Will the dark matter also be detected in the particle accelerator? An interview with Prof. Yoram Rosen of the Technion, a member of the Israeli group at CERN
Almost 100 years ago, Albert Einstein published the theory of general relativity which gave us the first understanding of its kind about the structure of the universe and the forces operating in it. However, Einstein started from the premise that the universe is static, and does not change. A few years later, the astronomer Edwin Hubble proved that the universe does indeed change - it grows and swells all the time. Paradoxically, this discovery fitted the equations of relativity, allowing Einstein to undo a correction he had made to explain the static universe. In recent decades, it has become clear that not only is the universe expanding, but that its rate of expansion is increasing all the time, a discovery that earned Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt and Adam Ries the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011.
Apart from the issue of the expansion of the universe, Einstein's general relativity has since been proven time and time again, and verified with many technologies that did not exist at the time. However, in our understanding of the universe, there is still a very large hole. The main problem is that for the universe to continue to expand as we now know it to be happening, there needs to be a lot more matter in it. All the galaxies and stars that we see and that we hypothesize exist, are only five percent of the mass that should be in the universe. Where is the other 95% of matter? no one knows Another problem of lack of mass was discovered in the measurement of the motion of certain galaxies. The movement of their stars requires more matter, which apparently does not exist there. "Dark matter is a name given as a solution to a cosmological, gravitational problem, in which we saw that galaxies, the entire universe, does not behave according to the amount of matter in it," explains Prof. Yoram Rosen of the Technion.
"To explain this we invented a name - dark matter. We don't know what it is, now we have to look for it. There are many ideas and theories what makes it up, what it is, but it doesn't matter. We need to find it regardless of model or theory."
the missing piece
Rosen divides his time between the Technion and CERN, the giant particle accelerator in Switzerland, where he was a member of the team that discovered the Higgs boson after many years of searching. Now he hopes that with the help of the accelerator, the scientists will be able to discover unknown particles, which will be able to solve the mystery of dark matter. According to the accepted theory, there are four forces in nature: the strong nuclear force, which holds together the particles in the atomic nucleus; the electromagnetic force, which is responsible for the attraction and repulsion between different electric charges; the weak nuclear force, which also operates between elementary particles; and gravity, which causes attraction between bodies according to their mass. Gravity does move the stars and galaxies in their orbits, but it is much weaker than the other forces. To find a candidate for dark matter, scientists are trying to look for a particle accelerator that reacts only with gravity, and no other force. Such a particle, of course, is very difficult to detect. "We look for him mainly by looking for what we don't see," explains Rosen. "Unless it's dark matter, which doesn't interact with anything except gravity, it won't interact with our detector either. So the technique will be to look for the missing. The total momentum or the total energy in the collision of particles in the accelerator should give us what we entered. It's a zero sum game, and if we don't reach zero again, when we count everything, we're missing something in a certain direction, and that's the missing energy. It can be a sign of dark matter."
if it exists
The particle accelerator is currently down for an upgrade. Next year it should resume its activity, creating collisions of protons at a higher energy than has ever been attempted. In these collisions, the particles are broken down into their basic components, and the researchers hope that increasing the intensity of the collisions will lead to the discovery of many yet-to-be-discovered particles, including perhaps dark matter. "Does increasing energy mean we increase the chance of finding dark matter? This answer can be divided into two," says Rosen. "If this particle, the dark matter, or whatever it is, is not there, in the range of energies that we will reach, then we have not changed anything in the chances. If he is there, we greatly improve the odds. We are building on that, but we must not forget that if he is not found, we will not be able to find him."
That's how science is
If indeed there are dark matter particles that react only with gravity, they should be much more common than the matter particles we know (which, as mentioned, are only 5% of the mass in the universe). The scientists estimate that in the distant past their distribution was uniform, and today they are concentrated in certain regions of the universe, mainly around galaxies. "If dark matter particles are indeed discovered, it will be a huge revolution in physics," enthuses Rosen. "All physics will change completely. Suddenly we will realize that there is much more beyond everything we know. It will be something that is just 'wow!' We don't have physics that explains it, so let's start building it." On the other hand, there is also the possibility that the dark matter particles do not exist, at least not in a way that can be detected in the particle accelerator. "Something exists," states Rosen. "Does he not exist as we think? It's possible. Does it bother me? I live with it... sometimes you wonder if all the work we do is not for nothing. We won't know until we finish it, but that's how science is."
light in the dark
Even if dark matter is discovered, it will, as mentioned, only be a partial solution to the puzzle of the accelerated expansion of the universe. The dark matter, which should mainly represent the missing mass at the edges of the galaxies, should according to the theories be about 25% percent of the mass in the universe. The rest - about 70% - the scientists attribute to dark energy, which should explain that accelerated expansion (since according to Einstein, mass and energy are two forms of one essence). If the dark matter can be looked for at least in a particle accelerator, in the matter of dark energy, scientists don't even have a clue, and don't really know where to look for it. A few decades ago there were already researchers who talked about the "end of physics" because everything had already been discovered. Now, everyone knows that it will take a long time before scientists are able to shed some light on the dark secrets of the universe.
** The interview with Prof. Rosen took place as part of a press visit to the particle accelerator, at the invitation of CERN and the Israeli National Academy of Sciences **
The editor of the knowledge site also participated in the expedition and so far we have published the following articles on the site:
- Cern CEO Rolf Hoyer: My dream is to find the first particle of dark matter. First article following a tour of the Cern facilities
- CERN tour notes Part II: The door leading to the Big Bang
- CERN tour notes, part XNUMX Will we sail only if we know there is an America across the ocean? Prof. Eliezer Rabinovitch from the Hebrew University on the importance of basic science (Gallery - LHC)
- The discovery of the Higgs is the beginning of the new physics of the 21st century, Prof. Elam Gross, Weizmann Institute
- Several more articles in the series are expected to be published in the future
168 תגובות
Miracles
The 2 flashes will indeed reach Mars together.
And yet - according to relativity, the distance of Mars from the spacecraft is a million light years in the spacecraft system.
How?
The spacecraft system can be considered a long train with the spacecraft as the collector and locomotive in front of Mars. Their clock times are synchronized.
At time 0 on the clocks of Israel and Mars, which are synchronized with each other, the cameras in Israel and Mars are rattling. The distance between the collector and the locomotive shown in the photographs is a million light years in the railway system.
The light pulses from the earth and the spacecraft will reach Mars together in time 1000 years according to his clock. But they will reach the locomotive that appeared in the picture in front of Mars in time 1000,000 years according to the locomotive time.
Therefore, even Mars moving quickly in the train system will meet the spacecraft (the massif) after 1000 years, because in his system the distance of a million light years is shortened to 1000.
This is a classic demonstration of the principle of relativity - and in my opinion also its weak point.
After all, according to Einstein in 1905, the photon is a pulse of light whose position is always defined as the position of a projectile in a Newtonian system. The lengthening of the times and the shortening of the length results from this determination, because if the photon has reached a certain and defined point in each reference system and its speed is the same in all reference systems, then the only possible solution is that the time and distance are the ones that change.
Quantum mechanics claims that a photon does not have an exact location before the measurement, and it can be in more than one place at the same time.
Einstein opposed this interpretation until his last day, according to the APR paradox.
So who was right in the end, Einstein or Bohr?
Israel
Again - if I was wrong then look where, in the example I gave. I don't see a problem there.
Miracles
We have already seen in the coordination paradox that if the observer is 100,000 light years away from the last star, then the distance of the last star from the observer in a propulsion system together with the observer is a trillion light years.
Otherwise it could not move in such a system for 100,000 years at such a high speed that it would meet the observer.
The situation here is the same, with NASA as the first star, the spacecraft as the observer and Mars as the last star.
Therefore the distance of Mars from the observer is one million light years, the original 1000 multiplied by the gamma factor.
Why? hat! Because that is what mathematics requires.
(And what about physics? Does she have a word to say?).
Israel
I think you are wrong. The terrestrial observer sees the spaceship passing him at time 0. This is also the time that the observer on Mars sees the suit - time 0 at a distance of 1000 light years.
Imagine that at the moment of the suit both the terrestrial observer and the spacecraft activate a flash of light. The 2 flashes will reach Mars together (and immediately after them the spacecraft itself, but it doesn't matter).
Agree, apart from the small problem, that an observer on Mars sees the spacecraft moving in his direction so that the gamma factor is equal to 1000, and yet it takes him 1000 years to reach it.
Therefore for him without the gamma factor the distance is 1000,000 light years.
And there is the big problem of synchronizing clocks - that is, it's half past four in the island, you have to go to bed.
Good night.
Israel
Now we're back to the twin paradox? 🙂 Let's assume that the contraction is real, and assume that the distance to Mars from Earth is 1000 light years and that there is no relative motion between them. A spaceship at a speed of gamma = 1000 passes the surface of the Earth to Mars. Let's look at a national viewer. At moment 0 the spacecraft passes the Earth and after 1000 years it reaches Mars. Let's say an observer on Mars - will see exactly the same as the terrestrial observer.
Observing the spacecraft - it will pass over the surface of the Earth at time 0, and over the surface of Mars after a year according to its clock.
I don't see, in this case a problem.
Do you agree so far?
If the longitudinal shortening exists and it is only in the forward direction and not the vertical, Mars should indeed appear large in gamma factor proportion. Otherwise what kind of length shortening is this?
And if the spacecraft passing over the surface of the Earth in the direction of Mars when the gamma factor is equal to 10 the distance to the planet is shortened by 10 times and so is the travel time, then the distance from Mars to a spacecraft signal in a propulsion system with the spacecraft is 10 times greater than the distance between the Earth and Mars.
The reason is this: when a spacecraft moves towards Mars, Mars moves towards it at the same speed. If the spacecraft passes over the Earth at time 0 in the clocks of the Earth and Mars (which are relatively relaxed and temporarily synchronized) and at the time of the suit the spacecraft's clock also shows 0 - then how is it that the spacecraft will only take a tenth of the time according to its season to reach Mars than for Mars to reach it according to its clock? After all, they move towards each other at the same speed and their time is the same time (0). So where is the symmetry?
The math requires that for some unknown reason, the distance between Mars and a spacecraft in the system close to the spacecraft is 10 times greater than the distance from Mars to Earth. Why? – Hat! Otherwise you get a contradiction.
I think there must be a more logical explanation for postulate 2.
Lorenz offered an explanation: Lorenz contraction is physical, that is, the bodies are compressed due to their movement against the ether. But this explanation leads to many other problems.
So how then can the light arrive at the same time from point A to points B and C, which are different distances from it, without shortening the times and shortening the length? Is there another possibility that fits very nicely with what we know from quantum mechanics, which Einstein fought all his life - and lost?
I believe so.
Israel
I've been thinking about the Mars story, and I'm beginning to think there's a lot of truth in your words, if I understand you correctly.
Let's take a case of the twin paradox. Let's assume that the Earth and Mars do not move, and that the distance between them is 1000 light years. A spacecraft takes off at time 0 towards Mars and instantly accelerates to gamma=1000. At that moment the distance to Mars, in the eyes of the spacecraft, shrunk to a light year, so as far as the spacecraft is concerned, the flight time is one year. For a terrestrial observer, the flight time is about 1000 light years. Now you said that then the size of Mars should have increased 1000 times. And that doesn't make sense.
What happens is that objects will appear shorter, times will measure shorter and so on, but there is really no contraction of lengths here. The contraction is purely an artifact of the observations.
I got you right?
Miracles
I say there may be no contraction at all. The ladder, the pole, the javelin, or whatever it is in the paradox of the ladder, cannot be locked inside the barn or the stable when both doors are closed.
This is because there is no time extension either. There may be a simpler and more logical explanation for Postulate 2 that leaves Newton's and Maxwell's absolute time intact.
Time is a function of the density of matter in the universe, i.e. the amount of matter per unit volume. Time itself is a result of the expansion of the universe and did not exist before the big bang. The bang created time.
Therefore, if the bang theory is correct, then there can be no lengthening of time, because it requires systems whose age is higher than the age of the background radiation - the highest age of any synchronized system, because its age is the age of the universe containing all systems.
So far we have not been able to find a solution to the coordination paradox, although it may exist. In relationships there is always some strange and convoluted solution that does not contradict mathematics but is extremely strange for logical physical thinking, according to the solution of the paradox of the twins - spaceships that accelerate simultaneously increase the distance between them from 10 to 100 light years, and this in a fraction of a second according to the clock of each of them.
Israel
I'm still in the section of shrinking lengths.... I think slowly … 🙁 and it seems to me that you have begun to convince me.
I'm thinking of the following example (all in one dimension). Let's take a body (1) that produces a flash of light at a relatively low frequency. This body is ahead of me, and is accelerating to a constant speed. I will see the intervals between flashes (1) at longer intervals than in the initial state. That is, I will only see the Doppler effect.
Now, take a stick placed near (1), which has two flashes: (2) farther from me, and (3) closer. Each flash is a different color so I can tell them apart. Suppose that (1) and (2) are the same distance. What I will see now is that (1) and (2) flash together, with (3) flashing before both. According to the theory of relativity - I will see (3) closer to the other two, beyond the Doppler effect. It will show me that the stick got shorter, so that (3) got closer to (2).
Now - we will do the experiment so that (1) and (3) are adjacent. Now I will also see a shortening, but this time (2) got closer to (3).
That is - the contraction is an artifact of the measurement only... is that what you say
In their frame of reference, they start accelerating at that moment.
Also don't forget that the reason we use such long trains and tracks is because we started with the example of Ofer's traveler crossing the 100,000 light years of the Milky Way. There is no problem to reduce the orders of magnitude by 10 and deal with normal trains and tracks.
I had an idea that could perhaps close the matter once and for all. The problem is that I lack data on the characteristics of the background radiation. But here's the general idea:
As you remember, our traveler passes the Milky Way in 3 seconds according to his watch, which is 100,000 years in a path system.
As it moves against the background radiation, it sees a very rapid decrease in the temperature of the background radiation. If he uses a "temperature clock" he sees it spinning a trillion times faster than the cesium clock next to it.
My argument was that if we make the journey in the opposite way when the traveler is stationary relative to the radiation, then both of his clocks will tick at the same rate, so when he reaches the other side he will encounter a system that is 100,000 years older than his own, which is impossible because his system is our system, i.e. age of the universe
But here is a slightly more focused claim:
What if the journey was made along a path perpendicular to the direction of the background radiation movement?
In that case, the cesium and temp clocks are ticking at the same rate in all places. Therefore, if the time of the cesium clocks on the first and last star is synchronized, then they will always show the same time as the temperature clocks adjacent to them. If the traveler started the journey in the first star at time 0 and finished it after 3 seconds, then this is the time that the two watches he carries with him will show: C.H. and Temp. When he reaches the last star, his temp clock shows the same time as the temp clock of the last star, i.e. 3 seconds, and since the temp clock on the last star ticks at the same rate as the clock next to it, then the time on the clock is also 3 seconds.
This is if there is an extension of time.
In practice, the clock on the last star is not at all aware of the clocks that the traveler carries with him, so the time that passes is 100,000 years. According to the data, the temperature clock next to it ticks at the same rate, so 100,000 years pass in it too. When the traveler arrives, the two temp clocks, the one of the last star and the traveler's - show the same time - they always show the same time in a shared photograph - therefore the time of the traveler's temp clock is also 100,000 years. According to the data, the traveler's temp clock ticks at the same rate as his teh clock (they are perpendicular to the radiation during the journey), therefore the teh clock also shows 100,000 years and not 3 seconds.
Therefore there is no lengthening of time in relations, or alternatively, the bang theory needs revision.
parable.
On the other hand, 4 in the morning in L.A. - it may be time to sleep instead of talking.
And as I mentioned, I lack the characteristics of the background radiation. Too bad Ofer can't expand a bit.
Good night.
Israel
Note. The locomotive begins to accelerate 100 thousand years before the collector, at best.
If we put a locomotive as a collector, we cannot claim that the distance between them is preserved. Both cases need to be examined, i.e. it accelerated first or it accelerated first. I have to explain to myself what happens when a body that is in front of me suddenly accelerates away from me, after all it should appear closer, no?
no seer no feeling I don't think so. There is no contemplation. Only shots from range 0.
If there is a single locomotive in the center of the track a trillion light years long, it can accelerate to maximum speed without a problem. If it is not an old and dirty steam engine, it can also pull the train with it.
By the way, if you remember the solution to Bell's paradox, then bodies do not stretch with acceleration, only the space between them (this is why in the paradox the rope breaks when the spaceship accelerates instantaneously). Therefore there is no problem for the train to accelerate and stay the same length in its frame of reference.
Israel
Let's leave the Mars problem for the moment, we need to think about it.
My mother wants to formulate your claim in a simpler way, to see if I understood. Let's put a single car on the track half a trillion light years away. The train accelerates so that it sees itself a trillion light years away, due to the contraction of the track.
I understand it right?
The problem is as I said - the train starts to accelerate in the center of the track, and reaches maximum speed when the locomotive and the assembly are still on the long track. That's no problem when you have half a trillion light years of track to accelerate unimpeded.
Therefore it is not possible for both the collector and the locomotive to be at time 0 at both ends of the track.
Regarding Mars - we are far enough away from it for its observed diameter to appear 1000 times larger.
So what will happen if a compatible Mars passes by at high speed? Does Mars seem small and its twin huge? Will it cover it due to its sheer size? Is this even possible from the optical point of view?
Submit, miracles. There is no such thing as length contraction. It was originally invented to create consistency over time. This is also the reason why there is no experimental confirmation of the length contraction. She doesn't exist.
Even with Einstein, the length contraction is measured using clocks and not rulers. How can you measure the length of a speed train?
And obviously, if time lengthens and the speed of light remains the same, then the length shortens, doesn't it?
No.
In my opinion, there is a simpler and more logical explanation for postulate 2.
But this is already a matter for experimentation. Nothing else will convince anyone that mile-long trains can't compress to a millimeter or stretch to a million miles when they accelerate without the passengers knowing.
Israel
If the length of the train in its axis system is 100K light years, then the answer is as I said - when the train passes the first star, the collector will pass the mark at a distance of a trillion light years.
I don't understand what bothers you about shrinking - the years on the rail will indeed look cramped. There are 100K years between the first star and the last star, which the train travels in 3 seconds. The galaxy is very short…..
Regarding Mars, an interesting question...let's look at it this way. Let's take a point on the circumference of Mars. Let's look at the triangle formed between us, the center of Mars and the point on the circumference. We call the distance between us and the center of Mars X, and the distance between the center of Mars and the point - Y. The viewing angle is therefore atan X/Y. The distance X is divisible by gamma, while Y is constant. At a very close distance, X is very small so the change in it is meaningless. Meaning - we will see Mars in its correct size. At great distances, Mars will appear much larger, i.e. its size will be multiplied by gamma.
We are talking already after the acceleration, when the train is 100,000 light years long in its system. If it grew during the acceleration, then it could start small and expand with the acceleration.
And as I said, we're looking for explanations that don't contradict the math without actually understanding what's going on.
Except that Lorentz contraction is talking about shortening. So how is it so big in the rail system if in its system it is much smaller?
Lorentz shortening - for which there is no experimental evidence - comes to maintain consistency with the lengthening of time.
Can you describe to me what Mars would look like in a photo from a camera passing over the Earth so that the gamma factor is 1000? Is its diameter 1000 times larger in the photo because of the perspective?
Israel
...two distant spaceships that start to accelerate at the same time so the distance between them changes. We are talking about enormous acceleration, so imagine what would happen if one spacecraft accelerated at a different time, just slightly, than the other spacecraft. Now change the sign of the time difference and you will get, I think, a completely different result.
What do you mean?
Israel
We are now back to the bell paradox…
Half a trillion light years north of the first planet, in the direction of Andromeda.
Israel
Section 5 is not clear to me. What is the center of the rail?
A trillion, eh?
Then a new problem arises.
1. Our train is 100,000 light years long in its rest system.
2. Let's say that it is at rest relative to the rail and in its center. The track stretches in front and behind for astronomical distances.
3. Now it accelerates almost instantly and reaches the discussed speed, synchronizing the locomotive and accumulator clocks.
4. We got a train that is 100,000 light years long in its rest system and its clocks are synchronized, and it is moving fast on the transgalactic track between Endomode and the Milky Way.
5. Now, if at time 0 the blue locomotive that can reach the first star, there is no possibility that the array is in its trillionth year, and this is because it started the journey in the center of the track and moved in the opposite direction.
6. And from the paradox of the paradox we know that when the locomotive and the collector accelerate at the same time the distance between them in their reference system increases, so there is no problem with 3 and 4. The train can always start smaller, or whatever relativity demands.
So we are left with the problem at 5.
Israel
Dhahaha
I said ….. trillion. changed the trillion.
A thousand more, a thousand less, what does it matter?
And I have already asked a thousand times and received no answer: What year will the photograph show?
And that's the twin paradox, not twins.
Israel
Shall we agree on 10 to the power of 12 light years? How much is a trillion in America?
This has nothing to do with the twin paradox. There is a figure of shrinking 100000 light years to 3 light seconds, approximately. All we assumed was the determination of the speed of light (also not exact, but good enough for us). If you don't make this assumption, you get a real paradox...
A thousand trillion to be exact, but who's counting?
I still didn't understand from your words what year the photo shows. 3 light seconds? 100,000 light years? A million billion?
And did you notice by the way that we both try to find the only match that doesn't mathematically contradict the matching paradox without actually understanding why it happens?
Israel
I got you…. 100,000 multiplied by 10,000,000 (the contraction ratio) which is a trillion light years.
So I have comprehension problems…..
Wait... And now you will claim that God cannot build such a train???
Miracles
Remember, we try to avoid "seeing", "thinking", or "feeling". Only photographs.
So..
We have a long rail connecting the galaxies. Brown and nimble Thai workers mark years on it - each light year starting from the first star is one year. a ruler.
a question:
Which year will appear in the photo from the massif at time 0 according to his clock?
Only it.
Israel
I can't figure out where a million billion comes from. I will clarify again.
The train sees the Milky Way 3 light seconds long. At time 0 the locomotive crosses the first star. After 3 seconds the locomotive crosses the last star. After 100 thousand light years the collector crosses the first star and after another 3 seconds crosses the last star.
The stars see the train 3 light seconds long. The first star meets the locomotive at time 0 and the collector after 3 seconds. The last star meets the locomotive after 100 thousand years and the collector 3 seconds after that.
yours, yours
If, as you say, "Each car in a progressive train traveled a thousand light years along the track after every three seconds" - you must have meant a hundred and according to its clock - then it has traveled a million billion light years along the track system as stated.
ZA that the massif began its journey at time 0 according to its clock at a distance of one million billion light years from the first planet.
which are not 3 light seconds, or even 100,000 light years in the rail system.
Just to be sure: tell me exactly the distance of the strip that appears in the photo from the first star in the track system, if it was taken from the array at time 0.
And there is no longer as much smog as there was 40 years ago - mainly because of the vigorous activity of the environmentalists, who, like those crying out for global warming today, encountered vigorous opposition 40 years ago from all those who thank them today.
Israel
It seems to me that the smog of Los Angeles affects the clarity of thought... yours or maybe mine...
I did not agree to any million light years. Each car on an advanced train traveled a thousand light years along the track every three seconds.
Miracles
You write:
"It travels about a million billion light years along the way, and that's in the rail system." - I understand and agree to Risha"
If so, then it started the journey a million billion light years away from the first star in the track system.
Kind of conflicts with our previous assumption that he started the journey 3 light seconds away or at most 100,000 light years in the track system, which is also what the time 0 shot showed, isn't it?
Risha Alek…
Israel
"According to the data, a last star meets the locomotive at a time of 100,000 years according to a last star clock." - agree
"Because of the symmetry, a first star meets the collector at a time of 100,000 years according to a collector clock." - agree
"Therefore the assembler traveled 100,000 years from time 0 on his clock before reaching the first planet." - agree.
"If every 3 seconds according to his clock he travels 100,000 light years in the rail system, then he travels about a million billion light years along the way, and that is in the rail system." - I understand and agree to Risha. I don't understand the Sipa. Let's think that the train continues towards "the end of the universe", the locomotive driver, must say to himself, at any given moment, "The end of the universe has never been further away". Beyond the bass, where is the problem? If the train stops after a hundred billion years (according to my wristwatch) it will find that the universe has aged by a hundred billion years....
I have written:
"How far from the first star is the train line that appears in the picture in the path system?
Not the railway system - the track is in the rail system, which is also the path system."
But the problem is this:
According to the data, a last star meets the locomotive at a time of 100,000 years according to a last star clock.
Because of the symmetry, a first star meets the collector at a time of 100,000 years according to a collector clock.
Therefore the collector traveled 100,000 years from time 0 on its clock before reaching the first planet.
And if every 3 seconds according to his clock he passes 100,000 light years in the rail system, then he passes about a million billion light years along the way, and that is in the rail system.
No?
Israel
I didn't say in the rail system...
The length of the 100K train changed light in its system. The collector sees the locomotive 100K light years ahead of it, and the locomotive sees the collector 100K light years behind it.
A galactic observer sees the train 3 light seconds long.
Let's assume we have a camera at every step of the track. We activate the cameras at the same time at time 0 - then we will see the locomotive close to the first star, and the collector close to the phase that is 3 light seconds away from the star. But note the 0 simultaneity here refers to the rail.
If the train is allowed to activate the cameras, as mentioned, the train locomotive will see the star and the array will see a phase 100K light years away.
Ok, let's call it coordination attempt 1 for the coordination paradox.
You say "within 100 thousand light years" and that is in the rail system.
Problem 1: In the rail system the length of the train is only 3 light seconds.
Therefore, if at time 0 a rail locomotive is in the first star - then a train collector is at time 0 a rail in front of the track at a distance of 3 light seconds behind the first star, and that is what the photograph will show, right?
Otherwise what does it mean that the length of the train is 3 light seconds in the track system?
Problem 2: According to the data, a last star meets the locomotive at a time of 100,000 years according to a last star clock.
Because of the symmetry, a first star meets the collector at a time of 100,000 years according to a collector clock.
It therefore follows that the Masaf traveled 100,000 years on the track before meeting the first star.
But we know that the locomotive travels 100,000 light years in the rail system in 3 seconds according to the locomotive clock until it meets the last star.
And the massif travels after the locomotive in the same system..
So what distance in the rail system will he travel in 100,000 years according to his clock if every 3 seconds he travels 100,000 light years?
Except that according to problem 1, in the rail system it is only 3 light seconds away from the first planet.
Israel
You said that the masseur takes photos according to his own clock. And so the photo will be, as I said, within 100 thousand light years.
Look at it this way - let's assume that both the locomotive and the collector take pictures at the same time, that is, at time 0 according to the locomotive's clocks. From the point of view of a stationary observer in the galaxy, the 2 phalanxes will not be at the same time. Simultaneity depends on the reference system…..
Not vegans - these are slaves from Mars whose only sin is the color of their green skin.
The question was:
At what distance from the first star is the train track shown in the picture in the path system?
Not the railway system - the track is in the rail system, which is also the path system.
Israel
I heard that the wagons worked for years on this track….
The collector train is 100 light-years behind the locomotive, so it will photograph a point on the track 100 light-years away from the locomotive/first star.
Miracles
I didn't understand how you solved the coordination paradox.
Gemini does not "think" "know" or "feel" - they look at photographs.
Let's go back to the problem:
1. The transgalactic railroad crosses the Milky Way and extends indefinitely on both sides.
2. First star and last star clocks are synchronized with each other.
3. A train 100,000 light years long reaches the first planet. The train clocks are synchronized with each other, but not with trail clocks.
4. When the locomotive reaches the first star, the time on both clocks is 0. This is also what the photographs show.
a question:
At time 0 according to his watch, a photographer collects the train from the track.
At what distance from the first star is the train track shown in the picture in the path system?
Hint:
According to relativity, the length of the train in a path system is only 3 light seconds (?). It is reasonable to assume that the photographed band is 3 light seconds away from the first star, isn't it?
Can you find another match?
Israel
I don't see the problem yet. The twin knows that it flew for 3 seconds at a distance of 100K light years in the reference system of the background radiation. Therefore, he can calculate the age of the universe, give a correction for its speed.
When he stops - he will measure again and find that actually 100K years have passed (approximately).
All GPS satellites transmit at the same frequency (about 1575 MHz) - except for the addition of a Doppler effect (up to 6KHz-/+). The transmission is continuous and the way to isolate the signals is with the help of an identification code of each satellite which is 1 millimeter long (and it includes 1023 bits).
Therefore - identifying a certain signal from a certain satellite will take time....
In any case, there is a house with a fixed letter 0x8B intended for synchronization - you can use it.
Apart from that - you wanted to measure arrival time. Why do you want to attribute this time? You don't have an atomic clock that is synchronized to a GPS satellite (and you have to choose which satellite... there are in principle 24 in use).
Miracles
The problem is that if a traveler crosses the Milky Way in 3 seconds - then the last star travels in the traveling system for a million billion years.
Possible in 1905 - not today.
You will see this if you try to coordinate the times in the problem I presented earlier. The only solution I can find in this coordination paradox is that the train is billions of kilometers long in the trail system.
And as in the paradox of the paradox, the strange solution is probably the solution of relativity. After all, spaceships that accelerate to the same extent in system A and therefore the distance between them is constant, actually move away from each other in system B. Why - a hat! Because this is the only solution that does not contradict the mathematics.
But mathematics also tells us that if at the university the age of the teaching professor is 3 times the age of the student's grandson, there are infinite solutions to the problem (will you tell us how old our students and lecturers will be?) It is physics that sets the constraints. And that's what the bang theory does.
But we were concise. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that only an experiment could show that there might be a different explanation for Postulate 2 besides the lengthening of times and shortening of distances.
I was not able to show this in the "trivial experiments" as I call them, but from the beginning I didn't give them much of a chance, that's why they are called trivial.
There is a more advanced experiment that I would like to try, and I would appreciate it if you could help me out.
I need to receive some specific signal from a GPS satellite and display it on an oscilloscope, so that it is possible to see and mark its exact arrival time with maximum accuracy (preferably nanoseconds if possible).
Please, no technical terms that only engineers understand. If I hear the word "protocol" - the next protocol you will see is the court protocol.
Thanks.
Israel
I also don't understand where the problem is. The background radiation is a reference system. Therefore, anyone measuring temperature needs to make a correction for their speed. I think that a correction should also be made for the time you are at speed - it seems to me that it will come out something like your absolute displacement since the big bang (integral over the speed).
It seems to me that this way everyone will agree on the same age for the universe. I'm wrong?
Ofer
The facility I proposed has a great advantage - it does not require any special updates or calculations.
Such a device - a temperature clock in the language of the crowd - shows the time that has passed since the bang as soon as it is pulled out of the nylon.
Two such people who pass each other always agree and also take pictures of each other and the time in the pictures is always the same.
If 1000 twins separate and tear apart the galaxy with terrible accelerations, to the right, to the left, and then they all meet at Mama Lahmin's on Shabbat - there are no longer the usual quarrels: twin A says my time is right and B says wrong, mine is right. And why is twin 457 always 1000 years late?
Because everyone has one time in common: that of Metzgadol.
How different from 1905! Can you describe to me in 1905 a simultaneous attack on a distant planet by spaceships flying at different speeds and accelerations without supercomputers?
No problem today. Pull out a temp watch - and everyone agrees on the same time.
All we have to do is agree that mom's time - who stayed all the time in the relatively light kitchen when the children ran riot - is always the highest. This will bring some order to the Blaganist twin family.
Israel,
Here are the things I understood + some comments.
1. You have a radiometer with a doppler filter that knows how to measure the wavelength in the rest system of the radiation. Therefore it shows the age of the universe in the radiation rest system.
Response to 1: It is absolutely possible. There is another way to build such a device: it is a clock with a mechanism that artificially slows it down by the gamma factor. In Gamma we set exactly the time slowing factor corresponding to our speed relative to the rest system we want to measure. In reality, they built a device very similar to what I described, and placed it on the GPS satellites - and it works wonderfully!
2. Along the Milky Way are scattered ordinary thermometers - which are like ordinary and synchronized clocks
3. The collector is a carriage that moves relative to the Milky Way at a very high speed
4. The clock described in section one is installed in the array.
This is what I understood from your words, I still did not understand where the contradiction was.
Ofer
You write "Ok, obviously the contradiction is that 2 thermometers at the same point show a different temperature".
Not in the radiation meters equipped with a two-way doppler meter.
Do you agree that such a device would be able to know what the radiation spectrum is if it were at rest relative to it?
And therefore - to agree on the temperature of the radiation with the clock relative to it when it passes by?
"Huh? who will? what? Which first, which last, which system are we in?"
The collector is a train car that passes over the elongated system of the Milky Way.
Along the elongated Milky Way - which was copied to TZN and is therefore stationary relative to radiation - thermometers are scattered at equal intervals. The thermometers show the space temperature - which is also the radiation temperature - and therefore they are actually also clocks that show the age of the universe according to the Friedman formula.
The "definitely" is for miracles.. The speed of reactions here far exceeds that of light.
Definitely.
Israel, it's a bit hard for me to follow you
And trying to guess what you mean, it's less interesting 🙂 Is it possible for you to write everything in a more orderly way?
I will give an example of what I mean.
1. A clear sentence you wrote: "How is it that passenger B measures 10 degrees when he passes the last train car whose temperature is almost at absolute 0?"
Ok, obviously the contradiction is that 2 thermometers at the same point show a different temp. The explanation is that they move at a different speed compared to the background radiation, therefore they measure a different wavelength.
2. Here is an unclear sentence that you wrote: "Now, there is no problem in 1905 for Masaf to travel 100,000 years in the reference system of the train, where some billion square years pass in the Milky Way system, because time is infinite." In 2014, if the first thermometer showed 2.7K, the last one will show 0.000000000000000000000K. But the last one could be us.."
Aha? who will? what? Which first, which last, which system are we in?
Israel
Let me understand. The train comes from afar, is 100K light years long and is really, really fast. The diameter of the Milky Way is 100K light years.
Let's look at it in the train system. The train locomotive passes the beginning of the galaxy at time 0, and the other end after 3 seconds. The last train will pass the beginning of the galaxy after 100K light years, and the edge of the galaxy 3 seconds after that.
The situation is perfectly symmetric about the galaxy.
agree?
Both and separately. But for Paradoxino, the photos from the train will suffice.
At time 0 according to the train clocks, the locomotive and the assembler photograph what passes in front of them on the path.
We know what the photo from the locomotive will show: you are the first star, and this is according to the data.
Because due to the Lorentz contraction in the path system the train is compressed to 3 light seconds, the photo from the array should be 3 light seconds away from the first star which it has not yet reached, therefore we will see in the photo the Sputnik in the path system 3 light seconds away from the first star.
That's what logic means. But after the "solution" of the paradox of the paradox - according to which two spaceships that accelerate simultaneously are actually moving away from each other - everything is possible. Maybe actually the distance of the collector from the first planet is a billion light years squared and this is because of simultaneity relativity? You will know.
But any mathematical solution will not solve, I believe, the physical problem. As we have seen, an observer moving against the background radiation sees the temperature drop rapidly. It doesn't matter if it is measured with a thermometer or a radiation meter, because if the measuring device is stationary relative to the background radiation, a mercury thermometer and a radiation meter will measure the same temperature (ofer?)
This is what Zvi said, and also what is written in the links.
The thermometers for the Milky Way are stationary relative to radiation. If not, we will move the entire trail and the system adjacent to it to our permanent testing area in Tiz al Nabi (hereafter: TZAN) where the conditions are ideal.
Now, there is no problem in 1905 for Masaf to travel 100,000 years in the reference system of the train, where a billion square years pass in the Milky Way system, because time is infinite.
In 2014, if the first thermometer showed 2.7K, the last one will show 0.000000000000000000000K.
But last could be us.. and we are quite warm and cozy in our 2.7.
No?
Israel
You talked about two photographs at the same time. Do you mean simultaneously in the galaxy system or the train system?
I knew you could be trusted…
The first thing I thought of was the paradox of the ladder - the pole and the barn as they call it in our regions.
But I don't think it works. Even in the paradox of the ladder, in the reference system of the garage, or the barn, both doors can be closed simultaneously, therefore trapping the ladder inside.
This means that our video cameras, which record every event to avoid ambiguity, will record our 100,000 light-year train - analogous to a ladder - locked in a 3 light second interval in the extended Milky Way system, with time 0 at the first star and time 0 of the observer 3 light seconds away from it outside the path , the train's locomotive and assembly are photographed.
This leaves the problem as before: the collector system will alternate 100,000 years before it encounters the first star, during which it will image billions of stars. In the path system it only moves for 3 light seconds where there is not even one star born for close-up photography.
And we - here we come?
Israel
What's happening to you? 🙂 refer you to the ladder paradox?
Ofer
You say: "If we look at a moving system, its length will be shorter, but the clocks there also run slower. These two changes "offset".
A moving system from the point of view of an observer can be a train passing by or the Milky Way.
As we saw in the example of the traveler, the first star passes by when the time on its clock is 0, and the last one is 100,000 years. The time of all the stars in the middle is also in the middle.
Therefore, as far as the passenger is concerned, time in the drive system passes very quickly.
It sounds paradoxical - the shortening of time - but it is important to take a video of all the clocks that passed by. In 3 seconds according to his watch the times of the watches jumped from 0 to 100,000 years. Not rapid progress?
But that's not the problem. It is that if the last krone waited 100,000 years to meet the first star, and at that time the Milky Way system passes by it at almost the speed of light, then how many billions and billions of stars will its video show pass by in those 100,000 years? And how is this possible if in our system he has not traveled even a thousandth of the distance to Mars? How did he even manage to photograph a star on the way?
I wanted to explain and came out confusing.
"In a system where the distance is long, the time will be short, in a system where the distance is short, the time will be long" is a confusing sentence. Maybe this will help: if we look at a moving system, its length will be shorter but the clocks there also run slower. These two changes "offset".
Israel.
1. "So if the first carriage traveled the entire Milky Way in 3 seconds, how much did the last carriage travel in 100,000 years?" God is hiding.."
In the train system, the Milky Way is very short, and it is not particularly impressive to pass by it in 3 seconds. What is long is the train itself - therefore it is no wonder that the Milky Way takes 100,000 years to reach from beginning to end.
2. "How did he manage to travel such a large distance that is actually also so small" - I'm not sure I understood this sentence - do you mean that a certain distance is long in one system and short in another? It's hard to digest, but not exactly a paradox. Regarding digestion, maybe it will help: in a system where the distance is long, the time will be short, in a system where the distance is short, the time will be long. The relationship between times is exactly the opposite of the relationship between distances. Beyond that, it's hard for me to comment, unless you write the paradox more explicitly (for example, we exceeded the speed of light, someone is both younger and older at the same time, things like that).
According to the Friedman formula:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
In a few days according to his watch he measures a temperature of 2K.
Before I get to my argument, here's something that suddenly occurred to me. This is an apparent paradox in proper relationships, which I don't have the energy to think about at the moment (Sunday, wife, children, pool...).
So like this: let's say that our passenger is carrying a train that is also 100,000 light years long in its reference system and he is driving a locomotive. When it meets the first star on the milky way, the time is 0 on all clocks: locomotive, last carriage, first star, last star (of course the locomotive and the last carriage are synchronized with each other and the stars between them, but not synchronized with each other).
Because of the symmetry, if the locomotive meets the last star at 100,000 years according to last star time, then the first star meets the last carriage at 100,000 years according to last carriage time. (No? Children, a pool, who has the strength to think...).
But this means that from the last 0 kron it advanced 100,000 years according to its clock until it met the first star.
But the last carriage follows the first carriage and rests relative to it. So if the first carriage traveled the entire Milky Way in 3 seconds, how much did the last carriage travel in 100,000 years? God hides..
And that's not all: in the trail system, the train is short, 3 light seconds. At time 0, the last krone is only 3 light seconds from the first star, less than 3 lunar distances. Apollo reaches him in a few days without a problem.
So how did he manage to travel such a great distance that is actually also so small on the way to the first star? How many stars does he book on the way?
As mentioned, this is a problem in proper relationships that I don't have the energy to think about (did we already say a pool, a woman, a woman...?)
You are the champion of paradoxes and this is your job! Immediately get to work!
Note: When measuring the ratio (instead of the difference) between temp at time A and temp at time B - you can skip multiplying by A. It is still necessary to multiply by the time delay factor:
If in the background radiation system the temp dropped X times during a "background radiation year"
In a system moving relative to it, the temperature also dropped X times, but the time that passed is shorter.
Israel,
I was wrong and I apologize if you were hurt by a patronizing attitude that may have unintentionally added to my words.
And yet: I want to make a comment about the change in temperature in systems moving relative to each other.
A. Redshift due to relative motion (Doppler phase in light) behaves like this: wavelength-observed = A * wavelength. A depends on the relative speed.
B. Nissim is right - the temperature in space is a result of the background radiation. And this is a common reference system for everyone who measures temp.
third. Two thermometers passing each other in space are necessarily not at the same relative speed to the background radiation. Their A factor is different => the wavelength that hits them is different => the temp is different (temp * wavelength = constant)
d. Any temperature change in the background radiation system resulting from a time transition needs to be divided by A to translate the same change into a moving system (and further multiplication due to the time slowing factor).
Israel
Every hour it advances 120 million light years. After how many hours do you think the cooling will be 2.7 degrees?
The temperature in space is a result of the cosmic background radiation (although in our galaxy there is no absolute vacuum and the temperature is 10-20K). This radiation is a reference system and therefore there is no symmetry here.
Miracles
1. The traveler passes us on his way to the edge of the Milky Way, which he will cross in 3 seconds, right?
2. If when it passes by us it will take a photo of the mercury thermometer hanging from a balloon above the earth 🙂 it will see a temperature of 2.7K, right?
3. After 3 seconds according to his watch he will reach the other side of the path and it is already a little colder there, right?
4. After a few hours he will already see a thermometer that only shows 2K, right?
5. As you say, "the theory of relativity claims that the laws of physics are the same in every frame of reference", right?
6. If the traveler passes us on his way to the end of the Milky Way, which he will cross in 3 seconds, then we also pass him at the same speed, right?
7. Therefore if there was such a traveler, then because of the symmetry our temperature would also decrease rapidly relative to his synchronized rest system, right?
8. But actually we don't need a passenger - just like he doesn't need us - and the temperature of two thermometers on the road that pass each other in space is the same, right? (If not - whose is colder? Where is the symmetry?).
a question:
So why are we no longer almost at absolute zero if every few hours our temperature drops upwards?
And another lazy traveler. In fact, we should have frozen immediately, as a more agile traveler would have frozen immediately.
Israel
I don't really understand what the discussion is about... The theory of relativity claims that the laws of physics are the same in any frame of reference. We know that there is a certain frame of reference for our universe, and this does not contradict the theory of relativity. what am I missing?
And for whom? To the one who claims symmetry in the twin paradox, meaning that twin A moves relative to B as B moves relative to A (so where is the paradox)?
Israel
Are you saying that you should listen to me? 🙂 I lost you 🙂
Ofer
It will be very difficult for us to approach "business" when I feel that you do not take what I say seriously.
Earlier you wrote:
"Hence the sentence "This is why he meets the last star in a time of 3 seconds according to his clock and 100,000 years according to the clock of the star." Erroneous.
Now you write:
"In short, the cameras will indeed see unequivocally 3 seconds, 100000 years as you said."
Most people will interpret it in the following way: wrong.
Now, a mistake is not a sin. I'm wrong and glad to be shown where. But when someone treats things with a patronizing and condescending attitude, expressed in sentences such as "you have a basic misunderstanding", "it confuses you a lot", "you are simply wrong" and other pearls, and then makes basic mistakes himself - - it is no longer a sin. It's pathetic.
And here you go:
"Still the sentence "any propulsion system relative to this system will show its own time lower than that of the radiation system" is simply wrong."
You do not know what my argument is but you know for sure that I am wrong. This is despite the fact that basic logic that does not require much knowledge of physics but a little logic will show you that if you wrote earlier:
"Oh, and about this question of yours:
Q: Is there any system where the age of the universe is over a hundred billion years? Yes No.
A: No."
So it is clear that the oldest synchronized system must be less than a hundred billion years old (is there another possibility?), and as we saw earlier with the traveler example, anyone moving relative to a synchronized system will see its clocks showing more and more advanced time as it progresses. Therefore, if he travels relative to the same old system, then his time will always be lower than its time (which is according to its definition as the oldest system), and if he is part of a synchronized system, where all the clocks always show his time, then the time of this system will always be lower than its time the old system. logic.
Of course there is always the possibility that I am wrong. That is why we are having a discussion. You showed me how weak the background radiation is, thus ruling out the possibility of exposure as a possible reason for the lengthening of the times (thank you for that). But I have no intention of accepting things as they are from the hero's mouth, and have no interest in conducting a disrespectful discussion.
A few months ago I posted here and on other blogs the "Twin Paradox Paradox". I received many suggestions for the solution to the paradox, including from 4 physics professors and one doctor. That is why it is interesting that the only one who brought the solution consistent with the relativity solution and also brought the link to the Bell Paradox that sheds light on the problem, is none other than our miracles.
So who should I listen to more - Prof. Moshe, Prof. Meir, or Nissim?
So if you are interested in having a discussion between equals, that you can learn from and that you are also allowed to make mistakes, let me know. I have no interest in ego battles.
Israel,
I have a curious question. You told Nissim that you get the (empirical) result that the speed of light is invariant - it does not depend on the reference system. Special relativity is based solely on 2 principles:
A. The speed of light is invariant (you said you get it)
B. The principle of relativity - the laws of physics do not change between different inertial reference systems. That is, if, for example, we are inside a closed train car and isolated from its surroundings, we cannot know whether we are "moving at a constant speed" or "resting". This is in contrast to a simple experiment that allows us to know if we are accelerating or not accelerating.
I do one and another, and come to the conclusion that you think principle B is wrong. Am I right? If so - how, inside a closed train car isolated from the environment, is it possible to know if we are moving or resting?
Israel,
The fact that clocks are synchronized in the Milky Way system does not mean that they are synchronized in the passenger's system (to me this reminds me of a story about Israel's train).
Before we begin, there is an amusing anecdote. You asked me if there is empirical proof of the length contraction. But - the story requires you to accept the length contraction. It is impossible to travel 100,000 light years in 3 seconds because it is beyond the speed of light - unless you accept the longitudinal contraction. By the way - in Ofer Maged's article on which you rely, it is explicitly written "because this is the case, the length of the Milky Way will appear to him to be 12 orders of magnitude smaller"
And now... to business!
In the system of the Milky Way: the clocks in the first and last star are synchronized (first and last in relation to the direction of travel of the traveler) what does it mean synchronized? Let's say that the first star sends a pulse of light to the last one, and the pulse says: "My time is 0". The last star should, upon receiving the pulse, set its clock to 100000 years, because this pulse took 100000 years to arrive.
Suppose that just when the first star sends the pulse to the last one, the traveler also passes there. And now we will look at each of the systems.
In the system of the Milky Way: the last star receives a pulse from the first, so it sets its clock to 100000. Immediately after that, the traveler arrives. Because of time slowing down, the passenger's watch only shows 3 seconds.
In the traveler's system: The traveler starts crossing the short Milky Way at time 0. 3 seconds later he reaches the last star, and discovers that the last star has just set its clock to 100000 years. Strange, says the traveler, to my understanding the same pulse of light that the first star sent arrived after 3 seconds - and therefore the last star had to set its clock to 3 seconds. Conclusion: The clocks in the strange and short galaxy "Milky Way" are not synchronized.
In short, the cameras will clearly see 3 seconds, 100000 years as you said.
Still the sentence "any propulsion system relative to this system will show its own time lower than that of the radiation system" is simply wrong. To understand this, imagine a symmetrical situation. The traveler is in total the starting point of Galaxy B which is the same size as the Milky Way (the same size if you are in the rest system of B..)
So in the Milky Way system:
Galaxy B is tiny (3 light seconds long) and after 100000 years it reaches the last star and the cameras show that 3 seconds have passed in Galaxy B, 100000 years for the Milky Way.
In the system of Galaxy B - the same thing happens, only the other way around: the Milky Way is tiny, and the cameras show 3 seconds, 100000 years only in reverse order - 3 seconds have passed in the Milky Way, 100000 years for us.
So in short, Galaxy A - front clock 3 seconds, back clock 100000 years. Galaxy B - front clock 3 seconds, back clock 100000 years. Since the galaxies are moving in opposite directions the conjunctions will show (3, 100000) and (100000, 3)
So whose time is smaller? And the answer is as usual in the theory of relativity - it is relative. Depends on which reference system we are in. Each system will always see the other as the one in which time passes more slowly.
Israel
I got you. You're right.
Ofer
I may be wrong, but I may not be.
So, to finally clear up the confusion you're referring to, try addressing the following scenario:
The clocks between the first and last stars in the Milky Way are said to be synchronized.
When the traveler passes by the first star, the time on his watch and the star's clock is 0. This time is also captured by the high-resolution cameras located on the traveler and on the star that record both watches together.
What will the photos show?
My claim: the photos from the passenger's camera: passenger 0, Kochav Rishon 0. As above from Kochav Rishon's camera.
When it finishes its journey, it passes the last star, and again the cameras rattle and immortalize the two clocks together.
What will the photos look like here?
My claim: traveling 3 seconds, last star 100,000 years. And this in both pictures, from the traveler and the last star.
getting? If not, say what you think the photos will look like. They are very meaningful.
Miracles.
You understood correctly, but the 200,000 claim referred to the sentence:
"The clock at the edge of the galaxy is indeed seen by its length as advancing very quickly, but upon "landing" (which landing? Who even said that we are landing or even "stopping") we will see the same time display advancing 200,000 years from the time we saw when we started the journey. During this time, our clock advanced by only 3 seconds."
Do you understand now?
Good night to you both from Los Angeles.
Israel,
You have a basic misunderstanding that sterilizes the entire train story. And related to the incorrect sentence "and any propulsion system relative to this system will see its own time lower than that of the radiation system".
A. Ofer Maged wrote "And what if the three seconds of crossing the entire galaxy would last for us no less than a hundred thousand whole years...". From this you understood that at the end point of the galaxy, the traveler's clock will show 3 seconds, while the galaxy's clock will show 100000 years. But this is simply a confusion of 2 different relationship systems.
A.1. system in the passenger's rest system. In this system, the Milky Way is also short, about 3 light seconds long. It also moves very fast, so it passes in 3 seconds. But if the traveler looks at the Milky Way, what does he see? Lorentz transformation that if the Milky Way moves, then the clocks there also slow down. If the traveler looks at the Milky Way he will see that only 0.00000002 seconds have passed in that time (I may have forgotten a few zeros).
A.2. The rest system of the Milky Way. In this system, the Milky Way is very long, about 100000 light years. From the perspective of an observer resting at the far end of the Milky Way, 100000 years have passed by the time the traveler reaches the observer, but if he looks at the traveler's watch, he will see that 3 seconds have passed.
All of this follows directly from the Lorentz transformation, so, unfortunately, it's not that relevant whether you agree or disagree. That's what special relativity says, so you have to find a contradiction to that and not some other story.
A second basic misunderstanding is about the thermometer. 2 non-inertial systems neither on the temp nor on the rate of change in it. Certainly an accelerated system does not agree with a non-accelerated system. This is because of 2 points you are trying to sweep under the rug.
A. The thermometer is basically a radiation spectrum meter, nothing more and nothing less.
B. According to the theory of relativity, radiation "suffers" from redshift due to speed, redshift due to acceleration, and time slowing down (ie the time difference between 2 consecutive photons changes when you jump between systems).
Here we are really dealing with ampere phenomena that have been measured. Therefore, it is a little less relevant what you think about the thermometer - you are simply wrong.
That's why the sentence "This is why he meets the last star in a time of 3 seconds according to his clock and 100,000 years according to the clock of the star." Erroneous. in the passenger's system,
Oh, and about this question of yours:
Q: Is there any system where the age of the universe is over a hundred billion years? Yes No.
A: No.
If you want a reference to an upper limit, explain what it is.
Israel
You flew 100,000 light years at almost the speed of light. Time on Earth, and at the aunt's, advanced about 100,000 years. We will return to Earth - then another 100,000 years will pass.
What did I not understand correctly?
Miracles
At the moment, a landing permit has arrived for the LOC from MHA. Operation Doda is underway.
The reason for the 200,000 year time is this: when you pass the first clock, the time at it is 0. The distant clock you see (of course through the binoculars you always carry with you) as it was 100,000 years ago, or a time of -100,000 years.
When you land - and don't forget to brief the ground crew to light torches if the landing is at night - you see it from range 0, as Israel likes. The time in it now is 100,000+ and the time difference is 200,000 years.
Have a nice flight, and don't forget a sweater. It's cold in space, with or without radiation.
Israel
What do you care if I land there?? I have an aunt at the edge of the galaxy that I haven't seen in years...hundreds of thousands of years.
I don't know how you got to 200,000 years. I think I was wrong, and the time is yes 100,000 years. And if we return home then it will seem that 200,000 years have passed, although for us only 3 seconds have passed.
Miracles
I have a hard time understanding what you mean.
You write:
"Throughout the flight there, we will see the clock advancing very quickly, and upon landing the clock will show 3 seconds from now. Even in the spaceship, the clock will advance by 3 seconds. So both the pilot and the local residents will agree on the age of the universe...
And in any case - we move fast relative to space (hundreds of kilometers per second), yet we know how to measure the age of the universe.
No?"
No.
The clock at the edge of the galaxy is indeed seen by its length as advancing very quickly, but upon "landing" (which landing? Who even said that we are landing or even "stopping") we will see the same timepiece advancing 200,000 years from the time we saw when we started the journey. Our clock advanced in this time by only 3 seconds.
The age of the "universe" is irrelevant in the journey. The only relevant age is the age of the synchronized system of the Milky Way, and this is because we agreed that when we met the first star in it both his clock and our clocks showed 0.
The problem arises from the fact that if we use synchronized clocks instead of the synchronized system of the background radiation, then even when traveling in the opposite direction, i.e. at a speed of 0 relative to the background radiation, we should see the clocks on the road show a time that is more advanced than ours, while the last clock on the train that I suggested shows the most advanced time.
But very advanced time according to the bang theory means very low temperature. Therefore, according to this theory, within a few hours our temperature will reach almost absolute zero.
If we now remove the train from the picture, it seems that our temperature - which is relative to radiation - should have been at almost absolute zero a long time ago. You can be smart and say that if we accelerate and reach the speed of that hypothetical train, then this will indeed be our temperature.
The problem is that if we speed up relative to the background radiation, the temperature we measure will only increase, not decrease.
Hence the paradox.
Israel
great. Throughout the flight there, we will see the clock advancing very quickly, and upon landing the clock will show 3 seconds from now. Even in the spaceship, the clock will advance by 3 seconds. So both the pilot and the local residents will agree on the age of the universe...
And in any case - we move fast relative to space (hundreds of kilometers per second), yet we know how to measure the age of the universe.
No?
Miracles, I'm going to sleep. You don't need to convince me that there is no contradiction in proper relations - the problem in my opinion is the conflict with the bang theory. That is why there is no point in talking about clocks without referring to thermometers as well. Good night.
If it is synchronized with our clocks, absolutely. Also with Newton.
Israel
I think not only is my response correct, it also shows where you are wrong. Again - we see a clock from a distance of 100,000 light years. Do you agree that it would be 100,000 years behind the clock here?
Ofer
I asked you several times about an upper limit for the age of the universe. I even asked if the age of the universe could be over 100 billion years in any system.
Since your answer was "if everyone measures in their own system, then no" - it is natural to conclude that the answer is no. Otherwise the answer would have to be something between 0 and infinity, right?
If I were to ask you: What is the age of the continent of Antarctica? You can answer that it depends on how you measure, and you would be right. But if I ask you about the range of ages and an upper limit, you cannot say "there is no upper limit, it depends on which system of measurements" and ask me to conclude that there is no certain system in which the age of Antarctica is infinite, can you?
Why then do you say "then the universe has no age, i.e. it was not created in a bang before a specified period of time" - no, that's not what I'm saying 🙂 It's a shame you're inventing."
So I'll try one more time: is there any system where the age of the universe is over a hundred billion years? Yes No.
And if the answer is "no" - is there any kind of limit to the age of the universe in any system? Note that the limit must be less than a hundred billion years for the answer to be consistent.
"And any propulsion system relative to this system will show its own time lower than that of the radiation system" - how did you come to this? This is simply wrong. The lengthening of time means that my self-time is higher than the self-time of those who move in relation to me.
I don't believe this is wrong. If the traveler I was talking about meets the first star in the Milky Way at time 0 common to both - then assuming that all the clocks of the Milky Way (inertial system) are synchronized with each other, every other clock the traveler meets will show a higher time than his own. This is why he meets the last star in a time of 3 seconds according to his clock and 100,000 years according to the clock of the star.
"I suggest (politely) that you read a little about what special relativity and the big bang theory say before you try to show more contradictions."
It is very possible, but it is also possible that I am not the one who is wrong, as I showed in the previous paragraph.
"The temperature of the path has dropped by a degree in the meantime to 9, and the passenger writes in the diary: a drop of a degree in 3 seconds"
I'm sorry, but in this response you forgot everything we already discussed. Worse, this sentence is like writing Noah in 7 errors.
1. "It went down in the meantime" - in the meantime in Mi's system, for crying out loud
Not even one error. The temperature dropped in the Milky Way system as I mentioned one paragraph before, and this is the temperature that can also be measured with a mercury thermometer. If the traveler stops when he has reached the last planet and his thermometer reacts quickly, he will measure the same drop discussed. He can also use a radiation meter to get an instant reading, or a radiation watch that includes a two-way doppler meter if he doesn't want to even stop.
And this is in marked contrast to passenger B who moves at a speed of 0 relative to the radiation. If he "stops" - that is, accelerates and reaches the speed of the train moving relative to the radiation - he will not see any drop in his temperature, which has hardly changed in the 3 seconds according to his watch.
If you do not agree, try to give clear answers to the following questions:
1. Do you accept that if the traveler takes a picture of the clock and the thermometer of the first star on his face as he passes the milky way he will see time 0 and temperature 10K?
2. Do you accept that in the last star it will show 100,000 years and 9K?
Now we will reverse the order: at the same moment that he passes the first star, passenger B passes a train moving relative to the Milky Way. Passenger B is therefore stationary relative to the Milky Way.
3. Do you accept that the first carriage clock shot will show 0?
If we assume that the first car thermometer shows close to 10K:
4. Do you accept that the last wagon clock will show 100,000 years?
5. And now you tell me: what will the photograph of the thermometer in the last caravan show if it traveled for 100,000 years against the background radiation, if we stop it relative to it now and let it reach thermal equilibrium, or simply use a radiation meter that includes a Doppler meter? Not close to absolute 0?
Miracles
I always try not to refer to watches that I "see" beyond the immediate photo distance. The reason is that we get into a whole mess of reference systems and relative calculations.
You don't want us to get to a situation like in GPS watches that need some 20 different factors that contradict each other to calculate the exact time, do you?
Israel
Note. The time 100,000 light years from here is 100,000 years BP. So, when the passenger gets there in 3 seconds, he will see the time 3 seconds AP. Local time there will advance by 100,000 years. Think there is a clock there that we see from here. This clock will show 100,000 years BP at the moment of transmission. The clock will run forward very quickly during the flight, in the eyes of the one flying of course.
If the traveler decides to return he will initially see the time 100,000 years AP. And when he gets here he will see that here time has advanced by 200,000 years, even though for him only 3 seconds have passed.
And here goes the twin paradox…….
Israel,
"The temperature of the path has dropped by a degree in the meantime to 9, and the passenger writes in the diary: a drop of a degree in 3 seconds"
I'm sorry, but in this response you forgot everything we already discussed. Worse, this sentence is like writing Noah in 7 errors.
1. "It went down in the meantime" - in the meantime in Mi's system, for crying out loud 🙂
2. The temperature of the Milky Way is not a physical quantity, the Milky Way does not have a tusk in which to stick a thermometer. This is the spectrum of the background radiation (all the more so if you want to use the Friedman formula).
3. As I already explained, the background radiation is subject to the slowing down of time just like anything else
In the self-system of the traveler passing through the Milky Way, the change in background radiation corresponds to a change of 3 seconds, not a change of 100000 years.
This rest is already such a mess of reference systems that it is no longer possible to refer to it.
"The temperature of the trail dropped by a degree in the meantime to 9, and the passenger writes in the diary: a drop of a degree in 3 seconds."
\
Israel,
"So the universe has no age, that is, it was not created in a bang before a specified period of time" - no, that's not what I'm saying 🙂 It's a shame you're inventing.
It seems to me that the concept of the age of the universe is very confusing to you.
Think of it this way: What is the universe? It's not a train, and it's not a preferential system. This is the "time space", time space has no age at the level of definition - time itself is a part of it. What there is is an event - the big bang, where all the viewers were at the same point. Then each viewer can talk about how much time has passed in their system since the big bang. that's it.
"And any propulsion system relative to this system will show its own time lower than that of the radiation system" - how did you come to this? This is simply wrong. The lengthening of time means that my self-time is higher than the self-time of those who move in relation to me. That is, anyone moving relative to the radiation system will see the radiation system slower.
I even wrote a detailed response that shows how it happens - radio pulses in which the temperature of the background radiation is written in each pulse. remember?
Sorry, you failed to show a contradiction - I suggest (politely) that you read a little about what special relativity and the big bang theory have to say before you try to show more contradictions.
Miracles
Think about Ofer Maged's speeding traveler, the one who crosses the Milky Way in 3 seconds.
It is said that he started the journey when the temperature of the universe was 10 degrees Kelvin on both sides of the path, and finished it after 3 seconds according to his clock which is 100,000 years in the path system.
The temperature of the trail dropped by a degree in the meantime to 9, and the passenger writes in the log: a drop of a degree in 3 seconds.
When he started the journey, a long train passes by as a path (in its frame of reference of course) whose speed is relative to the path as the speed of the passenger. Passenger B makes the same trip along the length of the train, beating it in 3 seconds according to his watch.
Since passenger B is actually at rest relative to the path, the temperature drops by 3 seconds negligibly (after all, the passenger is actually you and I who are always at rest relative to the path). The far side of the train, on the other hand, measures a drop of 3 m in the first 100,000 seconds, and has another 100,000 years of movement against the background radiation (almost the rest system of the path). When passenger B meets the far side of the train, his temperature is already almost at absolute zero, and according to the Friedman formula he found out that... well, do 3 years in 100,000 seconds, multiply by XNUMX years and try to write down the result. We'll see if WordPress approves you.
And here is the simple technical matter: how is it that passenger B measures 10 degrees when he passes by the last train car whose temperature is almost at absolute 0?
I also could not understand how if the age of the universe in the radiation system is less than 14 billion years, the age of the universe for some passenger moving relative to it can be higher. Wasn't Michael Vanishing's constant claim that the age of the universe for photons is 0? So whose age is exactly higher than ours? At what speed is it moving relative to us and in what direction?
Israel
I can't figure out what the problem is. The background radiation is a reference system like any other reference system. We know that the Earth moves relative to this system, yet we know the age of the universe (from our vantage point).
How does this contradict anything in the theory of relativity?
Ofer
And if they do not agree on one system, then the universe has no age, that is, it was not created in a bang before a specified period of time - 13.7 billion years according to Friedman's formula - and it has basically always existed as believed in 1905?
And to the point of my argument: if there is a preferred system - the background radiation system, in which the age of the universe is finite (say 14 billion years, but it can be any age as long as it is finite) and any propulsion system relative to this system will see its own time lower than that of a system The radiation - do you accept that in such a case the lengthening of time in relationships conflicts with the big bang theory in which the universe has a finite age?
Israel,
"Upper limit for the age of the universe" - the age of the universe in whose system? If everyone agrees on one inertial system then yes.
If everyone measures in their own system, then no.
Ofer
In GPS navigation there are several other corrections, such as the Seniac phenomenon and the effect of the atmosphere on the speed of light.
As far as I know, time can only be slowed down, so I don't see anyone being able to measure over 14 billion years.
I think there is something in Israel's words, if I understood him correctly. Nevertheless, there is a preferred system of attribution - this is the speed at which the law of mourning is fulfilled. If you take off from the earth and accelerate in a straight line at high speed, it seems to me that the speed is measurable.
Ofer
Since it's a bit difficult for me to understand how a relatively heavy particle like a muon can reach 99% of the speed of light without acceleration, I'd be happy if we skip the verifications step and approach the theory.
Since it seems to me that you accept that there is an upper limit to the age of the universe in certain areas of it, and since you claim that people traveling at different speeds passing at the same time at a certain moment past a specific point in such an area will not agree on what the age of the universe is, do you accept that everyone will nevertheless agree on what the upper limit is in that given moment?
Do you accept that it is technically also possible to know what the same limit is? (A radiation watch with a two-way doppler meter seems to me to be a good idea, but others are also possible).
Israel,
Regarding the muons - the muons do not accelerate, but are created from the beginning in an energetic collision, and at a high speed relative to us. As it is written in Wikipedia: in the atmosphere very fast moving muons are introduced by cosmic rays
Don't forget that it is necessary to explain why the GPS satellites require a double time correction - one that stems from general relativity and one that stems from special relativity.
"What about the age of the universe today?" - Actually the question already has problems. The universe is not a train, because the whole train is synchronized, but the universe is not synchronized, there are parts that move relative to each other. The word "now" is problematic - "now" in which part?
Maybe you mean "could someone get here today for whom the age of the universe is 100 billion years?" - On the face of it, it seems to me not, because of the image of the State of Israel. In any case, those who want to claim that such a passenger can arrive, need to explain how, according to special/general relativity, he accumulated these years.
Ofer
The "Aka" explanation is only one possible explanation, and I am glad that you showed - to my delight - that it is not true. I would appreciate it if you could see that my other arguments are also incorrect, and get the jock out of my head.
Another explanation is possible: the muons accelerate to reach the same high speed. So it's not exactly an inertial system, is it?
We agreed about the train. What about the age of the universe today? Can it also be 100 billion years according to some relativistic calculation method that includes the big bang theory?
Israel,
1. I accept your claim about the train.
2. You understood my claim correctly, but the claim is a fact - as mentioned, as far as GPS satellites are concerned, the age of the universe is (slightly) different.
3. Someone who passes us by and claims that the age of the universe is greater - maybe if we were in acceleration/gravitational well and he wasn't.
4. I would be happy if you would address the problems I mentioned regarding "the background radiation that causes a strain in systems that move against it" - do you still stand behind this idea?
Ofer
In the sentence "that at every point in the universe at every given moment the universe has one and only age" - the problem is in the phrase "at every given moment", not the age of the universe.
I see what you mean, but it has nothing to do with, I understand, the twin paradoxes. The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years here and now. The word "now" only means "here"...
Miracles,
I have no dispute about the sentence "2 viewers at point A who look at point B will necessarily see the same thing."
But this is very far from saying that "at every point in the universe at any given moment the universe has one and only age" which is a quote from Israel.
This sentence is simply wrong, or at the very least worded in a very, very sloppy way, perhaps you can say, "at any point in the universe you can measure how much time has passed in the local area of that point since the beginning of the universe", but the fact that at any point you can measure does not mean that all measurements will show the same Nothing.
The entire universe is also allowed to decide on a common point that everyone can see and measure how much time has passed at the common point since the beginning of the universe (requires the use of the Lorentz transform) - this is the only way that will make everyone get the same result, just like what happens with GPS.
And yet, if Twin B returned after a year according to his watch to the car where the clock shows that 20 years have passed - do you accept that 20 years have passed in every car on the train while only one year has passed for Twin B?
Another question: If I understand your claim correctly, then the universe does not have a definite age at any point at a given moment. So if a traveler passes me at high speed, he can claim that the age of the universe is different from mine.
The age of the universe is estimated at 13.7 billion years.
Is there any kind of relativistic argument that also includes the big bang theory, according to which the age of the universe is 40 billion years or some passenger passing by at this moment (May 27, 2014)?
If not, what is the approximate possible age range?
Israel,
a train? I hope you are not going to repeat the same train drills from a discussion that was here once, for example:
– A train whose age is greater than the age of the universe that contains it
- A train that passes the locomotive at speed must be synchronized with its last car (the last car is neither in the same position nor in the same inertial system)
Ofer
By chance I used to deal with GPS satellites, and in particular with the clock repairs there. But to his point - 2 viewers at point A who look at point B will necessarily see the same thing. It has nothing to do with physics, it's just logic.
Let's look at the twin paradox. 2 twins on earth. There is a star 1000 light years away. Twin A flies to this star at a speed of gamma = 1000. This twin will see the star at a distance of one light year and it will take him, for him, one year to reach it. Regarding twin B - 1000 years have passed. Twin A returns to Earth at the same speed. Again - as far as he was concerned, another year had passed, and as far as Twin B was concerned, another 1000 years had passed. Now - for two twins, everything will look like 2000 years have passed. It doesn't matter what they are looking at. The only "strange" thing is that twin A only aged two years.
Continue to Israel.
In light of my description, do you agree that according to the Lorentz transformation (even if you don't accept it) - from the point of view of the moving twin the background radiation does indeed cool more slowly? If so, then at the very least it can be said that this specific attempt to find a contradiction in private relations failed.
Speaking of your alternative explanation for the slowing down of time: "All systems in which time is lengthened move against the background radiation. The radiation - like acceleration or gravity - causes the system to be in a state of stress - STRESS - which slows down the clocks" - I haven't heard the whole thing yet, but it already has much more serious problems than the contradiction you described.
First of all, you wrote "if an experiment had been conducted in the opposite direction" - but it is impossible, the background radiation comes from all directions with almost the same intensity. A more serious problem is that the power of your home wifi is about a billion times greater (I may have missed an order of magnitude or two) than the power of the background radiation, which allows you to do an experiment at home. Is the clock at home running slower? Or is the slowing down a unique property of the wavelength of the background radiation (160ghz) or some other mysterious property of these photons?
In physical experiments that are deep in the earth, just so as not to be exposed to the background radiation or any other cosmic radiation, they discovered that their clocks run faster for some unknown reason?
Ofer, cow cow.
Instead of "universe" we will refer to a long train whose car clocks are synchronized with each other and the two twins travel in car 734.
Twin B leaves the train and returns after a year according to his watch and finds his brother 20 years older.
Do you accept that the entire train has matured in 20 years as well?
Israel,
The link I referred to is definitely related to the matter. The Lorentz transformation says this:
1. The Noah twin aged 10 billion years
2. The movable twin aged only one year.
3. The Blink galaxy (moving relative to us at 95% of the speed of light) aged half a billion years.
Not the entire universe is at rest relative to us, and there is no consensus on the age of the universe. sad but true.
The doppler meter in your section 2 does not solve the problem. Describe the following thought experiment.
The resting twin has a clock that once a second fires a radio signal. This radio signal includes a measurement of the background radiation temp. So let's say that the temperature drops by epsilon degrees per second. In the system of the moving twin, his brother's clock moves slower (so says the Lorentz transformation - doesn't matter right now if you get it). That is, from the point of view of the moving twin, the signals arrive more than a second apart - its brother really cools down more slowly.
But what would happen if the moving fireplace measured the background radiation itself? Well, imagine that for every radio signal sent there is a photon of background radiation that is right next to it and moving in exactly the same direction, so the radio signal simply describes the temperature of the photon next to it. What comes out is that the real photons of the background radiation also arrive at the moving hearth more than a second apart. That is, even if he measures himself, he will get the exact same result.
This explanation is partial, because the background radiation comes from all directions - but the slowing down of time (according to the Lorentz transformation) works in the same way both on the direction we came from and on the direction we are going.
Ok, but what if?
Miracles,
I am replying to you kindly so that WordPress does not get angry with me for trashing the system with 2 comments in two hours.
You wrote "If the two twins are in the same place, then inevitably they will see the universe at the same age." - You are making the same mistake that Israel is making, "age" is not a common and synchronized property for the entire universe - only for your local area and your inertial system.
Think of it this way: Let's say we shrink the entire universe to the size of the State of Israel. Every galaxy is a city, and we live in Tel Aviv. You tell me: the entire State of Israel is 66 years old. Great. But when we look through the telescope at Petah Tikva, we are celebrating 65 years there, while in Haifa we are celebrating only 30 years, and so on and so forth.
10 years have passed. In Tel Aviv they are celebrating 76 years, but in Haifa they are only now celebrating 32 years. Are you telling me what the problem is? We will go to visit Haifa to see what the age there "really" is (ha ha, you made Einstein laugh). The car ride takes 20 years (without acceleration, from such a strange bus), but in Haifa only 10 years have passed (private relationship).
We will immediately return to Tel Aviv, you say. You travel back in another 30 years (the State of Israel is expanding and the distance between the cities is increasing). But because of the turning of the horseshoe (paradox of the twins) you aged 50 years and TA aged 500 years. You check if there is already a subway. No, not yet.
In short, this is our country, so do you understand why I say that the "age of the country" is not common to the entire country, but at most to the city where we are?
Ags, whoever thinks that the story is too crazy, and the reality is not like that - feel free to go read about the GPS on Wikipedia and find out that the reality is actually like that.
Ofer
If the twin returns and his brother has aged 50 years as his long beard shows, and his brother's watch also shows that 50 years have passed, then there is no doubt that both - the brother and the watch - have indeed aged 50 years. Even in a billion if that's what the clock shows.
Every system whose time is synchronized with them - and anyone who is at rest relative to them is automatically synchronized - has also aged by 50 years.
Since the "universe" or in fact everything that is at rest relative to the background radiation to which the remaining twin is relatively stationary - is synchronized with the remaining twin, then that universe also aged at the same rate as the remaining twin. This is the essence of the paradox: why did one really age and the other did not.
The link you referred to is not relevant.
What about section 2? Do you agree that the doppler meter solves the problem?
Ofer
If the two twins are in the same place, then inevitably they will see the universe at the same age. This is a logical necessity at all, and not related to physics. The returning twin will find that both his brother and the rest of the world have grown older than him. And again - it has nothing to do with acceleration.
"So how is it that only a year has passed in the universe?"
It's your mistake. When you try to describe how 10 billion years have passed in the "universe" you mean all those objects in the inertial system of the resting twin - and in its vicinity: its galaxy and even the background radiation (the speed of KDHA relative to the "resting system of the background radiation" is very small).
Without even getting up from your chair you can see an area of the universe for which the universe is only 700 million years old. All you need is to click on the link: http://www.space.com/23306-ancient-galaxy-farthest-ever-seen.html. According to the Lorentz transformation (which has been empirically proven), even if we wait 10 billion years in the future, the same galaxy will look as if it has aged only in 1/2 billion.
Imagine a hypothetical situation in which the twin who goes on a tour takes the entire galaxy with him except for the Earth on which the poor naan twin is left, alone and in the dark. After 10 billion years, the mischievous twin returns with the entire galaxy - and here all the stars in the vicinity of the gentle twin have hardly aged!
Then again, how can you claim that "the universe has aged by 10 billion years"? This is only true for your local area.
Israel
Now I understand what you are saying, and what Ofer is saying. Of course you are right - otherwise a contradiction arises (and I don't mean that you can't be wrong 🙂 ).
The problem is that Ofer claims that from the point of view of the traveling twin the universe only aged a year..
It doesn't matter that the cuckoo clock of his brother Khatiyar has already made a hundred billion koku..
Israel
I think you are wrong. If the twin flies and returns - it will discover that the entire universe has aged by 10 billion years, right? Where is the problem?
Israel
The lower the satellite, the higher its speed, right? In terms of accelerations - the centripetal force is equal to the force of gravity so the satellite is at 0 acceleration. The deceleration component resulting from general relativity is always 45 microseconds per day (the satellite clock is faster). The component that results from the theory of special relativity is the one that depends on the height, and the difference is smaller as the height increases.
Approximately - the difference due to the speed at low altitude is 12 microseconds per day, at the height of GPS satellites 6 microseconds per day and at the height of communication satellites 3 microseconds.
This is not an insignificant amount of time - the accuracy of GPS clocks is 200 nanometers.
Ofer
If in the example you gave the twin would return not after 20 years but after 10 billion years, it would be a bit difficult for him to claim that the universe aged only a year. Stars he knew as a child turned into red giants or white dwarfs, the galaxies Oren played with moved away and disappeared into space, and the worst thing is that it's terribly cold, isn't it?
So how is it that only a year has passed in the universe?
Israel, you wrote:
"Don't you accept the fact that at every point in the universe at any given moment the universe has one and only age and all the wisdom is how to "decrease" that age, and the radiation clock is just one of many technical proposals?"
No, I do not accept this definition, because it is inaccurate.
1. All places in the universe can calculate the age of the universe but only for one particular inertial system. (Assuming they use the Lorentz transformation - do you accept the Lorentz formulas?).
There is even such an example - the gps satellites all calculate the "age of the universe on the earth" (that is, the time in XNUMX) even though they are moving relative to it. And they all agree on the same age (which happens because they use the Lorentz transformation).
2. But if all the places in the universe don't agree on the same inertial system, and everyone tries to measure something in their own system, then they won't agree on the age of the universe. For section 2 I have an empirical proof - the twins paradox. I am describing an experiment that was actually carried out, only the numbers were exaggerated for the sake of the story - exactly when the universe was 15 billion years old, Twin A and Twin B were at the same point, then Twin A stayed there for 20 years, and Twin B went for a spin. And when twin B came back, he aged only a year. Now, no matter how you turn it around, in terms of twin B the age of the universe is 15 billion+1 while in terms of twin A the age of the universe is 15 billion+20 - there is no reason to say that the first age is more "correct" than the second age (or vice versa).
Isn't that a bit backwards? The lower and faster the satellite, the stronger the gravity and radial acceleration, right?
Israel
Do you have another way to explain what happens with the clocks in low satellites? We see their clocks as slower, and they see ours as slower. GPS satellites are slow and high, so gravity has more of an effect, but the situation is simpler at low altitude.
Oh, then no. I am not claiming that the speed of light is not constant for all observers.
This is what follows from Maxwell's equations, and this is what the experiments show, according to the Michelson-Morley experiment.
I'm just claiming that there could be a different explanation for this than the lengthening of times and the shortening of length.
This is me….
Israel
It's you who deduces things 🙂
I asked a question...
I ask, because I think that the constancy of the speed of light requires that time depends on the frame of reference.
Miracles
And how did you figure it out? Maybe because in the previous post I wrote "because the speed of light is the same for every meter regardless of its speed"?
Israel
Are you claiming that the speed of light is not constant for all observers?
Ofer, even three out of four is something.
Regarding point 2 - didn't you ignore the doppler meter? If a doppler meter is installed in my radiation watch and the state-of-the-art Pentium processor immediately weighs the deviation to blue (movement in the direction of the radiation) and red (away from it) - then what is the problem that the output would be the radiation spectrum if I were at rest relative to it at that point?
Do you not accept the fact that at any point in the universe at any given moment the universe has one and only age and all the wisdom is how to "decrease" that age, and the radiation clock is just one of many technical proposals?
As for your explanation of time dilation, it also holds with rifle bullets instead of photons in a Newtonian system. I believe the explanation is a bit more complex: even though the measurer moves away from the source by half C, after the photon reaches it it will move away from it at speed C. Since the speed of light is the same for every measurer regardless of its speed, Einstein claims that what changes is distance and time.
Regarding the empirical verifications for the lengthening of time that you brought, such as the experiment of the airplanes from Kipi Eretz and the GPSs - in my opinion, they suffer from one major problem: all the systems in which time is lengthened move against the background radiation. The radiation - like acceleration or gravity - causes the system to be stressed - STRESS - which slows down the clocks.
If an experiment were conducted in the opposite direction - for example, muons that start from a state of motion relative to the radiation so that the gamma factor is equal to 5 and accelerate until they come to rest relative to the radiation and even then their lifespan would increase as in common muons - this would be a real confirmation for me.
And speaking of verifications: do you know any verification of the Lorentz contraction?
Do I agree to the "heart of the matter"? No. I think there is another, much more logical explanation.
But first, perhaps we should close section 2. Do you accept that the Doppler solves the problem? If not, why?
Hi, Israel
Miracles - I apologize for not answering you - in fact I did but WordPress deleted. I am trying to complete at least a conversation with Israel.
1. Yes
2. No. "The time that has passed since the explosion, regardless of the speed of the meter relative to the radiation?" This is simply not true according to special relativity. Those who differ in relation to radiation, and those who differ in relation to it, will not agree on "the time that has passed since the beginning of the bang".
3. Yes - only when they are in the exact same place, they will agree on "the time that has passed since the beginning of the bang".
4. Yes
Now some of my points:
A. You wrote "My argument is with the lengthening of time in inertial systems" - I want to explain the basic idea of the lengthening of time because it is critical to the discussion.
Suppose that meter B moves at half the speed of light relative to meter A. Surveyor A sends 2 photons a minute apart in his direction. Measurer B will receive the 2 photons with a difference of more than a minute - because in that minute he managed to move away exactly half a light minute, and the second photon had to cross a greater distance. This is the basic idea behind the "prolongation of time in inertial systems". You don't agree with him - ok, except that this idea has been empirically proven in several different experiments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation, so to me this disagreement is ignoring reality.
The GPS that many use every day takes into account the exact same effect, because the GPS satellites move relative to the observer resting on the ground:
The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time dilation effects as described above, so that (as observed from the earth's surface) they run at the same rate as clocks on the surface of the Earth
B. There is no important difference between a pair of photons that meter A sent one minute apart, and a pair of photons of the moment's radiation, which passed meter A one minute apart, and moved in the direction the meter was moving. The two pairs will reach the second measurer with a difference of more than a minute.
And that's the heart of the matter. The "radiation clock" of a meter that moves in relation to the radiation of the moment, behaves exactly like the video transmission of the normal clock that moves in relation to the radiation. That is, when - I use a "radiation clock" I am, so to speak, looking at a regular clock that rests in relation to the radiation.
And the point is - do you agree to the heart of the matter? If not, why?
WordPress is evil.. he yells at me that I send too many comments.
Ofer, it is also possible with a radiation meter instead of a thermometer. It just complicates the argument.
1. Do you accept that a radiation meter connected to a computer and using the Friedman formula, will always be able to show the time (in seconds) that has passed since the bang, as long as this device is stationary relative to the background radiation?
2. If we add a Doppler meter to the facility, do you accept that we will get a "radiation clock" that always shows the time that has passed since the explosion, regardless of the speed of the meter relative to the radiation?
3. Do you accept that two surveyors who pass each other quickly and photograph the radiation clocks on both sides, will agree on the same time?
4. Do you accept that a radiation clock placed in relation to radiation ticks at the same rate as a regular clock that is next to it, that is, if the clocks were calibrated to a common 0 time, a joint video recording of the two clocks will always show the same time on both?
Israel, I really hope that this experiment will work. WordPress really abuses me..
You said: "Thermometer. mercury. baby. Not radiation." How do you say: here I suspected. Thermometer? Yes, radiation, and more. A few comments below, you wrote the following sentence:
"If I'm not mistaken, this is Friedman's formula, a continuous function of the relationship between the radiation temperature and the exact time that has passed since the big bang. (There is even a small calculator below if its input is temp., the output is time in seconds since the bang)."
That is, you are aware that there is a connection between the age of the universe and the "radiation temperature". Later you wrote:
"However, I could not understand how exactly this temperature is measured. Radiometer? A normal thermometer? Is this just the spectrum characteristic of the background radiation temperature, or will the space temperature also be measured with a mercury thermometer?"
So let's break down the answer into parts:
1. "Radiation meter?" - Yes
2. "A normal thermometer?" - Possible, but it will take many, many years, and the thermometer will have to be very far from the sun
3. "Is this just the spectrum typical of the background radiation temperature" - yes (space does not have a toss that you can stick a thermometer in, see also note below).
4. "Even with a mercury thermometer will the temperature of the space be measured?" - Yes, but the thermometer will show this temperature, in *g*l*l which is affected by background radiation of a certain wavelength. Read for example here:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980301b.html
If we put a thermometer in the darkest space, with absolutely nothing around, it would first have to cool off. This might take a very very long time. Once it cooled off, it would read 2.7 Kelvin. This is because of the "3 degree microwave background radiation." No matter where you go, you cannot escape it — it is always there.
Jonathan Keohane
for Ask an Astrophysicist
Note to section 3 - "black body radiation" and Planck's equation links the temperature of a body to the wavelength of the radiation emitted from it. The Friedman equation is based on the same "blackbody radiation" - that is, when you use the Friedman equation, you at least accept that the "space temperature" is in total the wavelength of the background radiation.
And in a much less important matter, the traveling brother can see from a distance of millions of light years, in exactly the same way that he sees the background radiation that comes from a distance of billions of light years - his brother sends a continuous video transmission in his direction (or alternatively, a radio signal at a fixed time interval).
In short, "Yes radiation!!" Let us agree that the mercury thermometer as a whole measures the wavelength of the background radiation - nothing more and nothing less. You can throw it away and use a radiation meter, it's much more convenient.
Father, this morning at 9:XNUMX I sent a detailed response (from the computer at work).. nothing happened. 🙁
Send her again. Probably deleted because I was flooded with thousands of spam comments and I couldn't read them all
Oh wordpress, when will my comment be released? 🙂
Ofer
If twin B saw his brother's clock stuck for six months - this means that twin B was in infinite acceleration for six months...
And of course no one can see a clock jumping - time will always be continuous.
Ofer, did you read Ofer's article?
Because accelerations are not mentioned there at all.
I have no doubt that as you say "an accelerated clock runs slower". This is indeed an empirical fact. My argument is with the lengthening of times in inertial, non-accelerating systems.
When you say: "Twin B saw his brother's clock stuck for half a year, then jumps a billion years ahead in an instant, then stuck again for half a year" - what do you mean? How exactly did he see his brother from hundreds of millions of light years away?
The only thing he can see is the clock on his face is passing. If we do the individual calculation - I am ready if there is a demand - I believe I can show the contradiction between the lengthening of time in inertial systems and the bang theory.
Zvi does not say "the temperature in space is not some kind of magical property, it is all about the wavelength of the background radiation". His words: "If you put a thermometer in space today, very far from any galaxy, it will show after a long time 2.7 degrees and .... years ago it would indeed show 3000 degrees".
Thermometer. mercury. baby. No radiation.
The temp decreases as a continuous function of the time that has passed since the bang according to Friedman's formula. Certainly not like time on a clock that "jumps forward a billion years in an instant, then gets stuck again for half a year".
Israel, you run too fast. First of all refer to what I wrote.
Twin B saw his brother's clock stuck for half a year, then jump a billion years ahead in an instant, then stuck again for half a year. This is actually an empirical fact (an accelerated clock runs slower). Do you agree that the temp behaves in the same way and does not drop at a constant rate, as you described?
I remind you what Zvi said - the temperature in space is not some kind of magical property, it is all about the wavelength of the background radiation. The same laws of nature operate on the photon of the background radiation (Peker) and the photon of the video transmission of the hearth clock (Peshosh).
Yoda
The twin set off in the year 500,000 into the universe - the temperature is well above 1000K.
Maccabi "Tel Aviv" Elek... At least in 77 we had Brody Berkowitz and Aerosti...
On the other hand, Rice sounds Jewish, doesn't he?
As Stevie Wonder said: True, I'm blind - but at least I'm not a nigger!
Offer Nissim.
The same problem also exists in the system without accelerations. See Ofer Maged's article: "The Milky Way in just three seconds":
http://ofer-megged.blogspot.com/2011/09/blog-post.html
Ofer, you... you know the article, right?
The article describes a traveler passing the Milky Way (100,000 light years) in a time that for him is only 3 seconds. It is much faster than our B-twin, which is a billion light-years per year, and more importantly, it is not specified how it reached this high speed.
If his journey had been conducted 13 billion years ago (and admit, you won't tell us when to conduct our experiments!) then we would have reached data similar to what I described in the previous post - only without accelerations. They are not relevant.
The passenger would pass station A where his and the station's temperature was measured and photographed as 1500K, and arrive after a year according to his watch at station B where the temperature is only 500K. An average drop of 3 degrees per day.
Everything is fine and dandy, until we try to conduct the experiment in the opposite way - that is, the passenger is "stationary" at station A and the Milky Way, or whatever it is, is the one that passes by quickly.
In this case the temperature hardly changes for the passenger. But still, after a year's time according to the Eliba D'Hissut universe clock, he aged by a billion years, and therefore his temperature dropped by 1000K.
So what, the passenger and the station measure 1500K at his place and 500K at station B? How? After all, both are in open space and pass each other, so where does the huge difference in temperatures come from?
Ofer
Contrary to popular opinion - the twin paradox can be explained without any connection to accelerations. It is also a much simpler explanation….
To see this, think that the twin flew twice as far. The time difference has now doubled - without any difference in acceleration.
Continue to Israel:
In Twin B's system, there is no fundamental difference between the radio messages from Twin A and the background radiation. If according to the radio messages the age of A jumped from a second to a billion years in one moment, so the temperature of the universe also dropped in one moment and not by 3 degrees per day.
post Scriptum. Even in a pool with an average depth of 5 cm you can drown without any paradox. Have a nice summer!
Israel, you wrote: Most of the cooling is during the unaccelerated movement. is that so?
In every description of the twin paradox, which I read on Wikipedia, in terms of the traveling twin (B), the moment of acceleration is very important. If we take your numbers, then before the acceleration twin B traveled for half a year and he sees twin A as if only a second had passed for him. After the acceleration, he looks at Twin A and sees that a billion years minus one second have passed.
Dear Israel Shapira
Trying to get to the bottom of your words
Just explain to me how a universe whose temperature is less than three degrees Kelvin can drop by a thousand degrees??
little I understand that you were just exaggerating from the relaxed enthusiasm of an astronomical fury.
I am currently in the phase of opening a nice idea. Delete everything and build all physics from scratch and only if something is missing from the simple explanations add relativistic quantum explanations Aliba Darbi Israel Shapira
When I'm done, I'll be happy to share the creation with you if you're interested.
Right now everything is working out for me with three of the simplest rules in the world
So have a good day
And how fun that Maccabi are European champions
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Stupid wordpress.. section of the response. Here is the full:
Zvi, thank you for helping to clarify the issue of the relevance of the background radiation (no relevance).
What is relevant? Relativity and the Big Bang.
And here we have a problem.
We can see it if we return for a moment to the battered twin paradox.
As I remember, twin A is moving around in the spaceship while twin B gets into the old car - or maybe the spaceship - and puts gas. When he returns from his year-long journey, his elderly brother is already a billion years old and he is only 21 years old.
Everything is beautiful and nice in 1905. An infinite, homogeneous, isotropic universe, always was and always will be. peace
Today is a mess. When he returns, not only has his brother aged, the universe has also cooled by 1000 degrees. When they compare their videos, it turns out that for twin A, the temperature dropped at a rate of 3 degree per million years on average, while for twin B, it decreased by XNUMX degrees per day. Most of the decrease in B was when he was in non-accelerated motion.
Since they both know Postulate A well, they ask: after all, we were both in inertial systems, so how is it that there is such a large measurable difference between the systems?
Moreover, they make it difficult: after all, the flight directions were chosen at random. To the same extent, twin C could accelerate from twin D, so that it was stationary relative to twin A. So what, for twin A, the temperature would drop by 3 degrees per million years and for twin C - which is adjacent to it and rests relative to it, so that they can move from one spaceship to the other - by XNUMX degrees per day?
Not to mention that in C the universe ages a billion times faster than in A adjacent to it.
In the past, when I presented this argument, the usual answer was: for an observer at rest relative to the cosmic background radiation, the universe is slowly aging. For those who move relative to it, the universe ages quickly.
However, here the true face of the background radiation is revealed - just radiation in a dime - and therefore the answer cannot be correct.
Furthermore: if I'm not mistaken, the formula for the relationship between temperature and the age of the universe preceded Gamow's theory of the background radiation.
So how does it work out?
?
??
??!?
drive slowly
What is relevant? Relativity and the Big Bang.
And here we have a problem.
We can see it if we return for a moment to the battered twin paradox.
As I remember, twin A is moving around in the spaceship while twin B gets into the old car - or maybe the spaceship - and puts gas. When he returns from his year-long journey, his elderly brother is already a billion years old and he is only 21 years old.
Everything is beautiful and nice in 1905. An infinite, homogeneous, isotropic universe, always was and always will be. peace
Today is a mess. When he returns, not only has his brother aged, the universe has also cooled by 1000 degrees. When they compare their videos, it turns out that for twin A, the temperature dropped at a rate of 3 degree per million years on average, while for twin B, it decreased by XNUMX degrees per day. Most of the decrease in B was when he was in non-accelerated motion.
Since they both know Postulate A well, they ask: after all, we were both in inertial systems, so how is it that there is such a large measurable difference between the systems?
Moreover, they make it difficult: after all, the flight directions were chosen at random. To the same extent, twin C could accelerate from twin D, so that it was stationary relative to twin A. So what, for twin A, the temperature would drop by 3 degrees per million years and for twin C - which is adjacent to it and rests relative to it, so that they can move from one spaceship to the other - by XNUMX degrees per day?
Not to mention that in C the universe ages a billion times faster than in A adjacent to it.
In the past, when I presented this argument, the usual answer was: for an observer at rest relative to the cosmic background radiation, the universe is slowly aging. For those who move relative to it, the universe ages quickly.
However, here the true face of the background radiation is revealed - just radiation in a dime - and therefore the answer cannot be correct.
Furthermore: if I'm not mistaken, the formula for the relationship between temperature and the age of the universe preceded Gamow's theory of the background radiation.
So how does it work out?
?
??
??!?
drive slowly
Avner Ben Ner,
There is no reason for dispersions to correct each other, if it is a random process then there is an accumulation that goes like the square root of the number of collisions. Furthermore, you did not address the arguments regarding the scattering cross section (from which we already know that a typical particle does not scatter) and resonance.
Israel Shapira,
Cosmic radiation is a completely different story, it originates in completely defined astrophysical places (AGNs, supernovae, etc.) and from there it spreads in more or less random directions - in any case, its speed depends on the structure and location of the source.
Regarding your question about heating the particle, heating is a problematic term because it is about a single particle. However, there is a certain effect here and you need to think a little more deeply about what it will do (unfortunately, it is very possible because this includes long and very undesirable integrals).
and a few more things:
A. Such rains are harmful to agriculture,
B. My head is cold, close a window,
third. They discovered a star that has life on it.
I don't know, let's hear what Zvi says.
(Maybe such rains are harmful to farmers?)
Israel
Regarding your section 3. If the reason for the speed limit is the background radiation, then why doesn't any feature of the particle have an effect on the maximum speed?
deer
In response to your response to the words dated 2014-05-19. I will try to refine my arguments.
A]. According to accepted estimates, the gas density in intergalactic space is on average about one atom per cm.
Low density indeed... but the universe is big.
There are tiny effects that repair themselves, so that over long distances (millions and billions of light years) they cancel out and don't exist. On the other hand, there are tiny effects that accumulate, so even if they are not noticeable in short ranges of hundreds and thousands of light years, in long ranges their effect is noticeable and measurable.
The average scattering angle of the photons by the rarefied gas is extremely small and along the path of the photon's movement in space the scattering angles offset and "correct" themselves.
On the other hand, the redshift effect as a result of the AM interaction between the photons and the atoms is a cumulative effect and does not depend on the scattering angle.
The result is, as mentioned, that the dispersion effect is canceled, while the redshift effect is accumulated.
B]. I did not claim that "there is no redshift resulting from the expansion".
My argument is that there is a redshift resulting from the A.M. interaction. As I described. I will call it (for the sake of convenience only), "A.M. Friction."
The problem with the A.M. friction effect. is that it is negligible at relatively short astronomical ranges, and is measurable only at long astronomical ranges.
third]. I do not disagree with the idea of the big bang, but I offer a different description for it:
"...we imagine it as a spherical space that keeps expanding (although it doesn't necessarily have to be spherical)....According to this description, the bang occurs at the edge of the universe and is the cause of the expansion of the universe"
This description can be called "the continuous bang".
It seems to me that the idea of the "continuous bang" is consistent both with the direction of the arrow of time (because it also started from a singular point) and with the prediction of the cosmic background radiation, although under a slightly different explanation than the explanation given by the "big bang" theory. According to the big bang the background radiation is the result of inflation, according to the continuous bang the background radiation is the result of the collapse of (most) matter into the galaxies.
deer
1. Does the normal cosmic radiation also have a preferred relaxation system like the background radiation?
2. Movement against the background radiation system is accompanied by warming of the moving body. Do you know the rate of warming? For example, if a body moves through space at a relative speed so that the gamma factor is equal to 1000, will it heat up much above 2.7K or at a minimal rate?
3. Particles in accelerators also move against the background radiation. What wonder then that they cannot pass a certain speed? After all, even without relativity, you need infinite energy to reach the speed of light, and that's because of the background radiation, right?
Israel Shapira
1. It is interesting, then, how he solved the matter.
2. It is clear that the background radiation system has a preferred rest system, just as the Earth has a preferred system, for Andromeda or any other body. The theory of relativity states that the laws of nature look the same in every system and in this respect there is no ether - the speed of light, for example, is constant relative to the observer and not relative to an absolute system. The fact that the cosmic background radiation is not uniform in a system that is different from its own system is not problematic, just as if you are in a system different from the system of KDA, KDA will move.
This does not contradict an isotropic and homogeneous universe and it is your choice to decide that the cosmic background radiation is more important than anything else and to give it the status of an ether (nature disagrees with you and gives it status like any other system - if you move in relation to it you see it undergo a Doppler shift).
3. Assuming you don't mean subatomic particles of cosmic radiation, then as far as is known no (with the caveat I'll state at the end). To be at that speed you need something to move you at that speed and apart from compact bodies (black holes/neutron stars) nothing can give that speed. Furthermore, even compact objects are able to grant such velocities to bodies under very certain conditions - for example, the body that was granted the velocity must also be compact, otherwise it will not survive the tidal forces near the compact object that will accelerate it. Also, two bodies are not enough - to conserve momentum and energy you must have a three-body interaction so that one body can escape if the energy and interaction of three compact bodies, at distances that are orders of magnitude of their Schwarzschild radius is an event that is very difficult to organize (moreover, if it is organized That within a few hundred thousand years, your fast and rare object will fly out of the galaxy and be left without this thing again.
The only situation where such fast bodies are likely to be created is in mergers of black holes. In these cases, a huge amount of gravitational radiation is emitted and since in the last stages of the merger the emission is not homogeneous, it carries with it momentum in a non-isotropic way and the excess momentum remains entirely in the black hole created by the merger - as a result of this the black hole receives a "kick" (the accepted terminology is kick). The typical speed in these cases for black holes with comparable masses is on average about a tenth of the speed of light (I am not familiar with the exact numbers but this is the order of magnitude). Needless to say that such events have not yet been located, but in principle the theory that will lead to their formation is well established. The pace can be debated.
4. The calculated temperature originates from the length of the cosmic background radiation photon. If today it corresponds to a certain temperature, there is no problem in calculating how it will change in different stages of the universe (the 3/2 in the power is time as a function of the size of the universe assuming a universe whose main point is the Einstein de Sitter universe). If you put a thermometer in space today, very far from any galaxy, after a long time it will show 2.7 degrees and .... years ago it would indeed show 3000 degrees.
Zvi, thanks for the answer.
1. Einstein knew about the Olvers paradox, and also referred to it in his book RELATIVITY.
2. The background radiation system has a preferred relaxation system. From Wikipedia:
From the CMB data it is seen that our local group of galaxies (the galactic cluster that includes the Solar System's Milky Way Galaxy) appears to be moving at 369±0.9 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB
My question is: How is it possible to have a preferred rest system ("elk" site) in a homogeneous and isotropic universe? What is so special about this system?
3. Is there any celestial body in our galaxy cluster whose speed is over 0.1C relative to us? If not, why?
4. The relationship between the age of the universe and the temperature of space is given in the formula from the link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/expand.html#c3
If I'm not mistaken, this is Friedman's formula, a continuous function of the relationship between the radiation temperature and the exact time that has passed since the moment of the big bang. (There is even a small calculator below if its input is temp, the output is time in seconds since the bang).
However, I could not understand how exactly this temperature is measured. Radiometer? A normal thermometer? Is this just the spectrum characteristic of the background radiation temperature, or will the space temperature also be measured with a mercury thermometer?
Another wording: If I use a normal Kelvin thermometer to measure the temperature in the space of an area remote from any radiation and shaded and after reaching thermodynamic equilibrium with the environment, will it show 2.7K?
And in 300,000 years for the universe would it show about 3000K?
Thanks.
deer
Thanks! Always happy to learn 🙂
Regarding the small dinosaurs of Judah,
1. As I wrote the earth does not expand and accordingly neither do the skeletons of the dinosaurs.
2. Even if this were true (and it is not) the dinosaurs existed about 200-60 million years ago - about 2-0.5% of the age of the universe. The size of the universe has therefore changed since their time by something like a percent. This means that even if we assume that the skeletons of the dinosaurs spread with the universe (and they didn't) then a Tyrannosaurus with a skeleton size of 15 m was actually about 10 cm smaller - not true and even if so - not very significant at least in terms of our imagination of them.
Yehuda confused everyone...
The material from which the Earth was formed was previously scattered in space, and before that was formed in a star, and the material from which the material from which the Earth was formed (i.e. hydrogen atoms) were scattered in space, and this matter in its simplest form is the direct result of the Big Bang. Earth's material went through many incarnations until it became our home planet.
Israel Shapira,
As for Einstein and the Olvers paradox - here I am quite ignorant. I don't know if Einstein was aware of the paradox and it is certainly possible that the great publication of the paradox is a result of the fact that he actually explains a very important discovery (just as I assume that no one until 1915 remembered that Mitchell talked about black holes). In any case, I don't know of an explanation of a static and eternal universe that could explain the paradox. You are welcome to read the Wikipedia entry where several alternative explanations are offered (I don't think any of them are realistic enough and were relevant in Einstein's day).
Regarding the cosmic background radiation.
When you look 10 light years away, you see the universe as it was 10 years ago.
Accordingly, when you look at a distance of X light years you see the universe as it was then and since our universe is quite uniform, if you look at this distance in all directions you will statistically see the same thing. In the past, the universe was hot and at a certain point in time its temperature was higher than 3000 degrees - if you look there you will see an opaque universe that in the meantime has been redshifted and looks like 2.7 degrees.
The system of the cosmic background radiation is the system in which the distance to the point of 3000 degrees is equal in all directions, it is therefore the system in which a point spreads in a completely homogeneous universe. In practice the universe is somewhat inhomogeneous and therefore sometimes bodies move not only because of the expansion of space but also because of the local inhomogeneity in their environment. If this inhomogeneity is large, let's say near a black hole the speed of the object is high and if the inhomogeneity is small the speed is small. Since most objects are at a distance equal to the distance of the visible universe from us (simply because the volume of a sphere increases with radius), most of them move at a speed equal to the speed of light C, and therefore only for objects located near an inhomogeneity responsible for characteristic speeds of C (black holes, neutron stars and the like) the speed is controlled by the local component. Since no galaxy is a black hole, the velocity of most galaxies is not controlled by a local component.
The Friedman equations do not talk about temp and it did not predict the background radiation. The prophecy belongs to Alpha Beta and Gamov.
The background radiation requires more than general relativity because it deals with the ionization of hydrogen atoms, while the Friedman equations only include general relativity.
Good morning everyone
Batya and miracles
I agree with you that the spread is about everything and also on the planet. It is impossible to claim on the one hand that everything began at a singular point in the Big Bang and on the other hand to claim that the Earth is not shrinking! So the Earth was more contracted in the past and the conclusion is that…. The dinosaurs weren't that big…. And the pictures of the scorpions and insects of old don't show the true size that has swelled since then. Just food for thought.
I will not repeat my negative opinion about mass and dark energy that most of you already know, and there is no point in repeating it.
Please respond gently
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
deer
If, as it is written, "Einstein started from the premise that the universe is static, and does not change" - then how does this fit with the Olvers paradox?
And why does the background radiation have a preferred relaxation system? Why this one and not another?
And how is it that there is almost no celestial body whose speed is significantly different from that of the background radiation?
They always talk about a fiery primordial universe that gradually cooled down. Does space have a temperature that can be measured with a simple Kelvin thermometer? Is this the temperature to which the Friedman equations refer? Did he know at the time - or guess - the existence of the background radiation?
Thanks.
The future of physics
The response is not so relevant.
Before the theory of relativity, scientists invented a site, designed to explain the movement of waves. The dark matter-energy parallels the site. According to the historian of science, we are waiting for a theory that is still in the dark. Even the Big Bang, which came to explain the swelling, the incomprehensible obscurity and the background radiation, is destined to explode because it does not answer the main question that stands for its development, where does the energy of the universe come from, nor is it compatible with any physical theory that sustains science.
A. Ben Ner
Your idea is nice but runs into some fundamental problems:
The main one is that the typical photon did not encounter a single grain of dust on its way from where it came out to the telescope, this is the reason why the images taken by space telescopes are able to locate the actual location of objects - your theory requires many collisions. If this were the case, the appearance of space would be completely blurred and the photons would not be come from sources with a defined orientation. Furthermore, the redshift operates uniformly over the entire spectrum (as indeed seen in the observations) while the action cross sections for scattering or absorption by material particles vary greatly along the spectrum. In light of this, your theory does not match the observations and indeed, it has never been claimed even by the opponents of the big bang that there is no red shift resulting from expansion.
Overall,
The idea of the expansion of the universe explains many problems - starting with the direction of the arrow of time (since there is a definite beginning and from which entropy rises) and ending with the Olvers paradox (who found that if the universe is the night sky should have been bright and not black). Above all, there is one famous prediction of the big bang (cosmic background radiation) which was prophesied in detail even before it was discovered, as of today it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and it is the one that practically buried the debate on the question of the big bang.
In light of all this, I think your attempt to dispute the idea of the big bang is destined for failure, it really is one of the most established scientific discoveries. In this context, I recommend Simon Singh's book "The Big Bang" which seriously and comprehensively reviews the history of this discovery.
Continue to comment 4 dated May 18th, 2014
Summary of the above reaction: Redshift results from an electro-magnetic interaction between the light particles and the (thin) gas found in space.
Now the question arises regarding the Big Bang. Was it or wasn't it?
Or more generally: how can the history of the universe be described? Where did it start and where is it going? After all, we see processes. For example: the distant and ancient galaxies are smaller than the nearby ones. Furthermore, in the earliest observable age there were no stars at all and certainly no galaxies. This means that the universe had a beginning and it has a process of development which we see in the observations.
We will now describe, in a very schematic way, two of the general, hypothetical features of the evolution of the universe:
from feature A]. The entire universe was created in one moment and since then it has been evolving. For the sake of illustration, let's recall for a moment a bottle of fizzy drink. As soon as the cork is opened, gas bubbles are formed inside the bottle that are dispersed within the volume of the bottle with more or less equal density and then they coalesce and grow.
For our purposes, according to this description, we will call it "the creation", in the entire space of the universe the process of creating matter=energy took place in one moment. From that moment the universe undergoes a process in which galaxies are formed and radiation is emitted.
Format B]. The universe was created as a result of some physical event at the moment and place 0=(and maybe additional dimensions), t,x,y,z
From that moment/place the physical process by which the universe was created, continues to progress and spread.
For the sake of the simplicity of the description, it is imagined as a spherical space that keeps expanding (although it does not necessarily have to be spherical). We will call the physical process "the bang" even though its nature and description have not yet been discussed.
According to this description, the bang occurs at the edge of the universe and is the cause of the expansion of the universe.
Within the space of the universe takes place the physics of the universe: matter, stars, galaxies, radiation, etc., etc.
And now the question arises: format A] or format B]? And maybe feature C]?
.
Rational reasoning only please.
.
To be continued
her daughter
There are several other theories that claim that the universe is not expanding. One of them is by Christoph Wuttrich - here:
http://www.nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379
There are also theories that claim that there is no need for dark matter - for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics.
A. Ben Ner,
Your theory is interesting. When do you continue?
Thank you to the respondents.
Bet-Ya, Nissim, Point and Guy
According to general relativity, as you know, space is not flat but curved.
The curvature may be positive, negative or 0 and this depends on whether the density of the universe is greater or less than the critical density (the curvature will be determined with the sum of the angles in a large triangle less than or equal to 180 degrees). You can think of the critical density (and this is an allegory) as the density where the potential energy related to the gravitational attraction will exactly balance the "kinetic energy" in the expansion of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter
Before introducing a cosmological constant (dark energy) it is the curvature that determines the continuation of the universe.
If the universe has a positive curvature (gravitational energy greater than the kinetic energy) - it will be a closed universe, it will stop expanding at a certain point, it will start to collapse and end in the big collapse. If the universe has a negative curvature, it will continue to expand forever at a constant speed, and if the universe has a curvature of 0, it will end if the energy exactly corresponds to a state where it will never stop, but its speed will aspire to 0.
Back to the critical density - this density does not care what it is made of: normal matter, dark matter, radiation or dark energy - all that matters is the energy density per unit volume (the one that does not concern the expansion of the universe). The point is that the different quantities are important for determining the equations of state.
The relationship between pressure, temperature and density. Pressure, contrary to intuition, is an element that causes positive curvature (like any other energy). Pressure depends on density differently for each component and thus affects expansion. For example, for a radiation-dominated universe, the size of the universe goes like t^0.5, while for a matter-dominated universe, the size goes like ...t^0.66666 (note that in both of these cases, the expansion slows down). For a cosmological constant dominated universe the size of the universe goes as exp(t) hence the accelerated expansion.
By the way (and here is the note to Guy) this is how we know what the proportion of dark matter or dark energy is - we see that the universe is approximately very flat (as far as the measurements allow) and we conclude that its density is very close to the critical density. So, you see how much material appears to be present and compare that to the critical density and arrive at five percent. Then the rate of its acceleration is measured, you see how much matter is there and thus you can learn about the dark energy. Further, there are a million other methods that give the same results.
Back to KDA
In DHA specifically (and in fact in all of our galaxy and its surroundings) the density of matter is much higher than the critical density of matter and therefore this area constitutes in terms of curvature a "closed universe" which in the absence of any other force would collapse (this does not happen because of many other forces). This means that here - in DHA - the space does not expand and the lady in the video is right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1-OmAICpU
point
I tend to agree with you. If space were naively expanding, then it seems to me that very distant bodies would have to be huge....
Miracles, if everything was expanding then it wouldn't have any meaning.
But it is true that there is a problem with this concept of expansion, because apparently it is implied that the density of the space decreases with the expansion, but this is not possible because the space does not expand within another medium in relation to which the density is measured.
That's why this whole concept is problematic.
point
I don't understand much about it, but what you say doesn't seem right to me. The expansion in question also applies to every atom. If so - then both the electric forces and the gravitational forces will be smaller, so I don't understand why they will balance out. Again - I really don't understand this...
Yeh's daughter
The earth is not expanding. Gravitational forces on one side, and electric forces on the other side keep it the same size.
The expansion will only be felt relative to two sizes that are not fast enough to bridge the expansion rate.
Not matter expands, space expands, matter just hitches a ride on it.
Space will expand as long as it has somewhere to expand, it does not need dark forces.
If space escapes through the black holes at the center of galaxies,
This could explain how galaxies maintain their integrity despite a lack of mass.
her daughter
I meant every billion second …. which is 30 years. Not negligible... Interesting 🙂
Maybe I'm miscalculating?
Question: How did they come to the conclusion that 70% is dark energy and 24% is dark matter? We don't know what this is and what that is. What theory does this division derive from?
It seems to me that the universe is cyclical in time, and we see the stabilization of the previous cycles, that is, accelerators. And this has some reinforcement that without the acceleration we would be close to the critical limit of infinite motion until settling on a finite size. Thank you and with respect blowing water
her daughter
There is no reason why the expansion should not also apply to us and the Earth. But, the expansion is so small that it is far below what we know how to measure.
We know the expansion rate of the universe - 2 cm per second for each light year (according to 71 km per second for each megapersec - Hubble's constant). A light year is 10 to the power of 13 km, the radius of the earth is 10 to the power of 4 km. That is, the radius of the Earth increases by 2 cm every billion years...
In my opinion, the problem of dark energy stems from a mistake in the conception of the theory.
I will explain:
The observed physical phenomenon is the redshift.
The interpretation given to this observation is, based on the Doppler effect, the expansion of the universe.
From the measurements of the expansion, the conclusion was drawn that it is accelerating and from this the existence of the unexplained dark energy derives.
however……
It is possible that there is another, alternative mechanism that explains the redshift. Instead of the explanation based on the Doppler effect. If such a mechanism is indeed found, then the picture of the expanding and accelerating universe may change and return to the picture described by Einstein.
I claim that the red shift can be explained through the effect of an electro-magnetic interaction between the electromagnetic radiation and the thin gas of the hydrogen atoms present in space. Whenever a photon passes by a hydrogen atom. Electromagnetic field forces act between them. The force of the field causes some deviation in the atom. both the nucleus and the electron.
The energy involved in changing the position of the electron and the proton is taken from the photon energy and is expressed in a red shift. It is understood that the effect of a single interaction is negligible, but the accumulation of interactions over millions and billions of light years has measurable quantitative values.
An explanation such as this may completely change both the view of the inflationary universe and dark energy as well as old
the description of the big bang. Will not cancel but sleep.
About that... later.
A question for those in the know: Is the Earth also expanding? And if so - what is its expansion ratio compared to the universe? Does anyone measure it? I would appreciate an answer or a reference to the articles.
The situation is similar to the end of the 19th century when there was "only" one unsolved problem in physics - X-rays.
proofreading note:
The last paragraph appears twice