There's mixed information about the great man's drinking habits.
The young Einstein is said to have hung out in beer halls where he argued with friends about the nature of space and time.
In his later years, it is said he preferred to drink caffeine-free coffee and black tea. When he did drink alcohol it was mainly confined to celery punch!
Attachments
It appears to be a T-shirt design.
However, there is a 'Quantum Brewing' company in San Diego USA. Quantum Brewing | We strive to serve San Diego with premium craft beer
And a 'Quantum State' IPA from Atom Beers produced in Yorkshire UK. Pivovar Atom Quantum State IPA 4.2% 30L (E-Keg)
Attachments
How about Mozart at 4.7 times the speed of light by Quantum Tunneling?
It's even audio related.
Professor Günter Nimtz of the University of Cologne Physics department.
Gunter Nimtz - Wikipedia
Says he's transmitted a Mozart piece at said velocity. Have a listen -
The Universe Inside You - Brian Clegg - Experiment 7
It's sadly LowFi, but I suppose I would be after such a rush.
It's even audio related.
Professor Günter Nimtz of the University of Cologne Physics department.
Gunter Nimtz - Wikipedia
Says he's transmitted a Mozart piece at said velocity. Have a listen -
The Universe Inside You - Brian Clegg - Experiment 7
It's sadly LowFi, but I suppose I would be after such a rush.
Time and length, according to Einstein, are both dependent on relative velocity, which for many people, imply the existence of an 'absolute' velocity. I remember from Physics, this absolute does not exist. The latter, makes imagining 3D space while at the same time allowing for special relativity, extremely difficult.
The crucial question is: What is 3D space if one accounts for relativistic effects?
Another oddity, that needless to state, contradicts reality, is the shocking conclusion that simultaneity does not exist.
The crucial question is: What is 3D space if one accounts for relativistic effects?
Another oddity, that needless to state, contradicts reality, is the shocking conclusion that simultaneity does not exist.
A better statement is that simultaneity is never absolute, only relative. Virtually all measurements that have a time component have an assumption of simultaneity embedded in them. In an experimental setup where the apparatus being measured and the apparatus doing the measurement are stationary relative to each other or at lazy terrestrial relative velocities, one can conclude that the runner finished the race when his/her image "crossed" the finish line and the desired tolerance is a hundredth or a thousandth of a second.
The concept of 'absolute velocity' requires some explanation.
In order to allow its situation to be determined at a later point in time, it is postulated that velocity must be stored within a particle of matter, and is a property of matter itself.
This stored velocity would be an absolute rather than a relative quantity and would be stored as three components corresponding to each of the three dimensions.
I'm not sure if absolute velocity exists, but if it does, there is probably no way of detecting or measuring it!
Besides, all physical laws appear to be based on velocity differences between particles of matter.
The "absolute velocity" terminology is misleading.
The fact of the matter is that we cannot observe an object that is moving faster than the speed of light "c". In fact there are objects moving away from faster than "c". How is this possible? It's because of the expansion of the universe; and the rate of expansion is accelerating. It has been predicted that some objects visible today will not be visible in the future because of this phenomenon.
This also explains the concept of the "known universe" or "observable universe." This phenomenon exists because of the physical constraints on perception cause by the speed of light.
The fact of the matter is that we cannot observe an object that is moving faster than the speed of light "c". In fact there are objects moving away from faster than "c". How is this possible? It's because of the expansion of the universe; and the rate of expansion is accelerating. It has been predicted that some objects visible today will not be visible in the future because of this phenomenon.
This also explains the concept of the "known universe" or "observable universe." This phenomenon exists because of the physical constraints on perception cause by the speed of light.
To put it simply, there are galaxies that are so far away from us that the light from them has not yet reached us. Consequently, those distant objects are unobservable.
Guess I'll have to brush up on the current theories on the expansion of the universe though!
I have a problem with velocity.
The mass of an object depends if it's velocity.
m= m0 / sqrt ( 1 - v² / c² )
This v is not the same in another moving reference. I know speeds don't simply add when dealing with very high speeds, however they are different.
So, m is different. The masse depends of the observer.
An observer that moves together with the object sees m0. Another observer that moves at speed v, see m. That is the same object seen by two observers.
Weird
The mass of an object depends if it's velocity.
m= m0 / sqrt ( 1 - v² / c² )
This v is not the same in another moving reference. I know speeds don't simply add when dealing with very high speeds, however they are different.
So, m is different. The masse depends of the observer.
An observer that moves together with the object sees m0. Another observer that moves at speed v, see m. That is the same object seen by two observers.
Weird
The relativistic increase in inertial mass sets the universal speed limit for non-zero rest mass objects at C, by requiring ever larger approaching infinite energy inputs as velocity approaches C. This isn't (I don't believe) dependent on the relative velocity between two bodies. For instance if an interstellar object travelling at 0.1C approaches the solar system there is no requirement that the Sun suddenly gain an enormous quantity of energy in order to support it's apparent velocity as observed from the interstellar interloper. The velocity relevant to the mass of a moving object is it's velocity relative to an inertial frame of reference.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.