Wondering about clock transport

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by timewarp, Oct 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. timewarp Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    Why was clock transport "invented"? What is its general purpose?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    To prevent clocks from being damaged during a move.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    The intent of your question is not clear. What exactly are you asking? What do you mean by clock transport. What is the context?

    Are you referring to clock transport as used in the synchronization of clocks or some other situation?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Because not only the manufacturers to have watches.
    But how does this with math or physics?
     
  8. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    Is this a relativity question?
     
  9. timewarp Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    I am not trying to be contentious here, but just trying to defend myself:
    This _is_ a physics forum, and if one Googles "'clock transport'" physics,"
    then one gets almost nothing but "slow clock transport," "simultaneity."
    "synchronization," etc. see tinyurl.com / 3rw9o2e

    Anyway, I shall be more than happy to expand re my query.

    I gather that clock transport is better if done slowly. Indeed, very slow
    transport seems to be the ideal. But this slowness is apparently not the
    overall goal, which itself seems to have something to do with clock
    synchronization. (The slowness seems to be used only for attenuating
    certain "relativistic effects.")

    Maybe we can get a clue about the overall purpose by looking at the first
    step, or the initial conditions. In every clock transport scenario, two adjacent
    clocks are made to read the same time prior to one or both of them being
    transported.

    From this clue, we can possibly conclude that the purpose of very slow clock
    transport is to preserve the initial true (or absolute) synchronization.

    Do you (and the other forum folks) agree?
     
  10. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    If you assume the truth of SR, then slow clock transport is supposed to maintain the sync time of two clocks of a particular frame, not absolute time.

    So, this is not about about absolute synchronization under the rules of SR.
     
  11. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    That is an accurate description of the intent of "slow clock transport" in connection with the synchronization of clocks.

    Special Relativity, by way of the Lorentz Transformations, says that a moving clock runs slower than a stationary clock. The rate of difference is proportional to the difference in velocity between the two clocks. So synchronizing the clocks and then moving one very slowly preserves the synchronization, as best as possible.
     
  12. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Chinglu, there is no such thing as absolute time! Bringing up that discussion in this context, is not appropriate.
     
  13. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637


    The poster wrote
    transport is to preserve the initial true (or absolute) synchronization.

    Absolute synchronization involves absolute time. Otherwise, prove your case.
     
  14. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    This is science fraud.

    I said, "If you assume the truth of SR, then slow clock transport is supposed to maintain the sync time of two clocks of a particular frame, not absolute time.".

    As we can see, that is what i said.

    Since you are wrong, I expect you to admit it.
     
  15. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    Mod note: chinglu has been banned for 3 days for trolling
     
  16. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Well the purpose sounds right to me.
     
  17. timewarp Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    (To all: Thanks for the replies.)

    Just to make sure that we are all on the same page:
    Please note that even in relativity all observers agree that two touching
    clocks are absolutely synchronized. Of course, as clock transport tells us,
    such clocks are useless for event observation because they are no better
    than one clock; however, it turns out that said clocks do have a purpose,
    one that may not bode well for the future of special relativity: They give
    us a simple rule pertaining to touching clocks.

    To see what this rule is, let's look at a down-home example:
    Suppose you had two clocks sitting side-by-side on your dining room table.
    _______________[3pm][7am]_________________
    ...............................the clocks
    Suppose one clock reads three pm, whereas the other reads seven am.
    Clearly, this is much worse than the initial stage of clock transport. In fact,
    anyone seeing your two adjacent clocks would immediately say that at
    least one of them must be wrong.

    Apparently, both the just-given example and clock transport lead to the
    following very simple rule: In order to be properly related temporally,
    two touching clocks should always read the same time.

    Let's try to put this simple rule into action. Suppose a passing light ray
    meets (or "hits") two touching clocks; the rule says that these clocks
    must then read the same time. Note that this example even emphasizes
    the rule by bringing up the fact that a light ray can start two touching
    clocks truly simultaneously. (Of course, this does not by any means
    give us absolute simultaneity because this calls for two non-touching
    clocks that are truly synchronous.)

    Does the given rule seem reasonable?
     
  18. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I am not entirely sure what you are doing here!

    You begin with two clocks side by side that are not synchronized. For your example to have any meaning at all. The clocks must be synchronized at some point, usually initially.

    In most of the hypotheticals I have seen involving a ray of light to synchronize two clocks it is not the ray of light that does the work. The light only provides the marker in time that two observers use to set their clocks to the same time.

    BTW Welcome to SciForums...
     
  19. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    It's awully ironic that chinglu has been banned for being correct for once.
    Starting from post 6:

    timewarp suggests that slow transport preserves absolute synchronization:
    chinglu corrects timewarp:
    OnlyMe misunderstands chinglu:
    chinglu points out that timewarp brought up absolute time:
    ...and defends himself against OnlyMe's misrepresentation:
    Then prometheus bans chinglu? :bugeye:
    Your timing sucks, prometheus. Most of chinglu's posts are blatant trolling, but not this time. Why on earth did you ban him when he's actually making sense?
     
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    No. As chinglu said, there is no absolute synchronization in SR.
    Slow transport preserves relative synchronization.

    If the two clocks are initially moving, slow separation of the clocks results in desynchronization.
     
  21. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Pete, I don't think I misunderstood timewarp, I may be wrong, but,

    in the above quote I took the use of absolute to be associated with the synchronization of the clocks not their frame of reference, or as denoting any absolute frame of reference for time.

    When Chinglu rephrased it it sounded to me as if he shifted the use of the word absolute from the synchronization to a comparrison of relative time and absolute time, as separate frames of reference.

    I could have been wrong in how I read the intended meaning in either post, even both posts.

    Still, I would not have taken offense personally, either way and had my interpretation been wrong I would have accepted correction.

    I think the time out was perhaps a bit hasty myself, also. And perhaps the way I responded to what I thought Chinglu meant, was itself worded badly.
     
  22. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    There are two clocks, clock 1 and clock 2.
    The two clocks have a relative speed between them.
    Question1: at which clock is applied the Lorentz transformation so the two clocks to be synchronous?
    Question 2: Lorentz transformation is applied only on the speed direction?
     
  23. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    this question makes no sense.

    this question doesn't make any sense either.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page