MR. GUGG IS CONFUSED
I know, more or less, the basics of the theory of Relativity. The passage of time for an object in motion will appear, to a "stationary" observer, to pass more slowly. The object in motion could just as easily claim that it is the "stationary" observer for whom time is passing more quickly. Right.
So by moving more quickly, you can make your time progress more slowly than someone who isn't moving as fast as you. But how can you make your time progress more quickly? By slowing down your own motion? Relative to what?
I think this is probably a very silly question, bespeaking my immense ignorance of higher scientific matters. But every book on the subject that I've tried to read emphasizes that every observer has an equal claim to be the one that's stationary. But it seems that, since I've never heard of an experiment in which anything was slowed down so that time appeared to move more quickly for it than for observers, perhaps stationary-ness isn't necessarily relative, and is simply the state in which time is observed to move most quickly.
Or something. I'm feeling stupid now, so I'll stop. If anyone can explain, please do, or tell me where to find the answer. Thanks.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In J.R.R. Tolkien's Elvish dialect of Quenya, Arandir means Noble Wanderer. Selected in my youth as I searched for deeper religious truth, this nom de plume remains apt--for I am still a pilgrim and sojourner in this world, truly a ''stranger in a strange land.'' It remains my purpose to record here whatever seems noteworthy of my musings and experience as I travel the way of life.
Other blogs
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(64)
-
▼
August
(10)
- A PARADOXThere are Christians who insist with the ...
- INSOMNIAMy wife should be a Hindu goddess.Lizzy th...
- TRAINSPOTTINGn. An adult hobby closely resembling ...
- CONFIRMATION?Speaking of Google Earth, below is a ...
- I WILL NEVER GET L0ST AGAINI just downloaded Googl...
- YES, WE'RE STILL IN KANSASBut so are the lions and...
- DRINKING PISS Waste not, want not, as they say. I...
- MR. GUGG IS CONFUSEDI know, more or less, the basi...
- FROM IRAQ...An interesting showdown of sorts--two ...
- HEY THEREApologies for the hiatus. Since Sunday I'...
-
▼
August
(10)
4 comments:
You should ask Erin
Gugg,
There are two ways of looking at relativity, and you seem to be writing about Galilean relativity, which deals with the indistinguishability of reference for two or more moving bodies.
Newton tried to use centrifugal force to establish a frame of reference for absolute motion (to distinguish just such cases), with some success (I think). We can easily switch from a ball in motion relative to our observational point of view to another frame of reference relative to a ball stationary to us, but other types of motion might be distinguishable.
If you suspend a bucket of water from a rope, twist up the rope and let it go, and let the bucket spin, the water will at first move more slowly than the bucket, but eventually both the water and the bucket will be moving at the same (angular) velocity. If you were standing on the edge of the bucket, how could you tell that the water was 'actually' in motion? Well, due to centrifugal 'force', the water will be concave, rather than flat. Thus, the water is really in motion.
The same phenomenon can be observed in the tension of a rope connecting two rotating weights or buckets.
Now, Einsteinian relativity is two fold: 1. Special relativity, 2. General relativity.
Special relativity (1905) is more of a framework than a comprehensive theory, in which 1. The speed of light is constant for every observer (not verified until the 1960s!), and 2. The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame. In this framework, there is not 'space' AND 'time', but only 'spacetime' as a four-dimensional manifold.
In this space, the synchonization of time IS a setup of clocks separated by, say, one light-second (the distance light travels in a second), and the clocks are set to be one second apart in time when the light signal hits them.
Basically, the necessary mathematical setup links space and time such that funky stuff happens. E.G.:
You can make a setup with two mirrors parallel to each other, with a distance 'd' between then. Then bounce a light beam from one to the other. If the mirrors are set in motion relative to an observer, but stationary relative to each other, the light will traverse a longer distance since it will have to describe a path diagonal to the plane of the mirrors.
In other words, no matter how fast you go, the speed of light remains the same.
You'd really have to look at the math to see this. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
General relativity is crazier, since it links gravity to the spacetime manifold. (Gravity is a function of the distribution of matter-energy in the manifold.)
Hope this helps . . .
Cheers,
Evan
(Peter Galison's "Einstein's Clocks and Poincare's Maps" is a good read on this.)
It's a start--gives me a place to start attempting to resurrect my very rusty math.
Many thanks.
Evan posted some good info but you must also remember that when we "view" movement the eyes can play tricks on us. For example, a passenger plane flying at 20,000 ft. is going a few hundred miles an hour; but to us it appears to be going very slow, slower than a car on the ground traveling at 60 MPH.
By moving more quckily or slowly an individual can't do much to slow or quicken things relative to things around him. Steven Hawkings writes about things like this in some of his books. He also discusses things like time travel. Which get into some really heavy math and physics. It is an interesting subject if you can sort through all the science.
Post a Comment