when a space craft is traveling at 99.999 % the speed of light physicists say anyone in the space craft will not be able to tell that they are traveling near the speed of light. — MrCypress
My question is: "Is the modern day interpretation of Special Relativity correct?" — MrCypress
The problem is as I see it is that when a space craft is traveling at 99.999 % the speed of light physicists say anyone in the space craft will not be able to tell that they are traveling near the speed of light. They say that the people on board will not be able to detect that the clock on board has slowed down. This cannot be right. They say that everything they experience onboard the ship will seem normal. They will not notice a contraction in length or an increase in mass. I believe this interpretation to be incorrect. Let's talk it out and see if this interpretation is correct. — MrCypress
What physicists say is that all the laws of physics look the same to you regardless of how fast you are traveling. — Kippo
Your clock would be ticking away normally as far as you are concerned. What physicists say is that all the laws of physics look the same to you regardless of how fast you are travelling. So you would not know how fast you are travelling by looking for anomalies - there would be none. — Kippo
The space traveller and his space ship would also be flattened like a pancake and the ship would have acquired nearly infinite mass. — MrCypress
WhatThe space traveller and his space ship would also be flattened like a pancake and the ship would have acquired nearly infinite mass. — MrCypress
Is this an anomaly though? Surely it would be a conformation that the laws of physics are holding up. I'm not sure anyone is saying that moving at near light speeds won't be calamitous to life are they? — Kippo
SR says that local experiments would not be able to detect the speed, meaning no differences. Looking out of the window constitutes a non-.local test, but there is no way to tell if you're moving or the galaxies you see are moving fast.Now what if they don't have any window and they only observe things from within the spacecraft? I believe that they would still be able to notice gravitational effects that wouldn't be present if they weren't moving in that way relative to the galaxies, considering there is an asymmetry in the way they are moving relative to the matter around the spacecraft. — leo
Speed is relative to something, so this is correct. The galaxy and I have a .99c difference, but in the frame of either, it is the other that is moving.Here is where the the incorrect interpretations start to breakdown. We have both just agreed that you can tell you are moving at 99% the speed of light by using Doppler effect. — MrCypress
This is totally wrong. Frames don't move relative to light. Light moves at c relative to any frame. This has been experimentally confirmed.That frame of reference is moving so slow relative to the speed of light that it is essentially stationary.
Again, not true. Earth moves at the same speed as only a few relatively local things. If you are going that fast relative to Earth, you're stationary relative to some other galaxy that happens to move at about that velocity. The expansion of space assures that there is a galaxy that is stationary relative to you. Hence you're not moving fast at all. You're just far away from the stuff which is also stationary.So in reality if you are moving at the speed of light relative to the earth you are essentially moving at the speed of light relative to everything else in the Universe.
If you were at that stationary galaxy going the same speed, the background would be isotropic: no doppler difference in any direction.The only differences will be slight because of their relative motions relative to you and the stationary back ground of space. The Doppler measurement is the first anomaly that gives the person in the spacecraft a clear indication they are moving at 99% the speed of light.
It has philosophical implications, but none of them were brought up by anybody. — noAxioms
Is this an anomaly though? Surely it would be a conformation that the laws of physics are holding up. I'm not sure anyone is saying that moving at near light speeds won't be calamitous to life are they? — Kippo
MrCypress I think the forum you want is https://www.physicsforums.com/ — Wayfarer
tests have been shown in airplanes traveling for several days (P-3) that the clocks slow down or tell time slower than the clock on the earth's surface. This is due to each particle within the clock (each particle has a x vector, y vector, z vector) has vectors and when you combine the 3 vectors the sum can never exceed C (speed of light). When you increase the clock in one direction (at higher speeds over a long period time for analysis purposes) you are slowing each particle down in one or two of it's other vectors. The net result is the clock loses its ability to accurately tell time. A good book on this is "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking. A lot of Physicists write bad books, this is not the case with that book. — christian2017
but it describes a universe in which it is far easier to understand what's happening since electromagnetic and nuclear forces don't change with speed relative a fixed frame of reference. — boethius
Light moves at c relative to any frame. This has been experimentally confirmed. — noAxioms
According to the physicists on that forum everything will appear unchanged and the only people that would notice that the Lorentz transformations are in effect is people who are stationary relative to the motion of the rapidly moving space ship. — MrCypress
The primary one is the philosophical interpretations of time: presentism and eternalism. The former was always the default until relativity gave equal if not better footing for the latter, but scientifically (empirically), the two are not distinct. SR does not assert a block universe even if the assumption of one makes the calculations simpler. Hence the difference is philosophical.What are the philosophical implications of relativity? — boethius
You make it sound like speed is a property of an object. It isn't. I am not moving at some speed. I can only have speed relative to an arbitrary reference. So for instance, relative to a muon in the upper atmosphere, I am moving at .995c which is the only reason I can get to and measure that stationary muon before it decays in a couple microseconds. At that speed, the distance between myself and that stationary muon is decreased by a factor of about 10, as is my height, and yet I don't notice anything weird about that compression except that I get to the muon before it decays, something that I would no be able to do if I had to travel a 10x longer distance.Light moves at c relative to any frame. This has been experimentally confirmed.
— noAxioms
I don't argue with this statement above. This fact of reality does not have any impact on what I am claiming is wrong with the interpretation of Special Relativity. What physicists say is that all the laws of physics look the same to you regardless of how fast you are traveling. I interpret that to mean as I have been told by others that you cannot tell that your clock is slowing and you cannot notice that your length in the direction of motion is shrinking and that your increase in mass is also not noticeable — MrCypress
So this is completely wrong. Again, it uses the concept of a property of speed. There is no such thing. In the frame of the ship, the occupant will notice nothing and his brain works just fine. There is no contraction at all since the occupant is stationary in this frame. He is not going fast at all, but the stuff outside the window certainly is, which accounts for its red and blue shifts.It is my belief that as one gradually accelerates and approaches the speed of light a person on board that space ship they will be flattened and pressed back into their chair. The ship length will be compressed and it will require more and more thrust to continue to accelerate to the speed of light. Eventually the human brain will not be able to function because the electrons in their brain will no longer be able to move forward in the direction of motion that the ship is traveling.
You make it sound like speed is a property of an object. It isn't. I am not moving at some speed. I can only have speed relative to an arbitrary reference. — noAxioms
If you believe in real motions then you will have a problem with relativity theory. It is your problem, not the theory's problem.As I said, it's a problem with relativity theory, and that's because it robs us the capacity to determine real motions. — Metaphysician Undercover
It is your problem, not the theory's problem. — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.