Does Reciprocity Falsify Special Relativity?

[MacM]

It certainly is. I thought about getting my eyes lasered, but decided against it.

Don't wait to long.

Well, I can see that you are back to your traditional habit of justifying one error by making yet another error. In fact, there are very few (I can't actually think of any) particle anihlation/production reactions where the product particles have the same velocity as the parent particles. Probably the most extreme example is a matter/anti-matter annihlation reaction. There two stationary particles yield two particles moving at c. Many other reactions are similar in two aspects: the child particles do not have the same velocity of the parent particles and the child particles never accelerate to that velocity but are "born" with relativistic velocity. In fact, with beta decay the electron typically moves at relativistic velocities despite potentially being decelerated due to electrostatic attraction with the nucleus. In short you are simply wrong, as usual.

However, for the sake of argument, lets hypothesize some weird reaction where two stable particles interact and produce two unstable particles with the exact same velocities as the parent particles. In other words, some wierd fantasy reaction where you are actually right. How do you propose that any acceleration the parent particles might have undergone should influence the half-life of the child particles if it is the acceleration and not the velocity that is important?

-Dale

Just where do you think everybody is? Asleep? I hope not. Your babble above is absolute nonsense. Of course cusch particle rarely have the same veloicty. They rarely have the same mass.

BTW: Are you contending that massive particle in all these reactions all have instanteous velocity change, no acceleration period?

The last I recall about physics is that any mass having infinite acceleration would require infinite energy. Hmmmm.

 

[Physics Monkey]

MacM,

Have you any idea how we actually describe particle creation and annihilation? You appear to know precisely nothing about it. As amusing as I find your little diatribes, here is some friendly advice: save yourself the humiliation and stop making wild suppositions about what goes on when particles are created.

 

[Physics Monkey]

The last I recall about physics is that any mass having infinite acceleration would require infinite energy. Hmmmm.

Also, this statement is false. A particle accelerated over a time t to velocity v has energy 1/2 m v^2. Clearly this is finite and completely independent of t, and it is precisely the energy that must be supplied to accelerate the particle. What you may mean is that in the limit that t goes to zero, the force acting on the particle is infinitely large and lasts for an infinitely short time (idealized impulse). Of course, the notion of forces is completely irrelevant for describing the creation of particles.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

Have you any idea how we actually describe particle creation and annihilation? You appear to know precisely nothing about it. As amusing as I find your little diatribes, here is some friendly advice: save yourself the humiliation and stop making wild suppositions about what goes on when particles are created.

I'll simply note you have not addressed the physics of the situation. There is nothing you can say that defies the infinite energy required to produce instant velocity change in any mass; however created.

 

[MacM]

Also, this statement is false. A particle accelerated over a time t to velocity v has energy 1/2 m v^2. Clearly this is finite and completely independent of t, and it is precisely the energy that must be supplied to accelerate the particle. What you may mean is that in the limit that t goes to zero, the force acting on the particle is infinitely large and lasts for an infinitely short time (idealized impulse). Of course, the notion of forces is completely irrelevant for describing the creation of particles.

Irrelevant babble. The issue is the requirement for infinite anything physical to produce instantaneouse velocity change of any mass however created.

 

[Physics Monkey]

MacM,

Alright, I'm laughing pretty hard so I'll go at it with you for a few minutes because I'm bored.

You stated that according to your knowledge of physics it would take infinite energy to provide an infinite momentary acceleration. I told you that you didn't know what you were talking about (and you don't). Then I told you that it would actually take an infinite force, not an infinite amount of energy, to provide an infinite momentary acceleration. Conclusion: MacM knows very very little about physics. Consequence: we shouldn't listen to MacM when he tells us what is "physical" since he doesn't know.

I find the fact that you posted again with the same foolish comment about the need for infinite energy to be most amusing. Later, once you realized that you were wrong, you decided to to revise your statement to just generally saying that infinite things are not physical. Unfortunately, the damage has been done. Take comfort in the fact that you made a monkey laugh.

Furthermore, your irrelevant babble is what is meaningless. As I said already, and as you've proved nicely for me, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can't get simple classical mechanics right, so why should we trust your wild guess work when it comes to relativistic quantum field theory and particle creation and destruction.

Thanks for the laughs, I await your diatribe.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

Alright, I'm laughing pretty hard so I'll go at it with you for a few minutes because I'm bored.

Glad to be of service.

You stated that according to your knowledge of physics it would take infinite energy to provide an infinite momentary acceleration. I told you that you didn't know what you were talking about (and you don't). Then I told you that it would actually take an infinite force, not an infinite amount of energy, to provide an infinite momentary acceleration. Conclusion: MacM knows very very little about physics. Consequence: we shouldn't listen to MacM when he tells us what is "physical" since he doesn't know.

Then I responded acknowledging the differance between force and energy by saying "Infinite anything physical" meaning I challenge you to produce an infinite force but you chose to ignore that which is typical of your kind and their presentations.

Beyond that I am not bored and have better things to do than read off topic crap. If your head wasn't in the clouds you could see much further.

 

[DaleSpam]

Of course cusch particle rarely have the same veloicty.

Excellent, we agree on something. Now all you have to do is show how a child particle which didn't even exist when the parent particle was accelerated and which doesn't even inherit the parent's velocity can have its clock set correctly to trick us into observing that time dilation is related to the velocity of the child particle when it is actually the acceleration of the parent particle that was important.

BTW: Are you contending that massive particle in all these reactions all have instanteous velocity change, no acceleration period?

The last I recall about physics is that any mass having infinite acceleration would require infinite energy. Hmmmm.

Wow. Your "defend an error with another error" tradition is going strong today. Now you think that 0 = infinity. This is an impressive error even for you, truly an accomplishment. No acceleration means 0 acceleration, not infinite acceleration. What part of "no" didn't you understand?

I don't know how I can be more clear. The particles may never accelerate (F = ma = 0 and dv/dt = 0 throughout the entire lifetime of the particle) but are "born" with their velocity and still they exhibit time dilation.

-Dale

 

[Physics Monkey]

MacM,

Wonderful response! In characteristic fashion you have completely missed the point. The point was that you don't know the difference between force and energy, as evidenced by your comments, and that you don't know anything about the physics of particle creation. As for that physics, I already told you that classical forces are irrelevant for the creation of particles. In fact, the whole classical description of the creation process is irrelevant, and as I see DaleSpam has just emphasized, nothing is being accelerated. Particles are born with a given momentum (within the usual quantum constraints of course).

 

[MacM]

MacM,

Wonderful response! In characteristic fashion you have completely missed the point. The point was that you don't know the difference between force and energy, as evidenced by your comments, and that you don't know anything about the physics of particle creation. As for that physics, I already told you that classical forces are irrelevant for the creation of particles. In fact, the whole classical description of the creation process is irrelevant, and as I see DaleSpam has just emphasized, nothing is being accelerated. Particles are born with a given momentum (within the usual quantum constraints of course).

No you miss the point. Stop running off at the mouth and educate us. Give us some examples of massive particles undergoing instantaneous velocity change. Go ahead we can wait.

You choose to ignore the point I made that is you have no knowledge about the energy from which the particle was created (virtual particles) or in the cases he cited about by-products then energy is known and you can give no case where such particles produced fail to uphold energy conservation.

Virtual particles is a case of unknown energy conditions which create them. So stuff your attitude.

 

[Physics Monkey]

MacM,

Haha, what fun. When did I ever say I would give you an example of instantaneous velocity change. If you would try reading my posts you would notice that I indicated that an instantaneous infinite force was an idealization in classical mechanics corresponding to a perfect impulse. Another red herrring from you to disguise the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. I already indicated to you that particles are "born" with their momentum, there is no acceleration going on. You're whole nonsense about infinite force and acceleration blah blah is completely irrelevant as I've said several times now.

And what's this about virtual particles now? Don't go there man, you're already way over your head. Then again, go there, I could stand to laugh some more.

P.S. You know good and well that if you actually wanted to learn, I would be more than happy to try and help you understand, but that isn't what you want is it?

 

[Physics Monkey]

MacM,

Alright then, I've had enough fun, so it's time to quit while its still a joke. I leave you to your fruitless battle once more.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

Haha, what fun. When did I ever say I would give you an example of instantaneous velocity change. If you would try reading my posts you would notice that I indicated that an instantaneous infinite force was an idealization in classical mechanics corresponding to a perfect impulse. Another red herrring from you to disguise the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Right. :bugeye: Is that why you once again try to avoid the root issue of infinite responses in a physical relationship where a massive particle is involved?

I already indicated to you that particles are "born" with their momentum, there is no acceleration going on. You're whole nonsense about infinite force and acceleration blah blah is completely irrelevant as I've said several times now.

And as I have indicated and you once again prove you have no response phsically to the issue of knowing the condition of energy from which particles are formed. i.e. - As an analogy where water steam is energy and it is escaping as an invisable gas but then condenses into liquid droplets.

A simular process is involved in the energy forming massive particles which have inherent energy or velocity upon formation. Get real. You are starting to look really silly here.

And what's this about virtual particles now? Don't go there man, you're already way over your head. Then again, go there, I could stand to laugh some more.

P.S. You know good and well that if you actually wanted to learn, I would be more than happy to try and help you understand, but that isn't what you want is it?

Thanks but what I know I learned from actual intelligent perople that also taught me how to think independantly. I have no desire to become so handi-capped as yourself.

 

[Prosoothus]

DaleSpam,

the child particles do not have the same velocity of the parent particles and the child particles never accelerate to that velocity but are "born" with relativistic velocity.

Fits nicely into Relativity, right? The light-speed particles never accelerate to c, they are "born" at c? Too bad it doesn't make any sense.

Please explain how a particle travelling at v1 can create a child particle travelling at v2 without the child particle having to accelerate from v1 to v2.

One might argue that the child particle was from a parallel universe where it was travelling at v2, and jumped into our universe during the reaction which would be one explanation of why the child particle didn't need to accelerate. But according to Occam's Razor, it would be more appropriate to say that the child particle accelerated to v2, and that Relativity is wrong.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

Alright then, I've had enough fun, so it's time to quit while its still a joke. I leave you to your fruitless battle once more.

Alright then, I've had enough fun, so it's time to quit while its still a joke. I leave you to your fruitless rebuttles once more.

 

[DaleSpam]

The light-speed particles never accelerate to c, they are "born" at c? Too bad it doesn't make any sense.

I disagree most emphatically, it is the only thing that does make sense to me.

Please explain how a particle travelling at v1 can create a child particle travelling at v2 without the child particle having to accelerate from v1 to v2.

I don't think you have thought this through clearly. I think it is your claim that doesn't make sense and needs explaining. Let's look at one of the most common nuclear reactions, the beta decay of K-40, as an example why your idea doesn't make sense, and for convenience let's use the rest frame of the original K-40 nucleus. As you are probably aware K-40 undergoes spontaneous beta decay into Ca-40 and an electron (aka beta particle). The mass of the Ca-40 nucleus plus the mass of the ejected electron is less than the mass of the original K-40 nucleus by several hundred keV (I know, technically it is several hundred keV/c²). Those several hundred keV go into kinetic energy, mostly in the electron, and the ejected electron therefore travels at relativistic velocities.

Now if your suggestion were right then immediately upon creation the ejected electron and the Ca-40 nucleus would be at rest. So there would be missing mass that is not accounted for by any increase in KE, mass would not be conserved. At that point, please note that the electron is negatively charged and is in very close proximity to the positively charged Ca-40 nucleus and therefore would be experiencing enormous electrostatic attraction towards the nucleus. I would think that it should do an electron capture and turn that new proton back into a neutron. But instead, according to your suggestion, some large, mysterious, and unknown repulsive force would do a lot of work on the electron in order to accelerate it to relativistic velocities, thus violating the conservation of energy. Now, there is one further conservation law that would be violated, but we can't see it in the rest frame. Let's now consider a frame where the original K-40 nucleus is traveling at a rather sedate and non-relativistic .0001 c. Since the sum of the masses is less and the velocities are the same we also see that the momentum becomes less. Then suddenly, out of nowhere, the momentum rapidly increases back to where it should be. Where did the original momentum go and where did the new momentum come from? Perhaps that spare universe you were talking about.

I just don't see how your idea is the one that makes sense. You may be correct and the missing mass/energy/momentum may disappear and reappear in some sort of QM short-term loan, but that is something that I have never been able to figure out. That is the kind of idea that needs lots of explanation, not the idea that a particle is "born" with the correct velocity and everything is nicely conserved.

it would be more appropriate to say that the child particle accelerated to v2, and that Relativity is wrong.

Why would that make relativity wrong? As far as I can see it would only make several conservation principles wrong (energy, mass, momentum).

-Dale

PS My apologies to any readers who actually know any QM, I sure don't. Feel free to correct me, but be ready to explain a lot.

 

[CANGAS]

QM tempts us to believe that there is a smallest possible distance, either that distance or zero distance, and a corresponding smallest possible time, either that time or zero time. Ergo, there is a smallest possible difference in velocity, or none. We can go at our present velocity or change our velocity, but any change must be at least one of the smallest possible velocity units.

In terms of QM being valid, acceleration must happen in specific steps and cannot be in fractional steps.

Perhaps QM is valid and perhaps not.

 

[Rosnet]

Correct. That is because as counter intuitive as it might seem the acceleration at the front and back is not the same.

Oh. Sorry I didn't notice this before. Okay, what are you talking about?

 

[MacM]

Oh. Sorry I didn't notice this before. Okay, what are you talking about?

******************** Extract ***************************

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/specialrelativity/Accelerated.html

The amount of time dilation experienced within our hypothetical spacecraft depends on our position within the spacecraft. In special relativity, one finds that when a spacecraft maintains its structural integrity, so that the distance from tail to nose is constant for passengers in the spacecraft, it experiences different rates of acceleration throughout its structure. The nose of the spacecraft accelerates at a lower rate than the tail of the spacecraft; the amount of acceleration depends solely on position along the direction of acceleration. The acceleration increases as one moves back. Because time dilation is determined by the rate of acceleration, a passenger in the spacecraft finds that a clock placed in the nose of the spacecraft moves faster than a clock placed in the tail.

 

[Prosoothus]

DaleSpam,

Now if your suggestion were right then immediately upon creation the ejected electron and the Ca-40 nucleus would be at rest. So there would be missing mass that is not accounted for by any increase in KE, mass would not be conserved.

Mass would not be conserved, but mass/energy would be. The decay would would create two masses at rest, and some energy that would accelerate the electron to its final speed.

At that point, please note that the electron is negatively charged and is in very close proximity to the positively charged Ca-40 nucleus and therefore would be experiencing enormous electrostatic attraction towards the nucleus. I would think that it should do an electron capture and turn that new proton back into a neutron.

You know things are not that simple. There are other forces present between protons and electrons than simply the electrostatic force. If I were to mix a bunch of positive hydrogen ions and electrons in a chamber, I wouldn't get a bunch of neutrons. I would get a bunch of hydrogen atoms, and eventually hydrogen molecules.

But instead, according to your suggestion, some large, mysterious, and unknown repulsive force would do a lot of work on the electron in order to accelerate it to relativistic velocities, thus violating the conservation of energy.

It would be a large, mysterious, and unkown repulsive force, and it would violate the conservation of energy, but it would not violate the conservation of mass/energy in the entire reaction. This is how the reaction would occur:

K-40 -> Ca-40 + electron + energy (unknown)->

The energy would create a force that accelerates the electron.

->Ca-40 + electron + energy (kinetic energy of electron).


At every step, mass and energy would not be conserver, but mass/energy would be.

It's far easier for me to assume that an unknown repulsive force accelerates the electron than to assume that the electron was created travelling at a high speed. If the electron in the reaction is composed of a "substance" that was originally part of the K-40 nucleus, I don't see how you can assume that this "substance" accelerated instantly as a result of the decay. As Cangas pointed out, it seems that this would be impossible in a quantum universe.

Why would that make relativity wrong? As far as I can see it would only make several conservation principles wrong (energy, mass, momentum).

When photons are emitted, relativists assume that they are "born" travelling at c. If a photon is actually born at a lower speed, and accelerates to c, then this causes two problems for relativity:

1) When the photon is travelling at a speed that's lower than c, then, according to Einstein's SR equations, the speed of light is not invariant to all inertial observers. This would eventually lead to the conclusion that light has a preferred frame of reference, or aether.

2) If the photon accelerates to c, then what causes its acceleration? If it pushes against "something" to accelerate, then that "something" is the photon's aether. This would eventually lead to the conclusion that light only travels at c in its own aether, and not for all inertial observers.