A Revolutionary Idea: Rethinking Time Measurement in Physics

[Doctordick]

I further make the claim that all observers will find the reading on that clock at the moment it is smashed to smithereens will also have a specific value. And once again, they will all agree as to what that reading was. Once again, that reading has absolutely nothing to do with their frame of reference.
This is really ridiculous , because what you are saying in effect is that the observers would all be in the same frame of reference , in order to see the time on the smashed clock. On the other hand if the clock was smashed in a fast moving elevator and an observer happened to look at the event from outside the lift his clock would record a different time. So what's new ?

I was never talking about his clock. The reading on his clock has absolutely nothing to do with the reading on the smashed clock. And, I am sorry, saying that they can see the reading on the clock at the moment it is smashed is not equivalent to saying they are in the same frame of reference. I don't think you understand enough physics to follow my example and thus totally miss the point of the thought experiment.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

What I am getting at is that, due to my rather unorthodox perspective, I do not doubt at all that many of the accepted concepts of physics may be erroneous. In particular, I am convinced that the whole standard approach to science is flawed.

All new theory is unorthodox by definition. And the scientists who create that theory are often vilified before the ideas are generally accepted. Einstein certainly was. But even that does not make the existing science "flawed". It does mean that scientists are human. Your point would only make sense if the existing scientific establishment said that further study was unnecessary because the answers have all been provided. And that is not the case.

Nice to see you back. I was hoping you might catch up on the "Why you should like my perspective" thread. Had you done that, you might have understood why I made the comment above.

Everyone, including you, see what I am doing as putting forth a new theory. That is not at all what I am doing. What I am doing is setting up a procedure for examining the universe designed to be absolutely open to any possibility: i.e., doing my very best to avoid making any assumptions whatsoever! Now, as any decent philosopher will tell you, that is definitely an impossible task. However, backing off the impossible, I will make one assumption. That is the assumption that mathematics provides a set of logically consistent definitions of things which we can talk about and specific procedures which are understood by a great number of people: i.e., it is a language understood by a lot of people and is also more unambiguous than any other language used by any human beings. Show me a competent rational scientist who does not make that assumption and I will applaud you.

When I say that "the whole standard approach to science is flawed", I am referring to the great number of assumptions which are made. Assumptions which I claim are unnecessary. The specific accepted concepts of physics which I refer to as erroneous are the presumptions that the assumptions they make are necessary.

As I have said on a number of occasions, explaining what I am doing is very much like trying to explain statistical analysis to an astrologer. He wants to know how he can deduce the truth of what I say from the positions of the planets. The scientists of today want to translate what I am saying into the mental image of the world they believe is valid. Examining their fundamental beliefs is either beyond their power or their interest. Probably beyond their interest as they have a considerable investment in the validity of their current position.

In all cases, our perceptions are taken as "Truth" unless we can absolutely prove they are in error. In actual fact it seems much more rational to assume our perceptions are in error until we can prove they are correct!

I think I have made a major breakthrough in that very issue. Follow me and point out an error if I have made one.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[McQueen]

I was never talking about his clock. The reading on his clock has absolutely nothing to do with the reading on the smashed clock.
Instead of throwing a clock against a wall and smashing it . Suppose we have a boy traveling on a train and bouncing a ball. To the boy the ball would seem to fall vertically , in fact it does fall vertically . But to an observer standing outside and looking in at the train , he would see the ball leave the boys hand and land a few feet behind him. (i.e the boy) So while a clock on the train would record the time taken for the ball to fall to the ground as the time taken for the ball to travel from the boys hand in a straight line to the floor ( of the train ) , the observer’s clock would measure the distance traveled by the ball as the distance of the diagonal that the ball makes to the floor . Therefore obviously , the clock on the train must have shrunk so that it observes the same time as that of the observer on the platform. So the conclusion is that the cogs and things in the clock do undergo change depending upon the frame of reference.

 

[Doctordick]

I was never talking about his clock. The reading on his clock has absolutely nothing to do with the reading on the smashed clock.
Instead of throwing a clock against a wall and smashing it . Suppose we have a boy traveling on a train and bouncing a ball. To the boy the ball would seem to fall vertically , in fact it does fall vertically . But to an observer standing outside and looking in at the train , he would see the ball leave the boys hand and land a few feet behind him. (i.e the boy) So while a clock on the train would record the time taken for the ball to fall to the ground as the time taken for the ball to travel from the boys hand in a straight line to the floor ( of the train ) , the observer’s clock would measure the distance traveled by the ball as the distance of the diagonal that the ball makes to the floor . Therefore obviously , the clock on the train must have shrunk so that it observes the same time as that of the observer on the platform. So the conclusion is that the cogs and things in the clock do undergo change depending upon the frame of reference.

And pray tell what does any of that have to do with the reading on the clock when it was smashed?

 

[baffledMatt]

Hi Dr D,

I had a little bit of time so I just wanted to comment on this:

However, backing off the impossible, I will make one assumption. That is the assumption that mathematics provides a set of logically consistent definitions of things which we can talk about and specific procedures which are understood by a great number of people: i.e., it is a language understood by a lot of people and is also more unambiguous than any other language used by any human beings.

Now, I have been reading your book and I don't think you are being quite true to yourself on this point. There are instances which occur where you say things like:

"The absolute best one can hope to do is to predict the probability of observing a given set of data as a function of time"

"any information present must be contained in the patterns, not in the actual values"

"To begin with, that algorithm must be independent of time"

Now, are these not assumptions? They also seem rather familiar. From symmetry of space, time and a bit of probability theory we can also get most of QM.

I think you must be much clearer about what your assumptions really are. These things you seem to be passing off as 'obvious', but aren't you using your own mental image of the universe to make these obvious observations?

Matt

 

[ram2048]

i've not had a chance to read and analyze the thread to its entirety just yet, but i wanted to give my beliefs on "time" before i read some crazy stuff to confuse it :D

what follows is ram's theory of time:

time exists only as a function of actions taking place.

if the entire universe stood perfectly still, no time would take place. (or you even if it did you wouldn't have anything to measure it by anyways so...)

when time concerns multiple elements in a closed set, REAL-time is defined as the actions of the object in question versus the actions of every object in the set. if it was two men in space a certain distance apart and one man moves away from the other, the motion of one man would cause time to happen for the other man, and they would both view the motion and time as real. both men would "see" themself moving away from the other man at half the speed compared to the average distance between the two (dunno if I'm explaining that right but whatever).

on a greater existence or set where the whole universe is involved. one man can move away from the other man, and the other man can realize that he is stationary in regards to the rest of the universe and thus the other man retreats at full speed.

now, here comes the tricky part, REAL-time for us in the universe as part of the set exists in the motions or actions that we take or are exerted on us in relation to the average motion or action of EVERYTHING else in the universe. It functions independantly of whether or not someone is "measuring it"

our PERSPECTIVE-time exists for us as part of the set that exists in our actions or motions etc that exist that are immediately around us and can be measured as phenomena to calculate this time. In order for us to try and realize REAL-time we have to get a bead on as much of the universe and its actions as possible, and measure any of our actions to this whole.

 

[PFanalog57]

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_I.htm

Doctordick:

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that we already know the algorithm which yields these observations. To begin with, that algorithm must be independent of time as, if it is not, the solution of our problem depends on when we begin the examination and different observers will obtain different solutions (remember, the solution is the complete explanation of the universe). (As an aside, I am not being loose here, "when" refers to the time as defined above.) Secondly, as the algorithm is independent of time, it must be that knowing the algorithm is insufficient to predict any particular observation unless the time of the observation is contained in some implicit manner. If there is information implicitly embedded in the data, it must be presumed that there are patterns of data which are possible and patterns of data which are not possible.

By quantizing spacetime geometry, it seems that the
wavefunctions aren't based on a background space. The wavefunction
space, can be thought of as the space of square-integrable wavefunctions over classical configuration space.

In ordinary quantum mechanics, configuration space is space itself {i.e.,to describe the configuration of a particle, location in space is specified}. In
general relativity, there is a more general kind of configuration
space: taken to be the space of 3-metrics {"superspace", not to be
confused with supersymmetric space} in the geometrodynamics
formulation,{or the space of connections of an appropriate gauge
group)in the Ashtekar/loop formulation. So the wavefunctions will be
functions over these abstract spaces, not space itself-- the
wavefunction/algorithm defines "space itself".


The resultant metric spaces are thus defined as being diffeomorphism invariant. Intersecting cotangent bundles{manifolds} are the set of all possible configurations of a system, i.e. they describe the phase space of the system. When the "wave-functions/forms" intersect/entangle, and are "in phase", they are at "resonance", giving what is called the "wave-function collapse" of the Schrodinger equation. the action principle is a necessary consequence of the resonance principle.


[abstract representation]--->[semantic mapping]--->[represented system]

[axiomatic]--->[Isomorphism]<---[Induction]

An abstract representation is exactly that, "abstract". It is not a space, or time, but is instead a product of consciousness, or a mental construct; topologically it is equivalent to a "point". The abstract description contains the concrete topology. Likewise, the concrete contains the abstract.

The description of any entity inside the real universe can only be with reference to other things in the universe. Space is then relational, and the universe, self referential. For example, if an object has a momentum, that momentum can only be explained with respect to another object within the universe. Space then becomes an aspect of the relationships between things in reality. It becomes analogous to a sentence, and it is absurd to say that a sentence has no words in it. So the grammatical structure of each sentence[space] is defined by the relationships that hold between the words in it. For example, relationships like object-subject or adjective-noun. So there are many different grammatical structures composed of different arrangements of words, and the varied relationships between them.

Langauge describes the universe, because the universe is isomorphic to a description on some level, and reality can only refer to itself, because, there is nothing outside of ..."total existence" which becomes equivalent to a self referential system, which must be a self aware system. Since descriptions make distinctions, or references to other entities, and distinctions are tautologically logical, [A or ~A], reality is logical, in that its contents can be described by a language. The contents within reality are distinctive entities, individually different from the others, yet consisting of the same foundational substance.


A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:

All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .

Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

The analogy with black holes is an interesting one but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible information.


The categorical representation of a propositional conundrum, in which deductive invalidity depends on the modality of the truth conditionals concerning the prerequisite of the contingent assumption and consequent conclusion. The totally relevant content of the assumption and conclusion, definitely contains no modal terms. But, the modality attaches to the fact that the conditional assumption is quite possibly true, while the conditional conclusion is necessarily false.

Which leads us to an argumentational representation of a completely non-bogus modal formulation of the paradox of existence itself, and, the oh so elusive "ultimate truth" that Dr.D earnestly seeks. Deductive invalidity is most excellently predicated on the categorical truth of the modal-term-laden assumption and the definitive categorical falsehood of the modal-term-laden conclusion. Hence, the assumption is, such, that if the antecedent of a contingently true conditional is false, then, the consequent of the conclusion can be true is itself quite simply and most elegantly ...true. Therefore, the conclusion that if it is not the case that the consequent of a contingently true conditional can be true, then it is not the case that the antecedent of the true conditional is false, is itself quite simply, false.

Meta-philosophical scruples notwithstanding, existence is, a paradox.

Alpha = Omega

It is the categorical formulation of the simultaneous, situational, instantiated contradiction, where deductive invalidity is the product of the utmost categorical truth of the assumption that if the antecedent of a true conditional is false, then the consequent of the conditional is true or false indifferently, and of the categorical falsehood of the conclusion consequently predicates that if it be not the case that the consequent of a true conditional is true or false indifferently, then, it is not the case that the antecedent of the conditional is false. To pronounce the consequent of a true conditional as being true or false indifferently is tantamount to saying modally that where the antecedent of a true conditional is notoriously false, then the consequent can, or could be, or is, possibly true or false. But it may be worthwhile to see that the definitive, simultaneous equality of both true, and false, can be formulated without explicitly including modal terms, which become the predicating operators, which, for the sake of showing that the consequent paradoxical conundrum is not straightforwardly resolvable by appealing to concrete philosophical scruples concerning the intensionality of predicated modal contexts.

But then again, Einstein said it best:

Einstein:

For pure logic all axioms are arbitrary , including
the axioms of ethics. But they are by no means
arbitrary from a psychological and genetic point of
view. They are derived from our inborn tendencies
to avoid pain and annihilation, and from the
accumulated emotional reaction of individuals to the
behavior of their neighbors.
It is the privilege of man's moral genius,
impersonated by inspired individuals, to advance
ethical axioms which are so comprehensive and so
well founded that men will accept them as grounded
in the vast mass of their individual emotional
experiences. Ethical axioms are found and tested not
very differently from the axioms of science.

Truth is what stands the test of experience.

 

[Doctordick]

Russell,

I find it almost impossible to decipher what you are trying to say. I don't think we are communicating at all. I have tried quite hard to understand what you are trying to get across but, in the final analysis, it just keeps coming across as incoherent babble. It sounds to me very much like a collection of phrases put together by an AI program fed data taken from some scientific conference.

Sorry, but I just don't follow you.

Dick

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Matt,

I am sorry for the slowness of this response but I had to think about it a while because we are really having a difficult time communicating (plus that, your supposed to be at lectures anyway). The single biggest problem I have with trained people is that they do not read what I write but rather scan the paper, presuming they understand what I am saying. From your comments, it is very clear that you are falling into exactly that trap.

"The absolute best one can hope to do is to predict the probability of observing a given set of data as a function of time"

Under the constraints I have specifically placed on the problem, please point out something else one could do.

"any information present must be contained in the patterns, not in the actual values"

The numerical values are nothing but tags we have decided to put on the references which define "C". Their numerical values cannot possibly be fundamental information.

"To begin with, that algorithm must be independent of time"

In my presentation, time is nothing but an arbitrary index placed on a particular observation. If one is to deduce the valid "rule" which will explain "C", how can that rule depend on how the index is attached? You are, in effect, suggesting that you would accept as a valid explanation of the universe an explanation which depended upon on the design of the attack for finding that explanation. Now I understand that you are not really being that dense; what you are actually doing is working from the assumption that your mental image of reality is correct: i.e., you are not using my definitions, you are attempting to apply your definitions on the assumption they are good definitions.

Now, are these not assumptions? They also seem rather familiar. From symmetry of space, time and a bit of probability theory we can also get most of QM.

Yes, from the standard approach to physics, these things are assumptions. The central issue of my presentation is that, when objectively viewed as an abstract problem, they are not assumptions at all but rather required relations.

I think you must be much clearer about what your assumptions really are. These things you seem to be passing off as 'obvious', but aren't you using your own mental image of the universe to make these obvious observations?

I think one problem we are having here is that you are trying to understand what I am saying from a document I wrote twenty years ago. Although I have become fully aware that people find that document very hard to follow, I have not changed it because the problem is misunderstanding and not actual error. The derivation of my fundamental equation might be easier for you to understand if you were to carefully read the post starting at:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=200811#post200811

and the post immediately following it. Read those two posts carefully and then tell me what assumptions you think I am making.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[baffledMatt]

The single biggest problem I have with trained people is that they do not read what I write but rather scan the paper, presuming they understand what I am saying. From your comments, it is very clear that you are falling into exactly that trap.

Now come on. You seem to have a big problem here. Your position seems to be that since your formalism is obviously correct and true (as you say, 'true by definition') then anyone who has a disagreement with it must not understand it, or worse, has not read it properly.

Do you really think this is fair? How do you expect people to be willing to take the time to understand your work when this is the reaction we receive?

Under the constraints I have specifically placed on the problem, please point out something else one could do.

Just because I can't think of something else, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is not up to me to suggest an alternative, but up to you to show that this truly is the only thing we can do.

In my presentation, time is nothing but an arbitrary index placed on a particular observation. If one is to deduce the valid "rule" which will explain "C", how can that rule depend on how the index is attached? You are, in effect, suggesting that you would accept as a valid explanation of the universe an explanation which depended upon on the design of the attack for finding that explanation. Now I understand that you are not really being that dense; what you are actually doing is working from the assumption that your mental image of reality is correct: i.e., you are not using my definitions, you are attempting to apply your definitions on the assumption they are good definitions.

Ok, but you have not shown that all observations can be represented in this way, or that there exists this algorithm which is independent of time.

Yes, from the standard approach to physics, these things are assumptions. The central issue of my presentation is that, when objectively viewed as an abstract problem, they are not assumptions at all but rather required relations.

No. They are not at all required. You have simply defined your system such that these become natural assumptions to make. However, if you want this to be completely general you must still consider these to be assumptions.

Although I have become fully aware that people find that document very hard to follow, I have not changed it because the problem is misunderstanding and not actual error.

But then how do you reasonably expect anyone to follow you?

I'm sorry if this post is a little aggressive, but I think you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes to some respect and whenever we try to complain you accuse us of not reading your work properly. This is not the way to go about persuading us that we should like your perspective!

Matt

 

[Doctordick]

The single biggest problem I have with trained people is that they do not read what I write but rather scan the paper, presuming they understand what I am saying. From your comments, it is very clear that you are falling into exactly that trap.

Now come on. You seem to have a big problem here. Your position seems to be that since your formalism is obviously correct and true (as you say, 'true by definition') then anyone who has a disagreement with it must not understand it, or worse, has not read it properly.

Either they did not read the definitions, do not understand the definitions, or they don't want to use the definitions; otherwise, their responses would not be at all what they are. You are continually making comments way beyond the opening stage and your comments seldom seem to make any sense when interpreted in terms of the things I have defined.

Since you moved right through Chapter I and began making comments on Chapter II, I initially assumed you understood chapter I. Although you raised an important issue on my move to replace P (and the "undefined" algorithms used to calculate it) with P₁P₂ (and the algorithms used to calculate them), you totally missed the point that commutation could not possibly be an issue. I can only interpret that as evidence that you had no idea what $\vec{\Psi}$ stood for.

Do you really think this is fair? How do you expect people to be willing to take the time to understand your work when this is the reaction we receive?

Actually, based on experience, I don't expect them to take the time to understand. :zzz: The real reason I bother with these posts is that it clarifies to me exactly what kinds of misinterpretation to expect.

Under the constraints I have specifically placed on the problem, please point out something else one could do.

Just because I can't think of something else, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is not up to me to suggest an alternative, but up to you to show that this truly is the only thing we can do.

Ok, let's approach that problem. Under normal circumstance, I would presume the average person of average intelligence could do that analysis on their own if they understood my definitions.

First, let us look at what we have to work with.

We have "C", a collection of sets "B" indexed (as they constitute of finite set) with an index I have defined to map into "time".​

Now, "that" we know by definition so there is nothing there to predict. However, and I realize it is a subtle point , we can look at it from the perspective of "suppose we didn't know one of those 'B's". Then we would like our "explanation" to be consistent with the actual "B" observed. (I note, for those who have omitted reading my definitions (or can't remember them), that I have defined an "observation" to be the collection of references denoted by a particular B_j (B is a subset of what we know: i.e., "C" for people who's attention span I have exceeded).

So, what can we say about that "unknown" observation! Either we predicted it or we didn't. If we didn't predict it we are surprised :surprise:, if we did predict it we are satisfied . It follows that, if we can specify our expectations (where 1 means we expect it and 0 means we don't) we have exausted the possibilities. It follows, as the night the day, that the best we can expect of our model is to predict our expectations.

… you are not using my definitions, you are attempting to apply your definitions on the assumption they are good definitions.

Ok, but you have not shown that all observations can be represented in this way, or that there exists this algorithm which is independent of time.

I have not shown that all observations can be represented in this way? I have defined an observation to be "B_j"! And the demonstration that the algorithm exists is proved via a specific procedure for obtaining it! See the post at

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=213403#post213403

Yes, from the standard approach to physics, these things are assumptions. The central issue of my presentation is that, when objectively viewed as an abstract problem, they are not assumptions at all but rather required relations.

No. They are not at all required. You have simply defined your system such that these become natural assumptions to make. However, if you want this to be completely general you must still consider these to be assumptions.

Assumptions! One is searching for an algorithm which will yield the correct expectations of "B_j"! Then I lay down a specific procedure for finding that algorithm: My procedure involves attaching a number to every reference to every element of every B_j. I have made no mention of any rule as to how that number is to be attached! And then you come back and say that I am "assuming" that changing the assignment method makes no difference. Hey guy, if it makes a difference, then I better be able to tell you how to assign it! It is not an assumption, it is a matter of fact of the model which can not be avoided!

Although I have become fully aware that people find that document very hard to follow, I have not changed it because the problem is misunderstanding and not actual error.

But then how do you reasonably expect anyone to follow you?

Gee, I though you would have picked up on that by now. I don't! That is why I have been laying out alternate explanation of the details in this thread!

I'm sorry if this post is a little aggressive, but I think you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes to some respect and whenever we try to complain you accuse us of not reading your work properly. This is not the way to go about persuading us that we should like your perspective!

I am not trying to persuade you that you should like my perspective! I have an opinion that you should and I believe that, if you could ever manage to understand it, you would. I am trying to clarify it. Hopefully someone someday will have the brains to follow it without being led like a blind man through every step.

I'm sorry if this post is a little derisive, but I just don't think you aren’t paying any attention at all to what I am saying. You are not deducing anything from my definitions because you are totally ignoring them. I say my presentation is rigorous, but you will never discover that unless you follow and understand it step by step.

Thank you for letting me spout, sometimes it feels good to just let it out! I hope I have not run you off, but I will accept it if I have.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[confutatis]

I am not trying to persuade you that you should like my perspective! I have an opinion that you should and I believe that, if you could ever manage to understand it, you would. I am trying to clarify it. Hopefully someone someday will have the brains to follow it without being led like a blind man through every step.

Deja vu...

I've met this DoctorDick a few years ago, in another internet forum. I have actually understood the central point of what he's trying to say, but ultimately the whole thing revealed itself to be an enormous obfuscation of some rather trivial facts. In essence, what he is demonstrating is that any collection of data can be shown to obey the laws of physics if you can postulate the existence of real entities whose properties are unmeasurable. That is, either the laws of physics apply to things that are measurable, or they apply to things that are unmeasurable but are required to explain the behaviour of things that are measurable.

He's not entirely mislead. His language is very idiosyncratic, but in essence most of the things he is saying are said by physicists themselves; he's just presenting standard physisc from a slightly different perspective which, through obscure mathematics, is made to sound like something entirely new. All the advanced math is just a trick to misdirect people's attention from the fact that his arguments are entirely devoid of any meaning, or at least don't state anything that is not already known in other terms.

Far more interesting than his definitions and equations is his behaviour, which I'm sure has already puzzled some people on this forum.

 

[gptejms]

I've joined 'physicsforums' a couple of days back and am randomly searching through various posts to see what's interesting.I sent a post on many worlds interpretation a few hours back--no answer yet.Anyway let's come to Dr. Dick's hot topic--'clocks don't measure time'.First I need to understand what exactly you are trying to say.In the example you've considered the clock does measure proper time(i.e. time in a reference frame attached to the clock)---the rest of the clocks in the other frames also measure proper times in their respective frames.Where is the problem?Another question I need to ask you is--you've talked of the clock being destroyed---why is it necessary to destroy the clock---just asking to try to understand your central idea.

 

[baffledMatt]

Either they did not read the definitions, do not understand the definitions, or they don't want to use the definitions; otherwise, their responses would not be at all what they are. You are continually making comments way beyond the opening stage and your comments seldom seem to make any sense when interpreted in terms of the things I have defined.

Since you moved right through Chapter I and began making comments on Chapter II, I initially assumed you understood chapter I. Although you raised an important issue on my move to replace P (and the "undefined" algorithms used to calculate it) with P₁P₂ (and the algorithms used to calculate them), you totally missed the point that commutation could not possibly be an issue. I can only interpret that as evidence that you had no idea what $\vec{\Psi}$ stood for.

Or perhaps you simply don't understand my comments? I mean, forget the philosophy, I believe that I made some valid points on your mathematics and you seem to dismiss them entirely out of hand because 'I didn't read it' - as you would well know of course.

Sorry, but I've had enough of this. I get enough arrogant old scientists at uni, I can't be fussed to deal with another one.

Matt

 

[Doctordick]

--you've talked of the clock being destroyed---why is it necessary to destroy the clock---just asking to try to understand your central idea.

Simply to define an event associated with that clock so that people can understand that the functioning of the clock (which ceases when it is destroyed) is a phenomena governed by the rules of physics and thus is exactly bound by the fact that "all rules of physics must be the same in all reference frames". This requires the fact that clocks can not possibly measure time; the output of a clock is a frame independent phenomena. (Scientists know this that's why they will always say, "Oh, your talking about proper time; that's something different!")

In effect, the scientific community uses two contradictory definitions of time. They ignore this fact by pretending that the view I present has no consequences and there is no need to look carefully at the issue. The reason they got to where they got is that they "think clocks measure time" (after all, that's what they were invented for weren’t they?)

Newton so established the clockwork view of the functioning of the universe together with a great many valuable physical algorithms which were direct functions of time that all scientists held time to be a very important factor in any physical phenomena. Now Einstein pointed out that time, as defined by Newton just wasn't right. Simultaneity, as viewed by Newtonian physics was just not achievable.

Though there are a lot of deep thinkers on this forum who believe the Michelson Morley experiments or modern physics fail to provide a good defense of relativity, they are simply mentally incapable of following a stream of logic that extensive (major problems with short attention span). Relativity is a fact, not a theory! Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory; it is an explanation of relativity, not a prediction of it. (Oh yes, the general theory has made some predictions which have been born out, but special relativity is an explanation, not really a prediction; I don't think a lot of people on this forum really understand the difference between "knowing" something and "understanding" it.)

At any rate, Einstein's explanation was achieved by making time a coordinate of the universe. Plot your data in his geometry (x,y,z, and t) and it all makes sense (if you are careful about how you interpret things). And I have no argument with his deductions at all! However, I think he made a serious conceptual error. Though he pointed out that Newton's concept of time was erroneous and inconsistent, he did not at all examine Newton's definition itself: i.e., that clocks defined time.

He did show that it was always possible to set up a frame of reference where the Newtonian concept of simultaneity could not be proved invalid (and thus a defense could be mounted that he could use it). In fact there are an infinite number of such frames (one for every possible inertial frame of a hypothetical observer). Notice that I said "could not be proved invalid". That's not quite exactly the same thing as saying it is valid!

Now, that being the case, he certainly cannot be proved in error from his deductions. However, in Einstein's space-time geometry there exist trajectories for hypothetical observers which are outlawed. If you are not "careful about how you interpret things", you can produce all kinds of irrational predictions: time travel, contradiction of causality, tachyons and more I suspect.

I say the reason for this is his presumption that "clocks define time". The reaction I have gotten from all (and that includes absolutely everybody I have ever talked to in my whole life) is that "no, there cannot possibly be any error in that concept". So there is no discussion of it. Cest le vie, it makes no real difference to me.

I doubt you will find any problem to look at there either, but, if you do and are bothered by it, I can show you the resolution.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Doctordick]

...you totally missed the point that commutation could not possibly be an issue. I can only interpret that as evidence that you had no idea what $\vec{\Psi}$ stood for.

Or perhaps you simply don't understand my comments? I mean, forget the philosophy, I believe that I made some valid points on your mathematics and you seem to dismiss them entirely out of hand because 'I didn't read it' - as you would well know of course.

If you knew what $\vec{\Psi}$ stood for, how could you have possibly considered commutation to be an issue?

And I am going to presume you just didn't read my post any farther as you didn't comment on any of my other responses (I do believe I responded to all of your criticisms which is more courtesy than you have chosen to give me.)

Sorry, but I've had enough of this. I get enough arrogant old scientists at uni, I can't be fussed to deal with another one.

Well, I can certainly agree with that. As I said earlier, talking to me is not going to provide you with money or fame and, if you have as much difficulty following your professors as you do following me, you need all the time you can lay your hands on. Physics is a rigorous subject and one needs to look at the details not just the philosophy.

Have fun and good luck – Dick

PS no offense taken!

 

[ram2048]

k finally read through all of the posts on this thread and i still think my theory is correct.

yay i win something don't i ?

 

[gptejms]

You're right--I don't find any problem to look at there!
Your logic seems to be this:-the readings on the clock are the same in every frame--i.e. the readings don't reflect the time in moving frames-so clocks don't measure time.QED.(let me know if that's not your logic)
To my mind you have to have some measure of time and a clock is a good one at that.If you start out with that-- the clock does measure proper time and there is no reason why that should agree with the proper time of other frames.

 

[Doctordick]

Strange, I am not surprised at all.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[grimms117]

ok now I am only a 19yr old withprobably no where as much education than any of. Yet i still do understand. here is something to think about with ur clocks, a clock has been said to not be able to measure time witch i believe to be correct. what if in stead of thinking of a clock as a measuring tool look at it as a reference. a clock let's u know what time it is where the clock is located( as long as the clock is set correctly according to the parameters of the ultimate mass it is on or in i.e. a planet moon star space in general) not how long it has been, the measurement happens in ur mind or u could say u calculate how long is has been or how long until another specific time.
i hope someone can give me some kind of opinion on this thought

 

[Integral]

This thread is long dead let us leave it that way.