# Fw: Physical interpretation in physics.

12 views

### harry

Dec 10, 2007, 7:07:57 AM12/10/07
to
Currently an interesting discussion is going on in sci.physics.relativity,
which I think is very appropriate for this group.
Below is a copy of the first post with which I largely agree.
Before commenting here it may be useful to first have a look at the
discussion there:

Harald
-----------------------------------------------

Quite late on Einstein wrote:

" Most [theories] are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture
of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively
simple formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory
of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes
to movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis
of molecular motion. When we say that we have succeeded in understanding
a group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive
theory has been found which covers the processes in question.... The
and clearness."

He wrote the above as a preface to the declaration that relativity is a
principle theory - he defined what he meant and his definition is
indistinguishable from a mathematical model based upon empirical
starting points. He had tried to make relativity into a constructive
theory, a theory where physical interpretation is an essential part but
had given up. He was now forced to described relativity as 'putting
forward no specific hypothesis'.

Lorenz had come up with a constructive theory - a theory having a
physical interpretation complimenting the maths. Einstein objected to
the physical interpretation of Lorentz's theory (what he referred to as
the theoretical structure). While his theory shares the same maths as
that of Lorentz's he had failed to come up with an alternative physical
interpretation without the asymmetry he objected to in Lorentz's theory.

Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?" It was
considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
theory.

Sometimes someone started with an idea, an alternative physical
interpretation, does the maths and find it fits - an example might be
Galilao. Idea! 'suppose the planets go around the sun?' - do the maths
and it checks out. Now one could say that Galilao's maths would work
just as well without assuming that physical interpretation. It could be
argued that if someone had stumbled upon them without an assumption of
the sun centred solar system then that would be just as satisfactory. In
modern physics 'maths' is described as 'physics theory' and all that is
expected of it is accurate prediction not physical explanation. However
having a 'physical interpretation' gives the maths authority. The maths
of Galilao can be believed in as they are not merely an ad hoc
expression which gives empirical accuracy. One could use the same
physical model to construct maths which would predict what a man on Mars
would see in the night sky and fully expect that when we get there that
it will be as predicted. Physical interpretation drives the maths.

Sometimes a physical law - the mathematical relationship - has been
known for a long time like Boyles law and eventually a physical
explanation is found involving moving molecules. Moving molecules is a
physical model. It does not mean we 'understand nature' but it does mean
we have a better understanding of nature than we had previously when we
thought of gas as homogeneous.

A classic example of the importance of physical interpretation occurred
in the case of the black body radiation curve. Wien produced an
expression which fitted very well but it was purely empirical. Lord
Rayleigh produced a law which was based upon accepted theory, accepted
physical interpretation, waves bouncing backwards and forwards in the
box, but was not a good fit at short wavelengths. Rayleigh's law had to
be taken seriously because it was based upon a physical interpretation
i.e. on an understanding of what was happening - the physical processes
involved. It was based upon accepted theory. The fact that it gave the
wrong answer was described as the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'. It meant
the physical interpretation, the understanding of the physical processes
involved was wrong. Planck took up the challenge. Although Wein's law
was empirical, it was some help to Planck in coming up with what we now
believe is the correct physical interpretation that light is quantized.
Deriving the maths from that physical interpretation gave the right
answer. The reason we have confidence in the maths is because it is
derived from a physical understanding of what is going on which gives it
authority. Wein's law, although a good mathematical model lacked that
authority. Even if Wein's mathematical expression had been identical to
Planck's it would have lacked any authority because the physics - the
physical process was not explained.

Maxwell's electrodynamics was based upon an understanding of what was
going on in the physical sense. The idea of aethers had been an
essential part of physics for a couple of hundred years first introduced
to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance forces. The
aether is sneered at these days but it was argued that a magnet could
not pick up a pin if there was genuinely nothing in the space between
them. Think about it and you can see where they were coming from. Later
the luminiferous aether was hypothesised for light waves to propagate
in. Maxwell's theory was accepted not because of its accurate
predictions - they were not testable for some time - but on the elegance
of the physical interpretation. What Maxwell did (with help from
Faraday) was unify 3 branches of physics and show that only one aether
is required to explain action at a distance and light propagation while
at the same time showing a link between light and charge and putting it
on a sound mathematical footing. Charge causes a stress in the aether -
that stress pattern is what is described as a 'field' and that stress
can propagate through the aether at c, as derived from two properties of
the aether its permittivity and permeability. Again the authority of
Maxwell derives from the fact that he was able to describe in physical
terms what is going on and it fitted together so elegantly. So elegantly
that later Einstein continued to assume the absolute authority of
Maxwell when he produced SR and ignored the fact that it had been
compromised by his own work on photoelectric effect.

Planck had assumed that although the production of light was quantized
that somehow that was temporary and that it then 'turned into' Maxwell's
waves in aether. Einstein showed that light remained quantized by
producing a physical interpretation of the photo-electric effect which
works. Light arrives in discreet lumps of energy which depending on the
colour has, or hasn't enough energy to dislodge a photon. It is hard to
see how that bit of our understanding could have been achieved without a
physical interpretation on which to base the thinking.

Lorentz started with a physical interpretation proposed by Fitzgerald
that if the arm of the MMX apparatus got shorter due to travelling
against the aether by just the right amount it explains the null result.
Lorentz postulated that matter is made up of a matrix of positive and
negative charges held together by action at a distance forces
transferred via the aether. When the aether was moving he calculated
that the matter would get shortened in the direction of travel of the
aether by the required amount (note Bohr's model of the atom was much
later). Lorentz derived the Lorentz transforms based on an assumption of
the physical processes involved. Even today I understand that if you
replace Lorentz's matrix of charged particles with electrons in orbit
around nuclei then if you assume the action at a distance force is
transferred by the aether and the aether is in motion the orbits become
elliptical - causing length contraction.

Einstein's heroes were Maxwell and Lorentz - both of whom relied heavily
on physical interpretation. He described Lorentz as making the greatest
contribution to electrical theory since Maxwell. His objection to
Lorentz's theory was that in the physical interpretation - what Einstein
described as 'the theoretical structure' - was a unique FoR stationary
w.r.t the aether which is essential to the physical description but
which in practice is indistinguishable from an infinite number of other
FoR. Einstein could not believe that nature would be so perverse as to
hide something from us which was so essential to theory and assumed that
it must be possible to come to the same conclusion without an assumption
of this unique FoR.

What should have happened is that Einstein should have come up with an
alternative physical explanation which did not require Lorentz's unique
FoR.

If one assumes the authority of Maxwell then the MMX showed that an
observers speed relative to the aether is zero. The question that first
Lorentz and then Einstein were trying to answer was therefore :

"Why does an observer always appear to be stationary w.r.t the aether?"

Discarding Lorentz's explanation the only explanation left to Einstein
was that the nature of the aether is such that this arises naturally
from it. If you study his 1920 lecture he is attempting to argue just
that. His 'aether without the immobility of Lorentz's'. He rejects
Lorentz's aether FoR but time and again returns to the need for some
sort of aether. As that idea was not accepted Einstein's alternative
theory was in effect rejected. He had failed to come up with an
alternative theoretical structure to that of Lorentz to give the maths
authority.

History does not show that Einstein's theory was rejected and that of
Lorentz retained.

What actually happened is bizarre. Einstein didn't consider his second
postulate as in any way controversial. It was his first which he thought
to be a radical departure which is why he justifies it at length. His
second needed no justification, it simply described how the MMX was
generally interpreted. SR in effect gives the observer's FoR the
properties of an aether stationary w.r.t the observer as per the MMX if
interpreted assuming the authority of Maxwell's theory. Somehow
Einstein's followers got it into their heads that Einstein had come up
with a theory which didn't need the aether. The aether concept was
ridiculed despite the fact that it had not been replaced. Remember it
was required to justify the assumption of source independence, to
explain action at a distance, to explain the physical nature of fields
and for light waves to be physical waves in. Alternatives were not put
forward instead the rule book was re-written such that the emphasis was
placed on the maths and eventually the notion of physical interpretation
as an essential part of physics was consigned to history. I do not
believe that that was in the best interests of physics. It has resulted
in intellectual anarchy.

At any particular time a physical interpretation may be wrong and at
some stage have to be replaced with something better. A physical
interpretation is a model of nature and has its limitations. A physical
model based upon the planets going around the sun is a better reflection
of nature than one which has the earth at the centre - it does nothing
to explain what gravity is. The particulate model of light gives better
overall understanding of the nature of light but we don't know the
structure of a photon nor how on-mass they can so convincingly act like
waves. Limited understanding is better than none and better
understanding of physical processes is progress.

Physical interpretation should go along with maths as they mutually
discipline each other. Its no use having a physical understanding if the
maths derived from it give the wrong answer (ref Rayleigh) and it is no
use having the right maths on their own (Ref Wein) as a physical
understanding which allows those maths to be derived from it gives an
insight into nature which the equation itself lacks.

Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory. Today
Wein's law could be classed as a theory in that it provides accurate
predictions - all that is required of a modern theory as a modern theory
is not required to have an explanation of the physical processes
involved. At the time it was not considered to have any weight as it did
not explain the physical processes. At the time it prompted Planck to
investigate alternative physical interpretations. To me Planck made one
of the momentous discoveries in physics.

--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray

### t7...@hotmail.com

Dec 11, 2007, 2:52:04 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 10, 6:07 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch>
wrote:

> Currently an interesting discussion is going on in sci.physics.relativity,
> which I think is very appropriate for this group.
> Below is a copy of the first post with which I largely agree.
> Before commenting here it may be useful to first have a look at the
>
> Harald
> -----------------------------------------------

>
> --
> John Kennaugh
> "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
> sufficiently
> strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray

I looked at the discussion in sci.physics.relativity.
For a very simple physical reality see "Spin Theory" in this news
group.

### harry

Dec 12, 2007, 9:34:39 AM12/12/07
to

<t7...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Kennaugh's argument in a nutshell, if I understood it well, is that the only
consistent conceptual physical model that has been proposed and not
disproved is that of Lorentz.

I now looked up yours:

1. The universe is simple.
2. The universe is relational.
3. The universe is background free.

[...]

I'm afraid that I found no explanation for source-independent light
propagation there, in contrast with the original posting. An alternative
physical model should certainly deal with that.

Regards,
Harald

### Juan R.

Dec 13, 2007, 10:23:42 AM12/13/07
to
harry wrote {1197283...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch} on Mon, 10 Dec 2007
06:07:57 -0600:

> Harald
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Quite late on Einstein wrote:
>
> " Most [theories] are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture
> of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively
> simple formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory
> of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes
> to movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis
> of molecular motion.

In fact, Einstein is saying about kinetic theory is not right. Kinetic
theory (Boltzmann) is based in classical mechanics for motion of
molecules or atoms *more* extra-postulates, for instance the molecular-
chaos condition. The extra-postulates cannot be derived from the
mechanical theory. This was emphasized by great specialists on the topic
like Bogoulivob, van Kampen, Balescu, Prigogine...

> When we say that we have succeeded in understanding
> a group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive
> theory has been found which covers the processes in question.... The
> and clearness."

Complexity has invalidated this reductionist approach.

The whole is more than the sum of their parts. This also applies to
relativity, which may be considered basically an one-body theory.

The many-body relativistic theories are being formulated today contain a
non-reductionist component. Special (and general) relativity is recovered
in the one-body limit.

> Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
> the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?" It was
> considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
> in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
> nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
> is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
> what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
> theory.

Take {F = m a}

In math i read like "F EQUALS m TIMES a"

In physics i read like "FORCE EQUALS MASS TIMES ACCELERATION"

The mathematical equation has sense when m < 0. But any student would
(today) reject it as unphysical once m is interpreted like mass of a body.

> it will be as predicted. Physical interpretation drives the maths.

Indeed, this is reason Feynmann did more for physics that dozens of
Baezs, Greenes, and Wittens.

> A classic example of the importance of physical interpretation occurred
> in the case of the black body radiation curve.

Take General Relativity. What is g_ab?

A relativist will say it is a metric associated to element of line ds for
a curved spacetime. This is a geometrical view.

A field theoretician will say that is a field describing excitations h_ab
over a background n_ab.

The math is very much of the same. So far like i know no current
experiment differentiate both. But physics is *very* different. The
latter gives a concept of gravitational force which is rejected in the
former as invalid. In fact, the own split of the metric into one
background and one excitation is rejected in the geometric view.

Each physical interpretation gives two different theories (both
mathematically and physically) when quantizing. Basically, once you
physically interpret g_ab you make

g_ab --> n_ab + {h_ab}_op

in a field theoretic view whereas the relativist view would be

g_ab --> {n_ab}_op + {h_ab}_op

The quantization of n_ab gives the so-called quantum geometry.

Conclusion, whereas the mathematical models are very much of the same at
the classical level. The physical interpretation is different and
choosing one or the other gives different quantum gravity models.

> Maxwell's electrodynamics was based upon an understanding of what was
> going on in the physical sense. The idea of aethers had been an
> essential part of physics for a couple of hundred years first introduced
> to explain magnetic and electrostatic action at a distance forces. The
> aether is sneered at these days but it was argued that a magnet could
> not pick up a pin if there was genuinely nothing in the space between
> them.

Some astronomers argue that current cosmological models are based in two
aethers: dark matter and dark energy.

They did not mean that the darks have the properties of a classical
aether but emphasize its role in the physical interpretation of data.

> Einstein's heroes were Maxwell and Lorentz - both of whom relied heavily
> on physical interpretation. He described Lorentz as making the greatest
> contribution to electrical theory since Maxwell.

Hum, Einstein was in debt to Poincaré.

> At any particular time a physical interpretation may be wrong and at
> some stage have to be replaced with something better.

Yes, the lack of advance in physics is very related to the current lack
of 'physical' understanding that, however, characterized to past's
physicists.

It is unfortunate, you find an entire generation of young physicists
(recentely gradated) what are even unable to understand the difference
between a Lienard-Wiechert potential and a Coulomb potential!

They look (1/r) in both and then think that physics is the same. They
confound math with physics, because their theacher did also.

> Physical interpretation should go along with maths as they mutually
> discipline each other.

Yes. Mathematics give a preparation for logical discourses. Then physics
says you wath kind of logical discourse Nature prefers.

> Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
> in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
> had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
> rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
> to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory.

This is specially true in high-energy and relativists communities, with
their respective members being 'mathematicians' like many physicists of
the "old school" have emphasized.

### harry

Dec 13, 2007, 1:14:24 PM12/13/07
to

"Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
message news:fjrctg$8qf$1...@aioe.org...

> harry wrote {1197283...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch} on Mon, 10 Dec 2007
> 06:07:57 -0600:
>
>> Harald
>> -----------------------------------------------

[The following posting was copied from one by John Kennaugh, in
sci.physics.relativity]

>> Quite late on Einstein wrote:
>>
>> " Most [theories] are constructive. They attempt to build up a picture
>> of the more complex phenomena out of the materials of a relatively
>> simple formal scheme from which they start out. Thus the kinetic theory
>> of gases seeks to reduce mechanical, thermal, and diffusional processes
>> to movements of molecules i.e., to build them up out of the hypothesis
>> of molecular motion.
>
> In fact, Einstein is saying about kinetic theory is not right. Kinetic
> theory (Boltzmann) is based in classical mechanics for motion of
> molecules or atoms *more* extra-postulates, for instance the molecular-
> chaos condition. The extra-postulates cannot be derived from the
> mechanical theory. This was emphasized by great specialists on the topic
> like Bogoulivob, van Kampen, Balescu, Prigogine...

Then "seeks to" may be upbeat, but doesn't sound "not right". About the same
is true for Lorentz's 1904 approach to SRT, he could not construct it fully
from construction alone.

>> When we say that we have succeeded in understanding
>> a group of natural processes we invariably mean that a constructive
>> theory has been found which covers the processes in question.... The
>> and clearness."
>
> Complexity has invalidated this reductionist approach.

How? I'd say that complexity limits its usefulness. That's a far cry from
"invalidating".

> The whole is more than the sum of their parts. This also applies to
> relativity, which may be considered basically an one-body theory.
>
> The many-body relativistic theories are being formulated today contain a
> non-reductionist component. Special (and general) relativity is recovered
> in the one-body limit.
>
>> Physicists up until, and including Einstein would not have had to ask
>> the question "What is meant by physical interpretation?" It was
>> considered as an essential part of science and had played a vital role
>> in physics. Students today are taught that we cannot hope to understand
>> nature. All we can do is construct models of it. Physical interpretation
>> is considered as a poor alternative to a mathematical model rather than
>> what had been the case in the past that both together constituted a
>> theory.
>
> Take {F = m a}

OK, that's correct for m=constant which is approximately true for most
things at low speeds (Newtonian mechanics, and excluding rockets).

> In math i read like "F EQUALS m TIMES a"
>
> In physics i read like "FORCE EQUALS MASS TIMES ACCELERATION"
>
> The mathematical equation has sense when m < 0. But any student would
> (today) reject it as unphysical once m is interpreted like mass of a body.

Wasn't negative mass always regarded as unphyisical?

>> it will be as predicted. Physical interpretation drives the maths.
>
> Indeed, this is reason Feynmann did more for physics that dozens of
> Baezs, Greenes, and Wittens.

:-))

>> A classic example of the importance of physical interpretation occurred
>> in the case of the black body radiation curve.
>
> Take General Relativity. What is g_ab?

I didnt' get deep into the formalisms of GRT, so I won't comment on that.

Indeed, but he wasn't eager to admit that...

>> At any particular time a physical interpretation may be wrong and at
>> some stage have to be replaced with something better.
>
> Yes, the lack of advance in physics is very related to the current lack
> of 'physical' understanding that, however, characterized to past's
> physicists.

I'm afraid that the fear to make wrong physical interpretations has resulted
in poor physical understanding...

> It is unfortunate, you find an entire generation of young physicists
> (recentely gradated) what are even unable to understand the difference
> between a Lienard-Wiechert potential and a Coulomb potential!
>
> They look (1/r) in both and then think that physics is the same. They
> confound math with physics, because their theacher did also.

Regretfully that's an old one: Lorentz confused conformal mapping (math)
with coordinate transformations between inertial frames (physics).

>> Physical interpretation should go along with maths as they mutually
>> discipline each other.
> Yes. Mathematics give a preparation for logical discourses. Then physics
> says you wath kind of logical discourse Nature prefers.
>
>> Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
>> in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
>> had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
>> rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
>> to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory.
>
> This is specially true in high-energy and relativists communities, with
> their respective members being 'mathematicians' like many physicists of
> the "old school" have emphasized.

Right. But then with QM, we seem to have no alternative - at least, not yet!

Regards,
Harald

### David Rutherford

Dec 13, 2007, 2:49:50 PM12/13/07
to

harry wrote:

> "Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in
> message news:fjrctg$8qf$1...@aioe.org...
>
>>harry wrote {1197283...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch} on Mon, 10 Dec 2007
>>06:07:57 -0600:
>

>>>Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
>>>in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
>>>had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
>>>rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
>>>to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory.
>>
>>This is specially true in high-energy and relativists communities, with
>>their respective members being 'mathematicians' like many physicists of
>>the "old school" have emphasized.
>
>
> Right. But then with QM, we seem to have no alternative - at least, not yet!

Wrong. See "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" in the
"Applications" section at

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555

It's not that we don't _have_ alternatives. It's that the alternatives
are being blocked from reaching the people they need to reach by those
in charge of moderating the venues those people access for their
information, such as moderated newsgroups (not this one, thankfully, but
ones like sci.physics.research), archives (like arxiv), journals, etc.

I, personally, have been either blocked from discussing my theory, or
blocked entirely, from all of the above.

--
Dave Rutherford
"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555

Applications:
"4/3 Problem Resolution"
"Energy Density Correction"
"Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection"
"Biot-Savart's Companion"

### Peter

Dec 13, 2007, 7:18:33 PM12/13/07
to
David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net> writes:

...

> It's not that we don't _have_ alternatives. It's that the alternatives
> are being blocked from reaching the people they need to reach by those
> in charge of moderating the venues those people access for their
> information, such as moderated newsgroups (not this one, thankfully, but

> ones like sci.physics.research), archives (like arxiv), journals, etc...

Hello David,

Thank you for excempting our group. You know that, so far, I think that your
approach is erronous, but, nevertheless, I do approve your postings and will
continue to do so as long as they contain physical arguments, because there
are readers being wiser than me and, thus, will do a better judgement of your
approach :-)

Looking forward,
Peter

### David Rutherford

Dec 14, 2007, 12:28:01 AM12/14/07
to

Peter wrote:
>
> Hello David,
>
> Thank you for excempting our group. You know that, so far, I think that your
> approach is erronous,

You seem to be fond of making unsubstantiated claims. In a previous post
of mine, in which you claimed there was a contradiction, I asked you to
point out the contradiction, but you never responded (I guess there's a
double standard when it comes to moderators making claims without any
justification/argument ;)). In the same post, I also pointed out that a
leading authority on Clifford algebras (Pertti Lounesto) found no
contradictions (or errors) in my theory, and believe me, it wasn't
because he wasn't trying. Is your belief that my approach is erroneous
based on your 'feelings' or do you actually have some
justification/argument to back it up?

### harry

Dec 14, 2007, 10:00:42 AM12/14/07
to

"David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
news:4sSdnb0YOLyDFPza...@softcom.net...

>
>
> harry wrote:
>
>> "Juan R. González-Álvarez" <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote
>> in message news:fjrctg$8qf$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>>>harry wrote {1197283...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch} on Mon, 10 Dec 2007
>>>06:07:57 -0600:
> >
>>>>Basically physics abandoned physical interpretation as an essential aim
>>>>in physical theory because it wanted to accept a mathematics model which
>>>>had no conceivable physical interpretation other than the one they
>>>>rejected vehemently. They changed the rules as to what a theory is, as
>>>>to what physics is, so that maths could be accepted as a theory.
>>>
>>>This is specially true in high-energy and relativists communities, with
>>>their respective members being 'mathematicians' like many physicists of
>>>the "old school" have emphasized.
>>
>>
>> Right. But then with QM, we seem to have no alternative - at least, not
>> yet!
>
> Wrong. See "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" in the "Applications"
> section at
>
> http://www.softcom.net/users/der555

You overlooked the word "seem". ;-)

I looked at your site and I must say, the intro which is about stuff that I
know rather well I find a bit strange:
"In special relativity, spacetime can be described as Minkowskian. We intend
to show that spacetime, as well as the laws of electromagnetism, can be
described using a four-dimensional Euclidean metric as a foundation."
It's known that relativity works perfectly with Euclidean space and time
since it has done so from its early history - as demonstrated by Poincare in
June 1905.

Then going to "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" (I only glanced over
it):
- It's unclear how you model "spooky action at a distance", which IMO is the
main hurdle for such a theory.
- Looking at your theory in ref.1,
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf :

- You describe a particle "travelling back in time". As the time axis is
just a collection of events, it must be possible to describe the same
particle "travelling forward in time" - which corresponds to tracing its
behaviour in the direction of positive x.

- You define as "spacetime interval":
ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + c^2*dt^2

Simplifying for dy=0 and dz=0,

ds^2 = dx^2 + c^2*dt^2

>From experience, as far as we know, (dx^2 - c^2*dt^2 ) is exactly the same
in all inertial systems that are moving parallel to x. Consequently your ds
cannot be invariant. What is its use?

> It's not that we don't _have_ alternatives. It's that the alternatives are
> being blocked from reaching the people they need to reach by those in
> charge of moderating the venues those people access for their information,
> such as moderated newsgroups (not this one, thankfully, but ones like
> sci.physics.research), archives (like arxiv), journals, etc.
>
> I, personally, have been either blocked from discussing my theory, or
> blocked entirely, from all of the above.

If you for example claim that the standard space-time interval + 2*c^2*dt^2
is invariant, then it's not surprising.

Regards,
Harald

### David Rutherford

Dec 14, 2007, 2:24:38 PM12/14/07
to

harry wrote:
> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
> news:4sSdnb0YOLyDFPza...@softcom.net...
>

>>>Right. But then with QM, we seem to have no alternative - at least, not
>>>yet!
>>
>>Wrong. See "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" in the "Applications"
>>section at
>>
>>http://www.softcom.net/users/der555
>
>
> You overlooked the word "seem". ;-)
>
> I looked at your site and I must say, the intro which is about stuff that I
> know rather well I find a bit strange:
> "In special relativity, spacetime can be described as Minkowskian. We intend
> to show that spacetime, as well as the laws of electromagnetism, can be
> described using a four-dimensional Euclidean metric as a foundation."
> It's known that relativity works perfectly with Euclidean space and time
> since it has done so from its early history - as demonstrated by Poincare in
> June 1905.

Euclidean space and time is not the same as Euclidean spacetime.
Relativity works _more_ perfectly with Euclidean spacetime ;-).

> Then going to "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" (I only glanced over
> it):
> - It's unclear how you model "spooky action at a distance", which IMO is the
> main hurdle for such a theory.

There is no "spooky action at a distance", in my theory. Particles
possess attributes at the time of their separation, in my theory. My
particle/wave function is a potential function, not a probability
function. In a probability function, the particles have a probability of
having certain attributes, but don't actually possess those attributes
until measured. That's what leads to the misguided concept of "spooky
action at a distance".

> - Looking at your theory in ref.1,
> http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf :
>
> - You describe a particle "travelling back in time". As the time axis is
> just a collection of events, it must be possible to describe the same
> particle "travelling forward in time" - which corresponds to tracing its
> behaviour in the direction of positive x.
>
> - You define as "spacetime interval":
> ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + c^2*dt^2
>
> Simplifying for dy=0 and dz=0,
>
> ds^2 = dx^2 + c^2*dt^2
>
>>From experience, as far as we know, (dx^2 - c^2*dt^2 ) is exactly the same
> in all inertial systems that are moving parallel to x. Consequently your ds
> cannot be invariant.

In my theory,

dx'_\mu = U_\mu\nu dx_\nu

For

U_\mu\nu = (1/c)[ U_t -U_z U_y -U_x]
[ U_z U_t -U_x -U_y]
[-U_y -U_x U_t -U_z]
[ U_x U_y U_z U_t]

[dx' ] = (1/c)[ U_t -U_z U_y -U_x ] [dx ]
[dy' ] [ U_z U_t -U_x -U_y ] [dy ]
[dz' ] [-U_y U_x U_t -U_z ] [dz ]
[cdt'] [ U_x U_y U_z U_t ] [cdt]

and for dy = dz = 0

[dx' ] = (1/c)[ U_t -U_z U_y -U_x ] [dx ]
[dy' ] [ U_z U_t -U_x -U_y ] [0 ]
[dz' ] [-U_y U_x U_t -U_z ] [0 ]
[cdt'] [ U_x U_y U_z U_t ] [cdt]

dx' = (1/c)( U_t dx - U_x cdt)
dy' = (1/c)( U_z dx - U_y cdt)
dz' = (1/c)(-U_y dx - U_z cdt)
cdt' = (1/c)( U_x dx + U_t cdt)

ds^2 = (dx')^2 + (dy')^2 + (dz')^2 + (cdt')^2
= (1/c^2)( ( U_t dx - U_x cdt)^2
+( U_z dx - U_y cdt)^2
+(-U_y dx - U_z cdt)^2
+( U_x dx + U_t cdt)^2 )

= (1/c^2)(((U_x)^2 + (U_y)^2 + (U_z)^2 + (U_t)^2)(dx^2 + c^2dt^2))

and, since (U_x)^2 + (U_y)^2 + (U_z)^2 + (U_t)^2 = c^2

= dx^2 + c^2dt^2

= dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + c^2dt^2

If U_y = U_z = 0, then dy' = dz' = 0 and

ds^2 = (dx')^2 + c^2(dt')^2 = dx^2 + c^2dt^2

So ds^2 is invariant in my theory.

### Peter

Dec 14, 2007, 4:00:56 PM12/14/07
to
David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net> writes:

Hello David,

My aforegoing posting was intended to be very friendly. I apologize for the
deficits in my English, for this was, obviously, not expressed properly.

> > Thank you for excempting our group. You know that, so far, I think that
> > your approach is erronous,

> You seem to be fond of making unsubstantiated claims. In a previous post
> of mine, in which you claimed there was a contradiction, I asked you to

> point out the contradiction, but you never responded...

I have several times written, that I don't understand your vector algebra, and
I was not the only poster in this group who couldn't

> ...(I guess there's a

> double standard when it comes to moderators making claims without any
> justification/argument ;)).

this sentence is unjustified w.r.t. this group and, thus, appears to me as
expressing a certain jealousness ;-)

> In the same post, I also pointed out that a
> leading authority on Clifford algebras (Pertti Lounesto) found no
> contradictions (or errors) in my theory, and believe me, it wasn't
> because he wasn't trying. Is your belief that my approach is erroneous
> based on your 'feelings' or do you actually have some
> justification/argument to back it up?

see above

I did find your approach interesting, may be, we should retry our discussion -
may be, you have tensors in your commutation relations, where I (and others)
have seen scalars?

Looking forward,
Peter

### Ken S. Tucker

Dec 16, 2007, 3:02:35 PM12/16/07
to
On Dec 14, 1:00 pm, Peter <end...@dekasges.de> wrote:

I agree with Peter, and btw, I'm not disagreeing with
David. What is easier for the reader is to ref to some,
mathematics, perhaps this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion
where rotations are concerned.

Mathematicians have invented many ways to solve
problems, and General Relativity is very versatile to
Newton found the existing mathematics insufficient
for physics so he developed calculus, (fluxions), and
that was a tremendous achievement.

Personally, I'd prefer if Mr. Rutherford might direct me
/us to particular branch of mathematics that has been
verified, otherwise, he may need to develope that first.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

### Juan R.

Dec 16, 2007, 3:02:26 PM12/16/07
to
harry wrote {1197568...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch} on Thu, 13 Dec 2007
12:14:24 -0600:

>> In fact, Einstein is saying about kinetic theory is not right. Kinetic
>> theory (Boltzmann) is based in classical mechanics for motion of
>> molecules or atoms *more* extra-postulates, for instance the molecular-
>> chaos condition. The extra-postulates cannot be derived from the
>> mechanical theory. This was emphasized by great specialists on the
>> topic like Bogoulivob, van Kampen, Balescu, Prigogine...
>
> Then "seeks to" may be upbeat, but doesn't sound "not right".

The interest of Bogoulibov pioonering work is on he did explicit the non-
mechanical hypotesis needed for a kinetic theory.

Therefore we may conclude that kinetic theory does *not* reduce to
mechanics.

>>> When we say that we have succeeded in understanding a group of natural
>>> processes we invariably mean that a constructive theory has been found
>>> which covers the processes in question.... The advantages of the
>>> constructive theory are completeness, adaptability, and clearness."
>>
>> Complexity has invalidated this reductionist approach.
>
> How? I'd say that complexity limits its usefulness. That's a far cry
> from "invalidating".

Yes, your is a better statement.

When i wrote "has invalidated", i did mean complexity has invalidated
reductionists' original goal of providing humans with a so called theory
of everything TOE from a study of simple things like particles or strings.

Of course, reductionism will continue to work very well in accelerator
physics experiments where the only matter studied are very simple pieces
(usually one or two particles).

>> The mathematical equation has sense when m < 0. But any student would
>> (today) reject it as unphysical once m is interpreted like mass of a
>> body.
>
> Wasn't negative mass always regarded as unphyisical?

Once people believed in the existence of negative masses for saving
flogiston theory from empirical trouble. Then Lavoisier presented a new
theory of combustion that avoided a negative masses hypotesis.

Also, I do not know if tomorrow negative masses will be measured in some
revolutionary experiment or cosmological observation. Who knows?

> Regretfully that's an old one: Lorentz confused conformal mapping (math)
> with coordinate transformations between inertial frames (physics).

Very related is modern confusion between coordinate transformations for t
and the quantum generator of time translations. Confusion generating the
famous problem of time.

### Peter

Dec 16, 2007, 3:56:30 PM12/16/07
to
"Juan R." =?iso-8859-1?q?Gonz=E1lez-=C1lvarez?=
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> writes:

> harry wrote {1197568...@sicinfo3.epfl.ch} on Thu, 13 Dec 2007
> 12:14:24 -0600:
>
> >> In fact, Einstein is saying about kinetic theory is not right. Kinetic
> >> theory (Boltzmann) is based in classical mechanics for motion of
> >> molecules or atoms *more* extra-postulates, for instance the molecular-
> >> chaos condition.

What exactly does this condition mean?

> >> The extra-postulates cannot be derived from the
> >> mechanical theory. This was emphasized by great specialists on the
> >> topic like Bogoulivob, van Kampen, Balescu, Prigogine...

I'm asking above, because most of them were not aware of the difference
between Newton's and Laplace's notions of state. The differences are most far-
reaching; eg, Newton's one encompasses both classical and quantum statistics
(Einstein 1905) and, thus, avoids Gibbs' paradox.

> The interest of Bogoulibov pioonering work is on he did explicit the non-
> mechanical hypotesis needed for a kinetic theory.

I assume that you have in mind N. N. B. the older - what is (are) the paper(s)
you're referring to?

> Therefore we may conclude that kinetic theory does *not* reduce to
> mechanics.

You may know that I am against reductionism. At the same time, I am continuing
Hertz's program "to represent classical mechanics in such a way, that it [its
results] can be exploited for the development of other branches of physics".
This involves mostly forgotten results, such as Newton's notion of states
(highlighted by Weizsäcker) and the Lipschitz force (the magnetic Lorentz
force being a special case of it).

Thank you,
Peter

### David Rutherford

Dec 17, 2007, 5:03:07 AM12/17/07
to

Peter wrote:
> David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net> writes:
>
> Hello David,
>
> My aforegoing posting was intended to be very friendly. I apologize for the
> deficits in my English, for this was, obviously, not expressed properly.
>
>
>>>Thank you for excempting our group. You know that, so far, I think that
>
>
>>You seem to be fond of making unsubstantiated claims. In a previous post
>>of mine, in which you claimed there was a contradiction, I asked you to
>>point out the contradiction, but you never responded...
>
>
> I have several times written, that I don't understand your vector algebra, and
> I was not the only poster in this group who couldn't

You shouldn't be saying that my approach is erroneous, or that it
contains contradictions, if you don't understand it.

>>...(I guess there's a
>>double standard when it comes to moderators making claims without any
>>justification/argument ;)).
>
>
> this sentence is unjustified w.r.t. this group and, thus, appears to me as
> expressing a certain jealousness ;-)

Maybe you didn't catch it, but I was quoting a statement you made to
another poster in which you said that his "claims without any
justification/argument" could have been grounds for the rejection of his
post, according to the group charter. What's good for the goose should
be good for the moderator ;-).

>>In the same post, I also pointed out that a
>>leading authority on Clifford algebras (Pertti Lounesto) found no
>>contradictions (or errors) in my theory, and believe me, it wasn't
>>because he wasn't trying. Is your belief that my approach is erroneous
>>based on your 'feelings' or do you actually have some
>>justification/argument to back it up?
>
>
> see above
>
> I did find your approach interesting, may be, we should retry our discussion -
> may be, you have tensors in your commutation relations,

What commutation relations?

### David Rutherford

Dec 17, 2007, 5:02:43 AM12/17/07
to

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>
> Personally, I'd prefer if Mr. Rutherford might direct me
> /us to particular branch of mathematics that has been
> verified, otherwise, he may need to develope that first.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker

I hereby verify my mathematical formalism. There, now you can safely
believe in it :-). But seriously, I've heard of mathematics being
rigorous, but I never heard of it being verified. Is that what you mean?
In that case, Pertti Lounesto pretty much showed that it's rigorous.

My formalism is most closely related, as I stated in my paper, to
quaternions and Clifford algebras, but it isn't exactly the same. You
can find both on the web.

### harry

Dec 17, 2007, 9:11:53 AM12/17/07
to

"David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
news:5O6dnYWTU67uSP_a...@softcom.net...

>
>
> harry wrote:
>> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
>> news:4sSdnb0YOLyDFPza...@softcom.net...
[...]

>> Then going to "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" (I only glanced
>> over it):
>> - It's unclear how you model "spooky action at a distance", which IMO is
>> the main hurdle for such a theory.
>
> There is no "spooky action at a distance", in my theory. Particles possess
> attributes at the time of their separation, in my theory. My particle/wave
> function is a potential function, not a probability function. In a
> probability function, the particles have a probability of having certain
> attributes, but don't actually possess those attributes until measured.
> That's what leads to the misguided concept of "spooky action at a
> distance".

Interesting approach. How does that explain the distribution of detected
photons?

>> - Looking at your theory in ref.1,
>> http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf :
>>
>> - You describe a particle "travelling back in time". As the time axis is
>> just a collection of events, it must be possible to describe the same
>> particle "travelling forward in time" - which corresponds to tracing its
>> behaviour in the direction of positive x.
>>
>> - You define as "spacetime interval":
>> ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + c^2*dt^2
>>
>> Simplifying for dy=0 and dz=0,
>>
>> ds^2 = dx^2 + c^2*dt^2
>>
>>>From experience, as far as we know, (dx^2 - c^2*dt^2 ) is exactly the
>>>same
>> in all inertial systems that are moving parallel to x. Consequently your
>> ds cannot be invariant.
>
> In my theory,
>

[long derivation, but see below]

> If U_y = U_z = 0, then dy' = dz' = 0 and

> ds^2 = (dx')^2 + c^2(dt')^2 = dx^2 + c^2dt^2

> So ds^2 is invariant in my theory.

Sorry but I didn't suggest that your theory is not consistent with itself,
that wasn't the point. Let me rephrase to be perfectly clear. I claimed
that,
SINCE:
1. According to observation: when the term c^2*dt^2 (let's call it A) is
significant, the standard space-time interval (let's call it S) is invariant
to very good approximation,
AND
2. Your space-time interval is S + 2A
AND
THEREFORE,
IF you assigned the same operational meanings to x and t:
4. Your space-time interval is variant according to observation, which

Regards,
Harald

### David Rutherford

Dec 18, 2007, 1:35:23 AM12/18/07
to

harry wrote:
> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
> news:5O6dnYWTU67uSP_a...@softcom.net...
>
>>
>>harry wrote:
>>
>>>"David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
>>>news:4sSdnb0YOLyDFPza...@softcom.net...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>Then going to "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection" (I only glanced
>>>over it):
>>>- It's unclear how you model "spooky action at a distance", which IMO is
>>>the main hurdle for such a theory.
>>
>>There is no "spooky action at a distance", in my theory. Particles possess
>>attributes at the time of their separation, in my theory. My particle/wave
>>function is a potential function, not a probability function. In a
>>probability function, the particles have a probability of having certain
>>attributes, but don't actually possess those attributes until measured.
>>That's what leads to the misguided concept of "spooky action at a
>>distance".
>
>
> Interesting approach. How does that explain the distribution of detected
> photons?

I'm assuming you're referring to the interference pattern in the double
slit experiment for photons. I haven't really thought much about that as
it relates to my theory. I'm guessing that they interfer with themselves
and each other.

>>ds^2 is invariant in my theory.
>
>
> Sorry but I didn't suggest that your theory is not consistent with itself,
> that wasn't the point. Let me rephrase to be perfectly clear. I claimed
> that,
> SINCE:
> 1. According to observation: when the term c^2*dt^2 (let's call it A) is
> significant, the standard space-time interval (let's call it S) is invariant
> to very good approximation,
> AND
> 2. Your space-time interval is S + 2A
> AND
> THEREFORE,
> IF you assigned the same operational meanings to x and t:
> 4. Your space-time interval is variant according to observation, which

My spacetime interval is invariant according to observation. I think
your misconception might come down to my definition of proper time. My
definition of proper time, as I stated in my paper, is different than
SR's definition. In my theory, the proper time is the time between
events measured in an inertial frame if there is no distance between the
events in that frame. It's the _maximum_ possible time measured between
the events. My proper time \tau is equal in _magnitude_ to SR's
coordinate time t.

Imagine that two observers, A and B, are initially at rest at a point P
with synchronized clocks. Observer B then travels at high speed to a
point Q, then returns to P. Observer B's departure from P is event E1.
Observer B's return to point P is event E2. Observer A (in my theory)
measures the proper time between E1 and E2, since there is zero distance
between the two events in his frame. Observer B measures a time less
than that, since he has travelled from P to Q and back (his distance
interval is nonzero). But the spacetime interval between the events in
the two frames is invariant.

In SR, observer B, not observer A, measures the proper time between E1
and E2.

### harry

Dec 18, 2007, 7:12:02 AM12/18/07
to

"David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
news:KMidnTLuaouptPra...@softcom.net...

>
>
> harry wrote:
>> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
>> news:5O6dnYWTU67uSP_a...@softcom.net...
>>
>>>
>>>harry wrote:
>>>
>>>>"David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:4sSdnb0YOLyDFPza...@softcom.net...
[...]

>>>ds^2 is invariant in my theory.

>>
>> Sorry but I didn't suggest that your theory is not consistent with
>> itself, that wasn't the point. Let me rephrase to be perfectly clear. I
>> claimed that,
>> SINCE:
>> 1. According to observation: when the term c^2*dt^2 (let's call it A) is
>> significant, the standard space-time interval (let's call it S) is
>> invariant to very good approximation,
>> AND
>> 2. Your space-time interval is S + 2A
>> AND
>> THEREFORE,
>> IF you assigned the same operational meanings to x and t:
>> 4. Your space-time interval is variant according to observation, which
>
> My spacetime interval is invariant according to observation. I think your
> misconception might come down to my definition of proper time. My
> definition of proper time, as I stated in my paper, is different than SR's
> definition.

In SR, "t" stands for the coordinate time of an inertial reference system -
NOT the proper time of an object.

> In my theory, the proper time is the time between events measured in an
> inertial frame if there is no distance between the events in that frame.
> It's the _maximum_ possible time measured between the events. My proper
> time \tau is equal in _magnitude_ to SR's coordinate time t.

> Imagine that two observers, A and B, are initially at rest at a point P
> with synchronized clocks. Observer B then travels at high speed to a point
> Q, then returns to P. Observer B's departure from P is event E1. Observer
> B's return to point P is event E2. Observer A (in my theory) measures the
> proper time between E1 and E2, since there is zero distance between the
> two events in his frame. Observer B measures a time less than that, since
> he has travelled from P to Q and back (his distance interval is nonzero).
> But the spacetime interval between the events in the two frames is
> invariant.
>
> In SR, observer B, not observer A, measures the proper time between E1 and
> E2.

Hmm... not really, but never mind: I don't use that concept. In my above
comparison no proper time is used, but only - as I stated - IF your "t"
corresponds to coordinate time!
You could clarify your definitions with a simple calculation example of your
space-time interval for v=0.6c.

Harald

### Juan R.

Dec 18, 2007, 7:12:53 AM12/18/07
to
Peter wrote {guest.20071216201834$41...@news.killfile.org} on Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:56:30 -0600: >> >> In fact, Einstein is saying about kinetic theory is not right. >> >> Kinetic theory (Boltzmann) is based in classical mechanics for >> >> motion of molecules or atoms *more* extra-postulates, for instance >> >> the molecular- chaos condition. > > What exactly does this condition mean? Evolution of the physical system is not unitary. >> The interest of Bogoulibov pioonering work is on he did explicit the >> non- mechanical hypotesis needed for a kinetic theory. > > I assume that you have in mind N. N. B. the older - what is (are) the > paper(s) you're referring to? I did not read his original papers. I knew first time from well-known Landau manuals on theoretical physics (search the chapter on kinetic theory). A more rigorous and technical discussion is provided on section "Bogoulibov's theory" on classical monograph [1] > You may know that I am against reductionism. At the same time, I am > continuing Hertz's program "to represent classical mechanics in such a > way, that it [its results] can be exploited for the development of other > branches of physics". Fascinating! Very related to my own research program. > This involves mostly forgotten results, such as Newton's notion of > states (highlighted by Weizscker) and the Lipschitz force (the magnetic > Lorentz force being a special case of it). Sounds interesting. On EM research, I am developing a generalized force also with Lorentz forces being special cases. [1] Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics. Wiley-Interscience, 1962. Prigogine I. ### Oh No unread, Dec 18, 2007, 7:37:31 AM12/18/07 to Thus spake David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net> > My definition of proper time, as I stated in my paper, is different >than SR's definition. In my theory, the proper time is the time between >events measured in an inertial frame if there is no distance between >the events in that frame. That is not different from SR. >It's the _maximum_ possible time measured between the events. My proper >time \tau is equal in _magnitude_ to SR's coordinate time t. SR's coordinate time is proper time for measured at the origin. > >Imagine that two observers, A and B, are initially at rest at a point P >with synchronized clocks. Observer B then travels at high speed to a >point Q, then returns to P. Observer B's departure from P is event E1. >Observer B's return to point P is event E2. Observer A (in my theory) >measures the proper time between E1 and E2, since there is zero >distance between the two events in his frame. Observer B measures a >time less than that, since he has travelled from P to Q and back (his >distance interval is nonzero). No, he has not changed position in his own reference frame. > But the spacetime interval between the events in the two frames is >invariant. In special relativity, the only reasonable definition of a spacetime interval would be for the inertial path. In general relativity that breaks down, as there may be more than one path. One needs to get away from flatspace concepts. > >In SR, observer B, not observer A, measures the proper time between E1 >and E2. No. Both measure proper time, which is a path dependent quantity. You will not make your ideas easy to understand if you do not first learn to communicate conventional ideas. Regards -- Charles Francis moderator sci.physics.foundations. charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and braces) ### David Rutherford unread, Dec 18, 2007, 3:09:52 PM12/18/07 to Oh No wrote: > Thus spake David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net> > >>Imagine that two observers, A and B, are initially at rest at a point P >>with synchronized clocks. Observer B then travels at high speed to a >>point Q, then returns to P. Observer B's departure from P is event E1. >>Observer B's return to point P is event E2. Observer A (in my theory) >>measures the proper time between E1 and E2, since there is zero >>distance between the two events in his frame. Observer B measures a >>time less than that, since he has travelled from P to Q and back (his >>distance interval is nonzero). > > > No, he has not changed position in his own reference frame. > > >>In SR, observer B, not observer A, measures the proper time between E1 >>and E2. > > > No. Both measure proper time, which is a path dependent quantity. You > will not make your ideas easy to understand if you do not first learn to > communicate conventional ideas. If both observers, in the example I gave, measure proper time and zero distance between the events (you stated above that B "has not changed position in his own reference frame"), then the spacetime interval between the events, in SR, is not invariant (assuming they measure different times between the events). ### David Rutherford unread, Dec 18, 2007, 3:09:21 PM12/18/07 to harry wrote: >> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message > > In SR, "t" stands for the coordinate time of an inertial reference system - > NOT the proper time of an object. I know. >>In SR, observer B, not observer A, measures the proper time between E1 and >>E2. > > > Hmm... not really, but never mind: I don't use that concept. In my above > comparison no proper time is used, but only - as I stated - IF your "t" > corresponds to coordinate time! > You could clarify your definitions with a simple calculation example of your > space-time interval for v=0.6c. I don't use v, that is, v_i=dx_i/dt (i = 1,2,3), I use U_\mu=dx_\mu/dtau (\mu = 1,2,3,4), the 4-velocity. ### Oh No unread, Dec 18, 2007, 5:21:09 PM12/18/07 to Thus spake David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net> > > >> No. Both measure proper time, which is a path dependent quantity. > >If both observers, in the example I gave, measure proper time and zero >distance between the events (you stated above that B "has not changed >position in his own reference frame"), then the spacetime interval >between the events, in SR, is not invariant (assuming they measure >different times between the events). > I think really we are talking gr here, not sr. And you are right, there is no meaning for a displacement vector in gr. We can only define such a thing in a local approximation - this is often called the line element, and is also called the metric. In the general case, we have to define a path and integrate the line element along the path. ### harry unread, Dec 19, 2007, 9:08:54 AM12/19/07 to "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message news:PrudnfChBJFCnvXa...@softcom.net... > > > harry wrote: >>> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message > > >> In SR, "t" stands for the coordinate time of an inertial reference >> system - NOT the proper time of an object. > > I know. > >>>In SR, observer B, not observer A, measures the proper time between E1 >>>and E2. >> >> >> Hmm... not really, but never mind: I don't use that concept. In my above >> comparison no proper time is used, but only - as I stated - IF your "t" >> corresponds to coordinate time! >> You could clarify your definitions with a simple calculation example of >> your space-time interval for v=0.6c. > > I don't use v, that is, v_i=dx_i/dt (i = 1,2,3), I use U_\mu=dx_\mu/dtau > (\mu = 1,2,3,4), the 4-velocity. Again, no v in the above comparison. The only things to clearly define, by phrases or (better) by example, is the meanings of your x and t s compared to that of standard space-time equations. Harald ### Juan R. unread, Dec 19, 2007, 9:10:29 AM12/19/07 to David Rutherford wrote {PrudnfChBJFCnvXa...@softcom.net} on Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:09:21 -0600: > harry wrote: >>> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message > > >> In SR, "t" stands for the coordinate time of an inertial reference >> system - NOT the proper time of an object. > > I know. > >>>In SR, observer B, not observer A, measures the proper time between E1 >>>and E2. >> >> >> Hmm... not really, but never mind: I don't use that concept. In my >> above comparison no proper time is used, but only - as I stated - IF >> your "t" corresponds to coordinate time! >> You could clarify your definitions with a simple calculation example of >> your space-time interval for v=0.6c. > > I don't use v, that is, v_i=dx_i/dt (i = 1,2,3), I use U_\mu=dx_\mu/dtau > (\mu = 1,2,3,4), the 4-velocity. This looks very similar to my own approach I call PR "post- relativity" [1]. Start with SR. Use c = 1, ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 dt^2 = ds^2 + dx^2 dt^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 Here t is reading of a clock and relativists confound it with concept of time. Both t and x are relative TAU is invariant to change of system of reference. Now, PR proposes dT^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 Now T is time, and time is absolute (experiments only prove clock rate is relative). Since T is absolute, TAU (clock rate) and x are relative to change of *particle*. This form is very important because let us development of a physical theory of relativistic systems. Whereas SR is just a theory of measurements of relativistic systems. One can reintroduce c factors and write dS^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 looking like your own (but with other notation). You call dS a "spacetime invariant". But i prefer interpret stuff in terms of invariant time T. ### Oh No unread, Dec 19, 2007, 11:40:15 AM12/19/07 to Thus spake Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREMOVE- TH...@canonicalscience.com> >David Rutherford wrote {PrudnfChBJFCnvXa...@softcom.net} on >Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:09:21 -0600: > >> I don't use v, that is, v_i=dx_i/dt (i = 1,2,3), I use U_\mu=dx_\mu/dtau >> (\mu = 1,2,3,4), the 4-velocity. > >This looks very similar to my own approach I call PR "post- >relativity" [1]. Should not general relativity be post relativity? > >Start with SR. Use c = 1, > >ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 > >dt^2 = ds^2 + dx^2 > >dt^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 > so, essentially, TAU = s (+const) >Here t is reading of a clock and relativists confound it with concept of >time. Both t and x are relative TAU is invariant to change of system of >reference. > >Now, PR proposes > >dT^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 But then t = T (+ const) > >Now T is time, and time is absolute (experiments only prove clock rate is >relative). > >Since T is absolute, TAU (clock rate) and x are relative to change of >*particle*. but you have just shown that T is essentially the same as t, which is indeed relative. > >This form is very important because let us development of a physical >theory of relativistic systems. Whereas SR is just a theory of >measurements of relativistic systems. > >One can reintroduce c factors and write > >dS^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 > >looking like your own (but with other notation). > >You call dS a "spacetime invariant". But i prefer interpret stuff in >terms of invariant time T. > I think your invariant time, if you had said it properly, is probably just the same as David,s. That is to say, it is proper time, time measured along the path of the particle. This is a very sound concept, but you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking it is absolute, that it is not a part of relativity, or indeed that you can introduce anything into relativity by means of a few algebraic manipulations. ### David Rutherford unread, Dec 19, 2007, 1:14:41 PM12/19/07 to harry wrote: > "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message >> >>I don't use v, that is, v_i=dx_i/dt (i = 1,2,3), I use U_\mu=dx_\mu/dtau >>(\mu = 1,2,3,4), the 4-velocity. > > Again, no v in the above comparison. The only things to clearly define, by > phrases or (better) by example, is the meanings of your x and t s compared > to that of standard space-time equations. My x is the x-coordinate of an event, my t is the time-coordinate of an event, in a given reference frame. ### Oz unread, Dec 20, 2007, 4:48:25 AM12/20/07 to Oh No <No...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> writes >I think your invariant time, if you had said it properly, is probably just >the same as David,s. That is to say, it is proper time, time measured along >the path of the particle. This is a very sound concept, but you shouldn't >make the mistake of thinking it is absolute, that it is not a part of >relativity, or indeed that you can introduce anything into relativity by >means of a few algebraic manipulations. It is however "A Very Important Time" with some uniqueness. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. ### Ken S. Tucker unread, Dec 20, 2007, 8:24:39 AM12/20/07 to On Dec 19, 8:40 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > Thus spake Juan R. González-Álvarez <juanREMOVE- > T...@canonicalscience.com> > > >David Rutherford wrote {PrudnfChBJFCnvXanZ2dnUVZ_rWtn...@softcom.net} on I definitely agree, though I bet there are marginally better ways of expressing electrical theory as David and Juan are expressing. To introduce an idea that burns$billions of text books, and the re-education of
the worlds professors needs a serious paradigm shift.

I have issues with the results (so far) with the findings
of "frame dragging" by GP-b and "g-waves" by LIGO,
that may necessitate a "paradigm shift" in the General
*Theory* of Relativity, (GToR), that leave the General
Principles of Relativity (GPoR) intact.

Our understanding of the physical sciences, at that
level, is an equal test of our mathematical logic used
to predict experimental outputs. It pits our ability to
take the GPoR via the GToR into firm science.

For that reason I'd like to study Dr. Francis's term
"algebraic manipulations", and with all due respect
arbituary "algebraic manipulations" are vaporware.

Some noteable exceptions are,
1) Newtons developement of calculus applied to
Keplers Laws.
2) The developement of Vector calculus in mechanics
and electrical theory.
3) Plancks suggestion that "h" => to a constant.
4) AE's use of tensors in GToR.

Because of that evolution, that was responsible to
outstanding physical problems, new math tools

So my suggestion is, define clearly the outstanding
physical problem, and where necessary introduce a
new mathematical technique to deal with it.

Best Regards
Ken S. Tucker

### harry

Dec 20, 2007, 8:25:21 AM12/20/07
to

"David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
news:zv2dnUe2GcGdy_Ta...@softcom.net...

>
>
> harry wrote:
>> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>I don't use v, that is, v_i=dx_i/dt (i = 1,2,3), I use U_\mu=dx_\mu/dtau
>>>(\mu = 1,2,3,4), the 4-velocity.
>>
>> Again, no v in the above comparison. The only things to clearly define,
>> by phrases or (better) by example, is the meanings of your x and t s
>> compared to that of standard space-time equations.
>
> My x is the x-coordinate of an event, my t is the time-coordinate of an
> event, in a given reference frame.

Which one? Certainly no inertial frame!

Regards,
Harald

### Oh No

Dec 20, 2007, 9:54:56 AM12/20/07
to
Thus spake Ken S. Tucker <dyna...@vianet.on.ca>

>On Dec 19, 8:40 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"or indeed that you can introduce anything
> into relativity by means of a few algebraic manipulations."
>
>I definitely agree, though I bet there are marginally
>better ways of expressing electrical theory as David
>and Juan are expressing. To introduce an idea that
>burns $billions of text books, and the re-education of >the worlds professors needs a serious paradigm shift. > >I have issues with the results (so far) with the findings >of "frame dragging" by GP-b and "g-waves" by LIGO, >that may necessitate a "paradigm shift" in the General >*Theory* of Relativity, (GToR), that leave the General >Principles of Relativity (GPoR) intact. > I hadn't thought either of these were problematic at a fundamental level as yet. What is the latest state of play? >Our understanding of the physical sciences, at that >level, is an equal test of our mathematical logic used >to predict experimental outputs. It pits our ability to >take the GPoR via the GToR into firm science. > >For that reason I'd like to study Dr. Francis's term >"algebraic manipulations", and with all due respect >arbituary "algebraic manipulations" are vaporware. > I wouldn't go that far! I merely meant that since algebra is defined for special relativity, anything one does simply using algebra in relativity is still relativity, not new theory. > Regards -- ### David Rutherford unread, Dec 20, 2007, 4:09:15 PM12/20/07 to Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: > David Rutherford wrote {PrudnfChBJFCnvXa...@softcom.net} on > >>I don't use v, that is, v_i=dx_i/dt (i = 1,2,3), I use U_\mu=dx_\mu/dtau >>(\mu = 1,2,3,4), the 4-velocity. > > This looks very similar to my own approach I call PR "post- > relativity" [1]. > > Start with SR. Use c = 1, > > ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 > > dt^2 = ds^2 + dx^2 > > dt^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 > > Here t is reading of a clock and relativists confound it with concept of > time. Both t and x are relative TAU is invariant to change of system of > reference. > > Now, PR proposes > > dT^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 > > Now T is time, and time is absolute (experiments only prove clock rate is > relative). By "absolute", do you mean invariant? > Since T is absolute, TAU (clock rate) and x are relative to change of *particle*. > > This form is very important because let us development of a physical > theory of relativistic systems. Whereas SR is just a theory of > measurements of relativistic systems. > > One can reintroduce c factors and write > > dS^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 > > looking like your own (but with other notation). In my theory, ds^2=(dx')^2+(dy')^2+(dz')^2+(cdt')^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2+(cdt)^2 If dx'=dy'=dz'=0 then dt'=dtau (in an inertial frame), so ds^2 = (cdtau)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + (cdt)^2 From this you can see that cdtau = ds, so since ds is an invariant, tau is also an invariant in my theory. If dy=dz=0 in the unprimed frame, then (cdtau)^2 = dx^2 + (cdt)^2 or, reversing the terms on the right and putting c=1, dtau^2 = dt^2 + dx^2 If you make the replacements tau=T and t=TAU, then you get your equation dT^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2 Just remember that my tau isn't the same as your TAU and my t isn't the same as your T. ### David Rutherford unread, Dec 20, 2007, 4:10:32 PM12/20/07 to harry wrote: > "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message >> >>My x is the x-coordinate of an event, my t is the time-coordinate of an >>event, in a given reference frame. > > Which one? Certainly no inertial frame! Certainly yes inertial frame! ### Ken S. Tucker unread, Dec 20, 2007, 4:10:27 PM12/20/07 to On Dec 20, 6:54 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > Thus spake Ken S. Tucker <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> > > >On Dec 19, 8:40 am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > > >"or indeed that you can introduce anything > > into relativity by means of a few algebraic manipulations." > > >I definitely agree, though I bet there are marginally > >better ways of expressing electrical theory as David > >and Juan are expressing. To introduce an idea that > >burns$billions of text books, and the re-education of
> >the worlds professors needs a serious paradigm shift.
>
> >I have issues with the results (so far) with the findings
> >of "frame dragging" by GP-b and "g-waves" by LIGO,
> >that may necessitate a "paradigm shift" in the General
> >*Theory* of Relativity, (GToR), that leave the General
> >Principles of Relativity (GPoR) intact.
>
> I hadn't thought either of these were problematic at a fundamental level
> as yet. What is the latest state of play?

The official GP-b stuff is here,
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
IMHO, use rose-colored glasses to view fluffed data, with
some data mining, and result expectation, and you'll see
what you want.

There are several "g-wave" detectors around the world
that are *uncomfortably* silent.

> >Our understanding of the physical sciences, at that
> >level, is an equal test of our mathematical logic used
> >to predict experimental outputs. It pits our ability to
> >take the GPoR via the GToR into firm science.
>
> >For that reason I'd like to study Dr. Francis's term
> >"algebraic manipulations", and with all due respect
> >arbituary "algebraic manipulations" are vaporware.
>
> I wouldn't go that far! I merely meant that since algebra is defined for
> special relativity, anything one does simply using algebra in relativity
> is still relativity, not new theory.

Well Charles I agreed with you, (that's why I inserted in
"arbituary"), and assert we're using some clunky old
simple math techniques regurgitated that work okay.
If however a fella presents a mathematical technique
that differs in a positively measureable way, it's good
for science.

> Regards
> Charles Francis
> moderator sci.physics.foundations.

Seasons Greetings
Ken S. Tucker

### harry

Dec 21, 2007, 4:01:10 AM12/21/07
to

"David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
news:ZbudnQ9XXcVVAvfa...@softcom.net...

>
>
> harry wrote:
>> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>My x is the x-coordinate of an event, my t is the time-coordinate of an
>>>event, in a given reference frame.
>>
>> Which one? Certainly no inertial frame!
>
> Certainly yes inertial frame!

Then we're back at the start, with one refinement.
I see no other way to interpret this than that you assign the same meanings
to x and t as in SRT : the place and time coordinates of inertial reference
systems. However, I think that in reality you use some kind of proper time,
as apparently other posters also suspect.

Thus I now conclude that,

SINCE:
1. According to observation: when the term c^2*dt^2 (let's call it A)
is significant, the standard space-time interval (let's call it S) is
invariant
to very good approximation,
AND
2. Your space-time interval is S + 2A
AND

AND
4. You assign the same operational meanings to x and t,
THEREFORE:

4. Your space-time interval is variant according to observation,

regards,
Harald

### David Rutherford

Dec 21, 2007, 12:38:24 PM12/21/07
to

harry wrote:
> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
> news:ZbudnQ9XXcVVAvfa...@softcom.net...
>
>>
>>harry wrote:
>>
>>>"David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>My x is the x-coordinate of an event, my t is the time-coordinate of an
>>>>event, in a given reference frame.
>>>
>>>Which one? Certainly no inertial frame!
>>
>>Certainly yes inertial frame!
>
>
> Then we're back at the start, with one refinement.
> I see no other way to interpret this than that you assign the same meanings
> to x and t as in SRT : the place and time coordinates of inertial reference
> systems. However, I think that in reality you use some kind of proper time,
> as apparently other posters also suspect.
>
> Thus I now conclude that,
> SINCE:
> 1. According to observation: when the term c^2*dt^2 (let's call it A)
> is significant, the standard space-time interval (let's call it S) is
> invariant
> to very good approximation,

Please site the evidence that shows that the standard spacetime interval
is invariant.

### Juan R.

Dec 23, 2007, 11:28:58 AM12/23/07
to
Oh No wrote {2eeF1HCD...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk} on Wed, 19
Dec 2007 10:40:15 -0600:

> Should not general relativity be post relativity?

General Relativity is better characterized as post special relativity.

By post-relativity (PR) i mean also beyond general relativity.

For instance, using PR one can explain gravitational phenomena than
General Relativity cannot: anomalous accelerations, TFL, DM limit,
cosmological constant (still tentative status), Milgrom a_0...

>>Now, PR proposes
>>
>>dT^2 = dTAU^2 + dx^2
>
> But then t = T (+ const)

No, I was not deriving PR from SR. Sorry, if i was not clear enough. A
more explicit expression

dT^2 = {N_00(TAU,X) dTAU^2} + {N_XX(TAU,X) dX^2}

would emphasize differences with SR

{n_00(x,t) dt^2} = dTAU(x,t)^2 - {n_xx(x,t) dx^2}

> I think your invariant time, if you had said it properly, is probably
> just the same as David,s. That is to say, it is proper time, time
> measured along the path of the particle. This is a very sound concept,
> but you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking it is absolute, that it
> is not a part of relativity, or indeed that you can introduce anything
> into relativity by means of a few algebraic manipulations.

i)
I think difference between T and TAU is obvious from

dT^2 = dTAU^2 + dX^2

ii)
Proper time is a sound concept for the development of one-body
relativistic theories. However, proper time is essentially useless for
the
development of a many-body relativistic theory because lack of
invariance
with the center of mass frame.

In more general theories you need to introduce some new concept of
absolute time for the parametrization of the *overall* N-body path.

In some sense this goal is close to Stuckelberg/Piron/Horwitz theory
but
the concept of absolute time T on PR is different from the absolute
time
defined on [1].

iii)
History of the research program can be traced to points 4-12 on [2].
Mathematics involved and conclusions are highly non-trivial.

For instance, you cannot get PR from algebraic manipulations on
relational theory you hold!

[1] Classical Relativistic Many-Body Dynamics. Springer; 1999. Trump,
Matthew A; Schieve, William C.

### Juan R.

Dec 23, 2007, 12:41:44 PM12/23/07
to
David Rutherford wrote {y5OdnT1ePZU-Pffa...@softcom.net} on
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:09:15 -0600:

> By "absolute", do you mean invariant?

Absolute implies invariant. But inverse is not always true.

>> looking like your own (but with other notation).
>
> In my theory,

> dtau^2 = dt^2 + dx^2

> Just remember that my tau isn't the same as your TAU and my t isn't the

Yes, theories are different. Reason i wrote "This looks very similar to
[...] PR" and "looking like your own".

### Oh No

Dec 24, 2007, 6:17:05 PM12/24/07
to
Thus spake David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net>
>
>
>harry wrote:
>> "David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
>>news:ZbudnQ9XXcVVAvfa...@softcom.net...
>>
>>>
>>>harry wrote:
>>>
>>>>"David Rutherford" <druth...@softcom.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>My x is the x-coordinate of an event, my t is the time-coordinate
>>>>>of an event, in a given reference frame.
>>>>
>>>>Which one? Certainly no inertial frame!
>>>
>>>Certainly yes inertial frame!
>> Then we're back at the start, with one refinement.
>> I see no other way to interpret this than that you assign the same
>>meanings to x and t as in SRT : the place and time coordinates of
>>inertial reference systems. However, I think that in reality you use
>>some kind of proper time, as apparently other posters also suspect.
>> Thus I now conclude that,
>> SINCE:
>> 1. According to observation: when the term c^2*dt^2 (let's call it A)
>> is significant, the standard space-time interval (let's call it S) is
>>invariant
>> to very good approximation,
>
>Please site the evidence that shows that the standard spacetime
>interval is invariant.
>
It would be as well to equip yourself better in understanding the state
of scientific knowledge before proposing modifications or theories.

Tom Roberts has recently given an updated FAQ on experimental evidence.

You may also learn the theoretical basis here

http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/FoundationsOfSpecialRelativity

You also need to understand

http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/IntroductionToVectorSpace

as far as the metric to know what the invariant length of a vector means

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/MainIndex

### David Rutherford

Dec 25, 2007, 3:15:11 AM12/25/07
to

Oh No wrote:
> Thus spake David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net>
>

>Please site the evidence that shows that the standard spacetime
>>interval is invariant.
>>
>
> It would be as well to equip yourself better in understanding the state
> of scientific knowledge before proposing modifications or theories

> (he said condescendingly).

Thanks, but I know as much as I want to know about it. The reason that
progress is not being made in theoretical physics is that people like
are so full of 'knowledge' that there isn't enough room left over to think.

> Tom Roberts has recently given an updated FAQ on experimental evidence.
>
> http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.htm
> l

I got "File not Found". Why don't you just tell me what the evidence is
(if any) that shows that the standard spacetime interval is invariant.

> You may also learn the theoretical basis here
>
> http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/FoundationsOfSpecialRelativity

Thanks, but I know the theoretical basis.

> You also need to understand
>
> http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/IntroductionToVectorSpace
>
> as far as the metric to know what the invariant length of a vector means

Thanks, but I know about what the metric is and what the invariant
length of a vector means. Have you read my theory? Maybe you're the one
who needs to get educated.

### Oh No

Dec 25, 2007, 4:31:09 AM12/25/07
to
Thus spake David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net>
>
>
>Oh No wrote:
>> Thus spake David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net>
>> Please site the evidence that shows that the standard spacetime
>>>interval is invariant.
>>>
>> It would be as well to equip yourself better in understanding the
>>state
>> of scientific knowledge before proposing modifications or theories

>

>Thanks, but I know as much as I want to know about it. The reason that
>progress is not being made in theoretical physics is that people like you
>so full of 'knowledge' that there isn't enough room left over to think.

Actually, theoretical physics has progressed a long way beyond special
relativity, and, when done properly, in the manner of Einstein, it is
based on very little knowledge and a great deal of thought. A mathematical
structure for physics must proceed by logical deduction from postulates.
The postulates contain the sum total of required knowledge. The rest is
thought.

>
>> Tom Roberts has recently given an updated FAQ on experimental evidence.
>> http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.h
>>tm
>> l
>

There was a hard line feed inserted by the emailer. You should have
reattached the l from the next line. I will try to give the link again,
but if it does get broken, it is not taxing to fix it.

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

>Why don't you just tell me what the evidence is (if any) that shows that
>the standard spacetime interval is invariant.

Because it is the sort of thing you should study yourself before
presenting alternatives, and because I have given you links where it is
better explained than I could in a post.

>> You may also learn the theoretical basis here
>> http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/FoundationsOfSpecialRelativity
>
>Thanks, but I know the theoretical basis.

Apparently you do not, or you would not ask the question. The theoretical
basis is the way in which spacetime coordinates are determined through
physical measurement. The fact that we define spacetime coordinates in the
manner in which we do is sufficient evidence to show that the spacetime
interval is invariant. The rest is mathematical deduction and definition,
i.e. thought.

>
>> You also need to understand
>> http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/IntroductionToVectorSpace
>> as far as the metric to know what the invariant length of a vector
>>means
>
>Thanks, but I know about what the metric is and what the invariant length
>of a vector means.

Apparently you do not, or you would not ask the question.

>Have you read my theory? Maybe you're the one who needs to get educated.
>

I have seen more of it than I want to in this thread. I should warn you
that the moderators have discussed it and we will not accept repetitive
posts. You have been doing simple algebraic manipulations which cannot
introduce anything new, and, on the basis of them, making claims which
only show that you do not understand the content of your equations.

### David Rutherford

Dec 25, 2007, 2:59:10 PM12/25/07
to

Oh No wrote:
> Thus spake David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net>
>

>>Thanks, but I know as much as I want to know about it. The reason that
>>progress is not being made in theoretical physics is that people like you
>>so full of 'knowledge' that there isn't enough room left over to think.
>
>
> Actually, theoretical physics has progressed a long way beyond special
> relativity, and, when done properly, in the manner of Einstein, it is
> based on very little knowledge and a great deal of thought. A mathematical
> structure for physics must proceed by logical deduction from postulates.
> The postulates contain the sum total of required knowledge. The rest is
> thought.

You are showing your lack of room for thought, already. A mathematical
structure for physics can proceed by any means necessary as long as it
results in something valid.

>>Why don't you just tell me what the evidence is (if any) that shows that
>>the standard spacetime interval is invariant.
>
>
> Because it is the sort of thing you should study yourself before
> presenting alternatives, and because I have given you links where it is
> better explained than I could in a post.

I just had a look. There's no evidence of the invariance of the standard
spacetime interval there. I have a feeling it doesn't exist, and that
you're giving me the runaround to try to obscure that fact.

>>>You may also learn the theoretical basis here
>>> http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/FoundationsOfSpecialRelativity
>>
>>Thanks, but I know the theoretical basis.
>
>
> Apparently you do not, or you would not ask the question. The theoretical
> basis is the way in which spacetime coordinates are determined through
> physical measurement. The fact that we define spacetime coordinates in the
> manner in which we do is sufficient evidence to show that the spacetime
> interval is invariant. The rest is mathematical deduction and definition,
> i.e. thought.

Harry wrote that "According to observation: when the term c2*dt2 (let's

call it A) is significant, the standard space-time interval (let's call

it S) is invariant to very good approximation".

Apparently you didn't notice that he was referring to the _observation_
(that is, experimental evidence) that the standard spacetime interval is
invariant. In my response to Harry, I was asking what the _observation_
was that supported the invariance of the standard spacetime interval.

>>Have you read my theory? Maybe you're the one who needs to get educated.
>>
>
> I have seen more of it than I want to in this thread. I should warn you
> that the moderators have discussed it and we will not accept repetitive
> posts. You have been doing simple algebraic manipulations which cannot
> introduce anything new,

Obviously, you haven't read my theory or you would know that there is
plenty of new physics in it.

> and, on the basis of them, making claims which
> only show that you do not understand the content of your equations.

All I'm asking for is experimental evidence of the invariance of the
standard spacetime interval, that is, evidence that

(cdt')^2-(dx')^2-(dy')^2-(dz')^2 = (cdt)^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2

Apparently, there is none. Remember, site EVIDENCE, not theory.

--
Dave Rutherford
"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555

Applications:
"4/3 Problem Resolution"
"Energy Density Correction"
"Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection"
"Biot-Savart's Companion"

======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
What is the benefit of this dispute? Please treat some experiments, eg, the classical ones by Kaufmann :-)

### Ken S. Tucker

Dec 25, 2007, 5:07:27 PM12/25/07
to
Hi Fella's.

On Dec 25, 11:59 am, David Rutherford <drutherf...@softcom.net> wrote:
> Oh No wrote:

> > Thus spake David Rutherford <drutherf...@softcom.net>

>
> >>Thanks, but I know as much as I want to know about it. The reason that
> >>progress is not being made in theoretical physics is that people like you
> >>so full of 'knowledge' that there isn't enough room left over to think.
>
> > Actually, theoretical physics has progressed a long way beyond special
> > relativity, and, when done properly, in the manner of Einstein, it is
> > based on very little knowledge and a great deal of thought. A mathematical
> > structure for physics must proceed by logical deduction from postulates.
> > The postulates contain the sum total of required knowledge. The rest is
> > thought.

That statement is "unfair". I perfer a theory with
*economy* of thought, for pragmatic reasons.

> A mathematical
> structure for physics can proceed by any means necessary as long as it
> results in something valid.

I have a 1/2 dozen Unified Field Theories, a couple
"predicting" the results of the LIGO and GP-b
experiment, but they all agree with validated results.
I suspect there are dozens of models that do what
your (David's) model does, with economy of thought,
but what sets an excellent theory ahead of the pack
is predicting new phenomena or explaining things
that cannot be explained by current theory.

> >>Why don't you just tell me what the evidence is (if any) that shows that
> >>the standard spacetime interval is invariant.
>
> > Because it is the sort of thing you should study yourself before
> > presenting alternatives, and because I have given you links where it is
> > better explained than I could in a post.
>
> I just had a look. There's no evidence of the invariance of the standard
> spacetime interval there. I have a feeling it doesn't exist, and that
> you're giving me the runaround to try to obscure that fact.

to reflect off a target and set up an interferometer to
null the wave so it's a standing wave, like this,

Tx ~~~~~~~~ Rx , "~" is a wavelength.

The number "N" of wavelengths is fixed and invariant in
all CS's, though the frequency and wavelength is CS
dependent and that's because
c = wavelength * frequency.

Please note the number "N" is invariant, is that ok?

> >>>You may also learn the theoretical basis here
> >>>http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/FoundationsOfSpecialRelativity
>
> >>Thanks, but I know the theoretical basis.
>
> > Apparently you do not, or you would not ask the question. The theoretical
> > basis is the way in which spacetime coordinates are determined through
> > physical measurement. The fact that we define spacetime coordinates in the
> > manner in which we do is sufficient evidence to show that the spacetime
> > interval is invariant. The rest is mathematical deduction and definition,
> > i.e. thought.
>
> Harry wrote that "According to observation: when the term c2*dt2 (let's
> call it A) is significant, the standard space-time interval (let's call
> it S) is invariant to very good approximation".
>
> Apparently you didn't notice that he was referring to the _observation_
> (that is, experimental evidence) that the standard spacetime interval is
> invariant. In my response to Harry, I was asking what the _observation_
> was that supported the invariance of the standard spacetime interval.
>
> >>Have you read my theory? Maybe you're the one who needs to get educated.
>
> > I have seen more of it than I want to in this thread. I should warn you
> > that the moderators have discussed it and we will not accept repetitive
> > posts. You have been doing simple algebraic manipulations which cannot
> > introduce anything new,
>
> Obviously, you haven't read my theory or you would know that there is
> plenty of new physics in it.

"plenty", provide a concise and succint postulate
we can examine about anything that's new, ah IMO
we're want to assist in anyway we can.

> > and, on the basis of them, making claims which
> > only show that you do not understand the content of your equations.
>
> Like what? Please be specific.
>
> All I'm asking for is experimental evidence of the invariance of the
> standard spacetime interval, that is, evidence that
>
> (cdt')^2-(dx')^2-(dy')^2-(dz')^2 = (cdt)^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2
>
> Apparently, there is none. Remember, site EVIDENCE, not theory.

I've done that above.

> Dave Rutherford
> "New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"http://www.softcom.net/users/der555
>
> Applications:
> "4/3 Problem Resolution"
> "Energy Density Correction"
> "Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection"
> "Biot-Savart's Companion"
>
> ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> What is the benefit of this dispute? Please treat some experiments, eg, the classical ones by Kaufmann :-)

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

### David Rutherford

Dec 27, 2007, 4:12:15 AM12/27/07
to

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> Hi Fella's.
>
> On Dec 25, 11:59 am, David Rutherford <drutherf...@softcom.net> wrote:
>
>>Oh No wrote:
>>
>>>Because it is the sort of thing you should study yourself before
>>>presenting alternatives, and because I have given you links where it is
>>>better explained than I could in a post.
>>
>>I just had a look. There's no evidence of the invariance of the standard
>>spacetime interval there. I have a feeling it doesn't exist, and that
>>you're giving me the runaround to try to obscure that fact.
>
>
> to reflect off a target and set up an interferometer to
> null the wave so it's a standing wave, like this,
>
> Tx ~~~~~~~~ Rx , "~" is a wavelength.
>
> The number "N" of wavelengths is fixed and invariant in
> all CS's, though the frequency and wavelength is CS
> dependent and that's because
> c = wavelength * frequency.
>
> Please note the number "N" is invariant, is that ok?

I don't see how that shows that the standard spacetime interval is
invariant. Please show the derivation of the standard spacetime interval
in two frames moving inertially with respect to each other (that is, one
with v=0 and the other with v=/=0), from the above, then show that the
spacetime intervals are equal.

Also, how does that show that the metric is definitely diag(1,-1,-1,-1)
and definitely not diag(1,1,1,1)?

>>Obviously, you haven't read my theory or you would know that there is
>>plenty of new physics in it.
>
>
> "plenty", provide a concise and succint postulate
> we can examine about anything that's new, ah IMO
> we're want to assist in anyway we can.

In my first response to your post, I provided 13 examples of new physics
in my theory, but the moderators rejected it. I guess you'll have to
read my theory and its applications at my webpage, below, or search my
posts in various physics newsgroups (where I predicted new physics that
I didn't cover on my webpage). Sorry.

--

### Oh No

Dec 27, 2007, 4:58:33 AM12/27/07
to
Thus spake David Rutherford <druth...@softcom.net>
>I don't see how that shows that the standard spacetime interval is
>invariant. Please show the derivation of the standard spacetime
>interval in two frames moving inertially with respect to each other
>(that is, one with v=0 and the other with v=/=0), from the above, then
>show that the spacetime intervals are equal.
>
I have already given you a site where you can see this demonstrated.

http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/FoundationsOfSpecialRelativity

>Also, how does that show that the metric is definitely diag(1,-1,-1,-1)
>and definitely not diag(1,1,1,1)?

This is shown at

http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/IntroductionToVectorSpace

The answer to your question on what is the empirical evidence for the
invariant interval is that a metre is measured to be a metre and 5
seconds is measured to be 5 seconds.

>In my first response to your post, I provided 13 examples of new
>physics in my theory, but the moderators rejected it.

If you will study the demonstration and have genuine questions they may
be answered, but if you are merely going to continue questioning the
trivial, and making claims like mathematics can be logically incorrect
and still be valid, then there is no reason your posts should be
accepted.

As a moderator, I already think this thread has continued far too long.
Further posts may not be accepted.