Does time dilation only work if?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by John.P, Jul 7, 2017.

  1. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    I read somewhere that Einstein said to ignore proper time and we might as well just define time as the fingers on a clock. Does this mean if we was to define time other than the fingers on a clock , that time dilation fails?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,227
    Can't find Einstein saying that though it sounds like something he might say

    I did find this

    https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/phy...s/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html

    “Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.”

    Which seems close

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Thank you for your answer, if time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it, aren't we defining time to only exist as a state of matter?

    Are 'we'' saying that space itself is timeless? It does not seem perceivable that time does not exist independent of matter in space, time must surely pass for space although immeasurable?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,227
    My views are fairly well known in the thread

    Does time exist?

    The short version from my understanding

    TIME does not exist

    For the long version see thread

    Does time exist

    Read up post somewhere a little after 850

    The Invention of Time and Space

    Large blue cover

    To your point

    aren't we defining time to only exist as a state of matter?

    I would say no

    First

    time would not be in a state ie exist of matter

    Second can we for the moment ignore any atomic scale of movement and treat a object as a solid lump of stuff

    We have this lump of stuff in our lab to do some time experiments

    We can pick up this lump of stuff and move it to the other end of the work bench

    How long did it take?

    Oh wait we didn't look at the clock when we picked up the lump or again when we put it down

    Try again

    Pick it up look at clock

    Put it down look at clock

    Took 10 seconds

    Where did we get the measurement of 10 seconds?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

    The second (symbol: s) (abbreviated s or sec) is the base unit of time in the International System of Units / Système International d'Unités (SI).[1][2] It is qualitatively defined as the second division of the hour by sixty, the first division by sixty being the minute.[3] The SI definition of second is "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom".[1][4] Seconds may be measured using a mechanical, electrical or an atomic clock

    So we have defined one measurement and using that scale

    defined our block moving as 10 of those

    BUT BUT BUT there is no fundemental law of physics that says 1 second is

    the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom

    We made it up

    And I guarantee out there in the cosmos there are any number of alien scientist making their own time definetions

    So we made up the second for something we call time and used it to measure

    a change in state

    resting at one end of the lab bench

    to resting the other end

    I contend that during the change from one end of bench to the other the block AGED 10 seconds

    Funny thing is though if we had left the block alone

    Looked at the clock for 10 seconds

    Looked back at the block

    It still would have AGED 10 seconds

    Back to the movement within atoms

    Same principle applies just at tiny winney mini micio nano scale

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    That is quite a honest answer indeed and not one I expected. I respect your point of view although you ''sound'' like you are ''saying'' that time is an invention of quantifiable measurement rather than something that exists. In which I am partly agreed but I think our consideration of time should not just be the considerations of time as a virtual entity that manifests itself by the fingers in motion of a clock and defining a degree of movement to be equal to a quantity of time past. The representation of one second defining how fast time goes bye, I do not think we are the ones who should be defining how fast time goes bye. I believe time exists in a state of entropy, the entropy having a ''life'' cycle determined by the rate of gain and loss of the entropy. A steady state entropy having an average ''life span'' where an entropy that was in a state of chaos can increase or decrease in ''life spam''.
     
  9. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,227
    Good point

    A steady state entropy having an average ''life span'' where an entropy that was in a state of chaos can increase or decrease in ''life spam"

    Very good point

    I don't have time to give a reply to do it justice right now

    However as a quick response which occurred to me as I read your post and the last section above

    As you say entropy increases with some fluctuations of pockets of order increasing

    I'm very taken with the idea of your entropy having a half life if I read your post correctly

    Will try to digest and put some thought into a better reply soon

    One of the best new thoughts my 3 neurone brain has had to cope with in a long time

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    John.P likes this.
  10. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    427
    Somewhat fundamental to Special Relativity is that the Laws of Physics are the same everywhere. Anywhere in the Universe. So if a clock is constructed to count the transitions between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom then 9 192 631 770 will be the same interval anywhere in the Universe. The same applies to a clock constructed anywhere in the Universe in exactly the same way from (say) brass and steel.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2017
  11. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    427
    So far as the question has been phrased and the answers given you might as well ask if the hypotenuse of a triangle is older than the sum of the squares on the sides. If you are intending to ask (or answer) a question about special relativity - you have don't have a meaningful question to answer.
     
  12. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    It seems like Michael understood the question, I am not sure how I could possibly ask the question any other way. I will however try in courtesy of your reply.

    IF we was to redefine our definition of time , something different than the Caesium standard (the fingers on a clock), how would this affect the ideology of time dilation? Because surely time dilation is only an effect of the construct of the measurement?
     
  13. Confused2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    427
    If you were on an alien spaceship heading for Earth at (say) 294000000m/s (this is 0.98xspeed of light) then the amount of time measured on a clock which is constructed in exactly the same way as a clock on Earth, measured when passing two points (say) 10km apart in the Earth frame then the time you record (on the spaceship) will be about 1/5 as much as the time that will recorded by an Earth observer timing your transition between those two points. Assuming the clocks used by you in your spaceship and the clocks used by the Earth observers are identical then it should be clear that the difference isn't a construct of measurement - it is an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics being the same in every frame. To reconcile the difference you would need to look at the geometry of spacetime which like all other laws of physics (as far as in known) is the same throughout the Universe. You can see this in more detail here:- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
  14. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    With all due respect I do not observe the answer to my question. You have explained in some detail the affects of measurement of time dilation, but your reply does not address the question :IF we was to redefine our definition of time , something different than the Caesium standard (the fingers on a clock) how would this affect the ideology of time dilation?
     
  15. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,227
    OK here goes

    For me this goes back to the Big Bang (Expansion) your pick

    From energy released by the Big Bang our Universe comes into being as cooling occurred and matter appeared

    Matter it appears to require a very large amount of energy to hold its component atoms together as per E=mc²

    So the initial view of the Universe is chaos condensing into order as expansion occurs

    Now the question is how much energy was present in the Big Bang?

    Scientist seem to agree that they are not sure

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But it appears to be finely balanced between the Universe continuing to expand forever or slowing and going in reverse to the Big Crunch

    My 2 cents is on expand forever, will explain more on later

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now to the point of half life of entropy

    Since the initial amount of energy present at the Big Bang is somewhat fuzzy scientist are hardly going to know how much was converted into order by Universe creation

    But take it as a given that at a certain distant moment simple matter ceased being produced

    Take that distant moment as where measurement of entropy begins

    Ummmm matter seems to be holding up so far and does not look like it is breaking down any time soon

    Life goes against entropy for a short time

    Super Novas produce more complex matter when a lot of its energy is lost as it explodes but complex matter appears

    Lets look at Universe expansion which is where I suspect there is a small chance of finding if a half life of entropy can be calculated

    First it appears expansion is accelerating

    I put this down to NOTHING being on the other side of the edge of the Universe to stop the expansion

    And/so the initial impetus from the big bang is still operating

    Gravity is supposed to be the saviour of the Universe by acting like a bungie cord and pulling the Universe back to the Big Crunch

    Problem is as I understand it, as the OVERALL density of the Universe decreases so does gravity strength

    As the bungie cord continues to be stretched individual threads break

    Hence the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe means some threads of the bungie cord have broken already and the Universe will expand forever

    To calculate the half life of entropy entails
    • having some idea of how much more complex matter will be produced
    • what size the Universe will reach before it does not have enough density to produce matter of any flavour
    Perhaps at that moment (not the previous moment I mentioned) entropy should be considered to be on the starting blocks

    From this point I would think entropy would accelerate until the last atom disintegrates

    Guess guess guess

    The Universe will take as long to disintegrate as it took to reach the moment when it ceased producing matter

    Hope someone puts it on video

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sorry didn't give you a definitive half life for entropy but hope my ramblings help you to find it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,826
    No.
     
  17. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Quite clearly your no answer is a bit short in explaining any affect if we changed our definition of a second , so you say it would have no affect on time dilation, I disagree.

    What if we were to define one second =1 cycle of the transitions of the Caesium atom?

    How does that affect the relativity of two observers in time dilation?
     
  18. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,826
    You need evidence to support your claim.
    No effect what so ever. Two observers in relative motion would both agree that time duration of one cycle is the same in their own reference frame. Each of the observers would say that the others cycles were slower.

    No problem with time dilation here.[shrug]
     
  19. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    I don't believe I need evidence to ask questions. You say there is no affect whatsoever and two observers would both agree that the time duration of one cycle is the same in their own reference frame. I would not disagree, 1 cycle would equal one tick any frame.
    Can you please tell me what degree of motion or what length of one cycle would be equal to ?

    The reason I ask is that I am following another poster on another site, I understand their argument but have not yet engaged in their discussion. They conclude if we defined 1 cycle=1 tick=1 second, we have a problem in that we have no length to contract to explain time dilation?
     
  20. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,826
    You don't. I was asking for evidence to support why you disagree with the accepted concept of time dilation.
    Good.
    Sure it is just arithmetic...
    In a vacuum light would travel 3.26 cm in one cycle of the caesium atom.
     
  21. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    The argument of the poster is where are we getting 3.26 cm from ?

    They explain our next chronological position on the timeline is fractionally zero away leaving no length to contract? That is why I asked my earlier question on the construction of time dilation .

    Without the length of 3.26cm I do not personally observe how we can have time dilation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
  22. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,826
    Which part of, "In a vacuum light would travel 3.26 cm in one cycle of the caesium atom", did you not understand?
    What is that supposed to mean?
    Are you saying that without spacial dimensions there would be no time dilation?
     
  23. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    I am sorry I presumed I was speaking to somebody who knew science. Your comment of what is that suppose to mean shows me your education level. I will try to explain some elementary basic science for you.

    Have you ever heard of the arrow of time? We have in science what we call the arrow of time, it is one of the four dimensions of Minkowski's space-time of XYZ and time and it is directional. These four dimensions make up our fundamental structure of space navigation.
    A chronological position is a marking of a point of position on the time-line. The next mark on the timeline is fractionally zero away for all observers according to the poster I have mentioned. I am not saying anything, at this moment I have no conclusion to the posters ideas although they do have merit .
    I am saying that seemingly with no length to contract there could be no time dilation explanation. i.e the construct of the time dilation measurement .
     

Share This Page