I see that no one ever resolved this one;
Anyone out there good with Logic/math and Physics?
Ed3?
MrMermaid?
…any?
The Paradox of the Stopped Clock Solved.
“two clocks are designed identically such that if two photons simultaneously strike receptor cells attached to each clock, the clocks will stop”
There is no such thing as two clocks designed identically, they will always be even very slightly different due to random fluctuations, and if even you could supress all possible random fluctuations and vibrations, and the very sizes of the parts constituting the two clocks, you would still get randomness from the PURE QUANTUM NATURE OF MATTER AND REALITY.
There goes one of your items. The other item, “two photons simultaneously” also is not possible and real, for the same reasons above, and even because THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT, ONLY CONSTANT UP TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN MEASURE IT (or the meter, whatever), SURELY PAST THOSE DECIMAL POINTS, THE SPEED WILL VARY FROM RANDOM FLUCTUATIONS, QUANTUM OR OTHERWISE.
This is the mistake physics makes, by believing that the world is mathematical, and not random: it is perfectly mathematical , but only up to a certain point, maybe 10^-60 mm (but the number doesn’t matter), god does play dice after all, even because if it were infinitely precise, it would no longer be made up of Matter and Mass- Energy, but would be a completely metaphysical abstraction in a platonic world.
Check out:
"For example, take the three body problem. Three bodies of the exact same size, having the exact same properties and being exactly equally distant from each other interact and influence each other, but we can’t predict what the exact paths of these bodies will be as they evolve in time. But this is what you should expect, it is actually correct that it has no solutions, because any slight difference between them, even a difference in distance of 10^-100 mm, will change the paths. But infinite precision in size and distance is not possible, can’t be known, hence the problem will never be solved perfectly and analytically.
You can approximate, but the perfect theoretical solution can’t exist, because if you had a perfect theoretical solution, that would mean that reality is a complete metaphysical, abstract mathematical entity. The bodies would follow a perfect predetermined path, they would be a pure mathematical entity, a pure abstraction, how could they always follow the same perfect path ? That is way more detached from what our perception of reality seems to be.
And since all of physics is just a subsequent elaboration of more three to n body problems, if we could solve the three body problem, we could analytically solve all kinds of problems, from protein folding to the exact evolution of the reactions in biological cells, to the exact equation of a man, to the exact equation of the weather, etc. You would just need to feed the problems in ever more powerful supercomputers. But, this is not the case, just look at the protein folding problem, they are now trying to solve the problem with a distributed computer executing 9,000 trillion operations per second. And progress is being achieved very slowly, and always with great simplifications and approximations."
Therefore “dismiss all of Science and the simplest mathematics.”
At least dismiss it past a certain point and certain built in limitations of Mass - Energy, Matter and Reality.
You can use it in the macroscopic world and for many endeavors, but it is not absolute, therefore I choose to keep mathematics and Science only up to where it is useful and applicable (it is not a religion)and accept that indeed there really is NO absolute frame of reference from which all things can be measured.
Irrelevant to the problem. And “reality” is not quantum. The size (only) of particles quantumizes.
The “reasons above”, even if accurate would not disqualify simultaneity.
You would really need to substantiate that one IF it were relevant.
Well I disagree. Have you anything but speculative theory on that issue?
So your conclusion is that because Pi cannot be expressed in numbers, it must be quantum truncated?
The fact that your math cannot express enough precision has nothing to do with LOGIC.
This problem is one of LOGIC, not just math.
They do follow a “perfect path”, as you said, they merely cannot be precisely followed by our limited mathematics.
Hmm…
I agreed up to that point.
That seems non-sequitur from your argument (and happens to not be true for reasons you couldn’t even begin to imagine, but to each his own).
Emmm… No.
I did request someone Good at Logic and math. 
Explain please.
How many decimal points can you measure the speed of light ? maybe 10 (but I think they measure the meter instead, anyways same problem), 20 or 30 ? There is a limit maybe say 100 decimal points, then what ? Do the decimal points go on for trillions of positions ? But especially can you measure them (not calculate them like in PI with formulas)? No, no way jose’, so that means past a certain measurement, the number becomes fuzzy therefore variable.
Reality is fuzzy, fake, variable, a lie, now put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Did you do the experiment ? Do the experiment and tell me the results. I always loved theoretical physics more than experimental, but in the end, I have to say, the experimental physics is the only one that really counts and cuts out all the theoretical BS. But I love all those math symbols, all those books, for me it is an art form, and I love the fact that I don’t understand too much about it all (and not even good with most of the math), but it makes it so much more intriguing and mysterious and fascinating.
My prediction is this, that by really doing this experiment if it were possible, you would get all three results randomly which would just expose all the uncertainty and fluctuations of reality and Matter and Mass - Energy. So the first run of the experiment you could get C, then the next run A, then the next run B, and so on forever, each run giving one of the 3 results.
A) One clock has stopped – The speed of light is not constant for the other observer.
B) Both clocks have stopped – The speed of light is not constant for either observer.
C) Neither clock has stopped – The speed of light is dependent on an absolute frame.
Now, go on, do the experiment and tell me if you can get one stable result each time you do it.
Wow… Jimmy
You just don’t give up do you?
We cracked this baby last time around… it’s just you misunderstanding SR and thus making assumptions that don’t apply.
There is actually a small degree of truth to that statement, but it has nothing at all to do with quantum physics and is irrelevant to this problem.
nameta9, you are effectively saying that if we can’t manage to get 2 clocks on the same train for some reason then the problem is solved. Emm… No.
Logic doesn’t give in to religious fanaticism, Maddy. It just goes away for a while and waits to see if anyone comes along who can actually think for themselves. Sometimes many generations go by.
How is politely informing you that you have a misunderstanding of SR, a case of “religious fanaticism”?
A misunderstanding is exactly that… a misunderstanding.
What you attack is a straw man… no one is defending the straw man, much less religiously… we’re just informing you that it’s a straw man.
But you refuse to listen… and keep attacking your own misunderstood version of SR… 
Not being able to explain your point of view but instead insisting that your holy prophets wrote it in your scriptures that you have MISunderstood, is “how”.
Try actually explaining without merely referring to your holy MIS-understood scriptures. I have no complaint of your prophets, rather only in the fact that you MISunderstand what they said.
EXPLAIN it, do not attempt to just declare it. I only listen to the religious literalists so as to discover what it is that they have misunderstood.
That’s “how” to get around mere worship of misunderstood scriptures.
{{Carleas came close to an explanation. He tried as I tried to figure out what the hell he was trying to say. But the root of his argument was, “Lorentz said…” but MISunderstood what Lorentz/Einstein was actually saying (discovered after about 500 posts).
JSS, Why start a new thread? We got over 20 pages into this the last time, and the ball was in your court when you left. Why not go from where we left off, since your OP was just a link to a blog containing the same argument you opened with last time?
Yeah, THAT is why. Who the hell do you think wants to read through 500 posts just to watch you and I try to figure out what the hell each was trying to say before we got the the point where you simply obfuscated and I simply kept displaying the same issue over and over?
This time I have specifically requested anyone Good at Logic/math. That pretty much leaves Phys out entirely and leaves you highly questionable.
You are a religious fanatic about your twisted version of physics. It took a while for me to see what you were doing and why, but you insisted on doing it anyway. I found better things to do with my time.
If you want to again try to use Lorentz equations. Prove the equations first so that you will learn of what makes them. Quoting other people as your argument is pointless as you mis-understand what they were saying, so prove that you know why they said what they said, or don’t bother. Keep the religion out of this Science forum.
Ah well, this is basic nonsense. What can anyone possibly measure to an exact degree? When did you wake up? This morning at what time? 4 o´ clock. How many minutes, seconds, nanoseconds? This is saying nothing. Please do not make silly things seem important, or new, your wording confuses me.
Fair enough. Neither of us have done this, even though we both rely on our respective interpretation of the Lorenz Transformation. Shall we first endeavor to agree on their derivation?
Two points:
-First and foremost, it doesn’t matter if I am a religious fanatic: my argument stands or falls of its own accord. I might believe that the world is round for religious reasons, but if I off a sound argument, you cannot defeat it just by pointing that out. What I mean to say is, point out the substantive and specific deficits in my reasoning; the allegation that I am religious is insufficient to defeat my argument.
-Second, if we’re to avoid religious positioning and seek the truth, we both must be willing to entertain that certain precepts are wrong. I take it that you think I’m taking as religious dogma that the Lorenz equations are interpreted as I interpreted them earlier, is that right? I’m willing to withhold judgement about how they should be interpreted until we have agreed on their derivation.
As for me, I challenge you to entertain the idea that simultaneity is relative, i.e. that clocks that are synchronized in one frame of reference are not synchronized in another frame moving with respect to it. Do you agree to entertain that possibility?
I didn’t because my argument was that it wasn’t relevant. And any use that you propose of it really needs to have a good reason for its involvement. If I remember right, you proclaimed that the scenario could never be arranged due to a conclusion gathered by the Lorentz equation. It ended up being an issue of your interpretation of the value “x” relative to “x0”. Your position was that it was not relative. My position was that x only means x relative to x0. The same applies to “t” and “t0”.
If you offer a “sound argument” then it is that argument that counts, but a “sound argument” is not “Einstein/Lorentz said…” unless I agree with how you are interpreting what was said. If we disagree on what someone has said, then only the logical derivation for their statements will count or you can provide one of your own. Their reputation is as meaningless as yours or mine. That is Science.
That is right (although I haven’t followed that link).
If you provide a logical derivation, I will accept it. I accept any pure logic if properly presented with prior agreed axioms, definitions, premises and so on (always).
I do not accept (without your provided proof) that simultaneity is relative. I do accept that to any person it might SEEM relative due to the person not taking into account the length of time involved in the transfer of light to himself. It is strictly an issue of perception, not reality.
I do not accept (without your proof) that 2 clocks that are synchronized in one frame will not be synchronized in a different frame. The frame changes nothing of their synchronicity unless the clocks are in different frames from each other.
Deferring to “Science has proven that…” is paramount to religiosity and will not be accepted if contested.
Um…
the basic terms you set only make sense (only hold as having rational meaning) when you assume the station clock and train clock are perfectly lined up (all flashers at an equal distance from both clocks).
Then you “investigate” the problem of how the terms don’t work when you make the train move.
Of course they don’t.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for when you (not very sincerely, you know) ask someone to “resolve” the paradox, but it isn’t any more complicated than that.
If you actually think it makes a statement about relativity, the speed of light or science you’re out of your mind.
I did EXPLAIN it… your response was “that’s not SR”…
You were the one who “declared” it.
Look… I can explain it again, if you like.
But I won’t get into the math bullshit with you like Carleas did, because that’s just confusing the issue… You don’t even need math to resolve this “paradox” of yours, because you make a very simple mistake.
You’re assuming that the speed of light is constant, but you make an exception… when you set the train in motion, you assume that the speed of light will be relative to the train’s now altered velocity… that’s how you get a contradiction and that’s why you generate a paradox.
Super simple.
I can get into more detail if you like… I can explain it however you like.
But when you just declare “that’s not SR”… there’s not much I can do to help us along.
Actually both Carleas and I briefly paused our train of thought to examine what you were presenting and both decided that it was void of the concerns of SR. Frankly I don’t care if it is SR or not. But if you want to present it again, please relate it directly to the scenario mentioned. Explain what you believe would happen as the scenario took place and why.
That is the point of Special Relativity. The speed of light IS constant even from the perspective of the train in motion. That is exactly the example that Einstein used to explain his principle. “The light from a flashlight shining from the moving train will appear (be measured) to be moving away from the train at the same speed of light even from the view of the observer on the train.”
But if you disagree with SR, I still have no complaint really. Just explain, in detail what you believe will take place concerning the scenario mentioned and WHY.
Umm… you don’t think that while the train passes the station there will ever be a time when the clocks DO line-up even though the train is moving??
They line-up, they flash, the train never stops. Exactly what will result and why?
Fair enough. However, as far as I can tell, you believe that if the equations are interpreted as I interpret them, they resolve your paradox. If that is not the case, I’ll need to convince you of that before deriving them. If it is the case, then your argument does hinge on their interpretation, and so we are equally on the hook for justifying our interpretations, which means we should both be concerned with their derivation.
Lets be clearer: my position was that x = x0+∆x. Your position was that x=∆x.
I have to think that Lorentz has a special say in how to interpret the Lorentz transformation equations, but for the sake of this argument, I’m happy to let this be the rule. However, because I’m sure neither of us has time to derive all of human knowledge that bears on the question of relativity, some appeal to authority is appropriate, e.g. on the mathematics that we will use to derive the equations. Science doesn’t need to reinvent itself for each experiment.
Excellent. However, if for some reason you find my derivation to be lacking rigor, you need to be specific about my failure of logic. Specificity will be our friend in resolving this disagreement.
Nor am I asking you to. I’m asking you to entertain that simultaneity may be relative. I’m asking you not to take a dogmatic position, and to enter the discussion with relativity of simultaneity being a live option. You have lambasted religiosity, and I am only asking you to apply the same standard to your own beliefs.
=========The Derivations==============================================
Before we can derive the Equations, we need to nail down some terms. The equations we’re trying to derive relate the values of position and time measured by two frames of reference moving with constant velocity relative to each other. There was some disagreement in the previous thread about what an observer’s frame entails, so we should be explicit. A frame of reference is unique to observers that are stationary with respect to each other, and is inaccessible to non-stationary observers. Measurements in one frame can be calculated from another, but they cannot be observed. Moreover, observed measurement will vary between frames. Most obviously, velocity differs between frames: a moving train will be seen to have velocity v by an observer at a station, while an observer on the train will see the train to have velocity 0. Other measurements that may vary include position (x), time (t), and consequently the change in position and time (∆x and ∆t respectively). Whether and how they vary will be determined by the derivation of the equations. The speed of light is constant across frames of reference. This is the central assumption of Special Relativity, and will be significant to the derivation of the equations.
If you agree with the preceding setup, you can either continue with the next steps in the derivation, or just indicate your agreement and I’ll continue.