Einstein was wrong

RobertDyck · 2004-06-29 22:49:23

Hmm, I just started reading the book. If E=MC^2 and C is not a constant that sure changes a few things. Doesn't it! Mass does not have to increase at all. The book is called "Faster Than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo. Crazy stuff.

I'm sceptical of that one as well. I've tried to wrestle with the idea of the speed of light not being constant. It makes a lot of things extremely difficult to work with. The only "proof" so far has been shining light through a transparent material with extremely high optical index. But high optical index causes light to bend around each atom just as light bends as it passes close to the sun. Gravity of each atom is extremely small, but the light gets extremely close. As I understand it, light follows a slalom course through a high optical index medium. Light continues at the same constant speed, but the path is not straight. The distance appears short simply if you measure the displacement from beginning to end and ignore all the hair pin turns. If you could put an odometer on a photon and calculate speed based on the distance it really travelled, I believe you will find it is still 'c'.

Palomar · 2004-06-30 05:55:10

But the math! I seriously need a calculus tutor.

*Yeah right.

Robert, if you need a math tutor...there is absolutely ZERO hope for -me- ever.

You are such a mega-brain. I really like reading your posts (especially, of course, when you answer my questions occasionally -- ha ha).

Happy birthday!

--Cindy :;):

Dook · 2004-06-30 09:17:45

The funny thing about math is that, well, it can be funny sometimes. Take X + Y = X and none of them are equal to zero. Seems impossible doesn't it? It's not if X equals the speed of light and Y is the speed the earth travelling through the universe. Not so impossible anymore is it? I know C is used for the speed of light but you would have figured it out immediately and ruined the point I was trying to make.

Okay, another idea, this one is really out there and not in agreement with my gravity/EMR idea but I didn't want to make a whole new topic. It is somewhat relative.

A particle moving along at almost the speed of light can move in a straight line without realizing its true speed or energy and only when the particle is acted upon, forced to turn as in a cyclotron, does it realize its true speed and it releases energy because it has to in order to keep from gaining mass. Energy applied to turn the particle equals energy released. Naw, can't be right. Particles still impact showing an increase in mass. Hmm.

RobertDyck · 2004-06-30 11:00:14

A particle moving along at almost the speed of light can move in a straight line without realizing its true speed or energy and only when the particle is acted upon, forced to turn as in a cyclotron, does it realize its true speed and it releases energy because it has to in order to keep from gaining mass. Energy applied to turn the particle equals energy released.

Remember, there is no "ether" that is some sort of medium to propagate the waves of electromagnetic radiation. There is no solid, gaseous or other material out in space. Therefore there is no reference upon which to base a calculation of speed. All speed is relative to something else. There is no centre of the universe; the universe is just an expanse of space in 3 dimensions plus time. Well, mostly. There is no beginning, there is no end. It is like looking at a ball asking which point on its surface is the centre. It doesn't have one. But physicists like Stephen Hawking speculate that the domain of the dimensions of space have been expanding since the Big Bang. That means we are like a point on a balloon that is inflating, now which point on the surface is the centre?

If you can't measure speed from any absolute point, there is no "true" speed. Speed is only relative to something else. Time dilation explains why this can occur. Actually, your point about turning a particle is very astute. It is only then that the particle has anything upon which to base a calculation of energy. When you accelerate a particle it changes energy, then energy matters. When you turn a particle you change its direction so that requires accelerating it sideways if nothing else. That changes its speed relative to what it was. However, a particle traveling in a straight line has no forces acting upon it; therefore from its own perspective it isn't moving, the rest of the universe is moving around it. So energy release can only occur if something changes. Of course, vibration within the particle itself could provide that stimulus, such as the spontaneous decay of a free neutron into proton and electron.

I feel that the speed of light has something far more fundamental about it. Our 4 dimension space-time universe can be thought of as a continuous space in which we exist. Within that 4 dimensional space we simultaneously exist as a fertilized ovum, a newborn baby, a teenager, young adult, middle aged, senior, and even a corpse. We are a 4 dimensional space-time worm that lies along a wiggling path through time. Somehow, there is a limit to traversing this 4 dimensional space-time. As we change our position in 3 dimensional space with time, we are a line that is angled; the faster we move the sharper the angle. As that line changes from horizontal with respect to time, time dilation occurs. As we increase our velocity through space with respect to our own personal line, do we reduce our “velocity” through time? Is there a finite sum we cannot violate? It appears that once we achieve the speed of light, time dilation causes all movement of time within the moving object to cease. This raises the question “What is time?” Our perception of time depends on some stimulus: chemical reactions in our bodies causing hunger or aging or propagation of nerve signals in our brains, or an outside reference like the swinging pendulum of a clock, or spinning gear of a watch, or vibrating quartz crystal of a digital watch. How does moving through 3 dimensional space with respect to time change these things? Why does time within a moving object stop once it reaches the speed of light? Why that speed and not some other? I'm sure a photon of light travels the speed it does because it can't travel any faster. One reason it's stable is that time dilation has stopped all time within the photon; essentially freezing it in time. But why is the speed of light 2.99792458*10^8 metres per second? I believe it is a fundamental characteristic of the dimensions of space-time. If we could understand “why” we would understand a great deal more about our universe.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-30 11:30:32

The speed at which time stops... yes that is another good way of looking at it.

Dook · 2004-06-30 12:29:08

So how does a particle know it's speed in a cyclotron? Seems to me there is some relation to light speed since it only resists further acceleration as it approaches that speed. Somehow something either affects the particle (mass increase if you wish or possibly it is affected by external gravity) or the particle (it's own emission of gravity) affects something.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-30 12:48:05

Not quite accurate, as the relativistic increase in mass occurs at any speed greater than zero, though the effect below 0.5C is so small that it is largely inconsequential.

Dook · 2004-06-30 12:48:13

How is the spaceship or the particle accelerating? It must be getting energy from some external source, or it would not accelerate. The increase in mass is not due to collecting additional atoms or particles, it is due to gaining additional energy. If E=mc^2, then energy and mass are equivalent, so a gain in energy is the same as a gain in mass.

A spaceship would accelerate with its own engines. I wonder if we could actually test this. Could a Saturn V type craft send out a beacon that would transmit back radio signals?

I buy your explanation that an increase in speed, rather than increasing mass, increases energy of the particle.

Also isn't the equation E=MX with X being the speed of that mass rather than E=MC^2?

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-30 12:54:04

But E=MC^2 illustrates that energy IS mass in this case. You only seem to agree with statements that seem to support your incomplete understanding of relativity.

And no, in E=MC^2, the C is light speed which is a constant, it is not related to the velocity of the object.

clark · 2004-06-30 13:21:06

I always understood E=MC2 as explaining how light is able to go as fast as it can, and that light is the fastest speed simply because anything with Mass would require more energy than exsists in the universe.

I'm probably wrong, but what the heck...

So you have light, which is a particle without mass. Ergo, light has no gravity since it has no mass (gravity is derived from mass). Now, if a particle has mass, it takes energy (that's with an E!) to speed up. How much energy is dependant upon how fast you want to go, and how much mass you need to acclerate.

Think of a 100 pound go cart versus a 10 ton abrahms tank- which one will need more fuel to reach the same speed?

Same thing with light, which is why nothing can go faster than it. It's the upper limit because light has no mass, therfore it's apparent and observable speed is the fastest anything in our known univsere can go.

Now, for your spaceship, it's going to have mass. That dosen't mean it can't go the speed of light (just really unlikely), it just means that for your spaceship to go the speed of light, it would take more energy than the universe is calculated to have. You would need a lot of fuel (and as your fuel mass increases, you require even more fuel because you have to speed the mass of the fuel up to C as well).

Now, say you had an "infinity" drive of some sort that made enough energy to speed up your space ship with a given mass- you have a problem. Friction. Since the ship has mass, it will have the effect of friction acting upon it (basic laws of motion here), slowing it down. Light get's around this because it has no mass, and therfore has no friction acting upon it. So it's going to be really hard to maintain that speed, no matter what- and going beyond it, well, it better be a pretty effecient infinity drive because that requires even more energy. E=MC2 isn't really saying nothing can go faster than light, it just points out that the energy required dosen't exsist.

Where gravity comes from? Well I dunno. Perhaps it's the Higgs-Boson. I tend to think that string theory will do more to explain it though- something about those vibrating strings curled in upon themselves makes me think that the sychronization of particles strings cause a release of "gravity-energy" (Higgs-Boson particles) that are felt in the more immediate universe. But it's all a blind leap, cause I sure as hell don't know.

Dook · 2004-06-30 14:48:58

But E=MC^2 illustrates that energy IS mass in this case. You only seem to agree with statements that seem to support your incomplete understanding of relativity.
And no, in E=MC^2, the C is light speed which is a constant, it is not related to the velocity of the object.

Sigh... I understand relativity but there are problems with it. It doesn't explain everything! It doesn't even agree with everything! So for us to move forward we have to tweek things. Clarify it just a bit.

You continue to reason that E=MC^2 prooves E=MC2. Well it doesn't if it's wrong in certain instances!

And why would I NOT attempt to support my theory? What kind of debate do you think this is, one where I state my opinion and then immediately back down to your superior understanding of the universe?

So, specifically, how does a particle gain mass with speed? I know Einstein says it does and the cyclotron prooves particles are heavier but the details please. A theory. Any theory but it has to be your own. A truly original idea. Maybe something like: Speed near EMR causes a particle to develop a negative or positive charge and this pulls quarks from the 4th dimension that then attach to the particle.

clark · 2004-06-30 15:00:43

How Particles Acquire Mass
By Mary and Ian Butterworth, Imperial College London, and Doris and Vigdor Teplitz, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA.
The Higgs boson is a hypothesised particle which, if it exists, would give the mechanism by which particles acquire mass.

Matter is made of molecules; molecules of atoms; atoms of a cloud of electrons about one-hundred-millionth of a centimetre and a nucleus about one-hundred-thousandth the size of the electron cloud. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons. Each proton (or neutron) has about two thousand times the mass of an electron. We know a good deal about why the nucleus is so small. We do not know, however, how the particles get their masses. Why are the masses what they are? Why are the ratios of masses what they are? We can't be said to understand the constituents of matter if we don't have a satisfactory answer to this question.

Peter Higgs has a model in which particle masses arise in a beautiful, but complex, progression. He starts with a particle that has only mass, and no other characteristics, such as charge, that distinguish particles from empty space. We can call his particle H. H interacts with other particles; for example if H is near an electron, there is a force between the two. H is of a class of particles called "bosons". We first attempt a more precise, but non-mathematical statement of the point of the model; then we give explanatory pictures.

In the mathematics of quantum mechanics describing creation and annihilation of elementary particles, as observed at accelerators, particles at particular points arise from "fields" spread over space and time. Higgs found that parameters in the equations for the field associated with the particle H can be chosen in such a way that the lowest energy state of that field (empty space) is one with the field not zero. It is surprising that the field is not zero in empty space, but the result, not an obvious one, is: all particles that can interact with H gain mass from the interaction.

Thus mathematics links the existence of H to a contribution to the mass of all particles with which H interacts. A picture that corresponds to the mathematics is of the lowest energy state, "empty" space, having a crown of H particles with no energy of their own. Other particles get their masses by interacting with this collection of zero-energy H particles. The mass (or inertia or resistance to change in motion) of a particle comes from its being "grabbed at" by Higgs particles when we try and move it.

If particles no get their masses from interacting with the empty space Higgs field, then the Higgs particle must exist; but we can't be certain without finding the Higgs. We have other hints about the Higgs; for example, if it exists, it plays a role in "unifying" different forces. However, we believe that nature could contrive to get the results that would flow from the Higgs in other ways. In fact, proving the Higgs particle does not exist would be scientifically every bit as valuable as proving it does.

These questions, the mechanisms by which particles get their masses, and the relationship amongs different forces of nature, are major ones and so basic to having an understanding of the constituents of matter and the forces among them, that it is hard to see how we can make significant progress in our understanding of the stuff of which the earth is made without answering them.

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400 … .htm]Where this was taken from...

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400 … 2.htm]More info related to where particle mass comes from...

http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400 … s3.htm]One more with a good example of how Higgs creates Mass

Dook · 2004-06-30 15:35:13

Hmm, interesting.

clark · 2004-06-30 16:40:56

So basically, if the Higgs-Boson exsist, it creates a field which allows the formation of mass as a particle speeds through it (the Higgs-Boson).

So an itty-bitty mass particle gains more mass as it travels through the Higgs-Boson, which acts to increase the mass as speed increases (the increase in speed attracts more mass).

At least that's how I understood it.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-30 17:10:04

Ah but Dook is not talking about rest mass, he is talking about relativistic mass, which is a different concept and has nothing to do with the Higgs particle. If it were a field, then your speed wouldn't have anything to do with it anyway.

And you continue to state that Relativity is incorrect or incomplete, only because you don't understand how your own examples are affected by it. Relativity is not concerned with the rest mass of a hypothetical rocket, but you blame it for being "incomplete" because it doesn't explain somthing that is has nothing to do with!

And you still persist in thinking like a Newtonian physicist, Relativity is complete, explained, and accurate in the things which it states. E=MC^2, time dialation, etc are all "stand alone" theories, they don't need other theories really to enable them. As an object gains kenetic energy in relation to a reference point, it also gains relativistic apparent mass, because energy IS apparent mass.

A theory. Any theory but it has to be your own. A truly original idea. You are really starting to talk like a psuedo-science prophet now, why on Earth would I do any of these things? Why would I need to in order to support my case? What I am stating was invented by one Albert Einstein and confirmed by dozens of experiments, I am not making this up as I go along!

If you REALLY insist on proof... take antiparticle anhiliation for instance. A proton of known mass ("M") and an antiproton of known mass are brought into contact. The two particles are converted into energy ("E") of the predicted quantity. Now you have M becomming E, so E=MC^2 is proven. If you need more "proof" than nothing will convince you.

...or at least until some crackpot author writes somthing that agrees with you.

clark · 2004-06-30 17:26:13

If it were a field, then your speed wouldn't have anything to do with it anyway.

Well, the way I understand it, the Higgs-Boson is basically theorized to be the very freaking bit of exsistence that allows matter to, well, exsist. Perhaps calling it a field is a misnomer, but for lack of a better term, it's the soup, the ether, the empty space that allows empty space to exsist. Or so they seem to think.

Relativity is complete, explained, and accurate in the things which it states. E=MC^2, time dialation, etc are all "stand alone" theories, they don't need other theories really to enable them.

Um, not quite. If they were so concrete, they wouldn't be building those sats to go prove his theories. We have some observations that add credance to Big E's theories, but by no means definitive proof that closes the door on relativity as completely true.

Lorentz Violation's could very well put a hole in relativity since it rests on the premise that physics is the same in all refrence frames... now, i don't really think it's likely, but possible

try this for some other ideas Dook:

Take a look at Lorentzhttp://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~guymoore/research/lorentz.html]Lorentz violation and its constraints

I think there are some problems because we're dealing with different sizes, and the physics dosen't seem to remain constant between them. Damn need for that unification theory!

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-30 17:36:58

Gravity Probe-B was proposed dozens of years ago, way before we discoverd black holes, or observed with telescopes the warping of time and space... but after spending hundreds of millions on it, the project was too far along to cancel.

And i'm not real sure that the Lorentz effect even really applies either to the mass/energy duality of different frames involved with Relativity.

clark · 2004-06-30 18:14:48

Hey, it might not- I'm not an expert, but it seems that Lorentz violation throws a monkey wrench into Relativity assumptions. It does deal with the issue of refrence frames though.

But, that said, I'm going out on a branch here with a little arm-chair theorizing.

So Mass, large mass, warps time-space, right? Well, what precisely is being warped? Space-time, yeah, I get it. But what is space-time? What is the fabric of space-time?

I believe the answer is this Higgs-Boson. It's the stuff of universal fabric- exsistence as it were (or at least a primary component).

So this Higgs-Boson stuff, this particle, is everywhere all at the same time at the creation of the Universe. As the matter from the first bang exploded, it hit this Higgs-Boson stuff and it acted to slow down the particles. It slowed down these particles and as they slowed, they collected, the Higgs-Boson kind of getting mixed up in it all, or causing the effect of gravity to extend further in the macro-scale Universe as the particles slowed and gained greater mass. Basically, Higgs-Boson acted as the primary force of friction, and perhaps the rest of our universal laws.

Matter causes the Higgs-Boson to curl in on itself- to basically warp itself a bit. thus the creation of the space-time dimension.

I know, impractical and weird. But it was fun little thought. I don't place much stock in it... but still. It makes a werid kind of sense to me (which isn't saying much, I admit).

But then I got to thinking further- if we could figure out a way to cancel out the effect of the Higgs-Boson (assuming it exsists), perhaps we could mitigate the effects it imposes upon mass and speed (since the theory kind of leads to the premise that these particles act to slow down mass in the universe). Faster than light, perhaps?

Euler · 2004-06-30 23:24:00

Now, say you had an "infinity" drive of some sort that made enough energy to speed up your space ship with a given mass- you have a problem. Friction. Since the ship has mass, it will have the effect of friction acting upon it (basic laws of motion here), slowing it down. Light get's around this because it has no mass, and therfore has no friction acting upon it. So it's going to be really hard to maintain that speed, no matter what- and going beyond it, well, it better be a pretty effecient infinity drive because that requires even more energy.

Friction is caused by two surfaces rubbing against each other. Since your space ship is in space, it is not rubbing against anything, and therefore has no friction. In fact, there is no force slowing it down at all. The spacecraft will continue at the same speed without slowing down unless it runs into something or has to climb out of a gravity well. In fact, someone on the spacecraft could claim that the spacecraft is not moving at all and that instead it is only the Earth that is moving, and they would be equally correct as the observers on Earth.

E=MC2 isn't really saying nothing can go faster than light, it just points out that the energy required dosen't exsist.

It is not saying either. It is just pointing out that matter can be converted into energy and vice-versa. The speed of light limitation comes directly from the postulates of relativity.

The first postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. Now think about that. If a rocket is headed away from Earth at .9c and a beam of light from Earth passes the rocket, an observer on the rocket will measure the difference in velocities between the rocket and the light beam to be c. If a rocket is headed away from Earth at .999c and a beam of light from Earth passes the rocket, an observer on the rocket will still measure the difference in velocities between the rocket and the light beam to be c. So no matter how fast you go, you are really not any closer to reaching the speed of light.

chat · 2004-07-01 04:50:16

Lets see if this makes it easier to think about C and E=mc2.

Not E=mc2 for speed.
But C = Time. C=T

C=T might be the reason for apparent mass increase, and the reason you cant go faster than C in this dimension.

As you travel at a greater % of C you also travel a lesser % of T.

At C speed you are traveling T speed, no matter what direction you go, and no matter what your perspective is.

At the speed of time or C, you are simply traveling at the max speed of the universe set by time.
You can't go faster, because faster than time doesn't exist.
Probably the reason light goes at light speed.

If you find a way to go faster than C, then you will have to travel it in another dimension with a different T time.:)

Just my thoughts though, but it does explain what happens when any object moves at any speed.

dicktice · 2004-07-02 12:42:18

To refer to one's own ad hoc hypothesis as a "theory" in the same breath as the Theory of Relativity perhaps shouldn't bother me, but it does. How to reply, other than by writing "re. your theory," when it's only a half-baked idea you've thrown out for discussion? I suggest we stick to "hypothesis" instead, because you'd really have to work like an Einstein to reach theory status--right?

Dook · 2004-07-02 13:33:26

Nothing like good constructive criticism.

You consider it half-baked because who am I to insult such a genius as Einstein but Einstein was wrong as much or more than he was right. Yeah, I know he was a genius but so was Newton and look what happened to his theory. We need to move forward. Scientists have become like the religious leaders, unable to accept change from pre-determined laws even when those laws just don't fit every example.

You don't like my theory/hypothesis/half-baked idea. And yours is? Oh, yours is to follow Einstein. No matter what.

chat · 2004-07-02 18:54:28

dicktice,

The true beauty of science, is that everything is just current theory awaiting a radical idea to change all that went before it.

Einstein will be proven wrong some day, it might not be today or any day soon, but some day.

But for now i think e=mc2 will suffice.

dicktice · 2004-07-04 11:12:33

Dook: Sorry that my use of "half-baked" touched one of your hot buttons. I would have used "hypothesis" except for the fact that the term was missing in your previous post. The sole purpose of my reply was (hopefully) to restrict the use of the term "theory" to former hypothese which have been granted that status by the scientific community. Not being one of those, but only a hands-on-engineer, I tend to judge submissions dealing with subjects new to me (at least at first blush) on the precision and consistancy of their use of terminology. With regard to Einstein, your criticism refers to which theory?--see what I mean?

Dook · 2004-07-04 12:13:31

Okay! Okay! After enough reading on the subject I surrender. One reference I found says that at 99.9997 the speed of light protons end up 430 times bigger than their original size.

Do you think this increase (430 times) would be proportional to the amount of objects (quarks...) that a photon is made of?

A large amount of energy confined in small areas will produce tiny particles. Matter=energy but the ratio heavily favors mass. A little mass equals a LOT of energy. The energy applied to a particle as it increases speed in an accelerator is given off by the particle. Almost as if the particle is doing everything it can to not reach light speed. The energy given off creates matter.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-29 22:49:23

Re: Einstein was wrong

#27 2004-06-30 05:55:10

Re: Einstein was wrong

#28 2004-06-30 09:17:45

Re: Einstein was wrong

#29 2004-06-30 11:00:14

Re: Einstein was wrong

#30 2004-06-30 11:30:32

Re: Einstein was wrong

#31 2004-06-30 12:29:08

Re: Einstein was wrong

#32 2004-06-30 12:48:05

Re: Einstein was wrong

#33 2004-06-30 12:48:13

Re: Einstein was wrong

#34 2004-06-30 12:54:04

Re: Einstein was wrong

#35 2004-06-30 13:21:06

Re: Einstein was wrong

#36 2004-06-30 14:48:58

Re: Einstein was wrong

#37 2004-06-30 15:00:43

Re: Einstein was wrong

#38 2004-06-30 15:35:13

Re: Einstein was wrong

#39 2004-06-30 16:40:56

Re: Einstein was wrong

#40 2004-06-30 17:10:04

Re: Einstein was wrong

#41 2004-06-30 17:26:13

Re: Einstein was wrong

#42 2004-06-30 17:36:58

Re: Einstein was wrong

#43 2004-06-30 18:14:48

Re: Einstein was wrong

#44 2004-06-30 23:24:00

Re: Einstein was wrong

#45 2004-07-01 04:50:16

Re: Einstein was wrong

#46 2004-07-02 12:42:18

Re: Einstein was wrong

#47 2004-07-02 13:33:26

Re: Einstein was wrong

#48 2004-07-02 18:54:28

Re: Einstein was wrong

#49 2004-07-04 11:12:33

Re: Einstein was wrong

#50 2004-07-04 12:13:31

Re: Einstein was wrong

Board footer