This is a partial thread that was lost in the recent crash I am sorry that all others in this thread are not included but I only kept my bits.
I am also sorry that the sequence is now a bit jumbled and may not make sense to others who "jump" in.
I think this post is better placed here......
Hi ARTone and Z,
Yeah... about the astronauts. Tracking it down now is harder than it seems. You had to be there at the time eh! (some of us are older and these events predated the internet). Like I said it is forgotten history and some may say - not even history at all.
Speed itself in the abstract does not cause clocks to get out of wack. This is because to get clocks into "wack" they need synchronization. If you start from rest and then travel at high speed you cannot get around the fact this is the distinguishing feature that sets clocks apart. In the case of the classic time travelling twin, he really must undergo an acceleration to distinguish his clock from those left behind.
The details of this process was given by me in an earlier post in a different topic.
For others see PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> General page 5 (Good Elf).
How to measure the real passage of time? ARTone - it seems from your posts that you seem to be thinking that that there must be some special effect like in movies that will somehow indicate that you are undergoing time travel. The point is there can never be any "internal" indication that this is happening. We are all time travelling relative to almost anything are great distance from earth since all that "stuff" is moving relative to us. The real issue is that there are no clocks out there that have been synchroniized with clocks on earth. This not only refers to the "rate" of the clocks but also to the "zero" that has been agreed on. See the post for that if any of you have not been following.
Almost all clocks when brought together will indicate the same intrinsic rate of ticking. The tricky bit is the respective zeros. When I compare my watch with any "good" time it always seems to be slow. This is not due to special or general relativity. I have a crummy watch I purchased from Radio Shack (plastic). Although I do wear it in the shower and I have had it for about 10 years.
This is a difficult problem that is why when we want to see these effects in the macro world because there is a limitation in velocity (very hard getting Boeing 747's up to the speed of light) with big objects the measurements are tiny fractions of a second. Even with the best Caesium Clocks you still can't measure rate differences you are forced to measure elapsed time differences. These will initially be Pico-seconds but the longer you continue the experiment the more the difference in elapsed time becomes relative to "stationary" clocks on the ground. Sufficient to say given the operating budgets of Universities this relativity effect has been confirmed to a high degree of accuracy. This does not mean that the Scientists with the clock feel distinctly younger than the other members of his research team that were left behind to tend the stationary clock.
Whatever the case.... even if he spent 100 years travelling in a 747 the theory will not be any surer than it is now - even if the time differential was a couple of minutes. The essence is that our "time traveller" does not notice and there is no experiment internally that is able to show that this has occurred. The differences are external to his little pocket of turf and only by a comparison in some way will it be possible to see the effect.
In the world of atomic particles Kaons have short half lives and the rate of their clocks are appreciably slowed when you measure them in cosmic rays. This results in Kaons lasting several times longer if they are travelling near the speed of light compared with a similar beastie "born" in the frame of reference of the lab. Here the rate difference is relatively obvious and could be measured directly (if we knew how).
It should be iterated again that there are two effects - one due to special relativity and the other due to general relativity. Both these affect clocks.
Remember that Special Relativity says that all inertial frames are equivalent and General Relativity says that all accelerations are equivalent be they by a rocket pushing, or the earths gravitational field acting. There are some geometrical differences between the two but if presented to an observer who can perform only "local" experiments the postulates will hold and have never been seen to fail no matter how many times these two postulates have been tested.
Hi Z, Your time dilation causing a internal distortions and changes to the spin fields may be true but they are explained by special and general theory to a high degree of accuracy. These properties are also "mechanical" and any internally perceptible effects would go un-noticed seen from the frame of reference of a "very small" observer on one of these particles. He would also see some "externally" interesting effects but interpret them as something that "we" are doing.
To convince you that something strange is going on consider a wheel with spokes and a rim marked out in equal intervals. Stationary - you will be able to measure that the circumference equals 2*pi*Radius. Now spin the wheel at high speed. External observers will see that the radius does not "appear" shorter but the circumference is "apparently" foreshortened. Duh! Does this mean that pi's value has changed? No - not if you apply Einstein’s correction. In the frame of reference of the wheel, a very giddy observer would see no apparent internal effect since the wheel is "stationary" in his frame of reference (though an attempt to drink from a glass of water will have interesting results). Viewing the external Universe spinning around him... it will appear that all the planets and stars appear fore-shortened in the radial direction but OK when he looks vertically along the axis. He says - something is wrong but it's not me. We are all on a spinning earth and there is an additional effect of a gravity field so in theory we too are suffering from similar delusions.
In actual fact the effects of Special Relativity has led to curving space-time and warped space. This is how Special and General Theory are directly linked. This has created Dr Who's Tardis where its bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. See TV is educational. Unlike Dr Who though inside this Tardis from his reference frame everything appears normal and pi is still pi. It only appears curved seen by external observers.
As to how to measure time better. First we will need to understand time better first. Our clocks are primitive and are based on medieval principles (they are good though). But that is why we need Einstein - to tell us how to read clocks.
By the way - the increase in inertial mass also goes un-noticed from the frame of reference of the particle travelling near the speed of light. If it had an observer - it goes without saying that "he" would measure the increase in inertial mass of "us” and that would be his explanation of events. The event would be symmetric and Einstein says that both measurements from either frame are correct. The "virtual" mass would disappear if you bring the two systems to the same frame of reference showing it's only a measurement or perception problem of viewing the moving systems. It would not matter if you brought one up (down) to the speed of the other or met 1/2 way in the difference in velocity between them.
The bit about the mirror at Alpha Centauri - that's my contribution - you saw it first here.
to answer your point which I think refeers to anything moving hyperthetically through time, I believe that we all exist in what I would describe as NOW and that this NOW frame is a set amount of time which is extreamly small.
If a person were to be able to take a step forward in time they would move into a frame in which most of us dont exist thereby dissapearing. I am not relating this in any way to time dilation where a person is supposed to age differently.
Ill repeat this again I do not believe that the effect seen with clocks in aircraft is anything to do with what Einstein described as time dilation. and that the effect is something to do with traveling through our atmosphere at high speed or rates of acceleration.
The only proof will come when man can be sent into space at extreme speeds or acceleration and return.
The concept of time is very difficult to tie down we know we are existing together at this moment and as Z says we see happenings, events which occur in parrallel if at the same time but sequentially if not. There is never any perception of time moving any way but forward. We are each at the centre of our personal universe in which we only know exist because we see events happening. Is there a true concept of time or is this just a sequence of events to which we have given a name.
If you were to create a robot or computer which could think would it have any notion of time.
Life is complex enough, I think, therefore I am, to think through the eyes of others is impossible and leaves us all wondering how others see the world.
To want a better explanation of time and of NOW is probably the concern of those worried about death and hoping to find answers. I try not to do that. I much rather concern myself with: was this universe an accident or a designer model.
You seem to have an unnatural obsession with clocks, watches and time most of which is unprovable at this time, see youve got me at it now.
It is not I that has an obsession with clocks but clocks are all we have to measure the phenomena (relativity). That is unless you want to talk about psychological time vs. clock time. That also is an interesting subject.
It is an interesting point about the quantization of time. Is time quantized??? Is there a shortest period of time capable of "being"? With everything else it is assumed that time is a continuous function. It's built in from the bottom up. Even quantum mechanics assumes that time itself is continuous. What you are suggesting is that time is a flickering phenomena sort of like watching motion picture movies with the realism caused by a "persistence of vision" with a fair bit higher rate than 15 frames per second.
If time is quantized then you need to assign values to the quanta and this is difficult if you have space quantized and energy quantized etc... Are there then "big" time quanta and "small" time quanta? It is an extra layer of complexity.
Do big time quanta only interact with objects which are big and small time quanta only interact with things that are small. Or do big and small quanta get absorbed in large objects and only small quanta get absorbed by small objects? The absolute passage of time would then be related to how many and possibly what type of quanta (big or small or both) were absorbed by an object. The state of motion may also affect it too. The construction of clocks by humans is an attempt to create a mechanical system that measures this quantity independent of scale. This might be the wrong strategy for us - this is going to be a problem to explain why Physics works with continuous functions of time. A lot would need to be changed to shoe it in!
Of course this may be very difficult for us who are trapped in time ... because we may not even exist between the ticks of a cosmic clock. It may be possible to detect times granularity over extended spaces. Not all points in space may experience the same time quanta at the same time.
The concept of time that I am implicitly using is that a step forward in time (relative to another person travelling in a different frame of reference) results in a slowing of the "rate" of time for the traveller relative to the non-traveller (he ages more slowly - this is not suspended animation and is not “organic” - it is imperceptible from his frame of reference). To tell the traveller from the non-traveller you would need to measure their respective accelerations subsequent to the setting of their "zero" of time (starting of the synchronized stopwatches). The accelerated one is a time traveller.
Notice that this time travel is not reversible.
This slowing of time would need to be uniform and without jumps or discontinuity to be compatible with my interpretation.
On you’re other point.... A robot would have a notion of clocks. Since all his microprocessors will be subject to timing pulses. Not the same - but similar. Of course a robot may not have any "notions" at all.
Of course the topic is the impossibility of something travelling faster than light. It is wound up in all these issues for the speed of light is determined by the use of "suitably placed " clocks. It's not an obsession - it is the way we measure "stuff".
Why is this such a big problem. I assume that people just don't get it!
Regarding the Twin (clock) Paradox. It's all about clock synchronization. You cannot compare clocks from different reference frames without understanding that you do not apply maths without an understanding. Unless you first understand the problem your maths will just screw you up. I notice that almost all arguments speak nothing of the problems of synchronization and the choice of the arbitrary zero, or indeed the frames of reference. The discussion will get nowhere without them.
What people see or observe is NOT the same problem as the problem of the observation of the time relative to the observer. There is really only one measure of time for both "moving" and "stationary" observers, that is the clock on their respective walls (in their own frames). Seeing stuff is going to cause you all to falter because optical effects are bizarre.
The observations of high-speed distant objects have a lot of gotchas in them. Ignore them at your peril. Do not suppose that what is seen is what "is".
Think it through OR look up my article on this matter to sort your ideas out. See:
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Nanotechnology & Quantum Physics -> Quantum physics -> THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY (Good Elf)
For more on the visual effects see:
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> General -> The impossibility of something faster than light (Good Elf) Nov 9th
Unless this is sorted, you will forever wander in darkness. Some "get it" others want the answer before they fully understand the concept and make errors. The original article on which this thread was based is flawed because it does just this.... arbitrary use of maths without the full picture. I think that the author has become confused about what relativity is used for and mixed it up with some common misconceptions.
It is good to ask questions – like in this forum – but it is bad to be a Guru with half the truth. I do not know if this is deliberate or mistaken (I neither know nor care, the result is the same) - it is just wrong! I have seen flat earth and religious cranks arguments using this form of illogic and it can be there to create total confusion and to blindly force acceptance of a particular point of view. Remember a lot of confusing questions can be posed and they will usually be greeted with stunned silence and then worship. Unless you can place your feet on solid ground and sort it out you will be dragged down into the quicksand.
Some of these individuals have an axe to grind (not this guy though). Grind your axes in someone else’s backyard, Physics is not really a philosophical argument it is testable physical fact. Science is neither moral nor political (you can discuss these issues but it is not physics). Then you need an interpretation and it must be consistent. All the rest is politics and religion. Discuss the interpretation, remember it is Physics we want to understand physics, not these other issues here. Gain what you will from them but not here please.