Re: A New Definition for TIME

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 11/06/04 

Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:00:56 GMT

In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
 wrote
on Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:53:39 GMT
<Tz5jd.9099$8y4.2456@fe1.columbus.rr.com>:
> Einstein defined time as follows:
> "Time is what the clock says"

There are admittedly a few issues here, one of which is,
"What is a clock?".

The most convenient definition I can think of is something
which counts regular known phenomena, e.g., cesium-133
atoms in free-fall. (The current atomic fountain clocks
actually don't quite do this; they simply use a PLL and
synchronize it regularly with a signal derived from
a cavity resonator holding and/or surrounding said atoms
which are in fact in free-fall. The rest of the time the
VCO free-runs, but it's also stable enough so that it doesn't
drift significantly between synchronizations.)

>
> This bogus simplistic definition led physicists to a century of wild
> goose chase.
>
> A new definition for time is formulated as follows:
> 1. There is only universal time exists. The rate of passage of universal
> time is the same in all frames of reference.

An atmospheric muon has an interesting problem. The
"universal time rate" in this case, of course, is the
one of the relatively motionless observer -- namely, the
guy in the white coat watching the experiment, or, more
likely, the guys in the photog room and/or computer
monitor analyzing the emulsion and/or detector tracks after
the conclusion of the experiment.

If one prefers, one can create muons by various means
(e.g., in a particle accelerator) and watch them decay
as well. Strangely, the faster the muon, the slower
it decays relative to the "universal time rate".

If one envisions a local clock next to the muon, of course,
life becomes much simpler for the particle physicists -- not
to mention everyone else who has to wear a wristwatch.

> 2. An interval of a clock second in the rest frame of the clock
> (observer) will represent a specfic interval of universal time.

Well, now you're totally confusing the issue anyway. There is
but one clock, the U-clock, sitting at the center of the
Universe [%], broadcasting. These broadcast "tickpips", which
are somewhat like WWV only over the entire realm of creation,
would define a second.

Not that the muon would care, really.

> 3. The observer can convert his interval of universal time (his clock
> second) into a clock reading in another frame using the the LT or IRT.

The observer would have no need to do this but simply read the
time from the U-clock "tickpips". Formulae for such
things as falling objects, light speed, and such would
simply be adjusted to take into consideration two factors:

[1] the speed of the observer/phenomenon, relative to the timebasis.
[2] the curvature of space, relative to the timebasis. (The
    actual measurement of this curvature is an interesting
    subproblem.)

Mathematicians might like this, but few others would, including
wearable timepiece and school supply manufacturing concerns.

> 4. This means the a clock second will have different universal time
> content in different frames or conversely a specific interval of
> universal time is represented by different clock readings in different
> frames.

No, it's the same in all frames, for it's been *defined* that way.

>
> With this new definition for time the speed of light in any frame can
> be defined as follows:
> Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time content for
> a clock second co-moving with the rod.

Doesn't quite work that way. For example, assume an observer A
motionless in free space, relative to the U-clock (which is
of course also assumed to be motionless in free space).
His pulses, according to a small (and quite illegal) unit on
his wrist, are 1:1; his illegal ruler shows the same measurements
as a Genuine Official Universal Measurement-Of-Intervals Device(tm). [#]
No problems for him.

Observer B, who is moving at 0.96 c relative to the U-clock
in a small
spacecraft/planetoid/bubble/elevator car/police public call box/tortoise
from the universal origin, will see his tickpips at a
far slower rate (according to a similarly illegal unit on
his wrist). This rate, in fact, is easily calculated:
it's 25/7 = 3.5714 local wristwatch ticks per universal second. [*]

Observer A will of course measure lightspeed at the usual rate:
2.99792458 * 10^8 m/s. He will also have no problems doing
various measurements, most of them length-based.

Observer B has the interesting problem that *he* measures lightspeed
at the rate of about 10.71 * 10^9 m/s, given a small, illegal ruler
and the universal second. Or, if he measures out a meter
by somehow measuring out the distance a photon travels during
2.99792458 universal nanoseconds, and compares it with his
illegal ruler, he gets rather puzzled, as his illegal ruler
will show that the official distance is 3.5714 local ruler-meters.

(This suggests, of course, slide-rulers -- which were all the
rage prior to pocket-calculators, albeit for a different purpose.)

Or, Observer B sets up a frequency counter and an interferometer
arrangement, and, given a known source of light (e.g., a krypton-36
series line [+]), counts the number of wavelengths to establish
that his illegal local-ruler is in compliance with A's, then
wonders why his figures are all screwed up.

I use 0.96c to exaggerate the effect, but the Earth is moving at
a speed of about 10^-4 c, and the Sun may be moving at a speed
of about 10^-3 c. The Earth's motion will introduce an error
of about 5 parts per billion; the Sun's motion might introduce
an error of 0.5 parts per million. Since green light has a
wavelength of about 500 nm = 0.5 micron, if one were to fire
a green laser through a 1 m experiment (as determined by the
universal tickpips), the Sun's motion might throw the interferometry
off by about 1 wavelength.

Surveyors won't notice this too much, but physicists might.

>
> Explained in detail:
> By definition the speed of light in the ether frame is:
> 299,792,458m/1 ether frame clock second.
>
> The speed of light in any moving frame in the ether is determined as
> follows:
> The light path length of rod=gamma*299,792,458m
> The universal time content for a moving clock second in the ether
>=gamma*1 ether frame cl*** second.
>
> Therefore the speed of light in the moving frame is:
> gamma*299,792,458m/gamma*1 ether frame clock second.
>
> This is reduced to the constant math ratio of:
> 299,792,458m/1 ether frame clock second.
>
> This new defintion for light speed makes SR into an ether theory.:-)

Actually, this new definition just makes mincemeat out of most
of physics, as one will now have to carry around a rather
sophisticated radio unit to listen to the universal tickpips,
and furthermore adjust all equations to compensate for the
velocity of the observer relative to the source of the pips.
(How one determines that is an interesting problem in itself,
though one obvious way is counting wavelengths of a local
laser or Cs-133 clock between an interval as it waits for
the tickpips from the U-clock.)

Ockham's Razor, ideally, would slice this idea to ribbons,
preferring SR.

>
> Ken seto
>
>
>

[%] the precise definition of the center, of course, is
    probably up to the Universal Legislature, should we
    ever encounter such as we travel into intergalactic space.

[#] the meter might be renamed "the goumoid" in honor of this invention.

[*] it's a convenient accident: 7^2 + 24^2 = 25^2, therefore
    the gamma corrective factor for .96c = 24/25 c is 25/sqrt(25^2-24^2)
    = 25/7.

    One could work with 0.28c, 0.6c or 0.8c as well. Not that the
    theory cares -- but it makes the arithmetic slightly simpler.

[+] this was once used as the definition of the meter, prior to the
    current method being adopted. I forget the exact count,
    but it shouldn't be hard to find. 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Loading