Question about broken clock and Heisenberg

[Dorian Gray]

On another forum I made a comment "a broken clock is right twice a day". Someone brought up Heisenberg Uncertainty as why a broken clock cannot be right - but that refers to particles, not clocks.

I said that time is subjective, so given the right set of subjects observing the broken clock, it could not only be right twice per day, it could be right all day long. I also said that since time is subjective, there is not one absolute correct time.

Here is the link:
http://forums.crgaming.com/eqbb/viewtopic.php?t=89949&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

It's on the second page of a thread about John Titor.

Ignore all the sniping, please. My question is: Who is right?

Is a broken clock correct twice per day? All day? Never?
Is the clock subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

I wouldn't care so much, but I can't stand this particular person I am arguing against. To give you an idea why, he thinks Rush Limbaugh is getting harsh and unfair treatment by the liberal media.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Looking at it in our point of view-to plan our day and meet with each other at the same 'time' for meetings, meals, etc.
Then the broken clock is only right twice a day.

Since time is concept that would be different on a planet that orbits a sun every 200 hundred days and has only 10 hours of light and 10 hours of dark at any given point on the planet, then it really would be off if it was broken at "11:00".

Depends on the perspective.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Well, I meant it basically as a saying. But I guess if taken literally, I meant it to be on Earth, at a constant altitude and rotation.

 

[DanishDynamite]

A broken clock is correct twice a day if it is a 12-hour clock and if it moved in descrete intervals (say, 1 second intervals). In that case we don't need to measure the position of the hand, we can just take it for given that the time shown is exactly whatever descrete position the clock hand arrived at before it broke. Heisenberg doesn't enter into the equation.

Suppose the clock stopped at 04:00:00. At some point the exact time at the clock's position on Earth is 03:59:59. At some point it is 04:00:01. At some point in between in must have been 04:00:00.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I was also wondering about the leap year thing. We have to do that because we fall behind a bit in our time keeping? I don't think it matters though. We have measured the whole earth day quite accurately.

 

[Dancing David]

Woo woo woo woo woo woo

I hope that Mr. Gray, that you are not the Grunthuss2

he posted this following charmer.

""
It is in fact impossible to simultaneously determine the exact position of and velocity of any object at any point in time... not just "particles" (of which, it should be pointed out, everything is made, so the inability to deterime velocity & position of the one applies to the other as well.)

In order to use a clock to determine "exact time," one must ascertain the exact poistion of the clock's mechanism at an exact point in time - - which is per Heisenberg impossible.

Clocks can only approximate the "correct" time (which is part of COB's assertion, above.)

If a clock is broken such that it's parts are no longer moving, the exact position of it's components can be determined to nearly perfect accuracy... but you cannot accurately determine the point in time when the broken clock is "right" because the above argument regarding Heisenberg applies to any functioning clock you would be using to ajudge the "rightness" of the broken clock by.


""


It is in fact impossible to simultaneously determine the exact position of and velocity of any object at any point in time... not just "particles" (of which, it should be pointed out, everything is made, so the inability to deterime velocity & position of the one applies to the other as well.)



Unless this person is just making some relatavistic claim that the position of macro level objects can not be know with certainty, the are a poseur. The exact position and velocity vector can be found to a very high degree in the macro world. Otherwise armies wouldn't use bullets. This sound like some sort bizzare creation science logic to me.

The statement implies that they don't believe in particles and that they don't know squat about how HIP works. The inability to determione the velocity and position of a particle does not effect the agregate location of macro objects. Otherwise you couldn't feed yourself.



In order to use a clock to determine "exact time," one must ascertain the exact poistion of the clock's mechanism at an exact point in time - - which is per Heisenberg impossible.



this person then contradicts themselves by mentioning the fact that time is relative. To determine the clocks position in time is not effected by the HIP, this person doesn't really know what it means. You can determine the position of fixed mechanical objects to a very high degree of accuracy.


this person is a dufus, I will try to read more, they are right, time is relative and therefore always an approximation. But some of those approxiamation can devide the second into a billion pieces.

 

[Ziggurat]

A broken clock is as right twice per day as a working clock is all day. Beyond that, there's no point in specifying a broken clock in the question.

 

[BillyJoe]

A broken clock is as right twice per day as a working clock is all day.

Well, if that "working clock" runs slow or fast it will hardly ever show the correct time (unless it runs slow or fast real fast ). If it runs accurately but is set on the incorrect time, it will never show the correct time (unless it coincides with a periodic time correction ).

BillyJoe

 

[Ladewig]

To give you an idea why, he thinks Rush Limbaugh is getting harsh and unfair treatment by the liberal media.

I'm afraid to look. Does he describe what appropriate and fair media treatment for this story would consist of? Does he believe Rush supplied appropriate and fair treatment of Vince Foster's death? Not that the lack of the latter is in any way justification for lack of the former - I'm just curious as to what constitutes "fair and balanced" in his opinion.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Here is a completely non-sarcastic post by Grunthos2 about Rush:

I for one, openly wish him well and hope he can get control of his problem.

Even if you don't like him or agree with him, I think you can admit that making this public to millions of people who have looked up to him, had to hurt like hell. A lot of people would have run and hid, or tried to place blame, or tried to lie or ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ their way out of doing so.

I know a lot of the people in this forum dislike him, maybe even hate him, and disagree with most everything he says. I don't agree with him on a lot of stuff, and I do on others; I have found his show entertaining often.

Beyond that though, I hope that if I ever have to take a big fall in public(knock wood), I hope I can do it with that much... humility.

And as I suspected, the HIP applies mainly to the subatomic level.