Has anyone seen the experiment where they had two identical clocks – the most accurate available.
The clocks were calibrated. One was placed on a plane and they flew it around the world (or from somewhere to somewhere). When the clocks were put together they showed different times. The clock on the plane had lost seconds or minutes somewhere, this was supposed to help prove time travel was possible through one of Einstein’s theories or something.
Does this experiment ring any bells with anyone? What was it called? Is there any info on the web about it?
I saw it on TV many moons ago but didn’t get the whole story.
When I tell people they have never heard of it, I really want to find out what it was all about and fill in all the blanks.
Sorry my description is full of so many holes but I explained as best I can.
Regards
The Captain
| Captain Fertile wrote: |
Has anyone seen the experiment where they had two identical clocks – the most accurate available.
The clocks were calibrated. One was placed on a plane and they flew it around the world (or from somewhere to somewhere). When the clocks were put together they showed different times. The clock on the plane had lost seconds or minutes somewhere, this was supposed to help prove time travel was possible through one of Einstein’s theories or something.
Does this experiment ring any bells with anyone? What was it called? Is there any info on the web about it?
I saw it on TV many moons ago but didn’t get the whole story.
When I tell people they have never heard of it, I really want to find out what it was all about and fill in all the blanks.
Sorry my description is full of so many holes but I explained as best I can.
Regards
The Captain |
| http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/ wrote: |
Atomic clocks are extremely accurate clocks that can measure tiny amounts of time—billionths of a second. In 1971, scientists used these clocks to test Einstein's ideas. One atomic clock was set up on the ground, while another was sent around the world on a jet traveling at 600 mph. At the start, both clocks showed exactly the same time.
What happened when the clock flown around the world returned to the spot where the other clock was? As Einstein had predicted in a general way, the clocks no longer showed the same time—the clock on the jet was behind by a few billionths of a second. Why such a small difference? Well, 600 mph is fast but still just the tiniest fraction of the speed of light. To see any significant differences in time, you'd have to be traveling many millions of miles an hour faster. |
It HAS happened to me! I was enjoying the company of my friends, and suddenly, I woke up in my bed! My friends told me that I was there as they saw their reality, and I was a part of it! Then, in my reality, I travelled in time! Was I kidnapped by UFOs? Was I returning to another life? Who knows?
Who?
Well.. I have drunk some beers... and some shots with them... but does it inflict the FACTS?
| http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/ wrote: |
Atomic clocks are extremely accurate clocks that can measure tiny amounts of time—billionths of a second. In 1971, scientists used these clocks to test Einstein's ideas. One atomic clock was set up on the ground, while another was sent around the world on a jet traveling at 600 mph. At the start, both clocks showed exactly the same time.
What happened when the clock flown around the world returned to the spot where the other clock was? As Einstein had predicted in a general way, the clocks no longer showed the same time—the clock on the jet was behind by a few billionths of a second. Why such a small difference? Well, 600 mph is fast but still just the tiniest fraction of the speed of light. To see any significant differences in time, you'd have to be traveling many millions of miles an hour faster. |
That's the very experiment I was talking about, many thanks for finding that for me - much appreciated.In a nutshell.. the fast you go (closer to the speed of light), the slower time moves... to the point in which if you were traveling at the speed of light time would cease to exist and you could literally go anywhere instantaneously.
Now here's where relativity comes in.. light DOES have a speed... it's not "infinite"... at least not relative to us.... however if you're the one travelling the speed of light... it's totally different, which is the very BASIC principle as to why light speed travel is impossible.
Aint anything moving faster then the speed of ligt have a chance of bending the space time continuem?? 
| Captain Fertile wrote: |
Has anyone seen the experiment where they had two identical clocks – the most accurate available.
The clocks were calibrated. One was placed on a plane and they flew it around the world (or from somewhere to somewhere). When the clocks were put together they showed different times. The clock on the plane had lost seconds or minutes somewhere, this was supposed to help prove time travel was possible through one of Einstein’s theories or something.
|
Yes indeed..it is one of the proofs of time dilation.
You can see how it works in a bit more detail here :
http://camres.frih.net/resources/GeneralPhysics/timedilation/timedilation.htm
Regards
ChrisTime measuring is a man made thing. When scientists use an atomic watch to measure time, it's still something made by men. Get an solar clock, for instance.. it works but still depends on nature to get it going. One does not check time passage but the effects of time passage. It's an indirect reading of time passage.
Time travel is a very exciting thing to think of. Can't remember how much time I devoted to that. But in the end, if such a thing was possible, one would have to remember that the body clock is composed of cells living and dying all the time.
That is, one body sent back in time, it means a tunnel that could carry a fraction of time together. For what happens to the digestion of food, for instance? You put food in your body at year 2006. Then you travel to year 100. What happens? Your body is still working in year 2006. Your mind will carry memories of year 2006.
Just like the guy who is wearing a coat. He does not experience any cold because inside the coat, it's worm. In the inside.
Don't know. I love science fiction. But would like to know what people have to talk about that.
By the way, there are two more aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity.
Length contraction: The closer to the speed of light an object gets, the shorter it becomes.
Mass increase (I don't know the English expression for this): The closer to the speed of light an object gets, the greater becomes its mass.
"Mass increase" actually provides a great explanation why it wouldn't be possible for us to travel at exactly the speed of light. Look at the formula:
m0 being the mass of the object at rest,
m being the object's mass when moving,
v being the object's relative speed,
c being the speed of light (300,000 km/sec)
If an object's speed were to go towards c, the denominator of the fraction would go towards zero. You can't divide by zero, so v being equal to c is impossible. Also, if you let v go towards infinity, the mass of the moving object (m) would also go towards infinity. It is not possible to accelerate an object with infinitely great mass using finite power.
My 2 cent worth. | faker_phil wrote: |
By the way, there are two more aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity.
Length contraction: The closer to the speed of light an object gets, the shorter it becomes.
Mass increase (I don't know the English expression for this): The closer to the speed of light an object gets, the greater becomes its mass.
"Mass increase" actually provides a great explanation why it wouldn't be possible for us to travel at exactly the speed of light. Look at the formula:
|
.......<snip>
It is worth saying that mass can be defined in two ways - invariant (m0) and relativistic (mr). The current preference is for the relativistic definition.
Here is an article with more on this.
Regards
ChrisWhoa great thread! Interesting information 
Sounds like a great thing for the Mythbusters to work on.
I love that show.
| AutoTechGuy wrote: |
| Now here's where relativity comes in.. light DOES have a speed... it's not "infinite"... at least not relative to us.... however if you're the one travelling the speed of light... it's totally different, which is the very BASIC principle as to why light speed travel is impossible. |
I didn't get that one, why could the speed of light be finite relative to some and infinite for others??? Somebody can help me with this?
| JeepinJeff wrote: |
| Sounds like a great thing for the Mythbusters to work on. |
Lol, yeah I like that show too. But I think this might be a bit over their head. The clocks they would built for the experiment might be slightly too inaccurate 
| Cibes wrote: |
| AutoTechGuy wrote: | | Now here's where relativity comes in.. light DOES have a speed... it's not "infinite"... at least not relative to us.... however if you're the one travelling the speed of light... it's totally different, which is the very BASIC principle as to why light speed travel is impossible. |
I didn't get that one, why could the speed of light be finite relative to some and infinite for others??? Somebody can help me with this?
|
The speed of light is finite. It depends on the media (light moving through silicon goes at a different speed that moving through vacuum for example) but is taken to be (in vacuum) 3 times 10^8 metres per second (300,000,000 m/s). Now, here is the Relativity bit.
Relativity theory states that the laws of physics are the same, whatever your 'frame of reference' (by which we simply mean the position and state you are in with regard to anyone else). Most people have no problem with that, although it is a very deep statement at a basic level. It also states that the speed of light is the SAME for all frames of reference. This is the bit which most people find difficult. It means that, for example, if you are travelling on a train towards me at (say) 100 mph and you shine a light at me then light moves at speed c for you AND FOR ME. I do not see your photons of light travelling at c+100mph, I see them travel at the same speed that you do.
This is the basis of special relativity theory and is hard for many people to accept. It is, however, the way the universe operates. It has been demonstrated many times by different experiments and is not in any serious doubt by scientists.
I hope this clears the confusion
Regards
ChrisMakes sense. I wonder if the speed of light can be achieved by an object. I know it's impossible, but has anyone ever really tried? Possibly simulate the VERY DESIGN of speed. I mean without the core of something, nothing major is possible. No growth. If we truly knew how to replicate the natural properties of speed, we would have done time traveling by now!
Don't the close the speed of an object is closer to the speed of light, the law of physic fall apart more? So if we go on time traveling, won't our body be messed up?
i think weneed to set of a rocket, gettaht rocket going mental fast, then send a vessel out of that rockey. so now thats going even faster that the orgional rocket, do that afew times you got mental speed, probs not the speed oflight though,^^
worthtrying
| lordsworld wrote: |
| Makes sense. I wonder if the speed of light can be achieved by an object. I know it's impossible, but has anyone ever really tried? Possibly simulate the VERY DESIGN of speed. I mean without the core of something, nothing major is possible. No growth. If we truly knew how to replicate the natural properties of speed, we would have done time traveling by now! |
It has been shown theoretically that it is not possible. Relativity has been tested in numerous ways and it is quite clear that anything with mass cannot reach c (never mind exceed it).
The 'design of speed' is expressed in the equations of relativity and tells you what happens to the length, mass and local time for any object travelling at speed relative to an observer.
In the case of mass, the equation is :
m=m0/SQRT(1-v^2/c^2) (mass is equal to the mass at rest divided by the square root of (1 - velocity squared divided by c (speed of light) squared).
If you imagine different values of velocity (v) and see what happens to the mass then it becomes clear that as v increases then so does m. With v=0 then m=m0/1 therefore m=m0 (the mass is unchanged). Set v = close to c and thee v^2/c^2 gets closer and closer to 1 which would give m=m0/SQRT(0) = m0/0. Anything divided by 0 gives an infinity....
The thing is that speed has no properties in isolation. It is only sensible if measured against another point (or frane) of reference. What speed are you doing as we type ?
Relative to your computer the answer is probably near 0. Relative to the Sun it is a fair speed. Relative to the centre of the galaxy it is a high speed. Which one is correct ? None and all of them. Relativity teaches that you cannot talk about speed in isolation because it means nothing - it has to be measured relative to something. Since relativity also teaches that no point in the universe is 'special' because the laws of physics apply the same in all frames of reference, then you are left with the conclusion that there is no such thing as 'absolute' speed and without a reference point it is meaningless to use the term...
Regards
Chris | Yantaal wrote: |
i think weneed to set of a rocket, gettaht rocket going mental fast, then send a vessel out of that rockey. so now thats going even faster that the orgional rocket, do that afew times you got mental speed, probs not the speed oflight though,^^
worthtrying |
The fastest (relative to a fixed point on Earth) that we can manage at the moment is the Space Shuttle orbital velocity which is somewhere around 18,000 miles per hour. That hardly registers when fed into the equations of relativity. Remember that c (speed of light) is 186,000 miles per second whereas the shuttle is doing 18000/60/60 miles per second = around 5 miles per second.
That gives a relavistic effect of 1-25/c^2 = 0.99999992 (where 1 is no effect and 0 is an infinite effect). This is very small indeed, but could be measured with sufficiently sensitive equipment (and has been many times).
Regards
ChrisThe seminar of the time-travell will be yesterday 15 PM!
I sort of have aheadache after reading all these posts. I have always been interesting in this sort of thing thanks to Back To The Future.
I vaugely remember high school Physics. Something about light being particles and wavelengths. Just wondering, but if aan object moves at the speed of light would that mean that it becomes particles as well? Of course, no one really knows, but a theory is just as good on this stuff.
-Handermier
| Handermier wrote: |
I sort of have aheadache after reading all these posts. I have always been interesting in this sort of thing thanks to Back To The Future.
I vaugely remember high school Physics. Something about light being particles and wavelengths. Just wondering, but if aan object moves at the speed of light would that mean that it becomes particles as well? Of course, no one really knows, but a theory is just as good on this stuff.
-Handermier |
Remember that Relativity has been tested many times and in many different ways. Each time it has shown to be accurate. In the sense that all science comes in 'theories' then, yes, this is just a theory. In the sense that it might prove wrong, however, then I would say that the chances of that are slim to none. We know there is still something missing from the current physics model of the universe (ie the current model requires at least 1 more element to be considered a complete theory). This is essentially the unification of the last un-unified forces in the universe. Over time science has shown that all the forces we see around us - friction, air resistance, pushing/pulling etc.. are actually all reducible to 3 fundamental forces - electro tweak (electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force which were unified in the 1980's using quantum electrodynamics and building on Feynman's original work), strong nuclear force (studied using the theories of Quantum Chromodynamics) and gravity.
Another way of thinking about this is that Relativity theory tells us about gravity, time, space and the large scale (macro) universe around us. Quantum theory tells us about the forces of electro-tweak and the strong nuclear force and how this works in the micro universe of atomic particles. (Quantum Electrodynamics describes the micro universe outside the nucleus - the world of the Leptons, including the electron - this is what we normally think of as Chemistry. Quantum Chromodynamics describes what happens inside the nucleus - the world of Quarks - where the strong nuclear force rules. Both are part of the overall quantum theory). The two theories (relativity and quantum theory) currently do not work together - all sorts of hell breaks loose when you try to combine them and infinity starts popping up all over the calculations - a sure sign that something is missing.
We know that relativity theory works (in that it accurately describes observations and makes predictions which can be - and have been - experimentally verified). We also know that quantum electrodynamics works (it explains the micro-universe of atoms and particles accurately and, again, in a way which can be and has been experimentally verified). What is missing is what happens at the boundary point where the quantum universe meets the large scale macro-universe and quantum theory changes into relativity theory....How do the two 'meet' and how do they relate/interact?. M-theory is one possible answer.
The wave/particle problem which you mention is a common difficulty. Quantum theory states that particles behave like waves in some scenarios and like a particle - a chunk of mass/energy - in others. What the theory tells us is not easily described with reference to our experiences because quantum theory is, in a very fundamental way, like nothing we have seen or imagined. Particles behave in strange ways that have no analogy in the macro universe. They exist as 'probability waves' until you actually take a peak at them and at that point they 'collapse' into particles.
The famous thought experiment used to describe this is the 'Schroedinger's Cat' experiment, which goes as follows :
Take a radioactive particle with a half-life of (say) 1 hour. That means that the particle has a 50-50 chance of 'decaying' to other particles with one hour. Hook this up to a detector which can detect the decay and, in turn, hook this up to a poison cannister so that if the decay is detected then the poison is released into a closed container. Put a cat in the closed container (remember that this is a thought experiment - nobody has or would think of actually doing it for real) and wait for 1 hour. Then open the container and see if the cat is dead.
What quantum theory says about this is profound and, in some ways, disturbing. Until you actually check to see if the particle has decayed and killed the cat, the particle exists as a probability wave which is only collapsed when observed. In short, this means that until you open the cannister then the cat is both alive and dead and only when you open the cannister is the probability wave collapsed into 1 of the two options.
It's not that the cat could be alive, or dead and when you look you find out - it is much more profound. In a very real sense the cat is BOTH alive and dead and only the act of observing fixes the actual state.
Finally, relativity tells us that nothing with mass can reach the speed c - photons travel at the speed of light because they have no mass at rest (photons are types of Bosonic matter - they are Bosons, which is a type of 'particle' which carries force). The only other 'particles' in the standard model which have zero rest mass are the Gluons (which 'carry' the strong nuclear force) and the theoretical (yet not observed) Gravitons which would 'carry' the force of gravity. Electrons have mass and so could not travel at c - neither could any of the other matter around us that we are familiar with (called 'Fermionic' matter - they are Fermions which is the type of matter we are familiar with - protons, electrons, neutrons).
There is a good chart showing the relationships and types of fundamental particles in the standard model available here if you want to look at this in more detail.
Regards
ChrisWe can travel the time through Astral Projection (OOBE).
If we are expert in OOBE, we can travel the time easily.
Thank's.
Time travel is possible. We already showed that in the experiment. But why is it that we want to learn about time travel? To travel back in time?, to travel to the future? This is impossible. If we were able to travel back in time, wouldn't we be seeing people from the future by now?
| heridlia wrote: |
We can travel the time through Astral Projection (OOBE).
If we are expert in OOBE, we can travel the time easily.
Thank's. |
This is the Science and Nature forum, not the Stories and Nonsense forum -easy mistake to make
Regards
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
It has been shown theoretically that it is not possible. Relativity has been tested in numerous ways and it is quite clear that anything with mass cannot reach c (never mind exceed it).
|
I confess my ignorance here, but I am curious about this statement. I am trying to remember back allllll those years ago in my high school physics class. If I remember correctly mass is different than weight. So if an object were in space with little or no gravity it would still have mass? | sonicj wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
It has been shown theoretically that it is not possible. Relativity has been tested in numerous ways and it is quite clear that anything with mass cannot reach c (never mind exceed it).
|
I confess my ignorance here, but I am curious about this statement. I am trying to remember back allllll those years ago in my high school physics class. If I remember correctly mass is different than weight. So if an object were in space with little or no gravity it would still have mass? |
That is correct. Mass is measured in two ways but the preferred measure is rest mass. Rest mass is constant and is variously called mass, invariant mass and intrinsic mass.
I should mention the other measure which is sometimes used. As an object travels at a higher fraction of the speed of light (c) it 'gains' mass relative to an observer in an intertial frame of reference. That is a complex sounding statement and a fairly complex idea. This measure of mass is called the 'relativistic mass' and is uncommon and fairly unpopular as a measure but does still crop up.
Weight, on the other hand, is the effect of gravity on mass. If gravitational/acceleration force is zero then mass is the same as ever, but weight is zero. Force is defined in newtonian physics as mass multiplied by acceleration. Mass is the invariant mass - I've previously used the phrase 'the thingness' or 'stuff' of an object. It can be imagined as a 'resistance to movement' or 'inertia' that an object possesses.
Weight is the force that the mass produces when acted on by acceleration (gravity can be seen as just a type of acceleration - or vica verse).
Mass is measured in Kg and is a property of the object concerned.
Weight is correctly measured in Newtons, since it is a force, and is the result of multiplying the mass by the force (gravity or acceleration).
Hope that helps
ChrisDefinitely drunk... but nonetheless very entertaining.
| Captain Fertile wrote: |
Has anyone seen the experiment where they had two identical clocks – the most accurate available.
The clocks were calibrated. One was placed on a plane and they flew it around the world (or from somewhere to somewhere). When the clocks were put together they showed different times. The clock on the plane had lost seconds or minutes somewhere, this was supposed to help prove time travel was possible through one of Einstein’s theories or something.
Does this experiment ring any bells with anyone? What was it called? Is there any info on the web about it?
I saw it on TV many moons ago but didn’t get the whole story.
When I tell people they have never heard of it, I really want to find out what it was all about and fill in all the blanks.
Sorry my description is full of so many holes but I explained as best I can.
Regards
The Captain |
yes
i heard of this too. it was an actual experiment.
