Some problems with light speed barrier.

Paul T.,

Your statements are only partially true. All four have been scrutinized in every imaginable detail and no know natural (inluding solar) or man made (equipment) can account for the affct. One of the findings was that regardless of the crafts orientation being extra solar or intra-solar in position changd the affect being seen.

Yes, it is indeed my own concept which comes straight out of UniKEF which predicted infact that distance would be found to be variable. Until and unless some other cause is found I am taking this as evidence of that prediction.

I know that the energy to accelerate particles and the momentum delivered by such particles still causes physicists to assume mass increased. Bu that is not tho only explanation for the data and observation. I do not believe "Relavistic Mass" is an actual mass change. Now that is not a disagreement with mass which could be attributed to a linear calculation of
rest mass moving with kenetic energy at the same velocity.

No that is not the issue. The issue has to do with the v = c limit imposed by observers. I contend that the observer does not restrict the terminal velocity performance of the rocket (velocity being in relation to Vo at To of the start of acceleration) and that the rocket ceases to exist to such observers by Lorentz Contraction. That view would be consistant with observations of traverse FTL objects in space.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly, scrutiny is never over. There is always more to imagine!

Secondly, it is not well accepted that the effect can't be accounted for.

There are a wide variety of ideas being examined in current literature.
Some are weird and wonderful: Mirror-world dust? Complex time? Time-varying G? Fifth force?
Some are more mundane: Non-isotropic heat radiation? Local effect of cosmic expansion? Gravitational interaction of signals with interplanetary dust?

(As an aside, the wide range of seriously considered ideas is an interesting measure of just how close-minded the "establishment" are, don't you think?)

Here are some relevant articles:
ScienceDirect
NASA Astrophysics Data System

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pete,

Yes, I agree and UniKEF could be one of those considerations. To my knowledge it is the only one that predicted distance would vary with gravity between bodies.

Perhaps we see this differently. There is a difference in being dogged about finding an answer and being convienced that there is a mundane answer just around the corner. It has been over a decade and as you note below the ideas are starting to become rather diverse and bizzar.

And there is nothing wrong with exploring those ideas. I do not believe I have stated anything to the contrary. I said "If they continue to be unexplained, or continue to show increasing error, etc, etc.

Not sure of your intent here. I don't believe I have suggested they have been closed minded.

Thanks they look interesting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM,

I may not need to ask you to provide calculation showing that your UniKEF theory exactly account all the deviation, as I believe you don't have any. Since you are unable to make any serious computation using your UniKEF, why do you so sure that the theory could resolve those probes problem?

Don't forget that the deviation were found only for those probes, but not the planets. As I have raised ealier, those probes are not very far out from solar system and two of them are indeed still within the solar system. How could your UniKEF explain this?

Do you accept kinetic energy formulation in SR, K = E - E_o? E is what ealier recognized as "relativistic mass". If you think that this is not a real mass, you missed the point. Think about this. Atom has fast moving electrons (and protons and quarks and so on and so on). A portion of atoms/molecules (rest) mass is indeed the kinetic energy of those elemetary particles. I know no ways to separate rest mass from relativistic mass. If you know, please share it with us.

Mass in the form of kinetic energy is just as real as rest mass. How do you explain this situation?

First of all your direct jump into v=c condition is a wrong move. How do you get that condition in the first place? If you can't get something with rest mass to move at v=c, what the point of arguing such as the rocket ceases to exist, etc?

You seem to still fond with your same old argument which ignoring the true meaning of your rocket velocity. When you say your rocket has velocity of 0.6c, for example, you should also mention the reference frame for this velocity. You could say the velocity is relative to your starting point or, since your rocket departed from earth, it simply relative to earth. It's not that the existence of earth or observer on earth imposes velocity limit to your rocket.

I think it is almost impossible for you to understand the issue as you seem to having problem with reference frame concept. Without your attempt to use the correct reference frame in your evaluation, it is impossible to discuss the issue constructively.

 

Paul T.,

You are correct. UniKEF is for the most part simply a concept devoid math. However, in the case of gravity it does have some limited calculus support. It is the gravity aspect of UniKEF that I am now concentrating on to expand the math and hopefully start to get some serious consideration.

I am not sure at all either about UniKEF or specifically that it resolves the probe issue. But it certainly is intriguging that the probes are showing an affect that UniKEF predicted. And while there has been no quantitative assessment of the affect, it is clearly indicated in the UniKEF text that it would be minor for small masses and over relatively short distances (cosomologically speaking). So it seems to be in a general range that could be anticipated and it would be a consequence of UniKEF gravity, if UniKEF gravity is correct. We simply don't know that yet but we do know that it has a mathematical start which is verifiable.

The affect virtually lays in lines (CoS's) between massive bodies. Being in the solar system creates a complex array of gravity links. While the affect may be to subtle to distinguish as yet, I would expect they would find more variation in the speed for those moving internally in the solar system than those that are leaving the solar system. At this juncture the affect is barely measureable and subtle differences are beyond reliable detection.

I don't have a problem of calling kenetic energy mass but my position is that the gamma function doesn't apply to its energy, hence a mass increase. The failure of super massive relavistic bodies from displaying increased gravitational affects supports the concept that what actually happens is that energy being applied becomes less efficienctly transfered to the acceleration. Just as there is a growing EM front to relavistic bodies in motion, the energy being applied also may be going in to space and stored, not accelerating the body making it appear harder to accelerate. Upon slowing down, just as the EM wave fronts contracts, so would energy return to the application of accleration of the body (like a flywheel affect) causing the body to appear to have excessive momentum relative to its rest mass * velocity, hence further causing the view that mass had increased more than mv, when infact no relavistic mass change actually occured.

I don't contest the energy mass relationship. I contest the application of Relativity's gamma function to that relationship.

Keeping in mind that I agree particles in particle accelerators display the infinite mass, infinite acceleration energy syndrome, my view is that the same does not apply to a rocket wherein the accelerating energy is in the same frame as the thrusting rocket. There is no relative velocity between the energy source and the rocket load. There is no restriction on the rockets continued acceleration and instead of being prohibited from reaching v = c by any number of observers at different velocities, I suggest that the observers are being subjected to "Perceptional" affects and do not stop the rocket from ceasing to exist via Lorentz Contraction. There is no instantaneous jump to v = c.

I have said it is relative to To or Vo the starting point of applying thrust to the rocket. It has no physical relationship to any of trillions of observers in the universe. Some of which are already moving over 90%c. Perhaps you would like to comment as to whether these remote galaxies moving 95% c have actually demonstrated spatial contraction. If we observe an object moving at 95%c and we move in a vector opposite do you truly think the rockets ability to movein that direction is restrained by the other objects motion. I know you do but I reject that concept outright. Do you not realize that if you accept that view that objects approaching v = c (of which we observe numerous) should appear to be getting closer not further away? If indeed an object reached v = c in your view then distance between us and it contracts to "zero". It would be in contact with us. No I am afraid there are several loose ends to the view.

An object moving at 95% c relative to us measures to be 13 B ly away. Gamma in that case is 0.3122. Are you suggesting it will be 41.63 B ly away if we could somehow stop its motion relative to us????

I couldn't disagree more. I don't have a reference frame problem. I reject as false the gamma application between frames. Not that we don't see such an affect in some data but that the true cause of such observation is not properly understood and has caused erroneous conjecture about many aspects of untested and unobserved Relativity predictions.

I have looked at Relativity objectively. Can you make the same statement about UniKEF Gravity?

http://www.paygency.com/

 

MacM,

You said that your UniKEF devoid math. Since the additional gravitational acceleration to Pioneers is in the range of only about 10^-10m/s², a computation based on your UniKEF may yield, say, 10^-5m/s². Then, your claim would be all wrong.

Exactly! You have nothing to hold for making the above claim. If I were you, I wouldn't dare to claim that those probes behave as predicted by UniKEF.

I don't understand your UniKEF and, sorry, have no intention to know more than what I had already seen here. And, actually what I meant about being in the solar system was that, if those probes follow your UniKEF, so must the planets. As you know, the planets do not behave that way. To me this is a key information.

So, what's wrong with K = E - E_o? E is equal to <FONT FACE=Symbol>g</FONT> E_o. Don't you agree?

Consider a rocket moving at velocity v ejects mass m at velocity u (both m and u are as viewed by the rocket observers, and assume u <<< c). Momentum of the ejected mass viewed by earth observers is <FONT FACE=Symbol>g</FONT> mu. Using F=dp/dt and a=F/m we can compute acceleration according to both rocket and earth observer. Relationship between the two are a' = a/<FONT FACE=Symbol>g</FONT>, where a and a' are respectively acceleration according to rocket and earth observers. Since <FONT FACE=Symbol>g</FONT> increases with v, a' decreases with v (although a can be kept constant).

I don't really understand your point. Please show me how the above computation should be done as per your idea, so that I would know what your idea really is.

Earlier I said that "relativistic mass" gained by rocket is limited, because the rocket -- in practice -- could only bring a limited amount of fuel. "Relativistic mass" gained by a self-propelled rocket always less than the total energy supplied by the fuel burning, whatever kind of fuel; chemical or nuclear or matter/anti-matter. However, this doesn't mean that self-propelled rocket does not obey SR. It does exactly like particles in particle accelerator.

When I said you jumped straight into condition v=c, I meant you shouldn't assume that you could achieve v=c without passing v<c and following that unavoidable path of a' = a/<FONT FACE=Symbol>g</FONT>, for instance.

Here your problem. You seem to think that those To and Vo condition are belonging to rocket reference frame all the time. That's not true. The rocket has those conditions only initially, after accelerating those To and Vo are no longer belonging to the rocket reference frame (which is a non inertial one). To and Vo remain in the earth reference frame and therefore I always insist that you have to refer back to earth to measure your rocket velocity.

I won't comment on this while you have yet to realised that SR is applicable for rocket as well as particles in the particle accelerator.

I tend to see that your theory is not worth pursuing. You seem to care only on what your theory can predict (although only qualitatively, which is indeed not adequate) or explain but ignore what your theory failed to predict. Of course I don't expect your theory to predict the coming lottery number, but at least it must be able to explain some simple fact based on its first principle, not based on further polished treatment.

May be I just give you a few examples. You said your theory says that the source of gravity is not from the mass itself, but from external -- so called UniKEF field. Where those field coming from is a big problem, but let's ignore that for the moment. The act of gravitational force require complex blocking of those fields and therefore size of bodies and whether the body consist of solid material or gas are, logically, crucial. Our experience shows that size of body and its constituent seem to have no effect on gravitational force. I see this as the big failure of your theory.

O, may be you would say..."hey, my theory require no dark matter!" To me the simple and obvious thing are more important than those debatable issue. For example, if you go into a cave, why do you still pulled by earth gravity? Shouldn't the cave block the field? You can't say the field penetrate the cave and than it blocked by your body. If cave can't block it, how can your body? As per your theory, without blocking of uniKEF field, there is no gravity! This stopped me from trying to understand your theory. The problem is not on the math, its basic principle just doesn't make sense. Anyway, this is my personal opinion. You have been pursuing this theory since 50 years ago, it's too late for you to stop.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Paul T,

You said that your UniKEF devoid math. Since the additional gravitational acceleration to Pioneers is in the range of only about 10-10m/s2, a computation based on your UniKEF may yield, say, 10-5m/s2. Then, your claim would be all wrong.

Absolutely but at this juncture it has neither been validated nor invalidated, it is just a curious anomaly which trends in a manner predicted for "Variable Distance" of space, a UniKEF predicted consequence of gravity.

You are trying to read to much into my words. What they are doing IS precisely what "Variable Distance" would look like if UniKEF is valid. While it has not been "Quantitatively" shown to be within UniKEF parameters neither you nor anyonelse had even predicted such a phenomena. So don't cut me short before it is shown that the two may not be related. I certainly think I have a right and justification to make note of the fact that I predicted this type of bizzar action once in deep space.

As you said you don't understand UniKEF and to then assert that something does or does not follow UniKEF is a senseless statement. I fail to see your point about planetary motion and I DO understand UniKEF. Perhaps once UniKEF passes peer review and is published your attitude about not wanting to know or understand it might change - what do you want to bet.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To all of this I would have to say "So What". What does that have to do with the topic of discussion? v and u are components of velocity addition. There is nothing wrong with v + u. It is the (v + u)/(1 + vu/c^2) that I disagree with. I really don't care what perception earth observers have. I am interested only in the rocket frame for its physics.

Simple stop using Relativity's gamma function for uninvolved observers in a physical process as limiting factors for the physical process. Observers cannot and do not affect (or limit) physical processes of other frames.

Posted by Paul T: "However, this doesn't mean that self-propelled rocket does not obey SR. It does exactly like particles in particle accelerator.Here is where you screw up (don't feel bad you aren't alone). There is substantial difference in the physics of a particle being accelerated by a particle accelerater and a self propelled particle or rocket. In the particle accelerator the energy being applied has to chase the particle and ends up having substantial relavistic velocity between the energy source and the mass being accelerated. A self-propelled object there is no relative velocity between the energy source and the load mass. Your statement shows a lack of basic understanding. If I am standing on a tennis court and swing the racquet hitting a ball momentarialy tossed up and at rest relative to me I can supply far more energy to the ball than I could if you drove by me along the road side and tossed out the ball in front of my swing. To give the ball equal acceleration I would have to apply more energy into my swing to hit the ball. In the case of a rocket the ball is always at rest relative to the energy of the acceleration.

What I shouldn't assume is that anything external to my own physics of my inertial frame has any bearing what-o-ever on performance.

Only if you choose to accept the interpretation of Relativity in areas which are not tested, observed or have any proof. Your views are tainted by virtue of mininterpretation of data and observations you do have. They have other alternative explanations - i.e. Relavistic Mass being one such case.

I thought not since you have no good reply and your comment about the equality between particles in particle accelertor and rockets proves your lack of simple understandings of what the difference is, for there is certainly demonstrateable differences.

Pathetic response, you do know that don't you? Personally I don't give a damn if you like UniKEF or not. What I care about is a better understanding of our universe, be it UniKEF or not. Until you show mathematically that UniKEF gravity is in error (currently verified at least in part by calculus - twice) then shut the hell up and knock off the personal put downs. You actually show an error and fine it is a dead horse but your bullshit comments are far more meaningless than the work I have done on this and the support that it has received so far. I don't see as you have made any predictions what-so-ever. I have made over a dozen which have been found true over these 50 years. There are some yet to be seen but NONE that have been falsified. So when you achieve that come back and talk to me. Maybe we could communicate at that time. Your attitude makes this a waste of time. You openly stae you don't understand it and don't want to understand it but then want to make claims about it like you are an authority about it. Really curious mental juggeling.

I would say based on the above statement that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. "Size and Density" have no bearing on the force of gravity????? LOL - :bugeye: The origin of the UniKEF field is far less of a problem than having no cause what-so-ever for a bunch of mumbo-jumbo mathematics.

You can't truely be this dense. Of course gravity is reduced in a cave and in the center of the earth (assuming it were homogeneous) you would be exposed to a gravity "Null" Perhaps you should ask this question of others here. I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it after all as you have so clearly pointed out I don't know anything. HeHeHe.

BTW in a few hours I am leaving on vactation, so if I don't respond for awhile I am not ignoring you and you haven't bowled me over with your "tough" questions. HeHeHe. Have a nice nap.

 

James R.,

It is 11:40PM and I am getting up and hitting the road at 3:30AM, so I'll make this short, probably to short but your questions seem extremely basic.

The earth (m1) is of course the origin of most of the force but the mass of the person (m2) is also part of the process. As the UniKEF field penetrates m1 is is attenuated in that vector by either elastic scattering or inelastic absorbtion. That induces a momentum force transfer into m1 toward m2. The field continues (in a weakened state) and penetrates m2 and likewise induces a momentum force transfer into m2 but in the same vector as m1, not toward it. The field is homogeneous and omni-diretional and hence there is an opposing sequence where UniKEF first penetrates m2 with full energy and induces momentum force in m2 toward m1, it too continues on in a weakened state and penetrate m1 transferring momentum into m1 in the vector that it did in m2. A summation of these forces will show there are greater momentum transfers pushing m1 and m2 toward each other than there are forces pushing them apart.

Assuming it to be spherical and homogeneous, you will have equal momentum transfers from every direction a condition of balanced forces, no net force.

That is a function of the geometry of the earth and the integration of the volumes of mass penetration including the trigonometry value of the angle of penetration. Not only is the energy - momentum transfer maximum along the line of the center of gravity because it penetrates the largest amount of mass but the trig function is 1.000. As you start to penetrate from various angles the total mass penetrated (hence amount of energy - momentum transfer) decreases; plus whatever force created must now be adjusted by the trig value Cosine Theta) to convert its push to the amount of push in the line of gravity.

Does that answer your questions?

 

*Nothing* has been verified about the calculus, the ultimate conclusion was ... inconclusive. But this is typically your style Mac, we're getting used to it by now.

And the real funny part is where you say "YOU show me MATHEMATICALLY". You don't understand a thing about the maths behind any decent theory anyway, so stop pretending that you do. And surely stop asking us to do your work for you. A theory is not "valid until proven otherwise", by definition you have to PROVE that it is valid. You have not done anything like that, so stop pretending that UniKEF is of any scientific significance whatsoever.

The same old phrase again. You predicted nothing Mac, you wouldn't even recognize a scientific prediction if it came in a 24-floor building with a flashing fluorescent sign hanging above the entrance saying "i am a scientific prediction" [/blackadder].

But I already know what your reply to this message is going to be... You will probably ignore me, saying that I have contributed nothing to the conversation (yeah, I gave up on you a long time ago already, as most of us have). Then you will say I am wrong, that indeed UniKEF has predicted loads of things, even though nowhere there exists a calculation saying "hence the slowing speed of space probes is v_{slowdown} = 10^{-10} m/s" or something along the lines of "a mass of 1kg. is attracted to the earth by a gravitational force of 9.81 m/s^2".

Before you want to do science, better first learn what science is about. It is *not* about explaining the fundamental how's and why's. You are in the wrong business if you think that is what science can do for you, and anybody who claims otherwise makes the same mistake; if you want an answer to these questions, then go to the philosophy forum where they will gladly welcome you.

 

RawThinkTank
I have been skimming through this thread for some time and it was only when I decided to go to the opening post of the thread wih the question, what couldd have started this thread that gave it such robust longevity? My opinion is that the form of he question demands the reader to consider what they use as supporing reference for what they understand. We can all remember some professor lecturing on SR/GR and telling us that the paticle energy and velocity is limited by some imposition of physical law. Even without Lorentz or Einstein the experimental reality of economic limits to velocity and energy exits. he questions are reflections of basic SR/GR, thoough the reader is forced to take one and only one of at least, two possible courses of action. These courses are, plug in SR/GR theory or think about the problem in terms of the current or past or future level of understanding of what physical law is all about.

I believe that hih energy accelerations demonstrate that the energy v velocity curve falls on the theortetical value calculated by e ~ 1/(1 - v[sup]2/[sup])[sup]1/2[/sup] within experimental lmits. It is also clear to me that the equation, or the numbers generated by the term isn't really a physical law. The term is a demonstration of the limits of energy achievable when designing accelerators using the technology and physics known at the time. It says, to me, if you want to make this thing go faster, one has to get the accelerted particle off the SR/GR curve, by some method that apparently has not been attempted up to now. There are some who say the limit is absolute and point to the simple equaton above. Others aren't so sure, but we all know that SR/GR theory is the slam dunk winner in a popularity contest.

let us examine the quetion again. Stuff thrown oout the back of the ship doesn't do the job as effieciently as at lower velocities. By effeicency I mean as energy achievemnt is the point 1 unit of energy produces 1 unit of energy increase, until the the effiiciency curve starts to slip at "higher energy". Why does this happen? Well, the first suggestion of the writer is to speculate that God may not have wanted it. Maybe so, but did God produce a velociity limited universe? I don't know but then I don't care what God intended except there is the slightest grain of truth in your speculation.

The tower of Babel was destroyed by "God" because the people were building a tower that was going to be high enouigh to reach heaven. This must be taken in context. I will just spill out the histropical interpretation thue. The scriptures discuss God rising into heaven and descending from heaven, someimes in loud noisty and firey vesslels. space ships. The biblical "name" that the people were making for themj selves is interpreted as some egotistical need to be like God, therfore build a tall building and simply climb the stairs, or build the structure that would be useful ad a space port.
Gods being what the are projected to be using this slant, it isn't difficult to understand that God don't need no 'stinking people in heaven'.

So is the limit expressed by the term above a limit on velocty?

If the efficiency of accelerating energy exchange processes decreases, why does it do so?Some would reactively respond, bexcaue of SR/GR limitations. Others would look at the mass term, for instance and recognize that there is more informtion to examine. The mass increases. Does this men that more stuff gets packed on the electron? Not necessaruily, but we can't exclude the possibility out of hand.

Asking what is energy in the simplest terms, we may cionslude that energy is a emasure of some vibrational rate for a definable unit of mass. Increasing the energy through acceleration (therby emitting photons) means increasing the vibrational rate of the mass.

I performed a simple gedunken once that had some mass vibrating faster and fastr, Wthin two extrema I could see tha the higher vibraiional rates meant that a certain mamount of mass began to fill a "time " volume. One mass unit soending more and more time with in a volume limt would effectivel be seen as a mass increase.

As the electron loads a unit acceleraing phonons
a process is recognizable as a very necessity. Nothjing happens instantaneously, except getting fired maybe. But energy has to be loaded and stored for use as velocity enhancement. Now as the vibational ate increase the onboard load scheme becomes taxed such that a lot od=f enegy gets crammed up on the receiving dock instead of processed smoothly an a state of equilibriuw.

Why does the electron radiate only during acceleration? To maintain an enegy balance, not of the conservation of energy postulate but as a mechanila equilibriuem control mechanism.There is just so much the electron can absorb and, the radiation process must be tied in critically with mass increases, the energy exchange processes, storage and and force exchanges.

Is there such an experimetal technique of coherent frequency matching beteween particle , field and the partucle processing mechanisms? Who knows? However, if one wants to exceed the speed of light they had best burn their relativity theory books that operate fiunctionally as mental ruminating inhibitors.

nor for a second, since joining this forum, have I seriously contempalted that SR/GR is deserving as a place in the archives of known physical law. Certainly, while presently busy analyzing "simultaneity" problems and concluding SR/GR is system imposed to expressly channel high energy physics away from actually doing it, that is, exceeding he speed of light.

How can it be done? First, analyze the system for possible energy coherence matching ports and then ask yourself the genuinely imprtant qestion of "where does quantum mechanics enter into all of this?" Pick a seam. When I started reading J.S. Bell I finally came to a level of understanding the importance of his statement, actually proven, that any model of quanum events is incomplete in the absence of nonlocal force exchanges. It becam a fixed opinion that classical models were not manifestations of the incompleteness of quantum particle descriptions.These models are diferent, thay is all.

What are nonlocal force exchanges? Stern-Gerlach transition experiments, two-hole diffration, particle collisions, Mossbauer Effect and so on. But the inclusion pf nonlocal terms in the defining mathematics is most often void of expess nonlocal elements of the observed state.

An example of an incomplete model is of a quantum particle event sequence where a spin-1 particle, meaning there are three possible spin states, up, flat or down, the particle is seen to move in. Taking a +S state particle and passing the particle through an unobstructed Stern-Gerlach T segment, which is identical to a S segment except the T segment is rotated around the direction of motion of travel of the particle is S-> T -> S.

The simplest statement of the processes goes as S -> T -> S, where the S-> T is the polarization event, the T -> S the depolrization event (moving into and out of, inhomogeneous magnetic field volumes).

How does a compass needle return to north after perturbation? The earth's magneic fields do all the work. In the t-> S depolarization there is no existing field to provide either1) the required force to 2) reorient the particle's spin vector direction indicator, the paricle's central navigation unit.

So we will just bluntly insert some nonlocal elemens into the transforamtion description as +S =S(100) and similarly for the +- and - sates. We make no physical assumptions attributable to the nonlocal elements except to recognize an inferred connection with the unused trajectories of the segment. Cast in concrete rule: An S polarized particle will become poalrized to a SG channel directon up or down , or z = 0, along a line imposed on the Z-axis. The direction is the self imposed direction of motion along the line, hene ghe proper use of mathematical vector notation os authorized.

There is much, much more, but have you seen that polarization would go something like (P) -> T(00) = T(1 00 00[T]) an overkill version of ithe inclusion of nonloal enetities. During the 2nd event the process goes as,

(Pinv)T(1 00 00[T]) -> ( _ 00 _ _ ) ->. S(00) = S (100) = +S

What was the most stable element in the process? The element that exhibited the longest unperturbed longevity, the nonlocal elements, 00[S} which effectiveky provided the force exchange guarantee of the reformaion of the +S state. These, nonlocal elements are unobserved and exi9stence critical to the observed state.

Well, this could go on so I will conclude the lecture. Any interested souls wanting a slightly more in depth look try using a gaphics rich, mathematics poor tutorial One mentor described the web page as "impenetrable" which I attest is nothing more than a life time attachment to quabntum theory. Oh yes, did I mention, the tutorial is heretical?

Does a mechanically reoriented spin vetor, polarized first to a T direction and supported thus by force of the field, then reforming in the exact same spin state of the particle at entry into the magnetic field/gradient volume deserve the descriptiove nomenclatre of inertial platform?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Everybody says things have been proved in particle accelerators but no one questions the mechanism. What if it is the particle accelerators problem, ie. If the propulsion mechanism of PA or the thing that pushes the particle in PA itself is at speed of light then there is no way it can push anything beyond that speed.

 

Not only in particle accelerators, there are also the classic muon lifetime example for special relativity. It is also a good idea to realize that general relativity encompasses special relativity, so the "classic" proofs there (precession of the planet mercurius, gravitiational lensing, ... ) are also proofs for the special relativity.

The "special" effects such as time dilatation only occur at very high speeds (v approximately the speed of light), which immediatelly explains why SR is important for acceleration experiments, and why it is often said that "the particle accelerators support the theory of SR" -- all predictions work out fine there! But you need to take into account that there is a lot more supporting experimental evidence (books have been written full about them).

Regarding the "particle accelerators use fields which only move at the speed of light comment" -- this is only true from the frame of reference for someone in the laboratory. From the particle's point of view, the electromagnetic fields still "approach" them (because of the lack of a better word) at the speed of light -- which is exactly what SR postulates.

It has been said _many_ times on this forum already, but I will repeat it once again: the theory of relativity does not *require* that massive objects are constrained to move at speeds v < c. It only assumes that the speed of light (i.e. the speed of electromagnetic fields) in vacuum is c for all observers. The fact that you cannot accelerate an object from v = 0 to v = c is a *consequence* of this postulate. The postulate itself is confirmed by other experiments (e.g. radioactive decay at high speeds, where emitted photons still move at the speed of light, even if the decaying particle moves almost at c too), and this is not related to the acceleration mechanism of the particle accelerators themselves.

Bye!

Crisp

 

by Crisp:

"Not only in particle accelerators, there are also the classic muon lifetime example for special relativity. It is also a good idea to realize that general relativity encompasses special relativity, so the "classic" proofs there (precession of the planet mercurius, gravitiational lensing, ... ) are also proofs for the special relativity."
===========================================================

The muon example of inferred confirmation of time dilation and length contraction is
flawed. The reasoning that more muons reach the surface of the Earth than their
mean lifetimes would indicate is based on 'old' understandings. Back in the good old
days, only one decay scheme producing muons was known. That was the 'cosmic
rays' entering the atmosphere decayed into pions, then muons, etc. More decay
schemes are known today. The muon neutrinos are an example. They are stable, unlike a regular muon's mean life of 2.2 ms. The only
present way of detecting them is by their muon component, the neutrinos themselves
are not detectable except by weight change of the muon neutrino as it decays. In
other words, the stable muon neutrino is detected as a muon as it travels to the Earth.
No time dilation or length contraction of the atmosphere necessary for them to be
detected at the surface as a 'presumed' muon. Precession of Mercury and gravitational
lensing have nothing to do with simultaneity, time dilation or length contraction. They
are strictly General Relativity predictions.
===============================================================

by Crisp:

"The postulate itself is confirmed by other experiments (e.g. radioactive decay at high speeds, where emitted photons still move at the speed of light, even if the decaying particle moves almost at c too), and this is not related to the acceleration mechanism of the particle accelerators themselves."
==============================================================

I am not aware of the photon being measured to move at 'c' away from the particle
IN THE PARTICLE'S frame of reference, as well as the outside observer's frame. I do
not think anyone disputes that we measure the photon's velocity as invarient, however, just SR's explaination of that phenomena to propose lenght contraction,
time dilation and simultaniety as consquencies.

 

2inquisitive,

How do you explain about time dilation for unstable particles (including muon) in particle accelerators? In fact, many detected particles could be seen because they move close to the speed of light and therefore their life time expand relative to laboratory observers.

I don't know any easy way to determine whether neutrino has mass or not, since we could not measure its mass directly. As you mentioned about the weight change of muon neutrino, I wonder if you could give me some idea on how to measure the weight and weight change of muon neutrino. As you said weight, I presumed it must have something to do with gravity, as per W = mg. The mass of neutrino is questionable, while g is just 9.8m/s²; how to determine W or change of W for muon neutrino?

Light speed of c according to any observers is a postulate in SR. SR does not prove it as the case, but simply use it, as that what's postulate really mean. We don't question or test the validity of a postulate using a theory developed based on the respective postulate. Saying that light speed is c according to any observers as SR show us so, is a wrong statement. If light speed is not the same according to any observers, SR must be wrong as its basic postulate is incorrect.

 

So you are saying that the incredibly light muon neutrinos can be mistakenly detected as muons ? I am no particle physicist, but this seems very unlickely to me. Neutrinos are weakly interacting particles, while muons are ... "regularly interacting" particles (like electrons). I would think that neutrinos (and especially the "do they have mass or not") question would have been answered in the 30's-40's, shortly after the muon discovery, if they would interact regulary and if they could have been "mistaken" for regular muons.

If you say that general relativity is correct (i.e. that it works to describe relativity) then you are also saying that special relativity is correct. I don't see how you can seperate them -- because of the intimate connection of the Lorentz group with GR which incorporates the very time dilatation and length contraction of SR -- but then again I am not an expert in GR. Perhaps someone else more educated on GR can comment here.

There is no possible way (logically) to interrupt the proces of going from postulate "speed of light is constant" to time dilatation and length contraction (and the failure of simultaniety). This is a matter of following the mathematical steps and derivations (which are unrelated to SR I should say). If you disagree with time dilatation/length contraction, then you are disagreeing with the fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers.

If you believe you have time dilatation and length contraction but disagree on how SR explains them... then you are hereby invited to propose an alternative

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. The "SR explanation" is through the Lorentz group, which seems to be a fundamental transformation group for nature, and it incorporates length contraction and time dilatation with as few assumptions as possible (or rather: as unbiased as possible). I don't see how you can fiddle around with those to reproduce the time dilatation and length contraction you believe in without introducing additional assumptions. Then I will pull out my Occam's razor

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Bye!

Crisp

 

by Paul T:

"How do you explain about time dilation for unstable particles (including muon) in particle accelerators? In fact, many detected particles could be seen because they move close to the speed of light and therefore their life time expand relative to laboratory observers."
===========================================================

I don't know all the answers. How do you explain one way to increase the muon's
lifetime is to cool them by slowing them down? MuCool is one of the processes used.
They do it in particle accererators so they can collect more stable muons to use in
neutrino experiments. And they have detected the mass of neutrinos now. I am sure
you are familar with the three types, the electron neutrino (the least massive) the
muon neutrino (I don't remember exactly, but about a thousand times as massive as
the electron neutrino) and the tau neutrino (I belive it is something like a hundred times as massive as the muon neutrino, not sure). I used the wrong term when I said
weight, I should have said mass. They were initially hoping to record the mass change
of the muon neutrino as it decayed and the neutrino was seperated in the proposed
Large Hadron Collider, but they now estimate it would take an accelerator hundreds
of kilometers long to catch the stable muon neutrino in decay. I think they now use
labs located deep underground in mines and such to detect the decay. And I suppose
you know that some neutrinos are thought to be tachyons by some of the researchers
in particle physics. The Large Hadron Collider is to search for them when it is completed. Particle speeds in particle accelerators are not 'measured', they are calculated using SR. As the energy of a particle increases, calculations are made
based on SR to determine its 'assumed' speed. It works fine as a relative scale, but
is the increased energy of the particle due only to an increase in speed, or could it
be due to an increased absorption of the energy used to accelerate it and an increase
in the particle's kinetic energy? Again, I do not question that we measure the speed
of information as invarient and this is attributed to the speed of light, but what I am
not convinced of is Einstein's Theory Of Special Relativity to propose length contraction, time dilation and simultaniety as the conquencies of this phenomenon
and them being REAL effects rather than something that is perceived by the outside
observer, a distortion from his frame of reference. In other words, when the travelling
twin is reunited with his brother after his trip, I have not seen enough evidence to
convince me the travelling twin will actually have aged less. Special Relativity's 'proofs'
are being found inconclusive, one after another.

 

Crisp, the muon neutrino is a combination of two particles, the muon and the neutrino,
and has the mass of both.

 

I'm not sure about this, but I think that the reason for cooling muons before accelerating them is not decrease the spread of energy and angle in the muon stream after they've been produced by decaying pions and before they are accelerated. It has to be done very quickly - the lifetime of a muon is only a couple of microseconds.

Where did you read that cooling muons increases their lifetime?

 

Pete, I can't find the original paper I read. The paper was about neutrinos oscilations
and I believe it was from physicists at the Japan Collider. I do have a basic link about
it though, from Fermi National Labs feasibility study on Neutrino Factories. A cut:

"8
Intense Muon Source Recipe
1. Make as many charged pions as possible
Ø INTENSE PROTON SOURCE
(In practice this seems to mean one with a beam power of one or a few MW)
2. Capture as many charged pions as possible
Ø Low energy pions
Ø Good pion capture scheme
3. Capture as many daughter muons as possible within an accelerator
Ø Reduce the phase-space occupied by the muons
Ø Muon cooling – needs to be fast otherwise the muons decay"
======================================================

I may have misinterpreted such statements as "Muon cooling - needs to be fast
otherwise the muons decay" as meaning that their mean lifetime would be increased,
and it was actually done for a different reason. I do know they cool them to get an increased
density of the muons in the storage ring to use in neutrino experiments. I assumed
cooling them before they decayed increased their lifetimes and allowed more to be
collected in the storage ring. The other paper was more indepth, but I still could have
possibly misunderstood what was being presented. A link to the above paper:
http://www-mucool.fnal.gov/talks/history-organization-lecture.pdf