[ldavidcooke]

Hey All,

Since my last thought was so poorly described, I wll attempt to be more direct wth this one. In the assocaton with the former annual discussion wrt travel at the speed of light. As normal my ignorance will show; however, if we can clarify why emperically things are as predicted it would be great.

So to clarfy things where we basically had discussed relativity clearly was for a spaceship leaving Earth where a giant clock was erected on the surface of the moon and a very high-powered telescope was mounted on the spaceship. In addition, a radio marker beacon in the 1Ghz range was installed on the moon with a correspondng highly sensitive reciever installed in the spaceship as well.

So as discussed in the past the spaceship moves into a polar position and fires up its engines..., slowly it begins to move away, after about three days of constant thrust let's say we take our first measurement. Comparing the relative speed of the spaceship away from Earth we would calculate we were moving near to 1/2 the speed of light. We obtain this value by two measures: one, based on the hydrogen spectrum of the sun demonstrating a red shift. Two, a star known to be moving away from Earth at 1/2 the speed of light, appears to have lost its blue shift.

At the same time we have noticed the marker beacon frequency has shifted to a lower frequency; yet we are still able to call back to Earth and let NASA Space Command know that everything is fine and we are continuing on our mission. We also let them know our relative speed and sightings we have taken of far distant galaxies in the "deep space" region. We report there is a small anomally in that we are seeing some additional faint smudges appear in our latest image.

Three weeks later we get out our measuring tape and discover that our internal measurements have not changed; however, a deep space photo of the moon indicates that for all intents, time has stopped. We no longer can raise NASA Space Command on our radio, and the radio beacon appears to have stopped transmitting. We look at the former deep space reference and we observe a distinctive red shift. The funny thing is when we observe the deep space galaxies the appearence of anomallies has increased with many more galaxies appearing in the images. We jettison a radio relay probe that heads back towards the Earth after several hours we finally get a message telling us we have disappeared from their view and when did we plan to return, after all we only left a week ago, on our four week trip. So we decide to slow down relative to Earth and match it's relative speed in relation to the references. As the distant galaxy returns to a blue shift we look back towards the clock of the moon, we start to see the time change again and the hydrogen spectrum of Sol returns to normal.

Now here is where my ignorance comes into play. Einstein Relativity suggests that for the time that we have been in motion, our clocks had to run slower then the clocks on Earth. Also so did every other process, down to electrons circling atomic neuclei. In truth, the local time and processes on the spaceship did not change, light emitted or radio frequencies in relation to the relay probe did not change though coming back they had been at a lower frequency; but, in our current neutral relativistic state everything is similar to the values back at Earth only it takes a few days to hear from the Earth and a few hours from the relay probe. Looking at the time on the lunar clock; however, it would appear that though the time has restarted the date is off a little. It would seem as though we are in the past with relation to our ship board time. This is entirely inconsistant with Einsteinan theory as it has been explained so far. In essence the time in the spaceship was also supposed to change so that the motion alone in relation to the Earth suggests the time on board places the spaceship back in time relative to the current Earth time. So if any philosophers want to kick in and describe why this is so I am all ears. It would appear that the physical constants would have to change on the spaceship just to satisfy the relativistic differences between tbe spaceship and everything else in the universe, this is anti-logical... (Oh, please note, as to tbe process of stopping, there was no multiple waves of pent-up time changes from the lunar clock, it simply started to slowly start to count again.)

I'll stop here roughly 5 weeks of space travel away from Earth to see if we can resolve this first delima before heading back towards Earth. Hopefully there is a simple answer and my observations are incorrect negating a need to return to Earth... (Please note: The description I used of a clock was inspired by Einsteins observations himself, in that he had been looking at a clock tower while on a train pulling away from the City. This lead to him suggesting that if he were to achieve the speed of light the hands on the clock would stop moving.)

[PaulKn]

If you get near to the speed of light, your time relative to a 'stationary' observer will, to them, run more slowly. Distances shrink as you move closer to the speed of light, relative to you. Thus, just a few hours of space travel near to the speed of light will take you much further than it takes the light to appear to travel relative to the stationary observer. For example, travel at 99.9% of the speed of light towards the Andromeda Galaxy and it will take you perhaps 8-9 hours of travel time to get there. But that's because time has run more slowly. Thousands of years will have passed on Earth. Return back to Earth at the same speed, and many thousands of years will have passed on Earth, but you may have only experienced less that 1 Earth day.

Photons are 'zero time' particles - i.e. from their point of view they can be anywhere in the Universe within zero time. But to an outside observer at non-relativistic speeds, it appears to take billions of years.

[Bazmundo]

Einstein's description of Relativity is of the differences between the static observer and the moving observer's frame of reference while travelling at or near to the speed of light. Decelerate and the subsequent photons catch up with you. Nothing changed apart from perspective during the flight. Put both observers in the same frame of reference (5 'lightweeks' wide?) and you simply travelled a distance at a given speed in a given time. In short, the 'Moon clock' will realign with the spacecraft clock. The common misinterpretation with relativity (and sci-fi time travel) is that the moving observer actually experiences a different timescale, where in fact you're right David that it only appears so.

None of this takes into account gravitational effects on time, before anyone throws the orbiting atomic clock thing in, which in simple terms is the effect of weak gravity on quantum processes (which we use to measure time).

PS: you wouldn't see the spacecraft clock realign. or the Moon clock realign, unless you were an observer independent of this universe and the laws of Physics - the same realignment would be happening to you simultaneously. Nothing would appear amiss, apart from while you were moving at or near to 'c'.

I think.

[Flatlander]

??

Not sure that's right Glyn.

The spacecraft on returning to earth will find that its clocks are permanently displaced, as Paul says. Or is that not what you meant?

http://en.wikipedia....ting_experiment

Interestingly, GPS clocks are set to run fast before launch because from earth they appear to run slow due to their relative motion in orbit. The difference is quite "large" (7 microseconds/day) and without the correction, GPS wouldn't work at all...

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Glyn,

I just knew that you might like to play here, I will try not to offend as I try to explain my confusion?

The problem I see in your explanation is the resetting of the lunar clock to match the spaceship clock. If I am in the spaceship looking through the telescope what I should see, as I drop out of light speed is a shift from a steady state photon wave front to a wave that slowly passes me by with the speed of the wave front gradually increasing to the speed of light.

Similar to being in a boat, as I run with the waves, I should be able to match speed so that I am riding the crest. (Due to hull design, the actual friction level changes so it is not possible to maintain balance in a boat; however, balance a flat board on the crest and you can ride the wave.) As the hull speed drops, the wave slowly passes under the boats hull. If I stop relative to the wave, the prior waves do not suddenly over take my position, I simply return to the common time-space continua of Earth, and the hands on the clock start moving again.

This is the first issue I have with realitivity as classically described, a discontinuity, or a requirement for differences to zero out is logically wrong.

Space or the distance between two points and Time are interchangeable. Move 1 light year away from Earth at light speed and yes your calander has gained one year compared with your perception of the Earths. So what of the Earth when you stop, from the spaceship you see the time difference between when you departed and the time to return to a relative zero velocity differential?

From Earth, if it were possible to see your space ship, what would you see? I believe you would see a point of light from the point you achieved light speed and another point of light at where you returned from lightspeed. What of the intervening distance, did you disappear, become a smudged line, or a bright segment between the two points. Based on what I have seen of deep space images so far is two points, the pre-light and the post-light...

So what happens if you move 1 trillion miles at say 1/10 the speed of light. Logically, it should be that the light wave fronts moved past me at 90% the speed of light, right? If so then what of the red shift and blue shift in light?

Remember the radio beacon, the frequency got lower as we moved away faster till we matched speeds at that point the energy from the beacon failed to change relative to our movement; hence, it stopped changing. When we stopped did the beacon tick sounds suddenly become like a buzzing tone, no. The carrier frequency of the beacon returned to 1Ghz from what would for all intents and purposes have been an extremely faint audible tone, if there were a transcoductive mass that the signal was traveling through...

(As for blue/red light shift we do not see any hydrogen stars that start emitting IR rather then visible light or do we? If I understand correctly we just see a relative change in the spacing of the wave fronts. So if the null values (pulse width) increases then so should the spacing between the peaks or frequency.

Now if you see it differently Glyn, we can only not take the trip back to Earth if we can resolve this corrundum..., again thanx!

[Bazmundo]

A '70s experiment quoted on Wiki? Ouch! lol

I'm not going to quote hard facts, as this is still very subjective and observational experiments have got a lot better since. But when I referred to 'common misinterpretation' consider theobserver and the difference between the person as the object, and the eye as a detector of photons. Einstein was referring to the differences as they appear to an omnipotent static observer, therein assuming that they can 'see' all the relevant 'clocks'. Lorentz prior had determined the effect of apparent contractions in size but stuff doesn't actually contract, thereupon Einstein nailed down 'c' and was in the process of arguing that 'c' is the same to an observer in their respective frame of reference (herein substituted with "box").

In theory, and assumed actuality, you wouldn't see much out the back of your box, it would all be shifted both in wavelength and intensity - but that's because you're eye is an imperfect detector of actual events, relying on the photons to keep it updated with info. Ahead it would be shifted the other way, same reasons.

Take a big box and throw it over David's experiment, within that (assuming again that the observer can 'see' everything), and the equations of relativity apply to the two smaller boxes when the spacecraft is in motion nearing or at 'c'. Suddenly stop the experiment, don't touch any 'clocks' and compare the spacecraft to Earth (usually described as 'returning to Earth') and yes there is a difference. However, in reality the laws of physics dictate that the spacecraft must decelerate back to the same frame as the large box, and therefore other smaller static box (Earth).

The atomic clock thing was attributed to relativity due to similar misinterpretations, whereas it's becoming realised that gravity is at play (and not in the way quoted on that Wiki reference) wrt to time dilation, effect on photons, gravitomagnetism and it's effect on quantum processes, etc. But that's only if you're a believer (?) in 'spacetime' as a geometric construct of time, recently some eminent physicists have turned to bodies being the nature of the universe, rather than the overall universe dictating processes, which I suppose is possible given that alpha was different in the early universe. In short, c is different in theoretical free space than in dirty, gravity-ridden space. It's certainly becoming foggy out there, but nothing's ever easy.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Glyn,

What I think Paul is trying to say is that the radio beacon frequency does not change. That the distance a single pulse covers per moment in time, changes relative to the rate of change between two points. The distance a pulse covers is related to the rate of intervening change in distance between the source and the detector.

Hence, speedtime stays the same; but, spacetime changes. So if speed is distance over time and distance changes based on the rate of change in distance between the emission and detection, then time must change at a similar rate for speed to remain constant.

This then would suggest that as the speed of the space craft approaches the speed of light that time has to decrease inorder for distance to remain constant. This is the counter intuitive issue I am trying to address.

As distance is a physical "real" thing I believe it must be a constant. (For instance, for any two observers having a base of reference, the angular distance between any two distant points is relative to the different base of references.) This only leaves time as the varible.

At issue as I see it, is that for a pulse width time of a cycle of light to change requires the energy level of the electron field to change based on the relativite difference in the velocity of the detector, for this to be true. As that is not the case, then the pulse width has to change based of the realitive velocity differences between the emission point and detector.

In short, time is the only variable, though it would seem to be proportional to relative velocity between two points, rather then inversely proportional. Also, it would seem that the shift in time has limits. (What is the greatest red shift we have observed in the deep space galaxy photos?)

[Bazmundo]

Hey Dave, just to clarify my first post was a response to the opening post, my second to Tim. I hadn't noticed Paul's post earlier (sorry).

You've just about reached the answer, for "pulse width" try "wavelength" (the red and blue shifts). Speed and freq stay the same, the wavelength is slightly changed by a source moving fast enough. Otherwise, in answer to your question regarding the 'requirement for differences to zero out' it's only the apparent differences that need to zero out, again a matter of perception rather than the effect of actually distorting time. Likewise the distances don't change, but only appear to (Lorentz contraction).

We also need to address the fundamental problem with relativity, it's a thought experiment rather than a plan for an actual experiment. No spacecraft can achieve close to the speed of light, according to Einstein, so to assume that the deceleration would be so sharp as to even perceive the equalisation of the optical illusion is not appropriate.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Baz,

To try to explain why I said pulse width rather then frequency is for some reason when I look a the red shift data I don't see a shift that matches up. We know that the most dstant galaxies have to be the ones moving away from Earth the fastest. Given this it would seem that the rate of change in frequency would match proportionally the change in speed. Apparently thst is not the case. Yes there is a shift; however, it is only a percentage of the frequency band of light, not the entire frequency band, though that may have more to do with the technology rather then the reality.

For instance, if we know that photons travel at a fixed speed and the distance is roughly 14Billion light years, a white hot star would have an orange towards red cast,, the faster the galaxies are moving away. Given a radio telescope with an equivalent sensitivity to 48-72 hours of a photgrphic gel, if we also got a signature of tiny distant sources this would satisfy that for those objects furtherest away the frequency passes out of the optical band. (Though we have the microwave echo of the big bang, I do not know if we can obtain radiometric data as finite as we can with photographic emulsion.)

To return to the purpose of this post, a particle may have a finite dimension. In mechanical or classic physics particles can vibrate and their movement or flow has the appearance of a wave or a quantum particle if I understand correctly. These particles vibrate at a set frequency due to their energy level at emission. As they move their vibration frequency does not change. However, depending on your relationship to them you see them the same if you are are the same relative velocity as the emitter. So what happens if you see them while moving away from them, their internal frequecy has not changed; however, how we percieve their vibration has changed. You stil get a spike or peak at the same frequency as their emission; however, the appearance of the change seems to be further apart. In essence, the center frequency appears to remain the same, but the pulses come less often.

We use this technique n telecommunications to manage and test data. By creating a space between the data pulse you can remove artifacts. You measure pulse width and not frequency, t is the null transition points that define the data validity. In most analog detectors employeed it is not only the pulse width; but, the change in amplitude. Over long distances as EM travels the wave front or transition and amplitude decrease causing the frequency to appear to shift. (If you remember the 2001 experiment eith Bromide they suggested it was possible to transmit the enerygy entering the chamber to a detector at the far side faster then the speed of light, the answer turned out to be instead that the wave front or for a lack of a better description the light was refracted.)

So to a degree I strongly agree with you that the differences we percieve are illusionary with regard to relative differences in energy levels between an emitter snd detector; however, I believe there is another factor involved as well. If you remember the earlier example peaks do not change, if I am moving away from the emitter if the pulse width is getting longer; but, the peaks are occuring at the same rate at some point the peaks "override" their neighbors. In other words a cycle does not complete before the next cycle begins this changes the perception of the photon. Like wise moving towards a emitter should cause the peaks to appear less often in relation to the null transitions causing descrete pulses at an appwrent higher frequency. As to the effect on the relative speed of the photon inrelation to a detector from an emitter, it apparently nly relates to the lean or angle of the vibration.

The faster you move away from something the more spagetti-fied it appears. I believe that in relation to light the null transition point changes n relation to the peak meaning to stay descrete the pulses making up the the light have to shift such that the peak is no longer symetrical in relation to the null values and that this shift is limited. Then as Paul says the rate of the photon has not changed only how Einstein and we percieve it.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Chris,

What I suggest you do is first throw away the idea of returning to Earth and time distortion, to me that has been a poor model. Next you need to consider that the physics of things are not going to change just because you are moving at a different rate in relation to them. Then you wll need to get used to the idea that the ground state of an emitter moving at a rate different then your own will be at an angle to your ground state and that this angle relates to the difference in relative velocities.

As to time distortion, relative movement places each element in a different time base. If you are moving away it should be shorter, hence the X-ray burst as an object enters the event horizon, inversely at a white hole you should see a definite IR spike. Now how about you condidering these differences in relation to your earlier Bell Labs cartoon that tried to depict the differences in ages of astronauts and those who were left behind...

[Bazmundo]

To clarify a couple of points you've made there Dave, the classical particles have a physical vibration but in the case of EM radiation the quantum particles are actually waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, with very little rest mass (which you can't determine, unless you can freeze an electron). Also, later when you say the 'peaks haven't changed' this is purely amplitude.

Even at relativistic speeds, wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency for a given speed, and in the case of the original example in this thread one box or the other must be considered the static frame in order to calculate the effect. Relativistic Doppler Effect does bring other issues into play, such as the perception that the distance is changing and relativistic time dilation as a consequence.
- classical formula even given relativistic speed, after one photon (or wavefront) has reached your eye the distance to the next one is determined by though perceived time changes (such that there is a correction required for the net perceived shift). "f_s" is the frequency at source.


Hence, frequency, or cycles per second or 'rate of pulses', does change for different speeds toward or away from a static emitter. Einstein's argument was that whether you're in the frame of the static emitter or moving observer (or vice versa) that 'c' would be the same, in that because you are not a perfect detector of all things you cannot 'see' the photons you are riding along with. Assuming you could achieve lightspeed, you would no longer 'see' the source, which is why Relativity should be introduced as for differential velocities nearing the speed of light.

[Flatlander]

I still don't understand what this thread is about. General Relativity is a very successful theory, and has been shown to be accurate experimentally, and practically, as millions of people rely on it being accurate every day. Its only problem is reconciling it at the exceedingly small scale with quantum effects. It is mathematically described, though, so you can't really argue about it without looking at the mathematics.

You might not like what it says about the universe, nor that it is somewhat counterintuitive, but it is a lot less so than quantum theory!

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Baz,

Concur, that for sinusoidal wave forms your formula works fine. Used it myself for over 45 years while building aerials for extending the range of my walkie-talkie base station I got at 9 years old, (I had broken the retractable aerial, so went in search for how to replace it.)


It was based on the distance a photon moves in one second in free space. However, when moving through coaxial cable the distance EM moves is roughly 97% the speed of light. So can you imagine the change in wave form when receiving an EM wave traveling at 300km/sec and stuffing it into a wire capable of conduction of the same signal at 291km/sec. Is there a distortion in the carrier frequency or is there a difference in the modulation frequency of the carrier frequency?

To go further, I also workd professionally on microwave wave guides, free space transmission in tuned, single frequency, resonating pipes of copper. Even tuned them with a ballpeen hammer,...

[Bazmundo]

Tim Prosser, on 19 April 2012 - 12:28, said:

I still don't understand what this thread is about. General Relativity is a very successful theory, and has been shown to be accurate experimentally, and practically, as millions of people rely on it being accurate every day. Its only problem is reconciling it at the exceedingly small scale with quantum effects. It is mathematically described, though, so you can't really argue about it without looking at the mathematics.

You might not like what it says about the universe, nor that it is somewhat counterintuitive, but it is a lot less so than quantum theory!

David's original thought experiment concerns Special Relativity, although we have occasionally overlapped into General Relativity (SR + gravity + the spacetime concept). The dodgy part is that the spacetime concept still depends largely upon observed rates, rather than physical differences between your box and the overall box.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Tim and Chris,

What I am attempting to do is create a timespace exploration. Paul was good enough to introduce the classic description of space discontinuity in light of near speed of light relativity. I am trying to either resolve the difference in observation versus "what is" or at the least understand why both distance and time have distortion. I believe resolving these pecularities is at the core of understanding both Dark Matter snd Dark Energy.

To go further, wthout gravity we know that when photons move through different materials their pathways change. Hence, I suspect that there is a similar relationship between photons and relative velocities. To try to understand what is happening the original thought model I was attempting was to become a photon. (Remembering that as a photon, I can never go home again, even if I am reflected right back at my source...)

(Tim, where during my youth I had to accept that that was the way it was, period... I no longer will accept that argument, there is something wrong and the anomalies that are appearing at the fringe of GR are pointing to it.)