What is a Lorentz contraction? or a Lorentz boost? And is this in any way related to the skewing of either space or time? Thanks
hum, It`s all relitive.... I don`t understand what you mean when you say skewing of space/time. (like a kebab ?) It is a `real` effect that can possibly be measured... The lorentz boost is a mathematical understanding of the transformation of the old theory of superstrings...hehe...basically it remaps the rotating vectors (the `ends` of the strings!) ...i wont point you to any websites on that bag of worms... but, i found a, quite understandable ,site that explains the basics... http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/lorentz.html Hope this helps.
Perceptual Illusion????? Thanks for the great link.... I am still trying to bend my mind around this new information. It seems like it almost is an optical or perceptual illusion because the web site kept referencing what the moving observer perceives versus what it seems like from the static perspective. I am pretty sure the lorentz contraction is supposed to be more than an illusion... so perhaps you could help me understand this aspect of the phenomenon. thanks PS.... when I said skewed space and time in my original message ... I just met the warping of space and time
ENGAGE! Aha, `lorentz contraction` should be called `lorentz expansion` if you`re relating it to a `star-trek` type of warp. Gravity warps space and time. But i don`t know of any other theories that may be used to shrink(warp) space... Anyone else?
it is more than an illusion?? so the lorentz contraction is more than an illlusion ??/ it does in fact bend space and/or time... it is more then just a bent perception.... it really is happening??
Oh dear, This is a difficult one...(what DO we call real). For an observer it is real, and measurable. For a person on a fast space ship it is real, and measurable, but totally different to the observer. Take you pick. (Or choose the underlying mathematics ( yet to be discovered) and physics, that bring about our view of the universe.)
remnyc, First of all, the Lorentz contraction is derived from the assumption that the speed of light is constant regardless of the speed of the observer observing it. I personally don't believe that this assumption is valid, and therefore I don't believe that the Lorentz contraction is real. For the sake of arguement, let's assume that the above mentioned assumption is true. In that case, the Lorentz contraction would be real for a moving observer (since the observer measures the speed of light to be c in his/her frame of reference), but one could argue that it's impossible for space to physically contract due to the relative motion of an observer. This is one of the reasons that there is so much opposition to relativy. Note: By the way, you should ask these kinds of questions in the "Physics and Math" forum. There are people there who think they understand relativity real well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tom
@ Prosoothus hum, I think there is a possibility that the speed of light may change over time. (Maybe light had a different speed in the early universe.) But if there WERE different speeds, would we not see an cosmic events like , say, Cepheid variables in the andromeda galaxy pulsate at different rates? (OR the light from distant supernova explosions). The very nature of inflation THEORY, states that space is flexible and is expanding....(perhaps it`s a one-way process?) Or ,perhaps you saying that particles/matter are/is shrinking instead? Perhaps space(dimensions) has a duality (similar to the wave/particle duality), and is `real` for separate observers.
blobrana, That might be possible. I would assume that space might have a certain amount of "resistance" to electric and magnetic fields. If this resistance can change, then the speed of light would change as well. The Cepheid stars wouldn't pulsate at different rates because all the light from the stars would slow down at the same time (so the time between the pulses wouldn't change). However, if the speed of the light changed, then the light from the stars would be blueshifted/redshifted. Relativity states that multiple observers travelling at different speeds will see the same space contracted by different amounts. If we assume that space is not a figment of the observer's imagination, then the assumption that the same space can be contracted by different rates at the same time is illogical. One could argue that the contraction of space is an illusion. But if it is, then even photons are deceived. Because of this "problem" with relativity, I created my own model that doesn't require length contraction or time dilation. Tom
@ Prosoothus Tnx for the clarification of Cepheid variables . But is there a technique that we <i>can</i> use to determine if the value of c has <b>not</b> changed? (How about Kepler's third law and an eclipsing binary...)
blobrana, I assume that the same techniques used to prove that c has changed can also be used to prove that c has not changed. As I stated in my earlier post, I believe that if c was faster earlier in the universe, then the light from stars, that are a sufficient distance from Earth, would be blue shifted. However, there would be no way of telling whether their light is blueshifted because they are moving towards Earth, or because their light has slowed down over the years. As for determing the speed of light at the beginning of the universe (before stars and planets were formed), I have no idea how this can be done. Tom
