To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Relativity and physical reality
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

Good Elf
Hi All,

I am a true supporter of Einstein and his Theories of Relativity. But it is "interesting" to note that the interpretation of the Physical Reality associated with his derivation is open to interpretation. In some quarters this has led to "blind" physics which says "it is impossible to interpret anything in the Universe without recourse to a very good dose of mathematical analysis and at the same time that analysis is a substitute for common sense and internal visualisations of the theories". When in doubt - just do the calculation.

I have found a Canadian Website and some papers that assert that ether-free theories can be made consistent with Einstein's Theories without some of the more outlandish aspects of some standard interpretations.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity vs Classical Theory
In the end it shows that totally classical descriptions of Relativity are possible. I feel that it does forget that electromagnetic theory is "already" consistent with Einstein’s Theory. They also seem to prefer a type of absolute frame of reference (common to users of this Forum). At least this provides a physical scaffold against which some of the more outlandish aspects of these theories can be tested and compared. They have a book that collects this material together and is a self-consistent work by a obviously group of physics malcontents that want some change (sound familiar?)

The site is a collaboration of the work of Dr Paul Marmet who was a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada and PSIgate of the Consortium of Academic Libraries in Manchester, U.K.
Author : Dr Paul Marmet
This is a real test of will here.

I do not agree with all that is said but I am in direct agreement with the approach... And especially when it says that the so-called mass increase is not really a mass increase but is totally explainable in terms of electromagnetic phenomena.
Fundamental Nature of Relativistic Mass and Magnetic Fields
This means that the energy associated with supposed mass increase is not "mass" but is simply an observable of the electromagnetic field. Now I am sure some of these authors may take a more radical view but in that point I am in total agreement.

In one instance they "prove" length contraction is a "real physical phenomena" with all the attendant stresses etc.
Demonstration of the Lorentz Equations without Einsteins Principles
This I totally disagree with that extreme point of view and accept that optical phenomena (electromagnetic) are sufficient to describe these effects and length contraction is not what is happening anyway. This is an "apparent" optical rotation in 3 dimensions leading to "foreshortening". This foreshortening is not classical rotation but an optical "near" miss if you follow other treatments. Another good reason for inertial frames of reference.

They do have a sensible understanding of the Clock Paradox. This takes away some of the nonsense and shows how clocks are not just "mechanically" affected by gravitational or acceleration affects, they are true representations of a change in rate of time. But they also assert that:
"An absolute 'reference time rate' can be defined using a clock located in a frame in which the velocity and the gravitational potential are well described. "
I disagree with this "absolute" frame of reference unless some clock synchronization process is also provided. That is where it fails (in my opinion).

Those more radical among you can take a field day to dissect the links in the Web FAQ on all the heresies:
FAQ

Have fun and see what you think but come back here and winge.

Cheers

Jolly Roger
I'm going to have to disagree about your point that electromagnetic phenomena and physical reality being separate things. smile.gif

You see, if you traveled at .9c to Alpha Centauri, you would measure the distance to there as being much shorter. It's not that you traveled 4.3 lightyears, but instead that you traveled

4.3 c*year * sqrt(1-0.9^2) = 1.87 lightyears

and the distance between here and there was much shorter than it would be if you were going slow. There's no such thing as a true stationary observer, so as far as special relativity is concerned, there is no possible distinction between observation and reality.

Muons, when they decay, live 15 times longer when traveling at .998c, and why is that? Because their physical reality has changed.
ARtone
Hi Elf Dont agree with the first chapter - first link

This discusses electon/proton mass changes by moving the particles higher or lower in the gravitational field, RUBBISH. For that to happen this would have to be an analogue event, there is a far simpler explanation - The Cubes rotate about their own axis at differing speeds just as a skater spins faster by drawing in the arms the particles cant change size continuosly, therefore, their speed must. This can indeed be continuosly variable.

If the large particles are made up of the smallest cubes then any increase or reduction in size would have to be to the next cube up or down indicating why there are large differences in particle size and why some decays loose differing numbers of bits.

AR
Guest
QUOTE
The Cubes rotate about their own axis at differing speeds just as a skater spins faster by drawing in the arms the particles cant change size continuosly, therefore, their speed must.


Eh, if they don't change size, then how does their speed change? Are you suggesting that conservation of angular momentum is bunk? Or perhaps you'd like to retract your statement about it being rubbish. smile.gif

If a particle drops in energy, it MUST have lower mass. Objects that are colder have lower mass. Objects that are farther down in a gravity well have lower mass. Of course, it's not much. But the idea that mass is separate from energy is what is rubbish. They're the same thing, and they cause the same amount of space-time curvature. So, if an object has less energy, potential or otherwise, it has less mass. You cannot get around it.

Oh, and uh, Good Elf, I forgot to thank you for the link. That's got some excellent material in there. smile.gif
Good Elf
see next post
Good Elf
Hi Jolly Rodger,

Jolly Roger Posted on Jan 13 2005, 01:47 AM
QUOTE
I'm going to have to disagree about your point that electromagnetic phenomena and physical reality being separate things

This is sort of a debate to say if when you travel near the speed of light is space and time actually being warped around you or is this just the optical effects of very high speed travel.

I am going to use some “dumb” ideas on relative time and space velocities but I hope you understand in what context I am going to do this.

Lets say if you travel closer and closer to the speed of light relative to a person living in earth orbit the progress of "real" earth time (I hate to use this idea) for the traveller his clock is slowing by relative comparison (relatively speaking the ticks of his clock are lengthening relative to a person on or near earth). If our traveller calculates speed as distance divided by (his) time he will see an open velocity scale with no upper bounds (ignoring physical constraints such as the size of his rocket engine etc.). To him he thinks he can increase his speed without bound and notices the external effect is that he see things moving past him faster and faster. There are other optical effects that I will not discuss just here.

Others interpretations would say that there is a "redline" on his speedo that he can't seem to cross (see the video below). This is not actually what happens because the faster he goes the less time he will experience relative to "stationary" observers (yick!). If he were able to "touch" the speed of light, all time for him would be an unending suspended moment in which, between the ticks of his clock, he could travel to the ends of the Universe. Externally relative to "stationary" (bleh!) clocks the time he would take to do this is exactly the same as if a beam of light did the same. A very long time to travel to the end of the Universe indeed.

In the external world we never see the traveller travel faster than what should be the speed of light (and he never does). Not even light can do that. This is a physical constraint of the system. But our clocks are keeping the "right" time (Ur... sort of I think you get that point) The travellers clock is losing time relative to this “right” time "hand over fist", running slow, but because it is his actual experienced time he interprets this as travelling faster (velocity equals distance divided by "his" time). He could potentially travel across the entire universe in a really short time (his time) and his apparent calculated speed (internally) could be many times the speed of light based on distances previously reckoned before the trip. This is standard theory. All the texts suggest this but they often fail to see all the conclusions of this idea through.

To the normally moving bodies (slow pokes) in space this fellow is travelling close to light speed but cannot exceed it so will take the requisite time to travel those distances according to those external observers clocks. However depending on how much acceleration the traveller has undergone he can reduce the total number of ticks (of his clock) of his journey to as small a count as he likes. All he does is wind up the acceleration and approach "externally" incrementally closer to the speed of light (internally he is putting on warps Star Trek parlance eh, or so he thinks!).

Now to your question. The length contraction will be an effect but that just makes things appear close through optical phenomena such as the stereoscopic effect of distances through parallax. If there was a straight paved footpath to the stars and we were travelling along it... The apparent distances between the equally spaced paving cracks will appear to shorten exactly along the direction of the line of travel. Perpendicular to this line of motion (out the port and starboard portholes) the pavement appears relatively undistorted (though moving fast). In between these extremes with variations in the angular distance away from the direction of travel up to 90 degrees, we see gradations of these effects.(highly warped to not warped at all). In three dimensions (which is what we actually see) this effectively "twists" the pavement along the line of the direction of travel causing it to "bunch up" in the forward direction and apparently "rotate". See this movie for the effect (but please note the dumb speedo – that is the apparent external speed measurement of some one standing on the pavement).
Distorted Red Shifted Biker and seeing around corners
As I have pointed out there has been some liberties taken for clarity sake. Right click on the movie and save it to the drive.

These movies come from 1979 the 100th anniversary of Einstein's Birth a BBC Program called Einstein's Universe. Mostly deals with the effects of Gravitation. There are many more short movies here related to the program.
Einstein's Universe
They show "some" visual effects due to relativistic speed. Please note that not all effects are shown simultaneously for clarity. This was mentioned in the original full length video. These links and more are explained in another post of mine you can find this in PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories -> SR vs Ether (Good Elf - latest). Some good stuff there.

The exact reverse happens in the backward direction. Combined this with his apparent increase in his speed due to the effect of slowing time relative to an external observer, and Doppler red shifting and a dark point aft and Doppler blue shifting and a white point forward, I say these effects are optical illusions. In actual fact this is due to the light approaches from different directions to normal (the speed of light is still approaches at a velocity relatively of C to all observers and always remains the same).

If it were possible – lets say a beam was chasing the traveller’s ship along the pavement so we can see part of the beam.shine on that pavement. The light does not change speed just because external observers might see the two (light and traveller) at almost the same speed (at or near the speed of light) and converging on a the traveller at a few Kms per second. The traveller measures light’s speed with his clock and he has lost most of the ticks “out of it” so the relative velocity of light will appear faster to him than apparent relative velocity does to the observer on the pavement. The traveller’s clock loses just enough ticks to make light appear to be approaching at the speed of light.

Here is the point... There is no "physical" bunching up or physical distance shortening or rotation in the “real” external world. Anyone standing on the side of the pavement would not personally experience any warping or twisting or mass increase as seen by the traveller as he goes by, and he does see these things. Still I would not like to stand so close. The light is not really curved at all. It is still travelling in straight lines but it is equivalent to optical aberration or refraction and it is an effect for the traveller like being completely immersed in an optically deforming lens. This is not an effect due to physically deformed space (although that is the debatable point). In a similar way I say that mass also appear to have EM "measurables" that indicate increasing mass but this is also an electromagnetic effect of the velocity. Remotely determined mass is subject to "optical" effects since all instrumentation is affected by the “exchange particles” or force carriers in our universe (light photons).

Many would say that it is not an optical effect and it is actually space and time that are deformed by this activity and true mass would also be affected. I do not agree.

Cheers

Good Elf
Hi Guest,

QUOTE
f a particle drops in energy, it MUST have lower mass. Objects that are colder have lower mass. Objects that are farther down in a gravity well have lower mass.

Energy is not something that is absolute. It is the capacity to perform work. I had a post specifically about this some time ago. Everything in Special and General Relativity and with Quantum Phenomena (very closely related) must be considered as systems. If work is to be performed it must be on a "system". Once you agree to what the system is then you can determine what this energy stuff is.

As in the previous post above I am trying to say is we just can't pump a figure into an equation and have it think for us as well. Atomic Bombs work because we consider the before and after state of the system. The before state is the "bound" state of a single nucleus. The after state is the split divided nucleus. That latter state has an energy excess. Bang!

In the same way this and the previous post is trying to say that the increase of mass in a system is not an internal "measurable". It is an external measurable to the "system". That includes the observers. Without their "inertial" frame the energy is a meaningless quantity. It is true that there is a lot of energy bound in the mass of material substance but unless you have a system it cannot be extracted. For instance the energy of a proton can be released in the presence of an anti-proton. That is a system. Without the anti-proton there will not be a release of energy. Most protons in the Universe are pretty stable so we are "safe".

Your quote above is correct. The energy is comparable to mass. Will you measure the mass by direct observation? Probably not. You will calculate it by making some assumptions about its state. Now the important part is how will you extract that energy. You can let the particle fall to a lower level in the current "system" which is a gravity well. It will gain kinetic energy. The energy of the particle will still be the same though. Just a conversion from potential to kinetic energy. Now how will you extract the energy from it? If I want this energy to be somewhere useful you need to get it out of that system. To do that will take all the energy back. Now that you have the particle in your hands it has no energy relative to "your system" of particle and you. Thwarted again. Did it ever have that theoretical "mass" at all or was this just a "measurable" of a system you were observing?

What I am saying is just that. There is a lot of mass around and we can measure it. In theory there is a lot of energy tied up in that mass and we would like to extract it. It can be done with the proper "system". This usually is the particle... anti-particle conversion (matter... anti-matter conversion). Great system but in order to extract energy from it we need an equal quantity of anti-matter. Now it does not look so good, we require a lot of energy to get the right system. No net payoff. It's a good battery but not a good energy source (unless we find a ready supply somewhere).

Particle accelerators to my way of thinking are energy storage devices. You pump energy in and extract energy out (when particles hit a detector). Do the particles actually exhibit more mass. They certainly have a lot of kinetic energy but if I bring them to rest where is the mass. There are ways to make mass with this "system" It is particle - anti-particle reactions. Is this the way to create stable mass? It is only a good way to store energy. No net mass and no net energy.

Do the accelerated particles actually gain the mass such that in their own frame of reference they are "heavier"? It should be the same for space travellers too. I don't really think so (debate this point)... It affects their internal clocks in the same way as the post above and when you synchronize "clocks" by bringing them together you will find this mass will have vanished. This is because the internal clocks the particles run on exchange forces with other particles using their exchange particle (the photon). If one clock is "normal" rate and you exchange a "force" with another particle whose internal clock is running "slow" (fast moving) you will see a change in mass (different accelerations). This is because the "system" is two particles at different velocities. We measure mass by exerting an equal and mutual acceleration on two particles (force) and we measure the relative accelerations. The masses are then in inverse proportion to those accelerations. Photons (or usually virtual photons) exert the force. These are the exchange particles. The accelerations will be unequal. So we think we have unequal masses. Now lets bring their clocks into synchronization by bringing them to the same frame of reference. Now exchange the photons. We note the same accelerations in both particles. What were we measuring? Ponderable mass or a relativistic effect and therefore electomagnetic in origin.

It is a debate.... Some will like this, others will not. In the end ask yourself will an astronaut "feel" extra-heavy when accelerated to near the speed of light when Einstein says that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. The laws of physics in the rocket should be the same as the laws of physics to all observers. The protons of the traveller should not be more "ponderous" than those of earth bound observers (inside their respective frames of reference). An exchange of exchange force photons will determine the moving traveller will appear to have greater proton masses (each proton appears heavier). Of course our traveller can also choose to do the same experiment at the same time and he will determine the same of the observers protons. Who is right or are both right? Check the "systems". I think this must be a fictitious mass not an actual mass.

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi ARTone,

I sorta see some of what you are trying to say. This "cube" stuff freaks me out. The papers on that site do have an interesting "twist" on wave packets. I think you should have a look at that and see if you can see anything cause its got all the maths with it and you can then refer to that theory and maybe we can meet in the middle somehow.

The advantage of Special and General Theory no matter how it is expressed is that the Theory has been very thoroughly tested. I think a lot of debate would go away if everyone saw that mostly the disagreement is on this very aspect of physical interpretation. Einstein did not do a good job of explaining the theory in a physically satisfying visiospartial idiom.

There are groups of theorists that engage the calculator before they engage the brain and they end up with confusing ideas. I think the idea is it really doesn’t matter what the human mind thinks of Relativity it is the results that count. Well I am "agin" it. Einstein would not be happy until everyone who wanted would be able to "get it". I realize that it needs the right formula to let everyone see what is happening but I think it is very close.

I am sure that you are expressing an idea that seems to express itself as type of cubic symmetry. Its not S3 or S6 but I had a book long ago by one of the "masters" unfortunately I have misplaced it. I will try and find it. It may help. The other issue is this new discovery of oscillating neutrino masses is queer. It has to fit into the picture. I think you have latched into that question as well.

I will get back to you when I have something.

Cheers
Guest
Hi Elf

yes it does freaks me too, but it often seems to fit problems, however, the speed increase rather than size/mass would apply even if particles are spheres.

The problem with spheres is they dont do ouwt (anything) for BEC's. the comments and descriptions of observed effects of BEC's describes cubes to a tea. one such was " movement just like a staircase", plus the recent work describing a very definitive step in the cooling. Plus the close alignment possibility of cubes and if indeed large particles are multiple smaller particles this explains how particle splitting is possibles, decay, and why/how nature created particles in definitive stepped sizes. Which if very acurate measurement were possible should be provable by cubic steps i.e the difference between an electron and say a proton should be a cubed value. The reported difference is approx' 2000 times which I make 12^3 = 1728 or 13^3 = 2197.

I'll read more later on you suggestion.

AR
ARtone
That was me above forgot to sign in

The problem with cubic building would have been mutual repulsion if the smallest particle has a magnetic moment. Maybe it dos'nt, which could be why the background aether is so difficult to detect. If the smallest particles were magnetic this would then gives complex interaction between the faces of the inner cubes.

I suppose it would be possible to magnetise some large cubes to see whats possible.

It could be that multiple magnetic cubes can interact socially to create an incredably powerful bond which would reflect the power given off in fission.

Perhaps this explains the power generation by fusion. If multiple small particles have magnetic moments and this is their energy source, maybe when combined together the sum of the energy is not needed for a large particle construction.

Or maybe its far simpler and just the Stacking problem at 22 which has to throw off 2 particles.

AR

a guy
Hey, just came by this post, and I have to say I think that particles do increase mass, but only because mass is energy (which im sure is also mentioned somewhere in this post). And I think the best example of this is how particle accelerators can start off with 2 particles (2 protons or 2 electrons for instance) and bang them together, which results in a particle with a mass greater than the two initial particles. The caviot i think is that the energy has to be highly localized (ie. waving your arms around doesnt create tons of particles) for it to become a particle and thus mass.

Elf, that was an interesting article about systems. I've never thought about it that way, but I'm confused on the energy release thing. Because there are alot of particles that are unstable that release their energy spontaneously (even protons are theorized to behave that way). So, say an unbound neutron, whould spontaneously give up its energy fairly fast without the need of a system, right? or am I missing something?

Later gents.

Guest
Hi Elf

I'm still reading Einstein's Theory of Relativity vs Classical Theory (first link)

Hope you dont mind if I skip to the important bits chapter 11.3 Electric potentials This is why incorrect assumptions lead to wrong ideas. This section should be titled "why light travels in a straight line if particles are assumed to be cubes and why it sometimes doesnt" However I havt read it all yet.

AR
Good Elf
Hi a guy,

a guy Posted on Jan 13 2005, 07:16 PM
QUOTE
I think that particles do increase mass, but only because mass is energy... best example of this ... 2 particles...  bang them together, which results in a particle with a mass greater than the two initial particles

Yes that is the interesting one. I was "sort of" hoping someone would ask. We need to keep that thought about "systems" and their energy mentioned before in that post above. No "net" mass but mass nevertheless. The energy was fed into a "system" and now we have two new virtual particles that now exist "for real". To keep them both we must fight strong electromagnetic forces (virtual photons) to keep them apart.

Where is this energy referenced to and to what system? Once the "trick" has been performed our Universe now has two extra particles. It "cost" the entire known Universe that amount of energy to create them so its referenced to the zero point energy of our Universe. These look and feel like "normal" particles and indeed they are. They could have been a butterfly and an anti-butterfly dragged out of that zero point energy field and as long as we want we can keep "one" of these butterflies forever by allowing the anti-butterfly to dissipate in anti-matter reactions. Just keep those two butterflies apart eh! In the end an equal amount of our Universe's normal matter will be needed to stabilize this "new" (non-anti) butterfly. Then there will be no extra mass. It was a "fair trade" with another Universe that has the same zero point energy. That other Universe lost a butterfly and we sent them a piece of crap. We win. So the "system" is bigger than we thought. It involves two Universes with a common zero point energy.

So the sea of virtual particles that surround us is a source of exotic material but at a cost. If you let the two butterflies approach each other what you would find is a massive exchange of virtual photons that will attempt to restore the balance and pop both butterflies back to where they came from (maybe destructively). These are what we usually call electromagnetic "forces" but they are exchange forces in our Universe and the exchange particle for that force is the photon. Notice these exchange forces occur even though both butterflies are electrically neutral (one butterfly is made entirely of anti-matter). These virtual particles can be observed. They have the property that they all look identical at the same frequency and as many as you want can dance on the head of a pin. They (virtual photons and normal photons) obey bose-einstein statistics.

Here is the Columbia Encyclopedia definition of Bose-Einstein Statistics:

"The class of statistics that applies to elementary particles called bosons, which include the photon, pion, and the W and Z particles. Bosons have integral values of the quantum mechanical property called spin and are “gregarious” in the sense that an unlimited number of bosons can be placed in the same state. All of the particles that mediate the fundamental forces of nature are bosons. See elementary particles; Fermi-Dirac statistics; statistical mechanics".

Probably no surprise to any of you. Your textbooks describe them and they mostly arise around normal particles in droves but usually for only extremely short periods of time. They are quantum phenomena and pop in and out of our Universe apparently randomly wherever forces are needed. Not explicitly described by General Relativity but because Special Relativity is about Electromagnetism... Is touched on there. Don't open Einstein's Book on Special Theory and expect to find a chapter on the subject of "virtual photons". It’s not there. It should be but it’s not his fault.

Sorry about the digression into quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. Now back to your question. These particles come from somewhere else (another Universe) but they cost our Universe dearly. They are not really "created" they are "exchanged" and the currency of that exchange is huge amounts of energy and are on "temporary loan". A "payment" will be required to keep the "merchandise" and your "deposit" will be returned. They are the special case.

Other forces (subatomic forces) have similar properties and they too exchange "stuff" and can create "stuff". Their Universes are confined and the exchange particles have a limited range. A strong connection has been established between these forces and with quantum electrodynamics (the electro-weak and electro-strong forces). This is beyond the scope of a simple post in a Forum (for now at least). What is common is Einstein is right about energy in that it is a Universal "currency" and can be exchanged for any sort of matter atomic or subatomic we like. I hope that answers that point and you can "dot the I's and cross the T's " for a number of other issues that any inquiring mind would ask.

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi ARTone,

I'm sure that's you again "Guest".
Guest Posted on Jan 13 2005, 08:50 PM
QUOTE
Hope you dont mind if I skip to the important bits chapter 11.3 Electric potentials This is why incorrect assumptions lead to wrong ideas

You are dead right but there is a whiff of your ideas in there isn't there? I would like to point out (along with the last post) that it is with the interpretation that the problems all occur.
Internal Phenomena inside Atoms : 11.3 - Electric Potentials
Near the end he says :
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Hope you dont mind if I skip to the important bits chapter 11.3 Electric potentials This is why incorrect assumptions lead to wrong ideas

You are dead right but there is a whiff of your ideas in there isn't there? I would like to point out (along with the last post) that it is with the interpretation that the problems all occur.
Internal Phenomena inside Atoms : 11.3 - Electric Potentials
Near the end he says :
from the red shift of spectral lines and from the slowdown of moving atomic clocks. It is this absolute reduction of frequency of a moving clock located in a moving frame that has been erroneously interpreted by Einstein as time dilation

Well is this just "mechanical" slowdown of clocks or is it that the "clocks" are actual representations of the timing of the innate process of the particle? In the case of cosmic ray showers the Kaons and the Muons are extended in their lifespan by several times. Is this because this is mechanically linked to the internal ticking of a timing device inside the particle and it "goes off" when it reaches zero. or is it this "ticking" that is a heartbeat of the particle relative to the rest of the Universe? It is a serious matter for debate.

I do not think there is a "mechanism" that counts down inside the particles and this is actually just a consequence of the different rates of time passing in different frames of reference. Either way the maths is the same and it results in the same experimental result.

If what I am saying is correct the actual phenomena is mitigated by those pesky exchange virtual photons. They also 'show" an apparent difference in mass between the moving and "stationary" particles. I guess what I am saying is that the photons appear to be a measure of the time in different systems. Their identity changes when they move from one frame of reference to another. In one reference frame it might be a "blue" photon in the other (moving) frame of reference the same photon may be a "red" photon. The perception from each different frame is a difference in the exchanged energy. Certainly in the real world we "see" this red and blue shift and it is called Dopper Shift or in Astronomy... Hubble Shift.

Professor Paul Marmet is not right or wrong on this matter, the maths is all fine. He is sorta like Schrodinger's Cat... The theory's fate is "undecided" or "it's wave function on this matter" has not collapsed yet. blink.gif

Cheers
the1physicist
GoodElf, I don't want to complain about this, but you have some really, really long posts. Its to the point that I don't have time to read through all of it. If you could tone it down a bit, I'd be more inclined to participate. thanks.
Anyhow, let me get this straight. You're saying that a particle traveling near light speed does not affect the space around it? I would have to disagree. I think the phenomenon of frame dragging shows that mass does indeed affect the space around it.
ARtone
Hi Elf - received email - what book?

I would agree that there is no clock controlling particles but there must be some sort of time control although it may be simple, Just as our breathing rate is controlled by the detection of Co2 build up, simple but self regulating. It could be something like particle detection of incoming EM packets (photons) or the frequency of these. Perhaps dark energy is a fixed EM field giving particles default conditions and timing is measured against this.

I still think there is a major confusion between time and clocks, clocks we can control but not time. Clocks only measure the period between events, they dont measure time otherwise we would know how long NOW is.

There has to be fundamental simplicity. Take for instance the proton to electron count. Why should these always be the same? How could nature control that, or is it simply that there are many electrons and each proton activates/communicates with one? making it appear that there is only one per proton.

I would agree that the writer asumes he has the correct interpritation of Einsteins papers. Which of course may be correct.

The book is interesting and not too difficult to read but I have problems with his mass Ideas, I assumed that any increase known as mass due to speed is the absorption of energy not a physical size increase.

AR








Good Elf
Hi the1physicist,

the1physicist Posted on Jan 14 2005, 02:45 AM
QUOTE
let me get this straight. You're saying that a particle travelling near light speed does not affect the space around it? I would have to disagree. I think the phenomenon of frame dragging shows that mass does indeed affect the space around it.

Yup... This is why my posts are so long. I have got most of what I needed to say said in those few posts I made previously. The discussion was targeting Special Relativity and it's tie in with the Clock Paradox. If you do not include "relativistic frame dragging" that is the "almost" complete story.

It is a never-ending saga when you discuss all the other phenomena associated with Relativity. Frame dragging is really the province of General Relativity. I guess it must be said that to deal with General Relativity you must take account of the concept of curved space-time. You can neatly ignore that point when you only deal with special relativity. It is dealing with "flat" space-time. So much easier! There is a cop out... I have said this all before in a thread on Frame Dragging.
This site...
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories (page 2) -> Frame Dragging, Frame Dragging (All the stuff by Good Elf).

I notice that you were the last post on that thread. You referred to my post of {Good Elf Posted: Dec 13 2004, 09:58 AM}. I got lazy and thought that your reply was rhetorical. I like the topic but I have not had a good reason to resurrect it for now. If someone added to that thread with another new post I would chip back in. That would put it back on the "top twenty" chart again. It has slipped to 25 so it is slumbering for now.

Just in summary of all that stuff according to my ideas on the matter, If you have a mind to, you can curve space with a large body of mass and without too much effort you can travel large distances in space (using an ideal means of propulsion) and not suffer clock paradox penalties. I put it that if a space ship was left in orbit around the Earth and a "race" was arranged to a nearby star and back between this self propelled large mass sphere and a conventional spaceship. If they had the same history of "acceleration" their internal clocks will "match" at the time of their "return" to Earth orbit. The interesting point is the large mass sphere arrives back in the "real" time, Earth time on his clock, whereas the spaceship arrives back in that time plus the time it takes light to make the round trip (Earth time). There are "big" engineering problems with this idea so this is a "gedunken" experiment.

The only way this could be made practical is some other approach to the problem. The beauty of this approach lies in the simplicity where the geometry is easy to visualize and to analyze. Once the idea is grasped it opens a "practical" can of worms. In this case you will need to curve space or at least it suggests there are shortcuts through space-time that have not been suspected using "conventional" wisdom. Is it curving of space or is a just a shortcut? Here again you need an open mind to try and resolve this point. I prefer to see them as “shortcuts”. It really doesn't matter.

The amount space needs to be curved or shortcutted (is there such a word?) depends on the how much mass you want to shift and how fast. The amount of mass you need to shift is a limitation on the upper bounds of this method practically. The peak acceleration depends on the local surface gravity of the planetoid that you are "bussing" around. It makes much of a strong Principle of Equivalence necessary with Einstein's General Theory. Mind you that is what has been and is being tested so it is apparently "correct".

The bottom line is you can go anywhere in whatever time you choose and you do not need to suffer the Twin's Problem or the Clock Paradox. It does need something more, and exact solutions for all space may not be possible for highly deformed space-time. That is why it was reduced to considerations in flat space under special conditions. The need to synchronize clocks is crucial to the entire process and "systems" of energy are also important as mentioned above.

I came across this little "ditty" in 1975 and published a paper on it then. It is more topical now that frame dragging has been proved and new technologies might change what is possible from what was just a dream then. See “Considerations in relativity yielding a novel result in the interpretation of the "clock paradox” phenomena / by John Walsh. 1975” National Library of Australia Catalog ISBN 095966100X Bib Id: 2775208. Though correct it is pretty “dumb” and clumsy.

As to shortening these posts. I think that I can do too much of that and all that happens is I spend a lot more time "filling in" the missing details. Sorry. I will try. If people want to pursue "Frame Dragging" I ask they follow up the thread (above) first and post there so that we keep everything neatly in it's box. rolleyes.gif

Cheers
NeoHippie
In laymens terms (please), what is wrong with this statement:

Once you reach the speed of light, time would stop and your mass would become infinite.

I am sincerely curious about this and wish to learn more - thanks!

huh.gif
Good Elf
Hi NeoHippie,

Contentious question. Of course you are asking me so I will answer.
QUOTE
Once you reach the speed of light, time would stop and your mass would become infinite.

This is the wrong question! Why are you still beating your wife? Sorry about that just showing you that some questions are linguistically impossible to answer. For one thing no material objects can reach the speed of light. The speed of light has a "Reserved" sticker on it. Light travels at the speed of light and at no other speed (in a vacuum).

If you could watch light travel at the speed of light (a valid gedunken experiment) you are right... Time is stopped. It is a simple extension of the clock paradox for ordinary particles. The faster you travel the more ticks of your ships clock you lose relative to onlookers watching you make this attempt. If you nudge the speed of light you could eventually go anywhere you wanted in less than a tick of your clock. If you could take that fraction of a tick away you would be a beam of light and have that "sticker" on you.

For he same reason "travellers" will not see an "upper bound" to the speed of light. This is because as the traveller accelerates and approaches to what external observers agree is the speed of light, his clock is rapidly losing "all it's ticks" this shows up as effective velocity increase because this is the travellers "experience" of time not just a faulty clock.

Your mass would become infinite? Don't believe it! This is just one of the myriad "optical" effects of the consequences of remote measurement of system "observables". Note the words "system" and "observables". This point always "drops off "... infinite mass relative to what? Mass under these circumstances is the same as "unobserved" energy of the system. Have you ever directly seen energy? I don't mean light here. I have news about this... In the frame of the traveller he see no mass increase at all. I didn't say this, Einstein said it when he said that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. The protons of the traveller have not suddenly become heavier. Nor have they become more numerous. Neither has the binding energy increased or the emission spectra of atoms in the ships reference frame changed either. The laws of physics have not changed. Remotely "stuff" is happening when he looks out the windows but inside he does not notice these effects. Conversely observers “see” stuff going on too. It is what they are seeing that is confusing what really is there. Remember this is a system. Rocket plus Observers. It is also important with quantum mechanics.

I have another couple of threads, which discusses energy besides this one... And like it or not it is always referenced to a "system". No offence "NeoHippie" those "new age" concepts of “energy” are wrong. That’s something else altogether. Those people should get their own “words” instead of using scientific terms. cool.gif I have discussed it in this thread and in another thread I think it was
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories -> The impossibility of something faster than light (Good Elf)

PS: I think this is why a lot of theories have infinities in them because they are incorrectly referenced to "odd" reference points or no reference points or many reference points and systems. rolleyes.gif

An "evil" elf would say "sloppy Physics", Not me though! It is just "energy challenged" Physics. tongue.gif It is often hard to tell what some people mean when they discuss some problems. This is one of the main stumbling blocks.

Cheers
NeoHippie
Hey there Good Elf,

I am not offended in the slightest. "I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the Universe, and was not offended. For I chose to rise above it all, else drown in my own sh%t"...

I feel like I don't really have much to contribute to this forum as I am no physicist. I am just extracting the juice of your collective intellect to satisfy my own thirst! ohmy.gif

I am fascinated by the equation E=mc2. When you said "If you could take that fraction of a tick away you would be a beam of light and have that "sticker" on you" Do you mean to say "become" a beam of light or have to already "BE" a beam of light?

E=mc2; it is my understanding that this equation, in the most simplistic terms, says that Mass is just Energy slowed way down and vice versa (that if you accelerate mass to the speed of light squared, it becomes energy?). Am I close or way off here? Like once, I saw a Star Trek episode where this Traveller said that... ha ha ha

In regards to us 'New Age' (I say spiritually enlightened) folks' concept of Energy vs. how this term is used in Physics; yes you have a valid point. Most new age folks use this term to refer to entities without a corporeal form, our own 'souls', thoughts/emotions, aural bodies etc., but then again, isn't everything energy, just in different states, that is, if Mass is energy slowed down? But this is another tangent probably more suitable for some other forum.

Thanks again for the continued "Physics 101" lessons...
Jolly Roger
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 15 2005, 03:51 AM)
For one thing no material objects can reach the speed of light. The speed of light has a "Reserved" sticker on it. Light travels at the speed of light and at no other speed (in a vacuum).

Hmm... makes you wonder a bit about possible metric engineering. I could look it up, but I'm in a bit of a hurry to get out the door (but had to ask). In Casimir cavities, it has been shown that the index of refraction is less than 1. And the greater the number of EM modes blocked in the cavity, the lower the index of refraction. (The prevailing wisdom on why this is is that light has fewer allowable opportunities to pop into particle-antiparticle pairs while it's traveling, and when photons have to spend more of their lives as photons, they actually move faster.)

So, good elf, this is your thread... any thoughts on that?
Good Elf
Hi NeoHippie,

NeoHippie Posted on Jan 15 2005, 05:22 PM
QUOTE
Do you mean to say "become" a beam of light or have to already "BE" a beam of light?

Yup... That is what I am saying. What I would say with this idea is why would you want to be a beam of light? Being a material object has so many more advantages and opportunities for space travellers and stuff.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Do you mean to say "become" a beam of light or have to already "BE" a beam of light?

Yup... That is what I am saying. What I would say with this idea is why would you want to be a beam of light? Being a material object has so many more advantages and opportunities for space travellers and stuff.
E=mc2; it is my understanding that this equation, in the most simplistic terms, says that Mass is just Energy slowed way down and vice versa (that if you accelerate mass to the speed of light squared, it becomes energy?

Actually I wish it did say something more than just being an equation of "equivalence". All that can be absolutely stated about that equation is that it indicates how much of one stuff (mass) can be swapped for the other stuff (energy). No offence, a great deal of what you said there is "pure conjecture" and "interpretation". This "pure conjecture" and "interpretation" is passed down and before long it is "understanding". No one ever revisits or questions the dusty halls of where these thoughts or ideas came from because there is such a frenetic interest in solving equations. Most scientist's and professors that I have known actually believed that the understanding is not necessary it's the maths that is important since physical interpretation is a load of c%#p. I disagree.

This is where the fun begins. Elves are not really "interested" in equations as such they are more touchy feely critters. I am a "technical" elf and versed in all manner of technical apparatus. You probably realize that Santa uses the skills of elves in his toyshop. His pay is lousy and the working conditions are far too cold.

When someone wants me to solve a mathematical problem in Relativity I go downstairs to my REA Problem Solver Series on Special and/or General Relativity and look it up for the closest match to a solved problem and "redecorate the tree". Almost everything that has been done is there and if it has not then that is "hard work" but at least you have a start.

It is quite true that what this is stating is that there are basically only two things making up the Universe Energy and Geometry. There really are no such things as particles and charges and fields and Gravity and all those other things. They are all artifacts of the frames of reference and the "system". Different reference frames and "systems" see different things. Our eyes and "ape" brains evolved to interpret only one subclass of frame of reference and "system", the other frames of reference and "systems" we are not equipped to easily understand that is what all the controversy is all about.

If you are entirely immersed in the mathematical world of abstract mathematics you will not care about the problems of the "real" world and mathematics can be developed independent of "reality". The problem occurs when this abstract idea of the mathematician tries to make sense of the visiospatial world around them. A mathematician has poor interpretive skills because of the psychology behind what motivated them. In the main many of these people are "autistic savants". No offence... It is a "skill" needed to obsessively seek out and apply with single mindedness all their mental abilities in solving a problem. They are a sub-class, in my way of thinking, of the Obsessive Compulsive Personality. To get an idea of this problem check out the TV Series "Monk". It is not that uncommon a disorder and they really need handlers to survive or at least a protective "cave" to live in.

There are many types of autistic savant but an autistic savant is not all of them. He is specifically only one of them. Very narrow focus. A mathematical savant will not be a musical genius and a painter and an inventor. These skills require different parts of the brain. To survive they will need to go where their special skills are appreciated. This will be in the protected enclaves of a University where their eccentricities will be tolerated and even encouraged.

I can personally relate a story of a Professor of Psychology who was asked by his wife to defrost the fridge. He was left alone in the house along with that problem. Well obviously the way to get rid of the ice was to "heat" it up. This he did by kindling a small fire in the deep freeze compartment using a bottle of methylated spirits and some paper. In the end the Fire Department was needed to be called out to everyone’s embarrassment. That is how serious the problem can get.

My old maths professor used to turn up at lectures dressed in a moth eaten sweater (big holes), thongs and his belt around his waist to keep his pants up... Tied in a knot. True story. Great mathematician but I would not ask him to solve a practical problem.

Not all these chaps are so "impaired". But to be "good" they sacrifice something to get the job done. So when you ask them what their theories mean in the physical world you must not let them have all the say even if they thought the theory up in the first place. Notice that there is a little of that in me too. I obsess over posts.

QUOTE
that if you accelerate mass to the speed of light squared, it becomes energy?

Sorry ... that is not what it means. This is trying to read between the lines. It is just stating that mass is energy. I do not really know what mass is. I "suspect" that mass is simply an artifact of the system that includes the observer. The Theory of Relativity has that equation stating the mass of an object in one frame of reference is related to the rest mass of the object transformed by the function gamma. The function gamma contains the "relative" velocity between the observer and the object. This function varies for different "systems" and different relative velocities. Because it is an equality it is hard to convince people this does not mean that that guy moving over there is carrying the excess "weight" equal to the observed "mass" minus his rest mass. If he goes fast enough they would probably expect him to start to buckle at the knees and drop dead of a heart attack. The equation you have just stated (E=mc^2) says that mass is equivalent to energy so when you use the equation m=g*m0 where g=gamma and m0=rest mass, that it is a two way street. I say that m = m0 + E/C^2 where the second term is the excess mass (m - m0) as pure energy in the system and dependent on where the observer "sits". The second term disappears in the frame of the moving particle and is a different "system" to the first. You understand that energy must relate to a system and it means always capacity to do work. This has to be related to a “system”. Energy is nothing you can see or hold in your hand. It is equivalent to mass but it is only a form of "currency" to trade for mass, as you will have read in other sections of this thread.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
that if you accelerate mass to the speed of light squared, it becomes energy?

Sorry ... that is not what it means. This is trying to read between the lines. It is just stating that mass is energy. I do not really know what mass is. I "suspect" that mass is simply an artifact of the system that includes the observer. The Theory of Relativity has that equation stating the mass of an object in one frame of reference is related to the rest mass of the object transformed by the function gamma. The function gamma contains the "relative" velocity between the observer and the object. This function varies for different "systems" and different relative velocities. Because it is an equality it is hard to convince people this does not mean that that guy moving over there is carrying the excess "weight" equal to the observed "mass" minus his rest mass. If he goes fast enough they would probably expect him to start to buckle at the knees and drop dead of a heart attack. The equation you have just stated (E=mc^2) says that mass is equivalent to energy so when you use the equation m=g*m0 where g=gamma and m0=rest mass, that it is a two way street. I say that m = m0 + E/C^2 where the second term is the excess mass (m - m0) as pure energy in the system and dependent on where the observer "sits". The second term disappears in the frame of the moving particle and is a different "system" to the first. You understand that energy must relate to a system and it means always capacity to do work. This has to be related to a “system”. Energy is nothing you can see or hold in your hand. It is equivalent to mass but it is only a form of "currency" to trade for mass, as you will have read in other sections of this thread.

isn't everything energy, just in different states, that is, if Mass is energy slowed down?

I think that people do confuse light with pure energy (that “slowed down” bit gives it away). There is a spiritual connection, the biblical forces of light and dark, Star Wars etc. That brings us to the interesting idea of the "speed of dark" being faster than "the speed of light" cause we see what's winning "down here" (joke).

Photons are what we call “light”. It is the “exchange particle” for force in our “system”. At least that is the particle we associate with it. Actually light is a sensation our "ape" brains have when photons enter the eye. Often we think that that process in our brain of interpreting the Universe is the real Universe. I am sure that people think that what they are seeing is "out there" is the reality... Instead of it being "inside here" (pointing to my head). You see for most of us all Physics is "local" it happens where the observer is not "out there". The ideas of "out there" are survival mechanisms developed by the brain through the process of evolution.

A "blind" worm on the bottom of the sea has no such conception of "out there" since such mechanisms never evolved. He never needed them. Consider the difference between the worm and us and then us and some other level of evolved sentient being loosed of the restraints of the internal processes of the eye and now endowed with a process that is able to remotely view the external Universe independently of the eye's mechanism. This is the fabled ESP or concepts of spirit or some "spooky" phenomenon related to Quantum Mechanics.

Yet it is possible to conceive it as another step in our evolution and the Universe may be developing it as an extension of creation in general. What will this facility have? Let’s say it is related to the quantum process and if it is directly observed is destroyed. It would be a form of direct information exchange between the "systems" out there and our internal "system", the mind. We have only recently discovered a link with quantum entanglement, which is instantaneous and can connect distant processes and disconnected "systems". Here we have a mechanism. It is part of the natural world and therefore could theoretically participate in the evolutionary process. I hope it has. biggrin.gif

Cheers
#5alive
QUOTE (NeoHippie+Jan 15 2005, 02:51 AM)
In laymens terms (please), what is wrong with this statement:

Once you reach the speed of light, time would stop and your mass would become infinite.

I am sincerely curious about this and wish to learn more - thanks!

huh.gif

so that's why god never leves his throne.............i've fallen and i can't get up!
rayfromjersey
In response to the question "Once you reach the speed of light" can be answered by understanding that there is no such thing as catching up to a photon. Say you are in a shuttle that could reach 99.9% the speed of light, at that speed you would be 22 times heavier. So would your ship. With increased weight it becomes harder to accelerate...but say your ship has turbo boosters that can push you to an awsome speed of 99.99999999% the speed of light, your mass would increase by a factor of 70,000 making it even harder to go any faster. since mass increases without limit as it approaches the speed of light, it requires a push with an infinate amount of energy to reach the light barrier. This is impossible.
If you could harness all of the energy in our universe and use it to push one particle of matter, you still wouldnt be able to get it to reach the speed of light. Remember that photons are massless particles. Only those lucky massless, (and ageless), particles like photons and the elussive graitons have the ability to communicate at light speed. Photons do not age. Photons from the big bang are the same age as they were 13 billion years ago. "0".
I do not take credit for the first paragraph for I read it in a book written by Brian Greene called the Elegant Universe. I recommend this book to anyone and everyone. It's accurate, enjoyable, and easy to understand.
ARtone
Hi Elf

Theoretically a clock may stop but time wouldnt and I repeat clocks are little to do with time they just measure the periodicity of events. we made clocks but not time. This extract was taken from a stamford university mailer but was unatributed

A Clock by Another Mechanism
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The circadian clock enables diverse organisms to adapt their life to
light-dark alterations of the day. It has been thought that a universal
clock mechanism that generates and maintains self-sustainable oscillations,
or rhythms, is based on a translation-transcription autoregulatory feedback
model of core clock elements. (p. 251) demonstrate that this model does not
apply to cyanobacteria, the simplest organism known to show a circadian
rhythm. Oscillation in the phosporylation of a core clock protein KaiC
persisted in the dark, in the absence of any translation-transcription
loop. The basis of the rhythm lies in the autoregulation of phosphorylation
by KaiC itself. Thus, the clock model in eukaryotes may not apply to
cyanobacteria under certain conditions.


As for light being a beam thats about as true as a hosepipe having streams of water.

AR
ARtone
Hi Jersy Ray

who says mass = weight it could be just energy say rotational speed adding energy sound feasible adding weight doesnt.

Also dont agree that photons are particles at all just an EM burst or wave packet where the electric fiel waveform is balanced by the magnetic thus giving the packet a zero waveform effect therefore having no velocity as such.

AR
Good Elf
Hi Jolly Roger,

Jolly Roger Posted on Jan 15 2005, 07:09 PM
QUOTE
In Casimir cavities, it has been shown that the index of refraction is less than 1....EM modes blocked in the cavity,...light has fewer allowable opportunities to pop into particle-antiparticle pairs ... photons have to spend more of their lives as photons, they actually move faster

I think it is possible. I would not rule it out. But...I don't like that idea because it directly invokes a material medium between the plates slowing down light (though transitory). That leads to the question of a material medium actually being needed for the transport of light. I think that that point is actually ruled out by Michelson-Moreley Experiment and others that have ruled out the ether theory. I have made comments about the merit of a paper that said that Michelson-Moreley Experiments hinted at the existence of "something else" but I think that something else is not an ether.

I am not an expert on the Casmir effect and it is tied up with all types of overunity energy devices and free energy systems. If we are considering a couple of plates separated by a small distance then the dielectric can be chosen from a number of materials. There are even negative refractive index materials to choose from. I guess what you are saying is that it is a general principle that the refractive index is lowered between the plates. With all the best intentions... I have not been able to find that assertion as a confirmed fact. That does not mean that it is not so.

I would hope that photons while travelling and in the absence of atomic nuclei do not spontaneously create particle-antiparticle pairs. I think the symmetry of such reactions require a diffracting particle (correct me if I am wrong). If such a reaction occurs to a photon(s) it would probably lose it's qubit and would suffer some Compton scattering effects and the frequency of the continually regenerated photon would rapidly fall. It may be still light after this process but would not be diffracting and entangled with the source any more and the dynamics and energy processes will be different to that of a "coherent" photon. To affect the speed of light generally through a "gap" (refractive index) all transmitted photons would need to suffer the same process. To make this process seem "uniform" there would need to be a lot of these scattering reactions occurring. I am uncomfortable with that.

My understanding of the Casmir Effect is rather simplistic. The two plates "block" the large photons (low energy) getting into the gap while outside these plates large photons are not removed from the system and through a pressure differential, force the plates together. Between the plates fewer but only shorter wavelength photons can pass. There is a natural refractive index dependence on frequency and varies with different substances. Maybe we are only dealing with a vacuum? Selectively filtering out certain low frequencies would leave behind only "smaller" photons, which are higher in energy and are not "bent as much by a medium" whatever it may be. Thus usually selecting a lower RI overall. I would need more references to confirm this point and to have a good idea. Clearly in some cases of specific frequency bands and gaps the RI is likely to rise or fall anyway.

I realize ARTone has a few ideas about all this and suggests that in a refractive medium that continual absorption and emission is what causes the speed of light to be determined in refractive medium (slowing the photons down). I don’t think he would like to have that absorption and emission process being matter-antimatter processes.

It is not an entirely satisfactory answer but better than squibbing out of it. But it is a controversial and difficult one because of the complex issues here. blink.gif

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi rayfromjersey,

rayfromjersey Posted on Jan 16 2005, 04:45 PM
QUOTE
understanding that there is no such thing as catching up to a photon

I think I said that. It is only a "gedunken" experiment. It is all in my head. It’s what Einstein did when he thought up his Special Theory. I am in “good” company.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
understanding that there is no such thing as catching up to a photon

I think I said that. It is only a "gedunken" experiment. It is all in my head. It’s what Einstein did when he thought up his Special Theory. I am in “good” company.

With increased weight it becomes harder to accelerate...but say your ship has turbo boosters that can push you to an awsome speed of 99.99999999% the speed of light, your mass would increase by a factor of 70,000 making it even harder to go any faster. since mass increases without limit as it approaches the speed of light, it requires a push with an infinite amount of energy to reach the light barrier. This is impossible.

With all respect, I thought that I had indicated that I believe in the "Clock Paradox" and that the elapsed time of any trip being made would be being timed by the traveller. The faster he goes the slower time gets for him (relative to external observers). The slower time gets for the traveller the faster he is estimating his velocity (distance over time elapsed). Lets say he travels at that fantastic speed and only 5 seconds of his time (ship time) elapse on a trip across the Galaxy and back what is going to be his estimated velocity as calculated by that clock? Externally "observers" see him pushing only the speed of light (from underneath). The traveller though has the "illusion" of no upper speed limit because he can go anywhere in as short a period of his time he chooses. He sees no "redline" on his speedo.

The ship will not "apparently" become harder to accelerate to the traveller because Einstein said so. He said that the laws of Physics are not modified by an inertial reference frame change, all are equivalent. Those lost ticks allow the boosters to give the same kick to our traveller at any speed (same gees). Externally it seems to be a hopeless cause since apparently little is gained. Actually it allows the traveller to go further and faster in his lifespan. This is not immediately obvious to observers or "hardened" Physicists.

The increased weight thing is not a problem for travellers it is a problem for observers. I think it might be a good time to re-read my "longish" posts. Sorry about that! I contend that that "mass" is not "ponderable" mass. If I am handed a piece of mass I like to be able to "heft" it. If I am handed energy (as Einstein said mass is equivalent to energy) I can't see it or heft it, it is an "invisible" stuff and it depends on the frame of reference it is measured in. That is what the observers "see" not what "is".

QUOTE
I do not take credit for the first paragraph for I read it in a book written by Brian Greene called the Elegant Universe. I recommend this book to anyone and everyone. It's accurate, enjoyable, and easy to understand.

No offence - I know - and it is wrong! Stop reading other people's books and start thinking about the ideas for yourself. That’s what I did and it is a great feeling when all that cr#p goes away. It is not “easy to understand” if it is wrong.

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi ARTone,

ARtone Posted on Jan 16 2005, 05:28 PM
QUOTE
who says mass = weight it could be just energy say rotational speed adding energy sound feasible adding weight doesnt.

I don't agree strictly with this but at least it is energy and that is progress.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
who says mass = weight it could be just energy say rotational speed adding energy sound feasible adding weight doesnt.

I don't agree strictly with this but at least it is energy and that is progress.

a clock may stop but time wouldn’t and I repeat clocks are little to do with time they just measure the periodicity of events

Yes AR but this assumes that our clock is working according to the clockmakers specifications. I really want to measure "periodic" events. smile.gif Please let me do that!!! smile.gif This is not moth time or squid time or hibernating bear time this is "clock" time and I really mean a well "craftsman" built and calibrated, thermally corrected, fully working clock proofed against acceleration and the rigours of space travel. I also want to have an identical clock left behind (damn the expense - I will have two clocks!!!) just so we can compare them when the traveller returns. I will pay all the costs for the clocks and you can pick up the bill for the spaceship. This is because special relativity is all about clocks and synchronizing them and comparing them. That is “chronological” clocks.

While a hibernating bear "experiences" a loss of time while hibernating this is psychological time not "chronological clock" time. The bear is still aging according to "chronological clock" time. I experience a loss of time when I sleep at night (I get very little of that with this Forum blink.gif ) but by the clock beside the bed I am still getting older (even asleep) at the same rate and it is "chronological" time.

QUOTE
As for light being a beam that’s about as true as a hosepipe having streams of water

OK OK OK... you are right but I can shine a flashlight on the sidewalk can't I if I supply the batteries? biggrin.gif That is what I am doing, shining a flashlight after the spaceship but some of the beam is skimming over that "straight yellow brick road in the sky". The beam end travels away at the speed of light. It gives the spaceship and observers something to look at otherwise you can't see light. Everybody see the light travel at the speed of light. Observers see the light approaching the spaceship slowly (difference in velocities) but still travelling at the speed of light. The traveller sees the light travelling and closing at the speed of light (he has really really really good eyes). The frequency is red shifted though.

Cheers
z
Hi all,

Time, mass/energy, and relative velocity are all dependent on the measuring observer. Even iff the observed element is moving near c with respect to one observe, it will have a whole spectrum of velocities, times, and mass/energy with respect to other observers.

z
Good Elf
Hi z,

I did cut corners there. You are quite right. Having to describe all observers is a pain so I referred to "observers” generally as meaning all low velocity observers relative to Earths Velocity frame of reference. These are probably the sort of observers 'we" are going to be for a while yet. I assumed "all that stuff I have said before" being already understood. It is a presumption. It cuts down on my lengthy posts (have a look above) but it results in a loss of understanding to those just entering the debate. Sigh!!!

There are a lot of issues regarding the phrase "moving clocks run slow". The loss of time from such clocks relative to an external frame of reference is a General Relativistic effect and is not a "vector" quantity. You can lose this time "just running in circles". The optical effects of relativity are vector quantities and do not represent "real" positions and times unless we are privy to "special " information about other frames of reference that are usually unknown through lack of synchronization of clocks.

This means that two or more spaceships can go on trips exploring different areas of space and when they return as long as they have similar histories of acceleration and periods of constant velocity relative to "home base" these things add up "scalar-wise" and all lose the same amount of time (together). These travellers could be a space faring civilization(s) that rendezvous "infrequently", "home base" time, to exchange information. They will age slowly and gracefully together... All the while the eras of Earth's (home base) history flashes bye relative to them. The advantage is they get to see and do "stuff" the rest of us would not be able to do. Our lives would be like glowing embers in a fire, glowing brightly for a few moments then fading just as quickly.

They don't live longer just slower.

As you also rightly point out if there are other regimes of travellers they will experience intermediate effects. All these civilizations will all be like “White Rabbits” looking at their fob watches running to appointments and squealing “I’m late, I’m late”. There will possibly be many “White Rabbit” Civilizations in the Universe if Aliens have mastered space travel at relativistic speed. That will also be the main reason they seem less than interested in us.

The interesting thing will be if they have also combined this with a form of time travel using frame dragging. Who knows? (rhetorical question – no answer "at this time" needed). wink.gif

Cheers
NeoHippie
Well, glad we got that cleared up...

I am speechless.

Now, with respect to the Twin Paradox and how that was 'proven' with airplanes; I am a little dumbfouded as to what to make of the actual clock on the airplaine showing less time elapsed. It's very strange to think that for each twin to experience the same amount of ticks in a minute, they would have to experiance different amounts of time; that time does not remain constant for both twins. Space-Time is a tricky concept because it seems to be completely reletive to the observer.

What is the difference between light and energy? Remember now, go slow for the short bus kid...



Thanks
rpenner
QUOTE (Jolly Roger+Jan 15 2005, 07:09 PM)
In Casimir cavities, it has been shown that the index of refraction is less than 1.  And the greater the number of EM modes blocked in the cavity, the lower the index of refraction.

While phase velocity is superluminal, wavefronts move (signal velocity) <= c.

This can be true whenever a medium forbids some modes.

QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
However, at certain frequencies (e.g. near absorption resonances, and for x-rays), n will actually be smaller than one. This does not contradict the theory of relativity, which holds that no information-carrying signal can ever propagate faster than c, because the phase velocity is not the same as the group velocity or the signal velocity.
Wikipedia: Refractive Index

Superluminal Gaussian Pulses in Material with Negative Absorption

So, I don't think the Casmir effect leads to superluminal propagation of energy or information.
Good Elf
Hi NeoHippie,

NeoHippie Posted on Jan 18 2005, 02:22 AM
QUOTE
Now, with respect to the Twin Paradox and how that was 'proven' with airplanes; I am a little dumbfouded as to what to make of the actual clock on the airplaine showing less time elapsed.

Regarding the Jet carrying atomic clocks this points to a link you can right click and save that will be a short video by Peter Ustinov from the TV Program Einstein's Universe http://home.hockaday.org/HockadayNet/acade.../einstuniv.html where this is shown and how they react to the earths gravity field. Relativity Plane
There is some more topical stuff with number of video links to the topic below...
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories -> SR vs Ether (Good Elf, Page 3 near the bottom of page). This shows a lot of effects I have spoken of but always they will make a couple of errors in interpretation. I hasten to point out that the speedometers on the motorcycles are calibrated for "observers" not the "rider". If you look at "Peter and Albert" video this is a gravitational version of clock paradox where (paradoxically) they "get it right" with the clock on the wall.

NeoHippie Posted on Jan 18 2005, 02:22 AM
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Now, with respect to the Twin Paradox and how that was 'proven' with airplanes; I am a little dumbfouded as to what to make of the actual clock on the airplaine showing less time elapsed.

Regarding the Jet carrying atomic clocks this points to a link you can right click and save that will be a short video by Peter Ustinov from the TV Program Einstein's Universe http://home.hockaday.org/HockadayNet/acade.../einstuniv.html where this is shown and how they react to the earths gravity field. Relativity Plane
There is some more topical stuff with number of video links to the topic below...
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories -> Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories -> SR vs Ether (Good Elf, Page 3 near the bottom of page). This shows a lot of effects I have spoken of but always they will make a couple of errors in interpretation. I hasten to point out that the speedometers on the motorcycles are calibrated for "observers" not the "rider". If you look at "Peter and Albert" video this is a gravitational version of clock paradox where (paradoxically) they "get it right" with the clock on the wall.

NeoHippie Posted on Jan 18 2005, 02:22 AM
What is the difference between light and energy?

This thread does deal with this issue in some depth (earlier) but it is difficult to do more without introducing the Maths. I really think that is not necessary. There are a number of "elementary" textbooks that describe energy quite well. It is when it comes to Relativity that they seem to forget the basic principles developed in those texts and go "bananas" as if they were dealing with something else altogether..

The question of light and what has it to do with energy? Well light are the exchange particles of our Universe and so they exert "force". In that sense it is "energy" because you can define work done by a force as F*d*sin(theta) where F=force and d=distance and sin(theta) the angle between them. This is also a measure of useable energy for a subset of systems. But be aware that not all force or energy processes are associated with the "optical" process of light. If you have a bowling ball at the top of a flight of stairs (just sitting there) that is "potential energy". There is no "light" associated with it. When I "press the flesh" with a handshake, that is force and there are virtual photons involved in that force but still you will not see any "light" at all. I really don't know if there is any virtual photon processes that involve light. I can't think of any.... Maybe readers out there can help with this? One thought is with evanescent waves there may be “light” that can be seen using negative refractive index materials. All "light" experiences involve "real" photons. These are travelling photons, "launched" and radiating as inverse square law propagation similar to a laser or a radio transmitter. These both release photons the former is "light" and you can really see it the second is also "light", just that you cannot see it only because it is beyond our optic spectral range.

So what are these virtual photons? Here is a "simple" answer to this question. Virtual Particles FAQ
If you see this paper by John Baez and like it then you will probably like almost everything he writes. He tries to "dumb it down" for "us" Physicists because he knows that not all of us (including me) is a Richard Feynman. Try this John Baez's Website

Remember that Good Elf is not that big on "everything" so this is the sort of thing he needs to be mindful of sometimes. This comes from the "evil empire" of particle interactions. To make an assault on this methodology takes a more elevated being than technical elves. A true "wizard" perhaps.

Well virtual photons can be dumbed down even further to say that these "exchange" forces is like two "charged particle" guys standing in a field and throwing "virtual photon" frisbees at each other. The force of attraction or repulsion depends on how they catch their frisbees. They can throw frisbees directly towards each other or the frisbees can loop behind each of them and they can catch them facing away from each other. In the former case this is repulsion and in the latter case it is attraction.

This leads to electric charges and the attraction and repulsion between these electromagnetic entities in the near field and the far field. These forces can communicate or be exchanged, as the article says, faster than light as long as no information is exchanged (or can it?). This is quantum entanglement as John Baez explained. It occurs with everything in the electromagnetic realm and it does lead to strange phenomena and this also lead to those "optical phenomena" I have mentioned in relativity of "macroscopic objects". I deal only with the "biggies" and John Baez grapples with the "littlies". It may be hard to see but it is the same problem though. The "optical phenomena" I have mentioned does convey some sort of information if you can read it.

There is a problem with interpretation somewhere between these two "Universes" of Physics. I see one problem with Relativity of the "macroscopic" and this "probably" leads to inconsistencies in the "microscopic". You see nothing in all this takes account of "moving clocks running slow" in the microscopic realm and trying to synchronize them. That does not mean that they do not run slow and are not losing time relative to the rest of the system. They must. None of these accounts for differences between perception of vector relativistic phenomena and what really is happening with those entities in three-dimensional space. This has been dropped out of the quantum equations to make it tractable. I think it has added to the woes along the road a little further.

In a simple elfish way I think we should take care of the "biggies" and this will show the way to take care of the "littlies" and the middle will eventually fall out of it. rolleyes.gif

Cheers
z
Hi Elf,

I think a major point from GR is the conservation of energy/momentum, not just both of them seperately. I think this could lead to the derivation of SR from GR.

I would also generalize this to a rule of conservation of energy/momentum and angular energy/angular momentum. Maybe even to a sort of overriding conservation law including all four concepts like conservation of energy/momentum/angular energy/angular momentum.

z
Jolly Roger
QUOTE (rpenner+Jan 18 2005, 08:55 AM)
While phase velocity is superluminal, wavefronts move (signal velocity) <= c.

This can be true whenever a medium forbids some modes.

Rpenner, I really appreciate your responses, as you typically have them well thought out. However, I think that's a rather pat answer you've given. If the casimir cavity is a complete vacuum, you still experience an index of refraction <1, and that index of refraction applies to all EM velocities, /including/ your group velocity.

That bit about the vacuum applies to Good Elf's comment as well.

QUOTE (Good Elf+ Jan 17 2005, 07:38 AM)
...I don't like that idea because it directly invokes a material medium between the plates slowing down light (though transitory). That leads to the question of a material medium actually being needed for the transport of light...

...If we are considering a couple of plates separated by a small distance then the dielectric can be chosen from a number of materials. There are even negative refractive index materials to choose from. I guess what you are saying is that it is a general principle that the refractive index is lowered between the plates...

I would hope that photons while travelling and in the absence of atomic nuclei do not spontaneously create particle-antiparticle pairs. I think the symmetry of such reactions require a diffracting particle (correct me if I am wrong)...


I'm correcting you. Sort of. smile.gif QED Vacua are full of virtual particle interactions, and there is plenty opportunity for light-scattering effects in complete vacuum. There really is no such thing as a true vacuum, even if it's devoid of all detectable particles. The zero-point field in open vacuum has a certain density, and this provides all the mediation necessary for gamma-rays to create antiparticle/particle pairs, slowing the light propogation speed in normal vacuum compared to a hypothetical true vacuum without ZPF interactions. In such a vacuum, you'd find the light propogation speed far greater than c (perhaps infinite?).

I've taken the liberty of doing some searching for some relevant papers rolleyes.gif :

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0107091 (Faster-than-c signals, special relativity, and causality)
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9804375 (Light propagation in non-trivial QED vacua)
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9911062 (The Light Velocity Casimir Effect - Does the Velocity of Light Increase when Propagating Between the Casimir Plates?)
Good Elf
Hi z,

z Posted on Jan 18 2005, 06:51 PM
QUOTE
major point from GR is the conservation of energy/momentum, not just both of them separately.

Hmmm, I see your point. That was not the thought that I was trying to convey. The conservation of the 4-momentum is “a given" with all these matters. They are not separate. What I meant was break up the trip into "segments" that result in delays which will be "known" during the trip of the target. Naturally different “White Rabbit“ space ships will have different histories of acceleration and velocity at different times but they will be able to adjust the total amount of “lost” time of all their clocks to be able to make the rendezvous.

I hate to pour cold water on some treatments of this subject but exact position and momentum of a "free" particle being accelerated relativistically in 3D is really a very complex problem. It is not as simple as many have said using straight special relativity. The best indicator would appear to me to be a "flight plan". If they deviate from that flight plan it will be impossible to tell what is happening in real time or perhaps any time.

I have used the analogy of solving for position on the surface of the earth using GPS instruments require a bevy of special and general relativistic corrections in order not to wander by up to 12 Kms per day on the earth’s surface. This problem is far more complex.

It may not be possible to completely account for all “vector” effects because I have not backed down from the proposal that these are not true indicators of position and momentum, especially where the target can vary it's history trace in space. Remember we can't "see" in "space-time". These manoeuvres are not directly "observable" because of the general lack of the ability to synchronize clocks between observer and target in 'transit", though it may become a record of history of the target when at last observer and target clock are finally synchronized in truly General Relativistic fashion by being in the same inertial acceleration frame and an exchange of signals allowing for propagation delay. They can then exchange a ship log to get better plots.

There are no such ability as "remotely viewing" any event since all events must be measured from a local frame of reference. These "observables” involve red and blue shifts, spatial distortions of both position and depth perception and inability to measure remotely the energy of the system accurately. The distortion of observed velocity alone will appear to indicate that all receding objects at distance can perceptually not exceed 1/2 the apparent speed of light (standard result). Small "remote" measurement errors in position and velocity near the speed of light lead to enormous errors in temporal calculations for the target. This has a knock on effect to position. Effectively a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for macroscopic bodies (not really - but the spirit is the same).

During on course manoeuvrings the target will have an opportunity to "stop" and determine position relative to some "beacons" (very expensive process) which may allow him to calculate where he may be currently. His acceleration history (as a vector) will indicate exactly how much 'absolute" time (as a scalar) he has lost relative to the observer clock "left behind". A quick look at Earth when he thinks he has "stopped" relative to the observer clock can be made by using a telescope looking at earth and determining any red of blue shifts in a beacon signal. Zero shifts will indicate 'rough" equivalent velocity match (at the epoch allowing for time lost and ship time and propagation delays). Of course the position of the earth may be far removed when such a measurement is made so it is only "rough". The present position and direction of motion of the Earth can be "calculated' from an Ephemeris to correct some proper motion using the time lost calculation and ship time (not easy but do-able). With this information he can "chart" a dead reckoning path back to where he needs to be later.

That is the sort of thing a 'White Rabbit “Civilization would do. They would rendezvous with approximate similar lost times near or at the unmanned "observer" position and beacon so that they would be able to carry on information exchange over centuries observer time, but only a few years ship time.

4-momentum will be conserved but the 'observer" will have no way of accounting for that at all. Most events, though remaining in sequence, are affected by imprecise knowledge of position without the ships log. It will be a hard problem for a savvy star ship commander to do on paper even knowing his personal history but with computers it should be easy enough to get it into the "ballpark".

I would like to point out most theoretical discussion involves "observer" frames of reference which are of little use for precise measurements. To really see what is really happening… Only “local” target based observations can account for the motion of the target completely and not necessarily all of the time.

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi Jolly,

Jolly Roger Posted: Jan 15 2005, 07:09 PM
QUOTE
So, good elf, this is your thread... any thoughts on that?

I got in over my head on this one...
Good Elf Posted: Jan 17 2005, 07:38 AM
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So, good elf, this is your thread... any thoughts on that?

I got in over my head on this one...
Good Elf Posted: Jan 17 2005, 07:38 AM
I would hope that photons while travelling and in the absence of atomic nuclei do not spontaneously create particle-antiparticle pairs

I still hope that...
Good Elf Posted: Jan 17 2005, 07:38 AM
QUOTE
Selectively filtering out certain low frequencies would leave behind only "smaller" photons, which are higher in energy and are not "bent as much by a medium" whatever it may be. Thus usually selecting a lower RI overall.

I said (in that other post) that you are selecting shorter wavelengths and these will usually travel (in a medium) faster but it will depend on the medium.

Please note that in a true vacuum all frequencies will travel at the same speed (the speed of light). This would mean if it occurs that the interaction with the plates is effectively a "medium" (conductive sheets like a capacitor) if between the plates is a true vacuum. Sort of a waveguide. This means a velocity change independent of interacting particles in the gap??? This is not a problem for me with the level of this discussion. The other point is you really don't need a true vacuum for light to travel at the speed of light. It is a choice of frequency and just what size the dispersive medium becomes interactive.

While I concede that matter - anti-matter reactions coming from the ZPE "field" are possible they are not likely for most photons travelling in the vacuum of space. I can say this because I can see distant parts of the Universe and the phase information is retained for almost all photons I see (the Hubble Telescope works even for "deep field" photographs don't they). This must be the result of photons travelling effectively "untouched" across those spaces without interception.

Simple experiment profound result.

Most photons have a small cross section for interaction with single atoms unless they can scatter them. Lone atoms are not good targets for that process. It requires a symmetry breakdown locally to produce the particle - anti-particle pair even for a moment. There are virtual photons between the plates but these are no problem. Cosmic Ray photons have a higher cross section for such symmetry breaking reactions but I don't see too many of them. There is categorically NO possibility of two or more photons interacting with each other to provide any symmetry breakdown to provide particle and anti-particles.

I had a "peek" at the papers you had links to. The first one said "tachyons" - My brain glazed over.
In the second paper they are speaking of "dyons" and thus it is a string theory and Plancks length stuff tie in ... Once again my brain glazed over.
In the third paper speaks of selectively choosing high energy photons actually leading to increased actual velocity for light. This is speculative (as the paper notes) and once again I think there are simpler explanations for this phenomena. Of course if the theory "gets legs" and they do the experiment it will be "me too".

I will reiterate I am not really a Casimir Effect buff along with all those "difficult" attendant problems and emotions with over unity stuff. It is far too complex and speculative. I know it is part of the "whole" but elves have too small a brain to know the "whole". blink.gif

This thread is about "Relativity and physical reality" and it is a bit off topic here. That’s not to put you off I just don’t have all the answers on that and I don't think anyone has them either (at least not without a fight!). It's not my fight though.

Cheers

hfilipenk
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jan 12 2005, 11:27 PM)
Hi All,

I am a true supporter of Einstein and his Theories of Relativity. But it is "interesting" to note that the interpretation of the Physical Reality associated with his derivation is open to interpretation. In some quarters this has led to "blind" physics which says "it is impossible to interpret anything in the Universe without recourse to a very good dose of mathematical analysis and at the same time that analysis is a substitute for common sense and internal visualisations of the theories". When in doubt - just do the calculation.



They do have a sensible understanding of the Clock Paradox. This takes away some of the nonsense and shows how clocks are not just "mechanically" affected by gravitational or acceleration affects, they are true representations of a change in rate of time. But they also assert that:
"An absolute 'reference time rate' can be defined using a clock located in a frame in which the velocity and the gravitational potential are well described. "
I disagree with this "absolute" frame of reference unless some clock synchronization process is also provided. That is where it fails (in my opinion).



Cheers

SR vs Ether, Is Special Relativity correct?

hfilipenk Posted on Jan 9 2005, 10:42 AM


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Member No.: 2906
Joined: 11-December 04



QUOTE (hfilipenk @ Jan 8 2005, 04:04 PM)
SR, it is correct only for light in non-material system of coordinates!
For a material world she is not applicable.


Effects of twins, hours, weights and others should turn out from the general theory of a relativity (if at all they exist).

Abstract SR can speak only about space and time in a certain ideal system of coordinates.

Senselessly to draw conclusions from SR for a material world.

No comments!
Good Elf
Hi hfilipenk,

i see where you are coming from but I disagree. I can buy a $300 GPS unit that uses both special and general relativity and it allows me to determine my position on the earths surface "pretty" accurately to plus or minus 5 meters. If you were motivated by military goals you can do even better with more "terms". So it is not so unrealistic after all. just difficult.

Cheers
z
Hi,

An index of refraction of >1 in the Casimir effect implies that the nature of the vacuum (whether it be particle field or wave description) is being distorted to produce such an effect. Thus the vacuum is not a tue vacuum but has such distortable properties.

It is possible that this will allow fields to be developed to allow FTL. I have read that the limiting velocity in space/time is really on the order of c squared. This is often claimed to be the propagation velocity of gravity and also of torsion waves.

On the subject of refraction, I have also heard that the bending of light near a material object may be caused by the varying of the index of refraction of the vacuum due to gravity.This was mentioned in a talk by Tom Van Flandern.

z
ARtone
Hi z

On the subject of a vacuum

There is a difference between a spacial vacuum and one created artificially here on Earth in that the Earth mass re-aligns the aether particles. The earth vacuum contains the re-aligned aether whereas the spatial vacuum remains in the universal orientation.

Each different medium Air, water etc modifies the aether to a lesser or greater extent producing different refractions

AR
Good Elf
Hi hfilipenk,

hfilipenk Posted: Jan 19 2005, 06:46 PM
QUOTE
Abstract SR can speak only about space and time in a certain ideal system of coordinates. Senselessly to draw conclusions from SR for a material world.

Disagree. All sciences make very bold claims about how the material world behaves using incredibly simplistic models of that external world. I defy anyone to speak of a any physical system without using "many" of these abstractions. All human effort would have amounted to naught without these "idealizations". For instance the discussion of any real physical body involves usually the quiet acknowledgement of many assumptions such as:
1) Physical extent.... Physical bodies have physical extent. Usually abstracted to point sources.
2) Physical chemical variation (property of the outer electron shells of individual atoms). Material uniformity is assumed.
3) Simplicity of motion - we ignore the natural vibration and modes of vibration and the forces in bonds in complex physical bodies. Sometimes the body's rotation and elasticity.
4) Effects of EM near fields and advanced potentials.
5) Propagation times over small distances.
6) Effects of Gravitation except in special cases.
7) The presumption of continuity both spatially and temporally.
8) Sometimes ignoring of the Earth's gravitational field or small order other natural phenomena.
9) The existence of a medium even in space.
10) .... a million other assumptions that other theories contribute to present evolving theories and are acknowledged very very quietly indeed.

One really big assumption is the assumptions of the linear algebraic tensor processes behind special and general theory that are acknowledged to pose as ‘problems” for any “real” systems existing in any even slightly curved spaces.

Regardless, these processes work and lead to sensible answers to the real Universe. The Theory of Special Relativity is another such abstraction that "works" provided that you do not push it too far. Even when it is 'pushed too far" it gives some ideas how to proceed without the mathematical rigor.

No criticism intended and I realize that there is some truth in what you say but it is certainly a way to progress. What worries me is that many think that just because they 'generalized the methodology that it automatically makes it 'better" than a "simple" answer.

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi z,

z Posted on Jan 20 2005, 10:02 PM
QUOTE
I have read that the limiting velocity in space/time is really on the order of c squared. This is often claimed to be the propagation velocity of gravity and also of torsion waves.

While this may be quoted this does not make it true. I would also say there is direct experimental evidence not to support this.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I have read that the limiting velocity in space/time is really on the order of c squared. This is often claimed to be the propagation velocity of gravity and also of torsion waves.

While this may be quoted this does not make it true. I would also say there is direct experimental evidence not to support this.

I have also heard that the bending of light near a material object may be caused by the varying of the index of refraction of the vacuum due to gravity. This was mentioned in a talk by Tom Van Flandern.

yup... Interesting and might be true. But Tom has had some spectacular failures with predictions that Kopeiken made with the recent measurement of the Velocity of Gravity (measured as equal to the speed of light to the accuracy of the experiment).

It is good to have an "open mind" but don't let your neighbours squat on you "property" - they may gain ownership. wink.gif

Cheers
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.