Broken clock


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Broken clock

Author Message
Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32106
Credit: 13,810,456
RAC: 24,750
United Kingdom
Message 1362548 - Posted: 29 Apr 2013, 15:56:35 UTC

A broken clock is right twice per day.

Scientifically that is wrong. It goes instantaneously from being "too early" to "too late". There is no absolute instant in time when it is exactly correct. It's a popular misconception.

That is my opinion, am I right?

Glenn savill
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 2603
Credit: 3,836,032
RAC: 23,294
Australia
Message 1362551 - Posted: 29 Apr 2013, 16:02:33 UTC - in response to Message 1362548.

Ill bight .....


I will say it is right twice a day in 12hrs mode

MM on second thought the Earth rotation mite have something to do with it being wrong ....?
____________

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 7084
Credit: 27,569,820
RAC: 36,164
United Kingdom
Message 1362570 - Posted: 29 Apr 2013, 16:28:49 UTC

It really depends on you definition of "right" and "broken".

If it is an analogue clock with no second hand it would be difficult to say exactly what second it stopped, so plausible.

If it did have a second hand then it depends on how far you want to break time down into, milli, micro or nano seconds, even then with an analogue clock, it might be difficult to tell the exact time it stopped. If you had the finest measuring equipment on the planet then yes the instant of time when a working clock and the broken clock read the same would be so small to be non existent, so busted!

Of course if you just take the spirit of the saying and happened to look at the broken clock when the hands appeared to be in the exact same position as a similar clock you could well believe that both were telling the same time, so confirmed.

Of course if it was a digital clock, all bests are off. :-0



____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32106
Credit: 13,810,456
RAC: 24,750
United Kingdom
Message 1362575 - Posted: 29 Apr 2013, 16:36:29 UTC

Take for example a stopped clock, it doesn't matter whether it is analogue or digital, that is displaying 12 midday.

At 1 trillionths of a second to midday, that clock is fast
At 1 trillionths of a second past midday, that clock is slow

Time does not stand still, therefore in theory there is no one instant in time that the clock is "correct".

In terms of "indicated time" it might be perceived by the observer to be so, I will grant you.

Glenn savill
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 99
Posts: 2603
Credit: 3,836,032
RAC: 23,294
Australia
Message 1362600 - Posted: 29 Apr 2013, 17:10:36 UTC - in response to Message 1362575.

What about midday
not 1 tillion to
or 1 tillion past
but midday 1200hrs
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32106
Credit: 13,810,456
RAC: 24,750
United Kingdom
Message 1362613 - Posted: 29 Apr 2013, 17:23:03 UTC

Time does not stand still, therefore in theory there is no one instant in time that the clock is at midday. It is always going to be fast or slow. whether it is a billionth, trillionth, zillionth of a second is irrelevant.

For all practical purposes to an earthbound observer, a stopped clock WILL be a reasonably accurate display of the current time twice a day on a 12 hour clock-face. But scientifically it simply cannot do that. That is my point :-)

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,505,673
RAC: 1,615
United States
Message 1362636 - Posted: 29 Apr 2013, 18:24:01 UTC - in response to Message 1362613.

Time does not stand still, therefore in theory there is no one instant in time that the clock is at midday. It is always going to be fast or slow. whether it is a billionth, trillionth, zillionth of a second is irrelevant.

For all practical purposes to an earthbound observer, a stopped clock WILL be a reasonably accurate display of the current time twice a day on a 12 hour clock-face. But scientifically it simply cannot do that. That is my point :-)


A stopped clock is neither fast nor slow. It is stopped.

Chris is stuck in Xeno's paradox, pre-Leibniz and pre-Newton, thinking all limits are limits that cannot be reached, only approached.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32106
Credit: 13,810,456
RAC: 24,750
United Kingdom
Message 1362650 - Posted: 29 Apr 2013, 19:00:04 UTC

Chris is stuck in Xeno's paradox, pre-Leibniz and pre-Newton, thinking all limits are limits that cannot be reached, only approached.

Gosh, it really is going to be one of those weeks .....

Who was it that said only today that I thought that Einstein was wrong and that we can travel faster than light.

I believe that we can PASS pre supposed limits not just approach them.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,300,802
RAC: 18,066
United States
Message 1362686 - Posted: 29 Apr 2013, 20:25:20 UTC

Lets solve this another way. One plank unit of time before noon, it is wrong. One plank unit later: is it noon, or still before or past? Another plank unit later and it is obviously past noon. But what about that middle plank unit?

As physics seemingly tells us the smallest unit of time is a plank unit, this in essence digitizes time. If time is digital, then it becomes an exercise in words, if noon falls on a plank unit. If time is analog, then it must pass through noon, as limit theory tell us. If time is digital it may be out of phase with the passage of plank units.

I think the answer is: Which theory of the Universe do you believe in.

____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8503
Credit: 4,195,952
RAC: 1,747
United Kingdom
Message 1362732 - Posted: 30 Apr 2013, 0:24:34 UTC - in response to Message 1362650.
Last modified: 30 Apr 2013, 0:25:46 UTC

Chris is stuck in Xeno's paradox, pre-Leibniz and pre-Newton, thinking all limits are limits that cannot be reached, only approached.

Gosh, it really is going to be one of those weeks .....

Who was it that said only today that I thought that Einstein was wrong and that we can travel faster than light. ...


More fundamentally: Is what we call "the passage of time" continuous or in discrete quanta?

Or is all this lost in Schrodinger uncertainty of quantum philosophy??


(Whatever your time zone... Would that make a broken 12-hour clock 'right' 48 times a day?... ;-) )

Keep searching,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Michel448a
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 00
Posts: 1201
Credit: 2,891,635
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1362736 - Posted: 30 Apr 2013, 1:28:12 UTC
Last modified: 30 Apr 2013, 1:29:10 UTC

the clock we use and which match our 24 hrs planet rotation is only good ... for here, on earth.

any other civilisation in the universe will use a different clock, based on their planet or something else.
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2599
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 46
United States
Message 1362745 - Posted: 30 Apr 2013, 3:22:59 UTC - in response to Message 1362736.

The point is that you cannot observe things with precision at the very small Planck limits. Since time is the illusion by which we order events in our lives--it stands to reason that we might as well say that time advances digitally at one Planck interval after another since we cannot observe any event that is smaller in time and space.

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,797,699
RAC: 1,325
United States
Message 1362765 - Posted: 30 Apr 2013, 5:24:30 UTC

No matter what time the broken clock is at, there will be two points in 24 hours in which the actual time EXACTLY coincides with the broken clock. No matter how accurate a time you want to measure to.

The only argument is how long is the time the same? well, only as long as the resolution you are measuring to. :-)
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1630
Credit: 575,274
RAC: 334
United States
Message 1362785 - Posted: 30 Apr 2013, 6:13:51 UTC
Last modified: 30 Apr 2013, 6:14:50 UTC

A stopped analog clock displays the correct time twice a day in my book. A stopped digital clock in my experience has a blank display.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32106
Credit: 13,810,456
RAC: 24,750
United Kingdom
Message 1362856 - Posted: 30 Apr 2013, 10:35:28 UTC

it stands to reason that we might as well say that time advances digitally at one Planck interval after another

I don't think that is correct. Time is continuous and flowing, not in discrete steps. The answer surely is that in "theory" a stopped clock is instantaneously fast then slow, with no interval between the two. But for all practical purposes via observation, it will give a pretty good indication of the time twice a day.

This is like the old conundrum about does a piston in an engine remain stationary at any time in its stroke.

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 7084
Credit: 27,569,820
RAC: 36,164
United Kingdom
Message 1362884 - Posted: 30 Apr 2013, 12:46:30 UTC

Time is continuous and flowing, not in discrete steps.

Actually we are not talking about actual time flow but our perception of it. The premise was "a broken clock is right twice a day" Perhaps better expressed as " an analog clock, with hands that is not running will tell the correct time twice a day" Now if that clock was a modern "stepping" clock with a second hand. As a normal human being we would see it say the correct time to the second twice a day.

As for "Planck time" I don't have a vacuum handy nor a way of measuring light travelling 1.616199(97)×10−35 meters!!



____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12758
Credit: 7,300,802
RAC: 18,066
United States
Message 1362893 - Posted: 30 Apr 2013, 13:45:17 UTC

As to plank time, we can never know when noon is to better than a plank time. That is many orders of magnitude smaller than the best atomic clocks presently keep time. So we don't know when noon is. But we know when it is before noon, and when it is afternoon so we deduce that at some point between these it must have been noon. Therefore the clock must have been right somewhere between these two points. The only exception can be if time is quantized and no point happens to fall on noon.

____________

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Broken clock

Copyright © 2014 University of California