Absolute Zero and No Motion

[swansont]

Trout, Re-read what was posted and linked; the transition is used as an event to precisely tune the frequency of the microwave emitter. In other words when they observe that fluorescence from a maximum number of atoms they know they have precisely tuned the emitter to a frequency of 9 192 631 770 Hz

 

Um, no. There's no fluorescence measurement in a modern cesium beam clock. They use a hot wire detector to count atoms, and the frequency will not actually be 9 192 631 770 Hz; there is a magnetic field present, along with blackbody radiation and several other effects that affect the frequency of the transition. The people that run primary frequency standards (many of which are not beam clocks anymore) spend a great deal of time and effort characterizing these shifts.

 

(Also, FWIW, the tycho page you linked to hasn't been updated in at least a decade. Some of the information on it is out of date)

 

Which is the point I made, that "all clocks use motion to measure time".

 

But that wasn't your entire point. You said (emphasis added) "there is no way to measure or experience duration without motion" The objection has been to the latter part of the claim, and not the former one.

[Maxila]

 

Um, no. There's no fluorescence measurement in a modern cesium beam clock. They use a hot wire detector to count atoms, and the frequency will not actually be 9 192 631 770 Hz; there is a magnetic field present, along with blackbody radiation and several other effects that affect the frequency of the transition. The people that run primary frequency standards (many of which are not beam clocks anymore) spend a great deal of time and effort characterizing these shifts.

 

(Also, FWIW, the tycho page you linked to hasn't been updated in at least a decade. Some of the information on it is out of date)

.

I took this "until the electron multiplier output current is maximized" to mean the detecting of the photons emitted since I've read that technique (electron multiplication) can be used to detect photons. If you say that is not correct I don't have enough information to dispute it, it was my assessment of that statement. If you know of more updated information that's accessible I'd appreciate knowing about it.

 

But that wasn't your entire point. You said (emphasis added) "there is no way to measure or experience duration without motion" The objection has been to the latter part of the claim, and not the former one

 

 

To be accurate the context was "empirically" and in that context I stand by that statement, I believe it is axiomatic,

[hoola]

I accept that the muon sits there for 20 microseconds being a muon. That does not mean that there is no movement within the moun, or how would it know when to decay? There is either an internal source for this definite time, or external sources trigger the event.. I rather think the causation is internal...something is counting down that time....something within the muon's informational description is moving, in a mathematical sense...even though the external physical properties description remain stable until the countdown is completed...

Edited August 15, 2014 by hoola

[Strange]

I accept that the muon sits there for 20 microseconds being a muon. That does not mean that there is no movement within the moun, or how would it know when to decay?

 

This is the fallacy known as "begging the question".

[hoola]

I have a general idea of what you mean, but nothing specific to the question at hand in dealing with stable decay rates of the muon. Do you mean that the muon contains no internal parts? I am referring to a sub component of physical system with a string theory like basis. Even if no movement can be measured, aren't strings supposed to be wiggling about non-stop? You can't read a muon by the cover....

[Strange]

Do you mean that the muon contains no internal parts? I am referring to a sub component of physical system with a string theory like basis. Even if no movement can be measured, aren't strings supposed to be wiggling about non-stop? You can't read a muon by the cover....

 

So your argument is that:

 

1. Time depends on movement.

2. Muons appear to have no internal parts but still "experience" time

3. Therefore muons must have internal structure.

4. Because muons have internal structure, this supports the argument that time depends on movement.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[swansont]

 

To be accurate the context was "empirically" and in that context I stand by that statement, I believe it is axiomatic,

 

You've effectively uncoupled the argument, then. You can't completely get rid of motion, and time passes. So what?

 

It does not follow that motion is necessary for the passage of time.

[Maxila]

 

You've effectively uncoupled the argument, then. You can't completely get rid of motion, and time passes. So what?

 

 

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I cannot so easily abandon empirical evidence that has to be dismissed in lieu of an nondescript, enigmatic mathematical construct. That's not to say I won't accept that may be the way it's true nature is, good science demands we keep an open mind to all possibilities; however when one, looks closely and objectively there are many more indicators and clues that warrant examination. This forum is not a place to discuss them and we should continue accepting our current best models (like we did for Newtonian dynamics) until, and unless we can develop better ones. However to be absolute in the belief they are perfect and without error is not science and tantamount to faith, it is a mistake made many times throughout science history, and due to human nature it is likely to be repeated.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Maxila

[robinpike]

 

You've effectively uncoupled the argument, then. You can't completely get rid of motion, and time passes. So what?

 

It does not follow that motion is necessary for the passage of time.

 

But that surely is the point, time is only present when there is motion?

 

How can it be possible for time to exist without motion?

 

Maxila, you have asked some very valid questions in your posts here.

[Strange]

 

But that surely is the point, time is only present when there is motion?

 

Of course not. Cesium clocks, used to define the second, do not involve motion. Decay of fundamental particles does not involve motion. A space-time universe can be defined with no energy or matter: by definition it includes time but with nothing to move. And so on, and so on.

 

Unless your definition of "movement" is "anything vaguely related to time in any way whatsoever". In which case, I refer you again to "Begging the Question."

 

Furthermore, any argument you make about time being dependent on movement is equally true of space. So if neither space nor time can exist without movement, then how can movement occur?

Edited August 15, 2014 by Strange

[hoola]

decay doesn't signify motion? Do you mean the process that culminates in decay has no motion...?

Edited August 15, 2014 by hoola

[Strange]

decay doesn't signify motion?

 

No. But I am not talking about the decay itself. A muon, for example, is unmoving and unchanging for a period of time and then it decays. So time passed for it with no motion involved.

[swansont]

 

But that surely is the point, time is only present when there is motion?

 

 

No, Maxila was clear a few posts back (in referencing his comment, "empirically there is no way to measure or experience duration without motion") that it wasn't the point. But, as I pointed out, there are two issues: time and the measurement of time. Focusing on the latter does not necessarily tell you about the former. We can't remove motion from the measurement but one can't validly conclude from that that motion is necessary for time.

 

Further, we have the empirical knowledge that time slows down as motion increases and speeds up as motion decreases. There's not even an extrapolation here that could be bastardized to support the idea.

[studiot]

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. I cannot so easily abandon empirical evidence that has to be dismissed in lieu of an nondescript, enigmatic mathematical construct. That's not to say I won't accept that may be the way it's true nature is, good science demands we keep an open mind to all possibilities; however when one, looks closely and objectively there are many more indicators and clues that warrant examination. This forum is not a place to discuss them and we should continue accepting our current best models (like we did for Newtonian dynamics) until, and unless we can develop better ones. However to be absolute in the belief they are perfect and without error is not science and tantamount to faith, it is a mistake made many times throughout science history, and due to human nature it is likely to be repeated.

 

 

This is the typical retreat of those faced with incontrovertible facts and amounts to an act of faith on their part.

 

I have told you how to constuct a clock that does not depend upon time, edit silly me, does not depend upon motion I have told you how to show that time must exist , independent of any movment in the universe, but you have chosen not to answer.

 

Instead you have chosen to try the line of ' we must consider what is possible and there might be something out ther beyond our present knowledge that is possible, so we can never rule any theory out, however daft'.

 

Well there are things we can state with absolute certainty today, using only today's knowledge, that can and will never happen, no matter how much knowledge we aquire.

 

You talk of enigmatic mathematics. There is nothing enigmatic about this. I think you have simply confused the difference between the dependent variable and the independent variable.

 

So the funny thing is, had you stated your proposal the other way round, I think most here would have agreed with you.

Namely that you cannot have motion without time rahter than you cannot have time without motion.

Time is surely the more 'fundamental' quantity, in that it can exist without any other, although it would be a pretty boring universe if time was the only variable.

Edited August 15, 2014 by studiot

[hoola]

so you are describing the muon "process of decay" with it's 20ms delay to visible, measurable movement. Perhaps, but on the plank scale, something is clicking off those 20 micros or else they would not occur...I do presume the "movement" is strictly in the mathematical sense, but I still say that mathematical (via the strings) movements culminate in physical movement (decay). Strings are described as "wiggling". I see that they are perhaps only moving in a math sense, changing numerical values, as the calculation of it's algorithm plays out...but that is still movement...

Edited August 15, 2014 by hoola

[Strange]

Assuming that something exists for which there is no evidence, so you can use it as evidence to support your initial premise... Still begging the question.

[hoola]

seems there is evidence of strings, and what about the quantum foam that surrounds everything? There is plenty of evidence for that. Even if the muon is just sitting there waiting to decay, with no internal movement, isn't it subject to a sort of "quantum brownian movement", from the foam ?

[Strange]

seems there is evidence of strings

 

Citation needed.

 

 

, and what about the quantum foam that surrounds everything? There is plenty of evidence for that. Even if the muon is just sitting there waiting to decay, with no internal movement, isn't it subject to a sort of "quantum brownian movement", from the foam ?

 

Citation needed.

[hoola]

I have a question...is the 20 microsecond delay in the muon decay a reliable rate, or is that an average time?

[Strange]

I have a question...is the 20 microsecond delay in the muon decay a reliable rate, or is that an average time?

 

It is an average. (Of the top of my head, I'm not sure what the spread is.)

 

I don't know if that is better or worse for your case.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Strange

[hoola]

it seems in a logic sense that if muon decay is in any way predictable, then some process is causing that predictability...hence process is movement...whether from internal or external sources...and probably irrelevant to my case if the timing is averaged or precise...if causation is external, your case is stronger

Edited August 15, 2014 by hoola

[studiot]

 

seems there is evidence of strings, and what about the quantum foam that surrounds everything? There is plenty of evidence for that. Even if the muon is just sitting there waiting to decay, with no internal movement, isn't it subject to a sort of "quantum brownian movement", from the foam ?

 

These are just uproven theories, which account for some effects, but fail to account for others. They do not have the status of fundamental principles upon which Physics rests.

Edited August 15, 2014 by studiot

[hoola]

does the tree fall from a bulldozer or from termites from within...

[Strange]

it seems in a logic sense that if muon decay is in any way predictable, then some process is causing that predictability...

 

Why? Why can't it be without cause, as so many things seem to be at the quantum level?

 

But I assume you will just say, "they must all have a cause even if we don't know what it is yet". Just to bolster your personal preference in the face of Science.

[hoola]

thing have cause unless god is in the equation....seems a good presumption he isn't