In a gravitational field of a homogeneous spherical mass M, a sufficiently small mass B, compared to M, is left free in the gravitational field of M at a certain distance H from the center of mass, outside his surface. B gains speed, relative to the center of mass M, because of gravitational attraction. Many small objects like B free fall from different heights or from the same height at different instants.
Every object has an atomic clock on board. Would these clocks have the same clock-rates during the free fall?
A reference, master clock has to be adopted, otherwise the problem is ill posed. Clock-rates are refererred to an atomic clock on the surface of M for example (negligible M rotation speed).
The time elapsed for each body to go from the same starting and ending point counted by the atomic clocks on board is certainly the same (UFF).
Their clock rate should be different, in general, unless they start from the same position and instant. Not because light takes less time to reach the closest, since they are in different positions, but because there exists a relation between the very small object and the massive object.
I would like your opinion regarding this problem.
The oscillator of the Atomic clock is the Cesium atom, which has its natural frquency like the frequency of the light wave. As the light wave undergoes gravitational frequency shift, in the same way frequency of the Cesium atom would also suffer gravitational frequency shift. Therefore their rate will be different and will depend on their distance from the source of gravitation.
Stefano ~
In the immediate locality of an object freely falling in a gravitational field there is an “inertial frame” relative to which it is at rest. Since, by hypothesis, physical laws are the same in all inertial frames, all freely falling clocks will measure time in exactly the same way. Of course, if the rate of one of those clocks is assessed from one of the other frames the rate will appear to be different, but that’s not “time dilation” it’s just the Doppler effect. As viewed by us, standing on the surface of the earth, objects freely falling in the Earth’s gravitational field gain speed relative to us. We call that “acceleration due to gravity”. But we are not “inertial observers”. Each freely falling object has zero acceleration for the appropiate inertial observer – ie, for an observer falling alongside it.
In SR and GR the invariant definition of acceleration of an object following any trajectory is √ (AiAi) where Ai = UjUi;j and Ui is the tangent vector to the worldline (the “four-velocity”). According to GR freely falling objects follow geodesics, for which Ai = 0.
Eric,
first of all thanks for your prompt answer.
"Each freely falling object has zero acceleration for the appropiate inertial observer – ie, for an observer falling alongside it."
Obvious, no distance, no speed, it is like being the same object...
"Of course, if the rate of one of those clocks is assessed from one of the other frames the rate will appear to be different but that’s not “time dilation” it’s just the Doppler effect"
You say "appear" to be different
The doppler effect is a first order effect due to speed and it regards energy variation of electromagnetic quanta.
Falling clocks which were left fall in the same instant but different hight from a tower would experience no redshif/blueshif between eachother.
This is a result to which I think you agree
This tells that there is a compensation between the doppler shift (due to their speed, first order effect) and the gravitational Redshift (due to second order effects of gravitation).
The VESSOT and LEVINE GP-A experiment was the transmission of photons between earth and an object in ballistic trajectory (free falling).
The doppler frequency shift was eliminated with a double transmission (almost) in order to isolate the General Relativty effects, like the inertial and gravitational time dilation.
Once this first order effect was eliminated, the clock theory appears clearly, stating that the maser clock on board has different rates according to the level where it is located.
So the difference between the free falling clock and the clock on earth varies, not apparently but actually.
For the transitivity of the clock-rates, every free falling clock will posess a different clock rate.
"In SR and GR the invariant definition of acceleration of an object following any trajectory is √ (AiAi) where Ai = UjUi;j and Ui is the tangent vector to the worldline (the “four-velocity”). According to GR freely falling objects follow geodesics, for which Ai = 0."
As far as I know the clock-rates are influenced by the energies at stake, not by accelerations.
Conflicting arguments about time dilation arise because time does not have a physical existence. Linear time moving in one direction is just the imagination of human mind. Even period of the wave T is an imaginary concept. Frequency has a physical existence and that is the only thing that can be measured. Then using the relation T=1/f you can only deduce the period. You can never directly measure the period or time without the help of an oscillator. So one side of the equation you have an imaginary quantity which does not exist and on other side you have a measurable quantity with a physical existence. So instead of talking about time if we only talk about frequency, all the confusion will go away. Cosmologists generally deal with the world time which is almost same throughout the universe. The effect of time dilation is usually very small. Most of the time it is of order 10^{-8} to 10^{-10} sec. or some similar very small number.
@Johan,
" since that would mean that a coherent light source must have different frequencies within different inertial reference frames"
Not exactly. Coherent light has Always the same frequency in a gravitational field, but it is the way the atoms (clocks) absorb it that it makes us appear different. Atoms at different gravitational potentials, at least in the gravitational field of Earth and weak fields, don't have the same absorption capabilities.
" then the Doppler shift cannot be used to determine relative speeds!"
it can be used but in a gravitational field we have to consider also the altered capabilities of the atoms at different gravitational potential in the detection of EM quanta frequency. So a conversion factor has to be adopted.
Dear Johan,
if phyiscs is an experimental science, I have to make experiments with something.
Atomic clocks are very reliable oscillators as far as I know.
Until somebody finds something else to measure time, we have those.
Their behaviour is in Agreement with the prediction of GR.
What else can I say...
Compare each clock with the period of a master clock as I wrote in the text of the question.
Twin maser oscillators, clocks, are on the same place on the ground station (they are the master clocks) syncronised.
Twin maser A,B oscillators, clocks, are left at once from an height APO (apogee) maintaining with good approximation the distance H between eachother for a sufficient long time.
All the masers posess the same (proper) frequencies.
Earth rotation negligible,
trajectory of the two free falling oscillators normal (no transverse speed) to the ground such that they exactly fall into the ground base.
One oscillator on the ground base shoots his beam always to the same falling clock.
The clock falling shoots back directly the received photons to the ground base station.
Each oscillator falling A,B shoots its respective maser beams to the ground station.
The ground station receives four maser beams. Two originating from the f falling clocks and two bounced from the ffalling clocks.
The doppler effect of the first order in the beam originated by each ffalling clock in both cases can be cancelled by applying this bouncing maser beam (as in the Gravity probe A experiment, first order doppler cancellation system).
For every clock in the ground base, it is possible to obtain the frequency difference between the photons incoming and the local ones due only to the General relativistic effects, since the first order doppler effect has been cancelled (with good approximation).
The GRT effects on the frequency of the photons are due to the difference of clock-rate between the receiver and emitter. The clock rates of the twin falling clocks now can be compared in the ground station.
The additional information to be considered is that they are at H distance from eachother and an additional tracking position is necessary in order to compare the signals with the effects matematically described by GRT.
Dear Johan,
the classical doppler effect without the relativistic part (LORENTZ factor).
Dear Johan ~
Can you help me to understand precisely at which point you believe that my understanding of the meaning of Einstein’s relativity goes wrong? I’m having real difficulty understanding your total rejection of Minkowski’s formulation (which, according to you, is “absurd”), while accepting the Lorentz transformation. That to me seems inconsistent.
Let me explain my interpetation with an analogy. In plane Euclidean geometry, we can employ a Cartesian coordinate system, and we can change the coordinate axes to get from one such system to another:
x’ = xcosθ + ysinθ, y’ = −zsinθ + ycosθ (1)
The measure of length along any curve is then given by
ds2 = dx2 + dy2 (2)
in all Cartesian systems. It is invariant under rotations.
Now consider, instead, changes of coordinate system of the form
x’ = xcoshχ + ysinhχ, y’ = xsinhχ + ycoshχ (3)
For these ‘hyperbolic rotations’, an invariant measure of “length” along any curve is ds2 = −dx2 + dy2 (4)
The plane, with this structure imposed on it, is a 2-dimensional analogue of Minkowski spacetime.
There is no physics here. We are only dealing with a change of coordinate axes. The physics comes from the hypothesis that every choice of coordinate axes consistent with this prescription establishes an appropriate coordinate system for an “inertial frame”. If we change the notation, writing ct in place of y and tanhχ = v/c, then (3) is a Lorentz transformation and (when ds2 is positive) ds is the measure of proper time along any trajectory. Some straight lines have zero “length”, but they nevertheless exist as real lines in the plane and are interpreted as trajectories (worldlines) of light rays.
Note that there is no distortion of time, the unit of “proper time” (a “second”, say) is the same along any “timelike” curve - unchanged by a change of coordinate system, just as in the Euclidean plane the unit of length (a”centimeter”) is unaffected by a change of coordinate system. There are no distortions of time. All "clocks" run at the same rate.
I’m aware that you are familiar with all of this. I’ve spelled it out in simple and basic terms, not to be pedantic or condescending, but because I’m genuinely trying to find out precisely where you see flaws in it.
On the other hand, if you are in agreement with all of this, how do you account for the result that, of all timelike curves connecting two points A and B, the one with the greatest “proper time” is a straight line - ie, the worldline of an inertial observer? (Just as, in the Euclidean plane, a straight line is the curve of shortest distance between two points.) That, of course, is the so-called twin “paradox” – which to me is no paradox. It does appear either to rule out the possibility of a universal time, or to contradict the identification of “proper time” with “clock time”.
Dear Johan ~
Thank you for taking the time to formulate a careful reply. I admit to not having read Minkowski’s original presentation (Phys. Z. 10, 1909). Clearly, I should do so. Possibly my confusion over what you are saying comes from the fact that there are two ways of interpreting the transformation – as an ‘active’ transformation in which, in the same coordinate system, every point (x, t) is shifted to a different position (x’, t’) in spacetime and only the origin stays fixed, and the ‘passive’ interpretation, in which the same point is relabled (x’, t’) by shifting the coordinate axes. Clearly, you have the latter interpretation in mind. We are in agreement, that in either case it is absurd to interpret both t and t’ as “clock times”.
You say, correctly, that the clock at 0 cannot coincide with the clock at 0’ for all times because those origins have a relative velocity, and conclude that must have the Galilean requirement x = x’ + vt. But some factor gamma is allowed by that argument: x = gamma(x’ + vt). The gamma factor and the Doppler shift are obviously intimately related. I can see that. But I have trouble accepting the idea that they are the same thing.
Your insistence on Newton’s “absolute time”, the same for all “clocks”, troubles me. Does that not require a “preferred inertial frame” (“all inertial frames are equal but one is more equal than the others”…)? And does it not invalidate the physical relevance of “proper times” as conventionally defined?
I’ve thought about the conventional interpetation of relativity for many years, and still cannot see any inconsistency in it. Nevertheless, I have no vested interest in defending it and it is refreshing to think about it from a different angle. You have given me “food for thought”.
Dear Johan,
"""Why do you even mention the "classical" Doppler effect when talking about light-waves? The "classical" Doppler effect is only valid for waves moving within a medium. Light-waves do not move within a medium. If they did, the speed of light would not be the same relative to all moving bodies in the universe."""
First the space-time has an impedance, light speed c=1/sqrt(mu0*epsilon0) with electric and magnetic constants, and this is not a casual thing.
Let's reverse the problem...... The vacuum is the only medium, every other impedances of materials depend on that, since atoms in materials are 99% void, so they just alter the impedance of the vacuum.
As far as I know MIchaelson and Moreley experiment tested the speed of light in their local frame of reference, and this is always c in the vacuum.
From different reference frames, space-time can be easily considered a medium with variable speed of light according to the distribution of the masses. Einstein got the light deflection phenomeon with the right angle, thanks to this consideration(EDDINGTON, EINSTEIN), Shapiro proved the variable light speed with the two way beam.
Regarding the doppler effect, I agree that the general expression with the Lorenz factor should be adopted, but since GRT already accounts for such factor, it is the case to break it in two parts in order to avoid to count it twice.
The doppler effect is obtained by applying the conservation of energy and momentum (NOETHER), and considering quantum emission from an atom and absorption by another atom. The relative speed between source and observer is what determines the influence of the LORENZ factor. If their relative speed is low the LORENZ factor is negligible.
Dear Johan,
You said:
"Why do you even mention the "classical" Doppler effect when talking about light-waves? The "classical" Doppler effect is only valid for waves moving within a medium. Light-waves do not move within a medium. If they did, the speed of light would not be the same relative to all moving bodies in the universe."
I mention it because that contribution when you have low speed is the one that really counts, the second order part or the relativistic contribution is significative only at high speeds. In order to isolate the relativistic part a cancellation system for the first order effect is set up... This is the tecnique used on the VESSOT AND LEVINE experiment or Gravity probe A experiment, which tested in real time the LPI (local position invariance).
Dear Johan,
"The MOST reliable oscillator in the world is a coherent light-source. If the frequency of a coherent light source does not change when the gravitational potential changes, as you have just claimed, then time itself cannot change when the gravitational potential changes. QED."
I think it is different, radiation exiting from a laser coherent source or the laser coherent source itself. The laser coherent source is tied to the fermions, the radiant energy is not anymore. This is the difference. Radiant energy is not massive, while tied energy is.
Dear Johan,
"You are correct that the stationary wave within the laser cavity has only rest-mass energy, NOT because this wave is "tied to the fermions" but because it is a SINGLE continuous Maxwell equilibrium-wave within a relfecting cavity."
I would propose: variable EM field in the cavity (massive), EM wave outside.(not massive).
"Nonetheless, I think it is a waste of time to argue that clocks "create" time .They do not. They only MEASURE time and measure different times when the physics affects their frequencies: like you correctly pointed out that changescin epsilon0 and mu0 do. However, this does not change time, since time MUST be everywhere THE SAME for everything in the universe to co-exist at all instants of time."
I really think the internal pace of objects, like atomic clocks is modified by gravitation,
and this is what happens with atomic clocks which delay.
I strongly believe that gravitation acts on the speed of light and this slows down approaching to massive objects, no matter which direction light has, just slows down. This determines how we locally perceive time..
.
Dear Johan,
we are talking basically about the same things from different point of views, I think.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
your affirmation is equivalent to say that TIME is the one we could measure with atomic clocks only far away from celestial bodies (inter-galactic space)....any other measurement is altered by the effect of variable speed of light due to nearby massive objects.
"This is obviously what must happen: For example a photon-wave that approaches an atomic electron-wave MUST slow down so that it STOPS when absorbed by the electron wave."
The EM energy packet totally transmutes at once when the quantum absorption is performed by fermions, in compliance with the conservation laws... The fact that it slows down is something too similar to our classical conception.... It collapses in an interval of "time" according to the indetermination principle, we will never know exactly when.
Maybe it is not a well posed problem to ask how long it takes to perform such energy-mass transformation, maybe it is a Planck time...so far we only can say that the Heisemberg Principle keeps it private from indiscreet eyes...
Stefano ~
"The 'classical' Doppler effect is only valid for waves moving within a medium. Light-waves do not move within a medium".
What a strange thing to say. Measuring red shifts and blue shifts is part of the astronomers' well-established routine method of determining the motions of heavenly bodies. A 'medium' has nothing to do with the Doppler effect.
@Eric
I didn't say this..
"The 'classical' Doppler effect is only valid for waves moving within a medium. Light-waves do not move within a medium".
I say:
The doppler effect of light is only relativistic, but we can consider the first order factor contribution, the classical, dependent on the direction and the second order factor, the LORENZ FACTOR or transverse doppler effect, independent on the direction.
The classical doppler effect is a valid approximation in the conditions where the contribution of the gamma factor can be considered negligible, relative to low speeds and the accuracy we are trying to acheive.
Johan,
you said:
Time is only measured by a clock. And the clock can measure time incorrectly when it finds itsefl under different physics-conditions. Thus, the conditions under which the unit is defined must be specified; and these conditions are different for clocks having different mechanisms.
_____
Your objections are fare...that the "oness" of the universe is preserved by time, being the same everywhere, otherwise we could not interact with eachother... but then an alternative "operative" definition of time has to be found, .. MIssing an alternative "operative" definition, we have to force the assumption that the "physical TIME" is what is measured by atomic clocks.. with the consequences that this definition brings...
Dear Johan,
I agree that in every reference frame the speed of light is Always c in vacuum because there are experiments to confirm it.
Operative definition means something which can be usable in experiments.. atomic clocks are suitable to do that... that's all.. and time so far has been "defined" accordingly..even if it is not the time you are referring to... atomic clocks don't measure the absolute time, but only the "proper time", influenced by bodies around...
To be very rigorous it cannot be said that "Time" is not aboslute...we can only say that the "entity" we defined, thanks to atomic clocks, is relative...
Johan ~
Ok, I understand your point of view. But I have a problem with it:
The most accurate and reliable clocks we have are based on the energy levels of the cesium atom. Experimentally, two such clocks at different positions in the Earth's gravitational field have been shown to run at different rates. It's hard to see how that can be accounted for by appealing to the effect of the gravitational field on the atoms. The electromagnetic forces that bind the electons to the nucleus (and determine the frequency of the radiation emitted by transitions) are known to be stronger than the effect of the gravitational field on the atom, by a colossal factor. The Earth's gravitational field ought to be far too weak to account for the discrepancy in clock times that's actually observed.
Dear Eric,
"The electromagnetic forces that bind the electons to the nucleus (and determine the frequency of the radiation emitted by transitions) are known to be stronger than the effect of the gravitational field on the atom, by a colossal factor"
For sure this does not depend on the gravitational attraction...
It depends on the gravitational potential which is related to the variable speed of light, (EINSTEIN the meaning of relativity and the experiment of SHAPIRO DELAY) which locally accounts for the speed of any physical interaction, involving energy transfer (nuclear interaction included). If I measure it in any reference frame it is c.
If I watch the whole solar system for example (from EDDINGTON space, time and gravitation) I will experience that the speed of the signals slow down.
If the speed of light varies, all the processes relevant to it vary..
At least it seems there are some issues...
Anyway I would like to make the point in which maybe most of you will agree
a) The clock-rates of free falling atomic clocks measured by an atomic master clock on the surface of Earth are different according to the instant speed and instant gravitational potential of the clocks. (is in Agreement with the Schwarzshild solution)
b) Differences do not depend on the fact that speed of light takes different times to reach each falling clock from the master clock.
Charles,
"Einstein showed in relativity that it is an illusion caused by measurement."
You mean that in General Relativity, Time dilation is an illusion caused by measurement... Atomic clocks were not there yet, ( though LORENTZ made some experiments)... so the meaning of measurement needs to be clarified... at least it is not clear what is meant
Dear Johan,
it has to be recognised though that GRT has been tested successfully, at least regarding the closed solution of Karl Schwarzshild (non Minkowskyan space-time), on pheonmena like, gravitational lensing, precession of perihelia, and time shift of atomic clocks in gravitational potential... Beyond the capabilites of Newtonian Gravity ....
I notice though that GRT looks frozen ......missing something about dynamics
Dear Johan,
"Succesfull fits to experimental data does not necessarily prove that the theory is correct."
My approach is more optimistic..I don't think we are in front of Epicycles, though your warning is quite fare... I would better classify the standard model as such...
I think that for GRT a very widely shared interpretation is needed.... .also regarding the role of the EEP (WEP, LPI, LLI) and inertial systems in general... which does not convince me at all..and not only me. It would be a pity though to "throw away the baby with the bath water"...
Ok now let's go back to the free falling oscillators, in a gravitational potential.
they emit same frequencies and if set them in the "same" place, negligible distance between eachother, we don't register any frequency shift.
From a "master" oscillator on the surface of Earth, getting rid of the first order doppler effect (cancelling mechanism), which has a very high influence on the frequencies transmitted, we notice a frequency shift due to the general relativistic effects, a blue-shift of the photons. The frequency shift is due to the speed difference of the oscillators and their gravitational potential difference with the master clock.
This way every falling oscillator experiences a frequency shift with the master clock. Such frequency shift is different from each oscillator.
In such way I can compare the instant frequency of each oscillator with the master clock and for transitivity, the frequency of each oscillator between eachother.
The frequency shift between each free falling clock will be this way different from zero.
This difference is now independent from the master clock...
Dear Johan,
did you ever read this paper, it is very interesting... I found it in another thread
Feigenbaum, M. J. (2008). The Theory of Relativity - Galileo's Child. Retrieved from
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1234
Dear Johan,
"Thanks for the reference. I quickly looked at the abstract and could not see anything new in the approach. It has been all along obvious to me and should have been obvious already in 1905 that: "special relativity is purely an extension of Galileo’s thoughts"."
Sure, it was only to present you somebody else who started from Galieleo who has still something to tell us regardless of 400 years of Science...
"Galileo's MOMENTOUS insight was to conclude that you can do no experiment "within" an inertial reference frame to determine if you are moving or not moving unless you "look outside" this reference frame. Thus, if you measure the speed of light within any inertial refrence frame "without looking outside", you must measure the SAME speed; or else you will know whether you are moving or not moving."
The inertial reference frame without looking outside in general has to be considered carefully though.
The term intertial was defined when only "forces" acting on "masses" were known.
This is for sure a necessary condition to be undisturbed in doing experiments. It might not be suffcient though...
The term not looking outside, is more stringent.... it means that there is no way for anybody inside the laboraty to detect external influences
Any possible "influences" of the external evironment are absent inside the laboratory.... this would be a sufficient condition to perform experiments...
The possiblity to make experiments implies the inertiality but not vice versa.
The possiblity to make experiments is connected to the detection of all external influences, and "external influences" for example can be detected with atomic clocks in the free falling and orbiting laboratory, basically infringing the Einstein equivalence principle which denies the possiblity to detect a gravitational field from inside of them.
"What Lorentz, Poincare and Einstein missed is that this demands that a relativistic coordinate-transformation must always be unidirectional: It has no inverse which can be used to transform the transformed physics (from the second to the first reference frame) back into the reference frame (second reference frame) in which it is actually occurring when not "looking outside". "
This is intersting...a sort of irreversibility driven out of concepts...
I think anyway that not considering masses or center of masses one cannot go anywhere, ambiguities rise from it...The special relativity worked quite well so far in scattering experiments because there is a center of mass for the scattering... and external forces can be neglected in average due to the high intensity of the interactions.
Dear Johan.
I have to read carefully your paper on Lorentz transformation to understand fully what you are affirming, and to realize if your point of view is in Agreement with the experiments already performed. I found very recently some interesting results, suggested also by the famous textbook of VLADIMIR FOCK which might have a connection with what you say..
Sorry, but at first glance the discussion here essentially relates to two points: there exists or no “absolute spacetime”? and “is it possible or not to detect absolute (in the AS) motion "without looking outside" [given reference frame]”?.
At that it seems, that here should be some clearing of the applied notions, first of all - relating to the notion “absolute spacetime”. Here is (at least, of course) two senses of this notion:
(1) - “absolute-1” means, that the existence of the spacetime doesn’t depend on some observer and/ or on the instruments that the observer uses to study the spacetime, and
(2) - “absolute-2” means also, that the state of the spacetime doesn’t depend on some observer and/ or on the instruments that the observer uses to study the spacetime.
In the special relativity given spacetime is, of course, absolute - as “absolute-1”, since any coordinate transformation has some sense only if there is some “absolute” manifold (here spacetime), then the every “absolute point” of this manifold is the same point in all possible coordinate systems. The Lorentz transformations are just such transformations.
The difference of “relativistic” and true approaches appears when relating to the “absolute-2” notion. In the SR (and in the GR, though) the spacetime is a continuum (the relativistic assertion that the real spacetime is “pceudoeuclidian” – is something “strange” and non-observable also, but here that isn’t essential). And, since the continuum can be transformed (in the mathematics) with changes of scales, in the relativity it is postulated, that at Lorentz transformations the scales in different inertial reference frames indeed , really, are different.
Though to state such a postulate it would be rather useful to explain – what is the space? time? How some observer by using his “reference frame” really changes the scales - “contracts space”, “dilates time”, etc.?
Neither SR nor GR don’t touch these “undesirable” questions; when there cannot be answers in these theories; simply because of their inadequacy to the reality.
The true answer is that the real spacetime is both - “absolute-1” and “absolute-2”, it exists without changes independently on – is something placed in this “contaienr”, or not; moves this something or not; there is some observer, or not; etc.
As to the second point - there are a lot of methods to measure absolute motion "without looking outside" – some as a rather convenient way - see http://viXra.org/abs/1311.0190
Cheers
I agree with the absoluteness of the space-time.
There are changes according to the distribution of the masses/energy...
Dear Johan,
according to your opinion how can the coordinate speed of light change if I do not admit a further dimension???
I agree with you that the Minkowsky space-time with one dimension depending on Others is something misleading because matematically the dimensions are born independent... so how is it possible to express the same concepts of slowing processes?? Because it is AN INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT that processes SLOW DOWN relatively in presence of inertia (angular momentum) or gravitation....
It seems necessary to attempt to clear the discussion here next time, though the text below is some repeat of posts that are in the Gate already (for example – see https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sergey_Shevchenko/answers?ev=prf_ans ).
So – to say something about the space, the time and the spacetime, it is necessary before to define/ understand – what are those notions. And – since these notions are Meta-physical, they cannot be properly defined “inside physics” – as well “inside mainstream philosophy”, though. But in the “Information as Absolute” conception the notions are defined in sufficient extent rigorously (see http://viXra.org/abs/1402.0173 ; sections “Space and Time” and “Zeno aporias”, http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003 ).
In the conception “space” and “time” – since there is nothing in reality besides some informational patterns/systems/structures that are elements of absolutely infinite “Information” Set
– are some universal rules/ possibilities that control the existence of separate (“concrete”) elements and the informational exchange (“interactions”) between the elements in the Set. I.e. – space and time are some universal “grammar” rules (and possibilities), which states that for existence of an fixed element or a group fixed elements is necessary to exist a “space” – i.e. – paper sheet; and if there is a group of elements then to be different they must be separated by “non-zero space intervals”. Time defines/controls that to exist some changes in an element is necessary to exist a possibility to change and non-zero “time interval”.
Specifically in the concrete informational system “Matter” the “paper sheet” is the 3D “container”.
But a motion of an element “ particle” in the 3D space means simultaneously some changing of the system (if there is a number of fixed elements. In Matter this number much more 1) of elements – so the rule “space” is similar, in certain sense, to the rule “time” – and, in this Matter, - conversely.
So, in this Matter the space and the time as rules/possibilities constitute 4D “Euclidian container” – the 4D Euclidian spacetime, where space and time coordinates are in many features equivalent; and (why – see the links above) the changes in position state (“spatial changes”) and changes in internal state of any Matter’s element on the fundamental level are equal –or the change of internal state is a step in the time – as the step in the space; at that the steps are equal - there is “equal footing”.
Since any particle has always 4 degrees of freedom to change position or internal state and, since the degrees are independent, the spacetime is principally “Cartesian” – the t-axes is always orthogonal to every spatial ditrection.
Since at Beginning every material object was created as some “materialization” (more – see the links) of energy, the elements cannot stop changings and always move, having some energy, in the absolute spacetime with identical 4D speeds that have the absolute value be equal to the speed of light.
The elements that are at rest relating to the 3D space, move in the [“coordinate” – see the links] time only with the speed of light. If such an element obtain additional spatial momentum – the element becomes to move in the space also, thus – as that Pythagoras has said – its speed in time (the temp of internal changes) slows down on the(1/ Lorentz factor).
If the element is unstable, say, muon – consequently it lives longer.
And in concrete situations for the element one or the other (or all) “relativistic effect” can appear – more see http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4657 ; to understand basic principles of the SR (more correctly - of the Lorentz theory, SR is true till doesn’t go out the LT), and something more it is enough to know the Pythagorean theorem.
But all these “effects” happen only if a concrete material object was impacted by a concrete material force. Nothing at that happens with the spacetime, it is “absolute 2”; there are no ways how the spacetime can be impacted/ changed…
Cheers
And – returning to the thread’s topic “Is the clock rate of free falling clocks the same?
- The rate slows down because of (1) - the potential energy of the system – say, Earth +clock decreases;so that is the result of - “gravitational mass defect” – when some steps in the clock’s internal processes becomes “be spent” on the gravity interactions;
and (2) + there is “kinematical” slowing down, since the clock moves.
- But there is no “spacetime curvature” and corresponding “gravitational time dilation”.
- Cheers
@Sergey Shevchenko ·
And – returning to the thread’s topic “Is the clock rate of free falling clocks the same?
- The rate slows down because of (1) - the potential energy of the system – say, Earth +clock decreases;so that is the result of - “gravitational mass defect” – when some steps in the clock’s internal processes becomes “be spent” on the gravity interactions;
and (2) + there is “kinematical” slowing down, since the clock moves.
- But there is no “spacetime curvature” and corresponding “gravitational time dilation”.
if the clockrates are different, there will be time dilation during the free fall according to their speed and position, the first one will have more delay than the following.
Once they touch the ground there will not be anymore a dilation (if they survive the crash), since every clock will have undergone the same motion laws.
Dear Johan,
actually you are not the only one who regards QUANTUM VACUUM as a refractive medium when considering light....(lightwise)...
Wills Lamb won the Nobel price for Zero Point Energy, and Quantum electrodynamics is based on the Vacuum Energy...
OK Charles,
I should have said QCD, sorry, in the paper of Sean Carrol "The cosmological constant" the expected contribution of the Quantum vacuum energy is 1.6 *1036 erg/cm3 estimated by Murray Gellman who had to suppose such a very high vacuum energy density in order to make his model work..
Charles,
you expect me to believe you instead of what Gell Mann said??
Who said the things you are saying, are you consulting the ORACLE??
Charles,
all the collective quantum phyiscs is based on quantum vacuum coupling of fermions and bosons..
the Mossbauer effect is based on nuclear coupling otherwise, unexplainable...
the collective polinuclear superradiance is based on the vacuum energy oscillations..
(SKOROBOGATOV, DZIEVITSKII) experiments...experiments....experiments
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics