SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 4416
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 4th, 2016, 2:22 pm

Below I illustrate what I think is a new way to synchronize clocks (gedanken experiment). Think about the experiment below: assume first isotropic one-way speed of light and bear in mind two events happening simultaneously in one reference frame under SR not can happen simultaneously in another reference frame. Second think of the experiment when assuming anisotropic one-way speed of light (as first discussed by Larmor in a way that was fully consistent with Michelson and Morley). The clocks on the train and on the embankment are both started with the start-pins. Drop bar synchronization. I recommend starting out studying this thought experiment with assuming Einstein isotropic one-way speed of light.The though experiment is closely related to Einstein` prediction of absolute simultaneity not can exist. In other words Einstein went up against Sir Isaac Newton. I agree on the predictions of SR when using Einstein synchronized clocks, but such clock synchronization runs into logical problem here I think. I do not dispute one will observe relativity of simultaneity with Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks. I simply claim such synchronization gives an apparent relativity of simultaneity and is incomplete.SR is fully consistent with slow clock transportation as these two methods gives same results as I think first shown by Eddington 1924. I suspect however SR runs into logical problems when it comes to Collector synchronization. I do not at all doubt the predictions from SR when using Einstein-Poincare or slow clock transportation. These two methods contains an embedded clock synchronization error as pointed out by J. Levy (2003), myself and others.A New Way of Synchronizing Clocks Across Reference Frames Bear in mind in SR two distant events that happen simultaneously in one reference frame cannot happen simultaneously as observed from any other reference frame. Further anisotropic one-way speed of light dose not exist in the SR view. Try to solve the paradox introduced in the paper without relying on anisotropic one-way speed of light. (see also figure 2 in paper). Again I am not questioning what one will observe with Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks, but there are possibly other ways to synchronize clocks that uncover a deeper insight into the depth of reality.Illustration by Line Halsnes based on one of my childish drawings.
Last edited by Collector on May 4th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 4416
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 4th, 2016, 5:14 pm

in the paper above I minimized the use of math. however Einsteins relativity of simultaneity result can also be derived directly from anisotropic one-way speeds of light, I then get the following end results' [$]\hat{t}_{e,1,2,am}-\hat{t}_{e,1,2,bm}=\frac{L_{1,1}(v_2-v_1)}{c^2\sqrt{1-\frac{v_2^2}{c^2}}\sqrt{1-\frac{v_1^2}{c^2}}}[$]In the formula above [$]v_1 [$] and [$]v_2 [$] are the two frames speeds against the void as measured from the void-frame. The result looks very different than Einstein SR relativity of simultaneity that is given by the well known formula[$]\frac{Lv_e}{c^2\sqrt{1-\frac{v_e^2}{c^2}}}[$]here [$]v_e[$] is the relative speed between two frames as measured with Einstein synchronized clocks. The relationship between [$]v_1[$], [$]v_2[$] and [$]v_e[$] is given by[$]v_e=\frac{v_2-v_1}{1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}}[$]This is not directly related to velocity addition in SR. [$]v_1[$], [$]v_2[$] are the speeds against the void that do not even exist in SR. We can basically not even detect [$]v_1[$] and [$]v_2[$] when using Einstein synchronized clocks (as first pointed out by Poincare), but we can easily observe [$]v_e[$] (normally just called v in standard physics literature). What is interesting is that the formula derived from anisotropic one-way speed of light when using Einstein synchronized clocks is identical to SR result[$] \begin{eqnarray} \hat{t}_{e,1,2,am}-\hat{t}_{e,1,2,bm}&=&\frac{L_{1,1}(v_2-v_1)}{c^2\sqrt{1-\frac{v_2^2}{c^2}}\sqrt{1-\frac{v_1^2}{c^2}}} \nonumber \\ \hat{t}_{e,1,2,am}-\hat{t}_{e,1,2,bm}&=&\frac{L_{1,1}(v_2-v_1)}{c^2\sqrt{1-\frac{v_1^2}{c^2}-\frac{v_2^2}{c^2}+\frac{v_1^2v_2^2}{c^4}}} \nonumber \\ \hat{t}_{e,1,2,am}-\hat{t}_{e,1,2,bm}&=&\frac{L_{1,1}\frac{(v_2-v_1)}{\left(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}\right)}}{c^2\frac{1}{\left(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}\right)}\sqrt{\left(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}\right)^2-\frac{(v_2-v_1)^2}{c^2}}} \nonumber \\ \hat{t}_{e,1,2,am}-\hat{t}_{e,1,2,bm}&=&\frac{L_{1,1}\frac{(v_2-v_1)}{\left(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}\right)}}{c^2\sqrt{\frac{\left(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}\right)^2}{\left(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}\right)^2}-\frac{\frac{(v_2-v_1)^2}{c^2}}{\left(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}\right)^2}}} \nonumber \\ \hat{t}_{e,1,2,am}-\hat{t}_{e,1,2,bm}&=&\frac{L_{1,1}\frac{(v_2-v_1)}{\left(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}\right)}}{c^2\sqrt{1-\frac{\frac{(v_2-v_1)^2}{\left(1-\frac{v_1v_2}{c^2}\right)^2}}{c^2}}} \nonumber \\ \hat{t}_{e,1,2,am}-\hat{t}_{e,1,2,bm}&=&\frac{L_{1,1}v_e}{c^2\sqrt{1-\frac{v_e^2}{c^2}}} \end{eqnarray}[$] But from the deeper insight we know SR relativity of simultaneity is an apparent simultaneity, in addition we have absolute simultaneity that "only" can be detected by a few other type of clock synchronization procedures. That SR relativity of simultaneity can be derived from anisotropic one-way speed of light when using Einstein synchronized clocks has indirectly first been shown by Levy (2003) that I think was the very first to show the Lorentz transformation is what one get from ether theory when using Einstein synchronized clocks (also holding between any two moving frames). And from the Lorentz transformation one get the SR result. First when using clock synchronization procedures that capture the deeper reality of anisotropic one-way speed of light we get an additional space-time transformation and we also get absolute simultaneity in addition to relativity of simultaneity. Absolute simultaneity is the deeper reality that contains no clock synchronization errors, relativity of simultaneity is an apparent effect (that we indeed will observe with Einstein synchronized clocks) that contains clock synchronization errors.One do not need to drink Absolute Vodka to figure out Absolute simultaneity. Newton was right after all and there was no Absolute vodka at his time!More derivations here The Return of Absolute Simultaneity and its Relationship to Einstein's Relativity of SimultaneityOne point to Newton! More articles on this topic in the pipeline!
Last edited by Collector on May 3rd, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Alan
Posts: 9975
Joined: December 19th, 2001, 4:01 am
Location: California
Contact:

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 1:15 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CollectorThe clocks on the train and on the embankment are both started with the start-pins. Drop bar synchronization. I recommend starting out studying this thought experiment with assuming Einstein isotropic one-way speed of light.The though experiment is closely related to Einstein` prediction of absolute simultaneity not can exist. In other words Einstein went up against Sir Isaac Newton. I agree on the predictions of SR when using Einstein synchronized clocks, but such clock synchronization runs into logical problem here I think. I do not dispute one will observe relativity of simultaneity with Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks. I simply claim such synchronization gives an apparent relativity of simultaneity and is incomplete.SR is fully consistent with slow clock transportation as these two methods gives same results as I think first shown by Eddington 1924. I suspect however SR runs into logical problems when it comes to Collector synchronization. I do not at all doubt the predictions from SR when using Einstein-Poincare or slow clock transportation. These two methods contains an embedded clock synchronization error as pointed out by J. Levy (2003), myself and others.It's been decades since I thought about this stuff, but anyway, here is my initial reaction. If I have it right, "Collector synchronization" is defined by the use of a (rigid) drop bar, whose drop is triggered by an initial vertical impulse from the center of a bar on a moving train.I believe (see below) that a 'paradox' only arises if you indeed treat the bar as rigid, but such rigidity is not possible -- if SR is correct.To elaborate, your discussion in the paper and the illustrations give the impression, at least to me, that once that initial vertical impulse is given, the two ends of the bar begin *immediately* (from the point of view of the train ref. frame) moving downward.This is what I mean by 'rigid'.But such rigidity would be impossible -- since the impulse signal must travel at a finite speed (no faster than c) from the center of the bar to the ends.For simplicity, let's assume that the impulse signal propagates from the center to the ends of the drop bar at the speed of light.Let's say the ends of the bar are each 1 light-minute from the center. So, from the train reference, once the vertical impulse from the center begins,it takes 1 minute before the ends start to move downward. Of course, "visually" (from the center of the train) one would not see the two ends move until 2 minutes, but this issimply the round trip light travel time, and the experimenter on the train would correct for this before recording the correct time of the end-of-the-bar movement.In any event, the bar would not move rigidly, but there would be a symmetrical deformation about the center from the point of view of the train frame.How would things look from the embankment reference frame? Under conventional SR, it seems to me the vertical impulse signal would arrive at the rear end of drop bar before arriving at the front end since: (i) the signal itself would *still* be propagating in both directions at c, but(ii) the rear end of the bar is moving toward the source of the signal, and the front end of the bar is moving away from it Again "visually", (from the embankment) one might have to do some corrections if one were looking through a telescope to see the ends move, but after making such corrections, the two signals would not be recorded to arrive simultaneously at the ends (in the embankment reference frame).So, assuming SR to be correct, I don't see any apparent paradox generated by this Collector synchronization mechanism.
Last edited by Alan on May 4th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 4416
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 2:04 pm

"If I have it right, "Collector synchronization" is defined by the use of a (rigid) drop bar, "Thanks for comments. I did not think of the bar as rigid, but possibly not clear from my text, and I will look considerably closer at it. I do not question how things are observed from Einstein synchronized clocks as one then clearly will have relativity of simultaneity. I am question if SR gives a complete picture. But yes possibly my drop-bar thought experiment is not bringing us any further here.I do not think of the bar as rigid, but I think the reason one in reality not will observe naive absolute simultaneity is due to anisotropic true one-way speed of light, that supposedly has been detected by a series of independent experiments, but more or less totally ignored by the physics community. The bar also undergoes length contraction, the length contraction as measured from Einstein synchronized clocks gives SR length contraction. The length contraction as measured with clocks without synchronization error is different and necessary to show one-way speed of light anisotropy is consistent with SR when using Einstein synchronized clock. Further the bar do not drop instantaneously, it indeed depends on speed of light.Marinov claimed in several experience to have detected anisotropic one-way speed of light using a mechanical device (driven by a single engine) that basically can be considered a single clock that ticks at the same rate over a long space area rather than in a local point. A Newtonian clock so to say. Paul Wesley theoretically made a similar device that is someway easier to understand, see figure below. Marinov built a series of such devices (all based on the same principle) and detected anisotropy in the one-way speed of light that also varied with the earth rotation (the last point rather important) as one would expect from theories built on the principles of Larmor and FitzGerald. The Marinov experiment has been ignored and or tried explained away because it uses a rotational device. Marinov went very carefully through a long series of other experiment set ups and concluded that only certain classes of experiments could detect anisotropy in the one-way speed of light, the coupled shutter experiments one of the few devices that likely can do this.Torr and Kohlen 1984 did a very different and independent type of set up (with no rotation device involved) using atomic clocks (not relaying on Einstein synchronization) and again found anisotropic one way speed of light, that in similar way varied (not random) over a 24 hour period. I have not fully understood their experiment yet. Sadly the Marinov experiments has never been repeated. One famous physics institution claimed it was to difficult to perform (nice way of brushing him off). I have been in contacts with mechanics (making precision tools) that claim we can build a similar device to give considerably higher precision today (I am then not thinking of the Wesley version, but of a more robust Marinov device). It is the laser technology in making metal parts that will give us some extra precision today, the calculations have been done. And yes access to faster engines, but that is not without risk. Max accuracy = large disks, long axel and very high RPM. According to mechanics it should be done in a deep basement in case anything goes wrong, the disks (if axel breaks for strange reasons) will go straight through the wall.Marinov also did not relay on inference pattern screen (in some of his experiments) but on light intensity (in somewhat different set-up as illustrated above. I think one should be very careful when studies are based on inference patterns as they are based on assumed theories on that we understand the light waves fully. The wavelength cannot be found for example from frequency or assumed one-way speed if one step outside SR. Recent Sagnac type experiments have given very different results when using different methods here. There is likely something not fully understood yet.If my thought experiment described in paper below can add anything here is not clear yet.
Last edited by Collector on May 4th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 2:57 pm

Any propagation of accelerations -- either gross accelerations or vibrations -- in a mechanical system will be limited by the speed of sound in the material. And if the material is anisotropic (e.g., variations in temperature, dimensions, alloy, etc.), the speeds will appear anisotropic.
 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 4416
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 3:13 pm

I think it boils down toEverything in SR is actually also consistent with underlying one-way speed of light being anisotropic as shown in quite detail by series of researchers (the sum of them). Still anisotropic one-way speed of light is not needed if we never can detect motion against ether or find experiments that not can be explained by SR (in flat space time). The one-way speed of light as measure by Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks must be isotropic and equal to the round-trip speed of light per definition and based on set ups that uses Einstein synchronized clocks or slow clock transportation synchronization..Or can we come up with experiments that are inconsistent with SR?Most physicists seems to claim SR already proven and that there is not necessary to question the fundament of SR anymore. A small grope of physicists thinks we not can detect anisotropy in the one-way speed of light, but they still prefer to hold on to ether view and a anisotropic one-way speed of light. Basically the Poincare view. This gives same predictions as SR, but very different interpretations and some would say more logic (others would say less logic than SR). There are still physicists around with this view. Should we reject things we never can measure even if such ideas possibly gives interesting and more logical explanation of the world? (logic is possibly subjective without experiments deciding for us?)Others physicists (and some farmers like me) suspect we already have good indictions that we have detected motion against the ether (void) through a series of one-way experiments (and some other methods) that have been mostly ignored. If these experiments holds up when one day repeated them, then we would need a more extensive theory where SR is a special case holding as long as we use Einstein synchronized clocks. A series of independent experiments claiming they have found anisotropic one-way speed of light that varies regularly over 24 hour period (naturally with some margin of error) should be repeated, as we would suspect under atomism and ether theories (enter theories are in my view incomplete atomism as they have the ether but lack the fundamental particle). Why would so many independent researchers with independent methods claim the same (anisotropic one-way speed of light)? And yes they have accounted for temperature variations etc. But they could naturally also all be wrong.
Last edited by Collector on May 4th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 4416
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 3:41 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaAny propagation of accelerations -- either gross accelerations or vibrations -- in a mechanical system will be limited by the speed of sound in the material. And if the material is anisotropic (e.g., variations in temperature, dimensions, alloy, etc.), the speeds will appear anisotropic.So this could possibly be a explanation for some anisotropic one-way way speed of light mechanical devices? This could however not explain their observed 24 hour deterministic variations related to earth rotation (as expected from ether theories and as observed, even when temperature very well controlled). Such one-way speed of experiments is even giving about same speed of earth against CMB as other methods not related to one-way speed of light measurements. A few of them listed by Wesly and Mostein .Table by Wesley and Mostein.As I indicated before (some other thread) there seems to be too much of a coincident here to not take these one-way experiments more seriously. Why should for example Muon Flux Anisotropy and one-way speed of light experiments give so similar results on solar system speed? One-way speed experiment if isotropic and some source giving anisotropy not related to the motion against ether/void should have extremely low probability of matching up with for example muon flux anisotropy experiments. Yes margins of errors in the experiment etc., but these one-way experiments are ignored when they should be investigated and repeated. Too many anisotropic effect seems to line up very nicely with one-way experiments of Marinov and others to ignore them.How is this related to my though experiment. The drop-bar is not rigid and to derive relativity of simultaneity from anisotropic one-way speed of light we need to go back to Larmor and FitzGerald as shown in my derivations paper 2. Their framework needs extension as they only covered ether frame against a moving frame, we need two moving frames to cover it and to compare to SR. This to show SR is indeed fully consistent with anisotropic one-way speed of light and a length contraction (and expansion) different than SR as long as we are using Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks. The FitzGerald, Larmor (and initial Lorentz) length contraction is not the same as Einstein length contraction. Well Lorentz changed his view after influence from Poincare and after 1905 likely no longer assumed v was the speed against the ether, but just a relative speed as measured with Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks. Larmor held on to that SR was incomplete not taking into account the Æther, and I think Larmor was right after all.Is my thought experiment (paper 1) uncovering anything about SR, unclear I would say. Is it even introducing a paradox? hemmI will soon introduce another paradox related to relativity os simultaneity.
Last edited by Collector on May 4th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 8:05 pm

Maybe the temperature was well controlled and maybe it was not. I've heard of these kinds of experiments being ruined just because the room lights were on during the day and off during the night or the entire building structure was warming up and cooling off with diurnal or seasonal cycles.I'm not saying the Marinov experiments are wrong, but it would be good to repeat them.
 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 4416
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 8:34 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaMaybe the temperature was well controlled and maybe it was not. I've heard of these kinds of experiments being ruined just because the room lights were on during the day and off during the night or the entire building structure was warming up and cooling off with diurnal or seasonal cycles.I'm not saying the Marinov experiments are wrong, but it would be good to repeat them.Yes I think they should be repeated. In particular the Torr Kohlen experiment was supposedly well temperate controlled: "Thermal control was achieved to within +-1K over a diurnal cycle..." Ronald de Witt did similar experiment for Belgacom in 1991 and found very similar results, claimed anisotropic one-way.I think the world deserves some solid funding to once and "for all" find out if one-way speed of light is anisotropic or isotropic or if it simply is impossible to measure it. Take some money from LHC? Or must we fund it by high speed trading?
Last edited by Collector on May 4th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 8:47 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CollectorQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaMaybe the temperature was well controlled and maybe it was not. I've heard of these kinds of experiments being ruined just because the room lights were on during the day and off during the night or the entire building structure was warming up and cooling off with diurnal or seasonal cycles.I'm not saying the Marinov experiments are wrong, but it would be good to repeat them.Yes I think they should be repeated. In particular the Torr Kohlen experiment was supposedly well temperate controlled: "Thermal control was achieved to within +-1K over a diurnal cycle..." Ronald de Witt did similar experiment for Belgacom in 1991 and found very similar results, claimed anisotropic one-way.I think the world deserves some solid funding to once and "for all" find out if one-way speed of light is anisotropic or isotropic or if it simply is impossible to measure it. Take some money from LHC? Or must we fund it by high speed trading?±1K is horrible! A one meter steel bar changes length ±12,000 nanometers (±17,000 lambda of red light) over that range. For proper thermal control in an interferometric system, I'd expect control (or compensation) at the microKelvin level unless the design is intrinsically robust to temperature.I do agree about the funding. Would it really be that expensive to replicate?
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 8:51 pm

What about using GPS satellite signals? Wouldn't they be subject to this anisotropic effect? And with distances of O(20,000km), even a small anisotropy would create a noticeable time-of-flight differences between "upstream" vs. "downstream" satellites.
Last edited by Traden4Alpha on May 4th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 4416
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 5th, 2016, 9:03 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CollectorQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaMaybe the temperature was well controlled and maybe it was not. I've heard of these kinds of experiments being ruined just because the room lights were on during the day and off during the night or the entire building structure was warming up and cooling off with diurnal or seasonal cycles.I'm not saying the Marinov experiments are wrong, but it would be good to repeat them.Yes I think they should be repeated. In particular the Torr Kohlen experiment was supposedly well temperate controlled: "Thermal control was achieved to within +-1K over a diurnal cycle..." Ronald de Witt did similar experiment for Belgacom in 1991 and found very similar results, claimed anisotropic one-way.I think the world deserves some solid funding to once and "for all" find out if one-way speed of light is anisotropic or isotropic or if it simply is impossible to measure it. Take some money from LHC? Or must we fund it by high speed trading?±1K is horrible! A one meter steel bar changes length ±12,000 nanometers (±17,000 lambda of red light) over that range. For proper thermal control in an interferometric system, I'd expect control (or compensation) at the microKelvin level unless the design is intrinsically robust to temperature.I do agree about the funding. Would it really be that expensive to replicate?it was not interferometric, 500 meter cable (coaxial I think) (and 1.5km in the Belgacom experiment) and Rubidium clocks (that was set up in a way to supposedly not depend on any clocks synchronization). If only one of these experiments had claimed such findings I would be very skeptical. But a series of them find similar velocities and similar 24 hour pattern (and thereby similar direction of the solar system travel). When these again gives similar results as Muon Flux Anisotropy etc, then I suspect one could be on to something. Only way to find out one way or the other is to repeat experiments under strict control (temp control etc) by more gropes.
Last edited by Collector on May 4th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Collector
Topic Author
Posts: 4416
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 15th, 2016, 6:33 pm

Gift, Stephan (2015): "Burst of trouble for relativity: New test of light speed constancy using electromagnetic signal pulses from a Geostationary satellite" Physics Essays, Volume 28, Number 1"A simple yet reliable light speed test using electromagnetic signal bursts from a geostationary GPS satellite to ground-based receivers and an accurate time transfer algorithm is presented. Unlike a recent light speed test by Abdo et al. [Nature 462, 331 (2009)], which utilized a gamma-ray burst from an astrophysical source in what has been described as a 'burst of support for relativity' [G. Amelino-Camelia, Nature 462, 291 (2009)], the results of this new test contradict the Lorentz Invariance postulate relating to light speed constancy and therefore the test represents a `burst of trouble' for the theory."
Last edited by Collector on May 14th, 2016, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ISayMoo
Posts: 2275
Joined: September 30th, 2015, 8:30 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 15th, 2016, 7:12 pm

They say that the best predictor for cranks is that they try to discuss theory of relativity. Much better than option pricing models, I think.
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 27017
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

New Clock Synchronization Gedanken Experiment

May 15th, 2016, 7:17 pm

ISayBoo.This is the OT and we enjoy our far ranging physics discussions here.Run along back to the Careers forum now, little MooMoo, or a deluge of Charmed Quarks might start raining down on your fuzzy little head. :)
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On