Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

I claim "at that same instant in time" is not meaningful unless a canonical global time measure exists. You are trying to prove this, so you can't assume it here!

I have proved over and over on this thread that, ignoring gravity, a global time measure does exist; or else Einstein's first postulate on which he based SR must be null and void. Do you declare Einstein's first postulate null and void? Yes or No?

[johanfprins]

Two different inertial reference frames have different space and time axes.

No they do not! they have exactly the same time axis. Clocks at all popsitions within an inertial reference frame keep time at the same rate and does NOT change frrom one position to the next.

The intersection of the t=0 space volume and the t'=0 space volume is a plane, and only on this plane clocks all show the same time.

BS!!

[johanfprins]

and the rate of propagation of electromagnetic waves is defined by the rate at which the interference of quantum probability fields beget new quantum probability fields.

The waves are NOT probabilty distributions: To asssume this is paranormal metaphysics: i.e Voodoo!

which leads back to my conjecture that the rate of time (and by extension the curvature of space) is determined by the quantum information rate of free space.

What quantum information?

and from this follows gravity.

Again unadulterated BS.

[Teahive]

Two different inertial reference frames have different space and time axes.

No they do not! they have exactly the same time axis. Clocks at all popsitions within an inertial reference frame keep time at the same rate and does NOT change frrom one position to the next.

I wrote two intertial reference frames. They cannot have the same time axis if the Lorentz transformation is correct. There is no ambiguity in those equations.

[johanfprins]

See next post

[johanfprins]

see next post

[johanfprins]

I wrote two intertial reference frames. They cannot have the same time axis if the Lorentz transformation is correct. There is no ambiguity in those equations.

Within their own respective inertial reference frames they have exactly the same time axis. Only when you look from one inertial reference frame into the other does the Lorentz transformation apply, and only then do they have different time axes: And this is a symmetrical view. It does not matter from which inertial reference frame you look into the other inertial reference frame to conclude that time within the other inertial reference frame is slower; even though the time in both reference frames changes at exactly the same rate.

[Teahive]

Within their own respective inertial reference frames they have exactly the same time axis. Only when you look from one inertial reference frame into the other does the Lorentz transformation apply, and only then do they have different time axes: And this is a symmetrical view.

No one is arguing that this is not a symmetrical view. But any observer can only ever be in one FOR, and to infer what is going on in other frames he needs to use the Lorentz transformation, which tells him that a vector along his time axis turns into a vector with both space and time components in the other frame.

even though the time in both reference frames changes at exactly the same rate.

What is "the rate of change of time" supposed to be? How do you propose to measure it?

[tomclarke]

I wrote two intertial reference frames. They cannot have the same time axis if the Lorentz transformation is correct. There is no ambiguity in those equations.

Within their own respective inertial reference frames they have exactly the same time axis. Only when you look from one inertial reference frame into the other does the Lorentz transformation apply, and only then do they have different time axes: And this is a symmetrical view. It does not matter from which inertial reference frame you look into the other inertial reference frame to conclude that time within the other inertial reference frame is slower; even though the time in both reference frames changes at exactly the same rate.

Johan,

Throughout this thread you have had a profound misconception, which becomes clearer as you post.

You have an absolutist view of time, and are convinced that "clocks keep the same time" or "time changes at the same rate".

Your arguments for this are reductio ad absurdum: you attempt to show that time change at different rates, or clocks keeping different times, would be nonsensical.

What you miss is the reality: that there is no (unique or consistent) comparison between times in different reference frames. Your reductio ad absurdum always requires this. You slip it in via linguistic tricks, etc.

On time comparison between frames:

(A1) Given a frame there is a canonical global time axis (obviously) the one in which the frame appears stationary.

(A2) Every frame induces a different time axis

(A3) The time axes are related by LT

(A4) The apparent contradiction (each frame sees other frames as being slower) is resolved by the fact that different frames have spatial movement, making synchronisation (with light beams) counter-intuitive.

It would help if you stopped seeing time as something separate from space, and saw global time as a univariate function imposed on 4D space-time.

(B1) There are many such "time functions" one for each frame as above.

(B2) There is no sense to "keeping time" or "rate of change" except wrt one of these possible univariate time functions.

(B3) The laws of physics are identical in any frame. They are of course relative to the global time function induced by the frame (as defined above A1-A4).

(B4) The different global time functions have different directions in 4D space-time. Therefore you can't compare times in the way you could if time was a single variable, so that time axes between two frames are always related by an invertible function f:
ta = f(tb)
tb = f^-1(ta)

There is a function that relates times, but it includes space as well, and therefore cannot be inverted in this simple way:
ta = Lt(tb, xb)
tb = Lt*(ta, xa)
LT, LT* are LT inverse, but this is more complex than the univariate function inverse you get from f, f^-1 where the derivatives of teh two functions are inverse.

(B5) Our intuition does not cope well with the 4D version of global time, where there are multiple possible global times related by LTs. The concept of Newtonian "time" is deeply rooted in our thinking. The only way out of this (for me) is to sit down and work through the geometry of Minkowski space-time. You can do this (enough to understand) with just one spatial dimension and time, so everything is a vector in 2D and easy to visualise.

PS - see teahive dec 29 4:19 post above for another corect take on the same concepts

[johanfprins]

Within their own respective inertial reference frames they have exactly the same time axis. Only when you look from one inertial reference frame into the other does the Lorentz transformation apply, and only then do they have different time axes: And this is a symmetrical view.

No one is arguing that this is not a symmetrical view. But any observer can only ever be in one FOR, and to infer what is going on in other frames he needs to use the Lorentz transformation,

No he does not: Marconi already invented the radio more than 100 years ago. After the two observers have measured the decay rates of the same substance within their respective reference frames, they can broadcast the numbers to one another to compare. The numbers do not change during the broadcast!

Each observer has the number he/she measured and when he/she receives the number from the other observer and compares it to his/her own and finds (as each observer will) that it is identical, then each observer will know that the clock rates are the SAME within both inertial reference frames.

which tells him that a vector along his time axis turns into a vector with both space and time components in the other frame.

Although from his viewpoint the events which occur at a normal time rate within the other inertial reference frame is occurring at a slower rate within his/her own inertial reference frame, he/she will be stupid to conclue that the time rate is actually slower within the other inertial reference frame.

Consider again cosmic ray muons: Within the reference frame within which they are stationary, their decay time is identical to muons created within a laboratory on earth. But when measuring their decay time relative to earth, while they are moving at an incredible speed relative to earth, it is slower: But this does NOT mean that a clock that travels with the muons is slower than a clock on earth.

Even the time dilation formula tells you that this is so: For an actual time interval (delta)tp on the moving clock (as measured within the inertial reference frame within which it is stationary), one measures a time interval (delt)t within the inertial reference frame relative to which the clock is moving: And the relationship is given by (delta)t=(gamma)*(delta)tp which clearly proves that the moving clock measures time faster than the dilated time you measure within the inertial reference frame relative to which the clock is moving.

even though the time in both reference frames changes at exactly the same rate.

What is "the rate of change of time" supposed to be? How do you propose to measure it?

I have just given you an experiment that will prove that two perfect clocks must keep exactly the SAME time within their respective reference frames: They must do this since all the laws of physics must be the same within each and every inertial reference frame (according to Einstein's first postulate). How to measure time within the two inertial reference frames: At present I will probably use an atomic clock within each inertial reference frame. And since the decay times used in these clocks MUST be the same within both inertial reference frames, the clocks MUST keep time at the same rate. If they do not, Einstein's first postulate must be wrong: And this will mean that SR must be wrong.

[johanfprins]

Johan,

Throughout this thread you have had a profound misconception, which becomes clearer as you post.

You have an absolutist view of time, and are convinced that "clocks keep the same time" or "time changes at the same rate".

If they do not, then Einstein's first postulate is wrong: And this means that SR must be wrong.

Your arguments for this are reductio ad absurdum: you attempt to show that time change at different rates, or clocks keeping different times, would be nonsensical.

No it is your arguments that are reduction absurdum: You claim that since simultaneous events within one inertial reference frame appear at different times within another inertial reference frame, that clocks at different positions within the latter inertial reference frame will show different times. This is obviously BS. You cannot measure these non-simultanaeties UNLESS all the clocks keep the exact same time; no matter where they are situated, and no matter whether they move relative to one another or not.

[Teahive]

But any observer can only ever be in one FOR, and to infer what is going on in other frames he needs to use the Lorentz transformation,

No he does not: Marconi already invented the radio more than 100 years ago. After the two observers have measured the decay rates of the same substance within their respective reference frames, they can broadcast the numbers to one another to compare. The numbers do not change during the broadcast!

No, but the time at which subsequent broadcasts arrive changes. Also, the frequency on which they receive the signal will not be the frequency on which they send.

Each observer has the number he/she measured and when he/she receives the number from the other observer and compares it to his/her own and finds (as each observer will) that it is identical, then each observer will know that the clock rates are the SAME within both inertial reference frames.

This definition of a clock rate is circular.

How do you measure the decay rate of a substance? By counting the number of decays in a certain period of time.
How do you measure this period of time? With a stationary clock.
How does a clock work? By counting a repeating process and declaring that, after a certain number, one unit of time has passed. What repeating process could a clock count? Swings of a pendulum, for example. Or decays of a certain substance.

So you are counting the number of decays of a substance and divide it by the time it takes for a certain number of decays to occur. Circular.

[johanfprins]

No, but the time at which subsequent broadcasts arrive changes.

So What?

Also, the frequency on which they receive the signal will not be the frequency on which they send.

Again: So What?

This definition of a clock rate is circular.

It is not.

How do you measure the decay rate of a substance? By counting the number of decays in a certain period of time.
How do you measure this period of time? With a stationary clock.
How does a clock work? By counting a repeating process and declaring that, after a certain number, one unit of time has passed. What repeating process could a clock count? Swings of a pendulum, for example. Or decays of a certain substance.

So what! It still demands that the laws of physics must be the same within BOTH inertial reference frames: Just as Einstein has postulated that it must be.

So you are counting the number of decays of a substance and divide it by the time it takes for a certain number of decays to occur. Circular.

It is not circular at all. This is only one possible experiment: If you get the same result within two inertial reference frames for any experiment (as you will), it proves that the laws of physics are the same within the two inertial reference frames, which in turn DEMANDS that any apparatus you use to measure time must give the same result within BOTH inertial reference frames. As MUST be the case according to Einstein's first postulate.

I note that you have not responded to the fact that the time-dilation formula itself demands that the time being kept by a moving clock must be the normal time rate and that the dilated time rate only occurs within the reference frame relative to which the clock is moving and not on the clock itself.

[tomclarke]

Johan,

Throughout this thread you have had a profound misconception, which becomes clearer as you post.

You have an absolutist view of time, and are convinced that "clocks keep the same time" or "time changes at the same rate".

If they do not, then Einstein's first postulate is wrong: And this means that SR must be wrong.

Johan,

It is difficult to know how I could make the point you are missing here more clearly. The laws of physics do not require a universal global time. All they say is that local time in a given frame is consistent with decay rates, etc etc.

You extend this to saying that therefore "clocks keep the same time". Well, it could be true if you define this is local terms, but not if you imply global equivalence.

Why do you think laws of physics being identical in different frames requires a global measure of time?

Your arguments for this are reductio ad absurdum: you attempt to show that time change at different rates, or clocks keeping different times, would be nonsensical.

No it is your arguments that are reduction absurdum: You claim that since simultaneous events within one inertial reference frame appear at different times within another inertial reference frame, that clocks at different positions within the latter inertial reference frame will show different times. This is obviously BS. You cannot measure these non-simultanaeties UNLESS all the clocks keep the exact same time; no matter where they are situated, and no matter whether they move relative to one another or not.

Lets split this:
(1) You do not contest my statements about your arguments, that they rely on your belief that an sbsolute global time must exist.

(2) I have actually only been claiming that your notion of simultaneity does not exist, indeed is not meaningful. Because of this I have not been making statements about how you can relate a global time measure derived from one frame to that derived from another. Of course, the relationship is well known and standard physics (LT).

But the issue between us is whether an absolute (frame-independent) global time measure can exist.

Your argument here is that unless clocks "keep the same time" time differences cannot be measured.

That is obviously wrong, if by "keep the same time" you mean tick according to some absolute global time rather than according to the local time axis derived from their stationary frame of reference. I wish, BTW, you would stop using "keep the same time" it is an ambiguous phrase.

The time difference between two events can be measured precisely in any specific reference frame. If the events are spacelike the difference will be negative, positive or zero according to what frame is chosen to do the measuring. None of this requires an absolute global time.

[tomclarke]

I note that you have not responded to the fact that the time-dilation formula itself demands that the time being kept by a moving clock must be the normal time rate and that the dilated time rate only occurs within the reference frame relative to which the clock is moving and not on the clock itself.

Time dilation specifies how times in two frames are related via light-beam observations.

I agree, all clocks "keep local time" identically. the mistake you repeatedly make is to extend this notion of "keeping local time" to a notion of "keeping time" which implies some absolute time measure. of course if you do this, you can derive the fact that absolutte time must exist. But that is circular. If you do not do it, you cannot argue that absolute time exists.

Your use here of "dilated time rate" as an absolute (not relative) statement implies the existence of absolute time. "Time dilation" says only that the observed times (using light-beams) between two frames correspond as stated.