LET’S DISCUSS SPACETIME AND GRAVITATION, BASING ON LOGIC, RATHER THAN EINSTEIN’S ASSUMPTIONS
qchi...@yahoo.com
in special relativity (SR), and 2. Assumption of consistent proper time
in general relativity (GR), which are both logically imperfect and can
be improved to possibly solve most of the mysterious riddles in
gravitation and particle physics.
At the time when special relativity was developed, there was no better
logical definition of inertial frames than an abrupt assumption. Both
particle physics and gravitation are based on the Lorentz spacetime
defined based on this assumption. But 20th century physics had
progressed faster than this assumption and this spacetime definition
can keep pace with and numerous mysteries (e.g. quantum gravity, dark
matter, gravitational waves, Higgs particle, parity violation, etc.)
linger. The good news is that 20th century physics also provides a
logical definition of inertial frames unavailable previously, which
enlarges rather than contradicts this assumption, as to be shown next.
The greatness of Einstein lies in his teaching that spacetime be
defined by (relevant) physical phenomenon. Unfortunately, absoluteness
is reclaimed again for Lorentz spacetime. Throughout 20th century,
particle and gravitation physics are developed on a “subjective”
Lorentz spacetime in the same way electromagnetism was on Newtonian
space and time previously. This prohibited a more suitable spacetime
for gravitation and massive particles from being defined directly by
gravitation and massive particles in the way Lorentz spacetime was
defined by electromagnetism. In what follows, I will present the
logical definition, then show how it can help to solve some of the
mysteries in gravitation.
The Assumption of Inertial Frames in Special Relativity
Lorentz spacetime is defined for uniformly moving frames to measure
light at the same speed, regardless of the frame velocity. The problem
is that “uniformly moving” frames are pre-selected before Lorentz
spacetime scales are defined to justify its uniformity. Likewise,
light and faster-than-light (FTL) mono matter waves also cannot be
distinguished until Lorentz spacetime scales are defined. The remedy:
the strict spacetime definition without presumption would be based on
the principle that all light and FTL (according to Lorentz scales) mono
waves be measured at the same speed, and include both inertial and
non-inertial frames, with “uniformly” moving frames defined “as
measured by the spacetime scales being defined”.
Not being pre-occupied with Lorentz spacetime, just imagine what
would be the spacetime definition which accommodates “all” mono
matter waves most elegantly. It is a 4+1 spacetime, as mono waves have
but one more degree of freedom, its speed. Adding one extra dimension
to accommodate this degree of freedom naturally levels all mono waves
to the same (light) speed. The 4+1 spacetime is the “inevitable”
conclusion of special relativity if the definition of Lorentz spacetime
is executed rigorously. The 4+1 spacetime is the most natural and
symmetric spacetime for both massive and massless particles as all of
their associated waves share the same massless wave equation in the 4+1
spacetime
[ (∂0)^2 - (∂1)^2 - (∂2)^2 - (∂3)^2 - (∂m)^2 ] φ = 0 (1)
But when observed from the Lorentz subspace, the same waves appear as
[ (∂L0)^2 - (∂L1)^2 - (∂L2)^2 - (∂L3)^2 – m^2 ] φL = 0 (2)
where mass is gained automatically due to change of scales. (Subscript
L means under Lorentz measurements, while no subscript is for the 4+1
scales). Superscript m is for the extra dimension, xm. The
transformation between them, for “each” mono wave, is
dxL1 = dx1 (3a)
dxL2 = dx2 (3b)
dxL3 = dx3 (3c)
dxL0
= dx0 • [(p1)^2 + (p2)^2 + (p3)^2 ]^½ / [(p1)^2 + (p2)^2 + (p3)^2 +
m^2]^½
≤ dx0 (3d)
dxLm = 0 (3e)
Since Lorentz time scale is shorter than the 4+1 time scale, eq. (3.d),
it measures “the same” mono wave as FTL. Just like SR uniting the
absolute Newtonian time and space to form a 3+1 space-time continuum,
the 4+1 spacetime unites mass with Lorentz spacetime to form a 4+1
space-time-mass continuum, as demonstrated in eq. (1). Eq. (1) is also
more beautiful than (2) as xm is treated on the same footing as all
other dimensions. The 4+1 spacetime doesn’t contradict the verified
Lorentz spacetime, but only augments it. It makes no sense to rule out
the FTL mono waves at the beginning as they are “not” faster than
light in the more natural 4+1 spacetime. Instead, what should be ruled
out is actually the assumption of inertial frames. (Note: since in the
real world we feel only one time flow, the various Lorentz times for
different waves are synchronized and spatial dimensions are expanded.)
This immediately leads to a 4+1 universe (like the spatial dimensions,
the extra dimension, xm, is also external) with the universe we see
being a curved 3+1 manifold (most likely the curved 3-surface of a
4-sphere) in the flat 4+1 spacetime. If this were true, the same
quasars (or whatever objects sitting at the other end of the spherical
universe) would likely be observed from both opposite directions in
each of the 3 dimensions of the universe (just like two persons
traveling from north pole in opposite directions at equal speeds will
eventually meet at south pole.) Actually, the numerous double quasars
may already serve as partial evidence, where the whole spherical
universe serves as the lens. The scarcity of galaxies immediately
before the quasar region might also reveal the fact that the 3-volume
near the quasar region is actually quite small, as conjectured by this
model.
The philosophy behind: SR and GR have reached the deepest quest for the
nature of mass. We have to define inertial mass, gravitational mass
and the equivalence between them through the definition of space and
time. Correct understanding will only emerge with correct definition,
which usually is the one which renders physics in the simplest and most
elegant form. Before all these quantities are defined, we should just
let physics define them without imposing any assumptions. However,
presuming knowledge of uniform frame velocity, we inadvertently closed
the door of finding the real nature of mass (thus “forced” mass to
be “intrinsic”). Put differently, based on the
energy-momentum-mass relation of SR, (E)2 – (p1)2 - (p2)2 - (p3)2 -
m2 = 0, space (inverse of energy), time (inverse of momentum) and mass
can be defined. But there are 5, not 4, quantities to be defined. All
the 5 should be defined simultaneously, none should take precedence
over the other. But Lorentz spacetime is defined prior to mass by
electromagnetism. Even though GR attempted to incorporate gravity
later, it is still based on Lorentz spacetime, and the real nature of
mass (i.e. nature of inertia and gravity) cannot be revealed. To have
mass involved in equal status, both light and FTL (massive) waves must
be used in its definition, as suggested by Lorentz and agreed by Weyl.
This leads unambiguously to the elegant 4+1 space-time-mass continuum,
which directly equates inertial mass with gravitational mass in one
single step and, if interpreted appropriately, the simplest and most
elegant gravitation theory should come out of it.
Obviously, this is a profound change not easy to adjust over night.
Point is there are in fact logically imperfect assumptions in SR and GR
(to be discussed next) which can be improved and I didn’t impose
anything of my own, I just carried out Einstein’s teaching one more
step and replaced assumptions by logical definitions whenever possible.
This is the only logical conclusion which yields just perfect answer
to quantum gravity and unification with quantum mechanics as to be
shown next.
The Assumption Of Consistent Proper Time In General Relativity; Gravity
>From The 4+1 Spacetime And Unification With Quantum Mechanics
The GR theory constructed on the spacetime scale definition based on
the “assumption of consistent proper time” is self-consistent and
hard-to-disprove. While a definition cannot be judged right or wrong,
the assumption should be subject to a simplicity test, that is, whether
the definition renders physics in the simplest and obvious form (on top
of experimental verifications). That is how Lorentz spacetime replaced
Newtonian space and time in special relativity. Unfortunately, no
further test has been carried out since gravitation, strong and weak
interactions are invoked. This is why Lorentz spacetime provides only
elegant electromagnetism, but not simple and obvious gravitation and
particle physics. (Though Einstein Equation is considered to be
elegant, the complexity and persistent failure of quantum gravity and
numerous mysteries. e.g. unfound graviton, dark matter, flat universe,
etc., are sufficient grounds to doubt if the assumption is appropriate
and if GR is the right expression for gravity). A higher perspective
is needed for a clue. While Lorentz spacetime is perfect for
electromagnetism, it is not as beautiful as the 4+1 spacetime for
massive particles due to the mass term. (Even though GR tried to amend
it, the best elegance has already been lost. In other words, SR and GR
should be done in one shot). In what follows, I will show the problems
with this assumption and that proper time should logically be
proportional to the mass which generates the local curvature.
(Consistent proper time is a concept belonging to special relativity
only). Quantum gravity, unification with quantum mechanics and other
mysteries should readily be answered.
In defining spacetime scales over a curved manifold, general relativity
lets proper time act as the standard yardstick and assumes it be
consistent throughout the universe. The problem can be seen as
follows. Einstein equation is written as
G = 8πGT (4)
Consider the curvature generated by the stress-energy of a single type
of particles with uniform mass m and uniform momentum p (and E = (p2 +
m2 )½ ). As stress-energy tensor of such a curvature can be
decomposed as a product of two 3+1 vectors,
T(E,p^) = (E,p^)×(E,p^)/[V(E^2 – p^2 )½ ] (5)
Einstein curvature tensor can also be decomposed in the same way,
G(T,X^) = (T,X^)×(T,X^)/[V (T^2 – X^2 )^½ ] (6)
Hence Einstein equation can be written as
(T,X^)×(T,X^)/[V(T^2 – X^2 )^½ ]
= 8πG (E,p^)×8πG(E,p^)/[V 8πG (E^2 – p^2 )^½ ] (7)
Thus we obtain a 3+1 “vector” equation,
(T,X^) = 8πG (E,p^) (8)
There are complicated mathematics with some parameters to be set
between the metric gμν (distance and time units) and the vector
(T,X). It is reasonable to assume these parameters should be set to
make local time unit dξ0 and distance unit dξ be proportional to
nothing but T and X of the vector (T, X). Let’s call this the
“Assumption of Local Space and Time Units”. Let
dξ0 = kT (9a)
dξ^ = kX^ (9b)
Hence,
(dξ0 , dξ^ ) = (kT,kX^) = 8πkG (E,p^) (10)
On the other hand, this assumption, eq. (9), is also supported by
quantum mechanics. Consider these particles as waves of energy E and
momentum p, the natural space and time units should be related to
nothing but the wave length and frequency of the waves, as there exists
nothing else. This is a pre-requisite for unification of gravitation
with quantum mechanics. From (10), the local proper time unit can be
derived as
dτ = [(dξ0)^2 - |dξ|^2 ] ½ = k [T^2 – X^2 ]^½
= 8πkG [E^2 – p^2 ]^ ½ = 8πkG m (11)
which clearly depends on the mass behind local stress-energy. In other
words, Einstein equation itself dictates proper time variation
according to underlying masses (at least in this case). If a
neighboring curvature is generated by a uniform-mass-uniform-momentum
stress-energy of mass twice as big, then its proper time unit should
also be twice as big. Assuming the same proper time units would
inadvertently reduce all 4-vector and mass values by half for the
neighboring locality. Thus, Einstein equation is self-contradictory.
This is why 4-vectors and masses cannot remain constant after parallel
transport. Even if the “Assumption of Local Space and Time Units”,
eq.(9), were wrong, it wouldn’t help; it only hides the problem, as
4-vectors and masses still cannot remain constant after parallel
transport. The “Assumption of Local Space and Time Units” only
manifests the hidden problem. This also hints at the cause of the dark
matter and flat universe mysteries.
The correct parameterization would be obtained by admitting dependence
of local proper time on underlying masses and adjusting equation (7)
according to eq. (11),
[(T,X^)×(T,X^)/(dτ)^2 ]
/ [V(T^2 – X^2 )^½ /(dτ)]
=[8πG(E,p^)×8πG(E,p^)/(8πkGm)^2]
/[V8πG(E2–p^2)^½/(8πkGm)] (12)
No more mass and 4-vector distortion under parallel transport. Without
the adjustment, (7) is applicable only locally, which is the only
situation GR can be proved correct (as was done in the solar system).
For a swarm of particles, each term must be adjusted separately before
summed up,
∫dX^ \sum T\ [(T,X^)×(T,X^)/(dτ)^2 ]
/[V(T^2 – X^2 )^½ /(dτ)]
=
∫dp^ \sum E\ [8πG(E,p^)×8πG(E,p^)
/(8πkGm)^2]/[V8πG(E^2–p^2)^½/(8πkGm)] (13)
Notice that the summation over mass is now shifted to that over energy.
Because mass is not an independent variable of Einstein tensor, thus
must be consistent, otherwise both energy, momentum and mass become
independent variables, which are more than actually exist. On the
other hand, Einstein equation without adjustments,
∫dX^ \sum dτ\ (T,X^)×(T,X^)/[V(T^2 – X^2 )^½ ]
= ∫dp^ \sum m\ 8πG(E,p^)×(E,p^)
/[V(E^2 – p^2 )^½ ] (14)
is a summation of oranges and apples, i.e. over terms of different
masses and space/time scales (i.e. proper times, dτ’s), which is a
real mess. One can see the problem in Einstein tensor is real serious,
not only between localities, but also is a mess within itself at one
locality. Claiming Einstein tensor being non-linear and
non-decomposable, or claiming the “Assumption of Local Space and Time
Units”, eq.(9), being wrong cannot be an excuse and is irresponsible,
as these claims are independent of the mess in Einstein tensor and an
arbitrary Einstein tensor is still not based on a consistent proper
time (or mass) no matter what, and mass and 4-vectors still distorts
after parallel transport. They only hide the problem, which eventually
shows up in the persistent failure of quantum gravity, unfound
graviton, gravitational waves and dark matter, etc. It is highly
doubtful that gravity will be quantized under string theory, as the
theory misses the point. It is said Einstein equation is beautiful.
But what good does it do if mass and 4-vectors don’t even conserve
after parallel transport?
Even though the adjusted equation (13) solved the problem of scale
distortion, it still suffers from the problem of nonlinearity. Since
none of the experimental tests of general relativity verifies that
gravitation must be nonlinear and since the verification of GR in the
solar system is not super accurate (like QED), we are tempted to
cautiously replace it with a fairly close linear equation. It is
Einstein’s highly intellectual insight to envision curvature in
gravitation, but it should probably be expressed in the language of 3+1
curvature embedded in a “flat” 4+1 spacetime, rather than in terms
of Riemann geometry. It is believed the following linear theory from
the 4+1 spacetime will produce the same, if not better, result in the
solar system, but produce a different and much better result at large
scales, like in galaxies and clusters of galaxies, thus solving the
dark matter and flat universe problems (in addition to quantum gravity
and unification with quantum mechanics). Instead of eq. (13), we adopt
the closest linear approach to it, i.e. its basic ingredient, the
vector equation
(T,X^) = 8πG (E,p^) (15)
Since inertia is manifested in each mono wave by the amount it’s
faster than light, gravity should also be manifested in each mono wave.
Parallel to the superpositioning concept of quantum mechanics, each
mono wave in the 4+1 theory also contributes its part to the spacetime
definition of the manifold. Thus, corresponding to a wave packet
Ψ = ∫dp^ \sum E\ f(E,p^) exp[-iπ(x0p0-x^∙p^)] (16)
there is the superpositioned “total curvature vector” (as opposed
to curvature tensor) related to the total energy-momentum
∫dX^ \sum T\ f(E,p^)(T,X^)/(dτ)
= ∫dp^ \sum E\ 8πGf(E,p^)(E,p^)/(8πkGm) (17)
Notice that left and right sides have their proper time and mass
synchronized, i.e. summed up on consistent mass and proper time to
avoid summation over oranges and apples, with
dτ = 8πkG m (18)
This gives a genuine unification of gravitation with quantum mechanics.
The mathematics in this theory is extremely simple, but, like
electromagnetism, that is what the right theory for such a fundamental
force should be.
4+1 Quantum Gravity. Gravitational Waves And Gravitons
The most fundamental form of gravity, eq. (15), can be combined with
(18)
(T,X^,dτ/k) = 8πG (E,p^,m) (19)
One sees the proper time, dτ/k, in eqs. (18) and (19) are just the
component of the extra dimension xm, because
(∂ξ0)^2 - (∂ξ1)^2 - (∂ξ2)^2 - (∂ξ3)^2 - (∂ξm)^2 = 0
(20)
and
dτ ≡ [(dξ0)^2 - |dξ|^2 ] ^½ = (∂ξm) (21)
Thus, we have the most elegant vector equation of gravitation in the
4+1 spacetime,
(T,X^,dτ/k) = (T,X^,xm) = 8πG (E,p^,m) (22)
The linear equation (22) will generate gravitational waves in the 4+1
spacetime
Ψ = exp[-iπ(x0p0- x1p1- x2p2- x3p3- xmpm)] (23)
which are observed faster-than-light in the Lorentz spacetime as
ΨL
= exp[-iπ(xL0pL0 - xL1pL1 - xL2pL2 - xL3pL3 )]
= exp[-iπ(xL0pL0 - xL^∙pL^)] (24)
In other words, gravitational waves are but the FTL mono matter waves
being denied all the time, and gravitons are just all elementary
particles formed from the mono waves, which are always observed but
never recognized as gravitons. It is conjectured that cosmic rays
could just be gravitons emitted as gravitation radiations by
astronomical bodies.
Dark Matter and Flat Universe
Unlike in Einstein theory where only local Lorentz scales is available
for measurement, the 4+1 theory uses one consistent 4+1 scales
throughout the universe. Assuming a spherical 3-d universe, a locally
FTL mono wave far away will be measured “even faster” when
translated to the “universal” 4+1 scales which has its xm
perpendicular to the Lorentz spacetime on earth. This is simply
because the far-away Lorentz spacetime is not parallel to the Lorentz
spacetime on earth, thus will augment mass, and naturally cause the
missing mass problem. In other words, Einstein theory has never
realized the fact that distant masses are actually larger than it
appears under the one consistent xm on earth, because it uses the
non-consistent local Lorentz scales. Similarly for the flat universe
mystery.
Discussion
The moral should be: 1. if there exists no logical theory or
definition, an assumption cannot be avoided (e.g. the principle of
relativity). But if one exists (e.g. that for the inertial frames),
the assumption should give way to the logical assumption. 2. As to
solving the gravitation and particle mysteries, it should first be
attempted to replace the assumption by the logical definition. Other
attempts would not be necessary and is not likely to be fruitful before
the logical replacement.
It appears that the logical strengthening of SR and the nature of
(inertial and gravitational) mass it reveals in the xm dimension can
hardly be defied. The perfect fit of the consequential 4+1 gravitation
on explaining almost all mysteries (e.g. quantum gravity, unification
with quantum mechanics, gravitational waves and gravitons, dark matter
and flat universe, etc.) also appears indispensable. The 4+1 spacetime
also answers parity violation due to the xm dimension. The only price
is abandoning Einstein equation (and replacing it by a fairly close
linear vector equation). But, it has failed on many fronts for nearly
a century. Are we going to defend it forever like a religion?
Question: Is there someone who is in the capacity of organizing a
project to verify: 1. Same quasars observed in opposite directions in
all 3 dimensions, which will prove immediately that our universe is 4+1
dimensional. 2. The 4+1 gravity may be as accurate as, or even better
than, Einstein theory in the solar system.
Mysteries in particles cannot be solved by the 4+1 spacetime alone. It
also requires the concept of solid angle rotation discussed in a
separate topic through the following link:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_thread/thread/d31950fa77ab3163/f1665120b8a1db4b#f1665120b8a1db4b
qchiang
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128392519....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Don't post in rich text.
> It is conjectured that cosmic rays could just be gravitons
> emitted as gravitation radiations by astronomical bodies.
Wrong. They have been braked, and are simply photons. Don't
turn this rant into a patchwork quilt.
Oh, and...
Goodbye to this new nym.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> <qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1128392519....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>emitted as gravitation radiations by astronomical bodies.
>
> Wrong. They have been braked, and are simply photons. Don't
> turn this rant into a patchwork quilt.
Actually, most cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere are
protons, plus a handful of ions of heavier nuclei.
They are not in any way, shape, or form consistent with being gravitons.
Or photons.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:Zcn0f.107$Rh...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
That's what I get for using out of date information!
google
"cosmic ray photon" 132 hits like this really up to date one from
1932...
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v39/i6/p883_1
If you stick to just "cosmic ray", you get 130,000 and like you
said, they are mostly high energy protons.
Thanks, Tom. I always wondered why I couldn't find and energy
"threshold" where gamma became cosmic. ;>)
David A. Smith
Bill Hobba
qchi...@yahoo.com wrote:
Lorentz spacetime is defined for uniformly moving frames to measure
light at the same speed, regardless of the frame velocity.
Wrong - it is not a definition, it is a deduction from an inertial frames
symmetry properties. This shows that there exists an invariant speed - its
value is an experimental matter. Experiment has shown that value is the
speed of light to a high degree of accuracy.
qchi...@yahoo.com wrote:
The problem is that "uniformly moving" frames are pre-selected before
Lorentz spacetime scales are defined to justify its uniformity.
They are defined as frames that are homogeneous in space and time and
isotropic in space - coordinate systems and a reasonable definition of
simultaneity must be chosen for them to have these symmetry properties. From
this it is provable they all move at uniform velocity relative to each
other. Then we invoke the POR to show that all inertial frame are
equivalent and that any frame moving at constant velocity relative to an
inertial frame is also inertial.
You are very confused about basic things.
Rest snipped.
Bill
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: YOU are confused by things that YOU assume basic.
There are no inertial frames. They are mistakenly superimposed onto a
non-inertial reality. There is no non-inertial reality. Between
gravity and universal expansion, everything about existence in space is
non-inertial.
GR's major fault is a proper time which it gets from the non-existent
rest frame of SR. If I have to spell it out, it is not native to your
belief.
As I have said, on occasion, belief supersedes logic. Why should this
be so unless the logic was formed by belief? What is your precedence?
Is logic to be superseded by belief?
There is only one universe that affects us us. It has its laws. They
behave logically unto itself. This universe does not engage in
questioning its belief. It is. It has no belief.
It is we humans (and to extent, other living things) that have belief
because of a lack of knowledge filled in by speculation in the subset
of the whole. Rocks do not do this, yet they behave as affected like
any living and thinking thing.
We simply let belief take its hold on reality (and the logic of its
physic). It is like a disease that inhabits an unknowing mind. But we
can suspend this unfruitful action (wars, politics) by suspending
belief.
Hayek
qchi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
"LET’S DISCUSS SPACETIME AND GRAVITATION"
Gravitation is the result od an Inertial field gradient.
A clock is an inertiameter.
(take two clocks at rest wrt their average mass
distribution, compare their readings by ftl radio, and
you know their respective gravitational potential, ftl
radio is not yet invented, but we can do the thought
experiment)
A clock according to the dark-agers, also measures
what they see as time.
Inertia makes objects shrink.
(Look at the solar system, and increase inertia)
If objects shrink space is created in between them,
from the viewpoint of the objects it looks like space
inflates.
Mass-energy creates inertia, thus gravitation, space
and time.
Inertia is the basis of all (macro-)physics : it
affects all parameters of physics : that is why it is
so hard to measure locally.
And for the dark-agers : to understand.
My point is : discuss inertia, and you don't need to
discuss space, time and gravitation, as they logically
follow.
Uwe Hayek.
--
To be controlled in our economic pursuits,
is to be controlled in everything -- F.A.Hayek.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
(great is truth, and shall prevail)
-- Del Kennedy
Government is not the solution,
government is the problem.
-- Ronald Reagan.
Once a government is committed to the principle of
silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way
to go, and that is down the path of increasingly
repressive measures, until it becomes a source of
terror to all its citizens and creates a country where
everyone lives in fear.
-- Harry S Truman (1884 - 1972), August 8, 1950
Wie het kleine niet eert, valt op negers.
-- Karin Bloemen
Ik geloof niet meer in Evolutie !
-- Huize Hayek te Heist.
qchi...@yahoo.com
deduction will lead to the same 4+1 spacetime as well.
Even if you claim Lorentz spacetime is not a definition, there is still
a definition from the deduction. You might defiine it as all those
spacetime coordinates which measure all lights symmetrically at the
same speed.
Yes, if you can sort out all light waves from other mono waves, then
you can deduct the Lorentz spacetime this way. Conversely, if you can
distinguish inertial frames from non-inertial frames, then you can sort
out light waves from all mono waves. Problem is you cannot sort out
light and preselect inertial frames at the same time, thus you will end
up with the 4+1 spacetime with all of them mixed.
Bill Hobba
<xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1128479584.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There are no point particles either? So?
> They are mistakenly superimposed onto a non-inertial reality.
They are an abstraction that does exist to a high degree of accuracy
locally. As always, like the concept of point particle, the value of an
abstraction lies in its utility - and inertial frames has proven itself well
in that regard.
> There is no non-inertial reality. Between
> gravity and universal expansion, everything about existence in space is
> non-inertial.
>
> GR's major fault is a proper time which it gets from the non-existent
> rest frame of SR. If I have to spell it out, it is not native to your
> belief.
Learn some basics such as the clock postulate -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html
Rest of junk in same vein snipped.
Bill
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128539070....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The same logic can be deducted from different angles. But your
> deduction will lead to the same 4+1 spacetime as well.
>
> Even if you claim Lorentz spacetime is not a definition, there is still
> a definition from the deduction.
You are confused. SR logically follows from its postulates - not
definitions from deductions.
> You might defiine it as all those
> spacetime coordinates which measure all lights symmetrically at the
> same speed.
'measure all lights symmetrically at the same speed.'???????????? Learn to
express yourself coherently and you may be able to get somewhere.
Bill
xx...@bellsouth.net
xxein: Does the 'clock postulate' say that a clock begins to run
slower or faster if I drop it from a high tower (before splat)? Think
carefully and don't just guess.
If you don't think the clock postulate is pertinent to this, give me
some other reason for your answer.
qchi...@yahoo.com
in the 20th century. Sadly, it's gradually heading to the dark age
of physics, due to the religious belief in the master. I cannot
imagine that today physics is dominated more by belief than logic.
Hopefully, we'll change track and come out of the black hole.
Thanks for your support. Obviously, great minds think alike.
Qchiang
qchi...@yahoo.com
have space and time scales defined before the gradient differentiation
can be performed.
Qchiang
Androcles
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128644058....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Well said. Undoubtedly, Einstein created the brightest era of physics
| in the 20th century.
What do you mean, "Undoubtedly"?
Einstein wrote the biggest load of illogical crap the world has
seen since Ptolemy.
| Sadly, it's gradually heading to the dark age
| of physics, due to the religious belief in the master.
Bullshit. It is your religious belief that allows you to call the
idiot a "master".
| I cannot
| imagine that today physics is dominated more by belief than logic.
It's obvious in your case.
| Hopefully, we'll change track and come out of the black hole.
|
| Thanks for your support. Obviously, great minds think alike.
Fools seldom differ.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to
travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can "prove" (ha ha) nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
The math is the same, though.
Androcles.
brian a m stuckless
$ DoooOP DOooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De dooOP De.!! $
CALL.!! CALL iMMEDiATELY.!! iMMEDiATELY.!!, if you happen to:
..fix any HUP or GR POiNT A closer than PLANCK length, lp.!!
A. PLANCK UNcertainty
[ i CANNOT locate POSiTiON A ..to within (+) or (-) lp / 2. ]
[ i CANNOT measure POSiTiON A closer than lp = hbar / Mp*c. ]
[ This applies iNHERENTLY for "EXACT position of ANY ball." ]
*You CANNOT ((focus)) POSiTiON A closer than PLANCK LENGTH.!!
THEREfore, Heisenberg's UN-necessary UNcertainty's REDUNDANT.
B. Heisenberg's UNnecessary UNcertainty Principle
[ HEiSENBERG UNcertainty's ALL about HOW dimwits ((focus)). ]
[i CANNOT ((focus)) on BOTH ENDs of VELOCiTY vector AT ONCE.]
The GUESS momentum Frame-of-Reference ...
o o o o
o o o vector
o o o PROjECTiON
A - - VELOCiTY vector - - -> B - - - - - -> C
o o o
o o o
o o
Train-TRACK or any PATH ..even turtle trajectory.!!
[Note, ANY OTHER two POiNTs on SAME PATH a DiFFERENT VECTOR.]
[ CLEARLY the POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point on the PATH. ]
Also note..
[ A "POiNT" cannot MOVE "through space" ON any WORLDline.!! ]
[ And, NO WORLDline POiNT can "MOVE through" a SPACEtime.!! ]
[ POiNTs CAN-NOT move. ACTiON is BETWEEN adjacent points.!! ]
```Brian
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
Androcles wrote:
> For velocities greater than that of a turtle --
>
> Androcles.
qchi...@yahoo.com
I was replying to your post of 10/4/05. If I understand you correctly,
I think you mean Lorentz spacetimes are not defined, but so long as
light waves are well defined, you can select a set of frame coordinates
(out of all kinds of frames, including inertial and non-inertial) which
measure all lights at the same speed. And I agree these frames move
relative to each other at uniform velocity to a high degree of accuracy
(these frames are called inertial frames). As you said, these frames
are not defined, but deducted (or selected from all frames). That's
OK to me as well. But the problem is you cannot distinguish light
waves from all mono waves.
To select light waves out of all mono waves, you must have inertial
frames pre-selected (or, deducted using your terminology). You either
need to pre-select light, or pre-select inertial frames, otherwise you
have all frames and all waves mixed, which inevitably end up with the
4+1 spacetime.
Qchiang
Bill Hobba
<xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1128636314.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Slower or faster relative to what? Relative to an MCIF there is no change
because while falling it is in inertial motion.
> Think carefully and don't just guess.
Why bother. Until you give a very precisely worded physical question then
it is not even worth thinking about.
Bill
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128706272....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I was replying to your post of 10/4/05. If I understand you correctly,
> I think you mean Lorentz spacetimes are not defined, but so long as
> light waves are well defined,
I believe SR has nothing to do with light. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.
Bill
qchi...@yahoo.com
treatment for 1+1 spacetime should work for 3+1 and 4+1 spacetime
alike. It is because all mono waves, including light, follow the same
equation of (E)2 - (p1)2 - (p2)2 - (p3)2 - m2 = 0.
2. ALL matter follow the same 4+1 dimensional equivalent of Lorentz
transformation. This is the nature of all matter, and light and 3+1
Lorentz transformation is only a special case of the whole.
4. This brings up an important philosophical point. Time dilatation and
distance contraction are because this is the nature of all matter (as
spelled out in #2 above), rather than being forced by spacetime.
Spacetime is only a reference, which has no power to force objects.
That's why spacetime defined based on sound wave, or turtle speed,
has no power to prevent things traveling faster than sound wave, or
turtle. This is true to light as well, i.e. Lorentz spacetime
shouldn't possess power to forbid anything being faster than light.
Therefore we've been neglecting all the mono waves which represent
half of the physical world and is the more fundamental half. How can
we hope to uncover the real nature of physics with the more fundamental
half neglected.
5. Still, while Lorentz transformation could be defined with any
"speed limit", I think lights do play a special role in the
definition of Lorentz spacetime. It is because when Lorentz spacetime
is defined using light as the "limit", all other lights will be
measured at the same light speed, which makes light quite unique. This
is not true if sound waves, or else, is used as the "limit".
Still, even though it is called "speed limit", it really
shouldn't be a natural speed limit.. Of course, mono waves and the
4+1 spacetime also share the same properties as light and Lorentz
spacetime.
qchiang
qchi...@yahoo.com
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128805160.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I didn't read Tom Roberts' account in detail, but I think his
> treatment for 1+1 spacetime should work for 3+1 and 4+1 spacetime
> alike. It is because all mono waves, including light, follow the same
> equation of (E)2 - (p1)2 - (p2)2 - (p3)2 - m2 = 0.
If you read it then you obviously did not undersntad it. It said:
'Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption" that
the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. The derivation
given here does not make that assumption; the existence of a universal
speed (c) is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis
of the derivation. '
It has nothing to do with light or mono waves (whatever they are). SR is a
theory about space time geometry.
>
> 2. ALL matter follow the same 4+1 dimensional equivalent of Lorentz
> transformation.
>
You are intermixing concepts atrociously.. Matter does not follow the
Lorentz transformations - the Lorentz transformations tells how coordinates
transform - matter is not coordinates. It is obvious you are very confused
about fundamental things.
Bill
Androcles
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128805160.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The light leaves the caboose (A) and arrives at the engine (C), then
reflects
back to the caboose.
If you want to piss a relativist off let the light leave the engine (C),
reflect at the caboose(A) and return to the engine .
The diagram is like this (fixed font needed).
|
|
| C'
| /
| B /
| ____________Mirror
| /\ /
| / \ /
C / \ /
|\ / \ /
| \ / \A'
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \ / /
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \/ |
| /\ /
| / \ / |
| / \ /
| / \ / |
| / ____\/__________Mirror
| /
| / D |
|/
/ ____________|____|________________
A D B A' C'
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to [A'].
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
We establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from C to D equals the "time" it requires to travel from D to C'.
Distance between mirrors is x'
Einstein's equation:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
What it means in the diagram:
稼tau(A,t)+tau(A',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(B,t+x'/(c-v))
稼tau(C,t)+tau(C',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(D,t+x'/(c PLUS v))
So the time at B, the engine, equals the time at D, the caboose,
but it doesn't. Ergo Einstein was a phuckwit.
Androcles.
qchi...@yahoo.com
spacetime, but it should work for 3+1 spacetime. All I say is it
should work for 4+1 spacetime as well.
- the existence of a universal
speed (c) is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis
of the derivation. '
How are the postulates verified experimentally? Why is sound wave
speed not the natural consequence of the postulates? If it is, can it
be verified? Obviously, the natural light speed [c] will come into
play and be verified somewhere in your logic, regardless how pure
mathematical the derivation is. And I say wherever light speed [c]
comes into play, the mono waves will come in and arrive at the 4+1
spacetime.
Qchiang
Androcles
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128880067.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| In his derivation , it states that this derivation is for 1+1
| spacetime, but it should work for 3+1 spacetime. All I say is it
| should work for 4+1 spacetime as well.
|
| - the existence of a universal
| speed (c) is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis
| of the derivation. '
| How are the postulates verified experimentally?
Like this:
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
Maybe stars blow up twice in 3 months to keep Einstein happy,
and we call that "physics".
| Why is sound wave
| speed not the natural consequence of the postulates? If it is, can it
| be verified? Obviously, the natural light speed [c] will come into
| play and be verified somewhere in your logic, regardless how pure
| mathematical the derivation is. And I say wherever light speed [c]
| comes into play, the mono waves will come in and arrive at the 4+1
| spacetime.
|
| Qchiang
You can say whatever you like. Whether anyone listens is another
matter.
Androcles
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128880067.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In his derivation , it states that this derivation is for 1+1
> spacetime, but it should work for 3+1 spacetime. All I say is it
> should work for 4+1 spacetime as well.
You mean a hypothesized 5th spatial dimension no one has detected? Get
real.
>
> - the existence of a universal
> speed (c) is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis
> of the derivation. '
> How are the postulates verified experimentally?
See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> Why is sound wave
> speed not the natural consequence of the postulates?
Because the speed of sound depends on the properties of air which is not an
issue addressed. Learn to understand context.
> If it is, can it
> be verified? Obviously, the natural light speed [c] will come into
> play and be verified somewhere in your logic,
>
The fact it does not trivially proves you wrong.
Bill
qchi...@yahoo.com
Get real.
I explained in the first half of my post of Oct 3, which you didn't
understand.
- See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
I know myself how SR is verified experimentally. Since you claimed the
deduction had nothing to do with real light in Nature, I wish to hear,
in your own words, how you connect the deduction with real light in
experiments and why you don't connect it with sound.
Let's start from the beginning.
1. My Oct 3 post derived the 4+1 spacetime based on all mono waves in
the same way Lorentz spacetime is defined based on light.
2. You claimed Lorentz spacetime is not a definition, but a deduction
on Oct 4.
3. I replied on Oct 7 that treating Lorentz spacetime as a deduction is
OK, but you need to pre-select light, otherwise you still end up with
the same 4+1 spacetime.
4. Then you replied on Oct 7 and 8 that the deduction has nothing to do
with light.
5. This is why now on Oct 9, I wish to hear in your own words, how you
connect your deduction with experimental verifications WITHOUT invoking
light, and why your NOTHING-TO-DO-WITH-LIGHT deduction cannot work with
sound waves. If you ultimately need to invoke, or VERIFY AGAINST, real
light, then your deduction will end up with the 4+1 spacetime as
described in my Oct 3 post.
Qchiang
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1128966945....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> -You mean a hypothesized 5th spatial dimension no one has detected?
> Get real.
>
> I explained in the first half of my post of Oct 3, which you didn't
> understand.
>
> - See
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>
> I know myself how SR is verified experimentally. Since you claimed the
> deduction had nothing to do with real light in Nature, I wish to hear,
> in your own words, how you connect the deduction with real light in
> experiments and why you don't connect it with sound.
Since SR is not a theory about light there is no a priori need to connect it
to light (or sound for that matter) any more than there is a prioi need to
connect thermodynamics to gravity. One can apply SR to problems involving
light just as one can apply thermodynamics to problems involving gravity but
the two are not a priori interconnected. However if your question is why
is the speed of light measured to be invariant to a high degree of accuracy,
or, equivalently, why the constant c that appears in the Lorentz
transformation is found to a high degree of accuracy to be the speed of
light - it follows from gauge invariance or equivalently local charge
conservation
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/DBailey/SubAtomic/Lectures/LectF13/Lect13.htm
For some reason you are unable to follow simple logic. That SR has nothing
to do with light is explained in detail in each of the three links I gave.
For example from Toms post:
'Many criticisms of Special Relativity center on the "assumption" that the
speed of light is constant in all reference frames. The derivation given
here does not make that assumption; the existence of a universal speed (c)
is a natural consequence of the Postulates forming the basis of the
derivation. General symmetry properties of space-time are sufficient to
determine the equations of the Lorentz Transformation
[to within a topological choice - see below]. The bottom line is that it is
IMPOSSIBLE to formulate an alternative to Special Relativity, while obeying
the observed symmetries of space-time and agreeing with the experimental
evidence [see below about the limitations of the symmetry postulates used in
this derivation].'
All I can suggest is that you let go of your preconceptions and do what the
title of this thread says - namely 'DISCUSS SPACETIME AND GRAVITATION,
BASING ON LOGIC' That the speed c that appears in the Lorentz
transformation is to a high degree of accuracy found to be the speed of
light is an experimental fact - not a postulate of SR. Your preconception
that it forms a fundamental part of SR is not correct. Things have moved on
since Einstein's time - you should do the same.
>
> Let's start from the beginning.
> 1. My Oct 3 post derived the 4+1 spacetime based on all mono waves in
> the same way Lorentz spacetime is defined based on light.
Handwaving nonsense like: 'Not being pre-occupied with Lorentz spacetime,
just imagine what would be the spacetime definition which accommodates "all"
mono matter waves most elegantly. It is a 4+1 spacetime, as mono waves have
but one more degree of freedom, its speed. Adding one extra dimension to
accommodate this degree of freedom naturally levels all mono waves to the
same (light) speed.' proves nothing eg what are 'mono waves'????????
> 2. You claimed Lorentz spacetime is not a definition, but a deduction
> on Oct 4.
It is - and I gave links supporting my assertion.
> 3. I replied on Oct 7 that treating Lorentz spacetime as a deduction is
> OK, but you need to pre-select light, otherwise you still end up with
> the same 4+1 spacetime.
SR is not about 4+1 space-time. You are very confused.
Bill
qchi...@yahoo.com
light. You claimed it is not a definition but a deduction. But so far
you have not been able to provide exactly how it is deducted. Let me
give you the exact details of how it can be defined by light:
1. Choose one light ray t in x direction. Let it travel from a to b.
Define the time it travels from a to b be 1 second and the distance ab
= 1 light-second. During this time, ray x travels from b to c, thus
define distance bc = 1 light-second. Define the time duration ray t
travels from b to c as the next second. Define the distance cd ray x
travels during the second second as cd = next light second, ... Thus
all the scales of x dimension and time dimension are defined.
2. Run another ray y in y direction, mark the distance scale on y
dimension as the first light second, second light-second, third
light-second, ... during the first second, second second, third second,
...
3. Do the same thing on z dimension. Thus the scales of time dimension
and all 3 spatial dimensions of this Lorentz spacetime are defined.
4. Definition of simultaneity: Run two light rays from o in opposite
directions and let them be reflected back at two mirrors at p and q, if
the two reflected rays reach back at o at the same time, define the
time they reach p and q as simultaneous.
You can define other Lorentz spacetime scales for other inertial frames
in the same way. Maxwell theory asserts the relative velocity between
different Lorentz spacetimes being uniform. (But if the frame is not
inertial, the relative velocity can not be uniform and the scales
defined is not a Lorentz spacetime). Maxwell theory also asserts any
other light ray will be measured as of the same speed as these 4 light
rays as long as the frame is inertial. These properties are not shared
by sound waves or other objects, except the quantum mechanical matter
mono waves.
You claimed that Lorentz spacetime is not a definition, but a
deduction. It appears the scales of your Lorentz spacetime are
premarked, and through deduction these premarked coordinates are
singled out from other coordinates. This is OK as long as you can
provide exactly how the scales are selected in Nature, rather than an
abrupt mathematical deduction without real physical backup. You
claimed this is a deduction with a constant c in it, but has nothing to
do with light. If your deduction will ultimately be backed up by some
thing real physical, it has to come from something in nature, that is
either light or neutrino, otherwise why this constant is not
c+500000cm/s, or something else.
So, let me try a deduction for you. First, you cannot simply plug in a
constant c = 3 * 10000000000cm/s into the formula, because at this
point of deduction we don't have spacetime scales yet, we are still
trying to deduct the coordinate scales now. If I were to try to deduct
these frame coordinates, I would use light rays. Simply find a
pre-marked frame coordinates which measure ALL lights at the same
speed. Those frame coordinates which don't measure ALL lights at the
same speed will be rejected. (This may be what you mean by deduction.)
But you claim the Lorentz frames has nothing to do with light, maybe
you can deduct it from other matter, say, neutron decay. Assume
neutron decays at rate r at rest, then it decays at r *
(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2. So you may deduct a set of frames as: If it decays
at rate a*r in a frame, you have a frame moving at velocity v=c * (1
- a^2)^1/2. With different decay rates for different frames, you
deducted a set of Lorentz frame coordinates. This looks like a
deduction without the use of light, However, that Is not true, because
at this moment, you don't have space and time scales to measure time,
thus the decay rate. You cannot even identify a neutron. You only
have a soup of quantum mechanical mono waves. If you wish to identify
a neutron, you need to compare the mono wave speed with light (which of
course must be pre-selected), then you separate mono waves from packet
waves and identify the neutrons and their decay rates. If you cannot
pre-select light waves, you would end up with the mono wave soup,
which, as I said, will be accommodated most elegantly by a 4+1
spacetime.
Qchiang
qchi...@yahoo.com
to the last point. Whether a physicist wishes to invest his/her time
and energy in a Ptolemy, or a Coppernicus view is his/her choice.
Androcles
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129061726.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| My original post of Oct 3 says Lorentz spacetime "defined" based on
| light. You claimed it is not a definition but a deduction. But so
far
| you have not been able to provide exactly how it is deducted. Let me
| give you the exact details of how it can be defined by light:
|
| 1. Choose one light ray t in x direction.
Nope. Choose one turtle crawl t in x direction.
| Let it travel from a to b.
Okay
| Define the time it travels from a to b be 1 second and the distance ab
| = 1 light-second.
Nope.
Define the time a turtle travels from a to b be 1 second and the
distance ab
= 1 turtle-second.
| During this time, ray x travels from b to c, thus
| define distance bc = 1 light-second.
Nope. bc = 1 turtle-second
| Define the time duration ray t
| travels from b to c as the next second.
Nope. Define the time duration crawl t
travels from b to c as the next second.
| Define the distance cd ray x
| travels during the second second as cd = next light second,
Nope. Define the distance cd crawl x travels during the second second as
cd = next crawl second,
| ... Thus
| all the scales of x dimension and time dimension are defined.
Yep.
| 2. Run another ray y in y direction, mark the distance scale on y
| dimension as the first light second, second light-second, third
| light-second, ... during the first second, second second, third
second,
| ...
Nope.
Run another crawl y in y direction, mark the distance scale on y
dimension as the first crawl second, second crawl-second, third
crawl-second, ... during the first second, second second, third second,
| 3. Do the same thing on z dimension. Thus the scales of time
dimension
| and all 3 spatial dimensions of this Lorentz spacetime are defined.
Nope.
Do the same thing on z dimension. Thus the scales of time dimension
and all 3 spatial dimensions of this turtle spacetime are defined.
| 4. Definition of simultaneity: Run two light rays from o in opposite
| directions and let them be reflected back at two mirrors at p and q,
if
| the two reflected rays reach back at o at the same time, define the
| time they reach p and q as simultaneous.
Nope.
4. Definition of simultaneity: Run two turtle crawls from o in opposite
directions and let them be reflected back at feeding bowls at p and q,
if the two reflected crawls reach back at o at the same time, define the
time they reach p and q as simultaneous.
| You can define other Lorentz spacetime scales for other inertial
frames
| in the same way.
Nope.
You can define other turtle spacetime scales for other inertial frames
in the same way.
| Maxwell theory asserts the relative velocity between
| different Lorentz spacetimes being uniform.
Bullshit. You've no idea what Maxwell said. You are a phuckwit.
Androcles.
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129061726.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My original post of Oct 3 says Lorentz spacetime "defined" based on
> light. You claimed it is not a definition but a deduction. But so far
> you have not been able to provide exactly how it is deducted.
I did. I gave three links that each showed it. you refuse to address their
content and simply keep claiming I did not.
> Let me
> give you the exact details of how it can be defined by light:
I am not denying that SR can be based on Einstein's second postulate. I am
claiming it need not be. As I have said numerous times your logic is
attractors and you are very confused.
My Lorentz space-time? There is no 'my' about it.
> This is OK as long as you can
> provide exactly how the scales are selected in Nature, rather than an
> abrupt mathematical deduction without real physical backup.
In as far as I can make any sense out of your semantic gibberish an inertial
frame, by definition, is equipped with a coordinate system and synced
clocks.
> You
> claimed this is a deduction with a constant c in it, but has nothing to
> do with light.
True.
> If your deduction will ultimately be backed up by some
> thing real physical, it has to come from something in nature, that is
> either light or neutrino, otherwise why this constant is not
> c+500000cm/s, or something else.
Many reasons that I detailed previously eg EM guage symmetry
>
> So, let me try a deduction for you. First, you cannot simply plug in a
> constant c = 3 * 10000000000cm/s into the formula, because at this
> point of deduction we don't have spacetime scales yet, we are still
> trying to deduct the coordinate scales now.
Since c = 3 * 10000000000cm/s is expressed in metric units you have
obviously decided to use those suits by the very choice of using that value.
> If I were to try to deduct these frame coordinates,
Deduct frame coordinates??????????
You are very very very confused.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129061726.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My original post of Oct 3 says Lorentz spacetime "defined" based on
> light. You claimed it is not a definition but a deduction. But so far
> you have not been able to provide exactly how it is deducted. Let me
> give you the exact details of how it can be defined by light:
>
> 1. Choose one light ray t in x direction. Let it travel from a to b.
> Define the time it travels from a to b be 1 second and the distance ab
> = 1 light-second. During this time, ray x travels from b to c, thus
> define distance bc = 1 light-second. Define the time duration ray t
> travels from b to c as the next second. Define the distance cd ray x
> travels during the second second as cd = next light second, ... Thus
> all the scales of x dimension and time dimension are defined.
> 2. Run another ray y in y direction, mark the distance scale on y
> dimension as the first light second, second light-second, third
> light-second, ... during the first second, second second, third second,
> ...
> 3. Do the same thing on z dimension. Thus the scales of time dimension
> and all 3 spatial dimensions of this Lorentz spacetime are defined.
> 4. Definition of simultaneity: Run two light rays from o in opposite
> directions and let them be reflected back at two mirrors at p and q, if
> the two reflected rays reach back at o at the same time, define the
> time they reach p and q as simultaneous.
That is one way of constructing a coordinate system. Many others are
possible eg using rods and slow clock transport. The only thing that is
required is for the resulting frame to have the properties of an inertial
frame which by definition is what SR deals with.
>
> You can define other Lorentz spacetime scales for other inertial frames
> in the same way. Maxwell theory asserts the relative velocity between
> different Lorentz spacetimes being uniform. (But if the frame is not
> inertial, the relative velocity can not be uniform and the scales
> defined is not a Lorentz spacetime). Maxwell theory also asserts any
> other light ray will be measured as of the same speed as these 4 light
> rays as long as the frame is inertial.
Correct. That is another way of fixing the c that occurs in the Lorentz
transformations at the speed light - Maxwell's equations must be invariant.
> These properties are not shared
> by sound waves or other objects, except the quantum mechanical matter
> mono waves.
Matter mono waves? What about when matter is acting like a particle as in
the photoelectric effect? - it is not waves then. Matter is neither a
classical particle or wave - it is quantum stuff and is usually referred to
as a quantum particle.
>
> You claimed that Lorentz spacetime is not a definition, but a
> deduction. It appears the scales of your Lorentz spacetime are
> premarked, and through deduction these premarked coordinates are
> singled out from other coordinates.
You are confused. An inertial frame by definition is equipped with a
coordinate system and synced clocks - they are not deductions from the
theory - they are already in the theory.
> This is OK as long as you can
> provide exactly how the scales are selected in Nature, rather than an
> abrupt mathematical deduction without real physical backup.
Coordinate systems are not selected by nature - they are man made.
> You
> claimed this is a deduction with a constant c in it, but has nothing to
> do with light. If your deduction will ultimately be backed up by some
> thing real physical, it has to come from something in nature, that is
> either light or neutrino, otherwise why this constant is not
> c+500000cm/s, or something else.
>
> So, let me try a deduction for you. First, you cannot simply plug in a
> constant c = 3 * 10000000000cm/s into the formula, because at this
> point of deduction we don't have spacetime scales yet, we are still
> trying to deduct the coordinate scales now. If I were to try to deduct
> these frame coordinates, I would use light rays. Simply find a
> pre-marked frame coordinates which measure ALL lights at the same
> speed. Those frame coordinates which don't measure ALL lights at the
> same speed will be rejected. (This may be what you mean by deduction.)
>
>
> But you claim the Lorentz frames has nothing to do with light, maybe
> you can deduct it from other matter, say, neutron decay.
If you actually read the links I gave many ways were discussed eg form the
first link I gave:
'We have found the form of transformation functions between two frames in
the standard configuration. The only remaining unknown is the value of the
universal constant u. From the transformation functions we can make a number
of conclusions, for example about possibility of time dilation. Then we
could use time dilation experiments (involving decay of stationery and
moving mesons) to measure the value of u. Another (but not the only) way to
find a value of u is by deriving velocity addition formula and observing
that if c^2 = -u and an object moves with speed c in one inertial frame,
then it moves with the same speed in all others. This would enable us to
identify c as the speed of light in vacuum. But I stress once again that
other experiments could be used to find the value of the constant.'
> Assume
> neutron decays at rate r at rest, then it decays at r *
> (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2. So you may deduct a set of frames as:
One does not deduce frames. They are defined beforehand by the definition
of what an inertial frame is. As I have said many times it is obvious you
are very confused.
Bill
qchi...@yahoo.com
made. Whether it's deducted or man made, if its creation did not
involve real physical objects, it has to be tested against real
physical objects afterwards and at that time it can be defined or
deducted or created inversely from that physical experiment and all the
parameters in the spacetime has to come from real physical objects.
Here is a repeat of my previous post: But you claim the Lorentz frames
has nothing to do with light, maybe
you can deduct it from other matter, say, neutron decay. Assume
neutron decays at rate r at rest, then it decays at r *
(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2. So you may deduct a set of frames as: If it decays
at rate a*r in a frame, you have a frame moving at velocity v=c * (1
- a^2)^1/2. With different decay rates for different frames, you
deducted a set of Lorentz frame coordinates. This looks like a
deduction without the use of light, However, that Is not true, because
at this moment, you don't have space and time scales to measure time,
thus the decay rate. You cannot even identify a neutron. You only
have a soup of quantum mechanical mono waves. If you wish to identify
a neutron, you need to compare the mono wave speed with light (which of
course must be pre-selected), then you separate mono waves from packet
waves and identify the neutrons and their decay rates.
Just let me know if this is what you mean by deduction. If it's not,
give me a detailed logical procedure. I'll tell you where you will
need either light or inertial frame pre-selected. We may have
different approaches to Lorentz spacetime, but all I know is that
whatever way the approach is, either pre-defined light or pre-defined
inertial frame will be needed at the point when your approach meets
real physical world.
2. Your links did talk about experiments, but they all base on well
defined inertial frames. But we are going to deduct the Lorentz
spacetime without inertial frames and without involvement of light,
which I doubt is possible. If you can give me an exact procedure that
it is defined/deducted/created, I'll tell you where you will need
pre-selected light, or inertial frames.
Qchiang
Androcles
Androcles.
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129219148.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> 1. Earlier you said Lorent spacetime is deducted, now say it's man
> made.
I did not say that - I said the coordinate systems are man made. Indeed
that is one reason in favor of the principle of general covariance - the
laws of physics should not depend on how we decide to view it.
> Whether it's deducted or man made, if its creation did not
> involve real physical objects, it has to be tested against real
> physical objects afterwards and at that time it can be defined or
> deducted or created inversely from that physical experiment and all the
> parameters in the spacetime has to come from real physical objects.
Of course. However an assumption of pretty much all physical theories is
that one can conceptually construct coordinate systems without changing the
results - principle of general covariance again - or just a little
aquanatnace with Euclidean geometry where you made all these constructs like
drawing circles etc to prove theorems - conceptually making those constructs
did not affect anything.
>
> Here is a repeat of my previous post: But you claim the Lorentz frames
> has nothing to do with light, maybe
> you can deduct it from other matter, say, neutron decay.
It is not deduced from matter - it is deduced from many different things
some of which involve matter - some not eg muon decay.
> Assume
> neutron decays at rate r at rest, then it decays at r *
> (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2. So you may deduct a set of frames as:
>
I have repeatedly stated, yet you refuse to understand, one does not deduct
frames - they are given by the fact SR deals by definition with inertial
frames which also by definition contain their own coordinate systems eg they
by definition obey Euclidean geometry for stationary lines and points so one
can construct a Cartesian coordinate system. They also by definition
contain a system of synced clocks - sometimes called the postulate of
universal time. One does not have to spell out exactly how that are synced
any more than one has to spell out exactly how coordinate systems are
constructed. - many means exist eg slow clock transport. All one has to do
is postulate it exists.
> Just let me know if this is what you mean by deduction. If it's not,
> give me a detailed logical procedure.
No logical procedure is required - one does not deduce coordinate systems -
they are given by the definition of inertial frames. You can spell it out if
you wish and is useful in more advanced work where one examines how
different definitions of simultaneity can affect things but, as a point of
logic, it is not required.
> I'll tell you where you will
> need either light or inertial frame pre-selected.
Since SR deals with inertial frames by definition of course one needs an
inertial frame.
> We may have
> different approaches to Lorentz spacetime, but all I know is that
> whatever way the approach is, either pre-defined light or pre-defined
> inertial frame will be needed at the point when your approach meets
> real physical world.
>
> 2. Your links did talk about experiments, but they all base on well
> defined inertial frames.
Your comprehension obviously needs work eg from Toms post:
THE ISOTROPY/HOMOGENEITY POSTULATE
Space is isotropic, in that there is no "preferred direction" in space. The
transformation must have the same mathematical form for a boost in any
(spatial) direction. Space is also homogeneous,
in that there is no "preferred position" in space. The transformation must
have the same mathematical form for any origin of coordinates; this applies
to time, as well.
The above is the definition of an inertial frame. The others used the
definition of free particles move with constant velocity. Just because you
do not see an explicitly spelt out procedure for constructing coordinates
does not mean they are not in the theory. The clocks in the above
definition for example have not had the syncing procedure spelt out but it
in no way matters provided the frame containing those clocks obeys the
homogeneity postulate of both space and time.
> But we are going to deduct the Lorentz
> spacetime without inertial frames and without involvement of light,
> which I doubt is possible. If you can give me an exact procedure that
> it is defined/deducted/created, I'll tell you where you will need
> pre-selected light, or inertial frames.
You are still very confused.
Bill
>
> Qchiang
>
qchi...@yahoo.com
That's exactly what I say. After all we have an agreement now. And
I say the best theory is one which eliminates any pre-selection if
possible. That is my theory, which substitutes the pre-selection by a
logical definition and gets a 4+1 spacetime. It is no different from
changing from Ptolemy to Copernicus, or Newtonian to Lorentz, where
only the perspective is changed for more elegance, with the same matter
contents.
Your view is a spacetime as a stage for all physical matter to play.
No matter how unsuitable the matter is described by the spacetime, the
spacetime is there objectively. The Copernican and Einstein's view
is that spacetime is defined by matter. Let me quote from a quote in
the box about Newton in MTW gravitation book, something like
"geometry doesn't tell matter how to move, instead it needs to be
drawn".
For whatever reason you changed from Ptolemy to Copernicus and from
Newtonian space and time to Lorentz spacetime, you can change from
Lorentz to the 4+1 spacetime. Otherwise, you would probably still stay
with Newtonian space and time, or even at Ptolemy time.
Qchiang
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129315486....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You admit that you need pre-defined / pre-selected inertial frames.
I admit you need inertial frames - which is obvious since SR deals with
inertial frames.
> That's exactly what I say. After all we have an agreement now. And
> I say the best theory is one which eliminates any pre-selection if
> possible. That is my theory, which substitutes the pre-selection by a
> logical definition and gets a 4+1 spacetime. It is no different from
> changing from Ptolemy to Copernicus, or Newtonian to Lorentz, where
> only the perspective is changed for more elegance, with the same matter
> contents.
All it does is demonstrate your lack of comprehension. Inertial frames do
not imply 4+1 space-time.
>
> Your view is a spacetime as a stage for all physical matter to play.
>
That is not my view.
> No matter how unsuitable the matter is described by the spacetime, the
> spacetime is there objectively. The Copernican and Einstein's view
> is that spacetime is defined by matter.
>
That is not their view.
> Let me quote from a quote in
> the box about Newton in MTW gravitation book, something like
> "geometry doesn't tell matter how to move, instead it needs to be
> drawn".
So? BTW we are talking about SR not GR.
>
> For whatever reason you changed from Ptolemy to Copernicus and from
> Newtonian space and time to Lorentz spacetime, you can change from
> Lorentz to the 4+1 spacetime.
Please at least try to express yourself coherently.
Bill
qchi...@yahoo.com
with
inertial frames.
Good, we are in complete agreement. I don't deal with SR, I deal
with the 4+1 spacetime, which sees the need for inertial frames as a
logical weakness. On improvement, we reach the 4+1 spacetime without
the need for inertial frames.
I have repeatedly stated, yet you refuse to understand, one does not
deduct
frames - they are given by the fact SR deals by definition with
inertial
frames which also by definition contain their own coordinate systems eg
they
by definition obey Euclidean geometry for stationary lines and points
so one
can construct a Cartesian coordinate system. They also by definition
contain a system of synced clocks - sometimes called the postulate of
universal time. One does not have to spell out exactly how that are
synced
any more than one has to spell out exactly how coordinate systems are
constructed. - many means exist eg slow clock transport. All one has
to do
is postulate it exists.
If a spacetime is by definition being what it is and cannot change,
then Newtonian space and time is also by definition what it is, then it
should not change either. Then what is the reason you changed the view
from Newtonian space and time to Lorentz spacetime?
Qchiang
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129385792.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>- I admit you need inertial frames - which is obvious since SR deals
> with
> inertial frames.
>
> Good, we are in complete agreement. I don't deal with SR, I deal
> with the 4+1 spacetime,
Inertial frames do not imply the existence of a 5th dimension.
> which sees the need for inertial frames as a logical weakness.
No logical difficulties result from the assumption of inertial frames any
more than the assumption space is locally Euclidian in Riemanian geometry is
a logical weakness of that theory.
> On improvement, we reach the 4+1 spacetime without
> the need for inertial frames.
>
> I have repeatedly stated, yet you refuse to understand, one does not
> deduct
> frames - they are given by the fact SR deals by definition with
> inertial
> frames which also by definition contain their own coordinate systems eg
> they
> by definition obey Euclidean geometry for stationary lines and points
> so one
> can construct a Cartesian coordinate system. They also by definition
> contain a system of synced clocks - sometimes called the postulate of
> universal time. One does not have to spell out exactly how that are
> synced
> any more than one has to spell out exactly how coordinate systems are
> constructed. - many means exist eg slow clock transport. All one has
> to do
> is postulate it exists.
>
> If a spacetime is by definition being what it is and cannot change,
> then Newtonian space and time is also by definition what it is, then it
> should not change either. Then what is the reason you changed the view
> from Newtonian space and time to Lorentz spacetime?
As I have repeatedly said you are very confused about basic issues. Learn
the difference between a concept and a fact. Concepts once formulated do
not change - facts however do and can favor one concept over another. The
difference between Newtonian space-time and Lorentzian space-time is one
considers time an absolute - the other treats it on the same footing as
space. Experiment has shown Lorentzian space-time is a better description
than Newtonian.
Bill
>
> Qchiang
>
qchi...@yahoo.com
- Inertial frames do not imply the existence of a 5th dimension.
The weakness in pre-selection of inertial frame and its removal do
imply the existence of the higher dimension.
- Concepts once formulated do
not change - facts however do and can favor one concept over another.
The same fact doesn't change. But new facts are accumulated.
- Experiment has shown Lorentzian space-time is a better description
than Newtonian.
That's why you are not Einstein. You need new facts to change
concept. Einstein changes concept on the same fact, then predict new
facts.
The same mono waves can be viewed with Lorentz spacetime less elegantly
but much more elegantly with the 4+1 spacetime. You will soon see new
facts accumulating to support the 4+1 spacetime. You can accept the
4+1 spacetime then.
Qchiang
Bill Hobba
<qchi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1129476714.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Inertial frames do not imply the existence of a 5th dimension.
>
> The weakness in pre-selection of inertial frame and its removal do
> imply the existence of the higher dimension.
You have provided no logic supporting your assertion - your hadwaving
rubbish of previous posts do not count.
>
> - Concepts once formulated do
> not change - facts however do and can favor one concept over another.
>
> The same fact doesn't change. But new facts are accumulated.
>
> - Experiment has shown Lorentzian space-time is a better description
> than Newtonian.
>
> That's why you are not Einstein. You need new facts to change
> concept. Einstein changes concept on the same fact, then predict new
> facts.
And provided reasoning supporting his ideas.
> The same mono waves can be viewed with Lorentz spacetime less elegantly
> but much more elegantly with the 4+1 spacetime. You will soon see new
> facts accumulating to support the 4+1 spacetime. You can accept the
> 4+1 spacetime then.
Get back to us then.
Bye
Bill
>
> Qchiang
>