Lorentz Vs. Einstein Who Wins?

[salvestrom]

This is like saying that S'=S, but they don't. The whole reason of assigning the prime symbol is to indicate that it is a different frame of reference. Then any value in frame S' would follow to have a prime symbol and any value in S frame would not have a prime symbol. You would then only need to use one of the equations, because it gives the relation to the other frame. An equation should work the same forwards and backwards, if you have 1 sec for a value of time you will only get one answer, if you put that same answer into the other value you should get 1 sec for the first value. Neither frame has to be at rest, they can both be moving but regardless of that the prime frame should never exchange values to the unprimed frame. You can say that the unprimed frame is also in constant motion it doesn't have to read 1 sec for time, then you would only use the equation τ=t√(1-v^2/c^2), where τ is the proper time in the primed frame, then to convert to the unprimed frame you would only need to put in the same value for τ.

The primed frame can't assume values that is unprimed because then it would no longer be a valid frame. So then you can't assume that t<t', you would have to know that t>t' when you assigned the two frames.

t>t' and t'>t. This is the whole point of SR and Lorentz symmetry: t>t' for the unprimed observer and t'>t for the primed observer. Each sees the other's time as passing slower. The symmetry only disappears when clocks get reunited, and even then it depends on how they are brought back together.

The ' is for distinguishing frames. You may find it useful to consider that the frame which is assigned the ' is arbitrary and any given observer will usually, quite biasedly, assign themselves as the unprimed frame.

EDit: Also, using your statement "it's like saying S'=S", what I'm actually saying is: "the difference in time as seen by S' is the same as the difference in time seen by S".

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/43/spacetimediagram066c.png

I apologise for the scruffyness of the image. The blue lines are constant time for t' and the black lines constant time for t. Note where these lines transect the x=0 line (thick black upright bar) and x'=0 line (thick green, leaning bar). Ignore the mirad red lines that I failed to edit out.

 

[John232]

EDit: Also, using your statement "it's like saying S'=S", what I'm actually saying is: "the difference in time as seen by S' is the same as the difference in time seen by S".

They keep accelerating those particles at the LHC to speeds close to the speed of light, and I don't feel any fatter...

It is hard to imagine a universe that every object can assume the same value S, when they have a corrilated difference from each other to another value S'. It would be like saying that everything experiences an alternate frame that does not go by the same values as it was observed to use. I don't think either theory predicts parrallel universes. I think in order to assume that a value in S' would be equal to a value in S, would have to assume that both frames where always in constant motion to the other frame infinitly into the past. Big Bang Theory predicts acceleration from a moment in the past. The acceleration of galaxies with dark energy has not shown any signs of the effects of SR or LET, but I think it is possible that every object in the universe has accelerated noticeably at some time from one another at some time in the past. Then that assumption wouldn't be valid for any frame in Big Bang Theory.

 

[GeorgeDishman]

I apologise for the scruffyness of the image.

You might find this applet useful:

http://www.reagenix.com/personal/sci/space_time/test.html

 

[salvestrom]

They keep accelerating those particles at the LHC to speeds close to the speed of light, and I don't feel any fatter...

It is hard to imagine a universe that every object can assume the same value S, when they have a corrilated difference from each other to another value S'. It would be like saying that everything experiences an alternate frame that does not go by the same values as it was observed to use. I don't think either theory predicts parrallel universes. I think in order to assume that a value in S' would be equal to a value in S, would have to assume that both frames where always in constant motion to the other frame infinitly into the past. Big Bang Theory predicts acceleration from a moment in the past. The acceleration of galaxies with dark energy has not shown any signs of the effects of SR or LET, but I think it is possible that every object in the universe has accelerated noticeably at some time from one another at some time in the past. Then that assumption wouldn't be valid for any frame in Big Bang Theory.

The value of S never equals S' at the same instant. Only the observered relationship is equal. For v=2/3 c, when S is 1, S' is 0.746 (according to observer S). When S' is 1s, S is 0.746 (according to observer S'). You have to pay attention to who is looking at what. And when.

Galaxies, the Big Bang and parrallel universes need not to be invoked to explain your original question. Or acceleration. These equations are for observers and objects traveling at a constant velocity.

 

[John232]

The value of S never equals S' at the same instant. Only the observered relationship is equal. For v=2/3 c, when S is 1, S' is 0.746 (according to observer S). When S' is 1s, S is 0.746 (according to observer S'). You have to pay attention to who is looking at what. And when.

Galaxies, the Big Bang and parrallel universes need not to be invoked to explain your original question. Or acceleration. These equations are for observers and objects traveling at a constant velocity.

If S≠S' and then S' says that it is S, then S' would be wrong. You would then have to say that there are two different S and two different S' where S≠S in each case. The only way S≠S is if they do not exist in the same equation. The only way you can find that S≠S is if they are two different frames from two different calculations that do not coexist with each other, hence the parrallel universes. I am saying that the transfer to constant motion to acceleration doesn't imply a parrallel universe, t will always be greater than t' unless they where always in constant motion relative to each other infinitly into the past. Then to find out if objects did in fact travel at costant motion relative to each other infinitely into the past you would then have to look into Big Bang Theory. I find it odd that galaxies don't obey SR or LET since they accelerate, but there is no explanation for why this occors or why dark energy affects them this way. Or, there might exist an easy explanation for this problem.

 

[GeorgeDishman]

Or, there might exist an easy explanation for this problem.

There is, SR is a simplified version of GR which is adequate when gravity is negligible in a particular experiment. When you start looking at large scales in cosmology, the speeds that go into SR are often small but gravity governs the overall structure so you have to upgrade to GR.

The most obvious effect of relativity is the cosmological redshift of distant sources, the relativistic Doppler shift due to local speeds is additional to that.

 

[John232]

There is, SR is a simplified version of GR which is adequate when gravity is negligible in a particular experiment. When you start looking at large scales in cosmology, the speeds that go into SR are often small but gravity governs the overall structure so you have to upgrade to GR.

The most obvious effect of relativity is the cosmological redshift of distant sources, the relativistic Doppler shift due to local speeds is additional to that.

Why does GR say that values between galaxies in SR are small?

 

[salvestrom]

If S≠S' and then S' says that it is S, then S' would be wrong. You would then have to say that there are two different S and two different S' where S≠S in each case. The only way S≠S is if they do not exist in the same equation. The only way you can find that S≠S is if they are two different frames from two different calculations that do not coexist with each other, hence the parrallel universes. I am saying that the transfer to constant motion to acceleration doesn't imply a parrallel universe, t will always be greater than t' unless they where always in constant motion relative to each other infinitly into the past. Then to find out if objects did in fact travel at costant motion relative to each other infinitely into the past you would then have to look into Big Bang Theory. I find it odd that galaxies don't obey SR or LET since they accelerate, but there is no explanation for why this occors or why dark energy affects them this way. Or, there might exist an easy explanation for this problem.

The equations are for working out what observers would observe during the period of constant "relative" velocity. During this period both observers describe the other as moving slower through time and having contracted length.

I have no reason, at this time, to consider that absolute velocity and therefore absolute rest do not exist, but I also understand that it is completely impossible to determine if you have attained either. This for me is probably part of why the twin "paradox" occurs, a situation in which one clock does indeed, after the fact, show less time than the other, as you seem to keep insisting they should. But we are not discussing such situations. We are discussing "in the moment" observations of what two observers, seperating at some relative velocity, record of each others frames of reference. Which is exactly the same thing: time is slower for the other fella and his rulers are all foreshortened.

I've basically told you the same thing a dozen times. There's no other way to say it, that I have, so I figure I'm done. Gl with your investigation.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is no way to distinguish Lorentz ether theory and special relativity experimentally because the two formulations will always predict the same results for any experiment. The two formulations only differ in the underlying assumptions used to arrive at the same predictions.
...
One answer is that the underlying assumptions of special relativity are much cleaner, much less ad hoc than those of LET...

I actually prefer to treat the issue by ignoring all issues of pedagogy, and observe that LET is simply equal to SR + Choice of reference frame. And all physical observables are independent of the choice of reference frame. (e.g. by a symmetry argument)

 

[John232]

I've basically told you the same thing a dozen times. There's no other way to say it, that I have, so I figure I'm done. Gl with your investigation.

A paradox is just that, something that can't be solved, if it could it would no longer be a paradox. There is no way to know what twin is really younger as they have traveled only in constant motion relative to each other.

There is no way to know if the true nature of the universe is the same as the nature of mathematics itself. It is always implied that a coordinate plane goes on forever in each direction. There is no way to know for sure if the universe does the same thing. I don't see how a coordinate plane can be described to exist in two different states in terms of S, if S is the whole coordinate plane itself or universe. There would have to be another set of coordinate planes in order to describe it. Maybe the universe did behave this way in the beginning, and the expansion of the galaxies themselves is evidence of that, but once things started accelerating from then on, objects would no longer behave as though they expereinced being at rest as being equally valid. One frame would have to admit its acceleration and would know it could no longer be equal to S. Hopefully, there are not S primes that descibe myself traveling relative to the LHC being smashed to the floor before I even knew what happened.

In theoretical physics it has also been shown that mathmatically a coordinate system can expand at a constant rate in a higher dimension, and then show signs of acceleration in a lower number of dimensions. It could mean that our universe is traveling at a constant speed in a higher dimension. Like the universe is a balloon example, you could blow it up at a constant rate but then two points on the balloon would look to accelerate from each other. But, if constant motion did exist in the past forever and then every object observed a coordinate frame that was different than the coordinate frame they where observered to use, there would have to be two coordinate frames to describe each of these situations. These coordinate frames could no longer have any relation to each other, even after they accelerate from each other. You couldn't use S and S prime to interchange values from each frame from their given equations they would always result into two different discriptions of things that happened. If S prime said that its values of being just S was equally valid, then it would create a different discription of reality. It would be as though each frame was saying that the other frame had accelerated, but it didn't.


It works out this way if you just go by their proper times and not the observed times things happen. They can't have two equally valid proper times. If they had two equally valid proper times it would be like saying there are parrallel universes.

 

[salvestrom]

... It would be as though each frame was saying that the other frame had accelerated, but it didn't.

... They can't have two equally valid proper times. If they had two equally valid proper times it would be like saying there are parrallel universes.

Special Relativity provides maths that demonstrates how proper time is always 1/1 for any observer within their frame of reference. It also shows how that observer will look at other observers and say that their time is less than 1/1. These observers will be looking back at him observing that his time is also less than 1/1. This apparent paradox exists as long as there is a relative velocity between them. Imagine this all occurring in a universe devoid of stars and planets so that the only point of reference these observers have is each other. Only afterward, when these observers regroup and compare their clocks will any sense of who was moving become clear. The difference in the clocks will depend on the duration of the relative velocity as well as the magnitude.

In the twin paradox, if, halfway thru the journey, the stay-at-home twin decides to go after his brother, while other twin decides to "stop", then when they meet their clocks will have measured almost the same total amount of time. The only difference will be that while the stay-at-home twin was at rest in a gravitational field, his brother's been waiting at rest in a far weaker field. But we aren't talking a lot here, not compared to two-thirds c. But let's put aside gravity. And let's put aside acceleration. It's been shown that if the stay-at-home twin makes a shorter journey, but experiences the precise same decceleration and acceleration as his brother has while doing so, the returning twin will still be significantly younger.

But why is one twin younger if they see each other's clocks as running slower ? Because while both have been at rest from their own point of view, they have had different velocities. Different velocities at rest. Now there's a contradictory statement. But you can't say much else about what those at rest velocities are. Only the difference between them, which can be mathematically applied to either and makes a pretty clear statement about how we percieve reality. Because you can't tell how fast you are already going. Think you're sitting still at your keyboard? Guess again. Mother Earth's got a pretty good 100m record: 0.0037s. 27km/s around the sun we go. The sun blazes a trail about the galaxy at 220km/s. Helios's chariot's got some serious rpm. And the galaxy is headed toward the Virgo Cluster at 600km/s.

We share these velocities, which work with and against each other over the years. During one part of our orbit we are headed roughly the same way as the sun is. Six months later we're going the opposite way. Ever casually noticed it? Nope. Noone has. Our velocity relative to the galactic core varies from 193-247km/s. Yet this makes no difference to how we record time and distance. Noone has declared that their rulers are shorter in March compared to in August. Because, even if they appear that way to someone observing us from the galactic core, they always seem the length that they should be to us.

So, you can treat one observer as not having any velocity at all, and just use the difference. But it rather tidly turns out you can arbitrarily chose either one to be at rest and still get accurate information about what they each percieve. In fact, in everything that Special Relativity has to say about the entire concept the only time it ever really matters who was moving is when you invoke the extreme and unlikely situation of the twins.

 

[Dale]

A paradox is just that, something that can't be solved, if it could it would no longer be a paradox.

There are true paradoxes and apparent paradoxes. True paradoxes are things which cannot be solved (more specifically something which contradicts itself), but apparent paradoxes are just things that confuse novice students. They make good homework problems, but they are not true paradoxes. SR and GR have many apparent paradoxes, they don't have any true paradoxes.

 

[D H]

A paradox is just that, something that can't be solved, if it could it would no longer be a paradox.

The word paradox has multiple meanings. You are thinking of paradox as meaning contradiction, a true paradox. Another meaning is something that is seemingly absurd but is nonetheless true, a verdical paradox. There are several such verdical paradoxes in relativity, the most well known being the twin paradox.

None of these paradoxes in relativity is a true paradox. All of them can be resolved. The point of these apparent paradoxes is to illustrate some counterintuitive results that arise in relativity. Our physical intuition is a mix of Aristotelean and Newtonian physics, and is not a universal model of reality. These apparent paradoxes in relativity, while seemingly absurd, are correct. It is our expectations that are at fault rather than relativity.

There is no way to know what twin is really younger as they have traveled only in constant motion relative to each other.

Yes, there is. There are many other ways of resolving the twin paradox. The twin paradox has been tested, and it is true. Relativity theory has been experimentally tested and retested many times and many ways, and to date relativity theory passes all such experimental tests. It is our Aristotelean / Newtonian intuition that disagrees with reality.

Rather than argue against relativity, which is what you appear to be doing in this thread, I strongly suggest that you learn it.

 

[Jorriss]

There is no way to know what twin is really younger as they have traveled only in constant motion relative to each other.

The twin paradox usually involves one twin leaving and coming back right? Meaning that twin had to accelerate at least twice?

 

[GeorgeDishman]

The twin paradox usually involves one twin leaving and coming back right? Meaning that twin had to accelerate at least twice?

Three times, on departure, at turn round and on return. Alternatively there is a triplet version with no accelerations:

Alice stays at home. Bob is in a craft moving at speed v and as he passes Alice he syncronises his clock to hers. Some time later, he passes Claire who is returning to meet Alice. As they pass, Claire syncronises her clock to Bob's. Some time later, when she passes Alice also at speed v (but in the opposite direction to Bob), they compare clocks and find they are not syncronised.

All three craft move inertially throughout so removing any confusion regarding any possible role of acceleration.

 

[John232]

Yes, there is. There are many other ways of resolving the twin paradox. The twin paradox has been tested, and it is true. Relativity theory has been experimentally tested and retested many times and many ways, and to date relativity theory passes all such experimental tests. It is our Aristotelean / Newtonian intuition that disagrees with reality.

Rather than argue against relativity, which is what you appear to be doing in this thread, I strongly suggest that you learn it.

If it gets two answers for everything then its no wonder it could be verified to work, it would have twice the chances of being right. There is no way to verify the initial setup of the twin paradox, it doesn't exist in reality and is purely hypothetical. You would have to have the same clock read two different things at the same time. I don't see how any equation could be derieved that gives two values for every answer. The twin paradox was solved by showing what observer accelerates, then the issue is resolved. Then there is no need to show how something experiences two times at once. One is shown to have experienced less time than the other, then the paradox is gone. I agree that the observed time something uses could be different because of the distance involved, but it is impossible to have a≠a in any equation, a must always equal a. There is no way to show in equations that (a) sometimes equals (a) and (a) sometimes does not equal (a). The mathematics for such a description does not exist, because (a) always equals (a) in mathmatics.

I think a derivation off of the twin paradox would be invalid, I don't think think it was used to derive relativity to begin with, it was used to try to debunk relativity. By showing that it doesn't work the same way as gallilean relativity for things in constant motion. Then it was resolved by saying that no they where not always in constant motion they accelerated at some time or another. But if there is no acceleration at all whatsover in the past or future of both twins, the description of them having two equally valid proper times would be impossible to describe. There would have to be two versions of reality where each twin expereinces a different value for everything. There would have to be two (a)'s to describe it or a (b) even.

I am not saying that relativity is wrong, just that assuming that something experiences two proper times is wrong. I don't think relativity really does this.

 

[D H]

If it gets two answers for everything then its no wonder it could be verified to work, it would have twice the chances of being right.

Nonsense. Where did you get this notion that "it gets two answers for everything"?

There is no way to verify the initial setup of the twin paradox, it doesn't exist in reality and is purely hypothetical.

More nonsense. The general relativistic equivalent of the twin paradox has been experimentally verified. The Hafele and Keating experiment, Vessot's space borne hydrogen maser experiment, and others have tested how clocks work. Various experiments with muons and other short-lived particles have shown that it's not just clocks, but everything that depends on time that that are subject to relativistic effects.

You would have to have the same clock read two different things at the same time. I don't see how any equation could be derieved that gives two values for every answer. The twin paradox was solved by showing what observer accelerates, then the issue is resolved. Then there is no need to show how something experiences two times at once.

Even more nonsense. Where are you getting this idea that "something experiences two times at once"?

I am not saying that relativity is wrong, just that assuming that something experiences two proper times is wrong. I don't think relativity really does this.

I strongly suggest you learn the subject you are ranting against.

It would also be a good idea to review the rules of this site.

 

[GeorgeDishman]

.. assuming that something experiences two proper times is wrong. I don't think relativity really does this.

Correct, relativity doesn't say that. Perhaps you should find out what it does say before trying to criticise.

 

[John232]

Nonsense. Where did you get this notion that "it gets two answers for everything"?.

The twin paradox says that both observers can assume they are at rest and the other actually experiences less time. There are two twins so then there would be two answers to the proper time.

More nonsense. The general relativistic equivalent of the twin paradox has been experimentally verified. The Hafele and Keating experiment, Vessot's space borne hydrogen maser experiment, and others have tested how clocks work. Various experiments with muons and other short-lived particles have shown that it's not just clocks, but everything that depends on time that that are subject to relativistic effects.

No experiments has shown that something exist in a state that has two proper times at once.

I strongly suggest you learn the subject you are ranting against.

It would also be a good idea to review the rules of this site.

As I was saying the twin paradox used to try to debunk relativity is wrong in another way, I am only showing how the twin paradox doesn't go against relativity in another way. If you could all pull your thumbs out of your asses, we might could have had an intellegent discussion. But I guess you have had too many idiots try to disprove the theory before, and you will never change. I am done here. Do yourself a favor and take your own advice.

 

[salvestrom]

The twin paradox says that both observers can assume they are at rest and the other actually experiences less time. There are two twins so then there would be two answers to the proper time.


No experiments has shown that something exist in a state that has two proper times at once.


As I was saying the twin paradox used to try to debunk relativity is wrong in another way, I am only showing how the twin paradox doesn't go against relativity in another way. If you could all pull your thumbs out of your asses, we might could have had an intellegent discussion. But I guess you have had too many idiots try to disprove the theory before, and you will never change. I am done here. Do yourself a favor and take your own advice.

I don't agree with everything the defenders of Relativity have to say about every detail, but at least I've grasped what they're defending. You, on the otherhand, apparently have no clue what the Special Theory of Relativity even says. If you did, you would know Proper Time is the same for everyone and anyone separated from someone else by relative velocity will see the other guy's clock run slow and vice versa. You've been told this numerous times yet have failed to absorb it, let alone realize how it works.

Now, thanks to your crass remarks, we're likely to lose the thread entirely.

As for you statement in bold. Noone said there had been. Only you seem to think we are. The Minkowski diagram I posted shows how it works, but you obviously never looked at it.

 

[John232]

The twin paradox clearly states that both observers can assume they are at rest and the other object is traveling relative to it, they then assume that the other twin time runs slower than the other. The only way to describe this statement is to assign two separate coordintate planes that have this relation to each other. By doing this mathmatically it implies that the twin paradox exist in two parrallel universes, there is no need to solve for acceleration because the twin paradox doesn't happen in the same reality to begin with. So then i have just proven relativity correct by saying that this paradox of two events happening at once can't happen! Or didn't happen in a mathmatically correct way to begin with. Happy now i said it, the twin paradox implies parallel universes so now i am a total nut job. You can't mathmatically prove something wrong with a mathmatical frame work that does not exist to begin with!

 

[D H]

The twin paradox clearly states that both observers can assume they are at rest and the other object is traveling relative to it, they then assume that the other twin time runs slower than the other.

Google the term "twin paradox". Learn the subject you are ranting against.

You are talking about a different aspect of relativity, and it too is correct.

The universe isn't Newtonian. Just because you don't like relativity or don't understand it doesn't mean it is wrong.


This thread has been taking a journey along crackpot road for quite some time now.

Thread closed.