Notion of Absolute Clock Synchronization in SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 12 Mar 2010 14:57 On Mar 11, 5:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews: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. > You did not prove that A and B were actually in synch, so your argument is no good. Besides, absolute synch can exist in a single frame between a pair of clocks, and you cannot prove that this cannot happen. > > 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)? Since absolute ideal time is the other side of the coin from Einstein's relative time, one who understands the latter must also understand the former. ~~RA~~
From: Inertial on 12 Mar 2010 18:24 "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3ecf8e6c-15e6-4e14-bb39-2fad8d4504b2(a)t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 12, 6:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > ..... >> >> There are other methods of obtaining synchronized clocks .. eg place two >> clocks together, set them to the same time, then move them apart with the >> same (but opposite) speeds. It can be shown this results in a sync the >> same >> as e-synch > > Kindly give me a link or reference where it is shown that the above > synch method is the same as e-synch. > > GSS its very simple .. because they are in sync (ie they will still time a fixed speed signal between them as travelling the same time in both directions). That is the case in SR and LET and ballistic theories and naives aether theories.
From: Inertial on 12 Mar 2010 18:27 "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_aikas(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cf5a6f3a-22e3-4ca6-8e8c-592fc3c45cbf(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 11, 5:20 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in >> messagenews: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. >> > > You did not prove that A and B were actually in synch, I don't have to *prove* that they are .. I am describing a scenario, and in that scenario we have synced the clocks .. that means they are in sync. > so your > argument is no good. > Yes it is > Besides, absolute synch can exist in a single frame between a > pair of clocks, and you cannot prove that this cannot happen. That is not ABSOLUTE sync. That is frame-dependent sync, because in OTHER frames those same clocks are NOT in sync Really .. this isn't that hard a concept to grasp
From: Inertial on 12 Mar 2010 21:25 "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:599dae0b-9853-4ffa-938d-914b3d6bb25c(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 12, 7:29 pm, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> You say that two clocks 'synchronized' in their rest frame, are 'not >>> synchronized' in any other frame where the clocks are moving. Let us >>> examine the plausibility of this statement. When two identical >>> precision atomic clocks are said to be 'synchronized' in their rest >>> frame, essentially their clock frequencies are supposed to have been >>> perfectly matched. >> >> Yes... But not only their frequencies (rate) but their "initial >> value". That initial value is the synchronization. >> > This is an important point. > I hope all other Relativity experts agree with your contention. Of course. We assume we are talking about correct clocks are ticking at the correct rate in their frame so they indicate correct elapsed times (ie that in one hours time they will show a time one hour ahaead of what it is now). What we synchronize is the readings on those clocks at a given time, so they both will show the same reading simultaneously. You are talking about clocks that are not working correctly (at least one of them must be at the wrong ticking rate, and show not show correct elapsed times). >>>The matching of the two frequencies is a physical >>> phenomenon, controlled through their hardware circuitry and >>> sophisticated components. >> >> Yup... >> >> >But when the same two clocks are 'viewed' by >> > different observers in different states of motion, they appear to be >> > out of synchronization. >> >> Yup. The initial values of the observer's clocks ( his "time") no >> longer corresponds to the initial values of the observED (moving) >> clocks. >> > Does it mean that the 'initial values' of two identical atomic clocks > A and B, if matched in their rest frame, will remain mutually matched > even in moving observer's frame, They are never matched in the moving observers frame (unless the clocks have the same x-coordinate if we take their motion as being in the x-direction in that frame) They can be matched in one frame .. or in the other .. or in none. Not in both. > even though these 'initial values' > will no longer match with the initial values of the observer's clocks > ( his "time")? > >>>That is their clock frequencies 'appear' to be >>> mismatched by different amount to different observers in different >>> states of motion. >> >> No... For a particular observer observing the two (moving) clocks, >> those clocks have the same frequency; are ticking at the same rate. >> Its their initial value that no longer corresponds to the observer's >> clocks ( his "time"). >> > Again this is an important point. > May I request Tom Roberts to confirm if this contention is true as per > SR? Tom Roberts is knowledgeable .. but he isn't the keeper of all that is SR >> > However, creating a mismatch in the clock frequencies of two clocks >> >> There is no mismatch in frequencies for any observer. >> >> > How do you think different observers in >> > different states of motion actually manage to physically influence the >> > hardware circuitry and sophisticated components of the two clocks to >> > create different amounts of mismatch in their frequencies, through the >> > mere act of 'viewing' from a distance? >> >> They don't influence the frequencies not the hardware. That is why the >> frequencies remain matched. What they do change is *their* initial >> values of *their* own clocks (their "time"); They sych their own >> clocks, not the observed (moving) clocks. Their own synchronization >> ( initial values) will not correspond to the initial values of the two >> observed clocks. > > Thanks for your valuable clarification. > I only hope this is true as per SR. Did you not already know this? Hopefully it means you have learnt something then
From: kenseto on 13 Mar 2010 09:58
On Mar 12, 12:02 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 7:29 pm, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote:>> You say that two clocks 'synchronized' in their rest frame, are 'not > >> synchronized' in any other frame where the clocks are moving. Let us > >> examine the plausibility of this statement. When two identical > >> precision atomic clocks are said to be 'synchronized' in their rest > >> frame, essentially their clock frequencies are supposed to have been > >> perfectly matched. > > > Yes... But not only their frequencies (rate) but their "initial > > value". That initial value is the synchronization. > > This is an important point. > I hope all other Relativity experts agree with your contention. > > >>The matching of the two frequencies is a physical > >> phenomenon, controlled through their hardware circuitry and > >> sophisticated components. > > > Yup... > > > >But when the same two clocks are 'viewed' by > > > different observers in different states of motion, they appear to be > > > out of synchronization. > > > Yup. The initial values of the observer's clocks ( his "time") no > > longer corresponds to the initial values of the observED (moving) > > clocks. > > Does it mean that the 'initial values' of two identical atomic clocks > A and B, if matched in their rest frame, will remain mutually matched > even in moving observer's frame, even though these 'initial values' > will no longer match with the initial values of the observer's clocks > ( his "time")? No....clocks in relative motion are running at different rates....that means that they are continually out of synch. What this mean is that A and B will continually accumulate different elapsed time and the longer they are in relative motion the larger is the difference in accumulated elapsed time. Ken Seto > > >>That is their clock frequencies 'appear' to be > >> mismatched by different amount to different observers in different > >> states of motion. > > > No... For a particular observer observing the two (moving) clocks, > > those clocks have the same frequency; are ticking at the same rate. > > Its their initial value that no longer corresponds to the observer's > > clocks ( his "time"). > > Again this is an important point. > May I request Tom Roberts to confirm if this contention is true as per > SR? > > > > > > > > However, creating a mismatch in the clock frequencies of two clocks > > > There is no mismatch in frequencies for any observer. > > > > How do you think different observers in > > > different states of motion actually manage to physically influence the > > > hardware circuitry and sophisticated components of the two clocks to > > > create different amounts of mismatch in their frequencies, through the > > > mere act of 'viewing' from a distance? > > > They don't influence the frequencies not the hardware. That is why the > > frequencies remain matched. What they do change is *their* initial > > values of *their* own clocks (their "time"); They sych their own > > clocks, not the observed (moving) clocks. Their own synchronization > > ( initial values) will not correspond to the initial values of the two > > observed clocks. > > Thanks for your valuable clarification. > I only hope this is true as per SR. > > GSS- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |