Time is slowing down - we gained an extra second!
Sam
to the official record of time - Coordinated Universal Time, kept by a
series of atomic clocks, housed in environmentally sealed vaults in
about 80 timekeeping laboratories around the world and certified by the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Paris. All clocks in
the world should have added this extra second on midnight of December
31, 2005, based on Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), in order to keep pace
with the Earth's spin.
Indeed, what's the big reason for the extra second? Earth is slowing
down. Scientists have decided that the time it takes for the earth to
make a full rotation is getting longer. The gradual deceleration is
apparently caused by the gravitational pull of the moon - the same
force that brings the tides is putting the brakes on the earth.
If time is a function of Earth evolving around the Sun, then a year
should not be affected by this. But when time is measured by Earth
making it's daily rotation, then we apparently need another second,
because when a 24-hour day, as measured by the world's atomic clocks,
becomes more than 9/10th's of a second shorter than a solar day, those
in charge add the leap second. So, what is time? Which time is correct?
Annual time or daily time? Or weekly time, measured in the rotation of
the Moon arouind Earth? How can these three different ways be combined
into one coherent system? Do we want to ensure that at noon the Sun is
at it's highest point, or do we measure time in another way? What's the
ultimately correct time?
Most of us will not pause to notice the extra second, let alone puzzle
about how time is measured. But have all computers, mobile phones,
global positioning devices taken a break for one second at the
appointed time to calibrate to Coordinated Universal Time? Most
timekeeping devices of communication companies the world over, like
telecommunications networks and television stations, did hold their
electronic breaths for one second. You may want to check your computers
and other devices too and see if you need to adjust their clocks.
There. That'll take a few seconds!
Happy New Year
Sam
Souvik
Dude, that has *nothing* to do with time slowing down. There are far
more accurate ways of measuring time using Cesium atoms or the speed of
light, etc. It has to do with the slowing down of the revolution of the
earth around the sun, and that's where the buck stops.
Slowing down of time itself does happen and we do correct for that, but
for reasons far more subtle than the ones you mention.
Sam Carana
Sam
einseele
"...If nobody ask me about time, I perfectly know what it is. But if
you want me to give an answer, well... I have not a clue idea..."
And I think this remains.
Earth revolution or star movements or speed of light... speed as a
rule, will connect us with Time, although I doubt will clear us out
about Time itself
To make things worst, speed of light could not be a constant as stated.
Under MHO Time is the last frontier as a concept, much more than any
other theory at least within science alternatives
Thermodynamic ideas seems to me closer today as a way to measure time.
May be temperature is related to both, time and gravity (the two always
destroy any serious approach)
Carlos
Souvik
>
> For a truly absolute measurement of time, some do indeed argue to look at
> light - the time it takes for light to travel a certain distance will remain
> constant, if we can take Einstein's word for it. Problem is that we need a
> constant distance to measure this against. That raises the question whether
> in nature there are any processes that take place at a constant velocity. Is
> the speed of light really constant? If we can never measure this against
> some constant distance, then how can this be verified or falsified?
It wasn't Einstein who pointed out that the speed of light must be
constant in vacuum. That was Maxwell, and it comes directly out of
electrodynamics. Einstein's contribution was to infer what that meant
about time and space.
Why can't you measure a constant distance, within reportable errors?
> How
> would you propose to measure the speed of light, Souvik?
Just repeat a Michelson Morley type interferometry experiment.
Its circular. You need to have either a standardised measure of two of
the three: time, space or speed.
Souvik
> Thermodynamic ideas seems to me closer today as a way to measure time.
> May be temperature is related to both, time and gravity (the two always
> destroy any serious approach)
Temperature, like most thermodynamic concepts, is statistical in
nature. You cannot measure the temperature of one atom, or five atoms.
You need at least a mole of them to make any sense of the word
'temperature'. It is not fundamental in the same sense as time, but
statistical by nature.
(Temperature, time and gravity *do* have a connection though. Gravity
directly affects the passage of time, and therefore the speed of
molecules, and therefore ambient temperature. There is in fact a direct
relationship between gravity and temperature, something that is well
understood in relativistic statistical mechanics. However, the
differences in temperature (which I'm loosely using for the technical
term: quasi-local energy density in relativistic stat mech) are
noticeable only in gravitational fields like near a black hole.)
Sam Carana
Sam Carana wrote:
> Is the speed of light really constant? If we can never
> measure this against some constant distance, then how
> can this be verified or falsified?
Why can't you measure a constant distance, within reportable errors?
> How
> would you propose to measure the speed of light, Souvik?
Just repeat a Michelson Morley type interferometry experiment. Its circular. You need to have either a standardised measure of two of the three: time, space or speed.
Souvik
> light can be reflected back along the same path, how can we be sure that the
> distance hasn't expanded or shrunk in the meantime? It may be a minimal
> change, but that could result in calculations showing that the speed of
> light wasn't absolutely constant after all. If we take any standardised
> measure of time, space or speed, how is this standard calibrated? And isn't
> speed a combination of time and space in the first place?
Like I said, it will be a reportable error. Any self respecting
experimentalist will report the error in the distance measurement and
its propagation into the speed measurement. Because without reported
errors, any experimental result is good as religion.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
Souvik
> But how do we know whether it's an "error" or the real thing?
We don't. Not right away. And never conclusively. (Of the two types of
errors, we can eliminate random errors by repeating the experiment, but
hunting down systematic errors is as much an art as science.)
To establish an error as a physical phenomena in itself requires
evidence from several independent experiments. A perfect example of an
error which turned out to be the "real thing" is the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle -- the error in measuring an object's position
and momentum simultaneously turned out to be a corollary of a deeper
unifying principle and not an inadequacy of our experiments.
But there are so many ways the distance between two mountains may
chance, (by changes in the refractive index of the air in between the
mirrors caused by thermals, by slight tremors etc etc), that they
overwhelm any *new physics* explanations. That does not mean that there
could not be any new physics that makes the speed of light ever so
slightly variable -- but if there is, we haven't any conclusive
evidence for it.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
einseele
Souvik
> On January 6 you said: "Slowing down of time itself does happen and we do
> correct for that". So, I ask you again, how do you know whether you were
> "correcting" an "error" or observing the real thing?
Because several different observations of independent experiments and
effects point to the fact that clocks slow down under certain
circumstances, not in a random way, but in a very systematic,
predictable way.
Instead of talking in the air, let me give you an example:
A clock slows down when it's brought near the surface of the earth (due
to higher gravity) than when it is at a higher altitude. Now, it could
be that gravity is simply affecting some mechanism of the clock and
that's all. However, it turns out that no matter what kind of a clock
you use -- a pendulum based, or a piezo-electric crystal based, or an
atom based, -- (having corrected for known mechanical errors), the
final deviation extracted always points to a slow clock at the lower
altitude.
It also turns out that clocks slow down at high speeds. And the slowing
down occurs the same way regardless of what type of clock you use,
which rules out mechanical effects.
Now it turns out that this slowing down of clocks at high speeds and
high gravity can be *most coherently and easily* understood from the
framework of a dynamical spacetime instead of the Newtonian rigid
spacetime. To date, no experiment or observation has proved this
paradigm to be false or inapplicable and hence we haven't discarded it
yet.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
Souvik
> I have no problems accepting that two clocks will show different times. My
> problem is with your apparent conclusion that one of them show the "correct"
> time and the other one needed adjustment, because time had slowed down. But
> how do you decide which one of them was "correct"? This view that one was
> "correct" seems to reflect the very Newtonian rigid space/time that you
> argue is at odds with those experiments.
You don't understand. Both clocks *are* showing the correct times.
Time varies with reference frame, i.e. where you keep the clock. That
is the central notion of relativity: The fact that time is not absolute
and needs reference to an inertial or accelerated frame to make sense,
is the central conclusion of relativity. (Just like it makes no sense
to say -- 'The spaceship is travelling at 10 km/sec.' without making
reference to an observer.)
-Souvik
Sam Carana
Souvik
> We did discuss "frame of reference" earlier in another thread. As said, my
> frame of reference is common sense. By contrast, your frame of reference is
> physics and you seek to apply this out of context.
I used the phrase "frame of reference" in the technical sense of an
inertial reference frame which must be specified before mentioning the
velocity of an object. Google for 'inertial reference frame' if you
don't know what it is.
"As said, my frame of reference is common sense." is probably the most
hilarious of your statements suggesting your utter unfamiliarity with
such basic things as relativity. Just read up a Wiki article or
something for laymen at-least. It's 2005 and a 100 years since its
establishment as a physical theory -- your ignorance is striking, but
not as much as your naivette in covering it up.
> For the record, if one clock is based on the speed at which Earth spins
> around its axis and another clock is based on the speed at which Earth is
> evolving around the sun, then you will end up with two clocks that give
> different times.
I don't see how.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
Sam Carana wrote:
> We did discuss "frame of reference" earlier in another thread. As said, my
> frame of reference is common sense. By contrast, your frame of reference is
> physics and you seek to apply this out of context.
I used the phrase "frame of reference" in the technical sense of an inertial reference frame which must be specified before mentioning the velocity of an object. Google for 'inertial reference frame' if you don't know what it is.
"As said, my frame of reference is common sense." is probably the most
hilarious of your statements suggesting your utter unfamiliarity with
such basic things as relativity. Just read up a Wiki article or
something for laymen at-least. It's 2005 and a 100 years since its
establishment as a physical theory -- your ignorance is striking, but
not as much as your naivette in covering it up.
> For the record, if one clock is based on the speed at which Earth spins
> around its axis and another clock is based on the speed at which Earth is
> evolving around the sun, then you will end up with two clocks that give
> different times.
I don't see how.
Well, most people obviously do, since they all adjust their clocks with the extra second.
Souvik
> > I used the phrase "frame of reference" in the technical sense of an
> > inertial reference frame which must be specified before mentioning the
> > velocity of an object. Google for 'inertial reference frame' if you don't
> > know what it is.
>
> Such an "inertial reference frame" is in fact an expression of
> pseudo-objectivity that seeks to impose a specific political view upon
> society. In reality, no such "inertial reference frame" exists and it's good
> epistemological practice to point that out to scientists who wrongly believe
> they can pretend to have epistemological competence.
You can't just say a stone is moving at such and such a speed, without
specifying with respect to whom or what you are observing it. That is
the idea of the reference frame, you idiot. There is no such thing as
an absolute velocity without reference to an observer, and it does not
make sense to say a stone is flying at 30 km/hr without specifying with
respect to what, either explicitly or implicitly.
Why not just read up what is meant by an 'inertial reference frame'
before blathering further on tangents? Why not?
>
>
> "As said, my frame of reference is common sense." is probably the most
> > hilarious of your statements suggesting your utter unfamiliarity with
> > such basic things as relativity. Just read up a Wiki article or
> > something for laymen at-least. It's 2005 and a 100 years since its
> > establishment as a physical theory -- your ignorance is striking, but
> > not as much as your naivette in covering it up.
>
>
> Your naivity in approaching epistemological issues and your inability to
> deal with the subsequent frustration makes you unfit to respectivelly
> participate in forums like this.
It is hardly an epistemological issue.
And for your information, I've had enough experience with professional
philosophers to realise that you probably have no degree in philosophy
of any kind. Much less any understanding, which I reckon is close to a
high-schooler. (If you don't believe me, tell me what the word
'respectively' is doing in your previous sentence.) Getting you to read
and find out what we know already and how we know before blathering
ridiculous nonsense is the frustrating part.
> > For the record, if one clock is based on the speed at which Earth spins
> > > around its axis and another clock is based on the speed at which Earth
> > is
> > > evolving around the sun, then you will end up with two clocks that give
> > > different times.
> >
> > I don't see how.
> >
>
> Well, most people obviously do, since they all adjust their clocks with the
> extra second.
We don't measure time anymore by the speed of rotation or revolution of
our planet. The extra second you talk about comes from atomic clock
measurements. And all that means is that the unit of time wasn't
standardised well enough when we began. So we need to correct for it
every now and then. There is absolutely *nothing* profound in it.
-Souvik
Sam Carana
Sam Carana wrote:
> > I used the phrase "frame of reference" in the technical sense of an
> > inertial reference frame which must be specified before mentioning the
> > velocity of an object. Google for 'inertial reference frame' if you don't
> > know what it is.
>
> Such an "inertial reference frame" is in fact an expression of
> pseudo-objectivity that seeks to impose a specific political view upon
> society. In reality, no such "inertial reference frame" exists and it's good
> epistemological practice to point that out to scientists who wrongly believe
> they can pretend to have epistemological competence.
You can't just say a stone is moving at such and such a speed, without specifying with respect to whom or what you are observing it.
That is the idea of the reference frame, you idiot.
There is no such thing as an absolute velocity without reference to an observer,
and it does not make sense to say a stone is flying at 30 km/hr without specifying with respect to what, either explicitly or implicitly.
Why not just read up what is meant by an 'inertial reference frame' before blathering further on tangents? Why not?
>
>
> "As said, my frame of reference is common sense." is probably the most
> > hilarious of your statements suggesting your utter unfamiliarity with
> > such basic things as relativity. Just read up a Wiki article or
> > something for laymen at-least. It's 2005 and a 100 years since its
> > establishment as a physical theory -- your ignorance is striking, but
> > not as much as your naivette in covering it up.
>
>
> Your naivity in approaching epistemological issues and your inability to
> deal with the subsequent frustration makes you unfit to respectivelly
> participate in forums like this.
It is hardly an epistemological issue. And for your information, I've had enough experience with professional philosophers to realise that you probably have no degree in philosophy of any kind. Much less any understanding, which I reckon is close to a high-schooler. (If you don't believe me, tell me what the word
'respectively' is doing in your previous sentence.) Getting you to read and find out what we know already and how we know before blathering ridiculous nonsense is the frustrating part.
> > For the record, if one clock is based on the speed at which Earth spins
> > > around its axis and another clock is based on the speed at which Earth
> > is
> > > evolving around the sun, then you will end up with two clocks that give
> > > different times.
> >
> > I don't see how.
> >
>
> Well, most people obviously do, since they all adjust their clocks with the
> extra second.
We don't measure time anymore by the speed of rotation or revolution of our planet.
The extra second you talk about comes from atomic clock
measurements. And all that means is that the unit of time wasn't standardised well enough when we began.
So we need to correct for it every now and then.
There is absolutely *nothing* profound in it.
einseele
I will ask you to stop discussing with a person who talks "idiot..." to
a member in a thread whom is eventually in disagreement.
Adds nothing to the concepts and turns into a violent exchange
stressing the rest of us.
No matter if Time is slowing or if it´s not, you are absolutely right
from the moment this mental disordered insulted you and the rest.
Simply quit answering his comments as I did already, and let us that
way participate with you.
Other way, the rest can not enter, because it feels frustrating and
nobody wants that.
If you agree, I will skip then the insane and would go to answers, may
be we don´t agree 100%, but we can discuss as normal human beings.
I´m pretty much motivated to learn.
About adding an extra second, I have another information to share, much
more related to common sense.
I want to start with an example. Forgive my poor English
Have you tried to convert inches into centimeters?
You cant, because you will always get a difference, can not be exact.
Does this mean you don´t have an exact measure? I mean I have this
mouse at my right, Which is its size?
Inches and cm will not match each other. Well, seems has nothing to do
but it has. Not two different systems to measure can be translated one
into the other. It doesn´t exist the method to do that.
So, besides any theory, there is this simply fact. Let me now put this
into the new second reference
Which is the time it takes the earth to go around the Sun? I can´t
believe how naif looks this.
Well: some 365 days and a few hours
It doesn´t exist the way to translate the hour duration into exact 24
units to make a day exactly 1/365 part nedeed :-)
As we can not measure exactly we had to add a day to the calendar every
4 years, And that also will not correct the difference, so you will
have to add a second every another N # of years, and then that is also
inexact and we´ll have to add another 1/10 of a second in 200
centuries... and then ......
I´m not sure this means Time is slowing, I see this more related to
the simple fact we can not do units within a continuum. Time has not
discrete units, clocks have (days, hours, minutes, seconds....)
Time, (and please read the following expression within the context)
THANKS GOD can not be thought under an atomic point of view, and it is
for me the perfect field to exchange epistemology, Because will only
escape simple minded idiots.
best regards
goozlefotz
einseele wrote:
> Sam
> I will ask you to stop discussing with a person who talks "idiot..." to
> a member in a thread whom is eventually in disagreement.
> Adds nothing to the concepts and turns into a violent exchange
> stressing the rest of us.
>
scientist and is willing to patiently explain any phenomenon. Sam, on
the other hand, continues to stubbornly cling to nonsensicle ideas no
matter how many times things are explained to him. I have essentially
given up on Sam because it seems that he cannot really be that dense or
he wouldn't know how to run a computer. I understand your desire to
keep the discussion on a pleasant plane, but try to also understand the
frustration of those of us for whom this kind of discussion has gone on
for months with no progress.
einseele
If Souvik is a very good scientist, (I admit that), so what?
Is this a scientific forum?
He is willing to patiently explain what? Science?
My dear Sir he HAS to be patience, I don´t give a sh.. if someone is a
super scientist when epistemology comes to the table, because what s/he
has to share is just a small part of the equation. And if someone loose
his/her patience and calls idiot to a member in disagreement, well...
to apologize is not a bad idea.
This is simply neurotic, why should I call idiot or say bullshit to any
one. Please explain, may be I´m wrong
I know you also are science oriented when approaching epistemology,
will you call me stupid because I´m not?
I want to learn your points and you want to learn mines.
Let me now be the one to slow down with a Time story which this thread
is about
Everybody has read or knows about "The Time Machine", H. G. Wells
The central character comes back from the future with a rose in hands.
That rose dies well before its own time in the future.
Of course this rose is impossible, let´s say is unreal under any
common sense point of view.
Another again, so what now? Is someone here willing to tell me I don´t
have to read Wells?
"The Time Machine" did not produce any knowledge?
If I look to a Van Gogh painting, and I see a landscape which is
obviously not real, does this mean this has nothing to do with
knowledge? or may be is also bullshit
IMO knowledge is everywhere, and I like to go after trying to cacht
some.
Sam, I´m in disagree with you many times, so I fully respect you, I
apologize
Souvik :-)
goozlefotz
Never mind.
Souvik
> Dear Goozlefotz
>
> If Souvik is a very good scientist, (I admit that), so what?
>
> Is this a scientific forum?
>
> He is willing to patiently explain what? Science?
>
> My dear Sir he HAS to be patience, I don´t give a sh.. if someone is a
> super scientist when epistemology comes to the table, because what s/he
> has to share is just a small part of the equation. And if someone loose
> his/her patience and calls idiot to a member in disagreement, well...
> to apologize is not a bad idea.
When I see loose, vacuous, thinking on the table, especially on tried
and tested *scientific matters* such as the relativity of time, or
information transfer during entanglement, I get upset. Especially when
the matter has been very thoroughly experimented to the point modern
machines rely on it, and documented well enough for the modern laymen
to partially understand it.
What I mostly see in Sam's posts are a quick glimpse through a
pop-science book or a pop-science TV program that lead him to believe
that he not only understands the scientific theories, but also their
inadequacies! Someone needs to tell him that these pop-science
programmes are meant for absolute laymen and completely hide the years
of experiment, and the mathematics that usually describe them.
I remember Sam telling us that he knew all about string theory. Around
the same time, he told us that algebra was meant simply to intimidate
people. String theory doesn't just rely on plain algebra, it relies on
differential geometry, topology, abstract algebra, cohomology, etc,
that are not your piece of cake if high-school algebra intimidates you.
In my opinion, Sam knows next to nothing of matters scientific, and yet
pretends to know them and refute them for the purpose of empty
argument.
That is why I think he is an idiot.
-Souvik
goozlefotz
einseele wrote:
> Dear Goozlefotz
>
> If Souvik is a very good scientist, (I admit that), so what?
>
> Is this a scientific forum?
>
of us would talk about scientific subjects here if it were not to try
to bring some light to the smoke that others spout here. So who
actually wants to talk about epistomoloogy? I have done quite a lot of
teaching; does that qualify me? I never studied it as a separate
subject. Has anyone here?
goozlefotz
ps: I have also jumped Souvik more than once for talking down to me.
Sam Carana
<snip>
..I´m not sure this means Time is slowing, I see this more related to the simple fact we can not do units within a continuum. Time has not discrete units, clocks have (days, hours, minutes, seconds....)
Time, (and please read the following expression within the context) THANKS GOD can not be thought under an atomic point of view, and it is for me the perfect field to exchange epistemology, Because will only escape simple minded idiots.
best regards