Relativity?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

davidm wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:27 pm
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
This may be a ridiculous clarifying question but what do you mean by "At the speed of light, there can be no photon exchange?"
Did you miss the part where he writes: ... because it would require photons to exceed the speed of light?
NO I did not. But do you, or them, think or believe that photons only travel one way in the Universe. There are countless photon exchanges always happening because there are countless photons traveling, at the speed of light by the way, in ALL directions. Did you miss the subtlety in My "ridiculous" clarifying question?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

davidm wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:48 pm With regard to the differences between the depictions of the two stick figures in the animation:

Assume the traveling dude enters a spaceship in the rest frame that is 200 feet long in the horizontal direction.

Now assume he is flying over the ground-frame dude at 99.99 percent the speed of light.

The ground dude will judge (correctly) that the space ship flying past overhead is three feet long.

Relativity! Pretty cool, huh? 8)
That is NOT cool. Just natural.

Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. Always has been and always will be.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:19 pm
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:50 am
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 am
Ken, keep on the track:
Keep on what track?

Is that the same track that people have been on for years now and which is not really leading people closer to any actual new discoveries as of late? It is also the same track that is still being disputed and disagreed with?

Why not leave that well-trodden, ambiguous, maze of a track and just move onto a track that actually leads us into discovering new and further knowledge instead?

I have heard of experiments that were done, and when those experiments are fully looked at and the biases that played a part before and during the experiments were done are fully looked into also, then further knowledge will be discovered. But for now, if you want to stay on this boring track and look at this once again, we can.
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 amIf the twin in the fast spaceship could see his earthwalking brother, the brother would be moving very quickly. Super speed.
Allegedly.

Also, in what direction is the "fast" spaceship supposedly travelling?
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 amIf the earth walker could see his flying brother, he would appear motionless.
Or, that brother would appear to be in fast motion, especially considering that brother is in a "fast" spaceship.
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 amFor the flyer, everything on the spaceship appears normal.
If you say so.
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 amFor the walker, everything on earth appears normal.
Again, if you say so.
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 amWhen the flyer returns, he looks as he did when he left.
How far did this flyer go? For how long was this flyer gone? And, how fast was this flyer "flying"?
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 amHowever, the earth walker is old and gray, on his last legs.
The earth walker could have been relatively "old", ('old' has no actual meaning if it is not in relation to some thing else) grey, and on their "last" legs before brother flyer went flying.

I forget the name of story, but here’s a great plot. A starship pilot lands on earth for some downtime. He goes to a public place and gives a child a rare space gem. It’s red, and he tells her where it’s from. He then leaves for his next flight to the stars. I think he’s flying goods. It’s the usual short flight. He picks up another gem and returns to earth for his time off. He goes to the park. He does the same thing with another kid. He gives the gem to a kid. Then, he does something else that he didn’t do the first time. He somehow finds the first kid. She is now a woman, and she has thought of him all of her life. For awhile he has a very good friend, until his next trip to the stars.
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 amMany of the details escape me because I read it when I was a kid. But that’s the gist. It was a kid’s story, so don’t get weird.
What do you mean by "don't get weird"?

And, quite a few people in this forum might tell you that I can not get weird as I was already weird before.
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:56 amSo, what do you think, Ken?
The thinking in this head right now is, 'I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say by that "great" plot.
Not that track. Sheesh.
That's the old track that leads to the station of, "Huh?"
There's a side rail, called Duh.

This is the science forum.
Give us a world, not the same old end of the line.

Please provide us with a synopsis of the experiments that you referenced that were designed to verify the theory of relativity, and qualify their validity.
When did I ever reference any experiments that were supposedly designed to verify the theory of relativity?

I do NOT look at and follow theories. I look at what IS and observe that.
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:19 pmIf you can't or won't, no problemo.
I can not and thus will not give you some thing that I do NOT have.

I am asking questions about HOW EXACTLY can a clock supposedly stop and a human being supposedly stop ageing if they could travel at the speed of light. I am still waiting for some sort of reply, by the way.
Walker wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:19 pmHowever, one request. Refrain from the questions just this one time when educating, can'ting, or won'ting. So you can see what it feels like, and the reality of looking within for answers.
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here.

What answer are you looking for? I will see if I can help you out.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:02 pm
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pmThis may be a ridiculous clarifying question but what do you mean by "At the speed of light, there can be no photon exchange?"
It's yer basic Pythagoras. Imagine the two atoms moving parallel to each other. Suppose they are 3mm apart. Now imagine they have moved 4mm, so that where they were, and where they are now, define the corners of a rectangle which is 3mm by 4mm. In order to pass from one atom to the other, a photon has to take a diagonal path the cuts the rectangle into two right angled triangles. From Pythagoras, we know that the length of that diagonal path is 5mm. If the atoms are travelling at the same speed as the photons (which as davidm points out; they can't, but never mind), then the two atoms and the photon, will all travel 4mm. In other words, the photon cannot reach the target atom.
Yes I know all this, but why is there an assumption that ALL photons ALL travel in the exact same one direction?

ALL photons travel at the speed of light and they still exchange.
uwot wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:02 pm
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pmDo you think photons only travel one way in the whole entire Universe?
I may be crazy. But not that crazy.
So, you agree that there is photon exchange even though photons travel at the speed of light?
uwot wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:02 pm
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pmTo Me, it would not matter if at rest or travelling at the speed of light or any thing in between, photons are travelling in all directions. So, it would not matter at all if travelling at the speed of light there will obviously be light coming from the opposite and from all other directions also, at the speed of light too. There will be photon exchange no matter what because light photons travel in ALL directions. This is because there is a light source in ALL directions in the Universe. Therefore , there will be a metabolic event that happens always that will cause the ageing process, no matter if traveling at the speed of light or at rest, or anywhere in between.
Yeah. Somewhere up-thread, I said something about collisions; so yes, things travelling at the speed of light will hit other stuff. But the normal interactions that occur between the atoms that make up, for instance, a human body, will not happen.
Why not?

What are "normal" interactions? Are they the ones human beings experience and therefore they are only what human beings are used to?

uwot wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:02 pm
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:47 am
Fair enough. The atoms get from one place to another, but the types of interactions, the exchange of photons, for example, that take place between atoms at sub-light speed, simply cannot happen; if light speed really is the limit.
I do not know what you are trying to get at here?
More or less what I said above.
What do you mean by, "The atoms get from one place to another, but the types of interactions, the exchange of photons, for example, that take place between atoms at sub-light speed, simply cannot happen"?
uwot wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:02 pm
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:47 am What experiments like Hafele-Keating, and relativistic muon decay (more wiki for you: .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dila ... _particles ) is that speed does affect the rate at which things happen.
What actual evidence is there for this? The supposed evidence I have seen does not add up.
Well, there's Hafele-Keating et al, and muon decay, as per the link provided. If you can show why it doesn't add up, the Nobel Prize is in the post.
What is it with human beings and prizes, especially some prize labeled "nobel"?

Human beings really have misplaced their want of recognition, for being recognized for who they truly are, with being just recognized for some useless thing and for some thing that has been absolutely wrongly been given importance.

I have previously said here the last thing I want is some sort of prize.

I would much prefer to be heard and listened to, and then recognized and accepted for who I truly am. But anyway each to their own.

Why it does not add up is because if it takes a certain amount of time for a human being to travel some where, then that does NOT mean that that human being comes back, to where they left from, younger than the human beings of the same age, just because that human being traveled at a certain speed.

If a human body takes 10.01 years to travel a distance of 10 light years, then how much has that human body aged?

If people agree that it takes a photon 10 years to travel a distance of 10 light years, then why do the same people insist on things like it would take the human being "next to no time" and/or "the human body would age next to nothing" if a human being did the same distance in 10.01 years?

If a human being traveled from earth at 99.99% of the speed of light in a straight line and turned around and come back to earth, for four years, then how much has that human being aged and how much has the human beings on earth aged?

When people look at this from the perspective from being on earth only do they give the same answer as the people who look at this from the perspective from being on earth AND from the perspective of being the traveler also?
uwot wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:02 pm
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pmTo Me, photon exchange still happens and according to you photon exchange is the basis for all chemical reactions.
The key word is exchange. You are quite right that the universe is awash with photons, and that atoms will collide with them, but those sort of collisions are not the same as the interactions that make a collection of atoms a coherent entity, such as a human body; much less a living, or thinking one.
What do you mean, "but those sort of collisions are not the same as the interactions that make a collection of atoms a coherent entity, such as a human body; much less a living, or thinking one"?

THOSE SORTS OF COLLISIONS are the EXACT SAME INTERACTIONS that have and continue to make ALL bodies, including those ones that are able to think.
uwot wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:02 pm
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pmAre you capable of imagining IF a human being with a functioning brain was traveling at the speed of light and looking at them self in mirror?
Yup, before I've even brushed my teeth.
ken wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:28 pmIF you are capable of that, then what would be happening? Would that human body continue to age, or would it just stop ageing but continue to live, or would it just stop ageing and also stop breathing and stop pumping blood?
It would be a collection of atoms, all travelling in the same direction. The only interactions that could occur, would be with the atoms behind. All 'normal' processes would cease. I also happen to think that consciousness would, at least, be suspended and probably terminated, because, I suspect, consciousness is a pattern of brain states, and the chance of the same brain state re-establishing itself once it had been so catastrophically interrupted are about the same as dropping a skip load of cards from a mountain top, and dealing everyone on the planet a Royal Flush. (This is a completely made up statistic, and I will happily defer to anyone who can be arsed to do the sums.)
I asked you, "Are capable of imagining IF ...". You answered, "Yep, before I've even brushed my teeth." YET when you went to answer the question about what would happen you instantly went from imagining, what I asked you if you could, to only looking from what information is already stored within the brain within that head. You might have been capable of imagining what I asked you if you could, but you do not seem capable of remaining in that open perspective of imagination and wonderment.

You appear to really not be able to do much more than to look from, and only see from, that brain's perspective only. But do not worry to much about it, as I am pretty sure you will not anyway, but you are not alone in this regard.

Looks like I will have to put the question in a way that that brain can understand fully. A human being and a clock are traveling at close to the speed of light, if you think or believe that the ageing process of that human being and the ticking of that clock will slow down, then how do you propose the slowing process actually happens, and, what is that actually process that supposedly slows down a human made clock and the human body?
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

thedoc wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:43 am
ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:41 am Personal experience is the only way I observe how knowledge can be acquired.
Through the personal experience of seeing and reading, you acquire knowledge.
Through the personal experience of hearing and listening, you acquire knowledge.
We have a significantly different definition of "personal experience", you define it as any way that you acquire knowledge, and I define it as whatever you have done yourself, not including what you have learned from others.
So, even if what you have done for yourself, is to listen to and/or watch others, so that you can learn from them, which is sort of what EVERY child does naturally for them self, through what I call "personal experiences", and what could also be described as a natural progression of the collective human being or 'Standing on the shoulders of others', as some say, then to you this natural occurring of doing for your self, in order to learn more, is not a "personal experience" because you have learned from others. Is this correct?

If so, then we are NOT really in dispute of any thing here. We just observe things differently, is this right here also?

If so, then if I did not clarify with you first, and, if you did not provide a truly open and honest answer back, then we might have been left in the dark and continued to disagree for ever more, instead we have come together peacefully to discover what the actual truth is. See, it really is as easy as I KNEW it would be.
uwot
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:04 amWhat do you mean, "but those sort of collisions are not the same as the interactions that make a collection of atoms a coherent entity, such as a human body; much less a living, or thinking one"?

THOSE SORTS OF COLLISIONS are the EXACT SAME INTERACTIONS that have and continue to make ALL bodies, including those ones that are able to think.
No they're not. Dunno if this will help. Think of a body as a relationship. You and your mates are walking down the street, chatting away and maintaining a dialogue. Occasionally you will bump into passers-by, and they may curse you, or you them, but they carry on their way, and take no further part in the dialogue. There can be interactions, but there is no lasting exchange.
If you and your mates could walk at the speed of sound, then the people behind you could no longer talk to you, because the sound of their voice could not go faster than the speed of sound to reach you.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:43 am
ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:04 amWhat do you mean, "but those sort of collisions are not the same as the interactions that make a collection of atoms a coherent entity, such as a human body; much less a living, or thinking one"?

THOSE SORTS OF COLLISIONS are the EXACT SAME INTERACTIONS that have and continue to make ALL bodies, including those ones that are able to think.
No they're not. Dunno if this will help. Think of a body as a relationship.
A body of what? And, as a relationship between what exactly?
uwot wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:43 am You and your mates are walking down the street, chatting away and maintaining a dialogue. Occasionally you will bump into passers-by, and they may curse you, or you them, but they carry on their way, and take no further part in the dialogue. There can be interactions, but there is no lasting exchange.
Yes agree.

But why is "lasting" exchange now in this discussion?
uwot wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:43 amIf you and your mates could walk at the speed of sound, then the people behind you could no longer talk to you, because the sound of their voice could not go faster than the speed of sound to reach you.
And the point is?

Maybe if you explain what it is that you are talking about and/or trying to explain, then I might have some idea what it is that you are trying to say.

I can not see any relationship between what you are saying and the actual questions I posed.

We were talking about photon exchange, you said at the speed of light photons can not exchange. I pointed out that photons traverse the Universe in ALL directions and thus are always exchanging. The exchange of photons is the sort of collisions, and obviously would also be a part of the process of interactions that causes ALL atoms to come together into existence as coherent bodies, including even the thinking human bodies.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc »

ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:18 am
thedoc wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:43 am
ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:41 am Personal experience is the only way I observe how knowledge can be acquired.
Through the personal experience of seeing and reading, you acquire knowledge.
Through the personal experience of hearing and listening, you acquire knowledge.
We have a significantly different definition of "personal experience", you define it as any way that you acquire knowledge, and I define it as whatever you have done yourself, not including what you have learned from others.
So, even if what you have done for yourself, is to listen to and/or watch others, so that you can learn from them, which is sort of what EVERY child does naturally for them self, through what I call "personal experiences", and what could also be described as a natural progression of the collective human being or 'Standing on the shoulders of others', as some say, then to you this natural occurring of doing for your self, in order to learn more, is not a "personal experience" because you have learned from others. Is this correct?

If so, then we are NOT really in dispute of any thing here. We just observe things differently, is this right here also?

If so, then if I did not clarify with you first, and, if you did not provide a truly open and honest answer back, then we might have been left in the dark and continued to disagree for ever more, instead we have come together peacefully to discover what the actual truth is. See, it really is as easy as I KNEW it would be.
I think we understand each other, and yes we just see things differently.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by thedoc »

ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:33 pm We were talking about photon exchange, you said at the speed of light photons can not exchange. I pointed out that photons traverse the Universe in ALL directions and thus are always exchanging. The exchange of photons is the sort of collisions, and obviously would also be a part of the process of interactions that causes ALL atoms to come together into existence as coherent bodies, including even the thinking human bodies.
I think the point is that usually photon exchange happens between the photons and some physical body or a mass. Physical Bodies don't travel at the speed of light, first of all there is not enough energy to get them to that speed and second if they did achieve the speed of light they would not exist as a physical body, this is all according to the theory of relativity. Photons do not have mass, (as far as we know) and cannot have an exchange with each other.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

Good lawd, what a Ken mess! :?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:25 am A human being with a clock is traveling in a ufo at the closest speed to light speed as possible, let us say it is 99% of the speed of light, from earth to a planet 3 light years away. How long would the trip take?
I dunno specifically, I don’t feel like working out the math right now, but it’s easy enough to do. I think it should take about 70 days, as judged by the guy on the UFO, who would see his clock ticking normally just as it did on earth. As judged by an earth observer, the trip would take three years.

When the ufo got to the planet it would then have to slow (break inertial frame) turn around and go back to earth. Another seventy days as judged by rocket man, another three years as judged by earth guy. These are all idealizations, ignoring the time it would take to accelerate to 99 percent light speed, etc. But it's fine as a thought experiment.

When rocket guy and earth guy reunite in earth frame and compare clocks, rocket man will discover that he has aged about 140 days while earth guy has aged about six years.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:25 amAnd, what happens to the clock, would it slow down compared to when it was on earth, or would it keep moving at the same rate as it would on earth, or some thing else?
If you at least understood Galilean relativity, much less special relativity, you would already have your answer.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:25 am Also, all of what you said here is a good attempt to divert away from what I was asking and trying to get to, but if you think I am just another puppet that will only follow that what has been and is continually taught, then you have another thing coming.
Bwa-hah-hah! Yes, I am the evil puppet master! :twisted:
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm »

ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 6:25 am Now, If a "normal" clock, and NOT a light clock, is traveling at closest as possible to the speed of light, then does it slow down or does it tick away at the human made rate that it did prior to taking the trip? Whatever your answer is, can you then explain how this is possible?
But I HAVE explained. Maybe you don’t pay attention? Perhaps you should write less and read more?

There is no difference between a “normal” clock and a light clock; they both do the same exact thing — tell time — and they can be synchronized with each other.

The reason the light clock is used in these examples is because it shows WHY time slows down, which is not evident from a regular tick-tock clock.

Here is how the light clock shows WHY time slows down in a moving frame relative to an at-rest frame (though I’ve already explained this):

1. The speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames. Everyone, regardless of their frame, measures the velocity of light as c in a vacuum.

2. This means that in a frame moving relative to a rest frame, a moving frame in which a light clock is operating, the speed of light will not ADD the velocity of the moving frame to its own velocity, as stuff normally does. If it did add the velocity, light would be traveling faster than light, which is not possible.

3. The light clock can be set up just as a normal clock, in synchrony to depict the passing of one second: A photon is fired from the top of the clock to the bottom; there it rebounds to the top. When the photon reaches the top, it is in synchrony with a normal tick-tock clock, such that: At the end of the first round trip of the photon in the light clock, one second will have ticked off on a regular tick-tock clock. So each round trip of the photo represents one second of elapsed time. Follow?

4. Now we imagine there is also a light clock in the rest frame.

5. But now because the light clock in the moving frame is in a frame that is in motion with respect to an at-rest frame, its photon must traverse a longer path to make one round trip, than does the photon in the at-rest frame! (This is depicted in the animation you watched.) Again, this has to happen, because c is invariant as measured from all frames, so the photon will not ADD the velocity of the moving frame to is own velocity.

Conclusion: The moving-frame light clock is “ticking” slower than the at-rest light clock, and they are now out of synchrony. Time is passing more slowly in the moving frame relative to the at-rest frame. (The person on the moving frame judges his clock to be ticking normally, just as it did in the rest frame. See: Galilean relativity.)

Hope this helps. (Yah, right!)
uwot
Posts: 4959
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by uwot »

ken wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:33 pmWe were talking about photon exchange, you said at the speed of light photons can not exchange. I pointed out that photons traverse the Universe in ALL directions and thus are always exchanging.
Well, the 'relationship' analogy didn't work. Perhaps 'exchange' means something completely different to you and I. But what I mean by it, is that one of a pair of atoms can emit a photon, which is absorbed by the other. At some future point, the second atom can emit a photon, which is absorbed by the first. It is this 'exchange' of photons that bonds the pair, and makes them a unit; it is literally what sticks them together (gluons do the same job for quarks, and get their name from glue.). Multiply that by several gazillion, and you have a macroscopic object. It is because the atoms that make the object can exchange photons, that the object is an object. The photons that make up Sun or starlight, were emitted by atoms that are so remote from the atoms in your retina, that the chance of the atom in your retina that absorbed a photon from a star, emitting a photon that is absorbed by the same atom in the star that emitted the first photon, ie, the two atoms exchange photons, is frankly zero.
At the speed of light, two atoms cannot 'exchange' photons, in the above sense.
Post Reply