Light Speed: Fixed... or Relative? Exploring Einstein's Relativity

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"E=1/2 mv² where:

m=1.67262E-27 kg
v=299792455.307 m/s "

There is a glaring mistake above. I hope I am not the only one that sees it.

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

"E=1/2 mv² where:

m=1.67262E-27 kg
v=299792455.307 m/s "

There is a glaring mistake above. I hope I am not the only one that sees it.

You mean that it should be as follows?

E=½ mv²

If that's what you mean I probably should have written it a little more clearly, but I did give a link to the formula which doesn't display here well in "dark mode" but in "light mode" it shows up ok. It shows:

That's the formula I was trying to write, but I can see how it could be misinterpreted the way I wrote it.

If you don't like scientific E notation you can always look up the rest mass of a proton yourself and write it however you want.

reply to post by GargIndia


Well proton beams are fun stuff first they run these protons in groups called bunches each proton beam at full intensity will consist of 2808 bunches per beam. Now each bunch will contain 100,000 million protons per bunch and be around 30 cm long. Once accelerated they move at 0.999999991 the speed of light. Remember these protons will create a beam much like a laser only these are particles and not photons. We can use the beam to tell us how many particles pass per second as well. First, you'll want to convert the current to Amps. The proton beam has a current of 484.0 mA. so quick conversion we get 484/1000)=0.484 A . We know that Amps are equal to C/sec. One proton is 1.6e-19 C now if we divide your current by the charge of a proton we get 0.484/1.6e-19 = 3.025e18 protons/sec. So now we know how many protons pass one point every second. Just having a little fun with you but something interesting a lot of people dont know is just what that c means in my equations when dealing with charge. It stands for Coulomb which is 1 ampere and 1 second or 1 C = 1 A × 1 s. Now an ampere is the frequency of a cesium atom. See in science we have to be exact so this is sort of like a ruler so everyone uses the same measurements.like when you said earlier how do we know the voltage.

Isnt science fun we have to break down everything in to time thats why relativity is so important we need to know how things react in a specific amount of time.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No. That's not it. try again.

Read each one of my posts and think over it. We shall touch base again tomorrow.

I hope somebody else notices the mistake too.

reply to post by dragonridr


You are moving too fast. Stop for a minute and think.

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

No. That's not it. try again.

Read each one of my posts and think over it. We shall touch base again tomorrow.

GargIndia
I am not playing games with you here.

Seems like you're playing games to me. I already took my best shot.

If you've got a point to make go ahead and make it.

GargIndia
reply to post by dragonridr

 

You are moving too fast. Stop for a minute and think.

You have no clue what you're talking about do you? Do you have any physics background because if not your getting into an area you're not ready for. We can try to keep this simple but the problem becomes we have to have a basic understanding somewhere so stop trying to be cryptic and either make your point or simple say im lost and will start from there.

reply to post by dragonridr


It is very important to ask questions.

I asked you a very relevant question.

If you are a teacher, you have to ask questions to students to know if your students are grasping the concepts. Otherwise it is one-way communication and nobody really benefits.

I said certain things on this thread, and obviously you have not been reading.

Anyway I am not your teacher. However I told you a very important concept of science called "observation and measurement". Only observation is not enough.

The classical mechanics says kinetic energy of a moving object E = 0.5 x mv^2. On the right side of the equation, we have two quantities that need to be plugged - mass and velocity.

For a moving particle, you need to know both mass and velocity. You are talking about a proton. You have measured the mass of a hydrogen atom using sound experimental methods. There may be some measurement errors in this but those are likely to be small. So "m" is good.

What about "v". Have you measured "v"?

I asked you specifically how much energy is given to this particle. You know the equation for force that applies to a charged particle in an electric field. You have set up the experiment. You know the strength of the electric field and the length of the electric field. These are experimental parameters which you are not telling me. So I cannot calculate the acceleration on this particle, and how long this acceleration lasted.

You need to give me all parameters and then show me the calculations.

dragonridr

GargIndia
reply to post by dragonridr

 

You are moving too fast. Stop for a minute and think.

You have no clue what you're talking about do you? Do you have any physics background because if not your getting into an area you're not ready for. We can try to keep this simple but the problem becomes we have to have a basic understanding somewhere so stop trying to be cryptic and either make your point or simple say im lost and will start from there.

Stop acting like a mad man.

Real scientists are very kind and gentle.

People who actually work on discovering things always wonder at the beauty of the creation and the intelligence behind it.

GargIndia

dragonridr

GargIndia
reply to post by dragonridr

 

You are moving too fast. Stop for a minute and think.

You have no clue what you're talking about do you? Do you have any physics background because if not your getting into an area you're not ready for. We can try to keep this simple but the problem becomes we have to have a basic understanding somewhere so stop trying to be cryptic and either make your point or simple say im lost and will start from there.

Stop acting like a mad man.

Real scientists are very kind and gentle.

People who actually work on discovering things always wonder at the beauty of the creation and the intelligence behind it.

Actually most of the ones i meet are rather short tempered and far from kind and gentle. But anyway see if you had bothered to read what i wrote it answered your questions i told you everything about a plasma beam at the LHC. Then you start parrotting back information like you knew some big secret but yet supplied nothing. Having dealt with lots of students i can tell you that doesnt work nor will it impress someone when you get to college.So do you have a point to this inquiry? If you want to talk about the LHC in general id suggest here to familiarize yourself.

en.wikipedia.org...

And here for there latest news

www.fnal.gov...

home.web.cern.ch...

abecedarian
Light visible to the observer on the platform will appear 'normal'.

Light visible to the passenger will be expanded if coming from the rear, or 'red shifted', and compressed if coming from the front of the train, therefore 'blue shifted'.

No paradox at all.

Whats all the fuss. The observer even on the train is observing
the lightening at the instant it strikes both ends of the train and
for this instant the train is stationary for both observers. So no
blue or red shift and einsteins thought expt is moot.

reply to post by dragonridr


Whats the deal with the pauli exclusion principle, what is the difference between particles that can exist in the same exact area of space and ones that cant (besides that difference, what about them allows this?)? And how is it that not only 2 or 3 particles that dont obey the principle but seemingly infinite quantity of particles can exist in the exact same space? Am I interpreting this correctly? If we were to imagine a volume the exact volume/area/size of a particle that does not obey the principle, we could fit infinite of those particles in that area at the same time, whats going on here?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Whats the deal with the pauli exclusion principle, what is the difference between particles that can exist in the same exact area of space and ones that cant (besides that difference, what about them allows this?)? And how is it that not only 2 or 3 particles that dont obey the principle but seemingly infinite quantity of particles can exist in the exact same space? Am I interpreting this correctly? If we were to imagine a volume the exact volume/area/size of a particle that does not obey the principle, we could fit infinite of those particles in that area at the same time, whats going on here?

Ive missed you im going to have to start inviting you into my threads you're good at making people think.Ok the pauli exclusion principle first has to do with spin of fermions these have what's known as half spin.Bosons are called full integer and can occupy the same state at once. Example laser light you can have two photons exactly the same in the same spot. Now to why fermions cannot occupy the same space is basically because of probability really. Ill try to give you a simple answer than a little more complicated. In fermi-dirac statistics the probability of finding one in an (x,y,z) spot will always be the probability for finding one particle. there literally is zero probability of finding two fermions in the same exact spot. To explain why Ill show you some math.

What were going to do is show you how a wavefunction becomes antisymmetric with respect to exchange of the two electrons by solve Dirac's equation.now first you have to understand sigma i can take up a couple of paragraphs explaining so ill just link you here. mathworld.wolfram.com... but this just states the possible states of electrons really.




Heres diracs equaton en.wikipedia.org...

Now with light like a wave we can have to in the same place because it just increases the wave or frequency.Now If you take two particles, say two electrons you can't just take separate wavefunctions for each particle and add them like we can with light. This is because the electrons interact and this interaction introduces a new term to the potential energy term in the Schrodinger equation. This means you have to describe the two particle system by a new wavefunction that is not simply the sum of the two original wave functions. If you solving Dirac's equation we find the resulting wavefunction is antisymmetric with respect to exchange of the two electrons simply means we should be able to swap any two electrons and get a different state lets look.

Ψ(e1,e2)=−Ψ(e2,e1)

where the change (e1,e2) to (e2,e1) is supposed to indicate we've swapped the two electrons. Now suppose the two electrons are in identical states, that means there is no difference between e1 and e2 for example:

Ψ(e1,e2)=Ψ(e2,e1)

Combining these equations we get:

Ψ(e1,e2)=−Ψ(e1,e2)

and the only way this can be correct is if Ψ is zero so when e1 and e2 are the same the probability that the two electrons can be in identical states is exactly zero.

Remember in our previous discussions how probability rules the universe at least on the small scale.

dragonridr
Actually most of the ones i meet are rather short tempered and far from kind and gentle. But anyway see if you had bothered to read what i wrote it answered your questions i told you everything about a plasma beam at the LHC. Then you start parrotting back information like you knew some big secret but yet supplied nothing. Having dealt with lots of students i can tell you that doesnt work nor will it impress someone when you get to college.So do you have a point to this inquiry? If you want to talk about the LHC in general id suggest here to familiarize yourself.

Very funny.

I am shocked to see a person who "teaches" so ignorant.

I do not want to know about LHC. I want to know about you.

And which of my questions you have answered!

Arbitrageur

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

No. That's not it. try again.

Read each one of my posts and think over it. We shall touch base again tomorrow.

GargIndia
I am not playing games with you here.

Seems like you're playing games to me. I already took my best shot.

If you've got a point to make go ahead and make it.

You have quoted an experiment at LHC. You refuse to provide complete data about that experiment that is material to a conclusion. Why are you doing so?

What is your intention in NOT providing data about the strength of the electrical field, and the duration and/or length of the path for which this electrical field is applied to the particle.

Why are you not giving a measured value for the speed of the particle?

What are the intentions here?

reply to post by GargIndia

Well here's the way I see it. You said there was a glaring error in my velocity. It's about 3 m/s below the speed of light which is what wikipedia says, but since I didn't think wikipedia was such a great source, I used the method of calculation suggested on the LHC outreach page I linked in my post where I gave those figures, which still works out to about 3 m/s below the speed of light as Wikipedia says.

So my first conclusion is, that since the smart people who run the LHC say that's the velocity, I'm not making any extraordinary claim. I provided a source to back up that's what they believe it to be.

Now implied in your line of reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're smarter than all the smart people who run the LHC and you know that velocity is wrong. That may or may not be true, but it seems reasonable to call that an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence, because there is already an extraordinary amount of experiment and observation leading up to the scientist's determination of that velocity.

My first conclusion is you haven't shown there's any obvious error as you claimed. The alleged "error" is so subtle that it requires you who presumably don't work at the LHC to know more about it than all the people who do. But let us assume hypothetically for a moment that you're smarter than all the scientists at the LHC and they are wrong about the velocity.

It seems to me that it if you claim the velocity is wrong, the ball is then in your court to provide the correct velocity, which you still haven't done.

Now as I mentioned, a relatively small number of protons from an accelerator can burn a hole through a sheet of metal. We can determine how much energy this takes. It turns out the observed holes burned in metal sheets are consistent with relativistic calculations. Now let us assume relativity is wrong and the scientists don't know the true velocity because they haven't measured it accurately enough to your satisfaction. There's still another way to tackle that, which is to use your model, whatever that is, to explain the holes burned in sheet metal by a relatively small number of protons.

In my example I compared both the relativistic and the non-relativistic equations for kinetic energy. If you use the non-relativistic math, to get the holes burned would require the protons to travel significantly faster than the speed of light to provide the needed energy (Many times faster, I think over 100 times the speed of light).

There was a lot of buzz when CERN reported neutrinos traveling about 1.000025 times the speed of light (or something like that), which because it was such a tiny effect not surprisingly turned out to be a tiny measurement error. Now if you had made the calibration claim on that small an error, you would have been on the right track. Particles traveling faster than light have never been observed (except errors such as that infamous FTL neutrino experiment) and the fact that they would have to be traveling at over 100 times light speed to match the energy without relativity means you can't logically claim a subtle measurement or calibration error.

Maybe you have another alternate model but the fact that you haven't spelled it out yet has exhausted my patience. It seems like you're still playing games because you say the velocity is wrong and it's a glaring error, but you're not telling me what the correct velocity is. Even if it is wrong, whatever velocity you'd come up with according to classical mechanics would have to be over 100 times faster than light. So your interest in making exact calculations seems like the trees are blocking your view of the forest to use an analogy, with the forest being that the velocity would be either about 3 m/s less than c or over 100 times greater than c, and there are too many problems with the latter idea. The difference is so large that precise calculations are beside the point I tried to make.

GargIndia

Arbitrageur

GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

No. That's not it. try again.

Read each one of my posts and think over it. We shall touch base again tomorrow.

GargIndia
I am not playing games with you here.

Seems like you're playing games to me. I already took my best shot.

If you've got a point to make go ahead and make it.

You have quoted an experiment at LHC. You refuse to provide complete data about that experiment that is material to a conclusion. Why are you doing so?

What is your intention in NOT providing data about the strength of the electrical field, and the duration and/or length of the path for which this electrical field is applied to the particle.

Why are you not giving a measured value for the speed of the particle?

What are the intentions here?

You dont seem to know what your asking which charge the proton?. When you hear measurements of a proton beam giving you velocity or strength or its charge its taking about the protons themselves.See colliders just give small kicks but the small kicks add up to increase the velocity of the particle. See my previous post where i apparently wasted my time trying to explain to you about particle beams. So i guess you need to explain yourself much better im afraid.

reply to post by dragonridr


Ok I think I see what you are saying. Am I wrong in thinking the principle applies, when dealing with bosons to them occupying the same exact space? Or it is only regarding the same exact state? Because once earlier when I came across this theory I feel like I recall it mentioning bosons can exist 'on top of each other', like pass through each other without affecting, but im not sure.

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ok I think I see what you are saying. Am I wrong in thinking the principle applies, when dealing with bosons to them occupying the same exact space? Or it is only regarding the same exact state? Because once earlier when I came across this theory I feel like I recall it mentioning bosons can exist 'on top of each other', like pass through each other without affecting, but im not sure.

State/spin/freq or any other attribute is immaterial.
2 particles cannot occupy the same space simultaneously

Nochzwei

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ok I think I see what you are saying. Am I wrong in thinking the principle applies, when dealing with bosons to them occupying the same exact space? Or it is only regarding the same exact state? Because once earlier when I came across this theory I feel like I recall it mentioning bosons can exist 'on top of each other', like pass through each other without affecting, but im not sure.

State/spin/freq or any other attribute is immaterial.
2 particles cannot occupy the same space simultaneously

Bosons can there just force carriers like an electromagnetic field for example. Two electromagnetic fields indeed can exist in the same place at the same time. Bosons are force carriers and they can have the same spin or exist in the same place thats what a laser is photons made of bosons. So yes two particles can occupy the same space just not two fermions.