Relativity and Time

[Uclock]

CraigD

 

Experiments in which a very precise electro-mechanical clocks (eg: atomic clocks) is flown in a high-speed vehicle, then returned and compared to its twin on the ground, are rare, and troubled by the need for such vehicles to be high above the ground, and thus experience a slight time elongation due to General Relativity effects. Although several have been conducted, their results are low precision compared to experiments involving near-lightspeed subatomic particles, and can be considered more engineering tests of the clocks used as physics experiments. Although low-precision, these tests have validated Special Relativity.

Yes but even these involve acceleration such as being accelerated during take off and landing and possibly turbulence during flight but acceleration is still present. As far as particles in particle accelerators are concerned partcles experience high centripetal force so particle accelerators are not dealing with pure velocity.

 

 

Given recent advances in miniaturizing atomic clocks, and continuing investments in unmanned space exploration, I entertain the hope that a more convincing “clock in a ship” test of SR will occur within the next decade or two. A problem with getting such an experiment flown, though, is that it still wouldn’t be as precise as previous subatomic particle tests, so, despite being dramatic, is difficult to “sell” to mission planners, who almost certainly all accept SR, and thus have no strong drive to revalidate it for the benefit of skeptics such as Uclock. My hope is that some other experiment may result in a miniature atomic clock being flown on a spacecraft, and that a SR validating experiment using it could be done nearly “for free”.

 

Even so you cannot exclude acceleration from such an experiment, mores the pity.

 

 

If there are any JPL, Goddard, or other folk reading this, take pity on us amateur skeptics, and fly this experiment!

Please?!

 

Professionals don’t listen to amateurs, that is just the way of the world unfortunately.

 

Tony

[Jay-qu]

Professionals don’t listen to amateurs, that is just the way of the world unfortunately.

 

Tony

Unfortunately? I would say fortunately and Im sure you do agree with me here!

 

what if someone, with no concrete background in your job came up and started telling you how to do things!

 

Or what if your kids started telling you how to drive? Im sure you wouldnt be inclined to listen to thier advice, because you know better than them.

[Erasmus00]

As far as particles in particle accelerators are concerned partcles experience high centripetal force so particle accelerators are not dealing with pure velocity.

 

What about linear colliders? Once up to speed, particles are no longer accelerated.

-Will

[The_Right_Stuff]

You never came back to why this is..

 

To go on forever in no time at all.

 

How is this a paradox? It is happening all the time! photons experience no time at all but still manage to traverse the entire universe un-paradoxically..

 

When growing up, one sees time as something that goes on around you, meaning a single time that ticks. Therefore it seems impossible for time to be both ticking and not ticking at the same time.

 

If this did not occur to you at some time in your life, it simply means that you have accepted that it can happen, yet did so without the need to know of the reason behind it, meaning the cause.

 

Most people these days put up an enormous fight to reject the cause of an effect, but a the same time defend the truthfulness of the effect, thus insist upon the acceptance of half a truth.

 

And so, one person might say something like " How is this a paradox? It is happening all the time! photons experience no time at all but still manage to traverse the entire universe un-paradoxically.." , but have had no personal interest as to why such a thing may occur, that is suffice enough to push ones self to figure out the cause by oneself.

 

It becomes nothing but a " I know this " and " I know that " rather than achieving understanding. The first skill acquired by man was to collect knowledge. The second skill to evolve was the skill to understand that knowledge. Many people are still quite happy staying in the simple world of knowledge, rather than working hard and moving into the more advanced world of understanding.

 

Now concerning Photons, they actually move across Time with the same degree of motion as they have while moving across Space.

 

Maybe some day you too will figure out why that is.

[The_Right_Stuff]

Professionals don’t listen to amateurs, that is just the way of the world unfortunately.

 

It is agreed by many that today there is no room for another Einstein in today's universities.

 

Today's universities are focused upon pumping knowledge into minds.

 

Einstein was more interested in understanding than in knowing, and so he tended to sit back and observe rather than accept into his mind tiny chunks of data known as units of knowledge. As the result of such behavior, some of his teachers stated that Einstein was a " Slow learner ", a " backward child ", etc..

 

I was amused to see a university testing some Joe blow to see if he would qualify to enter that university, and basically all the tests he was put through were speed related. In other words, the focus was upon fast reactions rather than looking for someone who could think something through thoroughly as Einstein would do and did do.

 

And so, some of those amateurs of today, are in actual fact the Einstein's of today which are NOT allowed to enter the universities of today, hence are not recognized for who they truly are.

 

Computers can store vast amounts of knowledge, but show me a computer that can understand. Do you understand what I am saying, or does it not compute ?:)

[Jay-qu]

I see what you are saying, knowlegde != understanding and yes most of our education system is based around knowlegde, it is much harding to teach and test understanding.

 

If you claim to understand how photons travel in space and time then why dont you enlighten us rather than pretending you are so much smarter than everyone. I can do that to "I understand quantum physics entirely, but it would be impossible to explain it to you because you wouldnt have the same understanding"

 

Building upon the foundations of a predecessors is how science works, learning all of it is the first step towards furthering the collective understanding - even if it is only stored as 'knowledge'

[kalesh]

Computers can store vast amounts of knowledge, but show me a computer that can understand. Do you understand what I am saying, or does it not compute ?:)

 

Nice one Right_Stuff, nice one.:)

 

These days when someone says something that is not entirely within mainstream or at the edge of science the most common responses one gets are "It cannot happen" "It will not happen" "You cannot do it because it violates the law of physics". Before giving out responses like this one should consider "why can't it happen", "why won't it happen", "Do I understand this particular law of physics enough to say it cannot happen". and the most important question is "what if he is right?"

 

It is the discussion of things outside mainstream science or things which at first glance seem to violate laws of physics that can lead to innovation and breakthroughs leading to next generation science.

 

Readers of this post may want to be reminded how little we actually know in mainstream science. Simple questions such as:

What is magnetism?

What is time?

What is gravity?

what is light?

There are literally hundreds of questions like these that have no definite answer. Granted you can find the definitions of the above online but does that definition "really" answer the question? No it doesn't....

[CraigD]

Although it is off-topic, I think these posts deserve rebuttal in this thread:

It is agreed by many that today there is no room for another Einstein in today's universities.

A brief perusal of even a superficial biography of Albert Einstein shows that there was no room for the original Einstein in the universities of 1896. An academic non-conformist, Einstein first failed to pass admission exams for his university of choice, then, after reentering and graduating high school, got into university, graduated, then failed after two years of searching to find an academic teaching position. His major 1905 works (including the photoelectric effect, Special Relativity, and [math]E=mc^2[/math]) were performed and published outside of his work as a patent examiner. In the usual sense of the term, Einstein was an amateur physicist – a guy with a Math degree, an interest in Physics, proficiency in writing scientific papers, and a day job in an office.

Today's universities are focused upon pumping knowledge into minds.

…

I was amused to see a university testing some Joe blow to see if he would qualify to enter that university, and basically all the tests he was put through were speed related. In other words, the focus was upon fast reactions rather than looking for someone who could think something through thoroughly as Einstein would do and did do.

This seems to imply that the universities of Einstein’s days were did not stress conformity and performance under pressure, or teach by rote, a claim that is not supported by historic accounts. Success in math and science in the best universities of that day involved amounts of rote memorization that would, I think, appall modern students and instructors, and examinations under circumstances that would be considered abusive under modern standard for criminal interrogation. For example, obtaining a BS from Oxford from the 1750s through the early 20th century involved “training for and surviving” a multi-day series of written and verbal examinations known as the ”tripos”, name after the 3-legged stool upon which students were once required to sit while facing their examiners.

 

In short, I think it’s inaccurate to characterize our current universities as inferior to those that produced the famous mathematicians and physicists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, that these people had an easier or more nurturing social or academic environment than we have now, or that scientific literature has become less accessible today than it was then. Einstein’s eventual success came from his writing several good papers, which were read by and slowly accepted by most of the scientific community, not because his claims overturned previous scientific theories, but because they explained and extended them.

And so, some of those amateurs of today, are in actual fact the Einstein's of today which are NOT allowed to enter the universities of today, hence are not recognized for who they truly are.

To me, this smack of paranoia. For all his youth - Einstein dropped out of high school in order to attempt admission to university at age 16 - and academic difficulties, by the time he wrote his 1905 papers, he knew conventional mathematical physics as well as nearly anyone alive. Even at 16, his scientific writing was good, and after correcting some academic failings, he was allowed into university.

 

I taught freshman Math and physical science at a small state university for a couple of semesters, and had regular contact with admissions staff, so can say with certainty that no one who could write and test as well as Einstein did at age 17 would be denied admission to that or any other legitimate university in America, or, I suspect, any non-religious university in most of the world.

 

If your math and language is strong, you will not be refused admission into the universities of today.

[Uclock]

Jay-qu

 

Unfortunately? I would say fortunately and Im sure you do agree with me here!

 

what if someone, with no concrete background in your job came up and started telling you how to do things!

 

Or what if your kids started telling you how to drive? Im sure you wouldnt be inclined to listen to thier advice, because you know better than them.

 

There is a difference here. The physics of this Universe belongs to us all and whilst it is true that amateurs do not make a living from physics it does not mean they do don’t understand the theories that are the backbone of on which professionals work.

 

I watched a programme in which a teenager who had never flown a real aircraft but had plenty of experience with a flight simulator on his PC. With an experienced pilot at his side he took off, flew and landed a real aircraft successfully yet he was not a professional pilot.

 

My point is there are many things that physics still does not know about this Universe and perhaps this may be because they are working from theories developed over a hundred years ago. Times change and unfortunately when anyone challenges these backbone theories then they get the label that they are against the mainstream and very often they are ignored by professionals whether or not they are professional or amateur, even if there is experimental evidence to back up their different theory.

 

Physics today is treated more like a religion than something that should change as our knowledge increases and most of this problem is created by the old guard who are unwilling to accept even experimental evidence that there maybe a problem with these backbone theories such as Einstein’s relativity.

 

Tony

[Uclock]

Will,

 

What about linear colliders? Once up to speed, particles are no longer accelerated.

 

I think you will find particles are accelerated along the full length of these colliders.

 

Tony

[Uclock]

The_Right_Stuff

 

It is agreed by many that today there is no room for another Einstein in today's universities.

 

Today's universities are focused upon pumping knowledge into minds.

 

Einstein was more interested in understanding than in knowing, and so he tended to sit back and observe rather than accept into his mind tiny chunks of data known as units of knowledge. As the result of such behavior, some of his teachers stated that Einstein was a " Slow learner ", a " backward child ", etc..

 

I was amused to see a university testing some Joe blow to see if he would qualify to enter that university, and basically all the tests he was put through were speed related. In other words, the focus was upon fast reactions rather than looking for someone who could think something through thoroughly as Einstein would do and did do.

 

And so, some of those amateurs of today, are in actual fact the Einstein's of today which are NOT allowed to enter the universities of today, hence are not recognized for who they truly are.

 

Computers can store vast amounts of knowledge, but show me a computer that can understand. Do you understand what I am saying, or does it not compute ?

 

You will get no argument from me on that one.

 

Tony

[Uclock]

Jay-qu

 

Building upon the foundations of a predecessors is how science works, learning all of it is the first step towards furthering the collective understanding - even if it is only stored as 'knowledge'

 

Whilst it is true that knowledge is passed down from our predecessors it is also true that they may not have had things right in the first place. So called ‘witches’ were once burned at the stake so should we have retained such practices today?

 

Maybe we should admit that the Sun rotates around the Earth as the ancient ones thought it did because after all they were our predecessors with so called knowledge.

 

Anyone reading the history of science will immediately see that every period thinks it has all the correct answers to the physics of this Universe yet history shows that any new advancement has to wait for the old guard to die off so new minds are allowed to bring science forward. It is as true today as four hundred years ago.

 

 

Tony

[Erasmus00]

There is a difference here. The physics of this Universe belongs to us all and whilst it is true that amateurs do not make a living from physics it does not mean they do don’t understand the theories that are the backbone of on which professionals work.

 

Here is the thing: physics is built on older physics. 99% of "amateurs" who post their theories on the internet have no understanding of the basic, well understood classical physics. Very few have heard of lagrangian/Hamiltonian descriptions of classical physics. Very few are fully familiar with Maxwell's equations. And yet these people post long theories describing flaws they've found with modern physics.

 

They fail to realize that if you develop a new theory, the first thing your theory has to do is explain why all the other theories worked as well as they did.

 

Physics today is treated more like a religion than something that should change as our knowledge increases and most of this problem is created by the old guard who are unwilling to accept even experimental evidence that there maybe a problem with these backbone theories such as Einstein’s relativity.

 

I completely disagree. Obviously, there will always be mental inertia against truly new findings, but you can't paint everyone with the same brush. There are many experimentalists out there who are searching ACTIVELY for breakdowns of Lorentz symmetry (failures of special relativity). So far, none have been found! Everyone in particle physics is looking for where exactly the standard model(which is built on special relativity) breaks down. So far, no one has found any breakdown of the standard model whatsoever!

 

I can't speak to failures of general relativity, as its a subject I'm unfamiliar with. But where do you feel we have experimental evidence for the failure of Einstein's special relativity?

-Will

[Farsight]

Can we say "new interpretations" rather than failures? Newton's gravity isn't wrong as such, but Einstein gave us a better, more precise understanding. I think there are even better understandings out there, and whilst it's not a black-and-white world, there is some truth to what The Right Stuff says. Maybe the new understanding will come from the 1% balance of the amateurs. The patents clerk.

[Jay-qu]

Jay-qu

 

 

 

Whilst it is true that knowledge is passed down from our predecessors it is also true that they may not have had things right in the first place. So called ‘witches’ were once burned at the stake so should we have retained such practices today?

 

Maybe we should admit that the Sun rotates around the Earth as the ancient ones thought it did because after all they were our predecessors with so called knowledge.

 

Anyone reading the history of science will immediately see that every period thinks it has all the correct answers to the physics of this Universe yet history shows that any new advancement has to wait for the old guard to die off so new minds are allowed to bring science forward. It is as true today as four hundred years ago.

 

 

Tony

Craig has already said what I am trying to get accross. Flying a plane from a simulator is quite different from deriving laws of physics from experiencing them in every day life!

 

Also I do not believe that we think we are right.. we have some theories that produce impecible results that are in accordance with what we see around us. Yes there are holes, but we know where they are and are working towards patching them.

[The_Right_Stuff]

Some of you have missed the point.

 

If someone does not have the skills that can be acquired to fly a plane, yet does so anyway, this simply means that what IS available is not being taken advantage of.

 

However, the complete understanding of reality is not yet available in today's universities. If the present understanding was a correct understanding, then this would produce an immediate domino effect that quickly leads to the complete understanding. However, if an error is present, then a barrier prevents the domino effect from occurring, and instead the path to complete understanding is lost in darkness.

 

Therefore if one attends university and loads the mind with the information that leads one down the road of darkness if one persues complete understanding, then a fresh perspective from outside of university mind programming, is perhaps useful after all.

 

Just because many believed that engines run by forcing a piston downward and that's that, it did not mean that someone else could not think of a Wankel engine design. There is no need in sticking to just one frame of mind.

 

In fact I came up with a design that makes engines more efficient. The same principle can also be applied to a bicycle.

 

When applied to a bike, when the left peddle is down at the bottom position, the right peddle is already rotated ahead of the top position by 30 degrees. The same applies to the left peddle when the right peddle is positioned at the bottom.

 

Under normal conditions, if one peddle is at the bottom position, then the other peddle is located at the very top position, and this can lead to a stall condition. If the bike has stopped, you can apply plenty of downward force to the peddle that is in the top position, but still will not get you out of the stall condition.

 

However, if the top peddle is always rotated ahead by 30 degrees when the other peddle is located at the bottom position, then this stall point is bypassed along with a 30 degree area on inefficiency that also has been bypassed.

 

If only I had cash to put the design to use. Oh well.

[CraigD]

In fact I came up with a design that makes engines more efficient. The same principle can also be applied to a bicycle.

You should take your ideas to the engineering forum.

 

Novel bicycle chainwheels have a long and interesting history, with new designs appearing all the time (I had a single elliptical one years ago). Their main drawback is that they’re prohibited by every race sanctioning body of which I’m aware, presumable to keep the sport from becoming more of a contest for designers than it already is.

If only I had cash to put the design to use. Oh well.

One of the beautiful things about bicycles is that they’re cheap to build (especially if you’re just prototyping, not manufacturing, and use steel, not aluminum or more exotic stuff for frames), require less fabricating skill than, say, turbojet engines, and can be tested by anyone who know how to ride a bicycle :lol:.