- #1
azoulay
- 54
- 0
I just read the thread entitled: "How did Einstein Define Time" and I'm very confused.
At school, I was taught that time was an abstract representation of movement meaning that the word "time" can only be used to represent movements.
For example, when Earth has completed a cycle around the Sun, that is called "one year". So in this example we see that the "one year" (concept of time) represents a movement (the cycle of Earth going around the Sun).
So the definition of time for me has always been that it's an abstract representation of some movement and nothing else.
Now, in the Hafele–Keating experiment where Cesium atomic clocks where used to test Einstein's theory of relativity, they state that the clocks going eastward in the airplane jets "lost time" and the clocks going westward "gain time". These conclusions (of clocks gaining and losing time) can only be considered in regards to a specific definition of the notion of time which I think Einstein has lacked to provide. One thing is for sure, considering the definition of time that was taught to me, it is absurd to think that a clock can gain or lose time, it just makes no sense at all.
What does makes sense tough is that while the air plane jets goes eastward, the speed of the cesium atoms oscillations slows down and when the air plane jets goes westward, the speed of the cesium atoms oscillations increases. But that's it ! Nothing else can be said about that experiment. The jet planes moving eastward or westward has absolutely NO direct effect on the clock, they only affect the speed of oscillation of the cesium atoms and it is that speed of oscillation of the cesium atoms that's speeding or slowing the clock ! So the "time" shown on the clock is totally dependant on the speed of oscillation of the cesium atom.
For Einstein to say that the clocks are "losing or gaining time" relative to those clocks traveling at some speed is to make a direct relationship between "time" and the speed of the oscillation of the cesium atoms. So why bother confusing people using the word "time" instead of simply saying things as they are: "it is the speed of oscillation of the cesium atom that is relative" ?
Time is NOT relative to anything unless your definition of time is : "the speed of oscillation of the cesium atom" !
I think that Einstein biggest problem was to talk about time without ever giving a specific definition of what he considered time to be. He gave the definition of: "time of an event" but that's different from the notion of "time" alone by itself.
Does my above explanations makes sense to anyone ?
regards,
jonathan
At school, I was taught that time was an abstract representation of movement meaning that the word "time" can only be used to represent movements.
For example, when Earth has completed a cycle around the Sun, that is called "one year". So in this example we see that the "one year" (concept of time) represents a movement (the cycle of Earth going around the Sun).
So the definition of time for me has always been that it's an abstract representation of some movement and nothing else.
Now, in the Hafele–Keating experiment where Cesium atomic clocks where used to test Einstein's theory of relativity, they state that the clocks going eastward in the airplane jets "lost time" and the clocks going westward "gain time". These conclusions (of clocks gaining and losing time) can only be considered in regards to a specific definition of the notion of time which I think Einstein has lacked to provide. One thing is for sure, considering the definition of time that was taught to me, it is absurd to think that a clock can gain or lose time, it just makes no sense at all.
What does makes sense tough is that while the air plane jets goes eastward, the speed of the cesium atoms oscillations slows down and when the air plane jets goes westward, the speed of the cesium atoms oscillations increases. But that's it ! Nothing else can be said about that experiment. The jet planes moving eastward or westward has absolutely NO direct effect on the clock, they only affect the speed of oscillation of the cesium atoms and it is that speed of oscillation of the cesium atoms that's speeding or slowing the clock ! So the "time" shown on the clock is totally dependant on the speed of oscillation of the cesium atom.
For Einstein to say that the clocks are "losing or gaining time" relative to those clocks traveling at some speed is to make a direct relationship between "time" and the speed of the oscillation of the cesium atoms. So why bother confusing people using the word "time" instead of simply saying things as they are: "it is the speed of oscillation of the cesium atom that is relative" ?
Time is NOT relative to anything unless your definition of time is : "the speed of oscillation of the cesium atom" !
I think that Einstein biggest problem was to talk about time without ever giving a specific definition of what he considered time to be. He gave the definition of: "time of an event" but that's different from the notion of "time" alone by itself.
Does my above explanations makes sense to anyone ?
regards,
jonathan