Clock synchronization???

[Bos]

This is sort of a long post but I have to explain the following situation in order to ask the question so bare with me. Lets say two people, person A and person B, are on opposite ends of a train moving at a constant velocity and another observer is at rest on the platform outside (most of you have heard this I'm sure). Person A is at the front of the train and person B at the back. They have agreed to set their wrist watches to 12:00 as soon as the light from a light bulb in the middle of the train reaches them. So, the light bulb is switched on and they both set their clocks to 12:00 simultaneously because from their perspective, the light had to travel an equal distance from the middle to reach both of them, and therefore they both set their clocks at the same time. However, person C on the platform outside who was standing still watching claims that person B set his clock before person A. This is because from his perspective, person B (in the back) is moving toward the light while person A (in the front) is moving away from it and therefore, the light had to travel less distance to reach person B. Since light is constant in all frames of reference, person C will indeed claim that it took the light longer to reach person A than it did to reach person B. Both claims are equally valid and both are justified in their reasoning, so both answers are equally correct.
This all makes perfect sense to me and thats all great. But here's my question, finally. Since person C sees the light reach person B before it reaches person A, person C will conclude that person B set his clock BEFORE person A. So to person C, or anyone else on the platform, when it is say 12:05 on person B's clock, it will only be 12:03 on person A's clock (the precise number depends on the length and speed of the train but that's not relevant to the point being made). Again, this all makes sense to me. But now what if the train were to immediately stop and person A and B were to get out and confront person C. Now that all of their perspectives are equal, they should all agree upon the readings of both clocks (they have to if they're all standing there looking at them). But how is it that suddenly when the train stopped, it put the clocks back on equal footing from person C's perspective. If person C saw that the two clocks were different (12:05 and 12:03) when the train was moving, than even if the train slowed down and eventually stopped, wouldn't person C still claim that since person A and person B both slowed down and stopped at the same rate, their clocks also slowed down at the same rate and hence would still not be synchronized? What is it about the stopping of the train that puts person C's perspective on equal footing with person A and person B? Clearly I'm missing something, please help!

Someone tried to answer this once before by saying that instead of the train stopping, just consider person A and B to just jump out simultaneously (according to them on the train). Then since person B's clock is ahead of A's (according to C), B jumps out first while A still enjoys time dilation a bit longer. In fact, the exact amount in order to synchronize their clocks according to C. But I don't get this because if A is enjoying time dilation longer since he's on the train, wouldn't that further deviate the two clocks, since now A's clock is still moving slower relative to C's but B's is speeding up relative to A's. Wouldn't A's clock have to speed up while B's slows down in order for their clocks to synch up again?

Again I'm really, really sorry for the long post but this things been buggin me for a while and I can't figure it out.

Thanks a million!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

(SNIP) Again I'm really, really sorry for the long post but this things been buggin me for a while and I can't figure it out. Thanks a million! (SNoP)Probably because you are making some false assumptions.... :eek:

A and B's clocks should be synch'ed and remain so, just because C's perspective is different, doesn't change the activity/activities of reality.....

[Bos]

well can you elaborate because i still dont understand how it works!!!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

well can you elaborate because i still dont understand how it works!!!You are assuming that the observation made by C is valid, relative to the (Pre-existent) relativity between A & B ....It is not.

It is not a relative Factor as you are already comparing the two relative Factors of A & B ....you cannot include the other factor of C as relative to the Relative conditions of A & B

Both answers are separate answers that cannot be added together in the manner that you are trying to...

Does that help? :cool:

[Bos]

No it doesn't really help at all. Can you try to explain it just by sticking with C's perspective. In other words, from C's view, he sees B set his clock before A, then if A and B both agree to jump out of the train at the same time (from their perspective on the train), then from C's perspective B will jump out slightly before A, since from C's perspective B's clock is ahead of A's. Now my question is what brings both A and B's clock back into synchronization from C's perspective. One person has told me that since B jumps first from C's perspective, than A undergoes time dilation for a bit longer (in fact the exact amount needed to synch the clocks up again). But this doesn't make sense because if A underwent time dilation longer, wouldn't this only further separate the two clocks, since now A's clock is still running slow relative to C's and B's clock is speeding up relative to A's. Please give me a much more specific answer that tells me who sees what and at what time because the answers you've given, although probably valid, don't explain anything to me. I appreciate it. Thank you.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

No it doesn't really help at all. Can you try to explain it just by sticking with C's perspective. In other words, from C's view, he sees B set his clock before A, then if A and B both agree to jump out of the train at the same time (from their perspective on the train), then from C's perspective B will jump out slightly before A, since from C's perspective B's clock is ahead of A's. Now my question is what brings both A and B's clock back into synchronization from C's perspective. One person has told me that since B jumps first from C's perspective, than A undergoes time dilation for a bit longer (in fact the exact amount needed to synch the clocks up again). But this doesn't make sense because if A underwent time dilation longer, wouldn't this only further separate the two clocks, since now A's clock is still running slow relative to C's and B's clock is speeding up relative to A's. Please give me a much more specific answer that tells me who sees what and at what time because the answers you've given, although probably valid, don't explain anything to me. I appreciate it. Thank you.
From your original post....

(SNoP) However, person C on the platform outside who was standing still watching claims that person B set his clock before person A. This is because from his perspective, person B (in the back) is moving toward the light while person A (in the front) is moving away from it and therefore, the light had to travel less distance to reach person B. (SNoP)Because Persons C's claim is False because the light is moving with both of them A and B at an equal rate .....not at disparate rates as you would wish to have as holding valid because C "sees it that way" .....C is fooling themselves in thinking that their viewpoint/perspective changes actuallity, it does NOT.

What is in Green is a false perspective(? Not really)/Observation(YUP!) as C should know that the light source is MOVING with them and adjust their Understanding of their own Observation accordingly.

Does that help?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW A & B are affected by the motion of the train and so is the light emitted and recieved by them while riding on the train, (Apply the Doppler Principal to it as the train is in motion) so the light should give a slightly shifted clocking dependant upon the Relativity of the trains' motion.

{EDIT}(Because it is NOT in a Vacuum, it is in the atmosphere, Hence Exceedingly Minor differences occur){/EDIT}

Means A in front gets slightly blue shifted light and B on the back gets slightly red shifted light as a result of the trains motion, (Even though they are seemingly stationary) so their respective time of 'setting of the clocks' would be slightly different NOT synchronized as you have asserted.....C's perspective is more Different/affected still...

Does that one help?

If it were a sound B would hear it before A.....Light is just a LOT faster!

[Bos]

Sorry to keep refuting you but this explanation is no good either. You said that C's perspective is a "false" one. This is not true at all. In relativity, any perspective is just as valid as any other. So even though A and B perceive the light to hit them simultaneously, this doesn't mean that their perspective is the "true" one. Since C is standing still on the platform, its not that his perspective is false (its just as valid as A and B's), its just that he see's the light hit B first. There is no paradox and nobody is wrong. In fact they are both 100 percent right. So C's perspective has to be taken into account with full validity and without saying simply that his perception was simply "false" and that isn't the way it "truly" happened. It only "truly" happened a specific way from a specific perspective. I'm asking you to go through, step by step, what C would see in order for A and B's clocks to synch up again. Thanks.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

And as (I) had originally tried to explain to you you cannot add the two together as they exist as two separate events in Space and time, so imposing one upon the other is 'false'.

Does that help?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

C's perspective is Doppler shifted, A & B's Are not, yet you seem to want to add the two together as if they were the same things, they are not.

Does that Help?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(SNIP) If person C saw that the two clocks were different (12:05 and 12:03) when the train was moving, than even if the train slowed down and eventually stopped, wouldn't person C still claim that since person A and person B both slowed down and stopped at the same rate, their clocks also slowed down at the same rate and hence would still not be synchronized? What is it about the stopping of the train that puts person C's perspective on equal footing with person A and person B? Clearly I'm missing something, please help! (SNoP) Persons C sees the clocks 'Setting times' as different but they are not set at different times, they are set at the same time indication .....what C sees' (Visually) is the Clocks being set to at two different times, (Time set at A then time set at B) but at each separate time setting 'viewing'/Observation both clocks are set to the Same number/time on the face of them....12:00 even though C could mark the time that they were observed as when they were set, as that would indicate a difference on timing......


Does that help? (It should)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

(SNIP) However, person C on the platform outside who was standing still watching claims that person B set his clock before person A. This is because from his perspective, person B (in the back) is moving toward the light while person A (in the front) is moving away from it and therefore, the light had to travel less distance to reach person B. Since light is constant in all frames of reference, person C will indeed claim that it took the light longer to reach person A than it did to reach person B. Both claims are equally valid and both are justified in their reasoning, so both answers are equally correct. (SNoP) This too is false as in order for person C to (visually?) 'see' a difference in the speed of light relative to A and B the Light must be stationary, NOT moving along with them as C can easily correct for the fact that the light is Mounted on the train therefore moving with them, therefore sees no difference in time of light travel respective of A and B, from C's pespective A and B are travelling with the light, not moving towards it and away from it....

C's assertion only works if the light is stationary respective of A and B's travelling Past it

C's perspective also has NO real Doppler shift effect upon it that would SHOW any discrepancy between A's Time and B's Time as A and B are both travelling in the same direction respective of the light's travel towards C....

Sort of a few falsehoods in that "Compression of information" that is your first posting....makes it a little more difficult to disect as to understand what is wrong with it

[sciencephilosophy]

Hi Bos,

I'm happy that you asked an excellent question. I also had similar questions
that bothering me in the past.

I don't know who Mr. Robin Parsons is but his replies were not satisfactory and sounded like those people from
physicsfourms dot com
(I don't write their site in format url name because this will give link popularity to them. I wish in future
Google can have A.I. ability to classifiy positive or negative link popularity so that for negative
comment on linking Google should discredit their ranking in search engine position.)
Actually whenever that forum met challenging questions or new concepts different from what they thought,
they would give those non-sense responses like ".... Read more books first before you ask...",
"...Don't try to suggest any new principle here...", "...You're wasting your time here..."
Their forum is not a fourm, but it should be called brain-washing-feudalism-group because they
seemed to always brain wash other people to talk what they wish.
Moreover, those hypocrites tried to attend some other scientific forums to act as different person
to highly recommend their physicsforums in order to get a high link popularity.
Anyway, in this physicsmathforums.com I feel the attitude and atmosphere here much better than them.

Now, let me get back to your question.
My answer is quite absurd...
...But Yes, I agree with what Epsilon=One quoted from Einstein:
"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Not sure if I'm correct, but of course I should agree to myself for what I think...

The clock synchronization result depends where or who you are.
If you are a person inside the train, you will find that light pulse arrives to Person A
and Person B at the same time, so the two clocks are synchronized and both have
the same reading.
However, if you are a person outside the train, you will find that the light pulse arrives
to B earlier than A. Therefore, the two clocks will not be synchronized and so the time
reading on clocks are different.

I mean.....it depends on where or who you are. If you're inside the train, then both clocks
reading will be the same. But if you are outside the train, then clocks are different.

Perhaps this is too absurd, and you may ask:
"If I'm outside the train, when A and B come out from the train, what will they answer
if I ask whether the light pulse arrives to both ends simultaneously."

The answer is simple. They will say what you observe:
Light pulse does not arrive both ends simultameously!
This is beacause you are the observer but not them.
They become the objects that are under an observer, that is You!

Next, of course, if you are inside the train, then A and B will answer that the light pulse
arrives to both ends simultaneously and you also find the clocks are synchronized.

In the past, I had searched all over everywhere to find answers to similar questions,
but finally I could not see any answer that could explain well. Just the opposite, many
non-sense replies from people like those at physicsfourms dot com.

Even many ridiculous scientists distort Einstein's theory and said that the Person C
observation is not a fact.
Actually Einstein already stated clearly that speed of light is the same by any observer.

My explanation is quite absurd, but I don't think anything wrong in this explanation.
Not sure if you'll come back again, but I would like to see if you'll agree or not.
:D

[Epsilon=One]

Your return is greatly appreciated . . . as are your keen posts.

I regret that this forum has lost all data from mid-May, 2007 through September 22, 2007; thus, this thread may lack some data from that period.

Hi Bos,

I'm happy that you asked an excellent question. I also had similar questions that bothering me in the past.

I don't know who Mr. Robin Parsons is but his replies were not satisfactory and sounded like those people from physicsfourms dot com (I don't write their site in format url name because this will give link popularity to them. I wish in future Google can have A.I. ability to classifiy positive or negative link popularity so that for negative comment on linking Google should discredit their ranking in search engine position.) Actually whenever that forum met challenging questions or new concepts different from what they thought, they would give those non-sense responses like ".... Read more books first before you ask...", "...Don't try to suggest any new principle here...", "...You're wasting your time here..." Their forum is not a fourm, but it should be called brain-washing-feudalism-group because they seemed to always brain wash other people to talk what they wish. Moreover, those hypocrites tried to attend some other scientific forums to act as different person to highly recommend their physicsforums in order to get a high link popularity.

Anyway, in this physicsmathforums.com I feel the attitude and atmosphere here much better than them.Thank you! Your perception is quite appreciated.



Now, let me get back to your question.
My answer is quite absurd...

...

My explanation is quite absurd, but I don't think anything wrong in this explanation.

...I would like to see if you'll agree or not.As you noted, I find nothing wrong with absurdity; and, I find nothing absurd with your logic other than that you, reasonably, rely upon some "classic" concepts concerning the speed of light and time dilation, which concepts, when extended ad absurdum, defy logic and observations that distort the age of the Universe (it is ageless) and most all subsequent fundamental concepts of academic, theoretical physics.

[sciencephilosophy]

Your return is greatly appreciated . . . as are your keen posts.

I regret that this forum has lost all data from mid-May, 2007 through September 22, 2007; thus, this thread may lack some data from that period.

Thank you for your appreciation Epsilon, and sorry to hear that
some posts were lost.

As you noted, I find nothing wrong with absurdity; and, I find nothing absurd with your logic other than that you, reasonably, rely upon some "classic" concepts concerning the speed of light and time dilation, which concepts, when extended ad absurdum, defy logic and observations that distort the age of the Universe (it is ageless) and most all subsequent fundamental concepts of academic, theoretical physics.

Anyway, my explanation is bit too philosophical that many people could not accept.

Consider further the case of the train. Let's change the situation that it's not
about clock, but the route of the train. Assuming that the train is always travelling
to destination City X, but the train is also designed for certain special case that if
a light pulse is emitted to both front sensor and end sensor simultaneouly, then
the train will change its route to destination City Y.
Hence, the situation is more absurd that if person C is inside the train, the journey
destination will be changed to City Y. But if person C is outside the train, then the
the signals fail to arrive both sensors simultaneouly, so the train will only go on
to City X.
If I want to verify the case, I've to always go with person C together anywhere.

I still biased to believe this absurd idea although quite many people cannot accept.
Perhaps I can be wrong, but until this moment I can't find any proof to invalidate this.

I would be grateful if you would contribute any idea. No matter if you think in a different way,
an honest and sincere discussion is always good.

If this concept is correct, then this can imply multiple universes theory is also correct.
This is because person C can choose a universe that contains himself inside a train,....or
person C can choose a universe that doesn't contain himself inside a train.
But I'm not thinking in a way based on quantum mechanics.
In addition, we can conclude that each particle (electron, proton ...etc) should have instant
communication with any other particles in this universe, no matter how far away they are separated.
Furthermore, every moment, our universe is splitting into different universes for different possibilites.
These implications are derived from my interpretation on relativity but not quantum mechanics.
I mean, if the above absurd analysis is correct, then we can have those implications about this universes.

About age of universe, I'm interested to know what you think. To me, as I think that time is relative,
so the age of universe is also Relative.
And I agree, universe should have no ending. Even if there's ending, it'll have another beginning,
so in conclusion, no ending at all.

Furthermore, I think about the term "existence" recently, and I just feel that "existence" and "non-existence"
are actually the same thing. This is because "nothing" comes from a sum of same quantity of positive and
negative elements, and total energy is also zero because if our total energy is positvie then there also exists
a same total amount of negative energy...
Therefore when a person asks "why there's existence..." then he already answers himself half of the answer.

No matter if you agree my analysis or not, still thanks a lot as you have patient to finish reading this long post.

[Epsilon=One]

…sorry to hear that some posts were lost. There will be more said about this disaster if it is not soon rectified . . . as its repair has been implied. Consequently, I am unable to link to reliable definitions of many terms used herein.

Anyway, my explanation is bit too philosophical that many people could not accept.

…
I still biased to believe this absurd idea although quite many people cannot accept.

Perhaps I can be wrong, but until this moment I can't find any proof to invalidate this.

I would be grateful if you would contribute any idea. No matter if you think in a different way, an honest and sincere discussion is always good. Your explanation of “clock synchronization” and its acceptance is no fault of your reasoning, which is excellent. The fault lies with academia’s myopic, theoretical understanding of physics and its reliance upon unproved fundamental mathematics.

If this concept is correct, then this can imply multiple universes theory is also correct.The concept and implication are not correct.

But I'm not thinking in a way based on quantum mechanics. In addition, we can conclude that each particle (electron, proton ...etc) should have instant communication with any other particles in this universe, no matter how far away they are separated.Quantum mechanics (QM) is incomplete, which Einstein correctly concluded. And, entanglement is a well observed phenomenon.

Furthermore, every moment, our universe is splitting into different universes for different possibilites. These implications are derived from my interpretation on relativity but not quantum mechanics. I mean, if the above absurd analysis is correct, then we can have those implications about this universes.It is not the analysis that is absurd; it is “relativity” and “quantum mechanics” that are not complete.

About age of universe, I'm interested to know what you think. To me, as I think that time is relative, so the age of universe is also Relative.I consider fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT) as an absolute; and thus, the Universe as a “singular” absolute.

And I agree, universe should have no ending. Even if there's ending, it'll have another beginning, so in conclusion, no ending at all.I concur with the first sentence and the conclusion.

Furthermore, I think about the term "existence" recently, and I just feel that "existence" and "non-existence" are actually the same thing. This is because "nothing" comes from a sum of same quantity of positive and negative elements, and total energy is also zero because if our total energy is positvie then there also exists a same total amount of negative energy...Therefore when a person asks "why there's existence..." then he already answers himself half of the answer.Your thoughts are complex, interesting . . . and beyond this post.

No matter if you agree my analysis or not, still thanks a lot as you have patient to finish reading this long post.I consider reasoned logic something enjoyable that requires little patience.

Your explanation relies upon “classic” physics’ concepts that have been ascertained and theoretically proposed without reconcilable definitions, or understanding, of the evolution of such fundamental concepts as time, space, and force. Without such an understanding, it is easy to realize that explanations of fundamental phenomena such as your “clock synchronization” problem are likely to have absurd conclusions.

To arrive at logic, at this level of phenomena, that is something other than the absurd, requires a deep understanding of the “what, why, and how” (WWH) concerning the evolution of fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT), space quantums, quantum “fields” . . . and a proof of fundamental mathematics.

Academia’s current plethora of knowledge concerning such WWH leads to the metaphysical forces (Including the Big Bang, which is the antithesis of the enigmatic and paradoxical “gravity.” ) of Standard Model physics.

Academia cannot even agree upon a single definition of what “force” is; in fact, the most acceptable definitions of “force” have terms that are exclusionary of one another. The ludicrous, absurdity of Standard Model concepts, and subsequent reasoning, drawn therefrom, is not too surprising when considering the lack of any coherent reconcilable definitions of fundamental concepts.

The concept of light, and its properties, is one of academia’s fundamental metaphysical forces. When you combine said force of light (a constant without acceleration) with irreconcilable definitions of “space,” “time,” quantum “fields,” and dimensions . . . Well, you get the idea.

A thorough examination of “clock synchronization” requires a workable understanding of Pulsoid Theory and its concepts of Triquametric oscillations, Infinity, etc. that is impossible in a single post.

[sciencephilosophy]

.....The concept of light, and its properties, is one of academia’s fundamental metaphysical forces. When you combine said force of light (a constant without acceleration) with irreconcilable definitions of “space,” “time,” quantum “fields,” and dimensions . . . Well, you get the idea.

A thorough examination of “clock synchronization” requires a workable understanding of Pulsoid Theory and its concepts of Triquametric oscillations, Infinity, etc. that is impossible in a single post.

Thanks for your feedback.
I remember that I came across to read the Pulsoid Theory and elliptical
constant when I first came to visit this forum. It's quite a new idea
to me. But as I always said, I'll respect all kinds of contributions
or new theories and I believe they would finally be verified to
be true or not in future. I also believe that new theories have to go on
because our present knowledges are still not complete. Just as what you said
before, relativity and quantum mechanics are not complete yet. We still need
to wait for a perfect theory that can explain everything about this universe.