As we all know, time is no longer absolute, but is relative, but I really cannot see why the former was abandoned for the latter. Part (or maybe even most of) the problem is that no one seems to want to talk about absolute time, much less to explicitly or specifically define it. Also, few are prepared to provide an adequate defense of relative time. Obviously, one must know the full meanings of both relative and absolute time before one can appreciate the facts that Einstein discarded one for the other. But here are a couple of gems from Albert: [1] "Was there no modification that ... would uphold the equivalence of inertial systems (special principle of relativity)? The answer to this question is the special theory of relativity. This [theory] takes over from Maxwell-Lorentz the assumption of the constancy of the velocity of light in empty space. In order to bring this into harmony with the [principle of relativity], the idea of the absolute character of simultaneity must be given up." [2] "[In classical physics,] [t]he simultaneity of two definite events with reference to one inertial system involves the simultaneity of these events in reference to all [other] inertial systems. This is what is meant when we say that the time of classical mechanics is absolute." [quotes are given in order of presentation in Einstein's book, Appendix V, pp. 148, 149 - not found on the information hiway] With [1], Einstein told us why he had to abandon absolute time. With [2], he gave us his definition of absolute time. I couldn't help but notice that in neither of these cases did he even mention the word "clock," even though it was he who declared that "time is what a CLOCK reads." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/traveling-through-time.html This would make one would think that any definition of time must contain the word "clock" or "clocks." Talking about time sans the word "clock" should be illegal. ;-) The very least that Einstein should have done re clocks was to note that absolute time = absolutely synchronous clocks in all (inertial) reference frames. Yes, he did this in a roundabout way by saying - in effect - that absolute time means that all clocks in all frames will read the same times at any two given events, but I think that this subject (TIME) is so important that no roundabout ways should be taken. Here is a God's-eye view of absolute time in terms of clocks: Frame A [2]-----------------------[2] E1-----------------------E2 [2]-----------------------[2] Frame B [2]-----------------------[2] Frame C [2]-----------------------[2] Frame D The events E1 and E2 occurred absolutely simultaneously (on paper), so all clocks in all frames read the same time at each event, and there is zero time between the events. This is fully in accord with Einstein's _own_ definition (given above ([2])). So what is wrong with a pair of truly synchronous clocks? According to Einstein (see [1] above), absolute simultaneity or absolute time or truly synchronous clocks conflict with the principle of relativity since the latter calls for (or seems to call for) the "equivalence of inertial systems," meaning that the PoR "forbids absolute motion detection." Thus, said Einstein, we are forced to give up absolute time or absolutely synchronous clocks or absolute simultaneity. Hmmmmm....I thought that the PoR actually called for the equivalence of inertial systems with regard to the general laws of physics, and not with regards to the detection of absolute motion by observers in said systems. In other words, I thought that the PoR only called for all observers to find the same general laws of physics, but said absolutely nothing about what we can or cannot do with said laws, including the possibility of using them to detect our absolute motion through space. Also, we have the fact that truth cannot conflict with truth, so if the PoR is true, then truly synchronous clocks cannot conflict with it. This simple fact alone should have told Albert that there is no way that the absolutely synchronous clocks of classical physics could even appear to "conflict" with the PoR. But Einstein firmly believed that truly synchronous clocks did indeed conflict with the PoR, so the former must be tossed aside like so many dirty dishrags. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) And guess which clocks do not "conflict" with the PoR? Surprise! Einstein's clocks! The ones that are set to always get the value "c" for light's one-way speed regardless of observer velocity. However, there is a major problem with Einstein's clocks; they are (admittedly) absolutely asynchronous, and this means that they cannot correctly measure time. Therefore, not only are Einstein's clocks not needed, but they are incorrectly related temporally, which makes them useless theoretically speaking (although - thanks to the rapidity of light's motion - they are close enough for government work!) Hey, I am gonna come right out and say it ----I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with truly or absolutely synchronous clocks. There, I said it, and I am proud of it! Of course, I will immediately be labeled a crank of the worst order, and cursed at by all who care about SR, but at least I got it off of my hairy little chest! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Don you even know why time is not absolute? Do you even know anything of the relavity of simultaneous events? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
Because from "our" perspective.., from within the limitations of human perception, we are limited to "a" frame of reference, centered on our own experience. We can intelectually attempt to understand diverse variations, generally through an inherent or learned application of principles and concepts, scientifically presented as the special theory of relativity. However, this does not change the first person perspective of our own rest frame of reference as the "experience" of time from which we must measure all others. The simple answer is that, we are not omniscient. We can only see and experience the world and time from where and when we stand. Everything else is "relative".... Neurospychologically we cannot even say that in that discrete location of space time where we stand, we experience now.., now. It takes on the order of hundredths of a second for our brains to process sensory information and then assemble it into a coherent unified "experience". So in a sense we never experience anything in real time, there is always some delay in at least hundredths of a second. (And this does not even account for delays in perception inherent in the delays associated with any associated speed of sound and light delays. We can imagine that there must be some wholistic perspective from which time might be considered as "absolute", it however forever remains beyond our ability to isolate and identify in more than our imaginations. Note: Though I have read research on the actual delays required to assemble sensory perception into a composite experience of our environment, I do not recal at present the precise delay involved, beyond "hundredths" of a second. The reference in my hard copy library and thus not digitally earchable.
how about using t=0 as the Ultimate Reference? It's not very practical, but it would seem to give a sense of comfort that there is an anchor that ties everything together, as esoteric as that may be.
O.K. I just set my callender and clock to register midnight on the day I was born as t=0. Everybody got that! We have no common frame of reference from which to do that. Any t=0 time we choose will be arbitrary. There was a time in the past when time itself was measured by the sun. Remember sundials? The problem was as we were able to travel greater distances in shorter times that became an impractical standard, also. There is just no common time of reference to set t=0 to! We are stuck with a relative reference for time and an agreement on how we measure it from any particular "place".., which is what we do now, with GMT and UTC.., GPS time etc. We try!
The existence of the superluminal neutrinos shows that there is something BEYOND the Einstein relativity. The Einstein relativity following from the speed of light equal to the c in all systems and the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational mass is associated with the properties of the Einstein spacetime i.e. the Einstein relativity is obligatory in the Einstein spacetime. But we can see that the superluminal neutrinos lead to a SUBSPACE of the Einstein spacetime. The quantum mechanics also leads to a SUBSPACE of the Einstein spacetime because the wave functions applied in the quantum mechanics can be the COHERENT mathematical objects only when the very distant points of a wave function can communicate quickly i.e. wave functions need tachyons. We need a subspace of the Einstein spacetime composed of tachyons. We can call such subspace the Newtonian spacetime. The superluminal neutrinos show that the Newtonian spacetime is in existence. Just there are the TWO spacetimes. The Einstein spacetime is directly associated with the electromagnetic interactions and INDIRECTLY with the gravitational interactions. The Newtonian spacetime is directly associated with the gravitational interactions. This causes that the Newtonian gravity is the ‘SUBGRAVITY’ of the Einstein gravity. Now about the definition of time Definition of time must be associated with the properties of spacetime. But there are two spacetimes so there are two definitions of time. The Einstein spacetime has such properties that there appear the relativistic masses whereas the Newtonian spacetime has such properties that there cannot appear the relativistic masses i.e. the mass of neutrinos cannot change. This means that we can say about absolute time associated with the Newtonian spacetime but this not mean that in this spacetime unit of time is equal to zero. This is because the tachyons are not moving with infinite speed. So with the Newtonian spacetime is associated the absolute time whereas with the objects composed of the Einstein spacetime components, i.e. with the binary systems of neutrinos, the relativistic time. Now about the relativistic mass Can the relativistic effects change internal structure of an accelerated particle? And due to the TWO spacetimes the answer is that sometimes can whereas sometimes cannot! Lack of the Newtonian spacetime in the theoretical cosmology causes that there appear such fantastic ideas as, for example, the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe without any reason. If there will be some questions I will answer them in details.
When light travels the distance of 299,792,458 meters in a vacuum, one second has elapsed for the entire universe. There is absolute distance and absolute time as long as the speed of light is constant and the meter is defined by light travel time. Make no mistake about it. Einstein was a crank of the worst kind!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I never abandoned absolute time. Still one of my favourite minimal techno
