Has absolute time been PROVEN false?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Quantum Quack, Oct 30, 2004.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Just a request for some discussion on the proof that shows absolute time is non-existent.

    Some that I have talked to believe that velocity induced time dilation proves that time is not absolute, but I wonder.
    Why does atomic slowing of a clock due to velocity falsify the concept of absolute time?

    Just because atomic speeds vary due to velocity is no reason to falsify absolute time is my main argument I guess.....

    I have read somewhere that relativity states that time is relative but is it proven to be the case or have we just made a very complicated thought experiment out of the notion that time is somehow a distinct value.

    If I heat up a glass of water am I inducing a time dilation/contraction effect on that water? If I freeze water am I inducing a time dilation effect on that water?

    If I slow and speed up atomic rates am I playing with time or am I playng with the atomic rate?

    If there is proof of relative time, is this just not proof of atomic rate changes and if so why would we automatically assume that absolute time is no longer valid?

    For relativity to be taken seriously it assumes that time is relative and I would like to know why we have accepted this perspective rather than just absolute time with atomic rate variations.
    What proof is there of relative time in the context of relativity?
    Care to discuss?
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    To discuss something we have to have the definition of the subject. What you call "the absolute time"?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I think the best way to descibe it is to use the words universal simultaneousness.

    That even if an objects atomic rate is slower due to velocity that events are simultaneous regardless of frame or perspective.

    I think this is probably the only way to clarify what absolute time is with out calling on the term "absolute time" itself... but maybe there are better definitions that you could provide us with?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Of course, there are...
    1. "Simultaneous" has a sense if we already know what the time is.
    Therefore, usage of the feature "to be simultaneous" for definition of time or any kind of it like "absolute time" becomes logical tautology.
    2. Usage "simultaneous" in definition of "absolute time" as you have proposed can be a wrong way because we did not defined yet (in our discussion!) what features of "simultaneousness" the Mother Nature allows.
    3. And I predict, as far as we define what we mean under term "the absolute time" whole discussion will be finished.

    So, let us define what we mean saying “the absolute time”.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    It is funnily enough the inspiration of the light cones that can help in this understanding of absolute time.

    If we disregard the implication that invariance generates the need to eliminate absolute time conceptually for a moment and look at our humble photon.

    At any give moment between future and past events universally all photons exist in a state of simultaneousness in time. always between the future and past. In this galaxy or the next all photons exists in the same moment in time. This suggests absolute simultaneousness for our photon and by extension for everything else that exists in the 'now'
    so in time continuum the 'now' is absolute regardless of location in the universe.
    And just because an objects atomic state slows with velocity doesn't in any way invalidate the absoluteness of the photons postion in time. It just simply means that the object is running slower and nothing more.

    Now, Yuriy perhaps you would care to give me your description of absolute time.?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Enjoy my definition:
    The absolute time” – the set of three words that have no sense, no meaning. Analog of famous “Abracadabra”. Often used for signifying some fetish in discussions about SRT without recognition of absence of any scientific contents. Origin: comes as arbitrary philological construction born in early XX century discussions about question “is the time absolute or relative feature of Nature?”. Newtonian physics, based on assumption of the existence of infinite velocity of passage of energy and information, stated that the time is an absolute objective reality of Nature revealing itself the same for any observer. Einstein’s postulate of existence of the natural limit of the velocity of passage of energy and information led to conclusion that the time can not be an absolute reality. Time is a relativistic reality, the reality that exist and reveals itself for any two observers only in dependence to how fast they are moving in respect to each other. One can use the notion “the absolute time” to signify the notion of time, as it was understood before Einstein.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2004
  10. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    AND we all know that the fundamental assumptions of SRT that assume the measure of relative velocity of photons and ALL reference frames will always be the same, hence the mathematics of SRT has this assumption embedded in the heart of the theory, which proves absolutely nothing.

    SRT ignores real motion, i.e. that of the moving observer . Significant physical paramters are discarded from experimental results before the results are genrated in the experiment.
     
  11. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Stop making us explain this. The speed is always the same. The velocity is not.
     
  12. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Dear geistkiesel, you just said: “AND we all know that the fundamental assumptions of SRT that assume the measure of relative velocity of photons and ALL reference frames will always be the same, hence the mathematics of SRT has this assumption embedded in the heart of the theory, which proves absolutely nothing.SRT ignores real motion, i.e. that of the moving observer . Significant physical paramters are discarded from experimental results before the results are genrated in the experiment”.

    No offence, but please, read your post one more time and rewrite it in plain understandable sentences: I can not recognize even a single accomplished thought in your post. How you can expect to hear from us any opinion, if you do not care about appearance of your own thoughts in writing? Why we should guess what you are trying to say?
     
  13. dristam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    Slows with velocity? No, it doesn't!

    Some of the Hindus believe in the fabled Towers of Mandalay. Three upright poles, one of which originally holds a stack of 64 center-punched solid discs, ranging in size from smallest at the top to biggest at the bottom. The monks in this fabled Temple move the discs among the three poles, always moving only one disc at a time and never placing a big one on top of a smaller one. It'll take a whole lot of moves before the entire stack is transferred to pole number 2! When the monks finish their task, the World will come to an end. I think they're almost done now.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    What I am curious about is why the invariance of light eliminated absolute time. And whether this is proven or not?
     
  15. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Time dilation (a direct result of constant c) eliminates absolute time.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Just so I am clear on this point, please correct me if I am wrong ok...

    If lights velocity is constant and an object is travelling at 1000 kmpsec then with out dilation the velocity of light on that object would be measured in variation range from 'c'-1000kms to 'c'+1000 kmpsec.

    But because of the demands of invariance, dilation becomes a necessity to accomodate the invariance of our ray of light so by fiddling with the tick rate we can ensure light stays constant in velocity.

    Is this a fair general assessment?
     
  17. dristam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    Yes it's fair, BUT you've gotta realize that THREE distortions work in unison to normalize light's behavior among disparate trajectories -- not just time dilation! There's also length contraction and time dissynchronicity, and those other two are just as crucial to the transformation.

    Y'wanna see diagrams? go my site.
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    so it could be also fair to say that relativity is locked into a need to justify lights invariance with respect to objects tragectories etc.....hmmmmm....ok

    What if Light is not time dependent but only distance dependent?
    Say we ignore the need to think of light as having velocity at all. Say we think for a moment that the effect of light is only distance determined and does not travel from [a] to .

    As light is not time determined it can not have velocity, thus the need to fiddle with reflector time rates disappears. And the need to construct a universe that has relative time dissappears. Time dilation becomes simple atomic slowing and nothing more.

    The logic I am following at the moment is that if light exists only in the "now" then there is only the now and distance involved in the effect of light. Time is no longer relevant to light rays.
     
  19. dristam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123

    What if your grey matter is not truth dependent but only babble dependent?
    Say we ignore the need to think of QQuack as having brains at all. Say we think for a moment the the effect of QQuack is only babble detemined and does not arrive at sense from premise to conclusions.
     
  20. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Once again the problem is that experiments disagree. Light from planets (which we know the distance to) do not arrive faster when they are moving toward us.
     
  21. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    It is very sad, my friends, that we do not pay attention to each other's assertions. I wrote "Einstein’s postulate of existence of the natural limit of the velocity of passage of energy and information led to conclusion that the time can not be an absolute reality."

    So, not Relativity, not absoluteness of speed of light, but absence of means to transfer energy and information with infinite speed was a killer of the idea that time is absolute reality, and forced us to accept that time is an relative reality. But you do not apprehend this fact, you again connect relatives of time with "time delay effect", with absoluteness of speed of light, with something else. You should not arbitrarily change historical and logical hierarchy of fundamental ideas; you should not arbitrarily establish causal ties of ideas in physics. Limitation of speed of light and its absoluteness (speed of light is the same for any inertial observer) and Principle of relativity are absolutely independent ideas and there is no logical or natural ties between them. All of them came from a huge number of experiments as independent features of our World.
     
  22. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Saying "existence of the natural limit of the velocity of passage of energy and information" is the same thing as saying "upper limit to the speed of light".

    The first assertion is nothing but a guess. The second (more specically an invarient speed of light) has been supported by every attempt to change the speed of light.
     
  23. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Dear Persol,
    Professionals do not mix the speed of energy and information transport with speed of light. Not always the speed of light is the ultimate possible speed in some specific conditions. For instance, it could be possible to transport information in to some macromolecule faster then light (photons) can propagate there. The fact that namely speed of light in vacuum, c, is a physical limit of transport of energy and information in Nature is an independent idea in physics.
     

Share This Page