# Exploring Paul Davies 'About Time': Questions, Thoughts, Comments

• Tesla
In summary: Alaskan mountain. The clocks were kept on the ground, then taken up to the top of the mountain and compared to the clocks left down on the ground. The clocks that were on the mountain had slowed by about 1/100th of a second. So while the time difference was measurable, it was pretty tiny.
Tesla
I'm reading Paul Davies' book:
About Time:Einstein's Unfinished Revolution

And I have lots of questions...

FTL = t reversal ?

page 177

'photons and a beam-splitter'...

-quote-

...if both photon paths are the same the photons will arrive at the beam-splitter simultaneously and, for reasons of quantum interference, go to the same detector. The optical arrangement in effect provides a racetrack to compare the travel times of the two photons.
Now suppose a barrier is inserted in one of the paths. Because the photon on that route has to tunnel through the barrier, it may not arrive at the meeting point at the same time as its twin, in which case the delicate interference arrangements are upset, and there is a chance that one photon will go to each detector. However, by adjusting the length of the other route (the one that the twin took) to compensate, you can restore the situation and arrange for simultaneous arrival,and infallible cooperation in detector choice, once more.
If the photon is slightly delayed by going through the barrier, then the twin's path will need to be slightly lengthened to compensate. By measuring the extra length, you can work out how long the photon took to tunnel.
When the experiment was actually performed, the results were amazing.
With the barrier inserted, the photon that tunneled arrived first!
In other words, the barrier seemed to speed the photon up.
But the photon was already traveling at the speed of light, so on the face of it the photon that tunneled did so faster than light!
The Berkeley group inferred a boost to the photon's velocity of some 70 percent-i.e., the photon tunneled at over five hundred thousand kilometers per second.
-end quote-
-----------------
After all of that, I'm wondering if this tunnel test actually proves that FTL does NOT equate to 'traveling backwards in time'?

In other words, once the photon was traveling at FTL speeds it should have gone backwards in time from that point, this at the same instant it was 'racing' the other photon.

IF that were the case, the other photon should have WON the race.
But it did not, it was the tunneling photon which won the race.

1) Does this prove that FTL speeds do NOT cause travel backwards in time?Other , About Time, questions, thoughts, comments, gedankens, and just thinking out loud...

Davies asks the question:

'Do clocks really run slower in the basement?'
(I assume 'his basement' is underground)

Then he goes on to say:

'Not only does time really run faster at higher altitudes, it does so at just the rate that Einstein always said it would'.

But he never really answers his own question, he hints that the answer is 'yes'...?

I'm still looking for additional data.

2) a) 'Do clocks really run slower in the basement?'
b) How is time affected the deeper you travel underground?Zero Gravity:

Is it true that the Earth's gravity field is strongest at its surface?

How does or does 'sea level' affect this?

Since stronger gravity fields slow time;
do zero gravity fields have 'faster running time'? (two clock test)

*Is it possible to have a zero gravity field which actually slows time?

I have read that the Earth's core is zero gravity, since you have equal mass on all sides.

3) In this zero gravity field would time actually run slower?

thanx

The backward in time thing doesn't say that the FTL particle travels backward in time in all frames, just that it does so in some frames. And it turns out that the frames might have to be far away and traveling pretty fast (less than c) in order to get a measurable backwards in time effect.

Could you please expound on that explanation, selfadjoint? I don't really understand.

If something is traveling at the speed of light, then it's speed in time is exactly equal to zero, right? Well then it stands to reason that, if it were to go faster than the speed of light (in space), it would go backward in time (though such a thing is rather illogical, since it would arrive at it's destination before leaving it's starting point). Where is the flaw in this?

I just read that same book over a period of a month. I had to keep going back to understand previous concepts.

Some of your questions are the same as ones I am trying to figure out, specifically gravity's affects on time. Maybe check out my post 'Effects of gravity on light and time' - I think I answered some of my own questions there.

Based on what I'm still learning, I think the answer to your question #2 is: Yes, clocks would run slower in the basement relative (key phrase) to someone on say the 3rd floor of the same building. But here on Earth the time difference would be extremely small. I read of an experiment where 2 very accurate atomic clocks (I forget the composition of the clocks) were used to test this. One was left in the bottom of a tall building, the other taken to the top of the same building. When the clocks were compared the ground floor clock was slightly behind. This would also lead to an answer of yes regarding your question 2b. The closer you get to the center of a mass such as the Earth or a star, time would slow down relative to someone still on the surface.

-------------------------------------------------------------
"Since stronger gravity fields slow time;
do zero gravity fields have 'faster running time'? (two clock test)
*Is it possible to have a zero gravity field which actually slows time?

I have read that the Earth's core is zero gravity, since you have equal mass on all sides.

3) In this zero gravity field would time actually run slower?"
--------------------------------------------------------------

I try not to think of gravity as a 'field' it clouds my thinking on the subject. Based on my understanding a zero gravity 'field' would not slow time at all - it would run faster there relative to an area of higher gravity, like the surface or core of a star.

Hope this helps and if someone sees any errors in my thoughts here - please point them out to me!

Originally posted by ShadowKnight
I read of an experiment where 2 very accurate atomic clocks (I forget the composition of the clocks) were used to test this. One was left in the bottom of a tall building, the other taken to the top of the same building. When the clocks were compared the ground floor clock was slightly behind. This would also lead to an answer of yes regarding your question 2b. The closer you get to the center of a mass such as the Earth or a star, time would slow down relative to someone still on the surface.

Hope this helps and if someone sees any errors in my thoughts here - please point them out to me!

(I'm bringing this post back from the dead because reading it brought up a question for me. I could have started another thread, but this is the thread I found when I Yahooed around the Web looking for info on so-called anti-photons, and it's what made me decide to register for the forum today. So, this makes my 1st post on this forum! Yay!)

Okay. I haven't read of this experiment personally, but from what ShadowKnight wrote, the experiment seems flawed. Think about it: you walk into a building with two atomic clocks. You take one all the way to the top and one to the basement. Logically, the one going upstairs travels much further than the one going downstairs. So wouldn't the moving of the upstairs clock actually throw off its time, just by a smidgeon? Because relative time slows down for that clock the faster it goes, and it goes a certain speed for longer than the other clock that just goes down a couple floors.

I would think the scientists accounted for this, or else the effect is negligible and didn't throw off the experiment. But wouldn't transportation of an object affect its passage through time? Or am I all wet? (go easy on me, I'm a noob ;-)

## What is "About Time" by Paul Davies?

"About Time" is a book written by physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies. It explores the concept of time and its role in the universe.

## What are some of the main questions addressed in "About Time"?

Some of the main questions addressed in "About Time" include: What is time? Is it a fundamental aspect of the universe or simply a human construct? How does time relate to space and the laws of physics? Can time travel be possible?

## How does Paul Davies approach the topic of time in his book?

Paul Davies takes a multidisciplinary approach to exploring the concept of time in his book. He draws on ideas from physics, philosophy, psychology, and biology to provide a comprehensive understanding of time and its implications.

## What are some criticisms of "About Time"?

Some critics argue that Paul Davies oversimplifies complex concepts in his book and that his ideas are not fully supported by scientific evidence. Others have also noted that the book may be difficult for non-scientists to understand.

## How has "About Time" influenced the scientific community?

"About Time" has sparked debates and discussions among scientists about the nature of time and its role in the universe. It has also inspired further research and exploration into the concept of time in various fields of science.

### Similar threads

• Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
• Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
79
Views
5K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
941
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
125
Views
5K
• Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
4K
• Cosmology
Replies
13
Views
3K
• Other Physics Topics
Replies
0
Views
883