At light speed, Einstein's equations break down and nothing makes sense

submitted by hfxB0oyA from bigthink.com

all 40 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]oligarchracy 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

More like Hilbert's equations. On general relativity, Einstein likely passed Hilbert's work off as his own, or at the very least relied heavily on Hilbert to do the heavy lifting and then refused to give him any credit. It was part of a long standing pattern with Einstein where he piggybacked off the work of others and pretended that he and he alone came up with everything, a notion which the media continues to promote.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I bet Hilbert did the same thing, and whoever he copied did the same. That's usually what turns out to be the case. I don't know that it's necessarily malicious; more minds are better than one, and the one who's most outgoing is probably the one who shares with the world and gets the credit. In the past when women and minorities were actually being oppressed, it was impossible for them to share any of their work and be taken seriously, and likely it would even get them punished. So they would have to find someone else who society allowed to do that.

[–]BanditMcFuklebuck 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

then fuck it then!

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Theoretical physics has locked itself into a corner of not making sense.

Einstein made a huge mistake by promoting the idea that time changes for everything differently, depending on time and space.
This means that even within one thing the time can be different between the front and back of the same thing, causing so many paradoxes.

Einstein also got rid of the basic concepts of global time and global space, which are essential part of the physical world that we see and experience.

What a smart person should have done...
,,is change the idea of relative time with a simple local clock.
The clock-speed defines the speed at which physical forces are experienced.
So if you go fast, the clock goes slower. And the physical forces are experienced slower, making them weaker.
And the clocks do not need to be in sync, because they are not real time.

No mythical time-travel stuff, with exact the same formulas.
Just plain simple.

But why did they promote this time concept, confusing the hell out of everyone?
-> Because they never understood it themselves.

[–]Vulptex 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

Einstein's physics theories predict time dilation, which is pretty much what you described. Not time travel as we think of it, and certainly not into the past. That would only be possible with a wormhole.

Time dilation has been proven, both with experiments on earth and by observing massive objects such as black holes.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Time dilation has been proven, both with experiments on earth and by observing massive objects such as black holes.

Yep.

You have to use it for GPS. The time measurement has to be so precise, that if you don't account for relativistic time dilation from the GPS satellite being in a weaker gravitational field, you get your position wrong.

And without it, you can't explain the advance of Mercury's orbit.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The GPS and Mercury orbit is related to Einstein's gravity. A different Einstein theory: General relativity.
Which he derived from Special relativity, which deals with the speed of light and time.

The first gravity theory of Einstein was about a variable speed of light.
You can get the same GPS and Mercury orbit with it.
And according to RonHatch it is even better, but we never see it discussed.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which he derived from Special relativity, which deals with the speed of light and time.

Not quite true. The derivation was independent from special rel.

The first gravity theory of Einstein was about a variable speed of light.

Really?

Contradicting Maxwell's equations?

When was his work on this theory published?

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Indeed, in practice it is used as time-dilation in different ways.
But calling it time is a huge mistake.

Black holes do not exist btw.
Here is a full breakdown of all the evidence

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think you're confused because they try to explain it as time travel. Technically you're always time-travelling forward into the future. But when people hear time travel they think of cars from the 1980s jumping to a different time once they hit 88 mph. Instead Einstein's theories say that speed and heavy mass don't do this, rather they simply slow the existing mechanism of passing time. So if you zoom by a black hole, years could go by in seconds. But in reality you were just moving very slowly through that zone the whole time, so slowly that it took years for a few seconds to pass. You don't just jump into the future. And it certainly won't allow you to go backwards, so no paradoxes.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is also about global time. An event happens at one moment everywhere.
But if we follow Einstein's special relativity to the letter, it seems that something only happens when light has bridged the distance.
This is what all popular science is spewing out.
One would realistically state that some happening only is observed after the light has bridged the distance.

This gets more complicated with the gravity time-dilation.
Btw. I was looking for the evidence for the change in time by gravity,
by taking a clock to a different altitude to a mountain for example.
Do you know of any.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It happens before light gets there, you just don't see it happen until it does.

Time dilation has been observed with earth's gravity. It's something like billionths of a second, but apparently enough that satellites have to take it into account.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are some different models that also explain time-dilation.
And I am looking for some good experimental data.
Like that time changes due to moon's gravity too. And how does it change around earth, on a tower, mountain, under water, north-pole etc.
The Earth's gravity map may be useful. link

There are some important tests that failed. Like on space-time bending.
Like Gravity Probe B failed. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13938-gravity-probe-b-scores-f-in-nasa-review/
And they "corrected" it by changing the outcome of the tests towards Einstein's model.

Another problem is that accelerating electric charges experience a magnetic resistance. But they do not experience that in gravity. Which means that electromagnetism is not following the law of acceleration=gravity. I saw someone try to explain it with complex maths, but it is just bad maths.
And there is a lot of bad maths in how the tensors are applied in Einstein's gravity too.

There are many more of such problems, which may point towards a different model.
Like Einstein's variable speed-of-light gravity model

There may be many other models possible.
But first we need to update the observations with the latest most accurate data measurements.
And account for possible other influences. So we get observation based science.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Black holes are not the only objects with gravity, and therefore not the only objects producing time dilation. Even relatively light objects such as this planet create time dilation; unnoticeable, but enough that it can be observed, much like its curvature.

If there are black holes the effect is much more extreme. So extreme that if you fall into one you'd not only see the entire remainder of history unfold in minutes, but you'd also encounter everything else that's ever fallen into it and ever will fall into it. At that point you'd probably just get ejected from the universe, and a little too late for a reincarnation. If there is "spaghettification", the entire process only takes like 0.1 seconds, which isn't enough time for the sensation to reach your brain. But considering those things suck in things like stars, you'd likely be burned alive before then, so ouch.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is no real evidence for Black holes
See -> https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/deep-anal-ysis-of-black-holes

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I saw that. Maybe you're right. But that's irrelevant.

[–]ZekeTheAnt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did you realize general relativity is getting cracks ?

I never liked Einstein's theories: for my flavor, his Lorentz-parameters fit sort of "too good".

I'm quite sure relativity will be well be understood, once material science advances with some Bigfoot-boots and not this ant-like, like till now.

Sadly, capitalism, as a system to enrich the rich, hinders this kind of natural progress hard.

I pray, that Musk and Bezos die onboard their "own" rockets. Earlier is better in this context.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I keep telling everyone, the speed of light is an arbitrary speed cap. But no one is willing to admit that the universe is a simulation, even though it's completely obvious.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

No speed cap would also be arbitrary.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

But it could also be natural. There may well be a reason for the speed of light, and I know light actually has a speed of infinity but still can't reach us for a certain amount of time due to dilation. But clearly dilation increases at a much lower rate than speed (or everything would be moving at the same speed all the time), so what's causing it all to max out at the speed of light? A performance constraint perhaps?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

All possible universes fall into two sets: those that have a maximum speed, and those that don't.

Don't be overly surprised if the this one is one or the other.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's technically both. The speed of light can be considered as the speed at which "shit happens" the speed of time if you will. Since we define time by the rate at which "shit happens" it always appears to pass by at the same rate for us. The same way that down is always defined as the direction you fall even if that can be different for other people relative to you.

You can just keep on pushing the accelerator and going faster forever of course. There's no limit to how fast you can travel. But light will always appear to travel at the rate that "shit happens" to you, so you'll never be able to outrun it.

It's somewhat meaningless for us to understand a universe with an unbounded speed of light since the speed of light is an essential component to how we perceive things. Don't even think of light as important either, light is just the fastest shit. What it really does is effect the rate at which subatomic particles move and energy transfers.

A universe without a maximum speed would likely be a universe without even a concept of time. That's something we can't really understand.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's technically both.

Either Newton's or Maxwell's equations are correct. It turns out that it's Maxwell's.

If you assume:

  • The spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic.
  • The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference (The Galilean relativity principle.)
  • There is a maximum speed.

You get special relativity.

If you assume:

  • The spacetime is homogeneous and isotropic.
  • The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference (The Galilean relativity principle.)
  • There isn't a maximum speed.

You get Newtonian mechanics.

You can't get both. The maximum speed axioms are incompatible.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But why is there a maxiumum, unless it's set by a program?

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No limit would also be something arbitrarily set. Why would that be the case unless it's set by a program?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Because that follows from the other laws of the universe. This is an exception.

Of course, then there's the question of why those other laws are the way they are. You can't honestly avoid the conclusion that it's all a matrix.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Because that follows from the other laws of the universe. This is an exception.

It's not inconsistent, Vulptex.

If there is a speed limit, you get length contraction and time dilation. If there isn't you don't. As it happens, you do, but neither follows from the other laws. You need to discover experimentally which one is the case.

Of course, then there's the question of why those other laws are the way they are. You can't honestly avoid the conclusion that it's all a matrix.

How does your belief that it's a construction interact with your religious and eschatological beliefs?

Is god and the afterlife also part of the simulation? Or is god who wrote the program, or the hardware running it?

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Either God or the devil originally created it, but it's quite clear that the devil runs it now.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They created both the software and the hardware?

Or within the simulation, were an entity programmed like the other entities?

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

tesla had a theory about ether, but einstein's theory of relativity destroy it

the basis of einstein's thoery is nothing is faster than light

quantum mechanics has shown us instant transmission of information thru quantum entanglement

this proves einstein was a moron, but it was tesla who has been ignored all this time because of einstein

this is why i reserve the greatest scorn for einstein, he was not a genius, he was not smart, he was a con man

[–]ActuallyNot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

quantum mechanics has shown us instant transmission of information thru quantum entanglement

Unless that's changed recently, you can't transmit information that way. You need information at the end about the measurement of the entangled particle, which has to be sent in a classical signal, limited by light speed.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But the information does come back to you instantly. It doesn't really have to travel though.

[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

you need information at the end about the measurement of the entangled particle, which has to be sent in a classical signal, limited by light speed.

it requires a slow signal to verify, it does not change the fact that the information was present before the electrical signal reach.

the obviousness of this makes me question your motives for confusing it such

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, not information. You can't send any message faster than light.

It's very important, because faster than light travel is backwards time travel for some observers. The universe doesn't have that, and if it did, it would fuck up causality.

the obviousness of this makes me question your motives for confusing it such

Really. What motives are you ascribing?

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

quantum mechanics has shown us instant transmission of information thru quantum entanglement

I think I saw an article a few days ago that was saying you still can't transmit information faster than light, even with entanglement. Not sure how that reconciles with spooky action at a distance.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You need to put something on both sides, so the information can show up instantly but only after this has been done.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Light has infinite speed. The "speed of light" only exists due to time dilation. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. So light can travel anywhere instantly, but because of time dilation it still takes time to reach us.

You could certainly (in theory) travel faster than we observe light to travel. Just don't be shocked when you return to earth and learn that it's actually been 100 years.

[–]Masterblaster 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My conspiracy theory is that Einstein’s work was promoted to steer science away from studying the aether.

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Me too

[–]ZekeTheAnt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As assumed by their prequeresites. Where is the news in this ?