From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

BORN ON SIMULTANEITY (independence of clocks)

Born5 states on page 226, " Simultaneity is a fallacy.....", and "But there is certainly no such time for the quantitative physicist. He sees no meaning in the statement that an event at A and an event at B are simultaneous, since he has no means of deciding the truth or falsity of this assertion. To be able to decide whether two events at different points are simultaneous we must have clocks at every point which we can be certain will go at the same rate or beat, "synchronously." Thus the question resolves into this: Can we define a means of testing the equal rate of two clocks situated at different points?" and further from page 227, "But even if the assumption is made that there are ideal clocks free from errors (such as the physicist is `convinced he has in the atomic vibrations that lead to the emission of light), it is logically inadmissable to base on them the definition of time in systems moving relative to each other; for the equal beating of two clocks, however good they may be, cannot be tested directly, that is, without the intervention of signals, unless they are close, and at rest relative to each other. It cannot be established without signals that they maintain the same rate when in relative motion. The contrary is the kind of pure hypothesis which we should avoid if we wish to adhere to the principles of physical research."


On page 257 Born states, speaking of the twins paradox, "All atomic vibrations--indeed, even the course of life itself -- must behave just like the clocks. ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ "This is a truly a strange deduction, which can, however, be avoided by no twist of reasoning. We must put up with it just as, some centuries ago, it had to be accepted that our fellow creatures in the antipodes stood on their heads."

 M. Born, G. Leibfried and W. Biem, "Einsteinís Theory of Relativity", Dover, NY,1962, p225ff.

Event Time is the undeniable ordering of events for participants. Participants are in effect clocks manifesting and ordering of interaction that is absolute for all observers. The events are exchanges in state change rates between participants in a relative direction manifesting spacetime intervals.

Time in Spacetime is the relative difference orderings of events between independent clocks, or participants. This is classical time of the stationary observer. What the traveler (participant) perceives is an event time lattice where the participant if forced forward in time such that it could not see itself coming (no passing light speed) which would be impossible because the information about its coming is gone at the event of its coming. Each primitive event is an exchange of state change rates between independent clocks with a relative direction as participants always perceive the exchange as going from the high energy state to the lower energy state. As energy is a function of velocity and velocity is relative, classical time, or spacetime is relative. Events manifest positions fleetingly. Each primitive event has exactly two participants, the event history is lost as soon as soon as the event occurs, relentlessly advancing time only forward.

People are just stuck on the idea that there is some absolute notion of time. All the evidence suggests that is a pipe dream. The relative nature of time and space are here to stay. When you look at the fabric of time and space as fleeting event orderings it is clear why time moves only forward at a relative rate.

Besides being necessary to avoid violations in time ordering it is necessary to account for the apparent constant speed of light. If your clock was not slower you could measure light approaching you as moving much faster that c. If it were not for time dilation expending lots of energy accelerating to approach c would result in an practically infinite spectral shift at the same time. You would catch on fire from the extreme energy of approaching stars. Time dilation prevents that from happening. The one absolute effect of special relativity is time dilation. Mass increases, length contraction, and rapidity reductions are simple the distorted view of the observer, not an absolute effect.

This has been confirmed not only by high energy mesons and every other short lived particles in accelerators, but also in SAC jet travel and NASA space travel.

An interesting interpretation is that the energy of a mass must be constant in all reference frames. Thus a moving body must have less inertial mass than a stationary one to account for its kinetic energy. The slowing of its clock frequency exactly accounts for the excess energy that would have otherwise perceived adding the rest mass energy to the kinetic energy.

A geometrical interpretation is that spacetime is both time and space, a body at rest is traveling at the speed of light through time, a body traveling at high speed is still traveling at the speed of light in its own time, but part of its time is the space it traversed with respect to others. Therefore its clock goes slower.

In the standard model of the quantum there is no time, everything happens at once if you take a global perspective. Time is an illusion dependent on the observer.

And in theory, based on Schodingders equation the universe can run backwards as readily as frontwards.

This is all well and good and comprehending it is a cathartic experience, but there are some practical problems.

It implies a steady state universe contrary to experience. It does not distinguish the universe we experience from all possible universes.

If you want to believe that all possible universes really do exist then nothing at all matters, all will be well in some universe.

If however, you wish to focus on the one universe that is actually manifest to us, then no longer is time arbitrary. Interactions collapse quantum possibilities in a one way irreversible manner consuming the past and generating possible futures.

  • Entropy increases
  • Evolution moves forward
  • Light from the sun reached your eye 9 minutes later
  • We experience only one expanding, cooling universe.

We cannot dispose of it by logical trick.

In the ExperienceModel discrete events travel along LightCones manifesting time and space dependent on ReferenceFrame.

the ordering of events in the general sense is only an ordering of events, not necessarily time. But you can just as easily twist this logic around (may give you a headache) and say that all ordering manifest time and there is no space. The two views are equivalent. The relative nature of time and space make them interchangeable depending on perspective.

(originally from http://www.zen-forum.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?postid=29267 )

All perceivable event ordering manifests time. Space itself is a manifestation of event time. Orderings are immutable for each observer, relative orderings manifest space. See QuantumEventTimeSpace ExperienceModel.

Our window on existence is the current epoch of the evolution of the cosmos. We cannot receive any information from outside this window. Thus scientifically we cannot say anything definite about what cannot be observed. And though our philosophy can speculate about the nature of the unobservable All, we have no bases for judging one view over another.

If we restrict our inquiry to the universe that we actually observe, we find:

  1. it is not steady state. it is a dynamical system where information is created and lost (entropy).
  2. nothing is necessarily eternal, most everything will go the way of the dinosaurs.
  3. quantum events manifest an ecology of information.

The evolutionary cosmos manifest evolutionary beings, it also seems apparent that self knowledge can benefit equally from both views, and one should not be held above the other.

Events occur only when they can't be undone, which is what happens when information is lost. No one has to perceive the loss of information, the information just has to be unavailable period.

Einstein only provided a mathematical explanation for why measurement showed that light does not move like other objects and no matter how fast you are moving toward or away from the light source the speed, relative to you, was constant.

In addition to being consistent with the observed nature of light, his explanation also predicted e=mc^2. This has led many to presume that his formulation is correct.

It is not hard to show, however, that it is wrong at the quantum level. Though is seems quite accurate on the galactic scale it must be fundamentally wrong.

I have resolved the problem in my QuantumEventTimeSpace model but even if I did not I would still believe in the speed limit for one simple reason, exceeding light speed means effects could precede causes.

Can I get there and then you watch me come? Not in this universe.

 What makes light special in this way?  Concorde traveling at Mach 2 can arrive first, and after it arrives you hear it coming.  I accept that light is special in this way, but why?  I think you must take the speed of light being the maximum possible as an axiom, not as something deduced from simpler principles.
 'Sound travels through air, light travels though nothing, nothing carries it and it takes no particular path from poit a to point b because it represents an exchange of state change information (energy) between the sender and receiver. (if may be modeled as virtual electron positron interactions in the underlying SyntheticModel which have no effect in the ExperienceModel besides perfect transmission/exchange of the differences) The source of the light and the thing itself are one and the same.  If I got here before the light, there would be two of me here when the light arrived.  There is no limit on how fast you can go, the limit is how fast others can see you come.  If you burn enough rocket fuel you can go a light year in a second, but others say it took you a year and a second.  Space is a manifestation of time, it is the delay in the information signals of the universe.  You cannot travel though space without traveling through time.  What we call the speed of light is really the delay of space.'  (UnitarianSpaceTravelExperience)

The universe clearly preserves the absolute ordering of events for all observers since no exception has ever been observed and nothing would make sense if causes and effects were not ordered.

by the way, there is no limit to how fast you can travel, you can go as fast as you want and get there as fast as you want.

The real problem is that space IS time, a delay in a signal, and moving through space necessarily advances you through time, so even if you get there in a minute you will still be late for dinner.

In the fabric of event histories that comprises space and time you can see why crossing from one perspective to another also advances you in time. the "now" there is gone when you get there, you cannot be in two places at the same time. The fabric of event orderings is the only road there is to take

Because the universe is largely deterministic we can logically go forward or backwards, but physical phenomenon manifest an information system where receivers are tuned to action messages from the past which are then reacted (propagated) into the future in a yet undetermined way depending on the perspective of the tuned in receiver. The objective present does not exist in this view. All observations are past and the result of action is yet to be determined.

Does the past exist? Can it be observed? Yes. Yesterday is just one light day away barley out of our solar system there may be beings seeing our yesterday in their now. Does last year exist? Yes, just one light year away. There is at least 10 billion years of time in the universe.

In the standard model the present only exists in a super-position of states where all possible futures exist at the same time with some probability. This is because the perspective of the receiver of the state change information determines how it will be manifest and we cannot know for sure who will be tuned to the signal in the future. I just say the present is not yet determined and therefore is not manifest.

Only when the experiment is constructed so the we know for sure how the state information will be received, i.e. only one possibility exists, is the now and the future defined.

"Time" isn't a physical object, it cannot be felt, tasted, smelled or diagnosed. It is just a record keeping device created by man. In effect, mans Science-Fictionlike ideas of "setting the time machine to the past year, and going there" do not exist. If you think about it, consider the time before the Common era (BCE). They did not in effect consider themselves before the common era, or before christ, or whatever you feel like believing. They also did not have a backwards system of numbers leading up to the new era. So time is not absolute, it's what we make it.

Other theories in Quantum Mechanics say the same thing, but that time travel may be possible. Some believe in the Multi-verse theory, which would in that allow shifts between universes, if calculated in effect, returning to the past. This is only a theory though, that for most reasons I disagree with.

Wait, that's right, back to my actual point. Time isn't relative. Man made the clock on the corner of your computer screen, man made the computer, man made time. --KenSchry

We are not talking about the human concept of time Kenny. Events define spacetime intervals that may time like, manifesting mass, at low relative speeds, or space like, at high relative speed. Events at near light speed are manifesting space like interval instead of time like intervals. This accounts for the time dilation. Since speed is relative, time also must be relative. The discrepancies in time for high speed travelers verses those who stay home has been experimentally verified over and over again. It is not a matter of opinion, it is how the universe actually works. You are correct that the direction of time is consistent for all observers. It is not possible for any observer to directly observe any clock going backwards. How fast or slow it moves, however, is relative. -- JimScarver

WhitescarverClock, ClockParadox, UnitarianSpaceTravelExperience

Personal tools