Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?


"Spaceman" <spaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:2-SdnYybaPpmgWvVnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
harry wrote:
Uncle Ben wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:23 pm, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


news:535fef37-ef6a-4d68-bb1e-2889d94026b0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 14, 7:12 am, papa_r...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:> On 14 oct, 02:23,
Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

This is so simple. An even simpler example: distance. Can we say
that Chicago is really "farther"? No, it depends on the reference
point. "Fartherness" is not absolute. Chicago is farther than
Buffalo w.r.t. Albany. It is not farther w.r.t. Evanston. Both
distances are real, not illusory, but they are relative to a point
of reference.

It seems not so clear when we turn to rates of clocks, because for
all of human history since clock have existed, we have thought of
time as absolute. Now Einstein tells us that time is not absolute;
it, too, is defined only w.r.t. a frame of reference. This defies
our common sense, but SR tells us that it is just as real as
distance being defined relative to a point of reference.

Why do you say that it "defies our common sense"? When one is
clueless about
possible models it would be appropriate. Contrary to QM that defies
common
sense as no plausible model has been proposed (so far, AFAIK),
people did
come up with different models that can help to make sense of SRT,
even while SRT was developed.

Regards,
Harald

I can agree about length contraction, since we have experience with
magnetic forces that are velocity-dependent and can exert stresses,
but as for time being frame dependent, I have no clue as to how to
make that appeal to common sense.

Do you? If so, I'd love to hear about it.

There are several ways to make sense of it, with strong proponents and
opponents on either side:

- For starters, the Lorentz transformations were originally
(1904-1905) derived based on a stationary ether model (a modification
of Newton's Absolute Space) that was adjusted to comply with the
Principle of Relativity. Strong proponents for that explanation were
Lorentz (who laid the foundation for SRT), Langevin (who described
SRT as an extension to Newtonian mechancis and who introduced what
later became the Twin paradox) and Ives (who performed the first
successful "time dilation" experiment). Although not perfect and out
of fashion, such a model certainly appeals to my common sense as it
explains how absolute effects are possible as the result of motion
eventhough all observations are "relative". According to that
explanation, those who think that all SRT effects are physically real
and those who think that the effects are only apparent are both
mistaken. I must admit that armed with that knowledge, sometimes I
follow a debate between such camps purely for entertainment.

- Minkowski had great success with his suggestion to interpret
space-time diagrams at face value, so that nowadays the idea of a
physical Spacetime in which time is like a 4th dimension has become
popular. In that "geometric" view, Spacetime takes the role of an
"absolute" background but nothing physical happens to clocks in
motion as they follow a different path through spacetime.

And right there is where it is completely wrong.
The clocks did physically change rate.
The rate change is proven when the clocks come back together.
That is a physical change to the rate of the clock that has the slower
time now.
It slowed it's physical tick rate.

Yes I agree; but proponents are satisfied with the idea that "following a different path throug Spacetime" means that "nothing physically happened" to the clock. You may try to argue with them about it; for applying the laws of SRT it is not relevant.

Harald

.

Relevant Pages