Is Length Contraction in SR physical??
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Simultaneous events and Einstein's absolute time
Next: New Theory --- The Theory of Quantum Wave Sources
From: mpalenik on 8 Feb 2010 07:36 On Feb 8, 7:27 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Indeed, but in any event that remains to be experimentally verified > and physically explained. The physical explanation is the Minkowskian geometry of spacetime which you have only ruled out because you don't like it. Regardless, you can't even have modified length contractions and claim that your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR. To be equivalent, your theory must reproduce the exact same length contractions that SR predicts. > > > Not only that, but when > > viewed from the front, one would see length expansions, and from the > > side one would see nothing at all. > > Well, from the side one *would* see an effect, but nothing we need to > concern ourselves with for the sake of this argument. > If we are talking about length contractions/expansions, then no. If you view it exactly when the center of the object is directly in front of you (or to be more specific, when the light from the two ends from when the center of the object was directly in front of you hits you. If we are talking about blurring, then yes.
From: Peter Webb on 8 Feb 2010 07:46 We seem to be getting somewhere now. I can basically understand the principle of how that carries out a detection. Now, do you have any data that plots detections and velocities, at different speeds? ________________________ "Plots velocities at different speeds"! ROFL! The explanation of how the detector works actually explains how energy and direction are determined for several different particle types and classes. And *none* of it relies on shining beams of light at the particles. And what the details of detector designs has to do with your disbelief in SR is a bit of a mystery to me. In the face of overwhelming evidence that SR does work, as witnessed by the fact that it is used every day in every particle accelerator in the world, the best objection you can come up with is that all the particle detectors might be built wrong?
From: mpalenik on 8 Feb 2010 07:49 On Feb 8, 7:46 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > We seem to be getting somewhere now. I can basically understand the > principle of how that carries out a detection. Now, do you have any > data that plots detections and velocities, at different speeds? > > ________________________ > > "Plots velocities at different speeds"! > > ROFL! > Yeah, I chose not to comment on that, but I noticed it as well.
From: Ste on 8 Feb 2010 08:29 On 8 Feb, 12:36, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 7:27 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Indeed, but in any event that remains to be experimentally verified > > and physically explained. > > The physical explanation is the Minkowskian geometry of spacetime > which you have only ruled out because you don't like it. Minkowski spacetime is a *mathematical* explanation, not a physical one. I dare say that a physical model can be built and explained with plasticine, without any recourse to maths to explain the conceptual foundations. > Regardless, you can't even have modified length contractions and claim > that your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR. To be > equivalent, your theory must reproduce the exact same length > contractions that SR predicts. To be honest, I'm not really that concerned about what is mathematically predicted. I'm more interested in ascertaining the physical explanation for the phenomena in SR, and as yet I have not really turned my mind to the question of how length contraction, if indeed it exists, could occur. I mean, I dare say that any mutual electromagnetic forces between atoms might lower due to the same hypothesis as I'm describing, but without even having the hypothesis accepted as physically credible for the effects that *are* observed, there's little point yet of going on to speculate as to how it might explain other unobserved and unverified effects.
From: mpalenik on 8 Feb 2010 08:38
On Feb 8, 8:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Feb, 12:36, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 8, 7:27 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Indeed, but in any event that remains to be experimentally verified > > > and physically explained. > > > The physical explanation is the Minkowskian geometry of spacetime > > which you have only ruled out because you don't like it. > > Minkowski spacetime is a *mathematical* explanation, not a physical > one. I dare say that a physical model can be built and explained with > plasticine, without any recourse to maths to explain the conceptual > foundations. The geometry of the universe is the explanation, just like how the geometry for the universe is the explanation for why a ladder gets shorter in the x direction if you rotate it. There's nothing more to it than that. If you think there's more to a ladder getting shorter when you rotate it, I'd love to hear your *physical* explanation for why a ladder gets shorter when you rotate it. > > > Regardless, you can't even have modified length contractions and claim > > that your theory is mathematically equivalent to SR. To be > > equivalent, your theory must reproduce the exact same length > > contractions that SR predicts. > > To be honest, I'm not really that concerned about what is > mathematically predicted. I'm more interested in ascertaining the > physical explanation for the phenomena in SR, and as yet I have not > really turned my mind to the question of how length contraction, if > indeed it exists, could occur. If you come up with an explanation but it predicts a different length than SR predicts, then you have not given a physical explanation for SR. You have given a physical explanation for something else. > > I mean, I dare say that any mutual electromagnetic forces between > atoms might lower due to the same hypothesis as I'm describing That would be a possible explanation for *some* of the tests of SR that have been done but not if the speed of light is constant in every frame. See the paper I linked to in the other thread. |