Definition of a clock in relativity theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the definition of a clock within the context of relativity theory. Participants explore the conceptual and practical implications of what constitutes a clock, touching on both theoretical and empirical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a clock is defined as "an object that measures the rate of time flow."
  • Another participant argues that the meaning of a clock is not clearly defined in relativity, proposing that it is acceptable to have "blind faith" in the existence of "ideal clocks" conceptually.
  • A historical perspective is provided, mentioning the development of the first naval chronometer and its practical implications for navigation, emphasizing the empirical evolution of clock definitions.
  • It is noted that the current definition of a "good clock" is based on standards set by a commission, specifically referencing the SI second defined through atomic transitions.
  • A participant expresses the opinion that defining a clock theoretically is unproductive, advocating for empirical definitions based on observation.
  • A reference to an article by a general relativity expert is shared, suggesting further reading on the nature of time and clocks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of a clock in relativity theory, with multiple competing views presented regarding its theoretical and empirical aspects.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of clarity regarding the theoretical versus empirical definitions of clocks, and the discussion reflects differing opinions on the productivity of each approach.

kurious
Messages
633
Reaction score
0
What is the definition of a clock in relativity theory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
an object that measures the rate of time flow.
 
Perfectly Innocent said:
Typically, the meaning of a clock is not defined in relativity. No reason to worry. Logically, it's OK to just have blind faith that "ideal clocks" really do exist conceptually.
<snip advertisement for website>

The quest for a good clock has developed slowly and empirically over time. A rather interesting show on the topic is "Longitude", in which the first naval chronometer was developed. The goal wa simple - to develop a clock that could be taken to sea, and still keep good enough time so that a person could determine their latitude by measuring the time at which the sun reached it's high point in the sky.

As a practical matter, we do have a definition for a "good clock" nowadays. But it's not a theoretical definition, it's one from a standards comission. I refer, of course to the SI second. And, to tie it in with my pervious comment, our "good clock" nowadays is also very small - it's an atom.

The second is the duration of 9 192631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. [13th CGPM (1967), Resolution 1]

It is a good thing, in my opinion, that we define our clocks empirically (through standards comittee's) rather than through theory. Defining a clock theoretically is not productive, as science has to be based ultimately on observation.
 
kurious said:
What is the definition of a clock in relativity theory?

A friend of mine is a GR expert. He wrote an article on the nature of time and what is meant by a "clock". Its a great article and a good read. See

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/time.htm

Pete
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 95 ·
4
Replies
95
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K