tar Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 So what would be different about the rock? Would the more aged one have a smaller percentage of a certain radioactive isotope? My lack of understanding cannot be the source of a paradox. A paradox is more likely the result of an inappropriate switch in perspective. A paradox, by definition is not possible. If my understanding removes a paradox and your understanding creates one, which understanding is more likely consistent with a possible universe?
Strange Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 So what would be different about the rock? Would the more aged one have a smaller percentage of a certain radioactive isotope? Yes. My lack of understanding cannot be the source of a paradox. A paradox is more likely the result of an inappropriate switch in perspective. A paradox, by definition is not possible. If my understanding removes a paradox and your understanding creates one, which understanding is more likely consistent with a possible universe? Note that all so-called paradoxes in science (and there a lot related to relativity) are not really paradoxes. They have good, solid explanations. They only appear to be paradoxes when view naively (i.e. without understanding the relevant theory).
tar Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 Strange, Well, suppose I automatically consider the boy at the station stationary, and me moving. You are forcing me to take my frame of reference as stationary and the rest of the universe as moving. I reject that point of view as the objective point of view. That is a subjective point of view that is not the case for most of the people, within a moment (2 and a half light seconds) from me. Each of those people also are subjectively stationary with the rest of the universe, moving around them. Given that it is now known that the Earth is not the center of the cosmos, it is possible to understand oneself as on a moving train in reference to a stationary Earth, which in turn is moving in reference to a stationary Sun, which in turn is moving in reference to a stationary black hole at the center of our galaxy in the direction of Sagitarius. I can "wrap my head" around the thought of me standing to your left as you stand to my right, but that doesn't mean we both can't be right handed. If one makes the concession that their point of view is not the preferred point of view of the universe, and that other points are equal in their holding of a subjective, here and now "time", this FORCES my consideration that ALL subjective points of view are "just now" happening. Its the only way to frame it, so that we can see distant stuff, here and now, AFTER it happens. Regards, TAR So if I don't see the paradox as possible, and parse the situation in a way that makes sense, I am wrong, but if somebody "understands the theory" in a way that makes what the theory says, not a paradox, which by definition would be not seeing it as a paradox, but parsing it in a way that makes sense, then they are right, even though we both are saying sensible things about the way the universe actually fits together, and works? Why is it called the twin paradox if nobody that formulated the theory of time dilation and length contraction see any inherent contradictions?
Strange Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 You are forcing me to take my frame of reference as stationary and the rest of the universe as moving. No I am not. I am merely reiterating out what Galileo pointed out centuries ago: motion is relative. Without some external reference it is impossible to say who is moving and who is not. Therefore, it makes no difference which subjective position you take (that you are moving and the boy stationary or vice versa). In one frame of reference the ball (photon) goes straight up and down, in another frame of reference it also moves sideways. Hence it takes a longer path when seen from the other frame of reference than it does from the boys point of view.
tar Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) My contention on this thread is that a block universe view creates inconsistencies and impossible stuff, whereas the two senses of now, explains everything nicely. (except the block universe view, which does not allign itself with sense and logic and is hard to explain, because of its inconsistencies and logical flaws.) Strange, Really? "Hence it takes a longer path when seen from the other frame of reference than it does from the boys point of view." But we know a truck a mile down the road can hide behind an outstretched thumb. Who in their right mind would suggest that the truck shrinks with distance. Are you going to allow the observer to use their brain and know their relationship to the rest of the universe, or not? Regards, TAR Edited August 17, 2015 by tar
Strange Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 My contention on this thread is that a block universe view creates inconsistencies and impossible stuff, whereas the two senses of now, explains everything nicely. Experiments show this to be the other way round. Really? As you are denying reality (see above) you are not in a good position to ask that. But yes. If you are in the same frame of reference as the ball or photon you will see it going straight up and down. If you are in relative motion (it makes no difference who is moving or stationary, or if both a moving) then you will obviously see the ball (or photon) take a longer path.
tar Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 Strange, Nobody said anything about my sugar cube example. Would you say its the same time on one corner of the sugar cube, as it is on the other, or would your answer depend on what predictions, at what scale, your were making. Does the top of a sugar cube age at different rate than the bottom? Can you tell the historical positions that the sugar cube must have had, according to careful measurements and application of special and general theories of relativity? If I throw it in the air, spinning it, does the outide age less than the inside because it is moving faster, further. Would this mean anything, if the whole experiment was done infront of a single clock? Regards, TAR Strange, "You will see it as" is the term I am questioning. Do you mean see, or measure, or figure, or know, or what. It seems that even in the literature there are different interpretations of what is meant by length contraction, as in does something "actually" change its length, or does it appear to, or figure to, or measures as, or "must have". Regards, TAR
Strange Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Nobody said anything about my sugar cube example. There doesn't seem much to say. Does the top of a sugar cube age at different rate than the bottom? That might almost be measurable with modern technology. Certainly a difference in time due to a height on the order of metres can be measured. Would this mean anything, if the whole experiment was done infront of a single clock? Why would that make any difference? "You will see it as" is the term I am questioning. Do you mean see, or measure, or figure, or know, or what. All of the above. Scientific theories, and relativity in particular, are all about what is measured. It seems that even in the literature there are different interpretations of what is meant by length contraction, as in does something "actually" change its length, or does it appear to, or figure to, or measures as, or "must have". That is a philosophical or semantic question: what do you mean by "actually change"? it is a real, measurable effect. That sounds "actual" to me. Edited August 17, 2015 by Strange
StringJunky Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 There doesn't seem much to say. That might almost be measurable with modern technology. Certainly a difference in time due to a height on the order of metres can be measured. 30cm, I think swansont mentioned recently. Devices are in development that could get it down to 2cm
Strange Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 30cm, I think swansont mentioned recently. Devices are in development that could get it down to 2cm So, with a big enough sugar cube, we can convince TAR he is wrong!
tar Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 Strange, Well this is what this thread is about. There is change you can measure, see, sense and compare against your most recent model, and then there is the most recent model of the world you build imaginarily, without seeing it, but knowing it must be there. It is absolutely a philosophical or semantic question. It involves sometimes going by what you have measured and seen and sometimes going by what must be the case for that to have been seen like that. It is the "insight" that I had, I don't know...5 or 6 years ago, that there must be reality happening right now, outside our view, outside our measurement, inorder for us to measure it, when the photons from it, get here. You do not discount this insight. It seems obvious enough to you. I just apply it equally to everything, in the sense that "what is real" must be both what we see, and what we figure must be the case, outside our eye's vision, but within our mind's comprehension. Regards, TAR
StringJunky Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 So, with a big enough sugar cube, we can convince TAR he is wrong! Easily, with current timing accuracy I think It seems to me he is arguing against basic observations of Relativity
Strange Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) There is change you can measure, see, sense and compare against your most recent model, and then there is the most recent model of the world you build imaginarily, without seeing it, but knowing it must be there. Science only deals with the former. The latter is the stuff of dreams, fantasy and religion. there must be reality happening right now, outside our view, outside our measurement, inorder for us to measure it, when the photons from it, get here. Whatever that reality is (if it exists) is unknowable. All we can know is what we measure. That is why science is practically useful but philosophy and religion aren't. Easily, with current timing accuracy I think It seems to me he is arguing against basic observations of Relativity He is. And I don't know why I let myself get dragged into it again. He is convinced that his imagination trumps science. Even though there is no technology based on applied imagining. Edited August 17, 2015 by Strange
tar Posted August 17, 2015 Author Posted August 17, 2015 StringJunky, Convince me of what. That there is a time difference between any two points, even close points, or convince me that time dialates, or convince me that clocks tick slower in gravity wells? My basic contention on this thread, is that there is a NOW at one end of the sugar cube, and a different now, at the other corner, that are separated by the distance between the corners, and hence by the amount of time it takes light to travel from one corner to the other...AND there is a time, that can be witnessed in retrospect when both ends were actually emitting photons "at the same time". Regards, TAR The block universe suggests that all events, past present and future, are equally real, and that they all exist. I am thinking this is false, and things that have not happened yet, have not happened yet, and things that already happened, will not happen again. To conceptualize how this can be true, I consider that everything that is happening in the universe is currently happening, at some position in the universe, but since every position in the universe is connected to every other position in the universe by at least the past reception of emitted photons from emitters that at the 380,000 year mark were close enough to get a photon to the Milky Way in 13.8 billion years, then we should expect to see the rest of the universe in a consistent and constant way, where things that happen at the 380,000 mark will be measured now, 13.8 billion years later, and things that happened here, yesterday cannot be measured again, as they already happened here. You can measure what happened here yesterday from a point in space, one lightday from here, now, but only if you allow a universal now. Strange, Perhaps you think I am arguing something I am not. I just want to point out at this juncture that many scientists consider what reality will be like in the future. Some even consider what the universe will look like, from the Milky Way, in 600 billion years, and what will be "knowable" by scientists at that point in time. Certainly this is imaginary and not measurable, not based on observation, and is purely conceptual in nature. Yet it is neither philosophy or religion, but is considered science, based on what would seem to logically follow from what is measured. It is not folly to likewise consider what must have been the case in the past for us to see what we see in our present skies. Nor is it folly to consider that there must be things happening right now in China, for us to get the satellite image of it, in a few seconds. Regards, TAR
Endy0816 Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 (edited) Look at it being like Pi. Maybe that will help. You have C/d = Pi 100/~31.83 = Pi = 500/~159.15 So now suppose we have a muon from its POV crossing 2km in 6.8 microseconds and a scientist on Earth measuring that muon as having crossed 10 km in 34 microseconds. 2 km/6.8 microseconds = x = 10 km/34 microseconds The ratio remains the same, much as Pi remains the same. Edited August 17, 2015 by Endy0816
Strange Posted August 17, 2015 Posted August 17, 2015 Convince me of what. That there is a time difference between any two points, even close points, or convince me that time dialates, or convince me that clocks tick slower in gravity wells? All of those things are true and observed. You can close your eyes to the evidence, but that won't change reality. My basic contention on this thread, is that there is a NOW at one end of the sugar cube, and a different now, at the other corner, that are separated by the distance between the corners, and hence by the amount of time it takes light to travel from one corner to the other. This is not just due to the distance between them. The corners at the same height will share the same "now" (i.e. their clocks run at the same rate). Time will run slightly faster for the corners at the top. I am thinking this is false, and things that have not happened yet, have not happened yet, and things that already happened, will not happen again. I don't think anyone would disagree. So this seems to be yet another strawman. I just want to point out at this juncture that many scientists consider what reality will be like in the future. Some even consider what the universe will look like, from the Milky Way, in 600 billion years, and what will be "knowable" by scientists at that point in time. Certainly this is imaginary and not measurable, not based on observation, and is purely conceptual in nature. It may be imaginary but it is based on observation and theory. It is not just "made up" (unlike your ideas).
david345 Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) Certain statements about the future can be answered with a high degree of certainty. We can answer these questions by asking if the alternative is contradictory. Consider the following questions. 1. Will the speed of light be the same 10 years from now? 2. Is a particular observation just a hallucination? 3. Will 1+1=2 tomorrow? Which can be answered with a higher degree of certainty? A flowing universal now has many problems. How do you move in time? How fast does time move? The RietdijkPutnam argument. The twin paradox. Lack of a universal simultaneity. Etc. If the universe ends tomorrow the block universe can explain such a universe just as well. The block universe doesn't require that the future exist. Is the block universe 100% proven? No. The block universe is less problematic then a universal flowing now. In euclidean geometry the distance between two points is [math]s^2=x^2+y^2[/math]. This is just Pythagorean theorem. In spacetime it is [math]s^2=t^2-(x^2)[/math]. s is called the spacetime interval. The spacetime interval is invariant. Invariant=same for all observers. Relative=different for observers moving at different speeds. The spacetime interval of the twin is equal to the time experienced by the twin. To calculate the time experienced by the twin we need only to calculate his spacetime interval. To simplify the equation I set c =1 (one unit of time equals 1 year and one unit of distance equals 1 light-year) and only consider movement in the x direction. We will now compare the two equations. [math]s^2=x^2+y^2[/math] [math]s^2=t^2-(x^2)[/math] The twin who travels to space and returns will be called spaceman the twin who remains on earth will be called earthman. We will use the reference frame of earthman. Earthman see's his twin leave earth at half the speed of light and it takes 5 years to get to his destination. It takes another 5 years for him to return at half the speed of light. We will now calculate the spacetime interval for space man. (Note: time will be earthman time and distance will be earthman distance) Away trip: [math]s^2=5^2-(2.5^2)[/math] [math]s=4.33[/math] Return trip: [math]s^2=5^2-(2.5^2)[/math] [math]s=4.33[/math] Spacetime interval for total trip: [math]4.33+4.33=8.66[/math] We will now calculate the spacetime interval for earthman. [math]s^2=10^2-(0^2)[/math] [math]s=10[/math] Spacetime interval for spaceman=8.66 Spacetime interval for earthman=10 Spaceman: spacetime interval(invariant)=proper time(invariant)=8.66 Earthman: coordinate time(relative)=spacetime interval(invariant)=proper time(invariant)=10 When they reunite spaceman will have aged 8.66 years. Earthman will have aged 10 years. Earthman's clock will read more time, his body will be older, his hair will be grayer. This will be true for both reference frames. Edited August 18, 2015 by david345
tar Posted August 18, 2015 Author Posted August 18, 2015 David345, I thought we already agreed that the Earthman would not see the turn around at the 5 year mark, as the spaceman, while at the turnaround point is a fair distance from the Earth, and it would take light from the turn around 2.5 years to reach the Earth, while it will take the spaceman 5 years to reach the Earth from the turn around point. We have to allow a universal now to consider the spaceman at the turnaround point, 2.5 years prior us seeing him at the turnaround point. And your equation, from the Earthman's point of view was the same, in both directions of travel, both out, and back, you had at the same quantity. From whose perspective, is this true? God's? According to sense and observation, the spaceman, from the Earth's point of view is redshifted on the way out, and blue shifted on the way back. If your equation from the Earth's point of view is equivalent in both directions, it does not jive with observation and does not jive with logic. The only thing it obeys is the pythagorian theorum. Regards, TAR In the block universe you can see two spacetime points at the same time (one thought) at the same place (peice of paper/ones mind/one equation). In reality this is not the case. Two points in space are separated by the distance it takes light to travel the interim. The equation changes as soon as either a sec passes or a light sec is traveled. The equation, written from x,y,z and the equation written from x',y',z' are separated by time, even before a t is introduced. The distance between x,y,z and x',y',z' is already set, and that "time" has to be included in the calculation. On the way out, the distance is increasing between the Earthman and the Spaceman, and the time between them is increasing, regardless of what time "passes" on the ship or "passes" on Earth. On the way back the time between the two points, that where the spaceman is at, and that where the Earthman is at decreases, from 2 1/2 years to 0, the same way it increased from 0 to 2 1/2 years on the way out. If your equation does not include this reality, then it is not modeling reality correctly. here is another problem When the spaceman gets to the turn around spot, 5 years have passed, from the Earth's perspective, but when the spaceman looks at the Earth, his brother, the Earthman looks like he has only aged 2 and a half years, as the present view of the Earth, will not "get to" the turn around point for another 2 and a half years, and the spaceman is viewing the Earth, knowing that what he is looking at has already happened, 2 and a half years ago. If the Earthman looks as if he has aged 2 and a half years from the Spaceman's perspective, and the spaceman knows he is 2 and a half years light travel time, from the Earth, then since 2 1/2 + 2 1/2 equals 5 from the spaceman's perspective, he knows that 5 years have passed. Why would he think that anything other than 5 years have passed, based on observation of his brother, and knowledge of how far away the turnaround point, actually is from the Earth?
Strange Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 In the block universe you can see two spacetime points at the same time (one thought) at the same place (peice of paper/ones mind/one equation). If you didn't keep inventing lies strawman arguments like this, you might not have such a problem understanding what is said to you.
tar Posted August 18, 2015 Author Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) What is interesting, and would be a prediction from the two nows point of view, is the age of the tour guide at the turn around point. When the traveler left Earth, the tourguide looked 22 1/2, but was actually 25 in the universal now sense, since 2 1/2 years had passed on her planet, while the light was getting from her planet to the Earth. Her image looked 22 1/2 while she was actually 25 when the space ship took off. Five years later, in the universal now sense, the time it took the spaceship to reach the turn around point, she has aged 5 years and is now actually 30 when she meets the spaceman. The Earthman, viewing the meeting, would see his brother as 2 1/2 years younger than the Earthman was himself, and would see the tourguide as 30, as that is how old she was at the meeting. Five years later, in the universal now sense, the spaceman returns to Earth exactly as old as the Earthman, as the Earthman was blueshifted, all the way back and aged in fast motion, in the same manner as the 2 1/2 deficit caught up with the spaceman in the eyes of the Earthman, the tourguide only aged, redshifted in slow motion 2 1/2 years, during the trip back, the same way the brothers aged in slowmotion to each other on the way apart. In actuality, in the universal now sense, the tourguide is 35 when the twins reunite. But when they look at her, she looks only 32 1/2. To both twins. Edited August 18, 2015 by tar
Strange Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 When the spaceman gets to the turn around spot, 5 years have passed, from the Earth's perspective, but when the spaceman looks at the Earth, his brother, the Earthman looks like he has only aged 2 and a half years, as the present view of the Earth, will not "get to" the turn around point for another 2 and a half years, and the spaceman is viewing the Earth, knowing that what he is looking at has already happened, 2 and a half years ago. Why invent incorrect numbers when Janus has gone through a detailed worked example for you.
tar Posted August 18, 2015 Author Posted August 18, 2015 I understand what is being said to me. I just don't agree that everything is being properly parsed from well defined perspectives. they were david234's numbers My example actually works and adds up, with no time dilation required. In fact, time dilation would mess it up. So is it two ways to look at the same reality, or is one or the other correct and the other incorrect? Janus' numbers have the twin coming back younger than the stay at home. My numbers have both twin and the tour guide, and the rest of the universe all aging 10 years. Occum's razor would favor my explaination, if both takes are consistent with observation. Question is not whether there is a difference in time between a satellite clock and an Earth clock, the question is whether there is different difference between a clock on the Earth to the satellite's East and the Earthbound clock to the satellite's West. The postions the three clock are in, in reference to the rest of the universe, is the standard by which I am saying time progresses. Any object finding itself in a particular spot, will have the rest of the universe equally spaced around it, with objects 1 ly distant, 1 ly distant. The identities of these objects may change with motion, as half the universe is getting closer and the other half further away as you move, but the spot you move into, has not changed its relationship with the rest of the universe, and at that spot certain photons have already passed and certain photons are on their way. The arrival of the rest of the universe at any single point in the unverse is the basis of human consciousness. We don't witness what is somewhere else, we withness what is here and now. Same exact reality goes for every other human on the Earth, and same reality goes for muons and twins. Where ever you are is unique to you and just now is the first and only time the rest of the universe will be so arranged around you. Same can be said, for any point in the universe...now.
Strange Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 My example actually works and adds up, with no time dilation required. In fact, time dilation would mess it up. So is it two ways to look at the same reality, or is one or the other correct and the other incorrect? Janus' numbers have the twin coming back younger than the stay at home. My numbers have both twin and the tour guide, and the rest of the universe all aging 10 years. Occum's razor would favor my explaination, if both takes are consistent with observation. Occam's razor might favour your example if you ignore reality. This experiment (and every other experiment performed) has shown that relativity is correct and you are wrong. So your example does not work.
tar Posted August 18, 2015 Author Posted August 18, 2015 well wait experiments show that the equations of relativity are consistent with measurements and observations That would indicate that such is one way to look at it. Does not say my way is wrong, as long as l can explain the measurements, based on what I am holding as observed and what I am holding as actual, and what I am holding as judged as having to be the case. For instance, let's just say that a muon will deteriorate faster if it is subjected to a barrage of short wavelength high energy electromagnetic energy from one direction, at the same time as it is subjected to long wavelength , low energy electromagnetic energy from the exact diametrically opposed direction. If true, one could cause a muon to deteriorate faster by simulating its relativistic motion through space, by moving the space (electromagnetic fields) through it, or simulating such, in terms of red shifted energy coming from one compass point and blueshifted energy coming from the other. If this experiment were to work, it would give a "reason" for rapidly moving muons to deteriorate, without messing with time in an ununderstandable way. besides, the twin might find it easy to tell she is moving in a certain direction, as the electromagnetic energy hitting her in the face is damaging x-rays, and there is just imperceptable radio waves hitting her from behind
Strange Posted August 18, 2015 Posted August 18, 2015 (edited) well wait experiments show that the equations of relativity are consistent with measurements and observations That would indicate that such is one way to look at it. What is popularly known as "the correct way". Does not say my way is wrong Ignoring the tiny detail that you get the wrong answer. For instance, let's just say that a muon will deteriorate faster if it is subjected to a barrage of short wavelength high energy electromagnetic energy from one direction, at the same time as it is subjected to long wavelength , low energy electromagnetic energy from the exact diametrically opposed direction. Why would you say that? Do you have any evidence of this? If true, one could cause a muon to deteriorate faster by simulating its relativistic motion through space, by moving the space (electromagnetic fields) through it, or simulating such, in terms of red shifted energy coming from one compass point and blueshifted energy coming from the other. But there is no correlation between relativistic effects and the presence of electromagnetic radiation. Making "stuff" up is not an alternative to science. Not a useful one, anyway. Edited August 18, 2015 by Strange
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now