A former member
Post #: 13
Apparently it was Carol Allie of the University of Maryland who in 1975 put one of a pair synchronised atomic clocks on an aeroplane.
I’m sure it would ‘seem to the traveller that he was fully conscious,’ if we assume consciousness to be a body function. Unless Carol Allie’s clocks were faulty, it is simply not true that there is ‘no change in rate of body function.’ I appreciate that no one has ‘a special position of stationarity within the cosmos,’ but for all that his perception of events is relative, symmetrical even, the traveler is moving faster.
If the big bang theory describes an actual event that involved a singularity, then I think it must be a field. As I mentioned, I suspect that matter is just knots and eddies.The peculiarities of quantum mechanics I put down to the implication that knots and eddies can be undone creating pressure; this can then manifest as a particle anywhere in the field for reasons so chaotic that mathematics is powerless to predict where or when with any certainty.
As for your hostility towards philosophy, it is unfortunate that so much nonsense is said in it’s name. All philosophy is though is the hope that the world can be understood in a natural language, if you like, that mathematics can be translated. If not, we are all wasting our time with words.
A former member
Post #: 32
Just because I disagree with some of what you say does not make me hostile towards philosophy, does it? Read my opening comment in this thread. Einstein was a philosopher - big time. He worked out the mechanisms of the cosmos in his head and on paper without doing any real experiments or quoting other scientific papers. Respect!

Sorry if I talk too much or sound arrogant in disagreeing with some of your points. I am merely conveying what is already well known. We could have a lot more disagreement about interpreting quantum theory, which is the topic of this group, but relativity theory is old hat. It is understandable that most people do not understand relativity properly because its findings are outside our intuitive realm. I can only repeat that your intuition leads you astray when you say above that the 'traveler is moving faster'. You need to get that right. By all means let's try in our humble ways to follow Einstein and do some thought experiments about the quantum world. But please let's use corrrect physics.
A former member
Post #: 14
Of the two clocks, one has experienced greater time dilation, it has demonstrably moved faster.
A former member
Post #: 33
Wrong!!

Time dilation is the effect of two observers, whether atoms or clocks, moving in uniform motion relative to one another. One might be deemed to be stationary on Earth, the other zooming away in a plane. The observer on the ground sees the receding clock on the plane and is amazed to see it running slow, just as Einstein predicted. The observer on the plane looks at the clock on the ground and is amazed to see it running.......slow, just as Einstein predicted. As I mentioned , laboratory clocks are now so accurate that these very slight effects can be seen in the lab at ordinary human speeds of motion. So although counter-intuitive it is true: the situation between the two clocks and observers is totally symmetric, all else being equal. That is why I could not resist commenting on your valiant thought experiment with two atoms.

Now in reality the situation with a clock on the plane is more complicated. It is connected with the famous twins paradox, which probably still puzzles a lot of people. How is it, if the situation is symmetric for both clocks, that when the plane comes back one of them has experienced less time than the other? The answer, as I said, is that the plane introduces two new effects, one of gravity upon time and the other of acceleration (including deviating from straight line motion) upon time. The time dilation observed when the two observers meet up at base is induced by these two effects and is not to be confused, as you have confused them, with the symmetrical time dilation effect of simple uniform motion.
A former member
Post #: 2
You end your last post by saying: ‘The time dilation observed when the two observers meet up at base is induced by these two effects and is not to be confused, as you have confused them, with the symmetrical time dilation effect of simple uniform motion.’ You use the term time dilation for effects which you insist are quite different. I made no mention of ‘symmetrical time dilation’ and have not confused it with ‘the time dilation observed.’
A former member
Post #: 3
Sorry to speak out of turn. You say: ‘laboratory clocks are now so accurate that these very slight effects can be seen in the lab at ordinary human speeds of motion.’ Could I ask which type of time dilation you believe they are measuring?
A former member
Post #: 34
I see the confusion in your preceding post, which is at best poorly expressed. It seems to me that you are not understanding special relativity correctly. At any rate you are not propagating its thesis correctly and that's why I am not (yet!) giving up on this dialogue. That misunderstanding led you to the following quote from your first post, which is at least partly barking up the wrong tree:

"Certainly a body in motion will age less compared to one that is stationary, but does this mean there is a discrete substance that the moving atoms have had less of, or is it simply that less has happened to them?"

You were describing a situation which is covered by special relativity: the two bodies age symmetrically with respect to each other, each observing the slowing of time in the other, there is 'no discrete substance that the atoms have less than', all motion is relative and there can be no absolute truth in the asssertion that one observer is moving and the other is stationary. To be specific to your question, each observes that less has happened to the other - for so long as they are both in uniform motion.

Look Will, you don't have to take this from me and I'm not claiming to be an authority on the matter. Read it up in a text book or a good on-line source. Look at the formula for time dilation in uniform motion and see that the effect is measured as the same number for both observers, and depends only on the relative velocity between them. In fact the formula involves velocity squared, which is the same whether velocity is regarded as positive or negative. Check it out!
A former member
Post #: 35
OK, you did speak out of turn and therefore I was actually referrring to your preceding post about time difference implies one went faster.

If you want to know more about the lab experiments I mentioned, get the latest special edition of Scientific American which is all about time. Or, as always, Google it.

Must go, talk later no doubt!
A former member
Post #: 4
I am not now, nor ever have been talking about the situation you describe. I have always been speaking about what you have called ‘observed time dilation’, the fact that a clock can be put on an aeroplane, compared with one with which it was previously synchronous and found to be slow, the type of time dilation that results in two bodies not ageing symmetrically. Do you doubt that Carol Allie performed the experiment?
That there is 'no discrete substance that the atoms have less than', is precisely the point I was making.
A former member
Post #: 36
Will, your first sentence is in contradiction with your first posting, where you compare two atoms in motion relative to a stationary observer. Your second sentence is in contradiction with your earlier postings because you introduced the aircraft clock after your first posting and indeed I pointed out the inadvertent asymmetries that you introduced in doing so. Your final sentence lays claim to a conclusion that I drew but you did not, and it fails to acknowledge the other alternative which I have been labouring, which is that each observer finds time of the other to run slower.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy