Substitute gravity for relativity, if it pleases you so.
Then why do we see the effects of special relativity in zero-gravity situations?
about Bob's article on absolute or relative time
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
Sorry, but relativity and gravity are not the same thing, even though they are both still theories.
In zero gravity there is nothing to hold things in place. Clocks work properly at certain levels because the gravity is at the right level for them to work properly. There is a reason most clocks become off over time because the gravity is not 100% perfect for them to work properly. This is why they must be adjusted occasionally.
This is why watches that are wound by motion are considered so special. They keep time better because they are constantly wound.
The relativity of time is the only issue here.
No apology necessary. I say they're affected by relativity, you say they're affected by gravity. I'm just trying to find some language you can agree with enough to answer the question, but alas. Apparently it's too complicated.
I seriously laughed out loud at that. This is your entire objection? You must think scientists are idiots. Yea, scientists are completely baffled by clocks in space. If this was all that was going on, then each clock should be off by its own measure, not according to a defined lorentz curve. Of course, this isn't what's going on, and scientists aren't morons.Lighthouse said:
Better than an atomic clock?Lighthouse said:
Is the relativity of time is completely compatible with the open theist position?Lighthouse said:
Why is it that the stupidest and most scientifically ignorant are always the first to jump into scientific discussions and make fools of themselves?!
How is this complicated? It looks very simple to me.
Why would they be off by their own measures and not match?
Not as far as I know.
But I still contend that a digital clock isn't going to have the same issues an analog clock does.
I mean, the time on my phone changed between here and CO when I went to d2i and Maximeee's wedding, but that was a time zone issue. It didn't change in pace at all. I didn't get to talk longer because I was at a higher level than A-Town. Nor did that change the night we spent in the mountains. Actually I don't think I could use my phone that night. No coverage up there.
Anyway, the fact remains, the passage of time did not slow down or speed up. It remained constant.
Do what?
What is wrong with what I said?
I believe that Lighthouse is substantially correct in the assertion that drew this response. What, specifically, is wrong with what he has posted?
I think I disagree with this. However, perhaps I have misunderstood you.
My understanding is that time is indeed affected by gravity. When clocks are placed in strong gravitational fields, they slow down. When they are placed in weak gravitational fields, they speed up (relatively speaking).
And these "changes" in clock behaviours are not for reasons other than that time itself is modified by gravity.
All I see is proof that clocks are effected by gravity. Nothing to prove that time itself is.
Create twin particles with known decay times. Send one whirling around at the speed of light. The other one, store stationary. Which particle will decay first? If it's just clocks that are off, then both particles should decay at the same time relative to a stationary clock. However, if time is truly passing slower for one particle, then the one whirling around will far "outlive" the stationary one according to a stationary clock. Agreed?
I do not think this distinction is even meaningful.
There is no such thing as saying that clocks are affected by gravity without also saying that time is affected by gravity - time is what clocks measure.
Whether you use a clock or any other mechanism to meaure time, we always observe that measures of time are influenced by gravity.
Well stated. If I can add to what where I think you are coming from. In this thought experiment you remove the "instrumentality" of the clock from the situation and focus on an observer looking for 2 events - the decay of these particles. If I understand you, you will say that one particle will decay "before" the other in this scenario, thus showing that time itself really is subject to the effects of relativity.
I'm assuming that these particles are of the same substance, and age, therefore if [according to your stance] both moved at the same rate [or were stationary] they would decay at the same exact rate over the same exact amount of time.
If this is the case I possibly see no reason a difference in speed would change that. Unless their decay can be altered by outside stimuli. Such as heat maybe? Which, of course, is produced by friction which is produced by movement. And the higher the speed, the more friction. The more friction the more heat.:think:
However, one question remains, how do you get a particle that isn't light to move at the speed of light?
So, if I drop a clock off a building did I do the same to time?
Just because the amount of gravity effects the rate at which a clock moves does not mean that it effects the rate of time itself. Anymore than a dying battery means time has slowed down. Was the time on my living room wall different than the time on my TV, right next to said wall? Does a show run longer in CO than IN, from my perspective in IN? If I call d2i or Knight, tonight, at 11pm my time [according to the satellite signal relayed to my television] would they be able to tell me they just finished watching the brand new episode of NCIS or would it still be on in CO [where it should be 9pm]? Or would it have been over for several minutes?
I don't know how to do that :noid:
Indeed.
This would be taking place in the vacuum chamber of a particle accelerator, so virtually no friction with air molecules would be generated. Even if high friction heat was involved, the decay rate could simply be plotted vs. temperature and the relationship would be obvious. This is not the case, however.Lighthouse said:
What I explained is a very simple version of the so-called "twin" paradox, wherein from a stationary reference, one particle "lives" longer than its twin due to its high velocity (special relativity). In fact, this experiment is real, and has been performed with a number of different particles.
See: Bailey et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268 (July 28, 1977) pg 301. Bailey et al., Nuclear Physics B 150 pg 1–79 (1979).
and
Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693
and
Balandin et al. JETP 40, pg 811 (1974)
and
Bardin et al. Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984).
The relative time dilation can be plotted along the curve of the lorentz transformation, which experimentally verifies the equations. Furthermore, atomic clocks, operating on a completely different mechanism, also show change which can be plotted along this curve. Indeed two different particles with different decay rates traveling at the same velocities will also show their decay rate decreased by a constant factor.
Even more, you can see the effects of relativity on any time dependent function (which includes just about anything) that you can accelerate up to a decent speed. This includes things like doppler shift, decay rates, resonance frequencies, magnetic moments, etc. All of these very different processes show the exact same effects of time dilation (in other words, the same velocity will affect all these different processes the exact same. This would not be expected if it were just a matter of clocks being off). So you can see, this isn't a matter of physical interference with clocks -- any time dependent process is affected.
This is deducible quite readily given the postulate that the speed of light is constant and that all interactions in the universe, from brainwaves to heartbeats to atomic decay to boiling water, are all governed by the fundamental forces, which travel at no faster than the speed of light. From this, we deduce that in a situation in which a person (or a clock, or a cat, or a pencil) is traveling close to the speed of light with respect to our "stationary" frame, we must observe their clocks ticking more slowly, their hearts beating slower, than our own "stationary" clocks, otherwise these fundamental forces which govern atomic interactions could violate the speed of light from our point of view.
I misspoke. I had intended to say "near" the speed of light.Lighthouse said:
This is, of course, the point of my thought experiment above (...which is actually a real experiment.) The results how that it's not just a matter of clocks malfunctioning, it's the very nature of time itself. The lorentz transformation can be derived a number of different ways mathematically, but the point is that in the case of special relativity, time dilation has absolutely nothing to do with gravity or acceleration, and everything to do with velocity. It can take place in a zero-gravity vacuum.Lighthouse said:
So, there is proof that this was not effected by the accelerated speed, but rather the change in the rate of time?
| Time Dilation | |
Check this video out. Remember that all fundamental forces between and within atoms also travel at the speed of light (just like the light pulse), so whatever effect we see with the light clock will translate to all physical interactions, be it hearts beating, ignition of gas in the engine, physical aging, particle decay, boiling water, chemical reactions, atomic resonance, etc.
Do you honestly think showing us an animation explaining the theory is actually going to make us believe it to be true?
And, why hasn't anyone answered the question of why this doesn't happen with digital clocks, yet?
The intent was not to convince you. The intent was to give us common terms on which to speak (if you were so inclined to actually refute any aspect of that video).
It does. An atomic clock is actually a highly accurate digital clock. A standard digital clock usually uses oscillations of electricity or in a quartz crystal to keep time, whereas an atomic clock uses oscillations of electrons in cesium. Find a standard digital clock accurate enough to measure the effect at such low gravitational fields or velocities and you will see the effect there as well. The reason atomic clocks are used is because their accuracy allows us to see such a minute change at everyday velocities and in everyday gravitational fields, not because the effect only occurs with an atomic clock.