Classical Physics is coming back, RELOADED!!!

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by martillo, Jun 18, 2006.

  1. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    It means precisely what it means: F=dp/dt is invalid if applied to an open system; nothing more, and nothing less. You can't go around claiming physical laws are invalid just because you've found ways of abusing them.
    The only person making concessions to keep their theory afloat here is you, when you're not flat out ignoring the refutations of others. Your site still advertises your twin gendanken, the de Broglie formula, and gyroscopes as disproofs of relativity when you should know perfectly well by now that they don't show anything.

    Physical theories come accompanied by all kinds of subtle points, assumptions, and pitfalls, exploited by highshool teachers torturing their students with apparent paradoxes and creative professionals proposing convincing plans for perpetual motion machines. The models themselves are consistent, but they often don't appear that way to someone who isn't familiar with them. Why do you think everyone's been urging you to seriously study some physics sometime?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    1100f,
    Well, there is a problem here.
    The "particles" in the new theories are composed by rings of currents which can change instantaneously (massless) due just to the change of the flux lines inside them in some quantum interactions specially when some particles are transformed in other ones like the pair creation and annihilation.
    This means that in this kind of processes the law of conservation of angular momentum does not apply.
    The distribution of the magnetic flux is not direclty related to the rotation of the masses of the rings.
    The rotation of the particles and the current of the rings are different things and both produces a magnetic momentum.

    May be some new laws are needed here...
    Subject for future research.

    Your objection has foundation but it doesn't mean the theories are wrong. It points to new problems to solve in a new way.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    przyk,
    You are inventing a new law here! I have never listened about making difference between "open" and "closed" systems for the conservation of momentum.
    You have discovered an example where F=dp/dt doesn't work and because I said this go against Relativity you are trying to "patch" someway but this is wrong. You should believe that F=dp/dt is a wrong equation, that actually F=ma and that Relativity is a wrong theory but you don't want that, you don't like that, isn't it?
    It's your want, it's your decision...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    You should have listened better in class then. This is explicitly stated in any good high-school physics course.


    Do you not realize that F=dp/dt is the same for SR and classical Newtonian physics? F=dp/dt is the original definition of force given by Newton, not something invented or required by Einstein. If you insist that pzryk's example is a disproof of SR then it must also be a disproof of classical Newtonian physics.

    It is not a disproof of either. It is as he described it, a case where people like you who didn't pay attention in school can misapply a theory and get a self-contradictory result that simply doesn't exist.

    -Dale
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2006
  8. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Dalespam,
    I will try to ansewr to your pointss briefly although I feel we are going nowhere with this discussion and as you said actually I would prefer to retreat...

    1) How do you experimentally measure wavelength, and what experiment are you claiming that different frames will disagree on?
    I'm not claiming about any experiment, I'm treating the theory about λ.

    2) Why should a wavelength Lorentz transform when, according to your own calculation, the transformed results are not simultaneous in other frames?
    It doesn't matter the instant of the λ phase of the waves, I just look for the distance to the origin independently of when it happen.

    3) How do you claim variance of p=hk (as opposed to p=h/λ ) when, as I showed, each frame agrees on the wavelength measured in the other frame using p=hk (as opposed to p=h/λ )?
    There is no "frame agreement". Your theory propose p=hk and of course it remains the same under your transformation but the question is: Is this equation really valid in all frames? Does it gives the proper λ?
    To check this is why I transformed λ as a lenght with Lorentz Transform and a different value is found. This means contradiction, inconsistency, and what is wrong? The wrong thing is that your formulation actually gives a wrong result, that formulation is not right and you will not find a right invariant formulation since it doesn't exist because De Broglie is not invariant on any frame of reference. De Broglie Law is only valid in a referential "at rest" in the Universe, a fixed referential, something relativity states doesn't exist.

    4) Since h is a constant, k was shown to transform as a four-vector, and p is also a four-vector then p=hk is manifestly invariant. How can it possibly be frame variant when each individual part is frame invariant? In which term does the frame variance enter?
    EDITED:
    k is actually not invariant since the part related to λ does not give a proper value for λ if applied in any frame as I posted in the above question.

    5) How could your supposed frame-variant deBroglie relation be used to experimentally detect absolute motion (or at least motion relative to some frame where p=hk holds), as in the spaceship example above?
    As I said above De Broglie relation is only accurately valid in a "Rest Frame" of the Universe. I don't know exactly but since it is a formula valid only in such referentials it must be possible to detect absolute motion with it.

    6) Since the measurable quantity is the phase of a wave at a given event, which is the frame invariant quantity r.k, how can any experiments disagree?
    De Broglie law relates the "wave-lenght" λ to the momentum p. They both agree exactly on a "Rest Frame" only.

    I know the ansers will not satisfy you completely never and that's why I don't know if ti would be good to continue the discussion.
    I try to focus the main problem to converge to a final result while you diverge it adding more and more features to solve...
    My assertions are well founded and I don't ignore evidence and much less logic which must be fullfilled primarily, for me logic is the unique "sacred" thing, but the problem is that all depends on which basic assumptions we start on...

    May be I haven't followed a normal method in my work, I don't know because I don't know how others work in theoretical physics but I have found what seem important discoveries in theoretical physics which are disponible now to be analyzed with all the scientific methods and resources real scientists would want.

    I think there are wonderfull things to analyze beginning with the totally new structures proposed for the basic particles.
    It was a hard work and I can say that the theories are very consistent. I don't say it would be easy to approve, many things remain to be demonstrated and I'm very conscient it disagrees with main theories present today (see the "Final Note").

    The text is concise and in simple language but it is full of important meanings which need strong attention...
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2006
  9. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    martillo, thanks for your responses. Personally, I think this is progress in the debate. I think that point 2 is the most important point currently, and if you choose not to respond to the remaining points then I hope you will at least address that one.

    You did not actually answer any of these questions. Any scientific theory must suggest experiments that can be used to prove or disprove the theory. This is the heart of science. I am not asking for you to actually perform an experiment, but simply to suggest an experiment. If there is not even theoretically a potential experiment where different frames will disagree on experimentally measured results then the law is frame invariant.

    However, having said that I am willing to drop these points and focus on the more important disagreements. While I believe that you cannot suggest such experiments because there are no such experiments you could always claim that such experiments exist and your failure to suggest them is only an indication of your limited knowledge and not an indication that you are wrong. Basically, the best I could hope for is an admission of ignorance, not a clear demonstation that you are wrong, so I won't push on these unless you really want to.


    martillo, you are simply wrong here. It does matter. It is part of the definition of wavelength. You cannot simply ignore inconvenient parts of the definition of wavelength.

    Here is a simple example of what would happen if I did elsewhere what you are doing here: Lets say I have a 300MHz signal. Now, the usual definition of wavelength requires that I consider the distance between two successive peaks at the same time, so λ=1m. Now, according to you "it doesn't matter the instant" so let's say that I use your reasoning and measure one peak at t=0 and the next peak at t=1ns later. Now, in this time the second peak is 1.3m away from where the original peak was, so you get λ=1.3m. Taking the well known formula c=λf we get c = 1.3m 300MHz = 390E6m/s.

    Obviously, this is a silly result, but it is exactly what you are proposing. My example does not imply that c=λf is wrong, it only implies that I have misused the formula by plugging in a number that is not λ since it does not fulfil the definition of wavelength. Likewise, your example does not imply that SR is wrong, it only implies that you have misused the formulas by insisting that λ in one frame should Lorentz transform to λ in another frame when (according to your own calculation) the transformed value does not fulfil the definition of wavelength.


    I think it is amusing that you claim I am wrong in the first sentence and then admit I am right in the very next sentence. If, as you say, "Your theory propose p=hk and of course it remains the same under your transformation" then p=hk is frame invariant. The fact that some other variable, λ, is not frame invariant is completely irrelevant; you are not showing the variance of p, h, or k so you are not showing the variance of the generalized deBroglie relation.

    As to your questions "Is this equation really valid in all frames? Does it gives the proper λ?" This is a good question, but I already answered it. The equation is valid in all frames and gives the proper k and, since λ is the inverse of the spacelike part, it also gives the proper λ. This is exactly what I demonstrated with my previous work, you have yet to find any error in my work. Your repeated demonstration that λ does not transform has nothing to do with p=hk, particularly since it is clear even from your own results that the transformed λ' does not fulfil the definition of wavelength.

    Regarding your rhetorical question "what is wrong?", the answer is that your understanding of the definition of wavelength is wrong. When something is not simultaneous it cannot possibly be a wavelength by definition.


    You should be sure, your "may be" is insufficient.

    When you posted your work I showed you the respect of examining it carefully and understanding exactly what you did. When I found your mistake (ignoring the timelike component of your own result) I posted it clearly and even pointed out that the remainder of your work was correct. I expect you to show me the same courtesy, either show exactly where I made a mistake or stop claiming that I did. Until then, I reassert that h is a constant, p and k are four-vectors (as demonstrated above), and therefore p=hk is manifestly frame invariant to any knowledgeable and unbiased individual.

    -Dale
     
  10. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Dalespam,
    For the first questions you adressed I don't have a thought experiment to be done, may be it can surge if the theories are developed further.
    The fact that in the new theories De Broglie law is frame dependent and valid in a "Rest Frame of the Universe" only, suggest the possibility that it should be a way to determinate that kind of frames using the law.
    In the new theories pendulums and gyroscopes point to fixed directions in space as Classical Physics assume, the unique remaining problem is to determine a fixed center for the frames. I think the most important fixed point of the Universe is its Center of Mass but it seems very difficult to determine.
    If you could take the Center of Mass of the Universe and the directions determined by pendulums and gyroscopes you have a "Rest Frame". Any object at rest relative to this frame is at rest, has no movement and any object moving in relation to this frame has movement and an absolute velocity.
    In the new theories De Broglie formula is valid in those frames only, with the absolute velocity computed for the formula only.

    Entering point 2 now:
    I know the problem to determine the wave-lenght because of the problem of the measuring instant but this is another problem. I assume that in someway the wavelenght of the wave can be determined and this way we are able to fix a point at a distance equal to that wave-lenght and make the Lorentz Transform to determine the correspondent point in the other frame, take its distance to the origin (which remains the same at t=0) and determine the wave-lenght of the wave as observed by the other frame.
    You can think on this procedure to fix that point: Look at the wave at time t-T where T is the period of the wave, look which point of the wave form is at the origin at that moment and look where it moves at time t=0 when the two origins coincide. That will be the point we look for which is at a distance λ from the origin. This is an alternative way to define the wavelenght of a wave. Then the problem reduces to find the correspondent point in the other frame and you know which is that point? Just the one at the wave-lenght λ' obtained by Lorentz Transform of λ just looking for the distance coordinate disregarding the time component. So easy as that.
    Then I'm not ignoring the problem of the instant, the subject is that λ is easy to obtain directly from the spatial coordinate!

    Point3:
    I said: "Your theory propose p=hk and of course it remains the same under your transformation". What I mean with this is that you put De Broglie formula in a four-vector and if you take the Lorentz transform it remains the same. That's fine but does not guarantee the results, I mean, what guarantees that the formula applied in the new frame is really valid? Remember that in the new frame a new value for velocity appear. The formula will be valid in the case it would be invariant, what means that if the new value for velocity is used it will give a result consistent with the direct observation of this result in the new frame. Here is the problem! Here is where the two results should match, the λ' obtained with the formula for the new value of the velocity and the new λ' obtained by Lorentz transforming λ. But the results don't match!
    Then where is the problem? The problem is that De Broglie formula (the space part of the four-vector) is valid when a "Rest Frame" is considerd with an absolute velocity value for the formula only.
    The problem reduces to the same as in the classical formulation of De Broglie formula. The problem is that the formula is not invariant.
    If the formula is not invariant the vector k is not invariant and the four-vector formulation of De Broglie law is not invariant.

    Point 4:
    I edited that subject in my post before you posted but the answer I also worte at the end of the point 3 above: Vector k is not invariant.
     
  11. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    Hi martillo,

    Thanks for your response, I am glad that you are willing to discuss your point. Unfortunately, from the highlighted portions of your posts it is plain to see that you do not understand one or more of the following topics: wavevectors, wavelength, frequency, or the Lorentz transform. My comments below have nothing to do directly with the deBroglie relationship that we are discussing, but only to describe very basic relativistic wave geometric concepts that you are missing.

    I drew a spacetime diagram (one spatial dimension horizontally and time vertically) of a wave and marked the relevant features for two different frames. I encourage you to not simply take my word for it, but to go through the very useful exercise of drawing your own spacetime diagram and using it to explore these concepts in a more intuitive geometrical approach.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The black lines indicate times and distances in the "rest frame" while the white lines represent a frame which is moving at .6c to the right relative to the rest frame. Distances and times are indicated in unspecified units where c=1. The red lines represent a wave which is propagating at c to the left. Each red line corresponds to a successive phase wrap, so the distance between two red lines is the wavelength and the time between two red lines is the period.

    Notice the heavy horizontal black arrow. The length of this arrow is the wavelength in the unprimed frame, λ=-1. Notice the heavy vertical black arrow. The length of this arrow is the period in the unprimed frame, T=1. The wavevector is defined as k=(1/T,1/λ)=(1,-1) and is shown in heavy red.

    Notice the heavy white arrows. These arrows also represent the wavelength, λ'=-.5, in the primed frame and the period, T'=.5, in the primed frame. The wavevector is defined as k'=(1/T',1/λ')=(2,-2)' and is shown in heavy red.

    There are several critically important things to see in this diagram. The first thing to notice is the fact that wave crests are not discrete points (events) in spacetime between which a single unambiguous line can be drawn to measure distance, but instead wave crests are lines in spacetime between which an infinite number of lines may be drawn to measure distance.

    The next thing to notice is that not only do λ and λ' have different coordinates, different directions, and different lengths, but they are actually completely different vectors in spacetime. Thus when one frame talks about wavelength they are fundamentally talking about a completely different thing than when any other frame talks about wavelength. Similarly with T and T'. One thing that this implies is that λ and T are not just properties of the wave, but also reflect the observer (they are frame variant).

    On the other hand, k and k' have different coordinates, but the same direction and length, and they are actually the same vector in spacetime. Thus when one frame talks about wavevectors they are fundamentally talking about the same thing as when any other frame talks about a wavevector. In the same manner this implies that k is essentially independent of the observer (it is frame invariant), which is why it is a frame invariant description of a wave.

    I hope this clears up some of your confusion about waves in SR as well as wavelengths and wavevectors.

    -Dale
     
  12. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Dalespam,
    You says that your diagram the unprimed referential is the one at rest as opposed as what we have been writing untill now so we must take care.

    Well, you can see in your own diagram that λ (v=0) is finite while you have already wrote λ'=infinity in some posts above:
    According to your k formulation (just De Broglie law) applied at the referential of the moving object λ must be infinite while your graphics (just Lorentz Transform in graphic form) shows that if λ' is finite λ must also be finite.

    Here is the same contradiction or inconsistency just in the illustrative way of your graphic.

    And which is the problem? As I said before many times, the problem is that De Broglie relation λ=h/mγv is NOT INVARIANT.
    It cannot be applied in any frame, is valid at a "Rest Referential in the Universe" only!

    De Broglie formula DEMANDS a "Rest Frame" or "Fixed Frame" in the Universe!
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2006
  13. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    martillo, you apparently did not read very carefully. I said explicitly at the very beginning of my post that "My comments have nothing to do directly with the deBroglie relationship that we are discussing, but only to describe very basic relativistic wave geometric concepts that you are missing." There is nothing contradictory in my picture, I told you at the beginning that this illustration was unrelated to the results I derived earlier and should not be considered it in the context of the deBroglie discussion. It is only meant to demonstrate the geometry of waves and wavevectors in SR spacetime. Also, I carefully mentioned that the wave illustrated here was traveling at c to the left, so obviously it does not represent a deBroglie wave of a massive particle moving at some v less than c.

    Please look at the illustration again and my explanation. The important points here have nothing directly to do with deBroglie. It is your obvious misunderstanding of waves, wavevectors, wavelengths, simultaneity, or the Lorentz transform that I am attempting to address here.


    Then we agree: λ=h/mγv is not invariant. It is therefore not a general law of physics.

    -Dale
     
  14. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Dalespam,
    I understand perfectly enough those subjects, it is you that don't "get" problem I present.
    You prefer to work with space-time graphics then I will wait for a similar diagram applied to the De Broglie wave of a moving object from you showing λ, λ' and k to see the problem graphically.
     
  15. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    You do not understand the subjucts very well at all. If you did you would not say the many stupid things you have been saying here. You have specifically claimed that wavevectors are not four-vectors (that they do not Lorentz transform correctly or are not invariant). You have specifically claimed that wavelengths should Lorentz transform. This graphic refutes both of your claims geometrically as did my previous algebraic analysis.

    The fact that you cannot point out any specific errors in my math or my geometry is very illuminating. When you derived something mathematically I was able immediately to point out the specific error. You, on the other hand, have not been able to point out a single misplaced line or point in my geometry nor a single misplaced variable in my algebra. Your general hand waving and repeated claims of some unspecified mistake are insufficient.


    I encourage you to go through the very useful exercise yourself then. What I have drawn here is sufficient for the points I am making. Specifically:

    1) The wave crests are not discrete points (events) in spacetime between which a single unambiguous line can be drawn to measure distance, but instead wave crests are lines in spacetime between which an infinite number of lines may be drawn to measure distance.

    2) Not only do λ and λ' have different coordinates, different directions, and different lengths, but they are actually completely different vectors in spacetime.

    3) On the other hand, k and k' have different coordinates, but the same direction and length, and they are actually the same vector in spacetime.

    The deBroglie waves also fill all these properties. The infinite v finite wavelengths you are interested in is simply an extreme example of the different wavelengths I have already presented here. Please try to become educated on the concept of waves and wavevectors, I highly recommend that you go through the same exercise I did.

    -Dale
     
  16. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Dalespam,
    It's worthless goin on with this.
    Bye.
     
  17. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you think that your own education is worthless.

    While you beat your hasty retreat I will note the following results from our discussion: You presented one set of concrete calculations which I immediately analyzed and specifically reported your one small but critical mistake. I presented one set of concrete calculations and one careful diagram, neither of which you even attempted to analyze carefully or respond to specifically. Every point you have brought up has been thouroghly refuted by myself and others, while most of our counter-points have been entirely ignored by you. Finally, despite the fact that you have been the main impediment to progress on this thread you are the one walking out on the discussion.

    I reiterate my suggestion that you find a religious group where your search for "truth" through repetitive chanting of unsubstantiated and illogical slogans will be more appropriate.

    -Dale
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2006
  18. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Suggestion dennied.
    I have important things to do in Physics.
    Not with you of course.
     
  19. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    martillo: don't you realize that, by ignoring science and logic and continuing to advertise your theories in the hope of gaining a few supporters, you are following Dale's suggestion (with the exception that you are trying to start your own group instead of joining an existing one)?
     
  20. martillo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    864
    Logic is sacred for me but not some current scientific theories.
    Nothing to do with you neither.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2006
  21. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Based on the number of non-sequiturs you've posted in this thread, there's a lot you still need to learn about logic. The problem is, you don't realize what you don't know.
    I was referring to your lack of familiarity with and respect for the scientific method. You can continue to sweep rebuttals to your points under the carpet if you want, but don't then call your work science. You're right about one thing: if you'll never take scrutiny seriously, or at least be open to the possibility that maybe resurrecting classical physics is not the best way to develop fundamental physics, this thread is pointless.
     
  22. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    Hehehe, I agree. Like learning "PHYS 101: Introductory physics".


    If that were true then you would have at least been able to respond to my algebra and geometry. Math is the language of logic.

    -Dale
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2006
  23. S.Ingvar Registered Member

    Messages:
    6

Share This Page