imatfaal Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 Yes, the same frame See the site: "The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth". Don't be ridiculous. A rest frame was chosen - but the clocks were in relative motion with respect to the arbitrarily chosen rest frame and with respect to each other; that's the whole point. AND BAD FORM ... That phrase does not appear on your referenced site as far as I can tell. The phrase "Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth..." does appear. You have changed the import of the phrase - in order, it seems, to make it support your case. If you do this you CANNOT put quotes around it. This would be severely frowned upon in every academic discipline
Strange Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 My theory makes predictions (I wrote 5 in my article), so it can be proved. Either it makes predictions that differ from GR (in which case it must have different math) or it uses the same math (and can't make predictions that differ from GR).
Phi for All Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 This topic is about time dilation. My theory is much more, so I'll make a new topic for it. Not now, but probably soon, although I'm not very pleased by your reactions. I still expect some answers. ! Moderator Note We're not entirely pleased by your reactions, either. This is a science discussion forum, and the members have been trying to correct mistakes on your part, and on the part of Ryan. They've given you answers, and you've acknowledged some of them, but now you're claiming you still expect answers despite so many errors that haven't been corrected. This is what happens in Speculations. The members are going to help you shore up misunderstandings and mistakes first, and when all is sound foundationally, they can address the idea more fully, with more trust. I would suggest that we close this thread down, so you can reread it before starting your new topic. We normally don't encourage talking about these modnotes, but please let me know if you agree or disagree.
swansont Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 Yes, the same frame See the site: "The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth". The clocks on the planes were not in that frame, nor were they in the frame of the reference clocks on the ground. That's why the accrued time was different. Different frames. 2
Mordred Posted February 10, 2016 Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) Oh boy this thread is going in circles. DanP you admit you don't understand the math, so I have to ask how can you claim to have a better understanding of GR than those that do understand the math???? Let's look at an example I posted for another poster that figured he could fix GR... Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] If your not using Lorentz then you need to define the coordinate transformation rules. Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz. [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex] Note the mention of frames in postulate one. This means more accurately that both Alice and Bob are correct in their measurements and there is no preferred frame of reference. Now why did I include length contraction? The answer is... I'll leave to you (hint postulate 2) If you truly want to master SR and GR stop learning via pop media. I'll provide two useful textbooks. The first is written by a professor who has been on forums for years so he's used to common misconceptions such as those you've shown. Deals with SR primarily (best to start here) http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ The second is specifically GR the math level is considerably higher. The article specifically discusses many errors due to artifacts in coordinate misunderstandings in GR. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf"Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau Trying to argue against GR without knowledge of the math is like trying to kill a T rex with a spitball To yell once again lol FRAMES MATTER Now test question. Out of your several threads which experiment did you mention does these mathematics best describe? (Not that they aren't applicable to others by best describe I mean most commonly shown to model) Edited February 10, 2016 by Mordred 1
DanMP Posted February 11, 2016 Author Posted February 11, 2016 ...I would suggest that we close this thread down, so you can reread it before starting your new topic. We normally don't encourage talking about these modnotes, but please let me know if you agree or disagree.[/modtip] Thank you. Please let the thread open. I didn't have time to reply and I have at least few things to correct. AND BAD FORM ... That phrase does not appear on your referenced site as far as I can tell. The phrase "Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth..." does appear. You have changed the import of the phrase - in order, it seems, to make it support your case. If you do this you CANNOT put quotes around it. This would be severely frowned upon in every academic discipline Sorry for the quotes. I copy/pasted it from a previous post and forgot that it was not an exact quote. Anyway, my version "The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth" is not so different than "Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth...". Also, the link was there (for the second time), so it was clear enough that the 3 clocks where not at rest in the same frame. They where only considered from one, the one we both mentioned. I will repeat my question, corrected, but until than we should agree on what is time, because we have 2 options: something abstract, defined and used by us, as it is pressure or temperature, or something very real, as the notion of spacetime fabric suggests. If it’s real than we should be able to show/explain how this real "thing" determines clocks and atoms "behaviour" (as quantum physics does explain interactions). If it’s just abstract, a result of our measurements, than we should be able to show why our instruments return different time intervals in different situations. So this being said, I repeat my question, corrected: Please explain Hafele–Keating experiment (below), considering that we don't measure time directly, we use instruments, made of atoms, that count certain repetitive and reliable events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered from a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth. So we have 3 clocks that counted different amounts of nanoseconds between the same START and STOP. So, considered from the same fame, different clock rates ... Why exactly? And please use Ryan's rewarded idea (see above). By the way, I made a mistake: this topic is not about Ryan’s idea, it’s about a simple explanation for time dilation, so it should remain open until we find one.
Strange Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 Anyway, my version "The Hafele–Keating experiment was considered in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth" is not so different than "Considering the Hafele–Keating experiment in a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth...". It seems very different to me. The original is conditional (it implies, "if we consider ..."). Yours is a statement (and incorrect). Also, the link was there (for the second time), so it was clear enough that the 3 clocks where not at rest in the same frame. You were arguing that it was a single frame. You admit you were mistaken now? I will repeat my question, corrected, but until than we should agree on what is time, because we have 2 options: something abstract, defined and used by us, as it is pressure or temperature, or something very real, as the notion of spacetime fabric suggests. If it’s real than we should be able to show/explain how this real "thing" determines clocks and atoms "behaviour" (as quantum physics does explain interactions). If it’s just abstract, a result of our measurements, than we should be able to show why our instruments return different time intervals in different situations. Why just time? we should agree on what is space, because we have 2 options: something abstract, defined and used by us, as it is pressure or temperature, or something very real, as the notion of spacetime fabric suggests. If it’s real than we should be able to show/explain how this real "thing" determines rulers and atoms "behaviour" (as quantum physics does explain interactions). If it’s just abstract, a result of our measurements, than we should be able to show why our instruments return different distance intervals in different situations. This is explained by the geometry of space-time, as described by the theory of general relativity. You should study it. So we have 3 clocks that counted different amounts of nanoseconds between the same START and STOP. So, considered from the same fame, different clock rates ... Why exactly? If three cars took different routes through space, you would not be surprised when their odometers recorded different distances. If they take different routes through space-time then their clocks will show a different elapsed time as well. Shocker. it’s about a simple explanation for time dilation, so it should remain open until we find one. we have one. Although I will admit it is not that simple. Which is presumably why so many like you reject it.
Mordred Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) By the way, I made a mistake: this topic is not about Ryans idea, its about a simple explanation for time dilation, so it should remain open until we find one.I just posted those mathematics did you not notice the resulting geometry change? I even stressed length contraction. Why do you think the terms Sapacetime geometry is so important? Speed of light is invariant to all observers. You can't have time dilation without a geometry change. Just like thermodynamics you can't change the pressure without resulting in a temperature change. Those mathematics is about as simple and straight forward as you get in GR. Here perhaps images will help. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time_dilation_spacetime_diagram06.gif Edited February 11, 2016 by Mordred
swansont Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 So, considered from the same fame, different clock rates ... Why exactly? Because time in other frames runs at different rates.
Mordred Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) Time dilation also affect moving particles and their decay rates this should provide the clue you need. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/relativity_space_time Edited February 11, 2016 by Mordred
DanMP Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 Because time in other frames runs at different rates. If this "time in other frames" you mentioned is a real "thing" you should be able to show how it influences the behavior of the atom. It's not enough to know how it is derived/calculated from the model (Mordred, this is a reply to your comments too). As well as quantum physics explains electromagnetic interaction using particles, instead of relying just on the abstract notion of field, as classical physics does, we should be able to show what exactly determines atom behavior, relating to what we call time dilation. This is true at least if we want a simple explanation of time dilation in matter (atoms, molecules, etc.). On the other hand, let's focus on this: If three cars took different routes through space, you would not be surprised when their odometers recorded different distances. If they take different routes through space-time then their clocks will show a different elapsed time as well. So, we have "different routes through space-time" and in time dilation the route is longer, right? If we consider only gravitational time dilation and the light clock mentioned/commented in the first 2 posts of this thread, the longer route in space-time mentioned above means that "the photon" that "bounce" back and forth between the mirrors would have to travel an even longer route, or that longer route/path mentioned there is the same thing?
Strange Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 If this "time in other frames" you mentioned is a real "thing" you should be able to show how it influences the behavior of the atom We can see this. Look at the Pound-Rebka experiment for example. But note that nothing changes in the atom itself, only as seen from another frame of reference. If we consider only gravitational time dilation and the light clock mentioned/commented in the first 2 posts of this thread, the longer route in space-time mentioned above means that "the photon" that "bounce" back and forth between the mirrors would have to travel an even longer route, or that longer route/path mentioned there is the same thing? I'm not sure how realistic that analogy is, but I guess it is the same thing.
swansont Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 If this "time in other frames" you mentioned is a real "thing" you should be able to show how it influences the behavior of the atom. It's not enough to know how it is derived/calculated from the model (Mordred, this is a reply to your comments too). As well as quantum physics explains electromagnetic interaction using particles, instead of relying just on the abstract notion of field, as classical physics does, we should be able to show what exactly determines atom behavior, relating to what we call time dilation. This is true at least if we want a simple explanation of time dilation in matter (atoms, molecules, etc.). Well, no. It's not an interaction, like a photon hitting an atom, so why should there be a similar explanation? What do you mean by real "thing"? The result is real — it's measurable — but it's not a physical substance or anything like that. We do show exactly what determines this behavior. It's the invariance of c. You seem to be looking for a physical mechanism. There isn't one. Time isn't an interaction or a force.
DanMP Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 Well, no. It's not an interaction, like a photon hitting an atom, so why should there be a similar explanation? What do you mean by real "thing"? The result is real — it's measurable — but it's not a physical substance or anything like that. We do show exactly what determines this behavior. It's the invariance of c. You seem to be looking for a physical mechanism. There isn't one. Time isn't an interaction or a force. The result is real, I always agreed with this. I didn't say that it should be like a force. So please say what is, not that isn't something you supposed I claimed. I'm not sure how realistic that analogy is, but I guess it is the same thing. Please try to give more than a guess. It's important.
swansont Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 The result is real, I always agreed with this. I didn't say that it should be like a force. So please say what is, not that isn't something you supposed I claimed. You didn't say it, but you keep phrasing your demands as if you view it that way. How about answering the question: what you you mean by real "thing"?
Strange Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 Please try to give more than a guess. It's important. What? It is important how well two different analogies match? I think they are saying the same thing but they are both analogies so they are both wrong, in a sense.
Mordred Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) Dan you really don't understand how gravity works with relativity. You also don't strike me as interested in learning how it works. Rather you use straw man arguments simply because it doesn't conform to your way of thinking. Believe whatever fallacies you wish. The information and tools to properly understand relativity is in the links I provided. There is plenty of evidence and tests showing relativity is accurate. For example your objection to a gravitational field. If you looked at the math of how a gravitational field is defined you would see it's no different than how QED defines an electromagnetic field. PS relativity is a classical field. If you want the quantum ( non classical) then you want quantum geometrodynamics. Or QFT The terminology you want is Newtonian vs relativity. Edited February 12, 2016 by Mordred
DanMP Posted February 13, 2016 Author Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) What? It is important how well two different analogies match? I think they are saying the same thing but they are both analogies so they are both wrong, in a sense.in what sense? The second one is your "shocker" explanation. Now you say it is wrong?!? Nobody else wants to comment on this? Edited February 13, 2016 by DanMP
Endy0816 Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 (edited) Only in the sense that no analogy will be spot on. Reason why everyone pushes people to try and look at the math. Honestly found it all reasonabley straightforward after finding similarities back to good old Pythagorean Theorom. Edited February 13, 2016 by Endy0816
Strange Posted February 13, 2016 Posted February 13, 2016 in what sense? The second one is your "shocker" explanation. Now you say it is wrong?!? Nobody else wants to comment on this? As Endy says, all analogies are approximations and at some point no longer work. The two analogies sound like they are describing the same thing. But analogies are never really right or wrong. They may be more or less helpful in describing some part of the theory. But they are generally useless beyond that. Part of the problem seems to be that you are trying to extrapolate from an analogy to areas where it is no longer relevant.
DanMP Posted February 15, 2016 Author Posted February 15, 2016 As Endy says, all analogies are approximations and at some point no longer work. The two analogies sound like they are describing the same thing. But analogies are never really right or wrong. They may be more or less helpful in describing some part of the theory. But they are generally useless beyond that. Part of the problem seems to be that you are trying to extrapolate from an analogy to areas where it is no longer relevant. As far as I understand, analogy is only the one with car odometers. The fact that we have different routes through space-time for different clocks is something deduced from/in Einstein's relativity. Am I wrong? And the light clock, although is impossible to build, is just a simple example of a clock, used everywhere on the internet, including Wikipedia, not an analogy.
Strange Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 As far as I understand, analogy is only the one with car odometers. The fact that we have different routes through space-time for different clocks is something deduced from/in Einstein's relativity. Am I wrong? And the light clock, although is impossible to build, is just a simple example of a clock, used everywhere on the internet, including Wikipedia, not an analogy. They are both analogies because they are not the Einstein Field Equations or an equation derived from them. In bot cases, they talk about things (cars, light) taking a longer path and therefore time appearing to slow. These are both just attempts to make the meaning of a one consequence of the mathematics slightly more intuitive to those who don't understand the maths.
DanMP Posted February 15, 2016 Author Posted February 15, 2016 What do you mean by real "thing"? The result is real — it's measurable — but it's not a physical substance or anything like that. We do show exactly what determines this behavior. It's the invariance of c. You seem to be looking for a physical mechanism. There isn't one. Time isn't an interaction or a force. A very real thing, for me, is a person, a tree, a car, something I can see, touch, smell, etc.. A less real thing is a word, a distance, the measured time. They are real for us, because we defined and use them, but they are invented, not discovered. We may call them abstract things. So, in my view, the real thing in our discussion/problem is considered space-time and less real, abstract, is the time we obtained using (real) instruments called clocks. In order to obtain a simple-explanation-for-time-dilation we have to understand how the real thing, spacetime, influences clocks in different ways, so they return different values for the time interval between 2 (same for all) events (in Hafele-Keating exp., the first event is the START moment, in the same place, and the second one is the STOP moment, when all 3 clocks are back at the starting point). If we consider just gravitational time dilation and light clocks, the answer is very simple: "the real thing", spacetime, influences the clocks by being more or less curved. That means more travel time between mirrors for "the photon" in the light clock situated closer to the massive object, or (as in cars odometers analogy) longer route in spacetime for different clocks. Strange considers that this is actually the same thing, and it is: both "the photon" in each light clock and the clock as a whole travel same time, with the same speed, c, trough spacetime, so the distance covered in the curved spacetime is exactly the same. Same thing, as Strange wrote. Do you agree with the above or you know other influences?
Strange Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 A very real thing, for me, is a person, a tree, a car, something I can see, touch, smell, etc.. A less real thing is a word, a distance, the measured time. They are real for us, because we defined and use them, but they are invented, not discovered. We may call them abstract things. So, in my view, the real thing in our discussion/problem is considered space-time and less real, abstract, is the time we obtained using (real) instruments called clocks. You can't see, touch, smell, etc. space-time. So why do you class that as "real"? And if space-time is real, why isn't one component of it (i.e. time)? In order to obtain a simple-explanation-for-time-dilation we have to understand how the real thing, spacetime, influences clocks in different ways Space-time can't influence clocks because it would have to influence the clock differently for every possible observer, simultaneously. What space-time can do is change what we measure.
DanMP Posted February 15, 2016 Author Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) They are both analogies because they are not the Einstein Field Equations or an equation derived from them. You are an analogy? As far as I know you are not the Einstein Field Equations or an equation derived from them. You can't see, touch, smell, etc. space-time. So why do you class that as "real"? And if space-time is real, why isn't one component of it (i.e. time)? I live in spacetime, so for me it's real enough. You think it isn't? I can move left-right, forward-backward, up-down, so at least space is real. Space-time can't influence clocks because it would have to influence the clock differently for every possible observer, simultaneously. Let the kinematic time dilation aside for now. In my theory the problem you mentioned is solved. In gravitational time dilation all observers agree. What is wrong in my considerations about gravitational time dilation above? What space-time can do is change what we measure. How exactly? Edited February 15, 2016 by DanMP
Recommended Posts