Time Dilation - A Mechanical Defect

[Squashed]

Could it be that the time dilation of atomic clocks is caused by the mechanical change that velocity causes in the "orbits" of subatomic particles?

Using a Bohr analogy, then for a stationary atom the electron traces a true and perfect circle with each orbit.

For an atom traveling at a velocity the electron must travel, not a circular path but, a cycloidal shape more akin to this trochoid (when viewed from a stationary perspective).

In order for the atom to maintain this velocity then the electron, the internal proton workings and the internal neutron workings must continue to trace these distorted paths - for if they did not then no velocity would be evident for the atom.

A perfect "tick" of a light-reflection clock occurs when the light completes a round-trip path - a circlular orbit is a perfect clocking path because every point of the orbit is matched diametrically opposite in position by another point that has an opposing vector. So the orbit of the electron runs "perfectly" normal with regard to the atom's nucleus but from an outside perspective the workings of the atom have slowed down. This slow down is what is evident when atomic clocks show a time dilation - from one clock to another clock.

Since the slowing of atomic processes has no effect upon the "global" or an "other perspective" clock then an atom easily falls inside a blackhole's event horizon because time does not prevent this event, time is not real. The atom falls inside the event horizon with its internal clock in a stopped state.

If the above is true then it would not require an ether in order to understand why, without relativity, time appears to dilate as measured by clocks or that nothing can go faster than the speed of light - because these effects are built into the very essence of matter.

Time is like love - it is just a concept of the mind.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Could it be that the time dilation of atomic clocks is caused by the mechanical change that velocity causes in the "orbits" of subatomic particles?

Velocity neither causes "mechanical changes" nor breaks clocks. Please read There's Nothing Wrong With Your Clock in the Relativistic Ramblings thread.

Time is like love -- it is just a concept of the mind.

Wrong. Time has an objective existence and can be measured. As I wrote in the post linked to above:

And as soon as time is mentioned, some people's eyes glaze over, their brains start getting mushy and metaphysical and all hopes of rationally discussing physics goes out the window.

Don't go mushy. Keep your eyes unglazed. Continue to think and learn.

[Squashed]

... Time has an objective existence and can be measured. ...

The measurement of time that you speak of is merely a unit-less ratio of one movement to another.

The cesium clock uses the vibration of atoms to count time - a vibration is a movement, albeit a very small movement.

[Squashed]

Velocity neither causes "mechanical changes" nor breaks clocks. ...

The clock with the fastest tick-rate is the perfect clocking mechanism - because it is the motionless clock.

If the universe began as an explosion then the origin of that explosion would be the spot where there is no absolute motion, as defined by the universe and its velocities because prior to the explosion there was only one entity, the kernel, and since there is only one entity then there is no meaning to the words: velocity, time or any other comparison-type measurement.

From that spot the universe separated and the result is that comparisons of position can now be made with regard to other positions (the measurement of time) and the dynamics of physics evolved.

So at that spot a clock should tick the fastest because the atom is motionless - the electron traces a perfect circle which when viewed by a traveling participant would appear as an elliptical trace and not a trochoidal trace.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Time has an objective existence and can be measured

The measurement of time that you speak of is merely a unit-less ratio of one movement to another.

As Wolfgang Pauli would say, "This isn't right. It isn't even wrong." How is this movement measured? How do we compare two movements?

The cesium clock uses the vibration of atoms to count time -- a vibration is a movement, albeit a very small movement.

What exactly is the "movement" in a cesium clock? How do we compare this "movement" to other "movements" in order to form a unitless ratio?

[Celestial Mechanic]

Velocity neither causes "mechanical changes" nor breaks clocks. ...

The clock with the fastest tick-rate is the perfect clocking mechanism -- because it is the motionless clock.

Motionless with respect to what?

If the universe began as an explosion then the origin of that explosion would be the spot where there is no absolute motion, as defined by the universe and its velocities ...[Snip!]

A common misconception. The universe did not result from some pyrotechnic "explosion" at a single point.

From that spot the universe separated and the result is that comparisons of position can now be made with regard to other positions (the measurement of time) and the dynamics of physics evolved.

So at that spot a clock should tick the fastest because the atom is motionless -- the electron traces a perfect circle which when viewed by a traveling participant would appear as an elliptical trace and not a trochoidal trace.

Wouldn't a clock at rest with respect to this magic point also tick at the same rate? Also, what clock at the magic point has motionless atoms? Individual atoms vibrate, etc.

Please read and reread There's Nothing Wrong With Your Clock until you understand it.

[Squashed]

Motionless with respect to what?

Answer: The Center of Gravity of the Universe.

A common misconception. The universe did not result from some pyrotechnic "explosion" at a single point.

Wouldn't a clock at rest with respect to this magic point also tick at the same rate? Also, what clock at the magic point has motionless atoms? Individual atoms vibrate, etc.

Answer: The atoms would vibrate which is how atomic clocks work but the "primal" velocity of the whole arrangement would be zero which would allow it to "tick" faster than any other clock in the universe.


Please read and reread There's Nothing Wrong With Your Clock until you understand it.

CM, I understand, quite well, what you advocate with your thread - I happen to disagree with it which is why I started this thread.

To expound further about these thoughts:

According to the calculations only a round-trip speed of light is the perfect tick of a light-reflection clock with the sum of the two one-way segments equaling the effect of the time dilation rate or gamma.

Since a circular path is composed of an infinite number of matching one-way light segments then naturally the circular path of an electron will exhibit the same cumulative time dilational effects as represented by gamma.

The math, the calculations, also declare that time would have to oscillate between ticking fast and ticking slow depending upon the direction of travel of the light in the light-reflection clock since one direction requires a 9 times longer interval than the opposite direction ( 3 divided by 0.3333 equals 9 ).

Furthermore if "spacetime" is the keeper of time then in the skit I wrote the "knowledge" of the ship's acceleration through co-moving spacetime would reach the in-transit photon just past the halfway point between Mirror-Atom-1 and Mirror-Atom-2 because since this "spacetime knowledge" is supposedly propagated at the speed of light then since it comes from both directions, from both Mirror-Atoms, the "acceleration knowledge" from Mirror_Atom-2 would reach the in-transit photon prior to the photon's arrival at Mirror-Atom-2.

So the trajectory of the photon would trace a smile shape (opposite to the apparent direction of the psydo-gravitational force) to the on-board viewer whereas on the earth the trajectory of a photon horizontal to the ground would be a "frown" shape (in the direction of force).

If the knowledge of the acceleration can only be transmitted by direct contact with either Mirror-Atom then the ether of spacetime obviously does not exist and, in reality, only plain ol' space/distance is present.

I find it more feasible to believe that direct contact is the only means of transmitting the acceleration information which when thought out would also allow an easy entrance of an atom into a blackhole - without a mind-boggling twisting of logic and mathematics being required.

[dhd40]

In my livingroom I&#180;ve got five mechanical (pendulum) clocks and a radio controlled clock (via an atomic referenc clock). The mechanical clocks all run differently from eachother. Some faster, some slower than the radio contolled clock, even when they are freshly wound up. Let&#180;s assume that I succeed in having them run as stable as an atomic clock. Then I should be free to chose any of the mechanical clocks as >reference< clock.
Nobody will be able to tell me, which clock to chose as a >reference< clock. Of course, if I start moving around that clock, its ticking rate will change. That&#180;s what the atomic clock will do as well, although less dramatic (and much easier to calculate). Therefore I agree with Celestial Mechanic: >nothing&#180;s wrong with your clock<.
My conclusion: No periodic process can be an absolute measure of time. Are there any definitions of time which do not refer to periodic processes?

[Sam5]

My conclusion: No periodic process can be an absolute measure of time. Are there any definitions of time which do not refer to periodic processes?

Periodic processes are what create or generate time. If the processes stop, there is no time flow. So, time doesn’t allow the periodic processes to take place, the periodic processes generate time.

The old assumption that time or “time itself” should be absolutely steady is an old mistake. That’s about the same as saying all speed or “speed itself” should be absolutely steady or that all lengths or “length itself” should be absolutely unchangeable. Well, of course, speed is changeable and the length of things changes too. The same with “time”. All clocks speed up and slow down, and everything that moves is a “clock”.

The old idea that an atomic clock represents a perfect clock goes back to the late 19th Century when it was believed that atomic harmonic oscillation rates were absolutely steady.

H.A. Lorentz pointed out in his 1895 book on electrodynamics that atomic oscillation rates can slow down and speed up, and, thus, atomic clocks can slow down and speed up too (he used single atoms as hypothetical “atomic clocks”).

Now, if you live at sea level and adjust your atomic and pendulum clocks so that they can go a long time without appearing to slow down or speed up, and then if you take them to the elevation of Denver, your atomic clock will speed up and your pendulum clocks will slow down. These changes can represent “time itself” where the laws of physics that govern your atomic clock’s rate and the different laws that govern your pendulum clocks’ rates are concerned. But neither type of clock can be considered to represent “time itself” by itself. Atomic clocks represent “time itself” for all functions in nature that will change in the same direction (in time) and at the same rate as an atomic clock change, and pendulum clocks represent “time itself” for all functions in nature that will change in the same direction (in time) and at the same rate as a pendulum clock change.

Because atomic clocks tend to be the most steady clocks and the least subject to speed-ups and slow-downs, they are considered today to represent the best “true time” clocks and nearly the most perfect or absolute clocks. But still, their tick rates can change.

So when you take your atomic clock and your pendulum clocks up to the elevation of Denver, the atomic clock time rate changes by speeding up and the pendulum clock time rate changes by slowing down. Both represent “true time” and “time itself”, and we can’t say that “time itself” at Denver flows more rapidly than “time itself” at sea level, merely because the atomic clock speeds up. Why not? Because the pendulum clocks slows down and it represents “true time” and “time itself” also.

There are other kinds of clocks, such as thermodynamic clocks, and their rates tend to change not because of elevation differences but because of heat-energy differences. So, either at the elevation of Denver or sea level, a thermodynamic clock rate changes when the clock is either heated or cooled, and this has nothing at all to do with elevation. For example, certain chemical processes are speeded up with the addition of heat and they show down with the removal of heat from the chemicals. And this effect is not related to elevation. Thermodynamic time is quite well-known in the field of biology and chemistry.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Periodic processes are what create or generate time. If the processes stop, there is no time flow. So, time doesn’t allow the periodic processes to take place, the periodic processes generate time.

Is there time in a vacuum? What periodic processes "generate" time in a vacuum?

[Snip!] Now, if you live at sea level and adjust your atomic and pendulum clocks so that they can go a long time without appearing to slow down or speed up, and then if you take them to the elevation of Denver, your atomic clock will speed up and your pendulum clocks will slow down. These changes can represent “time itself” where the laws of physics that govern your atomic clock’s rate and the different laws that govern your pendulum clocks’ rates are concerned. But neither type of clock can be considered to represent “time itself” by itself. Atomic clocks represent “time itself” for all functions in nature that will change in the same direction (in time) and at the same rate as an atomic clock change, and pendulum clocks represent “time itself” for all functions in nature that will change in the same direction (in time) and at the same rate as a pendulum clock change.

A pendulum clock halts in the absence of gravity, either far away from massive bodies or in free fall in space. Does that mean that "time itself" no longer exists as far as the laws governing pendulum clock rates are concerned? I thought that there was only one body of laws for physics, and that many members of the board are seeking these laws. It should be obvious to all that a pendulum clock is not an ideal clock, and its environment must be strictly controlled (constant temperature, no sudden accelerations, etc.) for it to be of any use.

Because atomic clocks tend to be the most steady clocks and the least subject to speed-ups and slow-downs, they are considered today to represent the best “true time” clocks and nearly the most perfect or absolute clocks. But still, their tick rates can change.

Wrong. If you would actually read my dialogues instead of hijacking their characters you would understand this.

So when you take your atomic clock and your pendulum clocks up to the elevation of Denver, the atomic clock time rate changes by speeding up and the pendulum clock time rate changes by slowing down. Both represent “true time” and “time itself”, and we can’t say that “time itself” at Denver flows more rapidly than “time itself” at sea level, merely because the atomic clock speeds up. Why not? Because the pendulum clocks slows down and it represents “true time” and “time itself” also.

Wrong for the reasons mentioned above. The pendulum is not an ideal clock and does not represent "time itself". Until it can be proven that a real, physical change occurs in atoms transported from place to place there is no choice but to accept the readings of the atomic clock as representing "time itself". If more time passes at Denver than at Houston then more time has passed for Denver than Houston. There is nothing wrong with your (atomic) clock. It is the popular conception of clocks speeding up and slowing down that is faulty.

[czeslaw]

CM, I understand, quite well, what you advocate with your thread - I happen to disagree with it which is why I started this thread.

To expound further about these thoughts:

According to the calculations only a round-trip speed of light is the perfect tick of a light-reflection clock with the sum of the two one-way segments equaling the effect of the time dilation rate or gamma.

Since a circular path is composed of an infinite number of matching one-way light segments then naturally the circular path of an electron will exhibit the same cumulative time dilational effects as represented by gamma.

The math, the calculations, also declare that time would have to oscillate between ticking fast and ticking slow depending upon the direction of travel of the light in the light-reflection clock since one direction requires a 9 times longer interval than the opposite direction ( 3 divided by 0.3333 equals 9 ).

Furthermore if "spacetime" is the keeper of time then in the skit I wrote the "knowledge" of the ship's acceleration through co-moving spacetime would reach the in-transit photon just past the halfway point between Mirror-Atom-1 and Mirror-Atom-2 because since this "spacetime knowledge" is supposedly propagated at the speed of light then since it comes from both directions, from both Mirror-Atoms, the "acceleration knowledge" from Mirror_Atom-2 would reach the in-transit photon prior to the photon's arrival at Mirror-Atom-2.

So the trajectory of the photon would trace a smile shape (opposite to the apparent direction of the psydo-gravitational force) to the on-board viewer whereas on the earth the trajectory of a photon horizontal to the ground would be a "frown" shape (in the direction of force).

If the knowledge of the acceleration can only be transmitted by direct contact with either Mirror-Atom then the ether of spacetime obviously does not exist and, in reality, only plain ol' space/distance is present.

I find it more feasible to believe that direct contact is the only means of transmitting the acceleration information which when thought out would also allow an easy entrance of an atom into a blackhole - without a mind-boggling twisting of logic and mathematics being required.

Atomic clock ticks different in different reference frames.
A reference frame is created by a space-time (as you wrote above) with its vacuum energy. Vacuum energy are oscillations (fluctuations) of the virtual particles (Zero Point Energy) density. This oscillations (fluctuations) emits every mass.

An object (a clock) moving through this space time absorbs and emits this fluctuations. If it is very fast relatively to this space-time oscillations we call it a relativistic velocity.

If there are dense space-time oscillations - close to big mass in strong gravitational field or a relativistic velocity the clock absorbs and emits faster. That way an observer sitting inside this clock observes a fast moving outside distant environment.

When we observe a Black Hole Like Object , the emitted photon goes an opposite direction relatively to the space-time fluctuations of the star. The photon becomes a longer wave - it is time dilation. The energy isn't lost , it comes all to us but in a longer time.

A simple equation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation
It is experimentally confirmed.

[Grey]

Wrong for the reasons mentioned above. The pendulum is not an ideal clock and does not represent "time itself". Until it can be proven that a real, physical change occurs in atoms transported from place to place there is no choice but to accept the readings of the atomic clock as representing "time itself". If more time passes at Denver than at Houston then more time has passed for Denver than Houston. There is nothing wrong with your (atomic) clock. It is the popular conception of clocks speeding up and slowing down that is faulty.

An especially important point is that a pendulum clock is driven explicitly by a gravitational restoring force, so in calculating it's rate, you have to account for any change in that force. But any other clock which does not so depend, whether it be based on nuclear or atomic processes, whether the interaction involved depend on the strong or weak nuclear forces or the electromagnetic force, all slow down by exactly the same amount when moved to different potentials in a gravitational field or when moving at high velocity. That's the thing that most suggests that "time itself" is different - that an enormous range of periodic processes all slow down or speed up by exactly the same amount.

[Sam5]

An especially important point is that a pendulum clock is driven explicitly by a gravitational restoring force, so in calculating it's rate, you have to account for any change in that force. But any other clock which does not so depend, whether it be based on nuclear or atomic processes, whether the interaction involved depend on the strong or weak nuclear forces or the electromagnetic force, all slow down by exactly the same amount when moved to different potentials in a gravitational field or when moving at high velocity. That's the thing that most suggests that "time itself" is different - that an enormous range of periodic processes all slow down or speed up by exactly the same amount.

Not if you heat up or cool off chemicals. You are neglecting thermodynamic time.

[Grey]

Not if you heat up or cool off chemicals. You are neglecting thermodynamic time.

No, actually, whether you heat up or cool off chemicals has absolutely no effect on, say, nuclear decay rates, typical interaction times of the weak nuclear force, the preferred frequencies of radiating atoms, or a host of other processes. Yet all of these processes are affected to exactly the same degree by changes in gravitational potential. Many chemical processes are indeed affected by the ambient temperature, but it's different for each such process. There's no such thing as "thermodynamic time" in the sense that you use the term.

[Sam5]

No, actually, whether you heat up or cool off chemicals has absolutely no effect on, say, nuclear decay rates, typical interaction times of the weak nuclear force, the preferred frequencies of radiating atoms, or a host of other processes. Yet all of these processes are affected to exactly the same degree by changes in gravitational potential. Many chemical processes are indeed affected by the ambient temperature, but it's different for each such process. There's no such thing as "thermodynamic time" in the sense that you use the term.

You can read about it in chemistry and biology books.

[Celestial Mechanic]

There's no such thing as "thermodynamic time" in the sense that you use the term.

You can read about it in chemistry and biology books.

I second Grey here. Your so-called "thermodynamic time" is as imperfect as "pendulum time" for much the same reason -- it is dependent on temperature and also on the reaction. Just as environmental conditions must be strictly controlled for a pendulum clock to be useful, so must the conditions be controlled for a "thermodynamic clock" to be useful.

Edited to add: There are not different types of time, only different types of clocks.

[dhd40]

I second Grey here. Your so-called "thermodynamic time" is as imperfect as "pendulum time" for much the same reason -- it is dependent on temperature and also on the reaction. Just as environmental conditions must be strictly controlled for a pendulum clock to be useful, so must the conditions be controlled for a "thermodynamic clock" to be useful.

Edited to add: There are not different types of time, only different types of clocks.

>just as environmental conditions must be strictly controlled for a pendulum clock to be useful, so must the conditions be controlled for a "thermodynamic clock" to be useful<
I can´t see why "environmental conditions" for a pendulum clock must be strictly controlled, but not for atomic clocks. Isn´t gravity an environmental condition for a pendulum clock, as it is for an atomic clock. Isn´t speed an environmental condition for a pendulum clock, as it is for an atomic clock?
(By the way, I could have chosen also balance-wheel clocks instead of pendulum clocks)

There are not different types of time, only different types of clocks.
I think that´s exactly what I wanted to say with my example of pendulum and atomic clocks (and balance-whell clocks, and planetary clocks, and, and....). Excellent wording!
I simply can´t believe that: Originally Posted by Sam5
Periodic processes are what create or generate time

[Celestial Mechanic]

>just as environmental conditions must be strictly controlled for a pendulum clock to be useful, so must the conditions be controlled for a "thermodynamic clock" to be useful<
I can´t see why "environmental conditions" for a pendulum clock must be strictly controlled, but not for atomic clocks. Isn´t gravity an environmental condition for a pendulum clock, as it is for an atomic clock. Isn´t speed an environmental condition for a pendulum clock, as it is for an atomic clock?
(By the way, I could have chosen also balance-wheel clocks instead of pendulum clocks).

Until someone invents an anti-gravity machine, gravity will not be an environmental variable that one can control. And this leads to an interesting group of questions: if you could nullify the effect of gravity, how much time would pass inside your world-tube of nullified gravity? What does it mean to nullify gravity, anyway? These questions will now be filed in the back of my mind, hmmm..... Thank you, dhd40!

There are not different types of time, only different types of clocks.
I think that´s exactly what I wanted to say with my example of pendulum and atomic clocks (and balance-wheel clocks, and planetary clocks, and, and....). Excellent wording!

It wasn't in my original post, I thought of it just after posting, and then I didn't have the wording quite right, so I edited it again. Whew!

[Nereid]

>just as environmental conditions must be strictly controlled for a pendulum clock to be useful, so must the conditions be controlled for a "thermodynamic clock" to be useful<
I can´t see why "environmental conditions" for a pendulum clock must be strictly controlled, but not for atomic clocks.

[snip]

Ah, but they are! :surprised

It's just that the relevant 'environment' is rather different ...

An atomic clock buried 10 km beneath the surface of a white dwarf (let alone 1 km beneath the surface of a neutron star) would not perform very well.

If the clock requires that electronic transitions (in an atom or molecule) remain undisturbed, then the environment must be controlled so any such disturbances are 'zeroed out'.

If the clock requires that nuclear transitions (in a nucleus) - a 'radium clock' perhaps - remain undisturbed, then the environment must be controlled so any such disturbances are 'zeroed out'.

If a clock requires that dark matter transitions (whatever they are) remain ...

And so on.

[Squashed]

... But any other clock which does not so depend, whether it be based on nuclear or atomic processes, whether the interaction involved depend on the strong or weak nuclear forces or the electromagnetic force, all slow down by exactly the same amount when moved to different potentials in a gravitational field or when moving at high velocity. That's the thing that most suggests that "time itself" is different - that an enormous range of periodic processes all slow down or speed up by exactly the same amount.

Grey, the common thread in all these processes is the movement of photons, or energy, and so all of these processes are affected equivalently to the light-reflection clock - using the round-trip path of light. Inside the protons, neutrons, quarks and every other subatomic particle is a packet of energy that oscillates either in an orbital-type motion or a linear back-and-forth motion - both types of motion have the two essential one-way segments present in a light-reflection clock and therefore the "time" of these processes are affected equivalently.

The mistake Einstein made was assuming that the one-way speed of light was equivalent and therefore represented perfect time but it is only the 2-way round-trip of light that represents perfect time - this makes all the difference in the universe as far as understanding the processes present in the universe.

I repeat: time is only a unit-less ratio of one movement with another movement. This ratio methodology is useful for describing physical processes but it does not control the processes but instead the processes control the time-ratio.

CM is right, in a way, in stating that there is "nothing wrong with your clocks" because if clocks are used solely for measuring the local effects of motion or gravity then they work fine but I would also add that the atomic clock with the fastest tick rate is the clock in the most "at rest" state.

I made statements about the center of the universe representing the absolute "at rest" state which is true for both gravity and velocity but if we speak of velocity alone then matter can be motionless provided the appropriate amount of counter-acceleration is applied to the matter to eliminate the "primal" velocity imparted at the beginning (there would still be gravitational time dilation effects but very slight).

Gravity affects light-reflection clocks similar to velocity: one leg of the perfect "tick" is slowed while the other leg is sped up and so gravity distorts and/or slows all sub-atomic processes, also. For both gravity and velocity there is no necessity for a spacetime or an "aether background" because the time dilation of atomic clocks is inherrent within the matter composing the atomic clocks.

Without an ether or spacetime there is no time-like restriction on the infalling of matter into a blackhole.

publius went through some elaborate calculations to prove that according to spacetime-relativity nothing can enter a blackhole and the most interesting feature of his calculations was the fact that inside a certain radius-distance from the blackhole time supposedly caused the infalling matter to slow down! This is Einstein relativity.

But according to observation we see jets emerging from blackholes that travel at 0.99c - why can matter come out of blackholes at nearly the speed of light but not go into a blackhole at nearly the speed of light?

Of course infalling matter goes into a blackhole, possibly at nearly the speed of light, because the conceptual spacetime calculations of relativity do not stop the matter.

[publius]

Squashed,

What I did was very simple (relatively! ) Schwarzschild metric calculations. That ain't nothing compared to the complexity that GR can easily produce. Nothing at all!

Now, what those calculations showed was nothing crosses the event horizon in finite time *for external observers*. In their own frames, they fall right in.

Second, yes, an object dropped with 0 L from infinity in a radial free fall trajectory will reach a maximum *coordinate speed* (ie speed in the coordinates of the far-away Schwarzschild observer) at the so-called "photon sphere", r = 3/2 *Schwarszchild radius, then appear to slow down, freezing near the horizon.

Now, that has nothing do with how fast something can be thrown out of deep gravity well by other forces at work, such as the big mess of the accretion disc.

Indeed, suppose I throw something out radially from the photon sphere at a *local velocity* near light speed. Far away, that speed will appear to very slow, then *speed up* as it comes out. Indeed, if I throw a subatomic particle out at near local lightspeed, it will come out at near light speed in our far away coordinates. That's what we're seeing.

And I'll mention I'm becomming fascinated with Mitra's ECO/MECO theory. That has some more things to say about stuff being thrown out of black-hole looking objects......................

-Richard

[czeslaw]

Squashed,

What I did was very simple (relatively! ) Schwarzschild metric calculations. That ain't nothing compared to the complexity that GR can easily produce. Nothing at all!

Now, what those calculations showed was nothing crosses the event horizon in finite time *for external observers*. In their own frames, they fall right in.

Second, yes, an object dropped with 0 L from infinity in a radial free fall trajectory will reach a maximum *coordinate speed* (ie speed in the coordinates of the far-away Schwarzschild observer) at the so-called "photon sphere", r = 3/2 *Schwarszchild radius, then appear to slow down, freezing near the horizon.

Now, that has nothing do with how fast something can be thrown out of deep gravity well by other forces at work, such as the big mess of the accretion disc.

Indeed, suppose I throw something out radially from the photon sphere at a *local velocity* near light speed. Far away, that speed will appear to very slow, then *speed up* as it comes out. Indeed, if I throw a subatomic particle out at near local lightspeed, it will come out at near light speed in our far away coordinates. That's what we're seeing.

And I'll mention I'm becomming fascinated with Mitra's ECO/MECO theory. That has some more things to say about stuff being thrown out of black-hole looking objects......................

-Richard

Thank you Richard for the Mitras Eternaly Collapsing Objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto...lapsing_object

It is what what I am fascinating since a year. I didn't know about it and I wrote my private site http://www.gravastar.int.pl/ .

A time dilation is because a space-time fluctuations. It is a property of the space and energy as an unity we can not seperate.
In String theory are there the particles moving in an empty space and it is a problem. The gravitons do not exist. There is an energetic space-time oscillating.

Czeslaw

[Squashed]

In quantum mechanics there are superluminal "virtual" particles postulated that transfer energy/momentum/knowledge from one particle to another - superluminal speeds are impossible and so how can this be?

Energy transfers are one-way events with the best known being starlight from the source to earth. If the energy transfer takes place "with the velocity" or in the same direction as the velocity of the particles then the energy transfer will occur at seemingly subluminal speeds but if the energy transfer takes place "against the velocity" then the energy transfer will occur at seemingly superluminal speeds.

The fact that sub-atomic energy transfers seem to occur at superluminal speeds suggests that the earth is indeed in motion or at least the atoms/particles involved in the test are in motion.

The speed of light is the absolute maximum speed possible because the speed of the sub-atomic workings of atoms occur at light speed and so a faster-than-light speed would mean that both Einstein's relativity and what I propose are wrong.

Everything in the universe occurs at speeds between zero and the speed of light. The fastest separating speed between two particles is just under 2c - with one particle traveling at just under c in one direction and the other particle traveling at just under c in the opposite direction.

[Sam5]

I second Grey here. Your so-called "thermodynamic time" is as imperfect as "pendulum time" for much the same reason -- it is dependent on temperature and also on the reaction. Just as environmental conditions must be strictly controlled for a pendulum clock to be useful, so must the conditions be controlled for a "thermodynamic clock" to be useful.

Hi CM. Atomic time is “imperfect” too. It’s so obvious. It is dependent upon gravitational potential, acceleration, and the speed of straight-line motion of the clocks. This is why I said that the rates of different kinds of clocks are controlled by different laws of physics.

The idea of “imperfect” atomic clocks was first presented by H.A. Lorentz in papers and books in the 1890s. It was he who first invented atomic clock “time dilation”. This concept was borrowed by Einstein and used in his 1905 SR theory. The difference between the two theories was that in Lorentz theory the slow-down of the atomic clock was due to “forces” that are placed on the harmonically oscillating atom, whereas in the 1905 theory Einstein didn’t use any forces. But by 1911 Einstein added forces to the atoms in his gravitational redshift theory (which was one of the early papers of his new GR theory), and in 1918 he finally added, retroactively, forces to the clocks in his 1905 theory.

So it is not all of “time itself” that slows down when an atomic clock slows down, it is the clock itself, and other processes that are influenced or controlled by atomic harmonic oscillation rates. Thermodynamic time, on the other hand, involves larger-scale molecular vibration rates.

Environmental conditions must be carefully controlled for an atomic clock too, such as shielding from EM waves, temperature steadiness, careful control of the motion of the clock, and mathematical compensations for elevation (gravitational potential) differences. Even with all of this, atomic clock “drift” is always a problem with all atomic clocks.

[czeslaw]

In quantum mechanics there are superluminal "virtual" particles postulated that transfer energy/momentum/knowledge from one particle to another - superluminal speeds are impossible and so how can this be?

Energy transfers are one-way events with the best known being starlight from the source to earth. If the energy transfer takes place "with the velocity" or in the same direction as the velocity of the particles then the energy transfer will occur at seemingly subluminal speeds but if the energy transfer takes place "against the velocity" then the energy transfer will occur at seemingly superluminal speeds.

The fact that sub-atomic energy transfers seem to occur at superluminal speeds suggests that the earth is indeed in motion or at least the atoms/particles involved in the test are in motion.

The speed of light is the absolute maximum speed possible because the speed of the sub-atomic workings of atoms occur at light speed and so a faster-than-light speed would mean that both Einstein's relativity and what I propose are wrong.

Everything in the universe occurs at speeds between zero and the speed of light. The fastest separating speed between two particles is just under 2c - with one particle traveling at just under c in one direction and the other particle traveling at just under c in the opposite direction.

As I know there is only one speed in a space-time (vacuum). There is an energetical space only. In a mass particle its components move with a speed of light inside of this particle. The whole particle moves less then speed of light because a complicate inner orbits.

An energy transfer (vacuum fluctuations ) moves with a speed of light. There is not faster speed. An energy in the space (vacuum fluctuations) is a potential energy. When it is absorbed by a mass particle it is transformed in a kinetic energy and particle oscillate (moves) faster.

The potential energy (vacuum fluctuations) are attractive and kinetic energy (particle oscillations) are repulsive.

[dhd40]

Ah, but they are! :surprised

It's just that the relevant 'environment' is rather different ...

An atomic clock buried 10 km beneath the surface of a white dwarf (let alone 1 km beneath the surface of a neutron star) would not perform very well.

If the clock requires that electronic transitions (in an atom or molecule) remain undisturbed, then the environment must be controlled so any such disturbances are 'zeroed out'.

If the clock requires that nuclear transitions (in a nucleus) - a 'radium clock' perhaps - remain undisturbed, then the environment must be controlled so any such disturbances are 'zeroed out'.

If a clock requires that dark matter transitions (whatever they are) remain ...

And so on.

Nice examples, thank you, Nereid

[dhd40]

Until someone invents an anti-gravity machine, gravity will not be an environmental variable that one can control. And this leads to an interesting group of questions: if you could nullify the effect of gravity, how much time would pass inside your world-tube of nullified gravity? What does it mean to nullify gravity, anyway? These questions will now be filed in the back of my mind, hmmm..... (snip!)

(snip!), oh, that´s a new word + action that I´ve learned on this board

well, I would be interested in knowing answers to the >questions ... filed in the back of your mind<, but, honestly, most probably they will be too difficult for me to understand, because I´m really a layman in this area (at least a 90%-layman). I´ll follow this thread for a while to see what happens. Thank you.

[Nereid]

In quantum mechanics there are superluminal "virtual" particles postulated that transfer energy/momentum/knowledge from one particle to another - superluminal speeds are impossible and so how can this be?

Energy transfers are one-way events with the best known being starlight from the source to earth. If the energy transfer takes place "with the velocity" or in the same direction as the velocity of the particles then the energy transfer will occur at seemingly subluminal speeds but if the energy transfer takes place "against the velocity" then the energy transfer will occur at seemingly superluminal speeds.

The fact that sub-atomic energy transfers seem to occur at superluminal speeds suggests that the earth is indeed in motion or at least the atoms/particles involved in the test are in motion.

The speed of light is the absolute maximum speed possible because the speed of the sub-atomic workings of atoms occur at light speed and so a faster-than-light speed would mean that both Einstein's relativity and what I propose are wrong.

Everything in the universe occurs at speeds between zero and the speed of light. The fastest separating speed between two particles is just under 2c - with one particle traveling at just under c in one direction and the other particle traveling at just under c in the opposite direction.

I'm not sure I understand what you've written here, Squashed (no, scratch that; I don't understand it!).

Perhaps you've just re-discovered the EPR paradox?

If not, could you please clarify how this idea of yours differs from the EPR paradox?

[phunk]

If the motion of the clock affected the orbits of electrons as you say, why does it stay relative? Why doesn't the clock in orbit slow down more on one side of the earth, when it's moving in the direction of earth's orbit, than the other side, when it's moving in the opposite direction of earth's orbit?

[pghnative]

Grey's argument is pretty convincing. If you have a bunch of "clocks" which measure time, all of which are affected by one or more of various variables (temperature, mass, pressure, gravity potential, etc), and if a large number of them (which measure time in differing ways) can be observed to change their rate in predictable ways when the same variable(s) is changed, then that's a compelling arguement that it is time itself that is changing.

Presumably all of the clocks would change in the same predictable way. Of course, if a particular clock isn't precise enough, then it couldn't be used to falsify the argument.

Sam5 -- has any (precise enough) clock ever been shown to deviate differently with respect to gravitational differences than do the clocks mentioned by Gray?

(For instance, a pendulum clock behaves differently with respect to gravitational differences, but how a pendulum works is understood by accepted theory. If a precise enough pendulum clock was built, and was transported between two precisely measured gravity potentials, then the pendulum could be checked against the vibrating atom to test these theories that time itself is not changing.)