MMx math
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What molecular arrangment leads to transperency?
Next: Vibrating in time and probability of particle location
From: oriel36 on 5 Aug 2010 16:59 On Aug 5, 9:48 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 4:12 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > harald wrote: > > > as you should know, SRT does NOT make any claims about > > > physical reality. > > > SR is a MODEL of physical reality within a specified domain. Within that domain > > it is an accurate description of physical phenomena. > > > Modern physics makes no "claims about physical reality", but instead MODELS it. > > That is, there is no expectation that the mechanisms in the model are "what > > nature actually uses"; it is only claimed that the model gives accurate results > > within its domain. > > > > Most of our disagreements are about physical > > > reality, and now you pretend that you make no claims about it. > > > You actually have no idea whatsoever about what "physical reality" is, either. > > All you have are mental MODELS you think are appropriate. We differ in the > > MODELS we use. Mine (SR) has the advantage of extensive experimental support in > > its domain; I have no idea what model(s) you are trying to use. > > > Tom Roberts > > Isaac would have probably tried to strangle you for making this much > fuss over modelling and as usual it was nothing like he intended.The > idea of chopping orbits into little bits and then reassembling them to > create a complete orbit using differential equations seems to have > allowed investigators to model planetary dynamics directly from > observations as though it were an extension of experimental > sciences.It was an elaborate scheme by any measure that was far too > clever for his followers to trace his reasoning which is why we have > all this absolute this and relative that in these forums when Newton's > intentions were far more realistic,they may be wrong and distortions > of the original astronomical methods and insights,but at least they > are understandable in fairly short order. > > Here is Newton's idea of relative space and motion - > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrog... > > Here is Isaac's idea of absolute space and motion - > > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrog... > > Hence - > > "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, > sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun > they are always seen direct.." Newton > > I have news for each and every one of you who wish to traffic in > absolute/relative space,motion and what have you,retrogrades are an > illusion due to the direct motion of the Earth around the Sun hence > Newton's idiosyncratic take on the main argument for the Earth's > orbital motion in terms of creating a hypothetical absolute space and > motion are illegal for want of a better word,maybe plain wrong is a > closer and more accurate description. Oops,let's try that again Here is Isaac's relative space and motion - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg Here is his absolute space and motion - http://boojum.as.arizona.edu/~jill/NS102_2006/Lectures/Lecture4/Copernicus_solar_system.gif Even to this day there are numbskulls like those in Harvard who think the representation by Kepler is geocentric,the diagram by Kepler is a model of the motions of both the Earth and Mars which Isaac misinterprets as relative space and motion hence his idiosyncratic take on retrograde resolution - "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct.." Newton Everything else tallies with what Newton does instead of that overheated wordplay of relative this and absolute that.
From: Simple Simon on 5 Aug 2010 23:33 Tom Roberts wrote: > PD wrote: >> Lots of important physical properties in physics are >> "merely observer-dependent quantities". Kinetic energy and momentum, >> for instance, both of which play a key role in conservation laws that >> are considered central to physics. > > I disagree. Kinetic energy and (3-)momentum are not involved in any > important conservation laws. Both are merely related to parts of the > actual law: conservation of 4-momentum. Note that this law is not > observer dependent; nor is it frame or coordinate dependent. Note > also that the context here is SR (not GR). > > For instance, to get conservation of 3-momentum one must project > the conservation law for 4-momentum onto an inertial frame. > > Nature uses no observers, so valid models of physics must not use > observers, or at least be independent of observer. > > > Tom Roberts I disagree for reasons some something akin to the following (#): The invariant geometric rules that the theory exposes are only accessible by measurement. These invariants are derived from the covariance of inertial symmetries (expressible as laws of conservation). We use the manifestations of these projections (their components in frames), from pushing around electromagnetism for various benefits to observing Doppler shifts to determine the topology of space-time. You yourself seem to acknowledge this with your advocacy of the view that hidden axioms are necessary for the model (of SR) and that these axioms include rules regarding rulers and clocks (and their lack of memories?). # I use language and concepts loosely at best since I am very unsophisticated.
From: GogoJF on 5 Aug 2010 23:04 On Aug 5, 2:31 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > PD wrote: > > Lots of important physical properties in physics are > > "merely observer-dependent quantities". Kinetic energy and momentum, > > for instance, both of which play a key role in conservation laws that > > are considered central to physics. > > I disagree. Kinetic energy and (3-)momentum are not involved in any important > conservation laws. Both are merely related to parts of the actual law: > conservation of 4-momentum. Note that this law is not observer dependent; nor is > it frame or coordinate dependent. Note also that the context here is SR (not GR). > > For instance, to get conservation of 3-momentum one must project > the conservation law for 4-momentum onto an inertial frame. > > Nature uses no observers, so valid models of physics must not use observers, or > at least be independent of observer. > > Tom Roberts Tom wrote: Nature uses no observers, so valid models of physics must not use observers, or at least be independent of observer. Gogo says: So, you say that all our models should be devoid of the observer, in order to measure nature correctly- that we should, instead, use our devices which are more precise and accurate? At the same time, this statement disqualifies all observational measure. Einstein's description of relativity routinely uses the observer in the thought experiment. Could it be true, that you are correct about this- that Einstein's relativity is better used in quantum mechanics- a mechanics which does not use the observer? In the macro world, the world where we observe, we use thought experiments which involve relativity like the space traveler paradox- but I doubt that illustrations like these are correct.
From: glird on 5 Aug 2010 23:12 On Aug 4, 11:27 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: >glird wrote: > >>< Since time dilation and mass variance (in grams) have been experimentally verified, they DO pertain to physical realities. > > > One must define the terms MUCH > more carefully. Good idea. In physics, âtimeâ is the indications of the hands of a given clock. âTime dilationâ means that the time of a given clock is dilated (i.e. one second is larger than that of another clock.) âMassâ denotes a quantity of matter, whether or not it has weight (in grams) in a g- field. âMass varianceâ means âa change in the massâ of a given object. âExperimentally verifiedâ means that the results of experiments agree with predicted results based on the given conditions. âPhysical realitiesâ means that which exists in the universe, whether measured or not, and whether or not physics understands what they are. >< In SR, "time dilation" and "mass variance" do not affect the object ITSELF, they are artifacts of measuring a moving object. > In SR they do. In Minkowskiâs mathematics (Minky-math) they donât. >< And we no longer say "mass variance", we call the quantity that varies "energy", not "mass". > Given that the equation e = mc^2 (energy equals mass times {the speed of light in vacuo} squared) has been experimentally verified, explain how the quantity of energy can vary if the m and c do not. >< When you rotate a ladder to get through a narrow doorway, you do not affect the ladder itself, but the rotation has physical consequences. Similarly in SR, relative velocity is an analogous rotation that does not affect the object itself, but has physical consequences. > In SR, Einstein assumed that the axes of differently moving systems do NOT rotate. >>< 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. > > ><You did not read his paper carefully enough. He EXPLICITLY said that he was using the term "stationary system" as a LABEL, to distinguish it from other inertial systems. It is a label that can apply to ANY inertial frame (see the first paragraph of I.1 of Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper"). In SR there is no need for any stationary system in YOUR sense -- you applied a PUN and read more into his word choice than is actually there. > True. It was, however, implicit that clocks set by his method would be synchronous if and BECAUSE the given system (K) was physically at rest in his âempty spaceâ. I ask you again, Tom: Please discuss with me, in a non- confrontational way, the meaning of each consecutive step and equation in Einsteinâs paper. The purpose is to put to rest the myriad arguments on these newsgroups, as to what âthese wordsâ or âthatâ equation mean; both to Einstein and by themselves. Here is an example: In Eâs SR paper he set forth the thesis that if a moving system set its clocks to read the same times as those of âthe stationary system, Kâ, they would disagree with cs K as to the simultaneity of two given events. In HIS mind, the reason for that was because clocks of an Esynched system would NOT have identical settings as each other, but would lag behind each other in their direction of motion by âvx/c^2 seconds. (In Minkowskiâs theory, that doesnât happen. Instead, he says that the axes of the moving system rotate in spacetime, by exactly the amount required to let the projected results fit the LTE's predictions.) However!! Here is something copied from my 2007 book, âA Flower for Einsteinâ. ________ And then suddenly at this late temporal juncture; in an exhilarating history of the drummers from forever, I came upon an after the fact passage that becomes the opening pulse of a very different beat. From "Drumming at the Edge of Magic", by Mickey Hart â who found that each separate individual in a discontinuous group is really part of a rhythmic continuum â written with the help of master story teller Jay Stevens; Harper, San Francisco; 1990, page 121: "Science knows one big thing about rhythm, something it calls 'the Law of Entrainment'. The Law of Entrainment, which seems to be fundamental to the universe, was first discovered in 1665 by the Dutch scientist Christian Huygens. Huygens noticed that if two clocks were placed next to each other, within a very short time they would lock up and tick in perfect synchrony. "Entrainment: If two rhythms are nearly the same, and their sources are in close proximity, they will always entrain. Why? The best theory is that nature is efficient and it takes less energy to pulse together than in opposition." If matter were made of separate atoms bouncing off each other in a background empty space, shared and averaged momentum would reach equilibrium when ALL the local atoms moved back and forth together with each other. Any that didn't would get knocked on the head a few times and even the drummers would temporarily lose the beat until the rhythm of the group restored harmony. "Huygens noticed that if two clocks were placed next to each other, within a very short time they would lock up and tick in perfect synchrony." Therefore, in terms of the kinetic atomic theory local time was a vagrant noise and Relativity was doomed two hundred and forty years before it was conceived. The real "best theory", however, is that Nature always feels the rhythmically radiating pressure gradients; and the thereby energized compressible medium dances to and fro in pulsating dinsity gradient response to the self synchronizing, accompanying transmitting two way rebounding beat; for which Maxwell's equations are a quantitatively accurate symbolic score whose music has never been fully and understandably heard. Physical reality will not let infinitesimally close clocks remain out of synch. But the groove is an omni way street and the tempo takes time to travel. If it travels at c while the players move at v, then "synchrony" remains undefined. ________ Having contemplated that off and on for several years, here was my conclusion: 7/10/2010. The speed of light will always be c, when measured by a Q,q,q-contracted self-esynched system, regardless of the value of its own velocity wrt the etheric matrix of the parent unit. Demo for v = .6c, Q = .64. Let a ray go from x' = 0 to x' = 1. It will take Qx'/(c-v) = .64/.4 = 1.6 seconds to reach x' = 1 and Qx'/(c+v) = .64/1.6 = .4 seconds to get back; so the round-trip will take 2 seconds. The one way outbound time will be t - vx'/c2 = 1.6 - .6 = 1 second as marked by the self-synched system. Demo for v = .5c, Q = .75. Let a ray go from x' = 0 to x' = 1. It will take Qx'/(c-v) = .75/.5 = 1.5 seconds to reach x' = 1 and Qx'/(c+v) = .75/1.5 = .5 seconds to get back; so the round-trip will take 2 seconds. The outbound time will be t - vx'/c2 = 1.5 - .5 = 1 second as marked by the entrainment-synched system. In both cases, as in all others, the speed of light will be c = dx/dt = 1 light-unit/second as plotted that way. Complication: Suppose the moving systemâs density has changed within the closed physical system that shrunk by Q,q,q. Then the speed of light will also have changed within it! (See 1] M&M; 2] the Pan Am experiment; 3] my smoke one, 4] the demo that clocks run faster at a higher altitude in a g-field; 5] the size of a proton is a function of the weight of a circling thing such as a muon versus an electron. For the latter, the proton is about 4% smaller. ("To their astonishment, the scientists detected x-rays at an assumed proton radius of 0.8418 femtometersâ4 percent smaller than expected.") Given that there is no such thing as a really stationary system, the new purpose is to prove my recent hypothesis: ANY system may be take as the viewing system, and relative to it ALL other systems will appear to be shrunken by q,1,1; and their times will appear to run slower by q; which is WHY the LTE have been experimentally confirmed. As of now, it is easily seen that if two Q,q,q;1 deformed systems, moving in opposite directions at the same speed wrt an ABSOLUTELY stationary middle system, plot each other, since their lengths are identically deformed, unit-rods in the perpendicular directions are and will appear identical in both systems, so phi(+/- v) = 1; and when measured with their esynched clocks, their identical lengths in the axis of motion will appear q contracted, and the identical rates of their clocks will be measured by the other as running q-slow. Rather than hypothesize that âtherefore, if we dispense with a really stationary system, we can let any one of these Q,q,q shrunken ones be taken as âstationaryâ etcâ, I want to PROVE it is correct in reality, not just in mathematics! Q 1: How u gonna prove that a q-contracted vertical unit-rod that is .8 units long, will appear to be 1 unit long as measured by ALL differently moving systems, REGARDLESS of the variable values of v? 7/11: There is no way for a physical system to be a universally extending frame of reference! The cs attached to one can extend only as far as _it_ does. Examples: The Earth extends to the limits of its own matter-unit; which moves in the cs centered on the Sun; which moves in a cs centered on the Milky Way, etc all the way up and down. The Pan Am experiment, and others, proved that. Therefore it is impossible for âa q-contracted vertical unit-rod that is .8 units longâ âto be 1 unit long as measured by ALL differently moving systems, REGARDLESS of the variable values of vâ.. Think about that and you will slowly understand it. Once you do, you will know why Einstein gave up almost his entire STR apparatus in order to construct GR. The only thing he kept was his Esynched clocks. He didnât know that clocks would esynch themselves. (âEsynchedâ clocks are set by Einsteinâs method; and âesynchedâ clocks automatically get the identical local-time offsets via entrainment.) Complication: If a cs canât extend past the limit of its own referent, then WHY have the LTE been experimentally confirmed? To answer that question we will have to look at the ways in which it was done. The object of that is to show that the experiments were restricted to within the frame of reference of matter-unit Earth. (Rays traveling east to west took more time to get from NY to California than rays from California to NY. Rather than let c therefore be variable, scientists take the Sun as the referent, and assign the reason for the difference in one-way times to the fact that Earth is rotating. As shown by the GPS satellite, clocks on Earth are not âreallyâ synchronous.) 8/5/2010: ââReallyâ synchronousâ means âhave identical settingsâ. The clocks on Earth may not be really synchronous, but they â as clocks on all systems regardless of their states of motion, are really esynched. Accordingly, the one ingredient that Einstein took from SR, his Esynched clocks, happens automatically by itself. Therefore, rather than having been âdoomed two hundred and forty years before it was conceivedâ, STR was conceptually present as long ago as mankind was able to conceive such things. Tom!! The purpose of that long harangue was to gain your attention wrt the following questions: 1. How do rotations and projections explain the length contractions found by using Esynched=esynched clocks to plot the positions of the ends of a relatively moving rod? 2. How does Minkowski-rotations and projections explain the esynching per se? glird
From: harald on 6 Aug 2010 02:39
With a note: On Aug 4, 10:02 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Aug 4, 7:15 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: [..] > > 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. I agreed, but perhaps for another reason than you; > > 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. And here I deleted my own comment in cleaning up: contrary to Einstein's claim there it is not at all essential do so - our reference clocks are *moving* in the ECI "frame". Cheers, Harald |