Are laws of nature really the same in all reference frames?

PAllen

The context was, suppose you don't know you're in a gravitational field, or what consequences that would have. What laws do you apply to your observations? If you apply either pure SR or Galilean physics (even accounting that you know you are accelerating), you would conclude different relative velocity for distant objects than you would if you were not subject to gravity (or subject to less gravity).
You claim to accept gravitation time dilation, per se. The same derivations that lead to it, also lead to gravitational length contraction. The thing that allows all of it to be consistent is that the observer that sees your clock slow and your rulers short also sees light going slower for you. When you put in the actual numbers, this observer 'understands' why you still measure the same value for light speed. (this comment was unrelated to observer C. It was in reference to how the 'outer' of A and B would view the inner. Observer C would be more complex, because they have relative motion to account for).
The point is ultimately related to the fact that only for inertial observers in flat spacetime do you have the nice property that any 'reasonable' way of doing measurements comes out the same. For inertial observers in flat spacetime, radar ranging, parallax distance, luminosity distance, etc. all yield an equivalent distance scale. For either curved spacetime or non-inertial observers (even in flat spacetime), they disagree with each other. You can choose which to favor, getting different answers for where your results are 'unexpected'. My example shows, if you choose to favor radar ranging, you get shorter distances to remote objects, but the same speeds (well, there would be higher order differences, but let's not worry about that) for A and B.

There truly is no unique, preferred answer to large distances in GR (short of choosing a preferred global coordinate system). Actually, there isn't in SR either - distances are observer dependent.
You are simply wrong here. In GR, all observers agree C is the inertial observer and A and B are the non-inertial observers. ('Accelerating', on the other hand, has very little relevance in GR if it is referring to coordinate acceleration, as you are; proper acceleration, computed in any coordinates, by any observer, says A and B are accelerating and C is not accelerting). On this, there is no 'relativity'. What is describe here is not an illusion at all, but the essence of relativity (note that C sees the distance between A and B shrinking over time; not sure you got that). The point (initially by Dr. Greg) is that the how much of an effect is related to gravity or SR effects is observer dependent. This is fundamental in GR, not an illusion to be ignored. And, in particular, for C, difference between A and B would be primarily the same effect as the SR bell spaceship 'paradox'.

zonde

This is different from how Shapiro experiment was performed.
There is only one observer who is sending radar signals so that sometimes they are passing close to the Sun and sometimes far from the Sun. When you make a correction for time delay depending on signal's closest passing distance from the Sun you can consistently describe orbit of observed object (Venus).
In your case speed of light is always the same because proportion "m/s" does not change.

From Wikipedia about Shapiro delay:
"The time delay effect was first noticed in 1964, by Irwin I. Shapiro. Shapiro proposed an observational test of his prediction: bounce radar beams off the surface of Venus and Mercury, and measure the round trip travel time. When the Earth, Sun, and Venus are most favorably aligned, Shapiro showed that the expected time delay, due to the presence of the Sun, of a radar signal traveling from the Earth to Venus and back, would be about 200 microseconds,[1] well within the limitations of 1960s era technology.

The first tests, performed in 1966 and 1967 using the MIT Haystack radar antenna, were successful, matching the predicted amount of time delay.[2] The experiments have been repeated many times since then, with increasing accuracy."

First of all speed of light globally is not the same everywhere.
Statement that "laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames" means that local experiments will give the same results. But global observations can be different.

PAllen

I realize I didn't directly answer this question. In theory, a meter stick by your feet would be slight shorter than one by your head (not longer as you have argued several times). Light would be slower at your feet compared to your head. Clocks would be slower at your feet than your head. The only one of these that has been experimentally verified is the clocks, because they have reached the precision to detect differences over 6 feet in the earth's field. The others will not be observable in the foreseeable future (of course, unforeseeable future could be only a few years away; never know when there is a breakthrough).

None of this is relates at all to the issue I was presenting (measuring distance over tens of thousands of light years using radar ranging distance as your definition, with other measuring methods calibrated to match). Especially because your own scenario had these measurements being done from lab held stationary (by thrust) with respect to the sun. Also, of course, there are no astronomic measurement that could be made at a precision where it mattered whether they were done at your head or your feet.

Passionflower

Your claim that meter sticks are shorter closer to the EH, could you back it up with some math or at least a reference? And shorter tangentially or radially, or perhaps both?

What I can show you mathematically is that both the volume and radial distance between two shells is more than we would suspect if we would calculate it based on their areas. And the discrepancy increases for lower r-values closer to the EH.

PAllen

Ah, but if delta r represents distance as perceived by an observer at infinity, and a local, stationary observer computes a proper distance (with their t=0 simultaneity) of something greater, that implies the local rulers look short to the observer at infinity (in the radial direction).

I've only seen this contraction discussed radially. Two references validating its existence (but not deriving it) are (search for contraction on of these pages):

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/H...el/GenRel.html

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

Passionflower

1. How do you conclude that delta r is distance as perceived by an observer at infinity.
2. If so, how do you conclude that the observer at infinity has the ultimate saying about what the real length is?

r simply represents the, so called, reduced circumference and directly relates to the circumference and area of resp. a circle and sphere.

Are you perhaps saying that the increase in radius and volume between shells of lower r-values over the expected Euclidean values is not due to the fact that space is no longer Euclidean but due to the fact that rulers shrink?

What kind of computation did you have in mind?

wrt the first reference, I am sorry I must be slow but I do not see where it states anything that is relevant to what you said, could you tell me exactly what you think shows the reference that rulers shrink.

wrt to the second reference I am also at a loss, where exactly is this pointed out that rulers shrink?

PAllen

With regard to the first reference, the following is said:

"Gravitational Length Contraction

Lengths of objects in gravitational fields are contracted according to the theory. The prediction has never been tested. For the keen, you may wish to derive this prediction using the same techniques used in the previous sub-section to derive gravitational time dilation. "

With regard to the second reference, there is the following:

"The factor of 2 relative to the equation of 1911 arises because in the full theory there is gravitational length contraction as well as time dilation. Of course, the length contraction doesn’t affect the gravitational redshift, which is purely a function of the time dilation, so the redshift prediction of 1911 remains valid"

Here is another discussion, but it is not at all rigorous:

http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/g0_en/g4_en/

"The smaller r is, the longer a segment in the radial direction will be when measured with local yardsticks. As seen from OFF: yardsticks shorten in the radial direction with increasing strength of the gravitational field! Thus, for the thickness of a spherical shell around M, a local surveyor determines a larger value than an observer in OFF. "

[EDIT: found better discussion of this:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-03/7-03.htm ]

Bjarne

I guess the different speed of light happens doesn’t matter whether the length of the rulers always is comparable the same or not.

Bjarne

Right
I agree (and "disagree").
Notice Observer “Ex” (external) will not see any length contraction.
Seen from the perspective of "Ex" the distance of the Milkyway would be the same for both A and B.

B is deeper inside the gravitionel field of the Sun. He will complete 1 orbit in less time as A.

If B shall have the right to claim that the orbit of the MW is shorter (length contraction), it is only possible if B’s ruler is comparable longer than A’s.

Do you understand that point? – It seems like a contradiction but it is not, but rather a mathematical necessity that B’s meter stick must be longer than A’s.
(You must also respect the mathematical reality of observer Ex, - Observer Ex must also have the possibility to understand other realities - relative to his own )


B and A’s perception of speed can also not possible be the same, simply because B’s clock is ticking slower.

We should not be allowed to mix realities, hence also not to force our (A’s) perception of speed into B’s reality.

So since B’s time-rate is ticking slower, - that alone should mean that B moves FASTER than A, - but because B’s ruler (seen from a mathematical point of view) must be longer the speed is the “same” – but not comparable the same.

Notice A and B will agree to complete the orbit of the MW in the exact same period, but they can impossible agree about distance / circumstance / time / rulers.

I appreciate your contribution to the thread and I understand most of what you have explained, but still I wish there was a simpler way to understand and compare how B's reality really is, as well as understand how would B’s ruler would be compared to A’s.

I think there still is more to discover to make that simpler, straight and logical.

zonde

It matters. Length of rulers is related to local speed of light and local rate of clocks.

A.T.

I think these are just two different ways to say the same thing:

- The space in not Euclidean, so rulers measure more radius than expected based on the circumference, so the rulers appear to be shrunk when compared to identical rulers placed around the circumference.

This is equivalent to:

- The space-time in not Euclidean, so clocks measure less time than expected, so the clocks appear to be slowed down when compared to identical clocks placed around the circumference.

PAllen

Correct, some observer floating away from the milkyway would see these distances the same.
Here, you have confused several things. The length contraction I described had to do with local rulers as perceived by a distant observer. However, I never proposed a way to use local ruler measure for astronomic distances (it is possible, building a ladder of distances).

Totally independent of the issue of local rulers perceived from a distant free fall observer, I proposed a different, simple convention for astronomic distances (radar ranging, using local time, and assumption speed of light is isotropically c. It is only using this convention (rather than local rulers) that you end up with shorter distances to distant objects, and thus the same speed measured by A and B.

Note that whatever definitions are used, some measurements by A and B will differ (assuming each uses the same definitions). This is not unexpected or inconsistent with invariance of laws of physics.

Let's state what is really claimed by different relativity principles:

1) Galilean relativity: All laws take the same, simplest, form in any inertial frame. Note, this never meant that measurements are the same, only laws (equations) relating measurments. The main thing wrong with this was that its law for velocity transformation between inertial observers turned out to be experimentally incorrect. Between observers with relative acceleration, there is no simple relativity, and laws take more complex form.

2) Special relativity: Same principle as above, except the transformation law between different frames is different and consistent with experiment. In particular, there is no 'relativity' between observers undergoing relative acceleration.

3) General relativity gives you both less and more. The laws of special relativity only apply locally, for inertial observers, defined as those in free fall. There is no unique answer at all to such things as long distances or velocity of a distant object (whether for inertial observers or non-inertial observers). Instead there are only useful conventions you may choose, and procedures for making valid physical predictions based on whatever conventions you choose. There is a general formulation of laws such that whatever conventions are used by any observer, the laws in this form apply (but measurements are not the same). However, the same conventionality of coordinates means, in practice, you use transformation rules to convert your measurements to the most convenient coordinates for calculation.

Based on (3), your A and B observes each know they are non-inertial; they know the magnitude of their acceleration. Seeing the sun, and making measurements, they can determine the quali-local structure of spacetime. What each does, in practice, is convert their local measurements, using the predictions of GR to accomplish this, to milkyway center coordinates (each able to determine a different required clock adjustment, for example). They compute distances, speeds, etc. in this frame. Each one doing this ends up with the same predictions and values. This is all that is expected, and found to be true.
You cannot make such a blanket statement. It depends on measurement conventions. I have shown that there exists a simple convention that has the property that A and B differ on distances and times such that speeds of distant objects come out essentially identical. Other equally valid measurement conventions will lead to different results. However, GR provides the precise rules allowing A and B to make the same physical predictions whatever consistent conventions they use, and compare results, as long as each knows the other's conventions. The requirement on consistency here are very broad (one-one mapping of spacetime, continuity conditions, etc.).
There is really one reality in GR - the spacetime manifold. There are many ways to label events in it, and many different physical processes for taking measurements, that can be used at different places, times, instrument speed etc. GR allows any of these to be used to probe the underlying reality. However, the underlying reality does not include statements such as a unique valid distance between distant objects, nor a unique valid relative speed between distant objects.
That all depends on how they take and interpret measurements. Using raw local measurements, some of these must disagree (but not necessarily all of them, and many choices about which differ). However, if each converts their measurements to an agreed common coordinate convention, using the predictions of GR, they will agree on everything.

Bjarne

My point is imaging you could jump between A and B’s reality, which difference would there be , except time ?

Well I have come to a new simpler conclusion.
When I would jump from A’s to B’s reality, I would see the exact same Universe.
The distance between the earth and the Moon, or any other distance would be exact the same everywhere.

But if we compare these 2 realities, - B’s reality would be a bit smaller. - Everything would be a bit smaller, also the ruler.
That could then also explain the cause of the Shapiro delay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay
Because speed of light must then be measured in the local surroundings.

Edit
No
I change my mind
This can't be true because then there would be no Shapiro delay, but rather opposite

PS
Any idea what is causing the Shapiro delay ?

Bjarne

Let's say the International Space station (ISS) was orbiting the Sun in the exact same orbit as the Earth.

A clock on board the ISS and the Earth would now tick different due to different gravity.

This mean that the laws of orbit gravity can't be the same these 2 places, simply because the time consumption to complete one orbit for both objects, - is larger for the ISS

So what is wrong?

I mean the law of nature must be the same everywhere, or ?

Is the answer that; - the length of one second not is the same both places , - or in other words that one second is "stretching" on board the Earth (compared to one second on board the ISS) and therefore longer compared to one second at the ISS ?

I mean the time to complete one orbit must be the same on board at both objects, but a clock on board the 2 objects would not show this.

There must be a simple way, basic to explain which factor(s) is (are) changing

ghwellsjr

You don't have to use the example of the ISS in the same orbit as earth but far removed to make your point. You can use the simple fact that atomic clocks near sea level at Greenwich tick at a different rate than identical atomic clocks at Boulder Colorado at an elevation of one mile. They would each say that the orbit of earth around the sun takes a different amount of time based on their own coordinate system.

But what is important is that they both measure the same value for the speed of light and in order to do that, they must use the time from their local clock, not some other time such as from GPS which gives the same time for every point on earth.

DaleSpam

Yes.

How do you get from the above correct statement to this incorrect conclusion? The law of physics which pertains to this situation is GR. What makes you think that GR states that both clocks should measure the same time?

Bjarne

Correct
But the example of the ISS and the Earth orbiting the exact same orbit is at least for me easier to handle, because both such observers (these places) must be right, which mean the time one orbit takes can't be the same.

Hence there is a problem since the gravity-orbit-equations a ISS inhabitant and a Earth inhabitant will use, - will not give the same result.
For exsample to determinate their speed or orbit size.

So whos calculation will be wrong?
The Earth observer or the ISS observer?

Option 1 is the definition of 1 second cannot be universal.
Option 2, - this is what wrote about above, ( but now I have change my mind) and believe option 1 must be correct.

It is the same kind of problem, 2 observers (on the Earth), -one living in a cellar and another one in a skyscraper, - both would not be able to agree how long time it takes the light (e.g; from the sun) to reach a certain point of the earth.
So what is wrong, - which simple factor(s) must be flexible?

Is it the definition of how long 1 second is from place to place, - or is it distances or/and speed that not are the same in such 2 observer realities. ?

As I wrote I believe it is “one second” that cannot have a universal definition.
If that should be wrong WHAT is hen the correct answer?

The answer must as I see it be simple, logical and understandable - since we are discussion simple math, >> time multiplied with speed must = distance ( and not for exsample distances)