SamBridge 26 Posted April 20, 2014 (edited) What Einstein did with relativity was self-consistent. And, as it turns out, something that also described how nature behaves. But relativity means that you can't exceed c, which means if you did (as with teleportation) then relativity can't tell you what happens. So what do you call what I did with the black hole teleportation and time dilation limit as the speed of light approached infinity? Physics is modeled from mathematics, and you can do whatever you want to mathematics to see how things would work with different numbers. Einstein "assumed" time was a dimension that was orthogonal to spacial dimensions without proving it, he assumed it could explain lorentz's transformation effects with space-time. He didn't just modify something, he added a whole new chapter, just as Schrodinger and debroglie at first assumed you could treat matter in terms of waves like in atomic orbitals even though Heisenberg could explain the phenomena with matrices. Edited April 20, 2014 by SamBridge 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7436 Posted April 20, 2014 So what do you call what I did with the black hole teleportation and time dilation limit as the speed of light approached infinity? Physics is modeled from mathematics, and you can do whatever you want to mathematics to see how things would work with different numbers. You can't say 1+1=3 and have the math make any sense, unless you come up with a whole new self-consistent kind of math. Einstein "assumed" time was a dimension that was orthogonal to spacial dimensions without proving it, he assumed it could explain lorentz's transformation effects with space-time. He didn't just modify something, he added a whole new chapter, just as Schrodinger and debroglie at first assumed you could treat matter in terms of waves like in atomic orbitals even though Heisenberg could explain the phenomena with matrices. Eistein looked at the ramification of c being invariant, which was already part of Maxwell's equations. And he derived the results from that observation — he used the framework of existing physics. Teleportation of matter is decidedly not part of existing physics. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

SamBridge 26 Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) You can't say 1+1=3 and have the math make any sense, unless you come up with a whole new self-consistent kind of math. But if I say a+b=2, I can plug in any combination of numbers I want that make the sttement true, or I can even say "what if a+b=3? if I do that and substitute it into (a-b)/(1-ab/c^2) it gives me this other result. What if c^2 was even bigger? Then I'd get this result..." Eistein looked at the ramification of c being invariant, which was already part of Maxwell's equations. And he derived the results from that observation — he used the framework of existing physics. Teleportation of matter is decidedly not part of existing physics. But that's exactly it, he said "what if the speed of light really was the ultimate speed limit"? I'm sure you know he spent tons of time hypothesizing while working at a patenting office without necessarily proving anything too, and he predicted things similar to dark energy without a lot of support and things like frame-dragging despite that frame dragging was only confirmed recently, and all that came from was saying "what if I use these numbers instead..."?. Teleportation doesn't have to be something we observe, so that doesn't mean it can't show a contrast to explain why results are the way they are or that we can't mathematically take a look at it. It doesn't matter if we've never observed imaginary space, I can still say "what if u=30000 and b=i? What relativistic speed would I get"? And then I'd just plug in the numbers to see. And if someone got lucky, someone might stumble upon imaginary space one day and find the previous work someone spent on imaginary velocity paid off. Edited April 21, 2014 by SamBridge 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7436 Posted April 21, 2014 But if I say a+b=2, I can plug in any combination of numbers I want that make the sttement true, or I can even say "what if a+b=3? if I do that and substitute it into (a-b)/(1-ab/c^2) it gives me this other result. What if c^2 was even bigger? Then I'd get this result…" But that's not what you're proposing. Physical teleportation is not simply an extension of some physics — it violates it. To accommodate it you don't have just tweak some parameters, you have to throw stuff out wholesale and come up with a system from scratch. But that's exactly it, he said "what if the speed of light really was the ultimate speed limit"? I'm sure you know he spent tons of time hypothesizing while working at a patenting office without necessarily proving anything too, and he predicted things similar to dark energy without a lot of support and things like frame-dragging despite that frame dragging was only confirmed recently, and all that came from was saying "what if I use these numbers instead..."?. Teleportation doesn't have to be something we observe, so that doesn't mean it can't show a contrast to explain why results are the way they are or that we can't mathematically take a look at it. It doesn't matter if we've never observed imaginary space, I can still say "what if u=30000 and b=i? What relativistic speed would I get"? And then I'd just plug in the numbers to see. And if someone got lucky, someone might stumble upon imaginary space one day and find the previous work someone spent on imaginary velocity paid off. I can't say what Einstein's thought process was, but in his published work the idea of c as an ultimate speed limit was a conclusion, not a postulate. The starting point was that c is invariant, and that was already known in electrodynamics. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

phyti 15 Posted April 21, 2014 So what do you call what I did with the black hole teleportation and time dilation limit as the speed of light approached infinity? Physics is modeled from mathematics, and you can do whatever you want to mathematics to see how things would work with different numbers. Einstein "assumed" time was a dimension that was orthogonal to spacial dimensions without proving it, he assumed it could explain lorentz's transformation effects with space-time. He didn't just modify something, he added a whole new chapter, just as Schrodinger and debroglie at first assumed you could treat matter in terms of waves like in atomic orbitals even though Heisenberg could explain the phenomena with matrices. Einstein worked with 'time' as distinct from space, and subjective or observer dependent. It was Minkowski who generalized the equations to mathematically treat 'time' as a dimension. He then derived the coordinate transformations,based on the the two postulates. For every speculation with positive results, there are hundreds without. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

SamBridge 26 Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) But that's not what you're proposing. Physical teleportation is not simply an extension of some physics — it violates it. To accommodate it you don't have just tweak some parameters, you have to throw stuff out wholesale and come up with a system from scratch. Or I just say lim(c->infinity) of (u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2) = u+v, which shows is that if information traveled instantaneously, or if light "teleported" the effects of length contraction and time dilation wouldn't appear, that's one step right there that you were saying is impossible. We never observed light traveling at infinite speed, but I used a current model of velocity and just plugged in some different numbers. I can't say what Einstein's thought process was, but in his published work the idea of c as an ultimate speed limit was a conclusion, not a postulate. The starting point was that c is invariant, and that was already known in electrodynamics. Well at the early time you could use maxwell's equations to show that the medium for electromagnetic forces should travel at some finite speed, but the ideas were not all connected. I'm telling you Einstein didn't discover what he discovered on accident, he decided to test things, and that's what happened with every other piece of mechanics. Edited April 21, 2014 by SamBridge 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7436 Posted April 21, 2014 Or I just say lim(c->infinity) of (u+v)/(1+u*v/c^2) = u+v, which shows is that if information traveled instantaneously, or if light "teleported" the effects of length contraction and time dilation wouldn't appear, that's one step right there that you were saying is impossible. We never observed light traveling at infinite speed, but I used a current model of velocity and just plugged in some different numbers. Letting c become infinite does not carry the same implications as physical teleportation, and vice-versa. Well at the early time you could use maxwell's equations to show that the medium for electromagnetic forces should travel at some finite speed, but the ideas were not all connected. I'm telling you Einstein didn't discover what he discovered on accident, he decided to test things, and that's what happened with every other piece of mechanics. I have no doubt his discovery was not an accident. I don't think I've implied otherwise. The E&M ideas were expressed well enough that his paper was entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Test things? Einstein did experiments with relativity before publishing in 1905? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

SamBridge 26 Posted April 21, 2014 (edited) Letting c become infinite does not carry the same implications as physical teleportation, and vice-versa. That's not what the math shows, it shows what I just said As the speed of light appraoches infinity, the denominator approaches 1 such that the difference between u+v and (u+v)/(1-uv/c^2)^(1/2) = 0. I'm not using wormholes, I'm using indefinite velocity. The only reason we observe special relativistic effects involving a moving body is because it hyperbolic-ally approaches a finite speed. If there's no speed limit, there's no length contraction or time dilation due to velocity acceleration. Test things? Einstein did experiments with relativity before publishing in 1905? So he got out a telescope to observe black holes and traveled to the future to 1996 to confirm frame dragging and the strong force doesn't exist and entanglement is deterministic? Or maybe even the great scientists like to play around with physics. Edited April 21, 2014 by SamBridge -1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7436 Posted April 22, 2014 That's not what the math shows, it shows what I just said As the speed of light appraoches infinity, the denominator approaches 1 such that the difference between u+v and (u+v)/(1-uv/c^2)^(1/2) = 0. I'm not using wormholes, I'm using indefinite velocity. The only reason we observe special relativistic effects involving a moving body is because it hyperbolic-ally approaches a finite speed. If there's no speed limit, there's no length contraction or time dilation due to velocity acceleration. Light traveling infinitely fast is still not the same thing as physical teleportation. Regardless of the value of c, moving close to c requires tremendous amount of energy. That issue doesn't go away, and other issues as well. So he got out a telescope to observe black holes and traveled to the future to 1996 to confirm frame dragging and the strong force doesn't exist and entanglement is deterministic? Or maybe even the great scientists like to play around with physics. Um, what? That doesn't answer the question. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

SamBridge 26 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Light traveling infinitely fast is still not the same thing as physical teleportation. Regardless of the value of c, moving close to c requires tremendous amount of energy. That issue doesn't go away, and other issues as well. But it does because the only reason it requires infinite energy to move at c is because c is the speed limit and its approached hyperbolic. If it's not the speed limit and there is no speed limit, then as I mathematically proved, you could add vectors in the classical way with no special relativistic results, energy would continue being directly proportional to velocity as it appears to be in Newtonian physics. Um, what?That doesn't answer the question. There's experiments he didn't do experiments after 1905 either, so that just proves the point that even he experiment with theoretical physics and investigated in purely mathematical realms, sometimes ending up with the right answer, sometimes not. Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7436 Posted April 22, 2014 But it does because the only reason it requires infinite energy to move at c is because c is the speed limit and its approached hyperbolic. If it's not the speed limit and there is no speed limit, then as I mathematically proved, you could add vectors in the classical way with no special relativistic results, energy would continue being directly proportional to velocity as it appears to be in Newtonian physics. Exactly. In Newtonian physics, infinite speed requires infinite energy. This requirement does not go away. i.e. teleportation of massive particles at the maximum allowable speed requires infinite energy. Adjusting the value of c does not modify this, meaning that the two situations are not interchangeable. Teleportation still violates laws of physics. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

SamBridge 26 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) Exactly. In Newtonian physics, infinite speed requires infinite energy. This requirement does not go away. i.e. teleportation of massive particles at the maximum allowable speed requires infinite energy. Adjusting the value of c does not modify this, meaning that the two situations are not interchangeable. Teleportation still violates laws of physics. But we can *pretend* it goes away to see what's missing from information taking a finite speed. Mathematically, this is called a "difference." It use to be that gravity traveling at a finite speed violated physics anyway, so your notion that different possibilities and scenarios can't be investigated with mathematics just because we don't currently observe it that way is moot, we already showed that they can, and they can even be very accurate. Edited April 22, 2014 by SamBridge -2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Delta1212 896 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) If physics is a racecar, you are asking how fast it would go if you took out the engine. When the overwhelming response is "Well, without an engine it's not going to go at all" you come back with "Yes, but we could replace the engine with something else." While this is true, what you replace it with will radically change the answer to the question. There are an infinite number of potential replacements, most of them probably aren't compatible with the car and even figuring out which, if any, are compatible is a monumental task. It's doubtful anyone here is going to put the amount of effort into rigorously coming up with a working solution, which means all we're left with is speculating about what may or may not happen if you replaced the engine with something that may or may not even fit under the hood of the car. Edited April 22, 2014 by Delta1212 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7436 Posted April 22, 2014 Tossing conservation of energy is a lot of "pretending". It implies the laws of physics aren't fixed in time, since that's the symmetry that gives rise to the conservation law. Once you've tossed that, you can't really use any other physics with any degree of confidence. That's a very different effect than changing the value of some constant, which has no effect on the form of the equations. It use to be that gravity traveling at a finite speed violated physics anyway, so your notion that different possibilities and scenarios can't be investigated with mathematics just because we don't currently observe it that way is moot, we already showed that they can, and they can even be very accurate. I don't think "gravity traveling at a finite speed violated physics" is true. And I'm not claiming that scenarios can't be investigated mathematically. That's a complete misread of my posts. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

SamBridge 26 Posted April 22, 2014 And I'm not claiming that scenarios can't be investigated mathematically. Then we have nothing to disagree on. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Didymus 36 Posted May 15, 2014 If that's the case, swan, when two objects travel relative to each other, their relative speeds are definitively equal. If A is traveling away from B at a speed, B is moving away from A at an identical speed. Thus, relative speed can not yield assymetrical time dilation. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

pzkpfw 226 Posted May 15, 2014 (edited) If that's all there is to it (relative speed) then yes. That's the whole point of calling the "twins paradox" a "paradox". ... why does one twin/clock age more if A and B have symmetrical views of each other? The answer is that, due to acceleration, in the twins paradox you don't have a simple case involving only relative speed. The situation isn't symmetrical. Edited May 15, 2014 by pzkpfw 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7436 Posted May 15, 2014 If that's the case, swan, when two objects travel relative to each other, their relative speeds are definitively equal. If A is traveling away from B at a speed, B is moving away from A at an identical speed. Thus, relative speed can not yield assymetrical time dilation. Absent acceleration, it doesn't. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Fred Champion 35 Posted May 22, 2014 Wow, this thread has been fun reading. I believe there is only one item I could inject which has not been brought up. Throughout the discussion the moving twin's clock has been taken to be in a position such that the moving twin sees his clock's rate as constant and, by implication, sees no doppler shift in the light coming from (reflected from) the face of his clock. This situation is not likely. The position of his clock relative to the moving twin will determine what he sees. His perception of his clock will change as his (and his clock's) velocity changes. The differences in his observations of his clock are easiest to determine when the clock is forward or to the rear of his position; positions to either side require just a bit more (but not much) math. Didymus might want to consider what "time" the moving twin would see when he has two clocks, one ahead and one to the rear. I suggest the scene be set such that he has a very long spaceship with one clock is 186,000 miles forward of his position and the other 186,000 miles to the rear, the clocks synchronized to show the same time while at rest. The basic point is that changes in the time observed on each clock will occur during acceleration, not at constant velocity. A bit of calculation with positions of clocks, or other objects, to the side of the moving twin's position will demonstrate apparent movement of those objects, also occuring during acceleration and not at constant velocity. The really fun part is that all the apparent changes can be calculated with simple math and without any knowledge of relativity. -1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7436 Posted May 22, 2014 Wow, this thread has been fun reading. I believe there is only one item I could inject which has not been brought up. Throughout the discussion the moving twin's clock has been taken to be in a position such that the moving twin sees his clock's rate as constant and, by implication, sees no doppler shift in the light coming from (reflected from) the face of his clock. This situation is not likely. The position of his clock relative to the moving twin will determine what he sees. How so? Each observer is by definition not moving with respect to his clock. How can there be a doppler shift in the same frame? His perception of his clock will change as his (and his clock's) velocity changes. The differences in his observations of his clock are easiest to determine when the clock is forward or to the rear of his position; positions to either side require just a bit more (but not much) math. I don't see how to reconcile this statement with the Einstein clock synchronization protocol. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Fred Champion 35 Posted May 23, 2014 How so? Each observer is by definition not moving with respect to his clock. How can there be a doppler shift in the same frame? I don't see how to reconcile this statement with the Einstein clock synchronization protocol. Einstein told us that the speed of light is constant - everywhere. The motion of the source of the light, whether an originating source or a reflector, will not increase nor reduce the speed of the light emitted or reflected from the source. This tells us that light inside the moving twin's spaceship will have the same speed as light outside the ship. Llight from the forward clock will reach the twin faster than light from the rear clock because the twin is moving. Once the ship reaches a constant velocity the clocks will appear to run at the same rate even though the forward clock will appear to have "gained" time and the rear clock to have "lost" time. The twin will still observe the doppler shift in the frequency of the light from each clock. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7436 Posted May 23, 2014 Llight from the forward clock will reach the twin faster than light from the rear clock because the twin is moving. The clocks are not moving relative to the twin. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Delta1212 896 Posted May 23, 2014 Einstein told us that the speed of light is constant - everywhere. The motion of the source of the light, whether an originating source or a reflector, will not increase nor reduce the speed of the light emitted or reflected from the source. This tells us that light inside the moving twin's spaceship will have the same speed as light outside the ship. Llight from the forward clock will reach the twin faster than light from the rear clock because the twin is moving. Once the ship reaches a constant velocity the clocks will appear to run at the same rate even though the forward clock will appear to have "gained" time and the rear clock to have "lost" time. The twin will still observe the doppler shift in the frequency of the light from each clock. How can you observe Doppler shift from something that is stationary with respect to you? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

phyti 15 Posted May 23, 2014 Unless Fred is considering the acceleration time for anaut and two clocks as not uniform/not simultaneous,which would mean difference in speed from front to back, until reaching target speed. Just trying to see his pov. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites

Delta1212 896 Posted May 23, 2014 Unless Fred is considering the acceleration time for anaut and two clocks as not uniform/not simultaneous,which would mean difference in speed from front to back, until reaching target speed. Just trying to see his pov. But even in that case, once the target speed is reached, the Doppler shift should be non-existent unless they end up with different relative speeds. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites