I don't understand Theory of Relativity: A)I am not clever B)Nothing to understand

[Samm]

I believe in the future stem cells will cure everything and stop the aging process, and I also think that any mammal travelling at high speed would be affected by failing organs and a weaker immune system (just my opinion).

So, two people of the same age are on Earth. They are identical twins, twin A and twin B, they are 20 years old. Twin A boards a spaceship and begins to travel near the speed of light, Twin B remains on earth. 40 years later Twin B, still on earth is now 60 years old but thanks to stem cells he looks and functions still like a 20 years old. Twin A has just returned to Earth and (unless he died in the first few hours) he looks much older than Twin A because he didn't take any stem cells.

Any thought on this?

Thanks.

 

So you're accepting that the time-dialation predicted by Einstein's relativity as fact? See, the twin paradox doesn't have anything to do with how old the twins look, it's do with how old they are. The twins could be interchanged with clocks anything else and the result would still be the same.

 

And why would a fast moving animal be affected by failing organs and a weaker immune system?

 

If you want to understand relativity, I would highly recommend this book: Relativity Visualised. I'm not a scientist or anything, but Epstein really manages to explain the theory almost entirely without maths. I'm a secondary school student and this guy makes sense.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Samm

[between3and26characterslon]

If you want to understand relativity, I would highly recommend this book: Relativity Visualised. I'm not a scientist or anything, but Epstein really manages to explain the theory almost entirely without maths. I'm a secondary school student and this guy makes sense.

 

 

I would recommend this one

 

http://www.amazon.co...77&sr=1-1-fkmr1

 

It's a popular exposition by some bloke called Albert Einstein, you may have heard of him. It is actually quite difficult to read but well worth the effort.

[IM Egdall]

Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is mostly about string theory, but has a chapter on special relativity and one on general relativity. They are excellent introductions to the subject for the lay reader (but way to brief).

[MR. Science]

Well lets not forget that this is just a theory, lets not talk like its a proven fact, like so many people and so called scientists do these days, just a reminder here.

[timo]

Well lets not forget that this is just a theory, lets not talk like its a proven fact, like so many people and so called scientists do these days, just a reminder here.

What do you think the consequences of this statement should be? One might think that the disclaimer "according to relativity" is somewhat implicit in posts in a science board's forum called "relativity".

[swansont]

Well lets not forget that this is just a theory, lets not talk like its a proven fact, like so many people and so called scientists do these days, just a reminder here.

 

Let's not forget that "just a theory" is almost an oxymoron, in that theory is the highest expression of scientific-explanation certainty, and that "just" is rarely used as a literary device expressing irony — it's usually meant to minimize the importance. Same goes for "proven fact." Again, it's dismissive, and covers up the truth that all scientific models and explanations are arrived at via induction, so none of them are formally "proven facts." But in science, "proven facts" are simply things that are confirmed to a high degree, and in that regard, relativity is a proven fact. And then there's the "so called scientists." We've hit the denialist trifecta. Unlike at the horse races, though, this one does not have long odds. Once you have one, the other two become more likely.

[Questionist]

EDIT...This is already mentioned below in PS but I'll mention it here. The praise is not directed to OP but to pioneer (actually his name is Protist, the replies title is Pioneer), you can find his post on page 1. I couldn't quote it.

 

My god man, you've got it precisely right.
This issue is driving me mad, literally. I finished studying computer science and I am plagued by regret for not studying physics simply to have the credentials and the theoretical knowledge to prove this theory wrong.

It is an excellent mathematical tool, but it as you said creates tangible things out of something abstract as time.
You've explained my position better than I could and I have discussed this with doctors and students.

People can explain quantum physics, econophysics and various advanced philsophical concepts. But explaining ANYTHING related to the theory of relativity is a no go for me.
I get the whole string theory (as a layman), but I don't get the damn multiverse thing that was precisely created out of a need to pacifiy the theory with the theory of relativity.

I don't even get the simple videos explaining the train of relativity thought experiment.
Obviously get what is being stated but to me it almost sounds religious in nature. Certainly not sceintific.

Why this need to assertain that time is a dimension. That two different pairs of lightningstrikes can happen in the same universe.

Why, what drives this in my opinion fanatical stance?

I'm going mad about this. I keep swearing to myself that I will be proven right in 25 years time and that I and people like me will never be credited with having held this opinion so strongly.
Why is it that people can explain complicated concepts to me, why is that I am an "easy learner" and Always been called a "logical thinker" by people but I can not understand this. Not at all.

 

 

edit: I tried to quote this one post but it didn't come along (I seem to be unable to even copy it, it can be found on page 1 by pioneer, his only post in the thread)...I cant even copy in a link, I had to manually enter it and then remove it because it did not work.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Questionist

[Janus]

Why this need to assertain that time is a dimension. That two different pairs of lightningstrikes can happen in the same universe.

This is the source of much of your problem, There are not two different pairs of lightning strikes just one that is measured differently depending on the inertial frame.

 

As an analogy: You are standing on a field and see two trees. From your perspective, the trees are directly to the right and left of each other. Now there is a second person standing on that same field looking at the same trees. However, his is facing in a different direction than you are, so for him, the trees are not directly to the right and left of each other, but one tree is a some distance in front of the other.

Now this does mean that there are two pairs of trees, one directly to the right and left of each other and the other not. There is one pair of trees and their relative left-right and front-back position depends entirely on the orientation of the frame from which is being measured from.

 

In Relativity, these are the type of rules the measurement of time and space follow, they depend on the frame from which they are measured. In the above example if I replace the front-back direction with a displacement time, and the trees with events, then according to you the events happen at the same time and for the other person they do not. But again this does not mean that there are two different pairs of events.

 

Your problem is that you are trying to make Relativity fit a notion of "time" into a mold that it doesn't match.

[swansont]

I finished studying computer science and I am plagued by regret for not studying physics simply to have the credentials and the theoretical knowledge to prove this theory wrong.

The theory is simply math, and it's mathematically self-consistent. It's a Lorentz transform. To disprove that you'd have to disprove math.

 

To strike down physics theory you need to show it doesn't agree with experiment. Relativity is exceedingly well-tested.

 

It is an excellent mathematical tool, but it as you said creates tangible things out of something abstract as time.

Except that it doesn't. Physics is chock full of abstract ideas. Time is only one of them. How do you feel about length? Does length confuse you?

 

I don't even get the simple videos explaining the train of relativity thought experiment.

Obviously get what is being stated but to me it almost sounds religious in nature. Certainly not sceintific.

You mean other than the falsifiability and comparison (and agreement) with experiment?

 

Why this need to assertain that time is a dimension.

Time is a dimension even in classical physics. That's not the revelation of relativity.

 

Why, what drives this in my opinion fanatical stance?

Electricity and magnetism works pretty well. Do you reject that? Because it's the source of the idea that the speed of light is invariant. It's required, in order for E&M to work. Otherwise the wave equation fails, an I'm pretty sure devices that rely on electromagnetic communication work when they're moving.

 

[Questionist]

I don't object to abstractions! I object the transformation of abstractions into realities. Of models of unknowns into ad hoc knowns.
I am quite annoyed at people like you, which is why I feel very alone and frustrated about this issue. I claimed the opposite of what you are asking me in the post. It is an excellent tool and abstraction. But it is not a dimension which we can move back and forward. It exists merely to as a fabrication of our thoughts. Length is obviously a dimension.

I don't get the math because ever since I was young I refused to work with abstract math because non-linearity doesn't interest me (despite being best of my class in math). But I leave that up to others who like to work with it. As long as you don't start claiming that imaginary numbers are real! Which I feel that the proponents ot this theory are doing. (That being a comparison, not a description!)


The reason why I would swallow my pride and my disinterest for this case is simply to get rid of the demons that plague me. I bloody googly and read about this Every month and I still don't get it.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Questionist

[swansont]

I don't object to abstractions! I object the transformation of abstractions into realities. Of models of unknowns into ad hoc knowns.

 

You haven't shown that this is happening.

[Questionist]

I can't show it bloody hell. I'm a computer student who dabbles in social sciences and art. I don't get it. But it is fascinating to me that nobody can explain it to me properly as one can with anything else that affects the real world, even when there is complex math behind it. Read Pioneers post to better understand my Point.

I just stumbled on his post during one of my many late night google searches on the subject. I've even tried to read more advanced books about the subject but I end up asking myself simply how someone can dedicate themselves to the promotion of what I see to be a Cosmic lie.


The best I've done is try to explain how the GPS system could simply be influenced by a force described as being affected by space-time but in fact must be an unknown. But I can't bother doing that again, I can't even remember what I said in that discussion, it took a lot of effort and I lost the debate ostensibly.

You also gave Pioneer a very crappy answer to his post. Compared to the length you go to try and explain the basics to OP. It seems as if you are lacking something in that field too. But it doesn't matter, I've talked to very qualified people and they couldn't explain it to me. It's just that at least when it comes to English I've never been able to describe my point as well ad Pioneer did.

Oh let me retract that. The posters name is "Protist"...the replies title is for some reason Pioneer.

Retracted again, bloody hell, so my title is Lepton, his is Protist, his name is Pioneer....This forum is confusing! I'll pm the mod with some technical questions.

This is the source of much of your problem, There are not two different pairs of lightning strikes just one that is measured differently depending on the inertial frame.

As an analogy: You are standing on a field and see two trees. From your perspective, the trees are directly to the right and left of each other. Now there is a second person standing on that same field looking at the same trees. However, his is facing in a different direction than you are, so for him, the trees are not directly to the right and left of each other, but one tree is a some distance in front of the other.
Now this does mean that there are two pairs of trees, one directly to the right and left of each other and the other not. There is one pair of trees and their relative left-right and front-back position depends entirely on the orientation of the frame from which is being measured from.

In Relativity, these are the type of rules the measurement of time and space follow, they depend on the frame from which they are measured. In the above example if I replace the front-back direction with a displacement time, and the trees with events, then according to you the events happen at the same time and for the other person they do not. But again this does not mean that there are two different pairs of events.

Your problem is that you are trying to make Relativity fit a notion of "time" into a mold that it doesn't match.

 

 

I don't care and I don't see why you care or anyone else. I mean obviously you have a theory that you follow which is based on this ad-hoc stuff but for the rest of us I mean. Obviously I would contend that due to the perspective, one of us is WRONG. Simply wrong, effing wrong. And it's not that persons fault. As you said yourself, the two things didn't happen in two separate "boxes" of time in the same universe, one of us is simply wrong and has experienced it as such because the light took a lil bit longer to travel to her or him instead of to me from one direction and a little bit faster from an other.


I mean, I really don't get you people. Sorry if I sound insulting now but this issue has bugged me since I was 13 years old. (25 now). Look, are you actually for example claiming that because I spot the formation of a Star millions of lightyears from here, that me and someone chilling in an UFO at the stars birth are both correct in claiming that the stars actual birth happened at two different times? Or of course, not two actual different times because time = light (which is EVEN MORE MESSED UP, light is simply a particle...) but you know what i mean.


I mean do you know, that some people actually stipulated (i don't know if this is still taken as science) that if you could somehow bend light around a big star, and then cross through the star that you would timetravel? It's similar to the concept of wormholes but more in laymans terms. So even though it is in theory (lol!) impossible to travel faster than time...obs I mean light, if you actually did travel faster than what is in fact a simple reflection you would be traveling before that item ACTUALLY could give off that reflection. How don't people see the crazy in this? ...Im gonna log now before I start my tirade for real. Just glad I saw that post, wish I could somehow contact the poster.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Questionist

[studiot]

Questionist, strong language for scientific discussion.

 

The underlying principle behind special relativity (do you know enough to distinguish between Einstein's two relativity theories and also the Newton/ Galileo one?) is that we wish to assert the homogeneity and the isotropy of space or spacetime or whatever we like to call the 'universe'.

Edited April 11, 2015 by studiot

[Questionist]

Yes, but you want it so much that just like Einstein, you go mad in your search for this homogeneity, as if it were a holy grail. The bloody guy locked himself up in his house for months to get stuff done. And he was gonna get it done, one way or an other.

 

Obviously I have very strong feelings about this because I feel like my favorite subject and fascinating new concepts have to conform to this ever more complicated fabrication.
I even feel that it has contributed to the unimaginative, flat pictures of our universe and of our solar system simply to provide a simple surface for the illustration of the curving of spacetime (and gravity) which may have influenced kids away from the great final frontier of astronomy.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Questionist

[studiot]

Strong feelings or not I prefer a civil discussion.

 

And discussion is two way.

 

I can't proceed if I don't know what you think about isotropy and homogeneity (do you know the difference?) to start with.

[Questionist]

No. Well kind-off. I dont think that there is any difference when it comes to the theory of the unvierse quest.
Do you mean that you wouldn't want me say claiming to that time moves differently at different speeds without there being a constant like light?

Speak in laymans terms.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Questionist

[swansont]

I can't show it bloody hell. I'm a computer student who dabbles in social sciences and art. I don't get it. But it is fascinating to me that nobody can explain it to me properly as one can with anything else that affects the real world, even when there is complex math behind it. Read Pioneers post to better understand my Point.

 

I just stumbled on his post during one of my many late night google searches on the subject. I've even tried to read more advanced books about the subject but I end up asking myself simply how someone can dedicate themselves to the promotion of what I see to be a Cosmic lie.

Pioneer's post is not a good guide for discussion science. Pioneer and whatever other names he went by, was/is a crackpot. The views expressed have little or no basis in science.

 

 

The best I've done is try to explain how the GPS system could simply be influenced by a force described as being affected by space-time but in fact must be an unknown. But I can't bother doing that again, I can't even remember what I said in that discussion, it took a lot of effort and I lost the debate ostensibly.

There is no force. It's simply how things naturally behave under those conditions.

 

You also gave Pioneer a very crappy answer to his post. Compared to the length you go to try and explain the basics to OP. It seems as if you are lacking something in that field too. But it doesn't matter, I've talked to very qualified people and they couldn't explain it to me. It's just that at least when it comes to English I've never been able to describe my point as well ad Pioneer did.

I gave Pioneer a concise and factual answer. You can go read Einstein's 1905 paper (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies) and see him derive the equations based on that postulate.

 

Pioneer's problem was that he was making assumptions about relativity that aren't true, and that leads to misunderstanding. He said we don't know why things behave the way they do, and we do: it's consequence of the invariance of c. He also insisted that certain things physically exist, and of course ran into trouble in understanding, because those things don't physically exist.

 

I don't care and I don't see why you care or anyone else. I mean obviously you have a theory that you follow which is based on this ad-hoc stuff but for the rest of us I mean.

If you can't come up with evidence of what's ad-hoc, you should stop making this claim.

[Strange]

I can't show it bloody hell. I'm a computer student who dabbles in social sciences and art. I don't get it. But it is fascinating to me that nobody can explain it to me properly as one can with anything else that affects the real world, even when there is complex math behind it.

 

Designing computers relies on quantum theory (for the design of semiconductor materials and devices such as transistors) which in turn is based on special relativity.

 

The mathematics of special relativity is very simple, so even someone with little maths background should be able to understand it. (But I don't understand how you can be a "computer student" without studying maths.) The maths of general relativity is much, much more complicated -- well over my head.

 

The concepts of special relativity are also fairly simple. But it sounds as if you are rejecting the idea for strong emotional reasons and hence not thinking the explanations through in order to understand them. Maybe you just need to accept that it is never going to make sense to but "it just works" anyway.

[Questionist]

Bah, what interested me on this forum was Pioneer. I asked you in PM if you could help me dig out some of his posts, if you can't or won't I'll try to crawl later. It's just that when you ask for evidence "of what's ad hoc" instead of providing evidence of why it isn't then you're missing the whole point and just exhausting me. (As in actually proving a positive instead of a negative).

Besides as I already explained several times, I've not studied the subject, I can't prove shit. But I haven't encountered a topict this hard to explain anywhere else and I've mentioned several reasons of why I dislike it, they are not very emotional at all, though I wish they were, for emotions are far superior to rationality.

My rational reasons for disliking the theory is that they corrupt the imagine of the universe, they force fields like Quantum Physics and concepts like String Theory to invent explanations to fit it that theory and all argumentative and logical contradictions (such as why observation is required for movement) are disregarded.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Questionist

[Strange]

My rational reasons for disliking the theory is that they corrupt the imagine of the universe, they force fields like Quantum Physics and concepts like String Theory to invent explanations to fit it that theory and all argumentative and logical contradictions (such as why observation is required for movement) are disregarded.

 

Quantum field theory is based on special relativity. String theory is an attempt (one of several) to extend this to include general relativity.

 

Relativity and quantum theory are the most accurate and best tested theories that we have. They were both developed to describe what we observe.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Strange

[Questionist]

Based on it? If you by that mean that they use the mathematical model of special relativity to explain some things, then yes.

If by that you mean that the actual realities aren't conflicting and actually flow from each other, then LOL. It conflicts greatly with general theory of relativity, especially when it comes to quantum entanglement.

But look, since I can't remember or cite anything, let's just stop. Don't argue this shit with me since you'll win and I'll get bored.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Questionist

[Strange]

Based on it? If you by that mean that they use the mathematical model of special relativity to explain some things, then yes.

 

Quantum theory inlcudes special relativity. It doesn't work without it.

 

I know you think that "mathematics" is a dirty word, but it is an essential part of science and engineering. (Including computer science, so I am surprised you are not more familiar with it.)

 

If by that you mean that the actual realities aren't conflicting and actually flow from each other, then LOL.

 

Sorry, I don't know what that means.

 

But look, since I can't remember or cite anything, let's just stop. Don't argue this shit with me since you'll win and I'll get bored.

 

I'm not sure why you joined a discussion forum then. But it isn't about "winning".

 

I haven't tried to explain relativity to you as I don't think I could do it any better than the thousands of popular (non-mathematical) books, articles and websites out there. I just want to show that it is an essential part of all of modern physics and much technology. It works. If you don't like it, well that's just too bad, really.

[Questionist]

You've shown nothing. Just stated something.

 

Let me profess belief here. I think that in 10-20 years we will come to understand (if we are open enough) that quantum mechanics (or a subset/advancement of these field) create the observable effects of curved space time, not in any way the other way around.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Questionist

[Sensei]

I finished studying computer science and I am plagued by regret for not studying physics simply to have the credentials and the theoretical knowledge to prove this theory wrong.

Which one is wrong? Special Relativity or General Relativity?

 

Results of special relativity calculations you can see on your own eyes.

Radioactive decay of unstable isotope.

And emission of alpha particle.

Stationary unstable decaying nucleus is moving slightly in one direction, while alpha particle going in opposite direction strongly (conservation of momentum vector).

 

Watch this movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Efgy1bV2aQo

Thick traces are leaved by highly accelerated alpha particles (Helium-4 nucleus).

Thin traces are leaved by electrons typically.

 

To calculate velocities, energies, momentum, there is used Special Relativity..

 

How are you going to deny something what you can see on your own eyes for so low as $50 by building Cloud Chamber particle detector following instruction from f.e. here?

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2014/6/8/how-to-build-cloud-chamber-particle-detector

 

You can read article in my signature to learn more how to calculate energies of decaying unstable isotopes.

Then using Special Relativity you can calculate almost everything related to Alpha Decay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay

(for other decay modes it's more complicated as they can also emit gamma radiation in addition to beta decay)

 

I get the whole string theory (as a layman),

That's quite funny.

As even string theory scientists don't understand their own theory. And nearly everyone of them have their own interpretation..

And none of them can prepare any laboratory experiment to prove their own version of string theory..

 

but I don't get the damn multiverse thing that was precisely created out of a need to pacifiy the theory with the theory of relativity.

That's completely nonsense.

Multiverse has nothing to do with Special Relativity or General Relativity.

Multiverse was made to not have to bother to find reason why constants have values as they have now (because they're different in different Universes).

 

I suggest getting familiar with "The Cosmic Landscape" by Leonard Susskind (author of String Theory).

http://www.amazon.com/The-Cosmic-Landscape-Illusion-Intelligent/dp/0316013331

 

I don't even get the simple videos explaining the train of relativity thought experiment.

If you don't get them, then you can't criticize them, and say they're wrong.

 

Why is it that people can explain complicated concepts to me, why is that I am an "easy learner" and Always been called a "logical thinker" by people but I can not understand this. Not at all.

Pride in pure form..

 

Because you're not as smart as you think you are.. ?

You have proof even in this thread: can't even grasp how quote option works on forum..

 

 

edit: I tried to quote this one post but it didn't come along (I seem to be unable to even copy it, it can be found on page 1 by pioneer, his only post in the thread)...I cant even copy in a link, I had to manually enter it and then remove it because it did not work.

Works fine for us.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sensei

[StringJunky]

Questionist

 

You mentioned earlier about light bending around a star. Here's a picture of the light of a galaxy 12 billion light years away, bending around another galaxy 4 billion light years away, that's in our line of sight. This phenomenon was predicted by General Relativity. It's called an Einstein Ring.

 

 

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-alma-einstein-stunning-image-lensed.html

Edited April 12, 2015 by StringJunky