As Neil DeGrasse Tyson famously says: "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." Scientific geniuses are geniuses at least in part because they observe and draw conclusions based on their deductions, rather than what might make sense. Einstein's determination that matter cannot move faster than light was based solely on math, not computers or Star Trek movies. And let's not forget Eratosthenes who used math to come to a very accurate measurement of Earth's size, a couple of hundred years B.C.
Relativity Explained
- Thread starter Chuckanut
- Start date
As Neil DeGrasse Tyson famously says: "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you." Scientific geniuses are geniuses at least in part because they observe and draw conclusions based on their deductions, rather than what might make sense. Einstein's determination that matter cannot move faster than light was based solely on math, not computers or Star Trek movies. And let's not forget Eratosthenes who used math to come to a very accurate measurement of Earth's size, a couple of hundred years B.C.
To which I'd add (again paraphrasing Tyson) that the real "genius" in science is using better tools and methods than our own senses to interpret the world.
Our own senses are fallible. In many ways they give us false information.
Whether it's math, a telescope, a microscope or some complex analytical machine, those wise enough to believe these tools over their own senses will always be closer to reality than those who aren't.
Yes, our senses, which include the sense of mental impulses, are very limited filters, as are the devices we use to explore the universe. Perhaps the only final answer to how and why the universe operates is...the universe itself, which cannot be fully comprehended by any smaller system.
That said, I'm going with the elephants.
I've always been bothered by a seeming dichotomy in the concept of "the faster you go, the slower time goes". when all speed is measured relative to two objects. e.g. say two rockets in space are moving at 0 mph relative to each other. Then the rockets takes off at a rate of half the speed of light to each other, turn around and come back. this could occur by both suddenly moving at 1/4 speed of light away from each other and then back together, or one not "moving" at all, and the other moving at 1/2 the speed of light away and coming back. In these cases, which ship's time slows down compared to the other ship's?
latexman
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Albert Einstein -
Koolau
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Supposedly, AE also stated that compounding of interest was the 8th wonder of the world.
He would have fit in here very nicely - and when we finished telling him he had enough to FIRE, he could answer our questions on relativity. Now if we could just work out time travel, we could ask him to join us.
He would have fit in here very nicely - and when we finished telling him he had enough to FIRE, he could answer our questions on relativity. Now if we could just work out time travel, we could ask him to join us.
Out-to-Lunch
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I was not fully able to parse your question (the bolded part). However, note that the examples you gave involve acceleration. Therefore, you cannot simply use Special Relativity, but must use the more general theory of General Relativity. And the two situations that you describe (if I am interpreting your description correctly) are physically different.
However, it seems like you may be getting at the Twin Paradox? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox If so, you CAN understand this using only Special Relativity: https://www.cpp.edu/~ajm/materials/twinparadox.html
Last edited:
yes, exactly that, although I didn't realize it had a name. I always have had a feeling the "cure" to the dichotomy, or paradox, might have something to do with the differing accelerations but never really gave it much more thought than that.
And yes, I didn't mean to imply that the two situations I presented were necessarily the same, but thought if I understood how time would function in each instance it might help me get a better understanding of the concepts at play. Thanks for the links, I'll have to study on them.
And yes, I didn't mean to imply that the two situations I presented were necessarily the same, but thought if I understood how time would function in each instance it might help me get a better understanding of the concepts at play. Thanks for the links, I'll have to study on them.
Out-to-Lunch
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Yes, the hard part is to get your head around the fact that both travelers see the other's clock as moving more slowly. And they are both right!
Feel free to ignore this, but I will try to describe (not explain) the above. Consider two events spaced a short period of time apart. Like two beats of your heart.
Let's say that you are driving down the road at 60 mph. To you, those two events happen in the same place (i.e., in your chest). However, to a person sitting by the side of the road, those events happen in different place (i.e., two different locations along the road).
It turns out that the shortest elapsed time between two events is when those events happen in the same place. To any observer that is moving (such that those events happen in different places), those events have a larger time interval between them
Now, that means that the astronaut moving with respect to the Earth sees (correctly) the heart of the person on Earth beating slowly. And the person on Earth (correctly) sees the heartbeat of the astronaut beating slowly.
Out-to-Lunch
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I probably should have said that the above is a direct consequence of the notion that the speed of light is constant for all observers.
