Is 'time' a measurable variable?

[Doctordick]

A direct quote from "Science News", April 22, 2006! :)

"If I were a communications company and wanted to make sure I never got bothered [with a leap second], I'd create my own sort of internal time scale." McCarthy says. "Then there's a concern that if everybody started doing this there'd be a [complete] lack of standardization.

 

Banksm armies, or any group of institutions depending on close coordination could start acting "like a dysfunctional family," says Allen.

...

In the meantime, a new problem looms. The inextricable link between gravity and time becomes increasingly apparent as atomic clocks become more and more precise. Every decade since the mid-1950s, the accuracy of atomic clocks has improved tenfold, notes Kleppner. The clocks are approaching an accuracy of 1 part in 10^16, and newer systems, based on the vibrations of laser-cooled atoms and ions, are expected to eventually attain 1 part in 10^18.

 

Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts, and atomic clocks have confirmed, that clocks at higher elevations run slightly faster than do those closer to the ground. Given the current accuracy of clocks, this gravitational effect requires that researchers know the altitude of timekeeping laboratories to within a few meters. Ultimately, altitudes would have to be measured to within a centimeter.

 

That becomes tricky because gravitational theory dictates that the altitude isn't measured relative to average sea level, but to the geoid, a hypothetical surface that approximates the shape and size of the earth. The geoid's size fluctuates in response to, for example, ocean tides and the redistribution of water due to climate changes.

 

These "shakes and shimmies" would make comparisons of future ultraprecise atomic clocks kept at different locations "no more meaningful than comparing the rates of pendulum clocks on small ships scattered in the oceans, each bobbing in its own way and keeping its own time," says Kleppner.

:hihi: :) :note2: :note2: :note: :note: :D

Every student has been told countless times that Newton’s error (which stood for almost 300 years) was that he assumed everyone’s clock could be set to read the same. In the same vein, I hold that Einstein’s error (an error which has plagued science for almost 100 years already) was that he assumed clocks measured time. It is my position that this perception so blocked his view (as even today it blocks the view of the whole scientific community) that he made a mistake in his fundamental view of the problem one would not expect of a high school science student much less a trained scientist.

As I first said, some forty years ago, "someday clocks will be so accurate that the academic community will recognize the fact that they are confusing two very different concepts of time: the readings on a clock and the fact that two things at the same place and time can interact". :D

 

Anyone interested in discussing the "philosophical" issues here? I know the academy has no real interest in the issue. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Buffy]

For your statements to be interesting, it would have to be true that Einstein did not account for the fact that relative movement causes differences in the measurement of separate clocks, when in fact that's exactly what the theory accounts for and does so in a completely predictable way. The Science article is not pointing out any flaw in Einstein's "view" of time, but rather that we humans like the Sun to be directly overhead at noon, which is why the clocks keep getting adjusted which drives the GPS and phone and astronomers up the wall.

 

So what?

 

Relative relevancy,

Buffy

[Doctordick]

For your statements to be interesting, it would have to be true that Einstein did not account for the fact that relative movement causes differences in the measurement of separate clocks, when in fact that's exactly what the theory accounts for and does so in a completely predictable way.

No, that statement is incorrect. Using the fact that Einstein's theory is in agreement with some aspects of reality is exactly the same as defending the existence of phlogiston with a comment that "if the theory of phlogiston is wrong, rubbing sticks together wouldn't make the sticks get hot". There exists a very fundamental difficulty with Einstein's perspective: that is the fact that the scientific community's definition of time is confused. ;)

 

The difficulty here is exactly the fact that the central purpose of time is to define when two things can interact; this is the central concern of McCarthy and Kleppner and is central to any valid description of our world. Einstein's position (that time is a coordinate of representation) completely avoids this very issue. There is nothing in Einstein's space-time trajectories which embody a differentiation between past and future. Einstein's approach only works when what has happened is entirely known and all significant interaction is a fact, having nothing to do with the readings on any clocks (the differentiation between past and future is immaterial to the problem). That perspective has already thrown out the idea that there are other possibilities (other than what has happened) before any analysis of what has happened even begins. Thus it is that his perspective will never be consistent with quantum mechanics. It is a fundamentally wrong perspective. As wrong as was was the theory of phlogiston as an explanation of heat. The scientific community is still totally hung up on interaction concepts which were introduced when pendulum clocks were the most accurate instruments in existence. :D

The Science article is not pointing out any flaw in Einstein's "view" of time, but rather that we humans like the Sun to be directly overhead at noon, which is why the clocks keep getting adjusted which drives the GPS and phone and astronomers up the wall.

Oh, here I agree with you. No one mentioned in the article has any comprehension of the fundamental issues underlying their problems; all they see are the consequences of the confused definition of time. Note that we are talking about the "definition" of time, not the usefulness of clocks; these are very different matters. :cup:

So what?

So precise thought requires a good definition of time and "time is what clocks measure" is not a good definition of time. This is the single most important mistake in modern physics. :rant:

 

If you do take the trouble to read the article, you will see that the only solution to their difficulty (which you certainly should comprehend is related to the fact that time defines the possibility of interaction) is given as, "an alternative would be for nations to agree to define the second on the basis of clocks at just one terrestrial location." They claim "politics" make this unrealistic, completely missing the issue that such a redefinition of the second amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Covariance under such a definition becomes a joke as it essentially amounts to saying that only a specific absolute frame is the only correct frame for definitional purposes. Physics should be based on coherent "universal" definitions. :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Buffy]

The difficulty here is exactly the fact that the central purpose of time is to define when two things can interact; this is the central concern of McCarthy and Kleppner and is central to any valid description of our world. Einstein's position (that time is a coordinate of representation) completely avoids this very issue. There is nothing in Einstein's space-time trajectories which embody a differentiation between past and future. Einstein's approach only works when what has happened is entirely known and all significant interaction is a fact, having nothing to do with the readings on any clocks (the differentiation between past and future is immaterial to the problem).

Sez who? You're faulting Einstein for "avoiding the issue", which is something of a strawman because his whole point is that time is different for every observer. Einstein says nothing about "past and future" because its not relevant, and he makes no such assumption that "what has happened is entirely known", because it has no bearing on GR and SR.

 

Now I've glanced at the article but read others associated with this announcement, and you seem to be talking about something completely different than McCarthy and Kleppner:

The scientific community is still totally hung up on interaction concepts which were introduced when pendulum clocks were the most accurate instruments in existence. :rant:

The issue is the difference between continuing to eat lunch when the sun is overhead versus not having to do adjustments for non-terrestrial events which would make the astronomers much happier so they raise a big ruckus everytime we do a leap-second. Similarly the GPS and phone folks are starting to have problems for the same reason that have very significant bottom line impacts, so instead of being an academic argument, its starting to be a monetary one that AT&T's lobbyiest in WashingtonDC can even converse upon.

 

I know you want to find examples of the scientific community "finally" understand the flaws that you have discovered, but you've shown nothing here that relates the article or announcement to any such thing:

No one mentioned in the article has any comprehension of the fundamental issues underlying their problems; all they see are the consequences of the confused definition of time. Note that we are talking about the "definition" of time, not the usefulness of clocks; these are very different matters. :cup:

...so you agree with me, but:

So precise thought requires a good definition of time and "time is what clocks measure" is not a good definition of time. This is the single most important mistake in modern physics. :)

I'm simply arguing that these last two sentances have nothing to do with eachother. If you want to fill the huge gap that none of the rest of us conventional sticks in the mud do not agree is obvious, then please proceed.

...the only solution to their difficulty (which you certainly should comprehend is related to the fact that time defines the possibility of interaction) is given as, "an alternative would be for nations to agree to define the second on the basis of clocks at just one terrestrial location." They claim "politics" make this unrealistic, completely missing the issue that such a redefinition of the second amounts to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Time does not *inherently* "define the possibility of interaction": that's your limited interpretation, and it can be much more. Secondly, the problem being addressed in the article is between two different *uses* of time, that really are irrelevant to Einstein, they're just deciding that the yardstick should be moved or not moved to a different (but relative!) starting location. No one is "redefining" any "fundamental nature" or description of time.

 

Keep looking though, and let us all know what ya find!

 

Jumping to Conclusions,

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

Wow you two got deep way too quickly for me to make a quick observation that clears the air. I shall endeavor to reread the above posts to figure out the minds of both sides, but in the mean time let's chew on this.

 

When Einstein initially formulated GR atomic clocks did not exist.

 

GR (in my own simplistic terms) states that gravity is intrinsically linked with time, and thus differences in the effect of gravity at two different time stations will cause a fluctuation in the passage of time (delta t) as measured by clocks at those two locations. This therefore would extend to a clock at the exact same station measuring time day to day. Gravity fluctuations at the station will cause the passage of time to speed up and slow down day in and day out compared to another clock at another time station (who of course is undergoing the same type of fluctuations due to gravitational fluctuations at it's location.)

 

Very tricksy if you don't think long and hard about it.

[Buffy]

Welcome cwes. Just to reiterate, the announcement has nothing to do with Einstein, but causes enough problems that even the Wall Street Journal covered it:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112258962467199210.html

 

as well as the original article Dick is referencing:

 

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060422/bob8.asp

 

And the nerds debate:

 

http://slashdot.org/articles/05/07/30/135239.shtml

 

Einstein comes in only because SR causes a requirement to adjust clocks due to relative motions between reference points, which is neither unexpected nor computationally difficult (just annoying, and we hate noyings in computer science). I think Dick is arguing that this is a "blow to Einstein" and an "embarrasing hole in theory", whereas I believe it was long ago predicted, understood but yes, annoying.

 

Figuratively now,

Buffy

[Doctordick]

Ah Buffy, you seem to think that anyone familiar with physics would agree with you. Believe me, I know enough physics to mount an attack against my position just as intense as any you have thought of. The real question here is why everyone immediately drops into the adversary mode whenever I walk on the scene. You use the term "theory" to describe Einstein's propositions but you operate from the position that there can be no doubt that it is right. Why is it that you stand so firm that there can exist no alternate perspective which can explain the phenomena Einstein created his theory to explain. :)

 

Either you are not competent in advanced physics or you will admit there is a conflict between GR and QM. Now, if you are willing accept that such a conflict exists, why are you so adamant that there can not possibly be an error in GR? Before you deny that character of your position, please give me a description of the competing theories and how they propose to handle relativistic phenomena. Or is my impression valid (that would be that the scientific community is simply not open to any alternate possibilities). That science today is a religion as hard and fast as the fortress Galileo was forced to face. Is Einstein today's Aristotle? :D

 

Or is it really the fact that, having no authority, a mere mortal such as I have no right to question the Pope? I really think that is the real crux of the difficulty. Have a look at my post "There are none so blind as those who will not see!" If you are up to thinking about my perspective let me know and I will discuss it with you. :hihi:

I think Dick is arguing that this is a "blow to Einstein" and an "embarrasing hole in theory", whereas I believe it was long ago predicted, understood but yes, annoying.

No it is just another example of some subtle difficulties in his perspective. I see his "theory" as little more than a convenient mechanism for solving a particular set of problems and not as a necessary representation of reality. Shall we say a difficulty from an idealistic perspective? :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Erasmus00]

the academic community will recognize the fact that they are confusing two very different concepts of time: the readings on a clock and the fact that two things at the same place and time can interact". :)

 

In Einstein's theory, clocks measure proper time which has a very specific meaning. I don't think anyone in physics is confusing this with "time" in a general sense.

-Will

[Buffy]

My dear Doctordick, the real question has nothing to do with the strawmen you keep putting in the mouths of others and why you demonstrate such uh what is it?

The real question here is why everyone immediately drops into the adversary mode whenever I walk on the scene.

...oh yes, accurate perceptions of intent. That's it.

 

The only complaint here is that the article has nothing to do with what you say it does. Do I not make myself clear? You're certainly welcome to argue that GR and QM disagree (which I agree with completely, but then so does every physicist out there, again, so what?), just recognize that throwing up this article as somehow being proof that time is inadequate or that Einstein is wrong because he's incomplete in your view, is just plain...irrelevant...

 

I'll try to be clear: I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that your argumentative thread is not making sense, and its really *not* because I'm blonde!

No it is just another example of some subtle difficulties in his perspective. I see his "theory" as little more than a convenient mechanism for solving a particular set of problems and not as a necessary representation of reality. Shall we say a difficulty from an idealistic perspective?

Cool! Just pointing to the article doesn't help yer point! You've lost even the smart crowd here. I'll tell ya my high school Geometry teacher pounded it into me: "those big jumps in your proof are *not* obvious. You're missing a bunch of steps if you expect to get credit for it."

 

I'll have a Hurricane please, :evil:

Buffy

[Doctordick]

I still say that you all just react to what you perceive as an unjustified attack on your beliefs rather than give any serious thought to what I am saying. What I am saying is actually quite simple but it has some far reaching and subtle consequences very similar to the subtle consequences of the problem of setting two clocks to agree. In fact, your reaction is quite analogous to the common layman's reaction to that central issue of relativity: they simply cannot see the relevance. :)

In Einstein's theory, clocks measure proper time which has a very specific meaning. I don't think anyone in physics is confusing this with "time" in a general sense.

Then which is "time", "proper time" or the coordinate of the space-time reference frame used to calculate "proper time"? To presume these are just two different aspects of the same concept is a little injudicious. :D

You're certainly welcome to argue that GR and QM disagree (which I agree with completely, but then so does every physicist out there, again, so what?)

You misunderstand what I am saying. What I am saying is that, if you take into account the difference between "time" and "what clocks measure" in a careful and logical way, the difficulty with the problems between QM and GR simply vanish. And that would be the experimental results required of GR, not Einstein's GR. Note here that when I refer to "General Relativity" I am referring to the general procedure for transforming between measurements made in coordinate systems in general motion with respect to one another, not to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. :hihi:

I'll try to be clear: I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that your argumentative thread is not making sense, and its really *not* because I'm blond!

Now I wouldn't make the assumption you were blond or even female for that matter. With regard to my "argumentative thread" not making sense, that is merely because you misunderstand why I made the post. Every time I ever say "clocks don't measure time", I get the most god awful reaction from professionals: in most cases, all discussion is immediately terminated. I seriously think that modern science has, in many respects, become a religion and very few of the authorities even considers the possibility of error in their fundamental beliefs. :)

 

The most important statement in that article, as far as I was concerned was:

These "shakes and shimmies" would make comparisons of future ultraprecise atomic clocks kept at different locations "no more meaningful than comparing the rates of pendulum clocks on small ships scattered in the oceans, each bobbing in its own way and keeping its own time," says Kleppner.

What he is really pointing out is that the "space-time" coordinate system envisioned by Einstein is no more conceivable as an ideal representation than was Newton's coordinate system which assumed all the clocks could be set to agree. This is a fact and it has subtle significant consequences. :D

Cool! Just pointing to the article doesn't help yer point! You've lost even the smart crowd here.

Oh, I lost the "smart crowd" a long time ago. They already think the big guys know all the answers and that the real issue is understanding what the big guys are saying. They think the purpose of the forum is to teach the initiates their catechisms. (Why is it that religious terms work so well here.) :D

I'll tell ya my high school Geometry teacher pounded it into me: "those big jumps in your proof are *not* obvious. You're missing a bunch of steps if you expect to get credit for it."

But I haven't put a proof of anything in any of these threads. I don't comprehend how you can expect something as far reaching as what I have proposed would be simple enough to cover in a forum post. All I have done is tried to get a little interest so someone capable of following me might become be willing to talk. I have generally taken the position that outright hostility is a good indicator of a closed mind. So far I have only reached one person, a master of mathematics who is almost as old as I am and has about as much influence in the academy that I do. :(

 

If you are interested, read my paper on "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself". It is not a very difficult presentation if you have any facility with abstract thought. Although I will provide any assistance and/or explanation you desire, if you cannot follow logic on an abstract level, forget it as the issues being presented are far too complex to express in terms of common experiences. If you can understand that paper, the next step is to examine the solutions of the equation developed there. If you are not interested in thinking about the issues, I won't be upset and I certainly didn't mean to upset you! ;)

 

Have fun -- Dick

[cwes99_03]

Well, seeing as how I still don't understand the big fuss here, I think more air needs to be cleared.

 

Doc, will you please read up briefly (as a reminder) on the difference between SR and GR, and then post that understanding of the difference here. I think you two are arguing on different points for failure to see eye to eye.

[niin]

...the fact that two things at the same place and time can interact". :lol:

 

Would it not be more accurate to say that for two things to interact...they would have to share the same time?

Would you not agree...that they cant really share the same place (space)?

i guess you do, but i would like to know for sure.

 

Anyone interested in discussing the "philosophical" issues here?

 

What philosophical issues?

[Doctordick]

Would it not be more accurate to say that for two things to interact...they would have to share the same time?

Would you not agree...that they cant really share the same place (space)?

i guess you do, but i would like to know for sure.

I think it very much depends upon what you are talking about and exactly what you mean by "sharing". Under the common understanding of Bosons, they have no problem sharing the same space. But my position on these issues is not so simple as your question implies. But, with regard to space and time, I would point out that interaction wise on an anthropomorphic level they are quite different from one another. Most of us have a reaction time on the order of a tenth of a second. Light, roughly the fastest thing around, can go completely around the earth in that time. Thus, again anthropomorphically speaking, being in the same place is no where as critical as being at the same time.

 

Thus it is that one could seriously contend that there might be "action over a distance" without seriously confronting difficulties in our anthropomorphic view of personal experience; however, direct physical interaction between entities existing at observably different times becomes a thing much harder to accept as a common experimentally examinable phenomena. Forensic scientists would love to have a machine which would detect exactly what existed in a given space yesterday.

 

Actually, a scientific construct consistent with experiment is rather a different issue which needs to be carefully established.

What philosophical issues?

Oh, I could make those quite clear if I could find someone who could understand my paper "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself". To date, I have pretty well failed to achieve that and I doubt success will occur any time soon. You claim an interest in logic; perhaps I could interest you. :)

 

I went into physics because physics seemed to be the only field which relied only on things it could prove had to be so. As a child, I was always very concerned with what was true and what was bull. I was very much schooled on that old adage, "anyone who believes more than ten percent of what he hears, fifty percent of what he reads, or ninety percent of what he sees with his own eyes is gullible" and I took it quite seriously. In most fields, it is quite difficult to figure out what one should believe but physics and math seemed to have a handle on the issue.

 

By the time I got to graduate school, it began to dawn on me that physics was actually as bad as any other field when it came to the foundations of the field. Mathematics on the other hand, I find to be somewhat immune from these problems. Personally I define mathematics to be the invention and study of self consistent systems and, as such, there is nothing to believe except the conclusions following from the axioms: that is, the whole field is essentially tautological. But physics claims to be otherwise. That is, physics claims not to be tautological. However, when one gets down to the fundamental underpinnings of physics, it seems to me that there are some major problems unrecognized by the academy.

 

When I was a graduate student (many long years ago) I happened to read Gamow's "Mr. Thompkins in Wonderland". It was a lot of fun and pointed out some interesting things; however, the section about QM (a world where Planck's constant was a large number) was clearly wrong. At the time I made a somewhat concerted effort to lay out a correct picture but found that I could not. In essence, Planck's constant is in so many different relationships that I could not find a starting position I could have confidence in (that would be circumstance where all of the foundations upon which the argument was to be built were independent of the value Planck's constant). At the time, I was left with the very strong impression that Planck's constant was defined in a circular manner. (I commented to a professor and got the response, "get your head out of your ***, there is nothing circular about the definition of Planck's constant" so I dropped the issue.) :eek2:

 

As time went on, I found more and more relationships which seemed very much to be defined in a circular manner when carefully examined on a fundamental level. At this point, I am myself convinced that Physics is indeed a tautology as I have actually worked out the tautology in detail. However, I have never been able to communicate the entirety of my logic to anyone. Over the years, I have condensed the essence of my discovery into a document of around three thousand words (the url given above), but have found no one willing to examine the logic. Whether it is the abstract nature of the logic, the alien nature of my approach or simple misunderstanding of the steps I do not know as no one has ever informed me as to on what step they dropped the thread of my logic. Most never talk to me after seeing the document. A few pay little attention to what is said there and just misinterpret and disparage some little detail in order to justify not reading it but the far more common behavior is to just go away. :)

 

If I can find anyone who can follow the logic behind the equation expressed at the end (which is a totally tautological construct) the rest of physics can be expressed entirely in terms of solutions to that equation which is not at all difficult to demonstrate (that is where the issue of representing time arises). One would think I ought to have it over standard physics fundamentals by appeal to Occam's razor if nothing else as I manage to express the entirety of physics in one succinct equation.

 

The real question is: "Is physics a tautology or not?" Now maybe you see why physicists abhor me. I think they see me as the anti-Christ of the scientific community. :eek2:

 

Have fun -- Dick

[InfiniteNow]

Would it not be more accurate to say that for two things to interact...they would have to share the same time?

All everythings share the same time... Now. :)

[niin]

All everythings share the same time... Now. :hyper:

 

I would say that there is no "now".

If everything shared the same time...everything would be one single thing.

And if it did...nothing would exist.

[niin]

I think it very much depends upon what you are talking about and exactly what you mean by "sharing".

 

Would it not be more accurate to say that for two things to interact...they would have to share the same time?

 

I am still working on my definition of time so i was really just trying to get your point of view on the above statement.

and maybe i was nitpicking a little.

 

Some of my current definitions are:

To interact is to become one thing and then become more than one thing.

two things can't be at the same place without being one thing.

 

I would presume anything contradiction this to be a flawed model.

My definition could be wrong of course. :)

 

So far as the philosophical issues...

 

You claim an interest in logic; perhaps I could interest you

I read the paper (http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm) :)

...but have found no one willing to examine the logic. Whether it is the abstract nature of the logic, the alien nature of my approach or simple misunderstanding of the steps I do not know as no one has ever informed me as to on what step they dropped the thread of my logic. Most never talk to me after seeing the document.

 

Math logic can be difficult :)

When the concepts become "simple" it becomes difficult for the mind to grasp em.

I cant say i understand everything you wrote but give me some time and maybe i can say something about the logic.

[Qfwfq]

All everythings share the same time... Now.

Not unless they're at the same place. :)