New answers tagged

0

Light emitted from the sun is gravitational time dilated, which means it travels slower than the speed of light as it is measured here on earth. I don't know if the difference is as great as the questioner assumes, but it would be significant. Einstein's relativity theories are PRINCIPLE-BASED theories. They are based upon established scientific ...


2

There is no black light. Imaging devices control the color strength by the power they give to the pixels. In case of the black color (i.e. (0,0,0) on the RGB scale), they don't give any power to the given screen area. If the imaging device is powered off, it is surely black. But, if it is powered on, a little bit of light may come even from the black areas: ...


0

There are two very similar question today itself. I am pasting my answer from the other one here - It is shown in movie "The contact" where it passes just a second or so on earth, but during the same time, the astronaut records many hours of static. What people on earth saw was that the space ship crashed before even taking off, but astronaut experienced ...


1

In special relativity, you can't do it. Much like a straight line is the shortest distance between two points in Euclidean geometry, a straight (nonaccelerating) worldline is the longest distance between two points in Minkowskian geometry (the geometry of spacetime). If one twin accelerates and the other doesn't, the one who doesn't accelerate will be older, ...


1

Why both the observers should see the speed of light be exactly the same? To cut the long story short 'It is an experimental fact.'! The principle of relativity suggests that the laws of Physics must be the same in all the frames. Experiments suggest Maxwell's equations to be the correct laws of Physics. So a theorist can argue that everything that is ...


1

Schrodinger, I take it, was dramatising the epistemological and ontological paradoxes implicit in QM by considering a cat as opposed to a particle contained in a box; and hugely succesfull too, as we're still discussing it almost a century on, and its probably more widely known that his eponymous equation. Cats, compared to particles, are vastly macroscopic ...


-3

For the cat (which is the subject of the experiment), it is irrelevant if you observe it or not. Its state will be the same at a given 't'. Also, that state is not dependent on the observation happening or not (although, opening the door when the cat is alive will influence the cat's behavior, but that is another matter). Universally, it is the observer ...


0

The cat has no quantum state, it is a classical object, which, along with everything else in the experiment, is just "overhead" to make it accessible to the general public. There is the decaying lump of radioactives, and the Geiger counter (detector). This is the quantum level stuff; the rest is just classical embellishment. It makes no sense whatsoever to ...


1

Lets imagine for a moment that for some reason or other only one object was left existing within the universe, and it was a spaceship. It can accelerate and decelerate, thus movement is in effect here, movement across space. However, whether it is alone in the universe or not, it has a maximum speed of which it can move across the vacuum of space. That being ...


4

In Schrodinger's cat experiment, the scientist is assumed to be an "classical observer" of the state of the cat, and thus all observations made by the scientist are assumed to be classical observations adhering to physics as we knew it before quantum mechanics came along. The thought experiment focuses on what sorts of statements about reality that ...


1

The Lorentz transformation may shed some light on this... $$\gamma = \frac{1}{{\sqrt {1 - \frac{{{v^2}}}{{{c^2}}}} }}$$ Assume one body is, dare I say, "stationary" and the other is traveling away at velocity v. If the relative velocity between these two bodies moving apart is equal to the speed of light, then the denominator in the Lorentz transformation ...


4

Large classical objects such as cats or humans are next to impossible to place in a superposition of states. They basically decohere immediately. As far as i know the largest object placed in a superposition is a micromechanical resonator and there is currently work being done on placing a bacterium in a QM superposition ( quantum superposition of a ...


17

This is the fundamental postulate of special relativity: Light (in vacuum) moves at the same speed no matter what you measure it relative to. Pretty much everything in SR is just a mater of figuring out the deductive consequences of this basic fact. It is an experimental fact that it is so, and it was so even before Einstein -- in particular, light had ...


11

The simple answer is 'with respect to anything'. For instance if I am standing somewhere and you are in a spaceship then we will always measure our relative speeds to be less than $c$. Equally, if I am standing somewhere and two spacecraft are passing me in opposite directions, then I will always measure the speeds of the spacecraft to be less than $c$, ...


5

This is an excellent question and stresses one of the weird features of quantum mechanics. Indeed, the scientist would in turn be in a superposition. And we could even measure this if we'd be able to maintain coherence of such large systems. Ultimately, your question is asking for the solution of the Measurement problem: Why don't we see any ...


-3

When you talk about the speed of light, regardless of what you say the speed of light is relative to, the speed of light remains the speed of light which is 1,86,000 miles/s. We just cannot travel at the speed of light because we humans are made up of particles which have mass, and according to Einstein's theory of relativity, the closer an object gets to ...


29

In a bubble chamber experiment, film was the detecting medium, but film was taken automatically, by the thousands of frames. These bobbins of film went to the various laboratories involved in the experiment, and were scanned for interesting events which were measured and the cross sections for the interactions recorded. This is a clear example of an ...


34

This is is known as the Wigner's friend thought experiment. According to the many World's interpretation, the superpositions are not a problem. The whole universe ends up in a superposition where all experimental outcomes are realized, but such a superposition is entangled with the environment, from a macroscopic point of view it takes the form of a ...


8

It depends of what interpretation of quantum mechanics you are using. By interpretation it is meant that the mathematical predictions of the quantum mechanics formalism are the same, but the philosophical meaning of each is what differs. In the copenhagen interpretation that you seem to describe, the wave function collapses when a conscious observer makes a ...


1

Yes, Einstein's postulates entail symmetrical (reciprocal) time dilation, but in 1905 Einstein deduced, invalidly (in the sense that this does not follow from the postulates), asymmetrical time dilation - when the moving clock passes the stationary one, the former lags behind the latter. Nowadays you can often hear the same incorrect conclusion: "Moving ...


0

In relativity time is no longer a universal concept, it is a quantity specific to a frame of reference. It isn't meaningful to compare the "age" of two objects in two different frames of reference using a single "frame time." "Frame time" denotes time as measured in a specific frame of reference. This frame of reference could be that of either object for ...


1

The thing about the relativity principle is just that: all non-accelerating frames are equal, in the sense that no inertial frame is more "real" or "accurate" than an other inertial frame. If two frames are moving in a Minkowskian manifold with a constant velocity relative to each other, it doesn't matter which one you choose. No matter what, all the ...



Top 50 recent answers are included