Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

The laws of physics are the SAME within ANY and ALL inertial reference frames: YES OR NO?

Is the transition in Cesium on which Cesium Clock is based the SAME in ANY and ALL inertial refrence frames: YES OR NO?

[johanfprins]

The laws of physics are the SAME within ANY and ALL inertial reference frames: YES OR NO?

Is the transition in Cesium, on which the Cesium Clock is based, the SAME in ANY and ALL inertial refrence frames: YES OR NO?

If the kaws of physics are the same within all inertial reference frames, how can a cesium clock within one inertial reference frame keep time at a different rate than an identical clock keeps time in another inertial reference frame? Please explain!

[Teemu]

Because time is not absolute.

[ladajo]

The laws of physics are the SAME within ANY and ALL inertial reference frames: YES OR NO?

Is the transition in Cesium, on which the Cesium Clock is based, the SAME in ANY and ALL inertial refrence frames: YES OR NO?

If the kaws of physics are the same within all inertial reference frames, how can a cesium clock within one inertial reference frame keep time at a different rate than an identical clock keeps time in another inertial reference frame? Please explain!

Johan,
We take two matching Cesium clocks, A & B. We mount A to the wall of the lab, we then push a Cesium clock B into HEO. Then we let them run a while, say one year. Then we send someone up to read Clock B, and he radios down to a guy in the lab, who is looking at Clock A, and they compare what time they both say. Then the guy who is in orbit, dismounts Clock B from the bird it is riding, and returns it to the ground, and takes it to the lab. He and the other guy then compare the two in the lab.

Some questions:

1.) After a year, with no corrections to Clock B or A, How different or not would you expect the two clocks to read when compared with B in orbit at the one year mark?

2.) Given how much difference is shown (or not), why is it?

2.a.) How do they compare once together again in the lab?

2.b.) After another year together in the lab, how different would you expect them to be?

3.) If the above questions show that there is a difference, (which I think you agree there is), and standing theory predicts that about 15% of the GR is taken out by SR counter correction, why do you think the GR prediction is off? Or, what other effect is causing the 15% counter error?

I am really enjoying following this discussion in total, and to be honest tend to skip over the bitter exchange parts, but none-the-less find it all expanding my understanding of relativity and its foundations.

Edit) added questions 2.a. & 2.b.

[tomclarke]

The laws of physics are the SAME within ANY and ALL inertial reference frames: YES OR NO?

Is the transition in Cesium, on which the Cesium Clock is based, the SAME in ANY and ALL inertial refrence frames: YES OR NO?

If the kaws of physics are the same within all inertial reference frames, how can a cesium clock within one inertial reference frame keep time at a different rate than an identical clock keeps time in another inertial reference frame? Please explain!

Because time is not absolute.

Teemu fell for this flim-flam by explaining how this could be true.

I know what he means.

But a more precise answer would be to say that the question is meaningless: you cannot compare "rates" of clocks in different frames in any absolute manner.

Of course, given a frame to do the comparison, you can. But you get different answers for different choices of comparison frame.

Your arguments depend on this idea of absolute "rate comparison" being well-defined. It is not.

PS - of course there are special circumstances, where one clock (or both) changes frames, when the clocks can be returned to the same position and then compared. But this is not Johan's argument.

[johanfprins]

Johan,
We take two matching Cesium clocks, A & B. We mount A to the wall of the lab, we then push a Cesium clock B into HEO. Then we let them run a while, say one year. Then we send someone up to read Clock B, and he radios down to a guy in the lab, who is looking at Clock A, and they compare what time they both say. Then the guy who is in orbit, dismounts Clock B from the bird it is riding, and returns it to the ground, and takes it to the lab. He and the other guy then compare the two in the lab.

Some questions:

1.) After a year, with no corrections to Clock B or A, How different or not would you expect the two clocks to read when compared with B in orbit at the one year mark?

Assuming that the time lag of the radio connection is corrected for, the clock in orbit should be ahead of the clock in the laboratory.

2.) Given how much difference is shown (or not), why is it?

If the Lorentz transformation is correct, and no other afjustments have been made from earth, the difference should be purely caused by the difference in intensity of the gravitational field.

2.a.) How do they compare once together again in the lab?

Provided that the change in gravitational field during the return journey can be neglected the difference should still be the same as it was when compared by radio.

2.b.) After another year together in the lab, how different would you expect them to be?

They are both experiencing the same intensity of the gravitational field and therefore there should be no change from a year before.

3.) If the above questions show that there is a difference, (which I think you agree there is), and standing theory predicts that about 15% of the GR is taken out by SR counter correction, why do you think the GR prediction is off?

When the clock iis used in a GPS satellite which measures positions on earth, one needs to correct for the transformation of the actual time on the clock in orbit into the earth's refrence frame. This transformed time does not affect the actual time on the clock in orbit.

what other effect is causing the 15% counter error?

The 15% counter error is not required owing to an actual slow-down of the clock, but purely because the clock's time rate as measured relative to earth is different from its actual time rate in the sattelite. If this 15% correction is required because the clock in orbit acttually keeps slower time, then SR must be wrong.

I am really enjoying following this discussion in total, and to be honest tend to skip over the bitter exchange parts,

I wish I could skip over them too.

but none-the-less find it all expanding my understanding of relativity and its foundations.

Thank you.

When an actual time-interval on the GPS sattelite clock is (delta)tp the transformed time-interval (delta)ts as experienced on earth, which is needed to calculate positions on earth correctly, is given by (delta)ts=(gamma)*tp. As can be seen from this formula the transformed time interval (delta)ts is larger than the actual time interval (delta)tp on the sattelite clock. For some obscure reason it has been believed for more than 100 years, and this viewpoint is defended on this thread, that (delta)ts is an actual slowdown of time on the flying clock. Now how in God's name is it possible when the actual (untransformed) time interval on the clock is (delta)tp which is faster than (delta)ts?

[johanfprins]

Teemu fell for this flim-flam by explaining how this could be true.

I know what he means.

But a more precise answer would be to say that the question is meaningless: you cannot compare "rates" of clocks in different frames in any absolute manner.

This is nonsense. If you know what the speed of the clock is then a time interval (delta)tp on the clock transforms into a time interval of (delta)ts=(gamma)*(delta)tp in the reference frame relative to which the clock is moving with a speed v. One can measure the rate (delta)ts and then calculate (delta)tp and one can then compare this time rate with the time rate of a "stationary" clock. Thus you can compare the clock rates.

Of course, given a frame to do the comparison, you can. But you get different answers for different choices of comparison frame.

You do not when you take the relative speed of the clocks into account as I have just now argued. You get the result that the two clocks keep exactly the same time.

Your arguments depend on this idea of absolute "rate comparison" being well-defined. It is not.

If it is not then the Lorentz trabsformation is also not "well-defined".

PS - of course there are special circumstances, where one clock (or both) changes frames, when the clocks can be returned to the same position and then compared.

Your assertion here has NEVER been proved experimentally. And my bet is that it is obviously just plain wrong!

Now PLEASE, I have to get my own work done and will thus not visit this thread again for a long time. But as the Terminator said: I will be back!

[tomclarke]

Teemu fell for this flim-flam by explaining how this could be true.

I know what he means.

But a more precise answer would be to say that the question is meaningless: you cannot compare "rates" of clocks in different frames in any absolute manner.

This is nonsense. If you know what the speed of the clock is then a time interval (delta)tp on the clock transforms into a time interval of (delta)ts=(gamma)*(delta)tp in the reference frame relative to which the clock is moving with a speed v. One can measure the rate (delta)ts and then calculate (delta)tp and one can then compare this time rate with the time rate of a "stationary" clock. Thus you can compare the clock rates.

OK, but this comparison is not unique, and is also BTW exactly the time dilation that you claim does not exist!

Each clock sees the LT transformed time of the other clock as running gamma times slower. The two transformations set up different (opposite) correspondence.

Which is precisley my point, any global comparison of time will be frame-dependent and non-unique.

Your arguments depend on this idea of absolute "rate comparison" being well-defined. It is not.

If it is not then the Lorentz trabsformation is also not "well-defined".

LTs are well defined, but they do not provide what you want, which is an absolute measure of time. They provide a frame-dependent transformation which is not self-inverse.

Thus the twins "paradox". Each twin sees his sibling as having slower time. The two transfomations are opposite and not compatible.

But they are well defined.

PS - of course there are special circumstances, where one clock (or both) changes frames, when the clocks can be returned to the same position and then compared.

Your assertion here has NEVER been proved experimentally. And my bet is that it is obviously just plain wrong!

Now PLEASE, I have to get my own work done and will thus not visit this thread again for a long time. But as the Terminator said: I will be back!

As (perhaps) a Buddhist master might say: "Enlightenment is both timeless and the work of a lifetime".

[tomclarke]

When the clock iis used in a GPS satellite which measures positions on earth, one needs to correct for the transformation of the actual time on the clock in orbit into the earth's refrence frame. This transformed time does not affect the actual time on the clock in orbit.

In that case you must suppose that the transformation from a GPS clock on a satellite to one on earth can remove (say) 10s from the clock time. This is the cumulative error GPS satellites have after a while in orbit, losing time each day due to SR effects. (I'm assuming that we have correctly compensated for GR effects).

But we can and do send radio waves from the GPS satellite down to earth in much less than this time. So such an observed time difference is incompatible with reality.

Best wishes, Tom

[rcain]

...
But we can and do send radio waves from the GPS satellite down to earth in much less than this time. So such an observed time difference is incompatible with reality...

erm... dont you mean "...incompatible 'Johans's version of' reality." ?

[johanfprins]

OK, but this comparison is not unique, and is also BTW exactly the time dilation that you claim does not exist!

It was my intention not to return to this thread for quite a whille since I have many other things to do. But this comment by TomClarke cannot be left hanging. At worst, it displays collossal ignorance: At best Tom is being facetious.

I have NEVER said that effects caused by time dilation do not exist, since cosmic ray muons prove that there is such an effect even though the reason for the longer muon lives is incorrectly modelled in text books. What I pointed out is that the moving clock DOES NOT KEEP TIME SLOWER WITHIN ITS OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME THAN THE CLOCK RELATIVE TO WHICH IT IS MOVING.

Let us write diown the time dilation formula again: (delta)ts=(gamma)*(delta)tp. On which clock does the time interval (delta)tp expire? Obviously on the moving clock AND THIS TIME INTERVAL IS NOT THE DILATED TIME INTERVAL (delta)ts. Thus (delta)ts does not expire on the moving clock within its own inertial refrence frame as you are claiming. In fact it keeps the exact time as the "stationary clock" keeps within its own inertial reference frame. If this is not so the laws of physics will not be the same within all and every inertial refrence frame.

Thus, the clocks kept by the two twins MUST keep time at the same rate as required by Einstein's "principle of relativity". So how the hell can one age at a different rate than the other? If it should be found that the "moving" clock actually keeps time at a slower rate within its own inertial refrence frame, than the "stionary" clock within its own iinertial refrence frame then Eisntein's Special Theory of Relativity is wrong. I doubth very much that the latter will be the case. It is the twin's paradox which is wrong. There is no paradox since they cannot age at different rates.

If Tom wants to keep on posting paranormal physics he can do so with pleasure. But he is so obviously wrong that it is a waste of time being dragged into further assinine arguments by him. The time comparison is umigue because the postulates on which the Special Theory of Relativity is based require that the clocks MUST keep time at the same rate.

You can also let the moving clock send out a light pule every second and then have a detector with the other clock. Using the Lorentz transformation and correcting for the time and length dilations (NOT length contractions) you will find that the clocks keep identical time.

[tomclarke]

...
But we can and do send radio waves from the GPS satellite down to earth in much less than this time. So such an observed time difference is incompatible with reality...

erm... dont you mean "...incompatible 'Johans's version of' reality." ?

No, an "observational" time difference as required by Johan's version of reality (e.g. 10s) is incompatible with the fact that in reality signals from the GPS satellites get here in well under 1s.

[GIThruster]

What I pointed out is that the moving clock DOES NOT KEEP TIME SLOWER WITHIN ITS OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME THAN THE CLOCK RELATIVE TO WHICH IT IS MOVING.

You're lying again, Johan. That's not what you've been contending. Everyone understands that time dilation is only as regards another inertial frame. There has never been anyone contend that time moves differently inside the frame its being measured in. This entire notion is hopelessly confused as the clocks are there to measure time in their frames. There can be no other measure and Tom has explained this more than once.

Thus, the clocks kept by the two twins MUST keep time at the same rate as required by Einstein's "principle of relativity". So how the hell can one age at a different rate than the other?

For crying out loud, Johan; this intuitive notion is the basis for calling the thought experiment a "paradox". If the question never came up, this would all not be an issue. You're acting as though since the question occurs to you, that the universe is indebted to you and must fall into line.

Fact is, though you pretend to do the math, you do NOT understand the theory and you are making freshman mistakes each time you post. That would be okay, if it were not that you're so abusive and obnoxious in every post.

[tomclarke]

I have NEVER said that effects caused by time dilation do not exist, since cosmic ray muons prove that there is such an effect even though the reason for the longer muon lives is incorrectly modelled in text books. What I pointed out is that the moving clock DOES NOT KEEP TIME SLOWER WITHIN ITS OWN INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME THAN THE CLOCK RELATIVE TO WHICH IT IS MOVING.

Johan, it comes down to whether you think the "travelling twin" (or, if you like, GPS satellite) clock measures a shorted elapsed time than the earth-centered one as determined by synchronisation at two different times.

I'm pretty sure you think they don't. In which case you think time dilation is not "real". But forgive me if wrong.

Let us write diown the time dilation formula again: (delta)ts=(gamma)*(delta)tp. On which clock does the time interval (delta)tp expire? Obviously on the moving clock AND THIS TIME INTERVAL IS NOT THE DILATED TIME INTERVAL (delta)ts. Thus (delta)ts does not expire on the moving clock within its own inertial refrence frame as you are claiming.

No Johan, I am claiming the comparison you have just made is nonsensical, because you cannot uniquely compare time intervals betwen different frames, unless you bring clocks back together. But that requires that at least one clock is non-inertial.

In fact it keeps the exact time as the "stationary clock" keeps within its own inertial reference frame. If this is not so the laws of physics will not be the same within all and every inertial refrence frame.

Again, this statement has no meaning, unless it is the trivial one that clocks keep proper time within their reference frames.

Thus, the clocks kept by the two twins MUST keep time at the same rate as required by Einstein's "principle of relativity". So how the hell can one age at a different rate than the other?

Because proper time within a reference frame is not the same for different wordlines through Minkowski space.

Your misconception, which a we continue becomes clearer, is that their is some global time which coincides with proper time in all reference frames. If that were true then proper time for any two worldlines that intersected twice (like the twins clocks when one returns) would have to be identical.

But it is not true, and the times do not have to be identical.

If it should be found that the "moving" clock actually keeps time at a slower rate within its own inertial refrence frame, than the "stionary" clock within its own iinertial refrence frame then Eisntein's Special Theory of Relativity is wrong. I doubth very much that the latter will be the case. It is the twin's paradox which is wrong. There is no paradox since they cannot age at different rates.

You see from the above that I am not (an dhave never) claimed this. "Real" time dilation is a property of different paths through Minkowski space, not of moving inertial frames. The paths, by definition, must be bent. It is this bending that makes proper time measured along the path shorter.

This is counter-intuitive - in Euclidean space "bent" paths always have longer distance than straight ones. But the Minkowski "metric" means that paths more like light have smaller proper time than those less like light. Light itself has zero proper time.

You can also let the moving clock send out a light pule every second and then have a detector with the other clock. Using the Lorentz transformation and correcting for the time and length dilations (NOT length contractions) you will find that the clocks keep identical time.

That is also true, in the sense that the LT describes the observed changes in time & length . But that doe snot mean you can use LT to set up a unique global time coordinate as you imply above.

[tomclarke]

Here is an illustration of how "bent" worldlines in MS space can have different proper times (e.g. elapsed clock times) between two points A & B.

C1 is a stationary clock relative to the FOR which this diagram is drawn in, with time vertical & space horizontal.

C2 travels out on a rocket at speed v < c and then back at the same speed v. C2's worldline is show as C2 and C2' where the dashed part is the return journey.

For comparison a ray of light reflected by a mirror travelling at c is shown (L,L').

A clock travelling with the light would measure zero proper time between A & B, because light travels along null geodesics.

In Euclidean space we expect the (bent) C2,C2' path to be longer than the (straight) C1 path. But in Minkowski space it is more like a null geodesic, and therefore actually shorter. That is "real" time dilation.

We have drawn this diagram in the C1 FOR. We cannot directly transform to C2 FOR because of course C2 has two different FORs. So the diagram is not symmetrical between C1 & C2. If there were no reflection it would be, and we could draw a C2 FOR picture like this but with C1 moving off near a null geodesic.

BTW by "length" I mean of course timelike separation as measured by Minkowski metric, or proper time. That is the time measured by a clock travelling the given path.