Re: Have you ever wondered.....

From: Kees Roos (croos_at_xs4all.nl)
Date: 12/04/04 

Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:55:10 +0100

"AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
news:8uudnaKFXfp-hDLcRVn-ig@conversent.net...
>
> "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:41af023b$0$37789$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Excuse me for the delay. Had visitors.
>> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>> news:cuadnYxE8v5r-DHcRVn-iA@conversent.net...
>> >
>> > "Kees Roos" <croos@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
>> > news:41ac37a1$0$566$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>> >> "AllYou!" <idaman@conversent.net> schreef in bericht
>> >> news:Lb6dnaiKa-FuGjbcRVn-og@conversent.net...
>> >> The size and scope of our discussion is ever increasing.
>> >> To keep things manageable, I have shipped parts, and
>> >> kept two things which I think we can settle first:
>> >
>> > That's fine by me. The incessant parsing of my comments is what got us
>> > there. To comment
>> > on each paragraph is fine, but on each sentence fragment?
>> >
>> >> -In physics, time is no longer connected to any motion
>> >
>> > You've actually touched on an important point here. What does it tell
>> > you
>> > that even
>> > before the discovery of the black box, time was still taken in science
>> > as
>> > it is now?
>> >
>> I am not sure that I understand this sentence. By 'black box', are you
>> referring to an atomic clock? It does not tell me anything that the
>> concept
>> of time has not changed since the introduction of the atomic clocks.
>> It was a change of the way in which we calibrate clocks when we changed
>> the definition of the time unit from a fraction of the time of one
>> rotation
>> of
>> the earth, to a number of oscilation periods of a very specific frequency
>> of photons emitted by a very specific process.
>
>> The need was there because it had become apparent that the earth's
>> rotation
>> is irregular and deteriorating. The specific process we chose is regular
>> and
>> constant as far as we know. The thing we are measuring is the same thing.
>> The change is equivalent to: We don't any longer measure objects by
>> counting
>> lengths of actual human feet any longer, but we use a measuring tape
>> instead.
>> What we measure is the same thing, we use a more accurate means of
>> measuring.
>
> Then why did you shift focus to the black box? Yes, by black box I mean
> the atomic clock
> because you cannot say with any degree of certainty that it's not motion
> or a phenomena
> equivalent to motion which tiggers the generation of events.
>
I mentioned the atomic clock because it is intimately connected with our
definition of the unit of time interval.
It is the signal which emanates from the atoms which we use to calibrate
the clock. What happens inside the clock when this signal is generated,
what triggers the event of emitting the photon f.i., is irrelevant because
we don't use any of it.

Suppose you watch a tv programme, instructing you how to fry an egg.
What you use out of this programme is the information you need to carry
out this difficult task.
Whether the information is given by a male or female presenter may be
highly interesting visually, but as far as this information is concerned it
is utterly irrelevant. Moreover, anything else in the process, from the
words emanating physically from the mouth of the presenter till the
acquiring of the information in your head is not relevant and may
involve motion or not or anyhing else. The information is used, the
process is not relevant.

> If it's only a better
> clibration standard, then you should have no problem staying with old
> fashion mechanical
> clocks in which we're reasonably sure are driven by motion.
>
Clocks, of any kind, are driven by energy, there is no clock driven by
motion.
I have no problem with any clock as long as it reliably meters out seconds.

> so not only were you never
> able to say with any degree of reasonableness that "In physics, time is no
> longer
> connected to any motion", but now we know it shouldn't matter.
>
In physics the standard unit of time interval is the second, which presently
is defined as a specific number of oscilation periods of specific frequency.
No motion mentioned anywhere. So, I am able to say with perfect certainty
that "In physics, time is no longer connected to any motion". In fact I have
been able to do so all the time, and never have said anything else.

>>
>> >The
>> > same fantasy was still there. But more importantly, I'll express what
>> > I
>> > said previously:
>> > I'm hypothesizing that either motion or a phenomenon equivalent to
>> > motion
>> > is causing the
>> > black box to tick, or, alternatively, that which you use for your
>> > clock,
>> > the frequency
>> > emitted, is at the heart of your clock.
>> >
>> Your first alternative is irrelevant, your second is true. What we use to
>> calibrate the clock is the frequency.
>
> The frequency of a wave?
>
The frequency of photons. You could call it the frequency of waves.

> The point is that whatever generates the events is not time.
> Time does not generate the events.
>
No need to repeat, we agree. Time does not generate any events.

> The interval between two points in space, that
> distance, is a quantity of space. The interval between two ticks on a
> mechanical clock is
> a quantity of motion, and the interval between two ticks of an atomic
> clock may be motion
> and may be something else, but just because you don't know what it is does
> not allow you
> to brand it time and move on. Stop there and figure out what it is, but
> you've got no
> evidence to support that it's time when you've got no evidence to support
> that you've ever
> observed any physical trait of time before.
>
The interval between ticks of any clock is an interval of time, irrespective
of what went on inside the clock between the ticks.
The interval between two ticks of an atomic clock is: the period of an
oscilation, it is not motion.
I know what it is: the period of an oscilation.
I do not brand it time because I brand it: the period of an oscilation.
I have already figured out what it is: the period of an oscilation.

I observe physical traits of time all the time. Any duration of any
process is a time interval.

>
> [snip]
>
>> > What I'm doing a lousy job of articulating is that some natural,
>> > physical
>> > phenomenon is
>> > what is causing the clock to tick. With old fashion mechanical clocks,
>> > it
>> > was motion.
>> > With your black boxes, it may be motion, it may be something equivalent
>> > to
>> > motion, or it
>> > may be some yet to be explained phenomenon. But no matter, something
>> > particle or energy
>> > related is causing it to happen. There is a definite cause. Whatever
>> > that is, we can use
>> > that phenomenon, or another such as motion, as the benchmark or the
>> > index
>> > by which we can
>> > order all other events is history.
>> >
>> I think that the conceptual error you make is that you think that
>> physical properties of a measuring device make a difference on the
>> thing you measure with it.
>
> No I don't. I understand, for instance, that the physical properties of a
> mercury
> thermometer have nothing to do with temperture but simply react to changes
> in heat. No
> problem. But with the thermometer, I can also see that there's a valid
> theory that links
> the behaviour of the fluid in it to changes in temperature. but where is
> the theory,
> other than a blind assertion, that links a clock, any clock, to the
> passage of time?
>
(You misunderstand. A thermometer reacts to changes in temperature, not to
changes in heat. Moreover, a thermometer is a poor example because strictly
it does not show anything else than its own energy level.
Please don't elaborate, irrelevant)
You keep hammering on the processes which go on inside clocks, and
differences in those processes.
That is your conceptual error. These processes which go on inside a
clock are irrelevant. The only useful property of a clock is what comes
out, irrespective how it does that.
There is no theory nor a blind assertion that link a clock to the passage
of time. We have a definition of what ought to come out of a clock, i.e. the
interval of time between clock ticks.

>> Of course there is a physical cause that a clock, any clock, does what
>> it does, and how it does that.
>> However, let's suppose we simultaneously measure a particular time
>> interval (or 'motion interval' as you would probably want to formulate
>> it)
>> with all different kinds of clocks we have available, and let's suppose
>> that
>> they are all accurate, so they all give the same result. Can you claim
>> that
>> that particular result has any special relation to anything which has
>> happened in any one or more particular clock(s) out of all the clocks
>> used
>> in the experiment?
>
> No, and I wouldn't want to. I guess I miss your point. In fact, I think
> you may be
> making mine.
>
>
>> Why not another thing, which has happened in any
>> other one or more of the clocks used? Why anything at all which has
>> happened in one or more of the clocks?
>
> Again, your point escapes me. I'm not even sure what you're asking.
>
Example: let's say you travel a distance of 1 kilometer in your car.
Beside you, an electically driven car covers the same distance.
So, I say: 'both cars traveled one kilometer'
And you say: 'but there is a piston inside my car, which moved a
distance of 1200 meters, so we moved 1200 meters.'
And I rebut:'there is no piston in the electric car, yet it moved
1000 meters, just like your car did, the motion of the piston in your
car is irrelevant. If you would have driven in a different gear, the
distance of the piston would have been different, but the car would have
moved 1000 meters just as well. So, the motion of the piston was
there, but irrelevant when measuring the distance the car traveled.
Besides, there was a crankshaft in your car which made 1500 rotations
during the trip. Why not say you moved 1500 rotations instead of
1200 meters of piston motion? Or 2500 rotations of the motorshaft
of your dashboardclock?'

>> As I have said earlier in our discussions, I think it would be
>> theoretically
>> possible to use motion as a calibrating unit for time measurements, but
>> the practical difficulty is that we have never been able to find any form
>> of physical motion which satisfies the first criteria of regularity and
>> constancy. That's why motion was abandoned and a motionless process
>> was found.
>
> I have no objection to shifting away from motion to calibrate or clocks.
> I'm not
> convinced that there is anything else, but it wouldn't bother me if there
> were.
>
You realize that that means that you consent that what clocks measure is
not connected to motion in any way?

> But
> whatever that is, it would have the same priority in science in that it
> would be a natural
> phenomenon and so claiming it as time would still be invalid.
>
Anything which happens is a natural phenomenon. Physics is studying
those phenomena.
Science does not claim that the means we use to calibrate clocks is time.
Science claims that the ticks which emanate from a calibrated clock are
separated by a regular and constant interval of time.

>> However, keep in mind that all this is about calibrating clocks, not
>> about
>> what clocks measure, which for the time being (no pun!) is called
>> 'time'.
>
> Where's the theory that links the behavior of any clock to the notion you
> call time? I
> can see the link with every other instrument which measures every other
> phenomena, but I
> don't see that link in the case of time. All I see is a blind assertion.
>
I very much doubt that your definition of 'theory' coincides with mine, so
I'm not sure what you mean.
Could you show me your 'theory' that links the behavior of any ruler
to the notion you call space? That could show me what you mean.
I will then give you my analoguous 'theory' that links the behavior
of any clock to the notion I call time.

>> To give a parallel about measuring the size of objects, which you find
>> less perplexing:
>> The size of an object is independent of any properties of the measuring
>> device you use, whether it be a physical foot, a measuring tape, a
>> caliper, a rolling wheel or any other device which yields the correct
>> value.
>> Actually presently the most accurate spatial measurements are made
>> by means of no physical object at all, but electromagnetic radiation
>> instead.
>
> Fair enough. and with each of these, either we use direct comparison of a
> calibrated
> quantity of the phenomenon we're measuring with that to be measured, or
> we're using an
> instrument, combined with a theory of what makes it work as it does in
> response to the
> phenomenon we're measuring so that we can make sense of the output of that
> measurement.
> So tell me how either of these is accomplished with time?
>
>> >> -What comprises simple observation, space first.
>> >
>> > I don't know what this means.
>> >
>> Actually, the part you snipped was my first instalment covering the
>> topic.
>> That I choose space first is because I want to show you that the concept
>> 'space' is just as abstract as the concept 'time'
>
> I can sense space. I receive sensory impulses that confirm the phenomena
> of space. I
> receive no such sensory impulses from time.
>
>>
>> I repost that part of my article:
>> >> > What this all amounts to is that you've got a
>> >> > spacetime continuum but in space you've got a property that is
>> >> > physical
>> >> > and observable and
>> >> > can be described and is measurable.
>> >> >
>> >> You relate to the property of spatial extent. Could you try to give a
>> >> description
>> >> of spatial extent without referring to a measuring device?
>> >
>> > I know that space is physical because the interval between two spatial
>> > points is
>> > observable with my sense of sight,
>> >
>> Would that be true if there would be no visible objects at those
>> spatial locations?
>
> First of all, if there were no visible objects, then there would be no
> points in space for
> me to evaluate and so you're asking a hypothetical question here is
> already flawed.
> Points with no objects to define them are pure imagination.
>
So, would you say that when you look at the moon, there is no
halfway point between there and here unless you position an
object at that point?

> I didn't
> claim that I could
> observe every instance of space, but just that the phenomena or property
> of nature called
> space is observable.
>
So, you can observe phenomena in space, but not space itself?
(by the way, take another look at your claim)

[snip] 

-- 
Regards, Kees Roos

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The reality of entity
    ... If there is no motion, you have a temperature of absolute zero. ... Consider a thermal medium, say a pot of hot water, with lots of water ... medium is the face of the clock. ... Of course this point is worthless in terms of modern physics, ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • Re: Anyone can apply for a warrant over allegations of a serious offence
    ... subject within physics at the moment (with most physicists, ... but 'zero movement in space' appears to equal 'zero movement in ... The very fact that a clock that is moving at speed falls out of ... not measuring movement in time - it is measuring something else. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... ;; IOW, if we abruptly stop all motion in sm at any point, ... ;; Debate by Kees Roos: ... ;; -Your wbt clock relates motion of the white ball relative to the ... > represent physics as we knew it before the atomic clock, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Scientifically valid definitions.
    ... what you predicted would happen to the motion. ... motion which you're measuring or I can make a good case that it is. ... The same is true for a clock ... What is the emission? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Have you ever wondered.....
    ... ;; IOW, if we abruptly stop all motion in sm at any point, ... ;; (i.e., time or clock process), and I challenge you to debate the ... ;; moves along the graduated tube, B1 and B2 move along the ... There is no way of knowing that it is 5 without measuring it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)