# Thread: a few paradoxes etc that have bothered me for a while

1. First and foremost, I apolagise for any oversights or incorrect assumptions, my knowledge consists of what wikipedia has told me. feel free to rip my ideas to shreads, thats what im after really, someone to find holes in my ideas

my first issue is this.

the higgs boson is proposed to be everywhere in the universe. yet nothing travels faster than the speed of light but the "expansion of space" is not limited by the speed of light. how can the higgs boson possibly fill the gaps. to clarify... more empty space would be created say per second than the higgs boson has time to fill into.

ok my second issue. this is more just an interesting hypothesis and doesnt carry any real question unless somone would care to disprove it .

time is said to stop at the speed of light. so from the perspective of light itself. at its moment of creation, it would instantly be at its final destination and/or everywhere inbetween.

third thing. this might not make alot of sence, im not too sure

if gary was to jump in a space ship and travel away from earth at say 90% the speed of light and for the sake of arguement (although untrue) this slows time by 50% for garys point of reference. *now given einsteins thingy where he says that a train going the speed of light still passes a train going say 50% the speed of light AT the speed of light instead of the expected just 50% the speed of light. i would assume that gary and earth could have a conversation through radio waves because radio waves travel at the speed of light and so the radio waves for the conversation would reach gary pretty instantaniously. so all this assumed true. my question is this: if gary traveled 5 years out into space then turned around and came home at the same speed taking obviously 5 years to come back. how long was the conversation assuming they talked for the full 10 years (or 5 years according to gary). simply put. did they have a 5 year conversation or a 10 year conversation. and how does that work out. who misses some of the conversation etc.

my fourth thing is really just a silly hypothesis that is obviously wrong but just i duno, interesting idea to consider then dismiss .

what if einstein were wrong and the "speed of light" is not limited to 3300000 whatever it is. but that is all that we are able to observe in this dimension OR that is the fastest light is able to travel in this dimension. this would explain why (see above marked with *) that happens. if light were actually say 3 times faster that our percieved "speed of light" and u take away the speed of the train ur on. the faster train would still pass you at the speed of light because 3 times the speed of light minis half the speed of light is still 2 nd a half times the speed of light or in our point of view "the speed of light".
this to me could help explain my first issue, perhaps have something to do with my second one too. and it could maybe make some sence of some parts of quantum physics and unite them back into physics which i prefur cos it makes more sence . i dno jst an idea . rofl if i was actually right... itd be the biggest discovery since einstein discovered relitivity.... and this is why i know im wrong

2.

3. Originally Posted by somfooleishfool
First and foremost, I apolagise for any oversights or incorrect assumptions, my knowledge consists of what wikipedia has told me. feel free to rip my ideas to shreads, thats what im after really, someone to find holes in my ideas

my first issue is this.

the higgs boson is proposed to be everywhere in the universe. yet nothing travels faster than the speed of light but the "expansion of space" is not limited by the speed of light. how can the higgs boson possibly fill the gaps. to clarify... more empty space would be created say per second than the higgs boson has time to fill into.

ok my second issue. this is more just an interesting hypothesis and doesnt carry any real question unless somone would care to disprove it .

time is said to stop at the speed of light. so from the perspective of light itself. at its moment of creation, it would instantly be at its final destination and/or everywhere inbetween.

third thing. this might not make alot of sence, im not too sure

if gary was to jump in a space ship and travel away from earth at say 90% the speed of light and for the sake of arguement (although untrue) this slows time by 50% for garys point of reference. *now given einsteins thingy where he says that a train going the speed of light still passes a train going say 50% the speed of light AT the speed of light instead of the expected just 50% the speed of light. i would assume that gary and earth could have a conversation through radio waves because radio waves travel at the speed of light and so the radio waves for the conversation would reach gary pretty instantaniously. so all this assumed true. my question is this: if gary traveled 5 years out into space then turned around and came home at the same speed taking obviously 5 years to come back. how long was the conversation assuming they talked for the full 10 years (or 5 years according to gary). simply put. did they have a 5 year conversation or a 10 year conversation. and how does that work out. who misses some of the conversation etc.

my fourth thing is really just a silly hypothesis that is obviously wrong but just i duno, interesting idea to consider then dismiss .

what if einstein were wrong and the "speed of light" is not limited to 3300000 whatever it is. but that is all that we are able to observe in this dimension OR that is the fastest light is able to travel in this dimension. this would explain why (see above marked with *) that happens. if light were actually say 3 times faster that our percieved "speed of light" and u take away the speed of the train ur on. the faster train would still pass you at the speed of light because 3 times the speed of light minis half the speed of light is still 2 nd a half times the speed of light or in our point of view "the speed of light".
this to me could help explain my first issue, perhaps have something to do with my second one too. and it could maybe make some sence of some parts of quantum physics and unite them back into physics which i prefur cos it makes more sence . i dno jst an idea . rofl if i was actually right... itd be the biggest discovery since einstein discovered relitivity.... and this is why i know im wrong
http://www.thescienceforum.com/Speci...mer-19044t.php

4. well... i read that entire thread without just skimming through it (as i was very tempted to do). it confused the hell out of me at times and i had to read some paragraphs many many times before i caught there full meaning. but i have now read it all and (i think) understood it all... yet it hasnt helped with ANY of the things i posted? so thanks a bunch for the interesting thread but it hasnt solved any of my issues :/[/quote]

5. Originally Posted by somfooleishfool

if gary was to jump in a space ship and travel away from earth at say 90% the speed of light and for the sake of arguement (although untrue) this slows time by 50% for garys point of reference. *now given einsteins thingy where he says that a train going the speed of light still passes a train going say 50% the speed of light AT the speed of light instead of the expected just 50% the speed of light. i would assume that gary and earth could have a conversation through radio waves because radio waves travel at the speed of light and so the radio waves for the conversation would reach gary pretty instantaniously. so all this assumed true. my question is this: if gary traveled 5 years out into space then turned around and came home at the same speed taking obviously 5 years to come back. how long was the conversation assuming they talked for the full 10 years (or 5 years according to gary). simply put. did they have a 5 year conversation or a 10 year conversation. and how does that work out. who misses some of the conversation etc.
It would quickly become very difficult for them to have any type of normal conversation as the increasing distance between them would cause longer and longer delays between transmission and response.

For example:

One second after Gary leaves, you send him a message. By this time Gary is 0.9 light seconds from you. It will take 0.9 sec for your signal to travel that far at c. However, by then, Gary has moved another 0.81 light seconds, so the signal still hasn't reached him yet. Your signal will continue to chase after Gary until finally after 9 sec, your signal finally catches up with Gary. Gary will be 8.1 light sec from you when he sends back the reply, which will then take 9 secs to return to you. So even if your messages are just little "blips" to make contact, it will be 18 seconds before you get a reply.

If you then respond with a second "blip", It will take 3 min for your blip to reach Gary and another 3 min for his blip to get back to you.

A third blip sent by you won't get a reply for 2 hrs. As you can see, things get quickly out of hand just sending blips back and forth.

This increasing distance has another effect. Assume that Gary sends you a full sentence as a message. He will be closer to you when he starts the sentence then when he ends the sentence. This means that you will receive the end of the sentence later than you would than if he had sent the signal while not receding. To you, he will sound like he is talking in slow motion. (this is different from the time dilation that makes his clock run slow as far as you are concerned, and is an additional effect.)

If he is approaching, the opposite occurs, and he will seem to talk at high speed.

He will notice the same thing about your transmissions to him, stretched to a slow drawl while he is receding and compressed to a chipmunk squeal while he is approaching. This is known as Doppler shift. For objects traveling at high enough speeds, relativistic effect have to be added in, and the result is caused "Relativistic Doppler effect".

For your example, the Relativistic Doppler effect works out to be about 0.27 when Gary is going away and 3.73 when he is coming back.

So now we can start to answer your question. We'll assume that in order to avoid the time delays mentioned above, You and Gary just constantly transmit to each other. You continuously talk for 10 years by your clock and Gary talks continuously for 5 years by his clock.

So what does each hear.

For 2.5 years, Gary will hear you talk at 0.27 normal speed, meaning he will hear 0.675 years of your conversation during this time.

For the next 2.5 years as Gary is coming back he will hear you talk at 3.73 times normal speed and hear 9.325 years of your conversation. 0.675+9.325 = 10 yrs, so he hears all of your conversation.

You, on the other hand hear the following:

It take 5 years for Gary to reach the turnaround point (4.5 ly away), It will take another 4.5 years for you to find out about this. IOW, you will hear Gary talk at 0.27 times normal speed for 9.5 years hearing 2.5 years* of his conversation. (this makes sense, since according to his clock, 2.5 years will have passed when he reaches the turn-around point)

You then will hear him talk at 3.73 times normal speed for 0.5 years*, hearing 2.5 yrs of his conversation. 2.5+2.5 =5 yrs so you hear all of his conversation.
So both of you hear the entire conversation of the other.

You may wonder why Gary notices the change in Doppler shift immediately when he turns around, while you have to wait for an additional 4.5 years after he turns around to notice the change in shift. This is because Gary is the one that turns around and since he is "right there" so to speak, he doesn't have to wait to know that he turned around, while you, being 4.5 light years away, have to wait for 4.5 years for this information to reach you at c.

The math doesn't quite work out here because your assumption of 0.9c resulting in a time dilation factor of 2 is not quite right. It is actually a speed of 0.866 c that causes that factor. This difference skews the math a bit.

6. Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by somfooleishfool

if gary was to jump in a space ship and travel away from earth at say 90% the speed of light and for the sake of arguement (although untrue) this slows time by 50% for garys point of reference. *now given einsteins thingy where he says that a train going the speed of light still passes a train going say 50% the speed of light AT the speed of light instead of the expected just 50% the speed of light. i would assume that gary and earth could have a conversation through radio waves because radio waves travel at the speed of light and so the radio waves for the conversation would reach gary pretty instantaniously. so all this assumed true. my question is this: if gary traveled 5 years out into space then turned around and came home at the same speed taking obviously 5 years to come back. how long was the conversation assuming they talked for the full 10 years (or 5 years according to gary). simply put. did they have a 5 year conversation or a 10 year conversation. and how does that work out. who misses some of the conversation etc.
It would quickly become very difficult for them to have any type of normal conversation as the increasing distance between them would cause longer and longer delays between transmission and response.

For example:

One second after Gary leaves, you send him a message. By this time Gary is 0.9 light seconds from you. It will take 0.9 sec for your signal to travel that far at c. However, by then, Gary has moved another 0.81 light seconds, so the signal still hasn't reached him yet. Your signal will continue to chase after Gary until finally after 9 sec, your signal finally catches up with Gary. Gary will be 8.1 light sec from you when he sends back the reply, which will then take 9 secs to return to you. So even if your messages are just little "blips" to make contact, it will be 18 seconds before you get a reply.

If you then respond with a second "blip", It will take 3 min for your blip to reach Gary and another 3 min for his blip to get back to you.

A third blip sent by you won't get a reply for 2 hrs. As you can see, things get quickly out of hand just sending blips back and forth.

This increasing distance has another effect. Assume that Gary sends you a full sentence as a message. He will be closer to you when he starts the sentence then when he ends the sentence. This means that you will receive the end of the sentence later than you would than if he had sent the signal while not receding. To you, he will sound like he is talking in slow motion. (this is different from the time dilation that makes his clock run slow as far as you are concerned, and is an additional effect.)

If he is approaching, the opposite occurs, and he will seem to talk at high speed.

He will notice the same thing about your transmissions to him, stretched to a slow drawl while he is receding and compressed to a chipmunk squeal while he is approaching. This is known as Doppler shift. For objects traveling at high enough speeds, relativistic effect have to be added in, and the result is caused "Relativistic Doppler effect".

For your example, the Relativistic Doppler effect works out to be about 0.27 when Gary is going away and 3.73 when he is coming back.

So now we can start to answer your question. We'll assume that in order to avoid the time delays mentioned above, You and Gary just constantly transmit to each other. You continuously talk for 10 years by your clock and Gary talks continuously for 5 years by his clock.

So what does each hear.

For 2.5 years, Gary will hear you talk at 0.27 normal speed, meaning he will hear 0.675 years of your conversation during this time.

For the next 2.5 years as Gary is coming back he will hear you talk at 3.73 times normal speed and hear 9.325 years of your conversation. 0.675+9.325 = 10 yrs, so he hears all of your conversation.

You, on the other hand hear the following:

It take 5 years for Gary to reach the turnaround point (4.5 ly away), It will take another 4.5 years for you to find out about this. IOW, you will hear Gary talk at 0.27 times normal speed for 9.5 years hearing 2.5 years* of his conversation. (this makes sense, since according to his clock, 2.5 years will have passed when he reaches the turn-around point)

You then will hear him talk at 3.73 times normal speed for 0.5 years*, hearing 2.5 yrs of his conversation. 2.5+2.5 =5 yrs so you hear all of his conversation.
So both of you hear the entire conversation of the other.

You may wonder why Gary notices the change in Doppler shift immediately when he turns around, while you have to wait for an additional 4.5 years after he turns around to notice the change in shift. This is because Gary is the one that turns around and since he is "right there" so to speak, he doesn't have to wait to know that he turned around, while you, being 4.5 light years away, have to wait for 4.5 years for this information to reach you at c.

The math doesn't quite work out here because your assumption of 0.9c resulting in a time dilation factor of 2 is not quite right. It is actually a speed of 0.866 c that causes that factor. This difference skews the math a bit.
srry for the massive quote but i dnt know how to use it properly lol i jst hit the "quote" button nd left it at that.

first up thank you very much for that in depth explanation, it was easy to follow and made perfect sence after reading through just once. any1 reading this topic, dont bother to answer my 2nd issue. i found a topic that answered that question. i was right and wrong at the same time . ignore the last idea. it was silly and i realize even more now than before how abserd it is. but im still very curious about the higgs boson/expansion of space question. it intregues me and i cant see a resolve

7. It sounds like you might be misinterpreting what the Higgs boson is. It's a hypothetical type of particle. So there wouldn't be just one, there'd be many of them. (Compare photon and electron.)

8. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
It sounds like you might be misinterpreting what the Higgs boson is. It's a hypothetical type of particle. So there wouldn't be just one, there'd be many of them. (Compare photon and electron.)
ahh i c. you're correct that i was misinterpreting it as A particle not a TYPE of particle. but my problem still stands

9. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
It sounds like you might be misinterpreting what the Higgs boson is. It's a hypothetical type of particle. So there wouldn't be just one, there'd be many of them. (Compare photon and electron.)
just to clarify. ur not saying a photon and an electron are higgs bosons are you?

10. No. I'm just comparing Higgs bosons being everywhere to the fact that there are photons everywhere (cosmic microwave background and starlight) and electrons everywhere (at least everywhere with matter).

11. Everyone seems to have a fascination with the Higgs boson, The fact is the Higgs scalar field is needed for electroweak unification through gauge symmetry breaking at very high temperatures ( energy ). This postulated field was used because it had the right properties for the symmetry breaking but it has certainly never been observed. Any field has an associated carrier particle such as a photon for electromagnetic, w+/- and z for weak, and gluons for stong ( even gravitons for gravity ), but all of the above are actual, measured fields. The Higgs scalar field is only postulated, so looking for its carrier particle may be putting the cart before the horse.

12. Originally Posted by MigL
Everyone seems to have a fascination with the Higgs boson, The fact is the Higgs scalar field is needed for electroweak unification through gauge symmetry breaking at very high temperatures ( energy ). This postulated field was used because it had the right properties for the symmetry breaking but it has certainly never been observed. Any field has an associated carrier particle such as a photon for electromagnetic, w+/- and z for weak, and gluons for stong ( even gravitons for gravity ), but all of the above are actual, measured fields. The Higgs scalar field is only postulated, so looking for its carrier particle may be putting the cart before the horse.
i didnt understand a whole lot of what you said... went a bit over my head. but the last half of it was interesting. for some reason i was under the presumption that photons were the universal force carriers. i didnt realize each force had its own carrier particle. and "w+/-" is that all one symbol for a particle or is the "/" separating "w+" and "-".

im going to have to do some reading just to under stand what you've said lol. ill have to wiki "scalar field" "guage symmetry" i dont even know what posulated means. "symmetry breaking"

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement