MMx math

Prev: Kip Thorne. Objects do not fall faster than light in a blackhole
Next: A Property of Convex Sets

From: Tom Roberts on 5 Aug 2010 15:31

---

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

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, “time” is the indications of the hands of a given clock.
“Time dilation” means that the time of a given clock is dilated (i.e.
one second is larger than that of another clock.) “Mass” denotes a
quantity of matter, whether or not it has weight (in grams) in a g-
field. “Mass variance” means “a change in the mass” of a given
object. “Experimentally verified” means that the results of
experiments agree with predicted results based on the given
conditions. “Physical realities” 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 Minkowski’s mathematics (Minky-math) they don’t.

>< 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 “empty space”.
I ask you again, Tom: Please discuss with me, in a non-
confrontational way, the meaning of each consecutive step and equation
in Einstein’s paper.
The purpose is to put to rest the myriad arguments on these
newsgroups, as to what “these words” or “that” equation mean; both to
Einstein and by themselves.
Here is an example: In E’s SR paper he set forth the thesis that if
a moving system set its clocks to read the same times as those of “the
stationary system, K”, 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 –vx/c^2 seconds. (In Minkowski’s theory, that doesn’t
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, “A Flower for
Einstein”.
________

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 ─ who found that each
separate individual in a discontinuous group is really part of a
rhythmic continuum ─ 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 system’s 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 femtometers—4 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 “therefore, if we dispense with a
really stationary system, we can let any one of these Q,q,q shrunken
ones be taken as ‘stationary’ etc”, 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 “a q-contracted vertical unit-rod
that is .8 units long” “to be 1 unit long as measured by ALL
differently moving systems, REGARDLESS of the variable values of v”..
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 didn’t know that
clocks would esynch themselves.
(“Esynched” clocks are set by Einstein’s method; and “esynched”
clocks automatically get the identical local-time offsets via
entrainment.)
Complication: If a cs can’t 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 “really” synchronous.)

8/5/2010: “‘Really’ synchronous” means “have identical settings”.
The clocks on Earth may not be really synchronous, but they – 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 “doomed two hundred and forty
years before it was conceived”, 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

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Kip Thorne. Objects do not fall faster than light in a blackhole
Next: A Property of Convex Sets