8
   

einstein's clock tower

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 09:05 pm
@brianjakub,
There is no center to the Universe, any more than there is a center on the surface of a basketball.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 09:10 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
The center of the universe needs to be the point of reference.
I thought as much too at one time, but physicists tell us that any observer will see themselves as the center point of the universe.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jun, 2016 10:21 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
]The center of the universe needs to be the point of reference
every atom is its own universe and every piece of matter is its own universe. Relative to the other pieces of matter that are individual universes in the universe of the Higgs field all atoms appear to be in the center of the universe from their point of view.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jun, 2016 02:14 pm
@maxdancona,
I thought time itself slows down: clocks, biological processes, etc.

But, that just would be so in our universe. Other universes could be different or EMPTY (that "boson" has a different value, so matter does not coalesce).
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Jun, 2016 02:48 pm
@Foofie,
The question for you (or for anyone else) is if time slowed down, how would you possibly know. I am sure you understand why I say that you would never detect it. I am asking what scientific experiment that you could possible do that would show that time slowed down.

I have an answer for this. My answer involves comparing you clock with a clock in a different frame of reference. Without a second frame of reference, the phrase "time slows down" has no meaning since within a frame of reference... a second goes by ever second.

If you don't accept (and understand) the principle of frames of reference... taking about things like whether time slows down or not is meaningless nonsense.

mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2016 01:32 am
@rosborne979,
EXACTLY!
Well Done.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2016 01:33 am
@brianjakub,
Again - EXACTLY!
Well done.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2016 01:34 am
@Foofie,
Not 'empty'. Stop guessing.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2016 01:27 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The question for you (or for anyone else) is if time slowed down, how would you possibly know. I am sure you understand why I say that you would never detect it. I am asking what scientific experiment that you could possible do that would show that time slowed down.

I have an answer for this. My answer involves comparing you clock with a clock in a different frame of reference. Without a second frame of reference, the phrase "time slows down" has no meaning since within a frame of reference... a second goes by ever second.

If you don't accept (and understand) the principle of frames of reference... taking about things like whether time slows down or not is meaningless nonsense.




Yes, I understand that the difference in time is not detectable. However, the standard book example is the two friends, where one goes on a space ship the speed of light (or close), the other stays on Earth. When the friend in the space ship returns a year later he finds his friend old, or dead from old age. Not detectable, but time actually slowed down for the friend on the space ship. How or why? It is beyond my logical comprehension. I can just about wrap my head around baseball on the west coast is happening three hours earlier, yet the telecast is live.

Do you like reruns of Welcome Back Kotter?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2016 02:18 pm
@Foofie,
Time slows down for me when I wait in line for something.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2016 03:36 pm
@Foofie,
This is bollux, foofie.
Don't believe what you're led to believe.
If I travel at 50 kmph, around the globe, to the moon or sirius even, at ANY SPEED 'c500billion' even - Our watches/clocks will advance by the same rate.
Don't let bollux mathematical garb lead you to ASSUME otherwise.
Else your head will be full of nonsense.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2016 10:23 pm
@Foofie,
I am trying to explain this clearly. Time dilation is detectable if you have a two clocks to compare I different frames of reference. If is impossible to detect without a second clock.

In the case of the twin paradox. The two twins act as the two clocks. It is possible to set it up so that they end up with very different ages, having experienced different amounts of time.

We have confirmed the twin paradox with actual clocks (very accurate atomic clocks on airplanes) since sending human twins on lonv space trips isn't practical yet.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jun, 2016 10:25 pm
@maxdancona,
This subject was introduced to me with thought experiments involving flashes on trains. I think that's still how the math is first taught to physics students. There are a number of lectures on the Internet from physics professors at reputable schools. The lectures on special relativity should be accessible to most people without too much need for advanced mathematics.
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 10:39 pm
@maxdancona,
I'm close now, Max. Would you mind doing a little more explaining? Sometimes I can be pretty dense, but once I get it, it's for good.
Here goes.
I'm at Earth in spaceship A capable of near light speed, say .99c
You're at Alpha Centauri in spaceship B
We blast off at the same time, each heading to the other's location. When I say at the same time I mean that an observer at the midpoint of the journey would see both of us depart our respective planets at the same time.
To an observer on Earth, my journey should take four years. Also the observer on Earth would see you blast off four years after you actually blasted off.
But isn't that when you'd be arriving at Earth? Or shortly thereafter.
Now from my point of view aboard spaceship A, in two years I reach midpoint and see you pass me, but that would be just about the time I would see you blast off from you point of origin.
Each of us would see the other's journey of two light years flash by in a very short time.
Please help.
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2016 10:42 pm
@TomTomBinks,
Sorry, forgot a part.
As we passed each other, would we see the other pass by at light speed, .99 light speed, or some other value?
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 05:49 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
There is no center to the Universe, any more than there is a center on the surface of a basketball.
Matter is surrounded by Higgs bosons. Atoms and Higgs bosons are standing waves. As Higgs bosons interact with other Higgs bosons they form the Higgs field and all other fields. This means matter is embedded in the Higgs field. Matter is like basketballs embedded in basketballs ( atoms embedded in the Higgs field which is made up of Higgs bosons). Atoms and Higgs bosons of the Higgs field interact at the surface of the atoms and the Higgs bosons. This interaction is the Higgs mechanism. As Higgs bosons interact with matter the shape of the surface approximating the likely location of the interaction of these standing waves is represented by the solution to the Schrodinger equation. This is the shape of the atomic orbital. The combined surfaces of the Higgs bosons that make up the Higgs field give the Higgs field three dimensional depth, therefore it is not a two dimensional surface. Since our universe (the Higgs field) is three dimensional it could be a closed universe that has a center. The universe "more than likely" is closed which allows it to have a boundary. This boundary allows it to be embedded in another universe (or universes). This allows the outer universe to provide an associated pressure to our embedded universe which is the Higgs field. Einstein accounted for this associated pressure by including a cosmological constant in his field equations. His reasoning for the cosmological constant had to do with his desire to maintain a static universe, but Einstein didn’t know about the Higgs field or Higgs mechanism. The containment of the kinetic energy of the particles of the atom, into potential nuclear energy by the Higgs field, is represented by the gluon field with four vectors. The four vectors in this field are directed toward the center of the atom. The energy density of the vacuum, ρvac (and an associated pressure) is provided by the Higgs bosons of the Higgs field, which provide the direction and the force of these vectors. These vectors, through the strong force, provide the stability to matter we observe. Even though Einstein was wrong and our universe is not static, it is hard to account for a universe with matter as stable as ours without it being closed and having a center. The location of the center, is more than likely irrelevant to us. What matters to an observer is, "where am I in relation to all other known pieces of matter that are interacting with me through the Higgs mechanism of the Higgs field?"
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 06:32 pm
@brianjakub,
I'm sorry. I wasn't listening. Did you say something?
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 07:54 pm
@rosborne979,
This is what happens when you combine a physics dictionary with a blender.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 08:58 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
This is what happens when you combine a physics dictionary with a blender.
The standard model is a physics dictionary, that is currently being used by people that only want to speak in short sentences or maybe a paragraph. You can use that dictionary to write complex sentences that paint a picture of reality. But shorter descriptions leave little room for mistakes. I don't have anything to lose on this forum by trying to tie the whole thing together into a complete picture, and neither does anyone else. Did I use the dictionary wrong? Does the picture disagree with physics as you know it?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Jul, 2016 09:00 pm
@maxdancona,
Nicely put.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 04:44:36