SRT and the use of relative zero?

ahh I see... thanks... the qualifier in this case is the word and definition of "Absolute" which I always take as being ...uhm... well absolute....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So the question really boils down to:

If the zero in t=0 [duration] is relative [ relative time - SRT ] then how does mathematically derived results remain stable and coherant?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As a general answer to the OP, the real number zero is not in any way special or absolute in and of itself. It has unique properties with respect to addition and multiplication; namely, for any \(x\), \(x \,+\, 0 \,=\, x\) and \(x \,\times\, 0 \,=\, 0\). But real numbers representing coordinates (positions and times) are never added to or multiplied by one another in relativity, so this special property of zero isn't relevant. Positions and times that happen to be represented as zero don't get any special or "absolute" properties.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

thanks for your comments...
....Untill you use the transformations premised on an absolute zero to derive a relative zero?

then presume the zero is absolute when in fact it is relative... sort of thingo..?

 

No. You've missed my point. Zero is only "absolute" with respect to certain mathematical operations. Whether or not something attributed the value "zero" is "absolute" in a physical theory very much depends on how it is used. This is not something you can make up a sweeping generalisation about. The way coordinates are used in SRT means that coordinates that happen to be attributed the value "zero" are not in any way absolute.

 

QQ is just as much a lost cause as Masterov, don't bother. QQ thinks he's asking insightful coherent questions when he is really just parading his ignorance and willingness to ignore anything and everything.

 

uhmm trying to kill or censor discussion again Alphanumeric... why?
I happen to think that przyk's post is most insightful....and was trying to think about how to further the interest.

 

Sorry Przyk, but I think you have just wasted two posts.....

 

I don't think anyone actually works equations that deal with zero. They just say that everything in the equation has a certain value from what we would think of as zero. So then if something was at rest that would have a velocity of zero, it would just say that an object traveled at a value away from that zero. The actual zero is never involved. So I could say, a car is traveling at 55mph, then the fact that I was traveling at 0mph would have no relavence other than making that assumption makes me conclude that the car was actually traveling at 55mph. So then in the equation v=d/t, the distance is 55 miles, the time is 1 hour and zero is not involved in the equation at all what so ever. It is just interpretted as 55 miles per hour faster than something that is zero, that is not involved in the calculation.

 

I have a feeling that recent revelations about how the Center of Gravity needs to "refract" [go off center] for center of mass when in contracted and dialated space may actually prove your issue moot.
Zero is implied in all mathematics.

d=55 miles is the same as writing:

[d=55] - 55 = 0
the use of zero quantifies and qualifies the figure 55 as a real 55...and not let us say 55 disguised as 56 or 55.6785.
in other words to test your simple notation one only has to apply zero as the test.

if zero is a variable then the notation [d=55] is nonsensical as it has no fundamental value that can be derived with any certainty unless the relative zero variable is ascertained, again relative to absolute zero.
so
t=(0) may very well equal t=2 when compared to absolute zero.

example:

say we have two symbols for zero... 0 & (0)
0 = absolute zero
(0) = relative zero

t= 0 in a universe with absolute time means that 0 is absolute.
t=(0) in a relative time universe means that zero is relative.

yet even when t=(0) is used it can only be deemed as relative if compared with the absolute value of absoute zero. 0

[t=(0)] - (0) = 0

When working out the Lorentz transforms zero is also implied constantly through out the progression, yet the final result has to be relative (0) to accommodate relative time.
But the absolute zero is still being used as a way to give the notion of relative time a value as distinct to absolute time.

 

Here's what I think (not that anyone cares):
Zero is a concept; mathematically zero is "well-defined"--it forms the trivial ring. It's easy to show that 0+0 = 0 and 0x0 = 0. So that, under the operations of addition and multiplication the singleton {0} maps to itself.

A more prosiac way of seeing this might be: if you have zero credit, it doesn't matter how many times you add it to itself or multiply it by itself, it's still zero credit.
Obviously, 1 doesn't "behave" that way; if you add 1 to itself indefinitely you get the set of natural numbers (which excludes 0), if you multiply 1 by itself you get 1, no matter how often you do it. Under multiplication only, 0 and 1 are the only numbers that map to themselves.

Trying to distinguish between absolute and "relative" zero is mathematically impossible, zero is zero and is always the result of subtracting some number from itself (you had $100 in your account, but you withdrew $100. leaving $0). Are you now "absolutely broke", or "relatively broke"??

In physics, absolute zero is also a concept (it's where a line in a graph intercepts an axis); it's a 'projection' and isn't observed physically, because if it could be then we would know the position and momentum of some particle with "absolute" certainty, violating the uncertainty principle. "Relative zero" doesn't make any sense to me, except that zero is a zero distance from itself, and so is every other number. But wait, there's more: numbers are also concepts.

 

I think the proper equation would be d - 55 = 0, if d=55. In the equation you gave d=0, not 55. Then again it may just be a question of semantics that is not relavent to the issue. I think there may be no way to prove there is an absolute frame because of Galilean Invariance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

All the laws of physics are the same when traveling at a constant velocity. So then any constant velocity could then become this zero. Even if there was an absolute frame, there would be no way to show that it is different from any other frame because the laws of physics would be the same, if you assumed it was one way or the other. So then it is just personal preference as to where you would set motion equal to zero. Theoretically, you could say that there is no rest and everything travels at 1mph, then the car travels at 56mph. It would only complicate things, because the only difference that we are conserned with is that the car is traveling 55mph faster than you are. There is no reason why a car should travel something other than 55 mph faster than you are because of how we percieve zero.

If there was, laws would have to change the further we came from this true zero, but there is no sign of that. Values have the same relation to each other no matter where you put your zero.

 

Thanks for your post and I agree with most of it..
the thing to consider is that when you balance a pencil on your finger for example you will note that it has a center fo gravity and that the pencil to remain perpedicular to the gound requires that you discover that COG.
That COG can never actually be exactly determined as infiinite reduction means that you end up at an infinitesimally small resolution.

However that zero point or centre of gravity does exist in a way that cannever be shown to exist.
this is absolute zero.

relative zero on the other hand can be seen to exist sfor example using a blank piece of paper and noting that no writing is upon it. Or observing a volume of space between the Earth and the moon that appears to have nothing in it.
Or used abstractly by mathematics as any arbitary start point selected on any time line t= (0)

so absolute zero remains implied and not used directly because it is non-existant. Until you fiddle with absolute time which requires zero to be absolute.

There is a point in physics where dealing with fundamental abstraction vs fundamental reality comes together and absolute zero, I believe, is that point where the issue of abstraction and reality are needed to be concisely dealt with.
This is indeed proved by the uncertainty principle as it the Principle would not be held as valid otherwise.
The uncertainty principle actually proves the paradox of zero which is further demonstrated by the attraction paradox previously mentioned in other threads.

 

In Galilaen space:
and object is in uniform motion relative to absolute space [ zero]

 

@ prof layman;
Are you familiar with the work of Peter Lindt?
NewZealand and peer reviewed theoreticist, accredited and then effectively quarrantined and isolated by mainstream science?

 

I don't think I am, why do you ask?

 

He did similar work on t= 0 [ absolute ] and was successfully peer reviewed by I believe USA University professors. ] 6 of them I think....
google it for your self if interested or I shall do so again later....
He extended the uncertainty principle to include time and not just location in a nut shell...

 

I know you have paranoid delusions of conspiracies against you but no. I was passing comment and giving my opinion. Przyk is a big boy and can make his own decisions and opinions but since this is a discussion forum he don't have to do it in a vacuum. I trust that anyone who didn't sleep through school maths and science lessons will see you for the incoherent hack you are.

 

nonsensical flaming....clearly attempting to tell Przyk not to post. Censoring discussion for your own psychotic reasons. The only conspiracy is yours against the members of sciforum.com.
And you earn no credibility for doing so. re: posts # 85, 86, 87 & 88

The weird thing is that you actually believe you are managing/controlling a list of certain members to post as you command them to post. That you are a leader of some sort telling your "team" to do your bidding...... or else what?

 

Wow, do you've developed the ability to read people's minds, seeing as you somehow think you know what my thinking was? In the same way that someone says "Don't bother, he's not worth it" when Person A starts baiting Person B deliberately I was saying to przyk not to bother with you. I don't believe I'm 'managing' or 'controlling' anyone. A piece of advice, given I know you're incapable of rational, honest informed discussion on anything to do with science is not a command. I don't think I'm a leader here and I don't think I have a 'team to do my bidding'. It says a lot more about you than me when you start showing how you view the world with such comments. I made a comment which is fairly standard, a 'don't bother, he's not worth your time' comment, and you view it as 'a leader' 'managing/controlling' his 'team' to do his 'bidding' for 'psychotic reasons'.

What a strange paranoid existence you must lead to jump to viewing things in such stark oppressive terms. How sad.