Relativity and Absolute Space: A Reconciliation?

[pilopais]

How does relativity accounts for rotational motion, which is a non inertial reference frame?

How does relativity responds to Newton's thought experiment to prove the existence of absolute space? He argued that the curvature of the water inside a rotating bucket, demonstrates the true motion of the water in reference of what must be absolute space. (he used a similar thought experiment using two spheres conected by an ideal rope in an empty universe. If these spheres rotate, a tension force is created on the rope, which indicates the "real movement" in reference to absolute space).

 

[Galahad]

If I understand the argument properly, it is stating that we must consider space absolute because there is a difference between the bucket of water rotating in a stationary Universe (the water in the bucket is concave) and a stationary bucket in a rotating Universe (the water in the bucket is level). Therefore, the argument states that the bucket's rotation is absolute, and not just relative to the rest of the Universe (and absolute motion implies absolute space).

To me, it seems like the fallacy is to believe that we can treat a rotating bucket of water as a unified frame of reference (relative to the rest of the Universe). Treating the bucket as a single, unified frame of reference is required for the illustration to work. However, as soon as the bucket is rotating, we introduce kenetic energy, and therefore, the bucket of water has many parts with many different momentums. In order for us to regard the bucket of water as a unified frame of reference compared to the rest of the Universe, the bucket of water would have to be at rest with no internal motion.

For example, if we have two soccer balls next to each other at rest, we can regard them as the same relative frame of reference. However, as soon as we kick one and introduce that kenetic energy, then they no longer share the same frame of reference. It is the same thing with the bucket.

The concave surface of the water has only to do with the injection of kenetic energy in that specific system, and absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the Universe (rotating or not).

At least that is my novice opinion. :-)

 

[MeJennifer]

How does relativity accounts for rotational motion, which is a non inertial reference frame?

I am not sure what you mean by account for.
Rotational motion is indeed a non inertial motion.

How does relativity responds to Newton's thought experiment to prove the existence of absolute space? He argued that the curvature of the water inside a rotating bucket, demonstrates the true motion of the water in reference of what must be absolute space. (he used a similar thought experiment using two spheres connected by an ideal rope in an empty universe. If these spheres rotate, a tension force is created on the rope, which indicates the "real movement" in reference to absolute space).

Nope, objects prefer to follow a geodesic which in flat space is simply a straight line. The bucket, or more accurately the EM forces inside the bucket, is stopping the water from following a geodesic.

 

[cesiumfrog]

By looking at the water in a bucket, yes, you can tell absolutely whether the bucket is spinning (or otherwise accelerating). This is true both in real life, and also according to relativity.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Well, SR, does not account for rotational motion, in fact it is based on two principles:

-the principle of relativity applied to two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion and

-the constancy of the velocity of light.

On the other hand it is known that Einstein applied the principle of relativity to Mawwell's equations making then the magnetic field relative, which is not true in the reality out there, it's just a theoretical supposition, not in agreetment with real experiments. Additionally if that application of the principle of relativity were true, then SR had to do with the electromagnetic field, and GR with the gravitational field and we know those two forces are not unified.

My best regards

EP

How does relativity accounts for rotational motion, which is a non inertial reference frame?

How does relativity responds to Newton's thought experiment to prove the existence of absolute space? He argued that the curvature of the water inside a rotating bucket, demonstrates the true motion of the water in reference of what must be absolute space. (he used a similar thought experiment using two spheres conected by an ideal rope in an empty universe. If these spheres rotate, a tension force is created on the rope, which indicates the "real movement" in reference to absolute space).

 

[ZapperZ]

On the other hand it is known that Einstein applied the principle of relativity to Mawwell's equations making then the magnetic field relative, which is not true in the reality out there, it's just a theoretical supposition, not in agreetment with real experiments. Additionally if that application of the principle of relativity were true, then SR had to do with the electromagnetic field, and GR with the gravitational field and we know those two forces are not unified.

Say what?!

The WHOLE impetus for Einstein to come up with SR WAS due to the non-covariant nature of Maxwell Eqns under galilean transformation. The old Maxwell eqns were the one that had no "agreement with real experiments", because it simply didn't follow the covariant aspect of Newton's Laws. We now know that the relativistic form of Maxwell eqns. become covariant under the more generalized Lorentz transformation.

The fact that c is a constant in all inertial frames that we have measured so far IS an "agreement with real experiments" regarding SR!

Zz.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thank you for your reply!

You wrote:

The WHOLE impetus for Einstein to come up with SR WAS due to the non-covariant nature of Maxwell Eqns under galilean transformation. The old Maxwell eqns were the one that had no "agreement with real experiments", because it simply didn't follow the covariant aspect of Newton's Laws. We now know that the relativistic form of Maxwell eqns. become covariant under the more generalized Lorentz transformation.

Yes, Maxwell's equations was not covariant with the old principle of relativity expressed by the galilean transformations either. I don't get what you mean when you say that Maxwell's equations were not in agreetment with real experiments, so what about the works of Faraday, Ampere, Oersted? What about the whole applications with permanent magnets on which our civilization rest? Those applications are not based on the principle of relativity when applied to Maxwell's equations, that makes the magnetic field relative.

The fact that c is a constant in all inertial frames that we have measured so far IS an "agreement with real experiments" regarding SR!

Yes, light is a constant when dealing with Maxwell's equations, so I don't find any problem with taking it as a principle, the problem is with the principle of relativity when applied to Maxwell's equations, sorry but I can't follow Einstein anymore because of this, you should show me a real experiment where the magnetic field is canceled because of a relative movement, something Einstein did not mean in the intro of his On the Electrodynamic of Moving Bodies either.

My best regards

EP

Say what?!

The WHOLE impetus for Einstein to come up with SR WAS due to the non-covariant nature of Maxwell Eqns under galilean transformation. The old Maxwell eqns were the one that had no "agreement with real experiments", because it simply didn't follow the covariant aspect of Newton's Laws. We now know that the relativistic form of Maxwell eqns. become covariant under the more generalized Lorentz transformation.

The fact that c is a constant in all inertial frames that we have measured so far IS an "agreement with real experiments" regarding SR!
Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thank you for your reply!

You wrote:


Yes, Maxwell's equations was not covariant with the old principle of relativity expressed by the galilean transformations either.

You lost me here. There's an "old principle of relativity"?

Look at the relativistic maxwell equations. Can you tell me how it is non-covariant?

Look at the non-relativistic maxwell equations. Can you tell me how that is covariant?

I don't get what you mean when you say that Maxwell's equations were not in agreetment with real experiments, so what about the works of Faraday, Ampere, Oersted? What about the whole applications with permanent magnets on which our civilization rest? Those applications are not based on the principle of relativity when applied to Maxwell's equations, that makes the magnetic field relative.

I meant as in the most general form. It would be as silly to announce that maxwell equations have no "agreement with real experiment" the same way you are claiming that relativistic Maxwell equations have no "agreement with real experiments". I mean, ALL the experiments on light ARE "real experiments", unless you don't think light has anything to do with Maxwell equations. Every single relativistic corrections to the band structure calculations in solids ARE the relativistic form of the electromagnetic interactions, i.e. the Maxwell equations! So what more "real experiments" do you want?

Zz.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Hello ZZ,

You asked:

You lost me here. There's an "old principle of relativity"?

Of course, the principle of relativity, is not new, Galileo in his Dialogues, established it clearly in his discussions against those that argued about the ptolemaic system, and it was called the principle of relativity in classical mechanics.

By covariant I've always understood that those equations are always valid, independently of the frame of reference, and this is what happens with Maxwell's equations, and specially with the magnetic field, it is always there, in the reality out there, we do not need a theoretical supposition for its existence, and let alone the principle of relativity.

I meant as in the most general form. It would be as silly to announce that maxwell equations have no "agreement with real experiment" the same way you are claiming that relativistic Maxwell equations have no "agreement with real experiments". I mean, ALL the experiments on light ARE "real experiments", unless you don't think light has anything to do with Maxwell equations. Every single relativistic corrections to the band structure calculations in solids ARE the relativistic form of the electromagnetic interactions, i.e. the Maxwell equations! So what more "real experiments" do you want?

relativistic Maxwell equations have no "agreement with real experiments"? This is precisely, what I don't buy anymore: they are not relative, if they were, then would the magnetic field be canceled by a relative movement; this is the real experiment that I want.

Another thing is the Lorentz transformation group and its association with Maxwell's equations, the time dilation problem and so on, that does not need to be framed within the principle of relativity to be valid. Here is a real challenge for physicists, but then we must be very critics not to include eather to justify that group, of course, and in this endeavor, we must reconcile uniform translatory motion and circular motion, the electromagnetic field and the gravitational field just as they are reconciled in the reality out there.

My best regards

Edgar

 

[ZapperZ]

relativistic Maxwell equations have no "agreement with real experiments"? This is precisely, what I don't buy anymore: they are not relative, if they were, then would the magnetic field be canceled by a relative movement; this is the real experiment that I want.

So, in other words, you really do not CARE nor pay attention to a whole zoo of other experimental evidence. You just want ONE particular one as a necessary and sufficient experimental evidence?

And what's with the "magnetic field be cancelled" stuff? If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with Maxwell Equation in the first place, NOT SR. Shoot some electrons at some velocity, and then transform to a frame having the same velocity. Without invoking SR, do you have a problem with not observing a B field in that frame?

I don't get it!

Zz.

 

[masudr]

By covariant I've always understood that those equations are always valid, independently of the frame of reference, and this is what happens with Maxwell's equations, and specially with the magnetic field, it is always there, in the reality out there, we do not need a theoretical supposition for its existence, and let alone the principle of relativity.

No. Covariant equation means it is valid in any ref. frame as it is made of covariant quantities. Covariant quantity means it transforms in a particular way with respect to some set of transformations.

e.g. the magnetic field (in some direction) is not always there, but instead can be transformed away by choosing a suitable reference frame.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Hello ZZ,

So, in other words, you really do not CARE nor pay attention to a whole zoo of other experimental evidence. You just want ONE particular one as a necessary and sufficient experimental evidence?

Yes, it is what is called a critical experiment, just one and that theory will fall.

And what's with the "magnetic field be cancelled" stuff? If you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with Maxwell Equation in the first place, NOT SR. Shoot some electrons at some velocity, and then transform to a frame having the same velocity. Without invoking SR, do you have a problem with not observing a B field in that frame?

I don't get it!

Zz.

No, please, not thought experiments, but real experiments, we know how all QM depends of the behavior of the electron and its intrinsic magnetic field... to say transform to a frame having the same velocity, is a thought experiment that will take you to cancel or deny the existence of the magnetic field, please note that this is not real, but just a theoretical supposition that came in that moment Einstein wrote:

Now, the principle of relativity requires that if the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space hold good in system K, they also hold good in system k...

But let us quote a real evidence very akin to the subject, as violation of parity, bilateral symmetry and SR are so:

As Yang C.N. commented in his Nobel lecture, "The fact that parity conservation in the weak interactions was believed for so long without experimental support was very startling. But what was more startling was the prospect that a space-time symmetry law which the physicists have learned so well maybe violated. This prospect did not appeal to use".

Please note that in this violation of parity, the electron and its assymetric behavior in a strong magnetic field played the central role.

My best regards

EP

 

[ZapperZ]

No, please, not thought experiments, but real experiments,

What "thought experiment"? You've never measured static fields from static charges before? And you've never measured fields from uniformly moving charges before? I have!

So unless you are claiming that having a charge static in your frame is DIFFERENT than transforming to a uniformly-moving static charge frame, then we have REAL experimental evidence for both! If you claim that there IS a differences, then you have a bigger fish to fry than your displeasure with relativity - you have all of physics to deal with.

As Yang C.N. commented in his Nobel lecture, "The fact that parity conservation in the weak interactions was believed for so long without experimental support was very startling. But what was more startling was the prospect that a space-time symmetry law which the physicists have learned so well maybe violated. This prospect did not appeal to use".

Please note that in this violation of parity, the electron and its assymetric behavior in a strong magnetic field played the central role.

My best regards

EP

And would you like to point out to me under WHAT condition is there such parity violation? Does it occur ALL the time, such as under strong interaction and EM interaction? Or is it only specific to weak interaction?

If all you can do is to quote people as your 'evidence', then you haven't understood the physics. You have taken things out of context and use it in places where it doesn't belong. Unless you can show me why having static charges isn't the same as transforming to an inertial frame where that charge is moving, then this whole point is moot. There are many particle accelerator physicists such as me who would invite you to go visit one and see how we transform from lab frame to the particle's frame so often in many of the dynamical description of particle beam physics. If such a thing isn't valid, we would have noticed inconsistencies in both descriptions by now... unless you think we are dumb enough to not notice such a thing.

Ironically, those CP violations that you quoted are obtained out of particle accelerators/collider experiments. So take that!

Zz.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Hello ZZ,

All my life, as electrical engineer, I worked for more than 30 years, not properly speaking with fields, but with energy, electromagnetic energy, based on Maxwell's equations, and I never saw such a thing as a magnetic field canceled by a relative movement, my point. We can cancel the effects of inductive(magnetic) power by capacitive power, but not by a relative movement. On the other hand if the magnetic field were relative it would be impossible for two space-ships moving in relative movement to each other, not to detect the effects of the relativity of the magnetic field, without distortion in the information interchanged and stored in the magnetic field of their hard disks: it would be a real chaos, would it not?

Yes, I know it is just in weak interaction, but is it not enough to have one experiment, to have the whole thing down?

The next serious thing we have to do is to consider the relation among SR, bilateral symmetry as described by Hermann Wey, the philosopher of relativity and the philosophy behind the breaking of parity, but do we really want to consider this seriously when we have to preserve as a dogma the principle of relativity?

My best regards

EP

PS: My apologies if I've offended you with my criticism of SR.

What "thought experiment"? You've never measured static fields from static charges before? And you've never measured fields from uniformly moving charges before? I have!

So unless you are claiming that having a charge static in your frame is DIFFERENT than transforming to a uniformly-moving static charge frame, then we have REAL experimental evidence for both! If you claim that there IS a differences, then you have a bigger fish to fry than your displeasure with relativity - you have all of physics to deal with.



And would you like to point out to me under WHAT condition is there such parity violation? Does it occur ALL the time, such as under strong interaction and EM interaction? Or is it only specific to weak interaction?

If all you can do is to quote people as your 'evidence', then you haven't understood the physics. You have taken things out of context and use it in places where it doesn't belong. Unless you can show me why having static charges isn't the same as transforming to an inertial frame where that charge is moving, then this whole point is moot. There are many particle accelerator physicists such as me who would invite you to go visit one and see how we transform from lab frame to the particle's frame so often in many of the dynamical description of particle beam physics. If such a thing isn't valid, we would have noticed inconsistencies in both descriptions by now... unless you think we are dumb enough to not notice such a thing.

Ironically, those CP violations that you quoted are obtained out of particle accelerators/collider experiments. So take that!

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hello ZZ,

All my life, as electrical engineer, I worked for more than 30 years, not properly speaking with fields, but with energy, electromagnetic energy, based on Maxwell's equations, and I never saw such a thing as a magnetic field canceled by a relative movement, my point. We can cancel the effects of inductive(magnetic) power by capacitive power, but not by a relative movement. On the other hand if the magnetic field were relative it would be impossible for two space-ships moving in relative movement to each other, not to detect the effects of the relativity of the magnetic field, without distortion in the information interchanged and stored in the magnetic field of their hard disks: it would be a real chaos, would it not?

But just because YOU haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, when was the last time you were at a particle accelerator? You also haven't seen a neutrino "all your life". Does that mean it doesn't exist? Have you worked with superconductors before? No? Then it doesn't exist?

The logic on why you claim something to be faulty is itself faulty. The FACT that a charge at rest in your frame of reference produces NO magnetic field is ample prove to me of what you're asking for. If you disagree, then you also have to throw out ALL of physics, because you are questioning the covariant principles of the laws of physics that depends entirely on "gauge invariance" concept. So this is no longer a problem with just SR. You might as well object to all of physics.

Yes, I know it is just in weak interaction, but is it not enough to have one experiment, to have the whole thing down?

Not if the same thing doesn't occur in strong, EM, and gravitational interaction!

Besides, why would you pay attention to the results from such an experiment in the first place, when it is implicitly assumed that SR is valid in those experiments? It appears that you accepted the result of such an experiment while denying the fundamental principle that the experiment USED in producing its result! If you don't think high energy experiments such as those DEPENDS on special relativity, then you REALLY need to get your head out of the clouds and start reading something beyond just the superficial understanding that you seem to have here.

The next serious thing we have to do is to consider the relation among SR, bilateral symmetry as described by Hermann Wey, the philosopher of relativity and the philosophy behind the breaking of parity, but do we really want to consider this seriously when we have to preserve as a dogma the principle of relativity?

Then may I point out to you the philosophy forum, because this is no longer physics. And like I said, you have more of a problem in understanding physics in general, not just SR. You have more of a problem of accepting the covariant nature of the laws of physics in different inertial frame. This has nothing to do with SR. You have a problem with classical E&M, Newton's laws, thermodynamics, etc... etc. So stop picking on just SR.

Zz.

 

[RandallB]

Edgar “EP”
I too have no clue how you can deny SR with Maxwell.
It is really not nearly as complex as working with EM equations.
Galileo’s Relativity and Special Relativity both agree on the same local affects. – you splash water on your face while flying at hundreds of miles an hour in a plane and the water moves as if you were on land because in moves relative to you. Of course Galileo used high speed sailing boats for his example.
Where they disagree is in how to add speeds together and that SR principle seems solid to me, (you haven’t found something like tacyons have you?)
SR even works in a classical view, with 3D and absolute time (which requires picking a preferred frame), just as well as in 4D “space-time” where a preferred frame is not possible.

Haven’t you read (try Einstein’s Heroes) what impressed Einstein so much about Maxwell’s equations? They are mathematically self contained and accurately give correct results regardless of what physical theory they are applied to. Classical Galileo’s Relativity, SR Classical, SR 4D, even GR or QM no matter how you apply Maxwell the same speed for light, matching experimental results is predicted. So whatever “dogma of SR” you’re not comfortable with it cannot be due to Maxwell.

If you have some example where applying Maxwell with SR gives an inaccurate answer the first think you need to find in the error in how you applied it.

As to the OP issue on Rotational Motion , it may not be linear inertial motion but Rotational Motion or SPIN is certainly inertial.
The spin nor the energy stored in that spin is going to change unless and until some force is applied to it as any change to spin will be resisted.
And it will take a force and energy being added to an object to establish any spin or rotational motion if it has no spin.
What more can be required of inertia?
As to absolute space – maybe it is.

 

[Galahad]

As to the OP issue on Rotational Motion , it may not be linear inertial motion but Rotational Motion or SPIN is certainly inertial.
The spin nor the energy stored in that spin is going to change unless and until some force is applied to it as any change to spin will be resisted.
And it will take a force and energy being added to an object to establish any spin or rotational motion if it has no spin.
What more can be required of inertia?
As to absolute space – maybe it is.

But doesn't there need to be a constant force/acceleration to maintain the spin? At any instance of time, the momentum vector of any particle is linear, not angular. If the bucket wall fractures, the water will not continue spinning; instead it will spill out according to its preferred linear direction.

It does not seem like we can base reference frames on angular momentum as we can with linear momentum; in fact they seem completely incompatible.

For example, we ought to consider a rock resting in California, and another rock resting in India to have different reference frames based on the spin of the Earth.

 

[pilopais]

Ok, I think we are loosing track here...
Anyway, If I move fast, very fast, around the bucket I will see no curvature of the water (would I?). But if I spin the bucket, then the curvature is produce, indicating its true motion relative to absolute space. Mach argued that if we rotate the universe around the bucket we will observe a curvature of the water, but unfortunately this experiment can't be done. Any ideas how Special relativity responds to this?

 

[Galahad]

Ok, I think we are loosing track here...
Anyway, If I move fast, very fast, around the bucket I will see no curvature of the water (would I?). But if I spin the bucket, then the curvature is produce, indicating its true motion relative to absolute space. Mach argued that if we rotate the universe around the bucket we will observe a curvature of the water, but unfortunately this experiment can't be done. Any ideas how Special relativity responds to this?

SR does not use angular momentum as the basis for reference frames -- it uses linear momentum. The two possibilities are incompatible.

As I said before, I believe the fallacy with the thought experiment is that it has to treat the spinning bucket as a unified reference frame. An observer outside of the bucket would observe different relativistic effects between the near side of the bucket and the far side of the bucket. In order to treat the bucket of water as a single reference frame, it must be at rest (not spinning).

If the Universe instead rotated around the bucket as you suggest, then you would see the disruptions/tensions/distortions in the Universe due to the monsterous force required to keep it spinning (what ever that force is), and you would not see distortions in the bucket. If there is no kenetic energy in the bucket of water, then the concave surface will not form regardless of what is happening in the Universe around it.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Mach argued that if we rotate the universe around the bucket we will observe a curvature of the water, but unfortunately this experiment can't be done.

Not exactly, but gravity probe B has been measuring something quite similar.

 

[robphy]

The OP might find the two articles on rotation by Malament interesting
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/perl/user_eprints?userid=23
(Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read them myself.)
I'd recommend the general survey to everybody.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Dear ZZ,

In the aim to avoid ambiguity I prefer to be repetitive, so there we go.

You wrote:

The FACT that a charge at rest in your frame of reference produces NO magnetic field is ample prove to me of what you're asking for.

A charge at rest? What kind of charge is that?... of course it is not an electron... can you cancel their intrinsic moment by a relative movement? Of course, you can't even in the best particle accelerator.

But what are the covariant principles of the laws of physics, but the fact that they do not depend -in our precise case in question- the magnetic field or the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron, of a relative movement?. To make it depend on what we understand by covariant laws is to make it relative, just because Einstein, as a philosopher in spite of him, applied a philosophical principle, the principle of relativity, to Maxwell's equations. So if we can prove that the magnetic field, in a hard disk, for example, is not distorted or its information, then we know as a FACT, that it is not affected by a relative movement, and as so the covariant laws of nature expressed by Maxwell's equation are not relative, at least, its magnetic field.

You wrote:

Then may I point out to you the philosophy forum, because this is no longer physics. And like I said, you have more of a problem in understanding physics in general, not just SR. You have more of a problem of accepting the covariant nature of the laws of physics in different inertial frame. This has nothing to do with SR. You have a problem with classical E&M, Newton's laws, thermodynamics, etc... etc. So stop picking on just SR.

Well, as moderator you are free to point out this discussion to the philosophy forum, but it is a FACT for me that you have not addressed my point, that has to do with a physical fact such as the "no relativity" of the magnetic field, that to a certain extent has to do with the name of this post. As a matter of fact, all my life, I worked with Maxwell's equations, in real practical applications, and I never saw such a thing as the relativity of those equations, and now I wonder if it is not neccesary for physicists to consider their philosophical positions more seriously, for the sake of the evolution of science, and its relation with other fields of it.

Anyway, thank you so much for you time!

My best regards

EP

PS: For me this thread is closed, thank you!

But just because YOU haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, when was the last time you were at a particle accelerator? You also haven't seen a neutrino "all your life". Does that mean it doesn't exist? Have you worked with superconductors before? No? Then it doesn't exist?

The logic on why you claim something to be faulty is itself faulty. The FACT that a charge at rest in your frame of reference produces NO magnetic field is ample prove to me of what you're asking for. If you disagree, then you also have to throw out ALL of physics, because you are questioning the covariant principles of the laws of physics that depends entirely on "gauge invariance" concept. So this is no longer a problem with just SR. You might as well object to all of physics.



Not if the same thing doesn't occur in strong, EM, and gravitational interaction!

Besides, why would you pay attention to the results from such an experiment in the first place, when it is implicitly assumed that SR is valid in those experiments? It appears that you accepted the result of such an experiment while denying the fundamental principle that the experiment USED in producing its result! If you don't think high energy experiments such as those DEPENDS on special relativity, then you REALLY need to get your head out of the clouds and start reading something beyond just the superficial understanding that you seem to have here.



Then may I point out to you the philosophy forum, because this is no longer physics. And like I said, you have more of a problem in understanding physics in general, not just SR. You have more of a problem of accepting the covariant nature of the laws of physics in different inertial frame. This has nothing to do with SR. You have a problem with classical E&M, Newton's laws, thermodynamics, etc... etc. So stop picking on just SR.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

Dear ZZ,

In the aim to avoid ambiguity I prefer to be repetitive, so there we go.

You wrote:



A charge at rest? What kind of charge is that?... of course it is not an electron... can you cancel their intrinsic moment by a relative movement? Of course, you can't even in the best particle accelerator.

Oh yes I can! I didn't say a SINGLE charge, I said "charge". In a randomly oriented glob of charge, there is ZERO net magnetic moment. I dare you to measure the net magnetic moment of a piece of paper, or glass, or that plastic that made up your keyboard. So yes, I CAN have a glob of charge that has practically no net magnetic moment. Thus, my example holds. You DO have a frame of reference in which you only have a net charge with zero magnetic field. (BTW, I am trained as a condensed matter physicist and deal with properties of solids - so I can talk about materials properties and producing solids with zero net magnetic moment all day long).

But what are the covariant principles of the laws of physics, but the fact that they do not depend -in our precise case in question- the magnetic field or the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron, of a relative movement?. To make it depend on what we understand by covariant laws is to make it relative, just because Einstein, as a philosopher in spite of him, applied a philosophical principle, the principle of relativity, to Maxwell's equations. So if we can prove that the magnetic field, in a hard disk, for example, is not distorted or its information, then we know as a FACT, that it is not affected by a relative movement, and as so the covariant laws of nature expressed by Maxwell's equation are not relative, at least, its magnetic field.

I have no clue on what you just said here. Are you questioning why our laws have to be covariant in different inertial frames? <scratches head>

Well, as moderator you are free to point out this discussion to the philosophy forum, but it is a FACT for me that you have not addressed my point, that has to do with a physical fact such as the "no relativity" of the magnetic field, that to a certain extent has to do with the name of this post.

Er.. I haven't addressed this? What have I been doing all this while? And what you are claiming isn't a "fact", because if it is, it would have been in our textbooks. What you are claiming is a speculation... unless you believe that the whole physics community is too dumb to realize that.

As a matter of fact, all my life, I worked with Maxwell's equations, in real practical applications, and I never saw such a thing as the relativity of those equations, and now I wonder if it is not neccesary for physicists to consider their philosophical positions more seriously, for the sake of the evolution of science, and its relation with other fields of it.

.. and a structural engineer would claim that all his life he has never had to use relativistic effects or quantum mechanics to build a house. So that would make SR and QM invalid, since that engineer didn't use it?

Let me point out something that I've said very often here. Some of the MOST CONVINCING evidence of the validity of SR is not in some esoteric experiments. It is in the very electronics that you are using. Obviously, you had no clue when I pointed out earlier about band structure calculations. These are the properties of the materials that you are using to make the semiconductors in your electronics. I challenge you to point to me where our knowledge of SR was NOT used in producing the accurate band structure calculations of those semiconductor materials.

So yes, YOU DO use the knowledge of SR! You just don't realize it! It may not be in the direct "practical application" of your work, but you inadvertently use it, and verify its validity, everyday of your life!

Zz.

 

[Galahad]

Ok, I think we are loosing track here...
Anyway, If I move fast, very fast, around the bucket I will see no curvature of the water (would I?). But if I spin the bucket, then the curvature is produce, indicating its true motion relative to absolute space. Mach argued that if we rotate the universe around the bucket we will observe a curvature of the water, but unfortunately this experiment can't be done. Any ideas how Special relativity responds to this?

Someone in another forum posted this link: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Newton_bucket.html

It seems to conclude that Newton's bucket only demonstrates that acceleration is absolute and not relative, which is entirely compatible with SR.

 

[pilopais]

Galahad: Excellent article!

 

[RandallB]

Absolute Space

For me this thread is closed, thank you!

Well you may ignore the thread but your claim is still incomplete for your own use.
Be it covariant laws, or the simple speed of light; as expressed by Maxwell's equations they are consistent and accurate regardless of the theory you apply them under; Classical, Classical SR (Preferred Frame) or Space-Time SR (No PF possible).
As Maxwell predicts the same result in any of them - where have you shown any discrepancy between any of those theories?
If you can not identify a specific discrepancy between them, it doesn’t matter what forum you use, you have nothing to support the claim with.

But back to much more important matters on Absolute Space the intention from the OP anyway:

But doesn't there need to be a constant force/acceleration to maintain the spin?
……….
It does not seem like we can base reference frames on angular momentum as we can with linear momentum; in fact they seem completely incompatible.

For example, we ought to consider a rock resting in California, and another rock resting in India to have different reference frames based on the spin of the Earth.

Just what force do you think is working here then? Consider an object in deep space away from galactic influences that has a significant rotation. Your argument must explain the force that maintains the spin to keep it from naturally decaying to a zero spin. Much more sensible is that spin is inertial and will conserve its energy in that spin until acted on by some outside force – rather classical.

It’s not that they are incompatible just different reference frames; even different linear reference frames cannot share the same definition of simultaneity and are therefore “incompatible” with each other.

The two rocks need not be considered as having different reference frames. Draw a straight line between them and measure all angles and position from that line. Nothing changes over time, even the gravity force vectors are not parallel as we might have liked they are fixed in the reference frame.
Sure if you look to the odd movement of the stars and decide to use them as a preferred frame it gets weird. But we are not working with a theory that accepts a preferred frame.

Actually this has been an excellent question to generate some brainstorming insights – thank you.
I’m now convinced my earlier speculation is actually true and Newton was right that Space is Absolute and does not conflict with SR.
Exciting to have such a date as this become such a Lucky Day; it may take some time but I believe I can now show GR is an incorrect explanation for Lense-Thirring! Inertial Spin what a simple and powerful approach!

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Relativity VS Absolutism

Dear RandallB,

My apologies for not have replied your previous post!

Well you may ignore the thread but your claim is still incomplete for your own use.
Be it covariant laws, or the simple speed of light; as expressed by Maxwell's equations they are consistent and accurate regardless of the theory you apply them under; Classical, Classical SR (Preferred Frame) or Space-Time SR (No PF possible).
As Maxwell predicts the same result in any of them - where have you shown any discrepancy between any of those theories?
If you can not identify a specific discrepancy between them, it doesn’t matter what forum you use, you have nothing to support the claim with.

Well, here we are talking about the same thing, that put it in simple words, it means that Maxwell's equation are invariant; they are not relative. I really think that Einstein made a big mistake here in that same moment, he applied a philosophical principle such as the principle of relativity, and that mistake has pervaded all physics since then. Please note that if we re-read the introduction of The Electrodynamics of moving bodies, even though he points out about the assymmetries which appear to be inherent to the phenomena, it is not conclusive the relativity of the magnetic field, as he at no moment says anything about the cancelation of the magnetic field because of a relative movement. This is deduced later on when he applies the principle of relativity to Maxwell's equations, in a theoretical fashion.

Of course we can cancel the effects(its measurement) of a magnetic field for other reasons, just as in diamagnetic materials, where there spins are perfectly compensated, but this is not the case with ferromagnetic materias, where each atom has a relatively large dipole moment, caused primarily by uncompensated electron spin moments, but this has nothing to do with relative movement, has it not? I hope to have been clearer this time, on the contrary my apologies, it is not my intention to scratch your heads(smiling), maybe I have not rationalized my duality with two languages, spanish and english.

But back to much more important matters on Absolute Space the intention from the OP anyway:



Just what force do you think is working here then? Consider an object in deep space away from galactic influences that has a significant rotation. Your argument must explain the force that maintains the spin to keep it from naturally decaying to a zero spin. Much more sensible is that spin is inertial and will conserve its energy in that spin until acted on by some outside force – rather classical.

It’s not that they are incompatible just different reference frames; even different linear reference frames cannot share the same definition of simultaneity and are therefore “incompatible” with each other.

The two rocks need not be considered as having different reference frames. Draw a straight line between them and measure all angles and position from that line. Nothing changes over time, even the gravity force vectors are not parallel as we might have liked they are fixed in the reference frame.
Sure if you look to the odd movement of the stars and decide to use them as a preferred frame it gets weird. But we are not working with a theory that accepts a preferred frame.

Actually this has been an excellent question to generate some brainstorming insights – thank you.
I’m now convinced my earlier speculation is actually true and Newton was right that Space is Absolute and does not conflict with SR.
Exciting to have such a date as this become such a Lucky Day; it may take some time but I believe I can now show GR is an incorrect explanation for Lense-Thirring! Inertial Spin what a simple and powerful approach!

My apologies if I cannot follow you this time. It is quite difficult for me to speculate about spin without thinking in the electron; as I've understood that concept, it is not just a Newtonian mechanical concept, it's basically an electromagnetic concept, presented in nature, because the electron has it, as an intrinsic property, not as a relative one.

Yes, space is the nearest thing to an absolute concept, but I'm not so sure about that.

On the other hand, I think that the reluctancy to any criticism about SR, has to do with the fact that time dilation is used every day in GPS, but the question is: is it not the Lorentz transformation group, the one that is been tested? In this case, SR need to be revaluated.

In the excellent reference given by robphy, we find something about it, but just something:

The OP might find the two articles on rotation by Malament interesting
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/perl/user_eprints?userid=23
(Unfortunately, I haven't had time to read them myself.)
I'd recommend the general survey to everybody.

Here is what I've found interesting about his comments about SR:

Well the special theory of relativity still has absolutes. Absolute space-time is a feature of special relativity which, contrary to popular belief, does not claim that everything is relative. Although velocities, distances, and time intervals are relative, the theory still sits on a postulated absolute space-time. In special relativity observers moving at constant velocities relative to each other would not agree on the velocity of a bucket moving through space, nor would they agree about the time that has elapsed in the bucket experiment, but they would all agree on whether the bucket was accelerating or not.

Yes, here, there is frame that is absolute(?), the space-time reference, that must probably is that same frame used both in QM and Electromagnetism and that is represented by means of the complex plane, a reason why in both of them, it is essential, but then we do not need to apply the principle of relativity, but to consider its equations like sort of absolute laws of nature, not something that need to be deduced from any theory; please note that the complex Schrodinger's wave equation was a postulate, not something deduced from more basic principles, but a correct mathematical representation of the behavior of the reality of the electron. The same with Maxwell's equations, they are out there for anybody to apply them, they existed before Maxwell unified them with his work, didn't they?

The problem seems to be, IMHO, that in building science both induction and deduction must be used at the same time in a harmonious way, not the one against the other.

My best regards

EP

 

[RandallB]

put it in simple words, it means that Maxwell's equation are invariant

My apologies if I cannot follow you this time.

Yes, space is the nearest thing to an absolute concept, but I'm not so sure about that.

Yes, And with Maxwell invariant I can see no way to use Maxwell to invalidate any workable theory like SR as the math will just transport in and give the same results as experiments already did Classically.

I understand my reasoning may be hard to follow, and as important as today’s revelation is to me it will still take some time to be able to properly explain it. Plus anything beyond it being my opinion doesn’t belong in this part of the Forums.

I leave it that I no long doubt Newton’s position the Space is Absolute (not just the nearest thing to it). And to hold that position I have to also let go of “Absolute Space-Time Special Relativity” as IMO only Classical SR can really fit with Absolute Space.
Have some work ahead on this, so when I can I’ll try to post it somewhere when I can maybe Independent Research. – Today was a very good day.

RB

 

[Galahad]

Just what force do you think is working here then? Consider an object in deep space away from galactic influences that has a significant rotation. Your argument must explain the force that maintains the spin to keep it from naturally decaying to a zero spin. Much more sensible is that spin is inertial and will conserve its energy in that spin until acted on by some outside force – rather classical.

I am talking about the force that causes an object to continue in a spin so that it does not travel linearly. For example, with a tetherball court, the tetherball only spins around the pole because the rope is proving a constant force to maintain the angular momentum. If the rope broke and that constant force was not applied, the ball would fly off in a more linear direction.

It’s not that they are incompatible just different reference frames; even different linear reference frames cannot share the same definition of simultaneity and are therefore “incompatible” with each other.

I am not sure how this relates as the discussion hasn't really addressed simultaneity.

The two rocks need not be considered as having different reference frames. Draw a straight line between them and measure all angles and position from that line. Nothing changes over time, even the gravity force vectors are not parallel as we might have liked they are fixed in the reference frame.

The diagram below shows the momentum vectors of the two rocks. They are clearly in different reference frames.

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/5133/Earth'spinib9.gif"

I have been told that there are "adjustments" that can be made to rotating frames to determine relativistic effects, but I am not familiar with these formulas. It appears to me though that the conventional application of relativity would require us to observe different relativistic effects from each of the rocks.

Actually this has been an excellent question to generate some brainstorming insights – thank you.
I’m now convinced my earlier speculation is actually true and Newton was right that Space is Absolute and does not conflict with SR.

I still do not see how it shows space is absolute--please clarify. All it shows is acceleration is absolute.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Yes, And with Maxwell invariant I can see no way to use Maxwell to invalidate any workable theory like SR as the math will just transport in and give the same results as experiments already did Classically.

Well, Maxwell's equations are not precisely used to invalidate workable theories, on the contrary, in our case it is the theoretical part of SR, not its workable part, the one that can be questioned, in that moment Einstein framed the Lorentz transformation group, under the principle of relativity, but more particularly Maxwell's equations when he wrote in pag52: Now, the principle of relativity requires that if the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space hold good in system K, they also hold good in system k... please note, this is a theoretical and philosophical supposition that takes to contradic a FACT of physical reality, I mean, the no relativity of the magnetic field, no relativity by a relative movement. So something must be wrong with this assumption is it not? It does not have anything to do with the workable part, or else, time dilation.

I understand my reasoning may be hard to follow, and as important as today’s revelation is to me it will still take some time to be able to properly explain it. Plus anything beyond it being my opinion doesn’t belong in this part of the Forums.

Yes, I understand you that it is quite difficult for us to be understood, when we are dealing with such complicated matters, that necessarily have to do with the relation of science and philosophy. Science deals with facts, but for its elaboration it is needed to make philosophical suppositions, and here is where things get complicated, and where big mistakes can be found and not to recognize this, is the biggest one.

I leave it that I no long doubt Newton’s position the Space is Absolute (not just the nearest thing to it). And to hold that position I have to also let go of “Absolute Space-Time Special Relativity” as IMO only Classical SR can really fit with Absolute Space.
Have some work ahead on this, so when I can I’ll try to post it somewhere when I can maybe Independent Research. – Today was a very good day.
RB

Yes, everyday is a good day.

Regarding your position about Absolute Space and Classical SR, I just can tell you what I said before about a frame that includes both time and space, such as the complex plane, in which electromagnetism and QM are already framed, and for sure all those fundamental equations of physics including those workable equations of SR, they can be framed too in it, without the drawback mentioned about the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations.

By best regards and me best wishes to you in your independent research.

EP

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, Maxwell's equations are not precisely used to invalidate workable theories, on the contrary, in our case it is the theoretical part of SR, not its workable part, the one that can be questioned, in that moment Einstein framed the Lorentz transformation group, under the principle of relativity, but more particularly Maxwell's equations when he wrote in pag52: Now, the principle of relativity requires that if the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space hold good in system K, they also hold good in system k... please note, this is a theoretical and philosophical supposition that takes to contradic a FACT of physical reality, I mean, the no relativity of the magnetic field, no relativity by a relative movement. So something must be wrong with this assumption is it not? It does not have anything to do with the workable part, or else, time dilation.

This is not a "fact". What you are saying is the one that is based entirely on speculation, not fact.

I have an object moving with velocity v. So it has a kinetic energy. However, I can transform to a frame that is moving with that object, and it no longer has any kinetic energy. This is no different than your problem with magnetic field. Yet, according to you, this is a logical fallacy.

We do tranformation REGULARLY to the frame of reference of the moving particle. You are just not aware of it, and thus, it must be wrong. I've asked you to provide evidence and citation to back up what you have been claiming, but none have been shown.

Before this thread goes further down the drain, I will point out the PF Guidelines regarding speculative theories (and that includes you too, RandallB). We have allowed for this discussion to continue for the sake of clarifying the existing standard, accepted theory. However, if this is going to become a place where people claim a fault with SR due to NOT some empirical evidence, but rather out of ignorance and claiming "I haven't seen that and so it must be wrong", then this thread will end.

It's fate is in YOUR hands.

Zz.

 

[RandallB]

Before this thread goes further down the drain, I will point out the PF Guidelines regarding speculative theories (and that includes you too, RandallB).

I already made that point where I closed my opinion on the matter in my last post. Galahad should understand they can be no “clarifying” here.

Epsilon Pi
All you need do is keep it logically simple:
Maxwell’s demands light move a “c”
but expects the same in another frame moving very fast compared to the first.
Maxwell does not care “from” which frame the light started it must still go at “c”.
For this to work classically with Maxwell you must use “ether”.
Which has had more than its' share of failed experiments.
Leaving only SR for a explanation compatible with Maxwell with a long list of successful experiments for both.

So apply Occum’s – Maxwell is an agreement with SR
And not something that can refute SR.

 

[Aether]

For this to work classically with Maxwell you must use “ether”.
Which has had more than its' share of failed experiments.
Leaving only SR for a explanation compatible with Maxwell with a long list of successful experiments for both.

Lorentz ether theory (LET, aka GGT) is empirically equivalent to SR, and there are no failed experiments associated with it.

 

[Thrice]

Lorentz ether theory (LET, aka GGT) is empirically equivalent to SR, and there are no failed experiments associated with it.

Like you've been told before, there are an infinite number of theories that are empirically equivalent to SR. Can you guess why they fail?

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Hello ZZ,

Before you close this thread, please it is a real fallacy to bring again that argument with relative velocities, that of course, they can be zero in its own frame, but you cannot do this with the magnetic field, or more properly speaking with the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron. Please, please, you cannot make zero a magnetic field by a relative movement, this is a faulty consequence of the application of the principle of relativity to Maxwell's equations. On the other hand your reference to materials, that I suppose, are diamagnetic materials with a zero magnetic field, does not have anything to do with relative movements. You have not addressed my point, so we are really talking about different things, sorry.

My best regards

EP

I have an object moving with velocity v. So it has a kinetic energy. However, I can transform to a frame that is moving with that object, and it no longer has any kinetic energy. This is no different than your problem with magnetic field. Yet, according to you, this is a logical fallacy.

Zz.