Can Each Particle Experience Time as Its Own Observer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lnsanity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Observer Point
lnsanity
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Can I consider each particle as there own observer with there own personal experience of time say each quark or each electron ? Because I read that every observer is as valid as any. I know that general relativity is a theory applied to the very big and here I am asking question for the very small sorry if I on the verge of breaking down the theory I promise I won't do that again! I thought it was a theory of gravity and I thought if there is a size or type of object I can't consider as an observer than it is a contradiction with Einstein theory...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
lnsanity said:
Can I consider each particle as there own observer with there own personal experience of time say each quark or each electron ? Because I read that every observer is as valid as any. I know that general relativity is a theory applied to the very big and here I am asking question for the very small sorry if I on the verge of breaking down the theory I promise I won't do that again! I thought it was a theory of gravity and I thought if there is a size or type of object I can't consider as an observer than it is a contradiction with Einstein theory...
Yes, each object in the universe can be taken as a Frame of Reference, but I don't get why you think this could be any kind of problem.

And, just on general principles, if you come across something that you think is contradictory to GR, assume you have misunderstood.
 
I think maybe the answer is that the word "observer" as a term has kind of been replaced in relativity with "frame of reference" or "coordinate system", in order to remove the possible confusion that there needs to be someone doing the observing... kind of like on the quantum side where "observation" has been kind of replaced by "measurement" and that looks like that is being further replaced by "decoherence", in order to also remove any confusion about there having to be someone observing.

I wonder if it is correct to say relativity is good all the way down except at zero, and QM is good all the way up to infinity?
 
No I don't think it is problem I am just building up my knowledge foundation making sure I am not wrong with the fundamental.
And yes frame of reference is a better word than observer to describe the experience.
 
lnsanity said:
No I don't think it is problem I am just building up my knowledge foundation making sure I am not wrong with the fundamental.
And yes frame of reference is a better word than observer to describe the experience.
Just FYI, on terminology, the term "observer" is more correctly stated as "measurement" and is not at all the same as a Frame of Reference.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top