Absolute and Relative Time

[Mike Helland]

You do realise that this idea reveals your underlying and fundamental misconception that there is a preferred frame with respect to which we can measure our speed. There is no such preferred frame.

Every observer is at rest in the frame in which they are at rest. That sounds like a tautology, but it is one that seems to have escaped you.

And you repeat your mistaken ideas about virtual photons.

What a crock.

Ok, simple scenario.

I'm at rest (as far as I know, or care, nothing else is around).

You come out of nowhere, at 90% the speed of light.

I see you, and I wave. That requires signals to be sent from my eyes, to my brain, to my hand.

Let's say this whole process between seeing you and waving takes 100 milliseconds.

You see me, and you try to wave.

Will the signals from your optical nerve, to your brain, to your hand take the same 100 ms?

From my perspective?

 

[Myriad]

Ok, simple scenario.

I'm at rest (as far as I know, or care, nothing else is around).

You come out of nowhere, at 90% the speed of light.

I see you, and I wave. That requires signals to be sent from my eyes, to my brain, to my hand.

Let's say this whole process between seeing you and waving takes 100 milliseconds.

You see me, and you try to wave.

Will the signals from your optical nerve, to your brain, to your hand take the same 100 ms?

From my perspective?

If "from my perspective" means "as timed by my clock that's stationary in my own reference frame" then no, as Special Relativity clearly indicates. If "from my perspective" means "by my observation, which takes the time dilation and length contraction described by Special Relativity into account," then yes, because the laws of physics are independent of reference frame.

 

[Mike Helland]

If "from my perspective" means "as timed by my clock that's stationary in my own reference frame" then no, as Special Relativity clearly indicates. If "from my perspective" means "by my observation, which takes the time dilation and length contraction described by Special Relativity into account," then yes, because the laws of physics are independent of reference frame.

So for an idealized observer, where observation happens instantaneously, an observation takes 0 seconds to make regardless of the speed.

But, for a physical observer, observations are not instantaneous. There is some duration between the start and the finish of the observation being completed.

And if you, an observer, were moving near the speed of light in my (an observer) reference frame, your observation couldn't happen at the same speed as my observation, otherwise you'd violate the laws of physics by communicating information over a distance faster than the speed of light.

 

[hecd2]

I have changed 'I' and 'you' to Alice and Bob to avoid ambiguity

Ok, simple scenario.

Alice is at rest (as far as Alice knows, or cares, nothing else is around).

What do you mean Alice is at rest? What is your definition of "at rest"?

Bob comes out of nowhere, at 90% the speed of light.

With respect to what? I assume with respect to Alice?

Alice sees Bob, and Alice waves. That requires signals to be sent from Alice's eyes, to Alice's brain, to Alice's hand.

Let's say this whole process between seeing Bob and waving takes 100 milliseconds.

In which frame of reference? I assume in Alice's frame?

Bob sees Alice, and Bob tries to wave.

Will the signals from Bob's optical nerve, to Bob's brain, to Bob's hand take the same 100 ms?

From Alice's perspective?

No. Alice will measure Bob's reaction time to be ~311ms. Bob will measure his own reaction time to be 100ms and Alice's reaction time to be ~311ms.

So?

 

[hecd2]

So for an idealized observer, where observation happens instantaneously, an observation takes 0 seconds to make regardless of the speed.

But, for a physical observer, observations are not instantaneous. There is some duration between the start and the finish of the observation being completed.

So what? My mechanical observer always takes 1 microsecond (as seen from my frame) between the arrival of the photon and the registration of the time of observation. So I just subtract 1 microsecond from the time recorded. And if I'm recording intervals I don't need to do anything because the delays cancel out.

And if you, an observer, were moving near the speed of light in my (an observer) reference frame, your observation couldn't happen at the same speed as my observation, otherwise you'd violate the laws of physics by communicating information over a distance faster than the speed of light.

What do you mean by the same time? (This is quite a deep question, so think carefully before you answer. Your answer is required before your statement has any meaning.)

 

[Mike Helland]

So what? My mechanical observer always takes 1 microsecond (as seen from my frame) between the arrival of the photon and the registration of the time of observation. So I just subtract 1 microsecond from the time recorded. And if I'm recording intervals I don't need to do anything because the delays cancel out.

What do you mean by the same time? (This is quite a deep question, so think carefully before you answer. Your answer is required before your statement has any meaning.)

I didn't say same time. I said same speed.

So not necessarily simultaneously, but as mechanical observers, they each take the same duration to complete an observation (in their own rest frame).

Bob and Alice each see their own observation taking 100 ms, but they observe the other's observations to take 311 ms.

 

[hecd2]

I didn't say same time. I said same speed.

What's the "speed" of an observation?

So not necessarily simultaneously, but as mechanical observers, they each take the same duration to complete an observation (in their own rest frame).

Bob and Alice each see their own observation taking 100 ms, but they observe the other's observations to take 311 ms.

So what?

 

[Cheetah]

So for an idealized observer, where observation happens instantaneously, an observation takes 0 seconds to make regardless of the speed.

But, for a physical observer, observations are not instantaneous. There is some duration between the start and the finish of the observation being completed.

And if you, an observer, were moving near the speed of light in my (an observer) reference frame, your observation couldn't happen at the same speed as my observation, otherwise you'd violate the laws of physics by communicating information over a distance faster than the speed of light.

You are confusing what the observation is.
The observation takes place when photons from the traveler interact with the observer, not when the observer becomes aware of the interaction.

 

[theprestige]

You are confusing what the observation is.
The observation takes place when photons from the traveler interact with the observer, not when the observer becomes aware of the interaction.

Mike's trying to achieve a physics breakthrough by substituting English for math and exploiting the ambiguity of natural languages.

 

[Cheetah]

No. Alice will measure Bob's reaction time to be ~311ms. Bob will measure his own reaction time to be 100ms and Alice's reaction time to be ~311ms.

So?

This.

Surely there must be a video on YouTube that explains these basic principles simply and sweetly.
There is so much confusion in this thread, it hurts my head.

Mike's trying to achieve a physics breakthrough by substituting English for math and exploiting the ambiguity of natural languages.

That sounds very challenging. A daunting task.

 

[Pixel42]

Surely there must be a video on YouTube that explains these basic principles simply and sweetly.

There are loads of videos. There are also free online courses.

The problem is not that the basic principles aren't easily explained, it's that they're counterintuitive. Some people simply won't accept them, no matter how much maths and evidence there is proving that it's their intuition that's wrong.

 

[Cheetah]

There are loads! I just had a look.
Have you seen “Intro to Special Relativity Course” by minutephysics?
It’s a playlist. Can you link to a playlist on YouTube?
He has a cool mechanical Lorenz transformation contraption that shows how spacetime diagrams change as you shift between different observers.
Mike you have to watch it!

 

[hecd2]

There are loads! I just had a look.
Have you seen “Intro to Special Relativity Course” by minutephysics?
It’s a playlist. Can you link to a playlist on YouTube?
He has a cool mechanical Lorenz transformation contraption that shows how spacetime diagrams change as you shift between different observers.
Mike you have to watch it!

Mike has chronically refused (or been unable) to learn the fundamentals of the physics he attempts to discuss. Why go to all the trouble of learning the fundamentals when you are just about to revolutionise the subject?

 

[GodMark2]

Mike's trying to achieve a physics breakthrough by substituting English for math and exploiting the ambiguity of natural languages.

That sounds very challenging. A daunting task.

And yet, it is the basis and totality of most 'challenges' to relativity and/or quantum dynamics.

 

[Mike Helland]

Mike has chronically refused (or been unable) to learn the fundamentals of the physics he attempts to discuss. Why go to all the trouble of learning the fundamentals when you are just about to revolutionise the subject?

If you've interpreted every post in this thread as an attempt to undermine established physics, that would explain your responses. And you'd be mistaken.

I noticed some memes and some discussions online about absolute and relative time.

I thought I'd point out what Newton, Einstein, and Everett thought about it, and where their thoughts overlapped.

How their ideas are different have many spotlights shown on them. I thought I'd point out that "(relative) time is what clock measures", is something they have in common.

That's all. Chill out.

*edit* And before you're all like "this is a physics forum": this is "science, mathematics, medicine, and technology." My argument is that technology has advanced enough to make Everett's relative state formulation approachable (to anyone with a supercomputer) from a new direction, implementing an actual observer, creating the "secondary, internal memory" or whatever, allowing for two types of time in the mathematics, almost as Newton foreshadowed all along. It's not like any other of the threads in this forum meet some higher standard.

 

[hecd2]

My argument is that technology has advanced enough to make Everett's relative state formulation approachable (to anyone with a supercomputer) from a new direction, implementing an actual observer, creating the "secondary, internal memory" or whatever, allowing for two types of time in the mathematics, almost as Newton foreshadowed all along.

And our argument is that you misunderstand Newton, Einstein and Everett, because to understand them you need a grounding in physics which you lack (clearly evidenced in this thread) and that you have not been able to articulate just what the point is that you are trying to make.

Oh - and there is no physics which operates with "two types of time in the mathematics". And you certainly haven't been able to point to any such mathematics.

And finally have you abandoned the discussion about the practical consequence on the outcome arising from difference between idealised and physical observers? Because you haven't really made a coherent point there either.

 

[Mike Helland]

And our argument is that you misunderstand Newton, Einstein and Everett, because to understand them you need a grounding in physics which you lack (clearly evidenced in this thread) and that you have not been able to articulate just what the point is that you are trying to make.

Newton: Time is absolute
Einstein: Time is relative

I understand that just fine.

I think it's simplistic, given what they wrote, but whatever. I made my point. You disagree. Whoopdee doo

Oh - and there is no physics which operates with "two types of time in the mathematics". And you certainly haven't been able to point to any such mathematics.

The example I gave is simulating a smartphone inside a supercomputer. Seems plausible to me.

It looks like Wolfram might stumble backwards into this.

He says his new paradigm will require an observer to figure out what time is.

I guess I don't see why it can't be applied to the other paradigms. That looks to me like what Everett tried to do with wave mechanics.

And finally have you abandoned the discussion about the practical consequence on the outcome arising from difference between idealised and physical observers? Because you haven't really made a coherent point there either.

I just don't see how physical observers would end up making all the same predictions as idealized observers at physical extremes. I got the sense Everett was suggesting that relativity (time dilation anyways) "falls out" of a theory with internal observers.

 

[hecd2]

Newton: Time is absolute
Einstein: Time is relative

I understand that just fine.

I think it's simplistic, given what they wrote, but whatever. I made my point. You disagree. Whoopdee doo

I don't disagree with that - what makes you think I do? Of course it's simplistic - the detail is in the maths, but then you refuse or you are unable to learn it.

What is the point of this thread again? That the above is a false dilemma because there are two kinds of time? I certainly disagree with that.

Oh - and there is no physics which operates with "two types of time in the mathematics". And you certainly haven't been able to point to any such mathematics.

The example I gave is simulating a smartphone inside a supercomputer. Seems plausible to me.

Where's the maths? You still haven't been able to provide any.

It looks like Wolfram might stumble backwards into this.

https://content.wolfram.com/uploads/sites/43/2021/09/even-beyond-physics2.png

He says his new paradigm will require an observer to figure out what time is.

Good for Wolfram. Of course Wolfram has nothing to say about the physics. It's all about computation. It might help with the computation heavy tasks, but the physics is still done by the physicists. Meanwhile physicists distinguish between Newtonian mechanics and relativity. It's not a false dilemma.

I just don't see how physical observers would end up making all the same predictions as idealized observers at physical extremes. I got the sense Everett was suggesting that relativity (time dilation anyways) "falls out" of a theory with internal observers.

Well your sense got it wrong again. Relativity "falls out" of various observational problems in physics, in particular the measured constancy of light speed regardless of observer state of motion. What you see or don't see is entirely irrelevant as you don't know enough physics to have a well-formed intuition on the matter. For heaven's sake, you were suggesting less than 24 hours ago that:

A physical observer... [is] made of atoms, held together by the EM force. if it's particle are moving close to the same speed as the photons that hold it together, it should probably start to fail somehow.

Displaying a profound ignorance of several branches of physics at once. I have pointed out more than once that the predictions of SR have consequences in the real world and are tested billions of times a day by real observers. Do you take that in? No, it goes straight over your head and you just repeat the same gobbledegook.

 

[Mike Helland]

I have pointed out more than once that the predictions of SR have consequences in the real world and are tested billions of times a day by real observers. Do you take that in? No, it goes straight over your head and you just repeat the same gobbledegook.

I'm not disputing that at all.

You're making assumptions about what my point is, and you're mistaken.

My point is that "relative time is what a clock measures", and with a massive enough simulation, we should be able to model an observer making a clock reading, which would be an example of Everett's relative state interpretation.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not disputing that at all.

You're making assumptions about what my point is, and you're mistaken.

My point is that "relative time is what a clock measures", and with a massive enough simulation, we should be able to model an observer making a clock reading, which would be an example of Everett's relative state interpretation.

What's wrong with the full scale experimental apparatus we're currently using? There's no need to simulate the universe, when we have the universe itself ready to hand.