The speed of light may have been broken.

[billvon]

Say the star was 100 light years away from you. It emitted light in the year 1911, and the light arrived at your position in the year 2011. Just as the light reached you you started traveling towards the star at 2c.

You can't go 2C. Your example has no connection to reality.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You keep saying that, but experimental evidence proves you wrong. Google Michelson-Morley.

It's not about experiment, it's about definitions and the implications of the definitions.

It is hard to understand, yes. But it is one of the central results of SR.

Almost like BS, huh?

Correct! And both distance and time change depending on your velocity.

No, distance and time never change. Do you know what distance and time are??

And experiments show that clocks run slower or faster depending on speed!

Wrong. A clock that reads slow or fast is not measuring time properly. If two clocks go out of sync one or both are giving false reading as to the actual time that has elapsed.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You can't go 2C. Your example has no connection to reality.

Can you go faster than c?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's not about experiment, it's about definitions and the implications of the definitions.

Absolutely stunning.

"My dictionary proves your experiment is wrong."


:runaway:

 

[Motor Daddy]

Absolutely stunning.

"My dictionary proves your experiment is wrong."


:runaway:

Don't shoot the messenger. The definitions were made standard by scientists. Is it my problem they don't realize the implications of the definitions?

 

[OnlyMe]

Can you go faster than c?

No!

Only the recent CERN data on neutrinos suggests anything can go faster than c and that data has not yet been fully peer reviewed and/or duplicated.

Add to that, that neutrinos are between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times smaller than an electron and all other particles including photons never exceed c and it is an easy no, you cannot go faster than c.

 

[billvon]

It's not about experiment, it's about definitions and the implications of the definitions.

Well, definitions are all well and good. But if you use your definitions to create a theory, and then do an experiment to prove your theory, and the experiment shows you a different result than you predicted - then your theory is wrong.

No, distance and time never change.

I just gave you an example where time did change. Do you not believe that clocks run at different speeds when their velocity changes, as the experiment demonstrated?

Wrong. A clock that reads slow or fast is not measuring time properly. If two clocks go out of sync one or both are giving false reading as to the actual time that has elapsed.

Again, incorrect. If you do not understand that a 100% accurate clock will run at a different speed compared to one going at a higher velocity, then you will not understand special relativity.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Don't shoot the messenger. The definitions were made standard by scientists. Is it my problem they don't realize the implications of the definitions?

No. But it IS your problem that you take a man-made definition to be absolute and more "real" than the reality shown by experiment.

Although I must admit that I owe you an apology of sorts.

Your post in the thread about an alternative science subforum:

I respect all the real scientists (especially you, James, you're my hero ) here and I want legitimate criticism on my ideas from real professionals. If someone hits a nerve and I realize I am wrong, I will move on. Until then...

I initially took as dishonesty.
But I understand now it's not dishonesty at all. Rather it's inability: an inability to realise when you are wrong. Hence you'll never move on.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You haven't refuted the box. All you have is a box that never moves, which we both know is absurd! All objects are in motion so there is no object that is "at rest."

Please tell me where in my demonstration of a consistent SR description you think a mistake exist.

Come on MD, you demanded I provide it. I'm not going to answer any question of yours until you can have the intellectual honesty to answer mine, after you demanded I respond to you. Remember how I said you don't have an intention of playing fair? You've proving me right.

 

[Emil]

If you do not understand that a 100% accurate clock will run at a different speed compared to one going at a higher velocity, then you will not understand special relativity.

Please explain to me.

 

[billvon]

Can you go faster than c?

To be literal, you cannot accelerate anything to or beyond C, although you can come very, very close.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

This is Motor Daddy's consistent MO, when he is cornered and realizes he will have to admit defeat he will ask question after question trying to derail conversation.

Look how many times he says, "I'll answer your question after you answer mine", or "first answer my question".

Pitiful.

Precisely. He wanted me to respond to him and I did so. He demanded mathematics and I provided it. He has yet to respond to the mathematics. Looks like it went right over his head.

MD, here it is again for you. If you can respond to it then I'll answer your additional questions. If all you're going to do is avoid the reply I've provided then you're just showing you're unwilling to admit you can't retort it. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice.

We can reduce this to 1+1d, the box is just a bar of length 2L in its rest frame. We set c=1.

Box rest frame :

Coordinates at (t,x). Ends of box at $$x = \pm L$$. A light sphere is emitted at t=0 from x=0 and thus has equation $$x^{2}=t^{2}$$. The LHS end is reached when x=-t=-L, ie t = L. The RHS end is reached when x=t=L, ie t=L.

Frame where box is moving to the right with speed v :

Coordinates are (T,X). Relativity says emissions of light sphere at X=0, so equation is $$X^{2} = T^{2}$$. Box moves in positive X direction at speed v so is Lorentz transformed to be of length $$\frac{L}{\gamma}$$. Ends of box are thus at $$X = \pm \frac{L}{\gamma} + vT$$ where - is left hand side, + is right hand side. LHS is reached when $$X = -\frac{L}{\gamma}+vT = -T$$ so $$T = \frac{L}{\gamma(1+v)}$$ and thus $$X = -\frac{L}{\gamma(1+v)}$$. RHS is reached when $$X = +\frac{L}{\gamma}+vT = +T$$ so $$T = \frac{L}{\gamma(1-v)}$$ and so $$X = \frac{L}{\gamma(1-v)}$$.

Summary so far :

So by just doing simple geometry we have in the rest frame the LHS is reached when (t,x) = L(1,-1) and the RHS when (t,x) = L(1,1). In the moving frame we have the LHS at $$(T,X) = \frac{L}{\gamma(1+v)}(1,-1)$$ and the RHS at $$(T,X) = \frac{L}{\gamma(1-v)}(1,1)$$.

We can clear this up a bit by defining the Doppler shift $$D(v) = \sqrt{\frac{1+v}{1-v}}$$ and using $$\gamma^{-1} = \sqrt{1-v}\sqrt{1+v}$$ we get the LHS at $$(T,X) = L\,D(-v)(1,-1)$$ and the RHS at $$(T,X) = L\,D(v)(1,1)$$.

Lorentz Transforms :

To go from (t,x) to (T,X) we have boosted by a speed of -v in the x axis (hence why the box goes to the right in the moving case), thus the transformations are

$$T = \gamma(t+vx)$$ and $$X = \gamma(x+vt)$$

ie what you get on Wiki but with a negative v. So let's apply these to the rest frame coordinates.

LHS :
$$(t,x) = L(1,-1) \to (T,X) = \gamma ( L - vL , -L+vL ) = \gamma L (1-v) (1,-1) = L \, D(-v)(1,-1)$$
RHS :
$$(t,x) = L(1,1) \to (T,X) = \gamma ( L + vL , L+vL ) = \gamma L (1+v) (1,1) = L \, D(v)(1,1)$$

Precisely as we had from doing each frame by simple "When do these two things meet?", the Lorentz transforms indeed give the required answer. And this used the $$x^{2} = t^{2} \to X^{2} = T^{2}$$ property of relativity which maps light spheres to light spheres.

I haven't had to put in any numbers, this is a completely general case. So, what's the contradiction MD? Relativity agrees with itself, it has not been inconsistent as you claimed.

Now how about you answering my question, if you're so damn sure you're right and you've got so much time on your hands and you've known this for years why are you still whining about it on forums?

 

[billvon]

Please explain to me.

Someone traveling in a vehicle going close to the speed of light will not notice any difference. His clock will keep good time, the speed of light will be the same as it always is, all his 1 meter long measuring sticks will still be exactly 1 meter long.

But if he flies by a planet, and someone on the planet looks at him through a telescope, they will observe his clock running slower than theirs. This is a consequence of special relativity.

This has been verified a great many times by people taking clocks on aircraft and spacecraft. The faster moving clock runs slower.

For a very real world example of this, check out any GPS receiver. GPS relies on very accurate timing, and the clocks on board GPS satellites are some of the most accurate in space. But if they were calibrated to keep perfect time on the ground they would not keep accurate time once in orbit due to this effect. Indeed, for every nanosecond they were off you would lose 1 foot of resolution, and so this time dilation effect would quickly make the GPS system useless.

So the clocks are "corrected" (made to run at a different speed) before launch so that once they are in their correct orbit, they will be accurate enough for GPS usage. (Note that since their orbits are high their clocks are corrected both for the effects of speed, which makes clocks run slower, and lower gravity, which makes clocks run faster.)

A good article on this:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

So if you ever need hard proof that SR is real, just check out your phone's GPS.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

I think this article belongs in this topic.

Breaking the Speed of Light and Contemplating the Demise of Relativity
Michio Kaku on September 30, 2011, 6:02 AM

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40441

 

[Emil]

Someone traveling in a vehicle going close to the speed of light will not notice any difference. His clock will keep good time, the speed of light will be the same as it always is, all his 1 meter long measuring sticks will still be exactly 1 meter long.

But if he flies by a planet, and someone on the planet looks at him through a telescope, they will observe his clock running slower than theirs. This is a consequence of special relativity.

This has been verified a great many times by people taking clocks on aircraft and spacecraft. The faster moving clock runs slower.

For a very real world example of this, check out any GPS receiver. GPS relies on very accurate timing, and the clocks on board GPS satellites are some of the most accurate in space. But if they were calibrated to keep perfect time on the ground they would not keep accurate time once in orbit due to this effect. Indeed, for every nanosecond they were off you would lose 1 foot of resolution, and so this time dilation effect would quickly make the GPS system useless.

So the clocks are "corrected" (made to run at a different speed) before launch so that once they are in their correct orbit, they will be accurate enough for GPS usage. (Note that since their orbits are high their clocks are corrected both for the effects of speed, which makes clocks run slower, and lower gravity, which makes clocks run faster.)

A good article on this:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp

So if you ever need hard proof that SR is real, just check out your phone's GPS.

Let's do exactly and identify the problem.
There are two clocks, clock1 and clock2, which are synchronized.
They have a speed relative to each other.
You claim: because of the relative speed between them the two clocks leave the synchronization.
Right?

 

[Emil]

Oops...is anyone there to raise the glove?

 

[OnlyMe]

I think this article belongs in this topic.

Breaking the Speed of Light and Contemplating the Demise of Relativity
Michio Kaku on September 30, 2011, 6:02 AM

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40441

Breaking the Speed of Light and Contemplating the Demise of Relativity, Michio Kaku
... The Standard Model of particle physics (containing quarks, electrons, neutrinos, etc). is also based on relativity and would also mean that string theory, my field, may also be wrong. String theory has relativity built-in from the start and the lowest octave of string contains the entire general theory of relativity.

So you can see why physicists are breaking out in a cold sweat contemplating the demise of relativity...

While I agree that the link and story might belong here, I also believe that in this instance the assumed affect the CERN results would have on Michio Kaku's own understanding of the world are the real driving force in his position. Anyone who sees something like the CERN data as representing a total downfall of current theory in physics, as he has suggested, seems from my perspective to be reacting to the personal threat such a change would have on their life's work.

In popular media and book productions Kaku, like many others have promoted the idea that changes just like the one this would involve are welcomed in physics.., opportunities for greater knowledge and advancement.., exciting. When faced with the real prospect the message is different. It is one that seems driven more by the threat to his own beliefs than the abstract change referred to as a disclaimer in book and media release.

Though it is understandable that many if not most physicists would be skeptical of the implications at this point anyone crying dooms day is doing so not from a solid perspective of science but from the potentially negative implications such an event would have on their life's work.

Just my take on the substance of the article....

 

[KilljoyKlown]

While I agree that the link and story might belong here, I also believe that in this instance the assumed affect the CERN results would have on Michio Kaku's own understanding of the world are the real driving force in his position. Anyone who sees something like the CERN data as representing a total downfall of current theory in physics, as he has suggested, seems from my perspective to be reacting to the personal threat such a change would have on their life's work.

In popular media and book productions Kaku, like many others have promoted the idea that changes just like the one this would involve are welcomed in physics.., opportunities for greater knowledge and advancement.., exciting. When faced with the real prospect the message is different. It is one that seems driven more by the threat to his own beliefs than the abstract change referred to as a disclaimer in book and media release.

Though it is understandable that many if not most physicists would be skeptical of the implications at this point anyone crying dooms day is doing so not from a solid perspective of science but from the potentially negative implications such an event would have on their life's work.

Just my take on the substance of the article....

Personally I think the title of the article was more a tool to grab attention than really try to convince anyone that Relativity is going away anytime soon.

But I would like to know how neutrinos moving from point A to point B faster than light are going to affect our view of the universe?

 

[billvon]

Let's do exactly and identify the problem.
There are two clocks, clock1 and clock2, which are synchronized.
They have a speed relative to each other.
You claim: because of the relative speed between them the two clocks leave the synchronization.

Yes. The clock that is moving runs slower than the clock that is stationary. The formula for this change in speed is:

Since the bottom term grows slowly until V is near C, the effect is only pronounced near the speed of light. But with accurate enough instruments it is measurable even at slower (i.e. jet aircraft) speeds.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Yes. The clock that is moving runs slower than the clock that is stationary. The formula for this change in speed is:

Since the bottom term grows slowly until V is near C, the effect is only pronounced near the speed of light. But with accurate enough instruments it is measurable even at slower (i.e. jet aircraft) speeds.

Is that equation the same or similar to the clock that is approaching a gravity source. How is time at the speed of light the same as time at the event horizon of a black hole? (very slow or stopped)