A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory.

I find hundreds of sites dedicated to explaning how SR correctly explains the "Twin Paradox".

Here's one with a cool javascript animation (read carefully regarding what SRT says and dosen't say about frames of reference):
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/twin.html

The last sentence sounds like my previous post (pats self on back):

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is an old solution which has nothing in the way of support for the claim of time dilation due to constant relative velocity. It was formulated to provide an aging arguement after Einstein was publicly challenged about the paradox.

I wrote about this in another thread. Without going back and trying to find that information, it is my memory that it was 7 years after the challenge that Einstein then published GR.

The paradox was given a solution (a new solution) to halt the challenges to Relativity. But it shouldn't have since the solution is not based on the original complaint against Relativity. SR is still unsupported by this arguement.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I found the original [post=726586]Post[/post] on this issue.

 

Wow. For all this posting, no one seems to be getting very far.

 

SuperLum,
Only those maintaining an arbitrary and fixated SRT state of mind haven't gotten very far. Their attached theoretical frame has contracted and is too short* to span the abyss of SRT. The hole isn't all that deep. I think it humorous that simply jumping off the SRT frame, or just letting go, they would suffer no pain.

Geistkiesel

*Coincidentally this is how Mickey Rooney, America's First Philosopher, has described life.

 

Giest,
a question:
Do you believe the equation E=mc^2 is valid?

 

It has its problems. The first problem is the popular belief that the expression is a product of the mind of Einstein, which is not the case. I haven't explored the appliation of the expression wrt any published experimental results, so in this repsect I am ambivalent.

I am not a believer in the physical truth of he matter for the mere reason of its popularity.

I try to maintain a distance from the use of the mental dynamic, "belief', so in this regard no, I do not "believe" in the validity of E = mc^2.

Geistkiesel

PS can you direct me to material or by argument show why the expression is or is not valid?

 

Wow. I mean, wow, dude. You're my kind of guy. You know, just yesterday I was telling my wife how I stopped believing in Mel Gibson because he was so popular. I hate that, don't you?

 

Just as a point of discussion, I too understand that it is never a question of belief but a question of knowing. Belief is by far the lesser of value compared to knowledge which we have amazingly so little of.

The reason I bring the equation up is that this icon of science, I believe, is a product of SRT.
To debunk SRT is to debunk this equation. This is why I guess SRT is defended so strongly. We humans just love this equation.

It is unfortunate from what I have come to believe, that most SRT'ists do not understand the intrinsic link between SRT and this equation. They will defend a theory that they can't even explain properly them selves. Thus leaving the theory of SRT wide open to attack, simply because to understand it in full requires abilities beyond most believers of SRT.

It seems that this equation being a product of AE SRT inspiration is the holy grail of relativity and to debunk SRT requires an understadning in full of how this formula came into existence and the logic trail that AE used to achieve this little pearl of insight.

In the past I have attempted for example to discuss the inspirations on light by AE making reference to light cones and such and attempted to find the connection between light, energy, mass and time. Most of my questions have failed to get answers...why??
Because the people reading those question just simply do not know the answer or even understand the question in the first instance. To make matters even worse is the language [terminology] barrier.

From what I have come to understand in 2 years of research is that SRT and E=mc^2 are very close to being valid, except for some minor amendments concerning time, SRT is a consistent and thorough theory that has great application. This does not mean that it is entirely valid however but to find fault with it requires a compete understanding of it which as yet I have yet to see at this forum from any one...... and I mean any one....

By arguing SRT on this forum we must accept that the so called experts will lead us on a merry dance of inconsistancies due to their lack of understanding of the very theory they wish to defend.

If SRT is to be found invalid it wont be because of some simple little mistake in logic or reasoning. The error will be as profound as the theory itself.

I have asked in another thread about the isue of relative simultaneousness.
A wall of silence occurs [except for yuiry's attempt in the "get a team " thread"], simply because to argue this particular issue is extremely difficult and possibly goes well behind the capacity of using this forum and short speak methods......posting and reposting simply kill any serious discussion.
I have asked about the relevance of lights velocity being absolute and not relative to the universe it travels in. Some may refer to it as the Luxon theory. There fore how E=mc^2 becomes a natural outcome of SRT postulates. [ I might add i only recently learned that the
luxon theory had a title.... thus originality is a myth]

How light and the universe change at the same rate thus light has a relative velocity of zero to that universal change, but again I achieved no real understanding of my question, which I might add is not unexpected.

But the point being is that both issues relate back to the fundamentals of AE inspiration and how E=mc^2 is derived and how mass can be converted to energy dues to velocity with in the constraints of SRT, thus demonstrating the reality of the necessity for time dilation. Unfortunately the conceptualisation is extremely difficult to convey in words with out a big white board to spend a week of two in close conference.

What I am suggesting I guess is that until a thorough understanding of how SRT delivers E=mc^2 no significant debunking ability exists.

The strategic logic of using thought experiments only allows the defender of SRT to apply his own lack of understanding in a way that proves inconsistant thus leaving SRT open to an imaginary arguement. The responses to our thought experiments lead us only to debate more rigourously simply because we see inconsistancies and these inconsistanceies are not just because of SRT but because the defenders of SRT simply can not argue consistantly again simply because they do not know the theory properly to start with.

I tend to feel that personalities aside, Yuiry is the only board member that even comes close to understanding SRT. Unfortunately due to personality issues and the forum format limitations his ability to show his expertise is greatly diminished.

But even yuiry knows that there is a problem with SRT, but simply can not finger it so to speak.

I repeat an earlier statement:

If SRT is to be found invalid it wont be because of some simple little mistake in logic or reasoning. The error will be as profound as the theory itself.

Just thought I'd share some thoughts on the issue......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

QQ, I am inspired. Give some time and I will give you a point of view based on my findngs. I pretty much agree with your post, but have reservations about your statement that" . . . SRT is a consistent and thorough theory that has great application." Certainly within itself SRT has application but suffers miserably in the equivalance of inertial frames postulates. MacM has driven home this point in the discssion of clock readings on two frames moving relative to each other, with both determining the other clock as slower than his own. Both cannot be the same physically when each is considering hmself at rest or vice versus. Even by adopting a position that one is at rest, the other moving and both frame observer agree to this arbitrary agreement, both clocks will not be consistent when measured.

In some regard this is why I have sggested that a more accurate model would be to use the average of the measured relative velocity (as long as one is using SRT in the first place), as for sure, in deep space for instance, none of two space ships starting from earth, for instance, and meeting in a relative collision course, will have an absolute velocity of zero and the other the total relative velocity measured. Does not the assumption of SRT where one frame assumes a rest velocity wrt the other frame adopt an artifical ersatz absolute velocity? I have been answered b the proverbal wall of silence on this trivial alternative.

One last point of disagreement re simultaneity: AE's book "Relativity" uses a train/embankment gedanken to describe the loss of simltaneity which requires the arbitrary imposition of the equivalence of inertial frames principal. The moving observer was at the midpoint of he photon sources when the photons were emitted simultaneously. Even with the requivalence imposition, as one possibility, the problem can be analyzed from the point of view that the observer has other choices to invesigate than the one arbitrarily adopted.
When seeing, or being informed, the arrival times of photons emitted simultaneously in the embankment, the moving observer sees the one ahead of his motion before the one catches up from behind and interprets this as the photon ahead was emitted before the photon arriving from the rear.

This observer could also scrutinize the possibility that he was moving wrt the photons arriving from the sources were emitted simultaneously. Also, the gedanken assumes that only the observer's position on the moving frame is significant despite the fact that observers behind the observer can easily observe the simultaneous arrival of the photons on the train when those passengers [behind he observer] are next to the midpoint of the sources wrt the emabnkment.

AE defined an observer dependent model determined by the location of one observer on an infintitely large, or even limited sized moving frame.

The problem gets clearer when the gedanken imposes the condition that the observer is told the photons were emmited simultaneously when the moving observer was at the midpoint of the sources wrt the embankment. The gedanken should produce the same results when the photons are emitted on the moving frame instead of from the embankment should it not? In fact eliminate the embankment and use clocks sycnchronized on the train. The significance of the clocks then are not the output of absolute time, differences in embankment and moving frame, but are limited to whether the photons arrive at the observer at the same time, or better a what point on the frame do the photons arrive simultaneously? The photons must arrive at some one point wrt the moving frame correct?

I will get back to you. QQ, please read my [thread=44532]"A Purely Hypothetical Question of SRT"[/thread]. This has some content that simplifies the discussion, not that the SRT crowd will agree, but it is simplified.[BTW I just referenced the current thread for your perusal,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, this smilie hiding the red faced smilie of course]
Geistkiesel

 

QQ, no I don't believe in E = mc2. which is adequately derived in the link.

The derivation assumes the relativistic mass wrt c. In turn this assumption was interfaced with the expression f = ma, which, as we know, is from the time rate of change of momentum or p = mv and dp = d(mv) = vdm + mdv. The link performs the derivative wrt time. Most textbooks treat the momentum derivative setting dm = 0 and later SRT jumps in and inserts its expression for mass into the newtonian expression which is how E gets to the form E = mc^2.

As a definition or relationship of energy and mass the veracity and completeness of SRT is fundamentally necessary. Likewise, the expression assumes the constancy of the rest mass in the derivation, which means physically that the rest mass is not converted into an increase in that original chunk of mass.

Was mass converted into energy when a nuclear device parachuted from the Enola Gay exploded and vaporized a large number of citizens of Hiroshima? Not necessarily when we consider the binding energy of the uranium atoms in the nuclear device is counted in the total energy released. I am not an expert in the military implications of the energy released on August 6, 1945 at the above designated location, but for sure some attribute of nature "binds" atoms together to form solid material. Is this binding energy mass in anothe form? Has some material attribute of nature been converted in the expansion of energy and mass from the relatively small volume of uranium (on the order of the volume of a softball)?

If the binding energy and mass are equivalent only, then the electrons, protons and neutrons of the uranium have all survived, albeit separated and unidentifiable as intrinsic elements of Hiroshima uranaium.

I have to dig out some more of something I worked on a couple of years ago but let me begin with something to ponder in the mean time.

From d(mv) = mdv + vdm we must not impose an arbitrary expression for any term in the expression d(mv). Why not? Because Mother Nature went out of her way to interject an attribute into her creation to make sure that everything didn't happen all at once. In other words, and the bottom line, we cannot assume that the d(mv) process expanded as vdm + mdv instantaneously. The physical processes of arriving at some equilibrium state, in the difference expansion in d(mv), cannot not have occured and did notoccur simultaneously or intantaneously. One process came from a proceeding process or chain of processes or independent and parallel chain of processes, or combination of processes which ultmately resolve into the neat equilibrium state described by vdm + mdv.

The newtonian expression for gravity in the form inversely proportional to the distance separating two masses and directly proportional to the product of masses says nothing of the process of gravity, it "gives the answer" to questions of observable predictions, plus or minus.

To use he handle QuantumQuack you must be familiar with the nonlocal implications of the EPR paper and the experiments designed to test Bell's theorem (all expressed in Bell's collection of papers on the subject, "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics"). You are also familiar with Bell's statement (describe in a paper in Bell's book) that any model of QM void in the inclusion of nonlocal forces is incomplete. Newton's force and gravity expressions are incomplete when we consider that all is, or must be, QMally consistent (not that the current QM models are the end all of QT).

Is E = mc^2 complete? No it isn't. Should anyone believe in the totality of an expression that is incomplete? No, they shouldn't believe in such incompleteness.

Your question was disarmingly cloaked in the guise of simplicity.
Good posts QQ.

Geistkiesel

 

Giest, thanks for your candor.
I can not for a moment claim to know how exactly AE derived his formula. However reading the link you provided I see significant problems with it's processes.

I have not the ability at this time to follow the math but teh statement that mass increases with velocity leaves me a bit worried. So straight away I see problems with the explanation.

Keeping in mind that as our so called mass is increasing something else is decreasing so is there an actual increase or an apparent increase.The problem I have with the equation is in it's totality or closed nature. It is apparently a com;lete formula that is universal in it's application.

For a particle of mass to achieve it's full energy state the entire universe is required {My assessment] and it is not just a local pheno being described.
You mention that you feel it is incoimplete and I would agree as it's inverse reflection has yet to be included, such as anti matter, anti gravity and even anti-universe. [thanks fully we don't know this aspect yet, as any experimentation may be disasterous in consequemce]

The formula deals with "substance" only and appears to be a closed equation however it fails to deal with "non-substance" and that to me is why it appears to be incomplete.


The thinking:
To accelerate a particle to 'c' it must gain mass but from where does it gain it from, answer = everything else. Net mass of the universe simply converts to energy. However as a particle of mass is accelerated it is converting to energy as well so I am not sure which line you wish to take here. Mass is after all energy according to the same formula.

Also by way of discussion and MacM may be able to answer this question or comment on the issue, The net energy yeild from a nuclear explosion is very tiny compared to the total net energy available. In other words a Nuclear bomb is extremely inefficient. So I believe possibly mistakenly.

My approach to the formula is very different to the link you have given certainly more simplistic I guess.....as I don't use mathematics to get the logical conclusion of E=mc^2.

 

You guys.

E=mc^2 is fundamental. During fission, if you sum the masses of all the fission products, you find that about 0.1% is missing. This mass has been converted to energy exactly by E=mc^2. (yes, an atom bomb sucks as a mass-to-energy converter).

Fusion is a bit better. For instance, in the cores of main sequence stars, about 1% is converted to energy by E= mc^2 (the mass of the fusion products is less).

There is no controversy regarding this. So what's the problem?

PS: Geist, do you believe 1+1=2 is valid? (in normal 3-dimensional, euclidean space, using only numbers in the set of real numbers).

 

When you accelerate a mass you add energy. As the speed increases toward c, the mass increases. Since as you get closeer and closer to c, the energy given to velocity decreases, the energy goes to mass increase.

 

Just a quick note, not to change the subject:

In my own research on the time dilation issue, I have concluded that SRT is completely false. Only Gamma works. That seems supported by GPS. Selecting a "Common" reference seems to work in a limited way but still falls short when trying to take the view further to a ternary observer.

That is why I now see "time dilation" as a mis-nomer, it is only "clock dilation". That is time is not affected universally but only the chaning of calibration (frequency) of our clocks marking the time interval is what we are seeing. It is a measurement change and not a time change. That seems to be the only physical resolution.

 

You are correct in the sense that only a very small amount of mass defect occurs in a nuclear explosion. That is the energy output is based on amu (Atomic Mass Units) which is the differance between the parent fuel and the fissioned fuel fragments or in the case of fusion is the differance between the contributing atoms and the combined atom mass.

These process are not specific that is when an atom fissions it may make a wide variety of daughter products and not just the same pair. Hence each process has a different yield.

I'll look up some data on one such split and post the magnitude in terms of % of mass change.

 

Noting fusion is only better superficially in that an amu is a larger % in lighter atoms. That is the yield is bigger per pound of bomb. The same mass defect results in the same yield in either case.

 

You are treading on thin ice here. You are talking in terms of the original thoughts and relavistic mass has been rejected by modern physics for decades.

They now only refer to momentum not relavistic mass. According to your scenario we could make a 1 KT bomb into a 1 MT bomb if we just deliver it fast enough. That doesn't work that way.

The energy added is kenetic and has nothing to do with mass conversion in the nuclear process.

 

Boo-o-oom!
and this is a firework on the parade of stupidity!