how time slows down because we are fast wrt it. Reply

This post is a video rendering (You-tube video) of an earlier post from 2010 December thats a good old 6 years (pardon my sense of using the phrase “good old” and the fact that I am stealing what 6 months ) !

Its just amateurish. I was getting bogged down by the prospects of boredom that can just show from anywhere and doesn’t take your permission or attention to inflict you with the karma treatment. I had just gotten rid of something really bad that was affecting me since a good cover of 3 months. So by a dint of extraordinary self will compared to the gloomy displeasure of all consuming sense of lack of self worth that bites ya’ at times I was feeling all rejuvenated … like you wouldn’t believe I got a nice shower and that set things into perpetuity keeping things rolling over and over and I am thinking lets read into camera one of our articles.  

With a random type of occurrence some deal of time dilation was what was bothering me for a few days. But these are not the kind of idea that you once understood pretty well would bother you ever again. thats right time dilation, Relativity stuff are pretty daunting but once you understood them they are there. Engraved into your beautiful mind.

Guess whats not like that? Quantum Mechanics. This thing is like the bitchiest spouse ever. “No what I promised you yesterday was yesterday. Today is altogether a different day. Consult an astrologer or if you are a bit retarded aka scientific call your astronomer and check for yourself the stars have moved on, why can’t you? Read me again and treat me again like a King or Queen, may be I will buzz a little. ”

So I decide to check to see what it looks like to read the article (linked; the article on time dilation) and we have this video flick. (linked: You-tube video)

This is not a high quality video because it emanates from a spur of the moment inspiration. But I have tried to be as careful as makes life bearable. Its a webcam quality video, the voice quality ain’t great but if you got a powerful headphone download the video and listen offline may be you will enjoy after a first few ascending moments of gloomy and monotony. Also its 35 minutes and as has been explicitly admitted at times capable of throwing you dizzy because of its philosophical and technical barriers.

Here begins the video with its subtitles. some of the recording were verbatim and rest were the linked article on time dilation. So I am rejoining both with some effort that would make it comprehensive. I did enjoy the video unexpectedly because I continued with it to the end and I was playing it again and again, probably because there was something refreshing about it, probably the physics and/or philosophy, but you are a whole together different person with different settings. If you do like say it. If you don’t enough has been told why it could have been better. I do have a better camera but its near-lens is a bit fuzzy, farther lens makes it at 1.5 meters and that means I have to begin worrying about microphones, speakers etc.

Without much further ado: here begins with everything said in the video. (You don’t have to read the linked article as its appended here into the subtitles)


verbatim; Okaay so it starts now. There is a time lag and what I am doing here and whats getting there. This is less than 1 meter and it amazes me this computer from HP hasn’t been able to take into note to fix these technical snags. There is no 1000s of miles involved here so why would  things be relayed with such a perceptible grossly perceptible time lapse. So its bothersome isn’t it. And we’ll give it a shot. When it all comes up when we finish this video and we should check it for ourselves. So I was reading through one of my articles that I wrote in the year 2010, December, so thats like about 6 years ago and this is a Physics based article although it is it is written in a quite quite simple tone quite simple, comprehensible to the lay man kind of ideas. And I got pretty enthusiastic when I was thinking of recording myself and talking about this article. And by the time I set the environment the lighting, the camera, the cap and stuff umm it seems the enthusiasm is gone. I don’t know why I was “stage fright” like that even no one is around just talkinnu the camera and why would I lose it. So there is some sort of fear when you are conscious that you are being watched so can’t do much about it we will see how it goes. But I don’t have much visual aid here much much much facility of putting a very visually attractive disposition … exposition and I have plenty of space available here but don’t have a facility so I can’t really stand talking wave the hands in various ways that I am capable of  that I am capable of and so lets just begin reading this article and I would not be lookin at the camera because the browser space would be taking all the desktop area and so lets see how it goes may be I minimize it to some extent so I still have a view a check on how things are looking and not looking quiet weird as weird as I am capable of.

So here is the article “Stephen Hawking Einstein and my ideas” written the 4th of December 2010.

Thinking about time and relativity it just passes my own thinking that Hawking has merely made accessible most of the elegant yet incomprehensible genius of Einstein. But thinking more about this it also occurs to me that Einstein was not thinking in terms in which S. Hawking or anybody explaining his theories was.

Nevertheless Hawkings work is in itself the work of a genius because explaining these not so simple (after all) work of Einstein can only be achieved by a genius of Hawkings caliber. Hawkings clarity, wit and unimaginable access to all the physical ideas of our Universe and comprehensibility is a trademark, a sign of uniqueness.

On the other hand truth be told Einstein’s was not the last words on Physical world neither were they any, the highest kind, as is often understood by general massive popularity. To shed light on how Einstein actually thought and his own account, I had come across it more than a decade ago and I still remember, thankfully to my own nature, in a book written by Einstein himself, which I had never owned so I really do not have a copy by myself.

Truth be told, Feynman was a greater greater genius than Einstein himself, and he actually thought in ways which had no space, time, quantum parallel, therefore his genius is still debatable and his works are only but a tiny account of what he was.

(verbatim: so see this is just my opinion, of-course you say opinion based on certain first hand knowledge of of the Physics because Feynman was a master genius of Quantum Mechanics … this is not written in the article I am just talking verbatim, but Einstein was a master genius a great grand genius of the ideas of classical mechanics, classical mechanics; special and general theory of relativity are just classical mechanics they are not modern Physics they are not the modern mechanics that quantum mechanics is and there is a vast deal of difference there is a vast deal of difference which brings into account the actual level of difficulty and you will certainly agree that the classical mechanics regime very very less difficult than what quantum mechanics or the modern physics is mathematically as well as intuitively, aesthetically, philosophically in pretty much any way that you can envisage. Okay here I stop the verbatim. Now lets get back to the article and read from there. Okay ! )

So how was Einstein actually thinking?

The humor is Einstein was thinking in ways loved by every woman on earth (I wouldn’t know why I would make a joke like that) even those that did not know him, so a true account is only achievable by his own women of whom he had a few, and these accounts are pretty well documented as well.

But given that there are signatures of how a man (and a woman if you may) thinks, in his own works and in his own words, here is my account of it, from the way Einstein thought about it and the way Hawking thought about it to my own ways. (My own ways I can always talk about as long as I am alive, it does not need special arts works, just needs a little thought)

Hawking; in his recent Grand Design, of which I have a copy by my side but I do not bother opening, I have read through its chapter 5, theory of everything and I proudly own this marvel, but here is what I read.

Some of the accounts in this book is also sometimes found in many other texts so we scientists are a bunch of folks who often do not have the facilities to come up with strikingly new explanations and new paradigms, in case of Hawking though; he comes up like two or three every page.

So before going into the idea of special relativity I jump with elation into his explanation of what a so-called M Theory is M may stand for Mad or Marvelous per your taste. In this he describes how our universe is one among a billion, billion of such, as proposed, albeit timely and temporarily, by M Theory.

But given that we at least see one, he proceeds to describe the multi dimension world of ours, where the unproven yet state of the science idea of 11 dimensions is a proposition. He takes a very ordinary yet worldly example of a straw in a glass of Blue Hawaiian (was it or was it Ruh Afza, those who did not know, Blue Hawaiian used to be one my fave that’s why I mentioned it) and put that picture in three instances, close, farther, farthest or from the waitresses account as understood by Hawking as farther, closer, closest.

In the close, closest scenario, that is one where Hawking is sitting and drinking, the straw has a 2 dimensional reality. If an ant is gradually crawling up the straw it would have to make a longitudinal movement as well as a circular movement (it goes up the straw and goes in circle; the face thats open) so very merrily without any mindfulness of Hawking’s watch on his wrist the ant goes round and round and may be reaches the surface of ecstasy.

(verbatim; It just gets to taste some of the drink the ant there and Hawking is watching and so the ant isn’t mindful of what his watch is reading)

In the farther, farther scenario, (the next level of distance) Hawking sees the longitudinal reality of the straw quite well; the circular reality is obscured by a significant factor but still see-able from its distance. So Hawking thinks may be the ant is still crawling up the straw. But he needs a magnifying device, like a powerful digital camera or a telescope, which has a chance to find this ant, given its on a horizon accessible by the device.

But in the last scenario the situation is quite different. First of all it’s a string theoretic view of the reality. Here enters the social activist as well. Lets say the most honorable one, you name him. And he or she proclaims to be reading a great deal of scientific manulets, in college after which he got embroiled in vicious social dimensions, and forgot what it is all about. (So he forgot his science because he is out of the academics, he is into the society)

Then he comes forth in his old age and sees Hawking explaining a new scientific understanding, and exhilarates with the prospect of taking part. Hawking then explains. Although by common sense, I know that it’s the same straw that’s put at different place, and in this case by the waitress, the intelligent design is quite clear and acceptable.

But the distance distorts the view of reality, the circular reality of the straw is suppressed and the ant may be present which we do not necessarily know. Now the two dimensional straw is coming out as a one-dimensional object of reality.

This object of reality is not to be confused with an object of desire, which is like a pay hike for a shoddy piece of work, or your most likable sexual imagery. So this is just one example of how, we may have a view of reality that does not confirm with reality itself, nevertheless we are pretty sensible in discussing this.

That’s what these string theorists or M theorists are doing, they are pretty sensible guys although in circumstances as visible to the roughly common populace in any community they are a kind of activists of modern day holy grail, the unification syndrome that persisted through 8.5 decades.

But the comprehension that’s come forth to us non string lings, is we live in a world the reality of which is actually 11 dimensional and whose 1 dimension is time, 3 dimensions are spatially encroach-able by us all and the 7 dimensions are little turns and curves at a scale so suppressed that the only sensible example we can give is the straw of Hawking or a membrane of a drum on which an ant can experience musical spanking.

For little time the ant jumps onto air without knowing its feet are detached from the fibrous membrane that clutched its tiny feet. It may then be so small that the various dimensions of the world reality at that scale show up in dramatic power and the ant struggles and learns a new game of random walk.

We might have learned a little game of random walk ourselves  when we were all babies, except we are a bunch of intelligent design ourselves, because papa brings in home a wheeled fun cart or bicycle on which Munna and Belinda can enjoy papas elation in seeing his babies move, instead crawl.

But imagine a world of a different civilization, we just don’t know what it would be like, may be the baby jumps every other way, crawls up the walls and roof, well down under the roof, like a spider creature and shouts vulgarities at papa and pees to the sky because gravity is repulsive, who ever knows, what the reality of a different universe is.

So here is the idea of special relativity that Hawking tried to explain through various constructs that are pretty much found in many science popular. Like the All-pervasive ether of the Maxwellian age and its recounted experimentation by Michelson Morley set up.

He explains the relativity of time, by a set up, in which a light ray travels back and forth between two bounds and in one scenario this is at rest because the observer is not moving with respect to this set up. In the other scenario the observer and the clock, this time a light ray traveling back and forth between the two bounds are in relative motion, that is they are in motion wrt each other.

Now consider Einstein’s account, he straight away came with the physical insight, call it an assumption as well, but its elegance can never be overruled, that space and time are equivalents, that is, if we define time to be a process, then it involves a space.

It only makes sense how much length is traversed and that in itself is equal to how much time passes by. If velocity keeps on changing then time interval and space distance adjust themselves. He then dropped another assumption, to the world, which is the speed of light of electromagnetic communication, cosmic radiations etc, a constant speed at which natural relays of information, and disturbances take place.

Together the space and time equivalence, that is their equal validity, and equal reality as far as they occur as a natural process, and the speed of light as a universal constant is the speed at which natural information relays itself or speed of field disturbances is summed up as a new theory or physical understanding of our universe and its called special theory of relativity, as a more general understanding that emanates from Einstein’s genius is available to scientists called as the general theory of relativity.

To summarize, time was, before this understanding, held as an absolute quantity. That is time Asses on its own. (Time passes on its own) Time is an independent hole in the workings of the natural design. Actually, humor apart, I meant time passes on its own.

This is the basis of the adage, time and tide waits for no one. But hang on; if you have come up to this point in this article, you will see how no one waits for time either. Why this is the day-to-day implication of special theory of relativity and why I am regarded as a truly mad scientist.

(well I may not be regarded like that it all depends on how someone would like to see you and its all subjective, I am just going to move on here unabated)

So what’s absoluteness of time, it means time is there on its own, by its own, for its own. Time like it or not flows like that hence must be regarded independent of what we think of it, how we measure it, etc. eg if I can measure time from two different scenarios.

Once when the car was moving and I am sitting in the car and the other instance in which I get down at a stop and check my wrist watch, in each instance, I thought my watch ticks at the same rate, at least that was the notion until Year 1900, when Einstein’s work in 1905, the so called anus mirabilis (Year of miracle), this understanding or notion as you may, received a severe blow via the new understanding that time in itself does not make a physical sense.

It only makes a sense in connection with all other physical variable, therefore space as well. Something, which most physicists forget or never knew, is that time is equivalent not only to space but equivalent to momentum, for example.

(verbatim; Now where did that idea come from, you don’t see that in your text book. You don’t know its correct or not but you can give it a shot … why not. )

You can, Not specify the momentum, or the velocity of an object, to arbitrary accuracy without making at the same instant (time instant !!) a large error on how much time this requires to be noted on your data entry book. Eg, in physical reality if you have a force, which is only as feeble as the kick of an ant, you don’t talk about a momentum of that kick that brings Lalu Prasad Yadav on his knees, except, if the ant were doing something else to him.

(verbatim; The ant isn’t capable of kicking LPY too hard but it can do other things … of-course … )

It would take infinite time for the ant to kick Yadav so hard that he realizes his granny.

(verbatim; its an Indian phrase so pardon me for putting this into an English based article. )

Thats a tribute to the great statesman Bihar produced where I have lived couple years, and the realizing granny is an idiom all over India. So.)

That’s because all physical equations have to be consistent. So some of the equations have been formulated just to check the consistency or lack of it. There are a plenty that haven’t ever been formulated, they are always in need of brilliant physicists like Feynman.

(For formulation of physical equations and the consistency check)

That’s why we learn about the famed uncertainty equations, which relates position (distance) with momentum, time with energy and angular distance to angular momentum. But there are actually numerous others and in reality everything is mixed up with everything else. Except the ones that we know are exactly like that and no change is allowed there.

The basic idea of quantum mechanics is to allow all possibility and not allow any inconsistency and this is something that was actually noted by Feynman himself.  So the ideas should be used because they are easy to remember and understood and then painstakingly everything is worked out before a new invention or discovery can be made.

Those who start with equations will meet an obscure kick in their ass for being too much of nothing. It better be a little of everything  working backwards and achieve something sensible.  But those who are masters of falsification (see my article on falsification), which includes all scientists, need the equations as well to counter shoddy conclusions.

So equations must all be worked out and those who do so as a matter of profession are called the theoretical physicists or the theoreticians. On the other hand I am an experimental physicist and most of my insight goes into the details of how to carry the extensive jobs.

But in preferential terminology we are all physicists and we know how to alter ranks. So Feynman was a great thinker and theoretician while he knew how to do certain experiments better than professional experimentalists. On the other hand world hasn’t seen much of my theoretical bent of mind, at least how much I know how to solve the problems like a hardcore theoretician. (I am saying because I am just a bit passionate to do some of these things on a more serious basis. Not just being boisterous here.)

Einstein was a theoretician by profession and he formulated and widely used many thought experiments or Gedanken experiments because all experiments can’t be carried out. A simple example is how a person would experience free fall if the string of the elevator were cut off. (Yea thats the example of a gedanken experiment … A German term for a thought experiment. )

You don’t want a real person to be in that predicament because it means gravitational splash but in an imaginary experiment like this you can still go ahead and think through all the consequences of the laws without being inconsistent with anything.

One of the situations where Feynman’s ideas to take all possibilities and discard the inconsistent ones, are the Particle Physics processes. The theory side is filled up with situations where one draws the so-called Feynman diagrams and the experimental side is filled up with situations where one considers many processes and discards the ones that do not make a qualification for some way or other.

These processes are inherently quantum mechanical in nature, therefore, by employing such simplistic ideas of inconsistency, after taking all possibilities, we arrive at effective solutions and interestingly impressive ones, much quicker. If we were to use up, famous equations, we may not even see a signal nevertheless; these may be used up to invalidate something or as a constraint; to reduce the background processes, the ones which hides true signal processes.

(verbatim; So this is a very technical thing in particle experiments or theory that you use famous equations as a consistency check, you can use it as a condition; to remove unwanted things, from the intensive amount of data. But Feynman’s approach was more philosophical in nature where you take all the possibilities; all the physical things happening, physical kinematics happening and you try to find out the inconsistencies and remove them. Thats much more effective way of doing this thats what I am trying to say.  )

Now let us go back to the idea of relativity of time. Einstein’s idea is therefore time is relative, that is, it makes sense wrt how its measured, who measures, a person traveling really fast, measures this or a person moving slow or standing still wrt to time, measures it. Now this idea of moving wrt time (not wrt clock, but time) isn’t heard of, because that’s my idea. Patented. But I will unpatent it soon.

Lets go back to Einstein’s idea, if the clock is placed in the train, in which you are present, since you and clock aren’t actually moving wrt each other; the rate at which time flows is fastest. (verbatim; So when you are at rest wrt something else, the time both of you observe, about each other, will be same, and is the fastest, compared to what other time is possible if one of you were moving, when you are moving time will be slowing down —  for the party thats not moving ) Time is fastest in rest frame, faster in a slower frame of reference, and slower in a faster f.o.r. (Verbatim: So time slows down when objects are faster — for the party thats moving slower or at rest. But time is being measured from a frame which is at rest wrt which the faster objects are moving. Its a bit more technical than it sounds, and I am not explaining everything bit by bit. So this is just like just like a simple language partly you know meta lay man kind of language its partly technical so its just a thing I wrote for partly prepared people. )

In the 1st instance, space is as much as you see it, hence time clicks at a rate which is more than it would, if space is elongated or widened because you are moving wrt space, so my idea is you are moving wrt time, because space and time are now equal, somebody can say you are moving wrt space and thats S. Hawking.

(verbatim; so you see the difference in the ideas of different scientists, they are equivalent, in what they will give you, but this is just the approach which differs)

What Hawking says is since in a frame in which you are moving wrt space, which corresponds to the time you want to measure, the delay in relay of information, going back and forth between the ends of space points, are going to be increased, hence time is slower, (verbatim: so things are moving apart, distance is increasing, more and more distance has to be covered, so more time will be taken, the response of the signals will be slower, so time is slower, time or clock is ticking at a slower rate, if things started moving. ) it takes more time each time to tick cric cric cric, that is time is slower wrt a fast moving person (for the person who is at rest seeing the fast moving person)

That’s why if you are on Satabdi Express or Shinkansen all your life you live it a little longer, only a little longer to say Aram Haram Hai (Laziness is despicable), you have been not making any slack in your duties, you are so fast, but like a joke you die the next instant, because that’s the only time you saved by being fast enough.

So who says time and tide, waits for none, Einstein now says it’s also the other way round. No one waits for time (or tide), if time is slow because I am moving fast, I am actually not waiting for time, So always move faster.

Now this was not Einstein’s idea, as Einstein thought out, how he thought of this is as I have said this before, space and time are equivalent, therefore if you are moving wrt space faster, it means space is moving faster wrt you, so time is moving faster wrt you, now why he came up with this idea; time and space are equivalent, that nobody can say, not even his legitimate wives, but that’s just characteristic of him.

(and how did I come up with this explanation, nowhere else you would have seen this explanation, if you move fast wrt space since space and time are equivalents, you are actually moving fast wrt time therefore time and you are on relatively quick motion, if you know its you that is moving fast; time is slower and if you know you are slow; time is fast. Special theory of relativity, time dilation. )

Why would Feynman think of what he would think, Arlene cant say, Gwyneth cant say, neither the nude women on his portrait. Feynman said as much he could then, he left us, so read his accounts. What Hawking says are Hawking’s characteristics.

My idea is not only we move wrt time, but that time happens like a wave, it happens like a particle too and time can dilate or elongate like space does, if you have a momentum which is precisely known, it means time has to be imprecise, or correct me if you can, but time is anyhow related to energy and energy precision would mean time window is quite large, therefore something moving really fast is almost unseeable, the correct time window it permits is quite small, if you don’t see in that small time you missed it.

If it’s a baseball or cricket ball, that’s moving really fast, then you need to see it with intense light, then its complete trajectory shows up, like in a base ball match or cricket match, else its just a little here and then little there. (verbatim: thats what they say, discrete, in quantum mechanics, trajectories and everything is quantized, discrete; thats not continuous.)

If its an elementary particle then it’s a bizarre scene, intense light will sufficiently alter the motion of the particle itself, less intense light wont help at all, as its momentum  is really small, there is a trade off as it is consistent with the uncertainty equations, all of the equations, plus the ones that we don’t know so far.

(I tend to think there are actually more equations of uncertainty that we know, well the commutation relations extend to more variables that nobody computed all of them, only if one can invent new home work problems, Physics is intrinsically difficult because there is just so much)

Now this is all quantum mechanics. Where is the idea of time in relativity? Well as I said time is like a particle, which means time in itself is measurable because there is say an electron or any other elementary particle. The electron and the photon and all the other little bunnies they all jump, swivel, wobble and dance like they would, permitted by Natures laws, but they all pertain to time.

Since time is like a matter particle, if you move really fast wrt an electron, the electron is moving fast wrt you, therefore the relative motion wrt each other, time (electron) and you, is faster.

What’s the use of such an idea, that time is like physical matter itself. Its to say there may be an inherent and multitude of new laws just hiding there which our great masters of science might have hinted to, but we all have so far not been able to find them out.

We haven’t taken enough pain to clearly see something and work them out so that there is something really as interesting as a new quantum mechanical phenomenon and its equations. This is the present situation with all of physics. We are boastful of huge machines and huge missions into cosmos but we don’t have a satisfying answer to some of our most desired quest about nature, the likes of unification included.

One of the use of this electron working like a sense of time itself is in another subject I tried to touch, without any further serious thinking or work, is the magnetic monopole. (See my article about magnetic monopole) Here I have tried to imagine that two electrons only when they move wrt each other even if infinitely apart or just be there, they do start making any sense of time what so ever.

Without that, that is; with just a single electron, time would be absolute so it’s not even touching the knowledge of special theory of relativity. But when there are two whether or not they move wrt each other; a sense of time develops.

(verbatim: ahhh an idea from the graduate student days, cos I had nothing to do , so just sitting there, thinking, writing up, from 2006 or 07)

This is all speculative but without going through all the calculations much in the Feynmanistic way we don’t see what problems of inconsistency we face with the present understanding. So now these are two electrons or two electric charges. The equations of electricity are symmetric wrt to each other. But the magnetic charges or mono-poles are not seen in reality.

In reality there are always dipoles, as known so far. That means the magnetic dipoles somehow distort the equations of electricity by altering the way time is pictured with separate electric mono charges. It’s just speculative again, but this is characteristic of me. I don’t need a wife to remember this and tell you, I just mention as I go.

verbatim; I am pretty sure that throughout the article it has not been as enthusiastic as I was speaking what I wrote, because there were technical and philosophical issues, technical and philosophical barriers, in comprehending the ideas here, but if you are sitting there read to it and put your comments out there, what you assimilate or not, it will be more easier, realistic and desirable on my part, to see what this article is really saying, so I can make sense of whether or not its is making enough sense; in everything thats being said. Thank You.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s