1

# Lorenz Contraction - Illusion?

validity

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 03:05 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Well sorry to say calibration is not going to help here, to much....

Lets just say..This is an "Observed" type reaction... Not a truth..

-BaC

Are you suggesting that, in the example given here

Sir Neuron wrote:
Try this simple experiment, if you have never notice before:
Turn a bicycle over and spin one of its wheels as hard as you can. If you look close enough, you will realize its spokes appears to be spinnig in the opposite direction to your spin. This is due to your 'percistence of vision' (the image remains even though the object does not). It appears as though the wheel travels back in time, but this does not say that the physical matter of the spokes does. It's just an illusion.

a calibrated device will measure the spokes spinning in the opposite direction? I say calibrated devices offer a great deal of help in the decision of "Is an observable more likely to be real or an illusion"
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 09:55 am
@Sir Neuron,
Not really... I am saying we can't measure light......
aka Wave particle duality.

-BaC
validity

1
Wed 5 Nov, 2008 03:20 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Not really... I am saying we can't measure light......
aka Wave particle duality.

-BaC

Putting aside that you could successfully argue any response I make because your post is ambiguous, of course the wave-particle duality can be measured, for it is through measurement that the wave-particle duality was discovered. If "light......aka Wave particle duality" could not be measured why would it be considered to reflect the nature of light?
BaCaRdi

1
Wed 5 Nov, 2008 03:45 am
@validity,
validity wrote:
Putting aside that you could successfully argue any response I make because your post is ambiguous, of course the wave-particle duality can be measured, for it is through measurement that the wave-particle duality was discovered. If "light......aka Wave particle duality" could not be measured why would it be considered to reflect the nature of light?

Ohh really how often have you measured them?

I have, want to know my results?

You can indeed measure each...never together..
Since a particle behaves differently from a wave..OOops not enough data can not compute:P

You looking at the particles speed or the wave in your measurements?

Quantum Chaos Indeed!

Lets say this... When you want a particle you get that..when you want a wave..you get that too never at the same "time"....

Sorry can't measure both simultaneously, so what the heck is it???????

animal vegetable mineral?
-BaC
validity

1
Thu 6 Nov, 2008 03:46 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Sorry can't measure both simultaneously, so what the heck is it???????

It is what you measure it to be. What is it when it is not measured is a standing problem in philosphy. Until a photon (or any fundamental particle) makes an interaction with a measuring device it is not entirely correct to think it has definite properties.

Maybe it is wrong to think a photon has to be either, maybe it is just impossible to design a device that can simultaneously measure both properties.
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 6 Nov, 2008 12:02 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:
It is what you measure it to be. What is it when it is not measured is a standing problem in philosphy. Until a photon (or any fundamental particle) makes an interaction with a measuring device it is not entirely correct to think it has definite properties.

Maybe it is wrong to think a photon has to be either, maybe it is just impossible to design a device that can simultaneously measure both properties.

What I am saying is yes...It is indeed impossible at this time:P

When nature is around..it effects natures.....

-TRoN
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Sat 8 Nov, 2008 09:53 pm
@validity,
So Lorenz formula suggest anything travelling at or near the speed of light contracts in length for a particular frame of reference.

For a particular frame of reference, doesn't light also contracts?

Or - From an observer travelling at or near the speed of light, doesn't everthing else, that is not, appears to the observer to contract.?

What does this mean?
validity

1
Mon 10 Nov, 2008 03:07 am
@Sir Neuron,
Sir Neuron wrote:
So Lorenz formula suggest anything travelling at or near the speed of light contracts in length for a particular frame of reference.

The effects are appreciable near light speed, but technically a passing train is shorter when veiwed from a platform then when it is stationary at the same platform.

Sir Neuron wrote:

For a particular frame of reference, doesn't light also contracts?

I am somewhat perplexed by your question. I am unsure if the concept of length can be attributed to a photon. A measuring rod can not be placed next to a photon as to do so would require the measuring rod to be travelling at the speed of light, which is a violation to special relativity. If a photons wavelength is to be considered as its length, then this observable change in wavelength is known as relativistic doppler shift, which is a different mechanism, is described by a different set of equations and does not yeild the same result as described by length contraction equations.

Anyone else?

Sir Neuron wrote:
Or - From an observer travelling at or near the speed of light, doesn't everthing else, that is not, appears to the observer to contract.?

What does this mean?

If you travelled at near the speed of light from the earth to the sun, the actual distance between the earth and the sun contracts, from your point of veiw. This length contraction of the distance between the earth and the sun contributes to the twin paradox.

What does it mean? It means that distance is not absolute eg the distance between the earth and the sun as meausred from a stationary position relative to the earth and sun is different, but no means more wrong or correct, than measured while you are in motion relative to the earth and sun.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz