slowed down, if you are confusing science fiction with science. That's all I am asking as a layperson. That's all.

[Iggy]

I would like to distinguish between the concepts of time slowing down ("time dilation") and physical processes slowing down...

Maybe it's just semantics, but if science claims that time dilation is different than clocks and physical processes slowing down then...

Time dilation means that every process slows by the same amount -- the rate of nuclear decay, the rate that sand flows through an hour glass, the rate that cells divide, the rate that atoms vibrate, the rate of a human heartbeat, the rate that a minute, second, and hour hand circles a clock, the rate that a supernova proceeds -- any and every process slows by the same amount.

 

The scientific understanding is that any process (like those I listed) takes time. It takes time for a star to go through a supernova or for a heart to beat. The amount of time it takes depends on if the physical process is in your frame or if the exact same process is in another frame. It takes longer in another frame and the greater the velocity of that frame the longer it takes.

 

For example, let's say that it takes a certain type of star 10 days to go through a supernova here in the Milky Way. Earth rotates 10 times before the supernova is finished. The same type of star going through the same type of supernova in a galaxy that is moving 8.6 tenths of the speed of light relative to us will take 20 days (earth rotates 20 times before it is finished). The rate of the process is cut in half and the length of time it takes the process to happen doubles.

 

Every process in that frame will be twice as slow and take twice as long as compared to an identical process here in our frame.

 

So... that's velocity time dilation.

 

If it is a semantics thing then I don't think it would be a problem to use different words that mean the same thing. "Duration lengthening" would be fine I'm sure.

 

I don't even think about it, I just don't care.

I'm getting that.

 

I am here to debate and learn, not to teach.

Debate takes an opposing view.

 

If you say that something doesn't exist, but you can't explain what that something is, then that isn't an opposing view. It's like a blank stare or a befuddled look.

 

If you don't know or you can't explain what you mean by "time" then it really is literally meaningless to accuse people of confusing time with a clock.

[swansont]

Exactly, do whatever measurement you want but make clear if you seriously are confusing time with our clock, if you believe that time is a fourth dimension and can be slowed down, if you are confusing science fiction with science. That's all I am asking as a layperson. That's all.

I have a tough time reconciling this stance with your prior declaration that you are here to learn. Someone who wishes to learn does not declare that the topic is science fiction before the explanations have started. So, which is it?

[Ophiolite]

I am a layperson,

For a layperson you have an unusually large number of opinions on matters of science.

 

I am not your teacher nor a scientist and you will find so many books and people to explain the subject much better than me,

I believe you would do yourself a great service if you would read some of those books, again, and this time try to understand them.

 

..... but as a layperson I can encourage you not to be brainwashed by the media or professionals who play the "it's too difficult for you to understand" card, and they end up clapping their hands for a theory, without understanding even the most simple things.

That is an admirable sentiment. It is a shame you have extended that disparagement to individuals on this forum who do understand and who would be more than ready to help you understand, if you lost the adversarial, in-your-face attitude and listened for a change.

 

Anyway no matter how good is your clock, it can be an hourglass or an atomic clock, it will never be perfect. You know you can measure a distance covered over a period of time with a clock. You can measure the distance with a ruler or an odometer, the speed with a speedometer, the velocity and direction witha vector. I just hope you are not going to answer me that since you can use the clock therefore time is a dimension and can be slowed down. You can measure gravity, is gravity a dimension?

The arguments you use to counter current theory reveal that you don't understand current theory. I urge you to stop and think.

 

Note: this post contains no science, no evidence and no logical argument, since I am responding to a suite of posts with the same characteristics.

[Myuncle]

I have a tough time reconciling this stance with your prior declaration that you are here to learn. Someone who wishes to learn does not declare that the topic is science fiction before the explanations have started. So, which is it?

 

I didn't start this topic just to turn it into another "Relativity sucks" thread, it wasn't my goal. My intention was really to see some reactions and opinions about string theorists approach towards the recent neutrino experiment. I am not the one supposed to provide any proof, you should provide some proof and clarification since you are claiming that time does indeed slow down when you move faster. So how can you prove that time is slowing down for a satellite only because its clock it's running faster? You are defending the mainstream science (maybe because as a moderator that's what you have to do, I don't know), and you should provide some proof for that, and you didn't, not because you don't want, but because you can't.

[swansont]

I didn't start this topic just to turn it into another "Relativity sucks" thread, it wasn't my goal. My intention was really to see some reactions and opinions about string theorists approach towards the recent neutrino experiment. I am not the one supposed to provide any proof, you should provide some proof and clarification since you are claiming that time does indeed slow down when you move faster. So how can you prove that time is slowing down for a satellite only because its clock it's running faster? You are defending the mainstream science (maybe because as a moderator that's what you have to do, I don't know), and you should provide some proof for that, and you didn't, not because you don't want, but because you can't.

 

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.