Is Time Dilation Just a Clock Issue Afterall???
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 01. 2024
- Quite recently channel @dialectphilosophy released a video about time dilation showing all the phenomena of special relativity (including the twin paradox) using a sound analogy of a typical light clock. All the phenomena of SR were replicated while preserving a privileged frame of reference namely air.
So is time dilation in SR just a clock issue or is time dilation a real fundamental effect of nature?
In this video, I will propose arguments about what makes special relativity different from this sound wave analogy and how it deviates in a way that can be experimentally proven.
Big thanks belong to people supporting me on Patreon and buymeacoffee for giving me the motivation to create the video namely
-Jason Mclane (Patreon)
-Filip Blaschke (Patreon)
-Nathan Myers (Patreon)
-Walter (newly bought coffee)
Since I am kinda busy I can't answer more elaborate questions in the comments but for this purpose, I created a possibility to ask questions for a small fee of 5 dollars on
www.buymeacoffee.com/pprobnso...
attributions:
www.freepik.com
especially: rawpixel, brgfx, macrovector, pikisuperstar
www.vecteezy.com
for vector graphics
www.mixkit.co
for audio effects
www.pexels.com
Video by RDNE Stock project: www.pexels.com/video/teacher-...
Hey, sorry we're late to the party here -- but thanks a dozen for providing such a great and nuanced breakdown of this topic! Again, we find your style of presentation very straightforward and easy-to-follow, and your enjoyment in teaching and debating these sorts of topics really translates to enjoyment for the viewer. We immensely appreciated your discussion of the relation between atomic clocks and light clocks, as many people were confused about how these can be the same thing, and the deeper dive into the Doppler effect and what it means to "see" other clocks ticking was illuminating as well.
You were very apt and correct to point out the issue of the longitudinal orientation of light clock; we received quite a bit of justified criticism for not addressing that issue in our video. At the time we refrained because we were uncertain of how length contraction was supposed to play into the picture; indeed we have since concluded that one will require a physical contraction of the light-clock apparatus in order to make the sound-wave analogy consistent -- which of course plops us right back at the Lorentzian ether theory. Now as to the very interesting point about muons and elementary particles that you made, our knowledge of particle physics is VERY fuzzy, but our basic assumption would be along the lines that, if a particle can decay into other particles, something in this process must cause the decay, and that such a process would likely involve the transmission of a light-speed signal somewhere at some point. Of course that requires a much deeper dive into the philosophy of elementary particles!
Making CZcams videos can be hard work with often little feeling of reward, but CZcams needs more educators like yourself who are professional, deliberate, and not afraid to delve into the details, so we hope to see more content in the future. Btw, we are more than open to collabs and/or debate, if you are ever interested drop us a line, we promise to be nice :-)
@dialectphilosophy I love your thought-provoking videos just as much as Lukas’, and I can’t wait for your next one! So I hope you don’t stop until you’ve made your case. Unless, of course you come to agree with Lukas after all. 😅
I’m curious though: in your estimation, what coordinate-transformation should replace the standard Lorentz-boost?
My investigations into your claims have led me to a transformation whose matrix is not symmetric. It partially reproduces the usual time-dilation and length-contraction in one-way trip scenarios. But does not reproduce relative simultaneity.
In deriving this, I did not even have to presume length-contraction. I only presumed
1. anisotropy of the speed of light for observers moving in the aether,
2. time-dilation of light-clocks moving in the aether and
3. reciprocity (that is, if Observer A sees B move with speed v, then B sees A move with speed -v).
Fair enough, right?
@dialectphilosophy One last question: shouldn’t it be important for Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism to remain invariant under any physical coordinate-transformation? After all, such equations have been experimentally confirmed to hold in all laboratory reference frames (regardless of their speed, orientation, etc.) haven’t they?
The coupling of the weak interaction depends on the fine-structure constant, which in turn depends on the speed of light. So there is a connection between the decay of the muon to the speed of light, or as you said, the signal at light speed.
I would not suggest you to work with Dialect..your way of logic it’s much clearer then them,, they don’t have the right attitude to share physics concepts,,, and by the way if they didn’t think that a light clock should give the same reading no matter the orientation this means that they don’t’ understand a thing about relativity..don’t get poison with their way of thinking that doesn’t’ have any logic ,,,
I think this channel and dialectphilosophy should have a debate or do like an hour long collaboration.
This video is the first one I've seen from you and I was losing my mind at the arguments you made in the first half😂. I'm very glad I stuck until the end
so you were agnry with me? :D
A clock issue seems to me (and always has) to make much more sense than an actual time dilation
Except that a clock problem would never explain the issue of higher than expected muon flux. That can only be accounted for by real time dilation.
Is this video serious ?
@@renaudfilippi2599no, this video just explores a possibility.
@@arnoldkotlyarevsky383time is not a thing that alters bud. Get out of your headspace. Literally anything can be so-called "proven" if you're clever enough to make someone else take your "proof" for granted.
It does not. Clocks are cesium atoms,and all cesium atoms are the same in all frames.
Your video and the comments section (not Dialect's one) make me rethink that time dilation could be an effect of "clock", the electromagnetic one. As you pointed out in the end of your video, muon decay is the proof of time dilation that we are using for a long time, but if the "clocks" in the muons are also affected by the electromagnetic force, then things may turn out to be just clock issue.
The hint to electromagnetic force could affect nuclear decay is that the electromagnetic interaction and the weak interaction are believed to be part of the electroweak, thus the decay rate can be affected by the motion in the electromagnetic field and can be delayed, resulting in what we have been seeing.
the start of the decay of the muon is mediated by just the coupling to the weak fields, there is no moving W boson to get dragged around before it. It is a probabilistic event only depending on time elapsed, and afaik elementary particles like the muon have no internal structure or movement
@@fluffy_tail4365 you don't need a W boson to see the effect. The coupling between the field should be affected by this effect, otherwise you have causality violated.
Do doppler effect apply to a remote clock speed or just to the frequency of electromagnetic signals sent from moving objects?
so glad you made this one so promptly in response
Liked how you pointed out the flaw in the light clock metaphor by making the "clock" run in the direction of motion rather than orthogonal to it. I think the metaphor can be saved (and adequately distinguished from a sound clock) by extending it to 4 dimensions. From the moving clock's own perspective it's always oriented in its "time" dimension which is always orthogonal to any spatial dimension. In other words unlike a sound clock you can never orient the "clock" in a different direction besides proper time, nor can you "block" the medium with a physical barrier because the medium - the electromagnetic field in this case - itself exists in 4 dimensions.
but if you rotate the sound clock, wouldn't it slow by the same amount in one direction that it speeds up in the other direction, effectively maintaining the tick rate?
Did the math: still dilated by the same amount because the length of the clock would be contracted. If the length didn't contract, time would dilate even more and would be inconsistent with the other experiments. Putting the clock perpendicolar to motion avoids this complication since no length contaction can happen on that direction or It would cause actual paradoxical situations.
@@Oscar1618033you just have to use Galilean relativity - vitck = vsound + vclock, so yea it would balance back and forth.
Also there's a book by John Bell (of QM fame) called "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" with a chapter titled "How to teach special relativity" which offers an entirely electro-mechanical interpretation of time dilation and length contraction (and presumably with it the rest of SR) that relies only on Maxwell's equations and other physics known prior to Einstein and doesn't require additional postulates about the principal of relativity or the absence of a medium. In this interpretation it really *is* a "clock issue", just a complex one that affects everything made of matter. And of course modern physics does propose that there's a medium for light and everything else (other than gravity at least) - quantum fields. So in the end it really is all a matter of interpretation.
I've got a copy! First edition too.
So, If length contraction occurs for an anisotropic speed of light, it raises the possibility that the speed of light may not be uniform in all directions?
Thanks a lot for this video.
(Looking forward to see if Dialect manages any response)
Dialect doesn’t need to respond, since there is an error in this video: the directional speed of light has no bearing upon the 90-degree-rotated clock, because the question of speed limit is what’s in-play. The rotated clock has a similar problem, especially if we imagine such a clock moving near the speed of sound/light-i.e. such a clock would measure only two “seconds” elapse: half at the point of change in direction, and the other half upon the final return. Dialect’s video shows that we are approaching the idea of relativity from a place of extreme bias, and his experiment proves it, no matter the direction of the clock.
I’m a little surprised by how many people are getting the point of his video wrong…perhaps everyone hates to see their life’s work on relativity go up in smoke?
Did everyone miss the part where he clarified that he was just trolling about the rotated clock being different and that it does in fact work how relativity tells us it should work
@@Kavukamarihow is it thar no one understands that a clock is am instrument that measures distance traveled. Rotating the clock just changes the distance the photon has to travel. Changing the direction the photon travels introduces redshift/blueshift of the electromagnetic wave.
If you locate the power source forward of the direction of motion, you get blueshift or a clock that runs faster than it's stationary twin.
What little Einstein didn't understand is that the amount of force and electromagnetic wave imparts on the target changes with motion. Has nothing to do with time-dilation because clocks are instruments that measure changes in spatial coordinates, not changes in temporal as in radioactive decay.
A question always comes up when I see the light clock cartoon as I can’t do a light ray diagram that works for the moving clock. If we allow for the light source to be a laser aimed transversely then do we see the beam kink as it heads to the mirror or do we see a rotation of the laser? Or do we see a skew in dimentions? If rotation or skew then what happens on the return path from the mirror? Maybe we just see skew in the light beam which is the only logical choice but that seems to raise issue with the concept of planer waves from a coherent light source.
Maybe I missed it, but what do we use to determine the reference frame for these clocks? At one point you talked about how whichever one turns around would be the slower one, but couldn't that be either clock depending on which one you observe from?
I'd also like to know this
As for muons, their decay is mediated by the weak force. Whatever causes time dilation, whether it be Minkowski spacetime or dialect's explanation, it presumably affects all of the forces in the same way. The way I understand this when I think of Dialect's interpretation is that I think of all of the particles and all of the interactions as being made out of, at the deepest base level, massless particles moving at the speed of light.
So for example, an electron is a massless particle interacting with the higgs field and it's that interaction that creates the "drag", or the containing of energy, that we call mass, slowing it from the speed of light; but within each field (electron and higgs), you just have massless packets of energy whizzing around each other, aka interacting. This would be true of all elementary particles, including all force-carrying particles. So every particle, in the end, is an assemblage of little speed-of-light clocks, and will have time dilation from their movement in the same way as a light clock or dialect's sound clock. So W-bosons and muon decay will also be affected by time dilation.
Electron is a wrapped up photon, as are other particles czcams.com/video/bVqT8rj9k9I/video.html
well if all forces are under this effects, all physical clocks will be affected, so dialect's interpretation would be meaningless. There is maybe an absolute time of reference, but all physical things would experience a minkwoski-like spacetime. Also, while the decay itself is mediated by the weak force, the muon has no internal structure, before the decay there is no internal moving parts, just the probability of the muon starting the process, and there is no exchange leading to that, so it doesn't really apply to muon and particle lifetimes.
Not sure what you mean by "massless packets of energy". We know that energy has a mass equivalency. It must, because the path that light (photons, "massless" particles) takes is curved by a gravitational field. This is how Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was validated, by making a prediction which was found to be true. The path of light from stars near the limb of the Sun was bent by the Sun's gravitational field. If light has no mass, it can't be acted upon by gravity.
The confusion might be explained by the notion that the photon is "massless". A more illuminating way of expressing it is that the photon has no _rest_ mass. That seems a contradictory statement, considering the photon is never at rest! It is either moving at the local speed of light (actually, of causality), or it doesn't exist. And when it's moving, it has a frequency, which is proportional to the energy of the photon. And that energy has a mass equivalency that is acted upon by gravity.
The glint in your eyes as you step us through all this (in my case, for the first solid review in nearly a half century), is wonderful. Al the while, I'm thinking "What a glorious guided tour to Michelson-Morley."
I still recall my 3rd year Mechanics prof explaining how a very rare first order relativistic effect can be seen by attempting to synchronize 3 (or more) clocks roughly equal separated around Earth's equator. If I recall correctly, it cannot be done more closely than about 4 micro seconds.
There is a preferred state of motion in General Relativity that is analog to "free particles move in a straight line" from Newton. It is the postulate that test particles move along geodesics (they move in a optimizing path for proper time just like in Newtonian mechanics they take the shortest distance between two points). In all these twin paradoxes you have a closed loop, so the clocks can be compared exactly and the clock that is not moving along a geodesic will be running slower no matter what the trajectory is, assuming there are no pathological situations which usually are implicitly assumed to not exist when people write these paradoxes.
Pathological situation?
This doesn’t resolve the twin paradox, because if you work in GR coordinates, there is no paradox.
@@DrDeuteronprecisely. This becomes trivial when you can consider arbitrary paths in GR. In a loop you can always compare the clocks when you meet again and the nature of geodesics means that the free fall path will have the greatest proper time at least vs. paths that are close enough
Slightly related question on the experience of accelerating towards the speed of light. I’m not aware of the exact relationship between experienced acceleration and experienced time dilation, but it occurs to me that if they occurs at proportional rates, then the only thing you would experience as you accelerate towards the speed of light and experience less time is the experience of going faster. After all, as time continues to slow and you go nearly the same speed to an observer, you experience crossing more or the same distance in less time. My question is, would you notice the time dilation or would you only experience going faster as you continue to accelerate?
There is a problem which I've not understand (due to my lack of knowledge in electrodynamics) is the derivation of the Doppler effect for light in Einstein's 1905 paper.
If you follow the classical explanation of the Doppler effect, the wavelength does not increase or decrease as you only observe one speed of light. The only cause of change in wavelength is length contraction in Lorentz transformation. Thus there would be no red-shift or blue-shift.
Do you have any comment on this?
You are correct but you skipped over the important thing: the transform from the moving frame to the rest frame IS the source of the doppler shift. The rest frame's spacetime is unaltered. The source in the moving frame also does not perceive a change in spacetime. It is only when we go from frame to frame that we have to reconcile the difference. It is in this "communication" between frames that we get the associated length contraction and time dilation that gives rise to the relativistic doppler effect. There is an impulse to assume that an outside observer would either perceive or fail to perceive a compression/extension in the waveform but the point of relativity is that no such outside observer could exist. All of the dilation and contraction happens between frames.
@@arnoldkotlyarevsky383 I don't think I understand your reply. Or may be my previous comment confused you.
My point is you should not have red-shift if you look at a moving light source, because the wavelength can only get shorter due to length contraction, regardless of the direction of the moving source (either toward you or away from you)
The rotated clock doesn’t account to changes in all electromagnetic forces between interacting particles due to move? Wouldn’t just that cause size change depending on direction of movement?
I think it is measuring entropy, not Time, as it is always the Present, and that is where everything takes place and exists.
Does the caesium atom vibrate at the same frequency when it is moving as when it is "stationary"? This seems to be an assumption that the atomic clock experiments rely on. What exactly is it that enforces the speed limit for light in a vacuum? Maybe this mechanism also affects the vibrations of atoms at velocity.
The vibration itself is mostly affected by motion .
@@m.c.4674 then it’s just the clock slowing down, not time itself
Nice video. The only (very slight) issue I have is about the name "special" relativity. It's not special because it changes things about what is relative. It is special because it applies the principle of relativity to a special set of reference frames. Namely inertial ones.
While General Relativity applies the principle of relativity to _all_ reference frames. So it holds in general.
Einstein used the expression "special theory of relativity" in 1915, to distinguish it from general relativity.
No, that is not how "special" is understood.
Both inertial and non-inertial frames are treated identically in both SR and GR. The "special" refers to the special case where the Riemann curvature is zero on all components and the downstream effects of this.
@@kylelochlann5053 That is how special was understood by Einstein. The frames are not treated identically in GR and SR. SR has a special set of rules for accelerated frames while GR does not.
The principle of relativity (The laws of physics are the same) holds in all reference frames in GR while it only holds in inertial frames in SR.
That is what the formulation with Christoffel Symbols gets us.
You can of course reformulate SR in the GR framework to get the same result again, but Einstein hadn't done that.
That's of course completely false. The word special has no intrinsic meaning at all. It is only used because instead of calling his later theory relativistic gravitation, he called it "general" relativity, another meaningless phrase. That necessitated a second meaningless word for the kinematic theory, which is NOT a theory of gravitation. Before "general" relativity, it was just plain "theory of relativity". No special, no general. It has nothing at all to do with inertia, which remains a primitive fact, as in the Newtonian world ("Hypotheses non fingo" - Newton).
@@narfwhals7843 No, that's wrong and it makes no difference what Einstein did. There is no difference whatsoever between frames in SR and GR as u^j∇_ju^k=du^k/dλ+Γ^k_{ab}u^au^b=0 applies identically to both SR and GR (as common sense requires). There is only SR in the sense that R^a_{bcd}=0 is a special case of the gravitational field.
SR can handle both inertial and non-inertial ref frames, I'd be so happy if that misconception was true cuz dealing with acceleration problems is annoying af. GR is different in that the metric is no longer minkowskian
Thank you for this video. I've asked the question about rotating the clock 90 degrees to Dialect right after his video was published.
Next, at 13:27 I think you forgot that in Sound Universe real time-dilation also occures, so the source will emit pulses slowly because of that. And this need to be accounted in the formula in addition to the classical Doppler effect. This is your missing b^2 term, and it will have the same sign for outgoing and ingoing signals.
I have a question. And it's the same since any tried to explain time dilation to me.
movement is relative, means when you move relative to me, I move relative to you. So to both of us the other one clock is ticking slower. How can one be aged differently when they meat again? Often times this gets explained by one is on earth and the other one moves fast through space. But we are on a rock, floating through space and unimaginable speeds. So much about the other one floats though space. And we are in a gravitational field, here on earth. If Gravitation also causes time dilation, shouldn't we here on earth then age less then our friends up in space?
And what if I move in the opisire direction of in which the earth is moving through space. In that case I am moving slower through space itself then the earth and anyone on it.
Tjqts why I still ask the same question: how does time dilation actually work? And I mean in detail.
Same. Every 12 year old kid who hears about this has the exact same question and people who *think* they're smart say "it's easy". But it's not.
And then you drift into a Schrödinger type Argument real quick. "Macro world examples are just examples and don't really work" soooo. And then they say stuff like "well, the twin comes back to earth again and through the movement, they are the same age again".
Like when a kids magician moves a bunny from box to the other, doesn't reveal it and then moves it back.
@@borstenpinsel And it gets even worse. They say time dilation is dependent on relative speeds. Means when you here on earth sit on a bench in a park and some aliens in a different galaxy plan on inviding ou planet, but for a persons walking past you, acidentally in their direction, from their perspective its 3 days later in that galaxy and they are now launching their ships.
I don't care about whos perspektive it is. Are they planing or are they launching. What is it?
Wouldn't the air in the "cound clock" compartment be moving too? And in that case wouldn't that behave entirely like a stationary inertial frame?
what is the time of the part of the observable universe that is moving over the speed of light vs us? Do they still have the same structure and life as us?
Excellent video.
I also investigated Dialect’s aether-relativity and obtained the exact same equations and conclusions that you showed in this video.
I guess we’ll have to wait for Dialect to complete making his case for the aether. I’m particularly curious to know if he can reproduce invariance of Maxwell’s field equations by means of aether-theory. That would be quite something!
You know that all this "length contraction" and "time dilation" stuff was discovered by Lorentz and Poincaré and Fitzgerald and everyone working with the luminiferous aether theories for at least a decade or so before Einstein showed that the aether was unnecessary.
A lot of the popular explanations of special relativity completely skip over the history of the various aether theories leading up to 1905 and make it seem like all this stuff just poped into Einstein's head out of nowhere.
Dialect's answer to this is length contraction. That traveling particles and the electromatic bonds between them are somewhat shortened in the direction of motion when they move, as a matter of physics. The best reading on this is actually by John Bell of all people, somoene known much more for his quantum mechanics work than his relativity work, and is titled "How to Teach Special Relativity."
In terms of Maxwell's equations: I'm not as solid on this point, so you can correct me if I'm wrong here. But isn't it possible that Maxwell's equations predict the speed of light in the ether? Which is how people originally intepreted Maxwell's equations, no? And according to Dialect's interpretation, the 1-way speed of light in the ether should be equivalent to the 2-way speed of light as measured at any inertial speed. (I also wonder if the measurement of permeability and permittivity have hidden 2-way speed assumptions in the way they are measured, hence Maxwell's equations are predicting the invariant 2-way speed, not invariant 1-way speed, but that is getting way beyond my knowledge level).
many do not think that time itself seems to slow down the life inside the accelerating spaceship, so that inside our body, the clocks of our cells, blood and bones slow down, i.e. they all beat slower at the atomic level. also metals age around the spacecraft but much much much slower. if a person were to put plants in a spaceship, the lifespan of even the shortest day plants would be multiplied by centuries, which would never even be possible on earth.
everything always happens in the cells of life, a practical change in life itself. in a way, when moving at high speeds on a spaceship, time space is like a compressed air pressure mass that penetrates inside and around all life and suppresses/squeezes its clocks and thus slows down the clocks of our cells in practice and the slowing down of aging is realized. this way, the logic of the interaction becomes clear with basic sense. nothing else or magic stories are needed.
@@juliavixen176 Indeed, early 20th century physicists did not forsake the quest for the aether on a whim. It was really hard and they weighed their decisions more thoroughly than we probably realize.
Still, after a century of special relativity without looking back, Dialect is attempting to snuggle-in the aether as at least an alternative interpretation since, as he argues, it cannot be truly disproven to exist anyway.
Furthermore, the aether seems to be of importance among today’s philosophers. I’m not sure why.
For now, I’m keeping an open mind …
@@erinm9445 All the “mechanistic” explanations I’ve read of length-contraction involving the electromagnetic interactions between atoms seem to use special relativity at their core. Are you perhaps arguing that that is not strictly necessary, and that you can alternatively apply Maxwell’s equations assuming the existence of the aether?
Regarding my previous mention of the invariance of Maxwell’s equations, I’m simply assuming that an aether-interpretation would have to offer a non-Lorentzian transform that would (only sometimes!) exhibit time-dilation and length-contraction and also reject relative simultaneity.
Then I would further assume that such a transform would not preserve the form of Maxwell’s equations but rather give rise to additional terms that have never been observed experimentally and likely never will.
If however Dialect’s “aether-transform” does none of these things, then we would truly have an alternative explanation, in my opinion.
Kudos to you man. I teach for a living, and think your videos are excellent. Very succinct and clear. I already know quite a bit about SR/GR but it's still a pleasure to watch, I wish you were around when I was learning it. :)
I haven't watched the video fully yet so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think what you're saying at 5:50 is quite true. If you have an oscillator emitting a wave of a given frequency (that is not reflected, just detected) you would not (!) detect a frequency shift in the moving case, you would detect a phase shift instead. If you are talking about acceleration, then the ever increasing phase shift would actually appear as a frequency shift. But this does not happen in the case of a constant velocity.
The difference to a light clock is that, due to the photon being reflected, the emission of the next wave front only happens when the photon arrives at the detector. Therefore the frequency of the wave is actually dependent on the movement and the clock slows down even in the case of constant velocity. This is also the case with the sound wave analogy of the channel Dialect. Here the wave is reflected and therefore (because the travel distance for the wave is longer in the moving case, the reflection is delayed in the moving case) the clock slows down.
I would still argue that atomic clocks are basically light clocks, but for a different reason. In an atomic clock, when an electron transitions from a higher to a lower energy level it emits a photon and and the other way around it absorbs one. This means in a case of constant velocity these photons actually travel a longer distance delaying the next energy state transition, decreasing the resonance frequency of this specific oscillator and thus, slowing down the atomic clock. (Of course this is argued from a stationary frame of reference.)
At 7:09 there is an issue. You are mixing light waves "looking" and sound waves "sound clock". What if your "observation" of the other sound clocks could only be done using sounds waves?
It would be different because the rate of ticking you would observe would depend on the orientation of the clock you observe. The only exeption would be if the observed clock was at rest relative to the air
@@lukasrafajpps I guess my idea is that in order to measure the one-way speed of something, you need a measuring tool faster than your target. If you use light to measure sound, that is possible. But if you use sound to measure sound, then all that you can measure is the two-way speed of sound (the average speed of the pulse and its return). That's why orientation of a light clock doesn't matter either -- you can't measure light's one-way speed, only its average two-way speed.
Help! Why is the photon moving along with the emitter and the mirror? As it is massless, shouldn't it just continue along straight in its original trajectory?
The photon does not know which object YOU have chosen to be moving, relative to the stationary object. In other words, the mirror/emitter is not objectively moving, and that is the essence of relativity. Only accelerated objects are objectively moving, and only WHILE they are accelerated. And that is why real physical time dilation only can be created during acceleration. The zig-zag pattern of the light clock describes accumulated time dilation during acceleration phases of the accelerated object, compared with the non-accelerated object. The light clock does NOT describe continuously generated physical time dilation between objects in relative inertial motion.
I'm confused, do moving clocks always look like they run slower, or not?
no they don't always look like it but they always do run slower.
nonsense! Don't just copy the idiocy from ...textbooks. A simple question: Are you (now) at..rest or ...moving (to the reference system (attached) to the Edge of the Universe accelerating and speeding with a velocity almost that of light? Don't be still stupid like A. Einstein himself who could not resolve his own paradox until his death (in R. Schlegel's footnotes on his conversation with A. Einstein. Think for yourself,i.e. if You have a ..Holy Spirit; your "dialect" is the same...nonsense; in your formulas, you even give different formulas for time dilation than in the majority of textbooks as you don't see the difference between a period and time itself (some, minority authors do the same)."Eine logische Schwache"/weakness,i.e.,...nonsense!" in A.Einstein's own words (AD 1920)@@lukasrafajpps
So clocks measure time, and depending on the type of clock, different things are measured to calculate time elapsing. Because muons are affected, we think it's something on a more fundamental level. Do I have this right so far?
If light can be particular and wavelike, depending on observation, could time be more like a flame? Something that occurs as a result of composition rather than an isolated property?
Time is nothing more than a human observation of a repetitive and constant phenomenon..
Sunrise...sunset...sunrise..sunset...
Solar clocks prooved that sunsets and rises at a constant and precise rythm.
Time is rythm.
Stable, precise, constant, repetitive.
Metronome
Humans are very sensible to evenly constant repeating phenomenon.
This is why we love music and dancing and daily routine tasks.
What if you turn the clock so that wave proceeds first at the moving direction, and when returning it moves to opposite direction? Wouldnt time then be same after full cycle, no matter what the speed is, as long as it wont go over the testing material speed? In my opinion, the test is not fully valid.
Oh... you mentiodet it at the end! 👌
Another difference between the Doppler formula for sound in air and light in a vacuum is that with sound, the amount of the shift changes depending on whether it is the receiver or sender that is moving relative to the air. You see a different result if you are at rest with respect to the air, and the source is moving in respect to the air than you get if you are moving with respect to the air and the source is at rest with respect to the air.
With light in a vacuum, all that matters is the relative velocity between you and the source.
wait. you say the time dilation isn't affected by the orientation of the clock near the end of the video.
but in another video about the twin paradox you say the direction of the moving twin, affects time jump. when the moving twin changes inertial frames by 180 degrees, basically when the twin does the u-turn. the twin goes through a time skip.
what is the difference between the two?
Perhaps the ether has a drag that moves relative to local frames of reference? As in... There is a sorta interaction resistance as a result of internal component interacting with such a field taking time.
Which should make sense given waves in the electric field, causes magnetic currents in the magnetic field.
You can't just instantly interact between electric and magnetic fields. And so stuff gets muddy on small scales meshing them together as stuff moves. Hence "electromagnetic waves" with vacuum permittivity and permeability coming out as a result.
In this case you wouldn't notice any difference in the Michealson Morley experiment.
I should also mention that in such a case, We would be using a tetrad formalism and killing vector fields to keep constancy of this vacuum permittivity and permeability values as you partially drag this ether around via motion. Effectively indicating a variable speed of C in a flat spacetime under this tetrad killing vector formalism, is equal to a constant speed of light in curved spacetime.
Hence the unification of Quantum field ideas and Gravitational field ideas. There just 2 ways of looking at the same thing.
In fact if you look at the chalk board of Einstein's he left around after his death, You'll see precisely this. A tetrad formalism in a flat metric killing vector field, which turns out to have the same degrees of freedom as standard GR. 👀
In this case the constancy of C is more like a summed value aka a average of the given electromagnetic field. Altho... It could fluctuate on smaller scales technically just as with any quantum field.
Why not simulating the light in a closed vertical tube such that the wave always travels vertically or horizontally.
Cool video analysis but at the end you say “Time dilation is about time after all”, isn’t that a circular argument? The question is what is time? Is there such a thing as universal clock? Relativity says no to the latter and seems to answer to the first that motion changes the frequency measurement of atomic oscillations in different frames of reference, making even precision clock give different measurements. Relativity makes possible to adjust the clocks between different frames of reference then?
Space and Time are separate frames of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space.
Since atomic clocks use an electromagnetic wave to accelerate the cesium-133 atom and electromagnetic waves travel in their own frame of reference, any motion of the clock from its calibrated location will register as a change in distance traveled.
Force decreases with distance so Less time = greater distance traveled. This measurement is only valid for the space frame of reference. Motion in the observer's time frame of reference will vary.
Here's an interesting question. Is it possible to construct a clock of materials that will allow it to tick the same whether it's stationary or moving fast? Has anyone attempted that yet?
I don't think it's possible.
@@jameswebb3410 thanks for your personal opinion but I'm looking for evidence based data points
@@milliondollartrooper czcams.com/video/Vitf8YaVXhc/video.htmlsi=4w1OjRyqvo9pzOR1 That's a nice video regarding the subject.
Two questions:
7:00 - system radiates gravitational waves and thus loses energy, so I think, that it actually falls into the Sun. Isn't it a form of "drag"?
10:00 - I think, that you create clock that is based on observing decay of radioisotope. This wouldn't depend on atoms "communicating". Am i right?
Hi, 7:00 - this form of drag can be explained by the effect of radiating gravitational waves and therefore can't be attributed to something else. Not to mention that in the case of aether, it would have to be present everywhere in the universe and affect also uniformly moving bodies which is not observed.
10:00 This is the same as the muon paradox as I mentioned in the video. Yes, this clock is somewhat fundamental in the current understanding of physics but some might argue that there is some internal structure of the elementary particles that needs to be understood yet.
the sonic wave example is fun and useful for illustrating that point, if the drone and the human being analyzing it where made out of structures in the air, like matter can be thought of as light or energy propagating at c but that is confined in a stable structure giving it the inertial properties of matter instead of the inertial properties of waves, if you imagine the same thing going on for waves of density in air, even if it int possible in air the consequences would be the same as with light and special relativity, there would be no apparent contradiction with the clocks made out of normal matter coupled to c, because all the clocks you could compare with would be made out of dynamical processes in the air medium and would dilate and be limited by the same maximum speed in that medium. in the same way, if we built a theory of the emergence of the sub-luminal unified field, we would also need matter fields coupled to a causal velocity of "waves" much larger than c, and the clocks made out of that matter would not dilate according to C but according to the new maximum propagation speed of those fields that matter were coupled to. just like our light coupled clocks don't dilate like the air driven clocks. because this is essentially the only possible way to extend our current theories, it is unhelpful to think about the effects of special and general relativity on time and space as fundamental. btw, no matter what questions you have about the consistency with quantum mechanics and relativity itself special or general, i assure you those are easy to solve.
I have a stupid question that arises from my conversation with my now, vbery old, father. How do you convince someone that the speed of light is invariant? I once tried to explain special relativity to my dad and we could not get off the ground because he refused to accept that the light from a moving flashlight is not faster than the light from a stationary flashlight.
I had similar conversations and I feel you. It is nearly impossible since it is against our everyday intuition and the older the person is the stronger the intuition is.
Perhaps it would be helpful to your dad to understand that he is far from alone with his difficulty.
It is an experimental observation that we can not see a difference in the speed of light.
Scientists in the late 1800s were trying almost desperately to make that intuition work with what they observed experimentally. Lorentz and Fitzgerald (among others) _invented_ length contraction to explain why you could not observe this speed difference.
What Einstein did was simply say "Lets just accept what we observe" and made the speed of light into a law of nature. This was a difficult step for many physicists then.
And it is still a difficult step to break our intuition today.
At 13:13, can't sound waves also be spherical waves within the air medium, just like the light spherical waves in the EM medium? This would mean there should be a transverse and longitudinal effect with sound, just like light.
The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Sound changes the pitch, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant.
The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Light changes the color, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant.
Transverse effect for sound would only occur if the source was moving in perpendicular direction relative to the medium. For light, the tranvserse part is always there no matter the direction of motion and the magnitude only depends on motion relative to the observer not relative to any medium.
@@lukasrafajpps **
But, they are both making circular waves in a medium, so I don't understand how you can consider the transverse Doppler effect different, in either case.
**
This definition is only true, if you believe Einstein's Special Relativity. Einstein's Special Relativity paper has a self-contradiction in Section 2 and Section 3 of his paper (failed derivation of the transform math using the Einstein Clock Sync method). The transform math was derived from Voigt's paper called On the Doppler Principle, using an elastic medium.
In the end, realize that you are just believing in Einstein's failed 1905 paper.
In moving clock, the light travels more distance, only from the perspective of stationary observer.
It doesn't actually travel more in perspective of moving clock. And so the theory begun to resolve the paradox.
After the source of pendulum issued a pulse and before it arrive the receiving end the receiving end already moved away from its original location laterally hence lengthened the pendulum path so it takes longer time to hit the receiver. That is a reasonable argument if and only if that Aether isn’t drag with the pendulum but it does. Aether is light medium with no mechanical but electrical properties. It attaches to and drag with all matter in the near field at equal speed and to a reduced speed by a factor of 1/r from the speed of the nearest body. In this case the pendulum space is considered a near field that Aether drag with, and the light path in the light pendulum will be perpendicular and not diagonal, hence no extra time required and no time dilation.
What if we only can use sound to compare sound clocks?
The reason why a moving clock seems to run a little slower than a stationary one is because in order to move it you need to apply a constant FORCE to it. That force pushes the clock forward, while generating an equal and opposite force inside it, which pulls its atoms and compresses them together in the opposite direction of movement (like balls inside a car that fly toward the back of the car when it is accelerating hard). This causes the quartz crystals to contract, and therefore to vibrate at a slightly lower rate. Hence, the clock will show a slightly delayed time. But that does not mean that time dilates. It simply means that the clocks vibrating frequency changes. A similar effect happens in space, because of extreme temperature variation. The frequency of the atomic clocks is influenced by centrifugal forces and other factors such as temperature, pressure etc.
New Dialect video just dropped, this time with the Aether! Can't wait to see a breakdown of it!
That was very good. You have people who are still fooled in the comments! I liked your muon segment. Nice work!
So can't you calculate the distance the wave has to travel to make both clocks tick at the same place something like v (velocity) +1 unit of speed = d (distance) -10 units of distance
muons must have some weak interaction particles moving at light speed that is fundamentally related to its disintegrationno? so then those particles are like the light clock.
1. Relativity was never “proven”.
2. Time is the interval over which change occurs, so when time dilation affects “time” it is equivalent to a “clock issue” and an everything else issue too.
Time is not a parameter of the universe subject to change or control… only the interval over which change occurs is subject to change. Want your coffee to reach room temperature later? Put it in a thermos. What your food to heat up quicker? Put it in a microwave. Want your frequency transformations to take less time? Use a FFT instead of the OG one. Etc…. Want an entire system to take more time to change? Send it off at high velocity.
If time dilation is a real effect, does that make 4D spacetime inevitable? That's the thing I really want to know. Is the 'block universe' a real object (as opposed to a mathematical idea)?
block universe is easy to maintain in GR, but not at all in SM or QM
Why use "sound" and not air particles is sort of like specifying the light frequency / color. The analog to photon (no mass) is an air particle (has mass).
Will love if you can take a look at my last video and see if you can make a better explanation.
The orbit of Merrcury can only be explained if time dilation is real.
I love both of your content as a physics major. I learn more fundamental ways of thinking about relativity from you folks than from my professors here.
Thank you. There is usually no time for such discussions at physics classes for example at our university, the special relativity isn't even one subject it is merged together with electrodynamics despite being such crutial starting point to modern physics :D
The myon question is a good one, and one probably has to think very carefully about what makes particles decay in the first place. You might find a light clock in there.
you might find them looking at a clock, but not in the current theory. they have no internal states at all, and decay (or observation of decay) is entirely random, ulimately governed by the Born rule. of course they might have hidden clocks (hidden 'variables') but such theories have so far failed.
The way I think about it is: every clock has to observe some interaction somewhere in order to tell time. If even the internal behavior of fundamental particles is somehow mediated by light, then there would be no way to build a non-light clock, since every interaction involves particles and the behavior of particles would involve light. And if every clock must be fundamentally a light clock, then calling time dilation a clock issue is meaningless.
@@user-dx1bq3ps5z When I wrote "you might find a light clock in there" I did not mean this physically, but more like "you might understand what it has to do with the speed of light". Decay comes from interactions between quantum fields and how quickly an excitation gets distributed between fields. I haven't done the math and whether cannot say whether it can explain a slowed decay in an eather theory. But it's a priorily plausible.
F=ma/E=mc. The lifespan of a muon is governed by its mass and its acceleration rate. High mass objects with low acceleration rates take longer to radioactively decay.
Apply an outside force, like air temperature, the decay rate can be increased or decreased. Muons don't fall to earth in a vacuum. This is what throws everyone off just like the hammer&feather drop tests. The atmosphere is an outside force influencing the motion of the object.
@@stewiesaidthat Do you have any evidence to support the claim that air causes decay rate to change? It's certainly not the case for any other particle or atomic nucleus that we've ever seen. Particles in particle accelerators show time dilation even in the absence of air. Radioactive elements decay at the same rate regardless of the presence of air.
This guy is an excellent communicator. As an American listening to Lukas, his speed and tone are perfect. His physics is top notch and he communicates clearly. 👍 Hope he keeps publishing more. I’m still unsure why the Aether isn’t quantum fields, though.
So even if we have two equal masses of radioactive material, we travel one of them very fast, and we measure the rate it has decayed compared to its half life, we will see that the moving one was slower to decay?
A couple of simple questions:
Is the speed of light always deemed to be constant in these light clock illustration? (yes?)
From the mirror light clock is it asserted that the ticks slow down, therefore time has slowed down? (yes?)
If time has slowed down, then the speed of light has slowed down because the seconds in the m/s of the speed of light has slowed down?
Therefore the speed of light was not constant?
But now because the speed of light is slower in our photon clock, it actually takes longer for the photon to bounce, and therefore time has become slower, and the speed of light has become slower, and therefore, the photon in the photon clock is traveling slower, and therefore the time is slower, and the speed of light is slower...
Blue Screen! The universe has been halted to protect the underlying hardware form damage.
Please check for corrupted driver updates or faulty runtimes.
Or see your local god to reboot the universe :)
the key tldr for why you are wrong about your last statement, is that teh transverse time dilation for clocks derived in air works because the transverse lenght contraction is 0. so you dont have to make the "matter/clock" out of only air to get it to time dilate properly, for longitudinal dilation you would need to adjust the distance between the speakers and sensors manually to mimic what it would be like to have matter made out of sound waves in air. :) that is the crux, but if you had that, and you measured a frequency emitted by it that depended on the time dilation, then you would indeed get the same kind of relativistic time dilation for the air analogy as well. invite you to calculate that as well, since you seem pretty proficient as it is :) i love this stuff it is fascinating, i notice you seem to be of similar interests, so it should be fun to do. basically you take the speaker based light clock for air, you account for length contractions, then you have a second speaker on the clock that emits a frequency that is adjusted by the time dilation, so if the clock slows down, the frequency decreases by the same factor. and so on. then you will definitley get the same expressions as in relativity for the sound analogy. and this also makes sense right? the reason we need to add another speaker that is adjusted by the derived time dilation, is because the frequency of the speakers used in the clock already are made out of stuff that is not "made out of air" they will not time dilate just because they move through air, so we have to make the effect happen by setting it up manually, but if you do, then it is identical :) which is cool, it actually reproduces the entire phenomena, and no wonder, we knew that already because the ether theories where you cant measure the background work the same way, there the time dilation of clocks and emitters are also identical.
1. All inertial motion between objects in the universe is relative.
2. Two objects, in inertial relative motion, can not both have clocks which continuously physically go slower compared with each other.
3. A relative motion (or position) between objects (any objects in the universe) can not come, and has never come, into existence without acceleration (a force on objects).
4. Therefore, logically, the only phase in which a physical/objective time dilation can come into existence is during an acceleration/deceleration phase. Accelerations are objective.
5. Time dilation in GR is created with a constant force on an object, accelerating it upwards in a gravitational field (here assuming a constant location in the field, compared with an object hypothetically outside of any gravitation).
6. The GR time dilation equation is mathematically equivalent with the time dilation equation in SR. They just have a different set of variables in them. Insert the escape velocity equation in the GR equation and you obtain the exact SR-equation with the v^2 variable.
7. Therefore, logically, the SR time dilation must also be an acceleration based equation. The v^2 variable = 2 • acceleration • distance, it is called the Torricelli equation (he lived before Newton). v^2 is
not an average velocity or an instantaneous velocity when coasting, and the equation can not be used for time dilation calculations with inertial relative motions. It is only valid while a force (acceleration) is operating on the object.
8. If the GR equation produces physical/objective time dilation (which it does, GPS etc), the SR equation must obviously do the same, and only during phases when/where an object is accelerated/decelerated. Atoms (and their rate of change = physical time) can not react differently in these two situations. In other words, this is the equivalence principle in a mathematical form.
9. This is more a metaphysical opinion/statement. An atom clock (cesium clock) does not only measure time in an exact way, it IS physical time itself.
Twin "paradox" solved, imo.
Concerning which point (1-9) do you disagree, if you do ? Please be specific.
Cheers from Sweden
I have same vision with you, we could call it paradox of twin paradox.
@@pakarpintu4917 Thanx, it is quite simple really. Follow what the math / equations says. The v^2 variable = 2 • acceleration • distance, in the SR time dilation equation, can not mathematically be used for time intervals where acceleration does not take place. Therefore, it must be during time intervals with accelerations/decelerations only, where the physical time dilation occurs. One has to separate objective reality (real physical effects, physical change of a clock) and subjective reality (optical specific observer effects) when discussing Special Relativity.
i was hasty, you seemed to explain it well afterward. :))
The problem with the accepted time dilation equation is that it is based on the velocity of the moving body (B) relative to the stationary body (A). But from B's perspective, B is stationary and A is moving, yet the time dilation is asymmetric upon co-joining the bodies. The difference with perspectives is that B has experienced acceleration whereas A has not, therefore, shouldn't time dilation be dependent on acceleration and not relative velocity after acceleration?
No. The twin paradox is not resolved by time dilation. Lorentz transformations are linear, so there slope and an intercept. You need both
THANK YOU - I found that "sound clock" thing on Dialect quite odd too. Nothing in a sound based system has velocities sufficiently high to bring in relativistic effects.
If you base everything on the sound clock, then the speed that determines relativistic effects is the speed of sound.
C, is the speed of light in a vacuum. To recreate the experiment the speakers should not have been open to the air.
The solution to this problem is quite simple. Particles are light clocks. If there is no rigid body connecting the boundary conditions, the wave (sound or light) would need time to travel from one boundary condition to the other to translate any change of motion. Length contraction and inertia would be coupled as a function of acceleration and only carried by momentum, and the sound clock analogy would hold regardless of how the clock is tilted.
Great video overall! I do have two main concerns though. The smaller one that I will get out of the way is this: at the end you ask, if time dilation is "just a clock issue", then why does it happen to muons? Well I think the word "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. We only know of interactions that happen at the speed of light, so this clock issue affects the rates of the decays as well. Yes, time dilation is fundamental, because all interactions between and within particles happen at the speed of light, and thus the processes that cause muon decay are essentially little light clocks.
My second issue is that I am a little confused by the part where time dilation is different for clocks placed in different orientations. I did the math and got the same factor, but I am having trouble visualizing it.
Suppose we have a universe with two spatial dimensions. In this universe are two observers, A and B. A will be the observer's frame of reference, i.e. stationary for this consideration, and B will be moving relative to A.
Now suppose that each observer is enclosed by a circular mirror centered at the observer, that remains stationary in that observer's frame. Then, at some time, each observer emits a pulse of light. Because the mirror is a circle, i.e. the same distance from the observer at all points, all of the light returns to the observers at the same time. For A, this is immediately obvious, and for B, it follows from the principle of relativity (i.e. B is stationary in B's frame of reference, so it observes the same thing, all else being equal).
This means that, if we from A's perspective mark out the paths of all of the photons emitted by B, all of the total lengths have to be the same; all of the photons were emitted and received by B at the same times, which means the length of their paths have to be the same since the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of the source. From this, it follows that two light clocks, one placed parallel and one perpendicular to B's direction of motion, should have exactly the same time dilation, because the photons in the light clock are just following one of the possible paths of the photons in the circular mirror.
Where did I go wrong in my thought experiment? I suspect it has something to do with relativity of simultaneity because I always struggle with that, but I am pretty sure that I shouldn't have that issue here because in both frames, the start and end points of the measured light are the same. There's nothing that could be simultaneous in one frame and not in another that is actually relevant to the observation. It's also not length contraction because the fact that each observer sees all of the photons at the same time is what's important. No matter what length contraction is involved, that result should be the same by the principle of relativity.
Here we are trying ro reinvent relativity from common sense. So, you cannot rely to relativity in your logic. Otherwise, your logic is circular.
@@balabuyew Where did I "rely" on relativity in my argument?
@@guardingdark2860For example here: "and for B, it follows from the principle of relativity".
@@balabuyew Yes. The "principle of relativity" states that the laws of physics are observed to be the same in any frame of reference. That is a premise of the Theory of Relativity, not a conclusion. One derived from observed facts.
@@guardingdark2860This principle is not valid in the context of the video. You should prove it before using.
I like Your explanations very much, thank You. Take an old wall clock, that works only in a one G world. How does it loose time, when moving in a 1G environment?
what is meaning of "just a clock issue"? As opposed to what? Are you proposing that there is an aether that could also explain time dilation? Perhaps another viewer could answer these questions.
Dialect seem to be suggesting that time dilation is merely an artifact of clock mechanisms, rather than a feature of how space and time themselves behave.
In that case an aether could indeed reproduce the results of Relativity if all clocks dependent on the aether in the same way.
But then the aether is also inherently undetectable (since you also have to introduce length contraction).
When you discuss the vertical clocks at 11:30 you completely ignore that in the soundwave analogy as well the clocks would be length contracted (because they are "made out of sound" if you will) and hence would show in fact the same time dilation as predicted by SRT. There is no way to distinguish the analogy from SRT with this experiment.
Good point. I guess that would depend critically on what principles of relativity are actually being adopted to construct the associated transform for the aether interpretation. The Lorentz transform that predicts length contraction was was built using Einstein’s principles of relativity, which make sense to me.
@@particularminer260 You don't need SRT to derive length contraction. All you need is that your clocks are made out of particles that are bound together via an interaction that propagates with the speed of light IN THE PREFERRED REST FRAME.
Thank you for this video, man. I've been watching Dialect and they have interesting work, but some issues.
The point is not about the clocks, we measure the difference using atomic clocks, but the important thing is that we measure the speed of light the same in all reference frames and that means relativity has to be true
Interferometer is equalized ny length contraction and light aberration
you contradicted your earlier analysis when you said the clocks work the same in both cases by saying that about relativity vs this analogy.
While time dilation is a matter of clocks, it's really a matter of gravity bending space and dilating time. The most important thing to remember is that everything happens in the present. The past and future do not exist. Massive objects such as galaxies bend space and slow the passage of time within those massive bodies. It's weird because different objects age at different rates depending on their orientation within the galaxy. But they are still in the present. Everything that happens in that galaxy and the universe is in the present regardless of what the clock says. The objects are merely aging at different rates.
Now define ”aging”.
@@antonpwr Or "rate", haha
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure how literally to take the dimensionality of time. It may be that all points in time "currently" exist in some real, non-metaphorical way, but I don't think there's any evidence sufficient to discuss it outside of pure philosophy
@@antonpwr I define aging as the evidence for the passage of time. So, in other words, the age of an object is merely the evidence for the passage of time, not the rate at which the object is aging in the present. Again, time dilation is merely the rate at which objects age in the present.
And thanks for reading.
I'm having this same debate in another thread. I've proposed a solution to not being able to divide by zero as an altering to standard mathematics. You may find it interesting as I think it could be a better representation of reality than current curriculum. "I mean, it's not really a invention so much as a better description of physical reality with mathematical operations. I believe all objects in reality have a positive energy density that would coincide with positive numbers > 0 to ∞. Negative numbers coinciding with being negative energy density would correctly cancel matter to "nothing zero" as indicated by Einstein's field equations. It could define negative energy density as both real and imaginary, depending on the application. lmkwut"
@@TwentyNineJP You can think of time dilation rate as a percentage of the speed of light that matter has been slowed. For instance if you wanted to know the difference in time dilation between you and someone else, you could think of their time dilation as an attribute that would be some fraction of the speed light. Kind of like an imaginary little sign over their head that would change depending on galactical gravity and speed.
I feel as though relativity is mapping of the variability of the universal constants in relation to background energy of the space it is travelling through, not in relation of one object to another. Time is immutable and absolute simultaneity is real and can be recognized by the interactions of quantum mechanics. Only your perspective of time can change due to the electrical signal in your brain travelling at a different relative speed to the body etc. Time is described inaccurately as it is described in terms of the Planck Time, which is how long it takes for light to travel the Planck Distance.
There is basically a big difference between the conceptualized model of time in all of our minds compared to what it is modelled as mathematically in relativity. The one we all conceptualize in our minds is absolute, what we witness in quantum mechanics is absolute as well, only the meta physics of Einstein state that time is mutable when it is immutable, only our perspective of time can change. The way Planck modelled time is flawed as it assumes all light travels at a universal speed, when you look at the universe from an absolute frame of reference light travels at different speeds in comparison to each other (I am sick of people ignoring the time experienced by photons just because the photons perspective of time is different. It still exists and no metaphysics can eliminate that fact) and has carried over to Einsteins model.
If relativity was proven then we could take two clocks apart from each other and bring them back together and they would be synchronized due to their mechanisms or coding catering to the momentum. We can't get time synchronized exactly and that is a failure of Relativity. We would also be able to unify quantum mechanics with physics, could explain singularities, why the galaxies are drifting apart (i.e. what is "dark matter" and "dark energy") as well as various other shortcomings. Stop putting Einstein on a pedestal, the guy was just a dreamer and felt that reality was objective (Your perspective is your reality which is unique for each particle) when it is definitely non-objective (Things happen in a certain order regardless of how you perceive them, causality is real).
"SeeThePattern" produces some nice Lorentz Ether Theory videos as well, I like his ones related to the rivalry between Lorentzian theory and Einsteinian theory.
czcams.com/video/iqAvgHJa7Yw/video.html
Werner has some great stuff related to the stuff you are talking about, hopefully Dialect has seen the material:
www.youtube.com/@wernerhartl2069
In the beginning of the video I thought to myself "what if the clock was spinning?" lol
An interesting experiment to look at is the "Ives Stilwell" experiment. They considered the effects of high speed hydrogen ions emitting light and considered the apparent redshifted wavelength as well as the blueshifted wavelength. They then averaged the two wavelengths and found that the result was not the original wavelength, suggesting real time dilation had occurred. I think this experimental setup is far more reliable than just some guys putting atomic clocks on planes and trying to measure nanoseconds on the hour.
when it comes to flow and gradients in the sound wave velocity, it work exactly the same as with light, but the fields of varying speed or propagation, and with variable flow of the background, are the field necessary to put general relativity into a euclidian absolute background framework, it is not that hard to convince yourself of that. it is almost trivial to reproduce the schwartchild metric with it if you don't worry too much about length scales, the length scales involve modeling matter and that is non trivial, but still pretty manageable. so when you say that you could enclose the box, and all that, yes and those kinds of things leads to GR lol :). that is called ether drag, in empty space the ether drag has to be uniform and unidirectional, in general relativity it is transformed into a negative divergent flow around masses that is towards the mass, and rotations, those are just the normal effects of gravity and frame dragging form general relativity. the masses act like sinks, the process of how that makes sense for non black holes, and why black holes don't spontaneously grow as a consequence (they can in certain circumstances)* if only sensible to analyse in an extended theory, and there it does make sense, space falls in but is transformed into degrees of freedom that don't care about the gravitational field, imagine if we constructred GR in air by modifying how air works, such that it could form structures like matter and have negative divergent flow and gradients in the speed of sound, then we could imagine air molecules traversing in towards one of these masses, but being ultimately turned into light or subatomic particles at the center of our air based black hole, such that the gradient in the speed of sound in air becomes irrelevant to its motion, only structures made out of the air would be severly effected by a gradient plus flow that leads to a sonic horizon in the medium. :) it makes sense, you can play around with it and see for yourself, the analogous thing happens for degrees of freedom in the vacuum in the extended theories that go beyond the speed of light and our familiar sub luminal world. the example in air is absurd ofc, air doesn't have stable configurations like that, but the vacuum does and the fields and medium where light is propagating and forces are mediated do have these properties.
These clocks works from the oscillation of ceasium , if the light is out of phase the ceasium atom will gain less energy, whether by redshift or blueshift .
These clocks are separating high energy ceasium from low energy ceasium atom , if they are no in the correct orientation to earth then the acceleration by gravity will slightly change how much energy they have .
Please do share experiments with these satalitle in different orientation
The Michaelson Morley experiment I think is fundamentally flawed , this doesn't mean that I think there is a luminiferous /stationary aether , I think the aether is most likely very dynamic.
In your example where the light clock is perpendicular to the aether the shape of the wave front was a semicircle, but what if the shape of the wave front was made more planar or flat , then the light couldn't travel a greater distance because the wave front is not traveling sideways . The wave will take the shortest path that is the distance between the source and the reflector , thus the time taken for light travel in different orientation would be the exact same.
Obviously in the real world these laser light aren't perfectly planar waves , so the light will take slightly different time depending on it's orientation in the MMX.
this physical length contraction issue is exactly why i mentioned imagining what matter would be like if it was made out of a medium of air, it would have to length contract, and so the time dilation would be the same anyway. that is there is no difference between a medium and whatever people think special relativity is like, special relativity is exactly a theory corresponding to a medium you cannot detect absolute motion with respect to. in fact the example you showed for how you would measure the speed on air can be fixed by just assuming length contraction takes care of it and then you are only solving for one unknown, compare that unknown to the length contraction functions on special relativity. i am telling you special relativity is an ether theory, people think it is not an ether theory, and that such things were refuted, basically because they learned special relativity in a simplified way and then someone told them so. but that isnt true, that is a misconception, special relativity and ether theories where the ether cant be detected like this has the exact opposite problem, it is not that the ether is impossible, but that any ether with any velocity is possible. except from the effects familiar to anyone who knows gr of frame dragging and gravity, it just has to be in uniform motion.
7:18 this is only the case if you could define a rest frame for the medium. This is exactly what everyone gets wrong about the aether, and why no one takes it seriously. To define such a frame you need something indipendent from the medium to compare it to, and this is usually done with matter. But if the medium is literally ALL there is, you cant define such a frame, and relativity works just fine. As an analogy, think about a boat on the ocean. You can define the rest frame of the ocean by watching how the boats motion creates waves (none when the boat is at rest with the ocean). Now imagine instead the boat is not separate from the ocean, so instead visualize a wave on the surface. Its motion does not disturb the ocean from the frame of the wave, so it says it is still relative to the ocean. But so can every other wave say the same. The only "true" stationary, preferred frame would be that of no waves at all, but that would mean empty space. There's nothing to compare your measurements with in empty space.
Hey, if general relativity is true, and it is, that means the parameters to measure light-speed change and both changes compound or exaggerate the changes in the speed of light. I wrote a little book about it. This would explain faster than expected motion the farther removed from the source of gravity it is. Redshift is also affected by gravity.
If we consider Aether is a solid also drag with everything, we opens ourselves a paradox in which everything stands still in space and no orbital effect.
One may counter argue against Aether drag applying with the aberration effect. However aberration only opens doubt in Aether and isn’t a direct proof.
Addressing aberration effects:
Aether is regarded a fluid, an incompressible fluid. It has no mechanical except electrical properties which is u0 permeability and e0 permittivity. It adheres to and drag with matter in order to couple light, electromagnetic energy, between Aether and matter, and in doing so DRAG with earth as well as the interferometer, and hence to a static fringe pattern effect and a net zero velocity. As a fluid, however, Aether velocity remote from earth drag at a different mean velocity which is defined by the nearest planets and galaxies by a factor of 1/r.
The laterally sheering effect in Aether fluid is regarded as a boundary layer on laterally moving surface. Which supports but contradicts aberration effect?
Einstein once famously said, there is no such thing as time...just clocks.
Really? Can't find it in Google
@dnomyarnostaw
Albert Einstein did make a comment along those lines. He theorized that time is relative and can vary depending on one's frame of reference, suggesting that the experience of time is subjective. This idea is often summarized in the phrase "time is an illusion" or "there's no such thing as time, just clocks." I Googled that...maybe my Google is better than your Google.
@Doctor.T.46 Good. Then you can tell me what interview, what paper and date he said it
Preferably without the lecture on physics principles.
Time is just a single moment... stretched to eternity via our sensory apparatus by the way we evolved.
@@dnomyarnostaw I didn't lecture you on physics principles, I just found the Google item that you couldn't find. As for the paper, perhaps you should try Google again. I wasn't trying to have an argument, I just gave a rather amusing quote. Sorry if you feel you need more ...
Special relativity isn't special in the sense of some special operations within it but because the equations are applicable in the special case of the absence of gravity. Or in a flat space-time, which is the same.
WHY Does light packet have speed in the x axis?
The more speed a particle has, less is your vibration frequency. Thus, as the measuring of time is based on its vibration frequency, the time is bad measured.
Where in the universe is time moving the fastest? And its that place the oldest place in the universe? If that place ended, would all the universe end at the same time?
well, such a place does not exist afterall but if it did what would you mean by the end of the universe? if it was some phase transition to a different vacua of a higgs field (which can happen at any moment somewhere) then this would spread with the speed of light so maybe it already has happened we just don't know about it and when it hits us we will not notice we would be just erased.
Great video... thanks...😉
Quoting Stewiesaidthat - Space and Time are two separate frame of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Combining the two frame to believing that clock measures time is what creates the paradox.
Space-Time diagram? That shows one person is experiencing more space in the same amount of time.
7:14 this statement is wrong assuming that you are only permitted to use sound to pass information between clocks. Actually, the full formalism of relativity can only be recreated with sound if the speed of sound is the speed limit for all information in the thought experiment, meaning the clocks themselves must be made of standing sound waves (not sure how that would work, though).
Anyways, the moving sound clock would see the stationary clock ticking faster because of its distorted perspective, it would only be able to confirm such a thing after traveling around the closed universe (Earth).
Edit: you said something about the sound clock analogy matching special relativity when including doppler effect, but you really needed to use the doppler effect for the sound clocks as well, not just the light clocks.
Edit 2: another wrong thing, when considering sound clocks purely made of standing sound waves, they would also be length contracted exactly the same as light clocks. So the sound analogy holds.
Why do muons last longer? Or why do faster muons travel more distance in the same time.. see how redundant that question is.
That's why I didn't even bother answering.
Can you derive Special Relativity from General Relativity?
the special relativity is a special case when the spacetime is flat. This is represented by metric in the form g_mu_nu = diag(-1,1,1,1)
@@lukasrafajpps haha of corse! (🤦🏻♂️) thx!
Turned clocks normalized to the lateral side by length comtractopn so there is no difference on oriwntatiom
So, what is measured is wave propigation. Frequncy behavior and the focus is location of sensors and an effect of intertia (the changing direction thing)?
So Einstiein was studying frequency effects and calling it time.
Waves that turn around to return to their source. Now that would be an awesome subject to research.
Imagine a spaceship passing by you that has white lights on the front, and red lights on the back, and that they are LED's that are flashing at above 60Hz to reduce energy consumption. The spaceship passes by you at what you measure to be 260,000 km/s. Meanwhile, as it approached you, you measured the the light pulses from the front headlights, to be travelling at the speed of light. When it passed by you, you then measured the pulses of red light also travelling at the speed of light. Then you scratch you head, because from your point of view that meant that the light coming from the front of the spaceship was only released at 40,000 km/s, thus 40,000 km/s plus the speed of the spaceship, equals the speed of light. Then to be even more confusing, the red light releases from the spaceship's rear lights, appears to have been released at 560,000 km/s relative to the spaceship, thus 560,000 km/s - 260,000 km/s spaceship velocity = 300,000 km/s, the speed of light. But all this is easy to explain concerning the actual mechanics of what is going on, rather than mere theories, if you fully understand special relativity.
Sorry but I am not scratching my head about this since even sound waves would behave the way you described.
As I watched this video I tried to imagine a clock that would measure time exactly the same way whether it is moving or not. I have an idea, although it is impossible to actually build.
Take a sphere with an axle going directly through the center of it, with each end mounted on the end of a cylinder the sphere is inside. At one end of the cylinder there is a sensor, and on the sphere there is a line that starts at the point the axle extends from the sphere on one end (lets call it the north pole) and travels along the surface to the point where the other end of the axle extends out (lets call it the south pole), like the prime meridian. The sphere rotates on this axle at 6000rpm, causing the line to pass in front of the sensor every 100th of a second, allowing for fairly precise measurement. The inside of the cylinder is otherwise a vacuum, and the bearings are frictionless (yes, air tight and frictionless - impossible!), so that once the axle is spun up to 6000rpm it never slows down or causes the cylinder to rotate. There is no motor needed to maintain this speed, which would cause a variation from the speed electrons travel through wires as the unit approaches the speed of light, etc.The sphere rotates at a constant speed, even if it tumbles through space (even with gyroscopic precession, because the bearings are frictionless). Tumbling would cause the cylinder to yaw, but because of the frictionless bearings it does not slow down the rotation of the sphere. (You can feel gyroscopic precession yourself if you clamp the center of a fidget spinner in your fingers, spin it, and then tilt the spinner perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Although I may have misidentified this phenomena.) Thus the only way to cause a different measurement in the clock is to rotate the cylinder on the axis of the axle. Now, no matter what orientation the cylinder is in as it flies through space, the line on the rotating sphere passes the sensor 100 times a second. The timing of the sensor readings may change, but it won't affect the count of the number of times the sensor detected the line (the count may be off while it is moving, but when it stops moving the count will catch up).
Using this clock you could absolutely prove or disprove time dilation, but since it's impossible to build, well, at least the theory may give you some interesting ideas.
My belief is that time is a construct devised by the human mind, completely based on observation and measurement. It is not a force that controls anything. Time does not slow down as things accelerate relative to our position in space. Things have a relatively longer distance to travel to get to the same place in their localized geometry, exactly as depicted in the clock examples you gave, but it isn't because "time slows down." And this only occurs during acceleration. Once things stop accelerating, when everything within their localized geometry is moving the same relative speed, these distances return to normal. They go up as the change in velocity increases, and go down as the change in velocity decreases, perfectly linearly.
With that in mind, even the clock I described would experience "time dilation" because the rotating sphere has inertia, and accelerating affects it's inertia in ways I am not mathematically competent enough to define. I'm sure somebody could, but I'm not that guy. However, I believe that once the clock is slowed down during acceleration due to the changing inertia, it would NOT speed back up as its change in velocity decreased. Furthermore it would slow down again as it turned around to make a return trip, and yet again when it comes to a stop upon returning. And I believe there is a math genius out there somewhere that could calculate these exact values with the given mass and dimensions of the sphere and axle.
This makes me think of another question. If we were able to build a craft that could travel at or near the speed of light, and it had headlights and tail lights, would the light from the headlights not travel forward from the craft at relative light speed, as much as twice the speed of light? Would the light from the tail lights be stationary in space or would it move at light speed through space - relatively twice the speed of light as observed from the craft? I don't think the speed of light is the universal speed limit either. I just think that photons are so infinitely small that any "push" moves them at a proportionally infinite velocity. And if it's moving that fast, you simply can't move anything else fast enough to give it another push. However, if you're already moving and you give it a push (ie: the headlights on the craft), it'll add your velocity to its practically infinite velocity, thereby breaking the "speed limit."
Time: a certain amount of mass, with a certain amount of energy, over a certain amount of distance.
Time = M x E x D
Time is not a 'thing' you can interact with. Time is a concept of motion. A second is a standard of motion.
When your atomic clock is moving, you are adding distance to the equation. That means you are no longer measuring standard time.
M x E x (D + d')
Since matter, energy and distance are factors of time, any equation that includes time as a factor is susceptible to inaccuracies if one or more of the factors of time (M, E, D) is also present in the equation.