Hey, sorry we're late to the party here -- but thanks a dozen for providing such a great and nuanced breakdown of this topic! Again, we find your style of presentation very straightforward and easy-to-follow, and your enjoyment in teaching and debating these sorts of topics really translates to enjoyment for the viewer. We immensely appreciated your discussion of the relation between atomic clocks and light clocks, as many people were confused about how these can be the same thing, and the deeper dive into the Doppler effect and what it means to "see" other clocks ticking was illuminating as well. You were very apt and correct to point out the issue of the longitudinal orientation of light clock; we received quite a bit of justified criticism for not addressing that issue in our video. At the time we refrained because we were uncertain of how length contraction was supposed to play into the picture; indeed we have since concluded that one will require a physical contraction of the light-clock apparatus in order to make the sound-wave analogy consistent -- which of course plops us right back at the Lorentzian ether theory. Now as to the very interesting point about muons and elementary particles that you made, our knowledge of particle physics is VERY fuzzy, but our basic assumption would be along the lines that, if a particle can decay into other particles, something in this process must cause the decay, and that such a process would likely involve the transmission of a light-speed signal somewhere at some point. Of course that requires a much deeper dive into the philosophy of elementary particles! Making RUclips videos can be hard work with often little feeling of reward, but RUclips needs more educators like yourself who are professional, deliberate, and not afraid to delve into the details, so we hope to see more content in the future. Btw, we are more than open to collabs and/or debate, if you are ever interested drop us a line, we promise to be nice :-)
@dialectphilosophy I love your thought-provoking videos just as much as Lukas’, and I can’t wait for your next one! So I hope you don’t stop until you’ve made your case. Unless, of course you come to agree with Lukas after all. 😅 I’m curious though: in your estimation, what coordinate-transformation should replace the standard Lorentz-boost? My investigations into your claims have led me to a transformation whose matrix is not symmetric. It partially reproduces the usual time-dilation and length-contraction in one-way trip scenarios. But does not reproduce relative simultaneity. In deriving this, I did not even have to presume length-contraction. I only presumed 1. anisotropy of the speed of light for observers moving in the aether, 2. time-dilation of light-clocks moving in the aether and 3. reciprocity (that is, if Observer A sees B move with speed v, then B sees A move with speed -v). Fair enough, right?
@dialectphilosophy One last question: shouldn’t it be important for Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism to remain invariant under any physical coordinate-transformation? After all, such equations have been experimentally confirmed to hold in all laboratory reference frames (regardless of their speed, orientation, etc.) haven’t they?
The coupling of the weak interaction depends on the fine-structure constant, which in turn depends on the speed of light. So there is a connection between the decay of the muon to the speed of light, or as you said, the signal at light speed.
I would not suggest you to work with Dialect..your way of logic it’s much clearer then them,, they don’t have the right attitude to share physics concepts,,, and by the way if they didn’t think that a light clock should give the same reading no matter the orientation this means that they don’t’ understand a thing about relativity..don’t get poison with their way of thinking that doesn’t’ have any logic ,,,
Your video and the comments section (not Dialect's one) make me rethink that time dilation could be an effect of "clock", the electromagnetic one. As you pointed out in the end of your video, muon decay is the proof of time dilation that we are using for a long time, but if the "clocks" in the muons are also affected by the electromagnetic force, then things may turn out to be just clock issue. The hint to electromagnetic force could affect nuclear decay is that the electromagnetic interaction and the weak interaction are believed to be part of the electroweak, thus the decay rate can be affected by the motion in the electromagnetic field and can be delayed, resulting in what we have been seeing.
the start of the decay of the muon is mediated by just the coupling to the weak fields, there is no moving W boson to get dragged around before it. It is a probabilistic event only depending on time elapsed, and afaik elementary particles like the muon have no internal structure or movement
@@fluffy_tail4365 you don't need a W boson to see the effect. The coupling between the field should be affected by this effect, otherwise you have causality violated.
@@longhoacaophuc8293 I think, maybe, all physical interactions work and communicate at the speed of light. So, there can be no difference between a clock issue and time dilation. So far, we are finding out more and more, and this may suggest that time dilation is really fundamental. But this is a matter of checking and finding out more.
@@tanvirmiahjoy7153 to me, that's saying that a clock issue is the fundamental part. ie that special relativity is about _causality_ itself having a set speed. This means that what time fundamentally is, is a measurement of causality by proxy of an interaction. Time units are whatever a clock says when that clock is ticking via interactions at the set speed of causality. Any faster and the ticking is not really tucking, because they are not related to the mechanisms of the clock, as there is no interaction between its parts because they are not causally connected (they must be not causally connected if the tick rate is "faster" than what causality allows).
I love both of your content as a physics major. I learn more fundamental ways of thinking about relativity from you folks than from my professors here.
Thank you. There is usually no time for such discussions at physics classes for example at our university, the special relativity isn't even one subject it is merged together with electrodynamics despite being such crutial starting point to modern physics :D
@@OnionKing-cm4qh No, you debate honest people. What is dialects name? Can you provide evidence he has the credentials to debate anything? Are you talking about the host, the writer, the video editor? Which member of dialect is doing the debate?
@@ExistenceUniversity Dialect has not done anything to show he is dishonest. Also, I said I would like to see a debate between him (or whoever is behind his videos) and another physicist, so that the nuanced question can be asked and debated. If you are a master physicist then I guess you don't need a debate to see what questions need to be asked. I am not, and from what I learned decades ago in physics is not enough to ask the better questions.
Thanks. Amazing video, clearly explained. But I still struggle with the whole idea of movement or change or causation in the Block Universe. There the river of time is sometimes compared to a frozen river. Imagining the whole of eternal spacetime, almost seems to require a religious perspective, like that of Parmenides and Zeno of Elea. What exists at one point, exists for all time. I'd even question whether water can become ice or steam, because these are different things. Perhaps this sense that things are moving and changing, is like the movement in a movie. It's really a series of separate and still images.
Hi, thanks again for the support :) by block universe you mean time and space discretization? If yes then this is something I also struggle with. I guess we have to wait for theory of everything :D
@@lukasrafajpps Hi, you're welcome. Yes, if time is another spatial dimension, and everything is contained in this 4 dimensional block, then it's hard to see how change or causation are possible. One thing wouldn't cause another, it would just exist forever, next to it, like part of a pattern within the block. The moments of time would be discrete from each other, as you say. Haha what a puzzle. Your videos give me the best hope I'll ever understand all this.
1. Relativity was never “proven”. 2. Time is the interval over which change occurs, so when time dilation affects “time” it is equivalent to a “clock issue” and an everything else issue too. Time is not a parameter of the universe subject to change or control… only the interval over which change occurs is subject to change. Want your coffee to reach room temperature later? Put it in a thermos. What your food to heat up quicker? Put it in a microwave. Want your frequency transformations to take less time? Use a FFT instead of the OG one. Etc…. Want an entire system to take more time to change? Send it off at high velocity.
So are you saying that even when change intervals are lengthened, there is a continuous proper time interval by which this change occurs? If the time interval is continuous and not discrete. But wouldn’t a continuous interval, not really mean anything as well because any unit would be arbitrary? If that is the case then time intervals are irrelevant and should be replaced with some time density.
@@thebiggorp1623 interesting thoughts. I’m also not sure what you mean by, “there is a continuous proper time interval by which this change occurs.” I think you mean the proper time measured with the coffee doesn’t register a time difference. That is true since the clock slows with the coffee. I don’t know what you mean by time density. What unit would you put in the denominator? As far as time being discrete or otherwise, I’m not sure. We don’t have observations to suggest it isn’t continuous yet, but it seems everything at small scales are discrete/quantum. All motion and changes at the quantum level would have to be discrete for time (the interval of change) to be discrete. If motion isn’t discrete, then neither is the interval over which motion occurs.
@@CausalDiscoveries density in the pdf sense is what I meant. that you can’t really have a point in time that exists only a range. This is how I think about gr time dilation, the density decreases due to curvature.
Nice video. The only (very slight) issue I have is about the name "special" relativity. It's not special because it changes things about what is relative. It is special because it applies the principle of relativity to a special set of reference frames. Namely inertial ones. While General Relativity applies the principle of relativity to _all_ reference frames. So it holds in general. Einstein used the expression "special theory of relativity" in 1915, to distinguish it from general relativity.
No, that is not how "special" is understood. Both inertial and non-inertial frames are treated identically in both SR and GR. The "special" refers to the special case where the Riemann curvature is zero on all components and the downstream effects of this.
@@kylelochlann5053 That is how special was understood by Einstein. The frames are not treated identically in GR and SR. SR has a special set of rules for accelerated frames while GR does not. The principle of relativity (The laws of physics are the same) holds in all reference frames in GR while it only holds in inertial frames in SR. That is what the formulation with Christoffel Symbols gets us. You can of course reformulate SR in the GR framework to get the same result again, but Einstein hadn't done that.
That's of course completely false. The word special has no intrinsic meaning at all. It is only used because instead of calling his later theory relativistic gravitation, he called it "general" relativity, another meaningless phrase. That necessitated a second meaningless word for the kinematic theory, which is NOT a theory of gravitation. Before "general" relativity, it was just plain "theory of relativity". No special, no general. It has nothing at all to do with inertia, which remains a primitive fact, as in the Newtonian world ("Hypotheses non fingo" - Newton).
@@narfwhals7843 No, that's wrong and it makes no difference what Einstein did. There is no difference whatsoever between frames in SR and GR as u^j∇_ju^k=du^k/dλ+Γ^k_{ab}u^au^b=0 applies identically to both SR and GR (as common sense requires). There is only SR in the sense that R^a_{bcd}=0 is a special case of the gravitational field.
SR can handle both inertial and non-inertial ref frames, I'd be so happy if that misconception was true cuz dealing with acceleration problems is annoying af. GR is different in that the metric is no longer minkowskian
Excellent video. I also investigated Dialect’s aether-relativity and obtained the exact same equations and conclusions that you showed in this video. I guess we’ll have to wait for Dialect to complete making his case for the aether. I’m particularly curious to know if he can reproduce invariance of Maxwell’s field equations by means of aether-theory. That would be quite something!
You know that all this "length contraction" and "time dilation" stuff was discovered by Lorentz and Poincaré and Fitzgerald and everyone working with the luminiferous aether theories for at least a decade or so before Einstein showed that the aether was unnecessary. A lot of the popular explanations of special relativity completely skip over the history of the various aether theories leading up to 1905 and make it seem like all this stuff just poped into Einstein's head out of nowhere.
Dialect's answer to this is length contraction. That traveling particles and the electromatic bonds between them are somewhat shortened in the direction of motion when they move, as a matter of physics. The best reading on this is actually by John Bell of all people, somoene known much more for his quantum mechanics work than his relativity work, and is titled "How to Teach Special Relativity." In terms of Maxwell's equations: I'm not as solid on this point, so you can correct me if I'm wrong here. But isn't it possible that Maxwell's equations predict the speed of light in the ether? Which is how people originally intepreted Maxwell's equations, no? And according to Dialect's interpretation, the 1-way speed of light in the ether should be equivalent to the 2-way speed of light as measured at any inertial speed. (I also wonder if the measurement of permeability and permittivity have hidden 2-way speed assumptions in the way they are measured, hence Maxwell's equations are predicting the invariant 2-way speed, not invariant 1-way speed, but that is getting way beyond my knowledge level).
many do not think that time itself seems to slow down the life inside the accelerating spaceship, so that inside our body, the clocks of our cells, blood and bones slow down, i.e. they all beat slower at the atomic level. also metals age around the spacecraft but much much much slower. if a person were to put plants in a spaceship, the lifespan of even the shortest day plants would be multiplied by centuries, which would never even be possible on earth. everything always happens in the cells of life, a practical change in life itself. in a way, when moving at high speeds on a spaceship, time space is like a compressed air pressure mass that penetrates inside and around all life and suppresses/squeezes its clocks and thus slows down the clocks of our cells in practice and the slowing down of aging is realized. this way, the logic of the interaction becomes clear with basic sense. nothing else or magic stories are needed.
@@juliavixen176 Indeed, early 20th century physicists did not forsake the quest for the aether on a whim. It was really hard and they weighed their decisions more thoroughly than we probably realize. Still, after a century of special relativity without looking back, Dialect is attempting to snuggle-in the aether as at least an alternative interpretation since, as he argues, it cannot be truly disproven to exist anyway. Furthermore, the aether seems to be of importance among today’s philosophers. I’m not sure why. For now, I’m keeping an open mind …
@@erinm9445 All the “mechanistic” explanations I’ve read of length-contraction involving the electromagnetic interactions between atoms seem to use special relativity at their core. Are you perhaps arguing that that is not strictly necessary, and that you can alternatively apply Maxwell’s equations assuming the existence of the aether? Regarding my previous mention of the invariance of Maxwell’s equations, I’m simply assuming that an aether-interpretation would have to offer a non-Lorentzian transform that would (only sometimes!) exhibit time-dilation and length-contraction and also reject relative simultaneity. Then I would further assume that such a transform would not preserve the form of Maxwell’s equations but rather give rise to additional terms that have never been observed experimentally and likely never will. If however Dialect’s “aether-transform” does none of these things, then we would truly have an alternative explanation, in my opinion.
I haven't watched the video fully yet so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think what you're saying at 5:50 is quite true. If you have an oscillator emitting a wave of a given frequency (that is not reflected, just detected) you would not (!) detect a frequency shift in the moving case, you would detect a phase shift instead. If you are talking about acceleration, then the ever increasing phase shift would actually appear as a frequency shift. But this does not happen in the case of a constant velocity. The difference to a light clock is that, due to the photon being reflected, the emission of the next wave front only happens when the photon arrives at the detector. Therefore the frequency of the wave is actually dependent on the movement and the clock slows down even in the case of constant velocity. This is also the case with the sound wave analogy of the channel Dialect. Here the wave is reflected and therefore (because the travel distance for the wave is longer in the moving case, the reflection is delayed in the moving case) the clock slows down.
I would still argue that atomic clocks are basically light clocks, but for a different reason. In an atomic clock, when an electron transitions from a higher to a lower energy level it emits a photon and and the other way around it absorbs one. This means in a case of constant velocity these photons actually travel a longer distance delaying the next energy state transition, decreasing the resonance frequency of this specific oscillator and thus, slowing down the atomic clock. (Of course this is argued from a stationary frame of reference.)
Also there's a book by John Bell (of QM fame) called "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" with a chapter titled "How to teach special relativity" which offers an entirely electro-mechanical interpretation of time dilation and length contraction (and presumably with it the rest of SR) that relies only on Maxwell's equations and other physics known prior to Einstein and doesn't require additional postulates about the principal of relativity or the absence of a medium. In this interpretation it really *is* a "clock issue", just a complex one that affects everything made of matter. And of course modern physics does propose that there's a medium for light and everything else (other than gravity at least) - quantum fields. So in the end it really is all a matter of interpretation.
You debunk yourself and John in your explanation. Galileo created relativity and he was before Maxwell. Maxwell's electrodynamics does not work with Galilean Relativity due to the speed of light. Galilean relativity needs to account for the speed of light which Maxwell-Hertz proved was c. So you have to have relativity as objects are in motion and you need the Lorentz factor to make it work.
@@ExistenceUniversity you kind of debunk yourself there. Maxwell derived a constant speed of light with nothing but newtonian mechanics, which assume galilean relativity. Maxwell result was surprising given that it gives a speed without any reference to a reference frame, but isn't so surprising once you realize that special relativity was sort of embedded implicitly in Maxwell's laws already. Einstein simply extended the galilean principle of relativity to include Maxwell's equations, which can arguably not even be called "extending" the principle as it merely recognizes that electromagnetism is part of the physics that aren't supposed to change under a change of inertial frame.
THANK YOU - I found that "sound clock" thing on Dialect quite odd too. Nothing in a sound based system has velocities sufficiently high to bring in relativistic effects.
As for muons, their decay is mediated by the weak force. Whatever causes time dilation, whether it be Minkowski spacetime or dialect's explanation, it presumably affects all of the forces in the same way. The way I understand this when I think of Dialect's interpretation is that I think of all of the particles and all of the interactions as being made out of, at the deepest base level, massless particles moving at the speed of light. So for example, an electron is a massless particle interacting with the higgs field and it's that interaction that creates the "drag", or the containing of energy, that we call mass, slowing it from the speed of light; but within each field (electron and higgs), you just have massless packets of energy whizzing around each other, aka interacting. This would be true of all elementary particles, including all force-carrying particles. So every particle, in the end, is an assemblage of little speed-of-light clocks, and will have time dilation from their movement in the same way as a light clock or dialect's sound clock. So W-bosons and muon decay will also be affected by time dilation.
well if all forces are under this effects, all physical clocks will be affected, so dialect's interpretation would be meaningless. There is maybe an absolute time of reference, but all physical things would experience a minkwoski-like spacetime. Also, while the decay itself is mediated by the weak force, the muon has no internal structure, before the decay there is no internal moving parts, just the probability of the muon starting the process, and there is no exchange leading to that, so it doesn't really apply to muon and particle lifetimes.
Not sure what you mean by "massless packets of energy". We know that energy has a mass equivalency. It must, because the path that light (photons, "massless" particles) takes is curved by a gravitational field. This is how Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was validated, by making a prediction which was found to be true. The path of light from stars near the limb of the Sun was bent by the Sun's gravitational field. If light has no mass, it can't be acted upon by gravity. The confusion might be explained by the notion that the photon is "massless". A more illuminating way of expressing it is that the photon has no _rest_ mass. That seems a contradictory statement, considering the photon is never at rest! It is either moving at the local speed of light (actually, of causality), or it doesn't exist. And when it's moving, it has a frequency, which is proportional to the energy of the photon. And that energy has a mass equivalency that is acted upon by gravity.
When I heard that Einstein said that "time is what the clock measures" and that everyone repeats it without seeing that it is one of the stupidest answers I have ever heard, I realized that they don't know what they are talking about, being physicist and no one can prove to me that time really exists, or at least tell me how time interacts with the clock to say that it is time that the clock is measuring, (the atomic clock is a simple clock). if you believe that time dilation it is not clocks issues, show it, talk about time without mention the clock, talk about fiscal magnitude without talking about the measuring machine...
I couldn't agree more. Time does not physically exist - it has never been detected by any experiment or any physical means. So time cannot affect anything and nothing can affect time. Time is simply an abstract concept used to compare and quantify any change.
You have to read his paper more carefully. Einstein didn't define time as "what a clock measures". He defined the time coordinate, the measure of time for his analysis, as what a clock measures. Big difference. (Just as an aside..."what a clock measures" is a very good definition of time.)
Liked how you pointed out the flaw in the light clock metaphor by making the "clock" run in the direction of motion rather than orthogonal to it. I think the metaphor can be saved (and adequately distinguished from a sound clock) by extending it to 4 dimensions. From the moving clock's own perspective it's always oriented in its "time" dimension which is always orthogonal to any spatial dimension. In other words unlike a sound clock you can never orient the "clock" in a different direction besides proper time, nor can you "block" the medium with a physical barrier because the medium - the electromagnetic field in this case - itself exists in 4 dimensions.
@@hedgehog3180 because in 4 dimensions with no acceleration proper time (the time you perceive) is always orthogonal to any spatial dimension from your perspective but always rotated from the perspective of someone you're moving relative to. So when the light beam is pointing "up" in the metaphor, think of that direction as time instead. You thus can't just rotate your own proper time axis. Motion itself constitutes being rotated in 4D relative to someone else but for you the "clock" is always pointing "up".
but if you rotate the sound clock, wouldn't it slow by the same amount in one direction that it speeds up in the other direction, effectively maintaining the tick rate?
Did the math: still dilated by the same amount because the length of the clock would be contracted. If the length didn't contract, time would dilate even more and would be inconsistent with the other experiments. Putting the clock perpendicolar to motion avoids this complication since no length contaction can happen on that direction or It would cause actual paradoxical situations.
@@Oscar1618033 if you are using the sound framework, then you shouldn't be adding any relativistic effects to it, as they should be the conclusions you get from the workings of the model (I think). Just as how time dilation is explained by the longer travel and constant speed of light in the light clock, so should it be in the sound clock. Length contraction is a bit trickier I think, but ultimately it is also interpreted as a "clock issue" where the length is measured shorter due the relativity of simultaneity. But as long as you measure time and length in the same ontological way (in one case based on light-tick events and the other on sound-tick events) you should get the same answer (again, I think). So, as I understand, you should only use the classical doppler formula and just add a constant factor in one direction and subtract it in the other direction.
Another difference between the Doppler formula for sound in air and light in a vacuum is that with sound, the amount of the shift changes depending on whether it is the receiver or sender that is moving relative to the air. You see a different result if you are at rest with respect to the air, and the source is moving in respect to the air than you get if you are moving with respect to the air and the source is at rest with respect to the air. With light in a vacuum, all that matters is the relative velocity between you and the source.
There is a preferred state of motion in General Relativity that is analog to "free particles move in a straight line" from Newton. It is the postulate that test particles move along geodesics (they move in a optimizing path for proper time just like in Newtonian mechanics they take the shortest distance between two points). In all these twin paradoxes you have a closed loop, so the clocks can be compared exactly and the clock that is not moving along a geodesic will be running slower no matter what the trajectory is, assuming there are no pathological situations which usually are implicitly assumed to not exist when people write these paradoxes.
@@DrDeuteronprecisely. This becomes trivial when you can consider arbitrary paths in GR. In a loop you can always compare the clocks when you meet again and the nature of geodesics means that the free fall path will have the greatest proper time at least vs. paths that are close enough
The glint in your eyes as you step us through all this (in my case, for the first solid review in nearly a half century), is wonderful. Al the while, I'm thinking "What a glorious guided tour to Michelson-Morley." I still recall my 3rd year Mechanics prof explaining how a very rare first order relativistic effect can be seen by attempting to synchronize 3 (or more) clocks roughly equal separated around Earth's equator. If I recall correctly, it cannot be done more closely than about 4 micro seconds.
I've been eagerly following Dialect's alternative explanation of relativity, and I'm a follower of this channel, too. I do not have an advanced knowledge of physics, but It seems to me that your confutation of Dialect's sound analogy lacks something. First of all, no one pretends to rule special relativity wrong. Einstein's SR has been proved so many times that no doubt at all may remain. But physics is not about telling how things really are, but how to make effective predictions on things. So, there may be an alternative way to "see" reality than SR, provided that it is able to make predictions that are as well as valid as SR's (including muon's decay). This is what I see that Dialect's is doing and I find it very interesting. I considered the sound analogy just an observation that the same mathematics used by SR may arise in other contexts' too, without the need for complex explanations. In particular, it shows with one example that the Lorentz transformation is not necessarily linked to a relativity of the medium. So, trying to disprove the sound analogy rotating the clock is not the point. Dialect is still introducing its theory, which is not complete at the moment. In particular, Dialect uses the critical fact that it is not possible to measure the two-way speed of light (the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't measure the one-way SoL, too!). As far as I can understand, Dialect is not saying at all that the SoL have different values by different observers or different directions. The fact that the two-way SoL (the only one that can be measured) is the same for all observers is an established fact. SR states it, but it has to be in Dialect's alternative explanation, too (otherwise, no effective prediction can be made and the theory is disproved). In particular, the variation of epsilon the Dialect's theory (and the different mathematics that arises) is something that cannot be reproduced with the sound analogy. Neither the "air medium" in sound is equivalent to the "space medium" in Dialect's theory. Apart from all this, it is in any case an interesting debate and I thank both Dialect and you for your work.
"Einstein's SR has been proved so many times that no doubt at all may remain" I admire Einstein, but there is a serious mathematical interpretation error in the SR theory. - Follow what the math really says in the Lorentz factor in the SR time dilation equation - The v^2 variable in the Lorentz factor = 2 • acceleration • distance (assuming initial velocity = 0). This is the Torricelli equation, later incorporated among Newtons equations of motion. - The v^2 variable in the Lorentz factor can not be used for time intervals in relative motion where acceleration/ deceleration does not take place. That is what the mathematics above says, and it is inescapable. It is a fact whatever Einstein himself thought, wrote or said. Or whatever anyone else has thought, written or said since then. - Therefore, it must be during time intervals with accelerations/decelerations ONLY, where the physical time dilation is created (physical slowing down of a clock). This is further described by a top physicist in this paper www.ptep-online.com/2017/PP-51-07.PDF There are no experiments done, confirming time dilation, without acceleration or deceleration involved (airplanes, GPR-satellites, muons etc). When discussing Special Relativity, one has to separate: 1. Objective reality, real physical effects, physical change of a clock within certain time intervals according to the mathematical proof above. 2. Subjective reality, additional optical specific observer effects. The light clock, often used to derive the SR time dilation equation with the Lorentz factor, does not illustrate continuous time dilation with inertial constant relative motion. It illustrates, and generates an equation for, accumulated time dilation during time intervals with acceleration concerning the object which was accelerated to create the motion relative to the non-accelerated object. In other words, the light clock derivation is fully in sync with the mathematical proof above.
Two questions: 7:00 - system radiates gravitational waves and thus loses energy, so I think, that it actually falls into the Sun. Isn't it a form of "drag"? 10:00 - I think, that you create clock that is based on observing decay of radioisotope. This wouldn't depend on atoms "communicating". Am i right?
Hi, 7:00 - this form of drag can be explained by the effect of radiating gravitational waves and therefore can't be attributed to something else. Not to mention that in the case of aether, it would have to be present everywhere in the universe and affect also uniformly moving bodies which is not observed. 10:00 This is the same as the muon paradox as I mentioned in the video. Yes, this clock is somewhat fundamental in the current understanding of physics but some might argue that there is some internal structure of the elementary particles that needs to be understood yet.
While time dilation is a matter of clocks, it's really a matter of gravity bending space and dilating time. The most important thing to remember is that everything happens in the present. The past and future do not exist. Massive objects such as galaxies bend space and slow the passage of time within those massive bodies. It's weird because different objects age at different rates depending on their orientation within the galaxy. But they are still in the present. Everything that happens in that galaxy and the universe is in the present regardless of what the clock says. The objects are merely aging at different rates.
@@antonpwr Or "rate", haha I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure how literally to take the dimensionality of time. It may be that all points in time "currently" exist in some real, non-metaphorical way, but I don't think there's any evidence sufficient to discuss it outside of pure philosophy
@@antonpwr I define aging as the evidence for the passage of time. So, in other words, the age of an object is merely the evidence for the passage of time, not the rate at which the object is aging in the present. Again, time dilation is merely the rate at which objects age in the present. And thanks for reading.
I'm having this same debate in another thread. I've proposed a solution to not being able to divide by zero as an altering to standard mathematics. You may find it interesting as I think it could be a better representation of reality than current curriculum. "I mean, it's not really a invention so much as a better description of physical reality with mathematical operations. I believe all objects in reality have a positive energy density that would coincide with positive numbers > 0 to ∞. Negative numbers coinciding with being negative energy density would correctly cancel matter to "nothing zero" as indicated by Einstein's field equations. It could define negative energy density as both real and imaginary, depending on the application. lmkwut"
@@TwentyNineJP You can think of time dilation rate as a percentage of the speed of light that matter has been slowed. For instance if you wanted to know the difference in time dilation between you and someone else, you could think of their time dilation as an attribute that would be some fraction of the speed light. Kind of like an imaginary little sign over their head that would change depending on galactical gravity and speed.
Kudos to you man. I teach for a living, and think your videos are excellent. Very succinct and clear. I already know quite a bit about SR/GR but it's still a pleasure to watch, I wish you were around when I was learning it. :)
Here's an interesting question. Is it possible to construct a clock of materials that will allow it to tick the same whether it's stationary or moving fast? Has anyone attempted that yet?
What does that mean? If you take a clock with you on a space craft and get to a high speed then it will appear to you to tick at a constant rate, that's what relativity predicts. It's only to someone else that your clock can appear to run fast or slow. Are you asking if it's possible to construct a clock that appears to run at the same rate for all observers? If that's the case then the answer is no because of time dialation, even the Aether theory Dialect is trying to present would also conclude the same thing since ultimately all matter interactions are governed by electromagnetism, the force of which is transmited by light so those interactions would still slow down.
1. All inertial motion between objects in the universe is relative. 2. Two objects, in inertial relative motion, can not both have clocks which continuously physically go slower compared with each other. 3. A relative motion (or position) between objects (any objects in the universe) can not come, and has never come, into existence without acceleration (a force on objects). 4. Therefore, logically, the only phase in which a physical/objective time dilation can come into existence is during an acceleration/deceleration phase. Accelerations are objective. 5. Time dilation in GR is created with a constant force on an object, accelerating it upwards in a gravitational field (here assuming a constant location in the field, compared with an object hypothetically outside of any gravitation). 6. The GR time dilation equation is mathematically equivalent with the time dilation equation in SR. They just have a different set of variables in them. Insert the escape velocity equation in the GR equation and you obtain the exact SR-equation with the v^2 variable. 7. Therefore, logically, the SR time dilation must also be an acceleration based equation. The v^2 variable = 2 • acceleration • distance, it is called the Torricelli equation (he lived before Newton). v^2 is not an average velocity or an instantaneous velocity when coasting, and the equation can not be used for time dilation calculations with inertial relative motions. It is only valid while a force (acceleration) is operating on the object. 8. If the GR equation produces physical/objective time dilation (which it does, GPS etc), the SR equation must obviously do the same, and only during phases when/where an object is accelerated/decelerated. Atoms (and their rate of change = physical time) can not react differently in these two situations. In other words, this is the equivalence principle in a mathematical form. 9. This is more a metaphysical opinion/statement. An atom clock (cesium clock) does not only measure time in an exact way, it IS physical time itself. Twin "paradox" solved, imo. Concerning which point (1-9) do you disagree, if you do ? Please be specific. Cheers from Sweden
@@DikyVb Thanx, it is quite simple really. Follow what the math / equations says. The v^2 variable = 2 • acceleration • distance, in the SR time dilation equation, can not mathematically be used for time intervals where acceleration does not take place. Therefore, it must be during time intervals with accelerations/decelerations only, where the physical time dilation occurs. One has to separate objective reality (real physical effects, physical change of a clock) and subjective reality (optical specific observer effects) when discussing Special Relativity.
You can only predict the orbit of Mercury if you put time dilation in the equation. Time dilation is a real thing. This is a fact that everybody knows.
The myon question is a good one, and one probably has to think very carefully about what makes particles decay in the first place. You might find a light clock in there.
you might find them looking at a clock, but not in the current theory. they have no internal states at all, and decay (or observation of decay) is entirely random, ulimately governed by the Born rule. of course they might have hidden clocks (hidden 'variables') but such theories have so far failed.
The way I think about it is: every clock has to observe some interaction somewhere in order to tell time. If even the internal behavior of fundamental particles is somehow mediated by light, then there would be no way to build a non-light clock, since every interaction involves particles and the behavior of particles would involve light. And if every clock must be fundamentally a light clock, then calling time dilation a clock issue is meaningless.
@@Nick-o1h When I wrote "you might find a light clock in there" I did not mean this physically, but more like "you might understand what it has to do with the speed of light". Decay comes from interactions between quantum fields and how quickly an excitation gets distributed between fields. I haven't done the math and whether cannot say whether it can explain a slowed decay in an eather theory. But it's a priorily plausible.
F=ma/E=mc. The lifespan of a muon is governed by its mass and its acceleration rate. High mass objects with low acceleration rates take longer to radioactively decay. Apply an outside force, like air temperature, the decay rate can be increased or decreased. Muons don't fall to earth in a vacuum. This is what throws everyone off just like the hammer&feather drop tests. The atmosphere is an outside force influencing the motion of the object.
@@stewiesaidthat Do you have any evidence to support the claim that air causes decay rate to change? It's certainly not the case for any other particle or atomic nucleus that we've ever seen. Particles in particle accelerators show time dilation even in the absence of air. Radioactive elements decay at the same rate regardless of the presence of air.
I have a question. And it's the same since any tried to explain time dilation to me. movement is relative, means when you move relative to me, I move relative to you. So to both of us the other one clock is ticking slower. How can one be aged differently when they meat again? Often times this gets explained by one is on earth and the other one moves fast through space. But we are on a rock, floating through space and unimaginable speeds. So much about the other one floats though space. And we are in a gravitational field, here on earth. If Gravitation also causes time dilation, shouldn't we here on earth then age less then our friends up in space? And what if I move in the opisire direction of in which the earth is moving through space. In that case I am moving slower through space itself then the earth and anyone on it. Tjqts why I still ask the same question: how does time dilation actually work? And I mean in detail.
Same. Every 12 year old kid who hears about this has the exact same question and people who *think* they're smart say "it's easy". But it's not. And then you drift into a Schrödinger type Argument real quick. "Macro world examples are just examples and don't really work" soooo. And then they say stuff like "well, the twin comes back to earth again and through the movement, they are the same age again". Like when a kids magician moves a bunny from box to the other, doesn't reveal it and then moves it back.
@@borstenpinsel And it gets even worse. They say time dilation is dependent on relative speeds. Means when you here on earth sit on a bench in a park and some aliens in a different galaxy plan on inviding ou planet, but for a persons walking past you, acidentally in their direction, from their perspective its 3 days later in that galaxy and they are now launching their ships. I don't care about whos perspektive it is. Are they planing or are they launching. What is it?
I mean the big clue you seem to be missing is that the Twin Paradox is an SR thing and SR only considers intertial reference frames. The reason why the Twins aren't symmetrical is because the one in space has to turn around and thus accelerate, it is the acceleration that causes the difference in ages. Acceleration is absolute because you can always measure it using an accelerometer. Now of course gravitational fields do cause acceleration and that's the domain of General Relativity and in the Twin Paradox we just sorta ignore that, plus usually the speeds involved in the Twin Paradox are so high that the gravitational acceleration from Earth is neglible.
Perhaps the ether has a drag that moves relative to local frames of reference? As in... There is a sorta interaction resistance as a result of internal component interacting with such a field taking time. Which should make sense given waves in the electric field, causes magnetic currents in the magnetic field. You can't just instantly interact between electric and magnetic fields. And so stuff gets muddy on small scales meshing them together as stuff moves. Hence "electromagnetic waves" with vacuum permittivity and permeability coming out as a result. In this case you wouldn't notice any difference in the Michealson Morley experiment. I should also mention that in such a case, We would be using a tetrad formalism and killing vector fields to keep constancy of this vacuum permittivity and permeability values as you partially drag this ether around via motion. Effectively indicating a variable speed of C in a flat spacetime under this tetrad killing vector formalism, is equal to a constant speed of light in curved spacetime. Hence the unification of Quantum field ideas and Gravitational field ideas. There just 2 ways of looking at the same thing. In fact if you look at the chalk board of Einstein's he left around after his death, You'll see precisely this. A tetrad formalism in a flat metric killing vector field, which turns out to have the same degrees of freedom as standard GR. 👀 In this case the constancy of C is more like a summed value aka a average of the given electromagnetic field. Altho... It could fluctuate on smaller scales technically just as with any quantum field.
This guy is an excellent communicator. As an American listening to Lukas, his speed and tone are perfect. His physics is top notch and he communicates clearly. 👍 Hope he keeps publishing more. I’m still unsure why the Aether isn’t quantum fields, though.
A question always comes up when I see the light clock cartoon as I can’t do a light ray diagram that works for the moving clock. If we allow for the light source to be a laser aimed transversely then do we see the beam kink as it heads to the mirror or do we see a rotation of the laser? Or do we see a skew in dimentions? If rotation or skew then what happens on the return path from the mirror? Maybe we just see skew in the light beam which is the only logical choice but that seems to raise issue with the concept of planer waves from a coherent light source.
An interesting experiment to look at is the "Ives Stilwell" experiment. They considered the effects of high speed hydrogen ions emitting light and considered the apparent redshifted wavelength as well as the blueshifted wavelength. They then averaged the two wavelengths and found that the result was not the original wavelength, suggesting real time dilation had occurred. I think this experimental setup is far more reliable than just some guys putting atomic clocks on planes and trying to measure nanoseconds on the hour.
At 13:13, can't sound waves also be spherical waves within the air medium, just like the light spherical waves in the EM medium? This would mean there should be a transverse and longitudinal effect with sound, just like light. The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Sound changes the pitch, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant. The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Light changes the color, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant.
Transverse effect for sound would only occur if the source was moving in perpendicular direction relative to the medium. For light, the tranvserse part is always there no matter the direction of motion and the magnitude only depends on motion relative to the observer not relative to any medium.
@@lukasrafajpps ** But, they are both making circular waves in a medium, so I don't understand how you can consider the transverse Doppler effect different, in either case. ** This definition is only true, if you believe Einstein's Special Relativity. Einstein's Special Relativity paper has a self-contradiction in Section 2 and Section 3 of his paper (failed derivation of the transform math using the Einstein Clock Sync method). The transform math was derived from Voigt's paper called On the Doppler Principle, using an elastic medium. In the end, realize that you are just believing in Einstein's failed 1905 paper.
Newton's law of motion, F=ma, an electromagnetic force is used to accelerate the mass of the cesium-133 atom. The amount of force used is calculated using the the official time keeping station's radius to get length for 1/86400th the circumference of a circle. This length is then used to determine the frequency at which the cesium-133 atom oscillates. Any deviation from that calibrated location will cause the clock to run faster or slower as the wavelength (applied force) changes from the calibrated wavelength with motion. In simple terms, the atomic clock measures motion in space to the precision of its operating frequency.
@@stewiesaidthat lol exactly, so if the vibration deviates, you just accept the time it gives you, you are not actually measuring the deviation. in fact you dont even consider that the rate CAN deviate! well if the deviation is caused by the crystal being subjected to a different strength gravitational field then you have no idea its happening and you just think the clock was running normally when in fact it was running a different speed BUT NOT EXPERIENCING DIFFERENT LENGTH OF TIME. You put that crystal in orbit around earth and the frequency changes but you dont bother to check you just accept how much time the clock shows lmao. the frequency is caused by the decay rate which you simply assume to be a constant while in fact it was only properly measured at earth surface gravity, and then future experiments in orbit timed according to clocks that are also themselves under the exact same derivations. the failure is the assumption that the decay rate is as unchanging as the laws of inertia.
@@uncletrashero lol. Your ignorance is showing. There is no decay rate of the cesium-133 atom. The atom is being chilled to absolute zero to prevent it from being accelerated in time when a force is applied. Clocks don't measure time. They measure motion in space. I'm pretty sure that an observer in space can count 1 Mississippi and see that the hands of the clock are not keeping sync. C'mon man. Do you think time slows down and stops because the battery becomes drained and can't output the same amount of force.
@@uncletrashero the fundamental law of physics is Force Equals Acceleration. The frame of reference in a universe defined by acceleration is Acceleration. What accelerates the quartz clock. How is that different from what accelerates something like biological processes. People are reading to much into this time-dilation stuff. It comes from not understanding basic physics and the proper frame of reference. This is what happens when you allow a plagiarist to usurp physics.
Thank you for this video. I've asked the question about rotating the clock 90 degrees to Dialect right after his video was published. Next, at 13:27 I think you forgot that in Sound Universe real time-dilation also occures, so the source will emit pulses slowly because of that. And this need to be accounted in the formula in addition to the classical Doppler effect. This is your missing b^2 term, and it will have the same sign for outgoing and ingoing signals.
There's a fundamental issue with this argument, which is the lack of understanding that everything is a clock. Clocks are just built to indicate the passage of time. But fundamentally, every interaction is moderated as photon exchange - which is a "light" clock. Everything. This is also why the sound analogy fails - sound is not the fundamental moderator of all action.
So true imo, and very well expressed. To clarify even more, when the SR time dilation equation is derived from the light clock in the textbooks using the pythagorean theorem, this light clock is a model of the quantum/photon processes you describe/explain. BUT, at the same time this derivation is often misunderstood. The equation does not produce time dilation because of continuous relative motion. Instead, it produces a fixed accumulated time dilation created by the acceleration of the object which is considered to be in motion, relative to the stationary object. At least one of the objects must have accelerated to create the relative motion, otherwise you'll have to introduce magic in physics. And that is sadly often what people do, when creating thought experiments to solve the twin "paradox", introducing third brothers/sisters who just move (or are positioned) without accelerations.
There is a problem which I've not understand (due to my lack of knowledge in electrodynamics) is the derivation of the Doppler effect for light in Einstein's 1905 paper. If you follow the classical explanation of the Doppler effect, the wavelength does not increase or decrease as you only observe one speed of light. The only cause of change in wavelength is length contraction in Lorentz transformation. Thus there would be no red-shift or blue-shift. Do you have any comment on this?
You are correct but you skipped over the important thing: the transform from the moving frame to the rest frame IS the source of the doppler shift. The rest frame's spacetime is unaltered. The source in the moving frame also does not perceive a change in spacetime. It is only when we go from frame to frame that we have to reconcile the difference. It is in this "communication" between frames that we get the associated length contraction and time dilation that gives rise to the relativistic doppler effect. There is an impulse to assume that an outside observer would either perceive or fail to perceive a compression/extension in the waveform but the point of relativity is that no such outside observer could exist. All of the dilation and contraction happens between frames.
@@arnoldkotlyarevsky383 I don't think I understand your reply. Or may be my previous comment confused you. My point is you should not have red-shift if you look at a moving light source, because the wavelength can only get shorter due to length contraction, regardless of the direction of the moving source (either toward you or away from you)
@@longhoacaophuc8293 that paper deals with the start of general relativity. You are missing the acceleration part and the equivalentlce principle part
At 7:09 there is an issue. You are mixing light waves "looking" and sound waves "sound clock". What if your "observation" of the other sound clocks could only be done using sounds waves?
It would be different because the rate of ticking you would observe would depend on the orientation of the clock you observe. The only exeption would be if the observed clock was at rest relative to the air
@@lukasrafajpps I guess my idea is that in order to measure the one-way speed of something, you need a measuring tool faster than your target. If you use light to measure sound, that is possible. But if you use sound to measure sound, then all that you can measure is the two-way speed of sound (the average speed of the pulse and its return). That's why orientation of a light clock doesn't matter either -- you can't measure light's one-way speed, only its average two-way speed.
@@ravenlord4 That's not the problem here though, the problem is that the speed of the clock would change depending on its orientation. You wouldn't need to measure the one way speed of sound to figure that out you'd just need to turn your clock 90 degrees.
@@hedgehog3180 The orientation doesn't change the round trip distance between the clock and the reflector. So you are still "looking" and the round trip speed. And that's the average of (2AB)/2. You can't tell what's happening between A to B and then from B to A separately -- unless you are using something faster than sound.
In moving clock, the light travels more distance, only from the perspective of stationary observer. It doesn't actually travel more in perspective of moving clock. And so the theory begun to resolve the paradox.
After the source of pendulum issued a pulse and before it arrive the receiving end the receiving end already moved away from its original location laterally hence lengthened the pendulum path so it takes longer time to hit the receiver. That is a reasonable argument if and only if that Aether isn’t drag with the pendulum but it does. Aether is light medium with no mechanical but electrical properties. It attaches to and drag with all matter in the near field at equal speed and to a reduced speed by a factor of 1/r from the speed of the nearest body. In this case the pendulum space is considered a near field that Aether drag with, and the light path in the light pendulum will be perpendicular and not diagonal, hence no extra time required and no time dilation.
Slightly related question on the experience of accelerating towards the speed of light. I’m not aware of the exact relationship between experienced acceleration and experienced time dilation, but it occurs to me that if they occurs at proportional rates, then the only thing you would experience as you accelerate towards the speed of light and experience less time is the experience of going faster. After all, as time continues to slow and you go nearly the same speed to an observer, you experience crossing more or the same distance in less time. My question is, would you notice the time dilation or would you only experience going faster as you continue to accelerate?
If we consider Aether is a solid also drag with everything, we opens ourselves a paradox in which everything stands still in space and no orbital effect. One may counter argue against Aether drag applying with the aberration effect. However aberration only opens doubt in Aether and isn’t a direct proof. Addressing aberration effects: Aether is regarded a fluid, an incompressible fluid. It has no mechanical except electrical properties which is u0 permeability and e0 permittivity. It adheres to and drag with matter in order to couple light, electromagnetic energy, between Aether and matter, and in doing so DRAG with earth as well as the interferometer, and hence to a static fringe pattern effect and a net zero velocity. As a fluid, however, Aether velocity remote from earth drag at a different mean velocity which is defined by the nearest planets and galaxies by a factor of 1/r. The laterally sheering effect in Aether fluid is regarded as a boundary layer on laterally moving surface. Which supports but contradicts aberration effect?
This video is the first one I've seen from you and I was losing my mind at the arguments you made in the first half😂. I'm very glad I stuck until the end
@@lukasrafajpps Today I watched the other 2 and this, total 3 videos of you discussing the topic on relativity that dialect made, now I'm already a fan, I liked them all and subscribed you.
So clocks measure time, and depending on the type of clock, different things are measured to calculate time elapsing. Because muons are affected, we think it's something on a more fundamental level. Do I have this right so far? If light can be particular and wavelike, depending on observation, could time be more like a flame? Something that occurs as a result of composition rather than an isolated property?
Time is nothing more than a human observation of a repetitive and constant phenomenon.. Sunrise...sunset...sunrise..sunset... Solar clocks prooved that sunsets and rises at a constant and precise rythm. Time is rythm. Stable, precise, constant, repetitive. Metronome Humans are very sensible to evenly constant repeating phenomenon. This is why we love music and dancing and daily routine tasks.
You basically have it right. I'm not sure what you mean by time being like a flame, could you expand on that? Like I'm getting that you're proposing that time like light can behave differently under different circumstances, I just don't know what you mean by composition.
@@hedgehog3180 I guess what I'm wondering is whether time is it's own "entity" such as an element would be (composed of different building blocks, but always the same configuration) or is it like a flame, in which modifying the parts (air flow, fuel) affect the whole.
7:18 this is only the case if you could define a rest frame for the medium. This is exactly what everyone gets wrong about the aether, and why no one takes it seriously. To define such a frame you need something indipendent from the medium to compare it to, and this is usually done with matter. But if the medium is literally ALL there is, you cant define such a frame, and relativity works just fine. As an analogy, think about a boat on the ocean. You can define the rest frame of the ocean by watching how the boats motion creates waves (none when the boat is at rest with the ocean). Now imagine instead the boat is not separate from the ocean, so instead visualize a wave on the surface. Its motion does not disturb the ocean from the frame of the wave, so it says it is still relative to the ocean. But so can every other wave say the same. The only "true" stationary, preferred frame would be that of no waves at all, but that would mean empty space. There's nothing to compare your measurements with in empty space.
the sonic wave example is fun and useful for illustrating that point, if the drone and the human being analyzing it where made out of structures in the air, like matter can be thought of as light or energy propagating at c but that is confined in a stable structure giving it the inertial properties of matter instead of the inertial properties of waves, if you imagine the same thing going on for waves of density in air, even if it int possible in air the consequences would be the same as with light and special relativity, there would be no apparent contradiction with the clocks made out of normal matter coupled to c, because all the clocks you could compare with would be made out of dynamical processes in the air medium and would dilate and be limited by the same maximum speed in that medium. in the same way, if we built a theory of the emergence of the sub-luminal unified field, we would also need matter fields coupled to a causal velocity of "waves" much larger than c, and the clocks made out of that matter would not dilate according to C but according to the new maximum propagation speed of those fields that matter were coupled to. just like our light coupled clocks don't dilate like the air driven clocks. because this is essentially the only possible way to extend our current theories, it is unhelpful to think about the effects of special and general relativity on time and space as fundamental. btw, no matter what questions you have about the consistency with quantum mechanics and relativity itself special or general, i assure you those are easy to solve.
So, what is measured is wave propigation. Frequncy behavior and the focus is location of sensors and an effect of intertia (the changing direction thing)? So Einstiein was studying frequency effects and calling it time. Waves that turn around to return to their source. Now that would be an awesome subject to research.
Please treat me like I am five. Clocks do not (and cannot) measure time. Yes? And clocks themselves are not time. Yes? Clocks only measure oscillations of one type or another type. Yes? Clocks will run at different rates depending on where they are. Yes? A hourglass will not run at all on the ISS. Neither will a pendulum clock. And both clocks will run more slowly the further from the surface of the Earth they get. Yes? As velocity relative to space is gained, all accelerated particles increase in mass according to Einstein. Yes? And so a moving object has rest mass, momentum, and a small amount of "relativistic" mass. Yes? And when oscillating particles gain in mass, their oscillation frequency must decrease due to the conservation of momentum. Yes? And so ALL clocks slow down as they gain velocity, no matter what principle they operate on. Yes? Why would a clock running slower indicate time dilation? Time kept running at the exact same rate, and MUST do, because the conservation of momentum must result in fewer oscillations per time period. Yes? If time itself were slowing down, then the clock would have to lose even more time, in order for momentum to be conserved. Yes? Doesn't the Twins Paradox then simply disappear in a puff of smoke? Things taking longer to happen is mass in action, not time changing the rate at which it passes.
Great questions! You’ve touched on some fundamental aspects of how we understand time and clocks in the context of relativity. Firstly, it’s true that clocks measure oscillations rather than time itself. Clocks, whether they’re pendulums or atomic devices, provide a consistent way to gauge the passage of time based on their own periodic processes. When you mention that a clock running slower could indicate time dilation, it’s crucial to understand that time dilation isn’t just about the clock slowing down. In relativity, time dilation refers to how time is experienced differently depending on relative motion and gravitational fields. So, if one clock is moving rapidly relative to another, it doesn’t just tick slower because of its own mechanics, but because time itself, as experienced by the moving clock, runs differently compared to the stationary one. You’ve raised a point about conservation of momentum and oscillation frequency. While it’s true that particles gain mass as they accelerate, leading to changes in oscillation frequencies, this doesn’t negate time dilation. The conservation of momentum and energy principles do apply, but they work within the framework of relativity, where time dilation is a fundamental aspect of how space and time interact. The Twin Paradox is a result of these relativistic effects. One twin traveling at high speeds ages more slowly not because their clock is malfunctioning, but because time itself is dilating for them compared to the twin who remains stationary. So, the paradox isn’t about clocks simply ticking slower but involves how time itself is altered in different frames of reference. This effect, as described by relativity, means that time is experienced differently depending on velocity and gravity, and the conservation of momentum aligns with these relativistic principles.
what is meaning of "just a clock issue"? As opposed to what? Are you proposing that there is an aether that could also explain time dilation? Perhaps another viewer could answer these questions.
Dialect seem to be suggesting that time dilation is merely an artifact of clock mechanisms, rather than a feature of how space and time themselves behave. In that case an aether could indeed reproduce the results of Relativity if all clocks dependent on the aether in the same way. But then the aether is also inherently undetectable (since you also have to introduce length contraction).
It is possible to derive 2 contradictory time dilation equations. Imagine that Sally is in a spaceship and moving to the right and is aiming a flashlight straight up and down so that Sally sees the light moving straight up and down and John is outside the spaceship and sees the light forming a triangle with the floor of the spaceship. Now imagine that Sally is aiming a flashlight upwards and towards the left while the spaceship moves to the right. Now the situation is exactly reversed. Sally sees the light forming a triangle with the floor and John sees the light bouncing straight up and down. Here's the details... Sally is in a moving spaceship. John is outside the spaceship. Sally is moving to the right at .6c. The height of her spaceship is .8 light-seconds. If Sally has a flashlight with the light bouncing straight up and down the light will make a 3-4-5 right triangle from the viewpoint of John. If the change in time for Sally is delta T_o and the change in time for John is delta T then the following equation can be derived: delta T = delta T_o/((1-.6^2)^.5) Now Sally has a flashlight but this time she is holding the flashlight at an angle of 53.13 degrees above the horizontal and pointed to the left. Now the leftward movement of the light exactly matches the rightward movement of the spaceship from John's viewpoint. Now the light is bouncing straight up and down from the viewpoint of John and the light is making a 3-4-5 right triangle from viewpoint of Sally. If the change in time for Sally is delta T_o and the change in time for John is delta T then the following equation can be derived: delta T_o = delta T/((1-.6^2)^.5) The 2 equations are in direct contradiction to each other.
7:14 this statement is wrong assuming that you are only permitted to use sound to pass information between clocks. Actually, the full formalism of relativity can only be recreated with sound if the speed of sound is the speed limit for all information in the thought experiment, meaning the clocks themselves must be made of standing sound waves (not sure how that would work, though). Anyways, the moving sound clock would see the stationary clock ticking faster because of its distorted perspective, it would only be able to confirm such a thing after traveling around the closed universe (Earth). Edit: you said something about the sound clock analogy matching special relativity when including doppler effect, but you really needed to use the doppler effect for the sound clocks as well, not just the light clocks. Edit 2: another wrong thing, when considering sound clocks purely made of standing sound waves, they would also be length contracted exactly the same as light clocks. So the sound analogy holds.
The clocks we've built are all oriented 90 degrees, nearly perfectly, to the direction of motion - time. In 4D time is the direction of motion of everything around us, so orienting the clocks in any dimension in 3D still leaves them perpendicular to time and no orientation effects will be observed
I think everything seems to boil down to quantum field theory because for instance QED or QCD shows us how things, even at the quantum super-positional level, interact as "light clocks". The dilemma is between two perspectives. Materialist (processes are seen as laws) perspective: it is because of light speed interactions we end up being materially limited with the speed of causality, where the force carrier particles act like Hermes but since they are the only information carrier sources of matter delays and dilations emerge (like time dilation). Idealist (laws cause processes) perspective it is BECAUSE of the principle or the law embedded in the universe that in all frame's of reference speed of light is the same value and the principle itself is causing time dilation. I honestly prefer the first one because I think if we accept that change (causality like in QED interactions) is happening through speed of light interactions there remains no reason to put an external "law of government". I think Einstein assumed that there was a LAW of relativity and that mislead him to think faster than speed of light interactions at any level would be metaphysically illegal. Than, because no matter how wrong he was he was ingeniously wrong, he predicted the quantum entanglement interactions which in my opinion proved that he was wrong to adopt the idealist (law fundamentalist) stance.
I want to dive deep into this in the future for sure :) a good hint is a sine-gordon equation which you get by a continuous limit of infinite number of connected pendula. This system is naturally relativistic even though we didn't asume any relativity at the start just classical pendula. Looking forward to do a video about this
Hey, if general relativity is true, and it is, that means the parameters to measure light-speed change and both changes compound or exaggerate the changes in the speed of light. I wrote a little book about it. This would explain faster than expected motion the farther removed from the source of gravity it is. Redshift is also affected by gravity.
Thats not how clocks work, no clock on earth (or in space) uses a bouncing beam of light to compute time. Mechanical clocks have nothing to do with light, but with moving mechanical parts, and digital clocks are based on quartz crystals which vibrate at a certain frequency when applied a certain voltage- again nothing to do with light. Atomic clocks use a combination of quartz and cesium atoms to syncronise the quartz crystals, and again light is not involved in the process. So wtf is this guy talking about here ? About his immaginary relativistic clocks which are based on bouncing light ?
Quoting Stewiesaidthat - Space and Time are two separate frame of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Combining the two frame to believing that clock measures time is what creates the paradox. Space-Time diagram? That shows one person is experiencing more space in the same amount of time.
Does the caesium atom vibrate at the same frequency when it is moving as when it is "stationary"? This seems to be an assumption that the atomic clock experiments rely on. What exactly is it that enforces the speed limit for light in a vacuum? Maybe this mechanism also affects the vibrations of atoms at velocity.
@@adriendecroy7254 If you stand still, are you moving? Yes! The earth is moving. So which atomic clock do you hold to be NOT in motion so that we can judge it against the others?
@@ExistenceUniversity exactly. This is why I put quotes around "stationary". I am starting to wonder whether space time is a lattice of fields. This maybe is truly stationary, and the interaction of these fields with energy/mass produces some kind of drag (to acceleration) which enforces the speed of light limit, and maybe even could create the effect of gravity. Kinda like the idea of the ether. It could also be the medium through which light can still travel in a vacuum, since all other forms of energy need a medium to travel through. Maybe the field lattice is perturbed by light and matter/energy. Maybe there is even no matter, only concentrations of energy. Who knows. Too bad Michelson-Morley experiment didn't find a difference between light velocity in orthogonal directions, but they didn't do that in a vacuum, so maybe there's some effect that cancels in that case. Need to re-do it in space.
12:41 Moving clocks are perpendicular to each other, but still show the same time dilation. Why? Because they’re both perpendicular to the 4th dimension of time! Yes, I know time is not a spatial dimension, except there is a way to treat it as such. FloatHeadPhysics elaborates on that, talking about infinitely compactified spatial dimension becoming time.
To the best of my knowledge time dilation (length contraction/dilation) due to velocity has never experimentally been proven to actually exist. It's just an observer error and poor underlying assumption. Time dilation due to the gravity effect is a completely different phenomena :)
Great video overall! I do have two main concerns though. The smaller one that I will get out of the way is this: at the end you ask, if time dilation is "just a clock issue", then why does it happen to muons? Well I think the word "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. We only know of interactions that happen at the speed of light, so this clock issue affects the rates of the decays as well. Yes, time dilation is fundamental, because all interactions between and within particles happen at the speed of light, and thus the processes that cause muon decay are essentially little light clocks. My second issue is that I am a little confused by the part where time dilation is different for clocks placed in different orientations. I did the math and got the same factor, but I am having trouble visualizing it. Suppose we have a universe with two spatial dimensions. In this universe are two observers, A and B. A will be the observer's frame of reference, i.e. stationary for this consideration, and B will be moving relative to A. Now suppose that each observer is enclosed by a circular mirror centered at the observer, that remains stationary in that observer's frame. Then, at some time, each observer emits a pulse of light. Because the mirror is a circle, i.e. the same distance from the observer at all points, all of the light returns to the observers at the same time. For A, this is immediately obvious, and for B, it follows from the principle of relativity (i.e. B is stationary in B's frame of reference, so it observes the same thing, all else being equal). This means that, if we from A's perspective mark out the paths of all of the photons emitted by B, all of the total lengths have to be the same; all of the photons were emitted and received by B at the same times, which means the length of their paths have to be the same since the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of the source. From this, it follows that two light clocks, one placed parallel and one perpendicular to B's direction of motion, should have exactly the same time dilation, because the photons in the light clock are just following one of the possible paths of the photons in the circular mirror. Where did I go wrong in my thought experiment? I suspect it has something to do with relativity of simultaneity because I always struggle with that, but I am pretty sure that I shouldn't have that issue here because in both frames, the start and end points of the measured light are the same. There's nothing that could be simultaneous in one frame and not in another that is actually relevant to the observation. It's also not length contraction because the fact that each observer sees all of the photons at the same time is what's important. No matter what length contraction is involved, that result should be the same by the principle of relativity.
@@balabuyew Yes. The "principle of relativity" states that the laws of physics are observed to be the same in any frame of reference. That is a premise of the Theory of Relativity, not a conclusion. One derived from observed facts.
The rotated clock doesn’t account to changes in all electromagnetic forces between interacting particles due to move? Wouldn’t just that cause size change depending on direction of movement?
The reason why a moving clock seems to run a little slower than a stationary one is because in order to move it you need to apply a constant FORCE to it. That force pushes the clock forward, while generating an equal and opposite force inside it, which pulls its atoms and compresses them together in the opposite direction of movement (like balls inside a car that fly toward the back of the car when it is accelerating hard). This causes the quartz crystals to contract, and therefore to vibrate at a slightly lower rate. Hence, the clock will show a slightly delayed time. But that does not mean that time dilates. It simply means that the clocks vibrating frequency changes. A similar effect happens in space, because of extreme temperature variation. The frequency of the atomic clocks is influenced by centrifugal forces and other factors such as temperature, pressure etc.
Imagine a spaceship passing by you that has white lights on the front, and red lights on the back, and that they are LED's that are flashing at above 60Hz to reduce energy consumption. The spaceship passes by you at what you measure to be 260,000 km/s. Meanwhile, as it approached you, you measured the the light pulses from the front headlights, to be travelling at the speed of light. When it passed by you, you then measured the pulses of red light also travelling at the speed of light. Then you scratch you head, because from your point of view that meant that the light coming from the front of the spaceship was only released at 40,000 km/s, thus 40,000 km/s plus the speed of the spaceship, equals the speed of light. Then to be even more confusing, the red light releases from the spaceship's rear lights, appears to have been released at 560,000 km/s relative to the spaceship, thus 560,000 km/s - 260,000 km/s spaceship velocity = 300,000 km/s, the speed of light. But all this is easy to explain concerning the actual mechanics of what is going on, rather than mere theories, if you fully understand special relativity.
Ron Halton wrote an article, " Those scandalous clocks" would disagree. It's not the motion but the gradient of the gravity( potential) that affects the time dilation. Ron Halton had twenty-three patents for GPS-Time system and was a consultant to NASA when they timing issues with their satellites.
There are two kinds of time dilation. One due to a gravitational potential, which is the dominating factor on the GPS system. And the other is kinetic time dilation due to relative motion. Both effects are real and have been measured.
In the case of sound, the expression for doppler is different than for the light. For light, there is always the transverse effect while for sound you can eliminate it by proper orientation of the source.
@lukasrafajpps Is it not because in the case of sound, we don't consider the Lorentz factor that has been demonstrated in the cited Dielect video? I don't see how the transversality of EM waves would bring any difference. It seems to me that in both cases, there's a source that broacasts spherical wavefronts, and it is a matter of spacetime geometry as to where & when the wavefront is intercepted by each type of clock. Even if we could cite the moving medium for sound, we could do the same for light with the dynamic & expanding spacetime geometry. Also, in the case of supersonic events, we could still cite tachyons as analogous. In short, I am still not seeing any specific distinctions between the two if we treat everything to be equal except that one is sound (and its properties) and the other is light (and its properties).
@@KingLuh It is because the time for moving source ticks slower and you have to account for that in the doppler effect. Whereas for sound, the source is usually moving slowly and you don't have to account for that. But yes, if you were in a medium where speed of sound is very fast like the matter of a neutron star then you could have a fast moving source emitting sound waves and you would use relativistic doppler formula. The point is that this proved that the time dilation is real because you have to account for this time dilation (transverse part of the doppler shift) All this was of course measured and is therefore proven experimentally. The difference between sound and light is in the fact that for sound, this transverse part would be only present if the source was moving relative to the medium but not if it was stationary. For light, it doesn't matter who is moving (the source or observer) only relative motion matters. And that is why we can't consider this sound analogy to be exact.
@lukasrafajpps I think I now understand the most part of it. I am aware that in practice, the formulas for the two are not the same, but in principle, if we were to subject both phenomena to the same treatment (if Galilean be it for both or if Lorentzian be it for both regardless of how small the speeds) then the differences would be fewer. Also, the distinction of the movement of the observer vs the source (beyond a sign difference) doesn't make much sense once we talk relativity of inertial reference frames. It would just be the speed of the frame of reference and that of the wave.
I love your videos, but please can you calrify this argument as I have a few things that just don't make sense to me. 1) You argue that time dilation is not caused by wave mechanics, but still acknowledge that light is a wave. So shouldn't there be an time dilating effect from wave mechanics? Why isn't there? 2) The difference in the perpendicular and tranverse dilations should be cancelled out by the length contraction, no? 3) The muon argument is surely not justified as Quatumn Mechanics is an incomplete model - read Roger Penrose's works - so it relies on the assumption that the probabilistic model is representing a probabilistic reality, as opposed to effectively approximating a deterministic one. Presently it is not known which is correct. Is this not the case? I really enjoy your work, and I usually find your arguments very clear. Am I just missing something obvious here?
Time: a certain amount of mass, with a certain amount of energy, over a certain amount of distance. Time = M x E x D Time is not a 'thing' you can interact with. Time is a concept of motion. A second is a standard of motion. When your atomic clock is moving, you are adding distance to the equation. That means you are no longer measuring standard time. M x E x (D + d') Since matter, energy and distance are factors of time, any equation that includes time as a factor is susceptible to inaccuracies if one or more of the factors of time (M, E, D) is also present in the equation.
When it comes to Time Dilation, I simply think about it as a component of mass which introduces or affected by space time and clocks are irrelevant, this clears the true understanding of Time Dilation. We only talk about clocks to specify specific spacetime properties. Everytime I see a ping pong bouncing in the spaceship always confuses me.
So, If length contraction occurs for an anisotropic speed of light, it raises the possibility that the speed of light may not be uniform in all directions? Thanks a lot for this video. (Looking forward to see if Dialect manages any response)
Dialect doesn’t need to respond, since there is an error in this video: the directional speed of light has no bearing upon the 90-degree-rotated clock, because the question of speed limit is what’s in-play. The rotated clock has a similar problem, especially if we imagine such a clock moving near the speed of sound/light-i.e. such a clock would measure only two “seconds” elapse: half at the point of change in direction, and the other half upon the final return. Dialect’s video shows that we are approaching the idea of relativity from a place of extreme bias, and his experiment proves it, no matter the direction of the clock. I’m a little surprised by how many people are getting the point of his video wrong…perhaps everyone hates to see their life’s work on relativity go up in smoke?
Did everyone miss the part where he clarified that he was just trolling about the rotated clock being different and that it does in fact work how relativity tells us it should work
@@Kavukamarihow is it thar no one understands that a clock is am instrument that measures distance traveled. Rotating the clock just changes the distance the photon has to travel. Changing the direction the photon travels introduces redshift/blueshift of the electromagnetic wave. If you locate the power source forward of the direction of motion, you get blueshift or a clock that runs faster than it's stationary twin. What little Einstein didn't understand is that the amount of force and electromagnetic wave imparts on the target changes with motion. Has nothing to do with time-dilation because clocks are instruments that measure changes in spatial coordinates, not changes in temporal as in radioactive decay.
Con artists will never respond in kind. He will be sly, and never check his work. Dialect doesn't do science. He just makes stuff up and the words are too big for you to get he is lying
Why use "sound" and not air particles is sort of like specifying the light frequency / color. The analog to photon (no mass) is an air particle (has mass). Will love if you can take a look at my last video and see if you can make a better explanation.
If the speed of light is constant independent of the motion of the source, then why would the vertical speed of the photon in the light clock change for any observer?
It would be a cool experiment to see what would happen if you were to drop a clock and start a timer ground level to see the difference I’ve been dropping the clock would be different than accelerating it in a horizontal matter
the key tldr for why you are wrong about your last statement, is that teh transverse time dilation for clocks derived in air works because the transverse lenght contraction is 0. so you dont have to make the "matter/clock" out of only air to get it to time dilate properly, for longitudinal dilation you would need to adjust the distance between the speakers and sensors manually to mimic what it would be like to have matter made out of sound waves in air. :) that is the crux, but if you had that, and you measured a frequency emitted by it that depended on the time dilation, then you would indeed get the same kind of relativistic time dilation for the air analogy as well. invite you to calculate that as well, since you seem pretty proficient as it is :) i love this stuff it is fascinating, i notice you seem to be of similar interests, so it should be fun to do. basically you take the speaker based light clock for air, you account for length contractions, then you have a second speaker on the clock that emits a frequency that is adjusted by the time dilation, so if the clock slows down, the frequency decreases by the same factor. and so on. then you will definitley get the same expressions as in relativity for the sound analogy. and this also makes sense right? the reason we need to add another speaker that is adjusted by the derived time dilation, is because the frequency of the speakers used in the clock already are made out of stuff that is not "made out of air" they will not time dilate just because they move through air, so we have to make the effect happen by setting it up manually, but if you do, then it is identical :) which is cool, it actually reproduces the entire phenomena, and no wonder, we knew that already because the ether theories where you cant measure the background work the same way, there the time dilation of clocks and emitters are also identical.
I feel as though relativity is mapping of the variability of the universal constants in relation to background energy of the space it is travelling through, not in relation of one object to another. Time is immutable and absolute simultaneity is real and can be recognized by the interactions of quantum mechanics. Only your perspective of time can change due to the electrical signal in your brain travelling at a different relative speed to the body etc. Time is described inaccurately as it is described in terms of the Planck Time, which is how long it takes for light to travel the Planck Distance. There is basically a big difference between the conceptualized model of time in all of our minds compared to what it is modelled as mathematically in relativity. The one we all conceptualize in our minds is absolute, what we witness in quantum mechanics is absolute as well, only the meta physics of Einstein state that time is mutable when it is immutable, only our perspective of time can change. The way Planck modelled time is flawed as it assumes all light travels at a universal speed, when you look at the universe from an absolute frame of reference light travels at different speeds in comparison to each other (I am sick of people ignoring the time experienced by photons just because the photons perspective of time is different. It still exists and no metaphysics can eliminate that fact) and has carried over to Einsteins model. If relativity was proven then we could take two clocks apart from each other and bring them back together and they would be synchronized due to their mechanisms or coding catering to the momentum. We can't get time synchronized exactly and that is a failure of Relativity. We would also be able to unify quantum mechanics with physics, could explain singularities, why the galaxies are drifting apart (i.e. what is "dark matter" and "dark energy") as well as various other shortcomings. Stop putting Einstein on a pedestal, the guy was just a dreamer and felt that reality was objective (Your perspective is your reality which is unique for each particle) when it is definitely non-objective (Things happen in a certain order regardless of how you perceive them, causality is real). "SeeThePattern" produces some nice Lorentz Ether Theory videos as well, I like his ones related to the rivalry between Lorentzian theory and Einsteinian theory. ruclips.net/video/iqAvgHJa7Yw/видео.html Werner has some great stuff related to the stuff you are talking about, hopefully Dialect has seen the material: www.youtube.com/@wernerhartl2069
this physical length contraction issue is exactly why i mentioned imagining what matter would be like if it was made out of a medium of air, it would have to length contract, and so the time dilation would be the same anyway. that is there is no difference between a medium and whatever people think special relativity is like, special relativity is exactly a theory corresponding to a medium you cannot detect absolute motion with respect to. in fact the example you showed for how you would measure the speed on air can be fixed by just assuming length contraction takes care of it and then you are only solving for one unknown, compare that unknown to the length contraction functions on special relativity. i am telling you special relativity is an ether theory, people think it is not an ether theory, and that such things were refuted, basically because they learned special relativity in a simplified way and then someone told them so. but that isnt true, that is a misconception, special relativity and ether theories where the ether cant be detected like this has the exact opposite problem, it is not that the ether is impossible, but that any ether with any velocity is possible. except from the effects familiar to anyone who knows gr of frame dragging and gravity, it just has to be in uniform motion.
The point is not about the clocks, we measure the difference using atomic clocks, but the important thing is that we measure the speed of light the same in all reference frames and that means relativity has to be true
This is the very Idea I put up in a video years ago where time dilation is not the same when you travel towards a location and when traveling away from a location. The thought experiment the Einstein did was him moving away from a clock tower and he thought that the closer he got to the speed of light the slower the clock would appear to tick as he got close to light speed moving away from the clock. His ideas NEVER cover to what happens when traveling towards a location and what happens at that point is the clocks tick rate you travel towards will incease in its time rate or look like time is going faster then it is for you for locations you go towards. There is NO WAY that time would slow down everywhere around you when traveling close to light speed. this idea is not possible only time speeds up for locations you travel towards and slows down for locations you travel away from. This is the only way the time dilation idea works and makes sense the idea that all clocks moving run slower the clocks that are traveling at a slower speed is not the connection it is traveling away or traveling towards locations that cause this time dilation time rate change effect. What Brian Green and so many others have attempted to teach people about time dilation is absolutely 100% incorrect and the whole light beam bouncing up and down between 2 mirrors is not in any way a valid experiment to prove anything about how time rates change for locations you travel away from and travel towards.... Now its been 5 years sense i posted this video and i have less then 50 views on it....... This person as I'm posting this has had this video up for 9 days and he has 26 thousand views for this video.... ruclips.net/video/0ARg3rpvXB0/видео.htmlsi=ZtNzIEkdtVNmBGIL Posted this idea 5 years ago......... less then 50 views what BS this is......
So even if we have two equal masses of radioactive material, we travel one of them very fast, and we measure the rate it has decayed compared to its half life, we will see that the moving one was slower to decay?
I like Your explanations very much, thank You. Take an old wall clock, that works only in a one G world. How does it loose time, when moving in a 1G environment?
@dnomyarnostaw Albert Einstein did make a comment along those lines. He theorized that time is relative and can vary depending on one's frame of reference, suggesting that the experience of time is subjective. This idea is often summarized in the phrase "time is an illusion" or "there's no such thing as time, just clocks." I Googled that...maybe my Google is better than your Google.
@@dnomyarnostaw I didn't lecture you on physics principles, I just found the Google item that you couldn't find. As for the paper, perhaps you should try Google again. I wasn't trying to have an argument, I just gave a rather amusing quote. Sorry if you feel you need more ...
the analogy works fine, you jumped the step where you thought about what is means for an emitter to be a clock. i don't know your level of education in physics, and as i said before, i don't blame you for being wrong, but it is wrong to say the sound analogy breaks down, or that doppler shift work differently in ether theories than in special relativity. but what you said is wrong. i liked the video, it was a nice exposition, i am not criticizing what you said to be mean or anything like that, but there are so many people that think there is a real difference between absolute space and special relativity, and there just isn't. i commented a lot of times because why not and it is fun. if you read some of my earlier ones i explain the relationship between theories of absolute backgrounds and extensions of modern physics, at least a little bit, how variations of the speed and flow related to general relativity and so on. have a good week my dude, i like your video style, i hope you get a lot more subs, i think you did a great job overall, btw i am not some random person i work on cutting edge theory of extensions of relativity and quantum mechanics just fyi :) this channel deserves to get big.
what is the time of the part of the observable universe that is moving over the speed of light vs us? Do they still have the same structure and life as us?
Length contracts the closer you get to the speed of light because e.g. the electrons cannot go as fast into the travel direction, so matter flattens to the observer. To the traveller, everything looks the same on his end. As for muons, maybe it's worth considering that they aren't as elementary as we think, or they have some form of rotational speed that slows down their clock the faster they travel, dilating their time.
@KiterTMK Why would matter objectively/physically flatten in the travel direction if/when electrons are slowed down ? Isn't it more reasonable to think that they just are evenly slowed down in their rate of change as quantum objects (as fields, not as "balls" in the old Bohr atomic planetary model) ? Agree in principal concerning the muons, how can they be fundamental if they get time dilated, during their decelerations in the atmosphere on their way down to the earth .
A couple of simple questions: Is the speed of light always deemed to be constant in these light clock illustration? (yes?) From the mirror light clock is it asserted that the ticks slow down, therefore time has slowed down? (yes?) If time has slowed down, then the speed of light has slowed down because the seconds in the m/s of the speed of light has slowed down? Therefore the speed of light was not constant? But now because the speed of light is slower in our photon clock, it actually takes longer for the photon to bounce, and therefore time has become slower, and the speed of light has become slower, and therefore, the photon in the photon clock is traveling slower, and therefore the time is slower, and the speed of light is slower... Blue Screen! The universe has been halted to protect the underlying hardware form damage. Please check for corrupted driver updates or faulty runtimes. Or see your local god to reboot the universe :)
Hey, sorry we're late to the party here -- but thanks a dozen for providing such a great and nuanced breakdown of this topic! Again, we find your style of presentation very straightforward and easy-to-follow, and your enjoyment in teaching and debating these sorts of topics really translates to enjoyment for the viewer. We immensely appreciated your discussion of the relation between atomic clocks and light clocks, as many people were confused about how these can be the same thing, and the deeper dive into the Doppler effect and what it means to "see" other clocks ticking was illuminating as well.
You were very apt and correct to point out the issue of the longitudinal orientation of light clock; we received quite a bit of justified criticism for not addressing that issue in our video. At the time we refrained because we were uncertain of how length contraction was supposed to play into the picture; indeed we have since concluded that one will require a physical contraction of the light-clock apparatus in order to make the sound-wave analogy consistent -- which of course plops us right back at the Lorentzian ether theory. Now as to the very interesting point about muons and elementary particles that you made, our knowledge of particle physics is VERY fuzzy, but our basic assumption would be along the lines that, if a particle can decay into other particles, something in this process must cause the decay, and that such a process would likely involve the transmission of a light-speed signal somewhere at some point. Of course that requires a much deeper dive into the philosophy of elementary particles!
Making RUclips videos can be hard work with often little feeling of reward, but RUclips needs more educators like yourself who are professional, deliberate, and not afraid to delve into the details, so we hope to see more content in the future. Btw, we are more than open to collabs and/or debate, if you are ever interested drop us a line, we promise to be nice :-)
@dialectphilosophy I love your thought-provoking videos just as much as Lukas’, and I can’t wait for your next one! So I hope you don’t stop until you’ve made your case. Unless, of course you come to agree with Lukas after all. 😅
I’m curious though: in your estimation, what coordinate-transformation should replace the standard Lorentz-boost?
My investigations into your claims have led me to a transformation whose matrix is not symmetric. It partially reproduces the usual time-dilation and length-contraction in one-way trip scenarios. But does not reproduce relative simultaneity.
In deriving this, I did not even have to presume length-contraction. I only presumed
1. anisotropy of the speed of light for observers moving in the aether,
2. time-dilation of light-clocks moving in the aether and
3. reciprocity (that is, if Observer A sees B move with speed v, then B sees A move with speed -v).
Fair enough, right?
@dialectphilosophy One last question: shouldn’t it be important for Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism to remain invariant under any physical coordinate-transformation? After all, such equations have been experimentally confirmed to hold in all laboratory reference frames (regardless of their speed, orientation, etc.) haven’t they?
The coupling of the weak interaction depends on the fine-structure constant, which in turn depends on the speed of light. So there is a connection between the decay of the muon to the speed of light, or as you said, the signal at light speed.
I would not suggest you to work with Dialect..your way of logic it’s much clearer then them,, they don’t have the right attitude to share physics concepts,,, and by the way if they didn’t think that a light clock should give the same reading no matter the orientation this means that they don’t’ understand a thing about relativity..don’t get poison with their way of thinking that doesn’t’ have any logic ,,,
Flat earther
Your video and the comments section (not Dialect's one) make me rethink that time dilation could be an effect of "clock", the electromagnetic one. As you pointed out in the end of your video, muon decay is the proof of time dilation that we are using for a long time, but if the "clocks" in the muons are also affected by the electromagnetic force, then things may turn out to be just clock issue.
The hint to electromagnetic force could affect nuclear decay is that the electromagnetic interaction and the weak interaction are believed to be part of the electroweak, thus the decay rate can be affected by the motion in the electromagnetic field and can be delayed, resulting in what we have been seeing.
the start of the decay of the muon is mediated by just the coupling to the weak fields, there is no moving W boson to get dragged around before it. It is a probabilistic event only depending on time elapsed, and afaik elementary particles like the muon have no internal structure or movement
@@fluffy_tail4365 you don't need a W boson to see the effect. The coupling between the field should be affected by this effect, otherwise you have causality violated.
@@longhoacaophuc8293 I think, maybe, all physical interactions work and communicate at the speed of light. So, there can be no difference between a clock issue and time dilation. So far, we are finding out more and more, and this may suggest that time dilation is really fundamental. But this is a matter of checking and finding out more.
@@tanvirmiahjoy7153 to me, that's saying that a clock issue is the fundamental part. ie that special relativity is about _causality_ itself having a set speed. This means that what time fundamentally is, is a measurement of causality by proxy of an interaction.
Time units are whatever a clock says when that clock is ticking via interactions at the set speed of causality. Any faster and the ticking is not really tucking, because they are not related to the mechanisms of the clock, as there is no interaction between its parts because they are not causally connected (they must be not causally connected if the tick rate is "faster" than what causality allows).
I love both of your content as a physics major. I learn more fundamental ways of thinking about relativity from you folks than from my professors here.
Thank you. There is usually no time for such discussions at physics classes for example at our university, the special relativity isn't even one subject it is merged together with electrodynamics despite being such crutial starting point to modern physics :D
A clock issue seems to me (and always has) to make much more sense than an actual time dilation
Except that a clock problem would never explain the issue of higher than expected muon flux. That can only be accounted for by real time dilation.
Is this video serious ?
@@renaudfilippi2599no, this video just explores a possibility.
It does not. Clocks are cesium atoms,and all cesium atoms are the same in all frames.
@@arnoldkotlyarevsky383 Who is to say how many muons we should expect on Earth? They are rare particles to begin with.
I think this channel and dialectphilosophy should have a debate or do like an hour long collaboration.
Science has no reason to debate liars
@@ExistenceUniversity yes it does. If one wants people to believe in it.
@@OnionKing-cm4qh No, you debate honest people. What is dialects name? Can you provide evidence he has the credentials to debate anything? Are you talking about the host, the writer, the video editor? Which member of dialect is doing the debate?
@@ExistenceUniversity Dialect has not done anything to show he is dishonest. Also, I said I would like to see a debate between him (or whoever is behind his videos) and another physicist, so that the nuanced question can be asked and debated. If you are a master physicist then I guess you don't need a debate to see what questions need to be asked. I am not, and from what I learned decades ago in physics is not enough to ask the better questions.
@@OnionKing-cm4qh Every video he made is proof he is dishonest! Every video is a flat earth perspective on motion.
Thanks. Amazing video, clearly explained. But I still struggle with the whole idea of movement or change or causation in the Block Universe. There the river of time is sometimes compared to a frozen river. Imagining the whole of eternal spacetime, almost seems to require a religious perspective, like that of Parmenides and Zeno of Elea. What exists at one point, exists for all time. I'd even question whether water can become ice or steam, because these are different things. Perhaps this sense that things are moving and changing, is like the movement in a movie. It's really a series of separate and still images.
Hi, thanks again for the support :) by block universe you mean time and space discretization? If yes then this is something I also struggle with. I guess we have to wait for theory of everything :D
@@lukasrafajpps Hi, you're welcome. Yes, if time is another spatial dimension, and everything is contained in this 4 dimensional block, then it's hard to see how change or causation are possible. One thing wouldn't cause another, it would just exist forever, next to it, like part of a pattern within the block. The moments of time would be discrete from each other, as you say. Haha what a puzzle. Your videos give me the best hope I'll ever understand all this.
1. Relativity was never “proven”.
2. Time is the interval over which change occurs, so when time dilation affects “time” it is equivalent to a “clock issue” and an everything else issue too.
Time is not a parameter of the universe subject to change or control… only the interval over which change occurs is subject to change. Want your coffee to reach room temperature later? Put it in a thermos. What your food to heat up quicker? Put it in a microwave. Want your frequency transformations to take less time? Use a FFT instead of the OG one. Etc…. Want an entire system to take more time to change? Send it off at high velocity.
Excellent! Someone gets it.
So are you saying that even when change intervals are lengthened, there is a continuous proper time interval by which this change occurs? If the time interval is continuous and not discrete. But wouldn’t a continuous interval, not really mean anything as well because any unit would be arbitrary? If that is the case then time intervals are irrelevant and should be replaced with some time density.
@@thebiggorp1623 interesting thoughts.
I’m also not sure what you mean by, “there is a continuous proper time interval by which this change occurs.” I think you mean the proper time measured with the coffee doesn’t register a time difference. That is true since the clock slows with the coffee.
I don’t know what you mean by time density. What unit would you put in the denominator?
As far as time being discrete or otherwise, I’m not sure. We don’t have observations to suggest it isn’t continuous yet, but it seems everything at small scales are discrete/quantum. All motion and changes at the quantum level would have to be discrete for time (the interval of change) to be discrete. If motion isn’t discrete, then neither is the interval over which motion occurs.
@@CausalDiscoveries density in the pdf sense is what I meant. that you can’t really have a point in time that exists only a range. This is how I think about gr time dilation, the density decreases due to curvature.
@@thebiggorp1623 pdf as in probability distribution function? I am probably even more confused now lol sorry.
Nice video. The only (very slight) issue I have is about the name "special" relativity. It's not special because it changes things about what is relative. It is special because it applies the principle of relativity to a special set of reference frames. Namely inertial ones.
While General Relativity applies the principle of relativity to _all_ reference frames. So it holds in general.
Einstein used the expression "special theory of relativity" in 1915, to distinguish it from general relativity.
No, that is not how "special" is understood.
Both inertial and non-inertial frames are treated identically in both SR and GR. The "special" refers to the special case where the Riemann curvature is zero on all components and the downstream effects of this.
@@kylelochlann5053 That is how special was understood by Einstein. The frames are not treated identically in GR and SR. SR has a special set of rules for accelerated frames while GR does not.
The principle of relativity (The laws of physics are the same) holds in all reference frames in GR while it only holds in inertial frames in SR.
That is what the formulation with Christoffel Symbols gets us.
You can of course reformulate SR in the GR framework to get the same result again, but Einstein hadn't done that.
That's of course completely false. The word special has no intrinsic meaning at all. It is only used because instead of calling his later theory relativistic gravitation, he called it "general" relativity, another meaningless phrase. That necessitated a second meaningless word for the kinematic theory, which is NOT a theory of gravitation. Before "general" relativity, it was just plain "theory of relativity". No special, no general. It has nothing at all to do with inertia, which remains a primitive fact, as in the Newtonian world ("Hypotheses non fingo" - Newton).
@@narfwhals7843 No, that's wrong and it makes no difference what Einstein did. There is no difference whatsoever between frames in SR and GR as u^j∇_ju^k=du^k/dλ+Γ^k_{ab}u^au^b=0 applies identically to both SR and GR (as common sense requires). There is only SR in the sense that R^a_{bcd}=0 is a special case of the gravitational field.
SR can handle both inertial and non-inertial ref frames, I'd be so happy if that misconception was true cuz dealing with acceleration problems is annoying af. GR is different in that the metric is no longer minkowskian
Excellent video.
I also investigated Dialect’s aether-relativity and obtained the exact same equations and conclusions that you showed in this video.
I guess we’ll have to wait for Dialect to complete making his case for the aether. I’m particularly curious to know if he can reproduce invariance of Maxwell’s field equations by means of aether-theory. That would be quite something!
You know that all this "length contraction" and "time dilation" stuff was discovered by Lorentz and Poincaré and Fitzgerald and everyone working with the luminiferous aether theories for at least a decade or so before Einstein showed that the aether was unnecessary.
A lot of the popular explanations of special relativity completely skip over the history of the various aether theories leading up to 1905 and make it seem like all this stuff just poped into Einstein's head out of nowhere.
Dialect's answer to this is length contraction. That traveling particles and the electromatic bonds between them are somewhat shortened in the direction of motion when they move, as a matter of physics. The best reading on this is actually by John Bell of all people, somoene known much more for his quantum mechanics work than his relativity work, and is titled "How to Teach Special Relativity."
In terms of Maxwell's equations: I'm not as solid on this point, so you can correct me if I'm wrong here. But isn't it possible that Maxwell's equations predict the speed of light in the ether? Which is how people originally intepreted Maxwell's equations, no? And according to Dialect's interpretation, the 1-way speed of light in the ether should be equivalent to the 2-way speed of light as measured at any inertial speed. (I also wonder if the measurement of permeability and permittivity have hidden 2-way speed assumptions in the way they are measured, hence Maxwell's equations are predicting the invariant 2-way speed, not invariant 1-way speed, but that is getting way beyond my knowledge level).
many do not think that time itself seems to slow down the life inside the accelerating spaceship, so that inside our body, the clocks of our cells, blood and bones slow down, i.e. they all beat slower at the atomic level. also metals age around the spacecraft but much much much slower. if a person were to put plants in a spaceship, the lifespan of even the shortest day plants would be multiplied by centuries, which would never even be possible on earth.
everything always happens in the cells of life, a practical change in life itself. in a way, when moving at high speeds on a spaceship, time space is like a compressed air pressure mass that penetrates inside and around all life and suppresses/squeezes its clocks and thus slows down the clocks of our cells in practice and the slowing down of aging is realized. this way, the logic of the interaction becomes clear with basic sense. nothing else or magic stories are needed.
@@juliavixen176 Indeed, early 20th century physicists did not forsake the quest for the aether on a whim. It was really hard and they weighed their decisions more thoroughly than we probably realize.
Still, after a century of special relativity without looking back, Dialect is attempting to snuggle-in the aether as at least an alternative interpretation since, as he argues, it cannot be truly disproven to exist anyway.
Furthermore, the aether seems to be of importance among today’s philosophers. I’m not sure why.
For now, I’m keeping an open mind …
@@erinm9445 All the “mechanistic” explanations I’ve read of length-contraction involving the electromagnetic interactions between atoms seem to use special relativity at their core. Are you perhaps arguing that that is not strictly necessary, and that you can alternatively apply Maxwell’s equations assuming the existence of the aether?
Regarding my previous mention of the invariance of Maxwell’s equations, I’m simply assuming that an aether-interpretation would have to offer a non-Lorentzian transform that would (only sometimes!) exhibit time-dilation and length-contraction and also reject relative simultaneity.
Then I would further assume that such a transform would not preserve the form of Maxwell’s equations but rather give rise to additional terms that have never been observed experimentally and likely never will.
If however Dialect’s “aether-transform” does none of these things, then we would truly have an alternative explanation, in my opinion.
I haven't watched the video fully yet so maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think what you're saying at 5:50 is quite true. If you have an oscillator emitting a wave of a given frequency (that is not reflected, just detected) you would not (!) detect a frequency shift in the moving case, you would detect a phase shift instead. If you are talking about acceleration, then the ever increasing phase shift would actually appear as a frequency shift. But this does not happen in the case of a constant velocity.
The difference to a light clock is that, due to the photon being reflected, the emission of the next wave front only happens when the photon arrives at the detector. Therefore the frequency of the wave is actually dependent on the movement and the clock slows down even in the case of constant velocity. This is also the case with the sound wave analogy of the channel Dialect. Here the wave is reflected and therefore (because the travel distance for the wave is longer in the moving case, the reflection is delayed in the moving case) the clock slows down.
I would still argue that atomic clocks are basically light clocks, but for a different reason. In an atomic clock, when an electron transitions from a higher to a lower energy level it emits a photon and and the other way around it absorbs one. This means in a case of constant velocity these photons actually travel a longer distance delaying the next energy state transition, decreasing the resonance frequency of this specific oscillator and thus, slowing down the atomic clock. (Of course this is argued from a stationary frame of reference.)
Also there's a book by John Bell (of QM fame) called "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics" with a chapter titled "How to teach special relativity" which offers an entirely electro-mechanical interpretation of time dilation and length contraction (and presumably with it the rest of SR) that relies only on Maxwell's equations and other physics known prior to Einstein and doesn't require additional postulates about the principal of relativity or the absence of a medium. In this interpretation it really *is* a "clock issue", just a complex one that affects everything made of matter. And of course modern physics does propose that there's a medium for light and everything else (other than gravity at least) - quantum fields. So in the end it really is all a matter of interpretation.
You debunk yourself and John in your explanation. Galileo created relativity and he was before Maxwell. Maxwell's electrodynamics does not work with Galilean Relativity due to the speed of light. Galilean relativity needs to account for the speed of light which Maxwell-Hertz proved was c. So you have to have relativity as objects are in motion and you need the Lorentz factor to make it work.
@@ExistenceUniversity quack
@@PeterMoore-q5k That you are. Good work
@@PeterMoore-q5k Not a response. But you made your intelligent known, you have nothing.
@@ExistenceUniversity you kind of debunk yourself there. Maxwell derived a constant speed of light with nothing but newtonian mechanics, which assume galilean relativity. Maxwell result was surprising given that it gives a speed without any reference to a reference frame, but isn't so surprising once you realize that special relativity was sort of embedded implicitly in Maxwell's laws already.
Einstein simply extended the galilean principle of relativity to include Maxwell's equations, which can arguably not even be called "extending" the principle as it merely recognizes that electromagnetism is part of the physics that aren't supposed to change under a change of inertial frame.
THANK YOU - I found that "sound clock" thing on Dialect quite odd too. Nothing in a sound based system has velocities sufficiently high to bring in relativistic effects.
If you base everything on the sound clock, then the speed that determines relativistic effects is the speed of sound.
Everything he does is wrong, so no surprise
As for muons, their decay is mediated by the weak force. Whatever causes time dilation, whether it be Minkowski spacetime or dialect's explanation, it presumably affects all of the forces in the same way. The way I understand this when I think of Dialect's interpretation is that I think of all of the particles and all of the interactions as being made out of, at the deepest base level, massless particles moving at the speed of light.
So for example, an electron is a massless particle interacting with the higgs field and it's that interaction that creates the "drag", or the containing of energy, that we call mass, slowing it from the speed of light; but within each field (electron and higgs), you just have massless packets of energy whizzing around each other, aka interacting. This would be true of all elementary particles, including all force-carrying particles. So every particle, in the end, is an assemblage of little speed-of-light clocks, and will have time dilation from their movement in the same way as a light clock or dialect's sound clock. So W-bosons and muon decay will also be affected by time dilation.
Electron is a wrapped up photon, as are other particles ruclips.net/video/bVqT8rj9k9I/видео.html
well if all forces are under this effects, all physical clocks will be affected, so dialect's interpretation would be meaningless. There is maybe an absolute time of reference, but all physical things would experience a minkwoski-like spacetime. Also, while the decay itself is mediated by the weak force, the muon has no internal structure, before the decay there is no internal moving parts, just the probability of the muon starting the process, and there is no exchange leading to that, so it doesn't really apply to muon and particle lifetimes.
Not sure what you mean by "massless packets of energy". We know that energy has a mass equivalency. It must, because the path that light (photons, "massless" particles) takes is curved by a gravitational field. This is how Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was validated, by making a prediction which was found to be true. The path of light from stars near the limb of the Sun was bent by the Sun's gravitational field. If light has no mass, it can't be acted upon by gravity.
The confusion might be explained by the notion that the photon is "massless". A more illuminating way of expressing it is that the photon has no _rest_ mass. That seems a contradictory statement, considering the photon is never at rest! It is either moving at the local speed of light (actually, of causality), or it doesn't exist. And when it's moving, it has a frequency, which is proportional to the energy of the photon. And that energy has a mass equivalency that is acted upon by gravity.
@@fluffy_tail4365the main benefit of lorentz ether would be philosophical, it restores absolute time and space
@@rand0mn0light bending is GR not SR
When I heard that Einstein said that "time is what the clock measures" and that everyone repeats it without seeing that it is one of the stupidest answers I have ever heard, I realized that they don't know what they are talking about, being physicist and no one can prove to me that time really exists, or at least tell me how time interacts with the clock to say that it is time that the clock is measuring, (the atomic clock is a simple clock). if you believe that time dilation it is not clocks issues, show it, talk about time without mention the clock, talk about fiscal magnitude without talking about the measuring machine...
I couldn't agree more. Time does not physically exist - it has never been detected by any experiment or any physical means. So time cannot affect anything and nothing can affect time.
Time is simply an abstract concept used to compare and quantify any change.
@@MartinSaintXXLI completely agree with you there is no such thing as Time it is more of a Religion than Science
You have to read his paper more carefully. Einstein didn't define time as "what a clock measures". He defined the time coordinate, the measure of time for his analysis, as what a clock measures. Big difference.
(Just as an aside..."what a clock measures" is a very good definition of time.)
Liked how you pointed out the flaw in the light clock metaphor by making the "clock" run in the direction of motion rather than orthogonal to it. I think the metaphor can be saved (and adequately distinguished from a sound clock) by extending it to 4 dimensions. From the moving clock's own perspective it's always oriented in its "time" dimension which is always orthogonal to any spatial dimension. In other words unlike a sound clock you can never orient the "clock" in a different direction besides proper time, nor can you "block" the medium with a physical barrier because the medium - the electromagnetic field in this case - itself exists in 4 dimensions.
How does that save the metaphor?
@@hedgehog3180 because in 4 dimensions with no acceleration proper time (the time you perceive) is always orthogonal to any spatial dimension from your perspective but always rotated from the perspective of someone you're moving relative to. So when the light beam is pointing "up" in the metaphor, think of that direction as time instead. You thus can't just rotate your own proper time axis. Motion itself constitutes being rotated in 4D relative to someone else but for you the "clock" is always pointing "up".
but if you rotate the sound clock, wouldn't it slow by the same amount in one direction that it speeds up in the other direction, effectively maintaining the tick rate?
Did the math: still dilated by the same amount because the length of the clock would be contracted. If the length didn't contract, time would dilate even more and would be inconsistent with the other experiments. Putting the clock perpendicolar to motion avoids this complication since no length contaction can happen on that direction or It would cause actual paradoxical situations.
@@Oscar1618033you just have to use Galilean relativity - vitck = vsound + vclock, so yea it would balance back and forth.
@@Oscar1618033 if you are using the sound framework, then you shouldn't be adding any relativistic effects to it, as they should be the conclusions you get from the workings of the model (I think).
Just as how time dilation is explained by the longer travel and constant speed of light in the light clock, so should it be in the sound clock.
Length contraction is a bit trickier I think, but ultimately it is also interpreted as a "clock issue" where the length is measured shorter due the relativity of simultaneity. But as long as you measure time and length in the same ontological way (in one case based on light-tick events and the other on sound-tick events) you should get the same answer (again, I think).
So, as I understand, you should only use the classical doppler formula and just add a constant factor in one direction and subtract it in the other direction.
Another difference between the Doppler formula for sound in air and light in a vacuum is that with sound, the amount of the shift changes depending on whether it is the receiver or sender that is moving relative to the air. You see a different result if you are at rest with respect to the air, and the source is moving in respect to the air than you get if you are moving with respect to the air and the source is at rest with respect to the air.
With light in a vacuum, all that matters is the relative velocity between you and the source.
There is a preferred state of motion in General Relativity that is analog to "free particles move in a straight line" from Newton. It is the postulate that test particles move along geodesics (they move in a optimizing path for proper time just like in Newtonian mechanics they take the shortest distance between two points). In all these twin paradoxes you have a closed loop, so the clocks can be compared exactly and the clock that is not moving along a geodesic will be running slower no matter what the trajectory is, assuming there are no pathological situations which usually are implicitly assumed to not exist when people write these paradoxes.
Pathological situation?
This doesn’t resolve the twin paradox, because if you work in GR coordinates, there is no paradox.
@@DrDeuteronprecisely. This becomes trivial when you can consider arbitrary paths in GR. In a loop you can always compare the clocks when you meet again and the nature of geodesics means that the free fall path will have the greatest proper time at least vs. paths that are close enough
The glint in your eyes as you step us through all this (in my case, for the first solid review in nearly a half century), is wonderful. Al the while, I'm thinking "What a glorious guided tour to Michelson-Morley."
I still recall my 3rd year Mechanics prof explaining how a very rare first order relativistic effect can be seen by attempting to synchronize 3 (or more) clocks roughly equal separated around Earth's equator. If I recall correctly, it cannot be done more closely than about 4 micro seconds.
I've been eagerly following Dialect's alternative explanation of relativity, and I'm a follower of this channel, too. I do not have an advanced knowledge of physics, but It seems to me that your confutation of Dialect's sound analogy lacks something. First of all, no one pretends to rule special relativity wrong. Einstein's SR has been proved so many times that no doubt at all may remain. But physics is not about telling how things really are, but how to make effective predictions on things. So, there may be an alternative way to "see" reality than SR, provided that it is able to make predictions that are as well as valid as SR's (including muon's decay). This is what I see that Dialect's is doing and I find it very interesting. I considered the sound analogy just an observation that the same mathematics used by SR may arise in other contexts' too, without the need for complex explanations. In particular, it shows with one example that the Lorentz transformation is not necessarily linked to a relativity of the medium. So, trying to disprove the sound analogy rotating the clock is not the point. Dialect is still introducing its theory, which is not complete at the moment. In particular, Dialect uses the critical fact that it is not possible to measure the two-way speed of light (the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't measure the one-way SoL, too!). As far as I can understand, Dialect is not saying at all that the SoL have different values by different observers or different directions. The fact that the two-way SoL (the only one that can be measured) is the same for all observers is an established fact. SR states it, but it has to be in Dialect's alternative explanation, too (otherwise, no effective prediction can be made and the theory is disproved). In particular, the variation of epsilon the Dialect's theory (and the different mathematics that arises) is something that cannot be reproduced with the sound analogy. Neither the "air medium" in sound is equivalent to the "space medium" in Dialect's theory. Apart from all this, it is in any case an interesting debate and I thank both Dialect and you for your work.
"Einstein's SR has been proved so many times that no doubt at all may remain"
I admire Einstein, but there is a serious mathematical interpretation error in the SR theory.
- Follow what the math really says in the Lorentz factor in the SR time dilation equation
- The v^2 variable in the Lorentz factor = 2 • acceleration • distance (assuming initial velocity = 0). This is the Torricelli equation, later incorporated among Newtons equations of motion.
- The v^2 variable in the Lorentz factor can not be used for time intervals in relative motion where acceleration/ deceleration does not take place. That is what the mathematics above says, and it is inescapable. It is a fact whatever Einstein himself thought, wrote or said. Or whatever anyone else has thought, written or said since then.
- Therefore, it must be during time intervals with accelerations/decelerations ONLY, where the physical time dilation is created (physical slowing down of a clock).
This is further described by a top physicist in this paper www.ptep-online.com/2017/PP-51-07.PDF
There are no experiments done, confirming time dilation, without acceleration or deceleration involved (airplanes, GPR-satellites, muons etc).
When discussing Special Relativity, one has to separate:
1. Objective reality, real physical effects, physical change of a clock within certain time intervals according to the mathematical proof above.
2. Subjective reality, additional optical specific observer effects.
The light clock, often used to derive the SR time dilation equation with the Lorentz factor, does not illustrate continuous time dilation with inertial constant relative motion. It illustrates, and generates an equation for, accumulated time dilation during time intervals with acceleration concerning the object which was accelerated to create the motion relative to the non-accelerated object. In other words, the light clock derivation is fully in sync with the mathematical proof above.
so glad you made this one so promptly in response
Two questions:
7:00 - system radiates gravitational waves and thus loses energy, so I think, that it actually falls into the Sun. Isn't it a form of "drag"?
10:00 - I think, that you create clock that is based on observing decay of radioisotope. This wouldn't depend on atoms "communicating". Am i right?
Hi, 7:00 - this form of drag can be explained by the effect of radiating gravitational waves and therefore can't be attributed to something else. Not to mention that in the case of aether, it would have to be present everywhere in the universe and affect also uniformly moving bodies which is not observed.
10:00 This is the same as the muon paradox as I mentioned in the video. Yes, this clock is somewhat fundamental in the current understanding of physics but some might argue that there is some internal structure of the elementary particles that needs to be understood yet.
While time dilation is a matter of clocks, it's really a matter of gravity bending space and dilating time. The most important thing to remember is that everything happens in the present. The past and future do not exist. Massive objects such as galaxies bend space and slow the passage of time within those massive bodies. It's weird because different objects age at different rates depending on their orientation within the galaxy. But they are still in the present. Everything that happens in that galaxy and the universe is in the present regardless of what the clock says. The objects are merely aging at different rates.
Now define ”aging”.
@@antonpwr Or "rate", haha
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure how literally to take the dimensionality of time. It may be that all points in time "currently" exist in some real, non-metaphorical way, but I don't think there's any evidence sufficient to discuss it outside of pure philosophy
@@antonpwr I define aging as the evidence for the passage of time. So, in other words, the age of an object is merely the evidence for the passage of time, not the rate at which the object is aging in the present. Again, time dilation is merely the rate at which objects age in the present.
And thanks for reading.
I'm having this same debate in another thread. I've proposed a solution to not being able to divide by zero as an altering to standard mathematics. You may find it interesting as I think it could be a better representation of reality than current curriculum. "I mean, it's not really a invention so much as a better description of physical reality with mathematical operations. I believe all objects in reality have a positive energy density that would coincide with positive numbers > 0 to ∞. Negative numbers coinciding with being negative energy density would correctly cancel matter to "nothing zero" as indicated by Einstein's field equations. It could define negative energy density as both real and imaginary, depending on the application. lmkwut"
@@TwentyNineJP You can think of time dilation rate as a percentage of the speed of light that matter has been slowed. For instance if you wanted to know the difference in time dilation between you and someone else, you could think of their time dilation as an attribute that would be some fraction of the speed light. Kind of like an imaginary little sign over their head that would change depending on galactical gravity and speed.
Kudos to you man. I teach for a living, and think your videos are excellent. Very succinct and clear. I already know quite a bit about SR/GR but it's still a pleasure to watch, I wish you were around when I was learning it. :)
Here's an interesting question. Is it possible to construct a clock of materials that will allow it to tick the same whether it's stationary or moving fast? Has anyone attempted that yet?
I don't think it's possible.
@@jameswebb3410 thanks for your personal opinion but I'm looking for evidence based data points
@@milliondollartrooper ruclips.net/video/Vitf8YaVXhc/видео.htmlsi=4w1OjRyqvo9pzOR1 That's a nice video regarding the subject.
What does that mean? If you take a clock with you on a space craft and get to a high speed then it will appear to you to tick at a constant rate, that's what relativity predicts. It's only to someone else that your clock can appear to run fast or slow. Are you asking if it's possible to construct a clock that appears to run at the same rate for all observers? If that's the case then the answer is no because of time dialation, even the Aether theory Dialect is trying to present would also conclude the same thing since ultimately all matter interactions are governed by electromagnetism, the force of which is transmited by light so those interactions would still slow down.
1. All inertial motion between objects in the universe is relative.
2. Two objects, in inertial relative motion, can not both have clocks which continuously physically go slower compared with each other.
3. A relative motion (or position) between objects (any objects in the universe) can not come, and has never come, into existence without acceleration (a force on objects).
4. Therefore, logically, the only phase in which a physical/objective time dilation can come into existence is during an acceleration/deceleration phase. Accelerations are objective.
5. Time dilation in GR is created with a constant force on an object, accelerating it upwards in a gravitational field (here assuming a constant location in the field, compared with an object hypothetically outside of any gravitation).
6. The GR time dilation equation is mathematically equivalent with the time dilation equation in SR. They just have a different set of variables in them. Insert the escape velocity equation in the GR equation and you obtain the exact SR-equation with the v^2 variable.
7. Therefore, logically, the SR time dilation must also be an acceleration based equation. The v^2 variable = 2 • acceleration • distance, it is called the Torricelli equation (he lived before Newton). v^2 is
not an average velocity or an instantaneous velocity when coasting, and the equation can not be used for time dilation calculations with inertial relative motions. It is only valid while a force (acceleration) is operating on the object.
8. If the GR equation produces physical/objective time dilation (which it does, GPS etc), the SR equation must obviously do the same, and only during phases when/where an object is accelerated/decelerated. Atoms (and their rate of change = physical time) can not react differently in these two situations. In other words, this is the equivalence principle in a mathematical form.
9. This is more a metaphysical opinion/statement. An atom clock (cesium clock) does not only measure time in an exact way, it IS physical time itself.
Twin "paradox" solved, imo.
Concerning which point (1-9) do you disagree, if you do ? Please be specific.
Cheers from Sweden
I have same vision with you, we could call it paradox of twin paradox.
@@DikyVb Thanx, it is quite simple really. Follow what the math / equations says. The v^2 variable = 2 • acceleration • distance, in the SR time dilation equation, can not mathematically be used for time intervals where acceleration does not take place. Therefore, it must be during time intervals with accelerations/decelerations only, where the physical time dilation occurs. One has to separate objective reality (real physical effects, physical change of a clock) and subjective reality (optical specific observer effects) when discussing Special Relativity.
That was very good. You have people who are still fooled in the comments! I liked your muon segment. Nice work!
The orbit of Merrcury can only be explained if time dilation is real.
Factually wrong statement.
You can only predict the orbit of Mercury if you put time dilation in the equation.
Time dilation is a real thing.
This is a fact that everybody knows.
New Dialect video just dropped, this time with the Aether! Can't wait to see a breakdown of it!
Thanks!
Wow, thank you for the support means a lot!!
The myon question is a good one, and one probably has to think very carefully about what makes particles decay in the first place. You might find a light clock in there.
you might find them looking at a clock, but not in the current theory. they have no internal states at all, and decay (or observation of decay) is entirely random, ulimately governed by the Born rule. of course they might have hidden clocks (hidden 'variables') but such theories have so far failed.
The way I think about it is: every clock has to observe some interaction somewhere in order to tell time. If even the internal behavior of fundamental particles is somehow mediated by light, then there would be no way to build a non-light clock, since every interaction involves particles and the behavior of particles would involve light. And if every clock must be fundamentally a light clock, then calling time dilation a clock issue is meaningless.
@@Nick-o1h When I wrote "you might find a light clock in there" I did not mean this physically, but more like "you might understand what it has to do with the speed of light". Decay comes from interactions between quantum fields and how quickly an excitation gets distributed between fields. I haven't done the math and whether cannot say whether it can explain a slowed decay in an eather theory. But it's a priorily plausible.
F=ma/E=mc. The lifespan of a muon is governed by its mass and its acceleration rate. High mass objects with low acceleration rates take longer to radioactively decay.
Apply an outside force, like air temperature, the decay rate can be increased or decreased. Muons don't fall to earth in a vacuum. This is what throws everyone off just like the hammer&feather drop tests. The atmosphere is an outside force influencing the motion of the object.
@@stewiesaidthat Do you have any evidence to support the claim that air causes decay rate to change? It's certainly not the case for any other particle or atomic nucleus that we've ever seen. Particles in particle accelerators show time dilation even in the absence of air. Radioactive elements decay at the same rate regardless of the presence of air.
I have a question. And it's the same since any tried to explain time dilation to me.
movement is relative, means when you move relative to me, I move relative to you. So to both of us the other one clock is ticking slower. How can one be aged differently when they meat again? Often times this gets explained by one is on earth and the other one moves fast through space. But we are on a rock, floating through space and unimaginable speeds. So much about the other one floats though space. And we are in a gravitational field, here on earth. If Gravitation also causes time dilation, shouldn't we here on earth then age less then our friends up in space?
And what if I move in the opisire direction of in which the earth is moving through space. In that case I am moving slower through space itself then the earth and anyone on it.
Tjqts why I still ask the same question: how does time dilation actually work? And I mean in detail.
Same. Every 12 year old kid who hears about this has the exact same question and people who *think* they're smart say "it's easy". But it's not.
And then you drift into a Schrödinger type Argument real quick. "Macro world examples are just examples and don't really work" soooo. And then they say stuff like "well, the twin comes back to earth again and through the movement, they are the same age again".
Like when a kids magician moves a bunny from box to the other, doesn't reveal it and then moves it back.
@@borstenpinsel And it gets even worse. They say time dilation is dependent on relative speeds. Means when you here on earth sit on a bench in a park and some aliens in a different galaxy plan on inviding ou planet, but for a persons walking past you, acidentally in their direction, from their perspective its 3 days later in that galaxy and they are now launching their ships.
I don't care about whos perspektive it is. Are they planing or are they launching. What is it?
I mean the big clue you seem to be missing is that the Twin Paradox is an SR thing and SR only considers intertial reference frames. The reason why the Twins aren't symmetrical is because the one in space has to turn around and thus accelerate, it is the acceleration that causes the difference in ages. Acceleration is absolute because you can always measure it using an accelerometer. Now of course gravitational fields do cause acceleration and that's the domain of General Relativity and in the Twin Paradox we just sorta ignore that, plus usually the speeds involved in the Twin Paradox are so high that the gravitational acceleration from Earth is neglible.
Perhaps the ether has a drag that moves relative to local frames of reference? As in... There is a sorta interaction resistance as a result of internal component interacting with such a field taking time.
Which should make sense given waves in the electric field, causes magnetic currents in the magnetic field.
You can't just instantly interact between electric and magnetic fields. And so stuff gets muddy on small scales meshing them together as stuff moves. Hence "electromagnetic waves" with vacuum permittivity and permeability coming out as a result.
In this case you wouldn't notice any difference in the Michealson Morley experiment.
I should also mention that in such a case, We would be using a tetrad formalism and killing vector fields to keep constancy of this vacuum permittivity and permeability values as you partially drag this ether around via motion. Effectively indicating a variable speed of C in a flat spacetime under this tetrad killing vector formalism, is equal to a constant speed of light in curved spacetime.
Hence the unification of Quantum field ideas and Gravitational field ideas. There just 2 ways of looking at the same thing.
In fact if you look at the chalk board of Einstein's he left around after his death, You'll see precisely this. A tetrad formalism in a flat metric killing vector field, which turns out to have the same degrees of freedom as standard GR. 👀
In this case the constancy of C is more like a summed value aka a average of the given electromagnetic field. Altho... It could fluctuate on smaller scales technically just as with any quantum field.
This guy is an excellent communicator. As an American listening to Lukas, his speed and tone are perfect. His physics is top notch and he communicates clearly. 👍 Hope he keeps publishing more. I’m still unsure why the Aether isn’t quantum fields, though.
A question always comes up when I see the light clock cartoon as I can’t do a light ray diagram that works for the moving clock. If we allow for the light source to be a laser aimed transversely then do we see the beam kink as it heads to the mirror or do we see a rotation of the laser? Or do we see a skew in dimentions? If rotation or skew then what happens on the return path from the mirror? Maybe we just see skew in the light beam which is the only logical choice but that seems to raise issue with the concept of planer waves from a coherent light source.
An interesting experiment to look at is the "Ives Stilwell" experiment. They considered the effects of high speed hydrogen ions emitting light and considered the apparent redshifted wavelength as well as the blueshifted wavelength. They then averaged the two wavelengths and found that the result was not the original wavelength, suggesting real time dilation had occurred. I think this experimental setup is far more reliable than just some guys putting atomic clocks on planes and trying to measure nanoseconds on the hour.
At 13:13, can't sound waves also be spherical waves within the air medium, just like the light spherical waves in the EM medium? This would mean there should be a transverse and longitudinal effect with sound, just like light.
The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Sound changes the pitch, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant.
The longitudinal Doppler Effect of Light changes the color, but the wave speed in the medium is still constant.
Transverse effect for sound would only occur if the source was moving in perpendicular direction relative to the medium. For light, the tranvserse part is always there no matter the direction of motion and the magnitude only depends on motion relative to the observer not relative to any medium.
@@lukasrafajpps **
But, they are both making circular waves in a medium, so I don't understand how you can consider the transverse Doppler effect different, in either case.
**
This definition is only true, if you believe Einstein's Special Relativity. Einstein's Special Relativity paper has a self-contradiction in Section 2 and Section 3 of his paper (failed derivation of the transform math using the Einstein Clock Sync method). The transform math was derived from Voigt's paper called On the Doppler Principle, using an elastic medium.
In the end, realize that you are just believing in Einstein's failed 1905 paper.
No one bothered to ask WHAT was making the quartz vibrate and how gravity and the em field can both effect the CLOCK but not time
Newton's law of motion, F=ma, an electromagnetic force is used to accelerate the mass of the cesium-133 atom. The amount of force used is calculated using the the official time keeping station's radius to get length for 1/86400th the circumference of a circle. This length is then used to determine the frequency at which the cesium-133 atom oscillates. Any deviation from that calibrated location will cause the clock to run faster or slower as the wavelength (applied force) changes from the calibrated wavelength with motion.
In simple terms, the atomic clock measures motion in space to the precision of its operating frequency.
@@stewiesaidthat lol exactly, so if the vibration deviates, you just accept the time it gives you, you are not actually measuring the deviation. in fact you dont even consider that the rate CAN deviate!
well if the deviation is caused by the crystal being subjected to a different strength gravitational field then you have no idea its happening and you just think the clock was running normally when in fact it was running a different speed BUT NOT EXPERIENCING DIFFERENT LENGTH OF TIME. You put that crystal in orbit around earth and the frequency changes but you dont bother to check you just accept how much time the clock shows lmao.
the frequency is caused by the decay rate which you simply assume to be a constant while in fact it was only properly measured at earth surface gravity, and then future experiments in orbit timed according to clocks that are also themselves under the exact same derivations. the failure is the assumption that the decay rate is as unchanging as the laws of inertia.
@@uncletrashero lol. Your ignorance is showing. There is no decay rate of the cesium-133 atom. The atom is being chilled to absolute zero to prevent it from being accelerated in time when a force is applied. Clocks don't measure time. They measure motion in space. I'm pretty sure that an observer in space can count 1 Mississippi and see that the hands of the clock are not keeping sync.
C'mon man. Do you think time slows down and stops because the battery becomes drained and can't output the same amount of force.
@@stewiesaidthat no im talking about the quartz in clocks.
@@uncletrashero the fundamental law of physics is Force Equals Acceleration. The frame of reference in a universe defined by acceleration is Acceleration. What accelerates the quartz clock. How is that different from what accelerates something like biological processes. People are reading to much into this time-dilation stuff. It comes from not understanding basic physics and the proper frame of reference. This is what happens when you allow a plagiarist to usurp physics.
Thank you for this video. I've asked the question about rotating the clock 90 degrees to Dialect right after his video was published.
Next, at 13:27 I think you forgot that in Sound Universe real time-dilation also occures, so the source will emit pulses slowly because of that. And this need to be accounted in the formula in addition to the classical Doppler effect. This is your missing b^2 term, and it will have the same sign for outgoing and ingoing signals.
Thanks
Thank you for the support :) I am glad the video was helpful.
There's a fundamental issue with this argument, which is the lack of understanding that everything is a clock. Clocks are just built to indicate the passage of time. But fundamentally, every interaction is moderated as photon exchange - which is a "light" clock. Everything. This is also why the sound analogy fails - sound is not the fundamental moderator of all action.
Ahh, so you repudiate the argument at the end. Never mind. lol
So true imo, and very well expressed.
To clarify even more, when the SR time dilation equation is derived from the light clock in the textbooks using the pythagorean theorem, this light clock is a model of the quantum/photon processes you describe/explain. BUT, at the same time this derivation is often misunderstood. The equation does not produce time dilation because of continuous relative motion. Instead, it produces a fixed accumulated time dilation created by the acceleration of the object which is considered to be in motion, relative to the stationary object. At least one of the objects must have accelerated to create the relative motion, otherwise you'll have to introduce magic in physics. And that is sadly often what people do, when creating thought experiments to solve the twin "paradox", introducing third brothers/sisters who just move (or are positioned) without accelerations.
There is a problem which I've not understand (due to my lack of knowledge in electrodynamics) is the derivation of the Doppler effect for light in Einstein's 1905 paper.
If you follow the classical explanation of the Doppler effect, the wavelength does not increase or decrease as you only observe one speed of light. The only cause of change in wavelength is length contraction in Lorentz transformation. Thus there would be no red-shift or blue-shift.
Do you have any comment on this?
You are correct but you skipped over the important thing: the transform from the moving frame to the rest frame IS the source of the doppler shift. The rest frame's spacetime is unaltered. The source in the moving frame also does not perceive a change in spacetime. It is only when we go from frame to frame that we have to reconcile the difference. It is in this "communication" between frames that we get the associated length contraction and time dilation that gives rise to the relativistic doppler effect. There is an impulse to assume that an outside observer would either perceive or fail to perceive a compression/extension in the waveform but the point of relativity is that no such outside observer could exist. All of the dilation and contraction happens between frames.
@@arnoldkotlyarevsky383 I don't think I understand your reply. Or may be my previous comment confused you.
My point is you should not have red-shift if you look at a moving light source, because the wavelength can only get shorter due to length contraction, regardless of the direction of the moving source (either toward you or away from you)
@@longhoacaophuc8293 that paper deals with the start of general relativity. You are missing the acceleration part and the equivalentlce principle part
There is no time without (some sort of) clocks, there are no clocks without time.
At 7:09 there is an issue. You are mixing light waves "looking" and sound waves "sound clock". What if your "observation" of the other sound clocks could only be done using sounds waves?
It would be different because the rate of ticking you would observe would depend on the orientation of the clock you observe. The only exeption would be if the observed clock was at rest relative to the air
@@lukasrafajpps I guess my idea is that in order to measure the one-way speed of something, you need a measuring tool faster than your target. If you use light to measure sound, that is possible. But if you use sound to measure sound, then all that you can measure is the two-way speed of sound (the average speed of the pulse and its return). That's why orientation of a light clock doesn't matter either -- you can't measure light's one-way speed, only its average two-way speed.
@@ravenlord4 That's not the problem here though, the problem is that the speed of the clock would change depending on its orientation. You wouldn't need to measure the one way speed of sound to figure that out you'd just need to turn your clock 90 degrees.
@@hedgehog3180 The orientation doesn't change the round trip distance between the clock and the reflector. So you are still "looking" and the round trip speed. And that's the average of (2AB)/2. You can't tell what's happening between A to B and then from B to A separately -- unless you are using something faster than sound.
In moving clock, the light travels more distance, only from the perspective of stationary observer.
It doesn't actually travel more in perspective of moving clock. And so the theory begun to resolve the paradox.
After the source of pendulum issued a pulse and before it arrive the receiving end the receiving end already moved away from its original location laterally hence lengthened the pendulum path so it takes longer time to hit the receiver. That is a reasonable argument if and only if that Aether isn’t drag with the pendulum but it does. Aether is light medium with no mechanical but electrical properties. It attaches to and drag with all matter in the near field at equal speed and to a reduced speed by a factor of 1/r from the speed of the nearest body. In this case the pendulum space is considered a near field that Aether drag with, and the light path in the light pendulum will be perpendicular and not diagonal, hence no extra time required and no time dilation.
Slightly related question on the experience of accelerating towards the speed of light. I’m not aware of the exact relationship between experienced acceleration and experienced time dilation, but it occurs to me that if they occurs at proportional rates, then the only thing you would experience as you accelerate towards the speed of light and experience less time is the experience of going faster. After all, as time continues to slow and you go nearly the same speed to an observer, you experience crossing more or the same distance in less time. My question is, would you notice the time dilation or would you only experience going faster as you continue to accelerate?
If we consider Aether is a solid also drag with everything, we opens ourselves a paradox in which everything stands still in space and no orbital effect.
One may counter argue against Aether drag applying with the aberration effect. However aberration only opens doubt in Aether and isn’t a direct proof.
Addressing aberration effects:
Aether is regarded a fluid, an incompressible fluid. It has no mechanical except electrical properties which is u0 permeability and e0 permittivity. It adheres to and drag with matter in order to couple light, electromagnetic energy, between Aether and matter, and in doing so DRAG with earth as well as the interferometer, and hence to a static fringe pattern effect and a net zero velocity. As a fluid, however, Aether velocity remote from earth drag at a different mean velocity which is defined by the nearest planets and galaxies by a factor of 1/r.
The laterally sheering effect in Aether fluid is regarded as a boundary layer on laterally moving surface. Which supports but contradicts aberration effect?
This video is the first one I've seen from you and I was losing my mind at the arguments you made in the first half😂. I'm very glad I stuck until the end
so you were agnry with me? :D
@@lukasrafajpps Today I watched the other 2 and this, total 3 videos of you discussing the topic on relativity that dialect made, now I'm already a fan, I liked them all and subscribed you.
It would be a cool experiment to see what would happen if you were to drop a clock and start a timer ground level to see the difference
So clocks measure time, and depending on the type of clock, different things are measured to calculate time elapsing. Because muons are affected, we think it's something on a more fundamental level. Do I have this right so far?
If light can be particular and wavelike, depending on observation, could time be more like a flame? Something that occurs as a result of composition rather than an isolated property?
Time is nothing more than a human observation of a repetitive and constant phenomenon..
Sunrise...sunset...sunrise..sunset...
Solar clocks prooved that sunsets and rises at a constant and precise rythm.
Time is rythm.
Stable, precise, constant, repetitive.
Metronome
Humans are very sensible to evenly constant repeating phenomenon.
This is why we love music and dancing and daily routine tasks.
You basically have it right. I'm not sure what you mean by time being like a flame, could you expand on that? Like I'm getting that you're proposing that time like light can behave differently under different circumstances, I just don't know what you mean by composition.
@@hedgehog3180 I guess what I'm wondering is whether time is it's own "entity" such as an element would be (composed of different building blocks, but always the same configuration) or is it like a flame, in which modifying the parts (air flow, fuel) affect the whole.
7:18 this is only the case if you could define a rest frame for the medium. This is exactly what everyone gets wrong about the aether, and why no one takes it seriously. To define such a frame you need something indipendent from the medium to compare it to, and this is usually done with matter. But if the medium is literally ALL there is, you cant define such a frame, and relativity works just fine. As an analogy, think about a boat on the ocean. You can define the rest frame of the ocean by watching how the boats motion creates waves (none when the boat is at rest with the ocean). Now imagine instead the boat is not separate from the ocean, so instead visualize a wave on the surface. Its motion does not disturb the ocean from the frame of the wave, so it says it is still relative to the ocean. But so can every other wave say the same. The only "true" stationary, preferred frame would be that of no waves at all, but that would mean empty space. There's nothing to compare your measurements with in empty space.
the sonic wave example is fun and useful for illustrating that point, if the drone and the human being analyzing it where made out of structures in the air, like matter can be thought of as light or energy propagating at c but that is confined in a stable structure giving it the inertial properties of matter instead of the inertial properties of waves, if you imagine the same thing going on for waves of density in air, even if it int possible in air the consequences would be the same as with light and special relativity, there would be no apparent contradiction with the clocks made out of normal matter coupled to c, because all the clocks you could compare with would be made out of dynamical processes in the air medium and would dilate and be limited by the same maximum speed in that medium. in the same way, if we built a theory of the emergence of the sub-luminal unified field, we would also need matter fields coupled to a causal velocity of "waves" much larger than c, and the clocks made out of that matter would not dilate according to C but according to the new maximum propagation speed of those fields that matter were coupled to. just like our light coupled clocks don't dilate like the air driven clocks. because this is essentially the only possible way to extend our current theories, it is unhelpful to think about the effects of special and general relativity on time and space as fundamental. btw, no matter what questions you have about the consistency with quantum mechanics and relativity itself special or general, i assure you those are easy to solve.
So, what is measured is wave propigation. Frequncy behavior and the focus is location of sensors and an effect of intertia (the changing direction thing)?
So Einstiein was studying frequency effects and calling it time.
Waves that turn around to return to their source. Now that would be an awesome subject to research.
Please treat me like I am five.
Clocks do not (and cannot) measure time. Yes?
And clocks themselves are not time. Yes?
Clocks only measure oscillations of one type or another type. Yes?
Clocks will run at different rates depending on where they are. Yes?
A hourglass will not run at all on the ISS. Neither will a pendulum clock. And both clocks will run more slowly the further from the surface of the Earth they get. Yes?
As velocity relative to space is gained, all accelerated particles increase in mass according to Einstein. Yes?
And so a moving object has rest mass, momentum, and a small amount of "relativistic" mass. Yes?
And when oscillating particles gain in mass, their oscillation frequency must decrease due to the conservation of momentum. Yes?
And so ALL clocks slow down as they gain velocity, no matter what principle they operate on. Yes?
Why would a clock running slower indicate time dilation?
Time kept running at the exact same rate, and MUST do, because the conservation of momentum must result in fewer oscillations per time period. Yes?
If time itself were slowing down, then the clock would have to lose even more time, in order for momentum to be conserved. Yes?
Doesn't the Twins Paradox then simply disappear in a puff of smoke?
Things taking longer to happen is mass in action, not time changing the rate at which it passes.
Great questions! You’ve touched on some fundamental aspects of how we understand time and clocks in the context of relativity.
Firstly, it’s true that clocks measure oscillations rather than time itself. Clocks, whether they’re pendulums or atomic devices, provide a consistent way to gauge the passage of time based on their own periodic processes. When you mention that a clock running slower could indicate time dilation, it’s crucial to understand that time dilation isn’t just about the clock slowing down.
In relativity, time dilation refers to how time is experienced differently depending on relative motion and gravitational fields. So, if one clock is moving rapidly relative to another, it doesn’t just tick slower because of its own mechanics, but because time itself, as experienced by the moving clock, runs differently compared to the stationary one.
You’ve raised a point about conservation of momentum and oscillation frequency. While it’s true that particles gain mass as they accelerate, leading to changes in oscillation frequencies, this doesn’t negate time dilation. The conservation of momentum and energy principles do apply, but they work within the framework of relativity, where time dilation is a fundamental aspect of how space and time interact.
The Twin Paradox is a result of these relativistic effects. One twin traveling at high speeds ages more slowly not because their clock is malfunctioning, but because time itself is dilating for them compared to the twin who remains stationary.
So, the paradox isn’t about clocks simply ticking slower but involves how time itself is altered in different frames of reference. This effect, as described by relativity, means that time is experienced differently depending on velocity and gravity, and the conservation of momentum aligns with these relativistic principles.
what is meaning of "just a clock issue"? As opposed to what? Are you proposing that there is an aether that could also explain time dilation? Perhaps another viewer could answer these questions.
Dialect seem to be suggesting that time dilation is merely an artifact of clock mechanisms, rather than a feature of how space and time themselves behave.
In that case an aether could indeed reproduce the results of Relativity if all clocks dependent on the aether in the same way.
But then the aether is also inherently undetectable (since you also have to introduce length contraction).
It is possible to derive 2 contradictory time dilation equations. Imagine that Sally is in a spaceship and moving to the right and is aiming a flashlight straight up and down so that Sally sees the light moving straight up and down and John is outside the spaceship and sees the light forming a triangle with the floor of the spaceship. Now imagine that Sally is aiming a flashlight upwards and towards the left while the spaceship moves to the right. Now the situation is exactly reversed. Sally sees the light forming a triangle with the floor and John sees the light bouncing straight up and down. Here's the details...
Sally is in a moving spaceship. John is outside the spaceship. Sally is moving to the right at .6c. The height of her spaceship is .8 light-seconds. If Sally has a flashlight with the light bouncing straight up and down the light will make a 3-4-5 right triangle from the viewpoint of John. If the change in time for Sally is delta T_o and the change in time for John is delta T then the following equation can be derived:
delta T = delta T_o/((1-.6^2)^.5)
Now Sally has a flashlight but this time she is holding the flashlight at an angle of 53.13 degrees above the horizontal and pointed to the left. Now the leftward movement of the light exactly matches the rightward movement of the spaceship from John's viewpoint. Now the light is bouncing straight up and down from the viewpoint of John and the light is making a 3-4-5 right triangle from viewpoint of Sally. If the change in time for Sally is delta T_o and the change in time for John is delta T then the following equation can be derived:
delta T_o = delta T/((1-.6^2)^.5)
The 2 equations are in direct contradiction to each other.
7:14 this statement is wrong assuming that you are only permitted to use sound to pass information between clocks. Actually, the full formalism of relativity can only be recreated with sound if the speed of sound is the speed limit for all information in the thought experiment, meaning the clocks themselves must be made of standing sound waves (not sure how that would work, though).
Anyways, the moving sound clock would see the stationary clock ticking faster because of its distorted perspective, it would only be able to confirm such a thing after traveling around the closed universe (Earth).
Edit: you said something about the sound clock analogy matching special relativity when including doppler effect, but you really needed to use the doppler effect for the sound clocks as well, not just the light clocks.
Edit 2: another wrong thing, when considering sound clocks purely made of standing sound waves, they would also be length contracted exactly the same as light clocks. So the sound analogy holds.
The clocks we've built are all oriented 90 degrees, nearly perfectly, to the direction of motion - time. In 4D time is the direction of motion of everything around us, so orienting the clocks in any dimension in 3D still leaves them perpendicular to time and no orientation effects will be observed
I think everything seems to boil down to quantum field theory because for instance QED or QCD shows us how things, even at the quantum super-positional level, interact as "light clocks". The dilemma is between two perspectives. Materialist (processes are seen as laws) perspective: it is because of light speed interactions we end up being materially limited with the speed of causality, where the force carrier particles act like Hermes but since they are the only information carrier sources of matter delays and dilations emerge (like time dilation). Idealist (laws cause processes) perspective it is BECAUSE of the principle or the law embedded in the universe that in all frame's of reference speed of light is the same value and the principle itself is causing time dilation. I honestly prefer the first one because I think if we accept that change (causality like in QED interactions) is happening through speed of light interactions there remains no reason to put an external "law of government". I think Einstein assumed that there was a LAW of relativity and that mislead him to think faster than speed of light interactions at any level would be metaphysically illegal. Than, because no matter how wrong he was he was ingeniously wrong, he predicted the quantum entanglement interactions which in my opinion proved that he was wrong to adopt the idealist (law fundamentalist) stance.
I want to dive deep into this in the future for sure :) a good hint is a sine-gordon equation which you get by a continuous limit of infinite number of connected pendula. This system is naturally relativistic even though we didn't asume any relativity at the start just classical pendula. Looking forward to do a video about this
Hey, if general relativity is true, and it is, that means the parameters to measure light-speed change and both changes compound or exaggerate the changes in the speed of light. I wrote a little book about it. This would explain faster than expected motion the farther removed from the source of gravity it is. Redshift is also affected by gravity.
Thats not how clocks work, no clock on earth (or in space) uses a bouncing beam of light to compute time. Mechanical clocks have nothing to do with light, but with moving mechanical parts, and digital clocks are based on quartz crystals which vibrate at a certain frequency when applied a certain voltage- again nothing to do with light. Atomic clocks use a combination of quartz and cesium atoms to syncronise the quartz crystals, and again light is not involved in the process. So wtf is this guy talking about here ? About his immaginary relativistic clocks which are based on bouncing light ?
I think it is measuring entropy, not Time, as it is always the Present, and that is where everything takes place and exists.
Quoting Stewiesaidthat - Space and Time are two separate frame of reference. Clocks are instruments that measure motion in space. Combining the two frame to believing that clock measures time is what creates the paradox.
Space-Time diagram? That shows one person is experiencing more space in the same amount of time.
Does the caesium atom vibrate at the same frequency when it is moving as when it is "stationary"? This seems to be an assumption that the atomic clock experiments rely on. What exactly is it that enforces the speed limit for light in a vacuum? Maybe this mechanism also affects the vibrations of atoms at velocity.
The vibration itself is mostly affected by motion .
@@m.c.4674 then it’s just the clock slowing down, not time itself
@adriendecroy7254 you win dumbest comment
@@adriendecroy7254 If you stand still, are you moving?
Yes! The earth is moving. So which atomic clock do you hold to be NOT in motion so that we can judge it against the others?
@@ExistenceUniversity exactly. This is why I put quotes around "stationary". I am starting to wonder whether space time is a lattice of fields. This maybe is truly stationary, and the interaction of these fields with energy/mass produces some kind of drag (to acceleration) which enforces the speed of light limit, and maybe even could create the effect of gravity. Kinda like the idea of the ether. It could also be the medium through which light can still travel in a vacuum, since all other forms of energy need a medium to travel through. Maybe the field lattice is perturbed by light and matter/energy. Maybe there is even no matter, only concentrations of energy. Who knows. Too bad Michelson-Morley experiment didn't find a difference between light velocity in orthogonal directions, but they didn't do that in a vacuum, so maybe there's some effect that cancels in that case. Need to re-do it in space.
12:41
Moving clocks are perpendicular to each other, but still show the same time dilation. Why? Because they’re both perpendicular to the 4th dimension of time! Yes, I know time is not a spatial dimension, except there is a way to treat it as such. FloatHeadPhysics elaborates on that, talking about infinitely compactified spatial dimension becoming time.
To the best of my knowledge time dilation (length contraction/dilation) due to velocity has never experimentally been proven to actually exist. It's just an observer error and poor underlying assumption.
Time dilation due to the gravity effect is a completely different phenomena :)
Great video overall! I do have two main concerns though. The smaller one that I will get out of the way is this: at the end you ask, if time dilation is "just a clock issue", then why does it happen to muons? Well I think the word "just" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. We only know of interactions that happen at the speed of light, so this clock issue affects the rates of the decays as well. Yes, time dilation is fundamental, because all interactions between and within particles happen at the speed of light, and thus the processes that cause muon decay are essentially little light clocks.
My second issue is that I am a little confused by the part where time dilation is different for clocks placed in different orientations. I did the math and got the same factor, but I am having trouble visualizing it.
Suppose we have a universe with two spatial dimensions. In this universe are two observers, A and B. A will be the observer's frame of reference, i.e. stationary for this consideration, and B will be moving relative to A.
Now suppose that each observer is enclosed by a circular mirror centered at the observer, that remains stationary in that observer's frame. Then, at some time, each observer emits a pulse of light. Because the mirror is a circle, i.e. the same distance from the observer at all points, all of the light returns to the observers at the same time. For A, this is immediately obvious, and for B, it follows from the principle of relativity (i.e. B is stationary in B's frame of reference, so it observes the same thing, all else being equal).
This means that, if we from A's perspective mark out the paths of all of the photons emitted by B, all of the total lengths have to be the same; all of the photons were emitted and received by B at the same times, which means the length of their paths have to be the same since the speed of light is not affected by the velocity of the source. From this, it follows that two light clocks, one placed parallel and one perpendicular to B's direction of motion, should have exactly the same time dilation, because the photons in the light clock are just following one of the possible paths of the photons in the circular mirror.
Where did I go wrong in my thought experiment? I suspect it has something to do with relativity of simultaneity because I always struggle with that, but I am pretty sure that I shouldn't have that issue here because in both frames, the start and end points of the measured light are the same. There's nothing that could be simultaneous in one frame and not in another that is actually relevant to the observation. It's also not length contraction because the fact that each observer sees all of the photons at the same time is what's important. No matter what length contraction is involved, that result should be the same by the principle of relativity.
Here we are trying ro reinvent relativity from common sense. So, you cannot rely to relativity in your logic. Otherwise, your logic is circular.
@@balabuyew Where did I "rely" on relativity in my argument?
@@guardingdark2860For example here: "and for B, it follows from the principle of relativity".
@@balabuyew Yes. The "principle of relativity" states that the laws of physics are observed to be the same in any frame of reference. That is a premise of the Theory of Relativity, not a conclusion. One derived from observed facts.
@@guardingdark2860This principle is not valid in the context of the video. You should prove it before using.
The rotated clock doesn’t account to changes in all electromagnetic forces between interacting particles due to move? Wouldn’t just that cause size change depending on direction of movement?
The reason why a moving clock seems to run a little slower than a stationary one is because in order to move it you need to apply a constant FORCE to it. That force pushes the clock forward, while generating an equal and opposite force inside it, which pulls its atoms and compresses them together in the opposite direction of movement (like balls inside a car that fly toward the back of the car when it is accelerating hard). This causes the quartz crystals to contract, and therefore to vibrate at a slightly lower rate. Hence, the clock will show a slightly delayed time. But that does not mean that time dilates. It simply means that the clocks vibrating frequency changes. A similar effect happens in space, because of extreme temperature variation. The frequency of the atomic clocks is influenced by centrifugal forces and other factors such as temperature, pressure etc.
Imagine a spaceship passing by you that has white lights on the front, and red lights on the back, and that they are LED's that are flashing at above 60Hz to reduce energy consumption. The spaceship passes by you at what you measure to be 260,000 km/s. Meanwhile, as it approached you, you measured the the light pulses from the front headlights, to be travelling at the speed of light. When it passed by you, you then measured the pulses of red light also travelling at the speed of light. Then you scratch you head, because from your point of view that meant that the light coming from the front of the spaceship was only released at 40,000 km/s, thus 40,000 km/s plus the speed of the spaceship, equals the speed of light. Then to be even more confusing, the red light releases from the spaceship's rear lights, appears to have been released at 560,000 km/s relative to the spaceship, thus 560,000 km/s - 260,000 km/s spaceship velocity = 300,000 km/s, the speed of light. But all this is easy to explain concerning the actual mechanics of what is going on, rather than mere theories, if you fully understand special relativity.
Sorry but I am not scratching my head about this since even sound waves would behave the way you described.
Interferometer is equalized ny length contraction and light aberration
Ron Halton wrote an article, " Those scandalous clocks" would disagree. It's not the motion but the gradient of the gravity( potential) that affects the time dilation. Ron Halton had twenty-three patents for GPS-Time system and was a consultant to NASA when they timing issues with their satellites.
There are two kinds of time dilation. One due to a gravitational potential, which is the dominating factor on the GPS system.
And the other is kinetic time dilation due to relative motion.
Both effects are real and have been measured.
Are you using sound clocks to derive the expression for Doppler in the case of sound as you would use light-based clocks in the case of light?
In the case of sound, the expression for doppler is different than for the light. For light, there is always the transverse effect while for sound you can eliminate it by proper orientation of the source.
@lukasrafajpps Is it not because in the case of sound, we don't consider the Lorentz factor that has been demonstrated in the cited Dielect video?
I don't see how the transversality of EM waves would bring any difference. It seems to me that in both cases, there's a source that broacasts spherical wavefronts, and it is a matter of spacetime geometry as to where & when the wavefront is intercepted by each type of clock.
Even if we could cite the moving medium for sound, we could do the same for light with the dynamic & expanding spacetime geometry.
Also, in the case of supersonic events, we could still cite tachyons as analogous.
In short, I am still not seeing any specific distinctions between the two if we treat everything to be equal except that one is sound (and its properties) and the other is light (and its properties).
@@KingLuh It is because the time for moving source ticks slower and you have to account for that in the doppler effect. Whereas for sound, the source is usually moving slowly and you don't have to account for that. But yes, if you were in a medium where speed of sound is very fast like the matter of a neutron star then you could have a fast moving source emitting sound waves and you would use relativistic doppler formula. The point is that this proved that the time dilation is real because you have to account for this time dilation (transverse part of the doppler shift) All this was of course measured and is therefore proven experimentally. The difference between sound and light is in the fact that for sound, this transverse part would be only present if the source was moving relative to the medium but not if it was stationary. For light, it doesn't matter who is moving (the source or observer) only relative motion matters. And that is why we can't consider this sound analogy to be exact.
@lukasrafajpps I think I now understand the most part of it. I am aware that in practice, the formulas for the two are not the same, but in principle, if we were to subject both phenomena to the same treatment (if Galilean be it for both or if Lorentzian be it for both regardless of how small the speeds) then the differences would be fewer. Also, the distinction of the movement of the observer vs the source (beyond a sign difference) doesn't make much sense once we talk relativity of inertial reference frames. It would just be the speed of the frame of reference and that of the wave.
In the beginning of the video I thought to myself "what if the clock was spinning?" lol
Excellent, thanks for this!
I love your videos, but please can you calrify this argument as I have a few things that just don't make sense to me.
1) You argue that time dilation is not caused by wave mechanics, but still acknowledge that light is a wave. So shouldn't there be an time dilating effect from wave mechanics? Why isn't there?
2) The difference in the perpendicular and tranverse dilations should be cancelled out by the length contraction, no?
3) The muon argument is surely not justified as Quatumn Mechanics is an incomplete model - read Roger Penrose's works - so it relies on the assumption that the probabilistic model is representing a probabilistic reality, as opposed to effectively approximating a deterministic one. Presently it is not known which is correct. Is this not the case?
I really enjoy your work, and I usually find your arguments very clear. Am I just missing something obvious here?
Time: a certain amount of mass, with a certain amount of energy, over a certain amount of distance.
Time = M x E x D
Time is not a 'thing' you can interact with. Time is a concept of motion. A second is a standard of motion.
When your atomic clock is moving, you are adding distance to the equation. That means you are no longer measuring standard time.
M x E x (D + d')
Since matter, energy and distance are factors of time, any equation that includes time as a factor is susceptible to inaccuracies if one or more of the factors of time (M, E, D) is also present in the equation.
When it comes to Time Dilation, I simply think about it as a component of mass which introduces or affected by space time and clocks are irrelevant, this clears the true understanding of Time Dilation. We only talk about clocks to specify specific spacetime properties. Everytime I see a ping pong bouncing in the spaceship always confuses me.
No mystery. GPS satellites must be routinely adjusted to compensate for relativistic time dilation. Happens all the TIMES.
So, If length contraction occurs for an anisotropic speed of light, it raises the possibility that the speed of light may not be uniform in all directions?
Thanks a lot for this video.
(Looking forward to see if Dialect manages any response)
Dialect doesn’t need to respond, since there is an error in this video: the directional speed of light has no bearing upon the 90-degree-rotated clock, because the question of speed limit is what’s in-play. The rotated clock has a similar problem, especially if we imagine such a clock moving near the speed of sound/light-i.e. such a clock would measure only two “seconds” elapse: half at the point of change in direction, and the other half upon the final return. Dialect’s video shows that we are approaching the idea of relativity from a place of extreme bias, and his experiment proves it, no matter the direction of the clock.
I’m a little surprised by how many people are getting the point of his video wrong…perhaps everyone hates to see their life’s work on relativity go up in smoke?
Did everyone miss the part where he clarified that he was just trolling about the rotated clock being different and that it does in fact work how relativity tells us it should work
@@Kavukamarihow is it thar no one understands that a clock is am instrument that measures distance traveled. Rotating the clock just changes the distance the photon has to travel. Changing the direction the photon travels introduces redshift/blueshift of the electromagnetic wave.
If you locate the power source forward of the direction of motion, you get blueshift or a clock that runs faster than it's stationary twin.
What little Einstein didn't understand is that the amount of force and electromagnetic wave imparts on the target changes with motion. Has nothing to do with time-dilation because clocks are instruments that measure changes in spatial coordinates, not changes in temporal as in radioactive decay.
Con artists will never respond in kind. He will be sly, and never check his work. Dialect doesn't do science. He just makes stuff up and the words are too big for you to get he is lying
Why use "sound" and not air particles is sort of like specifying the light frequency / color. The analog to photon (no mass) is an air particle (has mass).
Will love if you can take a look at my last video and see if you can make a better explanation.
If the speed of light is constant independent of the motion of the source, then why would the vertical speed of the photon in the light clock change for any observer?
Because vertical speed is not mentioned in the postulate. It is the total speed that is independent of the sources not the components of the speed.
It would be a cool experiment to see what would happen if you were to drop a clock and start a timer ground level to see the difference I’ve been dropping the clock would be different than accelerating it in a horizontal matter
Obviously, at the same speeds horizontally as the vertical velocity
I guess oversimplistic RUclips video titles are the norm anymore.
Yea, they do this in order to get many clicks
the key tldr for why you are wrong about your last statement, is that teh transverse time dilation for clocks derived in air works because the transverse lenght contraction is 0. so you dont have to make the "matter/clock" out of only air to get it to time dilate properly, for longitudinal dilation you would need to adjust the distance between the speakers and sensors manually to mimic what it would be like to have matter made out of sound waves in air. :) that is the crux, but if you had that, and you measured a frequency emitted by it that depended on the time dilation, then you would indeed get the same kind of relativistic time dilation for the air analogy as well. invite you to calculate that as well, since you seem pretty proficient as it is :) i love this stuff it is fascinating, i notice you seem to be of similar interests, so it should be fun to do. basically you take the speaker based light clock for air, you account for length contractions, then you have a second speaker on the clock that emits a frequency that is adjusted by the time dilation, so if the clock slows down, the frequency decreases by the same factor. and so on. then you will definitley get the same expressions as in relativity for the sound analogy. and this also makes sense right? the reason we need to add another speaker that is adjusted by the derived time dilation, is because the frequency of the speakers used in the clock already are made out of stuff that is not "made out of air" they will not time dilate just because they move through air, so we have to make the effect happen by setting it up manually, but if you do, then it is identical :) which is cool, it actually reproduces the entire phenomena, and no wonder, we knew that already because the ether theories where you cant measure the background work the same way, there the time dilation of clocks and emitters are also identical.
I feel as though relativity is mapping of the variability of the universal constants in relation to background energy of the space it is travelling through, not in relation of one object to another. Time is immutable and absolute simultaneity is real and can be recognized by the interactions of quantum mechanics. Only your perspective of time can change due to the electrical signal in your brain travelling at a different relative speed to the body etc. Time is described inaccurately as it is described in terms of the Planck Time, which is how long it takes for light to travel the Planck Distance.
There is basically a big difference between the conceptualized model of time in all of our minds compared to what it is modelled as mathematically in relativity. The one we all conceptualize in our minds is absolute, what we witness in quantum mechanics is absolute as well, only the meta physics of Einstein state that time is mutable when it is immutable, only our perspective of time can change. The way Planck modelled time is flawed as it assumes all light travels at a universal speed, when you look at the universe from an absolute frame of reference light travels at different speeds in comparison to each other (I am sick of people ignoring the time experienced by photons just because the photons perspective of time is different. It still exists and no metaphysics can eliminate that fact) and has carried over to Einsteins model.
If relativity was proven then we could take two clocks apart from each other and bring them back together and they would be synchronized due to their mechanisms or coding catering to the momentum. We can't get time synchronized exactly and that is a failure of Relativity. We would also be able to unify quantum mechanics with physics, could explain singularities, why the galaxies are drifting apart (i.e. what is "dark matter" and "dark energy") as well as various other shortcomings. Stop putting Einstein on a pedestal, the guy was just a dreamer and felt that reality was objective (Your perspective is your reality which is unique for each particle) when it is definitely non-objective (Things happen in a certain order regardless of how you perceive them, causality is real).
"SeeThePattern" produces some nice Lorentz Ether Theory videos as well, I like his ones related to the rivalry between Lorentzian theory and Einsteinian theory.
ruclips.net/video/iqAvgHJa7Yw/видео.html
Werner has some great stuff related to the stuff you are talking about, hopefully Dialect has seen the material:
www.youtube.com/@wernerhartl2069
this physical length contraction issue is exactly why i mentioned imagining what matter would be like if it was made out of a medium of air, it would have to length contract, and so the time dilation would be the same anyway. that is there is no difference between a medium and whatever people think special relativity is like, special relativity is exactly a theory corresponding to a medium you cannot detect absolute motion with respect to. in fact the example you showed for how you would measure the speed on air can be fixed by just assuming length contraction takes care of it and then you are only solving for one unknown, compare that unknown to the length contraction functions on special relativity. i am telling you special relativity is an ether theory, people think it is not an ether theory, and that such things were refuted, basically because they learned special relativity in a simplified way and then someone told them so. but that isnt true, that is a misconception, special relativity and ether theories where the ether cant be detected like this has the exact opposite problem, it is not that the ether is impossible, but that any ether with any velocity is possible. except from the effects familiar to anyone who knows gr of frame dragging and gravity, it just has to be in uniform motion.
Why not simulating the light in a closed vertical tube such that the wave always travels vertically or horizontally.
Wouldn't the air in the "cound clock" compartment be moving too? And in that case wouldn't that behave entirely like a stationary inertial frame?
The point is not about the clocks, we measure the difference using atomic clocks, but the important thing is that we measure the speed of light the same in all reference frames and that means relativity has to be true
This is the very Idea I put up in a video years ago where time dilation is not the same when you travel towards a location and when traveling away from a location. The thought experiment the Einstein did was him moving away from a clock tower and he thought that the closer he got to the speed of light the slower the clock would appear to tick as he got close to light speed moving away from the clock. His ideas NEVER cover to what happens when traveling towards a location and what happens at that point is the clocks tick rate you travel towards will incease in its time rate or look like time is going faster then it is for you for locations you go towards. There is NO WAY that time would slow down everywhere around you when traveling close to light speed. this idea is not possible only time speeds up for locations you travel towards and slows down for locations you travel away from. This is the only way the time dilation idea works and makes sense the idea that all clocks moving run slower the clocks that are traveling at a slower speed is not the connection it is traveling away or traveling towards locations that cause this time dilation time rate change effect. What Brian Green and so many others have attempted to teach people about time dilation is absolutely 100% incorrect and the whole light beam bouncing up and down between 2 mirrors is not in any way a valid experiment to prove anything about how time rates change for locations you travel away from and travel towards.... Now its been 5 years sense i posted this video and i have less then 50 views on it....... This person as I'm posting this has had this video up for 9 days and he has 26 thousand views for this video....
ruclips.net/video/0ARg3rpvXB0/видео.htmlsi=ZtNzIEkdtVNmBGIL
Posted this idea 5 years ago......... less then 50 views what BS this is......
So even if we have two equal masses of radioactive material, we travel one of them very fast, and we measure the rate it has decayed compared to its half life, we will see that the moving one was slower to decay?
What if we only can use sound to compare sound clocks?
I like Your explanations very much, thank You. Take an old wall clock, that works only in a one G world. How does it loose time, when moving in a 1G environment?
Einstein once famously said, there is no such thing as time...just clocks.
Really? Can't find it in Google
@dnomyarnostaw
Albert Einstein did make a comment along those lines. He theorized that time is relative and can vary depending on one's frame of reference, suggesting that the experience of time is subjective. This idea is often summarized in the phrase "time is an illusion" or "there's no such thing as time, just clocks." I Googled that...maybe my Google is better than your Google.
@Doctor.T.46 Good. Then you can tell me what interview, what paper and date he said it
Preferably without the lecture on physics principles.
Time is just a single moment... stretched to eternity via our sensory apparatus by the way we evolved.
@@dnomyarnostaw I didn't lecture you on physics principles, I just found the Google item that you couldn't find. As for the paper, perhaps you should try Google again. I wasn't trying to have an argument, I just gave a rather amusing quote. Sorry if you feel you need more ...
Why do muons last longer? Or why do faster muons travel more distance in the same time.. see how redundant that question is.
That's why I didn't even bother answering.
the analogy works fine, you jumped the step where you thought about what is means for an emitter to be a clock. i don't know your level of education in physics, and as i said before, i don't blame you for being wrong, but it is wrong to say the sound analogy breaks down, or that doppler shift work differently in ether theories than in special relativity. but what you said is wrong.
i liked the video, it was a nice exposition, i am not criticizing what you said to be mean or anything like that, but there are so many people that think there is a real difference between absolute space and special relativity, and there just isn't. i commented a lot of times because why not and it is fun. if you read some of my earlier ones i explain the relationship between theories of absolute backgrounds and extensions of modern physics, at least a little bit, how variations of the speed and flow related to general relativity and so on. have a good week my dude, i like your video style, i hope you get a lot more subs, i think you did a great job overall, btw i am not some random person i work on cutting edge theory of extensions of relativity and quantum mechanics just fyi :) this channel deserves to get big.
C, is the speed of light in a vacuum. To recreate the experiment the speakers should not have been open to the air.
what is the time of the part of the observable universe that is moving over the speed of light vs us? Do they still have the same structure and life as us?
Length contracts the closer you get to the speed of light because e.g. the electrons cannot go as fast into the travel direction, so matter flattens to the observer. To the traveller, everything looks the same on his end.
As for muons, maybe it's worth considering that they aren't as elementary as we think, or they have some form of rotational speed that slows down their clock the faster they travel, dilating their time.
@KiterTMK Why would matter objectively/physically flatten in the travel direction if/when electrons are slowed down ? Isn't it more reasonable to think that they just are evenly slowed down in their rate of change as quantum objects (as fields, not as "balls" in the old Bohr atomic planetary model) ?
Agree in principal concerning the muons, how can they be fundamental if they get time dilated, during their decelerations in the atmosphere on their way down to the earth .
A couple of simple questions:
Is the speed of light always deemed to be constant in these light clock illustration? (yes?)
From the mirror light clock is it asserted that the ticks slow down, therefore time has slowed down? (yes?)
If time has slowed down, then the speed of light has slowed down because the seconds in the m/s of the speed of light has slowed down?
Therefore the speed of light was not constant?
But now because the speed of light is slower in our photon clock, it actually takes longer for the photon to bounce, and therefore time has become slower, and the speed of light has become slower, and therefore, the photon in the photon clock is traveling slower, and therefore the time is slower, and the speed of light is slower...
Blue Screen! The universe has been halted to protect the underlying hardware form damage.
Please check for corrupted driver updates or faulty runtimes.
Or see your local god to reboot the universe :)