Large Hardon Collider

[Woozie]

Someone link me to this disagreement between woozie and max. I think I know enough math now to figure this shit out.

Find any book on modern physics (library or download/torrent one), then read that thread Max linked. You only need to read the first or second chapter (the one on special relativity) and maybe do some of the problems out the back.

[Max™]

Seriously?

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lca.gif

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lcb.gif

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lcc.gif

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm


http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...e_dilation.htm
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...le_paradox.htm
http://physics.gac.edu/~chuck/PRENHALL/Chapter%2029/AABXTFI0.html
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...transforms.htm
http://www.wolframalpha.com/entities...tion/1u/lm/4l/


The effect you are describing is not usually described as the distance between two points actually getting shorter, because that description would only be valid if you considered yourself to be in an intertial reference frame, and you would have to ignore general relativity completely. If you want to assume a scenario in which you instantly reach a relativistic velocity (i.e. there is no acceleration), and instantly decelerate, and there is no noticeable gravitational field, then you could say that the distance was shorter.

Actually you would have to accelerate, and would recognize that any effects which would arise for an inertial reference frame would merely be a result of you experiencing length contraction AND time dilation, while being unable to determine any difference. So you would observe a squashed universe, but to claim that it is actually squashed is a very odd thing to do.


Similarly, the reduced travel time you experience is not a result of you crossing a shorter distance, you can only make that claim in the above scenario with no acceleration at the start/finish of your journey, and only while in the ship.

You're actually adjusting your motion through time while being length contracted, which is consistent with non-inertial reference frames, explains the apparent squashing of the universe while using the ship as an inertial reference frame, and preserves the spacetime interval.



Edit: inb4 nuh, uh, shut the fuck up Max, wikipedia moar.

[Woozie]

I don't know why you insist on bring this argument back up that's already been done. And it's all for no reason. No one else even brought up special relativity. Then you post a bunch of links that all support my point. I don't know what the deal is with that.

Anyways, it should be clear to you by now that no one wants to argue special relativity with you (and you've shown yourself wrong with your links, so now there's no point). So please, just shut up and go read a book. I didn't finish up my math and physics degrees last semester just to argue stuff a strong high school student to understand. I'll tell you what I told you in the last thread: If you still disagree with me, go read a special relativity book (or the links you posted, though you'd get a more thorough understanding by reading the books). There's no point in arguing this when you could just figure it out yourself by reading. If you have a high school diploma, this probably isn't beyond you.

[Max™]

You shouldn't be condescending when you're wrong, the ONLY examples you can find of a statement remotely similar to yours are when they state that from an inertial reference frame one could claim the outside universe was actually being contracted.


Your certainty in it made me go back through and reread to figure out where the mismatch was, because naturally I could have been wrong. I still could not, and still can not find where you got the idea that time dilation actually results from you crossing a shorter distance.

The reason I keep bringing up special relativity is because in general relativity there is never a situation where acceleration wouldn't make it obvious that you were in an accelerated reference frame, and thus that the apparent distortion of the universe was not an actual one.

There is a sense in which you could claim that it is just as valid to say the distances are actually contracting, I understand that, but to do so requires you to only consider your reference frame.


While you are on your way to Betelgeuse and observe that the trip is two light years long, an observer on Earth sees that you crossed 640 light years. If you insist that time dilation is due to you only crossing a shorter distance, there is no way to reconcile these two viewpoints. Nor is there a way to explain why the entire universe was squashed along the axis of your trip, but not elsewhere, and no one else noticed it.

If you on the other hand know that you are moving through time and space constantly, and that there is an absolute maximum amount of change your position in those combined coordinates can take, you would know that sitting at rest or moving slowly through space requires a greater change in your time coordinate.

There is another condition though, the total change in both coordinates MUST remain the same along all trajectories, i.e. the spacetime interval is fixed.

If you move rapidly through space, you must reduce the rate you move through time, producing the triangular relationship with the time axis as vertical, space as horizontal, and the hypotenuse of this right triangle is the interval. Pythagoras ftw, a^2+b^2=c^2, if you want to keep c fixed while increasing b, you've gotta make a shorter.

You're describing a situation where the space axis shrinks, and the motion along the time axis is shorter accordingly. The spacetime interval would also shrink, though this triangle would be congruent with the resting triangle (as you would expect if you consider both frames to be resting), that isn't how relativity works.

[Kaylia]

The point is, it doesnt matter if you define one as static and say the other is changing. No equation is going to break down. The only thing that is changing is your interpretation of the theory, but that's just word, the nature doesnt care about that.

[Cadsuane]

Find any book on modern physics (library or download/torrent one), then read that thread Max linked. You only need to read the first or second chapter (the one on special relativity) and maybe do some of the problems out the back.

Hah... I don't even need to do that. The thought experiment analogy I always use to understand this stuff is the one with the photon caught between two mirrors which simultaneously functions as a clock and a ruler for measuring relativistic time and space dilations, which easily verifies that you're correct. I'm not really sure what Max is disagreeing about.

[Max™]

Uh, it does matter if your definition means the spacetime interval is no longer fixed.

It kinda matters a lot, actually.


What he is describing would require you to toss that away, it would actually fuck up the equations in a major way. Without that fixed relationship in the spacetime interval the whole thing would fall apart like a house of cards, in fact.

That is why it's so baffling that Woozie doesn't see why he fucked up, and amusing that I wound up getting told I must not know what I'm talking about, ironically.



http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ht_clock_2.gif

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ight_clock.gif

Setting the arithmetic aside, the result is simple. Since the light signal must travel so much farther to traverse the rod of a moving clock, it takes much longer to do it. So a moving light clock ticks slower. In this case, for a clock moving at 99.5% the speed of light, it ticks once each ten seconds instead of once each second.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ics/index.html

Uh, if what Woozie says is correct, then the lightclock will be traveling -> that way a shorter distance than 1,185,700 miles as it ticks off 10 seconds, you realize?

[Woozie]

Hah... I don't even need to do that. The thought experiment analogy I always use to understand this stuff is the one with the photon caught between two mirrors which simultaneously functions as a clock and a ruler for measuring relativistic time and space dilations, which easily verifies that you're correct. I'm not really sure what Max is disagreeing about.

He actually shifted his opinion around a bit since and during the original thread. Between that and the fact that he speaks in gibberish, it's hard to tell where he stands at the moment. Also, make sure you look to see what I actually said instead of listening to what he says I said, because there's variation in that too.

[Max™]

You said:

Now let's look at it from my point of view. From my point of view, the distance from Earth to Betelgeuse isn't 640 light years anymore, due to length contraction. Depending on how fast I go, it can be as short as I want it to be. So let's say I'm traveling so fast that the distance between the Earth and Betelgeuse is only two light years. Then, at my speed, it will only take four years to get there and back. So since I was 22 when I left, I'll be 26 when I get back (though it will be year 3280 and the 1280 years will have passed for the people on Earth.

So yeah, the amount of time I age depends on how fast I go.

I said: time dilation isn't a result of you crossing a shorter distance due to length contraction.

I didn't realize that I needed to point out that the interval is a fixed relationship, that increasing motion through space decreases motion through time. Later on I noticed that this didn't seem to be known for some reason, so I pointed it out.

My argument has always been about that.

http://www.pitt.edu/%7Ejdnorton/teac...ight_clock.gif

Setting the arithmetic aside, the result is simple. Since the light signal must travel so much farther to traverse the rod of a moving clock, it takes much longer to do it. So a moving light clock ticks slower. In this case, for a clock moving at 99.5% the speed of light, it ticks once each ten seconds instead of once each second.

If the distance the moving clock covered was shorter, the distance the light had to cover would be shorter as well, and you wouldn't be experiencing time dilation like you normally would.

[Woozie]

lol I literally just hurt my nose with a facepalm. I don't think I've ever done that before.

[Woozie]

Sorry for the double post, but I had to go shower and stuff. Anyways:

This is a debate that just shouldn't be happening. This would be like a bunch of calculus students arguing the Pythagorean theorem. It's something everyone person involved should already be aware of, and anyone who isn't aware of it can easily just go look it up. It's a well-established fact that isn't even debatable. It's not hard to understand. All I can say is that if you still disagree with me at this point, go read.

There's nothing more that needs to be said, and this debate should not continue. If anyone reading this has any questions about special relativity, feel free to ask and we'll answer. But debating the very basics of it is something that just should not continue.

[Max™]

...

So I assume you facepalmed because you realized you were saying time dilation occurs from crossing a shorter distance than you normally would? That you were saying you move through time normally, and that the distance is really contracted?


So you see that you actually cross the full distance through space, and just move slower through time, which gives the appearance of what you described, but crossing a contracted distance in space isn't actually what happens.

[Kaylia]

So you see that you actually cross the full distance through space, and just move slower through time, which gives the appearance of what you described, but crossing a contracted distance in space isn't actually what happens.

Equations don't feel anything and definitively don't give a shit if we say that time was dilated or space was contracted. If you want to demonstrate your point, you have to support it with a goddamn equation that break when you uses one or the other, because otherwise, it's the same thing.

If you're trying to redefine the whole physics, then maybe the argument isn't trivial, but in special relativity, it is. Saying that space is dilated or that time is contracted is the same thing. It's just a different interpretation of the same constant "gamma".



Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

Do you understand the implication of this?

In relativity, the concept of distance is closely tied to the speed of light. It's not just two point anymore in space anymore, it's two points in the spacetime. If you want to base your interpretation of gamma on the archaic concept of "space" (distance) and "time" (which is essentialy what you do when you talk about space/time compression/dilation), you're free to describe the situation the way you want, because it works either way.

[Max™]

...

I am aware that you can interpret it as different rotations through the space portion or time portion.


The problem here is that he is claiming the distance between two points is actually shorter, and that he is moving through time at the same rate as he does at rest.

If this were true you would actually get the opposite effect, I'd think, experiencing a faster rate of time rather than time dilation.


If you put the relativistic d=v*t into different reference frames, yes you will claim a different result for d, but if you're putting that result into the equation you use to get t, you done fucked up something pretty bad.

The problem isn't that there is a single equation which breaks, all of it breaks if you no longer have a fixed spacetime interval, how the fuck can you seriously claim to understand anything about relativity without knowing the interval is invariant?

You can literally produce all of relativity from the idea of an invariant spacetime interval, in the first thread I posted a video where Susskind does just that.

If you increase your velocity, you will see what appears to be a reduction of distances. If you claim this is an actual reduction, and if you then calculate the time you travel based on that new distance, you can no longer transform your frame into another, and you are completely throwing away the most important single aspect of relativity by discarding the invariant interval. The distance you covered minus the time it took to get there, for a beam of light it is set at zero.

Do you not see the difference between:
2 light years - 2 years,
and
640 light years - 2 years?

c²T² - X² - Y² - Z²

[Kaylia]

If you increase your velocity, you will see what appears to be a reduction of distances. If you claim this is an actual reduction, and if you then calculate the time you travel based on that new distance, you can no longer transform your frame into another, and you are completely throwing away the most important single aspect of relativity by discarding the invariant interval.

1 meter is 1 meter in every frame of reference
1 second is 1 second in every frame of reference

If you want lorentz transform to works, you have to clock time with your TIMEX watch, and use a wooden meter stick in every frame.

But that's not what we are talking about. If you're observing another frame of reference, the watch inside isn't going to tick at the same rate, and the meter isn't going to give you the same result. Both time and space changed.

Do you not see the difference between:
2 light years - 2 years,
and
640 light years - 2 years?

c²T² - X² - Y² - Z²

What I see here is someone who didnt check his dimension, you're summing distance and time.

But "c" aside, people in both frame of refence won't use the same value for both X and T (assuming a movement in X). that's why you will obtain the same result in the end.

[Max™]

...

No, one meter in one frame of reference may appear different in another, one second in one frame of reference may appear different in another.

You measure time by the distance it takes a beam of light to cycle through a lightclock, and you measure distance with rulers.


You are right that a watch and ruler in another frame will appear different, but the question is, is this something which happened to the watch and the ruler, or a general change in the universe around them due to their motion?

One of those assumptions makes no sense, assuming the watch and ruler are experiencing relativistic effects can transfer to any reference frame, assuming the space and time they are in is dramatically altered by their motion does NOT transfer.


Similarly, assume you're watching the ruler and watch flying to Betelgeuse from a position perpendicular to the trip, out several hundred light years away from the midpoint of the journey, Betelgeuse, and Earth...


From your position out there in an inertial frame with reference to Earth and Betelgeuse (ignoring their actual motion relative to each other), is the distance between Betelgeuse and Earth reduced to 2 light years?

No, of course it isn't, YET the ruler is shorter, and the watch is running slow.

I've tried to see if Woozie would contradict that version repeatedly, but he still claims it is fine.


As for the messed up units, wtf, seriously, are we talking about the same relativity here?
http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...aru/xyds-1.jpg

http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part1.html
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part2.html
http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part3.html

http://www.relativitycalculator.com/..._invariant.png

I mean, seriously, it seems like if any of you knew what the fuck you were talking about, I'd have to assume you were just trolling me here.

[Kaylia]

No, and here is why

http://thp.uni-bonn.de/Groups/Klemm/data/cy.jpg

[Kaylia]

As for the messed up units, wtf, seriously, are we talking about the same relativity here?

2 light years - 2 years,

1 light year = 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters
year= 86,400 seconds


METERS and SECONDS are differents things. I couldn't sum apples and oranges when I was a kid because they were differents, but it's the same deal here.

[Kaylia]

Triple post, and I don't give a shit

No, one meter in one frame of reference may appear different in another, one second in one frame of reference may appear different in another.

You measure time by the distance it takes a beam of light to cycle through a lightclock, and you measure distance with rulers.


You are right that a watch and ruler in another frame will appear different, but the question is, is this something which happened to the watch and the ruler, or a general change in the universe around them due to their motion?

One of those assumptions makes no sense, assuming the watch and ruler are experiencing relativistic effects can transfer to any reference frame, assuming the space and time they are in is dramatically altered by their motion does NOT transfer.

You need to realize that all your measurement are done Newton style. There is no such thing as a ruler that bind time and space. If something appears deformed in your frame of reference, you're allowed to say it is. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as time dilatation and distance contraction (which is just a question of perspective).

[Max™]

...

Really?

First you're going to handwave with a Calabi-Yau manifold implying string theory, which has background dependency problems, while accusing me of using a newtonian style absolute metric of distance and duration?

What the fuck, no wonder you guys think I'm a moron, you take what I say and assume that I meant the most ridiculous thing I could have meant when I said it.

You need to realize all your measurement are done Newton style. There is no such thing as a ruler that bind time and space. If something appears deformed in your frame of reference, you're allowed to say it is. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as time dilatation and distance contraction.

What in the flying fuck, seriously, why in Thor's name would you assume I was making references to an absolute frame of reference?


Really, you're trolling me here, are you SERIOUSLY arguing that time dilation and length contraction only show up because you are allowed to claim the distortion of things outside of your reference frame as real distortions? Is it like a tax deduction? Maybe that's why I don't get it, here I thought relativity was about the way motion through space and time are interlaced in such a way that you can not distinguish between space and time completely, but apparently it's something the IRS came up with?

Is the Austrian patent office connected to the IRS?


These distortions show up because you are actually moving through time and space differently than you would be in an inertial frame, we can tell that you are not allowed to just declare your frame is fully valid because of general relativity, YET I got asked why I kept bringing up special relativity?

Uh, because there is NO FUCKING WAY TO RECONCILE WOOZIE'S STATEMENTS WITH ANY UNDERSTANDING OF GENERAL RELATIVITY?

In GR you can in fact determine that you are not in an inertial reference frame, as your frame would have accelerated at some point between start and finish, breaking the symmetry between all frames. Only when you are coasting would the symmetry appear again, but you would recognize it as a distortion due to your velocity, not a drastic change in the universe around you.


How someone can have the gall to accuse another of being uneducated while overlooking that is beyond me, honestly.


tl;dr, you niggas need to spend more time on wikipedia it seems, srsly, get on it, you didn't learn certain subjects you thought you learned.