Jump to content

Time for a different view (hypothesis)


MPMin
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 4/28/2021 at 4:08 AM, MPMin said:

But hypothetically speaking, for the sake of my understanding, assuming Gammas were being emitted from within a black hole and assuming the gravity of the black hole was not strong enough to reduce the frequency of the gammas to nil but only strong enough to reduce the gammas to a lesser frequency then could it be hypothetically possible the gammas to be emitted as visible light? 

In addition to MigL comment on time dilation: at the event horizon of a black hole time dilation for an observer on a big distance goes to infinity. That means the frequency of an EM wave goes to zero, and the remote observer will not see any EM radiation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean that em waves leaving the sun’s surface are of a higher frequency than when they reach an observer at the edge of the solar system? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MPMin said:

Does that mean that em waves leaving the sun’s surface are of a higher frequency than when they reach an observer at the edge of the solar system? 

Yep. It is called gravitational redshift

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from time being considered as  part of the standard model of ‘space time’ is there any reason why as an alternative hypothesis that time could not be attracted to gravity? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Aside from time being considered as  part of the standard model of ‘space time’ is there any reason why as an alternative hypothesis that time could not be attracted to gravity? 

It makes no sense.  It is the same as saying length is attracted to gravity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Aside from time being considered as  part of the standard model of ‘space time’ is there any reason why as an alternative hypothesis that time could not be attracted to gravity? 

Yes. Time isn't an object or substance, or anything that has momentum or energy. It doesn't travel a physical path.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Aside from time being considered as  part of the standard model of ‘space time’ is there any reason why as an alternative hypothesis that time could not be attracted to gravity? 

Because time doesn't exist as a separate entity, it's like asking why time is responsible for me finding my girlfriend attractive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2021 at 10:54 PM, swansont said:

Yes. Time isn't an object or substance, or anything that has momentum or energy. It doesn't travel a physical path.

 

Yes, and I understand that’s correct if you completely accept the current model of space time.

I’m not asking if ‘time’ being attracted to gravity is likely, I’m just asking if time being attracted to gravity is in any way possible as an alternative hypothesis to the current model? 
 

In other words, in consideration of the fact that the current model is a theory, without specifically referencing the current theory, what’s the independently observable reason that time can not be attracted to gravity?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MPMin said:

In other words, in consideration of the fact that the current model is a theory, without specifically referencing the current theory, what’s the independently observable reason that time can not be attracted to gravity?

 

Because, as I said, time isn't an object or substance, or anything that has momentum or energy. It doesn't travel a physical path.

A model with time as a substance would very likely fail, unless you also changed the rest of physics. You need a new model (and name) for what we call gravity, for instance. But I don’t think anyone can falsify a model that doesn’t exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2021 at 12:24 AM, MPMin said:

To help me understand this better, if you were able to shine two beams of light with exactly the same frequency, if you were to shine one of the beams of light from Jupiter to an observer in feee space and the other identically produced beam of light from a place with no gravity to the observer, would the beam of light from Jupiter be red shifted from the observer’s point of view? 

You have asked a form of this question multiple times in this thread and have received the answer of 'yes' multiple times.

Are you looking for a different answer or not reading the answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MPMin said:

In other words, in consideration of the fact that the current model is a theory, without specifically referencing the current theory, what’s the independently observable reason that time can not be attracted to gravity?

Off course time is not attracted to gravity. Time as a dimension, along with space and the three spatial dimensions, cause the effect we know as gravity, by geometrical curving/warping in the presence of mass/energy. Time [as a separate entity]would still exist and pass in a flat spacetime without mass/energy. And of course the universe is flat over large dimensions and within small error bars.

What does it mean to say the universe is flat? Basically that two beams of light emmited parallel to each other, remain parallel. 

The point is whether the universe is flat, open, or closed, time as a separate entitiy will always pass. Finally in line with our best overwhelmingly supported model, the BB, time itself, as a separate entitiy, came into existence when space started to evolve.

Not sure if all that answers your question, and while time is real, despite not being a physical entity,  it does appear to be fundamental as does the spatial dimensions of space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 7:16 AM, beecee said:

Not sure if all that answers your question, and while time is real, despite not being a physical entity,  it does appear to be fundamental as does the spatial dimensions of space.

Perhaps I’m just not getting the concept of time. I cant see how time is inextricably linked to space as described by the ‘space time’ model because; for example, two identical clocks that are side by side on earth experience the same time as each other and consequently identically indicate that the same amount of time has past. However, if you then send one of those two clocks out into space and bring it back to it’s place of origin the two clocks will no longer show that the same amount of time has past. It would appear to me that the clock that went to space and back experienced less time because there is less of it (or perhaps the frequency of time is less) out in space than it is on earth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, MPMin said:

Perhaps I’m just not getting the concept of time. I cant see how time is inextricably linked to space as described by the ‘space time’ model because; for example, two identical clocks that are side by side on earth experience the same time as each other and consequently identically indicate that the same amount of time has past. However, if you then send one of those two clocks out into space and bring it back to it’s place of origin the two clocks will no longer show that the same amount of time has past. It would appear to me that the clock that went to space and back experienced less time because there is less of it (or perhaps the frequency of time is less) out in space than it is on earth. 

 This may explain it better....

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_spacetime.html#:~:text=Thus%2C space and time are,approaching the speed of light.

Another corollary of special relativity is that, in effect, one person’s interval of space is another person’s interval of both time and space, and one person’s interval of time is also another person’s interval of both space and time. Thus, space and time are effectively interchangeable, and fundamentally the same thing (or at least two different sides of the same coin), an effect which becomes much more noticeable at relativistic speeds approaching the speed of light.

more at link

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MPMin said:

Perhaps I’m just not getting the concept of time. I cant see how time is inextricably linked to space as described by the ‘space time’ model because; for example, two identical clocks that are side by side on earth experience the same time as each other and consequently identically indicate that the same amount of time has past. However, if you then send one of those two clocks out into space and bring it back to it’s place of origin the two clocks will no longer show that the same amount of time has past. It would appear to me that the clock that went to space and back experienced less time because there is less of it (or perhaps the frequency of time is less) out in space than it is on earth. 

It happens if you stay on the earth, or near the earth. It’s about motion and where you are in a gravity well, not about being in space, or the details of the environment.

Special relativity is a direct consequence of the invariance of the speed of light. One might expect the speed to depend on the motion of the source or the target, but for light it’s not. That can’t happen if length and time are absolute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MPMin said:

Perhaps I’m just not getting the concept of time.

I wonder if the ancients didn't have a better intuitive idea of time than we do now we are so sophisticated.

15 hours ago, MPMin said:

I cant see how time is inextricably linked to space as described by the ‘space time’ model

But it isn't necessarily.

I'm glad you used the word 'model' here.

 

'Time' offers something that is not and cannot necessarily be described by space.

It offers a concept of the 'correct' order.

 

Here is an example.

The internal combustion engine must be supplied with fuel, oil, air and sparks, all in the correct order.

It is no good ordering them in space since they all have to appear in the same location at their appropriate moment.

Their separation and ordering is purely in time

Engineers even have a a term for this, as well as theory to go with it,  -   engine timing.

 

Now I said we are perhaps too sophisticated and forget this.
What I mean is that today we are used to our continuous number systems (real numbers, decimals etc) and clocks that follow these accurately to the second or microsecond.
But ancient world ideas of time were simple and their clocks were irregular to say the least.

Note it is also possible to find physical processes which do not depend upon time, but rely on spatial location alone for correct operation.
It is even possible to find physical theory that is independent of time.
All that tells us is that however long or short a time a process takes is unimportant to the end result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Here is an example.

The internal combustion engine must be supplied with fuel, oil, air and sparks, all in the correct order.

It is no good ordering them in space since they all have to appear in the same location at their appropriate moment.

Their separation and ordering is purely in time

Engineers even have a a term for this, as well as theory to go with it,  -   engine timing.

 

To help me better understand I’d like to explore the following hypothetical. Assuming this engine was a precision piece of engineering that ran at a perfectly constant RPM, you could then consider the engine to be a time piece of sorts as well as an engine. If you now had two of these engines perfectly synchronised on earth and sent one of the engines in to outer space (excluding all the practical factors required to make an engine run) to be in the same orbital plane around the sun as the earth and outside of the earth’s influence of gravity, the engine on the earth would run a little faster than the one in space even though both engines are moving through space at the same velocity relative to each other. Would the engine on earth continue to gain RPM’s over the engine in space or would the disparity in RPMs remain constant once the engine that was sent to space was in a stable orbit around the sun?

 

What I’m essentially asking with reference to hypothetical is does the disparity in RPM occur because the engine that was sent into space experienced a different path through space to arrive at it’s new position or does the RPM disparity occur because the engine on the earth is in earth’s gravity well or do both factors cause a disparity in the RPMs?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MPMin said:

To help me better understand I’d like to explore the following hypothetical. Assuming this engine was a precision piece of engineering that ran at a perfectly constant RPM, you could then consider the engine to be a time piece of sorts as well as an engine. If you now had two of these engines perfectly synchronised on earth and sent one of the engines in to outer space (excluding all the practical factors required to make an engine run) to be in the same orbital plane around the sun as the earth and outside of the earth’s influence of gravity, the engine on the earth would run a little faster than the one in space even though both engines are moving through space at the same velocity relative to each other. Would the engine on earth continue to gain RPM’s over the engine in space or would the disparity in RPMs remain constant once the engine that was sent to space was in a stable orbit around the sun?

 

What I’m essentially asking with reference to hypothetical is does the disparity in RPM occur because the engine that was sent into space experienced a different path through space to arrive at it’s new position or does the RPM disparity occur because the engine on the earth is in earth’s gravity well or do both factors cause a disparity in the RPMs?

 

OK, my answer would be that in essence, there is no disparity between the engines. Each engine in there own frame runs as per the consistent RPM. Each frame of reference is as valid as each other. It is only when the engines are again brought together that a discrepency is noticed. That's SR.

The more familair example of course, relates to two synchronised atomic clocks, with one sent on a trip on a jet airliner...both in there own frame tick over at one second per second. It is only when brought together again that a discrepency is noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beecee said:

OK, my answer would be that in essence, there is no disparity between the engines. Each engine in there own frame runs as per the consistent RPM. Each frame of reference is as valid as each other. It is only when the engines are again brought together that a discrepency is noticed. That's SR.

Does the ‘own frame of reference’ perspective mean that the timing of the engine (or atomic clock) for the purposes of time keeping are consistent with its own perspective or experience of time? My uncertainty about ‘frame of reference’ when referencing ones own perspectives/experience causes me to wonder when do the clocks actually diverge from each other? Does the disparity between the clocks only occur when the clocks are reunited because that’s the only time they can be compared or does half of the disparity between the clocks occur when one of the clocks is half way through it’s journey to space and back?

I’m also wondering, when considering ones own frame of reference, would one always experience time to be the same (unchanging) regardless of their position or environment changing, and, would that also mean you wouldn’t notice space contracting or expanding either?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MPMin said:

To help me better understand I’d like to explore the following hypothetical. Assuming this engine was a precision piece of engineering that ran at a perfectly constant RPM, you could then consider the engine to be a time piece of sorts as well as an engine. If you now had two of these engines perfectly synchronised on earth and sent one of the engines in to outer space (excluding all the practical factors required to make an engine run) to be in the same orbital plane around the sun as the earth and outside of the earth’s influence of gravity, the engine on the earth would run a little faster than the one in space even though both engines are moving through space at the same velocity relative to each other. Would the engine on earth continue to gain RPM’s over the engine in space or would the disparity in RPMs remain constant once the engine that was sent to space was in a stable orbit around the sun?

 

What I’m essentially asking with reference to hypothetical is does the disparity in RPM occur because the engine that was sent into space experienced a different path through space to arrive at it’s new position or does the RPM disparity occur because the engine on the earth is in earth’s gravity well or do both factors cause a disparity in the RPMs?

 

 

I find this response extremely disappointing.

It has little to do with the information I offered you and in fact appears to be a smart-ass attempt to subvert it.

 

Time and space are different entities.

In some cases each applies a situation that does not and cannot involve the other.

For example no amout of space will change or affect the fact the you have missed your train, if you arrive at the platform after that train has departed.

 

That does not mean they do not interact.

 

Indeed in other cases there is a very precise and well defined connection.

Equations of motion are one such situation that describe such a connection.

Clearly in situations where there is a connection, changing time or space will affect the other through that connection.

 

So yes two identical internal combustion engines, if subjected to the regime of motion you indicate, will be affected by that motion regime.

 

But the RPM is a red herring.

If they run in sync (ie at the same RPM) when standing side by side, they will again run in sync when one engine has travelled away and then returned so that they again standing side by side.
However they will be very unlikely to be running in phase.

 

But this is just one special case of the uncountably many possible situations.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MPMin said:

Does the ‘own frame of reference’ perspective mean that the timing of the engine (or atomic clock) for the purposes of time keeping are consistent with its own perspective or experience of time? My uncertainty about ‘frame of reference’ when referencing ones own perspectives/experience causes me to wonder when do the clocks actually diverge from each other? Does the disparity between the clocks only occur when the clocks are reunited because that’s the only time they can be compared or does half of the disparity between the clocks occur when one of the clocks is half way through it’s journey to space and back?

When do they diverge? When there’s relative motion, and/or a difference in location in a gravitational potential. They can be compared by sending signals between the clocks.

8 hours ago, MPMin said:

I’m also wondering, when considering ones own frame of reference, would one always experience time to be the same (unchanging) regardless of their position or environment changing, and, would that also mean you wouldn’t notice space contracting or expanding either?

 

Space expansion doesn’t happen where you are. It happens between you and some distant point.

14 hours ago, MPMin said:

To help me better understand I’d like to explore the following hypothetical. Assuming this engine was a precision piece of engineering that ran at a perfectly constant RPM, you could then consider the engine to be a time piece of sorts as well as an engine. If you now had two of these engines perfectly synchronised on earth and sent one of the engines in to outer space (excluding all the practical factors required to make an engine run) to be in the same orbital plane around the sun as the earth and outside of the earth’s influence of gravity, the engine on the earth would run a little faster than the one in space even though both engines are moving through space at the same velocity relative to each other.

The oscillator in space will run faster owing to being higher in (or out of) the gravity well, and slower owing to motion. The net effect depends on the details. GPS, for example runs fast because the gravitational effect is bigger. On the ISS they run slower because the kinematic effect is bigger.

4 hours ago, studiot said:

If they run in sync (ie at the same RPM) when standing side by side, they will again run in sync when one engine has travelled away and then returned so that they again standing side by side.
However they will be very unlikely to be running in phase.

Synchronization means frequency and phase are the same. Frequency only is syntonization.

(i.e. you would not say a clock reading 1200 is synchronized with a clock that read 1043)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MPMin said:

Does the ‘own frame of reference’ perspective mean that the timing of the engine (or atomic clock) for the purposes of time keeping are consistent with its own perspective or experience of time? My uncertainty about ‘frame of reference’ when referencing ones own perspectives/experience causes me to wonder when do the clocks actually diverge from each other? Does the disparity between the clocks only occur when the clocks are reunited because that’s the only time they can be compared or does half of the disparity between the clocks occur when one of the clocks is half way through it’s journey to space and back?

 

The disparity between the clocks at any given moment fully depends on the the Frame of reference from which it is being measured.  There is no "universal, actual" disparity.

The importance of bringing the clocks back together is that this produces a situation where all reference frames agree on the exact amount of disparity between the clocks.   In other words, all frames agree that the clocks read the same when initially separated, and all frames agree on the difference between the clocks when reunited, but they will not all agree as to how the difference between the clocks accumulated during the period between those two events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Janus said:

The disparity between the clocks at any given moment fully depends on the the Frame of reference from which it is being measured.  There is no "universal, actual" disparity.

The importance of bringing the clocks back together is that this produces a situation where all reference frames agree on the exact amount of disparity between the clocks.   In other words, all frames agree that the clocks read the same when initially separated, and all frames agree on the difference between the clocks when reunited, but they will not all agree as to how the difference between the clocks accumulated during the period between those two events.

A good clear statement as usual. +1

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Synchronization means frequency and phase are the same. Frequency only is syntonization.

(i.e. you would not say a clock reading 1200 is synchronized with a clock that read 1043)

Thank you for that correction, I had not heard of the distinction.

But technically you seem correct.

Although Google has thousands of hits when asked about the synchronisation of the cylinders of an internal combustion engine and none for the syntonisation of an ic engine.

What did you say about colloquialisms ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Although Google has thousands of hits when asked about the synchronisation of the cylinders of an internal combustion engine and none for the syntonisation of an ic engine.

There are so many engine mechanics in my line of work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2021 at 12:55 AM, swansont said:

Space expansion doesn’t happen where you are. It happens between you and some distant point.

With reference to space expansion, what would an observer see if they were between myself and the distant point? 
 

On 5/22/2021 at 12:55 AM, swansont said:

Synchronization means frequency and phase are the same. Frequency only is syntonization.

My understanding of synchronised means the two clocks indicate the same amount of time has passed, in phase just means they are ticking at exactly the same time. 
 

If as per my analogy, if you were an observer between the two clocks that were originally synchronised on earth but now one is in orbit, it would now seem that if you could see both clocks while being between them they would no longer be in synch? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MPMin said:

With reference to space expansion, what would an observer see if they were between myself and the distant point? 
 

You would see each recede over a period of time, assuming you weren’t gravitationally bound to either.

4 minutes ago, MPMin said:

My understanding of synchronised means the two clocks indicate the same amount of time has passed, in phase just means they are ticking at exactly the same time. 
 

In phase means the oscillations are at the same point in the cycle; i.e. the time is the same. Two oscillators can run at the same frequency but not have the same phase.

 

4 minutes ago, MPMin said:

If as per my analogy, if you were an observer between the two clocks that were originally synchronised on earth but now one is in orbit, it would now seem that if you could see both clocks while being between them they would no longer be in synch? 
 

In general, no, they would not remain in sync. There is one value of r in a circular orbit where the kinematic and gravitational effects cancel. (and launching would disrupt any synchronization)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.