Time is relative, playing devils advocate with myself..and maybe you..
October 22, 2009
In the past I have pretty vehemently stated that I don't believe time is relative. That matter is relative, time is stable, and sometimes we mix up our perceptions or our lack of understanding of matter with our understanding of time, and as such get erroneous results when we perceive time to be relative.
However, I sometimes look over at the abandonned lawn on the other side of the fence and wonder why its still growing so well and still looks trimmed.
I've started to think about, assuming that time is relative, how or why that could or would be. In the past I have stated that I think of time as an all encompassing cube of advancing time. Whatever the size of the universe, time completely envolops it. Further more, at the time, I was talking about the universe as we know/perceive it today. From the big bang, to our current understanding of a constantly expanding universe. However, from this point on, when I say the beginning of time, I mean from the very first moment anything happened, at all. Which would probably far predate the big bang. When I say the end of time, I refer to a state in which time might actually still occur, but in which there has been an absolute break down of everything else, and there is no matter whatsoever left in the universe.
Assuming my cube of time analogy is correct, I have two potential explanations of why I think time might seem or even be relative.
If the complete universe is fixed. (This means regardless of whatever is happening in the universe, there is a fixed and finite edge that can be reached at some point in time.):
If the unviverse is fixed and finite, then there can only be so much time that can fit in the universe. Just as you measure the volume of a box in terms of L X W X H you would add X Tcbe (the complete length of time from the beginning of existance to the end) to get the complete volume of existance. Now, assume that time marches on regardless of the existance of matter. If that is the case, the amount off time that matter exists actually starts to get relatively smaller per second in the total scheme of time the universe can generate of ongoing time. Think of it this way. If you had a timeline bar, and that timeline bar is exactly one foot long no matter what amount of time you are presenting on it, then any event on that bar gets pushed closer and closer to the beginning of time as more time adds to the end of the bar. As this happens all the events and time instants on the bar compress and get smaller and smaller in perspective. Now imagine that everything that has existed in those time instances are overlapping the timeline. Those items are affected by time, can perceive time where conciousness is available, but might not realize that every second they live, they don't get closer to the end of time, but to the beginning of time. If we can never divide anything in half to the point where we run out of material, perhaps time works off the same limitation. As the amount of time keeps growing, the smaller the time has to physically be in order to fit in that complete timeline. If we can't run out of matter by eternally cutting it in half, then perhaps we can't run out of time by eternally doubling it. But if we keep doubling it, it still has to fit in that timeline, and as such, which each tick of the clock, time actually becomes a smaller increment. The total amount of time double, the physical space in the over all timeline that time inhabits halves. So, if you were to go somewhere at a high rate of speed, and then return, its possible that you have gained some time, because every second you were traveling, time actually got smaller and smaller from the perspective of the moment of time that you returned.
As an example, if you had five quarters lined up as a representaion of five units of time, and for now lets pretend that you would go to a smaller coin in order of coin size each time you moved forward one second in time. Now put your finger on the first coin, and that is second number one. Move your finger to the next coin In the second second,but you'd replace the coins with however many nickles fit in the same space that the quarters did and put your finger on the last of that coin denomination that woud match where the second second would end. Repeat the process: in the third second you'd have however many pennies fit in that same space, in the fourth second however many dimes would fit in that same space, and in the fifth second, some other smaller coin. My point is, you traveled five seconds, but in that time, you created more increments of time by simply increasing the amount of time. If you made the return trip, the coins that fill that same time line would get smaller still. Physically time will seem the same to us. But some objects (including us) may actually age faster as a result of this effect. So thats my first explanation.
Next, lets assume that that the universe is not fixed. That it is constantly expanding and growing.
Technically if the universe/space is constantly expanding, growing, increasing... Then time would have to follow suit. The more space there is, the more time there would be to envelop that space. But in this case, time does not have to get smaller. In fact, the size of time may be constant in this case, because there is always more matter to accomodate the extra time. However, space becomes highly relative to time at that point, because for every increment of time that is created, a certain amount of space is (just to keep it simple) uniformly created at the edges of the universe, and in spots that need to be filled in in the stretchmarks of the universe (which is what I picture dark matter to be). The extra "space" that that time takes up as that matter is created is still representative of one tick of times clock. So for every tick of times clock the universe gets bigger, the size of an increment of time stays the same, and there is significantly more matter. As a result, time may actually seem to get larger and larger every tick of time from the perspective of matter. Because just as before time got relatively smaller the more there was too it, now matter gets relatively smaller the more there is too it.
Before I used coins as an analogy, but in this case, I want to use sticks. Imagine that you have your time line and you have however many sticks representing how much matter there is in the universe at any given point along the time line. Physically, you can keep adding sticks, there is plenty of room to add sticks, and the sticks can all be the same size. But if you want to keep a complete view of matter, you'd have to pull back a bit to see it all..now all the sticks will seem to get smaller, even though they didn't. Pull back further, and you can see the length of the time line.. Again, time will continue past the existance of the universe. So the more time there is, the less amount of space on the time line that matter will take up and the smaller the time of existance of the universe will seem to be. Another analogy might be that if you could write your life story in a book, it might amount to a few hundred or even a few thousand pages. Earth's story might fit in the entirety of an encyclopedia set. But time would have to occupy every book ever to exist. Imagine someone tried to tell you to read every book ever created in the same time you wroie your book. Wouldn't the work in front of you seem impossibly and frustratingly infinite? No matter how long the universe exists, I strongly suspect time existed long before, and will exist long after the universe. From the universes' standpoint, time is a constant march of , "But wait! There's more!" So if you move in space, every moment you move, there is more space, and even more time in existance from the beginning of time.
As I type this last thought process, I can tell my analogies are not really holding up. But I think you'll still get the general idea. Actually, one last analogy, maybe this one nails it.. Imagine the complete time as a bucket. Now imagine the existance of the unviverse as a bucket that is once size down. Now in this case, if I fit the universe bucket in the time bucket, it doesn't quite make it to the bottom and the brim of the universe bucket is a few inchest from the top/brim of the time bucket. Now lets fill both buckets with water. Everything below the universe bucket is the beginning of time to creation. Everything above the universe bucket is the end of existance to the end of time. If the universe bucket is expanding, the time bucket has to expand to allow space for the universe bucket. Assuming they expand univerally together, each time the brim of the of buckets grow there is more and more waters in both buckets. But if you take it as a whole, there will always be considerably more water in the time buck than there is in the universe bucket. Now depending on how you are epanding the buckets you can actually keep the bottom of the time bucket the same size, and its just the brims of both buckets that get bigger and bigger. If you do that then the universe bucket will always seem closer to the bottom of the time bucket, or closer to the beginning of time than the end of time,. But if the bottom of the time bucket were also to grow as the brims grew, and the bottom of the universe bucket were doing the same, then your universe bucket would actually seem closer to the top of the time bucket, or closer to the end of time. Again, ,this analogy isn't perfect, but I think it's closer to the point than my first two were. No matter how big the universe bucket gets, the time bucket will always be considerably larger. The water in the universe bucket is also the water in the time bucket. But there is more water in the time bucket than can fit in the universe bucket. Now imagine being a fish swimming back and forth in the universe bucket. Each time you travel back and forth the amount of space and the amount of time it takes you to complete the journey gets longer and longer. But time will be more perceptably longer than space. Yes, I think that covers it. Finally.
So, now that you've read through all of this.. Which do you think is more likely? Which do you think fits the math? For now, I'd appreciate if just these options are discussed, but after a few days or weeks, whichever point this thread slows down (if it picks up at all) you can enter other options in too. I just don't want to make this issue too confusing up front.
Laymanly yours,
MainFragger
Printer-friendly versionPermalink
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Comments
Heisenberg discussion moved from below
November 6, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 2 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 46009
That is not correct. You don't pick one, because you need both.
The equation is delta-p x delta-x (or delta-E x delta-t) is greater than h/2*pi. In other word, it is a relationship between the uncertainty in the values of two related phenomena. Here's how I explain it in my recent book on 20th-century physics history, Physics: Decade by Decade
I hope this helps, MainFragger.
Fred Bortz
Simultaneity/synchronization is relative
October 25, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 4 weeks 20 hours ago
Comment id: 45775
MainFragger,
I didn't take the time to read more than your introductory sentences, but I have to ask if you have ever read Einstein's own description of the theory of relativity aimed for "laymanly" readers like you. It is remarkably clear in its explanation.
Saying you "don't believe time is relative" suggests that you haven't read either that work or later derivative explanations of the theory (including mine, see below). Not believing in the relativity of time is, in fact, far more than a belief. It is a rejection of a large body of experimental evidence that led Einstein to the theory and another large body of later evidence that matched the predictions of that theory. You would have to reject or reinterpret all of that evidence to support your "belief." That is a big order, indeed!
You can find a link to a recently reissued edition of Einstein's book, as well as numerous other books on physics, at my Science Shelf physics books page.
In any case, to argue that time is not relative means that you must argue that the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant with respect to all observers, despite numerous measurements that indicate it is.
Here's why.
Imagine you observe a fast moving train, traveling at v=c/2, on which a pulse of light is emitted at its midpoint and spreads outward in all directions. You and an observer O on the train have clocks at all points in space that are at rest and synchronized in your individual frames of reference. You agree to call time 0 the instant of the emission of the light pulse and x=0 the position of the flash's emission.
You also agree to report on the time of two events as measured in your individual frames of reference. Those events are when the pulse reaches the front and rear of the train. To O, those two events are simultaneous and occur at time L/2c, where L is the length of the train measured in O's frame of reference. O sees them occur at positions x=+/-L/2.
In your frame of reference, the pulse reaches the back of the train at x=-L*/3 in time t1=L*/3c. It reaches the front of the train at x=+L* in time t2=L*/c, where L* is the length of the train measured in your frame of reference. Note that in your frame of reference, the forward edge of the pulse reaches the front of the engine later than the back edge of the pulse reaches the back of the caboose. In other words, the events are not simultaneous to you.
By similar logic, you observe O's clocks to be out of synchronization. So simultaneity and synchronization are clearly relative--unless you dispute the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference. So you see, MainFragger, your "belief" has profound implications in light of the evidence.
From this point forward, you can ultimately get the full set of what might be viewed as oddities by people whose everyday experience is not in a world with relative speeds that are significant compared to c--that is, essentially all of us unless we are doing high energy physics or cosmology.
The steps are these:
First, imagine the same experiment done from the viewpoint of O, who concludes that events you see as simultaneous are not simultaneous to him/her.
Next you can get length contraction (L* less than L), since length is measured by the endpoints of a ruler measured simultaneously. Each observer thinks that the other's rulers are contracted. Then, by combining length contraction and the mis-synchronization of clocks, you conclude that the clocks of each observer as measured by the other are running slow by the same factor as length contraction.
Which observer is measuring correctly, you or O? Both of you are, because the laws of physics are the same to both of you.
For a more detailed and cogent explanation, you may want to read Einstein's book. Or, if not, try mine. Physics Decade by Decade (Twentieth-Century Science set, Facts On File, 2007, Special Relativity section, pp. 11-18.
Fred Bortz
Science Books for Young Readers
and
Science Book Reviews
Rejecting ideas..
October 28, 2009 by MainFragger, 3 weeks 5 days ago
Comment id: 45831
Hi Fred,
Please understand that I know I am not a scientist, and as such, I can't prove or improve upon most of what I think about. If I reject the idea of relativity, its not because I am trying to fly in the face of science or reject ideas. If anything, its because I realize that math if often used to represent scientific ideas, but I sometimes feel that math is an idealized process, or that it is a "what happens most of the time" way of explaning an idea of what is happening.
I often suspect that certain parts of science are a "this is what happens most of the time, unless there is a reason it happened this this way, this time" kind of deal. I think the term used for that sometimes is Breaking.
When I look at realtivity, I understand there is a reason it works mathematically, and even in terms of certain reasoning, but I can't shake the feeling that somehow we are only seeing one layer of the onion, and that somehow on some level we aren't able to perceive, there is something else going on that provides a different explanation of what is actually happening during an apparent relative situation. I won't waste your time positing maybes of what that could be at this point, because both of us know I'd merely be guessing.
My gut feeling just comes from that fact that I very much picture time as a constant pulse, sort of like an electronic time circuit, only not subject to error. My contention isn't just that it doesn't vary, but can't vary. Time is time no matter where you are or what speed you are going. I feel that somehow, the fact that light speed is constant is proof of that. And I find that people say that its proof of relativity kind of ironic. I DO understand why that is thought.. I just feel we are all missing something. Maybe its something we aren't meant to understand just yet. But I would not be in the least bit surprised if some day some other brilliant scientist turns around and proves that time is not actually relative.
It's more than rejecting ideas
October 28, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 3 weeks 5 days ago
Comment id: 45834
Main Fragger,
Your posting is more than rejecting ideas. It's rejecting the interpretation of a large body of evidence in favor of a possibly flawed and definitely limited intuition about Nature. (Science recognizes that everyone's intuition is limited, which is why it focuses on the evidence.)
Most of the major advances in science come from the recognition that our perceptions need to be reconsidered in light of the evidence. This was just as true for Kepler and Copernicus as it is today.
A gut feeling may lead us in a productive direction, but only if we take into account the full body of evidence.
That does not mean that we should accept any interpretation uncritically. Indeed, it is the survival of an idea or theory in the face of criticism that makes it stronger.
That is certainly the case for relativity and quantum mechanics, which describe realms of Nature in which our everyday experience does not apply. That bold-face phrase is the reason your "gut feeling" carries no weight with anyone who is open, as I am, to considering a challenge to the broadly accepted interpretation.
Why should anyone value a gut feeling without any supporting evidence or proposed alternate interpretation ahead of a large body of evidence and the robust theory that has developed based on it?
If you can't answer that, you need to recognize that your "gut feeling" is probably leading in an unproductive direction rather than a productive one. That's not a statement in defense of the accepted interpretation but rather an objective critique of your proposal.
Fred Bortz
Author of Physics: Decade by Decade (Twentieth-Century Science set, Facts On File, 2007)
At the local library..
October 29, 2009 by MainFragger, 3 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 45856
I could not find Einstein's actual book, but I did find Einstein for Dummies. And when it comes to math and science, that probably exactly what I am. But I like to think that if I am not in a rush, and I have time to think things through with either linear or lateral logic and a little research, I can figure most things out.
For now, I am a little interested in the inverse sqaure rule. I am also interested in something that might be a mistatement, or that I might be reading more into than is intended. So a little more research is called for.. If I read it right, it sort of states that Einstein added the extra C in C^2, to make the numbers maneageable, or to make sense. And explains why it sort off works as a conversion. This might be a simplification or exaggeration, but if its true, it gives me one more thing to think about in my quest to decide if I totally believe, or disbelieve relativity.
For now, assume that I recognize the experimental effect is real, but not necessarily our reasoning as to why it actually happens. I know, at this point, I seem pretty obstinate. I won't deny it. But like I said, I'll eventually figure it out one way or another..even if it takes a lot of trial and error and flying in the face of everything.
You're approaching things as a good scientist should
October 30, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 3 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 45863
MainFragger,
Unlike some others who post here, you are showing the proper level of both skepticism and humility. As long as you admit to grappling with an idea that seems counter-intuitive, I have no problem with your stating that it is difficult to accept without further reading.
As for the c^2, it is indeed a matter of units. The ratio between energy units and mass units is the square of a speed. Not long ago, I allowed myself to be hired as a consultant on a manuscript about "ultrawaves," which you can probably find with a Google search. The person making the proposal insisted that he had discovered that by dropping the square, he could come up with something that traveled faster than light.
I pointed out the units problem, and I further noted that all of his numerical coincidences arose because of his particular choice of mks units. If the speed of light was expressed in miles per second or furlongs per fortnight (both valid units of speed), the faster-than-light conclusion disappeared.
Despite that, the person asked for more consultation, which I refused. He lacked the modesty to consider that his ideas might be based on an incorrect premise--which they were. I can see that you are not that kind of person. You are on a quest for knowledge and are willing to ask questions that might seem off-the-wall but are necessary to your understanding.
I don't expect you to succeed in showing that time is absolute rather than relative, but I don't mind your challenging that premise and then letting your challenge be tested. I think that the outcome of your reading will eventually be a modification of your intuition so that the relativity of time makes sense to you, even though you don't experience it in everyday events.
Then you will be able to help other people grapple with the key ideas that are, so far, not quite in your grasp. Keep reading and keep learning, and you will get there.
Fred Bortz
Author of Physics: Decade by Decade (Twentieth-Century Science set, Facts On File, 2007)
Ratio?
November 6, 2009 by MainFragger, 2 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 46002
Well, I still have to really work on the actual math...but the idea I've sort of been toying with is that since matter shrinks or expands according the speed you are moving, the mass should not really be expressed as a straight mass, but as a change of mass. In other words, the beginning mass minus the final mass. You are measuring the mass of a moving, changing object..as such I think Heisenberg's principle kicks in, and the beginning and end masses don't matter. I think the balancing factor is that as you try to go faster than the speed of light, you need more impetus to get the object to move faster. But you can't actually go faster than the speed of light, so that impetus is dissapated or bleeded, or wasted. However, you can choose to think of that impetus as the speed of light plus the extra impetus. If you multiply that by the change in mass, I think you are basically getting an accurate pictures of the amount of force and mass that are being used to create movement. By dividing that by C (the speed of light) you get your ratio of relativity.
Now here is the kicker. presumable the shrinkage of mass is atomic particles being compressed or pushed closer together. As this happens, the inverse square law starts to kick in, and energy is emitted from the atom as light, photons, or whatever.. Now from what I remember, that energy is like a ring in a tree..its a description of the atom's "age". You can't turn back time, but when the energy is given off, the atoms lighten their energy load, which basically makes them look younger. They are not ACTUALLY younger, they just look it based off of the amount of energy in them. Think of it as an atomic face lift. This is why the atomic clock comes back with a slower time than what has actually passed. My assertion isn't so much that time is realtive, as that matter will age slower or even lose age at certain speeds.
I still have to do the math more thoroughly, but I think if the equation is: (Delta of the Mass)*(speed of light+wasted impetus expressed in terms of speed of light)/(speed of light), it should still be accurate, and should also address your units issue. Keep in mind that in terms of potential impetuse anything short of the actual speed of light does not have the wasted impetus. Only speeds that try to exceed the speed of light creates the wasted impetus. So at 90% of the speed of light impetus, its (Delta Mass*90 percent of the speed of light), but at 110% of the impetus, its (Delta Mass*(speed of light+10% of the speed of light)).
I intend to do the math with the impetus plus light speed idea starting at speed of 10% of light speed all the way up to 2x the light of speed in 10% increments. And the mass varying accordingly.
Re: ratio
November 6, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 2 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 46004
MainFragger,
I only had time to give this a quick read, but i can see you are (1) thinking about this seriously; (2) still trapped by your non-relativistic life experiences that leads to a reluctance to accept the relativity of time; (3) mixing apples (relativity) with oranges (quantum mechanics). [Number 3 is an issue when you get to General Relativity, but we are discussing Special Relativity here.]
To help your thinking process along, you need to realize that what you call "the beginning mass minus the final mass" is simply negative of kinetic energy divided by c^2 in relativistic terms. The beginning mass is what physicists call rest mass or m(sub)0. Kinetic energy is mc^2-m(sub)0c^2. In the limit where v is much less than c, this is mv^2/2. There is no "wasted" impetus.
You also are showing a problem in your understanding of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which is a quantum mechanical concept and not relevant to the present discussion. Heisenberg's result doesn't say "mass doesn't matter." It says that the uncertainty in mass/energy times the uncertainty in measurement time must be greater than Planck's constant.
Fred Bortz
About the heisenberg thing..
November 6, 2009 by MainFragger, 2 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 46007
Thats what I get for moving too fast, and not stopping to thoroughly explain myself. I assumed as a scientist you would get what I was trying to say. Heisenberg says you can't know the position of a moving object and the trajectory of a moving object at the same time. You have to pick which one you want to look at. (I believe one day computers and sensors will be able to prove Heisenberg wrong, but for now its a sound concept), My point was, in e=mc2 you are measuring a moving object. So its beginning and end mass aren't directly relevant because you can't measure them at the same time as you are looking at the trajectory/velocity of the moving object.
You've got Heisenberg wrong
November 6, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 2 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 46008
That is not correct. You don't pick one, because you need both.
The equation is delta-p x delta-x (or delta-E x delta-t) is greater than h/2*pi. In other word, it is a relationship between the uncertainty in the values of two related phenomena. Here's how I explain it in my recent book on 20th-century physics history, Physics: Decade by Decade
I hope this helps, MainFragger.
Fred Bortz
P.S.: I'll copy this as a reply to the main message so the shrinking margins don't kill the discussion
I love when people use to the apples vs. oranges..
November 6, 2009 by MainFragger, 2 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 46005
analogy, because sometimes people seem to forget that you can find them both at the same fruit store. Science is an ongoing process, and we never know when Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, or other branches of science are going to overlap. They might be separate branches of science developed for separate reasons, but that necessarily doesn't mean they are completely separate in terms of what can happen in every day life.
Branches of science do (and must?) overlap
November 6, 2009 by Halliday, 2 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 46010
MainFragger:
You are correct that "separate" branches of science may well overlap in any given situation. In fact, if science is to "mean" anything real, then all "branches" of science that actually have gotten to the point of being true descriptions of reality (within their respective spheres), must be able to be merged (or will naturally do so) into a single whole, since all are trying to describe aspects of this one universe in which we reside. (Of course, this is not to say that each "branch" will not retain its identity, or even that each will adopt the "same" merged description, since there may still be good reasons to use simpler methods/descriptions that are more suitable to the issues at hand.)
Of course, Fred was trying to point out improper "mergings" that he observed. (This is to say nothing of the missing pieces of the "merged" puzzle we are still dealing with in physics. One of which Fred alluded to.)
David
One last addition to my analogy.
October 23, 2009 by MainFragger, 4 weeks 3 days ago
Comment id: 45695
This is kind of an afterthought, but it might be important. If you were to measure the distance around the buckets of both buckets at any given spot along its vertical access, you will get very different measurements... BUT both measurements are the same unit of space/time. So if you get 15 inches on the universe bucket, and 17.5 inches on the time bucket, then technically, that segmant of space and time have a ratio of roughly (and respectively) 1:1.667. In other words, for every 1 segment of space, there is 1.667 segments of time that occupy the same time and place. So if you travel 5 segments of space, you are also traveling 5.83 segments of time. If the bucket maintained the same ratio the next time it grew, the time bucket should be 20.42 inches at the next increment of time space.
If the bucket grew once each segment of space/time, then technically, the time bucket would then expand to 34.02, 56,71, and finally 94.54 inches. That means, by time time you made it your five increments of space, the distance around the buckets on the space and time buckets had grown to 56.71 inches and 94.54 inches respectively. Now thats pretty extreem, and I am sure it doesn't happen that fast. But its the best way to explain simply and graphically what is happening. I am too tired and impatient to do the math, but the route straight across the buckets is much less than around the buckets. So the change in space and time would seem less extreme if you were actually travelling a relatively straight distance in space time.
MainFragger