Correction to length contraction equation

[kurious]

Suppose an electron has a small radius and we look at its radius and
mass from the point of view of special relativity.

Let's use the idea of (mass x length) = constant.
No quantization.

Is the contraction to zero radius at c a problem?
If so then we can guess how to stop it.
One way would be just to write:

LENGTH = Rest Length x ( 1-v^2/c^2 + small constant)^1/2

if mass = m0 / ( 1-v^2/c^2 + small constant)^1/2

then:
(mass x length) = m0 / ( 1-v^2/c^2 + small constant) x

Rest Length x ( 1-v^2/c^2 + small constant)^1/2

= constant = m0 x Rest length

Perhaps we can use this as a basis for a field theory with
an electron that has a radius and that is not point-like.

The small constant would mean that mass does not become infinite
but that it reaches a finite value and so rest masses can,in principle be accelerated to the speed of light.
If time dilation is considered then the maximum speed a clock on Earth can run compared to a clock at the visible horizon of the universe where v =c is
10^19 seconds ( about the current age of the universe) per second that passes on the horizon.This means that the small constant has a value of 10^ - 38 metres.So if an electron at rest had a radius of 10^ - 18 metres,
at the speed of light it would have a radius of 10^-19 x 10^-18 = 10^-37 metres.

 

[Locrian]

Suppose an electron has a small radius

I think that is your first mistake right there.

 

[force5]

I think that is your first mistake right there.

Hi Locrian;

Could you explain why? Or point out where the answer might be found.

Thanks

 

[Locrian]

I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest electrons have a radius; a wavelength, and a probability distribution of where you might find one, but not a radius. You wave away quantization to avoid QM issues, but your final value for the radius of an electron is so small it cannot avoid QM effects.

I don't feel the measurable you are suggesting with which to test your theory is measurable in the language you are using.

 

[marlon]

I also think the vision of Locrian is correct. In the model proposed by kurious, QM-effects at very small scale are not taken into account, right ? Correct me if i am wrong. Besides I still have some difficulties with your concept of this restmass you are using. Given the fact that this proposal is to be used for QFT-like-models. How is this mass generated for the electron. I remember you saying, kurious, that this concept was needed for the elektromagnetic-massgiving-system. Using two new models at once with no correlation to the existing theories is a bit to faroff for me.

But let us ignore all this and be positive. What about this ? What would be the influence of this extra number, used to keep the mass from blowing up to infinity, on the metric of space time. I mean, we get this factor 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 from the fact that c is an universal constant. We take two equations of a sferical wave and state that x²+y²+z²-c²t²=x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'²

Is this still going to be valid when this extra term is taken into account, i don't know. I will, do the reverse calculations and see what the implications are... to be continued...

 

[kurious]

It is interesting to note that if we let a proton fall into a black hole and assume it reaches the speed of light near the singularity, then,taking the rest diameter of a proton as 10^-15 metres, the small constant would say that at the singularity
the proton ha s a diameter of 10^ - 19 x 10^ -15 = 10^ -34 metres.
This is the minimum length of a string in string theory. But could it be the minimum size of the "singularity" in a black hole?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not seeing the relevance of the electron there, but in any case, you can't change the laws of the unvierse by changing equations. You change your equations to match the laws of the universe. Your equation does not match the laws of the universe.

 

[kurious]

Russ Waters:
Your equation does not match the laws of the universe.

Kurious:
In what way is this true? Nobody can know that the original Lorentz transformations are accurate to 19 decimal places - they have never been derived-they were arrived at by trial and error and experiment has not proved them correct to 19 decimal places.

 

[kurious]

T ab would still equal T ba?The magnitude of the four-momentum of a photon would still be zero.Where would the problems arise?
Would there be any problems caused by the small constant for general relativity?
Wouldn't it be the case that the energy density of the universe at the time of the Big Bang would not be allowed to be infinite because of the small constant? The curvature of space-time would also not be infinite and so
we would have a calculable theory from which the universe could have expanded.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ Waters:
Your equation does not match the laws of the universe.

Kurious:
In what way is this true? Nobody can know that the original Lorentz transformations are accurate to 19 decimal places - they have never been derived-they were arrived at by trial and error and experiment has not proved them correct to 19 decimal places. [emphasis added]

You mean like THIS. That's Apppendix I to Einstein's "Relativity." The title of the appendix is: "Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation."

What you are doing here is hoping that just beyond our current measurement ability lies a piece of data that doesn't fit the current theory and adding that piece of data to an equation. I don't know where you would have gotten the idea that that's acceptable - it is absurdly unscientific.

 

[kurious]

Russ Waters:
What you are doing here is hoping that just beyond our current measurement ability lies a piece of data that doesn't fit the current theory

Kurious:
No, the idea of the small constant is to stop infinities forming and singularities.
Most physicists agree that these two things are bad news in a physical theory.
It is not unscientific to propose a modification to a theory and then
see if the modification is useful in practice - which is why I am on this forum proposing the idea to other people like yourself.The aim is to see if my idea can make a prediction that matches experiment.I have guessed the magnitude of the constant but even Einstein made guesses.It is possible to guess right! Most of the time one will guess incorrectly.I do not see the small
constant as an attack on special or general relativity but just as a helpful modification if it turns out to be right.By Occam's razor it's more likely than string theory to be the right way of removing a singularity because it's simpler
and keeps the current theory - relativity - intact.

A proton reaching the centre of a black hole would have a diameter of
10^19 x 10^-15 metres = 10^ -34 metres- relative to an outside observer at rest - according to my equation for length contraction.
If a neutron has a similar diameter, then given that there are about
10^ 57 neutrons which go into making a black hole,this would mean that
all the neutrons could fit into a sphere of radius 10^19 x 10^-34 =
10^ -15 metres.A photon (electric force mediator) or a gluon (colour force)
would take 10^-23 seconds to cross 10^-15 metres.
Using E x t = hbar, we find that the energy of a photon or gluon over this distance is 10^-11 Joules.This corresponds to a mass of 10^-28 kg per neutron.But if we wnat to know the vacuum energy density in 10^-15 m^3 how do we calculate the number of force-mediators present at one instant of time? How do the coupling constants relate to time?

 

[kurious]

Kurious:
In what way is this true? Nobody can know that the original Lorentz transformations are accurate to 19 decimal places - they have never been derived-they were arrived at by trial and error and experiment has not proved them correct to 19 decimal places. [emphasis added]

Russ Waters:
You mean like THIS. That's Apppendix I to Einstein's "Relativity." The title of the appendix is: "Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation."

Kurious:
A paper just out this month:

Mathematical Error in Lorentz Transformation

http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/lorentz-light/light.html

Though I'm not saying the transformation is wrong - perhaps it's just not complete.

 

[kurious]

If there are masses that can move faster than light then this must be reflected in the
Lorentz transformations.This can be done as follows:

mass = m0 / ( 1-v^2/c^2 + small constant)^1/2

becomes:

m = m0 / [ (1 - v^2/ Vfast^2) - (1 - v^2/ Vfast^2) v^2/c^2 + constant)]^1/2
Once again Tab = Tba and the magnitude of the four momentum of a photon is zero.

 

[kurious]

If there are masses that can move faster than light then this must be reflected in the
Lorentz transformations.This can be done as follows:

mass = m0 / ( 1-v^2/c^2 + small constant)^1/2

becomes:

m = m0 / [ (1 - v^2/ Vfast^2) - (1 - v^2/ Vfast^2) v^2/c^2 + constant)]^1/2

Once again Tab = Tba and the magnitude of the four momentum of a photon is zero.

 

[russ_watters]

No, the idea of the small constant is to stop infinities forming and singularities.
Most physicists agree that these two things are bad news in a physical theory.
It is not unscientific to propose a modification to a theory and then
see if the modification is useful in practice...

Since there is no data which matches what you predict, how is your modification "useful in practice?"

A paper just out this month:

Mathematical Error in Lorentz Transformation

http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/lorentz-light/light.html

Though I'm not saying the transformation is wrong - perhaps it's just not complete.

The transformation works. It makes accurate predictions and has never been wrong. There is no other critereon by which theories are measured. Again, you're approaching science backwards: you don't write theories based on how you want the universe to work, you find out how the universe works and write theories that reflect it.

If there are masses that can move faster than light...

What have particle accelerators shown us about this?

 

[kurious]

Russ Waters:
>What have particle accelerators shown us about this?

Particle accelerators can say nothing on this at the moment.I see the speed of a mass as depending on the ratio of E/B which I have proposed in another thread on theory development - Higgs Particle and Electromagnetism - can account for THE SPEED OF EVEN SUPPOSEDLY ELECTRONICALLY NEUTRAL PARTICLES (I am saying all particles have very short range electric and magnetic field interactions with a charge that fills space).The motivation for superluminal speed is to give gravitons a speed that allows them to come and go from black holes freely,and to account for instantaneous action at a distance.My transforms are useful because they stop singularities from forming in a black hole with no quantum theory required.
The fact is my transforms work so they show that in principle relativity theory can be altered but still be virtually what it originally was.
I am not an enemy of relativity theory - I am a fan of it!

 

[kurious]

mass = m0 / ( 1-v^2/c^2 + small constant)^1/2

Having checked out Einstein's original derivation, I think the small constant
could have its origins (assuming it really exists!) in the term c x t
(speed of light x time).It seems to me that c x t would have to be bigger than expected.This means that in special relativity a clock at rest in an inertial reference frame is ticking faster than it should. A gravitational
field slows down a clock. There must be a field that causes
a clock to tick ever so slightly faster than usual - a field that exists throughout the universe.A field associated with dark energy perhaps?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ Waters:
>What have particle accelerators shown us about this?

Particle accelerators can say nothing on this at the moment.I see the speed of a mass as depending on the ratio of E/B which I have proposed in another thread on theory development - Higgs Particle and Electromagnetism - can account for THE SPEED OF EVEN SUPPOSEDLY ELECTRONICALLY NEUTRAL PARTICLES (I am saying all particles have very short range electric and magnetic field interactions with a charge that fills space).

Are you saying the particles in accelerators are not reaching C because the energy doesn't reach them due to magnetism not working the way we think it does? Before we go any further, is there anything about accepted physics that you do accept or are you just making everything up from scratch?

 

[kurious]

Russ Waters:
Are you saying the particles in accelerators are not reaching C because the energy doesn't reach them due to magnetism not working the way we think it does? Before we go any further, is there anything about accepted physics that you do accept or are you just making everything up from scratch?

Kurious:

They're not reaching c in this case because the energy required is
the energy required to get a particle to 99.9999999999999999999 per cent the speed of light.(I think the small constant has a maximum value proportional to 1/age of universe so time dilation can never be greater than age of universe).
But much less energy may be required if the ratio of E/B can be increased for
the short range fields of the particle.I think that this can be done by using a
strong magnetic field (probably going to need more advanced superconductor technology) to decrease the local density of magnetic charges in space ( yes monopoles-I don't believe in inflationary theory: I think the universe has never been smaller than 10^25 metres and this explains why dark energy density and baryonic matter density are of similar magnitudes today.Also I don't think the universe will get bigger than about 10^27 metres.
The universe is a harmonic oscillator and oscillates between big bangs and big crunches:


If I take two spherical regions of space about one metre in radius,
they would contain about 10 ^ - 27 kg of dark energy each.
If I now say that the centres of these regions are one metre apart,
and assume that there is rest mass associated with dark energy (this rest mass being uniformly distributed in each of the spherical regions),
then using Force = G m1 m2 / r^ 2 I would get a force of attraction
for the spheres of 10^ -11 x 10^ -27 x 10^ - 27 / 1 x1 = 10^ -65 Newtons.

If these two spherical regions obeyed Hooke's law F = - constant x extension
then 10^ - 65 = k x 1 (I am assuming that earlier in the universe when it was smaller the centres of the spheres converged and at equilibrium there was no distance between them)
k = 10^ -65
Let's postulate that the universe oscillates regularly between a big bang and a big crunch.

The frequency of a harmonic oscillator is given by:

w = ( k/m)^1/2

w = ( 10^ -65 / 10^ -27) ^ 1/2

w = 10^ -19 s^-1.

I accept that the mathematics of physics is in general correct
but I do think that there must be some modifications for progress to be made.
I do not accept the Higgs theory of mass creation because without even knowing the full details of it,I do get the impression that the Higgs theory and standard model are only giving each other moral support!
Until there is a theory that includes gravity too - gravity being a theory that involves mass in a big way - it does not seem to me that the Higgs theory can be right and be linked to the standard model ( in my opinion gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon and the gravitational force-carrier an electromagnetic wave!).
And there is nothing wrong with making some educated guesses and then seeing if we can work backwards and produce a reasonable theory from them - by reasonable I mean a theory that is still by and large the old one.

 

[kurious]

What kind of field would make a clock tick faster than it would if the field was not present? If every particle in the universe is swimming in a sea of mass-giving particles,
and a gravitational field slows a clock by causing the sea to become more dense,near to a large mass like the Sun,perhaps a clock runs faster than it
should if the particles it is made from can make the sea less dense - by repelling the sea.A fast moving clock would collide with the sea of mass-giving particles and cause the density of mass-giving particles to increase and the clock would tick more slowly.

 

[Locrian]

It makes accurate predictions and has never been wrong. There is no other critereon by which theories are measured. Again, you're approaching science backwards: you don't write theories based on how you want the universe to work, you find out how the universe works and write theories that reflect it. What have particle accelerators shown us about this?

Nicely put.

 

[russ_watters]

Nicely put.

Thanks. It bore repeating, having been lost in a sea of gibberish.

And there is nothing wrong with making some educated guesses and then seeing if we can work backwards and produce a reasonable theory from them

A theory is an educated guess (in a manner of speaking), but in order for a guess to be educated it must be based on something real. Your guess is not educated - it is not based on anything, but is soley a product of your imagination.

 

[kurious]

Russ Waters:
A theory is an educated guess (in a manner of speaking), but in order for a guess to be educated it must be based on something real. Your guess is not educated - it is not based on anything, but is soley a product of your imagination.

Kurious:
Einstein guessed the cosmological constant.It only became real in 1998 when dark energy was detected.And Richard Feynman said: "what we need is imagination."
What I am guessing is that space is filled with a lot more particles than we know of and their importance to physics is a lot more important than would be expected by most physicists.If the Higgs particle doesn't get found in accelerators then what are you going to replace it with? Where does mass come from?The whole point of coming on theory development is to see if your ideas can be developed or if you can help other people develop theirs.Comments like yours are useless because apart from saying you disagree with something,you don't seem to be able to produce "killer" arguments to back up your point of view.If you could, I would say "okay,you're right."
In the meantime I'll get on with trying to modify relativity theory to remove singularities from black holes without appealing for any help from QM.Shouldn't relativity theory be able to account for itself?
I am surprised at the fuss given that quantum relativity is expected to change our view of relativity theory anyway.I am not advocating new symmetries just a small quantitative change in gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2
and I am trying to explain how and why such a change might be required.
How can the outstanding problems in physics be resolved if current theories are not modified?

 

[Locrian]

Quintessence sounds like Einstein's cosmological constant, but it isn't. If you read those papers published around that time you will find that trying to use Einstein's cosmological constant simply doesen't work. He was still wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

Einstein guessed the cosmological constant.It only became real in 1998 when dark energy was detected.And Richard Feynman said: "what we need is imagination."

And Einstein was wrong to do so and admitted it later. He wasn't wrong because it doesn't exist (indeed, it seems it does), he was wrong because he proposed it without evidence based on how he wanted the universe to work.

What I am guessing is that space is filled with a lot more particles than we know of and their importance to physics is a lot more important than would be expected by most physicists.

Just like Einstein, you are wrong to do so.

Comments like yours are useless because apart from saying you disagree with something,you don't seem to be able to produce "killer" arguments to back up your point of view.If you could, I would say "okay,you're right."

Since you are arguing a point with no evidence to back it up (indeed, you are arguing that evidence isn't even needed), why would any evidence I provide persuade you?

As always, the burden of proof is on you, the one making the new/extrordinary claim. Its up to you to provide evidence your claim is right. Evdience is something collected in a lab - you have a lot of work ahead of you if you ever want your idea to be a theory.

In the meantime I'll get on with trying to modify relativity theory to remove singularities from black holes without appealing for any help from QM.Shouldn't relativity theory be able to account for itself?

It certainly should - but pulling constants out of the air won't do it.

How can the outstanding problems in physics be resolved if current theories are not modified?

Theories can be modified: based on observations.

 

[kurious]

Russ Waters:
Theories can be modified: based on observations.

Kurious:
Dirac said Einstein produced new theories without new observations!

Kurious:
What I am guessing is that space is filled with a lot more particles than we know of and their importance to physics is a lot more important than would be expected by most physicists.

Russ Waters:
Just like Einstein, you are wrong to do so.

Kurious:
How do you know?
Particles with low mass or even a very short range gravitational field
could fill space and go unnoticed.
The bottom line in all this Russ is this:
where are your ideas for advancing physics.
Easy to criticise!
Try doing some hard work and coming up with some ideas of your own.

 

[russ_watters]

Dirac said Einstein produced new theories without new observations!

Lucky for Einstein, there already were unexplainable observations to work on.

The bottom line in all this Russ is this:
where are your ideas for advancing physics.
Easy to criticise!
Try doing some hard work and coming up with some ideas of your own.

Hard work? This stuff interests me but not enough to take the next 10 years to get a pHd and do some research. I'll leave that to the experts.

 

[kurious]

A neutron falling into a black hole would be traveling at the speed of light by the time it reaches the singularity and would according to my theory be contracted to 10^-34 metres in diameter.There are about 10^57 neutrons which form a black hole.10^19 neutrons in a line would give the radius of a single neutron in gravity free space - 10^-15 metres and the radius of the sphere that all 10^57 neutrons occupy.In a supermassive black hole
10^8 times larger than the average black hole of a few solar masses,
we would expect the neutrons to occupy a spherical volume of space of about 10^-12 metres in radius.Still smaller than the first Bohr radius of an electron in atomic hydrogen.

 

[Locrian]

Einstein didn't produce new theories without experimental testing. He produced new hypohthesis. Some of these, like relativity, turned were experimentally tested and became theories. Some of them, like his cosmological constant, were experimentally tested and turned out wrong, and became famous blunders (though that is somewhat undeserved).

The real blunder is thinking Einstein was right because of the works on Type II supernova in the late 90's; later papers generally agree that a straight cosmological constant doesen't work, but that a different idea may.

 

[kurious]

I just think of dark energy as 10^-27 kg/m^3.
The moderators on sci.physics.research tell me that there is no accepted explanation for what dark energy actually is yet.

 

[Locrian]

What, as compared to how well we know what the electromagnetic and gravitational forces really are? You'll have to convince me that question has any meaning before we go near it.

However, I do think we can talk about what Qa (I'll use for Einstein's CC) is not. It isn't a force that keeps the universe carefully balanced such that it doesen't collapse on itself. In fact, the universe is expanding and even without any Qa it would never collapse. Einstein was completely presumptive and off base, regardless of what system ends up being used to represent the 70% of our universe that dark energy makes up. His theory was carefully crafted to predict not a piece of data, but an idea; that the universe was unchanging. He was more than happy to toss the idea. Quintessence, though having some similarities, is not a revival.

You've gotten the idea of a theory mixed up with a hypothesis and let that drag the conversation far away from where you originally intended it, all in an effort to prop up an idea that you can't seem to give a practical validation. Stop comparing yourself with Einstein and just rely on the fact (as he did) that if your idea predicts past and future results more accurately than any other, it will have to be adopted. In my opinion, your theory fails that test, but I'll be happy to be wrong if time proves otherwise.

 

[kurious]

Locrian:
In my opinion, your theory fails that test, but I'll be happy to be wrong if time proves otherwise.

Kurious:
What are the details of your opinion - why does my theory fail?

 

[kurious]

According to standard relativity theory the maximum angular momentum of a black hole is given by: GM^2 / c

For a black hole of a few solar masses this amounts to 10^41
In my theory 10^57 neutrons spin at a maximum average speed of 10^8 m/s at a maximum distance of 10^-15 metres.The neutrons in my theory will have a mass
that is about 10^19 x rest mass ( 1 / small constant = 10^19) i.e 10^19 x 10^-27 = 10^-8 kg/neutron.
Using the classical formula angular momentum = mass x velocity x radius
we get my prediction of the maximum angular momentum of the black hole.
This is: 10^57 (number of neutrons) x 10^-8 x 10^8 x 10^ -15 = 10^42

This is close to general relativity's prediction of 10^41

Bringing quantum mechanics into the picture we could use the Bohr relation for atomic hydrogen mvr = nh/2pi to quantize the angular momentum of
a series of concentric rings that could account for the angular momentum of the black hole:
nh/2pi = mvr
for one neutron spinning in a circle at the speed of light (neutron closest to singularity where m = m0/( 1 - c^2/c^2 + 10^-38)^1/2 )
m =10^19 x 10^-27,v = 10^8 m/s
nh/2pi = mvr =10^19 x 10^-27 x 10^8 x r
r = 10^-34 metres which is what we would expect given that the use of the small constant in (1 - v^2/c^2 + small constant) ^1/2 enabled us to predict that a neutron of diameter 10^-15 m (at rest) would length contract to 10^-34 metres at the speed of light.

 

[kurious]

This calculation might now enable us to conclude something about the entropy of a black hole.

 

[kurious]

Can someone put a numerical value on the entropy of a black hole of five solar masses.It will give me an idea as to whether or not my calculation is accurate.

Kurious:
Thanks to jcsd in the relativity forum.
The entropy is about 10^55 J K^-1.

I'm going to use S = k ln omega where k = Boltzmann's constant
and omega = multiplicity of states.
And I'm assuming that there are intact neutrons in the black hole.
The neutrons are rotating on the surface of spherical shells.
There are 10^19 shells each of diameter 10^-34 metres (this gives the total
radius of the matter in a sphere in my version of a black hole of 10^-15 metres) and rotating at the speed of light in a clockwise or anticlockwise direction.
On the surface of the outermost ten shells (which contain most of the neutrons) neutrons can be spinning in one of about 10^19 concentric rings
(each shell has 10^19 rings giving 10^19 x 10^-34 = 10^15 metres again) at the speed of light ( this speed is allowable according to my theory) clockwise or anticlockwise.
Each neutron can be either spin +1/2 or spin - 1/2.