An Idea

[Profpat]

Why is Time relegated to a mere footnote in the Lorentz transformations, in that figure?

Actually Max Special Relativity deals with Time and space and is listed as one of the three main circles ( PARTICLES, WAVES, and SR (time/space/continuum Relative not absolute )

A little research on time space dilation:

Peculiar Relativistic Effects

Length Contraction and Time Dilation

One of the strangest parts of special relativity is the conclusion that two observers who are moving relative to one another, will get different measurements of the length of a particular object or the time that passes between two events.
Consider two observers, each in a space-ship laboratory containing clocks and meter sticks. The space ships are moving relative to each other at a speed close to the speed of light. Using Einstein's theory:

• Each observer will see the meter stick of the other as shorter than their own, by the same factor gamma (- defined above). This is called length contraction.
• Each observer will see the clocks in the other laboratory as ticking more slowly than the clocks in his/her own, by a factor gamma. This is called time dilation.

In particle accelerators, particles are moving very close to the speed of light where the length and time effects are large. This has allowed us to clearly verify that length contraction and time dilation do occur.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

While surfing the internet I came across this:



Notice how the COBE and WMAP with dipole image suggest the Tao.

[austintorn@aol.com]

One of the strangest parts of special relativity is the conclusion that two observers who are moving relative to one another, will get different measurements of the length of a particular object…


Hey, Pat, is there a problem if these two moving observers try to measure the planck length, which is supposed to be a constant?


Also, if any of you guys are bored, you can come over to this thread and help us save the world from the doom arriving in the year 2012:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/the-ma...flighting.html

[Profpat]

Hi Austin;

For it to have a relativistic effect you have to be going at ~c

Gamma()

The measurable effects of relativity are based on gamma. Gamma depends only on the speed of a particle and is always larger than 1. By definition:

c is the speed of light
v is the speed of the object in question

For example, when an electron has traveled ten feet along the accelerator it has a speed of 0.99c, and the value of gamma at that speed is 7.09. When the electron reaches the end of the linac, its speed is 0.99999999995c where gamma equals 100,000.
What do these gamma values tell us about the relativistic effects detected at SLAC? Notice that when the speed of the object is very much less than the speed of light (v << c), gamma is approximately equal to 1. This is a non-relativistic situation (Newtonian).

Also Planck came up with these measurements before quantum mechanics and relativity.

Additionally at that level you are at the uncertainty level, so who knows.

Best,

Pat

P.S. On December 20, 2012 I'm grabbing my ankles as kissing my butt goodbye.

[austintorn@aol.com]

For it to have a relativistic effect you have to be going at ~c

Pat, these observers were going like a bat out of Hell.

There is a theory of DSR (Double Special Relativity) trying to walk this planck.

[Profpat]

AAARG. Time to walk the plank even though the planck is very, very small.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Measuring the proton.

[Fredrick]

While doing some research I discovered this Venn diagram classification of physics from Wiki. I thought some of you may find it as interesting as I did.

Yes, quite interesting, Pat. I think I remember seeing this (or something similar) either in the late seventies or early eighties. In it the connectivity between all disciplines was shown, and if I remember it well I was fascinated by this delivery; seeing that all had its place, but that there was no singular statute, just a connectivity between all.

Now, since we've been looking at numbers, too, I find the 3 - 7 delivery of the Venn diagram quite interesting. From three parts we also get seven parts, and neither the three nor the seven parts are fully independent or fully dependent. I like it.

[Profpat]

Yes, quite interesting, Pat. I think I remember seeing this (or something similar) either in the late seventies or early eighties. In it the connectivity between all disciplines was shown, and if I remember it well I was fascinated by this delivery; seeing that all had its place, but that there was no singular statute, just a connectivity between all.

Now, since we've been looking at numbers, too, I find the 3 - 7 delivery of the Venn diagram quite interesting. From three parts we also get seven parts, and neither the three nor the seven parts are fully independent or fully dependent. I like it.

Thanks Fredrick;

The date you gave would explain why strings and quarks are excluded. I guess they would come under nuclear physics, or non relativistic quantum mechanics.

Best,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

Profpat, and his cat, discover Everything, only minutes before the deadline!