6
   

Einstein's paradox

 
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 02:11 am
@Yogi DMT,
Answers to the above, from general knowledge - photons do not have mass. There is a dispute about whether they really are particles, also, insofar as in some situations, light behaves like waves, and others, particles. In any case, photons do not have any smaller parts, whatever they are. And nothing is faster than light.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 04:30 am
@Yogi DMT,
If light doesn't have any mass, then how can it be sucked into a black hole?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 04:40 am
@Yogi DMT,
that is an excellent question. However I think the answer is to do with the curvature of space rather than photons having mass. But if there are any physicists who know better I will gladly defer to them.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 06:26 am
@Uplifter,
Uplifter;165224 wrote:
If light is matter, does it have mass? If it is purely partcle based where does coloured light come from?
What particles make up a photon? Do these particles have mass?
What is faster than light?


Hi Uplifter,

Nice to meet you, A photon has zero rest mass, but carries momentum. This is all physics can ascertain. But, physics is limited to that which it can measure and apply. That is why it is here that reasoning is developed (not proven) and not the physics forum. It is neccessary, however to introduce light in the form of a particle (photon), and as soon as we do this, we assume physicality. Every particle has mass, maybe scientifically unmeasurable mass, but reasoning-mass. Ultimately, every particle is a universe unto itself> The particles within form the spectrum we perceive as coloured light. Each photon is the sum of its' being. I can give these Interior particles names, but they wont be recognisable to science, for they cannot be measured. I tend to string-theory in order to imagine them. Yes, these particles have mass, but not a mass of measureability. We are limited to what we can measure by the realm to which we apply. The speed of light is the fastest thing we can perceive and measure, with the aid of science, But only relative to the dimension we observe from. It is, indeed, the slowest event perceivable, when perceived from another, which we cannot, obviously do. This is why all of this is taken on faith. Physics limits the imagination to the realm of measurement.

Thank you, I hope you're not a physicist, because we'll never tend to agree, I've tried - There is no middle-ground.

And journey well, sir.

Mark...
Uplifter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 12:57 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;165257 wrote:
Hi Uplifter,

Nice to meet you, A photon has zero rest mass, but carries momentum. This is all physics can ascertain. But, physics is limited to that which it can measure and apply. That is why it is here that reasoning is developed (not proven) and not the physics forum. It is neccessary, however to introduce light in the form of a particle (photon), and as soon as we do this, we assume physicality. Every particle has mass, maybe scientifically unmeasurable mass, but reasoning-mass. Ultimately, every particle is a universe unto itself> The particles within form the spectrum we perceive as coloured light. Each photon is the sum of its' being. I can give these Interior particles names, but they wont be recognisable to science, for they cannot be measured. I tend to string-theory in order to imagine them. Yes, these particles have mass, but not a mass of measureability. We are limited to what we can measure by the realm to which we apply. The speed of light is the fastest thing we can perceive and measure, with the aid of science, But only relative to the dimension we observe from. It is, indeed, the slowest event perceivable, when perceived from another, which we cannot, obviously do. This is why all of this is taken on faith. Physics limits the imagination to the realm of measurement.

Thank you, I hope you're not a physicist, because we'll never tend to agree, I've tried - There is no middle-ground.

And journey well, sir.

Mark...


Hi Mark,

I am a physicist, sorry.
As your theory goes against what we actually understand, I guess we will not tend to agree.
An interesting theory though anyway. If you could supply some mathematical examples of your idea, I would be interested to see them.

Take care
Uplifter
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 01:35 am
@HexHammer,
Hi Uplifter - as you are a physicist, and as a matter of interest, when it was said

HexHammer;165241 wrote:
If light doesn't have any mass, then how can it be sucked into a black hole?


and I replied

jeeprs;165243 wrote:
I think the answer is to do with the curvature of space rather than photons having mass. But if there are any physicists who know better I will gladly defer to them.


Was I in the right ballpark?
Uplifter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 02:52 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;165637 wrote:

Was I in the right ballpark?


Hi jeeprs.

It is quite a difficult question to answer. Light (photons) do some strange things near large gravitational fields. You are quite correct that space-time curves around a black hole. This is because the gravitational pulll is so great that the velocity you would need to escape a black hole is greater than the speed of light, which nothing can exceed. It has an effect of curving space-time in a complete circle around the black hole. The photon just follows the curvature of the space-time in an unstable manner around the inside of the event horizon.

I tried to make that very simple. If you would like a more complicated answer, just let me know.

kind regards
Uplifter
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 03:42 am
@Yogi DMT,
Sounds very much like what I was trying to convey... I am reading Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos (in fact the answer is probably in it, somewhere...)
Uplifter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 10:51 am
@jeeprs,
That's a really good book jeeprs.
I would also recommend the recent book by Dr. Brian Cox, "Why does E=mc2".
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 May, 2010 11:04 am
@Uplifter,
Uplifter;165613 wrote:
Hi Mark,

I am a physicist, sorry.
As your theory goes against what we actually understand, I guess we will not tend to agree.
An interesting theory though anyway. If you could supply some mathematical examples of your idea, I would be interested to see them.

Take care
Uplifter


Hi uplifter,

I could apply the E=mCH^2+1 equasion, but I don't think I can elaborate (mathematically) any further, I'm not a mathematician. I do have an o-level from 1983 in math, but, alas, I'm a thinker, not a prover.
If it's not measurable to science, or valid even, then it will always remain a concept. But, who knows whether, as science advances, one day, or not - The concepts of today will become the realities of tomorrow?

I do believe this concept though.

Thank you Uplifter, you're the least condemning physicist I've met. Have a great day, Sir.

Mark...
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 10:24 am
@mark noble,
The Paradox only arises because both twins can claim that the other is older. The resolution of the paradox lies in the fact that one twin changes reference frames (rather than the cause of the paradox, as mentioned earlier, it's actually the resolution because that change allows you to differentiate between the twins).


The thing that helped me understand special relativity the most was realizing that Einstein's Postulates were just that -- two statements taken as a given with derived consequences that then proved to have experimental support. There is no over-all explanation for the postulates (at the very least, at my level of knowledge): they just work.
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 12:03 pm
@Huxley,
Huxley;167325 wrote:
The Paradox only arises because both twins can claim that the other is older. .
I am sorry but that is not correct. One twin actually is older in everyway, anatomically, physiologically, physically. The twin paradox is not a magic trick, an illusion, or a mind game. It is a statement about the affect of gravity and acceleration on time (the rate of process). Everything slows down heart rate, thought process, aging, etc.

It is hard to get outside the notion of time as fixed and space as a rigid fixed box in which clocks tick and solid objects are placed, but the entire message of general relaitivity is that notion of time, space and matter is wrong. These things are relative and flexible not fixed and rigid.
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:18 pm
@prothero,
prothero;167359 wrote:
I am sorry but that is not correct. One twin actually is older in everyway, anatomically, physiologically, physically. The twin paradox is not a magic trick, an illusion, or a mind game. It is a statement about the affect of gravity and acceleration on time (the rate of process). Everything slows down heart rate, thought process, aging, etc.

It is hard to get outside the notion of time as fixed and space as a rigid fixed box in which clocks tick and solid objects are placed, but the entire message of general relaitivity is that notion of time, space and matter is wrong. These things are relative and flexible not fixed and rigid.


Nothing I said went against what you're saying here.

In essence, the "Paradox" was a theoretical contention to special (not general) relativity, as the twin leaving could claim (within the theoretical framework) that he is stationary and the earth is moving away from himself, and vice-versa. I realize that this is "actual", not an illusion or some-such. The paradox isn't actually a paradox: it's just a contention/thought game within the theory of special relativity that is resolved by noting that the twin who leaves must change his reference frame in order to come back.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:22 pm
@Huxley,
Huxley;167325 wrote:
The Paradox only arises because both twins can claim that the other is older.


Sorry but this is not true. Let's run through it again. Twins are called Mike and John. John gets on the spaceship and blasts off. Mike stays home and tends the veggie garden. John's spaceship accelerates at maximum G force for 10 years, then slows down for 10 years, then reverses the journey and comes back. The duration of the trip from the viewpoint of earth is 40 years. Mike has aged by 40 years. But John has aged by less than 40 years, and less than 40 years has passed on the ship that he has been on. (I don't know the exact figure, but it is a matter of years.)

So - at the end of the trip, Mike is several years older than John, no matter what he claims.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 08:32 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;148011 wrote:
The problem is, the faster you go, the more the mass of your ship increases. At very high velocities, the amount of energy required to keep accelerating would greatly exceed all of the output of all of power stations on Earth.


This beautifully ties in with transcendental numbers. The more digits one calculates, the less quantitative difference each digit makes, as one is moving to the right of the decimal point. This also ties in with Zeno's paradox: 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8.... The closer one gets to sum of 1 (light speed!), the slower one is moving toward it. This reminds me of the mass gained from acceleration. :flowers:
0 Replies
 
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 10:00 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;167473 wrote:
Sorry but this is not true. Let's run through it again. Twins are called Mike and John. John gets on the spaceship and blasts off. Mike stays home and tends the veggie garden. John's spaceship accelerates at maximum G force for 10 years, then slows down for 10 years, then reverses the journey and comes back. The duration of the trip from the viewpoint of earth is 40 years. Mike has aged by 40 years. But John has aged by less than 40 years, and less than 40 years has passed on the ship that he has been on. (I don't know the exact figure, but it is a matter of years.)

So - at the end of the trip, Mike is several years older than John, no matter what he claims.


Perhaps I could have worded what I said above better -- I wasn't speaking in actuality, but in accordance with the theory of special relativity (as both twins can claim that it is the other that is moving away from them while they are stationary).

I realize that once the "paradox" is resolved that one twin is older than the other. I was more nitpicking on the resolution to the "paradox": The whole reason it's called a paradox is because according to SR, it seems that both claims would be valid, yet clearly both claims can't be true. The solution lies in the fact that the twin who leaves must change their frame of reference be accelerating back towards earth -- so it isn't a paradox at all. The twin who leaves is younger than the other, and the objective criteria for validating this is his change of reference frame, while the "earth twin" doesn't change their frame of reference (if we model the earth like a point, anyways. On astronomical scales, I think it's a safe assumption)
Flying Dutchman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 12:46 pm
@Huxley,
This becomes a more difficult problem if we do the stereotypical thought-experiment trick of abstracting away all other matter in the universe. Let's say all we have in the universe is two identical pieces of uranium (which have the same half-life). One moves away from the other at near light speed and returns. Is one piece of uranium further decayed than another? You want to say yes, but I think the answer is that they are both more decayed from the perspective of the other.

There is a similar relativity paradox involving a train and a tunnel where seemingly two mutually exclusive events must occur simultaneously.


If there is absolute space then this isn't much of a problem anymore because it would define which piece of uranium was "actually" accelerating. But remember, it is only "actually" accelerating in terms of the reference frame of space.
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 02:02 pm
@Flying Dutchman,
Flying_Dutchman;167730 wrote:
This becomes a more difficult problem if we do the stereotypical thought-experiment trick of abstracting away all other matter in the universe. Let's say all we have in the universe is two identical pieces of uranium (which have the same half-life). One moves away from the other at near light speed and returns. Is one piece of uranium further decayed than another? You want to say yes, but I think the answer is that they are both more decayed from the perspective of the other. .
Well that is not the universe we live in.
In the universe we live, space time and matter are bound in relationship they can not be separated in that way. One piece of uranium is going to be accelerating and the other is not. Acceleration simulates gravity. While it is accelerating the rate of all physical processes will be altered (space,time,mass,volume, etc).
If the second particle later accelerates to join its twin they will be the same age.
It the first particle accelerates away and then accelerates back it will be much less decayed.
This is not theory these experiments have been done with elementary particles and atomic clocks confirmed time and again.
Relativity is something different than your thought experiment implies.
Is there a physicist in the house??:whoa-dude:
Flying Dutchman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 04:38 pm
@prothero,
prothero;167756 wrote:
Well that is not the universe we live in.
In the universe we live, space time and matter are bound in relationship they can not be separated in that way. One piece of uranium is going to be accelerating and the other is not. Acceleration simulates gravity. While it is accelerating the rate of all physical processes will be altered (space,time,mass,volume, etc).
If the second particle later accelerates to join its twin they will be the same age.
It the first particle accelerates away and then accelerates back it will be much less decayed.
This is not theory these experiments have been done with elementary particles and atomic clocks confirmed time and again.
Relativity is something different than your thought experiment implies.
Is there a physicist in the house??:whoa-dude:




I'm fairly certain that is precisely what relativity does not imply, because that information is wholly dependent on reference frame. There is no other data about which object is "actually" moving. If you take away all outside reference frames (thus isolating the actual motion of the two objects without any other aesthetic confusions), it can't be known which object is moving away from the other. Each particle or twin (at least in an otherwise objectless universe) would see the other as younger. And each would be correct from his perspective.
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 05:36 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Quote:

In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity, in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to the theory of special relativity, paradoxically each should find the other to have aged more slowly. How the seeming contradiction is resolved, and how the absolute effect (one twin really aging less) can result from a relative motion, can be explained within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been verified experimentally using precise measurements of clocks flown in airplanes.[1][2]
Starting with Paul Langevin in 1911, there have been numerous explanations of this paradox, all based upon there being no contradiction because there is no symmetry-only one twin has undergone acceleration and deceleration, thus differentiating the two cases. One version of the asymmetry argument made by Max von Laue in 1913 is that the traveling twin uses two inertial frames: one on the way up and the other on the way down. So switching frames is the cause of the difference, not acceleration per se.[3]
Other explanations account for the effects of acceleration. Einstein, Borngravitational time dilation to explain the aging based upon the effects of acceleration.[4] Both gravitational time dilation and special relativity are needed to explain the Hafele-Keating experiment on time dilation using precise measurements of clocks flown in airplanes.
From wikipedia on the twin paradox, you can find the same on more academic sites.

Quote:

Einstein came up with an example to show the effects of time dilation that he called the "twin paradox." It's a lot like the Time Traveler game you just played. Let's try it out with a pair of pretend twins, Al and Bert, both of whom are 10 years old in their highly futuristic universe.
Al's parents decide to send him to summer camp in the Alpha-3 star system, which is 25 light-years away (a light-year is the distance light travels in a year). Bert doesn't want to go and stays home on Earth. So Al sets out on his own. Wanting him to get there as quickly as possible, his parents pay extra and send him at 99.99 percent the speed of light.
The trip to the star and back takes 50 years. What happens when Al returns? His twin brother is now 60 years old, but Al is only 10 and a half. How can this be? Al was away for 50 years but only aged by half a year. Has Al just discovered the fountain of youth?
Not at all. Al's trip into space lasted only a half year for him, but on Earth 50 years passed. Does this mean that Al can live forever? Nope. He may have aged by only half a year in the time it took 50 years to pass on Earth, but he also only lived half a year. And since time can slow down but never goes backwards, there's no way he could grow younger.
from pbs nova special on einstein and relativity, use the internet and stick to physics sites or reliable academic sites.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Einstein's paradox
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 02:13:03