Proof Of Time Dilation Without Relativity

sergemij

28th July 2012 - 12:06 AM

The idea is that the reality is informational. It can be shown (by using simple axioms of information theory and high-school math) that the performance hit (or 'slow-down') of processing corresponds to SR equation for time dilation.

There is no light, nor its speed, no relativity, no frames of reference, absolutely nothing from the classic Einstein's approach. Yet this approach derives not only the equation but also the light-speed postulate in a limiting case. No one has ever done or claimed this before in the history of human kind (or at least since 1906

).

I have one page proof of this in form of PDF on the web.

However this web site did not allow me to link to it.

Albers

29th July 2012 - 12:22 AM

Cool if different disciplines produce a common form. Tell me more. It seems quantum nonlocality demands at least informational wave structure outside of Lorentz 4-space. At least this is the closest I can come to saying something possibly intelligent. Yet I never got response from SOLIDSPIN even after I mailed him my Dreaded Little Green Book of QED, asking comment on a clear statement of, I think, one-photon events, that info was not available outside a time-like interval.

Confused1

29th July 2012 - 01:21 AM

Click on 'send PM' and I (or Albers) will post up the link (unless it's porn. phones or ugg boots))

sergemij

29th July 2012 - 08:52 PM

I tried 'Send PM' button and it says something along the lines of 'this feature is disabled'.

sergemij

30th July 2012 - 06:23 PM

To be exact:

"You are not allowed to use the messenger feature on this board"

rpenner

30th July 2012 - 09:54 PM

That would be because of the rash of SPAM-via-PM-abusing-BOT we got a while back.

sergemij

31st July 2012 - 07:21 PM

I see. I bet they didn't have that problem in 1906

sergemij

5th August 2012 - 06:42 AM

Admin, since I can't post a link to a one-page proof of time dilation (without relativity), feel free to email me.

And then I can reply (the link) in email to you. That way you can be sure it's ok in regards to whatever you're looking out for, before posting it.

thanks!

synthsin75

5th August 2012 - 02:41 PM

Why don't you simply try explaining this "one-page proof" until you have enough posts to post the link yourself? If it's only one page, then certainly it wouldn't take too much effort to explain.

Or are you spamming this over too many forums to bother?

MDT

5th August 2012 - 02:55 PM

One of the original ways to prove special relativity and time dilation was done with radioactive decay. Atomic isotopes that undergo radioactive decay have a predictable half-life. The half life is the amount of time for half of the isotope to decay. When they accelerated these particles, to a fraction of the speed of light, their half-lives got longer because time slowed. You could measure the final concentrations to show it followed Einstein's theory.

sergemij

6th August 2012 - 10:33 PM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Aug 5 2012, 02:41 PM)

Why don't you simply try explaining this "one-page proof" until you have enough posts to post the link yourself? If it's only one page, then certainly it wouldn't take too much effort to explain.

Or are you spamming this over too many forums to bother?

Good idea, I will do that.

You guys said you had spamming problems here. I guess spammers are desperate. Perhaps a sign of declining economic times. Because if I had to pick the most obscure and statistically insignificant place to spam, then this is it. On the other hand, if everyone did what you do, the world would be a safer place

Not to say that what's discussed here isn't very important. I am just saying I don't know many people who discuss time dilation, or even know what it is, or don't consider matter closed for-ever-and-ever, so the spamming market is limited

sergemij

6th August 2012 - 10:47 PM

Since it is only a one-page proof, here is the image of it as PNG file:

User posted image: User posted image

If it looks too small, just zoom it, it should be sharp enough.

I thought of one more way. Here is the link, just substitute 'dot' with '.' and slash with '/':

msg2act dot com slash physics slash simpleSRDerivation dot pdf

This is for those who dare or have a very good internet security, because I heard now viruses can travel as PDF files too. I created this PDF on a computer protected with up-to-date Norton Internet Security. But there are no guarantees in life. If even time dilation may be derived without relativity, who knows what else may be possible

synthsin75

7th August 2012 - 12:48 AM

There is no "information loss" due to time dilation, so comp-sci majors should probably refrain from playing physics.

sergemij

7th August 2012 - 04:06 AM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Aug 7 2012, 12:48 AM)

There is no "information loss" due to time dilation, so comp-sci majors should probably refrain from playing physics.

Thank you for your feedback. It is not very insightful of fundamental physics, but it is very insightful of the human nature. Still, I am sure it was well meant.

This one page proof is only a small part of an information theory that derives

1. GR time dilation (without any notion of gravity)
2. Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty
3. Newtonian gravitation
4. Concept of mass, mass increase

The 'information loss' is also called 'uncertainty' in contemporary physics. It makes sense. Why is there chance in Nature, did you ever ask?

The information theory can derive Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. I simply started small because no one likes a 9-page paper, protestation to the contrary notwithstanding. Plus I am not allowed to post links here yet. If you want to find the paper, just go to msg2act dot com slash physics slash ch slash index.shtml

The uncertainty (i.e 'information loss') and time-dilation (i.e. 'performance-hit') are connected fundamentally by the very simple idea.

This idea says that no physical effect happens without use and possession of information.

In the end, every physical concept ('field', 'force', 'space-time', 'probability wave', 'particle' , 'energy' etc.), once you remove the helper-words, is nothing but information content. If there is no information, it doesn't exist, because it's indescribable. If there is something more to a physical concept than information, then it's magic, because there is no way to ascribe effect to something that has no information content (i.e. cause and effect do not exist any more). Can it be any simpler?

In this simple derivation, movement must cause increased information load which results in slower throughput of processing (aka time dilation) and loss due to limited information storage (aka uncertainty). Much like driving faster causes slower reflexes and loss of details about the road.

The new idea I am presenting here gives a simple, axiomatic foundation for the basic components of physics (relativistic effects, quantum effects, gravitational effects). It does not introduce anything at all. There is no need for postulate about speed of light or relativity, and no need for aether either. It starts with the Universe where there's information only. There is no light, gravity, or anything else. It's something that's hard to refuse or refute.

Perhaps that's why it's hard to get a handle on this? I am not arguing any known physics whatsoever. Nor am I introducing new physics either. So what am I talking about that's so important, yet it may escape you? The concept of information.

But I agree with you. If you open a textbook on relativity, there is no "information loss" due to time dilation. Nor was it implied in the one-page proof. I do understand how glancing at something new without any significant thought to it can make such mistakes possible. I can't say I am beyond that. After all, how often something truly significant happens in this forum? I can't fault you for being half-awake while reading the one page proof.

Maybe I should refrain from playing physic. Then again, perhaps you should not refrain from learning more about information theory. It may make you a better physicist.

I was under the impression this forum was about new theories and open mindedness.

Did I come to the wrong place, or did you?

Robittybob1

7th August 2012 - 04:29 AM

QUOTE (sergemij+Aug 6 2012, 10:47 PM)

Since it is only a one-page proof, here is the image of it as PNG file:

User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://msg2act.com/physics/onePageProof.PNG'>User posted image</a>

If it looks too small, just zoom it, it should be sharp enough.

I thought of one more way. Here is the link, just substitute 'dot' with '.' and slash with '/':

msg2act dot com slash physics slash simpleSRDerivation dot pdf

This is for those who dare or have a very good internet security, because I heard now viruses can travel as PDF files too. I created this PDF on a computer protected with up-to-date Norton Internet Security. But there are no guarantees in life. If even time dilation may be derived without relativity, who knows what else may be possible

http://msg2act.com/physics/simpleSRDerivation.pdf

a bit of trial and error and I got it.

Rubberball

7th August 2012 - 10:54 AM

QUOTE (synthsin75+Aug 5 2012, 02:41 PM)

Why don't you simply try explaining this "one-page proof" until you have enough posts to post the link yourself? If it's only one page, then certainly it wouldn't take too much effort to explain.

Or are you spamming this over too many forums to bother?

The previous chapter presented an argument that time-dilation between moving objects could not occur. However a number of experiments have been conducted which appear to support the Special Relativity (SR) principle of time dilation. Here is a clash between theory and experiment that needs to be resolved. Good scientific principle tells us that theory must always give way to experiment: either we must modify the theory to suit, or show that the experiment is faulty.

Experiments in Time Dilation

A number of experiments exist which appear to support SR time dilation. They are:

. Clocks on orbiting satellites move slower
. Atomic clocks on planes move slower
. Michelson-Morley experiment
. Muon particles decay more slowly while falling

There are other experiments also that are usually a variation of the above. I will discuss each of these here.

Clocks on GPS satellites

Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites are used to help pinpoint a location on Earth. The location finding method requires that a satellite transmit a time signal to a GPS receiver which can then determine its distance from the satellite by measuring the time that the signal took to reach the receiver. The satellites contain accurate atomic clocks and it has been noticed that these clocks in orbit run at a different rate than clocks on Earth. This could be a big problem for GPS because it means that errors in calculated positions would grow steadily larger each day.

This timing difference is said to be due to a combination of the effects of SR, which predicts that time should slow down at high speeds, and GR (General Relativity) which says that time should move more quickly in the lower gravity of high altitudes. GR predicts it should run faster by 45,900 nanoseconds (ns) a day, while SR predicts a slowdown of 7,200 ns. The net predicted result of SR and GR is that the satellite’s clock should run faster by 38,700 ns a day, and this closely corresponds to what is measured [1].

To compensate for this expected dilation GPS engineers adjust the clock rate on the satellites prior to their launch, slowing them down by a fixed amount of about 38,500 nanoseconds a day, and this solves the time calculation problem [2].

On the face of it, this looks like a good argument in support of both SR and GR. Surprisingly however, it would not make any difference to GPS accuracy whether relativistic effects were considered or not. The reason for this is explained in a separate chapter:

GPS, Relativity, and Pop-Science Mythology (<-- click to read)

Nevertheless, the fact that unadjusted GPS clocks run faster by an amount closely predicted by Relativity theory is rather impressive and needs to be studied more closely. I will deal further with this topic in a later chapter on General Relativity.

Atomic Clocks on Aeroplanes

Atomic clocks are the most accurate of clocks known to man. It has been said that if an atomic clock, such as a caesium clock, were to be flown on an aeroplane, those clocks should move at a different speed relative to those on Earth, and that the slowdown could be attributable to differences both in GR, which predicts that the clocks should go faster at lower gravity, and SR, which predicts that the clocks should move slower due to the speed of the aeroplanes.

In 1971 Hafele & Keating (H&K) conducted tests to measure the effects of relativity on caesium clocks on aeroplanes. The planes flew in east and west directions along the equator, making a round-world trip to their starting point. H&K calculated that, due to the combined effects of SR and GR, the different east/west travel times and different altitudes, the eastward should loose 40 ns and the westward should gain 275 ns. The measured results showed that the eastward lost 59 ns, while the atomic clock transported westward gained 273 ns, compared to the stationary laboratory clocks.

Impressive stuff, yes? Perhaps not...

It later transpired that the published results were quite different from the original measurements. H&K made a number of ‘corrections’ to their data to average out the errors between the clocks used, and the variations between the clocks moving in similar directions were large enough to invalidate the overall measurements. A discussion of the results is here [3]. If the experiments were as flawed as this article suggests then they cannot be used to prove or disprove time dilation.

Michelson-Morley experiment

The Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiment was done in 1887 to determine the existence of ‘luminiferous ether’, which was the medium believed to allow the propagation of light waves. The experiment consisted of comparing the speed of light along different directions by observing interference patterns in coherent beams [4]. The experiment proposed that if there was an ether, then the speed of light should be different in differing directions, because the Earth must be in constant motion against the ether as it orbits the Sun, and this would change the speed of light in the carrying medium.

Early M-M results indicated that the speed of light appeared to be the same in all directions, and this implied that there could be no ether required for light’s propagation. Later experiments have reproduced this with a great accuracy of 1 in 1014. According to SR proponents [5], this result proves that the speed of light is the same for all observers and thus vindicates the time dilation hypothesis.

But the experiment proves no such thing. What the experiment does prove is that the speed of light is constant in all directions relative to the source of light. The M-M experiment could not prove any velocity-related concept of SR because it contains no moving parts. All the components – mirrors and beam-splitters – are stationary relative to the light source and each other. On the other hand, M-M doesn’t disprove SR either. M-M is useful for disproving a universal ether, but not for proving SR. It’s effectively silent on the issue.

Muon decay

Muons are sub-atomic particles generated when cosmic rays strike the upper levels of our atmosphere. They have a half life of about 2.2 microseconds (µs) meaning that every 2.2 µs, their population will reduce by half. By observing the concentration of muons at both the top and bottom of a mountain, we can see what proportion of them have decayed and compare this result with the predictions of SR. This can be done using special counters that only count muons traveling within a certain speed range, say from 0.9950c to 0.9954c.

When an experiment was performed, the height difference was 1.9 km between top and bottom of the mountain. Flying 1.9 km through the atmosphere at the above speed takes about 6.4 µs. Based on the stated half life, we should thus expect that only 13% of the original concentration of muons should arrive. However, it is observed that about 82% of the muons arrive below. This percentage corresponds to a half life of 22 µs, i.e. ten times greater than the original. A factor of ten corresponds to what the LT would give for a speed of 0.995c [6].

This experiment has been repeated for different velocities and on many occasions (even by students [7]) and presumably the measurement errors were well within tolerance. So the experiment seems to properly validate SR.

Could there be another explanation for the lower decay rates? I believe so. There may be a fundamental problem with the experiment in the form of an invalid assumption. The reasoning is too deep to go into here but I discuss it in a later chapter.

Conclusion

Evaluating experimental data is difficult because it requires accepting that the published results of the experimenters are correct and that their assumptions were valid. On one hand there appears to be some misinterpretations of experimental results (as with M-M) and fudging of figures (as with H&K). On the other hand, the muon decay experiments appear convincing if no alternative explanation for the results can be found.

A team of scientists might tomorrow announce that they have measured the time-dilation between a moving and stationary clock and matched the SR prediction to ten significant digits. If the results were accurate we’d have to accept them. Yet we should also ask this question: “Why are the clocks labelled ‘moving’ and ‘stationary’, and not vice-versa? For there are supposedly no absolute velocities in the universe.”

sergemij

12th August 2012 - 05:24 AM

Rubberball,

thanks for the extensive review of some of the most prominent experiments that highlight the phenomena of time dilation.

You say "The previous chapter presented an argument that time-dilation between moving objects could not occur. ". Not sure what are you referring to? I do accept that GPS clock ticks faster in orbit and that muons in accelerators last longer. The facts are not in dispute, even if some experimenters may have fudged their methodology. Proving Einstein right became source of nearly infinite money from (mostly) government sponsors, so you can't blame people for wanting to be on the money.

My take is this: SR/GR is one possible explanation. There is another, and I am offering it. Time itself does not slow down, rather the rate of physical processes is lower. The end result is the same equations as Einstein's, however without the need for postulates and without resulting in a symmetrical effect.

I offer a single cause for what's known as time-dilation, be it SR or GR.

I do not use concepts of light, relativity, gravity or principle of equivalence to do so.

Rather I start with an axiom of information use:

Any physical effect occurs only due to possession and use of information.

From this, I can derive equations for what's known as time-dilation without using the postulates and principles.

I succeeded in deriving the equations that precisely match the phenomena without resorting to time-dilation.

I call 'time dilation' a 'performance-hit' because it's similar to a performance hit that happens when a computer processes too much information. When computer slows down, we wouldn't say that time slows down for it.

The thinking is this: physical effects occur only because of information use. If so, then fundamental physical entities (it is irrelevant what they are) use and posses information. Such entities have limited information throughput and storage. Information about these entities does not have any preference for scale and so is available anywhere.

When an entity moves, there is more information available to it. Use of more information with limited resources results in slowdown in the rate of using information, just like an overloaded computer would. Simple high-school math can be used to derive the same equation as in SR.

This is what's done in the aforementioned one-page proof. The full paper has similar proof for GR as well.

Doesn't it make sense that 'time dilation' has a singular cause?

Doesn't it make sense to use a simpler explanation, one that doesn't need postulates and one that doesn't result in a concept of time slowing down?

Isn't it a bit uneasy to claim that time slows down, and we don't even know for sure what time is?

Einstein's theories result in time dilation, length contraction and bending of space time. If there is a simpler way to derive these results, one that doesn't make these extraordinary claims, shouldn't we look at it?

If we can have paradox-free approach from the start, shouldn't we consider it? Paradoxes in Einstein's relativity (such as twin-paradox) can be made to go away by using GR (see Daniel F Styer's paper in Am J phys 75 (9) Sept 2007). But the paper, even though I presume it's mathematically correct, is simply fantastic. According to Einstein, when someone makes a U-Turn light-years away, my clock will slow down. Same space appears to be one meter long or a light year long.

I think if there is a simpler explanation than that, we ought to consider it.

Think of Ptolemy. He created a system where Earth is in the center of the Universe. For 1400 years, he crafted a theory that explained motions of celestial bodies. The theory explained the motions all right, but it was wrong. Why? Because it didn't make sense, above all else.

It doesn't make sense to postulate that Earth is the center of the Universe. It didn't make sense to proclaim that photon is in the center of everything (in the realm of velocities).

Matching experimental results can be done without such proclamations. Back in 1906 they didn't make sense. Eddington said that in 100 years even children will understand relativity intuitively. He was wrong. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't now. I understand many physicists are fond of the simplicity of Einstein's postulates. But think for a second that Ptolemy's postulate was just as simple.

The simple experimental fact is that photon moves at speed of 186000 miles/second regardless of the speed of the emitter.

This simple fact can be derived by using the informational approach. There is no need to postulate it. If you do, you fall into the same trap as Ptolemy did.

Ptolemy assumed as a postulate something he saw, namely that everything appears to revolve around him. From there, it all went downhill.

Einstein saw the results of Michelson-Morley experiment, and he postulated what he saw, and then came up with the notion that time dilates. If the result of MM can be derived starting from simpler facts, then Einstein's work is a house of cards, no matter its success in the past 100 years.

xyzt

14th August 2012 - 12:26 AM

QUOTE (sergemij+Aug 12 2012, 05:24 AM)

Einstein's theories result in time dilation, length contraction and bending of space time. If there is a simpler way to derive these results, one that doesn't make these extraordinary claims, shouldn't we look at it?

Not if the "theory" is written by a crackpot. Looking at your page, you are certainly one. The mere fact that you are :

-denying effects that are routinely verified experimentally (like time dilation, length contraction, etc)
-mixing up SR effects (time dilation, length contraction) with GR effects (spacetime bending)

proves that your "theory" is not worthwile "looking at".

QUOTE

But the paper, even though I presume it's mathematically correct, is simply fantastic. According to Einstein, when someone makes a U-Turn light-years away, my clock will slow down. Same space appears to be one meter long or a light year long.

Obviously, you do not understand the effect, it has nothing to do with "making a U-turn", it has to do with having different path lengths (in SR , the longer path length has the shortest elapsed proper time).

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

But the paper, even though I presume it's mathematically correct, is simply fantastic. According to Einstein, when someone makes a U-Turn light-years away, my clock will slow down. Same space appears to be one meter long or a light year long.

Obviously, you do not understand the effect, it has nothing to do with "making a U-turn", it has to do with having different path lengths (in SR , the longer path length has the shortest elapsed proper time).

Think of Ptolemy. He created a system where Earth is in the center of the Universe. For 1400 years, he crafted a theory that explained motions of celestial bodies. The theory explained the motions all right, but it was wrong. Why? Because it didn't make sense, above all else.

Ptolemy was contradicted by experimental observation (pay attention, this issue will come up again). Eventually, Copernicus (and Giordano Bruno) came up with better theories.

QUOTE

It didn't make sense to proclaim that photon is in the center of everything (in the realm of velocities).

Is this your understanding of Einstein's relativity?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

It didn't make sense to proclaim that photon is in the center of everything (in the realm of velocities).

Is this your understanding of Einstein's relativity?

Matching experimental results can be done without such proclamations. Back in 1906 they didn't make sense. Eddington said that in 100 years even children will understand relativity intuitively. He was wrong. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't now.

Please don't include others, it is clear that YOU do not understand.

QUOTE

The simple experimental fact is that photon moves at speed of 186000 miles/second regardless of the speed of the emitter.This simple fact can be derived by using the informational approach. There is no need to postulate it.

But your "derivation" is a joke. Besides, did you know that the modern modes of constructing the theory of relativity do not employ the first postulate?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The simple experimental fact is that photon moves at speed of 186000 miles/second regardless of the speed of the emitter.This simple fact can be derived by using the informational approach. There is no need to postulate it.

But your "derivation" is a joke. Besides, did you know that the modern modes of constructing the theory of relativity do not employ the first postulate?

Einstein saw the results of Michelson-Morley experiment,

False.

QUOTE

and he postulated what he saw,

False.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

and he postulated what he saw,

False.

and then came up with the notion that time dilates.

A gross oversimplification. He derived the Lorentz transforms. Time dilation is a trivial consequence of the Lorentz transforms.

QUOTE

If the result of MM can be derived starting from simpler facts, then Einstein's work is a house of cards, no matter its success in the past 100 years.

The standard crackpot wish. As a simple exercise, try deriving the MMX result starting from your "theory".

sergemij

17th August 2012 - 12:02 AM

QUOTE

Not if the "theory" is written by a crackpot. Looking at your page, you are certainly one.

Wow! I have been shrunk!

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Not if the "theory" is written by a crackpot. Looking at your page, you are certainly one.

Wow! I have been shrunk!

-denying effects that are routinely verified experimentally (like time dilation, length contraction, etc)
-mixing up SR effects (time dilation, length contraction) with GR effects (spacetime bending)

Please do not put words in my mouth. Effects are not denied. They are explained differently. If you feel that mixing SR effects with GR effects is offensive, that's your problem. I only try to explain those effects as having the same cause. By all measures, that's beautiful and elegant. If you don't think so, I don't know what else to tell you.

QUOTE

proves that your "theory" is not worthwile "looking at".

Then please, dear 'xyzt', feel free not to look at it. Okay?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

proves that your "theory" is not worthwile "looking at".

Then please, dear 'xyzt', feel free not to look at it. Okay?

Obviously, you do not understand the effect, it has nothing to do with "making a U-turn", it has to do with having different path lengths (in SR , the longer path length has the shortest elapsed proper time).

Not so. See Daniel F Styer's paper in Am J phys 75 (9) Sept 2007. The GR time dilation is mindbogglingly used to explain the twin paradox. I am not saying it's not mathematically correct. Yes, it involves different path lenghts. My critique is that the explanation is truly fantastical and if there is an explanation that's simpler, it should be looked at.

QUOTE

Ptolemy was contradicted by experimental observation (pay attention, this issue will come up again). Eventually, Copernicus (and Giordano Bruno) came up with better theories.

Okay. I am paying attention.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Ptolemy was contradicted by experimental observation (pay attention, this issue will come up again). Eventually, Copernicus (and Giordano Bruno) came up with better theories.

Okay. I am paying attention.

Is this your understanding of Einstein's relativity?

I am merely saying that a postulate about the speed of light is nonsensical. I understand that's not how Einstein felt about it. I certainly understand you don't feel that way. That's okay.

QUOTE

But your "derivation" is a joke. Besides, did you know that the modern modes of constructing the theory of relativity do not employ the first postulate?

Thank you. One of the best compliments in the history of physics is a claim that someone's theory is a joke.
To your question, it's still postulated and the conclusions still don't make sense, even if they match experimental results. Not with the simpler way of explaining the experimental results, which I offer. As I mentioned, Ptolemy's theory matched experimental results for nearly 1500 years. I am sure many scholars defended it, otherwise it wouldn't have survived for that long. Einstein himself said that "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the physical world.". Translated it means that the there can be more than one explanation for the same phenomena. My explanation doesn't need any postulates and doesn't claim that time dilates, so it stands a better chance of being the truth.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

But your "derivation" is a joke. Besides, did you know that the modern modes of constructing the theory of relativity do not employ the first postulate?

Thank you. One of the best compliments in the history of physics is a claim that someone's theory is a joke.
To your question, it's still postulated and the conclusions still don't make sense, even if they match experimental results. Not with the simpler way of explaining the experimental results, which I offer. As I mentioned, Ptolemy's theory matched experimental results for nearly 1500 years. I am sure many scholars defended it, otherwise it wouldn't have survived for that long. Einstein himself said that "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the physical world.". Translated it means that the there can be more than one explanation for the same phenomena. My explanation doesn't need any postulates and doesn't claim that time dilates, so it stands a better chance of being the truth.

Please don't include others, it is clear that YOU do not understand.

I didn't say it's not understood. I said it doesn't make sense. But if it does make sense to you, I apologize. I hereby exclude you and anyone else who claims that Einstein's relativity makes sense.

QUOTE

Einstein saw the results of Michelson-Morley experiment. - You say it's false.

Basically you mean to say that Einstein was unaware of nearly 20-year old experiment that took science community by storm. But okay. Sure. If you say so.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Einstein saw the results of Michelson-Morley experiment. - You say it's false.

Basically you mean to say that Einstein was unaware of nearly 20-year old experiment that took science community by storm. But okay. Sure. If you say so.

A gross oversimplification. He derived the Lorentz transforms. Time dilation is a trivial consequence of the Lorentz transforms.

No contest. His derivation is in question. Not the effects observed.

QUOTE

The standard crackpot wish. As a simple exercise, try deriving the MMX result starting from your "theory".

I have done that. In chapter 4.1 in the paper the need for maximum speed that doesn't depend on the speed of the emitter is derived.

If you respond to this, just please try not be even more rude, not to me and not to anyone else. It's not nice.

Robittybob1

17th August 2012 - 12:21 AM

QUOTE (sergemij+Aug 17 2012, 12:02 AM)

If you respond to this, just please try not be even more rude, not to me and not to anyone else. It's not nice.

Or else! What?

brucep

17th August 2012 - 12:48 AM

QUOTE (sergemij+Aug 12 2012, 05:24 AM)

Rubberball,

thanks for the extensive review of some of the most prominent experiments that highlight the phenomena of time dilation.

You say "The previous chapter presented an argument that time-dilation between moving objects could not occur. ". Not sure what are you referring to? I do accept that GPS clock ticks faster in orbit and that muons in accelerators last longer. The facts are not in dispute, even if some experimenters may have fudged their methodology. Proving Einstein right became source of nearly infinite money from (mostly) government sponsors, so you can't blame people for wanting to be on the money.

My take is this: SR/GR is one possible explanation. There is another, and I am offering it. Time itself does not slow down, rather the rate of physical processes is lower. The end result is the same equations as Einstein's, however without the need for postulates and without resulting in a symmetrical effect.

I offer a single cause for what's known as time-dilation, be it SR or GR.

I do not use concepts of light, relativity, gravity or principle of equivalence to do so.

Rather I start with an axiom of information use:

Any physical effect occurs only due to possession and use of information.

From this, I can derive equations for what's known as time-dilation without using the postulates and principles.

I succeeded in deriving the equations that precisely match the phenomena without resorting to time-dilation.

I call 'time dilation' a 'performance-hit' because it's similar to a performance hit that happens when a computer processes too much information. When computer slows down, we wouldn't say that time slows down for it.

The thinking is this: physical effects occur only because of information use. If so, then fundamental physical entities (it is irrelevant what they are) use and posses information. Such entities have limited information throughput and storage. Information about these entities does not have any preference for scale and so is available anywhere.

When an entity moves, there is more information available to it. Use of more information with limited resources results in slowdown in the rate of using information, just like an overloaded computer would. Simple high-school math can be used to derive the same equation as in SR.

This is what's done in the aforementioned one-page proof. The full paper has similar proof for GR as well.

Doesn't it make sense that 'time dilation' has a singular cause?

Doesn't it make sense to use a simpler explanation, one that doesn't need postulates and one that doesn't result in a concept of time slowing down?

Isn't it a bit uneasy to claim that time slows down, and we don't even know for sure what time is?

Einstein's theories result in time dilation, length contraction and bending of space time. If there is a simpler way to derive these results, one that doesn't make these extraordinary claims, shouldn't we look at it?

If we can have paradox-free approach from the start, shouldn't we consider it? Paradoxes in Einstein's relativity (such as twin-paradox) can be made to go away by using GR (see Daniel F Styer's paper in Am J phys 75 (9) Sept 2007). But the paper, even though I presume it's mathematically correct, is simply fantastic. According to Einstein, when someone makes a U-Turn light-years away, my clock will slow down. Same space appears to be one meter long or a light year long.

I think if there is a simpler explanation than that, we ought to consider it.

Think of Ptolemy. He created a system where Earth is in the center of the Universe. For 1400 years, he crafted a theory that explained motions of celestial bodies. The theory explained the motions all right, but it was wrong. Why? Because it didn't make sense, above all else.

It doesn't make sense to postulate that Earth is the center of the Universe. It didn't make sense to proclaim that photon is in the center of everything (in the realm of velocities).

Matching experimental results can be done without such proclamations. Back in 1906 they didn't make sense. Eddington said that in 100 years even children will understand relativity intuitively. He was wrong. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't now. I understand many physicists are fond of the simplicity of Einstein's postulates. But think for a second that Ptolemy's postulate was just as simple.

The simple experimental fact is that photon moves at speed of 186000 miles/second regardless of the speed of the emitter.

This simple fact can be derived by using the informational approach. There is no need to postulate it. If you do, you fall into the same trap as Ptolemy did.

Ptolemy assumed as a postulate something he saw, namely that everything appears to revolve around him. From there, it all went downhill.

Einstein saw the results of Michelson-Morley experiment, and he postulated what he saw, and then came up with the notion that time dilates. If the result of MM can be derived starting from simpler facts, then Einstein's work is a house of cards, no matter its success in the past 100 years.

Idiot wind. The paradox is between your ears not in physics.

Robittybob1

17th August 2012 - 01:44 AM

Serge

QUOTE

Time itself does not slow down, rather the rate of physical processes is lower.

If that explains time dilation what is length contraction?

Confused1

17th August 2012 - 09:50 AM

It looks to me like you assumed time dilation as the cause of your computation problem then claimed the compution problem existed without time dilation. This is (poor) sleight of hand - not proof.
-C2.

xyzt

17th August 2012 - 04:11 PM

QUOTE (sergemij+Aug 17 2012, 12:02 AM)

I have done that. In chapter 4.1 in the paper the need for maximum speed that doesn't depend on the speed of the emitter is derived.

...and you think that is a derivation of the MMX effects? You are severely deluded.

Mekigal

17th August 2012 - 06:30 PM

information could be more like an operator so I think it can grow like a plant or wealth .
It is not even close to energy conservation where you gain some lose some but an ever expanding base staked . You still have the light coming from billions of years ago as new light is being made . Maybe location of information may change but it is still out there some where. New information don't take its place. It may be discredited yet even the discrediting keeps the information alive if only to state it as false. So it can be dormant if not revisited, but it is still there

sergemij

18th August 2012 - 04:34 AM

QUOTE (xyzt+Aug 17 2012, 04:11 PM)

...and you think that is a derivation of the MMX effects? You are severely deluded.

Thank you so much for your feedback. I am sorry it doesn't come in a complex book signed by a Nobel prize winner. Anyway, thanks, really. I get what you are saying. No need to repeat yourself.

sergemij

18th August 2012 - 04:44 AM

QUOTE (Robittybob1+Aug 17 2012, 12:21 AM)

Or else! What?

Nothing. I just thought it's decent not to be rude. But if one wants to be rude, it's a free country.

sergemij

18th August 2012 - 04:48 AM

QUOTE (brucep+Aug 17 2012, 12:48 AM)

Idiot wind. The paradox is between your ears not in physics.

I don't know what that means, but I get your meaning. Thanks for your feedback and no need to repeat it. I get it.

sergemij

18th August 2012 - 05:53 AM

I am quitting this forum.

Too many insults and too much rude behavior. Lots of venting anger and unbridled hostility.

But then again, quite possibly I do not measure up to the level of preeminent thinking on display here. If so, I do apologize for wasting your time.

I will not read any further comments. Sorry if I missed any constructive ones.

Have a good life.

brucep

18th August 2012 - 02:19 PM

QUOTE (sergemij+Aug 18 2012, 04:48 AM)

I don't know what that means, but I get your meaning. Thanks for your feedback and no need to repeat it. I get it.

It means there are no real paradox in physics. If there were then the physics wouldn't be physics would it. Just because the word is used for pedagogical reasons doesn't mean a real paradox exists. Do some research. This should include learning why relativity theory describes real natural phenomena.

brucep

18th August 2012 - 02:31 PM

QUOTE (sergemij+Aug 18 2012, 05:53 AM)

I am quitting this forum.

Too many insults and too much rude behavior. Lots of venting anger and unbridled hostility.

But then again, quite possibly I do not measure up to the level of preeminent thinking on display here. If so, I do apologize for wasting your time.

I will not read any further comments. Sorry if I missed any constructive ones.

Have a good life.

The reason you get this is because you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't done the research. When you post nonsense in a science forum you'll be treated badly.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.