Speed of electrons in an atom

[Wiccan_Child]

Time isn't a constant because it's not a "thing." It's an observation. I'm fine with the suggestion that certain things give the optical illusion of a clock moving relative to you moving faster or slower... or the temporal illusion that time seems to speed up or slow down. However, regardless of how long it seems to take to get from one point in history to another... reality happens, and it's always changing. An object can't move through space while paused in time (contrary to what einstein would have you believe about photons).

The simple fact that it moves shows that it "is currently in a place it didn't used to be." No matter what it "thinks" is happening... that's time moving. A rate of change in position can not alter the fact that time flows... whether you're moving at a rate of 186,000 miles/second or 88 MPH with 1.21 gigawatts powering your flux capacitor. Your body can experience reactions on a cellular or even atomic level... but whatever happens can not change "time" ... not because it's a "thing that flows constantly" ... but because it's not a "thing" at all. It's only an explanation for what point in history we're in.

Take the "clock on a jet" experiments, for example... at the end of a flight that lasted a certain amount of time... they came back with their clocks off by a bit. The fact that the clocks are off proves nothing more or less than the "clocks were off."

... if time is a substance one can alter... bring me a jar of time. I'll give you $20.

I've already been told off once for derailing this thread. Make another thread if you want to talk about time dilation .

 

[The Gregorian]

1. The energy required to accelerate the particles increases with speed, which is not predicted by Newton (as you mentioned). -I agree that the speed of light is "C" in a vacuum, relative to it's source... but not necessarily in all frames of reference moving relative to it's source. I say this because it's quite possible that magnetic forces have a similar speed.

Think of the magnetic forces driving the particle as a horse pulling a heavy carriage. This breed of horse may have a normal running speed of 30 MPH, but it may only be able to drag the carriage at 15 MPH due to the weight. Add a second horse, the carriage is easier to pull, and they may go 20 MPH. With 8 horses, they may be able to get to 29 MPH. With 16 horses they may end up reaching 30 MPH... but no matter how many horses you get to pull, they can never drag a carriage faster than they, themselves can run. (I know very little about horses or carriage pulling, so the numbers could be way off, but the concept behind the illustration is what's important).

So... does the fact that more energy is used the closer to "C" the particle get prove that the -particle- is limited to "C" due to divine mandate!? Or, could it simply be that the forces used to propel the particle simply can't push the particle faster than they themselves go (which happens to also be "C")?

2. Some such accelerators work by flipping the direction of the electric field as particles move through a circular track. This works fine at lower speeds, but near the speed of light the particles begin to experience length contraction and time dilation. To account for this the shape of the track (because of length contraction) and the time between current flips (because of time dilation) must be changed at high speeds in ways special relativity predicts accurately.-I'm not sure in what way the path would have to be shaped different, let's consider the time between "current flips." It essentially works like the tracks of a bullet train? Correct? Alternating electromagnetic fields pull/push the particle (or train) and it moves. MUST the required difference in timing be due to space itself expanding? Or could it not be because an object moving at speeds near the speed of the electromagnetic force itself takes an extra bit of time to effect? Like throwing a rock at the car of your cheating ex-wife as she drives away. It won't hit as hard as if you threw it while she was driving toward you, now would it?

Of course, I'd need to know the details of exactly how it must be shaped/timed differently. An alternative explanation could be that the particle may actually be changing in shape... but are you SURE it's "space itself expanding?" Is it the space through which the object travels, or the "space of the object itself?" Must it be spacial distortion? or could it not be an augmentation of the shape of an object as it moves at high speeds. Throw a water balloon... it's not going to stay the same shape it was while you were holding it. Particles, aren't exactly "solid."

3. Some particles are unstable: after a certain (usually very short) amount of time they transform into energy. The average "lifetime", as it is called, of such particles is generally very well known. When such particles are brought to speeds near that of light in particle accelerators, their lifetimes (in our frame of reference) become longer. The new lifetime is exactly that predicted by special relativity.- Again, rubbish. As with the cesium in atomic clocks and muons... the fact that their halflife changes doesn't mean time itself changed. How are you so sure that the relative velocity didn't make it more difficult for the particle to decay?

That's my BIGGEST qualm with the "atomic clocks on a jet" experiment. It postulates "Well, we KNOW that under absolutely no circumstances can these clocks be wrong... so we put these clocks in an environment with innumerable variables (varying electromagnetic fields, varying levels of solar radiation due to differences in altitude and movement through weather patterns, radio interferance... turbulence, etc)... then LO and behold! The clocks are off... but we know the clocks cannot be wrong under any circumstances... so we know they've gone through augmented time... but remained infallibly accurate. Therefore these atomic clocks tell time more accurately than time itself!

How is it more reasonable that time itself slowed... not just their rate of decay? Of course, we define our units of measurement of time by those atomic clocks, so one could logically state that them changing changes our unit of measurement with it... but that just makes our unit of measurement fallible, not time... because it doesn't exist.

This experiment is as water tight as me taking a one inch long rubber band... stretching it, and claiming "See? I've made this inch longer! I control the fabric of space itself! (by stretching something in space)."

No matter how we stretch or bend objects IN space... we cannot stretch "space." ... "space" is a description, not a "thing" to be stretched. Likewise, no matter how fast or slow an object is going at one point in time or another... you cannot "change time" by changing your position in space at a certain rate. "Time" and "space" are figments of your imagination. The explanation of "where" and "when" can't be contorted any more than the explanation of "why."

 

[The Gregorian]

You mention that you accept caesium decays are slowed at high speeds. I wonder if the problem here is that we're using different definitions of the word, "time"?

Indeed. The math in special relativity works just fine. I've got no problem with that. But the explanation is completely upside down because it's definition of "time" and "space" ... and worse.... "Spacetime" (the word itself is a bastardization of reality.)

Objects -in- space and time alter. But no matter where or when something happens... you can't change space. Einstein admitted he based much of his theory on the M&M failure... they failed to prove an aether, therefore he assumed it didn't exist... then wrote a theory stating "If you go real fast, you can bend the "spacetime" you're traveling through... which inherently assumes space is the aether which he assumed did not exist!? <-this is bold because it represents me yelling in a quite upset tone.... with a hint of disappointment.

... just... how? How do you disagree with an aether, then write both special relativity and general relativity? How does a person base a theory on the idea that an aether doesn't exist... when the theory itself describes an aether existing? I think he did it just to annoy me. Like the person who put all those silent letters in the french language. Just to annoy me, personally. (I enjoy my dillusions of grandeur... do not take them away from me)

Perhaps you are imagining time as a sort of constant beat through the universe that objects conform to, more fundamental than clocks.

Constant? I don't like the implication. "Not there. At all. Figment of your imagination." More fundamental than clocks... yes.

Tell me... do clocks define time? Or are clocks a way to describe time? If the power goes out on my alarm clock... did time stop? Or did my explanation of time fail to match the reality? If I spend an hour spinning in my chair with a rotational speed of 97% of C... what does it matter what if it only seemed like a minute to me? How does that change the fact that the earth rotated by 15 degrees?

What time dilation means is that events in moving reference frames happen more closely together (in time) than events in stationary ones (by "stationary frame" I mean "the frame of the observer").

If events happened more closely together while moving, time would be speeding up, not slowing down due to speed.

You could, I suppose, think of this not as time slowing down but as events slowing down

THAT is perfectly sane. I agree that at high speed, events (including atomic events, such as muon decay) slow down. But saying that changes time itself is like saying that buses and trains ACTUALLY make a lower-pitch sound whenever they pass by you... the Doppler effect couldn't simply be an auditory illusion.

So the clock on the plane does slow down, but so does the heartbeat of the pilot, so does the combustion of the engine fuel, and so do the thoughts of the passengers. Any experiment performed on the plane seems like it is going more slowly than usual to the people on the ground (the reverse is true for the people on the plane: the people on the ground seem to be going more slowly, until the plane slows down and the reference frames realign).

INDEED! A very important point! The clock on the ground was going JUST as fast relative to the clock in the jet as the clock on the jet was going relative tot he clock on the ground. Were SR legitimate... each clock would see the other one as behind itself equally, until they stopped moving relative to each other. So, why is it, when the clocks in the experiment "realigned" and were brought back to the same frame of reference, the clock on each jet read a different time than the clock on the ground?

Explain that one, if ya don't mind.

Also, if you have the time (HA! I made a joke!), tell me why, in the Hafele–Keating experiment, the clock on the plane traveling eastward LOST 59 nanoseconds, while the clock on the plane traveling westward GAINED 273 nanoseconds?

The experiment claimed to account for the earth's axial rotation, since one aircraft was moving with the rotation of the earth, and the other was moving against it... However, the rotation of the earth doesn't affect the relative speed between the aircraft and the ground (and therefore the clocks on the aircraft and ground) any more than the earth's orbit around the sun affects it... since the clock on the ground is moving with the earth's rotation and orbit just as much as the clocks in the jet.

 

[The Gregorian]

I've already been told off once for derailing this thread. Make another thread if you want to talk about time dilation .

It wouldn't be a derail. Time dilation was what I was originally referring to in the original post. With the previous model of an atom where the electron physically orbits the atom at the speed of light, I was going to have a conversation until one of you guys gave the illustration I was thinking of, which implies a linear addition of velocities rather than this garbage:

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It wouldn't be a derail. Time dilation was what I was originally referring to in the original post.

I forgot you were the OP!

With the previous model of an atom where the electron physically orbits the atom at the speed of light, I was going to have a conversation until one of you guys gave the illustration I was thinking of, which implies a linear addition of velocities rather than this garbage:

The postulates of special relativity imply that velocities are more accurately added by the above vector addition, not the classical Galilean addition. Time dilation, length contraction, and a flagrant disregard for simultaneity also follow from the postulates of special relativity.

Do you disagree that special relativity implies those phenomena? Or do you disagree that the postulates of special relativity are true? Because the former are simple mathematical derivations, and the latter are supported by 100 years of empirical observation (namely, observations of the postulates and their implications).

 

[The Gregorian]

I greatly disagree that two photons traveling toward each other are moving the same speed relative to each other as two photons traveling the same direction. And, I disagree that a single photon is moves at one speed relative to two objects moving relative to each other. And, yes, I disagree that two objects, each moving at .99C toward the same object (from opposite directions) are still moving at less than 1C relative to each other.

When have these been "observed" outside of flawed thought experiments that "accidentally forget" about a few key variables?

As for length contractions, I agree observations have been made, but misunderstood or misrepresented. Because certain matter contracts or expands doesn't necessarily mean the space it's IN contracts or expands. As with time, if "space" changed size, everything within that space would change size equally, and no one could possibly detect it. The fact that we can detect an alteration in size shows that that certain matter changed size... not the space it's in. Einstein's own illustration stated that if the entire universe got 100x bigger or smaller, we would have no way of discerning it.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "disregard for simultaneity"... you suggesting that people have found a way for one object to be in two places at one time? ... without some cheap trick such as crossing one's eyes and saying "LOOK! IT'S IN TWO PLACES!"

... as for time dilation? I fart in it's general direction. (Let it be so.)

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Let's see, so a question about why electron orbitals in atoms are stable leads to a discussion of...gravity...

...and a question about how fast electrons move in atoms leads to a discussion of...special relativity...

 

[Cabal]

Surely the quickest way of saying "everything occurs more slowly at relativistic speed" is....well....time dilation? It doesn't necessarily imply that time is something one can put in a jar.

It's like how, yes, antiparticles TECHNICALLY can be represented by electrons going back in time, but it's not like we can observe that, from a theoretical standpoint it gives you less hassle to just flip the sign on your t-coordinate. Apart from that, in practical terms it makes little difference.

 

[The Gregorian]

Surely the quickest way of saying "everything occurs more slowly at relativistic speed" is....well....time dilation? It doesn't necessarily imply that time is something one can put in a jar.

There's a big difference between stating that "actions slow" and "magical spacetime fabric is stretched."

Again, it's like stretching a rubber band, but claiming that instead of the "rubber" stretching, that you've stretched the space the rubber is in, and that the rubber exists unstretched within stretched space.

 

[Cabal]

There's a big difference between stating that "actions slow" and "magical spacetime fabric is stretched."

Again, it's like stretching a rubber band, but claiming that instead of the "rubber" stretching, that you've stretched the space the rubber is in, and that the rubber exists unstretched within stretched space.

Sure. But again, as usual, same old problem - you either have every physical process altering with time, via some mechanism, or you can alter one parameter - time. The latter is simpler.

 

[Doveaman]

Sure. But again, as usual, same old problem - you either have every physical process altering with time, via some mechanism, or you can alter one parameter - time. The latter is simpler.

Maybe a bit too simple, or not simple enough.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I greatly disagree that two photons traveling toward each other are moving the same speed relative to each other as two photons traveling the same direction. And, I disagree that a single photon is moves at one speed relative to two objects moving relative to each other. And, yes, I disagree that two objects, each moving at .99C toward the same object (from opposite directions) are still moving at less than 1C relative to each other.

Fair enough.

As for length contractions, I agree observations have been made, but misunderstood or misrepresented. Because certain matter contracts or expands doesn't necessarily mean the space it's IN contracts or expands. As with time, if "space" changed size, everything within that space would change size equally, and no one could possibly detect it.

Space contracts locally: as our hypothetical spaceship accelerates along a massively long ruler, the observer will see the ship 'shrink'.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "disregard for simultaneity"... you suggesting that people have found a way for one object to be in two places at one time? ... without some cheap trick such as crossing one's eyes and saying "LOOK! IT'S IN TWO PLACES!"

No. If I witness two events happening at the same time, someone moving relative to me wouldn't necessarily agree. I may see a laser hit two targets at the same time, while you (on a passing train) see one target hit before the other.

 

[canehdianhotstuff]

As far as I know, we dont even know if an electron is a single particle is motion, or just a cloud of "energy" for lack of a word at the moment, that has a negative charge.

 

[The Gregorian]

Sure. But again, as usual, same old problem - you either have every physical process altering with time, via some mechanism, or you can alter one parameter - time. The latter is simpler.

Is it really simpler? Matter is simply energy in a certain format. Matter "does things" when energy shifts about. This energy doesn't have an infinite top speed, therefore if the matter is moving at speeds comparable to the top speed of the energy out of which said matter is made... it'll not only change shape, but, it'll take longer for the energy which makes up the matter to "act" ... therefore even atomic decay will be slowed... because decay is still the action of energy being released.

Is it really more simple to state that an object moving changes something other than the object which is moving? (by changing time simply by moving through space?!)

Or, is it more simple to state that an object taking an action may ITSELF be affected by the actions it takes?

The first explanation that "it's easier to describe the fact that 'everything' slows down by imagining that some completely unsubstantiated fabric of 'time' is altered because an object moves through the interwoven fabric of 'space'" is equivalent to finding it easier to tell a child that when they go to sleep time literally speeds up... because everything seems to.

 

[The Gregorian]

No. If I witness two events happening at the same time, someone moving relative to me wouldn't necessarily agree. I may see a laser hit two targets at the same time, while you (on a passing train) see one target hit before the other.

Einstein originally used lightning strikes instead of lazers... but, this illustration is still as infuriating at how simply wrong it is.

... have you ever seen a person a good distance away (maybe 100 yards) dribbling a basketball? You can see the basketball hit the ground noticeably before you hear it. Because the sound got to you later, should you assume that the sound actually "happened" later? Yet, the person dribbling the basketball will see and hear it hit the ground at indistinguishably similar times... so, the fact that he senses the two events happen simultaneously, does that mean your distance from that person changes how you experience time itself?

... or, is this an auditory/optical illusion because it takes time for the information to get to you?

If I remember correctly, Einstein supported the idea that two "simultaneous lightning strikes" (according to the ground) would be seen as "not simultaneous" because in the time that it takes the light to travel from the strike point to the eye of the observer in the train, the train will have moved, thus, one strike would have to travel less distance to get to the observer's eye, and one strike would travel a greater distance. The light from both strikes travels the same speed, but at two different distances, one will be seen happening before the other, and therefore they will not be simultaneous.

However, this has two AMAZING flaws.

1: Einstein said speed isn't added linearly. The relative speed between the observer and the light coming from the strike can be no greater than "C"... so regardless of how fast the observer travels, light cannot go faster than the speed of itself relative to the observer. His own thought experiment supports the linear addition of velocities.
2: This only proves that "light takes time to get to a certain point, and if you move that point during that time, you change the distance." This is common sense... doesn't support "time dilation" at all. Unless you honestly think that things ONLY happen in the universe when they are detected. And, if the sun turns purple, and the light doesn't reach us for 8 minutes... you honestly assume that the Sun actually didn't turn purple until we realize it's turned purple. Sort of an "It's not cheating if I don't remember the next day!" situation.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Time dilation still exists after you've accounted for differing transit times.

The problem is you are trying to latch onto a not well-defined preferred frame of reference.

Why is the frame of reference with respect to the ground to be preferred to the observer's frame of reference?

How do I figure out what the universal frame of reference is?

...

When you can tell me how to figure out the universal frame of reference, then you'll be on to something.

But a frame of reference is a path in space-time, so it is a point in space which evolves through time, and if we restrict to SR it evolves in a straight line.

Which path is prefered?

...

As a rule if you are going to say something like "Einstein was wrong", any reasonable person will interpret you as saying "I don't understand Einstein", so you should just say that.

 

[The Gregorian]

Time dilation still exists after you've accounted for differing transit times.

The thought experiment never indicated that. It just stated that the the difference in simultaneity was because while the light traveled to the moving observer, the moving observer... moved. Thus shortening/lengthening the distance between the two light sources. ... Linearly adding the speed of the moving observer to the speed of the moving light. Where's the "time dilation?"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Einstein originally used lightning strikes instead of lazers... but, this illustration is still as infuriating at how simply wrong it is.

... have you ever seen a person a good distance away (maybe 100 yards) dribbling a basketball? You can see the basketball hit the ground noticeably before you hear it. Because the sound got to you later, should you assume that the sound actually "happened" later? Yet, the person dribbling the basketball will see and hear it hit the ground at indistinguishably similar times... so, the fact that he senses the two events happen simultaneously, does that mean your distance from that person changes how you experience time itself?

... or, is this an auditory/optical illusion because it takes time for the information to get to you?

The latter. Once you compensate for the delay, you'd conclude that the events were simultaneous (i.e., there was once bounce). There is no such illusion in the 'lasers on a train' example.

If I remember correctly, Einstein supported the idea that two "simultaneous lightning strikes" (according to the ground) would be seen as "not simultaneous" because in the time that it takes the light to travel from the strike point to the eye of the observer in the train, the train will have moved, thus, one strike would have to travel less distance to get to the observer's eye, and one strike would travel a greater distance. The light from both strikes travels the same speed, but at two different distances, one will be seen happening before the other, and therefore they will not be simultaneous.

However, this has two AMAZING flaws.

1: Einstein said speed isn't added linearly. The relative speed between the observer and the light coming from the strike can be no greater than "C"... so regardless of how fast the observer travels, light cannot go faster than the speed of itself relative to the observer. His own thought experiment supports the linear addition of velocities.

The thought experiment is designed to show that, under special relativity, there is no way for the two observers to agree on the order of events (without making arbitrary concessions). Since we're talking about light (which moves at c) and trains (which move at non-relativistic speeds), relativistic vector addition is negligible. It's hardly an "AMAZING" flaw; you may as well criticise its lack of quantum mechanics.

2: This only proves that "light takes time to get to a certain point, and if you move that point during that time, you change the distance." This is common sense... doesn't support "time dilation" at all.

Indeed: it supports the relativity of simultaneity. Under special relativity, the person on the train sees one event occur before the other. Classically, one would say that since the person has moved with the train, the frontwards light reaches her before the rearwards light does, thus creating the illusion that the events are not simultaneous. However, under special relativity, she sees both beams of light moving at the same speed, so she can work backward and deduce when the two events 'really' happened.

Unless you honestly think that things ONLY happen in the universe when they are detected. And, if the sun turns purple, and the light doesn't reach us for 8 minutes... you honestly assume that the Sun actually didn't turn purple until we realize it's turned purple. Sort of an "It's not cheating if I don't remember the next day!" situation.

Yes, that's exactly what the experiment is designed to show...

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The thought experiment never indicated that. It just stated that the the difference in simultaneity was because while the light traveled to the moving observer, the moving observer... moved. Thus shortening/lengthening the distance between the two light sources. ... Linearly adding the speed of the moving observer to the speed of the moving light. Where's the "time dilation?"

The only assumption that really matters is that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. Everything else follows from that (maybe a second postulate for the mathematically minded).

Can you point me to an experiment where they changed the frame of reference and observed a different speed of light?

The fact that you GPS works and is built on the principle that light is the same in all reference frames would tend to indicate that it is a correct postulate.

You can also set a highly accurate clock on a rocket, synchronize it with one on the ground, launch the rocket, get the clock back and observe the difference the two clocks now have.

Time dilation can and has been confirmed empirically.

 

[granpa]

I'm going to see if I can do this, intentionally without making the suggestion myself:

First: Relative to the speed of light, about how fast do electrons travel? Obviously, this will very depending on the element and which group of electrons.. but, if you were to generalize.

the electron cloud in the ground state of a Bohr atom rotates at c/127


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant