Correction to length contraction equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of modifying the length contraction equation in special relativity, particularly in relation to the concept of an electron having a small radius. Participants explore the potential consequences of introducing a small constant to prevent infinities in mass and radius as velocities approach the speed of light. The conversation touches on quantum mechanics, general relativity, and theoretical models in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a modified length contraction equation that includes a small constant to prevent the radius of an electron from contracting to zero at the speed of light.
  • Another participant challenges the assumption that electrons have a radius, arguing that this conflicts with quantum mechanics and the probabilistic nature of particles.
  • A different participant questions the implications of the proposed mass concept and its compatibility with existing quantum field theories.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of the modified equations in relation to established laws of physics, with some participants asserting that changing equations does not alter physical laws.
  • One participant suggests that the introduction of a small constant could address issues of infinities in black hole physics and the Big Bang, proposing that it might lead to a calculable theory.
  • Another participant emphasizes the scientific method, arguing that modifications to established theories should be based on empirical evidence rather than speculative adjustments.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with some supporting the idea of a modified length contraction equation and others firmly opposing it. There is no consensus on the validity of the proposed modifications or their implications for established theories.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the tension between classical and quantum perspectives, particularly regarding the nature of particles like electrons and the implications of introducing new constants into established equations. Unresolved assumptions about the nature of mass and radius in the proposed models contribute to the complexity of the debate.

  • #31
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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?
 
  • #33
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
This calculation might now enable us to conclude something about the entropy of a black hole.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
What would the temperature of the matter (10^30kg - 10^57 quarks each orbiting at 10^8 m/s ) concentrated in the spherical region (10^-45 m^3) of my black hole model be?
Using a classical calculation I would say about 10^81 K.
This means that all the forces of nature would be expected to be unified
(unification temperature is 10^32 K).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
5K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K