HOME | DD

Published: 2006-03-28 14:34:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 2209; Favourites: 33; Downloads: 262
Redirect to original
Description
At the heart of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is the concept that all observers in all reference frames are equal. Imagine, hypothetically, that you are floating in space with nothing else around you. Then you see another person zip by you. Was he moving, or were you? To you, the other person moved past you while you were motionless. And to the other person, it seemed that you were the one moving instead. There is no such thing as an absolute reference frame. Our observations of the universe around us are relative.Couple this with the fact that nothing can move as fast as the speed of light. And no matter what, an observer will always measure the speed of light to be the same. To illustrate how this is important, we’ll construct another hypothetical scenario. Say that you can throw a baseball at 60 mph. Now, if you are in a car that’s moving 60 mph, and then you throw the baseball, you’d measure it moving at 120 mph. But now consider the speed of light. If you’re standing still, you would measure that speed at roughly 300,000 km/s. Now if you’re in a spaceship traveling at 299,000 km/s, instead of a baseball, you throw out some photons by turning on a flashlight. If you measure the speed of light, you’d still measure it at 300,000 km/s. In other words, it would look the same as if you weren’t moving at all.
All of this leads to some pretty shocking conclusions to us humans, who aren’t accustomed to seeing the universe operate at this level, including time dilation, length contraction, and the downfall of simultaneity. Because two observers can be moving at different speeds, but two flashes of light must each be seen by them moving at the same speed, one observer could observe the events as occurring at the same time, and the other would see the events occurring at different times. And since the main premise of relativity is that each observer’s reference frame is equally valid, that means there is no absolute way to say that the events happened simultaneously. Simultaneity is relative. Time is a concept now tied to your motion through space.
(From the Physics series...entire series can be browsed here: [link] )
Related content
Comments: 36
humbledlearner [2007-08-24 15:44:34 +0000 UTC]
liked your series concept, but isn't it a bit sad that you have to show 'textbooks' to talk about these. its not books you are talking about, but nature!
in all, i can't relate the picture to your context!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
welder In reply to humbledlearner [2007-08-25 17:51:10 +0000 UTC]
Ah, but you see, the textbooks are the key ingredient of the concept. Physics is not about nature. It's about the human attempt to understand nature. It's about using words and numbers to define and explain the processes that govern the universe. It's about taking reality and converting it into a mental construct.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
humbledlearner In reply to welder [2007-08-26 08:58:05 +0000 UTC]
Hello,
Simultaneity is a property of nature, and not an explanation. Simultaneity will exist even if there is no theory to describe it, or there are multiple theories contradicting each other. In such a case which version will you choose for the photograph!
Besides, that 'hysics concerns models and not nature herself' seems to be necessary for quantum mechanics, but relativity can do without it! Einstein himself saw physics as trying to explain nature (i.e. realism).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
welder In reply to humbledlearner [2007-08-28 04:58:47 +0000 UTC]
Exactly. We are using mental constucts to explain the properties of nature. The universe goes on no matter what terms and definitions we apply to it's properties. But we create names and equations and explanations. Nature simply just exists. Science is our conceptualization of nature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
humbledlearner In reply to welder [2007-08-29 15:28:30 +0000 UTC]
If you were talking about Gravity you could just show a falling apple. Show some iron dust arranged in a pattern due to a magnet, and you may show that the magnetic field exits. You wont need equations to show that 'it exists'.
Your picture is not bad. I dont have any suggestion about how to do it better!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
welder In reply to humbledlearner [2007-08-31 04:21:39 +0000 UTC]
Yes, but I think you are thinking about from the wrong direction. The intent is not to show what exists in nature. It's about the efforts of human beings trying to discover and codify how it works. It's about the process, the method, the search. And that's why the equations that are the central focus here, not nature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
humbledlearner In reply to welder [2007-08-31 12:48:59 +0000 UTC]
I am not sure of 'wrong', lets just say we are seeing it from different directions. You are talking about 'the effort of humans' while I was pointing 'what exist in nature'. (quoting you!) I guess it settles the thread.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nappi [2006-04-19 09:30:40 +0000 UTC]
Sounds familiar. Almost too familiar. Recently read all the physics school books for the final exams and now I'm re-reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, which is an excellent book btw.
Very good photo too! I like the idea of combining physics and photography like this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
sunnyontheotherside [2006-04-07 05:55:28 +0000 UTC]
awsume
have u read "a short history of nearly everything"?
cuz a lot of it is about stuff like that
its really interesting.. im in the middle of reading it right now
you would probably like it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
humbledlearner In reply to sunnyontheotherside [2007-08-26 09:02:18 +0000 UTC]
I've read it and liked it! Recommended by me too!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ErzebethBathory [2006-03-31 13:49:14 +0000 UTC]
I like the blurred good composition again
very interesting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
rwirtz [2006-03-29 20:57:51 +0000 UTC]
Dude, you make my head hurt
Great focus, love the upside down of the watch, the perfect balance of light and shade and the overall composition. Plus, you also give the viewer something to think about.
I and
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
welder In reply to rwirtz [2006-03-30 03:39:32 +0000 UTC]
Don't worry, your heads only hurting becasue your brain is expanding Or something like that anyways...take a couple of aspirin and you'll be fine
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
rwirtz In reply to welder [2006-03-30 06:34:28 +0000 UTC]
Hmmm, so my head/brain is expanding while the universe is imploding
(I don't even have aspirin ... I usually just sit it out )
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
welder In reply to rwirtz [2006-03-31 02:35:06 +0000 UTC]
No, the universe is expanding too....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
rwirtz In reply to welder [2006-03-31 17:25:24 +0000 UTC]
Then I don't hope they are expanding simultaneously exponentially
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
kristian [2006-03-29 18:33:15 +0000 UTC]
great read. But is this a picture? I can't believe it's a picture. tell us how you did it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
welder In reply to kristian [2006-03-30 03:45:10 +0000 UTC]
First I set up the watch, hanging it off one of my tripods. Then I set up the book behind it upside down, and black cardboard behind that. I used duct tape to hold the pages of the book in place so they were flat instead of falling forward. Then I set up the lighting (a halogen lamp clipped to the back of my camera tripod) and adjusted the watch so the shadows fell how I wanted them. Then I shot multiple exposures at different apertures to get two different depths of field, then combined the images in post production, and applied a blur effect to a layer to affect everything except the watch.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AngelicLawyer [2006-03-29 11:54:57 +0000 UTC]
Again, a great visual representation of this concept. I love the lack of colors and the starkness of these shots!
This is one of the few principles I saw at school and haven't forgotten - yet!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
tigran85 [2006-03-29 09:59:37 +0000 UTC]
I forgot how crazy you are! (in a good way)
Great shot, and concept, even though its hard to dilute.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DarkestJourney [2006-03-28 17:28:56 +0000 UTC]
These are some wonderful conceptual pieces you're submitting. I admire the thought that goes into thinking up the idea and the execution of getting the shot, with thought to the most appropriate composition. You achieved a great composition here, I think it's very effective with the things you're trying to convey =]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
welder In reply to DarkestJourney [2006-03-29 03:49:18 +0000 UTC]
Thanks....it took some time, so I'm glad to get that kind of feedback
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
welder In reply to bukephalas [2006-03-28 18:43:58 +0000 UTC]
An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FreakyLaurent [2006-03-28 15:40:47 +0000 UTC]
I like it
Interesting concept of piece you have here
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
emore [2006-03-28 15:34:46 +0000 UTC]
Well done on the explaining! And an awesome photo too!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
sputnikpixel [2006-03-28 14:55:49 +0000 UTC]
Interesting approach. I like the effect of the floating watch and the description is a good reading to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0