Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Stripe]

OK, now there's another person passing by this first person at high relative speed - let's say half the speed of light. However, since there's no reference nearby, Person B thinks that he's the one sitting still and Person A is moving. When Person A, with the laser setup, pulses the laser, Person B is passing nearby. Person B happens to have a good stopwatch, and times the pulse of laser light himself.

Now Person B sees that the distance from the laser to the photodetector is six feet, just like Person A sees. However, the light beam in his perspective travels farther than six feet - while it goes the six vertical feet, Person A has also moved three feet sideways, so the light has to travel 6.7 feet. Since the speed of light is constant, Person B thinks the light took 6.7 ns (light travels very close to 1 foot per nanosecond) to make the trip.

Who is right?

They need to correlate their coordinate systems. Then they will see they both measured the exact same event.

If they cannot figure that out, they might explain the difference by using some magic like "time dilation".

 

[Frayed Knot]

They need to correlate their coordinate systems. Then they will see they both measured the exact same event.

What does that mean? I described the scenario to you - how does the discrepancy get resolved in Stripean physics?

Simply saying "the need to correlate their coordinate systems" is a brush-off answer. You have all the info you need in the example I gave to explain it.

 

[Stripe]

What does that mean? I described the scenario to you - how does the discrepancy get resolved in Stripean physics?

Simply saying "the need to correlate their coordinate systems" is a brush-off answer. You have all the info you need in the example I gave to explain it.

Well, it's pretty simple to describe. :idunno:

And it's not a physics problem - it's just a little algebra.

The guy moving has to adjust his measurements with the knowledge of how fast he is traveling relative to the apparatus. If he knows how fast he is going then he can accurately calculate the stationary guy's answer as well as give his own. The numbers won't be the same, but the difference does not need to represent time dilation.

In fact to do so creates the unresolvable paradox described in the OP.

 

[Tyrathca]

If he knows how fast he is going then he can accurately calculate the stationary guy's answer as well as give his own.

How do they know who is moving and who is stationary?

 

[Stripe]

How do they know who is moving and who is stationary?

The one who is traveling with the apparatus is stationary, the one not is not. Or if you have another reference point of more significance then we might reassess. Why does this matter? :idunno:

 

[Jukia]

The one who is traveling with the apparatus is stationary, the one not is not. Or if you have another reference point of more significance then we might reassess. Why does this matter? :idunno:

It is the whole point. Neither has a point of reference. either one can think they are stationary. Read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, it is mostly about string theory but the first chapter or 2 deals with the relationship between time, space and speed.

 

[Stripe]

It is the whole point. Neither has a point of reference. either one can think they are stationary. Read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe, it is mostly about string theory but the first chapter or 2 deals with the relationship between time, space and speed.

They can use the apparatus as a point of reference. Or they can use one or other of themselves. :idunno:

We are trying to account for the difference between the distances they measure. I've accounted for this. Deciding who is moving and who is stationary is of no relevance.

Try reading what I have written. There is nothing wrong with it. :thumb:

 

[Jukia]

They can use the apparatus as a point of reference. Or they can use one or other of themselves. :idunno:

We are trying to account for the difference between the distances they measure. I've accounted for this. Deciding who is moving and who is stationary is of no relevance.

Try reading what I have written. There is nothing wrong with it. :thumb:

Try understanding the thought experiment. As posed, you are moving at a constant speed with no outside reference, you cannot tell you are moving. If you pass someone you cannot tell if they are stationary or if you are. If the apparatus is a point of reference you are not doing the experiment as suggested.

Try reading Greene's book or anyother that discusses this.

 

[Stripe]

Try understanding the thought experiment. As posed, you are moving at a constant speed with no outside reference, you cannot tell you are moving. If you pass someone you cannot tell if they are stationary or if you are. If the apparatus is a point of reference you are not doing the experiment as suggested.

Try reading Greene's book or anyother that discusses this.

Try reading what I've written. :thumb:

 

[Frayed Knot]

Stripe, the point is that Person A saw the event (the time it took the light pulse to travel six feet) as taking 6.0 nanoseconds, and Person B saw the exact same event take 6.7 ns.

How would you explain this?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe, the point is that Person A saw the event (the time it took the light pulse to travel six feet) as taking 6.0 nanoseconds, and Person B saw the exact same event take 6.7 ns.

How would you explain this?

By pointing out that the extra length measured is a by-product of the different speed with which the two observers are moving with respect to the device.

Know the different speeds and the time can be correlated with some simple algebra. No need to introduce time dilation.

 

[Jukia]

By pointing out that the extra length measured is a by-product of the different speed with which the two observers are moving with respect to the device.

Know the different speeds and the time can be correlated with some simple algebra. No need to introduce time dilation.

I'm not sure you understand the set up. See posts 238 & 240. Person A is not moving. The laser at his feet is not moving. Person B is moving. Because there is no external frame of reference B believes he is stationary and A is moving.

 

[Frayed Knot]

Know the different speeds and the time can be correlated with some simple algebra.

We agree on that. The two people saw the same event, and each measured that it took a different amount of time to occur. Yes, you can use fairly simply algebra to predict that difference.

No need to introduce time dilation.

???!!!??!

All the above is simply what time dilation *IS* ! It seems that maybe you accept all the facts of how it works, but you simply refuse to use the common terms to describe it.

The two observers saw the same event, and saw it take two different amounts of time. That's time dilation. Yes, you can predict the amount of time dilation if you know their relative speeds, but the point is that there is no correct answer for how long the event took to happen. The amount of time you observe is dependent on your reference frame, and there is not a single reference frame that is preferred in the universe, so there's not a "best" answer. It's all relative.

 

[Stripe]

All the above is simply what time dilation *IS* ! It seems that maybe you accept all the facts of how it works, but you simply refuse to use the common terms to describe it.

Exactly. :thumb:

I will agree with you on every point except for your description. Time dilation is not a necessary descriptor of what happens and time is not affected.

The two observers saw the same event, and saw it take two different amounts of time.

Well, no. They calculated according to different lengths and got a different time because they did not correlate their coordinate systems. No matter what your reference frame, one can always calculate a common time against a common coordinate system.

the point is that there is no correct answer for how long the event took to happen. The amount of time you observe is dependent on your reference frame, and there is not a single reference frame that is preferred in the universe, so there's not a "best" answer. It's all relative.

The adjustment you must make is dependent upon your reference frame. Your choice of what is stationary may be arbitrary, but there is no need to say it is time that is what is affected.

In all cases we can explain the different results as a product of different speeds relative to an arbitrary stationary coordinate system. When you choose to not set a stationary reference frame, you are forced to talk about time dilation. It works, but it's not necessary and doesn't mesh with common sense or Occam.

Just set an arbitrary stationary reference frame. Simple. Same answer. No time paradoxes like in the OP. :thumb:

 

[Frayed Knot]

Your choice of what is stationary may be arbitrary, but there is no need to say it is time that is what is affected.

By the way, I was going to continue this thought experiment in a scenario involving two observers in different amounts of gravity, but it appears there's no need to do that. You agree with Einsteinian physics, you just choose not to say that "time" is relative.

You've cast off any anchor lines from your concept of "time" that would bind it with anything useful in the physical world. In your world, there's the concept of how fast clocks run relative to each other, but you're refusing to use the word "time" to describe any of that. Time is something else for you, which I guess you ascribe to God.

For sure this system of yours would work without using the word "time," it's just that you will have trouble communicating with everyone else who uses the word "time." Good luck with that.

 

[Stripe]

By the way, I was going to continue this thought experiment in a scenario involving two observers in different amounts of gravity, but it appears there's no need to do that. You agree with Einsteinian physics, you just choose not to say that "time" is relative.

Er, not exactly. I agree with results that can be derived from Einstein's equations. But his explanations are incorrect. He has taken his slightly incorrect mathematical method and used its functions to describe reality - and reality almost certainly does not include a thing called time dilation. There is a way to do the math a slightly different way and to avoid having to say time is being affected. Thus I do not agree with Einstein's "physics".

You've cast off any anchor lines from your concept of "time" that would bind it with anything useful in the physical world.

Not at all! On Earth we are perfectly justified at looking at the sun and moon and using them as the reference frame by which to calculate standard time for everything. We will never come across an environment where we cannot refer to those things in order to correlate our coordinate systems.

In your world, there's the concept of how fast clocks run relative to each other, but you're refusing to use the word "time" to describe any of that. Time is something else for you, which I guess you ascribe to God.

Time is the distance between events. Anytime anyone or anything does something - we have time.

For sure this system of yours would work without using the word "time," it's just that you will have trouble communicating with everyone else who uses the word "time." Good luck with that.

Why do you think I would never say time?

 

[Frayed Knot]

There is a way to do the math a slightly different way and to avoid having to say time is being affected.

Therefore it's just a semantics issue.

Thus I do not agree with Einstein's "physics".

Based on our thought experiment, you seem to agree with his physics, it's just that you want to substitute your own words.

On Earth we are perfectly justified at looking at the sun and moon and using them as the reference frame by which to calculate standard time for everything.

Yes, if it's convenient, we can relate all our local measurements to the positions of the Earth and Sun. It's just that there's no reason that this is a generally useful way to do it. Someone in another galaxy at the edge of our visible universe wouldn't think that our reference frame is useful for him.

Time is the distance between events.

As observed by whom? You say this like there's a standard frame of reference, but as we've seen, two people would observe the exact same event as taking different amounts of time.

 

[Stripe]

Therefore it's just a semantics issue.

Not exactly. The math is more robust my way. And when the wrong choice is applied as if it were physical reality then we have problems.

Based on our thought experiment, you seem to agree with his physics, it's just that you want to substitute your own words.

I outlined what I agreed with. It wasn't this. :nono:

Yes, if it's convenient, we can relate all our local measurements to the positions of the Earth and Sun. It's just that there's no reason that this is a generally useful way to do it. Someone in another galaxy at the edge of our visible universe wouldn't think that our reference frame is useful for him.

:rotfl:

I'm prepared to run that risk. :chuckle:

As observed by whom? You say this like there's a standard frame of reference, but as we've seen, two people would observe the exact same event as taking different amounts of time.

We do not need to argue or decide who is in the better position. We can agree upon a standard coordinate system and calculate everything according to that. That's the way we agree on all other forms of measurement. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

Cue a nonsense post from Jukia .... 3 2 1....

 

[Jukia]

Cue a nonsense post from Jukia .... 3 2 1....

Nope you beat me to it.

Although I enjoyed your comment about the robust math. Please provide it so we can all see the robustness. Math, you know, numbers, calculations, symbols.