Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 31 Mar 2010 08:28 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1a763a4d-f2be-4d9c-b38e-75432d145743(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On 29 Mar, 22:40, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > <...> > > > As I say, I don't think it is wrong. Relativity clearly works - or at > > least to a sufficiently precise approximation. The point is that no > > one seems to be able to explain some of its more esoteric assumptions > > in physical terms - such as the constant speed of light no matter what > > the velocity of the observer. > > That's easy. Sort of. Physical processes propagate at (at most) the > speed of light. This includes the processes which hold matter > together. A given inertial observer watching a second relatively > moving observe measure the "constant" speed of light concludes that > the second observer's matter has shrunk in the direction of travel and > his clocks have slowed, just so as to cause him to measure a constant > speed of light. In straight SR, with complete Lorentz invariance, the > situation is completely reciprocal. Unfortunately, this explanation has previously foundered when I've asked whether this "contraction" is real or apparent. ____________________________ It shouldn't have. The contraction is both real and apparent. Things really do get shorter, clocks run slower, the travelling twin does return younger and the 40 foot pole really does fit in the 20 foot barn. This is confirmed a thousand times a day in engineering systems that have high velocities and accurate clocks. If you have any confusion on this point, the problem is entirely yours.
From: Sue... on 31 Mar 2010 08:51 On Mar 31, 8:28 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1a763a4d-f2be-4d9c-b38e-75432d145743(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 29 Mar, 22:40, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > <...> > > > > As I say, I don't think it is wrong. Relativity clearly works - or at > > > least to a sufficiently precise approximation. The point is that no > > > one seems to be able to explain some of its more esoteric assumptions > > > in physical terms - such as the constant speed of light no matter what > > > the velocity of the observer. > > > That's easy. Sort of. Physical processes propagate at (at most) the > > speed of light. This includes the processes which hold matter > > together. A given inertial observer watching a second relatively > > moving observe measure the "constant" speed of light concludes that > > the second observer's matter has shrunk in the direction of travel and > > his clocks have slowed, just so as to cause him to measure a constant > > speed of light. In straight SR, with complete Lorentz invariance, the > > situation is completely reciprocal. > > Unfortunately, this explanation has previously foundered when I've > asked whether this "contraction" is real or apparent. > > ____________________________ > > It shouldn't have. The contraction is both real and apparent. Things really > do get shorter, clocks run slower, the travelling twin does return younger > and the 40 foot pole really does fit in the 20 foot barn. This is confirmed > a thousand times a day in engineering systems that have high velocities and > accurate clocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > If you have any confusion on this point, the problem is entirely yours.
From: Ste on 31 Mar 2010 10:32 On 31 Mar, 13:28, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1a763a4d-f2be-4d9c-b38e-75432d145743(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On 29 Mar, 22:40, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > <...> > > > > As I say, I don't think it is wrong. Relativity clearly works - or at > > > least to a sufficiently precise approximation. The point is that no > > > one seems to be able to explain some of its more esoteric assumptions > > > in physical terms - such as the constant speed of light no matter what > > > the velocity of the observer. > > > That's easy. Sort of. Physical processes propagate at (at most) the > > speed of light. This includes the processes which hold matter > > together. A given inertial observer watching a second relatively > > moving observe measure the "constant" speed of light concludes that > > the second observer's matter has shrunk in the direction of travel and > > his clocks have slowed, just so as to cause him to measure a constant > > speed of light. In straight SR, with complete Lorentz invariance, the > > situation is completely reciprocal. > > Unfortunately, this explanation has previously foundered when I've > asked whether this "contraction" is real or apparent. > > ____________________________ > > It shouldn't have. The contraction is both real and apparent. Things really > do get shorter, clocks run slower, the travelling twin does return younger > and the 40 foot pole really does fit in the 20 foot barn. This is confirmed > a thousand times a day in engineering systems that have high velocities and > accurate clocks. Yes, but this explanation falls down in failing to explain why the rest of the universe would suddenly "really" contract, just because a single object begins to move at the speed of light. It seems more believable that the effect is apparent and something to do with the changed interaction between the objects due to their high speeds relative to each other. Moreover, if the contraction was "real", it could not be a relative effect (i.e. it would have to effect one or the other), and there is no plausible explanation for a "real" contraction in any case.
From: Peter Webb on 31 Mar 2010 22:58 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:642b164f-9b3c-4b94-a822-180295d7654b(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On 31 Mar, 13:28, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1a763a4d-f2be-4d9c-b38e-75432d145743(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> On 29 Mar, 22:40, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > <...> >> >> > > As I say, I don't think it is wrong. Relativity clearly works - or at >> > > least to a sufficiently precise approximation. The point is that no >> > > one seems to be able to explain some of its more esoteric assumptions >> > > in physical terms - such as the constant speed of light no matter >> > > what >> > > the velocity of the observer. >> >> > That's easy. Sort of. Physical processes propagate at (at most) the >> > speed of light. This includes the processes which hold matter >> > together. A given inertial observer watching a second relatively >> > moving observe measure the "constant" speed of light concludes that >> > the second observer's matter has shrunk in the direction of travel and >> > his clocks have slowed, just so as to cause him to measure a constant >> > speed of light. In straight SR, with complete Lorentz invariance, the >> > situation is completely reciprocal. >> >> Unfortunately, this explanation has previously foundered when I've >> asked whether this "contraction" is real or apparent. >> >> ____________________________ >> >> It shouldn't have. The contraction is both real and apparent. Things >> really >> do get shorter, clocks run slower, the travelling twin does return >> younger >> and the 40 foot pole really does fit in the 20 foot barn. This is >> confirmed >> a thousand times a day in engineering systems that have high velocities >> and >> accurate clocks. > > Yes, but this explanation falls down in failing to explain why the > rest of the universe would suddenly "really" contract, just because a > single object begins to move at the speed of light. No. The explanation is fine, and has been accepted by physicists for over 100 years. It is your understanding that is defective. > It seems more > believable To you. Believable to you. That is because you don't understand it. > that the effect is apparent and something to do with the > changed interaction between the objects due to their high speeds > relative to each other. Moreover, if the contraction was "real", it > could not be a relative effect (i.e. it would have to effect one or > the other), and there is no plausible explanation for a "real" > contraction in any case. Except for the one provided by SR and more specifically the Minkowskian model. This is so plausible that every physicist in the world has believed it for 100 years.
From: Sue... on 31 Mar 2010 23:04
On Mar 31, 10:58 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:642b164f-9b3c-4b94-a822-180295d7654b(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 31 Mar, 13:28, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1a763a4d-f2be-4d9c-b38e-75432d145743(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > >> On 29 Mar, 22:40, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > >> > On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > <...> > > >> > > As I say, I don't think it is wrong. Relativity clearly works - or at > >> > > least to a sufficiently precise approximation. The point is that no > >> > > one seems to be able to explain some of its more esoteric assumptions > >> > > in physical terms - such as the constant speed of light no matter > >> > > what > >> > > the velocity of the observer. > > >> > That's easy. Sort of. Physical processes propagate at (at most) the > >> > speed of light. This includes the processes which hold matter > >> > together. A given inertial observer watching a second relatively > >> > moving observe measure the "constant" speed of light concludes that > >> > the second observer's matter has shrunk in the direction of travel and > >> > his clocks have slowed, just so as to cause him to measure a constant > >> > speed of light. In straight SR, with complete Lorentz invariance, the > >> > situation is completely reciprocal. > > >> Unfortunately, this explanation has previously foundered when I've > >> asked whether this "contraction" is real or apparent. > > >> ____________________________ > > >> It shouldn't have. The contraction is both real and apparent. Things > >> really > >> do get shorter, clocks run slower, the travelling twin does return > >> younger > >> and the 40 foot pole really does fit in the 20 foot barn. This is > >> confirmed > >> a thousand times a day in engineering systems that have high velocities > >> and > >> accurate clocks. > > > Yes, but this explanation falls down in failing to explain why the > > rest of the universe would suddenly "really" contract, just because a > > single object begins to move at the speed of light. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > No. The explanation is fine, and has been accepted by physicists for over > 100 years. It is your understanding that is defective. << the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Sue... > > > It seems more > > believable > > To you. Believable to you. > > That is because you don't understand it. > > > that the effect is apparent and something to do with the > > changed interaction between the objects due to their high speeds > > relative to each other. Moreover, if the contraction was "real", it > > could not be a relative effect (i.e. it would have to effect one or > > the other), and there is no plausible explanation for a "real" > > contraction in any case. > > Except for the one provided by SR and more specifically the Minkowskian > model. This is so plausible that every physicist in the world has believed > it for 100 years. |