First I want to thank everyone who has given constructive feedback. I am not well versed in quantum mechanics in anyway and am learning a lot in this respect. Now I will try to give my replies.
It’s the electrons in the atoms which make up the rock that end up in higher energy levels when the atoms are excited.
Photons (fluorescent light) are emitted when the electrons return to their initial state.
The rock itself doesn’t undergo any movement as it does not behave at a quantum mechanical scale where particles can be recoiled or moved by scattering photons.
The
Compton wavelength λ = h/mc is the theoretical size an object would need to be in order to be recoiled by photons.
For a rock of mass 1g, λ = 2.2 x 10⁻²⁸ metres.
This is many magnitudes smaller than an electron and impossible to recoil.
I am sorry for being unclear, when I refer to movement I refer to movement at any scale. The rock is in a way moving as you have said, the electrons of the atoms that the rock is made of become excited indicating that they move. It is also to my understanding energy can be described as a movement, but can appear different depending on the scale in which it is interacting.
Like the incident photons, the energy of the emitted photons is subject to statistical uncertainty.
The energy of the emitted photons is given by the formula dE = hv where v is the frequency.
Depending on Δt and v we can measure the photon energy dE over a number of cycles. If Δt is large dE is measured over a larger number of cycles, the average of dE (<dE>) comes closer to the true value resulting in a small ΔE value.
On the other hand if Δt is small, only a small number of cycles can be averaged in which case <dE> deviates further from the true value and ΔE is large.
Thank you for explaining again. I hope its okay I had to modify what you said to look like the below, so I could get it through my head and make the point. I left it there for people who might have trouble understanding math like me.
You said (math values exchanged for descriptions),
"If the time value is large, emitted photons is measured over a larger number of cycles, the average of emitted photons comes closer to the true value resulting in a small statistic uncertainty value.
On the other hand if the time value is small, only a small number of cycles can be averaged in which case the average emitted photons deviates further from the true value and there is a large statistical uncertainty."
I don't mean to make this sound rude, but of course if you get a larger sample size the statistical uncertainty will by less. This is like surveying people with polls, the larger the sample size the more accuracy the survey should be.
The best way I can explain my point of view is that I believe math to be a tool and an interpretation of reality, not reality itself. To truly understand what you are describing you must look at how it works within the context of gathering the variables in reality.
For instance the time variable increasing means that you are just gathering more data, similar to how if you were doing a poll, the time variable is like the amount of people being surveyed. Both the time variable and the number of people in the poll refer to the amount of data collected and therefore positively affect the statistical uncertainty as they increase. Just like the energy emitted by the fluorescent rock we have no idea what peoples opinions are, so it appears to be random to us.
To further compound my point and go off on a small tangent, most if not all math formulas involving motion have circular definitions. When one realizes that motion is a fundamental it breaks all circular definitions of math formulas involving motion, as motion is the root of all said definitions.
Let me know what you think and if I have given a proper response.
In contrast I can use the light within anyone's home. At night the light is on. It casts a shadow on all objects in a room. There is no rotation for the shadows to move. There are no gears working to indicate the passage of time.
We would have to observe something else in motion that is indicating the passage of time.
Again. Motion and motionless and time are each existing together.
I am not sure what you are getting at, but something interesting to think of is that you too are in a way a clock. The way in which your body perceives and functions is matter moving through space. This means that you are a standard of motion for comparing other motion.
Another point is that everything is always moving. To my understanding there is nothing that is never truly still. Everything moves at some scale whether it be detectable or not.
So we do not have to perceive motion to indicate the passage of time. Our body is alive and moving within us. You are made of countless cells, countless atoms, and countless things smaller than that, all of which are moving.
Quantum events are, from our viewpoint, inherently stochastic, where the probability of observing a particular outcome for any measurement is given by the Schrodinger probability density wave function - however, this doesn't actually describe the probabilities of the system (e.g. nucleus) being in particular states; until measured (interacted with), quantum systems are actually in a superposition of all possible states.
In short, it's not known what causes radioactive decay, but it's not movement in a classical sense; you might be tempted to describe the evolution of the wavefunction as quantum 'movement', but as above, it doesn't describe the state of the system prior to observation.
This is something that is new to me. Thank you for the information. If I were to guess though it appears that we have not yet the capability to detect motion on that scale.
I don't quite understand what you're asking - an isotope is not a standard of motion. Different isotopes have different, but consistent, half-lives, i.e. they each have a set time for (on average) half the number of atoms in any sample to decay.
I will go off on a small tangent explaining my background, so that you know where I am coming from and then I will share my explanation.
I do not have formal training in science beyond a very limited high school experience. I struggled throughout my school experience. When my parents asked for help that is given to those with problems like mine the school system told my parents that I was doing good enough and did not need help.
I was able to make it through school without reading a single book (I am very bad at reading) with a respectable GPA. Science was my best subject and came effortless to the point where I could lay my head down in class and make good grades (the medicine I was taking at the time made me very tired). On the other hand math was not my strong suit.
I want to be clear that I am not saying that I do not try or that I am smart, I try hard and I am not smart. It is just that I face my trials in different ways than most others. I am telling you this to make a point and to explain the "language barrier" that I have with others. I have view points that are very different because I have not learned these things in the traditional sense.
If you ever played dungeons and dragons, I haven't, but I have family who have, I would be more like a sorcerer than a wizard. I don't know why, but somethings I understand without any effort and other things are impossible for me to grasp. I do some reading on the internet now, but it is very limited.
Now to my point the isotope can be a used as a standard of motion. As you have said different isotopes have consistent half lives. This is like a pocket watch for example. A pocket watch makes a good standard of motion because the way in which its gears move are consistent and this allows for an accurate comparison of motion. Imagine if the isotope's half life was not consistent, it would not be good for comparing motion. The same could be said about a pocket watch that has gears that do not work correctly, it would no longer be good for comparing motion.
It only takes relative motion for velocity (special relativistic) time dilation.
I am not sure what you mean here. Funny story though, I thought I figured out relative motion myself and was calling it absolution of movement (explanation is further down). To my understanding time dilation requires both relative motion and whatever it is called when movement requires more energy the faster something moves. Please though if you are willing I would like to know what you mean.
This is meaningless without referents in relative motion. You are stationary, i.e. not moving, in your reference (proper or comoving) frame. You are moving, by definition, relative to other frames.
When I originally thought I had discovered relative motion I called it the absolution of movement. I called relative motion this because movement is an absolute (got confused with the word absolution, but it worked because I was justifying what motion truly is). I can prove this with a simple question. If the Earth is moving and you are on the Earth are you also moving with the Earth? I see relative motion as layers on top of each other. If I jump in a car and the car goes thirty five miles an hour I have just added another layer, the "car layer". This means I am going the Earth's speed and the car's speed added together.
Time dilation occurs in frames observed moving relative to you, and observers in other frames will see your frame time dilated relative to theirs. Observed time dilation between observers in relative motion is symmetric (each will see the other's clock run slow by the same amount) unless one observer is accelerating.
I am sorry for the misunderstanding. This is what I meant when I said everyone on Earth is time dilated because we are all moving the Earth's speed. Since we are all moving the same speed and are affected by the same time dilation and so it is unnoticeable and is what we refer to as "normal".
This sounds like a confused description of special relativity - Lorentz invariance. But when you use terms like 'slow down' that can refer to either velocity or time in this context, it's hard to make sense of it.
I have heard of the Lorentz invariance, but am unsure how to understand it. If you are willing would you please explain it to me. Perhaps when I understand it better I could give you a better explanation of what I am trying to describe.
Thank you for all your input.
Imagine a universe where there is no movement at all. Time must not exist.
Hi, thank you for your post. I do not think time exists in the traditional sense even when things are moving. To my understanding time is actually an emergent property or is derived from matter moving through space. So when you say time must not exist it didn't really exist in the first place with the traditional definition.
If we were to view the universe in your example, a universe with no motion, nothing would ever change because there would be no movement to cause said change. Would you say that would make that universe timeless, something that never changes?
No, since there is no time, and movement requires time.
Movement requiring time is what is traditionally thought and is what I believe to be an illusion. In my first post I showed that to measure time one must compare motion to other motion, most commonly a standard of motion, matter of fact this is the only way in which time can be measured. I have learned recently though there are quantum events we do not totally understand and may not move, but that is besides the point as it is unknown.
Now since measuring time as motion compared to a standard of motion or other motion is the only way time can be known in reality this must be the way in which time exists. This also means for time to exist it requires motion which is the opposite of what you have said.
Thus, if everything stops moving, time stops, and nothing can start it up again. Do you believe this?
If everything somehow had its motion removed and motion could no longer be started, everything to a human not in that same universe would perceive that universe as if time had stopped. Since nothing would be moving anymore nothing would ever change and therefore everything would be what we call timeless.
In way yes I agree with this, but I am unsure if we are on the same page. You may be getting yourself stuck in a loop due the traditional interdependence of time and movement. When you realize motion allows for the comparison of motion (time) the interdependence disappears and the "infinite loop" is no longer a problem. This is what happened to me when I was figuring it out.
