about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

[dan1el]

The willingness to accept contradiction and to intentionally create one paradox after another makes for really cute quotes, not to mention questionable fashion choices, but it can hardly be considered true science, or any other sort of truth for that matter.

Naming some of these contradictions might give us more to talk about.

Photons have no mass but photons have momentum that requires mass (by definition).

Momentum only requires energy.

Photons not only have momentum but angular momentum which means something has to be spinning. Well, what the hell is spinning if a photon is entirely energy, which is what the Relativistic solution for its momentum (i.e. E = pc) presumes?

I'm no quantum physicist, but I'm pretty sure picturing elementary particles as just really tiny classical objects is a big no-no.

But Quantum Mechanics and Relativity insist that contradiction is at the heart of the very nature of nature!

Care to elaborate?

I would say that relativity is Newtonian equations with a correction for the effect of gravity on the tools being used to measure.

How could that explain the Rossi-Hall experiment?

Really? Why?

If you put the energy used to accelerate a particle in an accelerator into the classical equation for kinetic energy, you'd get a speed much greater than c.

Then explain how something has energy without mass...

Why don't you instead explain why mass is needed to have energy?

How does a magnet work?

Magnetism is an effect of relativity, actually. If you combine electrostatics and special relativity, you get magnetism. Page two of this article explains it quite well.

Electric fields propagate at the speed of light.

And?

And that's why it should've been unneccesary to point out that gravity must propagate at a finite speed if the speed of light is indeed the fastest anything can travel.

What is it?

Space is three of the four dimensions we reside in. I'm not sure what more there is to say.

:dunce::duh:


In that scenario the energy belongs to the charge.

So you need mass to have potential energy, but you can have potential energy because of charge, not mass, too?

So, Newton was wrong and Einstein is correct?

What makes you so sure?

Well, for one thing, Einstein's models agree with what we see, whereas Newton's don't.

 

[Johnny]

Clete,

I appreciate you taking the time to participate in this discussion, I am enjoying it.

More importantly, in my view, is the modern physicist's willingness to abandon common sense ...

Sure, all of these things present serious problems for our brains. We are ill-equipped to comprehend them, let alone even imagine them. But to claim our inability to comprehend these ideas as a basis for rejecting them is, in my opinion, silly.

That isn't the claim I made.

The claim you made, at which most of my post was in response to, was that physicists are too willing to abandon common sense. Since I see further down that you "repent" of using that phrase, I won't pursue a defense of that aspect of my argument.

Do you know what the law of contradiction is? I'm talking not about our ability to fully grasp every detail of some particular phenomena, I'm talking about our ability to know something - anything. I might not be able to understand and explain precisely what a photon is but what I do know is that it is what it is. That might sound like a silly, obvious thing to say, and indeed I hope that it does sound rather obvious because that is nothing more than one of the laws of reason. Its called the Law of Identity, which states that a thing is what it is and/or that a thing is not something other than what it is. In other words, we can KNOW that a claim which presents a contradiction is a false claim in some respect. But Quantum Mechanics and Relativity insist that contradiction is at the heart of the very nature of nature!

I am familiar with the Laws of Thought (and I'm sure a discussion of causal determinism as an implication of the law of identity would be an interesting conversation to have with you. Perhaps in the future.) The following is more of my thoughts on the subject, rather than an argument in definite form. I am, as always, interested in your input.

Bear in mind that neither relativity nor quantum mechanics predict any observations that violate the Laws of Thought. For in the very act of observing or measuring quantum systems, they collapse from this vague notion of a "wavefunction" describing all possible states into a discreet form in which the object of measurement is in a defined state. You are arguing (and correct me if I am misrepresenting your argument) that because our models describe a photon behaving as both a wave and a particle, it assumes the form of (A) and (-A). This, by the Law of Contradiction, cannot be true. And thus, by your argument, our models of photons violate the Laws of Thought and are therefore false (or flawed in some respect).

However, I would counter that you can never actually observe that contradiction. Experimentally, a photon is either (A) or (-A), it is never simultaneously (A) AND (-A). In other words, you can never catch a photon behaving as both a wave and a particle.

Consider this real experimental setup:

A photon emitter is pointed at an object with two slits in it. Behind this double-slit sits a film which records the positions of photons as they hit the film. If we sufficiently isolate the system from outside interference, what will we see when we turn on the light? Well, if light is behaving as a wave, as in a quantum system, then we will see an interference pattern (see this image) formed on the film behind the slits. Note that this interference pattern occurs even if you fire one photon at a time. This indicates that the photon is truly behaving as a wave and passing through both slits simultaneously.

Now, what if physicists get clever and try to detect light behaving as particle AND a wave (which would violate the Law of Contradiction) by putting a photon detector in the slits and determining which slit the photon went through. In this case, they could catch light in an apparent contradiction. But when they did this -- something funny happened: the interference pattern disappeared. What scientists observed when they tried to detect which slit the photons went through was a typical pattern on the film that showed no wave interference (see this image). They detected which slit the photon went through and the photon then stopped behaving as a wave. In other words, there is no way to observe the contradiction.

Now, suppose the scientists got clever and decided to put photon detectors in the slits, but set them up in such a way that the information coming from the detector could be erased after the photons have passed the detectors (for more information on the setup, google delayed choice quantum eraser). What they found is that if and only if the information on which slit the photon traveled through was destroyed, even after the photon had traveled through the slit, the photon behaved as a wave and formed part of the interference pattern. But if the information was kept, again after the photon traveled through the detector, the photon did not form part of an interference pattern.

This experiment implies something very odd about nature, but also tells us something about our perception. The first is that under no circumstance do we ever perceive violations of the Laws of Thought in either quantum mechanics or relativity. That is because the Laws of Thought are laws that describe our perception of reality. Indeed our experience of reality, or that which is, cannot ever be separated from our perception of that which is. Thus, logical constructs such as the Laws of Thought can really only be said to govern our perception of reality. The idea here is that in quantum systems, we are not observing the real system, only our perception of the system. And in our perception of the system, they do not violate Laws of Thought. But as to whether or not reality violates the Laws of Thought, I don't know. I'd like your input on the quantum eraser experiment.

 

[Stripe]

How could that explain the Rossi-Hall experiment?

Easily.

How does relativity explain it?

 

[Memento Mori]

Easily.

How does relativity explain it?

Oh, I know this one!

Because the muon is traveling so quickly it experiences a dilation in its time and only passes an extremely short time while traveling toward earth's surface. Time passes slow enough, and the distance shortens enough, that the muon can make it to the surface where it shouldn't be able to given the Newtonian distance and speed equations.

How does... whatever it is you subscribe to explain it?

 

[Stripe]

Oh, I know this one!

Because the muon is traveling so quickly it experiences a dilation in its time and only passes an extremely short time while traveling toward earth's surface. Time passes slow enough, and the distance shortens enough, that the muon can make it to the surface where it shouldn't be able to given the Newtonian distance and speed equations.

How does... whatever it is you subscribe to explain it?

I was thinking of the mathematical models used to predict its movement, not the explanation.

 

[Memento Mori]

I was thinking of the mathematical models used to predict its movement, not the explanation.

ok. I don't have that. But I do have an explanation.

What's your explanation?

 

[Stripe]

ok. I don't have that. But I do have an explanation.

What's your explanation?

Gravity affects the instruments we use to measure and thus we need to apply a correction.

I believe that, regardless of the explanation, the mathematics will remain equivalent.

 

[Memento Mori]

Gravity affects the instruments we use to measure and thus we need to apply a correction.

I believe that, regardless of the explanation, the mathematics will remain equivalent.

So you're saying the muons actually don't travel from the upper atmosphere to earth's surface. Our instrument are just messing up when they detect them?

Gravity has nothing to do with this situations. Muons traveling the speed of light should not reach the surface of the earth because they decay at a rate of 2 microseconds (I believe. I'd have to check but I'm not in the mood). Even traveling at this high speed there is not enough time in the Newtonian equations to account for the amount observed on earth.

So, I ask again, what is your explanation for what is observed with muons?

 

[Stripe]

So you're saying the muons actually don't travel from the upper atmosphere to earth's surface. Our instrument are just messing up when they detect them?

:squint: No.

Gravity has nothing to do with this situations. Muons traveling the speed of light should not reach the surface of the earth because they decay at a rate of 2 microseconds (I believe. I'd have to check but I'm not in the mood). Even traveling at this high speed there is not enough time in the Newtonian equations to account for the amount observed on earth

We are not suggesting that they respond according to Newtonian calculations.

 

[Memento Mori]

:squint: No.



We are not suggesting that they respond according to Newtonian calculations.

Then what do they respond to? The only way to properly explain this muon phenomenon chuckle is with Special Relativity.

But you don't subscribe to Special Relativity. So, how do you explain this phenomenon?

 

[Stripe]

Then what do they respond to?

Gravity.

The only way to properly explain this muon phenomenon chuckle is with Special Relativity.

Special relativity is a mathematical formula.

But you don't subscribe to Special Relativity. So, how do you explain this phenomenon?

I explain it with gravity. I use a mathematical formula to calculate (or I would if I knew how).

 

[dan1el]

Easily.

Awesome. Tell us.

 

[Stripe]

Awesome. Tell us.

How does one do it with relativity? If there is a 20 ton meteorite headed past the moon at 500,000km/h how would one calculate any potential impact on Earth?

 

[pozzolane]

Not according to the tests I was given in second grade.

:rotfl:

Understanding and education are not the same thing.

Actually, they are. It is intelligence and education that are not the same thing. However, you, so far, exhibit none of these qualities.

But I don't expect you to care to be honest and forthright here. All you've shown is contempt and disinterest. You have no desire to even try to discuss these things. You're a selfish, conceited little brat.

I have been the most honest and forthright with you Lighthouse. I'm telling you straight out that I hold nothing but contempt for your arrogance on topics you know nothing about. I don't need to discuss anything with you that hasn't already been said, very patiently I might add, by Johnny. And you take no effort to listen to what he's been saying. You then retort back with repetitive half baked objections that have been addressed more than once. When I point this out, I am challanged as to where the objection has been addressed. When I point this out, the refutation is brushed off with incredulity and your "common sense". No, I have run out of patience with you and your kind, and I will continue to flaunt my outright disdain for it.

However, change your attitude from arrogant to honest inquiry and actually put effort into learning the subject matter, and I will quickly and graciously show patience with you, and become much friendlier.

:thumb:

 

[eveningsky339]

I was thinking of the mathematical models used to predict its movement, not the explanation.

You have said over and over that relativity is a basically a set of mathematical models, nothing more. You are half right. You neglect to mention that these mathematical models are applied in every day life.

And you never explained the Newtonian stance on the formation/nature of black holes. Only relativity has been able to offer a clear and logical explanation for their existence.

Oh, and the space shuttle still docks with its tail to the earth.

 

[Lighthouse]

If you put the energy used to accelerate a particle in an accelerator into the classical equation for kinetic energy, you'd get a speed much greater than c.

Why?

Why don't you instead explain why mass is needed to have energy?

How else is something going to have energy? How else would you be able to condense something to the point in which it had enough energy to cut through something if it has no mass.

Light can be condensed into a laser so powerful it can cut through diamonds, the hardest natural substance on Earth.

Magnetism is an effect of relativity, actually. If you combine electrostatics and special relativity, you get magnetism. Page two of this article explains it quite well.

:rotfl:

Even if relativity explains how magnets work, that isn't what I asked. Nor is the relativity, or non relativity for that matter, relevant to magnetism. It isn't necessary for time to be relative in order for magnets to work.

Electric fields propagate at the speed of light.

And?

And that's why it should've been unneccesary to point out that gravity must propagate at a finite speed if the speed of light is indeed the fastest anything can travel.

That was unnecessary. I never said, or assumed, otherwise. That never had anything to do with the question.

Space is three of the four dimensions we reside in. I'm not sure what more there is to say.

This is only true if time is a dimension. As far as I am concerned space is all three of the dimensions in which we reside.

However, that is not the issue. While things reside in space, space itself is nothing. If it were something then nothing could exist within it.

So you need mass to have potential energy, but you can have potential energy because of charge, not mass, too?

The energy is in the charge, which has mass. Not in the object which has the charge. However, any actual object has some amount of mass, even if it is immeasurable in its smallest state.

Well, for one thing, Einstein's models agree with what we see, whereas Newton's don't.

How so?

Do you think we can actually see everything? I can't see the air I breathe. I can't see gravity. I can't even see light. And I certainly can't see time.

However, I can certainly see the effects of each of these things, and even measurements of some. Though not all are tangible.

:rotfl:

So you accept the tests that have been done with clocks, but not the tests performed on me to see how smart I was?:think:

Good to know.

Actually, they are. It is intelligence and education that are not the same thing. However, you, so far, exhibit none of these qualities.

No, they're not.

Intelligence is the ability to understand. A formal education does not give you these things. Though you come to understanding through formal education. But only if you are intelligent enough to understand. And, of course, depending on how intelligent you are the time it takes for you to understand varies. Unless, of course, the one teaching you doesn't understand it well enough to state it plainly and fully at the same time. I learned that one in regard to math. I used to think math was the hardest thing in the world. And then I had a teacher who told me a simple truth: it is all addition and subtraction. I had learned all I needed to know about math in order to answer even the hardest questions in grade school. After that I was able to look at geometry questions and know the answer without even working them out.

Of course, I must admit that I meant formal education when I said that understanding and education were not the same thing. As exampled by my experience with geometry. And when I actually took that class I aced every assignment I actually did. And because of that I passed without ever doing any homework.

And those tests I mentioned showed that I was able to understand things that weren't expected to be understood by those less than nine years ahead of me.

I have been the most honest and forthright with you Lighthouse. I'm telling you straight out that I hold nothing but contempt for your arrogance on topics you know nothing about. I don't need to discuss anything with you that hasn't already been said, very patiently I might add, by Johnny. And you take no effort to listen to what he's been saying. You then retort back with repetitive half baked objections that have been addressed more than once. When I point this out, I am challanged as to where the objection has been addressed. When I point this out, the refutation is brushed off with incredulity and your "common sense". No, I have run out of patience with you and your kind, and I will continue to flaunt my outright disdain for it.

However, change your attitude from arrogant to honest inquiry and actually put effort into learning the subject matter, and I will quickly and graciously show patience with you, and become much friendlier.

:thumb:

I mostly ignore Johnny because of his past interactions with others. He's a windbag. You're not Johnny. I'm not ignoring you.

But if you can't be honest enough to actually give me the information you clam to have on the subject, that's on you. You want to claim that I wouldn't understand, but my academic records prove otherwise. I can show you that every assignment I actually took the time to complete received the highest grade possible.

However, I might not have access to every assignment. And some of them were marked wrong because I didn't show my work. Mostly in math classes. But if I could have all of those papers I could show you that I did get the answers right.

 

[pozzolane]

Light can be condensed into a laser so powerful it can cut through diamonds, the hardest natural substance on Earth.

Seriously, Lighthouse...This is precisely the reason why you should be educated on a subject before you yap on about it. Did you look up how lasers work like I told you to do? No. Laser stands for: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. It's a directional, organised, and monochromatic light source due to specific stimulation of electrons to a higher excited state, and their release of photons as they "get rid" of their high energy states. A laser is NOT "condensed light".

RE: My laughing at your comment regarding grade 2 testing.

So you accept the tests that have been done with clocks, but not the tests performed on me to see how smart I was?:think:

I was laughing at how immature your comments are, and how much you mistake me for caring about your testing scores in grade 2.

RE: Education does not equal Intelligence.

Understanding and education are not the same thing.

Actually, they are. It is intelligence and education that are not the same thing.

No, they're not.

Yes they are. You answered my rebuttle to your own assertion, yourself. Education can be defined as a high, or higher level of understanding. Intelligence can be defined as a capacity for understanding. So by this, understanding is the same as education. However, intelligence and education are not the same.

Intelligence is the ability to understand. A formal education does not give you these things. Though you come to understanding through formal education.

Correct. Understanding and education are the same. But they do not reflect ones ability to understand (intelligence).

I mostly ignore Johnny because of his past interactions with others. He's a windbag. You're not Johnny. I'm not ignoring you.

Johnny is everything but a windbag. He has been offering very concise and very patient responses to those who aren't really here to discuss, but to fall in line with the most ignorant Rev. Enyart. He has single handedly rebutted every assertion made point by point, and has even had to answer the same exact question/objection more than twice. This thread should have died pages ago with a clear victory to Johnny. His posts deserve far more respect than you've been giving them. They would also clear up your misunderstandings should you read them with a curious mind rather than an incredulous one.

You want to claim that I wouldn't understand, but my academic records prove otherwise.

I've been resorting to ridicule only because I dispise the reasoning for your position and your dogmatic refusal to even attempt to understand. I have faith that if you actually approached this subject with an honest and open mind, you wouldn't have any of your current objections and you would find your former position quite foolish.

However, I might not have access to every assignment. And some of them were marked wrong because I didn't show my work. Mostly in math classes.

I don't need to see any of your former assignments from grade school. You have a chance here to prove that you aren't as stupid as you've been appearing in this thread. I'd love to see you prove it here.

 

[Lighthouse]

Seriously, Lighthouse...This is precisely the reason why you should be educated on a subject before you yap on about it. Did you look up how lasers work like I told you to do? No. Laser stands for: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. It's a directional, organised, and monochromatic light source due to specific stimulation of electrons to a higher excited state, and their release of photons as they "get rid" of their high energy states. A laser is NOT "condensed light".

Forgive me for using a simplification.

If I use a magnifying glass to focus light on a specific point what will it do?

RE: My laughing at your comment regarding grade 2 testing.

I was laughing at how immature your comments are, and how much you mistake me for caring about your testing scores in grade 2.

It was proven that I have a high capacity for understanding. You didn't believe I did. I offered you evidence to the contrary.

This was not standard testing by the way. It was given to me specifically to test my ability to understand.

But I never actually thought you would care.

RE: Education does not equal Intelligence.

Yes they are. You answered my rebuttle to your own assertion, yourself. Education can be defined as a high, or higher level of understanding. Intelligence can be defined as a capacity for understanding. So by this, understanding is the same as education. However, intelligence and education are not the same.

I already answered this. I meant formal education. One does not need formal education to understand something.

The only time I have ever been accused of not understanding something is by people like you. Ironically you have yet to prove that you understand this. Your refusal to "teach" me has not led me to believe that you do understand it.

Correct. Understanding and education are the same. But they do not reflect ones ability to understand (intelligence).

See above.

Johnny is everything but a windbag. He has been offering very concise and very patient responses to those who aren't really here to discuss, but to fall in line with the most ignorant Rev. Enyart. He has single handedly rebutted every assertion made point by point, and has even had to answer the same exact question/objection more than twice. This thread should have died pages ago with a clear victory to Johnny. His posts deserve far more respect than you've been giving them. They would also clear up your misunderstandings should you read them with a curious mind rather than an incredulous one.

I will agree only to that Stripe should have stopped a long time ago. I mean, I love the guy, and he is my friend, but he is being completely reactionary and not attempting to show the error for what it is. He only postulates that the error exists, and nothing more.

However, Clete has done the exact opposite.

And as for the points Johnny is "making," I got my curiosity satisfied on most of them a long time ago. And the postulations made on the parts of the people who believe that time itself is relative are incredible. This is why I am incredulous. I've been there, I can afford to be.

I've been resorting to ridicule only because I dispise the reasoning for your position and your dogmatic refusal to even attempt to understand. I have faith that if you actually approached this subject with an honest and open mind, you wouldn't have any of your current objections and you would find your former position quite foolish.

I used to believe that Einstein was correct. And then I realized how foolish it is. Do you have any idea why that is?

Remember, this was less than five years ago.

And why do you despise my reasoning?

I don't need to see any of your former assignments from grade school. You have a chance here to prove that you aren't as stupid as you've been appearing in this thread. I'd love to see you prove it here.

How do you want me to prove it?

 

[Memento Mori]

Ok. This is getting out of hand. We need to get back to Relativity and stop with ad hom.

 

[pozzolane]

Forgive me for using a simplification.

You didn't simplify it. You were simply wrong.

If I use a magnifying glass to focus light on a specific point what will it do?

Where are you going with this? The magnetic radiation can be focused using a convex lens. How does this have anything to do with the topic?

I already answered this. I meant formal education. One does not need formal education to understand something.

Technically not. But in your case, I don't think you are either formally or informally educated in relativity, or even science beyond a highschool level (which is virtually nothing). I think you're basing your objections on misunderstandings, and this makes you incredulous to the explainations given.

The only time I have ever been accused of not understanding something is by people like you.

You mean people who understand more about the subject under discussion than you?

Ironically you have yet to prove that you understand this. Your refusal to "teach" me has not led me to believe that you do understand it.

Why be repetative? Johnny is doing an excellent job (he knows more about it than I do anyway) and you won't even read his responses. I call that being intellectually dishonest.

RE: Clete's posts.

Clete is merely rehashing, in short form, the objections from Bob Enyart. And these objections have been refuted.

And as for the points Johnny is "making," I got my curiosity satisfied on most of them a long time ago. And the postulations made on the parts of the people who believe that time itself is relative are incredible. This is why I am incredulous. I've been there, I can afford to be.

I've already explained to you how time is relative. So has Johnny. And we've both posted video's on it with superb graphical illustrations. Your response so far has been nothing more than "Pffffft. That's impossible. My common sense says so."

What more do you want?!

I used to believe that Einstein was correct. And then I realized how foolish it is. Do you have any idea why that is?

Foolish?! Field leading physists haven't been able to falsify relativity, but you can just because it doesn't make sense to you?! Do you realise how incredibly arrogant you are being?