-
Time dilation and the conservation of energy law, A thought experiment to ponder
Posted by sourcecharge on 04 Feb, 2019 12:49 -
We all know the law. Energy can not be created nor destroyed. In a closed system, the enegy going in must be equal (in a theretical lossless circuit) or less than the energy coming out due to losses.
And in no way can energy output be greater than the energy input.
Well, I am here to open your mind.
What is the calculation of energy?
Time x Watts? Thats about it right. So, here is the thought experiment.
Let's say we have a solar powered satalite that is orbiting the earth. The solar power is charging a battery that provides the power output. The battery is fully charged and has a very long life, so the charge will not drop under load.
The satalie is tetherd to the surface of the earth AT AN ALTITUDE LESS THAN 1/2 the distance of the radius of the earth (200 miles) by a theortical room temperature superconductive conductor.
The satalite's battery powers a load that is on the surface of the earth via the RTSC wire.
The relative time of the satalite is slower than the relative time on the surface of the earth due to time dilation from gravity.
(lets say 1 second every century)
If the battery is suppling power to a load constantly, the CALCULATED energy supplied to the load at the surface of the earth is GREATER than the CALCULATED energy that is being transmited by the battery.
Boom!
That's the sound of your head exploding.
-
You can very easily have an energy mismatch in a situation like this. Consider that the battery stores potential energy and therefore an equally microscopic amount of mass (probably nanograms, unless we're talking some sort of hypothetical nuclear battery). You are, in effect, transporting that mass through a gravitational potential, and therefore the energy will be different at either end.
Actually, that may well be exactly the difference predicted by the standard route (gamma factor and relative speed / gravity well), which is an interesting equivalence. I'll have to prove that some time, thanks!
Incidentally, note that relativity was discovered in Maxwell's laws -- Einstein merely took the leap of applying that relativity (Lorentz transformations) to space itself (special relativity), and created a 4-dimensional tensor description of spacetime (general relativity). I do believe this problem should be correctly solvable with E&M laws alone (at least, for the relative motion part, if not the gravity well part), though it may not be the easiest solution!
Tim -
Take a look at gravitational redshift. When sending energy down/up a gravity well you will lose/gain just the right amount to balance things out.
-
Take a look at gravitational redshift. When sending energy down/up a gravity well you will lose/gain just the right amount to balance things out.
Are you saying that the DC voltage across the load will be less than the DC voltage source?
If you can not show how gravitational redshifting can decrease the voltage across the load, and therefore introduce an impedance, I believe you would be incorrect.
3.50
Edit: I would like to appologize for the 3.50 comment, it was uncalled for, and I was quite snickered. I'm sorry, but I still think that you are incorrect, unless you can show how gravitational redshifting can decrease the voltage across the load.
-
Here's another that makes my head hurt:
There is a beam of photons at certain wavelength, carrying a certain amount of energy. After travelling a long distance, due to expansion of the universe, the beam will become redshifted, so the energy carried by the beam will be lower. Where did this energy go? -
Here's another that makes my head hurt:
There is a beam of photons at certain wavelength, carrying a certain amount of energy. After travelling a long distance, due to expansion of the universe, the beam will become redshifted, so the energy carried by the beam will be lower. Where did this energy go?
This one is easy. Red shift means length of light pulse is stretched. Energy of original pulse is still there, just you need slightly longer time to gather it (back). -
This makes sence. What I don't get though is with my own example that DC voltage does not have a wavelength. Therefore, it CAN'T be redshifted.Here's another that makes my head hurt:
There is a beam of photons at certain wavelength, carrying a certain amount of energy. After travelling a long distance, due to expansion of the universe, the beam will become redshifted, so the energy carried by the beam will be lower. Where did this energy go?
This one is easy. Red shift means length of light pulse is stretched. Energy of original pulse is still there, just you need slightly longer time to gather it (back).
An added impedance would decrease the voltage at the load, but this is not what gravitational redshifting is about. It's about wavelengths being stretched out, not an increase of impedance.
So, if my example has no one on this highly educated forum that can either show how gravitational redshifting can create the impedance or come up with some other reason why my example is actually wrong, then there is the question of:
Where does the extra calculated energy come from?
Gravity?
Time?
-
So
- time is running faster on the ground
- current is in columbs per second
So the current measured at ground level will be less than the current measured at the source.... -
So, if my example has no one on this highly educated forum that can either show how gravitational redshifting can create the impedance or come up with some other reason why my example is actually wrong, then there is the question of:
Where does the extra calculated energy come from?
Gravity?
Time?
Relativity. I think energy does not change. When calculating amount of energy, you use time. You can't use clock of the satellite to calculate amount of the received energy on the ground. When you use clock that is running on the ground, everything shall be fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
Anyway this is engineering forum, those questions are science-related. You may try Quora or find some physics forums. -
Energy is conserved in closed system, where there is a reference location. Every other location in system is relative to reference point. From any fixed point of view the energy was conserved.
Generally, energy conservation is not absolute, but it is relative to coordinate system. -
BOOM? That's a very arrogant assessment of your "theory". What you miss is frame of reference. Did it even occur to you there is a reason why this concept has never been posed? It's bullshit, it does not fit with the concepts you appear t believe that you know.
-
Relativity. I think energy does not change. When calculating amount of energy, you use time. You can't use clock of the satellite to calculate amount of the received energy on the ground. When you use clock that is running on the ground, everything shall be fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
This. You can't switch frame of reference in the middle of a calculation, you have to stay with the same one or you will get nonsense answers (such as overunity).
-
BOOM? That's a very arrogant assessment of your "theory". What you miss is frame of reference. Did it even occur to you there is a reason why this concept has never been posed? It's bullshit, it does not fit with the concepts you appear t believe that you know.
We already get it that bullshit is word you love so much, no need to repeat. Provide your theory please.
[edit] I literally did my homework and check your posts for BS word. Got >10 hits. -
BOOM? That's a very arrogant assessment of your "theory". What you miss is frame of reference. Did it even occur to you there is a reason why this concept has never been posed? It's bullshit, it does not fit with the concepts you appear t believe that you know.
We already get it that bullshit is word you love so much, no need to repeat. Provide your theory please.
[edit] I literally did my homework and check your posts for BS word. Got >10 hits.
Allright - I will phrase it differently. Here is a phrase for you - Posts with opinions lacking all content regarding electrical engineering or the underlying physics. I have no theory which is mine. I am referring to common ideas you can get from a library and use to ground thoughts and opinions. You didn't. They didn't. This is an Electrical Engineering blog. Topics that don't fit with "Electrical engineering" are a waste of people's time and energy. As for "Bullshit" - it is a word that David Jones uses often. The packaging on his DVM contains the word "No Bullshit". Instead of Bullshitting about my use of the word - Why don't you write something that clearly is thoughtful useful and interesting in the context of electrical engineering. If you or other Bullhshitters do that, I would love it. When you ask for my theory - you obviously have no idea what the use of the word "Theory" is in science. The Theories I use are those which prevail among almost all academics and practitioners. The original post bears no relationship to anything at all. Did the writer ever read any real theories? No reason whatever to believe that they did. No books mentioned, no thinking from the books nothing. What word to use then?
If you believe your bullshit really isn't bullshit - Don't whine, show explain it better and ground it in SUBSTANCE. If someone did that, I would apologize. Overall there is way too much bullshit for a blog that is about ENGINEERING. This bogus "Thought Experiment" is not engineering. It's not physics and no instructor on those subjects would give it the time of day.
-
Boom!
I think this is more of a "pffft..." than a "boom!".
You have muddied the waters and confused yourself by introducing time into your "definition" of energy. I think hamster_nz has sorted it out nicely in his reply.
-
Allright - I will phrase it differently. Here is a phrase for you - Posts with opinions lacking all content regarding electrical engineering or the underlying physics.
Sure. Post like this qualify:BOOM? That's a very arrogant assessment of your "theory". What you miss is frame of reference. Did it even occur to you there is a reason why this concept has never been posed? It's bullshit, it does not fit with the concepts you appear t believe that you know.
QuoteThis bogus "Thought Experiment" is not engineering. It's not physics and no instructor on those subjects would give it the time of day.
If you think discussion is pointless - do not participate. There's many threads.You have muddied the waters and confused yourself by introducing time into your "definition" of energy.
What is proper "definition" of energy? -
Allright - I will phrase it differently. Here is a phrase for you - Posts with opinions lacking all content regarding electrical engineering or the underlying physics.
Sure. Post like this qualify:BOOM? That's a very arrogant assessment of your "theory". What you miss is frame of reference. Did it even occur to you there is a reason why this concept has never been posed? It's bullshit, it does not fit with the concepts you appear t believe that you know.
QuoteThis bogus "Thought Experiment" is not engineering. It's not physics and no instructor on those subjects would give it the time of day.
If you think discussion is pointless - do not participate. There's many threads.You have muddied the waters and confused yourself by introducing time into your "definition" of energy.
What is proper "definition" of energy?
If you don't know what the proper definition of energy is - then you should never post about it. It is especially well defined in Electrical engineering" which is the purpose of this forum. You use the phrase "Time Dilation" and you never read about that either. You wrote a ridiculous, silly, irrelevant post and you never learned a thing about the subject. You "think" you had a real thought? No sir, nothing from you represents credible or even interesting thinking on anything at all. READ SOME BOOKS - you never did. -
If you don't know what the proper definition of energy is - then you should never post about it.
I know. Do you? - Provide proper definition of energy. -
If you don't know what the proper definition of energy is - then you should never post about it.
I know. Do you? - Provide proper definition of energy.
If you know - show it. In showing that, also show how the OP knows it. Good luck with that. Let me make something really clear for you. Even as you deride me, you are really being obnoxious. I am not going to do or not do anything for you. Lead by example! The point you miss is that NOBODY would have written the OP who knows it. Evidently you think the OP deserves respect. SO OGDEN EXPLAIN YOUR IDEA OF ENERGY AS CONSISTENT WITH HIS BULLSHIT. If it's clear and cogent boy howdy would I be embarrassed, so go for it.
PS - I don't think you do know. Anyone who doesn't know could look it up. Your post serves no purpose, provides no example. Explain how the OP had a single clue what he was writing about when he wrote it. Use what you know. Good luck Ogden.
-
If you know - show it. In showing that, also show how the OP knows it. Good luck with that. Let me make something really clear for you. Even as you deride me, you are really being obnoxious. I am not going to do or not do anything for you. Lead by example! The point you miss is that NOBODY would have written the OP who knows it. Evidently you think the OP deserves respect. SO OGDEN EXPLAIN YOUR IDEA OF ENERGY AS CONSISTENT WITH HIS BULLSHIT. If it's clear and cogent boy howdy would I be embarrassed, so go for it.
PS - I don't think you do know. Anyone who doesn't know could look it up. Your post serves no purpose, provides no example. Explain how the OP had a single clue what he was writing about when he wrote it. Use what you know. Good luck Ogden.
Even you mommy knows when she pay for electricity you wasted - that unit of electrical energy is joule which equals one watt second. You literally destroyed this thread with your nonsense and insults. Now I will put you in ignore list as others already did. Good luck GeoffreyF. -
@ogden -- no need for the outrage, mate.
Of course 1J = 1W * 1s. The point here is that Joule is really the more fundamental unit. It measures energy, which is the conserved quantity here. In contrast, expressing energy as power * time muddies the water in the OP's thought experiment. As argued by hamster_nz a while ago (reply #7), the power as well as the time will be "dilated". Both quantities will be measured differently in the two reference systems of the thought experiment, but their product will be the same.
That's what I was referring to in my earlier post (reply #14). The OP has chosen to describe energy in a way which is of course not incorrect, but is unnecessarily unclear in the situation he describes.
Edit: Inserted references to the earlier posts. -
In contrast, expressing energy as power * time muddies the water in the OP's thought experiment.
Not at all. In OP's thought experiment battery is not shipped to ground but:The satalite's battery powers a load that is on the surface of the earth via the RTSC wire.
Indeed battery has finite power and finite current will flow, it will take time to transfer energy.As argued by hamster_nz a while ago (reply #7), the power as well as the time will be "dilated". Both quantities will be measured differently in the two reference systems of the thought experiment, but their product will be the same.
Both quantities will be *measured* equally if local time used. You shall not measure local quantities using remote clock, in extreme case put clock inside black hole.... Anyway answer to original question: supplied energy is equal. Hopefully we all agree and case is closed long ago. -
Here's another that makes my head hurt:
There is a beam of photons at certain wavelength, carrying a certain amount of energy. After travelling a long distance, due to expansion of the universe, the beam will become redshifted, so the energy carried by the beam will be lower. Where did this energy go?
Due to expansion of the universe, this energy is distributed over the space.
You can imagine it in the following way. Just imagine the wave that is flying across the space.
Now expand the space, this wave will be stretched, and so it's frequency and energy will be decreased.
But the total energy of entire wave in the space will be the same
-
This one is easy. Red shift means length of light pulse is stretched. Energy of original pulse is still there, just you need slightly longer time to gather it (back).
it's not so clean from your description, how do you plan to transfer DC voltage across the space? -
This one is easy. Red shift means length of light pulse is stretched. Energy of original pulse is still there, just you need slightly longer time to gather it (back).
it's not so clean from your description, how do you plan to transfer DC voltage across the space?
Where did you get DC voltage from? I was answering to post which talked about "beam of photons carrying a certain amount of energy". Ever heard of PV cells?