Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of time dilation and how it applies to clocks in different reference frames. It is shown that in the case of uniform acceleration, the clocks will no longer be in-sync and one will tick slower than the other. This leads to a contradiction and raises the question of whether special relativity, which does not account for acceleration, is flawed. The conversation ends with a request for challengers to this line of reasoning.
  • #141
Ok, so that's speed in an inertial frame. What's relative speed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
Hurkyl said:
Ok, so that's speed in an inertial frame. What's relative speed?

Suppose that two objects are not moving relative to each other.

The distance between them in any frame is unchanging.

In this case, the relative velocity v is zero.

Case II: not (v=0)

Suppose that two objects are in relative motion. Thus, the distance between them is changing.

Choose one object to be at rest, at the origin of its own frame of reference, say F1. Since the two objects are in relative motion, the distance between them is changing. Thus, the coordinates of object 2 are changing in F1.

Let the position of object 2 at the current moment in time, in F1 be denoted by (x,y,z).

Define the position vector of object 2 in F1 as follows:

[tex] \vec{r} = xi + yj + zk [/tex]

Let there be an infinite number of clocks in F1, one at every point. Let all the clocks be synchronized.

Let (x1,y1,z1) be the position of object 2 in F1, the moment when all clocks read 1. Let (x2,y2,z2) be the position of object 2 in F1, the moment when all clocks read 2, and so on.

The relative speed of object 1 to object 2 can be defined as follows:

[tex] |\vec{V}| = \frac{|\vec{r2} - \vec{r1}|}{2-1} [/tex]

Or we can define time of travel using arbitrary clock readings. Let object 2 be located at (x1,y1,z1) when all clocks read A, and later, let it be located at position (x2,y2,z2) when all clocks read B. The clocks increase in their readings, tick at the same rate (by hypothesis), hence B>A. The relative speed of object 2 to object one is the magnitude of the objects velocity vector which is:

[tex] \vec{V} = \frac{\vec{r2} - \vec{r1}}{B-A} [/tex]

Kind regards,

StarThrower

Keep in mind, that the above definition is only useful when the relative speed is constant in time. If the objects are accelerating relative to each other, then the denominator must be vanishingly small.
 
Last edited:
  • #143
Suppose that two objects are in relative motion. Thus, the distance between them is changing.

According to some reference frame, I presume you mean?


Choose one object to be at rest, at the origin of its own frame of reference, say F1.

This doesn't apply to photons. Would you care to provide a definition of relative speed that does work for photons?
 
  • #144
Hurkyl said:
StarThrower said:
Choose one object to be at rest, at the origin of its own frame of reference, say F1.


This doesn't apply to photons. Would you care to provide a definition of relative speed that does work for photons?


Yes it does.

Kind Regards,

StarThrower

P.S. Certainly you can analyze the motion in a reference frame in which the photon is at rest. Whether or not that frame happens to be inertial is a totally separate issue.
 
Last edited:
  • #145
So this is what this thread has boiled down to?

OK, fine.

StarThrower said:
Yes it does.

No, it doesn't.

There is no reference frame in which the photon is at rest.
 
  • #146
Yes it does.

This definition requires one of the objects in question to have a rest frame. Since photons don't have rest frames, this definition does not work.
 
  • #147
Tom Mattson said:
So this is what this thread has boiled down to?

OK, fine.



No, it doesn't.

There is no reference frame in which the photon is at rest.

Incorrect Tom. You can choose any object in the universe you wish, and fix a rectangular coordinate system to it.

What you are concerned about is whether or not such a reference frame is an inertial reference frame, well I have news for you... if the photon isn't being subjected to a force, then it is.

Kind regards,

The Star
 
  • #148
StarThrower said:
Incorrect Tom.

:rolleyes:

You can choose any object in the universe you wish, and fix a rectangular coordinate system to it. Makes sense to place the object at the origin of the system/reference frame. Then you get to the concept of "worldline" but I'm not going there.

Whatever. If you fix a rectangular system to a photon, then that rectangular coordinate system will be moving at the speed of light in anyone's frame.

What you are concerned about is whether or not such a reference frame is an inertial reference frame, well I have news for you... it is.

If you consider an inertial reference frame to be one that can always be brought to rest by a change of coordinates, then I have news for you: A photon cannot be placed at the origin of such a frame.
 
  • #149
Tom Mattson said:
:

If you consider an inertial reference frame to be one that can always be brought to rest by a change of coordinates, then I have news for you: A photon cannot be placed at the origin of such a frame.

Notice I changed that post slightly. It now reads:

If the photon isn't being subjected to an outside force, then that photon is in an inertial reference frame.

Kind regards,

StarThrower
 
  • #150
StarThrower said:
Notice I changed that post slightly. It now reads:

If the photon isn't being subjected to an outside force, then that photon is in an inertial reference frame.

So? What does that have to do with the fact that you cannot consider the photon as the origin of a stationary frame?
 
  • #151
Hurkyl said:
This definition requires one of the objects in question to have a rest frame. Since photons don't have rest frames, this definition does not work.

Well then Hurkyl, that's really what it all boils down to huh?

A photon placed at the origin of a frame is at rest in a frame. It's in a rest frame, regardless of whether or not that frame is inertial. I mean we can view life from a photon's point of view.

It all boils down to this:

Is a photon which isn't being subjected to a force in an inertial reference frame?

The answer of course is yes.

Kind regards,

StarThrower
 
  • #152
A photon placed at the origin of a frame is at rest in a frame.

Too bad that the time axis of such a coordinate chart is a null vector, and thus can't be considered a frame.


Is a photon which isn't being subjected to a force in an inertial reference frame?

The answer of course is yes.

Why of course?
 
  • #153
And no I'm not getting sloppy.

Earlier on, you insisted on long, detailed proofs, even of elementary facts (though, admittedly, you were making tons of implicit assumptions).

Now, your assertions are backed up with phrases like "of course it's yes".

That's what I call getting sloppy. You were only interested in proving the things with which you know I'll agree; once we get to points of debate, you have lost all interest in proof.
 
  • #154
Well, what a nice thread. Scrolling back a little, I found this gem:
StarThrower said:
I did not "assume" the speed of light depends upon inertial frame, in fact, I assumed the exact opposite (that it doesn't), and subsequently arrived at a contradiction.
Translation: I assume SR to be wrong, therefore SR is wrong.

Hmm...speaking of contradictions.
Tom said:
If you consider an inertial reference frame to be one that can always be brought to rest by a change of coordinates, then I have news for you: A photon cannot be placed at the origin of such a frame.
We've discussed this one too.

Essentially guys, StarThrower bases his beliefs here on several basic assumptions that are contrary to accepted physics. I honestly don't know how to fix that: like he said, "you can lead a horse to water..."
 
<h2>What is "Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR"?</h2><p>"Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR" is a scientific concept that challenges the traditional theory of Special Relativity (SR). It suggests that in certain situations, reference frames that are accelerating can have an impact on the observed speed of light, which contradicts SR's principle that the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer's frame of reference.</p><h2>What evidence supports this concept?</h2><p>There have been several experiments conducted that support the idea of "Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR." One notable example is the Pound-Rebka experiment, which showed a slight shift in the frequency of light due to gravity, indicating that acceleration can affect the speed of light.</p><h2>How does this concept impact our understanding of Special Relativity?</h2><p>If "Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR" is proven to be true, it would challenge the fundamental principles of Special Relativity. It would also require a reevaluation of many other theories and equations that are based on SR, potentially leading to a significant shift in our understanding of the universe.</p><h2>What are some potential implications of this concept?</h2><p>If this concept is proven to be true, it could have significant implications for various fields of science, such as physics, astronomy, and cosmology. It could also lead to the development of new theories and models that better explain the behavior of light in accelerating reference frames.</p><h2>What further research is needed to fully understand this concept?</h2><p>While there have been experiments and studies conducted to support this concept, further research is needed to fully understand its implications and potential impact on our understanding of Special Relativity. This could include more precise experiments and mathematical models to better explain the phenomenon and its effects.</p>

What is "Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR"?

"Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR" is a scientific concept that challenges the traditional theory of Special Relativity (SR). It suggests that in certain situations, reference frames that are accelerating can have an impact on the observed speed of light, which contradicts SR's principle that the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer's frame of reference.

What evidence supports this concept?

There have been several experiments conducted that support the idea of "Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR." One notable example is the Pound-Rebka experiment, which showed a slight shift in the frequency of light due to gravity, indicating that acceleration can affect the speed of light.

How does this concept impact our understanding of Special Relativity?

If "Attention Paid To Accelerating Reference Frames Overthrows SR" is proven to be true, it would challenge the fundamental principles of Special Relativity. It would also require a reevaluation of many other theories and equations that are based on SR, potentially leading to a significant shift in our understanding of the universe.

What are some potential implications of this concept?

If this concept is proven to be true, it could have significant implications for various fields of science, such as physics, astronomy, and cosmology. It could also lead to the development of new theories and models that better explain the behavior of light in accelerating reference frames.

What further research is needed to fully understand this concept?

While there have been experiments and studies conducted to support this concept, further research is needed to fully understand its implications and potential impact on our understanding of Special Relativity. This could include more precise experiments and mathematical models to better explain the phenomenon and its effects.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
115
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
612
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
923
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
101
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
651
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
912
Back
Top