Clock-experimental proof of special relativity

[rocket123456]

clock-experimental "proof" of special relativity

It has been said in objection to special relativity that the atomic clocks changes in measurements in different speeds is only a proof of change in measurement between clocks and not of time passage. This would object to the conclusion that simultaneity is relative.

However it is reported that the rate of an ideal clock is not affected by it's acceleration. It's mentioned that there are indeed experiments done to prove this. Thus the escape rout is ruled out. I want to know how they know this?

If this is really true then I see no reason as to why anybody would object to the block-universe(and thus determinism) given the experimental proof of atomic clock changes(with difference of speed) which have been verifed over and over again even in recent times.

The only reason then for the changes in the clocks measurements can only be because we live in a block-universe, were all events already exist(since no universal now exist)

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like duck- it's probably a duck"

 

[Vorde]

I'm a bit confused, but I'd like to point out that relativity (and simultaneity) do not disprove determinism, Quantum Mechanics does. GR (and SR) fit perfectly with a deterministic world.

Its hard to argue with the argument of the deniers of relativity, because it seems like they are disagreeing for no reason. But I would respond by saying that if you measure the dilation of a thousand clocks at a thousand different speeds and each dilates exactly according to relativity, anyone who says that's a coincidence is crazy.

 

[GAsahi]

It has been said in objection to special relativity that the atomic clocks changes in measurements in different speeds is only a proof of change in measurement between clocks and not of time passage. This would object to the conclusion that simultaneity is relative.

However it is reported that the rate of an ideal clock is not affected by it's acceleration. It's mentioned that there are indeed experiments done to prove this. Thus the escape rout is ruled out. I want to know how they know this?

If this is really true then I see no reason as to why anybody would object to the block-universe(and thus determinism) given the experimental proof of atomic clock changes(with difference of speed) which have been verifed over and over again even in recent times.

The only reason then for the changes in the clocks measurements can only be because we live in a block-universe, were all events already exist(since no universal now exist)

"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like duck- it's probably a duck"

Your post, as formulated , is incomprehensible. What are you trying to say?

 

[rocket123456]

Your post, as formulated , is incomprehensible. What are you trying to say?

Read this..http://www.kiekeben.com/relativistic.html

And now with reference to the atomic clock experiment(one on the ground and one traveling on a plane). they say that we cannot explain away the difference in measurements(from one clock on the ground and the one on the plane) by acceleration.

The passage of time really does change depending on the speed, so therefore a persons past could be another persons future. Therefore all event's already exist since there is no universal "now". We are only waiting for the future events that are already set in stone(and some can reach them faster than others).

Yet when I google the clock-hypothesis it is clearly stated on wikipieda that it is an assumption. So therefore the objection by "presentism" that it's a physical phenomenon on the actual clocks seems to still be valid.

 

[Vorde]

therefore a persons past could be another persons future.

No.

General Relativity doesn't allow for this. In the rare cases that it does, we call these 'time machines' and note that it requires the existence of a type of matter that by all accounts does not exist.

 

[rocket123456]

No.

General Relativity doesn't allow for this. In the rare cases that it does, we call these 'time machines' and note that it requires the existence of a type of matter that by all accounts does not exist.

I was talking about special relativity.

<"The relativity of simultaneity implies that the future is determined (in a non-causal sense) in the following way. Let us say that you at this moment are event A. That is, your present self — what you are doing, thinking, observing, and so on, at this moment — is A. Let's also say that there is an observer traveling in a very fast spaceship, who at this very moment (from your frame of reference) is event B. Now for B, that is, for the spaceship traveler at this moment, there is an event C which, from B's perspective, lies in the past. The interesting thing is that it is possible for C to be an event which, from A's perspective, is still in the future. That is, C hasn't happened yet as far as you're concerned. Nonetheless, there is someone right now (again, from your perspective) who regards C as having already occurred. And if that is the case, then how can C be avoidable?

If an event which is in your future is in someone else's past, and that someone else is in your present (or even in your past!), then it is inevitable that the event will take place. Event C must come about, no matter what. And this scenario can in principle apply to any future event. Thus, all future events are determined. ">

http://www.kiekeben.com/relativistic.html

 

[Vorde]

I was talking about special relativity.

That doesn't either. Also more generally special relativity is encompassed by general relativity.

Reading what you said, I realized you are correct, but I was too. Usually when I deal with stuff like this it is with people who think it means time travel, so I apologize for disbelieving you. Yes this is possible, but in this cases it means no information can be passed from someones future to someones past, just that two observers can independantly witness an independant event at different times.

 

[GAsahi]

Read this..


http://www.kiekeben.com/relativistic.html

The above is a crackpot link, I thought such links are not allowed in this forum.

And now with reference to the atomic clock experiment(one on the ground and one traveling on a plane). they say that we cannot explain away the difference in measurements(from one clock on the ground and the one on the plane) by acceleration.

Who is "they say"? Where did you read that?

Yet when I google the clock-hypothesis it is clearly stated on wikipieda that it is an assumption. So therefore the objection by "presentism" that it's a physical phenomenon on the actual clocks seems to still be valid.

This is incomprehensible.

 

[rocket123456]

"Who is "they say"? Where did you read that? "
"Is there an alternative to the block-universe" google that... go to page 18 if you are too lazy to read the hole thing.

 

[GAsahi]

"Who is "they say"? Where did you read that? "



"Is there an alternative to the block-universe" google that... go to page 18 if you are too lazy to read the hole thing.

Yes, I got another crackpot website, I see your game now. Bye.

 

[rocket123456]

You say it's crackpot links with no additional reference as to why that is case.

 

[Vorde]

Instead of arguing about legitimacy, could I ask the OP to restate his question, if it has not been already answered.

 

[rocket123456]

Does the lack of absolute simultaneity in special relativity prove determinism ?.

It appears you have to deny the premiss, if there is no universal "now" for all observers then all events truly exist. IF all events exist determinism is true.

 

[GAsahi]

Does the lack of absolute simultaneity in special relativity prove determinism ?.

Your question is logically equivalent to "Does the fact that the Moon is round prove that you should not eat spaghetti on Fridays?"

 

[rocket123456]

Your question is logically equivalent to "Does the fact that the Moon is round prove that you should not eat spaghetti on Fridays?"

Really?---

"In 1966, C. W. Rietdijk published "A Rigorous Proof of Determinism Derived from the Special Theory of Relativity." It purports to prove that the world is pre-determined because of an argument from special relativity called the "relativity of simultaneity." "And then of course we had another loser named Roger Penrose with his "Andromeda paradox" based on the same idea.

I seem to be in good company even if I am wrong:)

 

[Dale]

Does the lack of absolute simultaneity in special relativity prove determinism ?.

No. Modern quantum mechanics (QED and the Standard Model) is non-deterministic but compatible with special relativity.

 

[rocket123456]

No. Modern quantum mechanics (QED and the Standard Model) is non-deterministic but compatible with special relativity.

You are wecolme to mention an interpretation compatible with special relativity while rejecting determinism.

Please note that by "determinism" I mean that all events that ocurred had to happen, and they way the did. They were written in stone. Following a "Causual chain" of events are not neccesary for determinism, this is an old misconception. So we could have events without a cause, as long as they had to happen it's determinism.

<"Causual chain"> determinism may very well only be a partial depiction of the universe, but that does not falsifiy determinism.

Take for instance a universe without time, in such a world causuality is irreleveant because all event's already exist.. so what happens tommorow is and always have been decided (determined).

 

[Dale]

You are wecolme to mention an interpretation compatible with special relativity while rejecting determinism.

I am not interested in interpretations of QM, just the math.

 

[rocket123456]

I am not interested in interpretations of QM, just the math.

You were the one claiming it was compatible with special relativity without a block-universe.


If you are only interested in the math then I don't see why you are in this thread.

 

[Dale]

My post did not refer to any interpretation. QED is non deterministic, meaning that a complete specification of the state of a system at some point in time is not sufficient to uniquely predict the state of the system at a later time. QED is also compatible with special relativity, meaning that its equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations. So, mathematically, special relativity does not imply determinism. It is not a matter of interpretation, just the math.

 

[rocket123456]

My post did not refer to any interpretation. QED is non deterministic, meaning that a complete specification of the state of a system at some point in time is not sufficient to uniquely predict the state of the system at a later time.

Indeterminism in a purely ontological sense is not compatible with special relativity, because all events typically already exist in it's orthodox interpretations, therefore no uncertainty with regards to the universe actual fate in future events would <not> be unclear.

The various versions of copenhagen interpretation does however seem to suggest that the universe has not "made up it's mind" until the observation occurs which flies right in the face of special relativity and the tenseless theory of time since all events exist.

HOWEVER If all event's already exist then the electron is already predetermined to have it's specific reaction to the observer, and the observer is already predetermined to make the measurement- he always had to make the measurement.

Determinism in this latter sense is the most reasonable interpretation of special relativity and I suppose it's compatible with the copenhagen interpretation, since it's possible to have the interpretation in a block-universe.

 

[Dale]

Mother nature appears to disagree with you. (Unless by "purely ontological" you mean non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific, in which case you are posting in the wrong forum)

 

[Vorde]

Indeterminism in a purely ontological sense is not compatible with special relativity, because all events typically already exist in it's orthodox interpretations, therefore no uncertainty with regards to the universe actual fate in future events would <not> be unclear.

The various versions of copenhagen interpretation does however seem to suggest that the universe has not "made up it's mind" until the observation occurs which flies right in the face of special relativity and the tenseless theory of time since all events exist.

HOWEVER If all event's already exist then the electron is already predetermined to have it's specific reaction to the observer, and the observer is already predetermined to make the measurement- he always had to make the measurement.

Determinism in this latter sense is the most reasonable interpretation of special relativity and I suppose it's compatible with the copenhagen interpretation, since it's possible to have the interpretation in a block-universe.

You are making an error.
My definition of determinism (and I honestly believe it to be the most correct- though it sounds self-righteous) says that determinism is the believe that the entire universe (past and future) can be exactly determined for all time based on the absolutely accurate state of the universe at a single time.

Using that as the definition for determinism, and realizing that quantum mechanics means you will never know the exact state of the universe, just because an observer A traveling at a nonzero velocity past observer B sees a non-exact state at a different time than observer A doesn't mean the future is determined, just that they saw something non-definite at different times.

Were they ever to meet so they could exchange information, the mathematics would work out so they all had seen the same things- nothing in either one's future.

 

[rocket123456]

You are making an error.
My definition of determinism (and I honestly believe it to be the most correct- though it sounds self-righteous) says that determinism is the believe that the entire universe (past and future) can be exactly determined for all time based on the absolutely accurate state of the universe at a single time.

Using that as the definition for determinism, and realizing that quantum mechanics means you will never know the exact state of the universe, just because an observer A traveling at a nonzero velocity past observer B sees a non-exact state at a different time than observer A doesn't mean the future is determined, just that they saw something non-definite at different times.
.

First your definition of determinism is bogus, the theory says that the past, present and future are fixed, thus all events had to happen the way they did- do you agree that from this definition determinism is true for the universe?

Second the example you mention is a clear cut proof of determinism.

There is NO way a person could "cheat" ahead of person A if the future was not indeed pre-determined... it would be equivalent of you and me watching two separate dvd movies of the same film. I on the other hand with my dvd have a remote controll and decide to fastforward and reach a different event in the movie. How can I fastforward the movie if the future event in the movie is not already determined(which of course they are in all movies).

 

[Vorde]

No its like this. I see a single frame of a movie, halfway through the entire movie. I know nothing about what happened before this frame or what happened afterwards.

Someone else reedits the movie without seeing the other parts of the movie so that the single frame is at the end of the movie instead of the middle.

Undeniably, we are seeing the same thing at different times, me in the middle of the movie and him at the end, but he knows nothing more about the rest of the movie than I do.

 

[rocket123456]

No its like this. I see a single frame of a movie, halfway through the entire movie. I know nothing about what happened before this frame or what happened afterwards.

Someone else reedits the movie without seeing the other parts of the movie so that the single frame is at the end of the movie instead of the middle.

Undeniably, we are seeing the same thing at different times, me in the middle of the movie and him at the end, but he knows nothing more about the rest of the movie than I do.

Of course I don't know more about the movie but that has nothing to do with the argument.

My point is that the future is already fixed IF you accept the premiss, and most people do. Roger penrose had the same argument in the andromeda paradox.

 

[Vorde]

Read all of this, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=240147

Specifically DaleSpam's answer #9

In addition, it's somewhat summed up by saying "the only things that matter are what can be measured"

 

[Dale]

First your definition of determinism is bogus, the theory says that the past, present and future are fixed, thus all events had to happen the way they did- do you agree that from this definition determinism is true for the universe?

What possible experiment could be performed to prove that the universe is NOT deterministic according to this definition?

 

[harrylin]

[..] it is reported that the rate of an ideal clock is not affected by it's acceleration. It's mentioned that there are indeed experiments done to prove this. [..] I want to know how they know this?

1. There's no need for experiment to establish that one can distinguish (and thus measure the difference of) the effect of velocity from the effect of acceleration. This is because one can create a large continuous acceleration at low speed, as well as high speed with little acceleration.
2. Experiments with cosmic muons have shown a good agreement with SR and experiments with muons in the lab in ring accelerators have demonstrated no effect from enormous acceleration.
http://physicsfaq.co.uk/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Bailey
See Bailey, Sherwin

If this is really true then I see no reason as to why anybody would object to the block-universe(and thus determinism) given the experimental proof of atomic clock changes(with difference of speed) which have been verifed over and over again even in recent times.[..]

That is replied in the following threads:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=567395
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=595021
The threads are still open for your comments.

 

[rocket123456]

What possible experiment could be performed to prove that the universe is NOT deterministic according to this definition?

This is a good question finally! .. See the thing is that the reason so many of us are determinist is because we can actually "prove" determinism... it is true that you cannot disprove it under my definition. So if our proofs are not valid, then we can consider the question open.. but so far there seems to be evidence which cannot be explained away unless we do live in a determinstic world were all events are fixed.

What you can do is outline explanations for why the evidence presented does not entail determinism. IF you can do that, then you have at least achieved that we are on equal footing(maybe the universe is deterministic maybe not).

IF you cannot explain away the evidence then surely determinism is a fact.

Our current experiments in support of special relativity have settled the case.

You should check out Vesselin Petkovs "is there an alternative to the block-universe?" which is free to read.

He asserts "if the world were three-dimensional the kinematic consequences of special relativity and more importantly the experiments confirming them would be impossible."

And of course if we live in a block-universe(4-dimensional) all events are fixed per definition.

The 4-dimensional world is the only one consistent with special relativity.

 

[Dale]

it is true that you cannot disprove it under my definition.

Then your definintion is non-scientific and the discussion doesn't belong here.

If you choose to modify your definition of "deterministic" to something which is falsifiable then I will be glad to discuss further.

 

[Vorde]

But your definition is impossible to disprove! It's like saying god exists because prove he doesn't.

The thing about my definition is that it can be disproved, and Quantum Mechanics disproves it. The problem of the Andromeda paradox (please read the wikipedia article on it, its short and will allow me to refer to it without explaining the whole thing) is that one observer may look at andromeda and say that the aliens have yet to make a decision, and the other observer will look and say they have made a decision. But that second observer won't actually know what the outcome of the decision is until the light reaches him, and therefore he knows nothing.

The relativity of simultaneity allows for differing definitions of what is past, present and future, but at no point will it allow anyone to know anything definitely about their future.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument

 

[rocket123456]

Then your definintion is non-scientific and the discussion doesn't belong here.

If you choose to modify your definition of "deterministic" to something which is falsifiable then I will be glad to discuss further.

How can we falsify empirical reality which is the basis for all proofs? we can't so should we give up science because of that?

It's about giving evidence and wheter they can be explained without determinism as the world-view.

 

[rocket123456]

But your definition is impossible to disprove! It's like saying god exists because prove he doesn't.

But that second observer won't actually know what the outcome of the decision is until the light reaches him, and therefore he knows nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk–Putnam_argument

Correct he knows nothing about the outcome.. but the main question is can he prevent what the other observer has already witnessed? Penrose says no-- and accordingly argues for predeterminism.

 

[Dale]

How can we falsify empirical reality which is the basis for all proofs? we can't so should we give up science because of that?

Nonsense. If it is non-falsifiable then it isn't science. We should give up useless non-falsifiable definitions like yours in favor of science.