Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 241 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
11/20/19 02:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Topic Options
#55989 - 06/04/16 08:46 PM Light and time - again.
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Sascha Vongehr says:

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861

Quote:
In fact, we would experience about one second of travel time between earth and moon, if we moved with a velocity v that equals light velocity divided by the square root of two: v=c/√2. At 90% light velocity, i.e. at v=9c/10, our travel time will be only a third of a second! At 99.9% of the speed of light, the travel time we would experience has reduced to a thirtieth of a second, or 33.3 milliseconds.


The math looks fairly simple, but I think I must have become lost somewhere in trying to use it.

I'd be grateful is someone could de-fog me; idiot level, please.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
.
#55992 - 06/05/16 01:03 PM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Dilated time = Proper Time * sqrt(1 - (v*v)/ (c*c));

v = your velocity
c = speed of light

Run the calculations now.

At low speeds of v the sqrt term is basically 1 and proper time = dilated time.
At speeds approaching c the sqrt term approaches zero and dilated time slows getting closer and closer to zero.

Google Lorentz Factor if you need more detail.


Edited by Orac (06/05/16 01:08 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55993 - 06/05/16 05:13 PM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Thanks, Orac. The individual bits all made sense, but I hit a mental block somewhere along the line.

Recon Paul will like this? It means that if you pick the right RF you can exceed c! smile


Edited by Bill S. (06/05/16 05:14 PM)
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#55995 - 06/05/16 08:01 PM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
so we could use this formula to find the amount
of time that the atomic clocks were slowed down to
on the GPS satellites...

right?

.000038 seconds per day.
4.39814814815e-10 per second
.000000000439814814815 seconds per earth second

Sat v = 233.333333333 m/s (14000 km/h)

c = 299 792 458 m/s

Dilated time = Proper Time * sqrt(1 - (v*v)/ (c*c));

v = your velocity
c = speed of light

Run the calculations now.

dilated time = 1 second * sqrt(1-(233.333333333*233.333333333)/(c*c)


1*sqr (1 - (v*v)/(c*c))

c = 299792458 m/s
v = 233.333333333 m/s

c*c = 8.98755178736818E+16

v*v = 54444.4444442889

c*c/v*v = 1650774818092.75

1-(c*c/v*v) = -1650774818091.75

sqr 1-(c*c/v*v) = #NUM!

I cant get the sqr of the negative number

using my spreadsheets sqrt function any negative number results in an error!

is there something Im doing wrong?

I thought I had it at first but I guess I messed up
the numbers using the online calculator , the spreadsheet
wont even let me finish the calculation.

I found this formula that looks like the one
that you posted.



this should be

time dilation = time / sqrt(1 - (v*v)/ (c*c))

could it be that the multiplication symbol is supposed to be a division symbol in the formula you posted like in the above image?

oh and I still cant get the square root of the negative number

so how do you guys get any use from these formulas?

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#55997 - 06/06/16 11:41 AM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul I know you aren't good with maths but look again at the formula as written and TAKE SPECIAL CARE WITH THE BRACKETS smile

The square root also seems to have become a square.

Hint: the bit inside the square root can only be between 0 and 1.

SO ARE WE CLEAR YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY GET A SQUARE ROOT OF A NEGATIVE .. FIX YOUR ERROR PLEASE AND STOP WASTING OUR TIME smile

In your maths above this is total fail.
Originally Posted By: paul
c*c/v*v = 1650774818092.75

PAUL => exactly how did c get up the top and put the dam brackets in ... the multiplies must be done before the division you can't just decide to drop them .. THEY WERE THERE FOR THE REASON TO PROVIDE ORDER.

This is the formula again ... v on top and multiplies before divide.
Dilated time = Proper Time * sqrt(1 - (v*v)/ (c*c));
(233.333333333*233.333333333)/ (299792458*299792458)= 3.669647337650543E-25

Its a really really small number 0.000000000000000000000000366669 (if I typed 24 zeros correctly)

Now do the rest of the maths from there and try to not make a mistake. Hint the answer in the sqrt is pretty much 1, its going to be 0.9999999999 or something like that. This goes back to the bit the ONLY ANSWERS POSSIBLE LIE IN THE RANGE (0.0 ... 1.0)

On your image you posted move the square denominator to the other side of the equal sign laugh

I assume your basic maths schooling stretched to at least that?


Edited by Orac (06/06/16 01:01 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#55999 - 06/06/16 07:03 PM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
Im trying to help you out here orac!

your math is wrong.

using your math Im not getting the amount of time
dilation of .000038 seconds per day.

Im getting 0.999........... seconds per second!!!
and
86399.9999.... seconds per day!!!!

heres the spreadshee
t data.
Dilated time = Proper Time * sqrt(1 - (v*v)/ (c*c))

proper time seconds 1
v 233.333333333
c 299792458
v*v 54444.444444288892555050551891326904
c*c 89875517873681760.000000000000000000000000000000

v2/c2 0.000000000000605776141627461581

1-(v2/c2) 0.999999999999394262317764514592

sqr (1-v2/c2) 0.999999999999697131158882257296

1*sqr(1-v2/c2) dialted time in 1 second 0.999999999999697131158882257296

60 seconds 59.999999999981824316819256637245
60 minutes 3599.999999998909515852574259042740
24 hours 86399.999999973835656419396400451660
365 days 31535999.999990448355674743652343750000

60.000000000000000000000000000000
3600.000000000000000000000000000000
86400.000000000000000000000000000000
31536000.000000000000000000000000000000

proper time 60 x 60 x 24 x 365 31536000.000000000000000000000000000000
dilated time 31535999.999990448355674743652343750000

0.000009551644325256347656250000

the amount of time that wasnt dilated. 0.000009551644325256349350315895

Im thinking that your (*) symbol is supposed to be a (/) symbol.

no, it looks like it must be a (-) symbol that must be used.

dialted time in 1 second
1*sqr(1-v2/c2) 0.999999999999697131158882257296
1/sqr(1-v2/c2) 1.000000000000302868841117742704
1-sqr(1-v2/c2) 0.000000000000302868841117742704

x60x60x24= 0.000000026167867872572969645262 seconds a day

thats much closer but still a far cry from
.000038 seconds a day.






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56000 - 06/07/16 06:04 AM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: paul]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Paul I do not wish to get in another futile discussion with you so I will give you a statement which I do not intend to explain further because I am pretty much over talking to you and your religion inspired problems you invent.

The calculation above is only the time dilation because of speed (v), which is why it is smaller. It would be a real problem if it was bigger.

You have the gravitation effect to add in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
Quote:
When combining the time dilation and gravitational frequency shift, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day


Originally Posted By: paul
Im trying to help you out here orac!

Thanks but your the one who needs help Paul .... It's all pretty basic and checked by pretty much everyone who can do physics. The fact you are having trouble working out the calculation and maths is not my problem ... its yours smile

The second calculation is on the linked page with full working (you can't mess it up this time) so please don't bother asking me for it.

Paul it strikes me you acknowledge there is a 38 microseconds per day change built into the GPS system, so your Paul GOD Physics must have a calculation for this .. right? If you aren't prepared to show the alternative calculation then this is the most stupid of arguments .... It goes ... you agree with the number but don't accept the only calculation that anyone knows that predicts it. I have some ideas involving GOD and backsides if you need help .. just joking smile

We are done ... another stupid Conversation terminated.


Edited by Orac (06/07/16 08:39 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56001 - 06/07/16 11:32 AM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Orac]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
I have seen the number .000038 for the time dilation.
but that does not mean that I agree with it , just because
50 billion other nut cases like yourself who believe
in the einstein BS have calculated it (obviously unlike yourself).

your formula is trash and it causes a great amount of proposed
time dilation.

you were wrong , the image I posted was wrong , it seems that
you nut cases dont even bother with ever performing any
calculations you simply make an uneducated guess and you
rant about religion alot as a means of showing your
self proclaimed intelligence to non nut cases.

yes your formula is wrong.

but you wont admit it because you cant figure it out.

I seriously hope that you are not actually a teacher in any
school or preschool ...

I would love to see your version of the calculation of the gravitational effect however.

but I will read about it and hopefully there will be a correct
formula to find the amount of proposed time dilation to add to
the number from the formula that I repaired.

the one that does not show that .999 seconds become dilated every
single second , the one that you posted.

the incorrect one ... of course ... as usual ... and you
claiming that you are smart all the time and that you are not
a layman carries no more weight than a puff of smelly gas
erupting out of your dumb ass.




_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56002 - 06/07/16 12:52 PM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4135
I noticed I had the sat v wrong
its 3874 m/s not 233 m/s like I used in my
rendition of your formula.

and here is the formula to determine the GR effects
in case you ever need it orac.


https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8beee43844ba74c4d77d857469c47ed0579bedec


I will redo the calculation using the 3874 m/s velocity
but I wont use either of our renditions of the formula.

I will also use 299792458 m/s for c since we are dealing
with tiny fractions of a second and using 2.998 x 10^8 might would render a pseudo amount of time or time dilation.

c the speed of light or 299792458 m/s is measured in
meters ... a meter can be considered an extremely long
distance when calculating tiny fractions of a second.

if I am traveling to a galaxy that is 1 meter away from
the earth and I am traveling at a velocity of .000038 m/24h
it would take 26,315.789 days or 72.09 years to travel that
vast forbidding 1 meter distance to that galaxy.

wouldnt it be funny if what the nut cases think is the
effects of special relativity that is causing the proposed
time dilation is nothing more than the reality of the true
speed of light making itself known.

the speed that not only shows the meters but also includes
the centimeters and millimeters in the true speed of light.

these tiny fractions of missing or unknown information
may very well be what causes the amounts of proposed
dilated time that causes us them to think that time is being dilated.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#56004 - 06/07/16 09:50 PM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Returning, if we may, to the link in the OP; I would appreciate some clarification on the following point (for a start).

Originally Posted By: SV
If we try to locate an electron inside an atom, once we succeed to localize the electron in a small, classically meaningful location, it does already, by the very fact alone of it being classically meaningful as an individual particle, not belong to the atom any more.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#56005 - 06/07/16 10:28 PM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Paul, there may be something here that could help with your problem with the need to involve time in the measurements.

http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/howgps-measuring.aspx

For example:
Quote:
Distance to a satellite is determined by measuring how long a radio signal takes to reach us from that satellite.


It's probably a bit off topic; is it worth a thread of its own?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#56006 - 06/08/16 05:13 AM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
LOL even on ignore .. I get not 1 but 2 post walls directed to me.

Paul go for the childrens drawings that is the next step and I really like them green laugh

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Returning, if we may, to the link in the OP; I would appreciate some clarification on the following point (for a start).

Originally Posted By: SV
If we try to locate an electron inside an atom, once we succeed to localize the electron in a small, classically meaningful location, it does already, by the very fact alone of it being classically meaningful as an individual particle, not belong to the atom any more.

Ok lets make this layman friendly, look around your room from your chair you are stationary, and the local earth outside your dwelling looks flat. There is a complete fracture between your reality and you are moving in a spin, a spiral and hurtling thru space on a sphere ball which is in no way flat.

Now read the statement SV has given with that statement it's the exact same thing. Once you collapse your view to a local level you totally lose the ability to measure or even observe the bigger picture.

So lets put this in it's blunt science form, there is no local measurement you can use to determine (from your seated position right now) what your actual space movements are because there is no absolute space and there is no absolute measurement to do it. Any reference frame is only useful to things you can actually measure directly from it and the measurement is only valid to that frame.

So if I take a local reference frame, like your chair seat or an electron in an atom, well from that frame there is very limited things I can actually directly measure and my observations often don't look anything like the larger reality.

Basically all Sascha is dealing with is if you take a reference down to an electron in an atom please don't be stupid enough to think you can measure things out to the atom. If you can do that then build me the Marosz device that can measure your exact motions of you and your chair you are currently sitting in. See if you look at Marosz posts that is exactly what he keeps claiming he can do. For all his faults Marosz actually is completely logical he just denies all the experimental evidence that shows he is totally wrong.

So what I am guessing Sascha is telling you is care with reference frames and making sure what you are claiming can actually be measured from the frame you are using. This will get especially tricky in QM where you have entanglement in those reference frames. That is a whole other complication I have deliberately avoided discussing with you, as you still sort of struggle with entanglement (at least it appears that way to me).


Edited by Orac (06/08/16 05:49 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#56007 - 06/08/16 03:08 PM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Thanks Orac. I must say you found a lot more in Sascha's words than I did. On reflection, I reached something more like this.

As I see it, what he is saying is that in order to localize a bound electron, the energy imparted by the action of observation/measurement would change the electronís wavefunction so drastically that it (the electron) would no longer be in a bound state.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#56008 - 06/09/16 03:55 AM Re: Light and time - again. [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Hmmm if you are going to that point. Then you would also have to say it would collapse any other states.

This is that photon collapse thing again, before the localizing measurement you can conceptually imagine an "expanding sphere" but once you localize the photon the sphere disappears. You are basically going to have the exact same thing in your case as you localize the electron in the atom.

This is the hard part people struggle with they want to make the atom discrete (something like a planet model) and unchanging like we see the world. The problem is the same as you the chair and the universe, at this micro level the universe is a lot different to what we see. Probably the best way to describe it is the atom is actually oscillating between various states as it fights for stability.

So if you collapse and measure the electron you can't tell anything about the vibrating states because you just stopped it ... you had the same problem with the single photon wave remember.

At a quantum level the fields seem able to "explore" (not sure what other word to use here) the options open to it as the fields don't seem to have the property of exact localization to our world until measured, your photon sphere wave was illustration of that. So that gives you the properties of superposition/entanglement that really defines QM.

You sort of see that most when you look at Quantum walking
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-pulses-quantum.html

If you read the article you may sort of get the feel for how that is working which is why, when you apply classical physics to the experiment it makes no sense.


Edited by Orac (06/09/16 04:03 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.