In my opinion, a "true" clock (call it whatever you want, but it is what matters in this situation, imo) shouldn't have such reference point. A true clock should not be affected by any speed including the speed of light. The speed of light is imo the source of all misunderstandings.
Do you mean "should" in the moral sense? Or do you mean "true" in the personal version of physics sense?Jay said:
The universe is as it is. Those who choose to ignore this, or simply wish things were different, will not get very far in understanding physics and will get nowhere at all in advancing physics.
There should be a different version. There is that version and there is this version. Each of them has to have their own use.
I'm not suggesting that it should be different. I'm suggesting that there are different possible ways to see things.
The universe is as it is. It doesn't say that nothing can "move" faster than the speed of light. Beware of the danger of setting limits.
I don't set limits, but the universe certainly sets limits. The speed of light may be such a limit. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that limits are just set by our understanding of physics: some of them may be, but many are properties of the universe, not properties of our current understanding of the universe.
There is a general issue which people from certain backgrounds never quite get: physics is not a social construct! Particles really do get heavier (i.e. more massive) and slower (internally) as they speed up; it is not a dastardly plot by male physicists to disenfranchise feminists. This is measurable, and has been measured. It is not in question by anyone who understands physics. People who don't get this sometimes imagine that they are 'beyond physics' when in reality they haven't even reached the lowest rungs of physics.
I still don't understand what you mean by "should". In this universe, all clocks are affected by speed. A philosopher may be able to imagine a clock which is unaffected by speed, but then he is not thinking about what is but what might have been but isn't. Of course, the philosopher may not realise that he is doing this as most philosphers don't know any physics.Jay said:
There is a general issue which people from certain backgrounds never quite get: physics is not a social construct! Particles really do get heavier (i.e. more massive) and slower (internally) as they speed up; it is not a dastardly plot by male physicists to disenfranchise feminists. This is measurable, and has been measured. It is not in question by anyone who understands physics. People who don't get this sometimes imagine that they are 'beyond physics' when in reality they haven't even reached the lowest rungs of physics.
Jay, what is a "true clock"? A "true clock" shouldn't have a reference that is grounded in the fundamentals of the universe? What are you talking about?
Also, did you miss that this was the theoretical part which was confirmed using different types of atomic clocks?
You seem to be confused by light. It's not about light, and c is not just the speed of light. It's about electromagnetic fields based on a fundamental force of nature and the propagation speed of electromagnetic radiation. Afaik Maxwell only suggested that light was an electromagnetic wave a few years after he had initially published his equations which predicted the speed of electromagnetic waves as constant c, which was then labeled the speed of light after his suggestion was confirmed.
But go ahead and change c. Then you also need to change other constants like vacuum permeability (see Maxwell's equations)... and all related models that extremely accurately describe nature will break down.
Also, did you miss that this was the theoretical part which was confirmed using different types of atomic clocks?
You seem to be confused by light. It's not about light, and c is not just the speed of light. It's about electromagnetic fields based on a fundamental force of nature and the propagation speed of electromagnetic radiation. Afaik Maxwell only suggested that light was an electromagnetic wave a few years after he had initially published his equations which predicted the speed of electromagnetic waves as constant c, which was then labeled the speed of light after his suggestion was confirmed.
But go ahead and change c. Then you also need to change other constants like vacuum permeability (see Maxwell's equations)... and all related models that extremely accurately describe nature will break down.
Last edited:
Well if c (better described as the maximum speed of causality) does not equal circa 300 x 10^6 m/s then all of our understanding of EM theory goes out the window. Along with it the universe as well. Maxwell's equations, along with Lorentz's transformations make it quite clear what the consequences of exceeding c are. It is not pretty.
These things were not arrived at lightly - they are as we find them and it has taken centuries of effort to get to where we are. If there is an alternative paradigm, everything we know will have to be rewritten. However, I doubt in the short term someone is going to depose Newton, Maxwell, Einstein or QM. In the meantime, we will inch forward until there is enough accumulated knowledge will allow some gifted scientist to put it all together in another major breakthrough.
(BTW Jay, if you go onto YouTube, there are many shows and university lectures on EM Theory, QM, QE, Gravity etc. Also, you can get the Feynman lectures on the web in text form that cover this stuff)
Last edited:
SY, that is a keeper!
I am a great fan of Asimov and his books.
I also devoured everything that Feynman published. A fantastic educator.
In trying to follow him on all things Quantum, i have concluded that I have neither the background in physics nor the intellect to understand it. So I cannot contribute to discussions in any meaningful way.
I think he did say at one time "If you think you understand QM, you do not understand QM!"
I am a great fan of Asimov and his books.
I also devoured everything that Feynman published. A fantastic educator.
In trying to follow him on all things Quantum, i have concluded that I have neither the background in physics nor the intellect to understand it. So I cannot contribute to discussions in any meaningful way.
I think he did say at one time "If you think you understand QM, you do not understand QM!"
I have more than a hundred of such videos in my hard drive. But yes, sometimes it is more effective to go directly to the "source", the reference of all speakers and writers, such as the book from Einstein posted by SY, to avoid unnecessary repetitions and wrong interpretations.
My job also related with Physics, so yes, I have several books on Physics and I have read about Gravity. But do you have an idea why I said gravity is a big mystery? (of course it is never mentioned explicitly in any book). Or do you think that nothing is strange with this phenomenon?
It is just a name suggested for the theoretically most accurate clock. It might have no useful use at the moment, but it is important to mention to remind us what has been assumed or what limitation exista in the current clock.
Of course I didn't miss that (Do you miss anything?
)It is exactly about light. This is how Relativity theory has been built. Without it, there is no Relativity theory.
And what's wrong if it breaks down? They are just models.
You still haven't defined your view of a clock very well. Space and time are linked, which is why its called 'spacetime'. time is affected by gravity. It's like saying that, with accurate scales something will weigh less at the top of a skyscraper than at ground level. That doesn't mean the scales are wrong.
Well if reality breaks down at least your PC will stop working and you wont be able to post here anymore!
So you understand the gravity phenomenon well. To explain to you why it is a mystery to me I think I'm required to present it in some kind of mathematical inequality formula. It's a hard work for me so I'll take it as a home work I guess
Yes, I know. I need much more energy to explain than to read/understand. I even skipped the last or most advanced Mathematics subject in uni because I was given A even before the class/semester started.
It's not reality, it's a model. Understanding and even defining assumptions is critical/important in Physics, to keep track the correct correlation between model and reality/universe.
And why did you use "may be" instead of "is"?
And why the clocks are affected by speed? Is that human limitation? You see, I think there are a lot of philosophical contents in QM.
Or the opposite.
Because it is very easy to get lost in Mathematical equations without knowing how it relates with reality.
You know SY, it is unfortunate that religion discussion is prohibited in this site. Probably because it is a sensitive subject for some people. But for us, or those who have scientific minds (whatever that means) I believe it is an important topic related with science and Physics. (Please let me know if there is still forums to discuss about it at high level)
What is science if it cannot explain the universe, including gods, angels, heaven, death, soul, etc.
Asking what God is, is human nature. At least, humans have been known to be interested and critical enough when related to powerful objects. So it is a bit strange why human have thought for so long that the earth was flat. Weren't they critical enough? Or my be, like usual, those who got exposed in newspapers or got the patent or names written in books, were nothing but the most wealthy and powerful?
In order to understand what God is etc, I have learned for so many years, reading many old books, reading many versions of bibles (and many existing religions), and learned other people's language so I could read and understand better.
My motivation and interest in QM is nothing too different from that. To understand the universe.
SY, if you were very well versed in science and QM, what are you, an atheist, or a spiritualist? That's a rhetorical question (Hopefully not in the restricted area) to explain a motive.
No it is not. It is your name for a nonexistent clock - one which we can imagine but never build.Jay said:
Two reasons:
1. experience teaches me that people on here are very good at finding exceptions to definitive statements;
2. I have no reason to suppose that light is not a limiting speed but I do not totally rule out the possibility that at some time in the future some phenomenon will be found which breaks this apparent limit.
A clock built and measured by LGM would suffer the same time dilation as a clock built and measured by a human. So no, clocks being affected by speed is not a human limitation but a feature of how the universe works. There is a lot of philosophical content in human attempts to understand QM, but none in the calculations - it is the calculations (in QM and relativity) which predict counter-intuitive results which turn out to be true.
Those who can't or won't do the maths will never even begin to know about physical reality. The mathematically challenged may not like it, but we seem to live in a universe whose deep workings are mathematical. You can do the maths withut thinking about reality (I have met physicists who work like that), but you can't think about reality without doing the maths.
You need horses for courses. Studying French social history at even the highest level will not lead to an understanding of Maxwell's equations. Similarly, no amount of study or philosophising about the physical universe (while assuming that that is all there is) will lead to understanding about other matters.
So a "true clock" is some fantasy of yours that is not grounded in reality? Got it.
Let me re-label it: "useless fantasy ticking device".
I see you did not understand what I said. Go back, read again slowly.
What led to the development of special relativity is the inconsistency of Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism and the failed experiments for detecting a luminiferous aether. Special relativity corrects mechanics to handle situations with relative speeds near c (the speed at which all massless particles and changes of the associated fields travel in vacuum).
I see you also did not read the link SY posted, or again just failed to understand.
You really should not start with a basic physics education, but an introduction to science course.
Also, do you not realize that WORKING technology has been developed based on these models?
With your fantasy clock you may have fantasy models that lead to fantasy technology, but the rest of us prefer something more tangible... such as reality.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.