Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[Billy T]

. ..Now as far as my comments about calculating a common reference frame, each change in acceleration and duration at velocity has a time dilation effect that can be determined mathematically. If you knew, and we cannot know, but if all of the data were available then the equations could be worked backwards for each change back in time. Supposing that there was a CFR then it could be thus determined. Once the CFR was determined, then the time dilation of the accumulated differences in motion could be determined by bringing the object to a common frame and reading the clocks. This is not something that can be done but I was imagining the possibility of doing it IF the data was available. ...

OK. Thanks. I understand your point now. Sort of like LaPlace said many years ago, before quantum theory etc. existed. That if he had all the information about current state of the universe, he could in principle accurately predict the future.* You are effectly saying "and the past too."

However true this may be for massive objects, Quantum Theory does seem to make it false for atoms. They typically have millions of violent accelerations ever minute (we call them "atomic collisons"). Atoms are small enough to have a slight uncertanity of post collison trajectory after each collision, even if the pre-collision trajectory could be (it can't) perfectly known. Then when the atom has its next collision, this uncertainty is greatly magnified. If you know what the "impact parameter" is, then this huge magnification of the uncertainity by the next collision will be obvious to you. (If you do not, and wiki does not tell, I will explain if asked)

Thus I would guess that after no more than five collisons it is impossible, even in principle, to tell anything about the direction of the trajectory of atoms in a gas. - i.e. It is almost a random variable - all directions equally probable. (All atoms were once in a gas.)

This is still another reason why MacM's CFR ideas are NONSENSE for atoms.

---------------
* There is some interesting arguements OTHER THAN QUANTUM PHYSICS, REFUTING Laplace: Namely that computing the future requires physical changes in the computing device so it is in principle impossible that the computation can know everything about the universe, if the computation is done within the universe.

[MacM]

So unless you bring them to the same frame and see what the clocks read and know they had a commom initial frame, we cannot know that the time dilation observed during relative motion is true.

When dealing with unkown origin that is not even possible since you don't know that they had a simultaneous t=0 to synchronize clocks. If you could monitor tick rate of each compared to your clock then you cold determine which had greater absolute velocity.

Relativist will object to this but so be it, they have nothing but dogma or rhetoric to oppose it.

If you establish the acceleration from a rest frame and have synchronized clocks you can get the information without returning to a common frame by having a set rest distance to travel and digitally transmit accumulated time from and to each frame when clocks cross that marker.

In the case of cosmic muons you don't have a syunchronized clock time but do see an apparent tick rate decrease compared to an earth clock.

However, there was a recent study which found that the cosmic muon life was better computed against motion to the CMB than to the earth.

You are saying that it is possible for the clocks to tick at different rates as described in terms of the units of the other frame, and still come back to a common rest frame without showing time dilation? In other words, in order to measure time dilation accurately you have to be measuing based on an initial common rest frame and assume that the velocity of the objects was accelerated to their current but different velocities from a common frame.

That is correct. However what relativists do is quote SR which says "While there is relative veloicty each observer 'Sees the other dilated and take that to mean they are physically dilated; which is shear nonsene in physical terms.

It is perception ONLY, not real time dilation. It is what I have labled "Illusion of Motion" which vanishes when relative velocity ends.

Otherwise you don't know if the different tick rate noticed involved measurable and comparable acceleration differences from that initial frame.
yes, I can see that.

Good for you.

[MacM]

I have a simple question for you MacM:

Initially frame A clocks are traveling in the + X direction at 0.8C and frame B clocks are traveling in the + X direction at 0.4C.

Not messing with velocity addition you have a relative velocity of 0.4c but that is relative to your rest view. You have no idea what their respective tick rates are or time dilation between them is because it is not linear.

i.e. - Your inertial rest universally is 0.0 then they would have t' = 0.916 for 0.4c and t' = 0.6 for 0.8c or a net time dilation of 0.3166 for the 0.8c traveler to the 0.4c trveler.

However, if your universal velocity happend to be -0.1c the you would have them at 0.3c and 0.7c universally.

t' = 0.9539 for 0.3c and 0.714 for 0.7c or a net dilation of t' = 0.414 for 0.7c vs 0.3c.

Then both accelerate (change their velocity) to be traveling in the + X direction at 0.6C. (All speeds wrt frame C)

In which frame is the time dilation real and in which is it only an “illusion of perception” ??? (I am asking about the initial conditions - not when they are in the same frame -then we all agree there is not time dilation between them.)

Unless you have a known rest frame with synchronized clocks to start you cannot know what is real. In this case both clocks now tick in sync and you have no accumulated time based on a simultaneous start from which to know what their relative time dilation was.

Would answer be the same if:

Initially frame A clocks are traveling in the + X direction at 0.7C and frame B clocks are traveling in the + X direction at 0.3C. Then both accelerate (change their velocity) to be traveling in the + X direction at 0.5C. (All speeds wrt frame D)

I think my treament of your first questions anwaers this one as well.

Thanks for an actual valid question instead of the typical BS.

[MacM]

MacM:

I can't keep up with the rate at which you flip flop from one view to another.

You are now claiming that clocks always tick in sync in all frames of reference. Hence, time dilation doesn't exist.

BULL CRAP

I have Never in my life made any such claim. Damn it I have shown IF YOU insist on claiming spatial length contraction as being physiccally real THEN all clocks MUST tick in sync BUT I CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THAT IS NOT TRUE, SPATIAL CONTRACTION WAS FALSIFIED.

So please with draw your distortion.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by MacM:" He also over qualifies his comments. i.e - He will say ALL good clocks tick the same.....(and then adds)....in their own frame". But then will say clocks cannot tick in sync between frames. That frequency of an atom doesn't change in different frames.

Completely ignoring that for frequency to remain the same in their respective frames that the tick rate must dilate to the clock tick rate otherwise it would not appear to remain the same.

In other words he will try to dazzel and confuse you rather than give a correct physics answer. ”

you can't mean that. Let's see what he says about my last response to his response to me .

Yes I do.

[MacM]

the physically real result is that the returned clock is showing less time than the one that made no round trip.

Perhaps hard for you, but most fouth graders know that d/S < D/S when d < D and it is, as discussed many times.

Yes but this 4th grader wants this highly educated poster to NOW say what is the physical cause for claiming the resting clock physically dilates according to the view of the traveling twin. That was the question not the one you answered.

I have never questioned the physical cause for the acelerted frame being dilated.

So please remove this distortion and negative innuendo.

[MacM]

MacM, it occurs to me that the people you are discussing SR with here are spacetimers. Could the problem be that SR without regard to geometry, though it is a beautiful theory by itself, takes on some added characteristics when discussed from the spacetime framework? Maybe without the spacetime framework you have to adjust the relative motion to a common initial frame. With spacetime, i.e. a defined geometry of points in spacetime, could the initial frame be established by the geometry, i.e. there was a beginning to which all motion is causually connected? Just asking.

Without question the mathematical construct is such that it appears consistant. But that is without asking physical questons.

1 - Do you need a physical cause to get a physical result? I say "Yes".

2 - If something is physical in it's frame must it be physical in all other frames? Again I say "Yes".

3 - Is there physical empirical data supporting clock time dilation (tick rate change)? I think the answer is again "Yes" but only for the accelerated frame.

4 - Is there any physical empirical data that lorentz contraction (spatial distance foreshortening) is physically real? I say "No".

Given these parameters it becomes clear that SR may be mathematically consistant but is not based on sound physics principles.

Now relativits will argue that it is based upon two proven postulates.

a - The postulates are never proven but appear to be true but if SR is not physically sound then there MUST be a flaw in the postulates. In which case I suggest the invariance of light is just an illusion of light generation and is not a property of propagation.

b - Nothing in the postulates require spatial distance contraction. an entirely different SR can be formulated without it.

c - Graphically it becomes clear that ONLY clock tick dilation matches empirical data.

d - Reciprocity inherent in a relative fvelocity view is not a physical reality.

[Billy T]

Yes but this 4th grader wants this highly educated poster to NOW say what is the physical cause for claiming the resting clock physically dilates according to the view of the traveling twin. ...

FOR WHAT MUST BE THE 30TH TIME:

THERE IS NO PHYSICAL CHANGE IN EITHER FRAME* (or any of the thousands of other different frames, all of which DESCRIBE events in frame A as having different time dilation and length contractions. - That is not possible if there is ONE real physical change in frame A.)

For example: How does frame A clock have physically changed tick rate so that frame B describes it as half the tick rate of frame B clocks and frame C describes the tick rate of frame A's clocks as being 1/3 of the tick rate of frame C's clocks?

I hope you can think of more than two frames at one time, but that does seems to be beyond your mental capacity. Try harder; you need to think about at least three frames at the same time. (A’s “physical change” for B is NOT possibly the same as for C; but B & C can each DESCRIBE an unchanged cesium clocks tick rate differently.)

-----------------
* Hence no need to postulate a physical change for something that does not happen and even forces one to postulate the THEORY changes as theories, such as quantum theory can CALCULATE THE ENERGY LEVELS OF ATOMS, etc.

For example, Cesium is used in many atomic clocks. It has energy levels given by Quantum Theory for it 55 electrons. The energy differences between these levels determines the frequencies of cesium radiation. The cesium clock simply counts a specified number of cycles of radiation from one of these energy level transitions to define a second in all frames. Thus, the only way a second defined in frame A could change is if there is a change in the atomic energy level structure, which for cesium happens to be:

Shells 1,2,3 4 are completely filled & n = 5 is almost, but the highest angular momentum sub state of the n=5 shell (called "f" in standard spectroscopic notation) is still un occupied. High angular momentum states of the more complex atoms are with higher energy levels than some of the zero angular momentum sub states (called "s") of lesser principle quantum number n. For example in cesium's case the 6s state fills before both the 4f and 5d electronic sub states.

The outer most shell of cesium is none-the-less that single "6s" (zero angular momentum) electron, much like hydrogen* but because with zero momentum it penetrates all the way down to the nucleus, it is still well bound for an n= 6 electron. (1st Ionization Potential: 3.89 Volts; 2nd Ionization Potential: 25.1 Volts) This is also why it fills before the and 4f & 5d electrons do as you move up thru the periodic table of the elements.

SUMMARY: For your "physical change in moving frame A" to be correct you must destroy almost all the known quantum mechanics and chemistry facts. I.e. Re-arrange the electronic structure of atoms so that their radiation has lower frequencies and counting a fixed number of cycles of it by an atomic clock then takes longer.

Your idea that cesium clock defined second is different just because the frame is moving wrt to your historic CFR or some absolute frame is NONSENSE that is impossible to accept by anyone with college entry level understanding of electronic structure as a sequential filling of QUANTIZED energy levels as one move up thru the periodic table of elements if they also understand how an atomic clocks work. (I.e. that they counts a fixed number of radiation cycle made by transitions between these QUANTIZED energy levels to advance a second.)

Before trying to correct SR and 100,000 physics Ph.D.s and 100 years of confirming experiments, you should at least learn something about atomic clocks and how quantum mechanics THEORY sets the structure of atomic energy levels.

Again: atomic THEORY does NOT change with speed.
There is no physical change** to explain.

------------------------
*Cesium is quasi hydrogen like with one outer most electron - I.e. in the first column of the periodic table. Part of the series: H, Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, Fa

**Not in any frame, including the "resting frame" (the choice of which is arbitary for SR considerations) I.e. physicist observers in B will tend to take their frame B as "resting" and my frame A as "moving," but I will do the reverse. - Take my frame A as "resting" and their frame B as "moving." Neither needs any historical information to do correct SR physics, nor is there any way the cesium atoms could even be told of it if it did exist.

PS I happen to know a little known, but interesting, and possible very economically important, property of cesium:

When cesium is briefly on a hot tungsten surface (a surface with a relatively large work function) it "evaporates off" as and ion! (Leaves its 6s electron behind to become a conduction state electron of the solid.)

I worked at LASL two summers while in graduate school. In one of them we were very seriously looking into the feasibility of making a "thermal battery." (I helped one permanent employee build a high temperature vacuum furnace with a hot tube of tungsten (Possibly the world's biggest incandescent light bulb, but inside a steel vacuum tank so no light was seen.) Idea was that the thermal energy of a nuclear reactor could be converted directly with no moving parts into electricity -I do not know what happen to the idea but AFAIK is not being actively explored now (at least not in the US).

[MacM]

Even it that is true (the big bang, perhaps) a more important question is how do the atoms of a cesium clock remember what was their common rest frame for billions of years? (They have had a zillion different accelerations ever hour since then as they collided with other atoms. Must be tought for them to keep a record of the important accelerations separate from all the others.)*

This has been explained several times. Atoms do not need to remember anything. They simple vibrate and the number of vibtrations has no meaning unless you started recording them . The recorder is the memory.

So unless you wanted to see the accumulated time from the atoms enception it needs nio memory.

By MacM's "physical cause" of time dialtion which was provoked by various different ancient acceleration making now different velocities away from the ancient common rest frame the energy levels of the cesium atoms are now permanently and differently changed in each different frame and no longer as calculated by quantum theory.

FALSE. Quantum theory will calculate current conditions based on current inertial velocity - PERIOD.

More Billy T BS. Trying to create pitfalls that don't exist.

Quantum theory's predictions are all wrong so the theory your ID cites is nonsense if MacM is correct. (Never mind that it agrees with experiment to 10 significant figures - that is just "illusion." MacM must be right! )

Never mind Billy T. He and James R think you are ignorant if you disagree with their presentation.

I'm not sure what this means "....so the theory your ID cites is nonsense if MacM is correct......" posted above by Billy T. But nothing Billy T has said so far explains the reality and that is:

IF you travel 1/2 the distance in 1?2 the time at the same speed then your clock tick rate has not changed and if the traveling clock tick rate didn't change then it and the resting clock are ticking in unison and are accumulating time eaually such that when the traveling twin returns trhe resting clock MUST have accumulated the same amount of time.

Since that does not match emperical data the arbitrary concept of time-space is falsified and spatial contraction is a fraud.

so the theory your ID cites is nonsense if MacM is correct------------
* Actually for atoms there is never any common rest frame (unless the temperature is absolute zero).[/QUOTE]

Great. Thank you Billy T you have just said no clock is ever at rest even when you macroscopically claim it is traveling inertially. No rest frame - no special relativity.

[James R]

BULL CRAP

I have Never in my life made any such claim. Damn it I have shown IF YOU insist on claiming spatial length contraction as being physiccally real THEN all clocks MUST tick in sync BUT I CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THAT IS NOT TRUE, SPATIAL CONTRACTION WAS FALSIFIED.

But I posted a thread that PROVES mathematically that you can't have time dilation without length contraction.

[Billy T]

...Thank you Billy T you have just said no clock is ever at rest even when you macroscopically claim it is traveling inertially. No rest frame - no special relativity.

Not quite what I said. I said no atom is at rest in any frame (not for long, at least) unless it is at 0 degrees Kelvin.
Also your "logic" is again faulty. Any inetrial frame can be cosidered the rest frame and very good clocks do exist for them now, despite the thermal motion pof atoms as explained below (PS I like to teach so keep coming with your ignorant statements and false "logic" -Other may benefit even if you cannot.):

Atomic clocks use many atoms in a low pressure gas and these atomic frequencies do have a Doppler frequency spread. Atomic clocks use a very "high Q" microwave cavity to sharpened up the line - just like lasers use a cavity and radiate a much more sharply defined wave length than the Doppler broadened line. They also use some gain feedback techniques that I once knew something about to make the radiation more a single pure frequency, but I have forgotten the details.

We had one at APL when I was there (about two floors above my office). While I was working there, it usually contributed a small part the NBS / Naval Observatory definition of the second. I forget the formula. As I recall, the fastest and slowest two of the less than 20 clocks used were discarded and the average of those remaining defined the second but not uniformly weighted (APL's had slightly less than the average weight.)

BTW recently some optical atomic clocks have been perfected – the hard problem of counting optical frequencies has been solved! They are very tiny solid state devices and take very little power. If you are rich, in a decade or so you will probably be able to buy an atomic wrist watch. One so accurate that when your great, great, great grandchild inherits it, is will be less than one second in error!

My bed time now - see your reply tomorrow.

[MacM]

[QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2361315]Yes, that is my background. And I find it odd you say you've got a lot of formal training too when you later say "Frankly no, math is not my forte'. I am not a physicist or mathematician. " and "ow I have had calculus 45 years ago but haven't ever really needed to use it and do not even pretend any more. So higher mathematics is not my thing but neither am I completely lost reading most papers because I have had some math and a lot of physics.".

So your 'formal training' isn't very much

Well if you consider formal mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; plus post graduate electronics design not much then what can I can.

and even if it were you admit you've not done much in the last half century.

If you consider holding numerous patents, having operated my own R&D Corp for decades, having done NASA contracts, with my work is published by NASA and having done $1M contracts with major international companies , is nothing then I guess you are right I haven't accomplished anything.

So I'm left more convinced you're attacking a theory you don't understand.

This in no manner is a physics rebuttal of the facts on the ground.

FACT:

IF you travel 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time at the same speed, your clock has not changed tick rate. If the traveling clock does not change tick rate it stays ticking in unison with the resting clock and they botth accumulate time equally such that when the traveling twin returns both clocks MUST read the same.

Since that does not match empirical data then the arbitrary time-space mathematcial construction is falsified.

Again, it is real physics by any reasonable definition. Its used everyday by millions of people when they turn on their GPS.

Ah. Glad you raised the issue of GPS since GPS does not use special relativy to compute orbit velocity dialtion. Thought you were an educated smart guy. The fact is all sea level surface clocks tick at the same rate regardless of latitude i.e. at sea level at the North Pole and the Equator tick the same.

GPS in fact computes orbit velocity to the ECI (Earth Center Inertial) frame. Which happens to be a preferred frame where SR's inherent reciproicty is prohibited. That is you cannot claim the orbiting clock is at rest and the ECI has orbit velocity.

And you didn't counter my retort to your reason for whining. No physicist doing special relativity says "If two objects have been in relative motion then its certain they measure different periods of time".

I have no idea what you are talking about but you are agruing against your own distorted version of anything I may have said. I have in fact given the example many times where two objects have relative velocity and in fact have the same accumulated time in spite of having had relative velocity.

So my point seems to be just the opposite of what you are inferring.

I just asked two collegues (in a theoretical physics research group) if they think that statement is true and they both said no immediately and both agreed in my example, that any SO(n-1) transformation about the initial point, leaving the end point unchanged, will give a path which has an observer in relative motion yet who will measure the same period of time for the journey. Symmetries make an obvious counterexample to your claim.

Rhetoric. There is no emperical data showing a resting clock dilated once relative velocity ends. Your question is off point and their response therefore irrelevant.

Clearly you've failed to research what it is you don't understand.

No so. You have both misunderstood what I have said and have failed to respond to the charge I make regarding the consequences of spatial contraction being a physical reality.

FACT:

IF you travel 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time at the same speed, your clock has not changed tick rate. If the traveling clock does not change tick rate it stays ticking in unison with the resting clock and they botth accumulate time equally such that when the traveling twin returns both clocks MUST read the same.

Since that does not match empirical data then the arbitrary time-space mathematcial construction is falsified.

Now respond to this issue and forget trying to talk down to me about relativity. It doesn't seem your mathe skills are appropriate for the taks because the issue is not about the mathematics.

[MacM]

Why must there be a memory or any way to actually calculate such an initial frame?

There is none. You are quite correct.

You seem to take away from my question posed to MacM a conclusion. State what that conclusion is and I will respond. I posed the question to MacM for a reason. I wanted his response.Which never occurs.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What have I missed?

*I guess I'm asking you if when you say that the SR affect is due to a difference in velocity, do you acknowledge that you can't determine actual time dilation until there is a known profile of acceleration. Without that knowledge, the common rest frame cannot be determined and so there is uncertainty as to the amount of time dilation?

He will either attack you for this or ignore it.

[MacM]

I have no reason to say that MacM’s insistence of a CFR has any merit aside from trying to imagine how to determine the CFR. I think everyone agrees is not possible to determine that because of the lack of data and the uncertainty principle at the particle level.

I skipped over most of this because I think I have responded to you in other posts.

I agree that tme dilation (tick rate) depends on current inertial veloities. But you must remember that to actually measure dialtions between clocks you must have then synchronized at some point to measure such dilation.

If a clock has changed velocity several times since the synchroniaation then the accumulated t9me is the net time dilation based on the acceleration ad inertial flight history.

But if you spot tow objects with relative motion in the universe you have absolutely no way of knowing their history. I have never said otherwise. Tat all comes from Billy T's distortin of my views.

That is do NOT take what Billy T claims I have said or believe as true becaue over 95% of the time it is not.

[MacM]

This is still another reason why MacM's CFR ideas are NONSENSE for atoms.

OK. Please post for us a calculation of time dialtion between two object hat once had relative velocity but for which you have had not dommon rest frame or initial synchronization.

GO AHEAD DIP SHI_

[MacM]

FOR WHAT MUST BE THE 30TH TIME:

THERE IS NO PHYSICAL CHANGE IN EITHER FRAME*

************************************************** *
quantum wave I hope you see this. As I told you he says:

1 - "All clocks tick the same....in their own frame...."

2 - "Clocks tick different between frames"

3 - "NOTHING PHYSICALLY CHANGES IN ANY FRAME'.

You might ask him just how he produces a loss of accumulated time in the accelerated frame if nothing physically changes.

************************************************** ****

I refuse to re-cycle your bogus arguements once again.

FACT:

IF you travel 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the time at thev same speed your clock cannot have changed tick rate. If your clock has not changed tick rate both the traveling clock and resting clock are ticking in unison and must accumulate the same amount of time for thevtrrip. Hence no time dilation could be measured.

Since that is not in agreement with empirical data then the arbitrary time-space construct is falsified and spatial contrction does not occur.

Now respond to that physical fact ONLY.

[MacM]

But I posted a thread that PROVES mathematically that you can't have time dilation without length contraction.

No you haven't. You may have posted more SR mathematics but my diagrams prove the concept of time-space is false. Length contraction prohibits measured time dilation.

If clocks physically dialte once accelerated to another frame then time dilation occurs and can mbe measured - without any length contraction.

Further more this has nothing to do weith yourc false assertion that I claimed all clocks ticked in sync. That was in fact deliberately just the opposite of what I had said.

So I hope others can continue to seee how you distort and lie.

[MacM]

Not quite what I said. I said no atom is at rest in any frame (not for long, at least) unless it is at 0 degrees Kelvin.
Also your "logic" is again faulty. Any inetrial frame can be cosidered the rest frame and very good clocks do exist for them now, despite the thermal motion pof atoms as explained below (PS I like to teach so keep coming with your ignorant statements and false "logic" -Other may benefit even if you cannot.):

Again you seem to want to pick and choose your physics.

If no atom is ever at rest and we (all clocks are made of atoms then no clock can ever be at rest. I'm not saying that is true I'm saying you are full of crap.

Sub-atomic components my never be at rest but the atom can. Many many atoms are moving inertially in deep space.

[quantum_wave]

MacM, Billy T, thank you for responding to my questions about the bone of contention that keeps this thread alive and well. I see there are many issues and much "he said, she said". MacM, as is often the case, when there is theory that is supported by the math it is the math that says what the theory is. The prose version may not faithfully reflect to message sent by the math. As a casual observer I would decide on the side of the math in this debate for that reason. Thanks for dealing with my intrusion as respectfully as you both have.

[MacM]

MacM, Billy T, thank you for responding to my questions about the bone of contention that keeps this thread alive and well. I see there are many issues and much "he said, she said". MacM, as is often the case, when there is theory that is supported by the math it is the math that says what the theory is. The prose version may not faithfully reflect to message sent by the math. As a casual observer I would decide on the side of the math in this debate for that reason. Thanks for dealing with my intrusion as respectfully as you both have.

No intrusion at all. You are within your right to decide forc yourself but I urge you to remember I am not claiming the math is wrong. I am claiming it does not match any physical reality.

If you choose the math then you must explain just how you trvel 1/2 the diatance in 1/2 the time at the same speed and have your clock dilate compared to the resting clock.