Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 22 Feb 2010 13:18 On 21 Feb, 18:31, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. > > I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must > be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement > below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it > remains a mystery to you. That's quite true. > > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > > tests for this hypothesis. > > Several things, > > 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is > what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a > medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. > It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. > > 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. > For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, > assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. > > Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by > the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you > realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also > understand that it must remain internally consistent under all > possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity. > For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more > important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such > question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of > space-time'). Indeed. I still can't help thinking that the "physical stresses imposed by the medium" seems just as ad-hoc.
From: Paul Stowe on 22 Feb 2010 13:59 On Feb 22, 10:18 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb, 18:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > > > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > > > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. > > > I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must > > be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement > > below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it > > remains a mystery to you. > > That's quite true. > > > > > > > > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > > > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > > > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > > > tests for this hypothesis. > > > Several things, > > > 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is > > what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a > > medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. > > It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. > > > 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. > > For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, > > assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. > > > Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by > > the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you > > realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also > > understand that it must remain internally consistent under all > > possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity.. > > For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more > > important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such > > question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of > > space-time'). > > Indeed. I still can't help thinking that the "physical stresses > imposed by the medium" seems just as ad-hoc. OK, let's try a visual explanation. As is well observed disturbances in a medium propagate a the root mean speed of its underlying kinetic particles/entities. Movement of sources does change this. This IS a signature characteristic of mediums. So, let take a mundane speaker which vibrates with a fixed displacement of x. As it strokes forward it 'pushes' the medium resulting in a pulse propagating forward at c. Then at 1/2x it reverses, first returning to centerline -1/2x and then continuing backwards another -1/2x, then reversing again. The time this takes is based upon frequency but certainly isn't instantaneous. So, our displacement when 'at rest' is +/-1/2x for a total of x. Now start it moving at some speed v, less than c. It continues to stroke +/- 0.5x but, relative to the medium's rest frame: 1. what does the physical displacement of the diaphragm look like? 2. as a result of the answer to #1 what will the pulses look like in the medium frame of reference? To give you another big clue look at the mathematical roots of the Lorentz Transform (Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]) Take c - v & c + v Then the product of these, (c - v)(c + v) -> c^2 - v^2 Factor out c, c^2(1 - [v/c]^2) thus for any condition with v > 0 c' = cSqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) Therefore the ratio of c'/c is always Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) or the signature Lorentz factor. This should, perhaps, suggest something about the physical basis of the term. Big hint, it not just because that's what the 'structure' is observed to be. Paul Stowe
From: PD on 22 Feb 2010 14:35 On Feb 22, 12:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 10:18 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 21 Feb, 18:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > > > > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > > > > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. > > > > I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must > > > be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement > > > below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it > > > remains a mystery to you. > > > That's quite true. > > > > > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > > > > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > > > > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > > > > tests for this hypothesis. > > > > Several things, > > > > 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is > > > what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a > > > medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. > > > It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. > > > > 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. > > > For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, > > > assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. > > > > Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by > > > the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you > > > realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also > > > understand that it must remain internally consistent under all > > > possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity. > > > For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more > > > important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such > > > question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of > > > space-time'). > > > Indeed. I still can't help thinking that the "physical stresses > > imposed by the medium" seems just as ad-hoc. > > OK, let's try a visual explanation. As is well observed disturbances > in a medium propagate a the root mean speed of its underlying kinetic > particles/entities. This is only true in a *gaseous* medium, and even then it fails when the medium becomes too rarified. It does not work in liquid or solid media. > Movement of sources does change this. This IS a > signature characteristic of mediums. And again this is true only in a small subclass of media. > So, let take a mundane speaker > which vibrates with a fixed displacement of x. As it strokes forward > it 'pushes' the medium resulting in a pulse propagating forward at c. However, note that the speaker cone is not moving at speed c. This we know from a simple comparison of stroboscopic photography of speaker cones, combined with time-of-flight signal measurement of the emerging sound. In fact, it's patently obvious that a speaker cone that can deliver two tones an octave apart (fo and 2fo) has maximum cone speed that differs by a factor of 2, but the signal speed at those two frequencies does not vary by a factor of 2. > Then at 1/2x it reverses, first returning to centerline -1/2x and then > continuing backwards another -1/2x, then reversing again. The time > this takes is based upon frequency but certainly isn't instantaneous. > So, our displacement when 'at rest' is +/-1/2x for a total of x. Now > start it moving at some speed v, less than c. It continues to stroke > +/- 0.5x but, relative to the medium's rest frame: > > 1. what does the physical displacement of the diaphragm > look like? > 2. as a result of the answer to #1 what will the pulses look > like in the medium frame of reference? > > To give you another big clue look at the mathematical roots of the > Lorentz Transform (Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]) > > Take c - v & c + v > > Then the product of these, (c - v)(c + v) -> c^2 - v^2 > > Factor out c, > > c^2(1 - [v/c]^2) > > thus for any condition with v > 0 > > c' = cSqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) > > Therefore the ratio of c'/c is always Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) or the > signature Lorentz factor. > > This should, perhaps, suggest something about the physical basis of > the term. Big hint, it not just because that's what the 'structure' > is observed to be. > > Paul Stowe
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 07:04 If SR is wrong, how come particle accelerators like CERN work properly?
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Mar 2010 10:57
On 3/2/10 9:39 AM, JT wrote: > > Now ***third*** object C must be able to travel at free velocity > relative A and B emitting simultaneously light laser pulses towards A > and B. Now A and B have to time the moment each pulse reach them. > Assume that A and B have identical atomic clocks. That means they tick at the same rate. Now let us suppose that A and B have NO motion, such that their velocity with respect to each other, v = 0, and that dv/dt = 0 . Let's further assume that C is "able to travel at free velocity relative A and B, i.e., v > 0, and that dv/dt = 0 . Disregarding any Doppler shift, C measures B's time interval as ∆t_B' = γ ∆t_B and C measures A's time interval as ∆t_A' = γ ∆t_A where ∆t represent a time interval, v is the relative velocity between C and (A or B), and γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) . Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html More: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/index.html |