Lakshya

He didn't say that they can, only that you have not demonstrated that they cannot.

 

Also, mathematicians have no trouble counting some infinities, but larger infinities are uncountable.

So, can u tell me what is smaller infinite and what is larger infinite? LOL. U have created these ones also. Don't mind at the way of my talking but u r saying absolute nonsense.

you haven't provided a reason why it absolutely cannot be infinite.

 

and 'i can't imagine it being infinite' is not a valid logical reason.

Look, the creaton takes some time. And infinite creation is possible in infinite time not in finite time.

Why? This is not supported by anything.

Ooooooooooooh so you say that infinite universes can be created in a finite time? I say, to you the universes that will be created will be finite but still uncountable as the no. will be so huge.

How can there be "too many" universes? There are an infinite number of them.

Read it carefully. In a finite time only finite universes can be created.

I don't really get it and I find it difficult the way you think what "universe" is! I think that your "universes" are actually different frames of reference! And from different frames of reference you might think that you're seeing or feeling things differently, but that actually is only from your frame of reference, because someone else who's not looking things in the way you are, will get different conclusion about what you think you are feeling different from the others. But one thing that is interesting in all this, is that you and the other guy from a different frame, do not contradict each other, you have different conclusion about the same thing, but that both are right depending from your frame of reference. Observers from different frames of reference do not contradict each other!

Excuse my rookiness (I'm not even sure that you were talking about this)!

No, I am not saying about this. I am talking about the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and which by your answer doesn't look that you know MWI. Please don't mind, but your answer was related to Relativity and the thread is posted under Quantum Physics.

Excuse me, if you find my answer harsh. Sorry.

Can anybody please answer 3 questions realted to MWI:

i)Suppose I measure anything, then I will also be divided into two different universes according to the no. of probable things. But I don't feel any change. I think everything is going continous. But if it really divides where does 'I' go. I don't feel any change. What thing my mind thinks? Where does that previous 'I' go?

ii)Suppose there's a match between India and Pakistan going on. There will be many events in the match and hence too many universes will be created. But the result will be either India wins or Pakistan wins. So, different results will happen in different (too many) universes. So, I think all the universes will combine in 2 universes according to the result. Can this happen?

iii)Suppose an electron is in a superposition of 2 states adn the probability is 0.8 for A and 0.6 for B. Then according to MWI both the things will happen in 2 different universes. Then what's teh matter of probability here if both the things happen?

If you are going to use thought experiments to prove something, you will only prove it in your own mind. Prove it the right way and do the experiment. But since you want to use thoughts to prove your point, then think about this. If you had a situation with no mass and no motion, you could still have this time period of no mass and no motion. This thought experiment has to take place somewhere so this somewhere would exist for a time period with no mass and no motion. Just a thought.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your equation proves that if we stop everything in the universe then everything will vanish. Vanish to where? Where is all of this going?

 

You say that this can be accomplished by stopping time. How do you stop time? Are you saying that time is something that can be stopped? How long can this time thing be stopped? How fast is this time thing moving? Stopped in what way? Stopped vibrating? Stopped how?

 

I could go on and on about how absurd this idea is, but I think you get the point.

 

 

Use established facts to base your thought experiments on.

Look acc. to the above mentioned proofs everything should vanish. But in a stable atom there r still electrons and nucleons which don't becoem stable. So, we have to make them stable at any cost. I can think of 2 options from here. One, stop time or another reach 0 K. WE can't practically achieve these things. Bcoz the thing on which we r trying to achieve these things has soem resistence. It doesn't want to vanish as acc. to the above proof in that post. So maintain in the universe the resist and so we can't reach teh extremes. Third thing now came in my mnind is to reach c.

Look, suppose we are trying to know the mass of photon at rest. We don't know it's rest mass. So we put it in a thought experiment at rest and then examine the situation. And in my explanation, when we put it at rest, then we receive it's mass=0 and it can't be at rest what you gus are saying.

A photon at rest is not a valid reference frame.

U don't understand. We are taking the 'out of universe' view. Suppose we are God, then we can stop the photon to analyze it.

E=0??? That sounds kinda unphysical you know! After all, matter is energy and energy is matter, you can prove this by the same equation you used above (E=mc^2).Every single body that reaches the speed of light, it's matter is completely turned into energy, and it also has no time (only for outside observers as the time deviation goes infinite). So saying that E=0 is the same as just saying "no mass, no existence", and we know that photons exist.

It sounds kinda weird!!!

You know that I am talking the photon to be at rest and at rest it's E is 0 and when it's moving then it's not. What's your question then?

u all should see that you are contradicting thge first part of my theory with the second part of the theory. Look carefully at it and try to imagine the whole scene first.

yes, this is true for objects at rest. can you tell me what a photon is not at? begins with an r ends in t and has es in the middle and is only 4 letters long.

 

looks like your derivation faceplanted itself at the starting blocks without even making it to the first hurdle.

Look insane alien, I am doing a thought experiment to find the rest mass of photon = 0 and that's why I had to take it at rest.

time requires change (twice), the distance between this changes is Time.

nothing else, it really IS that simple.

 

no Mass, no Motion per se, or matter.

Yeah you are right but I have given proof of the statement you just said. Otherwise, you had to use common sense to find the answer and I have just presented you a proof.

Yeah---(s)he has tacitly assumed that there is a good frame where one can take the photon at rest. But one of the postulates of SR is that there IS NO such frame. So (s)he's using the results of SR (specifically mass-energy relationships) in a frame where SR doesn't hold.

Didn't you read that we should be outside the universe to watch this event happen? It's just a thought experiment, my friend.

well, it's an unphysical condition. all matter might as well spontaneously turn into humourously shaped sponge cakes for all the difference it would make.

I haven't said a single thing about 0 K.

well, it's an unphysical condition. all matter might as well spontaneously turn into humourously shaped sponge cakes for all the difference it would make.

I haven't said a single thing about 0 K.

Hey guys, today I found a great thought experiment to prove that time can't exist without mass and motion. It can be found by proving photon's rest mass = 0. I don't know the actual derivation. So, I have made my own derivation (this is the one I made to prove photon's m = 0 to my friend). Let's start:

E=mc^2 (Rest energy equation)

E/c^2=m=0 (To prove)

We know that c^2 is a constant so if we want to prove m=0, we will have to prove E=0. Let's take another formula:

E=hv

So, we can prove it by this equation. As we are taking the photon to be at rest, there is no frequency at rest. It will have no frequency. So, we will get E=h*0=0. Putting it in the previous equation, we get m=0. That's how I proved it. But today I thought that in this way everything at rest will vanish from the universe.

Okay let's take this experiment. Suppose we stop every matter in the universe. Then everything will vanish according to the above proof. So, anybody outside the universe will never be able to sense that there's a thing like time.

And this state of stopping everything can be achieved by stopping time. Everything will come to rest and will vanish from the universe.

Hence, we can derive that mass and motion can only exist when time exists or conversely time only exists when mass and motion exist. If time exists and mass and motion don't exist, then we can never feel time. We get that feeling when anything comes into motion. So, both are true.

Thouhts please.

It is not the discontinuity which is a problem. After all, you don't have to imagine this as gravity. You could have some hypothetical potential which was like gravity on one side of the line and zero on the other, and just because we don't know how to make it does not invalidate your argument. It shouldn't be discontinuous, but a very steeply varying function which goes from 0 to your required value within the width of a superstring would do fine.

 

The problem is that you are actually missing an energy in your calculation. Since the field is zero above the plane, the potential energy is also zero. So to move a link of the chain from one side of the plane to the other, you need to apply a force (and put in enough energy to overcome the potential). So your chain is not in free-fall with an acceleration g - you have to remove the acceleration due to the force at the barrier.

 

So it is not very suprising that you energy is not conserved - you have missed a bit.

 

However, you may be thinking instead of the potential not being zero above the plane, but just flat (so there is still no apparent force). Then you don't need to expand much energy pushing the links of the chain over the edge. Physically you could think of this as the chain being on a high up shelf of ice. One link falls off (blown by the wind or something) and the rest follows. But that is a perfectly normal scenario and I have even seen it used as an exam question. There is no conservation of energy problem there. Neglecting air resistance, each link will hit the ground with a speed [math]v=\sqrt{2gh}=\sqrt{2 \times 9.81 {\rm ms}^{-2} \times 20 {\rm m}} = 19.8 {\rm ms}^{-1}[/math] just like usual, conserving energy.

Please explain yourtself as I am unable to understand you.

Lakshya---

 

There is a discontinuity in the metric. The manifold you are describing is not smooth and differentiable everywhere---it is not a manifold at all.

 

In less technical terms, you can't go from ``gravity'' to ``no gravity'' across a boundary.

 

I think.

You can think of it as that something is accelerating it upward by an acceleration of 9.8 m/s. Then it would stay at its position as the no effects of gravity are felt. How can you say that it is not smooth and differentiable everywhere? It is.

You've described a non-physical situation so it's not surprising that our laws of physics do not hold true.

How is it a non-physical situation. If this is a non-physical situation then SRT which uses Minkowski space is also a non-physical theory.

a problem.....pls check..

imagine theres a horizontal planeA bove which the effects of gravity are not felt. any object above the plane just floats and gravity has no influence on it.

now take a chain(for e.g:made of small steel ring) of length hundred metres above the planeA and arrange it so that its in a heap just above the planeA. but take care the chain is not entangled and should be easy to stretch along its length.

now pull the lower end of the thread below the planeA and the chain runs down like a single thread and hits the ground and as links pull down on the ones they are linked to , the whole length of the chain will run like a thread and hit the ground in some time. now take planeA is 20metres above the ground surface. the terminal velocity of links when they hit ground will be around 14 metres .

now consider hundred metres of the chain weighs 100 units. the potential energy of the chain just above the planeA will be m*g*h =100 *9.8*20

=19600 units.

but kinetic energy recovered would be 1/2 * m * v*v = 0.5 * 100* 14 *14 = 9800 units. so in this method only half the energy is recovered hence violating the law of conservation of energy.

SIMPLY PUT, THERES DIFFERANCE IN ENERGY RECOVERED WHEN U TAKE 100 METRES OF CHAIN TO HEIGHT OF 10 METRES AND DROP IT AS WHOLE TOGETHER THAN WHEN YOU ARRANGE IT SO THAT IT RUNS DOWN LIKE A THREAD , EACH LINK PULLING DOWN ON THE OTHER LINK IT IS CONNECTED TO...

now what will the terminal velocity be when the planeA is above 40 metres...?

i guess its around 19.6m/s instead of 28m/s......

ur thoughts pls correct me if im wrong...