Stopped Clock Paradox - Analysis

[James_S_Saint]

@MechanicalMonster

Ok James, here is an alternate explanation on my part: neither clock shuts off. Why? Because in no way can it make sense for two distinct photons to do anything like strike the same object “simultaneously”, except “by accident”. Consider that not only the train is moving but also the planet, and the solar system, and the galaxy… Everything is rotating and shifting positions to everything else, no two distinct points can ever truly be in sustained constant and unchanging relation to each other. Even if the train is stopped, the clock on it still cannot shut off because to claim that both photons move through EXACTLY the same amount of space is essentially claiming something impossible to know and almost infinitely unlikely to ever occur. Minute constant changes at every level of existence are re-working the relations between everything all the time, and no two distances after being measured can still be said to be the same, even only a moment later.

Anything there strike you as useful?

That was sounding really like progress, except…

Are you saying that it is merely because the exact timing would have to be infinitely perfect that neither clock would stop?

If so, that isn’t the issue. We can give a single photon’s width leeway for distance and timing concerns and still have the same problem.

But if that is not the case, then you have made perhaps the greatest sign of progress so far (along with FC). But also you have suggested an impossibility that isn’t entirely impossible, yet would come pretty close to impossible. And there is a little more to the story before resolve is satisfied.

[James_S_Saint]

There are two basic theories in question;
A) The observational consistency of the speed of light
B) The relativity of simultaneity.

The simultaneity issue is merely a distraction away from the more concerning issue (A). So I arranged to remove it from the picture by having separate engines accelerating at whatever value necessary to ensure that they both arrived together at a distance X (as measured by the station) from the station clock. All the while the train clock is being held centered between those two engines. So the simultaneity of flashing is guaranteed at the moment both clocks are centered.

Additionally any length contraction and/or time dilation concerns have been eliminated because the time reading is irrelevant and the only concern for exact distance is that the length “X” is the same on each side of each clock, but irrelevant whether it is the same from one frame to the other. The centeredness at the moment of flash is all that matters.

So the only concern is now (A), the theory of observational consistency of the speed of light. And it seems that the theory requires a false prediction. But you have been told that it has been proven to be true. Of course you have never seen that proof.

So the options concerning that theory are;
A) True
B) False
C) Other.

And then of course, if not true, then what might be true instead?

[PhysBang]

@MechanicalMonster

Physbang, you aren’t even trying to understand what James is basically claiming. At least understand the set-up of the situation.

Really? I’ve been following this for a while. If you would like to see what SR would actually say about this scenario, see either of my very detailed posts on the subject earlier in this thread.

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

There are two basic theories in question;
A) The observational consistency of the speed of light
B) The relativity of simultaneity.

The simultaneity issue is merely a distraction away from the more concerning issue (A). So I arranged to remove it from the picture by having separate engines accelerating at whatever value necessary to ensure that they both arrived together at a distance X (as measured by the station) from the station clock. All the while the train clock is being held centered between those two engines. So the simultaneity of flashing is guaranteed at the moment both clocks are centered.

So you arranged to simply violate, by fiat, the laws of the physics that you claimed you were going to test. If SR is correct, then it is impossible in principle to arrange for two systems of coordinates to have the same standard for simultaneity (unless they are the same system of coordinates with an arbitrary constant added to each coordinate).

One cannot test a theory with a thought experiment if one of the assumptions made is in direct contradiction with the theory.

Essentially, this paradox is “when we assume both SR and its contradiction, we get a contradiction”. This is pathetic not merely as a presentation of science, but also as a presentation of logic.

So the options concerning that theory are;
A) True
B) False
C) Other.

And clearly the answer here is C: James is lying to us, either that he has read anything on SR or about what SR says.

[Fixed_Cross]

@PhysBang

@Fixed Cross

The light is calculated via Lorentz to travel at c,

If one accepts special relativity, then there is no calculation of the speed of light. Relative to a system of coordinates, the speed is given to be c. This is used as the basis of figuring out what a given system of coordinate should say about events if we already have coordinates assigned in some system of coordinates.

Like light arriving from the Sun on Mars is interpreted as c in terms of the unchanging distance between the two bodies, and yet if a spaceship moves away from the Sun in the other direction as where Mars is located, and if the light is seen to depart simultaneously from Mars and from the ship, that light could be interpreted to move faster than c compared to the changing distance between the ship and the Sun-Mars reference frame. That is what my common sense says.

It is not an a priori truth that velocities must add like apples add. We live in w world where it appears that velocity is simply additive. It takes a careful investigation to reveal that adding one velocity to another in physics is not simply additive.

This is an important thing to consider: there is an incredible amount of freedom, from a purely logical point of view, as to the possible physical laws that we could have. There is conservation of momentum, not conservation of velocity, but why not the reverse? Changes in velocity could be multiplicative or could reverse direction. It is a fact of the matter of the world that we have one set of relationships between different physical quantities rather than another. We can investigate what these are, but we have to make a good case, based on evidence, as to what really holds in the world.

I realize that if one accepts SR, then velocities can not simply be additive. They can never add up to beyond the speed of light, for example. But I am doing what James proposes, which is to try to think without relativity as an a priori in mind.

For me it’s not that difficult to understand in terms of SR (VO makes it pretty natural, reality is intepreted in terms of the perspective, including physical laws) but I am intruiged by James’ questioning of Relativity’s issue of simultaneity and limit of c.

I basicaly like to challenge myself.

@MechanicalMonster

There is no direct way to “measure” light itself, we must measure a distance crossed in a certain time when we release photons and have a way to record when they impact the far end.

If distances are changing from start to end point, then we are changing the time it takes to cross that distance, at ANY velocity. Thus c will be MADE to “change” its velocity.

Let that sink in. If distances are made to change, so is time with respect to whatever is crossing that distance, from point A to B. does this apply to light? Of course it does.

Now, what if distance from A to B changes while there also exists a perspective from which that distance is measured to not change? Or the inverse, the distance does not change while there exists a perspective from which the distance is measured to change? Relativity says this is happening all the time. And it’s not a problem.

The “distance” has as many meanings, as many “realities” as there are perspectives measuring it. This is the beauty of relativity and this does not conflict with VO either: a measurement of a distance occurs in the units and constraints/meaning of the perspective that measures. No distance is “fixed”. A so-called fixed distance means only a distance measured by points dependent to that distance, determinative of it directly, “primary” causality. This is opposed to “secondary” causality of a distance.

Example:
Primary causality to distance: the photon emitter (point A) and photon receiver (point B).
Secondary causality to distance: point C observing the photon emitter emit and receiver receive.

Logically, point C is not causal to the distance, but in fact IS causal in an indirect sense: it affects not the primary distance but the secondary distance which is only the primary distance + any additive or subtractive influences based on the nature of point C. You can never have a “pure” measurement (distance) without taking into account how that which measures affects the measuring by its own nature, for example by its relative velocity to that which is measured.

Yes thats what I meant with my example.
I was just fishing a bit, trying to ‘‘escape’’ thinking strictly in terms of Relativity.

The issue is entirely DEFINITIONAL, which is why I can’t see how RM does not agree with relativity/VO on this.

For the stopped clock situation, each clock is measuring the distance from point A (photon emitter) to point B (the clock itself). But the clock is also measuring the distance from points A to point C (the other clock). With respect to points A and B the clock is not moving. But with respect to points A and C the clock IS moving. So we get each clock as both a primary and secondary causality to the measurement of distances. Essentially there are two distances “at once”, and this does not contradict. Now, the big question is: which distance determines rather or not the clock shuts off? Answer: the primary distance/primary cause to distance for each clock. What is this primary distance/cause? The clock itself.

Constant velocity means no acceleration, means the object at constant velocity is not changing WITH RESPECT TO ITSELF. Even considering that the photons are not bound to the frame of reference of the clock itself, they are measured to travel an equal distance to the clock itself. But the photons going to the other clock are not measured to travel an equal distance to that other clock. But that isn’t a problem for the scenario, because one clock’s being impacted by photons at the same moment or at different moments does not depend on the measurements of the other clock. Those measurements of the other clock are secondary distances/causes, meaning: they affect only the perceived measurements of distances of the photons but not rather or not those photons ACTUALLY strike the other clock at the same time.

Exactly, the light-PtA (by virtue of which it has a propoagating limit) does not represent PtA with respect to the spaceship and is thus not limited to c.

It’s simple of course, but I have to get out of the reference-frame-thinking for a moment and understand what James means. I’m not sure at all that I am saying anything relevant here though.

[phyllo]

So you arranged to simply violate, by fiat, the laws of the physics that you claimed you were going to test. If SR is correct, then it is impossible in principle to arrange for two systems of coordinates to have the same standard for simultaneity (unless they are the same system of coordinates with an arbitrary constant added to each coordinate).

He’s suggesting that it must be simultaneous because of symmetry. The station midpoint is aligned with the train midpoint. Therefore, the front of the train is a fixed distance ahead of the midpoint and the rear is a fixed distance behind the midpoint. Looking from that station at the train, the distances are equal. Looking from the train at itself, the distances are equal. Looking from the train at the station, the distances are equal. Looking from the station at itself, the distances are equal.
He concludes that if the flash occurs there, then it must be simultaneous in both frames. (All things being equal )

He doesn’t care about a contracted distance because the contraction will be equal relative to the midpoint.

[MechanicalMonster]

James, yes I accept that we might arrange the situation so that simultaneity is possible with respect to the time/distance affectance dimensions of a photon leaving or impacting something. What I was trying to consider is not that it is necessarily impossible for two photons to achieve some simultaneity due to their small stature of affectance, but rather that it is undeniable that “everything is always in motion”. If this is the case, and it is, then simultaneity becomes a function of accounting for all motions acting upon objects either from which photons begin or at which they end/are measured.

If you are correct about your view on light, how do you explain the measured consistency of speed of light? There have been many measurements confirming the constancy of c, even such as where light of varying energies was measured to all be the same speed regardless of this variance in energy level. Why do we always measure c as constant, if it is not?

Einstein’s theory of SR arose because he conceptualized that light leaving any emitter should travel at a velocity independent of that emitter. This is because Maxwell posited that light was more like a property of “space” itself, a quanta of minimal EM, the wave produced by the cycling between magnetic and electrical change at a minimu threshold of such a cycling.

In other words, I don’t see how RM is inconsistent with what Maxwell and later Einstein were saying about quanta of EMR structure and propagation.

[James_S_Saint]

@MechanicalMonster

If you are correct about your view on light, how do you explain the measured consistency of speed of light? There have been many measurements confirming the constancy of c, even such as where light of varying energies was measured to all be the same speed regardless of this variance in energy level. Why do we always measure c as constant, if it is not?

I see that someone’s brain finally got to the most relevant question (too much fear or faith and the mind simply will avoid the relevant questions). But before we get into that;
A, B, or C?

Also remember (if you read that part), the law concerning “equal state + equal treatment = equal result” is not merely a physical law, but an ontological law. Violation of that law invalidates ALL experimental data for all experiments throughout all of Science.

And because of that law, as the engines start up from a stand still wherein they are in the same frame as the station, if given equal trust, they absolutely cannot change the distance between them. That doesn’t mean that the distance will be perceived one way or another, but what it does mean, is that all parties already know that it is impossible that the distance between the engines has changed.

Of course given the freedom to change the engine trust to whatever you want, further ensures that the distance between the engines matches X distance. And as phyllo pointed out, any contraction issues are irrelevant because;

@phyllo

contraction will be equal relative to the midpoint… (all things being equal)

[MechanicalMonster]

So far, given the measurements of c’s consistency, along with Einstein’s conceptualization of c’s constancy leading to successful predictions and measurement outcomes (as in the commonly referenced GPS system), I go with A.

Also you’ve not shown how c must NOT be constant. Or if you have, I missed that part.

[James_S_Saint]

@MechanicalMonster

So far, given the measurements of c’s consistency, along with Einstein’s conceptualization of c’s constancy leading to successful predictions and measurement outcomes (as in the commonly referenced GPS system), I go with A.

Despite claims, the GPS system has very little to do with the observational consistency of the speed of light. And again, is merely something that you have not confirmed for yourself. The GPS system is kept on track by constant communication and “re-syncing” with ground stations, doing otherwise would be pretty silly.

@MechanicalMonster

Also you’ve not shown how c must NOT be constant. Or if you have, I missed that part.

Well, I thought that part should be pretty clear by now.

The scenario is only contingent upon the observational consistency issue. And it leads to a contradiction.
So if you are going to support the notion of observational consistency, then please explain how there can be observational consistency and not a paradox in the provided situation.

[James_S_Saint]

“Is your devotion to Logic or to the persuasions of Men?”

If someone told you that “they” had scientific proof now that “2+2=3” and provided legitimate reputable sources and it was even announced on the news that the data has been confirmed, what is the first thought that would cross your mind?

…and wouldn’t you expect to be hearing about it for years to come on the Internet as people got on board with the exciting notion? Surely someone in the scientific community would tell you if it wasn’t true, so it must be. That is how you know that Jesus really did walk on the water. 500 eye witnesses can’t be wrong with direct observation.

… or can “they”.

SR says that if you are moving, 10 meters = 8 meters. And they have scientific data to prove it.

RM is all about devotion to Logic, not what “they say”, regardless of who they are. If you are not devoted to Logic, then the decision is easy, just put on your blinders and believe what they say, whatever they say. “They” are the cult of Man. You will go far. And then you will end and be forgotten. But that is inevitable anyway, right. At least that is what “they” say.

…but not all of “them”.

[MechanicalMonster]

I’ve already addressed the stopped clock situation, see above where I recently talked about primary and secondary distance/causality. I’m willing to revisit the issue and restate my perspective on it, but at the moment my time is limited to the following issue.

There is a LOGICAL basis for concluding that c (in vacuum) is constant. This isn’t just about measurement, although measurement does offer inductive support to the proposition. But the important issue is that it makes logical sense for there to be a “threshold limit” to the speed of change. This also fits very well with RM.

What I can’t figure out is why you reject this threshold limit. The notion is logically implied by the following tenants of RM: 1) space is never “empty”, there must always be some affect. 2) affection occurs “instantly” but is always LIMITED by other affects. Instantaneous affection is impossible, as i believe you’ve said. There is a limit of speed of change.

This is logical. So why do you reject that c represents that limit? And why do you reject the logical implications of having such a limit? VO is in agreement with SR about how reality is only the “affection” or “valuing” going on. There is no objectivity or universality other than the minimal base unit of change; in RM that unit is affect, in VO that unit is self-valuing.

Explain your reasoning, the LOGIC behind your claim that c is inconstant. RM is based on definitional logic, and rightly so, this is its strength. So can you use definitional logic to demonstrate that c is inconstant? Or rather, to get more to the essential concern, can you use definitional logic to demonstrate that there is no limit to the speed of change? I really want to see your reasoning. Because it seems quite logical that there must be some limit to the maximum speed of change, which is just the same as the minimal threshold for existing.

[MechanicalMonster]

And by the way, my allegiance is to logic, not to faith or to the scientific establishment.

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

And as phyllo pointed out, any contraction issues are irrelevant because;

@phyllo

contraction will be equal relative to the midpoint… (all things being equal)

phyllo pointed out that you believe this. However, it is not a rational belief.

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

@MechanicalMonster

So far, given the measurements of c’s consistency, along with Einstein’s conceptualization of c’s constancy leading to successful predictions and measurement outcomes (as in the commonly referenced GPS system), I go with A.

Despite claims, the GPS system has very little to do with the observational consistency of the speed of light. And again, is merely something that you have not confirmed for yourself. The GPS system is kept on track by constant communication and “re-syncing” with ground stations, doing otherwise would be pretty silly.

All that re-syncing is done through techniques that assume general relativity to be true. That it continues to work is a continued test that GR is correct to a great deal of accuracy.

The scenario is only contingent upon the observational consistency issue. And it leads to a contradiction.
So if you are going to support the notion of observational consistency, then please explain how there can be observational consistency and not a paradox in the provided situation.

See the very detailed mathematics I provided: in every case there is observational consistency and a constant speed of light.

@James S Saint

SR says that if you are moving, 10 meters = 8 meters. And they have scientific data to prove it.

As with much of what James says about SR, this is a lie. SR says that distances in 4-dimensional space-time are invariant and decompositions of this invariant length into separate time and space components depends on certain choices.

[James_S_Saint]

MM, the issue isn’t (and has never been) the consistency of the speed of light in a vacuum.
The issue is and always has been the observational consistency of c, vacuum or not.

SR makes the claim that light will always be observed (measured) to be at c relative to the observer regardless of the speed of the observer’s frame of reference. The theory came about due to the effort to measure c while the Earth was headed in one direction around the Sun and again while headed in the opposite direction. They expected to measure c to be one value and later measure it to be different. They saw no significant difference in their measurement. So they concluded that perhaps regardless of the speed of the observer, he will always measure light to be the same speed, c.

But was that really their only alternative to the failed experiment?

[phyllo]

But was that really their only alternative to the failed experiment?

Account for the experimental result. Give reasons for the failure.

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

The theory came about due to the effort to measure c while the Earth was headed in one direction around the Sun and again while headed in the opposite direction. They expected to measure c to be one value and later measure it to be different. They saw no significant difference in their measurement. So they concluded that perhaps regardless of the speed of the observer, he will always measure light to be the same speed, c.

This is not how the theory came about.

The theory came about because there is no role for a speed other than a constant in Maxwell’s equations. Additionally, Maxwell’s equations introduce an asymmetry into motion that plays no significant role in the electrodynamics but that should be detectable. This asymmetry is never detected in any kind of experiment. The most famous experiment to test for a detectable difference in the speed of light, the Michelson-Morely experiment, doesn’t pay any attention to the direction of the Earth around the Sun and can be done instantly at any time of the year.

Might as well throw in a wiki link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson% … experiment

There might be other ways to accommodate the result of this experiment, but does any other way also accommodate all the other experiments and applications?

[James_S_Saint]

You might want to try reading those links before you present your “lies”, PB.

According to this hypothesis, Earth and the aether are in relative motion, implying that a so-called “aether wind” (Fig. 2) should exist. Although it would be possible, in theory, for the Earth’s motion to match that of the aether at one moment in time, it was not possible for the Earth to remain at rest with respect to the aether at all times, because of the variation in both the direction and the speed of the motion. At any given point on the Earth’s surface, the magnitude and direction of the wind would vary with time of day and season. By analysing the return speed of light in different directions at various different times, it was thought to be possible to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the aether. The expected relative difference in the measured speed of light was quite small, given that the velocity of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun was about one hundredth of one percent of the speed of light

If I did an experiment that showed that 1+1=1, wouldn’t you say that the burden of proof rests on me?

SR proposes that the Michelson-Morley experiment’s failure proves that Lorentz’s aether didn’t exist (which is false logic), but also that X = X + Y and at the same time, X = X - Y for non-zero Y.

[PhysBang]

@James S Saint

You might want to try reading those links before you present your “lies”, PB.

Really, because anyone who reads that will find that it is exactly in line with what I said: The Michelson-Morley experiment doesn’t matter at all about the direction of the orbit of the Earth. " Even over a period of minutes, it was presumed that some sort of effect would be noticed, since one of the arms would inevitably turn into the direction of the wind and the other away."

SR proposes that the Michelson-Morley experiment’s failure proves that Lorentz’s aether didn’t exist (which is false logic),

Actually, SR does not propose this.

SR merely assumes that no measurement will ever reveal an aether. It looks very much like no experiment will reveal an aether: those who wish to believe in something physical but that has no possible observable physical effect are welcome to do so.

but also that X = X + Y and at the same time, X = X - Y for non-zero Y.

Again you lie about SR. Can you demonstrate anywhere where this is the case?