I am supremely disappointed in this forum! I was hoping to find some people to talk to who understand physics and mathematics. So far, the only responses to my posts have been by people having no decent education in math and physics to speak of. Now, I do not mind explaining things to interested people with no background in physics but I was hoping to talk to someone on a little higher level.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

My first complaint was the fact that my original posts were moved to the "Theory Development" thread when there is nothing theoretical at all in any of my posts. Apparent whoever moved it did not read it, at least not carefully. It is entirely based on the current state of physics. There is absolutely nothing in my post which even suggests that Relativity or Quantum Mechanics is invalid so it certainly can not be shunted aside under the "we do not debate the validity of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics here". Neither do I feel that I have any better ideas then those taught at any University. I just have a perspective entirely consistent with the entire field and would like to discuss it with someone competent.

This is already posted on the "Theory Development" thread but apparently no one competent has either read it or thought about it.

That is, solve the problem and analytically represent the relativistic correct solution. There is no argument with Relativity here at all! If you can not see that, you do not understand Relativity.A Thought Experiment for those who like to think!

Consider any experiment which can be performed (if your math abilities are limited, I suggest you make it a fairly simple experiment). Now make an analytical examination of that experiment from any standard space-time frame of reference you find convenient.

Again, there is nothing here in contradiction to any Physics taught at any University in the world and anyone competent in Physics would know that. We are doing nothing but making a careful examination of the experiment you the reader have proposed.Next step!

No matter what that experiment entails, it can be seen as a number of things (particles, objects or collections of such) which travel along trajectories in that space-time frame of reference you chose. Let us not worry, for the moment, where those trajectories start or finish but rather just choose some arbitrary start point on each path and finish with some arbitrary stop point on the same trajectory.

If representing lines in a geometry through a parameteric notation is beyond your experience, your understanding of mathematics is far to limited to understand the above step and you will have to drop out of this discussion. If you have any competence in Physics, you should find no difficulty with that step.Go on with that careful analysis!

Now, those trajectories are lines (in Einstein's space-time continuum) and they may be discussed in terms of a parameter along their length say for example "p". It follow that any given line in that experiment may be described by the events which constitute that line: for any given p, the space-time coordinates correspond to the collection of events [tex](x,y,z,t)_p[/tex] . These can be seen as continuos functions of p or as a tabulated selection of a finite number of events; either perspective is a reasonable representation of the space-time path of the thing of interest. Do this for each "thing" involved in your experiment.

Anyone competent in Physics already knows that so, if you find the statement confusing, you just are not sufficiently knowledgeable in Physics to follow what I am talking about. In particular, I again say there is nothing here which is not perfectly understood physics by anyone decently trained in the field.So now, use that parametric representation!

Now, let us examine the paths of those entities of interest, each by itself, in the absence of the others (I am presuming you know enough physics to solve the problem expressed in your experiment). The differential path length along the trajectory is exactly what is referred to as Einstein's invariant interval along the path of the thing being represented by that path. This fact is commonly used in high energy physics to determine the expected apparent path lengths (in x,y,z space) of particles with short half lives.

By the way, is there anyone out there who really believes that a clock attached to the entity whose path we are following would not read exactly the invariant interval along the path? If so, you need to go back to school.This is here only to remind those who need reminding!

If you understood the common uses of relativity, you would understand that, in order to make the physics independent of the frame of reference, the half life (or any other temporal phenomena defined by the laws of physics, clocks included) will always be the same if measured in the rest frame of the thing of interest. The associated points of interest along the space-time path are obtained by integrating Einstein's invariant interval along that path. Since there is no movement of the entity in its own rest frame, the interval in this case is always imaginary: i.e., the interval is time like. As a consequence, one usually uses the variable tau (via ic tau) to represent such a variable.

We now have all the information we need to explicitly examine the exact nature of those trajectories, including, by the way, the nature of the original geometry itself through the explicit relationship between all of the various [tex]tau_p[/tex] defined by the various trajectories defined by [tex](x,y,z)_p[/tex] (through the fact that we know that tau constitutes the integral of the metric).

Is this true or false; is it in anyway a misrepresentation of Modern Physics as taught in any school in the World?A summary of what we now have!

At this point, if you have a strong enough math background, it should be clear that you can specify a collection of numbers [tex](x,y,z,t, tau)_p[/tex] for each and every trajectory in that experiment we were describing (let each of those lines begin with a specification tau = 0 then an integral will specify the rest).

Now, from the standard relativistic perspective, one uses a geometry of x, y, z and t with a metric which yields tau as the path length. That will require exactly the standard Minkowski geometry (if you don't use Minkowski geometry, you will not get the tau we just specified in that parameterized representation of the path).

I hope you will agree that the collection of parameterized paths of all the objects in your experiment exactly describe the experiment: by exact, I mean the correct result as deduced by modern physics.

Once again, I state that there is no new physics here at all. There is nothing here but a rather strange perspective which I doubt anyone has ever taken and I would like to discuss the consequences with someone competent in Modern Physics.Now, the strange perspective I would like to discuss!

Now let us look at an alternate perspective of exactly the same parameterized paths. This time let us use a geometry consisting of x,y,z and tau with a metric which yields t as the path length. If you are able to do the math, you will notice that this will require exactly a Euclidean geometry (if you don't use a Euclidean geometry, you will not get the t we just specified in that parameterized representation of the path).

Once again, the collection of parameterized paths of all the objects in you experiment exactly describe the experiment: and once again, by exact, I mean the correct result as deduced by modern physics.

If, in the over four thousand members, there is no one out there with sufficient training to follow that rather streight forward thought experiment, I will not bother anyone at this forum again as it is clearly a waste of time. If this post is removed from the "General Physics" forum, I will take it as a sign that the people in charge are not interested in physics.

Have fun -- Dick

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# About interest and competence in Physics

Loading...

Similar Threads for interest competence Physics | Date |
---|---|

Can't open physics forums through view in thread | Apr 5, 2018 |

Suggestion Topics of interest | Jan 9, 2017 |

How to Pursue your Interests Without Getting a Thread Closed | Dec 25, 2016 |

Another interesting thread closed | May 25, 2015 |

New and Interested About Physics Forum | Sep 9, 2014 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**