Can motion be detected without external reference in a moving container?

[Bill Minerick]

Set-up #1: A person is enclosed in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. Wouldn't a laser inside the container attached to the floor and aimed perpendicular to the direction of travel (i.e., y direction) illuminate a spot on the ceiling of the container that is BEHIND a point marked on the ceiling directly above the laser, thus allowing the occupant to detect uniform motion in the x direction without external reference? As a laser photon traverses from floor to ceiling the container is moving and since light is not effected by the speed or direction of the source it will travel straight up.

Set-up #2: A person is enclosed is in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. In the middle of the container is a lit light bulb. One spectrum analyzer is attached on the inside front wall and another analyzer attached on the inside back wall of the container. Wouldn't occupants be able to see different phasing due to the doppler shift and thereby detect their motion without external reference?

 

[Doc Al]

Set-up #1: A person is enclosed in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. Wouldn't a laser inside the container attached to the floor and aimed perpendicular to the direction of travel (i.e., y direction) illuminate a spot on the ceiling of the container that is BEHIND a point marked on the ceiling directly above the laser, thus allowing the occupant to detect uniform motion in the x direction without external reference? As a laser photon traverses from floor to ceiling the container is moving and since light is not effected by the speed or direction of the source it will travel straight up.

Nope, that won't work. It will hit a spot behind the source, but only when viewed from another frame. You're in a moving frame right now: try it and see!

Set-up #2: A person is enclosed is in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. In the middle of the container is a lit light bulb. One spectrum analyzer is attached on the inside front wall and another analyzer attached on the inside back wall of the container. Wouldn't occupants be able to see different phasing due to the doppler shift and thereby detect their motion without external reference?

Nope, that won't work either.

 

[yuiop]

Detecting absolute motion?

No chance.

 

[yuiop]

Set-up #1: A person is enclosed in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. Wouldn't a laser inside the container attached to the floor and aimed perpendicular to the direction of travel (i.e., y direction) illuminate a spot on the ceiling of the container that is BEHIND a point marked on the ceiling directly above the laser, thus allowing the occupant to detect uniform motion in the x direction without external reference? As a laser photon traverses from floor to ceiling the container is moving and since light is not effected by the speed or direction of the source it will travel straight up.

It is the speed of light that is unaffected by the motion of the source but the direction can change. In the Michelson Morley experiment the photon appears to be going straight up and down the y arm to an observer at rest with the interferometer. To an observer with relative motion with respect to the interferometer the photon appears to following a zig zag path. In both cases the observers measure the speed of the photon to be c. In your example both observers will see the laser hit the spot on the ceiling directly above the source. To the external observer the laser photon is emmited at a forward diagonal angle rather than straight up.

Set-up #2: A person is enclosed is in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. In the middle of the container is a lit light bulb. One spectrum analyzer is attached on the inside front wall and another analyzer attached on the inside back wall of the container. Wouldn't occupants be able to see different phasing due to the doppler shift and thereby detect their motion without external reference?

Doppler shift comes about as a result of difference in the velocities of the source and the receiver. In your example the bulb and the walls all have exactly the same velocity so no doppler shift will be observed.

 

[Bill Minerick]

Are you saying that a photon emitted by a laser in the y direction has an x component? How can that be, it has no mass? Once emitted the photon continues on its vertical path.
Einstein used a similar thought experiment where a light beam would appear to bend while traversing across an accelerating elevator. It would seem that in a non-accelerating elevator (i.e., one moving at a constant velocity) the beam would not bend but traverse the elevator diagonally.

In set-up #2 it is true that the bulb and analyzers are traveling at the same velocity however, once the light leaves the bulb it travels at c in both directions and the light waves impacting the back wall will be more compressed than those impacting the front. I appreciate your patience.

 

[Mentz114]

In set-up #2 it is true that the bulb and analyzers are traveling at the same velocity however, once the light leaves the bulb it travels at c in both directions and the light waves impacting the back wall will be more compressed than those impacting the front. I appreciate your patience.

No, the walls are stationary wrt to the emitter.

 

[yuiop]

Are you saying that a photon emitted by a laser in the y direction has an x component? How can that be, it has no mass? Once emitted the photon continues on its vertical path.
Einstein used a similar thought experiment where a light beam would appear to bend while traversing across an accelerating elevator. It would seem that in a non-accelerating elevator (i.e., one moving at a constant velocity) the beam would not bend but traverse the elevator diagonally.

In the case of the elevator with constant motion the direction of the emitted photon is altered so that it hits the exact same spot on the opposite wall as it would when the elevator is stationary.

When the elevator is accelerating the photon moves in a straight line just as in the first example but once emitted the photon is "committed" and can not alter its trajectory due the additional change in velocity of the elevator in the period between being emmited and received. In this scenario the photon misses the target and to the observer in the elevator the photon appears to be following a curved path.

P.S. The full and complete general answer to your original post was given on post #3 ;)

P.P.S. I was talking about an elevator being artificially accelerated by a rocket in flat space. If the elevator is free falling in a gravitational field then the photon and the elevator are acceleated equally by gravity and the photon hits its target. The observer inside an enclosed free fallin elevator will think he is stationary. An observer that is outside the elevator and stationary in the gravitational field will see the photon following a curved path while the observer inside the free falling elevator will see the photon following a straight path.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you saying that a photon emitted by a laser in the y direction has an x component? How can that be, it has no mass? Once emitted the photon continues on its vertical path.

Relativity tells us that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. That means that since the emitter is stationary with respect to the box, it is stationary with respect to the box. Period. That's all it cares about. So the beam does not have an x-component of motion with respect to the box.

The beam can have an x-component of motion with respect to someone else traveling past the box.

BTW, this part of relativity predates Einstein. The fact that you can throw and catch a baseball on an Earth rotating with a speed of 1000mph is the same principle. Einstein extends the principle beyond that, though...

 

[Bill Minerick]

Russ, Kev, et al - let's just stay inside the box for now. the emitter IS stationary with respect to he box however once a photon is emitted it is independent of both the emitter and the box and will travel in the y direction while the box continues to move in the x direction. unlike a baseball tossed up in a moving vehicle, the emitted photon does not have momentum in the x direction. likewise, in set-up#2, since the emitted flash of light is independent of the bulb and container the light will impact the front and back walls at different times.

Kev, what alters the direction of an emitted photon in the elevator?

 

[Doc Al]

aberration

Bill, when viewed from within the box, the photon trajectory is along the y-direction. But that's not the case when viewing the photon from outside the box. From outside the box, the photon trajectory is at an angle (similar to, but not exactly like, a baseball). This effect is called the "headlight" effect or relativistic aberration. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_aberration"

And yes, viewed from a frame in which the box is moving in the x-direction, the photon does have an x-component of momentum.

 

[Bill Minerick]

Doc, if momentum (p) = mass x velocity and if a photon is massless, how is momentum in the x direction imparted by the container moving in the x direction the y direction?

 

[Doc Al]

Momentum only equals mass x velocity for slow moving particles. For photons, which are massless, p = E/c (photon energy divided by the speed of light).

 

[Janus]

Doc, if momentum (p) = mass x velocity and if a photon is massless, how is momentum in the x direction imparted by the container moving in the x direction the y direction?

The momentum of a photon is related to its energy and not its mass(or lack there of).

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, Kev, et al - let's just stay inside the box for now. the emitter IS stationary with respect to he box...

Yes.

however once a photon is emitted it is independent of both the emitter and the box

No. The principle of relativity tells us that what is happening inside the box is not affected by the motion of the box. The light moves at C with respect to the box regardless of the box's speed.

I realize this is just a thought experiment, but please be aware that real experiments have been done on this (such as the M&M exp cited above). So the answer is not in doubt. Yes, if light behaved more like sound, for example, the experiment would work as you describe. But it doesn't.

 

[yuiop]

Of course if you used a sound source in the box (filled with air) you still would not detect absolute motion (or a doppler shift in the sound) inside the box.

 

[russ_watters]

The box would have to be open for it to be analagous to the ether.

 

[wisp]

Bill

Setup #1: I'm not convinced the laser will hit the spot. I would like some experimental evidence to show it doesn't lag behind.

Setup #2: The spectrum analysers will both read the same frequency. Going forward - an increase in frequency would be countered by a decrease in speed, and vice versa.

Good questions.

 

[Lojzek]

Set-up #1: A person is enclosed in a container traveling with a constant velocity in the x direction. Wouldn't a laser inside the container attached to the floor and aimed perpendicular to the direction of travel (i.e., y direction) illuminate a spot on the ceiling of the container that is BEHIND a point marked on the ceiling directly above the laser, thus allowing the occupant to detect uniform motion in the x direction without external reference? As a laser photon traverses from floor to ceiling the container is moving and since light is not effected by the speed or direction of the source it will travel straight up.

The laser beam is vertical even in the system where laser moves. This is not exclusively relativistic phenomenon: imagine a juggler siting in a train and throwing balls straight up in his system. The balls travel verticaly in his system, but not in a system where train is moving.

 

[yuiop]

If we have sound source mounted on the centre of an open railway carriage and receivers mounted on the rear and front of the same carriage then we will not detect a change in frequency even when the train is moving and the air is moving relative to the carriage.

There are any number of ways we can detect our motion relative to the air but unfortunately detecting doppler shift using emitters and receivers that are only mounted on the carriage is not one of them.

The classical non relativistic doppler shift equation is often stated as

f ' = f {(v \pm v_o) \over (v \mp v_S)}

where v is speed of sound in the medium and \vec v_o and \vec v_S are the velocities of the observer and source respectively, relative to the medium.


Getting the signs correct when using that formula is a little tricky as they are determined by whether the source is moving away from or towards the observer. When the source and the observer are moving at the same velocity it is hard to decide which signs to use as there is no obvious "away" or "towards" in this case. (The secret is to see which way the vector arrows are pointing.) The classical doppler equation can be expressed in terms of vectors like this:

f ' = f {( |\vec v| \pm (\vec v_o) )\over (|\vec v| \mp (\vec v_S))}

The difficulty of choosing the correct signs remain and information is lost by only using the unsigned value of the wave velocity |\vec v| . If we take the medium as a coordinate system and express all velocities (including the wave velocity) as vectors relative to the medium then the doppler equation can be expressed like this:

f ' = f {( \vec v - \vec v_o)\over (\vec v - \vec v_S)}

Using this form there is no difficulty getting the signs right and it immediately clear when \vec v_o= \vec v_S that f ' = f

Doppler shift only detects relative velocity and is completely useless for detecting absolute velocity, whether the medium has relative motion or not.

 

[wisp]

With regards to set up #1

What do you make of this?

http://home.comcast.net/~adring/Johnson.pdf

 

[wisp]

The laser beam is vertical even in the system where laser moves. This is not exclusively relativistic phenomenon: imagine a juggler siting in a train and throwing balls straight up in his system. The balls travel verticaly in his system, but not in a system where train is moving.

Lojzek. The paper published by Don Johnson (link in previous post) suggests that the laser light will lag behind. However, it if the laser is tilted forward to compensate, the light will come out perpendicular in the moving frame. By tilting the laser you can make the light lead, go straight up, or lag behind.
To calibrate the spot perpendicular to the laser you would need to rotate the moving frame and find the spot's central position.

 

[Doc Al]

The paper published by Don Johnson (link in previous post)...

In "Galilean Electrodynamics", a crank anti-relativity journal. Please do no link to such sites.

 

[Bigman]

noob question: what is "absolute motion"?

 

[chroot]

noob question: what is "absolute motion"?

An "absolute velocity" would be a velocity that every observer in the universe would agree about, without any reference to any other object.

The currently-understood laws of physics prohibit any such declarations -- the concept of velocity doesn't even exist without some reference. You don't even need any fancy theory to understand why: if I tell you my car is going 60 mph, what does that really mean? Is it moving 60 mph relative to the trees on the side of the road? Or is it moving 60 mph relative to the oncoming traffic?

- Warren

 

[yuiop]

noob question: what is "absolute motion"?

Let's say you are standing next to me. Next, you jump into a spaceship and accelerate any until you have have a constant velocity of 0.6c relative to me. Who is "really" moving? Your intuition is that it is you that is really moving because you accelerated from our initial rest condition. However we know for example that when we appear to be at rest on the surface of the Earth, that the Earth is rotating about its own axis and orbiting around the Sun and so on, so that while we are standing still we are "actually" traveling at thousands of MPH through space. So by this line of thought, when you were standing next to me we could have been (for all we know) going at -0.6c relative to some imaginary, invisible "absolute" reference frame in space and after you accelerated your addition of 0.6c to your velocity actually brought you to a stop relative to the imaginary, invisible "absolute" reference frame. In other words there is no way of knowing if it is "really" you or me that is "really" moving. If you could prove that it is really you or me that is moving relative to the imaginary, invisible "absolute" reference frame then you would have determined your absolute velocity. To date there has been no scientific experiment or accepted logical argument that shows absolute velocity can be determined.

 

[Bigman]

oh ok, that goes along with my current (limited) understanding of things. so what determines who's clock goes slower and who's goes faster when talking about time dilation?

 

[chroot]

oh ok, that goes along with my current (limited) understanding of things. so what determines who's clock goes slower and who's goes faster when talking about time dilation?

Neither. Each observer will measure the other's clock to be running slow, compared to his own. His own clock will look the same as it always does.

Time dilation is a symmetric effect -- it works the same in both directions. If A observes B's clock to be running slow, B will measure A's to be running slow by the same amount.

- Warren

 

[Bigman]

Neither. Each observer will measure the other's clock to be running slow, compared to his own. His own clock will look the same as it always does.

Time dilation is a symmetric effect -- it works the same in both directions. If A observes B's clock to be running slow, B will measure A's to be running slow by the same amount.

- Warren

huh?? wow, that throws a wrench in the gears :P so if two people have a great difference in velocity, they'll both observe the other person as aging less over time then themselves? maybe that explains a few of the things i haven't gotten so far... what about the time difference when they reunite? what determines which person will have aged more (like with the concorde, i remember hearing that a clock put on the concorde will be ever so slightly behind after a landing)?

 

[chroot]

huh?? wow, that throws a wrench in the gears :P so if two people have a great difference in velocity, they'll both observe the other person as aging less over time then themselves?

That's correct.

maybe that explains a few of the things i haven't gotten so far... what about the time difference when they reunite?

This is known as the twin paradox. A full resolution of the paradox requires general relativity. The web abounds with good explanations of it. Here's my favorite:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

- Warren

 

[Ian Davis]

Much more is involved in examining the question of whether one can detect movement in an inertial frame, than merely questions involving light. Many seemingly absolute values would all have to assume the same value in all inertial frames if such detection is as claimed impossible. Plancks length/time, forces influenced by distance, charge, and anything else one wished to test such as rate of radioactive decay would all have to contribute to the collective body of information creating the perception that ones own inertial frame was one indistingishable from any other. I've never seen anyone come up with a full list of all known fundamental physical constants and explain why each would remain unchanged in a frame of reference which warped space time in the manner understood. It is very hard to prove a negative, and yet the assertion here is typically expressed in the form of a negative as in "one cannot tell one is a moving inertial frame".

 

[Bigman]

god, there's a lot of background i don't have (and i still can't get over the whole "they both observe each other as aging slower" thing!), but this is starting to make more sense to me, especially after reading some of the article in that link(which is really helpful, thanks!). i just finished the general relativety part, where he says that the guy on Earth would appear to age quickly from the frame of reference of the girl in the ship while she's turning around, due to "uniform gravitational time dilation"... what is "uniform gravitational time dilation"? does it apply to all objects which are observed to be accelerating, or is there more to it?

 

[wisp]

In "Galilean Electrodynamics", a crank anti-relativity journal. Please do no link to such sites.

I can't find any experimental evidence that supports relativity's claim that the laser light goes perpendicular in a moving frame. Do you have any links? Or is it not necessary to test this under relativity rules?

I've come across a few amateur experimenters claiming laser light lags when the laser beam rod is rotated.

If someone carries out an experiment that proves light lags, are they automatically labeled crank anti-relativity?

If I carried out an experiment with a laser on a rotating rod, there are two outcomes.
1. The spot doesn't move when the rod is move to different directions.
2. The spot moves, lags at certain directions.

If the outcome is (1). I take it the experiment is valid, because it supports relativity.
If the outcome is (2). Relativity is false. But I will be labeled a crank and relativity remains intact.

I would argue that whatever the result is, it is scientific evidence. To automatically class results that challenge relativity as crank is bad science.

 

[1effect]

I can't find any experimental evidence that supports relativity's claim that the laser light goes perpendicular in a moving frame. Do you have any links? Or is it not necessary to test this under relativity rules?

I've come across a few amateur experimenters claiming laser light lags when the laser beam rod is rotated.

If someone carries out an experiment that proves light lags, are they automatically labeled crank anti-relativity?

If I carried out an experiment with a laser on a rotating rod, there are two outcomes.
1. The spot doesn't move when the rod is move to different directions.
2. The spot moves, lags at certain directions.

If the outcome is (1). I take it the experiment is valid, because it supports relativity.
If the outcome is (2). Relativity is false. But I will be labeled a crank and relativity remains intact.

I would argue that whatever the result is, it is scientific evidence. To automatically class results that challenge relativity as crank is bad science.

It cannot "lag". There is something magical called "aberration of light", the equations were first described by Einstein here, that tells you that the laser beam magically angles itself forward , in the sense of motion, rather than backwards.People who write about "lagging", don't know ...You can also read here

 

[yuiop]

...

I've come across a few amateur experimenters claiming laser light lags when the laser beam rod is rotated.
...

it is true that there will be a lag when a laser beam is rotated, but rotation is a form of acceleration and so a rotating reference frame is not an inertial reference frame and special relativity is not violated. It is easy to detect the rotation of a closed system without reference to anything external.

 

[wisp]

It cannot "lag". There is something magical called "aberration of light", the equations were first described by Einstein here, that tells you that the laser beam magically angles itself forward , in the sense of motion, rather than backwards.People who write about "lagging", don't know ...You can also read here

Re: Set up #1.
Your right, stella aberration is known and tested and implies that the photons leaving the lasers travel away from in a perfectly straight lines with no lagging - regardless of any absolute frame.
It is not possible to use this method to detect absolute motion.

Re: Set up #2.
Detection of absolute motion is not possible using spectrum analysers. In the moving frame box, the frequency will read the same at all sides.

However, things are not as simple as they appear. Consider a laser A at rest in an absolute frame emitting a photon A. At the same point and time in space a moving laser B overlaps A and emits photon B. Both photons travel in directions that their respective lasers point.
With regards to the absolute frame, photon A travels at speed c. Photon B travels at speed c along a line that forms the hypotenuse of a right angled triangle, with points (Laser A); (Photon B) and (laser B). Now in one second of absolute time, laser B has traveled V along the x-axis, and photon B has traveled = Square root of (c^2 – V^2) along the y-axis. Therefore, photon B reduces its wavelength by virtue of a slower speed.

A possible set up #3 to detect absolute motion is to place a diffraction grating in the path of the moving laser. It could diffract the light differently because of changing wavelength, which depending on its direction and speed relative to the absolute frame.

 

[Ian Davis]

The article cited is not much use in explaining the twin paradox because it introduces acceleration to explain the paradox which a red herring. The paradox exists without introducing acceleration, so introducing acceleration to explain it is a real cheat.

Consider two observers who each have clocks consisting of a light pulse bouncing between 2 vertical mirrors set 4 ft apart. Let one observer pass the other at a speed
of 3/4c. Then they and their clock travel 3 ft every time the light travels 4ft. The observer moving with their clock sees light move 4 ft, the stationary observer 5ft (3-4-5 right angle triangle)/ For the two observers to agree on its velocity as c, since velocity = distance/time we have 4/t1 = 5/t2 or t1/t2 = 4/5 where t1 and t2 are the observed passage of time for the light to travel from one mirror to the other. So the moving observers clock ticks 4 ticks for every 5 the stationary observers light clock ticks.

The stationary observer can compute this, and thus conclude that the moving observer
is aging more slowly, because their light clock is running slower. But the entire arrangement is entirely symmetric, and the moving observer can conclude that because they are stationary, the actual equation is t2/t1 = 4/5. The paradox is to explain how 4/5 = 5/4. Worse by symmetry have each travel 3/8c away from the other, at the same speed but in opposite directions, instead of arbitrarily claim one stationary and the other moving. Then they will conclude that while each has a clock somewhat slowed by their mutual but opposite velocities, their clocks are each slowed by the same amount relative to a stationary clock and thus are in sync, contradicting the earlier observations.

So it appears that the two observers can choose how much time they wish to trade for how much distance, merely by changing the rules about what constitutes the means of measuring distance. The geometry of how they measure distance is easily grasped. It is simply a consequence of the universal metric (x^2+y^2+z^2-t^2) being the same in all inertial frames, but none of the individual variables necessarily agreeing between two observers.

The hard part is understanding what actually happens to an individuals watch, merely as consequence of declaring light travels 4ft or 5ft. It may be that merely announcing that I am traveling at 3/4c, slows my watch by 4/5, which being slowed myself I fail to observe any change in, but this makes something of a mockery of the notion of time being fixed, even for one in an inertial frame. And what exactly is meant by two observers each having clocks that run slower than the others.

 

[wisp]

Re: A possible set up #3 to detect absolute motion is to place a diffraction grating in the path of the moving laser. It could diffract the light differently because of changing wavelength, which depending on its direction and speed relative to the absolute frame.

Taking account of time dilation effects in the moving frame. The photon B speed would be measured as c, wrt laser B, with normal frequency and wavelength readings. But in the forward and reverse directions the wavelength would decrease and increase respectively.

A laser diffraction grating experiment could possibly detect absolute motion.

 

[1effect]

A laser diffraction grating experiment could possibly detect absolute motion.

You will need to write down the equations of your proposed experiment .
When you do that, if you do it correctly, you will manage to prove to yourself that you are wrong. :-)

 

[mjordankeane]

Detecting Absolute Motion:
Tricky!
The "detection" part, not the absolute motion part.
Absolute motion: there are 2 absolute motions that everyone should agree to. The speed of light and abolute zero motion.
The speed of light has been measured and no matter what the velocity of the observer the speed of light measures the same. You can't get much more absolute than that.
Zero Velocity: if the Big Bang theory is correct and my interpretation of that theor is that everything in the universe collapses to a single point, and, if motion is movement from point A to Point B, the Absolute "zero" motion exists in the instant of the Big Bang. Therefore, absolute motion exists in at least 2 instances, zero motion and the speed of light. With these "absolute motion" boundries it seems a model could be created projecting absolute motion from a Big Bang origin to the present.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Unfortunately, even if you could say that one state of motion were at absolute zero motion, you could then move with respect to that one at a very large percentage of the speed of light and your new state of motion would be identical to the first one with regard to being just as far removed from the absolute speed of light. You cannot find a state of absolute zero motion as being half way between the speed of light in one direction and the speed of light in the opposite direction.

 

[mjordankeane]

Absolute zero motion, based on the previous premiss, would only exist in a singularity, in particular the Big Bang singularity, where not even light can escape, as the movie trailer goes. No light? No speed of light.
c?

 

[phinds]

Absolute zero motion, based on the previous premiss, would only exist in a singularity, in particular the Big Bang singularity, where not even light can escape, as the movie trailer goes. No light? No speed of light.
c?

You speak of the singularity as though you believe it to be a physical reality. That is not the believe of physicists. "Singularity" is a short-hand, the full statement of which is "the place where our theories break down and we don't know WHAT is happening".

EDIT: also, I don't know if you would be willing for your statement "no light, no speed of light" to be taken out of the meaningless context into which you put it, but if you are you might want to take into account that the "speed of light" that you are most likely referring to is the "universal speed limit" that does NOT depend on the presence of light (although light DOES obey it). In other words, I may be misinterpreting you, but I think you just said "no light, no universal speed limit" and that's not correct.

 

[whosapopstar?]

I wish that sometime in the 21st century there will be a children's museum that will prove hands on experiments of SR predictions - in the macro world - and will refrain from: 1.thought experiments and 2.from forwarding the children to a very long list of experiments that contain mainly particle physics experiments.

 

[yoron]

All motions are relative. But when it comes to being at rest there is one thing I find interesting. That all uniform motions can be defined as being at rest. It's not only a matter of taste, it's a true statement. And thought experiments are very important in physics, they help you visualize otherwise very intricate ideas, best described mathematically.

We have our ideas of what motion is, that comes from us always defining them relative our 'unmoving' Earth. The universe seems to use different definitions.

 

[mjordankeane]

I agree that the speed of light would still be the speed of light even in a singularity. I was being facetious.
To move on, if the premiss of the "Big Bang" is given as the event that started everything, and, that event is reduced to the exact instant of the Big Bang, then no event at all will have occurred to create an expanding universe for the purpose of this example of absolute zero velocity. At the first instant of this unique event, the Big Bang, the idea of absolute zero motion, and not "relative" motion, would be possible. And, in this instant relative motion would not be possible. Relative to what?
The reason why I believe the 2 absolute motions, absolute zero motion and the speed of light, are meaningful is that these 2 motions create 2 boundries for all "absolute" motions, and a graph of absolute motion can be created.
This premiss is dependent on treating the Big Bang event, as "a physical reality".

 

[ghwellsjr]

Let me try this again.

Let's say you could link the Big Bang event to a state of absolute zero motion at the present time and you identify that state as one of your boundaries and let's say you set the other boundary at the speed of light. Now if you travel at some high rate of speed you would be no closer to the speed of light than you were before you started. Your second boundary is like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, it keeps its same distance away from you no matter how fast you chase after it. So what do you think that does to your first boundary?

 

[phinds]

I agree that the speed of light would still be the speed of light even in a singularity. I was being facetious.
To move on, if the premiss of the "Big Bang" is given as the event that started everything, and, that event is reduced to the exact instant of the Big Bang, then no event at all will have occurred to create an expanding universe for the purpose of this example of absolute zero velocity. At the first instant of this unique event, the Big Bang, the idea of absolute zero motion, and not "relative" motion, would be possible. And, in this instant relative motion would not be possible. Relative to what?
The reason why I believe the 2 absolute motions, absolute zero motion and the speed of light, are meaningful is that these 2 motions create 2 boundries for all "absolute" motions, and a graph of absolute motion can be created.
This premiss is dependent on treating the Big Bang event, as "a physical reality".

I think the problem with this is that you are treating the singularity as though it were a physical event, but that's not what "singularity" means. What it means is "the place where our current theory totally breaks down and we have no idea what was happening".

So your belief that there was a point of zero motion is a personal belief, not one you can ascribe to physics as we know it.

You COULD, by the way, be right, but we don't know one way or the other, so stateing it as fact is what I'm objecting to.

 

[mjordankeane]

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/40083ghwellsjr said:
"Let's say you could link the Big Bang event to a state of absolute zero motion at the present time and you identify that state as one of your boundaries and let's say you set the other boundary at the speed of light.".
I'm confused by this part of your sentence that says "the Big Bang event to a state of absolute zero motion at the present time". The Big Bang happened, according to some, 14 billion years ago. In my entry I indicated the absolute zero motion was an occurance at the exact instant of the Big Bang not the present. My argument is that at that point the universe was literally a single point and therefore relative motion was impossible as motion requires movement from one point to another. If there is only one point then movement from one point to another point is impossible.
Then motion occurs in conjunction with the Big Bang. The universe expands to more than a single point. Motion can occur and with this motion a limit occurs to that motion. Motion has a limit and that limit is the speed of light.
Directly proportional to motion is mass.
Absolute zero motion means absolute zero mass.
Motion at the speed of light means infinite mass.
The 2 limits of motion are absolute. You can not move any slower than absolute zero motion, or, any faster than the speed of light. Your mass can not be an less than zero mass and any greater than infinite mass.
You're right ghwellsjr, you can't reach the "absolute" speed of light and you can't get to absolute zero except except inside the Big Bang the instant of the Big Bang.
This is why I am describing these 2 absolute motions as absolute motion boundaries. Once these 2 absolute motion boundaries exist then speeds such as
1/10 c absolute motion and 9/10 c absolute motion exist.
1/4 c absolute motion and 3/4 c absolute motion exist.
And so on...
I've attached an image of a graph that takes the idea of these 2 boundaries and projects them into an understanding of how motion and mass proceed from zero to infinite mass.

 

[mjordankeane]

I think the problem with this is that you are treating the singularity as though it were a physical event, but that's not what "singularity" means. What it means is "the place where our current theory totally breaks down and we have no idea what was happening".

So your belief that there was a point of zero motion is a personal belief, not one you can ascribe to physics as we know it.

You COULD, by the way, be right, but we don't know one way or the other, so stateing it as fact is what I'm objecting to.

phinds, You mentioned 'What it means is "the place where our current theory totally breaks down and we have no idea what was happening".'

Then maybe it is a time for an idea.

You also said, "You COULD, by the way, be right, but we don't know one way or the other, so stateing it as fact is what I'm objecting to."

Thank you.

In order for any 'idea' to take shape and gain credibility certain agreements to the validity of an argument need to be brought forth and evaluated. If they are completely ridiculous, "moon made of green cheese" for example, they do not need to be seriously challenged and can be rejected by "Show me the cow!", however, I don't think the argument "When the universe, per the Big Bang, exists as a single point, and motion is described as movement from 1 point to another point, means that absolute zero motion exists in the Big Bang event." is on the order of the ridiculous.

Theories require certain agreements to be made. Not for us to chop off our frontal lobe and agree to them but not to reject out-of-hand either.

Eighty plus years ago an agreement was made on the structure of the atom being made up of 3 components": the proton; the neutron; and the electron, a model I happen to disagree with. This Quantum model was accepted at the time and a satellite model of the atom was invisioned. This model was replaced by other 3 component models as the satellite model was not functional, and these models in turn were replaced until the Heisenberg uncertainty left us with no clear distinction of what how the atom actually works because the act of looking at the atom disturbs our ability to discover what it is.

I think what finally occurs is functionality, in the end, defines validity. The old saying is "You can't argue with success." Some may believe the Quantum model exists because of its degree of success. However, I believe that its failures are keeping us from discovering what is occurring.
So, when I mention absolute motion versus relative motion I believe there is an argument that will lead to an understanding not found in Quantum physics. That everything isn't relative. That there are absolutes and thinking in this direction leads to understanding not found in Quantum Physics.
I'm going to try adding an attachment I tried adding earlier, to see if it attaches this time without difficulty...

 

[Petyab]

Consider that the observer is acting upon the box and the laser beam. Now it seems intuitive that the emitter would vibrate causing "virtual" (thought not) images due to the vibrational energy interference within the reference frame. I can get where the dogma is accepted that it won't, but consider that this oscillation would only cause an oscillation on the order of perhaps attometers let's say. An observer wouldn't typically recognize such a small shift? Who knows. The power of the brain is extraordinary and we react to the suns rays by transforming its irradiative energy into vitamins and chemicals which our body uses.