Can someone explain? [Archive]

Hurkyl

Jun14-03, 04:13 PM

Gravitational perpetual motion

A key statement in his argument is:

It states that the object would oscillate back and forth endlessly through the tunnel from one end of the planet to the other (neglecting wind resistance).

It should be no surprise that he concludes perpetual motion because he neglects the very thing that would prevent perpetual motion! The reason perpetual motion is "impossible" is precisely because of irreversible effects like friction or wind resistence.

The work function

Yet, as we all know, it certainly takes energy to push a heavy boulder even if it doesn't move or to hold an object in our hands even though it isn't moving.

He has a very narrow idea of what pushing is. He is imagining we walk up to a boulder, put our hands and/or shoulder against it, and tense our muscles in a way that would apply a force to the boulder and the ground. Those actions do require energy... however none of that energy does any work whatsoever on the boulder; it only does work in our bodies.

Still not convinced? Imagine if you simply leaned up against the boulder. Again you're pushing it, but it requires you to spend no more energy than leaning against a wall, and probably requires you to expend less energy than simply standing up.

Every physicist today will claim that there is no energy expended by gravity to constrain the moon in its orbit -- simply because the modified Work Function gives a zero result.

The most clever and concise explanation I've heard of this is:

"Of course the moon is falling towards the earth; it's just moving fast enough so that it misses the earth every time!"

The main question is why he would think energy would be required. If the moon is moving in a perfectly circular orbit, it's speed remains constant (so that its kinetic energy remains unchanged) and it is maintaining a constant height (so its gravitational potential energy remains unchanged), so the energy of the moon is unchanging. There is no change of energy, so why would he think there should be work done?

Fridge magnet

As we all know, it takes tremendous energy to cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge magnet is not glued to the fridge -- it is held there by magnetism, i.e. magnetic energy.

Again, the energy of the system is remaining unchanged, so there is no work being done. (This will be a common theme to answer most of his questions)

The more interesting question to ask is why magnetism and glue should be expected to behave any differently. Or more interestingly, why doesn't the refrigerator simply collapse under its own weight? After all, it must take energy to keep the top of the fridge up there, right?

The physical principle is easy; the force of gravity acting on the magnet is less than the maximum static frictional force possible between the fridge and the magnet.

The magnetic force essentially creates a tiny indentation in the refrigerator in which the magnet holds itself. In order for gravity to drag the magnet down, it would have to further deform the surface of the refrigerator to create a path through which the magnet travels. However, if the magnet is strong enough, the indentation will be deep enough so that gravity cannot deform the surface sufficiently.

Freezing water

The molecular bonds between H2O molecules in ice are peculiar; they like to arrange them in hexagons. This is pecular because hexagons have a lot of empty space between them, so this isn't a particularly efficient space-packing scheme.

When H2O is in liquid form, the molecules are moving around fast enough that they can't settle into the hexagonal pattern. However, at around four degrees celsius, the intermolecular forces between H2O molecules begin to get strong enough to start arranging themselves into hexagons despite the random motion fo the molecules, and as water cools from four degrees celsius to zero degrees celsius, the water will expand as its molecules arrange themselves into these hexagonal shapes.

But freezing water has no energy input at all. In fact, it has just the opposite of an energy input -- energy is continually drained from the water as it cools toward freezing. So then, how does the water suddenly rise up and expand with such force from within that it can easily burst metal pipes?

It is precisely because water molecules have energy that they shuffle around resisting their urge to arrange themselves into hexagons. If you drain the energy out of the molecules, they start arranging themselves into that space-inefficient hexagonal packing and thus the water wants to expand in volume.

Water, incidentally, is a highly incompressible substance, which is why hydraulic systems work. Thus, when the water wants to expand, it is extraordinarily difficult to stop it; in other words, brittle metal piping doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hades; the only way piping could survive is to expand with the water.

Heavy objects on a tabletop

Atomic bonds are said to result from electromagnetic energy attracting and holding atoms together. Yet, there is no denying that tremendous ongoing energy expenditure is required to hold the structure of a table together under the crushing weight of a heavy object resting on the tabletop.

Again, there is no reason to suppose the energy levels are changing.

However, it does require energy to break molecular bonds. Since there's no energy being input into the system, the bonds don't get broken.

Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake

Seeing how I can't find any reason why his example should be considered a mistake, any appearance in the SR derivation of his example, nor does he point his finger directly at any flaw in the derivation, there isn't really anything to which I can respond in this section.

Mistakes, logical errors, and coincidence explain experimental evidence.

That title should speak for itself. [:D]

The twin paradox

Since all speed is relative, you could just as well consider the Earth to be speeding away from the stationary spacecraft. This is just as valid a view of the situation, yet doing so brings the opposite result -- the twin in the spaceship would be an old man.

Spoken like someone oblivious to the fact that the formulae of SR hold only in inertial reference frames! The asymmetry is clear; one twin has to accelerate and the other does not. The time dilation equations work in one frame (the earthbound frame), and not in the other (the spacebound frame).

If you analyzed the picture in any inertial reference frame, it is clear that the earthbound twin would be older than the spacebound twin when they meet again. This paradox only occurs when you insist on fallaciously applying special relativistic formulae in a non-inertial frame (that of the spacebound twin).

light speed limit

If the electric or magnetic fields used to accelerate the particles can only push the passing particles at the speed of light, then more energy will only fortify the pushes so that they are more firm (more efficient), but cannot alter their inherent speed-of-light pushing speed.

His "explanation" brings up more questions than the question he's trying to answer. Why should a method of acceleration have a limit as to what maximum speed they can impart?

Flying atomic clocks

His argument is based on the same flaw as that of the twin paradox.

Other evidence for Special Relativity

Yes there are, and each of them either have clear logical flaws or simple commonsense explanations other than "time dilation", "relativistic mass increase", or "space-time contraction".

It would be amusing to see his explanations, but I'm certainly not gonna pay $30 to do so. [;)]

Gak, Im over the post length limit; I didn't know there was one!

Hurkyl

Jun14-03, 04:14 PM

Big bang

Today’s belief in the Big Bang Theory and the expanding universe has even led today’s astronomers to claim that some type of mysterious antigravity force is pushing the galaxies apart -- faster and faster the more distant they are from us.

Yes; that space is expanding. And the further a galaxy is from us, the more space between us and it to expand, thus if we interpret the expansion as causing distant galaxies to move away, then a further galaxy would be receeding faster.

Such a force has never been observed in any experiment or explained by any scientific theory

Except General Relativity... (Not sure if LQG or ST predict it yet, though I'd presume LQG does so by default since it's based on GR)

However, sound waves are completely different from light. Sound is not pure "sound energy" but compression waves within an atmosphere of air molecules, while light is considered to be a very mysterious form of pure energy, full of "quantum-mechanical" mysteries and paradoxes. Not only is there no clear scientific reason to link the Doppler Effect of sound with the Red Shift of light

Except that the Doppler Effect is a trivial consequence of any event occuring with a regular frequency be it sound waves, light waves, or even an eccentric man rolling a bowling ball at you every second.

But the whole point is moot because it is known that the redshifting is not due to the doppler effect, but is believed to be caused by the expansion of space. (Which, again, would shift frequencies downward for any frequency based event)
E=mc^2

This equation has been largely misunderstood and misrepresented.

I think that's the first thing he's said that was correct. [:D]

This one would actually take some equations to prove, so I'll skip covering it to keep in spirit with the (comparatively) simple explanations I've been giving thus far.

Protons in the atomic nucleus

He gives the answer himself; the strong nuclear force, the triumph of Quantum Chromodynamics, and he gives no plausible reason to disbeleive in it. [:)]

quartodeciman

Jun14-03, 05:30 PM

The key to most of this is the universalisation of a muscle version of work and a concomitant necessity for expenditures of energy, which is supposed to just disappear like fuel from a tank.

McCutcheon is just repeating the same kinds of complaints that were issued time and time again against relativity theory and quantum theory during the twentieth century.

Nice job, Hurkyl!

Jack

Jun15-03, 04:18 PM

As quartodeciman said- Nice job, Hurkyl!

Thanks.

grounded

Jul4-03, 06:07 PM

Jack...Think of it as a car driving on a long flat road with the accelerator in a specific position. If a large wind starts blowing in the opposite direction the car is moving, it will slow down. When the wind stops the car will speed up without using more energy.

NeutronStar

Jul23-03, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by grounded
Jack...Think of it as a car driving on a long flat road with the accelerator in a specific position. If a large wind starts blowing in the opposite direction the car is moving, it will slow down. When the wind stops the car will speed up without using more energy.

Actually grounded, that would be an incorrect analogy. Your analogy implies that the photo is being driven by some sort of force. I think Hurkyl's atom-jumping conservation-obeying photon-matter-interaction is a much better picture of what's actually going on. The photons themselves never actually slow down at all, they simply experience multiple rest stops along the way.

At first I was going to question the momentum conversation since this would seem to violate quantum mechanics (and it most certainly would) if it wasn't for the surrounding environment of the other atoms in the material. The effect of the neighboring atoms is to change the probability densities of where a photo is most likely to be emitted. I should have thought of that myself, but I must confess to be a bit slow at times. I think it has something to do with the neurons in my brain taking too many rest-stops during their meanderings. Stuff like that happens when a person approaches the age of the universe. But that's a whole other theory. [:D]

elas

Jul31-03, 11:25 AM

Re-A: This is impossible according to today's science. No object in nature can speed up of its own accord after being slowed down

The speed of a photon is dependant on the density of the field it is passing through. Therefore a photon exiting a lens is moving from a dense field into a less dense field and will acelerate, only the force of momentum is constant. Photons, like all massless bosons are not subject to drag or friction.
A photon approaching a Black Hole slows down it does not take 'rest stops'

Hurkyl

Jul31-03, 07:07 PM

A photon approaching a Black Hole slows down it does not take 'rest stops'

Recall that in general relativity, measurements are only required to be locally like special relativity.

In particular this means that an observer next to the photon will necessarily see it moving at c, even if the photon is near a black hole.

elas

Aug1-03, 06:01 PM

Hurkl
No doubt you are right, but not only do you need to be next to the photon but also on the same concentric in order to observe the speed as C. This seems a bit of a cop out as relativity only works if the observer is on the same plane.

jammieg

Aug1-03, 08:53 PM

That makes good sense Janus, never thought about it before although I would differ on light being generally emitted in the same direction only that is the direction we generally detect the overall statistical light particles arriving from point a(emitter) to b(detector) of which most have dodged any interaction and a few have interacted and by chance flown off in the same direction as the majority of uninteracted light and would be slower but when I shine my pocket laser through a glass water light deflects in all directions so I would guess that it is random stop and go trajectories and guess that even our best light speed detectors are working on a statistical average of many particles.

Nacho

Aug1-03, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by quartodeciman
Janus,

Somewhere an explanation is needed why the re-emitted photons continue along wave fronts just as Young and Fresnel said waves should go, and don't just scatter in all directions. It even works in gases and liquids, not just in crystallized translucent solids.

Heh, I'm no Janus for sure, but I know where you could get a partial answer: in Richard Feynman's book, "QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". He talks a little at the back of the book about the photon/electron interactions that cause reflection, partial reflection, and refraction, not in terms of Snel's Law though. I can't do his explanation any justice .. only to tell you that he says the photons are scattered throughout the substance, but that all the scattering cancels out except where the reflection/refraction occurs. And what does and doesn't cancel, he doesn't give so much of a reason other than amplitudes. I kinda liken it to somewhat like a feedback loop. You'd have to read it yourself (I wouldn't recommend buying the book .. it's somewhat of a horrible little book all-in-all .. might be able to check it out of a library).

FinalTheory

Nov19-03, 08:57 PM

Just discovered this discussion group while investigating what impact my ads and book have had so far. I'd like to respond, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak:

IIRC, these folks sent out emails a few months back advertising a "Brand Spankin' New Scientific Theory"TM, and it will only cost you $39.99 to find out what it is. Yeh. I realized that tallying up their crackpot index wouldn't even be worth the effort. It's easily over 300.

Nope, not me. I have never spammed anyone during my book promotion campaign, nor been deliberately mysterious about my claims. See my website and judge for yourself. I have run ads in major science magazines and used keyword-based sponsor ads in services such as the Google search engine. This is not a scam, and not another misguided kook. Today's science paradigm is creaking under the weight of its flawed theories and models, and getting worse every day. Truth is, there is nothing crankier than Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, Relativity, the ever-accelerating universe, etc. These are all mere models of observations that have been terribly warped to fit the data and which make no sense. Even the creators and proponents of these theories openly admit this, it is no secret. Models are fine, but the true understanding has clearly still eluded us, which is precisely why many of our top scientists eagerly anticipate a major revolution in understanding known as the Theory of Everything. But even so, I would not be saying a thing unless I had stumbled upon a truly viable alternate science paradigm that actually qualifies, doing everything this hoped-for theory is supposed to do, i.e. clearing up all our current mysteries via one simple principle that runs throughout nature. This is not a kooky, half-baked theory. I have seen them all just as you have, mostly posted in their entirety on personal websites, or making vague claims such as the one mentioned above, with no evidence for their claims. I am doing neither. I clearly state many flaws in today's science, and I challenge anyone to evaluate my claims for themselves. Publishers are understandably just as jaded about such claims as anyone, but nevertheless one publisher has recognized the value of my manuscript and happliy published it and made it available to the public via online orders. I know where the jaded comments in this thread are coming from, but in this case, though understandable, I assure you they are misguided. I am a scientifically educated, sane individual with no delusions of grandeur. I have simply stumbled upon what is very likely the truth about our universe and I am trying to tell the world. Yes, I know how this sounds .. we've all heard it all before, so there is little more I can say without just sounding like "one of them". So instead, let me offer my own answers to the questions being discussed in this thread -- you can decide for yourself if I know what I'm talking about. I am not trying to be hostile or arrogant or mischievious so please don't read any such thing into my comments (as, sadly, often happens in newsgroups), but I must be firm about this. I do have the answers, and today's scientists do not. That's simply the way it is until my book becomes widely known.

I'll make several posts to address all the issues in this thread, since there is a posting limit.

==============

Light in Glass Block

As to how light "speeds back up" after leaving a substance ... Photons always travel at c. When they enter a transparent substance they encounter molecules/atoms ...the molecules absorb the photons ... the photons cease to exist ... this atom absorbs the momentum contained in that photon, which changes its state of motion ... the other nearby atoms will push it back into equilibrium causing it to emit another photon .. traveling in nearly the same direction as the first ... until it encounters another molecule .. There are many frequencies for which the substance isn't transparent. These absorbed photons are what contribute to the heating of the substance.

I see two basic trouble spots here:

Firstly, I do agree that a portion (perhaps even a very large portion) of the heat generated within a glass block would be due to light that is lost to the material and does not emerge at the other end. However, if the conservation-of-momentum argument stated above is to stand, it relies on the assertion that atoms must be jostled back and forth by the photon and neighboring rebounding atoms -- the apparently central argument for how the re-created/re-emitted photon is to be flung off again in its original direction. But the jostling of atoms is known as conductive heat energy. How can this photon (and countless others) jostle atom after atom as it travels through the glass block, and yet either cause no heating or lose no energy in the process of heating the glass molecules?

And secondly, how do atoms "absorb" photons? Today's science often states that a photon somehow gets "absorbed" or "used up" to promote an electron to a higher orbit, then the electron moves back to its original orbit sometime later, again somehow re-creating a photon of light. Precisely how and why an "absorbed" photon of light gets physically transformed into increased kinetic/orbital energy of an electron, and precisely how and why this photon would be re-created from same is never explained. Interesting conjectures or models for consideration, but not unquestionable, established fact no matter how many people repeat it without explanation and no matter how authoritative the source may be. Yes, this is what I was taught too, and what my teachers were taught, and probably even what their teachers were taught, but this doesn't necessarily make it truly sensible and correct. Remaining trapped in this chain is precisely what has left our scientists scratching their heads over mysteries daily and inventing ever more bizarre theories. We are trapped within passable abstract models from a much simpler time that don't truly offer understanding, given credibility by the numerous authoritative sources we have all heard them from. But this has only occurred because these stories have been repeated and repeated over and over until these simple abstract models have become the the defacto "truth", as if they truly offer sensible physical explanations. We are trapped in an entirely wrong paradigm, and will remain so as long as this continues.

===================

Perpetual Motion Machines

The reason perpetual motion is "impossible" is precisely because of irreversible effects like friction or wind resistence.

Not quite. This issue is often a stumbling point because it actually entails two rather different concepts. Firstly, yes, continual unpowered coasting against friction or wind resistance is impossible without a power source -- that is a given, and is embodied in the Second Law of Theromodynamics. But the concept of a perpetual motion machine is that of a mechanism that requires energy to operate, and is somehow driven endlessly by its own internal processes -- producing all the energy it needs to perpetuate itself from within. Clearly an object that is accelerated by a force toward the center of the planet, then decelerated by that same force over and over again endlessly and with no drain on the power source that must exist to drive such a process is indeed an impossible perpetual motion machine. Removal of the atmosphere simply allows this unexplainable mystery in today's theories of gravity to lie wide open to observation without clouding the issue. This issue would be just as much of a mystery if it were perfomed on the airless moon.

=================

The Work Function

Those actions do require energy... however none of that energy does any work whatsoever on the boulder; it only does work in our bodies. Still not convinced? Imagine if you simply leaned up against the boulder. Again you're pushing it, but it requires you to spend no more energy than leaning against a wall.

Can't agree here either. Even Newton gave us the (3rd) law of equal and opposite reaction -- you can't push on a solid object without it somehow forcefully pushing back on you from within (there's that nagging "somehow" again). Both objects push back equally on each other. But regardless, the point is that analysis does not stop simply because the abstract concept of "Work" calculated from the Work Function is zero. When a zero result from this purely abstract Work calculation occurs it simply means that a force did not result in the motion of an object in this case [i.e. Work = Force x (zero)Distance]. It does not mean zero effort or energy was expended by the applied force. Yet today's justification for all sorts of energy expended by Newton's gravitational force tries to get by on precisely that thin, flawed argument -- that no movement means no energy regardless of the powerful ongoing effects of gravity all around us daily. And, as for leaning against a boulder, even if you're just lazily sitting on the ground leaning comfortably back on a boulder, this is the force of gravity pulling you down while you tilt back against the boulder. Where is the power source for this endless force? In fact, how do you even explain being able to sit firmly on the ground rather than your natural state of drifting slowly off into space? Today's science clearly states that an endless force somehow holds you to the ground -- there's that word again .. "somehow". Starting to wonder yet?

FinalTheory

Nov19-03, 09:26 PM

=================

The Orbiting Moon

Of course the moon is falling towards the earth; it's just moving fast enough so that it misses the earth every time!" The main question is why he would think energy would be required. If the moon is moving in a perfectly circular orbit, it's speed remains constant .. and it is maintaining a constant height .. so the energy of the moon is unchanging.

This explanation overlooks the concept of centripetal acceleration as well as Newton's 1st Law -- "All objects in motion continue in a straight line unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force". In this case, the external force is, again, Newton's mysterious gravitational force constraining the moon forcefully and continually into a circle -- a very unnatural event for any object in the absence of a force, which, of course, must have a (draining) power source if is to be considered anything other than magic. Saying that the object is simply falling -- end of story -- overlooks the fact that "falling" (i.e. accelerating toward the planet) is not a natural state of objects requiring no further explanation.

As to why I would expect energy to be required to restrain an enormous hunk of rock (the moon) that weighs millions of tons from traveling off in its otherwise natural straight line path past the planet .. well .. seems like a very reasonable expectation to me!

======================

Fridge magnet

Again, the energy of the system is remaining unchanged, so there is no work being done. (This will be a common theme to answer most of his questions)

Yes, again the Work Function abstraction as explanation (or rather, dismissal of the mystery in question). This is simply an abstract equation invented to quantify the amount of energy expended exclusively in the limited scenario where a force clearly does move an object through a distance. The understandable but unfortunate choice to call this result "the Work done" is often then taken to imply that this is the final word on whether any actual energy-driven effort has occured. Of course it takes effort to strain to lift a heavy piano even if it doesn't budge, and it takes effort to hang on to the side of a cliff (or refrigerator) against gravity. Put a block of wood up to your fridge and see how long it stays put when you let it go. What's the difference between that and a magnet? Endless unexplained magnetic energy from within, according to today's science paradigm. Dismissing this with an abstract, invented equation just because the result of this equation has been named "work done" is a huge mistake that dismisses the mysteries right under our noses that point to a greater truth, leaving us trapped in our flawed science paradigm.

The more interesting question to ask is why magnetism and glue should be expected to behave any differently. Or more interestingly, why doesn't the refrigerator simply collapse under its own weight?

Correct, and precisely my point when I mention the heavy object sitting on the solid tabletop. Imagine the scenario where the atoms of the table simply crumble into the finest imaginable atomic powder on the ground under the weight of the object. What would it take to keep this from happening? Atomic "glue"? It takes the electromagnetic energy of atomic bonds (very similar to the fridge magnet issue), which fight endlessly to hold all those atoms together under this enormous strain. Endless gravitational energy pulling down, endless atomic bonds fighting to hold together .. and no power sources in sight for any of this. The entire scenario is an utter mystery in today's science paradigm. In fact, it is such an enormous mystery in such fundamental, everyday events that our science has no alternative than to ignore, ridicule or dismiss anyone who even points it out, rather than admitting its total and complete failure to truly explain. I'm not making fun, but someone has to do the difficult task of yelling above the crowd to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

=====================

Freezing Water

At around four degrees celsius, the intermolecular forces between H2O molecules begin to get strong enough to start arranging themselves into hexagons ... Thus, when the water wants to expand, it is extraordinarily difficult to stop it

Yes, my point precisely. Water molecules arrange themselves and it is extraordinarily difficult to stop them, and all the while energy is drained from the system -- not added to account for this enormous, spontaneous output of energy. Need I say more?

===============

Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake

Seeing how I can't find any reason why his example should be considered a mistake, any appearance in the SR derivation of his example, nor does he point his finger directly at any flaw in the derivation, there isn't really anything to which I can respond in this section.

Have another look at my website .. I do indeed point out both the form of the error (in simplified math as an overview of the type of flaw for clarity) and even the specific lines in a link to Einstein's own derivation where this erroneous mathematical trick must be performed and then hidden from view in the large gap in the flow. You have to look for the missing, improper logic that was deliberately left out, but without which Einstein's derivation could not continue. Take a good look if you're mathematically inclined and you'll see. But there are also numerous other fatal flaws in the derivation that I mention, and that can be seen by anyone who is willing to look beyond Einstein's enormously runaway reputation for a moment and take an honest look at a clearly flawed mathematical derivation at the heart of one of our most bizarre theories of our world. This is not "Einstein bashing", this is honest investigation into an extremely important issue in plain view that has robbed us of a true understanding of our unvierse for a century, and threatens to continue to do so if we ignore it. This is our universe, not Einstein's universe unless his work justifies such hommage. I am clearly pointing out serious fatal flaws in his work that have robbed us of our rightful birthright of understanding. I am merely trying to set the record straight for all of us and return this birthright to each of us. Have a look for yourself at the link to Einstein's own derivation on my website (or see the more detailed expose in the book if you wish) -- either way there can be no trickery on my part in this objective evidence in plain view and there is nothing stopping anyone from taking a good, honest look for themseves to verify my claims.

=====================

Evidence for SR

Mistakes, logical errors, and coincidence explain experimental evidence.

That title should speak for itself.

Yes, that's right. Taken out of context my statement (first quote) can easily be made to sound like a weak, unsupported claim if that's what one wants to achieve sight-unseen, but in context in the book are pages of solid logic to back it up. Presumably we're here to seriously discuss science, not ridicule or dismiss protentially important new ideas sight-unseen.

====================

The twin paradox

Spoken like someone oblivious to the fact that the formulae of SR hold only in inertial reference frames!

Nope, I'm very aware of this, as a closer look at the website will show. The fact is that the Twin Paradox is touted throughout our science as evidence for Special Relativity (SR), not evidence for General Relativity (GR). GR is only ever brought into the issue when people quite rightly point out the clear flaw at the very heart of SR theory that states that no absolute time difference can exist between the twins after the experiment if it is completely relative and arbitrary who is moving and who is stationary (which is, of course, the case during the majority of the thought experiment where the engines are turned off). It is only then that physicists pull out GR in relation to the initial acceleration up to speed and again at the half-way turnaround point, hoping to distract people from the obvious fatal flaw in SR theory, and indeed in this entire thought experiment.

This paradox only occurs when you insist on fallaciously applying special relativistic formulae in a non-inertial frame (that of the spacebound twin).

Again, nope. This thought experiment is widely touted as evidence for SR, not GR. The spacebound twin coasts at tremendous speed through most of the thought experiment except when engines must be fired to accelerate/decelerate. GR is only brought into it as a fudge factor or distraction when people point out the logical flaw at the heart of the thought experiment, as mentioned above. Check this out for yourself. You can't create an SR thought experiment (the speeding, coasting spacebound twin) then claim SR equations don't apply when the clear logical flaw underlying the very experiment is pointed out.

FinalTheory

Nov19-03, 09:42 PM

================

Light-Speed Limit

If the electric or magnetic fields used to accelerate the particles can only push the passing particles at the speed of light, then more energy will only fortify the pushes so that they are more firm (more efficient), but cannot alter their inherent speed-of-light pushing speed.

His "explanation" brings up more questions than the question he's trying to answer.

An understandable comment from anyone who has not read the book and has no concept of the new paradigm that unfolds clearly and rationally chapter after chapter, leading up to an understanding of magnetic and electric fields by Chapter 4 that clearly explains this statement. I realize this is asking a bit on faith at this point, but it simply isn't possible or reasonable to even attempt to impart the understanding that one gains from reading the book without, well, reading the book. That's just a fact of life that is true of any substantial book, and that's precisely why it was necessary to write the book and present it in its entirety in a clear progression of logic and evidence that unfolds across 6 chapters and 400+ pages. It is not a complicated read, but it is a very comprehensive one that truly rewrites our entire body of physics today, leaving no stone unturned and presenting each new idea within the context of the new paradigm. There would be more questions than answers were any given concept plucked from the book and dropped into a newsgroup posting.

==============

Flying Atomic Clocks

His argument is based on the same flaw as that of the twin paradox.

Again, nope. The time dilation claimed in these flying atomic clock experiments is not said to be due to any initial acceleration up to speed or deceleration/turnaround effect -- the so-called GR explanation that is typically pulled up when the very foundations and assumptions of such experiments are rightfully questioned. If this were the case, why bother continuing to fly for hours and hours in an attempt to prove the SR time dilation effect (which is always the stated purpose and claimed success of these experiments)? Why not just accelerate on takeoff and decelerate again to land right away and show the lone GR time dilation effect? The prolonged flying (or orbiting) atomic clock experiments are billed as proof of SR, yet this very theory applies to situations where objects are passing each other in inertial frames of reference where it is completely arbitrary which object is in motion and which is stationary. How can one particular object possibly age faster than the other -- and be shown to have this lasting effect even after the experiment ends -- when it is completely arbitrary which object we consider to be in motion (and thus slowing its time dimension)? The theory of SR itself has this clear logical flaw at its very heart, as does the mathematical derivation underlying it, as shown earlier.

================

Other evidence for Special Relativity

Yes there are, and each of them either have clear logical flaws or simple commonsense explanations other than "time dilation", "relativistic mass increase", or "space-time contraction".

It would be amusing to see his explanations, but I'm certainly not gonna pay $30 to do so

Your choice, of course, but certainly no counter-argument to my claim, which I do support quite thoroughly in the book.

================

Big Bang

And the further a galaxy is from us, the more space between us and it to expand, thus if we interpret the expansion as causing distant galaxies to move away, then a further galaxy would be receeding faster.

Such a force has never been observed in any experiment or explained by any scientific theory

Except General Relativity...

Einstein's so-called "Cosmological Constant" of GR is a well-known fudge factor. It is widely known that Einstein shopped around for opinions on whether to arbitrarily add it in or not, and even backflipped on the issue (his now almost legendary self-proclaimed "greatest blunder", etc., etc.), bending to whatever the data seemed to suggest at the moment. This is not an explanation of observations from a clear understanding of our universe, but merely an arbitrary, invented model that is fiddled and revised to fit whatever the current data may suggest at the moment, with no explanation whatsoever -- a model that violates both common sense and the very laws of physics that today's science is founded upon.

===============

Doppler Effect

Except that the Doppler Effect is a trivial consequence of any event occuring with a regular frequency be it sound waves, light waves ...

This assumes light is a wave, which experiment shows that it clearly isn't, as I mention even on the website (see the laser pointer discussion). When one understands the true nature of light (explained in Chapter 5), the reason the Doppler Effect cannot apply to light is clearly understood.

But the whole point is moot because it is known that the redshifting is not due to the doppler effect, but is believed to be caused by the expansion of space.

Sorry, but until high-school and university educators, currently-used physics texts, and numerous officially-sanctioned science websites stop teaching that redshifting is due to the Doppler Effect, it most certainly is due to the Doppler Effect in today's science. Also, I give ample reasoning, on the website but even further in the book, as to why the concept of expanding space is fatally flawed, both as an explanation for redshifting and as an actual viable physical phenomenon in and of itself.

===============

E=mc^2

This equation has been largely misunderstood and misrepresented.

I think that's the first thing he's said that was correct. This one would actually take some equations to prove, so I'll skip covering it to keep in spirit with the (comparatively) simple explanations I've been giving thus far.

Already discussed briefly and simply on the website, and of course, in rather more depth in the book.

====================

Protons in the atomic nucleus

He gives the answer himself; the strong nuclear force, the triumph of Quantum Chromodynamics, and he gives no plausible reason to disbeleive in it

How about a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy, as with gravity, magnetism, etc., which I do indeed clearly show on the website.

russ_watters

Nov20-03, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by FinalTheory
....the abstract concept of "Work" calculated from the Work Function is zero. When a zero result from this purely abstract Work calculation occurs it simply means that a force did not result in the motion of an object in this case [i.e. Work = Force x (zero)Distance]. It does not mean zero effort or energy was expended by the applied force. I frankly didn't read much of your posts, but this jumped out at me (and you repeated the error in the second post too). Refusal to accept the definitions of concepts like "force," "work," and "energy" will get you nowhere. You could call them "Manny," "Moe," and "Jack" if you want, but in either case, understanding what they are is essential to having the most basic grasp of physics. You have to speak the language to understand what people are saying.

What this means is that every single bit of scientific effort you spend (even if by blind chance you got something right) is wasted because you are speaking a different language than everyone else.

Also, you may not like the definitions we use, but the definitions and the physics based on them WORKS. Its the basis for the technology (such as that computer you are using) of the modern world. GPS for example depends on our CORRECT understanding of a large amount of physics from Newton to Einstein, Maxwell, etc. The fact that a GPS reciever DOES accurately measure position based on the predicitions of those scientist's theories is evidence that the theories work.

FinalTheory

Nov20-03, 01:33 AM

Let me clear up this misunderstanding of my statement before it perpetuates any further (and thank you for mentioning that you did not read my postings in much detail yet, which may be part of the problem).

Nowhere did I say force or energy don't exist, nor am I playing the game of dismissing standard scientific terms. Let's be clear here. I am, in fact, using standard scientific terms to clear up a very serious misunderstanding that is holding back true progress and understanding. I am saying that it is extremely unfortunate that a function that was invented to quantify the energy expended when a force moves an object through a distance was called the Work Function, and its numeric result called the work done.

The reason this choice of terminology is unfortunate, and often misleading, is because there actually is a very important difference between the term "Work" with a capital "W" and "work" (lower case) as we know it in personal daily experience. I am not dismissing or redefining anything in science in saying this. I am trying to clear up a dangerous confusion of terms that ends up causing millions of people to accept impossible forces that have no identifiable power sources, such as gravity and magnetism. Stick with me here for a moment .. this is important.

As humans, we feel an inherent understanding of the term "work" -- note this is lower-case "work". That is, we expend energy when we work, and if we aren't working this generally conjures up the image of sitting back, doing nothing and expending no energy. This simple, intuitive understanding that we have of the term "work" leads even seasoned scientists to conclude that when we get a zero result from the Work Function (capital "W"), no energy has been expended. This is a very dangerous, misleading situation. All this zero result from the Work Function means is that either

a)no force has been applied at all or
b)a force was applied but didn't succeed in causing any movement (requiring an energy expenditure to explain the applied force nonetheless)

This is a very limited, mechanical definition of "Work" (again, capital "W") in our science, and it in no way should be taken to mean zero energy or effort was expended (in example b). The simple, intuitive feel we have as humans that doing no "work" means we haven't struggled and expended energy leaves many (again, even seasoned scientists) with the mistaken belief that a zero result from the Work Function also then means no energy has been expended. This is untrue, and a very dangerous trap that many fall into.

Feel free to post again on this if my point isn't clear yet. This may seem trivial or nit-picky, but it is actually extremely important.

tozhan

Apr18-04, 10:45 PM

When this atom absorbs the photon, it absorbs the momentum contained in that photon, which changes its state of motion. The atom is no longer in equilibrium! The most likely eventuality is that the other nearby atoms will push it back into equilibrium causing it to emit another photon. Since the net effect is that the atom we were observing has returned to its equilibrium state, it retained none of the momentum of the original photon, and thus the emitted photon must have exactly the same momentum as the original photon (i.e. it travels in the original direction).

I dont doubt that your right (im not all to good at physics) but can you explain how a massless boson has momentum when the formula for momentum is p = m/v. According to the equation the photons momentum should be zero! Help?!? :confused:

Paul Cook

Apr21-04, 01:23 AM

I'm a little unclear whether this "Final Theory" accepts or rejects the principle of conservation of energy. Many of the arguments around the propagation of light seem based on the conservation of energy.

However, the arguments around why magnets sticking to fridges, the tops of said fridges, pushing on boulders, etc. seem to disregard the principle -- since if, as the theory seems to claim, such static situations ARE using energy, energy which present theories can't explain, then where is that energy going to? We get tired pushing a boulder because, as mentioned, we are using up energy inside us -- as evidenced by the fact that we get hot. Now magnets sticking to fridges don't get hot, so if energy is being used, where is it going?

It also seems somewhat disingenious to disregard the GR resolution of the twins paradox "problem", merely because the twins paradox is mentioned in a SR context sometimes. If you are to disprove all of modern science, you really need to disprove it as a cohesive whole.

ZelmersZoetrop

Apr30-04, 01:10 PM

The twin paradox can, in fact, be solved in an SR context. Let's say an astronaut travels from Earth to Canopus (appr. 99 light years from Earth) at speed v[rel]=99/101 c, arriving at canopus at t'=20 years according to her rocket clock, t=101 years according to Earth clocks. This gives a stretch factor y=101/20. Discount acceleration during the trip, and suppose the spaceship turns around as soon as it get to Canopus. The astronaut will see an Earth clock read 3.96 years when arrives at Canopus, but, as soon as she turns around and reverses her velocity with respect to Earth, her line of simultaneity slopes in a different direction as well, so that where she once read 20 years, she now reads 2*101-3.96=198.04 years. Although the Earth clock ticked slowly as she traveled, she perceived it "jump" a good deal of time over the instant she turned around; the image of those clock ticks she had been staying ahead of by travelling caught up with her when she stopped travelling away from earth.

Antonio Lao

Apr30-04, 04:21 PM

According to the theory of electromagnetism, the speed of light is given by the following.

c = \frac {1}{\sqrt{\mu \varepsilon}}

\mu is the permeability and \varepsilon is the permittivity. Everything in the universe possesses permittivity and permeability include the vacuum.
Their values vary depending on the material or medium. it is the change of these physical variables that causes the change of the speed of the photon in matter and in vacuum.

This implies that at no time does the photon experience acceleration or deceleration during its journey.

Michael Rutherford

Apr30-04, 07:48 PM

I think this guy deserves some credit...for making us re-think the classical way of thinking. But that's all. Centuries of math calculus simple can't be wiped out overnight. That's as simple as that.

Also, if he really wanted to reshape the world he would have made the book public. Otherwise, a good polemic means better sales figures...

baffledMatt

May15-04, 09:02 PM

I hope I'm not perpetuating a dead thread but:

The twin paradox can, in fact, be solved in an SR context. Let's say an astronaut travels from Earth to Canopus (appr. 99 light years from Earth) at speed v[rel]=99/101 c, arriving at canopus at t'=20 years according to her rocket clock, t=101 years according to Earth clocks. This gives a stretch factor y=101/20. Discount acceleration during the trip, and suppose the spaceship turns around as soon as it get to Canopus. The astronaut will see an Earth clock read 3.96 years when arrives at Canopus, but, as soon as she turns around and reverses her velocity with respect to Earth, her line of simultaneity slopes in a different direction as well, so that where she once read 20 years, she now reads 2*101-3.96=198.04 years. Although the Earth clock ticked slowly as she traveled, she perceived it "jump" a good deal of time over the instant she turned around; the image of those clock ticks she had been staying ahead of by travelling caught up with her when she stopped travelling away from earth.

In fact, you can even resolve the whole thing - accelerations and all - with just SR. It's in one of the usual texts on the subject, but I can't remember which one. Possibly the one by J. Martin.

The point is that SR will quite happily deal with accelerations, just in a flat space-time. If you do the calculation you then get exactly the answer you need - that one twin is actually older than the other on return.

I dont doubt that your right (im not all to good at physics) but can you explain how a massless boson has momentum when the formula for momentum is p = m/v. According to the equation the photons momentum should be zero! Help?!?

You are trying to use the classical (i.e. newtonian) equation. If you use the correct E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 then putting in m=0 for a photon gives you E = pc.

Et voila.

Matt

p.s. I like the fact that this final theory person keeps telling us physicists what we do and don't understand. Surely we already know this?

relative_sceptic

Jun4-04, 02:46 AM

>[QUOTE=Hurkyl]Gravitational perpetual motion
>
>Mistakes, logical errors, and coincidence explain experimental evidence..
>
>
>That title should speak for itself. [:D]
>
>The twin paradox
>Spoken like someone oblivious to the fact that the formulae of SR hold only >in inertial reference frames! The asymmetry is clear; one twin has to >accelerate and the other does not. The time dilation equations work in one >frame (the earthbound frame), and not in the other (the spacebound >frame).
>
>If you analyzed the picture in any inertial reference frame, it is clear >that the earthbound twin would be older than the spacebound twin when >they meet again. This paradox only occurs when you insist on fallaciously >applying special relativistic formulae in a non-inertial frame (that of the >spacebound twin).
>
-------------------------------------------------------------

I am not clear on this point, consider this example:-
Say that 2 twins set off from earth in 2 spaceships, accelerate to the speed of light then swing back around to the earth, one decelerates and lands back on earth, the other carries on in a straight line with no acceleration in any direction. In this case the spacebound twin has experienced no acceleration that the earthbound twin has not also experienced. But the earthbound twin has experienced an extra acceleration/deceleration - now which one experiences the "time dilation"?

baffledMatt

Jun4-04, 04:40 AM

The question "which one experiences the time dilation" is ill posed. They each will observe time dilation in the other twin's frame. The only question you can then sensibly ask is 'when the twins return to the same frame which one is older?' and this will depend in detail on the accelerations each one has experienced.

Matt

relative_sceptic

Jun4-04, 09:05 AM

Antonio Lao

Jun4-04, 10:05 AM

The difference between Special Relativity (SR) and General Relativity (GR) is that for SR, reference spacetime frames are in relative uniform motion at constant velocities. These mean that relative acceleration between reference spacetime frames are not allowed. In GR, accelerations and constant velocities are both allowed between reference spacetime frames. And curvature of spacetime is possible only if there is absolute acceleration. This absolute acceleration is hidden inside the mass-energy tensor.

relative_sceptic

Jun4-04, 11:24 PM

Mmmmmhhhh

So can someone tell me which one is older when they have both experienced identical accelerations on their journeys, but at different times?

---Steve

ram2048

Jun5-04, 01:27 AM

i don't believe in all that acceleration mumbo jumbo, i believe that time slows as you are in motion.

so lets suppose they accelerated from earth at the same rate, but on return one instantly stopped and the other kept flying.

at that instant they would be the same age, but the one that stopped would start aging normally again, and the one that kept flying would continue in his rate of "dilated time" depending on the speed.

relative_sceptic

Jun5-04, 02:06 AM

speed relative to what?
they are both travelling at the same speed relative to each other
In the example I gave they have both experienced the same acceleration forces (but at different times), and have ended up together at the same point at which they started.

How do you choose which one has aged slower?

ram2048

Jun5-04, 02:24 AM

what follows is ram's theory of time:

time exists only as a function of actions taking place.

if the entire universe stood perfectly still, no time would take place. (or you even if it did you wouldn't have anything to measure it by anyways so...)

when time concerns multiple elements in a closed set, REAL-time is defined as the actions of the object in question versus the actions of every object in the set. if it was two men in space a certain distance apart and one man moves away from the other, the motion of one man would cause time to happen for the other man, and they would both view the motion and time as real. both men would "see" themself moving away from the other man at half the speed compared to the average distance between the two (dunno if i'm explaining that right but whatever).

this part would cover your guidelines, but it excludes the real universe, by creating a "test universe" in which only the 2 guys exist

on a greater existence or set where the whole universe is involved. one man can move away from the other man, and the other man can realize that he is stationary in regards to the rest of the universe and thus the other man retreats at full speed.

consequence of adding a third party to enable "relative" motions

now, here comes the tricky part, REAL-time for us in the universe as part of the set exists in the motions or actions that we take or are exerted on us in relation to the average motion or action of EVERYTHING else in the universe. It functions independantly of whether or not someone is "measuring it"

our PERSPECTIVE-time exists for us as part of the set that exists in our actions or motions etc that exist that are immediately around us and can be measured as phenomena to calculate this time. In order for us to try and realize REAL-time we have to get a bead on as much of the universe and its actions as possible, and measure any of our actions to this whole.

so if you can piece that together you can understand that 2 people perfectly still down to the very molecule and atom in their own universe = no time passing.

as soon as they move time passes, dependant on motion time will pass with the observer feeling the time frame according to his perspective. if only one were to move, they would BOTH age and feel time at the same rate. adding more and more participants makes relative motions more exact (or more pronounced), taking the "average" of everything in motion relative to the whole

Antonio Lao

Jun5-04, 08:29 AM

There are two types of relative motion. One is covered by special relativity and the other is covered by general relativity.

Special relativity describes uniform relative motion between spacetime reference frames (inertial frames). General relativity describes accelerated relative motion between spacetime reference frames . Only accelerated motion can become absolute. This absoluteness of acceleration can form quantum at the local infinitesimal region of spacetime.

relative_sceptic

Jun5-04, 09:49 AM

baffledMatt

Jun5-04, 11:53 AM

The question was which one ages slower

I see a lot of irrelevant complications and no answer to my question

I suspect that Relativity is unable to distinguish between the two in any meaningful way

I have never seen any argument (including Einsteins) which could justify choosing one over the other

All I can say is, go get a good book on relativity and just do the calculation. I would do if for you except that all my GR notes and books are in another country.

Please do this before posting any more specultions of what you 'suspect' relativity might say.

Matt

ram2048

Jun5-04, 01:30 PM

Say that 2 twins set off from earth in 2 spaceships, accelerate to the speed of light then swing back around to the earth, one decelerates and lands back on earth, the other carries on in a straight line with no acceleration in any direction. In this case the spacebound twin has experienced no acceleration that the earthbound twin has not also experienced. But the earthbound twin has experienced an extra acceleration/deceleration - now which one experiences the "time dilation"?

that's why i was saying it's not the acceleration but the speed. if they both accelerated to the speed of light at the exact same rate, but one experienced a period of deceleration on return before taking the measurement, the entire period where their speeds were not the same is the calculated part where their times and aging would be different.

if acceleration IS the cause for time dialation, then it can only be measured by RATE of acceleration, because once you stop accelerating and are just cruising at a constant speed, your time would be back to normal.

here's the molecular theory on this one based on electron orbits. basically when travelling at a certain speed, the atoms in an object all get pulled forward because they're connected. electrons have to travel "more" to stay in orbit because of the motion (their orbits have become elliptical relative to the universe, but still circular to their perspective). since they still travel the same rate, but have larger orbits, it takes them more "time" to complete revolutions. at close to light speed, the electrons have alot of trouble completing revolutions, because the relative paths are stretched out very far.

at light speed, the electrons cannot even complete a revolution because they'd have to travel faster than light to traverse along their path when going forward.

Antonio Lao

Jun5-04, 03:52 PM

The question was which one ages slower

The one who is accelerating will age slower. This is absolute acceleration not relative acceleration. There is a difference.

Janus

Jun5-04, 04:16 PM

So which one is older, when they return to the same time frame?

Remembering that the travelling twin will experience identical accelerations/decelerations in returning to earth as the twin who originally returned to earth. The travelling twin will just spend longer in the uniform states of motion in between the periods of acceleration/deceleration.

---steve

Okay, this is something that, in my opinion, gets overlooked to often when discussing this type of thing, and it leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion.

The first thing to realise is that acceleration does not cause time dilation from the view of the unaccelerated frame. (IOW if you are observing an object that is accelerating, you only have to deal with its velocity at any given moment to determine its time dilation, the fact that it is accelerating has no effect.

Now in the accelerated frame, things are different, If you are in this frame, three factors control how you will measure other objects time rates: the magnitude of the accelleration, the direction the object is with respect to the acceleration, and the distance of the the object.

The second thing is that time dialtion is not something that anyone experiences it is something that you measure as happening in other frames.

Now in your situation, from the Earth Frame, the twin that turned around last ages the least becuase he undergoes the longest duration of time dilation.

From either twins view, Earth time runs fast when they turn around and start heading back (when they are an accelerated frame once they retrun to uniform motion towards the Earth, they will once more measure time running slow on Earth). Since the twin that turns around last is further from the Earth when he turns around, he will measure Earth time as running that much faster during this time. He will return to Earth expecting more time as having passed on Earth than his brother will.

geistkiesel

Jun6-04, 09:27 PM

I couldn't get the link to work, but based on the example you've provided I'd say you've been very generous in your description (vis: "a bit suspicious"). Anyone who makes the unqualified statement that "...science has no explanation for this...occurance" in regard to the speed of light propogation through verying mediums is less scientifically literate than the average layman, or flat-out lying. Sounds to me as though the makers of this site have an agenda, could you discern what it might be?

i fed my algorithym into my computer which disgorged the following: The authors of the book want to sell copies and make some money.

geistkiesel

Jun6-04, 09:30 PM

Great, yet another electrical engineer out to rewrite physics. Off to TD it goes.

Even Aggies, electrical engineers at Texas A&M, laugh at this one.

geistkiesel

Jun7-04, 12:57 AM

Conservation of momentum.

Consider first an atom in the interior of an object. Far more likely than not, this atom is in some sort of stable equilibrium state with respect to other nearby atoms.

When this atom absorbs the photon, it absorbs the momentum contained in that photon, which changes its state of motion. The atom is no longer in equilibrium! The most likely eventuality is that the other nearby atoms will push it back into equilibrium causing it to emit another photon. Since the net effect is that the atom we were observing has returned to its equilibrium state, it retained none of the momentum of the original photon, and thus the emitted photon must have exactly the same momentum as the original photon (i.e. it travels in the original direction).

For atoms near the surface of an object, it isn't surrounded by other atoms so it doesn't experience quite the same restoring force, which causes the re-emitted photon to either be a reflection of the original, or bent from the original.

Yoy are not describing a universally observed process. Mossbauer Effect observations of the recoiless absorption and readmittance of photons tells us the consevation of momentum considerations is an incompete description of the process. The interior of matter, atoms for instance, is not physically, or geometrically, described by Mendeleyev's chart of the elements. The particuliar state of the subelements of an atom may not be scrutinized says the first and last law of quantum mechanical theory. Therefore, it is anybody's guess, what is going on!!

relative_sceptic

Jun7-04, 07:15 PM

All I can say is, go get a good book on relativity and just do the calculation. I would do if for you except that all my GR notes and books are in another country.

Please do this before posting any more specultions of what you 'suspect' relativity might say.

Matt

Oh dear! no need to be so defensive because you cant answer a simple question
I note that you still havent answered it:-)

I have just been looking at some of your replies so far:-
>In fact, you can even resolve the whole thing - accelerations and all - >with just SR. It's in one of the usual texts on the >subject, but I can't >remember which one. Possibly the one by J. Martin.
>
>p.s. I like the fact that this final theory person keeps telling us physicists >what we do and don't understand. Surely we
>already know this?

You call yourself a physicist, and even seem to think you understand relativity, (I bet you also think you understand Quantum Theory), yet you cant answer this question without your texbooks.

BTW heres a quote (from Will Rogers) that you might be interested in:-
"it's not what people don't know that hurts them. It's what they do know that just ain't so."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you wont find the answer to this question in any standard text book - all you will find is avoidance of the obvious contradiction, at the very heart of the theory.
The standard ploy to avoid this question is to say that the one that ages slower is the one who experiences the acceleration(s), which is why I have added the part about identical accelerations.

>The question "which one experiences the time dilation" is ill posed. They each will observe time dilation in the other >twin's >frame. The only question you can then sensibly ask is 'when the twins return to the same frame which one is older?' and this >will depend in detail on the accelerations each one has experienced.
>
>Matt

I have proposed a situation where each twin (or clock) experiences identical accelerations, during separation and returning together - you did not reply to this
I'm assuming you would agree that in this situation the effects of acceleration (whatever they may be) can be ignored, and only the periods of uniform relative motion need be considered. (When considering the Twin/clock paradox, Einstein did not consider that the effects of acceleration were relevant).
Isnt it strange then, that when trying to avoid this
question, "physicists" since then have brought acceleration into it.

Basically this is the paradox:- when considering uniform relative motion, we have no right to say whether a clock is "moving" or "stationary", we can only say one is in motion relative to the other. Now in this case, if we want to calculate how much slower one clock has gone, how do we know which clock to perform our calculations on. The situation is entirely symmetrical. And which one we decide is stationary and which moving is an entirely arbitrary decision, and whichever we choose, we will get the result that it is running slower than the other clock. Clearly when the clocks come together they cannot both be slower than the other.

Also when we choose the Earth as the start and finish of the journeys, we have no right to assume that the Earth is at rest either.

In fact in the great debate between Dingle and McCrea on this subject, McCrea conceded at one point that this was a symmetrical situation, then proceeded to answer a different question.

So, I am still waiting to see a sensible answer to this question.
As I said before, I suspect that Relativity is unable to distinguish between the two in any meaningful way

I reserve my right to ask this question, it is up to the self-styled "experts" to answer it, if they can.

The fact that this debate is unresolved 99 years after the theory was first published, means I wont be holding my breath waiting for a solution.

regards
---Steve

ram2048

Jun7-04, 07:40 PM

meh, my reply wasn't good enough either?

i said basically if the universe only included these two objects then yes they'd be the same. but the universe does NOT include just these two objects it includes the earth the sun the stars everything. so when one accelerates it isn't in relation to the other object (although it IS but not trivially so) it is in relationship to its position in the universe as a whole.

hell if there's general relativity and special relativity i'm gonna call mine universal relativity :|

geistkiesel

Jun7-04, 09:07 PM

that's why i was saying it's not the acceleration but the speed. if they both accelerated to the speed of light at the exact same rate, but one experienced a period of deceleration on return before taking the measurement, the entire period where their speeds were not the same is the calculated part where their times and aging would be different.

if acceleration IS the cause for time dialation, then it can only be measured by RATE of acceleration, because once you stop accelerating and are just cruising at a constant speed, your time would be back to normal.

How is acceleration separated from time dilation?. Is this a theoretical postulate or a convenient reply to an unwamted complexity or experimentally defined?

It seems to me that acceleration is a key to much, if not all of relativity theory. For instance, accleration places the acclerated body in a higher energy state than an unaccelerated state. Higher energy states of matter are in higher states of vibration modes that operate to dilate clocks. In an unaccelerated, low energy state, the molecular components of a dynamic entity have wide spectrum of efficient equilibrium, for required interactions, where higher energy state the efficiency of interactions decreases. Eventually a state of vibration can be so violent that efficiency (whatever that is) of intermolecular activity is effectively diminished. Energy exchanges are more swept up in performing trivial tasks of energy exchanges and storage and less to velocity increases for accelerated particles. Time dilation occurs for a similar reason: the frequency of completed "clock cycles" decreases with increased chaos at higher energy level: A form of ordered complexity struggling to perform all the required tasks in the processes demanded at the instant.

Therefore long durations at constant velocity are merely long durations of less efificient intermolecular activity. But all this is set, established, by the accelerations.

I have my "flat earth" model based somewhat on this. Ont he planet surface one will be hard pressed to find a deviation from flat as measured by a laser beam. Eventually, however, a moving object comes to the edge of flat zones, which are more like flat irregulalry shaped regions of flatness, flat plates, quantized plates scattered around as they are and difficult to detect, especiall if one isn't looking. When accelerating into orbit the higher energy state gives one a spherical perspective. when measuring the earth which from this energy state is clearly measured spherical. Even the moon looks flat, until one achieves a very high energy state like an oribiting trajectory around the moon, but we know it isn't, flat, don't we?. Much of what we view and perceive as a particular shape is socially determined, such as beauty and acceoptable limits of fat, skinny, handsome, ugly ec.

here's the molecular theory on this one based on electron orbits. basically when travelling at a certain speed, the atoms in an object all get pulled forward because they're connected. electrons have to travel "more" to stay in orbit because of the motion (their orbits have become elliptical relative to the universe, but still circular to their perspective). since they still travel the same rate, but have larger orbits, it takes them more "time" to complete revolutions. at close to light speed, the electrons have alot of trouble completing revolutions, because the relative paths are stretched out very far.

At light speed, the electrons cannot even complete a revolution because they'd have to travel faster than light to traverse along their path when going forward.

How practical is the electron in orbit model? Once we've got all the electrons jammed into their proper energy states in an atom, who is to say this is the way they spend their idle time? In one sense all electrons could be in the same "energy state" as a soup of some kind, a form of supeconducitivity, until a field is exerted. The permamnet superconducting state only appears at low temperature, low energy, when different interaction states are manifest and processes are implied, without violating exclusivity principals. Onlywhen acted upon, ( room temperature)when extracting or ionizing a particle do the energy states appearas significan, as we all observe.

Just some random musings, but as long as there is an implied "I dunno"
everybody gets their own perspective, kind of like SR theorists gets a percpetion unique to his inertial speed.

This isn't a righteous argunment, but maybe it is, the SR postulates are seemingly consistent regarding the laws of physics and the measurement of the speed of light, except for the blatant unphysical "postulates" that effectively separates inertial frames in such a way that the inertial levels have no physical law counter part that can describe the differences as expressed by SR theory, namely simultaneity. Very suspicious. :wink:

ram2048

Jun7-04, 09:42 PM

well it'll have to all come down to my theory that motion = time, so when there is no motion in an atom no relative time is passing for it.

as far as electron orbits i have no idea if that's even real. i am going to assume that molecules or atoms HAVE to move in order for interaction to take place

and that high velocity impedes their movement-interaction in such a fashion that time dialation is caused.

but until some better time-dialation experiments come forth with new information it's pretty much anyone's game :D

Alkatran

Jun7-04, 11:07 PM

But regardless, the point is that analysis does not stop simply because the abstract concept of "Work" calculated from the Work Function is zero. When a zero result from this purely abstract Work calculation occurs it simply means that a force did not result in the motion of an object in this case [i.e. Work = Force x (zero)Distance]. It does not mean zero effort or energy was expended by the applied force. Yet today's justification for all sorts of energy expended by Newton's gravitational force tries to get by on precisely that thin, flawed argument

I was reading through your post, hit into this, then started skimming. I'm in high school and I can see the flaws here. There is zero work done on the moon because its potential gravitational energy always stays the same (as does it's kinetic energy!). That means that (, gasp,) there is no work being done! You seem to be stuck visualizing the problem from the wrong angle, the fact that the moon is changing direction doesn't imply a change in energy since ENERGY IS NOT A VECTOR - The only thing that matters in determining the "energy" of the moon is it's height and speed, which remain almost constant (assuming it has a circular orbit, of course).

relative_sceptic

Jun7-04, 11:18 PM

The one who is accelerating will age slower. This is absolute acceleration not relative acceleration. There is a difference.

Except it is possible to visualise a situation where they both experience exactly the same accelerations (but at different times) before returning to their starting point. One has travelled further from the starting point than the other before returning. So during their periods of relative uniform motion one is supposed to age slower, but which one?, since during these periods it is not possible say which is moving and which is stationary. It is not possible also to say that the starting point is stationary.

relative_sceptic

Jun7-04, 11:24 PM

relative_sceptic

Jun7-04, 11:32 PM

Okay, this is something that, in my opinion, gets overlooked to often when discussing this type of thing, and it leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion.

The first thing to realise is that acceleration does not cause time dilation from the view of the unaccelerated frame. (IOW if you are observing an object that is accelerating, you only have to deal with its velocity at any given moment to determine its time dilation, the fact that it is accelerating has no effect.

Now in the accelerated frame, things are different, If you are in this frame, three factors control how you will measure other objects time rates: the magnitude of the accelleration, the direction the object is with respect to the acceleration, and the distance of the the object.

The second thing is that time dialtion is not something that anyone experiences it is something that you measure as happening in other frames.

Now in your situation, from the Earth Frame, the twin that turned around last ages the least becuase he undergoes the longest duration of time dilation.

From either twins view, Earth time runs fast when they turn around and start heading back (when they are an accelerated frame once they retrun to uniform motion towards the Earth, they will once more measure time running slow on Earth). Since the twin that turns around last is further from the Earth when he turns around, he will measure Earth time as running that much faster during this time. He will return to Earth expecting more time as having passed on Earth than his brother will.

OK, except arent you treating the earth as being "at rest". As far as I can see when the spaceship is travelling away from the earth at a constant speed, you are equally entitled to say the earth is moving away from the spaceship at constant speed, and the spaceship is stationary, so clocks on earth should run slower.

geistkiesel

Jun7-04, 11:47 PM

Basically this is the paradox:- when considering uniform relative motion, we have no right to say whether a clock is "moving" or "stationary", we can only say one is in motion relative to the other. Now in this case, if we want to calculate how much slower one clock has gone, how do we know which clock to perform our calculations on. The situation is entirely symmetrical. And which one we decide is stationary and which moving is an entirely arbitrary decision, and whichever we choose, we will get the result that it is running slower than the other clock. Clearly when the clocks come together they cannot both be slower than the other.

I trust we can alter the question slightlty by inserting that two frames had recently shared a comon stationary frame . Each frame knows its velocity is greater than the stationary common frame. Hiowever, the distance between the frames is huge and merely sending their current clock setting wont work in determining which is the faster frame with respect to the common stationary frame. How may the frames determine which is fastest. The frame clocks are identical with a stationary frame clock pulse rate = 1.

Each frame's clock is pulsing at some frequency where the signals are true pulses, | | | | | | | |. Would not the slowest frame receive a pulse rate from the faster at a slower rate than his own pulse rate?

Likewise, would not the fastest frame determine the pulse rate from the slower was generated at a higher frequancy than his own?

This seems rather trivial if true, having heard all the horror stories of relativity theory that seem to deny the ability to do this..

geistkiesel

Jun8-04, 01:22 AM

ram2048

Jun8-04, 01:31 AM

very interesting. i'll have to look into that one :D

thanks

geistkiesel

Jun8-04, 07:27 AM

hell if there's general relativity and special relativity i'm gonna call mine universal relativity :|

ram2048, I have a problem. I calculated that an electromagnetic sphere whose radius was expanding at a rate equal to c would have a radius equal to c after one second which means the diameter would be 2c afte one second that means the oppositiely directed photons were expanding at a relative rate of 2c.
I was hushed an told be quite. Where is the fallacy in all of this? :wink:

ram2048

Jun8-04, 12:12 PM

i don't see a problem with that... :D

baffledMatt

Jun8-04, 02:40 PM

You call yourself a physicist, and even seem to think you understand relativity, (I bet you also think you understand Quantum Theory), yet you cant answer this question without your texbooks.

Hmm, sorry I didn't realise that having all the calculations for SR at the tips of ones fingers was a requisite for being a physicist. Does this go for all theories? I mean, should I also be able to solve the 2d Ising model without my books?

Well, I guess I'm not a physicist then... and there I was, doing so well in my PhD and everything...

Matt

relative_sceptic

Jun8-04, 04:04 PM

I trust we can alter the question slightlty by inserting that two frames had recently shared a comon stationary frame . Each frame knows its velocity is greater than the stationary common frame. Hiowever, the distance between the frames is huge and merely sending their current clock setting wont work in determining which is the faster frame with respect to the common stationary frame. How may the frames determine which is fastest. The frame clocks are identical with a stationary frame clock pulse rate = 1.

Each frame's clock is pulsing at some frequency where the signals are true pulses, | | | | | | | |. Would not the slowest frame receive a pulse rate from the faster at a slower rate than his own pulse rate?

Likewise, would not the fastest frame determine the pulse rate from the slower was generated at a higher frequancy than his own?

This seems rather trivial if true, having heard all the horror stories of relativity theory that seem to deny the ability to do this..

I dont think you are allowed to say that a frame is "stationary", so you also cannot say that the two frames know they are travelling faster than the common frame. They might consider themselves to be stationary and the common frame moving away from them.

relative_sceptic

Jun8-04, 04:41 PM

Hmm, sorry I didn't realise that having all the calculations for SR at the tips of ones fingers was a requisite for being a physicist. Does this go for all theories? I mean, should I also be able to solve the 2d Ising model without my books?

Well, I guess I'm not a physicist then... and there I was, doing so well in my PhD and everything...

Matt

There you go again, arrogance is quite common in PhD students, fortunately they usually get over it, I'm sure you will too.
What I am trying to point out tho is the contradiction here, I've seen numerous answers to this problem which merely try to avoid the issue or cloud the issue, by pages of calculations and spacetime diagrams, none of which really address the issue.
I'm also trying to say keep an open mind and dont be too sure of what you think you understand, and that you cant blindly accept everything you read in text books.
BTW I'm not a supporter of this new TOE guy, it sounds like a scam to sell books to me.

I like to think I can see logical contradictions in arguments, and the bull**** people use to cover them up.
But then who knows.

All I know is that a lot of people have have based a lot of their work on the principles of relativity and if it was accepted that there was some flaw in relativity, their work could be discredited, and their reputations would be diminished. They have a huge vested interest in maintaining the theory as flawless. In which case their motives have to be questioned, and also the validity of the arguments they put forward.
Unfortunately not all scientists have the highest motives, they are as prone to human weakness as everybody else.

Anyway thats enough of a rant, as far as SR is concerned I will just have to wait and hope that time will tell.

---steve

baffledMatt

Jun8-04, 06:27 PM

By the way...

Mmmmmhhhh

So can someone tell me which one is older when they have both experienced identical accelerations on their journeys, but at different times?

---Steve

Are you aware that this scenario is not symmetric? So any discrepancy between the ages of the twins is not a problem.

Matt

elenaedinburgh

Jun11-04, 02:11 PM

Thank God for you guys!

vacuum

Jun17-04, 05:53 PM

The most amazing thing to me is that they've actually provided a link to this discussion on the mentioned site.

Ponder Stibbons

Jun24-04, 02:52 AM

Ignoring periods of acceleration, the spacebound twin's journey involves two inertial reference frames: One leaving, one returning. So there's three reference frames you're likely to want to consider things from.

From the earthbound reference frame, the earthbound twin undergoes no time-dilation and the spacebound twin undergoes some each way. (I say undergoes because you don't experience it, you see it happening to others.) The spacebound twin is x years younger on return.

From the departing reference frame, the earthbound twin undergoes constant time-dilation. The spacebound twin initially undergoes no TD, then undergoes MORE TD than the earthbound one on the return leg, and is x years younger on catching up with Earth.

From the inbound reference frame, the earthbound twin undergoes constant TD. The spacebound twin initially undergoes more TD, so much that even though he/she/it undergoes no TD on the return leg he/she/it is still x years younger than the earthbound twin when Earth arrives.

See? No paradox - unless you didn't know you had a twin! :smile:

Muddler

Jun28-04, 01:41 PM

ram1024

Jun28-04, 02:17 PM

Time dialation exists because it was a necessary assumption (along with length contraction) to keep special relativity consistant.

you can assume that time is absolute and unchanging for all speeds, but then light speed would not be relatively unchanging <measured> to all observers

which is not so bad... :D

Prometheus

Jun28-04, 03:23 PM

What would be so awfully wrong about thinking that time is the same, no matter where you are and how fast you are moving?

There is nothing wrong with this. Go ahead and believe so, if you like. Physics belived this way for a long time, in what is known as Newtonian physics.

However, scientists wanted to move beyond Newtonian physics, in order to better understand the nature of the world. If you want to join them, then you would have to realize that space and time interact in what is known as space-time. In this scenario, motion through time is dependent upon motion through space. You want to change the rate of motion through space, yet have no affect on the rate of motion through time. This is now understood, in Einsteinian physics, to be impossible.

However, there is nothing wrong with you for not wanting the increased complexity of understanding that is required for what little you might gain in your personal life. Feel free to continue with Newtonian physics, or whatever level of science you may have.

jcsd

Jun28-04, 03:54 PM

Hi there!
If been thinking a lot about this whole "Twin Paradoxon"-issue.
I don't have a problem to understand, that there is a difference between who is being absolutely accelerated and who is not (since stating that the spacebound twin is "stationary" would mean, the whole rest of the universe has to be moved away from him - taking the two guys solely into account might be right for calculating but not for understanding how the whole thing would work out in "reality". For that kind of understanding a simple guy like me needs simple analogies).

My actual question is, if anyone could tell me why there has to be something like "time dilation" at all? And, if possible, without quoting a pile of formulas that I won't understand anyway.

What was Einsteins "idea" behind the theory that made him state that time has to be relative too?

What would be so awfully wrong about thinking that time is the same, no matter where you are and how fast you are moving?

I know this question might sound stupid to you, but if anyone would take the time and enlighten me, I would be really thankful!!

It's possible to demonstarte time dialtion with a simple geometric argument and a few assumptions:

Imagine a beam of light travelling between an emitter and a detector (which are staionary relative to each other) and an observer (denoted by an 'A' in the diagram) moving perpendicualr realtive to the emitter and detector.

This is what is seen from the rest frame of the detector and emitter:

|----->| A
|
|
|
|

This is what is seen from the rest frame of the observer

/| A
/
/
/
|/

It's clear to see that the beam of light travelled further from the point of view of our observer A. As the speed of light is constant in ALL rest frames this means that from the point of view of the observer A the light took longer to travel between the emitter and the detecot than it did it did from the point of view of someone in the rest frame and the emitter i.e. time has been dialated.

If we use the Newtonian kinematic equation for constant veocity:

x = ut

And let c be the speed of light, u the relative velcoity of the observer to our emitter/detector set-up, t' the time measured for the beam of light to travel from the emitter to the detector in the emitter/detectr set-up's rest frame and t the time measured for the beam of light to travel from the emitter to dector in A's rest frame then we can annote our second diagram with the appropiate lengths:

/|
ct / |
/ | ut'
/ |
/ |
------
ct'

using the Pythagorean theorum we can say:

c^2t^2 = u^2t'^2 + c^2t'^2

therfeore:

t'^2 = t^2(1 - \frac{u^2}{c^2})

therfore:

t' = \frac{t}{\sqrt{1-\frac{c^2}{u^2}}}

which is our formula for time dialation.

tavi_boada

Jun28-04, 04:04 PM

Jack, it is not true that physics can't answer that question. An iluminating way to view it is with the analogy of waves on a cord. Suppose you start moving up and down the end of a rope of a certain density. The perturbations will propagate along the cord at a certain speed which is related to it's density. Now suppose you tie another cord with a different density to the opposite end of the first one. The perturbation traveling along the first rope will be transmitted faster on the new rope if it's density is smaller, and this is only non-relativistic classical physics. There will be reflections, the wave transmitted to the new rope will be less energetic,etc.

This analogy is not completely accurate because light doesn't propagate in a medium, but it helps.

zoobyshoe

Jun28-04, 04:39 PM

which is our formula for time dialation.
I have read this example set up differently, where the emitter/detector were moving and the observer stationary.

In that case, I have wondered if the moving emitter/detector were moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light would the light actually be shown to have any component of movement in the direction of travel?

It isn't the same situation as tossing a ball up and down on a train where the ball already has momentum in the direction of train travel. The photon is created on the spot, and since quanta are not like anything else, I wonder if a stream of photons emmitted at 90º to the direction of travel wouldn't actually have the appearance of a curve away and opposite to the direction of travel. If the detector were far enough away and the speed of the emitter great enough, the photon might not even hit the detector before it (the detector) moved out of the way.

jcsd

Jun28-04, 05:06 PM

I have read this example set up differently, where the emitter/detector were moving and the observer stationary.

I actuually thought that one up myself, but I was flicking through Feynman vol 1 and I noticed that he had almsot exactly the same demonstartion in it, so I may of unsuspectingly took the idea from there. Due to the relatvity of constant motion there is no objective difference between the observer and the emitter/dector moving.

In that case, I have wondered if the moving emitter/detector were moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light would the light actually be shown to have any component of movement in the direction of travel?

The diagrams do imply that the dector/emitter is moving at very close to the speed of light (in fact if you study the actual lengths in the diagram they're moving at above the speed of light, but the diagram is only meant to be a rough sketch so don't draw any conclusions from that!)

I think you have to be clearer on what you mean by direction of travel' i.e. whose direction of travel relative to what?

ram1024

Jun28-04, 05:12 PM

Due to the relatvity of constant motion there is no objective difference between the observer and the emitter/dector moving.

i have outlined exactly why "changing the objective frame" doesn't hold true for dealing with light

you are on the right track, zooby. if you want to sift through 25 pages of arguments i have a thread "Today special relativity dies". it gives pretty good arguments from both sides in detail so you can see where each are coming from

zoobyshoe

Jun28-04, 05:12 PM

In the case where the emitter/detector are moving the direction of travel is theirs. The light is emitted at 90º to this.

zoobyshoe

Jun28-04, 05:22 PM

you are on the right track, zooby. if you want to sift through 25 pages of arguments i have a thread "Today special relativity dies".
I'll wait till the Reader"s Digest short version is issued.

I'm not really on a track here, so much as trying to separate what is "gedanken" from what is real. You can't see a beam of light to begin with, so it may also be that the path it takes is also a stipulation. I'm not quite sure.

jcsd

Jun28-04, 06:28 PM

i have outlined exactly why "changing the objective frame" doesn't hold true for dealing with light

you are on the right track, zooby. if you want to sift through 25 pages of arguments i have a thread "Today special relativity dies". it gives pretty good arguments from both sides in detail so you can see where each are coming from

Your arguments are based on Gallilean relativity, which is odd as you also reject that.

jcsd

Jun28-04, 06:33 PM

In the case where the emitter/detector are moving the direction of travel is theirs. The light is emitted at 90º to this.

In that case there must be a component in the direction they are travelling, the only case when this is not so is when the relative velocities are zero 9in which case they don't have a direction of motion).

For the case of 90 degrees, remember in special relativity light always travels in a straight line in all inertial refrence frames.

ram1024

Jun28-04, 07:35 PM

Your arguments are based on Gallilean relativity, which is odd as you also reject that

i had no idea what "Galilean Relativity" was until i brought my thoughts to this forum. so my thoughts are not "based on" galilean relativity, but many of the principles remain the same.

i've never rejected it, i just don't know enough about it to see what's wrong with it... if anything.

ram1024

Jun28-04, 07:55 PM

I'll wait till the Reader"s Digest short version is issued

i understand completely :D

it helps to view it internally, and find a self-rational view of how things would work. then tackle what scientists have concluded piece by piece, comparing it to your own view and re-structuring how you view things if need be.

you end up with a view of how things work AS MAKES SENSE TO YOU <which is important> and also consistant with how others have found things to be.

reilly

Jun28-04, 09:44 PM

[QUOTE=Janus]As to how light "speeds back up" after leaving a substance, here is the easiest way of looking at it.

Photons always travel at c. When they enter a transparent substance, however, they encounter molecules/atoms. As they do so, the molecules absorb the photons. When that happens the photons cease to exist.

Then after a short delay, the molecule , re-emits a photon traveling in nearly the same direction as the first. This new photon, upon creation, begins to travel at c until it encounters another molecule.

These slight delays between absorption and emission, increases the time it take from the time a photon enters a substance to the time one emerges form the other side.

This give the impression that light slowed down while traveling through the subtance.
(If you knew that some friends had left their home, which was 60 miles distant from you, at a given time, and they arived at your house 1 1/2 hrs later, It would seem to you that they drove the distancea 40 mph. Even if, while on the road, they drove at 60 mph, but stopped for gas along the way, got a quick bite to eat somewhere, had to fix a flat , etc. )

Light travels though a substance in similar fits and starts.

RA What you say is true, but the actual computations and detailed theory are dificult. (Among the early contributors are some of the marques names in physics, Rayleigh (explained why the sky is blue), Einstein and Smolukowski who investigated and showed the importance of fluctuation in local numbers of molecular scatterers, less well known is Mie who developed the theory of why the rainbow looks as it does.

The slowdown occurs through interference inside the material -- the slowdown is reflected in the so-called group velocity of a wave packet , all frequencies treavel at c-- the scattering results in changes in the frequency of the light. The frequency shifts are due to, among other things, molecular recoil, and sometimes due to so-called radiative broadening due to the lifetimes of the excited molecular states.

But, once outside, the light suffers no interference, and so goes at c. There are no contradictions; the theory has been tested countless times -- including the theory of radar we all depend on while flying.

The theory, like most in physics, is descriptive, as are Maxwell's equations. We physicists make no pretension that we understand how, or why charges emit radiation or produce fields. But the modern world is testimony that once we assume fields, the resulting theory is staggeringly useful, and remarkably accurate.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

zoobyshoe

Jun29-04, 04:37 AM

In that case there must be a component in the direction they are travelling, the only case when this is not so is when the relative velocities are zero 9in which case they don't have a direction of motion).
But I'm trying to determine if your "there must be" is a stipulation or if it has been determined to be true. Will a photon emitted from a space ship traveling at an appreciable fraction of c at 90º to the ships direction of travel actually have a component of motion in the direction of the ships travel? Or is this a stipulation to make the point about what the observer will see?

Imagine the emitter/detector as two ships both traveling in the same direction at the same speed .9999999c. They are side by side but separated by 300,000 miles. It will take well over a second for a photon to cover this distance.

If ship Emitter aims its photon gun at ship Detector and fires one round, will not ship Detector have vacated the target area by the time the photon arrives where it was aimed?

If someone on ship Emitter throws a rock at ship Detector it will, indeed, eventually hit ship Detector. The rock, though, has acquired momentum in the direction of Emitter/Detector's travel by virtue of its mass. A photon has no mass and I wouldn't be surprised to find out it behaved differently than a rock in the same circumstances.

Muddler

Jun29-04, 11:46 AM

There is nothing wrong with this. Go ahead and believe so, if you like. Physics belived this way for a long time, in what is known as Newtonian physics.

However, there is nothing wrong with you for not wanting the increased complexity of understanding that is required for what little you might gain in your personal life. Feel free to continue with Newtonian physics, or whatever level of science you may have.

Hmmph!
That's just the kind of answer I needed.
I know you are brilliant and I'm a klutz, but I knew that before.
The problem is, I'd like to believe in Einsteinian physics, but it's not as easy for me to just accept it without understanding the problems that Einstein's theory claims to solve.
Time dilation is explained as a necessary consequence of relativity.
But why is it so important for lightspeed to be measured as a constant value?
I have no problem with lightspeed being constant and I know that experiments have shown a constant value for lightspeed even with moving emitters and detectors. But that was on earth (or near it) and the speed of the objects has always been small in relation to the speed of light.
Do you know of any experiment (references welcome!), where light-emitters have actually been accelarated to near-lightspeed? (And I mean lab-experiments, not any distant supernova or anything we measured and calculated already using Einstein's concepts)
You see my problem?
People always seem to say that relativity (with all its consequences) has to be true, because....because it needs to be true to work!
That simply doesn't satisfy me.
I know that many things can be accurately calculated using Einstein's formulas, but to me that's not the same as Einstein's idea of spacetime being real.
I always try to get a concept of physics as a whole, to understand what a formula or theory means.

I know, you are gonna tell me, I won't be able to understand it without becoming a student of physics and getting a degree, but I'm arrogant enough to think, that if you are not able to make me understand doesn't necessarily mean that I'm the one who is stupid... :approve:

ram1024

Jun29-04, 12:23 PM

skepticism is healthy as long as you can handle the criticism that comes with non-believing :D

basic physics is quite easy, and it's absolutely necessary just in order to get your foot in the door to understand anything.

the thinking part is more important than knowledge. according to basics:

1. knowing how to learn
2. knowing things
3. knowing how to apply "things"
4. knowing history and knowing how things have been used in the past
5. knowing society and the consequences and ramifications of using things

at that's that's the hiearchy as i've found it to be

Prometheus

Jun29-04, 02:00 PM

Hmmph!
That's just the kind of answer I needed.
I know you are brilliant and I'm a klutz, but I knew that before.

I never said that I am brilliant or that you are a klutz. All I said was that you do not have to learn about relativity, and therefore that you do not have to accept its tenets, if you do not wish to.

But why is it so important for lightspeed to be measured as a constant value?

Let me take a stab at this one. How is our species aware of time? Fundamentally, we are aware of time by observing motion through space. (For example, to be aware of units of time such as the month and the year, we observe the motion of the moon and the sun through space.) Therefore, space is necessary in order to be aware of time. How is our species aware of space? By observing changes in space. Such changes require time. Therefore, to be aware of space requires time, and to be aware of time requires space. This is the nature of space-time. How are we aware of space and time. By light. Light emitted from objects in space reaches our eyes and our techincal instruments to inform us of objects in space. Without light, there can be no awareness of time or space. Further than this, without light, there is no motion through time or space. Light is not only that which informs us of time and space, light is the enabler of space-time. Light is the enabler of space-time, and light is the conveyer of information about space-time. Everything that we see emits light all of the time.

Our part of the universe was thrown far out in space from the Big Bang. All of space-time in this part of the universe moves at a fairly constant rate of motion through space, and therefore a fairly constant rate of motion through time. This includes our light. The light in this part of the universe moves at a fairly constant rate of motion through space, and a fairly constant rate of motion through time. Although the rate of motion through space-time is constant for the entire universe, the rate of motion of light through space only seems constant in this part of the universe, but is not so everywhere in the universe.

The speed of light seems constant because there is motion through space-time only when there is light. Light, once emitted, does not age. It therefore travels at the same rate of motion through space and time. All of the light that we can see in this part of the universe is roughly the same age, and therefore moves at basically the same speed. We are unable to detect any differences.

Your usage of the word lightspeed reflects an understanding that light is in motion through space. You must also understand that light is in motion through time. In other words, light is in motion through space-time, and that motion through space and time is symmetrical. Increases in motion through space result in symmetrical decreases in motion through time, and vice versa. When you use the word lightspeed, you seem to be using a Newtonian definition, whereby speed though space is meant. You should realize that everything in the universe moves at the speed of light; it is only the spatial and temporal components that are subject to change.

zoobyshoe

Jun29-04, 02:54 PM

That's not a useful answer to muddlers question.

The question, itself, isn't put well. It is not important for light to be measured as constant. What happened is that when they have measured the speed of light, it always turns out to be constant. Even if you are, yourself, going at half the speed of light, a beam of light traveling in the same direction will pass you at the full speed of light, when it should seem only to be going half the speed of light.

Why it is like this is, really, a complete mystery. Einstein's solution to the problem was to theorize that, since light behaves that way, it must be because time is not absolute, that it can dilate in one reference frame relative to another by virtue of different relative velocities between the two reference frames.

Alot of people believe Einstein hit the nail on the head and explained the apparent problem with the constancy of the speed of light. Others have alot of doubts.

Relativity is accepted by main stream physics, which doesn't mean you can't question it, but you get a great deal of resistence, of course.

Muddler

Jun30-04, 12:31 PM

To Prometheus:
Sorry, no offense meant! I was just a bit frustrated about your "answering" my question by just talking about how complex physics are (by the way- I have to say that even your second response does not feel like an answer to my question to me...)

To Zoobyshoe:
You are right, my question wasn't put very well. What I really wanted to know is: have there been any experiments at higher speeds (e.g. half lightspeed as you stated) which prove that lightspeed is still constant with emitters/detectors moving that fast?
For I thought that all actual experiments where done using velocities which were small compared to lightspeed (and therefore our observations of constant lightspeed might not be as valid as we might think...).
It is easy to give examples of bodies moving at near-lightspeed when backed up by such an widely accepted theory as relativity, the question is which kind of examples are valid to prove it... :confused:

To all:
Just think about this one: instead of stating that lightspeed is the highest possible velocity in our universe you could as well say that lightspeed is the highest detectable speed (let's say for some reason as "spacetime-viscosity"). If we assume that any measurable effect in our universe can only be followed at lightspeed (just the way we are only able to perceive separate movement below frequencies of about 25 Hz - bad example, but I think it gets the idea...), then there would be no need for spacetime-dilation at all. I know this is pure speculation and therefore can't be disproved easily. But I don't find it harder to imagine that anything moving faster than light is just to quick to follow than trying to figure out, what warped spacetime looks like...

And finally:
As far as I understood Einstein's formula, any object (mass not zero) you try to accelerate to lightspeed (or above) will cause it's mass to go against infinite once you reach the "border", which means all additional acceleration-energy is then conversed directly into mass. If this is so, how comes all real fast moving particles we are able to observe have very little masses (or non at all) ?? And if you take E=mc² literally, doesn't that mean, that photons (which are said to have no mass) contain no energy at all??
The answer to that might be clear to you, but it keeps boggling my mind for sure...

jcsd

Jun30-04, 12:45 PM

But I'm trying to determine if your "there must be" is a stipulation or if it has been determined to be true. Will a photon emitted from a space ship traveling at an appreciable fraction of c at 90º to the ships direction of travel actually have a component of motion in the direction of the ships travel? Or is this a stipulation to make the point about what the observer will see? [p/quote]

I don't think I was partciualrly clear there must be, in the exmaple I showed were the light is emitted at 90 degrees to the direction of motion in the emitters rest frame, that's just a result of galliean relativity

Imagine the emitter/detector as two ships both traveling in the same direction at the same speed .9999999c. They are side by side but separated by 300,000 miles. It will take well over a second for a photon to cover this distance.

If ship Emitter aims its photon gun at ship Detector and fires one round, will not ship Detector have vacated the target area by the time the photon arrives where it was aimed?

No because the dector is at rest to the emitter so in that frame it doesn't even move and it just comes from self-cnsistenty that it must hit the dector in all rest frame.

If someone on ship Emitter throws a rock at ship Detector it will, indeed, eventually hit ship Detector. The rock, though, has acquired momentum in the direction of Emitter/Detector's travel by virtue of its mass. A photon has no mass and I wouldn't be surprised to find out it behaved differently than a rock in the same circumstances.
Rocks and photons do behave diffreently, but there's no need to consider the photons momantum here even as the importnat fact here is that light always travels at c.

jcsd

Jun30-04, 12:50 PM

To Zoobyshoe:
You are right, my question wasn't put very well. What I really wanted to know is: have there been any experiments at higher speeds (e.g. half lightspeed as you stated) which prove that lightspeed is still constant with emitters/detectors moving that fast?
For I thought that all actual experiments where done using velocities which were small compared to lightspeed (and therefore our observations of constant lightspeed might not be as valid as we might think...).
It is easy to give examples of bodies moving at near-lightspeed when backed up by such an widely accepted theory as relativity, the question is which kind of examples are valid to prove it... :confused:

I think there's 2 different things at work here:

1. the model that is special realitvity

2. evidence for that model.

So far we've only adressed the model, but be assured there is ALOT of evidence for special relativity.

Muddler

Jun30-04, 01:27 PM

I think there's 2 different things at work here:

1. the model that is special realitvity

2. evidence for that model.

So far we've only adressed the model, but be assured there is ALOT of evidence for special relativity.

Of course there is! That's why the theory of relativity is still used.
I'm not trying to discredit the whole theory, all I wanted to know is, what kind of proof we have to rightfully assume lightspeed to be constant under all thinkable (or better: testable) circumstances. If you have references for such experiments, I'd be real happy!

ram1024

Jun30-04, 04:11 PM

Tom Mattson is currently on a mission (albeit slightly MIA) to collect his available data for speed of light trials.

i'm thinking there was a mathematical calculation error personally, hopefully i can pinpoint where it is and convince you guys to see it from my perspective (which seems to be the hard part) :D

russ_watters

Jun30-04, 05:01 PM

...all I wanted to know is, what kind of proof we have to rightfully assume lightspeed to be constant under all thinkable (or better: testable) circumstances. If you have references for such experiments, I'd be real happy! We've got quite a collection in THIS (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=27526) thread.

reilly

Jun30-04, 07:19 PM

geistkiesel

Jul2-04, 09:09 AM

One can always hope that tunnel vision of SR will expand -- at what cost, who knows. There are a few points that typically get lost in these endless discussions of the validity of SR.

First, physics is a rough and tumble sport, and physics is full of predators. That is, at the first sign of weakness or fuzziness in a theory, and experiment, a calulation, physicists will jump all over the offending offering. So, SR has been cross-examined to an almost infinite degree. Someone earlier in this thread wrote about vested interests protecting SR. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any physicist would love to be the one to poke a hole in SR; that would mean immortalitiy. Just has not happened. The seminars in physics departments can be terribly vicious. Those challenging SR would last at most minute or two before being torn to intellectual shreds in any physics department seminar. Most posts here are gentle compared to comments from most professional physicists.

Second, physics like the law depends greatly on circumstantial evidence, mostly in the form of two way logic chains. The entire enterprise of particle physics depends critically on SR, usually with respect to relativistic kinematics -- and relativistic QM and field theory. That is, if the assumption that the speed of light is constant is not true, then many parts of physics would simply be wrong. That is, the evidence supporting SR is overwhelming. So overwhelming that it takes several years of course work to learn about the extent of the fabric of SR. About almost direct measurements of c: the pi 0 meson decays into two photons. if I'm not mistaken there's lots of data on the photon frequencies for a variety of pi 0 speeds. Circumstantial evidence to be sure, but it supports SR, and isotropy of c.

Is it possible that SR is wrong? Of course. But if it is, the odds are that the problems will emerge in areas about which we don't know much. Certainly we don't know much about photons that carry, say the energy of an asteroid. Perhaps at enormously high frequencies there might be problems. This suggests, perhaps, problems with relativistic field theory. There is, undoubtedly massive opportunity in the ultra-ultra hight frequency aries of physics.

It seldom pays to look for problems where the light has exposed all the nits and nats.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

Reilly take Enstein;s gedunken experiment where two photons are emitted simultaneously at A and B just as the moving observer is at the midpoint M of the A and B sources. As the moving frame continues it first detects the B phtobn and later the A photon coming from the rear. Einstein uses this sequential observtion of the pohotons as a definition of the loss of simultaneity and says that the observers in the moving frame "must therefore" conclude the photons were notwemitted simulataneously in the moving frame.

Let ius redesignethe experiment. At M the midpoint of gthe A and B photon sources, we insert some mirrors (\/) that deflect the A and B photons simultaneously into the moving frame, simultaneously. The photons are reflected when side by side. Tell us how the moving observers are able to, 1). Detect the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame and 2), which photon came from which source and 3) how simultaneity can possibly have any relevance to this problem that AE used as an example for the loss of simultaneity and the discarding of absolute time, among other aspects of SR.
If you can't answer this one you just kissed special relativity goodbye.

M
A-->\/<--B stationary frame.
||
########### detectors in the moving --> frame.
A'B'

russ_watters

Jul2-04, 10:32 AM

If you can't answer this one you just kissed special relativity goodbye.Your continuing misunderstandings of SR do not constitute evidence that it is wrong.

Alkatran

Jul2-04, 10:48 AM

I see what you're trying to do: You're trying to create an event (same time and position) and then make it so this event isn't simultaneous to all observers (all events at the same position are simultaneous).

Well here's what happens: In the stationary frame the light is emitted simultaenously and hits the detectors simulatenously.

In the moving frame the light also hits the emittors simulatenously, but is emitted at different times (the right emitter goes first).

Jonopants

Jul9-04, 12:12 PM

Is it possible that people who explain and debunk are merely paroting what their teachers said to them? Is this the case in debunking this "The Final Theory".

Prometheus

Jul10-04, 03:47 PM

Just think about this one: instead of stating that lightspeed is the highest possible velocity in our universe you could as well say that lightspeed is the highest detectable speed

Just think about this one: instead of focusing on the idea that the speed of light is the highest possible speed in the universe, focus on the idea that the speed of light is the only speed in the universe. Everything always moves at the same speed, the speed of light. The speed of light is constant, in space-time. As motion through space changes, so does motion through time.

Your point about "detectable" is valid, in the context of your usage of light as motion through space only, out of the context of time. Light from parts of the universe so far distant that it has not reached us yet has a different time element, and therefore should not be expected to travel through space at the same rate as the light with whcih we are familiar, in this part of the universe.

reilly

Jul10-04, 05:26 PM

geistkiesel -- Sorry to say, you just don't get it. Said another way, to rephrase my post #98, how can you ignore almost 100 years of history -- the score is Einstein, 100,000, opponents 0. Nobody has made even the slightest dent in SR; it is tested everyday. I fully concur with Russ Watters. If you are so convinced that you are correct, publish, speak, and, above all, convince. And note, that you will have to convince those of us who have worked with SR -- I've got almost 40 years.

The truth will out; you have a long way to go to be compelling with your SR doubts. When I taught SR, students asked questions like yours at the beginning of the course; at the end of the course they could answer their own questions and thus affirm SR in their own minds.

Your example is a trivial modification of the train experiment: the Lorentz transform ascribes different times to the emission of photons A and B in a frame moving with respect to the "emitting frame" But, all inertial observers will agree that the photons reach M, the midpoint, in the emitting frame, between A and B at the same time. If you use your mirrors, you will have photons on a parallel track; how to distinguish them is a matter of displacment of the photons by the mirrors, and or a matter of intial different polarizations states, or frequency. All you are doing is using a different detection procedure than is usually ascribed in the Train Expt.

You will have to do much better in order to convince your critics.

My motives in participating in this thread are those of a teacher -- I like to help people get to the truth. And, I believe in history, and the successful history of physics in particular.

Why do you hold on so hard to being an anti SR person? You want to be a successful physicist, then consider the rational approach which says that the odds of succeeding in your present path are virtually negative.A focus on experiments and data would greatly help your possibility of doing some good physics.

I've explained your nominal conundrum. Please explain where I've gone wrong in #98, particularly with respect to the ubiquity of SR in the physics of now, and the 20th century.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

ram1024

Jul10-04, 08:42 PM

Why do you hold on so hard to being an anti SR person? You want to be a successful physicist, then consider the rational approach which says that the odds of succeeding in your present path are virtually negative

Because SR is wrong? When something rubs you the wrong way, you attack it with all verve and determination you can. only when it completely makes sense to you can you ever give up and claim defeat. if you give up before then you're just lying to yourself and depriving the scientific world of your earnest efforts.

respect the cracked pot. there's always the possibility he might be right.

reilly

Jul11-04, 02:06 AM

geistkiesel -- Sad to say, cracked pots hold a one way ticket to obscurity, speeded up by their level of compulsion. If in fact you are the one in a billion that is right, then you must convince the rest of the world that you are correct. A better mousetrap will bring people to your doorstep, along with their respect. A fantasy moustrap might have a romantic appeal to a few, but will be jive to most. Good luck.
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

Chronos

Jul11-04, 05:12 AM

All of science has been built upon observation. Once we developed the language of mathematics, the ambiguities between observation and reality have rapidly disappeared. In that sense, mathematics is the ultimate description of reality. It is a language that is unambiguous. What we have discovered, unfortunately, is that the language of mathematics is just as incomplete and mysterious as the logic of Aristotle. It does not adequately explain all observations. Even our revered mathematics break down when 0 or infinities appear in the solution. According to Planck, time breaks down at 10-43 seconds, volume breaks down at 10-99/cm^3, and mass density breaks down at 10-93 gm/cc. These are not imaginary values. All observations to date have revealed no evidence these barriers have ever been breached [or even approached]. The good Lord knows, because many have tried and failed: even Einstein, who was a pretty bright fellow.

The only escape from 'singularities', such as these, is that our version of math is incomplete. Godel made that point long ago. Assumptions cannot be validated within the system they arise. 'a priori' assumptions ultimately become identities when reduced to simplest terms. The most fundamental interpretation of GR insists that all reference frames are innately self-referential.

Where is this 'better' math to be found? Unclear. My best guess is that we need not discard current knowledge. Just fill in the gaps where current math predicts infinite [or 1/infinite] results. Don't ask me how to do that. I am too old to both write and correct the numerous mistakes I would commit before I went nova.

WARNING: If this thread forces me go to the math forum for answers, I will find a way to make the most qualified star nearest to your planet to go Ia: assuming I find the math. [more likely it will be a dud and result in yet another main sequence yawner star orbited by dirt balls populated with equally annoying sentient beings].

notimeleftforyou

Aug5-04, 10:00 PM

I'm just a computer scientist that specializes in networking so I wouldn't fathom to say I am in your league if you are working on a Phd in physics.

I was reading the debate on time dilation & found it interesting that at no time any of you mentioned radioactive decay. Someone stated time=motion.

With respect to SR & GR common sense would suggest that acceleration is the key to time dilation with respect to the two astronauts perspective. But arguments dealing with age don't make much sense. Replacing the persons with clocks doesn't either because all of these entities experience radioactive decay. It would be better to compare two atomic clocks surrounded by a vac traveling in to balls of energy capable of escape velocity. With that in mind there are 3 points of reference:
1) Earth
2) Clock A
3) Clock B

From what I know about atomic clocks they are somehow affected by natural forces (G, EM, SN, WN). These forces are not constant in the universe so naturally they will vary the rate at which atomic clocks tick (figuratively speaking). That's why it's entirely possible for the following scenario:
Two energy balls carrying two atomic clocks leave at the same Earth time.
The travel the same distance, experience varied levels of acceleration, but arrive back at the same Earth time. It is possible for the clocks to differ greatly based on the natural forces they encountered in their journey.

So I don't think I would agree that time=motion. I would agree with time=decay. You could argue that motion is required for decay & I wouldn't disagree. But motion implies something multi-directional & decay implies something uni-directional. I think this is an important distinction because it pretty much addresses time-travel. If you view time as multi-directional motion then time travel is theoretically possible. But if you view it as uni-directional then it's not.

Now this is a far-reaching hypothesis but well it's good to add some fun to
the thread. The Bible says that God created the Universe & everything in it
in 6 days. God=creator, or initiator if you will. We know via decay measurements that this is impossible. But that assumes that decay has occured at a constant rate throughout time. Why should we assume this?
Why should we expect that (G,EM,SN,WN) would remain constant throughout the passage of Earth time? Now I'm not suggesting the Bible is right. But I am suggesting that relativity as indeed provided us explanations for how something like that could be right. All you have to imagine is that during those 6 God days of creation, the rate at which atomic clocks were ticking was a great magnitude higher then they are today. Is that plausible? Who knows. But I remember reading a theory that believed that was the case. Not the whole Bible thing but rather that the Earth has varying rates of atomic clocks. The closest you travel to the center the faster the rate of the clock.

As for The Final Theory, I would not agree with the premise of that which we do not know & label as mysterious is necc flawed. Unless the author can show an example of where his theory would lead enable us to conquer space travel, food shortages, energy shortages, or something else that would be beneficial to society the Standard Theory seems adequate to me. With it we have developed virtual reality, will develop nanotechnology, & eventually cyborgs. Even with the application of Standard Theory we should arrive close to God-hood in terms of extending human life & making it more durable to travel the Universe in a century from now. I think that's significant progress.
What I believe the author completely disregards in his comments that prevailing science is predicated on ST that is well over a century old is the impact of computer science. Computer science has enabled us to attack scientific problems at light speed relatively speaking in comparison to what was possible 4 decades ago.

One day we will know exactly what the force is that makes magnets stick
to fridges. Does the author know why? Because technology born of CS & ST
will help us to observe the inner-mechanisms of that force first hand.

Layne

Sep24-04, 09:44 PM

Hello everyone! I blundered into this forum by clicking the link from The Final Theory website. I'd like to put in my two cents.

It is my fervent hope that someday an outsider will come along and shatter our current paradigm with a more elegant, more simple, and more functional explaination. Just as some of yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions, and some of the rabble-rousing, authority-defying, status-quo-breaking people in history are now revered as fathers of (insert name of their nation, cause, religion, or branch of science here), many of the breakthroughs in science - and the scientists that offered them - were met with stiff opposition and open hostility before they became universally accepted.

With this historical perspective in mind, it makes sense to suspend our disbelief and preconceptions as much as possible and give a newcomer such as The Final Theory a fair opportunity to convince us that what we have believed up till now is incorrect.

But the knife cuts both ways. The Final Theory owes the scientific community the same consideration. He owes us a fair opportunity to put his theory to the test, to question it, and to respond to it.

So here's my problem. The Final Theory claims one simple principle is responsible for gravity, electro-magnetism, atomic structure, celestial observations, and more. But demands we pay $29.95 each for the chance to learn what this one simple principle is.

He may be absolutely correct. There may be one simple principle that explains all this stuff. There's no way any of us can know unless we know the one simple principle he uses as the basis of his book. Why doesn't he submit this theory to a science journal instead of try to make money off a generally uneducated public? If is book is as convincing as his web site would have us believe, why not present it to one of the physics journals or even Scientific American?

How can we have an intelligent discussion with him of only he knows the principle we're discussing? This isn't poker. We shouldn't have to pay to see his cards.

Layne