Speed of Light and Energy...?

[newolder]

It's a slice through a beam of protons travelling near c. Protons are small enough that HUP describes their position and momentum like concentric ripples. The depth of each ripple at 3.5 TeV energy is tiny in comparison to their diameter. A proton is seen as a flat, ripply pancake.

[Nautilidae]

Not yet, but it is experimentally testable. If length contraction is correct, we expect distances between stars to appear smaller. From Earth, this means that the angle between the two stars is slightly change.

that doesn't make any sense... if an object with a non-zero rest mass requires infinite mass to travel at the speed of light what causes it to become thin as opposed to compressed or expanded...?

as for experimental testing how can we judge if the distances between stars are smaller than they actually are? if the only way we can measure their distance is through observation, which would show the distance being smaller than it physically is, how can we figure out what the actual distance should be...?

The reduction is due to the change in the frame of reference. In a stationary frame of reference, ∆x, an object is one yard long. In a moving frame of reference, ∆x', the length of the object is measured to be slightly shorter than the same object in a stationary frame of reference. This reduction in length increases as the object's velocity increases. However, this is only when comparing the moving frame of reference to the stationary frame of reference; in the moving frame of reference, the object doesn't experience length contraction.

As for testing it, we merely make predictions based on a stationary frame of reference. We then measure the stars which are in a moving frame of reference.

EDIT:

It's slice through a beam of protons travelling near c. Protons are small enough that HUP describes their position and momentum like concentric ripples. The depth of each ripple at 3.5 TeV energy is tiny. A proton is seen as a flat ripply pancake.

I had better fetch my maple syrup, aka virtual photons

[dj357]

The reduction is due to the change in the frame of reference. In a stationary frame of reference, ∆x, an object is one yard long. In a moving frame of reference, ∆x', the length of the object is measured to be slightly shorter than the same object in a stationary frame of reference. This reduction in length increases as the object's velocity increases. However, this is only when comparing the moving frame of reference to the stationary frame of reference; in the moving frame of reference, the object doesn't experience length contraction.

ok, so tell me, exactly how do we know that from the stationary frame of reference length contraction occurs in the moving frame...?

[Nautilidae]

ok, so tell me, exactly how do we know that from the stationary frame of reference length contraction occurs in the moving frame...?

When one compares one object in one frame of reference to the same object(essentially; one object can't be in two frames of reference at once) in a different frame of reference, one notices a difference.
It's like I told you; when measured, there is an observed difference. However, this is only when compared to a different frame of reference; from the perspective of an object in the moving frame of reference, his size hasn't changed, but when compared to a stationary frame of reference frame, there IS an observed difference in length.

[newolder]

The reduction is due to the change in the frame of reference. In a stationary frame of reference, ∆x, an object is one yard long. In a moving frame of reference, ∆x', the length of the object is measured to be slightly shorter than the same object in a stationary frame of reference. This reduction in length increases as the object's velocity increases. However, this is only when comparing the moving frame of reference to the stationary frame of reference; in the moving frame of reference, the object doesn't experience length contraction.

ok, so tell me, exactly how do we know that from the stationary frame of reference length contraction occurs in the moving frame...?

By measuring tracks.
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmi ... atmos.html

[colubridae]

photons (commonly known as light) are considered to be massless packets of electro-magnetic radiation that exhibit particle-wave duality. i understand photons are the poster child for quantum mechanics. i understand they behave differently than we would normally see things in everyday, but I understand light and these concepts.

Dude that wasn't the question I asked. Let me lead you through this, otherwise you will just make yourself look like a fucking idiot and you don't want that do you?

Once again it is very important:-

Do you know why light travels at a constant speed in all frames of reference?

(there is one correct answer)

(i Have to go on a lesson shortly so I won't be back till later today - be patient)

Wikipedia: It is an upper bound on the speed at which energy, matter, and information can travel, as surpassing it "would lead to the destruction of the essential relation between cause and effect."

Dude that's wikiwank

You still haven't answered the question. be patient you will get there I promise you....


Why is the speed of light constant?

There is a correct answer to this question.

All that other stuff is just making you look like some scam artist trying to fuck with peoples heads...

Go through it bit by bit. You will get there.
Otherwise people will just laugh at you and mock you....

[dj357]

Dude that's wikiwank

You still haven't answered the question. be patient you will get there I promise you....


Why is the speed of light constant?

There is a correct answer to this question.

All that other stuff is just making you look like some scam artist trying to fuck with peoples heads...

Go through it bit by bit. You will get there.
Otherwise people will just laugh at you and mock you....

you're gonna have to help me out here, I'm not sure what you're trying to lead me to.

ok, so tell me, exactly how do we know that from the stationary frame of reference length contraction occurs in the moving frame...?

When one compares one object in one frame of reference to the same object(essentially; one object can't be in two frames of reference at once) in a different frame of reference, one notices a difference.
It's like I told you; when measured, there is an observed difference. However, this is only when compared to a different frame of reference; from the perspective of an object in the moving frame of reference, his size hasn't changed, but when compared to a stationary frame of reference frame, there IS an observed difference in length.

but the difference is based solely on the observation. there is no actual change in length. the only way to observe the moving frame of reference and experience the difference is to "observe" it (i.e. make visual observations)

am i wrong?

[Nautilidae]

but the difference is based solely on the observation. there is no actual change in length. the only way to observe the moving frame of reference and experience the difference is to "observe" it (i.e. make visual observations)

am i wrong?

This is the misconception that's preventing you from understanding special relativity.

It doesn't matter if you observe it with your eyes. You could be sitting in a cave located in California whilst painting a portrait of mountains. I would be in South Carolina, riding my bicycle. Compared to your frame of reference, my length is still reduced. Wether or not you observe it with your eyes is irrelevant. The frames of reference can still be compared wether or not you directly "observe" my frame of reference. The same applies to time dilation; wether or not you watch me ride my bicycle is irrelevant. Time for me, compared to your frame of reference, is moving more slowly than time in your frame of reference.

[colubridae]

Wikipedia: It is an upper bound on the speed at which energy, matter, and information can travel, as surpassing it "would lead to the destruction of the essential relation between cause and effect."

Clearly this is utter fucking nonsense.
The universe is not a sentient creature that decided for its own sake it had better limit light speed and everything else.




Don't get me wrong wiki can be very useful.
I have the greatest respect for it.
But trying to do this level of physics from wiki articles is just going to fuck your head up...
I promise you can go back to length contraction when we are done




Once again why does light only travel at c no matter what frame you are looking at it from?

you're gonna have to help me out here, I'm not sure what you're trying to lead me to.

This last answer is nearly there you nearly have it… One more go, kind of extrapolate on it… You already have the answer. It is simple.

[dj357]

but the difference is based solely on the observation. there is no actual change in length. the only way to observe the moving frame of reference and experience the difference is to "observe" it (i.e. make visual observations)

am i wrong?

This is the misconception that's preventing you from understanding special relativity.

It doesn't matter if you observe it with your eyes. You could be sitting in a cave located in California whilst painting a portrait of mountains. I would be in South Carolina, riding my bicycle. Compared to your frame of reference, my length is still reduced. Wether or not you observe it with your eyes is irrelevant. The frames of reference can still be compared wether or not you directly "observe" my frame of reference. The same applies to time dilation; wether or not you watch me ride my bicycle is irrelevant. Time for me, compared to your frame of reference, is moving more slowly than time in your frame of reference.

ok, forget the visual obeservation, it's the transformation (or the comparison) between one frame of reference and the other that's the issue. if length contraction is phenomenon that is only observed outside of the frame of reference of the entity supposedly experiencing the contraction, it clearly can't be considered to be a real physical event.

[Nautilidae]

ok, forget the visual obeservation, it's the transformation (or the comparison) between one frame of reference and the other that's the issue. if length contraction is phenomenon that is only observed outside of the frame of reference of the entity supposedly experiencing the contraction, it clearly can't be considered to be a real physical event.

Why not? Time dilation is a real phenomenon yet it's not experienced within one's own frame of reference.

[Nautilidae]

Wikipedia: It is an upper bound on the speed at which energy, matter, and information can travel, as surpassing it "would lead to the destruction of the essential relation between cause and effect."

Clearly this is utter fucking nonsense.
The universe is not a sentient creature that decided for its own sake it had better limit light speed and everything else.




Don't get me wrong wiki can be very useful.
I have the greatest respect for it.
But trying to do this level of physics from wiki articles is just going to fuck your head up...
I promise you can go back to length contraction when we are done




Once again why does light only travel at c no matter what frame you are looking at it from?

you're gonna have to help me out here, I'm not sure what you're trying to lead me to.

This last answer is nearly there you nearly have it… One more go, kind of extrapolate on it… You already have the answer. It is simple.

Colubridae, please do not continue with this. You are entering troll territory.

[dj357]

[quote="NautilidaeThis last answer is nearly there you nearly have it… One more go, kind of extrapolate on it… You already have the answer. It is simple.[/quote]

Colubridae, please do not continue with this. You are entering troll territory.[/quote]

can you let me in on this...?

ok, forget the visual obeservation, it's the transformation (or the comparison) between one frame of reference and the other that's the issue. if length contraction is phenomenon that is only observed outside of the frame of reference of the entity supposedly experiencing the contraction, it clearly can't be considered to be a real physical event.

Why not? Time dilation is a real phenomenon yet it's not experienced within one's own frame of reference.

aha, but it is. take two caesium clocks. one stationary, on Earth, the other in orbit. one experiences time differently than the other. when we bring the orbiting clock into the stationary frame of reference we see that there is a difference between the two. it wasn't just an observed effect based on the stationary frame of reference. however, in the case of length contraction it is only an observed effect. the length of the train/rocket/whatever never actually changed. the clock however did run at a different rate.

[Nautilidae]

aha, but it is. take two caesium clocks. one stationary, on Earth, the other in orbit. one experiences time differently than the other. when we bring the orbiting clock into the stationary frame of reference we see that there is a difference between the two. it wasn't just an observed effect based on the stationary frame of reference. however, in the case of length contraction it is only an observed effect. the length of the train/rocket/whatever never actually changed. the clock however did run at a different rate.

How exactly does that refute my point? You've done nothing but show that I am correct. Length contraction is a physical phenomenon in the same way that time dilation occurs. The moving frame of reference doesn't perceive time flowing more slowly, but when compared to another frame of reference, it is indeed flowing more slowly. Similarly, an object in a moving frame of reference doesn't perceive length contraction, but it does indeed occur, as can be seen when one compares the two frames of reference. What have you done to show that length contraction isn't real? If anything, you given it strength.

[dj357]

aha, but it is. take two caesium clocks. one stationary, on Earth, the other in orbit. one experiences time differently than the other. when we bring the orbiting clock into the stationary frame of reference we see that there is a difference between the two. it wasn't just an observed effect based on the stationary frame of reference. however, in the case of length contraction it is only an observed effect. the length of the train/rocket/whatever never actually changed. the clock however did run at a different rate.

How exactly does that refute my point? You've done nothing but show that I am correct. Length contraction is a physical phenomenon in the same way that time dilation occurs. The moving frame of reference doesn't perceive time flowing more slowly, but when compared to another frame of reference, it is indeed flowing more slowly. Similarly, an object in a moving frame of reference doesn't perceive length contraction, but it does indeed occur, as can be seen when one compares the two frames of reference. What have you done to show that length contraction isn't real? If anything, you given it strength.

ok, let's replace the caesium clocks with hourglasses. run the experiment, then freeze the hourglasses and put them side by side. you can see that one measured a different amount of time than the other.

let's do the same with a train, take two identical train cars, have one travel near or at the speed of light and the other sit on earth. freeze the lengths of both trains, and place them side by side. are they still identical...?