Re: BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- From: Dono <sa_ge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 21, 9:20 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Dono says...
On Jul 21, 8:26 am, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Dono says...
On Jul 17, 6:43 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
What you are describlin is not "Bell's paradox". You are describing
"Ben's paradox".
That's not correct. Ben is talking about Bell's paradox:
two rockets undergo identical acceleration so that the
distance between them remains constant, as measured in
the initial frame. Yet the string between the rockets
breaks.
No, he's not. There is no acceleration in his dumbed down version.
Please read his OP.
I did, and his original post was correct. In his version, he
discretizes the acceleration by talking about firecrackers exploding
to accelerate a rocket,
If he did, the math is missing.
If he were to do it, he would have ended with the equations of
hyperbolic motion, not with the trivial Lorentz transformations,
something that apparently he doesn't know and definitely tries to
avoid as part of his agenda that "other explanatations have stumped
physicists"
Rather than continuously accelerating a rocket, you can accelerate
in "jerks": The two rockets synchronize their clocks. Then they
agree upon a schedule for acceleration: Starting at tau = 0, they
explode a firecracker every delta-tau seconds (as measured by onboard
clocks) and thereby increase their velocity in the x-direction by delta-v
(as measured in their current rest frame). Between explosions,
they just coast. In the limit as delta-Tau goes to zero and delta-v
goes to zero, (but keeping the ratio delta-v/delta-Tau = some
constant acceleration g), this becomes the same as continuous
acceleration.
You are doing a great job describing hyperbolic motion. But this is
not to be found in ANYTHING that Ben posted.
Ben is examining the length of the string, as
measured by the front rocket, immediately after the front
rocket explodes his first fire-cracker. He finds that, as
measured in the new frame, the string is *longer* than it was
previously.
Yes, he does that by using the equations of unaccelerated (uniform
motion). I already pointed out that the string will break even in an
unnacelerated case. This is not a reason to dumb down the original
Bell problem to the extent Ben has been doing.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- References:
- BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- From: Dono
- Re: BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- From: Daryl McCullough
- BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- Prev by Date: Re: Unbiased Spectroscopic Data Prove QED is Inaccurate
- Next by Date: Re: BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- Previous by thread: Re: BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- Next by thread: Re: BELL'S PARADOX FOR DUMMIES
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
