Scientific Forums


Pages: (51) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


> Alternative Explanation Of Absolute Time, think the title says it really...
LostInPhysics
  Posted: Apr 11 2012, 04:58 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 11-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


I suggest that

Absolute Time (in arbitrary units) is equal to the total number of past entropic states of the observed system but then after that i know it really should be affected somehow by the speed of light and the relative motion of the observed system but i don't seem to be able to formulate this into an equation...

thoughts?

And if your merely going to reply to tell me why i am an idiot, don't bother replying, because i believe this thread actually says in the description that it is for new theories that may sound weird, but hey, quantum theory was weird enough and look how that turned out!


--------------------
No sir i don't have a degree in physics, but i also don't have all the pre-concieved biases and mistakes of our forefathers to clutter my mind!
Top
Robittybob1
Posted: Apr 11 2012, 05:07 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6588
Joined: 15-October 11

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


If you are going to make something equal to the past states you are never going to solve anything for we only experience the "NOW".
Your measurement must be in the "NOW".
Top
LostInPhysics
Posted: Apr 11 2012, 05:17 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 11-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


Surely though, we do not experience the perfect now as light moves at a finite speed and our experience is relative to the speed of light? i.e no matter how quickly we see something, we are still not seeing it in the same state as it is due to the infinitesimally small amount of "time" it takes for the light to hit the object, bounce back and be processed by our brains...

But in any sense, i am referring to the concept of absolute time, i.e how long has it been since the start of the universe, now in one sense you could say X number of years, but according to several lectures i attended during the british science festival as we go back in time the universe shrinks, as it does this the matter in it is compressed.

As we compress the universe time slows down eventually slowing to a point where it seems time has stopped all together.

I am afraid i am not very good at explaining myself but what i am trying to say is that could it be that time slows down as you condense a system because the total number of possible states of disorder (or entropy) have been reduced. Therefore could this not explain why time moves slower when under the influence of a stronger field of gravity...

By this i mean, the gravity on earth is stronger than the gravity in low earth orbit because it is nearer to the source of the gravity, since the strength of a gravitational field is proportional to the mass of the object creating it, could we not say that a higher density object has less states of entropy that it can exist in, therefore time moves slower, where as in low earth orbit, the system has more states of entropy that are possible increasing the rate of time.

As i said i am really bad at explaining myself so please ask if i have been really confusing about something...


--------------------
No sir i don't have a degree in physics, but i also don't have all the pre-concieved biases and mistakes of our forefathers to clutter my mind!
Top
waitedavid137
Posted: Apr 11 2012, 05:18 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2176
Joined: 17-June 10

Positive Feedback: 100%
Feedback Score: 5


QUOTE (LostInPhysics @ Apr 11 2012, 09:58 AM)
Absolute Time (in arbitrary units) is ....of the observed system ...

Aside from the stuff that doesn't have a real meaning what you have left here is a statement that the proper time for something between the events of its creation and the event where its observation takes place is an invariant.
We already knew that.

This post has been edited by waitedavid137 on Apr 11 2012, 05:22 PM
Top
niels
Posted: Apr 11 2012, 09:07 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 907
Joined: 28-May 10

Positive Feedback: 25%
Feedback Score: -4


I think it is an interesting and puzling question about how long time it takes to make an observation.

Physical show inertia (delay) and a physical observation cannot IMO be of instantaneous nature.

Another, and just as puzling, question is about how long time it takes to create (express) an event.

Any observation is IMO an act of interference between object (event) and observer, and time is being involved, if we assume that instantaneous is no option.

Now the OP says *could we not say that a higher density object has less states of entropy that it can exist in, therefore time moves slower, where as in low earth orbit, the system has more states of entropy that are possible increasing the rate of time*

IMO it is a vaguely formulated but right question. Time cannot move, time has no dimension, but time can be characterized by its rate, the TICK of time, which is the rate by which one event is being followed by the next event. Time IS change, and I am not trying here and now to further define CHANGE.

An event can be anything from the smallest thinkable physical existence that can be expressed within the shortest thinkable period of time, and vice versa with increasingly more complex events.

My premise is (I admit it is highly speculative and not part of officially and generally accepted physics and therefore can be put forward in this tread dealing with speculative and weired ideas) that physics IS dimensional, physics involve 3D, physics cannot exist without having a metric. My premise is also that it takes a metric to get a metric, iow a metric cannot be constructed out from something which inherently is dimensionless. Zero dimension is not physical. From this it logically follows that a physical event takes a dimension, and the smaller the event the smaller the dimension and vice versa, and (again my premise) there is a relationship between event and time period needed in order to express said event. And there is a relationship between *size, dimension* of event and the time it takes to observe said event. From this it logically follows that small events are more rapidly being expressed (configured) and they show a smaller dimension, so the speed by which such an event can be propagated through space is *re configuration time x dimension*. Speed of light is the *re configuration time of PHOTON x dimension PHOTON* and any physical expressions less complex than photon is being re configured within a shorter time period, and therefore with a higher frequency, but at the same time exhibit smaller dimension, so the resulting speed or propagation in spacetime is no faster. Speed of light is a universal constant and reflects the propagation of information in spacetime.

Last year there was some hype about the observation that speed of light was being measured as being slightly slower than the speed of neutrino, with a delay of 60 nanoseconds over a distance of about one km.

I have suggested that this time dealy of the arrival of light as compared to neutrino flight, is a reflecion of how long time it takes to OBSERVE the passing of the line, and NOT reflecting a difference in propagational speed in space. If this is a correct assumption then a repetition of the experiment with variable distances would show exactly the same delay irrespective of flight distance, namely this 60 nanoseconds.

Top
niels
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 06:16 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 907
Joined: 28-May 10

Positive Feedback: 25%
Feedback Score: -4


correction

line 4

Any *observation* should read

Any *physical phenomena*

niels
Top
rpenner
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 09:08 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5748
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


QUOTE (niels @ Apr 11 2012, 09:07 PM)
this 60 nanoseconds.

Two general categories of self-delusional pseudo-science exist: Cargo-Cult pseudo-science and Tooth Fairy pseudo-science.

Cargo-Cult pseudo-science apes the form of science to try to get the authority and benefits of science. This is why actors wear lab coats to tell us about shampoo or caffeinated drinks with dubious health benefits, because it gives the ad a "sciency" feel that would inspire more trust than "Please buy our expensive product -- it smells nice and probably won't kill you horribly."

Tooth-Fairy pseudo-science spends time trying to model phenomena not shown to exist. Lots of things exist in human heads without objective reality. Famously, N-Rays and Piltdown man were driven by nationalism and confirmation bias.

The current trend in cheaply filmed paranormal-chasing television shows appear to be mixtures of both.

The Gran Sasso researchers did not fall into these traps, but instead appear to have put publicity (important for funding) ahead of truth. They, with much fanfare in 2011 put forward a result from a very complicated timing experiment. They weren't racing light and neutrinos, but were attempting to compare the actual time-of-flight of neutrinos with the expected time-of-flight of light. Lots of things could have gone wrong, but they said "we looked at those." They had a huge press announcement and the story went around the Earth.

No scientist believed their experimental results. Some of them compared the results to other neutrino properties. The Gran Sasso/OPERA organization basically said that they didn't care if the result made no sense, they pushed the button and this was the number.

Then in February of this year, their confidence fell apart. They had a small press release that basically said: "Oops. Stay tuned."

In March, a second group showed time-of-flight of the same neutrinos was not faster than light. It was clear than a loose fiber optic cable was not getting enough light to an electronic circuit to quickly trigger the timing circuit. So the timing circuit was getting triggered late, which mean that the time of the neutrinos only appeared to be 60 ns early when the clock was 60 ns late. The lead scientist who signed off on the high-publicity route resigned after a vote of no confidence.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-...hat-went-wrong/

But trying to explain FTL neutrinos when there is no observation of FTL neutrinos is Tooth Fairy pseudo-science. Its like trying to explain how to distinguish drafts from ghostly cold spots.


--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
Confused1
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 11:41 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1814
Joined: 8-August 10

Positive Feedback: 69.23%
Feedback Score: -6


QUOTE (rpenner)
The Gran Sasso/OPERA organization basically said that they didn't care if the result made no sense, they pushed the button and this was the number.
QUOTE
"We tried to find all possible explanations for this," the report's author Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration told BBC News on Thursday evening.

"We wanted to find a mistake - trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects - and we didn't.

"When you don't find anything, then you say 'well, now I'm forced to go out and ask the community to scrutinise this'."

Friday's meeting was designed to begin this process, with hopes that other scientists will find inconsistencies in the measurements and, hopefully, repeat the experiment elsewhere.
..
"We look forward to independent measurement from other experiments."


-C2.



Top
rpenner
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 04:22 PM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5748
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


Timeline: http://www.dipity.com/kahoakes/Faster-than-light-neutrinos/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/basic-...nos-a-timeline/

2011-09-22 -- News story broke at a press conference at CERN by the OPERA (Gran Sasso) lead scientist before paper put on arXiv or reviewed by the CERN scientists "Particles found to break speed of light"
QUOTE
Antonio Ereditato, spokesman for the researchers, told Reuters that measurements taken over three years showed neutrinos pumped from CERN near Geneva to Gran Sasso in Italy had arrived 60 nanoseconds quicker than light would have done.

"We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing," he said. "We now want colleagues to check them independently."

And then this had a high-profile tweet, a counter-wave of scientifically educated strong skepticism and finally The first preprint of OPERA-1

2011-09-23 Then CERN hears about what OPERA has said (video)

2011-10-22 A month later, ICARUS reports that physical consequences of FTL neutrinos predicted by Glashow were not observed in the lab, another group weighs in similarly for cosmic rays.

2011-11-17 OPERA does a high-level review and reruns the experiment, updating the paper. But ICARUS doesn't think so.

2012-02-22 After months of doing high-level reviews of the calculations, OPERA discovers a loose fiber optic cable that would retard the time base of the Gran Sasso receivers and lead to the illusion that everything happens 60 ns faster in Italy.

I would add:

2012-03-15: ICARUS measures the time with their equipment: no FTL neutrinos

2012-03-30: OPERA proves it was the loose fiber optic cable, effectively retracting the physics content of their papers. http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/03/30/op...ssue-confirmed/
And Ereditato resigns after a vote of no-confidence.





--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
Confused1
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 05:34 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1814
Joined: 8-August 10

Positive Feedback: 69.23%
Feedback Score: -6


The BBC[Antonio_Ereditato] seems to be a lot more modest than the Reuters[Antonio_Ereditato]. If Antonio_Ereditato==Antonio_Ereditato then BBC<>Reuters. In matters of fair and honest reporting it is possible BBC > Reuters though I admit, being British, I may be biassed.
-C2.

Edit.. I hope the (probable) technician responsible has been given the option of a blindfold.
Edit2.. IMHO Antonio_Ereditatos should not have let the story get out of hand which (clearly) it did - if he'd stuck to the BBC[Antonio_Ereditato] story he might have got away with it.


This post has been edited by Confused1 on Apr 12 2012, 05:59 PM
Top
mik
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 06:44 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: 1-February 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


LostinPhysics:
QUOTE
As we compress the universe time slows down eventually slowing to a point where it seems time has stopped all together.
....
Surely though, we do not experience the perfect now as light moves at a finite speed and our experience is relative to the speed of light? i.e no matter how quickly we see something, we are still not seeing it in the same state as it is due to the infinitesimally small amount of "time" it takes for the light to hit the object, bounce back and be processed by our brains...


The first statement is an example of the basic fallacy of reification of time, "making something of it" beyond the *concept* of elapsed time (duration) as things move.

For instance, if "things" move more slowly, like oscillations of a clock "ticking" more slowly at higher velocities, the above fallacy claims that "time dilates" or "time slows down." What we empirically observe is that clocks "tick" more slowly.

Regarding the second statement:
The fact that light and information travels from an object/ event to an observer at a constant speed limit does not mean that "now here" is a different now than "now on the sun," for instance. Now IS now everywhere, not limited by delayed information about what IS happening elsewhere. Of course we will not get information about the simultaneous now on the sun (say a specific solar flair) for 8+ minutes... the signal delay.

Top
rpenner
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 07:03 PM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5748
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


That's just solipsism and denial of physics, not a physics argument.

Your claim that the other person's clock doesn't slow down ignores that half the time you are the "other person" oblivious to the fact that your clocks are running slow. This is solipsism in that by treating you and your clock alone as real, all other clocks are just wrong instead of there being some great principle at work.

QUOTE (rpenner @ 2010-05-12)
Inability to comprehend relativity is the inability to put oneself intellectually into the shoes of another and working out the consequences. It seems to me that this belongs on the non-clinical side of a spectrum of sociopathic disorders. http://www.squidoo.com/the-sociopath-next-door

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2540723&postcount=22

Your claim that "now is now everywhere" ignores the lessons learned from electromagnetism and the study of high-speed phenomena -- it's an intuitionist assumption antique after 1859, incompatible with physical theory after 1862, and replaced with better assumptions in 1905.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Apr 12 2012, 07:04 PM


--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
mik
Posted: Apr 12 2012, 11:39 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: 1-February 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


rpenner:
"Your claim that the other person's clock doesn't slow down..."

Just a quick pass through here. I don't remember making that claim. Please specify.

My "claim" was that time is not 'something' that slows down as we observe clocks slowing down.

And "Now" IS the present. It doesn't depend on who sees what and when at whatever distance from the source of light/info and travel time for info about it.
Top
rpenner
Posted: Apr 13 2012, 12:10 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5748
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


It's not a clock -- it's all clocks, be they based on electromagnetism, weak force, strong force or gravity. Therefore the laws of physics look the same to the moving laboratory with its definitions of space and time as to the stationary laboratory with its definitions of space and time. Therefore space and time are not absolute, but observer-based conventions and physical theories can be written in terms of motion-independent invariants if physics is to mean anything at all.

Maxwell's equations, written in terms of potentials defined in the Lorentz gauge, is a particularly good example of this.

"Now" defines a slice through space-time where all events have the same t-coordinate. Maxwell's equations written in the standard set of four equations in E and B fields use such a coordinate system, but for a relatively moving laboratory describing the same electromagnetism results, it is necessary to use the correct relative definition of "now." Galilean relativity (which says the "now" is the same) doesn't work. Special relativity ( which has the well-documented "relativity of simultaneity" does work ).

I'm not arguing that a universe couldn't exist if "now" was "now everywhere" -- I'm using evidence and over 150 years of observation to say such a universe is not the one we inhabit.


--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
mik
Posted: Apr 16 2012, 12:40 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1215
Joined: 1-February 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


rpenner,

My point about time dilation was simply, empirically, that what we *observe* is clocks slowing down in rate of oscillation when they are traveling at higher speeds (or in stronger gravity fields.)

It is a leap beyond empirical observation to claim that time is *something* that slows down, which clocks somehow detect, which makes them slow down.

As for "now," we all know that it takes 8+ minutes for sunlight to reach earth. So, a flair happening *now* will not be seen for 8 min. Yet the *now* in which the flair erupted was the same now on earth, regardless of travel time delay for us to see that light/info.

The relativity of simultaneity has not debunked presentism. And it leads to "eternalism" which claims a "block universe" in which everything that ever existed or will ever exist somehow exists now, in some frame of reference somewhere.



Top

Topic Options Pages: (51) [1] 2 3 ... Last »

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use