I thought you where doing better for a moment there, and was committed to helping your condition. But, you are starting to display signs of Dunning-Kruger again. It will take some time, but hopefully one day you will recover.
On the idea of time in physics-relativity
- Thread starter ash64449
- Start date
Prof.Layman I am asking you to just consider this before shutting your mind.
Most of what you are saying in the above post is correct. Assume train is moving and we are standing by the tracks as the train passes. There is a guy in the middle of the train and the instant he is in front of us 2 lights flash at the same time one on the front of the train and one on the back. Lets assume it is a really big train and is one light second long. Lets also assume it is a really fast train and it is moving at 1000 km/s.
So like you stated above the speed of light would not be affected by the velocity of the train, both beams would have a speed of c. 1/2 second after the lights flash we would see the 2 flashes of light happen simultaneously.
However (and this is the point you keep missing), in the 1/2 second of travel time the guy in the middle of the train has moved 500 km. That of course means he has already seen the flash of light from the front of the train but has not yet seen the flash from the back of the train. He says they did not flash simultaneously. He did measured the speed of the 2 light beams and they were moving at c, just as expected.
This scenario fully satisfies the results of the MMX experimental results which showed that both observers will measure the speed of light at c.
How could the results be anything different?
I see you're unwilling to accept your own advice.
Layman, do the light flashes reach the train observer simultaneously?
No they don't, and that is why the thought experiment is wrong. In an actual experiment they would reach the same location at the same time. It doesn't depict what actually happens in reality. The train should be able to assume that he is at rest, so then when two flashes of light are the same distance away, then since they travel at the same speed relative to the observer on the train then they will reach him at the same time. This has been confirmed by experiment. The mind experiment is misleading, and isn't an accurate description of quantum mechanics, just like Einsteins relativity is not an accurate description of quantum mechanics, go figure.I see you're unwilling to accept your own advice.
Layman, do the light flashes reach the train observer simultaneously?
They do reach the same location at the same time, at the platform observer.
This is a prime example of why it is said that you cannot use thought experiments to discover properties in quantum mechanics. You keep saying that the flashes of light should act the same way as another other object. We know this is not what actually happens because of actual experiments. So then the experiments say that the flashes of light do not obey classical mechanics so then we can't use classical mechanics in their descriptions. Classical mechanics says they don't reach at the same time, actual experiments say that they do reach the same location at the same time. I think this is because regardless of the objects velocity it will measure both beams in front and behind to travel at the same speed. This property of light is in contrast to the rules of classical mechanics.
If this was true then no one would have been able to develop quantum theory. In quantum mechancis you cannot assume that there are classical descriptions of reality. You have to fit in descriptions that go along with experiments that defy classical descriptions. This is why people tell you not to think of quantum mechanics classicaly because if you do, like in this case then you will be wrong.
According to actual experiment, the observer in the middle of the train will see that two flashes sent from the front and back of inside the train will reach him at the same time as well. Not different times because classical mechanics says so, since in classical mechanics that would only be the observer on the station.
This is not about quantum mechanics this is special relativity - you don't evne know what the subject is!! Get an education.
This doesn't even make any sense WTF are you talking about?
This is not classical mechanis this is special relativity - get an education.
Which is why the different observers will not agree on what is simultaneous - get an education.
That is just plain stupid. Special relativity does not preclude or even address quantum mechanics at all. Unbelievable.
He's a gone case.
Completely wrong, as has been explained to you.
This is not about classical mechanics this is about special relativity.
All of the colleges and universities are wrong? All the phsicists are wrong? All of the textbooks are wrong? You alone understand the truth and are right?
Do you see a problem with this? Can you say delusion? Can you say bat-shit crazy delusion???
Does classical mechanics say that an object can be measured to travel at the same constant speed no matter what speed it is travling? NO!
So then could a classical description then describe an object accurately that is seen to travel at a constant speed no matter what speed your traveling? NO!
Does the thought experiment accurately descibe the events of how they take place? NO!
So then does the events that take place require a quantum mechanical description, since a classical description does not accurately describe the situtation? YES!
Relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatable theories, and relativity is not used in quantum mechanics. If you tried to use relativity in quantum mechanics you will find that the two theories are not compatable, just like a lot of Ph.D. theoretical physics writters already have. Relativity of Simulteinty does not agree with experiments, and quantum mechanics agrees with experiment. Einstein didn't really have much to do with the discovery of quantum mechanics, and he never made his theories work out with quantum mechanics. So you shouldn't use relativity to describe particles, you should use quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the theory that scientist actual use to describe particles, not relativity!
So then could a classical description then describe an object accurately that is seen to travel at a constant speed no matter what speed your traveling? NO!
Does the thought experiment accurately descibe the events of how they take place? NO!
So then does the events that take place require a quantum mechanical description, since a classical description does not accurately describe the situtation? YES!
Relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatable theories, and relativity is not used in quantum mechanics. If you tried to use relativity in quantum mechanics you will find that the two theories are not compatable, just like a lot of Ph.D. theoretical physics writters already have. Relativity of Simulteinty does not agree with experiments, and quantum mechanics agrees with experiment. Einstein didn't really have much to do with the discovery of quantum mechanics, and he never made his theories work out with quantum mechanics. So you shouldn't use relativity to describe particles, you should use quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the theory that scientist actual use to describe particles, not relativity!
"With no solution for this problem known at the time, it appeared that a fundamental incompatibility existed between special relativity and quantum mechanics." The site you just linked.
So, "universal simultaneity" exists. That means there is also "universal time".
Keep reading, idiot. It tells you how the issues were resolved.
No , it doesn't mean that there is any "universal time". Only for ignorant trolls.
No theory agrees with that goofy statement.
If by 'object' you mean light then answer is no, classical mechanics does not describe the situation that is explained by special relativity. This has been pointed out numerous times to you!
Does the thought experiment describe simultaneity - absolutely.
No, quantum mechanics does not explain why the speed of light is constant. That was first discovered theoretically by Maxwell (even though the implications were not realized). Later experiments showed this to be true. Einstein developed the theory of special relativity which formalized the consequences of the a constant speed of light as it relates to time, distance and simultaneity.
Is there a point in there? Quantum mechanics is not necessary to understand special relativity and simultaneity.
Wrong and wrong. Please supply a reference that uses quantum mechanics to explain simultaneity.
Except he did. From Wiki on the photo-electric effect "Albert Einstein published a paper in 1905 that explained experimental data from the photoelectric effect as being the result of light energy being carried in discrete quantized packets (which would come to be known as photons). This discovery led to the quantum revolution".
So general relativity should be used to describe gravity and special relativty addresses the consequences of the speed of light moving only at c for all observers - which of course includes simultaneity. OK, I can live with that.