Recent content by KDP

I get that black holes have Hawking radiation even right now, but they usually accumulate mass and energy faster than they lose it until there is no mass left in the universe to absorb and then the equilibrium changes and they start losing mass. So its mass in and energy out. The entire mass...

Professor Brian Cox was on the TV last night. He stated that eventually everything will end up in black holes. When there is nothing left to absorb they will start evaporating via Hawking radiation until eventually they all disappear in a small flash of light and then there will be eternal...

A couple of things to note that make Rindler coordinates much less confusing: With reference to the above chart from the Wikipedia article ,, the diagonal line marked t=1 represents the line of simultaneity of the accelerating Rindler observers with equal Rindler coordinate time t=1. They do...

I have reformulated your expression for t in the Python program and it seems much less sensitive to rounding errors during extreme acceleration now. See below:

Thanks Pervect. I was wondering how to check and confirm that I am actually maintaining Born rigid motion in my simulations, so that's a helpful suggestion.

OK, I think I found where we differ and why I was getting a discrepancy in my simulation. My simulation stops the acceleration of each vertex when they reach a given target velocity. When I was getting the discrepancy, the acceleration of some of the vertexes (mirrors/emitters) had stopped...

Thanks Ibix. That's handy! I copy and pasted your code into an online Python compiler and its working great.

I am basically using this equation: $$ X(T)~ = ~\frac{ 1 }{\alpha } \left( \sqrt{ 1+\left( \alpha ~ T \right)^2 } - 1 \right), ~~~~~~~~_{(Eq1)}$$ where alpha is the constant proper acceleration and proportional to 1/x at time T=0.

Wow, that was fast work! I will have to see if I can reproduce your 3 point interferometer in my simulator and see if I can discover why we differ. Thanks for the great input!

I am assuming that the light path travels through free space (uncurved - no gravity) from the emitter or mirror to the next mirror is a straight line and does not care about the edges of the object. (One emitter/receiver and 3 mirrors). I am talking about the point of view of an inertial non...

Just to be clear, I am talking about a pure theoretical Sagnac gyroscope and not a military/NASA grade gyroscope that may have electronic devices and correction software to correct for things like linear acceleration.

Yes, my simulation animates simple squares and takes account of the fact that all 4 corners may have different proper accelerations, even though the object as whole is maintaining Born rigid motion and reproduces the expected Wigner rotation angle when two non parallel boosts are carried out...

As some of you know I have been coding a 2+1D relativistic simulator that can handle (constant proper) acceleration in any direction on a plane. So far it is going quite well. I have now decided to simulate a Sagnac gyroscope inside the simulation by sending signals in opposite directions...

Hi Sagittarius. You are right. I checked your figures. There are counter examples. Thanks for clearing that up.

You are right. That is what I intended. Sorry for not making that clear.