Can time be measured by a pendulum clock? Yes, we did it for centuries, but two little details: zero ticks on all inertial frames, and runs faster increasing gravity. It doesn’t checks out.
Due to limitations like this, the standard definition “Time is what a clock reads” needs another assumption to have physical validity, but is just my opinion.
On the other hand, the equation
Δ t = γ Δ t’
As all we know is a result of special relativity, which in turn is a consistent theory from the beginning, do you really think that it could mean anything or nothing?
I prefer to think that time exists regardless of clocks, but is just my opinion.
By the way, in your example, to make that connection with reality you put real clocks in two inertial frames, is this really possible? Please tell us how!
Current SOTA atomic clocks can verify time dilation with a simple ride up and down a 100 floor elevator. You can do it all day long and get the same answer, now for the anecdotal definition of insanity. 🙂
^ Think the bar is even higher now, Scott. 🙂
JILA strontium atomic clock sets new records in both precision and stability | News Center
JILA strontium atomic clock sets new records in both precision and stability | News Center
popilin, we can measure time with all kinds of clocks, from atomic clocks over biological clocks to radioactive decay of isotopes with a half life of many billions of years...
I do not get your objection. There are no extra special assumptions. I thought it was self-explanatory that the clock needs to be accurate enough (that also excludes clocks that are broken or don't work in some environment) for whatever experiment you intend to do.
Or do you use a truck scale to measure your body weight? Common sense, right?
And I know that the equation is a result of special relativity. You are making my point.
I'm getting tired of these let's-play-dumb games.
I do not get your objection. There are no extra special assumptions. I thought it was self-explanatory that the clock needs to be accurate enough (that also excludes clocks that are broken or don't work in some environment) for whatever experiment you intend to do.
Or do you use a truck scale to measure your body weight? Common sense, right?
And I know that the equation is a result of special relativity. You are making my point.
This is either going towards philosophy, which you accused me of earlier, or you have a really weird literal understanding of "reading time on a clock".
I'm getting tired of these let's-play-dumb games.
It is difficult to answer a question helpfully, when the person asking the question does not understand his own question sufficiently well for him to understand any sensible answer; a separate issue is whether the answer is correct or not. In some cases, if you could understand the answer you would not need to ask the question. Reality can be like that sometimes.
Jay said:
It's kinda pathetic watching someone try to take credit for inventing proper scientific skepticism.
Of course Einstein was wrong at some points. He no doubt at least suspected it at the time.
Jay said:
Agreed.
And somewhere, someone is thinkng that he needs a clock this good in his USB DAC.
I understand that, and yes, wormholes are theoretical mathematical solutions, but these range from unstable to requiring exotic matter or extreme amounts of energy, etc.
What you are suggesting is that e.g. pointing a laser at a nonlinear crystal will result in the (magical?) creation of many stable wormholes that travel with the entangled photons so that one of them can send some sort of order back through a shortcut to the other photon, which would then follow that order.
Magical because I can see many problems with this: afaik there is no known natural process that would form wormholes, the energy source or exotic matter required, there should be a (detectable?) curvature of spacetime, these photons are supposedly near a wormhole but don't appear to behave any differently than ordinary photons ...
I think it's much simpler than that.
Take photons entangled in polarization, random but perpendicular polarization. If the first entangled photon goes through a horizontal filter then the second entangled one has to be vertical, otherwise angular momentum would be violated.
It just cannot be any other way given conservation.
Still, one might ask: "why is that the case?" Well, just try to imagine a world where this is not the case.
Last edited:
You cannot hide your misconceptions with personal attacks.
Before try to give a physics lesson, you should know that put a real clock in an inertial reference frame is physically impossible in special relativity.
This is strange from you, our discussions always were frontals.
Now you seem like someone who throws tomatoes to the orchestra because he doesn’t like the first violin.
If you have something with physical content to provide or criticize, express it properly, this kind of gossips is tasteless.
A “true clock” defined as the theoretically most accurate clock should be an ideal perfect clock, the one that can be placed in an inertial reference frame of special relativity, the clock used by theoretical physicists when they say e.g.
“Suppose a clock is moving in uniform rectilinear motion relative to an inertial
frame K. A reference frame K' linked to this clock is also inertial. Then from the
point of view of an observer in the frame K the clock in the frame K' falls behind.
And conversely, from the point of view of the frame K', a clock in K lags.”
[Mechanics and Electrodynamics - L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz]
Let me re-label it: “very useful fantasy ticking device”
And the best part: it's free!!! 😛😀
Wow, two straw men in a row! You're on a roll!
The first I don't even need to comment on because you're just putting words in my mouth.
The second one shows that you shouldn't chime in on discussions you didn't follow.
Jay's fantasy clock as described by himself:
If you have no clue what he meant then you should go back and read what he wrote instead of making wrong assumptions or throwing around irrelevant definitions to the point he was making...
As for my playing dumb comment, I was in no way trying to insult you, quite the opposite, but since you take it as an attack ... I have to change my mind about you.
This is boring...
The first I don't even need to comment on because you're just putting words in my mouth.
The second one shows that you shouldn't chime in on discussions you didn't follow.
Jay's fantasy clock as described by himself:
If you have no clue what he meant then you should go back and read what he wrote instead of making wrong assumptions or throwing around irrelevant definitions to the point he was making...
As for my playing dumb comment, I was in no way trying to insult you, quite the opposite, but since you take it as an attack ... I have to change my mind about you.
This is boring...
Last edited:
You are all dancing around the issue.
The photons are not 'entangled'
They are still together
Consider time dilation of the photons
At a distance of 1KM apart time=0 because they travel at C
At a distance of 1000Km apart time =0 because they travel at C
At a distance of 100parsecs apart time=0 because they travel at C
And so on.
Think of a photon from a distant star
The photon striking your eye is also touching that star
Because time of travel = 0 for that photon
Seems related to the twins paradox, but that conclusion exactly as stated makes no sense. Photon travels at c away from star from the star's viewpoint.
I found this interesting...
http://home.earthlink.net/~owl232/twinparadox.pdf
There is no photon reference frame (rest reference frame), you cannot put a clock on a photon.
You can use a speed arbitrarily close to c though.
But the thing is that we can entangle particles that travel much slower than c...
In fact there is an experiment where entangled electrons were held in "traps" over 1km apart.
edit: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949
But the thing is that we can entangle particles that travel much slower than c...
In fact there is an experiment where entangled electrons were held in "traps" over 1km apart.
edit: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05949
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.