Length Contraction "Seen" with naked eye??

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Can a person be able to see "with their naked eye" length contraction in units of 3mm contract to about .5 mm?"

 

 

If the answer is yes, then their is no need to further add comments, however, if the answer is no, can you " please tell me" how this could be possible' perhaps even in detail...

 

 

Please no joking around about booze nor hallucinates, this is a serious question, thanks

[Klaynos]

Have you done the maths to see the relative speed that would be required?

[mathematic]

Without instruments the answer is no. hje object would be moving too fast to be observed by the naked eye.

[ajb]

Without instruments the answer is no. hje object would be moving too fast to be observed by the naked eye.

I don't think length contraction as ever been directly observed, unless you can point to claims otherwise? It is indirectly inferred and taken into account in heavy ion collisions for example.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Have you done the maths to see the relative speed that would be required?

Not as of yet, but I do have the generalization of Minkoswki Space, Special Relativity and the Lorentz Transformations very understood. And I would rather keep it like this until I understand the meaning of 1..

 

It would be pointless to move forward with calculations..

 

 

 

From what I gather, Minkoswki Space is a light cone to light cone hyper plane reference in two separate dimensions?

 

Special Relativity deals mostly with geometrical positions from persons relative to each other traveling near or close to the speed of light.

 

"Still don't know how this is possible by the way, I never met anyone whom traveled at this speed and came back and told me about their journey..

 

Lorentz transformations I assume deal with the " factors" of the speed of light in relation to Space and Time..

 

 

 

 

The reason I have never done the math on this is because:

 

 

What bothers me about this whole " theory" is that it appears incomplete, and looks like a big mess of things...

 

Minkoswki Space

 

Special Relativity

 

Lorentz Transformations

 

Its a bit much, one theory denotes the other, the other theory supports the other, and yet from what I know, Hendric Lorentz, left science in a mess after his discovery of his Lorentz Transformations..

 

 

I spend much time reading and hours on mathematics, so perhaps maybe too much in-put from what I read online has clouded my perception on the whole of science, I still don't get the point of science integrating math at least in the traditional sense for these Relative Calculations..

 

 

 

 

 

 

In regards to:

 

Minkoswki Space

 

Special Relativity

 

Lorentz Transformations

 

 

What I don't understand is " how" do they all depend on " time" which is " time" dependent on each other..

In other words, how can time, be relative to time, and space be relative to space in the whole of the animating universe..

 

 

1 = time, 1 is used as dx---->0, 1 is a factor of everything, and yet doesn't the speed of light deal in one half's for special relativity as well?

 

 

Derivatives as y = x^2, " a very simple calculation" appears yet attached to this very theory, in where all your derived answers are either missing 1 or have 1 extra and yet 1 again is a factor of everything...

 

 

In this 1 and -1 appear to be entangled, and everything linked to it in the forms of causality.

Yes I know I am sounding philosophical in my expressions, but given the current conditions of this topic can anyone blame me>>?

 

 

Has anyone here, ever traveled at the speed of light and like to share their " Revelation"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

From what I also understand, exponentiation appears to mean several things:

 

It can either make a number bigger, or smaller, it can also represent multiplication of that same number, and yet they are all copies of 1, this does not register correctly...

 

However, I have heard that some particles have been accelerated to speeds close to c, and have proved Special Relativity,,

 

 

HOWEVER, Given the current situation on " forces" at the atomic scale" IE not the same as in the real physical world...

Can this be a valid case of Special Relativity " as a physical fact" between organic humans at larger scales?

 

Meaning humans are bigger than particles right???

 

Or is that just a relative point of view??

Without instruments the answer is no. hje object would be moving too fast to be observed by the naked eye.

What kind of instruments??

 

Can you be specific?

I don't think length contraction as ever been directly observed, unless you can point to claims otherwise? It is indirectly inferred and taken into account in heavy ion collisions for example.

If length contraction has not been directly observed then this " really complicates things"

 

Reason:

 

 

What is the natural human eye's capability of "standard" motion?

 

For example, in computer animation for motions films, they use 30 frames per second,

which gives the illusion of natural movement, of coarse in these frames you can use variable speeds..

 

So long as those variable speeds remain in the " time frame of 30 frames per second,..."

 

Variable speeds give the animation, charector, it allows for variations of movement and please the senses..

It creates a motion film's highs and lows and keeps people interested from start to end...

Having good timing either makes a film or breaks a film..

 

What does this have to do with my OP..

 

It has to do with much, when you think in terms of vision and how objects that reach the speed of light physically contract but have never been seeing with the naked eye,

 

--------->would then appear inconclusive with our day to day notion of " animation."

 

 

Unless of coarse, what we perceive as reality is far different than traveling at the speed of light..

Is that why contraction cant be seen with the naked eye??

 

 

Refraction and other light ' basics" appear to fit quite well with this analogy...

 

 

Sorry I need to mention just this little thing

To add in the Twin Paradox, if one of them was DRUNK all the way, would special relativity still hold true????

Edited May 22, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Mordred]

Here is a list

 

http://www.quantum.physik.uni-mainz...._861(2007).pdf
Length Contraction in Heavy Ion Colliders : http://home.broadpark.no/~ccsernai/Csernai-textbook.pdf

 

Tests of General Relativity

Universality of Gravitational Red Shift : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf
Gravitational Potential at Short Distances : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf
Tests of Lorentz Invariance : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...005-5Color.pdf
Gravitational Red Shift / Pound-Rebka : http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures...avRedshift.pdf
Light Deflection within the Solar System/Shapiro Delay : [astro-ph/0302294] The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results
Lunar Laser Ranging to test Nordvedt Effect : Phys. Rev. 169, 1017 (1968): Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. II. Theory
Hafele-Keating Experiment for Time Dilation : Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains
Thirring-Lense Effect : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03007.html

Edited May 22, 2014 by Mordred

[Iwonderaboutthings]

Here is a list

 

http://www.quantum.physik.uni-mainz...._861(2007).pdf

Length Contraction in Heavy Ion Colliders : http://home.broadpark.no/~ccsernai/Csernai-textbook.pdf

 

Tests of General Relativity

Universality of Gravitational Red Shift : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf

Gravitational Potential at Short Distances : http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/...2-PRL10401.pdf

Tests of Lorentz Invariance : http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...005-5Color.pdf

Gravitational Red Shift / Pound-Rebka : http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures...avRedshift.pdf

Light Deflection within the Solar System/Shapiro Delay : [astro-ph/0302294] The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results

Lunar Laser Ranging to test Nordvedt Effect : Phys. Rev. 169, 1017 (1968): Equivalence Principle for Massive Bodies. II. Theory

Hafele-Keating Experiment for Time Dilation : Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains

Thirring-Lense Effect : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture03007.html

 

I will check them out, but one quick question..

 

Do these test use mechanical devices?

 

If so, would you say Special Relativity And Lorentz Transforms, could be thought of as:

 

Looking from the Outside In??

Edited May 22, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings

[Mordred]

some do, some don't The older, some involve lasers such as the Michelson Morley tests, there is a huge range of tests I added one site on an edit. http://math.ucr.edu/...xperiments.html this site has a huge list of various tests done

[Iwonderaboutthings]

some do, some don't The older, some involve lasers such as the Michelson Morley tests, there is a huge range of tests I added one site on an edit. http://math.ucr.edu/...xperiments.html this site has a huge list of various tests done

The link you provided says error...

 

Thanks for the other I will check them out..

[Mordred]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 

there this one works

Edited May 22, 2014 by Mordred

[John Cuthber]

I'd be hard pressed to detect a change in length of say 1% by just looking. Any change smaller than that and I'd almost certainly miss it.

According to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

I would need to get an object to about 42 million metres per second to get the length to change by 1%.

 

The fastest that any macroscopic (i.e. visible) object has ever been accelerated to is rather less than that.

16,000 metres per second (and the projectile was tiny)

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2020/phys2020_fa07/LectureNotes/nagle_phys2020_fa07_lecture26.pdf

 

So, the simple answer is no, length contraction can't be seen with the naked eye.

 

On the other hand, nor can a virus, but that doesn't stop me getting colds.

[Iwonderaboutthings]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

 

there this one works

thanks

I'd be hard pressed to detect a change in length of say 1% by just looking. Any change smaller than that and I'd almost certainly miss it.

According to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

I would need to get an object to about 42 million metres per second to get the length to change by 1%.

 

The fastest that any macroscopic (i.e. visible) object has ever been accelerated to is rather less than that.

16,000 metres per second (and the projectile was tiny)

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2020/phys2020_fa07/LectureNotes/nagle_phys2020_fa07_lecture26.pdf

 

So, the simple answer is no, length contraction can't be seen with the naked eye.

 

On the other hand, nor can a virus, but that doesn't stop me getting colds.

This question may sound dumb to ask, but does exponentiation have anything to do with length contraction in regards to speed at 1 second?

 

 

When I see 42 000000 and all the zeros I see " distance" in units dependent on time of which I assume is 0

 

Do you see the correlation??

 

I assume its the distance the naked eye cannot see as length contraction similar to what is visible within the visible color spectrum.

 

 

because if this " IE Visible Color Spectrum Has A Limit" could there be an unknown barrier that causes the illusion of length contraction?...Hence, electro magnetism " must " have a medium in which to travel through..and like all mediums I assume they all have barriers of some form...either man made or from nature IE like water, I think I am talking about total internal reflection for water here it gives a good example on barriers..

 

 

 

About electro magnetism

 

 

In this case I speak of how information travels through empty space via electromagnetism.

But I don't this this regards time dilation, or would it?

Edited May 23, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings