• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Anders Lindman said:
If the result from CERN turns out wrong then I suspect they have been ordered to lie and say it was a measurement error or something like that when in reality wasn't. Yes, I deny that time can be slowed down. Are you sure Maxwell's equations lead to the same result as Einstein's relativity?
Click to expand...

Yes. Maxwell's equations and special relativity accomodate each other perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
Einstein dismissed the aether as unnecessary and concluded that Maxwell's equations predict the existence of a fixed speed of light, independent of the speed of the observer, and as such he used Maxwell's equations as the starting point for his special theory of relativity. In doing so, he established the Lorentz transformation as being valid for all matter and not just Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations played a key role in Einstein's famous paper on special relativity
Click to expand...
 
Okay, I think the following diagrams finally make the point I was trying to get across.

You'll note that from the perspective of "car 2" (in red) in the first diagram, car 1's vertical speed (on the diagram) is the same as it's own, but in the second diagram car 1's vertical speed is less. There's nothing surprising about this.

Car 2 has not "decelerated" car 1. Car 2 is simply moving at a different angle relative to car 1. This is analogous to the way that we measure movement through time when we move at different trajectories through space-time.
 

Attachments

  • cars 90 degrees.jpg
    cars 90 degrees.jpg
    19.3 KB · Views: 2
  • cars not 90.jpg
    cars not 90.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
yairhol said:
Yes. Maxwell's equations and special relativity accomodate each other perfectly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
Click to expand...

But that's not Maxwell's equations. Those are modified equations.

"It is often useful to write Maxwell's equations in other forms; these representations are still formally termed "Maxwell's equations". A relativistic formulation in terms of covariant field tensors is used in special relativity, while, in quantum mechanics, a version based on the electric and magnetic potentials is preferred." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
 
Mashuna said:
I predict that plenty of people could, but you'd deny the examples anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would still be skeptical. :D For example, I imagine that students who are given the assignment to verify Einstein's relativity either fail because of insufficient accuracy in their measurements, or they are given rigged test equipment to work with.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I wrote: "So even with ever increasing entropy there is an ever increase of extropy which means that entropy alone is not the complete cause of the arrow of time."
Click to expand...
You realise that the arrow of time and "time" are two different things, right?

One gives a direction, but a direction for what? You still need the concept of what time is before you talk about it's direction.

And the increase of complexity is actually an exponential progress, as shown in this graph: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2096/2539823898_afe8a7ae89_o.jpg

So complexity, and the amount of information in the universe is increasing. Here is another chart showing this: http://www.singularity.com/images/charts/ParadigmShiftFor15Lists.jpg
Click to expand...
Wow, seriously? Your evidence that "the total amount of information in the universe is increasing" is that life in general and humans in particular are storing and processing more information? By that logic I could equally argue that the total amount of energy in the universe is increasing.:boggled:
 
Last edited:
Anyway, Anders, according to relativity time is a dimension. And thus, according to relativity, accelerating to speeds near the speed of light just means following a different trajectory through spacetime. Which means that according to relativity accelerating to speeds near the speed of light doesn't "accelerate the whole universe". It doesn't affect the universe, it only affects your trajectory through spacetime.
 
To elaborate a bit on the overall increase of amount of information in the universe, let's first look at extropy:

"Extropy is neither wave nor particle, nor pure energy. It is an immaterial force that is very much like information. Since extropy is defined as negative entropy — the reversal of disorder — it is, by definition, an increase in order. But what is order? Despite our intuitive sense, we lack a good operational definition of order, which seems to be tied up with complexity (see Ordained Becoming). For simple physical systems, the concepts of thermodynamics suffice, but for the real world of cucumbers, brains, books, and self-driving trucks, we don't have useful metrics for extropy. The best we can say is that extropy resembles, but is not equivalent to, information." -- http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/08/extropy.php

Then next we can look at what information is. I didn't find any good definition now that I searched on the Web. Instead we can use the definition of digital information:

"A digital system is a data technology that uses discrete (discontinuous) values." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_information

We can model the entire universe using digital information. Can such model be complete? Maybe if reality is discrete. In any case the universe can be modeled using digital information to at least some degree of accuracy.

In order for extropy to increase, the amount of digital information to model the universe at any given point in time will also increase along the arrow of time. Even entropy can be included in that model, so we get: The total information in the universe at any given point in time is the amount of information required to model the total amount of entropy plus extropy in the universe.

Proposal: Information = Entropy + Extropy. And the total amount of entropy equals the total amount of extropy in the universe at any given point in time. Each moment in time contains an equal amount of information that is contained in all previous moments combined. This creates the arrow of time as an exponentially expanding amount of information which results in the process of evolution.

Any questions? :)
 
Anders Lindman said:
To elaborate a bit on the overall increase of amount of information in the universe, let's first look at extropy:

"Extropy is neither wave nor particle, nor pure energy. It is an immaterial force that is very much like information. Since extropy is defined as negative entropy — the reversal of disorder — it is, by definition, an increase in order. But what is order? Despite our intuitive sense, we lack a good operational definition of order, which seems to be tied up with complexity (see Ordained Becoming). For simple physical systems, the concepts of thermodynamics suffice, but for the real world of cucumbers, brains, books, and self-driving trucks, we don't have useful metrics for extropy. The best we can say is that extropy resembles, but is not equivalent to, information." -- http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/08/extropy.php
Click to expand...
So, what you're saying is that extropy is not equivalent to information. Got it.
In order for extropy to increase, the amount of digital information to model the universe at any given point in time will also increase along the arrow of time.
Click to expand...
How does that follow?
Any questions? :)
Click to expand...
Yes, do you have any evidence for you assertion that information is increasing?
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
But that's not Maxwell's equations. Those are modified equations.

"It is often useful to write Maxwell's equations in other forms; these representations are still formally termed "Maxwell's equations". A relativistic formulation in terms of covariant field tensors is used in special relativity, while, in quantum mechanics, a version based on the electric and magnetic potentials is preferred." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
Click to expand...

Don't let the word 'modified' trick you. You can write Maxwell's equations in many forms (integral form, derivative form, with or without unphisical magnetic currents etc..). All of them eventually give the same result and have been proven to be correct in our everyday lives. In fact, as measurement tools become more and more sophisticated, they give results which come closer and closer to the results speculated by the analytical equations.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yes, I would still be skeptical. :D For example, I imagine that students who are given the assignment to verify Einstein's relativity either fail because of insufficient accuracy in their measurements, or they are given rigged test equipment to work with.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, your imagination does not intersect with reality.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Someone said GPS is an example of how Einstein's relativity must be taken into account. But I am still not convinced that the GPS receivers for the public market need to perform relativity calculations.
Click to expand...

Of course you're not. You don't know. And not knowing seems to be, for you, a good enough reason to make stuff up.
 
Roboramma said:
Yes, do you have any evidence for you assertion that information is increasing?
Click to expand...

By the way, I don't know one way or the other whether or not "the total information in the universe is increasing", but I'm simply not willing to take your word for it.

I also don't think that if it is correct it supports your assertion that "time is a result from an expansion of information". That may be a way of determining the arrow of time, and like entropy the arrow of time may be intricately connected with information, but that doesn't have anything to do with "time is a result from an expansion of information".
 
"There's no evidence you can show me that I can't clam could be faked, so I can't be convinced" is a debate show stopper folks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom