Intriguing question about Time, Physics and SRT in general

[Quantum Quack]

About the closest thing to the "indeterminate / virtual photon energy" argument I see these days is a referent to Mach's principle. I really hate that. Mach was, and is, "all washed up", as a philosopher, scientist, thinker, whatever. Those "fixed stars" Mach refers to are very close. At cosmological distances, everything and ourselves are flying away from each other at relativistic velocities. They're not "fixed" in any sense of the word, the way Mach would have us understand. It's like finding Lamarck's flawed treatise in textbooks instead of Darwin, and frankly, it offends me to find the same thing in physics. How about, we drop studying Roman Numerals, Lamarck, Mach, and I don't know… maybe Karl Popper to boot?

yes I sense your frustration. However "many a gem of insight can be gleaned from snippets provided by all" ~ anon comes to mind.

Mach has some strong insights into the nature of inertia which, IMO, have yet to be fully realized. [buried under the justifiable attention given to Einstein at the time.]
And I am by no means well read on Mach but what I did read blew me away...at the time.

 

[Quantum Quack]

BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE SPACE OR ABSOLUTE TIME.

and this is due to the true non-value of "absolute" zero being variant under SRT. IMO

 

[PhysBang]

"systems of coordinates"? Don't you mean "inertial reference frames"?

No.

You keep saying things as if you have studied relativity theory, yet you then reply with things that indicate that you know very little about the science.

In math, "systems of coordinates" would mean things like Cartesian, cylindrical, spherical, complex Argand diagrams, etc, etc, and transformations within and between them. "Systems of coordinates", except within a given inertial reference frame, don't have physical meaning in relativity theory BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE SPACE OR ABSOLUTE TIME.

Yeah, I'm going to call your study of relativity theory a lie.

 

[danshawen]

krash661; Is that you? Welcome back! Nice sock puppet you've got there. I like it.

 

[danshawen]

No.

You keep saying things as if you have studied relativity theory, yet you then reply with things that indicate that you know very little about the science.
Yeah, I'm going to call your study of relativity theory a lie.

Let me tell you something funny. A short Danny DeVito look-alike named Dr. Daniel Fivel was my first semester physics prof at the University of MD in Fall of 1970. He tortured us with "his own" particular derivation of the Lorentz Transformation. For years, I kept a copy of his derivation. Except that it was not only wrong, but the key piece of the derivation was sheer rubbish no mathematician would give a better grade than Dr. Fivel gifted me as my first grade in freshman physics. Dr. Fivel died in 2010. He neither published nor co-authored A SINGLE NOTEWORTHY PAPER ON ANY SUBJECT RELATED TO PHYSICS.

The next semester, I had the pleasure of being the student of a REAL physics professor, the late Dr. Richard Prange, who, among other things, taught me my first practical lessons in relativity, although I had read about relativity voraciously while I was in high school. I had many more excellent physics and math professors, graduate assistants who all made their marks on physics, some of them in a big way.

The computer you are insulting people on only has enough bandwidth because physicists-turned-engineers like yours truly worked hard to make satellite telecom competitive with fiber optics. When I started, Digital Communications Corporation did not possess a single satellite channel that utilized forward error correction technology, Viterbi decoders, or anything that was reliable enough to use for commercial internet.

That's just a scratch. I was doing all of this, very likely, before 60% of the people on this forum were even born, and I'm also fortunate enough to be able to still remember almost every minute of an exceptional education, followed by an exceptional career.

Today, particle physicists work every day with E=mc^2, yet some of them had the audacity, just a few years back, to believe that they had discovered superluminal neutrinos. Guess who knew this was some kind of farce before 90% of them did? Me, and the education you are demeaning, that's who.

You're welcome.

 

[paddoboy]

Today, particle physicists work every day with E=mc^2, yet some of them had the audacity, just a few years back, to believe that they had discovered superluminal neutrinos. Guess who knew this was some kind of farce before 90% of them did? Me, and the education you are demeaning, that's who.

You're welcome.

I'm pretty sure most if not the overwhelming vast majority of physicists realised that there was probably a problem with the data received. I don't believe too may "believed" it at the time the article was released.
Again, journalistic license, sensationalism played the biggest part in that incident.
By the way, I didn't believe it either, and I'm only a layman.

 

[PhysBang]

... physicists-turned-engineers like yours truly ...

Ah, I get it now. You got half-tutored, then you turned to engineering, so you are going on half-remembered fragments from a long time ago and pontificating on them as if they are the whole of the discipline. Engineers so often do such bad theory!

 

[danshawen]

Ah, I get it now. You got half-tutored, then you turned to engineering, so you are going on half-remembered fragments from a long time ago and pontificating on them as if they are the whole of the discipline. Engineers so often do such bad theory!

I'm not looking to start any cult followings here. Einstein himself started cults both of followers and detractors, both of which are in abundance even in the 21st century.

Cults don't solve problems; they create them. The human race, like every other living organism on this planet, solve problems intellectually in the same manner as an AMOEBA searches for food, warmth and a pleasant chemical environment in which to reproduce. Spread yourself out in all directions, surround and eat whatever you can catch, and survive. It's the same with physics. By all means, spread out. Attack the problem from all sides. Don't bother to listen to me or to established science if it doesn't help solve your many problems. Oh, and while you are at it, try not to obsess about anything.

Crystal clear now, fellow chimps?

The post is in memoriam of Robin Williams, a fine comedic actor, only one year older at the time of his untimely death than I am.

 

[PhysBang]

Don't bother to listen to me or to established science if it doesn't help solve your many problems.

The problem here is that what you say is not the same as what established science says. You make claims about what relativity theory says that do not match what relativity theory says. You might want to revisit the theory, or you might not care about the error creeping into your thought.

 

[danshawen]

The problem here is that what you say is not the same as what established science says. You make claims about what relativity theory says that do not match what relativity theory says. You might want to revisit the theory, or you might not care about the error creeping into your thought.

If you could be more specific about what part I said about relativity was in error, that would help me sort out "whether or not error is creeping into.." the model I was taught.

The most recent thing I learned about relativity was that the current generation relies on what are called "boost matrices" to solve problems in relativity previously done with simultaneous linear equations.

 

[danshawen]

yes I sense your frustration. However "many a gem of insight can be gleaned from snippets provided by all" ~ anon comes to mind.

Mach has some strong insights into the nature of inertia which, IMO, have yet to be fully realized. [buried under the justifiable attention given to Einstein at the time.]
And I am by no means well read on Mach but what I did read blew me away...at the time.

Evidently, John Wheeler also has a contribution to Mach's ideas that some consider more radical: "The universe exists only because you can see that it does." But in truth, it's much more difficult to glean the hard mathematical idea that relativity requires two observers in relative motion from either Mach or Wheeler's cryptic versions. Indeterminate photon / particle energy makes more sense, and other than finding the principle buried in the particle physics, I have no idea who first proposed it.

I like that one principally because it speaks directly to the idea of virtual photons and particles.

 

[danshawen]

and this is due to the true non-value of "absolute" zero being variant under SRT. IMO

"absolute zero"? What do you mean temperature, velocity, acceleration, all?

 

[PhysBang]

If you could be more specific about what part I said about relativity was in error, that would help me sort out "whether or not error is creeping into.." the model I was taught.

You claim that nobody ever told you that relativity theory requires more than one "observer". Yet relativity theory begins with gelilean relativity, which is all about the difference between two or more systems of coordinates, which is what one should be speaking of rather than "observers". "Observer" talk is usually a lazy way of referring to systems of coordinates. Special relativity addresses systems of coordinates in which Newtonian mechanics holds to a good approximation and the translations between any arbitrary such system. The general theory of relativity deals with any system of coordinates and translations from one to another.

So I find it hard to find this requires-two-observers thing to be a revelation.

 

[danshawen]

The problem here is that what you say is not the same as what established science says. You make claims about what relativity theory says that do not match what relativity theory says. You might want to revisit the theory, or you might not care about the error creeping into your thought.

Say-- You aren't trying to "google" relativity, are you? Do you have any idea how much disinformation is out there about relativity, not even including Metapedia? When I learned relativity, not only did google not exist, but attention spans were evidently much, much longer, which would seem to be a requirement to actually understand this particular subject. I passed dozens of written examinations at the college level that all seem to say I do know something about relativity. How many have you taken?

I couldn't help noticing that googling relativity actually does give you a lot of wrong answers. SRT derived of the null result of the Michaelson-Morely experiment, not an inconsistency of Galilean relativity with Maxwell's equations. Although the inconsistency existed and was resolved, for the most part relativity derived first of MECHANICS, not EM.

 

[danshawen]

You claim that nobody ever told you that relativity theory requires more than one "observer". Yet relativity theory begins with gelilean relativity, which is all about the difference between two or more systems of coordinates, which is what one should be speaking of rather than "observers". "Observer" talk is usually a lazy way of referring to systems of coordinates. Special relativity addresses systems of coordinates in which Newtonian mechanics holds to a good approximation and the translations between any arbitrary such system. The general theory of relativity deals with any system of coordinates and translations from one to another.

So I find it hard to find this requires-two-observers thing to be a revelation.

That is a formulation of Lorentz (coordinate system) relativity you are talking about, and which also is the part from which issues of simultaneity a la Wheeler's famous "pole and barn" paradox arises and is resolved. Yea, that's exactly the stuff Fivel drilled into us hapless freshmen physics students who didn't know that 1) Lorentz did it correctly, and Fivel did not, and 2) the coordinate system approach is necessary only to get you to the meat of relativity, which are time dilation and length contraction in the direction of motion of something moving at constant velocity with respect to a stationary inertial reference frame. And then we integrated those equations to find out what acceleration would mean.

And who cares anything about coordinate systems? It's not relevant to the part of relativity I was talking about, unless you are referring to what I said about absolute space and absolute time. COORDINATE SYSTEMS (SPACE, TIME) THAT MOVE WITH INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAMES ARE NOT "ABSOLUTE", UNDERSTAND? The speed of light is the ONLY thing that can be measured that is the same in any given inertial reference frame. Not any other velocities. Not any other time intervals. Not any energies or forces.

 

[Quantum Quack]

"absolute zero"? What do you mean temperature, velocity, acceleration, all?

the zero that supposedly existed before this universe came into existence. delta t=0, d=0 and the zero that currently exists as the event horizon of the Hyper surface of the present [re: light cones]

I believe that because Einstein determines t=0 of two simultaneous events to be relative (t=o,t=o') he has basically considered and introduced zero to being a variable.

Zero is not a variable, in fact it is the only thing in this universe that could be considered as immutably absolute.

Clarifying question:
The question to ask is:

Can zero ever be considered to be a variable, regardless of context?

Apply the answer to SRT's "relativity of simultaneity" and explain how the Lorentz Transforms can function if zero is a variable.

 

[danshawen]

the zero that supposedly existed before this universe came into existence. delta t=0, d=0 and the zero that currently exists as the event horizon of the Hyper surface of the present [re: light cones]

I believe that because Einstein determines t=0 of two simultaneous events to be relative (t=o,t=o') he has basically considered and introduced zero to being a variable.

Zero is not a variable, in fact it is the only thing in this universe that could be considered as immutably absolute.

Clarifying question:
The question to ask is:

Can zero ever be considered to be a variable, regardless of context?

Apply the answer to SRT's "relativity of simultaneity" and explain how the Lorentz Transforms can function if zero is a variable.

If delta t = 0, then t = 0 and there is no universe, no event(s), no motion in the vacuum and nothing at all there to analyze and talk about. Did you say whether you had a problem with Peter Lynds formulation of time?

The light cone at the beginning of this thread is the event / simultaneous event(s) we are talking about?

Well, to start with, only bosons may occupy the same space at the same time ("simultaneously"), so the only event that could be involving matter would be a couple of Higgs bosons interacting for long enough to give each other inertial mass, after which, they promptly decay. Except that under the stated conditions, there isn't even a Higgs field yet, so nowhere for them to originate from.

I suppose I just don't see anywhere constructive this particular treadmill seems to be going. Zero is a constant, not a variable, and evidently does not capture anything remotely physical; even vacuum energy is evidently very far from zero energy, zero mass, or anything resembling a number in our minds that is little more conceptually than a place holder for manipulations related to simple arithmetic.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If delta t = 0, then t = 0 and there is no universe, no event(s), no motion in the vacuum and nothing at all there to analyze and talk about. Did you say whether you had a problem with Peter Lynds formulation of time?

The light cone at the beginning of this thread is the event / simultaneous event(s) we are talking about?

Well, to start with, only bosons may occupy the same space at the same time ("simultaneously"), so the only event that could be involving matter would be a couple of Higgs bosons interacting for long enough to give each other inertial mass, after which, they promptly decay. Except that under the stated conditions, there isn't even a Higgs field yet, so nowhere for them to originate from.

I suppose I just don't see anywhere constructive this particular treadmill seems to be going. Zero is a constant, not a variable, and evidently does not capture anything remotely physical; even vacuum energy is evidently very far from zero energy, zero mass, or anything resembling a number in our minds that is little more conceptually than a place holder for manipulations related to simple arithmetic.

yes this [bolded] is the standard response to the notion that zero is being treated as a variable under SRT.

The important consideration is that the zero involved is the zero point between past and future. It however is still a zero. And it is considered as variable (relative to itself) under SRT
Now keep in mind that all mathematical formulations require an invariant zero, Lorentz transforms are compromised for want of a better word, when we realize that they must be performed with an invariant zero to derive a variant zero.
That there is no invariant zero to begin with (according to SRT) renders the transforms as compromised IMO
What this essentially means is that all values used in SRT are effectively floating in a way that self justifies their float...
The idea of 0 and 0' being relative is part of the problem.

Basically it means that no value can be proved using simple mathematics as you put it.
example:
10 - 10 = 0 & 10' - 10' = 0' are relative values. ( because the zero used to validate their value is relative. )
Therefore equivalence of 10 & 10' can not be proved [10=/=10]

Question:
Can one zero to be relative to another zero and still maintain the invariance of zero?
Certainly one nihilo can not be relative to another nihilo in physics.
But perhaps we can allow it in math? (somehow, and still retain the integrity of our formulations, although I fail to see how)

The question put forward again:

Clarifying question:
The question to ask is:

Can zero (nihilo) ever be considered to be a variable, regardless of context?

Apply the answer to SRT's "relativity of simultaneity" and explain how the Lorentz Transforms can function if zero is a variable.

 

[danshawen]

"Apply the answer to SRT's "relativity of simultaneity" and explain how the Lorentz Transforms can function if zero is a variable."

I think I see where it is you want to go now.

The resolution to the "pole and barn paradox":

A relativistic runner carrying a horizontally oriented pole that is 20 feet long passes through the front and rear doors of a barn that is 10 feet wide at the point the runner passes.

Due to the Lorentz contraction of the pole, it appears to be half as long (10 feet), which means that in the frame of reference of the stationary barn, there is a time t during which the entire pole is contained within the barn (you could close the doors at that instant, and the contracted 20 foot pole fits completely inside). What would the runner see?

Answer: The rear door closes at the instant it coincides with the front of the pole, then it opens, the runner passes through, and then the front door closes at the instant the rear of the pole coincides with it.

Why: The relativity of simultaneity. What appears to be simultaneous in the rest frame is not the same as what is simultaneous in the moving frame. The event that is most distant in the moving frame occurs first.

Applied to the "event zero" problem:

What appears to be simultaneous at t = 0 is not simultaneous to all inertial reference frames.

Here's what you may not have realized:

From t = 0, the light cone you have drawn is for an observer at that point who can never "see" events from another simultaneous light cone that is separated from it by any distance d that is > 0. Therefore, the whole "world line" or "light cone" construct is flawed, and does not reflect reality, or at least, not anything that is like a "simultaneous" reality, as we might imagine the universe to be.

Or were you thinking of another consequence? Did you realize that a single light cone could not ever represent any sort of simultaneity in general terms of events and points in space?

 

[Quantum Quack]

"Apply the answer to SRT's "relativity of simultaneity" and explain how the Lorentz Transforms can function if zero is a variable."

I think I see where it is you want to go now.

The resolution to the "pole and barn paradox":

A relativistic runner carrying a horizontally oriented pole that is 20 feet long passes through the front and rear doors of a barn that is 10 feet wide at the point the runner passes.

Due to the Lorentz contraction of the pole, it appears to be half as long (10 feet), which means that in the frame of reference of the stationary barn, there is a time t during which the entire pole is contained within the barn (you could close the doors at that instant, and the contracted 20 foot pole fits completely inside). What would the runner see?

Answer: The rear door closes at the instant it coincides with the front of the pole, then it opens, the runner passes through, and then the front door closes at the instant the rear of the pole coincides with it.

Why: The relativity of simultaneity. What appears to be simultaneous in the rest frame is not the same as what is simultaneous in the moving frame. The event that is most distant in the moving frame occurs first.

Applied to the "event zero" problem:

What appears to be simultaneous at t = 0 is not simultaneous to all inertial reference frames.

Here's what you may not have realized:

From t = 0, the light cone you have drawn is for an observer at that point who can never "see" events from another simultaneous light cone that is separated from it by any distance d that is > 0. Therefore, the whole "world line" or "light cone" construct is flawed, and does not reflect reality, or at least, not anything that is like a "simultaneous" reality, as we might imagine the universe to be.

Or were you thinking of another consequence? Did you realize that a single light cone could not ever represent any sort of simultaneity in general terms of events and points in space?

Just quickly and based on a quick gleen of what you have written... (I have an appointment to meet)

Not quite and I might add that the light cone diagram you are referring to is standard use in explaining SRT and provided c/o wiki. I did not draw it.
I had this discussion ages ago about how multiple light cones would be needed to demonstrate the relativity of Simultaneity. I can not recall the details now (possibly 10 years ago) however the end result is no there is only the need for the one light cone.

c/o wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

regardless I believe this over complicates the explanation of the issue.

One thing to consider is that for us to speculate on what we would observe through the eyes of another RV observer from our (Rest) perspective so as to demonstrate dilation and contraction we must employ absolute time to do so.
In other words the only way to prove SRT's relativistic effects such as , length contraction and time dilation requires absolute time [ space ] to do so.. and we get back the essence of the problem I described earlier.
In this manner SRT is unfalsifiable, unless you invoke absolute space [time] as a "vehicle" to test it with.

If the zero's derived (t=0,0')are relative and not absolute, the values derived are lacking in the integrity that is normally required when performing mathematics simple or complex.
example: 10-10 = 0 & 10'-10'=0'
0=/=0'
10=/=10'