Article: A Century of Einstein
Robert Karl Stonjek
Scientific American has covered Einstein's theories--and the refinements and
reactions to them--ever since scientists began to grasp the import of his
landmark 1905 papers. Read on for a sampling of our reports, some by leading
physicists of their times
By Daniel C. Schlenoff
It took several years for Scientific American, and mainstream physics for
that matter, to start mulling over the radical proposals Albert Einstein
expounded in 1905. His repudiation of the intuitive understanding of the
cosmos was hard to accept:
"In 1905, came a fundamental and (as the future historian will probably say)
an epoch-making contribution in the shape of an unassuming and dry-looking
dissertation, 'Concerning the Electro-dynamics of Moving Bodies,' by A.
Einstein, a Swiss professor of physics. It appeared in the Annalen der
Physik, the German counterpart of our Philosophical Magazine. It created no
sensation at the time. It was hardly noticed. Yet, at the present time, you
cannot open a journal devoted to physics without finding some fresh
contribution to the ever-increasing literature on the subject: Einstein's
Principle of Relativity.
--E. E. Fournier D'Albe"
Scientific American Supplement,
November 11, 1911
"But is the 'Principle of Relativity' true? That is for experiment to
decide. Its postulates have been and are now being pursued by the relentless
logic of mathematics, and they must stand or fall as the deductions thus
reached agree or conflict with experimental evidence. Just now, however, the
'Principle of Relativity' seems to be irresistibly fascinating to
mathematicians, but equally abhorrent to that host of physicists who can no
more conceive of time as a function of velocity than they can imagine space
to be curved or picture for themselves a fourth dimension."
Scientific American,
June 8, 1912
From Scientific American
http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
--
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
robert j. kolker
RP wrote:
>
> Invariance and equality of frames aren't synonymous.
> Invariance is obtained as such:
> (v1 - v2) = k
This makes no sense, whatsoever. Invariance, means invariance with
respect to a group of transformations. Where is the group?
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
RP wrote:
>
> Invariance means independent of frames of reference, i.e.
> The speed of two particles wrt each other is independent of frames of
> reference. Their speed wrt you is immaterial to their interaction.
Yes, one can talk of invariance of a quantity under a transformation.
For example the Minkowski interval is invariant under Lorentz
transforms, so it is independent of any particular frame of reference.
And what the dickens does that formula you wrote mean?
Bob Kolker
Tom Roberts
> robert j. kolker wrote:
>> RP wrote:
>>> Invariance and equality of frames aren't synonymous.
That is true. But we often use shortcuts in speaking, and use the term
"invariance" to mean "independent of coordinates", and in SR that is
equivalent to "independent of frame".
>>> Invariance is obtained as such:
>>> (v1 - v2) = k
Not really. Only in certain circumstances is k an invariant (assuming
you intend v1 and v2 to tbe 3-vector velocities of two objects -- your
use of "speed" makes me think you mean 3-vectors).
>> This makes no sense, whatsoever. Invariance, means invariance with
>> respect to a group of transformations. Where is the group?
>
> Invariance means independent of frames of reference,
No, Bob is correct, and "invariance" in physics is always a shorthand
for invariance over a specified group of transformations; often/usually
the group is implicit in the context -- in SR that implicit group is
usually the Poincare' group of transformations among inertial
coordinates (frames).
> The speed of two particles wrt each other is independent of frames of
> reference. Their speed wrt you is immaterial to their interaction.
In SR, the speed of particle 1 with respect to a specified
instantaneously comoving inertial frame of particle 2 is an invariant.
But (v1-v2) is not an invariant, if v1 and v2 are the 3-velocities of
the two particles.
(v1-v2) is an invariant if v1 and v2 represent the 4-velocities
of the two particles. But I doubt that's what you meant.
In short: to make sense discussing relativity, you need to be more
precise in your writing and thinking. The terminology has changed since
Newtonian mechanics....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
robert j. kolker
RP wrote:
>
> And BTW, photons are not particles. More of Einstein's stupidity.
The existence of photons has been established experimentally. See for
example: P.Grangier, G. Roger and A. Aspect; Experimental Evidence for a
photon anti-correlation effect on a beam splitter; Europhys Lett vol 1
pp 173-179 (1986).
For the background read -The Quantum Challange- by George Greenstein,
Arhtur G. Zajonc Chapter 2.
They are particles. When they hit a photo plate they make a small dot
indicating their localized nature. Waves would not do that. Furthermore
waves cannot explain the photo electric effect within the classical
Maxwellian electrodynamics.
Einstein's 1905 paper on the photo electric effect (the one for which
he won the Nobel Prize) shows that waves are not sufficient to explain
the effect. Millikan's experiments backed up Einstein's analysis
completely.
I think you are a hundred years behind the times.
Bob Kolker
Bill Hobba
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2ovkg6F...@uni-berlin.de...
> contradicts the very premise that is the PoR.
> If the laws of physics are independent of frames of reference, then how
> can they not be independent of transformations as well, of "any" form?
> Think about that.
No one says they are independent of transformations. What it says is that
the form of the equations should be lorentz invariant.
Bill
>
> The velocity of particle A along x minus the velocity of particle B
> along x gives the velocity of the particles wrt each other. This value
> is invariant (independent of your cognizance of it) and it can thus be a
> valid element of a law of physics.
>
> (vA - vB) = k (invariant wrt frames)
>
> The speed of a particle wrt an observer, when it is not referenced to
> the other elements that are directly involved in an interaction, renders
> the outcome of the equation(s) frame dependent. No such equation
> qualifies as a law of physics, since it would fail to guide the
> particles in the event of the absence of humanity.
>
> The "measure", OTOH, of velocities, is an independent area of physics.
> If measuring devices are variable then we can apply conversion factors,
> but conversion factors don't belong within transformation equations. In
> order to be consistent with that approach length contractions due to
> temperature changes, tension, etc. must also be scripted into the
> transform as well. Obviously there is nothing practical in
> incorporating these measurement deviations, nor thus that due to light
> delays. That is about as sensible as incorporating deviation due to
> sound lag when distances are measured with their use rather than light.
> Special Relativity abandons logic on every front. It's stupidity in
> droves.
>
> And BTW, photons are not particles. More of Einstein's stupidity.
>
> Richard Perry
>
>
Bill Hobba
> by fine rubber bands into a sheet of rubber that is fluttering randomly
> in a mild breeze. Now suppose I bombard this sheet with sound waves from
> a cone speaker. What you seem to be saying is that it is impossible that
> only one of these balls be dislodged from the fabric at a time. Is that
> what you're saying Bob? Now suppose the tension on the balls occurs in
> only discrete amounts, then of course, on average you'll see the recoil
> energy of these balls vary closely around a fixed value.
>
> Now taking into consideration that the source of photons is other atoms
> with discrete energy levels, then you might just expect photoelectrons
> to have an energy corresponding to that of the incident waves, whether
> or not they absorb perhaps only a tiny portion of that wave's energy.
> IOW you have no proof other than proof of Einstein's ineptitude.
>
> Richard Perry
Figure out how your ideas allow the photoelectric effect to depend on the
frequency of the incident radiation and you may begin to get an inkling of
an idea why we know photons are particles
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric.html.
Bill
Bill Hobba
> these statements of yours into consideration. OTOH, they aren't a bit
> new to me. I'm not concerned about acing one of your exams, I posted
> here because I disagree with the very "questions".
>
> The classical approach to relativity reflected anything but the PoR, it
> couldn't have opposed it more. An electron doesn't have two fields to
> unify, it only has one field and that field doesn't contort nor is
> there shifting of forces of two fields that are superposed, simply
> because you took up a
> motion wrt the particle. It could care less what a frame of reference
> is, let alone which one you are in.
>
> You are free to disagree, and that's fine, we need engineers, but my
> observations will hit someone out there like a ton of bricks. It'll be a
> revelation for them that will forever bar them from being content with
> mainstream notions. I've seen it happen a few times already:)
>
> Richard Perry
I think the entries under Richard Perry are self explanatory -
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html.
Bill
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
>
> robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>>
>>
> contradicts the very premise that is the PoR.
No, it doesn't.
> If the laws of physics are independent of frames of reference,
Please notice that SR talks merely about *inertial* frames.
> then how
> can they not be independent of transformations as well, of "any" form?
They could be. But they aren't. Why should they?
> Think about that.
>
> The velocity of particle A along x minus the velocity of particle B
> along x gives the velocity of the particles wrt each other.
Obviously.
> This value is invariant (independent of your cognizance of it)
That is an unsupported assertion. Why should it be?
[snip more in the same vein]
> And BTW, photons are not particles.
Then what are they?
And why does the theory which describes them as particles (QED)
work so well?
> More of Einstein's stupidity.
I would guess: more of your inability to understand the arguments.
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
[snip]
> An electron doesn't have two fields to
> unify, it only has one field and that field doesn't contort nor is
> there shifting of forces of two fields that are superposed, simply
> because you took up a
> motion wrt the particle. It could care less what a frame of reference
> is, let alone which one you are in.
Well, then how do you explain synchrotron radiation?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
Bjoern Feuerbacher
>
>
> robert j. kolker wrote:
>
>>
>>
> by fine rubber bands into a sheet of rubber that is fluttering randomly
> in a mild breeze. Now suppose I bombard this sheet with sound waves from
> a cone speaker. What you seem to be saying is that it is impossible that
> only one of these balls be dislodged from the fabric at a time.
That would only be possible if the sound waves were collimated.
> Is that
> what you're saying Bob? Now suppose the tension on the balls occurs in
> only discrete amounts, then of course, on average you'll see the recoil
> energy of these balls vary closely around a fixed value.
How would that explain that the number of dislogded balls increases
with the amplitude of the sound wave, whereas the amount of dislodging
increases with the frequency of the sound wave?
> Now taking into consideration that the source of photons is other atoms
> with discrete energy levels,
Err, if you admit that photons come from discrete energy levels, then
this implies obviously that photons themselves can have only discrete
energies. It's quite easy to show then that they can also only have
discrete momenta. But what is the big difference between a photon and
a particle then???
> then you might just expect photoelectrons
> to have an energy corresponding to that of the incident waves,
What does that mean, specifically?
How does the energy of a photon "correspond" to that of the wave?
What do you even *mean* with "the energy of a wave"? At least for
plane waves, it makes only sense to talk about their energy *density*.
> whether
> or not they absorb perhaps only a tiny portion of that wave's energy.
> IOW you have no proof other than proof of Einstein's ineptitude.
Explain the points above before insulting Einstein.
Bye,
Bjoern
Gregory L. Hansen
RP <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And BTW, photons are not particles. More of Einstein's stupidity.
They're as much particles as electrons are.
The punch-line is that electrons are probably not the particles you think
they are. Excitations of the electromagnetic field, excitations of the
Dirac field-- it's all QFT. The photon propagator doesn't have the little
"m" in the bottom.
--
"I'm giving you the chance to look fate in those pretty eyes of hers
and say, 'Step off, bitch. This is my party and you're not invited.'"
-- Chris Shugart, _Testosterone Magazine_
Sam Wormley
>
> No photon ever laid a track in a bubble chamber.
Nor any of the many uncharged particles (fermions or bosons, of
which the photon happens to be one).
http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_print.html
Dirk Van de moortel
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:2p1mftF...@uni-berlin.de...
> other (source and detector). It's their speed relative to each other
> that determines the interaction, your observational frame of reference
> has nothing to do with it. If mankind and all his fancies were
> disintegrated, there would still be radiation.
Pissy Perry can explain everything
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TempForce.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimplyPut.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Counter.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AccelPerry.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LorentzPerry.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SRValid.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AAB.html
From First Principles, and...
Without So Much As A Howdy Doo:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/HowdyDoo.html
Dirk Vdm
robert j. kolker
RP wrote:
>
> I've read the literature, no particles emerged.
You missed some stuff. Photons exist and they are particle like.
Bob Kolker
Bill Hobba
Phase cohent phtonos are required for holgraphy.
> Explain laser theory in terms of these particles.
Einstein did this in 1917 - see
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bllaser.htm.
> Explain how an antenna can generate a photon "particle" of wavelength
> 200meters.
Because that is what theory predicts.
> Explain how this 360 front collapses instantly on a single absorbing
> electron in a detecting antenna.
That this occurs is an assumption of the theory. Some explanations have been
proposed eg see http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/2001/HPL-2001-7.pdf under
the heading of primary state diffusion.
>
> I've read the literature, no particles emerged.
So you claim the following, taken directly from the link I gave, does not
contain the word particles:
'Quite seriously. Based on Planck's work, Einstein proposed that light also
delivers its energy in chunks; light would then consist of little particles,
or quanta, called photons, each with an energy of Planck's constant times
its frequency.'
Increase your meds.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Nor do waves produce discrete counts in photon multiplier tubes.
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feue...@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cgesk7$ke1$4...@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
Then you would be correct - see
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html under
the heading of Richard Perry.
Thanks
Bill
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
Androcles
"Robert Karl Stonjek" <sto...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:EkuWc.4448$D7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| A Century of Einstein
| Scientific American has covered Einstein's theories--and the refinements
and
| reactions to them--ever since scientists began to grasp the import of his
| landmark 1905 papers. Read on for a sampling of our reports, some by
leading
| physicists of their times
| By Daniel C. Schlenoff
|
| It took several years for Scientific American, and mainstream physics for
| that matter, to start mulling over the radical proposals Albert Einstein
| expounded in 1905. His repudiation of the intuitive understanding of the
| cosmos was hard to accept:
|
| "In 1905, came a fundamental and (as the future historian will probably
say)
| an epoch-making contribution in the shape of an unassuming and dry-looking
| dissertation, 'Concerning the Electro-dynamics of Moving Bodies,' by A.
| Einstein, a Swiss professor of physics. It appeared in the Annalen der
| Physik, the German counterpart of our Philosophical Magazine. It created
no
| sensation at the time. It was hardly noticed. Yet, at the present time,
you
| cannot open a journal devoted to physics without finding some fresh
| contribution to the ever-increasing literature on the subject: Einstein's
| Principle of Relativity.
| --E. E. Fournier D'Albe"
| Scientific American Supplement,
| November 11, 1911
|
| "But is the 'Principle of Relativity' true? That is for experiment to
| decide. Its postulates have been and are now being pursued by the
relentless
| logic of mathematics, and they must stand or fall as the deductions thus
| reached agree or conflict with experimental evidence. Just now, however,
the
| 'Principle of Relativity' seems to be irresistibly fascinating to
| mathematicians, but equally abhorrent to that host of physicists who can
no
| more conceive of time as a function of velocity
Time is a function of velocity, and velocity is a function of time.
Something is seriously wrong with that.
Androcles
than they can imagine space
| to be curved or picture for themselves a fourth dimension."
| Scientific American,
| June 8, 1912
|
| From Scientific American
| http://cl.extm.us/?fe951d707365067971-fe2a1672776c0378751176
|
| --
| Posted by
| Robert Karl Stonjek
|
|
Tom Roberts
> The classical approach to relativity reflected anything but the PoR, it
> couldn't have opposed it more.
That is blatantly false. The PoR was introduced by Galileo, and expanded
by (IIRC) Newton, Huygens, and others (yes, 17-th century physicists).
Einstein "restored" the PoR to physics, he didn't introduce it.
Specifically, it was well known at the time (~1870-1905) that Maxwell's
equations were not Galilean invariant, but classical mechanics is[#].
This puzzled people considerably, and Einstein resolved it by showing
that mechanics is only APPROXIMATELY Galilean invariant, and that the
true symmetry group is the Lorentz group. So both mechanics and
electrodynamics are Lorentz invariant, and the PoR holds (in its new
incarnation).
[#] Galilean invariance is the mathematical way of expressing
the pre-relativity PoR.
> An electron doesn't have two fields to
> unify, it only has one field and that field doesn't contort nor is
> there shifting of forces of two fields that are superposed, simply
> because you took up a
> motion wrt the particle. It could care less what a frame of reference
> is, let alone which one you are in.
Sure. That is part and parcel of relativity. The "one field" of an
electron is, of course, the electromegnetic field, not either E or B
individually. And the field is completely independent of reference
frame, as you say.
What varies is the PROJECTION of the field onto the coordinate
basis of a reference frame. For the EM field projected onto
an inertial frame, this yields the familiar E and B 3-vectors.
> my
> observations will hit someone out there like a ton of bricks. It'll be a
> revelation for them [...]
I have no idea what you think is a "revelation" in your words -- this
has been known for almost a century.
> that will forever bar them from being content with
> mainstream notions.
Huh? This _IS_ "mainstream notions".
Because of your confusion here, I suspect you do not
understand the words you are using....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Mike
> RP wrote:
> > The classical approach to relativity reflected anything but the PoR, it
> > couldn't have opposed it more.
>
> That is blatantly false. The PoR was introduced by Galileo, and expanded
> by (IIRC) Newton, Huygens, and others (yes, 17-th century physicists).
> Einstein "restored" the PoR to physics, he didn't introduce it.
> Specifically, it was well known at the time (~1870-1905) that Maxwell's
> equations were not Galilean invariant, but classical mechanics is[#].
> This puzzled people considerably, and Einstein resolved it by showing
> that mechanics is only APPROXIMATELY Galilean invariant, and that the
> true symmetry group is the Lorentz group. So both mechanics and
> electrodynamics are Lorentz invariant, and the PoR holds (in its new
> incarnation).
>
> [#] Galilean invariance is the mathematical way of expressing
> the pre-relativity PoR.
>
The above statement is puzzling to say the least. Please provide a
reference where Newton refers to some PoR. Apparently, there are
several different version of PoR and different interpretations. You
omitted the most relevant one, Leibniz's version. That is the only
pure statement about a PoR that is based solely on empirical
observations and a spacetime that is a well-founded phenomenon.
Eintein's PoR is a superpositions of a metaphysical and an empirical
principle. The empirical is identical to Leibniz's. The metaphysical
(epistemological) principle states that all phenomena must have the
same interpretations in all moving FoR. That is not a PoR in the
classical mechanics sense any longer but more of a statement dealing
with invariants. There is where the confusion comes. That is why the
proper name of Special relativity is "theory of Invariances" as
Einstein initially called it but later Planck named relativity. When
the error was pointed out, Einstein said it was to late to change the
name.
The spacetime of SR (and of GR even more) is not a well-founded
phenomenon as it is a substantival one that fails verification,
exactly the same way Newtonian space+time does.
Let me put is another way: there are so many good books that explain
this stuff. All you have to do is read them. See for instance Sklar
"Space, Time and Spacetime" and Reichenbach "The Philosophy of Space &
Time" (read page 217 there). What is important is to stop misleading
people about the true context of the so called "Relativity Theory",
whether Special or General:
There is very little relativity in the self-pronounced Relativity
Theory.
Facts: (1) Minkowski spacetime is absolute in SR
(2) gravitational effects depend only on local mass-energy
distribution
in GR (failure to incorporate Mach's principle).
Thus, the only value of PoR is from ametaphysical perspective.
Furtheromore, it's real value and actual role in Relativity Theory is
questionable as long as the speed of light is postulated an invariant.
Mike
Androcles
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:9c1b39be.04082...@posting.google.com...
| Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:<cgi2pt$b...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
| > RP wrote:
| > > The classical approach to relativity reflected anything but the PoR,
it
| > > couldn't have opposed it more.
| >
| > That is blatantly false. The PoR was introduced by Galileo, and expanded
| > by (IIRC) Newton, Huygens, and others (yes, 17-th century physicists).
| > Einstein "restored" the PoR to physics, he didn't introduce it.
| > Specifically, it was well known at the time (~1870-1905) that Maxwell's
| > equations were not Galilean invariant, but classical mechanics is[#].
| > This puzzled people considerably, and Einstein resolved it by showing
| > that mechanics is only APPROXIMATELY Galilean invariant, and that the
| > true symmetry group is the Lorentz group. So both mechanics and
| > electrodynamics are Lorentz invariant, and the PoR holds (in its new
| > incarnation).
| >
| > [#] Galilean invariance is the mathematical way of expressing
| > the pre-relativity PoR.
| >
| [snip]
|
| The above statement is puzzling to say the least. Please provide a
| reference where Newton refers to some PoR.
Certainly.
II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external,
remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable
dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by
its position to bodies; and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space;
such is the dimension of a subterraneaneous, an æreal, or celestial space,
determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative
space, are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always
numerically the same. For if the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our
air, which relatively and in respect of the earth remains always the same,
will at one time be one part of the absolute space into which the air
passes; at another time it will be another part of the same, and so,
absolutely understood, it will be perpetually mutable.
(Principia)
It should be noted that the vector addition of velocities, c+v, is actually
used
in the derivation of the composition of velocities, c = (c+v)/(1+v/c). This
occurs in the equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
with the accompanying words:
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
This equation is in error, for the definition of x' is given as x' = x-vt.
It necessarily follows that at x = 0, 0' = 0-vt.
The following derivative (and all subsequent calculation) is founded upon
this blunder.
Androcles.
Dirk Van de moortel
> > RP wrote:
> > > The classical approach to relativity reflected anything but the PoR, it
> > > couldn't have opposed it more.
> >
> > That is blatantly false. The PoR was introduced by Galileo, and expanded
> > by (IIRC) Newton, Huygens, and others (yes, 17-th century physicists).
> > Einstein "restored" the PoR to physics, he didn't introduce it.
> > Specifically, it was well known at the time (~1870-1905) that Maxwell's
> > equations were not Galilean invariant, but classical mechanics is[#].
> > This puzzled people considerably, and Einstein resolved it by showing
> > that mechanics is only APPROXIMATELY Galilean invariant, and that the
> > true symmetry group is the Lorentz group. So both mechanics and
> > electrodynamics are Lorentz invariant, and the PoR holds (in its new
> > incarnation).
> >
> > [#] Galilean invariance is the mathematical way of expressing
> > the pre-relativity PoR.
> >
> [snip]
>
> The above statement is puzzling to say the least.
The least to Mike (from 10-Mar-2004 to now):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aeleatis%40yahoo.gr
or to Bill Smith (from 13-Dec-2003 to 13-Jan-2004):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Ano...@nospam.com+author%3Asmith+author%3Abill
or to Undeniable (from 17-Jul-2003 to 31-Dec-2003):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Aundeniablefact%40yahoo.com
?
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
>
> Richard Perry
Only to those without a clue who can not think. No one has been able to
produce a wave explanation where the particle properties such as individual
counts in a photon multiplier depends on frequency.
Bill
Bill Hobba
>
> Richard Perry
Anyone who peruses the link will see your wit/ignorance far outstrips mine.
Bill
Patrick Reany
[snip]
>
> The classical approach to relativity reflected anything but the PoR, it
> couldn't have opposed it more. An electron doesn't have two fields to
> unify, it only has one field and that field doesn't contort nor is
> there shifting of forces of two fields that are superposed, simply
> because you took up a
> motion wrt the particle. It could care less what a frame of reference
> is, let alone which one you are in.
Yes and no. The classical period underwent a great deal of evolution
in its attempt lay a foundation to deal with phenomena mechanically.
It began with Galileo, and then Newton made a basis for physics using
mechanics, which worked well until the nature of the electric and
magnetic forces (and light) were better known in the mid-19th century.
But it all started with the PoR in Galileo's work:
The following comes from Galileo's book Dialogue Concerning the Two
Chief World Systems, in which Galileo confronted the fixed-earth view
with a made-up dialog among three imaginary persons: Salvatori (who
represents to Copernican viewpoint), Sagredo (a foil for Salvatori),
and Simplicio (who defends the Ptolemaic theory). I'm using the
English translation of the book by Stillman
Drake, University Calif. Press, 1953. The book is laid out proceeding
by days.
First, I present Galileo setting up a frame of reference concept to
make distance measurements (pp. 12-13) from the First Day:
**** begin quote (p. 13) ***
SALV. Your choice and the reason you adduce for it seem to me most
excellent. So now we have it that the first dimension is determined by
a straight line; the second (namely, breadth) by another straight
line, and not only straight, but at right angles to that which
determines the length. Thus we have defined the two dimensions of a
surface; that is, length and breadth.
But suppose you had to determine a height -- for example, how high
this platform is from the pavement down below there. Seeing that from
any point in the platform we may draw infinite lines, curved or
straight, and all of different lengths, to the infinite points of the
pavement below, which of all these lines would you make use of?
[notice how that the meaning of these measurements is given
operationally]
SAGR. I would fasten a string to the platform and, by hanging a
plummet from it, would let it freely stretch till it reached very near
to the pavement; the length of such a string being the straightest and
shortest of all lines that could possibly be drawn from the same point
to the pavement, I would say that it was the true height in this case.
**** end quote ***
Next we go the Galilean Principle of Relativity, which can be stated
in the following form:
It is impossible to perform any "mechanical" experiment
within a frame of reference that can distinguish the
frame's motion as either "at rest" or inertially "moving."
The inclusion of the behavior of animals in Galileo's thought
experiment goes outside the realm of pure mechanics, yet is still not
dealing with optics per se. In it you will read of suggested
measurements that require the rigidity of a Euclidean frame. The
argument (in the form of thought experiments) is divided into two
parts: First, how the behavior of these animals and mechanical devices
are manifested while the ship is at rest ("standing still"), and
second, how the behavior of these things is identical relative to the
frame of the ship if the ship is in inertial motion. The conclusion is
that the inertial motion is not a means to affect the behavior of
these test subjects, and thus by reversing the argument, the
"absolute" inertial motion of the ship cannot be inferred from the
behavior of these test subjects. But all of this requires making
measurements within an inertial frame.
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - from The Second Day
pp. 186--188
**** begin quote ***
[SALV.] Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below
decks of some large ship, and have with you there some flies,
butterflies, and other small flying animals. Have a large bowl of
water with some fish in it; hang up a bottle that empties drop by drop
into a wide vessel beneath it. With the ship standing still, observe
carefully how the little animals fly with equal speed to all sides of
the cabin. The fish swim indifferently in all directions; the drops
fall into the vessel beneath; and, in throwing something to your
friend, you need throw it no more strongly in one direction than in
another, the distances being equal; jumping with your feet together,
you pass equal spaces in every direction. When you have observed all
these things carefully (though there is no doubt that when the ship is
standing still everything must happen in this way), have the ship
proceed with any speed you like, so long as the motion is uniform and
not fluctuating this way and that. You will discover not the least
change in all the effects named, nor could you tell from any of them
whether the ship was moving or standing still. In jumping, you will
pass on the floor the same spaces as before, nor will you larger jumps
towards the stern than toward the prow even though the ship is moving
quite rapidly, despite that fact that during the time that you are in
the air the floor under you will be going in a direction opposite to
your jump. In throwing something to your companion, you will need no
more force to get it to him whether he is in the direction of the bow
or the stern, with yourself situated opposite. The droplets will fall
as before into the vessel beneath without dropping toward the stern,
although while the drops are in the air the ship runs many spans. The
fish in their water will swim toward the front of their bowl with no
more effort than toward the back, and will go with equal ease to bait
placed anywhere around the edges of the bowl. Finally the butterflies
and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward every side,
nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the stern,
as if tired out from keeping with the course of the ship from which
they will have been separated during long intervals by keeping
themselves in the air. And if smoke is made by burning some incense,
it will be seen going up in the form of a little cloud, remaining
still and moving no more toward one side than the other. The cause of
all these correspondences of these effects is the fact that the ship's
motion is common to all the thing contained in it, and to the air
also. That is why I say you should be below decks; for if this took
place in the open air, which would not follow the course of the ship,
more or less noticeable differences would be seen in some of these
effects noted. No doubt the smoke would fall as much behind us as the
air itself. The flies likewise, and the butterflies, held back by the
air, would be unable to follow the ship's motion if they were
separated from it by a perceptible distance. By keeping themselves
near it, they would follow it without effort or hindrance; for the
ship, being an unbroken structure, carries with it a part of the
nearby air. For similar reason we sometimes, when riding horseback,
see persistent flies and horseflies following our horses, flying now
to one part of their bodies and now to another. But the difference
would be small as regards the following drops, as to the jumping and
the throwing it would be quite imperceptible.
[We can say in modern language that if there is such a thing as
absolute velocities, they don't seem to leave any behavioral markers
asociated to various inertial motions. The scientific description of
the behavior of systems is not affected by which frame one is in so
long as that frame is always inertial. The obvious kinematics in
Galileo's thought experiment, but when he said "In throwing something
to your companion, you will need no more force" he was talking
dynamics.]
[SAGR.] Although it did not occur to me to put these observations to
the test when I was voyaging, I am sure that they would take place in
the way you describe. In confirmation of this I remember having often
found myself in my cabin wondering whether the ship was moving or
standing still; and sometimes at a whim I have supposed it going one
way when its motion was the opposite. Still, I am satisfied so far,
and convinced of the worthlessness of all experiments brought forth to
prove the negative rather than the affirmative side as to the rotation
of the earth.
**** end quote ***
When Newton took a look at Galileo's claims above he must have decided
to drop reference to biology and just keep the discussion to
experiments of mechanics, and on that he developed his mechanics. The
PoR can be stated most closely to experimental work in this form:
It is impossible to perform a mechanical experiment made
in an inertial frame of reference that can unequivocally
ascertain the frame's supposed absolute velocity "through"
space.
So, Einstein, thinking on this and pondering how he would generalize
Newton's mechanics to incorporate electrodynamics, must have
generalized the setting of Galileo's thought experiment above to
include light phenomena. At which time he got the intuitive
realization at age 16 that:
It is impossible to perform a mechanical/optical experiment
made in an inertial frame of reference that can unequivocally
ascertain the frame's supposed absolute velocity "through"
space.
> You are free to disagree, and that's fine, we need engineers, but my
> observations will hit someone out there like a ton of bricks.
I've seen it hit them too. All of them victims of our lousy science
education in the West.
> It'll be a
> revelation for them that will forever bar them from being content with
> mainstream notions.
I'm not for entrenched dogma either, but reasons for rejecting dogma
should be rational and not pure demogoguery. Don't you agree?
> I've seen it happen a few times already:)
>
> Richard Perry
All your comments prove is the poor state of science education in the
West. In short, A Century of Einstein began with 3 centuries of
Galileo and Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, Poisson and Mach, Hertz and
Lorentz. What Maxwell and Lorentz took away from Galileo-Newton in
terms of the PoR, Einstein brought back in SR using logical economy.
Patrick
Bill Hobba
No it is not - it is a principle fully subject to experimental investigation
and perhaps refutation. Your previous writings show you believe it to
contain a number of parts some of which are metaphysical. It does not any
more than any other principle or law - although it is often expressed in
slightly different ways such as the same experiment will give the same
results. Tom has pointed out it is best to use the wording Einstein himself
used:
'They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid
for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called
the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also
introduce another postulate'
In modern times it is extended to all laws of physics not just mechanics,
optics and EM.
It is in fact a meta law - a law about laws. But there is nothing any more
mysterious or metaphysical that any other law or principle of physics
(caveat people like Steve Carlip have expressed concern - that I agree
with - about the use of the world law in physics but that is another issue).
> The empirical is identical to Leibniz's. The metaphysical
> (epistemological) principle states that all phenomena must have the
> same interpretations in all moving FoR. That is not a PoR in the
> classical mechanics sense any longer but more of a statement dealing
> with invariants. There is where the confusion comes. That is why the
> proper name of Special relativity is "theory of Invariances" as
> Einstein initially called it but later Planck named relativity. When
> the error was pointed out, Einstein said it was to late to change the
> name.
SR is really a theory of symmetry and since symmetry is intimately connected
with invarience a theory of invariance's in probably a better name.
>
> The spacetime of SR (and of GR even more) is not a well-founded
> phenomenon as it is a substantival one that fails verification,
> exactly the same way Newtonian space+time does.
Bunkum. The POR of SR is falsifiable and is thus a valid basis of a
theory - in fact it and some very reasonable other assumptions are all that
is required to derive the Lorentz transforms up to an undetermined constant.
I have posted the links to such a derivation many times; Tom Roberts has
posted his own derivation. The principle of general covariance from GR
however is another matter - Krietchmann made Einstein recant on that but the
other parts of GR such as the equivalence principle (in its various forms)
are fully subject to experimental investigation and in fact have been
investigated.
>
> Let me put is another way: there are so many good books that explain
> this stuff. All you have to do is read them. See for instance Sklar
> "Space, Time and Spacetime" and Reichenbach "The Philosophy of Space &
> Time" (read page 217 there). What is important is to stop misleading
> people about the true context of the so called "Relativity Theory",
> whether Special or General:
>
> There is very little relativity in the self-pronounced Relativity
> Theory.
>
> Facts: (1) Minkowski spacetime is absolute in SR
> (2) gravitational effects depend only on local mass-energy
> distribution
> in GR (failure to incorporate Mach's principle).
>
> Thus, the only value of PoR is from ametaphysical perspective.
> Furtheromore, it's real value and actual role in Relativity Theory is
> questionable as long as the speed of light is postulated an invariant.
First learn about physics from physicits not philosphers who sometimes
demonstate a lack of understanding - athough Hans Reichenbach is known as
reliable. So if you are using him as the source of your cliams it would not
be unresonable to actually cite or even better quote him. For example
http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reichenb.htm:
'Reichenbach asserts (in The philosophy of space and time) that the reality
of space and time is an unquestionable result of the epistemological
analysis of the theory of relativity. With respect to the problem of
reality, space and time are not different from the other physical concepts.
But the reality of space and time does not imply the concept of an absolute
space and time. Space and time are relational concepts and we can study
their properties because of the existence of physical objects, eg clocks,
that realize relationships between space-time entities. Reichenbach also
emphasizes the causal theory of space and time: causality is the basis of
both philosophical and physical theory of space and time.'
How the above fits in with your view is unclear eg your statement 'The
spacetime of SR (and of GR even more) is not a well-founded phenomenon as it
is a substantival one that fails verification' Certainly the POR implies
nature is governed by laws that are knowable. If that is the metaphysical
principle you are doubting then all I have to say is science is probably not
for you - stick to philosophy. Or is it casualty? But that is a standard
assumption of classical physics only called into question in QM so the same
comment applies.
That the POR is only a metaphysical principle would be news to all those who
have subjected to experimental investigation
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html. eg the
classic Trouton and Noble experiment looked for a torque induced on a
charged capacitor due to its motion through the ether. If such was found it
would have violated the POR outright. Simply measure the torque produced on
a charged capacitor in an inertial frame and you can tell the difference
between inertial frames in violation of the POR. People are sometimes
confused about what is meant by the laws of physics being the same in all
inertial frames - it is not meant to be a definition of a law where we say
if an experiment gives different results then it is not a law - it is meant
to say that the same experiment will give the same results since they are
governed by the same laws. Thus a positive result of the Trouton and Noble
experiment would mean the laws of EM are different in different inertial
frames.
Finally the POR is not only central to SR it is central to classical
mechanics as well which you would discover if you read a good text on such
eg Landau - Mechanics. The symmetries of the POR is what leads the
conservation laws - which is in itself further experimental support.
Bill
>
> Mike
Bill Hobba
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:Fd7Xc.225637$oI3.10...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
What get me Dirk is his constant referral to philosophers to back up his
views and when you actually look at what those philosophers say it is
nothing like his views - sad really.
Thanks
Bill
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<cgi2pt$b...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
>>by (IIRC) Newton, Huygens, and others (yes, 17-th century physicists).
>>
>> [#] Galilean invariance is the mathematical way of expressing
>> the pre-relativity PoR.
>
Not to a physicist.
> Please provide a
> reference where Newton refers to some PoR.
I am not a historian. That's why I put that "IIRC" in there.
If Newton himself did not mention the PoR, that is of little concern to
me -- Newtonian mechanics certainly obeys it, and that's what is
important in physics.
> Apparently, there are
> several different version of PoR and different interpretations.
Certainly. That's what history is.
> Eintein's PoR is a superpositions of a metaphysical and an empirical
> principle.
Hmmm. To a physicist it is a concise and quite precise statement of a
postulate of his theory. Though in some sense it is a meta-principle
that applies to all (local) theories of physics....
> Facts: (1) Minkowski spacetime is absolute in SR
Sure, for at least the relevant meanings of "absolute". So what? In all
previous theories of physics Euclidean space was also "absolute".
> (2) gravitational effects depend only on local mass-energy
> distribution in GR (failure to incorporate Mach's principle).
That is not true. In GR, an object (like the earth) 93 million miles
away feels the gravitational effects of the sun.
Yes, GR does not include Mach's principle, and retains only a distant
echo of it. Again: so what? -- Mach's principle is most definitely not
some God-given foundation of theoretical physics. The founding
principles of GR sweem MUCH more compelling than does Mach's principle
(whatever that means, as he gave numerous different statements of his
"principle").
> Thus, the only value of PoR is from a metaphysical perspective.
Not at all. It's primary value is as a foundation of SR. And as a
lead-in to the invariances of the theory -- i.e. as a meta-principle
applying to all (local) theories....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
robert j. kolker
Mike wrote:
> Thus, the only value of PoR is from ametaphysical perspective.
> Furtheromore, it's real value and actual role in Relativity Theory is
> questionable as long as the speed of light is postulated an invariant.
The constant speed of light (in vacuo) is an established experimental fact.
Bob Kolker
Androcles
"robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2p4p0oF...@uni-berlin.de...
The constant whining of half-truths by Kolker is an established
experimental fact, because Kolker quite deliberately omits to say :
The constant speed of light relative to the source (in vacuo) is an
established experimental fact, but nobody had ever once conducted an
experiment to measure the speed of light when the source was moving (in
vacuo).
Anyone that says otherwise is a damned liar.
Anyone that attempts inference by half-truth isn't much better.
Androcles
Bill Hobba
> now as it has ever been. "We couldn't figure it out, therefore it cannot
> be figured out." Idiot.
Richard, with respect, people have read what I have said, they have read
your drivel and can make up their own minds. The dearth of people potting
to agree with you speaks volumes. Idiot.
>
> You're making an invalid assumption the then number of clicks equals the
> number of emitted photons. Please tell me you counted the photons. How
> did you do that Bill? By counting the number of clicks? Isn't that a bit
> circular Bill?
>
> Isn't the reality that if every photon absorbed in the detector is
> accompanied by one click, and if some of the emitted photons are
> absorbed outside of the detector, that the number of clicks cannot
> possibly reflect the total number of photons emitted from the source?
>
> Now take this into consideration, the atom are being actively pumped by
> internal thermal activity. Thus, there will be an occasional click even
> without an external light source present. The very components of the
> detector are emitting photons of all colors. Now if you've devised some
> method of directly counting these photons, and those of the source, then
> I'm saying you couldn't be more incorrect in maintaining the logical
> validity of your stance.
>
> If a monochromatic source impinges on the metal surface, above a given
> frequency, then photoelectrons are emitted. Now keep in mind that there
> are already electrons evaporating out of and diving back into the
> surface, thus the light only increases their numbers, and their
> energies. Now take into consideration the work function. What is the
> work function other than the energy required to remove the electrons
> from the surface "on average".
>
> If therefore, the energy of the emitted photons impinging on the surface
> is to be conserved, then the energy of the electrons ejected must
> reflect conservation of energy. We can take the number of electrons
> ejected per second, multiply this by the work function per electron,
> subtract this from the incident light energy and we get the average left
> over KE per electron. Simple conservation of energy. Now here again you
> are going to say, but there is one electron emitted per photon
> impinging. Bullshit Bill.
>
> This part is the easy part of explaining the effect in terms of waves.
> The difficult part is explaining why the effect ceases below a given
> frequency. I've explained this before, to wit, the electron must be
> oscillated in phase with its preexisting motion, i.e. it must absorb
> energy from the local changing field. Think in terms of the dipole
> antenna. If two such antennae are radiating out of phase such that the
> passing wave emitted by antenna 1 is out of phase with the preexisting
> electron motion in antenna 2, then not only will the electrons not gain
> energy from that interaction, but will lose energy, thus amplifying the
> wave wrt downstream detectors. Why is it that you cannot make the
> connection that electrons within atoms are the same electrons in these
> antennae? Won't they both always react to changing ambient fields? Will
> the electron within the atom follow different laws of physics than the
> electron in the antenna? On what basis do you claim that these electrons
> obey different rules?
>
> The adept among you will have already seen where this is going, so
> without further ado:
> The atomic electrons, by virtue of their chaotic motions within the
> metal, will either gain energy or lose energy in their interaction with
> the current local changing field. The light source in addition to
> increasing the skin temperature of the metal by acceleration of
> electrons that weren't ejected, will on occasion interact constructively
> with the locally generated fields and given the phase of motion of an
> electron in that node, it will gain sufficient energy to escape the
> surface. Thus the metal consists of oscillators in random phases, and
> of random energies. The probabilities that Feyman spoke of are real, but
> they aren't the probabilities of photons landing on electrons, but
> rather of electrons being ganged up on by several sources (waves).
>
> If I can clarify specifics of this argument for you, then ask, I'll do
> my best.
>
> Richard Perry
Patrick Reany
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> > RP <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<2ovnhcF...@uni-berlin.de>...
> >
[snip]
> > All your comments prove is the poor state of science education in the
> > West. In short, A Century of Einstein began with 3 centuries of
> > Galileo and Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, Poisson and Mach, Hertz and
> > Lorentz. What Maxwell and Lorentz took away from Galileo-Newton in
> > terms of the PoR, Einstein brought back in SR using logical economy.
> >
> > Patrick
>
> It sounded good Patrick, you almost convinced even me.
> Now here's one you haven't heard before. As you know, as an observer is
> accelerated toward some distant galaxy to a relativistic speed wrt
> Earth, then that galaxy ceases to be as distant wrt that observer. Thus
> the reason that he can get there within his lifetime if he's moving fast
> enough.
[snip]
My only goal was to deal with your statement about the PoR in
classical physics.
> You've proven only the failure of the world's educational systems.
I feel more comfortable restricting my own condemnation of science
education in the West, which I know something about.
Every class and book in Newton's mechanics should deal with
1) the PoR as Galileo did,
2) reference frames,
3) operational definitions,
4) the modeling rules of his mechanics,
5) Newton's use of an absolute acceleration space,
6) Weakness of the definition of inertial frame,
7) Weakness of action-at-a-distance.
Patrick
Mike
>
> That the POR is only a metaphysical principle would be news to all those who
> have subjected to experimental investigation...
[snip]
PoR is a superposition of two principles: one empirical and one
epistemological. What do you think the equation:
empirical+metaphysical gives as a result?
It's maybe news to you and some buddies of yours but not news to me.
You should know better. I gave you a page reference. Read it to get
illuminated.
>
> Finally the POR is not only central to SR it is central to classical
> mechanics as well which you would discover if you read a good text on such
> eg Landau - Mechanics. The symmetries of the POR is what leads the
> conservation laws - which is in itself further experimental support
Misleading again and again? Classical mechanics PoR has nothing to do
with Relativity PoR. In classical mechanics ficticious forces are
required to apply laws of motion in non-inertial reference frames. You
should know better.
You get a D- for now with an opportunity to come back for a re-test
next semester.
Mike
>
> Bill
>
>
> >
> > Mike
Mike
> Mike wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<cgi2pt$b...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
> >>The PoR was introduced by Galileo, and expanded
> >>by (IIRC) Newton, Huygens, and others (yes, 17-th century physicists).
> >>[...]
> >>
> >> [#] Galilean invariance is the mathematical way of expressing
> >> the pre-relativity PoR.
> >
> > The above statement is puzzling to say the least.
>
> Not to a physicist.
>
> > Please provide a
> > reference where Newton refers to some PoR.
>
> I am not a historian. That's why I put that "IIRC" in there.
>
> If Newton himself did not mention the PoR, that is of little concern to
> me -- Newtonian mechanics certainly obeys it, and that's what is
> important in physics.
>
If it's of not concern to you maybe it would be better to refrain from
any references to that.
>
> > Apparently, there are
> > several different version of PoR and different interpretations.
>
> Certainly. That's what history is.
Science not history, we are not in a civil court here. Playing with
words is meaningless.
>
>
> > Eintein's PoR is a superpositions of a metaphysical and an empirical
> > principle.
>
> Hmmm. To a physicist it is a concise and quite precise statement of a
> postulate of his theory. Though in some sense it is a meta-principle
> that applies to all (local) theories of physics....
>
Tell me (and Mr. Bill Hobba) how you can falsify the principle that
all physical phenomena must have the same interpretation in all
reference frames. Just describe an experiment to me.
I bey tou cannot. That is an epistemological principle. For now, like
the rest, you get a C+ with an option to improve your grade next
semester. The passing grade is because you are a gentleman in your
replies and you have a superb knowledge of the relativity, unlike the
others in here who pretend to. But math and resulting heuristis are
not enough to claim the status of physical laws.
>
> > Facts: (1) Minkowski spacetime is absolute in SR
>
> Sure, for at least the relevant meanings of "absolute". So what? In all
> previous theories of physics Euclidean space was also "absolute".
>
>
> > (2) gravitational effects depend only on local mass-energy
> > distribution in GR (failure to incorporate Mach's principle).
>
> That is not true. In GR, an object (like the earth) 93 million miles
> away feels the gravitational effects of the sun.
That's pretty local to me given the current estimate of the size of
the universe.
>
> Yes, GR does not include Mach's principle, and retains only a distant
> echo of it. Again: so what? -- Mach's principle is most definitely not
> some God-given foundation of theoretical physics. The founding
> principles of GR sweem MUCH more compelling than does Mach's principle
> (whatever that means, as he gave numerous different statements of his
> "principle").
>
>
> > Thus, the only value of PoR is from a metaphysical perspective.
>
> Not at all. It's primary value is as a foundation of SR. And as a
> lead-in to the invariances of the theory -- i.e. as a meta-principle
> applying to all (local) theories....
>
You can have an infinite number of compensatory theories based on the
PoR that produce exactly the same experimental results as SR. I would
like to request that you answer the following multiple choice
question:
A. The earth revolves around the sun
B. The sun revolves around the earth
C. Both A and B
D. None of the above
After you give your answer, please provide an experiment to serve as
the basis of falsification.
Mike
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Mike
By this statement you assert that Newton adopts the PoR? On the
contrary. it appears to deny it. Why don't you try to understand what
he is saying before you blunder like that. Newton had a fierce debate
with those that thought that any version of PoR can serve as a
principle of mechanics. For Newton, motion makes sense only in
reference to an absolute space, as he tried to demonstrate with his
bucket experiment. All motion is absolute for Newton and thus the
specetime account he proposed was substantival.
Androcles: F
Mike
Mike
Invariance is not. Did I talk about constancy?
Mike
Mike
You think so. I gave you a page reference. If you spend less time
answering every single post in these ng's and you read a bit maybe you
will be in a better position to judge.
What is "sad really" is your half-knowing of the facts.
Mike
Mike
Urinating in public again Dirk? Poor kid, he is still learning the
definition of square root.
Mike
Androcles
You are merely being being argumentative and pompous. Newton is establishing
a frame of reference that he refers to as absolute. That is no different to
Einstein's "stationary frame". That a pedulum swings or a gyroscope spins
in Newton's absolute frame of reference is undeniable, and that is what he
is saying. Obviously the origin of Newton's frame can be translated or
rotated at will, given two arbitrary reference points to determine the
origin and direction of an X-axis.
Newton had a fierce debate
| with those that thought that any version of PoR can serve as a
| principle of mechanics. For Newton, motion makes sense only in
| reference to an absolute space, as he tried to demonstrate with his
| bucket experiment. All motion is absolute for Newton and thus the
| specetime account he proposed was substantival.
|
| Androcles: F
|
| Mike
I care not one jot for you grading, sir. I would have Newton as my mentor
before I would ever listen to the trivia you represent, or the
holier-than-thou attitude you portray by attempting such a childish ploy.
You're attempt at bombast betrays your pretentiousness.
Androcles.
Androcles
consider an immoortel fumble by Dirac...
"John Baez" <ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu> wrote in message
news:cgfutp$29l$1...@glue.ucr.edu...
| In article <2p14aaF...@uni-berlin.de>, Satya Das <sr...@adobe.com>
wrote:
|
| >"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
| >message news:oTHWc.21280$L94.4242@fed1read07...
|
| >> Dear Satya Das:
|
| >> "Satya Das" <sr...@adobe.com> wrote in message
| >> news:2p0qsgF...@uni-berlin.de...
|
| >> > If the mass equals energy divided by square of speed of light and
when
| >> > negative energy is possible then doesn't it seem that negative mass
is
| >> > inevitable?
|
| >> Actually, the correct formula is:
| >> (E)^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
| >>
| >> Negative energy is a possibility, even with positive mass.
|
| It's a theoretical possibility, and historically it was very important,
| but there are good reasons for avoiding it.
|
| >for the object at rest it is E = mc^2. Then the mass must be negative if
| >total energy of the object is negative.
|
| From the formula above it's really E^2 = m^2c^4. You can take
| the square root, and at this stage most people choose the positive
| square root and get E = mc^2. If you chose the negative square root,
| you'd get E = -mc^2. Dirac did this when creating his theory of
| the electron. He then treated positrons as "holes" in a "sea" of
| negative-energy electron states. But, eventually it turned out to
| be wiser to treat positrons directly as positive-energy particles.
Androcles
Bill Hobba
As posted in another part of this thread - see
http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reichenb.htm:
'Reichenbach asserts (in The philosophy of space and time) that the reality
of space and time is an unquestionable result of the epistemological
analysis of the theory of relativity. With respect to the problem of
reality, space and time are not different from the other physical concepts.
But the reality of space and time does not imply the concept of an absolute
space and time. Space and time are relational concepts and we can study
their properties because of the existence of physical objects, eg clocks,
that realize relationships between space-time entities. Reichenbach also
emphasizes the causal theory of space and time: causality is the basis of
both philosophical and physical theory of space and time.'
How the above fits in with your view is unclear eg your statement 'The
spacetime of SR (and of GR even more) is not a well-founded phenomenon as it
is a substantival one that fails verification'
I think it is obvious who needs to spend more time getting their fact
correct and reading books by physicists - not philosophers.
Bill
>
> Mike
Bill Hobba
news:<8b9Xc.7362$D7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
> >
> > That the POR is only a metaphysical principle would be news to all those
who
> > have subjected to experimental investigation...
>
> [snip]
>
> PoR is a superposition of two principles: one empirical and one
> epistemological. What do you think the equation:
> empirical+metaphysical gives as a result?
Nonsence written by someone ignorant of what an equation is.
>
> It's maybe news to you and some buddies of yours but not news to me.
> You should know better. I gave you a page reference. Read it to get
> illuminated.
I gave a link to a site on Hans Reichenbach that suggests otherwise.
>
> >
> > Finally the POR is not only central to SR it is central to classical
> > mechanics as well which you would discover if you read a good text on
such
> > eg Landau - Mechanics. The symmetries of the POR is what leads the
> > conservation laws - which is in itself further experimental support
>
>
> Misleading again and again? Classical mechanics PoR has nothing to do
> with Relativity PoR.
The statement of an obvious physics illiterate dolt.
> In classical mechanics ficticious forces are
> required to apply laws of motion in non-inertial reference frames. You
> should know better.
The POR of classical mechanics says the laws of mechanics are the same in
all inertial reference frames - Landau - Mechanics - page 6. The POR of
relativity says all the laws of nature are the same in all inertial
reference frames - numerous references exist eg
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Einstein/pr.relativity.html. Your
statement above suggests your wish to extend the POR beyond inertial frames
to cover general coordinate systems - such can not be done - see chapter 7
Gravitation and Space-time by Ohanian and Ruffini or the following link for
you philosophy types
http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Einstein/generalcovar.html.
>
> You get a D- for now with an opportunity to come back for a re-test
> next semester.
>
At least I study physics - not misinterpret philosophy.
Bill
>
> Mike
>
>
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Mike
Bill Hobba
I gave the answer in my reply and a link that discusses such -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html. The
POR says the laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference frames.
Thus if we do an experiment in one frame and deduce a law of nature from
that then do the same experiment in another frame the same law must apply.
A positive result on the Trouton and Noble experiment for example would have
falsified it. You have been posting the same rubbish for ages and been
given exactly the same answers.
>
> I bey tou cannot. That is an epistemological principle. For now, like
> the rest, you get a C+ with an option to improve your grade next
> semester. The passing grade is because you are a gentleman in your
> replies and you have a superb knowledge of the relativity, unlike the
> others in here who pretend to. But math and resulting heuristis are
> not enough to claim the status of physical laws.
Spend you time studying physics by physicists instead of assigning grades to
people whose knowledge of physics far surpasses your own (and mine as well).
BTW Tom is a gentleman, and a very tolerant one at that, - how he does it I
do not know - but that he is one is without doubt.
Bill
Bill Hobba
BTW I want to add of course the statement 'all physical phenomena must have
the same interpretation in all reference frames' can not be falsified but
then again that is not the POR which says - the laws of physics are the same
in all inertial reference frames. For GR we have the principle of general
covariance which says something different again as the links I have
previously posted attest. But straw man arguments are nothing new around
here - it is a standard tactic and one Mike or whoever he decides to call
himself has been using for ages.
Bill
ZZBunker
> RP wrote:
>
> >
> > And BTW, photons are not particles. More of Einstein's stupidity.
>
> The existence of photons has been established experimentally. See for
> example: P.Grangier, G. Roger and A. Aspect; Experimental Evidence for a
> photon anti-correlation effect on a beam splitter; Europhys Lett vol 1
> pp 173-179 (1986).
>
> For the background read -The Quantum Challange- by George Greenstein,
> Arhtur G. Zajonc Chapter 2.
>
> They are particles. When they hit a photo plate they make a small dot
> indicating their localized nature. Waves would not do that. Furthermore
> waves cannot explain the photo electric effect within the classical
> Maxwellian electrodynamics.
Photons only exist in the crap called QED.
Hence they are not automatically not partcles.
All a dot on a plate proves is that whatever hit
it had momentum, it doesn't prove anything
about particles or waves.
> Einstein's 1905 paper on the photo electric effect (the one for which
> he won the Nobel Prize) shows that waves are not sufficient to explain
> the effect. Millikan's experiments backed up Einstein's analysis
> completely.
But that's also the paper that Einstein invented
the retarded idea that light has something to do
with solid-state physics, which is not only stupid,
it's chemistry.
As DeBroglie later showed in his Nobel Prize,
that ain't the way photons work.
Mike
[snip]
>
> I gave the answer in my reply and a link that discusses such -
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html.
Since when you're referencing cranks?
> The
> POR says the laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference frames.
Which PoR are you talking about? If Newtonian you are correct. Not
Einstein's though. This is the one we are talking about here. Red
herring again?
> Thus if we do an experiment in one frame and deduce a law of nature from
> that then do the same experiment in another frame the same law must apply.
You must first prove that these are indeed two different frames. You
simply cannot. Furthermore, even is they are, you cannot prove there
is no other agent present that covariances the two for your
observational shake.
> A positive result on the Trouton and Noble experiment for example would have
> falsified it. You have been posting the same rubbish for ages and been
> given exactly the same answers.
>
You looked at a crow and decided all crows are black. Nice, but you
expose yourself.
You are the one who posts rubbish and you should be ashamed of
yourself. You cannot falsify epistemology. Metaphysics cannot be
falsified. You want to sound stupid all the time?
You are in a state of confusion. You confuse experiments that indicate
the aether is not required in calculations with those that in your
mind can falsify PoR. You are hopeless.
[snip irrelevant junk]
Mike
Mike
[snip]
Tell me if the word "inertial" has the same meaning in classical
mechanics and relativity in terms of the form of the laws of nature
that can be supported and associated spacetime structure.
As it turns out, geodesic motion is inertial motion in GR. In
classical mechanics gravitational free-fall is a non-inertial motion.
By using the PoE Einstein transformed the classical PoR to one that is
valid only in local coordinate systems. Two choices:
A. Globally inertial coordinate systems + ficticious forces
(Classical)
B. Locally inertial coordinate systems with general covariance of laws
(GR)
Forget about SR, that's a joke to serious physicists by now.
General PoR was supposed to act as a principle for the choice of B
over A. It failed since PoR and covariance are incompatible for a
general choice of FoR.
Result: GR a failure.
Conclusion: you don;t know what you're talking about.
Side story: People are intentionally misled of what GR and SR is all
about and about which are the true postulates of these theories.
Mike
robert j. kolker
ZZBunker wrote:
> Photons only exist in the crap called QED.
> Hence they are not automatically not partcles.
That crap produces correct predictions to thirteen decimal places. Some
crap. It has never once been experimentally falsified.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
Mike wrote:
> Result: GR a failure.
It has yet to be experimentally falsifed. Some failure. I demand you
return your GPS receiver to the sporting goods store where you bought it.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <andr...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:ZqtXc.1415$VT6.16...@news-text.cableinet.net...
[snip]
> I care not one jot for you grading, sir. I would have Newton as my mentor
He would throw you out before you could say Phhooeey:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SoundSource.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PureNonsense.html
Dirk Vdm
robert j. kolker
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> He would throw you out before you could say Phhooeey:
Bloody right. Newton, of all people, did not suffer fools gladly.
Bob Kolker
Bill Hobba
It has exactly the same meaning. The difference has to do with the theories
attitude to time. From the POR alone the Lorentz transformations result up
to an undetermined constant - see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. If
we assume time is invariant that constant must be infinity and the Galilean
transformations result - this is the specific assumption of classical
mechanics which we know to be incorrect - experiment shows that constant to
be the speed of light. However due to its large value for many practical
purposes it can be taken as infinity and the Galilean transformations
result. Such is the domain of classical mechanics.
>
> As it turns out, geodesic motion is inertial motion in GR.
>
That comes from the principle of maximal time.
> In
> classical mechanics gravitational free-fall is a non-inertial motion.
>
Bunkum - the prnciple of equivilance applies just as much in classical
mechancis as GR.
> By using the PoE Einstein transformed the classical PoR to one that is
> valid only in local coordinate systems. Two choices:
>
> A. Globally inertial coordinate systems + ficticious forces
> (Classical)
> B. Locally inertial coordinate systems with general covariance of laws
> (GR)
What has the principle of general covariance to do with the POR which
applies only to inertial frames? Indeed what you have written above is so
ill expressed it is doubtful if anyone other than yourself knows what you
mean.
>
> Forget about SR, that's a joke to serious physicists by now.
>
Yea right - a theory valid for inertial frames is a joke, a theory that when
combined with QM leads to QFT and QED, the most actually verified physical
theory of all time is a joke. You obviously have no idea what your talking
about.
>
> General PoR was supposed to act as a principle for the choice of B
> over A. It failed since PoR and covariance are incompatible for a
> general choice of FoR.
>
There is no such thing as the General POR in the same sense as SR - it is
easy to experimentally distinguish non inertial frames from inertial ones.
The principle of GR is the principle of general covariance which says the
laws of nature should be put in covariant form. It applies just as much to
SR as GR. It however has no physical content as Krietchmann pointed out to
Einstein and Einstein agreed. The physical content of GR lies in the
meaning of the terms when an equation is written in covariant form - they
can be divided into absolute and dynamical terms. This means the metric is
a dynamical variable and the EFE's follow. The true meaning of GR is no
prior geometry.
>
> Result: GR a failure.
>
> Conclusion: you don;t know what you're talking about.
>
Yea right. I suggest those that actually check my references and links will
reach a different conclusion.
>
> Side story: People are intentionally misled of what GR and SR is all
> about and about which are the true postulates of these theories.
>
The only people that would be mislead is those that who believe rubbish such
as the above.
Bill
Bill Hobba
news:<9muXc.9096$D7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
>
> [snip]
> >
> > I gave the answer in my reply and a link that discusses such -
> > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html.
>
> Since when you're referencing cranks?
>
> > The
> > POR says the laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference
frames.
>
>
> Which PoR are you talking about? If Newtonian you are correct. Not
> Einstein's though. This is the one we are talking about here. Red
> herring again?
The POR stands for the Principle of Relativity which says the laws of
physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. It is standard
terminology.
>
>
> > Thus if we do an experiment in one frame and deduce a law of nature from
> > that then do the same experiment in another frame the same law must
apply.
>
> You must first prove that these are indeed two different frames.
An inertial frame is defined as one in which free particles move with
constant velocity. Obviously a frame moving at constant velocity wrt an
inertial one also has free particles moving at constant velocity so is also
inertial. That you would even formulate such an idiotic question indicates
you lack grounding in basic physics.
> You
> simply cannot. Furthermore, even is they are, you cannot prove there
> is no other agent present that covariances the two for your
> observational shake.
>
> > A positive result on the Trouton and Noble experiment for example would
have
> > falsified it. You have been posting the same rubbish for ages and been
> > given exactly the same answers.
> >
>
> You looked at a crow and decided all crows are black. Nice, but you
> expose yourself.
>
> You are the one who posts rubbish and you should be ashamed of
> yourself. You cannot falsify epistemology. Metaphysics cannot be
> falsified. You want to sound stupid all the time?
>
> You are in a state of confusion. You confuse experiments that indicate
> the aether is not required in calculations with those that in your
> mind can falsify PoR. You are hopeless.
>
> [snip irrelevant junk]
What a load of incoherent junk.
Bill
>
> Mike
Mike
[snip]
> You are merely being being argumentative and pompous. Newton is establishing
> a frame of reference that he refers to as absolute. That is no different to
> Einstein's "stationary frame". That a pedulum swings or a gyroscope spins
> in Newton's absolute frame of reference is undeniable, and that is what he
> is saying. Obviously the origin of Newton's frame can be translated or
> rotated at will, given two arbitrary reference points to determine the
> origin and direction of an X-axis.
>
You are stupid. You have no concept of what the substantival (look it
up) spacetime of Newton means. You interpret Newton comments exactly
the other way. Newton denies the PoR as the basis for a theory of
mechanics but his argument stands in support of the application of his
laws using relative positions and velocities. If the PoR holds stupid,
the case Newton made for the Copernican system is invalid. Either
Newton was stupid or you are an idiot. I go for the later. You are a
known crank in these ng's.
Study the bucket experiment and understand why is it for Newton that
all phenomena cannot have the same interpretation in all moving
reference frames unless motion is only in reference to an absolute
space. You came here to say that this and PoR aee compatible. You are
just stupid:
Newton's PoR + absolute space <----> Einstein's PoR + globally
inertial frames
>
> Newton had a fierce debate
> | with those that thought that any version of PoR can serve as a
> | principle of mechanics. For Newton, motion makes sense only in
> | reference to an absolute space, as he tried to demonstrate with his
> | bucket experiment. All motion is absolute for Newton and thus the
> | specetime account he proposed was substantival.
> |
> | Androcles: F
>
> |
> | Mike
> I care not one jot for you grading, sir. I would have Newton as my mentor
> before I would ever listen to the trivia you represent, or the
> holier-than-thou attitude you portray by attempting such a childish ploy.
> You're attempt at bombast betrays your pretentiousness.
> Androcles.
I am trying to educate you but you resist in remaining a crank of
major proportions. You got a long way to go, if ever.
Mike
bhanwara
> RP wrote:
> >
> > I've read the literature, no particles emerged.
>
> You missed some stuff. Photons exist and they are particle like.
>
> Bob Kolker
There may be a slight misinterpretation here.
The classical (as in "20th century") concept of
photons is not "particle like" as in "discrete".
"Photons" as originally conceived, are "particle like"
in the sense that a ball hitting a bat is "particle like".
I.e. they give their "momentum" equivalence to, say, an
electron in an atom.
In the classical view, the photon does not disturb
the attraction bond between the electron and nucleus.
It merely transfers its energy, and knocks loose
the electron.
[Obviously, my interest in clarifying this is
to highlight the differentiation of the pov
at http://www.mukesh.ws/ ]
As a comment on other material in the thread, Scientific
American should be ashamed to imply that dissenting
comments on SR and GR are coming entirely from
those unable to handle the concepts of SR and GR.
I used to think that publication was somewhat more worthy.
Mike
I will. That fentosecond failure made me miss the movie. PoR you know.
I wonder why they keep secret that heuristic algorithm they correct
the GPS clocks while all naive GRists have their tongue out.
Mike
ZZBunker
You not much except a theory that is nothing
but diagrams of particle-antiparticles to
be falsifable, Which is why most people told Feynmann
to stick to chemistry, moon-shine, and bombs and let people
with real computers do the logic.
Androcles
news:<ZqtXc.1415$VT6.16...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
|
|
| [snip]
|
| > You are merely being being argumentative and pompous. Newton is
establishing
| > a frame of reference that he refers to as absolute. That is no different
to
| > Einstein's "stationary frame". That a pedulum swings or a gyroscope
spins
| > in Newton's absolute frame of reference is undeniable, and that is what
he
| > is saying. Obviously the origin of Newton's frame can be translated or
| > rotated at will, given two arbitrary reference points to determine the
| > origin and direction of an X-axis.
| >
You are stupid.
*plonk*
Androcles.
Bill Hobba
"ZZBunker" <zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4a0829b.04082...@posting.google.com...
Are they the same people that voted Feynman as the 7th greatest physicist of
all time? Indeed it would be quite interesting for you to name some of
these 'most people'. Or could it be simply the imaginings of what goes on
in that brain of yours?
Bill
Mike
Idiot, inertial frames is a math abstraction useful only in SR, which
is an abstract kinematic theory lacking dynamical content. As soon as
you introduce dynamics, you must extend the PoR to hold in ALL moving
reference frames.
But you are such an idiot, I'm wasting my time with you. Go find some
free particle stupiiiiiiiiiidddddddddddd moving at constant velocity.
Let's see if you'll find any in this universe.
In Newtonian mechanics stupid, one speaks of absolute, prefered
reference frame. In SR about globally inertial frames. These two
concepts stupid are far apart. The former is postulated to be real, in
existence, but the later is only an abstraction, since there is
mass-energy distributed in the universe.
You lack basic insight to claim anything in physics beyond knoweledge
of a handfull of formulas. All major breakthroughs in physics came
about after someone attained a deep understanding of the philosophical
issues involved there. You cannot comprehend those issues at the level
required to have an intelligent conversation with anyone who does.
Thus, you must stick to explaining how formulas work, like x^n + y^n =
z^n. I wonder if you an solve that one. If you cannot, here is a
simpler one: x+1 = 2.
I bet you don;t even know the proper form of Newton's law. That I
infer from your writtings with probability 1, except in a set of
measure 0.
Mike
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<w2aXc.5052$ZC7....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>...
>> Mike wrote:
>>>Eintein's PoR is a superpositions of a metaphysical and an empirical
>>>principle.
>>
>>Hmmm. To a physicist it is a concise and quite precise statement of a
>>postulate of his theory. Though in some sense it is a meta-principle
>>that applies to all (local) theories of physics....
>
> Tell me (and Mr. Bill Hobba) how you can falsify the principle that
> reference frames.
Why on earth would you expect that??? Plese go READ Einstein's 1905
statement of the PoR, and come back after you ave done some actual
READING. Attempting to discuss comic-book statements like yours is hopeless.
> Just describe an experiment to me.
For Einstein's PoR, find any physical phenomenon that cannot be
explained using the same equations referenced to multiple inertial
coordinate systems. For example, pre-1905 the experiments confirming the
validity of Maxwell's equations in labs on the (moving) earth were
considered such a refutation. Einstein, of course, resolved this by
showing that the Galilean transform is only approximately valid, and the
Lorentz transform must really be used.
A simple experimental refutation would have been had pion or muon beams
not worked according to SR (i.e. if the mean decay distance in the lab
did not scale as beta*gamma).
> I bet you cannot. That is an epistemological principle.
I care not a whit about your "epistemological principle", because it is
not part of modern physics. Go read Einstein.
Simple refutation of your "epistemological principle" -- in
the rest frame of a charge moving inertially we INTERPRET its
electromagnetic field as purely E; in a different inertial
frame we INTERPRET its electromagnetic field as a mixture of
E and B. Here "interpret" can clearly be translated into
measurements that behave significantly differently in the
two frames.
>>> (2) gravitational effects depend only on local mass-energy
>>> distribution in GR (failure to incorporate Mach's principle).
>>
>>That is not true. In GR, an object (like the earth) 93 million miles
>>away feels the gravitational effects of the sun.
>
> That's pretty local to me given the current estimate of the size of
> the universe.
In modern physics, and relativity in particular, "local" is a technical
word meaning "on a scale small compared to the spacetime curvature in
the region of interest applied to the measurement accuracy".
With a measurement accuracy of anything less than a few million miles
over a few days, the earth certainly does "feel" the gravitational
effects of the sun. For humans, of course, such accuracy is routine. The
scale of the cosmos is irrelevant.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Let me put it this way, [...].
> If the PoR is to be strictly maintained, then frames won't enter
> into the laws of physics. By this I mean, "no transformations".
Sure. That's what we do in modern physics. The equations of all modern
fundamental theories of physics are completely independent of "frame"
(i.e. coordinates).
Perhaps you should put down your comic books and actutally LEARN some
modern physics....
Transformations between coordinate systems only arise when
one considers tensors projected onto specific coordinate
systems. But the equations of the theory relate the tensors
themselves, not their components projected onto some
coordinates (though some older treatments did so -- there is
an equivalence here, but it hides the underlying structure).
> IOW, if
> you have valid laws of physics, then you will never perform a
> transformation between frames, you'll simply plug in the values that are
> frame invariant. Covariance doesn't cut it.
Sure. You can do that. But usually one uses rulers and clocks (etc.) to
make measurements, and they intrinsically PROJECT the quantity being
measured onto themselves. As we usually need to make an array of such
measurements over a defined region in space and time, it is simplest to
erect a coordinate system using a convenient set of clocks and rulers,
and to reference all measurements to those coordinates. Doing that
inherently means everything is projected onto those coordinates.
So while the theory is coordinate independent, actual measurements are
not -- every measuring apparatus inherently projects the quantity being
measured onto itself.
> Look at my electromagnetic equations: [...]
I don't know what "your" equations are, but look at the standard
equations of classical elecrodynamics:
dF = 0
*d*F = J
All quantities therein are tensors (differential forms), and therefore
independent of coordinates.
> Have I made myself clear yet on what the PoR must be, on a logical
> basis?
Sure. But you seem utterly ignorant of its relationship to modern
physics. Your central idea is valid in modern physics, but you get the
details wrong.
> IOW, The E and B fields have no place in
> the real laws of electromagnetism, they are simply arbitrary divisions
> of a single field.
Look at the equations above. F is a single field encompasing both E and
B. But E and B are not "arbitrary", they are PROJECTIONS of F onto a
specific coordinate system.
> Thus once again I state unequivocally that "On the Electrodynamics of
> Moving Bodies", was contradictory to the central idea that is the PoR.
You are wrong. That paper showed how to restore the PoR to
electrodynamics. As has been remarked elsewhere, perhaps a better name
for relativity would have been "theory of invariances". For instance,
note that Einstein's two postulates are both statements of invariance.
> Light speed is no more required by the PoR to be invariant than is the
> speed of sound.
Sure. That's why Einstein had to have a second postulate.
Tom Roberts tjob...@lucent.com
Bill Hobba
Are you making this up or what? The POR applies to dynamics.
>
> But you are such an idiot, I'm wasting my time with you. Go find some
> free particle stupiiiiiiiiiidddddddddddd moving at constant velocity.
> Let's see if you'll find any in this universe.
Go find me a line without width. Does that disprove Euclidian geometry?
>
> In Newtonian mechanics stupid, one speaks of absolute, prefered
> reference frame.
>
One speaks of inertial reference frames, not absolute frames, as should be
obvious from anyone who understands English and can see the purpose of
Newton's first law.
> In SR about globally inertial frames. These two
> concepts stupid are far apart. The former is postulated to be real, in
> existence, but the later is only an abstraction, since there is
> mass-energy distributed in the universe.
Both classical mechanics and SR are about inertial reference frames.
>
> You lack basic insight to claim anything in physics beyond knoweledge
> of a handfull of formulas. All major breakthroughs in physics came
> about after someone attained a deep understanding of the philosophical
> issues involved there. You cannot comprehend those issues at the level
> required to have an intelligent conversation with anyone who does.
> Thus, you must stick to explaining how formulas work, like x^n + y^n =
> z^n. I wonder if you an solve that one. If you cannot, here is a
> simpler one: x+1 = 2.
You confuse your garbled half knowledge of some philosophical buzzwords with
physics.
>
> I bet you don;t even know the proper form of Newton's law.
>
It is you who onviously do not understnad Newtons 3 laws especially the
imlication of his first law - see
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html.
'Newton's First Law contains implications about the fundamental symmetry of
the universe in that a state of motion in a straight line must be just as
"natural" as being at rest. If an object is at rest in one frame of
reference, it will appear to be moving in a straight line to an observer in
a reference frame which is moving by the object. There is no way to say
which reference frame is "special", so all constant velocity reference
frames must be equivalent.'
Thus, contrary to your irrational assertions that classical mechanics
requiring an absolute frame, Newton's first law in fact asserts the
opposite. What classical mechanics has is the notion of absolute time.
> That I
> infer from your writtings with probability 1, except in a set of
> measure 0.
>
It is obvious your understanding of physics is limited; possibly from not
ready books on physics and trying to divine it from a limited a
understanding of the writings of philosophers.
Bill
Bill Hobba
> RP wrote:
> > Let me put it this way, [...].
> > If the PoR is to be strictly maintained, then frames won't enter
> > into the laws of physics. By this I mean, "no transformations".
>
> Sure. That's what we do in modern physics. The equations of all modern
> fundamental theories of physics are completely independent of "frame"
> (i.e. coordinates).
>
> Perhaps you should put down your comic books and actutally LEARN some
> modern physics....
>
> Transformations between coordinate systems only arise when
> one considers tensors projected onto specific coordinate
> systems. But the equations of the theory relate the tensors
> themselves, not their components projected onto some
> coordinates (though some older treatments did so -- there is
> an equivalence here, but it hides the underlying structure).
Yep - which is why modern notation is better.
>
>
> > IOW, if
> > you have valid laws of physics, then you will never perform a
> > transformation between frames, you'll simply plug in the values that are
> > frame invariant. Covariance doesn't cut it.
>
> Sure. You can do that. But usually one uses rulers and clocks (etc.) to
> make measurements, and they intrinsically PROJECT the quantity being
> measured onto themselves. As we usually need to make an array of such
> measurements over a defined region in space and time, it is simplest to
> erect a coordinate system using a convenient set of clocks and rulers,
> and to reference all measurements to those coordinates. Doing that
> inherently means everything is projected onto those coordinates.
>
> So while the theory is coordinate independent, actual measurements are
> not -- every measuring apparatus inherently projects the quantity being
> measured onto itself.
Thanks very much for writing that Tom - I had never thought of that way
before - but now you mention it that is true. I always though that was one
advantage of the older coordinate tensor notion - it is directly related to
actual coordinates from which we make measurements. I now see that is not
the case ie we see what measuring is more clearly in the coordinate free
tensor notation.
Thanks
Bill
Mike
[snip]
>
> I care not a whit about your "epistemological principle", because it is
> not part of modern physics. Go read Einstein.
>
> Simple refutation of your "epistemological principle" -- in
> the rest frame of a charge moving inertially we INTERPRET its
> electromagnetic field as purely E; in a different inertial
> frame we INTERPRET its electromagnetic field as a mixture of
> E and B. Here "interpret" can clearly be translated into
> measurements that behave significantly differently in the
> two frames.
>
>
instruments in "the rest frame of a charge moving inertially"?
Whatever that dreaming of yours means?
The problem with you and your likes is your have mixed a lot of
dreaming (actually nightmares Einstein had) with physics. Now, you
want to convince us we live in a "mind world" in a hopeless attempt to
justify your insanity.
I hope you understand the circular reasoning of yours. An inertially
moving charge is the outcome of a theory founded on the PoR. So is a
mass in geodesic motion. No measurements can be affected in those FoR
since you got no 4-D clockrulers, I have told you that in the past.
The only thing you have is 3-D rulers + clocks.
Relativity is based on epistemology, which is metaphysics. As such, it
is a dirty game claiming Relativity is experimentally verified.
Metaphysics cannot be experimentally verified. Unless God, or
whatever, shows up and states that He indeed intended all phenomena of
motion, optics and electromagnetism to have the same interpretation in
all moving reference frames.
I asked you a mutliple choice question which you avoided to answer:
A. Earth revolves around the sun
B. Sun revolves around the earth
C. Both A and B
D. None of the above
I can guees why you do not answer. Simple because, as your buddy Hans
Reicchenbach attest, if someone believes in Relativity, she must
question the Copernican view of the world. Since Relativity reduces to
Newtonian mechanics in the limit, it supports the Copernican view of
the world. That view and the PoR are incompatible. Unless you tell me
how the geometric interpretation of GR works in the limit without any
reference to central forces and results in a Copernical style
universe.
I can wait for the next 20 to 30 years for you to come up with the
answers.
Mike
Ole D. Rughede
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:r9jXc.7944$D7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2p52f2F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> > Bill Hobba wrote:
> >
> > > "RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2p264pF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Bill Hobba wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >>>news:2p1ml7F...@uni-berlin.de...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>RP wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>robert j. kolker wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>RP wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>And BTW, photons are not particles. More of Einstein's
stupidity.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>The existence of photons has been established experimentally.
See
> for
> > >>>>>>>example: P.Grangier, G. Roger and A. Aspect; Experimental
Evidence
> > >>>>>>>for a photon anti-correlation effect on a beam splitter;
Europhys
> > >>>>>>>Lett vol 1 pp 173-179 (1986).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>For the background read -The Quantum Challange- by George
> Greenstein,
> > >>>>>>>Arhtur G. Zajonc Chapter 2.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>They are particles. When they hit a photo plate they make a
small
> dot
> > >>>>>>>indicating their localized nature. Waves would not do that.
> > >>>>>>>Furthermore waves cannot explain the photo electric effect
within
> the
> > >>>>>>>classical Maxwellian electrodynamics.
> > >>>>>>>
for
> > >>>>>>>which he won the Nobel Prize) shows that waves are not
sufficient
> to
> > >>>>>>>explain the effect. Millikan's experiments backed up
Einstein's
> > >>>>>>>analysis completely.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>Bob Kolker
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>together by fine rubber bands into a sheet of rubber that is
> > >>>>>>fluttering randomly in a mild breeze. Now suppose I bombard
this
> sheet
> > >>>>>>with sound waves from a cone speaker. What you seem to be
saying is
> > >>>>>>that it is impossible that only one of these balls be
dislodged from
> > >>>>>>the fabric at a time.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>That would only be possible if the sound waves were collimated.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>Is that what you're saying Bob? Now suppose the tension on the
balls
> > >>>>>>occurs in only discrete amounts, then of course, on average
you'll
> see
> > >>>>>>the recoil energy of these balls vary closely around a fixed
value.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>How would that explain that the number of dislogded balls
increases
> > >>>>>with the amplitude of the sound wave, whereas the amount of
> dislodging
> > >>>>>increases with the frequency of the sound wave?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>Now taking into consideration that the source of photons is
other
> > >>>>>>atoms with discrete energy levels,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Err, if you admit that photons come from discrete energy
levels, then
> > >>>>>this implies obviously that photons themselves can have only
discrete
> > >>>>>energies. It's quite easy to show then that they can also only
have
> > >>>>>discrete momenta. But what is the big difference between a
photon and
> > >>>>>a particle then???
> > >>>>
> > >>>>No photon ever laid a track in a bubble chamber.
> > >>>>Photons are waves, and particles are the medium.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Nor do waves produce discrete counts in photon multiplier tubes.
> > >>
> > >>Apparently they do Bill.
> > >>
> > >>Richard Perry
> > >
> > >
> > > Only to those without a clue who can not think. No one has been
able to
> > > produce a wave explanation where the particle properties such as
> individual
> > > counts in a photon multiplier depends on frequency.
> > >
> > > Bill
> >
> > Bill, respectfully, this argument is as old as the hills, and as
invalid
> > now as it has ever been. "We couldn't figure it out, therefore it
cannot
> > be figured out." Idiot.
>
> Richard, with respect, people have read what I have said, they have
read
> your drivel and can make up their own minds. The dearth of people
potting
> to agree with you speaks volumes. Idiot.
Bah, bah, bah..Billy! Stay you tuned to educate Bob in particles.
Bill and Bob behave in a particular way. Ergo they are particles?
Radiation (at certain conditions of interaction with matter) to be
particle-like is NOT that particles are radiation or that radiation is
a mingle of particles!
Your reference (in English translation, and the original German
text) of Einstein postulating photons to be particles, please?
In his 1917 paper, Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung, Einstein
says for instance:
"Als dann Planck in seiner grundlegenden Untersuchung seine
Strahlungsformel ...(4)...auf die Voraussetzung von diskreten
Energie-Elementen gegründet hatte, aus welcher sich in rascher
Folge die Quantentheorie entwickelte,..."
"When then Planck in his fundamental research had established
his radiation formula...(4)...on the presupposition of discrete
energy-elements, from which the quantum theory was quickly
developed, ..."
It is a pleasure to see Richard correct your misunderstandings.
You should study the matter of which you know so little, and
you will see Einstein's lambda = h*ny/cos phi, meaning
lambda^2 = [(h*ny/c)^2] / 3.
Why, do you think, these lambdas are necessary to describe
the radiation and the phenomena of interaction with matter?
Very. Really very interesting to hear Dot-Bob's version of
photons knock small dots in light sensitive protographic plates.
Let him try with a hammer and nail and let's hear him explain
which of his tools should be the photon. It cries to to the high
heavens, when ignorants without any knowledge of radiation
and photo-electric effects on films, plates, metal surfaces, in
photo-cells & multipliers would lecture about their ignorance
and noisily imbibed drivel.
The existence of waves was established long before photons
were invented. Someone seems to believe the last excludes
the first in their wrong imbecile optics. Ts, ts, ts.
And for Bjoern's energy density of waves it probably holds
that h*ny / lambda^3 is the energy density of the photon
delivered by the interacting wave of wavelength lambda
and bolometric energy density u erg/cm^3.
Ole D. Rughede
> >
> > You're making an invalid assumption the then number of clicks equals
the
> > number of emitted photons. Please tell me you counted the photons.
How
> > did you do that Bill? By counting the number of clicks? Isn't that a
bit
> > circular Bill?
> >
> > Isn't the reality that if every photon absorbed in the detector is
> > accompanied by one click, and if some of the emitted photons are
> > absorbed outside of the detector, that the number of clicks cannot
> > possibly reflect the total number of photons emitted from the
source?
> >
> > Now take this into consideration, the atom are being actively pumped
by
> > internal thermal activity. Thus, there will be an occasional click
even
> > without an external light source present. The very components of
the
> > detector are emitting photons of all colors. Now if you've devised
some
> > method of directly counting these photons, and those of the source,
then
> > I'm saying you couldn't be more incorrect in maintaining the logical
> > validity of your stance.
> >
> > If a monochromatic source impinges on the metal surface, above a
given
> > frequency, then photoelectrons are emitted. Now keep in mind that
there
> > are already electrons evaporating out of and diving back into the
> > surface, thus the light only increases their numbers, and their
> > energies. Now take into consideration the work function. What is
the
> > work function other than the energy required to remove the electrons
> > from the surface "on average".
> >
> > If therefore, the energy of the emitted photons impinging on the
surface
> > is to be conserved, then the energy of the electrons ejected must
> > reflect conservation of energy. We can take the number of electrons
> > ejected per second, multiply this by the work function per electron,
> > subtract this from the incident light energy and we get the average
left
> > over KE per electron. Simple conservation of energy. Now here again
you
> > are going to say, but there is one electron emitted per photon
> > impinging. Bullshit Bill.
> >
> > This part is the easy part of explaining the effect in terms of
waves.
> > The difficult part is explaining why the effect ceases below a given
> > frequency. I've explained this before, to wit, the electron must be
> > oscillated in phase with its preexisting motion, i.e. it must absorb
> > energy from the local changing field. Think in terms of the dipole
> > antenna. If two such antennae are radiating out of phase such that
the
> > passing wave emitted by antenna 1 is out of phase with the
preexisting
> > electron motion in antenna 2, then not only will the electrons not
gain
> > energy from that interaction, but will lose energy, thus amplifying
the
> > wave wrt downstream detectors. Why is it that you cannot make the
> > connection that electrons within atoms are the same electrons in
these
> > antennae? Won't they both always react to changing ambient fields?
Will
> > the electron within the atom follow different laws of physics than
the
> > electron in the antenna? On what basis do you claim that these
electrons
> > obey different rules?
> >
> > The adept among you will have already seen where this is going, so
> > without further ado:
> > The atomic electrons, by virtue of their chaotic motions within the
> > metal, will either gain energy or lose energy in their interaction
with
> > the current local changing field. The light source in addition to
> > increasing the skin temperature of the metal by acceleration of
> > electrons that weren't ejected, will on occasion interact
constructively
> > with the locally generated fields and given the phase of motion of
an
> > electron in that node, it will gain sufficient energy to escape the
> > surface. Thus the metal consists of oscillators in random phases,
and
> > of random energies. The probabilities that Feyman spoke of are real,
but
> > they aren't the probabilities of photons landing on electrons, but
> > rather of electrons being ganged up on by several sources (waves).
> >
> > If I can clarify specifics of this argument for you, then ask, I'll
do
> > my best.
> >
> > Richard Perry
> >
> >
> > >>>
> > >>>>>>then you might just expect photoelectrons to have an energy
> > >>>>>>corresponding to that of the incident waves,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>What does that mean, specifically?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>How does the energy of a photon "correspond" to that of the
wave?
> > >>>>>What do you even *mean* with "the energy of a wave"? At least
for
> > >>>>>plane waves, it makes only sense to talk about their energy
> *density*.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>whether or not they absorb perhaps only a tiny portion of that
> wave's
> > >>>>>>energy. IOW you have no proof other than proof of Einstein's
> > >>>
> > >>>ineptitude.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>Explain the points above before insulting Einstein.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>Bye,
> > >>>>>Bjoern
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
Patrick Reany
Proof of the horrible failure of science education! The guy doesn't
even know that Newtonian mechanics is founded on the inertial-frame
concept. How do you ever expect to get through to such a one? Either
teach him Newtonian mechanics or just give up. Do what science
education failed to do in the first place in its hurry to get to the
equations: Stress the logical foundations to Newtonian mechanics.
Patrick
Bill Hobba
"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.r...@privat.dk> wrote in message
news:413204ed$0$211$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
Blah, blah, blah - your references to explaining the photoelectric effect
without particles please?
Bill
Bill Hobba
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:844a1b64.0408...@posting.google.com...
With all due respect Patrick, and not wishing to imply he has had a proper
science education, his problem, by his own self admission, is he gets his
physics from what he terms 'higher sources' - books on philosophy. Now of
course many competent philosophers understand relativity and physics, but
this guys problem, IMHO, is trying to understand physics via surrogate ie
via the writings of philosophers who analyze the philosophical basis of the
physics, not the physics itself. To me it points to the necessity of
understanding the physics before venturing into the philosophy.
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
news:<1q1Yc.8141$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
> [snip]
> >
> > I care not a whit about your "epistemological principle", because it is
> > not part of modern physics. Go read Einstein.
> >
> > Simple refutation of your "epistemological principle" -- in
> > the rest frame of a charge moving inertially we INTERPRET its
> > electromagnetic field as purely E; in a different inertial
> > frame we INTERPRET its electromagnetic field as a mixture of
> > E and B. Here "interpret" can clearly be translated into
> > measurements that behave significantly differently in the
> > two frames.
> >
> >
> Is that an experiment I can perform? I mean can I attach any of my
> instruments in "the rest frame of a charge moving inertially"?
> Whatever that dreaming of yours means?
You stated the epistemological principle 'all physical phenomena must have
the same interpretation in all reference frames' can not be refuted. Look
at the Lorentz force law - for a stationary charge the force is entirely due
to the electric field - go to another frame and the force is due to electric
and magnetic fields. This, as I should have been able to see but did not,
trivially disproves your epistemological principle.
>
> The problem with you and your likes is your have mixed a lot of
> dreaming (actually nightmares Einstein had) with physics. Now, you
> want to convince us we live in a "mind world" in a hopeless attempt to
> justify your insanity.
The Lorentz force law is a well verified law of nature that is the bread and
butter of engineers, not some imagining of a 'mind world'.
>
> I hope you understand the circular reasoning of yours. An inertially
> moving charge is the outcome of a theory founded on the PoR. So is a
> mass in geodesic motion. No measurements can be affected in those FoR
> since you got no 4-D clockrulers, I have told you that in the past.
> The only thing you have is 3-D rulers + clocks.
So what you 'tell us' (even though it is incoherently expressed) is how
nature works rather than experiment and logic.
>
> Relativity is based on epistemology, which is metaphysics. As such, it
> is a dirty game claiming Relativity is experimentally verified.
>
All physical laws, principles etc have an epistemological component (usually
quite mild - but they do exist) - in science the consequences those are
worked out along with whatever else happens to be present. In SR for the
POR we must be careful we understand what is meant by a law of nature -
anyone acquainted with physics knows what is meant. And as long as they are
in accord with experiment then we have no reason to doubt them - and in its
domain of applicability SR is in very good agreement with experiment.
> Metaphysics cannot be experimentally verified.
Nobody claimed it could. It however can be consistent with experiment.
> Unless God, or
> whatever, shows up and states that He indeed intended all phenomena of
> motion, optics and electromagnetism to have the same interpretation in
> all moving reference frames.
>
> I asked you a mutliple choice question which you avoided to answer:
>
> A. Earth revolves around the sun
> B. Sun revolves around the earth
> C. Both A and B
> D. None of the above
>
> I can guees why you do not answer. Simple because, as your buddy Hans
> Reicchenbach attest, if someone believes in Relativity, she must
> question the Copernican view of the world. Since Relativity reduces to
> Newtonian mechanics in the limit, it supports the Copernican view of
> the world. That view and the PoR are incompatible.
Again the incorrect assertion that classical mechanics is incompatible with
the POR. Please learn some physics - I recommend Lev Landau - Mechanics.
.> Unless you tell me
> how the geometric interpretation of GR works in the limit without any
> reference to central forces and results in a Copernical style
> universe.
It is well known Newton's theory results in the classical limit from the
EFE's - eg see page 50 of
http://pup.princeton.edu/sample_chapters/ciufolini/chapter2.pdf.
>
> I can wait for the next 20 to 30 years for you to come up with the
> answers.
>
Instead on waiting around for the answers to questions that indicate you
misunderstand basic physical concepts study some physics from physicists.
Bill
>
> Mike
Ole D. Rughede
>
> "Ole D. Rughede" <ole.r...@privat.dk> wrote in message
> news:413204ed$0$211$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> > Bah, bah, bah..Billy! Stay you tuned to educate Bob in particles.
> > Bill and Bob behave in a particular way. Ergo they are particles?
> > Radiation (at certain conditions of interaction with matter) to be
> > particle-like is NOT that particles are radiation or that radiation
is
> > a mingle of particles!
> >
> > Your reference (in English translation, and the original German
> > text) of Einstein postulating photons to be particles, please?
>
> Blah, blah, blah - your references to explaining the photoelectric
effect
> without particles please?
Biiiiiig boy, Billy! Almost right.
Now Billy-Boy repeat after me: "Bah - Bah - Baah"?
Billy also tells how "energy-elements" differ from "particles"?
Then Billy-Big-Boy find biiiiiig reference I asked for. O.K.?
Ole
Bill Hobba
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:%psYc.12658$D7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Ole D. Rughede" <ole.r...@privat.dk> wrote in message
> > news:413204ed$0$211$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
>
> > > Bah, bah, bah..Billy! Stay you tuned to educate Bob in particles.
> > > Bill and Bob behave in a particular way. Ergo they are particles?
> > > Radiation (at certain conditions of interaction with matter) to be
> > > particle-like is NOT that particles are radiation or that radiation
> is
> > > a mingle of particles!
> > >
> > > Your reference (in English translation, and the original German
> > > text) of Einstein postulating photons to be particles, please?
> >
> > Blah, blah, blah - your references to explaining the photoelectric
> effect
> > without particles please?
>
> Biiiiiig boy, Billy! Almost right.
> Now Billy-Boy repeat after me: "Bah - Bah - Baah"?
> Billy also tells how "energy-elements" differ from "particles"?
> Then Billy-Big-Boy find biiiiiig reference I asked for. O.K.?
What a quantum particle is can be found is any textbook on QM. Now please
give me the reference that shows photons do not behave that way? Unless you
can do that then logic allows me perfectly well to call then quantum
particles. You, OTOH, can call them whatever you like, but normal people
stick to standard nomenclature and not try to introduce layers of
obstupefaction by inventing their own language - that is the technique
reserved for the crank and crackpot. BTW I do not give a crap when Einstein
first started to refer to photons as particles - I am concerned with what
they are called now.
Bill
Gregory L. Hansen
Bill Hobba <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.r...@privat.dk> wrote in message
>news:413204ed$0$211$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
>Blah, blah, blah - your references to explaining the photoelectric effect
>without particles please?
Wald, in his book "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole
Thermodynamics", stresses that quantum field theory is a theory of fields.
That in asymptotically flat spacetimes there's a natural particle
interpretation, but there is no particle interpretation in arbitrary
spacetimes, and particles are never needed.
That, of course, doesn't mean that photons are any less of a particle than
electrons are. It's just that particles aren't what people usually think
they are. Fundamentally we have fields, and DeBroglie's relation and the
probabilistic interpretation of a wavefunction applies to them.
Can't say I've looked at it in any detail. I'm concerned with utilitarian
physics for now, I'll get back to funsies later.
--
"You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<1q1Yc.8141$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...
>>not part of modern physics. Go read Einstein.
>>
>> Simple refutation of your "epistemological principle" -- in
>> the rest frame of a charge moving inertially we INTERPRET its
>> electromagnetic field as purely E; in a different inertial
>> frame we INTERPRET its electromagnetic field as a mixture of
>> E and B. Here "interpret" can clearly be translated into
>> measurements that behave significantly differently in the
>> two frames.
>
> Is that an experiment I can perform? I mean can I attach any of my
> instruments in "the rest frame of a charge moving inertially"?
> Whatever that dreaming of yours means?
The problem is not mine, but YOURS -- it was YOU who claimed
"INTERPRETATIONS" were an essential part of your "epistemological
principle".
I am interested in physics, in which experiments rule, not
"interpretations".
BTW it is perfectly simple to 'attach any of my instruments in "the rest
frame of a charge moving inertially"' -- this is PHYSICS, and as long as
any non-inertial motions of charge and/or instruments are OK as long as
they are below your measurement accuracy.
> I asked you a mutliple choice question which you avoided to answer:
>
> A. Earth revolves around the sun
> B. Sun revolves around the earth
> C. Both A and B
> D. None of the above
>
> I can guees why you do not answer.
I never answered because I never saw it.
The answer is quite obviously:
E. All of the above (i.e. all of A,B,C,D).
Yes. This is the first time I have ever seen a sensible
answer "all of the above" where "none of the above" is
above the answer.
My E is correct, because I can find different sets of coordinates, one
for each of A,B,C, and D -- A: sun centered inertial, B: earth centered
inertial, C: barycenter centered inertial, D: appropriately rotating.
Bottom line: your question does not matter at all, as far as physics is
concerned, because it is inherently coordinate dependent, and all
physical phenomena are independent of coordinate choice. Stated
differently: you're asking about interpretations, and human
interpretations also do not matter to any physical processes.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bill Hobba
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cgu2uh$974$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <%psYc.12658$D7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Bill Hobba <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.r...@privat.dk> wrote in message
> >news:413204ed$0$211$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> >
> >Blah, blah, blah - your references to explaining the photoelectric effect
> >without particles please?
>
> Wald, in his book "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole
> Thermodynamics", stresses that quantum field theory is a theory of fields.
> That in asymptotically flat spacetimes there's a natural particle
> interpretation, but there is no particle interpretation in arbitrary
> spacetimes, and particles are never needed.
>
> That, of course, doesn't mean that photons are any less of a particle than
> electrons are.
My point being electrons, photons, and everything else we know of, are all
just quantum stuff which are called quantum particles. The desire to
introduce nomenclature like 'energy-elements' is an attempt to introduce
layers of obstupefaction to cloud the issue; and is a standard crank
technique.
>It's just that particles aren't what people usually think
> they are. Fundamentally we have fields, and DeBroglie's relation and the
> probabilistic interpretation of a wavefunction applies to them.
Correct Gregory - according to QFT everything is a field - but the
observables of those fields are always composed of creation and anihliation
operators of particles - see the chapter 4 page 169 of Weinberg the Quantum
Theory of Fields. QFT gives normal QM as a limit so that the quantum fields
(which come about for particles from the process of second quantisisation on
the quantum state and for classical fields the process of quantiisisation on
the field - see chapter 4 - page 167 Classical Mechanics, Quantum
Mechanics, Field Theory by Amon Katz) can be approximated by the usual
quantum state as found in any book on normal QM - eg Diracs Principles of
QM. But that in no way changes the evidence we have, which is that
everything, including light, consist of quantum particles regardless of if
we consider them to obey the rules of QFT of we consider the approximation
of normal QM.
>
> Can't say I've looked at it in any detail. I'm concerned with utilitarian
> physics for now, I'll get back to funsies later.
Thanks
Bill
FrediFizzx
news:cgu2uh$974$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
| Bill Hobba <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
| >
| >"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.r...@privat.dk> wrote in message
| >news:413204ed$0$211$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
|
| >
| >Blah, blah, blah - your references to explaining the photoelectric effect
| >without particles please?
|
| Wald, in his book "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole
| Thermodynamics", stresses that quantum field theory is a theory of fields.
| That in asymptotically flat spacetimes there's a natural particle
| interpretation, but there is no particle interpretation in arbitrary
| spacetimes, and particles are never needed.
|
| That, of course, doesn't mean that photons are any less of a particle than
| electrons are. It's just that particles aren't what people usually think
| they are. Fundamentally we have fields, and DeBroglie's relation and the
| probabilistic interpretation of a wavefunction applies to them.
I think "less of a particle" is the wrong terminology. For sure photons
(and all elementary gauge bosons) are not the same as fermions. We don't
really know for sure if fields are fundamental either. They are just taken
to be fundamental for QFT and the Standard Model. I am leaning more towards
the ideas from string theory only modified a bit. The fields of QFT are not
so fundamental if we consider point-like quantum entities that are
chargeless, massless or near massless are making it all. They can produce
the fields of QFT.
FrediFIzzx
Bill Hobba
It is well known SR is as logically consistent as Euclidian geometry.
> More on that
> later.
> As for your essay on invariance, it was very elegant, though you still
> didn't get my point.
> Ironically, I read today in the Sept. Scientific American pretty much
> what you said above. Almost word for word.
>
> But you still haven't registered what I've been stating. You are of the
> opinion that no form of the electromagnetic laws can be scripted that
> aren't Galilean invariant. If you abandon the E and B fields, and the
> macroscopic terms used by Maxwell/Heaviside (e.g. charge density,
> current density, etc.) then automatically you must opt for a treatment a
> bit less statistical in nature. IOW, the relativistic treatment of
> electromagnetism is macroscopic in its approach, as is QM.
> When you attempt to relate the behaviors of individual quanta of charge,
> then both Maxwell/Lorentz and QM are insufficient, i.e. neither can
> describe the fluid interaction between two particles.
'the fluid interaction between two particles' - what a load of hooey. QED
is the most accurately experimentally verified theory in history.
> This is the very
> reason that these two approaches are incompatible, each describes large
> numbers of events on average, but within different systems. Attempting
> to unify them is a bit synonymous with an attempt to unify gravitational
> orbits and the gas laws. Neither can be derived directly from the
> other, though both are accurate, and both are subsets of the more
> fundamental Newtonian thermodynamic laws.
>
> Neither special relativity nor QM are a subset one of the other, they
> are both special cases of another yet more fundamental theory.
The theory that combines the two is QFT.
Rest of rubbish mercifully snipped.
Bill
Ole D. Rughede
Cleeever Bill! Such should be called the "Billybob-effect",
invented and introduced into physics by the grand physicists
Bill Hobba and his faithful "Sancho Panza", Bob Kolker.
Can Bill repeat after me, - but watch out! It may be rather
difficult, both to remember and especially to understand:
Bill and Bob behave in a particular way. Ergo they are particles?
Radiation (at certain conditions of interaction with matter) to be
particle-like is NOT that particles are radiation or that radiation
is a mingle of particles! ...and
Billybobs behave in solitude. Ergo they are massless solitions?
Ole D. Rughede
By the so-called Billybob-effect. - Therefore Richard,
have a look at 5D Kaluza-Klein, mentioned as GAR,
"General Theory of Aether and Relativity" in the thread:
"Aether is the empty space..."
Ole D. Rughede
Peter Kinane
This is an attempt to make an analogy of what may be the issue here: A
good democratic system represents- -expresses the citizens of a nation
as a nation. It does not represent- - express any citizen of that
nation as an individual - unless every citizen is in government. (That
the democratic system does so should be supported by opinion polls,
taken shortly after an election. That it does not represent- -express
any individual should be supported by asking the opinions of any
individual).
So, in effect, to understand both what the democracy expresses and the
full richness and diversity of the citizens as individuals one must
study the individual citizens. It seems to me that, as you seem to
agree, Physics and Relativity are analogous to the study of the good
democratic system, but not study of the individual citizens.
The good democratic nation may be one 'reality', but the individual
citizens as individuals are another.
'Nature' is the effectuation of selections of frames of reference.
This may not have become clearer through "A Century of Einstein".
--
Peter Kinane
http://www.effectuationism.com/