A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory.

Inside - outside? Where is the line, el linie es en del desierto
This is not the hole I was peeking in, but is certainly isn't inconsistent either.
1. Some energy does go to mass increases and 2. other proportions to velocity increase. This is a bifurcation of energy, The mass increases are in the form of mass frequency increases.

MacM how does the electron radiate during aceleration? What is providing the platform of motion inherent to the radiation? I ask this to perhaps calm a question regarding a withderawal forn a rigid body subconscious model of fundamental particles.



My idea of propelling is that seen in the energy exchange process the vector direction of energy exchange process defines the direction of motion of the applied force. This would be a step beyond the energy transfer. No specific impulse would have to be applied. Your "coil" seems a bit too mechanical to me for this basic EM process. However, some conversion of the energy into a definitive observaable condition consistent with a specific pulse width and high or spiked eneregy elease. The 'coil is certainly plausible. Any observed collison of the electron could be seen incidental to the mass of the electron and be mistaken for a mass/mass collision.

Basically, I consided the excess energy as ahving their velocity increasing potential muted by forcing some orthogonal direction of geometry for the energy bundle that is maintained by a governing process allowing vibration modes orthogonal to the direction of motion; where interference of mass segments effectively restrains the energy activity consistent with the apparent mass like change and degradaton of effieciency in velocity increases as products of the energy exchange protocol.

'there can be no other description.

To be otherwise wopule lead to an absurd result.

Remove a + electron charge strippedfrom a proton and one has a neutrion.

The intrinsic propertes of the subatomioc partickes are operetic-ballet-rocknroll-centers of complex activity. QT doesn't have a clue, I mean key to all this.The name is significant and does not mean zero. Neutron suggests neutral, muted, at arms length in the volume
elements of the small world.

For instance a spin-1 particle is found in one of three basic spin states at a time: up, horizontal or diown, which only describe directions of motion of the particle when moving in an inhonomgeneous magnetic field. state. For other reasons the particle's produce their own internal spin states by generating centers located withn the particle volume, with strict and demontstrble nonlocal/local implications. These nonlocal/local force centers are crucial to the ultimate existence of the observed states. The states are not established in the heat of the tungsten filament that generated the particle in preparation for experiments in physics laboratories,


The eye opener to me was in realization that particle sin the most basic configuaration or levels was not a mere store houses for rigid stuff like little marbles, bland in motion activities, But putting all the stories together there is one attribute that stands out with glaring consistency: The interaction ofl local/nonlolcal elements in an ongoing and intrinsically intimate dynamic inter-exchange of force and energy inseperable from the processes of defining the observed world.

MacM gve the systems some slack. The energy increases are very complex and organozed, The energy is not in a bonfire form. It i in the careful protection and manipulation of energy steams that maintains the believable illusion that the all of it is capable of existing in eternal stability .Do not strain yourselfe to apply the concept syou have in the form you have developed them

Strecth them an use the rubber band snap back to eflected reality with a refomedamgle to yur perspective . Hey, MacM, ask Yuriy!.

The conserbvation of enrgy only limits the toal energey conversioons, Thereofre the social and creative foprce on planet earth couls theopreticall devose an energy source and application that was clearly an example of thieving from Mother Nature in the sense what we might skim the top an energy wave and let the negative cycle go un matches with no balancing + enegy wave as a netralizingf negative cycle.

Whatever the mechanism, whiel the particles are in the confines of the accelerating field, the paricle is neverth less a bonifide particle, subject to the forces of the field . When in afield free region the partile energy state is different.

Bottom line MacM, well a botom line: The acceleration and deceleration, the Stern-Gerlach transition experiments are rife with the events of some form of 1,polarizxarion and 2.depolarization.

Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is where I am at the moment. I see the accelerating force being applied in a pathagorean form. That is the closer to the speed of light the more orthogonal the force energy is applied, yielding less in the form of forward acceleration and more into the stress stored in space. The orthogonal forces are through 360 degrees hence generates no motion of the mass.

Yea, right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My view is supplemented by the acceptance of the Penrose-Terrell Affect, a form of rotation producing the view of a shortened meter stick called Lorentz Contraction.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v116/i4/p1041_1

In this perspective Lorentz Contract becomes an illusion and not an actual shortening jof the meter stick. Take a ruler and hold it horizontal in front of yourself. Now rotate the ruler, it appears to get shorter due to the rotated view.

They claim infact that a sphere will show no dimensional change because of its geometry, rotated it looks the same.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am close to this, but see it somewhat semantically differently. The "forces applied" by the field compared to "The forces distributed within the accelerated particle". The difference of our models is substantial and needs further scrutiny. I do not want to seem I am compromising a point of view for purposes of coming o an agreement, but I suspect the real story is some combination of Inside-outside. Considering that no definitive border line defining in vs out has been accomplished we can stand in partial agreement at this point. The meter stick picture was clear enmough but sit seems speculative that the volume of any particle we subject to accelerations consistent with measuring any required parameters will be spherical. Intuitively a suspect some cylindrical topology would be more predictable.

Interesting this Penerose-Terrel Affect. Is the affect theoretical or demonstrated by experimental results?

I will maintain silence on the PTA until I becme familiar with the paper. However, I was quick to recognize the words, ". . .recognized by the acceptance of the PTA . . ".

Geistkiesel

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

READERS: I draw your attention to [thread=44892]thread[/thread]

 

Not sure but you seemed to have gotten a wrong view. They are not saying all geometry is spherical, they say a sphere will show no signs of Lorentz Contraction because of its geometry.

That cylinderical or rectangular, etc object appear contracted because you are viewing them at a rotated angle. A sphere appears the came from any angle.

This would mean that distance doesn't actually change under Lorentz Contraction and objects would not condense (increase density). So I like the concept.

 

OK itis clear now, but I have a problem still: Does the sphere constitute an exception to SRT, or is Lorentz contraction the only effect ?

I meant cylinder when speculating that the accelerated particle, less than infinite rigidity, will stretch in the direction of accelereation as all the mass accelerated is imposing its inertial resistance to the forces of acceleration. I cannot see how a sphere would be exempt from this as the sphere also isn't infinitely rigid; or is the frame or particl'se rigidity significant?

Number 3? Hell I just don't buy frame contraction. But then maybe frames don't stretch as much! I'll offer this as a temoporary compromise until the data comes in, just kidding about the compromise.

Geistkiesel

 

The God is my witness as strong I do not want to deal with MacM! But what I should do in cases like this one?.
Speaking on Penrose and Terrell works (the available description is in
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physi...SR/penrose.html ), MacM said:

It is exactly opposite to points of Penrose and Terrell !

 

I'm sure others here will correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding of this affect that they are saying Lorentz Contraction is merely an illuison. That length does not actually change.

Looking at a 12 inch ruler moving past at 0.866c it appears 6 inches long because it rotated 60 degrees and you are seeing its length as the L * Cos(60)

So in this view rigidity has no function.

 

If the rigidity is less than infinite then sphere's will contract despite theoretically impose barriers. You can see the simple minded stretching of the mass as it hangs on to the acelrating forces"? Hanging on in one elongated piece is as I see it., The exception to Pernrose,-Terrel is not meant as negating the totallity of the conclusion. I cannot do that until I see what I am negating. Likewise, I reserve the right to revise t my elongation perspectus should that prove theoretically unpalatable.

Geistkiesel

 

Originally Posted by MacM

If the rigidity is less than infinite then sphere's will if not contract they will be elongated in the direction of the particle motion and force. Unless the elongation is somehow transferred orhtogonally to the direction of the force. I wthought I might be misreading your Penrose reference and thinking Penrose has contraction but not for spheres. Though the contraction is illusory due to rotation of matter on the accelrated frame. The perspective of the particles, observation of the particles, would appear contracted like matter seems to grow smaller the farther away from observation they are. I hav been very hard at awork and somethime my two dozen or so bralin cells still intact take a little time to get coordinated. Have I got the PT description roughply understood?

You can see the simple minded stretching of the mass as it hangs on to the accelrating forces? Hanging on in one elongated piece is as I see it. The exception to Pernrose,-Terrel is not meant as negating the totallity of the conclusion. This is all an edit buy the way. I cannot do that until I see what I am negating. However having said this if theory says non-spherical objects, which are all objects, perfect sphere's being unobserved in expriment, do contract, then the lack of infinite rigidity in spherical objects cannot escape contraction by mere virtue of their shape, nor does it seem plausible that the llusion of contraction should be symmetrically consistent.

How does it sound? All matter contracts except spheres whose contaction is mere illusion. I suppose that he uislusipry and misread length tha remaind uinvariant in length were illusorily consistent with the SRT and gamma fnctions"?

Wave length of accelerating forces compared to a Penrose-Terrel force may help the PT scenario and the accelerating force might be consdered spread evenly over the sphere that is relatively small and considered as a point source. But only sphere's being this small and protected from contraction by their perfect shape? No. Kepler had a hell of time computing trajectories fro data accumulated by Tycho Brahe. He couldn't get over the non-circular trajectories he kept coming up with and in his ramblings even passed over a central gravitational force model that he was speculating on. Kepler was no t a happy camper during this time. [Note: Brahe was deceased by the time. Kepler was makin his calculation, Brahe death came from his elevated sense of protcol when entertaining visitors. The fateful evening lugrubious quantities of alcohol eas consumed. Tycho refused to releive himself so as not to be considered rude. Unfortuantely Tycho Brahe's bladder burst from excessive pressure and he expired shortly thereafter. This from Arthur Koestler].
If non-spherical entitles contract due to PT effect then accelerating forces will further perturbe any spherical volume to some variation of an oblate sphereoid. Likewise, I reserve the right to revise the elongation proposal should that prove theoretically unpalatable .

Geistkiesel

This addendum recognizes the less than infnte rigidity of the particles and a;lso recognized that the rigidity is greater than "cotton candy" . Particles burst when struck with suffcientloy energized particles with rigidity greater than cotton candy.
Penrose-Terrel must have something. I will make an attempt to grok the matter.

Geistkiesel

 

If the rigidity is less than infinite then sphere's will contract if other nonspherocal objects contract. The spheres not contracting they will be elongated in the direction of the particle motion and accelerating force. THis doesn't mean the PT effect is not occuring. Unless the elongation is somehow transferred orhtogonally to the direction of the force I cannot esape concluding theshape is sihnificantly alterd during applicaion of teh field force. I thought I might be misreading your Penrose reference and thinking Penrose has contraction but not for spheres (astill do?). Here though the contraction is illusory due to rotation of matter on the accelrated frame. The perspective of the particles, observation of the particles, would appear contracted like matter seems to grow smaller the farther away from observation they are, or like you said loking done a ruler seeing only a projection can offer the issusion of contraction. I have been very hard at work and sometime my two dozen or so brain cells still intact take a little longer time to get coordinated. Have I got the PT description roughply understood?

You can see the simple minded stretching of the mass as it hangs on to the accelrating forces? It is a process of 'hanging on' in one elongated piece is as I see it. The exception to Pernrose,-Terrel is not meant as negating the totallity of the conclusion. I cannot do that until I see what I am negating. However having said this if theory says non-spherical objects, which are all objects, perfect sphere's being unobserved in expriment, do contract, then the lack of infinite rigidity in spherical objects cannot escape contraction by mere virtue of their shape, nor does it seem plausible that the llusion of contraction should be symmetrically consistent with SRT. In other words the isllusion snould not be proportioanl to expected SRT predictions unless all contraction is also illusory to the saem degreee regardless of shape..

How does it sound? All matter contracts except spheres whose contaction is mere illusion. I suppose that the illusosry and misread length that remained uinvariant in length were illusorily consistent with the SRT and gamma fnctions"?

Wave length of accelerating forces compared to a Penrose-Terrel force may help the PT scenario and the accelerating force might be considered spread evenly over the sphere that is relatively small and considered as a point source. But only sphere's being this small and protected from contraction by their perfect shape? No. Kepler had a hell of time computing trajectories from stellar data accumulated by Tycho Brahe. He couldn't get over the non-circular trajectories he kept coming up with and in his ramblings even passed over a central gravitational force model that he was speculating on. Kepler was not a happy camper during this time. [Note: Brahe was deceased by the time Kepler was making his calculation. Brahe death came from his elevated sense of social protcol when entertaining visitors. The fateful evening lugrubious quantities of alcohol were consumed by all. Tycho refused to relieve himself so not to insult his guests. Unfortuantely Tycho Brahe's bladder burst from excessive pressure and he expired shortly thereafter. This from Arthur Koestler].
If non-spherical entitles contract due to PT effect then accelerating forces will further perturb any spherical volume to some variation of an oblate sphereoid. Likewise, I reserve the right to revise the elongation proposal should that prove theoretically or experimentally untenable.


This addendum recognizes the less than infnte rigidity of the particles and also recognized that the rigidity is greater than "cotton candy" . Particles burst when struck with suffcienty energized particles having rigidity greater than cotton candy and less than infinite.
Penrose-Terrel must have something. I will make an attempt to grok the matter.

Geistkiesel

 

My reading is the sphere shows no contraction affect because viewed from any angle it is still a sphere.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're wrong. If Lorentz contraction didn't happen, then objects would appear longer than they are at rest when moving at relativistic speeds (and still rotated).

The Penrose-Terrell effect is optical (and is described in complete detail via classical optical phenomena, along with the postulates of special relativity). Lorentz contraction is not an optical effect.

 

At this juncture I would not attack your view of this however, I do find it more than implausiable since to have physical contraction combined with some optical affect would be a compound affect. I don't think we see that.

Rather I read this as being an either or. Either things physically contract or it is merely an optical illusion. I may well be wrong but I am not yet convienced of that.

 

You misunderstood what you read completely. Lorentz contraction occurs, then Penrose-Terrell rotation makes the object look longer, exactly cancelling the Lorentz contraction. An object (and there are actually a few restrictions placed on the types of objects to which this applies) at relativistic speeds relative to you would not look shorter than it looks at rest, only rotated. It would be shorter though.

 

Data,
can you name even the one case when MacM read something and did not misunderstand what he just read? Each his post about work of some scientist at closer look appears to be exactly contrary to that, what MacM claims the author said...

 

Not yet. But I told him that I'd give him another chance before deciding.

 

You have been a decient poster and that is appreciated. therefore let me suggest you continue to reserve your opinion and review my post in response to Yuriy's continued misguided libel.

 

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Your efforts to attack me are only making you look stupid, if indeed you are not infact stupid.

In the referenced url:

********************** Extract ******************
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html
Can You See the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction? Or: Penrose-Terrell Rotation
People sometimes argue over whether the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is "real" or not. That's a topic for another FAQ entry, but here's a short answer: the contraction can be measured, but the measurement is frame-dependent. Whether that makes it "real" or not has more to do with your choice of words than the physics.
*****************************************************

The red part in the first sentances says it all. I properly qualified my statement as "As I understand it, or in my opinion".

The differance here is that you come along and inveriably want to claim your view is the only correct view. You do not have a lock on truth. Your view is nothing more than your opinion and it has no more merit than my opinion.

The above statement says all that needs to be said. " If Lorentz Contraction is real or not is more symantics than it is physics".

And that is in the very text you want to accuse me of not understanding. I suggest it is you that do not understand that this issue is far from resolved in the scientific community.

****************** Extract *******************
http://www.ebonk.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=26

The objects passing are contracted in length but because of the different times of passage for the light and effects of aberration, the snapshot will show the objects you pass rotated. See the relativity FAQ Penrose-Terrell Rotation.
***********************************************

The above URL claims contraction is real AND rotated but doesn't conclude that such rotation obscures or offsets the contraction.

************************ Extract *************************
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-19860_Penrose-Terrell_rotation.html

Apparently, Terrell showed that this distortion exactly cancels out the length contraction predicted by special relativity; that is, the Fitz-Gerald contraction can never be seen or photographed directly.
(Rather fascinating, or what?)
*******************************************************

This (above) URL reflects the view expressed by Data; however, I find such idea impossible to accept. If length contraction were to be physically real then no amount of rotation would cause it to appear to restore its length.

This rotation issue is more likely to explain the apparent contraction to be illusionary, which is why they also state that a sphere does not become oblated but remains to appear as a sphere.

That statement in of, and by itself, suggests that contraction IS NOT physically real but is an illusion of rotation.

Now go pretend to be superior elsewhere. You would do better by putting up a defense in your "Strange Orbits" thread where you have been told by a Phd Physicist that you don't know physics at all.

Are you really a physicist or just a pushy fraud.

 

Interesting MacM, but I think you're wrong about whether the distortion is real.

Thinking in terms of field theory, fundamentally like your view of the universe, it seems to me that mass must actually distort with respect to the absolute rest frame. When we consider that such mass is composed intirely of stuff moving at the inverient speed of light, we can see that any motion of the mass would distort it.

This distortion must also apply to the measure of time by the moving object because time is measured by observing the repeating patterns of motion of in massive objects. IMHO