Recent content by Jrs580

Can someone help me by taking a look at the attachment and figuring out where I am making a bad assumption? It's driving me nuts.

This fixed it…although I derived( L/γ c/c-v ) as the shifted distance. rather than v in the numerator

I figured out the problem. I was treating the “time it took for the button to open the door” as a constant and not considering that time changes when transforming to a new frame. All my “maths” add up now.

I see what you're saying now.

ah ha, maybe this is where my problem is coming from, thanks!

I think the point is, I can boost the poles frame enough to make the distance between the button and the door effectively 0, which will be less than the length of the pole. So the pole will hit the door at relativistic speeds, but not at low speeds.

t was intended to be the time it took for the button push signal to reach the door, assuming the signal travels at the speed of light. So, if we arbitrarily pick d, it fixes t.

I think I broke special relativity…not really but I am clearly over looking something. Imagin a man carrying a pole (like a pole vaulter) running at speed v. The length of the pole = L, so in the frame of the person watching this man run, the length of the pole is observed as L/γ. There is a...

How does relativistic qft predict quantum fluctuations in the vacuum? We see this in the experiment proving the Casimir Effect so we know it's physical, but why?

So are the particles that get "exchanged" actual quantized values of the field? Like the photon in the example. My logical idea prior to this writeup was that each (charged in this case) particle perturbs the photon field in a certain way. When another charged particle is close by, each of the...

I understand, and have unwillingly come to terms with the fact that virtual particles can carry negative momentum. This explains how momentum can be conserved in attractive forces via particle exchange. I have a problem with this that I cannot reconcile...wouldn't this imply that as a particle...

I believe the major point is that you can quote mass in any of these units (eV, joules, kg) because you can always convert between them. They are all the same. Just as a week a month or a year can be used to describe a given amount of time.

Ok let me try again, lol. E=mc^2 where m:kg and E:joules. E/1.6e-19 = energy in eV = E’ = (mc^2)/1.6e-19 m = E’(1.6e-19)/c^2 So to get mass in kg you have to do the prescription above to the energy measured in eV. But when particle mass is stated, it doesn’t include this scaling factor.

not technically a homework question, just figured it fit here.