The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: An essay in futility, too long to read :)  (Read 281061 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #150 on: 20/12/2010 19:25:52 »
"As they are two 'points of views' inside the same 'frame of reference', at least when it comes to matter. Inside that ship my universe becomes really 'short' at the same time as my 'yard-stick' still measures a yard."

One solution would be to say that there is no dichotomy. That yard-sticks measures will be the same outside his space ship too. So he and his 'surroundings' are 'compressed' both. But, will that agree with what you see on earth?

That is, watching him in your super-duper-hi-tech atomic telescope you find him to contract? If it was correct, wouldn't it also imply that you at some possible 'time' would wach him 'disappear' into some speck?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #151 on: 20/12/2010 19:51:38 »
That one is actually quite simple to solve, you just need to think about what light-clock told you. You did see the light-corn take a longer time as its 'path' between the mirrors grew, but you did not see the mirror 'shrink'. So watching that ship, if you could see its atoms 'move', you would find them to 'move' slower, and that's all.

So where do the 'shrinking' come from?
==

And am I saying that there is no 'shrinking' involved from my point of view, aka 'Earths frame of reference'.
« Last Edit: 20/12/2010 19:54:00 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #152 on: 20/12/2010 20:42:06 »
That one needs thinking about.
Let's test if it would be possible to assume that that there is no shrinking observed from Earth.

But first, could we assume some 'law' defining that shrinking, if there was one observed?

Think about it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #153 on: 20/12/2010 20:46:53 »
Let us start with defining a 'piece' of length. A rod :) perhaps?

Then we make it really, really, long. and yes, that law.
Well, it have to be something making sense with what we would expect to be a equivalent duration of time for the light to take from our 'frame of reference' (Earth). No matter how it is placed in 'space' relative us, wouldn't it :) And yes, it's that rod I'm talking about.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #154 on: 20/12/2010 20:53:10 »
So imagine that rod now, no, imagine two rods.
Let's mount a mirror at each of their endpoints, making it four mirrors for two rods. Now you take one of those rods and point it like a rocket away from you, the other you place perpendicular to the first one, making it look like a 'L' from Earths point of view.

| _  Like this.

They are both of the exact same length, with mirrors mounted at their endpoints as I said.


Now, let us put a light-corn bouncing between those endpoints. Booinnng boiiiinnng booiiinng.

We are at rest with the rods, looking at our two clocks we see them 'tick' at the same exact pace. Good, they are working.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #155 on: 20/12/2010 20:58:36 »
Heh, lightclocks have to be the best invention since the wheel, and single malt of course.

Now we're going to boost them away. Z000OooOm and off they go, at some speed close to light. So let's watch what happens with our clocks. Will it have an importance which way they are oriented in space relative us watching?


 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #156 on: 20/12/2010 21:00:38 »
Actually that's a pretty good question.
So, will it?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #157 on: 20/12/2010 21:04:05 »
After all, when I used the first example with the mirrors, you automatically thought of the light-corn as observable, didn't you? with the mirrors pointing away from you so you could see that light-corn bounce. But if you think of the mirrors turned 90 degrees so you can't really watch that light-corn? would it still be the same?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #158 on: 20/12/2010 21:16:35 »
Let me ask you a question, that first light clock we made, which way was the light bouncing relative us? -- like that, right? 'Parallel' to us so to speak

So thinking of those two rods that will be _ that one. Now we introduced another one pointed as a rocket | too, as seen from Earth. But they are traveling together, as a 'system' you might say.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #159 on: 20/12/2010 21:20:58 »
The one rod parallel to us ( _ ) will provide the same time dilation as we saw with our mirrors, that we're sure of, well, I am at least :)

But the other one then? The one pointing | like that?

Will that clock tick the same? It should shouldn't it? Or I would have to assume that there was something really strange to the 'arrow of time' as both rods move 'together', being as I called it, a 'system'.




 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #160 on: 20/12/2010 21:33:30 »
That they move 'together' means that you, if standing at any of those rods, would see the other one 'tick' the exact same as the rod-clock you're standing on, just like they did at Earth.

But think of this | one now, and imagine a light-corn bounce between its endpoints. When the light travels from the end, furthest away from its motion, it will have he* of a distance to travel to catch up to the foremost tip. In fact it will take too long time to make sense. The return time instead, bouncing back, meeting the rearward endpoint will be extremely quick.

How can that be?

I see the two rods moving together, but they no longer 'tick' the same? But if I teleport, being at rest with with them they will?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #161 on: 20/12/2010 21:56:30 »
In fact I'm not sure if this is the best example really, thinking of it. But it's correct in that if the rod | pointing that way, relative you, are moving at 95.5 c and are 186 000 miles long, the same length it takes a photon to travel in one second. Then you, having them beside you on Earth, would see them 'tick' one second per bounce.

But, when later, traveling at that speed the 'forward bounce' (in the direction of the overall motion) seen by us 'Earth still' relative it, suddenly takes 200 seconds, and that can't be right?

Can it?

so how the he* do I explain that?
I have to assume a length contraction, that's what I have to do..
But, what about the other rod then?

Well, remember that if you were standing on the | rod .. Both the _ rod and itself would 'tick' the same, and look the same as on Earth, as you were 'at rest' relative them, joining the 'system' so to speak. So building from that what would you expect?

Will that one also contract?
Or is it only the | that shrink?

And how much did that | rod shrink if so?
According to what I understand :) about 90 %.

(For the rod directed | it will take it 19.9750 seconds to travel with the rods motion to 'catch up' the overall motion. Bouncing back will take it 0.05 seconds getting a 'round-trip' of 20.025 seconds)

===

Also, remember that I said they didn't 'tick' in time, synchronized after starting to move relative us? But if that rod 'shrinks' then we should get a synchronization again, at both 'places', or positions in SpaceTime. That as you, when on the rods, won't notice their length contraction, instead you will find SpaceTime to be the one 'contracted'. As I understands it, that is.
« Last Edit: 22/12/2010 15:13:37 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #162 on: 20/12/2010 22:05:44 »
So can you object to it?

Well, one of the first postulates of light is that it will move at the same speed in a vacuum the 'frame of reference' notwithstanding.

So if I assume that I am at the 'top end' of that | watching the light bounce towards me, I will measure its speed to the exact 186 000 miles It should have, but of a weaker 'energy' as it would become red-shifted working its way towards me, as I imagine it :)

But, can you see my problem objecting?

I changed frame of reference doing it, didn't I?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #163 on: 20/12/2010 22:14:12 »
But when we look at the rod being parallel _ the question becomes another. We made that rod very long, didn't we? 186 000 miles. How the he* can the same light that, according to us on Earth, slow down and then speed up in the first rod, the | , in the other not care a iota about that the whole rod moves as it merrily bounce between the rods mirrors?

And that's a weird one alright

What we do know though is that if I was standing on any of those rods I would see them 'tick' in time, synchronized the same way they were on Earth. And if I do that I'm forced to assume that the light in that _ rod will find the mirrors even from my point of view standing on Earth.

So, would that too contract :)
« Last Edit: 21/12/2010 00:18:47 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #164 on: 20/12/2010 22:21:21 »
So why do I find it a bad example?

Well, consider yourself watching the light from Earth. Assuming that it have the same speed in all frames of reference you can't ever notice it 'speed up' or 'slow down'. All of this with light-clocks in 'reality', whatever that may be :)takes place in the 'mind-space' I discussed earlier. It's very imaginative and as far as I can see right too, but only from the 'mind-space' reality.

So what would you see?

Nothing at all.
 
(Ah, except from the blue and re-shift that is, if you could measure it somehow.)

That's why a time dilation only can be proven when coming back to your place of 'origin' aka Earth.

But the length contraction then?

Yep, that one you actually would see :)
Weird as it may be.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #165 on: 21/12/2010 00:00:51 »
And according to my reference only the rod | would show a length contraction?
Now, that one I'm having a hard time assimilating.

First of all, and lastly, why?

What one could assume is that all length contraction would be in the vector of its motion, a little like considering a fast ship breaking waves, with more speed the closer the waves. But assuming that you would first of all introduce the notion that 'Space' somehow had a 'field' that aligns against your velocity contracting? Which makes me rather confused as we now seems to speak of something 'existing' like a 'aether' maybe, with 'distance' behaving like inertia.


Anyone that can shine some light on that one?
I can't, I knew this actually but I'm afraid I've just accepted it.
There should be a reason.

As it destroys my lovely idea, at least forces me to reevaluate it if it is this way.

And when it comes to gravity wells, like planets. It's the room time geometry that will change your time relative 'the outside' not 'gravity' as a 'force'. Thought that some may take it as I treat gravity as a 'force' so I added this just to be sure you don't :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #166 on: 21/12/2010 00:06:10 »
Well, let us consider a ring, like you throwing a pebble in the water, a sphere growing is even better. Now assume that we 'pump it up' at .99 c. Would it have a length contraction?
==

I think it would, as each point of it could be seen as accelerating away from a common center.
so that one wasn't that good.

It doesn't destroy the idea I have of distances, but it puts an awful lot of importance on motion it seems?
And I don't believe in motion :)

As long we're not talking bikes of course?
« Last Edit: 21/12/2010 00:13:20 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #167 on: 21/12/2010 00:15:34 »
A question. Would that mean that our 'arrow of time' might have a vector too?
Awwwhhh ...

And if it was a vector the _ rod (versus Earth) also would need to show a contraction of 90% in its 'thickness', shouldn't it?
« Last Edit: 21/12/2010 00:20:58 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #168 on: 21/12/2010 00:23:37 »
Well, I believe in the concept of motion when it comes to matter, more than I do with light at least :) But .. ?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #169 on: 21/12/2010 00:47:30 »
So let's change our point of view. We've been speaking of 'contractions' for quite some time, but how about 'expansion'? Why does it only take part in Space, and as I understand it outside the galaxies, not inside, so make that deep space :)

Does it have a relation, a vector too perhaps??
Or does it work as a sphere 'popping up' out there?

If contraction only works in the motions vector my 3-D points will have a hard time too I guess, depending on where they come to be size-wise. Then an idea of singular dimensions may make more sense, maybe?
« Last Edit: 21/12/2010 02:55:01 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #170 on: 21/12/2010 00:50:24 »
What's interesting with that idea is that we actually believe SpaceTime to add more of 'nothingness' into itself, and thereby growing our 'distances'. Anyone more than me having difficulties with that concept?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #171 on: 21/12/2010 01:23:08 »
We assume that SpaceTime is a place where 'stuff' only gets transformed. We don't lose anything, no leaks so to speak. But then we have singularities which have to take energy away from SpaceTime as the possible Hawking radiation can't be that quick. We also have the 'Expansion' which, if you believe in distances, must bring more energy into SpaceTimes fold, even if it will be in equilibrium. That means that we don't get an 'added energy' per area, rather that we keep the proportions 'Space' have intrinsically, that is if you believe in fields and quantum foam/fluidity whatever :) And I think I do believe in that.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #172 on: 21/12/2010 03:21:06 »
There is one way to resurrect my idea of 'everything' contracting, but it doesn't build on what we see happening, we have to go up in that mind-space again for that one. Imagine that sphere we discussed, I said that all points in it should contract as you could imagine them as all being a 'straight line from the center, right?

Well, in that mind-space we have one thing that seems sure, that no matter which way I turn that rocket I will meet this length contraction. So in a way I can say that space is isotropic, unchanging no matter my direction. Looked at that way space is contractible everywhere :) The only thing missing being my motion.

I agree, it's not that good is it? But we can at least assume it to be a sort of 'property' of space, when meeting the right ingredients, proper mass or motion.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #173 on: 21/12/2010 03:53:34 »
Okay, back to basics. Let's see, what made Einstein think of time dilation? Well as I understands it it was his insight that light 'propagates' with the same speed in a vacuum in all reference frames possible. And that in its turn falls back to how to define motion. We use uniform motion where it's not possible to define (following geodesics) we use uniform acceleration which in a black box becomes 'gravity' (One constant G) and then we have non-uniform acceleration that defines us as the ones moving.

The first one (uniform motion) makes it possible to define any of two objects 'A' and 'B' meeting each other in space as being the one moving, as we can't say who it is without using for example 'fix stars'. But on each of those objects Maxwells equations should be obeyed telling us that light will move with 'c' in a vacuum.

And if that is correct, at the same time as I can decide that 'A' moves with 100 000 miles /h, or Null miles, depending on my mood there have to be something compensating for that lights invariance. So what can we compensate it with? Time, right?

I could say that on my 'A' sending out a beam, instead of it going faster than light should be able too according to the experiments made, it has to do with time somehow. So, what is speed? A distance measured over time right? So finding that I send out a beam over a defined distance that takes a certain invariant time no matter how fast I'm moving as I send it away what can I blame it on? Assume that we decide that it's not the time, then we'll have to blame distance Like Lorentz did, although he knew that time would vary too he saw it as firstly as a mathematical notion, not applicable on reality. And it took him some time to accept Einsteins later ideas. Or we can blame it on time, or as Einstein did, both time and distance.

Well, that's how I understands it, maybe there is a better way of seeing it though?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #174 on: 21/12/2010 04:29:05 »
Going back to our expanding sphere, let's throw away motion for a while and test if we could see it as 'times and distances inertia' :)

Let's try it from 'distance' first. Assume that there is a inertia to distance, gotta love physics, and dreamers :)

Would that work?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

An essay in futility, too long to read :)
« Reply #174 on: 21/12/2010 04:29:05 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums