- #1
spaced-out
- 20
- 1
If you had to give a physical reason for relative time, what would it be? (I will not be giving my view; just looking for yours.)
The lack of reasons for the opposite.spaced-out said:If you had to give a physical reason for relative time, what would it be?
spaced-out said:But this raises the question For what reason are clocks not absolutely synchronous? Anybody?
Your question cannot be answered until and unless you are willing to define what a clock is. In Special Relativity, we define a clock to be an instrument that measures time (or time is what a clock measures). As a result, we find that since accelerating clocks results in them disagreeing about time, then we have to accept the fact that time is relative.spaced-out said:But this raises the question For what reason are clocks not absolutely synchronous? Anybody?
The standard reason is that time is relative because the laws of physics are relative and the invariant speed is finite. I.e. the physical reason is that the two postulates are correct.spaced-out said:If you had to give a physical reason for relative time, what would it be?
Ookke said:Universe seems to be willing to twist space and time in very peculiar way, just to keep light speed constant in every inertial frame. Why it's so important?
It is perfectly legitimate, but also usually non-scientific. What sort of experiment could you build to measure why the speed of light is invariant? All you can measure is whether or not it is invariant. There is no "why-ometer".Ookke said:Constant light speed (invariant speed) with all its consequences like relative time *is* weird, and it's perfectly legitimate question to ask "why".
spaced-out said:What about the following:
"Different observers at rest in their respective frames disagree over the time interval between two events because they calculate the different in the readings of two clocks at rest relative to themselves. THE LACK OF AN ABSOLUTE SYNCHRONIZATION for these clocks causes the variation in delta-t from observer to observer."
[introduction to the theory of relativity by Sears & Brehme, Addison-Wesley, p. 87]
But this raises the question For what reason are clocks not absolutely synchronous? Anybody?
spaced-out said:why is the universal expansion increasing is a fair question and has been answered to a degree with the postulation of dark energy - the supposed physical cause. similarly, i am wondering about the direct physical cause for the relativity of simultaneity or relative time. To Wells: Why did you ask me what a clock is instead of asking Sears & Brehme? To Dale: what - in your opinion - are the 2 postulates? To Dale again: Why are you so sure that lightspeed invariance is the reason for relative time? Sears blamed it on asynchronous (nonabsolutely synch'd) clocks. How could an invariant light speed cause clocks to be out of synch? Just asking.
Because they are obviously accepting the definition of time being what a clock measures. They are pointing out that if you started with two colocated inertial clocks they would agree on all measured times intervals but if one was accelerated for awhile and became inertially moving with respect to the other clock, then they would no longer agree on measured time intervals. It's not because of any theory that this happens, it's a fact of nature.spaced-out said:To Wells: Why did you ask me what a clock is instead of asking Sears & Brehme?
It isn't a matter of opinion. The two postulates of relativity are that the laws of physics are frame invariant and that c is invariant.spaced-out said:To Dale: what - in your opinion - are the 2 postulates?
Einstein proved it in his famous paper in 1905. The two postulates imply the relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, length contraction, and all of the other relativistic effects.spaced-out said:Why are you so sure that lightspeed invariance is the reason for relative time?
Sears isn't wrong, nor is he disagreeing with me. The two postulates lead to asynchronous clocks, usually referred to as the relativity of simultaneity. As I mentioned already this was proved by Einstein in 1905.spaced-out said:Why are you so sure that lightspeed invariance is the reason for relative time? Sears blamed it on asynchronous (nonabsolutely synch'd) clocks. How could an invariant light speed cause clocks to be out of synch? Just asking.
PAllen said:... there is no simultaneity built into the universe. Inability to synchronize clocks in an absolute way is just different words for "there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity".
ghwellsjr said:... But Einstein was apparently the first to realize that if we are willing to give up the notion of an absolute time, then we can define time in terms of what inertial clocks are actually measuring. Sears & Brehme accept Einstein's notion that all inertial clocks measure time correctly and so they agree that we have to give up the notion that there exists an absolute time. Since you are asking the question, "For what reason are clocks not absolutely synchronous", it's obvious that you are rejecting Einstein's definition of time as being what inertial clocks measure so you are using a different definition of what a clock is but you won't tell us what that definition is so how can we provide you with an answer to your question? Or to put it another way, if inertial clocks are not actually measuring time, then what do those clocks measure or what fudge factors are you applying so that they can actually measure time or how would you otherwise measure time?
DaleSpam said:It isn't a matter of opinion. The two postulates of relativity are that the laws of physics are frame invariant and that c is invariant.
Einstein proved it in his famous paper in 1905. The two postulates imply the relativity of simultaneity, time dilation, length contraction, and all of the other relativistic effects.
The physical cause of any relativistic effect is therefore the fact that the laws of physics follow the two postulates.
spaced-out said:Evidence?
(& bear in mind that such a negative cannot be proved)
Although there are various wordings floating around (it would be well to remember that anything you read in English is either a translation from the original German, or influenced by the subsequent development of the theory, or both) they are all equivalent enough to lead to the same conclusions. You don't have to take my word for it, you can start with Einstein's 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (google will find it), see how Einstein first worded them, compare with later versions.spaced-out said:I have seen various versions of the postulates, so that is why i asked for your opinion.
As for those you listed, does the 2nd include the speed of light from point A to point B in an inertial coord. system? If so, then exactly how did this speed come to be c for any or all such observers?
The postulates are the things which explain everything else in relativity. The postulates themselves are not explained, that is what it means for something to be a postulate.spaced-out said:As for those you listed, does the 2nd include the speed of light from point A to point B in an inertial coord. system? If so, then exactly how did this speed come to be c for any or all such observers?
spaced-out said:How can asynchonous clocks measure time correctly?
DaleSpam said:It is perfectly legitimate, but also usually non-scientific. What sort of experiment could you build to measure why the speed of light is invariant? All you can measure is whether or not it is invariant. There is no "why-ometer".
The reason that I said that it is usually non-scientific is that it is possible to have two different theories that each lead to the invariance of c in some limit. Then you could measure which theory is more accurate. Of course, as any 3-year-old child knows, you can then simply ask "why" again, this time about the postulates of that new theory.
haael said:The simple philosophical answer to all the questions in this thread is: time is another dimension. Just like width and height and length.
We really should start with asking "what the heck is time". Then we get answers for all other problems, including the relativity of simultaneity and invariance of the speed of light.
It is really that simple: the universe is a 4-dimensional manifold, homogenous, isotropic, smooth, pseudo-Riemannian and curved. Everything else is just a consequence.
Do you see the words in bold?spaced-out said:How can asynchonous clocks measure time correctly?ghwellsjr said:... But Einstein was apparently the first to realize that if we are willing to give up the notion of an absolute time, then we can define time in terms of what inertial clocks are actually measuring. Sears & Brehme accept Einstein's notion that all inertial clocks measure time correctly and so they agree that we have to give up the notion that there exists an absolute time. Since you are asking the question, "For what reason are clocks not absolutely synchronous", it's obvious that you are rejecting Einstein's definition of time as being what inertial clocks measure so you are using a different definition of what a clock is but you won't tell us what that definition is so how can we provide you with an answer to your question? Or to put it another way, if inertial clocks are not actually measuring time, then what do those clocks measure or what fudge factors are you applying so that they can actually measure time or how would you otherwise measure time?
spaced-out said:What about the following:
"Different observers at rest in their respective frames disagree over the time interval between two events because they calculate the different in the readings of two clocks at rest relative to themselves. THE LACK OF AN ABSOLUTE SYNCHRONIZATION for these clocks causes the variation in delta-t from observer to observer."
[introduction to the theory of relativity by Sears & Brehme, Addison-Wesley, p. 87]
But this raises the question For what reason are clocks not absolutely synchronous? Anybody?
I agree that the second postulate is not easy to accept. However, there really is no reason to expect that the way the universe behaves should be easy to accept. So in the end that is simply something that we will have to struggle with.Ookke said:Sadly, the postulate about light speed constancy is (to me at least) very far from being logical, natural or easy to accept.
I am fairly confident that there will eventually be another theory which can be used to derive the postulates of relativity in some limit and that theory will therefore scientifically explain "why" relativity. However, I would bet a rather large sum that the postulates of that theory will be even harder to accept than the second postulate, not easier. They will be accepted, not because they will be easy to accept, but because future experimental data will require us to accept them.Ookke said:I hope that some day there is a new theory, based on logical and obviously true sounding postulates, that also includes and explains the results of relativity.
Nugatory said:It is a fairly straightforward exercise, using no more than high school algebra, to show that if Einstein's two postulates are correct, then there can be no such thing as absolute simultaneity.
Nugatory said:Easily, as long as you don't require absolute simultaneity. My wristwatch ticks off five minutes while the sand runs through the five-minute sandglass on the table in front of me, and I become five minutes older and grayer. You can do the same thing wherever you are with your wristwatch and sandglass. For both of us, our clocks "just work", we have a perfectly good notion of the passing of time, and our wristwatches tell us about it.
We only have a problem if we also insist on a notion of absolute simultaneity, by requiring that the start of my five-minute interval must be simultaneous with the start of yours, and likewise for the ends of those two intervals.
BTW, have you studied Einstein's train though experiment on the relativity of simultaneity? Understanding that one is essential to understanding and resolving the sort of logical contradictions that come with assuming absolute simultaneity and absolute time.
Of course he had justification. The two postulates. Not only do they justify it, they require it.spaced-out said:In short, E had no justification for his relative simultan. as far as I can see. Do you see any?
The 2nd postulate does not say that observers must all get c for light's speed between two points, it defines it.spaced-out said:Well, the 1st post. does not pertain to simultaneity at all, it merely says that all inertial observers must find the same general laws. And the 2nd post. says that such observers must all get c for light's speed from Point A to Point B in their respective frames, but I fail to see this happening experimentally or even how it could happen.
What is your definition of "absolutely synch'd"? Are you going to continue to keep it a secret? How can we respond if you won't give us your view?spaced-out said:OTOH, any pair of clocks in any inertial frame could possibly become absolutely synch'd by sheer accident (or by monkeys pushing buttons), and yet this would not in any way violate any physical law, so said clocks won't self-destuct or destroy the universe. They are not forbidden.
I don't recall Einstein ever saying that. Could you please provide an online link and either specify the exact location in the material where he said those words and/or provide an exact quote?spaced-out said:If you read Einstein, you will see that he merely recommended *discarding* absolutely synch'd clocks, but never said that they cannot actually exist.
DaleSpam said:Of course he had justification. The two postulates. Not only do they justify it, they require it.
ghwellsjr said:The 2nd postulate does not say that observers must all get c for light's speed between two points, it defines it.
ghwellsjr said:What is your definition of "absolutely synch'd"? Are you going to continue to keep it a secret? How can we respond if you won't give us your view?
ghwellsjr said:I don't recall Einstein ever saying that. Could you please provide an online link and either specify the exact location in the material where he said those words and/or provide an exact quote?
spaced-out said:Mr. Dale, can you tell me how the postulates justify using light rays from two events to determine their temporal order? Thanks!