Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

Science > Physics > Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 11

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"kenseto"
Date:	09 Jul 2006 09:52:54 AM
Object:	Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
This simple assertion is the basis of all what's wrong with SR. It gives
rise to the bogus concept of time dilation and length contraction.
The correct statement is as follows: Time is absolute. A clock second will
contain a different amount of absolute time in a different state of absolute
motion (different frame) of the clock. The existence of absolute time is the
reason why all observer measure the speed of light to be a constant math
ratio of c as follows:
c=light path length of physical ruler(299,792,458m)/the absolute time
content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
This new defintion for the speed of light gives rise to a new theory of
relativity called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. A description of IRT is in the following
link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
.

User: "Dirk Van de moortel"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	10 Jul 2006 06:41:45 AM

"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message news:aL8sg.20855$u11.6993@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

Every engineer says that time is what a clock measures:
http://units.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
Only armchair philosophers can have a problem with
that statement.
Dirk Vdm
.

User: "dda1"
Title: ken seto, a cretin with a theory on geocities	09 Jul 2006 11:17:56 AM

ken seto the MAJOR CRETIN wrote:
<all snipped>

Ken Seto

No one gives a *****. So, go ***** yourself, CRETIN.
.

User: "dda1"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	10 Jul 2006 11:46:52 PM

kenseto wrote:
<idiocy snipped>
Don't you get tired of having so many people ***** on you and on your
"theory"?
When you die, there are still going to be people shitting on your grave
(for a while).
.

User: "jcon"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	23 Jul 2006 11:49:35 AM

kenseto wrote:

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.
-jc
.

User: "jem"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	24 Jul 2006 07:27:29 AM

jcon wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.

You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.
.

User: "jcon"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	24 Jul 2006 10:06:23 AM

jem wrote:

jcon wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.

You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.

Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".
For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?
-jc
.

User: "jambaugh"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	28 Jul 2006 12:17:26 PM

jcon wrote:

For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?

-jc

Indeed Einstein did not exclude this very case...especially in GR. The
concept of arbitrary space-time coordinate systems allows you to use
this very definition of time. It is the first of the gauge theories
(where what you measure may depend on where and when you measure it as
well as how you decide to execute the measurement).
This is the concept of relativity which you still have not integrated
into your mind and is why you cannot understand Einstein. In your
frustration you are invoking implicit absolute time to "correct his
mistakes". The mistake is your own. But if you would invoke a little
personal humility you will find you are asking the "good questions" and
with an open mind you could "get it".
Let me try one more time... As you point out that Einstein's
definition of time as what a clock reads is subject to "error"*1
because of physical effects as you move a pendulum from the earth to
the moon. But the problem is more general . . .
(*1 Error here if you assume an absolute time but merely relative
difference in measurement when you allow that time is relative **to
which clock you use**.)
I. Supposing you define an absolute time and you calibrate it to say
Big Ben in London (let's install an atomic clock to keep Big Ben
precise.) Then you can only say you have an absolute time at Bridge
St. London UK.
II. Take another clock at the same place and stationary w.r.t. B.B and
calibrate it to B.B. Then it matters how you move this clock elsewhere
as to what time it will show there.
For a given clock you have nothing to compare it with to distinguish
between "physical effects on the clock" and "time really is slower over
there" (e.g. on the moon).
III. You can however compare different clocks to see *differences* in
physical effects and note that your pendulum clock will run more slowly
on the moon than an atomic clock.
IV. Finally you get to the point where you can compare theories. You
can measure the gravitational acceleration on the moon (with one clock
and one set of measuring rods) and use this to "correct" your pendulum
clock so it agrees with an atomic clock but you cannot eliminate the
possibility of some additional physical effect common to all clocks.
By definition you distinguish clocks by correlating how other
*measurable* physical phenomena correlate to their distinct time
measurements. But you must be careful to note when another physical
measurement (e.g. acceleration due to gravity at the surface of a
planet) depend on the use of both clocks and measuring rods. You are
left with the fact that some conceivable physical effects cancel out
with respect to what is actually observable. This is called gauge
degrees of freedom. You have parameters such as "how long the
measuring rod really is w.r.t. absolute distances" and "how fast the
physical clock is running w.r.t. absolute time". These parameters are
not directly measureable because you are comparing to a conceptual
quantity independent of any choice of measurement. By definition you
have eliminated any observable physical effects such as the orientation
of your clocks and measuring rods and whether you use silver vs.
aluminum and whether you use a pendulum or an atomic clock.
What then is left is questions of space-time geometry=how relative
physical effects change as you move your devices over space and over
time. Einstein formulated this and came up with a beautiful (and so
far accurate) theory of how space-time geometry depends on the
distribution-motion of mass-energy.
Note some points: You can define an equivalent theory to Einstein's
allowing the speed of light to no longer be a constant but rather vary
over space and over time. But keep in mind that the speed of light is
measured by comparing an interval of time with a distance and so what
you effectively are doing by varying the speed of light is introducing
additional gauge degrees of freedom. You are varying your choice of
clock and measuring rod standards independently at every point in
space. But if you do this then you give up some other nice features
namely the local conservation of mass-energy-momentum.
One final point: Any theory of absolute time (and or space) can also
be expressed in a theory of relative time. The reverse is not true.
Relativistic*2 theories are more general (expressed in a more general
language). In effect the assumption of absolute time invokes a hidden
postulate within the physical theory. For physics we would like to
(a.) keep all postulates explicit and (b.) reject all postulates which
cannot be empirically tested.
*2 Note here by relativistic theory I do not just mean theories adding
specifics to Einstein's SR or GR but the more general concept of
relativity of time and space.
It is a matter of paying close attention to the empirical basis for the
definition of your terms. Example absolute voltage is meaningless,
voltage is always relative to your choice of ground.)
Regards,
James Baugh
.

User: "jambaugh"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	30 Jul 2006 10:12:46 AM

Pardon me. I wasn't watching to whom I was replying and some of that
was ment for kenseto and not jcon.
J.B.
.

User: "jem"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	29 Jul 2006 08:22:12 AM

jambaugh wrote:

jcon wrote:

For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?

-jc

Indeed Einstein did not exclude this very case...especially in GR. The
concept of arbitrary space-time coordinate systems allows you to use
this very definition of time. It is the first of the gauge theories
(where what you measure may depend on where and when you measure it as
well as how you decide to execute the measurement).

This is the concept of relativity which you still have not integrated
into your mind and is why you cannot understand Einstein. In your
frustration you are invoking implicit absolute time to "correct his
mistakes". The mistake is your own. But if you would invoke a little
personal humility you will find you are asking the "good questions" and
with an open mind you could "get it".

Let me try one more time... As you point out that Einstein's
definition of time as what a clock reads is subject to "error"*1
because of physical effects as you move a pendulum from the earth to
the moon. But the problem is more general . . .

(*1 Error here if you assume an absolute time but merely relative
difference in measurement when you allow that time is relative **to
which clock you use**.)

I. Supposing you define an absolute time and you calibrate it to say
Big Ben in London (let's install an atomic clock to keep Big Ben
precise.) Then you can only say you have an absolute time at Bridge
St. London UK.

II. Take another clock at the same place and stationary w.r.t. B.B and
calibrate it to B.B. Then it matters how you move this clock elsewhere
as to what time it will show there.
For a given clock you have nothing to compare it with to distinguish
between "physical effects on the clock" and "time really is slower over
there" (e.g. on the moon).

III. You can however compare different clocks to see *differences* in
physical effects and note that your pendulum clock will run more slowly
on the moon than an atomic clock.

IV. Finally you get to the point where you can compare theories. You
can measure the gravitational acceleration on the moon (with one clock
and one set of measuring rods) and use this to "correct" your pendulum
clock so it agrees with an atomic clock but you cannot eliminate the
possibility of some additional physical effect common to all clocks.
By definition you distinguish clocks by correlating how other
*measurable* physical phenomena correlate to their distinct time
measurements. But you must be careful to note when another physical
measurement (e.g. acceleration due to gravity at the surface of a
planet) depend on the use of both clocks and measuring rods. You are
left with the fact that some conceivable physical effects cancel out
with respect to what is actually observable. This is called gauge
degrees of freedom. You have parameters such as "how long the
measuring rod really is w.r.t. absolute distances" and "how fast the
physical clock is running w.r.t. absolute time". These parameters are
not directly measureable because you are comparing to a conceptual
quantity independent of any choice of measurement. By definition you
have eliminated any observable physical effects such as the orientation
of your clocks and measuring rods and whether you use silver vs.
aluminum and whether you use a pendulum or an atomic clock.

What then is left is questions of space-time geometry=how relative
physical effects change as you move your devices over space and over
time. Einstein formulated this and came up with a beautiful (and so
far accurate) theory of how space-time geometry depends on the
distribution-motion of mass-energy.

Note some points: You can define an equivalent theory to Einstein's
allowing the speed of light to no longer be a constant but rather vary
over space and over time. But keep in mind that the speed of light is
measured by comparing an interval of time with a distance and so what
you effectively are doing by varying the speed of light is introducing
additional gauge degrees of freedom. You are varying your choice of
clock and measuring rod standards independently at every point in
space. But if you do this then you give up some other nice features
namely the local conservation of mass-energy-momentum.

One final point: Any theory of absolute time (and or space) can also
be expressed in a theory of relative time. The reverse is not true.
Relativistic*2 theories are more general (expressed in a more general
language). In effect the assumption of absolute time invokes a hidden
postulate within the physical theory. For physics we would like to
(a.) keep all postulates explicit and (b.) reject all postulates which
cannot be empirically tested.

Hmm, any postulate that's used is explicit (by definition), and
scientific theories are evaluated in terms of predictive power and
elegance, neither of which (AFAIK) precludes the use of untestable
postulates.

*2 Note here by relativistic theory I do not just mean theories adding
specifics to Einstein's SR or GR but the more general concept of
relativity of time and space.
It is a matter of paying close attention to the empirical basis for the
definition of your terms. Example absolute voltage is meaningless,
voltage is always relative to your choice of ground.)

Regards,
James Baugh

User: "jambaugh"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	29 Jul 2006 01:33:25 PM

Well I wrote a nice long reply but my browser crashed before I could
post it. So here's a shorter second try.
jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:
[snip]

One final point: Any theory of absolute time (and or space) can also
be expressed in a theory of relative time. The reverse is not true.
Relativistic*2 theories are more general (expressed in a more general
language). In effect the assumption of absolute time invokes a hidden
postulate within the physical theory. For physics we would like to
(a.) keep all postulates explicit and (b.) reject all postulates which
cannot be empirically tested.

Hmm, any postulate that's used is explicit (by definition),

Ha! If only!
The best example I can give you is the implicit assumption built into
the innocent language of "the state of a particle". Describing a
particle as an object with objective properties (the values of which
specify its state) implies that one could in principle observe all of
its properties and hence that there must be a complete set of commuting
observables. It is exactly this innocent language which makes
understanding of quantum theory so difficult. If you carefully parse
Bell's derivations and the EPR experiment you'll find that it is
exactly *this* *implicit* assumption which leads to the contradiction
and *not* anything having to do with locality.
But more to the point our use of the language of *time* singular and
only *times* to refer to various values of time implies an absolute
time. Those who have the most difficulty with Einstein's theories get
trapped in this language. It is built into the paradox by the question
"which twin is really older" (in terms of this implicit absolute time).
It is less appropriate than the question "have you stopped beating
your wife".

and
scientific theories are evaluated in terms of predictive power and
elegance, neither of which (AFAIK) precludes the use of untestable
postulates.

Evaluation maybe but not *formulation*. It is exactly the task of
weeding out untestible postulates, especially those hidden in the
language, which keeps theorists busy. The best tool is the paradox.
Let me also point out that building implicit physical postulates into
the language (e.g. by the choice of mathematical representation) is not
bad. Indeed it is essential.
Quantum theory began as "wave mechanics" using an existing mathematical
structure of function spaces distinct from the usual state manifolds of
classical theory. It had to be carefully considered why the
formulation was better able to model empirical behavior. It was the
realization of the change in implicit assumptions built into the formal
languages (by of course making them explicit) which allowed a full
formulation of the new theory.
Today an applied quantum physicist needn't bother with the heady
issues. He need only know the language and how to apply it to physical
systems. But to write his textbooks many had to think long and hard
over these issues.
As we improve our understanding of nature we evolve the language of its
description. In this way the next generation needn't walk every step
taken from the early history of science. They need only learn to think
and understand in the new language. But such change needs to be well
thought out and this is why physicists are especially conservative.
Regards,
James
.

User: "jem"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	30 Jul 2006 05:25:22 PM

jambaugh wrote:

Well I wrote a nice long reply but my browser crashed before I could
post it. So here's a shorter second try.

Shorter's usually better. :)

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:
[snip]

Hmm, any postulate that's used is explicit (by definition),

So what's the hidden postulate? I just see an *expectation* (i.e.
objective properties) which in fact has no basis at all in the theory
(actually, you're even outside the theory when you talk about particles).
At any rate, discovering a hidden postulate in a theory (i.e. within a
formal axiomatic system) is akin to discovering a hidden rule in the
game of chess - it just can't happen.

But more to the point our use of the language of *time* singular and
only *times* to refer to various values of time implies an absolute
time. Those who have the most difficulty with Einstein's theories get
trapped in this language. It is built into the paradox by the question
"which twin is really older" (in terms of this implicit absolute time).
It is less appropriate than the question "have you stopped beating
your wife".

and
scientific theories are evaluated in terms of predictive power and
elegance, neither of which (AFAIK) precludes the use of untestable
postulates.

Evaluation maybe but not *formulation*. It is exactly the task of
weeding out untestible postulates, especially those hidden in the
language, which keeps theorists busy. The best tool is the paradox.

But I didn't suggest that untestable postulates were desireable, I only
took exception to the suggestion that they *must* be rejected.

Let me also point out that building implicit physical postulates into
the language (e.g. by the choice of mathematical representation) is not
bad. Indeed it is essential.

Quantum theory began as "wave mechanics" using an existing mathematical
structure of function spaces distinct from the usual state manifolds of
classical theory. It had to be carefully considered why the
formulation was better able to model empirical behavior. It was the
realization of the change in implicit assumptions built into the formal
languages (by of course making them explicit) which allowed a full
formulation of the new theory.

Today an applied quantum physicist needn't bother with the heady
issues. He need only know the language and how to apply it to physical
systems. But to write his textbooks many had to think long and hard
over these issues.

As we improve our understanding of nature we evolve the language of its
description. In this way the next generation needn't walk every step
taken from the early history of science. They need only learn to think
and understand in the new language. But such change needs to be well
thought out and this is why physicists are especially conservative.

Perhaps what you mean by "implicit/hidden postulate" is one that isn't
*usually* included when a theory's postulates are specified. If so, we
can just chalk this one up to semantics.
.

User: "jambaugh"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	31 Jul 2006 06:09:15 PM

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

Well I wrote a nice long reply but my browser crashed before I could
post it. So here's a shorter second try.

Shorter's usually better. :)

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:
[snip]

The best example I can give you is the implicit assumption built into
the innocent language of "the state of a particle". Describing a
particle as an object with objective properties (the values of which
specify its state) implies that one could in principle observe all of
its properties and hence that there must be a complete set of commuting
observables. It is exactly this innocent language which makes
understanding of quantum theory so difficult. If you carefully parse
Bell's derivations and the EPR experiment you'll find that it is
exactly *this* *implicit* assumption which leads to the contradiction
and *not* anything having to do with locality.

In this example it is the commutivity of observables.

At any rate, discovering a hidden postulate in a theory (i.e. within a
formal axiomatic system) is akin to discovering a hidden rule in the
game of chess - it just can't happen.

Let's use an example of a new game. We sit down and set up some rules
but it occurs as we play that we get to a situation we did not
anticipate. There is an ambiguity or better a contradiction in the
rules because of a situation we implicitly supposed would never occur.
Take a better (more physical) example of a set of rules for 9-ball.
We decide 1) if you scratch then the other player get's ball in hand,
2) if you sink the 9-ball you win. And we forgot to consider the case
where someone scratches and sinks the 9-ball in the same shot. We are
left with the situation where we must limit both of these "universal
rules" with an exceptional case. Note I'm talking about developing the
theory from scratch. If you can show (as in the game of chess) that
the rules cover every possible contingency then fine its as you say.
But noone is silly enough to suppose they have a complete theory of all
physical phenomena.

But I didn't suggest that untestable postulates were desireable, I only
took exception to the suggestion that they *must* be rejected.

Yes, okay. You need'nt (as a person) reject them, however they cease
to be postulates within the domain of science and become articles of
faith. At least in the US we have freedom of religion and you are free
to believe whatever faith you desire.

Perhaps what you mean by "implicit/hidden postulate" is one that isn't
*usually* included when a theory's postulates are specified. If so, we
can just chalk this one up to semantics.

It is more an individual thing. a "hidden/implicit postulate" for
(say) you would be one you have not brought explicitly to your own
attention to see what it implies or what it's negation allows. The
easiest way to spot someone using such is when they invoke "common
sense" or "obvious". Here is a nice one still built into nearly all
physics:
"It is obvious that physical actions should be associative under
composition."
This is something I have explored when considering projective
statistics. It forces you to really dig deep into fundamentals.
Regards,
James
.

User: "Ilja Schmelzer"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	07 Aug 2006 12:40:50 AM

"jambaugh" <ego@jamesbaugh.info> schrieb

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

commuting

observables. It is exactly this innocent language which makes
understanding of quantum theory so difficult. If you carefully parse
Bell's derivations and the EPR experiment you'll find that it is
exactly *this* *implicit* assumption which leads to the contradiction
and *not* anything having to do with locality.

False. In the proof of Bell's inequality there is no need to use
a notion of a "state of a particle".
There is only the assumption that there is some state of reality.
And this assumption is not implicit but explicit in Bell's proof.
Another advantage is that Bell's proof does not have to
mention any quantum language at all. All it talks about
are macroscopic things - decisions of experimenters and
results of experiments.

In this example it is the commutivity of observables.

No. Quantum notions are not involved in the proof.
Ilja
.

User: "jambaugh"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	22 Aug 2006 12:59:30 AM

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

"jambaugh" <ego@jamesbaugh.info> schrieb

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

commuting

False. In the proof of Bell's inequality there is no need to use
a notion of a "state of a particle".

Pardon, the "state of a particle" is aimed rather at the EPR
experiment... but the point is moot.

There is only the assumption that there is some state of reality.
And this assumption is not implicit but explicit in Bell's proof.

Possibly (I don't have Bell's original at hand) but I will then say
that this assumption is ignored by those who take the EPR result as
"proof of non-locality". It is the specific assumption that must be
dropped to resolve the paradox.

Another advantage is that Bell's proof does not have to
mention any quantum language at all. All it talks about
are macroscopic things - decisions of experimenters and
results of experiments.

In this example it is the commutivity of observables.

No. Quantum notions are not involved in the proof.

I beg your pardon? *non*-commutivity of observables is a quantum
notion. In classical theories it is assumed (implicitly I might add)
that observables commute. That's why they aren't even expressed as
operators but rather as sets of real variables.
And again the concept of a "state of reality" in a scientific theory
presupposes that in principle all the observables describing that
reality unambiguously can be known (observed). Hence that the acts of
determination commute.
The loss of the notion of an absolute state of reality is lost in the
transition from classical to quantum physics in an exact analog to the
loss of the notion of absolute time in the transition from Galilean to
Einsteinian relativity.
Regards,
James Baugh
.

User: "jem"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	01 Aug 2006 07:31:25 AM

jambaugh wrote:

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

Well I wrote a nice long reply but my browser crashed before I could
post it. So here's a shorter second try.

Shorter's usually better. :)

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:
[snip]

In this example it is the commutivity of observables.

But that's not a postulate (hidden or otherwise) of Quantum theory.

At any rate, discovering a hidden postulate in a theory (i.e. within a
formal axiomatic system) is akin to discovering a hidden rule in the
game of chess - it just can't happen.

OK, I see what you're saying now, but the process you're describing
isn't one of uncovering implict/hidden postulates which are present, but
one of developing new postulates or modifying existing ones. Doing that
creates a new theory (or a new game of pool).

But I didn't suggest that untestable postulates were desireable, I only
took exception to the suggestion that they *must* be rejected.

Not my point. What makes a physical theory a good theory? Well first
and foremost it has to acceptably match the measurements in its domain,
but secondarily there are subjective criteria (e.g., the elegance of the
logical framework), and who's to say that a theory which includes
variables that don't correspond to observables, couldn't be "prettier"
than a theory which doesn't.

Perhaps what you mean by "implicit/hidden postulate" is one that isn't
*usually* included when a theory's postulates are specified. If so, we
can just chalk this one up to semantics.

It is more an individual thing. a "hidden/implicit postulate" for
(say) you would be one you have not brought explicitly to your own
attention to see what it implies or what it's negation allows. The
easiest way to spot someone using such is when they invoke "common
sense" or "obvious". Here is a nice one still built into nearly all
physics:

"It is obvious that physical actions should be associative under
composition."

This is something I have explored when considering projective
statistics. It forces you to really dig deep into fundamentals.

Regards,
James

Regards to you as well.
.

User: "jambaugh"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	10 Aug 2006 12:04:48 AM

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

In this example it is the commutivity of observables.

But that's not a postulate (hidden or otherwise) of Quantum theory.

I beg your pardon, That was an implicit postulate of classical theory
which had to be made explicit before quantum theory could be developed
fully. It is the implicit assumption built into the state language
which gives so many students of quantum theory conceptual trouble. It
is the implicit assumption built into the derivation of Bell's
inequality which then contradicts the quantum postulates and leads to
paradox in the EPR thought experiments. (Not seeing this leads too
many people to think EPR is about locality.)

At any rate, discovering a hidden postulate in a theory (i.e. within a
formal axiomatic system) is akin to discovering a hidden rule in the
game of chess - it just can't happen.

No but the point was that one player may have implicitly thought a rule
existed e.g. when he exclaims, "Hey you can't do that!" when his
opponent finds the gap and takes advantage. But we can understand a
more important point with this game analogy.
A game is not just the rules but the social activity. The meta-goal of
a game may be to have fun, or to promote the mind, or to promote health
via exercise. In these cases the rule evolve and change to adapt to
the meta-goal. Let's take the "having fun" case and consider
basketball (actually designed to promote teamwork but this fails if the
participants don't enjoy the game). Early in the development of the
game there was a rule requiring the player holding the ball to pass it.
Implicit in the coach's intent was that this should be a pass to
another player. However a free-thinking player realizing the coach had
not made this explicit passed the ball to himself and thereby invented
the dribble. The coach realizing he had not made the rule explicit
enough rethought it and we now have the action game of today instead of
the coach's original intent. The explicitization and revision served
the principle goal of discovering a game both fun and promoting team
effort.
Compare this with the meta-goal behind an axiomatic system for a
physical theory, namely to more accurately predict observable
phenomena. The analogy is --I believe-- good and to the point of our
discussion.

But I didn't suggest that untestable postulates were desireable, I only
took exception to the suggestion that they *must* be rejected.

As you say such secondary criteria are subjective. I hesitate to call
them criteria but rather heuristics. Much of what makes a theory
"elegant" is exactly what makes its premises explicit and self
consistant. But I would further say that much of the application of
"elegance" criteria is applied specifically to tame those model aspect
which do not belong within the theory proper.
Let me strongly emphasize once again the following distinction. Given
two "theories" which predict exactly the same observable phenomena we
do not consider them distinct theories. The "theory" part is the
system of predictions. Most theories, especially classical theories,
have with them a *model* acting as a scaffolding holding the structure
of the theory in a conceptual framework. *Models* concentrate on the
ontological world picture and not the epistemological processes central
to the *theory*. I keep bringing up the example of Quantum Theory
because there it is especially important to make this distinction
because in quantum theory all models are "wrong". A more polite way of
saying it is that quantum theory relativizes model based partial
theories (associated with commuting subsets of observables).
It gets even more critical to distinguish model from theory when one
attacks the problem of quantum gravitation. First one must re-read
Einstein and realize that the formulation of GR in terms of geometry is
the use of a space-time model. Read correctly the Equivalence
Principle (EP) doesn't say gravity is just geometry, it rather says
gravity (as a dynamic force) is indistinguishable from geometry.
I have considered how one might push this point in the formulation i.e.
find an alternative formulation but the difficulty there is we have
always invoked a geometry either implicitly or explicitly in all
classical theories. The assumption of a fixed geometry (even when
fixed by the distribution of matter-energy over space-time as in GR) is
burried in the language. I have sought alternative (e.g. more
algebraic) languages but I'm loosing the mental agility of my youth and
I doubt I'll succeed. But I do see clearly that it is a necessary
prior step to formulating a quantum version.
Regards,
James
.

User: "Ilja Schmelzer"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	10 Aug 2006 12:50:28 AM

"jambaugh" <ego@jamesbaugh.info> schrieb

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

In this example it is the commutivity of observables.

But that's not a postulate (hidden or otherwise) of Quantum theory.

I disagree. In Bell's theorem everything is made very explicit.
That's why it is named theorem and not speculation.
(And the state variable has notthing to do with observables.)
Ilja
.

User: "jambaugh"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	22 Aug 2006 12:45:56 AM

Ilja Schmelzer wrote:

"jambaugh" <ego@jamesbaugh.info> schrieb

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

In this example it is the commutivity of observables.

But that's not a postulate (hidden or otherwise) of Quantum theory.

I disagree. In Bell's theorem everything is made very explicit.
That's why it is named theorem and not speculation.

(And the state variable has notthing to do with observables.)

Ilja

Let me then elaborate. The foundation of the derivation of Bell's
inequality is the assumption that the probabilities for sets of
outcomes form a measure over a set (of outcomes). Implicit in this is
that these sets of outcomes represent sets of states of reality prior
to the acts of measurement. (Or more weakly that outcomes represent
determinations of --possibly unstated-- probability distributions over
a set of states. This provides a stronger theorem but is just as
invalid for quantum systems because of the presumption of an underlying
manifold of physical states of reality.)
Even so simple a statement as "Either A or not A" must be carefully
parsed to be sure one is talking only about the outcome of a specific
measurement itself and not an a priori statement about the state of the
system (and/or environment) prior to measurement.
You can derive Bell's inequality quite easily by noting that given a
measure over some set (with its subadditivity property) then the
measure of the set difference (XOR) of two sets forms a metric between
sets (of non-zero measure). Thence Bell's inequality is simply the
triangle inequality of this metric d(A,B) = Pr( A xor B).
(Bell's) Triangle Inequality: d(A,B) + d(B,C) > or = d(A,C)
Local causality need never be invoked. Classical theory assumes
probability distributions form a measure. In quantum theory it is the
square root of probabilities which form a measure and the square of a
measure cannot again be a measure.
I would further point out that even if one presumes non-local causality
to "explain" the EPR result you still invalidate the concept of state
in relativistic mechanics (and thus reality as far as we know) because
non-local causality is equivalent to causal effects backward in time.
Any concept of a physical reality of the system in the sense of a
physical state is subject to future actions going back and revising
past observed properties.
One cannot avoid the invalidation of the "state postulate" here and
that is all one needs to resolve the paradox in the EPR result and
negate Bell's theorem. There is no need to bring locality into the
argument. The critical distinction of quantum theory is that its
language sticks to describing the epistemological acts of determination
about a system and avoids any ontological statements about the system's
state of reality between such acts.
It is very very hard to think outside the "state postulate" because it
is so ingrained in our mental language due to its total validity at the
scale of our everyday lives.
Regards,
James Baugh
.

User: "jem"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	10 Aug 2006 07:55:39 AM

jambaugh wrote:

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

jem wrote:

jambaugh wrote:

In this example it is the commutivity of observables.

But that's not a postulate (hidden or otherwise) of Quantum theory.

At any rate, discovering a hidden postulate in a theory (i.e. within a
formal axiomatic system) is akin to discovering a hidden rule in the
game of chess - it just can't happen.

No but the point was that one player may have implicitly thought a rule
existed e.g. when he exclaims, "Hey you can't do that!" when his
opponent finds the gap and takes advantage. But we can understand a
more important point with this game analogy.

A game is not just the rules but the social activity. The meta-goal of
a game may be to have fun, or to promote the mind, or to promote health
via exercise. In these cases the rule evolve and change to adapt to
the meta-goal. Let's take the "having fun" case and consider
basketball (actually designed to promote teamwork but this fails if the
participants don't enjoy the game). Early in the development of the
game there was a rule requiring the player holding the ball to pass it.
Implicit in the coach's intent was that this should be a pass to
another player. However a free-thinking player realizing the coach had
not made this explicit passed the ball to himself and thereby invented
the dribble. The coach realizing he had not made the rule explicit
enough rethought it and we now have the action game of today instead of
the coach's original intent. The explicitization and revision served
the principle goal of discovering a game both fun and promoting team
effort.

Compare this with the meta-goal behind an axiomatic system for a
physical theory, namely to more accurately predict observable
phenomena. The analogy is --I believe-- good and to the point of our
discussion.

You're using the term "implicit postulate" (of a theory) to mean
different things, i.e. an existing postulate that's somehow not
explicit, or an imagined postulate that's not actually present. In the
latter case the term isn't appropriate (an implicit postulate must first
be a postulate), and in the former case, I stick by what I said before -
theories (and games) are what they're *defined* to be; their postulates
are not discovered*.
* That's not to say that there can't be a discovery process that leads
the creator of a theory to adopt a particular postulate.

But I didn't suggest that untestable postulates were desireable, I only
took exception to the suggestion that they *must* be rejected.

Yes, of course, so obviously my prior comments re. untestable postulates
are nonsensical. I stand corrected.
The "theory" part is the

system of predictions. Most theories, especially classical theories,
have with them a *model* acting as a scaffolding holding the structure
of the theory in a conceptual framework. *Models* concentrate on the
ontological world picture and not the epistemological processes central
to the *theory*. I keep bringing up the example of Quantum Theory
because there it is especially important to make this distinction
because in quantum theory all models are "wrong". A more polite way of
saying it is that quantum theory relativizes model based partial
theories (associated with commuting subsets of observables).

All models are "right" in the sense that they're pictures which
acceptably describe some aspect of "reality", so its not clear in what
sense you think they're "wrong".

It gets even more critical to distinguish model from theory when one
attacks the problem of quantum gravitation. First one must re-read
Einstein and realize that the formulation of GR in terms of geometry is
the use of a space-time model. Read correctly the Equivalence
Principle (EP) doesn't say gravity is just geometry, it rather says
gravity (as a dynamic force) is indistinguishable from geometry.

I have considered how one might push this point in the formulation i.e.
find an alternative formulation but the difficulty there is we have
always invoked a geometry either implicitly or explicitly in all
classical theories. The assumption of a fixed geometry (even when
fixed by the distribution of matter-energy over space-time as in GR) is
burried in the language. I have sought alternative (e.g. more
algebraic) languages but I'm loosing the mental agility of my youth and
I doubt I'll succeed. But I do see clearly that it is a necessary
prior step to formulating a quantum version.

Regards,
James

User: "jem"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	25 Jul 2006 07:49:29 AM

jcon wrote:

jem wrote:

jcon wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.

You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.

Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".

For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?

No, what I'm saying he really wanted to say is what he really *did* say
- that the time between two events *is* the number of clock ticks (on
any clock) that are deemed to occur between those events. Obviously
that number depends on clock construction and environmental factors, but
as Mr. Poe pointed out, those are calibration issues, common to all
measuring devices, and of no relevance to Einstein's remark.
The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.
.

User: "kenseto"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	25 Jul 2006 09:04:12 AM

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...

jcon wrote:

jem wrote:

jcon wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.

You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.

Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".

For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?

No, what I'm saying he really wanted to say is what he really *did* say
- that the time between two events *is* the number of clock ticks (on
any clock) that are deemed to occur between those events. Obviously
that number depends on clock construction and environmental factors, but
as Mr. Poe pointed out, those are calibration issues, common to all
measuring devices, and of no relevance to Einstein's remark.

The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.

Then you are saying that a clock second is an interval of universal time.
IOW a clock second will have the same duration in all frames or the passage
of a clock second in one frame is equal to the passage of a clock second in
all other frames. If that's not what you mean please explain why you are
comparing the traveling twin's clock second directly with the stay at home
clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin is
younger?
.

User: "jem"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	26 Jul 2006 07:16:52 AM

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...

jcon wrote:

jem wrote:

jcon wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.

You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.

Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".

For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?

No, what I'm saying he really wanted to say is what he really *did* say
- that the time between two events *is* the number of clock ticks (on
any clock) that are deemed to occur between those events. Obviously
that number depends on clock construction and environmental factors, but
as Mr. Poe pointed out, those are calibration issues, common to all
measuring devices, and of no relevance to Einstein's remark.

The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.

I've discussed this specific issue with you in *dozens* of Usenet posts,
and yet you have no idea what my views are. You are truly oblivious.
.

User: "kenseto"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	26 Jul 2006 09:01:23 AM

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:E2Jxg.50037$DA3.31897@dukeread05...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message

news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...

jcon wrote:

jem wrote:

jcon wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.

You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.

Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".

For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?

No, what I'm saying he really wanted to say is what he really *did* say
- that the time between two events *is* the number of clock ticks (on
any clock) that are deemed to occur between those events. Obviously
that number depends on clock construction and environmental factors, but
as Mr. Poe pointed out, those are calibration issues, common to all
measuring devices, and of no relevance to Einstein's remark.

The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.

Then you are saying that a clock second is an interval of universal

time.

IOW a clock second will have the same duration in all frames or the

passage

of a clock second in one frame is equal to the passage of a clock second

all other frames. If that's not what you mean please explain why you are
comparing the traveling twin's clock second directly with the stay at

home

clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin is
younger?

I've discussed this specific issue with you in *dozens* of Usenet posts,
and yet you have no idea what my views are. You are truly oblivious.

But your views are wrong.You said:
1. Clocks are running at the same defined rate in all frames .....ie
second/second. This suggests that the second is an interval of universe
time.
2. The difference in clock readings is due to the flow of time through the
clock is different in different frames.
.

User: "jem"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	29 Jul 2006 08:00:20 AM

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:E2Jxg.50037$DA3.31897@dukeread05...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message

news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...

jcon wrote:

jem wrote:

jcon wrote:

kenseto wrote:

Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

I wish Einstein had put a bit of thought into it before he
said that. Most of us know what he meant, but the fact is
that statement has been like catnip to kooks for a hundred years.

You seriously believe Einstein spoke without thinking? So let's hear
what it is you "wish" he would have said had he "put a bit of thought
into it". This should be rich.

Clocks in Einstein's day ran on some combination of gravity,
electricity,
and spring mechanisms, any of which can be dramatically (and
differently) affected by environmental factors. While these factors
change what the "clock meaures", Einstein would certainly not
claim that they change "time".

For example, move a pendulum clock to the moon. If "time is what
a clock measures", then I've just slowed time down by sqrt(6). Are
you saying that's what really what he *wanted* to say?

No, what I'm saying he really wanted to say is what he really *did* say
- that the time between two events *is* the number of clock ticks (on
any clock) that are deemed to occur between those events. Obviously
that number depends on clock construction and environmental factors, but
as Mr. Poe pointed out, those are calibration issues, common to all
measuring devices, and of no relevance to Einstein's remark.

The novelty of the proposition "time is what a clock measures" is the
presumption that's there's no temporal entity "out there" which clocks
have been employed to quantify - time simply *is* the measurements of
clocks.

Then you are saying that a clock second is an interval of universal

time.

IOW a clock second will have the same duration in all frames or the

passage

of a clock second in one frame is equal to the passage of a clock second

all other frames. If that's not what you mean please explain why you are
comparing the traveling twin's clock second directly with the stay at

home

clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin is
younger?

I've discussed this specific issue with you in *dozens* of Usenet posts,
and yet you have no idea what my views are. You are truly oblivious.

But your views are wrong.You said:
1. Clocks are running at the same defined rate in all frames

Well, you won't find anyplace where I said that. I did say that *in
Relativity*, all *standard clocks* tick at the same rate *when they're
collocated* and have tick mechanisms which are unaffected by the clocks'
motions. Does that ring a bell? It implies that Relativity's *standard
clocks* always tick at the same rate, but there's certainly no
implication that those tick rates will be *measured* to be the same from
all perspectives (i.e. "in all frames").
......ie

second/second. This suggests that the second is an interval of univers[al]
time.

Yes, just as the pound is a universal quantity of weight (i.e. the same
amount of weight everywhere), but that doesn't mean that the weight of
something will be the same no matter where it's weighed, nor does the
universality of the second mean that everything experiences the same
number of seconds.
And to head you off at the pass, the universality of time units has
nothing whatsoever to do with absolute time (other than the fact that
both expressions contain the word "time").

2. The difference in clock readings is due to the flow of time through the
clock is different in different frames.

You won't find anyplace where I said that either - I don't even know
what it's suppose to mean. In SR, if two standard clocks accumulate
different amounts of time, it's due to their having moved at different
speeds in relation to some Inertial reference frame.
.

User: "kenseto"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	29 Jul 2006 08:46:40 AM

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:bZIyg.1478$W93.321@dukeread05...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:E2Jxg.50037$DA3.31897@dukeread05...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message

news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...

clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin

younger?

I've discussed this specific issue with you in *dozens* of Usenet posts,
and yet you have no idea what my views are. You are truly oblivious.

But your views are wrong.You said:
1. Clocks are running at the same defined rate in all frames

But there is no standard clock in any frame. There are the A and B frames
and the A and B clocks. Clearly A clock is running at different rate than B
clock when A and B are in relative motion.

.....ie

second/second. This suggests that the second is an interval of

univers[al]

time.

But SR also said that the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not
correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame so how can a clock
second be an interval of universal time??

And to head you off at the pass, the universality of time units has
nothing whatsoever to do with absolute time (other than the fact that
both expressions contain the word "time").

Ah....so according to you a second is a universal interval of time but the
passage of a clock second is not universal.

2. The difference in clock readings is due to the flow of time through

the

clock is different in different frames.

You said that different standard clocks in different frames are running at
the same rate. Now you said that standard clocks in different frames
accumulate different amount of time (seconds). Question: how can all
standard clocks are running at the same rate and yet they accumulate
different amount of time (seconds)???
Ken Seto
.

User: "jem"
Title: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.	30 Jul 2006 07:50:57 AM

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:bZIyg.1478$W93.321@dukeread05...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:E2Jxg.50037$DA3.31897@dukeread05...

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message

news:jpoxg.71160$nK.67260@dukeread05...

clock second directly to reach the conclusion that the traveling twin

younger?

I've discussed this specific issue with you in *dozens* of Usenet posts,
and yet you have no idea what my views are. You are truly oblivious.

But your views are wrong.You said:
1. Clocks are running at the same defined rate in all frames

But there is no standard clock in any frame. There are the A and B frames
and the A and B clocks. Clearly A clock is running at different rate than B
clock when A and B are in relative motion.

No, Seto - Relativity's standard clocks don't "run at different rates",
any more than its standard scales change their calibrations (i.e. weigh
at different rates) when transported between the Earth and the Moon.

.....ie

second/second. This suggests that the second is an interval of

univers[al]

time.

But SR also said that the passage of a clock second in A's frame does not
correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame so how can a clock
second be an interval of universal time??

In the same way that a pound can be a universal quantity of weight even
though the weight of an object on the Earth doesn't /correspond/ to its
weight on the Moon.
And the second isn't an "interval of universal time", but a "universal
interval of time" - just as a pound isn't a "quantity of universal
weight", but a "universal quantity of weight".