
#19
Jan3104, 10:00 AM

Mentor
P: 21,994





#20
Jan3104, 11:15 AM

Emeritus
PF Gold
P: 8,147

Who says relativity is false in quantum theory? All the advanced quantum theories including string theory and the standard model are explicitly (special) relativistic. The only quantum theory that isn't is the original, preDirac version. That is still useful where slow speeds can be assumed, but it isn't accepted as the last word on describing nature.
If you mean the inability of GR and quantum theories to be joined, the jury is still out. Maybe it's quantum that will have to give? If you mean the Planck scale, nobody has the faintest idea what happens at the Planck scale. Bottom line, there is nothing definite, nothing but predjudice, that says relativity has failed at all. 



#21
Jan3104, 01:06 PM

P: 284

Well Russ thank you for the time it took you to reply but once again as DW before and you know, I fail to see why you made the post in the first place.
You neither answered any of the questions, nor really added anything in a constructive way. Sure I may be asking the "wrong questions" that are "convoluted, contrived, false premise hypotheticals" and are "utterly meaningless." I wasn't and I am not trying to prove why relativity "relativity is false" I was simply trying to ask knowledeable people who perhaps wouldn't mind explaining it. And I find you statement: "If you did make the effort to learn these things (relativity itself doesn't take much effort to understand in a basic way)" ironic as the reason I posted in the first places was exactely for this reason, an effort in learning relativity. I do understand relativity "in a basic way" but I want to know it better, not what the theory says but how it workds. I'm sorry my "meaningless" qestions are so far below you. One more thing, the scientific method. The statement "The first step in knowing anything is know that you know nothing" is a precept. It is seperate from a process as you called it. It is not a cop out and its very roots lies in your main argument against it: the scientific method. It is derived from the idea that in order for a theory to be valid it must not only be proven to match the hypothesis with experimental data but it also must be able to be proven wrong. Hince while working with a theory, trying to understand a theory a useful, meaningful and scientifically valid approach would be to try to prove the theory is wrong. Even if you know the theory is correct, information and knowledge can be gleaned from this process, such as, why the theory works, and also how the theory works. This is obliviously not a place for learning, or sharing or even cooperation, just by looking at the themes of the posts here it has become painfully clear that this is a place for "smart" people to berate other's and stroke their own intellectual ego. 



#22
Jan3104, 03:02 PM

P: 678

Not that there's anything wrong with speculating about how things would work in a universe with different laws of physics. But you can't learn anything about our universe that way. 



#23
Jan3104, 04:12 PM

Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,877

It says: [tex]\frac{u_xv}{1\frac{vu_x}{c^2}}[/tex] which is the same as my (u+v)/(1+ uv/c^{2}) since the two objects are moving toward each other rather than away. DW: Thank you for defending me (especially since I did not look at this thread for some time after) but Phobos is right simply telling a person he is wrong without any explanation is not helpful. 



#24
Jan3104, 05:38 PM

P: 328





#25
Feb104, 08:24 PM

Mentor
P: 21,994





#26
Feb204, 12:43 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,018




#27
Feb204, 01:51 PM

P: n/a

You started this thread by asking If your in a ship traveling at the speed of light  The problem with that question is that it starts out by assuming something which the theory of relativity implies is impossible. It's like asking a question which starts by saying "Suppose I can create energy out of nothing..."  That too starts by assuming something which physics states is impossible. So you're left with either of two things (1) relativity is right and therefore you're assuming something impossible or (2) relativity is wrong and therefore, while your question has meaning, there is no theory which can address it. If, on the other hand, you wish to find out why relativity holds that nothing which has mass can travel at the speed of light, or why a man in a spacecraft, which is moving at v = 0.99999999c relative to frame S, is moving inside the spacecraft, frame S', and thus relative to it, at v = 0.9999999c can't be traveling at a speed faster than light as measured in the first frame of reference S  then that has an answer. And it is shown with the link I gave at the beggining of this thread. Arcon 



#28
Feb504, 02:22 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,018

enough



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Magnetic Field Inside Wire Quick Q  Plz Help (I've asked 3 times and no answers)  Introductory Physics Homework  9  
Proof of Exponential Interarrival times times  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  2  
The Island Game Thingy (probably been done a million times)  General Discussion  33  
I've told you a million times  don't hyperbolize! (density of objects)  Computing & Technology  1  
Welllllll,,,I am asked to do this!  General Discussion  1 