A New Theory of Time

[Francium]

My Theory is based on the notation that the reason we experince time in a smooth motion is because we are also travelling in a smooth motion. if we took the centre of our galaxy as the origin of a scale and calculated our speed relative to it then we could design a scale of relativity, and calculate a the time for everything within our galaxy just according to its velocity. SO time is not a dimension, it is a velocity.

Time is affected by your speed relative to something else. The speed limit is the speed of light. But what is the minimum speed limit? If you were to travel at the speed of light, time would stop. I also beleive that if you could travel approximately 0ms-1 relative to everything else then time would also stop. But where would this place be?

Imagine the Earth, people at the north pole travels slower than people at the equator but they have the same day. This is a flaw, becasue time is affected by tiny amounts we just dont notice it. The interesting thing is that a sphere is the only object where you cant experience the same time (velocity) at any 2 points at any one time, you have to take into account the velocity that the earth is travelling around the sun and the velocity that the sun is travelling around the milky way and possibly the velocity the milkly way is travelling around an axis of the universe.

The minimium speed limit came from thinking where could i physically travel slower so i thought the slowest point on the earth relative to the centre of the milky way must be the centre or the earth. Then i thought goto the centre of the sun and your velocity is even slower, then the galaxy and eventually the universe. My idea is that times minimum speed limit is at the centre of the universe. Experiment: If we were to travel to the centre of the universe and you were to experience time ( at 0ms-1 time stops like at lightspeed) then you could argue that your still in motion therefore there must be a larger body exterior to our universe in which we rotate around. So this experiement could tell you if there was anything beyond our universe without actually going there. But it will be a long time before anyone will be able to carry out this experiment.

I hope this theory makes sense, and i appreciate any flaws anyone can find from it.
This is all my original work.

Christopher Hatchard

[energia]

time dilation has never been tested at relativistic speeds

the only way to conclusively test the theory - is to build a spacecraft capable of speeds up to 99% c with an atomic clock onboard and measure the time dilation compared to a stationary atomic clock

then check the time dilation at all velocities (in discreet incrememnts) up to 99% c (ideally) or at least 80% c

if the dilation at all velocities match the predicted values of SR then relativistic time dilation is a fact

[jcsd]

Energia - Erm, what about muon decay?

[baffledMatt]

time dilation has never been tested at relativistic speeds


Not true. How else do you explain the observed lifetime of a muon?

edit: hehe jcsd beat me to it!


if the values don't match up - then the days of the Albert Einstein fanclub are numbered

Well, thankfully they do so far.

Matt

[Francium]

My theory is based upon his, so if he was right would that make my theory more possibly valid?

[energia]

Energia - Erm, what about muon decay?

muon decay is not proof of the dilation scale predicted by Relativity Theory
where c = 100 dilation

it may be proof that muons do not like being accelerated to 99% c

but muons are not the basis of time

the only way to validate the claim conclusively is with mutiple chronometres
one stationary and one accelerating to near c

(yes that's right, real physical clocks)

[Antonio Lao]

Velocity is the ratio of distance,r, over time, t, v = \frac{r}{t}. In infinitesimal calculus it is given by.

v= \lim_{t\rightarrow 0} \frac{\Delta r}{\Delta t}

In special relativity, this v has a maximum value of c, the speed of light in vacuum. And c implies that the spacetime interval must be zero.

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2 = 0

where dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

c = \frac{dr}{dt}

[energia]

I'm not disputing the mathematical model

I'm simply stating that time dilation has never been proven or even tested onboard a spacecraft accelerating to near c

since no such spacecraft exists

in fact the fastest spacebucket we've got only goes 8000 m/s

which is 0027% c

at this velocity time dilation is predicted to be only 000364501%
losing 36 µs per second

I would accept the theory as conclusive fact as soon as this test has been performed at least up to 1% c (375 x faster than the space shuttle), until then I will accept it as a viable theory and not a proven fact

[Antonio Lao]

I'm simply stating that time dilation has never been proven or even tested onboard a spacecraft accelerating to near c

But why bother testing time dilation onboard spacecraft? Time dilation has been tested in subatomic processes and it agrees with the theory.

But Einstein did use the idea of an accelerating elevator(or spacecraft) for thought experiments that led to his Principle of Equivalence.

[12345]

energia.........i thought spacecrafts at the moment travel at 0.1% of c?

or do i have the wrong end of the stick?

[energia]

now that I've read your theory over a few times

what you are suggesting is that if the universe has an absolute centre of mass, like a huge sphere for lack of a better analogy, then time at this centre of mass would in effect stop

so if a crew onboard the spaceship - 'HMS Deathwish' were to travel to this central point of mass - they would be frozen in time (a great mission objective)

your reasoning is quite logical, however if the theory is correct, then it would take longer and longer to reach the centre of the universe the closer the ship got to the centre, since time would be slowing down proportionately with proximity of cosmic central point (if that makes any sense)

so it would take an enternity to finally reach this centre


all of this is assuming that the universe even has a centre or a boundary of any kind, which i do not believe it does

the definition of universe being 'all that exists' including space and anything beyond space; the term universe is often used to mean 'visible universe'
or 'local universe'

in the 15th century the term 'universe' refered to the known world (earth)

it's quite easy to test your theory without digging to the centre of the earth
or to the centre of the sun, where it's very hot indeed (especially in the summer) :tongue2:

all you would need to do is drag an atomic clock to the south pole
and another atomic clock to the equator

and measure the dilation between the 2 clocks

according to SR there should be no dilation (0%) since the 2 points on the earth are stationary relative to one another

if any dilation what-so-ever is measured, then you're theory would be validated :smile:

[energia]

energia.........i thought spacecrafts at the moment travel at 0.1% of c?

or do i have the wrong end of the stick?
(point out if i am wrong, i am only 10 years old)


the space shuttle has a top speed of 8000 m/s

the speed of light is 299792458 m/s

1% of 299792458 m/s = 2997924 m/s or 10 million km per hour


Speed of a Space Shuttle (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/InnaSokolyanskaya1.shtml)

[energia]

But why bother testing time dilation onboard spacecraft? Time dilation has been tested in subatomic processes and it agrees with the theory.

But Einstein did use the idea of an accelerating elevator(or spacecraft) for thought experiments that led to his Principle of Equivalence..

subatomic particles don't wear wrist watches

and Einstein's ideas were thought experiments - not real life experiments


it's real life experiments that provide conclusive evidence

thought experiments provide theories

[Antonio Lao]

Wrist watches are made of thousands and thousands and thousands of subatomic particles. That's is why they called such thing as atomic clock (the most accurate clock in existence by modern technology standard).

[energia]

atomic clocks use frequency dividers to count periods of caesium 133 radiation

1 second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

to my knowledge the period of caesium 133 radiation has never been altered in a particle accelerator

a clock is a machine - it's not the particles or components that make 'time'

time is a temporal dimension of spacetime

and no one has ever proved that time itself changes relative to an observer in motion as predicted by SR through all velocites up to c

the most obvious way to test it conclusively is (as I said) to compare a stationary clock to a clock travelling at velocities approaching c

a whole working clock, not just the particles in the clock

[12345]

if you were to compare a clock travelling at the velocity of c, to a stationary clock, the stationary clock must be slower.but it depends where the stationary clock is.

the clock has been made for humans to use. nature will not see the seconds which humans termed themselves.

second = 1/86,400 of a day= 9,192,631,770 beats of a cesium 113 atom.

[russ_watters]

the only way to validate the claim conclusively is with mutiple chronometres
one stationary and one accelerating to near c

(yes that's right, real physical clocks) GPS.

"Relativistic speed" is any speed at which the effects of relativity are measurable. Clearly this is different for different types of measurements - an astronaut on the space shuttle won't notice it on his/her wristwatch from launch to landing, but to a GPS satellite, accounting for it is critical to its operation.

[swansont]

atomic clocks use frequency dividers to count periods of caesium 133 radiation

1 second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

to my knowledge the period of caesium 133 radiation has never been altered in a particle accelerator

a clock is a machine - it's not the particles or components that make time
time is a temporal dimension of spacetime

and no one has ever proved that time itself changes relative to an observer in motion as predicted by SR through all velocites up to c

the most obvious way to test it conclusively is (as I said) to compare a stationary clock to a clock travelling at velocities approaching c

a whole working clock, not just the particles in the clock

While it's true that a muon is not a clock, its decay can be used to measure a time interval. And as such, it has confirmed relativity.

[energia]

"Relativistic speed" is any speed at which the effects of relativity are measurable. Clearly this is different for different types of measurements - an astronaut on the space shuttle won't notice it on his/her wristwatch from launch to landing, but to a GPS satellite, accounting for it is critical to its operation.

this is not in dispute

the only issue im raising is that time dilation has never been proven to match the scale predicted by Relativity Theory

someone posted a time dilation table in this forum
if you look at the table and go down the list of percentage points

time dilation has never been verified percentage point by percentage point
all the way up the scale from 0% to 100% c by a set of real clocks

clocks are not time itself - but they do a good job of measuring time
in a precisely quantized format

it's not so easy to measure the age of an astronaut
or measure the exact age of a particle to the last decimal point

and so far dilation has only been tested at slow speeds (satellites)
far below even 001% c

and at super high speeds (particles) in the range of 99% c

but nothing in between

now do you see my point?

please say that you do, or I will have to bang my head on the table :cry:

[12345]

^ i would b truly amazed if any physical clock can withstand c.
"time dilation has never been verified percentage point by percentage point
all the way up the scale from 0% to 100% c by a set of real clocks

clocks are not time itself - but they do a good job of measuring time
in a precisely quantized format"

it has been constructed for humans to define a certain moment of time. without the clock it would be very hard to guess the precise measurement of time ourselves.

[12345]

this is not in dispute

the only issue im raising is that time dilation has never been proven to match the scale predicted by Relativity Theory

someone posted a time dilation table in this forum
if you look at the table and go down the list of percentage points

time dilation has never been verified percentage point by percentage point
all the way up the scale from 0% to 100% c by a set of real clocks

clocks are not time itself - but they do a good job of measuring time
in a precisely quantized format

it's not so easy to measure the age of an astronaut
or measure the exact age of a particle to the last decimal point

and so far dilation has only been tested at slow speeds (satellites)
far below even 001% c

and at super high speeds (particles) in the range of 99% c

but nothing in between

now do you see my point?

please say that you do, or I will have to bang my head on the table :cry:

i think you have explained it brilliantly!

one question.........have they only tested dilation with satellites?

[russ_watters]

the only issue im raising is that time dilation has never been proven to match the scale predicted by Relativity Theory. You're quite simply wrong. It has. time dilation has never been verified percentage point by percentage point
all the way up the scale from 0% to 100% c by a set of real clocks Again, what you suggest is not physically possible, and I think thats why you are suggesting it. Scientists are quite satisfied with the performance of Relativity in the thousands of experiments that have been conducted, whether you accept their validity or not. and so far dilation has only been tested at slow speeds (satellites) far below even 001% c

and at super high speeds (particles) in the range of 99% c

but nothing in between

now do you see my point? Yes, I've seen your point for quite a while. Its actually quite a common tactic: argue against a theory by suggesting an experiment that isn't possible according to the theory or say you need a very specific experiment to convince you. Sorry, but the scientific universe doesn't revolve around you. If you can't accept the existing mountain of evidence, too bad for you.

[energia]

whew! that's a relief


as far as I know dilation equations are only currently used for calibrating satellite signals ....and testing particle decay

I'm not sure what other tests have been done with atomic clocks in relative motion

[russ_watters]

as far as I know dilation equations are only currently used for calibrating satellite signals ....and testing particle decay

I'm not sure what other tests have been done with atomic clocks in relative motion It gets a little complicated since the clocks are so precise that every little bit of motion matters: they've also tested Relativity on different latiudes, trains, planes, etc. In addition, the effects of GR and SR are both noticeable in virtually every experiment: a clock on a large tower is affected by both.

In any case, what would you expect to find at 50% C that differs from SR?

[energia]

what would you expect to find at 50% C that differs from SR?

I don't expect to find any result that differs from SR

my only point was that it's never been tested conclusively

therefore it's still a theory

but there's nothing wrong with it being a theory, as long as the theory fits the data

when the data no longer fits, then there's a problem
not before

[swansont]

It gets a little complicated since the clocks are so precise that every little bit of motion matters: they've also tested Relativity on different latiudes, trains, planes, etc. In addition, the effects of GR and SR are both noticeable in virtually every experiment: a clock on a large tower is affected by both.


You mean altitude here, and not latitude, right?

[swansont]

I don't expect to find any result that differs from SR

my only point was that it's never been tested conclusively

therefore it's still a theory

but there's nothing wrong with it being a theory, as long as the theory fits the data


It will always be a theory. And what you mean by 'conclusive' may not be what other mean by it. Most people (who care) consider it conclusively tested. But if you don't, well, have at it.

[russ_watters]

You mean altitude here, and not latitude, right? Latitude - since the earth rotates and it is flattened at the poles, there are both SR and GR effects at work with changing lattitude.

....and altitude too.

[russ_watters]

I don't expect to find any result that differs from SR

my only point was that it's never been tested conclusively

therefore it's still a theory

but there's nothing wrong with it being a theory, as long as the theory fits the data

when the data no longer fits, then there's a problem
not before So why are we even having this discussion (except perhaps to dispel some misconceptions such as the "still a theory" misconception)?

You have a problem with Relativity even though you know there is no problem with Relativity. So subtract the words "with relatvitiy" and what does that leave you with? Energia: why?

[energia]

It will always be a theory. And what you mean by 'conclusive' may not be what other mean by it. Most people (who care) consider it conclusively tested. But if you don't, well, have at it.

I'm not sure what you mean by ~ Most people (who care)

if you suggest that I don't care, I assure you that I do

which is why I bother


So why are we even having this discussion (except perhaps to dispel some misconceptions such as the "still a theory" misconception)?

You have a problem with Relativity even though you know there is no problem with Relativity. So subtract the words "with relatvitiy" and what does that leave you with? Energia: why?

we are having this discussion because it is a theory

which is why it's called - the Theory of Relativity and not The Gospel according to Saint Albert

loyalty and devotion are admirable virtues when it comes to human issues

as far as science is concerned - no objective scientist should ever be loyal or devoted to any theory, but rather should do everything possible to disprove accepted theories at every opportunity

since the pursuit of truth is what science is really about

complacency is a bad thing

[russ_watters]

we are having this discussion because it is a theory "...still a theory..." implies that there is another condition above and beyond a theory that Relativity could become. This demonstrates a lack of understanding (its quite a common misconception, actually) of the Scientific Method (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html), apparently an important reason why you continue to pursue ether "theory."

[energia]

for the last time...

I am not pursuing aether theory,
I don't give a rat's *** about aether theory

I clearly stated that I am only interested in pursuing absolute truth
using the sceintific method to arrive at the truth

which means putting all theories to the test

no matter how highly you or I regard Relativity Theory

it IS a theory

[swansont]

Latitude - since the earth rotates and it is flattened at the poles, there are both SR and GR effects at work with changing lattitude.

....and altitude too.

But the dilation from the speed of rotation is exactly cancelled by the change in the gravitational redshift due to the flattening. Atomic clocks on the geoid are not adjusted for their latitude.