Right, so, this thread is really for myself and Alphanumeric... but that is by no means you cannot contribute to our exchange of thoughts. Alphanumeric... what shall we discuss first?
Why don't you show us all your competancy at basic vector calculus by answering say a question from here. Question 7 is a good one because it is a specific example of a more general result, that of Stoke's Theorem. A concept you should be familiar with from vector calculus and it's application in relativity. So why don't you answer that question and we can then discuss your answer and the implications of the method. It's all within your ability and since you specifically started this thread with me in mind I assume you're willing to put in the time and effort to stand up for yourself. The entire workings for that question is less than a page. Easily less than one of your essays. Over to you...
No, you didn't get me did you. This is not a competion of who can derive the correct analysis from a set of equations... hence, i said, ''let us not make it a flaming discussion, nor should we try and delve into who is more knowledgable.'' You asked for a discussion, and that is what we shall do... but i will not contend the ego of ''answer these equations first'' attitude. All i desire right now, from this thread, is a discussion. Not an intelligence game.
I didn't intend for that, because I think we can both agree that I can do more maths than you. I was trying to establish a basis for where to start. You cannot do physics without maths, particularly theoretical physics. Anyone can read Wikipedia for 30 minutes and talk qualatively about a topic on a discussion forum half decently. My issue with you is always that you don't show you even know about those topics in a specific way. For instance, you didn't want to talk about why the fermionic wave function for a collection of fermions should be antisymmetric in the individual components. You cannot talk about the details of fermionic quantum mechanics without that, because unless you're working with ghosts (which requires a lot more knowledge), you have to have antisymmetry in your wave functions for fermions. Just to be certain, are you going to be willing to discuss any mathematical physics in this thread? Because it's not possible to talk about quantum mechanics or relativity in any kind of precise way without it. You claim to do beyond school level material so you must be able to discuss beyond school level details. It's that which I want to see you engage in, not superficial arm waving which doesn't show a jot of working knowledge. Plenty of other people here hold similar opinions of you. We want to see you show details. Real details, not stuff you just made up, actual working knowledge of mainstream concepts because if you don't know what's mainstream, how can you be sure what you're considering/working through isn't something someone has been done before? You want people to take you seriously. You want people to think there's somethign to your essays. You want to have your posts stopped being moved to pseudo or cesspool. Help yourself, show you can do physics. All you need to do is just do a few questions or take part in discussions on mainstream topics without throwing in your own 2 cents (or Wolf's). Prove to people you know mainstream physics and maybe you'll find people take your views of it a bit more seriously.
Ok, I hereby appoint myself as referee in this thread! Here is something for you guys to discuss, with or without mathematics: I claim the so-called twin paradox in the Special Theory is no paradox at all. I further claim that the solution has nothing to do with the equivalence principles of Einstein (strong or weak), it has nothing to do with acceleration and nothing to do with the General Theory. In fact, I claim it is an essential part of the Special Theory. Am I right or am I wrong? Either way, why?
''I didn't intend for that, because I think we can both agree that I can do more maths than you. I was trying to establish a basis for where to start. You cannot do physics without maths, particularly theoretical physics. '' No thinking about it. I know you are far more knowledgable in the mathematical side of physics, and even at that, what i do know, i still make mistakes, not all the time, but quite a lot. I guess i am not as mathematically-interested as you concerning physics, and that might be my blindfold. That is why, my mentor at college insideously told me to take up a mathematics course, next year. Let me apply a basis of where to start, in my next post.. but first.. ''Anyone can read Wikipedia for 30 minutes and talk qualatively about a topic on a discussion forum half decently. My issue with you is always that you don't show you even know about those topics in a specific way.'' Depends. I am very specific, or atleast, i do try to be accurate as possible. ''For instance, you didn't want to talk about why the fermionic wave function for a collection of fermions should be antisymmetric in the individual components. You cannot talk about the details of fermionic quantum mechanics without that, because unless you're working with ghosts (which requires a lot more knowledge), you have to have antisymmetry in your wave functions for fermions.'' It's not really that i wouldn't, it's just that at that time, we where not as civilized as before... but we shall see how long this lasts... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ''Just to be certain, are you going to be willing to discuss any mathematical physics in this thread? Because it's not possible to talk about quantum mechanics or relativity in any kind of precise way without it. You claim to do beyond school level material so you must be able to discuss beyond school level details. It's that which I want to see you engage in, not superficial arm waving which doesn't show a jot of working knowledge. '' Yes, but i must admit, your knowledge on math, may make me look stupid. I would prefer, if we did include math, then let it be something of reflection, rather than something similar to homework... you know what i mean? But let us also keep in mind that there are others even less knowledgable concerning math than i am, so let's keep it quite reasonable, in content, and conceptuality. ''Plenty of other people here hold similar opinions of you. We want to see you show details. Real details, not stuff you just made up, actual working knowledge of mainstream concepts because if you don't know what's mainstream, how can you be sure what you're considering/working through isn't something someone has been done before?'' I'm willing to do this. But then again, we need a little of our own musings... don't you agree? Just so long as they are acceptable, and even if they aren't, we can muse in a civilized mannor to why... and finally reach a single conclusion of whatever topic we may discuss. ''You want people to take you seriously. You want people to think there's somethign to your essays. You want to have your posts stopped being moved to pseudo or cesspool. Help yourself, show you can do physics. All you need to do is just do a few questions or take part in discussions on mainstream topics without throwing in your own 2 cents (or Wolf's). Prove to people you know mainstream physics and maybe you'll find people take your views of it a bit more seriously.'' I'll try, but i must say, my knowledge, or reflection on physics, is highly moulded by the thoughts of Dr Wolf...
The paradox is, is that a stationary observer on earth, will experience time moving much slower than someone none-stationary (or perhaps more precisely, the stationary earth at his/hers feet) moving away. There was recently a physicist who solved the paradox, by using stars as the relative observer.
For instance, the notion of ''its all relative,'' is that something is always moving relative to another frame. That is, our speed makes no sense without some kind of relative feature in the universe. The stationary Earth at our feet, has an orbital speed of 108,000km/h - relative to the sun, whilst the sun orbits the galactic center at around 800,000km-h relative to the center of the galaxy, which is itself relative to other galaxies.
This is what excites the question... ''what is the universe relative to?'' The answer turns out to be itself. Some may opt. that the universe is relative to the observer, just to keep all options open. Can i add, by itself, i mean this excites the principle of self-containment.
Referee note. Contributions will be graded according the the Oxbridge augmented Greek tradition; \(\alpha ++\) is as good as it gets, \(\gamma - - \) doesn't get any worse. Posts will be graded according to content, relevance, accuracy, rigour and absence of personal remarks. The referee's decision is final. Gentlemen, proceed...
Now, i can understand the problem to why people would NOT conside it as a problem. The reason why, is because i think it is often mistaked, that just because we have an explanation for time dilation and space contraction. Let's consider some of the math behind the dilation and contraction.. The Length Contraction formula is given as: \(L=L_0 (1-v^2/c^2) 1/2\) Here, L0 is the proper length, and v is for velocity and c is for the speed of light. This equation shows that an object moving through spacetime is found to contract in length to the observer. Such paradoxes like, the pole and barn paradox are prime examples of this optical phenomenon. So in short notation, we say that space contracts and time dilates by a factor of: \(\sqrt{(1-v^2/c^2)}\) As I explained, one example of Length Contraction is given by the pole-barn paradox. This is where a pole is traveling through space, and is physically contracted. If the pole is larger than the barn to begin with, and now it is shorter because of length contraction it can fit in the barn. Paradox is, how can a pole larger than the barn be length contracted so that it fits as it passes by? In this next set of equations, we work with a pole traveling through space which has a proper length of 20 meters. An observer moving at a speed v = 0.98 c will experience a contraction as shown: \(L_0 = 20 m\) \(L = L_0 (1 - v^2/c^2)1/2\) \(= 20 [ 1 - (0.98)^2 ]1/2\) \(= 3.98 m\) If an object is accelerating through spacetime, it will experience a time warp. This is also been known to be called time dilation. If we experience time warps, then according to relativity this must also mean space warps. We don’t experience space warps so much because we move so fast through time. In fact, we spend more time in the time dimension than we do in space. The time dilation formula is given as: \(\Delta t=\Delta t_0/(1-v^2/c^2) 1/2\) So, since we know what causes the difference in time frames, the majority of people think that there is no real paradox. However, still to be seen to be debated more i think.
This is incorrect. The twin 'paradox' didn't need solving. It's only called a paradox because it seems to be counter intuitive to everyday experience. You don't need to define a reference from relative to a physical thing, you only need to define a conceptual reference frame for your equations. The Earth is, ignoring it's motion around the sun, an inertial reference frame. Someone who stays on it can say "I am at rest" to a very good approximation over a short space of time. The twin who goes travelling cannot say this. He starts off in the inertial frame of he Earth and then boosts to a high velocity relative to that frame. After travelling a large distance he must change his velocity by twice the amount so that he travels back towards the Earth. He must also then slow down to return himself the original reference frame. The force due to acceleration is not relative, it is not possible for him to formulate a description whereby he has remained in the same reference frame. The original twin can. For instance, we could formulate the description to take the 'at rest' frame to be the velocity the travelling twin has when moving away (or towards) the Earth. But the travelling twin will not spend the entire trip in that frame The twin on Earth will remain in the same reference frame relative to that one. Therefore the one who went travelling will experience the smaller amount of time. Ah, the good old grading system.
(I also made a mix-up... I meant the twin moving away finds time to move slower... not the one on Earth Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) AN ''This is incorrect. The twin 'paradox' didn't need solving.'' Mmmm... so was afterall a quantum myth? There is so much confusion then within science. There should be a conference where physics meets mistakes. Einstein certainly wasn't one not to make a few himself. Did you know he once said... ''There is not the slightest indication that energy will ever be obtainable from the atom,'' (Ref. R. Youngson, 'scientific blunders: A brief history of how scientists can sometimes be wrong.) I ask, because i do not know, but did Einstein come up with the naming of ''twin paradox...''?
''he must change his velocity by twice the amount so that he travels back towards the Earth'' i wonder if Einstein concluded this from his relativistic conclusion of the ''ball and train theory?''
Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with it. And there doesn't need to be a conference on it, the problem is with your grasp. There's plenty of conferences on the issues in physics, that's what most of them are about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox#History Wiki says it wasn't him.
Sorry... relativitsic myth. I often say quantum, because essentially, the two theories are unified... we just don't know how to. (My fault entirely) ''Wiki says it wasn't him.'' Cool.
And i don't know.. there seems to be a lot of confusion. If something is universally called a paradox, when there isn't really one, it wasn't entirely my problem of misunderstanding... but rather something universally a error. So... then please... if there was nothing to solve, why has it been solved? ''LSU professor solves Twin Paradox,'' --- you'll find it if you just google that.
The two theories are not synonymous. The postulates of relativity and the postulates of QM lead to different theories. You have to combine the postulates to even make them have a vague hope of combining consistently. For instance, relativity doesn't explain the motions of an electron due to vacuum interactions, as you claimed yesterday. Quantum mechanics does. A unified quantum theory of all 4 forces would but we don't call that relativity. It's like saying "Newtonian physics explains relativity" just because relativity explains Newtonian physics. No, you need more postulates (or different ones) to explain some things in relativity which Newton can't. An electrical engineering professor. He wouldn't be the first professor not doing physics or maths to pretend he's solved something noone thought needed solving. Did you hear about the computing lecturer from Reading who claimed to have solved infinity/infnity?
