Creating a Target with 3 Photons in SR Propagating Sphere of Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reff
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photon Sr
  • #101
DaleSpam said:
I am pretty sure that you are not understanding me, but after your posting the drawings I am confident that I am understanding you. Even if you cannot understand the math you can at least look at the equations in the different frames and see that they are essentially the same.

In his frame he IS at the center and green man is not.

So what makes green man's frame correct and red man's frame incorrect in your opinion? Simply because we chose to draw green man's frame? If so, then any frame is the absolute rest frame as long as we choose to draw it. Is that what you really want?

I think that the problem is that you don't even understand what "absolute rest" means. There are millions of ways to determine whether or not two things are moving relative to each other, and so far that is all any of your geometry has demonstrated. In order to experimentally determine if something is at absolute rest you need to perform an experiment where the identical experiment performed in different frames gives different results. That is simply not possible under the known laws of physics.
Hi DaleSpam
Sorry I have been slow to respond.
Yes I do see the belief of red and green men being at the center but just in a "belief" sense.
Please have a look at my non geometric post number 101.
I am pleased that you understand my geometry even if you do not agree. Can I just remind you of an address by Einstein himself in the 20s when he made the statement
"The aether must be in the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid but only in a solid. Thus physicists were bound to arrive at the theory of a quasi ridgid luminiferous aether"
Now if you understand my geometry, you will be able to see from my point of view at least, that in that statement there is a fundamental mistake. I have mentioned this in a previous post. I believe you did not relate the geometry to it at that time but now you can see how it works.
Now the many physicists of that time were out to design a mechanical theory, influenced by that very transverse wave belief.
Without going back into explaining the geometry, you should now see how I believe transverse waves are formed.
If it were proved that absolute rest does exist would you drop Lorentz.
If Einstein had two papers to assess at the time of Lorentz and the mechanical theory worked fine, Lorentz would have been dropped.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
Reff said:
Sorry I have been slow
Any theory should be able to withstand any amount of challenge and retain its integrity, no matter how long the theory is generaly acceptable, rather like the flat Earth society time v integrity, or the Earth being the center of all things, time v integrity or us being the only galaxy in the universe.
Are you suggesting time gives a theory integrity then I absolutely disagree.
I believe you are ignoring some of the facts here including some of the evolution of SR.
If we go back to the 20s when the formation of Lorentz was proposed, do we not find many pysicists hard at work trying to find a purely mechanical interpretation of SR laws
and in that process had many problems. Now I say that if a mechanical theory were introduced at the same time as Lorentz and the man himself ( Einstein) were to make an assessment of both--
which one would Einstein himself have chosen
During his consideration of two theories would he have debunked the mechanical by using elements of the Lorentz theory.--- I don't think so
Would Einstein have been impressed by the Lorentz theory formulated on " substracting from the aether its mechanical and from matter its electromagnetic qualities" as having any form of validity. ----I don't think so
Lorentz formulated a theory that cannot be challenged if we use the time v validity formula
Without using the Lorentz rabbit can you prove that absolute rest does not exist.
How about using the sort of logical thinking that Einstein would have used against a mechanical SR theory, to say one will never exist closes an open mind.
Lorentz's Ether Theory was developed prior to Einstein's Special Relativity. The two theories are mutually compatible with each other. They make the same predictions and they use the same formulas and equations. It is not possible to prove one correct and the other incorrect. They stand or fall together. It is not possible to choose one over the other based on any measureable or observable criterion. You can neither prove nor disprove that an absolute rest exists. It is purely a philosophical choice. If one of the theories is correct, then the other one must also be correct. In fact, if the Theory of Special Relativity is correct, in the sense that it accurately describes reality, then that alone proves that it is impossible to prove that an absolute ether rest frame cannot exist. The reason is that any arbitrary Frame of Reference that you choose to select will have all the characteristics of an absolute ether rest state. On the other hand, if Lorentz Ether Theory is correct, in the sense that it accurately describes reality, then that alone proves that it is impossible to prove that an absolute ether rest state must exist. If any measurement could identify an absolute ether rest state, then both theories would have to be abandoned.

Einstein was well aware of his choice between LET and SR and his argument was that if there is no measurement that can identify an absolute ether rest state, then the concept is useless. It's a matter of choosing the simpler theory because if you want to claim that there exists an absolute ether rest state, then you should, for consistency's sake, identify one by edict and do all your mathematics in that one frame.
 
  • #103
Reff said:
Without using the Lorentz rabbit can you prove that absolute rest does not exist.

The point is, if Maxwell's equations are correct, (and by corollary, the wave equation,) and the Principle of Relativity is also correct, then the only way to resolve the two is by using the Lorentz Transformations. As far as I know, there is no other way.

If you want to discard the Principle of Relativity, or Maxwell's equations, it would also be appropriate for you to come up with some experiment where one of those two things is obviously broken.

As far as I can tell, you are not producing any such physical experiment but are instead producing a thought experiment where a priori you're assuming that one or the other is broken.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using thought experiments; the advantage is that you can illustrate whether an idea is self-consistent or not. The disadvantage is that it doesn't necessarily model reality.
 
  • #104
Hi J Doolin
You have come in cold on this one but you seem to be well versed and have some interest.

QUOTE]JDoolin;3449101]Oh, it is both ways, exactly. The sphere is not frame dependent, but the angles ARE frame dependent. The angles are frame dependent even in Galilean relativity. If I throw an object off a truck, it will appear to be going at a different angle than you would see it if you were standing still. [/QUOTE]

I do believe your statement here but I am a fan of absolute rest, so presuming you are willing to discus that effect --

For a while in your first animation could you drop the mirrors and just look at the symetry of propagation and the point of sphere generation. I am just interested in the sphere and that it can be concentricaly generated by a frame moving at any speed and any direction. The point which generated the sphere must be somewhere within the sphere. This is my not frame dependent. If all moving frame events are created concentricaly to that point concentric to the first event, will they propagate concentricaly, I think so.
Now if we look at photons generated within the sphere, ie radial from the event, right out to the edge of the sphere, then I absolutely agree that the radial lines formed by the track of the photons and their interface with a moving frame are also frame dependent.
If we go back to the propagating sphere and put in a frame of .999c and allow it to propagate 1km I believe contrary to Lorentz that the frame is no longer at the center of propagation, irrespective of the frame observers belief. The frame has moved 999mtrs along the trajectory of the photon heading in the same direction of the frame. This is where I understand Lorentz is saying the frame is at the center of propagation and thus frame dependent. I don't see this but yes the interface in photon angles is a very relevant frame dependent.
Your animation which moves up to .999c is great but it does not show what I need to know and that is, after say 1km of sphere propagation, and without mirrors, the .999c frame creates a second event to indicate that he is still at the center of the first sphere. so is he?
 
  • #105
if you want to claim that there exists an absolute ether rest state, then you should, for consistency's sake, identify one by edict and do all your mathematics in that one frame.
[/QUOTE]
Yes for sure, been there done that, the maths work fine. -- all based on that point between two opposite photons.
 
  • #106
Reff said:
ghwellsjr said:
if you want to claim that there exists an absolute ether rest state, then you should, for consistency's sake, identify one by edict and do all your mathematics in that one frame.
Yes for sure, been there done that, the maths work fine. -- all based on that point between two opposite photons.
So what is the velocity of the Earth right now traveling through the absolute ether rest state?
 
  • #107
Reff said:
Hi J Doolin
You have come in cold on this one but you seem to be well versed and have some interest.

I do believe your statement here but I am a fan of absolute rest, so presuming you are willing to discus that effect --

I am coming in "cold" on this as you say, because I'm not entirely sure what idea your missing. Naturally, if I want to know about an absolute rest theory I might look for articles by Ptolemy, Aristotle, or even Thomas Aquinas.

Perhaps, you are a fan of some absolute rest frame should be geocentric, heliocentric, or galactic-centric, or even "at rest with respect to the cosmic background."

Or you may be a fan of the idea that events that are simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in all frames (You would share that notion with a lot of experts, who should know better, I'm afraid.)

Or you may simply be a fan of LET; that there IS some absolute rest frame, but we have absolutely no way of detecting what it is.

If we go back to the propagating sphere and put in a frame of .999c and allow it to propagate 1km I believe contrary to Lorentz that the frame is no longer at the center of propagation, irrespective of the frame observers belief. The frame has moved 999mtrs along the trajectory of the photon heading in the same direction of the frame. This is where I understand Lorentz is saying the frame is at the center of propagation and thus frame dependent. I don't see this but yes the interface in photon angles is a very relevant frame dependent.
Your animation which moves up to .999c is great but it does not show what I need to know and that is, after say 1km of sphere propagation, and without mirrors, the .999c frame creates a second event to indicate that he is still at the center of the first sphere. so is he?

It depends on which reference frame you're watching from. You have this guy traveling at .999c. From our reference frame a 1000/(3*10^8)=3.33*10^-6 sec have passed, and he appears to be at the very edge of the sphere. From his reference frame, multiply that amount of time by sqrt(1-.999^2)=.0447; a very small number, but he will appear at the center of a sphere that is 44.7 meters across when he creates the second event. So for him, the sphere is only around 159 light nanoseconds across (47.7 meters)

You can map the first event, for example, to (t=0,x=0) and the latter event to (t=159 nanoseconds,x=0)

Do the Lorentz Transformation on these events, with v/c=.999 and you'll see the first one stays at (0,0) while the other one moves to (t'=3330 nanoseconds, x'=999 meters).
 
  • #108
Reff said:
For a while in your first animation could you drop the mirrors and just look at the symetry of propagation and the point of sphere generation.

...

Your animation which moves up to .999c is great but it does not show what I need to know and that is, after say 1km of sphere propagation, and without mirrors, the .999c frame creates a second event to indicate that he is still at the center of the first sphere. so is he?


JDoolin said:
I have a flash demo that let's you set the speed up to .99c if that helps.

http://www.wiu.edu/users/jdd109/stuff/relativity/Circle.swf

Go all the way to the end of the demo, then hit the back-button FOUR times. Then you can see the position of the initial and final event and you can see the circles expanding without the effect of the mirror.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #109
ghwellsjr said:
So what is the velocity of the Earth right now traveling through the absolute ether rest state?

I have no idea ghwellsjr. There have been observations confirmed after claims.
 
  • #110
JDoolin said:
Go all the way to the end of the demo, then hit the back-button FOUR times. Then you can see the position of the initial and final event and you can see the circles expanding without the effect of the mirror.

Hi JDoolan
Yes nice animation and yes I saw the hidden lines.
You may understand that I have a different view than most so I hope you are ok with that.
The initial hidden line sphere is the one I am interested in. The propagation of photons from the event and nothing returning-- just that one sphere.
I understand Lorentz frames all believe they are at the center of the sphere and I can see that reflected light does indeed return to the emittor but using just the initial propagation to say 1km and at that instant the .999c frame signals his position within the sphere-- he is not concentric to it, even if he believes he is. If we take a moving frame with mirrors, the moment photons hit any mirror, we make the frame signal once again, he is still not the center of propagation. What I presently believe in is absolute rest which to me is the center of the emitted propagating sphere. What would you define that as.
I am not sure what sychronisation is. I presume the re integration of the returning sphere.
 
  • #111
Reff said:
Yes I do see the belief of red and green men being at the center but just in a "belief" sense.
Do you believe that there is any experimental way for the green man to prove that he is at rest or the red man to prove that he is moving? Please answer this question clearly even if you choose not to respond to the rest of this post.

Reff said:
Now if you understand my geometry, you will be able to see from my point of view at least, that in that statement there is a fundamental mistake.
The quote is completely irrelevant to your geometry. What does any of your geometry have to do with the fact that light can be polarized?

Reff said:
If it were proved that absolute rest does exist would you drop Lorentz.
Immediately, because the Lorentz transform is not compatible with an experimentally detectable absolute rest.

Reff said:
Yes for sure, been there done that, the maths work fine.
No, the math has disproved you completely at every step of the way. Nothing you have claimed is logically sound as I have demonstrated mathematically multiple times.
 
Last edited:
  • #112
Reff said:
Hi JDoolan
Yes nice animation and yes I saw the hidden lines.
You may understand that I have a different view than most so I hope you are ok with that.

I don't mind you having an opinion or beliefs. Opinions on scientific subjects vary from "This is boring" to "This is interesting." Your opinion can motivate you to continue studying, or to throw up your hands and give up (or allow you to change to a book that makes more sense to you). Beliefs range from "This can't be right" to "This has to be right." So long as you realize that your belief in something does not affect whether or not it occurs in reality, in fact I think you should argue what you believe until someone convinces you otherwise, (so long as you argue fairly.)

I understand Lorentz frames all believe they are at the center of the sphere and I can see that reflected light does indeed return to the emittor but using just the initial propagation to say 1km and at that instant the .999c frame signals his position within the sphere-- he is not concentric to it, even if he believes he is.

I would say you have a confusion distinguishing between "belief" and "frame dependence."

The man does not "believe" he is at the center of the sphere, based on some unfounded faith in the Lorentz Transformations. He IS at the center of the sphere, based on all data he he has available to him. (So long as the man doesn't go and collect the data from some guy in some other reference frame, and then Lorentz Transform it to see what it should look like in his frame.) Instead, he uses instruments in his own possession; camera's namely. He "believes" he is the center of the sphere because he IS at the center of the sphere.

I am not sure what sychronisation is. I presume the re integration of the returning sphere.

That's not what I meant by synchronization.

"Desynchronization" is the effect whereby the events that appear to happen simultaneously on the train, appear to happen back to front, when oberved by someone watching the train go by.

"Desynchronization" was a term that I wanted to popularize to replace "the relativity of simultaneity" back when I wrote the demonstration. The basic idea is that if you accelerate, the events in front of the Rindler Horizon move forward in time, and the events behind the Rindler Horizon go back in time. Of course, when I made the demo, I had no idea what the Rindler Horizon was, and in any case, if you are doing instantaneous acceleration, you are at the Rindler Horizon, anyway.

I thought of another aspect to this argument which might be confusing you. You are interested in the outbound sphere, propagating at the speed of light. There is a difficulty with picking out events on this sphere and lorentz transforming them, because technially,there is nothing "happening" at those points in space-time. So the simultaneous events making up a circle in one reference frame will not become a circle after Lorentz Transformation. Instead, they will become an ellipse in space-time (back end in th past, front end in the future.)

To see that the circle remained a circle, you must select a new set of events; those events which are simultaneous in the new reference frame.
 
  • #113
JDoolin said:
So the simultaneous events making up a circle in one reference frame will not become a circle after Lorentz Transformation. Instead, they will become an ellipse in space-time (back end in th past, front end in the future.)

To see that the circle remained a circle, you must select a new set of events; those events which are simultaneous in the new reference frame.

I wanted to give you a picture of what I'm picturing (click on the thumbnail). How is it possible that the man in the sphere is in the center of the circle, when he's not at the center of the circle?

The thing is, he is still at the center of any set of simultaneous events on the lightcone, regardless of reference frame;(simultaneity is frame-dependent). Its just that that set of another frame's simultaneous events form an ellipse in space-time rather than a circle in space.

The image comes from a screen-capture of: http://www.wiu.edu/users/jdd109/swf/twodimension.htm (Though I made this demo, and would stand by it for being technically correct, it is overcomplicated in using four transformations, when one will do. On the other hand, I would defend it as an independent derivation of the LT's since every transformation is made with good reason.)
 

Attachments

  • elliptical cross-section.png
    elliptical cross-section.png
    5.8 KB · Views: 399
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #114
ghwellsjr said:
Einstein was well aware of his choice between LET and SR and his argument was that if there is no measurement that can identify an absolute ether rest state, then the concept is useless. It's a matter of choosing the simpler theory because if you want to claim that there exists an absolute ether rest state, then you should, for consistency's sake, identify one by edict and do all your mathematics in that one frame.

Am I understanding the difference between these two theories accurately? That LET is the theory that there is some absolute reference frame, but it's indistinguishable from the others? And SR is that there is no absolute reference frame, but all observations are observer dependent?

It seems like you're taking the LET idea very seriously, but I can't figure out what is the point? When the two ideas are indistinguishable in practice, I don't understand how Einstein's choice has any relevance to anyone except for Einstein. (unless he actually decided on LET, that is, and did identify by edict a unique absolute rest frame; which he may well have, given the current state of modern cosmology.)
 
  • #115
JDoolin said:
Am I understanding the difference between these two theories accurately? That LET is the theory that there is some absolute reference frame, but it's indistinguishable from the others? And SR is that there is no absolute reference frame, but all observations are observer dependent?

It seems like you're taking the LET idea very seriously, but I can't figure out what is the point? When the two ideas are indistinguishable in practice, I don't understand how Einstein's choice has any relevance to anyone except for Einstein. (unless he actually decided on LET, that is, and did identify by edict a unique absolute rest frame; which he may well have, given the current state of modern cosmology.)
The point is that LET believers (everyone prior to Einstein) assumed that there existed an absolute ether rest state in which absolute time and absolute space (distances and lengths) existed and only in that state is the one-way speed of light equal to c in all directions. They explained the null result of trying to identify this absolute rest state in any experiment by assuming that their own clocks were running slow and the own rulers were shortened, even if they didn't know by how much. Einstein, took a different approach which is to say that there is no absolute ether rest state, no absolute time and no absolute space but every inertial observer could assume that they were at rest in what would have all the characteristics of an absolute ether rest state with absolute time and absolute space and in which the one-way speed of light was c, and that everyone else moving with respect to them had their rulers contracted and clocks running slow.
 
  • #116
ghwellsjr said:
The point is that LET believers (everyone prior to Einstein) assumed that there existed an absolute ether rest state in which absolute time and absolute space (distances and lengths) existed and only in that state is the one-way speed of light equal to c in all directions. They explained the null result of trying to identify this absolute rest state in any experiment by assuming that their own clocks were running slow and the own rulers were shortened, even if they didn't know by how much. Einstein, took a different approach which is to say that there is no absolute ether rest state, no absolute time and no absolute space but every inertial observer could assume that they were at rest in what would have all the characteristics of an absolute ether rest state with absolute time and absolute space and in which the one-way speed of light was c, and that everyone else moving with respect to them had their rulers contracted and clocks running slow.

Ah, okay. Yes, I would definitely side with Einstein in that case.
Since LET and SR are mathematically and physically identical, it remains only an opinion which one you prefer. It is my opinion the idea of relative rest is straightforward while the idea of absolute rest is cumbersome. (and ambiguous if you cannot declare explicitly on which frame is the absolute rest frame)

Reff said:
I am a fan of absolute rest, so presuming you are willing to discus that effect --

Having discussed that effect, I find I am definitely a fan of relative rest. But I'm choosing relative rest based on a specific rubric that practicality and straightforwardness are "good" things.
 
Last edited:
  • #117
DaleSpam said:
Do you believe that there is any experimental way for the green man to prove that he is at rest or the red man to prove that he is moving? Please answer this question clearly even if you choose not to respond to the rest of this post.
Hi DaleSpam.
For sure I believe that there is an experimental way to prove green man is at rest which has not been devised as yet just the same evolution of the facts re flat earth, sun rotating around us, milky way the only galaxy, bending light, black holes other planets, etc

The quote is completely irrelevant to your geometry. What does any of your geometry have to do with the fact that light can be polarized?
I think you missed something here. The clue is in the transverse waves, and as I did point out, it is from my point of view and from my geometry which I now believe you have not quite grasped. I can elaborate on the detail but the summary of it is-- all photons are radialy emmitted from their own event, therefore all transverse waves are made up of continuously radialy emitted photons from a continuously moving event--The moment each photon leaves, it is not frame dependent. The calculation of frame speed is absolutely photon angle dependent as I believe JDoolin and yourself may have alluded to previously This is rather like the confusion from my original post where I was indicating photons and others--- were talking about a beam or pulse of light which as a point of origin is frame dependent but at a photon level it is not frame dependent.

Immediately, because the Lorentz transform is not compatible with an experimentally detectable absolute rest.
I do like that statement. Perhaps I can do better than the ten minute attempt I made a while ago. Did you find the error in that.
No, the math has disproved you completely at every step of the way. Nothing you have claimed is logically sound as I have demonstrated mathematically multiple times.
Two things here. My geometry is to scale, ie in my case with a radius of 100mm which was adequate to predict a moving frames clock speed and therefore the predicted time dilation of a journey at any speed. It can all be predicted in 1cm or less.
This was my claim and it still stands.
The second point here is, a mechanicaly viable relativity would have displaced Lorentz right from the start especialy as he threw out both the elements of mechanical and electrical and the mechanical relativity would not have been allowed to be debunked by using Lorentz which is what you are doing now.
I do remember a little saying which pertains to anything which was considered "magic" being explained as "Its all done with mirrors"
 
  • #118
Reff said:
Two things here. My geometry is to scale, ie in my case with a radius of 100mm which was adequate to predict a moving frames clock speed and therefore the predicted time dilation of a journey at any speed. It can all be predicted in 1cm or less.
This was my claim and it still stands.

Your diagram from post 75 looks spot on.
photon2.jpg


but...

The second point here is, a mechanicaly viable relativity would have displaced Lorentz right from the start especialy as he threw out both the elements of mechanical and electrical and the mechanical relativity would not have been allowed to be debunked by using Lorentz which is what you are doing now.
I do remember a little saying which pertains to anything which was considered "magic" being explained as "Its all done with mirrors"

...I can't figure out what you're trying to say, here. No electrical elements were thrown out. The only thing that changed, mechanically, was momentum and kinetic energy have to be corrected when the velocity is relativistic.

p = \gamma m v \approx mv

KE = (\gamma-1)m c^2 \approx \frac{1}{2}m v^2
 
  • #119
Reff said:
For sure I believe that there is an experimental way to prove green man is at rest which has not been devised as yet just the same evolution of the facts re flat earth, sun rotating around us, milky way the only galaxy, bending light, black holes other planets, etc
This is completely contrary to all known physical laws. While you can indeed speculate that sometime in the future some new currently-unknown physical force may possibly be discovered, and you may further speculate that the now undiscovered physics could possibly provide for the detection of an absolute rest frame, there is currently no evidence to support that claim. Therefore discussion of such a possibility is entirely speculative and in violation of the forum rules. This site is for discussing mainstream science. Not for completely unsubstantiated speculation.

In addition, so far all of your examples have been in terms of light, not some hypothetical undiscovered 5th fundamental force. If you believe in the existence of some undiscovered laws of physics which would provide experimental evidence for an absolute rest frame then you should explicitly state that is what you are talking about instead of expressing things in terms of light. Then, at least, it would be clear that you are speculating about new physics rather than trying to understand existing physics.

Given that you are speculating about unknown physics, the rest of the conversation about light is moot.
 
  • #120
Closed pending moderation.

Zz.,
 
  • #121
This thread will remain closed.

Sticky at the top of the Special & General Relativity Forums:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17355

Physics Forums rules, to which everyone agrees when they register,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380,

in part, state
Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top