Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?

harry wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <ben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:87fa45e4-479d-47d6-a342-208523a1e47d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 15, 9:03 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@xxxxxxx> 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. Minkowski diagrams are certainly a handy tool that can
simplify calculations but physically it doesn't make sense to me;
thus I'm not the best to explain it. Of course, there are many
proponents of that interpretation around who will be happy to do so.

Note: Einstein appears to have flip-flopped between the two
explanations mentioned here above so that it's up to you to conclude
which one he really
favoured, if any.
For some time I thought that in 1920 he proposed a rather impossible
interpretation (and nobody here came up with an explanation), but
recently I
came to the conclusion that he simply used overly positivistic
language when
he summarized his position.

- There may be other interpretations (perhaps someone else here will
provide
one).

Regards,
Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harald, I am persuaded that time is relative, in the sense of this
discussion, but I didn't learn anything from your dissertation that
makes it appeal to common sense.

"Relative in the sense of this discussion" has been explained in the
two above opposing ways. I only introduced in a nutshell what those
explanations are; neither 2-sentence sketch should be called a
"dissertation". If you want to make sense of either of them, you
would have to study them first (that requires at least contemplating
several quality articles for each explanation). I wonder if you did.
Assuming that you did study both models without prejudice:

1. What about the ether model explanation did not make sence to you?
2. What about the absolute spacetime model explanation did not make
sence to you?

And when I say that a clock really runs slow w.r.t. a moving frame, I
don't mean that the clock is altered physically.

Good!

No,
That is not good, because a clock that runs slower at all has changed
rate physically.
And when clocks are returned to a starting point and prove they have
not ticked at the same rate, they have also proven they have not ticked
at the same physical timing rate.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading