Big Bang

But you can’t say that his speed is infinite for a couple of reasons.

First “infinite” means having no limit, not being ultra fast.
But more significantly, even though his clock stopped making it seem to him that he took zero time to get to his destination, everything else did not stop moving relative to his destination. In fact, his destination wouldn’t be where he first saw it because it didn’t stop and wait for him to get there. So if the universe saw him traveling at c, the universe would have shifted around for the length of time it took for him to travel at c from where he started to his destination. When he got there, the universe would have moved around from when he left.

How would you make yourself stop at a specific point if you were traveling such as to cross any distance instantaneously?

what do you mean?

Oh, i didn’t really have a clear idea of what you meant…I imagine some do speculate better than others…

What he actually had as the content of his science, the science still used today, is that the speed of light is always c in an inertial reference frame. The speed is relative to points in the frame, not to any observer. Observers can use frames other than the one in which they are at rest to make measurements.

These arguments shouldn’t have any bearing on the Big Bang theory, since that doesn’t have a central point.

Since the measurement of the speed of light is constant to a frame, the speed of light can be different relative to objects moving in that frame. If we look at the reference frames in which those objects are at rest, we still find that the speed of light is c in those frames.

PhysB,
If you want to see the final conclusion of that Paradox issue, you can start here… Stopped Clock Paradox - page 12
…and emm… welcome back.

I got to thinking. No mirror like material, completely spectacularly emits light. in other words no matter what some light is always diffused in all directions of an object. Or I believe that is the case. The work I do works on light reflectance of materials and indicates this as being the case. I’m not certain though, I’d have to talk to my boss about it. But If that was the case, if light has a particle nature, then you would think that it would only diffuse so long as the light beam emitted was greater than the width of a single photon. So what would be interesting is to test to see that if a light beam of the width of a photon, would diffuse, if it does that would contradict the idea that the light has any singularity with respect to minimization of beam width, and would thus seem not to be particular…IDK

The other thought I had was i thought we were able to tell a particles size by judging the way light reflects off of it right? If not how else to we tell?

“They” are building optical computers using single photon emitters.
Does that answer your doubt?
O:)

Not completely. i mean do they know it is actually emitting a photon or is it just that it is emitting a single photon length beam, and regardless I guess is there diffusion? I mean even if there was diffusion a sensor would still sense the transmition…

And again I would was hoping you might no how we tell what the size of a particle is?

Off subject but this is more of a simple simple answer question then something deserving of a topic thread.

They know that the amount of energy being sent and received is that of a single photon. They even use it to change the wave length of photons. It is for the purpose of higher resolution data transfer down optical cables.

How wide is an ocean wave?
When dealing with things that do not have a well contrasted border, we assign a percentage of affect as the declared “edge”.
We can declare whatever we find useful. All truth begins with definitions in sight of relevance.
For example, in statistics, the “standard” or “normal bell curve” is well known but it has no definitive width until it is assigned one.
The width of any actual bell curve tends to be very relevant so they assigned it a relative value for a standard and very imaginatively named it, “standard deviation” [from the normal/center value];

The standard deviation, σ, is a value that can be easily calculated and tells you of the variations (the “variance”) involved in a sample that yields a non-definitive wave.

The wave has no sharply contrasted border, so it is given a calculable and significant (for the issues at hand) value. Sometimes in Science, the value of 5.25% is used as merely a standard for identifying when something has become significant enough to be noteworthy.

So when it comes to how wide the ocean wave is, or a particle, they declare a percentage of affect as being the “standard” and everyone then uses that as the “true width” all the while knowing that it is merely a measuring point and not an actual contrasting border.

what do you mean?
[/quote]
Between it being mere speculation, speculation that does better than chance and presuming one cannot be wrong. I suppose my ‘between’ was unclear. But I was surprised by your caution about thinking one could never be wrong. It didn’t seem a response to what I said, but perhaps it fit with the flow of this discussion as a whole.

That is interesting not what I thought, makes a lot more sense. but in the case of the atom how do we assert that say the part that we call the mass is the mass. rather than say that the thing or particle or mass is the combination of the aspect of the part we would currently call the mass and the magnetic field?

The reply to both of these is as follows: It would indeed be a problem if the traveler actually was moving at c, but this in relativity is impossible. c represents an impossible limit. One can accelerate to it ever so close, but nothing can actually travel that fast except light.

So our traveler would have to accelerate close to the speed of light and then decelerate as he approaches his destination. The universe will contract but not infinitely (or maximally) but still enough to make everything you pass by seem to move slower than it would if no contraction occurred.

As for James’ point about the contents of the universe moving around as you traveled, I think having a continuous non-instantaneous transition from origin to destination addresses this, but I think the relativity of simultaneity also has to be considered. Do things in the universe move around at the same time as the traveler leaves his point of origin, arrives at his destination, or any point in between? Does an event E in the universe occur at the same time as the traveler’s arrival at any point on his trip? Simultaneity is not an absolute in relativity and so we don’t need to say that any event that occurs in the universe must be traveling faster than light relative to the traveler. If that event only had the chance to complete half its unfolding by the time he arrived at his destination (whereas perhaps it unfolded completely relative to someone who stayed at home before the traveler arrived at his destination), then we say that relative to the traveler, the event was only half over by the time he arrived but completely over relative to the stay-at-home.

Well, as pointed out in the Stopped Clock Paradox, relativity doesn’t actually work anyway. I can only surmise based on what is logically derivable, not what is fantasy contingent. Either items would have relocated by the time he arrived, or they wouldn’t. If he arrives instantaneously, even by his own clock, there would have been no time for anything to have moved at all. Whether they are thought to have moved more by one person than another is another issue that would only lead to conflicts in reality (what is would not be what is).

that would indicate that all light had to always exist, how else could anything not light have been accelerated to light speed.

I don’t see how a contraction of the universe could occur without some sort of disruption to the consistency of the object being accelerated?

And wouldn’t the universe/ exterior contracting be another way of looking at things whereas one could take an alternate relative perspective and say the object being sped up was expanding?

And it would seem that any apparent relative movement after a stationary actuality would be faster seeming then any stillness, I don’t know how things could appear slower than when two things seem not to be moving relatively apparent to each other. this would indicate and what I suspect you might be saying is that while things seem to go by faster after some speed is achieved (what specific speed?) things would begin to seem to slow down again. This doesn’t seem far fetched when one say considers one of those rims on a car that spin, if a car is going slow it appears to be moving in the same direction of the wheel whereas when it speeds up even faster it begins to appear as if it is rotating in the opposite direction. But then i think if a car speeds up more this alters back to a seeming forward motion. and i speculate that it may coninue altering at a faster and faster rate such that eventually it may actually appear to not be rotating at all…

So, Moreno, if that’s true, would that be a way of ‘visualizing’ infinity and the eternal?

I believe time is man’s construct–I’ve said this before–that has to do with the planet’s position in the solar system, its revolution around it axis, it’s orbital path around the sun, and so on. Time would be very different anywhere else. So time didn’t necessarily begin with the BB–time would have to have begun when planet earth settled into its place within the solar system, at least time as we use it.

If there were to be a cyclic BB then BC, what would be the force needed to provide the BC? Gravity? But wouldn’t inertia be stronger than Gravity, in this instance. And how would entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics enter into it–if at all? (It seems to me it should.)

I simply don’t know enough about cosmology.

Matter is not a constant.
Matter forms, disintegrates, and forms again.

The matter that comes together to create the BC wasn’t propagating away from a center.
It was forming from the space itself as extremely small particles.
Thus its gravitational and electric (much stronger) effect would allow for it to be pulled into a forming black hole.
As these black holes grew by absorbing literally everything around them, they also began to collect.
Eventually some extremely large black holes collide at high velocity, and [size=150]BANG[/size], a universe is formed as the bits scatter out to start it all over again.

All that you pointed out was that you don’t understand special relativity. You don’t know how to do the math and you don’t understand how to use the standard geometry of classical physics. Anyone who looks at your “paradox” on any message board will see that you simply make the same mistake over and over again until you are banned or until people ignore you.

So you didn’t actually read the concluding posts.
I should have expected that.
It didn’t conclude due to anyone “simply ignoring” me.
It concluded by me asking a “strait to the point” question followed by a statement, “it will take some time for me to answer that. I’ll get get right back”.
He never came back. Read it and/or stop lying.
If you think you can answer that question yourself, go for it.
And I haven’t been banned from anywhere for debating that topic. You lie so freely. :unamused:
But when I see you on other forums, I don’t bother with debating such things.

{{back to ignoring the physbang, I guess}}

And if the relativity of simultaneity is taken into account, he can very well say this and from his reference frame it would be true.

It wouldn’t lead to conflicts, it would only mean that things occur or are true relative to someone’s point of view or reference frame.

In any case, I’ll have to look up that Stopped Clock Paradox to see where relativity has gone wrong.

Well, nothing except light itself ever does accelerate to light speed (its mass becomes infinite in that case, requiring an infinite amount of energy to achieve that speed).

As for light itself, that is a stumper I’ll admit. I don’t know if a given photon ever had to accelerate to c or if it jumped to it instantaneously or if it had always existed traveling at c (photons are emitted from charge carrying particles so I think that rules out the latter scenario and from what I’ve studied I think the second scenario holds true). It’s a good question for a science forum.

What inconsistency?

You would think but no. This is a common misconception held by newbies to relativity. The rule of thumb in relativity is that there is a consistent set of rules for what happens to an object when its moving and that such an object is always moving relative to some reference frame.

The universe contracts because that’s one of the rules that must be applied to moving objects (in this case the universe) and the reference frame relative to which it is moving is the traveler. Now, relative to a stay-at-home, it is the traveler that’s moving and the same rules must apply: the traveler contracts.

It is confusing and does seem inconsistent - but it’s not. You just have to keep in mind the relativity of simultaneity.

If I’m the traveler, and I’m passing by (say) Jupiter at 99.99% c, you may say that Jupiter will look squished to the width of (say) a tree trunk. That will be its appearance relative to me. But from the point of view of someone on Jupiter, it will be my space ship that looks squished to the width of something like a dime (or whatever).

Where things are in space, including the front and end of my spaceship, including the front and end sides of Jupiter, and where they happen to be in time (or what was happening at that time) is always a relative matter. It doesn’t have to be the same for each and every observer - that’s the take home lesson of relativity.

Imagine that which is the only thing. Relative to that which is outside of it how fast could it be rotating in all directions, or moving period?

I mean to say that it would seem that if the universe contract as a whole then the object being speed up would have parts of itself outside of the universe so long as that universe was finite, and thus could have parts of it in a relatively complete vacuum, which would result in mass loss or disruption.
And this may not be a problem if the universe was infinite or the contraction didn’t become smaller than the object, but what would prevent colissions with other masses as the relative expansion of the object occurred?

One might say that person 1 and person 2 see that the other is moving towards, person 1 is stationary relative to the earth, person two is moving relative to the earth, thus person two is moving towards person 1, or so some might say. But why stop relivation at the earth? one can go farther and say that the earth is rotating, and moving around the sun, which is moving around the galaxy which is moving (unknown as to about something) It would then seem that it is probable that all things are moving and as such the actual objective direction and movement is unassertable, and as such one can either say that person 1 and person 2 are moving towards each ,other, or one could take a more relatively subjective stance and say that simply to 1, #2 is moving, or vice versa…

Likewise in math it is sometimes beneficial to consider what are called the contrapositive. which is like unto saying that one need to consider the alternated perspective sometimes in order to make speculation/calculation easier, or even possible in some cases.

What you seem to be suggesting is that one should adhere to a typical relative “perspective”. I recognize that some are more beneficial for certain calculations but not always.