|
On May 18 2014 02:48 EngrishTeacher wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2014 02:34 Dizmaul wrote:On May 18 2014 02:27 EngrishTeacher wrote:On May 18 2014 02:11 Dizmaul wrote:
I think you need to think about it the other way around. When the people on earth have waited 150 years for the astronaut, They would tell you they have only been in there ship 1 year because of there speed. So if you "wait" for flash to cross the finish line it was 0.00000003 seconds for you. For him it would be even less time. Wait if it's 0.00000003 seconds for me, then it would be only 0.00000003/1 trillion seconds for Flash, and since distance is constant at 100m, somehow flash was able to travel at 1 trillion times the speed of light? I mean Distance / time = speed, so if distance doesn't change, and time is shortened to 1/1 trillionth, the only thing left is speed right? Which has increased by 1 trillion times? Also, since we always talk about the speed of light and not velocity, let's say that a tiny person traveling in a ship close to the speed of light is doing so in a circular direction around you, and camera technology (unthinkably high frames) has advanced so much that you can fully capture the motion of the tiny person and see him clearly in a video as he revolves around you. What would you see here? A tiny person that is traveling at a high speed, but is moving (breathing, turning, etc.) at an excruciatingly slow speed? The Distance to flash would be 1 Trillion times shorter also that's what distance contraction is doing. ... Ok that just totally blew my mind. So no, we do not need faster-than-light travel to cross galaxies. All we need to do is eventually be able to harness enough energy to accelerate a spaceship close enough to the speed of light such that galaxies could be crossed in seconds from the viewpoint of the astronaut? The reasoning is that because of both the time dilation and length contraction effects, and the fact that speed of light is constant, so distance is shorted and time is dilated both on a massive scale. Distance / Speed = Time, so distance decreases while time dilates as well, and this phenomenon is amplified as you get closer to the speed of light. In the end, as you get so close to the speed of the light, time dilates and distance contracts so much that shouldn't you be able pretty much teleport to any point in the universe? I don't think you understand the theory of relativity engrishteacher. From the traveller's perspective is not the same thing as the rest of the universe's perspective.
|
TBH I don't even remember exactly what distance contraction is. I looked it up on wiki just now, and it seems that it depends on whether the length is of a moving object.
For example Flash would appear as a cardboard man to you (length of moving object is contracted in the direction of travel, like the inverse of Star Trek's visual effect). OTOH if the racetrack is stationary and measures 100m to you, it would be tiny to Flash since it is moving relative to him.
A physicist can correct me on the details, but my understanding is that the difference is due to relative simultaneity.
Let's say that there are two lights at the ends of the racetrack, which Flash turns on an off at the same time at 1 bazillion APM while he's running (we all know he has the mechanics to do that  ).
In your view, the lights would actually blink at different times, since events in his view sync in a different way from yours. So the two ends of the racetrack that he perceives as being from the same moment actually belongs to different moments (in your/the racetrack's view).
Since Flash has actually moved between the two moments (relative to the racetrack), his perception of the distance is different from yours.
|
you are right, there is no simultaneous time, that concept only exists in our minds as we are exposed to very little relativity.
When looking at relativity, you are required to use formulas as our minds are not made for it and will make many mistakes when you look at it intuitively.
http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/
have a look at that, it shows some effects of relativity in a more convenient way than looking at formulas very sternly for hours and calculating what happens when 2 space ships of length X fire at each other etc, which is how i learned it in university.
|
On May 18 2014 03:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2014 02:48 EngrishTeacher wrote:On May 18 2014 02:34 Dizmaul wrote:On May 18 2014 02:27 EngrishTeacher wrote:On May 18 2014 02:11 Dizmaul wrote:
I think you need to think about it the other way around. When the people on earth have waited 150 years for the astronaut, They would tell you they have only been in there ship 1 year because of there speed. So if you "wait" for flash to cross the finish line it was 0.00000003 seconds for you. For him it would be even less time. Wait if it's 0.00000003 seconds for me, then it would be only 0.00000003/1 trillion seconds for Flash, and since distance is constant at 100m, somehow flash was able to travel at 1 trillion times the speed of light? I mean Distance / time = speed, so if distance doesn't change, and time is shortened to 1/1 trillionth, the only thing left is speed right? Which has increased by 1 trillion times? Also, since we always talk about the speed of light and not velocity, let's say that a tiny person traveling in a ship close to the speed of light is doing so in a circular direction around you, and camera technology (unthinkably high frames) has advanced so much that you can fully capture the motion of the tiny person and see him clearly in a video as he revolves around you. What would you see here? A tiny person that is traveling at a high speed, but is moving (breathing, turning, etc.) at an excruciatingly slow speed? The Distance to flash would be 1 Trillion times shorter also that's what distance contraction is doing. ... Ok that just totally blew my mind. So no, we do not need faster-than-light travel to cross galaxies. All we need to do is eventually be able to harness enough energy to accelerate a spaceship close enough to the speed of light such that galaxies could be crossed in seconds from the viewpoint of the astronaut?The reasoning is that because of both the time dilation and length contraction effects, and the fact that speed of light is constant, so distance is shorted and time is dilated both on a massive scale. Distance / Speed = Time, so distance decreases while time dilates as well, and this phenomenon is amplified as you get closer to the speed of light. In the end, as you get so close to the speed of the light, time dilates and distance contracts so much that shouldn't you be able pretty much teleport to any point in the universe? I don't think you understand the theory of relativity engrishteacher. From the traveller's perspective is not the same thing as the rest of the universe's perspective.
No shit right? Please read better; choosing to ignore what I wrote earlier and then announcing me of ignorance on exactly what I wrote doesn't exactly help you get your point across, which you don't even have other than telling me how I lack understanding.
Also,
On May 18 2014 02:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
lol what is this? There is no paradox. Flash's perception does not change your perception. You would percieve him move and cross the line at near lightspeed, just as he percieves near 0 time change.
Scenario #2 is not what happens with relativity. At all.
"This is where things get a little murky. From Flash's own perspective, he still reaches the finish line in 0.0000003 seconds. "
This makes no sense. Did someone tell you this, or did you actually try to understand the theory of relativity?
Heck, the fact that you acquaint scenario #2 with fiction says it all.
There is no paradox to reconcile.
Edit: the twin paradox is not a paradox either.
Thanks for the condescending criticism without any real corrections or inputs, and I can't imagine anything I wrote that would lead you to think that I thought Flash's perception would change your perception.
I think I might be just wasting my time seeing how you actually spelled "percieve" wrong, but since you're so eager to point out how wrong I was (even though this was me asking about a topic I don't know much about) on 3 different occasions in 1 short post (with edits), and then did it again a few posts later (lol...), it would be nice if you could actually contribute something not already said in the thread or clarify some points.
Otherwise you're just an asshole with too much time and a pathetic superiority complex that feels the need to do what you did.
|
|
|
I suppose I need to elaborate more.
twin paradox explained
this is basically why I think the deceleration/acceleration becomes important... not that I follow it all perfectly. I'll probably have to read it over another few dozen times before I can even begin to understand. I believe, if I follow this correctly, the reason for astronaughts coming back with a giant time shift is the change in acceleration, while flash isn't doing this.
|
The correct answer is already given, in one way or another, by various posters before me, but the gist of your confusion is that you are misunderstanding the idea behind astronaut story (from the twin paradox). The idea is that in the reference frame of the astronaut he travels close to the speed of light for a fixed amount of time. In the reference frame of the people on earth he has been away for much, much longer traveling close to the speed of light. That much you seemed to have understood.
When applied to the Flash racing problem, you want to start with your reference frame. From your perspective Flash runs really, really, really fast and crosses the 100m line in a fraction of a second. This is the long time that everyone else not traveling at relativistic speeds experience. For Flash, the relativistic reference frame, he travels for a much, much, shorter time; fractions of fractions of a second. As someone alluded earlier, this is because he has a much shorter distance to travel due to length contraction.
What you ended up doing, which confused you, is starting with the relativistic reference frame but not applying length contraction. So you falsely thought that it was going to take him the shorter time. To make sense of that point of view, you have to apply inverse length contraction when you go to your reference frame. Which really means that Flash's 100m dash is actually 100/(1-v^2/c^2)m (a very, very, very, large number) dash for a you. So it would make sense that you thought it took Flash trillions of years to cross it.
|
On May 18 2014 06:28 garbanzo wrote:
The correct answer is already given, in one way or another, by various posters before me, but the gist of your confusion is that you are misunderstanding the idea behind astronaut story (from the twin paradox). The idea is that in the reference frame of the astronaut he travels close to the speed of light for a fixed amount of time. In the reference frame of the people on earth he has been away for much, much longer traveling close to the speed of light. That much you seemed to have understood.
When applied to the Flash racing problem, you want to start with your reference frame. From your perspective Flash runs really, really, really fast and crosses the 100m line in a fraction of a second. This is the long time that everyone else not traveling at relativistic speeds experience. For Flash, the relativistic reference frame, he travels for a much, much, shorter time; fractions of fractions of a second. As someone alluded earlier, this is because he has a much shorter distance to travel due to length contraction.
What you ended up doing, which confused you, is starting with the relativistic reference frame but not applying length contraction. So you falsely thought that it was going to take him the shorter time. To make sense of that point of view, you have to apply inverse length contraction when you go to your reference frame. Which really means that Flash's 100m dash is actually 100/(1-v^2/c^2)m (a very, very, very, large number) dash for a you. So it would make sense that you thought it took Flash trillions of years to cross it.
Yep that's pretty much it, thanks to everyone for clarifying this issue.
|
On May 18 2014 02:48 EngrishTeacher wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2014 02:34 Dizmaul wrote:On May 18 2014 02:27 EngrishTeacher wrote:On May 18 2014 02:11 Dizmaul wrote:
I think you need to think about it the other way around. When the people on earth have waited 150 years for the astronaut, They would tell you they have only been in there ship 1 year because of there speed. So if you "wait" for flash to cross the finish line it was 0.00000003 seconds for you. For him it would be even less time. Wait if it's 0.00000003 seconds for me, then it would be only 0.00000003/1 trillion seconds for Flash, and since distance is constant at 100m, somehow flash was able to travel at 1 trillion times the speed of light? I mean Distance / time = speed, so if distance doesn't change, and time is shortened to 1/1 trillionth, the only thing left is speed right? Which has increased by 1 trillion times? Also, since we always talk about the speed of light and not velocity, let's say that a tiny person traveling in a ship close to the speed of light is doing so in a circular direction around you, and camera technology (unthinkably high frames) has advanced so much that you can fully capture the motion of the tiny person and see him clearly in a video as he revolves around you. What would you see here? A tiny person that is traveling at a high speed, but is moving (breathing, turning, etc.) at an excruciatingly slow speed? The Distance to flash would be 1 Trillion times shorter also that's what distance contraction is doing. ... Ok that just totally blew my mind. So no, we do not need faster-than-light travel to cross galaxies. All we need to do is eventually be able to harness enough energy to accelerate a spaceship close enough to the speed of light such that galaxies could be crossed in seconds from the viewpoint of the astronaut?
Part of the ever-present problems in explaining physics to those not versed in its language is that some terminology in physics simply doesn't mean the same thing in physics as it does in everyday use. The second (and more difficult) problem is that concepts in physics are not derived from intuitive think-tanking, they are generally derived from careful mathematical analysis of a system/situation. The reason we can talk about how things act when they are moving at relativistic speeds is because we have lots of equations we can plug numbers into.
Where does the problem come from then in this second point? It's that the math often contains an immense number of subtleties that are not clear or clearly communicated.
To answer your question about high-speed travel: yes, what you're saying is technically achievable, but what you're trying to convey is impossible. Your words and the way they are put together are more or less correct, but the concept you are envisioning behind them is not because of the underlying subtleties in the math that don't translate easily into English.
Every practical mode of spaceflight travel yet discovered is limited in this very big fundamental way: the vehicle spends half the time getting where it's going and the other half slowing down in order to arrive.
Think about it. You're in a rocket ship, starting in space near Earth. Your destination is some very distant planet in our galaxy, for example. You have to arrive at the destination going 0m/s or close to it so you don't splat all over the surface of the planet or explode in a ball of unglory. So half the trip you're accelerating. Burning those engines full thrust to build up as much speed as possible. But then you get the halfway point of your journey. It's not necessarily intuitive, but if you think about it, you have to turn your ship 180 degrees and burn those engines just as hard in the opposite direction! If you simply turn the engines off, you'll coast toward your destination (super-rapidly) at a fixed velocity until you smash into it. So you have to slow down somehow. In space, you can't put on the breaks. If you just have a simple rocket engine, you have to turn that sucker right back around and burn it exactly as hard as you did on the way there in order to slow down to 0m/s at your new planet (we're ignoring fuel for now as that complicates the matter quite a lot).
The disappointing thing now is that special relativity (the part of physics from which your equations were derived) does not apply to the situation I described at all. Those equations are only valid in an inertial frame. The problem is that your rocket ship is constantly accelerating - disqualifying it from being an inertial frame. What you're doing, then, is taking your rocket ship at ~earth (which is inertial frame number 1) and your rocket ship at its max speed in the middle of the voyage (inertial frame number 2) and perhaps the destination planet (similar to inertial frame number 1 again, because it's in our galaxy) and comparing them all and using all these equations that assume constant velocities when your rocket ship is never at a constant velocity. And all that is just subtext, easily missed if you simply skim over the equations derived.
In the original example of racer 1 vs. racer 2, special relativity cannot describe what happens. In order to use your equations, both participants would need to be already moving at their relative velocities and have an agreed-upon "start line" where they intersect and the race will start (and there are more and more problems you can discover with that type of situation as well that I won't get into). If you do that, you can more easily (and importantly, more accurately) explain what both participants will perceive. If you're trying to really look into the problem, I would remove the racetrack - because that's yet another subtle/hidden frame of reference to deal with. The other extremely important concept that the racetrack example bowls right over is that members of inertial frames believe they are essentially standing still and that only all the other inertial frames are moving. That's why it's relative in the first place.
I know this isn't the simple answer you were probably looking for, but this kind of problem exists outside the sphere of the physical equations you are trying to use to examine the situation. Of course you'll end up with oddities if you apply equations that are no longer correct. Any examples you're talking about with acceleration (i.e. changing velocities) that involve near-lightspeed velocities essentially will require general relativity to full describe them.
If you get nothing else out of this post, remember that a) inertial frames are frames that are not accelerating and b) members of inertial frames believe they are essentially standing still. Armed with those two truths, you should be able to understand quite a lot of problems in special relativity.
|
On May 18 2014 02:27 radscorpion9 wrote:
I don't think there would be such extreme effects, partly because we can actually do this experiment by using something even faster than flash; i.e. a flashlight.
So if you actually did that experiment you could easily observe the result which is intuitively obvious to everyone. After you turn on the flashlight, a few nanoseconds later or so the light is observed to hit a barrier at the end of a 100 m distance (of course you have to subtract the time it takes for the light to bounce off and reach your eye, but its clearly implied to be a very small amount of time in terms of how long it takes to reach the barrier).
I can only assume that objects/people moving slower than the speed of light would operate in the same way. So therefore it must be option #1
As for the explanation as to how this meshes with special relativity, I think that if you had placed a clock on flash as he was running, and you observed this clock, it would appear to be moving extremely slowly. So the fact is that the faster Flash runs, the less he ages. But because the time spent under this time dilation effect is so small the age reduction is negligible.
I think the issue is that Flash would have to travel for a very, very long distance (and then come back) in order for these time dilation effects to be significant. That's why if you read about the "Twin Paradox" on Wikipedia, they talk about how one twin waits until one year has passed while travelling near the speed of light. In that case, two centuries pass on Earth for the other twin. But here Flash is just travelling 100 m, which is a very small fraction of a second so nothing is really noticeable.
Do photons have mass? I'm not sure if the flashlight and Newtonian intuition apply here...
|
On May 18 2014 04:19 LaNague wrote:you are right, there is no simultaneous time, that concept only exists in our minds as we are exposed to very little relativity. When looking at relativity, you are required to use formulas as our minds are not made for it and will make many mistakes when you look at it intuitively. http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/have a look at that, it shows some effects of relativity in a more convenient way than looking at formulas very sternly for hours and calculating what happens when 2 space ships of length X fire at each other etc, which is how i learned it in university.
Thank you so much for this link!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
