What are some commonly known facts that are too bizarre for you to believe to be true?
What are some commonly known facts that are too bizarre for you to believe to be true?
For me it is the fact that our blood contains iron. I earlier used to believe the word stood for some 'organic element' since I couldn't accept we had metal flowing through our supposed carbon-based bodies, till I realized that is where the taste and smell of blood comes from.
You're viewing a single thread.
Time relativity always boggles my brain, I accept the fact but I find crazy that if I strap my twin and his atomic clock to a rocket and send them out to the stratosphere at the speed of light, when they return he'll be younger than me and his clock will be running behind mine. Crazy
Light is something else. If you were a photon, your existence wouldn't be any measurable amount of time. You'd pop in and out of existence at the same time. Not only that, but your destination would be right where you popped into existence. Point being, photons do not experience time or distance. Only us outsiders do. If you managed to travel at the speed of light, from your perspective your destination would be right where you are and you'd get there instantly. Only contact with the outside world would confirm how far you traveled and for how long.
Also the idea that light is both a particle and a wave always messed with my head because I wanted to know why does it decide to change and when? And the answer is that light is always a particle and always a wave at the exact same time.
It is a wave particle.
And it is possible from light alone to build both an electron and a positron as demonstrated in a 1999 laser science experiment in New York.
I usually interpret this as behaviour: photons are not "particles" or "waves", photons are photons. They just behave as waves and as particles, depending on how you're looking at them.
Note that even things with a resting mass (like you or me) are like this, too. It's just that, as the mass increases, the wave behaviour becomes negligible.
I think the double slit experiment is one piece of evidence (among a vast amount of other evidence) that Everett's theory is absolutely true.
This doesn't make it any less crazy
The crazy thing is there are actually two double slit experiments, and that light can tell whether or not you are actively observing it or not, and decides whether or not to actually exist as a wave or particle.
I heard from someone I respect irl that these experiments were debatable, but I can't personally hold an argument about it.
It's even crazier because you don't need to reach the speed of light. It'll happen in a smaller degree for any speed. Even in mundane conditions.
For example, if your twin spent four days in a 300km/h bullet train, for you it would be four days plus a second.
Usually this difference is negligible, but for satellites (that run at rather high speeds, for a lot of time, and require precision), if you don't take time dilation into account they misbehave.
(For anyone wanting to mess with the maths, the formula is Ξt' = Ξt / β[1 - vΒ²/cΒ²]. Ξt = variation of time for the observer (you), Ξt' = variation of time for the moving entity (your twin), v = the moving entity's speed, c = speed of light. Just make sure that "v" and "c" use the same units.)
I wonder how long it would have taken for us to figure out time dilation in Einstein hadn't predicted it. I wonder if it would have taken until we observed it with satellites.
Without Einstein, I think that the discovery of time dilation would be delayed by only a few years. There were a lot of people working in theoretical physics already back then; someone else would inevitably dig through Lorentz' and PoincarΓ©'s papers, connect the dots, and say "waitaminute time might be relative". From that, time dilation is a consequence.
In special I wouldn't doubt that Max Planck would discover it.
I'm saying that because, in both science and engineering, often you see almost concurrent discoveries or developments of the same thing, because the "spirit of a time" makes people look at that aspect of reality or that challenge and work with it. The discovery of helium and the development of aeroplanes are examples of that.
IIRC the orbit of Mercure doesn't work with Newton Model, and astronomers were predicted the discovery of Vulcain a small planet between Mercure and the Sun. So a new model had to be invented since Vulcain couldn't be found.
We would have definitely figured it out once we built GPS, since you need to account for relativistic effects there.
Yes I knew about that and I'm glad that doesn't make it crazier for me, instead it makes it easier to accept. If it were something that happened only after hitting some arbitrary speed value I'd be a lot more mentally damaged
To be fair the only ones that don't get mentally damaged at all with this stuff are theoretical physicists. After all being crazy makes you immune to further madness.
The part that I understand in the intellectual sense, because I know or at least used to know how it follows from the math, but which just doesn't feel like it should be the case, is the whole "relativity of simultaneity" aspect of it. That there isn't an objectively true order in which events happen in, if the events in question aren't linked by cause and effect. That is to say, it is possible for one person to see an event A happen before another event B, a second person to see the two happen at exactly the same time, and a third to see event B happen first and then event A, and for all three of them to be equally right. It just feels like, on some level, there ought to be one objectively true order to time, a single valid timeline that all events can be placed in relative to eachother, and for time not to work that way feels so absurd as to not even be able to articulate why the idea feels wrong.
Some schools of thought (sorry I'm a proponent of Everett's theory) say that time is an illusion and every moment is as equally a part of reality as any other moment. Like a flipbook, all moments exist and always will. Time is our perception of these moments being in a sequence.
Another cool idea: time may be a consequence of the universe trying to reach the absolute highest point of entropy and may not exist for any other reason. Life may exist to assist in reaching that entropy since life is extremely good at creating entropy. Where life exists, entropy is created en masse.
Sorry, I'm blabbering. I'll shut up now.
I see another veritassium fan here maybe?
Here's something I just ran into looking stuff up for my comment: GN-z11 is one of the farthest galaxies we've ever seen. Thanks to the expansion of the universe, at a distance of over 30 billion light-years, it has to be moving away from us at over twice the speed of light.
What the fuck does that mean, temporally? Like, forget the speed of light, time dilation has to do with space and relative speeds. If I'm moving at near the speed of light relative to you, then my clock will physically tick more slowly. What happens if I'm moving over twice the speed of light? Is the real life GN-z11 in our reference frame moving backwards in time at over twice the rate we're moving forward?
From my understanding, this is caused by the universe itself expanding between the 2 objects, not that the object itself is moving that speed relative to us. It's still completely insane to think about, either way.
I can't find any reference that says it's moving away from us at twice the speed of light, which would violate Relativity. The fact that it is further away from us in light years than the age of the universe in years, is due to the fact that the space itself is expanding.
The thing is, it's moving that fast because of the expansion of space. β30 billion light-years over β14 billion years equates to over twice the speed of light. Does that mean there's no crazy relativistic time dilation, and time is moving normally for them in our frame of reference, since they aren't physically moving, it's space that's expanding? That's just as wild to my brain
Relativity only applies to local reference frames and not to the recession rates of cosmologically distant objects.
From what I understand, you are always travelling at the speed of light through space/time, but when you move at high speeds through space that shifts the proportion of your speed out of the time dimension. And a photon travels only through space, experiencing no time between the time it was emitted and the time it was absorbed. What I just can't wrap my head around is the concept of travelling at some speed without involving the time dimension at all.
Probably one of the most memorable and pivotal moments in my life was when my college professor showed us the origins of relativity and how Einstein came to the conclusion that E = mc^2
It's a proof that only took about 10 minutes to explain, and the mathematics really aren't that difficult to understand by most people. The geniuses in the fact that Einstein started by explaining how calculating relative motion meant that time had to be a variable that could be different depending on who the observer was. This in itself is an incredible observation, but you can take this to the extent to literally prove that mass and energy are directly related to each other. It's absolutely wild and one of the most sublime equations ever made.
I wish we could test this out with only simple apparatus. Unfortunately the common people do not have access to satellites or nonstop bullet trains.
Nobody has access to the speed of light (or anything near it).
We can and do. GPS satellites need to be regularly calibrated to Earth clock signals or they'll start to drift their calibration by meters per day.
Please dont do that