Does My Wrist Watch Physically Beat Slower?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kingfire
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    watch
Kingfire
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

My own speculation:

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

I am not sure though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Kingfire said:
Hello,

Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

My own speculation:

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

I am not sure though.
In the Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) in which the Earth is at rest (we treat the Earth as if it were all by itself, not orbiting in a solar system), clocks that are at rest on the Earth tick at the same rate as the Coordinate Time of the IRF. Clocks that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF. So if you are traveling "at a speed close to the speed of light", then you are experiencing Time Dilation meaning your clock takes longer to beat an earthly second than the earthly Time Coordinate of the IRF.
 
First wrist watches don't beat! What relativity says is that your wrist watch will run slower, your pulse will be slower, you will move slower, as observed from a frame of reference with respect to which you are moving. Of course, from your point of view that person observing you is moving with respect to you and so you will observe his watch running slower, his pulse beating slower, etc.

Yes, this is a "real" result. It has been, for example, experimentally verified that elementary particles that are moving fast with respect to the laboratory have longer lifetimes than those that are stationary with respect to the laboratory.
 
ghwellsjr said:
In the Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) in which the Earth is at rest (we treat the Earth as if it were all by itself, not orbiting in a solar system), clocks that are at rest on the Earth tick at the same rate as the Coordinate Time of the IRF. Clocks that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF.

O.K. so far.

ghwellsjr said:
So if you are traveling "at a speed close to the speed of light", then you are experiencing Time Dilation...

ghwellsjr, not to sound critical, rather just to point out how careful you have to be with the language when communicating this. I know what you mean by your statement and understand it just fine. The moving observer has the experience that nothing unusual is going on with the tick rate of his clock. His proper time is ticking away the same as everyone else's proper time.

ghwellsjr said:
...meaning your clock takes longer to beat an earthly second than the earthly Time Coordinate of the IRF.

Being a little more careful you might not want to say that the moving observer has the experience of his clock ticking more slowly than the IRF.
The moving observer would actually have the experience of observing the IRF clock to tick more slowly than his own. Each observer has the experience of the other's clock ticking more slowly.

Again, I know the correct meaning you were intending and was just trying to make sure your meaning was understood by Kingfire.
 
Last edited:
Kingfire said:
Hello,

Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

My own speculation:

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

I am not sure though.

Kingfire, there are at least two different competing interpretations of special relativity on this forum.

1) First, there is what is known as the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). If you are basing the answer to your question on this interpretation, the answer to your question would be, yes. Yes, your watch physically beats slower. That's because, according to LET, there are time shifts in the transmittal of electrical forces between and within physical objects, resulting in actual changes in speeds of physical interactions, including clock mechanisms (affecting tick rates, etc.).

2) The other interpretation of special relativity is based on the Minkowski 4-dimensional spacetime representation. In this view there is no intrinsic change in clock tick rates. However, different observers (moving relative to each other) live in different 3-D cross-sections of a 4-dimensional universe. We will refer to these as different hyperplanes of simultaneity. If clocks are modeled as 4-D objects, then different hyperplanes of simultaneity will cut across a 4-D clock at different points along the 4-D worldline of that clock (different time points). Thus, different observers will in general read different values on that clock.

These brief comments do not really give you the story, but if you are interested there are those here who could explain this with more clarity and detail.

The hyperplanes for a blue and red observer correspond to the blue X1 axis and the red x1 axis. Three observers pass each other at event A, and each has a different reading for a clock that is at rest in the black inertial reference frame. Each observer is moving along his own X4 axis at the speed of light.

SpaceTime_zps03869974.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't think Einstein ever intended his Special Relativity theory to apply to the real world. He was proposing an idealised world where things did not obey the laws of nature. He postulated a. A world where matter moves in perpetual motion and b. a world where the speed of light is a constant. From those (and other) imaginary scenarios he worked out a system. Sort of like the computer world 'Second Life'.

We all know that is not the real situation. Clocks keep the same time everywhere and no one moves in perpetual motion.
 
bobc2 said:
Kingfire, there are at least two different competing interpretations of special relativity on this forum.

I'm not sure that's relevant to the OP, since all of the competing interpretations make the same predictions for all experimental results, including those having to do with time dilation.
 
bobc2 said:
ghwellsjr said:
In the Inertial Reference Frame (IRF) in which the Earth is at rest (we treat the Earth as if it were all by itself, not orbiting in a solar system), clocks that are at rest on the Earth tick at the same rate as the Coordinate Time of the IRF. Clocks that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF.
O.K. so far.
ghwellsjr said:
So if you are traveling "at a speed close to the speed of light", then you are experiencing Time Dilation...
ghwellsjr, not to sound critical, rather just to point out how careful you have to be with the language when communicating this. I know what you mean by your statement and understand it just fine. The moving observer has the experience that nothing unusual is going on with the tick rate of his clock.
Yes, that's why I first said (and you agreed with me), "Clocks that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF", which is another of saying, "clocks that are moving are experiencing Time Dilation". When talking about the observer moving with the clock, are you only going to agree if I say "observers that are moving tick more slowly in the IRF"? People don't tick so I used the equivalent statement, "experiencing Time Dilation". Since both the observer and his clock are experiencing the exact same Time Dilation, the observer's subjective perception of time agrees with his objective observation of his clock. No one is ever aware of the Time Dilation of any clock, not his own or any clock moving with respect to himself.
bobc2 said:
His proper time is ticking away the same as everyone else's proper time.
No, it's not, unless you can find an IRF in which he and everyone else are traveling at the same constant speed.
bobc2 said:
ghwellsjr said:
...meaning your clock takes longer to beat an earthly second than the earthly Time Coordinate of the IRF.
Being a little more careful you might not want to say that the moving observer has the experience of his clock ticking more slowly than the IRF.
The moving observer would actually have the experience of observing the IRF clock to tick more slowly than his own. Each observer has the experience of the other's clock ticking more slowly.

Again, I know the correct meaning you were intending and was just trying to make sure your meaning was understood by Kingfire.
Apparently you do not know the correct meaning I was intending based on your re-interpretation. The moving observer would not actually have the experience of observing the IRF clock to tick more slowly than his own. There are so many things wrong with your statement. First off, I never referred to an IRF clock--there is no such thing. Maybe you thought I meant a particular clock that was stationary in the IRF.

That brings me to the second wrong thing. As I said before, no one can ever observe the Time Dilation of any clock, let alone "actually have the experience of observing the IRF clock to tick more slowly than his own". I have no idea what you mean by that or why you would think that is what I really intended to say.

Finally, your statement that, "Each observer has the experience of the other's clock ticking more slowly" is so wrong, as I've stated repeatedly.

So I hope Kingfire understands the correct meaning that I am trying to convey and not your incorrect re-interpretation.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
PeterDonis said:
He certainly did, and it does, to very high accuracy:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html



No, they don't. This has been experimentally verified:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

The math.ucr.edu site is a great mine of information - thanks.

Oddly no experiment verifies (nor could verify) perpetual motion and a constant speed of light yet these are, as I mentioned, cornerstones of Special Relativity.

The other stuff about Time Dilation and Keating Hafele is not really relevant since it involves acelerated travel.
 
  • #11
farad said:
The math.ucr.edu site is a great mine of information - thanks.

Oddly no experiment verifies (nor could verify) perpetual motion and a constant speed of light yet these are, as I mentioned, cornerstones of Special Relativity.
I'm not sure what you mean by "perpetual motion" as a cornerstone of Special Relativity. The fact that there is NO "perpetual motion" is a matter of the laws of thermodynamics, not relativity.


The other stuff about Time Dilation and Keating Hafele is not really relevant since it involves acelerated travel.
 
  • #12
farad said:
Oddly no experiment verifies (nor could verify) ... a constant speed of light

The Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't count?
 
  • #13
PeterDonis said:
The Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't count?

Michelson Morley was not about whether the speed of light was constant. They wanted to see if light traveled the same distance in the same time despite the orientation of the path.
 
  • #14
PeterDonis said:
I'm not sure that's relevant to the OP, since all of the competing interpretations make the same predictions for all experimental results, including those having to do with time dilation.


I don't understand why you have to interject that esoteric philosophical commentary. On the contrary, Kingfire specifically wanted to know if it is literally true that clocks tick more slowly.

Kingfire: Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

What do you think he meant when he asked, "Does that mean literally?" So, why is it so important to avoid answering the question Kingfire is obviously driving at?

So, why put the standard operationalist spin on the topic? Why all of this elitist attitude on the forum (Kingfire knows that watches don't "beat" like a clock, so why would anyone have to belittle him over that subtle point?). Lorentz Ether Theory is not at all equivalent to Einstein's special relativity (except for philosophical operationalists who insist on avoiding any reference to physical objects and processes).

Lorentz was intent on providing a quite physical explanation that casts physics in the context of a physical 3-dimensional world evolving in time, explaining constant speed of light for all observers, length contraction and time dilation explicitly as resulting from considerations of transmittal times for forces between objects and within objects. How you can say that is equivalent to Minkowski's geometrization of special relativity just doesn't seem logical. Equivalent outcomes of particular calculations do not eliminate the significance of the difference between the fundamental concepts underlying LET vs. Einstein-MInkowski.

What do you want from physics--the elimination of any discussion or recognition of the historical development of LET and of Einstein-Minkowski special relativity? Should this be allowed only within the university philosophy departments? What a corruption of physics and its pursuit of the description and understanding of physical reality!

You think only the time dilation and length contraction calculations matter--and they come out the same for both LET and Einstein-Minkowski? Try developing the concept of a 4-dimensional curved spacetime from LET. Einstein said essentially that he would not have gotten anywhere with general relativity without Minkowski's 4-dimensional spacetime of special relativity. Oh--but Einstein shouldn't have done it that way--that's just philosophy!
 
Last edited:
  • #15
farad said:
They wanted to see if light traveled the same distance in the same time despite the orientation of the path.

And traveling the same distance in the same time doesn't equate to the speed being constant?
 
  • #16
bobc2 said:
Kingfire: Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

What do you think he meant when he asked, "Does that mean literally?" So, why is it so important to avoid answering the question Kingfire is obviously driving at?

Because it doesn't have a well-defined answer. What does "literally" mean? What rule do I use to tell me whether the watch is "really" beating slower or only "appears" to beat slower? There is no unique rule for doing that. There is a unique set of rules for predicting actual observables, but Kingfire's question, as far as I can tell, isn't about actual observables. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question; if so, it would help to re-state it in a way that makes clear that it *is* about actual observables.

Tomahoc said:
So, why put the standard operationalist spin on the topic?

Because it focuses on questions we can actually give answers to, instead of questions where we just go round and round about philosophy and never reach any resolution.

Tomahoc said:
Lorentz Ether Theory is not at all equivalent to Einstein's special relativity (except for philosophical operationalists who insist on avoiding any reference to physical objects and processes).

See, here's the thing: you think that "physical objects and processes" has some well-defined meaning independent of the experimental results that tell us *what* physical objects and processes there are. Theories about such things are worthless without experiments to back them up. If experimental results are consistent with more than one interpretation in terms of "physical objects and processes", then the correct answer is that *we do not know for sure* what physical objects and processes there are. I would rather just admit that openly.

Tomahoc said:
What do you want from physics--the elimination of any discussion or recognition of the historical development of LET and of Einstein-Minkowski special relativity?

Such discussion is fine, but it's not physics. It's the history of physics. The two are not the same.
 
  • #17
Kingfire said:
...
My own speculation:

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

Think about this - if the wrist watch does not get any slower, what does "time does slow down" mean? (This is all compared to someone who is not traveling, of course, as the person with the traveling wrist watch has no means of detecting this.)
 
  • #18
Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.
What do you mean by "every earthly second"? That's the crucial point!
 
  • #19
PeterDonis said:
Such discussion is fine, but it's not physics. It's the history of physics. The two are not the same.

Are you telling us here that Einstein's SR didn't contribute anything to physics, but a lot to philosophy?
I explained you elsewhere what Einstein did for physics as far as the Lorentztransformations mations are concerned, but you stay stuck to your calculator. Physics is more than mathematics. But you refuse to accept that.
 
  • #20
George Wells from Bishop's Stortford?
 
  • #21
PeterDonis said:
If experimental results are consistent with more than one interpretation in terms of "physical objects and processes", then the correct answer is that *we do not know for sure* what physical objects and processes there are. I would rather just admit that openly.

What do you call an experimental result? What your calculator tells you?
I asked you to show me an another thread where in the ETHER context you read the primed time coordinates (Lorentz' Local time). You cannot. The numbers of your calculator have to make sense in the physical ether LET, but they don't. Lorentz knew it and admitted it. But you just don't get it.
 
  • #22
Vandam said:
Are you telling us here that Einstein's SR didn't contribute anything to physics, but a lot to philosophy?

Read what I said. I didn't say that. All I said was that the historical development of physics is not the same as physics itself.

Vandam said:
Physics is more than mathematics. But you refuse to accept that.

If you're going to continue to misunderstand what I say, there's not much point in discussion.

Vandam said:
What do you call an experimental result? What your calculator tells you?

Experimental results are things like those referred to here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Vandam said:
I asked you to show me an another thread where in the ETHER context you read the primed time coordinates (Lorentz' Local time). You cannot. The numbers of your calculator have to make sense in the physical ether LET, but they don't. Lorentz knew it and admitted it. But you just don't get it.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you link to the other thread?
 
  • #23
HallsofIvy said:
First wrist watches don't beat! What relativity says is that your wrist watch will run slower, your pulse will be slower, you will move slower, as observed from a frame of reference with respect to which you are moving. Of course, from your point of view that person observing you is moving with respect to you and so you will observe his watch running slower, his pulse beating slower, etc.

Yes, this is a "real" result. It has been, for example, experimentally verified that elementary particles that are moving fast with respect to the laboratory have longer lifetimes than those that are stationary with respect to the laboratory.

Correct.
Just to make sure we agree on 'observe':
The observer observes what the 'time indications on clocks' are, part of his 3D world. The time indications on the clocks are (space-like) events part of the observer's 3D world. The events existed before the observer 'observes' them.
 
  • #24
PeterDonis said:
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Can you link to the other thread?

You only keep on telling me that the one coordinates are ether coordiates, the other 'local'.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4206455&postcount=113

Show me where the local times are in LET.

Tell me what the difference is between ether coordinate and 'the primed coordinate'. Where is that primed coordinate for the traveler in LET? I do not see that. And it is impossible to see it in LET, because it is only a mathematical fictuous number. Einstein solved that problem.
 
  • #26
PeterDonis said:
That's a post by DaleSpam, not me. I agree with what he said, but if you want someone to expound further on it, you should ask him.

Sorry about that.

But if you agree with him you might perhaps tell me what the primed coordinates are in LET? What do they mean for the traveler in the ether? His wristwatch time etc.?

Lorentz' quote: <<The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same part as t; if we want to describe phenomena in terms of x'; y'; z'; t' we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x; y; z; t.>>

The best way to understand time coordinates is to synchronise clocks at the 'origin of measurement'. The primed coordinates then are the red wristwatch time and proper measuring stick space coordinates... in his own red 3D world. Not the green 'ether' 3D world. Red traveler has to wait .289 wristwatch time units to have event A in his Spaceworld. You can never get that in a LET scenario. The primed time coordinates (.289,.289) only make sense if you let go the ether. Considering the green ether through red time .289 doesn't make sense for the 0289 space coordinate, because in that ether world event A is not part of that world.
Only in SR it makes sense if you consider a real 3D world through event A and red .289 wristwatch time. And that tells you that the event A is considered in a green future world for Mr Green, but is already real in the present red world for Mr Red. Block universe, whether you like it or not...
Or do you have another scenario for Mr Red and his time coordinate?
LET-LT-b.jpg


@Kingfire
To link the above to the opening post:
Below I quickly sketched a Loedel diagram for the same LT coordinates. You see that neither the red nor the green worldline is stretched (and definitely not contracted either): In 4D spacetime the spacing of the time units are equal on all worldlines. Proper time is never dilated.
Time dilation occurs because of the different directions of 3D worlds of simultaneous events in 4D block spacetime.
The time indications on the clocks are events that have fixed locations in 4D block universe, but because of the different directions of worldlines in 4D space, the traveler events of the respective worldlines will have other (pre-existing) 'clock with time indication' event in their respective 3D worlds.
(Note: the 3D worlds with their -obviously space-like) clock events are already 'out there' in 4D block spacetime before the 'observer' literally sees the clock events. (A 'lichtcone' scenario only tells you which events have a possible causal relationship with your 'now' event'. But that's not important in this topic)
LET-50c.jpg
 
  • #27
Vandam said:
But if you agree with him you might perhaps tell me what the primed coordinates are in LET?

I'm not an expert on LET so I don't know if I can answer this; but as I understand it, the convention in LET is to write coordinates in the "ether frame" as unprimed, and coordinates in any other frame which is moving relative to the ether as primed. So if some observer is moving relative to the ether, the coordinates in the frame in which that observer is at rest would be written as primed coordinates.

Vandam said:
What do they mean for the traveler in the ether? His wristwatch time etc.?

Since the observer is at rest in the primed frame under this convention, t' would be the same, numerically, as proper time as measured by the observer, which you appear to refer to as "wristwatch time". But there is still a logical distinction between the *coordinate* time, t', which is a number assigned to an event, and the *proper* time of the observer, which is something he directly observes.

Vandam said:
Lorentz' quote: <<The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity. In Einstein's theory, on the contrary, t' plays the same part as t; if we want to describe phenomena in terms of x'; y'; z'; t' we must work with these variables exactly as we could do with x; y; z; t.>>

As far as I can tell, what Lorentz meant here was that he treated the "ether frame" as being somehow special, physically, whereas Einstein did not; Einstein treated all inertial frames as physically equivalent. So for Lorentz, the coordinate time in the ether frame had a special physical status, as "true time"; the coordinate time in any other frame did not. Einstein made no such distinction. That's how I read it, anyway.

However, none of that makes any difference as far as the diagrams you are talking about. See below.

Vandam said:
You can never get that in a LET scenario. The primed time coordinates (.289,.289) only make sense if you let go the ether.

I don't see how this follows at all. You can calculate the primed time coordinates in the ether frame just as well as in any other frame. You can also predict that that primed time coordinate will be numerically equal, as I said above, to the proper time measured by the observer at rest in the primed frame. All that is independent of any "interpretation".

LET makes different assertions about the underlying "physical reality" than the "block universe" interpretation does, but the primed time coordinate, in itself, doesn't necessarily say anything about underlying physical reality; it just enables us to predict a particular observed quantity, the "wristwatch time" of an observer at rest in the primed frame. So the second statement of yours in the quote just above is not correct as you state it: a correct statement would be "the primed time coordinates only make sense according to the block universe interpretation if you let go the ether".
 
  • #28
PeterDonis said:
I'm not an expert on LET so I don't know if I can answer this; but as I understand it, the convention in LET is to write coordinates in the "ether frame" as unprimed, and coordinates in any other frame which is moving relative to the ether as primed. So if some observer is moving relative to the ether, the coordinates in the frame in which that observer is at rest would be written as primed coordinates.
O.K.
Since the observer is at rest in the primed frame under this convention, t' would be the same, numerically, as proper time as measured by the observer, which you appear to refer to as "wristwatch time". But there is still a logical distinction between the *coordinate* time, t', which is a number assigned to an event, and the *proper* time of the observer, which is something he directly observes.
O.K., but there is no distinction if you synchronise the clocks as I did.
I can give you an example if you use time-coordinates that give different numbers as the clock time indications of the events the observer reads, but that makes no difference. I makes it only more fifficult for the forum members to follow.
As far as I can tell, what Lorentz meant here was that he treated the "ether frame" as being somehow special, physically, whereas Einstein did not; Einstein treated all inertial frames as physically equivalent. So for Lorentz, the coordinate time in the ether frame had a special physical status, as "true time"; the coordinate time in any other frame did not. Einstein made no such distinction. That's how I read it, anyway.
And that's how I read it.
However, none of that makes any difference as far as the diagrams you are talking about.
I don't agree
See below.

I don't see how this follows at all.
That's very strange because I just all explained it to you...
You can calculate the primed time coordinates in the ether frame just as well as in any other frame. You can also predict that that primed time coordinate will be numerically equal, as I said above, to the proper time measured by the observer at rest in the primed frame. All that is independent of any "interpretation".
Of course you can calculate it, but it is not independent of any interpretation. dee below.
LET makes different assertions about the underlying "physical reality" than the "block universe" interpretation does, but the primed time coordinate, in itself, doesn't necessarily say anything about underlying physical reality; it just enables us to predict a particular observed quantity, the "wristwatch time" of an observer at rest in the primed frame. So the second statement of yours in the quote just above is not correct as you state it: a correct statement would be "the primed time coordinates only make sense according to the block universe interpretation if you let go the ether".

I can not agree with that. Lorentz admitted that the 'true time' and the 'local time' have to be treated ('interpreted' if you like) the same way. Only SR does that. Not LET. That's the whole point in the SR versus LET. If there would be no difference there would be no Einstein, nor SR.

You would be correct it you compare Galilean transformation and ether world. After transformation you no not have to drop the 'Newton' ether to make sense of the transformation coordinates. But with Lorentz Transformation that doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Vandam said:
O.K., but there is no distinction if you synchronise the clocks as I did.

Please read carefully. I said a *logical* distinction, not a *numerical* distinction. I agree that, given your synchronization of clocks, there is no numerical distinction. But there *is* a logical distinction.

Vandam said:
That's very strange because I just all explained it to you...

You have not "explained" anything. You have continued to point out features of spacetime diagrams, relativity of simultaneity, etc. that we all understand and all agree on. You have *not* given any argument for how those features *require* a "block universe" interpretation. You have only argued that a block universe interpretation is consistent with them. That's not sufficient to justify the claims you have made.

Vandam said:
Lorentz admitted that the 'true time' and the 'local time' have to be treated ('interpreted' if you like) the same way. Only SR does that. Not LET.

When Lorentz made that statement, *not one single actual prediction changed*. What you are calling "SR" (which should really be called "SR with the block universe interpretation") and what you are calling LET (which should really be called "SR with the LET interpretation") make exactly the same predictions for all experimental results.

Your claim appears to be that we can somehow know which interpretation is correct without any experiment that can decide between them. My claim is that if two interpretations agree on all experimental results, *we do not know* which one is correct, unless and until we can find an experiment that gives different results depending on which interpretation is correct.

Your claim appears to be that we have some knowledge of "physical reality" that doesn't come to us through experiments. My claim is that we don't; obviously the content of our knowledge is more than just a list of experimental results, but our justification for making *any* claim about "physical reality" ultimately has to come down to some piece of knowledge that we got from experiments. If we can't decide between different claims about physical reality by doing an experiment, then we can't decide.

I don't see any prospect of coming to agreement on these claims, but I think I've captured them reasonably well.

Vandam said:
After transformation you no not have to drop the 'Newton' ether to make sense of the transformation coordinates. But with Lorentz Transformation that doesn't work.

It doesn't work for you, perhaps. It works for me just fine.
 
  • #30
Vandam said:
You only keep on telling me that the one coordinates are ether coordiates, the other 'local'.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4206455&postcount=113
I would certainly be glad to continue that discussion in the other thread if you feel that you are sufficiently prepared to discuss it now. However, you did leave in a pretty big huff so I thought you would probably just want to drop it. Either way is fine by me.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
The Jericho said:
George Wells from Bishop's Stortford?
No, not I.
 
  • #32
PeterDonis said:
and what you are calling LET (which should really be called "SR with the LET interpretation")
SR with LET interpretation? What is this for nonsense! It's either LET or SR.
make exactly the same predictions for all experimental results.
You simply do not get the essence. The experimental results (which will confirm the LT calculations) are not possible in a LET context. They only make sense in a 4D block Spacetime. see below.
It doesn't work for you, perhaps. It works for me just fine.
If it works for you, please tell me what the primed space coordinates are. In LET there is no space between event R and A ! Only in SR there is space between event R and A, because in SR events A and R are part of the 3D world through event A and R.
I am really sorry if you do not get that.

Note. I can imagine one reason why you (and Dalespam for that matter) do not understand the difference between SR and LET. Maybe it's because you deny the existence of 3D space out there. Are for you the LT just mathematical interpretations of your mental solipsist bubble? Please confirm this if this is the case. Then I know I do not have to waste time here.
LET-50cR.jpg
 
  • #33
Vandam said:
SR with LET interpretation? What is this for nonsense! It's either LET or SR.

The math and the experimental predictions are the same either way; that's the point I was making. We can call them Ping and Pong for all I care; that's a matter of nomenclature, not physics.

Vandam said:
The experimental results (which will confirm the LT calculations) are not possible in a LET context.

I disagree; as has been said repeatedly, LET uses the LT, and makes all the same experimental predictions based on it.

Vandam said:
In LET there is no space between event R and A !

I don't understand where you are getting this from. LET draws exactly the same spacetime diagram as you have drawn, and predicts all of the same numbers. If you think "LET" says anything different from your diagram, then you mean something different by "LET" than the rest of us do. By "LET" the rest of us mean all of the standard math and spacetime diagrams in SR, but with Lorentz's original interpretation in which one inertial frame is labeled as "the ether frame" and given a special significance. That "LET" agrees with your diagram.

Vandam said:
I am really sorry if you do not get that.

I am really sorry if you do not get what "LET" the rest of us have been talking about. If you know of some version of "LET" that makes different experimental predictions from what you call "SR", then that "LET" is irrelevant to this discussion. The only "LET" that the rest of us even care about here is the one that makes all the same experimental predictions as "SR" does. And that LET agrees with your diagram; *any* interpretation that makes all the same experimental predictions as "SR" agrees with your diagram.

I won't bother commenting on the rest of your post; if you can't even use the term "LET" the same way the rest of us are, there's no point in discussion.
 
  • #34
Vandam said:
Are for you the LT just mathematical interpretations of your mental solipsist bubble? Please confirm this if this is the case. Then I know I do not have to waste time here.
You have a serious obsession with solipsism. I am not a solipsist, if you believe that I have EVER made statements indicating that then please point them out and I will retract or explain them.

Otherwise then you seem to be under some strange sort of McCarthy-esque paranoia, except that you see solipsists behind every corner instead of communists.
 
  • #35
PeterDonis said:
I don't understand where you are getting this from. LET draws exactly the same spacetime diagram as you have drawn, and predicts all of the same numbers. If you think "LET" says anything different from your diagram, then you mean something different by "LET" than the rest of us do.

My diagram shows perfectly what LET means. In my diagram the ETHER frame is very well indicated. In that ether frame the primed coordinates do not make sense, unless they are mathematical fictous ad hoc numbers, just like Lorentz admited himself.
The only thing you can repeat is that the numbers are what they are. Of course. But apparently you can not give me the context in which the numbers make sense.
Only if on that diagram red 3D spaces are added the coordinates make sense.
I see that you do not understand this and there is not much more I can do about it. We better stop arguing about this. It doesn't help either way.
 
  • #36
bobc2 said:
Kingfire said:
Hello,

Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light." Does that mean literally?

My own speculation:

Although time does slow down when I travel at a speed close to the speed of light, my wrist watch will not beat any faster or slower because it is just a mechanical device that beats every earthly second.

I am not sure though.
Kingfire, there are at least two different competing interpretations of special relativity on this forum.

1) First, there is what is known as the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET). If you are basing the answer to your question on this interpretation, the answer to your question would be, yes. Yes, your watch physically beats slower. That's because, according to LET, there are time shifts in the transmittal of electrical forces between and within physical objects, resulting in actual changes in speeds of physical interactions, including clock mechanisms (affecting tick rates, etc.).
The answer under any interpretation or understanding of any form or version of LET, past or present, is not yes. Even though Lorentz believed in a literal ether defining an absolute rest state, only in which light propagates at c, he, and all other LET adherents never claimed that the Earth was ever stationary in it.

Therefore, since the Earth must be traveling at some unknown speed and in some unknown direction through the ether, clocks on the Earth are already beating slower than the presumed absolute time defined by the ether. So if you take off from the Earth in the same direction that the Earth is traveling through the ether, then your wristwatch will beat out seconds more slowly than earthly seconds. However, if you take off in the opposite direction, you could actually be stationary in the ether, in which case your wristwatch will beat out seconds faster than earthly seconds.

So the correct answer according to LET is: "unknown".

I already gave the correct answer under SR in my first post.
 
  • #37
Vandam said:
My diagram shows perfectly what LET means. In my diagram the ETHER frame is very well indicated. In that ether frame the primed coordinates do not make sense, unless they are mathematical fictous ad hoc numbers, just like Lorentz admited himself.

On the LET interpretation, the primed coordinates correspond to coordinate assignments that the moving observer would make. LET says that those assignments are not the "true" coordinates, but it still gives them a perfectly well-defined meaning.
Vandam said:
But apparently you can not give me the context in which the numbers make sense.

I already have, repeatedly. I just did it again, above. But you either can't understand or refuse to accept that LET is an *interpretation*, just as the "block universe" is an *interpretation*.

Vandam said:
Only if on that diagram red 3D spaces are added the coordinates make sense.

On your interpretation, perhaps. But there are other interpretations.

Vandam said:
We better stop arguing about this. It doesn't help either way.

I'll stop if you will.
 
  • #38
interesting discussions.. so SR and LET are identical in mathematical formulation.

Peterdonis. Going to this example. Supposed you had a missile launched from Earth traveling at 0.99c aimed at a target in Tau Ceti, and in it's frame only 2 seconds would elapse traveling to it. Supposed after 30 seconds, you have order from the President to abort it. You know you can't reach the missile using any radiowave because it can't go beyond light speed. Supposed tachyons could travel in the aether frame only and instantaneously (and normal light and matter can't). When you sent out the tachyon abort signal at 30 seconds... it should reach the missile at its 30 seconds time too right? But then by this time, the target in Tau Ceti is already destroyed at 2 seconds in the missile frame. Is this example right? Or can you reach the missile at 1.8 seconds even after you sent out the tachyons at your 30 seconds using tachyons that uses the aether frame? I don't believe in tachyons. But just want to understand the concept and limitations.
 
  • #39
Tomahoc said:
Peterdonis. Going to this example. Supposed you had a missile launched from Earth traveling at 0.99c aimed at a target in Tau Ceti, and in it's frame only 2 seconds would elapse traveling to it.

2 seconds in the missile's frame. It would still take 12/.99 years (Tau Ceti is approximately 12 light years away, we'll assume it's exactly 12 light years here) in the Earth frame.

Tomahoc said:
Supposed after 30 seconds, you have order from the President to abort it.

Meaning, 30 seconds after launch in the Earth frame.

Tomahoc said:
You know you can't reach the missile using any radiowave because it can't go beyond light speed.

No, you don't know that. The missile will take 12/.99 years, or 12.12 years, in the Earth frame to reach Tau Ceti. A radio pulse traveling at the speed of light will take 12 years flat. But 0.12 years is a lot more than 30 seconds, so a radio pulse sent out 30 seconds after the missile leaves, in the Earth frame, will catch up with the missile before it reaches Tau Ceti. I just derived that result in the Earth frame, but since it's a result about an invariant--the crossing of two worldlines--it must hold in any frame, including the missile's frame.

(This means, of course, that in the missile's frame, the time between launch and the President issuing the order is *much* less than 30 seconds; in fact it's 30 seconds divided by the time dilation factor, which is something like 10^8, so it's on the order of a hundred nanoseconds. In that time, the missile has gotten closer to Tau Ceti--or, rather, Tau Ceti has gotten closer to the missile--by only a very small fraction of the total distance; so in the missile's frame, the radio pulse simply has a shorter distance to travel than Tau Ceti does, so it reaches the missile first.)

Tomahoc said:
Supposed tachyons could travel in the aether frame only and instantaneously (and normal light and matter can't). When you sent out the tachyon abort signal at 30 seconds... it should reach the missile at its 30 seconds time too right?

No. As I said in the other thread where you asked about tachyons, we don't have a theory of tachyons, so we don't know what the rule would be that determines which spacelike worldline a tachyon travels on. But if we assume that the Earth's rest frame is the "aether frame", then a tachyon pulse sent out at Earth time t = 30 seconds after launch would arrive at the missile at Earth time t = 30 seconds after launch; which, as I noted above, would be missile time t' = 100 nanoseconds or so after launch, so it would be way before the missile reached Tau Ceti.

Of course, this depends on the Earth's rest frame being the "aether frame". However, we can make a much more general statement, because we've already proven (I just did it above) that a light pulse emitted at Earth time t = 30 seconds after launch will reach the missile before it hits Tau Ceti. But *any* tachyon pulse, regardless of how it travels, must reach the missile before a light pulse emitted from Earth at the same time, because any tachyon must, by definition, travel faster than light. So if a light pulse can reach the missile in time, then so can any tachyon pulse, regardless of the exact laws governing tachyons.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Welcome to PF!

Hello Kingfire! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(are you still there? :confused:)
Kingfire said:
Some physics books tend to say that "your wrist watch will be beating slower when you travel at the or close to the speed of light."

not if you're still wearing it :wink:

time dilation is only relevant between two clocks (or a clock and an observer) if they have different velocities
 
  • #41
PeterDonis said:
2 seconds in the missile's frame. It would still take 12/.99 years (Tau Ceti is approximately 12 light years away, we'll assume it's exactly 12 light years here) in the Earth frame.



Meaning, 30 seconds after launch in the Earth frame.



No, you don't know that. The missile will take 12/.99 years, or 12.12 years, in the Earth frame to reach Tau Ceti. A radio pulse traveling at the speed of light will take 12 years flat. But 0.12 years is a lot more than 30 seconds, so a radio pulse sent out 30 seconds after the missile leaves, in the Earth frame, will catch up with the missile before it reaches Tau Ceti. I just derived that result in the Earth frame, but since it's a result about an invariant--the crossing of two worldlines--it must hold in any frame, including the missile's frame.

(This means, of course, that in the missile's frame, the time between launch and the President issuing the order is *much* less than 30 seconds; in fact it's 30 seconds divided by the time dilation factor, which is something like 10^8, so it's on the order of a hundred nanoseconds. In that time, the missile has gotten closer to Tau Ceti--or, rather, Tau Ceti has gotten closer to the missile--by only a very small fraction of the total distance; so in the missile's frame, the radio pulse simply has a shorter distance to travel than Tau Ceti does, so it reaches the missile first.)



No. As I said in the other thread where you asked about tachyons, we don't have a theory of tachyons, so we don't know what the rule would be that determines which spacelike worldline a tachyon travels on. But if we assume that the Earth's rest frame is the "aether frame", then a tachyon pulse sent out at Earth time t = 30 seconds after launch would arrive at the missile at Earth time t = 30 seconds after launch; which, as I noted above, would be missile time t' = 100 nanoseconds or so after launch, so it would be way before the missile reached Tau Ceti.

Of course, this depends on the Earth's rest frame being the "aether frame". However, we can make a much more general statement, because we've already proven (I just did it above) that a light pulse emitted at Earth time t = 30 seconds after launch will reach the missile before it hits Tau Ceti. But *any* tachyon pulse, regardless of how it travels, must reach the missile before a light pulse emitted from Earth at the same time, because any tachyon must, by definition, travel faster than light. So if a light pulse can reach the missile in time, then so can any tachyon pulse, regardless of the exact laws governing tachyons.

I should have added more 9 in the 0.99c. This is a a case when rounding off doesn't work.

Supposed the aether frame is not the Earth's rest frame.. but somewhere out there... is it not always the case that when the aether frame is used, 30 seconds on Earth is synchronized to 30 seconds on the missile? You mean it varies depending on the location of the aether frame even when tachyon speed is instantaneous?? How do you find the location of the aether frame if you both want the Earth's and missile to be both sychronized at 30 second worldline?
 
  • #42
Tomahoc said:
I should have added more 9 in the 0.99c. This is a a case when rounding off doesn't work.

Well, what exact numbers do you want to use? I'm using the numbers you wrote down; if you want to use different ones, feel free to give them.

Tomahoc said:
Supposed the aether frame is not the Earth's rest frame.. but somewhere out there... is it not always the case that when the aether frame is used, 30 seconds on Earth is synchronized to 30 seconds on the missile?

No; which frame is the ether frame has nothing to do with that question. The answer to it is always "no", because the Earth and the missile are in relative motion.

Tomahoc said:
You mean it varies depending on the location of the aether frame even when tachyon speed is instantaneous??

What varies? I don't understand what you're asking. If you mean, does the fact that tachyons travel faster than light vary, no, it doesn't; the *definition* of a tachyon is that it travels faster than light, and if it travels faster than light in any frame, it travels faster than light in every frame.

Tomahoc said:
How do you find the location of the aether frame if you both want the Earth's and missile to be both sychronized at 30 second worldline?

You can't; the Earth and the missile are in relative motion, so their clocks can't be synchronized. See above.
 
  • #43
Tomahoc, one other thought regarding the Tau Ceti scenario; I suggest that you consider carefully this statement I made a few posts ago:

PeterDonis said:
I just derived that result in the Earth frame, but since it's a result about an invariant--the crossing of two worldlines--it must hold in any frame, including the missile's frame.

Do you see what this means? It means that the question you are asking--can the radio pulse catch up to the missile before it reaches Tau Ceti--can be answered without having to use any frame except the Earth frame. You have a distance D from Earth to Tau Ceti; a speed v for the missile; and a time t after launch that the radio pulse goes out. Those three facts, all by themselves, are enough to answer the question: if we take D and v as given, you can calculate exactly the latest time t at which the radio pulse can go out and still reach the missile before it hits Tau Ceti. I suggest that you work that answer out first, before you even start thinking about tachyons in this scenario.
 
  • #44
PeterDonis said:
Well, what exact numbers do you want to use? I'm using the numbers you wrote down; if you want to use different ones, feel free to give them.



No; which frame is the ether frame has nothing to do with that question. The answer to it is always "no", because the Earth and the missile are in relative motion.



What varies? I don't understand what you're asking. If you mean, does the fact that tachyons travel faster than light vary, no, it doesn't; the *definition* of a tachyon is that it travels faster than light, and if it travels faster than light in any frame, it travels faster than light in every frame.



You can't; the Earth and the missile are in relative motion, so their clocks can't be synchronized. See above.

In my query. There is the assumption that the tachyon velocity is not frame dependent, meaning not fixed relative to Earth but fixed relative to the aether which can be anywhere. In this example, if we send aborting signal after 30 seconds. It should arrive at the missile 30 seconds?

Also ignore the distance is tau ceti. Imagine it is so far off that light speed is not enough to reach it because it is far. I thought tau ceti is hundreds of light years away and I'm assuming 0.99999999999c (or put any 9 where it is far enough)
 
  • #45
Tomahoc said:
There is the assumption that the tachyon velocity is not frame dependent, meaning not fixed relative to Earth but fixed relative to the aether which can be anywhere.

In other words, you don't know what the tachyon's velocity is in any frame, because you don't know which frame is the aether frame.

Tomahoc said:
In this example, if we send aborting signal after 30 seconds. It should arrive at the missile 30 seconds?

Since you don't know the tachyon's velocity in any frame, you can't predict when it will reach the missile. However, you can still draw some conclusions just by working the problem in the Earth frame. See below.

Tomahoc said:
Also ignore the distance is tau ceti. Imagine it is so far off that light speed is not enough to reach it because it is far. I thought tau ceti is hundreds of light years away and I'm assuming 0.99999999999c (or put any 9 where it is far enough)

In other words, you want a scenario where the President's order goes out too late for a light pulse to reach the missile before it hits Tau Ceti, correct? I'll assume that's your intent in what follows.

In my last post, I said we can figure out everything in the Earth frame; I was hoping you would pick up on that, but I'll go ahead and do it now. All quantities are relative to the Earth frame in what follows. We have a distance D to Tau Ceti, a speed v < 1 for the missile (I'm using units in which c = 1), and a time t after the missile launch when the President's order goes out. We want t to be large enough that the radio pulse emitted then from Earth can't reach the missile before it hits Tau Ceti.

We assume that the missile is launched at time t_0 = 0. The time the missile reaches Tau Ceti is:

t_m = \frac{D}{v}

The time the radio pulse reaches Tau Ceti is (the pulse is sent at time t and travels at speed 1):

t_r = t + D

We want t_r &gt; t_m, which gives

t + D &gt; \frac{D}{v}

or, rearranging terms,

t &gt; D \frac{1 - v}{v}

Now suppose we have a tachyon pulse that travels at speed w > 1 in the Earth frame (we don't know w's exact value, but we can still work with it as an unknown variable). We can run the same type of analysis as above to find the time t_y that a tachyon pulse emitted at t will reach Tau Ceti:

t_y = t + \frac{D}{w}

If we want the tachyon pulse to catch the missile before it reaches Tau Ceti, we must have t_y &lt; t_m, which gives

t + \frac{D}{w} &lt; \frac{D}{v}

or, rearranging terms,

t &lt; D \frac{w - v}{w v}

So if the time t lies between the two limits given above, i.e., if we have:

D \frac{1 - v}{v} &lt; t &lt; D \frac{w - v}{w v}

then the tachyon pulse will be able to catch the missile before it hits Tau Ceti, but a radio pulse will not.

I'll stop here to let you digest the above; it should give you an idea of how to calculate when each pulse will reach the missile, as well as when it will reach Tau Ceti.
 
  • #46
PeterDonis said:
In other words, you don't know what the tachyon's velocity is in any frame, because you don't know which frame is the aether frame.



Since you don't know the tachyon's velocity in any frame, you can't predict when it will reach the missile. However, you can still draw some conclusions just by working the problem in the Earth frame. See below.



In other words, you want a scenario where the President's order goes out too late for a light pulse to reach the missile before it hits Tau Ceti, correct? I'll assume that's your intent in what follows.

In my last post, I said we can figure out everything in the Earth frame; I was hoping you would pick up on that, but I'll go ahead and do it now. All quantities are relative to the Earth frame in what follows. We have a distance D to Tau Ceti, a speed v < 1 for the missile (I'm using units in which c = 1), and a time t after the missile launch when the President's order goes out. We want t to be large enough that the radio pulse emitted then from Earth can't reach the missile before it hits Tau Ceti.

We assume that the missile is launched at time t_0 = 0. The time the missile reaches Tau Ceti is:

t_m = \frac{D}{v}

The time the radio pulse reaches Tau Ceti is (the pulse is sent at time t and travels at speed 1):

t_r = t + D

We want t_r &gt; t_m, which gives

t + D &gt; \frac{D}{v}

or, rearranging terms,

t &gt; D \frac{1 - v}{v}

Now suppose we have a tachyon pulse that travels at speed w > 1 in the Earth frame (we don't know w's exact value, but we can still work with it as an unknown variable). We can run the same type of analysis as above to find the time t_y that a tachyon pulse emitted at t will reach Tau Ceti:

t_y = t + \frac{D}{w}

If we want the tachyon pulse to catch the missile before it reaches Tau Ceti, we must have t_y &lt; t_m, which gives

t + \frac{D}{w} &lt; \frac{D}{v}

or, rearranging terms,

t &lt; D \frac{w - v}{w v}

So if the time t lies between the two limits given above, i.e., if we have:

D \frac{1 - v}{v} &lt; t &lt; D \frac{w - v}{w v}

then the tachyon pulse will be able to catch the missile before it hits Tau Ceti, but a radio pulse will not.

I'll stop here to let you digest the above; it should give you an idea of how to calculate when each pulse will reach the missile, as well as when it will reach Tau Ceti.

Many thanks for the details. I digested it, but what I'm asking or the scenerio I am interested is not exactly it (although ill put it in my notebook for detailed study). The scenario I'm interested is the following.

If instantaneous tachyons can reach the missile. And the missile sending back another signal. It can reach the Earth before Earth send it. This is what happen if the tachyons are frame dependent. But if the tachyons velocity which can be any speed up to instantaneous is always
Fixed relative to the aether frame. Then no backward time loop possible. In this case, the tachyons signal sent out 30 secs from Earth reaches the missile also at 30 seconds? Because if its earlier, it can produce a situation where Earth can receive it before it sends out the signal.
 
  • #47
Tomahoc said:
what I'm asking or the scenerio I am interested is not exactly it

For future reference, it helps to ask the question you're really interested in up front.

Tomahoc said:
If instantaneous tachyons can reach the missile. And the missile sending back another signal. It can reach the Earth before Earth send it. This is what happen if the tachyons are frame dependent.

By "frame dependent" you mean, I assume, "the tachyon always has the same speed relative to the emitter". In that case, yes, you're correct, you can have a round-trip tachyon signal arrive before it was sent.

Tomahoc said:
But if the tachyons velocity which can be any speed up to instantaneous is always Fixed relative to the aether frame. Then no backward time loop possible.

Yes, that's correct; if the tachyon's speed is always fixed relative to the *same* frame (which we can call the "aether frame") regardless of the emitter's state of motion, then a round-trip tachyon signal can never arrive before it was sent; the quickest it can arrive is at the same instant it was sent (if the return signal is emitted at the same instant the outgoing signal arrives).

Tomahoc said:
In this case, the tachyons signal sent out 30 secs from Earth reaches the missile also at 30 seconds?

If you mean 30 seconds according to the Earth frame, then yes, *if* the Earth frame is the aether frame. If not, no, the signal will arrive at the missile at some other time, which could be earlier or later than 30 seconds, depending on how the Earth is moving relative to the aether frame.

However, even if the signal arrives at the missile earlier than t = 30 seconds in the Earth frame, the return signal still won't arrive before it was sent, *if* tachyons always travel at the same speed relative to the aether frame. Remember that the return signal is traveling in the opposite direction to the outbound signal; that means the effect of the Earth's velocity relative to the aether frame is exactly the opposite on the return signal from what it was on the outbound signal. For example, suppose the outbound signal travels "backwards in time" by 1 second, so it arrives at the missile at t = 29 seconds. Then the return signal will travel "forwards in time" by the same amount, because it's traveling in the opposite direction; so it will arrive back at t = 30 seconds (assuming it is emitted at the same instant the outbound signal is received).
 
  • #48


tiny-tim said:
Hello Kingfire! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(are you still there? :confused:)


not if you're still wearing it :wink:

time dilation is only relevant between two clocks (or a clock and an observer) if they have different velocities


Good comment, tiny-tim. That is exactly the situation with Einstein-Minkowski special relativity.

However, in the context of the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) the situation is physically different. Lorentz specifically based his derivations on the consideration of a fixed ether and the results of transmittal times between objects and within objects--all processes occurring in one time evolving 3-D world. So, all observers are living in the same 3-D world. Thus, the watch the moving guy is wearing (he's moving relative to the ether) is physically ticking more slowly than it would if the guy were at rest relative to the ether.

However, due to Lorentzian processes affecting this guy (length contractions and time time dilations) as well as affecting the guy's wrist watch, he does not notice the fact that his clock is ticking slower, etc.

Again, it should be emphasized that the basis of Lorentz's (and Poincare's, et. al.) derivations make LET significantly different than the Einstein-Minkowski theory of special relativity, notwithstanding the common mathematical feature, i.e., Lorentz transformations.

It should be noted that hardly any physicists doing special relativity do it in the context of the fixed ether concept. Virtually all physicists doing relativity operate with derivations based on the Einstein-Minkowski concept. I recently reviewed several of my old textbooks and reference books on special relativity and found all of them following the Einstein-Minkowski formalism (Bergman, Rindler, Weyl, Naber, Baruk "Classical Field Theory", etc.). Even all of the popularizations follow Einstein-Minkowski, with only an occasional brief mention of LET.

That's why I kind of feel like LET is more of a red herring to be put on the table any time someone begins to infer that the 4-dimensional spacetime somehow relates to physical reality.

p.s. I notice that those on this forum who present LET as though it were on a par with Einstein-Minkowski never use the Lorentz ether concept with the implied force transmittal delays, etc., as a basis for explaining the phenomena associated with relativistic speeds. They either couch explanations in the context of Einstein-Minkowski spacetime or else just do Lorentz transformation numerical calculations, avoiding any reference to underlying foundational concepts of special relativity. Not even a comparison of alternative physical concepts are considered relevant.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
PeterDonis said:
For future reference, it helps to ask the question you're really interested in up front.
By "frame dependent" you mean, I assume, "the tachyon always has the same speed relative to the emitter". In that case, yes, you're correct, you can have a round-trip tachyon signal arrive before it was sent.
Yes, that's correct; if the tachyon's speed is always fixed relative to the *same* frame (which we can call the "aether frame") regardless of the emitter's state of motion, then a round-trip tachyon signal can never arrive before it was sent; the quickest it can arrive is at the same instant it was sent (if the return signal is emitted at the same instant the outgoing signal arrives).
If you mean 30 seconds according to the Earth frame, then yes.

No I mean 30 seconds in the missile frame. Because if it reaches the missile at say 1 sec or 25 seconds (let's say it travels continuous and no target), it can produce a scenario where Earth can receive it before sending out. Now does it mean 30 seconds on Earth and 30 seconds on the missile are simultaneous to the aether frame? If yes. How do you make the aether frame simultaneous to it when they are in relative motion. This is what I was trying to understand.
 
  • #50


bobc2 said:
However, due to Lorentzian processes affecting this guy (length contractions and time time dilations) as well as affecting the guy's wrist watch, he does not notice the fact that his clock is ticking slower, etc.

It's more than that; the moving guy also thinks that the clock of the guy at rest relative to the ether is ticking slower than his. "Time dilation" in this sense is still symmetric. It's just that LET gives a privileged status to the guy at rest relative to the ether; his perception is the "true" one, and the perception of the moving guy, who thinks the guy at rest's clock is ticking slower, is an "illusion".

bobc2 said:
It should be noted that hardly any physicists doing special relativity do it in the context of the fixed ether concept. Virtually all physicists doing relativity operate with derivations based on the Einstein-Minkowski concept. I recently reviewed several of my old textbooks and reference books on special relativity and found all of them following the Einstein-Minkowski formalism (Bergman, Rindler, Weyl, Naber, Baruk "Classical Field Theory", etc.).

The formalism is the same for LET as it is for what you are calling "Einstein-Minkowski". The only difference is the interpretation. It would be more correct to say that virtually all physicists doing relativity operate on the Einstein-Minkowski *interpretation*; they view spacetime as a 4-D object, not as a 3-D object that "changes with time". (I'm not sure "virtually all" is correct here either; the ADM formalism in GR does not take this view, and a considerable number of relativists have worked on that.)

bobc2 said:
That's why I kind of feel like LET is more of a red herring to be put on the table any time someone begins to infer that the 4-dimensional spacetime somehow relates to physical reality.

I would agree that LET is not a popular interpretation. I would also agree that is a less parsimonious interpretation, since it postulates that one inertial frame has a special status, but gives no way of telling which one it is, so the special status doesn't have any experimental consequences.

However, the "block universe" interpretation, at least the strong version that has been argued here (and is also argued by certain physicists in popular books) is subject to similar criticisms, because the strong "block universe" interpretation is more than the simple claim that "4-dimensional spacetime somehow relates to physical reality". It is the claim that 4-dimensional spacetime *is* physical reality, period. That's a very strong claim, which also goes beyond the experimental evidence we have, not to mention that all of our current candidates for a theory of quantum gravity say it's false--they all view 4-dimensional spacetime as an emergent, approximate phenomenon, not as fundamental. (There are also issues involving determinism, which I've talked about before.)
 
Back
Top