OUCH!

[Captain Huff 0]

I've been following this for a couple of years now, and recently read another article, so I thought I'd share it again for those who haven't read about it. Yep, I studied quantum mechanics with him. It's okay though... I've recovered. :)

 

www.phys.uconn.edu/faculty/mallett.html

 

www.walterzeichner.com/thezfiles/timetravel.html

[LoAmi 0]

Interesting idea... I'm all for testing wacky theories experimentally. The most interesting science comes out of results that prompt the experimenter (and the theorists) to respond "what the heck?"

 

Nitpicking warning: in yet another example of journalists misunderstanding what they report about: the second article referenced misstates the twin paradox. (The way it's written, there's no paradox at all!) The real paradox is:

1. In the *inertial* reference frame of Earth, with Earth immobile, 2.2 million years pass. But, on the spaceship traveing at some *constant* high speed, 2 yrs have passed. The spaceman arrives home. His twin was dead for 2.2 million years.

2. In the *inertial* reference frame of the spaceship, with Earth travelling at very high constant speed, 2.2 million years pass, with only 2 years having passed on Earth. The spaceman arrives home, having died 2.2 million years ago. His twin is 2 years older.

 

Also, special relativity doesn't say anything about how long it will take to accelerate to the speed of light (actually, it doesn't say anything at all about acceleration).

 

Of course, the paradox has a resolution - the situation it describes is impossible. In order for both to meet up again, there had to have been some acceleration (ie - the reference frames could not be inertial), making special relativity invalid.

[Captain Huff 0]

 

Of course, the paradox has a resolution - the situation it describes is impossible. In order for both to meet up again, there had to have been some acceleration (ie - the reference frames could not be inertial), making special relativity invalid.

Eh, most of them impossible, aren't they? My altime favorite is the pole and barn paradox, but hey, we can't run at the speed of light carrying a pole, so it's impossible. We assuuuume we are running at the speed of light carrying a pole... lol. (Just like we assuuuumed that spherical chicken a while back!)

 

Here, what I wonder is wouldn't the acceleration be negligible? I mean, Wheeee! We accelerate really fast so that now I'm whipping along at the speed of light for a couple YEARS... (whoa that's fast, Batman)... enough time to set up our model, and now whoooooah! we're accelerating really fast to meet up again... You're dead, I'm alive and man what I saw in my rear view mirror at the speed of light!

 

Anyway, give that journalist a slap on the wrist. I actually looked for the email address of an author of a wine making book recently because he #d up one of the formulas in a diagram. lol. I didn't find it, but then I thought, who reading the book is really going to give a crap except for some recovered nerd who now spends their free time making wine and simming in a Star Trek forum??

[Dumbass 0]

some recovered nerd who now spends their free time making wine and simming in a Star Trek forum??

Well I imagine making your own wine gets you invited to a lot more parties than pretending you are a Star Trek character. :lol:

[Darius927 0]

Ugh, I have a headache already :lol: . I studied GENERAL relativity in class also. Although the math CAN BE

[LoAmi 0]

Eh, most of them impossible, aren't they? My altime favorite is the pole and barn paradox, but hey, we can't run at the speed of light carrying a pole, so it's impossible. We assuuuume we are running at the speed of light carrying a pole... lol. (Just like we assuuuumed that spherical chicken a while back!)

 

Here, what I wonder is wouldn't the acceleration be negligible? I mean, Wheeee! We accelerate really fast so that now I'm whipping along at the speed of light for a couple YEARS... (whoa that's fast, Batman)... enough time to set up our model, and now whoooooah! we're accelerating really fast to meet up again... You're dead, I'm alive and man what I saw in my rear view mirror at the speed of light!

The impossibility in this case has less to do with a simplifying assumption (eg cows, chickens, cars being point particles or spheres), and more to do with using the wrong physics. Special relativity only holds in inertial reference frames. Once there's any acceleration, it doesn't hold at all (you can only get away with approximating an inertial reference frame, if, indeed acceleration can be neglected!). In the twin paradox, not only do you have to get to the speed of light and slow down (which is not really the issue; you can even assume they're instantaneous), but you also have to turn around (which is a big issue)!

 

Incidentally, the resolution of the pole and barn paradox involves that the gedankenexperimentalist who proposed it assumed that simultaneous events in one frame of reference (closing the doors of the barn) are also simultaneous in the other. Again, bad physics.

 

Whether you can attain those high speeds is a problem, but not one that the theory should have to worry about (ie - you can't use technological deficiencies to resolve theoretical "paradoxes").

[Captain Huff 0]

Again, bad physics.

Well, yeah. lol.

 

I'm going to bow gracefully from the discussion - I personally only have a layman interest any more, and wanted to point out the article for any scifi loving trekkers as such.

 

Enjoy. :)

 

h.

[Nemesis 0]

Well here is my contribution ::rocks back and forth nodding and smiling::