Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SamBridge

  1. I guess there were other particles though even if there weren't photons which I hadn't considered before, I guess it could be possible to see something closely resembling an ultra-high density of a particular particle, but otherwise you're right, so I don't see how we're suppose to confirm everything else about what's prior to that. You have predictions like "a few nonseconds after the big bang..." but there's no way to know that, so what are we suppose to do to actually confirm anything? :facepalm:
  2. No one's asking how all of physics would work without all of physics, someone is asking how specific pieces of physics would work if only a specific piece was changed like in every single respectively newer theory ever conceived in the history of man kind. Then think of the speed of information as an environmental factor. Except saying relativity is being rejected is just a strawman to avoid answering a question. I specifically said the purpose of the question was to observe the importance of other variables by observing contrasts the effects laws working differently. IF someone was transported, we know even without speculation, both clocks could not be near each other and simultaneously both be younger than each other. We don't even need mathematics, we just use what we already know to determine that even though we say that such a circumstance wouldn't happen.
  3. The article I posted said over 13.7 billion years, but we still see no giant explosion or even incredible density, all we see are things fading away. If we have a telescope that can see 15 billion years, are we ever going to see an almost infinitely dense object that is exploding or any sort of spontaneous creation of matter, energy and space or even quark-gluon plasma? It doesn't seem like we will from any frame of reference. Well we don't know for sure what actually happens "at" the speed of light, tachyon physics suggests it doesn't matter much what's before or after the speed of light and that time may count in a different direction, just at the speed itself is what matters and not 100% before it because you still get a division by zero. Maybe there is some kind of infinite time dilation, but I don't think we'd actually measure it as such, we'd see them only indefinitely approach being frozen and red-shifted before some other variable we forgot to consider like event horizon growth swallows them. As far as I know, if you only consider classical relativity, gravity only propagates at the speed of light, so a change in the event horizon would otherwise never happen faster than light, but we also model black holes as changing in size from outside inertial frames because we need to in order to explain how black holes in the centers of galaxies got to be so big and also Hawking Radiation says they evaporate which scientists are now attempting to use in some fashion to explain how matter and energy we see came from a super-duper huge black hole-like object that was evaporating to create a big bang. Instead of saying "infinitely dilated" I would just say 'indefinitely" dilated and that something redshifts enough that we can't see it anymore, but as you said a particle itself should measure everything normally and pass through the event horizon like nothing happened, except when they look back up, they will see the universe very differently. On the interior of a black hole, if you look at the "ball on a net" model, do you think the curvature of space-time ever exceeds 90 degrees? In the ergoshere of a rotating black hole which is a lot more closely related to the geometry of space-expansion than a gravity field, it's a different type of curvature that does permit superluminal travel, one that apparently doesn't happen asymptotically like gravity does. If you have a really massive star, there is no amount of time that you can spend free-falling towards it that will get you past the speed of light, and that's due to the fact that the curvature of space caused by non-rotating gravitational fields is hyperbolic in nature. Inside a black hole, we still don't know exactly how time would act. Why wouldn't someone in a black just observe the entirety of all events in the outside universe happening all at once if the rest of the universe is counting time that much faster? If you traveled at the speed of light, you could speculate a similar thing happens since you travel indefinite distance without time passing, supposedly, it's like saying finite velocity = infinite velocity, it's weird, it doesn't make sense, there's still some things to work out.
  4. There use to not be relativity, newtonian physics, string theory, quantum physics, thermodynamics, ect. It's completely ridiculous to suggest people do not have the capability to imagine something different or explore other possibilities, there is absolutely zero reason to be afraid of exploring these things and simply saying "what if..." If people didn't say "what if..." science would not exist as we know it today. No one would have said "what if light had a constant speed" "what if time wasn't universal" "what if matter could act like a wave" "what if energy wasn't conserved" "what if c wasn't the universal speed limit" "what if you could bend space," what you're saying is just utterly ridiculous. It's completely possible to speculate on such things, make logical deductions and use mathematics, I already made a hypothesis with black holes and teleportation. In fact, I can do it with known physics itself. What if there was no speed limit like light? Mathematically as c approaches infinity, it takes noticeable longer when gaining velocity before you start seeing the effects of time dilation, so I can speculate that as the speed of light approached infinity, the effects of time dilation and length contraction when accelerating approach 0. It doesn't even have to be a physical phenomena that actually happens, it just has to explore something to see how certain variables work, how important they are, how things might be different, why we see things the way we do by observing contrasts. There's no way you're going to get away with saying "we can't speculate on anything," not with me around. What if gravity was 2 times stronger than it is now? You'd say its impossible to know anything because that's not happening in reality, not to suggest that such a phenomana is impossible anyway since higgs fields have different theoretical excitation states, but any real mathematician in the world would just plug in the numbers or just use simple intuition and see that it takes less mass for stars to super-nova, Earth would have a stronger gravitational field, it would take more energy to get to a greater height, ect. We have multiple models for the universe and how to model phenomena, they can't all be correct, but that doesn't stop anyone from exploring anything and playing around with physics and asking more questions and finding more answers.
  5. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loophole Its the mathematical law that 1/0 is undefined, yet we get close to an apparent answer with limits. http://www.uiowa.edu/~c22m025c/history.html Saying "infinitely small number" didn't work, so limits were devised. If mathematically there is but physically there isn't, then that just proves my point. Limits and real results and logical concepts can agree or disagree at different times, that's it, there's no pattern to generalize.
  6. Even though I don't completely understand it, but It seems like you keep disregarding what everyone else went to great lengths to explain which is that only one twin actually accelerated and every frame inertial frame would know it, the principal of everyone of a certain frame not being able to agree on something only applies to inertial frames, it works different with accelerated frames. If you look at gravitational fields and something moving towards a black hole, every frame in the universe can agree that something is moving from a lower gravitational field strength to a higher one, even if they can't agree on when because of dilation and distance, and that's because a gravitational field creates an accelerated frame of reference from the curvature of space. What's been suggested is that both twins can ultimately agree on which one underwent acceleration, and thus, which twin is younger. And, if time actually did travel slower at the same rate for both frames, that would imply they are in the same frame of reference and thus there should be no reason to see a difference in what they measured of each other If you take away the acceleration and teleport back, I'm not sure what happens when they re-unite. One twin was traveling near the speed of light, so from Earth's frame and the traveling twin's frame, both twins will know that only one twin traveled a shorter measured distance to the star due to length contraction and dilation, that's all fine. What isn't clear is the teleportation thing or a way to analyze what is physically happening, which twin actually experienced less or more time if one happened to teleported back to Earth, if the effects of light travel remained in place but the rate they received information about each other was instantaneous. In fact why don't you answer it. If the traveling twin teleported back to Earth, how would both clocks be slower than each other? If someone went near a black hole and then teleported back to Earth, the black hole traveler's clock should still be slower because only that clock experienced a comparatively higher curvature of space and did not count time in the same metric length (yup) as a clock on Earth, so I know reality doesn't fall apart with teleportation, especially considering wormholes were seriously considered by the scientific community to be physically possible, I know there's potential answers.
  7. Physically, there isn't the potential, there's no physical way to have a sound wave of physically infinite frequency because that would require infinite energy. The limit and the predicted conceptual result of plugging in infinity can differ as much as they agree, you can't generalize 1/0 and 1+x = infinity for all situations, they are indeterminate results and so there's no concise pattern that you can draw, it depends on the situation. Well that's what limits were developed for.
  8. Well we're trying to get a look at the early universe, but if space is expending away from us faster than light at the distance where we say we can see the early universe, no matter where we look from we can't get a visual confirmation of it, so how else are we suppose to prove it? If we travel 13.8 billion light years to where we think we can see the early universe, we just see the same effects on our previous position and a bigger observable universe, unless for some weird reason there just happens to be a line that somehow has nothingness outside of it and somehow Earth actually is the literal center of the universe. I just don't understand how scientists are eager to look at the early universe and act like we proved what happened with the big bang when according to our own models there can't be a physical way to prove it.
  9. And at 13.3 it doesn't look like galaxies are almost traveling near the speed of light? And what about this one? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/10400568/Furthest-known-galaxy-found.html And, if things disappear after 13.8 billion years or whenever the hubble volume is, how are we suppose to view anything resembling a big bang? If we're really the center of the universe why don't we just look for remnants of the biggest black hole ever our solar system? But we don't actually model it like that, what it models like is anywhere we go, we observe things expanding away in a sphere, and that's probably because the big bang wasn't an "explosion" so much as a creation of space.
  10. But this is somewhat different than a black hole because the gravitational pull of a non-rotating black hole doesn't cause things to accelerate past the speed of light, they accelerate space-time differently. At a certain distance from us, there should theoretically be an acceleration where space accelerates faster than light and thus photons can never reach us from that distance away, but this is not true of black holes, there is merely a distance where time dilation becomes so extreme it may appear to stop from an outside frame or 4-D curvature becomes enough that light waves can't travel outward. But, if we teleported to that point that distance away where the expansion of space didn't permit photons to reach Earth, we would see the same thing happen to Earth where it started disappearing as it got further away, even though we know Earth isn't being ripped apart or traveling backwards in time from super-luminal travel. I mean of course we'd say the Earth is the center of the universe, that's the point where we'd spherically observe everything from, otherwise I also see no evidence to suggest the big bang happened as a spherical explosion few miles away from my house, and the same effects we observe from Earth should happen from any other point in the observable universe. I thought being frozen was an old model with Swarchild mechanics and now we actually have accurate models than can model particles as they travel past the apparent horizon of a black hole. Red-shifting makes sense, but it doesn't really make physical sense that we'd see a physical object stuck at the horizon, because if they did stay frozen, we should never measure the black hole gaining mass and growing a horizon, but since it did, its event horizon would extend engulf a previously un-engulfed point.
  11. How come we haven't actually seen galaxies moving at near or past the speed of light or disappearing into going past the speed of light at 13.8 billion light years away if space is expanding faster than light after the hubble volume? And so how is the observable universe exceeding the hubble volume?
  12. "If the potential is measured similarly"? I don't know what that means. Are you tying to say the lim(1/x)x->0 = infinity is the same is plugging in 0 in 1/x? Sometimes there's evidene to suggest it is, sometimes there isn't. A sonic boom mathematically gives you sound waves that approach infinite frequency, but you never physically see a sound wave of infinite frequency. A limit may coincide with results or it may not coincide with results, infinities and divisions by zero are indeterminate on their own, there's no generalization that can be made about what they will "always" do, it depends on the specifics of the situation they are more of a test or a loop-hole to deal with instances where you can't just plug in numbers. Paradoxes don't have to rise if you treat it mathematically, or if you don't think of time as some special dimension that means everything. If before the big bang, time existed, then we just start counting into negative numbers on the timeline before the big bang and say all the matter and energy was some random fluctuation. If you say the big-bang was when time was created instead of just the matter and energy we see which there's no particular reason to believe, it only has paradoxes if you say it started at some arbitrary number like 0 and then imposed out of no where that it wasn't allowed to pass for a certain amount of time, since there's no real explanation for why it wouldn't pass. Everything we know says time does pass, if everything was in a singularity, then everything would have had the same frame of reference and time would have still passed for all the matter and energy inside that singularity. Saying when a mathematical construct (like the number line of time) was created can't really mathematically tell you about what went on before it was created. That's like asking "how did we calculate 1+1=2 before we had 1+1=2" the answer is we didn't, there was nothing to calculate. If time didn't exist prior to the big bang, there was no dimension to constitute any finite duration of time that the observable universe existed as a singularity for, and that's it, and but only comes from saying time had an arbitrary starting point, you're trying to apply it's own counting system to mathematics where it can't count, like saying "can you do something you can't do"? I don't think time likes it when you tease it like that, and on its 13.8 billionth anniversary too.
  13. If you had a secondary "target" with color charge AND the gluonic fields could reach it like a magnetic field could between two pieces of metal, sure, but gluonic fields have limited range so in reality they never would do such a thing beyond a few fermtometers, which is why they are only transmitted between nucleons and quarks. And you can't loophole that range limitation either, not without some real hard-core sci-fi no-evidence-for physics. I also don't see what lead ions have to do with anything, sounds like an old cold-fusion scam.
  14. Force has to be transmitted between two things, you can't just bombard something with gluons at a large distance and expect anything to happen, and that would be really hard considering gluons only have a range of a few fermtometers. It's also impossible to isolate gluons as far as we know anyway because of color confinement. The gluons hold together quarks and nucleons so well and only amounts of energy strong enough to create more particles can break the bonds, so whenever you try and create free-gluons, you only end up creating more hadrons that they are attracted to. Gluons don't "compose" atoms in the sense you think of, but they hold mass-full particles together through their color charge and also account for most of the energy that an atom has. The important thing to understand about bosons is that they don't "comprise" things, they mediate things, they interact between different fields in order to transmit a force from one field to another.
  15. But so what? If it happens it happens, if it doesn't it doesn't. Well a flower isn't a big bang or a singularity and doesn't approach infinity in any similar way to those objects. He said it himself, no time passed, so I can extrapolate that therefore, there was zero time that the universe was non-existent for if what he said is actually true. You keep saying potential as if it's a real thing, but all you're really saying is "we didn't confirm it yet." or "we didn't get to it yet." Limits deal with infinities because infinities and divisions by zero are often indeterminate on their own, they could literally yield any answer, you could literally put 0 into a something else any amount of times you want, but, there's no mathematical property to determine how many times 0 actually goes into something. So, the specific equations that involve those things use limits as a loop-hole to see what happens at infinity and divisions by zero in specific circumstances, that's all they are, loop-holes. And I also don't see the value in what you're saying. So what if a finite number never gets to 0? So what if an infinity small divisor does? The limit and the proposed value agree. We say but can't prove it's infinite, and we also say the limit approaches infinity, so two different engagements agree, so we might as well treat them as the same thing if we have no more evidence to consider. Or what about sin(x)/x? Visually and philosophically, it looks like the ratio approaches 1 when x approaches 0, and mathematically, we define that limit as approaching 1 anyway, so we have some evidence to suggest that sin(0)/(0) = 1 for that specific circumstance if we express those numbers as directly relating to the scenario we proposed. On its own, sin(0) would just be another random constant, but the difference is that we assign meaning to those numbers and what they represent when we use a limit on a visual reference, like angles and ratios. Similarly, we say space extends indefinitely because we can't find a boundary, but also say it could be mathematically infinite because flat space doesn't loop back in on itself and "nothingness" has no dimensional size. We see no boundary, we keep counting distance with ease, so we just assume it's infinite, we don't have a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise. "Potential" is more like a test, like a limit, a loop-hole to see what the answer likely will be since we can't just plug in values, so it can easily agree with a logical concept or result. Physically, we say based on our observations, the universe appears to get denser back in time. You could say it has a "potential" to be infinitely small because the limit of its density as time approaches present time minus 13.8 billion years approaches infinity, so that combined with our knowledge of black holes, we say the observable matter and energy was some nearly infinitely small, singularity-like sphere or point. If you talk about "potential energy" that's a whole different thing.
  16. I use to think it could work like that too, then I saw this topic and got involved. Regardless of simultaneity, as you said which was my exact point I was trying to confirm or deny, "Each will see the other twin's clock as ticking slower than their own by the same rate as long at they see the other receding." I think I'm starting to see that the problem with THAT is that you'd need some other frame of reference, otherwise how could you know that they both tick slower by the same rate? Earth certainly doesn't think its own clock ticks slower. As I said, black hole. If the effects of time dilation are physically real and not just some illusion that involves the Doppler effect, then it doesn't matter how long photons take to reach anything, the curvature of space will still slow a clock down and Earth will say the black hole traveler is younger when the traveler teleports back. You didn't really think you were getting out of it that easily did you? Why would I bother to bring it up if anyone would be satisfied with a lack of even a single attempt at an answer? Would you observe someone being in two places at once? Probably, they'd teleport but the light from their previous position would take a finite time to reach Earth, but, I don't care, because all I'm investigating in that scenario is the nature of just the time dilation, not in combination with relativistic velocity acceleration with the traveling twins yet, just the physical ticking of the clocks.
  17. Well if there's no physical space that's not a "potential infinity", it's simply not infinite space. But, we don't really have enough information to determine what type of situation the universe was created from anyway, I just thought it seemed weird to use that explanation to say that the universe wasn't infinite because it would imply the universe was never nonexistent which is sort of paradoxical because then you should have infinite space if there was no amount of time that passed where space wasn't in existence. Is there an actual difference in this scenario between saying "infinite space" and "space extends indefinitely, we keep counting units of distance with no end in sight" since we don't have any reason to put a boundary on space?
  18. I'm not talking about how long half the experiment is, I'm asking if they observe the same time dilation of each other, not if they observe the same length contraction to the star. They definitely wouldn't have a reason to observe the same length contraction from a point to the star because the star is stationary from only one twin's frame. The problem I'm asking about doesn't come from them disagreeing on how far away the star is, it comes from them disagreeing about what they see of each other. The basis of the paradox, they should both see each other dilated the same but they can't both be younger at the same time. It's what they constantly see of each other in the first half that doesn't uphold the paradox that I don't see, and I think that has more to do with the relativistic Doppler effect. Ok, that's what I wanted to confirm. Maybe they don't agree on how long it takes to get to the star, but now I want to ask, can I extrapolate that they still observe the same time dilation of each other for that first half if they had good enough telescopes to constantly observe each other? Then, I think the explanation to that one will help, because that's really a main component that I've been asking about the whole time. Now maybe if all the previous stuff is good, we can move on to one other scenario which will hopefully make it clear. Let's say out of sheer coincidence, every atom of the traveling twin spontaneously teleported back to Earth as per their indefinite mathematical probabilistic boundaries hypothetically mathematically allowing them to do so even though that would probably never happen. Who will have aged less? And then, let's say they repeated the experiment, but the traveling twin only teleported after the turn around, no room for Doppler shift and illusions of light waves piling up or being in further intervals apart. If this happened would they observe light from them and say they are in two places at once? Sure, the spacial part of relativity isn't going to like being cut out, but I think isolating only what happens to the time is the most important because that's what the paradox is ultimately addressing and it might also show why the relativistic Doppler effect is important and more than just an illusion, why the times are different despite the symmetry in the first half of the experiment, how the clocks match up during the entirety of the experiment. Let's even ask this just to see the effects of the teleportation. If one twin went near a super-massive black hole, then instantly teleported back before any photons got to Earth, would they still be younger? Would being in contracted space have physically caused the clock to actually tick slower? If the answer is yes, we can take it to the next level with when one twin is traveling since we could fall back on the equivalence principal anyway.
  19. Dude, what are you even saying anymore? ONLY the first half of the experiment where no initial acceleration is considered and we're not talking about the turn-around, only twin A and twin B, no one else and no initial acceleration is considered, just only that, don't comment on anything else yet. Is THAT situation situation of only Twin A and Twin B observing each other traveling nearing the speed of light symmetric? An as a separate question to make it very clear to and to answer in a different paragraph that does not try to relate to the first paragraph, is there any physical reason in that scenario why they would not observe the same dilation effects of each other?
  20. Ok, so, if in the first half of the experiment, both frames of reference can agree on how much time has passed up to the turn-around event, but not after, so can we agree that the duration of the trip prior to any turn-around is symmetric? Because otherwise, it's still the same problem as before where I don't see a physical phenomena to account for the physical age difference of why A and B don't observe the exact same dilation effects of each other in just the first part of the experiement. Like I said before if twin B moves away from A at 80% the speed of light, twin B observes twin A moving away at 80% the speed of light instead. Where is the asymmetry in just, only and purely in that scenario with no turnaround even? Let's just make sure that's established. Twin A says twin B is moving 80% c away, so twin B says twin A is moving 80% c away, no one has turned around yet. Is only that scenario symmetric? Or will they both observe the same dilation effects of each other or not?
  21. But what is the physical process that accounts for the relative energy gain occurring considering that quantum mechanical models are widely different than models of waves on a beach? You move towards a photon, an atom absorbs it and gets into a higher energy state than if it were stationary, but you still have the quantum eraser effect, so what physical phenomena do you model to account for the seeming mix of quantum and classical properties? Classical relativistic doppler shift definitely doesn't answer all the questions. I'm talking about a single photon though, a laser is many many photons or even charged particles which would only make the ambiguity of the situation easier to brush off as a classical notion. As I said, from a classical stand-point it could at first make sense, but the problem with that is the fact that photons aren't completely classical, there's phenomena that don't act like waves on the beach, you don't run into the rest of an individual photon over time, as soon as its definitely absorbed and not just decohered, it collapses to a measured point, the rest of the proposed physical component of the photon is subject to the quantum eraser effect whereby the probability of its spacial distribution instantaneously disappears with the determining of its exact properties and it no longer has any wave-like nature. Originally, it would have made sense to me, but after reading through a debate and looking at particle physics, Swan and the rest of the internet made it really clear that photons don't work completely like waves on a beach.
  22. Exactly, so how do you constantly measure physical oscillations over time like waves in the water? As soon as its observed you get a quantum eraser effect, my moving towards the photon shouldn't have any impact on the photon at all while its traveling, and that's why there's no measured energy gain in the photon from an outside frame. It simply does not make physical sense to model it as if you're on the beach, neither the ocean nor its waves spontaneously disappear when one wave takes the time to hit the shore. In fact, even after a single wave hits the shore, the energy continues dispersing through the rocks.
  23. So how can the first part of the experiment be symmetric if A doesn't actually observe the same effects as B and only one experiences a greater specific time dilation? I thought both you and swan said that it actually was symmetric in the first half, then you said But for A the situation isn't symmetrical 'up until the time of the turn around'" which implies it's symmetric after the turn-around and "Twin A experiences aging from 1 to 2 without a turnaround" si it's not symmetric prior to the turn around? What do I do with what you said there? It's like you threw away what you said in the first paragraph. But, assuming the part of what both said is correct which is that it's symmetric in the first half, and we have two twins that are constantly trying to observe each other, you're saying the asymmetric comes at first from the fact that traveling twin B has already turned around hours ago by the time Earth twin A has observed the photons that suggest the twin has turned around, so B says the turn around happened at a later time than A, and by that time, A is already well on it's way back to Earth, so A should arrive there somewhat before B says it should have, making A younger?
  24. I'm not going to bother looking through a year of topics, you know what you know, and I know you know your description isn't fully accurate according to your own past explanations. Sometimes I said stuff that I know isn't 100% is current but could do for the situation and no one called me on it, so that doesn't really mean anything if no one calls you on it, you're not even considering the fact that people wouldn't question you because they'd assume you're correct. I know you know that you can't model a photon just like any macroscopic substance, and I'm sure most others with knowledge in the field like some of the staff members would agree but simply didn't bother to say it because they don't want to argue with someone else who's a staff member. Your description contradicts what you specifically said, you specifically said it wasn't the thing you just said it was in this topic, it specifically doesn't physically work like that according specifically to what you said. This is just a case of you not taking the topic seriously, nothing more.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.