Perfectly accurate clocks turn out to be impossible

October 7, 2015
Salvadore Dali has seen it in his dreams, now it is confirmed by physicists from the Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw: ideal clock is a fiction. Credit: MoMA

Can the passage of time be measured precisely, always and everywhere? The answer will upset many watchmakers. A team of physicists from the universities of Warsaw and Nottingham have just shown that when we are dealing with very large accelerations, no clock will actually be able to show the real passage of time, known as "proper time".

The ideal clock is merely a convenient fiction, as theorists from the University of Warsaw (UW) and University of Nottingham (UN) have shown. In a study published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity they demonstrate that in systems moving with enormous accelerations, building a clock that would precisely measure the passage of time is impossible for fundamental reasons.

"In both theories of relativity, special and general, it is tacitly assumed that it is always possible to construct an ideal clock - one that will accurately measure the time elapsed in the system, regardless of whether the system is at rest, moving at a uniform speed, or accelerating. It turns out, however, that when we talk about really fast accelerations, this postulate simply cannot apply," says Dr. Andrzej Dragan from the Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw.

The simplest clocks are unstable elementary particles, for example (particles with similar properties to electrons but 200 times more massive). Usually, muons decay into an electron, muon neutrino, and an electron antineutrino. By measuring the decay times and averaging the results for muons moving slowly and those moving at nearly the speed of light, we can observe the famous slowing down of the passage of time: the faster the muons are moving, the less likely the experimenter is to see them decay. Velocity therefore affects the clocks' observed tempo.

What about acceleration? Experiments were performed at CERN in the late 1970s, measuring the decay time of muons undergoing circular motion accelerations even as great as billions of billions of times the acceleration of Earth's gravity (10^18 g). Such acceleration was found to have no impact on the disintegration times.

The Polish-British group of theorists from the universities of Warsaw and Nottingham, on the other hand, were looking at the description of unstable particles moving in accelerating motion in a straight line. The key point for their analysis turned out to be a fascinating effect predicted in 1976 by the Canadian physicist William Unruh.

"Contrary to intuition, the concept of a particle is not completely independent of the observer. We all know the Doppler Effect, for example, which causes a photon emitted by a moving source to appear bluer to an observer toward which the source is approaching, but redder to one it is receding from. The Unruh effect is somewhat similar, except that the results are more spectacular: in an certain area of space, a non-accelerating observer sees a vacuum, whereas an accelerating observer sees many particles," explains Dr. Dragan.

The equation describing the Unruh effect says that the number of particles visible within a quantum field varies depending on the acceleration experienced by an observer: the greater the acceleration, the more of them there are. These non-inertial effects may be due to the movement of the observer, but their source can also be a gravitational field. Interestingly, the Unruh effect is very akin to the famous Hawking radiation emitted by black holes.

The unstable particles which the physicists from the universities of Warsaw and Nottingham treated as a fundamental clocks in their analysis decay as a result of interactions with other quantum fields. The theory says that if such a particle remains in a space filled with a vacuum it decays at a different pace than when in the vicinity of many other particles interacting with it. Thus if in a system of extreme acceleration more particles can be seen as a result of the Unruh effect, the average decay times of particles such as muons should change.

"Our calculations showed that above certain very large accelerations there simply must be time disorders in the decay of elementary particles. And if the disturbances affect fundamental clocks such as muons, then any other device built on the principles of quantum field theory will also be disrupted. Therefore, perfectly precise measurements of proper time are no longer possible. This fact has further consequences, because losing the ability to accurately measure the passage of time also means problems with the measurements of distance," explains Dr. Dragan.

Until now it has been assumed that the concepts of time and space may lose their traditional senses only when certain phenomena predicted by hypothetical theories of quantum gravity begin to play a vital role. It is believed that the necessary conditions prevailed in the vicinity of the Big Bang.

"In our paper, we show that for problems with the measurements of space-time to arise, such extreme conditions are not needed at all. Time, and therefore space, most likely cease to be accurately measurable even in today's Universe, provided that we try to carry out the measurements in systems moving with great acceleration," notes Dr. Dragan.

The results from the physicists from Warsaw and Nottingham mean that at sufficiently high accelerations, the operational capabilities of any theory built on the notion of time, and thus also space, will be disrupted. This raises interesting questions. If in extremely accelerating systems we cannot build a clock that measures time accurately, is this exclusively a fundamental flaw in our measurement methods? Or maybe something is happening directly to time itself? And do properties which cannot be measured accurately even make physical sense?

Modern accelerators can accelerate particles with accelerations several orders of magnitude higher than in the experiments of the 70s. Thus today we can carry out experiments in which the Unruh effect should be visible - and so changes in the decay time of triggered by acceleration should be observable, too. The conclusions of the Polish-British group of physicists on ideal clocks will thus soon be verified.

"If our predictions are confirmed experimentally, many things related to our understanding of space-time, the passage of , and its measurement methods will have to be rethought from scratch. It could be... interesting," concludes Dr. Dragan with a smile.

Explore further: GR20/Amaldi10: Space-time is not the same for everyone

More information: "Ideal clocks - a convenient fiction"; K. Lorek, J. Louko, A. Dragan; Classical and Quantum Gravity 03/2015; 32(17). DOI: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/17/175003

Related Stories

GR20/Amaldi10: Space-time is not the same for everyone

July 9, 2013

Before the Big Bang, space-time as we know it did not exist. So how was it born? The process of creating normal space-time from an earlier state dominated by quantum gravity has been studied for years by theorists at the ...

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

April 16, 2014

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin paradox".

LHCb's new analysis confirms old puzzle

March 23, 2015

Today, at the 50th Moriond Electroweak conference (link) (La Thuile, Italy), LHCb physicists presented their latest analysis of the rare B → K*μμ decay. The new results show deviations from Standard Model calculations.

Recommended for you

Counting down to the new ampere

August 29, 2016

After it's all over, your lights will be just as bright, and your refrigerator just as cold. But very soon the ampere—the SI base unit of electrical current—will take on an entirely new identity, and NIST scientists are ...

87 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jeffhans1
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2015
I can imagine spaceships of the future having trillions of nanoscale atomic clocks through the structure and using the variances between them to give real time specifics on space/time around them. Even if you can't get the details fine enough on one clock, you are not limited to the number of clocks you can query.
nevermark
3 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2015
If we already account for the time dilation effect of velocity in decay rates, why can't we also account for the increased presence of virtual->real particles during acceleration?

The articles doesn't explain why this effect cannot be accounted for if a measurement of acceleration is taken along with measurements of decay.
Returners
3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2015
If we already account for the time dilation effect of velocity in decay rates, why can't we also account for the increased presence of virtual->real particles during acceleration?

The articles doesn't explain why this effect cannot be accounted for if a measurement of acceleration is taken along with measurements of decay.


You need to know time in order to measure acceleration...
docile
Oct 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hav3000
3 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2015
@docile I agree, this is truly groundbreaking research. There's this somewhat crazy guy "planter" that commented on motherboard.vice.com, and he had some interesting ideas about time. First, to an outside observer, time would appear to stop for anything going lightspeed. I'll have to quote him for the rest: "in order to reach the speed of light, you cannot have any mass. The converse is also true, i.e. that which possesses no mass must travel at the speed of light in order to exist. How can that be? Well in order to exist you have to have either energy, mass, or a combination of both. If you have no mass, and no energy, then you are a vacuum. If you have no mass but even an infinitesimally small amount of energy, then you'll be traveling at the speed of light. So what does that mean? Light, because it experiences no time, exists infinitely into the future. But that also means that it exists infinitely into the past, even before its creation. Light is timeless."
Returners
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2015
This is clearly relevant for determining the age and mass of extreme objects and their surroundings, such as black holes, neutron stars, quasars, and so forth due to the extreme accelerations in said environments.

For example, how much time is required for a black hole to destroy a nearby star which strays too close? The acceleration near the event horizon is trillions of m/s^2. So the passage of time inside the accretion disk as well as the age of any particles or light escaping the accretion disk becomes "fuzzy"? Like the Uncertainty Principle? or is it completely unpredictable? Photons or other particles which took a sligtly different path to your lens or other detector would have gone through different gravitational environments and would thereby appear drastically different in age.
billpress11
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2015
Using the CBR as a starting reference point might be as good as one can ever achieve. From that we could measure a lot of things, maybe even a fixed frame of reference.

http://image.gsfc...552.html
"The NASA Cosmic Background Explorer confirmed many previous measurements of the motion of our earth's speed and found that it has a peculiar speed of 360 +/- 20 kilometers/sec in the direction of the constellations Leo and Crater."
docile
Oct 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
richygas
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2015
There is no "time"
Only an eternal "now"
Returners
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2015
There is no "time"
Only an eternal "now" (8 minutes ago)


Uh huh. So why am I posting after you rather than simultaneous to you?

docile
Oct 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
Oct 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2015
There is no "time"
Only an eternal "now" (8 minutes ago)


Uh huh. So why am I posting after you rather than simultaneous to you?

richygas altered your timeline
docile
Oct 07, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2015
Star Trek scenario, cont:

*The guy at the Helm during the opening segment is toast, because we don't know who he is, and obviously nameless characters always die first in Star Trek.*

(crash, zap, bang)
Helm: "Captain! aaarrrrraaaaargh." (a rapidly aging Lieutenant Winslow disintegrates before the senior staff's eyes).
Suddenly Lt. Wilson's voice can be heard from the beyond.
Helm(Wilson): "Captain, you appear to be getting younger."
Captain: "Wilson? What are you talking about? We just watched you die of old age."
Wilson: "No sir. I just saw the entire crew become zygotes again."
Captain: "Then how the hell are we having this conversation?
Wilson: "I don't know sir. Nothing makes any sense without time. It's like everything's happening all at once."
Captain: "Mommy! You're even more beautiful on the inside than on the outside!"
Winslow: "No you didn't." (cut to commercial).

The preceding is meant to be silly, and doesn't reflect the views of anyone.
Hav3000
3 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2015
@ docile, very enlightening comments. Do you think the collision of two photons to produce a Breit-Wheeler pair experiment will be successful? For the biologists out there, Positron / Electron is a Breit-Wheeler pair that when collided results in nothing but photons. The experiment to do the reverse (hitherto unsuccessful) is to collide two photons such that they result in an electron and positron.
docile
Oct 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2015
@jeffhans, nevermark: The paper claims that proper time (atom) clocks becomes fundamentally approximative and that averages or systematic effects can't be accounted for in free observations. It is hard in a relativistic spaceship.

"For weakly accelerated cavity one can get rid of these oscillations [in energy levels] by averaging the result around the chosen value α, which corresponds to a finite uncertainty about the value of acceleration. ... It is clear that the expressions (12) and (25) are different and cannot be related via simple substitution t → Ď�. These differences can be related to the Unruh effect, whose importance rises as the proper acceleration of the cavity increases. ... Obviously, if the clock's trajectory is known in advance, one can artificially compensate for the clock rate difference."

[ http://arxiv.org/...25v2.pdf ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2015
The odd symbol was a tau.

Re studies around black holes, remember that supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies have large radius, so not much acceleration as you pass the event horizon. Bar putative "firewall" effects, you would expect spacetime to reach far into such black holes before its - or apparently a quantum field's - description breaks down. The study of their near regions is perfectly safe from these effects.

Also, fun crackpot: "relativists" such as users of magnet or GPS!? It isn't like relativity is a scarce observed phenomena... =D =D =D
Noumenon
4 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2015
Time, and therefore space, most likely cease to be accurately measurable even in today's Universe,


Generally by 'measurement' I take to mean that one physical system is to interact with another physical system, or some physical system is subjected to physical conditions, and the results are obtained.

But, there has never been a physical time-field or time-particle observed independent of that conceptual application. Time is therefore not measured per se. What actually occurs in physics is that our a-priori concept of 'time' is Defined Operationally, TO BE represented by some physical system. By 'time' is meant only the congruence of one physical system to another physical defined standard. Concepts like time are 'forms of thought' rather than substantive entities that can be 'measured'.

Time dilation and failure of simultaneity simply exposes the artificial nature of that concept.
Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2015
@Noumenon

Generally by 'measurement' I take to mean that one physical system is to interact with another physical system, or some physical system is subjected to physical conditions, and the results are obtained.

But, there has never been a physical time-field or time-particle observed independent of that conceptual application. Time is therefore not measured per se. What actually occurs in physics is that our a-priori concept of 'time' is Defined Operationally, TO BE represented by some physical system. By 'time' is meant only the congruence of one physical system to another physical defined standard. Concepts like time are 'forms of thought' rather than substantive entities that can be 'measured'.

Time dilation and failure of simultaneity simply exposes the artificial nature of that concept.

Congratulations, Nou, you have realised what TIME actually is.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
Time dilation and failure of simultaneity simply exposes the artificial nature of that concept.


Clearly, Time is not entirely artificial. "Something" does indeed mediate the relationships between events, else the universe would quickly descend to total chaos, and I don't just mean the "heat death" scenario...you wouldn't be able to predict the relative motions of say Earth and Mars if time wasn't real.

Relativity correctly predicts some phenomena, but the jury is still out on others;
-Failure to correctly describe Gravitational Waves of decaying orbital bodies.
-However, does correctly predict the decay itself. This contradiction still hasn't been resolved even though we have instruments 10 times more sensitive than what should be needed to do the job.
-Jury is out on whatever Dark Matter is; could be an error in Relativity.
-Jury is out on whatever Dark Energy is; could be an error in Relativity.
-Planetary Clock Contradiction.
-"unkown known" contradiction.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
The "Unknown known" contradiction is a matter of interpretation.

In Einstein's thought experiments he allows known values to be treated as though they are not known, and then "re-measured" at a later time after acceleration, etc.

Example, identical twin paradox.
identical masses on the rocket ship and at mission control.
Identical atomic or light clocks on rocket ship and mission control.

In thought experiments they are "re-measured" to be a different value than what you already know they are.

Changes in measurements of atomic clocks at different altitudes or velocities should be interpreted as a spacial change, not a mass or time change. It's a measure of the difference in angular momentum, albeit needs some conversion factors applied.

Remember, Clocks don't measure "time" directly, but they do measure time indirectly.

I would caution that most things in the universe are still linked causally, so simultaneity isn't really that big fo a problem.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
For example, stars and galaxies on the other side of the universe actually affect our weather and our atmospheric composition...by a very, very tiny amount:
-A few micro-joules here, a few nano-joules there. Its causal, and non-zero.
-A cosmic ray particle from a distant galaxy transforms one atom of one isotope into another...and ends up in your food, and then in your DNA...
-A gamma ray ionizes an atmospheric molecule and releases an oxygen atom. Later you eventually breathe that in as O2 after it reacts with something else.

These things happen in a specific order, which is invariable throughout the universe. No matter how fast you move or what black hole you orbit, they will always be in the same sequence.

Simultaneity is only a problem for unrelated events, and many "thought experiments" overlook co-existing events which are actually capable of causally linking the two events...

A flash light on the front of a rocket ship can prove the order of events on the ship
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
A rocket is moving 0.87c relative to stationary observer.

On-board the rocket, Alice is walking forward at 2m/s while performing a task.
Bob, on the same ship, is moving backwards at 3m/s while performing an unrelated task.
A strobe light at the front of the ship emits a pulse of light with rotating numbers of nanosecond delays, so the exact timing of a photon striking a surface is found; one nanosecond on, one off, two on, one off, three on, one off, four on, one off....repeat.

1,0,2,0,3,0,4,0, 1, 0,....

No matter how fast the ship moves relative to an observer, the light pulses will always hit Alice before they hit Bob, as long as Alice is closer to the front of the ship. If they move closer together, even while always performing unrelated tasks, simultaneity of SOME unrelated events can still be shown and proven.

One problem is proving Alice and Bob's tasks are unrelated. You need to give instructions for experiment, and instructions are related by common cause.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
For example, you could tell Alice and Bob to do random things, and to use their own method of deciding what random thing to do.

Bob decides hell roll dice and watch the television station equal to the result.

He ends up watching a fitness program and he starts obeying the instructions of the trainer randomly, and then randomly stops doing this, etc.

Alice flips a coin to decide whether she will spend her time talking to Carla on the phone, or whether she'll spend her time power walking in the front half of the ship.

While this may appear "randomized" the fact is all of these events are casually related in an immutable order (for each individual,) because they resulted from the experimentor's instructions...and the strobe light at the front of the ship allows you to define the order of events immutably...even the events not directly causally related between Bob and Alice due to randomness...

The problem with thought experiments is they don't think about it.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
In order to further guarantee no confusion about which 1 to 4 packet is being reflected off an "event" on the ship, I would further add an additional term which is incremented from 1 to 5,followed by an additional zero.

1,0,2,0,3,0,4,0, |2, 0... (a 1 could be confused with the other 1)
1,0,2,0,3,0,4,0, |3, 0...
1,0,2,0,3,0,4,0, |5, 0...(a 4 could be confused with the other 4).
1,0,2,0,3,0,4,0, |6, 0...
1,0,2,0,3,0,4,0, |7, 0...
1,0,2,0,3,0,4,0, |2, 0 (restart counter rotation.)

This allows nanosecond precision of measuring when and where events happen on the ship, irregardless of other on-board atomic clocks' movements. Having packets with rotating designations ensures it can be known exactly which packet interacts with an "event" on the ship, and which pieces of it are reflected. It is also noted that the identifier tag could miss being reflected, but that is why the long count, and it could be reconstructed by the previous identifier tag or the next one.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
The propagation of light throughout the universe already does this for us, albeit not in quite as ordered of a fashion. But we can use the wavelengths of light propagating from stars and show that since light from Star alpha is striking the surface of it's own planets, and of Star Beta and it's planets, then the order of otherwise unrelated events (a guy in a passing rocket ship drinking a glass of milk about the same time a fuel tank explodes on-board). An immutable order for most of these events can be established by timing the light from the Star....especially if it is a millisecond Pulsar....our "strobe light". Even though they don't rotate the same speed every time, the on/off pulse effect created by the rotation servers as an excellent reference point for both space and time...radiation created at the same time (same rotation) will interact with different "events" at different places and times, but "c" allows you to time them immutably ~pulsar.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Oh yeah, in my strobe light example, the signal is purely additive and analog. It is not a digital signal because using zeros as value holders could be confusing. Here "0" denotes the absence of a message, or rather a space between a value.

So each increasing value is represented by making the pulse one wave cycle longer. Because the packet identifier number (the last term) has variable length, this means each packet is slightly different in the repeating 5 packet cycle, ranging from 17 to 22 nanoseconds per packet, which is plenty time to identify which packet is reflected, and which specific waves within that packet were reflected, thus timing all events to within 1 nano second, and potentially a half-nanosecond in some cases. So an entire cycle is 117 nanoseconds.

I agree that Relativity is more accurate than Newtonian Dynamics in most known circumstances, but I disagree with some interpretations, and I see modifications are needed regarding time keeping.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
The reason this method of time keeping (having the clock interact with people on-board the ship) is so powerful is because it abuses the same principle relativity itself is abusing: The immutability of the speed of light.

Not only can this establish passage of time on the rocket ship, but they could have external lidar strobes and radars synchronized with the internal light strobe and send time-keeping pulses to distant objects. By combining multiple angles of observation (sensors mounted on the front, middle, and rear) you can use triangulation to get the distance of the object in addition to radar return time to reduce margin of error.

What does this matter?

It allows the ship to tie itself immutably to causal relationships outside itself by tracking the propagation of light tied to itself in synchronization with a similar system onboard.

The speed of light can't be different for a different observer, but these events are immutable.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Teh reason "Thought experiments" produce ridiculous results is because they don't start wth enough data and they don't have enough actions taking place in each reference frame, and they don't have enough different types of time-keeping, nor a way to relate them

In my example above, I still have atomic clocks, but the atomic clock on the ship is tied in with some strobes/lidar and radar, and is used to precisely measure the location and time of all events on-board the space ship, immutably, by using the speed of light postulate of all things.

This is different than your ordinary light clock or atomic clock attempts to understand this scenario.

I have introduced more diversity and more controls than what exists in Einsteins thought experiment, which guarantees simultaneity can be proven and is immutable relative to the other chains of events on-board the ship.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
R.e. 2 posts back...

Supposing the ship is moving near and object, ordinary triangulation is employed as well as radar and lidar.

Arguments of length contraction become problematic, because the precise number of pulses both on and off the ship has been counted, and they are rigged to be synchronized.

If you argue that one or more lengths of the triangulation observation should be changed in another reference frame, you have a problem...the number of light pulses issued is known and synchronized...the time recorded on the atomic clock is known and synchronized. The wavelength of the light used is known.

If you want to contract length, in any dimension, as the relativity equations claim should happen, you are left with no recourse but to assume that the wavelength of the light pulses is different than the machine making the light pulses...which is absurd...

The scenario ensures that simultaneity and order of events both on the ship and in the vicinity is immutable
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2015
It's measuring distance and time to outside events via both radar (and doppler effects) and triangulation, and a time-stamped sequence of pulses....all synchronized by the atomic clock, for systems measuring events both on and off the ship.

I have rigged this scenario so that attempting to produce length contraction or length dilation by calculation will give you a nonsense result representing an impossible geometric configuration.

Attempting to make Bob and Alice's unrelated events happen in a different order, by changing the speed of the ship, (or changing the speed the observer moves,) won't work.

Calculate a different mass for a random asteroid using a different reference frame won't work, because multiple radars and lidars onboard teh ship synchronized measured it from different angles....if you claim the wavelength of light changes in a different reference frame, then changing reference frames changes the "composition," what it reflects/absorbs...ridiculous...
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
So I have absolutely proven that Relativity does not work the way people think it works, by showing scenarios which are realistic, and violate no laws of physics, and the theory absolutely cannot resolve without giving nonsense results on some of other reference frame's observations of matter and EM radiation...

Being in a different reference frame would change the comosition of the rock, because the wavelength used by the radar and the lidar would change (but the people on board observed a specific composition,) and consequently the rock should reflect a different light/spectral lines, but because it's nonsense to assume some of the photons went in a completely different direction in the second reference frame upon being refleted, we assume teh radar receives the same number of photons...but a different wavelength is reflected by a different composition...

This is absurdity, violating parity and conservation laws, but that is exactly what SR would produce for this study.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
I just proved, ABSOLUTELY, that Special Relativity is fundamentally flawed, because one postulate (the speed of light postulate) contradicts the other postulate (the laws being the same for every reference frame)...and I didn't have to do a damn thing involving particle accelerators or mirrors, etc.

I constructed a scenario where special relativity says the other observer is required to see a different wavelength of light being reflected off the asteroid, but in identical amount in total, (because we can't assume photons from the lidar or radar went a different direction in the 2nd reference frame, that would be absurd,) and this is a problem because the different wavelength would interact with different isotopes (but the photons hit the same atoms!!! Another problem) and would reflect or be absorbed and re-emitted with different spectral lines in the 2nd reference frame....another violation of conservation laws...

Special relativity is dead.

Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
I repeat, Ground penetrating radar and mass spectrometers, or even just lidar and normal radar....can prove that Special Relativity is flawed, because if one observer is moving fast enough relative to the other observe the COMPOSITION of the asteroid would appear to change (based on the necessary EM wavelength change in 2nd reference frame) and this violates certain conservation laws, such as Baryon number and potentially Charge and angular momentum (interaction with the electrons would be different,) among other things.

So the scenario I created in Reference frame 1 does not violate any laws of physics.

But relativity produces events in Reference frame 2 which ABSOLUTELY violate several conservation laws.

Relativity is dead.

I can't explain why it works "good enough" for the GPS system....

But Relativity is definitely dead.

I just found yet another proof that it is seriously flawed for the exact same purpose it was originally introduced.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
In Einstein's flawed theory, mass is an abstract with no properties except momentum and kinetic energy. Because you treat mass as an abstract, the differences in reflectivity fo different wavelengths of light vs the abstract mass is ignored.

The real world does not work this way.

If the ship is moving fast enough, Einstein's theory, applied to "real" elemental mass, predicts that one observer will see a different elemental and isotopic composition for the asteroid than does the other observer, and this violates so many laws of physics its a joke.

Charge (potenitally)
Baryon count
Angular Momentum

SR is Dead.

GR has the same effect, just under different circumstances.

GR is Dead.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
I should win a Nobel for finding this.

I've never seen someone attack it on this angle, and I'm right about this. Using multiple time-stamped light clocks and ground-penetrating radar in combination with triangulation....forces a frame 1 input scenario where calculating the alleged observation for the other reference frame results in an output for frame 2 scenario which violates multiple fundamental laws.

Frame 1 has no violations of any laws.

Frame 2 cannot help but violate multiple laws of physics.

This is freaking MONEY in the bank.

This is the SILVER BULLET guys.

It proves SR and GR are flawed and need to be somehow patched, modified, or re-done from the ground up...

The new theory must still properly explain the things SR and GR explain, but it must do so under all circumstances, and without producing contradictions like this one, and hopefully it will explain whatever the hell the major contributor is to DM and DE in the process.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
claim below

I, WADE DANIEL SMITH, RESIDENT OF 39331 ROSARYVILLE PONCHATOULA, LOUISIANA (UNITED STATES) 70454, DO HEREBY CLAIM SOLE RIGHTS TO THE SERIES OF ARGUMENTS I HAVE MADE ABOVE, EXCEPT POSSIBLY WHERE LIMITED BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS SITE.

SIGNED 9:05A.M. CENTRAL TIME (U.S.) 11 OCTOBER 2015.

Field equations can't explain this.

I shall copy all of my posts to text document and organize the thoughts and presentations better to present in a paper this problem.

I do not believe I'm making a mistake, because even if 0.87C is not fast enough to produce the contradiction, a much faster speed, 0.999...c, will eventually produce the isotopic/spectral line/composition contradiction at a finite speed and a finite time.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
If I manage to get a decent paper written, I will cite the two posters above me, Noumenon and Reg Mundy (may need real names) because your posts actually helped jog my mind about how to rig this scenario. Light itself is the method to disprove SR and GR....at least as we know them.

All you have to do is modify any thought experiment so that the elemental/isotopic composition is known for one observer regarding the masses involved....then let the thought experiment progress until the wavelength of light striking the object is changed so much (in the other reference frame) that the emission spectra becomes a contradiction i.e. different elemental/isotopic composition...or same element contradiction emitting a wavelength it is forbidden to...

It cannot help but happen at a finite speed which is high enough.

Therefore formulas are disproven.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
In simpler terms, what is going wrong in this experiment (not my fault, it's Einstein's fault)?

Well, the observer on the ship sees a red rock, probably made of iron-oxides.

If the ship is moving fast enough, the stationary observer (on another planet) is calculated, by the SR theory, to be seeing a green or blue rock...and necessarily made of something else, otherwise it wouldn't reflect and emit exactly the same number of photons, whch it must do (the events must happen in both reference frames, they are supposed to just happen at different times), but here we see the theory would force the composition and color, and spectral lines* of the object to be different in one frame than it is in the other frame.

Clearly a a fundamental flaw exists.

*issue is only a different compound would absorb/reflect and emit the same number of photons in the same direction, but at a different wavelength.

Thus SR debunked by many violations.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
This is relevant to particle physics and astronomy/cosmology.

They measure the "velocity" (actually they back it out using the kinetic energy and find the implied velocity predicted by relativity) of cosmic ray particles. The problem is cosmic ray particles and neutrinos move fast enough that they would experience this contradictory spectral shift and composition shift...

Neutrinos change flavor for a different, unrelated reason, because their velocity doesn't appear to change much, if at all. So this is not happening in the real world for neutrinos, and it's definitely not happening in the real world for proton or neutron radiation coming from outer space.

So the real world has a microscopic version of this experiment, and in the real world, WHAT THE SR THEORY PREDICTS (when you start with enough information and make enough types of measurements in the thought experiment) DOES NOT HAPPEN...

This is a game changer for both particle physics and cosmology
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
It means the calculated mass of the most energetic cosmic ray particles is probably wrong, because the theory used to calculate it is wrong for "high enough" speeds. This is important to neutron star, black hole, stellar, super nova, quasar physics...dynamics nuclear physics/fundamental forces/processes of all of these systems...

Since a replacement theory must still correctly explain the things SR and GR explain, it means some of the light and other radiation from distant objects may be incorrectly interpreted by scientists using only SR, GR, and QM...which could lead to errors in temperature calculation, doppler effect, composition, age, velocity, etc.

Could lead to holes in our understanding of the attractive and repulsive forces we know, or missing forces...Dark Energy and Dark Matter? Remember, I told you they were Error, I just didn't realize how big of an Error they really are.

This is going to take some significant work to condense all this.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
Why does cosmic rays mass matter?

Well, if that super-energetic particle wasn't a Proton, because the theory is flawed and may have misidentified the mass, or some other property, then what the hell was it?

Example, some cosmic ray particles have been observed to have kinetic energy equal to a Fast-Ball pitch in baseball. This leads to issues of assuming (if you manage to also detect the charge) that it is likely a proton, and then backing out the Einstein's kinetic energy formula to get the velocity, which is arbitrarily close to c in this case many 9's and such after the decimal place.

Well...

What if that wasn't a proton? What if it was some other particle with a different mass, and consequently a different velocity? Not saying it was, but given I've just proven the formula doesn't work for very fast speeds, SOMEONE must ask this question regarding elementary particles and especially cosmic ray particles...
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
I will rest my case for now and do something else, but I have double and triple-checked the scenario, and given enough measurements from frame 1, it predicts events in the 2nd reference frame which violate several laws of physics.

Anyone who negatives me, do yourself a favor and at least think about it or do the math yourself to find out that I'm right or wrong.

Right now everyone has been polite and I got no negatives, but hopefully even the biggest trolls or forum mafia will see this time, once and for all, that I have been right all along.

It doesn't mean we totally discard SR and GR, but it does mean an entire re-working of classical physics is once again required...above and beyond SR and GR in scope and intelligence.

Oh yeah, String Theory and Brane theory aren't even meant to address this specific issue. They don't even know it exists yet...
richardwenzel987
not rated yet Oct 11, 2015
I thought that elements were identified on the basis of spectral absorption/emission bands. We already see hydrogen lines that are redshifted but still identifiable. What you are describing sounds like blue-shifting or red-shifting of spectral lines. But that's already known and understood. There is no reason for the position of an absorption band (for instance) to shift within a spectrum, only the wavelengths of the entire spectrum. But the various emission/absorption bands maintain the same relative position, and that is the elemental signature.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
I thought that elements were identified on the basis of spectral absorption/emission bands. We already see hydrogen lines that are redshifted but still identifiable. What you are describing sounds like blue-shifting or red-shifting of spectral lines. But that's already known and understood. There is no reason for the position of an absorption band (for instance) to shift within a spectrum, only the wavelengths of the entire spectrum. But the various emission/absorption bands maintain the same relative position, and that is the elemental signature.


It doesn't work.

Elements only absorb and reflect certain wavelengths.

Both observers have to observe the same "event" but at different speeds (supposedly), since the photons are originating from radar and other sensors.

If the ship sends out 50 pulses, the stationary observer must see 50 pulses. fine.

If the ship sends out pulses of a given wavelength, the stationary observer sees something else. At 0.87c factor 2.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Now the problem becomes that a wave twice as long is not absorbed by the same element in most cases.

If you double the wavelength of any visible light you actually skip completely out of the visible spectrum. Likewise if you have the wavelength of any visible light you skip completely out of the visible spectrum in the opposite direction.

The result of this is that different observers (according to the formula when herein applied) will see the asteroid as being different colors, but not only that, because the wavelength is different the photons do not interact with the atoms/molecules of the asteroid in the same way, which produces the contradiction of having different absorption and scattering behavior, as observed by the second observer. A major contradiction being that most of the photons won't even remotely do the same thing in 2nd frame regardless of time

This has to be a flaw in Relativity, and may explain calculation quirks in particle physics.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
The problem isn't just a matter of timing or ordering.

The second reference frame is predicted (by Einstein's formula when applied to all data) to observe completely different events....because different wavelengths will be absorbed and scattered differently (see the rainbow for proof)...

This event (in frame 1) is a causael, ordered event. It is not a matter of simultaneity.

What the formula predicts in frame 2 causes major problems;
-Different strength of return signal will be observed.
-Different emissions are observed.
-Different total number of photons in the return signal, because some will hit whch should miss and some will miss which should hit (see Rainbow to understand why).

They are supposed to observe the same events, but the formula, when mass is no longer purely an abstract, predicts that they actually will observe completely different events...if the ship is moving fast enough...
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
This means the fundamental properties of some of the particles created in accelerators *MAY* be slightly wrong, or even totally wrong. This "glitch" may even be disguising totally unknown properties of matter, space, and time...

the Alleged missing anti-matter
The alleged missing alternate forms of ordinary matter
Dark matter-is it even a thing? Or just a mistake?
Dark Energy - Ditto
The Flawed definition of Energy problem... (very subtle, get you banned from physics forum if you mention it. They don't like to talk about it.)
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
In an extreme example:

If the ship was using a Laser instead of a Radar...

One observer would see ionizing (EM)radiation vaporize then ionize the surface of the rock, turning it into plasma.

The formula predicts the wavelength is different, and by a very large margin in this case, for the second frame.

Second frame sees you know, something less spectacular, a visible or infrared laser heat the surface of the rock and it glows white hot maybe some melt, maybe some vapor, or some nonsense, instead of being ionized.

They are supposed to see the same events, just at a different speed, but the formula would predict that they won't see the same event.

One sees an ionization, perhaps.
The other sees ordinary melting, maybe vaporization, maybe conduction through the rock and no vapor, etc. Completely different result, not to mention different scattering.

Einstein used abstract mass.

Realistic composition considerations produce TRULY contradictory results.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
"If our predictions are confirmed experimentally, many things related to our understanding of space-time, the passage of time, and its measurement methods will have to be rethought from scratch. It could be... interesting,"

....gets my vote for the understatement of the century.

While the paper relies on particle based clocks it would be interesting if this still holds if one could build a clock based on photon-photon interactions alone.
https://en.wikipe..._physics

If we already account for the time dilation effect of velocity in decay rates, why can't we also account for the increased presence of virtual->real particles during acceleration?

Because these are stochastic effects (not deterministic).
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Heres a more obvious reflection contradiction, easier to understand.

We have the same scenario, but instead of an asteroid we place a dead pig in space.

The ship fires pulses of X-rays at the pig, and receives return signals from the bones and some other tissues, but most of the X-rays pass right through the pig's flesh.

The formula predicted heavy red-shifting (for a ship moving fasting enough) of the light in the other frame, so the stationary observer in the other reference frame observes visible light hit the pig and bounce off, with almost none of it penetrating the pig.

This is a clearly insane result, but SR predicts it happens if the speed is close enough to C.

Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2015
Here's another one.

Instead of an asteroid or dead pig, this time we use a triangular prism in space.

The ship fires a beam of white light which is scattered into the colors of the visible spectrum, roygbiv...

the stationary observer on the ground sees infrared hit the glass and either reflected or absorbed with little or no transmission. Even if any visible beams of light do get through, they won't be pointed at the same objects on the way out.

This is scientifically relevant at MODEST speeds in relativistic terms....0.5c....0.87c...

that's nothing to the supposed speed of particle accelerators.

Whatever they are measuring in accelerators, it isn't what they think it is, at least in some cases.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
These last two examples prove that there is a hell of a lot wrong in particle physics and in cosmology, due to the absurd results given by SR and GR in just something so simple as a 4th grade science experiment.

I had this right all along.

It is not proper to use an abstract mass in the thought experiment.
When you use real substances, especially in those last two scenarios, the postulates of Relativity and the predictions of relativity break down.

This means:

Particle physics is flawed ni the case of some particles.
Astronomy is seriously flawed in the case of some objects (most likely neutron stars and black holes' real mass).
Quasars (maybe)
Cosmic Microwave Background...needs re-examined
re-ionization needs re-examined
nucleosynthesis ""

"E=mC^2" may be slightly flawed!

IM NOT JOKING OR TROLLING.

Since I hope the laws are really the same everywhere.

This means the Speed of Light postulate must be discarded, or somehow altered.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Every time you see a Rainbow in the sky, you disprove at least one postulate of relativity.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
AT this time, I would like to thank the moderator of "Physics Forums" website for banning me the other day. I could NEVER have done this with your help, you narrow minded half-whit.

That will be my acceptance speech if I win a Nobel.

Regime change is coming.

All shall be made fools in the face of this so simple disproof.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
I can propose an experiment to test the prism/spectrum prediction.

We can't make a ship that can go the speed needed, but we can make an accelerator.

if there was a way to accelerate a glass bead to relativistic speeds, and then shoot it with different colored light sources...then we could...shed more light on this subject.

Does the bead "see" the same color light we see? Why or why not?
Is the light reflected or transmitted the same as would be predicted for a stationary bead given the wavelength as measured at the stationary source? Why or why not?
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Return to moving ship and prism.

Let us place a set of photographic plates behind the prism, where the Visible Light is supposed to be bent into a spectrum

Let us place an infrared camera on the front side of the prism, where the stationary viewer would calculate that the infrared beam should be redirected.

Now the people on the ship observe a visible, white light beam hit the prism, pass through it, and get split into the colors of the rainbow, and strike the photographic plates.

The formula says the stationary observer on the ground sees the beam of light as being infrared, but Infrared can't pass through the glass prism.

So the logical outcome of what the SR formula predicts for his scenario is that the "IR" light gets reflected and detected by the IR camera.

One of these events is real, and the other is an artifact of a bad theory.

Unless...unless...

It could be like the double split experiment....maybe both happen...after the flight the crew returns
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Now the crew returns home to the stationary observer's position and studies the photographic plates. Remember, in their time line, the light hit the photographic plates, so they should be perfectly fine with finding light on the photographic plates.

The stationary observer informs them that the camera captured exactly the calculated amount of infrared radiation.

How could both outcomes happen?
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Except that when we return to the asteroid problem it is impossible for both to happen without violating conservation laws. So both undoubtedly do not happen.

The formula is flawed. Probably one of the postulates is wrong.
gculpex
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
Except that when we return to the asteroid problem it is impossible for both to happen without violating conservation laws. So both undoubtedly do not happen.

The formula is flawed. Probably one of the postulates is wrong.


WOW! I thought I was way out there!
Reg Mundy
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2015
@Returners
Bad news, I'm afraid, for you. You are FAR from the first to point out the discrepancies between the holy scriptures of Physics as regurgitated by the acolytes of the status quo, and reality. You are joining a merry throng who have long believed that the "laws" of physics are merely mathematical models and when extraploated do not produce results as experienced in the real world.
But the high priests will continue supporting their beliefs, and thereby the billions of dollars invested in "proving" them, funding experiments which continue to fail, e.g gravity waves, Dark matter detection, etc., etc. Hey-ho, jobs for the loyal boys, keep rejecting common sense where it doesn't fit the model.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2015
You are joining a merry throng who have long believed that the "laws" of physics are merely mathematical models and when extraploated do not produce results as experienced in the real world.

Erm..hello? News flash: Everyone - including most especially scientists - knows that models aren't reality and that every model is not ultimately correct (an most especially can never be proven so).

That doesn't mean that these models can't be very, very, very good, mind. It also doesn't mean that it isn't worth checking where these mathematical models lead. Sometimes these models are so very good that they make surprising predictions - and sometimes these predictions hold true when the experiments are eventually performed (which increases the confidence in the model substantially - but never absolutely)

Guy like you who - realize this late in life that models aren't reality - are somewhat retarded for taking this long.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
I am working on some acronyms for papers and proposals to NASA for experiments:

SPAESR (Simple Proofs Against Einstein's Special Relativity)
PAEGR (Problems Arising from Einstein's General Relativity)
EPOCH (Elementary Proofs Overturning Confidence in Hubble)
SOUND (Solar Observations Updating Nuclear Dynamics)
PAHNDORAS BOX (Proofs Against Hawking's Nothing Devised On Regular Arithmetic and Sets: Beyond Ontology and Cosmology)
PIZZA (Problems Involving Zero Zeroes Acknowledged)
DOPING (Direct Operations Preventing Iranian Nuclear Gains)

Entertainment.
Scrabble: Score Almost 400pts Every Game
First to 500: Make Your Local Rummy Champ Rage Quit
Rooked: Improving the Balance of Chess Pieces
Patched: Simple Game Mechanics Misunderstood by Developers and Pros
Outmatched: Win Solo vs Two Platinum Players in Starcraft 2
Useless Units? I Think Not: C+ Broodwar Veteran Soundly Defeats Elite, B+/A-, Opponents on First Engagement, no Cheese.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2015
@ Returnering-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, I am fine and dandy, thanks for asking. Hoooyeei Podna, that is some thing you wrote up there. Did it take all day and all night too? I take it you are still unemployed or you couldn't have got that much written down in just one day, eh?

I got the tip for you, why you don't write all stuffs down and put it in a book like the one Reg-Skippy wrote. Then you could save your self a lot of time and just say: "Go buy the book" and up put the linkum for the place that is peddling them for you. Sure would save a lot of time and I am sure everybody here and at the phyorg too would be really happy for you to do that.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Entertainment cont...

Hunting Grounds: Reactive Strategy Easily Wins Against Ranked, 80-95th percentile Teams on Multi-Entrance RTS Maps...Without Luck or Cheese, Even if They Know How it Works...

No Practice Required: HotS Old School Math Tricks Pros and Devs Don't Know Put You Ahead 4 or 5 Bases to 2, in Same League Zerg Mirror, even vs Specialists. Your Victory is Assured.

"They've Already Lost": Deep, Early Game Secrets to Win Instantly Against Good Players in 2vs2 and 3vs3 in RTS.

Fourteen Command, Omni-tech: Free Wins in Middle Leagues In 2s vs Ranked Double Zerg. Defend Early Attacks, get Monster Economy and Army. Opponents Melt.

"D-Boost": Is My Damageless Route Faster in a Glitchless Super Metroid Speed Run? Tips from a player who made 29 minutes in-game without D-Boost and Pumping.

Magic 28: Theories on how to get a 28 minute, Glitchless in-game time on Super Metroid: Full Reverse Boss Order Suitless. Difficulty: Super Human, but Possible.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Some of these would be chapters in a single book:

"You're too Predictable": Paradox: Why Many Expert RTS Players are Easier to Beat than Noobs; Being the Weaker Player in Every Tangible Statistic and Destroy your Opponent Anyway.

"Experience; You Don't Know What You're Doing": Save a botched 2vs2 opening, and win from behind, even while ally leaves game w/frustration. Opp: "How is this Possible? We Had Map and You Had Nothing. You killed Everything we Made, and Lost Almost Nothing."

Scrabble Hax: Three Med Students Share 1 hand vs Me, a College Drop-out. Who will win? Score me: 390 points vs Them: 270 points. Play them again and score Me: ~375 vs Them: ~250. It was their suggestion after seeing me win a 390 vs 375 vs another degree holder.

I play like 1 game every 6 months to a year, average 375 to 390, and I'm the 3rd best player in my extended family, behind my mother and my uncle. 375 to 390 is as good as professional scrabble players.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
More

Scrabble: Win with perpetual bad tiles. Three Med Students each play a hand in a 4 player game of Scrabble. I Score around 375 again, and have as many points as any two of them combined. after getting mostly vowels for my first 14 tiles, having decided not to dump due to number theory suggesting 7 tiles is better,

Testie Tests the Tester: After Seeing me play Rummy and Scrabble an Destroy even other good players, one of the med students wanted to challenge me to the "name mammals alphabetically" thing (from Phenomenon). I told him, "Let's make it harder. First, you name a mammal for each letter alphabetically, then I will name Mammals alphabetically, and I can't use any of the ones you use. I got 26 Unique Mammals in less time than he got the first 26 Mammals."

"Picture This": Take an Art class for about 2 years. Even if you never use it, it'll stay with you. A while ago I got to draw this woman's portrait and she liked it. Hadn't drawn regularly in years.
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2015
@ Returnering-Skippy. Cher, your mental conditions are getting out of control again. Maybe you should take a break for awhile until your thinking settles down some.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Meta-game: How supposedly Bad Chess Openings Win Games. (I don't have any formal training in Chess so I don't know most openings by name). One day I played a certain Prisoner in a game of Chess. Well 3 games actually. He seems to have spent all his time playing Chess. I don't actually practice Chess, but mainly because I don't have anyone to play with. When I do play for like a day I get like 1350 to 1400 rating in online chess, but 1500 to 1600 eventually get some advantage on me.

But this guy(I protect his name for his own good)...none of his moves are ever anything like standard play. I'm the same way really, but he's better at it...He toyed with me. I laughed about it too, because I used to beat everyone in High School, including a teacher, but none of them were very good. The online players who beat me? They wouldn't stand a chance. The depth of planning and experience was impeccable, and the unorthodox style of play was outrageous.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
Now this wasn't the first time I was destroyed in person in a game of chess. Freshman year in college I came across a chess club player, and his experience wore me down I guess you'd say.

So the former prisoner? He is like talking to me, trying to coach me while I'm playing against him...it wasn't formal games, just friendly joking around you know, and he is like, "You don't even know what I'm doing. You're looking at this piece and I'm not even about that right now."

And I'm like, "I know that, but I don't get how I'm supposed to deal with it."
It doesn't help that in High School, I used to be able to plan and theory craft moves in my head about 12 moves ahead of time, but in the past several years my working memory has declined horribly to only being able to plan a few moves ahead of time.

If I had to guess, he was probably playing around the 2000 level or above, which is nearing ranked play. Can't comprehend what's happening until checkmate.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
When you play a 1600 level player it's this gradual demise you see coming.

When you play "Sam" (Let's call him that)...it's all hidden, unorthodox openings, pins, skewers, discoveries, sacrifices, All things I know about and try to use, but the subtlety is uncanny. "I Need to move this piece, but if I do then he'll move there and fork me."

Then all of a sudden, "Checkmate in Seven? I think? Yeah, Seven."

Then I see it like 2 moves later and Concede...

I'm not a dunce at the game, but compared to regular players who actually study the game I can't compete with them, and I don't have time to be that good at that many things, no matter how good I am in general at pattern finding.

I beat Windows Chess Titans on level 8 twice before, but have a loss record against both 7 and 8.

I tried Winboard, but it is invincible. A forum poster claimed it is rated around 3000 equivalent.

I tried programming it with new pieces, and it understands them and wins anyway.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2015
I can only guess that while "Sam" was in prison ( I didn't ask about it) he must have had time to play chess with some other inmates, and they must have all be seriously studying the game.

I hate to say this, but one of the games he beat me with a perfect game...and I've beaten other people with a perfect game before...and no, it wasn't a 4 move game, it was like 12 to 15, I don't know.

part of the problem I have is you really need to commit about 20 major openings to memory, and you need to commit about 4 variants and transpositions of each of those to memory, and for whatever reason I've never been able to do that with Chess.

The other problem is pieces don't do what you think they do. After having seen "Sam," I'll even say they don't do what Chess Instructors think they do...

Oh the moves are the same, but he's attacking a totally different space than what you think he's doing.

I wrote down the moves for one of the games, but I don't remember what I did with it.
dna5631
4 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2015
@ Returners

""E=mC^2" may be slightly flawed!

IM NOT JOKING OR TROLLING."

That may be dependent on the observer.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2015
E=mC^2" may be slightly flawed!

Aaaand the last horse makes it to the starting gate. Did you figure that out all by yourself? Genius! (watch out: massive sarcasm)

Noumenon
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2015
@returners,... you may have said something of interest even if merely on account of volume ( merely statistically probable), .....but i'm not going to quit my job just to read your posts, in order to find out.

Brevity is the soul of wit, yes?

Congratulations, Nou, you have realised what TIME actually is. - RegMundy

As that concept is defined for use in physics , it renders present theory perfectly valid. Time dilation and failure of simultaneity, real observerable effects on physical systems, only exposes that the physical definition of time 'runs-away' from our intuition of time,... they are non-intuitive elements of that theory. Strictly speaking, the word "congruence" or "duration" should be understood by use of "time" in physics, not some ontological Time.

EnsignFlandry
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2015
Returners:
In Einstein's flawed theory, mass is an abstract with no properties except momentum and kinetic energy. Because you treat mass as an abstract, the differences in reflectivity fo different wavelengths of light vs the abstract mass is ignored.

The real world does not work this way.

If the ship is moving fast enough, Einstein's theory, applied to "real" elemental mass, predicts that one observer will see a different elemental and isotopic composition for the asteroid than does the other observer, and this violates so many laws of physics its a joke.

Charge (potenitally)
Baryon count
Angular Momentum

SR is Dead.

GR has the same effect, just under different circumstances.

GR is Dead.


We look forward to seeing you in Stockholm in formal dress, accepting your prize for your not-yet-published, peer-reviewed paper. Meanwhile, my dog has to go p00p.
EnsignFlandry
3 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2015
order to reach the speed of light, you cannot have any mass. The converse is also true, i.e. that which possesses no mass must travel at the speed of light in order to exist
This is just another version of the claim, perpetuated with relativists, that the photons have no mass because they do propagate with speed of light, so that the time stops just for photons. But this claim is internally inconsistent, because if the photon moves with speed of light, it should be also equivalent to vacuum so it shouldn't exist/be observable. The AWT faces this paradox with reference to soliton character of photon in dense aether model: the photons don't actually move with speed of light, but with subluminal one and they do oscillate, so that their speed fluctuates. As the result the photons can exist as a physical entity mediating the mass. Only the average of photon speed is close to speed of light.


Photons have no rest mass. They do have momentum, ergo, and mass.
my2cts
1 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2015

Photons have no rest mass. They do have momentum, ergo, and mass.

No they don't.
Momentum does not imply mass.
nsgaga
not rated yet Oct 12, 2015
Just a note / correction about the article - you're referring to the lead scientist as Dr. Dragan - which is like Dr. John - it's a first name.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2015

Photons have no rest mass. They do have momentum, ergo, and mass.

No they don't.
Momentum does not imply mass.


All objects have relativistic mass given by....

E² = p²c² + (m(0)c²)²

There are two terms associated with 'relativistic mass', one refers to 'rest mass' [m(0)] for which photon's have zero,... the other includes a momentum term which indeed implies some 'relativistic mass',....

E = pc,..... and given E = mc²,.... the relativistic mass for the photon is,....

m = p/c

Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2015
EDIT: The above should read 'The total energy of a relativistic object is.....', to which 'relativistic mass' follows in the post.

IOW, 'relativistic mass' is a generalization of pre-SR notion of mass, on account of E=mc².

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.