• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Tucker Carlson vs. the Metric System

QM models photons to electrons and electrons to photons.
That's QED - which is only a part of QM.
We do not directly measure photoemission or absorption but the models work in terms of design producing predicted results.

In an antenna current yields predicable energy in the radiation. When the radiation hits a photo detector the number of electrons produced by photons is predictable. Electrons in the antenna to radiated photon to electrons in the detector are predictable.

E = mc^2 is the atomic energy stored in binding forces not the kinetic energy of the mass.
That's utter nonsense. E is energy. Any kind of energy. That's why you cannot accelerate an object with a positive rest-mass to c - as it gets faster, its mass increases making it harder to accelerate, and if it did reach c its mass would be infinite.

Some of the mass of an atom is binding energy; Some is the rest mass of the nucleons; and some is kinetic energy. There's also potential energy in any atom not in its ground state, and that contributes (a tiny amount) to the mass.
Energy in all cases and forms is proportional to a magnitude squared.

1/2 mv^2 kinetic energy
1/2 cv^2 energy stored in a capacitor

I'd have to look up the equation. When v << C we have Newtonian mechanics, energy is conserved. In the equation as v-> C relativistic mass goes to infinity as energy increases. A singularity in the equation.

So kinetic energy is equal to mc2 after all.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativityNot the equation I am looking for but similar.

Total energy E = sqrt(mc^2 _ pc^2_

E = [mc^2]/[sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)]

C can be approached asymptotically but never reached. There is a singularity at v = c, divide by zero. Theoretically there is no limit. You end up with ever increasing energy and momentum as v goes to c.

As v goes to C mass is no longer conserved, momentum is. It grows without bound.

We would have to be in a frame acerbating to C to validate it..
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativityNot the equation I am looking for but similar.

Total energy E = sqrt(mc^2 _ pc^2_

E = [mc^2]/[sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)]

C can be approached asymptotically but never reached. There is a singularity at v = c, divide by zero. Theoretically there is no limit. You end up with ever increasing energy and momentum as v goes to c.

As v goes to C mass is no longer conserved, momentum is. It grows without bound.

We would have to be in a frame acerbating to C to validate it..
If we were in that accelerating frame then it would be our reference frame so we wouldn't measure the same momentum as an observer we were zipping past - we would see that observer as the one zipping by us. It's an interesting idea though, although Newtonian mechanics would be as accurate for us in that accelerating reference frame as it is here on Earth, we would observe starlight from the direction of travel as blue shifted (maybe even into energetic gamma) and starlight from behind red shifted (maybe even into the infrared or below) but we would still measure the velocity of that starlight approaching us at c.
 
In summary,
  • Length
    1. Size of the Earth
    2. (Artifact)
    3. Spectral line
    4. Relativity (with time)
  • Time
    1. Celestial-body motions
    2. Spectral line
  • Mass
    1. Density of water (with length)
    2. (Artifact)
    3. Quantum mechanics (with length, time)
  • Temperature
    1. Phase changes of water
    2. Statistical mechanics (with energy: length, time, mass)
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativityNot the equation I am looking for but similar.

Total energy E = sqrt(mc^2 _ pc^2_

E = [mc^2]/[sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)]

C can be approached asymptotically but never reached. There is a singularity at v = c, divide by zero. Theoretically there is no limit. You end up with ever increasing energy and momentum as v goes to c.

As v goes to C mass is no longer conserved, momentum is. It grows without bound.

We would have to be in a frame acerbating to C to validate it..
If we were in that accelerating frame then it would be our reference frame so we wouldn't measure the same momentum as an observer we were zipping past - we would see that observer as the one zipping by us. It's an interesting idea though, although Newtonian mechanics would be as accurate for us in that accelerating reference frame as it is here on Earth, we would observe starlight from the direction of travel as blue shifted (maybe even into energetic gamma) and starlight from behind red shifted (maybe even into the infrared or below) but we would still measure the velocity of that starlight approaching us at c.

It gets conceptually complicated. Murkowski wrote when the math blows up it does mot mean reality blows up, it means we have reached the limit of knowledge. The fact that C is not relative tells me there is a lot more we as yet have any grasp of. It took centuries to go from Newtonian to QM.

I am outside my depth on relativity, maybe another thread.

If you are traveling at a constant velocity, Newtonian physics works well. If we were on a ship under constant acceleration to C from Earth there is relativistic mass. On the ship a kg is still a kg.That would seem to say achieving C is possible.

A ship departs Earth accelerating towards C. In the equation what is v? Relativity says there is no absolute frame. Velocity is relative.The only thing that can be measured on the ship is a change in velocity or dv/dt which is acceleration. Integrating acceleration gives the change in velocity.
 
Turning to time, for almost all of humanity's history, the primary time standards were celestial: the Earth's rotation, the Moon's orbit, and the Earth's orbit. These three effects combine to make the day, the month, and the year.

The Sun's apparent motion relative to the Earth's equator sometimes speeds up and sometimes slows down, an effect called the "equation of time". It has two sources, the tilt of the Earth's spin axis relative to its orbit axis, and the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, and it was known at least as far back as Claudius Ptolemy, nearly 2000 years ago.

Division of the day into 24 hours is also very old, going back to ancient Egypt at least 3500 years old. In the European Middle Ages, the hour was divided into 60 of the "pars minuta prima" (first small part: the minute) and that division was divided into 60 of the "pars minuta secunda" (second small part: the second). There was no "pars minuta tertia" (third small part) because it would have been too small to perceive, and the second itself is close to the lower limit of our time perception.

Thus, 1 mean solar day = 24 hours = 1440 minutes = 86400 seconds

Over the nineteenth century, the second became adopted as the reference unit of time, with everything else being defined in seconds.

By the mid twentieth century, it was evident that the Earth's rotation was not as good a timekeeper as the planets' orbital motions, so in 1956, the second was defined in terms of the year, or more precisely, some specific year: 1900.

Over all this time, astronomical time measurements had been ahead of laboratory ones in accuracy, but in the 1960's, the lab people finally caught up, and in 1967, the second was defined in terms of the frequency of the hyperfine transition of cesium-133. It may eventually be redefined with the frequency of some visible-light transition, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Over all this time, however, time measurements were based on universal standards and never on specific artifacts.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativityNot the equation I am looking for but similar.

Total energy E = sqrt(mc^2 _ pc^2_

E = [mc^2]/[sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)]

C can be approached asymptotically but never reached. There is a singularity at v = c, divide by zero. Theoretically there is no limit. You end up with ever increasing energy and momentum as v goes to c.

As v goes to C mass is no longer conserved, momentum is. It grows without bound.

We would have to be in a frame acerbating to C to validate it..
If we were in that accelerating frame then it would be our reference frame so we wouldn't measure the same momentum as an observer we were zipping past - we would see that observer as the one zipping by us. It's an interesting idea though, although Newtonian mechanics would be as accurate for us in that accelerating reference frame as it is here on Earth, we would observe starlight from the direction of travel as blue shifted (maybe even into energetic gamma) and starlight from behind red shifted (maybe even into the infrared or below) but we would still measure the velocity of that starlight approaching us at c.

It gets conceptually complicated. Murkowski wrote when the math blows up it does mot mean reality blows up, it means we have reached the limit of knowledge. The fact that C is not relative tells me there is a lot more we as yet have any grasp of. It took centuries to go from Newtonian to QM.

I am outside my depth on relativity, maybe another thread.

If you are traveling at a constant velocity, Newtonian physics works well. If we were on a ship under constant acceleration to C from Earth there is relativistic mass. On the ship a kg is still a kg.That would seem to say achieving C is possible.
Only if you use Newton's incorrect equations. Constant acceleration isn't achievable; As you approach c, the force required for constant acceleration increases exponentially, and the force required to accelerate any mass, however small, to c is infinite.
A ship departs Earth accelerating towards C. In the equation what is v? Relativity says there is no absolute frame. Velocity is relative.The only thing that can be measured on the ship is a change in velocity or dv/dt which is acceleration. Integrating acceleration gives the change in velocity.

Onboard the ship, without looking outside, you have no way of knowing what speed you are going relative to anything else. You know that you are experiencing a constant force, due to your acceleration. But if you use Newtonian mechanics to calculate your speed relative to your port of departure as acceleration x time, then when you look out of the window, you will discover that this gives the wrong answer. The actual speed at which the Earth appears to recede is lower - and never reaches c.

Newton's equations are a good approximation for slow moving objects; But at high speeds, they are simply wrong, and you must abandon them and turn to Lorentz for equations that give the right answers.
 
That's correct for unsteady motion, but if its motion was completely steady, there would be no way to tell from the inside. There are better present-day examples, I think, like airliners. Imagine that you got into your seat and fell asleep. When you awaken, you don't feel like you are moving, but when you look out the window, you see that you are in the air instead of at your departure airport.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativityNot the equation I am looking for but similar.

Total energy E = sqrt(mc^2 _ pc^2_

E = [mc^2]/[sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)]

C can be approached asymptotically but never reached. There is a singularity at v = c, divide by zero. Theoretically there is no limit. You end up with ever increasing energy and momentum as v goes to c.

As v goes to C mass is no longer conserved, momentum is. It grows without bound.

We would have to be in a frame acerbating to C to validate it..
If we were in that accelerating frame then it would be our reference frame so we wouldn't measure the same momentum as an observer we were zipping past - we would see that observer as the one zipping by us. It's an interesting idea though, although Newtonian mechanics would be as accurate for us in that accelerating reference frame as it is here on Earth, we would observe starlight from the direction of travel as blue shifted (maybe even into energetic gamma) and starlight from behind red shifted (maybe even into the infrared or below) but we would still measure the velocity of that starlight approaching us at c.

It gets conceptually complicated. Murkowski wrote when the math blows up it does mot mean reality blows up, it means we have reached the limit of knowledge. The fact that C is not relative tells me there is a lot more we as yet have any grasp of. It took centuries to go from Newtonian to QM.
The math doesn't 'blow up'. Problems like you described are handled quite nicely with the math of relativity. I think maybe the problem you are having is that you are thinking in Newtonian 'reality' rather than relativistic 'reality'. In fact, Einstein introduced relativity to clarify the reality that appears to be paradoxical if Newtonian mechanics is all that is available to understand that reality.
I am outside my depth on relativity, maybe another thread.

If you are traveling at a constant velocity, Newtonian physics works well. If we were on a ship under constant acceleration to C from Earth there is relativistic mass. On the ship a kg is still a kg.That would seem to say achieving C is possible.
Someone on the ship can never approach c because, no matter how long or how many g acceleration they pull, they will still measure light from the stars incident to the the ship at c.

But if you mean approaching 3 x 10^8 m/s with respect to Earth then not so. As the ship approaches relativistic velocities with respect to Earth the ship experiences time dilation with respect to Earth. With significant relativistic velocity with respect to the Earth, what is measured as a second on the ship will be measured as years or centuries by an observer on Earth. There will be continuous acceleration as measured by those on the ship but the observer on Earth will measure something quite different.

You need to remember to account for time dilation and Lorentz contraction when trying to understand the reality of the ship accelerating away from Earth.
A ship departs Earth accelerating towards C. In the equation what is v? Relativity says there is no absolute frame. Velocity is relative.The only thing that can be measured on the ship is a change in velocity or dv/dt which is acceleration. Integrating acceleration gives the change in velocity.
Velocity is a nonsense word unless it is specified what that velocity is with respect to. Someone on a spaceship accelerating away from Earth can define their velocity with respect to the Earth but they can't just say they are traveling at any given velocity without also specifying an external reference point. This is where c is special - light (or any massless particle) travels at c with respect to any reference frame regardless of the motion of that reference frame with respect to any other reference frame.
 
Last edited:
The point about ships is there is no steady motion re the observer so concluding one cannot come to a conclusion about acceleration or velocity without taking into account attributes available to the observer who has capability to detect motion relative to herself.

Yeah, I know. Those damn salt crystals embedded in jell along three more or less orthogonal axes in the inner ear.

You have to see the problem is with the observer, one which is evolved in a world where motion is important.

Damn. If only it were otherwise.
 
An exchange I heard on the radio between two cricket commentators:

Englishman: "How far is that in miles?"
Australian: "I don't know, because we use the metric system in Australia."
Australian: audibly smug smile
Englishman: "How far is that in kilometres, then?"

...mere seconds later...

Englishman: "How tall are you?"
Australian: "Six-five."
Englishman: audibly raised eyebrows
Australian: "Ah..."
Australian: "You got me."

This is so in Canada too and its really weird.
 
Having worked as an engineer mostly in the US, but a pretty long stint in the EU, and occasionally for EU or Asian based companies, I much prefer the metric system. It does take a while to get a 'feel' for the numbers, but it's really so much easier to deal with metric than US units.

Yes it is. I prefer the metric system for any scientific work because I am fucking lazy and multiplying and/or dividing by ten is much easier than using the odd fractions needed in the US system. However, I find the US system more familiar and so more comfortable for normal every day use having grown up with the US system. Maybe that comes back to my being lazy - when I see a metric measurement, I have to mentally convert it to US system to get a feel for it.

But converting to the metric system would be great for those have difficulty dividing or multiplying by anything other than ten even though it wouldn't increase the accuracy or precision of measurements.
 
Back
Top Bottom