Einstein view of time

[Mike_Fontenot]

This is from the Opening Post/TOPIC of thread.

When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before and after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.

It's those numbers, but in addition it's the elapsed reading on the individual's watch (and calendar) between each of those numbers. That combined information is stored in our memories.

On a science level I do not think we could reverse time [...]

The traveler (he) in the twin "paradox" DOES reverse time for the home twin (her), according to HIM, when he accelerates in the direction AWAY from her (provided they are not co-located then). I.e., According to HIM, she gets rapidly YOUNGER when he accelerates in the direction away from her. (And the amount of that age change also depends linearly on the distance between the twins.) But that does NOT mean that ANY events in the past are altered in any way. The idea, that she could suddenly get younger, according to him, when he accelerates in the direction away from her, is abhorrent and even horrifying to many physicists (both amateur and professional). But her getting younger is mandated by the Minkowski diagram (which is itself mandated by the Lorentz equations). And my conclusion is shared by at least one professional physicist (and I suspect MORE than one): Brian Greene (well-known proponent of string theory) wrote a popular book called "The Fabric of the Cosmos", and PBS asked him a few years ago to do a NOVA TV show on that material. In that program (and in the book), he gives an example of an extremely distant intelligent alien who is riding back-and-forth on his bicycle. Every time he reverses direction, the current time on earth varies by about 400 years, forward and backward depending upon the direction of his velocity reversal. (The reason that such relativity effects can be produced even by non-relativistic speeds is that the distance is so enormous). Here is a 10-minute YouTube clip of that NOVA show, giving that example. I recommend immediately scanning forward to the 6:00 minute point, where the alien example starts. (It may also be necessary now to click "skip commercial" to get to the NOVA clip):

 

[origin]

According to HIM, she gets rapidly YOUNGER when he accelerates in the direction away from her. (And the amount of that age change also depends linearly on the distance between the twins.) But

Absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.
I suppose if he goes fast enough for long enough she will jump back into the womb?

 

[Michael 345]

Time = memory

plus the rest = moi lost for words

As for my view about TIME being non existent no-one has ponyed up a PROPERTY of time

Not said where I could purchase time detection equipment

NOW exist that's it

Currently thinking more about gravity

Given up about consciousness (for the moment) the book, to me, to jumbled

 

[Michael 345]

Absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.
I suppose if he goes fast enough for long enough she will jump back into the womb?

This is a cut and paste from my collection of replies I gave to various posts I follow here and there

For the purposes of the twin paradox the traveler knows the arbitrary labelled moment when the home twin was born

It is exactly the same arbitrary labelled moment when the traveler was born because are twins

So at any later time in life if the traveler knows the current AGE of the home twin the current arbitrary labelled moment on twins wristwatch is known

So in that case twins AGE is EXACTLY equivalent to the arbitrary labelled moment at current location

Not sure can be followed without the question. Will try to improve

But as I recall the traveler AGES slower ( as does everyone) and at near light speed the difference is noticeable

Someone calculated a space station astronaut had aged less by 0.0004 seconds, from calculation not observation

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]
I suppose if he goes fast enough for long enough she will jump back into the womb?

Yes, and even farther back in her lineage. But as I said, no EVENTS that occurred at each instant of her life (and before she was born) EVER change. The content of her memory never changes (except to get added to, as she ages, of course), and none of her memories are ever erased or changed (unless she forgets some memories, like we all do), until her death. In the alien example in the NOVA program that I referenced, time on earth (according to the alien) swings back and forth over 4 centuries for each cycle of the alien's motion. But none of the EVENTS that occurred on earth at all those instants ever change. Watch the YouTube clip!

 

[Bob-a-builder]

It's those numbers, but in addition it's the elapsed reading on the individual's watch (and calendar) between each of those numbers. That combined information is stored in our memories.



The traveler (he) in the twin "paradox" DOES reverse time for the home twin (her), according to HIM, when he accelerates in the direction AWAY from her (provided they are not co-located then). I.e., According to HIM, she gets rapidly YOUNGER when he accelerates in the direction away from her. (And the amount of that age change also depends linearly on the distance between the twins.) But that does NOT mean that ANY events in the past are altered in any way. The idea, that she could suddenly get younger, according to him, when he accelerates in the direction away from her, is abhorrent and even horrifying to many physicists (both amateur and professional). But her getting younger is mandated by the Minkowski diagram (which is itself mandated by the Lorentz equations). And my conclusion is shared by at least one professional physicist (and I suspect MORE than one): Brian Greene (well-known proponent of string theory) wrote a popular book called "The Fabric of the Cosmos", and PBS asked him a few years ago to do a NOVA TV show on that material. In that program (and in the book), he gives an example of an extremely distant intelligent alien who is riding back-and-forth on his bicycle. Every time he reverses direction, the current time on earth varies by about 400 years, forward and backward depending upon the direction of his velocity reversal. (The reason that such relativity effects can be produced even by non-relativistic speeds is that the distance is so enormous). Here is a 10-minute YouTube clip of that NOVA show, giving that example. I recommend immediately scanning forward to the 6:00 minute point, where the alien example starts. (It may also be necessary now to click "skip commercial" to get to the NOVA clip):

You said,
The traveler (he) in the twin "paradox" DOES reverse time for the home twin (her), according to HIM, when he accelerates in the direction AWAY from her (provided they are not co-located then). I.e., According to HIM, she gets rapidly YOUNGER


I understand what you are trying to say here but if you could seal yourself off in a timeless bubble (as opposed to velocity) and the earth aged around you.

You suggest the people outside the bubble would view him as getting younger.

Your quote,
I.e., According to HIM, she gets rapidly YOUNGER when he accelerates in the direction away from her.


That is the flaw in this thinking. They may see him as he WAS. They would never view him as a Teenager, child, toddler. They would not see him "YOUNGER"

Origin said it correctly when he/she said,
"
Absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.
I suppose if he goes fast enough for long enough she will jump back into the womb?

We can view time slow down from our perspective and they can see time speed up from their perspectives.. but it is not going backwards in time.

It's a weird topic and wouldn't worry too much upon how it works unless youre trying to make yourself crazy.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Some people seem to be virtually incapable of understanding relativity, no matter how intelligent they might happen to be. It is almost like a genetic predisposition toward misunderstanding this one matter, regardless of how well it might be explained to them, and no matter how much time they put into it. I have had years-long conversations (online) with otherwise very smart people who persistently misunderstood it -- literally for years on end. I would say Tesla probably falls into this category, unfortunately.

Consider Herbert Dingle, an ostensibly bright man, and philosopher of science. He spent essentially his whole life profoundly misunderstanding relativity. In the early years when he approved of it, he was explaining incorrectly. Then later, he got to the point where he was trying to tell the rest of the scientific community that everyone else had misunderstood its implications, and tried to foist his own explanation instead. After many scientists finally got him to realise that he was the one who had misunderstood, he started campaigning against relativity, claiming it leads to paradoxes, and was logically inconsistent, based on further misunderstandings.

Here is a link which covers his many fallacious arguments in great detail, for anyone who is interested:

https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath317/kmath317.htm

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

Some people seem to be virtually incapable of understanding relativity, no matter how intelligent they might happen to be. It is almost like a genetic predisposition toward misunderstanding this one matter, regardless of how well it might be explained to them, and no matter how much time they put into it. I have had years-long conversations (online) with otherwise very smart people who persistently misunderstood it -- literally for years on end. I would say Tesla probably falls into this category, unfortunately.

Consider Herbert Dingle, an otherwise bright man, and philosopher of science. He spent essentially his whole life profoundly misunderstanding relativity. In the early years when he approved of it, he was explaining incorrectly. Then later, he got to the point where he was trying to tell the rest of the scientific community that everyone else had misunderstood its implications, and tried to foist his own explanation instead. After many scientists finally got him to realise that he was the one who had misunderstood, he started campaigning against relativity, claiming it leads to paradoxes, and was logically inconsistent, based on further misunderstandings.

Here is a link which covers his many fallacious arguments in great detail, for anyone who is interested:

https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath317/kmath317.htm

Good to see you posting again, Neddy!

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

I understand what you are trying to say here but if you could seal yourself off in a timeless bubble (as opposed to velocity) and the earth aged around you.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't know what a "timeless bubble" is.

 

[Bob-a-builder]

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't know what a "timeless bubble" is.

Then we're even because what you state makes no sense whatsoever.

I WAS DUMBING IT DOWN FOR YOU!

I meant if you were inside a bubble that could be viewed by people instead of moving away from you at high velocity. Obviously a person on a space flight might not be able to observe their "older" twin or they could not see their "younger" twin as you seem to think would occur.

Your argument is deeply flawed and since you are getting obtuse I will say flat out stupid.

I will say it again translated into terms your brain can grasp then (even then I doubt it).

------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand what you are trying to say here but if you RETURNED TO EARTH and the earth HAD aged around you.

You suggest the people ON EARTH would view him as younger.

Your quote,
I.e., According to HIM, she gets rapidly YOUNGER when he accelerates in the direction away from her. (How would they see one another was my point in using a transparent bubble for argument sake.. but your mind cannot grasp analogy apparently).


That is the flaw in this thinking. They may see him as he WAS. They would never view him as a Teenager, child, toddler. They would not see him "YOUNGER"
Origin said it correctly when he/she said,
"
Absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.
I suppose if he goes fast enough for long enough she will jump back into the womb?

We can view time slow down from our perspective and they can see time speed up from their perspectives.. but it is not going backwards in time.

If that is not dumbed down enough you are on your own. I was polite in my last post but you seem to be a little thicker than I expected. Not overly surprised as most here do not admit if they are wrong, but still surprising you are challenging this and embarrassing yourself further.

TIME CAN NEVER REVERSE. We can move forward in time and when we return the people we knew would be older and have aged faster than we did, but that would not make us younger. Both groups of people would age forward but the traveled group would appear younger due to time dilation.

In neither case would anyone anywhere on any planet or any universe actually get 1 second younger.

The traveled group would see time appear to slow down but they would never see it reverse.

I'm sorry I even attempted to clue you in politely. I will change my answer to

Absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.
I suppose if he goes fast enough for long enough she will jump back into the womb?

As Origin stated.

 

[paddoboy]

Then we're even because what you state makes no sense whatsoever.
I WAS DUMBING IT DOWN FOR YOU!
.

I also had a hard time understanding what you said...Here let me try.
If Mike and I were twins, and I being the more intrepid, headed off into space at 99.999% c for 6 months, then turned around and started back at the same speed, according to my on board clocks I will have aged 1 year...12 months have pased according to my mechanical clocks on board, and my own biological clocks. But because of time dilation I will arrive back on Earth around 230 years in the future, with Mike long dead and buried. So literally I am travelling into the future, at least a future Earth.

Backwards time travel is another kettle of fish, and firstly I would need to exceed "c" to do that, which we know is prohibited and impossible, although not disallowed by GR.

Here is an even better explanation as to what happens, and what can happen.
https://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed by Kip Thorne.....
In brief: The laws of physics allow members of an exceedingly advanced civilisation to travel forward in time as fast as they might wish. Backward time travel is another matter; we do not know whether it is allowed by the laws of physics, and the answer is likely controlled by a set of physical laws that we do not yet understand at all well: the laws of quantum gravity. In order for humans to travel forward in time very rapidly, or backward (if allowed at all), we would need technology far far beyond anything we are capable of today.

Travelling forward in time rapidly
Albert Einstein's relativistic laws of physics tell us that time is "personal". If you and I move differently or are at different locations in a gravitational field, then the rate of flow of time that you experience (the rate that governs the ticking of any very good clock you carry with you and that governs the aging of your body) is different from the rate of time flow that I experience. (Einstein used the phrase "time is relative"; I prefer "time is personal".)
more at link.....

Not overly surprised as most here do not admit if they are wrong, .

Mostly, particularly here, that is because some are burdened with nonsensical religious baggage and are unable to see the woods for the trees.

 

[paddoboy]

Here Mike is a chart of how time dilation affects are seen......

The point to note is that each person in there own frame of reference, always ages at one second per second, period. It is only when viewing another frame outside of yours that time dilation effects are noticed.

 

[Michael 345]

always ages at one second per second, period.

And where are these seconds found?

Hint -- they don't exist

AGE is not TIME

Still waiting on a PROPERTY of TIME

ie
Visual - none
Audio - none
Frequency - none
Mass - none
Position on the periodic table - none
Position in the electromagnetic spectrum - none
Detectability - none
All those properties I have missed
none of those either

Any property of any existing stuff

Better would be a time detection piece of equipment

I understand time dilation and the slowing down of aging

Here is something to chew on - with a very tall buildings

The top travels faster than the basement

Why does the top not slip into past while the basement moves into a future?

Hint --- na work it out

 

[origin]

Yes, and even farther back in her lineage. But as I said, no EVENTS that occurred at each instant of her life (and before she was born) EVER change. The content of her memory never changes (except to get added to, as she ages, of course), and none of her memories are ever erased or changed (unless she forgets some memories, like we all do), until her death. In the alien example in the NOVA program that I referenced, time on earth (according to the alien) swings back and forth over 4 centuries for each cycle of the alien's motion. But none of the EVENTS that occurred on earth at all those instants ever change. Watch the YouTube clip!

You are of course wrong. Reported to get this absurd carp out of the science section.

 

[Neddy Bate]

This should be good. *popcorn*

 

[James R]

phyti:

[The purpose of a clock is to supply standard events that correlate (are simultaneous) to an event of interest. Typically for forming historical records. The units of measure, or event intervals are whatever is convenient. It's in this sense that a clock meters the time independently of any other process or any specific purpose. It continuously accumulates cycles. The observer makes measurements using the values indicated on the clock. A ruler has uniform spatial intervals, and does not measure anything. The observer can use it for measurement.]

I agree.

[Even though the second is defined in terms of atomic frequencies, it still has to equal 1/86400 of a day, which equals 1 earth rotation, so time is motion.

No, that doesn't follow. It is true that the second was originally defined with reference to the Earth's rotational period. The reason we don't use that any more is that the length of a day actually varies, relative to atomic clocks. Therefore, the atomic standard, being more "regular" is a better definition of the second.

[Physical processes are in place throughout the universe. Tomorrow keeps happening because the earth continues to rotate, and the laws of motion are consistent, which allows for prediction of events like eclipses, comets, and weather.]

Tomorrow would keep happening even if the Earth's rotational rate changed. In fact, the length of the day now is much longer than it was even as recently as the time when the dinosaurs lived. The slowing of the Earth's rotation (and it is still slowing, daily) doesn't stop tomorrow from happening. Time marches on, regardless.

[If a common clock is regulated to run faster, does it measure more 'time'?]

It measures more "ticks" per second, where the second is defined using all those atomic clocks that are not regulated to run fast. Speeding up the tick rate of a clock (in ticks per second) affects the "ticks" part, but it doesn't seem to have much impact on the "seconds" part.

[Consider this example.
A is the rest frame with B, and C passing at the origin, moving in +x direction.
B moves at .4c relative to A.
C moves at .8c relative to A.
A sends a light signal to an object at x=1 unit at t=0, which reflects back to A.
All clocks read 0 at the origin.
Applying the coordinate transformations for the reflection event:
For A (x, t) = (1, 1)
For B (x, t) = (.65, .65)
For C (x, t) = (.33, .33)
The times for the same event are different for each observer. so the clocks can't be measuring a common independent 'time'. In SR, perception of time is altered by motion.]

I agree.

[Past, present, and future is only relative to an observer. While 'now', an observer analyzes images of events that have occurred. His awareness is that of historical events, to different degrees, depending on distance. Since images are transferred at light speed, there is no significant delay for 'local' events. An event occurs once but can be perceived multiple times. An event has emitted images that were detected by observer-1 between you and the event. The event was in his 'now', but not yet in your 'now'. The 'future' is unknown and does not magically transform to 'now'.]

When you're talking about images being transferred from one place to another, bear in mind that you're no longer talking about one event, but two: a "transmission" event and a "detection" event.

"Now" is a somewhat different concept. I defined it earlier as a particular set of all events that occur simultaneously anywhere in space, in the reference frame of the observer.

 

[James R]

Bob-a-builder:

Time is "memory".

No. Tim1e can be defined independent of the operation of a particular1 organism's brain. Memory is biology. Time is physics.

If you had no memory you could not notice time.

Sure, but that doesn't mean there is no time if there is no memory.

"Einstein is an idiot" - Nikola Tesla

Is that a real quote, or did you make it up?

Einsteins claims to fame are not "stupendous".

Are you qualified to judge that? Are you, for example, an expert in general relativity? And how much do you know about the foundations of quantum physics?

Measuring stars during an eclipse to see if light bends in gravity and noticing speed requires two points to measure.

And so...?

If relativity doesn't work just invent a "special relativity".

Do you know why it is called "special relativity"? Hint: it's not because relativity doesn't "work".

I prefer the Nikola Tesla views on gravity and spacetime and it seems Einstein would probably fail at grade 10 math.

How does your tensor calculus ability compare with Einstein's? Just so we know you're qualified to judge, once again.

Regarding Tesla, which views on gravity and spacetime are you referring to, specifically?

Anyways. I am not suggesting Einstein was an Idiot.

Oh, good. Because for a moment there, that's what it sounded like. And suggesting that the guy who came up with general relativity was an idiot would risk making you look like ... well ... a bit of an idiot. Don't you think?

Maybe Einstein will be proven right on all counts..

At this stage, his theories have a 100+ year track record of being proven right on all counts, so things are looking up for Einstein, I'd say. It's not as if there haven't been thousands of people trying (unsuccessfully) to prove Einstein wrong, over the years.

It just seems unlikely as Tesla seemed actually clever.

This assessment is just based on your gut feeling, or some actual knowledge?

 

[paddoboy]

"No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation".
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

Obviously there is a contradiction in that answer...see the highlighted bit, thus..."can and do not "

I did E-Mail Sten Odenwald about that contradiction, and he e-mailed back to me with an aopolgy and said it was a typographical error...it should be just "do not" without the "can and" No, I cant post the E-Mail as it was a couple of years ago and has been lost in cyber space.

 

[Write4U]

Obviously there is a contradiction in that answer...see the highlighted bit, thus..."can and do not "

IMO, it should have read "cannot and do not". A case of lazy storytelling.

 

[paddoboy]

IMO, it should have read "cannot and do not". A case of lazy storytelling.

Yep that would also have sufficed.