How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Will Bouwman »

Here's a thing I've been working on. Might submit it to the magazine:

The principle of relativity

Have you ever dropped something, a ball for instance? It’s a bit of a daft question, because who hasn’t? We’ve all done it and we all know that anything we drop will fall at our feet. We also know that if we jump straight up in the air, we land back where we started. It even happens if we are moving. If we drop a ball on a train, one that is travelling at 100mph say, the ball isn’t left behind to crash against the oncoming end of the carriage, and while your fellow passengers might think you a bit weird, if you jump in the air for no apparent reason, you can confidently expect to land on the same spot in your carriage, even though it’s further along the railway tracks from where you jumped. For extra fun, you can jump up and drop a ball at the same time and when your feet land on the same moving patch of lino they took off from, that’s where your ball will be. The reason being that everything in the carriage, the passengers, any balls they happen to be carrying, even the air is moving at the same speed as the train, and will continue to do so until something slows them down or makes them change direction. Think about riding a bike. If you stop peddling, you don’t immediately fall over, instead you keep freewheeling until the friction and air-resistance gradually bring you to a halt. Then you fall over.
Because the air is carried along in what is effectively a sealed bubble, that’s true even if you are riding your bike on a train. In fact whatever you do on the train, the result looks exactly the same as doing it on the platform. So when you drop a ball on a train, it drops to the ground in the same time it would take if it were dropped by a stranger standing on the platform. The difference is that whatever you drop, it carries on travelling at 100mph, so instead of falling straight down, the ball falls in an arc. Or at least that’s what it looks like to the stranger on the platform, watching as the train rattles past. To you on the train, your ball falls straight down, and instead it is the stranger’s ball that appears to fall in an arc. So who’s right? Well, we all know that the Earth is spinning around the North and South Poles. Wherever you are on Earth, it will take you 24 hours to spin around the poles. The circumference of Earth at the equator is 24,901 miles, so to go round the poles once in 24 hours means spinning at a little over 1000mph. The further from the equator, the more that speed drops and there are two latitudes where the Earth is spinning at 100mph. As it happens, they are so far North or South that they are in the Arctic Ocean or Antarctica respectively, but in principle there are two railways that could be built, one around each pole, on which the speed of the train is exactly matched by the speed of the Earth turning. In that case it’s tempting to think that, depending on which way round the train is going, either it’s moving at 200 mph, or not at all. Of course neither is true, because as the Earth spins on its axis, it orbits the sun in a galaxy that is cartwheeling through a universe that is expanding. With all the pirouettes Earth performs as it travels through space, how fast we, or any balls we drop, are really going is anyone’s guess. There isn’t some fixed universal grid we can mark our progress by; all we can measure is how fast we are moving relative to something else; some point or frame of reference - so 100mph is 100mph relative to a given point on the surface of the Earth. And so long as your speed remains constant, whatever you drop will land at your feet; it’s as if in your own little bubble it is the rest of the universe that is moving past beyond the window. This fact is known as the principle of relativity and in principle it doesn’t matter how fast you are going, everything in your bubble behaves and looks exactly the same as at any other speed.

The face in the mirror

The story goes that Albert Einstein was thinking about a possible exception. The speed of light was known to be 186 000 miles per second - fast enough to go round the Earth roughly seven and a half times in one second. It’s a staggering speed, but it is finite and unlike balls and people jumping up and down, it is unaffected by how fast the source is going. It is also the fastest that anything can move. Einstein wondered what would happen if we could travel at that speed. Suppose you were travelling at the speed of light; you might think this would be a good time to check yourself out in the mirror. So you hold your mirror out in the direction you are travelling. To your horror, your reflection has disappeared. Why? Well, if you are travelling at the speed of light, the light reflected from your face can’t reach the mirror to be reflected back. In other words, there would be an exception to the principle of relativity, a speed at which things look different. Except Einstein decided that isn’t what would happen. Instead, as you accelerated, time itself would progressively slow down until at the speed of light, time stops.

Special Theory of relativity

In mathematics, time takes on a life of its own - it becomes this abstract ‘thing’ we can add or subtract as easily as we might pour or store water in a jug. That flexibility is matched by our experience. We all have our perception of time and whether we feel time passing quickly or slowly depends on variables that are unique to each of us and every occasion. But however you feel time passing, the sun will set at exactly the time it was always going to, and that is because what we call time is determined by where the Sun is in the sky. A day is simply the Earth spinning until the Sun appears in the same place in the sky. That unit of time is not much good for tasks such as boiling an egg, so a day is divided into 24 hours, which in turn are divided into 60 minutes of 60 seconds. And it is those seconds that would slow down and stop in your bubble as you accelerated to the speed of light, or rather it is the things we count to mark seconds that would stop.

One of the ideas Einstein used to show what happens to ‘time’ is a device he made up called a light clock.
ET 1.png
ET 1.png (184.88 KiB) Viewed 2453 times
1. What this clock counts is a pulse of light that bounces up and down.
2. And to Einstein, who is moving at the same speed as the clock, that’s exactly what appears to happen.
3. But to someone watching the train go by, the light clock moves.
4. So instead of seeing the light travel as Einstein sees it, the stranger on the platform sees the light travel at an angle. Since the light pulse has travelled further, it must take longer.

However, the principle of relativity dictates that if the stranger has a clock, Einstein sees hers ticking as she sees his. In other words, both would see the other’s clock tick slower than their own and in the conditions of special relativity, that is true. The thing is, special relativity describes what you will see in one special circumstance. That circumstance being that two frames of reference, two bubbles, are moving at a constant velocity relative to each other. Velocity is speed in a straight line, so two bubbles moving at a constant relative velocity will move further and further apart once they have passed each other, unless and until at least one bubble changes direction; only then would it be possible to bring the clocks together and compare them to find out which one has ticked less.

Suppose instead of going in a straight line, Einstein was on a train that was going in a circle, on one of those hypothetical tracks near the poles for example. If then the stranger were standing at the pole, it would be obvious who was moving relative to who, because the stranger would see Einstein’s light beam take a diagonal route. By contrast Einstein could look out of his window and watch the stranger’s light pulse bounce straight up and down. In that case, he would see the stranger’s clock tick faster than his own.
This is not just an anomaly of light clocks; in 1971 scientists Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating, put atomic clocks on commercial airliners. With another clock in Washington DC as their standard, they flew around the world both westwards and eastwards. When they compared the clocks that went around the world with the one that stayed in Washington they found that by flying westwards clocks gain time, whereas flying eastwards, they lose it. That might seem weird, but it’s only from a point of view on the ground in Washington. In this idealised version, we can watch from a point above the North Pole.
Around the world.001.png
Around the world.001.png (138.42 KiB) Viewed 2453 times
1. The planes leave Washington at sunset.
2. By midnight both planes are the same distance from Washington, but at opposite sides of the North Pole.
3. At dawn the planes pass each other on the other side of the world to Washington. But while the plane flying east has gone round the North Pole, the plane flying west doesn’t appear to have moved.
4. Midday in Washington. The plane flying east is half way round the pole again and still the plane flying west is where it was at the beginning.

The planes land again at sunset in Washington. Seen from above the North Pole, the plane heading west has flown around the world without going anywhere, Washington DC has been around the world once, and the plane flying east has been round twice. If the planes were carrying light clocks, we would see the pulses of light stretched out in Washington and even more in the plane flying east, so from this point of view, the clock on the westward plane ticks at the same rate as any we might have with us. The clock in Washington ticks slower, but not as slowly as the eastward bound clock.

The actual differences in times were measured in billionths of a second, far too little for anyone to notice, but the principle of relativity states that even if we were travelling at speeds fast enough that the difference in time would be noticeable, we wouldn’t actually notice any difference in our own bubble. Nor would we, because every molecular and chemical reaction that is life and even consciousness depends on the interaction of particles in our bodies and brains. However much the path the pulse of light in a light clock is stretched, the movement of particles in our bodies and brains is stretched by exactly the same amount. So however much a clock we are travelling with slows, we slow down by the same amount. And if it were possible to travel at the speed of light, every particle of your being would be travelling at the speed of light, and since nothing can travel faster than light, there is no chance for any interaction between particles in your carriage, including those in your body and brain; nothing would happen in your bubble. The world would keep spinning, but for you time would stop.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by seeds »

Will Bouwman wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:42 pm [......]
Me dear old bean, Will Bouwman,...

(the artist formerly known as "uwot")

...isn't this...
Will Bouwman wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:42 pm And if it were possible to travel at the speed of light, every particle of your being would be travelling at the speed of light, and since nothing can travel faster than light, there is no chance for any interaction between particles in your carriage, including those in your body and brain; nothing would happen in your bubble. The world would keep spinning, but for you time would stop.
...a direct contradiction of this...
Will Bouwman wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:42 pm This fact is known as the principle of relativity and in principle it doesn’t matter how fast you are going, everything in your bubble behaves and looks exactly the same as at any other speed.
... :?:

Isn't it more accurate to say that from the perspective of a "stationary observer," time would appear to stop for the person moving at the speed of light?

It is commonly suggested that, according to special relativity, everything (in one's bubble) will appear to be completely normal looking to one who is traveling at, say, 99% of the speed of light.

However, you seem to be implying that if that final percentage point is added and one reaches true light speed, then special relativity is no longer applicable to your situation, and therefore your mental processes (along with everything else in your "bubble") come to a frozen halt.

I mean, isn't that what you are suggesting when you say...
Will Bouwman wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:42 pm "...nothing would happen in your bubble...for you time would stop"
... :?:

And if so, then, again, how does that square with your earlier assertion that...
Will Bouwman wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:42 pm ...it doesn’t matter how fast you are going, everything in your bubble behaves and looks exactly the same as at any other speed.
... :?:
_______
socrat44
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by socrat44 »

How does the Minkowski/Einstein light cone explain the behavior of light over time?
Attachments
Lightcones - A-Physicists-Favorite-Tool.jpg
Lightcones - A-Physicists-Favorite-Tool.jpg (34.87 KiB) Viewed 2429 times
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Will Bouwman »

Hello seeds.
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:10 pmIt is commonly suggested that, according to special relativity, everything (in one's bubble) will appear to be completely normal looking to one who is traveling at, say, 99% of the speed of light.
That's the principle of relativity, which goes back to Galileo. In his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems he noted that if you were below deck on a ship, you would have no way of knowing how fast you were moving. Any experiment you conduct, dropping a ball for instance, would give the same result on a moving ship as on the shore. In other words, there is no way to work out how fast you are moving by looking only at your own inertial frame, or bubble.
In special relativity Einstein went further and said you cannot tell how fast you are moving, even by looking in to someone else's bubble. But only if your bubble and the other you are looking at are moving relative to each other with uniform velocity. You might have heard of the 'twins paradox', which starts from the premise that two twins will see each others clocks ticking at the same rate if they are moving with constant relative speed, and then promptly ignores that condition when it says the twins come back together to find one older than the other.
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:10 pmHowever, you seem to be implying that if that final percentage point is added and one reaches true light speed, then special relativity is no longer applicable to your situation, and therefore your mental processes (along with everything else in your "bubble") come to a frozen halt.
Well, inasmuch as special relativity is about what you see, it still applies, because viewers in two bubbles moving relative to each other at the speed won't see each other, so whether they are 'conscious' makes no difference.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Will Bouwman »

socrat44 wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:10 pmHow does the Minkowski/Einstein light cone explain the behavior of light over time?
It doesn't, it just explains what you can and cannot see.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Age »

Will Bouwman wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:42 pm Here's a thing I've been working on. Might submit it to the magazine:

The principle of relativity

Have you ever dropped something, a ball for instance? It’s a bit of a daft question, because who hasn’t? We’ve all done it and we all know that anything we drop will fall at our feet. We also know that if we jump straight up in the air, we land back where we started. It even happens if we are moving. If we drop a ball on a train, one that is travelling at 100mph say, the ball isn’t left behind to crash against the oncoming end of the carriage, and while your fellow passengers might think you a bit weird, if you jump in the air for no apparent reason, you can confidently expect to land on the same spot in your carriage, even though it’s further along the railway tracks from where you jumped. For extra fun, you can jump up and drop a ball at the same time and when your feet land on the same moving patch of lino they took off from, that’s where your ball will be. The reason being that everything in the carriage, the passengers, any balls they happen to be carrying, even the air is moving at the same speed as the train, and will continue to do so until something slows them down or makes them change direction. Think about riding a bike. If you stop peddling, you don’t immediately fall over, instead you keep freewheeling until the friction and air-resistance gradually bring you to a halt. Then you fall over.
Because the air is carried along in what is effectively a sealed bubble, that’s true even if you are riding your bike on a train. In fact whatever you do on the train, the result looks exactly the same as doing it on the platform. So when you drop a ball on a train, it drops to the ground in the same time it would take if it were dropped by a stranger standing on the platform. The difference is that whatever you drop, it carries on travelling at 100mph, so instead of falling straight down, the ball falls in an arc. Or at least that’s what it looks like to the stranger on the platform, watching as the train rattles past. To you on the train, your ball falls straight down, and instead it is the stranger’s ball that appears to fall in an arc. So who’s right? Well, we all know that the Earth is spinning around the North and South Poles. Wherever you are on Earth, it will take you 24 hours to spin around the poles. The circumference of Earth at the equator is 24,901 miles, so to go round the poles once in 24 hours means spinning at a little over 1000mph. The further from the equator, the more that speed drops and there are two latitudes where the Earth is spinning at 100mph. As it happens, they are so far North or South that they are in the Arctic Ocean or Antarctica respectively, but in principle there are two railways that could be built, one around each pole, on which the speed of the train is exactly matched by the speed of the Earth turning. In that case it’s tempting to think that, depending on which way round the train is going, either it’s moving at 200 mph, or not at all. Of course neither is true, because as the Earth spins on its axis, it orbits the sun in a galaxy that is cartwheeling through a universe that is expanding. With all the pirouettes Earth performs as it travels through space, how fast we, or any balls we drop, are really going is anyone’s guess. There isn’t some fixed universal grid we can mark our progress by; all we can measure is how fast we are moving relative to something else; some point or frame of reference - so 100mph is 100mph relative to a given point on the surface of the Earth. And so long as your speed remains constant, whatever you drop will land at your feet; it’s as if in your own little bubble it is the rest of the universe that is moving past beyond the window. This fact is known as the principle of relativity and in principle it doesn’t matter how fast you are going, everything in your bubble behaves and looks exactly the same as at any other speed.

The face in the mirror

The story goes that Albert Einstein was thinking about a possible exception. The speed of light was known to be 186 000 miles per second - fast enough to go round the Earth roughly seven and a half times in one second. It’s a staggering speed, but it is finite and unlike balls and people jumping up and down, it is unaffected by how fast the source is going. It is also the fastest that anything can move. Einstein wondered what would happen if we could travel at that speed. Suppose you were travelling at the speed of light; you might think this would be a good time to check yourself out in the mirror. So you hold your mirror out in the direction you are travelling. To your horror, your reflection has disappeared. Why? Well, if you are travelling at the speed of light, the light reflected from your face can’t reach the mirror to be reflected back. In other words, there would be an exception to the principle of relativity, a speed at which things look different. Except Einstein decided that isn’t what would happen. Instead, as you accelerated, time itself would progressively slow down until at the speed of light, time stops.

Special Theory of relativity

In mathematics, time takes on a life of its own - it becomes this abstract ‘thing’ we can add or subtract as easily as we might pour or store water in a jug. That flexibility is matched by our experience. We all have our perception of time and whether we feel time passing quickly or slowly depends on variables that are unique to each of us and every occasion. But however you feel time passing, the sun will set at exactly the time it was always going to, and that is because what we call time is determined by where the Sun is in the sky. A day is simply the Earth spinning until the Sun appears in the same place in the sky. That unit of time is not much good for tasks such as boiling an egg, so a day is divided into 24 hours, which in turn are divided into 60 minutes of 60 seconds. And it is those seconds that would slow down and stop in your bubble as you accelerated to the speed of light, or rather it is the things we count to mark seconds that would stop.

One of the ideas Einstein used to show what happens to ‘time’ is a device he made up called a light clock. ET 1.png

1. What this clock counts is a pulse of light that bounces up and down.
2. And to Einstein, who is moving at the same speed as the clock, that’s exactly what appears to happen.
3. But to someone watching the train go by, the light clock moves.
4. So instead of seeing the light travel as Einstein sees it, the stranger on the platform sees the light travel at an angle. Since the light pulse has travelled further, it must take longer.

However, the principle of relativity dictates that if the stranger has a clock, Einstein sees hers ticking as she sees his. In other words, both would see the other’s clock tick slower than their own and in the conditions of special relativity, that is true. The thing is, special relativity describes what you will see in one special circumstance. That circumstance being that two frames of reference, two bubbles, are moving at a constant velocity relative to each other. Velocity is speed in a straight line, so two bubbles moving at a constant relative velocity will move further and further apart once they have passed each other, unless and until at least one bubble changes direction; only then would it be possible to bring the clocks together and compare them to find out which one has ticked less.

Suppose instead of going in a straight line, Einstein was on a train that was going in a circle, on one of those hypothetical tracks near the poles for example. If then the stranger were standing at the pole, it would be obvious who was moving relative to who, because the stranger would see Einstein’s light beam take a diagonal route. By contrast Einstein could look out of his window and watch the stranger’s light pulse bounce straight up and down. In that case, he would see the stranger’s clock tick faster than his own.
This is not just an anomaly of light clocks; in 1971 scientists Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating, put atomic clocks on commercial airliners. With another clock in Washington DC as their standard, they flew around the world both westwards and eastwards. When they compared the clocks that went around the world with the one that stayed in Washington they found that by flying westwards clocks gain time, whereas flying eastwards, they lose it. That might seem weird, but it’s only from a point of view on the ground in Washington. In this idealised version, we can watch from a point above the North Pole.Around the world.001.png

1. The planes leave Washington at sunset.
2. By midnight both planes are the same distance from Washington, but at opposite sides of the North Pole.
3. At dawn the planes pass each other on the other side of the world to Washington. But while the plane flying east has gone round the North Pole, the plane flying west doesn’t appear to have moved.
4. Midday in Washington. The plane flying east is half way round the pole again and still the plane flying west is where it was at the beginning.

The planes land again at sunset in Washington. Seen from above the North Pole, the plane heading west has flown around the world without going anywhere, Washington DC has been around the world once, and the plane flying east has been round twice. If the planes were carrying light clocks, we would see the pulses of light stretched out in Washington and even more in the plane flying east, so from this point of view, the clock on the westward plane ticks at the same rate as any we might have with us. The clock in Washington ticks slower, but not as slowly as the eastward bound clock.

The actual differences in times were measured in billionths of a second, far too little for anyone to notice, but the principle of relativity states that even if we were travelling at speeds fast enough that the difference in time would be noticeable, we wouldn’t actually notice any difference in our own bubble. Nor would we, because every molecular and chemical reaction that is life and even consciousness depends on the interaction of particles in our bodies and brains. However much the path the pulse of light in a light clock is stretched, the movement of particles in our bodies and brains is stretched by exactly the same amount. So however much a clock we are travelling with slows, we slow down by the same amount. And if it were possible to travel at the speed of light, every particle of your being would be travelling at the speed of light, and since nothing can travel faster than light, there is no chance for any interaction between particles in your carriage, including those in your body and brain; nothing would happen in your bubble. The world would keep spinning, but for you time would stop.
Instead of expressing only the things that are known to be true, right, or correct you express some things that you only presume to be true.

You also express them in a way as though they are actually irrefutably true, right, and correct which, is obviously, on your part, VERY misleading and deceptive.

But that is the nature of BELIEFS and the BELIEF-system.

Now, for those who are Truly interested, the so-called "einstein's light clock" example was just used to 'try to' "justify" what "einstein" itself PRESUMED and/or then BELIEVED was true, which later became Incorrectly termed 'time dilation'.

There are just far too many mistakes above to list them all and correct them now. But for those who are Truly interested ALL of those 'mistakes' can and will be SHOWN, EXPLAINED, and CORRECTED.

Also, it is NOT 'weird' AT ALL that a clock moving in one direction around earth compared to another clock moving in the other direction and/or another clock stationary in relation to a point on earth would appear to 'tick' at different rates.

As I have previously EXPLAINED here, because of what is called 'time' is in relation to EXACTLY that there is a difference it is PERFECTLY normal and would be what is and was expected. Well by me anyway. I am glad that that experiment has ALREADY BEEN DONE, as it PROVED my point ACCURATELY.

By the way, so-called 'time dilation' is not even an actual thing, and this is just because 'time', itself, is NOT an actual 'thing' that could dilate, NOR contract as well.

As for your last paragraph here the ABSURDITY of it speaks for itself, and on its own as well.

What 'you' are 'trying to' so-call "explain", but what 'you' are REALLY 'trying to' 'fight' and 'argue' for here, "will bouwman", in general terms would be like 'you' 'trying to' "explain" a 'geocentric universe', but REALLY 'you' just 'trying to' 'fight' and 'argue' for 'your' PRESUMPTION and BELIEF that the sun revolves around the earth. Also, all while using some book or text, which 'you' religiously BELIEVE IN and which was written by one, which 'you' also religiously BELIEVE, and BELIEVE IN.

So, what 'you' are doing here "will bouwman" is PROVING IRREFUTABLY True EXACTLY how the brain works, and how it IS the brain, itself, along with 'thoughts', which DISTORTS what IS ACTUALLY True, and which CLOSES the human being OFF to being ABLE TO SEE thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Age »

Will Bouwman wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:53 am Hello seeds.
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:10 pmIt is commonly suggested that, according to special relativity, everything (in one's bubble) will appear to be completely normal looking to one who is traveling at, say, 99% of the speed of light.
That's the principle of relativity, which goes back to Galileo. In his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems he noted that if you were below deck on a ship, you would have no way of knowing how fast you were moving. Any experiment you conduct, dropping a ball for instance, would give the same result on a moving ship as on the shore. In other words, there is no way to work out how fast you are moving by looking only at your own inertial frame, or bubble.
In special relativity Einstein went further and said you cannot tell how fast you are moving, even by looking in to someone else's bubble.
The ONLY way to KNOW, for sure, how fast one is moving/traveling is to be able to measure 'space', or otherwise known as the distance between two things/points. By just measuring the distance between two points, relative to a measuring device, which measures the 'duration' between two events, then this is when one can tell how fast, or slow, one is moving.

Absolutely EVERY thing is 'relative', to the observer, 'the speed', 'the distance', 'the direction', and absolutely EVERY thing else are ALL just 'relative' to the traveler, or the observer.

Also, contrary to what is claimed here there are NO 'separate bubbles'. There is only One place where ALL things happen and occur.
Will Bouwman wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:53 am But only if your bubble and the other you are looking at are moving relative to each other with uniform velocity. You might have heard of the 'twins paradox', which starts from the premise that two twins will see each others clocks ticking at the same rate if they are moving with constant relative speed, and then promptly ignores that condition when it says the twins come back together to find one older than the other.
Heard 'it', and the ABSURDITY of 'it' speaks for itself. Just like the ABSURDITY of the geocentric CLAIM spoke for itself as well.
Will Bouwman wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:53 am
seeds wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:10 pmHowever, you seem to be implying that if that final percentage point is added and one reaches true light speed, then special relativity is no longer applicable to your situation, and therefore your mental processes (along with everything else in your "bubble") come to a frozen halt.
Well, inasmuch as special relativity is about what you see, it still applies, because viewers in two bubbles moving relative to each other at the speed won't see each other, so whether they are 'conscious' makes no difference.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Will Bouwman »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:40 amThere are just far too many mistakes above to list them all and correct them now. But for those who are Truly interested ALL of those 'mistakes' can and will be SHOWN, EXPLAINED, and CORRECTED.
I have an interest in my work being corrected and I'm happy to have my mistakes shown and explained one at a time. As you read the essay, what is the first mistake you encounter?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Age »

Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:15 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:40 amThere are just far too many mistakes above to list them all and correct them now. But for those who are Truly interested ALL of those 'mistakes' can and will be SHOWN, EXPLAINED, and CORRECTED.
I have an interest in my work being corrected and I'm happy to have my mistakes shown and explained one at a time.
GREAT.
Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:15 am As you read the essay, what is the first mistake you encounter?
The first thing I noticed, but which is not yet necessarily 'a mistake', of course until clarity is first obtained, and it is that you used the words 'sealed bubble', in your first sentence, of your second paragraph, under the topic: The principle of relativity.

Just so we are clear is a 'sealed bubble' necessary?

If yes, then why?

But if no, then okay.

In your next sentence you wrote;
"In fact whatever you do on the train, the result looks exactly the same as doing it on the platform."

Just to be clear is 'the result', which 'looks exactly the same', for the 'observer' 'doing the action/behavior', which caused 'the result', or by someone else?

And, is 'the result', the 'exact same', in ALL scenarios?

In the following sentence you wrote:
"So when you drop a ball on a train, it drops to the ground in the same time it would take if it were dropped by a stranger standing on the platform."

Two things here.

1. When you say "stranger" here do you mean that if you, yourself, also dropped a ball on the platform that it would drop to the ground in the same time as if you drop a ball on a train correct?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then why not?

2. Does it matter if the train was going at 200mph or even 500mph would the dropped ball take the same time to drop to the ground as when dropped on a platform?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then why not?

In your fourth sentence you claim;
"The difference is that whatever you drop, it carries on travelling at 100mph, so instead of falling straight down, the ball falls in an arc."

When you say here that when the ball is dropped on the train, compared to on the platform, that the ball does not fall straight down but that the ball falls in an arc. What does the ball fall in an arc relative to, exactly?

In your next statement you propose;
Or at least that’s what it looks like to the stranger on the platform, watching as the train rattles past.

Can a human being on a train platform really notice and see this alleged arc, of a dropped ball within a train, when the train is flying past them at 100mph?

If no, then why say there is "an arc"?

But if yes, then are you absolutely sure?

When, and if, I gain clarity on these open questions, first, then we can move on to what else I see as being mistakes.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Will Bouwman »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amThe first thing I noticed, but which is not yet necessarily 'a mistake', of course until clarity is first obtained, and it is that you used the words 'sealed bubble', in your first sentence, of your second paragraph, under the topic: The principle of relativity.

Just so we are clear is a 'sealed bubble' necessary?
'Sealed bubble' is just a phrase that in this context means any more or less airtight container that people move around in; a car, a train, a plane or a rocket for example. In the language of science, it's an 'inertial frame'.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amIn your next sentence you wrote;
"In fact whatever you do on the train, the result looks exactly the same as doing it on the platform."

Just to be clear is 'the result', which 'looks exactly the same', for the 'observer' 'doing the action/behavior', which caused 'the result', or by someone else?

And, is 'the result', the 'exact same', in ALL scenarios?
Well, even at walking pace, if you have sensitive enough instruments, you can measure relativistic effects, but they are far too tiny to make any perceptible difference, so yes things look exactly the same for all scenarios involving a bubble/inertial frame moving with uniform velocity.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amIn the following sentence you wrote:
"So when you drop a ball on a train, it drops to the ground in the same time it would take if it were dropped by a stranger standing on the platform."

Two things here.

1. When you say "stranger" here do you mean that if you, yourself, also dropped a ball on the platform that it would drop to the ground in the same time as if you drop a ball on a train correct?
Yes, that is what I mean.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 am2. Does it matter if the train was going at 200mph or even 500mph would the dropped ball take the same time to drop to the ground as when dropped on a platform?
The horizontal velocity makes no difference to how fast something drops. If you fire a bullet from a high velocity rifle, it will take the same time to hit the ground as one you just drop.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amIn your fourth sentence you claim;
"The difference is that whatever you drop, it carries on travelling at 100mph, so instead of falling straight down, the ball falls in an arc."

When you say here that when the ball is dropped on the train, compared to on the platform, that the ball does not fall straight down but that the ball falls in an arc. What does the ball fall in an arc relative to, exactly?
As you say:
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amIn your next statement you propose;
Or at least that’s what it looks like to the stranger on the platform, watching as the train rattles past.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amCan a human being on a train platform really notice and see this alleged arc, of a dropped ball within a train, when the train is flying past them at 100mph?

If no, then why say there is "an arc"?
Whether or not they notice it, that is what they would see.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amWhen, and if, I gain clarity on these open questions, first, then we can move on to what else I see as being mistakes.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Age »

Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:34 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amThe first thing I noticed, but which is not yet necessarily 'a mistake', of course until clarity is first obtained, and it is that you used the words 'sealed bubble', in your first sentence, of your second paragraph, under the topic: The principle of relativity.

Just so we are clear is a 'sealed bubble' necessary?
'Sealed bubble' is just a phrase that in this context means any more or less airtight container that people move around in; a car, a train, a plane or a rocket for example. In the language of science, it's an 'inertial frame'.
1. You did NOT answer the actual question posed to you.

2. Are you aware that an 'airtight container' is NOT needed AT ALL, to explain what you are 'trying to' explain here? Just a windscreen, or even a wall, would suffice.

3. I much prefer you to just answer the actual question I posed, to you, instead of you wanting to inform me of 'things', which I already know.
Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:34 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amIn your next sentence you wrote;
"In fact whatever you do on the train, the result looks exactly the same as doing it on the platform."

Just to be clear is 'the result', which 'looks exactly the same', for the 'observer' 'doing the action/behavior', which caused 'the result', or by someone else?

And, is 'the result', the 'exact same', in ALL scenarios?
Well, even at walking pace, if you have sensitive enough instruments, you can measure relativistic effects, but they are far too tiny to make any perceptible difference, so yes things look exactly the same for all scenarios involving a bubble/inertial frame moving with uniform velocity.
Okay. This will be a point that I want to get back to, later on.

And THANK YOU for answering the actual question I posed, to you, here, this time.
Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:34 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amIn the following sentence you wrote:
"So when you drop a ball on a train, it drops to the ground in the same time it would take if it were dropped by a stranger standing on the platform."

Two things here.

1. When you say "stranger" here do you mean that if you, yourself, also dropped a ball on the platform that it would drop to the ground in the same time as if you drop a ball on a train correct?
Yes, that is what I mean.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 am2. Does it matter if the train was going at 200mph or even 500mph would the dropped ball take the same time to drop to the ground as when dropped on a platform?
The horizontal velocity makes no difference to how fast something drops.
Okay great. Again thank you for answering the actual question posed.

Your answers will become very helpful, later on.
Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:34 am If you fire a bullet from a high velocity rifle, it will take the same time to hit the ground as one you just drop.
Okay, unnecessary, but okay.
Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:34 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amIn your fourth sentence you claim;
"The difference is that whatever you drop, it carries on travelling at 100mph, so instead of falling straight down, the ball falls in an arc."

When you say here that when the ball is dropped on the train, compared to on the platform, that the ball does not fall straight down but that the ball falls in an arc. What does the ball fall in an arc relative to, exactly?
As you say:
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amIn your next statement you propose;
Or at least that’s what it looks like to the stranger on the platform, watching as the train rattles past.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amCan a human being on a train platform really notice and see this alleged arc, of a dropped ball within a train, when the train is flying past them at 100mph?

If no, then why say there is "an arc"?
Whether or not they notice it, that is what they would see.
So, I take from this that you are ABSOLUTELY SURE, and without any doubt at all KNOW, that this is what they SEE.

HOW do you now, supposedly, KNOW that this is what 'you' SEE?

And, WHERE is 'the arc', and WHAT is 'the arc', in relation to, EXACTLY?

Also, and by the way, what you just wrote here conflicts with and contradicts what you wrote before. That is; what some thing 'looks like' is NOT necessarily what they SEE at all.

For example, what 'looks like' the sun revolving around the earth was SEEN as the sun revolving around the earth, but through evolution BECOMES what is NOT SEEN AT ALL and what is THEN SEEN is the earth revolving around the sun, instead.

So, how do you explain this apparent conflict and contradiction of yours here?

You might like to clear up the differences between 'look like', 'appear', and 'see'.

By the way, using these words the way you, and writing the way you are here, WAS a very common mistake made, back in the days when this was being written, and prior to those very olden days.
Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:34 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amWhen, and if, I gain clarity on these open questions, first, then we can move on to what else I see as being mistakes.
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Will Bouwman »

Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:36 am2. Are you aware that an 'airtight container' is NOT needed AT ALL, to explain what you are 'trying to' explain here? Just a windscreen, or even a wall, would suffice.
Without an airtight container, any experiment conducted on Earth will be affected by air currents, with or without a windscreen or wall. Beyond the atmosphere, without some airtight container, any human experimenter will very quickly die.
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 am3. I much prefer you to just answer the actual question I posed, to you, instead of you wanting to inform me of 'things', which I already know.
How am I to know what you already know?
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amYou might like to clear up the differences between 'look like', 'appear', and 'see'.
Well, I suppose I am playing a bit fast and loose, but the difference is that people see what is almost certainly the case, the Earth going around the Sun for example, even though it might appear to them to be something different. There is actual sensory input, and then there is interpretation.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Age »

Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:19 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:36 am2. Are you aware that an 'airtight container' is NOT needed AT ALL, to explain what you are 'trying to' explain here? Just a windscreen, or even a wall, would suffice.
Without an airtight container, any experiment conducted on Earth will be affected by air currents, with or without a windscreen or wall.
This is NOT actually true, but considering it makes NO difference to this discussion, it can be left out here now. Unless, of course, you want to continue on with this?
Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:19 am Beyond the atmosphere, without some airtight container, any human experimenter will very quickly die.
Although the 'die' word is used Incorrectly, what you are referring to here obviously happens.
Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:19 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 am3. I much prefer you to just answer the actual question I posed, to you, instead of you wanting to inform me of 'things', which I already know.
How am I to know what you already know?
Through asking OPEN questions in order to gain clarity and understanding.

Also, what I wrote here had absolutely nothing to do with about you knowing what I already know. I just informed you that I much prefer you to just answer the actual questions I pose, to you, instead of you wanting to inform me of OTHER things.
Will Bouwman wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 10:19 am
Age wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 5:20 amYou might like to clear up the differences between 'look like', 'appear', and 'see'.
Well, I suppose I am playing a bit fast and loose, but the difference is that people see what is almost certainly the case, the Earth going around the Sun for example, even though it might appear to them to be something different. There is actual sensory input, and then there is interpretation.
Now that you have succeeded to CONTRADICT what you had previously written, and thus just CONFUSE this EVEN FURTHER here. I will just leave what you wrote here alone for now. But will probably come back to this later on.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Age »

To carry on now, in your sixth sentence, second paragraph, you wrote;
"To you on the train, your ball falls straight down, and instead it is the stranger’s ball that appears to fall in an arc.

But this is not what I see nor observe at all.

I suggest that you change the 'you' word here to a word, which would refer to 'you' alone "will bouwman", then that way you cannot be wrong nor incorrect, and thus you cannot make a mistake like you have here. Obviously also, only change things to only what would really appear to "will bouwman" and not to some 'thing', which is just a lie or just not true at all.

You then asked, regarding the above;
"So who’s right?"

Now, if it is 'you', "will bouwman", on the train, and another human being on the platform, and what you say here is correct, then, obviously, both of you are right. That is; to both of you the ball 'looks like' or 'appears' to fall in some alleged and supposed arc. As long as there is no suggestion that 'an arc' actually exists here, then all is well and good, and to answer your question again, 'both' is the answer to the question here.

But obviously the ball could NEVER fall in 'an ACTUAL arc', which is being presented here.

A ball obviously does fall in 'an Universal arc', but this is a whole other matter and for a whole other discussion, and which I think has absolutely nothing at all to do with what is 'trying to' be presented here.

The reason WHY what is 'trying to' be presented will come-to-light, later on.

You then go on to write and say;
'"Well, we all know that the Earth is spinning around the North and South Poles."

Although whether this is actually correct, or incorrect and thus just another mistake, is depended solely upon who and/or what the 'we' word is in relation to here, exactly. So, if you would like to clarify this, then great.

But if you do not, then it obviously remains incorrect, and a mistake. Well, from our perspective it certainly is.

When you say and write;
"Wherever you are on Earth, it will take you 24 hours to spin around the poles."

Are you aware that there is no such 'thing' as 'time' nor '24 hours'? There is, however, an agreed upon and accept 'length of duration', or 'distance' between two perceived events, which is labeled and called '24 hours'.

Therefore, you could change your wording here, so that it is correct, and thus does not get mistaken like it does presented this way.

You follow that sentence with;
"The circumference of Earth at the equator is 24,901 miles, so to go round the poles once in 24 hours means spinning at a little over 1000mph. The further from the equator, the more that speed drops and there are two latitudes where the Earth is spinning at 100mph. As it happens, they are so far North or South that they are in the Arctic Ocean or Antarctica respectively, but in principle there are two railways that could be built, one around each pole, on which the speed of the train is exactly matched by the speed of the Earth turning. In that case it’s tempting to think that, depending on which way round the train is going, either it’s moving at 200 mph, or not at all. "

Why is it tempting for you to think this?

I do not think, nor even thought that at all.

Are you yet aware that absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the 'observer', or 'thinker'?
Following on from that sentence you then said and wrote;
"Of course neither is true, because as the Earth spins on its axis, it orbits the sun in a galaxy that is cartwheeling through a universe that is expanding."

This is your biggest mistake here, well so far anyway. That is; letting your OWN assumptions and beliefs of what is true, right, or correct get in the way of what you want to explain here. But do not be to concerned here now, absolutely EVERY other adult human being makes this mistake also, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout just about ALL writings and speeches.

When one believes things, based on previous writings or speeches, and/or believes in things, like in other religiously written scientific texts, or believes in "others" who write and speak in scientific terms, for example, then those beliefs become 'religious', in and of themselves, and become very evident and clear, and can be clearly seen in all sorts of religious writings, including scientific writings, like being exampled here.

Contrary to popular belief, in the days when this is being written, there is absolutely NO proof AT ALL that the Universe is expanding. So, ASSUMING or BELIEVING that the Universe IS EXPANDING is a HUGE MISTAKE, and which interferes with writing properly and correctly, that is; without mistakes.

And, writing as though the Universe IS ACTUALLY EXPANDING, is as big as a MISTAKE as ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that the words, 'in the beginning', in the bible, mean or refer to there WAS 'a beginning' of Everything, from NO thing or from some OTHER thing.

Passing on what IS, or what could BE, False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect messages or knowledge, as though 'it' is true, IS a BIG MISTAKE, and which ultimately affects everyone else thereafter.

But, again, do not feel alone, as EVERY other one of 'you', adult human beings, were making the SAME MISTAKE, back in the days when this was written, as 'you' are here "will bouwman".

Once that mistake is acknowledged, then we can move on successfully answering your next piece of wonderment;
"With all the pirouettes Earth performs as it travels through space, how fast we, or any balls we drop, are really going is anyone’s guess."

1. There is NO such 'thing' as 'space', as "obvious leo" was POINTING OUT and SHOWING.

2. How fast ANY thing is 'really going', as always, is ALWAYS just solely depended upon AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE. But, considering what is necessary to obtain a 'rate of speed' is IN AGREEMENT and IS ACCEPTED, and that what the 'thing' is that is speed is in relation to EXACTLY exists HERE-NOW, then who MAKES the calculations, and/or thus guesses, is just 'you', human beings.

You then claim here now that;
"There isn’t some fixed universal grid we can mark our progress by; all we can measure is how fast we are moving relative to something else; some point or frame of reference - so 100mph is 100mph relative to a given point on the surface of the Earth."

What do you mean, or refer to, by the word 'progress' here?

What is the word 'progress' here in relation to, exactly?

Also, there is an alleged and supposed 'fixed universal grid', from which human being can and DO take their measurements from in relation to 'speed', 'time', and/or 'distance'.

How else do you think you got to KNOW the speed of 'things'?

You then go on to say and write:
"And so long as your speed remains constant, whatever you drop will land at your feet; it’s as if in your own little bubble it is the rest of the universe that is moving past beyond the window."

I NEVER see NOR observe this phenomenon, and so wonder WHY do 'you', human beings, SEE and OBSERVE this?

It is like 'you' have a VERY ego-centric and self-centered view or perspective of 'the world', and it is like 'you' live in your OWN 'little bubbles', SEEING EVERY thing else is OUTSIDE of "your" 'self' and 'circles around' 'you'.

But this may well just be the 'ego' TRICKING and FOOLING 'you', human beings, to OBSERVE and SEE what is ACTUALLY NOT True AT ALL?

We will just have to WAIT and SEE, correct?

Or, do some of 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'you' ALREADY DO KNOW what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS EXACTLY?

Most of 'you' should do speak and write like 'you' do.

Here is another mistake of yours;
"This fact is known as the principle of relativity and in principle it doesn’t matter how fast you are going, everything in your bubble behaves and looks exactly the same as at any other speed."

You claim there is a 'fact' here, but NEVER go on to explain what the 'fact' is EXACTLY.

Also, when you say, "in your bubble", what are you referring to and referencing EXACTLY?

Although you may well live in "your own little bubble', and just so you are aware, some of 'us' do NOT live in 'bubbles' AT ALL.

To do so, or to even think one does, would just be a very serious mistake, to make.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: How does Einstein’s light clock explain time dilation?

Post by Impenitent »

if time stops when you reach the speed of light, how do you know for how long you are going that fast?

if you are moving at the speed of light for an hour, what year would it be when you slowed back down?

all this assumes instant acceleration/deceleration...

is it relative to that which is moving slower? is it a different time altogether? does a different time necessitate a different space? a different dimension at any rate...

and we have the ironic time traveler... in the dream of existing outside of time, he devises a way to reach the speed of light... but in the years it requires to reach the velocity- he dies of old age...

just some errant thoughts...

-Imp
Post Reply