Relativity is broken"Relativity Broken: Uncovering the Mystery

[Albrecht]

OK, fine. But it really doesn't matter because my main point here is your disagreement with the QM rules of angular momentum addition.

No, I did not say that the photon is not covered. I explicitly said that it is covered.

I meant that you explicitly said "it is covered" but your further comment showed that it is not covered.
I understand that the solution is not as simple as to combine two neutrinos. But this shows that the photon is in fact a particle to be understood.

I have no idea of what you mean by a "complete theory", but your understanding of relativity is clearly wrong in this instance. I just got through explaining that one of the lessons of SR is that the rest frame of a massless particle is a nonsensical concept. But then here you are referring to the rest frame of a photon.
Why?

Do you really understand why a particle without any mass has a momentum? I do not mean that we have a formalism stating that. But to understand physics is in my view a bit more that to have a mathematical description.

I mentioned earlier that we have this problem with quantum gravity. I expect that this problem will not be resolved until we leave this (quite common) position und really understand physics rather that only describing physical processes formally.

In the historical understanding of the planetary system there was the successfull mathematical description by Kepler. But that only helped to a certain point. E.g. the influences of one planet onto the other could not be handled. Later Newton came and provided his law of motion as an explanation.

The corresponding theoretical background as with Newton is the point missing in modern physics (Relativity as well as QM).

 

[Albrecht]

From the perspective of an observer at infinity, clocks appear to run slow near the mass due to gravitational time dilation, and rulers also appear to change length. From the perspective of an observer at infinity, the coordinate speed, dr/dt, of the path of a radar signal (aka a null geodesic) will not appear to be constant. However, from the perspective of any local observer along the radar beam, the rate of change of distance with time will always be constant and equal to 'c' when measured with local clocks and local rulers.
When we say the speed of light is constant, we mean that the speed of light as measured by a local observer with local clocks and local rulers is constant, not that the coordinate speed of light is constant. This is as it should be - we are in fact, free to chose any arbitrary coordinate system that we like in GR.

Yes, here you say it yourself. The local observer observes always the same value for c because the clock and the rulers change. So, it is clear that this is a seeming result. As you state, not c is constant but the measurement result is.

This is a general point in relativity: Does the time change (as stated by Einstein) or do the clocks change? Does the space contract (as stated by Einstein) or do only the rulers contract? Is there any way to distinguish between both alternatives?

There is no way to decide this by an experiment. If you follow the other way (=non-Einstein) you will come to the conclusion that c is not at all constant, neither is SR not in GR. But we cannot measure the change by the causes mentioned.

I find this understanding better for the following reason:
If you assume that clocks change and rulers change, you will ask next, which is the physical cause for that change. If you on the other hand assume with Einstein that time and space changes then nobody does see a reason to ask for a cause.

In my view the latter point is the reason for our present problems in physics.

 

[ZapperZ]

I do not have a complete theory (even though I know something which I understand to be better than what we have; but that is not a point here). I do not know if a point charge exists, but two charges cannot be at the same position; so that mentioned case does not exist. The photon, however, exists and in any state of it we have the situation that the formalism of SR has a singularity when describing its internal state.

Then a "complete theory" doesn't exist and you bringing up such a thing is a fallacy. You cannot use that as an argument when you yourself cannot point to the existence of such a thing. You were using something that doesn't exist as an argument.

A theory can of course be very helpful even if it is not complete. Also the theory of Newton was helpful, but not complete as we know. (Newton's theory is basically sufficient to build and fly an airplane). The point is a different one: It does not help the development of science if we ignore the problems which are still open. That is what I wanted to explain in relation to relativity.

How can you say that it doesn't HELP the development of science after all the advancement SR has produced? Do you think think Dirac equation doesn't ADVANCE science? Do you think all those relativistic corrections to the semiconductor band structure did nothing to further science? What about all the new physics that came about as the result of SR? What do you call all those?

Furthermore, since when is a singularity of any kind is a hinderance to the physics involved? We know how to treat such a thing from mathematics. And you want to check up on something called van Hove singularity. You have it right in the electronics you are using. It doesn't hinder physicists, nor engineers, in making your electronics work. It does NOTHING. So why are you picking on SR only as if it is the only place where you have such divergence?

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a general point in relativity: Does the time change (as stated by Einstein) or do the clocks change? Does the space contract (as stated by Einstein) or do only the rulers contract? Is there any way to distinguish between both alternatives?

No, those are all just parts of a philosophical question you are asking: are the laws of the universe screwing with us? - or to put it another way, what is the difference between perception and reality? Those questions are all largely irrelevant to the scientists and engineers who use Relativity on a daily basis: for them, perception is reality. It must be because it is all we have to judge what is real.

Time is relative, not clocks, because, by definition a clock is a device that measures time. (However, to say "clocks change" or "does time change" is not a correct way to ask the question - in the stationary frame, no variation occurrs)

Space contracts, not rulers, because by definition rulers measure distance in space.

And is there any way to distinguish between the alternatives? As already said (ehh, maybe in another thread), you can make all the superfluous assumptions you want about invisible fairies and elephants pushing planets around, but they have no effect on what we actually observe. And as a result, a scientific mind must assume that invisible fairies, elephants, the aether, and laws of physics that conspire to trick us do not exist.

 

[ZapperZ]

IDo you really understand why a particle without any mass has a momentum? I do not mean that we have a formalism stating that. But to understand physics is in my view a bit more that to have a mathematical description.

Hint: Open Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics. Now there's no "particle" of any kind there, only classical wave theory for EM field. Guess what? There's MOMENTUM there too! And a complete explanation on where it came from.

This is an indication that you haven't done enough to understand what you are criticising, not just on SR, but even on classical physics. So if you have a problem with a particle with no mass, but having a momentum, then you should also be in the Classical Physics forum complaining about a "wave" that is not even a particle, with certainly no mass, but also have a momentum. Why aren't you doing that?

Zz.

 

[pervect]

Yes, here you say it yourself. The local observer observes always the same value for c because the clock and the rulers change. So, it is clear that this is a seeming result. As you state, not c is constant but the measurement result is.

It is an experimental fact that's easily verified nowdays that the rate at which a clock ticks depends on its altitude - it's position in the Earth's gravitational field (for Earthbound clocks). A more general principle is that the rate at which a clock ticks depends (for weak fields) on its gravitational potential energy.

Therfore any theory that does _not_ have clocks that tick at differing rates depending on the altitude of the clock is flawed, because it does not match observations.

You are apparently ignoring the actual data we have which is quite good on how real clocks act, and making up imaginary clocks that exist only in your imagination with different properties which you think that clocks "should" have, rather than working with the observed properties that clocks we can build _do_ have.

You are then trying to understand the world in terms of these imaginary clocks.

Unfortunately at this point you have become almost totally disconneted from the reality that we can measure and experience. The point of a theory is to make testable predictions. Relativity does this very well, and it has in fact predicted (and confirmed by experiment) the Shapiro effect.

To use relativity to predict the behavior of physical objects, it is necessary to understand the theory - or to rely on othe people who do, I suppose. This means understanding the definitions that relativity uses.

This is a general point in relativity: Does the time change (as stated by Einstein) or do the clocks change? Does the space contract (as stated by Einstein) or do only the rulers contract? Is there any way to distinguish between both alternatives?

The simplest approach by far is to assume that time is what we measure with a clock.

There is no way to decide this by an experiment.

That's a sure sign of a philosophical question. A seemingly important question which actually turns out to have no physical consequences whatsoever is a philosophical question.

If the question can eventually be shown to make some sort of testable difference, then the question becomes scientific.

When you think about the fact that we cannot decide philosphical questions because they basically make no difference whatsoever to anythign we can our could experience, their relative unimportance becomes clear.

Science is different. It is concerned with predictions that actually can be tested - which implies that they could be falsified by experiment. Theories that we can't falsify, in spite of our best efforts, are the successful ones.

 

[quantumdude]

I meant that you explicitly said "it is covered" but your further comment showed that it is not covered.

No, my comments do not show that. I said that the photon is covered by relativity, and that what relativity says about it is that the idea of a photon's rest frame is nonsensical.

You are interpreting my comments to say that relativity doesn't cover the photon, ostensibly for no other reason that you don't like the idea that the rest frame of the photon is nonsensical.

But your interpretation is just that: your interpretation. It is not deducible from what I said.

I understand that the solution is not as simple as to combine two neutrinos. But this shows that the photon is in fact a particle to be understood.

Your comment that the photon is a combination of two neutrinos shows nothing other than that the photon is in fact a particle to be understood by you.

Do you really understand why a particle without any mass has a momentum? I do not mean that we have a formalism stating that. But to understand physics is in my view a bit more that to have a mathematical description.

Short answer: No, I do not understand it.

Long answer: Physics, just like the rest of science, works by reductionism. There are always primitive, unexplained concepts and at the moment you are asking for an explanation of one of them. It could be that one day there is a more fundamental theory from which this phenomenon is deducible, but then there will just be more primitive concepts that require an explanation.

I mentioned earlier that we have this problem with quantum gravity. I expect that this problem will not be resolved until we leave this (quite common) position und really understand physics rather that only describing physical processes formally.

Since the quantum gravity holy grail is still up for grabs, you could very well be right about that. But no one really knows yet.

 

[Plastic Photon]

Myabe this was answered and I did not see it...

I don't have a good or any understanding of either of the relativity theories, but I have heard that a human traveling at the speed of light time slows down, difinitley heard this, if it happens.

Ok, here is how it is, there is the individual and us, each in separate places somewhere.

If the individual right now achieves light speed for an infinite amount of time; when time slows down as he hits the speed, how does he maintain the speed?
The problem I have...
Time has slowed down for this individual, so does the rate this individual is traveling slow down from our refernce frame? It would seem so. To me, the distance he covers initial before hiting the speed is the same at both viewpoints, but in our reference frame in our time , he slows down in order to maintain light speed in his reference frame, once he has achieved the speed of light.
Or does he achieve something faster than light speed?

I have often been accused by my father for thinking too much in terms of Newtonian mechanics, but I have never known anyother way of thinking!

 

[pervect]

Myabe this was answered and I did not see it...
I don't have a good or any understanding of either of the relativity theories, but I have heard that a human traveling at the speed of light time slows down, difinitley heard this, if it happens.
Ok, here is how it is, there is the individual and us, each in separate places somewhere.
If the individual right now achieves light speed for an infinite amount of time; when time slows down as he hits the speed, how does he maintain the speed?
The problem I have...
Time has slowed down for this individual, so does the rate this individual is traveling slow down from our refernce frame? It would seem so. To me, the distance he covers initial before hiting the speed is the same at both viewpoints, but in our reference frame in our time , he slows down in order to maintain light speed in his reference frame, once he has achieved the speed of light.
Or does he achieve something faster than light speed?
I have often been accused by my father for thinking too much in terms of Newtonian mechanics, but I have never known anyother way of thinking!

I've got to run, but I have time for a few quick comments.

1) Don't ask what happens when a material body goes at the speed of light. The theory says that bodies can't go at the speed of light, and it enforces this by producing ill-defined results (such as division by zero) when you convert questions like this into mathematical form.

This is not a problem with the theory, it's a problem with the idea of a material body going at the speed of light. It Just Can't Happen. (At least within the context of relativity).

You can ask, what happens to a material body as its speed increases [clarification] as it aproaches the speed of light in the limit, though (by taking the limit - .9c, .99c , .999c, .9999c, etc.).

2) If A measures B to be moving at .999c, B will measure A to be moving at .999c. Their rulers and clocks will generally be different, but they will both agree on their relative velocity.

Example: If A goes to alpha centauri, he will see the distance from the sun to Alpha-C shrink. But he will compute the time to alpha-C as the the shrunken distance divided by his velocity. While A and B will measure different distances from Alpha-C to the sun, [add] and the time elapsed for B's clock will be different than A's clock, both A and B will agree about their relative velocities.

 

[jtbell]

The theory says that bodies can't go at the speed of light, and it enforces this by producing ill-defined results (such as division by zero) when you convert questions like this into mathematical form.
This is not a problem with the theory, it's a problem with the idea of a material body going at the speed of light. It Just Can't Happen. (At least within the context of relativity).

Somewhat similarly, on the surface of the earth, you can't go further north than the North Pole. This is not a problem with the theory of geometry on a spherical surface of the earth, it's a problem with the idea of going further north than the North Pole. It Just Can't Happen.

 

[robphy]

The theory says that bodies can't go at the speed of light, and it enforces this by producing ill-defined results (such as division by zero) when you convert questions like this into mathematical form.
This is not a problem with the theory, it's a problem with the idea of a material body going at the speed of light. It Just Can't Happen. (At least within the context of relativity).

Somewhat similarly, on the surface of the earth, you can't go further north than the North Pole. This is not a problem with the theory of geometry on a spherical surface of the earth, it's a problem with the idea of going further north than the North Pole. It Just Can't Happen.

The inaccessibility of the speed of light for massive particles, however, is an issue of [Minkowskian] geometry. A massive particle's 4-velocity, its future-directed unit timelike tangent vector, has its tip on a hyperboloid asymptotic to the light cone. No boost will move the tip off the hyperboloid. Boost all you want. The situation may be better appreciated by thinking in terms of rapidity \theta, with range -\infty < \theta < \infty, rather than velocity v=c \tanh\theta, with range -c < v < c for massive particles.

 

[Albrecht]

Then a "complete theory" doesn't exist ...
Zz.

You are completely right: it does not exist. And please look into history: It never existed even if physicists at that time believed that it was there.

We are obviously in the same situation just now.

To say that again: This does not matter for the practical life. But for the further development it does matter.

Some centuries ago the motion of the planet Mars was not understood. That was completely irrelevant for the daily life. But it has caused Copernicus to question the paradigm of that time.

We have some reason to question the paradigms of our time.

... How can you say that it doesn't HELP the development of science after all the advancement SR has produced? ...
Zz.

Relativity is in a deadlock as stated by many well known physicists. - In the beginning of the 20th century there was a (philosophical) paradigm in physics that nothing is of importance than a description of processes which works correctly (e.g. stated once by Heisenberg). This paradigm was later given up by the insight that with this paradigm there will be no further development in physics. (So this is NOT MY invention.)

So why are you picking on SR only as if it is the only place where you have such divergence?
Zz.

I pick up SR, GR, and QM. I mentioned some problems. One is quantum gravity. Another one is the unresolved question what the cause of mass is.

 

[Albrecht]

Space contracts, not rulers, because by definition rulers measure distance in space.

If rulers measure the distance in space, then these rulers define the extensions in space. So, if we are physicists, we have to talk about the physics of rulers, not the ones of space.

... Time is relative, not clocks, because, by definition a clock is a device that measures time. (However, to say "clocks change" or "does time change" is not a correct way to ask the question - in the stationary frame, no variation occurrs)

I mentioned my point before: If you say that time slows down you will understand that as a fundamental physical law in our world. If you, however, say that clocks slow down, which in fact means that the fundamental oscillators in our smallest particles will slow down, then you will (hopefully) ask the next question, why this happens.
We have already an answer to it. In 1930, Schroedinger found by analysis of the Dirac equation, that the inside the electron oscillates at the speed of light c. If we assume that this is valid for all elementary particles, then the slow down of clocks (and all related functions) is PHYSICALLY understood. And we have learned something about elementary particles. - If you stick with the statement that "time" slows down as a fundamental process, you will not find this.
And the same is true for the treatment of space.

 

[Albrecht]

Hint: Open Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics. Now there's no "particle" of any kind there, only classical wave theory for EM field. Guess what? There's MOMENTUM there too! And a complete explanation on where it came from.
This is an indication that you haven't done enough to understand what you are criticising, not just on SR, but even on classical physics. ... Why aren't you doing that?
Zz.

I know the Jackson. And have read it. It is based on Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.
Here again: Maxwell's theory is a describing theory, not an understanding theory. Maxwell has observed e.m. phenomena and has developed a (quite beautiful) mathematical formalism to describe it. But it can of course only be based on the physical understanding at the time of Maxwell.

To have a better understanding, I wish to recommend to read Rosser: Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity. Here you will understand why most of his theory is true and which portions of Maxwell have a physical bases, und you will understand the differences.

Again my point: We need physical understanding, not only physical descriptions.

 

[Albrecht]

It is an experimental fact that's easily verified nowdays that the rate at which a clock ticks depends on its altitude - it's position in the Earth's gravitational field (for Earthbound clocks). A more general principle is that the rate at which a clock ticks depends (for weak fields) on its gravitational potential energy.

Right, I did not question that.

Therfore any theory that does _not_ have clocks that tick at differing rates depending on the altitude of the clock is flawed, because it does not match observations.
You are apparently ignoring the actual data we have which is quite good on how real clocks act, and making up imaginary clocks that exist only in your imagination with different properties which you think that clocks "should" have, rather than working with the observed properties that clocks we can build _do_ have.
To use relativity to predict the behavior of physical objects, it is necessary to understand the theory - or to rely on othe people who do, I suppose. This means understanding the definitions that relativity uses.
The simplest approach by far is to assume that time is what we measure with a clock.

Sure, but you missed my point. I know all those experiments and its results. My point is, that it is more practical for the further development of physics to state that "clocks", not "time", change in the appropriate situations. I have ealier explained, why.

That's a sure sign of a philosophical question. A seemingly important question which actually turns out to have no physical consequences whatsoever is a philosophical question.

The attitude to treat a theory has, as I explained, long term consequences for the development of physics.

In the beginning of the 20th century the physicists followed this way which was called the philosophy of positivism: A theory with correct results is good enough. It was given up later because it was found to inhibit the further development of science.

 

[ZapperZ]

I know the Jackson. And have read it. It is based on Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.
Here again: Maxwell's theory is a describing theory, not an understanding theory. Maxwell has observed e.m. phenomena and has developed a (quite beautiful) mathematical formalism to describe it. But it can of course only be based on the physical understanding at the time of Maxwell.

To have a better understanding, I wish to recommend to read Rosser: Classical Electromagnetism via Relativity. Here you will understand why most of his theory is true and which portions of Maxwell have a physical bases, und you will understand the differences.

Again my point: We need physical understanding, not only physical descriptions.

But you are MISSING the point!

The classical description DOES contain a "momentum". And in fact, one can clearly see why a momentum transfer is more efficient when light hits a metallic surface than a dielectric surface. This is an accurate description. If you have understood this, you would have NEVER brought up the question on how a "particle" with no mass can exert a momentum, which is the reason why I pointed out Jackson's text in the first place!

Secondly, "... most of his theory is true..."? This is a very unusual and strange thing to say. You are using a book that parts of it is true and parts are not? And you see no problems with this?

And how much you are willing to bet that I can pick apart something out of that book and point out to you that there's STILL a level of "explanation" that can still be done. Would you care to explain the origin of "charge" and "spin" and "mass"? Or is physics main responsibility, ultimately, is to describe?

The issue here hasn't changed. You are proposing something way in the beginning that is wrong (i.e. 2 neutrinos make up a photon). I'd like to see you EXPLAIN the mechanism for that since you like this "explain" stuff so much. Let's see you do it for what you're proposing before you demand of that from us.

Zz.

 

[pervect]

Right, I did not question that.
Sure, but you missed my point. I know all those experiments and its results. My point is, that it is more practical for the further development of physics to state that "clocks", not "time", change in the appropriate situations. I have ealier explained, why.

Perhaps you could point out a post number that contains your explanation, as I do not recall seeing any such argument and the thread is a bit long to go searching for it.

The situation as I see it is thus:

It is philosophically simplest to treat clocks as measuring time. (There is no need to multiply hypothesis or entities unless there is a compelling reason).

The physics is also simpler when we treat clocks as measuring time.

Furthermore, and most importantly, the simple physics that we get when we treat clocks as measuring time gives correct experimental results to high accuracy.

Finally, we have a lot of different sorts of clocks of differing constructions. Some of these clocks are more accurate than others, but within their individual degrees of accuracy, all of them keep the same time. If time were associated with some aspect of the clock itself, we would not expect all clocks to keep the same time. But they do. Muons decay, radioactive decay, pendulum clocks, quartz crystal clocks, the rate of chemical reactions, and atomic clocks are all different ways to measure time, and while they are not all equally accurate, they all give consistent results with each other.

The attitude to treat a theory has, as I explained, long term consequences for the development of physics.
In the beginning of the 20th century the physicists followed this way which was called the philosophy of positivism: A theory with correct results is good enough. It was given up later because it was found to inhibit the further development of science.

This is drifting off into philosophy again. While philosphy isn't one of my main interests, I'm quite sure that philsophical questions are not "answered", and that positivism (or any other philosophy, for that matter) has not been "given up".

Most philosphies are actually compatible with any scientific theory (mix & match) simply because philosphies are not testable. (If philosphies were testable, they'd be science).

 

[Albrecht]

But you are MISSING the point!
The classical description DOES contain a "momentum". ... This is an accurate description. If you have understood this, you would have NEVER brought up the question on how a "particle" with no mass can exert a momentum ...
Zz.

You are saying it yourself. It is a description. I am looking for understanding. Not for understanding a description, but for understanding the physical process.
If an object of any kind does not have any inertial property, how can it have a momentum? For me, this for itself does not make any sense. We know, that it happens, so there must be a physical reason. But this physical reason cannot be found in Jackson.

Another point about the photon: It moves with c, so rel. contraction says that its length must bei zero. This follows from the contraction of "space", not from anything which has to do especially with the photon. We know that this (zero extension) is not true. Now one can state that the photon is at it is - period. Is that a theory??

Secondly, "... most of his theory is true..."? This is a very unusual and strange thing to say. You are using a book that parts of it is true and parts are not? And you see no problems with this?
Zz.

All phsical theories which were created up to now have been incomplete theories. This is in so far not a problem as we have always restricted our use of a theory to that parts of the theory which have been proved as working.

An example is the law of motion of Newton. It is not complete because it does not describe correctly the motion of fast objects and as well not the behaviour or objects in a very strong gravitational field. Even though it is very helpful. Nobody in present industry can notice the aspects of invalidity.

And how much you are willing to bet that I can pick apart something out of that book and point out to you that there's STILL a level of "explanation" that can still be done. Would you care to explain the origin of "charge" and "spin" and "mass"? Or is physics main responsibility, ultimately, is to describe?
Zz.

If I pick up your examples: I can easily explain spin and mass. And this explanation also gives a quantitatively correct description. Charge is more difficult (and that comes from the fact that it is more fundamental). Charge is a source of exchange particles, that is all what I know. But I see our task to find out better than we do now, what it really is.

The issue here hasn't changed. You are proposing something way in the beginning that is wrong (i.e. 2 neutrinos make up a photon). I'd like to see you EXPLAIN the mechanism for that since you like this "explain" stuff so much. Let's see you do it for what you're proposing before you demand of that from us.
Zz.

I do not demand anything especially from you. We are all physicists and I understand it as a duty for all of us (myself included), to explain the open points.

I still believe it to be very probable that the photon is build by 2 particles of little mass and spin=1/2 each. The question how these single spins have to be added is anyway an open issue, because also the photon with spin=1 should have 3 directions. It should be the same problem.

 

[Albrecht]

Perhaps you could point out a post number that contains your explanation, as I do not recall seeing any such argument and the thread is a bit long to

It was my response to the last threat of russ_watters. I have referred to the fact that, according to Schroedinger, it can be assumed that in elementary particles there is an oscillation with c. The restriction to c explains immediately that the frequency of this oscillation has to slow down if the particle itself is moved. You need only Pythagoras to deduce the time portion of the Lorentz transformation.

This is a physical explanation of dilation, not a structural / philosophical one as with Einstein.

The situation as I see it is thus:
It is philosophically simplest to treat clocks as measuring time. (There is no need to multiply hypothesis or entities unless there is a compelling reason).
The physics is also simpler when we treat clocks as measuring time.
...

I completely agree with you. But there is a further aspect. If we understand dilation as the fact that clocks slow down, then we may ask what the physical cause of it may be. So, we can find as a cause the behaviour of elementary particles as mentioned by Schroedinger. If we, however, assume with present relativity, that time itself slows down, we will understand this as a fundamental fact in nature and will not ask for a cause.

And we will remain sitting in the dead end.

Finally, we have a lot of different sorts of clocks of differing constructions. ... If time were associated with some aspect of the clock itself, we would not expect all clocks to keep the same time. But they do. Muons decay, radioactive decay, pendulum clocks, quartz crystal clocks, the rate of chemical reactions, and atomic clocks are all different ways to measure time, and while they are not all equally accurate, they all give consistent results with each other.

That is true in fact. The reason is that the oscillation within an elementary particle is the basis for all oscillations at a higher level.

It is even more than that. If the fundamental constant c would change from today to tomorrow, we would not notice that. Because there is no clock in the world, the indication of which does not depend on c (linearly!), so we are not able not notice a change (at least a slow one).

I have written a short paper about this. It will be published in conference proceedings. I may send it to you if you are interested.

This is drifting off into philosophy again. While philosphy isn't one of my main interests, I'm quite sure that philsophical questions are not "answered", and that positivism (or any other philosophy, for that matter) has not been "given up".
Most philosphies are actually compatible with any scientific theory (mix & match) simply because philosphies are not testable. (If philosphies were testable, they'd be science).

Philosophers may not have given up positivism, but for the development of physics it has proven not practial. This may be a psychological reason.

You are also right that philosophies are not testable. But they influence the people and can make the open-mind-ness of people changing. This also influences the development of sciences.

 

[ZapperZ]

You are saying it yourself. It is a description. I am looking for understanding. Not for understanding a description, but for understanding the physical process.
If an object of any kind does not have any inertial property, how can it have a momentum? For me, this for itself does not make any sense. We know, that it happens, so there must be a physical reason. But this physical reason cannot be found in Jackson.

But what about your understanding of what a "momentum" is? Do you think "p=mv" is the ONLY way to understand momentum? What about canonincal momentum? Is the fact that there is a more GENERALIZED form of momentum that is different than the way YOU understand it makes it NOT UNDERSTANDABLE?

And photons are NOT the only scenario where something without mass can have a momentum. Look in a solid state text. There's something called the "crystal momentum". This has nothing to do with even a particle of any kind!

You have fixed yourself something one thing in mind, and somehow refuses to LEARN about the more general concept. This is a fatal flaw for a physicist. There are tons of stuff that are taught in which it is only a SPECIAL case. p=mv is just one of them. The requirement of a "mass" for any form of momentum transfer is highly restrictive. If you are ONLY using this as your objection, then you have A LOT of learning to do.

Another point about the photon: It moves with c, so rel. contraction says that its length must bei zero. This follows from the contraction of "space", not from anything which has to do especially with the photon. We know that this (zero extension) is not true. Now one can state that the photon is at it is - period. Is that a theory??

Say what?

You are tripping over yourself here. The "length contraction" is the RESULT of the idea that OUR NOTION of "space" and "time" are interelated and DEFINED by light! Now think about that for a minute if you can, and see how that causes your statement above to be absurd and circular. The "contraction" IS due to how we measure and define space!

Furthermore, and this occurs very often to people who have a poor understanding of SR, the contraction is view BY someone in another frame, NOT by the person in THAT frame. An observer in the proper frame observes NOTHING contracting and nothing dilating.

All phsical theories which were created up to now have been incomplete theories. This is in so far not a problem as we have always restricted our use of a theory to that parts of the theory which have been proved as working.

And so, show me where SR doesn't work and somehow requires YOUR version of it.

If I pick up your examples: I can easily explain spin and mass. And this explanation also gives a quantitatively correct description. Charge is more difficult (and that comes from the fact that it is more fundamental). Charge is a source of exchange particles, that is all what I know. But I see our task to find out better than we do now, what it really is.

Oh, this I have to see.

If your way of "explaining" things reflects your hypothesis that a photon consists of two neutrinos, then this would be VERY amusing. You have managed to sweep under an imaginary rug ALL the problems associated with that "explanation". And guess what, I can easily show you that your "explanation" isn't an explanation, but rather a description, because you have stopped short of "explaining" the existence of the neutrinos in the first place.

EVERY, and I mean EVERY, "explanation" ends up being a description, in which another lower level explanation is needed. And that, in turn, becomes another description. Don't believe me? Go look for yourself. Show me where you think something is an "explanation", and I'll show you a "description". What you have said is a fallacy very much like your usage of the pharse "complete theory", which doesn't exist. Using a non-existing concept as an argument to support your point is highly dubious. Why aren't you using angels and demons also?

I still believe it to be very probable that the photon is build by 2 particles of little mass and spin=1/2 each. The question how these single spins have to be added is anyway an open issue, because also the photon with spin=1 should have 3 directions. It should be the same problem.

This is, I'm sorry to say, crap. WE KNOW how composite bosons are formed, and under what circumstances. Look at Cooper pairs, look at He3, and look at the recently discovered Fermionic condensates. Unless you are proposing a yet-undetermined mechanism for such formation, then I can list a number of things that we should detect from a composite boson that we DO NOT observe in photons, not to mention the kinds of mechanism that can provide the GLUE to maintain the composite boson.

What you are proposing doesn't even qualify as a description, much less an explanation. It is a guess work. All you have satisfied is the sum of spins to produce a spin of 1. You have totally neglected ALL the various incompatibility of your guess, and you have totally ignored what we ALREADY know about formation of composite bosons from condensed matter.

I strongly suggest you re-read the guidelines to this forum that you have explictly agreed to before you proceed any further. If you think you have something substantial to present beyond just idle speculation, then please submit this to the IR forum. If not, you will run the risk of your post being deleted or this thread being locked.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

It was my response to the last threat of russ_watters.

Threat? Post 34? There isn't anything in that post even telling you to do something, much less threatening consequences if you don't.

Anyway...

I have referred to the fact that, according to Schroedinger, it can be assumed that in elementary particles there is an oscillation with c. The restriction to c explains immediately that the frequency of this oscillation has to slow down if the particle itself is moved. You need only Pythagoras to deduce the time portion of the Lorentz transformation.

This is a physical explanation of dilation, not a structural / philosophical one as with Einstein.

That sounds like it requires absolute motion - something that has not been shown to exist (and that evidence implies does not exist). Either way, that is starting to become a philosophical question on what the definition of "time" is. If time is a measurement of events in physical processes, then to say that all physical processes are slowed is functionally equivalent to saying time is slowed (but still superfluous).

I completely agree with you. But there is a further aspect. If we understand dilation as the fact that clocks slow down, then we may ask what the physical cause of it may be. So, we can find as a cause the behaviour of elementary particles as mentioned by Schroedinger. If we, however, assume with present relativity, that time itself slows down, we will understand this as a fundamental fact in nature and will not ask for a cause.

And we will remain sitting in the dead end.

How is it worthwhile to search for a cause of something that the evidence shows probably does not exist? Sounds like a big waste of time. You may as well keep looking for that invisible elephant of mine!

 

[Albrecht]

... That sounds like it requires absolute motion - something that has not been shown to exist (and that evidence implies does not exist). Either way, that is starting to become a philosophical question on what the definition of "time" is. If time is a measurement of events in physical processes, then to say that all physical processes are slowed is functionally equivalent to saying time is slowed (but still superfluous).

I think that it is the other way around. From the detection of the constancy of c up to 1900 all physicists have believed that there is absolute motion. Because it is the natural assumption. That changed when it was concluded (by error), that the MM experiment could only be explained if absolute motion was given up. But Hendrik Lorentz (Nobel price winner) has shown mathematically that it follows from electromagnetism, that a field contacts in motion in the direction of the motion, inevitably. And if fields contract (particularly the e.m. one), then it is inevitable that also objects contract. So the MM apparatus must contract, and that explains the null-effect of that experiment. – So no need exists to give up the absolute motion.

Other arguments. You surely know the Ehrenfest paradox; the very fast rotating disk. Does it crack or not? Einstein said, that it cracks. But relativists who follow Einstein can prove, that it follows from the theory that it does not crack. (I personally believe that Einstein is right, it will crack, even if it is in conflict with his own theory.) Unfortunately the experiment could not be performed yet.

But there is another experiment which is logically very similar, that is the Sagnac experiment. According to the theory of Einstein there should be a null-result. This experiment could be performed several times, and the prediction of Einstein’s theory was falsified. If, on the other hand, a version of relativity is used which assumes an absolute motion but is else similar to Einstein’s version, the result is correctly predicted. – This is one of the indications / proofs that the version of Einstein which denies absolute motion is not correct.

There are arguments of a different kind. Relativity has the problem to be incompatible with QM. The problem was not resolved for a long time, so we can assume that it will not be resolved if based on present physics. We have to consider very carefully all possible errors in the present theory.

How is it worthwhile to search for a cause of something that the evidence shows probably does not exist? Sounds like a big waste of time. You may as well keep looking for that invisible elephant of mine!

Up to now it was in the history of physics always found, that there is a cause for something which was up to then described (but not explained) by a theory. Why should it be different now? We give up the chance to have a better understanding, if we resign from the beginning to look for this possibility.

 

[ZapperZ]

But there is another experiment which is logically very similar, that is the Sagnac experiment. According to the theory of Einstein there should be a null-result. This experiment could be performed several times, and the prediction of Einstein’s theory was falsified. If, on the other hand, a version of relativity is used which assumes an absolute motion but is else similar to Einstein’s version, the result is correctly predicted. – This is one of the indications / proofs that the version of Einstein which denies absolute motion is not correct.

This conclusion cannot be anymore WRONG even if you try. This proves my point that you don't understand the effect you're trying to use.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

There are arguments of a different kind. Relativity has the problem to be incompatible with QM. The problem was not resolved for a long time, so we can assume that it will not be resolved if based on present physics. We have to consider very carefully all possible errors in the present theory.

If Relativity has a problem being incompatible with QM, sticking with ABSOLUTE MOTION has even MORE incompatibility with QM. Nothing that you have shown has even a glimpse of it doing any better with QM.

In fact, you can find plenty of argument that this incompatibility has more to do with QM than with Relativity. So what is there to indicate that this isn't the case?

Up to now it was in the history of physics always found, that there is a cause for something which was up to then described (but not explained) by a theory. Why should it be different now? We give up the chance to have a better understanding, if we resign from the beginning to look for this possibility.

So find some! What you used as what you think it the "cause" is invalid because you understood it wrong.

Zz.

 

[Albrecht]

But what about your understanding of what a "momentum" is? Do you think "p=mv" is the ONLY way to understand momentum? ...
... If you are ONLY using this as your objection, then you have A LOT of learning to do.
Say what?
Zz.

Of course we can talk about the different uses of the word „momentum“. Does it help us in finding, what “understanding” means?

We know that the photon has a momentum. We assign a mass to a moving photon, and in this way we transfer the question of momentum to the question, why a moving photon has a mass. And of course QM has a description which seems to tell us about a mechanism which has the result wanted.

The question remains: What do we mean when we say, that present physics understand the photon?

When I say that the understanding of the photon is not satisfying, then I refer to the corresponding considerations and concerns of Louis de Broglie.

He received the Nobel price for his role in founding QM. He was a comparable genius as Einstein, both where friends and had similar ideas about physics and the further development of it.

When Jackson published the book, de Broglie was still very active in his physical work. Even if he did not read the book, all phenomena and the formalism described in this book were known to him. And despite of this knowledge he stated that the photon is in fact not understood.

If you find, that the photon can be completely understood from the contents of Jackson, then YOU should be a greater genius than de Broglie. Are you?

... Furthermore, and this occurs very often to people who have a poor understanding of SR, the contraction is view BY someone in another frame, NOT by the person in THAT frame. An observer in the proper frame observes NOTHING contracting and nothing dilating.

Of course is that, what I stated. The observer at rest should see the moving photon contracting to zero. But the observer at rest notices that the moving photon has a finite, not zero, length. That was what I wrote. Not clear?

This occurs often to people who answer to a post without reading it carefully!

... The "contraction" IS due to how we measure and define space!

One can understand it in this way, However, Einstein did not. In one of his books he has explained, how he extended SR into GR. And from his considerations (he thought about a rotating disk which contracts at its rim) it is very clear, that for Einstein contraction was not the result of a measurement and dependent on the methods of this measurement, but it was reality.

And so, show me where SR doesn't work and somehow requires YOUR version of it.

With pleasure! A good example is the Sagnac experiment. (A rotating cylinder mirrored inside). The prediction of its result according to Einstein’s SR was falsified by several experiments. If a prediction is made by another version of relativity which is similar to the version of Einstein, but assumes the existence of an ether, we get the correct prediction.

... EVERY, and I mean EVERY, "explanation" ends up being a description, in which another lower level explanation is needed.

You are right!
According to reductionism understanding means that on a lower level there is a description, from which the phenomena on the higher level can be logically developed. And further in the development of physics the same has to be done regarding the lower level.

And now, please tell me:

For special relativity

what is the lower level description from which we can logically deduce

- the constancy of c
- the relativity principle
- the contraction of space
- the dilation of time
- the relativistic mass increase ?

I can ask you similar questions regarding GR and QM.

Physicists like de Broglie were looking for just these answers.

What you are proposing doesn't even qualify as a description, much less an explanation. It is a guess work. All you have satisfied is the sum of spins to produce a spin of 1. You have totally neglected ALL the various incompatibility of your guess, and you have totally ignored what we ALREADY know about formation of composite bosons from condensed matter.

I never said that I have a solution for the photon. I have indicated the way proposed by de Broglie. His proposal was of course still on a speculative basis, because it was a first step.

But at present there is to my knowledge no better understanding of the photon than it was at times of de Bloglie in the 1960ies and 1970ies. Or do you have any?

I strongly suggest you re-read the guidelines to this forum that you have explictly agreed to before you proceed any further. If you think you have something substantial to present beyond just idle speculation, then please submit this to the IR forum. If not, you will run the risk of your post being deleted or this thread being locked.

It was not my intention to propose new physics at this place, but to show which understanding of famous physicists (Nobel laureates) exist, which the contributors to this discussion seemed to be not aware of. And if you handle the forum as announced, you would also throw out someone like de Broglie, if he would be alive and would contribute to this forum.

The same you should have to do to Richard Feynman in a similar situation. I have a statement from him in which he says, that QM, in his case QED, delivers good descriptions, but the causes of it are not understood. – This is quite exactly what I wanted to say.

Also in a previous discussion, I had the impression that there is little knowledge in this forum about the history of physics. And if history is not known, then one has easily the impression that there are only those theories available which have been accepted by the main stream. But there are others which have never been falsified. They were just forgotten.

 

[ZapperZ]

Of course we can talk about the different uses of the word „momentum“. Does it help us in finding, what “understanding” means?
We know that the photon has a momentum. We assign a mass to a moving photon, and in this way we transfer the question of momentum to the question, why a moving photon has a mass. And of course QM has a description which seems to tell us about a mechanism which has the result wanted.
The question remains: What do we mean when we say, that present physics understand the photon?
When I say that the understanding of the photon is not satisfying, then I refer to the corresponding considerations and concerns of Louis de Broglie.
He received the Nobel price for his role in founding QM. He was a comparable genius as Einstein, both where friends and had similar ideas about physics and the further development of it.
When Jackson published the book, de Broglie was still very active in his physical work. Even if he did not read the book, all phenomena and the formalism described in this book were known to him. And despite of this knowledge he stated that the photon is in fact not understood.
If you find, that the photon can be completely understood from the contents of Jackson, then YOU should be a greater genius than de Broglie. Are you?

Do you think deBroglie lived to see the full development of QED? If so, it is YOU who needs to re-read the history of Physics, not us.

And why are you obsessed with historical figures than the PHYSICS itself? Why are you simply taking what deBroglie said as correct, while OTHER Nobel prize laureates you ignore? Do you need someone to worship?

Of course is that, what I stated. The observer at rest should see the moving photon contracting to zero. But the observer at rest notices that the moving photon has a finite, not zero, length. That was what I wrote. Not clear?

No. Show me a single experiement that has detected this "finite length" of a photon. Next, show me where the "length" or size of a photon has been defined, be it theoretically or experimentally.

This occurs often to people who answer to a post without reading it carefully!
One can understand it in this way, However, Einstein did not. In one of his books he has explained, how he extended SR into GR. And from his considerations (he thought about a rotating disk which contracts at its rim) it is very clear, that for Einstein contraction was not the result of a measurement and dependent on the methods of this measurement, but it was reality.
With pleasure! A good example is the Sagnac experiment. (A rotating cylinder mirrored inside). The prediction of its result according to Einstein’s SR was falsified by several experiments. If a prediction is made by another version of relativity which is similar to the version of Einstein, but assumes the existence of an ether, we get the correct prediction.

And read my previous post responding to your first mention of this effect. You have understood it wrong!

You are right!
According to reductionism understanding means that on a lower level there is a description, from which the phenomena on the higher level can be logically developed. And further in the development of physics the same has to be done regarding the lower level.
And now, please tell me:
For special relativity
what is the lower level description from which we can logically deduce
- the constancy of c
- the relativity principle
- the contraction of space
- the dilation of time
- the relativistic mass increase ?
I can ask you similar questions regarding GR and QM.
Physicists like de Broglie were looking for just these answers.
I never said that I have a solution for the photon. I have indicated the way proposed by de Broglie. His proposal was of course still on a speculative basis, because it was a first step.
But at present there is to my knowledge no better understanding of the photon than it was at times of de Bloglie in the 1960ies and 1970ies. Or do you have any?

This is saying nothing. Show me how, using your interpretation of deBroglie's idea of light, that you can (i) quantitatively obtain the results of all the photoemission experiment (ii) correctly obtain the compton scattering experiment (iii) produce the multiphoton effect AND the scattering cross-section for each n-photon absoption, etc. Talk it cheap. Put your money where your mouth is and show me exactly where your understanding can reproduce everything that QM and SR has already produced.

It was not my intention to propose new physics at this place, but to show which understanding of famous physicists (Nobel laureates) exist, which the contributors to this discussion seemed to be not aware of. And if you handle the forum as announced, you would also throw out someone like de Broglie, if he would be alive and would contribute to this forum.
The same you should have to do to Richard Feynman in a similar situation. I have a statement from him in which he says, that QM, in his case QED, delivers good descriptions, but the causes of it are not understood. – This is quite exactly what I wanted to say.

But look at the CONTEXT on which Feynman always make such a statement. Understanding something in LAYMEN'S terms and trying to make use of the FORMULATION are two entirely differnt things. We cal all agree that QM has varying interpretation. But no one is arguing that it is wrong, or BROKEN. You, on the other hand, misinterpret this and seems to think that just because something has interpretational problems, then it must be wrong. That's bogus!

Furthermore, since you pay attention so much to Feyman, why don't you also adopt his mantra that one should just "shut up and calculate"? Do you always pick and choose quotes that just suit your needs?

Also in a previous discussion, I had the impression that there is little knowledge in this forum about the history of physics. And if history is not known, then one has easily the impression that there are only those theories available which have been accepted by the main stream. But there are others which have never been falsified. They were just forgotten.

And as in previous post, I had the impression that you know very little knowledge about physics. And that is all I care about. History of physics cannot be tested. Physics can. If you are stuck with history, you should be concerned that your physics knowledge is SUPERFICIAL, and could be outdated. Besides, this ISN'T a physics history forum, nor is it and issue.

Zz.

 

[Albrecht]

This conclusion cannot be anymore WRONG even if you try. This proves my point that you don't understand the effect you're trying to use. ...

I have got the information about the Sagnac experiment initially from Franco Selleri. He has invested a lot of effort to investigate that case.
If you conclude that I do not understand relativity, then you do better to contact Franco Selleri. You find him as a professor at the university of Bari. (He has worked at several US-universities and has given lectures.) So please contact him and tell him that he is – by your opinion – unable to understand the essentials of relativity.

But anyway, it is true that there are different conclusions about this matter. The cause is the different understanding, what contraction means. Most theorists today think – as you do – that contraction is the result of a measurement process. In this case a rotating disk will not contract at its rim. (That would violate the symmetry of time.) And in this case you get the wrong result for the Sagnac experiment. On the other hand, if you assume that contraction is real (as Einstein did), then you get the correct result.

This also shows that different physicists have a different understanding of Einstein’s relativity. I think it is a weakness of a theory if it can be interpreted such differently.

If Relativity has a problem being incompatible with QM, sticking with ABSOLUTE MOTION has even MORE incompatibility with QM. Nothing that you have shown has even a glimpse of it doing any better with QM.

The problem of QM with absolute motion which I know is, that the Higgs Theory needs relative motion. But that will only be a temporary problem. Within the next 3 years the Higgs theory will be falsified because no Higgs boson will be found. (That is my personal prediction. We may get into contact again when the result is known.)

On the other hand QM needs an absolute time. This is connected to absolute motion. And for this aspect it helps the compatibility of QM with relativity, if we have this “absolute world”.

In fact, you can find plenty of argument that this incompatibility has more to do with QM than with Relativity. ...

This looks like being your personal opinion. Any arguments available? All statements I know from theorists point into the other direction.

So find some! What you used as what you think it the "cause" is invalid because you understood it wrong.

The results of the work of Lorentz and Schroedinger (both Nobel laureates) about the contraction of fields and the internal motion in elementary particles are causes for contraction and dilation respectively. And the conclusion of it is absolute motion.

I have in addition causes for
- mass
- mass increase
- the mass energy relation
- the relativistic gravity
- dark matter
- energy conservation
which conform with QM.

But this forum is, as I have learned, not the place to present such results.

Do you think deBroglie lived to see the full development of QED? If so, it is YOU who needs to re-read the history of Physics, not us.

You have stated that knowing the Jackson is sufficient to understand the photon. (At least the momentum of the photon). Why now asking for QED?

With respect to history. the invention of QED was in the active time of deBroglie. But he was not too much interested in theories which do not present causes.

And why are you obsessed with historical figures than the PHYSICS itself? Why are you simply taking what deBroglie said as correct, while OTHER Nobel prize laureates you ignore? Do you need someone to worship?

I do not say that deBroglie was correct. But he did have ideas where the others did not have ideas but ignored the necessity.

It is not the problem here whether he or others are correct. The point is that you stated that, what I have presented in this context, is “crab”. (Normally I and my colleagues do not use words like that). But if you state that this was crab, then you state the deBroglie has produced “crab”. And for my understand it is not a good style for a discussion to use words like that. You may do it to me. But it is not appropriate for a person like deBroglie.

No. Show me a single experiement that has detected this "finite length" of a photon. Next, show me where the "length" or size of a photon has been defined, be it theoretically or experimentally.

Every radio transmission shows it. A photon has a wavelength, which can be several kilometers. And if you follow Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation (or the Nyquist theorem, which is essentially the same rule), then you can only have information about the wavelength of a photon if it has a certain length.

And read my previous post responding to your first mention of this effect. You have understood it wrong!

And Franco Selleri as well. - Oh heaven, how stupid must these professors be!

This is saying nothing. Show me how, using your interpretation of deBroglie's idea of light, that you can (i) quantitatively obtain the results of all the photoemission experiment (ii) correctly obtain the compton scattering experiment (iii) produce the multiphoton effect AND the scattering cross-section for each n-photon absoption, etc. Talk it cheap. Put your money where your mouth is and show me exactly where your understanding can reproduce everything that QM and SR has already produced.

That was not my point. I think, I do not have to repeat that again and again.

But look at the CONTEXT on which Feynman always make such a statement. Understanding something in LAYMEN'S terms and trying to make use of the FORMULATION are two entirely differnt things. We cal all agree that QM has varying interpretation. But no one is arguing that it is wrong, or BROKEN. You, on the other hand, misinterpret this and seems to think that just because something has interpretational problems, then it must be wrong. That's bogus!

It is not an interpretational problem. Feynman stated very clearly that there existed several versions of QED. One worked better that the others. But it is not understood, what the cause of it is. – Those were his words. There is not much to be interpreted.

Furthermore, since you pay attention so much to Feyman, why don't you also adopt his mantra that one should just "shut up and calculate"? Do you always pick and choose quotes that just suit your needs?

I personally believe that Feynman was too much a gentleman as to replace physical arguments by insulting statements to others.

And as in previous post, I had the impression that you know very little knowledge about physics. And that is all I care about. History of physics cannot be tested. Physics can. If you are stuck with history, you should be concerned that your physics knowledge is SUPERFICIAL, and could be outdated. Besides, this ISN'T a physics history forum, nor is it and issue.

History has no need to be tested, that are facts. And this (widely unknown) history shows that there is no progress in science if history is not known.

If the duty is only to teach something to somebody in a school-like manner, then history may be dispensable. But for the development of science it is not.

 

[ZapperZ]

I have got the information about the Sagnac experiment initially from Franco Selleri. He has invested a lot of effort to investigate that case.
If you conclude that I do not understand relativity, then you do better to contact Franco Selleri. You find him as a professor at the university of Bari. (He has worked at several US-universities and has given lectures.) So please contact him and tell him that he is – by your opinion – unable to understand the essentials of relativity.

So you are using something based on SECOND HAND OPINION rather than actually understanding it yourself? Good grief!

And yes, you do not understand relativity if you are using evidence that you clearly (i) do not understand and (ii) is unaware of the many analysis associated with it. Yet, till I call you bluff, you were adament using this effect as PROOF. This is bogus!

But anyway, it is true that there are different conclusions about this matter. The cause is the different understanding, what contraction means. Most theorists today think – as you do – that contraction is the result of a measurement process.

Again, another error due to your inability to do a careful background work. I'm NOT a theorist. I'm an experimentalist. I.e. I don't just TALK about physics, I actually DO it.

And no, until I brought this up, you appear to be clueless that the Sagnac effect CAN be explained by relativity. Or else, why did you use it trying to convince people that the evidence is there? AT BEST, you were unethical and deceitful by using that effect as proof that relativity failed but neglecting to point out that there are formulations that made relativity consistent with this effect. If I were refereeing this as a paper, I would say you were hiding something, or ignorant of the established literature.

In this case a rotating disk will not contract at its rim. (That would violate the symmetry of time.) And in this case you get the wrong result for the Sagnac experiment. On the other hand, if you assume that contraction is real (as Einstein did), then you get the correct result.
This also shows that different physicists have a different understanding of Einstein’s relativity. I think it is a weakness of a theory if it can be interpreted such differently.

Sorry, I no longer buy your interpretation. Your understanding of this (and SR/GR) is under question.

The problem of QM with absolute motion which I know is, that the Higgs Theory needs relative motion. But that will only be a temporary problem. Within the next 3 years the Higgs theory will be falsified because no Higgs boson will be found. (That is my personal prediction. We may get into contact again when the result is known.)
On the other hand QM needs an absolute time. This is connected to absolute motion. And for this aspect it helps the compatibility of QM with relativity, if we have this “absolute world”.
This looks like being your personal opinion. Any arguments available? All statements I know from theorists point into the other direction.
The results of the work of Lorentz and Schroedinger (both Nobel laureates) about the contraction of fields and the internal motion in elementary particles are causes for contraction and dilation respectively. And the conclusion of it is absolute motion.

Again, as when you brought up the Sagnac effect, it is AS IF Dirac's work completely doesn't exist, or you are simply ignorant of it.

And you also cannot be trusted to keep your word. I strongly suggest you RE-READ the PF Guidelines that you have EXPLICITLY agreed to. If you think you have a personal theory, then submit it to the IR forum. If not, if you continue witn this, subsequent posts will be deleted and warnings will be issued.

Zz.

 

[Albrecht]

So you are using something based on SECOND HAND OPINION rather than actually understanding it yourself? Good grief!
Zz.

No Sir, you are putting the things upside-down.

I have only presented here considerations that I have worked out myself (except the idea about neutrinos in the photon which I have indicated as from deBroglie). But on the other hand only those considerations, which I share with greatly accepted physicists.

First I have presented these thoughts by physical arguments only. But then you classified them as “crap” or “bogus” or what your favorite words are. As a reaction I have referred to those famous persons who share these considerations. Now you are stating that I present “second hand opinions” and copy the ideas of others. In view of your course of action I could do whatever possible, you can always find words to disqualify it.

That makes no sense.

And also: Why not refer to the work of others? No research in physics would be possible if we could not use the work of others. - On the other hand, do you want me to deduce the whole problem of Sagnac? I can do so, but it will not fit into a post here.


Why did I comment in this discussion? Let’s go back to the beginning. A question was asked regarding the constancy of the speed of light c. And the standard answer was given that c is always constant.

This is a good example for a specific situation in our present physics. We learn a lot of convictions in standard physics, when we learn relativity and QM, as being proven and ensured, for which this qualification is not at all true. Several of those have never been proven or found to be unavoidable. These are among others the following:

- The constancy of c in all frames
- The absence of an ether (or correspondingly absolute motion)
- The statement that only Einstein’s concept of a spacetime can explain the known relativistic phenomena
- The impossibility of a pilot wave (to explain particle-wave).

This is not only wrong but it inhibits a substantial progress in modern physics. One important example is the problem of quantum gravity. There are proposals made to solve this type of problems. But proposals for theories which are not based on the assumptions listed above are refused, they are not excepted by physical journals.

And to say it again: None of the above statements was ever proven. There are a lot of publications about this from respected physicists (like Lorentz, Prokhovnik, Selleri). But the wrong information is so deeply burned into our brains that nobody likes to rethink the situation.

I am always prepared to present the proofs for my comments on the facts listed above.

And for my understanding, this situation shows the importance of history. All the facts mentioned above are not accessible by persons, who do not go into the history of physics.

 

[ZapperZ]

No Sir, you are putting the things upside-down.
I have only presented here considerations that I have worked out myself (except the idea about neutrinos in the photon which I have indicated as from deBroglie). But on the other hand only those considerations, which I share with greatly accepted physicists.

But you PICK AND CHOOSE which physicists to "accept". What about the large number of those who disagree with your view? What happened to those to interpret the Sagnac effect differently than yours? Why do you ignore those?

You were very deceitful in using this effect as "proof" that relativity failed WITHOUT mentioning that there are many published papers that already consider this as consistent with SR. In fact, such effects are already being used for ELECTRONS producing phase shift very much similar to the Ahranov-Bohm effect. Would you like a reference for this or are you aware of such things already but didn't want us to know about it as part of your coverup?

Such things are VERY unethical. It is irresponsible to use such evidence without pointing out that such interpretation isn't even widely accepted.

First I have presented these thoughts by physical arguments only. But then you classified them as “crap” or “bogus” or what your favorite words are. As a reaction I have referred to those famous persons who share these considerations. Now you are stating that I present “second hand opinions” and copy the ideas of others. In view of your course of action I could do whatever possible, you can always find words to disqualify it.

Because I have good reasons for it, and you were unable to back it up. I asked for where SR has been falsified, you showed the Sagnac effect. Well, we know how well that one flew, didn't we? So now what else? You haven't been able to come up with anything else! You pointed out QM as "evidence" that SR is wrong? Now this is crap AND bogus because I asked you why you are ignoring Dirac's work! I'm sure you have heard of relativistic Schrodinger Equation. So why are you claiming such nonsense?

Why did I comment in this discussion? Let’s go back to the beginning. A question was asked regarding the constancy of the speed of light c. And the standard answer was given that c is always constant.
This is a good example for a specific situation in our present physics. We learn a lot of convictions in standard physics, when we learn relativity and QM, as being proven and ensured, for which this qualification is not at all true. Several of those have never been proven or found to be unavoidable. These are among others the following:
- The constancy of c in all frames
- The absence of an ether (or correspondingly absolute motion)
- The statement that only Einstein’s concept of a spacetime can explain the known relativistic phenomena
- The impossibility of a pilot wave (to explain particle-wave).
This is not only wrong but it inhibits a substantial progress in modern physics. One important example is the problem of quantum gravity. There are proposals made to solve this type of problems. But proposals for theories which are not based on the assumptions listed above are refused, they are not excepted by physical journals.
And to say it again: None of the above statements was ever proven.

Show me something in physics that "was ever proven". I have asked this before.

Again, this is very deceitful. When you asked something like this, it implies that there are already precedent that such a thing has already occured. I put it to you that there's NOTHING in physics that has ever been PROVEN. Experiments can only provide the VALIDITY of any parts of physics. I would love nothing more than finding an experiment that disprove a theory in physics. Nothing could make me more famous than discovering a measurement that shows QM or SR or GR to be wrong. But what you're doing is awfully strange. You seem to have ignored a whole set of experimental evidence that continue to test the postulates of SR and continue to get more accurate verifications (not proofs) of their validity (would you like me to list a handful of them or are you able to find these yourself?).

And this is what I find very annoying with any of your claims. You seem to have no problems in IGNORING what has already been known and found in making all of your claims. You first started with this really weird picture of a photon consisting of 2 neutrinos. You IGNORED condensed matter physics completely, because there we KNOW how composite bosons behave (I dealt with one type all through my graduate and postdoc career). So proposing something like that without addressing what has already been verified is just plain wrong. Then you brought up your "evidence" that SR is wrong. Here, you ignored completely the many claims that this is NOT contradictory to SR. Then you brought up, of all things, quantum mechanics! Again, no mention of Dirac or relativistic QM, or even QED!

You either are commiting a bad habit for a physicist, which is picking and choosing only what supports you, or worst still, being ignorant and no doing your homework to check if things that you are proposing have already been addressed in one form or another.

Either way, these ruin your credibility as a scientist.

Zz.

 

[leandros_p]

Let’s go back to the beginning. A question was asked regarding the constancy of the speed of light c. And the standard answer was given that c is always constant.

This is a good example for a specific situation in our present physics. We learn a lot of convictions in standard physics, when we learn relativity and QM, as being proven and ensured, for which this qualification is not at all true. Several of those have never been proven or found to be unavoidable. These are among others the following:

- The constancy of c in all frames
- The absence of an ether (or correspondingly absolute motion)
- The statement that only Einstein’s concept of a spacetime can explain the known relativistic phenomena
- The impossibility of a pilot wave (to explain particle-wave).

This is not only wrong but it inhibits a substantial progress in modern physics. One important example is the problem of quantum gravity. There are proposals made to solve this type of problems. But proposals for theories which are not based on the assumptions listed above are refused, they are not excepted by physical journals.

Dear Albrecht,

I think that ZapperZ, and other forum members, are doing right by trying to show you their point of view.

The speed of light c is a “unit” that was defined by Einstein in order to provide a common measure in the newly invented time-space geometry. It is a useful “unit” for the “accountants” that we call Physicists of applied Physics, and also for the theoretical Physicists.

The speed of light was not measured or calculated and then found to be always constant.

The speed of light is taken to be constant in the context that, Einstein accepted two axioms. First that, light is accepted to have a common and identical way of physical being in all references, according to the measurements regarding them, therefore the speed of light is constant. Second, all other physical entities and phenomena have the same universal analogy when they are compared to themselves while being in a state not accelerating (this means that the laws of physics are universal as they are being measured). Therefore the speed of light becomes in itself the measure that measures the values of the time-space dimensions. Thus, the constancy of the speed of light is conventional. I am sure you know all that.

To ask whether space/time change, or clocks/rulers change is not a quantitative question. It is fine to ask this question, but this goes beyond conventional evaluation seeking the actual values of physical dimensions.

Until our days, Science of Physics has never found the actual values of any physical entity and has always used conventional “units” in order to evaluate physical orders in reference to these units. The science of Physics can not exist without “units” (or at least has not done that yet) – without a measure the physics entities become dimensionless and cease to have a scientific physical substance.

Regarding the historical frame of science, Physics is like Economy. It involves “logistics” and can not exist without a “monetary system of units”. By asking to abandon the constancy of speed of light, without proposing a “replacement unit”, is like asking to abandon the dollar for a better economy in USA, because there are troubles in the economy, without proposing a new monetary system. This last omission is of great importance.

I think that many members of the forum, that argue with you, are not defending “the theory” that you defy, nor are they refusing your right to be critical against the “establishment” of Physics, but they are defending the framework under which they are capable to function as scientists of Physics in order to perform scientific physical “logistic transactions”, like Economists do in their science, in order to keep the science in “Business”, that is, to connect human reasoning with physical reality under the use of measures and relations that need a “system of units”. Your searching for “absolute physical values” might seem as a vain quest.

Finally, because the thread is titled “relativity is broken” let me say that, the most important thing for science is the free spirit, through which the greatest inspired achievements of science have been made. A scientific theory that defines another one can not be presented before its completeness. Until then it has to live in the freedom of belief, but it can not stand against the “established” science. This is not an underestimation of the theory in-the-making. I think this is a necessity.

Leandros