Archiv der Kategorie: Physik

Physik war meine erste Liebe. Diese Kategorie enthält die Beiträge meinem Herzen am nächsten. In zwanzig Jahren, wenn dieser Blog überlebt, Diese Kategorie wird wohl mein dauerhaftesten Erkenntnisse halten. Und zwei hundert Jahren, wenn ich überhaupt erinnert, wird es für diesen Erkenntnissen werden; nicht für die Art von Person, die ich bin, Geld, das ich machen, noch sonst etwas. Nur für meine erste und letzte Liebe…

Wahrnehmung, Physik und die Rolle des Lichts in der Philosophie

Realität, wie wir es spüren,, ist nicht ganz real. Die Sterne in den Nachthimmel sehen wir, beispielsweise, sind nicht wirklich da. Sie können verschoben oder sogar durch die Zeit, die wir zu sehen bekommen gestorben. Aufgrund der Zeit, die Licht von den fernen Sternen und Galaxien zu uns Dies ist Unwirklichkeit. Wir wissen von dieser Verzögerung.

Auch die Sonne, die wir so gut kennen bereits 8 Minuten alt, als wir es zu sehen. Diese Tatsache scheint nicht besonders schweren erkenntnistheoretischen Probleme bereiten – wenn wir wissen, was los ist in die Sonne jetzt möchte, alles, was wir tun müssen, ist, um acht Minuten warten. Wir 'nur richtig’ für die Verzerrungen in unserer Wahrnehmung aufgrund der endlichen Lichtgeschwindigkeit, bevor wir vertrauen können, was wir sehen. Das gleiche Phänomen in seeing hat eine weniger bekannte Manifestation in der Art, wie wir wahrnehmen, sich bewegende Objekte. Einige Himmelskörper erscheinen, als ob sie sich bewegen mehrmals die Geschwindigkeit des Lichts, während ihre "realen’ Geschwindigkeit muss viel weniger als das sein.

Was überrascht, (und selten hervorgehoben) ist, dass, wenn es darum geht, Motion Sensing, können wir nicht zurückzurechnen auf die gleiche Art und Weise, wie wir können, um die Verzögerung bei der Beobachtung der Sonne zu korrigieren. Wenn wir sehen, ein Himmelskörper bewegen sich auf einer unglaublich hohen Geschwindigkeit, können wir nicht berechnen, wie schnell oder sogar in welche Richtung es "wirklich’ Bewegen, ohne vorher bestimmte weitere Annahmen.

Einstein wählte, um das Problem durch die Behandlung Wahrnehmung als verzerrt und erfinden neue Grundeigenschaften in der Arena der Physik zu lösen – In der Beschreibung von Raum und Zeit. Ein Kerngedanke der Speziellen Relativitätstheorie ist, dass die menschliche Vorstellung von einer geordneten Sequenz von Ereignissen in der Zeit muss aufgegeben werden. Tatsächlich, da es Zeit braucht, Licht von einem Ereignis an einem entfernten Ort, um uns zu erreichen, und für uns dessen bewusst zu werden,, das Konzept der 'jetzt’ nicht mehr Sinn macht, beispielsweise, wenn wir von einem Sonnenfleck gerade in dem Augenblick erscheinen auf der Oberfläche der Sonne, die der Astronom versuchte, es zu fotografieren sprechen. Gleichzeitigkeit ist relativ.

Einstein statt neu definiert Gleichzeitigkeit mit den Zeitpunkten erkennen wir die Veranstaltung. Entdeckung, wie er es definiert, beinhaltet eine Hin-und Rückreise von Licht, ähnlich dem Radarerkennung. Wir senden ein Signal mit der Geschwindigkeit des Lichts, und warten auf die Reflexion. Wenn der reflektierte Impuls von zwei Ereignissen us erreicht zum gleichen Zeitpunkt, dann sind die gleichzeitige. Aber eine andere Art der Betrachtung ist es einfach zu rufen zwei Veranstaltungen "gleichzeitige’ wenn das Licht von ihnen erreicht uns zum gleichen Zeitpunkt. Mit anderen Worten, können wir die von den Objekten unter Beobachtung erzeugte Licht anstatt das Senden von Signalen, um sie und schaut in die Reflektion verwenden.

Dieser Unterschied mag wie eine Haarspalterei klingen Technizität, aber es macht einen riesigen Unterschied zu den Vorhersagen die wir machen können. Einsteins Wahl einen mathematischen Bild, das viele wünschenswerte Eigenschaften hat, einschließlich der Herstellung von weiteren theoretischen Entwicklung eleganter. Aber dann, Einstein glaubte,, als eine Angelegenheit des Glaubens scheint es, dass die Vorschriften über das Universum 'elegant.’ Jedoch, Der andere Ansatz hat einen Vorteil, wenn es in Bewegung zu beschreiben Objekte kommt. Da, natürlich, wir verwenden keine Radar, um die Sterne in Bewegung sehen; wir nur das Licht spüren, (oder andere Strahlungs) aus ihnen. Doch die Verwendung dieser Art von sensorischen Paradigma, und nicht als "Radar-ähnliche Nachweis,’ Universum, um die Ergebnisse in einer hässlicher mathematische Bild beschreiben. Einstein nicht genehmigen würde!

Die mathematische Differenz laicht verschiedenen philosophischen Haltungen, die wiederum versickern zum Verständnis unserer physischen Bild der Wirklichkeit. Als Illustration, Angenommen, wir beobachten, durch ein Radioteleskop, zwei Objekte in den Himmel, mit etwa gleicher Form, Größe und Eigenschaften. Das einzige, was wir sicher wissen, ist, dass die Funkwellen von diesen zwei verschiedenen Punkten in den Himmel erreichen uns im selben Moment in der Zeit. Wir können nur raten, wenn die Wellen begannen ihre Reisen.

Wenn wir annehmen, (wie wir routinemäßig) dass die Wellen begann die Reise in etwa auf dem selben Zeitpunkt, wir am Ende mit einem Bild von zwei "echten’ symmetrischen Lappen mehr oder weniger die Art und Weise sehen, wie sie. Aber es gibt noch, andere Möglichkeit, und das ist, dass die Wellen von demselben Objekt stammen (die in Bewegung ist) an zwei verschiedenen Zeit, Erreichen Sie das Teleskop im gleichen Augenblick. Würde zusätzlich diese Möglichkeit zu erklären einige spektralen und zeitlichen Eigenschaften dieser symmetrischen Radioquellen. Also, welche dieser beiden Bilder sollten wir als real zu nehmen? Zwei symmetrische Objekte, wie wir sie sehen oder einen Gegenstand, der sich in einer solchen Art und Weise, wie an uns, diesen Eindruck zu geben? Ist es wirklich wichtig ist, die eine "echte"? Bedeutet "Echt’ etwas bedeuten in diesem Zusammenhang?

Spezielle Relativitätstheorie gibt eine eindeutige Antwort auf diese Frage. Die Mathematik schließt die Möglichkeit aus einem einzigen Objekt, das sich in einer solchen Weise, um zwei Objekte zu imitieren. Im Wesentlichen, was wir sehen, ist, was es gibt, ist. Noch, wenn wir definieren Ereignisse durch das, was wir wahrnehmen,, die einzige philosophische Haltung, die Sinn macht, ist die eine, die die wahrgenommenen Realität von den Ursachen dahinter liegenden trennt, was wird erfasst.

Diese Trennung ist nicht ungewöhnlich in der philosophischen Denkschulen. Phänomenalismus, beispielsweise, ist der Ansicht, dass Raum und Zeit sind nicht objektive Realitäten. Sie sind lediglich das Medium der Wahrnehmung. Alle Phänomene, die in Raum und Zeit geschehen sind lediglich bündelt unserer Wahrnehmung. Mit anderen Worten, Raum und Zeit sind kognitive Konstrukte, die sich aus der Wahrnehmung. So, alle physikalischen Eigenschaften, die wir zuschreiben, Raum und Zeit kann nur auf der phänomenalen Wirklichkeit gelten (die Realität der "Dinge-in-der-Welt-’ wie wir es spüren,. Die zugrunde liegende Realität (was hält die physikalischen Ursachen der unsere Wahrnehmung), Im Gegensatz, bleibt außerhalb unserer kognitiven Reichweite.

Dennoch gibt es eine Kluft zwischen den Ansichten der Philosophie und der modernen Physik. Nicht umsonst hat die Nobelpreisträger der Physik, Steven Weinberg, Wunder, in seinem Buch Dreams of Final Theory, warum der Beitrag von der Philosophie zur Physik war so überraschend klein gewesen. Vielleicht ist es, weil die Physik noch zu, sich mit der Tatsache abfinden, dass, wenn es zu sehen, das Universum kommt, es gibt nicht so etwas wie eine optische Täuschung – das ist wahrscheinlich das, was Goethe meinte, als er sagte,, "Optische Täuschung ist optische Wahrheit.’

Die Unterscheidung (oder deren Fehlen) zwischen optischen Illusion und Wahrheit ist eine der ältesten Debatten in der Philosophie. Schließlich, es geht um die Unterscheidung zwischen Wissen und Wirklichkeit. Wissen wird als unsere Ansicht über etwas, das, eigentlich, ist 'der Fall.’ Mit anderen Worten, Wissen ist ein Spiegelbild, oder ein geistiges Bild von etwas Äußerliches, wie in der Abbildung unten.

ExternalToBrain

In diesem Bild, der schwarze Pfeil stellt den Prozess der Schaffung von Wissen, die Wahrnehmung beinhaltet, kognitiven Aktivitäten, und die Ausübung der reinen Vernunft. Das ist das Bild, dass die Physik ist gekommen, um zu akzeptieren. Während der Erkenntnis, dass unsere Wahrnehmung kann unvollkommen sein, Physik nimmt an, dass wir immer näher an der äußeren Realität durch immer feinere Experimentieren erhalten, und, noch wichtiger, durch bessere Theoretisierung. Die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorien sind Beispiele für brillante Anwendungen dieser Sicht der Wirklichkeit, wo einfache physikalische Prinzipien werden schonungslos mit gewaltigen Maschine der reinen Vernunft, ihre logisch unvermeidlichen Schlussfolgerungen verfolgt.

Aber es gibt noch, alternative Ansicht von Wissen und Wirklichkeit, die sich für eine lange Zeit gewesen ist. Dies ist die Ansicht, dass hinsichtlich der wahrgenommenen Realität als eine interne kognitive Repräsentation unserer Sinneseingänge, wie unten dargestellt.

AbsolutelToBrain

In dieser Ansicht, Wissen und wahrgenommene Realität sind sowohl interne als kognitive Konstrukte, obwohl wir sind gekommen, um von ihnen als separate denken. Was ist extern ist nicht die Realität, wie wir sie wahrnehmen,, sondern ein unerkennbar Einheit, die zu den physikalischen Ursachen hinter sensorische Eingänge. Bei der Darstellung, Der erste Pfeil stellt den Prozess des Erfassens, und der zweite Pfeil stellt die kognitive und logische Argumentation Schritte. Um diese Sicht der Wirklichkeit und Wissen anwenden, Wir müssen die Natur der absoluten Wirklichkeit erraten, unerkennbar, wie es ist. Ein möglicher Kandidat für die absolute Realität ist die Newtonsche Mechanik, was eine vernünftige Vorhersage für unsere wahrgenommene Realität gibt.

Zusammenfassend, wenn wir versuchen, die Verzerrungen durch Wahrnehmung bearbeitet, wir haben zwei Optionen, oder zwei mögliche philosophische Haltungen. Die eine ist, die Verzerrungen als Teil unserer Zeit und Raum übernehmen, als Spezielle Relativitätstheorie tut. Die andere Option ist, anzunehmen, dass es einen "Hoch’ Realität unterscheidet sich von unserer wahrgenommenen Realität, deren Eigenschaften können wir nur Vermutungen. Mit anderen Worten, eine Möglichkeit ist, mit der Verzerrung leben, während die andere ist es, Vermutungen für die höhere Wirklichkeit vorschlagen. Keine dieser Möglichkeiten ist besonders attraktiv. Aber das Rate Weg ist ähnlich zu der Ansicht, in Phänomenalismus akzeptiert. Es führt auch natürlich, wie die Realität in den kognitiven Neurowissenschaften angesehen, , welche Studien die biologischen Mechanismen hinter Kognition.

Die Wendung zu dieser Geschichte von Licht und Realität ist, dass wir scheinbar alles gewusst haben, für eine lange Zeit. Die Rolle des Lichts bei der Schaffung unserer Realität oder das Universum ist das Herzstück der westlichen religiösen Denkens. Ein Universum ohne Licht ist nicht nur eine Welt, in der man das Licht eingeschaltet haben. Es ist tatsächlich ein Universum ohne selbst, ein Universum, das es nicht gibt. Es ist in diesem Zusammenhang, dass wir die Weisheit hinter der Aussage, dass "die Erde war ohne Form verstehen, und nichtig’ bis Gott verursacht, Licht zu sein, mit den Worten "Es werde Licht.’

Der Koran sagt auch,, "Allah ist das Licht der Himmel und der Erde,’ , die in einem der alten hinduistischen Schriften gespiegelt wird: "Führe mich von der Dunkelheit zum Licht, Führe mich vom Unwirklichen zum Wirklichen.’ Die Rolle des Lichts in der uns vom Unwirklichen nichtig (das Nichts) auf eine Wirklichkeit war in der Tat für eine lange verstanden, lange Zeit. Ist es möglich, dass die alten Heiligen und Propheten wusste Dinge, die wir erst jetzt beginnen, mit allen unseren vermeintlichen Fortschritte in Wissen entdecken?

Es gibt Parallelen zwischen der noumenalen-phänomenale Unterscheidung von Kant und den Phänomenalisten später, und der Brahman-Maya Unterscheidung in Advaita. Weisheit über die Natur der Wirklichkeit aus dem Repertoire der Spiritualität in der modernen Neurowissenschaften neu erfunden, die Wirklichkeit als kognitive Repräsentation erstellt durch das Gehirn behandelt. Das Gehirn nutzt die sensorische Eingänge, Speicher, Bewusstsein, und sogar die Sprache, die als Zutaten in auszuhecken unseren Sinn für die Realität. Diese Sicht der Wirklichkeit, jedoch, ist etwas, was die Physik ist immer noch nicht in der Lage sich mit zu kommen. Aber in dem Maße, dass ihr Arena (Raum und Zeit) ist ein Teil der Realität, Physik ist nicht immun gegen die Philosophie.

Tatsächlich, wie wir die Grenzen unseres Wissens immer weiter schieben, wir entdecken bisher ungeahnte und oft überraschende Zusammenhänge zwischen verschiedenen Zweige des menschlichen Bemühungen. Noch, Wie können die verschiedenen Bereiche der unser Wissen voneinander unabhängig sein, wenn alles Wissen ist subjektiv? Wenn Wissen ist nur die kognitive Repräsentation unserer Erfahrungen? Aber dann, es ist die moderne Trugschluss zu glauben, dass das Wissen ist unsere interne Darstellung einer äußeren Wirklichkeit, und daher von ihm unterscheidet. Stattdessen, Erkennen und die Nutzung der Verbindungen zwischen den verschiedenen Bereichen des menschlichen Strebens kann die wesentliche Voraussetzung für die nächste Stufe in der Entwicklung unserer kollektiven Weisheit.

Box: Einsteins ZugEiner von Einsteins berühmte Gedankenexperimente veranschaulicht die Notwendigkeit, neu zu überdenken, was wir durch gleichzeitige Ereignisse bedeuten. Es beschreibt einen High-Speed-Zug hetzen entlang einer geraden Strecke vorbei an einem kleinen Bahnhof, wie ein Mann steht auf dem Bahnsteig beobachten ihn zu beschleunigen, indem. Zu seinem Erstaunen, als der Zug ihn geht, zwei Blitzbündel treffen auf die Spur neben einem Ende des Zuges! (Günstig, für spätere Ermittler, sie hinterlassen Spuren brennen sowohl auf der Bahn und auf dem Boden.)

An den Mann, es scheint, dass die beiden Schrauben Aufhellung Streik in genau der gleichen Zeit. Später, die Markierungen auf dem Boden von der Bahnstrecke zeigen, dass die Stellen, wo der Blitzschlag waren genau gleich weit von ihm. Da dann die Beleuchtung läuft reiste den gleichen Abstand zu ihm, und da sie zu dem Mann erschienen, um an genau der gleichen Zeit passieren, er hat keinen Grund, nicht zu dem Schluss, dass die Beleuchtung läuft im exakt gleichen Moment schlug. Sie gleichzeitige.

Jedoch, nehme ein wenig später, der Mann trifft eine Frau Passagier, der zufällig in der Speisewagen sitzen, genau in der Mitte des Zugs, und schaut aus dem Fenster auf die Zeit die Beleuchtung läuft geschlagen. Diese Passagier sagt ihm, dass sie sah, die erste Beleuchtungs-Bolzen auf dem Boden in der Nähe des Motors an der Front des Zuges etwas vor, wenn der zweite den Boden neben dem Gepäckwagen am Ende des Zuges getroffen.

Der Effekt hat nichts mit der Entfernung der Licht hatte, zu reisen tun, da sowohl die Frau und der Mann waren im gleichen Abstand zwischen den beiden Punkten, die das Blitz getroffen. Doch die Reihenfolge der Ereignisse ganz anders beobachtet.

Diese Nichtübereinstimmung des Zeitpunkts der unvermeidlich, Einstein sagt, als die Frau ist in der Tat auf den Punkt bewegt, wo der Blitz der Blitz getroffen in der Nähe des Motors -und entfernt von der Stelle, wo der Blitz der Aufhellung neben dem Gepäck Auto angefahren. In der kleinen Menge an Zeit dauert es für die Lichtstrahlen, die Dame zu erreichen, weil der Zug bewegt sich, der Abstand der ersten Flash muss ihr schrumpft reisen, und der Abstand der zweite Blitz reisen muss wächst.

Dies kann im Fall von Zügen und Flugzeugen bemerkt, aber wenn es um kosmologische Distanzen kommt, Gleichzeitigkeit wirklich keinen Sinn machen. Beispielsweise, die Explosion von zwei weit entfernten Supernovae, als gleichzeitig von unserem Aussichtspunkt auf der Erde aus gesehen, erscheint in verschiedenen Zeit-Kombinationen aus anderen Perspektiven auftreten.

In Relativity: Die spezielle und die allgemeine Theorie (1920), Einstein formulierte es so:

"Jeder Bezugskörper (Koordinatensystem) hat ihre eigene Zeit; es sei denn, wir sind der Bezugskörper angewiesen, die die Mitteilung der Zeit bezieht sich, es gibt keinen Sinn in einer Erklärung der Zeit eines Ereignisses.’

Tsunami

The Asian Tsunami two and a half years ago unleashed tremendous amount energy on the coastal regions around the Indian ocean. What do you think would’ve have happened to this energy if there had been no water to carry it away from the earthquake? I mean, if the earthquake (of the same kind and magnitude) had taken place on land instead of the sea-bed as it did, presumably this energy would’ve been present. How would it have manifested? As a more violent earthquake? Or a longer one?

I picture the earthquake (in cross-section) as a cantilever spring being held down and then released. The spring then transfers the energy to the tsunami in the form of potential energy, as an increase in the water level. As the tsunami radiates out, it is only the potential energy that is transferred; the water doesn’t move laterally, only vertically. As it hits the coast, the potential energy is transferred into the kinetic energy of the waves hitting the coast (water moving laterally then).

Given the magnitude of the energy transferred from the epicenter, I am speculating what would’ve happened if there was no mechanism for the transfer. Any thoughts?

Universe – Size and Age

I posted this question that was bothering me when I read that they found a galaxy at about 13 billion light years away. My understanding of that statement is: At distance of 13 billion light years, there was a galaxy 13 billion years ago, so that we can see the light from it now. Wouldn’t that mean that the universe is at least 26 billion years old? It must have taken the galaxy about 13 billion years to reach where it appears to be, and the light from it must take another 13 billion years to reach us.

In answering my question, Martin and Swansont (who I assume are academic phycisists) point out my misconceptions and essentially ask me to learn more. All shall be answered when I’m assimilated, it would appear! 🙂

This debate is published as a prelude to my post on the Big Bang theory, coming up in a day or two.

Mowgli 03-26-2007 10:14 PM

Universe – Size and Age
I was reading a post in http://www.space.com/ stating that they found a galaxy at about 13 billion light years away. I am trying to figure out what that statement means. To me, it means that 13 billion years ago, this galaxy was where we see it now. Isn’t that what 13b LY away means? If so, wouldn’t that mean that the universe has to be at least 26 billion years old? I mean, the whole universe started from one singular point; how could this galaxy be where it was 13 billion years ago unless it had at least 13 billion years to get there? (Ignoring the inflationary phase for the moment…) I have heard people explain that the space itself is expanding. What the heck does that mean? Isn’t it just a fancier way of saying that the speed of light was smaller some time ago?
swansont 03-27-2007 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mowgli
(Post 329204)
I mean, the whole universe started from one singular point; how could this galaxy be where it was 13 billion years ago unless it had at least 13 billion years to get there? (Ignoring the inflationary phase for the moment…)

Ignoring all the rest, how would this mean the universe is 26 billion years old?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mowgli
(Post 329204)
I have heard people explain that the space itself is expanding. What the heck does that mean? Isn’t it just a fancier way of saying that the speed of light was smaller some time ago?

The speed of light is an inherent part of atomic structure, in the fine structure constant (alpha). If c was changing, then the patterns of atomic spectra would have to change. There hasn’t been any confirmed data that shows that alpha has changed (there has been the occasional paper claiming it, but you need someone to repeat the measurements), and the rest is all consistent with no change.

Martin 03-27-2007 11:25 AM

To confirm or reinforce what swansont said, there are speculation and some fringe or nonstandard cosmologies that involve c changing over time (or alpha changing over time), but the changing constants thing just gets more and more ruled out.I’ve been watching for over 5 years and the more people look and study evidence the LESS likely it seems that there is any change. They rule it out more and more accurately with their data.So it is probably best to ignore the “varying speed of light” cosmologies until one is thoroughly familiar with standard mainstream cosmology.You have misconceptions Mowgli

  • General Relativity (the 1915 theory) trumps Special Rel (1905)
  • They don’t actually contradict if you understand them correctly, because SR has only a very limited local applicability, like to the spaceship passing by:-)
  • Wherever GR and SR SEEM to contradict, believe GR. It is the more comprehensive theory.
  • GR does not have a speed limit on the rate that very great distances can increase. the only speed limit is on LOCAL stuff (you can’t catch up with and pass a photon)
  • So we can and DO observe stuff that is receding from us faster than c. (It’s far away, SR does not apply.)
  • This was explained in a Sci Am article I think last year
  • Google the author’s name Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis.
  • We know about plenty of stuff that is presently more than 14 billion LY away.
  • You need to learn some cosmology so you wont be confused by these things.
  • Also a “singularity” does not mean a single point. that is a popular mistake because the words SOUND the same.
  • A singularity can occur over an entire region, even an infinite region.

Also the “big bang” model doesn’t look like an explosion of matter whizzing away from some point. It shouldn’t be imagined like that. The best article explaining common mistakes people have is this Lineweaver and Davis thing in Sci Am. I think it was Jan or Feb 2005 but I could be a year off. Google it. Get it from your local library or find it online. Best advice I can give.

Mowgli 03-28-2007 01:30 AM

To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years:When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away, I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time, the galaxy was at the point where I see it now (which is 13 b LY away from me). Knowing that everything started from the same point, it must have taken the galaxy at least 13 b years to get where it was 13 b years ago. So 13+13. I’m sure I must be wrong.To Martin: You are right, I need to learn quite a bit more about cosmology. But a couple of things you mentioned surprise me — how do we observe stuff that is receding from as FTL? I mean, wouldn’t the relativistic Doppler shift formula give imaginary 1+z? And the stuff beyond 14 b LY away – are they “outside” the universe?I will certainly look up and read the authors you mentioned. Thanks.
swansont 03-28-2007 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mowgli
(Post 329393)
To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years:When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away, I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time, the galaxy was at the point where I see it now (which is 13 b LY away from me). Knowing that everything started from the same point, it must have taken the galaxy at least 13 b years to get where it was 13 b years ago. So 13+13. I’m sure I must be wrong.

That would depend on how you do your calibration. Looking only at a Doppler shift and ignoring all the other factors, if you know that speed correlates with distance, you get a certain redshift and you would probably calibrate that to mean 13b LY if that was the actual distance. That light would be 13b years old.

But as Martin has pointed out, space is expanding; the cosmological redshift is different from the Doppler shift. Because the intervening space has expanded, AFAIK the light that gets to us from a galaxy 13b LY away is not as old, because it was closer when the light was emitted. I would think that all of this is taken into account in the measurements, so that when a distance is given to the galaxy, it’s the actual distance.

Martin 03-28-2007 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mowgli
(Post 329393)
I will certainly look up and read the authors you mentioned.

This post has 5 or 6 links to that Sci Am article by Lineweaver and Davis

http://scienceforums.net/forum/showt…965#post142965

It is post #65 on the Astronomy links sticky thread

It turns out the article was in the March 2005 issue.

I think it’s comparatively easy to read—well written. So it should help.

When you’ve read the Sci Am article, ask more questions—your questions might be fun to try and answer:-)

Twin Paradox – Take 2

The Twin Paradox is usually explained away by arguing that the traveling twin feels the motion because of his acceleration/deceleration, and therefore ages slower.

But what will happen if the twins both accelerate symmetrically? That is, they start from rest from one space point with synchronized clocks, and get back to the same space point at rest by accelerating away from each other for some time and decelerating on the way back. By the symmetry of the problem, it seems that when the two clocks are together at the end of the journey, at the same point, and at rest with respect to each other, they have to agree.

Then again, during the whole journey, each clock is in motion (accelerated or not) with respect to the other one. In SR, every clock that is in motion with respect to an observer’s clock is supposed run slower. Or, the observer’s clock is always the fastest. So, for each twin, the other clock must be running slower. However, when they come back together at the end of the journey, they have to agree. This can happen only if each twin sees the other’s clock running faster at some point during the journey. What does SR say will happen in this imaginary journey?

(Note that the acceleration of each twin can be made constant. Have the twins cross each other at a high speed at a constant linear deceleration. They will cross again each other at the same speed after sometime. During the crossings, their clocks can be compared.)

Unreal Time

Farsight wrote:Time is a velocity-dependent subjective measure of event succession rather than something fundamental – the events mark the time, the time doesn’t mark the events. This means the stuff out there is space rather than space-time, and is an “aether” veiled by subjective time.

I like your definition of time. It is close to my own view that time is “unreal.” It is possible to treat space as real and space-time as something different, as you do. This calls for some careful thought. I will outline my thinking in this post and illustrate it with an example, if my friends don’t pull me out for lunch before I can finish. :)

The first question we need to ask ourselves is why space and time seem coupled? The answer is actually too simple to spot, and it is in your definition of time. Space and time mix through our concept of velocity and our brain’s ability to sense motion. There is an even deeper connection, which is that space is a cognitive representation of the photons inputs to our eyes, but we will get to it later.

Let’s assume for a second that we had a sixth sense that operated at an infinite speed. That is, if star explodes at a million light years from us, we can sense it immediately. We will see it only after a million years, but we sense it instantly. I know, it is a violation of SR, cannot happen and all that, but stay with me for a second. Now, a little bit of thinking will convince you that the space that we sense using this hypothetical sixth sense is Newtonian. Here, space and time can be completely decoupled, absolute time can be defined etc. Starting from this space, we can actually work out how we will see it using light and our eyes, knowing that the speed of light is what it is. It will turn out, clearly, that we seen events with a delay. That is a first order (or static) effect. The second order effect is the way we perceive objects in motion. It turns out that we will see a time dilation and a length contraction (for objects receding from us.)

Let me illustrate it a little further using echolocation. Assume that you are a blind bat. You sense your space using sonar pings. Can you sense a supersonic object? If it is coming towards you, by the time the reflected ping reaches you, it has gone past you. If it is going away from you, your pings can never catch up. In other words, faster than sound travel is “forbidden.” If you make one more assumption – the speed of the pings is the same for all bats regardless of their state of motion – you derive a special relativity for bats where the speed of sound is the fundamental property of space and time!

We have to dig a little deeper and appreciate that space is no more real than time. Space is a cognitive construct created out of our sensory inputs. If the sense modality (light for us, sound for bats) has a finite speed, that speed will become a fundamental property of the resultant space. And space and time will be coupled through the speed of the sense modality.

This, of course, is only my own humble interpretation of SR. I wanted to post this on a new thread, but I get the feeling that people are a little too attached to their own views in this forum to be able to listen.

Leo wrote:Minkowski spacetime is one interpretation of the Lorentz transforms, but other interpretations, the original Lorentz-Poincaré Relativity or modernized versions of it with a wave model of matter (LaFreniere or Close or many others), work in a perfectly euclidean 3D space.

So we end up with process slowdown and matter contraction, but NO time dilation or space contraction. The transforms are the same though. So why does one interpretation lead to tensor metric while the others don’t? Or do they all? I lack the theoretical background to answer the question.

Hi Leo,

If you define LT as a velocity dependent deformation of an object in motion, then you can make the transformation a function of time. There won’t be any warping and complications of metric tensors and stuff. Actually what I did in my book is something along those lines (though not quite), as you know.

The trouble arises when the transformation matrix is a function of the vector is transforming. So, if you define LT as a matrix operation in a 4-D space-time, you can no longer make it a function of time through acceleration any more than you can make it a function of position (as in a velocity field, for instance.) The space-time warping is a mathematical necessity. Because of it, you lose coordinates, and the tools that we learn in our undergraduate years are no longer powerful enough to handle the problem.

Of Rotation, LT and Acceleration

In the “Philosophical Implications” forum, there was an attempt to incorporate acceleration into Lorentz transformation using some clever calculus or numerical techniques. Such an attempt will not work because of a rather interesting geometric reason. I thought I would post the geometric interpretation of Lorentz transformation (or how to go from SR to GR) here.

Let me start with a couple of disclaimers. First of, what follows is my understanding of LT/SR/GR. I post it here with the honest belief that it is right. Although I have enough academic credentials to convince myself of my infallibility, who knows? People much smarter than me get proven wrong every day. And, if we had our way, we would prove even Einstein himself wrong right here in this forum, wouldn’t we? :D Secondly, what I write may be too elementary for some of the readers, perhaps even insultingly so. I request them to bear with it, considering that some other readers may find it illuminating. Thirdly, this post is not a commentary on the rightness or wrongness of the theories; it is merely a description of what the theories say. Or rather, my version of what they say. With those disclaimers out of the way, let’s get started…

LT is a rotation in the 4-D space-time. Since it not easy to visualize 4-D space-time rotation, let’s start with a 2-D, pure space rotation. One fundamental property of a geometry (such as 2-D Euclidean space) is its metric tensor. The metric tensor defines the inner product between two vectors in the space. In normal (Euclidean or flat) spaces, it also defines the distance between two points (or the length of a vector).

Though the metric tensor has the dreaded “tensor” word in its name, once you define a coordinate system, it is only a matrix. For Euclidean 2-D space with x and y coordinates, it is the identity matrix (two 1’s along the diagonal). Let’s call it G. The inner product between vectors A and B is A.B = Trans(A) G B, which works out to be a_1b_1+a_2b_2. Distance (or length of A) can be defined as \sqrt{A.A}.

So far in the post, the metric tensor looks fairly useless, only because it is the identity matrix for Euclidean space. SR (or LT), on the other hand, uses Minkowski space, which has a metric that can be written with [-1, 1, 1, 1] along the diagonal with all other elements zero – assuming time t is the first component of the coordinate system. Let’s consider a 2-D Minkowski space for simplicity, with time (t) and distance (x) axes. (This is a bit of over-simplification because this space cannot handle circular motion, which is popular in some threads.) In units that make c = 1, you can easily see that the invariant distance using this metric tensor is \sqrt{x^2 - t^2}.

Continued…

The Unreal Universe — Discussion with Gibran

Hi again,You raise a lot of interesting questions. Let me try to answer them one by one.

You’re saying that our observations of an object moving away from us would look identical in either an SR or Galilean context, and therefore this is not a good test for SR.

What I’m saying is slightly different. The coordinate transformation in SR is derived considering only receding objects and sensing it using radar-like round trip light travel time. It is then assumed that the transformation laws thus derived apply to all objects. Because the round trip light travel is used, the transformation works for approaching objects as well, but not for things moving in other directions. But SR assumes that the transformation is a property of space and time and asserts that it applies to all moving (inertial) frames of reference regardless of direction.

We have to go a little deeper and ask ourselves what that statement means, what it means to talk about the properties of space. We cannot think of a space independent of our perception. Physicists are typically not happy with this starting point of mine. They think of space as something that exists independent of our sensing it. And they insist that SR applies to this independently existing space. I beg to differ. I consider space as a cognitive construct based on our perceptual inputs. There is an underlying reality that is the cause of our perception of space. It may be nothing like space, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the underlying reality is like Galilean space-time. How would be perceive it, given that we perceive it using light (one-way travel of light, not two-way as SR assumes)? It turns out that our perceptual space would have time dilation and length contraction and all other effect predicted by SR. So my thesis is that the underlying reality obeys Galilean space-time and our perceptual space obeys something like SR. (It is possible that if I assume that our perception uses two-way light travel, I may get SR-like transformation. I haven’t done it because it seems obvious to me that we perceive a star, for instance, by sensing the light from it rather than flashing a light at it.)

This thesis doesn’t sit well with physicists, and indeed with most people. They mistake “perceptual effects” to be something like optical illusions. My point is more like space itself is an illusion. If you look at the night sky, you know that the stars you see are not “real” in the sense that they are not there when you are looking at them. This is simply because the information carrier, namely light, has a finite speed. If the star under observation is in motion, our perception of its motion is distorted for the same reason. SR is an attempt to formalize our perception of motion. Since motion and speed are concepts that mix space and time, SR has to operate on “space-time continuum.” Since SR is based on perceptual effects, it requires an observer and describes motion as he perceives it.

But are you actually saying that not a single experiment has been done with objects moving in any other direction than farther away? And what about experiments on time dilation where astronauts go into space and return with clocks showing less elapsed time than ones that stayed on the ground? Doesn’t this support the ideas inherent in SR?

Experiments are always interpreted in the light of a theory. It is always a model based interpretation. I know that this is not a convincing argument for you, so let me give you an example. Scientists have observed superluminal motion in certain celestial objects. They measure the angular speed of the celestial object, and they have some estimate of its distance from us, so they can estimate the speed. If we didn’t have SR, there would be nothing remarkable about this observation of superluminality. Since we do have SR, one has to find an “explanation” for this. The explanation is this: when an object approaches us at a shallow angle, it can appear to come in quite a bit faster than its real speed. Thus the “real” speed is subluminal while the “apparent” speed may be superluminal. This interpretation of the observation, in my view, breaks the philosophical grounding of SR that it is a description of the motion as it appears to the observer.

Now, there are other observations of where almost symmetric ejecta are seen on opposing jets in symmetric celestial objects. The angular speeds may indicate superluminality in both the jets if the distance of the object is sufficiently large. Since the jets are assumed to be back-to-back, if one jet is approaching us (thereby giving us the illusion of superluminality), the other jet has bet receding and can never appear superluminal, unless, of course, the underlying motion is superluminal. The interpretation of this observation is that the distance of the object is limited by the “fact” that real motion cannot be superluminal. This is what I mean by experiments being open to theory or model based interpretations.

In the case of moving clocks being slower, it is never a pure SR experiment because you cannot find space without gravity. Besides, one clock has to be accelerated or decelerated and GR applies. Otherwise, the age-old twin paradox would apply.

I know there have been some experiments done to support Einstein’s theories, like the bending of light due to gravity, but are you saying that all of them can be consistently re-interpreted according to your theory? If this is so, it’s dam surprising! I mean, no offense to you – you’re obviously a very bright individual, and you know much more about this stuff than I do, but I’d have to question how something like this slipped right through physicists’ fingers for 100 years.

These are gravity related questions and fall under GR. My “theory” doesn’t try to reinterpret GR or gravity at all. I put theory in inverted quotes because, to me, it is a rather obvious observation that there is a distinction between what we see and the underlying causes of our perception. The algebra involved is fairly simple by physics standards.

Supposing you’re right in that space and time are actually Galilean, and that the effects of SR are artifacts of our perception. How then are the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments explained? I’m sorry if you did explain it in your book, but it must have flown right over my head. Or are we leaving this as a mystery, an anomaly for future theorists to figure out?

I haven’t completely explained MMX, more or less leaving it as a mystery. I think the explanation hinges on how light is reflected off a moving mirror, which I pointed out in the book. Suppose the mirror is moving away from the light source at a speed of v in our frame of reference. Light strikes it at a speed of c-v. What is the speed of the reflected light? If the laws of reflection should hold (it’s not immediately obvious that they should), then the reflected light has to have a speed of c-v as well. This may explain why MMX gives null result. I haven’t worked out the whole thing though. I will, once I quit my day job and dedicate my life to full-time thinking. :-)

My idea is not a replacement theory for all of Einstein’s theories. It’s merely a reinterpretation of one part of SR. Since the rest of Einstein’s edifice is built on this coordinate transformation part, I’m sure there will be some reinterpretation of the rest of SR and GR also based on my idea. Again, this is a project for later. My reinterpretation is not an attempt to prove Einstein’s theories wrong; I merely want to point out that they apply to reality as we perceive it.

Overall, it was worth the $5 I payed. Thanks for the good read. Don’t take my questions as an assault on your proposal – I’m honestly in the dark about these things and I absolutely crave light (he he). If you could kindly answer them in your spare time, I’d love to share more ideas with you. It’s good to find a fellow thinker to bounce cool ideas like this off of. I’ll PM you again once I’m fully done the book. Again, it was a very satisfying read.

Thanks! I’m glad that you like my ideas and my writing. I don’t mind criticism at all. Hope I have answered most of your questions. If not, or if you want to disagree with my answers, feel free to write back. Always a pleasure to chat about these things even if we don’t agree with each other.

– Best regards,
– Manoj

Anti-relativity and Superluminality

Leo wrote:I have some problems with the introductory part though, when you confront light travel effects and relativistic transforms. You correctly state that all perceptual illusions have been cleared away in the conception of Special Relativity, but you also say that these perceptual illusions remained as a subconscious basis for the cognitive model of Special Relativity. Do I understand what you mean or do I get it wrong?

The perceptual effects are known in physics; they are called Light Travel Time effects (LTT, to cook up an acronym). These effects are considered an optical illusion on the motion of the object under observation. Once you take out the LTT effects, you get the “real” motion of the object . This real motion is supposed to obey SR. This is the current interpretation of SR.

My argument is that the LTT effects are so similar to SR that we should think of SR as just a formalization of LTT. (In fact, a slightly erroneous formalization.) Many reasons for this argument:
1. We cannot disentagle the “optical illusion” because many underlying configurations give rise to the same perception. In other words, going from what we see to what is causing our perception is a one to many problem.
2. SR coordinate transformation is partially based on LTT effects.
3. LTT effects are stronger than relativistic effects.

Probably for these reasons, what SR does is to say that what we see is what it is really like. It then tries to mathematically describe what we see. (This is what I meant by a formaliztion. ) Later on, when we figured out that LTT effects didn’t quite match with SR (as in the observation of “apparent” superluminal motion), we thought we had to “take out” the LTT effects and then say that the underlying motion (or space and time) obeyed SR. What I’m suggesting in my book and articles is that we should just guess what the underlying space and time are like and work out what our perception of it will be (because going the other way is an ill-posed one-to-many problem). My first guess, naturally, was Galilean space-time. This guess results in a rather neat and simple explantions of GRBs and DRAGNs as luminal booms and their aftermath.

Discussion on the Daily Mail (UK)

On the Daily Mail forum, one participant (called “whats-in-a-name”) started talking about The Unreal Universe on July 15, 2006. It was attacked fairly viciously on the forum. I happened to see it during a Web search and decided to step in and defend it.

15 July, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 15/07/06 at 09:28 AM

Ah, Kek, you’ve given me a further reason to be distracted from what I should be doing- and I can tell you that this is more interesting at the moment.I’ve been trying to formulate some ideas and there’s one coming- but I’ll have to give it to you in bits.I don’t want to delve into pseudoscience or take the woo-ish road that says that you can explain everything with quantum theory, but try starting here: http://theunrealuniverse.com/phys.shtml

The “Journal Article” link at the bottom touches on some of the points that we discussed elsewhere. It goes slightly off-topic, but you might also find the “Philosophy” link at the top left interesting.

Posted by: patopreto on 15/07/06 at 06:17 PM

Regarding that web site wian.One does not need to ead past this sentence –

The theories of physics are a description of reality. Reality is created out of the readings from our senses. Knowing that our senses all work using light as an intermediary, is it a surprise that the speed of light is of fundamental importance in our reality?

to realise that tis web site is complete ignorant hokum. I stopped at that point.

16 July, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 16/07/06 at 09:04 AM

I’ve just been back to read that bit more carefully. I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:(i) “Our perception of what is real is created out of the readings from our senses.” I think that most physicists wouldn’t argue with that would they? At the quantum level reality as we understand it doesn’t exist; you can only say that particles have more of a tendency to exist in one place or state than another.(ii) The information that we pick up from optical or radio telescopes, gamma-ray detectors and the like, shows the state of distant objects as they were in the past, owing to the transit time of the radiation. Delving deeper into space therefore enables us to look further back into the history of the universe.It’s an unusual way to express the point, I agree, but it doesn’t devalue the other information on there. In particular there are links to other papers that go into rather more detail, but I wanted to start with something that offered a more general view.

I get the impression that your study of physics is rather more advanced than mine- as I’ve said previously I’m only an amateur, though I’ve probably taken my interest a bit further than most. I’m happy to be corrected if any of my reasoning is flawed, though what I’ve said so far s quite basic stuff.

The ideas that I’m trying to express in response to Keka’s challenge are my own and again, I’m quite prepared to have you or anyone else knock them down. I’m still formulating my thoughts and I wanted to start by considering the model that physicists use of the nature of matter, going down to the grainy structure of spacetime at the Plank distance and quantum uncertainty.

I’ll have to come back to this in a day or two, but meanwhile if you or anyone else wants to offer an opposing view, please do.

Posted by: patopreto on 16/07/06 at 10:52 AM

I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:

I think the write is quit clear! WIAN – you have re-written what he says to mean something different.

The writer is quite clear – “Once we accept that space and time are a part of the cognitive model created by the brain, and that special relativity applies to the cognitive model, we can ponder over the physical causes behind the model, the absolute reality itself.”

Blah Blah Blah!

The writer, Manoj Thulasidas, is an employee of OCBC bank in Singapore and self-described “amateur philosopher”. What is he writes appears to be nothing more than a religiously influenced solipsistic philosophy. Solipsism is interesting as a philosophical standpoint but quickly falls apart. If Manoj can start his arguments from such shaky grounds without explanation, then I really have no other course to take than to accept his descriptions of himself as “amateur”.

Maybe back to MEQUACK!