Fibre-linked atomic clocks put special relativity to the test

@dalehileman,

Well, Dale, experiments have proven that clocks do in fact slow down with increased speed (relative to what is another question). "Facts" can seem strange, but....

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

clocks do in fact slow

Lay, I didn't deny that, it's fact I know. You asked me what I meant by the 'Twin Paradox,' and I toldja. Mac's clock obvious stopped while ours didn't

I merely reported how, when twins do the same sort of parting, they don't necessarily meet again at the same age. Sorry if I wasn't clear. You and me are on earth while the two rockets are passing by, the instant it all starts

Sorry hafta plain admit that I can't even entertain the idea of multiple frames etc

Old age, disease...

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Tho Man, in my own defense, it's still kindova mystery why all those crazy things happen to a thing traveling at c. My RR suggests that it's all caused by a hidden assumption by all (almost) that everything everywhere in the Universe not moving resp one another is at now. In short, we underestimate the speed of light, that under certain circumstance it's 5 minutes later at Marty's domicile, that my flashlight beam arrives there instantaneously; so no clock slowin'

Almost the entire argument under consideration collapses

...of course with an entirely new set of q's

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Are you evoking a concept of 'now' as a quasi religious absolute, in place of 'speed of light' as a constant for all observers ?

The key issue specifically raised by Einstein was that 'now' as 'a moment in time' was a statement about the simultaneity observed via light of events (such as the hand of a clock passing 12). According to SR there is no such thing as 'absolute simultaneity' due to the constancy of the speed of light and the relative motion of observers none of whom could claim 'a preferred reference frame'. That last point is essential to the concept of 'the laws of physics being the same for all reference frames',

As far as I am aware,he axiom of the constancy of speed of light underpins all
of physics, so your apparent proposition to abandon it is bold to say the least !

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

As far as I am aware,he axiom of the constancy of speed of light underpins all
of physics,

Hardly. That postulate underlies special relativity, which is certainly NOT "all of physics," especially in light of SR's incompatibillty with the GPS and the discoveries of other experiments, including the one which is the topic of this thread.

1 Reply

@layman,

Albert Einstein wrote:

According to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity....

We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/65be/99edfb67832c23044e81bbcfeb52f262b0bb.pdf [page 47]

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Expanding space has nothing to do with the limits of travelling WITHIN space....

0 Replies

@fresco,

Code:

Are you evoking... 'now' as a quasi religious absolute...

I don't think so, Fres. Just suggesting that the current controversy can be resolved by abandoning the apparently supposed idea of 'now' everywhere that seems to underlie that 'c idea' of constancy

Quote:

...essential to the concept of 'the laws of physics being the same for all reference frames', ...

Yet the Twin Paradox seems to contradict it. If they aren't the same age when they re-meet, then Earth must be in some sort of preferred frame

Quote:

constancy of speed of light ....to abandon it is bold to say the least !

Maybe even reckless. However RR doesn't abandon it, but simply provides another way of looking at it, while at the same time explaining the apparent changes in a moving body, by a means more friendly to the intuition

It does however entail a new look at time-at-a-distance, very hard to reconcile with that intuition

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

According to SR there is no such thing as 'absolute simultaneity' due to the constancy of the speed of light and the relative motion of observers none of whom could claim 'a preferred reference frame'.

Yet another display of your lack of understanding, Fresky. In SR, EVERY observer is REQUIRED to "claim a preferred reference frame" for himself. They MUST claim to be motionless with respect to each and every other object in the universe which is moving relative to them. Each "observer" claims, in essence, that HE is the aether.

I've already been through all that, but I guess it's just over your head.

Of course that only applies if the observer is in an inertial frame of reference. If he is accelerating, then he is FORCED to admit that HE is moving. That's why SR cannot be applied in those cases, but Lorentzian relativity can be.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

but I guess it's just over your head.

Lay it's sure over mine. Al's brushoff of the TP has always mystified me

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

TP?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

TP?

Twin Paradox

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Al's brushoff of the TP has always mystified me

What do you mean by "brushoff," and why does it bother you?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

What do you mean by "brushoff,"

I 'mem' reading somewhere that Al dismissed the TP in spite of its suggesting the existence of a ref fr

Quote:

and why does it bother you?

'Cause I don't understand it, much less your contest with fres

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
What do you mean by "brushoff,"

I 'mem' reading somewhere that Al dismissed the TP in spite of its suggesting the existence of a ref fr

Quote:
and why does it bother you?
'Cause I don't understand it, much less your contest with fres

Well, I've done my best to explain my views to you and have suggested that you stop trying to analyze the issues with the assumption that the premises of SR are correct. I don't know what else to do there.

As far as Al's history on this issue goes, I can tell you a few things;

Einstein himself, in his first 1905 paper, started the "twin controversy" (then known as the clock paradox). The issues raised were obvious, and the debate was widespread. Physicists argued back and forth, with a number of suggested solutions to the problem.

For more than 10 years Einstein didn't say a word on the topic. Then he wrote a paper on it where he made it clear that he didn't think ANY of the previously proposed "solutions" were well-taken.

In that paper he purported to "resolve" the paradox by using his new theory of GR, with it's "equivalence" between acceleration and gravity. His "solution" required resort to "fictitious" gravitational fields, and has never been widely accepted as a viable solution. The debate has not died down to this day.

As I've said before, if you abandon the premises of SR, and use a Lorentzian type of relativity with absolute simultaneity, then all "paradoxes" disappear. The reason there is a paradox is because, at bottom, SR is self-contradictory.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I've already been through all that..

......Yes ad nauseam! We noticed!

I'll stick you back on 'ignore' now if you don't mind. I can read all the attacks on SR from the renegade journals you quote in the papers rejected elsewhere. At least some of those guys have completed college !

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I'll stick you back on 'ignore' now

That would be quite wise of you, actually.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

1 Reply

@layman,

On the other hand I might be doing you a service by continually drawing attention to your neurosis ! Decisions...decisions.. Smile

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
and why does it bother you?
'Cause I don't understand it, much less your contest with fres

It's really not complicated, Dale. Just think about it for a minute:

You have two observers, A and B, who are moving relative to each other. Both acknowledge this movemnt. But:

1. A says that he is not moving and that only B is, so B's clock has slowed down.
2. B says that he is not moving and that only A is, so A's clock has slowed down.

Now, ask yourself: Is it even possible, logically, that BOTH of them are correct, as SR would have you believe?

If not, then there is a contradiction.

As for Fresky, there's no debate or substantive argument there, so there's really nothing to understand about it. He just likes to toss out truisms, cliches, non sequiturs, red herrings, and such for pretense. He makes claims of the most general, contentless kind in an effort to make it appear that he knows and understands topics about which he has no real substantive knowledge, that's all.

0 Replies

Dammit....and here's me thinking Australians were upside down, and them thinking we were !

0 Replies

Fibre-linked atomic clocks put special relativity to the test

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know