Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MikeS on 29/04/2011 19:27:44
-
This was started to be written in answer to "Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?"
I soon realised it's actually a theory on time.
JML Carter.
Why is c 299,792,458m/s and not some other value?
JP
the meter was actually redefined so that it is now based on the speed of light. That means that light speed has exactly that value simply because we've chosen a definition of meter to give it that value.
JMLCarter
What am I asking then? Why did c turn out to be 299792458 m/s and not 154675322m/s. Why is the universal speed limit set at the level it is? Why does light take 8ish minutes to get here from the sun, not 15ish minutes, or 4ish minutes? It doesn't matter to this question what units c is measured in.
Soul Surfer
out in your first question the speed of light as would be the speed of any wave motion comes directly from the properties of the medium (vacuum) in which the light travels. So your question is really why does a vacuum have these elastic properties.
The question then arises, if like a gas we could "compress" the vacuum in some way we might be able to change the velocity of light.
JMLCarter
3) c is known to be related to the permeability and permitivity of free space, but this only begs the question what defines these?
A photon experiences no passage to time because its speed is infinite.
The universe contains both energy and matter. We know from General Relativity that mass dilates the passage of time (I prefer to call it ‘the rate of flow of time’). We live in, essentially a matter only universe, and matter gives the arrow of time a direction. We can deduce from E = mc2 that mass (in this case matter) gives the arrow of time a direction and energy gives time a rate of flow. Energy wants to dissipate in the shortest possible time over the greatest possible volume. This is entropy. Mass distorts space time in a manner that we call gravity. So mass is trying to contract the universe and energy is trying to make it expand. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant so it is linked to time like this:- The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant because the rate of flow of time is a variable. From E = mc2 we can deduce the rate of flow of time Rt = √E/M. We know from General Relativity that, on a local scale the rate of flow of time can vary depending upon mass.
Although the universe contains a finite amount of mass-energy, the ratio is continually changing. Therefore the rate of flow of time is continually changing. In other words what we think of as the permeability and permittivity of space is the relationship of mass (gravity) and energy and it is this relationship that we call time. Perhaps this can be refined further by saying that the ratio of energy to matter is continually changing in favor of matter, which means time and entropy are the same thing.
A photon as it has no mass (please forgive me for what I am about to say) essentially travels at infinite “speed”. However, speed has two components, distance and time. The rate of flow of time if, infinite would allow the speed of light to be infinite. However, the universe contains mass (matter) that moderates the rate of flow of time (slowing it down) and hence the speed of light remains a constant. Phew! The whole point here is very simple the speed of light in a vacuum remains a constant because the rate of flow of time is a variable. This remains true even if the rate of flow of time is infinite. This completely explains why the speed of light is what it is. The number, as already agreed is purely dependant on the units chosen. Distance is fixed units. The rate of flow of time is variable which ensures that the speed of light in a vacuum remains a constant.
Another way of putting this is we could call the speed of light any arbitrary number and it would always remain constant because the rate of flow of time is variable.
Ron Hughes
If the density or energy of space sets the speed limit of C one would surmise that C may have been very much faster at the BB and is slowing down as the Universe becomes less dense as opposed to a hypothetical inflationary period?
Yes I agree.
Phractality
As far as I can tell, the Chinese experiment is only supposed to have transmitted an effect across 16 km. A pair of entangled photons went in opposite directions from a point approximately midway between the sender and the receiver (but slightly closer to the sender). When the quantum states of photons were detected at the slightly nearer end, the quantum state of their twins at the other end were determined instantaneously, before being measured. The act of detection at one end instantaneously affected the measurement at the other end.
Photons being mass less ‘particles’ do not experience time. So it seems reasonable that in the above experiment any ‘communication’ between a bound pair would be instantaneous. Don’t ask me what the mode of communication is.
Final quick thought, instantaneous communication over any finite distance, sounds a lot like gravity.
Disclaimer so there is no confusion. Nowhere have I ever claimed or will ever claim that the speed of light is not a constant.
-
Photons being mass less ‘particles’ do not experience time.
It's wrong to think that photons don't "experience" (whatever that means to a massless particle) time. Although it's wrong, it is however natural to think that they don't experience time, since applying the rules of special relativity to things moving at light speed seems to say that they don't experience time. The problem is that the axioms of special relativity flat-out restrict it to not include the reference frame of a photon.
It might be helpful to read this:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/headlights.html
Final quick thought, instantaneous communication over any finite distance, sounds a lot like gravity.
To the best we know, gravity should move at light speed--at least that's what the equations of general relativity predict. I don't think anyone's managed to actually test this experimentally yet.
-
As I said previously the above hypothesis started out as an answer to a post and because of that it never had as much thought as it deserved. There is nothing that I wish to change but I would like to add the following as it sums up exactly what I believe time to be:-
The speed of light in a vacuum without the influence of gravity is infinite. In the real universe, gravity slows the photons down. It is this slowing down of photons by gravity that we call time. The rate of flow of time is a variable so that the speed of light is a constant. Any fuzziness in understanding this is probably due to language being inadequate
JP
"It's wrong to think that photons don't "experience" (whatever that means to a massless particle) time"
In what way do they experience time, please?
-
JP
Had a look at the link you posted.
Ok, the car thing is impossible but as a mind experiment I would like to have a go at answering it. I am traveling at the speed of light at night and I turn on my headlights. Actually, I am frozen in time so cannot turn the headlights on.
-
Nowhere have I ever claimed or will ever claim that the speed of light is not a constant.
In the real universe, gravity slows the photons down.
There is something I don't get. How can something be slowed down when it's speed is always constant?
Ok, the car thing is impossible but as a mind experiment I would like to have a go at answering it. I am traveling at the speed of light at night and I turn on my headlights. Actually, I am frozen in time so cannot turn the headlights on.
Sure. Since this is your own theory, you can always add on an extra non-inertial reference frame in which time is frozen, but it is beyond anything that special relativity says. That's all I was trying to point out.
-
That's a strange thing with 'time' and its arrow. There is no frame of reference that can be said to be 'unmoving/frozen'. If you define a frame as such, then it has to be from a different 'frame of reference', relative that definition. And as soon as you're 'at rest' relative that 'frozen' frame you will find that its 'time' ticks the same 'as always', in fact it ticks the same as yours.
-
JP
Quote from: MikeS on 30/04/2011 11:20:19
Nowhere have I ever claimed or will ever claim that the speed of light is not a constant.
Quote from: MikeS on 30/04/2011 11:20:19
In the real universe, gravity slows the photons down.
There is something I don't get. How can something be slowed down when it's speed is always constant?
This was what I said.
The speed of light in a vacuum without the influence of gravity is infinite. In the real universe, gravity slows the photons down. It is this slowing down of photons by gravity that we call time. The rate of flow of time is a variable so that the speed of light is a constant. Any fuzziness in understanding this is probably due to language being inadequate
Any fuzziness in understanding that is probably due to inadequacies of language. Gravity does 'slow" photons. It is this process that we call time. We exist within gravity and time. Trying to explain either from within is fraught with problems. Trying to expain 'slow' without using words about time is where the misunderstanding is arising Let me try this again. Gravity 'slows' photons but as their 'speed' is required to be constant, the 'rate of flow of time' changes to compensate.
Quote
Ok, the car thing is impossible but as a mind experiment I would like to have a go at answering it. I am traveling at the speed of light at night and I turn on my headlights. Actually, I am frozen in time so cannot turn the headlights on.
Sure. Since this is your own theory, you can always add on an extra non-inertial reference frame in which time is frozen, but it is beyond anything that special relativity says. That's all I was trying to point out.
A photon experiences no passage of time. Anything travelling at the speed of light will also experience no passage of time. I thought this was generally accepted.
-
yor_on
That's a strange thing with 'time' and its arrow. There is no frame of reference that can be said to be 'unmoving/frozen'. If you define a frame as such, then it has to be from a different 'frame of reference', relative that definition. And as soon as you're 'at rest' relative that 'frozen' frame you will find that its 'time' ticks the same 'as always', in fact it ticks the same as yours.
No, I think that was a generalised statement that does not apply in this case. Clocks stop at the speed of light.
Thats why nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. According to your logic an observer on a spaceship travelling faster than the speed of light would see his clock operating as normal. This is in contradiction to the arrow of time reversing (relative to us) as, I believe, is normally accepted. It would also make 'time travel' into the future a possibility.
-
JP
"It's wrong to think that photons don't "experience" (whatever that means to a massless particle) time"
In what way do they experience time, please?
I am still interested to know in what way you think photons experience time?
Thanks.
-
A photon experiences no passage of time. Anything travelling at the speed of light will also experience no passage of time. I thought this was generally accepted.
Nope. No one knows what light "experiences," since no experiments can ever move at the speed of light to test it, and the theory of relativity does not say anything about what photons experience. It's a common misconception that applying relativity to observers moving at light speed tells you that clocks stop, but it doesn't. Relativity is based on the postulate that light moves at light speed for all observers, so when you ask about an observer who's moving at light speed he's by definition not covered by the theory.
If you apply the equations properly, setting mass to zero as well as speed to the speed of light, you see the equations break down. It's only when you leave mass non-zero, but set speed to the speed of light that you get the incorrect answer that time stops.
-
JP
"It's wrong to think that photons don't "experience" (whatever that means to a massless particle) time"
In what way do they experience time, please?
I am still interested to know in what way you think photons experience time?
Thanks.
I never said they experience time. :)
We have no way of measuring or predicting what they "experience," so the question is outside of mainstream physics. It's definitely a new theory to say that they don't experience time, but that's what this forum is for.
-
No Mike :)
No clocks stops, ever. Not inside their own frame of reference, well as long as the battery works :) What is meant by a 'clock stopping' is a conceptual exercise relative a observer being 'at rest' relative something moving at 'lights speed in a vacuum', in the case of him stating that the 'clock' of the frame of reference he observes really can be said to have 'stopped'. And as we don't have anything made of matter that we ever can observe, including a black hole, as having that 'stopped clock' we can't observe it at all in fact.
Anything being totally 'stopped' relative my frame of reference will indeed become a singularity, well except light then. But light only exist in its interactions. You have no way other than conceptual to define as 'propagating', when it comes to 'matter' is seems somewhat different as you actually can see it 'move' as translated by light.
-
JP
Thank you for engaging with me in this debate.
No one knows what light "experiences," since no experiments can ever move at the speed of light to test it, and the theory of relativity does not say anything about what photons experience.
But we can speculate based upon what we do know (whatever that means in physics)
If you apply the equations properly, setting mass to zero as well as speed to the speed of light, you see the equations break down. It's only when you leave mass non-zero, but set speed to the speed of light that you get the incorrect answer that time stops.
But why would you set mass to zero when Relativity tells us that mass traveling at the speed of light becomes infinite. Plug that into the equation and it returns the speed of light to be zero but the speed of light is a constant so the passage of time (rate of flow of time) must be zero. The clock’s stopped.
It's a common misconception that applying relativity to observers moving at light speed tells you that clocks stop, but it doesn't. Relativity is based on the postulate that light moves at light speed for all observers, so when you ask about an observer who's moving at light speed he's by definition not covered by the theory.
Ok, so if you do the sums again setting mass at infinity minus a bit your clock has to all intents and purposes stopped and your still obeying the postulate that light moves at light speed for all observers.
"It's wrong to think that photons don't "experience" (whatever that means to a massless particle) time"
I never said they experience time
"It's wrong to think that photons don't "experience time"
Isn’t that the same as saying they do experience time (whatever that means to a massless particle)
yor_on
You posted while I was writing the above.
No clocks stops, ever. Not inside their own frame of reference,
I appreciate you cant have a material clock travel at the speed of light but as a mind experiment it seems valid. What I said above still seems true to me and for the same reason, a clock in its own reference frame would stop. I have explained my reason for thinking that. If you think I am wrong, please explain, preferably non mathematically.
Thanks
-
light only exist in its interactions. You have no way other than conceptual to define as 'propagating', when it comes to 'matter' is seems somewhat different as you actually can see it 'move' as translated by light.
Is that like saying if I have a light source inside a sealed box the light is neither propagating nor not propagating until I open the box? [::)]
-
But why would you set mass to zero when Relativity tells us that mass traveling at the speed of light becomes infinite.
Ah, you're thinking of relativistic mass. I'm talking about rest mass. Rest mass = 0 objects are the only ones that can move at the speed of light. And the theory of relativity doesn't describe their point of view. In more technical terms, there is no inertial reference frame for them.
Trying to measure time or space or describe the laws of physics in their inertial reference frame is new physics outside of the existing theories. That's the entirety of my point.
-
Mike, I admit that it depends on how you define it :) I like to define it as 'interactions' myself, but not as 'propagating'. I also define it as a 'constant'. You are free to define it as propagating too naturally, most do so as all experiments we make give us a definition where we can count on light as having a constant unvarying speed.
Using my logic all 'speeds' becomes questionable, as all speeds becomes defined from light signals interacting with us. So even though there is a difference in that matter gets 'translated' as 'moving' before interacting with me (football) it still gets its definition from what I then see as not 'moving' at all, namely light.
To me it all has to do with how I think of SpaceTime. I see it as a game, the game has certain rules. They make a logic that creates our 'reality'. But when you dismantle that reality it seems to rest on light signals interacting. Those 'photons' we split in 'virtual' and 'real' but to me they seem the same. The only difference being the way our arrow of time treats them.
I know, I'm weird :)
==
What the definition does though is simplifying all experiments made with light to me. It becomes simple to see why different setups have different results. It's not any longer a question of 'propagation' and 'many ways' or the Copenhagen definition. Well, it is in a way, but it in another way only becomes the result of how you define the setup. Think of it as my cosmic puzzle, you set out the definitions for the outcome in the way you define your setup. That you are able to do so is a result of our arrow, that's what allows the logical 'linearity' we 'experiment' from. Even when testing entanglements at a QM level we actually do it inside this 'arrow of time'. Stating that something is 'time less' then becomes just another outcome of the rules. The arrow seems very real to me using those definitions, and if I look at the way my own 'clock' will 'tick', from my birth to my death I know that it will tick the same as long as I'm alive. My intrinsic arrow don't care if I'm traveling near the speed of light, to me it always will give me the same heartbeats relative some time piece.
The funny thing is that even though Einstein saw this too, he didn't went the whole way with it? I don't know why. I find it no more unreal to look at it my way than to look at entanglements and 'wave functions' collapsing only in the observation. Or as seems modern for the moment, using Feynman's 'sum over paths'? I mean, his paths has to be taken, all of them simultaneously, then with 'time' rolled up backwards for all paths not making sense from a statistical view point. You can look at it as 'interference', as if every instant 'ticking' was some kind of wave phenomena naturally, but if you do you're no longer considering the macroscopic reality, instead once again placing the macroscopic reality only on a conceptual plane.
In a way he makes a lot of sense to me, as my idea of interactions builds on the same phenomena, light. But so do the wave function collapsing, as that is a direct analogy to the interaction as the light interacts with you. Still, who knows :)
==
Maybe it was because if you follow the logic full out, you don't 'exist' :) That is, what we call 'matter' then just becomes one of the outcomes of 'rules'. Like as if we all instinctively had agreed on a game at birth, or before. Translating it into a 'reality' by the way we look at it. Defined that way it reminds me of some mystic Eastern cult :) But I happen to believe in that we exist, although, I don't see us as observing the same SpaceTime, ever. 'Frames of reference' is a real mystery to me, it's a direct translation of how light signals act between 'observers', allowing us a distinct feeling and experience of 'seeing the exact same' a 'wholeness' as long as those light signals doesn't becomes too 'Lorentz translated'. I think he was working from a model where we really was 'here', just as we experience it. And so this thought would have been preposterous to him, other than as a philosophical question.
-
yor_on
I agree with on some points, everything seems to be relative.
Please see my last post today 05.58 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39042.new#new
I wrote it before reading your last post but it shows, in some manner we agree on some things.
I personally believe the universe on a large scale to be very simple straightforward and intuitive; it just appears complicated when you do not understand it. On the other hand, the world of quantum mechanics is the opposite and definitely not intuitive.
You have stopped challenging me on the idea of the passage of time (as Einstein referred to it or ‘rate of flow of time’ as I prefer to call it) being variable, both in the universe as a whole and locally (time pockets as you referred to them). Does this mean (inconceivable) that you have come around to my way of thinking (that the rate of flow of time is variable) or have you just given up?
[;)]
-
Well, we're in 'New Theories' Mike. Here you will get shoot at :) too, and fight for your ideas. Where we were before though we're expected to present the mainstream proposition firstly, our own only when relevant to ah, :) whatever (admittedly it's a grey-zone:) But keeping inside the main stream anyway.
Einstein made his theory on one constant. Lights constant invariable speed in a vacuum, from all frames measurable, and as observed in all other frames. Your interpretation is not the one he presented. You might use it, as intuitively it's not a bad one, I too find myself thinking in similar ways at times, so? But no, I think of light as invariant still but that doesn't state that there can't be a way looking at it as you do.
The reason why we're mainstream above is simply that this site is a little different in that it presents mainstream science for viewers and readers. Then those write and ask and expect us to present where science stands on that question today. It's a privilege answering those and we all like to feel as we 'know' :) But with the restriction that we stay inside what is accepted today. Otherwise we would lead them away from what's mainly accepted into what we ourselves think of as 'acceptable' to us.
But we constantly balance a thin line there answering. Still, first 'mainstream' then, if found necessary, your own interpretation of the same, but always defining your source if so. Those asking may be new to physics, so first let them find the limits of mainstream science themselves before throwing them into deep water :)
Here we have the freedom to build our own logical universes.
So let's do it, and da*n the torpedoes :)
==
Sorry about the spelling, my keyboard is more or less in pieces here.
-
yor_on
Well, we're in 'New Theories' Mike. Here you will get shoot at :) too, and fight for your ideas. Where we were before though we're expected to present the mainstream proposition firstly, our own only when relevant to ah, :) whatever (admittedly it's a grey-zone:) But keeping inside the main stream anyway.
Einstein made his theory on one constant. Lights constant invariable speed in a vacuum, from all frames measurable, and as observed in all other frames. (1)Your interpretation is not the one he presented. You might use it, as intuitively it's not a bad one, I too find myself thinking in similar ways at times, so? (2)But no, I think of light as invariant still but that doesn't state that there can't be a way looking at it as you do.
The reason why we're mainstream above is simply that this site is a little different in that it presents mainstream science for viewers and readers. Then those write and ask and expect us to present where science stands on that question today. It's a privilege answering those and we all like to feel as we 'know' :) But with the restriction that we stay inside what is accepted today. Otherwise we would lead them away from what's mainly accepted into what we ourselves think of as 'acceptable' to us.
But we constantly balance a thin line there answering. Still, first 'mainstream' then, if found necessary, your own interpretation of the same, but always defining your source if so. Those asking may be new to physics, so first let them find the limits of mainstream science themselves before throwing them into deep water :)
Here we have the freedom to build our own logical universes.
So let's do it, and da*n the torpedoes :)
==
Sorry about the spelling, my keyboard is more or less in pieces here.
To answer all of your above points of which there are two.
Einstein made his theory on one constant. Lights constant invariable speed in a vacuum, from all frames measurable, and as observed in all other frames.
(1)Your interpretation is not the one he presented.
I believe my interpretation is the one Einstein presented. You obviously disagree. Please tell me what I have said that you think contradicts that?
(2)But no, I think of light as invariant still but that doesn't state that there can't be a way looking at it as you do.
I too believe the speed of light to be invariant as I have always maintained because the ‘Rate of flow of time’ is variable. To the best of my knowledge this is exactly what Einstein maintained. As I understand it, I am looking at the situation the same, as did Einstein. In what way do you think I am looking at it differently?
Please answer the above two questions as we seem to be going around in circles. If I am wrong then I want to know in what way am I wrong.
-
A clock just outside the event horizon of a black hole will appear to be almost stopped to an observer far away. That same clock will appear to run faster on Earth, faster on the moon and faster in empty space. Those four locations will have an average rate which suggests the Universe has an average rate based on the matter energy density of the Universe. In space I have a device that will emit a beam of light which I call device A. Three hundred thousand kilometers away I have a detector which I call device B. Some distance away I have a clock which is entangled with device A and B such that when A emits the beam my clock starts and when device B detects the beam my clock stops. I trigger device A to fire and my clock shows a time of one second determining the speed of light to have it's current value. I now move my clock to the edge of the event horizon of a black hole and trigger device A again. If my logic is correct don't I measure c to be almost infinite?
-
I have only just given this some quick thought but I think I understand what you are saying. Lets say clock B is right on the event horizon. It will have stopped. Therefore there can be no causality. The signal from A will never reach it. This says nothing about the speed of light which remains a constant. What you must remember is the speed of light is a constant because the rate of flow of time is a variable. Its not the light that has stopped but the clock.
the Universe has an average rate based on the matter energy density of the Universe.
Have you actually read and understood my posts?
-
[
Have you actually read and understood my posts?
[/quote]
Sorry, that sounds sarcastic, it wasn't meant to. What I meant was you seem to have read and understood some of my posts?
-
Instead of me fighting for it, let me quote some history Mike, then you will see why I see it the way I do. This is about his 1905 paper.
"In this paper, as in almost all subsequent accounts, Einstein bases SRT on two fundamental principles: the principle of relativity and the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. The principle of relativity originated in Galilean-Newtonian mechanics:
Any frame of reference in which Newton's law of inertia holds (for some period of time) is now called an inertial frame of reference. From the laws of mechanics it follows that, if one such inertial frame exists, then an infinity of them must: All frames of reference (and only such frames) moving with constant velocity with respect to a given inertial frame are also inertial frames. All mechanical experiments and observations proved to be in accord with the (mechanical) principle of relativity: the laws of mechanics take the same form in any of these inertial frames. The principle of relativity, as Einstein stated it in 1905, asserts that all the laws of physics take the same form in any inertial frame-in particular, the laws of electricity, magnetism, and optics in addition to those of mechanics.
The second of Einstein's principles is based on an important consequence of Maxwell's laws of electricity, magnetism, and optics, as interpreted by H. A. Lorentz near the end of the nineteenth century. Maxwell had unified optics with electricity and magnetism in a single theory, in which light is just one type of electromagnetic wave. It was then believed that any wave must propagate through some mechanical medium. Since light waves easily propagate through the vacuum of interstellar space, it was assumed that any vacuum, though empty of ordinary, ponderable matter, was actually filled by such a medium, to which our senses did not respond: the ether. The question then arose, how does this medium behave when ordinary matter is present? In particular, is it dragged along by the motion of matter? Various possible answers were considered in the course of the nineteenth century, but finally only one view seemed compatible with (almost) all the known experimental results, that of H. A. Lorentz: The ether is present everywhere. Ordinary matter is made up of electrically charged particles, which can move through the ether, which is basically immobile. These charged particles, then called "electrons" or "ions", produce all electric and magnetic fields (including the electromagnetic waves we perceive as light), which are nothing but certain excited states of the immovable ether. The important experimental problem then arose of detecting the motion of ponderable matter-the earth in particular-through the ether.
No other theory came remotely close to Lorentz's in accounting for so many electromagnetic and especially optical phenomena. This is not just my view of Lorentz's theory, it was Einstein's view. In particular, he again and again cites the abberration of starlight and the results of Fizeau's experiment on the velocity of light in flowing water as decisive evidence in favor of Lorentz's interpretation of Maxwell's equations.
A direct consequence of Lorentz's conception of the stationary ether is that the velocity of light with respect to the ether is a constant, independent of the motion of the source of light (or its frequency, amplitude, or direction of propagation in the ether, etc.).
Einstein adopted a slightly-but crucially-modified version of this conclusion as his second principle: There is an inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant, independent of the velocity of its source. A Lorentzian ether theorist could agree at once to this statement, since it was always tacitly assumed that the ether rest frame is an inertial frame of reference and Einstein had "only" substituted "inertial frame" for "ether."
But Einstein's omission of the ether was deliberate and crucial: by the time he formulated SRT he did not believe in its existence. For Einstein a principle was just that: a principle-a starting point for a process of deduction, not a deduction from any (ether) theory. (I am here getting ahead of my story and will return to this point later.) The Lorentzian ether theorist would add that there can only be one inertial frame in which the light principle holds. If the speed of light is a constant in the ether frame, it must be non-constant in every other inertial frame, as follows from the (Newtonian) law of addition of velocities. The light principle hence seems to be incompatible with the relativity principle. For, according to the relativity principle, all the laws of physics must be the same in any inertial frame. So, if the speed of light is constant in one inertial frame, and that frame is not physically singled out by being the rest frame of some medium (the ether), then the speed of light must be the same (universal) constant in every other inertial frame (otherwise the democracy of inertial frames is violated). As Einstein put it in 1905, his two principles are "apparently incompatible." Of course, if they really were incompatible logically or physically, that would be the end of SRT.
Einstein showed that they are not only logically compatible, but compatible with the results of all optical and other experiments performed up to 1905 (and since, we may add). He was able to show their logical compatibility by an analysis of the concepts of time, simultaneity, and length, which demonstrated that the speed of light really could have the privileged status, implied by his two principles, of being a universal speed, the same in every inertial frame of reference." From how did Einstein discover relativity? (http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm)
==
"Newtons First law: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force. This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant velocity."
That one is often referred to as Newtons law of inertia.
And "an inertial frame of reference, or inertial reference frame, is one in which Newton's first law of motion is valid. However, the principle of special relativity generalizes the notion of inertial frame to include all physical laws, not simply Newton's first law." What that means is that any experiment done in one inertial frame must be reproducible in any other inertial frame. A simple example is the equivalence of all uniform motion. And in a way also the equivalence between a rocket constantly and uniformly accelerating at one gravity as compared to the same experiment done on Earth (one gravity), ignoring tidal forces as the same principle comes into play there, that you if you find yourself getting the exact same outcomes from any experiment thought up in all 'frames' you test in then those frames must be equivalent physically. That's a idea that it took a Einstein to formulate so clearly as I understands it. The theory of equivalence you might call it :) But it's obvious when you think of it.
-
yor_on
I really do not understand what you are saying. I have no problems with SRT whatsoever, other than perhaps it could have gone further.
From your previous post
To answer all of your above points of which there are two.
Einstein made his theory on one constant. Lights constant invariable speed in a vacuum, from all frames measurable, and as observed in all other frames.
(1)Your interpretation is not the one he presented.
I believe my interpretation is the one Einstein presented. You obviously disagree. Please tell me what I have said that you think contradicts that?
(2)But no, I think of light as invariant still but that doesn't state that there can't be a way looking at it as you do.
I too believe the speed of light to be invariant as I have always maintained because the ‘Rate of flow of time’ is variable. To the best of my knowledge this is exactly what Einstein maintained. As I understand it, I am looking at the situation the same, as did Einstein. In what way do you think I am looking at it differently?
Please answer the above two questions as we seem to be going around in circles. If I am wrong then I want to know in what way am I wrong.
We are still going around in circles. Quoting SRT to me Isn't helping as I agree with it. As per my previous two questions, which really boil down to one and I will repeat the question. What is it about Einstein made his theory on one constant. Lights constant invariable speed in a vacuum, from all frames measurable, and as observed in all other frames. that you think I disagree with? Please, this deserves an answer.
-
Well, this was why I find Einstein being right in treating light as a constant. When it comes to your definitions of lights 'infinite speed' I can't agree. To me, and Einstein, light has only one speed, it does not adapt to 'time/gravity'.
-
Well, this was why I find Einstein being right in treating light as a constant. When it comes to your definitions of lights 'infinite speed' I can't agree. To me, and Einstein, light has only one speed, it does not adapt to 'time/gravity'.
Thank you for replying.
The only way that I might have mentioned light 'infinite speed' is if you have totally taken it out of context. I have laboured the point that the speed of light is invariant.
To me, and Einstein, light has only one speed, it does not adapt to 'time/gravity'.
That's exactly what I have always maintained. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant
To me, and Einstein, light has only one speed, it does not adapt to 'time/gravity'.
You are wrong on this one, firstly I have never said light adapts to time/gravity.
What I have said on numerous occasions is the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant because the rate of flow of time is a variable. I have also said that the rate of flow of time is varied (dilated) by gravity.]
This is part of General Relativity. You are accusing me here of misinterpreting relativity, whereas, it is you that is denying what Relativity actually states.
"For example, the theory of relativity overturned the concept of motion from Newton's day, into all motion is relative. Time was no longer uniform and absolute. [/b]urthermore, no longer could physics be understood as space by itself, and time by itself. Instead, an added dimension had to be taken into account with curved spacetime. Time now depended on velocity, and contraction became a fundamental consequence at appropriate speeds."[4][5][6][7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity[/i]
In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
rate of flow of time is varied (dilated) by gravity.]
clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower.
These are both obviously saying the same thing. Relativity and I agree.
rate of flow of time is a variable
Time was no longer uniform and absolute
These are both obviously saying the same thing. Relativity and I agree.
To me, and Einstein, light has only one speed[/b], it does not adapt to 'time/gravity'
Although you have said it backwards here, you have on numerous occasions maintained that the rate of flow of time is constant.
Relativity and you disagree.
-
You know Mike, I love the way you color the answers. It looks nice, never thought of doing it that way. And no Mike, relativity and I agree :)
There is only one rate of time as measured from your own frame of reference. I promise you that it never will change. the same goes for me, and everyone else. It's not called a 'constant' but I ever so secretly think it could be one, slightly weird, constant, but still a constant. Then we come to light that also is a constant, meaning that we expect it to have 'one speed' in a vacuum.
So if time is sort of 'constant' of the same durations always as measured by you in your frame, no matter where you go or what you do, and light is a constant too? where the he* does a time dilation come from?
:)
Now that's what I call a good question.
-
I'm a bit confused too. I think it has to do with language, which you mentioned earlier.
So let me see if we agree on a few key points, because I think we all do.
1) The speed of light is a measurable value for any observer in the universe. All observers measure the same value of ~3x108 m/s. If an observer near a black hole and an observer in deep space, far from gravity both measure the speed of light, then later they come back together and compare notes, they'll see they both recorded ~3x108 m/s. If an observer moving in a speedy rocket ship does the same thing and compares notes with an observer on the earth, they'll also see they both recorded ~3x108 m/s.
I assume this is what we all agree on when we say the speed of light is constant?
2) If one observer is moving really fast and turns on a flashlight and the other is standing still with respect to him, and they're both watching the same beam of light, they'll both still record ~3x108 m/s for the speed of light. The way to explain this result is that the measuring sticks and clocks don't agree between the two observers. This is harder to see with general relativity, but the same basic idea holds: light can only be constant for all observers if distance and time measurements don't always agree.
I assume when you say that "rate of flow of time" is variable, what you mean is that one clock can ticks faster than another if it's in a different reference frame. Is this accurate?
3) Do we all also agree that light speed is constant, and completely uninfluenced by gravity, but that clocks and measuring sticks are influence by gravity?
-
Yep.
A constant constant it is Sir, and as a interaction presenting you with the same exact rate, or duration. And, wha'do'ya notice!! :) Your own time seems to tick in harmony with this weird 'constant', presenting you the exact same rate/durations relative that 'speed'. Now isn't that a coincidence?
I'm sorry, should have gone to sleep some day ago, but my biological 'clock' is shot to pieces, I'll just have to wait it out. And when I get tired everything turns a slight shade of fun. Hope you can bear with me Mike, and JP :) No harm intended.
-
yor_on
There is only one rate of time as measured from your own frame of reference.(1) I promise you that it never will change. the same goes for me, and everyone else. It's not called a 'constant' but I ever so secretly think it could be one, slightly weird, constant, but still a constant. Then we come to light that also is a constant, meaning that we expect it to have 'one speed' in a vacuum.
So if time is sort of 'constant' of the same durations always as measured by you in your frame, no matter where you go or what you do, and light is a constant too? where the he* does a time dilation come from? (2)
1) From your own frame yes. From others no. The universe has its own general rate of flow of time but in any locality it can be different depending upon the amount of mass in that locality. That’s part of relativity.
2) Massive objects dilate time. That’s part of relativity as derived from the Lorenz transformation.
As the rate of flow of time changes to keep the speed of light constant, we are unaware of any changes because we are not independent but part of that variable.
JP
I'm a bit confused too. I think it has to do with language, which you mentioned earlier. It can be
So let me see if we agree on a few key points, because I think we all do.
1) The speed of light is a measurable value for any observer in the universe. All observers measure the same value of ~3x108 m/s. If an observer near a black hole and an observer in deep space, far from gravity both measure the speed of light, then later they come back together and compare notes, they'll see they both recorded ~3x108 m/s. If an observer moving in a speedy rocket ship does the same thing and compares notes with an observer on the earth, they'll also see they both recorded ~3x108 m/s.
I assume this is what we all agree on when we say the speed of light is constant?
2) If one observer is moving really fast and turns on a flashlight and the other is standing still with respect to him, and they're both watching the same beam of light, they'll both still record ~3x108 m/s for the speed of light. The way to explain this result is that the measuring sticks and clocks don't agree between the two observers. This is harder to see with general relativity, but the same basic idea holds: light can only be constant for all observers if distance and time measurements don't always agree.
I assume when you say that "rate of flow of time" is variable, what you mean is that one clock can ticks faster than another if it's in a different reference frame. Is this accurate?
3) Do we all also agree that light speed is constant, and completely uninfluenced by gravity, but that clocks and measuring sticks are influence by gravity?
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Do we all also agree that light speed is constant,? Yes
and completely uninfluenced by gravity, No
but that clocks and measuring sticks are influence by gravity? Yes
and completely uninfluenced by gravity, No.
I believe that the rate of flow of time is derived from two factors of the universe, one of which is gravity. The variable rate of flow of time is what allows the speed of light to be a constant. So, as gravity tries to influence the speed of light, the rate of flow of time changes and cancels the effect. The speed of light remains invariant and the visible face of ‘time’ appears constant.
yor_on
I find this fascinating, albeit frustrating at times. I’m English living in Bulgaria and operate, if you like in isolation from anyone I can talk with on this subject. The debates on these forums help me to focus my mind. Thanks to you all I am even more convinced in the validity of my own ideas. Thanks and keep up the good work.
-
There is nothing wrong with having ideas, but as you say, they fare best when whetted. And that's what you're doing. That we see it differently doesn't guarantee that any of us is right. We might both miss something important that would put a whole new light to the subject. The discussions here I think of as a tool, just as you say, to help us all hone our minds and get new ideas. And have some fun :)
-
3) Do we all also agree that light speed is constant,? Yes
and completely uninfluenced by gravity, No
but that clocks and measuring sticks are influence by gravity? Yes
Ok, that might be the sticking point. Usually "influenced" in physics means that something is changed by something else. So if you say the speed of light is influenced by gravity, the usual interpretation is that it's being changed by gravity.
So getting back to what you actually mean by this: as I understand you, you're pointing out that gravity influences measurements of time intervals and that time intervals are used when measuring the speed of light. Therefore, even though light speed is constant, gravity has influenced a part of the measurement process of the speed of light? Would this be accurate?
-
JP
From my last post
3) Do we all also agree that light speed is constant,? Yes
and completely uninfluenced by gravity, No
but that clocks and measuring sticks are influence by gravity? Yes
and completely uninfluenced by gravity, No.
I believe that the rate of flow of time is derived from two factors of the universe, one of which is gravity. The variable rate of flow of time is what allows the speed of light to be a constant. So, as gravity tries to influence the speed of light, the rate of flow of time changes and cancels the effect. The speed of light remains invariant and the visible face of ‘time’ appears constant.
Do we all also agree that light speed is constant,? Yes
and completely uninfluenced by gravity? No
I'm not sure if this is clear. The speed of light is uninfluenced by gravity because the rate of flow of time is derived partly from gravity. So the answer should have been yes. Is there a connection between the speed of light and gravity? Yes.
-
JP
You posted while I was writing the last reply. Hopefully it made it clear what I meant. Anyway in answer to your last post. Yes.
-
Ok, I understand what you're getting at now. I agree that's one way of looking at things, but it's not the same as Einstein did in deriving relativity. He assumed that the speed of light being constant was the fundamental concept in his theory and derived time dilation and length contraction as results. You seem to be assuming that time dilation and length contraction are fundamental concepts and deriving the constancy of the speed of light from them. I'm not an expert, but I don't see any huge problems off hand--both ways seem valid--although to me it feels a bit less elegant than doing it Einstein's way.
By the way, I don't mean to be condescending here, but is there a reason that you're not using more commonly accepted technical terms? I think a lot of this confusion could be avoided if you spoke in terms of time dilation and measured time intervals rather than using the confusing term "rate of flow of time." If you try to interpret "rate of flow of time" in terms of technical definitions for rate and flow, it is rather meaningless.
The same goes for the word "influence," which means that something changes something else. If the speed of light is constant, it technically can't be influenced by gravity. It would be more technically correct to say that gravity does not influence the speed of light because gravity does influence time in precisely the right way.
I think a lot of people with science training take for granted that everyone else will speak their language. This isn't always the case, and then things get easily confused.
-
We know that photons 'bend' to gravity, so you can say that light is 'influenced' by gravity Mike. And yes, you can turn it around if you like and state that we have some 'forces' (not really forces per se, but I'm using the word for lack of a better here) that are in a 'equilibrium' at all times, adapting to each other. In a way that was Einsteins thought too, as I understands it.
But in his world it was light that was the weight in the scale, the other adapting themselves around its invariant speed. In yours it will be gravity? That is the defining factor, and that light needs to be at 'c', if I understand you right?
-
JP
Ok, I understand what you're getting at now. I agree that's one way of looking at things, but it's not the same as Einstein did in deriving relativity. He assumed that the speed of light being constant was the fundamental concept in his theory and derived time dilation and length contraction as results. You seem to be assuming that time dilation and length contraction are fundamental concepts and deriving the constancy of the speed of light from them. I'm not an expert, but I don't see any huge problems off hand--both ways seem valid--although to me it feels a bit less elegant than doing it Einstein's way.
By the way, I don't mean to be condescending here, but is there a reason that you're not using more commonly accepted technical terms? I think a lot of this confusion could be avoided if you spoke in terms of time dilation and measured time intervals rather than using the confusing term "rate of flow of time." If you try to interpret "rate of flow of time" in terms of technical definitions for rate and flow, it is rather meaningless.
The same goes for the word "influence," which means that something changes something else. If the speed of light is constant, it technically can't be influenced by gravity. It would be more technically correct to say that gravity does not influence the speed of light because gravity does influence time in precisely the right way.
I think a lot of people with science training take for granted that everyone else will speak their language. This isn't always the case, and then things get easily confused
Elsewhere in these posts I have gone so far as to say I believe the photon to be the universes clock. In other words, the photon is not traveling in parallel with time, it is the universes time keeper. The heartbeat of the universe. That’s not strictly correct, it would be better to say it’s the universes constant speed keeper. Elsewhere in these posts I have postulated the reason why that is so. It is possible to start on the assumption that the speed of light, time and distance are all relative but it soon becomes obvious the only way this can be made to work is if the speed of light is a constant. I think this was my original approach. I have also tried to approach the matter on the simplest of terms. Everything in the universe is made from energy and matter therefore, time must in some way be a natural bi-product of that. The same goes for distance or length.
I am sixty six years old and I come from an electrical engineering (troubleshooting) background so am unfamiliar with many of the terms used, my apologies. My maths education went as far as calculus which I have long since forgotten. My mind is very analytical. Einstein used the term time dilation which is fine as far as it goes but it does not encompass time contraction. The other term he used was ‘passage’. He obviously had the same problem, I thought my use of the term ‘rate of flow of time’ more meaningful and self evident. I wanted a simple self-obvious term that explained exactly what I meant. The ‘rate of flow of time’ to me seems obvious. If I said the ‘rate of flow of water’, everyone would know what I meant. Time flows past at a certain rate. Or a clock can be adjusted fast or slow. The other problem here, as already discussed, is the confusion caused by language being insufficient. I have noticed when talking about time there is much confusion in language even amongst the scientific community and a lack of meaningful terms. I could have used the term ‘going rate’ from horology but I thought the majority of people would not understand that term and it’s not strictly correct. Talking about a clock changing its going rate is not the same as the rate of flow of time changing. I have tried to explain in other post what I mean by 'rate of flow of time'.
I tried to make exactly this point two posts ago so there would be no confusion. (you phrased it better)
-
JP
Rate 2[COUNTABLE] the speed at which something happens within a particular period of time
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/rate
Speed = distance over time.
'rate of flow of time'
The speed of flow of time is variable.
This is true but it's also gobbledygook. How do you describe the speed of time in an arbitrary manner without using units of something? It's a language thing.
It is easy to describe by analogy but that still leaves the problem of how to describe it in words.
-
The ‘rate of flow of time’ to me seems obvious. If I said the ‘rate of flow of water’, everyone would know what I meant. Time flows past at a certain rate.
Ah, but that's a problem Mike. You can refer to a rate of flow of water, but you can't refer to a rate of flow of time because a "rate" is a measurement of something in a certain amount of time, so you'd be using time to measure time, which obviously won't work.
-
The ‘rate of flow of time’ to me seems obvious. If I said the ‘rate of flow of water’, everyone would know what I meant. Time flows past at a certain rate.
Ah, but that's a problem Mike. You can refer to a rate of flow of water, but you can't refer to a rate of flow of time because a "rate" is a measurement of something in a certain amount of time, so you'd be using time to measure time, which obviously won't work.
Yes, that's just the point I was trying to explain in my last post. It's a language thing.
-
We know that photons 'bend' to gravity, so you can say that light is 'influenced' by gravity Mike. And yes, you can turn it around if you like and state that we have some 'forces' (not really forces per se, but I'm using the word for lack of a better here) that are in a 'equilibrium' at all times, adapting to each other. In a way that was Einsteins thought too, as I understands it.
But in his world it was light that was the weight in the scale, the other adapting themselves around its invariant speed. In yours it will be gravity? That is the defining factor, and that light needs to be at 'c', if I understand you right?
Speed is distance / time. It would be more technically correct to say that gravity does not influence the speed of light because gravity does influence time in precisely the right way. (Thanks JP for your concise re-phrasing )
Hopefully just to throw a bit more light on the subject. Gravity is more fundamental than time, time becomes meaningless without gravity. Theoretically if you have an infinite rate of flow of time then the speed of light would be infinite. However, without gravity there is no arrow of time, so time becomes meaningless, hence the speed of light, in that scenario is meaningless. Please dont say I said the speed of light was infinite, I didn't.
-
Mike: You posted over me, but here goes anyway.
-----------------
I think it's more a conceptual thing.
We are conditioned to think that there is some sort of master clock that controls everything. There isn't. Time is purely local, but that local time controls absolutely every process from the activity in atoms to the rotation of planets, and also the movement of light.
All we can say is that clocks may not agree because time is not univesal, and there is plenty of hard evidence to confirm this.
-
Mike: You posted over me, but here goes anyway.
-----------------
I think it's more a conceptual thing.
We are conditioned to think that there is some sort of master clock that controls everything. There isn't. Time is purely local, but that local time controls absolutely every process from the activity in atoms to the rotation of planets, and also the movement of light.
All we can say is that clocks may not agree because time is not univesal, and there is plenty of hard evidence to confirm this.
But if time is only local and the universe contains n number of localities and we add them all up and take an average then the universe has an average rate of flow of time, as well as it varying locally. If time can vary locally their has to be a mechanism by which that happens. The universe does contain a master clock but it runs at 'different rates' depending upon prevailing conditions in any locality.
-
Mike,
I give up. You keep saying "rate of flow of time" which is completely meaningless. You are a EE, so I'm sure you know how importatnt units are.
Mathematically, rate of flow of time would be dt/dt!
-
Yes I have already explained that. You refer to it as (time is not universal,) so you know exactly what I am trying to say. If you can think of or know of a better term to explain the phenomenal I would love to know what it is.
-
Time dilation?
-
By the way, different observers measure time differently (time dilation) but they also measure lengths differently (length contraction). Is there a reason you think time dilation is more important than length contraction?
-
Yes I have already explained that. You refer to it as (time is not universal,) so you know exactly what I am trying to say. If you can think of or know of a better term to explain the phenomenal I would love to know what it is.
I'll give it one more shot [:D]
Here is an analogy. Like any analogy, you will be able to blow many holes in it, but it might help.
We talk about atmospheric pressure. We know it varies on Earth for many reasons, but I don't think we can define a Universal standard for pressure.
Time is not so different. It's different all over the joint.
However, while it's easy to measure differences in pressure locally, it's impossible to measure differences in time locally because the local time affects all time measuring devices, including human metabolism, and anything else you can think of.
-
Time dilation?
Only works for time dilation not for contraction.
By the way, different observers measure time differently (time dilation) but they also measure lengths differently (length contraction). Is there a reason you think time dilation is more important than length contraction?
No
Yes I have already explained that. You refer to it as (time is not universal,) so you know exactly what I am trying to say. If you can think of or know of a better term to explain the phenomenal I would love to know what it is.
I'll give it one more shot [:D]
Here is an analogy. Like any analogy, you will be able to blow many holes in it, but it might help.
We talk about atmospheric pressure. We know it varies on Earth for many reasons, but I don't think we can define a Universal standard for pressure.
Time is not so different. It's different all over the joint.
However, while it's easy to measure differences in pressure locally, it's impossible to measure differences in time locally because the local time affects all time measuring devices, including human metabolism, and anything else you can think of.
No it didn't help. No we cant measure it. There is little point in giving it units.
But what do we call it?
How about 'time variable' or tv, Tv?
Any suggestions?
As I said before Einstein refered to it as 'time dilation' but really he was only talking about dilation not contraction, he also used the term 'passage of time' but neither seem very satisfactory. For the sake of simplicity it would be good if it had a name that was self explanatory. Time dilation is self explanatory and many people use it without having a clue what it actually means. While we are on the subject how about length? What do we call variable length. Length dilation/contraction, there has to be something better.
[:-\]
-
Time dilation?
Only works for time dilation not for contraction.
Ah! Again you come back to the notion that there is some sort of "absolute time".
-
Well, when it comes to a 'universal time' I'm somewhat leaning to it too :) That local time you talked about Geezer. It's about 'frames of reference' and where one end and another starts. In a way you could define all points in SpaceTime as being unique. In another we do perceive this 'local time' to be the same when being in, loosely defined, the same frame of reference as on Earth.
So okay, imagine all points in some positional system to have a unique 'SpaceTime', a different experience of SpaceTime. Then define it such as the closer those points are to each other, the more similar will their 'SpaceTime' be. You will also need to consider gravity and motion, but if we define the points as needed to be at rest relative each other for them to experience this similarity, we can get around it for this.
So, doing so we have defined a SpaceTime where if two points are at rest relative each other they will experience the 'same'. Will this definition hold if they are at rest relative each other but not placed back to back? Not really, to make that work we will have to consider gravity as such. But assuming the same gravity acting on those points it will be true as long as they are at rest relative each other.
So, if you have a system where depending on two parameters, relative motion and gravity, where points get the same experience of our SpaceTime if converging, being at rest relative each other, can we then state that there might be a 'ground state' for those different 'clocks'?
What if we super imposed one point upon another? Would they then have the exact same experience? If you think they would, then you think there is a 'ground state'. If you don't expect this to be true, then there can't be any 'ground state' for time. Myself I think there exist a 'ground state' but as we're all different, and can't be superimposed upon each other without becoming bosons?
-
On the matter of time. A gravity well basically extends to infinity and a clock runs slower the deeper it is in that well, so we could say that time like a gravity well gets smaller (runs faster) as you go farther away from the central mass, a sort of time/gravity bubble that gets thinner the bigger it gets. Using that analogy the Universe is full of these time/gravity bubbles, a kind of spaces within spaces. It seems possible that there might be a bigger bubble that our Universe is contained inside and that some event inside that bubble created our Universe.
-
Suppose I am two meters outside the the event horizon of a black hole. I observe someone turning a laser beam on from a planet circling the black hole. The beam is aimed at another planet in the same system. When I try to measure the speed of that beam I find it to be almost infinite because my clock is almost stopped and no time passes between when the beam was fired and when it got to it's destination. There are circumstances where it can be infinite.
-
Indeed. "The speed of light is constant" is a slightly abused phrase. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum locally in curved space-time (of globally in flat space-time). In your black hole example, the speed of light is constant when measured over a tiny enough patch of space, but it isn't constant over large distances because of the curvature of space-time.
And of course, if light hits matter, it slows down because of interactions with the matter.
-
From my position the speed of light will always appear to be almost infinite except in my locale area.
-
Indeed. "The speed of light is constant" is a slightly abused phrase. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum locally in curved space-time (of globally in flat space-time). In your black hole example, the speed of light is constant when measured over a tiny enough patch of space, but it isn't constant over large distances because of the curvature of space-time.
And of course, if light hits matter, it slows down because of interactions with the matter.
Excuse me ,JP. I see your position here.It is right.
-
"outside of a gravitational field a photon travels instantaneous"
Hey, MikeS! A gravitation increases energy of photon . May be absence of gravitation reduces energy of photon, then photon will not have energy. [:P]
-
By the way, different observers measure time differently (time dilation) but they also measure lengths differently (length contraction). Is there a reason you think time dilation is more important than length contraction?
I just cannot understand what does gravitational delay of light? Length contraction or time dilation?
-
Mike,
The answer is "It depends"
It depends on the frame of reference you are considering.
If you consider Special Relativity and the frame of reference of the light beam itself, then I agree with you that its speed must be viewed as being infinite since it arrives anywhere in an instant, without experiencing any passage of time. This is the definition of infinite velocity;- any distance covered in no time at all.
However, if you consider any other (stationary) frame of reference viewing the same motion, then the speed is always "c".
How can that be you might ask, but I can only say that this the nature of space-time and it is described by the Lorentz transformation.
The key here is Lorentz, but we are talking scientific heresy here. What we are proposing is that the time dilation of motion produces an increase in velocity and NOT A LENGTH CONTRACTION in the direction of motion. With Lorentz, you can have either but not both. SR decides to go with length contraction firstly since it was an inherited idea from the nineteenth century. SR also holds velocity CONSTANT across frames in relative motion because scientists cannot envisage and are discouraged from envisioning, a different speed as observed from both frames. They also know the implications of accepting this and so avoid the idea, not wishing to entertain any acceptance of speeds greater than "c". There are other heretic implications.
To me, and it appears to you also, the idea of the velocity EXPERIENCED within the frame can be different to the same velocity but OBSERVED from other frames. This has been a fundamental error in Special Relativity theory since 1905.
-
By the way, different observers measure time differently (time dilation) but they also measure lengths differently (length contraction). Is there a reason you think time dilation is more important than length contraction?
I just cannot understand what does gravitational delay of light? Length contraction or time dilation?
Per the post in the other thread - we can show that light travelling through a gravitational field (like that of the sun) is delayed compared to the Newtonian predictions. There is a two fold reason why a distant observer will register this light as delayed, the time dilation effect of the gravitational potential and the fact that the light is travelling on a geodesic and is thus travelling further than it would in flat spacetime.
The calculated distance between Earth and Venus when they are in opposition (ie one either side of the sun) is actually 37km shorter than the real distance! This 37 km is the extra distance that must be travelled because spacetime itself is curved. To actually go much deeper requires a familiarity with metric tensor analysis and path integrals which is a bit beyond this forum (and me).
NB In a small enough local inertial frame Light speed is always constant and always the c we know and love.
You can read about this particular form of measurement of the slowing of light by searching on the Shapiro Delay - however this is heavy duty GR and require an engagement with the maths.
-
And to me the 'real distance' includes those km too :)
-
Imatfaal,
About the quote you refer to from JP;- My response to that is - "Yes there is a definite reason why time dilation is more important than length contraction." In fact, I would go so far as to say that time dilation is important but length contraction is not. (provocative right?);-
When Hafele & Keating proved in 1971 that time dilation could be measured in accordance with Special Relativity, they actually proved it is REAL! Sadly, even today, this has still not sunk in for the mainstream! Although we all understand that you cannot detect any change in time rate from within your own frame, the RELATIVE differential time rates between moving frames is nevertherless a reality. Length contraction, on the other hand, is NOT real. It is merely a relative ILLUSION. How can I say this? Well, when the clock in the moving frame stops moving, it bears the evidence of the time rate differential during the journey and we can predict this and prove it by experiment. The length contraction demonstrates no such evidence on return to the stationary frame and as far as the stationary frame's experience goes, it does not experience any effect whatsoever from the movement of light or objects relative to it.
If we consider two close, moving plates with a relative electric charge then it does not matter which argument you use to calculate the relative compression of the electric field. Both Lorentz velocity increase and length contraction give the same result. So we can say any and all relative effects between frames can be viewed as a result of either. There is no scientific compelling argument to choose length contraction, more the discomfort of exceeding "c" in the moving frame if we choose velocity increase.
You can refer me to as much math as you like, but I, and you, as well as others in this forum, have a brain which is superior in certain ways to the best of mathematics. Here's a great quote;-
"Mathematics and physics take fundamentally different approaches to describing nature. The former is more concerned with what might be possible, and the latter with what is definitely real. Math is constrained by the need for internal consistency, but is generally oblivious to external constraints. Physics has its laws too, and these can change as knowledge improves. But physics is rigorously constrained by its principles which have no counterparts in mathematics. Examples are, the causality principle (“Every effect must have a proximate antecedent cause”), and the prohibition against creation. Violations of such principles are ruled out by logic as requiring magic, a miracle, or the supernatural. Although mathematically allowed, they are said to be physically impossible."
Tom Van Flandern & J. P. Vigier
(Foundations of Physics (32:1031-1068, 2002)
Now I am not anti math, far from it, but the mathematicians have "taken over" physics in the last hundred years and we are left with certain mistaken beliefs as a result. In the case of SR, it is unfortunate that we can justify, mathematically, our mistaken beliefs, but we can also justify the reality using the same mathematical rules. At the moment, the mainstream refuses to listen to the alternative and whenever it is tabled, obstacles are placed in the way of the argument before the case can be properly made. Our ducks are shot down before the row forms.
You will no doubt feel yourself wanting to do just that. It is human nature to resist any change in our beliefs.
If we come to terms with time dilation being THE reality (try to believe this for the moment), then we must accept, for reasons of causality, that TIME is the cause of ALL effects within space-time. There is nothing else available to affect anything. I am saying the distortion of a vacuum is unreal and that GR is a great way of getting to the right answers but it does not reflect reality. The abstract idea of breaking down volume into a Gaussian geometric frame, works in the mathematical sense, but you cannot attribute the property of variation to what is essentially, NOTHING !
If all this is the case, then when the time rate changes, only time related events or effects will likewise become affected as a result. Spacial or physical entities, (scalar quantities), cannot be affected by the time dilation of motion.
This means that velocity MUST change if the time rate changes since velocity has a time attribute (m/s, km/hr). It is a time related occurence and if you change the value of the unit of time then you change the value of the velocity.
If the velocity changes, then the length CANNOT change since Lorentz allows EITHER velocity OR length to change but NOT both.
You can do the math with Lorentz. It is very simple, and "c" turns out to be infinite in the moving frame whilst maintaining the limit of "c" as observed from the "stationary" frame.
As, vs→c
Then, vm→∞
It is this relative limit that has deceived us for over a century since we never observe anything faster. We would have to accelerate to some significant fraction of "c" to look out of our porthole and see the universe BLUE SHIFTED and speeding by with increasing velocity tending toward ∞ as we approach relative "c". Yes I know the SR argument of V being purely relative, but the symmetry of space simply does not apply to the dimension of time. Time is uni directional or assymetrical and any geometric analysis of space-time can become confused by ignoring this difference in nature between space and time.
So where does all this get us in answering your comment?
Well, all you have done is to throw the mainstream arguments at me and I am not dissagreeing with anything you suggest since we get the right answers from any analysis using them. If I may, I must throw my alternative arguments back at you which will give the same results. The question then simply boils down to deciding which version best reflects reality.
The speed of light is a constant outside of a gravitational potential. Agreed, except that I contend it is infinite when observations are made from the frame of the light beam, since its clock has stopped relative to the rest of the universe.
In a gravitational field, it would still be observed as a constant "c", if the observer's clock tracked the light beam's clock as it moved through the field. But since, in reality, we cannot do this and our clock remains constant whilst the beam's clock varies depending on its elevation in the field, we therefore observe a variation in speed. Agreed, except it is still infinite as observed from all the frames of the beam during its travels.
I am surprised you did not mention the doubled Newtonian deflection of the beam. Einstein attributed this to "One part due to the Newtonian free fall and one part due to the geometrical variations in space."
Here are extracts from a paper which gives the real reasons;-
“……………………..If we take into account the wave nature of light, there is an additional contribution coming from the time dilation in relativity. The observation that this contribution is independent and additional to the Newtonian deflection of the mean trajectory is the main purpose of this paper.
……………One does not need full general relativity for deriving the expression for the deflection of light. What is needed are the equivalence principle, conservation of energy, and the wave nature of light. One part of the deflection comes from the free fall of the particle or light ray in the gravitational field, and the deflection depends on the average velocity of the test particle. The other part comes from the red shift factor. This is always given by, 2GM/c2r
independent of the velocity………
………………..For light, both contributions have the same magnitude, and they add to give the full deflection;- 4GM/c2r ”
On the gravitational deflection of light and particles
C. S. Unnikrishnan
Current science, vol. 88 No. 7, 10 April 2005
I take this one step further and state;-
The doubled deflection of the beam is due to One part Newtonian and One part wave front bending, BOTH due to local time dilation.
Einstein's notions of the distortion of volume and the geodesic, although essential in predicting outcomes, nevertheless divert us from reality. The reality is the time rate field, and anything that is demonstrated by GR can be equally demonstrated by an analysis of temporal effects.
There's much more, of course.
-
Ken,
On length contraction. This is obviously not easily shown experimentally - but it is claimed that Relativistic Heavy Ion Collision generate results that only flow from a model where the ions are length contracted and not those where the ions remain spherical. Have a look Here (http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~calderon/Research/physicsResearch.html) . Similarly if we look at elctromagnetic interaction of heavy ions they also need to be flattened out HERE (http://www.gsi.de/forschung/kp/kp2/collaborations/R3B/EME.html)
I have done the calculation and SR works pretty damn well. Frankly, it is not really worth arguing I think the maths is right and Einstein's Theories describe reality in a very close way that can lead to further predictions; I would have to see mathematical predictions that agree with future experimentation before I changed my mind
-
Imatfaal,
Thankyou for your response. Yes, I have viewed the links you attached. I guess you are aware these are models which have the SR length contraction built in and so will inevitably show it.
Nevertheless,
I am also agreeing with the mathematics of SR, but SR mathematics, Lorentz, also works for velocity increase. Have you tried this also?
We can either view a flattened pancake striking something at 99.99"c", which I am saying is infinite velocity viewed from the moving frame, OR, we can view a spherical object striking something at infinite velocity in the moving frame. In which case, the front of the object hits at the same time as the rear of the object and so we can, if we wish, view it as a pancake. It doesn't matter either way as I have demonstrated.
What I am proposing will not affect science much at all. It's just that I believe we should always attempt to grasp reality, instead of relying on some convenient way of working practically. BOTH are important.
Considering the basis of SR,
Remember, the reciprocal views of clocks in relative motion has, to my knowledge, never been experimentally verified. In the case where two clocks are synchronised and one is flown out to space and eventually passes the Earth at great speed, I am predicting a redshift of the moving clock as viewed from Earth, but a blueshift of the Earth clock as viewed from the moving one. This is counter to the predictions of SR and can easily be tested.
We only predict reciprocal observations of redshift because we use geometry to do so whilst ignoring the asymmetry of time. This is wrong. Will someone please put me right by coming up with experimental verification of SR, or if unavailable at this time, will someone please carry out an appropriate experiment?
I'll take bets.
-
Remember, the reciprocal views of clocks in relative motion has, to my knowledge, never been experimentally verified.
Isn't being continuously verified by GPS satellites?
-
Hi Geezer,
My understanding is that the GPS satellites are verifying the different time rates at different elevations in the time rate field and also the time dilation of motion (redshift) of the satellites relative to/as viewed from Earth.
I do not think this verifies the reciprocal view of Earth clocks being redshifted as viewed from the satellites. I am saying the Earth clocks will appear blueshifted from the satellite frames.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would appreciate some detail as to how and what is being measured from where, if you can. Anyone ?
-
Hi Ken
Why would it not be reciprocal? If one is different relative to the other, there must be a reciprocal difference in the other direction. Or maybe I'm not getting your point?
G
-
Hi Geezer,
SR predicts the observation of a slow clock in the moving frame when viewed from the stationary frame. (I agree)
SR also predicts the observation of a slow clock in the stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame. (I disagree, if both clocks were synchronised before one of them moved)
This is what is termed reciprocal. ie the observations are the same from either frame.
The justification for this is that relative motion is just that, relative, and it doesn't matter which frame is moving since the relative motion is the same whichever one moves.
I am saying there is a problem with this deduction. It supposes that all effects are reciprocal and therefore that a geometric analysis will render a correct prediction but this is not so.
Physical dimensions are symetrical, or bi-directional, whereas the time dimension is asymetrical or uni-directional and a geometric analysis can never take this difference into account since it is merely a symetrical, spacial analysis, not a temporal one.
If you remember the results from Hafele & Keating in 1971. No observations were ever made between frames at any stage of the journey and the time dilation was demonstrated only by the difference in times between the stationary clock and the moving clock when the journey was over. This proved that the moving clock had been operating at a slower rate than the stationary clock during the period of the motion, thus proving the time dilation of motion from SR is real.
However, if one clock really does run slower, then how can you observe a slower clock from this perspective when the other clock you're looking at really is faster.
There are various justifications for this from supporters of mainstream SR, but frankly, none of them stack up. They don't take account of the fact that initially, both clocks were synchronised but that only one of them moved.
The one that moved has the slow clock and the one that didn't move still has the same time rate as before.
The reality is the differential time rate which is asymetrical. ie, slow when looking at the moving clock but fast when looking at the stationary clock. This leads me to predict a BLUE SHIFT when looking out from the moving frame toward the stationary frame and this is counter to the prediction from SR
The symetrical result from SR only ever happens for the special case where both clocks move at the same speed away from the synchronised position. Then and only then, is the time dilation the same for both clocks.
What do you think?
-
Special Relativity needs a length contraction to make sense Ken. What you might argue is that it is a geometrical illusion from the observer at rest relative the origin? General Relativity on the other hand is to me about 'gravity', and so discuss another subject.
As for it would matter if one of two uniformly moving frames would move with a different speed?
First of all, from where would you define their 'different speed'. Take away the stars and let them move against each other, can you by looking at one from the other say which one of you is moving now? How?
If you assume a third party that looks on both? Then there will be a measurable speed difference relative that third party of course. But the problem will still be that all uniform motions are the same when you try to measure them in a black room.
The blue shift you expect is also a frequency defining a energy, so what you seem to be saying is that the physics experiments on those two ship should deliver different results, aka measuring the flashlights energy in one frame, and then go to the other and do the exact same would give different energies measured? If that was true you would have introduced different outcomes from the same experiment, in two uniformly moving frames of reference. Then Einsteins special relativity would be wrong.
==
There is the gravitational blue shift of course?
If you compare a planet uniformly moving with a ship their invariant mass will differ, and the planet will find the light from the ship to be blue shifted as it gets a 'gravitational acceleration' which for a photon will translate into a blue shift.
-
SR also predicts the observation of a slow clock in the stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame.
Ken,
I could be wrong, but I thought it was the other way around.
Doesn't SR predict the observation of a fast clock in a stationary frame when viewed from the moving frame?
This would explain why the twin who goes for a jaunt around the Universe returns to find his twin, who never left Earth, is older.
-
Hi Guys,
Yor_on, your response is a little complicated to answer, so I'll respond to Geezer first.
Geezer, You and I are of like mind. We agree that we should observe blueshift from the moving frame when looking at the stationary frame. BUT, SR definitely claims that because the motion is relative and it doesn't matter which one is considered stationary, or moving, then the observations must be the same from both frames.
I am disagreeing with this and so it seems, are you. Yor_on is sticking with mainstream SR.
By the way, the twin paradox is just one of the contradictions from SR that show something is wrong. I agree with you, if he ages slower, then his whole existence/frame of reference has passed slower relative the twin left behind. The Earth twin's frame has passed at a faster rate than the travelling twin and so was blue shifted relatively during the period of the journey. There's definitely something amiss and I believe I know what it is. I will try again to clarify in my response to Yor_on. I am pressed for time at the moment.
-
There is no twin paradox! Put one twin in a rocket with an atomic clock - leave the other one in Cape Canaveral. Twinspaceman is accelerated upto .99c zooms out towards the great black yonder, slams on the brakes turns around and speeds back up and comes back to earth for a cheerful reunion with Twinstayathome.
Twinstayathome and his clock,his grey hairs, his infeasibly long beard etc all show that 14ish years have passed, Twinspaceman and his clock and all other measures show that two years have passed. there are complications because the time dilation factor isn't constant during speed ups and slow downs but the errors brought in by those are minimal.
OK - now if we break out the enormous and quite unbelievable telescopes we are explain what each twin sees of the others atomic clock. On the outbound leg Twinstayathome sees the clock of Twinspaceman ticking once every 14 seconds (using the relativistic doppler formula) and Twinspaceman sees exactly the same when he looks at the clock of Twinstayathome. After turn around the reciprocal occurs and each twin sees the others clock run at 14 ticks per second. This is very counter-intuitive but a little maths with ticks and leg lengths (sounds a bit weird) will confirm to you that this is possible
-
Yor_on,
Length contraction is not the only thing that can make sense of SR. SR needs EITHER length contraction OR increased velocity to make sense. I am indeed arguing that length contraction is an illusion, whereas time dilation is real. Time dilation has been proven to be real.
As an example, if our space ship approaches the speed of light, lengths of everything we can see out of the porthole become contracted in the direction of motion, but only because we travel in that direction at a speed which is now approaching infinite speed. If we consider the impractical limit, then as we reach lightspeed, our ship might be considered to be stuck in a completely flattened universe, like a dart in a dart board. This is not real. If it was, we would all be compressed flat if ever a massive body were to pass us close by at near lightspeed and we don't believe we will be, do we? What this image tells us is that we get anywhere in the direction of motion in no time at all, since the lengths in the direction of motion can be considered zero. But it is only AS IF they are zero, due to our infinite speed. The reality is that time has slowed to a halt (relative to the rest of the universe) and so we can consider distances in the direction of motion as if they are zero length but only because we reach them in no time. Does anyone agree?
If you do the simple moving clock exercise to prove time dilation in SR, you get to a point in the argument when you have to decide whether to hold velocity constant across both frames and this is what SR indeed does and the result is length contraction. SR says that each observer must see the same velocity. I am saying you cannot hold velocity constant between frames in relative motion since the clock has slowed in one of them, so the speed in that frame is faster than the stationary frame, but only as viewed from the moving one. The result is not length contraction now, but is increased velocity via Lorentz. Lorentz comes out just the same, geometrically from this, but it shows an infinite v in the moving frame as velocity as observed from the stationary frame approaches "c". It works. Try it out.
The only other way I can put it is to point out that SR does predict the slowing of time, to zero at "c". The mainstream agrees. WE ALL AGREE! SR has therefore shot itself in the foot because if your clock stops relative to the universe, then any speed you have relative to the universe MUST be INFINITE, simply because velocity is distance moved over corresponding time taken. If the time taken becomes zero, then velocity becomes infinite. It's as simple as that, and MikeS has been trying to put this over for a while now. He's right! I'm right! The mainstream really is WRONG!
I've thought of another way:- Someone said earlier that we cannot assess the "experience" of light, but I say we can. SR says time is slowed and comes to a halt at "c". This must apply to energy just as it applies to mass. (Mass = energy). Also, relative velocity is independent of the nature of the moving entity. So, the clock stops for a light beam. If we consider an image in the beam, emitted at a certain time by our clock, then that image experiences no time in getting to us since it travels at "c" over, say 4 light years. We measure 4 years from time of emission to when we see the image, but the light thinks it got here instantaneously. This is demonstrated by the fact that the image we see is exactly the same image as was emitted 4 years ago by our clock. It has not changed, because it experienced no time to allow it to change, (even if there were a cause and effect).
Next point;- Jor_on, You grasp for some datum from which to measure a change in velocity and you make the point from mainstream SR that since all speed is relative, then it doesn't matter which frame you consider is moving, the effects between them must be symmetrical.
Why do I disagree? Because it's not just the geometric relativity that matters, there's more to it because of the nature of time. It matters what frame each of the relatively moving ships were in initially and which one moved away from it.
Let's take the following simple case;-
Situation 1. Two synchronised clocks at the Earth's surface. They share the same frame of reference with the same time rate and there is no red or blue shift to be measured between them.
Situation 2. One clock has been placed aboard a rocket and blasted of into space to a great distance. The ship has then done a u-turn and accelerated toward the Earth at great speed. The speed is great enough so that the time dilation due to its speed far outweighs any increase in time rate due to gravitational effects.
Situation 3. The ship with its clock, speeds by the Earth and observations are taken from both the ship and from the Earth.
What do you think will be observed from each position? I'll let you answer.
Next question. I am NOT saying that the results of experiments will be different. The principle of relativity still stands. It's just that things happen slower in the time dilated frame relative to the stationary frame. Realities within each frame remain unchanged, eg frequencies. Relatively though the time rates are different, just like the light ray slowing down near the Sun.
The reason you think I am mixing up SR with GR is that I am only considering relative time rates and you may as well consider relative times rates caused by inertial effects as by gravitational effects. It doesn't matter HOW the time was dilated, only that it is different between frames.
Generally, I am saying that relativity, currently being split into SR and GR, can be unified by taking time as the only real entity in the vacuum. That is why I jump from one to the other as if they are the same theory. If you simply look at the time dilation then the two theories merge. In fact you could argue that we only need SR with a modification and some more math based on temporal effects. The theory would then better reflect reality.
-
Imatfaal,
I agree there is no paradox, but what are you saying about the final age difference ? It is not clear
-
Imatfaal,
I agree there is no paradox, but what are you saying about the final age difference ? It is not clear
Twinstayathome and his clock,his grey hairs, his infeasibly long beard etc all show that 14ish years have passed, Twinspaceman and his clock and all other measures show that two years have passed. there are complications because the time dilation factor isn't constant during speed ups and slow downs but the errors brought in by those are minimal.
What's unclear?
Your mentioning of blue-shifting and red-shifting in previous messages is incorrect by the way. Reread how the clock ticks are described and you will see that SR is properly viewable from both perspectives.
I have answered your question to Yoron What do you think will be observed from each position?
or doyou have different answers? If you do then you are at variance with calcs and observations.
We def do need GR - SR does not hold in many situations, a few of which you have already mentioned. If you feel that your ideas can overcome this - lay out the math
-
Imatfaal,
Your example seemed as though it might be contradicting the preceding quotation, but since you have reinforced this, everything is clear now. Thankyou.
Yes, I am aware of the physics of observations that you describe. That is why I picked an example with no motion either away from, or towards, the observers. In the example the observations are made PARALLEL to the direction of motion and only the time dilation of motion without Doppler effects is observed. I still predict the red and blue shifts. It matters not HOW the passing ship achieved this situation, but only that the time rates are different at the moment of observation. Your explanation of observations, although traditional, is therefore not applicable in this case.
Of course "we definitely need GR and SR"................ until something better comes along.
I will take up your challenge regarding the math, but I am slightly perterbed by the thinly veiled contempt for ideas without math. Modern mainstream science is perhaps too dismissive of new and challenging ideas without mathematical "proofs".
Read my previous message with quotation from Tom Van Flandern.
Anyone know a good mathematician who does as he's told?
-
I read the quote - I don't agree.
I will re-read your description of your setup.
And btw NO good mathematician does what he is told; he follows the rules and logic - that's why maths is invaluable and any science without maths is hand-waving.
Edit
---
You are gonna have to explain your setup more - I dont get it :-)
-
Imatfaal,
Of course you don't agree. I didn't expect you to.
Of course you will maintain that every good mathematician is "his own man". Maybe that's a problem sometimes. It is very rare to find a person who has a full grasp of physics, who has original ideas and the courage to challenge the mainstream view, especially these days. Superimpose upon that the requirement for full competency in higher maths and you're almost asking the impossible.
Even Einstein had mathematical help did he not? Newton did it all and he was indeed a rare man.
If a mathematician is contracted to a theorist and given a brief which described the basis of and limits within which he must work, he will b---y well do as he's told or lose his job. He can naturally discuss the merits, or otherwise of changing the basis. He can resign if he thinks his position is impossible.
That's the world of Engineering.
The point I am making is that the real theorist must oversee and guide the mathematician, even if it's the same person, and NOT the other way around. If the theorist tells him that you can bend a vacuum then he will simply produce equations that allow it. If he's told he can't and must produce equations on that basis, he must try and do so.
I never was a fan of Einstein's marble slab and the mysterious cosmic blow torch. His math and theory though are almost miraculous.
"Any science without math is hand waving" I need not comment.
I'll explain my set up more then;-
Two clocks, synchronised on Earth. They are in the same frame and will "tick" at the same rate.
Put one in a very very fast space vehicle and blast off into the "Aether".
The ship travels a way away, it does not matter in what direction, or for how long, or if the velocity has been uniform throughout, but eventually the ship returns to pass the Earth closely and at very great speed.
Observations are made from the Earth as it passes directly overhead.
Simultaneously, observations are made of the Earth, from the ship, at the same instant.
The reason I have set this up this way is so that, at the instant of observation, there is no Doppler shift, at least within the limits of simultaneity.
There is, however, a measurable dilation of time for the ship's frame due to its motion, given by 1- ROOT 1-v2/c2
So, the ship's clock (frame of reference) is ticking at a slower rate than the Earth clock as it passes overhead.
What will be the relative observations between frames?
I am saying the Earth observer will observe redshift of the ship's frame, and,
The ship's observer will observe blueshift of the Earth's frame.
Please explain to me and for the benefit of others, in detail, and in the English language, where I have got this wrong.
-
Well, we agree on SR needing both a Lorentz contraction and a time dilation, right?
You see the Lorentz contraction as a illusion, and I don't :)
The muon exemplifies how I see it. Take a look here Time Dilation - An Experiment With Mu-Mesons. (http://www.scivee.tv/node/2415) Then look at this Muon Experiment. (comparing frames of reference) (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html) Together they become a basis for my point of view.
Then we come to 'time' :)
And there both you and me are interested in what it is, heh. You have an idea of times arrow as i understands it? Where we differ seems to be in that you put a importance on whom, of two uniformly moving objects, 'really' is moving. Where I see it as a 'relative motion', only definable relative arbitrarily defined objects of a 'system' like with two rockets in space, I understands it as you expect it to be definable as belonging to one of them.
If that would be true then there should be a difference in the same physics experiments, done at each one of them, and as far as I know there isn't. There are other arguments too but that's the crucial one I think. There is also the gravitational blue-shift of course. But that's a special circumstance, coupled to invariant mass.
-
You can see a gravitational blue shift two ways. The first is to assume that it actually is the intrinsic 'energy' of that photon that change in a gravitational system. If we take Earth as an example you have two 'shifts' depending on the vector of the 'propagation' of our photon.
If it is infalling to earth, and we assume that you're on it (earth that is:), then you will observe that photon as 'blue-shifted' and so of a higher energy (frequency). And it will be true for you as you measure it. The opposite will be true if you measure it as it climbs Earths gravity-well, leaving it for space. Those that look at it in this way often use the words relative mass/momentum and 'potential energy'.
The other way to look at that phenomena is to define it as all 'photons'/light-quanta only can be of one 'energy' (wave= frequency), meaning that allthough different 'energy's' are possible, as shown by the photoelectric effect and black body radiation, a photon does not change that intrinsic 'energy'. If that is true, which I believe, any red and blue shift only can be a relation, defining something that's a variable dynamic relation to relative motion and gravitational 'accelerations' as Earth's one gravity is. You can also see it as a definition relative 'clocks' that ticks differently depending on position in a gravitational field.
I find the idea of 'dynamic relations' to be clearer myself as that clearly state that you only can see this in a relation, and in that it does not allow people to draw the conclusion that, when defined as clocks from a thought up observer will tick differently as he compares, it also must mean that if those people move down a meter that 'intrinsic measure' of 'time' given to them somehow gets 'longer'.
If you would consider time in meters, and I state that you have ten meters of time allowed, before your time is up, then those ten meters will be the same on Kilimanjaro as in a mine shaft. That 'intrinsic' length do not become any longer for you according to your yardstick/wristwatch, although all other 'frames of reference' will be found change their 'room time' relative your elevation.
-
it's called the transverse doppler effect
f′=f0.√(1-β2) - it comes as θ=π/2 and Cosθ=0
Light which is received at this instant is blue-shifted, light emitted at this instant is red-shifted.
And if you want a long-winded explanation GIYF.
-
Yes, I have a good PDF on it here. On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational Field. (http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/9907017v2)
-
Ah! I get it now. The debate is about what you would "see" if you had the ability to observe the other clock. I have no clue about that, so I will defer to the experts. The only thing I know is that the "stay at home" twin ages a lot more that the travelling twin, so, obviously, their clocks were running at different rates.
-
Hm Ken?
You wrote "In the example the observations are made PARALLEL to the direction of motion and only the time dilation of motion without Doppler effects is observed. " answering Imatfaal.
There is no way you can avoid a Doppler effect by passing someone at a higher speed, relative whatever you measure that speed against. To avoid a Doppler you must be at rest relative what you measure. Having a motion relative it you can't be 'at rest' no matter your angle. Neither is there any instant of having the same 'frame of reference' in your description, which means that you two never will agree on something happening simultaneously, as you will define both location and time differently.
I guess that you mean that the Lorentz contraction will become 'invisible' if you got Earth lined up at at right angle to you, and measured it just as you pass it? I'm not sure on that, the geometry becomes severely 'twisted' and you will be able to look 'around corners' as your uniform speed increase with accelerations. The thing about the equivalence of all uniform motions is not what you can see looking out from your ship, it's defined as what experiments you can do in a 'black room scenario' inside that ship, and, if you would find the outcomes to differ with your 'uniform motion' getting faster, accelerating in between, then drifting again?
To me that goes back to the idea that if all experiments give you the same outcome, no matter where in the universe you are, then we have a 'same universe' with the same physics. If we would prove that light changed its 'speed' in a vacuum depending on where we measured, compensating for gravity/bent SpaceTime then it would be very different.
-
Imatfaal,
You left the "S" off GIYFS.
Let's get gravity out of the situation, it's confusing people.
Let's say the two clocks are both on ships, having taken off from Earth. Eventually they pass each other in opposite directions, but one is going much faster than the other (it has put much more energy into its acceleration).
I guess what this all boils down to is this question;-
If SR states that slow clocks are observed from both moving frames then how can the real differential time dilation shown by the clocks after the journey, be reconciled with this observation?
This is all I'm trying to get an answer to. Please can you help?
-
"Google is your friend" - it was a simple statement not an injunction [;)]
No let's stop changing the situation. If you/I cannot explain with the twins then it isn't working.
Both twins see the clocks tick at 1/14 of the speed on the outward leg (that's the relativistic doppler effect) both twins see the clocks tick at 14 times the speed on the inward leg - you are claiming (I thinK) that the SR symmetry means that the clocks cannot be asymmetric. but this setup does not mean it does not mean that both twins count the same number of clicks on the others clock. I did say earlier that a bit of sums with ticks per second and leg length would help, and no one took up the challenge.
OK - I presume we agree that on their own clock the twins after the trip show 14ish years for the Twinstayathome and 2 years for Twinspaceman. So we must do four sums now
Twinspaceman Outbound leg - from his perspective this lasts about a year - he sees the earthbound clock tick at 1/14 seconds add that up 1/14 of a year seems to have passed.
Twinspaceman Inbound leg - from his perspective this lasts about a year - he sees the earthbound clock tick at 14 times per second that adds up to about 14 years.
Twinspaceman - so on the two legs the spaceman observes the earth clock add up to just over 14 years
Twinstayathome Outbound leg - now you need to concentrate here - Stayathome sees the ship turn around when the earthbound clock is reading about just under 14 years (7 years to travel and just under 7 years for the light to get back). this is the important bit - Stayathome does not see the turn around at 7 years, (he might be able to calculate at the end that was when it occurred) He see the ship with a slow ticking clock, ie receding, for all the time the ship takes to get there PLUS all the time it takes the light to get back. just under 14 years at 1/14 of a tick per second is one year(ish)
Twinstayathome Inbound leg. Again - slightly counter-intuitive. from the perspective of the stayathome the return trip lasts a matter of a few days ! remember the spaceman is racing the light home - he is only a tiny bit slower. So from the turnaround point the light sets off to the earth - just under 7 years later it arrives and stayathome observes that the ship has turned, but for all those 7 years the spaceman has also be travelling back (only a little bit slower than the light). Less than a month at 14 ticks per second is a year
So Twinstayathome Spends a long time watching the Spaceman retreat from him with a slow clock - and a very short time watching the spaceman rush back with a very fast clock. the important bit is the turnaround can only be judged at Spaceman's halfway and not Stayathome's (this is the very SRish breaking of perceived classical simultaneity due to non infinite light speed and inertial frames). Whilst 14 years is passing for Stayathome - he reads from Spacemans clock a change of 2 years.
So, all in all, Spaceman's clock according to Spaceman advances by 2year. And Stayathome's clock according to Stayathome advances by 14 years. And because of the fundemental asymmetry of the turningpoint from the two different frames Spaceman's clock ticks 2 years worth of ticks according to Stayathome, and Stayathome's clock ticks 14 years worth of ticks according to Spaceman.
So there is no paradox and no disagreement.
NB
- I have massaged the figures a tiny bit cos the sums would need a bit of work otherwise - but it does work out in the exact same terms as this heuristic.
- You can redo these calculations using worldlines, and other frames of reference and they all pan out the same.
-
Lengths contraction does not reduce amount of rotations.Time dilation makes.
-
Lengths contraction does not reduce amount of rotations.Time dilation makes.
Simplified, who is that comment addressed at? And can you be a little more specific - i don't see what your point is
-
Imatfaal,
Thankyou very much for taking the time and trouble to post a very detailed and correct explanation of the "Twin Paradox" observations. I appreciate that.
On reflection, and on everyone's comments to date, I find myself aligning with "Geezer".
He implied he wasn't so concerned with the observation side of things, but that he was hanging on to the simple fact that one twin became older than the other.
I think this abdication of interest was a feint. He was, I believe, making the point that however you explain the observations throughought the procedure, the indisputable fact remains that one frame's time spent was shorter than the other's and from this we can say;-
For different inertial frames, there is always a net redshift/blueshift relation at any stage of the proceedings.
Which means, I still have the same understanding as I had at the beginning of the discussion.
I think we're stuck at this point with all of us maintaining our positions, except to say, that I fully understand the mainstream views tabled so far, but I still see a massive contradiction between the assertion that both clocks appear red shifted and the fact that there is an inevitable blueshift one way, however "invisible" this may be from any observation.
Simultaneity doesn't seem to resolve the issue and neither does an understanding of transverse Doppler effects.
Is there anyone with a different slant on things that might resolve the issue or show hwy there is no issue?
-
Yor_on,
I have not ignored your valued comments, but I can only handle one thread at a time. In response to your earlier post. I am not of the school that believes motion is anything other than just relative. We are aligned in this regard. Motion is purely relative and does not require an "Aether" type field to measure against.
However, I do see a contradiction in SR between this idea and the idea of time being at a slower rate in the moving frame.
By "moving frame", I do not mean one is moving and the other is not. I mean that if two entities start off in the same frame, then one, and only one of them moves, then it is the one that moves who's clock is slow relative to the other and this was proved in 1971.
There is a real difference in time rates and this difference is one way only, no matter how we interpret observations between frames during motion.
I am seeking either an explanation or an acceptance that SR has an issue
-
Simplified,
Do I take it you mean that length contraction cannot explain the difference in clock hand rotations, whereas time dilation can?
If so, then I agree.
The implication from this idea is that time dilation must be real as well as relative, because it has a real and permanent effect from one frame to another, whereas length contraction cannot be real because this does not have a permanent effect from one frame to another. Length contraction is therefore purely relative, an illusion.
Are we beginning to think the same?
-
I think we're stuck at this point with all of us maintaining our positions, except to say, that I fully understand the mainstream views tabled so far, but I still see a massive contradiction between the assertion that both clocks appear red shifted and the fact that there is an inevitable blueshift one way, however "invisible" this may be from any observation.
You clearly do not "fully understand the mainstream views" .
1. Both clocks are slow ticking/red shifted on the outbound passage fast ticking/blue shifted on the return leg - there are not only red-shifted. There is no inverse relationship; this is simply incorrect.
2. There is no one-way nor hidden blue shift.
3. There is no asymmetry in the ticking or the shifting - there is an asymmetry in the observation. Ticking/Shifting is only relevant when viewed in terms of FoR with observation.
The sums were pretty simple - which one is wrong?
-
Hi Imatfaal,
I do understand the mainstream arguments and the way you have presented them. There is nothing wrong with the numbers. I agree with all of them.
I'm just not sure I agree with the mainstream interpretation of them. I still have my nagging doubt that there is something amiss, simply because the net end result is the moving twin being younger than the stay at home. This effect was proven in 1971.
I interpret this as the twin who has undergone the journey has had his clock slowed down throughout and therefore the ultimate, net overall effect is a relative redshift of the moving clock, but a relative blueshift of the stationary one. The moving clock changed its time rate due to its motion, but the stay at home did not.
I simply do not see the difference between say gravitational time dilation, where we all accept redshift in one direction and blueshift in the other, and inertial time dilation.
Now I know the mainstream says one is reciprocal and the other is not, but until someone can answer the above concerns without simply throwing the party line at me, then I will continue to have these ideas.
I am more than willing to accept an overriding argument, but so far, I haven't heard one.
To me, time dilation is time dilation and it doesn't matter how it is created. I believe the relative effects must be the same for the same phenomena "viewed" from the same perspectives.
What I mean is, if you look outwards from a large mass, say the Earth, we observe blueshift, simply because we are looking out into a region with a faster clock. Why should we think of inertial time dilation any differently?
I understand the mainstream, I just do not agree with it. (We are in New Theories after all).
I guess the key is my idea that Time Dilation is the reality and everything else is either a man made creation, or an illusion.
After all, we cannot detect a gravitational field, but only infer its existence from the acceleration of entities within it. We cannot find the graviton. We now know the gravitational force is unreal. We cannot prove the distortion of a vacuum in GR is a reality even though it gives us the right answers. Einstein never gave us the cause and effect of gravitation but only suggested that mass somehow "distorts" space and time. Don't forget Newton gave us the right answers but his gravitational law does not reflect reality, it is more a convenient, behavioural rule but it does not contain the cause and effect.
HOWEVER, we CAN detect the time rate field and this is the ONLY thing we can actually detect.
GR does state that "Newtonian gravitation can be regarded as the curvature of time" and you can develop a formula that describes the cause and effect relationship between time and "g". THIS is the fundamental law of gravitation, but it involves only the time curvature and nothing else.
Einstein has brilliantly conceived a geometrical way to model space itself in order to explain and quantify relative effects due to gravitational fields, or in my mind, time dilation fields.
Obviously. the mainstream may dismiss such ideas as "hand waving" until a mathematical proof is forthcoming, but ask yourself how did science get to where it is now without developing new ideas first and then the math?
Although we can make deductions from mathematical formulae and science can improve its understanding with this method, I do not believe Einstein, for instance, did the math first and then inetrpreted the meaning from it.
-
I think this abdication of interest was a feint.
Although I am probably more interested in solving engineering type problem, believe me, there was no feint [;D]
-
net overall effect is a relative redshift of the moving clock, but a relative blueshift of the stationary one.
This is not accepted physics - I can see where you are coming from, but you cannot average in this way. If you calculate correctly (ie a time-weighted sum) then the clocks tick the same - but the time is different. The red-shifting/slow-ticking is an artefact of the relative velocity - the time dilation is also an artefact of this; the redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artefact of the time dilation.
but until someone can answer the above concerns without simply throwing the party line at me, then I will continue to have these ideas.
But the proceeding is a strawman; SR does not claim what you are saying it does. Your other arguments boil down to an argument from personal incredulity - which again can never be answered. Your comparison between gravitational field and the time field (what is that) is just not cogent - we measure everything by its effect on something else (nothing is known in and of itself), newtons theory of gravity postulates a force that acts at a distance (without any further explanation) einsteins general theory of relativity postulates that mass/energy distort spacetime (without any further explanation)
I have explained the Twin paradox in two ways - what do you not agree with?
This small personal bit of the mainstream will not dismiss a theory that is heuristic only (although he does get a bit peeved at being characterised as a dogmatic stick-in-the-mud repressing the nova-galileos of new theories. But I will not accept a new theory that contradicts very well tested theories without a reasoned argument that shows where the dogma fails.
At present your argument is a mixture of strawman, personal incredulity and misinformed interpretations of relativity.
-
Imatfaal,
The statement that intrigues me most is;- "The redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artifact of the time dilation."
I am interested in why you believe this to be so?
-
Due to wave-particle duality of matter, the dilation of time and of wavelength (constant speed of C) is the same, so space and time can be viewed as directly related dimensions. Someone seeing only the wave side of matter could say that only length is contracted and there is no time dilation. The thing is, both are true... You can solve it only if you find the origin..
-
Imatfaal,
The statement that intrigues me most is;- "The redshifting/slow ticking is not solely an artifact of the time dilation."
I am interested in why you believe this to be so?
I suppose my most proximal causes is that I know that doppler works at very non-newtonian speeds and other sources of wave - along with many other people, it was one of the first scientific theories explained to me (when I was 5ish making fire engine noises with the correct change in pitch my big bro was at university reading physics). Secondly, it makes sense in a heuristic view. Thirdly, a key test of relativity is that by either dropping the speed (or by thinking of light as infinite) you find a limit in the old newtonian equations - which it does. And lastly, and cravenly, because it says on about page 80 of Rindler's Relativity.
-
Simplified,
Do I take it you mean that length contraction cannot explain the difference in clock hand rotations, whereas time dilation can?
If so, then I agree.
The implication from this idea is that time dilation must be real as well as relative, because it has a real and permanent effect from one frame to another, whereas length contraction cannot be real because this does not have a permanent effect from one frame to another. Length contraction is therefore purely relative, an illusion.
Are we beginning to think the same?
I think time can be different,but it can not be relative.
I was against length contraction, but I should study mathematic first.
-
CPT ArkAngel, imatfaal,Simplified,
Yes, space and time are directly related by Lorentz.
Observing the wave side of matter, we have a choice. We can choose to believe that lengths contract or we can believe the wave impacts at increased speed and therefore SEEMS contracted. Either way the time dilation is the cause.
If you develop the Lorentz factor from the basic geometry of clock motion you reach a point where you have to choose whether or not to hold velocity constant across both frames.
If you do, you end up with the mainstream physics.
BUT, if you can accept, at least for just a moment, that the velocity in the moving frame must be greater because the clock is slower, then length contraction does not happen but velocity increase does.
Now I can hear you all screaming about the much loved length contraction, and you may have noticed that I don't necessarily believe everything I read, whatever the source. If you try this with the math, you get velocity in the moving frame approaching infinite speed as the velocity observed from the stationary frame approaches "c".
The relative limit of "c" remains intact but the speed experienced from the moving frame eventually increases to infinite speed due to the increasing time dilation. This infinite speed, is not only consistant with the time rate of zero at a relative velocity of "c", but it also clearly demonstrates WHY the finite value of "c" is the limit of relative velocity.
With the mainstream view, in the limit, we get a velocity of "c", a time rate of zero and length contraction to zero in the direction of motion only. These are all in consistant amongst themselves!
Frankly, when I hear "These are the counter intuitive effects of relativity so just accept them.", I become suspicious and this is what has driven me to explore this alternative. There are NO counter intuitive effects to swallow with this view of SR.
You may still have a problem accepting this because of the clearly observed relative effect of length contraction. All our education, experimental results and the sheer weight of consensus prevents us from even wanting to question SR at this level, but I can tell you that EITHER works mathematically and experimentally. So, it is a simple matter of choosing which one best reflects reality.
I don't know about you, but I have a problem accepting length contraction in anything but the purely relative sense, especially since it is only applicable in the direction of motion. This clearly is not a real effect.
Time dilation IS a real and proven effect of motion. Velocity increase is an indisputable result of time dilation. So, There is no contest between these options.
The mainstream is correct in that we CAN consider lengths to contract via Lorentz, but we can also explain these same effects as being due to velocity increase, if only you wanted to, or should I say, if only you were prepared to consider this option.
I have no problem at all with accepting the time dilation and the resulting velocity increase in the time dilated frame moving frame.
v = s/t, and if you dilate the "t" then v increases without any energy being applied. it's so simple.
Just don't expect me to accept length contraction as a real effect of motion. It's frankly ludicrous.
By the way, Simplified, Time is indeed relative. The mainstream also says so.
-
Ken Hughes,
why do you think the mainstream knows what is time?
-
Simplified,
I don't.
Maybe I should've written "EVEN the mainstream says so".
It was not my intention to make the point that if the mainstream says something then it must be true.
-
Well it is a good perception of facts but if we say the speed of light is infinite then einstein's special relativity will be dissaproved.The speed of light is constant.The speed of light was first measured by Ole Romer and later by Jean foucalt.Light has wave and particle duality.If somehow a different value of c is measured then we have measured another particles speed not light.But concept is limited to inertial frames and outside it probabilities might arise.
-
Tamoorkhan,
I think you misunderstand.
I agree, the relative speed of light is invariant. It is always 300 x 106 m/s or thereabouts.
This new theory does not dispute that and Einstein's relativity remains unchallanged.
The proposal is simply that although the relative velocity of light is "c" as observed from any other frame, its velocity as experienced WITHIN its own frame is infinite, due to the fact that time has dilated to a standstill in the frame of the light, relative to the rest of the universe.
Frankly, I don't see what the arguments are about as this actually fits well with mainstream relativity theory, but it does challenge some of our longstanding beliefs and perceptions of reality.
If we entertain this postulate, then we have to change our thinking and let go of length contraction due to motion, at least as a real effect, and accept that this is just a relative illusion.
The problem in getting this idea across is that it does not disagree with the experimental results and observations or even the math of mainstream science. It seems the mainstream will only accept a new theory if it disagrees and mathematically disproves the existing theory. Otherwise, existing theory still stands. Also, at the moment, there is no envisaged practical use in the new ideas, but then that has always changed historically as new ideas become accepted.
Finally, this does not really constitute a new theory, but suggests a modification to Special Relativity
-
Mr Ken Hughes,
No matter what reasoning other scientists may give but the speed of light is constant.If you study the Einstein's mass energy equivalance as introduced by einstein which every one knows is the most valid thing ever introduced by Albert Einstein.Albert's Einstein's theory of general and special relativity have remained dominant.In this very year i came accross a wonderful article which told me that more than 8 experiments have proved the general and special relativity.Although it remains challenged.
E=mcsquare equation shows us that speed of light is constant.Now every thory has it's limit.Newton's laws are true in inertial frames but not in external frames.Simmillarly einstein's equations can be correct in particular frames of reference but there has been no evidence till now against it except some.Speed of light like Planck's constant is constant.
-
Tamoorkahn,
I don't know why you're telling me this. I agreed with you !
Please read my last post again.
-
Mr Ken Hughes,
I know that you agreed with me earlier but the thing i tried to tell you is this that the slight modification which the theory suggests is impossible.The reason is this that we use photons in quantum mechanics.In quantum mechanics we study particle having dual nature.The mass energy equation is quiet accurate.WE by the help of it have made accurate calculations on nuclear fussion.So even slight modification is impossible.
-
Mr Tamoorkhan,
You cannot place laboratory on a fast particle, therefore you should not disclose results of exploring of such fast laboratory. [;)]
-
Tamoorkahn,
I am not proposing any changes to the laws of physics, either for waves or particles. Their speed will always be "c" relative to us or to other waves or particles.
If you are suggesting the existence of waves or particles that travel at different speeds (slower or faster than light), then that does not change the proposal, but would perhaps change Lorentz for a faster than light particle. In other words, for an infinitely fast wave/particle, the speed would not be contracted by as much as normal, ie in accordance with Lorentz, and so it would appear to us to move faster than light. This would mean that the space time continuum for the wave/particle, would be different than ours.
Is this what you meant?
-
Mr Ken Hughes,
You have percieved the information that i gave you in the light of general relativity.But this theory is not enough.You should prove the fact in other laws or theories as well.After many years of research in physics, i have always come to a conclusion that whatever the scientists may say about the accuracy of general relativity there are still some draw backs.I can bet that a factor is not clearly defined in terms of physics.Whatever is the newtonian physics, einstein modified it and introduced new constant like cosmological constant,stress energy constant etc.But a physicist will say that these are theretical not mathematical.But these have still been accurate in external frame of refrence.So in my view these factors are just going to put the theory in accordance with other theories and may advance them to a serious extent.Although your view is acccurate to some extent, it need verification.I here expain the photon in terms of classical mechanics although a physicist might deny it.Look if there is greater input greater will be the output.Now let us say that photon has an energy.As it has a limited energy it cant go in unlimited speed.It is a particle of light.In light it might be in some sort of equillibrium.And as it is particle of light it will move with same speed.It's speed cant be unlimited in any frame of referance.Yet the concept of relative speed is accurate but we consider the standard.In external frames it would also be relative.As it may change in external frames than the standards will also change.
-
Tamoorkahn,
Thankyou. Yes I understand your point, that if you don't add energy, you don't get acceleration, also that there isn't enough energy available to accelerate it to infinite speed.
BUT, that is not what is happening.
Firstly, the photon does not accelerate itself, say like a rocket with a reacting force. It does not use any of its energy to move. It moves at the speed of light because that is what light does. I cannot explain that, neither can anyone else. It is just a law of nature that light spreads out at "c" relative to anything.
Secondly, and more importantly, no energy is required for the photon to accelerate from the speed of light in the frame of the light. Why? Because the time dilation which decreases its time rate to zero by the time "c" is reached, comes FREE from Special Relativity. It is the result of the nature of space-time described by Lorentz. It is simply the time rate reducing to zero that produces the relative effect of increasing the speed within the frame to infinite speed. It is not an inertial, mechanical effect or a Newtonian mechanism, it is a temporal one.
In our frame, velocoity v(stationary frame) = Distance "s"/time taken in our frame = "c"
In the photon's frame, velocoity v(moving frame) = Distance "s"/zero time taken in the moving frame = ∞
This effect requires no energy to happen. The "acceleration" is simply due to the time dilation and the time dilation is a result of the motion. All relative, of course.
I know you can measure time taken for photons to travel certain distances, but this time is the time taken in YOUR frame. It takes no time at all in the frame of the photon for the photon to travel ANY distance, because time stands still in the frame of the photon relative to our frame.
-
Mr Ken Hughes,
Again you have told the perception in terms of modern physics.As I said earlier that I explain the facts of the photon in terms of classical mechanics although a physicist may declare me wrong.I just want you to start your imagination from this although there is no mass of photon and no inertia.But as I said earlier it is in some equilibrium with the light which is why it is bound to it.With out energy it cant move with infinite speed with which you agreed.But whatever there is in general relativity is the modification in Newtonian Physics with addition of certain factors so that it might work in external space.As far as the photon is concerned, it is a particle of light.Even if we concider that it has no requirement of any thing there will be doubt for it still remains with light.You just mentioned a formula.But i would like to present you the fact that nothing can be divided by zero.Take your calculator and divide any number with 0 you get an error.The frame explained by Lorrentz is the frame only applicable for the speeds less than the speed of light.
-
........and there, I think we will leave it.
-
Lengths contraction does not reduce amount of rotations.Time dilation makes.
Simplified, who is that comment addressed at? And can you be a little more specific - i don't see what your point is
I think a ratio of quantities of identical rotations cannot be relative. The inability to count quantity of rotations is not a science.