Is there the possibility of absolute time

[hartlw]

The most general definition I can think of is absolute time is the distance of a spherical light wave from its center.

 

[hartlw]

If we want to totally abstract ourselves from reality then time, distance, and mass are symbols with certain mathematical properties.

 

[The Dagda]

If we want to totally abstract ourselves from reality then time, distance, and mass are symbols with certain mathematical properties.

Ah but then I feel a need for a thread move. If that is the case then are these values independent of conscious thought, or are they a consequence of it? If the former then there is an absolute time, if the latter then not. It would start to move towards an argument over whether maths has always existed or it is an extension of us. That question is messy, but most people believe that maths is conscious dependent, or put another way not created by a god, or the universe. What is is, it is fundamentally written into reality, and maths is just our flawed way of getting to grips with it.

 

[Dale]

The most general definition I can think of is absolute time is the distance of a spherical light wave from its center.

And which law of physics is different in such a reference frame?

 

[hartlw]

And which law of physics is different in such a reference frame?

I assume you mean a reference frame at the center of a spherical wave. Assuming the spherical light wave is not influenced by gravity, my first thought was a frame at the light center should function as an ineertial reference frame, avoiding for now the problem that there is no such thing as an inertial reference frame in the sense that an object in the frame couldn't possibly move with constant velocity unless you assumed there was no gravity field. But there would be no way of knowing if the frame were spinning wrt to the spherical wave of light.

This got me thinking about the Earth spinning about its axis. How does the Earth know its spinning about its axis? Suddenly the explanation struck me:

THE ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF THE UNIVERSE IS CONSTANT. This implies the existence of absolute space and time, starting with an inertial frame fixed at the center of the "big bang," and the CONSTANT equal to zero.

 

[atyy]

I assume you mean a reference frame at the center of a spherical wave. Assuming the spherical light wave is not influenced by gravity, my first thought was a frame at the light center should function as an ineertial reference frame, avoiding for now the problem that there is no such thing as an inertial reference frame in the sense that an object in the frame couldn't possibly move with constant velocity unless you assumed there was no gravity field. But there would be no way of knowing if the frame were spinning wrt to the spherical wave of light.

Isn't one way of getting the metric of special relativity to consider a bunch of inertial frames with light spreading out from a point (eg. their coincident origins at t=0)?

 

[Dale]

I assume you mean a reference frame at the center of a spherical wave. Assuming the spherical light wave is not influenced by gravity, my first thought was a frame at the light center should function as an ineertial reference frame, avoiding for now the problem that there is no such thing as an inertial reference frame in the sense that an object in the frame couldn't possibly move with constant velocity unless you assumed there was no gravity field. But there would be no way of knowing if the frame were spinning wrt to the spherical wave of light.

This got me thinking about the Earth spinning about its axis. How does the Earth know its spinning about its axis? Suddenly the explanation struck me:

THE ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF THE UNIVERSE IS CONSTANT. This implies the existence of absolute space and time, starting with an inertial frame fixed at the center of the "big bang," and the CONSTANT equal to zero.

The angular momentum of the universe is constant in all inertial frames, so this does not imply absolute space or time.

You still have yet to identify any physical law (e.g. Maxwell's eqts.) which is different (i.e. different form or constants) in one inertial frame vs. another. Until you do so you do not have an absolute time or space.

 

[hartlw]

THE ANGULAR MOMENTUM OF THE UNIVERSE IS CONSTANT.

And that explains, for me, the rotation of the Earth about its axis. It also implies there is the Newtonian Universe (Cosmos) of large objects and small speeds, and the universe of small objects and large speeds. Confusion seems to arise when we put reference frames in between.

I can't get beyond this question. If a light wave is instantaneously emitted from a particle, does it have the speed of the particle? If the aether is "nothing" then it doesn't make sense that it should somehow have the ability to limit the speed of a wave, like water or air does. It makes more sense that light (or EM radiation) would travel with a speed proportional to the energy of expulsion. But then different colors would arrive at different times and so to get them to arrive at the same time you keep the speed constant and put the energy into frequency (color).

Let's assume that a pulse of light is created when an electron jumps from one energy level to another, and it does so with spherical symmetry, and no longer influences the light wave once the process is complete. Then we could have a spherical light wave with an identifiable center.

Two identical particles moving wrt each other emit identical pulses of light at the instant they are at the origin of a coordinate system. What happens? Will the light reach a marker on an axis in the direction of velocity at the same tiime?

In an "aether," yes.

The leading edge of the light wave is created at the instant the electron starts its jump. So regardless of the relative speeds, at this instant the light waves should be identical. The trailing edge of the light wave is created at the instant the electron reches its new energy level. Since one particle has moved with respect to the other, the trailing edges will be spherical but offset. This has some interesting implictions.

But the fundamental question is whether both light waves hit a marker on the axis at the same time. If the leading edges of both light waves are created instantaneously, can the leading edges "know" about the speed of the particle? If not, the leading edges would arrive at the same time but the trailing edge wouldn't.

 

[hartlw]

The angular momentum of the universe is constant in all inertial frames, so this does not imply absolute space or time.

An inertial reference frame is one in which an object on which no forces act moves with constant velocity. Where is there a reference frame in which no forces act on an object? You can identify frames in which an object moves with constant velocity, but you can't satisfy the requirement that no forces act on the object, unless you dispense with gravity (the universe).

 

[Dale]

Now you are just trying to weasel your way out of answering the question. An inertial reference frame can be defined even in the case where there are no inertial objects considered.

The point remains, as it has for the past 3 dozen posts or so, if you cannot identify a physical law that has a different form or different constants in an inertial reference frame then you have no physical basis for selecting one over another and calling one "absolute". I think it should be clear that there is no such law and you are just trolling.

Don't bother posting unless you can address the core issue.

 

[hartlw]

Where does mass appear in Maxwells equations?

 

[Mentz114]

Hartlw:

Let's assume that a pulse of light is created when an electron jumps from one energy level to another, and it does so with spherical symmetry, and no longer influences the light wave once the process is complete. Then we could have a spherical light wave with an identifiable center.

I have to split hairs and point out this can't happen. When an electron emits a photon as a result of dropping to a lower energy level in an atom, it is emphatically not a spherical wave. Einstein describes it as a 'needle ray' in his (amazing) 1916 paper.
Momentum is exchanged between the emitted/absorbed quantum. This is the basis of laser cooling of atoms/ions.

I don't know if this affects the point you are trying to make about absolute time.

The idea of absolute time doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider that the only 'time' we know is what is measured on clocks. So there would have to an 'absolute clock' to measure 'absolute time'.

 

[hartlw]

I have a little problem with Mentz14 reply. If the photon is considered a single "particle", how can it be distributed around the source of light?. If it is a series of "particles" uniformly distributed around the source of light, what happens to the density of the photon around the circumfence of the "wave?". As the photons get further out does the distance between them decrease, or do they spread out so that the photon becomes wider and wider but the number remains the same? I would assume they would get wider, else the light "wave" might miss some objects altogether.

 

[hartlw]

How about, if light is concentrated in one direction you get a photon? So if you have a spherical wave of light, wrap it around to a single direction and you get a photon.

A spherical wave of light is a photon uniformly distributed spherically.

 

[hartlw]

Or maybe a single atom doesn't emit a spherical wave. That always bothered me, it would mean the "mass" of the electron is uniformly distributed around it's orbit and its only energy could come from "pulsating.". So it emits a photon in the direction determined by where it starts its jump. The light from a "particle," considered as a collection of atoms, would look like rays, as mentz14 reported about Einsteins article.

The only problem I have with this is the space between photons as distances get large. But the atoms in the particle continuosly and randomly emitting in different directions would address this. You wuld wind up with an average, continuos, weakening density of photons as the light expanded.

 

[Mentz114]

Hartlw:
There is no spherical wave solution of Maxwell's equations.

This is wildly off-topic, and I don't want to get into another discussion about photons.

see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=270084

 

[hartlw]

Newtonian mechanics identifies an approximate, absolute, inertial reference frame wrt distant stars. By extension, and for practical purposes, any frame moving at constant velocity with respect to this "absolute" inertial frame can be considerded an inertial reference frame.

I am off topic with photons, but I appreciate mentz114 bringing it up, since it has led to the resolution of the wave/particle duality paradox: there isn't any. I feel quite comfortable with them now, making any further discussion unnecessary. Thanks again mentz114, seriously. I appreciate expertise.

 

[Dale]

Newtonian mechanics identifies an approximate, absolute, inertial reference frame wrt distant stars. By extension, and for practical purposes, any frame moving at constant velocity with respect to this "absolute" inertial frame can be considerded an inertial reference frame.

You sure seem to enjoy making the same mistake over, and over, and over, ...

 

[hartlw]

Dalespam,

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[atyy]

Newtonian mechanics identifies an approximate, absolute, inertial reference frame wrt distant stars.

Doesn't Newtonian mechanics identify an exact inertial frame as the centre of mass frame? Given the centre of mass frame we can identify an continuous infinity of other inertial frames. So the identification is exact within a mathematical framework that is experimentally known to be an approximate description of nature.

 

[The Dagda]

Doesn't Newtonian mechanics identify an exact inertial frame as the centre of mass frame? Given the centre of mass frame we can identify an continuous infinity of other inertial frames. So the identification is exact within a mathematical framework that is experimentally known to be an approximate description of nature.

No, it is not experimentally known to be anything that's the point, Newton was wrong as was Galileo.

 

[hartlw]

No, it is not experimentally known to be anything that's the point, Newton was wrong as was Galileo.

Now that you've tossed out Newton and Galilea, what physical law explains (actually, describes) the rotation of the Earth about its axis? I take it you accept that as physical evidence?

 

[Dmitry67]

Newtonian mechanics identifies an approximate, absolute, inertial reference frame wrt distant stars.

Taking into account the Hubble law (expansion of the universe) you can't do that: in different parts of the universe these frames are different and moving relatively to each other.

 

[Dale]

Doesn't Newtonian mechanics identify an exact inertial frame as the centre of mass frame? Given the centre of mass frame we can identify an continuous infinity of other inertial frames. So the identification is exact within a mathematical framework that is experimentally known to be an approximate description of nature.

Yes, in Newtonian mechanics the center of mass frame of an isolated system is exactly inertial as is any frame moving with a uniform velocity wrt the center of mass frame.

The rather trivial objection that hartlw was raising is that there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The objection is trivial because, given a non-isolated system of mass M with force F acting on it, then an inertial frame is simply one where the center of mass is accelerating at a=F/M.

 

[The Dagda]

Now that you've tossed out Newton and Galilea, what physical law explains (actually, describes) the rotation of the Earth about its axis? I take it you accept that as physical evidence?

Einstein's theory of general relativity? Why?

 

[Species8472]

Is there a theory of absolute time that is compatible with General Relativity?

(This question inspired by a thread on http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=5740883#post5740883".)

Did Bob actually post here at all?

 

[hartlw]

Just notified of this in my email so I thought I'd comment.

Absolute time is ANY definition of time, ANYWHERE, and a method of synchronization.

The definition of time in Maxwell's equations and on Earth is as good as any. For a synchronization method see posts 34 & 35 in the thread

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=11435

where it is assumed that the speed of light in vacuum is constant wrt SOURCE.

Relativity, which is wrong, has nothing to do with it. See same thread.

 

[Dale]

Relativity, which is wrong, has nothing to do with it.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html