A Thought Experiment

[Doctordick]

Well guys, I'm back. I thought about it some more and perhaps I have a way to reach you in spite of your utter refusal to think things out.

In case anyone reading this does not know who I am, I am that idiot who has suggested that the physics community has over looked something significant. I fully realize that something like that could not possibly be true so don't bother trying to tell me how ignorant I am.

I am the person who claims that "clocks measure time" is an erroneous statement! In defense of that position, I suggest the following thought experiment involving any conceivable "ideal" clock:

The experimenter will throw the clock across the room where upon it is smashed to smithereens.

Now, let us examine that experiment from a number of different frames of reference. I make the claim that all observers (totally independent of their frame of reference) will find the reading on that clock at the moment it leaves the experimenters hand will have a specific value. They will all agree as to what that reading was and the reading has absolutely nothing to do with their frame of reference.

I further make the claim that all observers will find the reading on that clock at the moment it is smashed to smithereens will also have a specific value. And once again, they will all agree as to what that reading was. Once again, that reading has absolutely nothing to do with their frame of reference.

In fact, they will all observe that clock to be a measuring device which starts with some reading and terminates with a second reading, having progressed through all the intermediate readings between the two. The only differences they will claim have to do with the coordinates describing the event in their personal frames of reference. In particular, the length of time required for the event to occur will vary from frame to frame. What is important here is that the reading on the clock has absolutely nothing to do with the "time" used in the description of the experiment in anyone's frame of reference!

That fact must be true as the functioning of the clock is determined by physical laws and those physical laws are (from the axioms of relativity itself) independent of your frame of reference! The functioning of that "ideal" clock cannot possibly be a function of your frame of reference!

Now, what I have given is a rather extreme; however, it is an accurate description of the functioning of an ideal clock. Any "ideal" clock proceeds from significant moment to significant moment and, if we are to accurately assess the behavior of that "ideal" clock, we must take into account each and every interaction event between that clock and the rest of the universe. In the "ideal" case, all events are significant!

It is not necessary that the "significant" interactions destroy the clock. That example was created to get your attention to the specific behavior of an "ideal" clock. Just as the thrown clock in the experiment did not measure time in anyone's frame of reference, no "ideal" clock in the universe can possibly measure time in anyone's frame of reference.

On the other hand, the clock certainly has a very specific periodic behavior which we find very convenient in all measuring devices. So it certainly can be thought of as measuring something. If it isn't "time" which is being measured, exactly what is being measured?

If any of you geniuses out there can wrap your head around that, I look forward to your responses.

Have fun -- Dick

[IooqXpooI]

Clocks don't measure time, they measure seconds. Seconds are actually an on going rythm. Time is a dimension.

[Hurkyl]

If clocks don't measure time, then what does?

[Angel Loupe]

I'm no genius, but I would make an observation, if you will. Science has more unknowns than knowns. That is part of why we are so fascinated by it, because any one of us can be the first to discover it. Discovering it, of course, meaning that it was always there, but we have just identified and/or defined it. In the meantime, I would remind you that most of the greatest scientist did not conform to all the ideas that the scientific community adhered to, and as a result were often challenged and ridiculed. In the end, however, they were the last to laugh. So keep 'em coming!

[Doctordick]

Clocks don't measure time, they measure seconds. Seconds are actually an on going rythm. Time is a dimension.

I will excuse you as, from your public profile, you are but 12 years old which by my estimates would put you in the fifth grade or there abouts. I am sorry but, in order to understand my post, you need considerably more education than you most probably have.

"Time" is a thing physicists think they can measure. Seconds are a unit of measure in that "thing"; just as feet are units of measure of length. That is to say, time is to seconds as length is to feet.

My complaint is very simple: though time is a very valuable concept, clocks do not measure it.

[Hurkyl]

If clocks don't measure time, then what does?

[Doctordick]

If clocks don't measure time, then what does?

Time is a very useful concept used in physics. My argument with physicists (and, by the way, I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics) is that they are very confused by the ancient (pre-Einstein) idea that clocks measure time. In fact, it is my position that Einstein himself was confused by the idea (a careful analysis of Einstein's work reveals, to any thinking person, that he proved clocks do not measure time).

My position is very simple, though "time" is a very useful concept, it is not a measurable variable and physicist make a major error by assuming it is! Can you understand my complaint?

Have fun -- Dick

[Hurkyl]

All right, so you assert time is immeasurable.

Before I touch on that, let's ask the next logical question, "What do clocks measure?"

[Doctordick]

I'm no geniusApparently neither am I! When I was a graduate student, I asked my advisor a question which concerned me. His answer was quite concise: he said, "Only geniuses ask questions like that and, believe me, you are no genius!" but I would make an observation, if you will. Science has more unknowns than knowns. That is part of why we are so fascinated by it, because any one of us can be the first to discover it. Discovering it, of course, meaning that it was always there, but we have just identified and/or defined it.Now here you are a man after my own heart. I have always held as self evident the fact that, if you can't define what you are talking about, you don't understand what you are talking about. In the meantime, I would remind you that most of the greatest scientist did not conform to all the ideas that the scientific community adhered to, and as a result were often challenged and ridiculed.Well, if ridicule is an indicator of a "great scientist" then I certainly have that base covered. I have been ridiculed for more than forty years at the latest reckoning. I can show at least a dozen institutions which have utterly refused to even talk to me. And no journal I have made a submission to has even descended to consider publishing my ideas (every rejection I have received says I am submitting to the wrong journal). In the end, however, they were the last to laugh. So keep 'em coming!Well, here I agree with you. I am, after forty years, still interested in finding someone who will think about the issue.

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

All right, so you assert time is immeasurable.

Before I touch on that, let's ask the next logical question, "What do clocks measure?" Now I was looking for someone who had the intelligence (or at least the interest) to answer that question themselves; however, since you have directly asked me that question, I will give you the correct answer: clocks measure, exactly, what Einstein referred to as the "invariant interval"! The problem here is that, in order to understand "what clocks measure" you need to have an intimate understanding of relativity. With regard to that issue, I have no idea of the limits of your education.

Have fun -- Dick

[Hurkyl]

I would have said "proper time", but same thing. (I had missed your asking of this question at the end of your original post)

I was originally planning on going through, step by step, the construction of "coordinate time" in an inertial SR frame of reference, to see if and where you had a problem with it... my presumption is that if you had a problem with the concept of time, and it wasn't in regards to proper time, then it had to be with coordinate time. However, I'll now assume you're familiar with the construction of coordinate time, so I'll ask, do you have a problem with it?

[Oracleing]

"Time" is a thing physicists think they can measure. Seconds are a unit of measure in that "thing"; just as feet are units of measure of length. That is to say, time is to seconds as length is to feet.

Ok so time according to you is not a measurable variable, but seconds are a unit of measure in that "thing" called time….. This all sounds like “you think that time has to be defined by whatever time really is??”


"I will excuse you as, from your public profile, you are but 12 years old which by my estimates would put you in the fifth grade or there abouts. I am sorry but, in order to understand my post, you need considerably more education than you most probably have.

Yes a 12 year old will struggle with the deep thinking needed to understand the very complex process of lobbing a clock at a wall….. LOL

Oracle

[shevechron]

Questions to Doctordick : Do you mean that time has two faces? One relative and the other global ? A contradiction like SR time and QM time?

[ophecleide]

I confess that I may not have sufficient education to fully understand all the concepts here, but this is my take on the matter. First of all, nobody in this thread has put forth a firm definition of time. I think this is the primary source of controversy. As I see it, in the context of this thought experiment, time is only used to show the relative frequency of events (I'm not sure that's a good way to word it, considering frequency is defined using time). For example, between two movements of the second hand on the clock, there will be approximately 2x10^15 oscillations of radiation from a sodium lamp. In other words, the clock is used to give the user points of reference from which to gauge whether two events will coincide. I don't mean this as a contradiction to your ideas, Dick, but how does that differ from measuring time?

[Doctordick]

I would have said "proper time", but same thing. (I had missed your asking of this question at the end of your original post)

I was originally planning on going through, step by step, the construction of "coordinate time" in an inertial SR frame of reference, to see if and where you had a problem with it... my presumption is that if you had a problem with the concept of time, and it wasn't in regards to proper time, then it had to be with coordinate time. However, I'll now assume you're familiar with the construction of coordinate time, so I'll ask, do you have a problem with it?I thought I made myself clear! My complaint is very simple: physicists are confused! The common perception (presented in almost every presentation of physics concepts) is that "clocks define time". My position is that this is a very erroneous concept. A concept which leads physicists to ideas which are fundamentally undefendable. My position is that clocks measure "proper time" a fundamentally different thing.

Their failure to take into account the fundamental difference between the two concepts leads to confusion on a level of great significance (in my humble opinion). If you can not see the difficulty, then you are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

Yes a 12 year old will struggle with the deep thinking needed to understand the very complex process of lobbing a clock at a wall….. LOL

OracleOk, if you have such a good view of physics phenomena, you give me your analysis of the thought experiment I proposed. I have no idea of your academic background so I cannot judge where you are coming from at all. I have utterly no idea of what you have in mind.

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

Questions to Doctordick : Do you mean that time has two faces? One relative and the other global ? A contradiction like SR time and QM time?

I made a very simple statement: "clocks do not measure time". What I am saying is that "time" is a concept which reflects a variable which is not measureable. I am not saying that it is not a useful variable when it comes to physical phenomena; what I am saying is that the variable is not measureable!

If you cannot understand that, go back and read my thought experiment again; carefully this time!

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

I confess that I may not have sufficient education to fully understand all the concepts here, but this is my take on the matter. First of all, nobody in this thread has put forth a firm definition of time.Yes, you have put your finger on the essence of the difficulty. As far as I am aware, the common definition of "time" (as used by physicists) is that "time" is what is measured by clocks.

However, after adopting this definition of time, they proceed to act as if this definition of time is consistent with the common definition of time used through out the ages. My position is that they are overlooking a subtle fact essential to understanding the functioning of the universe. If your position is that their perception of the issue is correct then you are not thinking the issue out. I think this is the primary source of controversy. As I see it, in the context of this thought experiment, time is only used to show the relative frequency of events (I'm not sure that's a good way to word it, considering frequency is defined using time). For example, between two movements of the second hand on the clock, there will be approximately 2x10^15 oscillations of radiation from a sodium lamp. In other words, the clock is used to give the user points of reference from which to gauge whether two events will coincide.Now right here you are confronting the problem without realizing the existence of the problem. The issue of time is, "will the two events coincide"! If your definition includes the fact that events at the same time must coincide, then clocks will not provide that information. It is a well known consequence of relativity that two travelers (meeting after having followed different space-time paths through the universe) will not agree on the "time" if they use their personal clocks as a measure of time.

Think this out a little bit. I don't mean this as a contradiction to your ideas, Dick, but how does that differ from measuring time?Please tell me what do you mean by "measureing time".

Have fun -- Dick

[UltraPi1]

A clock is a measure of time, but a peanut butter and jelly sandwiich can measure time also. The point here is that existence is a measure of time.

[Hurkyl]

Yes, you have put your finger on the essence of the difficulty. As far as I am aware, the common definition of "time" (as used by physicists) is that "time" is what is measured by clocks.

However, after adopting this definition of time, they proceed to act as if this definition of time is consistent with the common definition of time used through out the ages.

Physicsts spend a great deal of effort trying to explain to people that the relativistic notion of time most certainly does NOT coincide with the pre-relativistic notion of time, so I can't fathom where you got this idea.



When you responded to my post about "coordinate time", did you mean to suggest there is something wrong with Einstein's method of synchronizing clocks in a reference frame, or is it that you simply not like the term "coordinate time" used to refer to the readings on the clocks?

[ophecleide]

Please tell me what do you mean by "measureing time".

That's actually what I was hoping you might be able to explain to me. What you are saying is not as simple as a parallel to measuring changes in energy vs measuring absolute energy, is it? I don't really get that feeling.

What I meant by the two events coinciding was exactly what you were saying, or at least my interpretation of what you were saying:

"I make the claim that all observers (totally independent of their frame of reference) will find the reading on that clock at the moment it leaves the experimenters hand will have a specific value. They will all agree as to what that reading was and the reading has absolutely nothing to do with their frame of reference."

What I have gathered from this is that all observers can agree that the events of the clock being thrown and the clock having a given reading coincide as well as the events of the clock hitting the wall and the clock having a different reading. The clock can tell the user that between the events 'clock is thrown' and 'clock hits wall' the second hand can move x number of times. The user can also know that based on the readings on the clock, a sodium lamp (we'll use this again for consistancy) in the clock's frame of reference will emit radiation which oscillates y number of times between the clock being thown and the clock hitting the wall. In this case the "time measurement" was used to reach that conclusion. Does this qualify as "measuring time"? I honestly don't know. I can't justify it, but like I said before, it's impossible to define time measurement (be it a flawed concept or not) without defining time. It seems to me that your concern is the statement "in the clocks frame of reference". Is that correct?

[Doctordick]

Physicists spend a great deal of effort trying to explain to people that the relativistic notion of time most certainly does NOT coincide with the pre-relativistic notion of time, so I can't fathom where you got this idea.Since you are quoting something I said to ophecleide, I presume the "idea" you are referring to here is the idea that "coincidence" has something to do with "time". In other words, the clock is used to give the user points of reference from which to gauge whether two events will coincide.Physicists do this all the time, without much serious thought either. I am doing my best to get you people to look at a very serious issue which is avoided like the plague. When you responded to my post about "coordinate time", did you mean to suggest there is something wrong with Einstein's method of synchronizing clocks in a reference frame, or is it that you simply not like the term "coordinate time" used to refer to the readings on the clocks?Misdirection of attention is the essence of magic; with it magicians can fool brilliant people for years, even when they know they are being fooled. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Einstein's method of synchronizing clocks except for the fact that it diverts attention from a serious issue which is ignored by everyone.

Please go back and read my original post with which I started this thread.

As an aside, the arguments for the functionality of most perpetual motion inventions usually revolve around erroneous mathematical deductions. The commonest error made by the people who deduce these results is that they subtly change the definition of what they are talking about as their derivation proceeds. Thermal arguments commonly replace average molecular velocity with specific molecular velocity which provides a mathematical defense of violation of the second law of thermodynamics. They succeed by directing attention away from this replacement. (In most cases, I suspect they themselves don't realize the replacement has been made.)

The issue which is being avoided by every physicist I have ever met is that, "clocks do not measure time"! Not if interaction between two entities requires that they exist "at the same time". Physicists set up a coordinate system as if time is a measurable variable, deflecting attention from the fact that it isn't. Time is a deduced variable, very convenient to the description of physical phenomena, but deduced none the less.

If one wants to use it in a coordinate system to describe phenomena, Einstein has laid out a specific method for defining that "coordinate time". I have utterly no argument with the procedure nor with the results it achieves. My complaint lies wholly with the dual concepts of time which everyone uses without looking closely at the issue. And you are one of them.

Have fun -- Dick

[Hurkyl]

I presume the "idea" you are referring to here is the idea that "coincidence" has something to do with "time".

No, I was referring to

However, after adopting this definition of time, they proceed to act as if this definition of time is consistent with the common definition of time used through out the ages.

The only people I've ever seen who confuse coordinate time with pre-relativistic notions of time are people who don't understand relativity. (e.g. they're making mistakes like assuming simultaneity is not relative)

Maybe you could give an explicit example of someone using "coordinate time" to refer to something other than that which can be measured by one of these hypothetical networks of synchronized clocks?

[Doctordick]

It seems to me that your concern is the statement "in the clocks frame of reference". Is that correct?That is absolutely correct! Physicists insist that "clocks define time" and thus measure time by definition. They invariably fail to include the phrase "in the clocks rest frame". If they would always include that phrase, I would have no argument with their presentations at all.

However, when it comes to discussing fundamental concepts, in particular the issue of an ideal clock, the realization that one needs to include the phrase "in the clocks rest frame" leads to subtle difficulties not recognized by the scientific community.

Think about it -- Dick

[Rut Roh]

The clock measures space of infinity.

Infinity is the measure of imperfection.

When infinity reaches perfection all things become independent in their solitary perfection.

When all things are in perfection there is nothing.

When all things achieve and maintain nothing there is death.

Clocks are a reference that there is life.


This is a fascinating challenge, however, this is as far as I seem able to get so far. May I have some more hints or suggestions? And if I'm way off, I'm sorry. But you gave me an awesome mind challenge. :biggrin:

[Doctordick]

The only people I've ever seen who confuse coordinate time with pre-relativistic notions of time are people who don't understand relativity. (e.g. they're making mistakes like assuming simultaneity is not relative)Simultaneity itself is a pre-relativistic notion of time! Simultaneity has no bearing on any physics experiment which can be performed (any experiment which can be performed can be seen as a collection of interactions between specific events). Simultaneity is no more then a convenient concept used to describe the universe in pre-relativistic terms.

The fact that physicists feel the need to go through elaborate machinations to show that different frames of reference do not violate the different observers definitions of simultaneity is a direct example of the fact that they are very much concerned with pre-relativistic notions of time.Maybe you could give an explicit example of someone using "coordinate time" to refer to something other than that which can be measured by one of these hypothetical networks of synchronized clocks?You completely misunderstand my complaint. I have utterly no complaint with any aspect of modern physics and relativity except that the physicists are making their own life quite difficult through their failure to recognize the correct nature of clocks.

Coordinate geometry is a method of displaying information. In any geometry, pre or post relativistic, objects are seen as following paths in that coordinate geometry. If you understand enough mathematics to comprehend parametric representations of lines in a geometry, I can perhaps show you something interesting. Parametric representation of a line can be used in any geometry, including Einstein's space-time continuum. In Einstein's space-time continuum, entities can be seen as following paths called space-time lines. These lines can be specifically represented by parametric expressions such as: x=f_x (\alpha), y=f_y (\alpha), z=f_z (\alpha) and t=f_t (\alpha).

The functions f_i (\alpha) can be any function convenient to the usage. What is important is that the value of the parameter \alpha fixes the value of all the coordinates necessary to specify a particular "event" on the specified space-time line.

If you can understand relativity and the parametric representation of space-time lines, I would like to do a little algebra for you.

Looking forward to hearing from you -- Dick

[Oracleing]

Ok, if you have such a good view of physics phenomena, you give me your analysis of the thought experiment I proposed. I have no idea of your academic background so I cannot judge where you are coming from at all. I have utterly no idea of what you have in mind.

Ok I will, but why? You’re thought experiment in no way shows any problems in the way we measure time.

Lets just analyze? Your whole first post.

Well guys, I'm back. I thought about it some more and perhaps I have a way to reach you in spite of your utter refusal to think things out.

I’ve had a look at some of your older post and I would say that its not about “utter refusal to think things out” just your in ability to explain your point!

In case anyone reading this does not know who I am, I am that idiot who has suggested that the physics community has over looked something significant. I fully realize that something like that could not possibly be true so don't bother trying to tell me how ignorant I am.

Ok I promise I will not tell you how ignorant you are.

I am the person who claims that "clocks measure time" is an erroneous statement! In defense of that position, I suggest the following thought experiment involving any conceivable "ideal" clock:

For my ideal clock I’ll have a light clock, if that’s Ok with you.

The experimenter will throw the clock across the room where upon it is smashed to smithereens.

Hang-on a minute you must remember posting “When a scientists says, "clock is a device which can be used to measure the passage of time", he generally omits to mention that the clock must be at rest in the frame of reference of interest.” I would say that the acceleration of the clock being thrown, let alone the deceleration at impact is hardly a clock at rest in the fame of interest. Please try to be a bit more consistent in your posts.

Now, let us examine that experiment from a number of different frames of reference. I make the claim that all observers (totally independent of their frame of reference) will find the reading on that clock at the moment it leaves the experimenters hand will have a specific value. They will all agree as to what that reading was and the reading has absolutely nothing to do with their frame of reference.

OK

I further make the claim that all observers will find the reading on that clock at the moment it is smashed to smithereens will also have a specific value. And once again, they will all agree as to what that reading was. Once again, that reading has absolutely nothing to do with their frame of reference. .

Ok but why not just say all observers will agree on the readings taken on the clock, all this I claim this/that, is pointless.

In fact, they will all observe that clock to be a measuring device which starts with some reading and terminates with a second reading, having progressed through all the intermediate readings between the two.

Humm yes measuring device, two readings have you mentioned that before… I forget.

The only differences they will claim have to do with the coordinates describing the event in their personal frames of reference. In particular, the length of time required for the event to occur will vary from frame to frame.

No actually the measured time for the event to occur, will not vary from frame to frame… unless your assuming that the observers are to stupid to include SR/GR calculations in reference frames that need to take SR/GR into account.

What is important here is that the reading on the clock has absolutely nothing to do with the "time" used in the description of the experiment in anyone's frame of reference!

??? So knowing that the light clock I’m theoretically using in your thought experiment will give the exact distance light would travel during the clock smashing experiment you think that has nothing to do with the description of the experiment in anyone's frame of reference! I think you just dropped the pot.

That fact must be true as the functioning of the clock is determined by physical laws and those physical laws are (from the axioms of relativity itself) independent of your frame of reference!

No your wrong and the reason your wrong, is that in this case the light clock measures c which is independent of your frame of reference.

You seem to be implying that because observers in different frames of reference may view the event as occurring over a different length of time. That the length of time in the original frame of reference is impossible for non-local observer to find out…, which is total rubbish.

The functioning of that "ideal" clock cannot possibly be a function of your frame of reference!

Really so my “ideal” light clock is not measuring the speed of light in my frame of reference

Now, what I have given is a rather extreme; however, it is an accurate description of the functioning of an ideal clock. Any "ideal" clock proceeds from significant moment to significant moment and, if we are to accurately assess the behavior of that "ideal" clock, we must take into account each and every interaction event between that clock and the rest of the universe. In the "ideal" case, all events are significant!

?

It is not necessary that the "significant" interactions destroy the clock. That example was created to get your attention to the specific behavior of an "ideal" clock. Just as the thrown clock in the experiment did not measure time in anyone's frame of reference, no "ideal" clock in the universe can possibly measure time in anyone's frame of reference.

How you have the ball to criticize other people knowledge of relativity is beyond me.

Yes the light clock did measure the time the event took, in this case it would be the distance light travelled during the event, which would also allow non local observers to calculate the time the event took in its original frame reference or for that matter any frame of reference.

On the other hand, the clock certainly has a very specific periodic behavior which we find very convenient in all measuring devices. So it certainly can be thought of as measuring something. If it isn't "time" which is being measured, exactly what is being measured?

Clocks measure the passage of time.

If any of you geniuses out there can wrap your head around that, I look forward to your responses.

If you really think that you have to be a genius to understand you post… you maybe right only in this case the geniuses field would have to be psychotherapy.

Oracle

PS

Just read your post

That is absolutely correct! Physicists insist that "clocks define time" and thus measure time by definition. They invariably fail to include the phrase "in the clocks rest frame". If they would always include that phrase, I would have no argument with their presentations at all.

However, when it comes to discussing fundamental concepts, in particular the issue of an ideal clock, the realization that one needs to include the phrase "in the clocks rest frame" leads to subtle difficulties not recognized by the scientific community.

Why would you include “in the clocks rest frame” idealized clock are usually based on something, like c which is a constant and not dependant on the frame of reference.

[DrChinese]

The fact that physicists feel the need to go through elaborate machinations to show that different frames of reference do not violate the different observers definitions of simultaneity is a direct example of the fact that they are very much concerned with pre-relativistic notions of time.You completely misunderstand my complaint. I have utterly no complaint with any aspect of modern physics and relativity except that the physicists are making their own life quite difficult through their failure to recognize the correct nature of clocks.

Your complaint is not valid. A clock measures the lapsing of time, by definition. Clearly, time is an observable. All kinds of practical experiments take time as a parameter. Many theories must therefore depend on elapsed time as an input parameter for their predictions of yet other observables. Those theories - QM and SR are two that come to mind - are quite useful.

It is their utility which yields their value. You are not attacking their usefulness or domain of applicability - which would be valid attacks - by putting forth a superior alternative. You merely don't like their descriptions or definitions. Hardly a fatal blow, and the critique is a red herring. I could ask similar "deep" questions about "what is a ruler (i.e. device used for measuring spatial dimensions which physicists don't understand the true nature of either)". And such questions would have no utility either, and it wouldn't make me a genius for asking.

You need more before a critique of time's definition becomes useful. Make a useful critique and you will take us towards a better theory. Show us where your question leads to something useful and others will eagerly follow. It does not make sense to criticize theories that do not attempt to answer "what is time" but do answer other useful questions. I have never read a physicist who claims that ALL answers are provided by current theories.

[Antonio Lao]

Without having read all the replies to this thread, I'm cutting in midstream and assuming what I going to say is not a repetition of what been said.

To me time is an abstract concept which cannot be precisely modelled by any physical object such as "clock."

Time is a quantum object. By this, I mean that the smallest quantum of time must be zero-time. the next majorly defined quantum of time is the second. Then the minute, the hour, the day, the year, the decade, the century, etc. By definition, 60 sec-quanta can fit exactly into one quantum of minute. And 60 min-quanta can fit one hourly quantum, etc.

But when time is exactly zero, its meaning is gone because a second cannot be mutltiples of the zero-quantum of time. Another logical problem is the inverse of zero-time is infinite time. So to remove all the confusions, the distinction between linear time and quantum time must be distinquished.

linear time is a set that includes the values of zero and infinite. Quantized time is a set that excludes the values of zero and infinite. Linear time can have two directions. These are dependent upon each other like backward-forward, top-bottom, left-right. Quantized time can also have two directions but these are independent of each other. Their independence can only be described by the use of a principle called the principle of directional invariance.

[Doctordick]

A note to Oracle and DrChinese: Boy you guys sure like to work the obfuscation lever don't you. Your reactions are pretty negative tirades considering the simplicity of the issue I would like you to think about.Your complaint is not valid. A clock measures the lapsing of time, by definition. Clearly, time is an observable.Yeah, it sure is! There are apparently no doubts in your vision of the universe! Clearly, in your mind, there is utterly no way to represent the universe except the classical perspective hammered in by the physics academy.

I am saying something very simple, the idea that "clocks measure time" blocks the physics community from seeing something interesting.However, when it comes to discussing fundamental concepts, in particular the issue of an ideal clock, the realization that one needs to include the phrase "in the clocks rest frame" leads to subtle difficulties not recognized by the scientific community.And certainly the subtle issues I refer to are issues you would rather not discuss about. Why not? Because it requires you to rethink the problem of ideal clocks. Why would you include “in the clocks rest frame” idealized clock are usually based on something, like c which is a constant and not dependant on the frame of reference.I can only guess that your familiarity with relativity is limited; you apparently do not understand the nature of constructing a relativistic reference frame.…which can be measured by one of these hypothetical networks of synchronized clocks?How would Hurkyl propose to set up these "synchronized" atomic clocks if his kids kept tossing them around? That is a serious question believe it or not. When we get to fundamentals, even the smallest "tossing around" is significant. Since no clock, even our "ideal" clock, is disconnected from the universe, interactions exist which "toss it around".

This is a fundamental problem no physicist I have ever met wants to think about. Well, I have thought about it and there exists a way of defining things such that the problem does not arise. What is really funny is that, when you set things up this other way, life ends up being considerably simplified in many surprising ways. My problem is that, the moment I say, "clocks do not measure time" or "time is not a measurable variable", everybody just goes ballistic and the discussion is over.

Antonio Lao, you are just totally off subject; sorry about that.

Have fun -- Dick

[Oracleing]

A note to Oracle and DrChinese: Boy you guys sure like to work the obfuscation lever don't you. Your reactions are pretty negative tirades considering the simplicity of the issue I would like you to think about.

I would like to know just how you think mine or DrChinese’s post fogs the issue you seem unable to properly define.

Yeah, it sure is! There are apparently no doubts in your vision of the universe!

No actually there are many unknowns, but one of them is not the misunderstanding of clocks ideal or not measuring the passage of time.

Clearly, in your mind, there is utterly no way to represent the universe except the classical perspective hammered in by the physics academy.

Grow up man, do you think that all “physics academy” graduates are incapable of free thought… your sounding more and more like the usual crackpots.

I am saying something very simple, the idea that "clocks measure time" blocks the physics community from seeing something interesting.

And what would this something interesting be?
And certainly the subtle issues I refer to are issues you would rather not discuss about. Why not? Because it requires you to rethink the problem of ideal clocks.
Would this subtle issue be, so subtle that only a great genius like you can see it?
I can only guess that your familiarity with relativity is limited; you apparently do not understand the nature of constructing a relativistic reference frame.
Ok which part of your “lob a clock experiment” did I get wrong… more likely is you don’t like the fact that is possible for all observers to arrive at the right answer.

This is a fundamental problem no physicist I have ever met wants to think about.
What problem?
Well, I have thought about it and there exists a way of defining things such that the problem does not arise.
Well why not post it then!!
What is really funny is that, when you set things up this other way, life ends up being considerably simplified in many surprising ways. My problem is that, the moment I say, "clocks do not measure time" or "time is not a measurable variable", everybody just goes ballistic and the discussion is over.
Maybe that’s because you, don’t answer question just repeat the same rubbish.

If you really think "clocks do not measure time" or "time is not a measurable variable" show us why for example if my post about your idea is wrong, show why its wrong saying I’m using obfuscation… is no answer.

Oracle

[DrChinese]

A note to Oracle and DrChinese: Boy you guys sure like to work the obfuscation lever don't you. Your reactions are pretty negative tirades considering the simplicity of the issue I would like you to think about.Yeah, it sure is! There are apparently no doubts in your vision of the universe! Clearly, in your mind, there is utterly no way to represent the universe except the classical perspective hammered in by the physics academy.

I am saying something very simple, the idea that "clocks measure time" blocks the physics community from seeing something interesting...

I am as open to a new perspective as anyone, including yourself. I certainly think about the nature of space, time, mass, uncertainty, etc. and am curious. I am here now discussing the subject with you, instead of doing something else. All you have to do is make a convincing case.

However, despite your promises that there is something "interesting" being obscured, the only thing being obscured is what you have to offer to the discussion besides various name-calling. And what would that be, exactly? What revelation do you have for us? You started the thread with the clock example and then don't take it anywhere.

First, I don't think it is revolutionary to say that elapsed time is the observable that clocks measure. But I am not really sure if you do or don't agree with that simple (and useful) statement. Second, I would be happy to agree that "true" time may be different than what is measured by a clock, although I am not sure that is a useful statement. Clearly, the ability to marry theory to experiment is important.

[Rut Roh]

doctordick, may I please have your reasons for this statement ... :

"Antonio Lao, you are just totally off subject; sorry about that.

Have fun -- Dick"


because,,,, I thought it was very relevant and clearly stated.

[Doctordick]

I would like to know just how you think mine or DrChinese’s post fogs the issue you seem unable to properly define.I truly believe that you do not understand how your posts fog the issue and find that very sad. One problem I have is that I have no idea of the educational background of either of you; however, I find that both of you avoid any discussion of what I present as the central issue. The only conclusion I can conceive of is that either you do not have the background to discuss it or that you simply want to "flame" me because I bring up an issue you don't understand. Your overwhelming agenda seems to be to convince yourself that I belong in the crackpot camp in order to relieve yourself from thinking.… one of them is not the misunderstanding of clocks ideal or not measuring the passage of time.Point taken, if there exists no possibility that you misunderstand ideal clocks or the issue of measuring the passage of time then your mind is closed to thinking about the problem of ideal clocks and the issue of measuring the passage of time. Admit it and go away.Would this subtle issue be, so subtle that only a great genius like you can see it?Apparently! From my reading of the responses I have obtained, only Hurkyl seems to have even an inkling of what I am talking about and neither you nor DrChinese have even condescended to discuss my responses to his posts.How would Hurkyl propose to set up these "synchronized" atomic clocks if his kids kept tossing them around? That is a serious question believe it or not. When we get to fundamentals, even the smallest "tossing around" is significant. Since no clock, even our "ideal" clock, is disconnected from the universe, interactions exist which "toss it around".Of course, you do not seem to understand the necessity for that array of synchronized array of clocks in an ideal relativistic coordinate system.

Nor have either of you made any indication that you understand the parametric representation of lines in a multiple dimension coordinate system.In Einstein's space-time continuum, entities can be seen as following paths called space-time lines. These lines can be specifically represented by parametric expressions such as: x=f_x (\alpha), y=f_y (\alpha), z=f_z (\alpha) and t=f_t (\alpha).

The functions f_i (\alpha) can be any function convenient to the usage. What is important is that the value of the parameter \alpha fixes the value of all the coordinates necessary to specify a particular "event" on the specified space-time line.If you can't follow such a line of thinking, then we are wasting our time. All I wanted to know was the level of your mathematical understanding so I could couch the presentation at a level you might understand. And what would this something interesting be?For one thing, general relativity could almost be described as simple under this alternate perspective. Certainly no where near as complex as what is presented by the academy. For another, it totally removes any conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both issues take some serious understanding of mathematics.

Now, I know your immediate reaction to that – another crackpot who thinks he understands something no one else understands. Well, all I ask is a chance to present my perspective. And the first step in seeing that perspective is comprehending that there is a problem with the idea that "clocks measure time". If your mind is blocked to that issue (as is the entire physics community) then your mind is closed to what I have to say.If you really think "clocks do not measure time" or "time is not a measurable variable" show us why for example if my post about your idea is wrong, show why its wrong saying I’m using obfuscation… is no answer.Hurkyl gave the correct answer to the question as to what clocks actually measure! I would have said "proper time", but same thing.Clocks, all clocks, actually directly measure "proper time", not time. We can only set up our classical relativistic coordinate system by making some very involved constraints on those clocks. These constraints are designed to assure the experimenter that their readings do indeed correspond to time. That constraint is actually very simple. Since what all clocks actually measure is proper time along their path (the integral of \,\frac{-i}{c}\sqrt{dx^2 +dy^2 +dz^2\,-c^2 dt^2} along that path) we must make sure that the terms dx, dy, and dz vanish: i.e., the clock must be absolutely at rest in our proposed coordinate system.

I hope the above clarifies the issue for DrChinese also. I apologize for not answering your note directly.

If this is all over your head, I apologize.

Finally, to Rut Roh, I hope you understand why I found Antonio Lao's post to be off subject.

Have fun -- Dick

[Oracleing]

I truly believe that you do not understand how your posts fog the issue and find that very sad.

Really I find it sad that you seem unable to explain how my very simple post avoids the issues that you are claiming are there.

One problem I have is that I have no idea of the educational background of either of you;

And how is that a problem?

however, I find that both of you avoid any discussion of what I present as the central issue.

Hey I went thought your so-called thought experiment, how is that avoiding the “central issue”.

But OK you tell me how exactly is the light clock I chose for your thought experiment which would give any observer the exact distance light would travel during the experiment, not providing any observer with a definite measure of the time the event took?

The only conclusion I can conceive of is that either you do not have the background to discuss it or that you simply want to "flame" me because I bring up an issue you don't understand.

And again if my post are incorrect, please point out where? Thinking that people are flaming you just because they disagree with you gives a deep insight into your mentality.

Your overwhelming agenda seems to be to convince yourself that I belong in the crackpot camp in order to relieve yourself from thinking.

If you don’t want to be in the “crackpot camp” don’t follow the crackpot ideal of assuming that people who don’t share your view are not thinking about your idea… or are unable to understand.

Point taken, if there exists no possibility that you misunderstand ideal clocks or the issue of measuring the passage of time then your mind is closed to thinking about the problem of ideal clocks and the issue of measuring the passage of time. Admit it and go away.

Do I detect a touch of sarcasm; maybe, you would be so kind as to tell me where my answer to your thought experiment is in error?

Apparently! From my reading of the responses I have obtained, only Hurkyl seems to have even an inkling of what I am talking about and neither you nor DrChinese have even condescended to discuss my responses to his posts.

What?? Are you talking about answers like “Misdirection of attention is the essence of magic; with it magicians can fool brilliant people for years, even when they know they are being fooled. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Einstein's method of synchronizing clocks except for the fact that it diverts attention from a serious issue which is ignored by everyone.” Which is not an answer to this question When you responded to my post about "coordinate time", did you mean to suggest there is something wrong with Einstein's method of synchronizing clocks in a reference frame, or is it that you simply not like the term "coordinate time" used to refer to the readings on the clocks?

Of course, you do not seem to understand the necessity for that array of synchronized array of clocks in an ideal relativistic coordinate system.

Nor have either of you made any indication that you understand the parametric representation of lines in a multiple dimension coordinate system.

Here’s a tip, if your relying on math to explain your thought experiment. What you have is a piss-poorly designed thought experiment.

If you can't follow such a line of thinking, then we are wasting our time. All I wanted to know was the level of your mathematical understanding so I could couch the presentation at a level you might understand.

Like I’ve already stated, if my thinking is wrong show me how?

For one thing, general relativity could almost be described as simple under this alternate perspective. Certainly no where near as complex as what is presented by the academy. For another, it totally removes any conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both issues take some serious understanding of mathematics.

Ho Humm…

Now, I know your immediate reaction to that – another crackpot who thinks he understands something no one else understands. Well, all I ask is a chance to present my perspective. And the first step in seeing that perspective is comprehending that there is a problem with the idea that "clocks measure time". If your mind is blocked to that issue (as is the entire physics community) then your mind is closed to what I have to say.

Yep my mind is blocked on this issue, at least until you tell me where I’m wrong.

Clocks, all clocks, actually directly measure "proper time", not time.

Oh I see now all clock don’t measure time, they measure your all new and improved “proper time”

dx, dy, and dz vanish: i.e., the clock must be absolutely at rest in our proposed coordinate system.

One wonders at the stupidity of starting a thread with a thrown clock, then posting that in your system all clocks have to be at rest.


Oracle

[Hurkyl]

Simultaneity itself is a pre-relativistic notion of time! Simultaneity has no bearing on any physics experiment which can be performed (any experiment which can be performed can be seen as a collection of interactions between specific events). Simultaneity is no more then a convenient concept used to describe the universe in pre-relativistic terms.

And the notion is modified for the purposes of SR. It is a convenient term to denote that the coordinate time corresponding to two events is the same. Again, I'll point out that crackpots have a heck of a time grasping this point, but when discussing in the context of relativity, I can't say I've ever seen a physicist use "simultaneity" to refer to the pre-relativistic notion.


How would Hurkyl propose to set up these "synchronized" atomic clocks if his kids kept tossing them around? That is a serious question believe it or not. When we get to fundamentals, even the smallest "tossing around" is significant. Since no clock, even our "ideal" clock, is disconnected from the universe, interactions exist which "toss it around".

Theoretically, put bounds on the error. Practically, implement periodic resynchronization. (GPS, I belive, is a great example of this!)


I'm somewhat surprised you haven't brought up the "no clock theorem" since it represents a serious theoretical sticky point, instead of a mere semantic issue, but then again, discussions of its ramifications beyond "any clock will run backwards occasionally" are probably beyond most of the people here. (including myself)


They invariably fail to include the phrase "in the clocks rest frame". If they would always include that phrase, I would have no argument with their presentations at all.

Do you also insist that people say something like "Where '+' is the standard addition operator on the integers and '1' is the multiplicative identity" when people write expressions like "1+1"?


My problem is that, the moment I say, "clocks do not measure time" or "time is not a measurable variable", everybody just goes ballistic and the discussion is over.

To me (and I presume to some others), you appear to be merely arguing semantics. The short form of your point, as I currently understand it, is "Physicists don't explicitly state things like 'in the clock's rest frame', therefore they must not understand that this clause is needed," which, frankly, seems silly.

[Hurkyl]

How would Hurkyl propose to set up these "synchronized" atomic clocks

And as another possibility, who cares about synchronization anyways? As long as things stay somewhat nicely arranged, they'll still measure a general relativistic coordinate chart.

[russ_watters]

And as another possibility, who cares about synchronization anyways? As long as things stay somewhat nicely arranged, they'll still measure a general relativistic coordinate chart. Interesting side-note: on US Navy ships, the chronographs are never reset (synchronized) unless the batteries are changed. Even then, its not that important to precisely set them. Its far better to let them run at whatever rate they run and record the variation from day to day - that way you know what the error rate is.

Whether dealing with SR or ship's chronographs, synchronization is best done on paper.

In any case, I've been lurking in this thread (Hurky is doing just fine - no need to bust his groove), and I agree with Hurkyl. DrD, you're arguing a pretty trivial (non-existent) semantic issue. And your thought experiment doesn't say anything new, surprising, or useful.

[DrChinese]

Clocks, all clocks, actually directly measure "proper time", not time. We can only set up our classical relativistic coordinate system by making some very involved constraints on those clocks. These constraints are designed to assure the experimenter that their readings do indeed correspond to time. That constraint is actually very simple. Since what all clocks actually measure is proper time along their path (the integral of \frac{-i}{c}\sqrt{dx^2 +dy^2 +dz^2- c^2 dt^2} along that path) we must make sure that the terms dx, dy, and dz vanish: i.e., the clock must be absolutely at rest in our proposed coordinate system.


No matter how we try, DrD remains in his ego trip. I will give one last try to see if we can get some substance...

Why bother with your constraint - i.e. that we minimize dx/dy/dz? This is a fairly severe constraint. Nice if you can have it, but in many cases not possible. That is in fact the entire purpose of relativity, as you should know - to resolve such differences in a manner which fits with experiment.

So how is the world different when your constraint is in place, and the terms are held to a minimum? Are we able to see a unification of gravity and electrodynamics? Anything like that? I am trying to understand the benefit of adopting your premise. Assuming that we agree that what is measured by a clock is "proper time" and not time itself. Honestly, I don't really see that statement as a stretch anyway.

[Doctordick]

Thank you Dr Chinese. I appreciate your effort.

Here’s a tip, if you're relying on math to explain your thought experiment. What you have is a piss-poorly designed thought experiment.
No, I would say rather that your comment implies that you are not comfortable with mathematics. Let me quote Feynman, "mathematics is the distilled essence of logic."
One wonders at the stupidity of starting a thread with a thrown clock, then posting that in your system all clocks have to be at rest.Not if that issue is the central issue I want to talk about. I want to talk about something which in your head is stupid! Ok, if you don't want to talk about it, don't bother me.
To me (and I presume to some others), you appear to be merely arguing semantics. The short form of your point, as I currently understand it, is "Physicists don't explicitly state things like 'in the clock's rest frame', therefore they must not understand that this clause is needed," which, frankly, seems silly.Forty years ago I also thought the need to point that out was silly; however, over the years I have come to realize that it is exactly the issue which has prevented the physics community from seeing what I see.

My single greatest complaint with web forums is that the members never expose their education level. That makes it very difficult to cast one's comments at a level the reader can understand. As above, Oracle has finally made it quite clear that he really isn't comfortable with analytical thought. Now you haven't made your range of comprehension clear yet but, as you are apparently the only one reading this thread who has any comprehension of the real issues of relativity, I will proceed as if you have the background to understand a difficult subject.

I hope you have your thinking cap on. Earlier, I brought up the subject of parametric representation of space time lines. Though you have not commented on that issue, your general comments imply you understand enough to follow a presentation based on such a representation. I hope that is a correct assessment.

Let us consider a relativisticly correct solution to a problem. Now this can be an experimentalist's describing the results of an actual experiment or a theorist's analytical result of a hypothetical situation. In any case, accurately expressing the solution requires specifying the coordinate system of the real or hypothetical observer (the coordinate system or frame of reference within which the results are to be expressed). Now, if a correct solution has been obtained, then that solution can be expressed as a set of space-time lines in the referenced coordinate system (a specific line for each specific significant element in the solution).

Now I need to point out that the problem referred to here can run the gamut from the trajectory of a macroscopic object through a collection of massive gravitational sources to a QED calculation of fundamental phenomena involving Feynman's inclusions of virtual particles and the consequences of their impact on results. Even if the number of elements included the solution of that problem run to numbers far beyond what we want to explicitly write down, from an analytical perspective, the solution can be expressed as a collection of space-time lines in that observer's coordinate system.

We are talking about expressing information here. The coordinate system we choose to use, in the final analysis, is nothing more or less than a reference system used to express that information. So, in deference to modern physics, let us use the space-time continuum introduced by Einstein: the coordinates will be x,y,z and t. The signature of the coordinate system will be taken to be three real coordinates and one imaginary coordinate. Depending on the problem being solved, the coordinate system can either be a standard Minkowski space or, if general relativity is involved, the Riemann generalization of that space.

If that is the case, then the solution of the problem (and it doesn't make any difference what the problem is) can be explicitly displayed by a set of parametric representations of the space-time lines of the elements significant to that solution.

x_1 = f_{x_1} (\alpha_1) , y_1 = f_{y_1} (\alpha_1) , z_1 = f_{z_1} (\alpha_1) and t_1 = f_{t_1} (\alpha_1) --- entity #1
x_2 = f_{x_2} (\alpha_2) , y_2 = f_{y_2} (\alpha_2) , z_2 = f_{z_2} (\alpha_2) and t_2 = f_{t_2} (\alpha_2) --- entity #2
x_3 = f_{x_3} (\alpha_3) , y_3 = f_{y_3} (\alpha_3) , z_3 = f_{z_3} (\alpha_3) and t_3 = f_{t_3} (\alpha_3) --- entity #3
…
x_n = f_{x_n} (\alpha_n) , y_n = f_{y_n} (\alpha_n) , z_n = f_{z_n} (\alpha_n) and t_n = f_{t_n} (\alpha_n) --- entity #n
…

Now I presume, you will concede that all relativisticly correct answers to any physics problem could be so expressed. That is, all the information contained in the solution to the problem is contained in the set of parametric expressions above which clearly express the space-time lines in the relevant "approved" coordinate system applicable to the associated problem.

{I have cut this into two parts as apparently the forum will not allow excessively long posts -- read on below}

[Doctordick]

I seem to be having trouble with one of my latex expressions. I keep getting a fault on the post. I will post the rest of the note as soon as I can find the problem.

Sorry about that -- Dick

[Doctordick]

Now, here is where we get inventive. Let us, in our heads, attach an ideal clock to each and every entity associated with the solution above. Let us not worry at all about synchronizing these clocks (I would suggest that the concept of synchronization in this situation is rather meaningless) as the only significant issue is the rate at which these clocks run in the observer's coordinate system.

Let us establish the zero on the ith clock via an arbitrary reference to a value of \alpha_i used in the parametric expressions above. Then, the readings on all the clocks are explicitly specified. They can be explicitly expressed by the parametric expression \tau_i\, =\, f_{\tau_i} (\alpha_i) where f_{\tau_i} (\alpha_i) is given by the definite integral of \{ \frac{-i}{c} \sqrt{dx_i ^2 +dy_i ^2 +dz_i ^2 -c^2 dt_i ^2} \} integrated from that arbitrary reference value of \alpha_i established above to the specific value of \alpha_i of interest.

Thus it is that we can add another specific variable to the set x, y, z, and t given above. For every specific value of \alpha_i , not only does our representation yield specific values for x_i ,\, y_i ,\, z_i and t_i , it also yields (by construction) a specific value for \tau_i .

There is but one more step to set this thing up for analysis. In order for the entities presumed to be significant in the solution of this problem to actually be necessary to the solution, there must exist interactions between those various entities. The correct solution must include specification of the event specific to each and every significant interaction (that is in fact the fundamental difficulty in doing the integrals associated with Feynman's expansion of the virtual particle interactions in QED).

These interactions are "events": i.e., they are specified in the parametric representation above by naming the two entities of interest (entity j and entity k for example) and then specifying the value of \alpha_j and \alpha_k which denote the specific event of interest. It is the existence of these events which allow us to relate the reading on any given clock to the reading on any other clock in a specific way: i.e., the time of the interaction as seen from the two different entities is a significant factor.

What one must realize is that the coordinate system used to display this information is actually a rather arbitrary construct. We have, in the above description, five variables associated with every value of \alpha_i . Four of these are coordinates of the observer's coordinate system and the fifth constitutes the reading on a specific ideal clock. The relationship between the change in the reading on the clock and the change in the coordinate positions in the reference frame is set by the metric of the coordinate system; that is to say, ideal clocks "always" measure "proper time". Another way to express the same thing is to understand that there is an absolute physical relationship internal to the five variables under discussion.

At this point I ask you to make a subtle shift in your perspective. What we are talking about here is any arbitrary relativisticly correct solution to some physics problem. All of the information pertinent to the solution is contained in the parametric expressions discussed and the interaction information (the significant event specification). The actual coordinate system serves no purpose beyond allowing the observer to conceptualize the meaning of the coordinate variables and visualize these parametric lines as trajectories in a space he finds familiar.

Let me instead put forth an alternate coordinate system consisting of a different collection of four variables. I will choose to display the information in a coordinate system consisting of the values of x, y, z and \tau. In order to maintain the absolute physical relationship internal to the five variables under discussion, it is necessary to relate changes in the fifth variable to changes in the four I have chosen as coordinates in my representation. The relationship which is to be maintained must be exactly the same relationship imbedded in the original representation: i.e., d \tau_i = \{ \frac{-i}{c} \sqrt{dx_i ^2 + dy_i ^2 + dz_i ^2 -c^2 dt_i ^2} \} or, simply rearranging terms, cdt = \sqrt{dx_i ^2 + dy_i ^2 + dz_i ^2 + c^2 d \tau_i ^2} \} .

This suggests a very interesting geometrical relationship between the five variables. In the original geometry, \tau was a measure of length along lines in the geometry (Einstein's "invariant interval", or at least a time-like representation of it). If our intention is to use a geometry, the interpretation of which will maintain that absolute physical relationship between the five variables, then it behooves us to set the relation as the metric of the geometry. I personally find it quite surprising that such a move suggests that the pertinent geometry is Euclidian.

Why is that surprising? Well, we are talking about a relativisticly correct description of an arbitrary physics problem (note that the correctness of the solution includes general relativity). To come to the conclusion that the solution to that problem is easily represented in a Euclidian geometry is counter to every presentation of relativity I have ever seen. We need to examine this geometry very carefully.

{The final part will appear presently!}

[Doctordick]

The geometry has some strange aspects. Since the purpose of the geometry is supposed to allow the observer to conceptualize the meaning of the coordinate variables and visualize the parametric lines as trajectories in a space he finds familiar, we must make sure we understand exactly what interpretation we are to put on this representation. Remember, there has been no change whatsoever in the information being represented; it is no more than a different representation of exactly the same information represented in the original solution.

A straight forward interpretation would seem to be to let x,y and z be the standard coordinate axes we are used to and let t be exactly what we ordinarily interpret as time. Up to here that would certainly be consistent with the interpretation in the original presentation. The problem with that straight forward interpretation is that it leads to some seemingly unreasonable conclusions.

First, cdt is a differential measure along the paths of our entities. This would imply that everything in the universe proceeds along its trajectory at the speed of light. This is bothersome because our mental image of the universe generally has things moving at velocities considerably less than c.

Secondly, c\tau would be a real axis, as real as x, y or z and this geometry is thus a four dimensional Euclidian geometry. Again, this is bothersome because our mental image of the universe is three dimensional; how can there be a fourth axis of which we are unaware.

Once again, I assert that there can be nothing wrong with the representation, only with our interpretation as the information expressed is exactly the correct solution to the relevant problem discussed at the beginning. What must be in error is our interpretation of the representation. Let me put forth an interpretation which clarifies the problem.

Suppose the universe here represented is exactly a conventional four dimensional Euclidian universe where everything moves at exactly c. Suppose further that every entity of interest to us is momentum quantized in the \tau direction. Exactly what are the consequences of such a hypothesis? The consequence is actually rather straight forward: if the momentum in the \tau direction is quantized (the uncertainty in \tau momentum is zero), then the uncertainty in \tau must be infinite.

A little algebra concerning the momentum vector and the definition of that \tau axis leads immediately to the fact that momentum in the \tau direction has to be mass. It follows directly that, as all our experiments are done in laboratories constructed of mass quantized entities with tools consisting of mass quantized equipment, we cannot possibly detect motion in the \tau direction. An analysis of the character of the spatial wave functions will yield the conclusion that only motion perpendicular to \tau is detectable.

It is then quite clear that most things will appear to be moving at velocities less than c as only the component of their motion perpendicular to \tau is detectable. This also solves another difficulty in interpretation which I have not yet mentioned. Remember that \tau was the reading on that ideal clock attached to our entities.

Now I am sure you are all familiar with what is usually called the twin paradox. One twin goes off to some star and returns. When he gets back, his clock does not agree with his twin's clock. The problem here is that, if this is a conventional Euclidian coordinate system, interactions should occur whenever two entities exist at the same specific point in the coordinate system. Since one of the coordinates is the reading on the clock, when they interact, the reading should be the same. Well, quantum mechanics clears that issue off the table immediately as they both consist of mass quantized constructs and their \tau position is completely unknowable.

All it takes is a little serious effort to translate any real experiment into this representation. Once the translation is correctly accomplished, the results of any experiment are exactly what is observed which is as it must be because I have laid out exactly how the two different representations are related to one another.

There is a second interesting result. The identity between inertial mass and gravitational mass has always implied gravity was a geometric effect (I hope the readers are sufficiently educated to understand that comment). From Newton's time, it was held as very probable that gravity existed because we were not using a valid "inertial" coordinate system. For many years, mathematicians searched for the geometry which would achieve that result with consistent failure (if you look into the history of Hamiltonian mechanics, you will find that its roots lie in that effort). Eventually, a man named Maurpertuis proved that no such geometry existed (but thankfully, the work on the mathematical relations went on or we wouldn't have quantum mechanics).

One of Einstein's great break-throughs was his demonstration that Maurpertuis was wrong. There did indeed exist a geometry which would make gravity a geometric effect; that geometry is central to his theory of general relativity. It is always presented as if Einstein's success was a consequence of Maupertuis' failure to consider geometries with imaginary axes. But, if you go back to Maupertuis' proof, you will discover that a key point in that proof revolves around the fact that different objects can have different velocities. Note that if everything moves at the velocity c (as they do in the representation above) then his proof does not apply.

Actually, it is not difficult at all to generate a distortion in the geometry I have presented which makes gravity a geometric effect. What is nice about my approach is that quantum mechanics applies at every stage.

Now if you can follow that then you clearly have a mind open to new ideas and, most probably an education sufficient to think it out for yourself.

Have fun -- Dick

[Oracleing]

No, I would say rather that your comment implies that you are not comfortable with mathematics. Let me quote Feynman, "mathematics is the distilled essence of logic."

Tell you what if you every make a claim that I do not agree with that I need mathematics to prove you incorrect eat my own keyboard.

Not if that issue is the central issue I want to talk about. I want to talk about something which in your head is stupid! Ok, if you don't want to talk about it, don't bother me.

Sorry I don’t think that’s the way forums work, but then that’s not such a surprise, I would thought someone who starts a thread called “A Thought Experiment” in a forum called Theory Development” may have actually thought about their posts.
.
My single greatest complaint with web forums is that the members never expose their education level.

You know you’ve actually helped me understand something, I’ve been to many forums where you get people promoting their own crackpot ideas, but I’ve never really understood when they start making claims about the elitist education establishment not accepting their radically new ideas…. I understand now, people like you.

That makes it very difficult to cast one's comments at a level the reader can understand. As above, Oracle has finally made it quite clear that he really isn't comfortable with analytical thought.

? You design a thought experiment…. With a claim like “What is important here is that the reading on the clock has absolutely nothing to do with the "time" used in the description of the experiment in anyone's frame of reference!”

I point out that if you use a light clock, it certainly does have some thing to do with the "time" used in the description of the experiment in anyone's frame of reference.

But I’m not comfortable with analytical thought

I will not bore you with having to read another long post with questions you fail to answer…. This bit of your multi-post says it all.

Now I am sure you are all familiar with what is usually called the twin paradox. One twin goes off to some star and returns. When he gets back, his clock does not agree with his twin's clock. The problem here is that, if this is a conventional Euclidian coordinate system, interactions should occur whenever two entities exist at the same specific point in the coordinate system. Since one of the coordinates is the reading on the clock, when they interact, the reading should be the same. Well, quantum mechanics clears that issue off the table immediately as they both consist of mass quantized constructs and their position is completely unknowable.

Are you telling me that one of the benefits of your system is, the answer to the twins paradox difference in time, is “completely unknowable”

BTW you do know the clocks should not agree, don’t you?

Oracle

[DrChinese]

Ok, the first pieces look pretty good. I will continue to study.

[Hurkyl]

So to summarize up until the "final bit", your program is to, in a particular reference frame, take the worldlines of all of the entities in interest, and then replot them by replacing the coordinate time parameter with the proper time parameter, and note that the coordinate time of the original reference frame can be recovered as Euclidean arclength in this new representation.

Right?


My single greatest complaint with web forums is that the members never expose their education level.

It's generally more trouble than it's worth. Say that you're a PhD and you get accused of being part of the brainwashed orthodoxy. Say that you're a layman, and you get summarily dismissed as being incapable of understanding anything.

[Rut Roh]

Quote by Doctordick: Finally, to Rut Roh, I hope you understand why I found Antonio Lao's post to be off subject.

I came to accept the fact that I am not a mind reader a long time ago. That defect means I tend to ask questions. I have my theory on why you tossed out Antonio Lao's post, I was asking yours.

Quote fro Hurkyl: Say that you're a layman, and you get summarily dismissed as being incapable of understanding anything.

I agree 100% with this. Some people leave their personal info blank and up to questioning minds. Some fill those blanks with crap to fend off pre-fabricated ideals. I prefer to look at the posts and respond or not respond on that only.

BTW DoctorDick: If you really knew who I was, you would **** your pants. :biggrin:

[Doctordick]

Hi Hurkyl,
So to summarize up until the "final bit", your program is to, in a particular reference frame, take the worldlines of all of the entities in interest, and then replot them by replacing the coordinate time parameter with the proper time parameter, and note that the coordinate time of the original reference frame can be recovered as Euclidean arclength in this new representation.

Right?Absolutly correct!
It's generally more trouble than it's worth. Say that you're a PhD and you get accused of being part of the brainwashed orthodoxy. Say that you're a layman, and you get summarily dismissed as being incapable of understanding anything.More trouble to who?
I have my theory on why you tossed out Antonio Lao's post, I was asking yours.I had to go back and re-read it as I did not remember what he said. Now that I have looked at it, I feel it was emotional clap trap loaded with physics nuances. Nothing that he said had any bearing on the discussion here.
Some fill those blanks with crap to fend off pre-fabricated ideals. I prefer to look at the posts and respond or not respond on that only.You're right, I agree with you that a lot of what is posted is out and out bull; but a decently run forum could eliminate that by sectioning it out properly. The forum owners could certainly require a decent registration. I suppose you must like being in the dark.
BTW DoctorDick: If you really knew who I was, you would **** your pants.Well you seem to have a high opinion of your status! If I had any interest in such things, I would not have lived the life I have lived. If you have to resort to those kinds of comments, you must have an extremely poor self image.

I have a sign over my desk which says "Knowledge is Power" in large letters and below it in small letters it says "the most popular abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity". I have a suspicion it applies directly to you.

DrChinese; I appreciate your response immensely!

Have fun -- Dick

[pallidin]

Is not "time" dependent upon the physicality of it's device and it's expression within locality? Surely, time is a dualistic beast.

[UltraPi1]

Just thought I would repeat it.

A clock is a measure of time, but a peanut butter and jelly sandwiich can measure time also. The point here is that existence is a measure of time.

[Rut Roh]

Wow! OK... I'm beginning to get it....

You present your views in out of the box expanded thinking, but also are taking responses as strict literal.

At least that would account for how confusing this whole thing is.

[ophecleide]

My single greatest complaint with web forums is that the members never expose their education level.

I am an undergraduate student at the Colorado School of Mines and I have background in multivariable calculus (including vector calculus) and calculus-based mechanics and E&M as well as some basic chemistry. I also read a lot of articles, and do a little research on my own, so I have some background in modern physics.

There, that's one less thing to complain about.

I managed to follow most of your argument, although it took me a few minutes to figure out that you were refering to the reading on the clock as a value rather than considering the changing of the value on the clock an event in itself.
Simultaneity itself is a pre-relativistic notion of time!

If two 'events' (refered to as \alpha in your equations) have the same value of t, doesn't that make them simultaneous?

[Hurkyl]

This would imply that everything in the universe proceeds along its trajectory at the speed of light.
...
It is then quite clear that most things will appear to be moving at velocities less than c as only the component of their motion perpendicular to τ is detectable.

I don't have any trouble with this; I haven't bothered to follow the details in your system, but a similar statement can be made in the ordinary Minowski geometry, and on occasion I've tried using said approach to explain SR oddities on this forum.


The consequence is actually rather straight forward: if the momentum in the τ direction is quantized (the uncertainty in τ momentum is zero), then the uncertainty in τ must be infinite.

Now this I do have trouble with. We agreed τ is what clocks measure, right? If the uncertainty in τ was infinite, would it not follow that it is impossible to read a clock?

[Russell E. Rierson]

That fact must be true as the functioning of the clock is determined by physical laws and those physical laws are (from the axioms of relativity itself) independent of your frame of reference! The functioning of that "ideal" clock cannot possibly be a function of your frame of reference!



Einstein was forced to throw out the cherished notion of absolute time. Different observers in relative motion, at constant velocity, percieve the sequence of events differently.

Every particle in the universe carries its own intrinsic measure of time, called the proper time, if my interpretation is correct.

An interval between two events is called timelike, lightlike, or spacelike depending on whether the Lorentz interval

[Dt]^2 - [Dx]^2 = [Dt']^2 - [Dx']^2

is positive, zero, or negative.

The proper time along a curved world line from event A to event B is smaller than the proper time along the straight "t" axis from A to B in a spacetime diagram with Lorentz geometry. Hence, the stay at home twin is the one that is the biologically older person when the travelling twin returns.

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[UltraPi1]

Every particle in the universe carries its own intrinsic measure of time, called the proper time, if my interpretation is correct. More like - Every fundamental entity carries with it a measure of time, and each measure can be different. All fundamental entities move at a constant {{{ C }}} giving rise to their various measurements. Thus - It would not be time that changes, but it's measurement. Movement of a particle changes that measurement.

[Rut Roh]

ROFLMAO @ Luis Hamburgh.....

confutatis gets extra stars for creativity!!!!!!!

[Doctordick]

I am an undergraduate student at the Colorado School of Mines and I have background in multivariable calculus (including vector calculus) and calculus-based mechanics and E&M as well as some basic chemistry. I also read a lot of articles, and do a little research on my own, so I have some background in modern physics.I appreciate that; thank you very much.
If two 'events' (refered to as in your equations) have the same value of t, doesn't that make them simultaneous?Watch out; generalizations are very dangerous. Whenever you define a concept, you must be very careful that you thoroughly understand all the ramifications of that concept. If you don't, you can easily be lead astray and may come to erroneous conclusions.

In this procedure, I started with a standard Einsteinian coordinate system set up by some observer. That coordinate system included a coordinate called t. From the perspective of that observer, all points with identical t are "simultaneous". However, anyone familiar with relativity knows that there exists an infinite set of coordinate systems (set up by different observers) describing exactly the same circumstance, all of which would have very different collections of "simultaneous" events. However, all of these observers would none the less agree about the simultaneity of certain specific events! For example, the decay of a free neutron and the production of the decay products would occur at the same time in everyone's coordinate system.

Essentially what we are talking about there is a single event involving several different space-time lines. The same thing occurs in my coordinate system and, if we wish, we can set those conceptual "ideal" clocks to have exactly the same readings when that event occurs; however, if we try to do that throughout the coordinate system, we will invariably fail as t is path length in this geometry and the readings on the various clocks will depend on the path length and it is quite easy to find different paths leading to the same point.

Notice that each parametric representation of a line has its own parameter, \alpha_i and one might be very tempted to use the clock reading as that parameter but it won't work. Since dt is path length in this geometry, the specific value of t is defined by a definite integral and requires specification of the start point for the integral. We could, by proper selection of start points on each separate line, reproduce exactly the time in the original representation but the process would be extremely cumbersome and not very useful.

There is another definition of simultaneity which one might find more useful to an observer. As all information of concern to the observer eventually arrives at the observer, one could use the event marking that arrival as the definition of simultaneity. In many ways, that is a better definition of simultaneity than the standard physics definition. It certainly makes it clear that different observers will disagree as to what is simultaneous and yet fits very well with our anthropomorphic senses.

There are some mental tricks which can be used to quickly deduce results of various circumstances but, at the moment, until you get a clear understanding of the representation, I don't think I should go into those.

Now this I do have trouble with. We agreed \tau is what clocks measure, right? If the uncertainty in \tau was infinite, would it not follow that it is impossible to read a clock?You are also being led astray through generalization. You must look carefully at exactly how a clock functions in this geometry. It will take me a little while but I will produce a clock design in this picture for you to examine.

If anyone could give me a little guidance on inserting diagrams (standard GIF files) on this forum, I could post the design here.

On the other hand, this thread seems to be drawing trolls!

Have fun -- Dick

[Oracleing]

In this procedure, I started with a standard Einsteinian coordinate system set up by some observer. That coordinate system included a coordinate called t. From the perspective of that observer, all points with identical t are "simultaneous". However, anyone familiar with relativity knows that there exists an infinite set of coordinate systems (set up by different observers) describing exactly the same circumstance, all of which would have very different collections of "simultaneous" events. However, all of these observers would none the less agree about the simultaneity of certain specific events! For example, the decay of a free neutron and the production of the decay products would occur at the same time in everyone's coordinate system.

?

Do you really think that two observers, one in say a heavily gravitational time dilated state, and one who’s not, would see your decay of a free neutron and the production of the decay products happening at the same time.

You may like to do some research on particle decay in accelerators.

On the other hand, this thread seems to be drawing trolls!

??

Oracle

[Russell E. Rierson]

On the other hand, this thread seems to be drawing trolls!



Watch out! vague generalizations can be very dangerous.

Who is the troll ...specifically?

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[Peter Pan]

sorry all! needed to post to subcribe to this thread. i am enjoying this debate a lot.

[Russell E. Rierson]

Could "Scooby Doo"syllablism correspond to "troll" phenomena?

A mathematical description of time probably has no physical interpretation, unless, as Dr. Dick explains, a lucid definition/understanding of time, can be agreed upon.

So if Einstein says that "the train arrives here at ten o'clock" he means that the pointing of the small hand of his clock to the ten and the arrival of the train are "simultaneous events"... where the clock and the event, are in close proximity.

This definition of time appears to be OK when defining time for the place where the clock is located, but it is insufficient for defining time for a series of events at different locations, i.e. to evaluate times of events occurring at locations remote from the clock.

If for a location A of space, there is a clock, with an observer, and the observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by observing the positions of the hands of the clock which are simultaneous with the events at location A.

If at another location in space, point B, with an identical clock, the observer at B can determine the time values in the immediate proximity of B. But the time of an event at A cannot compare to the time of an event at B since a common time for both A and B is yet to be defined.

According to Einstein, the time it takes a ray of light to travel from A to B equals the time it takes the ray to travel from B to A. Let the ray of light start at the A time "TA" from A to B, it arrives at the B time "TB" and is reflected back in the direction of A, where it arrives at the A time "T'A".



TB - TA = T'A - T'B

A "synchronous" definition of time is arrived at?

2AB/[T'A - TA] = c, the speed of light in vacuum.



Distance is a property between objects in space. Duration is a distance between events in time. Spacetime is a relational structure; The structure
of space is possibly a distributive lattice. A lattice is a
partially ordered set, closed under least upper and greatest lower
bounds.

Any lattice which is isomorphic to a collection of sets, closed
under complementation and intersection, is a Boolean
algebra.

Is it possible to derive Einstein's field equations
strictly in terms of quantum mechanical operators? using n-dimensional
cross sections of cotangent vectors?


What is needed is a tensor equation which is parallel
to "wave" equations described in terms of a covariant
d'Alembertian operator. An alternative description for the general
relativistic space-time, that allows for "compressional" waves,
rather than allowing only "transverse" waves.

[Doctordick]

I appologize to all as I apparently cannot post the gif diagrams essential to the clock design. Hurkyl's concern was answered by private mail. If anyone else is seriously interested, you know how to reach me.

Sorry about that -- Dick

[Hurkyl]

You should be able to attach a .gif to any post; but it may have to wait and be approved by Greg first.

[Doctordick]

You should be able to attach a .gif to any post; but it may have to wait and be approved by Greg first.So here it is. I'll delete it if the gif files don't show up in a few days.

Analysis of an Ideal Clock
by Richard D. Stafford, Ph.D.

In the following, I will totally neglect microscopic phenomena except to assume that microscopic interactions exist and that these interactions, whatever they are, are capable of generating and maintaining the existence of objects whose structures are macroscopically stable over distances and times of interest. I will use the term "event" to refer to a general point on the line segment specifying the path of a microscopic entity being described in my geometry.

My clock will consist of two components: a mirror assembly and an oscillator. Both can be seen as macroscopic assemblies of events. The oscillator will have zero rest mass; therefore, every event which is part of the oscillator will be in a zero eigenstate1 of momentum in the \tau direction (the oscillator can be seen as a macroscopic collection of photons). The mirror assembly will be massive: i.e., every event making up the mirror will be in a non zero eigenstate of rest mass; thus it also follows that every event making up the mirror assembly must be in a non zero eigenstate of momentum in the \tau direction.

Since every event involved in this discussion is momentum quantized in the \tau direction, the microscopic structure must be periodic in the \tau direction. This clearly requires that the macroscopic cross section of both structures perpendicular to \tau must be uniform and their extension in the \tau direction must be infinite. This being the case, a description of their three dimensional cross-section completely describes their macroscopic shape. Our "clock" will be defined to be the entity pictured below.


http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/clock.gif


This clock is further defined by the following constraints: all events making up the mirror assembly have |k_{\tau}| large and k_x, k_y, k_z negligible on a macroscopic scale. On the other hand, events making up the oscillator will have k_{\tau}\equiv0, non-negligible k_y and negligible k_x, k_z. Furthermore, k_y of the oscillator will be negligible with respect to k_y of the mirror. We are free to make these assertions as we are defining an entity and, in the absence of contradiction, anything is certainly possible.

First, the consequences of quantum mechanics must be included from the ground up. The fundamental interaction equation is a many body wave equation. Since we are neglecting microscopic phenomena except for the assumption that they maintain the macroscopic structure, at a macroscopic level we can look at the ray optics limit of the microscopic solutions2. Now consider the relationship between momentum and velocity; in the ray optic limit, their directions are the same3. It follows that, in macroscopic terms, although every event has exactly the same speed through the geometry4, the mirror is moving parallel to the \tau axis while the oscillator is moving parallel to the y axis. Since our assembly is infinite and uniform in the \tau direction, motion in the \tau direction yields no changes in the structure of our clock. If we now postulate that microscopic interactions between the mirror and oscillator are capable of reversing the sign of the oscillator's momentum upon contact with the mirror, the oscillator will bounce back and forth between the legs of the mirror assembly. Our clock will clearly have a period of \frac{2L_0}{c}.

Since every event in the system described has non-negligible momentum only in the (y,\tau) plane, we can display all dynamic phenomena while considering only that plane. Thus, let us examine our clock as it appears in that (y,\tau) plane, paying particular attention to the associated velocity vectors. Notice that although no constraint has been imposed on the sign of the momentum of events making up the mirror, each event making up the mirror must have momentum either in the plus or minus \tau direction. As the sum of all events must maintain a coherent whole (by definition, our object is coherent over the time and space considered) we need only focus on the collection of events having the same sign. For the sake of graphic representation, I choose that sign to be positive.

In any case where the interactions necessary to maintain the existence of my entity are negligible5, we can conclude that the velocity of the mirror (or those components we have focused on) is exactly c in the positive \tau direction6.

Following is a \tau,\,y cut of our clock at the midpoint of the oscillator perpendicular to the x,z plane:


http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/restcloc.gif


Note that T, the period of our clock, is identical to 1/c times the distance the mirror moves in the \tau direction during one clock cycle. Although actual position in the \tau direction is meaningless, (as the entire object is infinite and uniform in that direction), our clock is actually measuring displacement of the mirror over time in that direction: i.e., we can infer that the mirror has moved a distance 2L0 in the \tau direction during one complete cycle.

Our mechanism is certainly analogous to a clock since it will keep time if we can count the number of times the oscillator bounces back and forth. Furthermore, the image is clearly that of a massless object (a coherent pulse of photons?) bouncing back and forth between two reflective surfaces of a massive mirror, the common construction of an accurate clock under the conventional physics viewpoint.

{Part II will follow below!}

[Hurkyl]

There should be a "manage attachments" button when you post a new reply; that will attach them if you don't want to link them.

[Doctordick]

Now let us consider an identical moving clock. In this case, k_y of the mirror is no longer negligible.


http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/movecloc.gif


Since all objects are uniform and infinite in the \tau direction, we may suppress drawing the objects themselves. Instead, we may deal entirely with the displacement vectors (\vec{V}c). It should be clear that these vectors contain all relevant information needed to predict the time evolution of our device. It is only necessary to remember that anytime the displacement vectors lead to identical (x,y,z) coordinates, microscopic interactions can occur between our macroscopic objects (because all macroscopic objects are infinite and uniform in the \tau direction). Please note that, in this particular case, x and z of every point in the picture is always identical so we need only concern our selves with the y coordinate of the displacement vectors.


http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/clocvect.gif


Note that the length of the moving clock is shown to be L'. This has been done because we know that the geometry must yield (by construction) a result totally consistent with the Lorenz contracted macroscopic solution if interactions with the rest of the universe may be neglected: i.e., when we solve the microscopic problem in the moving clocks system we want the length of the clock (when transformed into the original rest system) to be L0. Only in the case where we can set the length (as seen from the rest system) to be L' can we call the clocks identical. This will require L'=L_0\sqrt{1-\beta^2}, where \beta is defined to be the sine of the angle between the \tau axis and the path of the clock7 Since all velocities are c, it follows directly that d1 + d2 = S.

Notice that the following geometric figure is embedded in the previous diagram.


http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/showdiog.gif


Once again we discover that one clock cycle measures exactly the length of time it takes the mirror to move the distance 2L0 in the \tau direction. Although our clock was designed to measure time, it appears that what is actually being measured is inferred displacement in the \tau direction.

At this point it seems quite rational to point out that no one in the history of the world has ever been able to create a real manufactured device which will actually measure time. It can not be done because, although it is an absolute law that interactions can only occur between objects which exist at the same time, time can not be specifed absolutely as it is a relavistic thing which depends on your coordinate system). All so called clocks actually measure what a modern physicist calls proper time. He is able to define time only in his own rest frame. In that case dx = dy = dz = 0 and he can call what the clock measures "time" as, in that case and that case only, the two parameters (\tau and t) are universally proportional. It should be noted that all clocks measure "proper time" exactly, even when in an arbitrarily accelerated frame! I have always found it rather strange that this fact was never pointed out to me during my graduate studies. It seems to me to be a very powerful statement.

End Notes


1. David Park, Introduction to the Quantum Theory, McGraw-Hill, Inc., NY, 1964, p.67.
2. Herbert Goldstein, Ph.D., Classical Mechanics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Inc., Reading, Mass., 1959, p. 312.
3. Messiah, Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1966, p. 55.
4. I will use c to represent this velocity though I can show that there is a serious assumption in its actual value which we might discuss later.
5. The interactions are negligible if I can consider any subset of events making up the mirror as objects: i.e., the subsets form an analyzable universe unto themselves.
6. It can be shown that inclusion of these interactions will give rise to effects commonly attributed to general relativity.
7. This forces the apparent velocity of the clock to be beta times c.


Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

There should be a "manage attachments" button when you post a new reply; that will attach them if you don't want to link them.Yes, I see it now. It didn't occur to me that the part II should be thought of as an attachment. Live and learn.

Thanks -- Dick

[Doctordick]

Though very few seem to be much interested in criticizing my alternate coordinate system for examining relativistic phenomena, for those who do have some interest in the perspective, I have managed to get you access to those gif files associated with the "Ideal Clock" design (evidently direct image posting is off limits). They appear as URLs which, if you click on them, will open a window containing the graphic.

There have been a lot of comments on this forum about speeds in excess of the speed of light. With regard to that, my representation makes the issue quite clear. As time is not a coordinate axis but rather a path length measurement, measuring it is a completely local phenomena and (as a specific numerical measurement) is only meaningful to the observer himself. On the other hand, the fact that things must exist at the "same time" in order to interact is still an absolute universal rule.

What the above means is that time has once again achieved the role it played in Newtonian mechanics: it is fundamentally a parameter specified by the observer to denote the distribution of events which he regards as simultaneous. Please note that all scientists familiar with relativity have made much of the fact that this can always be done without violating causality: i.e., simultaneity is in the eye of the beholder.

Since time is now merely a parameter of motion, if one wants to look at a set of interacting events over time (in their personal reference frame), they can construct exactly the same kind of diagram common to freshman physics analysis of motion: i.e., introduce time as a dimension on graphic representation of the motion.

My exposition on an ideal clock above is a good practice example to see what I am talking about. The most serious difficulty is that one cannot exclude the \tau axis as its existence always has profound consequences. This means that the simplest diagram one can create has three dimensions, x, \tau and t. What is important here is that, since time is a measure of path length, moving rapidly perpendicular to \tau makes your x motion a significant component of your change in time: i.e., the faster you go, the more quickly you go into the future (as compared to the reading on your own clock).

As an aside, the twin paradox is still resolved by the inclusion of acceleration (which would fall into the category of general relativity) which I won't go into at the moment. If anyone has any questions about it, I will go into the representation of general relativistic phenomena from this perspective; however, you should make an attempt to understand special relativistic phenomena from this perspective first.

The great power of my perspective is that it reinstates the concept of "simultaneous" collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics, another phenomena which is in the eye of the beholder. The collapse of the wave function occurs when the observer knows what the outcome of the situation is. Just as time is a local construct conceived of by the observer, the wave function describing a phenomena is also a local construct devised by the observer.

That is exactly why a covariant representation of quantum mechanics is so involved; the wave function describing the expectations of the observer is no more universal than is the specification of simultaneity as seen by the observer. Easy conversion is only possible when d\tau and dt are linearly related to one another (special relativity). What my geometry does is to make representation of relativisticly correct set of distributed interactions easy to display from the observers perspective (well, at least somewhat easy).

Have fun -- Dick

[Antonio Lao]

Doctordick:On the other hand, the fact that things must exist at the "same time" in order to interact is still an absolute universal rule.

Only interaction by direct physical contact requires "same time." Interaction by quanta of force field is limited by light speed.

[Doctordick]

Hi Russell,

I have just finished learning latex code and was going through my old posts correcting what I put down to my intentions and decided I should respond to your post.

According to Einstein, the time it takes a ray of light to travel from A to B equals the time it takes the ray to travel from B to A. Let the ray of light start at the A time "TA" from A to B, it arrives at the B time "TB" and is reflected back in the direction of A, where it arrives at the A time "T'A".

TB - TA = T'A - T'B

A "synchronous" definition of time is arrived at?

2AB/[T'A - TA] = c, the speed of light in vacuum.There is nothing wrong with such an approach at all except that it presumes there exists no special coordinate system. This perspective is rather all pervading even though, in the final analysis it is a mentally compartmentalized position. Certainly the distant stars provide a reference for a "center of momentum" coordinate system as special. It is clear that it would be quite reasonable to do calculations in a frame not rotating with respect with those distant stars (particularly if your interest was the orbits of the planets of the solar system). Now if they were to do so, it is clear that they would not find the speed of light on the earth to the west to be the same as the speed of light to the east as they would be moving in their chosen reference frame.

Not a serious issue, except when one is trying to get down to fundamentals. If one wants to be absolutely correct, these kinds of issues must be thought about.

Is it possible to derive Einstein's field equations
strictly in terms of quantum mechanical operators?It certainly is as I have done it (in essense anyway as my coordinate system is quite different from his). I need to make a slight intellectual correction to that statement: except for the fact that my results and Einstein's are slightly different. Who has made the error is still an open question as the required experiment to tell the difference is beyond current technology.

using n-dimensional
cross sections of cotangent vectors?No, that is not the way I did it.
What is needed is a tensor equation which is parallel
to "wave" equations described in terms of a covariant d'Alembertian operator. An alternative description for the general relativistic space-time, that allows for "compressional" waves, rather than allowing only "transverse" waves.Is that an opinion or a fact? If it is a fact, then I would like to see your derivation of general relativistic quantum mechanics. If it is not a fact, then it is only an opinion.

If you wish, I will give you my derivation of general relativistic quantum mechanics. But, before I do so, I need to know your education as without that knowledge I would have to start with freshman physics.

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

Only interaction by direct physical contact requires "same time." Interaction by quanta of force field is limited by light speed.You are presuming your theory of "interaction by quanta of force" is correct. If you express the presumed interactions directly (that is, creation of the interacting quanta as an event and the effect of that interacting quanta as a second event) then each of those events occur at exactly the same time as either the causing event or the consequence event. It is your error to presume there is no difference between the two events.

Have fun -- Dick

[Russell E. Rierson]

If you wish, I will give you my derivation of general relativistic quantum mechanics. But, before I do so, I need to know your education as without that knowledge I would have to start with freshman physics.

Have fun -- Dick

I am a part time college student of electrical engineering, age 42. I have taken all of the prerequisite "calculus" courses along with self study.

Your derivation of general relativistc quantum mechanics sounds very interesting.

Please proceed.

[Doctordick]

I am a part time college student of electrical engineering, age 42. I have taken all of the prerequisite "calculus" courses along with self study.

Your derivation of general relativistc quantum mechanics sounds very interesting.

Please proceed.

Ok, the first step is for you to tell me if you can follow my post #3 on the thread:

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=23266

If you have had no more than the prerequisite "calculus" courses, you may have difficulty following the derivation. Please post your responses to that post on that thread. I will do my best to clarify any problems you have. Once you accept the fact that the equation is fundamental, I will show you how to solve it step by step.

Have fun -- Dick

[Russell E. Rierson]

Is that an opinion or a fact? If it is a fact, then I would like to see your derivation of general relativistic quantum mechanics. If it is not a fact, then it is only an opinion.



In a Schwarzchild spacetime via an analogue of the Schwarzchild spacetime of the Rindler vacuum state, for which static observers detect no particles, the expected stress-energy tensor becomes singular on two distinct portions of the intersecting null planes. This is known as the Hartle-Hawking vacuum, and the vacuum state will become a thermal state with respect to the notion of time translations with temperature T = hbar*c^3 / 8pi*k*G*M .

The vacuum state gives rise to a generalized entropy law, where the entropy S' never decreases:

S' = S_m + A/4

The area of a spacetime surface and the maximum amount of information contained in a finite region of space, cannot be greater than one quarter of the area in Planck units. Spin networks can describe the quantum geometry of space at the intersection of horizon boundaries, where the spin networks intersect with the boundary at a finite number of points.

There is a finite amount of energy contained by a given region of spacetime. A finite amount of information. A finite number of quantum phase entanglements and random fluctuations.

A phenomenon is random if individual outcomes are uncertain but there is a regular distribution of outcomes in a large number of repetitions.

The Hawking-Unruh effect is therefore the consequence of the noise spectrum for a massless scalar field along an accelerated trajectory in Minkowski space. It would appear to be a Fermi-Dirac form. The Unruh effect then becomes an integral part of a quantum field theory.


If the universe is closed, the "information" or entangled quantum states cannot leak out of the closed system. So the density of entangled quantum states, continually increases, as the entropy must always increase. While to us, it is interpreted as entropy or lost information, it is actually recombined information, to the universe. Shannon entropy.

Spacetime Memory = Compression Waves = Interpretation of Increased Entropy = Shannon entropy.


Einstein's equation basically says

Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy Tensor [T]

[spacetime geometry] determines [matter-energy's path] = geodesic.

[Matter-energy] determines [spacetime geometry] = non-Euclidean geometry.

.
Conservation of momentum energy is explained as an automatic consequence of the zero boundary of a boundary. Where conservation of energy-momentum means no creation or destruction of energy momentum in a 4D region of spacetime [4D cube] The integral of "creation events" i.e. the integral of d*T for energy momentum, over the 4D region is required to be zero, and gives the conservation of momentum energy. The mathematical machinery for identically meeting the conservation laws is the boundary of a boundary equals zero.

[spacetime tells mass]<==[geodesic]==>[mass tells spacetime]

An object following a geodesic has no unbalanced forces acting on it. Its energy-momentum is a constant. In order for the object to deviate from the geodesic, it must be accelerated. Energy must be expended, for example, its rocket boosters could fire, or an outside force like a meteor impact .


Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of the vacuum itself.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples continually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" .

Actually, spacetime can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous[causally connected].

[density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]


Quantum mechanics leads to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

The analogy with black holes is interesting with the caveat that if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. It is Shannon entropy, to an information processor with huge computational capabilities.

[Antonio Lao]

Doctordick,

The events happen in spacetime. The speed of traveling in space and the speed of traveling in time are related. These combined motions always equal the speed of light. If the interaction go faster in space then it will slow down in time, vice versa. No particle can travels greater than c in space, only light can do that. When light is traveling at exactly c in space then its speed in time is zero. Light does not age and time stands still.

[Doctordick]

Doctordick,

The events happen in spacetime. The speed of traveling in space and the speed of traveling in time are related. These combined motions always equal the speed of light. If the interaction go faster in space then it will slow down in time, vice versa. No particle can travels greater than c in space, only light can do that. When light is traveling at exactly c in space then its speed in time is zero. Light does not age and time stands still.Please define exactly what you mean by "speed"!

[KingNothing]

I think you know what speed is. He's not talkin 'bout meth.

[Russell E. Rierson]

This appears to be Dr. Stafford's definition of the problem with "time":

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/flaw/Fatalfla.htm



The fundamental problem is two very different concepts of time. One concept of time is the idea that there is a state called the present which divides the universe into two different realms: the past which cannot be changed from the future which cannot be exactly known. The second concept of time is that it is the reading off a clock. These concepts are fundamentally inconsistent with one another.

Two issues ignored by the scientific community should be looked at very closely here. First, any competent physicists knows that it is impossible to construct a device which will provide a universal division between past and future for all possible reference frames. This being the case, they simply ignore that concept of time as being of no scientific significance. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, seriously confronts that concept.

The second issue is the fact that all clocks are dynamic physical entities controlled by the laws of physics. Since the fundamental axiom of relativity is that the laws of physics are not frame dependent, the readings on a clock cannot possibly be frame dependent! Note that the only measure in the theory of relativity which is totally independent of the reference frame is Einstein's invariant interval which, as luck would have it, is exactly what all clocks measure. Scientists avoid thinking about this issue by placing their reference clocks in specific reference frames as if these frames are of special significance.



Time is a sequence, or interval, separating events on a "timeline/worldline". It is governed/determined by the laws of physics, it is not of itself a law of physics, since it is a measurement. Then again, c is invariant!

There can be no preferred frame of reference.

Space-time becomes Euclidean as distance between two arbitrarily different "frames" becomes very small. So two events become simultaneous as their space-time separation goes to zero.

Dr. Einstein's theory is still correct.

[Doctordick]

Dr. Einstein's theory is still correct.I am glad you are so sure of that! I think you just find my work to be beyond your comprehension; as I suspect, so is Dr. Einstein's.

Have fun -- Dick

[Russell E. Rierson]

I am glad you are so sure of that! I think you just find my work to be beyond your comprehension; as I suspect, so is Dr. Einstein's.

Have fun -- Dick

Thank you for the vote of confidence Dr. D.

A person can perform an experiment in a reference frame travelling at a velocity that is a significant fraction of the velocity of light or in a frame travelling at a low velocity. The results of the experiment will be the same at both reference systems.

There is no preferred frame for systems travelling at a constant relative velocity.

So what the heck do you mean? when you say:


Scientists avoid thinking about this issue by placing their reference clocks in specific reference frames as if these frames are of special significance.

[Netme]

Time has infinite dimensions. We live in our own dimension of time as do atoms and planets the universe and so on.

[Antonio Lao]

Doctordick,

My general definition of "speed" is rate of change of something with respect to something else. The something else is assumed not changing in any sense of the word. In other words, the something else takes the value of zero. This is the definition of a derivative in calculus.

This "not changing" is not the same as what we mean by a "constant." Constant is a value for all time (past, present, future).

[Doctordick]

Doctordick,

My general definition of "speed" is rate of change of something with respect to something else. The something else is assumed not changing in any sense of the word. In other words, the something else takes the value of zero. This is the definition of a derivative in calculus.

This "not changing" is not the same as what we mean by a "constant." Constant is a value for all time (past, present, future).Then I would presume you would find a reference to the "speed of the roof of my house" to be a very reasonable use of the term? Or is it rather that you don't want to confront the issue of exactly what you mean by "time"? I have a feeling it is the latter.

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

Time has infinite dimensions. We live in our own dimension of time as do atoms and planets the universe and so on.I suspect you are not interested in logical thought. You are using the word "dimensions" where a more analytical person would more probably use the word "aspects". English is not a very exact language. If you want to express "exact" concepts, mathematics is a much more exact language: i.e., what is meant by an expression is usually much better defined than expressions in English.

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

Thank you for the vote of confidence Dr. D.Thinking is not an easy thing to do. A lot of people value knowledge very highly because it relieves them of the need to think. I am afraid you are getting sufficiently long in the tooth that you would rather depend on what you "know" than think about it. If that is a false impression and you want me to change my opinion, you need to make some comments can be taken differently and not just quote academic catechism.
So what the heck do you mean? when you say:Scientists avoid thinking about this issue by placing their reference clocks in specific reference frames as if these frames are of special significance.They demand that dx, dy, and dz of the space-time lines of their clocks vanish in their reference frame! They make no such constraint on the character of their rulers. All they ask of their rulers is that (dx/dt +dy/dt +dz/dt) vanish for any specific measurement in that frame of reference (a subtly different issue). Of course, they don't expressly put that in their catechism as it might draw attention to this special treatment and open questions about the use of clocks as measuring devices.

Have fun -- Dick

[Antonio Lao]

Doctordick,

Time is relative. Spacetime is absolute. To me, any future consideration of using the derivative has to be rate of change of something with respect to spacetime. I really don't know how to do this, mathematically speaking. In other words, I don't understand when spacetime takes the value of zero. Is this the singularity? Where all physical variables are known to be infinite (density, energy, temperature). But the time, volume are all zero at the singularity. I know cosmologists, like Hawking and Penrose, refuse to talk about the naked singularity. They censor it.

[Doctordick]

Doctordick,

Time is relative. Spacetime is absolute. To me, any future consideration of using the derivative has to be rate of change of something with respect to spacetime. I really don't know how to do this, mathematically speaking. In other words, I don't understand when spacetime takes the value of zero. Is this the singularity? Where all physical variables are known to be infinite (density, energy, temperature). But the time, volume are all zero at the singularity. I know cosmologists, like Hawking and Penrose, refuse to talk about the naked singularity. They censor it.Thank you very much for clarifying your position. I think I may have a better understanding of where you are coming from. When you say "spacetime is absolute", I suspect you are complaining about something I often complained about when I was a graduate student. I used to say that Einstein's representation of the universe was not dynamic but static and none of my professors seemed to comprehend what I was talking about.

I often bring up the issue of magicians and how they hide what they are doing through misdirection of attention because I think most professional scientists are guilty of the same ruse. (I only said that because people get tired of me saying it, especially if they don't understand why I say it.)

When I would say the relativistic picture was not dynamic they would point to the "time" axis and say "here is the dynamic component of the relativistic picture". But, when I said it was just a coordinate like any other coordinate in the representation and, in Einstein's picture, it is no more a source of change than is x or y, they would say "Oh, but it is quite different as, in Einstein's picture the geometry of the universe has quite a different metric and 'time' is quite different from 'space'; that is why it is called a space-time continuum!" And I would say, "Ah, yes; in Einstein's picture, time is imaginary!" Now there is a joke in there which no physicist I have ever met sees.

The issue of course is that there is no explicit parameter of change in Einstein's picture. That makes talking about how things change very difficult. Professional physicists handle the situation by moving from subject to subject to subject until the student gives up questioning the validity of their position and accepts their representation as free of difficulties. I call that procedure "misdirection of attention" and it is very effective at quelling investigative examination.
To me, any future consideration of using the derivative has to be rate of change of something with respect to spacetime. I really don't know how to do this, mathematically speaking.That is because you really want to consider how things change with respect to time. In Einstein's picture, all things are space-time entities. In other words, you want to know how "space-time entities" change in time.

Now the physicists, being well trained in misdirection of attention will point out that all you want is the collection of space like cross sections of those space-time entities. If you then point out that, if one looks at space like cross sections of entities, they are no longer looking at space-time entities as the time coordinate has vanished, they will (driving home that spike of misdirection) point out that it is still a space-time entity which can be seen by transforming to a different frame of reference (and time will come right back into the description of the entity): i.e., it is as much of a space-time entity as it ever was.

When I was a first year graduate student I brought up that issue with one of the theoretical professors whom I held in high respect. I showed him the Euclidian representation of a correct relativistic space which I brought up on this thread (message #40). I showed him how it allowed a "dynamic" view of what was going on. He told me that, so long as it gave me the correct answers to problems there was nothing wrong with using the view but "please don't show it to the other students, it will just confuse them!" (By the way, he gave me the best grade in the class and, as far as I am aware, he held me as the best student he had.) I respected the man enough that I did not tell any of the other students about my observation.

Now in some respects, that advice could be seen as the worst possible advice he could have given me. On the other hand, it is also possible that I managed to get a Ph.D. in theoretical physics simply because I didn't try to fight the system until well after I graduated.

At any rate, I personally think you can trace your problem to the fact that the accepted picture of the universe supported by the current academy is just simply not convenient for analyzing the things you want to analyze. As a map maker, you should recognize the advantage of choosing the best coordinate system. (The Mercator projection is wrong but it sure serves its purpose so long as one remembers its shortcomings. In the same vein, I would hold that Einstein's space-time continuum is an invalid representation of reality but also provides very valuable service so long as one remembers its shortcomings.)

With regard to singularities, I am firmly of the opinion that a correct mental image of the universe should be totally without singularity. People forget that "infinity" is not a "number". "Infinity" is a tag attached to the description of a procedure allowing quick and easy reference to a special, rather common, circumstance in mathematics. Singularities arise when ever one attempts to push a mathematical representation of a problem beyond the applicability of the model behind that representation. It follows that any competent "physicist" wants you to switch models before you get there. Rus_Waters gave an answer to someone's question on this forum which was essentially a statement that what the person was talking about was not a quantum mechanical system. Compartmentalized thinking is much more conducive to misdirection of attention than is generalized conceptualization.

I say that any answer which is wrong in the limit of its definition is the wrong answer and professional physicists don't like that.

Sorry about my overly long answer!

Have fun -- Dick

[Antonio Lao]

Thanks for your overly long answer.

[Russell E. Rierson]

Thinking is not an easy thing to do. A lot of people value knowledge very highly because it relieves them of the need to think. I am afraid you are getting sufficiently long in the tooth that you would rather depend on what you "know" than think about it.


Yes, you are correct. I am getting long in the tooth. :eek:


The key to "unification" is symmetry.



A timeless symmetry?

An infinite number of coin flips gives an equal amount of heads and an equal amount of tails.

[1/2 H and 1/2 T]*n, for n--->oo

A radioactive nucleus decays in accordance with probability P within time t_0 to time t_1

Probability P becomes a timeless mathematical entity governing the future iterations of events at time t. There exists a spectrum of possibilities for the observed quantities. Certain deterministic factors become contingent with respect to uncertainty, DxDp >= h .

An infinite number of observations of the radioactive decay, converges to an exact number for t?

Wave function probability density = |psi (r, t)|^2


The physical meaning of the expectation value is simple. It is the value that would be found by taking the average of many measurements of the observables in question on a large collection of systems all in the state psi. the individual results are weighted by the probability.

As Hawking says, the laws of physics must hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe. A triumph for the principles of democracy. Ergo, no singularity.

The one inch equation:

[<-[->[U]<-]->]

The brackets, or parentheses, represent cotangent bundles. The arrows represent tangent vectors.

U stands for "universe", or, quantum particle. Energy conservation is time symmetric. This is a self similarity that holds for any aspect, or the "whole".

The "tau" parameter becomes a function of three coordinates on the surface of the embedded 3 dimensional manifold.

[Doctordick]

And I see no connection between what you are saying and what I am trying to communicate. Sorry I am so dense.

Have fun -- Dick

[Russell E. Rierson]

There seems to be a pesky virus infecting my computers when I visit the physics forums!

I discovered that it is called the "Sasser Worm".

Hopefully we will be able to talk without interruption, about these great physics ideas Dr. D.

[Doctordick]

Hopefully we will be able to talk without interruption, about these great physics ideas Dr. D.Now that would be a boon and a half! I should be so lucky.

Have fun -- Dick

[Russell E. Rierson]

The thermodynamic arrow of time appears to be equivalent to a logical "if-then" statement.

If A then B
A
therefore B

Conscious awareness is moving along fourth dimensional extensions of three dimensional space.

The increase in mass of a body moving at relativistic speeds can also be interpreted as a type of rotational perspective effect, and when time is explained as a dimension, "ct", by combining one of the c's with time to convert it to a length, E = m_0 c^2 becomes m_0 c , a momentum, specifically, a momentum of an object's motion down its time axis. Sets can be represented by Venn diagrams. Venn diagrams can be represented as light cone cross sections. Relativistic effects such as length contraction and time dilation become rotational perspective effects.

A photon traverses the path from A---> B at the same velocity as from
B--->A

A--->B = X

B--->A = X '

X / T = X ' / T ' = c

X*T ' = T*X '



One asks oneself the question "What the heck does it mean for a wave function to collapse?"

According to Einstein, there is no instantaneous action at a distance!


Distance is a property between objects in space. Space is a structure, which is postulated to be constructed of discrete units. The structure of space is possibly a distributive lattice. A set of properties, being a "complementary logic?", expressing difference in wholeness.
On one level of existence two photons are separate. On another level, of existence[spacetime boundary], the photons have zero separation.

Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects.

[Hurkyl]

Reading through a couple more times, it seems to me that this is what you have done:

You've added a proper time dimension so that proper time is now a coordinate rather than a quantity computed from a path, and I think I understand the point to doing this, and it seems clever, but I haven't worked out the consequences yet. Allow me to present what I think you mean, and tell me if I'm close:

The basic idea is to have all particles travelling at a constant speed through space. In order to achieve this, you are adding a 4-th dimension to "soak up" the excess speed.

The actual position in this 4-th dimension is irrelevant for the kinematics, only the differential in this direction. Interestingly, this differential coincides with d\tau from relativity.

(Note: the next paragraph is somewhat being pulled out of my hat; my knowledge of the details of QM and up is fairly limited, so I'm half-speculating hoping my understanding of things is right. :smile:)

Furthermore, for pratcial purposes we could consider this 4-th dimension rolled up and our particles smeared across this dimension so that they have no definitie position, thus making this dimension irrelevant for macroscopic kinematics.


Anyways, I can't see anything else you've done besides add this gadget; your reintroduction of a universal time parameter seems to be nothing more than picking some inertial reference frame and cutting it into space-time slices. I can't see any reason why the gadget couldn't be attached to Minowski space, maybe with the Lorentz transformations resizing the circumference of the tau dimension in order to keep the derivative with respect to coordinate time a universal constant. Of course, the 5-velocity becomes more complicated.


Anyways, this brings up the question of what kind of coordinate transforms occur in your system. You deny Lorentz boosts, but what about Galilean boosts? Are anything but rotations and translations permissible?

[Doctordick]

Hi Hurkyl, I have been hoping to see a response from you.

You've added a proper time dimension so that proper time is now a coordinate rather than a quantity computed from a path, and I think I understand the point to doing this, and it seems clever, but I haven't worked out the consequences yet. Allow me to present what I think you mean, and tell me if I'm close:Interesting here that you use the phrase 'rather than a quantity computed from a path' as I have explicitly pointed out that \tau is exactly what is measured by clocks while t (the parameter to be used in the calculation of the evolution of physical systems) is a quantity which must, in general, be computed.

In order to make that statement clearer, let me describe a hypothetical experiment where this issue is significant. Consider a pilot flying a space ship in the vicinity of the earth with windows which allow the experimenter to see exactly what he is doing (or perhaps a television camera broadcasting an image of his actions at the control panel of the ship). The observer will use the three dimensional coordinate system which is consistent with his definition personal definition of simultaneity.

Now let relativity be a significant issue (we don't really need high speeds for this, we just need accuracy sufficient to require including relativistic effects). Because the radio waves from the broadcast take exactly the same time to reach us as the light image of things like rocket on or rocket off events, the one way speed of light becomes an insignificant issue. We will see the consequences of the pilots actions as simultaneous with those actions (if we want to know when the events happened in our rest coordinate system, we just use the finite speed of light to back track the issue to the "correct" time: i.e., do a calculation).

When it comes to dynamic phenomena on the ship, we need to use the clock on the ship and the known rest measurements on the ship. In fact, there is a very astonishing consequence of using the ships clock in your calculations. I don't know if you have the math background to prove this but I can prove it: if you use a three dimensional coordinate system at rest with the observer and time as measured on the ships clock, the position of the ship along its path is exactly given by a direct integration of a(t)dt along that path. Now I call that a surprisingly simple result considering the complexity of the relativistic problem. (Actually, it's trivial if you think about it a little!)

The basic idea is to have all particles travelling at a constant speed through space. In order to achieve this, you are adding a 4-th dimension to "soak up" the excess speed.I guess it could be seen that way but it is not the way I came to it. When I was in high school (back in the early 50's), I read a popular presentation of Einstein's ideas. Of course I didn't know sufficient math to understand it very well; however, I was very impressed by the twin paradox and its resolution. What I got from the presentation was that the reading on the clock had nothing to do with whether or not he and his twin could talk.

Since one twin stayed home and the other traveled, I saw the issue as being one of going forward in time. The rest twin went forward in time at some rate (clearly defining "how fast he went into the future" was a meaningless thing – he did, that’s all). The traveling twin went into the future at a considerably faster rate. In fact, the "distance" he went into the future was a result of the combination of the reading on his clock and how far he had traveled. This led me to the conclusion that, going into the future was caused by moving.

Now Einstein had proposed that the universe was a four dimensional continuum where the fourth dimension was time. Well that made sense, time was what we read on the clock. So my mental image of the universe was a four dimensional space (Euclidian because that's all I knew at the time). When we thought we were standing still, we were actually moving in this fourth dimension: i.e. we could neglect our motion in the observable three dimensions. (And certainly setting everybody's clock to read the same was a ridiculous idea.) Furthermore, the dimension would have to be projected out (the readings on the clocks had nothing to do with being able to interact). When I was in high school I saw no need for a mechanism to yield the projection, it just was that's all.

Well, I used that mental image of the circumstance and it always gave me the right answers. When I began to study relativity, it became very clear that my mental image was not at all what Einstein had in mind and I was quite surprised that it always gave the correct answers to any relativistic problem I was given. (In fact, I often used it to give me a quick and dirty insight as to what to expect.)

When I reached graduate school and found that the image even worked with regard to some general relativistic problems I really began to think about it. It was then that I proved it was mathematically 100% equivalent to standard relativity (through the parametric representation I showed you guys). I also saw quantum as providing the projection mechanism. I showed it to a professor at the time and he agreed it was equivalent but required me to promise not to tell the other students as "it would confuse them".

The actual position in this 4-th dimension is irrelevant for the kinematics, only the differential in this direction. Interestingly, this differential coincides with d\tau from relativity.Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's irrelevant. It is only irrelevant when discussing objects which are momentum quantized in that direction: i.e., when the rest mass of the devices of interest (our laboratory and measuring devices have a quantized rest mass). The position is irrelevant for contact interactions but very significant to the kinematics.
(Note: the next paragraph is somewhat being pulled out of my hat; my knowledge of the details of QM and up is fairly limited, so I'm half-speculating hoping my understanding of things is right. :smile:)

Furthermore, for pratcial purposes we could consider this 4-th dimension rolled up and our particles smeared across this dimension so that they have no definitie position, thus making this dimension irrelevant for macroscopic kinematics.Again, I would say it is irrelevant to the display of events but not at all irrelevant to the kinematics of the events.
Anyways, I can't see anything else you've done besides add this gadget; your reintroduction of a universal time parameter seems to be nothing more than picking some inertial reference frame and cutting it into space-time slices. I can't see any reason why the gadget couldn't be attached to Minowski space, maybe with the Lorentz transformations resizing the circumference of the tau dimension in order to keep the derivative with respect to coordinate time a universal constant. Of course, the 5-velocity becomes more complicated.The single most significant aspect of what I have done is that quantum mechanics must be brought in at the initial level and flows through the whole thing from the word go. Actually, once you see the correctness of the perspective, which I think you are close to seeing, in order to see the real general consequences you need to be able to solve my fundamental equation in the "Why you should like my perspective' thread.

Anyways, this brings up the question of what kind of coordinate transforms occur in your system. You deny Lorentz boosts, but what about Galilean boosts? Are anything but rotations and translations permissible?I am ignorant of this term "boosts". All I am doing is analyzing the kinematics of interacting entitles in a four dimensional Euclidian space presuming there exists no such thing as action at a distance (only virtual exchange interactions note my Dirac delta function interaction) and no such thing as mass (mass turns out to be no more than a quantum mechanical effect).

But you have to be able to solve my fundamental equation in order to see the consequences. I will lead the forum through the solution if I feel there is enough interest to make it worth while.

Hope you have the where with all to follow me – Dick

PS right now I have places to go and things to do. See you all tomorrow.

[Doctordick]

Hurkyl, a little more on your post!

Anyways, I can't see anything else you've done besides add this gadget; your reintroduction of a universal time parameter seems to be nothing more than picking some inertial reference frame and cutting it into space-time slices.Ok, as long as it is clear to you that this can always be done and does provide a mental picture of how things are happening.
I can't see any reason why the gadget couldn't be attached to Minowski space, maybe with the Lorentz transformations resizing the circumference of the tau dimension in order to keep the derivative with respect to coordinate time a universal constant. Of course, the 5-velocity becomes more complicated.Think about what you have just said here. You are going to keep the Minkowski representation of space and add another "time" parameter, then "keep the derivative with respect to coordinate time a universal constant". Aren’t you sort of complicating your life with a lot of additional (and unnecessary) mathematical baggage? And, are you sure it is going to give you the right answer?

I like to keep things as simple as possible and always remember, the real question is, does it give the right answer -- Dick

[geistkiesel]

Somewhere the clock has a a tick-tock-tick going on. If this clocks compares the ticking of a clock that is in a frame at rest, or slower, then by comparing the delta time of the ticks, in his moving frame, the moving clock can determiine which of the two frames are moving the fastest!. By recording faster ticks and slower ticks, the moving clock frame can infer he is not stationary wrt to an absolute stationary frame.
Let us say that on the moving frame the ticking goes thus:

| | | | | | and some input signal is recorded | | | | | | | | and a third

| | | | | | |. If the moving clock knows he is recording clock ticks at a minimum he can determine which oif the input clock ticks are on platforms that are faster, slower or moving at the same speed.

Cranking it up a notch, if the test frame detects shifts in the different pulses that were constant in recorded frequency, he can determine accelerating platforms moving toward him or away.

[geistkiesel]

And I see no connection between what you are saying and what I am trying to communicate. Sorry I am so dense.

Have fun -- Dick

Tis should be a trivial exercise for such an agile and fruitful mind.

Consider the possibility that those formulating quantum theory circa 1926 and thereafter analyzed Stern-Gerlach transition experiments and two hole diffraction incompletely. For instance, under what conditions was the '' rigidly attached randomly oriented angular momentum vector" model discarded? The model failed to account for the two spots on the collecting surface instead of a smooth smear, which is what was classically expected.

Some implications of these findings are with us yet , in a fundamental way. I suggest that theose who discarded the "classical soin vector model" were a bit hasty and abrupt. They missed an opportunity to go forward instead of backward. Let me show you why.

Lets us instead of throwing out the baby with the wash, retain a modified vesion of the classical vector. The vector is solidily attached to the particle, and even randomly pointing, but there is a subtle difference. Let us put the vector on a universal joint such that when the particle enters the field and gradient volume the vector simply rotates until it aligns itself with the field and gradient direction. For a spin-1 particle we have an added input. Only three distinct directions of motion are observed. Therefore, intrinsic to the particle 'spin generating function' the +, 0 or - value are imposed on the motion. The vector 'lines with the field, the 'spin state' or direction of observed motion wrt the Stern-Gerlach segment is 'chosen' perhaps randomly by the particle.

OK this is heresy, but remember the analysis is a relook at pre-modern quantum physics. In fact the 'spin state' need not be randomly genertated. A measure of identical particles will verify that the three different directions slavishly follow a 1/3 egalitarian sharing of direction wrt to the segment field/gradient direction. So why not just 'hard code" the diferent spin states as one after the other.

The standard model countering in all this heresy, has the spin state of the particles "set in he heat of the tungsten filiament'" which means that even in the most complex higher order spin states this "random" state generator works as flawlessy as does a simple generator intrinsic to the particle host. The 'tungsten filamnet' sorce cannot be proved, but the interinsic generatior model can be proved. Liikewise, one never gets to the contrived "quantized space" sometimes referred to as the measure of constant angular momentum regardless of the orienatation of the measutring device.

OK, so far we are at a free moving spin vector generating its own spin states nonrandomly.

I have not seen any serious analysis other than Feynman's in his "Lectures on Physics" Vol III chapter 5, which is not slightly flawed it is incompetent. Sorry, Doctordick, I saw some reference to Feynman that indicated he was a physicist you resepcted. Maybe he deserves his fame and fortune, but it isn't from his "inteference amplitude" model en gave us. Nor was it his analytsis of two-hole diffraction where he states that any substutute for the prevailing quantum mechanical view means, among other things, that the electron would have to pick the hole it was going through before it entered, wow what an impossibility, if there ever was one, right?

Of course the electron picks the hole it is going through, of course a base state +S particle transitioning through an unobstructed T segment returns to its input state in the S - > T -> S trasnition. Heck, comapss needles always return north after perturbed don't they? We must see that the simple transition written here described a particle tansitioning from a fied/gradient free region into a field/gradient region whre it is polarized into one of three T states for the duration of the travels through the segment. When exiting the field/gradient the 'spin state' of the particle returns to the +S pre-polarized state.

This is a short discussion abot the reformtion of base states.. A +S state has the polarization of the particle aligned with an S segment we will say is up parallel with the lab frame. T is rotated around the direction of travel of the particle, hence the 'maganetic monopole' (my definition not yours, which you denied exist) orients iteself to one unique +, 0 or - T state. Then when leaving the T segment, in field free space, the +S compass returns. Obviously the +S notation does not define the spin styate of the particle and is incomplete for a void of any reference to those elements of the +S state that guarantee the reformationm of the +S state.

Now the orientation sa nd reorientation of the magnetic monopoles leads me to describe the systems as an inertial system, you know llike a three directional gyroscope.

There is much more, so I have assembled a simple minded webpage to go through some of the pertinent details. So see

the graphics rich, math poor tutorial (http://frontiernet.net/~mgh1/) all to most theoreticians displeasure.

In the experiments Feynman discusses, which I have analyzed in the tuitoriall, the states of the particles are either known at all times or can be determined after transition through the segment. There isn't any magic that Feunman refers to, not any reason for his statement that "physics has given up" and "we just don't know".

An +S particle entering a T segment and takes the -T channell will always exit that channel in the +S state, which can be easily verified. Feynman is downright silly in his discussion of the four crucial experiments which are the coda of his presentation of chapter 5. It seems to me, a natural skeptic, tha Feyman deliberately distractedthe reader from a proper reading of the experimental results, which I agree with 100%. Any medium intelligent and half way curiious undergradute can discover Feynman's siliness, or was it just an oversight, a missing of the forest from a few mispalced trees, maybe a bad hair day?

Doctordick, I am one of those that haven't grasped the essence of your thesis, but in reading the full text of the h=tread I will get it, I am not cmpletely at sea.

I would klike to see your take on the webpage, titled "Experimental Quantum Ttransition Pysics'' Google wont get it as the page was only recently publiched. Partly from this webpage I find myself exiled here. Its all the same to me. Chroot and some of the others will visit us from time to time to set us straight on our lack of proper QT etiquette, twisted physics and any other deplorable state they can conjur up fpr us.

It must be a truky satisfying state of mind tio know that you're there. Its like someone who claims he/she knows god, therfore they quit searching, what a loss,don't you agree?

Guess where I picked up this rather free wheeling prosaic style?

Doctor Dick, can your knowledge machine come up with this knoweldge? I suspect not.

At this point I agree with the post that said "if you can't explain it to your grandmother . . " you get the drill, don't you?. I'm like the grandmother I want to know what it is, methodology is playing second fiddle.

I am somewhat ambivalent abiout your reference to thinking. On the one hand it does take a lot of hard work and time for mental sluggards like myself, but then as the song goes, "what else can poor old country boy do?"
Geistkiesel

The enemies of truth. Convicitons are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
:smile: :rofl:

[Hurkyl]

(For the record, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist)

Interesting here that you use the phrase 'rather than a quantity computed from a path'

I guess the natural phrasing depends on the model from which you're working. Since every event can be labelled with an x-y-z-t(-\tau) in your system, it seems natural, to me, to start from this.


the position of the ship along its path is exactly given by a direct integration of a(t)dt along that path

Could you expound on this? It's a little vague, and I suspect that you made a typo.


I guess it could be seen that way but it is not the way I came to it.

Ok, I didn't mean to suggest that "soaking up the excess speed" was the point of your gadget; it just happened to be the point that struck me as interesting.


The position is irrelevant for contact interactions but very significant to the kinematics.

Hrm. I don't see yet how anything but the differential in the tau direction matters, but I guess it shall be made clear later? Or was I just sloppy in my phrasing again?


I am ignorant of this term "boosts".

A boost is a transformation representing a change of frame. So, a Lorentz transformation from one (SR) inertial frame to another is a Lorentz boost. One from one classical inertial frame to another is a Gallilean boost.


Think about what you have just said here. You are going to keep the Minkowski representation of space and add another "time" parameter,

At the moment, I don't find it silly, since I currently perceive you doing the same thing with the classical space.

For the record, I don't find suggestions of a difference between a time parameter and a time coordinate particularly convincing; one can always swap back and forth between the two, and the mathematical representations of each are virtually identical. E.G. the only difference between a worldline and a position function with respect to time is the grouping of the ordered tuples.

[Doctordick]

This should be a trivial exercise for such an agile and fruitful mind.I would not argue with that except for the fact that wouldn't refer to my mind as either agile or fruitful. Oh, maybe agile forty years ago (at least compared to what it is today) but, even then, I don't think it was as much fruitful as it was luck. I just happened to look at things in a way no one else did.
Sorry, Doctordick, I saw some reference to Feynman that indicated he was a physicist you respected.I do not know Dr. Feynman's work well at all. I have read some of his homey comments on physics and found them all both very down to earth and entertaining. He also won my heart by being the only "recognized" authority who ever agreed to discuss my ideas with me. I talked to him once back in 1986 and he said he would get back to me when he finished the Challenger thing. The next thing I heard was that he had died.

What I am getting at is that, due to my rather unorthodox perspective, I do not doubt at all that many of the accepted concepts of physics may be erroneous. In particular, I am convinced that the whole standard approach to science is flawed. I don't feel any need to examine any specific explanation closely and, as I am now an old man, I really see no purpose to learning more physics from the orthodox perspective. I don't think the scientific community is doing a good job of handling the problem of internal consistency and I am too old and mentally decrepit to cast the whole field into my perspective for them. Hell, I can't even communicate the portion which I have cast into my perspective.
Doctor Dick, can your knowledge machine come up with this knowledge? I suspect not.What I can do is lay out a trustworthy foundation on which physics can be confidently built. But I am too old to build it myself.
The enemies of truth; Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.You've got that right! I guess I ought to apologize for being wrong (if it turns out I am) as I certainly have strong convictions that I am right and I really don't want to be an enemy of truth.

Have fun -- Dick

[NileQueen]

Doctordick, I like your philosophy.

[Doctordick]

Doctordick, I like your philosophy.Well thank you very much, I really do appreciate it .

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

(For the record, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist)Thanks for that information. It gives me a little better idea of how you will take things. I understood exactly why you used the phrase 'rather than a quantity computed from a path' (which you make clear yourself). The only reason I made the comment was to draw your attention to the issue.
the position of the ship along its path is exactly given by a direct integration of a(t)dt along that pathCould you expound on this? It's a little vague, and I suspect that you made a typo.Yeah, sometimes what I write down isn't what's in my head; an extremely sloppy presentation with no attention given to the details. I am just so used to thinking from my perspective; it's the way I see the universe and has been since I was a teenager. Of course what I meant was obtaining velocity from the integration of acceleration and then obtaining the position from integration of the that velocity.

What I had in mind was the pilot of the ship working from a map created when he was at rest. Now the map is "simultaneity" as seen by him before the trip started. The first significant constraint is that nothing can be moving in that map (otherwise it really doesn't qualify as a "map"). Now, working off that map, and identifying his spatial position from that map and his time from his personal clock, he can use straight old Newtonian analysis.

Now there are some subtleties which must be kept in mind here. First, since his visual image of what is around him is distorted by relativistic effects on the propagation of light, he needs to take great care to make sure his position on the map is where he thinks it is. In essence this amounts to taking into account the fact that his measuring sticks on the ship are giving him the wrong information as to where he is on the map (only actually arriving at a known object is proof of where he is): i.e., he must operate as if the Lorenz Fitzgerald contraction were real. The same effect must be taken into account when he evaluates his acceleration.

In effect, when he goes to calculate his velocity, he uses his rate of change of position on the map as a function of his time. Of course, when he does that, his acceleration must also be determined by that same means. If you think about it for a moment, you will see that the outcome is simply the fact that we are defining everything such that the old Galilean variables correspond to the integral we need to do in order to calculate our position.

There is another way to see what is happening. Observe that the pilot on the ship (by working with that fixed map) is doing exactly the calculation the rest observer would be doing except for the time correction. Now the rest observer would define the ships velocity as ds/dt and calculate his position by multiplying by dt and integrating. Here, we are using the "wrong" dt in both situations and the instantaneous correction between rest time and ship time end up factoring out.

The acceleration is basically a cheat because it is simply defined as whatever it has to be to give the correct velocity to be used in the picture. After all, what is acceleration if it isn't the time rate of change of velocity? Here we are just using the ships time in the definition.

No, it does not provide a trivial solution to the general problem but there do exist problems which will allow this procedure to give you a quick and dirty result which is relativsticly correct. Particularly if all you are after is a mental image of the result and not an actual number. It just gives one a very different mental picture of what is going on. Actually, I am sorry I brought it up.

With regard to the issue about "kinematics", I guess I regard conservation of momentum and energy as something different from consequences of differential tau. The smearing out of the wave function is the cause of the projection of tau out of the problem. Essentially, I see the situation as one where you must first solve the problem and then look at the momentum quantized result.

In my eye, you are just trying to see the thing in the standard perspective and I would rather calculate the result of my perspective. The outcome should always be the same so long as we are both taking care to do the correct calculation.

At the moment, I don't find it silly, since I currently perceive you doing the same thing with the classical space.
But the standard Minkowski space already provides us with tau (what all clocks measure anyway).

For the record, I don't find suggestions of a difference between a time parameter and a time coordinate particularly convincing; one can always swap back and forth between the two, and the mathematical representations of each are virtually identical. E.G. the only difference between a worldline and a position function with respect to time is the grouping of the ordered tuples.Well, I don't think you should unless you can see the consequences. Why don't you just follow along with what I am trying to explain to Russell in "Why you should like my perspective" and either tell me when I make a stupid mistake or help me get what I am trying to say across (with comments to me or others, which ever better serves the purpose).

Thanks for your attention -- Dick

[DrChinese]

What I am getting at is that, due to my rather unorthodox perspective, I do not doubt at all that many of the accepted concepts of physics may be erroneous. In particular, I am convinced that the whole standard approach to science is flawed.

I like a lot of what you are saying in the science you are presenting here. With some development, there might even be some really good ways for it to add to our body of knowledge. But what does the above statement really have to do with that?

Logically speaking, existing science provides highly accurate and useful descriptions of our world. I know you are not saying that established science says the speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per second when it is really 450,000. So why say something like "accepted concepts are erroneous"? They cannot be erroneous because they are useful. Even if a better theory comes along - inevitable, in my opinion - the old one would still be useful.

All new theory is unorthodox by definition. And the scientists who create that theory are often vilified before the ideas are generally accepted. Einstein certainly was. But even that does not make the existing science "flawed". It does mean that scientists are human. Your point would only make sense if the existing scientific establishment said that further study was unnecessary because the answers have all been provided. And that is not the case.

[McQueen]

I further make the claim that all observers will find the reading on that clock at the moment it is smashed to smithereens will also have a specific value. And once again, they will all agree as to what that reading was. Once again, that reading has absolutely nothing to do with their frame of reference.
This is really ridiculous , because what you are saying in effect is that the observers would all be in the same frame of reference , in order to see the time on the smashed clock. On the other hand if the clock was smashed in a fast moving elevator and an observer happened to look at the event from outside the lift his clock would record a different time. So what's new ?

[Doctordick]

I further make the claim that all observers will find the reading on that clock at the moment it is smashed to smithereens will also have a specific value. And once again, they will all agree as to what that reading was. Once again, that reading has absolutely nothing to do with their frame of reference.
This is really ridiculous , because what you are saying in effect is that the observers would all be in the same frame of reference , in order to see the time on the smashed clock. On the other hand if the clock was smashed in a fast moving elevator and an observer happened to look at the event from outside the lift his clock would record a different time. So what's new ?I was never talking about his clock. The reading on his clock has absolutely nothing to do with the reading on the smashed clock. And, I am sorry, saying that they can see the reading on the clock at the moment it is smashed is not equivalent to saying they are in the same frame of reference. I don't think you understand enough physics to follow my example and thus totally miss the point of the thought experiment.

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

What I am getting at is that, due to my rather unorthodox perspective, I do not doubt at all that many of the accepted concepts of physics may be erroneous. In particular, I am convinced that the whole standard approach to science is flawed.All new theory is unorthodox by definition. And the scientists who create that theory are often vilified before the ideas are generally accepted. Einstein certainly was. But even that does not make the existing science "flawed". It does mean that scientists are human. Your point would only make sense if the existing scientific establishment said that further study was unnecessary because the answers have all been provided. And that is not the case.Nice to see you back. I was hoping you might catch up on the "Why you should like my perspective" thread. Had you done that, you might have understood why I made the comment above.

Everyone, including you, see what I am doing as putting forth a new theory. That is not at all what I am doing. What I am doing is setting up a procedure for examining the universe designed to be absolutely open to any possibility: i.e., doing my very best to avoid making any assumptions whatsoever! Now, as any decent philosopher will tell you, that is definitely an impossible task. However, backing off the impossible, I will make one assumption. That is the assumption that mathematics provides a set of logically consistent definitions of things which we can talk about and specific procedures which are understood by a great number of people: i.e., it is a language understood by a lot of people and is also more unambiguous than any other language used by any human beings. Show me a competent rational scientist who does not make that assumption and I will applaud you.

When I say that "the whole standard approach to science is flawed", I am referring to the great number of assumptions which are made. Assumptions which I claim are unnecessary. The specific accepted concepts of physics which I refer to as erroneous are the presumptions that the assumptions they make are necessary.

As I have said on a number of occasions, explaining what I am doing is very much like trying to explain statistical analysis to an astrologer. He wants to know how he can deduce the truth of what I say from the positions of the planets. The scientists of today want to translate what I am saying into the mental image of the world they believe is valid. Examining their fundamental beliefs is either beyond their power or their interest. Probably beyond their interest as they have a considerable investment in the validity of their current position.
In all cases, our perceptions are taken as "Truth" unless we can absolutely prove they are in error. In actual fact it seems much more rational to assume our perceptions are in error until we can prove they are correct!I think I have made a major breakthrough in that very issue. Follow me and point out an error if I have made one.

Have fun -- Dick

[McQueen]

I was never talking about his clock. The reading on his clock has absolutely nothing to do with the reading on the smashed clock.
Instead of throwing a clock against a wall and smashing it . Suppose we have a boy traveling on a train and bouncing a ball. To the boy the ball would seem to fall vertically , in fact it does fall vertically . But to an observer standing outside and looking in at the train , he would see the ball leave the boys hand and land a few feet behind him. (i.e the boy) So while a clock on the train would record the time taken for the ball to fall to the ground as the time taken for the ball to travel from the boys hand in a straight line to the floor ( of the train ) , the observer’s clock would measure the distance traveled by the ball as the distance of the diagonal that the ball makes to the floor . Therefore obviously , the clock on the train must have shrunk so that it observes the same time as that of the observer on the platform. So the conclusion is that the cogs and things in the clock do undergo change depending upon the frame of reference.

[Doctordick]

I was never talking about his clock. The reading on his clock has absolutely nothing to do with the reading on the smashed clock.
Instead of throwing a clock against a wall and smashing it . Suppose we have a boy traveling on a train and bouncing a ball. To the boy the ball would seem to fall vertically , in fact it does fall vertically . But to an observer standing outside and looking in at the train , he would see the ball leave the boys hand and land a few feet behind him. (i.e the boy) So while a clock on the train would record the time taken for the ball to fall to the ground as the time taken for the ball to travel from the boys hand in a straight line to the floor ( of the train ) , the observer’s clock would measure the distance traveled by the ball as the distance of the diagonal that the ball makes to the floor . Therefore obviously , the clock on the train must have shrunk so that it observes the same time as that of the observer on the platform. So the conclusion is that the cogs and things in the clock do undergo change depending upon the frame of reference.And pray tell what does any of that have to do with the reading on the clock when it was smashed?

[baffledMatt]

Hi Dr D,

I had a little bit of time so I just wanted to comment on this:

However, backing off the impossible, I will make one assumption. That is the assumption that mathematics provides a set of logically consistent definitions of things which we can talk about and specific procedures which are understood by a great number of people: i.e., it is a language understood by a lot of people and is also more unambiguous than any other language used by any human beings.


Now, I have been reading your book and I don't think you are being quite true to yourself on this point. There are instances which occur where you say things like:

"The absolute best one can hope to do is to predict the probability of observing a given set of data as a function of time"

"any information present must be contained in the patterns, not in the actual values"

"To begin with, that algorithm must be independent of time"

Now, are these not assumptions? They also seem rather familiar. From symmetry of space, time and a bit of probability theory we can also get most of QM.

I think you must be much clearer about what your assumptions really are. These things you seem to be passing off as 'obvious', but aren't you using your own mental image of the universe to make these obvious observations?

Matt

[ram2048]

i've not had a chance to read and analyze the thread to its entirety just yet, but i wanted to give my beliefs on "time" before i read some crazy stuff to confuse it :D

what follows is ram's theory of time:

time exists only as a function of actions taking place.

if the entire universe stood perfectly still, no time would take place. (or you even if it did you wouldn't have anything to measure it by anyways so...)

when time concerns multiple elements in a closed set, REAL-time is defined as the actions of the object in question versus the actions of every object in the set. if it was two men in space a certain distance apart and one man moves away from the other, the motion of one man would cause time to happen for the other man, and they would both view the motion and time as real. both men would "see" themself moving away from the other man at half the speed compared to the average distance between the two (dunno if i'm explaining that right but whatever).

on a greater existence or set where the whole universe is involved. one man can move away from the other man, and the other man can realize that he is stationary in regards to the rest of the universe and thus the other man retreats at full speed.

now, here comes the tricky part, REAL-time for us in the universe as part of the set exists in the motions or actions that we take or are exerted on us in relation to the average motion or action of EVERYTHING else in the universe. It functions independantly of whether or not someone is "measuring it"

our PERSPECTIVE-time exists for us as part of the set that exists in our actions or motions etc that exist that are immediately around us and can be measured as phenomena to calculate this time. In order for us to try and realize REAL-time we have to get a bead on as much of the universe and its actions as possible, and measure any of our actions to this whole.

[Russell E. Rierson]

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_I.htm



Doctordick:

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that we already know the algorithm which yields these observations. To begin with, that algorithm must be independent of time as, if it is not, the solution of our problem depends on when we begin the examination and different observers will obtain different solutions (remember, the solution is the complete explanation of the universe). (As an aside, I am not being loose here, "when" refers to the time as defined above.) Secondly, as the algorithm is independent of time, it must be that knowing the algorithm is insufficient to predict any particular observation unless the time of the observation is contained in some implicit manner. If there is information implicitly embedded in the data, it must be presumed that there are patterns of data which are possible and patterns of data which are not possible.



By quantizing spacetime geometry, it seems that the
wavefunctions aren't based on a background space. The wavefunction
space, can be thought of as the space of square-integrable wavefunctions over classical configuration space.

In ordinary quantum mechanics, configuration space is space itself {i.e.,to describe the configuration of a particle, location in space is specified}. In
general relativity, there is a more general kind of configuration
space: taken to be the space of 3-metrics {"superspace", not to be
confused with supersymmetric space} in the geometrodynamics
formulation,{or the space of connections of an appropriate gauge
group)in the Ashtekar/loop formulation. So the wavefunctions will be
functions over these abstract spaces, not space itself-- the
wavefunction/algorithm defines "space itself".


The resultant metric spaces are thus defined as being diffeomorphism invariant. Intersecting cotangent bundles{manifolds} are the set of all possible configurations of a system, i.e. they describe the phase space of the system. When the "wave-functions/forms" intersect/entangle, and are "in phase", they are at "resonance", giving what is called the "wave-function collapse" of the Schrodinger equation. the action principle is a necessary consequence of the resonance principle.


[abstract representation]--->[semantic mapping]--->[represented system]

[axiomatic]--->[Isomorphism]<---[Induction]

An abstract representation is exactly that, "abstract". It is not a space, or time, but is instead a product of consciousness, or a mental construct; topologically it is equivalent to a "point". The abstract description contains the concrete topology. Likewise, the concrete contains the abstract.

The description of any entity inside the real universe can only be with reference to other things in the universe. Space is then relational, and the universe, self referential. For example, if an object has a momentum, that momentum can only be explained with respect to another object within the universe. Space then becomes an aspect of the relationships between things in reality. It becomes analogous to a sentence, and it is absurd to say that a sentence has no words in it. So the grammatical structure of each sentence[space] is defined by the relationships that hold between the words in it. For example, relationships like object-subject or adjective-noun. So there are many different grammatical structures composed of different arrangements of words, and the varied relationships between them.

Language describes the universe, because the universe is isomorphic to a description on some level, and reality can only refer to itself, because, there is nothing outside of ..."total existence" which becomes equivalent to a self referential system, which must be a self aware system. Since descriptions make distinctions, or references to other entities, and distinctions are tautologically logical, [A or ~A], reality is logical, in that its contents can be described by a language. The contents within reality are distinctive entities, individually different from the others, yet consisting of the same foundational substance.


A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:




All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .





Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

The analogy with black holes is an interesting one but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible information.


The categorical representation of a propositional conundrum, in which deductive invalidity depends on the modality of the truth conditionals concerning the prerequisite of the contingent assumption and consequent conclusion. The totally relevant content of the assumption and conclusion, definitely contains no modal terms. But, the modality attaches to the fact that the conditional assumption is quite possibly true, while the conditional conclusion is necessarily false.

Which leads us to an argumentational representation of a completely non-bogus modal formulation of the paradox of existence itself, and, the oh so elusive "ultimate truth" that Dr.D earnestly seeks. Deductive invalidity is most excellently predicated on the categorical truth of the modal-term-laden assumption and the definitive categorical falsehood of the modal-term-laden conclusion. Hence, the assumption is, such, that if the antecedent of a contingently true conditional is false, then, the consequent of the conclusion can be true is itself quite simply and most elegantly ...true. Therefore, the conclusion that if it is not the case that the consequent of a contingently true conditional can be true, then it is not the case that the antecedent of the true conditional is false, is itself quite simply, false.

Meta-philosophical scruples notwithstanding, existence is, a paradox.

Alpha = Omega

It is the categorical formulation of the simultaneous, situational, instantiated contradiction, where deductive invalidity is the product of the utmost categorical truth of the assumption that if the antecedent of a true conditional is false, then the consequent of the conditional is true or false indifferently, and of the categorical falsehood of the conclusion consequently predicates that if it be not the case that the consequent of a true conditional is true or false indifferently, then, it is not the case that the antecedent of the conditional is false. To pronounce the consequent of a true conditional as being true or false indifferently is tantamount to saying modally that where the antecedent of a true conditional is notoriously false, then the consequent can, or could be, or is, possibly true or false. But it may be worthwhile to see that the definitive, simultaneous equality of both true, and false, can be formulated without explicitly including modal terms, which become the predicating operators, which, for the sake of showing that the consequent paradoxical conundrum is not straightforwardly resolvable by appealing to concrete philosophical scruples concerning the intensionality of predicated modal contexts.

But then again, Einstein said it best:



Einstein:

For pure logic all axioms are arbitrary , including
the axioms of ethics. But they are by no means
arbitrary from a psychological and genetic point of
view. They are derived from our inborn tendencies
to avoid pain and annihilation, and from the
accumulated emotional reaction of individuals to the
behavior of their neighbors.
It is the privilege of man's moral genius,
impersonated by inspired individuals, to advance
ethical axioms which are so comprehensive and so
well founded that men will accept them as grounded
in the vast mass of their individual emotional
experiences. Ethical axioms are found and tested not
very differently from the axioms of science.

Truth is what stands the test of experience.

[Doctordick]

Russell,

I find it almost impossible to decipher what you are trying to say. I don't think we are communicating at all. I have tried quite hard to understand what you are trying to get across but, in the final analysis, it just keeps coming across as incoherent babble. It sounds to me very much like a collection of phrases put together by an AI program fed data taken from some scientific conference.

Sorry, but I just don't follow you.:confused:

Dick

[Doctordick]

Hi Matt,

I am sorry for the slowness of this response but I had to think about it a while because we are really having a difficult time communicating (plus that, your supposed to be at lectures anyway). The single biggest problem I have with trained people is that they do not read what I write but rather scan the paper, presuming they understand what I am saying. From your comments, it is very clear that you are falling into exactly that trap.
"The absolute best one can hope to do is to predict the probability of observing a given set of data as a function of time"Under the constraints I have specifically placed on the problem, please point out something else one could do.
"any information present must be contained in the patterns, not in the actual values"The numerical values are nothing but tags we have decided to put on the references which define "C". Their numerical values cannot possibly be fundamental information.
"To begin with, that algorithm must be independent of time"In my presentation, time is nothing but an arbitrary index placed on a particular observation. If one is to deduce the valid "rule" which will explain "C", how can that rule depend on how the index is attached? You are, in effect, suggesting that you would accept as a valid explanation of the universe an explanation which depended upon on the design of the attack for finding that explanation. Now I understand that you are not really being that dense; what you are actually doing is working from the assumption that your mental image of reality is correct: i.e., you are not using my definitions, you are attempting to apply your definitions on the assumption they are good definitions.
Now, are these not assumptions? They also seem rather familiar. From symmetry of space, time and a bit of probability theory we can also get most of QM.Yes, from the standard approach to physics, these things are assumptions. The central issue of my presentation is that, when objectively viewed as an abstract problem, they are not assumptions at all but rather required relations.
I think you must be much clearer about what your assumptions really are. These things you seem to be passing off as 'obvious', but aren't you using your own mental image of the universe to make these obvious observations?I think one problem we are having here is that you are trying to understand what I am saying from a document I wrote twenty years ago. Although I have become fully aware that people find that document very hard to follow, I have not changed it because the problem is misunderstanding and not actual error. The derivation of my fundamental equation might be easier for you to understand if you were to carefully read the post starting at:

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=200811#post200811

and the post immediately following it. Read those two posts carefully and then tell me what assumptions you think I am making.

Have fun -- Dick

[baffledMatt]

The single biggest problem I have with trained people is that they do not read what I write but rather scan the paper, presuming they understand what I am saying. From your comments, it is very clear that you are falling into exactly that trap.


Now come on. You seem to have a big problem here. Your position seems to be that since your formalism is obviously correct and true (as you say, 'true by definition') then anyone who has a disagreement with it must not understand it, or worse, has not read it properly.

Do you really think this is fair? How do you expect people to be willing to take the time to understand your work when this is the reaction we receive?


Under the constraints I have specifically placed on the problem, please point out something else one could do.


Just because I can't think of something else, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is not up to me to suggest an alternative, but up to you to show that this truly is the only thing we can do.


In my presentation, time is nothing but an arbitrary index placed on a particular observation. If one is to deduce the valid "rule" which will explain "C", how can that rule depend on how the index is attached? You are, in effect, suggesting that you would accept as a valid explanation of the universe an explanation which depended upon on the design of the attack for finding that explanation. Now I understand that you are not really being that dense; what you are actually doing is working from the assumption that your mental image of reality is correct: i.e., you are not using my definitions, you are attempting to apply your definitions on the assumption they are good definitions.


Ok, but you have not shown that all observations can be represented in this way, or that there exists this algorithm which is independent of time.


Yes, from the standard approach to physics, these things are assumptions. The central issue of my presentation is that, when objectively viewed as an abstract problem, they are not assumptions at all but rather required relations.


No. They are not at all required. You have simply defined your system such that these become natural assumptions to make. However, if you want this to be completely general you must still consider these to be assumptions.


Although I have become fully aware that people find that document very hard to follow, I have not changed it because the problem is misunderstanding and not actual error.


But then how do you reasonably expect anyone to follow you?

I'm sorry if this post is a little aggressive, but I think you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes to some respect and whenever we try to complain you accuse us of not reading your work properly. This is not the way to go about persuading us that we should like your perspective!

Matt

[Doctordick]

The single biggest problem I have with trained people is that they do not read what I write but rather scan the paper, presuming they understand what I am saying. From your comments, it is very clear that you are falling into exactly that trap.Now come on. You seem to have a big problem here. Your position seems to be that since your formalism is obviously correct and true (as you say, 'true by definition') then anyone who has a disagreement with it must not understand it, or worse, has not read it properly.Either they did not read the definitions, do not understand the definitions, or they don't want to use the definitions; otherwise, their responses would not be at all what they are. :cry: You are continually making comments way beyond the opening stage and your comments seldom seem to make any sense when interpreted in terms of the things I have defined. :frown:

Since you moved right through Chapter I and began making comments on Chapter II, I initially assumed you understood chapter I. :approve: Although you raised an important issue on my move to replace P (and the "undefined" algorithms used to calculate it) with P1P2 (and the algorithms used to calculate them), you totally missed the point that commutation could not possibly be an issue. :confused: I can only interpret that as evidence that you had no idea what \vec{\Psi} stood for. :frown:
Do you really think this is fair? How do you expect people to be willing to take the time to understand your work when this is the reaction we receive?Actually, based on experience, I don't expect them to take the time to understand. :zzz: The real reason I bother with these posts is that it clarifies to me exactly what kinds of misinterpretation to expect. :smile:
Under the constraints I have specifically placed on the problem, please point out something else one could do.Just because I can't think of something else, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is not up to me to suggest an alternative, but up to you to show that this truly is the only thing we can do. :yuck: Ok, let's approach that problem. Under normal circumstance, I would presume the average person of average intelligence could do that analysis on their own if they understood my definitions.

First, let us look at what we have to work with.We have "C", a collection of sets "B" indexed (as they constitute of finite set) with an index I have defined to map into "time".
Now, "that" we know by definition so there is nothing there to predict. However, and I realize it is a subtle point :rolleyes:, we can look at it from the perspective of "suppose we didn't know one of those 'B's". Then we would like our "explanation" to be consistent with the actual "B" observed. (I note, for those who have omitted reading my definitions (or can't remember them), that I have defined an "observation" to be the collection of references denoted by a particular Bj (B is a subset of what we know: i.e., "C" for people who's attention span I have exceeded).

So, what can we say about that "unknown" observation! Either we predicted it or we didn't. If we didn't predict it we are surprised :surprise:, if we did predict it we are satisfied :cool: . It follows that, if we can specify our expectations (where 1 means we expect it and 0 means we don't) we have exausted the possibilities. It follows, as the night the day, that the best we can expect of our model is to predict our expectations. :grumpy:
… you are not using my definitions, you are attempting to apply your definitions on the assumption they are good definitions.Ok, but you have not shown that all observations can be represented in this way, or that there exists this algorithm which is independent of time.I have not shown that all observations can be represented in this way???? :confused: I have defined an observation to be "Bj"!!:cry: And the demonstration that the algorithm exists is proved via a specific procedure for obtaining it! :uhh: See the post at

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=213403#post213403
Yes, from the standard approach to physics, these things are assumptions. The central issue of my presentation is that, when objectively viewed as an abstract problem, they are not assumptions at all but rather required relations.No. They are not at all required. You have simply defined your system such that these become natural assumptions to make. However, if you want this to be completely general you must still consider these to be assumptions. :rolleyes: Assumptions!!! One is searching for an algorithm which will yield the correct expectations of "Bj"! Then I lay down a specific procedure for finding that algorithm: :grumpy: My procedure involves attaching a number to every reference to every element of every Bj. I have made no mention of any rule as to how that number is to be attached! :confused: And then you come back and say that I am "assuming" that changing the assignment method makes no difference. Hey guy, if it makes a difference, then I better be able to tell you how to assign it!! It is not an assumption, it is a matter of fact of the model which can not be avoided! :grumpy:
Although I have become fully aware that people find that document very hard to follow, I have not changed it because the problem is misunderstanding and not actual error.But then how do you reasonably expect anyone to follow you?Gee, I though you would have picked up on that by now. :rolleyes: I don't! That is why I have been laying out alternate explanation of the details in this thread!
I'm sorry if this post is a little aggressive, but I think you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes to some respect and whenever we try to complain you accuse us of not reading your work properly. This is not the way to go about persuading us that we should like your perspective!I am not trying to persuade you that you should like my perspective! I have an opinion that you should and I believe that, if you could ever manage to understand it, you would. I am trying to clarify it. Hopefully someone someday will have the brains to follow it without being led like a blind man through every step.

I'm sorry if this post is a little derisive, but I just don't think you aren’t paying any attention at all to what I am saying. You are not deducing anything from my definitions because you are totally ignoring them. :cry: I say my presentation is rigorous, but you will never discover that unless you follow and understand it step by step.

Thank you for letting me spout, sometimes it feels good to just let it out! I hope I have not run you off, but I will accept it if I have.

Have fun -- Dick

[confutatis]

I am not trying to persuade you that you should like my perspective! I have an opinion that you should and I believe that, if you could ever manage to understand it, you would. I am trying to clarify it. Hopefully someone someday will have the brains to follow it without being led like a blind man through every step.

Deja vu...

I've met this DoctorDick a few years ago, in another internet forum. I have actually understood the central point of what he's trying to say, but ultimately the whole thing revealed itself to be an enormous obfuscation of some rather trivial facts. In essence, what he is demonstrating is that any collection of data can be shown to obey the laws of physics if you can postulate the existence of real entities whose properties are unmeasurable. That is, either the laws of physics apply to things that are measurable, or they apply to things that are unmeasurable but are required to explain the behaviour of things that are measurable.

He's not entirely mislead. His language is very idiosyncratic, but in essence most of the things he is saying are said by physicists themselves; he's just presenting standard physisc from a slightly different perspective which, through obscure mathematics, is made to sound like something entirely new. All the advanced math is just a trick to misdirect people's attention from the fact that his arguments are entirely devoid of any meaning, or at least don't state anything that is not already known in other terms.

Far more interesting than his definitions and equations is his behaviour, which I'm sure has already puzzled some people on this forum.

[gptejms]

I've joined 'physicsforums' a couple of days back and am randomly searching through various posts to see what's interesting.I sent a post on many worlds interpretation a few hours back--no answer yet.Anyway let's come to Dr. Dick's hot topic--'clocks don't measure time'.First I need to understand what exactly you are trying to say.In the example you've considered the clock does measure proper time(i.e. time in a reference frame attached to the clock)---the rest of the clocks in the other frames also measure proper times in their respective frames.Where is the problem?Another question I need to ask you is--you've talked of the clock being destroyed---why is it necessary to destroy the clock---just asking to try to understand your central idea.

[baffledMatt]

Either they did not read the definitions, do not understand the definitions, or they don't want to use the definitions; otherwise, their responses would not be at all what they are. :cry: You are continually making comments way beyond the opening stage and your comments seldom seem to make any sense when interpreted in terms of the things I have defined. :frown:

Since you moved right through Chapter I and began making comments on Chapter II, I initially assumed you understood chapter I. :approve: Although you raised an important issue on my move to replace P (and the "undefined" algorithms used to calculate it) with P1P2 (and the algorithms used to calculate them), you totally missed the point that commutation could not possibly be an issue. :confused: I can only interpret that as evidence that you had no idea what \vec{\Psi} stood for. :frown:

Or perhaps you simply don't understand my comments? I mean, forget the philosophy, I believe that I made some valid points on your mathematics and you seem to dismiss them entirely out of hand because 'I didn't read it' - as you would well know of course.

Sorry, but I've had enough of this. I get enough arrogant old scientists at uni, I can't be fussed to deal with another one.

Matt

[Doctordick]

--you've talked of the clock being destroyed---why is it necessary to destroy the clock---just asking to try to understand your central idea.Simply to define an event associated with that clock so that people can understand that the functioning of the clock (which ceases when it is destroyed) is a phenomena governed by the rules of physics and thus is exactly bound by the fact that "all rules of physics must be the same in all reference frames". This requires the fact that clocks can not possibly measure time; the output of a clock is a frame independent phenomena. (Scientists know this that's why they will always say, "Oh, your talking about proper time; that's something different!")

In effect, the scientific community uses two contradictory definitions of time. They ignore this fact by pretending that the view I present has no consequences and there is no need to look carefully at the issue. The reason they got to where they got is that they "think clocks measure time" (after all, that's what they were invented for weren’t they?)

Newton so established the clockwork view of the functioning of the universe together with a great many valuable physical algorithms which were direct functions of time that all scientists held time to be a very important factor in any physical phenomena. Now Einstein pointed out that time, as defined by Newton just wasn't right. Simultaneity, as viewed by Newtonian physics was just not achievable.

Though there are a lot of deep thinkers on this forum who believe the Michelson Morley experiments or modern physics fail to provide a good defense of relativity, they are simply mentally incapable of following a stream of logic that extensive (major problems with short attention span). Relativity is a fact, not a theory! Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory; it is an explanation of relativity, not a prediction of it. (Oh yes, the general theory has made some predictions which have been born out, but special relativity is an explanation, not really a prediction; I don't think a lot of people on this forum really understand the difference between "knowing" something and "understanding" it.)

At any rate, Einstein's explanation was achieved by making time a coordinate of the universe. Plot your data in his geometry (x,y,z, and t) and it all makes sense (if you are careful about how you interpret things). And I have no argument with his deductions at all! However, I think he made a serious conceptual error. Though he pointed out that Newton's concept of time was erroneous and inconsistent, he did not at all examine Newton's definition itself: i.e., that clocks defined time.

He did show that it was always possible to set up a frame of reference where the Newtonian concept of simultaneity could not be proved invalid (and thus a defense could be mounted that he could use it). In fact there are an infinite number of such frames (one for every possible inertial frame of a hypothetical observer). Notice that I said "could not be proved invalid". That's not quite exactly the same thing as saying it is valid!

Now, that being the case, he certainly cannot be proved in error from his deductions. However, in Einstein's space-time geometry there exist trajectories for hypothetical observers which are outlawed. If you are not "careful about how you interpret things", you can produce all kinds of irrational predictions: time travel, contradiction of causality, tachyons and more I suspect.

I say the reason for this is his presumption that "clocks define time". The reaction I have gotten from all (and that includes absolutely everybody I have ever talked to in my whole life) is that "no, there cannot possibly be any error in that concept". So there is no discussion of it. Cest le vie, it makes no real difference to me.

I doubt you will find any problem to look at there either, but, if you do and are bothered by it, I can show you the resolution.

Have fun -- Dick

[Doctordick]

...you totally missed the point that commutation could not possibly be an issue. :confused: I can only interpret that as evidence that you had no idea what \vec{\Psi} stood for. :frown: Or perhaps you simply don't understand my comments? I mean, forget the philosophy, I believe that I made some valid points on your mathematics and you seem to dismiss them entirely out of hand because 'I didn't read it' - as you would well know of course.If you knew what \vec{\Psi} stood for, how could you have possibly considered commutation to be an issue?

And I am going to presume you just didn't read my post any farther as you didn't comment on any of my other responses (I do believe I responded to all of your criticisms which is more courtesy than you have chosen to give me.)
Sorry, but I've had enough of this. I get enough arrogant old scientists at uni, I can't be fussed to deal with another one.Well, I can certainly agree with that. As I said earlier, talking to me is not going to provide you with money or fame and, if you have as much difficulty following your professors as you do following me, you need all the time you can lay your hands on. Physics is a rigorous subject and one needs to look at the details not just the philosophy.

Have fun and good luck – Dick

PS no offense taken!

[ram2048]

k finally read through all of the posts on this thread and i still think my theory is correct.

yay i win something don't i ?

[gptejms]

You're right--I don't find any problem to look at there!
Your logic seems to be this:-the readings on the clock are the same in every frame--i.e. the readings don't reflect the time in moving frames-so clocks don't measure time.QED.(let me know if that's not your logic)
To my mind you have to have some measure of time and a clock is a good one at that.If you start out with that-- the clock does measure proper time and there is no reason why that should agree with the proper time of other frames.

[Doctordick]

Strange, I am not surprised at all.

Have fun -- Dick

[grimms117]

ok now im only a 19yr old withprobably no where as much education than any of. Yet i still do understand. here is something to think about with ur clocks, a clock has been said to not be able to measure time witch i believe to be correct. what if in stead of thinking of a clock as a measuring tool look at it as a reference. a clock lets u know what time it is where the clock is located( as long as the clock is set correctly according to the parameters of the ultimate mass it is on or in i.e. a planet moon star space in general) not how long it has been, the measurement happens in ur mind or u could say u calculate how long is has been or how long until another specific time.
i hope someone can give me some kind of opinion on this thought

[Integral]

This thread is long dead let us leave it that way.