after i watched this video, my insight is very open because the video is very good to give information This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities.
I am very happy to see the vidoe after you give This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities. More particularly, it visualizes the Lorentz transformation.
I Love The Video It Can Increase My Knowledge This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities. More particularly, it visualizes the Lorentz transformation
I Really Like The Video This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities. More particularly, it visualizes the Lorentz transformation. From Your
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities. More particularly, it visualizes the Lorentz transformation.
einstein said that The laws of physics don’t change but experiments contradicted this statement? and one of which is the time dilation? am i right? i am confused right now. haha
see my videos at 269cristo for a refutation of special relativity. they will at least teach you how to challenge many of the theory's assumptions. there is no science if its assumptions are simply assumed to be valid
Thanks! This is an excellent visualization. It really helps with me understand special relativity better and also, blows my freakin' mind. Seeing the photons travel at different rates through time (thus traveling at the same rate through space) just really puts the knowledge together in a way I didn't quite have it before.
I love how two years ago this video made no sense to me but now it's perfectly clear. I <3 education. This ia great representation of the Lorentz transformation.
@ferose2 No. General relativity deals with gravity and with accelerating objects. This video deals with objects that move at constant velocities, which is the domain of special relativity.
@raydredX As far as I know this is ok. Relativity deals, for example, with electromagnetic fields, (in fact unifying the once considered two distinct phenomenon to one), and the whole point of fields is that they exert force. See for example the article "Formulation of Maxwell's equations in special_relativity" in wikipedia.
Was probably thinking about gravitons, not neutrinos, four months ago in a comment on this video, when I wrote "either a moving thing hits something or it doesn't, and that's what really makes a difference." Even with FTL gravitons, the measured neutrino speed seems a bit too fast for being carried by gravitons taking a straight shortcut bypassing "curved space." So, it suggests to me that gravitons are themselves mediated by a field of unknown massless bosons that are even weaker and faster.
It looks like from the ground's frame of reference the photons are still traveling at two different speeds. The photon traveling to the rear is now faster than the one traveling forward.
What am I missing here?
I'm MORE confused when both carts are shown together. When the reference grid shifts to blue (the ground reference?) Which cart is it seeing? The second one? 'Cause the second cart shows light at two different speeds.
I'm now more lost than before I clicked on "play".
@dropyapants In the ground's frame of reference both photons are traveling at the same speed. Due to a bit of an optical illusion, since the cart is moving, it mistakenigly seems as though the rear one is faster, but you can see in the space-time diagram very clearly both photons trace a 45 degree line.
@udiprod so they movin at the same speed and covering the same distance in the same amount of time, its just optical illusion?? im more confused.. when i think bout time machine in this context. i saw michio kaku's doc, he said if u can travel at the speed of light u can actually go into future? hows that even possible??
@chinamanspeakenlis In the relativity scenes they move at the same speed - that's not an illusion (The illusion was that it seems as though the left one was faster, but it's not). However, they do not necessarily cover the same speed. In the cart frame of reference they do, but in the ground's frame (according to relativity), the left photon and the cart are moving toward eachother, and they meet after a shorter time and distance. This is clear from the diagram at 1:57.
@dropyapants In final scence, the same phenomemnon occurs again. In the furtherst cart, which is the cart viewed from the ground (blue grid), both photons move at light speed **relative to the blue grid**, while the cart itself also moves relative to the grid. Try to ignore the cart, and just look at the photons relative to the blue grid.
Time doesn't exist, exists only movement. If every atom stopped moving would you have time? No. Time is just a human idea to keep track of these atoms moving. That's why there is no substance in Relativity theory. If nobody can explain it with simple words after so many years there must be a reason why: there is nothing to understand. Einstein initially made a great discovery by proving the light bending effect during the eclipse. After that it was all media hype.
@myuncle2 I think you will find that making an atom 'stop' is impossible, courtesy of the third law of thermodynamics. You will also find that just because something isn't easy to explain simply, that doesn't make it non-existant.
@sutasman I know you can't stop an atom so far, so you can just imagine it. You can't even travel in time so you can just imagine it. And please stop playing the "It's too difficult for you" card, it doesn't work anymore. Therefore just because something it's difficult to explain that doesn't make it existant.
Imagining an atom stopping is as pointless as imagining 3 = 4. If it did then I could prove you don't exist, or anything else I wanted for that matter. But 3 doesn't equal 4, ever, and so is pointless to think about. If you want a simple explanation of time, then its simply another dimension at which we move through at a rate of 1 second per second. That so hard to understand?
@sutasman Yes, for you it looks very hard to understand that time doesn't exists and it is not a dimension at all. You are so addicted to our clock that you end up believing time really exists. Imagining an atom stopping is not as pointless as imagining 3 = 4, apples and oranges dude. Just because a clock on a satellite runs faster than a clock on earth, that doesn't mean that time is slowing down for the satellite. Is it so hard to understand?
The basic idea I'm getting is that things can move in relative to each other, but everything also moves in relative to the speed of light. Am I getting this right?
1. “The most essential requirement is, however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less then one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second..."
2. "...and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth’s surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.” (ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, Nikola Tesla, USA Patent No. 787,412. Application May 16, 1900, patented April 18, 1905.)
@udiprod I personally think that this is a great video... I also find it interesting that it makes more sense after understanding general relativity. Light speed, time, gravity... Awesome.
@Maartenn100 not necessarily! Einsteins theory states that it holds true in four dimensions. CERN's discovery suggests that the neutrinos are traveling in other dimensions (maybe a 5th?). Furthermore, i think it might be a little early to discount Einstein already, there have been other data collected on neutrinos (albeit, less accurate) that indicate that they only travel as fast as light. Its a very exciting idea though! We might be one step closer to time travel hahah
@Maartenn100 That may not be true. They have also said they are going to do further testing, it is plausible that their reading was just a fluke / false reading.
They are going to try to repeat it, if they can PROVE again that it did indeed go faster than the speed of light, that's going to be revolutionary. However, even the people who performed the first experiment are having doubts.
One reading on highly sophisticated instruments doesn't simply disprove relativity
Aho Relatives, It's sort of, like this, because it's all moving at the same time, all directions. I can prove spacial arrangement with math of the rainbow colors or dream space, right now. It will be a gift to all the peoples, when they can receive. Evolution is nearing our hearts. Your little video is nice udiprod. I think I will use it for the children. Thank you.
White Buffalo Calf Woman your Twin Deer Mother, elder crystal child, Rainbow Warriors of Prophecy
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA ans read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-boson-or-god-particle-which-exist-in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist atr welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology.FIT technology forecast tsynami,IRENE Hurricane
so basically, if you drive a car at the speed of light at the darkness, then you turn on your headlight, but the light and the car is traveling at the same speed, it means you couldn't see whats in front of you cause there is no light yet, whats in front of you is the future which you couldnt see yet unless your car is fastr than the speed of light, but the light is the fastest accdng to Einstein. But what if u shoot yourself out of the car through a cannon, then land so far in front of the car?
@ItlogNaEgg relative to the cart you will be going faster. Relative to someone standing outside you will be going the same speed. You will be mvoing faster in time then the cart.
@ItlogNaEgg If headlights were switched on while the car was moving at the speed of light, there would be no apparent difference in the speed that the light moved away from the car, from your observing point of view, henceforth you WOULD be able to see in front of you, because to YOU, the light is still moving away from the car at the speed of light. Light can never slow down for an observer, it is always the fastest speed no matter what. search time travel in searchbar. first video.
How did they measure the photon speed at both ends of the cart to determine if it was the same? This cannot be measured on the cart itself any more than two 10 year old girls can run a race from the center to the ends of a traincar in opposite directions and know which one was travelling faster by how soon they reached the endwalls of the traincar. Obviously the one travelling in the direction of the train is faster but they both reachends @same time
What if light does travels faster that C in that it doesn't go any faster here in our universe but penetrates through the "brickwall" into another dimension?
Your clip should not depict individual photons. You should show a continuous stream of photons.
An individual photon is at the quantum length scale! There does not yet exist any bonafide physical theory that unifies QM and GR (in which SR is a special case).
Furthermore, you say 3D but i see a 2D light cone (?).
@LeconsdAnalyse The video shows just the principles of special relativity. I guess QM and GR complicates matters but I'm not expert enough to say how it should affect this video. You can think of it as a thought experiment or a hypothetical one.
Regarding the 3D, you are basically right. The X and Y axes are used as space, and Z as time, but the Y axis is quite degenerate (the cart has height but all the action is on the X axis). I used the Y axis to change camera angle instead.
Checkout "What if Einstein was wrong?" by ItsRainMakingTime on YouTube.
Dr. Peri Spolter (Ph.d, U. of Wisconsin) discusses her book "Gravitational Force of the Sun" in which she shows how Newton & Einstein did NOT use observational data but imaginary concepts that selectively use nature to fit the theory.
Accordingly, Newton ignored Kepler's 3rd law (actual gravitational force) which has no basis in mass. She also disclaims Einstein's concept of space/time, i.e. time as a 4th dimension.
I may be wrong, but your illustration shows the cart moving at 80% of light speed. So, shouldn't the time dilation and length contraction apply to whole of the cart instead of just one of its photon receiving ends? If so, then the clock should slow down but shouldn't the rate at which it ticks stay same at both ends - I don't know, so I thought I should ask.
one moves at 20 % the other at 180 % cause the 20 % is traveling more to time and less to space...the 180 % is traveling more to space than to time.....U GUYS ARE ALL STUPID..... ALL OF YOU!...STUPID ASS QUESTIONS..u think aliens want to visit us... when u ask these stupid question...do ur research better..ima fucken high school drop out...im smarter than all of you.. i jusT SOLVED THIS PROBLEM
I don't understand: It's clearly observed that the photons hit each receptor simultaneously, yet in Einstein's distortion, that no longer happens. How can that be correct?
This always confused me... this, of course, means that I would make one crappy physicist... It makes sense on paper, mathematically, but it makes no sense in terms of the average person's rational thought. If Einstein is true... what is the point of a space program in the first place... we will never get to other stars, and even if we could get there within a person's lifetime... everyone we could possibly return to would have died of old age before we got back because of the time dilation.
Hey one question .... If you have a stick who is 4 Sec Light long .. and you poke someone with .... Will you Feel the stick stop moving before seen the guy getting poked ? if yes the energie made with that stick go faster than speed of light ....
@65465468 You are right - relativity rules this out. Since no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, when you start pushing one end of the stick, it will take 4 seconds (or more) before the other end will start moving.
@udiprod WHAT!! BULL SHIT IM PUSHING A STICK AND IT MOVES> THERES NO ALL OF A SUDDEN CHANGE IN REALITY JUST BECAUE YOUR COMMENT. that is unless your talking about light speed stick moving. then again every thing is confusing at the speed of light
@diadlo13 supposedly, and even though it was measured to be faster it was only by a tiny value. Also the experiment was pretty unique (firing neutrinos through a mountain, one lab to another) and expensive that the repeatability is difficult
@BlockisticStudios If a stick is made of rubber then it's easy to imagine: when you push one end it will contract, and the contraction will be slowly transmitted all the way to the other end. But actually all materials behave that way. Hard materials simply pass the contractions very fast. As fast as the speed of light, at the most.
@65465468 actually, i believe the poke would travel down the stick at the speed of sound in the medium of whatever the stick is made of, as a pressure wave
@65465468 Unfortunately, sticks are still made up of atoms and when you move a stick, it's moving all of the atoms attached at the point where the force was up until the entire stick has started moving. This is not visible to the naked eye, but at those distances you could prove it if you had unlimited energy and 4 years to do it and you managed to travel 4 light years somehow :)
In short, in Einstein's relativity the speed of light is constant? And that is incorrect? Does this mean the speed of light travels at a certain speed plus the speed of the object that emits the light?
@MrSupertonsky It means yes, the speed of light is a constant, and that in order to satisfy Einsteins equations you must allow that time and distance are the variables... but only with respect to the observer. This is also why his theories are still theories and not laws of physics... they cannot be fully proved until you can travel close enough to the speed of light to overcome the margin of error in your recording equipment. Some of his stuff has been proved... some is a bit elusive for now.
@Kittani1977 after reading a few articles, if the speed of light is constant, it seems to me the more closer an object is moving at the speed of light the more it is limited to moving at the other direction. So when the object reaches the speed of light it can no longer move in any other ways (even it's internal structures) because all movements must be directed to the speed of light. Is this why time stops for an object if this object is able to move at the speed of light?
@Kittani1977 "This is also why his theories are still theories and not laws of physics... they cannot be fully proved until you can travel close enough to the speed of light to overcome the margin of error in your recording equipment. "
Uh, no. Atomic clocks took care of that decades ago. SR are accepted as (effective) laws. One example is GPS. If the satellite clocks were not corrected for relativity the system would become unusable in less than a day.
@csmcmillion I actually went and read a few current articles on it... amazing... thanks. But if they have been fully proven why are they not called "Laws" now? (effective) laws are not laws. IS there something in his theories we haven't proven yet still?
@Kittani1977 "IS there something in his theories we haven't proven yet still?". To my knowledge, no. SR has passed every experimental test thrown at it.
'But if they have been fully proven why are they not called "Laws" now?'
some opinions on this: wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_law_differ_from_a_theory_in_science
someone explain this to me...So if i happened to be on that cart, i would see the photons striking the end at the same time, but if i observing from the ground i would see the photons striking the end at different times?
@ISUowns That's exactly right. In other words, simultaneity is something relative: what's simultaneous to one observer, is not simultaneous to another. It sounds strange at first, but it's not the strangest thing in physics.
Is it possible that the photons only strike the ends at different times simply due to the longer distance the right photon must travel than the left. I suppose from the carts perspective they are traveling the same distance tho.
@udiprod Although i suppose that would mean relative to the cart, the right photon would be moving at 20% of the speed of light and the left would be moving at 180% the speed of light. and you already said that that wasn't the case. Curious tho what experiment showed that they the photons were moving the speed of light from both references?
They used the entire earth as a giant, fast moving cart, and expected the measured speed of photons to be different than the speed of light, due to the movement of the earth. They were disappointed to find no difference :), but this eventually contributed to the discovery of relativity.
@udiprod Ahh. So they expected the photons moving with the earth to be faster than the speed of light but they weren't. Clever way to test something like that. ;)
@david102994 Which point of view is right? See that's the problem.
No point of view is actually "right" but none are wrong. I guess you could said they're all right.
Experimentation and special relativity theory show that time is relative(as well as size), Faster movement creates time dilation as well as length contraction. Every point of view is right relative to itself, but not RELATIVE to another point of view. Interesting no? :)
I guess a recent artical at Physics Today, "Moving mirrors make virtual light real" inspired me to to go on a very long rant about SR here. I guess I'd like to thank the uploader here for the tolerance shown to my longwindedness. Thank you.
I could be wrong, but if light bounces off a moving mirror, the direction it bounces should depend on how the mirror is moving. I was trying to suggest in the previous reply that the replacement photon does not seem to react the same way as the original, even though it hits the moving mirror at the same time, from the same angle (as seen from the stationary frame), and with the same frequency. It seems somewhat reminiscent of QED in that it takes a different path on the bounce. JMO. YMMV.
I think the first time I saw something like this, the light clock used mirrors so the photon would bounce back and forth. With the clock moving the light would make a "VVVVV" pattern and its wavelength redshifts to fit the longer path between bounces. Seems one could try to replace that photon with another coming from a stationary source, with the same angled path and same frequency as the red-shifted photon, but it also seems it wouldn't bounce at the same angle, due to the mirror movement.
After thinking about QED for a long time, with its photon that takes every imaginable path simultaneously, I started to think maybe SR oversimplified the picture, even though it supposedly worked. Maybe Occam's razor led scientists into a local complexity minima with SR, and with QED the consequences have come back to bite.
I wrote that maybe the appearances are superficial, and by that I mean either a moving thing hits something or it doesn't, and that's what really makes a difference. Ignoring relativistic mass when talking about an electron because the gravitational force change would be nil, the faster electron isn't supposed to have a stronger or weaker charge on it as far as I know (which is not much). IOW No relativistic charge transform under the standard model, AFAIK. Seems a good idea to keep it that way.
I guess if you have a relativistically moving thing made of gravitationally-orbiting parts and those parts have relativistically-increased masses, then one might think, if all other things were the same, the orbits would, to a standing observer, look like they're moving faster with the resultantly-stronger gravity. Contraction of length pushes it together, again it looks like things are going in the direction of faster. But time dilation, this is maybe cancelling at least some of that, I guess.
I guess I should say that right as he passes, my eyes would apparently, by the mover's perspectiive, be operating in a time-dilated way while I'm seeing nonsimultaneous ruler ends simultaneously, yet the spacing between my eyes and/or the distance to the brain, depending or not depending on the angle of my head, *seems* contracted. Maybe it's all about appearances, and one appearance, reversed or not, is superficial. There is also moving relativistic energy increase, another sticking-point.
I left the "it" out of "on it can" without knowing it. Oh well, another sign of confusion. I see a moving ruler with simultaneous ends existing at different mover's times. But my eyes are appearing to be operating in a time-expanding manner, to the moving observer, yet my eyes look compressed together to him also.
Seems to me that seeing a compressed length is like seeing with expanded eyes, and seeing a dilated time is like keeping time with a faster timepiece, but we're told the relativistic transforming of space/time *appearances* is mutual between different inertial frames, and that gets many people frustrated with it, myself included. Now I'm stuck on the idea of how riding a seemingly contracted ruled rail while sliding a normal ruler on can possibly look like the opposite situation to a nonrider.
A lot of the motivation to see time as dilated in moving frames (and yes, I know the impression is supposed to be mutual and it's all relative for any inertial frame) is that the path of the moving light-clock's light beam always appears as having further to go in one cycle than it did before the clock started to move. But looking at it from the perspective of the moving frame, the beam was taking a longer cycle before it supposedly started "moving" and the "moving" shortened the beam's path.
Seems I've fallen for a lines-of-simultanaity misapprehension, the front of the moving ruler supposedly seems practically like it's in a different time zone than the back, and I guess the trainbound observer's head can only run his eyes forward and backward to the front and back of the ruler in a time-dilated way anyway. But for a moment, it seemed that seeing two different time zones at once while off the rails was not a length-compressimg type of experience, but the opposite.
Not sure if anyone uses a bouncing light beam to measure time, but if the force of gravity increases, the beam should curve (down) more. Seems it might even be necessary to realign the mirrors a little bit, turning them upward to keep the beam bouncing between them. But the bending is maybe happening with any machine squares around too, so it actually seems it's all cancelled out. Maybe the interesting part of it is that more gravity seemed to be (half)-going in the direction of slowing time.
@789123Y Supposedly they are falling into the sun, but who knows, maybe they're flying away from the sun. Takes me a long time to be sure, I guess. Not a lot a friction in space, orbits are a perfect version of just hanging around the sun for the longest possible time, the solar system maybe isn't so perfect, but the planets and lesser objects have a fairly strong consensus on solar-system item angular momentum (spin axis) and CW vs. CCW spin, minimizing friction effects of planetary orbits.
In my first reply here, I wrote "exclude" where "hinder" would fit better. In the reply where I wrote "never" the phrase "be less likely to" would fit better. I started to bring GR into the picture with my comment on gravitational blue-shifting of a clock on a peak, but let it drop there. Having basically covered the idea of reversing the conventional SR transforms, I'll now try to drag GR further into the mess here, first noting that the equivalence principle equates gravity with acceleration.
Suppose I'm an observer on a train moving 2/3c and, to a person on a sidewalk, my clock is running faster and my ruler is looking longer. If things moving left to right in my view in a supposedly fixed amount of time seem to be taking longer by my watch and I'm underestimating their distance due to having a lengthened ruler, then obviously the objects appear to me to be moving slower, even though they're closer. So, it seems I'd then be less surprised by an oncoming train moving at -2/3c, maybe.
Reversing SR's transforms would mean seeing time contraction (faster clock) and length expansion in a moving object. I'll take the perspective of an observer watching, relatively stationary and from a great distance off to the side of the rails, two bright train objects moving on a collision course, both going 2/3c. With time contraction let's suppose the a trainbound observer's clock does not appear to be faster to the trainbound observer, IOW he transforms with his clock. Same with his ruler.
Let's say that SR means "subluminally-moving things should always appear to be moving subluminally, regardless of the observer's inertial frame" and let's suppose SR's space and time transformations can be treated separately. In the case of an oncoming train moving at a relative speed of 4/3c, let's suppose the transformations act to make the approach appear to be subluminal, because otherwise we'd never see what's coming, plus both trains are moving at subluminal rates, so maybe it'll work.
It is said that a fast incoming muon lives longer, and penetrates further through the atmosphere, due to SR effects e.g. time dilation: the muon's clock appears to run slower, so it lives longer, at least that's the way it's told. If the muon is a sort of observer going against increasing flow, then it seems lateral (width) contraction helps it, as it becomes more compact. But if a muon has deflected/deflecting parts, it seems it could benefit from having faster parts. The picture's fuzzy to me.
Seems to me the observer on a train moving +2/3c is best equipped to see a subluminal version of the oncoming -2/3c train if, from the platform in between, the trainbound observer appears to be running with a faster clock and with an increased sense of closeness to distant things oncoming. Pendula swing faster in higher gravity, light from a lightclock on a peak is supposedly blue-shifted as it goes down to sea level, so it seems that the clock could appear to run faster, viewed from sea level.
Last comment in this run, I promise. If the moving observer applies a compressed ruler to measuring the distance between markers laid out on the unmoving rail he's using, then he's seeing longer distances between markers, and if the trainbound observer sees that something moves on the rail between the markers, it looks like it moved further going from marker to marker than it does to someone standing on the ground. As with time dilation, it seems to hinder observation of oncoming things.
i didn't understand this video now but may be i will understand it after 1 or 2 years when i will pass tenth class
dippsarora 11 hours ago
after i watched this video, my insight is very open because the video is very good to give information This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities.
cenedywong 4 days ago
I am very happy to see the vidoe after you give This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities. More particularly, it visualizes the Lorentz transformation.
Melehete 4 days ago
I Love The Video It Can Increase My Knowledge This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities. More particularly, it visualizes the Lorentz transformation
anakmudajaman 4 days ago
Steady I Really Like This Video Visualization of Einstein's special relativity
Ondelendo 4 days ago
Good, I like that you share this video, I wish success always Visualization of Einstein's special relativity
bebeheuy 4 days ago
Nice Video Visualization of Einstein's special relativity That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You
AntoMelta 4 days ago
I Really Like The Video This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities. More particularly, it visualizes the Lorentz transformation. From Your
willamricard 4 days ago
Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing This video demonstrates the effects of Einstein's special relativity on objects that move at high velocities. More particularly, it visualizes the Lorentz transformation.
bundawartini 4 days ago
einstein said that The laws of physics don’t change but experiments contradicted this statement? and one of which is the time dilation? am i right? i am confused right now. haha
white929 5 days ago
see my videos at 269cristo for a refutation of special relativity. they will at least teach you how to challenge many of the theory's assumptions. there is no science if its assumptions are simply assumed to be valid
269Cristo 2 weeks ago
but what i still don't understand is how can dogs play instruments that were made for people?
1schwererziehbar1 2 weeks ago
This could be very enlighting for a 1st semester physics student. No equations and yet, to the point! Good job!
PetranTach 3 weeks ago
Loved the graphics, but they ended up making the explanation more confusing. The simple diagrams drawn by Einstein conveyed the concept better.
McDaidUSA 3 weeks ago
After I watched this video, I learned that there are two types of Relativity - General Relativity and Special Relativity.
UniverseIsAwesome 1 month ago
I like the demonstration, but what does it impy? Does it imply that nothing is fixed -- not time, not space -- except the speed of light?
skoockum 1 month ago
@skoockum What do you mean by `what does it impy` ?
Udiprod used the power of computer animation to help visualize a 2+1 Lorentz boost.
LeconsdAnalyse 4 weeks ago
@LeconsdAnalyse What do you mean "what do you mean" ?
skoockum 4 weeks ago
Thanks! This is an excellent visualization. It really helps with me understand special relativity better and also, blows my freakin' mind. Seeing the photons travel at different rates through time (thus traveling at the same rate through space) just really puts the knowledge together in a way I didn't quite have it before.
Unclevertitle 1 month ago
I love how two years ago this video made no sense to me but now it's perfectly clear. I <3 education. This ia great representation of the Lorentz transformation.
AJRelic 1 month ago 6
Isn't this general relativity?
ferose2 2 months ago
@ferose2 No. General relativity deals with gravity and with accelerating objects. This video deals with objects that move at constant velocities, which is the domain of special relativity.
udiprod 2 months ago 6
@udiprod Thanks for the clarification.
ferose2 2 months ago
@udiprod Is it possible to work around with forces or at least acceleration without ever thinking about GR? Keeping gravity out of ourse.
(and make predictions of course, working on the twins paradox for example)
raydredX 3 days ago
@raydredX As far as I know this is ok. Relativity deals, for example, with electromagnetic fields, (in fact unifying the once considered two distinct phenomenon to one), and the whole point of fields is that they exert force. See for example the article "Formulation of Maxwell's equations in special_relativity" in wikipedia.
udiprod 14 hours ago
@udiprod I that deals more with how fields spread rather then forces (Even though they're force fields). But I'll check it out, thanks.
raydredX 9 hours ago
So the photon has a constant speed. It just gets distributed along the different axises unevenly.
Zalo10 2 months ago
Was probably thinking about gravitons, not neutrinos, four months ago in a comment on this video, when I wrote "either a moving thing hits something or it doesn't, and that's what really makes a difference." Even with FTL gravitons, the measured neutrino speed seems a bit too fast for being carried by gravitons taking a straight shortcut bypassing "curved space." So, it suggests to me that gravitons are themselves mediated by a field of unknown massless bosons that are even weaker and faster.
CACBCCCU 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I would appreciate it if some of you could critique my video on whether Relativity is consistent with the Growing Block Theory. Thanks!
PhilosophyAnimation 2 months ago
I'm confused.
It looks like from the ground's frame of reference the photons are still traveling at two different speeds. The photon traveling to the rear is now faster than the one traveling forward.
What am I missing here?
I'm MORE confused when both carts are shown together. When the reference grid shifts to blue (the ground reference?) Which cart is it seeing? The second one? 'Cause the second cart shows light at two different speeds.
I'm now more lost than before I clicked on "play".
dropyapants 2 months ago
@dropyapants In the ground's frame of reference both photons are traveling at the same speed. Due to a bit of an optical illusion, since the cart is moving, it mistakenigly seems as though the rear one is faster, but you can see in the space-time diagram very clearly both photons trace a 45 degree line.
udiprod 2 months ago
@udiprod so they movin at the same speed and covering the same distance in the same amount of time, its just optical illusion?? im more confused.. when i think bout time machine in this context. i saw michio kaku's doc, he said if u can travel at the speed of light u can actually go into future? hows that even possible??
chinamanspeakenlis 2 weeks ago
@chinamanspeakenlis In the relativity scenes they move at the same speed - that's not an illusion (The illusion was that it seems as though the left one was faster, but it's not). However, they do not necessarily cover the same speed. In the cart frame of reference they do, but in the ground's frame (according to relativity), the left photon and the cart are moving toward eachother, and they meet after a shorter time and distance. This is clear from the diagram at 1:57.
udiprod 2 weeks ago
@dropyapants In final scence, the same phenomemnon occurs again. In the furtherst cart, which is the cart viewed from the ground (blue grid), both photons move at light speed **relative to the blue grid**, while the cart itself also moves relative to the grid. Try to ignore the cart, and just look at the photons relative to the blue grid.
udiprod 2 months ago
@dropyapants those rocker dog spaniels at 2:25 explain it perfectly
JasherOne 3 weeks ago
HOW DOES MOVEMENT DUE TO MOVEMENT EXPLAIN ANY RELATION?
YOU SHOULDN'T GUESS A THEORY, IT HAS TO STAND ASSAULTS FROM ALL DIRECTIONS FOR A LONG TIME. SO FAR RELATIVITY IS STILL A THEORY.
GIANFRANCO FRONZI
9493760 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"BELIEVE ONLY IN JESUS BEFORE TOO LATE" OR "BURN IN HELL FOREVER"
"BELIEVE ONLY IN JESUS BEFORE TOO LATE" OR "BURN IN HELL FOREVER"
"BELIEVE ONLY IN JESUS BEFORE TOO LATE" OR "BURN IN HELL FOREVER"
fuckmania07 3 months ago
that made no sense...
pickledbeans94 3 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 3 months ago
Time doesn't exist, exists only movement. If every atom stopped moving would you have time? No. Time is just a human idea to keep track of these atoms moving. That's why there is no substance in Relativity theory. If nobody can explain it with simple words after so many years there must be a reason why: there is nothing to understand. Einstein initially made a great discovery by proving the light bending effect during the eclipse. After that it was all media hype.
myuncle2 3 months ago
@myuncle2 I think you will find that making an atom 'stop' is impossible, courtesy of the third law of thermodynamics. You will also find that just because something isn't easy to explain simply, that doesn't make it non-existant.
sutasman 3 months ago
@sutasman I know you can't stop an atom so far, so you can just imagine it. You can't even travel in time so you can just imagine it. And please stop playing the "It's too difficult for you" card, it doesn't work anymore. Therefore just because something it's difficult to explain that doesn't make it existant.
myuncle2 3 months ago
Imagining an atom stopping is as pointless as imagining 3 = 4. If it did then I could prove you don't exist, or anything else I wanted for that matter. But 3 doesn't equal 4, ever, and so is pointless to think about. If you want a simple explanation of time, then its simply another dimension at which we move through at a rate of 1 second per second. That so hard to understand?
sutasman 3 months ago
@sutasman Yes, for you it looks very hard to understand that time doesn't exists and it is not a dimension at all. You are so addicted to our clock that you end up believing time really exists. Imagining an atom stopping is not as pointless as imagining 3 = 4, apples and oranges dude. Just because a clock on a satellite runs faster than a clock on earth, that doesn't mean that time is slowing down for the satellite. Is it so hard to understand?
myuncle2 3 months ago
Wait, ahem, basic idea is that light travels at a fixed speed and all objects move in relative to photons that always are at the speed of light?
BlockisticStudios 3 months ago
@BlockisticStudios: Yup! Crazy ay :p
sutasman 3 months ago
@sutasman
Yay I got it right ^^
BlockisticStudios 3 months ago
The basic idea I'm getting is that things can move in relative to each other, but everything also moves in relative to the speed of light. Am I getting this right?
BlockisticStudios 3 months ago
@Maartenn100 @cloudbreak14 @ScopedPewPew - is it possible CERN simply re-discovered that the earth is moving - like the train in this picture?
flipmcf 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. “The most essential requirement is, however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less then one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second..."
klopedokle 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2. "...and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth’s surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.” (ART OF TRANSMITTING ELECTRICAL ENERGY THROUGH THE NATURAL MEDIUMS, Nikola Tesla, USA Patent No. 787,412. Application May 16, 1900, patented April 18, 1905.)
klopedokle 3 months ago
I like these videos for personal motivation to do my homework. Who wants to do homework on a Saturday afternoon?
avion106 3 months ago
@udiprod I personally think that this is a great video... I also find it interesting that it makes more sense after understanding general relativity. Light speed, time, gravity... Awesome.
Again, thanks for the vid.
aqouby 3 months ago
This is the best video on explaining special relativity that I've seen on the internet.
mrfrankincense 3 months ago
Einstein was smarter than me because I still don't get it.
leafyutube 3 months ago 2
Einstein gives me a boner!
MrWarlord007 4 months ago
No matter how many diagrams I watch... I just don't get it
parkinpants 4 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 4 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 4 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 4 months ago
guess what. They discovered in CERN that neutrono's are going faster than the speed of light. Einstein was wrong.
Maartenn100 4 months ago
@Maartenn100 not necessarily! Einsteins theory states that it holds true in four dimensions. CERN's discovery suggests that the neutrinos are traveling in other dimensions (maybe a 5th?). Furthermore, i think it might be a little early to discount Einstein already, there have been other data collected on neutrinos (albeit, less accurate) that indicate that they only travel as fast as light. Its a very exciting idea though! We might be one step closer to time travel hahah
cloudbreak14 4 months ago
@Maartenn100 That may not be true. They have also said they are going to do further testing, it is plausible that their reading was just a fluke / false reading.
They are going to try to repeat it, if they can PROVE again that it did indeed go faster than the speed of light, that's going to be revolutionary. However, even the people who performed the first experiment are having doubts.
One reading on highly sophisticated instruments doesn't simply disprove relativity
ScopedPewPew 3 months ago
Aho Relatives, It's sort of, like this, because it's all moving at the same time, all directions. I can prove spacial arrangement with math of the rainbow colors or dream space, right now. It will be a gift to all the peoples, when they can receive. Evolution is nearing our hearts. Your little video is nice udiprod. I think I will use it for the children. Thank you.
White Buffalo Calf Woman your Twin Deer Mother, elder crystal child, Rainbow Warriors of Prophecy
twindeermother 4 months ago
Great! Why the all te popular science books don´t make it so reasonable?
teltri 4 months ago
@teltri so you have to go out and buy the next one, hoping you'll get a better understanding :))
omnisphera 4 months ago
thats some crazy shit
AVerbene 4 months ago
this is to complicated for me..can someone explain it?
FatalFrame06 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
vividDC 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD particle exist within Human body which is CERN Laboratory of Nature.for details see YOU TUBE VK SONAKIA ans read article on all voices.com -certainty-tool-is-higgin-boson-or-god-particle-which-exist-in-human-body.We have already developed next generation easy to learn unified science.world scientist atr welcome to see and test FIT-Future Imaging Tool technology.FIT technology forecast tsynami,IRENE Hurricane
vk sonakia
unified field scientist
bhopal
INDIA
vksonakia@yahoo.co.in
vksonakia 4 months ago
I don't get it
ifanf 5 months ago
so basically, if you drive a car at the speed of light at the darkness, then you turn on your headlight, but the light and the car is traveling at the same speed, it means you couldn't see whats in front of you cause there is no light yet, whats in front of you is the future which you couldnt see yet unless your car is fastr than the speed of light, but the light is the fastest accdng to Einstein. But what if u shoot yourself out of the car through a cannon, then land so far in front of the car?
ItlogNaEgg 5 months ago
@ItlogNaEgg No. The light will still illuminate the road in front of the car even if you are travelling at light speed.
HamSupZhai 5 months ago
@HamSupZhai It doesn't make sense then. Unless if you delay the time, which I've seen in some theories, then your right. Awesome!
ItlogNaEgg 5 months ago
@ItlogNaEgg relative to the cart you will be going faster. Relative to someone standing outside you will be going the same speed. You will be mvoing faster in time then the cart.
lyllyearthlinknet 4 months ago
@ItlogNaEgg If headlights were switched on while the car was moving at the speed of light, there would be no apparent difference in the speed that the light moved away from the car, from your observing point of view, henceforth you WOULD be able to see in front of you, because to YOU, the light is still moving away from the car at the speed of light. Light can never slow down for an observer, it is always the fastest speed no matter what. search time travel in searchbar. first video.
JedmNZ 4 months ago
@JedmNZ It is always the fastest speed no matter what? ha ha you must feel dumb now
boxingisbest 4 months ago
Comment removed
JedmNZ 4 months ago
@boxingisbest ...That's exactly what i just explained dipshit.
JedmNZ 4 months ago
@boxingisbest bet you feel even dumber than me right now.
JedmNZ 4 months ago
Comment removed
JedmNZ 4 months ago
@ItlogNaEgg is like spitting against the wind on a speeding train: the spit doesn't go anywhere, it just spreads over your face.
omnisphera 4 months ago
great demonstration of why time slows down.
How did they measure the photon speed at both ends of the cart to determine if it was the same? This cannot be measured on the cart itself any more than two 10 year old girls can run a race from the center to the ends of a traincar in opposite directions and know which one was travelling faster by how soon they reached the endwalls of the traincar. Obviously the one travelling in the direction of the train is faster but they both reachends @same time
BarclayAvenue1000 5 months ago
What if light does travels faster that C in that it doesn't go any faster here in our universe but penetrates through the "brickwall" into another dimension?
u2ooberboober 5 months ago
Great video! The best visual explanation I've ever seen (not that I've seen a lot thoug)
tyapka 5 months ago
Hello.
Your clip should not depict individual photons. You should show a continuous stream of photons.
An individual photon is at the quantum length scale! There does not yet exist any bonafide physical theory that unifies QM and GR (in which SR is a special case).
Furthermore, you say 3D but i see a 2D light cone (?).
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse The video shows just the principles of special relativity. I guess QM and GR complicates matters but I'm not expert enough to say how it should affect this video. You can think of it as a thought experiment or a hypothetical one.
Regarding the 3D, you are basically right. The X and Y axes are used as space, and Z as time, but the Y axis is quite degenerate (the cart has height but all the action is on the X axis). I used the Y axis to change camera angle instead.
udiprod 5 months ago
i am adamant in my conclusion
roomdev 5 months ago
i have a bit difference with the assumption that speed of light cannot be accelerated beyond certain value....does anybody agrees with me?anyone?
roomdev 5 months ago
@roomdev
Light can accelerate, just not beyond c. You can even slow it to a halt.
Quintinohthree 5 months ago
this is the craziest thing i've ever seen, no wonder he went mad.
1080portal 5 months ago
Comment removed
tusi1390 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Checkout "What if Einstein was wrong?" by ItsRainMakingTime on YouTube.
Dr. Peri Spolter (Ph.d, U. of Wisconsin) discusses her book "Gravitational Force of the Sun" in which she shows how Newton & Einstein did NOT use observational data but imaginary concepts that selectively use nature to fit the theory.
Accordingly, Newton ignored Kepler's 3rd law (actual gravitational force) which has no basis in mass. She also disclaims Einstein's concept of space/time, i.e. time as a 4th dimension.
bondurango 5 months ago
Brilliant. Is it bad that I am 13 and understand this perfectly? Haha but Einstine
crby101 5 months ago
Comment removed
tusi1390 5 months ago
I may be wrong, but your illustration shows the cart moving at 80% of light speed. So, shouldn't the time dilation and length contraction apply to whole of the cart instead of just one of its photon receiving ends? If so, then the clock should slow down but shouldn't the rate at which it ticks stay same at both ends - I don't know, so I thought I should ask.
manusharma23 5 months ago
Comment removed
tusi1390 5 months ago
Comment removed
tusi1390 5 months ago
Comment removed
tusi1390 5 months ago
Comment removed
tusi1390 5 months ago
1:00
themomo6710 5 months ago
but i thought that was what Einstein predicted
MarkNie1 5 months ago
one moves at 20 % the other at 180 % cause the 20 % is traveling more to time and less to space...the 180 % is traveling more to space than to time.....U GUYS ARE ALL STUPID..... ALL OF YOU!...STUPID ASS QUESTIONS..u think aliens want to visit us... when u ask these stupid question...do ur research better..ima fucken high school drop out...im smarter than all of you.. i jusT SOLVED THIS PROBLEM
freshupdown 5 months ago
@freshupdown did you really drop out of highschool?
xkurtmanx 5 months ago
I don't understand: It's clearly observed that the photons hit each receptor simultaneously, yet in Einstein's distortion, that no longer happens. How can that be correct?
JKoss618 6 months ago
oh just fantastic !
bubtacular 6 months ago
must have great imagination to visualize something like this
martinlisitsata 6 months ago
WHY DID YOU HAVE TO USE COMIC SANS AT THE BEGINNING?
IRACourageWolf 6 months ago
This always confused me... this, of course, means that I would make one crappy physicist... It makes sense on paper, mathematically, but it makes no sense in terms of the average person's rational thought. If Einstein is true... what is the point of a space program in the first place... we will never get to other stars, and even if we could get there within a person's lifetime... everyone we could possibly return to would have died of old age before we got back because of the time dilation.
Kittani1977 6 months ago
Hey one question .... If you have a stick who is 4 Sec Light long .. and you poke someone with .... Will you Feel the stick stop moving before seen the guy getting poked ? if yes the energie made with that stick go faster than speed of light ....
65465468 6 months ago 5
@65465468 You are right - relativity rules this out. Since no signal can travel faster than the speed of light, when you start pushing one end of the stick, it will take 4 seconds (or more) before the other end will start moving.
udiprod 6 months ago 5
@udiprod WHAT!! BULL SHIT IM PUSHING A STICK AND IT MOVES> THERES NO ALL OF A SUDDEN CHANGE IN REALITY JUST BECAUE YOUR COMMENT. that is unless your talking about light speed stick moving. then again every thing is confusing at the speed of light
tisilwm 5 months ago
@tisilwm We should get that stick and test your theory on you ;)
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
So do the stick's particles compress? Does the space that the stick occupies compress?
EricRmd 5 months ago
@udiprod which is understandable as the stick would have to be 1,199,168km long.
FreeGluon 5 months ago
@udiprod that makes so much sense....... holy shit!
robman8855 4 months ago
@udiprod or not cause netrinos can go faster then the speed of light ;)
diadlo13 3 months ago
@diadlo13 supposedly, and even though it was measured to be faster it was only by a tiny value. Also the experiment was pretty unique (firing neutrinos through a mountain, one lab to another) and expensive that the repeatability is difficult
phuckingkunt 3 months ago
@udiprod
How does that... work?
BlockisticStudios 3 months ago
@BlockisticStudios If a stick is made of rubber then it's easy to imagine: when you push one end it will contract, and the contraction will be slowly transmitted all the way to the other end. But actually all materials behave that way. Hard materials simply pass the contractions very fast. As fast as the speed of light, at the most.
udiprod 3 months ago
@udiprod
Oh... I see. Thank you.
BlockisticStudios 3 months ago
@65465468 actually, i believe the poke would travel down the stick at the speed of sound in the medium of whatever the stick is made of, as a pressure wave
Dooooood6 6 months ago
@65465468 Unfortunately, sticks are still made up of atoms and when you move a stick, it's moving all of the atoms attached at the point where the force was up until the entire stick has started moving. This is not visible to the naked eye, but at those distances you could prove it if you had unlimited energy and 4 years to do it and you managed to travel 4 light years somehow :)
Nitrodist 6 months ago
Comment removed
mosznik 6 months ago
@mosznik
aww, are you high? :3
11dimensionsify 6 months ago
In short, in Einstein's relativity the speed of light is constant? And that is incorrect? Does this mean the speed of light travels at a certain speed plus the speed of the object that emits the light?
MrSupertonsky 6 months ago
@MrSupertonsky It means yes, the speed of light is a constant, and that in order to satisfy Einsteins equations you must allow that time and distance are the variables... but only with respect to the observer. This is also why his theories are still theories and not laws of physics... they cannot be fully proved until you can travel close enough to the speed of light to overcome the margin of error in your recording equipment. Some of his stuff has been proved... some is a bit elusive for now.
Kittani1977 6 months ago
@Kittani1977 after reading a few articles, if the speed of light is constant, it seems to me the more closer an object is moving at the speed of light the more it is limited to moving at the other direction. So when the object reaches the speed of light it can no longer move in any other ways (even it's internal structures) because all movements must be directed to the speed of light. Is this why time stops for an object if this object is able to move at the speed of light?
MrSupertonsky 6 months ago
@Kittani1977 "This is also why his theories are still theories and not laws of physics... they cannot be fully proved until you can travel close enough to the speed of light to overcome the margin of error in your recording equipment. "
Uh, no. Atomic clocks took care of that decades ago. SR are accepted as (effective) laws. One example is GPS. If the satellite clocks were not corrected for relativity the system would become unusable in less than a day.
csmcmillion 6 months ago
@csmcmillion I actually went and read a few current articles on it... amazing... thanks. But if they have been fully proven why are they not called "Laws" now? (effective) laws are not laws. IS there something in his theories we haven't proven yet still?
Kittani1977 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kittani1977 "IS there something in his theories we haven't proven yet still?". To my knowledge, no. SR has passed every experimental test thrown at it.
'But if they have been fully proven why are they not called "Laws" now?'
some opinions on this: wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_law_differ_from_a_theory_in_science
csmcmillion 6 months ago
@csmcmillion "SR are accepted as (effective) laws."
I retract that statement. Very poor wording on my part.
csmcmillion 6 months ago
Comment removed
mosznik 6 months ago
Comment removed
mosznik 6 months ago
Comment removed
mosznik 6 months ago
like to ask what visualization tools you used? its great !
lobonoxxxx 6 months ago
@lobonoxxxx Thanks! Autodesk Maya.
udiprod 6 months ago
There is no cart.
DrLeroyGreen 6 months ago
someone explain this to me...So if i happened to be on that cart, i would see the photons striking the end at the same time, but if i observing from the ground i would see the photons striking the end at different times?
that doesn't seem to make sense to me.
ISUowns 6 months ago
@ISUowns That's exactly right. In other words, simultaneity is something relative: what's simultaneous to one observer, is not simultaneous to another. It sounds strange at first, but it's not the strangest thing in physics.
udiprod 6 months ago
@udiprod hmm, yes I see. That is very strange.
Is it possible that the photons only strike the ends at different times simply due to the longer distance the right photon must travel than the left. I suppose from the carts perspective they are traveling the same distance tho.
haha maybe distance is relative.
ISUowns 6 months ago
@udiprod Although i suppose that would mean relative to the cart, the right photon would be moving at 20% of the speed of light and the left would be moving at 180% the speed of light. and you already said that that wasn't the case. Curious tho what experiment showed that they the photons were moving the speed of light from both references?
ISUowns 6 months ago
@ISUowns The Michelson-Morley experiment.
They used the entire earth as a giant, fast moving cart, and expected the measured speed of photons to be different than the speed of light, due to the movement of the earth. They were disappointed to find no difference :), but this eventually contributed to the discovery of relativity.
udiprod 6 months ago
@udiprod Ahh. So they expected the photons moving with the earth to be faster than the speed of light but they weren't. Clever way to test something like that. ;)
ISUowns 6 months ago 2
81 people moved their mouse faster than light...
... and missed the thumbs up.
anewone4 6 months ago
Comment removed
anewone4 6 months ago
so whats the answer, which point of view is right?
p.s talk to me like i'm an idiot
david102994 6 months ago
@david102994 Which point of view is right? See that's the problem.
No point of view is actually "right" but none are wrong. I guess you could said they're all right.
Experimentation and special relativity theory show that time is relative(as well as size), Faster movement creates time dilation as well as length contraction. Every point of view is right relative to itself, but not RELATIVE to another point of view. Interesting no? :)
WhySoBass 6 months ago
@WhySoBass Why is it a problem?
LeconsdAnalyse 6 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Why is what a problem?
WhySoBass 6 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Oh sorry, it's a problem because there is no real meaning to right or wrong, right and wrong is relative.
WhySoBass 6 months ago
really, really nice job
donkerbrazil 7 months ago
I guess a recent artical at Physics Today, "Moving mirrors make virtual light real" inspired me to to go on a very long rant about SR here. I guess I'd like to thank the uploader here for the tolerance shown to my longwindedness. Thank you.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
I could be wrong, but if light bounces off a moving mirror, the direction it bounces should depend on how the mirror is moving. I was trying to suggest in the previous reply that the replacement photon does not seem to react the same way as the original, even though it hits the moving mirror at the same time, from the same angle (as seen from the stationary frame), and with the same frequency. It seems somewhat reminiscent of QED in that it takes a different path on the bounce. JMO. YMMV.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
I think the first time I saw something like this, the light clock used mirrors so the photon would bounce back and forth. With the clock moving the light would make a "VVVVV" pattern and its wavelength redshifts to fit the longer path between bounces. Seems one could try to replace that photon with another coming from a stationary source, with the same angled path and same frequency as the red-shifted photon, but it also seems it wouldn't bounce at the same angle, due to the mirror movement.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
After thinking about QED for a long time, with its photon that takes every imaginable path simultaneously, I started to think maybe SR oversimplified the picture, even though it supposedly worked. Maybe Occam's razor led scientists into a local complexity minima with SR, and with QED the consequences have come back to bite.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
I wrote that maybe the appearances are superficial, and by that I mean either a moving thing hits something or it doesn't, and that's what really makes a difference. Ignoring relativistic mass when talking about an electron because the gravitational force change would be nil, the faster electron isn't supposed to have a stronger or weaker charge on it as far as I know (which is not much). IOW No relativistic charge transform under the standard model, AFAIK. Seems a good idea to keep it that way.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
I guess if you have a relativistically moving thing made of gravitationally-orbiting parts and those parts have relativistically-increased masses, then one might think, if all other things were the same, the orbits would, to a standing observer, look like they're moving faster with the resultantly-stronger gravity. Contraction of length pushes it together, again it looks like things are going in the direction of faster. But time dilation, this is maybe cancelling at least some of that, I guess.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
I guess I should say that right as he passes, my eyes would apparently, by the mover's perspectiive, be operating in a time-dilated way while I'm seeing nonsimultaneous ruler ends simultaneously, yet the spacing between my eyes and/or the distance to the brain, depending or not depending on the angle of my head, *seems* contracted. Maybe it's all about appearances, and one appearance, reversed or not, is superficial. There is also moving relativistic energy increase, another sticking-point.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
I left the "it" out of "on it can" without knowing it. Oh well, another sign of confusion. I see a moving ruler with simultaneous ends existing at different mover's times. But my eyes are appearing to be operating in a time-expanding manner, to the moving observer, yet my eyes look compressed together to him also.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Seems to me that seeing a compressed length is like seeing with expanded eyes, and seeing a dilated time is like keeping time with a faster timepiece, but we're told the relativistic transforming of space/time *appearances* is mutual between different inertial frames, and that gets many people frustrated with it, myself included. Now I'm stuck on the idea of how riding a seemingly contracted ruled rail while sliding a normal ruler on can possibly look like the opposite situation to a nonrider.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
A lot of the motivation to see time as dilated in moving frames (and yes, I know the impression is supposed to be mutual and it's all relative for any inertial frame) is that the path of the moving light-clock's light beam always appears as having further to go in one cycle than it did before the clock started to move. But looking at it from the perspective of the moving frame, the beam was taking a longer cycle before it supposedly started "moving" and the "moving" shortened the beam's path.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Seems I've fallen for a lines-of-simultanaity misapprehension, the front of the moving ruler supposedly seems practically like it's in a different time zone than the back, and I guess the trainbound observer's head can only run his eyes forward and backward to the front and back of the ruler in a time-dilated way anyway. But for a moment, it seemed that seeing two different time zones at once while off the rails was not a length-compressimg type of experience, but the opposite.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Not sure if anyone uses a bouncing light beam to measure time, but if the force of gravity increases, the beam should curve (down) more. Seems it might even be necessary to realign the mirrors a little bit, turning them upward to keep the beam bouncing between them. But the bending is maybe happening with any machine squares around too, so it actually seems it's all cancelled out. Maybe the interesting part of it is that more gravity seemed to be (half)-going in the direction of slowing time.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Why do planets orbit instead of just falling into the sun?
789123Y 7 months ago
@789123Y Supposedly they are falling into the sun, but who knows, maybe they're flying away from the sun. Takes me a long time to be sure, I guess. Not a lot a friction in space, orbits are a perfect version of just hanging around the sun for the longest possible time, the solar system maybe isn't so perfect, but the planets and lesser objects have a fairly strong consensus on solar-system item angular momentum (spin axis) and CW vs. CCW spin, minimizing friction effects of planetary orbits.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
I like the visualization of the Lorentz transformation very much.
DarthPickley 7 months ago
In my first reply here, I wrote "exclude" where "hinder" would fit better. In the reply where I wrote "never" the phrase "be less likely to" would fit better. I started to bring GR into the picture with my comment on gravitational blue-shifting of a clock on a peak, but let it drop there. Having basically covered the idea of reversing the conventional SR transforms, I'll now try to drag GR further into the mess here, first noting that the equivalence principle equates gravity with acceleration.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Suppose I'm an observer on a train moving 2/3c and, to a person on a sidewalk, my clock is running faster and my ruler is looking longer. If things moving left to right in my view in a supposedly fixed amount of time seem to be taking longer by my watch and I'm underestimating their distance due to having a lengthened ruler, then obviously the objects appear to me to be moving slower, even though they're closer. So, it seems I'd then be less surprised by an oncoming train moving at -2/3c, maybe.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Reversing SR's transforms would mean seeing time contraction (faster clock) and length expansion in a moving object. I'll take the perspective of an observer watching, relatively stationary and from a great distance off to the side of the rails, two bright train objects moving on a collision course, both going 2/3c. With time contraction let's suppose the a trainbound observer's clock does not appear to be faster to the trainbound observer, IOW he transforms with his clock. Same with his ruler.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Let's say that SR means "subluminally-moving things should always appear to be moving subluminally, regardless of the observer's inertial frame" and let's suppose SR's space and time transformations can be treated separately. In the case of an oncoming train moving at a relative speed of 4/3c, let's suppose the transformations act to make the approach appear to be subluminal, because otherwise we'd never see what's coming, plus both trains are moving at subluminal rates, so maybe it'll work.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
It is said that a fast incoming muon lives longer, and penetrates further through the atmosphere, due to SR effects e.g. time dilation: the muon's clock appears to run slower, so it lives longer, at least that's the way it's told. If the muon is a sort of observer going against increasing flow, then it seems lateral (width) contraction helps it, as it becomes more compact. But if a muon has deflected/deflecting parts, it seems it could benefit from having faster parts. The picture's fuzzy to me.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Seems to me the observer on a train moving +2/3c is best equipped to see a subluminal version of the oncoming -2/3c train if, from the platform in between, the trainbound observer appears to be running with a faster clock and with an increased sense of closeness to distant things oncoming. Pendula swing faster in higher gravity, light from a lightclock on a peak is supposedly blue-shifted as it goes down to sea level, so it seems that the clock could appear to run faster, viewed from sea level.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago
Last comment in this run, I promise. If the moving observer applies a compressed ruler to measuring the distance between markers laid out on the unmoving rail he's using, then he's seeing longer distances between markers, and if the trainbound observer sees that something moves on the rail between the markers, it looks like it moved further going from marker to marker than it does to someone standing on the ground. As with time dilation, it seems to hinder observation of oncoming things.
CACBCCCU 7 months ago