|
 Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
 Twin paradox and the universe 
#5435663 - 03/23/06 07:24 PM (18 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Looking at the twin paradox thought experiment from Relativity, if we consider the fact that the earth, our solar system and the galaxy we are in was accelerated at one time during the Big Bang that created our universe, can we consider that we are like the twin that had been accelerated, ie. we age slower that a twin left at the point of origin of the universe. Most people who support the theory of relativity believe that an observer can't detect reverse relativistic transformations. What I mean by reverse relativistic transformations as a function of velocity is 1) length expansion instead of length contraction (Lorentz contraction), 2) decrease in mass instead of increase in mass, and 3) time compression instead of time dilation.
If we are like the accelerated twin that was accelerated after the creation of the universe, then we should be able to set up an experiment using a beam of subatomic particles traveling at relativistic velocities and aim this beam toward the point in space where the Big Bang explosion occurred. In a certain range of velocities, we should be able to observe these reverse relativistic transformations, since the beam of particles would effectively be decellarating as they travel back to their origin in space.
Edited by Luddite (03/23/06 07:28 PM)
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Luddite]
#5435685 - 03/23/06 07:30 PM (18 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Could this experiment be used to prove the electromagnetic ether exists?
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada 
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Luddite]
#5435700 - 03/23/06 07:34 PM (18 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
and aim this beam toward the point in space where the Big Bang explosion occurred
That's the flaw in your thinking 
The Big Bang didn't occur at a single point in space...it occured at all points in space.
To be more exact, all points in space existed as a single extremely small region before the Big Bang. When the bang occured, all the points in space began to move apart from eachother - space "expanded" and continues to expand.
But there is no "center" to the universe (or, again more precicely, every point in space is the "center"). That's like asking "what is the center to the skin of a balloon?"
Also, you can't think of Time as having any one "base" point to it - all time, everywhere in the Universe is relative - relative to the vantage point of the observer.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Luddite]
#5435714 - 03/23/06 07:37 PM (18 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Luddite said:
Could this experiment be used to prove the electromagnetic ether exists?
Look up "the Michelson-Morley experiment", it has already been tried many times and was responsible for tossing out the entire notion of an "aether" in space. There is no aether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
The reason physicists first proposed an aether was that they had observed that Light behaves much like water waves do - but they stretched the analogy a little too far and decided that if water waves need water to exist, then Light waves must need some kind of medium to exist as well.
Light waves do require a medium to "wave" in...but that medium is space itself. You don't need an aether to explain it.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
 Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Luddite]
#5437162 - 03/24/06 04:42 AM (18 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Actually, there is no twin paradox... it is not a paradox, only a misunderstanding of relativity... the difference between special relativity and general relativity to be specific. You can also show that there is no paradox by using three inertial frames rather than two without having to resort to general relativity or worry about acceleration.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Rogues_Pierre
Stranger
Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Seuss]
#5437442 - 03/24/06 07:43 AM (18 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
According to this you can measure the earth's velocity relative to the big bang explosion (or at least the background radiation left over from it).
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
In 1992 NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite observed accurately, for the first time, the cosmic microwave background radiation. The temperature of this radiation equates to 2.73 degrees Kelvin. Interestingly though, the radiation does not have the same energy in all directions. The difference in energy intensity (through 180 degrees ) is about 3.5 millidegrees Kelvin. This again strongly suggests that the Earth is moving relative to this background radiation.
Using the relativistic formulae for the Doppler shift we can equate the change in temperature to the change in wavelength which allows us to calculate a relative velocity of 380 km/s for the Earth relative to the cosmic background radiation.
These three similar experimental results are very significant in my opinion, as they are completely consistent with the idea that the wave-centers of the spherical Standing Waves which make up the matter of the Earth, have a particular ellipsoidal shape and energy due to their motion in Absolute Space. For more information on the CMBR see;
Physics: Cosmology: CMBR - Cold Hydrogen in Space (not Big Bang) as the Cause of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation?
In ending this section I must remark that these relationships seem very obvious to me, I first worked them out back in 1997 (when the idea of the Wave Structure of Matter first occurred to me). It was only later, when I realised how pervasive was Einstein's influence of relativity (and thus no absolute space) that I realised why no one else had every considered these obvious connections - simply because it never occurred to them to check, as they did not believe the Earth was moving in Absolute Space (as Michelson Morley / Einstein had 'supposedly proved!)
So let us now apply this knowledge to the arguments of Albert Einstein against an Absolute Space.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Michelson-Morley.htm
--------------------
Edited by Rogues_Pierre (03/24/06 09:53 AM)
|
Rogues_Pierre
Stranger
Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Rogues_Pierre]
#5437456 - 03/24/06 07:50 AM (18 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
It must be noted that Einstein disagreed with Lorentz about his stationary ether hypothesis, for after agreeing with Lorentz in his 1920 Leiden speech about the ether that "according to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there [...] would be no propagation of light", he concluded his speech with the words: "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it", and later Einstein clarified his ether concept by stating that "it must now be remembered that there is an infinite number of spaces, which are in motion with respect to each other".
http://www.answers.com/topic/luminiferous-aether
--------------------
|
Rogues_Pierre
Stranger
Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Rogues_Pierre]
#5437536 - 03/24/06 08:28 AM (18 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Edwin Hubble
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the United States politician with a similar name, see Edwin N. Hubbell.
Edwin Hubble
Edwin Powell Hubble (November 20, 1889 – September 28, 1953) was an American astronomer, noted for his discovery of galaxies beyond the Milky Way and the cosmological Redshift. Edwin Hubble was one of the first to argue that the red shift of distant galaxies is due to the Doppler effect induced by the expansion of the universe. He was one of the leading astronomers of modern times and laid down the foundation upon which physical cosmology now rests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble
The red shift is caused by the motion of the galaxies through the universe.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: trendal]
#5438079 - 03/24/06 12:05 PM (18 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said:Light waves do require a medium to "wave" in...but that medium is space itself. You don't need an aether to explain it.
Is the medium space? I thought it was the electromagnetic field... Could the electromagnetic field be considered the aether?
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: DieCommie]
#5438103 - 03/24/06 12:14 PM (18 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
The medium is spacetime itself, yes. The electromagnetic field is a component of spacetime (as are the gravitational, weak, and strong nuclear fields).
Technically you could consider spacetime to be an "aether"...but as Einstein once said you can't think of this aether as anything material. It is a basic part of spacetime itself - not separate from it. Normal concepts of distance/time do not apply to it, it simply is.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: trendal]
#5438703 - 03/24/06 03:16 PM (18 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
I agree that you can't think of the ether as being like physical matter or matter in a classical sense. I've discussed ideas and questions about the ether theory and relativity with a lot of people (other students, professors and teacher's aids). Sometimes it can get emotional. Their first knee jerk response is bringing up the Michelson-Morley experiment and then special relativity, things I've studied in physics and astronomy, already. One thing I've done is go to libraries and research the history of it. I've come to the conclusion that there is no proof that the ether does not exist. The reason they say the ether does not exist at colleges and universities is more a matter of convenience, I believe. The ether theory is more difficult to deal with.
The Lorentz contraction theory was originally developed to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This means that the Michelson-Morley experiment isn't proof of the existance or lack of existance of the ether. Going further, the relativists then bring up special relativity, but to my knowledge there is no experimental evidence that the velocity factor in the relativistic transformations should be the velocity relative to the observer (special relativity) or the ether (something like Lorentz's theory and I think Poincare). My proposal is to use the relativistic transformations themselves to do an ether drift experiment. Sounds like scientific heresy, but science has changed many times throughout history.
Edited by Luddite (03/24/06 03:20 PM)
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Luddite]
#5438746 - 03/24/06 03:30 PM (18 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
My argument is that there is no need for an aether to explain wave propagation anymore, not after Einstein showed that gravity is a wave-phenomena where the "wave" is a warp in the fabric of spacetime itself. If gravity is a spacetime wave, I would logically conclude that the other four forces are spacetime waves as well.
You can certainly refer to spacetime itself as the aether, but what's the point when it's already understood and referred to as spacetime?
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: trendal]
#5439810 - 03/24/06 10:24 PM (18 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
aether sounds cooler 
or luminiferous aether
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: DieCommie]
#5440474 - 03/25/06 08:45 AM (18 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
Herbert Ives And The Ether
Herbert Ives was a top scientist at Bell Laboratories who performed some largely forgotten experiments on relativity and space-time a few decades ago. His experimental prowess and reputation were so good that his work on relativity was published in great detail in the Journal of the Optical Society of America. Ives would have had a more difficult time getting his results published today, for he showed quite clearly that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity did not correspond to lab results. At the time, such results were not so shocking. Indeed, some philosophers had shown that Special Relativity led to undesirable paradoxes, and experiments by Sagnac and Michelson/Gale had cast additional doubt on this aspect of Relativity.
Such experiments by Ives and other key scientists suggested that an ether actually did exist and that it could serve as an absolute reference frame. Another implication was that time was an independent entity unaffected by motion and that the infamous Twin Paradox was a fiction.
Ives himself believed his work proved that so-called relativistic effects could be easily explained by phenomena appealing more to the common sense, such as the change of a light source's frequency with motion (over and above the Doppler Effect), rather than revamping space-time concepts. In short, Ives thought he had proved Special Relativity untenable experimentally and an un-necessary distortion of science's worldview.
(Barnes, Thomas G., and Ramirez, Francisco S.; "Velocity Effects on Atomic Clocks and the Time Question," Creation Research Society Quarterly, 18:198, 1982.)
Comment. Why do the textbooks neglect to mention the Ives experiments and why should a review of Ives' work appear in a creationist publication? The answers are easy: Special Relativity now has the status of scientific dogma, which one questions at his own peril. The creationists, on the other hand, vehemently reject relativitism in favor of absolute standards in space-time as well as other features of human existence. It would be amusing if the real world conformed to neither model, both of which are defended so passionately.
From Science Frontiers #22, JUL-AUG 1982. ? 1982-2000 William R. Corliss
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf022/sf022p06.htm
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Luddite]
#5440478 - 03/25/06 08:53 AM (18 years, 26 days ago) |
|
|
They use the Ives Stilwell experiment to supposedly confirm the relativistic doppler shift effect. My physics textbook does that.
example: http://www.answers.com/topic/redshift
When I looked up Ive's article in Electronics June 1938, I discovered the title was "The Ether - Fact or Fiction". It starts off with this paragraph:
Quote:
Dr. Herbert E. Ives of the Bell Laboratories, experimenting with the spectra produced by high-speed hydrogen ions, uncovers new evidence in the ether controversy, revives the possibility that the ether may be a reality after all
On the last page there is a sentence that says:
Quote:
This is strong evidence in favor of an ether.
If the ether exists than it shouldn't be ignored.
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Luddite]
#5442971 - 03/26/06 01:32 AM (18 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Special Relativity predicts other effects besides the constancy of the speed of light [edit: actually, it doesn't predict it, it assumes it but that's sort of tangent to the discussion], which the postulation of an aether does not provide for. For example, time dilation.
Quote:
some philosophers had shown that Special Relativity led to undesirable paradoxes
Why do so many philosophers think they're qualified to do physics? 
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: ChuangTzu]
#5443889 - 03/26/06 12:13 PM (18 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Philosophers think they are qualified to do anything. 
Well, as you know in the past physics was called natural philosophy. It was discovered that rigorous mathematics based on experiment and observation worked much better than sitting around and thinking about the universe, and thats when the disconnect came i think. Some people still insist you can discover the nature of the universe by simply thinking about it.
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News
Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: DieCommie]
#5461624 - 03/30/06 08:53 PM (18 years, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Edited by Luddite (03/30/06 09:02 PM)
|
Herbus
...
Registered: 10/19/04
Posts: 1,477
Loc: Reading the map...
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Luddite]
#5462696 - 03/31/06 04:17 AM (18 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
.
--------------------
...
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist
Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
|
Re: Twin paradox and the universe [Re: Luddite]
#5463745 - 03/31/06 12:18 PM (18 years, 20 days ago) |
|
|
I figure this is as good a place as any to post this:
The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 all )
Illusionofman
SuperD
Luddite
the spiral
MAIA
GutteralRetch