Relativity - my brain is hurting. Help !
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 15 February 2015
I have been reading/browsing through a couple of “popular science” books recently. The most recent, Paradox. A couple of chapters try to explain some of the universe’s phenomenon that can be accurately predicted using Einstein’s theories of relativity.
I can grasp a superficial understanding of some of these predictions, but wondered if any of the scientists on this forum are able to provide a clear and concise description of one or two that I am having difficulty grasping the underlying concepts ? for example……
(1) A physical body (collection of atoms ?) moving towards an observer at something approaching the speed of light, would appear to be shorter than the same body moving at the same speed as the observer. (I hope this is correct).
(2) Likewise, an observer moving at something approaching the speed of light towards a physical body, would perceive that body to be shorter than the same body moving at the same speed as this observer.
Observers A and B are stood next to a barn and they are all stationary with respect to each other. A pole lies inside the barn and is exactly the same length as the inside of the barn. (stationary = all four things are moving together at the same speed)
Observer A takes the pole, moves away some distance, turns, and approaches the barn at something close to the speed of light, relative to the barn and Observer B.
To Observer B, the pole is now shorter than the barn and would easily fit inside the barn. To Observer A, who is carrying the pole, the barn is now shorter than the pole and no way would the pole fit inside the barn.
A bit of a paradox (hence the title of the book). My brain is hurting and I haven't a clue. Can anybody provide a clear and concise description of what is going on ? I appreciate we are unlikely to be able to perform this exercise in reality in order to check out any explanation, but……hey-ho, give it a go !
A simple way of thinking of the scientific 'proof' is that it is usually proof by exclusion. To understand this, consider the statement:
"There is no other likely explanation."
In Bill's example the 95% leaves just a 5% possibility of all other explanations
As he correctly says, this is usually random variance, as all other predictable possibilities will have been logically ruled out in the discussion.
However it also still leaves the possibility of a circumstance / theory / mechanism etc, of which no-one has yet conceived; and this is one of the ways in which science progresses - when someone does think of it and then tests it.
There are many problems with religion:
To use Richard Feynman's saying how science works:
(a) Invent a theory, just think up any old rubbish,
(b) think up some experiments to test this theory, and
(c) if the experiments disagree with the results from theory then start the process again
Religion is the first part unsupported by the rationality of the second and third.
This reminds me of what is possibly be a rather serious problem with science, at least with regard to the scope of scientific enquiries which I know of. When humans "think up" a theory and test, appreciate, accept, or disregard it, this occurs within awareness. Awareness is a fundamental prerequisite for thought and scientific enquiry. But no attempt at Grand Unification I know of is inclusive of that aspect of reality which is awareness but rather exclusive of it (scientists out there please correct me if that is wrong): Scientific enquiries, as far as I know, focus on a subject matter separate from the aware observer. So, we use science to explain that which is observed. But what of the observer? How can science ever lead to understanding of reality if it is merely conceptualization within the awareness of an observer?
So, back to the validity of spirituality. Spirituality is inclusive of awareness, not exclusive like scientific enquiries are. The existence of awareness is proved beyond doubt by awareness itself. No other proof is required and maybe not possible. Awareness is not nothing but definitely something. So it most definitely must be part of reality. But you can't pick it up, you can't measure it directly and I think it's safe to say it has no form, it is not matter, and no known form of energy.... it is "spiritual", like "spirit". So, in my understanding spirituality as about the reality and evolution of awareness and I would equate spirituality with meditation. And I understand religion as an (mostly unsuccessful) attempt to bring order and method to spirituality so it can become a collective endeavour. Mahatma Gandhi said that he worshiped God as truth. Sounds like a decent definition of God to me. Truth, or reality, without disregard for the reality of consciousness. I suppose that's why God is supposed to be a "living" (=conscious, aware) God. The term God is apparently useful in order to transcend a concept of truth which is exclusive of awareness to a concept or perception which is inclusive of it.
An interesting analogy could be when artists painted scenes without understanding perspective.
If you were to look out at a view stretching out from you and then look at a blank canvas , you would at first rely on memory and instinct but later realise that an understanding of how forms excist in space is needed to make a convincing image.
In an art historical context abstraction occurred at the same time as quantum theory as a way of reflecting on the paradox of active/passive observation and if there could be a way of resolving the issue. A paradox was always seen with some scepticism when Art , Religion and Science where historical bedfellows (without some blood,sweat and tears), and the most recent theories on a "Multiverse" seems to be taking a more multi disciplined approach towards and against .
Are you sure Tobes? Unless you're talking about "old" quantum theory (eg Bohr), abstract art is much older. It starts with artists such as Whistler and Turner, for whom sensation was more important than the depiction of objects; then through Cezanne and onto Picasso and Braque, with the reduction of objects into organisation of flat planes, and then onto the first truly abstract artists, Malevich, Kandinsky and, slightly later, Delaunay and Mondrian.
Malevich, who started creating abstract canvases around 1910/11 or so, was probably the most important because he sought to free art from the tyranny of representation; rather than abstracting from the "real", external world, he abstracted from the ground up.
Cubism (and earlier, Cezanne) was certainly an attempt to resolve the problems of an observer looking at a representation of a three-dimensional world on a flat canvas, but "pure" abstraction in the Malevich/Kandinksy mould is not IMO, for the reasons outlined above.
Yes that is right, Figurative abstraction started along with the Industrial revolution - but Conceptualised abstraction started around 1910 -1920s it can be argued by the French Surrealists, and most notably by the influence of Paul Valery.
Paul Valery was interested in what was developing in physics and science and had close friendships with Niels Bohr and Gaston Bachelard amongst others. Along with Andre Breton helped establish ideas and work such as Wolfgang Paalens' "figure Pandynamique"
There are many problems with religion:
To use Richard Feynman's saying how science works:
(a) Invent a theory, just think up any old rubbish,
(b) think up some experiments to test this theory, and
(c) if the experiments disagree with the results from theory then start the process again
Religion is the first part unsupported by the rationality of the second and third.
This reminds me of what is possibly be a rather serious problem with science, at least with regard to the scope of scientific enquiries which I know of. When humans "think up" a theory and test, appreciate, accept, or disregard it, this occurs within awareness. Awareness is a fundamental prerequisite for thought and scientific enquiry. But no attempt at Grand Unification I know of is inclusive of that aspect of reality which is awareness but rather exclusive of it (scientists out there please correct me if that is wrong): Scientific enquiries, as far as I know, focus on a subject matter separate from the aware observer. So, we use science to explain that which is observed. But what of the observer? How can science ever lead to understanding of reality if it is merely conceptualization within the awareness of an observer?
So, back to the validity of spirituality. Spirituality is inclusive of awareness, not exclusive like scientific enquiries are. The existence of awareness is proved beyond doubt by awareness itself. No other proof is required and maybe not possible. Awareness is not nothing but definitely something. So it most definitely must be part of reality. But you can't pick it up, you can't measure it directly and I think it's safe to say it has no form, it is not matter, and no known form of energy.... it is "spiritual", like "spirit". So, in my understanding spirituality as about the reality and evolution of awareness and I would equate spirituality with meditation. And I understand religion as an (mostly unsuccessful) attempt to bring order and method to spirituality so it can become a collective endeavour. Mahatma Gandhi said that he worshiped God as truth. Sounds like a decent definition of God to me. Truth, or reality, without disregard for the reality of consciousness. I suppose that's why God is supposed to be a "living" (=conscious, aware) God. The term God is apparently useful in order to transcend a concept of truth which is exclusive of awareness to a concept or perception which is inclusive of it.
Simple, awareness is the effect of a process that goes on in the brain.
You give one definition of God, and some properties for God; but there are so many different concepts, so many other Gods. When there is one accepted definition of God (or at least a set of definitions that are, for the greatest part essentially consistent), then I may find it worth discussing the concept.
Of course if it becomes clear that an intelligent creator is necessary to the origin of the universe, then I will change my mind. At the moment I see nothing that cannot occur given statistical chance and enough time.
'It’s funny; the people who think there’s a contradiction between science and religion generally don’t really know what science is, or they don’t know what religion is, or both.'
Guy Consolmagno, Jesuit monk and professional scientist who works at the Vatican Observatory, interviewed by the BBC in 2010.
It's funny, a person who could say that doesn't know what irony is, or believes the Pope could have been fallible, or both.
There are many problems with religion:
To use Richard Feynman's saying how science works:
(a) Invent a theory, just think up any old rubbish,
(b) think up some experiments to test this theory, and
(c) if the experiments disagree with the results from theory then start the process again
Religion is the first part unsupported by the rationality of the second and third.
This reminds me of what is possibly be a rather serious problem with science, at least with regard to the scope of scientific enquiries which I know of. When humans "think up" a theory and test, appreciate, accept, or disregard it, this occurs within awareness. Awareness is a fundamental prerequisite for thought and scientific enquiry. But no attempt at Grand Unification I know of is inclusive of that aspect of reality which is awareness but rather exclusive of it (scientists out there please correct me if that is wrong): Scientific enquiries, as far as I know, focus on a subject matter separate from the aware observer. So, we use science to explain that which is observed. But what of the observer? How can science ever lead to understanding of reality if it is merely conceptualization within the awareness of an observer?
So, back to the validity of spirituality. Spirituality is inclusive of awareness, not exclusive like scientific enquiries are. The existence of awareness is proved beyond doubt by awareness itself. No other proof is required and maybe not possible. Awareness is not nothing but definitely something. So it most definitely must be part of reality. But you can't pick it up, you can't measure it directly and I think it's safe to say it has no form, it is not matter, and no known form of energy.... it is "spiritual", like "spirit". So, in my understanding spirituality as about the reality and evolution of awareness and I would equate spirituality with meditation. And I understand religion as an (mostly unsuccessful) attempt to bring order and method to spirituality so it can become a collective endeavour. Mahatma Gandhi said that he worshiped God as truth. Sounds like a decent definition of God to me. Truth, or reality, without disregard for the reality of consciousness. I suppose that's why God is supposed to be a "living" (=conscious, aware) God. The term God is apparently useful in order to transcend a concept of truth which is exclusive of awareness to a concept or perception which is inclusive of it.
Simple, awareness is the effect of a process that goes on in the brain.
.
Isn't that close to saying nothing about awareness itself?
The movement of my hand, all sorts of other physical, electromagnetic and chemical processes in the central nervous system and the human body can all be "effects of a process that goes on in the brain". The word "effect" alone is not much of a definition for anything.
I don't think science can give an adequate definition or explanation of awareness.
A simple way of thinking of the scientific 'proof' is that it is usually proof by exclusion. To understand this, consider the statement:
"There is no other likely explanation."
In Bill's example the 95% leaves just a 5% possibility of all other explanations
As he correctly says, this is usually random variance, as all other predictable possibilities will have been logically ruled out in the discussion.
However it also still leaves the possibility of a circumstance / theory / mechanism etc, of which no-one has yet conceived; and this is one of the ways in which science progresses - when someone does think of it and then tests it.
No Huge that is not what I meant when I mentioned 95%! Let me give an example:
(a) We have plots of land where we grow a crop,
(b) Some of these plots have been treated with a new pesticide, and
(c) We measure the amount of crop from each plot.
We want to find out if the pesticide increases the crop yield, so we carry out a stat analysis and so how the means vary from treated to untreated and we find that at the 95% level these samples do not have the same yield. The treated plots have a higher yield with a confidence of 95%.
Now that means that there is a 95% probability that the pesticide will increase crop yields but there is a 1 in 20 chance that increase yield we have seen in our experiments is due to random fluctuations and thus the pesticide has no effect.
That is what I meant to say. I was not talking about a proof of a scientific theory, just practical testing.
The movement of my hand, all sorts of other physical, electromagnetic and chemical processes in the central nervous system and the human body can all be "effects of a process that goes on in the brain". The word "effect" alone is not much of a definition for anything.
I don't think science can give an adequate definition or explanation of awareness.
Science doesn't claim omniscience, it only claims to present the most reliable information from our current collective understanding.
And yes, awareness is pretty much the same as moving you hand - they are very closely related phenomena.
'It’s funny; the people who think there’s a contradiction between science and religion generally don’t really know what science is, or they don’t know what religion is, or both.'
Guy Consolmagno, Jesuit monk and professional scientist who works at the Vatican Observatory, interviewed by the BBC in 2010.
It's funny, a person who could say that doesn't know what irony is, or believes the Pope could have been fallible, or both.
Adam, isn't irony a colour; like coppery only greyer?
Hi PureReader,
I actually don't disagree with a fair amount of that, and I don't automatically regard religion as something that "something that contradicts truth and humanity". However, personally, I've yet to find one that doesn't present untestable assertions as uncontesteable fact, and given that many of these 'facts' are contradictory, many of them must be wrong, ergo contradicting truth (whatever that is!).
Anyone care to supply an example of a religion that doesn't do this?
A simple way of thinking of the scientific 'proof' is that it is usually proof by exclusion. To understand this, consider the statement:
"There is no other likely explanation."
In Bill's example the 95% leaves just a 5% possibility of all other explanations
As he correctly says, this is usually random variance, as all other predictable possibilities will have been logically ruled out in the discussion.
However it also still leaves the possibility of a circumstance / theory / mechanism etc, of which no-one has yet conceived; and this is one of the ways in which science progresses - when someone does think of it and then tests it.
No Huge that is not what I meant when I mentioned 95%! Let me give an example:
(a) We have plots of land where we grow a crop,
(b) Some of these plots have been treated with a new pesticide, and
(c) We measure the amount of crop from each plot.
We want to find out if the pesticide increases the crop yield, so we carry out a stat analysis and so how the means vary from treated to untreated and we find that at the 95% level these samples do not have the same yield. The treated plots have a higher yield with a confidence of 95%.
Now that means that there is a 95% probability that the pesticide will increase crop yields but there is a 1 in 20 chance that increase yield we have seen in our experiments is due to random fluctuations and thus the pesticide has no effect.
That is what I meant to say. I was not talking about a proof of a scientific theory, just practical testing.
In the absence of other interfering variables, I believe we may be saying the same thing.
On further reflection is it that you are presenting a consideration of just that one test in just that one field, and deducing a conclusion? Where as I was presenting a test of a hypothesis of the use of fertiliser in general, and inducing that generalisation from an accumulation of data.
Both are valid in different ways.
It is odd that I am a total rationalist/atheist without a spiritual cell in my body and yet somehow I think (and hope) science will never come close to explaining humanity.
BTW I always chuckle when I hear 'Quantum Leap' used to suggest a major breakthrough. I think that is 10 to the minus 33 metres....
I looked in a book last night to remind myself about some of these concepts. If an atom was expanded to the size of the known universe then the Planck distance would be the size of an apple. Some analogies really do blow your mind!
Bruce
BTW I always chuckle when I hear 'Quantum Leap' used to suggest a major breakthrough. I think that is 10 to the minus 33 metres....
I looked in a book last night to remind myself about some of these concepts. If an atom was expanded to the size of the known universe then the Planck distance would be the size of an apple. Some analogies really do blow your mind!
Bruce
The trick is to think using logarithmic scales!
There are many problems with religion:
To use Richard Feynman's saying how science works:
(a) Invent a theory, just think up any old rubbish,
(b) think up some experiments to test this theory, and
(c) if the experiments disagree with the results from theory then start the process again
Religion is the first part unsupported by the rationality of the second and third.
This reminds me of what is possibly be a rather serious problem with science, at least with regard to the scope of scientific enquiries which I know of. When humans "think up" a theory and test, appreciate, accept, or disregard it, this occurs within awareness. Awareness is a fundamental prerequisite for thought and scientific enquiry. But no attempt at Grand Unification I know of is inclusive of that aspect of reality which is awareness but rather exclusive of it (scientists out there please correct me if that is wrong): Scientific enquiries, as far as I know, focus on a subject matter separate from the aware observer. So, we use science to explain that which is observed. But what of the observer? How can science ever lead to understanding of reality if it is merely conceptualization within the awareness of an observer?
So, back to the validity of spirituality. Spirituality is inclusive of awareness, not exclusive like scientific enquiries are. The existence of awareness is proved beyond doubt by awareness itself. No other proof is required and maybe not possible. Awareness is not nothing but definitely something. So it most definitely must be part of reality. But you can't pick it up, you can't measure it directly and I think it's safe to say it has no form, it is not matter, and no known form of energy.... it is "spiritual", like "spirit". So, in my understanding spirituality as about the reality and evolution of awareness and I would equate spirituality with meditation. And I understand religion as an (mostly unsuccessful) attempt to bring order and method to spirituality so it can become a collective endeavour. Mahatma Gandhi said that he worshiped God as truth. Sounds like a decent definition of God to me. Truth, or reality, without disregard for the reality of consciousness. I suppose that's why God is supposed to be a "living" (=conscious, aware) God. The term God is apparently useful in order to transcend a concept of truth which is exclusive of awareness to a concept or perception which is inclusive of it.
Simple, awareness is the effect of a process that goes on in the brain.
.
Isn't that close to saying nothing about awareness itself?
The movement of my hand, all sorts of other physical, electromagnetic and chemical processes in the central nervous system and the human body can all be "effects of a process that goes on in the brain". The word "effect" alone is not much of a definition for anything.
I don't think science can give an adequate definition or explanation of awareness.
an interesting tangent off this could be Alan Turings writing in "the philosophy of artificial intelligence".
The movement of my hand, all sorts of other physical, electromagnetic and chemical processes in the central nervous system and the human body can all be "effects of a process that goes on in the brain". The word "effect" alone is not much of a definition for anything.
I don't think science can give an adequate definition or explanation of awareness.
an interesting tangent off this could be Alan Turings writing in "the philosophy of artificial intelligence".
It's a very interesting question where you place AI in the greater scheme of things, a lot of science fiction is based on that question.
A simple way of thinking of the scientific 'proof' is that it is usually proof by exclusion. To understand this, consider the statement:
"There is no other likely explanation."
In Bill's example the 95% leaves just a 5% possibility of all other explanations
As he correctly says, this is usually random variance, as all other predictable possibilities will have been logically ruled out in the discussion.
However it also still leaves the possibility of a circumstance / theory / mechanism etc, of which no-one has yet conceived; and this is one of the ways in which science progresses - when someone does think of it and then tests it.
No Huge that is not what I meant when I mentioned 95%! Let me give an example:
(a) We have plots of land where we grow a crop,
(b) Some of these plots have been treated with a new pesticide, and
(c) We measure the amount of crop from each plot.
We want to find out if the pesticide increases the crop yield, so we carry out a stat analysis and so how the means vary from treated to untreated and we find that at the 95% level these samples do not have the same yield. The treated plots have a higher yield with a confidence of 95%.
Now that means that there is a 95% probability that the pesticide will increase crop yields but there is a 1 in 20 chance that increase yield we have seen in our experiments is due to random fluctuations and thus the pesticide has no effect.
That is what I meant to say. I was not talking about a proof of a scientific theory, just practical testing.
In the absence of other interfering variables, I believe we may be saying the same thing.
On further reflection is it that you are presenting a consideration of just that one test in just that one field, and deducing a conclusion? Where as I was presenting a test of a hypothesis of the use of fertiliser in general, and inducing that generalisation from an accumulation of data.
Both are valid in different ways.
Huge it was an example of how stats is used in the real world, I know nothing about growing crops and I repeat: I was not describing some sort of Scientific proof!
I was merely trying to describe how a hypothesis might be tested by experimentation using something like a T-Test. Nothing more!
btw what has fertiliser go to do with pesticides?
Right now the God squad have taken over I am off!
I was merely trying to describe how a hypothesis might be tested by experimentation using something like a T-Test. Nothing more!
btw what has fertiliser go to do with pesticides?
Sorry Bill, I just misunderstood what you were trying to achieve.
And the fertiliser / pesticides thing is my problem with language. I have to turn everything into images and sometimes they get crossed over, again my fault not yours.
Kev I would like to say two things:
(II) You are awfully pretty, I have never fancied anyone called Kevin before! I must be on the turn.
Aw Shucks! 