Special Relativity in a Parallel Universe

[JesseM]

There is already https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=80900 on your theory/interpretation in the 'Theory Development' forum (as I said there, the interpretation isn't really meaningful unless you are able to define explicitly how we're supposed to define the rate that a clock is ticking, in terms of measurements made on our own clocks and rulers). As it says in the sticky IMPORTANT! Read before posting at the top of this forum:

This forum is meant as a place to discuss the Theory of Relativity and is for the benefit of those who wish to learn about or expand their understanding of said theory. It is not meant as a soapbox for those who wish to argue Relativity's validity, or advertise their own personal theories. All future posts of this nature shall either be deleted or moved by the discretion of the Mentors.

 

[Perspicacious]

So what you are saying is that you don't understand anything that I've said?

The title of Shubert's paper identifies the subject: "A Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation from Newton’s First Law of Motion and the Homogeneity of Time".

 

[Perspicacious]

Two universes are said to be isomorphic if every observable fact about one universe is also true in the other. In two seemingly distinct mathematical models, the equations describing each universe might be vastly dissimilar, but if the math leads to identical predictions, then the two universes are essentially the same (isomorphic).

The subject is explicitly stated to be about an isomorphic copy of Einstein's theory.

 

[JesseM]

The subject is explicitly stated to be about an isomorphic copy of Einstein's theory.

Isn't it supposed to be an alternate "interpretation", one which makes claims that differ from the obvious interpretation of what the Lorentz transform predicts, like the claim that all clocks tick at the same rate? If the author is not able to explicitly define what he means by the statement "all clocks tick at the same rate" in terms of a general method of comparing the rates of different clocks, then this is not a meaningful alternative interpretation.

 

[JesseM]

So what you are saying is that you don't understand anything that I've said?

The title of Shubert's paper identifies the subject: "A Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation from Newton’s First Law of Motion and the Homogeneity of Time".

Yet it makes claims which clearly differ from what's predicted by the Lorentz transformation, like the bit about clocks in relative motion ticking at the same rate. If you can't define what it means to compare the "rate" of two clocks, like in the specific example I asked about above, then this is meaningless as an alternate interpretation.

 

[Perspicacious]

Isn't it supposed to be an alternate "interpretation",

Yes, as in the preference for heliocentric orbits above geocentric epicycles. There is no disagreement about what is observed; therefore Shubert doesn't have a new theory. It is merely that his perspective is a conceptually simpler interpretation.

It's a well-researched and undisputed fact that standard instruction in special relativity (with its customary phraseology) is misleading and confusing. [1]. Shubert's revolutionary new paradigm states that it's possible and much more reasonable to rephrase relativity with absolute concepts and maintain all the factual, empirical aspects of the theory.

one which makes claims that differ from the obvious interpretation of what the Lorentz transform predicts,

The popular view of special relativity has observable predictions and unobservable predictions. Shubert only disagrees with what is unobservable.

like the claim that all clocks tick at the same rate?

As opposed to the assertion that moving clocks run slow. Exactly.

If the author is not able to explicitly define what he means by the statement "all clocks tick at the same rate" in terms of a general method of comparing the rates of different clocks,

There is no cosmic everywhere present "now." Instantaneousness does not exist. There is no way to measure what Shubert says is unobservable. Shubert is presupposing a philosophical perspective and gives a clear visual representation of it in his Shubertian clock model of spacetime.

then this is not a meaningful alternative interpretation.

Shubert's theory agrees with experiment, ignores unobservables and doesn't use senseless ambiguities to explain the nature of spacetime. His is a calm mathematical approach.

95% of Shubert's paper focuses on a new and very clear definition of time, using this definition to derive the Lorentz transformation in two different ways, and using this clarification to compute the time desynchrony effect in special relativity with incredible ease.

 

[JesseM]

As opposed to the assertion that moving clocks run slow. Exactly.

But relativity gives a procedure for defining the term "speed of a clock" that makes the statement that "moving clocks run slow" meaningful. If at time t=0 seconds in my coordinate system a moving clock reads "0 seconds", and at time t=2 seconds in my coordinate system a moving clock reads "1 second", then in relativity (and in Newtonian physics and every other theory), that would mean the clock is running at half the normal rate in my coordinate system. And these coordinates have physical meaning--when I say that the moving clock reads 1 second at time t=2 seconds in my coordinate system, I mean that at the moment the moving clock read 1 second, it was passing right next to one of the clocks on my ruler which read 2 seconds.

Does Shubert have any well-defined procedure for defining the speed of a clock? For example, ignoring the issue of moving clocks for the moment, if I had two clocks side-by-side at rest with respect to one another, and one clock had been artificially sped up so that it ticked 2 seconds for every 1 second ticked by the other clock (for example, when one clock reads '5 seconds' the other reads '10 seconds'), would Shubert say that the sped-up clock was ticking twice as fast as the normal clock? If so, how would he justify this in terms of a general definition of what it means to talk about the "speed of a clock", if he doesn't use a definition like the one used in all the rest of physics?

There is no cosmic everywhere present "now."

There is none in relativity either. Notice that my definition of the speed of a clock above depends only on local readings of pairs of clocks. If I have a row of clocks on a ruler at rest with respect to me, and a moving clock reads "0 seconds" at the same time it passes one of my clocks which reads "0 seconds", then later the moving clock reads "1 second" at the same time it passes a different one of my clocks which reads "2 seconds", then that means I say the moving clock is ticking at half the rate of my clocks.

Shubert is presupposing a philosophical perspective and gives a clear visual representation of it in his Shubertian clock model of spacetime.

If Shubert cannot clearly define what he means when he talks about the "speed of a clock" in terms of actual physical measurements, then the statement that all clocks tick at the same speed is empty verbiage with no real meaning.

 

[Perspicacious]

Endless ignorance ad nauseam

Does Shubert have any well-defined procedure for defining the speed of a clock? ... If Shubert cannot clearly define what he means when he talks about the "speed of a clock" ...

Instead of imagining what Shubert's paper contains and writing endlessly about your guesses and suspicions, you should just read the paper yourself.

 

[JesseM]

Instead of imagining what Shubert's paper contains and writing endlessly about your guesses and suspicions, you should just read the paper yourself.

Like I said before, it would probably take hours to read through all the algebra, and all the discussions online about it suggested the paper's arguments don't make much sense, so I'm not going to bother if you won't do me the courtesy of answering my fairly simple questions about how Shubert defines "clock rates" in terms of actual physical measurements. You could at least give me the page number where this specific issue is addressed, if Shubert addresses it at all; when you suggested I read section 2, I did, but there was nothing there that answered this question.

 

[Perspicacious]

So what you are saying is that you read Shubert's definition of time (section 2) and yet have no understanding of a Shubertian clock?

 

[JesseM]

So what you are saying is that you read Shubert's definition of time (section 2) and yet have no understanding of a Shubertian clock?

OK, I looked it over again. I had initially assumed that each observer standing on a marking on a ruler would have his own (normal) clock, but now I see that the paper simply has observers on each marking, and each one just measures time by the regular series of markings on the other ruler moving past them. So when you say "all clocks tick at the same rate", all you mean is that all observers will see markings on the other ruler passing them at the same rate? This is true if you have only two rulers, but what if there's a ruler moving frictionlessly along my own both above and below me, and the two rulers are moving at different velocities relative to my own? Do both sets of markings qualify as two different "Shubertian clocks" for an observer on the middle ruler, and if so won't these two Shubertian clocks be ticking at different rates? Also, would you agree that the rate that markings pass me on a ruler is not a linear function of that ruler's velocity relative to me--that doubling the velocity does not double the rate that markings pass--due to the Lorentz contraction between markings as the velocity increases?

 

[Perspicacious]

The Shubertian clock

OK, I looked it over again. I had initially assumed that each observer standing on a marking on a ruler would have his own (normal) clock,

They do. All point observers wear wristwatches but the Shubertian clock is as large as the universe and is composed of moving number lines. It defines time everywhere.

It is shocking to some but each point in the universe has an idealized clock. The tick rate of that universal, everywhere present clock is 1 second per second.

but now I see that the paper simply has observers on each marking, and each one just measures time by the regular series of markings on the other ruler moving past them.

Precisely.

So when you say "all clocks tick at the same rate", all you mean is that all observers will see markings on the other ruler passing them at the same rate? This is true if you have only two rulers,

The statement is clearly true for any two moving lines out of an infinite bundle of moving lines.

but what if there's a ruler moving frictionlessly along my own both above and below me, and the two rulers are moving at different velocities relative to my own?

That question is analyzed completely and answered thoroughly in section 5.

Do both sets of markings qualify as two different "Shubertian clocks" for an observer on the middle ruler, and if so won't these two Shubertian clocks be ticking at different rates?

The beauty of section 5 is that the Shubertian clock is constructed, and in effect the Lorentz transformation is derived, by requiring that all the multiple possibilities give a consistent answer.

Also, would you agree that the rate that markings pass me on a ruler is not a linear function of that ruler's velocity relative to me--that doubling the velocity does not double the rate that markings pass--due to the Lorentz contraction between markings as the velocity increases?

The paper begins by defining "proper velocity" in section 2, which indeed displays the linear property.