about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[chair]

Stripe, Cesium clocks are not affected by gravity. So if two Cesium clocks run at different rates, there has to be another explanation.

 

[Flipper]

Apparently.


How so?

Einstein's theories on the relativity of speed have no need for time to be relative.

Presumably you must be talking about Bizarro Einstein.

The regular one entitled the second section of the first part of his paper on special relativity "On the Relativity of Lengths and Times".

 

[Stripe]

I agree. But your prior statement that I was responding to made it sound as though the change in gravity would not only affect them both, but affect them equally.

So you agree that the observation can easily explained by assuming that gravity affects all clocks rather than assuming that gravity affects time.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, Cesium clocks are not affected by gravity. So if two Cesium clocks run at different rates, there has to be another explanation.

The experiment the OP links to directly contradicts your assertion here. An atomic clock on a mountain showed a different time from a synchronised clock closer to sea-level.

Gravity did affect the clock. What other explanation could there possibly be? It wouldn't be air pressure. It wouldn't be temperature. I'm assuming the mechanism would be effectively guarded against those variables.What else could it be?

 

[ThePhy]

So you agree that the observation can easily explained by assuming that gravity affects all clocks rather than assuming that gravity affects time.

No, I am saying only that because one clock depends directly on gravity for its functioning, and the other does not, that a change in gravity will not affect them the same way.

 

[Stripe]

No, I am saying only that because one clock depends directly on gravity for its functioning, and the other does not, that a change in gravity will not affect them the same way.

Oh.

The experiment shows that gravity affected the atomic clock.

That's the point of this thread.



I agree that gravity does not affect it as much as it would a water clock.

That's kinda by-the-by though, ain't it?

 

[Johnny]

:squint: The experiment linked to showed the exact opposite. The experiment showed that the two clocks (on the mountain and off the mountain) ticked at different rates.

What I said was correct because I added the qualifier "in its own inertial frame". In other words, someone watching the clock wouldn't notice the difference. That's because, as we discussed before, brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected. You can take any time dependent process (which is, in fact, nearly everything in the universe) and it will experience the same time dilation as the atomic clock. This can be shown both mathematically and by experiment.

We had this discussion before:

Your heart, for example, beat is a physical process. It starts with the spontaneous depolarization of cardiac cells (myocytes) in the SA node. These cells spontaneously depolarize due to the electrical conductance of specific ions in and outside of the cell. These ions interact with each other via the electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic force interacts via carrier particles -- photons or virtual photons. Thus, the electromagnetic force operates at the speed of light. And since we've already shown (and agreed) that the light clock slows down, then by extension we must also agree that the electromagnetic force slows down proportionally. And there you have it, the mechanism by which heart beat will slow down proportionally. This is not limited to heart beats.

You can trace literally any physiologic process, be it axonal nerve conduction, to electrical impulses whizzing through your brain, to the contraction of muscles in your legs, to the boiling of water, to the chemical reactions that occur in your blood -- all of these processes are fundamentally tied to the atomic forces. Literally every single process and interaction in this universe, be it physiologic or chemical or otherwise, can be traced to the fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. And each of these forces has a virtual carrier particle which travels at the speed of light. This is why everything is affected by time dilation.

...to which your response was basically "I don't know"...

The atomic clock in the video is a large scale representation of what is happening on the quantum level, correct? I would suggest that speed's effect on the quantum level is uniform (i.e. it effects everything as you say), but that a macro level response will depend on the system. Thus with a clock we can look at a simple readout and infer the behaviour of the internal workings, but with a body part the effects are not translated into direct responses to the change at the quantum level.

I suspect there is an inherent flaw in the thought experiments that attempt to scale up quantum effects to inflict paradoxes on standard reality.

But I'm not so sure of my thinking on this matter.

 

[Stripe]

What I said was correct because I added the qualifier "in its own inertial frame". In other words, someone watching the clock wouldn't notice the difference. That's because, as we discussed before, brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected. You can take any time dependent process (which is, in fact, nearly everything in the universe) and it will experience the same time dilation as the atomic clock. This can be shown both mathematically and by experiment.

There is no need to add the qualifier. The clock on the hill showed a different time to the one off the hill. That difference can be attributed to the effect of gravity upon the clock.

Do you not agree with Phy that gravity can and does affect different things to different degrees. Thus your claim that "brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected" is demonstrably wrong, not to mention completely bizarre. How can gravity affect thoughts and emotions?

Did you really just say that?

 

[Stripe]

Dude, how heavy is your happiness?

 

[ThePhy]

Oh.

The experiment shows that gravity affected the atomic clock.

That's the point of this thread.

I agree that gravity does not affect it as much as it would a water clock.

That's kinda by-the-by though, ain't it?

But what you are saying now is significantly different than what you have already admitted was wrong in your first post in this thread. You said that the two clocks would be affected in “much the same way” by a change in gravity. In fact they would be affected dramatically differently.

And so it should be explicitly clear that the “change in time” alluded to in the Mount Rainer article is a completely different animal than your gravity clock. It’s cesium clock high up versus cesium clock low down.

 

[Flipper]

Flipper - I see no need to "get" relativity. There is no need to insist that anything other than the clock is being affected when you take it up a mountain.

It does not matter if the clock is highly accurate and not overly susceptible to gravitational effects or if it is inaccurate and very susceptible. Relativity simply is not a necessary consideration.

The world of physics begs to differ.

As I understand it, one of the great things about Einstein's relativity equations is that they allow you to make pretty accurate predictions regarding the effects of time dilation. You can calculate very accurately what effect a gravity differential between two frames of reference will have on two clocks using the equations for general relativity. You can also calculate fairly precisely what the effect of velocity will be on time dilation between two frames of reference using the equations for special relativity.

So let's say you were right and that time isn't relative due to gravitational differentials - the differences between a high clock and a low clock isn't due to the curvature of space time but is rather some as-yet-unexplained other effect of gravity.

The general relativity equations predict the time differences extremely accurately regardless. You can calculate (and then observe) the difference due to gravity between a clock on the ground and a clock on a jet plane that is flying at a set altitude and velocity.

However, Einstein's theory of special relativity predicts that velocity differences between frames will also create time dilation effects. So the clock on the plane is traveling at a constant altitude and speed away (or towards) your clock on the ground, and using the equations of special relativity, we can predict what the relative dilation will be.

Now remember, we have already accounted for the gravitational difference.

So this specific experiment has already been carried out a number of times and each time, the time dilation effects for both general and special relativity has been predicted and the results were found to be in agreement with the predictions.

If you remove gravity as a factor, we still find that time is relative when velocities are different between two frames of reference. Explain that.

Also, if you're looking for a non-clock-related test of general relativity, the Gravity Probe B experiment is a pretty good example. General relativity predicts that large bodies warp space/time around them. Using 4 ultra-sensitive gyroscopes, the Gravity Probe B experiment was able to measure this effect and found that it agreed with predictions to within one percent.

Which makes sense again, when we look at both general and special relativity. Special relativity says that light's speed in a vacuum is always constant (an observation that has stood up to experimental testing), yet we see that large objects are able to refract and bend light moving through the vacuum of space (another prediction of general relativity). These observations can both be true if we accept that space/time is being warped by gravity.

If Newton's concept of gravity and time as an absolute measure were correct, you might expect Newtonian mechanics to be effective at predicting the amount of deflection a light beam would encounter due to massive gravity.

As it happens, this is not the case.

 

[Johnny]

There is no need to add the qualifier.

Yes, there is. It makes my statement true.

The clock on the hill showed a different time to the one off the hill. That difference can be attributed to the effect of gravity upon the clock.

Do you not agree with Phy that gravity can and does affect different things to different degrees. Thus your claim that "brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected" is demonstrably wrong, not to mention completely bizarre. How can gravity affect thoughts and emotions?

Did you really just say that?

....

Dude, how heavy is your happiness?

Re-read what I wrote, but this time make an effort to understand it.

Your thoughts and emotions are physical processes, just like your heart beat, and the oscillations of cesium emissions. They are therefore subject to the same time dilating effects of gravity as the atomic clock is. There's nothing magical about an atomic clock that makes it particularly susceptible to the effects of relativity. You would get the same results with an extremely accurate mechanical clock.

(Often times it helps to assume at least some intelligence in your debate opponent. Obviously I don't think happiness has mass outside of the physical components from which it is constructed. Fun to mock, perhaps, but you pretty much look like an idiot.)

Thus your claim that "brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected" is demonstrably wrong

I'd love to see your demonstration. I agree with ThePhy.

And, as Flipper brings up, how do you explain special relativity when gravity is taken out of the picture? (Not to imply that you've actually explained anything about the observations thus far)

 

[dan1el]

There is no need to add the qualifier. The clock on the hill showed a different time to the one off the hill. That difference can be attributed to the effect of gravity upon the clock.

Do you not agree with Phy that gravity can and does affect different things to different degrees. Thus your claim that "brainwaves and heartbeats, thoughts and emotions, would all be equally affected" is demonstrably wrong, not to mention completely bizarre. How can gravity affect thoughts and emotions?

Did you really just say that?

He meant that they'd all be slowed down or sped up an equal amount. You'd have to try quite hard not to understand that if you had any idea what you were talking about.

 

[Johnny]

You'd have to try quite hard not to understand that if you had any idea what you were talking about.

QFE.

 

[Stripe]

But what you are saying now is significantly different than what you have already admitted was wrong in your first post in this thread. You said that the two clocks would be affected in “much the same way” by a change in gravity. In fact they would be affected dramatically differently.

The two clocks are affected in the same way, by gravity

The two clocks are not affected to the same degree, by gravity.

An apple falling to the ground and the moon orbiting the Earth are related in a similar way. They are both gravity driven effects, but the resulting observations are different due to the different physical setups.

This is simple physics, uh, ThePhy. What does that name mean, anyway?

 

[Stripe]

As I understand it, one of the great things about Einstein's relativity equations is that they allow you to make pretty accurate predictions regarding the effects of time dilation. You can calculate very accurately what effect a gravity differential between two frames of reference will have on two clocks using the equations for general relativity. You can also calculate fairly precisely what the effect of velocity will be on time dilation between two frames of reference using the equations for special relativity.

The exact same calculations are possible by assuming that gravity is affecting the clock.

 

[Lighthouse]

Do you understand what Einstein's theories really do say?

Is the relativity of time relevant to the relativity of speed?

Presumably you must be talking about Bizarro Einstein.

The regular one entitled the second section of the first part of his paper on special relativity "On the Relativity of Lengths and Times".

And?

 

[Stripe]

Yes, there is. It makes my statement true.

It is an attempt to make your position logically valid. There is no need to add complication to the assumption that gravity affects the clock.

Your thoughts and emotions are physical processes

How heavy is your happiness? What makes a husband love his wife? What chemicals are necessary for a good idea?

just like your heart beat, and the oscillations of cesium emissions. They are therefore subject to the same time dilating effects of gravity as the atomic clock is.

But the observations do not support this idea. :nono:

ThePhy has already pointed out that gravity exerts effects upon devices to different extents. One is perfectly justified in accepting the influence of gravity as being responsible for the differing observations (PREDICTION: a heartbeat and an atomic clock are not affected to the same degree by a change in gravity). No relativity necessary.

There's nothing magical about an atomic clock that makes it particularly susceptible to the effects of relativity. You would get the same results with an extremely accurate mechanical clock.

:rotfl:

But there has been a lot of effort made to ensure that an atomic clock is not susceptible to the conditions. The day you find a way to hide the effects of gravity on an atomic clock you be sure and tell us, OK?

(Often times it helps to assume at least some intelligence in your debate opponent. Obviously I don't think happiness has mass outside of the physical components from which it is constructed. Fun to mock, perhaps, but you pretty much look like an idiot.)

So you'll have the studies done that show us where happiness comes from?

I'd love to see your demonstration.

A water clock and an atomic clock will not be affected to the same degree by a change in gravity.

I agree with ThePhy.

Well, that's interesting. That only leaves you with whom to disagree!

 

[Johnny]

Stripe,

I'm done arguing relativity with you for now. You clearly have large gaps in your understanding of the subject and I lack both the knowledge and time to identify and fill those gaps for you. Suffice it to say that there are literally volumes of free information on the internet regarding both the experimental and mathematical basis for both special and general relativity -- all of which support the position I have been arguing during the course of our conversation. Hopefully others with a more complete understanding of relativity and a little more patience with your ignorance will pick up the conversation, though I doubt they will have any more success (certainly not for their lack of effort).

As to the physiologic basis for emotions, you will not find any experimental support for the notion that emotions, thoughts, etc. are anything more than physiologic processes. I, however, have a world of medical literature at my disposal for taking the counter position. I can think of about 30 things more interesting and fruitful than holding your hand through the literature only to end up with you throwing science out the window for whatever pet idea you've imagined up for today.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe,

I'm done arguing relativity with you for now.

:wave2: