I have this idea about the wormhole theory - say you were touching your two fingers together, could there then be a wormhole between them? Or even down to the level of the protons and neutrons in the nucleus - could there be tiny wormholes between them, too? And between atoms that make up everything?
And, if so, could this be how we all travel through time, and why time slows when an object viewed from another frame of reference approaches the speed of light? And then could it tie into entropy somehow?
You can't actually touch your two fingers together. The electrons in one finger repell those of the other finger just before the atoms actually touch. We get the impression that they are touching because we sense things at much too large of a scale.
When you get down to the size of a proton, the physics of the everyday world no longer applies. The common view of a worm hole is something that only applies to large sized object.
[...]
To be more accurate, we are dragged kicking a screaming through time. The universe has 4 dimensions. We can move about in three of them. The fourth, we have no control over our motion in. Our lack of the control is the only special status that the forth dimension really has. If you dropped through an event horizon of a black hole, you would find that you could move about in what we call "time" and two of the "space" dimensions but not the third. Along that third dimension, you would be dragged kicking and screaming to the singularity where you would be crushed out of existance.
Don't be depressed. You can be crushed to death on any date in history you choose.
Entropy and the "arrow of time" do seem to be linked. The future is when entropy will be higher and it is the part of time that we can't remember.
This is isn't really an accurate description. Under Special Relativity, we can, essentially, move forward in time at any rate we please. Simply moving gets us through time at different effective rates. The time effects in special relativity can be interpreted in a few different ways, but as far as net effect goes, travelling at fast velocities is automatically time travel into the future. We don't actually do anything to build such a time machine. We cant prevent it happening. That is, if we go very fast relative to say, the motion of the earth, like go away and come back, it is usually phrased as time travels slower for the traveller. The actual reality is that earth would have "aged" on, and we would not have "aged". This *is* time travel into the future. Its going backwards in time that's the tricky bit.
Time is simply a note that the same object can exist in different places. That is, objects move.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
formatting link
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward wrote (in ) about 'Wormhole theory', on Sun, 27 Mar 2005:
In order to experience the effect, the 'traveller' has to *accelerate*, in the general sense of 'change speed'. Go away from Earth at high speed, slow down, stop, turn round, accelerate up to high speed again, then slow down and stop at Earth.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
From some Broadway show whose name escapes me at the moment, "Someone has stolen my socks" ;-)
Socks do sometimes get under the washing machine agitator or get pumped out in the waste water. I was amazed to discover that Maytag pumps have "sock traps" to prevent bunging up the impeller.
Every once in awhile I'm thrilled to see some engineering thought actually go into a consumer product.
Then there's the Cuisinart "Automatic Grind & Brew Thermal" coffee pot. It grinds the coffee beans, then blows the grounds into the brew basket, perks the water, and makes a good cup of coffee.
Unfortunately the dust from the grounds goes everywhere in the mechanism. Then the steam turns the dust into a wondrous cake :-(
My nomination for worst engineering of the year.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
I always buy the same brand and, of course, black ;-)
I buy uni-ball GelSticks in bulk.
Pencils are _always_ Pentel 0.5.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
I don't like the "postulate of equivalence" very much - according to it, we've been doing the equivalent of being accellerated at 32ft/sec/sec for eons - we must all be ascending at many times the speed of light by now!
Ah, the socks continuum. Then I buy socks I buy 15 identical (black) pairs. That way the socks continnum and this universe eventually come to equilibrium and I always have a pair of socks to wear. Same deal with pens and pencils.
Then there is the whole missing socks in the dryer issue. I don't know if there has ever been an adequate study. Seems to me a few of my socks have been sucked by a warm rotating hole into some other dimension.
Modern theory has it that the socks actually go missing in the washer not the dryer. People don't check for missing socks as they transfer from the washer to dryer so the mistake is understandable.
60 years ago, people thought that the rings around Saturn were all the lost luggage.
However, this does imply something that isn't really the case. That is, time contraction effects are not due to accelerations.
Its a bit more subtle John, and depends on how one defines "accelerate". One can engage the traveller in "free fall" orbits, such that under GR definitions there is no "acceleration", yet the time contraction will still occur.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
formatting link
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Agree. As I understand it, special relativity is concerned with non-accelerating reference frames. The time dilation effect occurs without any relative acceleration at all. It's a consequence of the way we look at things (our reference frame). If we were able to see the clock in a passing spaceship, it would be going slower than our clocks. Oddly, if they could also look at our clocks, *our* clocks would be going slow compared to their clocks.
This seems like a paradox until you see that the rocket frame's t is being projected onto your own particular time-space trajectory.
Say we have two vectors in the plane, a and b, which are at an angle theta from each other. If we measure a distance x on both of these vectors, to us, with our godlike 2d viewpoint, they are of course the same length. However, think like a flatlander. To a flatlander living on a, the length along 'a' is just x; however, the length of that same x on 'b' is the projection along 'a', so its length will be x*cos(theta); it is shorter. (Since he only has one axis, he must measure everything relative to that axis.) How much difference there is depends on how big theta is. To a flatlander living on the other vector, 'b', however, the situation is identical; he measures the length x on the local vector as x, but measures x along 'a' as x*cos(theta); again, it's shorter.
Asking how the other guys' clocks can run slow for both the earthling and the spaceship guy simply because of a large relative velocity is the same as one flatlander asking how the other flatlander's x can be shorter simply because of a rotation.
Velocity in spacetime is like flatlander rotation (although the projection formulas are different, and quite a bit stranger).
This particular analogy is described in chapter 17 of the Feynman lectures on physics, Volume I. In it, he describes the lorentz transformation as a special kind of rotation in spacetime.
--
Regards,
Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
I was simply making the point that the people who go away at high speed and come back relatively younger than those that stayed at home have had a different physical or dynamical experience from those that stayed. If that were not the case, and only relative speed were significant, which would be younger, the people in the 'stationary space ship' or the people on Earth that 'receded at high speed' from it?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
I sometimes wonder why good ideas don't spread around very much:
My home coffee maker has the "steal a cup" feature where the coffee stops flowing if you pull the pot out. The much more expensive machine at work has no such feature.
The lid to the tea pot I bought a few months ago doesn't have a vent hole in it. As a result if you drop the lid onto a full pot, hot water shoots out the spout.
[....]
We should watch to see if the idea gets copied. At least I hope bad ideas don't get distributed.
Nope. You understanding of acceleration is faulty. Go and look at the sci.physics.relativity FAQ. Even objects in circular orbit "accelerate" for ever.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
formatting link
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Well, to be fair, I was talking about uniform motion, not accelerated motion. It has been shown that time dilation occurs in particles with constant velocity. What the particles see, I don't know. However, if you solve the lorentz transformations for the 'transformed' variables, you end up with exactly the same transformation with velocity in the opposite direction...
x' = (x - ut)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) y' = y z' = z t' = (t - ux/c^2)/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)
becomes
x = (x' + ut')/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2) y = y' z = z' t = (t' + ux'/c^2)/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2)
That implies that the guy who is moving is also going to see your clocks as going more slowly than his, because nobody can tell who is moving, since there is no absolute motion. Again, it's a projection of the moving guy's spacetime trajectory onto your spacetime trajectory that gives you your sense of how fast the spaceship's clocks are going. The 'angle' between them, or relative velocity, determines how much slower they seem to the other guy.
However, Feynman also talks about the twin paradox, and notes that it has to do with the acceleration. The quote is "So the way to state the rule is to say that *the man who has felt the accelerations*, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger; that is the difference betwen them in an 'absolute' sense, and it is certainly correct".
Thus, the acceleration must modify the spacetime trajectory of the moving twin in such a way as to give her a 'shorter path' through spacetime. How they see each other's clocks while the accelerations are happening, or if that is even meaningful, I don't know.
--
Regards,
Robert Monsen
"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.
I read in sci.electronics.design that Robert Monsen wrote (in ) about 'Wormhole theory', on Sun, 27 Mar 2005:
But with you argument, you have talked yourself into the 'second twin paradox'. If the 'stay-home' and the 'traveller' have symmetrical experiences, when they come together, each is younger/older than the other. For a REAL difference between them, which we know occurs, their experiences cannot be symmetrical. And the obvious difference is that the traveller *changed* speed (twice) in his own frame of reference, whereas the stay-home didn't.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
There are two sides to every question, except
'What is a Moebius strip?'
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
But he doesn't have to change his *speed*. He can go in a circular orbit with the same speed. Sure, his vector velocity will change because of a change in direction, and this is where the definition of "acceleration" matters. In a Newtonian sense there is "acceleration" due to change of direction, in GR something in free fall is not "accelerating". The reason is that in GR, things in free fall are not under any forces, hence cannot be "accelerating" in the Newtonian sense. Gravitational "forces" are abolished and replaced with curvature of space.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
formatting link
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Its the path in space-time, due to velocity that matters. My point is that the value of the acceleration at any point is not important, only the values of the velocity matter. One integrates the velocity profile, so its the velocity that "causes" the time difference, not the acceleration.
Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk
formatting link
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.