Types Of Clocks Which Have Actually Measured Time Dilation

[AmishFighterPilot]

Well yes energy and time are conjugate variables, if that is what you meant. Do you know what that means? Probably not.But that is not relevant to the discussion we were having, so far as I can see.You do have a disconcerting habit of dropping unconnected concepts into the discussion, which makes well nigh impossible to to keep hold of any sort of logical thread through it all. I've been trying to be fair to you but you do not make it easy.

Conjugate variables are how you maintain consistency in the face of distortion.

 

Without matter there can be no space. Without energy that space cannot change. Without the interplay between the two, there would be no time. Gravity points toward matter, but energy flows away from where it is emitted. This interplay seems to drive all action between.

[mrg]

It would be nice to be able to hear him out without the noise coming from Wile E. Coyote.

 

I'm leaving AFP alone for the moment, but it gets hard to tolerate someone who aspires to grasp doctorate-level physics when he can't, and for that matter won't, read Wikipedia articles.   It then becomes a choice between two people being silly -- but with me it's on purpose.

[OceanBreeze]

I'm leaving AFP alone for the moment, but it gets hard to tolerate someone who aspires to grasp doctorate-level physics when he can't, and for that matter won't, read Wikipedia articles.   It then becomes a choice between two people being silly -- but with me it's on purpose.

 

Thank you

[OceanBreeze]

Conjugate variables are how you maintain consistency in the face of distortion.

 

 

 

That sort of makes sense. One way to think about the conjugates is two sides of a rectangle that has a constant area.

 

If you shorten one side (by reducing the uncertainty) the other side must grow longer, so it maintains the consistency area.

 

Without matter there can be no space. Without energy that space cannot change. Without the interplay between the two, there would be no time. Gravity points toward matter, but energy flows away from where it is emitted. This interplay seems to drive all action between.

 

 

OK. I don't see anything there to disagree with but I still do not know what point you are trying to make.

[AmishFighterPilot]

That sort of makes sense. One way to think about the conjugates is two sides of a rectangle that has a constant area.

 

If you shorten one side (by reducing the uncertainty) the other side must grow longer, so it maintains the consistency area.

 

 

 

OK. I don't see anything there to disagree with but I still do not know what point you are trying to make.

There is a concept called gravitational sphere of influence, or the Hill Sphere. Its an effect whereby the ability to keep things in orbit shrinks when going deeper into a stronger field of gravity. It also contracts during acceleration. How does this concept translate into other orbits?

 

Also, rest mass converts to energy at e=mc2. Its inverse square. It can go outward indefinitely, but if you reverse the equation it should only go to unity right? We know, however that energy doesn't gather and condense back into matter. So if matter is converted to pure energy in the form of photons/waves, why isn't the universe brighter? If the work energy of an electron can be overcome, absorbed photons can fill an orbit with space by accelerating the electron. This doesn't have the steady field of a charged particle, so it is ejected, though often at a different energy level/wavelength. If you destroy an electron, you get photons. So photons can fill the place of an electron, but they can't maintain it. Instead, the electron has to drop down and take over because that photon lacks something the electron has: a field.

Edited May 29, 2017 by AmishFighterPilot

[mrg]

 If you destroy an electron, you get photons. So photons can fill the place of an electron, but they can't maintain it.

 

Huh?  Symmetrical reaction.   Electron-positron annihilation produces gamma rays.   Gamma-ray collision produces electron-positron pair.

Edited May 29, 2017 by mrg

[AmishFighterPilot]

Huh?  Symmetrical reaction.   Electron-positron annihilation produces gamma rays.   Gamma-ray collision produces electron-positron pair.

Gamma rays are the higest energy state of photons

[mrg]

Gamma rays are the higest energy state of photons

 

I know.

[AmishFighterPilot]

Lower energy collisions don't leave behind a charged particle. Some threshold must be passed to maintain it. Why not a rip in space-time? Cern has been talking about trying to create micro black holes with a bigger accelerator, what are the odds its a charged particle?

[mrg]

Lower energy collisions don't leave behind a charged particle.

 

The photon has to have enough energy to generate the mass of the positron-electron pair.

[mrg]

 Cern has been talking about trying to create micro black holes with a bigger accelerator, what are the odds its a charged particle?

 

Negligible -- Wikipedia:

 

A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature.

Edited May 29, 2017 by mrg

[AmishFighterPilot]

Negligible -- Wikipedia:

 

A charged black hole is a black hole that possesses electric charge. Since the electromagnetic repulsion in compressing an electrically charged mass is dramatically greater than the gravitational attraction (by about 40 orders of magnitude), it is not expected that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature.

What about a charged white hole?

 

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981MNRAS.194..161B

Edited May 29, 2017 by AmishFighterPilot

[mrg]

What about a charged white hole?

 

CERN is working to create black holes.  There is no mention of any agenda to create charged black holes or white holes.

Edited May 29, 2017 by mrg

[exchemist]

Also, rest mass converts to energy at e=mc2. Its inverse square. It can go outward indefinitely, but if you reverse the equation it should only go to unity right? We know, however that energy doesn't gather and condense back into matter.

This is believed not to be the case. Many models of the the big bang hypothesis assume precisely the process of radiation condensing into matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang See section on "Inflation and Baryogenesis."

[AmishFighterPilot]

This is believed not to be the case. Many models of the the big bang hypothesis assume precisely the process of radiation condensing into matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang See section on "Inflation and Baryogenesis."

Certainly a fascinating topic, but I'm not sure it suggests that energy can condense in our current universe

[exchemist]

Certainly a fascinating topic, but I'm not sure it suggests that energy can condense in our current universe

The big bang is a model for the evolution of our universe, though this process does not describe current events it is true.

 

But what about absorption of radiation by matter? Is that not energy "condensing"? You start with some matter and some radiation. And you end with just matter, the radiation having made the matter a bit heavier, in accordance with your beloved formula.

 

(And if you insist on pure radiation-to-matter conversion, you can look up "pair production".)

Edited May 29, 2017 by exchemist

[mrg]

(And if you insist on pure radiation-to-matter conversion, you can look up "pair production".)

 

Been there, said that.  Didn't make much impression.