Talk:Time dilation/Archive 1

message: This article looks a little too big for a stub tag, anyone object to removing it? pielover87 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub

message: When equal gravitational time dilation factors are applied, first to blue shift a photon to a maximum  energy density (limit wavelength), and then to convert photon energy into gravitational field energy, each of the two factors is equal to the square root of [(3/2) exponent 1/2, times Planck time divided by two pi seconds]. (Note that when Planck time is expressed in seconds and divided by two pi seconds a dimensionless ratio is obtained.) This is a required condition if the electron is a gravitationally confined particle. When the Planck time is 5.391 times 10 exponent-44 seconds, the blue shift time dilation factor is 1.025 times 10 exponent-22 seconds per second. The critical or limit wavelength photon  that has the energy density to materialize a pair of gravitationally confined particles, has energy equal to (2/3) exponent 1/2 times the Planck mass energy.  This mass is 1.7775 times 10 exponent-8 kg.  The limit wavelength is (3/2) exponent 1/2 times two pi times Planck length in meters.   The quantized electron mass is equal to 1/2 of the mass energy of the limit wavelength photon when this energy is reduced by the gravitational time dilation factor 1.025 times 10 exponent-22 seconds per second.  The product of 1.7775 times 10 exponent-8 kg and 1.025 times 10 exponent-22 seconds per second is 1.8219 times 10 exponent-30 kg.  This mass times 1/2 is the electron mass, 9.1095 times 10 exponent-31 kg. The electron mass may then be defined as (h/4 pi c) times (c/3 pi h G) exponent 1/4 kg. From this equation and the known electron mass (9.1093819 times 10 exponent-31 kg) a hypothetical value for the gravitational constant (G) may be determined.  This value is 6.6717456 times 10 exponent-11 m exponent 3,kg exponent-1, second exponent-2.  This could be useful because the gravitational constant is the least precisely determined fundamental constant.
Author B.G.Sidharth has modeled the electron as a Kerr-Newman type black hole. This is consistant with the electron being described as a gravitationally confined particle. User:    DonJStevens
See Black hole electron, See also Micro black hole   
:Can you please not reference this talk page in the article unless it's absolutely necessary?  Many thanks. -- Graham  :) | Talk 01:05, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: determining Newtonian gravitational constant G

message: This is just a question and I apologize if this is the wrong forum, I am trying to understand how time can be relative?  Shouldn't time be constant, for example just because the Solar System is separated by millions of miles, it is the same time there as it is here.  The distance in between should not affect the time, my point being on the previous page, "When one accelerates towards the speed of light, time slows down with respect to the rest of the Universe. That is, a stationary observer would see the traveling objects slowing down their activity (while still traveling fast). For them, time passes slower."  So my point is time may seem to be passing slower but we are in fact all in the same instant or moment of time?  No matter how fast one is traveling, is it not still "now"?
:No. It turns out that two events that happen at different points in space can't be observed by two or more observers that move in relation to each other as happenning at "the same time" (and so the same goes for "now"). "The same time" has no physical meaning. It turned out to be only a human concept not having a counterpart in the nature. 
:The reason for it is a physical fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their velocities and the information from any event can reach the observer only with speed of light at the best. It creates a situation that if one observer establishes that some two events happened "now" (in his time i.e. in the time measured by his clock) an obsever that moves in relation to the first one sees those events as happening at different times in his time. So "now" as related to certain events has meaning only for one observer in the universe and so it is only a subjective idea, valid only for this particular observer and therefore "relative". It can't be something "absolute" that would be valid for everyone. Jim  17:04, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
No matter how fast one is traveling, is it not still "now"?
:Yes I do believe you are correct. I think the same myself and have yet to see a satisfactory explanation otherwise. To think time slows down or speeds up just because you are moving very fast is preposterous to me.
::Hi, you bring up a very good point, one of the stranger predictions of relativity. I am just an amateur, and much of relativity is beyond my grasp, but I believe I can explain at least part of this. First of all, I agree that the notion of time slowing or speeding based on one's velocity does seem preposterous. This is because even at our top speeds, we travel so slowly compared to the speed of light that the time dilation is negligible. If one were to graph the amount of time dilation versus the speed, it would appear as a curve stretching up to infinity as one's speed approached c, the speed of light. However, if one just looks at the section of the graph that shows velocities we can currently attain, it would appear horizontal. The notion seems preposterous because our species evolved only achieving speeds on the beginning almost-flat part of the curve, and because we grow up and all of our experiences are at extremely low speeds (relatively speaking; no pun intended). In a similar manner, the idea that the Earth might be (approximately) spherical and not flat seemed preposterous to many people in its time; if you grew up in a small area and never traveled far enough to see the curvature, it would seem flat to you. In fact, the Earth still seems flat to us; however, we grow up learning that it is round, and we can take airplanes and such around the world which helps solidify the concept. Furthermore, globes, and now photographs of the Earth from space further help us to visualize this.
::Of course, none of this establishes relativity as being accurate. However, this a good deal of evidence supporting time dilation. One comes from muons produced from cosmic rays. The half-life of muons is well-known and unchangeable by any known process. One can calculate that all the muons should decay well before they reach Earth's surface; yet we detect many of these high-speed particles hitting Earth. This is in perfect accord with special relativity; the muons are travelling close to the speed of light and for them, time is travelling more slowly relative to us. From their "point of view", they are surving the proper amount of time, but from our point of view it is taking them a lot longer to decay. A second confirmation has been multiple experiments where two atomic clocks are synchronized, then one is flown at high speeds on a jet while the other one remains on Earth. When they are reunited, the one on the jet is slow by exactly the amount predicted by relativity. The third example is the most tangible, it concerns the operation of the Global Positioning Satellite system launched by the United States. These satellites all carry atomic clocks on board which continually broadcast signals including the current time. Commercial and military receivers on Earth receive these signals; it takes a fraction of a second for the signal to reach them. They subtract the signal time from the current time to determine how long the signal took to travel and using the known positions of the satellite, can calculate their distance and therefore their position. However, this does not take relativity into account; a system implemented in this manner would not work. See, there are two influences occuring here. One is that according to general relativity, time proceeds more slowly in a stronger gravitational field; this would predict that the clocks on the satellites would run faster. But special relativity predicts that faster objects experience time more slowly, and therefore the satellite clocks would run slower. The precise variance can be calculated and these two influences do not exactly cancel out; the clocks on the satellites should run slower than Earth-based clocks. The satellites' programming takes this time dilation into account and adjusts the clocks accordingly. Incidentally, not everyone was sure if relativity was really "correct" when the satellites were being constructed, so they were built in with both normal and relativity-corrected programming that could be switched remotely. They originally were launched in "normal" mode but it was soon obvious that the clocks were all getting out of sync, and the relativity programming was activated. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to the second example, does this mean that someone who does alot of air travel has moved forward in time a little bit (maybe its some minutely small amount)? Astrokey44 18:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: question about relativity of time

message: The effect is of course symmetrical: an observer fixed on the "moving" object sees the "stationary observer" slowing down.
This sentence is entirely contrary to logic, and also contradicts the last paragraph of the "Gravitational time dilation" section.  -- 66.32.110.58 21:38, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (William M. Connolley 22:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I suppose it seems that way. In fact, starting with a few basic assumptions (for instance, the speed of light is measured the same for observers in all intertial reference frames), and using just the laws of logic/math, one will arrive at this result. So it's really not contrary to logic; in fact, it is quite logical. It is, however, contrary to intuition. In an analagous manner, the ancients were able to use logic to surmise that the Earth was round, not flat. Others might object "Why don't people on the bottom of the Earth fall off?" and the answer would be that for them, they are upside up and we are upside down, hanging off the bottom of the Earth. Now this is perfectly straightforward to us today in an age where we can travel around the globe and view photographs from space. Doubtless if our great-grandchildren grow up in an era where relativistic speeds are commonplace, they will find it perfectly natural and will politely smile at our ignorance. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand your scenario, but one of the concepts we must give up in relativity is that of absolute simultaneity. That is, observers in different reference frames will disagree about simultaneous events. Observer 1 might measure A and B as occurring at the same time, while Observer 2 measures A to occur before B, and Observer 3 measures B occurring before A. In some ways, this is analogous to what Newton proposed: in classical (Newtonian) physics, the concept of a preferred reference frame or "absolute rest" was discarded. That is, you cannot say "absolutely" that two events occurred in the same place, but at different times. To one observer it may appear so, but to another observer they will appear to occur in different places. That's absolute location. Absolute time means that you could say that two events occured at the same time, but in different places. We normally take this for granted, like that of absolute location. We can do this because we move at very low speeds relative to the speed of light (so we can use absolute time) and at low speeds relative to each other and the planet (so we can use absolute location). However, according to physics, neither model is accurate, and will break down at higher speeds. Of course, I find it extremely difficult to grasp a universe without absolute simultaneity. So does almost everyone. That's what makes Einstein a genius. Of course, anyone can come out with imaganitive theories. But that his theories provide testable hypotheses which have so far always been borne out provides evidence that his model is more accurate than our classical model. Hope this helps, and if you can elaborate on the scenario I can try to help you with that. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  symmetrical? 

message: After staring at it for some time, I decided that I had to revert the introduction.  While I could work with the changes to the velocity section, the new introduction made imporper claims:
* It implied that time dilation is peculiar to clocks that are separated and later reunited.  That is the twin paradox.  Time dilation itself occurs with respect to the coordinate system defined by a given clock whether or not the other clock has ever or will ever be next to the clock defining the coordinate system.
* It called proper time a "perceived" measurement, placing it on the same level as the coordinate times.  Proper time is not just perceived, it is the physical passage of time for that observer.  Proper time also is not relative.  Instead it is an invariant that all observers will agree on.  (They may disagree over the parameters of a clock's worldline, but not on how much time that clock ticked off as it traveled that worldline.)
* "The faster one travels ..., the greater the time dilation relative to their origin": This is nonsense.  An observer cannot travel with respect to himself, and therefore is never time dilated with respect to himself or with respect to his own temporal coordinate system.  The effect occurs with respect to other observers and their temporal coordinate systems.
I am happy to work with others, and with edits that improve on my own work.  However, the new intorduction was a solid step backwards for the reasons listed above.  I regret the need to revert it.
--EMS | Talk 04:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Intro 

message: Why there is such a thing as relativistic time dilation anyway? It is not clear whether it is possible at all to find an answer to that question. For a start: what would a universe without relativistic time dilation (have to) look like?
The speed of light can in a more general sense be seen as the maximum speed of information: the maximum speed of causality. In our universe the speed of causality is very high indeed: 300.000 kilometers per second. Because of the extremely hich velocity of causality, the relativistic time dilation was completely unnoticable until the high technology of the 20th century was developed. What if the speed of light would be trillions of kilometers a second? If the speed of causality would be even higher, then our universe would resemble a universe without time dilation much, much closer than our actual universe. A universe with infinite speed of causality would be a universe with total separation of time and space, a universe without time dilation. But can a universe with infinite speed of causality exist at all? If every location of the universe is instantaneously connected to every other location, then how can such a thing as distance even exist?
Mayby finite speed of causality is a price to pay for the very existance of spatial distance. And maybe the only self-consistent universe with a finite speed of causality is a universe with Minkowski space-time geometry. <BR>
--Cleon Teunissen | Talk 22:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, it doesn't make sence. If every location of the universe is instantaneously connected to every other location, what does it change to distance? Not cause light/information would get anywhere instantly that it wouldn't take you the same time anymore to walk from your home to your school --82.249.211.32 16:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why time dilation

message: That actually is a neat article, but it is better suited to the Americal Journal of Physics instead of Wikipedia.  It is bringing up new concepts and not directly dealing with time dilation.  It also seems to be a kind of original research, which also disqualifies it.
In any case, it is gone.  For now.  --EMS | Talk 16:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 

message: It's about time that you found the talk pages.  Kindly get yourself a Wikipedia user-ID ASAP.  It is difficult to correspond with an anonymous editor whose IP address keeps changing for whatever reason.  You are also losing out on the ability to watch these pages for changes by not having a user-ID.    Of course you can stay an anonymous editor if you like, but it is not as if we don't know who you are.  
Look above for my prior messages on your attempt to place that link into the time dilation article.  Myself and William M. Connolley (who has actually reverted your link more than I have) are interested is discussing the issue with you.  --EMS | Talk 02:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it is a vanity addition. Interesting point though, that the theory of relativity is an entirely mathematical subject and cannot be expressed meaningfully with words alone. I agree with that general idea, and in my personal experience it was through watching relevant animations that I got some understanding of relativity. The Shubert article does not help me. I support the decision to remove, and keep removing, the reference to the Eugene Shubert article.  --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 08:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Eugene Shubert 

message: Kindly realize that all that your attempt to make your case in the article space did was to paste a sign on the rear-end of your edits reading "revert me".  Please discuss this matter here.  You will get no respect otherwise.  --EMS | Talk 05:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article space is not for talk 

message: I am not terribly in love with this page as-is.  However, I cannot see how those edits added any clarity or valuable content to this page.  Instead I saw a bunch of GPS-centric content that raised more questions than it answered.  --EMS | Talk 04:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to be fated to follow EMS around... anyway, I cannot understand Jok's "Why promote a cranky viewpoint?" - nothing in EMS's edits justifies that. Also the GPS seems too... specific. ps: I don't much like the animated gif either... but I can guess who did that. Also, jumping so soon into suggesting a dispute tag seems very premature. Please, Jok, will you try to give a serious answer to EMS's point? William M. Connolley 15:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be careful about who you credit with the animated GIF.  It is indeed Cleon's work, but I requested it.  What is needed IMO is a better explanation of it.   I regret that I have not gotten around to doing that. --EMS | Talk 15:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I will (once I can translate it that is).  However, this is not a terribly useful answer even so. --EMS | Talk 15:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I was just trying to save the readers a couple of bucks on a book.  I actually reverted your revert of me completely by accident.  I had the page open and was pondering rewording (or reverting -- hence the comment) it when my daughter came by and I hit the enter key by accident.  Jok2000 16:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  reversion of edits by Jok2000 

message: Jok removed
: This effect is commonly thought of as being time slowing down for the time dilated clock. This is not the case. Locally, one's proper time always passes at the same rate. Instead what is slowed down is how that proper time passage is perceived by another observer.
with the comment Shorten article as per talk. See GPS, talk or German page or "An Introduction to Time" for reasoning. I find her habit of referring us elsewhere for the reasonnnig to be very annoying. I can't read German. I don't have the book. I don't want to go read the GPS page to find out why an apparently reasonable piece of the intro has been snipped here. William M. Connolley 09:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To mdf: WMC's lower-school orthodoxy and EMS's anti-rationalist stance generated an equilibrium in this article surrounding observed vs. real time dilation. (Not that either is necessarily an honest adherent to their stated philosophies).  It is an unfortunate, but I suppose necessary part of the magic that is Wikipedia. Jok2000 20:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Jok2000 

message: First of all, it is somewhat ironic that I have remove the last paragraph of the the intro almost on the heels of Jok2000's failed attempt to do so.  However, I really feel that it collides with what mdf did, and with mdf's text being better.  I put that text in to clarify how I started this article.  In the new intro, it is superfluous at best, and so I decided that it's usefulness was at an end.
I like the experimental confirmations section, but felt that it was in the wrong place.  I think that you first do your best to tell the reader what time dilation is about, and then drive home the point that it has been confirmed.  If nothing else I think that it is helpful for the reader to have had a chance to understand what it is that is being confirmed.
The table of time dilation values has always impressed me as being at best a little odd.  I decided that the time had come to see about it's outright removal, and I think that the article benefits from it. --EMS | Talk 03:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are sounding more and more like a high preist for relativity.  Kindly remember that science is advanced by asking questions and not by declaring things to be some kind of Truth.  The anon is right that it is the job of this article to explain time dilation as best it can, and not just his job to somehow comprehend it, or take a college level course first. --EMS | Talk 05:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by ems57fcva