Look, the reason people throw the “clocks run slower” examples at you is because they’re supposed to be an intuitive example. You really think that’s all there is to it? It’s as if all of evolutionary biology boiled down to “hey, monkeys kinda look like us, therefore, evolution is true!”
Relativity is the foundation of all of modern physics. The clocks running slow thing is just the tip of the iceberg. All of particle physics and quantum field theory is based on the rules of relativity. If relativity were wrong, then computers, satellites, mp3 players, supermarket scanners…pretty much all modern technology would not work. If you really need convincing then we could throw out the equations governing photon field fluctuations, but somehow I don’t think that would be useful to you. So, you get clocks running slow. If you don’t believe it, then study it. If you don’t want to take the time to study it, then you’ll just have to take our word for it.
Yeah, you never need to learn a language to know what someone is saying.
This is both a strength and weakness.
A weakness because scientists are, after all, just people. People invest in their work, people fool themselves, people ignore evidence, see what they want to see, cheat, lie, and get things wrong for many reasons. And when someone challenges their work, it’s fairly common to want to hang on to your conclusions.
But the strength is that these theories that are well entrenched are not supported just by the strength of one person as time goes on. As a hypothesis is passed on to more people, more people will look at it and try to break it. This is the same “being human” as before. Scientists are people and people want the fame and glory of getting something right or pointing out something is wrong or incomplete. Especially if you can show an error by someone or in something that is well regarded or entrenched. This is the guaranteed way to notoriety with your peers and maybe fame in general.
This competition means that as hypotheses are tested more and more by more and more people, the biases tend to cancel out, and what we see should be a fairly good statement of what we know at the time. This then gets called a theory.
This is truer and faster than ever before in the modern world with effectively instant world-wide communication.
And if someone wants to challenge that consensus, they need to bring evidence, not just disbelief, or we’d never get anything done. When scientists do this they ask questions, figure out how to test their questions, and try it. They show something that is wrong, or doesn’t fit the theory.
Unlike some who say “I don’t believe it even though I know nothing about it”, or “please daddy, numbers make my head hurt, can’t you make it simple enough for me?”.
As opposed to every other method of gaining knowledge, which has gotten us pretty much zero gain.
And knowing little about their work, unwilling to speak their language, and unwilling to do the work yourself, how do you know they’re not grounded?
What the hell? You don’t think we have actual physicists on the boards? We’ve got Physics Ph.D.s up the wazoo over here… Did you not believe tim314 when he mentioned his own? Your one or two required undergraduate physics courses hardly trump that…
Regardless, even if you had all the education in the world, the point remains that you haven’t advanced an actual argument for why we should not accept relativity. All those predictions which pre-relativistic theories made and which experiments demonstrated to indisputably be false? You haven’t accounted for them. All those predictions which relativity makes and experiments demonstrate to work time and again, without any observed failure to date? You haven’t accounted for them either. You’re not going to sway anyone until you account for these things.
shrugs Well, tim314 has a history of posts making him seem quite credible in the matter, as judged by others who as well have strong backgrounds in physics. But, like I said, regardless of background, the point remains that you won’t sway anyone to abandon the century-old, extremely well-tested and so far reliable prediction-making machine known as the theory of relativity, in favor of a viewpoint that, in all previous incarnations, made predictions which were demonstrated to be incorrect… unless you can show how to augment that viewpoint with specific claims about how to extract the correct predictions of behavior from it instead, or at least avoid extracting the incorrect predictions. And, yes, that means you will have to say something about why synchronized clocks don’t remain synchronized when one of them is sent off on a high-speed journey and back. You don’t have to call it a property of time, you can call it just a weird thing which happens to clocks if you like, but it’s a thing that happens all the same and you need to account for it. If you don’t, no one has any reason to listen to you; you’re not paying proper attention to the evidence.
So when you look at a clock moving away from you at high speed with a really good telescope, and the clock seems to be slower than yours because the photons that you see have further to travel as each second passes, what is happening? Or would the clocks seem to run at the same speed because the speed of the photons increase with each passing second? Please explain it to me.
The fact that clocks lose their synchronization after one makes a high speed journey away and back does not have anything to do with what the mobile clock looks like to a stationary observer during its journey. It’s not an artifact of the propagation delay of its image; it’s something you can observe after the two clocks have been reunited…
When you get to the diagrams (which I’m sure you’ve seen before) of balls warping 2D grids, keep in mind they’re only illustrations of a concept that are difficult (impossible?) to show with pictures. The 2D grid is an illustration of 4D spacetime. The warping of spacetime requires time to warp too. If time did not warp, the predictions of the theory would not be borne out by the experiements - but they do. That’s why so many are pursuaded that time does indeed warp along with space.
If you propose an alternate theory that reconciles the experimental findings with an absolute time, then the Nobel committee would like to have a word with you! If you simply say, “Nope, can’t get my head around it so it must be bullshit,” then you can expect the types of reactions you have encountered here. If that’s the case, do NOT read any books on quantum mechanics
I understand that, I was just looking for nilum’s explanation. Seems the basic questions that led to the understanding of relativity would be a good place to start.
While I wait for nilum’s response, I’m curious about the ‘spooky action’. There is mention of a ‘hidden variable’ in the material I’m looking at. Am I right in assuming that is the concept of some factor in each particle that is set no later than the point of entanglement which predetermines opposite spins when the particles are examined later? If so, why isn’t that the presumed mechanism instead of ‘spooky action’? I think I’ve seen explanations, but didn’t understand them.
There are several basic arguments against local hidden variable theories, most notably Bell’s theorem. I tried to give a simple explanation of said theorem in this thread, starting with post #41, which may be of use. Post #47 contains instructions on how to read post #41 for the math-averse, reducing it to three paragraphs using only grade school math.
Thing is, even what happens to funky mechanical clocks is a thing that happens… an accurate theory of how the world works needs to account for it, and a theory of how the world works that claims it doesn’t happen is manifestly wrong. And no one would be convinced to switch away from a theory that does account for this except to another theory which demonstrably makes the correct specific predictions describing this experimentally observable phenomenon. I think this is the point that should be stressed to nilum. So I’m not sure how much is gained by switching to decaying atomic particles; anyone who wanted to describe the phenomenon as some funky mechanical principle in play could always suspect it applied to atomic particles as well. Regardless, whenever I say “clock”, you could take that to refer to decaying atomic particles if you like.
First, as you say light bouncing off the clock and entering the lens of my telescope takes longer and longer to reach me, and thus this is just an illusion of light. It’s the same reason we know that what we see a million light years away… happened a million years ago.
Second, according to the accepted laws of physics time actually compresses or distorts at higher speeds. This principle keeps one from ever reaching the speed of light.
If you were to say move away from a clock at near the speed of light… there are a few things to consider.
Light is reaching you at an ever declining rate. This would create an illusion that the observed clock is slowing down. But…
Your high speed is causing your own time to distort. This would make your own clock relatively slow as well.
I would imagine that the clocks should seem about even. You might not notice in your observations of the distant clock any slow down at all because your own relative ‘bubble’ of space time has compressed as such.
I still think that processes could slow down without time being involved.
If I started at point A and traveled at near light speed to point C and an instantaneous transmission was sent from point A to point B does my message arrive before it was sent in the past? If I send an message back immediately does message arrive after it was sent in the future? I don’t think it does, and if it does maybe we need to come to terms with it. It’s easy for us to accept a communication arriving in the future because it always comes after the initial event. Maybe we need to start thinking about things arriving in the past as well.
I personally don’t think that there are no distortions of time. When we get FTL or instantaneous communication we will find out. If we start sending messages to the past, I will stand corrected and accept it.
Not following you here. What definition of slow down doesn’t involve time?
Ok, assuming you mean point B is somewhere between points A and C, (and not sure how that factors in either), how did you do the instantaneous communication? If you could do it, it arrives at the same time when in the reference frame of A. How does that translate to arriving before it was sent?
I should say, post #49 is also, I think, required reading for understanding how to interpret the simple mathematical theorem as a claim against local hidden variable theories. But, yeah, read the thread and let me know what you think. I’d be happy to clarify anything confusing or answer any questions that come up.
When things get colder sometimes processes slow down as well. Do we equate cold temperatures to a flux in time. I think not.
It’s like in the earlier examples some people postulated.
You have a point in space running at ‘normal time’ and an object moving really fast thus running at ‘slower time.’ So when an instantaneous transmission is sent from normal time to slower time and back to normal time the idea is that it could arrive before it is sent.
I guess positions really don’t matter in that case.
Still not getting the point. Slow down is still a measure involving time. Getting cold is a loss of energy. Seems pretty much to follow the rules.
Ok, I get what you’re saying. Trouble is, there’s still no way to do the instantaneous communication. So you seem to be saying, if there were instantaneous communication, something is wrong with accepted theory. I doubt anyone would argue with you.
I’ve never delved very far into quantum theory, not much need, but now curiousity has taken hold so I’m trying to understand further. This thread has explained why quantum entanglement can’t communicate FTL. I’m seeing actually that terminology confuses some of this. ‘Spooky action at a distance’ might better be called ‘spooky coordination at a distance’. The term ‘teleportation’ is used to describe the application of the ‘spooky coordination’, not moving a thing from one place to another.
But what indication is there that something else invalidates this? If its a philisophical argument that we will eventually find a new theory that supplants current physics, as happened to Newtonian physics, I wouldn’t argue with that, I don’t know about the physicists. You could argue that as a condition of an infinite universe I suppose. But you seem to indicate the measurements or the measurers can’t be trusted. I think this is what sounds out of kilter.
