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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

see next post

Hi Jolly Rodger,

Jolly Roger Posted on Jan 13 2005, 01:47 AM

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

Hi Guest,


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

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

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

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

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.

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

Hi a guy,

a guy Posted on Jan 13 2005, 07:16 PM

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

Hi ARTone,

I'm sure that's you again "Guest".
Guest Posted on Jan 13 2005, 08:50 PM

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

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