A Thought Experiment

~~Doctordick~~ · Apr25-04, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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~~ · Apr25-04, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by ophecleide

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.

Originally Posted by ophecleide

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** · Apr26-04, 12:17 AM

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** · Apr26-04, 12:28 AM

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** · Apr26-04, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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~~ · Apr26-04, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Hurkyl

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".

Originally Posted by ophecleide

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.

Originally Posted by Hurky

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** · Apr26-04, 07:32 AM

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~~ · Apr26-04, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by ophecleide

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** · Apr26-04, 11:23 AM

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.

~~Doctordick~~ · Apr26-04, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Hurkyl

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.

Originally Posted by Hurkyl

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= $LaTeX Code: f_x (\\alpha)$ , y= $LaTeX Code: f_y (\\alpha)$ , z= $LaTeX Code: f_z (\\alpha)$ and t= $LaTeX Code: f_t (\\alpha)$ .

The functions $LaTeX Code: f_i (\\alpha)$ can be any function convenient to the usage. What is important is that the value of the parameter $LaTeX Code: \\alpha$ 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** · Apr26-04, 11:55 AM

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** · Apr26-04, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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** · Apr26-04, 12:30 PM

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~~ · Apr26-04, 01:47 PM

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.

Originally Posted by DrChinese

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.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

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.

Originally Posted by Oracleing

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.

Originally Posted by Hurkyl

…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** · Apr26-04, 02:42 PM

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** · Apr26-04, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by 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.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.