#4325473 - 01/03/17 07:17 AM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Juggernaut]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
|
ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
|
|
#4325476 - 01/03/17 07:51 AM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Juggernaut]
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Ssnake
Virtual Shiva Beast
|
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Germoney
|
No. A very valid one. It's basic questions like these that led to the development of the Theory of Relativity (which in turn were rooted in observations in interferometry) that contradicted the established physics model, as early as the mid to late 19th century. As per Einstein, the faster your speed, the slower time passes for you. NOT for YOU, the traveler. Time appears to pass normally; actually, it DOES. That's one of the fundamental statements of the ToR. Since the speed of light is ALSO a constant, the only things that CAN (and do) change is a) the frequency of light, which shifts to blue or red, depending on your movement direction towards or away from the source, and b) SPACE ITSELF. In your direction of travel, distances become shorter. For a light particle the universe appears as a 2D painting, so to speak. Therefore, the light particle does not experience passage of time at all. Everybody else, who has mass, cannot move quite as fast as light, so space cannot completely compress to twodimensionality. It is important to realize that a) time and space are co-dependent and NOT, per Newton's concept, independent, and b) the are not "absolutes", but variable BUT if someone is travelling near the speed of light, couldn't we also say that they are standing still and that everyone else is travelling near the speed of light? Yes, absolutely. Wouldn't it all be relative Yeah, but not in the colloquial sense that it's totally ambiguous and that nothing matters. As we and most parts of the observable universe in our vicinity (the next few million light years) are all traveling at comparatively slow speeds with respect to each other, spacetime does not appear distorted (even though it technically is, the effect is just very small; atomic clocks on board of a space shuttle were able to measure miniscule time dilation effects after the flight, compared to atomic clocks on the planetary surface). But for everything that emits electromagnatic radiation that we can observe and which is traveling at relativistic velocities - such as plasma jets ejected from black holes and neutron stars due to their ionizing radiation and intense magnetic fields that do get accelerated to 90% lightspeed in some cases - we do observe a drastic shift in the frequency of radiation that they emit. Muon particles that we know to be created in fusion processes (such as the core of the sun) and which are very short-lived particles that decay within microseconds can be detected in the upper atmosphere. How can that be, there is no fusion happening anywhere near? The only major hydrogen fusion bomb in "constant on" mode is the sun, and it is so far away that light itself needs eight minutes and twenty seconds to reach us on earth, not just microseconds. BUT, the Muons are traveling at nearly the speed of light, so their lifetime is greatly extended for external observers like us, As the particles enter the upper atmosphere, they are being slowed down, time gets less dilated, and they decay normally just as experiements on earth show, and what the theory predicts. So, these time dilation effects can be observed in nature, even though WE cannot travel near light speeds (or, if we had the technology, we might not survive the experience).
|
|
#4325514 - 01/03/17 01:01 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Juggernaut]
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,646
Kodiak
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,646
Over the hills and far away.
|
So actually Time is traveling at the speed of light, if you travel at the speed of light you just catch up with time.
I Want To Believe
|
|
#4325516 - 01/03/17 01:07 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Juggernaut]
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Ssnake
Virtual Shiva Beast
|
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Germoney
|
It's Quantum Physics that is a challenge to understand, and String Theory is positively mental.
The basic concepts of Relativity aren't that hard to understand, I'd say. Mastering the related math - all right, it certainly is another step up; but isn't that always the case with sufficiently advanced mathematics. Developing all that stuff from nothing - ouch: It took about three geniuses to develop the Theory of Relativity (Einstein, Grossmann, et al), a whole generation of physicists to develop the basics of quantum physics, and it looks like it will take several generations of physicists to unify the two theories, along with billions of research dollars for experimental physics and space based observatories. But, we got computers in return, sat nav, smartphones, CD, DVD, and BluRay, weather satellites making better forecasts possible, resulting in better agricultural yields and probably saving hundreds of thousands of lives. All in all, not too bad.
Thank you, eggheads!
|
|
#4325517 - 01/03/17 01:11 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Ssnake]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
Miami, FL USA
|
resulting in better agricultural yields and probably saving hundreds of thousands of lives. This is a double-edged sword of course. You save people from starvation but at the same time facilitate global overpopulation which brings with it some serious problems down the road.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4325519 - 01/03/17 01:13 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Kodiak]
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Ssnake
Virtual Shiva Beast
|
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Germoney
|
So actually Time is traveling at the speed of light, if you travel at the speed of light you just catch up with time. In order to accelerate to the speed of light, you'd need to lose all your mass. And even then you can only make time "stop" to the extent that the whole universe would lose its space dimension to you, and much of its attractivity I'd say. No, you can only travel forward in time, and almost only slower than you currently do (from an external observe's frame of reference), but not much faster (somewhere far out, between galaxy clusters, where the influence of gravity is at a minimum). Going back appears to be fundamentally impossible, sorry.
|
|
#4325521 - 01/03/17 01:24 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Juggernaut]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
TerribleTwo
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 7,112
|
Objects are moving away from us faster than the light they give off. Therefore, are we not moving faster than the speed of light as well, and accelerating?
The easiest way to understand it is to think of sound and the sound barrier. Time gets crunched at the fore and pulled at the aft. Its weird stuff.
Why people dont age when nearing the speed of light is mysterious stuff. But its not just us, but our cells, and the nucleus and the atoms all approaching the speed of light. So the speed of light is some kind of biological clock.
What would happen if light could speed up? Would that make time go by faster or slower?
Last edited by TerribleTwo; 01/03/17 01:30 PM.
"College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life" - Paul Ryan
|
|
#4325522 - 01/03/17 01:29 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Ssnake
Virtual Shiva Beast
|
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Germoney
|
You save people from starvation but at the same time facilitate global overpopulation which brings with it some serious problems down the road. That is a Malthusian worldview at best, and ethically dubious in its implied judgment. What is "over"population? Are fewer people "better"? The reality is that only a small minority of mankind are still starving, and that minority is shrinking. We are in fact on the path towards a world without starvation by 2030, which would be a "mankind first". When the world population was half than it is today (around 1970), about a billion people experienced starvation. If the world were truly "over"populated we'd have more starving people, not less. At the same time the daily income of people across the globe has substantially increased. The worldwide median household income today is close to 10,000.- USD, which is about the same as the US median household income in 1920. That's not bad at all! I don't like the term "overpopulation" because it's judgmental and negative, as if we'd have to get rid of a significant portion of mankind. Maybe a lower global population will eventually lead to less stress on wildlife and the environment in general, and might lead to a higher living standard for the average person. All right, I get that. But the path towards that future should be solid economic growth.
|
|
#4325523 - 01/03/17 01:32 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Ssnake]
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,646
Kodiak
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,646
Over the hills and far away.
|
So actually Time is traveling at the speed of light, if you travel at the speed of light you just catch up with time. In order to accelerate to the speed of light, you'd need to lose all your mass. And even then you can only make time "stop" to the extent that the whole universe would lose its space dimension to you, and much of its attractivity I'd say. No, you can only travel forward in time, and almost only slower than you currently do (from an external observe's frame of reference), but not much faster (somewhere far out, between galaxy clusters, where the influence of gravity is at a minimum). Going back appears to be fundamentally impossible, sorry. I did not say it was possible to reach the speed of light, I said time is going at the speed of light. If one could travel at the speed of light, you are also at the speed of time
I Want To Believe
|
|
#4325524 - 01/03/17 01:32 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Ssnake]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,383
Miami, FL USA
|
I don't like the term "overpopulation" because it's judgmental and negative,
No, it has everything to do with being a realist. Global population has more than doubled since 1960. What do you think will happen when the Earth has 50 billion people? 100 billion? Oh and couple that trend with the shrinking demand for labor...
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4325580 - 01/03/17 05:50 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Juggernaut]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart
Measured in Llamathrusts
|
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
|
Time moves at 1:1 no matter how fast I go.
All you other suckers only think I move faster in time depending on my velocity, because I got it like that.
But haters gonna hate.
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events. More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.comFrom Laser: "The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
|
|
#4325595 - 01/03/17 06:26 PM
Re: Why isn't space-time relative? Shouldn't relativity be...relative?
[Re: Ssnake]
|
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Jedi Master
Entil'zha
|
Entil'zha
Sierra Hotel
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 49,716
Space Coast, USA
|
I don't like the term "overpopulation" because it's judgmental and negative, as if we'd have to get rid of a significant portion of mankind.
I'd say we only have to get rid of the insignificant portion of mankind and then we'll be just fine. The Jedi Master
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
|
|
|
|