Einstein didn't understand his SRT.

[s0cratus]

Einstein didn't understand his SRT.
" During our crossing, Einstein explained his theory
to me every day, and by the time we arrived
I was fully convinced: he understood it."
/ Chaim Weizmann,1921. After he escorted Einstein to the USA/
==..
My opinion about Einstein’s SRT.
1.
One of Einstein’s postulate says that quantum of light
moves in a straight line with constant and independent
speed c=1 (in the vacuum).
2.
The other Einstein’s SRT postulate says that movement is
relative conception. The name of Einstein’s article is :
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.”
Einstein wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And then this other Einstein’s postulate must be understand as:
‘every speed , even the speed of quantum of light (!) is relative.’
It means that quantum of light in a vacuum can have
two kinds of motions: constant and relative.
3
SRT is theory about relativity of speed,
including the motion of quantum of light. (!)
SRT explains only the behavior of Quantum of Light ( ! )
The essence ( ! ) of Einstein’s SRT is hidden in the question:
What will be happen if the electrodynamics particle – quantum of light –
changes its constant - straight movement in the vacuum?
=========.
P.S.
Lee Smolin, Book: The Trouble With Physics. Page 226.
"Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
#
Faster-than-light speeds in tunneling experiments:
an annotated bibliography
www.aei.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html
===…
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
==============..

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

So you understand his theory better than he?

 

[s0cratus]

Where is the border between Quantum and Classic Physics ?
=.
To cross from one country to another I need document.
The document for Quantum Particle is its speed and mass.
But the Border as a division between two counties /
Reference Frames doesn't disappear. It still must exist.
I will take Einstein's SRT postulates.
One postulate is talking about inertial reference frame and
another postulate is talking about constant speed of
'electrodynamics' body' in vacuum / reference frame.
So, the border between Quantum and Classic Physics
( in my opinion) is division between vacuum and all another
inertial reference frame.
=.

 

[John_Mann]

How can someone intentionally create something without understanding it?

 

[Hawkeye]

I don't think you understand SRT. The speed of light c is the exception to the relativistic speeds because it is not actually a speed, rather it is a constant ratio of space to time in all frames of reference.

If an object could travel at the speed of light, it would reach its destination instantaneously because time = 0 at the speed of light.

 

[s0cratus]

I don't think you understand SRT. The speed of light c is the exception to the relativistic speeds because it is not actually a speed, rather it is a constant ratio of space to time in all frames of reference.

If an object could travel at the speed of light, it would reach its destination instantaneously because time = 0 at the speed of light.

=
The speed of light c is . . . . not actually a speed.
It is a constant ratio of space to time in all frames of reference.

time = 0 at the speed of light
Hawkeye
===..
1
A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light
and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

2
An electron can emit or gain energy (drops to a lower energy state
or jumps to a higher energy state) by absorbing or banish one photon.

3.
At constant speed c the time is zero.
Then the * Hawkeye's constant ratio of space to time in all frames of reference * is Zero

4.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
/ Albert Einstein

 

[Hawkeye]

The ratio is not zero... The ratio is defined as: for every 1 second of time, there exists 299,792,458m of space. This holds true in every frame of reference. c is not a frame of reference.

Also, speed is defined as distance over time. If time = 0, well... I'm sure you know what that means.

 

[s0cratus]

The ratio is not zero...
The ratio is defined as: for every 1 second of time,
there exists 299,792,458m of space.
This holds true in every frame of reference. c is not a frame of reference.

Also, speed is defined as distance over time.
If time = 0, well... I'm sure you know what that means.

At speed ( c ) there isn't * 1 second of time *
==

 

[Hawkeye]

At speed ( c ) there isn't * 1 second of time *
==

I've already said this (twice before-hand). What point are you making?

I've also said that c isn't a frame of reference, so your argument of how Einstein didn't understand his SRT makes no sense.

Furthermore, I've also said (and hinted) that if t = 0 at c, then c cannot be a speed by definition. c is a ratio of space to time which has been converted into a speed limit.

 

[s0cratus]

Time =0
Space = x
* ratio of space to time* =0
=.

 

[Hawkeye]

Time =0
Space = x
* ratio of space to time* =0
=.

You seem to be ignoring my point that you cannot use c as your frame of reference.

I totally get what you're saying about how at c, time = 0, but distance actually equals a MAXIMUM value (call it infinity if you want to). In other words, this so called "frame of reference" converts the universe into a single point in a single instant. This means things travelling at the speed of light do not experience time, or space. Therefore it cannot be used as a frame of reference.

c is constant ratio in all frames of reference. This means that no matter what frame of reference you are in (anything < c), for every 1 second of time there exists 299,792,458m of space.

Einstein knew this and I think he definitely understood his theory.

 

[Nick]

"You see, our particle is also a wave. This is a confusing idea. Its like water that is sometimes solid, sometimes liquid, a photon exhibits both the properties of a particle and a wave. According to general relativity its wavelength becomes longer as it climbs a gravity hill, while the path it takes is affected by the pull of gravity as it would if it were a particle."

worth the read: http://www.propermotion.com/jwreed/Essays/The Life of A Photon.htm

 

[Vrecknidj]

From a certain point of view, one can read this stuff in relativity (given Lorentz's way of looking at things), to mean that the same photon that gets from the Sun to the Earth in 8 minutes (from our point of view here on Earth) take 0 time from the photon's point of view.

In other words, should it be possible to put a saddle on the photon and ride it from the Sun to the Earth, the trip, for the rider, would be akin to teleportation. Interestingly, the trip from the Sun to Pluto would also be a teleportation experience taking no time.

From the photon's perspective, on this account, spacetime has no time-like component and the traveling doesn't require movement from one place through spacetime to another.

 

[HAL9000]

Hawkeye 1 - 0 Socratus

Special relativity: Time dilation:

Where L0 = the actual distance travelled, and L = the distance the moving object perceives.

For v = c, L = 0. This means photons play their own game and as far as I'm aware it's yet to to be fully understood. Because of course if L=0, then the time to travel any distance will be zero too.

But then the crazy part is: Time dilation:

Where t = the actual time taken, and t' = the time the object perceives.

Now for v=c, t = infinite. So photons also experience infinite time.

This also has the curious conclusion that a photon arriving on earth will feel like it has taken an infinite time to arrive, yet to us we will see it as young as the day it was made.

So yes, Hawkeye is right about photons not experiencing time.