Is time dilation just a problem with our clocks?

[Dale]

I'm just wondering if time dilation isn't limited to the quantum world.

There is no reason to think that it doesn't apply microscopically.

Your plant data point illustrates the difference between good science and bad science. Plant growth, as a clock, is known to be susceptible to a wide variety of effects. Including light, temperature, soil composition and texture, nutrients, atmosphere, moisture, and gravitational acceleration. So, an experiment to test relativistic effects on plant growth would need to control for all of these non relativistic factors. If it did not control for them then it would not be a very good experiment.

Did the data you are thinking of have such controls?

 

[Edriven]

Thank you. Interesting article.

Gentlemen, it seems to me that we agree on the changing of the clock. It has been proven. My example is 3 observers (with decent vision, a wrist watch and an atomic clock): one stays on earth, one orbits Earth, and one on Mercury. A strobe is placed on the moon that flashes once per second. Assuming that the Mercury observer can see the strobe on the moon, they all make observations and record them during their journeys. They all spend a good deal of time in these observation posts. They eventually meet on Earth and discuss their findings. Neither observer appears any older than the other. Their crops in space grew better than on earth. All 3 observers report that their wrist watches and the strobe kept perfect time, while their atomic clocks only varies by milliseconds. So what should we conclude? Time was slowed down or the atomic clock lost calibration?

 

[Edriven]

There is no reason to think that it doesn't apply microscopically.

Your plant data point illustrates the difference between good science and bad science. Plant growth, as a clock, is known to be susceptible to a wide variety of effects. Including light, temperature, soil composition and texture, nutrients, atmosphere, moisture, and gravitational acceleration. So, an experiment to test relativistic effects on plant growth would need to control for all of these non relativistic factors. If it did not control for them then it would not be a very good experiment.

Did the data you are thinking of have such controls?

Please see my explanation below

 

[russ_watters]

All 3 observers report that their wrist watches and the strobe kept perfect time, while their atomic clocks only varies by milliseconds. So what should we conclude? Time was slowed down or the atomic clock lost calibration?

That doesn't resemble reality: wrist watches don't keep very good time and an atomic clock does. The atomic clock's variation would match very closely with the predictions of Relativity if someone was keeping track of its location/speed, so it would be clear that the variation was not a calibration issue.

 

[PeterDonis]

We see it at work in the precession of the orbit of Mercury

Perihelion precession isn't really due to time dilation. It's due to the fact that, to the first post-Newtonian order, the "force" of gravity has a velocity-dependent component that is not present in Newtonian gravity.

 

[PAllen]

Gentlemen, it seems to me that we agree on the changing of the clock. It has been proven. My example is 3 observers (with decent vision, a wrist watch and an atomic clock): one stays on earth, one orbits Earth, and one on Mercury. A strobe is placed on the moon that flashes once per second. Assuming that the Mercury observer can see the strobe on the moon, they all make observations and record them during their journeys. They all spend a good deal of time in these observation posts. They eventually meet on Earth and discuss their findings. Neither observer appears any older than the other. Their crops in space grew better than on earth. All 3 observers report that their wrist watches and the strobe kept perfect time, while their atomic clocks only varies by milliseconds. So what should we conclude? Time was slowed down or the atomic clock lost calibration?

Change the experiment such that the atomic clocks vary by years (make one of the observers be in a rocket accelerating away from Earth at 1g for a year - per earth, then turning around and accelerating at 1 g for a year back). Then the age of the people will vary by over a year on meet up.

 

[PeterDonis]

it seems to me that we agree on the changing of the clock.

We agree that clocks that travel on different paths through spacetime between the same pair of events can, in general, register different elapsed times, because of the geometry of spacetime. But not all of the things you mention are due to that effect, and sometimes you appear to be saying that the effect is not even present.

Neither observer appears any older than the other.

No, this is not correct; the three observers will all have different elapsed times from the start (where they all are together on Earth before the two traveling observers depart, to Earth orbit and Mercury) to the end (where they all meet up back on Earth again).

Their crops in space grew better than on earth.

As has been pointed out multiple times now, this is not due to relativistic time dilation; it's due to other factors that have a much greater impact on plant growth. Please do not keep using this example; this forum is for discussing relativity, not plant biology.

So what should we conclude? Time was slowed down or the atomic clock lost calibration?

You can easily rule out the second possibility: just compare the rates of the atomic clocks when they meet back up. If they are all sitting on Earth again, at rest relative to each other, and they all tick at the same rates again, then they kept their calibration fine.

The first possibility is correct, but it is not best viewed as "time slowing down". It is best viewed as spacetime geometry: different paths through spacetime between the same pair of events can have different lengths. This is no different than the fact that different paths on the Earth's surface between the same two points can have different lengths. It's just geometry.

 

[Dale]

Moderators note: several posts involving personal speculation have been deleted.

 

[Janus]

Gentlemen, it seems to me that we agree on the changing of the clock. It has been proven. My example is 3 observers (with decent vision, a wrist watch and an atomic clock): one stays on earth, one orbits Earth, and one on Mercury. A strobe is placed on the moon that flashes once per second. Assuming that the Mercury observer can see the strobe on the moon, they all make observations and record them during their journeys. They all spend a good deal of time in these observation posts. They eventually meet on Earth and discuss their findings. Neither observer appears any older than the other. Their crops in space grew better than on earth. All 3 observers report that their wrist watches and the strobe kept perfect time, while their atomic clocks only varies by milliseconds. So what should we conclude? Time was slowed down or the atomic clock lost calibration?

The logical conclusion is that wrist watches, plant growth and human biological aging aren't accurate enough methods of time measurement to detect a time difference of only milliseconds over an extended observation period. If they were, they would show the same time difference as the atomic clocks. Time dilation has nothing to do with what type of clock was used to make the measurement. As has been stated above, its due to differing paths through space-time.

I'll try to illustrate by an analogy. Two men start at the same point and begin traveling in different directions at an angle to each other. After each has traveled a set distance as measured by themselves, they check on the progress of the other, with each one judging said progress as being in the direction they, themselves, are traveling. Both will note that the other man has made less progress in the direction in which he is walking. It doesn't matter what method the men use to make the measurement. Tape measure, laser ranger, etc. As long as they are accurate enough so that the difference in their progress is greater than any error in their measurement method.

If one of the men then changes direction so that he is paralleling the other man's path, he will find that in terms of progress in the direction he is walking, he will be behind the other man.

This is the same type of effect that happens in Relativity, but with one of the spatial directions replaced with the time dimension, And for each man the "direction" of time is always in the direction he himself is traveling. Time dilation is not about some outside influence affecting clocks, it's about the very nature of Space and Time and how they interrelate to each other.

 

[darkchild]

I used to have difficulty with the concept of time dilation similar to what is expressed in the OP. The problem is that physics theory, or the way it is discussed or taught, is not explicit about definitions of terms. The key, as someone posted early on, is that "time is what a clock measures." In everyday speech, time is an abstract concept, so neither gravity nor any other physical mechanism can alter it. With that meaning in mind, the concept of time dilation seems absurd. In physics, however, it seems to be (only implicitly?) defined as the operation of clocks, and the operation of clocks is obviously affected by physical phenomena, so time dilation makes more sense in this sense.

Having majored in physics myself, I'm intrigued by the fact that some people seem to intuitively pick up on these implicit ideas, while others (like myself) do not. Who knows, maybe they were taught explicitly. When I look at physics threads, I see people who are discussing physics theory from inside physics theory (everything they say refers back to theory) trying to communicate with people, often laypeople, who are discussing it from outside — from a position that prioritizes their knowledge of and experience with the natural world, seeking to fit the theory in with that. The latter don't understand, and the former throw more theory at them, which may not solve the problem because the latter may lack the thought paradigm necessary to make sense of the theory. I'm certain that much of the reason people struggle to grasp physics is due to the weak bridge between these two paradigms. It's certainly the reason I struggled, and still struggle.

Physics would be much easier to understand if there was some type of movement to directly address the transition from the layperson's physical-world perspective to a physics-theory perspective. Explicit definitions, explanations for why things are modeled the way they are (rather than just expecting people to accept unrealistic-looking models without comment) and their pros and cons, explanations of why the theory defies intuition, and less reliance on explanatory metaphors. Also, better distinction between facts and non-facts. I have noticed an off-putting attitude from some posters (on this forum and others) to the effect that "this is the way things are; if you disagree, you are a crackpot," but the fact of the matter is that some details of physics models are quite arbitrary, so no, it's not quite true that such a model is simply the way things are, and saying so is likely to confuse. The whole purpose of physics is to describe the natural world; if people don't see a correspondence between the two, the discipline is failing in a crucial way.

Kudos to the earlier poster who recognized that the OP probably has a different (but not necessarily wrong) way of viewing relativity. That's the kind of engagement that promotes understanding of physics.

 

[PeterDonis]

In everyday speech, time is an abstract concept, so neither gravity nor any other physical mechanism can alter it. With that meaning in mind, the concept of time dilation seems absurd.

But this abstract concept of time turns out not to work. For example, if this abstract concept of time were correct, the clocks on the GPS satellites would not have to be adjusted in order to put out time signals that match clocks on Earth.

laypeople, who are discussing it from outside — from a position that prioritizes their knowledge of and experience with the natural world, seeking to fit the theory in with that

But this viewpoint assumes that laypeople have a consistent conception of their knowledge of and experience with the natural world, which is often not true; not that people explicitly seek out inconsistency, but that they've never been forced to consider all the implications of their unexamined beliefs. Also, it assumes (implicitly) that people's knowledge and experience with the natural world covers a wide enough range of phenomena to be applicable when modern physics is being discussed. That is certainly not true; nobody's everyday experience includes phenomena in which relativity is significant, and while many aspects of our everyday experience ultimately depend on quantum phenomena, the connection is not obvious and is not part of people's knowledge of and experience with those phenomena. (Btw, I'm not trying to point fingers here: what I've said in this paragraph describes me before I learned about relativity and QM.)

Studying physics, particularly relativity and QM, forces people to face up to the limitations of their everyday knowledge and experience, and to confront the fact that many of their unexamined beliefs and assumptions, based on the limited range of phenomena in their everyday experience, are actually wrong. Those beliefs and assumptions work reasonably well as approximations in the limited domain of everyday experience, but they break down outside that domain.

IMO one of the first things anyone who wants to learn about modern physics should do is to accept the fact that their intuitions will not work. But I do agree that people won't see the need to do this just from being given reams of theory. They need to be confronted with experimental results that simply do not match their intuitions.

The whole purpose of physics is to describe the natural world; if people don't see a correspondence between the two, the discipline is failing in a crucial way.

But if you define "the natural world" as "the world most people are familiar with from their everyday experience", which is what your statement that I quoted earlier implicitly does, then there is not a correspondence between the two. That's the problem. People come into relativity and QM expecting their intuitions to work, and they don't. They expect "time" to work the way it works in everyday experience, and then they find out that it doesn't. Well, it doesn't. There's no way around that.

Now, if someone asks, "Why doesn't time work the way it seems to work in everyday experience?", then we've made progress. We can at least try to answer that question--although "why" questions in physics always end up bottoming out somewhere; there is always a point where the answer is "because that's the way we've found things to be". But we can at least explain about proper time, and how it depends on the particular path you take through spacetime, and how people who take different paths through spacetime can have different elapsed proper times when they meet up again, and show experimental results that confirm that yes, this happens. But the person has to start by asking the question--by at least admitting the possibility that time doesn't work the way it seems to work in everyday experience. The person who keeps on saying, "But time should work this way!" in the face of all the evidence that it doesn't--well, there isn't much we can do here at PF for that person, except to keep them from interfering with the discussion.

 

[bligh]

Replying to oct 20 2015 reply to me blighcapn re Time dilatation, my comments and your's about views from inside professional physics and outside such as mine.
I use logic as my base. A physical theory can be correct as it is stated, but when aspects of it are presented to the public as dogma, such as BBT, Time dilatation, Bending space and the like I compare it to all the information at hand. Doing so, I found that my "theory" that is totally consistent with physics as I know it and with logical consistency, at least to me, is far more superior and more consistent. Granted it begins with a strong metaphysical base, but I have found that almost all modern physics fits, with the exceptions mentioned above.
When I have reponded to other posts in the past, one of the bull dogs on the watch detail has kicked me off. I am very pleased to have found my way back into these discussions. So, If you are a mentor or a guard dog, please tell that other one to back off. Sorry, can't remember his name.
BTW, are you familiar with Alton Arp, Al Kelly, Thomas E. Phipps Jr. and Lenard Ashmore, Lee Smolin? How about Fritz Zwicky? These gentlemen have some very good ideas and should not be so marginalized.
Thanks to you, Darkchild
bligh

 

[PeterDonis]

Doing so, I found that my "theory" that is totally consistent with physics as I know it and with logical consistency, at least to me, is far more superior and more consistent.

Do you have a mainstream reference (peer-reviewed paper or textbook) for your "theory"? If you don't, it's a personal theory and off limits for discussion here. The only reason I didn't give you a warning for this particular post is so that I could respond as I have just done, so you would understand why your previous posts were deleted and why future posts from you along these same lines, without references, will also be deleted.

When I have reponded to other posts in the past, one of the bull dogs on the watch detail has kicked me off.

That's because you gave references that were not valid. Al Kelly is not a valid reference.

are you familiar with Alton Arp, Al Kelly, Thomas E. Phipps Jr. and Lenard Ashmore, Lee Smolin? How about Fritz Zwicky? These gentlemen have some very good ideas and should not be so marginalized.

If you can find valid references by these gentlemen (peer-reviewed papers or textbooks) that support whatever claims you are making, by all means post links to them. But don't just throw names around without being able to back them up with valid references. That will get you a warning and a deletion. Again.

 

[darkchild]

But this abstract concept of time turns out not to work. For example, if this abstract concept of time were correct, the clocks on the GPS satellites would not have to be adjusted in order to put out time signals that match clocks on Earth.

It does work. It is intended for dealing with change, and people do that successfully with it all the time. You are illustrating what I meant about discussing physics from the outside vs. the inside. I distinguished time in physics vs. time in everyday speech — a metatheory level distinction— and here you are dragging us back into the domain of physics again. Physics theory has no bearing on the workaday concept of time, just as the physics concept of work has no bearing on the workaday concept of work (aside from probably being derived from it). They are two separate concepts with different purposes and purviews; neither is any more "correct" than the other because there is little meaningful basis upon which to compare them as such (common use of time has nothing to do with satellites or relativity). You, a mentor, can cause confusion by eliding such distinctions.

Besides that, an accurate and experimentally verifiable physics in which time is invariant is possible, so time as it is conceptualized in existing physics theory isn't correct in any absolute sense even when considered solely in the realm of physics. It is a mere model, one possible representation of physical reality; it is not a fact, and presenting it as such is misleading.

I don't know if you understood anything from my previous post. It was a criticism of communication, particularly physics pedagogy, formal and informal (like what mentors provide on this forum). I mentioned the way laypeople think as a starting point to discuss how to get them to understand physics (and the failure to do so). It wasn't a promotion of an intuitive approach to physics.

 

[Dale]

here you are dragging us back into the domain of physics

And correctly so. This is Physics Forums.

This thread is closed.