Notion of Absolute Clock Synchronization in SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 16:46 "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fc07edb2-eb8e-4bec-b0d4-c723645de990(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > As per Newtonian notion of absolute space and time, clocks can be > synchronized in absolute terms such that identical precision atomic > clocks located anywhere within the solar system and in any state of > motion, will read the same time t1 when a standard master clock reads > t1. This notion of absolute clock synchronization implies the notion > of absolute simultaneity. Except we know experimentally this cannot be done > However, as per SR, spatial distance and time measurements have been > rendered 'relative' and cannot be the same value for different > observers in different states of motion. As per SR the notion of > global 'absolute simultaneity' is fundamentally invalid for different > observers in different states of motion. Therefore, the notion of > global 'absolute clock synchronization' (in contrast to e- > synchronization) is no longer valid in SR. That's right > Since the term 'absolute clock synchronization' is often used in > discussions, I would like to request some Relativity experts to kindly > clarify the precise definition of absolute clock synchronization in > SR. It doesn't exist. Noone who understands SR talks about any absolute clock synchronization, other than to point out that there is no such thing. It is possible to get three clocks where A is synced with B in one frame, and B with C in another frame, and yet A is not synced with C in either frame. So absolute sync is not possible. > Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment' > or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all > observers in different states of motion within our solar system. There is no such procedure, because there is no such thing.
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 11 Mar 2010 17:13 On Mar 11, 12:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 11, 9:35 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment' > > or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all > > observers in different states of motion within our solar system. > > This cannot be done, given what we know about the laws of physics. Careful, PD, ol' boy, you know that a negative can't be proved. Also, please note that Dr. Smolin points out that Quantum Physics uses absolute time. http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/whattime.html "And quantum theory, which was originally developed to explain the properties of atoms and molecules, took over completely Newton's notion of an absolute ideal time." ~~RA~~
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 17:20 "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_aikas(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0df07b16-99d7-4f22-9342-c63357088dc0(a)upsg2000gro.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 11, 12:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 11, 9:35 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > Kindly illustrate the procedure, through some 'thought experiment' >> > or 'gedanken', to achieve absolute clock synchronization for all >> > observers in different states of motion within our solar system. >> >> This cannot be done, given what we know about the laws of physics. > > Careful, PD, ol' boy, you know that a negative can't be proved. Yes it can .. because we know that we can have three clocks where A and B are in sync (in one frame), and B and C are in sync (in another), but A and C are not (in either). That proves there is no such thing as absolute clock sync. > Also, please note that Dr. Smolin points out that Quantum Physics > uses absolute time. > > http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/whattime.html > > "And quantum theory, which was originally developed to explain > the properties of atoms and molecules, took over completely > Newton's notion of an absolute ideal time." So are you claiming the quantum physics is irreconcilable with special relativity, because quantum physics REQUIRES "absolute ideal time" (whatever is meant by that)?
From: Tom Roberts on 11 Mar 2010 17:26 Da Do Ron Ron wrote: > Also, please note that Dr. Smolin points out that Quantum Physics > uses absolute time. > http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/whattime.html > "And quantum theory, which was originally developed to explain > the properties of atoms and molecules, took over completely > Newton's notion of an absolute ideal time." Yes, quantum mechanics uses an absolute time coordinate. But we also know that QM is wrong. Quantum field theories such as the standard model are much better models of the world we inhabit, and they use no "absolute time" -- they are Lorentz invariant. Tom Roberts
From: BURT on 11 Mar 2010 23:45
If everywhere has its own now and clocks are ticking throughout the universe there is a universal instant. Mitch Raemsch |