The EXPERIENCE of Relativity [Archive]

Lifegazer

Apr13-03, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by CJames
Spacetime isn't truly "altered" at all, it is just percieved in different ways. In any case, both twins' clocks, brains, rulers, bodily functions, lightbulbs, control pannels, anything, seem completely normal. The twin who comes home to find himself younger than everybody else will be very surprised, because his clock said it only took a little while, at no time did he feel as though time was being slowed down, at no time did anything seem unusual, unless he had decided to take a look at his surroundings closely.

And, as archaron has said, it's not as though the twin on the rocket is in motion and the other is at rest. Halfway through the whole cherade, while the rocket twin is still on his way off, niether twin can be said to be older. From the perspective of the earth-twin, the rocket twin should be younger. From the perspective of the rocket twin, the earth-twin should be younger. It is when the rocket-twin turns his ship around and starts heading back that he has altered things to the point that he, is for sure, the one that will have aged less. He passed through 2 different realms of time (with respect to the earth-twin.)
This statement is so full of inconsistencies. The major one being between your first sentence, and your final sentence.

LWS... What you should realise about Relativity, is that it states all observers experience a different/unique universe. They literally experience a different universe. In the case of the twins, one might see his whole universe age 5 years, and the other twin 40 years.
Let's imagine if we sent 2 brothers to watch a game of football from different positions in the stand (this analogy loosely mirrors the spacetwin scenario, whereby the universe can be equated to ~the game~). If we sit next to the person who experiences the whole game (representing the earth-twin), we can know via the Lorentz-transformation, that the other observer (the spacetwin) has yet to see the second-quarter start.
Paradoxically; what would now happen if the guy who had already seen the game was now to go and 'sit with the observer' (have motion and position like the spacetwin) who has not yet seen the whole game? [Let's imagine that this observer (earthtwin) has the capacity to catch-up with the other observer in a matter of seconds - which wouldn't be difficult if they shared the same radial-of-orbit, as in my thread's example.]. Would he see the second-quarter (or catch the end of the game) again as he met up with his brother? Of course not. This would require time to actually reverse.

Les Sleeth

Apr13-03, 11:08 AM

Les Sleeth

Apr13-03, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
LWS... What you should realise about Relativity, is that it states all observers experience a different/unique universe. They literally experience a different universe. In the case of the twins, one might see his whole universe age 5 years, and the other twin 40 years.

Yes, but isn't it that the traveling twin's one year equals the Earth twin's eight years? Isn't it that the universe itself ages at a rate independent of the observers, and that it is measurement that is affected?

I freely admit that relativity paradoxes can make my brain ache, and I am open to learning all I can from anyone who understands relativity better than I. Yet in this thread at least I am not so interested in the details of relativity as I am in understanding how consciousness would be affected. In my example the traveling twin was already used to Earth's rate of time. Since relativity is a physical effect, and I don't believe consciousness is 100% physical, then it seems to me that the traveling twin will have some sense that his shipboard five years was the longest five years he'd ever experienced.

Lifegazer

Apr13-03, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes, but isn't it that the traveling twin's one year equals the Earth twin's eight years? Isn't it that the universe itself ages at a rate independent of the observers, and that it is measurement that is affected?

Yes. That's my point also.

Janus

Apr13-03, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am going to question you further, not because I necessarily disagree, but because I do not yet believe what I am asking you answered.

First, let me be certain I understand your interpretation. When you say there is no difference in time rate to notice, are you saying that time has not been constricted for the traveling twin during the journey? It is "space-time" is it not that has been altered?

If time is not an issue, then how can it be the traveling twin finds his brother 35 years more aged than himself?

Let's break it down into what is measured from each frame.

Earth twin:

He sees his brother accelerate up to some large fraction of c Relative to himself and then coast. As a result, he sees his brother's time rate as running slower than his own. After coasting for some distance(Let's say to Alpha Centauri), his brother decelerates, and comes to a stop relative to him (the Earth twin). The space twin then accelerates back towards Earth, Coasts again, and then decelerates to a stop again next to him again.

According to the Earth twin, his brother's clock should show less elapsed time and his brother should have aged less than him, because of the large relative velocity difference between them during the majority of the trip.

Space twin:

His sees the Earth accelerate away from himself, while Alpha Centauri accelerates towards him. He also notes that there is a g-force acting on everything in the ship, acting in the same direction as the Earth and Alpha Centauri are Accelerating, and with a force that equals the rate of that acceleration.

This can be explain in two ways, that he is accelerating towards Alpha C, Or, He is standing still in a uniform Gravitational Field, and Earth and Alpha C are falling in it. Either assumption will give the same result because of the Equivalence Principle (equating Accleration and Gravitation), So we will use the second interpretation, as it allows us to treat the space twin as "fixed" frame of reference".

Therfore the Space twin sees the Earth fall away from him and Alpha Centauri fall towards him. As a result, he wil see the combination of two effects on his brother's time rate; one due to the Earth's increasing relative velocity, and one due to the Earth's position in the gravity field. Since Clocks lower in a gravity field will appear to run slower as measured form a frame higher in that field, he will see his Earth twin's brother's time rate as running slower. This is compounded by the fact that the Earth has an increasing Relative velocity, which will also decrease its time rate.

The g field leaves ( This corresponds with what the Earth twin sees as the "coasting" period.) Earth and Alpha C. now maintain a constant relative velocity with respect to him. He will see the time rate on Earth as running slower than his. He also will see length contraction in both the Earth, Alpha C and the distance between them (Earth and Alpha C are just two points in the same frame that is moving relative to him.) It will take some time (t) for this frame to go from The Earth being near to Alpha C being Near. This time will be shorter than that measured by his Earth Brother during this same period. (His Earth brother see him (travel 4.3 ly at a given speed taking a certain time. He sees Earth and Alpha C Fly by him at the Same speed, measures the Distance between them as less than 4.3 ly, thus the transit takes less time.

The g field returns, but this time it points the other direction. (Earth is now Higher in the Field.) But not only is Earth now higher in the Field, it is much higher than it was lower earlier.(He is close to Alpha C and Far from Earth) The Earth's time rate will now be measured as running faster than his own (much faster than it was running slower before.) Fast enough, that by the time the g field leaves again and the Earth and Alpha C are once again at rest relative to him, all the time he saw it losing during the other periods are made up, plus some. This "plus some" will be exactly the amount that the Earth twin will have seen as due to the Space twin's time rate moving slower.

The second half (That where the Earth returns to being next to him) will be just a mirror image of the first.

Meaning that when the twins are re-united they agree as to which twin has aged the least(or most) and by how much, but not as to why. By each twin's frame the time difference is due to the combinations of length contractions and time dilations his brother went through.

Janus

Apr13-03, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yet in this thread at least I am not so interested in the details of relativity as I am in understanding how consciousness would be affected.

And herein lies a problem. The devil is in the details. If you don't have a grasp on them, you'll never be able to relate them to your question.

Les Sleeth

Apr13-03, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Janus
The second half (That where the Earth returns to being next to him) will be just a mirror image of the first. Meaning that when the twins are re-united they agree as to which twin has aged the least(or most) and by how much, but not as to why. By each twin's frame the time difference is due to the combinations of length contractions and time dilations his brother went through.

Thank you Janus for such a thorough explanation; it was one of the best I've seen here and cleared up a couple of points for me about the physical side of relativity.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yet in this thread at least I am not so interested in the details of relativity as I am in understanding how consciousness would be affected.]
Originally posted by Janus
And herein lies a problem. The devil is in the details. If you don't have a grasp on them, you'll never be able to relate them to your question.

I am not sure you understand where I am coming from. That the details are crucial for sound understanding of relativity I do not doubt. But it seems you automatically assume a consciousness raised in Earth's frame of reference will "follow" physical relativity on the space ship journey because, I suspect, you see no difference between the consciousness and physical reality.

That really is what my point addresses. Since consciousness and brain are equated, I think the materialist position will be that the traveling twin will not notice any difference (even though he grew up on Earth) because his entire frame of reference, including his brain, adjusted to the rates of change during his journey. As for me, I am not convinced I wouldn't notice that my rate of change had slowed (relative to my prior experience on Earth) because I don't think consciousness is 100% determined by physical factors.

Janus

Apr13-03, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
This statement is so full of inconsistencies. The major one being between your first sentence, and your final sentence.

LWS... What you should realise about Relativity, is that it states all observers experience a different/unique universe. They literally experience a different universe. In the case of the twins, one might see his whole universe age 5 years, and the other twin 40 years.
Let's imagine if we sent 2 brothers to watch a game of football from different positions in the stand (this analogy loosely mirrors the spacetwin scenario, whereby the universe can be equated to ~the game~). If we sit next to the person who experiences the whole game (representing the earth-twin), we can know via the Lorentz-transformation, that the other observer (the spacetwin) has yet to see the second-quarter start.
Here you go again, spouting off about Relativity, when you don't know what you're talking about.

Both twins would see the exact same proportion of the "game" played. One will just say that it took longer to play out. While One twin will say the first half took 1 1/2 hrs, the other will say it took 3. If the twins compared notes at any point of the "game" they would agree exactly as to which play just transpired, But wouldn't agree to how much time has expired(By their clock) since the Game started. Either one Twin will see the game progress in slow-motion or the other will see it progress in fast motion. (Or one will see it in fast motion while the other sees it in slow motion.) Also, if either twin took his field glasses of the field to scan the stands to find his brother, he will see him (and those sitting around him), as either moving in fast or slow motion.

Who sees what depends on each twin's "position" (relative velocity and Gravitational potential) Relative to the the "field" and each other.

Janus

Apr13-03, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

I know you can't answer my overall question about conscious experience (because there is no way to test it). Since consciousness and brain are equated, I think the materialist position will be that the traveling twin will not notice any difference (even though he grew up on Earth) because his entire frame of reference, including his brain, adjusted to the rates of change during his journey. As for me, I am not convinced I wouldn't notice that my rate of change had slowed.

I think you missed the point of this statement:

By each twin's frame the time difference is due to the combinations of length contractions and time dilations his brother went through.

Put simply: "Relativistic effects always happen to the other frame.

You never have to worry about how your "consciousness" reacts to Relativistic effects, because you or nothing else in your frame experiences them. It is always the other frame in which the effects are measured (by you or anything in your frame).

This is what "no prefered frame of reference means".

Les Sleeth

Apr13-03, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Janus
I think you missed the point of this statement:

By each twin's frame the time difference is due to the combinations of length contractions and time dilations his brother went through.

Put simply: "Relativistic effects always happen to the other frame.

You never have to worry about how your "consciousness" reacts to Relativistic effects, because you or nothing else in your frame experiences them. It is always the other frame in which the effects are measured (by you or anything in your frame).

This is what "no prefered frame of reference means".

Good point, and it mirrors how we all live even in the same frame of reference.

However, I am not talking about comparing myself to my twin when I get back, but rather, comparing my experience of 5 years on Earth to my experience of five years while traveling.

CJames

Apr13-03, 02:14 PM

This statement is so full of inconsistencies. The major one being between your first sentence, and your final sentence.LOL, thanks LG, that's what happens when you write late at night. You don't explain things thoroughly enought.

Yes, the first sentence does seem to contradict the final sentence. However, notice that I said "with respect to the earth-twin." That doesn't completely clear things up, but it does a little bit to alleviate that. Anyway, I was digging myself into a hole saying that "Spacetime isn't truly 'altered' at all." That's confusing. I was just trying to get across the point that a meter is still a meter, no matter what reference frame you use.

The rest of the post, however, is correct. There aren't any other inconsistencies, unless you can point one out to me. It is true that the twin who turns himself around is the one that ends up with the slower clock, due to the explanation Janus just gave. The entire post is worded horribly though, I'll definitely give you that much.

Take care. --Carter

CJames

Apr13-03, 02:19 PM

LW Sleeth, it doesn't come down to whether the mind is material or not. It comes down to the basic premises of relativity. The idea of relativity is that no reference frame can be said to be better than another, and that all things within that reference frame are entirely consistent. If they weren't, everything would break down. The point is, the observer is always at rest in his reference frame. He therefore shouldn't be able to feel anything as being different, no matter what kind of mind it is he is using to feel it.

CJames

Apr13-03, 02:36 PM

However, I am not talking about comparing myself to my twin when I get back, but rather, comparing my experience of 5 years on Earth to my experience of five years while traveling.You see that's just it, for those five years, you aren't travelling, it's always the other twin that is doing the travelling, because your frame of reference is always said to be at rest.

Les Sleeth

Apr13-03, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by CJames
LW Sleeth, it doesn't come down to whether the mind is material or not. It comes down to the basic premises of relativity. The idea of relativity is that no reference frame can be said to be better than another, and that all things within that reference frame are entirely consistent. If they weren't, everything would break down. The point is, the observer is always at rest in his reference frame. He therefore shouldn't be able to feel anything as being different, no matter what kind of mind it is he is using to feel it.

Hmmmmmm . . . let me see if I can explain the exception I see to this. And please, I hope you, or Janus, or anyone else wanting to make sure relativity is properly explained and understood do not think I have any interest in challenging relativity. Consciousness, however, I see as not necessarily physical (or only physical), and because of that I cannot yet accept an assumption you are making about it in relativity.

Let's contrast two types of awareness.

Say a computer is able to generate awareness intelligent as humans are right now. The computer lives in an entirely electronic world where every device it interacts with is powered by the same source; the computer shares the same power source too. On hot days when air conditioners around the county are straining generators, the power level of computer's shared power supply drops. Now it and everything connected to the power supply slows proportionately; plus, the computer's awarenes slows too, and so notices absolutely nothing is different.

A neighbor intelligently-aware computer also lives entirely in an electronic world with lots of other electronic devices. All the devices share a common power source. However, this computer runs on its own generator, and so when air conditioners around the county slow down all the appliances around it, it notices the difference.

Similarly, if consciousness is purely a product of materiality, then when all materials slow or speed up, it should "follow" that and not notice any difference. But if some aspect of consciousness remains constant despite physical rates of change, then we might expect one to notice.

Does that make sense?

Les Sleeth

Apr13-03, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by CJames
You see that's just it, for those five years, you aren't travelling, it's always the other twin that is doing the travelling, because your frame of reference is always said to be at rest.

True. But I am really talking about noticing a difference in the rate of change in my frame of reference compared to the rate of change in my prior frame of reference.

Lifegazer

Apr13-03, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Janus
Here you go again, spouting off about Relativity, when you don't know what you're talking about.

In this post, I'm going to show you a flaw in your reasoning. I'd like you to address this please.

Both twins would see the exact same proportion of the "game" played. One will just say that it took longer to play out. While One twin will say the first half took 1 1/2 hrs, the other will say it took 3. If the twins compared notes at any point of the "game" they would agree exactly as to which play just transpired, But wouldn't agree to how much time has expired(By their clock) since the Game started. Either one Twin will see the game progress in slow-motion or the other will see it progress in fast motion. (Or one will see it in fast motion while the other sees it in slow motion.) Also, if either twin took his field glasses of the field to scan the stands to find his brother, he will see him (and those sitting around him), as either moving in fast or slow motion.

Who sees what depends on each twin's "position" (relative velocity and Gravitational potential) Relative to the the "field" and each other.
I'm aware of the part in red. The point I was making is that when the twins suddenly meet-up, there is a distinct time-difference apparent in their appearances, too. One looks older than the other. For in what sense can we say that the twins have had a different experience of time, if their bodies are not different? Indeed, if the spacetwin returned after sufficient time, his brother would have aged into dust (being so old himself, he's dead). The Lorentz-transformations aren't just clever-math. They point to real experiences for each observer.
Therefore, we must assume that if the twins meet 'in the stadium', that they will have had real experiences in-line with the Lorentz-transformation (the math of relativity).
Therefore, we must assume that one twin has actually seen less of the same 'game' that his brother has been observing. Correct?

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that the Lorentz-transformations point to each observer experiencing different times for the same event, unless you acknowledge that this is actually the reality of the situation, and that the spacetwin has actually experienced less of that 'game' than his brother.
And in that sense, you are wrong to state that the brothers can have different experiences of time, when if when they meet-up, they've both seen that game in its entirety.
A game lasts 80 minutes (or is it 40?). That's not important. What is important, is that 2 observers cannot watch the same game and say that they've both watched the same number of 'quarters'. For if this is the case, then in what sense can we say that they've had different experiences of the same game, concerning time?

Janus

Apr13-03, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
True. But I am really talking about noticing a difference in the rate of change in my frame of reference compared to the rate of change in my prior frame of reference.

But you don't change frames of reference. In the Twin paradox for instance, for the space twin, it is the Earth that changes frames. There is no "prior" frame of reference to compare your rate to.

Janus

Apr13-03, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
In this post, I'm going to show you a flaw in your reasoning. I'd like you to address this please.

I'm aware of the part in red. The point I was making is that when the twins suddenly meet-up, there is a distinct time-difference apparent in their appearances, too. One looks older than the other. For in what sense can we say that the twins have had a different experience of time, if their bodies are not different? Indeed, if the spacetwin returned after sufficient time, his brother would have aged into dust (being so old himself, he's dead). The Lorentz-transformations aren't just clever-math. They point to real experiences for each observer.
Therefore, we must assume that if the twins meet 'in the stadium', that they will have had real experiences in-line with the Lorentz-transformation (the math of relativity).
Therefore, we must assume that one twin has actually seen less of the same 'game' that his brother has been observing. Correct?

No, not correct. The "game" is just another frame of reference, which each twin is observing from his own frame of reference. They just see the time in this frame and each other's as progressing at different rates.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that the Lorentz-transformations point to each observer experiencing different times for the same event, unless you acknowledge that this is actually the reality of the situation, and that the spacetwin has actually experienced less of that 'game' than his brother.
And in that sense, you are wrong to state that the brothers can have different experiences of time, when if when they meet-up, they've both seen that game in its entirety.
A game lasts 80 minutes (or is it 40?). That's not important. What is important, is that 2 observers cannot watch the same game and say that they've both watched the same number of 'quarters'. For if this is the case, then in what sense can we say that they've had different experiences of the same game, concerning time?

Since each frame will have its own time rate (as measured form any other frame), How long the game lasts depends upon which frame you measure it from. It could last 80 min from the frame of the field itself, 160 mins for one twin, and 40 mins for the other. At the end of the game bring both twins onto the field (Within the same frame) both twins will agree that they saw the whole game from their seats, and the officials on the field will say the game is over. But if they compare clocks.(sychronized before the start of the game. they will show different times, and twins and officials will each have aged the amount as shown on their respective clocks.

This is what Relativity and the Lorentz contractions say. Not what you are trying to pass off as what they say.

CJames

Apr13-03, 04:21 PM

Similarly, if consciousness is purely a product of materiality, then when all materials slow or speed up, it should "follow" that and not notice any difference. But if some aspect of consciousness remains constant despite physical rates of change, then we might expect one to notice.

Does that make sense?Yes, it does make sense, but again, it comes from a misunderstanding of relativity. I can't blame you for that, it is indeed pretty counterintuitive. It comes from this idea you have in your head that it has to do with all the materials in that frame of reference slowing down or speeding up. There aren't any "physical rates of change" caused by relativity. What you have to understand is that in a particular reference frame, nothing is running slow etc. It's not that everything in there is slowed down proportionally to everything else so it seems normal. It's that everything is normal.

Think of it like this. Right now, we are moving away from some parts of the universe at almost the speed of light. But we consider ourselves to be at rest. There is no way to decide who is at rest. There is no absolute frame of reference that decides whether you are moving or not. It therefore makes no sense to think that time should feel different for any particular mind based on its "motion." The only way that could happen is if all our minds somehow communicate with each other and decide who is at rest, which is ridiculous.

CJames

Apr13-03, 04:28 PM

Therefore, we must assume that one twin has actually seen less of the same 'game' that his brother has been observing. Correct?This seems to be your fundamental misunderstanding of SR, lifegazer. He will have seen the entire game (if he's watching it), it will just have taken a different amount of time to finish. The players will appear to be moving faster, or slower, the clock on the scoreboard will be moving at a different rate in comparison to each observer's clock.

Les Sleeth

Apr13-03, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Janus
But you don't change frames of reference. In the Twin paradox for instance, for the space twin, it is the Earth that changes frames. There is no "prior" frame of reference to compare your rate to.

True, one is always in his own frame of reference. I said something I didn't mean. I will explain what I meant in my next post to CJames.

Les Sleeth

Apr13-03, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by CJames
Yes, it does make sense, but again, it comes from a misunderstanding of relativity. I can't blame you for that, it is indeed pretty counterintuitive. It comes from this idea you have in your head that it has to do with all the materials in that frame of reference slowing down or speeding up. There aren't any "physical rates of change" caused by relativity. What you have to understand is that in a particular reference frame, nothing is running slow etc. It's not that everything in there is slowed down proportionally to everything else so it seems normal. It's that everything is normal.

Think of it like this. Right now, we are moving away from some parts of the universe at almost the speed of light. But we consider ourselves to be at rest. There is no way to decide who is at rest. There is no absolute frame of reference that decides whether you are moving or not. It therefore makes no sense to think that time should feel different for any particular mind based on its "motion." The only way that could happen is if all our minds somehow communicate with each other and decide who is at rest, which is ridiculous.

Thank you CJames for bearing with me (thanks to Janus too). I will tell you why I believe some part of your explanation isn't just counterintuitive to me, but it appears to contradict physical facts.

You say that "nothing is running slow etc. It's not that everything in there is slowed down proportionally to everything else so it seems normal. It's that everything is normal."

Let's compare the circumstances of the twins paradox at a couple of stages. While traveling, that twin sees all measurements of time as normal, as does the Earthbound twin.

When the traveling twin returns home however, 35 more years have passed there than on his ship. I am not saying that either frame of reference is the "true" one, but something different has occured in each situation because the traveling twin and his spaceship have aged at 1/8th the rate that Earth and its inhabitants have. I mean, each twin is going to notice that!

If it weren't for that difference in aging, then I would agree with you. But that aging is a physical fact, and it is a fact of change. What is the nature of aging-type change? Overall it is entropic, and so it appears that the rate of entropy was affected by acceleration. If time is the rate of entropy, the accelerating spaceship slowed "time" by increasing its mass/gravity during acceleration, which we might expect would alter the rate of entropy.

Before getting back to "experience" of relativity, let's see if you agree that actual, physical differences result between someone accelerating and someone zooming along at a (relatively) constant rate.

Lifegazer

Apr13-03, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by CJames
This seems to be your fundamental misunderstanding of SR, lifegazer. He will have seen the entire game (if he's watching it), it will just have taken a different amount of time to finish. The players will appear to be moving faster, or slower, the clock on the scoreboard will be moving at a different rate in comparison to each observer's clock.
This is just totally wrong. Your (and Janus') position, is that both observers see an 80 minute game at the same rate (literally). One brother flies-off into space, then experiences time to slow-down (relatively) to his brother on Earth. So; would you please explain how this spacetwin has had this tangible-experience of time-distortion if he has seen as much of 'the game' as his brother, when they meet-up?
I promise you that your argument will not stand-up to logic. If the spacetwin has experienced a 'normal 8o minutes' of the game at the same rate as his brother, then it is impossible for them to have experienced time & space differently. I promise you. If you argue against this fact, then you are exhibiting a total ineptitude to logic.

Lifegazer

Apr13-03, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Janus
No, not correct. The "game" is just another frame of reference

It's an identical game of reference, as observed by both twins. It is 'absolute', in this sense. What the game might observe of itself is irrelevant. If the quarterback scores in the first quarter, then he scores in the first quarter for both twins. Fact. What the game might observe of itself is irrelevant. The same game is observed by all.
The question here, is whether the spacetwin has seen less 'quarters' than his brother on Earth. If you read my last post, to CJames, then you'll see that I say that he does - and he must - for the lorentz-transformations to have any tangible meaning. If they don't have tangible/experienced meaning, then what do the Lorentz transformations mean to each observer? Nothing.

which each twin is observing from his own frame of reference. They just see the time in this frame and each other's as progressing at different rates.

And yet, when they meet-up (as I did stipulate), you are advocating that both twins shall have seen as much of 'the game'. What happens if we bring-them together at the final-whistle? - Both twins have just had a supposedly-normal experience of an 80-minute game, at the same rate (according to you). So where does the experience of a time-distortion come into it?

Since each frame will have its own time rate (as measured form any other frame), How long the game lasts depends upon which frame you measure it from. It could last 80 min from the frame of the field itself, 160 mins for one twin, and 40 mins for the other.

That's what the math tell us. That's what I'm working on (though I argue that 'the field' does not have its own given frame-of-reference. Its frame-of-reference is the observer who sees that field like it is). It just-so happens that all observers shall see the 'same game', eventually.
All observers will see 'a field'. Some will say that the field is longer or shorter than what you think it is. Similarly, some observers will tell you that less events (of experienced time) have happened upon that field. That is exactly what space-time distortion of 'the field' does. It changes your experience of time & space.
Hence, you must acknowledge that the spacetwin will not only measure a different length of the field (assuming he had the technology to do so, from his position); he will also experience less events happening upon that field. This is the only way to make the Lorentz-transformations become 'real' (as experienced) for each observer.

At the end of the game bring both twins onto the field

Better-still; imagine we can bring the spacetwin back to the earth-twin's extra-wide seat at the almost-exact moment of the final-whistle. Now let's scrutinise what you say next...

(Within the same frame) both twins will agree that they saw the whole game from their seats, and the officials on the field will say the game is over.

As confirmed earlier, you are advocating that the 2 twins can see the same 'game' at the same rate. And next, you say this...

But if they compare clocks.(sychronized before the start of the game. they will show different times, and twins and officials will each have aged the amount as shown on their respective clocks.

This is literally nonsensical. Sincerely. How can their clocks move differently if the players on the pitch have not? Can the spacetwin see a 'normal' game in 13 experienced-minutes, for example? How? How can the spacetwin have a 'normal experience' of 13 minutes, and see a full game of football?
Let's face it, if this was the case, then the spacetwin's experience of time is far from 'normal'.

This is what Relativity and the Lorentz contractions say. Not what you are trying to pass off as what they say.
With all due respect, I don't think logic/reason supports your imagined reality of Einstein's work. There is no logical-way that your explanation mirrors any sense of the Lorentz-transformation.
I apologise for being direct. But this is important. Please address it.

CJames

Apr13-03, 07:07 PM

This is just totally wrong. Your (and Janus') position, is that both observers see an 80 minute game at the same rate (literally). At the same rate? Where did this come from. Let's try this again. The game is one frame of reference. One observer is in motion with respect to that reference frame. Within the observer's reference frame, time is running normal. Outside his/her reference frame time is wacked. From the perspective of the observer, the game is running faster/slower than he/she would expect it to be. But the observer does not miss any part of the game. It simply seems to take place in less/more time. The watches of the players are moving faster/slower than his/hers. His/her time feels entirely normal, but the games seems to be wrong. Does it make sense yet?

CJames

Apr13-03, 07:20 PM

How's it going LW?
Before getting back to "experience" of relativity, let's see if you agree that actual, physical differences result between someone accelerating and someone zooming along at a (relatively) constant rate.Yes, there are actual, physical differences. Ultimately, when the twins meet again, one of them will have aged more, and one will have aged less.

When the traveling twin returns home however, 35 more years have passed there than on his ship. I am not saying that either frame of reference is the "true" one, but something different has occured in each situation because the traveling twin and his spaceship have aged at 1/8th the rate that Earth and its inhabitants have. I mean, each twin is going to notice that! I like how you worded that, because it fits quite perfectly. Yes, something is different. The thing is, that "something" is different depending on which reference frame you use! Crazy isn't it? True though. I'm not sure you understand this yet, but there is more to SR than time dilation. There is also length contraction, which plays a big part. Both reference frames will agree on the final results, they disagree on the means. The rocket-twin will notice that the surrounding universe, travelling at near lightspeed compared to the rocket's reference frame, is contracted in length. He therefore doesn't believe he travelled as far as the other twin believes he did.

Each twin will disagree. One twin finds that the other's measurements say something travelled half as far, with clocks running twice as slow. The other will say something travelled twice as far, with clocks running half the speed of the other. But they agree on the result.

Les Sleeth

Apr13-03, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by CJames
How's it going LW?

It's going (relative to my frame of reference of course).

Originally posted by CJames
HYes, there are actual, physical differences. Ultimately, when the twins meet again, one of them will have aged more, and one will have aged less. I like how you worded that, because it fits quite perfectly. Yes, something is different. The thing is, that "something" is different depending on which reference frame you use! Crazy isn't it?

Yes, it can be mindboggling, but I do understand this. Neither twin is "right' in his interpretation of events because all events are perfectly consistent within each twin's frame of reference.

Originally posted by CJames
True though. I'm not sure you understand this yet, but there is more to SR than time dilation. There is also length contraction, which plays a big part. . . . One twin finds that the other's measurements say something travelled half as far, with clocks running twice as slow. The other will say something travelled twice as far, with clocks running half the speed of the other. But they agree on the result.

I understand this too, and actually it supports my notion that acceleration is constricting the traveling twin's entire frame of reference relative to the Earth twin.

So, now that we agree that the actual physical rate of change differs in each frame of reference, let's return to the theme of this post.

Will the twin raised at Earth's rate of change notice it when his rate of change is altered by acceleration? I refer you back to my "computer awareness" analogy as the basis of my query.

Janus

Apr13-03, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
This is just totally wrong. Your (and Janus') position, is that both observers see an 80 minute game at the same rate (literally). One brother flies-off into space, then experiences time to slow-down (relatively) to his brother on Earth. So; would you please explain how this spacetwin has had this tangible-experience of time-distortion if he has seen as much of 'the game' as his brother, when they meet-up?

You still haven't gotten the concepts of Relativity correct, Neither twin experiences time or space dilation, he measures it as happening to the other twin.

Your post contains so many intertwined misconceptions, It would take much more time that I have to correct them all. Add to this that you show no inclination towards wanting to unlearn your misconceptions, and its more work than it worth.

So Instead, let's simpilfy things by dealing with one aspect of Relativity at a time. And if you can come to grips with it, then maybe we can proceed further.

Instead of a twin traveling at high relative velocity, let's just put them in different gravity potentials. ( One in a valley and one on a mountain top) This way we only have to deal one Relativistic effect rather than many. And don't have to deal with the complication of changing distances btween the twins.

According to Relativity, the time rate at the top of the mountain runs faster than at the bottom of the valley.

The mountain twin's time runs faster, (His clock runs faster, he breathes faster, his heart pumps faster and his thought processes run faster.) Since everything on the mountain top shares the same time rate, as he looks around him everything looks normal.

But this only applys to those things within his frame, (Sharing the same or nearly the same Gravity potential as himself) not to things outside of this frame!

If he looks at something at Sea level (or at anything else at a different gravity potential wrt to himself) , he will not see the clocks run or events take place at a rate that matches his own.

If he watches a game taking place at Sea level the game will take a longer amount of time to play out for him than it does for someone on the field. For him events on the field will take place at a slower rate because it time runs slower at lower gravity potentials than his own.
But since anyone in the stadium is in the same frame as the game, they will share the same time rate as the game. (If the game take 80 min to play on the field, These spectators will see it take 80 min also , Even though the mountain twin sees it as taking a longer time. (Actually, From the Mountain Twin's frame, it isn't that his time rate is altered by his high altitude, but that the stadiums time rate is altered by its lower alitude)

From the valley twin's frame, the game will appear to run faster. (The stadium is at a higher altitude than the valley twin's frame. ) Again, the Valley twin looking around at things sharing his same altitude will see them behaving at a normal time rate.

If the mountain twin looks at the valley twin he will see the valley twin's time as moving even slower that the stadium's. And if the valley twin looks at the mountain twin he will see the mountain twin's time rate as running even faster than the stadium.

How fast the game "really" played out depends on from which frame it was measured.

The same goes for another time period, that between sunrises. If over any given period you were to ask the Mountain twin, the Valley twin and someone in the stadium how many sunsets they've seen, they would all agree, even though they would'n't agree to how much time has passed over the period. Each would just measure the time between sunsets as taking different amounts of time.

[/b]
I promise you that your argument will not stand-up to logic. If the spacetwin has experienced a 'normal 8o minutes' of the game at the same rate as his brother, then it is impossible for them to have experienced time & space differently. I promise you. If you argue against this fact, then you are exhibiting a total ineptitude to logic. [/B]

The only thing this exhibits is your ineptitude at understanding the concepts of Relativity, even after they have been explained to you many times, and in many ways.

But then it is not to your advantage to understand Relativity, you then might discover that you've built a 'house of cards'

The game only takes '80 mins' when measured from the same frame as the game. As measured from other frames it will take different times to play out. We've already said that the game will take different times to play out as measured from different frames. That same 80 mins as measured from within the frame of the game, might be measured as 160 min from a different frame.

What is so hard about all this that you can't see it?

Lifegazer

Apr13-03, 08:34 PM

LWS...
Why are you so-interested (all of a sudden), in talking about this? Are you going-down the same road as I tried to go-down? To what ends?
Once more, you have confused me. Given your responses to our previous discussions, I fail to see what you, personally, are trying to prove. Do you not realise that a discussion upon these lines (by you) is an enforcement of my own personal philosophy? And if you do realise that, then has your philosophy changed?

Lifegazer

Apr13-03, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Janus
You still haven't gotten the concepts of Relativity correct, Neither twin experiences time or space dilation, he measures it as happening to the other twin.

What a crock. He 'measures' nothing about the time of the other twin. He only experiences the differences when we get them 'on the same seat'.
That's a fact. Don't lie to this forum (and since you're in a position of respected-authority, you should be doing your utmost to be 'responsible' here). The spacetwin experiences his reality. He does not experience/measure the reality of other observers. At least; not until he experiences the different experiences of those observers (when he sits on the same seat as those observers). The spacetwin doesn't measure the experiences of other observers - he measures his own experiences. That is a fact upon which Relativity hinges.

Your post contains so many intertwined misconceptions, It would take much more time that I have to correct them all.

Don't make a comment like that. It's provocatively unsupported.

Add to this that you show no inclination towards wanting to unlearn your misconceptions, and its more work than it worth.

You won't budge; will you? I can just 'sense' it. You just utterly refuse to contemplate my ideas as being sensical - despite Ahrkron & Tom both admiting that my ideas are compatible with Einstein's work. I somehow sense that you are the biggest materialist in the whole 'plot'. You have certainly given me no indication that you have ever taken me seriously. No matter what I say.
If it is your intention that I shall become bored of this pursuit, then you are probably correct. However, for the time-being, I will challenge established-philosophies until you kick me out of these forums and thereby admit that you are defending a materialistic-bias. You certainly are not defending science here. You are defending your own philosophy: ~Materialism~.
You have no moral right to kick me out of a philosophy-forum for attacking a specific philosophy. Please contemplate that before you kick me out. Therefore; please don't kick me out (as I love posting here). But I won't change my philosophy. Not unless you can prove its unreasonable. To-date, you have not.
I don't just challenge you with a philosophical-dilemma here. I challenge you with a moral dilemma. Is materialism big-enough to kill all other challenges with scorn? I think not. Therefore, think hard before deciding what you shall do. The truth is bigger than a couple of egos.

Janus

Apr13-03, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What a crock. He 'measures' nothing about the time of the other twin. He only experiences the differences when we get them 'on the same seat'.
That's a fact. Don't lie to this forum (and since you're in a position of respected-authority, you should be doing your utmost to be 'responsible' here). The spacetwin experiences his reality. He does not experience/measure the reality of other observers. At least; not until he experiences the different experiences of those observers (when he sits on the same seat as those observers). The spacetwin doesn't measure the experiences of other observers - he measures his own experiences. That is a fact upon which Relativity hinges.

Earth twin points his telescope at Earth. And measures how much time passes on his brothers clock as compared to his. His brother's clock is seen to be running slower than his. Thus he Measures time as running slower on his brother's ship

Space twin does a close fly by of the Earth, as he does so, Earth twin uses a sextant to measure the Length of a meter stick on Space twin's ship. he finds that it is shorter than 1 meter. He measures length contraction as happening to his brother's ship.

Do we have to give you a lesson on what Measurement means Also?

It appears that the only one practicing deception here is you; By maintaining the pretense that you understand a Subject (Relativity) which you clearily do not.

Your saying "That is a fact" when it come to Relativity bears no weight because you don't understand the "facts" of Relativity.

Don't make a comment like that. It's provocatively unsupported.

It is amply supported by your own statements which misrepresent Relativity.

You won't budge; will you? I can just 'sense' it. You just utterly refuse to contemplate my ideas as being sensical - despite Ahrkron & Tom both admiting that my ideas are compatible with Einstein's work.

My post was entirely aimed at your misconceptions of Relativity
(which I very carefully tried to correct in the rest of the post) and not your Philosophy.

But since you bring it up.

If you read Tom's and Ahrkon's comments closely, they also said that such compatabilty doesn't mean anything, since there are other valid viewpoints that are just as compatible.

Just like pure Solipsism is compatible with Relativity.( The idea that I am the only reality and that everything else (you included) is just an illusion.)

Or materialism for that fact.

That compatibilty cannot be used to support any of these viewpoints over the others.

ahrkron

Apr13-03, 11:42 PM

LG,

You are being extremely unreasonable here. Janus is providing clear explanations of relativistic effects. He is definitely not lying to the forum.

You, on the other hand, have not understood those explanations and, knowingly or not, are presenting your confused ideas about it as logical necessities. They are not, and I find it upsetting that you push so hard from them, being the case that you know that you are not too clear on the meaning of relativity and Lorentz transformations.

Also, when you say that

You just utterly refuse to contemplate my ideas as being sensical - despite Ahrkron & Tom both admiting that my ideas are compatible with Einstein's work.

you are being deceitful. Both Tom and I mentioned that your ideas are UNTESTABLE, and hence UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to any meaningful discussion.

CJames

Apr14-03, 01:09 AM

Lifegazer, I thought you understood that the observer is always at rest in his own reference frame and that everything within that reference frame appears normal. It is when he measures what's going on in somebody else's reference frame and compares his results with the measurements made within that reference frame that the discrepancies arise. I thought you understood that and I still think you do. For some reason, though, right now you just feel like being a martyr. That's how it appears to me, anyway. Maybe you just aren't reading Janus's posts closely enough, maybe they were worded to complicated. I'm not sure. All I can tell is that I see two people I thought understood at least the basic concepts of something, now arguing over its basic concepts. Frankly, I'm a little lost as to why this is even happening. You read a popular text on relativity. Maybe you need to go back to it.

Lifegazer

Apr14-03, 07:10 AM

If the spacetwin can see/experience the fast-clock of his brother, or if the earthtwin can see/experience the slow-clock of his brother, then what you're saying is that each observer exists in his own unique bundle of time, and that a clock observed upon any other object which is moving considerably faster or slower than the observer will not mirror his own clock.
But how can the spacetwin have a 'normal' experience of time if the objects he is looking at (the universe) are all moving much-faster than he would expect?
If the observed-clock is the 'stadium clock' (the game clock, on earth), then the spacetwin will experience the 80 minute game happening in the course of less than 20 of his own minutes, for example. Clearly, all the players on the field of play are running about like Charlie-chaplin, in one of those old silent-movies. There's nothing 'normal' happening here, for the spacetwin. The universe (as observed/experienced by the spacetwin) is all moving several times faster than it would be experienced on Earth. That's the experience of the spacetwin.
So; what price 'normality'? What does it mean?

If the spacetwin observes 'the game' at the same rate as the earthtwin, and yet in less than 20 minutes, then he is not seeing a 'normal' game. He must be observing something which can only be compared to the images we see when we use the fast-forward button on our video-recorders.

It seems to me that there is a valid discussion to be had about the individual experience of relativity, whereby it can be shown that space & time are a function of the observer's own mind (how his mind sees those parameters of existence).

Janus

Apr14-03, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
If the spacetwin can see/experience the fast-clock of his brother, or if the earthtwin can see/experience the slow-clock of his brother, then what you're saying is that each observer exists in his own unique bundle of time, and that a clock observed upon any other object which is moving considerably faster or slower than the observer will not mirror his own clock.

Replace "observer" with "Frame of Reference" and "is moving considerably faster or slower than the observer" with "has a considerable relative velocity with respect to the frame of refernce", and that's about it.

But how can the spacetwin have a 'normal' experience of time if the objects he is looking at (the universe) are all moving much-faster than he would expect?
Everything that shares his frame of reference behaves normally. He shouldn't expect objects in other frames to follow the same pattern. You are trying to expand the use of the word 'normal' beyond what it means here.

If the observed-clock is the 'stadium clock' (the game clock, on earth), then the spacetwin will experience the 80 minute game happening in the course of less than 20 of his own minutes, for example. Clearly, all the players on the field of play are running about like Charlie-chaplin, in one of those old silent-movies. There's nothing 'normal' happening here, for the spacetwin. The universe (as observed/experienced by the spacetwin) is all moving several times faster than it would be experienced on Earth. That's the experience of the spacetwin.
So; what price 'normality'? What does it mean?

If the spacetwin observes 'the game' at the same rate as the earthtwin, and yet in less than 20 minutes, then he is not seeing a 'normal' game. He must be observing something which can only be compared to the images we see when we use the fast-forward button on our video-recorders.

Again, you are trying to use the word 'Normal' in a way that it is not meant. Normal is a relative term. It is not the absolute term you are trying to make it. When one says that an observer in a frame sees everything as normal, one means "within his own Frame of Reference" it is not meant to extend beyond his frame of reference like you are trying to make it do.

Lifegazer

Apr14-03, 10:24 AM

I'm going to leave this discussion for others. I just want to apologise to you Janus for giving you grief, as we say over here, earlier. I was out of order. I'm sorry.

N_Quire

Apr14-03, 11:32 AM

I find it sad when philosophy degenerates into a forum for debating pet and personal theories based on incorrect or incomplete versions of already established science. Philosophy then becomes like God & Religion, an anything-goes forum, where science can be debated even by those with no knowledge of science.

The philosophy forum thereby becomes a backdoor for non-scientists and those with little knowledge of science to sound off about theories and ideas they barely understand.

This relativity discussion could not take place in the physics forum because the standards there are higher. Many posters would be encouarged to go back and study the basics before launching their theories on the world. You can't just make up physics as you go along. In the philosophy forum, on the other hand, there are few standards and the forum suffers as a result.

I would like to thank the mentors for their patience throughout this relativity discussion.

Les Sleeth

Apr14-03, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Lifegazer
LWS... Why are you so-interested (all of a sudden), in talking about this? Are you going-down the same road as I tried to go-down? To what ends?
Once more, you have confused me. Given your responses to our previous discussions, I fail to see what you, personally, are trying to prove. Do you not realise that a discussion upon these lines (by you) is an enforcement of my own personal philosophy? And if you do realise that, then has your philosophy changed?

I thought I would wait for your debate with Janus and others to die down before answered you. I want to try to explain where I think we agree and disagree, and hopefully get this thread back on track.

Where I sense we agree is that neither of us believe consciousness is entirely the result of material processes. In fact, I can say for myself personally that I know that it isn’t. You may remember some of the debate I’ve had with DT Strain and others where I’ve argued against the concept that all knowing can be empirically demonstrated. It is the philosophy of empirically-oriented materialism that wants to reduce and take everything apart, and sometimes claim if it doesn’t show up in laboratory experiments then it can’t exist. I joined this site specifically to challenge that philosophy, mainly because I’m getting a book ready for a publisher and needed feedback for my concepts. So far the people here have been immensely helpful, even the most crabby and uncompromising materialist types.

What my focus has mostly been at PF are materialist claims I feel are premature given the evidence we have (like spontaneous chemogenisis), and to challenge physical theories of, or involving, consciousness. The latter is the theme of this thread. I don’t think materialist theories can automatically be extended to consciousness, particularly the basic materialist concept that the brain (more or less) generates consciousness. I do believe the CN and brain draw in “something” (potentiality?) and then organizes its undifferentiated nature for thinking, memory, etc., but the “something” beneath all that organization retains its original nature.

As you know, I think when materialist concepts are extended into the realm of consciousness, it seems every time the undifferentiated, unified, holistic aspect is overlooked. Point that out and you might be told such ideas about consciousness have been “dismissed” (by materialist advocates of course), along with notions of the “observer” in consciousness, Descartes, the phenomenon of enlightenment, God and anything else which can’t be explained by, or interferes with, materialist philosophy. I believe it is wrong to ignore or dismiss what can’t be explained by one’s philosophy, and so I want to challenge that.

But just as I think it’s incorrect to automaticallyextend physical concepts to consciousness, so too do I worry about interpreting physical things in a consciousness or spiritual context. I think if there is the sort of consciousness I’ve suggested, or something spiritual, it operates by non-physical principles (though not supernaturally). I am not suggesting duality really, because I see them both as offspring of “potentiality”: but the realms are so differentiated that what defines “physical” functions by its own strict rules, as does the non-physical (even if at the level of “potentiality” they are identical).

So, here seems to be where our philosophies collide because you want to mix principles of physical and non-physical together, and I don’t think it can be done. What happens, whether materialists do it or non-materialists do it, is that neither set of principles is understood. I think you prove physical things through physical principles, and you prove non-material things through . . . well, you know. Further, even the methods of “proof” are different. Empiricism requires sense experience to verify; and then results can be demonstrated to others objectively. But sense experience doesn’t work with immateriality, and one cannot “objectify” one’s personal experience. So “proof” ends up being what each person experiences and proves to themselves alone. This is the second area where we disagree, because I believe you’ve said that you think the realities of immateriality can be proven through reason.

So let’s get back to the theme of this thread for a minute. My point was to isolate conscious experience in the relativity experiment. If you read the posts by those explaining relativity, you can tell they’ve assumed the conscious experience of the traveling twin will find everything “normal” because all physical measurements indicate that. However, the traveling twin had been raised on Earth, say for thirty years, and that rate of time he’d experienced for thirty years was his norm. But while traveling his rate of time was different than how he’d been raised, 1/8th the rate (in my example). This is proven by the fact that upon returning the Earth twin had aged 35 more years. It wasn’t just the clocks that were different, an actual real difference in aging had taken place.

My point is that if consciousness is only a product of physical processes, and because relativity is purely a physical phenomenon, then consciousness should adjust accordingly as rates of time or physical contraction fluctuate. We should indeed be unable to tell fluctuations are occurring because consciousness will “follow” the changes since everything, even consciousness, changes proportionally. However, if consciousness is not fundamentally physical, then it might not be fully subject to relativity effects. I tried to analogize what sort of physical independence consciousness might have with the following:

Say a computer is able to generate awareness intelligent as humans are right now. The computer lives in an entirely electronic world where every device it interacts with is powered by the same source; the computer shares the same power source too. On hot days when air conditioners around the county are straining generators, the power level of computer's shared power supply drops. Now it and everything connected to the power supply slows proportionately; plus, the computer's awareness slows too, and so notices absolutely nothing is different.

A neighboring intelligently-aware computer also lives entirely in an electronic world with lots of other electronic devices. All the devices share a common power source. However, this computer runs on its own generator, and so when air conditioners around the county slow down all the appliances around it, it notices differences in the performance of the appliances, even though its electronic measuring devices (running off the county’s power) indicate all is “normal.”

There is no way to prove any of this since such space travel is impossible now, and probably always will be. My point, however, was to challenge the automatic assumptions of the materialist view that the traveling twin, who takes off used to Earth’s rate of time (obviously if the traveling twin had not lived 30 years on Earth before traveling, then he wouldn’t have any comparison rate of time), will find everything “normal” just because physical measurements tell his senses it is so. I think it is very possible that behind his sense experience the twin’s feeling/intuitive experience will feel the indicated five years of space travel was the longest five years of his life.

Les Sleeth

Apr14-03, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by N_Quire
I find it sad when philosophy degenerates into a forum for debating pet and personal theories based on incorrect or incomplete versions of already established science. Philosophy then becomes like God & Religion, an anything-goes forum, where science can be debated even by those with no knowledge of science.

The philosophy forum thereby becomes a backdoor for non-scientists and those with little knowledge of science to sound off about theories and ideas they barely understand.

This relativity discussion could not take place in the physics forum because the standards there are higher. Many posters would be encouarged to go back and study the basics before launching their theories on the world. You can't just make up physics as you go along. In the philosophy forum, on the other hand, there are few standards and the forum suffers as a result.

I would like to thank the mentors for their patience throughout this relativity discussion.

It's no sadder than opportunistic scavengers waiting for occasions to act superior.

Janus

Apr14-03, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

There is no way to prove any of this since such space travel is impossible now, and probably always will be. My point, however, was to challenge the automatic assumptions of the materialist view that the traveling twin, who takes off used to Earth’s rate of time (obviously if the traveling twin had not lived 30 years on Earth before traveling, then he wouldn’t have any comparison rate of time), will find everything “normal” just because physical measurements tell his senses it is so. I think it is very possible that behind his sense experience the twin’s feeling/intuitive experience will feel the indicated five years of space travel was the longest five years of his life.

Two points:
I still don't think you quite grasp what Relativity says on the subject. Any time difference between you and the other frame, are always due to what is happening to the other frame. There are no physical causes in your frame that you have to "adjust" to.

Second, even without space flight we have been able to do experiments on how we "sense" time.

As I mentioned in another post, you can put someone in a sensory deprivation chamber and they will lose all sense of time. They can't tell a sec from an hour.

Less severe are experiments where people spent long periods in caves without time pieces or any other clue to outside time. They went all out of sync time-wise with the surface.

It appears, that even if the consciousness isn't a result of physical processes, It is a slave to those outside physical processes when it comes to its "sense" of time.

BoulderHead

Apr14-03, 09:21 PM

As I mentioned in another post, you can put someone in a sensory deprivation chamber and they will lose all sense of time. They can't tell a sec from an hour.

Less severe are experiments where people spent long periods in caves without time pieces or any other clue to outside time. They went all out of sync time-wise with the surface.

It appears, that even if the consciousness isn't a result of physical processes, It is a slave to those outside physical processes when it comes to its "sense" of time.Very true, I have spent time in an isolation tank and it is a very interesting indeed. For anyone wishing to read more about this;
http://eccosys.jp/lilly/isolationx.html

I gambled at a Las Vegas casino a couple of times and found that it might be storming, sunny, or nighttime outside and you can't tell any difference. Leaving the casino after a 'spell' I walked outside into the daylight and become disoriented because it had been night when I had entered.
...of course losing your arse at the tables is rather disorienting too! [:D]

David Kemp

Apr14-03, 10:08 PM

For what it’s worth the thread here is a question that I asked myself just a few days ago. I personally view that matter is not the ultimate reality but in fact emotion is, and that matter is in fact a construction in the same way the matrix in the movie Matrix is a mental construction. The purpose of the matrix in our case being to guide us in our quest to experience emotion, again emotion being the ultimate reality.
So in my opinion it is quite possible that the young twin experiences a slowing down of time just like some people report experiencing a slowing down of time when they are in a serious car accident or some other traumatic event. There is a lot of scientific evidence suggesting that consciousness is separate from matter. Quantum physics itself suggests that matter is not some independent machine with an objective reality.

Les Sleeth

Apr14-03, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Janus
Two points:
I still don't think you quite grasp what Relativity says on the subject. Any time difference between you and the other frame, are always due to what is happening to the other frame. There are no physical causes in your frame that you have to "adjust" to.

No, I didn't know that the standard way of evaluating things is to do it in relation to the "other" frame. But it makes sense for the purposes of physical measurement.

But it seems you are discounting the psychological effects of 30 years of Earth's rate of time on the now traveling twin. Time onboard is progressing at 1/8th the rate he is used to. So I can see why physical factors are compared to the other frame, but past conditioning creates a "norm" for the traveling twin which I suggest he will notice.

Originally posted by Janus
Second, even without space flight we have been able to do experiments on how we "sense" time. As I mentioned in another post, you can put someone in a sensory deprivation chamber and they will lose all sense of time. They can't tell a sec from an hour. Less severe are experiments where people spent long periods in caves without time pieces or any other clue to outside time. They went all out of sync time-wise with the surface.

Good points. But the circumstances you cite are temporary and extreme alterations. A proper experiment wouldn't deprive someone of all sensory imput, or alter conditions too much from the norm because then you would not know what causes someone's perception.

With the traveling twin, he has years to get used to his life there, and he is not deprived of light or comforts or clocks, similar to his twin brother on Earth. With time to adjust to conditions (just as his twin has had time to do), and with other conditions relatively close to his brother's (like a Galactica-sized ship with gardens, companionship, interesting activities, etc.), then that would be the sort of test we need to judge his "feeling" of time.

Originally posted by Janus
It appears, that even if the consciousness isn't a result of physical processes, It is a slave to those outside physical processes when it comes to its "sense" of time.

I agree very much with this, except to say that while most people may be slaves, it isn't necessarily always true. In fact, one of the signs of a successfully self-actuating human is he/she is able to step outside or forestall physiological circumtstances and conditioning weaker persons more easily yield to.

One of my favorite examples is the Buddha who, no matter what one believes about enlightenment or meditation, exhibited impressive self restraint in order to realize something he apparently valued very highly. But even less-famous people alive today show these tendencies when they become dedicated to realizing or attaining a goal (Jerry Rice?).

So I agree with you about the masses, but I don't agree it has to be true for everyone. Also, I believe human potential has barely been seen.

Fliption

Apr14-03, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by N_Quire
This relativity discussion could not take place in the physics forum because the standards there are higher.

This relativity discussion could not take place in the physics forum because the standards are different. This discussion is out of scope for the physics forum. While I agree that any philosophical idea that is based on science should have the science right, the determination of the meaning and implications for that science does NOT and should not follow the scientific method. I think many times it's easier to claim someone doesn't understand the science then it is to enter the philosphical debate. Especially when the implications are unattractive to one's world view.

Janus

Apr14-03, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
No, I didn't know that the standard way of evaluating things is to do it in relation to the "other" frame. But it makes sense for the purposes of physical measurement.

But it seems you are discounting the psychological effects of 30 years of Earth's rate of time on the now traveling twin. Time onboard is progressing at 1/8th the rate he is used to.

No, thats just it, Time isn't progressing at 1/8th the rate he is used to, It is the other twin whose time rate changes, and this is true no matter which twin you are talking about.

CJames

Apr14-03, 11:19 PM

LWS, you are arguing that the mind is not a material phenomina. I understand that. (I disagree, but that's not the point.) However, it doesn't alter the ideas behind relativity. From your perspective, the perspective of your mind, you are always at rest, and only other things will move. It is for this reason that at no time will you ever feel as though time is behaving abnormally between your body and your mind.

If you believe that the mind can alter time, that is your opinion, and I won't try to infringe on it, not here anyway, as long as you aren't trying to say it is an absolute proven truth. However, movement wouldn't be necessary in this case. The mind could simply alter time whenever it felt like it. (All powerful mind, I guess, according to you, like Budahs.)

Les Sleeth

Apr14-03, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Janus
No, thats just it, Time isn't progressing at 1/8th the rate he is used to. It is the other twin whose time rate changes, and this is true no matter which twin you are talking about.

First, it must be that time is progressing at 1/8th the rate because as long as he stays on planet Earth, he ages at the same rate he always has. But if he takes that space ship flight, then he will age at a different rate than those still on Earth. If it weren't for the actual aging difference between the two twins, then one could say time hadn't been altered, but only perception had. The meeting of the two twins proves time has progressed at a different rate for each twin.

Isn't the relativity technique of saying it is the other twin whose time rate changes based on the a priori assumption that the traveling twin's perception will be "normal" because every physical measurement in his frame of reference will confirm that? So the only way to tell something is different is to evaluate changes of another frame of reference in relation to one's own?

But I've suggested that while measurement may convince the senses and intellect all is "normal," because the traveling twin has lived 30 years at a different rate of time, some feeling part of him may notice that years are longer than they were on Earth.

CJames

Apr14-03, 11:43 PM

LWS, I could email you a paper on special relativity I wrote for my physics class if you wish. It explains how it is possible for each twin to be at rest within his own reference frame while still having the surprise at the end where one twin ends up younger. Yes, it is explained physically, but that's not the point. If you are at rest, why should things feel different for you?

Les Sleeth

Apr15-03, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by CJames
LWS, you are arguing that the mind is not a material phenomina. I understand that. (I disagree, but that's not the point.) However, it doesn't alter the ideas behind relativity.

I am arguing that the mind is not necessarily material (I believe it isn't material, but I wouldn't try to assert that here). And I agree that irrespective of what I believe about mind, it doesn't alter the physical reality of relativity.

Originally posted by CJames
From your perspective, the perspective of your mind, you are always at rest, and only other things will move. It is for this reason that at no time will you ever feel as though time is behaving abnormally between your body and your mind.

I assume you mean for the purposes of talking about and making calculations for relativity. Because in my everyday life, I can tell you that I see lots of people and things that appear stationary as I run my tail off.

Originally posted by CJames
[BIf you believe that the mind can alter time, that is your opinion, and I won't try to infringe on it, not here anyway, as long as you aren't trying to say it is an absolute proven truth. However, movement wouldn't be necessary in this case. The mind could simply alter time whenever it felt like it. (All powerful mind, I guess, according to you, like Budahs.) [/B]

Noooooooooooo. I don't believe mind can alter anything except through natural processes. I am a firm believer in natural principles, and reject all supernatural suggestions.

What I am saying is that time is altered by acceleration or gravity. Anyone within the frame of reference of any rate of time cannot tell by physical measurement his situation has been altered from what he is used to. To me, that is the basic principle of relativity. Am I wrong?

However . . . if someone grew up within a certain rate of time, and then found himself in a different rate, I am suggesting some intuitive/visceral/feeling part of him might sense that. By measurement, no; by feeling, maybe. I am only trying to get hardcore materialists to admit to the "maybe."

Les Sleeth

Apr15-03, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by CJames
[B. . . it is possible for each twin to be at rest within his own reference frame while still having the surprise at the end where one twin ends up younger. Yes, it is explained physically, but that's not the point. If you are at rest, why should things feel different for you? [/B]

Yes . . . that is the issue isn't it.

Your point is one of being able to evaluate change in your own milieu. Of course you cannot evaluate change if you compare everything to your own situation because it has all changed proportionately, whether faster or slower or more contracted or less contracted. Your frame of reference always appears constant (i.e., at rest) . . . but solely by measurement!

I don't think you realize it but you are assuming your consciousness will fully go along with physical relativity, while I do not (though as Janus pointed out, people strongly enslaved to physical circumstances might).

CJames

Apr15-03, 01:44 AM

What I am saying is that time is altered by acceleration or gravity. Anyone within the frame of reference of any rate of time cannot tell by physical measurement his situation has been altered from what he is used to. To me, that is the basic principle of relativity. Am I wrong?You have a much stronger understanding of relativity than most people, and in layman's terms, you are more or less right. But...you're wrong. LOL. Yes, time is altered by acceleration or gravity. But again, it is always the time of the other reference frame that is altered.

I don't think you realize it but you are assuming your consciousness will fully go along with physical relativity, while I do not (though as Janus pointed out, people strongly enslaved to physical circumstances might). Haha, well, I can't belive I'm saying this, but if for some reason your mind does stray from your body when your body accelerates, yes, of course your mind will actually sense that time is slowing down for your body. Because you would have left your mind on Earth, and it would therefore take upon the same reference frame as the Earth-twin. LOL, this is too amusing.

Of course, it seems to me that a non-material mind (which I don't believe exists) wouldn't necessarily exist within spacetime at all, and therefore wouldn't notice any effects made on spacetime.

By the way, please realize that I am being way more open-minded here than usual. I normally wouldn't even consider the possibility of a non-material mind. (Well technically I'm not a materialist either. It's just that I don't believe we can ever study anything that isn't material, so I don't consider it as being relevent.)

Janus

Apr15-03, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes . . . that is the issue isn't it.

I don't think you realize it but you are assuming your consciousness will fully go along with physical relativity, while I do not (though as Janus pointed out, people strongly enslaved to physical circumstances might).

I think you are misreading what I meant. I meant that the Consciousness has no unique sense of time of its own; That its sense of time is derived from its physical surroundings.

Janus

Apr15-03, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
First, it must be that time is progressing at 1/8th the rate because as long as he stays on planet Earth, he ages at the same rate he always has. But if he takes that space ship flight, then he will age at a different rate than those still on Earth. If it weren't for the actual aging difference between the two twins, then one could say time hadn't been altered, but only perception had. The meeting of the two twins proves time has progressed at a different rate for each twin.
The point is that you can not say which twin's timerate changed. From the view of the Earth twin, his brother ages less because time progressed slower for him during the entire trip.

From the view of the Space twin his brother's time rate progressed slowly for part of the time and very quickly for another part of the time.
And there is no reason to choose one Twin's interpretation over the other You can't say that one twin is seeing the "true" picture while the other is just seeing an illusion. Both are equally valid.

Isn't the relativity technique of saying it is the other twin whose time rate changes based on the a priori assumption that the traveling twin's perception will be "normal" because every physical measurement in his frame of reference will confirm that? So the only way to tell something is different is to evaluate changes of another frame of reference in relation to one's own?

No it is due to to the Principle of Relativity and the fact that there are no prefered frames of reference.

N_Quire

Apr15-03, 10:28 AM

LW SLeeth wrote: "It's no sadder than opportunistic scavengers waiting for occasions to act superior."
--------------------------------------------------------------

That is a rather harsh response. I fail to see that I am an opportunistic scavenger for finding amusement in the way that philosophical idealists attempt to distort science's finest findings to fit their own idiosyncratic frame. The idealists want the respectability of science but will not accept materialism. They therefore traffic in philosophy of science, barely understanding the underlying concepts. I am not acting superior, I am amused.

Fliption

Apr15-03, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by N_Quire
LW SLeeth wrote: "It's no sadder than opportunistic scavengers waiting for occasions to act superior."
--------------------------------------------------------------

That is a rather harsh response. I fail to see that I am an opportunistic scavenger for finding amusement in the way that philosophical idealists attempt to distort science's finest findings to fit their own idiosyncratic frame. The idealists want the respectability of science but will not accept materialism. They therefore traffic in philosophy of science, barely understanding the underlying concepts. I am not acting superior, I am amused.

N_QUIRE

I would rather see you assume that people are here to learn and take the opportunity to correct the use of science being used. Perhaps you may be able to explain a concept that has not been successfully explained by others. This seems much more productive than your chosen approach. I applaud Janus and CJames for attempting to do this.

N_Quire

Apr15-03, 10:55 AM

One chooses the debates one wishes to participate in and tastes vary over time. I did, not so long ago, take part in these "philosophical" discussions but am no longer inclined to do so. I, too, admire the resilience of the mentors. I have aimed no comments at you and would not dream of doing so. I am glad you find enlightenment here. PF is a good place to be.

Les Sleeth

Apr15-03, 11:27 AM

CJames & Janus,

Before I throw in the towel and admit either my understanding of relativity is incorrect, or my ability to explain myself if inadequate, I want to try one more time. I am only trying again because in both of your responses you left out an important qualifier I listed for my point. But first a quick review to make sure I understand things.

Janus, I don’t know if you agree with CJames when he says the person who is measuring is at rest, and adds “. . . time is altered by acceleration or gravity. But again, it is always the time of the other reference frame that is altered.” Now if that were true, then doesn’t that create a preferred frame of reference? Is my point correct that the reason for assuming the measuring position is at rest is for purposes of measurement and calculation alone? It’s not that one position is any more at rest (or moving) than another.

No one disputes that each twin ages differently while one travels, right? No one disputes that the rate of time is determined by one’s frame of reference. Do we agree that when we say no frame of reference is “preferred,” it means as one alters acceleration/gravity, time-space contracts/expands proportionately so that all factors always appear “normal.” Therefore (in the case of the twins paradox) the only way the traveling twin can tell if his frame of reference has been altered (from what it was while on Earth), is when he returns to the prior frame of reference and finds time there has marched along at a faster pace than his has.

The Qualifier – Prior Personal Experience
Now, the way I laid out the twin thought problem was a little different than it’s normally done. It wasn’t to demonstrate how relativity had worked perfectly correctly for each twin’s frame of reference. My question was to ask if the twin raised on Earth for 30 years at Earth’s rate of time were to take a spaceship journey where the rate of time differed from that rate previously “normal” to him, would any part of his consciousness notice? In other words, while there is no preferred frame of reference, the traveling twin does have 30 years of experience at Earth’s rate of time, and this is personal experience that is part of his being.

Janus answered, “. . . Consciousness has no unique sense of time of its own; That its sense of time is derived from its physical surroundings.” Of course, that is what I’m asking, and there is his opinion. My opinion is that consciousness might sense it in spite of all measurements appearing normal; yet to me it wouldn’t indicate that consciousness has it’s own sense of time, but rather that ultimately consciousness isn’t subject to time.

Les Sleeth

Apr15-03, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by N_Quire
LW SLeeth wrote: "It's no sadder than opportunistic scavengers waiting for occasions to act superior."
--------------------------------------------------------------

That is a rather harsh response. I fail to see that I am an opportunistic scavenger for finding amusement in the way that philosophical idealists attempt to distort science's finest findings to fit their own idiosyncratic frame. The idealists want the respectability of science but will not accept materialism. They therefore traffic in philosophy of science, barely understanding the underlying concepts. I am not acting superior, I am amused.

Perhaps it was a bit harsh, though I hardly see the difference between acting superior and saying you are "amused."

N_Quire

Apr15-03, 12:02 PM

LW Sleeth, It was harsh and I don't mind. It must be preferable for you that I restrict my comments on these topics to avoid further antagonism. I am not amused by what you say, in fact I can appreciate the seriousness with which you debate. What amuses me is the fervor of the anti-materialists. I really don't think scientists, or most scientists, are that concerned with philosophy. But, in order to avoid irritating you further, I will bow out of this debate and let you get on with it. Peace!

CJames

Apr15-03, 12:46 PM

Hello again LWS,
“. . . time is altered by acceleration or gravity. But again, it is always the time of the other reference frame that is altered.” Now if that were true, then doesn’t that create a preferred frame of reference?No. I don't want to speak for Janus, since you were asking him, but I will respond to this part. It is not creating a preferred reference frame, because this same concept applies to all reference frames.

Janus answered, “. . . Consciousness has no unique sense of time of its own; That its sense of time is derived from its physical surroundings.” Of course, that is what I’m asking, and there is his opinion. My opinion is that consciousness might sense it in spite of all measurements appearing normalBut is it truly his opinion, or is it fact? The way I see it, there are two possibilities for a concept. It can be tangible, or intangible. A spirit or consciousness that has no material actions governing it is intangible, since it can not be measured. Time and space, on the other hand, are measureable concepts, and are thus tangible. For this reason, it seems to me, the concept of time does not apply to an intangible conciousness. That's the quick and dirty anyway.

Janus

Apr15-03, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
CJames & Janus,

Janus, I don’t know if you agree with CJames when he says the person who is measuring is at rest, and adds “. . . time is altered by acceleration or gravity. But again, it is always the time of the other reference frame that is altered.” Now if that were true, then doesn’t that create a preferred frame of reference? Is my point correct that the reason for assuming the measuring position is at rest is for purposes of measurement and calculation alone? It’s not that one position is any more at rest (or moving) than another.

No one disputes that each twin ages differently while one travels, right? No one disputes that the rate of time is determined by one’s frame of reference. Do we agree that when we say no frame of reference is “preferred,” it means as one alters acceleration/gravity, time-space contracts/expands proportionately so that all factors always appear “normal.” Therefore (in the case of the twins paradox) the only way the traveling twin can tell if his frame of reference has been altered (from what it was while on Earth), is when he returns to the prior frame of reference and finds time there has marched along at a faster pace than his has.

The problem is, the Instant you say:

" as one alters acceleration/gravity, time-space contracts/expands proportionately so that all factors always appear “normal.” "

You are making a Tacit assumption of a prefered frame of reference. You are saying the state you were in before the "change" is the prefered frame. (You changed wrt to it, causing space and time to alter for you, you just don't notice it.) This is not what Relativity says what happens.

Let's use gravitational time dilation as an example.

Two clocks are in a tall tower, one at the base and one at the top. And this tower is in a uniform gravity field (One that does change in strenght over the height of the tower)

At the base, you look up to the clock at the top. The light carrying the info about the clock has to "fall" the Height of the tower. (It has to traverse the Difference in gravity potential.) when it does this it must gain energy. An ordianry object would just pick up energy as extra velocity, but light can't gain velocity, so it gains energy by increasing its frequency. As a result, you will see the clock run faster than yours. (this is a Doppler-like effect.)

The longer you watch the upper clock, the greater the elasped time between yours and it.

Now imagine that you are at the top of the tower. As you look down at the lower clock, now the light has to "climb up against gravity and lose energy as it does so. This loss of energy, is reflected as a lowering of frequency and causes the lower clock to appear to run slow.

Note, That which clock "runs slower" or "runs faster" merely depends on where you are standing. You can not say in any absolute way that the upper clock runs "fast" or that that Lower clock Runs "slow", only that relative to each other they run at different speeds. Also note that there is no "physical" cause that would effect each clock's time rate. (They feel exactly the same g force)

Now imagine yourself halfway up the tower. The upper clock will appear to run faster and the lower slower.

The clocks are on open elevators so that you can see them at all times. You push the buttons so that each clock comes to your level , watching them as they climb or descend. As they do so, you will note that their rates will start to match your own, But the accumulated time difference between them and your clock will remain. Once they become even with you they will click at the same rate as yours, but will show different times. One will have shown more time as having passed, and the other less. Remember, at all times both clocks were an equal g field so you cannot attribute the difference in their time to the local conditions they were in.
So even though the apparent difference is time rates was due to the light traversing the height between the clocks, the resulting time difference is "real". And you cannot say that one clock ran fast and just didn't notice it, or that the other ran slow and just didn't notice it.

The same is true for the twin paradox, you cannot say that one twin's time rate ran slow and he just didn't notice it. In fact, during the Twin paradox, the twins won't even agree as what their relative rates of time are at any given moment, only what the total elasped time for each is at the end.

Fliption

Apr16-03, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Janus
The problem is, the Instant you say:

Let's use gravitational time dilation as an example.

Well, I'm going to admit it. I don't get it. Lol. I've been reading about this theory for years and I've heard all these explanations over and over.

In this example, it just doesn't make sense to me that neither clock "changes" it's rate, yet somehow when they are brought together they have a "real" difference. I always think I understand until the end when the differences turn out to be real.

If I ever figure this thing out, I swear I'm going to come up with a way to explain it. [:)]

Les Sleeth

Apr16-03, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Janus
You are making a Tacit assumption of a prefered frame of reference. You are saying the state you were in before the "change" is the prefered frame. (You changed wrt to it, causing space and time to alter for you, you just don't notice it.) This is not what Relativity says what happens. . . . Note, That which clock "runs slower" or "runs faster" merely depends on where you are standing. You can not say in any absolute way that the upper clock runs "fast" or that that Lower clock Runs "slow", only that relative to each other they run at different speeds. Also note that there is no "physical" cause that would effect each clock's time rate. (They feel exactly the same g force)

Actually, gravity is not the same for both clocks; it is stronger for the clock closer to the ground than the clock situated higher above it. This is why I am saying there are two physical issues involved, one is measurement and the other is rate of entropy or aging. If when the two clocks were brought together one hadn't moved faster than the other, then we'd know it had only been a measurement issue. But the fact that the hands moved further on one clock than the other, and movement demands entropy, we also know the rate of entropy was different in each frame of reference.

You claim I create a preferred frame of reference by comparing the traveling rate of time to Earth's rate of time saying, "You are saying the state you were in before the "change" is the prefered frame" but I don't yet see how that is true.

What I said was that traveling time for the twin involving acceleration is objectively "different" from the time of the earthbound twin. The reason I, as an objective observer, can know that is because I can observe both twins, just like the clocks, and watch them age at different rates. As the traveling twin steps off his space ship, he and his brother have actually aged differently -- I can see it and they can see it, plus the clocks agree they have. Yet as the traveling twin measured time (or anything else) while traveling he found no indications that would tell him when he returned his brother would be 35 years older than him.

Of course, I've introduced a third issue (other than measurement and aging), which is that of consciousness. My point was that before the traveling twin took off he'd lived for thirty years at Earth's rate of time. In physics that does not mean it can be considered the preferred frame of reference, but it might serve as an experiential reference point if consciousness is not fundamentally physical. If so, then we might expect the non-material aspect of consciousness to "notice" something experientially different about time when its rate significantly changes.

ahrkron

Apr16-03, 05:23 PM

Hi, it's been a while since you addressed my post, but replying seems to be relevant at this point.

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[B]I probalby should have made it more clear that I've assumed the twins grew up together,

I was assuming that as well. All physical processes will have "business as usual" on each frame. This includes all brain processes.

Now, even if you assume that thought (or "experience") is not an exclusive result of material processes, you have to agree that there is a close connection between both. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is a soul in communication with the brain.

Such soul would learn to estimate/use time using some brain processes (let's say, some stable cycles of activity in some strucutres), and to pace itself according to the time it takes for the brain to transform a "soul-thought" into an electrochemical pattern in the language centers of the brain (or the image-processing centers, depending on how your thought-processes are). This is not only in order to express itself, but also in order to "acquire" some information stored in the brain, to be used as part of its reasoning (or "experiencing", or whatever the soul does).

Some issues soon arise:

1. If the soul is to notice the change in the "pace of time", it needs to have another way of estimating time, which has to be non-physical in order to be unaffected by relativity. What would this be?

2. Such "soul-time" can be diferent for different souls, or the same for all. If different, what sets its pace?, if the same, then there is a preferred physical reference frame after all (the one whose "time pace" coincides with that of all souls)... plus a huge conspiracy that makes the universe look like if such was not the case (why would there be a special physical frame, and yet all physical laws be consistent with no such a thing?).

3. The strong correlation between brain processes and "soul-experiences" (which we are assuming to be non-causal) put strong constraints on what such experiences can be. Lets say that, after living 30 years on Earth, you start a trip at a speed that corresponds to a time dilation of 1000. Your soul, used to "Earth speed", would have the potential to "experience" 1000 more experiences than before the start of the trip. However, those experiences can be, at most, very peculiar:

__a. They cannot be perceptions (of what is happening on the ship, let's say) since all perceptual information is happening at "physical-time-rate" (both the signals themselves and the neural processes that make them available for the soul are "affected by relativity").
__b. They cannot be "inside talk", since all language-related resources and processes are also at "physical-rate". The same goes for "image-like-thoughts".
__c. They cannot use any information stored in the brain,
__d. Those experiences would not leave the usual imprint on the brain; i.e., you would keep no recollection of them... unless souls were able to keep memories without the help of a brain, and yours decided to wait until appropriate in order to record such experiences on the slow functioning physical brain it now has to deal with (but then... why would we have brains, if souls were able to memorize, reason and decide).

4. Also, the very definition of time comes into play. Is time that which is measured by clocks, or that which has to do with the souls' rate for "experiencing" word-less, image-less, usually unremembered sensations?

Even assuming the existence of souls, I think it is much more plausible that time is what clocks measure, that souls can only use physical processes to estimate time or experience experiences, and that no preferred frame exists.

Janus

Apr16-03, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Actually, gravity is not the same for both clocks; it is stronger for the clock closer to the ground than the clock situated higher above it. This is why I am saying there are two physical issues involved, one is measurement and the other is rate of entropy or aging.

I specifically stated as a condition that the tower was in uniform gravity field. So for this experiment there is no difference in the strength of the gravity from top to bottom and no difference in the physical conditions each clock finds itself in.

Les Sleeth

Apr16-03, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Janus
I specifically stated as a condition that the tower was in uniform gravity field. So for this experiment there is no difference in the strength of the gravity from top to bottom and no difference in the physical conditions each clock finds itself in.

Yes, but you had gravity affecting EM energy, so the conditions were not the same for both clocks.

Janus

Apr16-03, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes, but you had gravity affecting EM energy, so the conditions were not the same for both clocks.

The gravity affected the light carrying information between the clocks. The local conditions of each clock are, however, identical.

Janus

Apr16-03, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[B

What I said was that traveling time for the twin involving acceleration is objectively "different" from the time of the earthbound twin. The reason I, as an objective observer, can know that is because I can observe both twins, just like the clocks, and watch them age at different rates. As the traveling twin steps off his space ship, he and his brother have actually aged differently -- I can see it and they can see it, plus the clocks agree they have. Yet as the traveling twin measured time (or anything else) while traveling he found no indications that would tell him when he returned his brother would be 35 years older than him.

[/B]

The problem with you as "an Objective observer" is that what you see depends on which frame you are watching from. If you watch from the Earth twin's frame, the space twin's aging is the one that has changed. If you watch from the Space twin's frame, It would be the Earth twin's aging that changed. From some other frame, both twin's aging changed.

If you are trying to invoke the idea of the "outside observer" (one that belongs to no frame of reference) , Relativity says no such thing exists.

If you are trying to say you are watching from some frame where you can absolutely say which twin actually underwent change of time rate, you are invoking a prefered frame of reference. Again Relativity says such doesn't exist.

Les Sleeth

Apr16-03, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Janus
The problem with you as "an Objective observer" is that what you see depends on which frame you are watching from. If you watch from the Earth twin's frame, the space twin's aging is the one that has changed. If you watch from the Space twin's frame, It would be the Earth twin's aging that changed. From some other frame, both twin's aging changed.

If you are trying to invoke the idea of the "outside observer" (one that belongs to no frame of reference) , Relativity says no such thing exists.

If you are trying to say you are watching from some frame where you can absolutely say which twin actually underwent change of time rate, you are invoking a prefered frame of reference. Again Relativity says such doesn't exist.

You gave me just such an "objective observer" in your clock hypothetical. There is no such possiblility as you described for a single observer, but I knew you gave it in order for us to discuss what was going on outside of an individual's perception.

And actually my little proposal about some essential part of us being unaffected by relative circumstances pretty much corresponds to the objective observer. The only reason it might remain unaffected by relativity is because it remains constant throughout.

I am not saying this constant part of consciousness which might recognize change (the "soul-thought," as Ahrkron put it, and who I've yet to answer . . . I'm still thinking how to respond) is preferred in any physical way, but rather it would be a visceral "sense" someone in touch with that part of himself might feel. So I do not believe any physical aspect of us, such as the intellect or physical senses, would be able to establish a preferred frame of reference, just as you say.

Fliption

Apr16-03, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Fliption
Well, I'm going to admit it. I don't get it.

OK I've been doing some reading and thinking about this. I've also gone back and read through this thread again. It seems alot of the confusion for me is arising because there are actually 2 different discussions going on.

There is a discussion about relativity and then there is the materialism discussion. The discussion on relativity doesn't answer 'yes' or 'no' to LWSleeth's question in the beginning post. But it tells us whether it even makes sense to ask that question. Once we figure out whether it makes sense to ask the question, then we would entertain whether the mind is subject to physical effects.

Now that I got all that straightened out let me continue by saying that I just cannot understand the relativity discussion. I understand everything that Janus and Cjames have said. It just doesn't "explain" anything to me. It's almost like the math makes sense but when the words are chosen to convert/interpret that math into language, there's no real explanation. Let me use an analogy and see where that goes.

I have left a 10 dollar bill on the kitchen table. In my absense, my 2 friends are left alone with it. When I return, I find that my money is gone. Someone has stolen it. Now lets say that I ask friend number 1 where my money is. He claims that he saw friend number 2 steal it. When I question friend number 2 he claims that he saw friend number 1 steal the money. Now let's say that they both are telling the truth. From the perspective of each friend, they did nothing wrong(they were at rest). It was the "other" friend that did the stealing. So you can see that this situation has given me no explanation. The question that is unanswered is "how did my money disappear from the table?

I realize that this isn't related to gravity or motion etc. It is only intended to convey to you why I cannot make sense of the relativity explanations thus far. We have a situation where each twin is at rest and blames the distortion on the other twin. Each twin noticed no change because "THERE WAS NO CHANGE". Yet there is an age difference when they get back together. The explanation for this age difference (like my stolen money), has me completely perplexed. I've seen the "time dilation and spacial contraction" comments. But they don't mean much to me. So equate that to my money analogy and tell me what that means.

Les Sleeth

Apr17-03, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Janus
The gravity affected the light carrying information between the clocks. The local conditions of each clock are, however, identical.

I think I might have finally understood something. I had to go back and read Einstein's prediction about what would occur if a clock is placed on the equator, and another clock is placed on the North Pole (in that experiment, like your tower example, acceleration factors from circular motion at the equator were discounted). You can see there that the distance traveled between clock "ticks" is longer at the equator than at the North Pole, so the equatorial clock registers fewer ticks than the North Pole clock. I think that made it clear to me how motion dilates time relative to another frame of reference.

In the case you set up Janus, the higher clock in the tower traveled faster in between each tick than did the lower clock; that higher relative speed dilated time for it respective to the lower clock. But then as you brought them closer together, their speeds got closer and closer to one another, and the clocks got more in synch. And when they finally were traveling at the same speed, the ticks once again corresponded but the clocks still reflected the different rates of time they been progressing at before. Correct?

Fliption

Apr17-03, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I think that made it clear to me how motion dilates time relative to another frame of reference.

You guys don't leave me in the dark. Someone stole my money!

Janus

Apr18-03, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth

In the case you set up Janus, the higher clock in the tower traveled faster in between each tick than did the lower clock; that higher relative speed dilated time for it respective to the lower clock. But then as you brought them closer together, their speeds got closer and closer to one another, and the clocks got more in synch. And when they finally were traveling at the same speed, the ticks once again corresponded but the clocks still reflected the different rates of time they been progressing at before. Correct? [/B]

Actually, no. In my case, the only factor involved is the uniform gravity field. You cannot consider factors,(such as sitting on a rotating planet) that are not part of the original scenerio.

Les Sleeth

Apr18-03, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Janus
Actually, no. In my case, the only factor involved is the uniform gravity field. You cannot consider factors,(such as sitting on a rotating planet) that are not part of the original scenerio.

I hope you won't give up on us yet.

I don't quite understand your above statement. Are you saying the uniform gravity factor contributed to relativistic effects? I thought you made it common so it wasn't a contributing factor.

Let me ask this as well, would the equator-north pole difference in clocks be for the same reason as in your clock example?

Finally, when you say I added a rotating planet, are you saying motion has nothing to do with the difference in readings? In other words, the higher clock obviously will travel further during one Earth rotation than the lower clock, and so travels at at higher relative speed. But it seems you are saying, you want to eliminate that factor too (along with gravity differences). Would the two separated clocks register different times if you took that tower out in space and let it it rest still there away from any influence of gravity or motion?

Les Sleeth

Apr18-03, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by ahrkron
Now, even if you assume that thought (or "experience") is not an exclusive result of material processes, you have to agree that there is a close connection between both. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is a soul in communication with the brain.

Such soul would learn to estimate/use time using some brain processes (let's say, some stable cycles of activity in some strucutres), and to pace itself according to the time it takes for the brain to transform a "soul-thought" into an electrochemical pattern in the language centers of the brain (or the image-processing centers, depending on how your thought-processes are). This is not only in order to express itself, but also in order to "acquire" some information stored in the brain, to be used as part of its reasoning (or "experiencing", or whatever the soul does).

I was going to wait until I had a better understanding of relativity before I answered you, but since that seems to taking time (and may never happen) I will answer now. I want to preface my comments by saying I consider relativity physical, and whatever "exception" I might suggest is not about relativity but about consciousness.

The way you put it is pretty close to how I would, but before I answer you let me theorize in my terms. In myself I see a part of me observing, controlling, learning and understanding. When I act it is this part of me that wants something. Even though it understands a great variety of things, it seems to be indivisible, singular, or holistic in nature – let’s call it consciousness and refer to its singular nature as integrated. Let’s also assume it is the “real” me, and is what such terms as “I” or “me/my” or “self” refers to from here on.

In my interaction with the world outside of me, my body is the intermediary. It responds to my will and provides me information about the world. The brain is the control center whose organization has taught me how to think, and links me to the rest of my body through the CNS.

The operations of the brain and body are very complex, and I am drawn into that complexity from birth. My senses excite and overwhelm, my brain fascinates, and to survive I must learn to use my physiology effectively. By the time I’ve reached adulthood I am fully absorbed into body and world participation.

While the incessant demands of living virtually enslaves me to physical processes, that original integrated nature of consciousness remains intact. In fact, this element of me can be no other way than “whole,” that’s its inalterable nature. Yet the more I participate in multifaceted activities, the more I lose touch with my underlying integrated nature unless, that is, I specifically were to practice experiencing that part of myself (which I do, and have for many years).

With those ideas in mind . . .

Originally posted by ahrkron
1. If the soul is to notice the change in the "pace of time", it needs to have another way of estimating time, which has to be non-physical in order to be unaffected by relativity. What would this be?

I think this question is really what all your questions are about, so I will use all your questions to gradually answer it. Let me start by explaining how I think the integrated part of consciousness perceives.

The only way the integrated part can detect is by “seeing” and feeling. An analogy to integrated seeing is how we can look at two lengths of boards side by side and see which is longer/shorter. We don’t need to think to see that, we can just “know” by looking. Similarly, as life experience builds, understanding is integrated into consciousness, and it can look at or “see” situations and instantly comprehend without thinking. Now, one might think about what one sees, but I say when someone finally “understands,” that is an integrated event. The feeling part is similar to seeing in that it is an integrated quality of consciousness, and as life experience progresses, it has felt many situations and things. The “feel” of things then contributes to the integrated sort of comprehension that consciousness does.

Originally posted by ahrkron
2. Such "soul-time" can be different for different souls, or the same for all. If different, what sets its pace?, if the same, then there is a preferred physical reference frame after all (the one whose "time pace" coincides with that of all souls)... plus a huge conspiracy that makes the universe look like if such was not the case (why would there be a special physical frame, and yet all physical laws be consistent with no such a thing?).

Regarding what others experience, I’ve only experienced my self, so I cannot speak with absolute certainty about others. But I do suspect it is the same for all for the following reasons.

It is difficult to explain about this unless you are familiar with the element of consciousness I am talking about. I only know about it because I have spent so much time focusing specifically on that part of me. One thing about it is that it seems amazingly constant. No matter what happens to me physically or how upset I might get emotionally, when I turn my attention inside there it is as stable as ever. Seeing that every day all these years makes me of the strong opinion that it isn’t subject to the ups and downs of physical change. I know others who practice doing this, and they report the same thing.

So in the end what it seems like is that that constancy provides a uninterrupted contrast to change (i.e., if one is sufficiently in touch with that part of oneself), and because of that simplicity of course anyone else who was aware of it would have the same inner standard.

I don’t believe there is any “conspiracy.” If you have read any other of my threads you’ve probably heard me reject supernatural ideas. I think that the physical world is the way it is because that’s how it has to be; and the conscious world is the way it is because that is how it has to be. I also can see that most people are caught between the two, and what I think is that since at our core we are consciousness, humans will thrive best if they prioritize and move in that direction. This is precisely why I am here debating with those of the materialist persuasion; to debate what should be prioritized first, consciousness or matter.

Originally posted by ahrkron
3. The strong correlation between brain processes and "soul-experiences" (which we are assuming to be non-causal) put strong constraints on what such experiences can be. Lets say that, after living 30 years on Earth, you start a trip at a speed that corresponds to a time dilation of 1000. Your soul, used to "Earth speed", would have the potential to "experience" 1000 more experiences than before the start of the trip. However, those experiences can be, at most, very peculiar:
__a. They cannot be perceptions (of what is happening on the ship, let's say) since all perceptual information is happening at "physical-time-rate" (both the signals themselves and the neural processes that make them available for the soul are "affected by relativity").
__b. They cannot be "inside talk", since all language-related resources and processes are also at "physical-rate". The same goes for "image-like-thoughts".
__c. They cannot use any information stored in the brain,
__d. Those experiences would not leave the usual imprint on the brain; i.e., you would keep no recollection of them... unless souls were able to keep memories without the help of a brain, and yours decided to wait until appropriate in order to record such experiences on the slow functioning physical brain it now has to deal with (but then... why would we have brains, if souls were able to memorize, reason and decide).

I figure if I am going to get myself into trouble, it will be when I try to answer questions like these. Since I freely admit I don’t have the science expertise that a specialist does, I am not so sure of myself when someone asks me to predict what to expect in a physical situation (especially when I’ve not thought about it before). As of now I can’t answer those questions because I have no experience to base an opinion upon to determine how flexible the integrated part is to extreme relativistic change.

Originally posted by ahrkron
4. Also, the very definition of time comes into play. Is time that which is measured by clocks, or that which has to do with the souls' rate for "experiencing" word-less, image-less, usually unremembered sensations? Even assuming the existence of souls, I think it is much more plausible that time is what clocks measure, that souls can only use physical processes to estimate time or experience experiences, and that no preferred frame exists.

Here is what I can say with most confidence. The integrated part of us is constant and not subject to physical change other than to learn from it. Therefore that background constancy is THE preferred frame of reference, and serves as a contrast to any sort change. I doubt if that contrast would allow the integrated aspect to “see” relativistic change, but I do think it would “feel” the kind of significant change we’ve been visualizing.

Janus

Apr18-03, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I hope you won't give up on us yet.

I don't quite understand your above statement. Are you saying the uniform gravity factor contributed to relativistic effects? I thought you made it common so it wasn't a contributing factor.

No, I made it uniform to point out that it wasn't the difference in gravitational force that caused the clocks to run at different rates.

Let me ask this as well, would the equator-north pole difference in clocks be for the same reason as in your clock example?

That depends upon what frame you are analyzing the system from.

If you looking at it from the frame that the Earth is rotating with respect to, then part of the difference is due to the Equator clock's relative velocity.

If you are measuring from the Rotating frame, it can be just considered as due to a difference in gravitational potential.

Finally, when you say I added a rotating planet, are you saying motion has nothing to do with the difference in readings? In other words, the higher clock obviously will travel further during one Earth rotation than the lower clock, and so travels at at higher relative speed. But it seems you are saying, you want to eliminate that factor too (along with gravity differences).

I'm trying to simplify the system down so that you won't be mislead by those other factors.

Would the two separated clocks register different times if you took that tower out in space and let it it rest still there away from any influence of gravity or motion?

Not until you introduce a gravity field or acceleraton.

For instance, same situation, but let's put a rocket engine on the base of the tower. Fire it up so that the tower starts to accelerate.

Now we have the same result as before; From the base of the tower the clock at the top appears to run fast, and from the top the clock at the base appears to run slow. Even though the clocks share exactly the same accleration.
Again, if you bring the clocks together, The accumulated elasped time difference will remain.

Now, according to GR, gravitation and acceleration are equivalent, thus any effect caused by acceleration would also be caused by an equivalent gravity field. (In this case, a uniform gravity field, as in my first example.)

Les Sleeth

Apr20-03, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Janus
. . . I made it uniform to point out that it wasn't the difference in gravitational force that caused the clocks to run at different rates.

The problem I am having is how you’ve set up the clock tower experiment. Let me tell you how I analyzed the problem so you can see my reasoning process, and if I went wrong somewhere. You set up the first part of the problem as follows:

“Let's use gravitational time dilation as an example. Two clocks are in a tall tower, one at the base and one at the top. And this tower is in a uniform gravity field (one that does change in strength over the height of the tower). At the base, you look up to the clock at the top. The light carrying the info about the clock has to ‘fall’ the Height of the tower. (It has to traverse the Difference in gravity potential.) When it does this it must gain energy. An ordinary object would just pick up energy as extra velocity, but light can't gain velocity, so it gains energy by increasing its frequency. As a result, you will see the clock run faster than yours (this is a Doppler-like effect).”

For relativistic effects to occur, at least two different frames of reference are needed to compare. The at rest frame, and then there are those frames which are either in motion in relation to the rest frame, or those inertially/gravitationally altered in relation to it. So obviously to consider your clock tower problem, I began by looking for what established the two frames of reference (i.e., of the higher clock and the lower clock).

I could see that the difference in clock heights would create a velocity variance, but for this problem you said to discount SR. So that should mean what determines the different reference frames is due to gravity or acceleration.

In your experiment you went on to say, “. . . which clock ‘runs slower’ or ‘runs faster’ merely depends on where you are standing. You can not say in any absolute way that the upper clock runs ‘fast’ or that that Lower clock Runs ‘slow,’ only that relative to each other they run at different speeds.” Okay, by that you meant neither time is the “right” time, but that each time is correct for each frame.

But then you add this, “Now imagine yourself halfway up the tower. The upper clock will appear to run faster and the lower slower. The clocks are on open elevators so that you can see them at all times. You push the buttons so that each clock comes to your level, watching them as they climb or descend. As they do so, you will note that their rates will start to match your own, but the accumulated time difference between them and your clock will remain. Once they become even with you they will click at the same rate as yours, but will show different times. One will have shown more time as having passed, and the other less.”

You added a third reference frame situated midway between the other two. As all three clocks were brought together the time between ticks began to get closer to being the same. At this point two things seemed clear: that the clocks had been ticking at different rates while separated, and that closing the difference in height between them eliminated the difference in ticking rates.

At this point in your problem I was still trying to understand what was differentiating the reference frames. As far as I can see, only GR is left. By leading off with “gravitational time dilation,” and attributing differences in the readings of the clocks to energized EM, you seem to introduce gravity into the problem. Yet you also said that for the sake of understanding your point, I should think of both clocks as in a uniform gravity field, and later you said, “Remember, at all times both clocks were an equal g field so you cannot attribute the difference in their time to the local conditions they were in.” Why is this important to me? Because in your example you say the readings appear to read differently because of the Doppler-like shift, yet when the clocks are brought together they show different times, so more than appearance has happened. The reason for the actual cause of the clock’s different rates of ticking is what I am particularly interested in understanding.

I asked, “Would the two separated clocks register different times if you took that tower out in space and let it rest still there away from any influence of gravity or motion?” You answered, “Not until you introduce a gravity field or acceleration. For instance, same situation, but let's put a rocket engine on the base of the tower. Fire it up so that the tower starts to accelerate. Now we have the same result as before. From the base of the tower the clock at the top appears to run fast, and from the top the clock at the base appears to run slow. Even though the clocks share exactly the same acceleration.”

That confused me because gravity/acceleration, and the clock’s height in relation to gravity/acceleration, is the only thing I can see that establishes the different frames. If you lay the tower down so the clocks are the same height during acceleration, there would be no different frames created. Since you cannot duplicate the relativistic effects by altering the clocks’ heights alone (i.e., in a non-accelerating/gravity field setting), what else can be the cause of not only the appearance of clocks moving at different rates, but the actual difference of intervals between ticks?

Couldn’t it be that acceleration/gravity exerts a constricting effect upon a reference frame? So if we were using light clocks, and were positioned between the upper and lower clocks as before, then we’d see that light had to travel further between mirrors on the upper clock than it did on the lower clock because the lower clock is more strongly affected by gravity/acceleration than the upper clock.

If I have it wrong, I am at a loss to figure out what is distinguishing the frames of reference in your clock tower example.

EDIT: My brain was tired when I wrote the second to last paragraph. I was still thinking of motion. What I meant was:

If an objective observer could be positioned between the upper and lower clocks as before, then he’d see that the upper clock ticked faster than the lower clock because each tick of the lower clock is more strongly constricted by gravity/acceleration than the upper clock.

Janus

Apr21-03, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The problem I am having is how you’ve set up the clock tower experiment. Let me tell you how I analyzed the problem so you can see my reasoning process, and if I went wrong somewhere. You set up the first part of the problem as follows:

“Let's use gravitational time dilation as an example. Two clocks are in a tall tower, one at the base and one at the top. And this tower is in a uniform gravity field (one that does change in strength over the height of the tower). At the base, you look up to the clock at the top. The light carrying the info about the clock has to ‘fall’ the Height of the tower. (It has to traverse the Difference in gravity potential.) When it does this it must gain energy. An ordinary object would just pick up energy as extra velocity, but light can't gain velocity, so it gains energy by increasing its frequency. As a result, you will see the clock run faster than yours (this is a Doppler-like effect).”

For relativistic effects to occur, at least two different frames of reference are needed to compare. The at rest frame, and then there are those frames which are either in motion in relation to the rest frame, or those inertially/gravitationally altered in relation to it. So obviously to consider your clock tower problem, I began by looking for what established the two frames of reference (i.e., of the higher clock and the lower clock).

I could see that the difference in clock heights would create a velocity variance, but for this problem you said to discount SR. So that should mean what determines the different reference frames is due to gravity or acceleration.

In your experiment you went on to say, “. . . which clock ‘runs slower’ or ‘runs faster’ merely depends on where you are standing. You can not say in any absolute way that the upper clock runs ‘fast’ or that that Lower clock Runs ‘slow,’ only that relative to each other they run at different speeds.” Okay, by that you meant neither time is the “right” time, but that each time is correct for each frame.

But then you add this, “Now imagine yourself halfway up the tower. The upper clock will appear to run faster and the lower slower. The clocks are on open elevators so that you can see them at all times. You push the buttons so that each clock comes to your level, watching them as they climb or descend. As they do so, you will note that their rates will start to match your own, but the accumulated time difference between them and your clock will remain. Once they become even with you they will click at the same rate as yours, but will show different times. One will have shown more time as having passed, and the other less.”

You added a third reference frame situated midway between the other two. As all three clocks were brought together the time between ticks began to get closer to being the same. At this point two things seemed clear: that the clocks had been ticking at different rates while separated, and that closing the difference in height between them eliminated the difference in ticking rates.

At this point in your problem I was still trying to understand what was differentiating the reference frames. As far as I can see, only GR is left. By leading off with “gravitational time dilation,” and attributing differences in the readings of the clocks to energized EM, you seem to introduce gravity into the problem. Yet you also said that for the sake of understanding your point, I should think of both clocks as in a uniform gravity field, and later you said, “Remember, at all times both clocks were an equal g field so you cannot attribute the difference in their time to the local conditions they were in.” Why is this important to me? Because in your example you say the readings appear to read differently because of the Doppler-like shift, yet when the clocks are brought together they show different times, so more than appearance has happened. The reason for the actual cause of the clock’s different rates of ticking is what I am particularly interested in understanding.

[quote]
The problem you are having is you are trying to distinguish between what ismeasuredfrom each frame and what is actually happening. Relativity makes no such distinction.

Go back to the observer in the middle of the tower. He sees each clock running fast or slow do to the Doppler like effect I mentioned. After a given time by his clock, each of these clocks will appeared to have gained or lost a certain amount of time.

He now brings the clocks to his point of the tower. As he watches them, hes notes that the "Doppler" caused time rate difference decreases for the clocks as they get closer, until it ceases to exist when the clocks are even to him. But the clocks will still appear to lost or gained time. This lost or gained time is purely due to the "doppler" effect he saw earlier. Nothing in bringing the clocks together had a "reverse Doppler" effect, which, from the observer's viewpoint, would have negated this measured time gain or loss.
If there were some other effect that caused the clocks to run at different rates, then the observer would have seen this in addition to the "Doppler" Effect.

In order for this other effect to be the reason for the clocks to show different times when brought together, then there would have to been the "reverse Doppler" effect I already mentioned to cansel out the "Doppler" observed time difference. But I already pointed out that such a reverse effect doesn't exist.

The [i] only cause for the difference in the clocks is the observed "Doppler-like" effect.

[quote]

I asked, “Would the two separated clocks register different times if you took that tower out in space and let it rest still there away from any influence of gravity or motion?” You answered, “Not until you introduce a gravity field or acceleration. For instance, same situation, but let's put a rocket engine on the base of the tower. Fire it up so that the tower starts to accelerate. Now we have the same result as before. From the base of the tower the clock at the top appears to run fast, and from the top the clock at the base appears to run slow. Even though the clocks share exactly the same acceleration.”

That confused me because gravity/acceleration, and the clock’s height in relation to gravity/acceleration, is the only thing I can see that establishes the different frames. If you lay the tower down so the clocks are the same height during acceleration, there would be no different frames created. Since you cannot duplicate the relativistic effects by altering the clocks’ heights alone (i.e., in a non-accelerating/gravity field setting), what else can be the cause of not only the appearance of clocks moving at different rates, but the actual difference of intervals between ticks?

Again, your are trying to make that distinction between "measurement" and "actuality" that Relativity doesn't.

Let's take another looks at Our accelerating tower. For some one accelerating with the tower, the clocks will appear to run at different rates.

But what about someone that the tower is accelerationg wrt. All he will see is that each clock has a changing velocity wrt himself, and both will appear to run slower and slower as the velocity increases. But each clock has an identical velocity wrt to him so each clock will stay in perfect sync (He will not see the clocks running at different rates.)

The acceleration stops, leaving the tower and the second observer with a constant relative velocity. The observer on the tower will see each clock as showing a different time, while the second observer will see tham as showing the exact same time.

The two clocks are brought together in the center of the ship. They still show the same time difference for the Tower observer.

What happens for the second observer is this:

The two clocks have identical velocities wrt to him until they are being moved together, during this period, each clock has a different velocity wrt to him, the clock at the top, moving to the center will have a velocity slightly less than that of the tower, and the one at the bottom, moving to the center will have a velocity slighty greater. As a result the "top" clock will show a slighty smaller time dilation than the tower and the "bottom" clock will show a slighty greater one. The tp clock will appear to run fater than the bottom clock unitl thaty are brought together and once again share the same realtive velocity. Th eamount of time gained and lost will be exactly that as seen by the tower Observer for different reasons.

To recap, the Tower observer sees the clocks develop a difference during the acceleration phase, and then run at the same rate while being brought together, while the second observer sees the clocks as running at the same rate during the acceleration phase, and develop a time difference while being brought together.

The point being that you can't say that one observer sees what is actually happening while the other only sees what appears to happen. Each observer's observation's are equally valid and are on equally solid ground.

Les Sleeth

Apr22-03, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Janus
Again, your are trying to make that distinction between "measurement" and "actuality" that Relativity doesn't.

There are a few things going on in our discussion, and some of it seems to have taken us away from the original idea of this thread. I want to try once more to figure this out.

As I’m sure you’ve discerned, you are talking to a non-professional about physics. My objective in study and contemplation is to have a broad understanding about the universe and its contents. Although I did nearly complete a degree in biology 30 years ago, since then I’ve mostly read books intended to popularize science. In one such book Physics – Concepts and Connections by Art Hobson, he points out the importance of the general population having a solid science understanding because of the “the problems and solutions of our times are bound up with science and its close relative, technology.”

Since we all can’t be scientists, I am grateful for books like Hobson’s. My own specialty is other than science, but I am very interested in and want to understand science fundamentals. You might agree that the best way to get the world on board is for science to be presented in ways everyone can relate to. I guess I am asking for a little flexibility in discussions that involve science. You said, for example, that the “devil is in the details” after I said the details of relativity weren’t that important to the idea behind this thread. I do believe I shouldn’t make any mistakes in my science, but I don’t think it’s important for me understand every element of relativity to set up an essentially non-science hypothetical.

What I think has happened is that you introduced an aspect of relativity beyond my expertise, I was unable to analyze the problem properly, and so we’ve taken off on a separate discussion. Plus, as I will outline below, everything I find appears to contradict at least one thing you seem to be saying (i.e., I freely admit I may be misinterpreting what you mean). This has made me think about and study relativity for week or so, which has been great for me really because I am grateful to be helped by an expert. You’ve been very patient and attentive, and I thank you for that.

But (you probably knew there was a “but” coming), I can’t see how the “details” of relativity change my little thought problem. In this thread I proposed an idea meant to focus on an aspect of consciousness. If you read my response to Ahrkron, I explained that I’ve become intimate with a part of consciousness which seems immune to the incessant change that goes on in the physical (and mental) world. In an indirect way, I was trying to see if I could interest others in noticing that constant aspect of consciousness more.

The purpose of my experiment was to ask if the constant consciousness aspect, after having spent 30 years at Earth’s rate of time, would “notice” on his space ship journey if his physical circumstances had been altered to a different rate of time. I wasn’t suggesting the brain, the intellect, the senses or any other physical factor might notice, only that constant consciousness aspect. This is the point where you seemed to question the science part of my hypothetical, and it’s why our debate has taken off sideways. How I am interpreting what you seem to be saying is really important if you are correct, because it would mean I am very confused about relativity. Let me explain.

You repeated your objection twice in your last post saying, “The problem you are having is you are trying to distinguish between what is measured from each frame and what is actually happening. Relativity makes no such distinction. . . . Again, you are trying to make that distinction between ‘measurement’ and ‘actuality’ that Relativity doesn't.” However, every physics book I consulted indicated there really is a difference. I called two physics professors at local universities, and they also said there is an “actual” alteration of the time rate in the twins paradox.

Hmmmmm. I am wondering what Janus is saying. I want to understand your point, but I don’t so I pull out a more dedicated physics text book Modern Physics by Bernstein, Fishbane and Gasiorowicz. I studied the chapter on the basics of relativity and cannot find a basis for your statement, “. . . you are trying to make that distinction between ‘measurement’ and ‘actuality’ that Relativity doesn't.”

Then in your last post I finally realized you were discussing a prediction for relativity concerning the Doppler shift that I had never heard of. Sure enough, the next chapter in the book I was reading addressed it; in fact, the twin’s paradox was invented by Einstein precisely to talk about the relativistic Doppler shift. In the Bernstein, et seq. book they set up the problem by defining the twins as “harmonic oscillators,” and say that their “ages” are simply a measure of the number of pulses they have emitted. Excellent -- I can relate to this since I see time dilation as due to the altering of cycles. Let me quote part of the book that sets up the problem and then specifically addresses my issue:

“We know by now that in specifying the properties of these oscillators we must be careful to state whether they are in motion with respect to an observer, or whether they are at rest. We shall assume that each oscillator has the proper frequency [the authors mean the formal definition of proper]. . . when it is measured at rest in its own frame of reference. Now we send one of the oscillators – the traveling twin, say, twin B – on its trip. The trip is specified in terms of the rest system of the other oscillator – the stay-at-home twin, or twin A – by the following five sequential steps:
1. The oscillator B accelerates to a speed v in a negligible time.
2. It moves away at this constant speed for a long time.
3. It reverses its direction in a negligible time.
4. It returns to the starting point at the same constant speed v.
5. It stops in a negligible time.
“The stay-at-home twin sees the traveling twin’s clock running slow, by time dilation, and would claim that the traveling twin returns having aged less. But we have emphasized the symmetry of relativistic effects. Why can’t the traveling twin claim that in fact [I]he is at rest, while the stay-at-home twin is moving? From this point of view, it is the stay-at-home twin who will have aged less. Which one ages less? This is a question that must have a definite answer, because when the twins get together at the end, they can literally compare their ages. What is wrong with the superficial analysis is that the situations of the twins simply are not symmetric.” [my italics]

The book goes on with an in-depth mathematical analysis that includes allowing the twins to receive pulses from each other so they can calculate how each is aging. After first having the stay-at-home twin calculate his own age based on the pulses, the traveling twin calculates the stay-at-home twin’s age, and then the book states, “This result is identical to the age the stay-at-home twin assigns to himself. The twins have arrived at the same conclusion. The more superficial reasoning at the beginning of the discussion assumed that the two twins were in symmetrical situations. But they are not: One undergoes acceleration and the other does not; there is no symmetry in the situation of the two twins.”

I emphasized the words above with italics because there is exactly what I am talking about. In the twins paradox, the authors point out not only is there an actual aging difference between the twins, but it would be detectable. In your clock tower examples I started looking for situational asymmetry between the clocks to account for the actual difference in aging of the clocks. Even though it has nothing to do with the hypothetical of this thread, it really interests me. Then you seemed to say that one cannot take into account actual aging difference in relativity. Yet every other source I’ve consulted says it is relevant, and so that is where we diverged from the original discussion.

To reiterate, the reason it was important in my hypothetical that an actual change in the rate of time occurred for the traveling twin, is because I set it up that he had had thirty years at Earth’s rate of time. When he traveled, his rate of time was altered from what he was used to. Now although on board ship there would be no indications of that, I was asking, for the reasons I detailed above, if any part of him might nonetheless notice the change. If he really did age slower than he had been used to, that means my hypothetical makes sense. If he doesn’t age differently, then my hypothetical does not make sense. Whether or not you think there is anything within human consciousness that can notice is, of course, another issue.