Crisp, James R, Thed, Q, Xev, and anyone else that cares,

I see my thread "Unrelative Relativity" was to complicated for some of you to understand. Here is a simpler problem:

Two metal balls are in outerspace. One weighs one kilogram, while the other one weighs two kilograms. You don't know which ball is moving and which ball is stationairy, all you know is that they are moving towards each other at .90c. Finally, the two balls impact each other, and ALL of the mass of both balls are converted to energy in the impact. Give the total energy output of the collision in both examples listed below.

1) Since you don't know which ball is moving and which ball is stationairy, assume that the 1 kilogram ball is moving at .90c and the 2 kilogram ball is stationairy. If the total mass(relative and rest) of both balls is converted to energy in the collision, how much energy is produced in the collision??

2) Since you don't know which ball is moving and which ball is stationairy, assume that the 2 kilogram ball is moving at .90c and the 1 kilogram ball is stationairy. If the total mass(relative and rest) of both balls is converted to energy in the collision, how much energy is produced by the collision???

Finally, which answer is correct: The answer from example 1 or from example 2, or is the answer somewhere in between the two???

If you do not know the answer, what additional information would you need to obtain the answer??

Hint: Formulas to use:

E=mc^2

m= m0/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))

Xev,

You probably already know the answer.:) I'm interested in the answer that the die-hard relativists come up with.

Tom

Tom (May I call you Tom?):

1) Since you don't know which ball is moving and which ball is stationairy, assume that the 1 kilogram ball is moving at .90c and the 2 kilogram ball is stationairy. If the total mass(relative and rest) of both balls is converted to energy in the collision, how much energy is produced in the collision??

E=mc^2
E= (1+3kg)(9*10^10m2/s2)
E= 3.6*10^11 joules

I do hope I did this one correctly, I get a bad feeling that I did not.

2) Since you don't know which ball is moving and which ball is stationairy, assume that the 2 kilogram ball is moving at .90c and the 1 kilogram ball is stationairy. If the total mass(relative and rest) of both balls is converted to energy in the collision, how much energy is produced by the collision???

Same as above....I think.....

Xev,

Sure you can call me Tom.

You made a slight error in your calculations. You should have used a calculator. I did. :)

Example 1:

In the first case the 1 kilogram mass is travelling .90 c. This would mean that the relative mass of the 1 kilogram mass is:

m1=m0/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)
m1=1 kg/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)
m1=1kg/0.436
m1=2.29 kg

Since the 2kg weight is at rest

m2=2 kg

The sum of both masses is:

m=m1+m2
m=2.29 kg+2 kg
m=4.29 kg

Since all the mass gets converted to energy:

E=mc^2
E=4.29 * c^2
E=386100000000000000 Joules
E= 3.86*10^17 Joules

In the second example:

The 1 kg mass is at rest therefore:

m1=1

The 2 kg mass is traveling at .90c therefore:

m2=m0/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)
m2=2 kg/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)
m2=2kg/0.436
m2=4.58 kg

The sum of both masses is:

m=m1+m2
m=1 kg+4.58 kg
m=5.58 kg

Since all the mass gets converted to energy:

E=mc^2
E=5.58 * c^2
E=502200000000000000 Joules
E= 5.02*10^17 Joules

As you can see, in the same frame of reference, example 1 gives 3.86*10^17 joules while example 2 gives 5.02*10^17 Joules.

Can you guess which one is the correct??

Tom

I see my thread "Unrelative Relativity" was to complicated for some of you to understand.

There was nothing complicated at all with your other thread. You are simply unable to understand the explanations.

As you can see, in the same frame of reference, example 1 gives 3.86*10^17 joules while example 2 gives 5.02*10^17 Joules.

Wrong. You are using two frames of reference:

Here:

Since the 2kg weight is at rest

and here:

The 1 kg mass is at rest therefore:

Q,

It was two frames of reference that merged into one.

In the end, when the two metal balls no longer exist, how much energy do you believe the collision produced???

Tom

Hi Tom,

This example will not help you disprove special relativity. You will probably claim that the total amount of energy must be the same for both observers, while special relativity (and I can claim this without any calculations) will predict different energies for both observers.

Well, guess what: energy is not an invariant quantity between observers, only the size of the energy-momentum fourvector = (E/c)^2 - p^2 is.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

This example will not help you disprove special relativity. You will probably claim that the total amount of energy must be the same for both observers, while special relativity (and I can claim this without any calculations) will predict different energies for both observers.

After the collision, there are no more observers. The observers have been destroyed.

So I ask you just as I asked Q, how much energy is left after the metal balls are gone???

Tom

It was two frames of reference that merged into one.

Sorry, you can't do that. Not only does that imply an absolute frame of reference, it also implies there is no difference between an inertial and non-inertial frame.

Q,

"It was two frames of reference that merged into one."

Sorry, you can't do that. Not only does that imply an absolute frame of reference, it also implies there is no difference between an inertial and non-inertial frame.

The only frame of reference left after the collision is the frame of reference of the energy. The metal ball's frames of reference have been destroyed. They no longer exist because the metal balls no longer exist.

Tom

The only frame of reference left after the collision is the frame of reference of the energy. The metal ball's frames of reference have been destroyed. They no longer exist because the metal balls no longer exist.

Then your question is no worded correctly. You explicitly stated two examples; one example in which the (1) kg. ball was at rest and another example in which the (2) kg. ball was a rest. That is (2) separate reference frames.

Obviously the aftermath of the explosion must be viewed by a third party observer. That again, is another reference frame altogether.

Q,

Obviously the aftermath of the explosion must be viewed by a third party observer. That again, is another reference frame altogether.

How much energy does this third party observer detect???

Tom

How much energy does this third party observer detect???

That is not the issue. Asking how much energy a third party observer will detect is meaningless. The four vector formula allows you to convert a set of components from one frame to a set of components of another frame. In this case, one is evaluating the components from the FOR of the (1) kg. ball to the FOR of the (2) kg. ball.

Q,

"How much energy does this third party observer detect???"

That is not the issue. Asking how much energy a third party observer will detect is meaningless.

It's not meaningless. We know that the two balls collided and annihilated each other. The only question that now remains is how much energy was created from the collision???

Tom

Tom:
You made a slight error in your calculations. You should have used a calculator. I did.

More a problem in that I used my T-83 when I am more used to the 86. Thanks for the clarification on the end results.

As you can see, in the same frame of reference, example 1 gives 3.86*10^17 joules while example 2 gives 5.02*10^17 Joules.

Can you guess which one is the correct??

They both are.

The only question that now remains is how much energy was created from the collision???

Okay, for the first collision:

3.86*10^17 J

And for the second:

5.02*10^17 J

So, umm, this may be a stupid question, but, where exactly is the contradiction?

Edit to note:
I do not consider myself a partisan of either side. Relativity seems well verified by experiment, from what I read, and I've seen no reason to consider it flawed.

Incomplete, definitly, but we have yet to find a complete physical theory. :)

Xev,

Okay, for the first collision:

3.86*10^17 J

And for the second:

5.02*10^17 J

So, umm, this may be a stupid question, but, where exactly is the contradiction?

Relativity claims that both collisions are the same. In other words, relativity claims that you do not need to know the absolute motions of two objects in a frame of reference, you only need to know the motion of one object relative to the other in order to calculate the result of any interaction.

However, in the examples I provided, the relative motion of one ball to the other is the same in both cases, but the results are different. This goes against the core of relativity.

As I indicated in the beginning of this thread, you don't know which metal ball is moving and which one isn't, you only know that they are moving towards each other at .90 c. The examples I have provided are only two of an infinite amount of possibilities(for example both balls can be moving towards each other).

The problem is that to get the true answer to this problem, you would have to compare the motion of the balls to the absolute frame of reference in order to obtain the absolute motions of the balls. Only when you know what the absolute motions of the balls are, can you calculate the exact energy resulting from the collision.

Although the relativists on this forum will argue that there is no absolute frame of reference, I'm still waiting for them to answer my question:

How much energy is present after the collision:

a) 3.86*10^17 J
b) 5.02*10^17 J
c) none of the above

Tom

Crisp and Q,

Now that I think about it, there is only one frame of reference in the examples I have provided above.

In example 1 the one kilogram ball assumes that it is travelling towards the two kilogram ball.

In example 2 the one kilogram ball assumes that the two kilogram ball is moving towards it.

Notice that in both cases, we are in the one kilogram balls' frame of reference.

After all, there is no rule that say's that the one kilogram ball has to consider itself stationairy in it's frame of reference.

Tom

Hi Tom,

There is always an extra frame of reference involved. When you said

"In example 1 the one kilogram ball assumes that it is travelling towards the two kilogram ball."

then you imply that there is a third observer who can confirm that the one kilogram ball is moving towards the 2kg ball. From the point of view of the 1kg ball, it cannot tell (because it will only see the 2kg ball closing in).

Bye!

Crisp

Hi Tom,

"The problem is that to get the true answer to this problem, you would have to compare the motion of the balls to the absolute frame of reference in order to obtain the absolute motions of the balls. Only when you know what the absolute motions of the balls are, can you calculate the exact energy resulting from the collision."

First of all, energy is relative to the observer - I'll illustrate this with an example in just a second. But you don't need an absolute frame of reference at all if you think the disappearence of the two frames of reference of the two balls are a problem. You just need a third observer who is watching the entire proces. This observer can take the relative motions of the two balls into account and calculate the energy of the resulting collision from his point of view.

Now, energy is relative to the observer even in classical mechanics. A small example would be a moving object. For an observer witnessing the object fly by, it will have a kinetic energy of mv²/2, while for an observer moving along with the object it will have zero kinetic energy (for that observer the object does not seem to move).

So to answer your question: the answer is (c), none of the above, since you did not specify the frame of reference where the energy is to be calculated.

Bye!

Crisp

Q:

"That is not the issue. Asking how much energy a third party observer will detect is meaningless. "

CRISP:

"But you don't need an absolute frame of reference at all if you think the disappearence of the two frames of reference of the two balls are a problem. You just need a third observer who is watching the entire proces. This observer can take the relative motions of the two balls into account and calculate the energy of the resulting collision from his point of view. "

It seems that the Einstein fanclub is in contradiction with each other. I've noticed this posts with contradictions more than once. It reminds me of neo-darwinian discussions.

Crisp,

If the energy is released as photons(like a matter-antimatter reaction) I'm pretty sure that all observers would detect the same amount of photons. To assume that one observer would only see five photons while the other observer would see one million photons, sounds very illogical.

As I have indicated in a another thread, I don't consider kinetic energy, energy at all. Kinetic energy is something that physicists use to balance there formulas. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if it was relative(considering that it doesn't exist in my frame of reference:) )

Your problem is that you assume everthing is relative. There are some things that have to be absolute. Science is based on the assumption that something is real if everyone can percieve it(either directly or indirectly). If Einstein is correct, and something that exists in one frame of reference doesn't exist in another, then how can science ever prove that anything exists.

Ive noticed that the more I hear about relative frames of reference, the more I see flaws in the theory. I've found that it is impossible to prove that relativity is wrong when dealing with frames of reference where there are two observers. However, I found that when there are three observers, one observer in both of the other two observers frames of reference, the concept of relativity becomes illogical.

Let me give you an example:

There are three different clocks in one location. Two of the clocks head in opposite directions, both at .90c, from each other while the third clock remains stationairy. According to relativity for every one second of the stationairy clock .44 seconds pass for each of the moving clocks. Logic would dictate:

1 second(stationairy clock)=0.44 seconds(clock a)
and
1 second(stationairy clock)=0.44 seconds(clock b)

Therefore:

0.44 seconds(clock a)=1 second(stationairy clock)=0.44 seconds(clock b)

Therefore:

0.44 second(clock a)=0.44 seconds(clock b)

Therefore:

1 second(clock a)= 1 second(clock b)

Mathematically it would be:

If a=c and b=c then a=b.

In other words logic dictates that time slowed down equally for both clocks, and therefore they are synchronized.

However, Einstein would argue that they can't be synchronized because, in each of their frames of reference, the other clock is moving at a high speed.

This is the kind of problem where I have to choose between logic and Einstein. And for me, the choice will always be logic.

Tom

Tom,

The concept of a reference frame is a <b>very</b> simple one. Most people grasp the concept intuitively. But you can't seem to do even after it has been explained to you almost continuously for days on end.

I repeat: <b>A reference frame is a point of view</b>. Nothing more, nothing less.

In your example you can consider the energy in the reference frame of the 1 kg mass, or the frame of the 2 kg mass, or the centre-of-mass frame of the system, or from the point of view of an observer flying at 45 degrees to the line of collision at 0.567 times the speed of light. That is your choice, which you are free to make. The measurements of energy you make will be different depending on your choice.

The "observer" does not have to be a real thing. Think of "the observer" as a God who watches events unfold from a distance. That God can choose to sit on the 1 kg mass and watch, or sit on the 2 kg mass and watch, or move in some relative way to both the masses. The important thing is that the observer is measuring and watching the process from some point of view.

What you continually fail to do is to specify where this Godlike observer is and what he or she is doing. To answer <b>any</b> problem of this type, the very <b>first </b> thing which needs to be done is to specify the frame of reference of the observer. Then you can set out the rest of the problem. Most of the time, you simply ignore the need for an observer.

You keep saying there is an absolute frame of reference. That would imply that there is a Godlike person sitting absolutely still whilst everything else in the universe moves around him or her. He or she never moves. Yet you cannot specify how to determine the state of motion of any object (such as your 1 kg mass) relative to this mythical absolute observer. The fact is, there is no absolute observer. The state of motion of <b>any</b> observer relative to the system of interest must always be specified in order to be able to work out an answer to a problem.

You're inconsistent. Sometimes you assert that one or another reference frame in a problem is the absolute observer. For example, when you argue that when you drop a rock to the ground it is "really" the rock which moves and not the Earth, you are in effect sayng that the Earth is your absolute frame of reference. But the Earth <b>isn't</b> an absolute frame, because we know it moves relative to the sun (to take one example).

At other times, you assert that the "absolute" observer is somehow removed from the action. I suspect, for example, that in the case of your two masses moving towards each other, you have some picture of an absolute observer sitting "at rest" somewhere between the two rocks, watching them both move. Again, this is a wrong picture. If the only things in your hypothetical universe are two rocks and an observer, who can say which ones are moving and which ones aren't? Nobody. The best we can do is to say which ones are moving relative to the other ones.

I hope I don't have to explain this to you yet again at some future time. If I find that is necessary, I will refer you back to this post.

Tom,

Regarding your clock synchronisation example, you have once again assumed one particular frame of reference - the frame of reference of the clock at the centre. In that frame of reference, your argument is 100% correct down to where you say:

<i>In other words logic dictates that time slowed down equally for both clocks, and therefore they are synchronized.</i>

That conclusion is true, from the specific frame of reference of the central clock. The two other clocks are synchronised in that frame of reference.

You then say:

<i>However, Einstein would argue that they can't be synchronized because, in each of their frames of reference, the other clock is moving at a high speed.</i>

Here, you've changed reference frames and concluded that relativity says that the clocks are not synchronised in other reference frames. That is also correct.

Can you see that there is no conflict between the clocks being synchronised in one reference frame and not synchronised in another reference frame? Relativity tells us that that <b>must</b> be the case.

It is not a valid argument against relativity that this result goes against your gut feeling or "common sense". It is observed experimentally that this relativistic result is correct.

"""I repeat: A reference frame is a point of view. Nothing more, nothing less. """

hum, didn't know that :)

That's the problem, endless points of view are not welcome in science, it has to be objective.

"""The important thing is that the observer is measuring and watching the process from some point of view."""

"""Most of the time, you simply ignore the need for an observer. """

without an observer, everything would still be there identically, just a reminder

"""You keep saying there is an absolute frame of reference."""

maybe light in some sense

"""That would imply that there is a Godlike person sitting absolutely still whilst everything else in the universe moves around him or her. He or she never moves."""

Can you say that this is impossible?

"""Yet you cannot specify how to determine the state of motion of any object (such as your 1 kg mass) relative to this mythical absolute observer."""

--> light?

"""The fact is, there is no absolute observer."""

how do you know that? did you do some kind of an experiment?

"""You're inconsistent."""

You too: Define motion.

""""Sometimes you assert that one or another reference frame in a problem is the absolute observer. For example, when you argue that when you drop a rock to the ground it is "really" the rock which moves and not the Earth, you are in effect sayng that the Earth is your absolute frame of reference."""

indeed, in some sense it is
to say it differently: it knows point a goes to point b, but it can't tell if it passed from a --> (1,1) --> (2,1) --> b or from a --> (1,2) --> (2,2) --> b

"""But the Earth isn't an absolute frame, because we know it moves relative to the sun (to take one example)."""

yes and if its motion didn't change towards the sun than it is the rocks motion who caused this to happen

Hi all,

c'est moi,

"It seems that the Einstein fanclub is in contradiction with each other."

Please cite Q's and my quote in the correct context: we both said that a third observer is required to calculate the energy left by the explosion. When Tom asked Q what energy that third observer detected, Q responded that the question was meaningless, in the sense that any third observer will measure a different energy. I then repeated that a third observer is required anyway. There is no contradiction if you read everything correctly.

Tom,

"If the energy is released as photons(like a matter-antimatter reaction) I'm pretty sure that all observers would detect the same amount of photons. To assume that one observer would only see five photons while the other observer would see one million photons, sounds very illogical."

Very true, however, the difference arises because every observer will measure a different amount of kinetic energy from their respective point of view (because of the different relative motion to different observers), but since you said...

"As I have indicated in a another thread, I don't consider kinetic energy, energy at all. Kinetic energy is something that physicists use to balance there formulas. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if it was relative(considering that it doesn't exist in my frame of reference)"

... I don't think you will buy that explanation.

Bye!

Crisp

James R,

In a single frame of reference, relativity doesn't seem flawed. However, if you merge multiple frames of reference into one, or if you split one frame of reference into multiple frames of reference, you will find that relativity breaks down.

You may ask how do you merge multiple frames of reference into one?? I know of three ways:

1) You slow down all objects in all of the frames of reference to a constant speed. Since they are all now moving at the same speed, they can all be considered to be in the same frame of reference.

2) When the same object is present in two or more frames of reference. In other words, multiple frames of reference are linked by a single object.

3) When multiple objects combine to form one object. Example: two particles combine to produce one particle. This is similiar to the example I have provided on this thread.

In all three of the cases I have provided above, the relativity of the different frames of reference contradict each other.


Example of 2:

If you drop a rock, does the rock travel towards the Earth or does the Earth travel towards the rock??? Relativity claims that both frames of reference are correct.

Now if you drop a rock on the other side of the Earth, you still don't know whether the rock is travelling towards the Earth, or whether the Earth is travelling towards the rock. Relativity would claim that in this example, both frames of reference are correct.

However, if you drop two rocks on opposite sides of the Earth at the same time, you will find that certain frames of references are wrong. You know that the Earth can't move to meet both rocks at the same time(because the Earth doesn't expand), so the frame of reference for at least one of the rocks has to be wrong. The more rocks you drop from different locations on the Earth, the more frames of reference are proved incorrect.

In other words, what happened here was that The Earth linked multiple frames of reference together. Using the Earth as the link, you can prove which frames of refernce are correct and which ones are wrong.

Example of 3:

Let's say that the two metal balls, from the problem I provided at the beginning of this thread, were to merge into 1 larger ball. What frame of reference would this merged ball be in??? Would it be in the frame of reference of the 1 kg ball, the 2 kg ball, or neither??? If there was no conversion of mass to energy during the collision, would the resulting ball weigh 4.29 kg or 5.58 kg.

The above example is what happens when frames of reference merge. Relativity is always wrong in these cases unless all the objects in all the different frames of reference weigh the same.

That's all I'll say for now. I'll wait for you and Crisp to respond before I post more.


Tom

c'est moi:

Most of your post is not worth responding to, but I'll comment on one thing. I suggest you read the entire thread to get up to speed here.

I said: <i>That would imply that there is a Godlike person sitting absolutely still whilst everything else in the universe moves around him or her. He or she never moves.</i>
You said: <i>Can you say that this is impossible?</i>

No, of course not. Just unnecessary. Can you say that my having a purple dragon called Herbert living in my garage is impossible?

Tom,

Your entire post is based on further misunderstanding of frames of reference. An object does not exist in only one frame of reference at a time, but in a potentially infinite number of frames of reference. The object itself does not change when you change your point of view. I can watch you walk down the street from behind you, in front of you, off to one side, from a car driving past, or whatever. It doesn't change anything about you, only about how I see you. Changing reference frame is just like changing camera angle - taking a shot from a different camera.

Your notion of "combining" reference frames makes no sense. Different reference frames are different points of view. Combining them would be like seeing things from two points of view at the same time. You can only look from one frame of reference at a time. You can select which camera you want to use, but turning on two cameras at once just results in an overlapped, mixed up picture.

To take one example, you say:

<i>1) You slow down all objects in all of the frames of reference to a constant speed. Since they are all now moving at the same speed, they can all be considered to be in the same frame of reference.</i>

No. Even when they were travelling at different speeds, they were still all "in" the frame of reference you chose at the start. Nothing changes about the frame of reference unless you pick a different camera to watch the action. The speeds of the objects "in shot" change, but the camera angle stays the same unless you move the camera or change to a different camera.

Now to your examples....

<i>Example of 2:

If you drop a rock, does the rock travel towards the Earth or does the Earth travel towards the rock???</i>

<b>Which camera are you using? The one on the Earth or the one attached to the rock?</b>

<i>Example of 3:

Let's say that the two metal balls, from the problem I provided at the beginning of this thread, were to merge into 1 larger ball. What frame of reference would this merged ball be in???</i>

Whichever one you choose. Hit the button for camera 1 and it's in camera 1's reference frame. Select camera 2 and it's in camera 2's reference frame.

Prosoothus

That's all I'll say for now. I'll wait for you and Crisp to respond before I post more.

What am I, chopped liver ? ;)

Let's use a Cartesian plotting system for your example. We'll say that the event that is considered the moment of impact between the (1) and (2) kg. balls is given the coordinate (0,0,0). This coordinate can be considered a reference frame, or a point of view (you may use James R analogy of a godlike entity if you wish but I think the theists might have something to say ;)). Using this system, plug in any number of coordinates you wish; (10,10,10) - (-4,280.-35) - etc... Each set of coordinates can be considered a reference frame, or a point of view of the event. The godlike entity may view the event from any one of these coordinates, and from each coordinate will get an entirely different view of the event. He will view the event as an impact of the two balls, but will view it from different angles, above, behind, below, near, far, etc.. As you can see there are endless amounts of reference frames in which to view the event. You may have a godlike entity for each and every point of view (FOR) observing the event at the same time. Every godlike entity will view the event differently than the next. Some entities will be very near one another and their view of the event will have subtle differences, but differences nontheless.

As you can see, it is not possible to merge one reference frame with another into a single reference frame. One set of coordinates cannot be merged with another. That is like saying you can see the event from two points of view or two sets of coordinates at the same time. One observer has one point of view or one FOR, no more, no less.

You amy use this system with the Earth and rock example as well.

James R,

"Let's say that the two metal balls, from the problem I provided at the beginning of this thread, were to merge into 1 larger ball. What frame of reference would this merged ball be in???"

Whichever one you choose. Hit the button for camera 1 and it's in camera 1's reference frame. Select camera 2 and it's in camera 2's reference frame.

Stop avoiding my question. The 1 kg and 2 kg balls no longer exist, so the frames of reference for them don't exist anymore. There is only one larger ball remaining after the collision, nothing else. According to this resulting ball's frame of reference how much does it weigh 4.29 kg or 5.58 kg?? If the answer is both, then under which frames of reference when the original balls are gone???

And what cameras are you talking about, there is just one ball left after the collision??

Tom

Q,

As you can see, it is not possible to merge one reference frame with another into a single reference frame. One set of coordinates cannot be merged with another. That is like saying you can see the event from two points of view or two sets of coordinates at the same time. One observer has one point of view or one FOR, no more, no less.

If an electron smashes into a proton and creates a neutron, which frame of reference is the neutron in??? Is it in the electron's or is it in the proton's original frame of reference??? Where did the frames of reference for the electron and the proton go??

They merged, that's where they went.

If you have a different explanation, please share.

Tom

Tom,

<i>Stop avoiding my question.</i>

I'm not. It has already been answered. The energies measured in the different reference frames are different depending on which frame you use.

You complain that the number of photons emitted should not change, and I agree with you. What actually happens is that a particular number of photons is emitted, but those photons have different energies in different reference frames.


<i>The 1 kg and 2 kg balls no longer exist, so frames of reference for them don't exist anymore.</i>

What's this "frames of reference <b>for them</b>" stuff all about? I just explained to you how reference frames are independent of objects. Please re-read my previous 2 posts. Think about them. It's easy when you try.

<i>And what cameras are you talking about, there is just one ball left after the collision??</i>

Whichever cameras started viewing the process. Please re-read my previous two posts explaining this analogy and reference frames in general. Think about it.

Prothoosus

Let's say the electron was at coordinate (10,10,10) and the proton was at coordinate (-10,-10,-10). They were both moving towards the coordinate (0,0,0) where they will impact and create the neutron. Here we have three separate reference frames and three different points of view. And remember I said that each observer can have only one point of view or FOR. As the electron and proton move towards coordinate (0,0,0), along with their observers who are sitting atop of the electron and proton, their sets of coordinates will change, hence the FOR will change until they impact. Once they've impacted all three observers will now share the reference frame from coordinate (0,0,0). You may say this is the merging of reference frames into one single frame and that is somewhat correct. All three observers are now situated at coordinate (0,0,0) and they share the same reference frame.

However, what you're implying is that any other set of coordinates not in this position will view this impact the same way as the observers now situated at coordinate (0,0,0). That is not correct. Any other set of coordinates will view this impact differently. If the electron and proton observers were not sitting atop their respective 'vehicles', but instead remained at their set of coordinates (10,10,10) and (-10,-10,-10), there will always remain three separate frames of reference and hence three separate points of view. They will base their calculations relative to the coordinates of (0,0,0).

James R, let us keep it simple and leave that word "God" out. It is totally misplaced here. We are talking here about the possibility to escape motion. Again: Have you any proof that it is impossible for an observer to be motionless? Tell us of a law that would prevent this.

Further, would you be so kind to define motion. I think it's the 5th time or so that I ask you this and unlike you, I don't like repeating the same thing over and over like some kind of programmed robot.

Moreover, though I have no idea how to do it in practice, but why can't we use light as abs. FOR? Imagine that space is really an abs. FOR, like I believe, but that instead we *can* use it because we can somehow see space coördinates. In this case, you would all agree that we have found an abs. FOR that we can use. But what do we know about space? Maybe it is also moving as a system ... but does it matter? Likewise, if lightwaves would be gigantic, so gigantic that they would fill the whole universe with one ray and that further they'd all have the same frequency (colour), then you wouldn't be able to use light as FOR in experiments. It would all look the same. You'd know it's there but you wouldn't be able to use it. Likewise, space is black and gigantic, you can't use it, but it's there. But we could use light instead. It's motion is absolute, hence, it is an abs. FOR.

Cest moi

In my opinion, the only phenomenon that comes close to what you're referring is the CMBR. But that permeates the universe. I'm not so sure if you could even consider it a FOR at all. I'd have to think about that one...

However, in the examples I provided, the relative motion of one ball to the other is the same in both cases, but the results are different. This goes against the core of relativity.

How does this happen?

I agree with you that relativity contradicts common sense, that lowest form of logic. However, there are several good reasons for finding relativity to be a valid theory:

A: Many insights in physics go against common sense. For instance, it seems that the sun revolves around the earth, not vice versa. Yet the earth orbits the sun.

It seems that a lead cannonball should fall faster than a peice of paper of equal size. Yet they fall at the same speed.

It seems that light should be either a particle or a wave. But it is both, depending on how one chooses to observe it.

B: There is a great deal of evidence for general relativity. Not only does general relativity explain the orbit of Mercury, but it also is confirmed in observations of gravitational waves.

See here (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html) for an overveiw of more evidence.

See also here (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970610.html) and here (http://www.lairgauche.com/EinsteinTest.html).

Special relativity is confirmed by the existance of time dilation.

Hi c'est moi,

"But we could use light instead. It's motion is absolute, hence, it is an abs. FOR."

It is not the motion of light that is absolute, it is the *speed* of light. I'll give you some reasons why we can't use light as an absolute frame of reference:

1) For all practical situations, this frame of reference is simply no good. A particle collision (currently our best use for relativity and variants) is best described in other frames of reference (e.g. an observer travelling along with the centre of mass, or an observer for which the target is initially at rest).

2) From the basic experimentally verified fact that light travels at lightspeed, regardless of the observer, one immediatelly comes to a contradiction: in the frame of reference of the light, light does not travel at lightspeed. Physicists don't like exceptions.

3) From our current understanding of the universe (using the invariance of the speed of light) effects like time dilatation and length contraction immediatelly follow. For an observer moving along with the light, all events would occur instantaneously. Not quite practical to work with.

These are just three reasons I can come up with without thinking, I'll leave it to others to add other reasons to the list. I really don't see why you or Tom would want to use light as an absolute frame of reference. If you accept that the speed of light is invariant for all observers, then you get troubles for using light as a FOR (points 2 and 3) - reason 3 is an immediate consequence of the invariance of the speed of light (i.e. it requires NO further assumptions whatsoever). So what you are really questioning here is the invariance of the speed of light.

Oh, I almost forgot the most basic reason:

4) An absolute frame of reference is not required and would seriously complicate matters.

Bye!

Crisp

Xev,

Special relativity is confirmed by the existance of time dilation.

Just because clocks slow down when they travel at high speeds doesn't mean that time slows down.

Maybe I went too far by saying that reality doesn't contradict common sense. I meant to say that reality doesn't contradict logic.

As you pointed out, common sense isn't always logical. Common sense is influenced by people's perception of things while logic is not.

Have you ever seen one of those old diagrams of our solar system where the Earth is in the middle and the Sun and the other planets revolve around it??? Do you know that you can use this diagram to predict the motion of the Sun and all the planets accurately. You might even be able to use it to predict the motion of the moon as well. Why is it that even though we all know that the Earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa, this obviously incorrect model gives the correct results???

While some people on this board will argue that the Sun revolves around the Earth in the Earth's frame of reference, we know that it doesn't because of the laws of gravity.

So, just because the theory of relativity can predict many physical phenomena, does that mean that it is the correct model? The answer is no.

So how do you know what's the correct model?? The correct model has to pass these three tests:

1) It must be logical.
2) It must overlap reality 100%. If it doesn't, it either isn't correct or it isn't complete.
3) It must be simpler than all other models.

Don't ever believe in a model that is not logical. After all, logic is all we have.

Note: Cannonballs do fall faster than a piece of paper of equal size(in the Earth's atmosphere, of course. :) )

Tom

I think I can see where you are going wrong. In the case of two objects on a collision course, like you have, it is better to take the frame of reference as the center point between them, where your ball or neutron is created. You can do the analysis from one frame or the other but the analysis is a lot harder than it should be. It also leads to apparent contradictions, as you realise. Most importantly, you can not just use the two equations you posted oiginally. You need the whole panoply of special relativity. Unless I miss my guess you have not studied it in great detail, just what people post here. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, please tell me otherwise.

Here's the wierd thing. You pick the frame of reference to be the 'absolute' one for the situation you are dealing with. It's a given that any such frame can be viewed as moving from any where else in the Universe. That is, in the real world anything else looking at the situation is probably moving as well.

So, the basic equation you should be using here is the invariant kinetic energy. E^2=p^2 c^2 + 1/2 m^4 c^4 where m,p and E are functions of &gamma; . Don't have the time to plug the numbers as I'm dealing with a sick child as well.

There is nothing wierd about Relativity really. As james R has said before it is only about how one thing sees something rather than another point of view. It has some apparently daft ideas but that is because it a simplistic point of view really.

But as Xev points out, it also works.

Crisp,

C'est moi is questioning the invariance of the speed of light, just like I did in the "How accurate are atomic clocks??" thread.

If you recall I used the formulas for time dilation and length contraction to prove that light's speed is not c in all frames of reference.

You and James R, saw my results and saw that I was correct. Instead of admitting defeat, you and James R, claimed that I used the correct formulas for time dilation and length contraction, but that they weren't valid in the example I used (which, by the way, wasn't a complex example).

I'm sorry, but I didn't fall for it, and I don't think that C'est Moi is falling for it either.

Tom

Finally a real answer on this. Thanks Crisp.

"""It is not the motion of light that is absolute, it is the *speed* of light."""

Define motion.

"""1) For all practical situations, this frame of reference is simply no good. A particle collision (currently our best use for relativity and variants) is best described in other frames of reference (e.g. an observer travelling along with the centre of mass, or an observer for which the target is initially at rest).""""

you don't say why

"""2) From the basic experimentally verified fact that light travels at lightspeed, regardless of the observer, one immediatelly comes to a contradiction: in the frame of reference of the light, light does not travel at lightspeed. Physicists don't like exceptions."""

what does light do in the FOR of light? is it motionless?

"""3) From our current understanding of the universe (using the invariance of the speed of light) effects like time dilatation and length contraction immediatelly follow. For an observer moving along with the light, all events would occur instantaneously. Not quite practical to work with."""

Have you proof for this?

"""I really don't see why you or Tom would want to use light as an absolute frame of reference."""

It seemed logical.

"""If you accept that the speed of light is invariant for all observers,"""

probably

"""then you get troubles for using light as a FOR (points 2 and 3) - reason 3 is an immediate consequence of the invariance of the speed of light (i.e. it requires NO further assumptions whatsoever). So what you are really questioning here is the invariance of the speed of light."""

maybe

nobody explains why it is invariant unlike EVERYTHING else we know of

btw, doesn't time dilation cause a change in the of speed of light
--> time slows down hence motion also
yes it slows down in our FOR but wasn't light supposed to be independant of any FOR?
contradiction?

"""4) An absolute frame of reference is not required and would seriously complicate matters."""

A new theory is required to perform objective and logical science which both explains and predicts. Physicians should also understand the importance of philosophy for their physics, which most of them don't. Not only the results matter, understanding the results is far more important. Understanding and interpretting them always involves philosophy. Philosophy overrules physics and not the other way around, it's that simple.

"""A: Many insights in physics go against common sense. For instance, it seems that the sun revolves around the earth, not vice versa. Yet the earth orbits the sun."""

explain this

"""It seems that a lead cannonball should fall faster than a peice of paper of equal size. Yet they fall at the same speed."""

You are repeating yourself. I have answered why this is not a good example. It is common sense because we don't live in vacuum and many objects have shapes which cause a lot of friction.

''''''It seems that light should be either a particle or a wave. But it is both, depending on how one chooses to observe it. '''''

repetition

""""There is a great deal of evidence for general relativity. Not only does general relativity explain the orbit of Mercury"""

I've seen other people explaining the perihelion of Mercurius without any relativity. And their results are the same.

"""but it also is confirmed in observations of gravitational waves."""

strange, I haven't heard of any discoveries of grav. weaves

Hi all,

Tom,

"You and James R, saw my results and saw that I was correct. Instead of admitting defeat, you and James R, claimed that I used the correct formulas for time dilation and length contraction, but that they weren't valid in the example I used (which, by the way, wasn't a complex example). I'm sorry, but I didn't fall for it, and I don't think that C'est Moi is falling for it either."

That was one of our early conclusions yes, that the formulas you used were not valid. James R and I (although I can only speak for myself ofcourse, but I have a gut feeling James will agree here)... anyway... James R and I saw your results and saw that you were incorrect. Instead of admitting that, you refuse to read messages, or fail to see what they mean, when we try to explain how frames of reference work in relativity. Perhaps we just explained it in a too technical or completely uncomprehensible way, but be sure to tell us that then.

There's no hidden masterplan or conspiracy amongst physicists to always back up Einstein's theory. I've already said a few times on the forums that what Einstein did was nothing special, if he hadn't come to his conclusions, some else would have very soon thereafter. He is not my personal god or something, just let's get that straight :).


c'est moi,

"Define motion."

It was you who started about the invariance of the motion of light. I just said that this was incorrect and that it was the speed of light that is invariant between observers. But if you want to hear it: motion - for me - is the change of position of an object with respect to a frame of reference.

(referring to the preference of centre of mass or lab frame of reference when studying collisions)
"you don't say why"

Because the equations of conservation of energy and momentum simplify significantly in those frames of reference. Because those frames of reference are somewhat imaginable and therefor aid the understanding of the problem.

"what does light do in the FOR of light? is it motionless?"

If you move along with the light, then per definition it does not move from that frame of reference.

"Have you proof for this?"

Yes, take the limit v -> c in the formulas for time dilatation.

"nobody explains why it is invariant unlike EVERYTHING else we know of"

The invariance of the speed of light is a postulate in the special theory of relativity and hence not applicable for explanation.

"btw, doesn't time dilation cause a change in the of speed of light"

No, because by definition, per postulate the speed of light is c from your frame of reference. There is no need to measure it in the special theory of relativity.

"Philosophy overrules physics and not the other way around, it's that simple."

Without physics, philosophy would be on the same level as in the times of ancient Greece. Yes, it could all be a combination of earth, water, fire and air. Observation has thought us otherwise and has hence steered philosophy in another direction. But I'll partially agree with you and say that the interpretation of physical results is a matter of philosophy in some situations.

But I think it is about time we start to settle this discussion - four threads and probably a thousand messages is becoming too much for us all to handle. Tom and c'est moi, would you be kind enough to give us your interpretation of the concept "frame of reference", how you can relate physical quantities of different frames of reference, and what the position of the invariance of speed of light is in your interpretations ?

Bye!

Crisp

Tom:
Just because clocks slow down when they travel at high speeds doesn't mean that time slows down.

It agrees with theory, does it not?

Have you ever seen one of those old diagrams of our solar system where the Earth is in the middle and the Sun and the other planets revolve around it??? Do you know that you can use this diagram to predict the motion of the Sun and all the planets accurately. You might even be able to use it to predict the motion of the moon as well. Why is it that even though we all know that the Earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa, this obviously incorrect model gives the correct results???

It is not quite as accurate and much more complex than the Keplarian model.

So, just because the theory of relativity can predict many physical phenomena, does that mean that it is the correct model? The answer is no.

If you wish to be nihlistic about it. But prediction and simplicity are good evidences for the veracity of a theory.

1) It must be logical.
2) It must overlap reality 100%. If it doesn't, it either isn't correct or it isn't complete.
3) It must be simpler than all other models.

What about the wildly sucessfull and utterly bizzare theory of quantum mechanics?

Note: Cannonballs do fall faster than a piece of paper of equal size(in the Earth's atmosphere, of course. )

Sorry, I was a bit confusing with that example. I should have used lead weights of different sizes.

C'est moi:
explain this

Follow the movements of the sun across - oh fuck all! Even language reflects the conceit that the sun orbits the earth and not vice versa.

You are repeating yourself. I have answered why this is not a good example. It is common sense because we don't live in vacuum and many objects have shapes which cause a lot of friction.

And we live at relatavistic speeds?

You prove my point for me. Relativity is not common sense because we do not live at relatavistic speeds. Or so goes my arguement.

repetition

Verisimillitude.

I'd appreciate it if you addressed the substance of my posts....

I've seen other people explaining the periphery of Mercurius without any relativity. And their results are the same.

Oh? What people? What theories? And did their theories encompass as much as relativity does? And where might I see these results?

Evidence....?

strange, I haven't heard of any discoveries of grav. weaves

Here's you go:

in the mid 1970s, American researchers observed a binary pulsar system (named PSR1913+16) that was thought to consist of two neutron stars orbiting each other closely and rapidly. Radio pulses from one of the stars showed that its orbital period decreases by 75 microseconds per year. In other words, the stars are spiralling in towards each other -- and by just the amount predicted if the system were losing energy by radiating gravity waves.

source (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GravWaves.html)

Although there has been no direct detection of gravitational waves, there does exist powerful indirect piece of evidence to support their existence. This concerns a binary neutron star system - two neutron stars in orbit around their common centre of mass. General relativity predicts that the gravitational waves emitted by the system carry away energy and angular momentum. To conserve these quantities, the two stars should slowly spiral in toward one another, with the orbital motion becoming faster and faster. Such a spiralling motion was measured by Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor, for a now famous binary system known as 1913+16. The rate of inspiral has been found to match the value predicted by General Relativity to better than 1%. This was a spectacular success for general relativity, and earned Hulse and Taylor the 1993 Nobel prize.

source (http://www.maths.soton.ac.uk/relativity/GRExplorer/Grav_Waves/Grav_Waves.htm)

My apologies if I was not clear enough on what I meant.

Crisp,

That was one of our early conclusions yes, that the formulas you used were not valid. James R and I (although I can only speak for myself ofcourse, but I have a gut feeling James will agree here)... anyway... James R and I saw your results and saw that you were incorrect. Instead of admitting that, you refuse to read messages, or fail to see what they mean, when we try to explain how frames of reference work in relativity. Perhaps we just explained it in a too technical or completely uncomprehensible way, but be sure to tell us that then.

Here is your final quote on the "How accurate are atomic clocks??" thread:

I think the reason why James had to "complicate" things (adding the travelled distance) is indeed because the time dilatation formula used first is only valid in special cases. So my conclusion would be that it *is* possible to calculate the problem Tom proposed "the hard way" (only using traditional formulas) and compensating for motion correctly, or do it the easy way and use the Lorentz transformations.

Nor you nor James proved that the speed of light is c in a moving frame of reference "the hard way", as you put it, using only the traditional formulas. Instead, both of you were quick to disregard the traditional formulas, and focus on the Lorentz transformations when the traditional formulas didn't give you the result you desired.

If you think you can prove that the speed of light is c in the example I provided, using only the traditional formulas, then do it. Don't pretend you did and then call me a liar.

Tom

Xev,

"Just because clocks slow down when they travel at high speeds doesn't mean that time slows down."

It agrees with theory, does it not?

The theory of relativity states that time slows down. The slowing down of clocks is not the same as the slowing down of time.

As 137(a member of sciforums) once said, "If I put my finger on the second hand of my watch to stop it from moving, my finger didn't stop time".

Well, at least he said something like that. :)

Tom

Tom:
The theory of relativity states that time slows down. The slowing down of clocks is not the same as the slowing down of time.

I agree. I am sorry if I was not clear enough earlier. I meant that the slowing down of a clock (which measures time) can be considered as evidence that time itself is slowing.

Else why would the clock slow down?

Hi Tom,

"If you think you can prove that light speed is c in the example I provided using only the traditional formulas, then do it. Don't pretend you did and then call me a liar."

Wops, never intended to be offensive. However, the answer is in the quote you gave. What I refer to as the "hard" way is how James R initially calculated the speed of light, taking into account the motion of the observer (you probably remember that distances were added). You didn't approve of that way of calculating so we used the Lorentz transformations. I also explained how I think the Lorentz transformations take that distance James R had to add into account. So you are correct in saying that I never calculated it the hard way, James already did :).

There was also a reason why we disregarded the original formulas we worked with. I think that was explained also in the "how accurate are atomic clocks" thread.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

No offense taken.

In a little while, I will post an example in the "How accurate are atomic clocks??" thread, that will prove that your and James' calculations are wrong.

Tom

Xev,

I agree. I am sorry if I was not clear enough earlier. I meant that the slowing down of a clock (which measures time) can be considered as evidence that time itself is slowing.

Else why would the clock slow down?

Relativists claim that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. If this was true then that would mean that atomic clocks are accurate at all speeds(because the electromagnetic fields in the clock would remain synchronized with the rest of the clock at all times).

However, I found out that this is not the case. Light does not travel at c in all frames of reference it only travels at c in the absolute frame of reference. Because of this, the faster the clock is travelling the more the electric and magnetic fields become unsynchronized with the rest of the clock. This results in the clock slowing down.

If you have the time read the "How accurate are atomic clocks??" thread from page 3. This should explain what I mean.

By the way, I will be soon be adding a new post on the "How accurate are atomic clocks??" thread, on why Crisp's and James R's calculations were wrong. My next post on that thread will summarize everything I aid previously on that thread, so you only have to read my upcomming post to understand what the entire discussion was about.

Tom

Tom:
Okay, I guess we ought to agree to disagree?

Be seeing you. :cool:

However, if you drop two rocks on opposite sides of the Earth at the same time, you will find that certain frames of references are wrong. You know that the Earth can't move to meet both rocks at the same time(because the Earth doesn't expand), so the frame of reference for at least one of the rocks has to be wrong. The more rocks you drop from different locations on the Earth, the more frames of reference are proved incorrect.

Let's see what the dumbometer has to say about that one...
Whoa! off the charts!

From the earth's FOR the rocks fall to earth. From the moons FOR both fall to earth. From the point of view of one of the rocks the earth moves to it like you said. But then you take the FOR's of each rock at the same time, which i'm afraid gets a big BZZZZT, and a custard pie in the face.
From the point of view of one rock the earthg moves towards it, and on the other side of the earth the other rock moves towards it faster and catches up with the earth.

I'm surprised the big guns didn't give you a good slapping for that one.

Elmo

From the point of view of one rock the earthg moves towards it, and on the other side of the earth the other rock moves towards it faster and catches up with the earth.

Strangely enough, both rocks will view the Earth as moving towards it. It is not really a matter of logistics. Logic suggests the rocks are falling towards the Earth. But from the point of view of the rocks, it appears the Earth is moving towards them. Weird, huh?

I know, that's one of the things I love about physics. You see something like this and you go, "no way". Then you think about it and the penny drops.

I just meant that Tom's way of viewing this seemed like he didn't really understand.

Q and Elmo,

Well, I prefer logic over perception.

If the two of you want to believe that the Earth moves towards the rocks, and that the Sun revolves around the Earth, then I'm happy for you.

It's just fortunate that not all scientists, over the years, believed what you do. If they did, science would still be in the dark ages.

Tom

Hi guys, newbie here. A little background in cosmology and science, so maybe I'll contribute something useful eventually.. :confused:

But for now I don't understand something. What is the big conflict between relativity and absolute reference frames? Ok, it's true you can't define an absolute reference frame based on anything we know right now, but I don't think relativity excludes such a possibility. In relativity, that absolute reference frame would still be just another valid inertial reference frame, just like any other and all the laws and experimental outcomes would be identical regardless.

Lots of people like reference frames defined in terms of mass or center of mass. I've seen even (Machian) theories linking inertia to the interactions among the total mass of matter in the Universe. FORs like that are not any more valid than any other; the universe is pretty democratic about it. :)

My personal pet theory is that it ought to be possible to define an "absolute", "Universal" reference frame in terms of the cosmic background radiation. Since it's evenly distributed and emanates at the same (average) wavelength from all directions (skipping density variations...), then if you decide to move in any particular direction through that photonic "fog", you should see blue-shifted CBR in your direction of movement and red-shifted CBR in the opposite direction (well, once you filtered out various local gravitational effects...which are anisotropic, and should be easily distinguishable out of the spherical CBR distribution.) Such a reference frame is probably as close as we can currently come to an "absolute" spacetime coordinate system that is "universally" at rest. It would IMHO have a rather interesting property of having the average momentum over all matter in the universe, especially if the universe truly is infinite. Pretty remarkable, no? Please correct me if I'm missing something...

Tom,

If you insist that laws of physics change with relative speed, then Earth physics must be different from Sun physics, since we are not moving equally.

As far as time slowing down (relatively speaking), it's only the measurement of time slowing down. After all, you can't define time in any other way, except for measurements. Same with distance shrinking; it's the measurement that is shrinking, not some absolute notion of distance (whatever it is...?)

And if you think about it, in physical systems it's the measurements (a.k.a. interactions) that matter. So, if you can properly describe the behavior of such measurements (interactions), then you can fully decipher the workings of any physical system. Which, after all, is the goal...right?

overdoze,

Welcome to sciforums!!!

I agree with you about the fact that relativity does not exclude an absolute frame of reference. After all, if you subtract two relative motions, you get the same result as if you were to add the absolute motions to the two relative motions and then subtract them.

However, everthing would be great and relative, if this was always the case, but it isn't. Relativity claims that the speed of light is c in all frames of reference, however I found that the speed of light is only c in the absolute frame of reference. This means that the speed of light in a relative frame of reference is dependent on the difference between the speed of the relative frame of reference and the absolute frames of reference.

If you wish to see how I proved that light does not travel at c in all frames of reference, read the last page of "How accurate are atomic clocks??" thread. As you will find, I included time dilation and length contraction, and still came to the conclusion that light does not travel at c in moving frames of reference.

You may ask, what does measuring time with an atomic clock have to do with the fact that the speed of light is not c in all frames of reference?? The answer is that atomic clocks consist of two types of components: relative components and unrelative components.

The relative components of the clock are the physical materials that the clock is made of. They are relative components because they do not change based on the speed the clock is travelling.

The unrelative components of the clock are the electromagnetic radiation that the clock uses to seperate and excite the caesium atoms. As the clock travels faster, these unrelative components change because, as I stated before, the speed of light is not constant at different speeds.(Even though the microwaves and electric and magnetic fields in the clock are not light, they are electromagnetic radiation, just like light).

The conclusion is that the faster an atomic clock travels, the more the unrelative components of the clock become unsynchronised with the relative components of the clock. This leads to the clock slowing down, while time, in reality, does not.

Finally, the only way to measure time accurately using an atomic clock would be to adjust the readings of the atomic clock to compensate for the unrelativistic components of the clock. But this can never be done as long as physicists believe that the speed of light is c in all frames of reference.

Tom

Tom,

I've just read your post in "how accurate are atomic clocks" summarising your "proof" that light does not travel at c in all FsOR.

Your proof is based upon the assumption that the speed of light does not equal c in all FsOR. Its therefore basically flawed.
I'd also like to point out that when scientists went looking for the ether they performed detailed experiments looking for differences in the speed of light in different FsOR. Guess what, they found c was invarient.

If you read my posts you will find that I took the distance that light travelled away from the observer in two examples:

1) When the flashlight is shining in the same direction of the motion of the observer.

and

2) When the The flashlight is shining in the opposite direction of the motion of the observer.

I took these two values and converted them into the moving observer's frame of refernce using time dilation and length contraction.

I found that for only one of the examples can light be equal to 300,000 km/s. In other words, in the other case, the speed of light will not be c. I will shortly post a a simplified example of the problem on the "how accurate are atomic clocks" thread.

You should read it, you'll find it interesting.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Something you said doesn't make much sense:


The answer is that atomic clocks consist of two types of components: relative components and unrelative components.

The relative components of the clock are the physical materials that the clock is made of. They are relative components because they do not change based on the speed the clock is travelling.

The unrelative components of the clock are the electromagnetic radiation that the clock uses to seperate and excite the caesium atoms.


Reality is that all components of atomic clocks are relative. The "physical materials", if you remember, are in fact equivalent to electromagnetic energy according to e=mc^2 -- and this has indeed been proven in particle accelerators. So in fact, it's just different forms of the same stuff (you can think along the lines of a condensation analogy, where matter is just condensed -- or concentrated -- energy.) Many components of matter carry charge (e.g. protons, electrons) -- that's an electromagnetic component and is as sensitive to propagation through the electromagnetic field as photons themselves. There is also an unspoken idea that all fields -- electromagnetic, strong, weak, gravitational -- are merely different manifestations of a common underlying medium ("unified field theory"). Einstein himself tried, though fruitlessly, to come up with such a unification for the rest of his life after he completed GR.

Another thing is that the speed of light is constant -- for the inertial observer -- no matter how the observer is moving. Maybe if I argue from an imaginary absolute perspective, it would click for you.

So, assume that you are the absolutely motionless observer, and three bodies A, B, C are travelling away from you along parallel vectors (the distance between them doesn't change.) They travel at a speed v very close to c, and to demonstrate that you shoot a photon in their direction and observe that while the photon is receding from you at speed c, it is catching up to these bodies and overtaking them much slower. The bodies are arranged as follows: A and B are arranged along a line orthogonal to their direction of motion, while A and C are arranged precisely along the direction of motion, with distance between A and B being the same as the distance between A and C (from your perspective) so that ABC is an equilateral right triangle like this:

<tt><pre>
C /\
| (direction of motion)
A B |


you
</pre></tt>

For now let's just presume that there is no time speedup or slowdown for A as compared to your time.

Case (1)

Suppose A wants to determine the distance to C, which in your frame of reference is D. To perform the measurement, A is going to bounce a photon off C and use the speed of light to calculate the distance. Going from A to C, the photon (from your point of view) is going to take D/(c - v) seconds to reach C, and then from C to A it's going to take D/(c+v) seconds. The round-trip time is 2D/(c-v^2/c), which is larger than 2D/c if A and C were stationary in your FOR. What that means is that A is going to think the distance to C is larger than you observe it to be. Flipping the perspective, you are going to think the distance from A to C is shorter than A observes it to be.

Case (2)

Now suppose A wants to measure the distance to B. In your FOR it's also D. But as A bounces a photon off B, in your reference frame the photon is actually describing an equilateral triangle with height D since both A and B are moving away from you. The trip from A to B will take exactly the same amount of time as the trip from B to A, and the total roundtrip time will be twice that. To solve for the one-way-trip time, we have this equation: v^2t^2 + D^2 = c^2t^2, from which we get total roundtrip time to be 2D/sqrt(c^2-v^2). This is larger than 2D/c that would correspond to the distance you observe.

Conclusion (1)

All other vectors of interaction between A and any co-moving body would consist of AC and AB components (in 3 dimensions, there would be another commponent that sticks out of the page that would behave identically to AB.) So it turns out that for the moving bodies all the distances are effectively larger than what you observe. Since all interactions are confined to light speed, for the moving bodies every single interaction will take longer, in effect resulting in a slowdown of time. That is, you are going to see all the processes slowed down in the moving bodies.

Conclusion (2)

If you do the math, you will observe that the apparent lengthening of distance from A's perspective is greater along the AC direction than along the AB direction. So, in addition to an overall slowdown in time there is a supplemental "length contraction" (from your FOR) along the direction of motion, or conversely a "length dilation" from A's FOR along direction of motion.

As you can see, the good old Lorentz transformations just pop out naturally even as you start with an absolute FOR (in fact, Lorentz derived his transformations long before Einstein had his breakthrough.) Einstein's great leap of insight was that in the real world there is no way to determine whether a body is absolutely at rest. So in fact, all inertial frames of reference should be equivalent if the universe with all of its haphazardly careening bodies is to be consistent as far as physics goes. Thus he started with the principle of equivalence as his fundamental assumption, and re-derived the Lorentz transformations in a relativistic framework. What this means, is that no matter your FOR, as long as it's inertial the math always works out identically (and later Einstein extended the theory to accelerated reference frames, in what he called GR.)

Overdoze,

After reading your post, I have to say that I do agree with you. Light would take longer to travel from one object to another and back again if the objects are moving. This in effect is proof that light does not travel at c in all frames of reference. If it did, then light would take the same amount of time to travel from one object to another whether they are moving or stationairy.

However, Einstein couldn't accept these results because that would mean that there was an absolute frame of reference, so he decided to create time dilation and length contraction to MAKE light move at c in all frames of reference. However, as I have pointed out in the "How accurate are atomic clocks??" thread, even if you take time dilation and length contraction into consideration, the speed of light is still not c in all frames of reference.

Tom

Hi Tom

Think about what you're saying. If speed of light changes between reference frames, then laws of optics (for example) will be different in different reference frames. That is clearly not the case. So, there must be still something missing in your picture. Let's see...


This in effect is proof that light does not travel at c in all frames of reference. If it did, then light would take the same amount of time to travel from one object to another whether they are moving or stationairy.


Question is, who is measuring the time? If it's the moving object, remember that its clock ticks slower -- so in the end it still gets precisely c as the speed of light. If you are making your measurements from some other FOR, then of course you would have the impression you expressed above. But then, in your reference frame you are still measuring the velocity of light to be c, aren't you? The point is, everybody will measure the speed of light as c, from any inertial reference frame.


However, Einstein couldn't accept these results because that would mean that there was an absolute frame of reference, so he decided to create time dilation and length contraction to MAKE light move at c in all frames of reference.


That is precisely the opposite of what happened. From the start, Einstein assumed speed of light to be a constant -- c -- for all intertial frames of reference; he was led to such an assumption by consideration of Maxwell's electromagnetic equations describing light. In fact, Einstein was always very fond of Maxwell, and he was quite distressed at conflict between the apparent constancy of lightspeed that came out of Maxwell physics with theoretically variable (zero to infinite) speed of light in Newtonian physics.

Once he made his choice and stuck with Maxwell, he then proceeded to see what the implications would be. To his possible surprise and probable delight, he discovered that the outcome is a self-consistent mathematics that at low-velocity limit reduces to Newtonian. Of course, Lorentz transformations were never just artificially inserted into the theory; on the contrary they are a direct logical consequence of the original premises (lightspeed constancy and special relativity.) I have a book on relativity that derives the Lorentz transformations entirely from those two premises (in fact, the entire theory derives from them.) If you want, I can reproduce that derivation for you.

The answer is a if you are an observer moving at the same velocity as the 1 Kg object before the collision, and b if you are an observer moving at the same velocity as the 2 kg object Instead of assuming they are destroyed assume they meld and stay together. What the is the energy foreach observer - the answers given, remember the melded object will still be moving.

There is a third frame you can use, the velocity after the collision, and this is probably what you are thinking of as the "true one and only energy" after the collision, but it aint so.

To return to the original scenario, it is the same if you assume the energy is converted to photons. The are not five and 1 million photons but there is a red/blue shift increasing or decreasing the energy of each photon. So each observer will see a different color, and hence a different total energy. It all comes out in the wash.

Allant,

Welcome to sciforums!!!

The answer is a if you are an observer moving at the same velocity as the 1 Kg object before the collision, and b if you are an observer moving at the same velocity as the 2 kg object Instead of assuming they are destroyed assume they meld and stay together. What the is the energy foreach observer - the answers given, remember the melded object will still be moving.

What if the melded object is not moving after the collision? What about the two observers? Both observers came to a stop after the collision, and they are both in the exact same location. Doesn't that mean that both observers are in the same frame of reference? Didn't the frames of reference of both observers merge into one?? If so, how is the energy of the final frame of reference related to the energy of the two frames of reference before the collision.

As you can see, everthing is OK with relativity until two frames of reference merge into one, or vice versa. Everytime this happens, relativity is proved incorrect because there has to be only one result for both observers(since after the collision, they are both in the same frame of reference).

Tom

After collision not moving relative to what ?

a) the first object
b) the second
c) something else the just happens to means the result is not moving ?


Two frames colapse into one ? SR applies to inertia frames of reference. Now either the two frames are the same to begin with. or after they merge one or both have been accelerated and are not inertial frames of reference.

P.S thanx for the welcome.

Allant,

After collision not moving relative to what ?

a) the first object
b) the second
c) something else the just happens to means the result is not moving ?

Let's say the Earth, for the sake of argument.

Two frames colapse into one ? SR applies to inertia frames of reference. Now either the two frames are the same to begin with. or after they merge one or both have been accelerated and are not inertial frames of reference.

Both frames have deccelerated as a result of the collision. How much energy did the collision produce.

You might say: Well that depends on which observers frame of reference your looking at it from.

Let me remind you, there aren't two observers anymore. The two observers were merged into one observer by the impact, just like the two objects. Technically, the two observers decellerated and came to a stop(relative to the Earth) in the exact same location as the merged object.

Tom

Let me remind you, there aren't two observers anymore. The two observers were merged into one observer by the impact, just like the two objects. Technically, the two observers decellerated and came to a stop(relative to the Earth) in the exact same location as the merged object.

Technically, the two observers are observing the same impact from different sides since they were viewing each other moving towards one another. Therefore, there should still remain two separate reference frames, not two merged into one.

Greetings -

I'm going to throw my hat into the ring here and see if I can help with the clarification of reference frames.

A frame of reference is unlimited in scope. It says "We will mark this point in space and consider everything else in the universe to be moving relative to it". For simplicity's sake, most often the universe is defined as consisting only of two seperate masses. Such masses, when isolated, are still affected by the rest of the universe, but to a degree so small that our conclusions don't change appreciably.

So, we define a point as the center of the frame of reference and then define the rest of the unignored universe in relation to that point. Once that is done, an observer at that point can use equations to model the behavior of other objects. No matter what the other objects do, the defined point (and hence, the observer) never changes position.

I will provide an example. Think of a simple Cartesian coordinate system. For the first frame of reference, I will (arbitrarily, though it does make the math simple) choose the origin as the center point. The 'rest of the universe' consists of three 1kg masses. Mass A is located at (-1,0,0), Mass B at (1,0,0), and Mass C at (0,0,0). From this frame of reference, both Masses A and B are moving towards the observer at a speed of 1 m/s, while Mass C is stationary. After one second, the masses will collide at (0,0,0), at the center of the frame of reference. Afterwards, Masses A and B will be seen by the observer to travel away from him at a speed of 1 m/s.

Now, we perform the same event from Mass A's frame of reference (that is, defining Mass A's position to always occupy (0,0,0) on our Cartesian coordinate system. The observer in this case will see Mass C located at (1,0,0) and Mass B at (2,0,0). Mass C will be travelling at a speed of 1 m/s towards Mass A, and Mass B will be travelling at a speed of 2 m/s towards Mass A. After one second, Masses B and C will reach Mass A and collide, and then proceed to move off at the same respective speeds in the opposite direction. Mass A will have never moved from (0,0,0). (The situation for Mass B is basically the same, just flipflopped over the axis.)


With this in mind, let me address a few of the points you mentioned, Prosoothus.

Regarding the Earth having to 'expand' to satisfy masses being dropped from (for example) each pole: This is a case where you are altering the frame of reference in the middle of the experiment (or simply misdefining it in the first place). A frame of reference can have only one center; also, it can't suddenly change that center in the middle of the experiment without changing the reference frame. You have (0,0,0) set to the rock being dropped on the North Pole. From here, both the Earth and the mass at the South Pole will approach you. I repeat, there can be only one (0,0,0) for each frame of reference. Indeed, the property of residing at (0,0,0) and never leaving it is the definition of a frame of reference. So, clearly, having the Earth approach you from two different directions would directly imply that what you are using is not a frame of reference. A mass can only have one position relative to you, not two.

Regarding the 'proton impacting electron, forming neutron' point: The proton itself is not observer; rather, defining the proton's position to always inhabit (0,0,0) places an 'observer' at the same spot as the proton. I'm going to answer your question in haste, and then explain. You asked "Which frame of reference is the neutron in? The electron's or the proton's?" The answer is: Both. Furthermore, the proton's and electron's continue to 'exist' as long as we want them to. Here's why:

Defining a frame of reference centered (initially!) on the proton, we observe the electron approaching the proton at (0,0,0). When they collide, energy is released and a netron is formed and begins to move slowly away from (0,0,0). This is the point at which frames of reference can become confusing, mostly due to the language we use regarding them. By using the terms 'We', and the personified 'observer', we make it seem as if there is actually a person there 'riding on the proton'. Here's what to keep in mind; from any particular frame of reference, there are infinitely many other frames of reference, all moving relative to the one we're "in". Suppose you were granted the ability to perceive the motion of other frames of reference relative to youself. Standing stationary on a street, you would see these little windows of cartesian coordinate systems flying by you, some accelerating, some not. Sometimes an object will occupy the center of a frame of reference before an event 'dislodges' it. This is what happens with your example. The frame of reference itself continues to exist, unmolested, while the proton we used to find it has been dislodged.

The simplied version of that paragraph is simply that frames of reference exist independantly of the objects you're working with. You can use an object to find a frame of reference, but you can't guarantee that the object will stay at (0,0,0) for eternity.

This explanation turned out to be much longer than I intended. I hope it helps :)

Thanks,
FyreStar

It seems I've missed a few posts in this thread. Most of what I would reply here I have said elsewhere (see, for instance, the "how accurate are atomic clocks?" thread. A few loose ends:

<b>c'est moi:</b>

<i>Further, would you be so kind to define motion.</i>

I agree with Crisp on this. It is a change in the spatial co-ordinate of something, relative to a particular frame of reference.

<i>Moreover, though I have no idea how to do it in practice, but why can't we use light as abs. FOR?</i>

Because all time intervals and lengths of every object would shrink to zero, meaning that everything would be observed to happen at the same place and at the same time. It doesn't tell us anything useful about distinct events.

<i>A new theory is required to perform objective and logical science which both explains and predicts. Physicians should also understand the importance of philosophy for their physics, which most of them don't. Not only the results matter, understanding the results is far more important. Understanding and interpretting them always involves philosophy. Philosophy overrules physics and not the other way around, it's that simple.</i>

Philosophy complements physics, but in no way overrules it. They are different fields of inquiry. Philosophy is based on pure thought. You start from a set of assumptions and see where they lead. Physics is an experimental and observational science, intimately connected to real-world evidence.



<b>Tom</b>:

<i>So how do you know what's the correct model?? The correct model has to pass these three tests:

1) It must be logical.
2) It must overlap reality 100%. If it doesn't, it either isn't correct or it isn't complete.
3) It must be simpler than all other models.</i>

Relativity satisfies (1) and (2). (3) is a silly requirement. Newtonian gravity is simpler than general relativity. Aristotlean physics is simpler than Newton. That doesn't by any stretch mean that Aristotle was right and Newton or Einstein wrong.

<i>If you recall I used the formulas for time dilation and length contraction to prove that light's speed is not c in all frames of reference.</i>

Hopefully, with subsequent explanation, you don't still believe this statement.

<i>If the two of you want to believe that the Earth moves towards the rocks, and that the Sun revolves around the Earth, then I'm happy for you. It's just fortunate that not all scientists, over the years, believed what you do.</i>

All the best scientists over the years have been able to look at things from more than one point of view.

Prosoothus,

Do you think the amount of energy caused by the collision is somehow absolute? That there is some absolute reference frame that is the correct one? What is the point of inventing such a absolute frame of reference? What will you use it for? The only interesting frame is the one you are in, that is the one you are measuring the energy from. And depending on the frame you are in you will measure the energy differently because of doppler effects on the light emitted from the collision.

I dont see the contradiction, but perhaps I am missing something.

"""Philosophy complements physics, but in no way overrules it. They are different fields of inquiry. Philosophy is based on pure thought. You start from a set of assumptions and see where they lead. Physics is an experimental and observational science, intimately connected to real-world evidence. """

James R, what the hell are you saying here?

How are you connected to the *real* world around you? How??? Through your thoughts. Tell me, what will influence your sight on that 'real world' of yours? That's right, those same thoughts. Need I say more? This line, "Physics is an experimental and observational science, intimately connected to real-world evidence", is absolutely pure rubbish. It seems philosophy is not a strong point of yours which explains your lack of understanding in some basic matters. You remain arrogant in your "scientific" way of thinking, but you will not learn through that. Do you want to understand the world or do you want to write down abstract formulas and talk about numbers without knowing what influence *your* way of thinking has on them. It's all about points of view, isn't it?

It's funny, c'est moi. I'm having a similar discussion in another thread, where I'm being accused of having exactly the opposite opinion that you're accusing me of. It seems to me that somebody here can see both sides of the story, whilst other people are convinced that one side provides all the answers.

"""It's funny, c'est moi. I'm having a similar discussion in another thread, where I'm being accused of having exactly the opposite opinion that you're accusing me of."""

I'm sorry but I've not been following discussions here for the last month or so. don't know what you're talking about

"""It seems to me that somebody here can see both sides of the story, whilst other people are convinced that one side provides all the answers."""

james R, from all our past discussions I know pretty well how you think and you are not someone who sees both sides of the story which you prooved yet again with you post about philosophy
You have yet to understand why science can fail, even though it seems conducted in a correct way. I'm not telling you this to sound harsh or to start some kind of a vendetta :), I learnd a lot from you here about physics for which I thank you, but you might also learn something from me I think, and that will be more philosophical science than "real" science. I never stop questioning things, I never stop thinking about stuff and I think that's the right kind of attitude and I feel this is commonly lacking in many future and current scientists. The standard theories are there, not to stick to them, but to break them to pieces and to replace them, and then the new standard will have to receive that very same destinity.

THE WORLD <-----> DATA <-----> THOUGHTS - INTERPRETATION & YOUR PHILOSOPHY <----> SCIENTIFIC THEORY

Philosophy, the art of reasoning, does not complement, it is a basic thing in the proces of science. It DOES NOT complement to science.

c'est moi,

Take a look at the "Does light have a mass?" thread, around pages 43-44 (in 10 posts per page), then get back to me.

<i>james R, from all our past discussions I know pretty well how you think and you are not someone who sees both sides of the story which you prooved yet again with you post about philosophy.</i>

I don't presume to know how you think, and I suspect that you have no idea how I think.

<i>You have yet to understand why science can fail, even though it seems conducted in a correct way.</i>

Can you give an example in which science has failed when conducted in the correct way?

<i>I'm not telling you this to sound harsh or to start some kind of a vendetta...</i>

I certainly hope not. There's no need to get personal. We're just having a discussion here.

<i>I never stop questioning things, I never stop thinking about stuff and I think that's the right kind of attitude and I feel this is commonly lacking in many future and current scientists.</i>

Why do you think that?

<i>The standard theories are there, not to stick to them, but to break them to pieces and to replace them, and then the new standard will have to receive that very same destinity.</i>

New theories are fine as long as they:
1. explain previous observations as well as the old theories.
2. make new predictions which the old theories do not.
3. are in accordance with the evidence.

<i>Philosophy, the art of reasoning, does not complement, it is a basic thing in the proces of science. It DOES NOT complement to science.</i>

I fail to see how philosophy can be both a "basic thing in the process" and, at the same time "not complement" science.

Originally posted by James R
I fail to see how philosophy can be both a "basic thing in the process" and, at the same time "not complement" science.

Philosophy, and in particular, Epistemology, enable science by defining and developing logic and reason. This is similar to the way science enables technology. Whether he conciously acknowledges it or not, the scientist adopts a very specific philosophy that allows him to proceed through his work. This is not to say that it is required that one study philosophy to partake in science, but that does not mean that the underlying priciples of science are absent.

If you have time, I would recommend reading some of Ayn Rand's epistemological writings.

Thanks,
FyreStar

""I fail to see how philosophy can be both a "basic thing in the process" and, at the same time "not complement" science.""

by complementing, James R, you mean it is there, but not essential like the fundaments of a house
the rest is just plain boring to start answering

Hi c'est moi,

You cannot dismiss James' question by saying it is plain boring to answer to. The part I am refering to is:


"You have yet to understand why science can fail, even though it seems conducted in a correct way. "

Can you give an example in which science has failed when conducted in the correct way?


I understand what you are referring to, i.e. that correctly conducted science does not necessarily match "reality". Newtonian mechanics can be perfectly good science, but it can give completely wrong predictions. But on the other hand, it was you that pointed out that reality is thightly related to one's point of view.

So doesn't this absolve science from having to be connected to reality to be "good science" ? After all, if reality is only perceived through your own personal looking glass, then there is no place for reality in "good" science, which should be free from all subjectivism, since there can only be one truth (or reality) according to you.

By just looking around you, you should realize that science *is* connected to reality: it is reality that drives scientists to investigate and study. Hence, science appearantly is not objective, and perhaps there is not one reality, but only one's personal perception of what is real.

This somehow reminds me of the discussion we had on relativity, whether time dilatation and lorentz contraction are real or not... Following the reasoning above, they are very real indeed, at least for someone observing them.

Just some thoughts...

Bye!

Crisp (now graduated and absolved of exams ;))

Crisp (now graduated and absolved of exams)

Congratulations !!!

c'est moi:

Thankyou for you assessment. Of course, boring doesn't mean I'm wrong. Looks like a cop-out to me.

"""You cannot dismiss James' question by saying it is plain boring to answer to. The part I am refering to is"""

Yes I can :) If I don't feel like answering every bit because it is boring, then this is my right.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You have yet to understand why science can fail, even though it seems conducted in a correct way. "

Can you give an example in which science has failed when conducted in the correct way?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"""I understand what you are referring to, i.e. that correctly conducted science does not necessarily match "reality"."""


Indeed, every piece that he just asks 'why' is needless to answer because you know what I mean, hence boring stuff. But since you deepened it out some more, unlike James R, it is interesting again.

"""Newtonian mechanics can be perfectly good science, but it can give completely wrong predictions. But on the other hand, it was you that pointed out that reality is thightly related to one's point of view."""

I guess you're meaning this:

'Do you want to understand the world or do you want to write down abstract formulas and talk about numbers without knowing what influence *your* way of thinking has on them. It's all about points of view, isn't it?'

That last one was actually meant sarcastic, referring to relativity. As for the serious part, yes, everybody seems to live in his or her reality field. For example (this counts for every being on earth), what do you know about the 'reality' of the sun, except for some pictures and seeing this small globe shining in the sky? Nothing. Our reality is all about experience. Experience through our minds (thoughts). There is NO direct connection between 'that' reality out there and ours, which does not mean that there is no such thing as an objective reality.

"""So doesn't this absolve science from having to be connected to reality to be "good science"?"""

I think that here we agree, but may I add that I, as an outsider, am not really interested in a theory, of which Newtonian physics is a good example, of which we know that it mostly works but actually doesn't fit in the "real" world. I want primary understanding. I have no need to be able to predict stuff etc., that's not my job nor responsability. So, if you define 'good' science as being science with which you can predict the stuff you want to, than that's fine for me, but good science for *me* would be the one which stands the closest near that 'real' reality out there, where the line of our thoughts inbetween is the thinnest.

How would you know that the latter stands the closest and not another one? Imagine two theories predicting stuff equally good yet explaining it differently. I think that the one which feels right to most people is the one which stands closest to objective reality. It would give us a mere taste of that real reality, a taste which looses almost all its strengts once it gets mixed with our world of thoughts. You see, the taste of it would appear familiar to everyone, not for a mere 50% of all people, but for 99,9%.

"""After all, if reality is only perceived through your own personal looking glass, then there is no place for reality in "good" science, which should be free from all subjectivism, since there can only be one truth (or reality) according to you."""

See above.

"""By just looking around you, you should realize that science *is* connected to reality"""

through your thoughts Crisp, through your thoughts

"""This somehow reminds me of the discussion we had on relativity, whether time dilatation and lorentz contraction are real or not... Following the reasoning above, they are very real indeed, at least for someone observing them."""

Tricks of a magician look also most real to the unexperienced audience. The thing is, will there still be a line between illusion and 'reality', or is it just an 'illusion' and a barrier created by Language itself? The magician could show the audience afterwards how he created their 'wrong' reality, their illusion. Maybe there is also a way of finding the trick of those dilations and viewing them like the magicians trick, again, but now with understanding. There are some tricks of magicians that, even though you know how they work, you'd still see the same thing happening. Only then, the difference is that you now understand that what you see, isn't actually real. Maybe it is the same with dilations. You'd know about it, but you'd still see the same thing happening.

Hi c'est moi,

I can perfectly understand what you are saying. I used to think of science in the same way, but somewhere along the way (in the past 5 years), too much things happened that made me look at life in a more cynical way. People hate me for it, but we'll not go into detail here ;). Anyway, my view on science has also changed. I don't want to sound preachy, but you have an idealistic view of science. That is not bad, in fact, it is the most beautiful view on science you can have. Unfortunately I cannot agree with that view, but for some reason I suspect it has to do with other factors (see story about myself above), and not with "experience" or "knowledge" (which after all I don't have, perhaps a tiny bit more than some people, but that's nothing special anyway ;)). But let's get on with the discussion:

"I have no need to be able to predict stuff etc., that's not my job nor responsability. So, if you define 'good' science as being science with which you can predict the stuff you want to, than that's fine for me, but good science for *me* would be the one which stands the closest near that 'real' reality out there, where the line of our thoughts inbetween is the thinnest."

This is what I meant with an "idealistic view" (and let me remind you that it is not meant in a bad way). Yes, I would also like to have a theory that explains exactly how nature works, and I would also like to be 100% sure that it indeed describes how all those wonderful things happen. Unfortunately, there is no possible way whatsoever of verifying this. The closest you could come is to perform all possible experiments imaginable, and see if your theory holds. I think - and this is even disputable - that a fundamental theory that could explain *all* experiments would indeed be "correct" (i.e. it would describe exactly how nature works).

Practically, it is ofcourse not possible to explain all experiments (the infinite amount of thinkable experiments would require an infinite amount of time to perform). Hence you have to stick with predictions for a finite amount of experiments. What one can say is that a theory that predicts and explains a large amount of experiments could perhaps tell us something of how nature works. Because of this fundamental restriction, I think we cannot define science as "what matches reality" but rather "what matches reality in a close way". But we more or less agree on that, the question ofcourse is ...

"How would you know that the latter stands the closest and not another one?"

Your answer:

"I think that the one which feels right to most people is the one which stands closest to objective reality. It would give us a mere taste of that real reality, a taste which looses almost all its strengths once it gets mixed with our world of thoughts. You see, the taste of it would appear familiar to everyone, not for