The way to resolve these weird time things is to consider that the universe doesn’t care how fast you think you are going. Here’s what it cares about.
1) no going faster than light speed
2) if you look at someone, you see light speed as light speed
3) if someone looks at you, they see light speed as light speed
If you are inside a warp bubble, then you can see no one else and no one else can see you. The weird time dilation required to fix the light speed issue doesn’t matter.
Alpha centuri person looks through their telescopes at the two spaceships and says, both these spaceships took 15 years to get here. Normal spaceship guy says, no it didn’t, it took 12 years. Warp bubble spaceship guy says, no it didn’t, it took 17 years. Earth person watching says, Warp Bubble guy is right, it took 17 years. (Assuming everyone just times things using a stopwatch based on when they saw the ship leave vs when they saw it arrive)
No one has created a meaningful paradox here. No one gets extra time to do a degree on alpha centuri. They just disagree how long the trip took. And, “I disagree how long this journey lasted” is not a meaningful paradox.
If the warp bubble guy is sequestered from the rest of the universe during his travel this should be true, but didn’t it imply a sublight warp bubble could be communicated with during travel?
If he’s sequestered from the rest of the universe, then sure, it’s like wormhole travel or being beyond the event horizon of a black hole, nothing matters, but if he can communicate outside the bubble then it becomes an issue because he is being treated as being in a comoving frame of reference with earth and alpha centauri but his position in space at any given time is actually comoving with the traveler moving between earth and alpha centauri (and this would be actually testable by, for example, sending a message to the warp traveller and asking him where he is or seeing where the message came from).
Edit: Now you could cancel out the relative time dilations by folding space in a way to reconcile the difference around the warp traveller (like making a massive fuck off antigravitational field with exotic matter which may not exist) but you are just compensating at that point, its not making the dilation not exist. (Same as if you were conventionally travelling between earth and alpha centauri and you had a method of creating and destroying conventional matter you could arrange for someone on earth and AC to turn on their mass/gravity generators when you left and turn them back off when you arrive so that they experience a dilation the same as you do, but that isn’t the same as getting rid of it.
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
The way to resolve these weird time things is to consider that the universe doesn’t care how fast you think you are going. Here’s what it cares about.
1) no going faster than light speed
2) if you look at someone, you see light speed as light speed
3) if someone looks at you, they see light speed as light speed
If you are inside a warp bubble, then you can see no one else and no one else can see you. The weird time dilation required to fix the light speed issue doesn’t matter.
Alpha centuri person looks through their telescopes at the two spaceships and says, both these spaceships took 15 years to get here. Normal spaceship guy says, no it didn’t, it took 12 years. Warp bubble spaceship guy says, no it didn’t, it took 17 years. Earth person watching says, Warp Bubble guy is right, it took 17 years. (Assuming everyone just times things using a stopwatch based on when they saw the ship leave vs when they saw it arrive)
No one has created a meaningful paradox here. No one gets extra time to do a degree on alpha centuri. They just disagree how long the trip took. And, “I disagree how long this journey lasted” is not a meaningful paradox.
If the warp bubble guy is sequestered from the rest of the universe during his travel this should be true, but didn’t it imply a sublight warp bubble could be communicated with during travel?
If he’s sequestered from the rest of the universe, then sure, it’s like wormhole travel or being beyond the event horizon of a black hole, nothing matters, but if he can communicate outside the bubble then it becomes an issue because he is being treated as being in a comoving frame of reference with earth and alpha centauri but his position in space at any given time is actually comoving with the traveler moving between earth and alpha centauri (and this would be actually testable by, for example, sending a message to the warp traveller and asking him where he is or seeing where the message came from).
Edit: Now you could cancel out the relative time dilations by folding space in a way to reconcile the difference around the warp traveller (like making a massive fuck off antigravitational field with exotic matter which may not exist) but you are just compensating at that point, its not making the dilation not exist. (Same as if you were conventionally travelling between earth and alpha centauri and you had a method of creating and destroying conventional matter you could arrange for someone on earth and AC to turn on their mass/gravity generators when you left and turn them back off when you arrive so that they experience a dilation the same as you do, but that isn’t the same as getting rid of it.
The whole point is that nothing inside the bubble itself is moving. The bubble is moving, and experiencing dilation, but the contents retain their initial reference frame.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Well the math might work but what about the actual engineering and fabrication
Surprisingly simple... provided you can source tachyonic exotic matter, which shouldn't be able to exist naturally and cannot be created by any interaction involving any particles in the standard model.
Riding a magical flying unicorn is easy once you find a magical flying unicorn.
Im not sure how many times I have to say you dont need exotic matter for this solution to work before it sinks in.
But Im wondering at this point if it ever will.
That's because the exotic matter will also travel faster than your explanation, arriving before you've had a chance to make your point (even assuming you were making a perfectly spherical, frictionless point).
+6
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Well the math might work but what about the actual engineering and fabrication
Surprisingly simple... provided you can source tachyonic exotic matter, which shouldn't be able to exist naturally and cannot be created by any interaction involving any particles in the standard model.
Riding a magical flying unicorn is easy once you find a magical flying unicorn.
Im not sure how many times I have to say you dont need exotic matter for this solution to work before it sinks in.
But Im wondering at this point if it ever will.
That's because the exotic matter will also travel faster than your explanation, arriving before you've had a chance to make your point (even assuming you were making a perfectly spherical, frictionless point).
It all makes sense!
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Pythagorean theorem is a^2 + b^2 = c^2. a is x axis, b is y axis let's say. z axis is zero or effectively close enough so it doesn't matter at all.
The third dimension its x^2 + y^2 + z^3 = c^2, where c is the hypotenuse and closest line between the origin and end point.
Time is basically just another axis, and as long as we arent moving close to light speed it cancels out and is the same as the z axis in the normal pythagorean theorem.
Is this basically how time distillation works? As we approach c, that axis gets so stretched the x / y z axis becomes meaningless small compared to the hypotenuse?
Or am I just poorly mapping different and at best loosely related concepts to one another?
Pythagorean theorem is a^2 + b^2 = c^2. a is x axis, b is y axis let's say. z axis is zero or effectively close enough so it doesn't matter at all.
The third dimension its x^2 + y^2 + z^3 = c^2, where c is the hypotenuse and closest line between the origin and end point.
Time is basically just another axis, and as long as we arent moving close to light speed it cancels out and is the same as the z axis in the normal pythagorean theorem.
Is this basically how time distillation works? As we approach c, that axis gets so stretched the x / y z axis becomes meaningless small compared to the hypotenuse?
Or am I just poorly mapping different and at best loosely related concepts to one another?
It's the bolded. There is no set "reference time" to stretch, everyone is running on their own time. Worse, two people can have entirely different conceptions of what speed each others clocks are running at and they're both right.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Sure, but you could both compare your reference frame to an agreed 3rd reference frame?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space. If one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events (the only exception being when motion is exactly perpendicular to the line connecting the locations of both events).
For example, a car crash in London and another in New York appearing to happen at the same time to an observer on Earth, will appear to have occurred at slightly different times to an observer on an airplane flying between London and New York. Furthermore, if the two events cannot be causally connected (i.e. the time between event A and event B is less than the distance between them divided by the speed of light), depending on the state of motion, the crash in London may appear to occur first in a given frame, and the New York crash may appear to occur first in another. However, if the events are causally connected, precedence order is preserved in all frames of reference.
TL;DR - Time is wonky and people's intuitive understanding of it is based on the scale at which we regularly experience the phenomenon - objects with relatively low mass traveling at incredibly small fractions of the speed of light at very close distances to each other.
Pythagorean theorem is a^2 + b^2 = c^2. a is x axis, b is y axis let's say. z axis is zero or effectively close enough so it doesn't matter at all.
The third dimension its x^2 + y^2 + z^3 = c^2, where c is the hypotenuse and closest line between the origin and end point.
Time is basically just another axis, and as long as we arent moving close to light speed it cancels out and is the same as the z axis in the normal pythagorean theorem.
Is this basically how time distillation works? As we approach c, that axis gets so stretched the x / y z axis becomes meaningless small compared to the hypotenuse?
Or am I just poorly mapping different and at best loosely related concepts to one another?
Its more derived from the fact that the speed of light is c from all reference frames.
Lets say you are on earth. You emit a photon of light and track somehow how fast the photon moves away from you. It goes at C.
Lets say you have a friend going in a spaceship going at .9C relative to Earth that passes by earth at the same time you release the photon. He sees the photon going away from earth in the same direction of travel. You would think he would see the photon going away from him at .1C (because if earth is stationary and he is going away from earth at .9c and the difference is .1c.
But he doesn’t. He also sees the photon going away from him at C.
Now if the speed observed from a (relatively) stationary viewpoint and a moving viewpoint is the same, the only way this could be is that time is moving at a different rate for the two observers*. (Speed is distance over time, if speed is constant and distance is fixed time is the only variable that can change)
This time dilation.
*This assumes space is flat, space can be warped by mass but this is usually relatively negligible unless you are in very close proximity to a large massive object like a star or black hole or something. But if you are, that also causes time dilation relative to someone farther away. It turns out this is significant enough to have to be adjusted for on satellites where extremely precise measurement of elapsed time relative to earth is needed (for example gps satellites)
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Sure, but you could both compare your reference frame to an agreed 3rd reference frame?
You'd both agree on the 3rd (I think?) but not each other.
Right, but if both know how fast object A and object B are moving in relation to object C, they could each calc out the passage of time experienced by the other, allowing them to maintain a collective time frame.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Actually in Special Relativity (So without bending spacetime) Minkowski space (A 3D+1D Spacetime) has an invariant interval. Observers do not agree on the timing of events or the length of objects, but they can agree to a certain summation of events that's not to far from Pythagoras
All the terms to the right can be different observed changes, but if everyone does the math they'll agree to the same left side.
I don't think that holds for General Relativity, where the addition of curvature complicates it greatly, but my knowledge of GR is much more limited.
It was already condemned due to earlier cable failures but it's still a rather unfortunate end for such an important instrument.
+2
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
It's a pathetic indictment of our country's values that we couldn't spend a few million dollars to maintain something this pivotal to our long-term science development. The Arecibo Observatory was one of the few major instruments left in the United States capable of the type of astronomical investigation that can readily produce Nobel-winning research. This effectively reduces our pipeline anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of what it was before, which has long-term ramifications for the country and the world. Not only does half the research done, but half the number of people can now learn from the experience, who then cannot pass on that knowledge down to others.
But it's cool we can build a fucking border wall or something.
+3
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
hasn't it been basically a problem of figuring out how to take it apart since the hurricane?
like i was under the impression the hurricane caused basically irreparable damage and this wouldn't be a situation that is an indictment of our failure to fund science or whatever
Allegedly a voice of reason.
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
hasn't it been basically a problem of figuring out how to take it apart since the hurricane?
like i was under the impression the hurricane caused basically irreparable damage and this wouldn't be a situation that is an indictment of our failure to fund science or whatever
It's been on a downward spiral for the past decade or so. Since well before the Obama administration. The cost of repair was something like $10 million.
And it'd be easier to stomach the loss if we had literally anything in the pipeline to replace it, let alone surpass it.
+2
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
hasn't it been basically a problem of figuring out how to take it apart since the hurricane?
like i was under the impression the hurricane caused basically irreparable damage and this wouldn't be a situation that is an indictment of our failure to fund science or whatever
It's been on a downward spiral for the past decade or so. Since well before the Obama administration. The cost of repair was something like $10 million.
And it'd be easier to stomach the loss if we had literally anything in the pipeline to replace it, let alone surpass it.
yeah, i mean, not saying we aren't failing to adequately fund science
hasn't it been basically a problem of figuring out how to take it apart since the hurricane?
like i was under the impression the hurricane caused basically irreparable damage and this wouldn't be a situation that is an indictment of our failure to fund science or whatever
The second cable break was what did it. It should have been well within margins but the second cable broke anyway. Which meant either the inspections missed something major (never entirely ruled out but they were leaning strongly towards the second option because it pulled out of the socket rather than snap like the first cable) or they were never actually up to their rated spec.
A few days after the second cable broke, the company that would have fixed it straight up refused to put people on the cables or platform because it's actual capacity was effectively unknown. There was a crazy proposal to hover a helicopter above the telescope with safety lines on the workers to catch them if the platform fell out from below them, but they could never actually work under those conditions and it would have been ridiculously expensive.
Ever since then it's never been a question of repairs, it's been a question of safe demolition. The plan was to blow up the towers, but there was a lot of worry about what the cables would do as they lost tension, if it would be safest to drop all three towers at once, in sequence, or just one to bring the platform down and then the other two after the platform and dish are removed.
That decision just made itself.
Hevach on
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
And it's not hard to see a different timeline where the thing was funded and maintained properly and that second cable never broke (assuming it was an inspection issue).
The fact that we have absolutely nothing in the pipeline to replace Arecibo is just gut wrenching. My colleague did research there before he came to graduate school, and I know he's been pretty tore up about it.
Greatest country in the world my ass.
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
+7
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Damn, that really sucks. What are the chances of it being repaired or do you think it's likely it will be abandoned?
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Damn, that really sucks. What are the chances of it being repaired or do you think it's likely it will be abandoned?
It was already slated for demolition, because the cables were too dangerous to get near. Right now it's almost certainly damaged to the point that repair just means replacement. And the facility has been under funded just to keep it running, let alone fix it.
this actually happened late December but i guess with everything else going on it didn't make top billing
Puerto Rico is committing $8 million to the effort to rebuild the Arecibo Observatory.
Outgoing Governor Wanda Vázquez signed an executive order last week establishing the rebuilding of the facility a “public policy” of the Puerto Rican government — citing the telescope’s role in encouraging Puerto Rican students to study science and its status as a tourist attraction.
i would guess this is still not realistically a sure thing, and definitely not a soon thing, but there does appear to be some will to rebuild
this actually happened late December but i guess with everything else going on it didn't make top billing
Puerto Rico is committing $8 million to the effort to rebuild the Arecibo Observatory.
Outgoing Governor Wanda Vázquez signed an executive order last week establishing the rebuilding of the facility a “public policy” of the Puerto Rican government — citing the telescope’s role in encouraging Puerto Rican students to study science and its status as a tourist attraction.
i would guess this is still not realistically a sure thing, and definitely not a soon thing, but there does appear to be some will to rebuild
Unfortunately the only other radio telescope of this size is in China. I don’t think they’ve done first light yet - but I’m not really sure on that.
The problem with that being the Chinese government is currently committing genocide against a minority. It’s good to have options not in China for the type of research these telescopes can do.
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
The Chinese one also if I'm not mistaken isn't going to be a radar telescope. Arecibo's real claim to fame is it's radar astronomy of planets and asteroids. Radio astronomy it's outclassed in many ways by many other facilities, but very few of them have the hardware for radar.
Unfortunately 8 million is a drop in the bucket, and now that PR's place in US partisan politics has gotten even worse good luck even getting the bottom wet.
Hevach on
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Matter is what makes up the universe, but what makes up matter? This question has long been tricky for those who think about it – especially for the physicists. Reflecting recent trends in physics, my colleague Jeffrey Eischen and I have described an updated way to think about matter. We propose that matter is not made of particles or waves, as was long thought, but – more fundamentally – that matter is made of fragments of energy...
For the precession-of-Mercury problem, we modeled the Sun as an enormous stationary fragment of energy and Mercury as a smaller but still enormous slow-moving fragment of energy. For the bending-of-light problem, the Sun was modeled the same way, but the photon was modeled as a minuscule fragment of energy moving at the speed of light. In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.
big if true
it's an interesting idea. i'd be curious to see how it goes from the "math checks out" stage to the "makes verifiable predictions" stage. it's pretty clear we're missing some piece. this seems a far less stupid solution than string theory
Matter is what makes up the universe, but what makes up matter? This question has long been tricky for those who think about it – especially for the physicists. Reflecting recent trends in physics, my colleague Jeffrey Eischen and I have described an updated way to think about matter. We propose that matter is not made of particles or waves, as was long thought, but – more fundamentally – that matter is made of fragments of energy...
For the precession-of-Mercury problem, we modeled the Sun as an enormous stationary fragment of energy and Mercury as a smaller but still enormous slow-moving fragment of energy. For the bending-of-light problem, the Sun was modeled the same way, but the photon was modeled as a minuscule fragment of energy moving at the speed of light. In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.
big if true
it's an interesting idea. i'd be curious to see how it goes from the "math checks out" stage to the "makes verifiable predictions" stage. it's pretty clear we're missing some piece. this seems a far less stupid solution than string theory
Matter is what makes up the universe, but what makes up matter? This question has long been tricky for those who think about it – especially for the physicists. Reflecting recent trends in physics, my colleague Jeffrey Eischen and I have described an updated way to think about matter. We propose that matter is not made of particles or waves, as was long thought, but – more fundamentally – that matter is made of fragments of energy...
For the precession-of-Mercury problem, we modeled the Sun as an enormous stationary fragment of energy and Mercury as a smaller but still enormous slow-moving fragment of energy. For the bending-of-light problem, the Sun was modeled the same way, but the photon was modeled as a minuscule fragment of energy moving at the speed of light. In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.
big if true
it's an interesting idea. i'd be curious to see how it goes from the "math checks out" stage to the "makes verifiable predictions" stage. it's pretty clear we're missing some piece. this seems a far less stupid solution than string theory
I’m going to be honest, but this sounds like rehashed string theory as I understand it. I'm definitely not an expert though, string theory is way out of my ballpark. I would love to read a paper about it, but they don’t seem to have published one yet.
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
Matter is what makes up the universe, but what makes up matter? This question has long been tricky for those who think about it – especially for the physicists. Reflecting recent trends in physics, my colleague Jeffrey Eischen and I have described an updated way to think about matter. We propose that matter is not made of particles or waves, as was long thought, but – more fundamentally – that matter is made of fragments of energy...
For the precession-of-Mercury problem, we modeled the Sun as an enormous stationary fragment of energy and Mercury as a smaller but still enormous slow-moving fragment of energy. For the bending-of-light problem, the Sun was modeled the same way, but the photon was modeled as a minuscule fragment of energy moving at the speed of light. In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.
big if true
it's an interesting idea. i'd be curious to see how it goes from the "math checks out" stage to the "makes verifiable predictions" stage. it's pretty clear we're missing some piece. this seems a far less stupid solution than string theory
I’m going to be honest, but this sounds like rehashed string theory as I understand it. I'm definitely not an expert though, string theory is way out of my ballpark. I would love to read a paper about it, but they don’t seem to have published one yet.
Always a good sign.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+2
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Matter is what makes up the universe, but what makes up matter? This question has long been tricky for those who think about it – especially for the physicists. Reflecting recent trends in physics, my colleague Jeffrey Eischen and I have described an updated way to think about matter. We propose that matter is not made of particles or waves, as was long thought, but – more fundamentally – that matter is made of fragments of energy...
For the precession-of-Mercury problem, we modeled the Sun as an enormous stationary fragment of energy and Mercury as a smaller but still enormous slow-moving fragment of energy. For the bending-of-light problem, the Sun was modeled the same way, but the photon was modeled as a minuscule fragment of energy moving at the speed of light. In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.
big if true
it's an interesting idea. i'd be curious to see how it goes from the "math checks out" stage to the "makes verifiable predictions" stage. it's pretty clear we're missing some piece. this seems a far less stupid solution than string theory
I’m going to be honest, but this sounds like rehashed string theory as I understand it. I'm definitely not an expert though, string theory is way out of my ballpark. I would love to read a paper about it, but they don’t seem to have published one yet.
Always a good sign.
No paper out? So it's electricity universe bullshit then?
Matter is what makes up the universe, but what makes up matter? This question has long been tricky for those who think about it – especially for the physicists. Reflecting recent trends in physics, my colleague Jeffrey Eischen and I have described an updated way to think about matter. We propose that matter is not made of particles or waves, as was long thought, but – more fundamentally – that matter is made of fragments of energy...
For the precession-of-Mercury problem, we modeled the Sun as an enormous stationary fragment of energy and Mercury as a smaller but still enormous slow-moving fragment of energy. For the bending-of-light problem, the Sun was modeled the same way, but the photon was modeled as a minuscule fragment of energy moving at the speed of light. In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.
big if true
it's an interesting idea. i'd be curious to see how it goes from the "math checks out" stage to the "makes verifiable predictions" stage. it's pretty clear we're missing some piece. this seems a far less stupid solution than string theory
I’m going to be honest, but this sounds like rehashed string theory as I understand it. I'm definitely not an expert though, string theory is way out of my ballpark. I would love to read a paper about it, but they don’t seem to have published one yet.
Always a good sign.
No paper out? So it's electricity universe bullshit then?
Looks to be. I can see no details on what math they actually did to get the result they're claiming i.e. is it actually mathematically different or have they just added some terms to common sources (i.e. how does intensity over distance resolve back to mass? In what units?) that indistinguishably resolve back "oh yeah it's kind of like mass via E=mc2".
Posts
if i can't be the one who gets to be immortal me what's even the point
Jerking it in a new body
If the warp bubble guy is sequestered from the rest of the universe during his travel this should be true, but didn’t it imply a sublight warp bubble could be communicated with during travel?
If he’s sequestered from the rest of the universe, then sure, it’s like wormhole travel or being beyond the event horizon of a black hole, nothing matters, but if he can communicate outside the bubble then it becomes an issue because he is being treated as being in a comoving frame of reference with earth and alpha centauri but his position in space at any given time is actually comoving with the traveler moving between earth and alpha centauri (and this would be actually testable by, for example, sending a message to the warp traveller and asking him where he is or seeing where the message came from).
Edit: Now you could cancel out the relative time dilations by folding space in a way to reconcile the difference around the warp traveller (like making a massive fuck off antigravitational field with exotic matter which may not exist) but you are just compensating at that point, its not making the dilation not exist. (Same as if you were conventionally travelling between earth and alpha centauri and you had a method of creating and destroying conventional matter you could arrange for someone on earth and AC to turn on their mass/gravity generators when you left and turn them back off when you arrive so that they experience a dilation the same as you do, but that isn’t the same as getting rid of it.
i mean sure if you can transfer my continuous consciousness (don't talk to me about sleep i don't want to hear it) then yeah
day one agenda
The whole point is that nothing inside the bubble itself is moving. The bubble is moving, and experiencing dilation, but the contents retain their initial reference frame.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
That's because the exotic matter will also travel faster than your explanation, arriving before you've had a chance to make your point (even assuming you were making a perfectly spherical, frictionless point).
It all makes sense!
Pythagorean theorem is a^2 + b^2 = c^2. a is x axis, b is y axis let's say. z axis is zero or effectively close enough so it doesn't matter at all.
The third dimension its x^2 + y^2 + z^3 = c^2, where c is the hypotenuse and closest line between the origin and end point.
Time is basically just another axis, and as long as we arent moving close to light speed it cancels out and is the same as the z axis in the normal pythagorean theorem.
Is this basically how time distillation works? As we approach c, that axis gets so stretched the x / y z axis becomes meaningless small compared to the hypotenuse?
Or am I just poorly mapping different and at best loosely related concepts to one another?
It's the bolded. There is no set "reference time" to stretch, everyone is running on their own time. Worse, two people can have entirely different conceptions of what speed each others clocks are running at and they're both right.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
You'd both agree on the 3rd (I think?) but not each other.
TL;DR - Time is wonky and people's intuitive understanding of it is based on the scale at which we regularly experience the phenomenon - objects with relatively low mass traveling at incredibly small fractions of the speed of light at very close distances to each other.
Its more derived from the fact that the speed of light is c from all reference frames.
Lets say you are on earth. You emit a photon of light and track somehow how fast the photon moves away from you. It goes at C.
Lets say you have a friend going in a spaceship going at .9C relative to Earth that passes by earth at the same time you release the photon. He sees the photon going away from earth in the same direction of travel. You would think he would see the photon going away from him at .1C (because if earth is stationary and he is going away from earth at .9c and the difference is .1c.
But he doesn’t. He also sees the photon going away from him at C.
Now if the speed observed from a (relatively) stationary viewpoint and a moving viewpoint is the same, the only way this could be is that time is moving at a different rate for the two observers*. (Speed is distance over time, if speed is constant and distance is fixed time is the only variable that can change)
This time dilation.
*This assumes space is flat, space can be warped by mass but this is usually relatively negligible unless you are in very close proximity to a large massive object like a star or black hole or something. But if you are, that also causes time dilation relative to someone farther away. It turns out this is significant enough to have to be adjusted for on satellites where extremely precise measurement of elapsed time relative to earth is needed (for example gps satellites)
Right, but if both know how fast object A and object B are moving in relation to object C, they could each calc out the passage of time experienced by the other, allowing them to maintain a collective time frame.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
All the terms to the right can be different observed changes, but if everyone does the math they'll agree to the same left side.
I don't think that holds for General Relativity, where the addition of curvature complicates it greatly, but my knowledge of GR is much more limited.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=301737
It was already condemned due to earlier cable failures but it's still a rather unfortunate end for such an important instrument.
But it's cool we can build a fucking border wall or something.
like i was under the impression the hurricane caused basically irreparable damage and this wouldn't be a situation that is an indictment of our failure to fund science or whatever
It's been on a downward spiral for the past decade or so. Since well before the Obama administration. The cost of repair was something like $10 million.
And it'd be easier to stomach the loss if we had literally anything in the pipeline to replace it, let alone surpass it.
yeah, i mean, not saying we aren't failing to adequately fund science
massholes?
The second cable break was what did it. It should have been well within margins but the second cable broke anyway. Which meant either the inspections missed something major (never entirely ruled out but they were leaning strongly towards the second option because it pulled out of the socket rather than snap like the first cable) or they were never actually up to their rated spec.
A few days after the second cable broke, the company that would have fixed it straight up refused to put people on the cables or platform because it's actual capacity was effectively unknown. There was a crazy proposal to hover a helicopter above the telescope with safety lines on the workers to catch them if the platform fell out from below them, but they could never actually work under those conditions and it would have been ridiculously expensive.
Ever since then it's never been a question of repairs, it's been a question of safe demolition. The plan was to blow up the towers, but there was a lot of worry about what the cables would do as they lost tension, if it would be safest to drop all three towers at once, in sequence, or just one to bring the platform down and then the other two after the platform and dish are removed.
That decision just made itself.
Greatest country in the world my ass.
It was already slated for demolition, because the cables were too dangerous to get near. Right now it's almost certainly damaged to the point that repair just means replacement. And the facility has been under funded just to keep it running, let alone fix it.
End of the road for it, unfortunately. The NSF pulled funding for it last month. I think the debris will be removed still yet.
Turns out there's video of the collapse. There were drones on site doing survey work for the removal plan.
this actually happened late December but i guess with everything else going on it didn't make top billing
i would guess this is still not realistically a sure thing, and definitely not a soon thing, but there does appear to be some will to rebuild
Unfortunately the only other radio telescope of this size is in China. I don’t think they’ve done first light yet - but I’m not really sure on that.
The problem with that being the Chinese government is currently committing genocide against a minority. It’s good to have options not in China for the type of research these telescopes can do.
Unfortunately 8 million is a drop in the bucket, and now that PR's place in US partisan politics has gotten even worse good luck even getting the bottom wet.
big if true
it's an interesting idea. i'd be curious to see how it goes from the "math checks out" stage to the "makes verifiable predictions" stage. it's pretty clear we're missing some piece. this seems a far less stupid solution than string theory
There's certainly an elegance to the idea.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I’m going to be honest, but this sounds like rehashed string theory as I understand it. I'm definitely not an expert though, string theory is way out of my ballpark. I would love to read a paper about it, but they don’t seem to have published one yet.
Always a good sign.
No paper out? So it's electricity universe bullshit then?
Looks to be. I can see no details on what math they actually did to get the result they're claiming i.e. is it actually mathematically different or have they just added some terms to common sources (i.e. how does intensity over distance resolve back to mass? In what units?) that indistinguishably resolve back "oh yeah it's kind of like mass via E=mc2".