Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Moronium]

Are you talking about physics or metaphysics?  The degree of ambiguity and the sheer amount of raw speculation makes me think of a couple of medieval scholastics arguing about how many needles could dance on the head of a pin, ya know?

[Vmedvil2]

Are you talking about physics or metaphysics?  The degree of ambiguity and the sheer amount of raw speculation makes me think of a couple of medieval scholastics arguing about how many needles could dance on the head of a pin, ya know?

 

No, this is very valid question if light travels as fast as you possibly can then, how fast is Dark Energy traveling, so physics.

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1210.5505

Edited July 3, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Farsight]

There is no frame I am aware of. Attempts to measure Lorentz violating theories have turned up nil results. 

I'm what you'd call a "relativist". I'm forever referring to the Einstein digital papers. But I think there's a patent example of Lorentz violation out there. Gamma ray bursters.

[Moronium]

 

In the GPS system, the satellites are not travelling in a straight line but are in circular orbits around the Earth. Moving in a circle means they are in a constant state of acceleration with respect to the Earth-centered reference. This results in asymmetrical time dilation of the satellite clocks, under both SR and GR.

 

Therefore, neither of these cases can be used as an argument for a violation of reciprocal time dilation.

 

 

I don't think it's quite accurate to say "under SR."  SR simply does not apply.  We're out of the "special" realm now.  General physics does apply, of course. But I agree that under general physics (as with preferred frame theories), the satellite would "see" it's own clock as moving slower, not faster.

 

When could SR ever be tested, one way or another?  Virtually every instance cited as "proof" of SR has involved experiments on or from (a non-inertial) earth.  Particle accelerators, where the particles take a circular path themselves, would simply compound this problem.

 

Is it possible that SR has never actually been tested?

 

Well, let's assume that somehow, somewhere, circumstances exist where reciprocal time dilation could be tested.  Are you even of the opinion that, as a matter of physical reality, some test could show two clocks being compared, each one of which has lost more time than the other?

 

Put another way, can't we rule out that possibility a priori, without a test, on the basis that such a result is logically impossible?

Edited July 4, 2018 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

We've been through this, dark energy doesn't travel anywhere, it not a particle per se. It's something related to the vacuum.

 

Even theories which entertain the inflaton, are not priori theories of expansion and really has nothing to do with the accelerated expansion (except for indirect dynamical consequences). 

Well, according to Newton in order to cause a acceleration there must be a force behind it, thus an object or particle or something of substance that is pushing on time-space  causing the force in the direction of expansion. There has to be something behind Dark Energy with stopping power even a Energy is defined as (Energy) = (Force) * (Distance), Dark Energy must have a particle form as well as the wave form that we always see. In order to be even classified as a Energy type Dark Energy must have some sort of physical form rather than just expansion effects.

Edited July 4, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[DaveC426913]

I don't think it's quite accurate to say "under SR."  SR simply does not apply.  We're out of the "special" realm now.  General physics does apply, of course. But I agree that under general physics (as with preferred frame theories), the satellite would "see" it's own clock as moving slower, not faster.

 

(Giving you the benefit of the doubt here:) I'm sure you didn't mean to say this, but ...

 

of course, no observer sees their own time being distorted.

 

When could SR ever be tested, one way or another?  Virtually every instance cited as "proof" of SR

 

I'm sure you didn't mean to say this either, but of course, no one cites anything as proof (whether in quotes or not) in science. Confirmation would be the word you're looking for.

 

Particle accelerators, where the particles take a circular path themselves, would simply compound this problem.

 

The loops are for storage and acceleration. The test chambers are straight. That requires only a passing knowledge of particle accelerators.

 

Even so, any non-inertial effects (such as due to rotation/revolution of the Earth) can be easily factored out.

 

Is it possible that SR has never actually been tested?

 

No it is not possible. It is one of the most well-tested theories in science.

 

Not only is it tested in lab conditions, it is tested in the field.

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the muon decay from particles entering the atmosphere at relativistic velocities. They exhibit measurable time dilation that is in accordance with the theory.

 

It has also been test using atomic clocks in airplanes. Observations match prediction.

 

(GR has also been tested, using atomic clocks at different altitudes. Obsevations again match prediction)

Edited July 4, 2018 by DaveC426913

[Moronium]

(Giving you the benefit of the doubt here:) I'm sure you didn't mean to say this, but ...

 

of course, no observer sees their own time being distorted.

 

 

 

OF COURSE NOT!!!!

[DaveC426913]

OF COURSE NOT!!!!

 

Then you might want to correct it to say what you mean then.

[Moronium]

Then you might want to correct it to say what you mean then.

 

I meant exactly what I said, but I'm not going to try to explain it to you.  Well,  I'll give you a hint:  acceleration.  I'm sorry Dave, but you really don't seem to have much grasp on the issues being raised.  I've heard the faithful recitation of the SR gospel a million times, and have responded to it all it other threads.  I don't plan to do it all over again here.  Those posts were primarily directed to Popeye, who does at least understand what I'm saying, even if he doesn't agree.

 

I'm not saying I'm unwilling to hear the comments of others.  I have heard yours, and some here may find them particularly insightful and helpful.  But as far as I personally can see, you haven't made any substantive response.  You just recite the tenets of your creed, without giving it any thought, it seems.

[Moronium]

no observer sees their own time being distorted.

 

 

I'll go ahead and ask you a question, Dave.  When you're jogging down the sidewalk at a steady clip, do you conclude that you are not moving at all, but you're just running to keep your place in space, like you're on a treadmill?  That the sidewalk is what's moving, along with the houses, etc., you see passing, because the earth has suddenly started moving "backwards" under you, for some unknown reason?

 

If not, and if you understand SR, then you would understand that your time has indeed been distorted.  You would understand that it is your wristwatch which has slowed down, not the clock on the front porch of one of the houses you're passing.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

By the way, Einstein himself addressed this question at one point.  He acknowledged that "no one" would think that the moving train they're riding is not moving, and that it would be absurd for them to think so.  Of course the implications of that admission destroy his theory of SR.

 

So what was his justification?  He said that the important thing was that, in principle, it could be that the train was motionless and that it was the tracks that were moving.

 

Not a very satisfactory answer. The important thing is what it could, in theory, be?  In principle, we could all just be brains in vats.

 

I'm not that interested in what "could be," given the most absurd assumptions.  I'm interested in what is the case, not what "could be."

Edited July 5, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Popeye, they now have atomic clocks so precise that they can measure the difference in the rate at which two clocks tick when the difference in speed in only 20 mph. Guess which clock slows down?  It aint both, as SR would tell you.  It aint the one which isn't moving either, of course.

 

Similarly, the NIST researchers observed another aspect of relativity—that time passes more slowly when you move faster—at speeds comparable to a car travelling about 20 miles per hour, a more comprehensible scale than previous measurements made using jet aircraft.

 

NIST scientists performed the new "time dilation" experiments by comparing operations of a pair of the world's best experimental atomic clocks. The nearly identical clocks are each based on the "ticking" of a single aluminum ion (electrically charged atom) as it vibrates between two energy levels over a million billion times per second. One clock keeps time to within 1 second in about 3.7 billion years (see NIST's Second 'Quantum Logic Clock' Based on Aluminum Ion is Now World's Most Precise Clock) and the other is close behind in performance. The two clocks are located in different laboratories at NIST and connected by a 75-meter-long optical fiber.

 

NIST scientists tweaked the one ion so that it gyrated back and forth at speeds equivalent to several meters per second. That clock ticked at a slightly slower rate than the second clock, as predicted by relativity. The moving ion acts like the traveling twin in the twin paradox.

 

 

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

 

Again, the clock hypothesis says that acceleration has no effect on time dilation, so it doesn't save the theory to say it's not in an inertial setting.  Furthermore, you can trust that these scientists have factored in such considerations.  As predicted by the LT, it is the moving clock which runs slower.  This means, of course, that the stationary clock runs faster.  How the moving clocks "sees" itself is irrelevant.  What it "sees" (thinks) is NOT what determines it's rate of ticking.  It's objective speed does that.

 

At 20 mph, you can look at both clocks at once.  One is ticking slower.  If you want to know which of two clocks is moving relative to the other, see which one ticks more slowly.  THAT will be the one that's moving, according to the LT, which SR adopts, anyway.

 

As this article notes, the twin's clock in the twin paradox really slows down BECAUSE it is the one that is really moving. The earth clock does NOT slow down because, relative to the twin's clock, it is really stationary.  If the travelling twin thinks otherwise, then he is just plain wrong, that's all.  There is no "reciprocal" time dilation.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Popeye, they now have atomic clocks so precise that they can measure the difference in the rate at which two clocks tick when the difference in speed in only 20 mph. Guess which clock slows down?  It aint both, as SR would tell you.  It aint the one which isn't moving either, of course.

 

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

 

This is an interesting article.  These same clocks can measure a difference in clock rates due to the (absolute) effect of gravity, as predicted by GR, by raising one clock a mere foot.  Again, you can simultaneously see the difference.

 

When two clocks are subjected to unequal gravitational forces due to their different elevations above the surface of the Earth, the higher clock—experiencing a smaller gravitational force—runs faster.  Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase.

 

This article is from 2010.  It goes on to say that they think they can improve these clocks to the point that they can tell a difference of only 1 cm in elevation, merely by looking at the time dilation indicated by the clocks.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

NIST scientists tweaked the one ion so that it gyrated back and forth at speeds equivalent to several meters per second. That clock ticked at a slightly slower rate than the second clock, as predicted by relativity. The moving ion acts like the traveling twin in the twin paradox.

 

 

 

It is worth noting that this article does NOT say "as predicted by SPECIAL relativity." Yes, this is what's predicted by relativity, but it's Lorentzian relativity which predicts unilateral clock retardation, not special relativity.

 

Most people would nonetheless probably read this as saying "special relativity."

Edited July 5, 2018 by Moronium

[A-wal]

You're ****ing hilarious! :)

[Moronium]

I'll go ahead and ask you a question, Dave.  When you're jogging down the sidewalk at a steady clip, do you conclude that you are not moving at all, but you're just running to keep your place in space, like you're on a treadmill?  That the sidewalk is what's moving, along with the houses, etc., you see passing, because the earth has suddenly started moving "backwards" under you, for some unknown reason?

 

 

 

Is there anybody who actually thinks that it is what you "think" about your own motion that determines clock retardation?  Like, if you thought you were stationary when jogging, then your watch would NOT slow down, but that if you thought you were moving it would slow down?

 

Anybody?

 

If SR tells you that you MUST think you're not moving, and you obey SR's edict and think accordingly, does that, and that alone, force your watch to refrain from slowing down?  

 

What about a guy jogging toward you? Has the earth suddenly started moving "backwards" for him too, only in the opposite direction?  That would be quite a trick for the earth to accomplish, eh?  Of course in SR, it's easy to say that's what the earth is doing.  Just say it, and you're all done.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You're ****ing hilarious! :)

 

Very insightful, A-wal.