Universal Constants (this is getting a bit long and going a bit off topic...)

3 posts ยท Feb 12 1998 to Feb 13 1998

From: Tony Christney <tchristney@t...>

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 11:15:45 -0800

Subject: Re: Universal Constants (this is getting a bit long and going a bit off topic...)

Just to add to the madness that is our Universe...

> At 23:36 11/02/98 -0700, you wrote:

General Relativity implies that gravity, mass and energy are far more bizarre
than anyone had previously imagined. They are intimitely connected, yet all
have to be postulated in order for physics to work at all (you can't derive
mass, it just is...)

> states, Oscar's Razor comes into play. (Oscar's Razor states that you

Nope, Heisenberg's U P says that the energy _can't_ be constant. Even a
laser has a spectrum (albeit very narrow).

> Corollary: Since there are no universal measurements, there is no

If the speed of light is constant, then what is the speed of light when
measured by a photon?, ie, how fast does a photon "feel" like it is going? For
example, it takes a finite time for a photon to go from A to B, but since the
photon is travelling at the speed of light the distance between A and B is
zero, time stands still, and the photon takes an infinite amount of time to go
from A to B, which contradicts the fact that it does get to B (very quickly, I
might add!). Quantum Mechanically, the photon is actually everywhere in the
universe at the same time, until it is detected in a particular place. This
has to be so, because for a photon to be emitted, it also has to be absorbed
(we can't have a "leaky" universe, can we?). Hence it has to "know" that it
will be absorbed before it can be emitted! Again, another contradiction! If
nothing can travel faster than light, then how does that little bugger know
about its absorber when it is, say, 10 million light years away? Feynman tried
explaining this, but even he ran into troubles. A professor of mine had the
priveledge of metting RPF and asked him about it. His answer was that "that is
just crazy stuff!" (typical Feynman).

As for the immortal Pi, try drawing a circle on a sphere! Then Pi changes for
every circle of a unique radius! Kinda like how a triangle on a sphere can
have interior angles that add up to more than 180.

As an aside, many physics students learn the concept of a closed, expanding,
yet infinte universe through the analogy of standing on an inflating baloon.
At any point on the baloon, the space around that point is expanding away from
that point. The further you look, the faster that part is moving away from
you. Hence the quest for the elusive Hubble Constant. The problem is when you
consider the point directly opposite you on the balloon. Whichever way you
look, that point is moving away from you at the maximum speed possible.
However, if you look in opposite directions simultaneously, the point(s) seem
to be moving towards each other! In fact, if you look all the way around to
your own back, things get even more bizarre! Could this be what we are seeing
when we look at Quasars? Are they actually the same thing that we see when we
look in the other direction? Would someone standing near a Quasar see US as a
living in a Quasar, while things around him seem quite normal?

> Whether this allows you to communicate effectively with an

(Just when you thought I was done, ha ha ha!) Even atomic decay rates are not
constant. Its impossible to slow them down enough! And when they are slow
enough, they have already decayed down to their lowest possible energy!
Interstingly, the atomic clocks used in orbit for GPS (among other things)
keep different time than identical clocks on Earth!

As you can see, if I were to write sci-fi, I would probably confuse
myself so much that I wouldn't even be able to write an intro! My readers
would likely see my name on the cover and just leave it on the shelf!

BTW, I don't really expect anyone to reply to these comments. Most of the
questions I am posing have no (known) answers. Indeed, some of the questions
may have no meaning at all! I'm just trying to show what can happen when
"logic" is applied to something completely outside of our realm of experience.
Some things just are, and we have to learn to accept apparent contradiction in
order to preserve our sanity...

> TTFN

From: Alun Thomas <alun.thomas@c...>

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 12:24:50 +0000

Subject: Re: Universal Constants (this is getting a bit long and going a bit off topic...)

> Tony Christney <acc@uvic.ca> on 12/02/98 19:15:45 wrote:

> If the speed of light is constant, then what is the speed of light

Special relativity: the photon isn't accelerating - therefore it feels
like its stationary.

> For example, it takes a finite time for a photon to go from A to B,

No, In the photon's frame of referance, the distance between A and B is zero,
hence (in the photon's frame of referance) it takes no time to travel between
the two.

In our frame of referance A and B are separated by some distance which the
photon crosses at (by definition) the speed of light.

No contradictions anywhere, just two different frames of referance.

> Quantum Mechanically, the photon is actually everywhere in the
that
> it will be absorbed before it can be emitted! Again, another
[...]

Again, there are 2 different referance frames here:

In our frame, the photon is emmitted from A at time Ta and is absorbed at B at
time Tb. Where the distance between A and B is 10 million light years, and the
time between Ta and Tb is 10 million years.

In the photon's frame, A and B are the same point, and Ta and Tb are the same
instant.

> As for the immortal Pi, try drawing a circle on a sphere! Then Pi

'fraid not - the sphere just prevents you from measuring the radius (you
can't get to the centre of the circle without cutting away chunks of the
sphere).

> (Just when you thought I was done, ha ha ha!)
The different rate at which the GPS clocks run is due to predictable
relativistic effects (they're higher up the Earth's gravity well, and moving
at a different rate than their
Earth-bound duplicates).

(If anyone wants to carry on with this, can I suggest we take it to private
      e-mail ?)

From: Jonathan white <jw4@b...>

Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 14:15:08 +0000

Subject: Re: Universal Constants (this is getting a bit long and going a bit off topic...)

> (If anyone wants to carry on with this, can I suggest we take it to

That might be for the best - since the FT relevant content of this
thread has just about hit zero).

                        TTFN
                                Jon