Time dilation and distance contraction

[D.Nada]

If it was possible to ride along with a photon, would it be true that 1)
The trip would appear instantaneous and 2) The trip would appear to
traverse no distance? 3) And, if true, this would still be true even
though space is expanding?

I'm trying to visualize how the universe might appear to the light
energy that's remained light since the first few instants after the big
bang.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/13/2013 4:28 PM, D.Nada wrote:
> If it was possible to ride along with a photon,

but it's not, not even in principle. the laws of physics do not let any
massive object travel along with a photon.

you might as well ask what newton's laws would predict if energy were
not conserved. you can't ask what the laws of physics would predict if
the laws were broken.

> would it be true that 1)
> The trip would appear instantaneous

no.

> and 2) The trip would appear to
> traverse no distance?

definitely not.

> 3) And, if true, this would still be true even
> though space is expanding?

since neither is true, question is moot.

[rotchm]

On May 13, 5:28 pm, "D.Nada" <D.N...@NoSpam.group> wrote:
> If it was possible to ride along with a photon,

No current physics theory permits this. But lets play along...

> would it be true that 1)
> The trip would appear instantaneous

"Yes". If v ~ c, given two spacial locations in an *i-frame*, the
traveler's clock will indicate a value of t ~ 0. If v = c (if
possible) his clock is "stopped", so he will arrive at point B and
his clock will still indicate zero.

> and 2) The trip would appear to traverse no distance? 3)

"yes" : For v ~ c, from his POV, the approaching "distance" of AB will
have a length ~zero. For v=c, since all his processes are stopped, he
is unable to perform a measurement of distance.

> And, if true, this would still be true even though space is expanding?

Now you are dealing with a non i-frame.

Depends on the expansion. If the expansion is such that it is greater
that the light beam's motion, he will never attain (catch up) to B: if
v~c, t~ infinity and AB ~ infinity. If v = c (if possible) t=0
(stopped) and since all his local processes are "stopped" he cant
neither perform a measurement of the distance of AB wrt himself.

If the expansion is too slow, he will attain B. For v~c, t > 0 (but
can be small) and d>0 (and can be small). For v = c, t=0 and as above
he cant perform any measurements.

[D.Nada]

On 05/13/2013 06:16 PM, rotchm wrote:
> On May 13, 5:28 pm, "D.Nada" <D.N...@NoSpam.group> wrote:
>> If it was possible to ride along with a photon,
>
> No current physics theory permits this. But lets play along...
>

Here's where I'm probably going to be even more wrong. It's more of a
poetic view of what might actually be happening.

If we look at what a photon seems to be, it's a packet of energy
transfer. Some atom or molecule in a higher level energy state transfers
some of that energy via the light packet process that we call photon.
This may result in one photon becoming multiple photons if the downward
energy state bounces through multiple energy levels. Each photon can
only be detected after that energy transfer is complete and then only in
one place (and time.)

While our photon is part of a molecule in this higher energy state, it
has "real" mass and actually "experiences" time, as well as it can be
experienced. This is, perhaps, the only place a photon can truly be said
to exist unto itself or anyone else. When energy transfer occurs, it is
not only instantaneous but also congruent. In that sense photons are
completely imaginary constructs. It's possible that this energy cannot
detect when it moves from one molecule to a different one, because
identical molecules might all look the same. Alternatively, if molecules
have some sort of memory of where they've been that might not be so
true. It's certainly true that light energy can go from an "older"
molecule to a "younger" one (considering the molecule's creation history
within the universe, if it can be said to have one) just as easily as
vice-versa. Since overall entropy always increases, during each transfer
the universe as a whole always ages.

Now, as it instantaneously (to it) traverses (zero distance) there is no
doubt to us as outside observers that to us it also travels actual
distance as a wave that can interfere with itself and with other waves,
for that matter. Even so, it cannot detect itself nor can we detect it
while it moves. It can only be detected after it arrives. Photon by
photon, no one can predict exactly where that's going to be. It's only
the byproduct of that self-interference that we observe, and the
apparent congruence of the entire (reachable) universe that we can only
imagine.

So, it seems to me, that a photon created in the earliest moment (if
ceaselessly almost instantly reflected instead of being absorbed) might
think of the universe as being congruent, created and dissipating
essentially in the same instant. Or, depending upon the intervals
between reflections, might find itself in hydrogen, helium, and so on
down the periodic table. And, as it bumped into and instantaneously
transferred between atoms and molecules it thinks of as congruent, it
could not now be entirely sure whether or not in this alternative form
whether it might still be interacting with itself or perhaps with
different but almost identical molecules.

When we point our telescopes towards the beginning of time, don't we
have to accept that the photonic energy we collect hasn't aged, hasn't
moved? To it, isn't this here and now almost the very instant and place
of creation, yet simultaneously almost fourteen billion years in the
past and (since the universe is expanding) even farther distant?

Is this an allowable albeit poetic interpretation, or is it just plain
wrong?

[Y]

On May 14, 7:28 am, "D.Nada" <D.N...@NoSpam.group> wrote:
> If it was possible to ride along with a photon, would it be true that 1)
> The trip would appear instantaneous

If you travelled from one synchronised clock to another, no. However,
if you were riding one photon amid a number of photons which were
reflected from a clock face from your starting position, the observer
recieving the group of photons (reading this clock) would see that you
arrived at the same time that you recall leaving.

> 2) The trip would appear to
> traverse no distance? 3) And, if true, this would still be true even
> though space is expanding?

No...definitely not. Something always moves by a distance.

> I'm trying to visualize how the universe might appear to the light
> energy that's remained light since the first few instants after the big
> bang.

Good luck mr supercomputer..

-y

[rotchm]

> Is this an allowable albeit poetic interpretation, or is it just plain
> wrong?

You description has no prediction power; it has no math. It is poetic.
Then again, most literature in physics is poetic and great care must
be taken to actually understand what the author is conveying. Take for
instance the expressions "clocks run slow" or "Lorentz length
contraction is real". These are just our human_vague_analogy
descriptions of what the formulas actually say. The formulas say: You
will obtain this value. That is all the formulas say. It is us,
authors who "poetises" this by saying "clocks run slow" etc.

[D.Nada]

Thank you.

I'm not trying to predict anything. I'm just trying to interpret that
which has already been predicted and demonstrated. Think of the math and
the reality behind it as parts of the music of the universe. I can
probably play a simple tune or two but lack the real skill that's
required to be a composer, conductor, musician, or even a critic. But I
do hear the music, even though I can't fully comprehend it or hear every
single note. I just wonder whether or not I'm listening to a real
symphony or it's just some imaginary ringing in my ear.

And that question still awaits an answer.

[rotchm]

On May 15, 3:49 pm, "D.Nada" <D.N...@NoSpam.group> wrote:

> Thank you.
>
> I'm not trying to predict anything. I'm just trying to interpret that
> which has already been predicted and demonstrated.

Interpretation is part of philosophy or metaphysics. It is not physics
(even less math) per se.
Each person is free to interpret it as they want. Their
interpretations will not change the math. This is true for the
interpretations of "length contraction" in SR, true for the
interpretations of QM (Copenhagen, many worlds, etc...) etc.

> Think of the math and the reality behind it as parts of the music of the universe.

Even math has its own interpreters (is it real or abstract; discovered
or invented, Philosophy of mathematics).

> I just wonder whether or not I'm listening to a real
> symphony or it's just some imaginary ringing in my ear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_trSIBCgF0

Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, viz. interpretations of
the bible.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 5/15/2013 2:49 PM, D.Nada wrote:
> Thank you.
>
> I'm not trying to predict anything. I'm just trying to interpret that
> which has already been predicted and demonstrated. Think of the math and
> the reality behind it as parts of the music of the universe. I can
> probably play a simple tune or two but lack the real skill that's
> required to be a composer, conductor, musician, or even a critic. But I
> do hear the music, even though I can't fully comprehend it or hear every
> single note. I just wonder whether or not I'm listening to a real
> symphony or it's just some imaginary ringing in my ear.
>
> And that question still awaits an answer.

this is a common but feeble appeal by amateurs and interested hobbyists.
'i can't really do the hard stuff like the math or the experimental
analysis. but maybe i can offer some new insight at a conceptual level,
a different way of thinking about things, a useful description from an
outsider's perspective.'

unfortunately, this is essentially useless from a scientific
perspective. it is more of an exercise of self-amusement than it is
making a positive contribution. moreover, you won't really get feedback
other than 'you're off the mark'.

the fact is, new theories are not 'new interpretations' that get
attached to the same math and the same experimental results. if you ever
got that impression that's how science works, then you've been done a
disservice. more on this in a minute.

there is no substitute for diving in and learning something about a
subject. this means becoming familiar with precursor basics, learning
ancillary skills, and stopping long enough to see ordinary applications
at work. this frustrates the hobbyist who isn't so interested in the
grunge work. It's really no different than someone who is interested in
writing a song or two having to practice on an instrument, playing
scales, and learning how to read music.

back to new theories....
new theories come in several different varieties.
* one is the dramatically new idea, with new concepts. this _always_
produces new math that stem from the new concepts, and there are
_always_ places where the new math makes different predictions than what
the old theory did. these theories are tested by looking at data where
the disagreement lies. general relativity is like this, compared with
newtonian gravity.
* another is the synthesis of disparate ideas. in this case, there is a
consolidation of the math from the separate ideas, which usually means
that predictions can be made about a broader range of applications than
thought of previously. broken symmetry and phase transitions in ordinary
matter are an example of this resulting in the inflationary model of the
big bang.
* another is the modification or correction of a current theory which
leaves the current conceptual framework in place, but adds some depth
that may reconcile disagreement with data or broadens the scope of the
theory. in this case, the math does change, as it has to. the ckm mixing
matrix in particle physics is a good example of this, as is the
cosmological constant (and dark energy) in general relativity.

[D.Nada]

On 05/15/2013 05:11 PM, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
> On 5/15/2013 2:49 PM, D.Nada wrote:
>> Thank you.
>>
>> I'm not trying to predict anything. I'm just trying to interpret that
>> which has already been predicted and demonstrated. Think of the math and
>> the reality behind it as parts of the music of the universe. I can
>> probably play a simple tune or two but lack the real skill that's
>> required to be a composer, conductor, musician, or even a critic. But I
>> do hear the music, even though I can't fully comprehend it or hear every
>> single note. I just wonder whether or not I'm listening to a real
>> symphony or it's just some imaginary ringing in my ear.
>>
>> And that question still awaits an answer.
>
> this is a common but feeble appeal by amateurs and interested hobbyists.
> 'i can't really do the hard stuff like the math or the experimental
> analysis. but maybe i can offer some new insight at a conceptual level,
> a different way of thinking about things, a useful description from an
> outsider's perspective.'
>
> unfortunately, this is essentially useless from a scientific
> perspective. it is more of an exercise of self-amusement than it is
> making a positive contribution. moreover, you won't really get feedback
> other than 'you're off the mark'.

Of course it's an exercise in self-amusement. If I really expected this
to be useful from a scientific perspective, I would be submitting a
paper to "Physical Review Letters" or some other journal.

Do you really expect anyone other than an amateur or an interested
hobbyist to be posting anything on this newsgroup?

>
> the fact is, new theories are not 'new interpretations' that get
> attached to the same math and the same experimental results. if you ever
> got that impression that's how science works, then you've been done a
> disservice. more on this in a minute.

And again, I never said this was a new interpretation. It looks to me
like the math says this is the way it should or at least reasonably can
be interpreted. To itself, light energy takes no time or distance to
travel from point to point. Ergo, to it, all reachable points appear
congruent. Viewing the points from outside gives us a different view,
but both views appear equally valid to this amateur.

New interpretations abound within physics. Galileo proposed that the
earth revolved around the sun rather than vice-versa, but it left was up
to Copernicus to get the math done. Einstein began with a new
interpretation of the Lorentz transforms. (OK, he didn't just stop
there.) Quantum theory currently has at least four active
interpretations, one of the latest (Quantum Bayesianism) proposing that
the wave function is essentially all in the mind of the observer. The
same math applies to most of these interpretations; it's the physical
reality interpretation that differs.

>
> there is no substitute for diving in and learning something about a
> subject. this means becoming familiar with precursor basics, learning
> ancillary skills, and stopping long enough to see ordinary applications
> at work. this frustrates the hobbyist who isn't so interested in the
> grunge work. It's really no different than someone who is interested in
> writing a song or two having to practice on an instrument, playing
> scales, and learning how to read music.

My interest leans more toward listening to music.

I have the same level of talent on the piano. I can bang out and even
create a tune or ten, but none of these tunes are going to match the
level of those who have dedicated their lives to music. So I am not a
"real" musician. So what. I can still appreciate a song when I find one
that resonates with me.

>
> back to new theories....
> new theories come in several different varieties.
> * one is the dramatically new idea, with new concepts. this _always_
> produces new math that stem from the new concepts, and there are
> _always_ places where the new math makes different predictions than what
> the old theory did. these theories are tested by looking at data where
> the disagreement lies. general relativity is like this, compared with
> newtonian gravity.
> * another is the synthesis of disparate ideas. in this case, there is a
> consolidation of the math from the separate ideas, which usually means
> that predictions can be made about a broader range of applications than
> thought of previously. broken symmetry and phase transitions in ordinary
> matter are an example of this resulting in the inflationary model of the
> big bang.
> * another is the modification or correction of a current theory which
> leaves the current conceptual framework in place, but adds some depth
> that may reconcile disagreement with data or broadens the scope of the
> theory. in this case, the math does change, as it has to. the ckm mixing
> matrix in particle physics is a good example of this, as is the
> cosmological constant (and dark energy) in general relativity.

So again, what do you expect? The cosmological constant was put in as a
fudge factor and later disavowed by Einstein. It's only more recently
come back into better repute. Nobody can explain dark energy. Nobody
knows what dark matter is. Nobody knows where space and time came from
or, in a very real sense what they are. You cannot describe space
without using time nor can you describe time without using space. Why is
that? That question is, of course, sort of like asking "Why is the speed
of light constant?"

And there we get to the crux of it. There is no reason. It just is. Go
measure for yourself. We can't really explain either space or time, but
we can measure them. Sometimes. Sometimes we can't actually do the
measurement but it turns out that even if we could the math we trust
tells us that neither space nor time would really exist. Now what?

Oh wait, you need a doctorate in order to guess, especially in a
profound body like this news group. Sorry. Even thought there's no more
math to do you're not allowed to do it, because you've added nothing to
the real body of knowledge with your guess. Is it a plausible guess? No,
"You're off the mark," because ckm mixing matrix particle physics says
so, idiot.

I guess that pretty much explains it. And, since I don't know squat
about ckm mixing matrix particle physics, you must be right. Being an
obviously talentless idiot, I certainly can't dispute you there.

[Absolutely Vertical]

ok, then i'm glad we're on the same page about this being an idle
speculation of little scientific value.

>
> Do you really expect anyone other than an amateur or an interested
> hobbyist to be posting anything on this newsgroup?

actually, there are a number of trained physicists who post regularly to
this group. there are also a number of people who are not professional
physicists but who have studied the material in detail, using references
referred by others.

don't make the mistake that other amateurs and hacks here of thinking
that nobody on this group knows any of the material in depth and
therefore bullshit is safe to spout because nobody knows better.

>>
>> the fact is, new theories are not 'new interpretations' that get
>> attached to the same math and the same experimental results. if you ever
>> got that impression that's how science works, then you've been done a
>> disservice. more on this in a minute.
> And again, I never said this was a new interpretation. It looks to me
> like the math says this is the way it should or at least reasonably can
> be interpreted. To itself, light energy takes no time or distance to
> travel from point to point. Ergo, to it, all reachable points appear
> congruent. Viewing the points from outside gives us a different view,
> but both views appear equally valid to this amateur.
>
> New interpretations abound within physics. Galileo proposed that the
> earth revolved around the sun rather than vice-versa, but it left was up
> to Copernicus to get the math done.

newton, actually. and newton's was an example of class 1 of new
theories, i described to you.

> Einstein began with a new
> interpretation of the Lorentz transforms. (OK, he didn't just stop
> there.)

actually, he started with maxwell's equations and the principle of
relativity, and he _derived_ the lorentz transforms as a consequence.

> Quantum theory currently has at least four active
> interpretations, one of the latest (Quantum Bayesianism) proposing that
> the wave function is essentially all in the mind of the observer. The
> same math applies to most of these interpretations; it's the physical
> reality interpretation that differs.

they are not distinct theories.

>
>>
>> there is no substitute for diving in and learning something about a
>> subject. this means becoming familiar with precursor basics, learning
>> ancillary skills, and stopping long enough to see ordinary applications
>> at work. this frustrates the hobbyist who isn't so interested in the
>> grunge work. It's really no different than someone who is interested in
>> writing a song or two having to practice on an instrument, playing
>> scales, and learning how to read music.
> My interest leans more toward listening to music.

i understand. so listen to theories, and appreciate them. but don't try
to 're-interpret reality' behind them, because -- as you say -- you
don't have either the insight or the skills to do so.

as i said elsewhere, just because there are open questions does not mean
we know nothing.

>
> And there we get to the crux of it. There is no reason. It just is. Go
> measure for yourself. We can't really explain either space or time, but
> we can measure them. Sometimes. Sometimes we can't actually do the
> measurement but it turns out that even if we could the math we trust
> tells us that neither space nor time would really exist. Now what?

there are reasons. what is true is that there is no visible _end_ to the
questions about reasons.

>
> Oh wait, you need a doctorate in order to guess, especially in a
> profound body like this news group. Sorry. Even thought there's no more
> math to do you're not allowed to do it, because you've added nothing to
> the real body of knowledge with your guess. Is it a plausible guess? No,
> "You're off the mark," because ckm mixing matrix particle physics says
> so, idiot.

look, i don't mind the idle speculation of amateurs. it's fun and it
requires little effort and anyone can do it. what i'm telling you is
that if you _desire_ to do something _more_ than that, then there are
things other than idle speculation you'll need to do.

>
> I guess that pretty much explains it. And, since I don't know squat
> about ckm mixing matrix particle physics, you must be right. Being an
> obviously talentless idiot, I certainly can't dispute you there.

i did not say at any time you are a talentless idiot. what i said is
that there is no substitute for learning a subject.

[Tom Roberts]

On 5/19/13 5/19/13 2:11 PM, D.Nada wrote:
> The cosmological constant was put in as a fudge
> factor and later disavowed by Einstein.

This is wrong. Einstein's original field equation did not have the cosmological
constant term, but it belonged there -- he made an error in omitting it. His
"argument" for adding it was that it permitted a steady-state solution. While it
does do that, this "argument" is completely bogus. The REAL reason it belongs is
that it satisfies the symmetry of the equation, and there is no known argument
to omit it.

After Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe, a steady-state solution
was refuted by his observations, so according to Einstein's "argument" there was
no need for the cosmological constant term. But the symmetry of the equation was
unchanged, and there was still no reason to omit the cosmological constant term.
The value of the constant, of course, must be determined by experiment and
observations, and these show it to be extremely small. Indeed the experiments
and observations showed its value to be consistent with zero until the mid 1990s
or so. Only then did astronomers have sufficient resolution in relevant
measurements to distinguish its value from zero.

> It's only more recently come back into
> better repute.

Yes. Because of improved resolution in the relevant measurements. Not for any
"social" reason, or shifts of fashion.

> Nobody can explain dark energy. Nobody knows what dark matter is.

Yes. There is still much we don't know about the world we inhabit.

> Nobody knows where space and time came from or, in a very real sense what they
> are. You cannot describe space without using time nor can you describe time
> without using space. Why is that? That question is, of course, sort of like
> asking "Why is the speed of light constant?"

The geometry underlying relativity explains all this in a simple, elegant, and
straightforward manner. But, of course, it is a MODEL.

> And there we get to the crux of it. There is no reason. It just is.

But that is of course true about EVERYTHING in physics. We can construct models
of the world, but we can delve no deeper and ask "why do these models work so
well?" -- Such questions are outside the realm of science.


Tom Roberts

[Klaus Günter]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 5/19/13 5/19/13 2:11 PM, D.Nada wrote:
>> The cosmological constant was put in as a fudge factor and later
>> disavowed by Einstein.
>
> This is wrong. Einstein's original field equation did not have the
> cosmological constant term, but it belonged there -- he made an error in
> omitting it. His "argument" for adding it was that it permitted a
> steady-state solution. While it does do that, this "argument" is
> completely bogus. The REAL reason it belongs is that it satisfies the
> symmetry of the equation, and there is no known argument to omit it.

This is not true. Without that constant those equations are wrong. They
are wrong anyway, but this is another story.

Allegedly, he first had it, then realized he did a mistake and took it
away. Then got it back, being not sure, then removed again.

Then came Hubble and taught him relativity, the force majore made Einstein
to retract his unmistakebled mistake back, which was not.

So now, the stand-up comedians wannabe famous by association, in stead of
talking about own achievements, their each second word is about Einstein
and his mistakes.

Kind of Oedipus complex "If Einstein did a mistakes, and I am telling it:

"Look momm, I am not that fucking stoopid, I must be more intelligent
than Einstein!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfvq1J7eVpU

[Y]

I hope you're using ctrl c, and ctrl v Tom, because you seem to love
repeating yourself.

-y

[Poutnik]

Y posted Mon, 20 May 2013 00:37:30 -0700 (PDT)

> I hope you're using ctrl c, and ctrl v Tom, because you seem to love
> repeating yourself.
>
> -y

It is annoying to explain some or similar things again and again.
It it would be exhausting to explain it by different words everytime.

--
Poutnik

[Nick Strawberry]

Poutnik wrote:

> It is annoying to explain some or similar things again and again. It it
> would be exhausting to explain it by different words everytime.

Especially when it it would be wrong the first time and needs to
be wrong everytime.