Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

What is the maximum recordable ammount of seconds in a 12 Atom
universe, where

Eternity = m(universe) / m(unit of record)

Mass of Atom = 1.6 x 10^(-27)

Recording unit = 1 symbol/atom.

For extra Marks . . .

How many seconds will have passed in our our own universe, at the same
moment that the last integer was erased from the memory of the 12 atom
universe.

On Aug 14, 11:16*pm, Y wrote:
On Aug 15, 5:44 am, PD wrote:

It's not a matter of numbers. It's a matter of experiment.
While the barn and pole situation has not been explicitly done, the
same theory that predicts that the pole fits in the barn also predicts
a number of other things that have been explicitly tested in
experiment.

Those number of other things, which have been tested. Were they
objects with mass ?

Yes.


Well maybe it is starting to make sense to me now what the theory is
actually implying. Maybe the theory implies that an instant is
impossible. The theory might also imply that movement in an instant is
unquantifiable within an intsant - therefore the doors might have
never closed. Nor might there have even been a barn. To say that the
doors have closed wouldn't belong to the equation, ,and neither would
the 80 m pole. So, Maybe if you put a non existent 80m pole into a
non existent 40m barn, they aren't going to bump into one another.

if an equation is like a sentence, that can be easily read, i wonder
how accurate the sentences above are to the theory.

Was that relativistic mass ?? Or good old fashioned mass. Just
checking

On Aug 15, 10:15 pm, PD wrote:
Those number of other things, which have been tested. Were they
objects with mass ?

Yes.

On Aug 14, 11:25*pm, Y wrote:
So heres a good Exam.

Physics Question 1. Difficult Level (very low)

What is the maximum recordable ammount of seconds in a 12 Atom
universe, where

Eternity = m(universe) / m(unit of record)

Mass of Atom = 1.6 x 10^(-27)

Recording unit = 1 atom per integer.

Would it be 9.1 seconds, matching Bob Hayes' world record for the 100
yard dash?

On Aug 13, 9:25*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 13, 2:30*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

I think you don't know what a physical theory is.
Can you please provide a quantitative prediction of a measurable
quantity?
That's what a physical theory does.

PD

Clever Draper, I have aleady asked you and you did reply I must admit
but I cannot remember your answer so again: What is the quantitative
prediction, Clever Draper, for the length of a 80m long pole safely
trapped inside a 40m long barn, provided your brothers have forgotten
to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly" and the doors don't
break:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....

Barns, like image displays, are sold on the diagonal measure; and
since barns are 3-solids, their principal diagonal is even longer
relative to the sides for a given aspect ratio. So there is a good
chance this is really a "80m barn" (measured diagonally) -- and
relativity requires the pole to go in on an angle. It is in fact well
known that if we literally inquire "what we see" of a rapidly moving
object, we see it not shortened, but rotated. So there is your
resolution -- relativity requires moving objects to rotate.

This was a very silly reply

So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

It is a point not generally emphasized in treatments of relativity
that, in each reference frame, we may treat all relativistic effects
as "physical" as physical may be. That is, in the frame in which the
relativistically moving pole has contracted to 39m, we may take a
suitably quantum corrected version of Lorentz ether theory to be
literally true, and the pole to actually be contracted to 39m in
length as a result of its motion through the ether, which just happens
to be at rest in our reference frame.

The unexpected twist to this description is that it turns out,
assuming perfect local Lorentz symmetry, that _any_ suitably related
frame may equally well be considered to be the just-happens-to-be rest
frame of the ether; but the view of an actual physical contraction
remains acceptable and predictive within any given frame.

So what is there to be predicted if we don't open the doors "pretty
quickly"? That much is obvious: we are going to have a very badly
damaged pole or barn. Now, in general, we know we are not free to
make arbitrary material assumptions in relativity (no perfectly rigid
bodies, e.g.), but I think we reach no contradiction if we assume
either the pole or the doors, but not both, cannot break. Then the
other one must, or at least undergo some deformation.

Actually, we might assume that the pole bounced back and forth between
the doors -- without breaking and without losing energy -- the
discrepancy between the segment traveling to the right at near c and
that traveling to the left, and any given instant in the rest frame of
the barn, being taken up by elastic deformation of the pole, where
"elastic" is that kind of deformation resulting in energy storage
which can be seen in the instantaneous rest frame of that portion of
the pole, as opposed to the relativistic deformation, which cannot be
detected directly in the instantaneous rest frame of each segment of
the pole.

That was a serious reply.

On Aug 13, 10:12*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 13, 3:47*pm, PD wrote:



On Aug 13, 8:25*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 13, 2:30*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

I think you don't know what a physical theory is.
Can you please provide a quantitative prediction of a measurable
quantity?
That's what a physical theory does.

PD

Clever Draper, I have aleady asked you and you did reply I must admit
but I cannot remember your answer so again: What is the quantitative
prediction, Clever Draper, for the length of a 80m long pole safely
trapped inside a 40m long barn, provided your brothers have forgotten
to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly" and the doors don't
break:

Well, of course the quantitative prediction depends on the relative
speed between the pole and the barn, but there certainly is a value of
the relative speed for which the quantitative prediction for the
length of the pole in the barn frame is not 80m but 39m. (The "80m"
you referred to in your question above is an adjective that presumably
applies in the rest frame of the pole, but does not apply in any other
frame.) This yields the qualitative prediction that the doors can be
closed briefly without touching either end of the pole.

Now, no one has done this exact experiment with a barn and a pole,
though there is a clearly a quantitative prediction. Fortunately, the
theory makes a number of other quantitative predictions which HAVE
been tested -- and confirmed -- in experiment.

The role of the barn-and-pole puzzle is then left, not as an
experimental prediction, but as a teaching exercise -- which
apparently still leaves some Bulgarians addled.

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Bravo Clever Draper! Bulgarians are by no means addled - rather, they
adore you and your answers. Just a small elaboration: "the
quantitative prediction for the length of the pole in the barn frame
is not 80m but 39m" but then, when the pole is safely trapped inside
the barn, it will try to restore its proper length (which is 80m). But
since the doors of the barn don't break, the pole will be able to
restore only 1 meter so when Clever Draper goes and measures the
length of the trapped pole, Clever Draper clearly sees a 40m long
pole, perhaps a few centimetres longer if the doors are slightly
deformed. Is this realistic, Clever Draper? A 40m long pole and that's
it?


Seriously, Pentcho, if you want to be "realistic" (your word), what
would you expect to happen in the kind of collision between a
projectile and any possible material containment, when the relative
velocity before collision was sufficient to introduce a length
contraction, as seen by observers on either object, of over 50%?

You speak as if the pole were to come to a stop suddenly, with nothing
but an embarrassingly large degree of elastic and plastic deformation
to show for it. But indeed, silly as that is, that is sufficient: as
I said, there are limits to our material assumptions in special
relativity, and either the pole or the barn will (minimally) have to
undergo sufficient plastic and elastic deformation when the doors
shut, to accommodate the mismatch.

I mean, that's still a silly answer, since we really expect something
more along the lines of a fireball, possibly with an assortment of
nuclear reactions. But "elastic and plastic deformation" is
sufficient and minimally necessary to resolve the dimensional mismatch
when the doors close, and we thereby try to bring the relative
velocity of pole and barn to zero. If you want to say it's an
absolutely rigid and unbreakable barn and rigid and unbreakable pole,
then you have a logical contradiction. The way you write, the pole
was out for no more than a casual stroll when its friend the barn
addressed it, and brought it up short. "Hello, old beanpole!" "Eh,
oh, Barn, how are things with the cows and haylofts"?

On Aug 31, 6:46 am, Obama Insane wrote:
On Aug 14, 11:25 pm, Y wrote:

So heres a good Exam.

Physics Question 1. Difficult Level (very low)

What is the maximum recordable ammount of seconds in a 12 Atom
universe, where

Eternity = m(universe) / m(unit of record)

Mass of Atom = 1.6 x 10^(-27)

Recording unit = 1 atom per integer.

Would it be 9.1 seconds, matching Bob Hayes' world record for the 100
yard dash?

nope . . .still no-one has got the answer, its sitting here right on
my desk for the one who solves it to claim the prize.

On Aug 14, 4:17*pm, PD wrote:
On Aug 14, 3:10*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:



On Aug 14, 9:24*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Y wrote in message

*

Oh look. If an 80mpoledosn't fit in abarn, you will need to bend it
or something.

Yes, bend it, break it, or make it go very fast or something.

Whoever suggests that the doors can close in instant keeping thepole
neatly inside for that instant is crackers. If the Maths allow for it,
the maths are wrong, simple as that.

No, the maths are right by design.
Perhaps the postulates from wich the math came are wrong.
Or perhaps your intuition was wong.
Or perhaps the "instant when", or better, "the time during which"
thepolewas inside, was extremely short.

Only thing required to do, is keep testing the math in a friendly way
to ensure that this falsehood doesn't crop up.

No need to keep testing the math.
You can however test the physics.
But there is no need to do it in a friendly way.

Something tells me, Cleverest Moortel, that you have somehow
understood the idiocy of this "physics". Why don't you test it, on
this forum, in a non-friendly way? You should only asume that your
brothers have forgotten to reopen the doors of thebarn"pretty
quickly":

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own abarn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have apole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
thebarn....So, as thepolepasses through thebarn, there is an
instant when it is completely within thebarn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contractedpoleshut up in yourbarn."

Pentcho Valev


Note that I've already answered this, but that he wants to see what
you say.

He seems to be stuck on trying to insist that if the door is shut and
thepolehits the door, what happens after that point should still be
a special relativity prediction.

He also has it stuck in his head that a tangiblepolecan only
compress so much, no matter how fast the front of it is decelerated. I
believe he is willing to entertain a compression of a few cm for an 80
m longpole, but the notion that the back of thepolecould move half
thepole'slength before even knowing that the front of thepolehad
been hit, is just anathema to him.

That's a good way of putting it, except that in the rest frame of the
barn, the back of the pole doesn't have to move at all before
realizing the front has been hit in order to fit inside the barn: it's
already inside! It will continue to move some fraction of the length
of the barn before the first possibility of light speed harbingers of
the destruction of the front of the pole can reach it.

In the rest frame of the pole, things look even worse. The 80m pole
is hit by this length compressed looking barn less than _20_ m in
length, and even so there is no possibility of the rear end beginning
to move until it's overtaken by the rear doors of the barn! So in this
frame we are guaranteed an instantaneous overall compression of the
pole to less than 20m, a combination of physical destruction, and the
relativistic shortening of the fraction of the pole already
accelerated to the velocity of the door -- assuming the door is
indestructible.