Rest frame through a force field possible (time dilation) ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of rest frames in relation to a proposed force field that could influence time dilation and the size of objects at the atomic level. Participants explore the implications of Lorentz transformations and the Lorentz ether theory (LET) in the context of special relativity, while questioning the nature and detectability of such a force field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that every rest frame might be influenced by a force field, leading to smaller atomic sizes and time dilation, referencing Lorentz and Einstein.
  • Others argue that this idea aligns with the basis of LET, but note that the proposed force field remains undetectable.
  • A participant expresses a newfound understanding of time dilation after previously misunderstanding the implications of light speed being constant across frames.
  • There is a suggestion that the force field could be related to the Higgs field, though this connection is questioned.
  • One participant reflects on earlier misconceptions regarding the behavior of light waves and material contraction, indicating a shift in understanding regarding how size changes occur only in the direction of motion.
  • Another participant clarifies that LET is an older interpretation of Lorentz transformations, distinct from modern theories like the Higgs project at CERN.
  • There is a discussion about whether LET posits that duration is constant everywhere, contrasting it with Einstein's relativity, which involves varying durations and positions.
  • One participant critiques LET as turning science into a "ghost story" due to its reliance on an undetectable medium.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and implications of LET, the nature of the proposed force field, and the understanding of time dilation. No consensus is reached on these topics, and multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding and the need for further reading, particularly regarding the implications of Lorentz transformations and the nature of empty space.

digi99
Messages
183
Reaction score
0
Would it be possible that every rest frame is going through a force field so everything will be smaller on atom level and time goes slower too (Lorentz, Einstein) ?

So that force field is the holder of the encapsulated ration distance / time (C) ...

That would explain the unknown time dilation, and always constant speed of light and frame invariant. You will experience all in your rest frame let's say your own dimension (a dimension for every speed) ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that is essentially the basis of LET. The only problem is that the "force field" is undetectable.
 
DaleSpam said:
I think that is essentially the basis of LET. The only problem is that the "force field" is undetectable.

Hi Dalespam,

So I am now totally convinced of time dilation :redface: after a long time. In my removed topic (where I at last made an error not to consider the fact the light speed is always constant, also for every passing light wave from another frame) it looked I got no time dilation by only considering the smaller going size. But that kind of mistakes (very easily) gives you a deeper understanding.

I can fully understand that this forum want not to see own theories (I found already other forums where this is allowed, only to give ideas to others who has not already that kind of ideas, but I think many have already) because it confuses students. Without it is already difficult enough.

I tried to find on the internet LET, but I don't know this project or do you mean the Higgs project in CERN ?

That force field could be the Higgs field maybe, we shall see.

But empty space will be a problem to explain it only with a force field (that force in the force field can maybe give the reason for time dilation).

Is Lorentz also valid for transformations of empty space, so no materials ? If things wil be smaller on atom level (and must because of Lorentz, it is not an illusion show) what could be the reason they think today (but not proved) empty space will be smaller too ?
 
digi99 said:
I tried to find on the internet LET, but I don't know this project or do you mean the Higgs project in CERN ?
This has nothing to do with CERN or the Higgs. It is an old, essentially abandoned, interpretation of the Lorentz transforms used by special relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
 
DaleSpam said:
This has nothing to do with CERN or the Higgs. It is an old, essentially abandoned, interpretation of the Lorentz transforms used by special relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Pfff ... I had a discussion about this topic 6 months ago already and students told me always that light waves were going shorter in the moving direction (when the frame speed was higher) so the waves were always the same in counting. Maybe this is true because it is in the moving direction, so things will only be smaller in the moving direction. But I understand now, that materials can go shorter but you have to see this in another way and not on atom level (logic because it's only the length). But I had always thought all things will be smaller, but that is only in the moving direction. But my own mistake I had first to read the books all and I did never (only articles about this on the internet).

I should find it more logically that everything will be smaller in all dimensions, but ok in the moving direction (one dimension). I go to change this in my blog etc. and let it all rest for a while .. and first to read my books for a while ...

Thanks DaveSpam for the correction, I corrected already all, damage was not so badly ...
 
Last edited:
DaleSpam said:
I think that is essentially the basis of LET. The only problem is that the "force field" is undetectable.

Do I understand well that LET is based on different positions, so relativity in position but duration is everywhere the same, and Einstein's relativity is based on different durations and positions as well ?
 
LET is based on the idea that light is a disturbance in some medium, called the aether, which has a unique rest frame, but that this medium and its rest frame are undetectable. IMO, it turns science into a ghost story.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K