What will happen to a body that is not moving at all?

[Makep]

What will happen to a body that is not moving at all? What is its time and what is the shape of its space?

I have been wandering about these questions for a long time now. I am beginning to realize that the space time continuum of a body / object is the product of movement of that body.If the body is an element of a larger system, it will experience the space-time continuum of the larger system. If it is to exist indepenedantly, it must begin to generate its own inertial frame. The process of becoming independant is the process by which bodies and systems create their own space-time continuum. Perhaps this is how gravities are generated.
To not to move is to either:
a) exist in the frame of another system, or
b) involute into oblivion and nothingness

Can systems afford not to move at all, in the parameters of general relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics, and still exist?

 

[Mentz114]

Spatial motion is relative. There is no such thing as 'not moving'. For instance I am 'not moving' because I'm sitting in a chair in a room in a building. But that means I'm only not moving relative to the earth.

Have a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

 

[my_wan]

What will happen to a body that is not moving at all? What is its time and what is the shape of its space?

I have been wandering about these questions for a long time now. I am beginning to realize that the space time continuum of a body / object is the product of movement of that body.If the body is an element of a larger system, it will experience the space-time continuum of the larger system. If it is to exist indepenedantly, it must begin to generate its own inertial frame. The process of becoming independant is the process by which bodies and systems create their own space-time continuum. Perhaps this is how gravities are generated.
To not to move is to either:
a) exist in the frame of another system, or
b) involute into oblivion and nothingness

Can systems afford not to move at all, in the parameters of general relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics, and still exist?

Mentz114 was right but I'm presuming that it's possible you could misinterpreted certain statements. Any and everything that is not being accelerated is "not moving". Two things that are "not moving" can be moving relative to each other. You have two spaceships A and B. They are both siting in space "not moving". Captain of spaceship A can still look out the window and see spaceship B zoom by at 50,000 meters per hour. Spaceship B's captain looks out and says no you went be me at 50,000 meters per hour. The laws of physics says there is nothing in reality itself that can say which spaceship is really moving and which one is "not moving". This would even remain true with or without Einstein's Relativity. The Earth gives us a reference for our common sense notion of "not moving" but it is an illusion in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Naty1]

I am beginning to realize that the space time continuum of a body / object is the product of movement of that body.

Not really, space/time/mass are most likely created in unison almost simultaneously from a "big bang" or similar beginning. There can be no body without space and time...they appear more fundamental...but that's a hypothetical.

"If the body is an element of a larger system, it will experience the space-time continuum of the larger system. If it is to exist indepenedantly, it must begin to generate its own inertial frame."

Frames are artifical constructs we impose to explain theings...all bodies exist as parts of a larger system involved space,time,energy..

The process of becoming independant is the process by which bodies and systems create their own space-time continuum. Perhaps this is how gravities are generated.
To not to move is to either:
a) exist in the frame of another system, or
b) involute into oblivion and nothingness

The key point is nothing is independent...it's all related...entropy, information, energy, mass,etc...it just appears different to use most likely because of spontaneous symmetry breaking early in the universe...Perhaps, to make a point I should say you have it backwards: nothing is independent of all other entities in the universe...no one element can exist independently of all others, no one is causal.

Can systems afford not to move at all, in the parameters of general relativity, special relativity and quantum mechanics, and still exist?
sure, buit as noted above, there is no absolute motionless velocity...it's all relative...we can only say acceleration can be detected from velocity...

 

[Naty1]

Lee Smolin's book, THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS, says that Fotini Markopoulou has showed how in loop quantum gravity quantum particles could emerge from quantum spacetime...another way to say this is that the way edges of spacetime can knot/link/kink generates elementary particles! So this view cleary suggests particles emerge from spacetime...our course this is theory, not experimentally verified fact.

 

[Makep]

Mentz114 was right but I'm presuming that it's possible you could misinterpreted certain statements. Any and everything that is not being accelerated is "not moving". Two things that are "not moving" can be moving relative to each other. You have two spaceships A and B. They are both siting in space "not moving". Captain of spaceship A can still look out the window and see spaceship B zoom by at 50,000 meters per hour. Spaceship B's captain looks out and says no you went be me at 50,000 meters per hour. The laws of physics says there is nothing in reality itself that can say which spaceship is really moving and which one is "not moving". This would even remain true with or without Einstein's Relativity. The Earth gives us a reference for our common sense notion of "not moving" but it is an illusion in the grand scheme of things.

Infering from your statement that "Any and everything that is not being accelerated is "not moving" " implies that an entity with a constant velocity traveling from a point A to a point B in space is not moving. Only those accelerating are moving. Am I correct?
What then is movement, if not a displacement of an entity to a new position from another, whether achieved by constant velocity or by constant acceleration? What is the difference in these two types of movements with respect to their outcome - say, getting from point A to point B?

 

[Makep]

Spatial motion is relative. There is no such thing as 'not moving'. For instance I am 'not moving' because I'm sitting in a chair in a room in a building. But that means I'm only not moving relative to the earth.

Have a look at this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

SO then everything must move to exist. What happens if they do not? Or what happens if a system does not move, relative to all other systems? Is this possible?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure I like the way my_wan worded that sentence, though the expansion is fine. I would say that "any and everything that is not being accelerated can be considered not moving". Meaning you can choose if you consider yourself to be stationary and another object moving or that object stationary and you moving (if the displacement between you is changing).

This is called the principle of relativity and just to be clear, it's been a fundamental principle of physics since Galileo started to turn physics into a science.

SO then everything must move to exist.

I don't know where you got that idea. Nothing anyone said implies it.

What happens if they do not? Or what happens if a system does not move, relative to all other systems? Is this possible?

Sure, it's possible: I'm sitting on my couch right now and I declare myself to be stationary and all other objects with a displacement changing relative to me to be moving!

 

[Doc Al]

Mentz114 was right but I'm presuming that it's possible you could misinterpreted certain statements. Any and everything that is not being accelerated is "not moving". Two things that are "not moving" can be moving relative to each other.

You are using a rather unusual meaning of "not moving", to say the least.

I recommend sticking with what Mentz114 said. "Not moving" is meaningless unless you specify with respect to what.

 

[atyy]

Infering from your statement that "Any and everything that is not being accelerated is "not moving" " implies that an entity with a constant velocity traveling from a point A to a point B in space is not moving. Only those accelerating are moving. Am I correct?
What then is movement, if not a displacement of an entity to a new position from another, whether achieved by constant velocity or by constant acceleration? What is the difference in these two types of movements with respect to their outcome - say, getting from point A to point B?

Constant velocity and variable velocity are both motion. The difference in the constant velocity case is that if I am stuck in a small room with no windows, I cannot determine whether I am stationary or moving with respect to an "outside object", which seems obvious since velocity has to be defined relative to an "outside" or "outside object". What is surprising to me is that I can detect an "outside" or "outside object" without a window if I happen to measure a non-zero acceleration. In that case, I am either accelerating relative to the "outside" or I am "stationary" (or at least not free falling) in the gravitational field of an "outside object". If I carry an electric charge and see whether it gives off radiation, I can do even more (but that is perhaps already a non-local experiment).

 

[Makep]

I'm not sure I like the way my_wan worded that sentence, though the expansion is fine. I would say that "any and everything that is not being accelerated can be considered not moving". Meaning you can choose if you consider yourself to be stationary and another object moving or that object stationary and you moving (if the displacement between you is changing).

This is called the principle of relativity and just to be clear, it's been a fundamental principle of physics since Galileo started to turn physics into a science. I don't know where you got that idea. Nothing anyone said implies it. Sure, it's possible: I'm sitting on my couch right now and I declare myself to be stationary and all other objects with a displacement changing relative to me to be moving!

But you are still moving, nonetheless. You are riding on the inertial frame of this earth. And as long as the Earth is moving, you are also moving. It is impossible to just declare yourself stationary.

 

[Makep]

Constant velocity and variable velocity are both motion. The difference in the constant velocity case is that if I am stuck in a small room with no windows, I cannot determine whether I am stationary or moving with respect to an "outside object", which seems obvious since velocity has to be defined relative to an "outside" or "outside object". What is surprising to me is that I can detect an "outside" or "outside object" without a window if I happen to measure a non-zero acceleration. In that case, I am either accelerating relative to the "outside" or I am "stationary" (or at least not free falling) in the gravitational field of an "outside object". If I carry an electric charge and see whether it gives off radiation, I can do even more (but that is perhaps already a non-local experiment).

How is it possible to "detect an "outside" or "outside object" without a window if I happen to measure a non-zero acceleration"? How does acceleration affect electric charges?

 

[Makep]

I'm not sure I like the way my_wan worded that sentence, though the expansion is fine. I would say that "any and everything that is not being accelerated can be considered not moving". Meaning you can choose if you consider yourself to be stationary and another object moving or that object stationary and you moving (if the displacement between you is changing).

This is called the principle of relativity and just to be clear, it's been a fundamental principle of physics since Galileo started to turn physics into a science. I don't know where you got that idea. Nothing anyone said implies it. Sure, it's possible: I'm sitting on my couch right now and I declare myself to be stationary and all other objects with a displacement changing relative to me to be moving!

Consider two bodies A and B in space. Consider them approaching each other. How can you prove or disprove that A is moving towards B or vice versa or both moving towards each other. In space, I find this phenomenon quite paradoxical because, without reference to a third entity, it can be concluded and quite correctly, that if A is moving towards B, then B is also moving towards A in the same rate as A is moving towards B, irrespective of which body expends the energy to achieve the result. A body that moves toward another body is the same as the other moving towards it. If the other is not moving, then it is nonexistent. How can it exist in space and not move?

 

[russ_watters]

But you are still moving, nonetheless. You are riding on the inertial frame of this earth. And as long as the Earth is moving, you are also moving. It is impossible to just declare yourself stationary.

No, it really isn't. As Doc said, motion is something that you measure between yourself and something else. And even if there is a change in displacement between you and something else, either object can be considered the stationary one (if the rate is constant).

Consider two bodies A and B in space. Consider them approaching each other. How can you prove or disprove that A is moving towards B or vice versa or both moving towards each other.

You can't! That's the entire point of what we are telling you here. Either one can be considered 'the stationary one'.

In space, I find this phenomenon quite paradoxical because, without reference to a third entity, it can be concluded and quite correctly, that if A is moving towards B, then B is also moving towards A in the same rate as A is moving towards B, irrespective of which body expends the energy to achieve the result.

No. If one of them is expending energy, you mean it is accelerating. That makes the situation no longer symmetrical and makes that one 'the moving one' (assuming they started out stationary wrt each other).

If the other is not moving, then it is nonexistent. How can it exist in space and not move?

I'm sitting on my couch, not moving, and I exist. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Speed is a number and zero is just another number. There is no reason that if an object is moving at 0 m/s, 1 m/s, or 10000 m/s you should apply a concept of "exists" or "doesn't exist" to an object who'se speed has a value of one of those numbers. Speed has nothing to do with "exists".

 

[Makep]

No, it really isn't. As Doc said, motion is something that you measure between yourself and something else. And even if there is a change in displacement between you and something else, either object can be considered the stationary one (if the rate is constant). You can't! That's the entire point of what we are telling you here. Either one can be considered 'the stationary one'. No. If one of them is expending energy, you mean it is accelerating. That makes the situation no longer symmetrical and makes that one 'the moving one' (assuming they started out stationary wrt each other). I'm sitting on my couch, not moving, and I exist. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Speed is a number and zero is just another number. There is no reason that if an object is moving at 0 m/s, 1 m/s, or 10000 m/s you should apply a concept of "exists" or "doesn't exist" to an object who'se speed has a value of one of those numbers. Speed has nothing to do with "exists".

You exist because you are moving, even when you are sitiing on your couch. Your movement is determined by the inertial frame of the earth. You are not yet independant enough to claim that you exist without this inertial frame. Not at this point. Until you exert some kind of energy to create your own inertial frame, you cannot compare yourself with / to other systems, but that of Earth and other systems

 

[russ_watters]

You exist because you are moving, even when you are sitiing on your couch.

Sorry, but that statement has no physics in it. It makes no sense: It's 'not even wrong'.

Your movement is determined by the inertial frame of the earth. You are not yet independant enough to claim that you exist without this inertial frame. Not at this point. Until you exert some kind of energy to create your own inertial frame, you cannot compare yourself with / to other systems, but that of Earth and other systems

Sorry, that just plain isn't the way it works. This is how it works:

My speed is 1,000 mph.
My speed is 0 mph.

Both of these statements are equally true.

 

[Makep]

No, it really isn't. As Doc said, motion is something that you measure between yourself and something else. And even if there is a change in displacement between you and something else, either object can be considered the stationary one (if the rate is constant). You can't! That's the entire point of what we are telling you here. Either one can be considered 'the stationary one'. No. If one of them is expending energy, you mean it is accelerating. That makes the situation no longer symmetrical and makes that one 'the moving one' (assuming they started out stationary wrt each other). I'm sitting on my couch, not moving, and I exist. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Speed is a number and zero is just another number. There is no reason that if an object is moving at 0 m/s, 1 m/s, or 10000 m/s you should apply a concept of "exists" or "doesn't exist" to an object who'se speed has a value of one of those numbers. Speed has nothing to do with "exists".

I infer that symetric movements refer to motions with constant velocities and non-symetric movements refer to motions with one or the other system moving at a constant acceleration. What do we infer for a system with two bodies moving towards themselves at constant but different velocities? Are they symetric or non-symetric?

 

[russ_watters]

I infer that symetric movements refer to motions with constant velocities and non-symetric movements refer to motions with one or the other system moving at a constant acceleration.

Close - both can be accelerating and that could make the situation non-symmetric.

What do we infer for a system with two bodies moving towards themselves at constant but different velocities? Are they symetric or non-symetric?

Two objects moving toward each other have only one speed wrt each other, so the question is meaningless. Or, rather, they are symmetric because there is only one speed.

 

[Makep]

Sorry, but that statement has no physics in it. It makes no sense: It's 'not even wrong'.
Sorry, that just plain isn't the way it works. This is how it works:

My speed is 1,000 mph.
My speed is 0 mph.

Both of these statements are equally true.

What if the Earth stops to move, as we know. What happens to our existence and our speed and that of Earth and all matter comprising earth?

 

[russ_watters]

What if the Earth stops to move, as we know. What happens to our existence and our speed and that of Earth and all matter comprising earth?

If a T-Rex tears open my living room and eats me, I'll cease to exist. That has nothing to do with physics either.

 

[Makep]

Close - both can be accelerating and that could make the situation non-symmetric. Two objects moving toward each other have only one speed wrt each other, so the question is meaningless. Or, rather, they are symmetric because there is only one speed.

Thanks, I am enlightened on this.

 

[Makep]

Sorry, but that statement has no physics in it. It makes no sense: It's 'not even wrong'.
Sorry, that just plain isn't the way it works. This is how it works:

My speed is 1,000 mph.
My speed is 0 mph.

Both of these statements are equally true.

I would like to think that without movement, hence, speed or accleration or whatever, matter would disintegrate into oblivion, and that movement/motion is the basis on which matter is created. The perception of matter in these systems depend on the characteristics of motion they engage in.

 

[atyy]

How is it possible to "detect an "outside" or "outside object" without a window if I happen to measure a non-zero acceleration"? How does acceleration affect electric charges?

You can measure acceleration with an accelerometer. When you are in an accelerating car or rocket in outer space, the accelerometer will measure a non-zero acceleration, indicating motion relative to the outside. When you are stationary relative to the surface of the earth, an accelerometer will measure a non-zero acceleration, indicating the existence of the earth. But that means if you only look at the accelerometer, you cannot tell if you are in an accelerating vehicle or stationary on the surface of the earth. This is called the "Principle of Equivalence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/equivalence_principle/index.html

The Principle of Equivalence fails for electric charges. A charge in an accelerating rocket will emit radiation, but a charge on the surface of the Earth will not. (A charge moving with constant velocity will not emit radiation.)
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/MovingCharge/MovingCharge.html

 

[ZapperZ]

I would like to think that without movement, hence, speed or accleration or whatever, matter would disintegrate into oblivion, and that movement/motion is the basis on which matter is created. The perception of matter in these systems depend on the characteristics of motion they engage in.

This is a non-statement, because you haven't said anything. What does it mean for matter to "disintegrate" when it is not moving, especially when it is viewed in light of how we define as inertial frames in physics (and note, this IS in the relativity forum, not QM forum).

It is not about what you "think", but rather what nature has shown. I'd like to see this example from nature where matter "disintegrate" when it isn't "moving".

Zz.

 

[Makep]

This is a non-statement, because you haven't said anything. What does it mean for matter to "disintegrate" when it is not moving, especially when it is viewed in light of how we define as inertial frames in physics (and note, this IS in the relativity forum, not QM forum).

It is not about what you "think", but rather what nature has shown. I'd like to see this example from nature where matter "disintegrate" when it isn't "moving".

Zz.

Take for instance, black hole. Perhaps, this is the way to unify relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

[Makep]

You can measure acceleration with an accelerometer. When you are in an accelerating car or rocket in outer space, the accelerometer will measure a non-zero acceleration, indicating motion relative to the outside. When you are stationary relative to the surface of the earth, an accelerometer will measure a non-zero acceleration, indicating the existence of the earth. But that means if you only look at the accelerometer, you cannot tell if you are in an accelerating vehicle or stationary on the surface of the earth. This is called the "Principle of Equivalence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/equivalence_principle/index.html

The Principle of Equivalence fails for electric charges. A charge in an accelerating rocket will emit radiation, but a charge on the surface of the Earth will not. (A charge moving with constant velocity will not emit radiation.)
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phys1/MovingCharge/MovingCharge.html

Why not, since the Earth s constantly accelerating?

 

[ZapperZ]

Take for instance, black hole. Perhaps, this is the way to unify relativity and quantum mechanics.

This is the "example" you can give? How about a book, or a potato, or a bowling ball? Did those things "disintegrate" when they don't move?

And when was the last time you saw a black hole anyway? Do you understand the physics of black holes THAT much to use it as the poster child of your idea?

You need to think a little bit here. You are basing your idea on something that is (i) very exotic (ii) still being studied and understood (iii) subject to having our understanding of it changing over time as we learn more. Do you think it is rational for you to base your idea on such a moving target?

While we are at it, can you please review the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" that you had already agreed to?

Zz.

 

[Makep]

Sorry, but that statement has no physics in it. It makes no sense: It's 'not even wrong'.
Sorry, that just plain isn't the way it works. This is how it works:

My speed is 1,000 mph.
My speed is 0 mph.

Both of these statements are equally true.

Then how does a black hole develop, if not from becoming stationary or slowing down with respect to other systems.

 

[Makep]

This is the "example" you can give? How about a book, or a potato, or a bowling ball? Did those things "disintegrate" when they don't move?

And when was the last time you saw a black hole anyway? Do you understand the physics of black holes THAT much to use it as the poster child of your idea?

You need to think a little bit here. You are basing your idea on something that is (i) very exotic (ii) still being studied and understood (iii) subject to having our understanding of it changing over time as we learn more. Do you think it is rational for you to base your idea on such a moving target?

While we are at it, can you please review the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374" that you had already agreed to?

Zz.

How can't it be an example. Is there limitations to thinking here? Another example - how about the speed of thought. Perhaps the speed of light is not a universal constant, and general relativity demonstrates a general phenomenon experienced by all systems undergoing constant acceleration, velocity - motion in general. If thought is not that powerful, all thoughts would gravitate into the next nearest black hole that bends light, since light is faster then thought. What will happen?

 

[atyy]

Why not, since the Earth s constantly accelerating?

To mimic the Earth's gravity, a rocket in outer space would have to accelerate at 9.8 m/s².

The acceleration of the Earth due to its rotation and orbit is much less than that, so I approximated the Earth's acceleration to be zero in my answer. So to be more accurate, I should have said that a charge that is stationary with respect to the Earth's surface will radiate very, very, much less than a charge in an accelerating rocket.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=255387
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=212860

 

[my_wan]

You are using a rather unusual meaning of "not moving", to say the least.

I recommend sticking with what Mentz114 said. "Not moving" is meaningless unless you specify with respect to what.

Yes point taken. I paraphrased it from Makep in the hopes of making it clearer to him. Obviously russ's suggestion that it should have been qualified with "can be considered" is superior. I tried to make it clearer using Makep's terminology because it was clear from the OP that it included the notion that "not moving" implied not existing as well as absolute motion. Neither of which makes any physical sense.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

The Principle of Equivalence fails for electric charges. A charge in an accelerating rocket will emit radiation, but a charge on the surface of the Earth will not. (A charge moving with constant velocity will not emit radiation.)

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you? However, when you take into account the motion of the observer as well, the transferred energy depends on the relative acceleration, so that for example an observer in an accelerating rocket would not detect any radiation being emitted from a charge at rest within that rocket.

 

[atyy]

You'd have thought so, wouldn't you? However, when you take into account the motion of the observer as well, the transferred energy depends on the relative acceleration, so that for example an observer in an accelerating rocket would not detect any radiation being emitted from a charge at rest within that rocket.

Yes, that is interesting. I don't understand it enough to agree or not, but I was aware of this claim in the literature, so I should at least qualify my remarks with "naive equivalence principle". I will start a new thread since I'd like to ask you and others about this.

 

[russ_watters]

Then how does a black hole develop, if not from becoming stationary or slowing down with respect to other systems.

A black hole is nowhere close to what you describe. We'd going so far away from the topic to discuss that, I'm not willing to do it. Your understanding of the issue at hand is not where it needs to be and I don't want to get into something entirely unrelated.

How can't it be an example. Is there limitations to thinking here?

Absolutely! We constrain our thought processes and discussions to science because this is a scientific discussion site!

Another example - how about the speed of thought.

There is no such thing as "the speed of thought".

As ZZ pointed out, this isn't a place for free-form, idle speculation. It isn't helpful to you or others who may be trying to learn from this thread and we don't allow it.