http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
I wonder if this could give trouble with 2 atoms that are Quantum entangled
I wonder if this could give trouble with 2 atoms that are Quantum entangled
Space Bending Debunked
- Thread starter Singularity
- Start date
I'm not sure [never understanded quantum entaglement and time dilation to the fullest) you can't reverse the particle spin unless the timedilation is so bad that you actualy create negative time. But couldn't the particle decay or something when it's a couple of billion years older.... Never mind.
Oh right, you draw a sketch of a tangled string vest, and now you tell us time is imaginary
Oh right, you draw a sketch of a tangled string vest, and now you tell us time is imaginary
Stick to the topic, trolling is not allowed here .
What was the thread about? oh yes,
Irrefutable proof that Space Bending cannot exist. Heres how:
Sorry it has been refuted, maybe not to your satisfaction, but what the hey
why listen to leading scientists? Keep thinking.
I'm not a physicist, but I do know how to use a search engine. Some bits from the web:
I also came across some technical papers that I probably wouldn't understand if I paid for them.
From a layman's perspective, a certain light (no pun intended) switched on in my head after hearing a very simple explanation of relativity. I had considered the Universal Constant to be a mathematical constant, and for a moment I was able to see it as a real constant, the only constant and stable thing in the Universe.
At that moment, I lamented my poor scientific vocabulary. I wish I could recapture that thought and feeling. Maybe I need to get stoned.
No, photons do not have mass according the present definition of mass. The modern definition assigns every object just one mass, an invariant quantity that does not depend on velocity, says Dr. Matt Austern a computer scientist at AT&T Labs Research ....
.... What about experimental evidence? Experiments don't determine exact quantities because of small errors inherent in making measurements. We have, however, put an upper limit on the photon rest mass. In 1994, the Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft measured the Earth's magnetic field and physicists used this data to define an upper limit of 0.0000000000000006 electron volts for the mass of photons, with a high certainty in the results.
This number is close to zero; it is equivalent to 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron (the lightest particle), says Turner .... (USA Today.com, 6.27.2002)
Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity. (Univ. of California-Riverside, rev. 2007)
.... What about experimental evidence? Experiments don't determine exact quantities because of small errors inherent in making measurements. We have, however, put an upper limit on the photon rest mass. In 1994, the Charge Composition Explorer spacecraft measured the Earth's magnetic field and physicists used this data to define an upper limit of 0.0000000000000006 electron volts for the mass of photons, with a high certainty in the results.
This number is close to zero; it is equivalent to 0.00000000000000000000039 times the mass of an electron (the lightest particle), says Turner .... (USA Today.com, 6.27.2002)
Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity. (Univ. of California-Riverside, rev. 2007)
I also came across some technical papers that I probably wouldn't understand if I paid for them.
From a layman's perspective, a certain light (no pun intended) switched on in my head after hearing a very simple explanation of relativity. I had considered the Universal Constant to be a mathematical constant, and for a moment I was able to see it as a real constant, the only constant and stable thing in the Universe.
At that moment, I lamented my poor scientific vocabulary. I wish I could recapture that thought and feeling. Maybe I need to get stoned.
Last edited:
No chance, you can read and evaluate, only get stoned when you do not want think, and who the heck knows all the scientific vocabulary any way.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity will tell you how.
Go out, buy any book titled something like "An introduction to General Relativity", and read it.
Done.
So even though Space has no mass and can be affected by gravity, still quantum electrodynamics never got into trouble ? :shrug:
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
That's not the argument for spacial curvature. For one, gravity also couples with energy, and since photons have energy, they can be affected by gravity. Secondly, it is not just the deflection of the light, but how much it defelects. Newtonian physics predicted that light would deflect in a gravity field. Relativity( with spacial curvature) not only predicts the same, but predicts twice the defelection. All measurements made confirm the larger deflection predicted by Relativity and not the smaller one.
Nonsense argument based on a strawman premise
And heres another one
Look at those bend space lines, if light travels on those lines it will come back out straight, the observer outside the bend region will never notice that the light took the bend path except that there will be a delay in the duration for the light to reach.
So what does this mean ?
It means that you have made a common mistake. The light doesn't travel on the lines shown in the image, as those lines do not follow geodesics; light travels along geodesics.
Here's the difference. Imagine a globe, and draw a circle following the 45th parallel. Now imagine a second circle that bisects the globe in two equal halfs like the equator does but is tilted at a 45 degree angle to the equator so that it intersects the first circle at one point and the two circles are tangent to each other at the point they intersect.
The first circle is not a geodesic, the second one is. The lines in the image are like the first circle.
When light enters the curved space region, it will follow the geodesic that its path is tangent to at the moment it entered the region. When it leaves it will leave along a tangent to that geodesic. Folling the geodesic will cause the light to leave the region at a different angle with respect to the lines in the image than what it entered at.
Makeup your mind. Does it affects the light or not for sure.
I mean James R says something else.
I remember something about this and when they tested it at solar ellipse it turned out to be wrong. Did they correct the theory back then ?
And this doesnt confirm that the light is heavier that what is believed.
Really ?
So exactly why does space takes that supposed bend ?
If u cant tell that then this is where i beat you. (No arrogance intended) :shrug:
So why cant they create a correct image ? And even if they did i hope they show the same coordinate lines in different manner.
Show me the fun.
No matter how much u wrap/folly the space anything that goes in is gona come out straight; Unless there is a tear/wormhole.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Want to try again?
Ya sure i will like u to try to put this thread in Physics forums.
Matter is more nothing than something. At atomic levels all matter "vibrates" (not correct term). So really if we could sense distances at fractions of atomic distance we would see the world a little more fuzzy.
The eclipse measurements show that light does bend when passing large gravity, and fairly accurate results have been shown. The experiment Read-only mentioned I have also heard about. They measured the distance between stars in the night sky, and again when the light had to pass the sun during an eclipse. It is obviously the light that bent, and would seem ridiculous to speculate that the other star moved many light years just to satisfy our theories during an eclipse, only to bounce back again to its original known position.
A- Ha (tricked you). It was not the light that bent.
General relativity explained how gravity affects light. We know that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum, we also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensions we call home.
Shrinking stars with denser gravity (according to relativity) have a stronger gravity pull, and supposedly bend the space in such a fashion that the light must angle to come out, and we see it getting dimmer. If it contracts further it could become a black hole, because the space is so severely bent that the light turns in on itself like funhouse mirrors.
Einsteins relativity seems to withstand many tests. I find it hard to accept also. but the above notion is based upon the speed of light being the fastest speed possible, so if light cannot escape a black hole is it a bending of space, or is it the gravity holding the massless photons.
Geez this is too deep for me; honestly. Ask me how to make a good Martini next time. The above is the accepted version of physicists today, and is supposedly what made Einstein so clever.
Matter can bend, so I would think its logical that space within a gravity situation would feel more gravity stress and would bend if it connected with such a gravitational force, again bend is the wrong term because once bent it would be "normal" (but this opposes Einstein, ???). Time would have to enter the equation if we were to measure bending of space. Our measurements however are that of observers, and must be relative to our own positions at certain times. Space itself cannot bend in this framework. A trajectory can bend when calculating astronomy but these are mathematical tools to navigate potential trajectories. Another observer will say that this space is representable in a "strangely deformed frame", but it may be more convenient to mathematically use a certain coordinate system for ease of calculation for matters of substance following such tragectories. Also, such "spaces" as you may have seen models of, are substance, Not space. It is a tool of man used to help visualize nature.
So I am contradicting "relativity" in my opinions, but I am still a flegling physicist.
If you bend your cars bumper, is it bent, or is it now its normal shape? Yet if you factored in time then you would see it bend. (sorry I cant think of a proper analogy)
I think the same way that there is no such thing as a straight line, and in that thinking and on an atomic level there is only an illusion of constant distances.
Time is something that is very peculiar, and I am struggling with its grasp. I have read many theories, and it is startling how many there are. some say time differs(timewise) between cause and effect. Also einsteins twin paradox speed relativity, and many concepts getting off topic.
The question (better put) might be the idea that if we left earth in a straight line, eventually we would come back to our original position is another theory that I think is being asked here.
So would we? I do not know this answer. Maybe we need another christopher columbus to sail out and see if he falls off the edge of the universe. Perhaps the straight trajectory is an illusion (relativity says so), and the universe is contained in an expanding sphere (wild speculation), but what do I know "the moon looks flat to me."
Forget everything I just said. I truly do not know. Think I'll get another hobby. Stamp collecting sounds nice.
The eclipse measurements show that light does bend when passing large gravity, and fairly accurate results have been shown. The experiment Read-only mentioned I have also heard about. They measured the distance between stars in the night sky, and again when the light had to pass the sun during an eclipse. It is obviously the light that bent, and would seem ridiculous to speculate that the other star moved many light years just to satisfy our theories during an eclipse, only to bounce back again to its original known position.
A- Ha (tricked you). It was not the light that bent.
General relativity explained how gravity affects light. We know that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum, we also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensions we call home.
Shrinking stars with denser gravity (according to relativity) have a stronger gravity pull, and supposedly bend the space in such a fashion that the light must angle to come out, and we see it getting dimmer. If it contracts further it could become a black hole, because the space is so severely bent that the light turns in on itself like funhouse mirrors.
Einsteins relativity seems to withstand many tests. I find it hard to accept also. but the above notion is based upon the speed of light being the fastest speed possible, so if light cannot escape a black hole is it a bending of space, or is it the gravity holding the massless photons.
Geez this is too deep for me; honestly. Ask me how to make a good Martini next time. The above is the accepted version of physicists today, and is supposedly what made Einstein so clever.
Matter can bend, so I would think its logical that space within a gravity situation would feel more gravity stress and would bend if it connected with such a gravitational force, again bend is the wrong term because once bent it would be "normal" (but this opposes Einstein, ???). Time would have to enter the equation if we were to measure bending of space. Our measurements however are that of observers, and must be relative to our own positions at certain times. Space itself cannot bend in this framework. A trajectory can bend when calculating astronomy but these are mathematical tools to navigate potential trajectories. Another observer will say that this space is representable in a "strangely deformed frame", but it may be more convenient to mathematically use a certain coordinate system for ease of calculation for matters of substance following such tragectories. Also, such "spaces" as you may have seen models of, are substance, Not space. It is a tool of man used to help visualize nature.
So I am contradicting "relativity" in my opinions, but I am still a flegling physicist.
If you bend your cars bumper, is it bent, or is it now its normal shape? Yet if you factored in time then you would see it bend. (sorry I cant think of a proper analogy)
I think the same way that there is no such thing as a straight line, and in that thinking and on an atomic level there is only an illusion of constant distances.
Time is something that is very peculiar, and I am struggling with its grasp. I have read many theories, and it is startling how many there are. some say time differs(timewise) between cause and effect. Also einsteins twin paradox speed relativity, and many concepts getting off topic.
The question (better put) might be the idea that if we left earth in a straight line, eventually we would come back to our original position is another theory that I think is being asked here.
So would we? I do not know this answer. Maybe we need another christopher columbus to sail out and see if he falls off the edge of the universe. Perhaps the straight trajectory is an illusion (relativity says so), and the universe is contained in an expanding sphere (wild speculation), but what do I know "the moon looks flat to me."
Forget everything I just said. I truly do not know. Think I'll get another hobby. Stamp collecting sounds nice.
Last edited:
yes that makes sense to me. maybe i wouldent have used the term "a bit more tidy" but i understand and agree with you,
im not a big fan of the space-time theory though, there is just something about space time bieng curved and manipulated by gravity that doesent seem right to me,
peace.
I visualize it as a prism, or glass. Heavier gravity creates a denser space than in open space. So the light refracts as if going through glass.
We know it is not the light that bends, it is the gravitational boundaries which distort the path of light.
Does this sound right, or am I way off ?
We know it is not the light that bends, it is the gravitational boundaries which distort the path of light.
Does this sound right, or am I way off ?
Last edited: