Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SamBridge

  1. If you look at integrals or derivatives or really any concept in calculus, doesn't it seem to suggest that there's cases where infinity and "potential" infinity can be treated as the same thing? Like since I have to add literally an infinite amount of boxes to get the exact area, or get literally infinitely close to a point to get a perfectly accurate derivative. The main problem I think is defining where the difference is between mathematics and the way reality actually works. If I walk two meters per second, did some invisible point on an invisible number line actually get infinitely close to some other invisible point that represents my velocity? Not that I see, but that derivative model can still work. If you have space, and you say "there's no limit to space," why not just treat that as an infinite amount of space? Limits are just loop-holes to originally not being able to deal with infinity, they exist just so that we can get a sense of what a situation is actually like when some variable is infinite because we have no real mathematical way of modeling what infinity really is since we can only define it as a man-made concept and not an inherent part of mathematical logic. Like there's no "infinity" on a number line, there's no defined answer if I say "what's 1/infinity?" Wait, if no amount of time was allowed to pass, doesn't that means there was 0 time that the universe wasn't in existence? How long was the universe non-existent for? Well time didn't exist to count how long the universe wasn't in existence for, so...the universe was never non-existent.
  2. See, that conflicts with something that you yourself said while ago in some other topic, which is that you can't actually physically model a photon that way, and it's because of the property I already described which you also described at a previous point. When you measure a photon, you are not observing millions of atoms over time like a wave, you're observing a single point of a collapsed wave function and you shouldn't have any knowledge of exact position or energy outside of a mathematical model generated by some computer, it's not the same as matter on the macroscopic scale and you yourself said that, I know you have a different explanation that makes more sense, or at least one that doesn't contradict other things you said. Prior to measurement, sure, you can measure a photon's probability as a time evolution oscillation or a wave packet, but that probability model itself isn't doesn't work the same way as macroscopic substances, and I know you know that and that's why I never understand why you keep doing this, I don't know if you're just screwing with me or what. Or you could pull out the equivalence principal and model it as a photon moving into a higher gravitational field, or, more contracted space, and that compensates for the pre-measurement frequency gain that way. Either way, there's a still a gap with the physical mechanism to patch up the apparent crack between relativity and quantum mechanical models that so far is not explained in this topic. If source says they emit a red photon at a certain time, I'm just taking that on pure faith, I have no measured information about the photon that I haven't encountered yet, so I can't know that it's actually "oscillating faster" until I get to it. It might at first make sense to physically model it like any other Doppler effect but when you start considering quantum mechanical models as well, the result isn't as clear.
  3. So you're implying that prior to that turn around it is symmetrical, both observers would observe the same dilation of each other and we wouldn't know which one had "actually" accelerated to get to near the speed of light until one bothered to turn around and come back? delta-tau almost looks like something to do with the arclength equation, and I remember running into that when I was playing around with space curvature on my own. That arclength wouldn't happen to correspond to the direct result of the addition time it would take to travel the extra distance that a near-light traveler would see would it? Because that would make a lot of sense, but I couldn't make as much sense of the situation because I was in purely standard Cartesian coordinates and I didn't know exactly what I was doing, so I have no idea what I actually found, but it looked almost exactly like a relativistic velocity equation.
  4. So what about everything else I said like where the physical mechanism for the energy gain comes from? I understand that if you move towards a photon, you will measure it blue shifting compared to if you measured it while stationary, but what I don't understand is the physical mechanism for how that happens specifically with photons, they aren't exactly brick walls.
  5. So say we do know which one accelerates, but what about that small acceleration changes everything? Or is it actually asymmetrical prior to that as well as md6 was flip-flopping with?
  6. Something about red/blue shifting seems illusionary, or in a way physically non-nonsensical. If I travel towards a photon that's a light year away with 0 matter and energy in between me and the photon, and a source another light-year away said before the experiment began that the photon is red, when I finally run into it, I will measure it has blue shifted. But, where did it gain the energy? If I knew it gained the energy, how did I not measure it before the amount of time it would have taken light and violate causality? The only way I can think it works is some way of modeling is the energy you put into moving towards the photon is in some way proportional to the relative energy you measure it having, more like running into a brick wall at 20kph rather than 1kph, but, I still can't figure out how that physically works. There's also something weird with a physical mechanism for the frequency increase too. A photon doesn't seem to oscillate in a completely physical way, and when you measure one, you have a quantum eraser effect where the rest of the mathematical model of the photon appears to vanish since you narrowed down its position to a single point. So, how can we even possibly measure a photon's "oscillation over time" like a wave in the water when all definite photon measurements only give you a single point and not multiple points over time and essentially erase the rest of the spacial probabilistic distribution of the photon?
  7. Those are the exact things you haven't answered in detail, all you keep repeating some doppler analogy while changing what you say about how it works in and then saying "that's just how SR works." Right, that's what I got, but like what physical effect is there? If someone is in an accelerated frame of reference, they might experience, say, a fictitious force that causes a different measurement. What is that force in this scenario? What about turning around and that instantaneously small moment of acceleration that makes the entire situation asymmetric? Or how about before they turned around? They had to accelerate to get to near the speed of light but still stayed at a constant velocity once they got to that speed?
  8. Probably not, but I still need an explanation to get around the fact that the traveling twin observes Earth traveling in semi circle instead and so should still observe the same Doppler shift of Earth. Ultimately, the traveling twin is going to have more time dilation from Earth's frame of reference making them younger, but I don't see the physical, non-illusion mechanism for how, only in the moment of acceleration. I could see potentially how with the equivalence principal if you treat the object as though its in a higher gravitational field, but the physical, non-illusion part of the relativistic Doppler shift and simpler changing to moving towards to increase time dilation of the traveling twin from supposedly any frame and thus make the traveling twin younger is what I don't see. At whatever respective time they say it takes light to travel the distance between them. See you keep repeating that, but that statement itself isn't the issue, I already know its true and you also keep repeating it. It's how that concept fits in to simply taking a hypothetically instantaneous moment around a star to explain how the physical reduction in aging of only the traveling twin, why that statement is physically true to physically account for what's going on.
  9. But that contradicts what you're saying and I have no idea where you're coming from. You say it's the same before receding, then you say its different, then the same, then different. What am I suppose to make of that? But both observe each other from turning around, there isn't only one turning around. When the traveling twin circles the star from Earth's view to turn around, the traveling twin actually sees Earth turning around instead, they don't see themselves turning around, and it's that principal that is why I can't account for the asymmetry. Still don't see how the physical, non-illusionary happening of of the traveling twin experiencing less time isn't symmetric the whole way or only in the first half or not in only the first half or whatever you're saying now. No matter what you say, it has to be true in some way that both Earth and the traveling twin observe similarities in how they are traveling from each other's frame of reference. If Earth observes the twin heading towards them, then the traveling twin observes Earth heading towards them instead which means they should both observe the same relativistic effects of each other. If Earth observes the traveling twin accelerating away, the traveling twin must instead observe Earth accelerating away and it can't be any other way, and that's why I don't see where the asymmetry is. People can't agree on when they see something happen which I believe we've discussed as it arises from relativistic effects. As far as I know, you said and the article said it fits into this as some illusion created by photon blue shifts to account for the asymmetry aside from fitting into the length contraction and time dilation. Yes many others have made that point, but still not a clear explanation. What about acceleration does this to create the asymmetric situation? Why is it that everyone agrees a certain object is accelerating, and what about this agreement makes the situation asymmetrical when the traveling twin observes the environment and Earth accelerating instead?
  10. Symmetry. Not very clearly. And why? Saying "time slows down near the speed of light" doesn't explain why it isn't symmetric, both observers observe each other moving away from each other near the speed of light, that's the whole problem. Beyond some illusion of photon red-blue shifts, what accounts for the physical asymmetry of the aging, when alternatively, they should both see the same level of time dilation and length contraction in each other? Normal relativity. The concept that everyone is stationary from their own frame of reference and only see other things moving.
  11. The equivalence principal isn't necessary to describe it and that link I posted didn't use it, so an explanation with out it should be simpler, ultimately. But, otherwise the only other way I could maybe see it making sense with it is if you create an additional distortion in space-time around the traveling twin like a gravity field itself to show the traveling twin's acceleration put them in a higher degree of curvature away from Earth's frame of reference. But the same previous problem arises where if say, I'm 1/3 of a radian away in curvature from someone, then that someone will observe me being 1/3 of a radian away from them (not that it works that simply) and so there's still no clear place where the asymmetry comes from. Someone mentioned previously that it was symmetrical for the first half of the trip which if true would mean there's a more real component to the Doppler effect, and if not, back to square one.
  12. What it seems like is: Intuition gives you a weighted idea of reasonable possibilities based on patterns you know. Objective logic narrow's down the pool of possibilities you chose from to only a few, sometimes one, as fitting the patterns you observed. That is why although a mechanic would hear something wrong with a motor intuitively, they wouldn't know exactly what was wrong with it until they had a look and reasoned through what part is missing or damaged and how it affected the rest of the motor. If it helps david, he can think of intuition as the "hypothesis" when starting a scientific experiment since you can't point science in any useful direction without already having some already established notion of what you should be testing in the first place. Though, it would still not be logical to equate logic with reality, which, is why not every logical idea turns out to be true.
  13. It will take some to read over to interpret everything you said correctly, but initially what it sounds like is one of the important differences is that the traveling twin says it's a shorter distance due to the relativistic effects which is maybe how we could say the traveling twin is younger though the asymmetry. The thing is, I just can't help but think about the fact that the traveling twin still sees Earth traveling away at the same speed, and then observes Earth to be returning and then heading towards themselves and why that situation alone is asymmetrical, like if the distance didn't matter, just in any scenario, why the symmetry is broken in reality and not via illusion because of a photon delay in those two instances alone. Earth twin see's traveling twin heading away, traveling twin see's Earth twin heading away at the same speed, and they both see each move in a semi circle around the star when the direction is changing, then both see each other heading towards one another, and in that scenario events, how do we know only the traveling twin has experienced more time dilation or traveled dramatically less measured distance to make them younger?
  14. Waves don't necessary need to have minimum caused by the amplitude that extends below 0. For instance, if I describe a wave through time as x=sin(t) + 1, it only ranges from 0 to 2. And, just as you have mass or no mass but not negative mass, you also have gravity or no gravity but not negative gravity since gravity is directly related to mass, anti gravity would simply require a completely different force.
  15. But that argument alone doesn't work because of relativity itself. If I observe someone traveling away from me, they will observe me traveling away from them.The traveling twin should still measure Earth's clock slowing down because the traveling twin see's Earth accelerating away from them to near speed of light even if everyone on Earth isn't being pushed into their seats, and if the clock didn't slow down and length didn't contract, there wouldn't be a reason for Earth not to accelerate right past the speed of light. It has to be more complicated than that. The Doppler shift drawn in Minkowski space only seems to account for the illusion that the Earth twin sees of the traveling twin and not an actual real, physical component of what's happening. Now if I "assumed" special relativity didn't work in the other direction, it might make sense to say everyone can agree, even the traveling twin, that only the traveling twin is traveling. But I know the spacial and temporal metric contractions work both ways based on what different sources have been saying and the traveling twin doesn't see themselves traveling, only their environment and outside objects. Someone said something about "only one is accelerating like when someone gets pushed into the seat of your car." The supposed force that "pushes you into the seat of your car" is a fictitious force caused by an accelerated frame of reference, that's why I asked what the "fictitious force" of this scenario is, what is the thing that could only happen if someone was accelerating for sure that would account for the age difference as an additional effect that Earth couldn't be afflicted by? We know lorentz's transformations work the same in both directions, so both have to observe each other being affected from relativistic effects in some way, but Earth confirms the twin is younger from these effects, similar to being in a higher gravitational field (though it is not necessary to explain it as such) because of the addition effect of _______________ (fill in the blank) caused by the traveling twin's acceleration.
  16. So if the Doppler effect doesn't matter and "its just the way it is", what of the other things you have not mentioned so far "causes" the situation to be asymmetric? But that's like saying you can't figure out what would happen with gravity in a perfect sphere just because perfect spheres don't exist in reality. With your knowledge of mathematics, when you set the speed of light equal to infinity or if you take a limit with it approaching infinity in this scenario, what happens? How do the other variables change? So then why does it matter if the information takes time to propagate if there's no added effects from the delay? Like I was saying originally, and you said, the effects of time dilation and length contraction are the same regardless of direction, so there's no reason for the dilation alone to cause asymmetry as both Earth and the rocket would see each other traveling at the same velocity from their own respective frames of reference, which means there's some more important factor about the delay in light and direction that you haven't brought up yet. I could see how things might maybe "pile up" in this scenario since I don't have yet enough information to completely rule it out. If you just look at how photons normally blue shift, their frequency increases as a source heads towards you, and since we use photons to measure the frequency in periodic events like the ticking of a clock, the photon's blue sift could match up with the rate at which one measured the clock ticking from a source once the photons got there to show an illusion of a traveling clock ticking faster because the photons should be in closer intervals like you would see in sound waves or the front of a sonic boom. The only problem is, I can only model that type of thing for objects going slower than light. Since the speed of light has to remain constant, and if we say a source heading towards us emits a photon every one of its own measured seconds, the photons must be at least 1 light-second apart in distance no matter what, because any less distance traveled in a second by the photons would imply the photons traveled slower than one light-second per second, which, is less than the speed of light. But, with anything less than the speed of light which doesn't have to be measured as traveling at c even .9999999 the speed of c, it would "pile up." in some amount. I guess what I'm saying is like an optical blue shift, I can only say without further information that there is temporal one that makes the clock appear as though it was ticking faster based on the detail you added where you flat out said the clock is "ticking faster on other half of the trip". It could make sense to explain how the clock could appear to tick faster on the way back towards Earth while keeping the effects of time dilation and length contraction the same in both directions with some tweaking, unless you explain the details I was asking about in which case I would have no need for this type of model. Here's what makes sense: I'm on Earth and I observe someone traveling away from me near the speed of light to have a slower clock. Here's what should make perfect sense and I don't know if or ow it doesn't make sense: The someone traveling away from me observes me traveling away from them and thus observes me to have the same dilation and contraction that I observe them to have, therefore the clocks should ultimately match at the end of the trip, I mean you can't have both be slower than each other at the same time. And here's what doesn't make sense anymore: The clocks don't match up, and it's because the rocket ship had to turn around and face the other direction. It has something to do with a relativistic Doppler effect which I'm told isn't temporal and "it's just the way it is" with no easily understandable, causal explanation. This article seems to almost agree with the model I presented http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_doppler.html where it says " but he sees it running fast during the Inbound Leg because each flash has a shorter distance to travel" which gives me hope that I'm not completely lost. Why, even after calling the Doppler effect an illusion, is the situation is still asymmetrical by nature? I observe the traveling twin traveling near the speed of light, she observes me traveling near the speed of light, and the Doppler shift is only an illusion, so it should in reality be symmetric, but according to you and maybe the article, the illusion apparently isn't too far from the truth, and the situation actually is in reality for some reason asymmetric regardless of the illusion, or in other words, it doesn't just "appear" asymmetric, it actually is and the twin actually is younger just as they would be if they stood near a black hole and came back, and that's what doesn't make sense to me, especially since they can explain it just fine without using a pseudo gravitational field that would come from the equivalence principal.
  17. Just out of curiosity, is there meaning to different conic sections of light cones? I haven't encountered many useful things with the actual cone that you can model parabolas and ellipses coming from.
  18. Ok so just to be clear, it's because there is delay in how long the information takes to reach Earth that is the reason we see the asymmetry? Otherwise if the information reached Earth instantaneously, it would show symmetry? Is it possible to even more closely relate the phenomena to the Doppler effect by going on to say that the information relayed to Earth on the frequency of events (like the periodic ticking of a clock) that takes place "piles up" in a sort of temporal blue shift which would account for what you called "ticking faster," similar only in concept to conventional blue shifting of a photon's actual frequency?
  19. Right, you obviously can't just do away with the relativistic effects, but what I mean is, the thing that makes the difference between being symmetric and asymmetric with different directions is those things but with the added Doppler effect, right? Because otherwise if you don't factor in the delay with light and the seeming delay in the photons you use to measure events, its the same as the scenario I was talking about before where they both see each other's clocks exactly the same.
  20. Most of what I said multiple times is "we don't know everything, don't assume dark energy is 100% correct, don't assume we know the nature of the big bang" does that honestly sound irrational to you? Because if you agree with that statement I quoted, you had no reason to argue with me.
  21. I do when you ignore my point after I repeat it countless times.
  22. Actually, I had a different staff member tell me otherwise to make sure of it. The only way it could have happened is by accident in recent times. In fact, you tell me which posts I rated in which ways and I'll go undo them.
  23. So if they're the same, why did you say the rocket twin's clock is "ticking faster" in post #57 when they head towards Earth if the light delay alone can account for the asymmetry and not time dilation or length contraction? If time dilation was the same in both directions, why didn't you say the clock was still slowing down? I knew I should have brought that up, it still make sense that observers on Earth would see their clock slow down no matter what, every time I decide not to argue some point it creates confusion later on. But either way, the way manner in which photons are measured relativistic-ally with their delay is the most important factor for resolving the paradox is what it seems. If you were trying to equate the measured time dilation with the Doppler effect, that's where I'm confused now, because time dilation works the same in both directions, but the Doppler effect as you put it, doesn't.
  24. Which is meaningless to science. Which is somewhat how children perceive people. If I was anything like you then I'd be frightened into a corner from expressing different views so that I could pretend like I knew something, that's why I don't care if people give -1 for me calling out the bs of other people and why I've literally never upped or downed a single post. Rep points have nothing to do with science, I have no regard for them.
  25. I confirmed you're trolling by the fact that you said I was "denying" the big bang. Either that or you entirely missed the point of every single thing I said which I don't see how you could given my over-emphasis on being open minded to different possibilities. We don't know for sure a big bang even happened, even with some evidence, there's still gaps to fill in about ANY model that uses a big bang or any model without the bang bang or really just any model about the universe at all, and that's completely different than saying "the big bang could never have ever happened." Why would I even waste my time "trolling for a reaction?" Reaction for what? I don't want you to just "react", I want you to actually use your head and see a different view. What you call "common sense" is merely an illusion created by taking causes for fundamental properties for granted, causes which many scientists and mathematicians are trying to investigate which you can easily see in number theory where 1+1=2 is 3 pages more complicated than you expected.
  • 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.