Gravity indeed does warp space and time? Einstein Prediction

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rripperr

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2006
91
0
18,630
Didn't he suck at math? I thought he had someone else proof his mathematics as well as help him formulate this theories into a math equation.

He arrived at general relativity thanks to the help he received from his friend Marcel Grossmann, who persuaded him to use tensor calculus. The field equations were published a few weeks before Einstein by the mathematician Hilbert. [He had seen Einstein's preliminary results and derived them independently using a more sophisticated modern approach]. Most of Einstein's results in special relativity were published 8 years earlier by Joseph Larmor. E=mc^2 is his though. If he had not existed everything he discovered would have been found by equally clever people with a delay of perhaps a few months.

Was he a genius? Certainly when it came to self publicity he was. He fitted the media image of a scientist perfectly and so began Einstein worship.

Einstein was actually very good at math. He just found it tedious. :lol:

Many scientist agree that 'Special Relativity' (which deals with the equivalance/conversion of energy and matter) was just waiting for someone to put all the pieces together, and Einstein just got there first.

However, Einstein's "General Theory" was way, way, WAY ahead of his time. It is so advanced, it often takes several semesters of undergrad level college just to grasp the more basic implications, much less the more subtle ones. Even in the 1940's (20 years after it was published), there were less than a dozen people who could claim to fully understand it.

No, he didn't invent any new math. He just re-invented all we thought we knew about gravity, speed, and time. I PERSONALLY feel that's a little more impressive.

Oh, BTW.. actually Einstein was amused and annoyed by all the publicity he received later in his life. He never really felt that he was that interesting, or smart. He said "I am just a simple Jew, with some rather interesting ideas.. "
 

Scott99

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2005
7
0
18,510
However, Einstein's "General Theory" was way, way, WAY ahead of his time. It is so advanced, it often takes several semesters of undergrad level college just to grasp the more basic implications, much less the more subtle ones. Even in the 1940's (20 years after it was published), there were less than a dozen people who could claim to fully understand it.

Off the top of my head here's 14 (pre 1940) most of whom could claim to understand it better than Einstein: Schwarzschild, Cartan, Weyl, Hilbert, Grossmann, Levi-Civita, Freidman, Eddington, Reissner, Nordstrom, Chandrasekhar, Lemaitre, De Sitter and Kasner.

It's not nearly as difficult as you claim - trust me, I'm a theoretical physicist. :lol:
 

biohazard420420

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2006
223
0
18,680
Well actually speed slows down time for the traveling object so in theory the 486 could take longer to perform the same task but to you the observer sitting still it would appear to happen faster. "time" is relative so to you it would seem faster even though to the 486 it would be taking the normal amount of time. Good ol quantum physics gotta love it.
 

dsidious

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2006
285
0
18,780
It could :lol:

Hey, we might have stumbled on a way for Hector to have the K10 demo murder C2Q on Wednesday. All he needs to do is get the CPU into a spaceship and... :lol:

Does Tunisia have a spaceport?

Yeah, that's where they filmed the Mos Eisley scenes in Star Wars. :twisted:
 

irishsk8rpatrick

Distinguished
Jun 22, 2006
223
0
18,680
yes we are past that, i stated time is relative earlier as seeen in the 2 postulates by einstein. To Scott99, im writing a paper on newtonian physics vs General Relativity, would you read my paper?
 

corvetteguy

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2006
1,545
0
19,780
I am a physics undergrad and some of your comments are just so stupid.

Firstly, most of you will have no idea at all about the work that Albert did. You think that because you know about E=Δmc^2, or about time dilation that you have a clue as to the difficulties behind all that work. Einstein’s work on gravitational laws were pretty much formulated by him, and him alone. Most other physicists were working on quantum mechanics, and other new fields. Einstein, not only did quantum theory, he also rewrote the book on gravity. If you want to even know how much of a genius Einstein was you need to do the following...

1) study physics for a few years

2) get your mathematical skills above and beyond the level attainable by ANY undergraduate degree in the world. His maths skills were sometimes mocked, the only reason being that most people could not understand them.

3) then look at his papers. if you can even follow the maths, then and only then will you realise just how smart the man was.

He even invented new maths techniques which were not even known. Inventing your own maths?!

So before you say that Einstein is overrated, do some physics and then you will say to yourself..."****, the guy was a genius"



NOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light good read

This is also interesting, although a bit off topic. wiki- cherenkov radiation - related to superluminal travel

sorry i didn't read the last 3 pages first if we are done talking about this lol
 

dragonsprayer

Splendid
Jan 3, 2007
3,809
0
22,780
well rob

I guess, the solid state physics 410 class i took at the u of i was -- um .... chemistry???

hehe

DC400186.jpg


whats that i see ??? 4 cores???
 

capnbfg

Distinguished
Jun 10, 2006
146
0
18,680
i reject the idea that light has any part to play in the way the universe works, the idea is silly and chiuldlike IMO.

I KNOW that his theories are full of holes and i also know that instead of looking at what actually exists, people try and prove his theories by twisting things to work.

can anyone tell me why light would be so important, if we saw the world through radio waves would radio waves then be the speed barrier of the universe? is there more to light being chosen of radio waves than we see by it?

I'll do my best to clear these details up for you. To hopefully establish some credibility beforehand, since you probably haven't seen me around here much, I am an undergraduate electrical engineering student in my junior year. Beyond the required introductory physics courses, I have also taken a class in modern physics and a lab session in which we tested the concepts of the lecture. I earned As in both the lab and the lecture.

I also want to mention that I'm not going to go into much depth here because if you want to read a book you'll go to the library. I'm just going to touch on the details that you seem to be confused about.

First, you asked about light. You are somewhat correct in that light, typically defined as the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum, is not really special. You also mentioned radio waves. Light and radio waves are in fact the same thing and move at the exact same speed. Microwaves, radio waves, light, UV, gamma rays, and most other waves you hear about (with the exception of mechanical vibrations, ie sound waves, water ripples, etc) are all electromagnetic radiation. The difference between the waves is their wavelength, and therefore, frequency. Despite all the fancy names given to different frequency bands, all electromagnetic radiation is the same stuff - pure energy that moves both as a wave and as a particle. The term photon refers not only to light, but also to all electromagnetic radiation. Also, when people speak of "c" being the speed of light (2.998x10^8 m/s), they are actually referring to the speed of electromagnetic radiation because it all moves at the same speed. Light in itself is not special, it's just much shorter to say. So when scientists talk about the speed of light, don't limit your definition to the visible spectrum, because the same concepts refer to all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.

It might be difficult to understand why electromagnetic radiation is important if you don't have a firm understanding of classical physics beforehand. Basically, Einstein states that the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic radiation, c) is the absolute fastest speed that can be achieved, and in order to get there, you need to have zero rest mass. In other words, light moves at this speed because it has no rest mass and is entirely energy. More specifically, Einstein defines the relationship between mass, energy, and the speed of light (E=mc^2). If you doubt the idea that only zero mass can reach c, I give you the example of a positron (beta+ radioactive decay particle). Positrons have nearly zero mass (9x10^-31 kg) yet move at only .9c.

One example I can give as to why this is all important to you would be with computers. The frequency and therefore bandwidth of any data bus is limited by the speed of light. If you were to take the physical length of the data bus, and based upon the operational clock speed, determine how fast data the data were moving, you would find that it is limited at an atomic/electron level by the speed of light. Similarly, fiber optic lines are popular over electrical lines for long-distance data transmission because it is the only way to actually move data at the speed of light. Actually, it isn't the only way, because radio transmissions are the same idea. The difference is that a radio transmision uses the air as a dielectric to carry the signal, whereas fiber optics use a transparent dielectric cable to carry the signal. Coax RF lines (ie cable tv) operate on the exact same principle as well, except they use a different polymer plastic dielectric to carry the signal.

As for Einstein's the theories being full of holes, I'm not so sure about that. You may be able to find holes in modern research that is attempting to expand Einstein's theories. However, much of Einstein's work is taken as fact simply because it can be proven in both lab and real-world scenarios.

Take the GPS satellites that many people receive data from daily as an example. Those satellites work by transmitting a signals with absolute timestamps, and your receiver compares the timestamps to the known time in order to triangulate your position. According to Einstein, such a system should generate an integral error since time will be dilated for the satellite but not for the receiver. When scientists built the first GPS satellites, they designed them with compensatory circuitry just in case Einstein was right, but left it disabled initially. At first the system worked fine, but after a couple days it was off by miles (integral error accumulates and therefore grows). When they activated time-dilation correction, the system worked flawlessly. EVERY GPS satellite today uses correction based on the concept of time dilation and most people don't even know it.

Another example using GPS, is speed checking. Were you aware that when your GPS unit reports a movement velocity, it is calculating that number from the electromagnetic dopler shift of the data packet it received?

There is the possibility that you've never used a GPS unit before, so here's an example that you can definitely relate to. I am 99.9% confident that you have used a microwave oven at least once in you life. Do you know why it is safe to stand near a microwave when it is cooking? It's because of the metal grille on the viewing door. The holes in the grille are smaller than the wavelength of the microwaves, therefore the waves are incapable of passing through the grille. In my modern physics lab, one of our projects was to measure the wavelength of a light source using the diffraction angle through a micro-scale grille of known aperture size. Even under our crude lab conditions it worked, so these concepts are verifiable.

Hope this all clears some things up for you. If you have more questions I will gladly try to answer them.
 

slashzapper

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
737
0
18,980
First of all, nothing in this article really says that much about time travel itself. They said that is the part they haven't experimented with as much. But they did say that the rotation of the planets is what would cause the space-time warp. Since the planets have so much mass, It has a slightly noticable effect.

You have to put something really extremely heavy into a computer to make it be affected by a space-time warp. Something unrealistically heavy. And If you could get something with enough matter to do this, it would disrupt the planets paths and mess everything up. You would need something with more mass than the Earth has on it. And you would have to make it spin, which you need a great deal of energy.

So pretty much, It's is almost impossible to make a device that would warp space and time.

personally i think einstein is the most overrated person ever. perhaps it is because i do not know enough physics or perhaps it is that i do not believe in time and cannot figure out why light would be so important.

Finally! I haven't ever met anyone that shares my nonbelief in time. Time does not exist. Time is a made up measurement that we use to make sense of the world. It is not a tangible thing. So how can you bend or distort something that is not tangible? It just really doesn't make sense.

I am not very familiar with Einsteins work, so I would not go as far as saying he is overrated. geniousBut I do know that his IQ was "only" about 160. It is still high and he was a , but usually a genious has an IQ of at least 180.

I would also like to say that all of what I said is just theory. I am only 16. I have not even taken Physics yet in high school. I just have my own theories about how things work, so please do not take what I have said too seriously. I would not like somebody to take what I have said as fact unless I really knew what I was talking about.

I just wanted to give people something to think about.

hahahaha here we have a retard :lol: :roll: einstien was a brilliant person

you got any theories :lol:
 

CaptRobertApril

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2006
2,205
0
19,780
Scott99, I got ya now! All the other physicists I bug have long stopped returning my calls and emails! :lol:

I would love to hear your explanation of the famous Capt. Robert April Paradox: The Single Greatest Unsolved Problem In Physics (Unified Field Theory aint nuthin' next to this). I know you don't wanna hear about it, but here we go anyway:

Age of the Universe since BB: 14 billion years (give or take a few hours)
Most Distant Star Viewable: 13.5 billion light years (give or take a few inches)

Now, given that all matter and energy in the current universe was in the core of the BB 14 billion years ago, and that matter/energy now makes up the Earth and our bodies, as well as the stars and galaxies both closer and further away from the "center of expansion" the Paradox is:

How da f*** did we get here? Did our constituent atoms travel at c?

And the "we expanded to this position via the unfolding of the universe's space" boilerplate is so full of holes it should be used to drain spaghetti.

The Capt. Robert April theory suggests an innovative description of the cosmic redshift through an hitherto unconsidered correlation between the de Broglie and Compton lengths in fundamental scale particles. (nice, huh?) And note that I studied under George Abell at UCLA so even though it's been done, it's pretty tough to pull too much wool over my eyes. :D

P.S. I look forward to your reply and appreciate the effort!
 

Lyngvi

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2007
32
0
18,530
Age of the Universe since BB: 14 billion years (give or take a few hours)
Most Distant Star Viewable: 13.5 billion light years (give or take a few inches)

How da f*** did we get here? Did our constituent atoms travel at c?

I'm not sure of any of the things I'm about to say, but that never stopped me before :D

The most distant star might be 13.5 billion light years away, but we might both be only about 7-8 billion lightyears from the center. Making us travel at 0.5c or so?

From the Wiki article you (?) linked a while earlier I seem to have understood that two objects moving in opposite directions at nearly the speed of light, don't move away from eachother at more than the speed of light even though it might seem that way. I didn't quite understand that, but I have no degree of knowledge (except for ignorance) that would allow me to say it isn't true.

For what it's worth,

Lyngvi.
 

CaptRobertApril

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2006
2,205
0
19,780
Hi, Lyngvi. What you state is essentially accurate, but doesn't exactly apply in this case. The nature of the expanding universe shows that there are about as many galaxies beyond us (further from BB core) than there are before us. Therefore, the furthest star can be understood to be signficantly further than 13.5 B LY from BB core, perhaps twice as far. Relativistic framing theories cannot account for that amount of distance. And even if we were moving at .5c, we would be able to measure vector compression variances with other stars. As any object travels at high speeds it compresses in the direction of travel, so the Earth would be essentially eggshaped! :D
 

Rripperr

Distinguished
Oct 11, 2006
91
0
18,630
Capt...

You need to read up on the 'Inflationary Model'. Basically it states that very small inconsistancies in the early quantum state of the universal energy gave rise to 'holes' devolping in the early space-time fabric that allowed energy to coalese and form particles. 90% of our universe actually is electro-magnetic radiation.

Also, you have to remember that trying to 'model' the universe in three dimensions is patently impossible. The reason why is that there is no 'edge' to the universe. And not only that, but the space/time of our universe is curved and therefore any referance to a point being the 'center of the universe' is completely arbitrary and meaningless. You could take off in any direction you like, and if you kept going perfectly straight you would eventually wind up back where you started.

Also, while the universe is expanding, it's not because the galaxies are moving (though they do). It's because the space/time fabric between the galaxies (and indeed, even between the stars to a smaller degree) is expanding. It's like having a small balloon with some small glitter stars on the skin. If I inflate the balloon even more, the stars seem to move. In fact, it looks like all the stars are moving away from each other (sound familiar?). However, the stars aren't really moving. It's just that the space between them grows larger.
 

eric54

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2006
572
0
18,980
personally I think Einstein is the most overrated person ever. Perhaps it is because I do not know enough physics or perhaps it is that I do not believe in time and cannot figure out why light would be so important.

Finally! I haven't ever met anyone that shares my nonbelief in time. Time does not exist. Time is a made up measurement that we use to make sense of the world. It is not a tangible thing. So how can you bend or distort something that is not tangible? It just really doesn't make sense.

I am not very familiar with Einstein’s work, so I would not go as far as saying he is overrated. But I do know that his IQ was "only" about 160. It is still high and he was a genius, but usually a genius has an IQ of at least 180.

I would also like to say that all of what I said is just theory. I am only 16. I have not even taken Physics yet in high school. I just have my own theories about how things work, so please do not take what I have said too seriously. I would not like somebody to take what I have said as fact unless I really knew what I was talking about.

I just wanted to give people something to think about.[/quote]

Just wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong!

First off, IQ's over 130 are considered genius. Now, to move on, I’ll try to explain the concept of time. Described like a ruler, time is nothing but a description of the size of something. The girth of what we are measuring is consequence of movement, also known as the evidence of the fourth dimension that the third moves around in. Now, if you were to take the ruler, and add numbers to notches in a discernable order, you would have what we call a calendar or, in more detail, a watch.

Now, let’s take a look at the fourth dimension by first looking at what makes the third dimension different from the second. Upon inspection you'll notice undoubtedly that the second dimension is completely flat, there is no z axis, otherwise known as depth. Imagine there are two dimensional people, let’s call them flatliners, if they were to look at us from their 2d perspective we would look like a cross-section of continually moving flat looking "pictures". So as you can see that because their perception is limited to two dimensions, they would only see anything three dimensional as flat.

Joe, the local flatliner runner decides to go somewhere special one day, little does he know that what he perceived as a mere loop, was actually a method of entering the 3rd dimension! How? Well he was running on a mobius strip.

My point is although the flatliner had no perception of entering the 3rd dimension he did indeed enter it. So just like we are in the 3rd dimension, we are indeed traveling in a dimension of the universe known as time. Remember how the mobius strip was a method for the flatliner to enter the 3rd dimension? Well, the speed of matter is like the 3rd dimensions method of entering the forth dimension. So if you look at time as something you're always traveling in, and light as the speed limit of this dimension, you can see that light really does have a significant role in what we perceive as time. Since the faster we move in this dimension the closer we get to reaching the forth dimension. Reaching the forth dimension on a whole is impossible, since nothing can enter it due to the fact there is no matter in the forth dimension. However, you can fake light speed by outrunning it so to speak, like every time travelling cliché take a piece of paper etc.... Going beyond that, think of how to fold the paper, you can’t just grab the universe and fold it, so instead create a massive gravitational force to stymie light. Essentially, where light would normally be at 3pm would arrive at 4pm instead, since the extra gravity slowed everything down.

I have a hunch you're wondering, well why does light regulate time? Okay, well think about the flatliners, depth is to them, as the forth dimension is to us. Coinciding with that analogy, the mobius strip is to the flatliners ability to go up a dimension, as the speed of light is the method of which the upper dimension regulates the 3rd dimension.


At this point you can see that although the units of time measurement are seemingly arbitrarily set, there is something behind the measurements. Fact is, time is the result of more than just light and numbers, it is the result of every single piece of matter in this dimension travelling within the forth dimension while all the while going about our 3rd dimensional ways.

What some have done is to not only notice that we are doing this all the time, but that time is more real than ethereal and the question of manipulating it is the very essence of what Einstein mean in his Theories of Relativity.
 

eric54

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2006
572
0
18,980
CapnBFG is a God among men. That explanation kicks A$$! I will take you up on your offer. Would you take a look at what i said and see what mistakes i might have made?

Thanks!
 

Lyngvi

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2007
32
0
18,530
Imagine there are two dimensional people, let’s call them flatliners, if they were to look at us from their 2d perspective we would look like a cross-section of continually moving flat looking "pictures". So as you can see that because their perception is limited to two dimensions, they would only see anything three dimensional as flat.

Would Joe the flatliner not see us as lines instead of pictures? You're right that we'd be cross sections, but a 2D person would not be able to see that unless he manages to observe it from the third dimension I think, right?

Also, I'd hate to be a 2D person because everything I eat would need to be fully digested or spit out again, since a 2D tube (like your intestines) would actually cut me in half. :?

Lyngvi.
 

r0x0r

Distinguished
May 9, 2006
1,005
0
19,280
Time does not exist. Time is a made up measurement that we use to make sense of the world. It is not a tangible thing.

Go take an international flight in economy class; you'll soon change your mind...
 

CaptRobertApril

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2006
2,205
0
19,780
Capt...

You need to read up on the 'Inflationary Model'. Basically it states that very small inconsistancies in the early quantum state of the universal energy gave rise to 'holes' devolping in the early space-time fabric that allowed energy to coalese and form particles. 90% of our universe actually is electro-magnetic radiation.

Also, you have to remember that trying to 'model' the universe in three dimensions is patently impossible. The reason why is that there is no 'edge' to the universe. And not only that, but the space/time of our universe is curved and therefore any referance to a point being the 'center of the universe' is completely arbitrary and meaningless. You could take off in any direction you like, and if you kept going perfectly straight you would eventually wind up back where you started.

Also, while the universe is expanding, it's not because the galaxies are moving (though they do). It's because the space/time fabric between the galaxies (and indeed, even between the stars to a smaller degree) is expanding. It's like having a small balloon with some small glitter stars on the skin. If I inflate the balloon even more, the stars seem to move. In fact, it looks like all the stars are moving away from each other (sound familiar?). However, the stars aren't really moving. It's just that the space between them grows larger.

Au contraire, mon chere! That's exactly what I was referring to as the "we expanded to this position via the unfolding of the universe's space boilerplate." I've been thrashing that ol' dawg for 30 years, and it still holds as much water as a colander.

Acknowledged that the universe has no finite edge although the recent hypothesized dark matter/energy calculations (and I say hypothesized since if dark matter/energy and/or 11-dimensional strings are ever proven I'll gladly marry Richard Simmons) point to a closed system rather than an open or saddleshaped topology. However, we still have to look at the fact that a photon left Star A 13.something B years ago and has just reached Hubble. No matter how you cut that mustard, that photon was there then and is here now.

Since the path of the photon has to be on the "surface of the balloon" and we're disregarding the first few hundred million years or so where we have absolutely no visual or radiographic evidence (funny about that, huh... almost like there's something there that we aint supposed to see) and the actual space was in extreme "deflated balloon" stage, the fact that the star was developed enough to be recognizeable as a star equals that space was already "well expanded" at that point when our famous photon left.

I'm even willing to acknowledge an expansion rate of approx. 60% (yeah, the math is somewhere in books, but I can't be bothered to dig it up) but that still equates to the atom in my butt travelling at impossibly high velocities for the past 14 billion years, something that is not confirmed by galactic Dopplers.

Please mail the Nobel check (you can keep the stupid medal) to Capt. Robert April... :lol:
 

Lyngvi

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2007
32
0
18,530
but as you are falling off of the sears tower gravity seem less impotant to you but in reality its the most important thing for you at that moment.

Why would gravity be more important than time? Gravity may be what pulls you down, but it takes time to get you there.

Why is it that when several things are needed to achieve something, people will try to determine which is more important?

gravity in this case makes sure you are going to die sooner than later
seems more important to me

Don't the words sooner and later imply time?

In any case, according to Wikipedia:
Gravity = Every single point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line combining the two.
Force = Force is defined as the rate of change of momentum with time.

I really don't understand how Gravity can be more important than Time.

Anyway, time I post something about CPU's in here :lol:

Lyngvi.
 

CaptRobertApril

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2006
2,205
0
19,780
Capt...
90% of our universe actually is electro-magnetic radiation.

I don't disagree with the rest of what you wrote, but you might want to check out this.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-HST-supernovae-sidebar1.html

The universe hasn't been dominated by electro-magnetic radiation since shortly after the big bang. It is currently made up of mostly dark energy and dark matter.

Scotty, Scotty, Scotty... what am I gonna do with you? Please don't:

1) Tell me that you actually believe in dark matter/energy as it has even less likelihood of experimental proof than superstrings, if that's conceivable!

2) Be like all the other physicists and ignore my calls, delete my emails and move out of town when I find your address!

:twisted:

P.S. The basic concept of a slide rule was invented in 1622 by William Oughtred, but what we know as the linear slide rule did not come into commercial distribution until Keuffel and Esser Co. introduced it in the 1920s. :D
 

pkellmey

Distinguished
Sep 8, 2006
486
0
18,960
Considering that most of science is based on math, I don't think it should be taught in school. Math is great, but only if you believe in it. For example, you can show me 1 apple, but you can't show me 0 apples - I have to believe that the apple is not there because there is no evidence it actually existed in the first place. So, if I now have to believe in the concept of zero, next they'll be telling me to believe in imaginary numbers, then they'll say to believe in an infinite number of imaginary numbers - all without physical evidence. Where does it stop? So, I believe math is a religion set up by their clerics (mathematicians) to believe anything they want us to believe. :wink:

(Yeah, I know, it didn't work in school when I tried this logic then either...)
 

Ninjaz7

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2006
247
0
18,680
Wow,very deep gentelman...Though very intresting for someone that has limited knowledge in these areas,I find the explanation graspable for the average joe(particularly the Captains...I imagine you make it fun to learn where you teach),and absorbeing it is an experience I actually enjoyed...Kudos guys :D :D :D
 

RichPLS

Champion
i reject the idea that light has any part to play in the way the universe works, the idea is silly and chiuldlike IMO.

I KNOW that his theories are full of holes and i also know that instead of looking at what actually exists, people try and prove his theories by twisting things to work.

can anyone tell me why light would be so important, if we saw the world through radio waves would radio waves then be the speed barrier of the universe? is there more to light being chosen of radio waves than we see by it?

I'll do my best to clear these details up for you. To hopefully establish some credibility beforehand, since you probably haven't seen me around here much, I am an undergraduate electrical engineering student in my junior year. Beyond the required introductory physics courses, I have also taken a class in modern physics and a lab session in which we tested the concepts of the lecture. I earned As in both the lab and the lecture.

I also want to mention that I'm not going to go into much depth here because if you want to read a book you'll go to the library. I'm just going to touch on the details that you seem to be confused about.

First, you asked about light. You are somewhat correct in that light, typically defined as the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum, is not really special. You also mentioned radio waves. Light and radio waves are in fact the same thing and move at the exact same speed. Microwaves, radio waves, light, UV, gamma rays, and all other waves you hear about (with the exception of mechanical vibrations, ie sound waves, water ripples, etc) are all electromagnetic radiation. The difference between the waves is their wavelength, and therefore, frequency. Despite all the fancy names given to different frequency bands, all electromagnetic radiation is the same stuff - pure energy that moves both as a wave and as a particle. The term photon refers not only to light, but also to all electromagnetic radiation. Also, when people speak of "c" being the speed of light (2.998x10^8 m/s), they are actually referring to the speed of electromagnetic radiation because it all moves at the same speed. Light in itself is not special, it's just much shorter to say. So when scientists talk about the speed of light, don't limit your definition to the visible spectrum, because the same concepts refer to all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation.

It might be difficult to understand why electromagnetic radiation is important if you don't have a firm understanding of classical physics beforehand. Basically, Einstein states that the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic radiation, c) is the absolute fastest speed that can be achieved, and in order to get there, you need to have zero mass. In other words, light moves at this speed because it has no mass and is entirely energy. More specifically, Einstein defines the relationship between mass, energy, and the speed of light (E=mc^2). If you doubt the idea that only zero mass can reach c, I give you the example of a positron (beta+ radioactive decay particle). Positrons have nearly zero mass (9x10^-31 kg) yet move at only .9c.

One example I can give as to why this is all important to you would be with computers. The frequency and therefore bandwidth of any data bus is limited by the speed of light. If you were to take the physical length of the data bus, and based upon the operational clock speed, determine how fast data the data were moving, you would find that it is limited at an atomic/electron level by the speed of light. Similarly, fiber optic lines are popular over electrical lines for long-distance data transmission because it is the only way to actually move data at the speed of light. Actually, it isn't the only way, because radio transmissions are the same idea. The difference is that a radio transmision uses the air as a dielectric to carry the signal, whereas fiber optics use a transparent dielectric cable to carry the signal. Coax RF lines (ie cable tv) operate on the exact same principle as well, except they use a different polymer plastic dielectric to carry the signal.

As for Einstein's the theories being full of holes, I'm not so sure about that. You may be able to find holes in modern research that is attempting to expand Einstein's theories. However, much of Einstein's work is taken as fact simply because it can be proven in both lab and real-world scenarios.

Take the GPS satellites that many people receive data from daily as an example. Those satellites work by transmitting a signals with absolute timestamps, and your receiver compares the timestamps to the known time in order to triangulate your position. According to Einstein, such a system should generate an integral error since time will be dilated for the satellite but not for the receiver. When scientists built the first GPS satellites, they designed them with compensatory circuitry just in case Einstein was right, but left it disabled initially. At first the system worked fine, but after a couple days it was off by miles (integral error accumulates and therefore grows). When they activated time-dilation correction, the system worked flawlessly. EVERY GPS satellite today uses correction based on the concept of time dilation and most people don't even know it.

Another example using GPS, is speed checking. Were you aware that when your GPS unit reports a movement velocity, it is calculating that number from the electromagnetic dopler shift of the data packet it received?

There is the possibility that you've never used a GPS unit before, so here's an example that you can definitely relate to. I am 99.9% confident that you have used a microwave oven at least once in you life. Do you know why it is safe to stand near a microwave when it is cooking? It's because of the metal grille on the viewing door. The holes in the grille are smaller than the wavelength of the microwaves, therefore the waves are incapable of passing through the grille. In my modern physics lab, one of our projects was to measure the wavelength of a light source using the diffraction angle through a micro-scale grille of known aperture size. Even under our crude lab conditions it worked, so these concepts are verifiable.

Hope this all clears some things up for you. If you have more questions I will gladly try to answer them.

Excellent, CapnBFG!!! Congrats! :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.