I know you are all going to hate me.
Acceleration causes an increase in Mass.
Gravity output increases as mass does.
Mass causes the time dilation.
You are all just confused. I added in the step that you where missing. I would do the math to prove it but I'm too lazy.
I do tend to agree that time appears to affect large masses slower (in a sense you can imagine inertia operating in this manner as well as it takes more work to change the motion of a large mass, or alternately you could view this as applying the same force over a shorter period of time), if you look at the number of heartbeats of mammels, they're all very similar in total number a lifespan, though the hearts of more massive mammels tend to age slower and beat slower as well.
Objects with larger mass tend to alter more slowly than objects of smaller mass (consider the orbits of galaxies versus electronic orbitals in atoms).
A more precise way of looking at this using ideas gleaned from physics is that larger masses are composed of large numbers of smaller components that interact in various ways. The average change of a collection of particles, each being altered in rather random ways occurs more slowly than the alteration of a single component compared to itself.
I tend to wonder whether perceptions of time are affected by the level of entanglement between systems. If alterations are made between two systems that are disconnected and unrelated, then the changes aren't correlated and can appear to act bidirectionally in time relative to each other (though standard statistical measures of energy give an approximately positive linear time reference by measuring the equivalent of variances by using the sum of squares of terms - variance, or change, always occurs no matter what direction you might consider time to be moving and in that sense time always moves forward), but if two systems are closely entangled and alterations to one have directly related effects on the other, then there's a greater one to one correlation in change and this can affect the apparent rate of time passing in one system versus the other - the variances between the two systems are reduced and measures of time between them appear to pass slower as well, as one doesn't appear to alter itself independently of the other and the systems appear merged and related - for example, the rotation of the Earth appears as a single system, yet it's still composed of discrete particles, but the forces involved maintain a very constant rotational velocity for all these particles. If you used an angular position on the Earth as a reference for time somewhere else on the Earth, you'd see a fixed and static offset in "time", similar to the manner in which time zones across the Earth are spaced at constant intervals - there's no difference in relative rates of change between these two locations because they're "entangled" and forces acting on one affect the other similarly. But if you took the same rotational velocity but oriented it differently, then rapid relative motion would occur and large changes in the state of the Earth would occur rapidly (imagine the energy released and subsequent rapid change in the structure of the Earth if half the rotation of the other was reversed, while the other half continued forward). In that case, the state of the two systems has been decoupled and changes can occur between them rapidly and can be equated to many measures of time and age.
At least for complex chaotic motions, smaller systems should appear to age faster than larger systems, because at each stage of time, statistically fewer components cancel in effect and this gives it a more rapid "aging" in characteristics compared to larger masses in which chaotic internal actions by many independent components mostly cancel in effect, relative to the larger ensemble of components in that system (just like rolling 100 dice tends to remain much closer to the statistical average of 3.5 per die, compared to rolling only a few dice where rapid changes in the average an occur).
I know the above is rather abstract, but I looked into a few mechanical systems with these traits trying to find whether a relationship of rate_of_time~=sqrt(mass) and this does appear to exist, though it of course depends on exactly how you're measuring time and mass. It might be interesting to see whether or not chaotic motions that could appear to cancel changes over time are present for accelerated objects (possibly not all the velocity is in a forward direction but a large amount of lateral motion is generated).
Objects with larger mass tend to alter more slowly than objects of smaller mass (consider the orbits of galaxies versus electronic orbitals in atoms).
A more precise way of looking at this using ideas gleaned from physics is that larger masses are composed of large numbers of smaller components that interact in various ways. The average change of a collection of particles, each being altered in rather random ways occurs more slowly than the alteration of a single component compared to itself.
I tend to wonder whether perceptions of time are affected by the level of entanglement between systems. If alterations are made between two systems that are disconnected and unrelated, then the changes aren't correlated and can appear to act bidirectionally in time relative to each other (though standard statistical measures of energy give an approximately positive linear time reference by measuring the equivalent of variances by using the sum of squares of terms - variance, or change, always occurs no matter what direction you might consider time to be moving and in that sense time always moves forward), but if two systems are closely entangled and alterations to one have directly related effects on the other, then there's a greater one to one correlation in change and this can affect the apparent rate of time passing in one system versus the other - the variances between the two systems are reduced and measures of time between them appear to pass slower as well, as one doesn't appear to alter itself independently of the other and the systems appear merged and related - for example, the rotation of the Earth appears as a single system, yet it's still composed of discrete particles, but the forces involved maintain a very constant rotational velocity for all these particles. If you used an angular position on the Earth as a reference for time somewhere else on the Earth, you'd see a fixed and static offset in "time", similar to the manner in which time zones across the Earth are spaced at constant intervals - there's no difference in relative rates of change between these two locations because they're "entangled" and forces acting on one affect the other similarly. But if you took the same rotational velocity but oriented it differently, then rapid relative motion would occur and large changes in the state of the Earth would occur rapidly (imagine the energy released and subsequent rapid change in the structure of the Earth if half the rotation of the other was reversed, while the other half continued forward). In that case, the state of the two systems has been decoupled and changes can occur between them rapidly and can be equated to many measures of time and age.
At least for complex chaotic motions, smaller systems should appear to age faster than larger systems, because at each stage of time, statistically fewer components cancel in effect and this gives it a more rapid "aging" in characteristics compared to larger masses in which chaotic internal actions by many independent components mostly cancel in effect, relative to the larger ensemble of components in that system (just like rolling 100 dice tends to remain much closer to the statistical average of 3.5 per die, compared to rolling only a few dice where rapid changes in the average an occur).
I know the above is rather abstract, but I looked into a few mechanical systems with these traits trying to find whether a relationship of rate_of_time~=sqrt(mass) and this does appear to exist, though it of course depends on exactly how you're measuring time and mass. It might be interesting to see whether or not chaotic motions that could appear to cancel changes over time are present for accelerated objects (possibly not all the velocity is in a forward direction but a large amount of lateral motion is generated).
hi there,
both mass and acceleration cause time dilation (according to Einsteins equivalence principle)
both mass and acceleration cause time dilation (according to Einsteins equivalence principle)
Yes i know mass causes time dilation, what I was saying is that motion does not. What I was saying is that the mass increase of a particle is being ignored as the cause of time distortion, and being replaced by motion.
since motion leads to mass increase which leads time dilation, i call motion the initial cause of time dilation in this string of events
"since motion leads to mass increase which leads time dilation, i call motion the initial cause of time dilation in this string of events"
Acceleration is the cause of the mass increase not motion.
"both mass and acceleration cause time dilation (according to Einsteins equivalence principle)"
Acceleration does not cause time dilation, Einstein was wrong. I know me being a 17 year old kid saying he was wrong is considered bad and probably deserves me being slapped.
To accelerate you have to add energy to a particle, as more energy is added the speed increases, the gravity field around it increases, and gravity makes time slow down.
It is impossible to have a particle not moving (think about it). I believe if it was not moving it would have no mass. Of course you can not possibly test this because there is no fixed non-moving part of our universe to compare it to.
Acceleration is the cause of the mass increase not motion.
"both mass and acceleration cause time dilation (according to Einsteins equivalence principle)"
Acceleration does not cause time dilation, Einstein was wrong. I know me being a 17 year old kid saying he was wrong is considered bad and probably deserves me being slapped.
To accelerate you have to add energy to a particle, as more energy is added the speed increases, the gravity field around it increases, and gravity makes time slow down.
It is impossible to have a particle not moving (think about it). I believe if it was not moving it would have no mass. Of course you can not possibly test this because there is no fixed non-moving part of our universe to compare it to.
yes the motion must produces the time-dilatation conjugated with contraction of space=space-time that are curvatures generated by asymmetry left-handed and right-handed rotations trnsformations.these curvatures are distototions of space-time.and the clocks placed in these sundries places,if movement given given speeds,and occur differences in these clocks showing the time-dilatation,linked
to the reversaltime that demonstrated the curve of going and coming of signal.then the space-time are generated by curves that are generated in contrary
directions.the same priciple is valid to the paradox of the twins,then when connected space and time in space-time,these occur due to the biquaternions that
are not non-commutative and the time deform the space generating several curves
with metrics differents,through of rotation group is not symmetric,that produces
deformations in the space-time,implying the contraction of space and dilatations of time,but the difference between the curvatures shows that time is dependent of
topology geometry,and therefore of breakdown of pt,showing that these variations
is the demonstrate the time-dilatation and conjugation with contraction of the space-time.these asymmetry define the motion of the time;and that speed of light
is not the velocity of time,then the speed of light is variable,it is quasi-constant.
to the reversaltime that demonstrated the curve of going and coming of signal.then the space-time are generated by curves that are generated in contrary
directions.the same priciple is valid to the paradox of the twins,then when connected space and time in space-time,these occur due to the biquaternions that
are not non-commutative and the time deform the space generating several curves
with metrics differents,through of rotation group is not symmetric,that produces
deformations in the space-time,implying the contraction of space and dilatations of time,but the difference between the curvatures shows that time is dependent of
topology geometry,and therefore of breakdown of pt,showing that these variations
is the demonstrate the time-dilatation and conjugation with contraction of the space-time.these asymmetry define the motion of the time;and that speed of light
is not the velocity of time,then the speed of light is variable,it is quasi-constant.
hello Ryan125. i can follow your thinking, and yes you are correct in the things you say.
it is possible to have a non-moving object, if you use reference frames. your monitor is not moving in reference to the desk it is sitting on.
if the object does not move it gains no mass and in turn time does not dilate.
you are correct in saying that gravity causes time dilation. for we know this to be true.
in the example of standing on the ground on Earth is the same as being on a platform in space accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, its the moving platform that then creates a force identical to gravity.
therefor it is the acceleration of the platform that generates an equivalent "force" of gravity, through mass increase. yes non accelerating mass causes time dilation, but so does acceleration.
agreed a non-moving particle would probably have no mass.
ps keep challenging theories
it is possible to have a non-moving object, if you use reference frames. your monitor is not moving in reference to the desk it is sitting on.
if the object does not move it gains no mass and in turn time does not dilate.
you are correct in saying that gravity causes time dilation. for we know this to be true.
in the example of standing on the ground on Earth is the same as being on a platform in space accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, its the moving platform that then creates a force identical to gravity.
therefor it is the acceleration of the platform that generates an equivalent "force" of gravity, through mass increase. yes non accelerating mass causes time dilation, but so does acceleration.
agreed a non-moving particle would probably have no mass.
ps keep challenging theories
just had to add one thing to what you said
"it is possible to have a non-moving object, if you use reference frames. your monitor is not moving in reference to the desk it is sitting on"
If you use a reference such as the Earth, the sun, or the center of our galaxy. Just had to explain (i know you understand it but other people reading might not) that everything in this universe is moving, and if you try to stop it all you do is force it to go in the opposite direction at a slower rate.
Also I think that it could offer a alternate theory than some crazy one having to do with massive amounts of dark matter.
"it is possible to have a non-moving object, if you use reference frames. your monitor is not moving in reference to the desk it is sitting on"
If you use a reference such as the Earth, the sun, or the center of our galaxy. Just had to explain (i know you understand it but other people reading might not) that everything in this universe is moving, and if you try to stop it all you do is force it to go in the opposite direction at a slower rate.
Also I think that it could offer a alternate theory than some crazy one having to do with massive amounts of dark matter.
if you create the effect of stopping an object from moving you fuse its inertial reference frame with your own.
whats your crazy theory on massive amounts of dark matter ? is it gravity leaking over from matter that is sitting on one of the many branes in our universe ?
i have an interest in dark matter if you would be so kind to share your thoughts.
whats your crazy theory on massive amounts of dark matter ? is it gravity leaking over from matter that is sitting on one of the many branes in our universe ?
i have an interest in dark matter if you would be so kind to share your thoughts.
motion ALWAYS causes time dilation.read einstein if you don't believe me.why is this so hard to understand?it's been proven "time" and "time" again.
"whats your crazy theory on massive amounts of dark matter ? is it gravity leaking over from matter that is sitting on one of the many branes in our universe ?
i have an interest in dark matter if you would be so kind to share your thoughts."
I'm not positive but I believe the theory of dark matter was created to explain extra gravity found on the outer circle of the milky way. I won't say that dark matter does not exist but I believe that most of the extra gravity is because we are wrong about how much gravity increases with acceleration and the outer part is obviously going at lot faster speed than we are.
"motion ALWAYS causes time dilation.read Einstein if you don't believe me.why is this so hard to understand?it's been proven "time" and "time" again."
As i said earlier Einstein was wrong. Motion does not cause the time dilation gravity does. Gravity increases as acceleration does. It hardly changes anything he wrote.
i have an interest in dark matter if you would be so kind to share your thoughts."
I'm not positive but I believe the theory of dark matter was created to explain extra gravity found on the outer circle of the milky way. I won't say that dark matter does not exist but I believe that most of the extra gravity is because we are wrong about how much gravity increases with acceleration and the outer part is obviously going at lot faster speed than we are.
"motion ALWAYS causes time dilation.read Einstein if you don't believe me.why is this so hard to understand?it's been proven "time" and "time" again."
As i said earlier Einstein was wrong. Motion does not cause the time dilation gravity does. Gravity increases as acceleration does. It hardly changes anything he wrote.
hi ryan125
yes dark matter is a term to explain the paradoxical effect of that there are individual stars and concentrations of gas in our galaxy at greater distance from the luminous nucleus than our sun that have rotational velocities the same as or greater than that of our sun! Kepler’s third law of planetary motion says that these stars should move slower, the further out they are.
if the outer rim of a galaxy is moving faster than the inner rim, its mass increase should slow it down, should it not ?
i'll bounce this off you....
if matter we are familiar with not only distorts spacetime but displaces some (or all) of its components, then a galaxy centerer would displace/distort spacetime alot. the inner part of the galaxy would have larger amount of gravity (due to the matter distorting the spacetime) leaving the outer rim in less distorted spacetime allowing for faster movement.
thoughts
yes dark matter is a term to explain the paradoxical effect of that there are individual stars and concentrations of gas in our galaxy at greater distance from the luminous nucleus than our sun that have rotational velocities the same as or greater than that of our sun! Kepler’s third law of planetary motion says that these stars should move slower, the further out they are.
if the outer rim of a galaxy is moving faster than the inner rim, its mass increase should slow it down, should it not ?
i'll bounce this off you....
if matter we are familiar with not only distorts spacetime but displaces some (or all) of its components, then a galaxy centerer would displace/distort spacetime alot. the inner part of the galaxy would have larger amount of gravity (due to the matter distorting the spacetime) leaving the outer rim in less distorted spacetime allowing for faster movement.
thoughts
What is there to worry about? Remember the Manhattan experiment, PCBs, DDT, and all the other success stories of science?
Have a Coke and a
Have a Coke and a
Hi guys,
Hi Ryan,
You might need to distinguish between General and Special Relativity. You are correct when you say that gravity causes time dilation and, through the equivalence Principle, then so does acceleration. Now the points you make to separate the two by merging their effects on moving bodies may or may not hold, but in Special relativity the time dilation perceived is from another non-inertial reference frame only. A body moving relative to another can show it's own time as 'fixed' and the 'moving' body undergoing time dilation and vice versa. Special Relativity uses the Lorentz transform to calculate that the laws of physics remain constant in all non-inertial reference frames. Now when you look at something like the twin paradox, you'll see that one or the other twin has actually undergone time dilation only through the calculations of General relativity (because one or the other has undergone an inertial acceleration to get to the high speeds that need to be reconciled between the two frames of reference.
Hope this adds something,
Peace,
Ron
Hi Ryan,
You might need to distinguish between General and Special Relativity. You are correct when you say that gravity causes time dilation and, through the equivalence Principle, then so does acceleration. Now the points you make to separate the two by merging their effects on moving bodies may or may not hold, but in Special relativity the time dilation perceived is from another non-inertial reference frame only. A body moving relative to another can show it's own time as 'fixed' and the 'moving' body undergoing time dilation and vice versa. Special Relativity uses the Lorentz transform to calculate that the laws of physics remain constant in all non-inertial reference frames. Now when you look at something like the twin paradox, you'll see that one or the other twin has actually undergone time dilation only through the calculations of General relativity (because one or the other has undergone an inertial acceleration to get to the high speeds that need to be reconciled between the two frames of reference.
Hope this adds something,
Peace,
Ron
Ryan125
If you look at Einstein's work closely, I think you will find that you are half right. Gravity and motion are both at work in this.
Look at his prediction of the bending of light near a massive object. Half of the result comes directly from gravity, the rest from its relative speed as it moves through "gravity shells" as some have explained it.
In short, Ron has the right answer, there is General and Special Relativity.
Charles
If you look at Einstein's work closely, I think you will find that you are half right. Gravity and motion are both at work in this.
Look at his prediction of the bending of light near a massive object. Half of the result comes directly from gravity, the rest from its relative speed as it moves through "gravity shells" as some have explained it.
In short, Ron has the right answer, there is General and Special Relativity.
Charles
Ron, you say that according to General relativity inertial acceleration is the cause of time dilation? Not motion in it self? So if we had two ships a and accelerating at he same pace, 'A' turning home at five light years and 'B' turning home at ten light years. then 'A' and 'B' would be at the same Age when 'B' meet 'A', five years after A came home??
Uh uh, don't think so :) Motion in spacetime collects relative mass. If you go ten light years under 'relative mass', then even if your acceleration was exactly the same as the one 'A' experienced 'B' still are going to have aged more than the sum of the (same) acceleration plus five years.
And ' in Special relativity the time dilation perceived is from another non-inertial reference frame only.' For me that always hold true?? No matter how fast you go or accelerate, your subjective as well as your objective (clock) time as you perceive it will be the same. The time dilation can only be perceived when compared from with another 'known frame' of reference. Time is SpaceTime, not a free flowing 'thing' on its own.
And if you're of a different mind you will have explain your view(s) very good :)
Uh uh, don't think so :) Motion in spacetime collects relative mass. If you go ten light years under 'relative mass', then even if your acceleration was exactly the same as the one 'A' experienced 'B' still are going to have aged more than the sum of the (same) acceleration plus five years.
And ' in Special relativity the time dilation perceived is from another non-inertial reference frame only.' For me that always hold true?? No matter how fast you go or accelerate, your subjective as well as your objective (clock) time as you perceive it will be the same. The time dilation can only be perceived when compared from with another 'known frame' of reference. Time is SpaceTime, not a free flowing 'thing' on its own.
And if you're of a different mind you will have explain your view(s) very good :)
Have to agree there completely...
Unfortunant but interesting...
Hrm....
I won't go there...
Unfortunant but interesting...
Hrm....
I won't go there...
Hi Ryan125, StevenA, yor_on, Aireal, Ron, kjw et al,
Sorry about the length of this post but I thought I would give a full explanation of this puzzling effect. In doing so I hope you will all find an answer to all your questions. I also expect you to see interesting opportunities as well that you have not been told by many of your lecturers. You have been told to "shut up and calculate"... I say calculators can be purchased for a couple of bucks and your worth as a Physicist is in the 'quality" of your analysis.
Nothing could be simpler than the twin paradox to explain. Why do people have to make it so difficult? I will explain it so that a nine-year-old can understand it (I have tested this on a nine year old and it was understood). I will not use any “difficult” mathematics and promise that anyone of average intelligence will have a clear idea of what is really going on. If it does miss the mark for you please ask some extra questions and I will surely answer them.
In this exposition I will be referring to a number of idealized objects. Two “perfect” spacecraft ( carrying observers A and B ) in initial orbit around the Earth are carrying two very conventional clocks attached to their respective walls. A large clear window in each spacecraft through which each traveler can view the other’s clock. A way to synchronize the two clocks. Two idealized telescopes of arbitrary magnification (adjustable to infinity) used for observations. A “stationary” target star situated 600 light years distance from Earth. A “straight road” to the star marked out by yellow marker buoys at 10 light year intervals (60 in all). A short initial stretch of 1 light second marker buoys that automatically trigger a flash of light when a ship passes nearby.
The spacecraft are “very special”. They need only three dials and the navigational computer for control.
1. A “go faster” knob calibrated from 0 to infinity (yes... infinity).
2. A “total mass” knob calibrated from 0 to 1 (to adjust the ships total mass).
3. A “stop” button.
4. A navigation computer used to pick the destination star and to carry out the function of these controls in travel to the star and back. It also has a “go home” button to help us go home if we do not know the direction.
All other “stuff” is taken care of such as the propulsion system food and air and a good CD player etc. Why do we need the total mass knob? By adjusting this down our traveler can undergo arbitrarily high accelerations without harm or even sensation. For instance when your family car slams into a brick wall the forces on you are a product of your mass time the “de-acceleration” you get by being suddenly brought to rest. You can avoid damage and discomfort to yourself by adjusting either the “de-acceleration” or your mass so that the total force (product of mass times acceleration) is small.
Our spacecraft adjusts mass for a dual purpose.
1. To avoid discomfort with the high accelerations
2. To reduce the performance characteristics and other requirements of the rocket engine by being able to make the entire spaceship and occupant as light (near inertialess) as we want. We can then accelerate as fast as we want for as long as we want using finite resources on board the ship. worry about the physics of this later. Assume that the effects on light are independent of how or what produces that light. To stop further discussion of this feature for now I will incorporate this control into the navigation computer and let it decide a suitable mass figure to dial up during the trip (a very low one).
{Additional Note: It is begging the question that we can do this but I assure everyone we can, providing we find some process, in which mass and electromagnetism can be interchanged. This would be an "unexpected" extension to present day theory I will admit.}
Our twin spacecraft are in close mutual orbit around the earth and we synchronize clocks. Allowing for the time light takes to travel between the two spacecraft, the astronauts are able to observe the time on the other’s spacecraft through the windows using the powerful telescopes supplied. After a little adjustment the two clocks are mutually agreed to be in synchronization, that is they show the same time and are both set to zero in a mutual co-moving rest frame. Lets say spacecraft A wishes to travel to the previously mentioned star 600 light years distance from Earth. This s a time that light takes to travel to the distant star... 600 Earth years. Spacecraft B’s entire purpose is to stay behind in an inertial frame of reference and just observe the time on A’s clock for the entire journey using his "miraculous" telescope. Spacecraft A will also observe spacecraft B’s clock and do other interesting stuff as well.
Remember the “yellow brick road” marked out to the star (very civilized Universe this is). The astronaut aboard A’s spaceship picks this destination on his navigational computer and adjusts his “go faster” knob so that he passes one of these buoys every minute of his trip (as reckoned by his clock on the wall). These buoys are 10 light years apart each and they emit a flash back to earth when a ship passes them closely. All the buoys and the distant star are in one co-moving frame for simplicity.
Internally to the star traveling astronaut, there is no restriction on the speed he can travel. He can go as fast as he wants, this is actually guaranteed by the principle of inertial equivalence and Special Relativity. This is due to the fact that speed is distance divided by time and as velocity of a space ship increases the observer in the space ship sees a foreshortening of the distance from his position and the position of the star. This is due to proper motion of the ship, the faster the relative velocity of the ship the closer it approaches the speed of light and time is slowing down to match this effect. If it were possible to travel actually at the speed of light the ship and its occupants would be "frozen" on the wall of the light cone and the passage of time for observer A would cease. This is what actually happens to photons themselves, they are the only known object that is "immune" to the effects of the passage of time.
By turning the knob way round he can traverse the universe in a matter of minutes (his ship time, "earth time" is the time light takes to traverse the same distance which may be millions of years relative to Earth time) or he can slow it down and take a more leisurely journey and “sniff the daisies”. At this faster speed the entire trip will take one hour and a few minutes (ships time one way) to get to the distant star 600 light years away (from Earth) at just under the speed of light. This is because he simply adjusts the "go faster" knob so that he passes one buoy (at each 10 light years) every minute of ships time. Do not worry about the kinematics of this since "light" and the way it propagates is all that we are concerned with not how we perform accelerations. During the trip he observes his twin spaceship B in orbit around the Earth and his clock is hardly moving at all, that is one tick of B’s clock seems to take several minutes of A’s time (perhaps longer). No wonder because the light is red shifted to hell and back (wavefronts of light are all stretched out compared to normal) so that B’s clock appears to be ticking at a very slow rate indeed. At the same time the observer in Space Ship A notices no change in his time at all, this is simply because the ship and everything in it are part of the observer frame of reference. The actual speed of light in either A or B's frame of reference is apparently unaffected. If he was still in Earth orbit it would be reading the same time as B and the ticks would appear be the same length (rate) but because of the rapidly increasing distance to Earth and at such an enormous speed he is not physically far behind the first wavefronts of light that B’s spacecraft emitted moments after A left. More on this point later because the observer in A is not personally aware of this fact that it is his motion and not the motion of the Universe that is the reason for this rapidly increasing distance he notices to B's vessel and to the Earth.
Our "relatively" high-speed traveler has been traveling for what seems to be ages (actually only one hour of his time – he has a short attention span and bores easily) when he approaches the star and when he draws alongside presses the “stop” button. In a “very” short distance our miraculous spacecraft draws to a dead stop in close proximity to the star. This is done using the "miraculous" inertia control. During this operation the mass of the ship has been reduced to almost zero so stopping this vessel from an initial relative velocity near the speed of light to a zero velocity relative to the star takes F = mA force which can be made as small as we wish to reduce the effect on observer A to the acceleration. He spends “five minutes or so” making a few observations and then decides to return home at the same outward speed. One of the observations he makes in this five minutes is B’s spacecraft orbiting earth while he orbited that distant star. B's clock has miraculously returned to the normal rate of progress when viewed by A, that is one tick of B’s clock now equals one tick of A’s clock. The only problem is that B’s clock is “almost” one hour behind A’s present time with only a short apparent elapsed time. This does not disturb A for the time being and he shrugs off the anomaly. Just before he leaves he emits a prearranged flash of light to his friend B in orbit around the earth to tell B he is coming home. The fact that he has changed direction a sudden asymmetry is noted in the two ships. The moment A reverses direction a blue shift is seen from Earth by A and the Ship carrying observer B.
On the return journey A still passes one of the yellow buoys every minute (ship time) as before (each spaced 10 light years apart). The buoys only flash when the ship passes relative to "Earth time" which is every 10 years of elapsed Earth time plus a little bit since this is how long light from that distant star takes to pass each of these buoys. "Internally" A is pleased with himself noting that the whole journey will be taking just a little over 2 hours and five minutes A's ship time for both ways. That is until he looks through his telescope once again at the earth and at B’s clock. He now notices that B appears to be incredibly blue shifted (wavefronts are all bunched together compared with normal) but even more remarkably B’s clock now has speeded up so that while he watches over a few seconds, years appears to be passing on B’s ship. As seen by A, Earth and on B's ship, time is flashing by and the Earth appears to be spinning like a high-speed top. as he nears the vicinity of the Earth B's clock is now approaching 1200 years of elapsed time while A's ship time is still around 2 hours in total.
All this time what was B seeing of A’s journey? This is the reverse but it is not symmetric. This is the most important point and it leads to time assymetry. After the two had synchronized clocks A had sped away at enormous velocity near to the speed of light (B knew this fact but what does he see?). According to reckoning from B’s point of view he was traveling at only 50% the speed of light. The reason for 50% is not so obvious, lets assume that A was traveling at nearly 99.999% the speed of light directly away from B (pulled that figure out of the air... just very close to the speed of light) and as ship A passed secondary marker buoys one light second apart when A passes near to these buoys (roughly one every second) the buoy emits a flash and this is seen back at B the number of light seconds away from B. Each second the space ship increases its distance from Earth and from B by an extra light second. Light takes an extra second to travel back to the last position the ship was in 1 second ago (nearly) B or Earth time.
Speed for a space ship traveling away from Earth nearly at the speed of light at t (total earth time)=1sec, s=1ls(Light seconds distant from Earth) and the time that pulse takes to return to earth and be seen is an additional second .... So we see the pulse from the first buoy after 2 seconds ( 1 + 1 = 2). The estimate of velocity as "seen" from Earth, parallax shows the ship 1 ls away and this as at t=2 seconds... estimate of velocity is 1/2 C. In the next second A reaches the next buoy at a distance of 2 ls from Earth and the buoy emits a flash back to earth. This flash of light takes 2 more seconds to reach Earth from the buoy... (2 + 2 = 4). The estimate of velocity is distance traveled is 2 light seconds after 4 seconds of travel .... average speed is once again 1/2 speed of light. After the ship carrying A reaches the third buoy after about three seconds Earth time the third buoy emits a flash of light and this takes a further three seconds to travel to Earth.... (3 + 3 =6) average speed appears to be once again 1/2 speed of light. At each buoy spaced at a distance of 1 light second further away from earth the apparent observed velocity is "roughly" 1/2 C not roughly 1C which you would think to expect since the ship is actually traveling at that speed (near the speed of light). This argument applies also to the buoys 10 light years apart as well. The increasing travel time from Earth is a very significant factor we do not see in ordinary life and leads to a "gross underestimate" of speed of any object moving away at a significant fraction of the speed of light. The effective "appearance" is absolutely nothing can travel away from the Earth "visually" faster than 1/2 he speed of light simply by proper motion. There is no correction for Hubble Shift in this problem.
From B’s point of view A cannot exceed the speed of light (and of course the reverse is also true as A observes B from his ship... which is totally equivalent). Observations of A’s clock using the incredibly high powered telescope that B has, sees A traveling past the buoys but he is not passing them one a minute Earth time (as A apparently thought) but passing them one every 20 years of Earth and B’s time. B's observation of A's clock (really good telescope here) shows A's ships time is running very slow and at the moment flashes are received at Earth of flashes from the 10 light year buoys, the clock on the wall of A's ship is incrementing only one minute at a time, relatively time is passing very slowly. This is because of the additional delay caused by being 10 lights years further at the end of each 10 light year hop and the greater distance the light has to travel to B and the earth (20 years). Paradoxically A also appears to be traveling at half the true relative speed away from earth than he actually is relative to B’s inertial frame.
.
If each buoy had a lighthouse keeper and their clocks were "magically" synchronized with B (near earth), then each keeper would see this spaceship flash by at 10-year intervals because this is how long light takes to travel from Earth to reach each one of the 10 light year buoys and our ship A is only marginally slower than that speed. But because it takes an extra ten years for the light from the next more distant buoy to reach Earth the estimated velocity appears to be seen as half what it really is from B's reference frame seen near earth.
A’s spaceship appears to be incredibly red shifted and A is remarkably preserved over the centuries that pass while B waits. B observes A traveling towards the star for nearly 1200 years (this is exactly how long it would take if A traveled at 1/2 the speed of light). This is the time that the last waves of light will take from A's position around that star to reach Earth after he had arrived at the star for his 5 minute stopover.
Recapping: The ship takes 600 years to reach the star Earth time (traveling near the speed of light), arrives, turns around gives a flash and returns in another 600 years... total 1200 years round trip for a beam of light. The light when he arrived takes 600 years to return to Earth and the ship takes a couple of hours longer so something unusual will happen. That is 600 years for the spaceship to apparently get to the star plus 600 years for the light to get back to earth, a total of 1200 years Earth time. The light emitted on the way back to Earth by the ship will all arrive in the last few minutes of the trip... like a highly compressed stream of "optical" information.
Lets think about this... the distance between A and B is increasing all the time A is moving away. B never sees A traveling faster than light (this is Special Relativity). In fact he can only "observe" a speed of 1/2C away from the Earth (and symmetrically A views B the same). By the time A gets to the star (600 light years from Earth according to B’s time) the light from that event, 600 lights years distant, will take another 600 years to get back to Earth before B will know he made it. Luckily medicine has long solved all the problems of aging and illness so B is still feeling “reasonably” good after 1200 years, but a little bored. Observations of A’s clock by B shows that it is now "temporarily" ticking at the same rate as B (while stopped around the position of the distant star because distance is constant and a flash every second will be spaced 1 second apart) but A's clock is showing only 1 hour cumulative time on the dial instead of nearly 1200 years shown on B’s clock.
The instant B sees A depart for Earth (a signal flash of light agreed on before departure), A now suddenly appears to be incredibly blue shifted. But "when" does A see this happen... nearly 1200 years after A leaving B and Earth orbit. This is asymmetric to observations made by A of B and of Earth previously noted. The difference is going to lead to "missing time". Observation of the clock on A’s ship by B now show a “rapidly” increasing time on A’s clock rushing towards the end of his second hour. Ticks as seen by B of the clock on A’s spacecraft are now shortened to a very great extent. Interesting when A and B compare notes this is a much reduced rate of time acceleration than seen of B by A, who aged 1200 years due to this "asymmetry". Incredibly the trip back takes only a couple of minutes B's time and 1 hour A's time and a comparison of the clocks indicate that A’s clock shows (about) 2 hours and 5 five minutes total for his entire trip and the time on B’s clock is (about) 1200 years and 5 minutes. This is due "entirely" to the asymmetry of the clocks on a round trip. A cannot beat the light back to Earth just before he left the star, but he can make a “close miss” of this race using our special spaceship, arriving just behind the flash of light he emitted just before he left by a couple of minutes Earth Time.
It is a "paradox" because we do not come across this in our normal day to day experience but you would if you could perform this "trick".
Now here comes the only difficult part of this discussion.... This bit is not essential to the basic understanding of the Clock or Twin Paradox but I added this in for completeness.
“Hey!” you say “if you can never observe an object traveling faster than light what about the return journey to earth that takes apparently only a few minutes? Surely this is a violation of the principle that you cannot observe an object traveling faster than light?” In actual fact there are many objects in the Universe that "appear to travel faster than light". Check out the Jet from M87 on the web, it has been clocked at 6 times the speed of light. What is being observed is the fact that parts of that jet has been traveling to Earth for many thousands of years and the light is now arriving from when this Jet first moved toward the Earth and now arrive at observers here "at a faster compressed rate of arrival" like a video placed into fast forward, not only speeded up the wavelengths of light also "speeded up" by Relativistic Doppler Shift. This is entirely due to the proper motion of the Jet towards us, light and the Jet are traveling at almost the same speed toward us and we see the events that happened to that jet as if it was a compressed 'movie". naturally the Jet experiences nothing of the sort in its own frame of reference. This shows as a extreme blue shift in the frequencies when we finally get to see the "first light" from that jet it had already started on its journey toward us thousands of years ago. The light in the Jet from M86 arrives over a periods of one year Earth time that was originally emitted by the Jet over a period of 6 years Earth time. According to "Jet internal time" it emitted the light (in its own frame of reference) over one year. These "corrections" are Special Relativity corrections. It is as if the clocks in each case... Jet Clock, and earth Clock have been "dropping" seconds out of elapsed time altogether. This is due to the fact of proper motion and parallax due to motion of sources.
The speed of light gives, and the speed of light takes away! I have not discussed all the optical effects noted by observers. There are many, as any Star Trek fan knows when you watch the Enterprise jump to warp speed! There are many others when you look out the window from A at other objects in space around you. Enough to say that that for such a high velocity object there will be an optical distortion seen at B’s end. This leads B to think that A is approaching from a much shorter distance (stereoscopically speaking) than he really is at a speed much higher than the velocity of light. All the light from A’s return journey will precede A by only a fraction of the time it took A in his own frame of reference to get to earth (one hour his time, 1200 years Earth time). This is the explanation for the round trip. You have to watch for 1200 years till this effect occurs in the last few minutes of the vigil (this is the time the ship is returning to earth between that last signal flash and the final arrival back in earth orbit (one hour ship time and only a few minutes Earth or observer B time). Most accounts leave this point out.
The Twin or Clock Paradox is not limiting the apparent speed of travel in space it forces clock to become un-synchronised. The moving clocks run slow but only relative to other clock that are not undergoing acceleration (or "apparent acceleration"). You may travel as fast as you want to anywhere you like in as short a period of time as you seem fit to choose (providing you have the energy to do it). The penalty is if you travel too far in space and at too high a velocity the Earth may not even be there to return to because you have time traveled apparently irreversibly into the future, the amount you will travel into Earth's future depends on how long you travel at high velocity. So space travel to the stars may not be as big a problem for the traveler as it is for a political system to fund it. As they say... No bucks, no Buck Rogers. What government is going to fund a space program that takes centuries for the travelers to return when elections are held every 3 or 4 years? The politicians may never receive any glory for their foresightedness. The political party they belonged to may not even exist any more.
There are some ways around this last issue but this is not the place or time to discuss this point... though it is quite an interesting one.
I know you have all been told something quite different to this story on your way through University and it is almost all "bunk". This "answer" provides the classic result to the problem you read in the texts but the reason fort the answer is far simpler than any of the answers you have seen previously. All measurements of time must be made 'locally" for them to mean anything at all. It is not possible to compare laboratory frames of reference as if they were in some way a better reference frame than the moving frame of reference, or that there are cases in which we are able to ignore "small" errors. This is the 'worst case" imprecision error and it is related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and to conjugate variables being simultaneously measured. The most important frames of reference is the traveling frame of reference and the earth frame of reverence and the problem of Clock Paradox resolves to a loss of synchronization due to radically changing distances in as perceived from the different frames of reference. Observations from within the moving frame will not be upper bounded as one may think. There is no "Law" of physics that says you can't travel "Faster than Light" but it does have very important implications when you compare measurements in one frame of reference with those in another another frame of reference. Each frame of reference will be internally consistent... and an inertial frame of reference is simply a co-moving groups of points. These points can be anywhere in the visible Universe. If you want to compare times within the one co-moving frame you must correct for the time of propagation of light internal to the frame. Mostly simple analysis does not correct for this separation and this usually leads to some "bad Physics".
I will also state here this is also what Einstein thought as well but he had been contradicted by others who did not like that analysis. Einstein also had some similar statements to make about "mass" as well... he did not like the idea of "relativistic mass" and would only consider rest mass. The relativistic mass is a fiction depending on where the measurements are made and by whom. The "false" idea that you cannot exceed the speed of light because the relativistic mass becomes infinite would have been laughable to Einstein, he knew that this was not the point. There is no physical limit on "speed" and even a speed near to infinity would be "apparently" possible, time dilation "steals" when you try to bring the two frames together. The penalty would be in comparison of clocks in two separate frames of reference is the true measure of comparison and this is a "history' dependent function. Relativity is not a means of getting energy out of matter it is a system of conversion between two different co-ordinate systems. E = MC^2 is dependent on the frame in which it is made and relative to what "zero point". In a system of a single high speed particle in a "universe" of many arbitrarily moving high speed relativistic particles there is no universal "energy", you need to stipulate the particles this "comparison" of coordinates and of time are relative to since there are so many and they are "equivalent". Sure there is energy there but relativistic mass should be termed relativistic energy .... since there is no "ponderable" mass equivalent and I defy anyone to create this mass without particle - antiparticle creation events. What I understand by this is there is no relativistic frame of reference that removes any real particle as a "mass" and replaces it with an equivalent amount of energy. So you cannot have your cake and eat it too, if the creation of particles in an expression of relativistic mass you must demonstrate in which frame of reference this quantity can be made zero, this is Special Relativity not particle creation and these are not direct "equivalents".
As a last point I would like to apologize to people for this long post but when considered this way, and it is very simple when you think about it, there is some more to this story and some surprising results if you want to pursue them.... All still very easy.... I leave that to all of you out there if you want to go down this course.
Cheers
Sorry about the length of this post but I thought I would give a full explanation of this puzzling effect. In doing so I hope you will all find an answer to all your questions. I also expect you to see interesting opportunities as well that you have not been told by many of your lecturers. You have been told to "shut up and calculate"... I say calculators can be purchased for a couple of bucks and your worth as a Physicist is in the 'quality" of your analysis.
Nothing could be simpler than the twin paradox to explain. Why do people have to make it so difficult? I will explain it so that a nine-year-old can understand it (I have tested this on a nine year old and it was understood). I will not use any “difficult” mathematics and promise that anyone of average intelligence will have a clear idea of what is really going on. If it does miss the mark for you please ask some extra questions and I will surely answer them.
In this exposition I will be referring to a number of idealized objects. Two “perfect” spacecraft ( carrying observers A and B ) in initial orbit around the Earth are carrying two very conventional clocks attached to their respective walls. A large clear window in each spacecraft through which each traveler can view the other’s clock. A way to synchronize the two clocks. Two idealized telescopes of arbitrary magnification (adjustable to infinity) used for observations. A “stationary” target star situated 600 light years distance from Earth. A “straight road” to the star marked out by yellow marker buoys at 10 light year intervals (60 in all). A short initial stretch of 1 light second marker buoys that automatically trigger a flash of light when a ship passes nearby.
The spacecraft are “very special”. They need only three dials and the navigational computer for control.
1. A “go faster” knob calibrated from 0 to infinity (yes... infinity).
2. A “total mass” knob calibrated from 0 to 1 (to adjust the ships total mass).
3. A “stop” button.
4. A navigation computer used to pick the destination star and to carry out the function of these controls in travel to the star and back. It also has a “go home” button to help us go home if we do not know the direction.
All other “stuff” is taken care of such as the propulsion system food and air and a good CD player etc. Why do we need the total mass knob? By adjusting this down our traveler can undergo arbitrarily high accelerations without harm or even sensation. For instance when your family car slams into a brick wall the forces on you are a product of your mass time the “de-acceleration” you get by being suddenly brought to rest. You can avoid damage and discomfort to yourself by adjusting either the “de-acceleration” or your mass so that the total force (product of mass times acceleration) is small.
Our spacecraft adjusts mass for a dual purpose.
1. To avoid discomfort with the high accelerations
2. To reduce the performance characteristics and other requirements of the rocket engine by being able to make the entire spaceship and occupant as light (near inertialess) as we want. We can then accelerate as fast as we want for as long as we want using finite resources on board the ship. worry about the physics of this later. Assume that the effects on light are independent of how or what produces that light. To stop further discussion of this feature for now I will incorporate this control into the navigation computer and let it decide a suitable mass figure to dial up during the trip (a very low one).
{Additional Note: It is begging the question that we can do this but I assure everyone we can, providing we find some process, in which mass and electromagnetism can be interchanged. This would be an "unexpected" extension to present day theory I will admit.}
Our twin spacecraft are in close mutual orbit around the earth and we synchronize clocks. Allowing for the time light takes to travel between the two spacecraft, the astronauts are able to observe the time on the other’s spacecraft through the windows using the powerful telescopes supplied. After a little adjustment the two clocks are mutually agreed to be in synchronization, that is they show the same time and are both set to zero in a mutual co-moving rest frame. Lets say spacecraft A wishes to travel to the previously mentioned star 600 light years distance from Earth. This s a time that light takes to travel to the distant star... 600 Earth years. Spacecraft B’s entire purpose is to stay behind in an inertial frame of reference and just observe the time on A’s clock for the entire journey using his "miraculous" telescope. Spacecraft A will also observe spacecraft B’s clock and do other interesting stuff as well.
Remember the “yellow brick road” marked out to the star (very civilized Universe this is). The astronaut aboard A’s spaceship picks this destination on his navigational computer and adjusts his “go faster” knob so that he passes one of these buoys every minute of his trip (as reckoned by his clock on the wall). These buoys are 10 light years apart each and they emit a flash back to earth when a ship passes them closely. All the buoys and the distant star are in one co-moving frame for simplicity.
Internally to the star traveling astronaut, there is no restriction on the speed he can travel. He can go as fast as he wants, this is actually guaranteed by the principle of inertial equivalence and Special Relativity. This is due to the fact that speed is distance divided by time and as velocity of a space ship increases the observer in the space ship sees a foreshortening of the distance from his position and the position of the star. This is due to proper motion of the ship, the faster the relative velocity of the ship the closer it approaches the speed of light and time is slowing down to match this effect. If it were possible to travel actually at the speed of light the ship and its occupants would be "frozen" on the wall of the light cone and the passage of time for observer A would cease. This is what actually happens to photons themselves, they are the only known object that is "immune" to the effects of the passage of time.
By turning the knob way round he can traverse the universe in a matter of minutes (his ship time, "earth time" is the time light takes to traverse the same distance which may be millions of years relative to Earth time) or he can slow it down and take a more leisurely journey and “sniff the daisies”. At this faster speed the entire trip will take one hour and a few minutes (ships time one way) to get to the distant star 600 light years away (from Earth) at just under the speed of light. This is because he simply adjusts the "go faster" knob so that he passes one buoy (at each 10 light years) every minute of ships time. Do not worry about the kinematics of this since "light" and the way it propagates is all that we are concerned with not how we perform accelerations. During the trip he observes his twin spaceship B in orbit around the Earth and his clock is hardly moving at all, that is one tick of B’s clock seems to take several minutes of A’s time (perhaps longer). No wonder because the light is red shifted to hell and back (wavefronts of light are all stretched out compared to normal) so that B’s clock appears to be ticking at a very slow rate indeed. At the same time the observer in Space Ship A notices no change in his time at all, this is simply because the ship and everything in it are part of the observer frame of reference. The actual speed of light in either A or B's frame of reference is apparently unaffected. If he was still in Earth orbit it would be reading the same time as B and the ticks would appear be the same length (rate) but because of the rapidly increasing distance to Earth and at such an enormous speed he is not physically far behind the first wavefronts of light that B’s spacecraft emitted moments after A left. More on this point later because the observer in A is not personally aware of this fact that it is his motion and not the motion of the Universe that is the reason for this rapidly increasing distance he notices to B's vessel and to the Earth.
Our "relatively" high-speed traveler has been traveling for what seems to be ages (actually only one hour of his time – he has a short attention span and bores easily) when he approaches the star and when he draws alongside presses the “stop” button. In a “very” short distance our miraculous spacecraft draws to a dead stop in close proximity to the star. This is done using the "miraculous" inertia control. During this operation the mass of the ship has been reduced to almost zero so stopping this vessel from an initial relative velocity near the speed of light to a zero velocity relative to the star takes F = mA force which can be made as small as we wish to reduce the effect on observer A to the acceleration. He spends “five minutes or so” making a few observations and then decides to return home at the same outward speed. One of the observations he makes in this five minutes is B’s spacecraft orbiting earth while he orbited that distant star. B's clock has miraculously returned to the normal rate of progress when viewed by A, that is one tick of B’s clock now equals one tick of A’s clock. The only problem is that B’s clock is “almost” one hour behind A’s present time with only a short apparent elapsed time. This does not disturb A for the time being and he shrugs off the anomaly. Just before he leaves he emits a prearranged flash of light to his friend B in orbit around the earth to tell B he is coming home. The fact that he has changed direction a sudden asymmetry is noted in the two ships. The moment A reverses direction a blue shift is seen from Earth by A and the Ship carrying observer B.
On the return journey A still passes one of the yellow buoys every minute (ship time) as before (each spaced 10 light years apart). The buoys only flash when the ship passes relative to "Earth time" which is every 10 years of elapsed Earth time plus a little bit since this is how long light from that distant star takes to pass each of these buoys. "Internally" A is pleased with himself noting that the whole journey will be taking just a little over 2 hours and five minutes A's ship time for both ways. That is until he looks through his telescope once again at the earth and at B’s clock. He now notices that B appears to be incredibly blue shifted (wavefronts are all bunched together compared with normal) but even more remarkably B’s clock now has speeded up so that while he watches over a few seconds, years appears to be passing on B’s ship. As seen by A, Earth and on B's ship, time is flashing by and the Earth appears to be spinning like a high-speed top. as he nears the vicinity of the Earth B's clock is now approaching 1200 years of elapsed time while A's ship time is still around 2 hours in total.
All this time what was B seeing of A’s journey? This is the reverse but it is not symmetric. This is the most important point and it leads to time assymetry. After the two had synchronized clocks A had sped away at enormous velocity near to the speed of light (B knew this fact but what does he see?). According to reckoning from B’s point of view he was traveling at only 50% the speed of light. The reason for 50% is not so obvious, lets assume that A was traveling at nearly 99.999% the speed of light directly away from B (pulled that figure out of the air... just very close to the speed of light) and as ship A passed secondary marker buoys one light second apart when A passes near to these buoys (roughly one every second) the buoy emits a flash and this is seen back at B the number of light seconds away from B. Each second the space ship increases its distance from Earth and from B by an extra light second. Light takes an extra second to travel back to the last position the ship was in 1 second ago (nearly) B or Earth time.
Speed for a space ship traveling away from Earth nearly at the speed of light at t (total earth time)=1sec, s=1ls(Light seconds distant from Earth) and the time that pulse takes to return to earth and be seen is an additional second .... So we see the pulse from the first buoy after 2 seconds ( 1 + 1 = 2). The estimate of velocity as "seen" from Earth, parallax shows the ship 1 ls away and this as at t=2 seconds... estimate of velocity is 1/2 C. In the next second A reaches the next buoy at a distance of 2 ls from Earth and the buoy emits a flash back to earth. This flash of light takes 2 more seconds to reach Earth from the buoy... (2 + 2 = 4). The estimate of velocity is distance traveled is 2 light seconds after 4 seconds of travel .... average speed is once again 1/2 speed of light. After the ship carrying A reaches the third buoy after about three seconds Earth time the third buoy emits a flash of light and this takes a further three seconds to travel to Earth.... (3 + 3 =6) average speed appears to be once again 1/2 speed of light. At each buoy spaced at a distance of 1 light second further away from earth the apparent observed velocity is "roughly" 1/2 C not roughly 1C which you would think to expect since the ship is actually traveling at that speed (near the speed of light). This argument applies also to the buoys 10 light years apart as well. The increasing travel time from Earth is a very significant factor we do not see in ordinary life and leads to a "gross underestimate" of speed of any object moving away at a significant fraction of the speed of light. The effective "appearance" is absolutely nothing can travel away from the Earth "visually" faster than 1/2 he speed of light simply by proper motion. There is no correction for Hubble Shift in this problem.
From B’s point of view A cannot exceed the speed of light (and of course the reverse is also true as A observes B from his ship... which is totally equivalent). Observations of A’s clock using the incredibly high powered telescope that B has, sees A traveling past the buoys but he is not passing them one a minute Earth time (as A apparently thought) but passing them one every 20 years of Earth and B’s time. B's observation of A's clock (really good telescope here) shows A's ships time is running very slow and at the moment flashes are received at Earth of flashes from the 10 light year buoys, the clock on the wall of A's ship is incrementing only one minute at a time, relatively time is passing very slowly. This is because of the additional delay caused by being 10 lights years further at the end of each 10 light year hop and the greater distance the light has to travel to B and the earth (20 years). Paradoxically A also appears to be traveling at half the true relative speed away from earth than he actually is relative to B’s inertial frame.
.
If each buoy had a lighthouse keeper and their clocks were "magically" synchronized with B (near earth), then each keeper would see this spaceship flash by at 10-year intervals because this is how long light takes to travel from Earth to reach each one of the 10 light year buoys and our ship A is only marginally slower than that speed. But because it takes an extra ten years for the light from the next more distant buoy to reach Earth the estimated velocity appears to be seen as half what it really is from B's reference frame seen near earth.
A’s spaceship appears to be incredibly red shifted and A is remarkably preserved over the centuries that pass while B waits. B observes A traveling towards the star for nearly 1200 years (this is exactly how long it would take if A traveled at 1/2 the speed of light). This is the time that the last waves of light will take from A's position around that star to reach Earth after he had arrived at the star for his 5 minute stopover.
Recapping: The ship takes 600 years to reach the star Earth time (traveling near the speed of light), arrives, turns around gives a flash and returns in another 600 years... total 1200 years round trip for a beam of light. The light when he arrived takes 600 years to return to Earth and the ship takes a couple of hours longer so something unusual will happen. That is 600 years for the spaceship to apparently get to the star plus 600 years for the light to get back to earth, a total of 1200 years Earth time. The light emitted on the way back to Earth by the ship will all arrive in the last few minutes of the trip... like a highly compressed stream of "optical" information.
Lets think about this... the distance between A and B is increasing all the time A is moving away. B never sees A traveling faster than light (this is Special Relativity). In fact he can only "observe" a speed of 1/2C away from the Earth (and symmetrically A views B the same). By the time A gets to the star (600 light years from Earth according to B’s time) the light from that event, 600 lights years distant, will take another 600 years to get back to Earth before B will know he made it. Luckily medicine has long solved all the problems of aging and illness so B is still feeling “reasonably” good after 1200 years, but a little bored. Observations of A’s clock by B shows that it is now "temporarily" ticking at the same rate as B (while stopped around the position of the distant star because distance is constant and a flash every second will be spaced 1 second apart) but A's clock is showing only 1 hour cumulative time on the dial instead of nearly 1200 years shown on B’s clock.
The instant B sees A depart for Earth (a signal flash of light agreed on before departure), A now suddenly appears to be incredibly blue shifted. But "when" does A see this happen... nearly 1200 years after A leaving B and Earth orbit. This is asymmetric to observations made by A of B and of Earth previously noted. The difference is going to lead to "missing time". Observation of the clock on A’s ship by B now show a “rapidly” increasing time on A’s clock rushing towards the end of his second hour. Ticks as seen by B of the clock on A’s spacecraft are now shortened to a very great extent. Interesting when A and B compare notes this is a much reduced rate of time acceleration than seen of B by A, who aged 1200 years due to this "asymmetry". Incredibly the trip back takes only a couple of minutes B's time and 1 hour A's time and a comparison of the clocks indicate that A’s clock shows (about) 2 hours and 5 five minutes total for his entire trip and the time on B’s clock is (about) 1200 years and 5 minutes. This is due "entirely" to the asymmetry of the clocks on a round trip. A cannot beat the light back to Earth just before he left the star, but he can make a “close miss” of this race using our special spaceship, arriving just behind the flash of light he emitted just before he left by a couple of minutes Earth Time.
It is a "paradox" because we do not come across this in our normal day to day experience but you would if you could perform this "trick".
Now here comes the only difficult part of this discussion.... This bit is not essential to the basic understanding of the Clock or Twin Paradox but I added this in for completeness.
“Hey!” you say “if you can never observe an object traveling faster than light what about the return journey to earth that takes apparently only a few minutes? Surely this is a violation of the principle that you cannot observe an object traveling faster than light?” In actual fact there are many objects in the Universe that "appear to travel faster than light". Check out the Jet from M87 on the web, it has been clocked at 6 times the speed of light. What is being observed is the fact that parts of that jet has been traveling to Earth for many thousands of years and the light is now arriving from when this Jet first moved toward the Earth and now arrive at observers here "at a faster compressed rate of arrival" like a video placed into fast forward, not only speeded up the wavelengths of light also "speeded up" by Relativistic Doppler Shift. This is entirely due to the proper motion of the Jet towards us, light and the Jet are traveling at almost the same speed toward us and we see the events that happened to that jet as if it was a compressed 'movie". naturally the Jet experiences nothing of the sort in its own frame of reference. This shows as a extreme blue shift in the frequencies when we finally get to see the "first light" from that jet it had already started on its journey toward us thousands of years ago. The light in the Jet from M86 arrives over a periods of one year Earth time that was originally emitted by the Jet over a period of 6 years Earth time. According to "Jet internal time" it emitted the light (in its own frame of reference) over one year. These "corrections" are Special Relativity corrections. It is as if the clocks in each case... Jet Clock, and earth Clock have been "dropping" seconds out of elapsed time altogether. This is due to the fact of proper motion and parallax due to motion of sources.
The speed of light gives, and the speed of light takes away! I have not discussed all the optical effects noted by observers. There are many, as any Star Trek fan knows when you watch the Enterprise jump to warp speed! There are many others when you look out the window from A at other objects in space around you. Enough to say that that for such a high velocity object there will be an optical distortion seen at B’s end. This leads B to think that A is approaching from a much shorter distance (stereoscopically speaking) than he really is at a speed much higher than the velocity of light. All the light from A’s return journey will precede A by only a fraction of the time it took A in his own frame of reference to get to earth (one hour his time, 1200 years Earth time). This is the explanation for the round trip. You have to watch for 1200 years till this effect occurs in the last few minutes of the vigil (this is the time the ship is returning to earth between that last signal flash and the final arrival back in earth orbit (one hour ship time and only a few minutes Earth or observer B time). Most accounts leave this point out.
The Twin or Clock Paradox is not limiting the apparent speed of travel in space it forces clock to become un-synchronised. The moving clocks run slow but only relative to other clock that are not undergoing acceleration (or "apparent acceleration"). You may travel as fast as you want to anywhere you like in as short a period of time as you seem fit to choose (providing you have the energy to do it). The penalty is if you travel too far in space and at too high a velocity the Earth may not even be there to return to because you have time traveled apparently irreversibly into the future, the amount you will travel into Earth's future depends on how long you travel at high velocity. So space travel to the stars may not be as big a problem for the traveler as it is for a political system to fund it. As they say... No bucks, no Buck Rogers. What government is going to fund a space program that takes centuries for the travelers to return when elections are held every 3 or 4 years? The politicians may never receive any glory for their foresightedness. The political party they belonged to may not even exist any more.
There are some ways around this last issue but this is not the place or time to discuss this point... though it is quite an interesting one.
I know you have all been told something quite different to this story on your way through University and it is almost all "bunk". This "answer" provides the classic result to the problem you read in the texts but the reason fort the answer is far simpler than any of the answers you have seen previously. All measurements of time must be made 'locally" for them to mean anything at all. It is not possible to compare laboratory frames of reference as if they were in some way a better reference frame than the moving frame of reference, or that there are cases in which we are able to ignore "small" errors. This is the 'worst case" imprecision error and it is related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and to conjugate variables being simultaneously measured. The most important frames of reference is the traveling frame of reference and the earth frame of reverence and the problem of Clock Paradox resolves to a loss of synchronization due to radically changing distances in as perceived from the different frames of reference. Observations from within the moving frame will not be upper bounded as one may think. There is no "Law" of physics that says you can't travel "Faster than Light" but it does have very important implications when you compare measurements in one frame of reference with those in another another frame of reference. Each frame of reference will be internally consistent... and an inertial frame of reference is simply a co-moving groups of points. These points can be anywhere in the visible Universe. If you want to compare times within the one co-moving frame you must correct for the time of propagation of light internal to the frame. Mostly simple analysis does not correct for this separation and this usually leads to some "bad Physics".
I will also state here this is also what Einstein thought as well but he had been contradicted by others who did not like that analysis. Einstein also had some similar statements to make about "mass" as well... he did not like the idea of "relativistic mass" and would only consider rest mass. The relativistic mass is a fiction depending on where the measurements are made and by whom. The "false" idea that you cannot exceed the speed of light because the relativistic mass becomes infinite would have been laughable to Einstein, he knew that this was not the point. There is no physical limit on "speed" and even a speed near to infinity would be "apparently" possible, time dilation "steals" when you try to bring the two frames together. The penalty would be in comparison of clocks in two separate frames of reference is the true measure of comparison and this is a "history' dependent function. Relativity is not a means of getting energy out of matter it is a system of conversion between two different co-ordinate systems. E = MC^2 is dependent on the frame in which it is made and relative to what "zero point". In a system of a single high speed particle in a "universe" of many arbitrarily moving high speed relativistic particles there is no universal "energy", you need to stipulate the particles this "comparison" of coordinates and of time are relative to since there are so many and they are "equivalent". Sure there is energy there but relativistic mass should be termed relativistic energy .... since there is no "ponderable" mass equivalent and I defy anyone to create this mass without particle - antiparticle creation events. What I understand by this is there is no relativistic frame of reference that removes any real particle as a "mass" and replaces it with an equivalent amount of energy. So you cannot have your cake and eat it too, if the creation of particles in an expression of relativistic mass you must demonstrate in which frame of reference this quantity can be made zero, this is Special Relativity not particle creation and these are not direct "equivalents".
As a last point I would like to apologize to people for this long post but when considered this way, and it is very simple when you think about it, there is some more to this story and some surprising results if you want to pursue them.... All still very easy.... I leave that to all of you out there if you want to go down this course.
Cheers
Dialing down mass seems highly improbable.
The paradox is much easier to explain in General Relativity, SR is limited in scope to simplify the calculations and is not a complete description.
The effect stems from the mass energy equivalence E =Mc^2.
Lets put this in a more convenient form. M = E/c^2
Now as we approach the speed of light we will require an increasing amount of energy to continue accelerating. This energy effectively increases the mass of the ship and thus gravity. The stronger the gravity, the slower time runs.
You are not traveling through time, your clock is running slower due to the increased mass.
The paradox is much easier to explain in General Relativity, SR is limited in scope to simplify the calculations and is not a complete description.
The effect stems from the mass energy equivalence E =Mc^2.
Lets put this in a more convenient form. M = E/c^2
Now as we approach the speed of light we will require an increasing amount of energy to continue accelerating. This energy effectively increases the mass of the ship and thus gravity. The stronger the gravity, the slower time runs.
You are not traveling through time, your clock is running slower due to the increased mass.
That was entirely too long hehe I lost ya somewhere though I am quite interested in this work so am trying to finish the length.. I think your theory is correct with this... Especially since I see lights blinking in front of most of the stars even the consellations... Maybe everyone else just writes that off as an odd signature.
As always Steven :) Hmm somewhat lengthy, You're sure he was only nine? ::))
"The "false" idea that you cannot exceed the speed of light because the relativistic mass becomes infinite would have been laughable to Einstein, he knew that this was not the point. There is no physical limit on "speed" and even a speed near to infinity would be "apparently" possible, time dilation "steals" when you try to bring the two frames together."
Makes total sense to me, Its not the mass in it self, the mass as well as the time difference are just expressions of spacetime, and as motion connects with both of those they can be used as metrics. I think Einstein would have agreed to that :) But it would be simplistic to argue that you can take loose one of the forces and manipulate on that expecting the others not to react. Thats how i view it at least. As for this thing of relativistic mass contra restmass, yeah to me it seemed the same too, until recently when i finally learned the concept of restmass. (thanks reaglow :) I think this split is needed for QM, and the ways we try to explain waves, no? As for your thought on relativistic mass and energy, they are the same are they not? When you build up relative mass you in fact acquire energy. And that force of gravity seems to me as the 'ocean' that lies behind all references to 'matter'
and Wulf, your's was cool too :)
"The "false" idea that you cannot exceed the speed of light because the relativistic mass becomes infinite would have been laughable to Einstein, he knew that this was not the point. There is no physical limit on "speed" and even a speed near to infinity would be "apparently" possible, time dilation "steals" when you try to bring the two frames together."
Makes total sense to me, Its not the mass in it self, the mass as well as the time difference are just expressions of spacetime, and as motion connects with both of those they can be used as metrics. I think Einstein would have agreed to that :) But it would be simplistic to argue that you can take loose one of the forces and manipulate on that expecting the others not to react. Thats how i view it at least. As for this thing of relativistic mass contra restmass, yeah to me it seemed the same too, until recently when i finally learned the concept of restmass. (thanks reaglow :) I think this split is needed for QM, and the ways we try to explain waves, no? As for your thought on relativistic mass and energy, they are the same are they not? When you build up relative mass you in fact acquire energy. And that force of gravity seems to me as the 'ocean' that lies behind all references to 'matter'
and Wulf, your's was cool too :)
Hi Wulf, yor_on, Zarabtul, Ryan125, StevenA, Aireal, Ron, kjw et al,
Once again I am very sorry for the length of that post but as Einstein himself once said "Always express everything as simply as possible, but not more so". I know it is a "biggie" to continue concentration... I can only say this one is worth the effort.
Once again I am very sorry for the length of that post but as Einstein himself once said "Always express everything as simply as possible, but not more so". I know it is a "biggie" to continue concentration... I can only say this one is worth the effort.
QUOTE (Wulf+)
Dialing down mass seems highly improbable. The paradox is much easier to explain in General Relativity, SR is limited in scope to simplify the calculations and is not a complete description.
True... I have not explained that but there is a real problem with bringing any physical object up to the speed necessary to unequivocally demonstrate this effect. The effect is actually independent of mass, even photons experience time dilation and they do not have rest mass. Disagree with the interpretation that Special Relativity is not appropriate to treat this problem. No real problem in General Relativity can be solved unless it has perfect symmetry, very few "real problems" can be solved with General Relativity and for true time dilation it needs time asymmetry between the two "travelers".
QUOTE (Wulf+)
Now as we approach the speed of light we will require an increasing amount of energy to continue accelerating. This energy effectively increases the mass of the ship and thus gravity. The stronger the gravity, the slower time runs.
You are not traveling through time, your clock is running slower due to the increased mass.
You are not traveling through time, your clock is running slower due to the increased mass.
Consider your velocity relative to the Jet in M87, why are you not crushed to a pancake? Special and General Relativity have the same answer in this regard... the inertial frames of reference are equivalent. I will quote Einstein directly regarding this matter....
QUOTE (Albert Einstein+)
In a 1948 letter to Lincoln Barnett Einstein wrote...
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass than 'the rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M, it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."
I completely agree with Einstein on this point and Einstein was speaking about just this point and the way it had been 'misrepresented".
The time dilation itself is not dependent on "relativistic mass".... so I can choose any particle with any mass I want and supply it with a source of propulsion of an appropriate quantum to provide for the "Gedanken Experiment". The time dilation is history dependent not relativistic mass dependent. Big particles and small particles as well as no mass particles all suffer the same equivalent time dilation based on "path". This follows directly from the experimental fact that as far as is known all particles fall the same in the same gravitational field. No deviations have yet been found. Gravity therefore could be a "pseudo-force" and this is exactly what Einstein had thought. I know a lot of people want to quantize gravity but so far as I understand this problems it is not been done and several important people have shown that this attempt is without any possibility of success. Sure it is a bit of a fiction at this stage to push particles up to very high velocities, but it must lead to the same answer regardless of the mass of the accelerated object independent of "gravity" or of "mass". The time dilation is an asymmetry dependent on history... An "acceleration history" to be sure but all things in a Gravity field feel the same acceleration at the same point.
As another verification of this process of using SR instead of GR I will point you to this paper regarding Rotating Frames of Reference and B Keating has used Special Relativity in the analysis (as well as GR... but he does qualify).
I can truly say "enjoy" since this is a very powerful result and wholly satisfying as well. It makes the hairs on the tassel of my beanie stand on end with "excitement"... he he he! Here you can see space "curl up" and point in different directions according to simple kinematic considerations.
Cheers
The time dilation itself is not dependent on "relativistic mass".... so I can choose any particle with any mass I want and supply it with a source of propulsion of an appropriate quantum to provide for the "Gedanken Experiment". The time dilation is history dependent not relativistic mass dependent. Big particles and small particles as well as no mass particles all suffer the same equivalent time dilation based on "path". This follows directly from the experimental fact that as far as is known all particles fall the same in the same gravitational field. No deviations have yet been found. Gravity therefore could be a "pseudo-force" and this is exactly what Einstein had thought. I know a lot of people want to quantize gravity but so far as I understand this problems it is not been done and several important people have shown that this attempt is without any possibility of success. Sure it is a bit of a fiction at this stage to push particles up to very high velocities, but it must lead to the same answer regardless of the mass of the accelerated object independent of "gravity" or of "mass". The time dilation is an asymmetry dependent on history... An "acceleration history" to be sure but all things in a Gravity field feel the same acceleration at the same point.
As another verification of this process of using SR instead of GR I will point you to this paper regarding Rotating Frames of Reference and B Keating has used Special Relativity in the analysis (as well as GR... but he does qualify).
QUOTE
The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk
Brian Keating
Mentor: Dr. Teymour Darkhosh
1. Introduction
The case of a rigid disk rotating at relativistic speeds raises a number of interesting paradoxes and has long been plagued with misunderstandings. According to special relativity, measuring rods laid out along the rim of the disk will be Lorentz contracted according to the usual formula, but those laid out along the radius will not, as these are perpendicular to the (instantaneous) direction of motion. Thus, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the disk will no longer be pi. This paradox was first introduced in 1909 by Paul Ehrenfest, and is referred to as Ehrenfest’s paradox [1].
The Ehrenfest paradox was known to Einstein, and he actually used the case of a rotating disk in his seminal 1916 paper to introduce the necessity for non-Euclidian geometry in general relativity (GR) [2]. However, he never published a paper directly addressing the rotating disk. Other physicists, such as Strauss [3], argued that if the measuring rods were contracted, then so were the distances they were measuring, so the ratio C/D would still be pi. [...] The best way to view the paradoxes of the rotating disk is as a variant on the twin paradox. It is in the changing from inertial frame to inertial frame that time is “lost.”
In the words of Rizzi and Tartaglia [5],
“…a rotating disk does not admit a well defined `proper frame’; rather, it should be regarded as a class of an infinite number of local proper frames, considered in different points at different times, and glued together according to some convention.”
http://www.smcm.edu/nsm/physics/SMP03S/KeatingB.doc.pdf
I know that you would find this treatment fascinating and highly compelling. Possibly the only treatment that really works and provides the correct answers (as has been practically applied in certain important Global Positioning Problems). This is a Special Relativistic Solution to a problem that currently cannot be solved using GR except in the most symmetric of cases. The use of SR is particularly interesting and only SR is used to determine Time Dilation in most practical cases anyway. As stated in the paper "GR is unnecessary when considering purely kinematic effects [...] We see that the desynchronization [of a spinning disk] is basically a different manifestation of the twin paradox. Like the twin paradox, changing between different inertial frames is the source of the discrepancy, although in this case instead of one big change, there are an infinite number of infinitesimal transformations. Furthermore, the time difference between a clock that has made one revolution around the disk and one that has remained at rest relative to the disk is an objective effect..".Brian Keating
Mentor: Dr. Teymour Darkhosh
1. Introduction
The case of a rigid disk rotating at relativistic speeds raises a number of interesting paradoxes and has long been plagued with misunderstandings. According to special relativity, measuring rods laid out along the rim of the disk will be Lorentz contracted according to the usual formula, but those laid out along the radius will not, as these are perpendicular to the (instantaneous) direction of motion. Thus, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of the disk will no longer be pi. This paradox was first introduced in 1909 by Paul Ehrenfest, and is referred to as Ehrenfest’s paradox [1].
The Ehrenfest paradox was known to Einstein, and he actually used the case of a rotating disk in his seminal 1916 paper to introduce the necessity for non-Euclidian geometry in general relativity (GR) [2]. However, he never published a paper directly addressing the rotating disk. Other physicists, such as Strauss [3], argued that if the measuring rods were contracted, then so were the distances they were measuring, so the ratio C/D would still be pi. [...] The best way to view the paradoxes of the rotating disk is as a variant on the twin paradox. It is in the changing from inertial frame to inertial frame that time is “lost.”
In the words of Rizzi and Tartaglia [5],
“…a rotating disk does not admit a well defined `proper frame’; rather, it should be regarded as a class of an infinite number of local proper frames, considered in different points at different times, and glued together according to some convention.”
http://www.smcm.edu/nsm/physics/SMP03S/KeatingB.doc.pdf
I can truly say "enjoy" since this is a very powerful result and wholly satisfying as well. It makes the hairs on the tassel of my beanie stand on end with "excitement"... he he he! Here you can see space "curl up" and point in different directions according to simple kinematic considerations.
Cheers
Awwh sh** GoodElf ... And i said Steven :(
Ooooh, Now i'm DeaD.
Ooooh, Now i'm DeaD.
" Strauss [3], argued that if the measuring rods were contracted, then so were the distances they were measuring, so the ratio C/D would still be pi. [...]" If he was in that frame of reference i absolutely concur.
" This follows directly from the experimental fact that as far as is known all particles fall the same in the same gravitational field. No deviations have yet been found. Gravity therefore could be a "pseudo-force" and this is exactly what Einstein had thought " How would it be a pseudoforce? Do you mean that you see it entirely as expression of spacetime? Then i agree.. Gravity is the sea where from, mass, restmass, relative mass, and i don't know how many expressions come. But it is also the definition of matter, no?
GoodElf, this photon thing, they come in different energy levels right , but always at 'C' (in space that is). When they have a higher energy, would it be right to say that it is equivalent to the concept of relativistic mass? You said yourself that gravity was a pseudoforce right. And to me gravity is the 'principle' of mass. I know, macroscopically we have other definitions but now I'm thinking, vely vely small :) They all go into each other as i see it, at least when looking at it from QM ::))
Awwwh. again..
" This follows directly from the experimental fact that as far as is known all particles fall the same in the same gravitational field. No deviations have yet been found. Gravity therefore could be a "pseudo-force" and this is exactly what Einstein had thought " How would it be a pseudoforce? Do you mean that you see it entirely as expression of spacetime? Then i agree.. Gravity is the sea where from, mass, restmass, relative mass, and i don't know how many expressions come. But it is also the definition of matter, no?
GoodElf, this photon thing, they come in different energy levels right , but always at 'C' (in space that is). When they have a higher energy, would it be right to say that it is equivalent to the concept of relativistic mass? You said yourself that gravity was a pseudoforce right. And to me gravity is the 'principle' of mass. I know, macroscopically we have other definitions but now I'm thinking, vely vely small :) They all go into each other as i see it, at least when looking at it from QM ::))
Awwwh. again..
Gravity causes time dilation
the bending or sharing of energy close to the near collision of an object traveling around another object in motion traveling at different speeds around the same center piont
the bending or sharing of energy close to the near collision of an object traveling around another object in motion traveling at different speeds around the same center piont
the inertial motions,also produce asymmetry in the time,in spaceships with speeds
near the speed of light.the variations of velocity linked to the time dilatation,is due
the geometry of the space,that is not more euclidean,but hyperbolic or elliptic,depending of the curvatures of spacetime,that is produced by the non-symmetry between the objects rotating( that create effect of mass,therefore of energy).the variations of velocities are linked to asymmetry of the motions( that
are linked to the inertial systems and for a invariant speed between the inertial systems and a maximum-speed,where all becomes it variable in relation at these
speed,therefore space and time are deformed and to generate a symmetry groups
doeas appear the antichrous and orthochrous lorentz transformations,that here aren't diffeomorphics and yes homeomorpphics,bacause there appear different toplogies of spacetime,through a reversa time,that is parameter of the ordinary time,segmented ib two opposed directions,that are the rotational systems from left-handed transformed into right-handed and viceversa,in conjugation with the
operator pt.then the time dilatation and space contraction is associated to the
differences between the asymmetry of left-right handed rotations( that equivalent
to the radial speeds,when are calculed to the differences in the iincrease of the speed,that altere the vector-directions of the curves,and the spins associated to the curvatures).And thence the spacetime run in two opposite directions ,through
temporal-vector,that change the velocity,altering the interval of spacetime,and
therefore the pulsations of the time,that is deformed by the speeds and masses,produced by the rotational effects.then the asymmetry in the time is
linked to the reverse time dilatations in contraposition inertial to a maximum-speed.the ,etric of spacetime curvatures is associated at the gravitational potential,that determine the asymmetries,generated in the curvatures of spacetime
that are unequivalents.when change the coordinates of time of rotational system
that rotates clockwise( right-handed) to other anticlockwise( left-handed),the
clocks mark differents intervals of spacetime( the space is deformed in the rate
that the time,that is action of warping the space0.then appear in the same internval
several spacetime curve lines that run "forward in time" and simultaneouly "backward in time".then the spacetime is quasi-circular,then there are multiples continuos spacetime into a same interval.
near the speed of light.the variations of velocity linked to the time dilatation,is due
the geometry of the space,that is not more euclidean,but hyperbolic or elliptic,depending of the curvatures of spacetime,that is produced by the non-symmetry between the objects rotating( that create effect of mass,therefore of energy).the variations of velocities are linked to asymmetry of the motions( that
are linked to the inertial systems and for a invariant speed between the inertial systems and a maximum-speed,where all becomes it variable in relation at these
speed,therefore space and time are deformed and to generate a symmetry groups
doeas appear the antichrous and orthochrous lorentz transformations,that here aren't diffeomorphics and yes homeomorpphics,bacause there appear different toplogies of spacetime,through a reversa time,that is parameter of the ordinary time,segmented ib two opposed directions,that are the rotational systems from left-handed transformed into right-handed and viceversa,in conjugation with the
operator pt.then the time dilatation and space contraction is associated to the
differences between the asymmetry of left-right handed rotations( that equivalent
to the radial speeds,when are calculed to the differences in the iincrease of the speed,that altere the vector-directions of the curves,and the spins associated to the curvatures).And thence the spacetime run in two opposite directions ,through
temporal-vector,that change the velocity,altering the interval of spacetime,and
therefore the pulsations of the time,that is deformed by the speeds and masses,produced by the rotational effects.then the asymmetry in the time is
linked to the reverse time dilatations in contraposition inertial to a maximum-speed.the ,etric of spacetime curvatures is associated at the gravitational potential,that determine the asymmetries,generated in the curvatures of spacetime
that are unequivalents.when change the coordinates of time of rotational system
that rotates clockwise( right-handed) to other anticlockwise( left-handed),the
clocks mark differents intervals of spacetime( the space is deformed in the rate
that the time,that is action of warping the space0.then appear in the same internval
several spacetime curve lines that run "forward in time" and simultaneouly "backward in time".then the spacetime is quasi-circular,then there are multiples continuos spacetime into a same interval.
GE the problem is that all the terms are related to each other, so you can't alter one without altering all the others. Even the speed of light is not constant, it just appears that way within our frame of reference. Our measurements are defined in terms of light and the EM field that carries it.
Special relativity does not account for gravity, and time dilation is directly related to gravity. There is no paradox untill SR is used to attempt to describe a phenomena that it essentially ignores. Most of the conceptual problems people have with space-time stem from this.
I think of Mass as the amount of stuff in one place, wether this stuff is matter or energy is really irrelevant. Matter is just a stable configuration of energy*. So this Mass somehow makes gravity, more mass, more gravity, it's that simple.
Now there are a lot of ways to interperet this, personally I think gravity might result from resource starvation, too much stuff in one place and the ?stuff? that drives those periodic oscilations we call time gets spread thin. Too many ways to look at it right now to say for sure.
*I can post some lectures if you need clarification.
Special relativity does not account for gravity, and time dilation is directly related to gravity. There is no paradox untill SR is used to attempt to describe a phenomena that it essentially ignores. Most of the conceptual problems people have with space-time stem from this.
I think of Mass as the amount of stuff in one place, wether this stuff is matter or energy is really irrelevant. Matter is just a stable configuration of energy*. So this Mass somehow makes gravity, more mass, more gravity, it's that simple.
Now there are a lot of ways to interperet this, personally I think gravity might result from resource starvation, too much stuff in one place and the ?stuff? that drives those periodic oscilations we call time gets spread thin. Too many ways to look at it right now to say for sure.
*I can post some lectures if you need clarification.
If you could see a polar revolution, imagine a polar rotation so much faster if there were not a polar revolution the earth would not be turning.
equinox rotation and revolution = polar rotation and revolution
think about where true north is.
when the moon is full and close the dilation is small
a crescent moon the dilation is large
on a crescent moon does the darkness reach further than the light
equinox rotation and revolution = polar rotation and revolution
think about where true north is.
when the moon is full and close the dilation is small
a crescent moon the dilation is large
on a crescent moon does the darkness reach further than the light
QUOTE (landon+Jul 25 2007, 06:55 AM)
If you could see a polar revolution, imagine a polar rotation so much faster if there were not a polar revolution the earth would not be turning.
equinox rotation and revolution = polar rotation and revolution
think about where true north is.
when the moon is full and close the dilation is small
a crescent moon the dilation is large
on a crescent moon does the darkness reach further than the light
What does that have to do with this discussion?
equinox rotation and revolution = polar rotation and revolution
think about where true north is.
when the moon is full and close the dilation is small
a crescent moon the dilation is large
on a crescent moon does the darkness reach further than the light
What does that have to do with this discussion?
gravity cause the time dilatation,as well as,the the alterations of speeds modify the
geometry of the space and time.with those deformations space and time are
connected in curved spacetime continuos.to apear a symetry for transformations of coordinates to inertial referential frames in relative motions,must appear an
asymmetry in the space and time,that is symmetrized by curved hyperbolic spacetimes,that is asymmetric at the spacetime been in straight lines.then the
4-vectors or quaternions generate the asymetry by rotations with opposed helicities( spins,that configure energy),in four-dimensions,that are symmetrized
by octonions,that the non-commutative property,in the reversion of PT to the
geometry with positive curvatures( elliptic curves) mixtured with negative curvatures( hyperbolic curvatures-as saddles).then then mixing the points one-to-one,the spacetime does vanish the variations in the spacetime,so as the velocity(
changing just the vector-direction of speed and not it magnitude).
I accord with the fact that the mass is a stable configurations of energy.
for absorption of energy in each given of spacetime interval,the time must stretched and consequently the space in the same rate is shrunk.the curvatures of spacetime in a para-compacted non-euclidean variety( with different topologies of
spacetimes) are asymmetrics,implycating that the warp of space and the twist in the time,creates infinities fabrics of spacetimes,derived of these breakdown of symmetry,in special pt=cpt
geometry of the space and time.with those deformations space and time are
connected in curved spacetime continuos.to apear a symetry for transformations of coordinates to inertial referential frames in relative motions,must appear an
asymmetry in the space and time,that is symmetrized by curved hyperbolic spacetimes,that is asymmetric at the spacetime been in straight lines.then the
4-vectors or quaternions generate the asymetry by rotations with opposed helicities( spins,that configure energy),in four-dimensions,that are symmetrized
by octonions,that the non-commutative property,in the reversion of PT to the
geometry with positive curvatures( elliptic curves) mixtured with negative curvatures( hyperbolic curvatures-as saddles).then then mixing the points one-to-one,the spacetime does vanish the variations in the spacetime,so as the velocity(
changing just the vector-direction of speed and not it magnitude).
I accord with the fact that the mass is a stable configurations of energy.
for absorption of energy in each given of spacetime interval,the time must stretched and consequently the space in the same rate is shrunk.the curvatures of spacetime in a para-compacted non-euclidean variety( with different topologies of
spacetimes) are asymmetrics,implycating that the warp of space and the twist in the time,creates infinities fabrics of spacetimes,derived of these breakdown of symmetry,in special pt=cpt
What's with the random word generator? It's not a very good one.
Well wulf :) That's a mighty penetrating Q.
I have this feeling that mott.carl, if he ever stopped those word games, would be a benefit to our discussion. On the other hand i may be wrong :) as always ::))
but i don't mind, somehow someday i will make reason of his 'ramblings' and how knows? Maybe I'll be surprised? my feeling for the moment is that he goes to fast , to soon.
" I think of Mass as the amount of stuff in one place, whether this stuff is matter or energy is really irrelevant" Now that is pure logic.
" personally I think gravity might result from resource starvation " And this feeds my soul :) How do you think Wulf?
I have this feeling that mott.carl, if he ever stopped those word games, would be a benefit to our discussion. On the other hand i may be wrong :) as always ::))
but i don't mind, somehow someday i will make reason of his 'ramblings' and how knows? Maybe I'll be surprised? my feeling for the moment is that he goes to fast , to soon.
" I think of Mass as the amount of stuff in one place, whether this stuff is matter or energy is really irrelevant" Now that is pure logic.
" personally I think gravity might result from resource starvation " And this feeds my soul :) How do you think Wulf?
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 25 2007, 08:16 AM)
Well wulf 
That's a mighty penetrating Q.
I have this feeling that mott.carl, if he ever stopped those word games, would be a benefit to our discussion. On the other hand i may be wrong as always :)
but i don't mind, somehow someday i will make reason of his 'ramblings' and how knows? Maybe I'll be surprised? my feeling for the moment is that he goes to fast , to soon.
" I think of Mass as the amount of stuff in one place, whether this stuff is matter or energy is really irrelevant" Now that is pure logic.
" personally I think gravity might result from resource starvation " And this feeds my soul How do you think Wulf?
Well I'm a CS major so I've gotten used to thinking abstractly.
I've been using some AI techniques to guide my research. I basically look at existing work from different points of view to see how things might fit together. I also use the papers and physics matterial floating around to make sure I stay grounded in reality. I was kind of supprised that a lot of my strangest ideas have already been described and published already.
Of course I can only go so far doing this, I'll need to load up on higher math to get down to the details eventually.
That's a mighty penetrating Q.I have this feeling that mott.carl, if he ever stopped those word games, would be a benefit to our discussion. On the other hand i may be wrong
as always :)but i don't mind, somehow someday i will make reason of his 'ramblings' and how knows? Maybe I'll be surprised? my feeling for the moment is that he goes to fast , to soon.
" I think of Mass as the amount of stuff in one place, whether this stuff is matter or energy is really irrelevant" Now that is pure logic.
" personally I think gravity might result from resource starvation " And this feeds my soul
How do you think Wulf? Well I'm a CS major so I've gotten used to thinking abstractly.
I've been using some AI techniques to guide my research. I basically look at existing work from different points of view to see how things might fit together. I also use the papers and physics matterial floating around to make sure I stay grounded in reality. I was kind of supprised that a lot of my strangest ideas have already been described and published already.
Of course I can only go so far doing this, I'll need to load up on higher math to get down to the details eventually.
Hi Wulf, yor_on, Zarabtul, Ryan125, StevenA, Aireal, Ron, kjw et al,
Matter curves space and space tells matter how to move.... They are mutually dependent... The geometry of space determines how we measure "mass". The only independent way to measure mass is by the relative accelerations one mass has on another... this is through the conservation of energy and momentum. There is no way to determine any mass independent of some "test" mass as a standard. Regarding the General Principle of Equivalence which is the Generalized version of the special principle of equivalence... It says that "gravity" is simply the curvature of space and this is acceleration which is proportional to "Inertial Force" and it is identical in every way with "Gravitational Force". Einstein couched his theory of General Relativity as the more general case of Special Relativity. Special Relativity is expressed simply as the equivalence of all inertial frames of reference... frames in which the acceleration is zero... Special Relativity.
The symmetry of our Universe can be expressed as the symmetry of external observers observing the action of "forces" at a distance. Our "private" observations of the objects and distances and velocities are "privileged" and do not represent the Principle of Equivalence which sees all frames of reference as equatable. These are in some way a fiction just like the curving of balls when we throw them into the air, since these forces are the result of geometry not of "force" at a distance. A rocket accelerating in space due to the reaction of the engine, far from the Earth and falling otherwise freely, provides an equivalent acceleration frame as does the surface of the Earth and in some way are identical and indistinguishable in every aspect to acceleration due to "gravity". There are always frames you can choose to remove this acceleration proving this point for all to see. It is like a visit to a concrete skateboard amusement found in parks for children to use and to play in. The curvature of the undulations in the concrete "instruct" the moving skateboard to move only at the exact position the skateboard is physically at. The rest of the skateboard park has absolutely no effect on the motion of the skateboard. We may "think" that the mass of distant objects affect the skateboard and even create theories in which this dependence expresses this fact. According to Einstein this is wrong... It is not my theory it is his theory. The curvature of spacetime itself determines the straightness of lines and the extent of space as we can see it and as a result "gravity" is not really a "force" it is an expression of multi-dimensional curvature. Every body in free fall moves in a straight line... throw a ball into the air and watch it curve into the the earth.... Wrong... the Earth intersected th course of the straight line trajectory of the ball. Throw a hundred balls into the air at different velocities and directions from different positions locally and then allow yourself as an observer to fall freely as well. What you will see is a hundred straight line paths in space and the earth "accelerating" around you. The earth will be the only object that is apparently accelerating and yourself and all the other objects (to a high degree of accuracy) are all executing straight line paths or at least "falling along a geodesic of shortest time" obeying the Lagrangian.
Consider existing String Theories and that we exist in a 4 dimensional manifold of space and time (3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time). Coexisting around us are D6 Branes such as Black Holes and I also think particle fields in six extra linear dimensions. Forget about the "connection" between our familiar spacetime and those additional dimensions at this point and consider the bigger question of the "General Principle of Equivalence" again, this time as the curvature in 4 dimensional spacetime resulting in acceleration. This is the "gravity" ... nothing to do with "mass". Now go one step further and consider the additional 6 compact dimensions of particles (and possibly black holes) "sharing" our four dimensional spacetime giving this particle a total of nine "apparently spatial" dimensions and one time dimension... 10 dimensions in all. We see curvature in the particle field and we call this "mass"... Wrong... this is not mass it is only spatial curvature like you see at the skateboard park. Seen from the perspective of our empty 4D spacetime smaller embedded compact dimensions are additional spacetime curvature and this can be measured by "distant observers" as mass. If you were "embedded" in that higher 10 dimensional "spacetime" you could not "see" the curvature since you would be falling freely as a part of it. Thus in our 4 dimensional spacetime "Matter curves space and space tells matter how to move.... " and in 10 dimensional spacetime "Matter curves spacetime and tells space how to curve." It is entirely a case of "fictional forces" appearing like the appearance of Coriolis Forces or Centripetal Force. The "forces" are as real as any other but they are not due to "attraction" or "forces from a distance".
Light's photons travels at the speed of light suffers infinite time dilation and sees no distance between points where light is a source and where the light is trapped by a sink. This is the geometry of a "null spacetime"... the surface of a lightcone. All particles are moving within that lightcone at different relative speeds and are simply different extremums of the same principle that governs light with the appropriate time dilation and curvature to the operating spacetime with boundary conditions appropriate to the "edge" of our Universe. Particles are other boundaries... internal boundaries not external boundaries with oppositely curved spacetimes embedded in our spacetime. Energy and light are the materials that "construct" this space out of "nothing"...
I can challenge that perception of "gravity" that in actual fact all forces are caused by "electromagnetism" in all its forms. A rocket engine "pressing" with an acceleration on a astronaut is simply an electromagnetic force the same as if I was pressing on you with my finger. The only difference is it is a "force" that is common to the "global" frame of reference common to the rocket and the astronaut. Remove the electromagnetic "forces" and there is no gravity actually left behind and thus no residual force. The same happens with the attraction of the Earth and gravitational "attractions" of every kind. It too is an electromagnetic influence and it is only exerted on objects when they are "forced" to move in the common frame of reference of the Earth or under the influence of "mass" and the specific geometry of spacetime associated with the "attracting mass". An object falling freely feels no force at all, even in the presence of large masses, and this includes any force of so called "gravity"... Ask the crew of the Space Station. The movement is a "straight line" in that geometry or a geodesic... the straightest line that can be drawn in that spacetime. Deviations from that "curve" will result in "forces" but you will need to exert some "electromagnetism" to do this. There are three possible manifestations this can arise from...
1. Electromagnetism .... Maxwell's Equations and Special Relativity. Photons are the exchange force carriers of our Universe. They connect "sources" with "sinks". Almost everything we can see or measure is part of this process.
2. Electro-weak force... Radioactivity in all of its forms.
3. Electro-strong force (Strong force and as yet hypothetical connection to electromagnetism) The force that holds atoms together ... the charges and quantum processes at the nuclear and sub-nuclear level.
The other "force" is gravity... and it is "incorporated" in the other forces above in a special relationship that is not fully understood but relates to the "curvature". Flatspace (Special Relativity's Spacetime) is the "medium" for light and curved space is the "medium" of particles with mass. A flatspace can always be transformed into a curved spacetime and a curved spacetime will always have a frame in which the curved spacetime can be "removed".
Cheers
Matter curves space and space tells matter how to move.... They are mutually dependent... The geometry of space determines how we measure "mass". The only independent way to measure mass is by the relative accelerations one mass has on another... this is through the conservation of energy and momentum. There is no way to determine any mass independent of some "test" mass as a standard. Regarding the General Principle of Equivalence which is the Generalized version of the special principle of equivalence... It says that "gravity" is simply the curvature of space and this is acceleration which is proportional to "Inertial Force" and it is identical in every way with "Gravitational Force". Einstein couched his theory of General Relativity as the more general case of Special Relativity. Special Relativity is expressed simply as the equivalence of all inertial frames of reference... frames in which the acceleration is zero... Special Relativity.
The symmetry of our Universe can be expressed as the symmetry of external observers observing the action of "forces" at a distance. Our "private" observations of the objects and distances and velocities are "privileged" and do not represent the Principle of Equivalence which sees all frames of reference as equatable. These are in some way a fiction just like the curving of balls when we throw them into the air, since these forces are the result of geometry not of "force" at a distance. A rocket accelerating in space due to the reaction of the engine, far from the Earth and falling otherwise freely, provides an equivalent acceleration frame as does the surface of the Earth and in some way are identical and indistinguishable in every aspect to acceleration due to "gravity". There are always frames you can choose to remove this acceleration proving this point for all to see. It is like a visit to a concrete skateboard amusement found in parks for children to use and to play in. The curvature of the undulations in the concrete "instruct" the moving skateboard to move only at the exact position the skateboard is physically at. The rest of the skateboard park has absolutely no effect on the motion of the skateboard. We may "think" that the mass of distant objects affect the skateboard and even create theories in which this dependence expresses this fact. According to Einstein this is wrong... It is not my theory it is his theory. The curvature of spacetime itself determines the straightness of lines and the extent of space as we can see it and as a result "gravity" is not really a "force" it is an expression of multi-dimensional curvature. Every body in free fall moves in a straight line... throw a ball into the air and watch it curve into the the earth.... Wrong... the Earth intersected th course of the straight line trajectory of the ball. Throw a hundred balls into the air at different velocities and directions from different positions locally and then allow yourself as an observer to fall freely as well. What you will see is a hundred straight line paths in space and the earth "accelerating" around you. The earth will be the only object that is apparently accelerating and yourself and all the other objects (to a high degree of accuracy) are all executing straight line paths or at least "falling along a geodesic of shortest time" obeying the Lagrangian.
Consider existing String Theories and that we exist in a 4 dimensional manifold of space and time (3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time). Coexisting around us are D6 Branes such as Black Holes and I also think particle fields in six extra linear dimensions. Forget about the "connection" between our familiar spacetime and those additional dimensions at this point and consider the bigger question of the "General Principle of Equivalence" again, this time as the curvature in 4 dimensional spacetime resulting in acceleration. This is the "gravity" ... nothing to do with "mass". Now go one step further and consider the additional 6 compact dimensions of particles (and possibly black holes) "sharing" our four dimensional spacetime giving this particle a total of nine "apparently spatial" dimensions and one time dimension... 10 dimensions in all. We see curvature in the particle field and we call this "mass"... Wrong... this is not mass it is only spatial curvature like you see at the skateboard park. Seen from the perspective of our empty 4D spacetime smaller embedded compact dimensions are additional spacetime curvature and this can be measured by "distant observers" as mass. If you were "embedded" in that higher 10 dimensional "spacetime" you could not "see" the curvature since you would be falling freely as a part of it. Thus in our 4 dimensional spacetime "Matter curves space and space tells matter how to move.... " and in 10 dimensional spacetime "Matter curves spacetime and tells space how to curve." It is entirely a case of "fictional forces" appearing like the appearance of Coriolis Forces or Centripetal Force. The "forces" are as real as any other but they are not due to "attraction" or "forces from a distance".
Light's photons travels at the speed of light suffers infinite time dilation and sees no distance between points where light is a source and where the light is trapped by a sink. This is the geometry of a "null spacetime"... the surface of a lightcone. All particles are moving within that lightcone at different relative speeds and are simply different extremums of the same principle that governs light with the appropriate time dilation and curvature to the operating spacetime with boundary conditions appropriate to the "edge" of our Universe. Particles are other boundaries... internal boundaries not external boundaries with oppositely curved spacetimes embedded in our spacetime. Energy and light are the materials that "construct" this space out of "nothing"...
I can challenge that perception of "gravity" that in actual fact all forces are caused by "electromagnetism" in all its forms. A rocket engine "pressing" with an acceleration on a astronaut is simply an electromagnetic force the same as if I was pressing on you with my finger. The only difference is it is a "force" that is common to the "global" frame of reference common to the rocket and the astronaut. Remove the electromagnetic "forces" and there is no gravity actually left behind and thus no residual force. The same happens with the attraction of the Earth and gravitational "attractions" of every kind. It too is an electromagnetic influence and it is only exerted on objects when they are "forced" to move in the common frame of reference of the Earth or under the influence of "mass" and the specific geometry of spacetime associated with the "attracting mass". An object falling freely feels no force at all, even in the presence of large masses, and this includes any force of so called "gravity"... Ask the crew of the Space Station. The movement is a "straight line" in that geometry or a geodesic... the straightest line that can be drawn in that spacetime. Deviations from that "curve" will result in "forces" but you will need to exert some "electromagnetism" to do this. There are three possible manifestations this can arise from...
1. Electromagnetism .... Maxwell's Equations and Special Relativity. Photons are the exchange force carriers of our Universe. They connect "sources" with "sinks". Almost everything we can see or measure is part of this process.
2. Electro-weak force... Radioactivity in all of its forms.
3. Electro-strong force (Strong force and as yet hypothetical connection to electromagnetism) The force that holds atoms together ... the charges and quantum processes at the nuclear and sub-nuclear level.
The other "force" is gravity... and it is "incorporated" in the other forces above in a special relationship that is not fully understood but relates to the "curvature". Flatspace (Special Relativity's Spacetime) is the "medium" for light and curved space is the "medium" of particles with mass. A flatspace can always be transformed into a curved spacetime and a curved spacetime will always have a frame in which the curved spacetime can be "removed".
Cheers
Have you checked up StevenA, he works from a minimized point of view. He's ok i think. (But i do. sometimes. that is :) t h i n k i think?
ahh but he's cool.
ahh but he's cool.
excuse me,yor on,but its texts haven'y sense,appear games of childrens or things
of zen-budysm.if you understand not that i think,stop you yes of write pures jokes
of languanges.or of preference "jump" my topoic
thank very very much
of zen-budysm.if you understand not that i think,stop you yes of write pures jokes
of languanges.or of preference "jump" my topoic
thank very very much
Good ELF,
how could explain the time dilatation,that is a real effect of the special and general
relativity( or no is mr.yor?) to a spacetime in 11-dimensions,containing the gravity,as a interaction of the time with the 10 dimensions of the space.and
so mass curve the space,and the curvatures of spacetime generate motions.then
the curvatures of space in four-dimensions are transformed in curvatures of times
and viceversa.this happen near the speed of light.these exchanges of spatial coordinates(3D) into temporal coordinates( 1 or 2D) and viceversa does appear
the time dilatations as reflections of space into time and viceversa through hyperbolic geometry ( hyperbolic rotation groups).
what your oppinion,ELF?
how could explain the time dilatation,that is a real effect of the special and general
relativity( or no is mr.yor?) to a spacetime in 11-dimensions,containing the gravity,as a interaction of the time with the 10 dimensions of the space.and
so mass curve the space,and the curvatures of spacetime generate motions.then
the curvatures of space in four-dimensions are transformed in curvatures of times
and viceversa.this happen near the speed of light.these exchanges of spatial coordinates(3D) into temporal coordinates( 1 or 2D) and viceversa does appear
the time dilatations as reflections of space into time and viceversa through hyperbolic geometry ( hyperbolic rotation groups).
what your oppinion,ELF?
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 25 2007, 10:27 AM)
Hi Wulf, yor_on, Zarabtul, Ryan125, StevenA, Aireal, Ron, kjw et al,
Matter curves space and space tells matter how to move.... They are mutually dependent... The geometry of space determines how we measure "mass". The only independent way to measure mass is by the relative accelerations one mass has on another... this is through the conservation of energy and momentum. There is no way to determine any mass independent of some "test" mass as a standard. Regarding the General Principle of Equivalence which is the Generalized version of the special principle of equivalence... It says that "gravity" is simply the curvature of space and this is acceleration which is proportional to "Inertial Force" and it is identical in every way with "Gravitational Force". Einstein couched his theory of General Relativity as the more general case of Special Relativity. Special Relativity is expressed simply as the equivalence of all inertial frames of reference... frames in which the acceleration is zero... Special Relativity.
The symmetry of our Universe can be expressed as the symmetry of external observers observing the action of "forces" at a distance. Our "private" observations of the objects and distances and velocities are "privileged" and do not represent the Principle of Equivalence which sees all frames of reference as equatable. These are in some way a fiction just like the curving of balls when we throw them into the air, since these forces are the result of geometry not of "force" at a distance. A rocket accelerating in space due to the reaction of the engine, far from the Earth and falling otherwise freely, provides an equivalent acceleration frame as does the surface of the Earth and in some way are identical and indistinguishable in every aspect to acceleration due to "gravity". There are always frames you can choose to remove this acceleration proving this point for all to see. It is like a visit to a concrete skateboard amusement found in parks for children to use and to play in. The curvature of the undulations in the concrete "instruct" the moving skateboard to move only at the exact position the skateboard is physically at. The rest of the skateboard park has absolutely no effect on the motion of the skateboard. We may "think" that the mass of distant objects affect the skateboard and even create theories in which this dependence expresses this fact. According to Einstein this is wrong... It is not my theory it is his theory. The curvature of spacetime itself determines the straightness of lines and the extent of space as we can see it and as a result "gravity" is not really a "force" it is an expression of multi-dimensional curvature. Every body in free fall moves in a straight line... throw a ball into the air and watch it curve into the the earth.... Wrong... the Earth intersected th course of the straight line trajectory of the ball. Throw a hundred balls into the air at different velocities and directions from different positions locally and then allow yourself as an observer to fall freely as well. What you will see is a hundred straight line paths in space and the earth "accelerating" around you. The earth will be the only object that is apparently accelerating and yourself and all the other objects (to a high degree of accuracy) are all executing straight line paths or at least "falling along a geodesic of shortest time" obeying the Lagrangian.
Consider existing String Theories and that we exist in a 4 dimensional manifold of space and time (3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time). Coexisting around us are D6 Branes such as Black Holes and I also think particle fields in six extra linear dimensions. Forget about the "connection" between our familiar spacetime and those additional dimensions at this point and consider the bigger question of the "General Principle of Equivalence" again, this time as the curvature in 4 dimensional spacetime resulting in acceleration. This is the "gravity" ... nothing to do with "mass". Now go one step further and consider the additional 6 compact dimensions of particles (and possibly black holes) "sharing" our four dimensional spacetime giving this particle a total of nine "apparently spatial" dimensions and one time dimension... 10 dimensions in all. We see curvature in the particle field and we call this "mass"... Wrong... this is not mass it is only spatial curvature like you see at the skateboard park. Seen from the perspective of our empty 4D spacetime smaller embedded compact dimensions are additional spacetime curvature and this can be measured by "distant observers" as mass. If you were "embedded" in that higher 10 dimensional "spacetime" you could not "see" the curvature since you would be falling freely as a part of it. Thus in our 4 dimensional spacetime "Matter curves space and space tells matter how to move.... " and in 10 dimensional spacetime "Matter curves spacetime and tells space how to curve." It is entirely a case of "fictional forces" appearing like the appearance of Coriolis Forces or Centripetal Force. The "forces" are as real as any other but they are not due to "attraction" or "forces from a distance".
Light's photons travels at the speed of light suffers infinite time dilation and sees no distance between points where light is a source and where the light is trapped by a sink. This is the geometry of a "null spacetime"... the surface of a lightcone. All particles are moving within that lightcone at different relative speeds and are simply different extremums of the same principle that governs light with the appropriate time dilation and curvature to the operating spacetime with boundary conditions appropriate to the "edge" of our Universe. Particles are other boundaries... internal boundaries not external boundaries with oppositely curved spacetimes embedded in our spacetime. Energy and light are the materials that "construct" this space out of "nothing"...
I can challenge that perception of "gravity" that in actual fact all forces are caused by "electromagnetism" in all its forms. A rocket engine "pressing" with an acceleration on a astronaut is simply an electromagnetic force the same as if I was pressing on you with my finger. The only difference is it is a "force" that is common to the "global" frame of reference common to the rocket and the astronaut. Remove the electromagnetic "forces" and there is no gravity actually left behind and thus no residual force. The same happens with the attraction of the Earth and gravitational "attractions" of every kind. It too is an electromagnetic influence and it is only exerted on objects when they are "forced" to move in the common frame of reference of the Earth or under the influence of "mass" and the specific geometry of spacetime associated with the "attracting mass". An object falling freely feels no force at all, even in the presence of large masses, and this includes any force of so called "gravity"... Ask the crew of the Space Station. The movement is a "straight line" in that geometry or a geodesic... the straightest line that can be drawn in that spacetime. Deviations from that "curve" will result in "forces" but you will need to exert some "electromagnetism" to do this. There are three possible manifestations this can arise from...
1. Electromagnetism .... Maxwell's Equations and Special Relativity. Photons are the exchange force carriers of our Universe. They connect "sources" with "sinks". Almost everything we can see or measure is part of this process.
2. Electro-weak force... Radioactivity in all of its forms.
3. Electro-strong force (Strong force and as yet hypothetical connection to electromagnetism) The force that holds atoms together ... the charges and quantum processes at the nuclear and sub-nuclear level.
The other "force" is gravity... and it is "incorporated" in the other forces above in a special relationship that is not fully understood but relates to the "curvature". Flatspace (Special Relativity's Spacetime) is the "medium" for light and curved space is the "medium" of particles with mass. A flatspace can always be transformed into a curved spacetime and a curved spacetime will always have a frame in which the curved spacetime can be "removed".
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_Time_Dilation
I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring a simple, ellegant, and experimentally verified resolution to this 'paradox'.
If you've read my posts, and the papers I've been linking in the DSE thread you might have noticed that I've also been considering the possiblility that everythign can possibly be described in terms of the EM field. Of course I make a point not to ignore anything not described in QED simply because it dosen't jive with my pet theory at first glance. To each his own I guess.
Matter curves space and space tells matter how to move.... They are mutually dependent... The geometry of space determines how we measure "mass". The only independent way to measure mass is by the relative accelerations one mass has on another... this is through the conservation of energy and momentum. There is no way to determine any mass independent of some "test" mass as a standard. Regarding the General Principle of Equivalence which is the Generalized version of the special principle of equivalence... It says that "gravity" is simply the curvature of space and this is acceleration which is proportional to "Inertial Force" and it is identical in every way with "Gravitational Force". Einstein couched his theory of General Relativity as the more general case of Special Relativity. Special Relativity is expressed simply as the equivalence of all inertial frames of reference... frames in which the acceleration is zero... Special Relativity.
The symmetry of our Universe can be expressed as the symmetry of external observers observing the action of "forces" at a distance. Our "private" observations of the objects and distances and velocities are "privileged" and do not represent the Principle of Equivalence which sees all frames of reference as equatable. These are in some way a fiction just like the curving of balls when we throw them into the air, since these forces are the result of geometry not of "force" at a distance. A rocket accelerating in space due to the reaction of the engine, far from the Earth and falling otherwise freely, provides an equivalent acceleration frame as does the surface of the Earth and in some way are identical and indistinguishable in every aspect to acceleration due to "gravity". There are always frames you can choose to remove this acceleration proving this point for all to see. It is like a visit to a concrete skateboard amusement found in parks for children to use and to play in. The curvature of the undulations in the concrete "instruct" the moving skateboard to move only at the exact position the skateboard is physically at. The rest of the skateboard park has absolutely no effect on the motion of the skateboard. We may "think" that the mass of distant objects affect the skateboard and even create theories in which this dependence expresses this fact. According to Einstein this is wrong... It is not my theory it is his theory. The curvature of spacetime itself determines the straightness of lines and the extent of space as we can see it and as a result "gravity" is not really a "force" it is an expression of multi-dimensional curvature. Every body in free fall moves in a straight line... throw a ball into the air and watch it curve into the the earth.... Wrong... the Earth intersected th course of the straight line trajectory of the ball. Throw a hundred balls into the air at different velocities and directions from different positions locally and then allow yourself as an observer to fall freely as well. What you will see is a hundred straight line paths in space and the earth "accelerating" around you. The earth will be the only object that is apparently accelerating and yourself and all the other objects (to a high degree of accuracy) are all executing straight line paths or at least "falling along a geodesic of shortest time" obeying the Lagrangian.
Consider existing String Theories and that we exist in a 4 dimensional manifold of space and time (3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time). Coexisting around us are D6 Branes such as Black Holes and I also think particle fields in six extra linear dimensions. Forget about the "connection" between our familiar spacetime and those additional dimensions at this point and consider the bigger question of the "General Principle of Equivalence" again, this time as the curvature in 4 dimensional spacetime resulting in acceleration. This is the "gravity" ... nothing to do with "mass". Now go one step further and consider the additional 6 compact dimensions of particles (and possibly black holes) "sharing" our four dimensional spacetime giving this particle a total of nine "apparently spatial" dimensions and one time dimension... 10 dimensions in all. We see curvature in the particle field and we call this "mass"... Wrong... this is not mass it is only spatial curvature like you see at the skateboard park. Seen from the perspective of our empty 4D spacetime smaller embedded compact dimensions are additional spacetime curvature and this can be measured by "distant observers" as mass. If you were "embedded" in that higher 10 dimensional "spacetime" you could not "see" the curvature since you would be falling freely as a part of it. Thus in our 4 dimensional spacetime "Matter curves space and space tells matter how to move.... " and in 10 dimensional spacetime "Matter curves spacetime and tells space how to curve." It is entirely a case of "fictional forces" appearing like the appearance of Coriolis Forces or Centripetal Force. The "forces" are as real as any other but they are not due to "attraction" or "forces from a distance".
Light's photons travels at the speed of light suffers infinite time dilation and sees no distance between points where light is a source and where the light is trapped by a sink. This is the geometry of a "null spacetime"... the surface of a lightcone. All particles are moving within that lightcone at different relative speeds and are simply different extremums of the same principle that governs light with the appropriate time dilation and curvature to the operating spacetime with boundary conditions appropriate to the "edge" of our Universe. Particles are other boundaries... internal boundaries not external boundaries with oppositely curved spacetimes embedded in our spacetime. Energy and light are the materials that "construct" this space out of "nothing"...
I can challenge that perception of "gravity" that in actual fact all forces are caused by "electromagnetism" in all its forms. A rocket engine "pressing" with an acceleration on a astronaut is simply an electromagnetic force the same as if I was pressing on you with my finger. The only difference is it is a "force" that is common to the "global" frame of reference common to the rocket and the astronaut. Remove the electromagnetic "forces" and there is no gravity actually left behind and thus no residual force. The same happens with the attraction of the Earth and gravitational "attractions" of every kind. It too is an electromagnetic influence and it is only exerted on objects when they are "forced" to move in the common frame of reference of the Earth or under the influence of "mass" and the specific geometry of spacetime associated with the "attracting mass". An object falling freely feels no force at all, even in the presence of large masses, and this includes any force of so called "gravity"... Ask the crew of the Space Station. The movement is a "straight line" in that geometry or a geodesic... the straightest line that can be drawn in that spacetime. Deviations from that "curve" will result in "forces" but you will need to exert some "electromagnetism" to do this. There are three possible manifestations this can arise from...
1. Electromagnetism .... Maxwell's Equations and Special Relativity. Photons are the exchange force carriers of our Universe. They connect "sources" with "sinks". Almost everything we can see or measure is part of this process.
2. Electro-weak force... Radioactivity in all of its forms.
3. Electro-strong force (Strong force and as yet hypothetical connection to electromagnetism) The force that holds atoms together ... the charges and quantum processes at the nuclear and sub-nuclear level.
The other "force" is gravity... and it is "incorporated" in the other forces above in a special relationship that is not fully understood but relates to the "curvature". Flatspace (Special Relativity's Spacetime) is the "medium" for light and curved space is the "medium" of particles with mass. A flatspace can always be transformed into a curved spacetime and a curved spacetime will always have a frame in which the curved spacetime can be "removed".
Cheers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_Time_Dilation
I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring a simple, ellegant, and experimentally verified resolution to this 'paradox'.
If you've read my posts, and the papers I've been linking in the DSE thread you might have noticed that I've also been considering the possiblility that everythign can possibly be described in terms of the EM field. Of course I make a point not to ignore anything not described in QED simply because it dosen't jive with my pet theory at first glance. To each his own I guess.
Hi first post.
I doubt time dilation exists. There are way too many factors to think about, which can cause inaccuracy in clocks. Saying that time slows down the faster you go, is merely science-fiction.
I doubt time dilation exists. There are way too many factors to think about, which can cause inaccuracy in clocks. Saying that time slows down the faster you go, is merely science-fiction.
QUOTE (Roojie+Jul 25 2007, 03:04 PM)
Hi first post.
I doubt time dilation exists. There are way too many factors to think about, which can cause inaccuracy in clocks. Saying that time slows down the faster you go, is merely science-fiction.
It has been experimentally proven using atomic clocks.
I doubt time dilation exists. There are way too many factors to think about, which can cause inaccuracy in clocks. Saying that time slows down the faster you go, is merely science-fiction.
It has been experimentally proven using atomic clocks.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 09:06 PM)
It has been experimentally proven using atomic clocks.
Err no it hasn't. Atomic clocks merely 'suggest' that time dilation 'may' be true, but not that it is true. Just like Roojie says, scientists cannot be sure whether there isn't some other factor involved, and hence it is not 'proven'. It is still a theory.
Err no it hasn't. Atomic clocks merely 'suggest' that time dilation 'may' be true, but not that it is true. Just like Roojie says, scientists cannot be sure whether there isn't some other factor involved, and hence it is not 'proven'. It is still a theory.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 25 2007, 03:13 PM)
Err no it hasn't. Atomic clocks merely 'suggest' that time dilation 'may' be true, but not that it is true. Just like Roojie says, scientists cannot be sure whether there isn't some other factor involved, and hence it is not 'proven'. It is still a theory.
The best it can be is a theory, there is no higher standing.
The best it can be is a theory, there is no higher standing.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 09:17 PM)
The best it can be is a theory, there is no higher standing.
Yet you said it was 'proven'.
Watch your words, imo.
Yet you said it was 'proven'.
Watch your words, imo.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 25 2007, 03:22 PM)
Yet you said it was 'proven'.
Watch your words, imo.
I suppose you can just ignore it since it is just a 'theory', that seems to be the popular approach here. Much easier to understand the world if you simply deny the existence of anything you can't get your head around.
You should be able to infer that eperimentally proven <=> verified repeatedly by a wide variety of scientific experiments, from context. I think it is safe to say that the phenomenon does exist and is accuratly described in GR.
Watch your words, imo.
I suppose you can just ignore it since it is just a 'theory', that seems to be the popular approach here. Much easier to understand the world if you simply deny the existence of anything you can't get your head around.
You should be able to infer that eperimentally proven <=> verified repeatedly by a wide variety of scientific experiments, from context. I think it is safe to say that the phenomenon does exist and is accuratly described in GR.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 25 2007, 09:43 PM)
I suppose you can just ignore it since it is just a 'theory', that seems to be the popular approach here. Much easier to understand the world if you simply deny the existence of anything you can't get your head around.
I don't deny time dilation. In fact, I accept all theories equally, showing no bias towards any particular theory. One might not suspect it, from my hostility towards time dilation, but realise that I only have this hostility towards it, because everyone goes around saying it's 'proven', when I'm sitting here screaming out loud that it's not proven, and that's it's just a theory.
Sure, it has experimental evidence to suggest that it may be true, but that doesn't make it true. Hence, all other kinds of theories become acceptable. Even ones which are wholly contrary to time dilation according to relativity.
I think it is safe to say that the phenomenon does exist
If you mean 'a' phenomenon whereby the clocks seem to lose a little time each day, then you would be correct in mentioning it's existence.
I don't deny time dilation. In fact, I accept all theories equally, showing no bias towards any particular theory. One might not suspect it, from my hostility towards time dilation, but realise that I only have this hostility towards it, because everyone goes around saying it's 'proven', when I'm sitting here screaming out loud that it's not proven, and that's it's just a theory.
Sure, it has experimental evidence to suggest that it may be true, but that doesn't make it true. Hence, all other kinds of theories become acceptable. Even ones which are wholly contrary to time dilation according to relativity.
QUOTE
I think it is safe to say that the phenomenon does exist
If you mean 'a' phenomenon whereby the clocks seem to lose a little time each day, then you would be correct in mentioning it's existence.
Hi Wulf,
Cheers
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_Time_Dilation
I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring a simple, ellegant, and experimentally verified resolution to this 'paradox'.
Ummm... I think Pound-Rebka proves the existence of the phenomenon through an experiment but does not indicate why it exists. I did not say that Einstein is wrong... quite the opposite I ask that Einstein be accepted on "face value" for the interpretation of his own theory. Einstein worked for years on a number of "Unified Field Theories" and some of these were wrong and others are still unproven. I accept that his approach was too naive but the basic idea of unification may have a lot of merit. This is the nature of Physics .... experiment shows that something exists but it takes a theory to explain why it exists and visa versa. A question was posed... "Motion doesn't cause time dilation, Gravity does!". This is in response to that "question". Every theory must be tested in order for it to have validity but not all theories are valid and this is why we test them. An example is Newtons Laws of Gravitation is a theory about Gravitation and shows us how to calculate it but never tries to explain why or how it operates. Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity are theories of underlying functional operation but Einstein has not explained Gravity itself and did not accept the existence of "gravitons". I agree the concept of "gravitons" is surplus to his theories and are not required unless you are trying to Quantize Gravity. Sorry .... I think I have unfairly "baffled you with science" and I will not continue on this line here.I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring a simple, ellegant, and experimentally verified resolution to this 'paradox'.
Cheers
GODELF
good lf-the explication of time dilatation is in the extradimensions,as in sphere
in 8-dimension,with 4-dimension coupled to these eight-dimension that are
fermions with opposed chiralities.then in 8-dimension ocur an asymmetry between
the left-right handed fermions.then is have a spacetime in 12 dimensions 8 +4(
from the minkowskian space M(-with negative indefinite metric-that generate the
concept of time dilatation).
bryn richard-why you believe in time dilatation,same that the effect be geometric,through of the fourth-dimension that implies a non-euclidean geometry
or hyperbolic)?then the time dilatation is propotionally linked to the discreteness of
the atomic vibrations,that implies variations spacetime,through of observers see
the discrete sequences,as continuos,through increase of time.the violation of cpt
is directely linked to the time dilatation and reverse time dilatation(antiparticles)
what your oppinion?
good lf-the explication of time dilatation is in the extradimensions,as in sphere
in 8-dimension,with 4-dimension coupled to these eight-dimension that are
fermions with opposed chiralities.then in 8-dimension ocur an asymmetry between
the left-right handed fermions.then is have a spacetime in 12 dimensions 8 +4(
from the minkowskian space M(-with negative indefinite metric-that generate the
concept of time dilatation).
bryn richard-why you believe in time dilatation,same that the effect be geometric,through of the fourth-dimension that implies a non-euclidean geometry
or hyperbolic)?then the time dilatation is propotionally linked to the discreteness of
the atomic vibrations,that implies variations spacetime,through of observers see
the discrete sequences,as continuos,through increase of time.the violation of cpt
is directely linked to the time dilatation and reverse time dilatation(antiparticles)
what your oppinion?
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 25 2007, 04:07 PM)
I think I have unfairly "baffled you with science" and I will not continue on this line here.
The only thing that baffled me was your convoluted essay on time dilation.
The only thing that baffled me was your convoluted essay on time dilation.
"The rest of the skateboard park has absolutely no effect on the motion of the skateboard. We may "think" that the mass of distant objects affect the skateboard and even create theories in which this dependence expresses this fact. According to Einstein this is wrong... It is not my theory it is his theory."
I loved that explanation GoodElf :) It made perfect sense. And it's a lovely description of spacetime, even though i have to admit to getting a minor :) headache trying to imagine nine plus one dimensions ::))
your description fits very well with how i see spacetime too. As a 'whole' where the 'forces' creating it are in a very intimate relationship (without wanting it to sound hmmm :) and also are extremely difficult to treat as 'isolated' effects.
I think pghysorg would benefit from collecting explanations like this and reaglows and ooh, a whole lot of those clearer explanations of spacetime photons etc and give them a thread of their own, just pick those out and let them be easy to find. For folks like me to read and ponder over, i'm serious about this, there are such a lot of people that want to understand physics even if they miss the math. A thread with some of those cool explanations would be a perfect start for us to read. Then the questions would make more sense too ::)) Like mine f ex:::)))
Wulf, I seem to have missed something here? Where is it that your view differ from GoodElfs explanation? Considering those extra dimensions i will have to accept them on 'faith' for now. " I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring a simple, elegant, and experimentally verified resolution to this 'paradox'." Where does it differ, in your own words??
I loved that explanation GoodElf :) It made perfect sense. And it's a lovely description of spacetime, even though i have to admit to getting a minor :) headache trying to imagine nine plus one dimensions ::))
your description fits very well with how i see spacetime too. As a 'whole' where the 'forces' creating it are in a very intimate relationship (without wanting it to sound hmmm :) and also are extremely difficult to treat as 'isolated' effects.
I think pghysorg would benefit from collecting explanations like this and reaglows and ooh, a whole lot of those clearer explanations of spacetime photons etc and give them a thread of their own, just pick those out and let them be easy to find. For folks like me to read and ponder over, i'm serious about this, there are such a lot of people that want to understand physics even if they miss the math. A thread with some of those cool explanations would be a perfect start for us to read. Then the questions would make more sense too ::)) Like mine f ex:::)))
Wulf, I seem to have missed something here? Where is it that your view differ from GoodElfs explanation? Considering those extra dimensions i will have to accept them on 'faith' for now. " I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring a simple, elegant, and experimentally verified resolution to this 'paradox'." Where does it differ, in your own words??
QUOTE (mott.carl+Jul 25 2007, 10:11 PM)
bryn richard-why you believe in time dilatation,same that the effect be geometric,through of the fourth-dimension that implies a non-euclidean geometry or hyperbolic)?then the time dilatation is propotionally linked to the discreteness of the atomic vibrations,that implies variations spacetime,through of observers see the discrete sequences,as continuos,through increase of time.the violation of cpt is directely linked to the time dilatation and reverse time dilatation(antiparticles) what your oppinion?
I don't fully understand the point you're making, to be able to comment.
I don't fully understand the point you're making, to be able to comment.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 25 2007, 04:49 PM)
Wulf, I seem to have missed something here? Where is it that your view differ from GoodElfs explanation? Considering those extra dimensions i will have to accept them on 'faith' for now. " I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring a simple, elegant, and experimentally verified resolution to this 'paradox'." Where does it differ, in your own words??
Basically it comes down to differences between SR and GR. SR does not account for Gravity, to wich the time dilation effect is closely related. The paradox is easily resolved in General Relativity, it can be show that the reletavistic effects on rest mass and on accelerations are essentially the same phenomenon.
Plus it makes no sense to 'dial' down mass, SR works great for massless things like photons and whatnot, but not so much for massive objects experiencing the effects of gravity.
The big problem with gravity is that all the terms are related to each other, so it is difficult to establish what causes what. Does mass cause gravity, or is it the other way around or a bit of both, maybe its something else? People get attached to a way of thinking and then ignore equivalent descriptions that might actually help them make progress over terminology and perspective.
Say you have a theory, and some *** proposes an idea that is obviously all wrong, its the complete opposite of yours. Like a mirror image. Both describing the same thing, but to each of you its bass ackward. Now instead of arguing back and forth over who is right, why not look at the overlap, if its equivalent who cares if A causes B or B causes A when it can be shown that A <=> B.
Basically it comes down to differences between SR and GR. SR does not account for Gravity, to wich the time dilation effect is closely related. The paradox is easily resolved in General Relativity, it can be show that the reletavistic effects on rest mass and on accelerations are essentially the same phenomenon.
Plus it makes no sense to 'dial' down mass, SR works great for massless things like photons and whatnot, but not so much for massive objects experiencing the effects of gravity.
The big problem with gravity is that all the terms are related to each other, so it is difficult to establish what causes what. Does mass cause gravity, or is it the other way around or a bit of both, maybe its something else? People get attached to a way of thinking and then ignore equivalent descriptions that might actually help them make progress over terminology and perspective.
Say you have a theory, and some *** proposes an idea that is obviously all wrong, its the complete opposite of yours. Like a mirror image. Both describing the same thing, but to each of you its bass ackward. Now instead of arguing back and forth over who is right, why not look at the overlap, if its equivalent who cares if A causes B or B causes A when it can be shown that A <=> B.
Hi Wulf,
QUOTE (Wulf+)
QUOTE (Good Elf @ Jul 25 2007+ 04:07 PM)
I think I have unfairly "baffled you with science" and I will not continue on this line here.
The only thing that baffled me was your convoluted essay on time dilation.
The only thing that baffled me was your convoluted essay on time dilation.
For whatever reason, I apologize.
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 25 2007, 06:29 PM)
Hi Wulf,
The only thing that baffled me was your convoluted essay on time dilation.[/QUOTE]For whatever reason, I apologize.
Cheers
No worries, sorry for being rude.
The only thing that baffled me was your convoluted essay on time dilation.[/QUOTE]For whatever reason, I apologize.
Cheers
No worries, sorry for being rude.
QUOTE (Ryan125+Oct 27 2006, 06:52 AM)
I know you are all going to hate me.
Acceleration causes an increase in Mass.
Gravity output increases as mass does.
Mass causes the time dilation.
You are all just confused. I added in the step that you where missing. I would do the math to prove it but I'm too lazy.
The massenergy added to the ship to accelerate to near light speed comes from the ship itself; the massenergy of its fuel. The ship does not grow in mass because it must get its energy from its very own mass in an acceleration.
Massenergy is conserved. Gamma does not add any.
Acceleration causes an increase in Mass.
Gravity output increases as mass does.
Mass causes the time dilation.
You are all just confused. I added in the step that you where missing. I would do the math to prove it but I'm too lazy.
The massenergy added to the ship to accelerate to near light speed comes from the ship itself; the massenergy of its fuel. The ship does not grow in mass because it must get its energy from its very own mass in an acceleration.
Massenergy is conserved. Gamma does not add any.
Deriving the Lorentz transforms from first principles might be helpful.
Mr homm does it here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=206682
or Google 'Lorentz Transform Derivation' for one you like better. I tried to follow Einstein's derivation in the appendix of his book 'Relativity' and gave up after arriving at 0=0 a few times (which shows the level of my maths). I have a nicer one but it's in a book and needs diagrams .. I'll try to post it if anyone has tried all the rest and got nowhere.
Mr homm does it here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=206682
or Google 'Lorentz Transform Derivation' for one you like better. I tried to follow Einstein's derivation in the appendix of his book 'Relativity' and gave up after arriving at 0=0 a few times (which shows the level of my maths). I have a nicer one but it's in a book and needs diagrams .. I'll try to post it if anyone has tried all the rest and got nowhere.
Hi Confused2 et al,
QUOTE (Confused2 +)
Deriving the Lorentz transforms from first principles might be helpful.
Nothing could be simpler... Here is a very easy way to imagine it and to work with it "visually".
Light Clock Video -Einstein's Universe
Just be patient with Hocaday's Website.
You can immediately see that the Lorentz Transform is simply an expression of Pythagoras' Theorem for Light. Special Relativity is simply an expression of the spreading of light, seen from all other relatively moving frames of reference, on the surface of a sphere... Assume the "catcher" travels at a velocity of V relative to the onlookers who are in another frame of reference.
Please look here to "understand Einstein"....
'Relativity' Speaking
Cheers
Light Clock Video -Einstein's Universe
Just be patient with Hocaday's Website.
You can immediately see that the Lorentz Transform is simply an expression of Pythagoras' Theorem for Light. Special Relativity is simply an expression of the spreading of light, seen from all other relatively moving frames of reference, on the surface of a sphere... Assume the "catcher" travels at a velocity of V relative to the onlookers who are in another frame of reference.
Please look here to "understand Einstein"....
'Relativity' Speaking
Cheers
As for the discussion of experiments proving Einsteins theory on time dilation, i tend to believe them :). Off course if someone will present experiments proving those findings wrong, not only theories but actual retry able experiments, then i will have to change my view. But until then Einstein rules :)
Good ElF
i would desire to know your oppinion on if the the time dilatation were more easyly
explained by example,in 8-dimensions,where the transformations by left-handed
rotations to right-handed rotations and vice versa,could explain because the
clocks are deformeds,the intervals of times are stretched,and the space was distorted.then the continuos spacetime in 4-dimensions is not completely invariance by rotational=that are hidden symmetries=that appear in the conservation of cpt,that restaure pt -broken.
in dimensions more higher the symmetries are more than symmetrics,permiting
multiples varieties of continuities of spacetime,through loops( that are spacetime
curved hyperbolics or elliptics,and in those differentiations betwwen both the
geometries appear the VARIABILITY OF THE SPACETIME<
i would desire to know your oppinion on if the the time dilatation were more easyly
explained by example,in 8-dimensions,where the transformations by left-handed
rotations to right-handed rotations and vice versa,could explain because the
clocks are deformeds,the intervals of times are stretched,and the space was distorted.then the continuos spacetime in 4-dimensions is not completely invariance by rotational=that are hidden symmetries=that appear in the conservation of cpt,that restaure pt -broken.
in dimensions more higher the symmetries are more than symmetrics,permiting
multiples varieties of continuities of spacetime,through loops( that are spacetime
curved hyperbolics or elliptics,and in those differentiations betwwen both the
geometries appear the VARIABILITY OF THE SPACETIME<
Anybody look at accelerated particles with short lifetimes?
They live longer. This is experimental proof that acceleration slows down time and motion keeps it slow.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fall --
They live longer. This is experimental proof that acceleration slows down time and motion keeps it slow.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Fall --
Nick, what you said in your last post makes great sense to me, but i'm not sure what to make from this? " The massenergy added to the ship to accelerate to near light speed comes from the ship itself; the massenergy of its fuel. The ship does not grow in mass because it must get its energy from its very own mass in an acceleration. " if you are thinking that the ship contains it own energy i would agree, but that doesn't have anything to do with the mass it builds up from motion momentum whatever. You just have to be in a crash once to know that 'speed kills' :) And that mass buildup even though related to the energy transformed is not the effect. Similarly time dilation even though related to the expenditure of 'energy' in exchange for motion is not the energy. That's how i see it any way :)
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 27 2007, 12:23 AM)
Nick, what you said in your last post makes great sense to me, but i'm not sure what to make from this? " The massenergy added to the ship to accelerate to near light speed comes from the ship itself; the massenergy of its fuel. The ship does not grow in mass because it must get its energy from its very own mass in an acceleration. " if you are thinking that the ship contains it own energy i would agree, but that doesn't have anything to do with the mass it builds up from motion momentum whatever. You just have to be in a crash once to know that 'speed kills' And that mass buildup even though related to the energy transformed is not the effect. Similarly time dilation even though related to the expenditure of 'energy' in exchange for motion is not the energy. That's how i see it any way
I'm not sure the mass of the fuel is taken into account in the thought experiment.
And that mass buildup even though related to the energy transformed is not the effect. Similarly time dilation even though related to the expenditure of 'energy' in exchange for motion is not the energy. That's how i see it any way I'm not sure the mass of the fuel is taken into account in the thought experiment.
QUOTE (Nick+)
Anybody look at accelerated particles with short lifetimes?
QUOTE (Nick+Jul 27 2007, 04:15 AM)
Anybody look at accelerated particles with short lifetimes?
They live longer. This is experimental proof that acceleration slows down time and motion keeps it slow.
It's experimental evidence that accelerating a particle will increase it's half-life, but it is not 'experimental proof', as you say, that time itself is slowing down. Let's not jump to conclusions please
The acceleration of particles, may make the particles less inclined to decay, through some stabilising process to do with acceleration/motion. Knowing more about exactly how the particle decays, would be a start. By 'exactly how' it does, I mean, how a particle literally decays into whatever it decays into.
This raises the question: Are 'all' of these time dilation experiments, based on half-lives? Could it be something to do with the half-life process itself, whereby acceleration/motion causes a stabilisation effect, in the particle/atom.
I would indeed like to know more about the exact decay transformation, and what is entailed when a particle transforms into a decayed particle. Literally I want diagrams showing a particle transforming into another particle through a half-life.
Let's not jump to conclusions about time dilation. Let's not over-simplify the situation. Help me out here and explain this thing.
They live longer. This is experimental proof that acceleration slows down time and motion keeps it slow.
It's experimental evidence that accelerating a particle will increase it's half-life, but it is not 'experimental proof', as you say, that time itself is slowing down. Let's not jump to conclusions please
The acceleration of particles, may make the particles less inclined to decay, through some stabilising process to do with acceleration/motion. Knowing more about exactly how the particle decays, would be a start. By 'exactly how' it does, I mean, how a particle literally decays into whatever it decays into.This raises the question: Are 'all' of these time dilation experiments, based on half-lives? Could it be something to do with the half-life process itself, whereby acceleration/motion causes a stabilisation effect, in the particle/atom.
I would indeed like to know more about the exact decay transformation, and what is entailed when a particle transforms into a decayed particle. Literally I want diagrams showing a particle transforming into another particle through a half-life.
Let's not jump to conclusions about time dilation. Let's not over-simplify the situation. Help me out here and explain this thing.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 27 2007, 01:32 AM)
It's experimental evidence that accelerating a particle will increase it's half-life, but it is not 'experimental proof', as you say, that time itself is slowing down. Let's not jump to conclusions please The acceleration of particles, may make the particles less inclined to decay, through some stabilising process to do with acceleration/motion. Knowing more about exactly how the particle decays, would be a start. By 'exactly how' it does, I mean, how a particle literally decays into whatever it decays into.
This raises the question: Are 'all' of these time dilation experiments, based on half-lives? Could it be something to do with the half-life process itself, whereby acceleration/motion causes a stabilisation effect, in the particle/atom.
I would indeed like to know more about the exact decay transformation, and what is entailed when a particle transforms into a decayed particle. Literally I want diagrams showing a particle transforming into another particle through a half-life.
Let's not jump to conclusions about time dilation. Let's not over-simplify the situation. Help me out here and explain this thing.
I'd be carefull about nitpicking terminology and accusing people of jumping to conclusions when discussing things you don't understand.
As far as stabilising the particle, that's an interesting idea. Does anyone know of a mechanism that could explain this other than time dilation?
The acceleration of particles, may make the particles less inclined to decay, through some stabilising process to do with acceleration/motion. Knowing more about exactly how the particle decays, would be a start. By 'exactly how' it does, I mean, how a particle literally decays into whatever it decays into.This raises the question: Are 'all' of these time dilation experiments, based on half-lives? Could it be something to do with the half-life process itself, whereby acceleration/motion causes a stabilisation effect, in the particle/atom.
I would indeed like to know more about the exact decay transformation, and what is entailed when a particle transforms into a decayed particle. Literally I want diagrams showing a particle transforming into another particle through a half-life.
Let's not jump to conclusions about time dilation. Let's not over-simplify the situation. Help me out here and explain this thing.
I'd be carefull about nitpicking terminology and accusing people of jumping to conclusions when discussing things you don't understand.
As far as stabilising the particle, that's an interesting idea. Does anyone know of a mechanism that could explain this other than time dilation?
The motion cause yes time dilatation.the spacetimes are intrinsically linked to the
smaller particle structures of that is made the matter.then the discreteness measured in the atomic vibratory spectrum,that determine different velocities,
appearing these vibratory spectrum as continuos,due at the time between the
different vibratory spectrm,generate the continue time,through of the time dilatation.then the time dilatation explain the discreteness between the wavelenghts that vibrate in discrete frequency,doing appear the time if slow down.
then the relations between the phrenomenos non-linears and linear are defined by
discrete factors,that do differentiate in the distinct spacetime curvatures,that are
manipulated into of a given metric of spacetime( contraction of space and time
dilatation).This due that the flow of the time has it reverse,as so the space,that is curved by these two vortices composed by two opposed rotations,calculed by the
spinorial times.then the differences between the spinorial spacetime( pseudo-vector),that implies the appearing of the lorentz transformations to symmetrize
the points of the spaces( coordinates) as equivalents.mantaing the rotational
invariance.
the mass deform the spacetime in its nearest regions,altering the lines and defining
the curvatures of space,that are carrying the time as relative rates of the motions;this is the the types differentes of curvatures define the form of motion
of that mass.the mass encurve the space,and the motions curve the time,connected the metric of the space.then have the me
smaller particle structures of that is made the matter.then the discreteness measured in the atomic vibratory spectrum,that determine different velocities,
appearing these vibratory spectrum as continuos,due at the time between the
different vibratory spectrm,generate the continue time,through of the time dilatation.then the time dilatation explain the discreteness between the wavelenghts that vibrate in discrete frequency,doing appear the time if slow down.
then the relations between the phrenomenos non-linears and linear are defined by
discrete factors,that do differentiate in the distinct spacetime curvatures,that are
manipulated into of a given metric of spacetime( contraction of space and time
dilatation).This due that the flow of the time has it reverse,as so the space,that is curved by these two vortices composed by two opposed rotations,calculed by the
spinorial times.then the differences between the spinorial spacetime( pseudo-vector),that implies the appearing of the lorentz transformations to symmetrize
the points of the spaces( coordinates) as equivalents.mantaing the rotational
invariance.
the mass deform the spacetime in its nearest regions,altering the lines and defining
the curvatures of space,that are carrying the time as relative rates of the motions;this is the the types differentes of curvatures define the form of motion
of that mass.the mass encurve the space,and the motions curve the time,connected the metric of the space.then have the me