My first taste of relativity
Laurent Lee
Well today, as a UK Physics A-Level student, I got my first taste of
relativity and to be quite frank it blew my head off. Some concepts I was
willing to accept, but theories such as time dilation and and references to
muons 'felt' wrong.
Having researched both of these online I found some alternate theories, some
of which are discussed in this newsgroup, but what I find incredible is that
if in my final exams I do not write what my text book states to be the
'correct theory' then I will get no marks for that question. I have a really
good feeling to write and explain a relavent theory that I truly believe!
I am more willing to believe the change in gravitational field to have some
effect on the experiment whereby you compare the time on 2 atomic clocks
with one travelling in an airplane etc etc etc.. however I wonder whether
any proof of this has been shown. Using a change in the gravitational field
to affect the rate of decay of the radioactive souce used in the atomic
clock would thereby follow when comparing to muons which decay. In the
theses I read from some years back it was suggested experiments be performed
in near 0G environment on the the International Space Station.. I wonder
whether this has been done since? Anyone know?
Laurent
pst...@ix.netcom.com
"Laurent Lee" <Lau...@nojunkplease.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Well today, as a UK Physics A-Level student, I got my
> first taste of relativity and to be quite frank it
> blew my head off. Some concepts I was willing to accept,
> but theories such as time dilation and and references
> to muons 'felt' wrong.
>
> Having researched both of these online I found some
> alternate theories, some of which are discussed in this
> newsgroup, but what I find incredible is that if in my
> final exams I do not write what my text book states to
> be the 'correct theory' then I will get no marks for
> that question. I have a really good feeling to write
> and explain a relavent theory that I truly believe!
Well, what 'felt wrong' about time dilation & muons?
> I am more willing to believe the change in gravitational
> field to have some effect on the experiment whereby you
> compare the time on 2 atomic clocks with one travelling
> in an airplane etc etc etc.. however I wonder whether any
> proof of this has been shown. Using a change in the
> gravitational field to affect the rate of decay of the
> radioactive source used in the atomic clock would thereby
> follow when comparing to muons which decay. In the theses
> I read from some years back it was suggested experiments
> be performed in near 0G environment on the the International
> Space Station.. I wonder whether this has been done since?
> Anyone know?
What about the onboard atomic clock of the GPS satellites?
Paul Stowe
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Hi all,
>
> Well today, as a UK Physics A-Level student, I got my first taste of
> relativity and to be quite frank it blew my head off. Some concepts I was
> willing to accept, but theories such as time dilation and and references to
> muons 'felt' wrong.
>
What does "feeling" have to do with physics?
> Having researched both of these online I found some alternate theories, some
> of which are discussed in this newsgroup, but what I find incredible is that
> if in my final exams I do not write what my text book states to be the
> 'correct theory' then I will get no marks for that question. I have a really
> good feeling to write and explain a relavent theory that I truly believe!
>
Oh no! You're being persecuted for not believing SR!
If you want to pass your exams, you need to understand what SR
claims and how it explains it, not accept it.
And, like many people, if you actually try to understand it,
you may actually accept it.
> I am more willing to believe the change in gravitational field to have some
> effect on the experiment whereby you compare the time on 2 atomic clocks
> with one travelling in an airplane etc etc etc.. however I wonder whether
> any proof of this has been shown. Using a change in the gravitational field
> to affect the rate of decay of the radioactive souce used in the atomic
> clock would thereby follow when comparing to muons which decay. In the
> theses I read from some years back it was suggested experiments be performed
> in near 0G environment on the the International Space Station.. I wonder
> whether this has been done since? Anyone know?
>
Experiments don't prove theories. You're suggesting
that by doing an alternative experiment that agrees
with relativity that you have disproven relativity.
No, you haven't.
John Anderson
Alfred Centauri
<and...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:3E5DA6...@attglobal.net...
> Laurent Lee wrote:
<snip>
> > I am more willing to believe the change in gravitational field to have
some
> > effect on the experiment whereby you compare the time on 2 atomic clocks
> > with one travelling in an airplane etc etc etc.. however I wonder
whether
> > any proof of this has been shown. Using a change in the gravitational
field
> > to affect the rate of decay of the radioactive souce used in the atomic
> > clock would thereby follow when comparing to muons which decay. In the
> > theses I read from some years back it was suggested experiments be
performed
> > in near 0G environment on the the International Space Station.. I wonder
> > whether this has been done since? Anyone know?
> >
>
> Experiments don't prove theories.
I agree. Experimental tests of the predictions of a theory can (at best)
just disprove a theory. A mountain of successful experimental tests of a
theory only mean the experimentalists aren't trying hard enough.
<snip>
Stephen Speicher
>
> Well today, as a UK Physics A-Level student, I got my first taste of
> relativity and to be quite frank it blew my head off. Some concepts I was
> willing to accept, but theories such as time dilation and and references to
> muons 'felt' wrong.
>
Fortunately, whether any particular theory is correct, or not, is
not dependent upon anyone's feelings. Physics is a subject which
demands rational thought, and one's feelings should never take
the place of one's mind.
> Having researched both of these online I found some alternate theories, some
> of which are discussed in this newsgroup, but what I find incredible is that
> if in my final exams I do not write what my text book states to be the
> 'correct theory' then I will get no marks for that question.
Well, yes, most schools teach the standard theories, with little
attention to alternatives. One justification for this is the
sheer amount of material a student must learn if he wants to
understand physics in its current state. There is little time for
alternative theories, though occasionally they are taught at some
institutions. If you are interested in a career in physics, it
would be best that you first learn the physics of today before
you create the physics of tomorrow.
> I have a really
> good feeling to write and explain a relavent theory that I truly believe!
>
When Einstein was studying at the Polytechnic in the late 1890s,
he was very disappointed that the "newer" physics, such as
Maxwell, was not being taught. So, he learned it on his own. But,
Einstein also learned the subjects of his day, and, in fact, he
sometimes later opined, that he wished he had learned more. This
from a man who revolutionized physics, for a century to come.
So, if you are drawn to some alternative theories, I would
suggest that you pursue that on your own, and focus your
attention at class on the material which is being presented. The
more that you learn about the way things are, the better equipped
you will be to change them, if that is what you desire.
> I am more willing to believe the change in gravitational field to have some
> effect on the experiment whereby you compare the time on 2 atomic clocks
> with one travelling in an airplane etc etc etc.. however I wonder whether
> any proof of this has been shown.
The literature on the experimental verification of relativity is
quite voluminous, and relativistic predictions of both the
special and the general theories have been verified with great
precision. If you would like to familiarize yourself with some of
the experimental evidence in support of relativity, you might
first start by reviewing the excellent FAQ compilation of tests
of the theory, at
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
For details of these sorts of experiment:
For special relativity, an excellent book is "Special Relativity
and its Experimental Foundations," Y.Z. Zhang, _World
Scientific_, 1997.
For general relativity a good starting place is "Theory and
Experiment in Gravitational Physics," C.M. Will, _Cambridge
University Press_, 1993.
And, of course, therein you will find references to hundreds upon
hundreds of experimental papers, which you can review at your
leisure. Many very knowledgeable and talented people have
contributed to the continued success of relativity over the
years, and it might be nice to familiarize yourself with the work
they have done, before you decide to replace it.
> Using a change in the gravitational field
> to affect the rate of decay of the radioactive souce used in the atomic
> clock would thereby follow when comparing to muons which decay.
I am a bit unclear about what you are saying, but some advice I
would give is to familiarize yourself with the workings of
different atomic clocks before you attribute anything to them.
> In the
> theses I read from some years back it was suggested experiments be performed
> in near 0G environment on the the International Space Station.. I wonder
> whether this has been done since? Anyone know?
>
In recent years there have been a great deal of interesting
experiments involving relativity and micro-gravity environments.
If you would like to familiarize yourself with some of what has
been done, and what is coming, an excellent book is "Gyros
Clocks, Interferometers...: Testing Relativistic Gravity in
Space," C. Lammerzahl et. al., Editors, _Springer_, 2001.
And, yes, there is a lot to learn, and reading and studying over
many years is the way to get there.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Shubert
I felt uneasy about relativity for many years until I sat down and
derived the Lorentz transformation from the Galilean transformation.
It now makes perfect sense to me. Give it a try if you feel the urge
for a fresh perspective.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity
I assure you, this page is definitely the right way to understand
relativity.
Eugene Shubert
Hayek
Laurent Lee wrote:
First, do not be deceived by the name "atomic clock".
It is in fact a cesium beam clock. It works by a special
property of the electrons in the outer orbitals of
cesium, not by atomic decay.
Just enlarge your view: the effects of gravitation
affect *ALL* things in motion, by increasing their
inertia. Not only clocks run slower, but also all the
molecules in your body move slower. People then say :
"time runs slower" . It is no different than what
happens to a steak in your frdige, albeit by a different
mechanism.
A clock is just an inertiameter. And every motion is
subjected to inertia. A gravitational field, better call
it an inertial field, increases inertia, therefore slows
"time" which is not a physical entity itself, just a
mathematical ratio.
Travelling through an inertial field makes you undergo
the influence harder, so your inertia increases even
more. Hence your clock and yourself's molecules motion
slows down even more. Also, you do not notice this, it
is only when you compare to someone who was in higher or
lower inertia, you see the difference. By comparing
clocks and age.
And the last bit : the inertial field causes atoms to
shrink, therefore seemingly space to expand. When
travelling through the inertial field it causes only
length to contract, not all dimensions of the object.
And note that mass causes inertia, not only from the
Earth, but also from other stars and galaxies, in a way
that this inertia is a billion times greater than the
inertia caused by the Earth. That is also why a clock
runs about a billionth part slower near the Earth than
in space.
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Len Gaasenbeek
Dear Hayek,
The inertia of a body remains constant no matter what the strength of the
gravitational field in which it is located.
For example it takes just as much energy to accelerate a given flywheel from
say zero rpm. to 1000 rpm. in the weightless environment of a space station,
as it does on earth.
For further information see my "Selected Papers" at my website at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
Enjoy, Len.
........................................................
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3E5E060F...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
Hayek
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> Dear Hayek,
>
> The inertia of a body remains constant no matter
> what the strength of the gravitational field in
> which it is located.
>
> For example it takes just as much energy to
> accelerate a given flywheel from say zero rpm. to
> 1000 rpm. in the weightless environment of a space
> station, as it does on earth.
For the local observer this is true Len. Remember
relativity.
The correct experiment is spinnning it up in space, and
then lowering it to Earth, and see it slow down, from
space. The energy is not gone, it is stored in the
higher inertia. As soon as you pull it up in space
again, its inertia decreases and it spins at 1000 rpm
again. (Gedanken, without friction, of course).
You can easily see that you need more energy, but your
source will provide more energy, since it is in a higher
inertial field too. You can see this most easily if you
consider another flywheel as the source of energy.
I said clearly in my post :
"
Also, you do not notice this, it
is only when you compare to someone who was in higher or
lower inertia, you see the difference."
"
Len Gaasenbeek
To Hayek,
You are mistaken. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
You mistake observed reality for actual reality.
For example, when you observe a war taking place on a planet which is a
distance of one light year away, you are observing a war unfolding which
happened a year ago. However according to you, it constitutes today's
(real time) reality.
Contrary to what Flip Wilson used to say: "What you see is NOT what you
get."! :-)
Consequently the theories of General and Special Relativity don't make
sense, as outlined in my "Selected Papers" which you will find at:
http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
In its place I propose several logical theories which explain the various
relativistic phenomena, including some for which an explanation doesn't
exist, such as the duality of light, the gravitational force etc. I do this
without resorting to such illogical concepts as "time dilation" and
"relativistic mass" etc. etc.
By the way, there is no such thing as an inertial field, only a
gravitational field.
You confuse the mass of a body with its inertia; two completely separate
physical characteristics of matter.
Len.
.............................................
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3E5E2392...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
greywolf42
Laurent Lee <Lau...@nojunkplease.com> wrote in message
news:ZIc7a.6683$Vx2.592235@wards...
> Hi all,
>
> Well today, as a UK Physics A-Level student, I got my first taste of
> relativity and to be quite frank it blew my head off. Some concepts I was
> willing to accept, but theories such as time dilation and and references
to
> muons 'felt' wrong.
>
> Having researched both of these online I found some alternate theories,
some
> of which are discussed in this newsgroup, but what I find incredible is
that
> if in my final exams I do not write what my text book states to be the
> 'correct theory' then I will get no marks for that question. I have a
really
> good feeling to write and explain a relavent theory that I truly believe!
This is a good time to realize that one of the purposes of an education is
to be able to understand and to utilize philosophies and theories with which
you disagree. You don't have to stop thinking -- just don't advertise the
fact. I'd recommend not rocking the boat as a student. Professors have
many ways to make life more difficult for a troublemaker.
> I am more willing to believe the change in gravitational field to have
some
> effect on the experiment whereby you compare the time on 2 atomic clocks
> with one travelling in an airplane etc etc etc.. however I wonder whether
> any proof of this has been shown. Using a change in the gravitational
field
> to affect the rate of decay of the radioactive souce used in the atomic
> clock would thereby follow when comparing to muons which decay. In the
> theses I read from some years back it was suggested experiments be
performed
> in near 0G environment on the the International Space Station.. I wonder
> whether this has been done since? Anyone know?
>
> Laurent
>
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
Len Gaasenbeek
The last sentence of my posting below should have read:
You confuse the WEIGHT of a body with its inertia; two completely separate
physical characteristics of matter.
Len.
.............................................
"Len Gaasenbeek" <gaas...@rideau.net> wrote in message
news:v5sgej1...@corp.supernews.com...
Laurent Lee
> This is a good time to realize that one of the purposes of an education is
> to be able to understand and to utilize philosophies and theories with
which
> you disagree. You don't have to stop thinking -- just don't advertise the
> fact. I'd recommend not rocking the boat as a student. Professors have
> many ways to make life more difficult for a troublemaker.
>
>
Thanks to everyones posts on this topic. Really giving me some balanced
viewpoints and areas to look into with more depth.
In response to greywolf, I disagree with not advertising that you are
thinking. I do quite the opposite and show that I am not taking everything I
am taught on face value and everything that is in the text book. Indeed for
other parts of physics different text books offer you sometimes different
interpretations of a situation and it is not 'rocking the boat' if you show
that you are thinking.
I find it saddening that you consider that one is a 'troublemaker' for
thinking. I would consider such a troublemaker someone who talks in class so
as to disturb people who are trying to think through a situation with their
own opinions.
Perhaps you did not have very open-minded teachers at your school, but mine
just told me when I discussed it today that they would go away this weekend
and think about it out of a shared personal interest. I printed off some of
the web sites from the URLs given in this thread and both of my teachers are
keenly interested.
Laurent
Patrick Reany
>
> Well today, as a UK Physics A-Level student, I got my first taste of
> relativity and to be quite frank it blew my head off. Some concepts I was
> willing to accept, but theories such as time dilation and and references to
> muons 'felt' wrong.
I presume that you've already had some Newtonian mechanics. If so,
then you have already tasted relativity -- Galilean relativity that
is! The laws of Newtonian mechanics have the same form when they are
coordinate transformed from one inertial reference frame to any other
(the Principle of Galilean Relativity). This is called "covariance" of
the form. And any law of Newtonian mechanics which is covariant with
respect to transformation of coordinates among any two inertial
reference frames can be said to be a "general law of Newtonian
mechanics." One of these general laws is "Sum F = ma."
Newtonian mechanics can be defined as the theory of all phenomena
(modeled as interacting point mass particles) whose descriptions are
by laws which are Galilean covariant. In Newtonian mechanics:
1) No inertial reference frame has better status for the description
of mechanical phenomena than does any other inertial reference
frame.
2) Velocities are relative though accelerations are treated as
absolute.
Now remember that the term "description" just means "laws that account
for," and it has no necessary relationship to our naive and
prejudicial speculations about what's supposedly "really going on."
The problem with adding in electromagnetics to Newton's "mechanics" is
that Maxwell's equations describing light phenomena are not Galilean
covariant, and thus are not "mechanical" phenomena by the above
definition of such. (Now, I grant that "mechanical phenomena" can be
defined differently than I have done so above, but I am trying to set
up at least a reasonable heuristic argument to aid one's accepting of
the postulates of SR. Furthermore, it seems to me that Newton's theory
has a weakness that, although it tells us how to model "mechanical
phenomena," it fails to define exactly what "mechanical phenomena"
is.) Maxwell's equations are covariant under a different set of
coordinate transformations than are used for Galilean relativity. This
other set of transformations is called the Lorentz transformation of
coordinates, or just the "Lorentz transformation" for short.
Going back to this freedom we have to "define things as we want to,"
this is because there is a lot of room in theoretical physics to
invent models & concepts and to accept such principles as
"fundamental" as we please so long as in the end the theory so
constructed is internally consistent and works well to describe the
phenomena that it set out to describe. The sense that I mean
"principle" is either a specific law of physics or a trustworthy
heuristic rule. Either of which would give one strong confidence in
their ability to act as a founding postulate of a theory, right? And
if one has strong confidence in the founding principles of the theory
and in the deductive process that leads to specific predictions, then
why would one not also have strong confidence in the predictions
themselves?
Einstein said this:
Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind,
and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined
by the external world. (The Evolution of Physics,
Einstein & Infeld, Touchstone, 1938, p31.)
Now, H. A. Lorentz published a theory on the electrodynamics of moving
bodies (1904) that speculated (at least formally so) that there exists
a fixed ether distributed throughout all space (which is the
embodiment of an absolute rest space) in which light is "really"
propagated at the "speed of light" c. But Einstein just could not
accept this concept into his formal point of view, simply because it
introduced a special inertial frame that restricted the symmetry of
reference frames more than did the Principle of Galilean Relativity of
Newtonian mechanics -- not so much in practice as in the conceptual
nature of the problem. Both SR and Lorentz's theory have the same set
of predictions, though they have very different interpretations of
their meanings. Thus the two theories are truly "different" theories.
Furthermore, it was very easy for Einstein to generalize his SR
principle of relativity to go from only electromagnetic forces to any
nongravitational forces at all. But Lorentz's theory was not so easily
generalized from its electrodynamic nature, because light phenomena
was regarded in Lorentz's theory as an actual state of the ether
itself. And even more, the apparent corpuscular nature of light is not
as easily accounted for by an ether model as it is by the photon model
introduced on top of the postulates of SR. (The general rule is this:
The sooner one introduces a specific model into a theory, the sooner
that model becomes an albatros to the generalization of the theory.)
So, instead of "explaining" electromegnetic phenomena as states of an
ether, Einstein chose to just leave the electric and magnetic fields
as irreducible concepts.
Einstein accepted the task of building a theory of the electrodynamics
of moving bodies that did not have this added restriction to Newton's
mechanics that voided the spirit of the "symmetry" of (the inherent
egalitarian nature of) all inertial reference frames implicit within
the principle of relativity, at least as he saw it. He said that he
played with this construction for a long time, until one day the means
to a solution suddenly came to him. And this was when he realized that
the solution rested on the fact -- within the confines of his freely
accepted formal point of view -- that time cannot be absolutely
defined. Now, it's VERY important to understand that Einstein was NOT
making a judgment about Newton's metaphysical time (except to declare
that it has no physical content), but about measured time as it is
determined by actual clocks in the lab, so to speak. This notion of
defining a measurable variable in terms of the measurement process
itself is referred to as an "operational definition" of the variable.
So, the question is this: Given that light and matter interact with
each other, such as in the phenonena of the photo-electric effect,
1) How strongly do you 'feel' that this interaction phenonena ought
to be describable by some kind of general laws of physics, just
as Newton's mechanical phenomena is? (Einstein was strongly
inclined
to believe this based on his belief in the "pre-established
harmony"
of Nature. It seems that Einstein viewed covariance as proof of,
and
the very embodiment of, this harmony. [See Einstein's essay,
"Principles of Research," Ideas and Opinions, 226-7.]
2) If you do NOT 'feel' strongly that human physics is to be guided
by the principle that all phenomena that humans encounter of a
metrical
nature is describable by some general law of physics, then do you
believe that the Galilean covariance found in Newton's mechanics
is just an irrelevant "accident of Nature" resulting from our
particular
arbitrary manner of constructing mathematical descriptions of
phenomena,
and that it is NOT a guide (or "heuristic") in how to formulate
generalizations of Newtonian mechanics to include other phenomena?
The main point of SR to Einstein is that it is reasonable to adopt the
formal point of view that one can build a theory extending Newton's
theory in which
1) all metrical non-gravitational phenomena as measured from
inertial reference frames are describable by general
laws of physics,
2) the covariance of those laws which describe mechanics,
optics, and electromagnetics is Lorentzian (1905 version of
the SR principle of relativity) and reduces to Galilean in
the limit as velocities are much less than that of the
speed of light, thus making SR a generalization of
Newtonian mechanics on its domain of applicability.
Since Einstein was committed to adopting a minimal set of postulates
(what he referred to as "logical economy," which was another feature
of his formal point of view) for this extension of Newtonian physics,
he accepted as fundamental additions to that theory the Light
Principle (i.e., the MEASURED speed of light made from within any
inertial reference frame in a vacuum is a constant) and the SR
principle of relativity, and he chose NOT to speculate in SR as to any
"explanation" of how the Light Principle works. Einstein referred to
SR as a "principle theory," which I shall also refer to as a
"principled extension" to Newton's theory. Einstein referred to
Newton's theory as a "constructive theory," which attempts to explain
all phenomena within the theory as the emergent properties of the
interactions of the parts of some fundamental substance, which in the
case of Newton's theory is the mutual interactions of point mass
particles, interacting "at a distance," which just means that the
interactions between particles always occurs instantaneously and along
the direction of the lines connecting them in pairs.
>
> Having researched both of these online I found some alternate theories, some
> of which are discussed in this newsgroup, but what I find incredible is that
> if in my final exams I do not write what my text book states to be the
> 'correct theory' then I will get no marks for that question. I have a really
> good feeling to write and explain a relavent theory that I truly believe!
Take time to learn SR properly. For the moment give it the benefit of
the doubt. You have the rest of your life to learn about alternatives.
Don't get stressed out by non-intuitive conclusions of SR. Just
concentrate on
1) the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of the principles which found
SR
as an extension to Newtonian mechanics,
2) the correctness of the deductions from the purely mathematical
standpoint, and
3) agreement (or lack thereof) of SR predictions to experiment.
If you can get confident in these first two aspects of SR, then why
would you NOT have confidence in the predictions of SR, even before
the experiments which test them? Confidence going in should mean
confidence coming out! (Don't place too much importance on
"intuition." After all, did you find the phenomena of the nutation of
the spinning top to be intuitive? I sure didn't!)
Einstein's long-term research program was to build a theory of all
metrical phenomena in which there is no use of an absolute velocity
space, or of an absolute acceleration space, and that noncontact
interactions are modeled by fields which propagate through "empty
space" at finite speed, and that all metrical phenomena is describable
by laws which have the same form under any reasonable change of
coordinates (which includes both inertial and noninertial reference
frames) -- which is called the "general principle of relativity."
Now, it all comes down to how you personally answer this question
posed by Einstein:
What has nature to do with our coordinate systems and their
state of motion? If it is necessary for the purpose of
describing nature, to make use of a coordinate system
arbitrarily introduced by us, then the choice of its state
of motion ought to be subject to no restriction; the laws
ought to be entirely independent of this choice (general
principle of relativity). (First printed in 1919. Appeared
in Albert Einstein's General Relativity, Crown Publication,
New York, 1979, p63.)
In SR Einstein extended the Galilean principle of relativity to
include all of mechanics, optics, and electrodynamics (1905 version).
In it he maintained velocities as relative, though he left
accelerations as absolute, as they were also treated in Newton's
mechanics. It was Einstein's desire to drop the absolutelness of
accelerated (noninertial) reference frames that led him to his final
generalization of the principle of relativity to the "general" form
indictated in the above quote. The equivalence of inertial and
gravitational mass was his specific empirical foundation to this
extension.
So, the evolution of the foundations to physics over the last 400
years can be crudely gauged by the evolution of the Principle of
Relativity over the same period. Starting off with the Principle of
Galilean Relativity, we have the negative principle that inspires it
as:
It is impossible to perform any contained "mechanical" experiment
within an inertial reference frame that can determine that
frame's
so-called absolute velocity.
Einstein's generalization of this to get his SR Principle of
Relativity (1905) starts from the empircal fact (stated as a negative
principle) that inspires it as:
It is impossible to perform any contained mechanical, optical,
or electrodynamical experiment within an inertial reference
frame that can determine that frame's so-called absolute
velocity.
Einstein later generalized this 1905 version of his SR Principle of
Relativity to be force nonspecific (except for gravity) (stated as a
negative principle) that inspires it as:
It is impossible to perform any contained experiment within an
inertial reference frame that can determine that frame's
so-called absolute velocity.
And finally, Einstein's generalization of his SR Principle of
Relativity to arrive at his GR Principle of Relativity starts from the
empircal fact (again stated as a negative principle) that inspires it
as:
It is impossible to perform any contained experiment within any
reference frame that can determine that frame's so-called
absolute velocity or absolute acceleration.
Patrick
http://ajnpx.com/html/Relativity.html
http://ajnpx.com/html/HowScienceEducationFailed.html
Bilge
>
>Well today, as a UK Physics A-Level student, I got my first taste of
>relativity and to be quite frank it blew my head off. Some concepts I was
>willing to accept, but theories such as time dilation and and references to
>muons 'felt' wrong.
>
>Having researched both of these online I found some alternate theories, some
>of which are discussed in this newsgroup, but what I find incredible is that
>if in my final exams I do not write what my text book states to be the
>'correct theory' then I will get no marks for that question. I have a really
>good feeling to write and explain a relavent theory that I truly believe!
(1) A course on relativity isn't designed to teach you what to believe,
it's designed to teach you relativity, so the appropriate test
would seem to be one which covers the course material. This is no
different than taking a course about karl marx and being expected
to write about karl marx rather than milton freidman, even though
you might think karl marx was an idiot.
(2) If you can support what you truly believe with calculations that
are backed up by experimental evidence showing special relativity
is wrong, then you'll not only get good marks, but will find lots
of physicists wanting to talk to you about what you've written.
(3) If you don't understand relativity well enough to solve the test
questions in an introductory course, what makes you think you
understand it well enough to know if you agree or disagree with
it?
Contrary to popular belief the purpose of an education isn't to
reinforce what you think you know, but to give you a broad enough
perspective to figure things out on your own without having to reinvent
the wheel and ending up claiming a square shape works better than the
traditional round ones due to some misguided idea of what being original
means.
Hayek
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> To Hayek,
>
> You are mistaken. Your argument doesn't make any
> sense. You mistake observed reality for actual
> reality.
>
> For example, when you observe a war taking place on
> a planet which is a distance of one light year
> away, you are observing a war unfolding which happened
> a year ago. However according to you, it
> constitutes today's (real time) reality.
I never said that. In that case you would see the
flyweel still spinning at the same revs, only the
revolution counter would be lower.
You will observe the wheel spinning slower, the local
observer will not see this. You can count the
revolutions on two flywheels, lower and return one, and
you will see it has made less rotations, the two
flywheels are actually clocks.
> Contrary to what Flip Wilson used to say: "What you
> see is NOT what you get."! :-)
>
> Consequently the theories of General and Special
> Relativity don't make sense, as outlined in my
> "Selected Papers" which you will find at:
I think they do make sense. I even explain why they have
all the effects.
> http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
>
> In its place I propose several logical theories
> which explain the various relativistic phenomena,
> including some for which an explanation doesn't exist,
> such as the duality of light, the gravitational
> force etc. I do this without resorting to such
> illogical concepts as "time dilation" and "relativistic
> mass" etc. etc.
Time itself is illogical. And you confuse mass increase
with inertial increase.
> By the way, there is no such thing as an inertial
> field, only a gravitational field.
They are one and the same thing. But I think the
inertial effects cause gravitation. So it is more
logical to call it an inertial field, and state that
when it has a gradient it causes gravitation.
> You confuse the mass of a body with its inertia; two
> completely separate physical characteristics of
> matter.
I noted your correction. mass should be weight.
The weight of a body is determined by the gravitation
you put it in, and the same thing is true for the
inertia of body. Inertia is caused by the external
masses that attract it. And you should consider all the
masses that surround it, stars, galaxies. As I
explained, this inertial field is a billion times
stronger than that produced by the Earth's mass. If you
do not see it, think of inertia as gravitation coming
from all sides and cancelling, leaving only inertia.
Better of course, it is to see gravitation as inertia
coming from one side.
Inertia nor Weight is a property of mass itself, both
these are caused by external masses. If you want to
determine how much mass you have, count the atoms.
Martin Hogbin
"Laurent Lee" <Lau...@nojunkplease.com> wrote in message news:Lys7a.8834$Lq.643343@stones...
> >
>
> Thanks to everyones posts on this topic. Really giving me some balanced
> viewpoints and areas to look into with more depth.
>
correctly. On one side there is nearly one hundred years of
experimental evidence and the scrutiny of the world's physicists.
On the other side is a handful of crackpots, each of whom thinks
he the next
> In response to greywolf, I disagree with not advertising that you are
> thinking.
Greywolf is, unfortunately, one of the regular crackpots on
this group.
> I do quite the opposite and show that I am not taking everything I
> am taught on face value and everything that is in the text book.
Quite right, believe nothing that is not supported by
experimental evidence and logic.
Martin Hogbin
and...@attglobal.net
And anyone involved with real science agrees. And yet this
seems to be the statement that I make regularly here
that the cranks challenge the most. They seem to think
that alternative explanations of the same experiments
disprove SR as if the experiments proved SR in the first place.
John Anderson
Len Gaasenbeek
May I suggest you study a university text on physics before you re-invent
it?
Your response reminds me of the person who complains:
"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!"
Len.
....................................................
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3E5E6273...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
Eric Prebys
> Hi all,
>
> Well today, as a UK Physics A-Level student, I got my first taste of
> relativity and to be quite frank it blew my head off. Some concepts I was
> willing to accept, but theories such as time dilation and and references to
> muons 'felt' wrong.
>
Science has precious little to do with feelings. Imagine how "wrong" it
felt to be told the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system.
> Having researched both of these online I found some alternate theories,
You can shorten the list substantially if you only consider "theories"
which make *quantitative* predictions and actually go to the trouble
of addressing experimental results.
> some
> of which are discussed in this newsgroup, but what I find incredible is that
> if in my final exams I do not write what my text book states to be the
> 'correct theory' then I will get no marks for that question. I have a really
> good feeling to write and explain a relavent theory that I truly believe!
>
Science also has very little to do with belief. Science has to do
with experimental results. Here is a (very short) list of experimental
evidence for SR:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
This of course leaves off the countless things like particle
acclerators, nuclear power plants, etc that implicitly rely on
SR being an accurate description - not just in broad strokes but in
the details.
> I am more willing to believe the change in gravitational field to have some
> effect on the experiment whereby you compare the time on 2 atomic clocks
> with one travelling in an airplane etc etc etc.. however I wonder whether
> any proof of this has been shown. Using a change in the gravitational field
> to affect the rate of decay of the radioactive souce used in the atomic
> clock would thereby follow when comparing to muons which decay.
First of all, I think you should study up on how atomic clocks work,
since they have nothing to do with radioactive decay; they are strictly
electromagnetic in nature, so there's no reason at all to suspect that
gravity would have the same effect on them as muons.
Second, the most precise muon and pion data comes from storage rings and
beam lines, where changes in gravity are not a factor.
Third, sience is about numbers. It's not enough to say "gravity
affects clocks". You have to make a *quantitative* prediction for
how gravity affects clocks, and then address the standing experimental
results one by one to see if the theory works.
> In the
> theses I read from some years back it was suggested experiments be performed
> in near 0G environment on the the International Space Station.. I wonder
> whether this has been done since? Anyone know?
>
Unless the tests are more precise than the tests done using the clocks
on the GPS satellites, there's not much point in doing them.
-Eric
> Laurent
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred Centauri
>
> You are mistaken. Your argument doesn't make any sense.
> You mistake observed reality for actual reality.
>
> For example, when you observe a war taking place on a planet which is a
> distance of one light year away, you are observing a war unfolding which
> happened a year ago. However according to you, it constitutes today's
> (real time) reality.
>
Actually, one could make a pretty good argument that it _is_ real time
reality since there is no cause that could affect him any earlier. If the
sun blew up 9 minutes ago, we cannot be affected by it until now so what's
the difference?
Alfred Centauri
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnb5sq83....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
<snip>
> (1) A course on relativity isn't designed to teach you what to believe,
> it's designed to teach you relativity, so the appropriate test
> would seem to be one which covers the course material.
Well put!
> This is no
> different than taking a course about karl marx and being expected
> to write about karl marx rather than milton freidman, even though
> you might think karl marx was an idiot.
>
> (2) If you can support what you truly believe with calculations that
> are backed up by experimental evidence showing special relativity
> is wrong, then you'll not only get good marks, but will find lots
> of physicists wanting to talk to you about what you've written.
Yup!
>
> (3) If you don't understand relativity well enough to solve the test
> questions in an introductory course, what makes you think you
> understand it well enough to know if you agree or disagree with
> it?
>
Amen!
>
> Contrary to popular belief the purpose of an education isn't to
> reinforce what you think you know, but to give you a broad enough
> perspective to figure things out on your own without having to reinvent
> the wheel and ending up claiming a square shape works better than the
> traditional round ones due to some misguided idea of what being original
> means.
>
Hallelujah!
Damn, I wish I'd wrote that!
Regards,
Alfred
Hayek
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> To Hayek,
>
> May I suggest you study a university text on physics before you re-invent
> it?
> Your response reminds me of the person who complains:
> "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!"
>
> Len.
I invite you to do the same.
In fact, I scanned some pages of
"gravitation" By Misner, Thorne, Wheeler.(MTW)
From the preface of "Gravitation" :
"the entire book is designed for a rigorous full year
course at the graduate level,..[].
The full book is intended to give a competence in
gravitation physics comparable to that which the average
Ph.D. has in electromagnetism.
"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html
(link at the bottom goes to next page,
link at the top goes to previous page.)
You just made up your mind that you know all the facts.
You simply do not.
Read about "The origin of inertia".