MMx math
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What molecular arrangment leads to transperency?
Next: Vibrating in time and probability of particle location
From: glird on 4 Aug 2010 13:15 On Aug 3, 5:51 am, harald wrote: >On Jul 30, 10:31 pm, Da Do Ron Ron > wrote: > >>< Therefore, SR's "length contraction," "time dilation," and "mass variance" are all irrelevant to physics. (Because they do not pertain to physical phenomena.)> Since time dilation and mass variance (in grams) have been experimentally verified, they DO pertain to physical realities. snip >>< Not only that, but the above stupid, irrelevant and meaningless "effect" utterly disappears when (absolutely) synchronous clocks are used. > See my prior posting re that. >< To the contrary: in that hypothetical case, "time dilation" becomes a measure of real (or "absolute") process slowdown. And the above-mentioned effects remain the same. > Einstein wrote, "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it `the time of the stationary system'." He was, as usual, rightly wrong. (Though he was right in that only a stationary esynched system would have synchronous clocks, he was wrong about it being "essential that etc." Indeed, since there is no such thing in the universe as a stationary system, his Special Theory, as he said in his general theory, is restricted to a hypothetical point. >>< Any theory whose clocks are not synchronized (absolutely) is worthless, but that is not the only problem with SR. > Though SR has MANY problems, this isn't one of them. (See "Esynched versus esynched" for details.) >><SR uses physically-slowed clocks and physically-contracted rulers, and does not even admit this > > > You are lying: http://www. Johns fourmilab Section 4, "Physical Meaning" > > >>< Not lying. It's not a full admission by any standard. No mention of anything but relative velocities. > No symbol dxi/dx for the ratio of size of units of length appears either! (Nowhere in his entire paper is there a mathematical symbol for a length contraction; whether physical or only as viewed by differently moving systems.) >< I agree that it is only implicit. No mention of the fact that only absolute motion through space can physically slow a clock. Indeed, SRT does on purpose not make any such claims. > Correct insofar as it is only implicit. Wrong insofar as the next sentence is concerned. (Motion through *empty* space couldnt physically affect anything at all. Indeed, there is no such thing in the universe as an "empty space".) Although SRT doesn't admit it, only absolute motion through a material medium could physically slow a clock. >< Tom makes contrary assertions about physical reality which he cannot prove either. Such assertions about unobservable reality are not part of SRT.> Tom is wrong and you are right. (The relevant assertions were made by Minkowski, several years after 1905.) They are mathematically valid but inapplicable to reality. >< On purpose, SRT only concerns phenomena; this allowed Lorentz, Einstein and Minkowski (and physicists today) to promote the theory together. > Please define phenomena. >> And there was no mention at all >> of a physical length contraction. Thats not true, though it is! (E did "mention" a length change; but deleted the demo of how it would be found or how much it would physically be.) >< It is true that his explanation would have been better if he had added the clear explanation (which I have not seen anywhere) that while the observations of the effects are "relative" (so that the description is observer dependent), the effects are physical nevertheless. > Tom disagrees with the latter phrase. He is wrong. >>< And no admission that only such a contraction can cause the MMx null result. > A length expansion could cause it too. (See me next comment.) >< That is a direct consequence of his description. Einstein was a little bit clearer two years later in an overview of the theory as presented by Lorentz and himself. When he discussed the negative result of MMX he pointed out that (I rearrange): "H. A. Lorentz's and FitzGerald's hypothesis [according to which moving bodies experience a certain contraction in the direction of their motion] appear [..] as a compelling consequence of the theory." Regardless of whether lengths contract or expand, what is needed is that those in the direction of motion physically end up (c^2- v^2)^.5 shorter than those in the perpendicular directions. >>< Let me put that to you this way: If you recall, prior to the MMx, every physicist firmly predicted a POSITIVE result based on given physically equal legs as constructed both in the lab and on paper. However, the result was NEGATIVE. Thus, the legs could not have been physically equal during the experiment. You surely mean that when considering that the interferometer moves at different speeds at different times of the year (which is the essence of MMx), the legs may not be said to be of equal physical length all the time. > > ><Einstein made no such wrong statement, but suggested the same as cited above. > He did suggest that; but deleted any demonstration. Lorentz demonstrated why it would (and does) happen. See his 1904 paper re that. >>< There were only two critical parts involved, viz., (i) light and (ii) the apparatus, consisting mainly of the two perpendicular legs. Nothing about light changed at any time, so we must blame the legs for the MMx null result. The MMx null result proves that rulers physically contract due to the same motion through space. ... You cannot mathematically or graphically show the MMx null result without also showing a physical difference between the leg lengths. This proves that - as far as anyone can tell - the null result was physically caused by a physical length change. > > > Yes, if the theory is correct; it > is a logical consequence of SRT. You have that upside down inside out and backward. (SRT, which is NOT logical or correct, is a consequence of the M&M experiment.) Although Einstein neither derived nor understood them, the LTE rest on an impose an entirely different metaphysics than Einstein's theory does. Accordingly, every experiment that confirms Poincare's Lorentz equations proves Einstein's theory is wrong. ><That should not be surprising as SRT is largely based on the 1895 Lorentz Electron Theory: "It is by no means self-evident that the assumption made here which we call "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" is actually realized In nature, but -- at least for a coordinate system in a certain state of motion -- it is made plausible by the confirmation of the Lorentz theory[1885], which is based on the assumption of an ether that is absolutely at rest, through experiment." > Lorentz was right, as usual. But plausible is not the same as true. (The LTE apply even though the ether is NOT at rest anywhere at all, let alone everywhere. glird
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 4 Aug 2010 14:31 On 8-3-2010, Harald wrote: > SRT only describes and predicts - that is not "worthless" List one prediction. ~RA~
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 4 Aug 2010 14:38 Earth to glird: Einstein's "stationary" system was not Newton's (absolutely) stationary system, but you are of course correct about the latter's clocks becoming truly synch'd via even Einstein's definition; however, how are we to find such a truly at-rest system in order to make us of its truly synchronous clocks??? ~RA~
From: harald on 4 Aug 2010 14:49 On Aug 4, 8:31 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8-3-2010, Harald wrote: [much, much more] > > SRT only describes and predicts - that is not "worthless" > > List one prediction. Is that all you have to say? Nevertheless I'll give you two: - exact deflection of electron beams (Lorentz 1904, Einstein 1905). - the effect of speed on clocks (Einstein 1905; applied in the GPS system). Harald
From: harald on 4 Aug 2010 16:02
On Aug 4, 7:15 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 5:51 am, harald wrote: > > >On Jul 30, 10:31 pm, Da Do Ron Ron > > wrote: > > >>< Therefore, SR's "length contraction," "time dilation," and "mass variance" are all irrelevant to physics. (Because they do not pertain to physical phenomena.)> > > Since time dilation and mass variance (in grams) have been > experimentally verified, they DO pertain to physical realities. > > snip > > >>< Not only that, but the above stupid, irrelevant and meaningless "effect" utterly disappears when (absolutely) synchronous clocks are used. > > > See my prior posting re that. > > >< To the contrary: in that hypothetical case, "time dilation" becomes a measure of real (or "absolute") process slowdown. And the above-mentioned effects remain the same. > > > Einstein wrote, "It is essential to have time defined by means of > stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined > being appropriate to the stationary system we call it `the time of the > stationary system'." > He was, as usual, rightly wrong. > (Though he was right in that only a stationary esynched system would > have synchronous clocks, he was wrong about it being "essential that > etc." Right. > Indeed, since there is no such thing in the universe as a > stationary system, his Special Theory, as he said in his general > theory, is restricted to a hypothetical point. [..] > >><SR uses physically-slowed clocks and physically-contracted rulers, and does not even admit this > > > > You are lying: > > http://www. Johns fourmilab > Section 4, "Physical Meaning" > > > >>< Not lying. It's not a full admission by any standard. No > mention of anything but relative velocities. > > > No symbol dxi/dx for the ratio of size of units of length appears > either! (Nowhere in his entire paper is there a mathematical symbol > for a length contraction; whether physical or only as viewed by > differently moving systems.) Beta (nowadays gamma). > >< I agree that it is only implicit. No mention of the fact that only absolute motion through space can physically slow a clock. Indeed, SRT does on purpose not make any such claims. > > > Correct insofar as it is only implicit. Wrong insofar as the next > sentence is concerned. (Motion through *empty* space couldnt > physically affect anything at all. "empty" space commonly means a perfect vacuum: that is, free of molecules. > Indeed, there is no such thing in the universe as an "empty space".) > Although SRT doesn't admit it, only absolute motion through a > material medium could physically slow a clock. Most people will understand with "material medium" something like a Stokes ether; that is incompatible with SRT. > >< Tom makes contrary assertions about physical reality which he cannot prove either. Such assertions about unobservable reality are not part of SRT..> > > Tom is wrong and you are right. (The relevant assertions were made > by Minkowski, several years after 1905.) They are mathematically valid > but inapplicable to reality. Yes. > >< On purpose, SRT only concerns phenomena; this allowed Lorentz, Einstein and Minkowski (and physicists today) to promote the theory together. > > > Please define phenomena. I mean natural phenomena: Observed appearances of nature. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phenomena: "a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature. " -> Origin: Gk phainómenon = appearance,) > >> And there was no mention at all > >> of a physical length contraction. > > Thats not true, though it is! (E did "mention" a length change; > but deleted the demo of how it would be found or how much it would > physically be.) As I pointed out to him, it's still in the *title*. > >< It is true that his explanation would have been better if he had added the clear explanation (which I have not seen anywhere) that while the observations of the effects are "relative" (so that the description is observer dependent), the effects are physical nevertheless. > > > Tom disagrees with the latter phrase. He is wrong. Yes, Einstein and Lorentz called the effects "physical" with good reason. > >>< And no admission that only such a contraction can cause the MMx null result. > > > A length expansion could cause it too. (See me next comment.) Yes, I discussed that in his original thread. > >< That is a direct consequence of his description. Einstein was a little bit clearer two years later in an overview of the theory as presented by Lorentz and himself. When he discussed the negative result of MMX he pointed out that (I rearrange): I forgot to clarify that "the theory" there does not refer to Lorentz's Electron Theory but to the theory which Einstein later called SRT. Thus, with a little expansion: "a theory [..] which is based on the principle of relativity [..] H. A. Lorentz's and FitzGerald's hypothesis [according to which moving bodies experience a certain contraction in the direction of their motion] appears [..] as a compelling consequence of the theory." > Regardless of whether lengths contract or expand, what is needed is > that those in the direction of motion physically end up (c^2- > v^2)^.5 shorter than those in the perpendicular directions. If only considering MMX. > >>< Let me put that to you this way: > > If you recall, prior to the MMx, every physicist firmly predicted a > POSITIVE result based on given physically equal legs as constructed > both in the lab and on paper. However, the result was NEGATIVE. Thus, > the legs could not have been physically equal during the experiment. > You surely mean that when considering that the interferometer moves > at different speeds at different times of the year (which is the > essence of MMx), the legs may not be said to be of equal physical > length all the time. > > > ><Einstein made no such wrong statement, but suggested the same as cited above. > > > He did suggest that; but deleted any demonstration. Lorentz > demonstrated why it would (and does) happen. See his 1904 paper re > that. Sure. I am just defending Einstein against accusations of wrongdoing while basically his only "sin" was to omit some clarifications to which we attach a certain importance. > >>< There were only two critical parts involved, viz., (i) light and (ii) the apparatus, consisting mainly of the two perpendicular legs. > > Nothing about light changed at any time, so we must blame the legs > for the MMx null result. The MMx null result proves that rulers > physically contract due to the same motion through space. ... > You cannot mathematically or graphically show the MMx null result > without also showing a physical difference between the leg lengths. > This proves that - as far as anyone can tell - the null result was > physically caused by a physical length change. > > > > Yes, if the theory is correct; it is a logical consequence of SRT. > > You have that upside down inside out and backward. (SRT, which is > NOT logical or correct, is a consequence of the M&M experiment.) I did not intend to suggest a causal effect of theory on nature! Instead, I rephrased Einstein's clarification that from SRT (= assume Maxwell's theory to be correct AND the PoR to be valid) we are compelled to logically deduce Lorentz contraction - of the MMX arms in particular. > Although Einstein neither derived nor understood them, Actually you don't follow his derivation; Lorentz apparently did, for he promoted Einstein's approach instead of his own earlier approach. > the LTE rest > on an impose an entirely different metaphysics than Einstein's theory > does. Did you STILL not check out sam's link to "metaphysics"??! Einstein's theory HAS no metaphysics, and neither has Lorentz's theory. > Accordingly, every experiment that confirms Poincare's Lorentz > equations proves Einstein's theory is wrong. Poor Lorentz - promoting a wrong derivation of his own theory. ;-) > ><That should not be surprising as SRT is largely based on the 1895 Lorentz Electron Theory: > > "It is by no means self-evident that the assumption made here which > we call "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light" is > actually realized In nature, but -- at least for a coordinate system > in a certain state of motion -- it is made plausible by the > confirmation of the Lorentz theory[1885], which is based on the > assumption of an ether that is absolutely at rest, through > experiment." > > > Lorentz was right, as usual. But plausible is not the same as > true. (The LTE apply even though the ether is NOT at rest anywhere > at all, let alone everywhere. It is not possible to prove a hypothesis absolutely true. Physicists rarely claim upfront that their hypotheses are true; instead they work them out if they look promising, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating (more experiments). Moreover, we prefer to make it not needlessly complicated (Occam). Regards, Harald |