It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So it will tend to collapse at the throat. and you're suggesting the way to prevent this collapse is by putting mirrors there at the throat that are attracted to each other? Won't the attractive force between the mirrors simply accelerate the collapse? You're trying to keep it open, not pull it shut.
Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
You could just keep both of them at the mouths of the wormhole or preferably at the throat of the wormhole because that is where it will tend to collapse.
[edit on 19-8-2010 by Arbitrageur]
I think the reference to exotic matter as a possible means of keeping the wormhole open is valid (given the premise of the theoretical nature of exotic matter).
Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
There is an attractive force but a negative energy density between the 2 mirrors.
The negative energy density keeps it from collapsing.
It has been theorized, by Kip Thorne I believe, that you would need exotic matter with a negative energy density to keep a wormhole open. But it would only need to be lined in the throat of the wormhole.
That is why I typed the statement you were referring too.
Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
It has been theorized, by Kip Thorne I believe, that you would need exotic matter with a negative energy density to keep a wormhole open. But it would only need to be lined in the throat of the wormhole.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
Well to "travel faster" is a matter of the velocity of an object, and velocity is a matter of time, distance, and direction. The reason light is used as basis for this argument is because it has no mass, and as a result it can move faster than any object with mass.
But let's take a look at what velocity really is. Velocity is made up by two things.
1. The position in space of the object you are trying to measure.
2. The time it takes to get to it's next point in space.
Already we have a problem. Time. The speed of light is dependent on time. The velocity of any object is dependent on time. Is time as we experience it a constant? No. It is far from a constant because our only current measurement of time is based on our experience of it.
If we were to travel half the speed of light, what we would consider a light year would be much longer, because our experience of time would slow down significantly. But light doesn't slow down at all. Perspective doesn't change the speed of an object, it changes our perspective of speed.
In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise’s starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 feet. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead.
Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise. Of course, simple experience tells us that Achilles will be able to overtake the tortoise, which is why this is a paradox.
[JFrater: I will point out the problem with this paradox to give you all an idea of how the others might be wrong: in physical reality it is impossible to transverse the infinite - how can you get from one point in infinity to another without crossing an infinity of points? You can't - thus it is impossible. But in mathematics it is not. This paradox shows us how mathematics may appear to prove something - but in reality, it fails. So the problem with this paradox is that it is applying mathematical rules to a non-mathematical situation. This makes it invalid.]
Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
I don't think you understand.
When determining the speed of light, we must understand what speed is. Speed is the magnitude of velocity, or the rate of change. The rate of change is important. Distance over time is the rate of change. Meters (distance) over time (change), and we get the speed. Speed is a rate of change.
So the speed of light is measured in meters per second, from our perspective that rate of change is 299,792,458 meters per second.
Now, as the rate of change through space (speed) increases, the rate of change in an object (aging, or time) decreases. Speed increases, time decreases. At the speed of light, time has decreased to 0. The object ceases to experience aging or time, and the object is traveling at the speed of light.
The rate of change through space, from your perspective, is 299,792,458 m/s. The rate of change through space for the object traveling at the speed of light, is infinite. No matter how far that object travels at the speed of light, it will always experience no time difference or aging. That object can travel 97,761,600,000 miles, or 100,000,000,000 miles, it will still experience no difference in time.
For them, the speed of light is infinite, since the object traveling at the speed of light never experiences a rate of change, no matter how far the distance. It is only because we travel slower than the speed of light that we experience a rate of change slower than infinity. If we stopped moving at 20,000 mph through our solar system and came to a grinding halt of 5 mph, the speed of light would no longer travel at 299,792,458 m/s but slower. It would travel slower because the rate of change that would be measurable would occur slower to us.
In the SI system of units, a second is defined as the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10E9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
What is time?
Light would travel the same distance during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium 133 atoms for them as it would for us.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
Say there is a planet like our, just like our sun, our solar system, etc. etc. but this planet orbits the sun at 1000 times faster than earth. Then we compare it to our planet to that planet.
Light traveling from the sun to the planet would not slow down or speed up at either planet. But in our eyes, the other planets measurement of the speed of light would be inaccurate. If light is traveling the same amount of distance per rate of change in the universe, but they experience their own rate of change at 1000 times slower than US, their measurements would be different then ours.
It seems to me like you get the same answer wherever you go no matter how fast your local clock is running, so why is that wrong? The fact that the measurement of the speed of light is always the same seems to suggest it's right.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
What I was trying to say is not that light travels at different speeds, but that the measurement of speed itself is subjective and wrong.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur]In the SI system of units, a second is defined as the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10E9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.
Light would travel the same distance during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium 133 atoms for them as it would for us.
Apparently your confusion may be that you are thinking that they would use our cesium atom rate or we would use their cesium atom rate, but if we use the cesium 133 atoms in our frame of reference to define our second, and they use the cesium 133 atoms in their frame of reference to define their one second, then light travels the same distance in one second, in either frame of reference as we define one second.
So while the relative passage of time does change between the inertial frames of reference, the distance traveled by light in one second of the inertial reference frame making the measurement does not change, the way we define one second.
It seems to me like you get the same answer wherever you go no matter how fast your local clock is running, so why is that wrong? The fact that the measurement of the speed of light is always the same seems to suggest it's right.
Originally posted by grimreaper797
The speed of light is possibly constant, what I am saying is that the speed of light is not quantifiable.
Also, relativity is not a complete model of physics. Although I think it definitely had some strong points when it came to objects are relative to one another, I think it ultimately fails miserably in many regards.
Relativity leaves too many unexplained phenomena to be acceptable to me.
Well before Einstein many probably considered it wasn't right. Einstein's theory is non-intuitive so maybe that's why you're struggling with it, and if you can prove him wrong you'll be the next Einstein, but so far, nobody has proven Einstein wrong about this who has been able to convince others about that. When I have more time I'll try to understand where your logic is slipping up but your example is so long and then you added more that it will take some time to absorb your logic and find out where you are going wrong. In the meantime, here is my statement in different verbiage from a university source (University of Virginia site):
Originally posted by grimreaper797
Originally posted by Arbitrageur]
Light would travel the same distance during 9,192,631,770 cycles of the cesium 133 atoms for them as it would for us.
Apparently your confusion may be that you are thinking that they would use our cesium atom rate or we would use their cesium atom rate, but if we use the cesium 133 atoms in our frame of reference to define our second, and they use the cesium 133 atoms in their frame of reference to define their one second, then light travels the same distance in one second, in either frame of reference as we define one second.
That shouldn't be right.
This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 3×10E8 meters per second.
according to Einstein's theory, they will
If earth records it at 300,000,000 m/s roughly, then the planet traveling exponentially faster can't possibly measure it at 300,000,000 m/s.
You're right about the cesium clock, and so I'm not sure why you're not getting the velocity would be the same according to the slower clock as it would be according to the faster clock, except that it's not intuitive. Maybe disable your "intuition chip"?
The cesium clock is experiencing a rate of change much slower than the one on earth. Light isn't moving faster or slower, the cesium clock is varying it's rate of change.
If you apply intuition to that you might think if you measure a light beam on the ground and find it traveling 300,000,000 m/s then you pass overhead in a spaceship traveling 150,000,000m/s, that you wouldn't get the same measurement relative to the spaceship, but you do! For exactly the reason you stated, of the clock slowing down on the ship, plus the Fitzgerald contraction which you may not be considering. If you go to that link and keep reading it explains the space distortion effects too which may be the piece you're missing. There are some good examples in there and if you can grasp them maybe you can understand why you will ALWAYS measure 300,000,000m/s no matter how fast or slow your cesium clock is running relative to someone else's cesium clock in a different reference frame. It's strange, but true.
let us consider a simple measurement of the speed of light carried out at the same time in two inertial frames (one observer on the ground) and another observer, passing overhead in a spaceship traveling at half the speed of light...The observer on the spaceship will measure the blip of light to be traveling at c relative to the spaceship, the observer on the ground will measure the same blip to be traveling at c relative to the ground.
When you factor in the Fitzgerald contraction, does it solve the apparent paradoxes in your examples?
everything looks somewhat squashed in the direction of motion!