Notices
Results 1 to 45 of 45

Thread: Relativity

  1. #1 Relativity 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    For the last few weeks, I have been trying to solve a problem regarding relativistic conceptions.

    I'm sure that we are all aware of the principle of relativity i.e. it is impossible to tell whether you are in motion or not. Consequently, if a photon were to pass by an observer, the observer can say that he is at rest and the photon is in motion. By the principle of relativity, however, the photon has equal rights to say that it is in motion and the observer is in motion. Yet the second postulate of relativity (light always moves at the same constant speed) implies that a photon, no matter what, will always measure itself to be in motion, contradicting the principle of relativity, as it prevents the photon from ever considering itself at rest.

    I would appreciate any help in solving this contradiction. Would it, I would also like to ask, be consistent with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem with this contradiction here?

    Note: I realise I may be attracting naysayers of relativity here, so I wish to clarify that this thread is only to discuss ways to solve the problem I have just outlined here. In no way am I claiming relativity is false.


    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Relativity 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    For the last few weeks, I have been trying to solve a problem regarding relativistic conceptions.

    I'm sure that we are all aware of the principle of relativity i.e. it is impossible to tell whether you are in motion or not. Consequently, if a photon were to pass by an observer, the observer can say that he is at rest and the photon is in motion. By the principle of relativity, however, the photon has equal rights to say that it is in motion and the observer is in motion. Yet the second postulate of relativity (light always moves at the same constant speed) implies that a photon, no matter what, will always measure itself to be in motion, contradicting the principle of relativity, as it prevents the photon from ever considering itself at rest.

    I would appreciate any help in solving this contradiction. Would it, I would also like to ask, be consistent with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem with this contradiction here?

    Note: I realise I may be attracting naysayers of relativity here, so I wish to clarify that this thread is only to discuss ways to solve the problem I have just outlined here. In no way am I claiming relativity is false.
    Okay, as I understand it, motion needs a direction, yes? Therefore a vector. And if you were in motion between two "fixed" points in space you could say that you were travelling at distance/time = speed.

    You are possibly also aware that the nearer you are to C, time begins to dilate. A photon however which IS travelling AT C experiences infinate time dilation. In other words, it does not experience time. Therefore if you were sitting on a beam of light travelling at C you could not calculate your speed at all because to calculate your speed you would need to know the value of distance/time; and as you will not be able to KNOW the time because you do not experience it, you will not be able to calculate the equation to work out your speed.


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Therefore if you were sitting on a beam of light travelling at C you could not calculate your speed at all because to calculate your speed you would need to know the value of distance/time; and as you will not be able to KNOW the time because you do not experience it, you will not be able to calculate the equation to work out your speed.
    Technically speaking, time dilation does not imply that you will not know the time; you will simply measure zero time passing from the moment you attained light speed.

    And that doesn't really solve the problem. Not knowing the time and being unable to calculate the speed doesn't imply that you can take it to be at rest, which the principle of relativity demands for the situation I outlined above.

    By



    the time measured will be equal to infinty as you correctly surmised.

    However, distance is equal to speed multiplied by time, implying firstly that according to your clock you will have covered infinite distance, and your speed will be equal to one (by dividing distance by time).

    However, this hasn't much to do with the problem. How can the photon be allowed to measure itself to be at rest, as the principle of relativity demands, and yet still obey the constancy of light postulate, which demands that it must always be in motion from any refernce frame?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    The rules of SR pertain to inertial reference frames, and in Relativity, light does not have a valid inertial reference frame, so it is little wonder that you won't get a reasonable answer when you try to apply the rules of SR to the frame of light.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Thank you, Janus. That's solved it completely. :-D
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Relativity 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    I dont mean to go off on a tangent here, but light can have a valid frame of reference if the aether (an absolute point of view) is considered. Lorentz clearly showed this, so if you are experiencing trouble with this issue in your studies, I recommend using his equations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Waveman, I believe we already had this discussion. There is no need to believe in the ether anymore, as relativity already solves that problem for us. Further, if we actually do use the ether as an absolute frame of refernce, we can completely violate the principle of relativity - not something I would prefer to have, thank you very much.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Waveman, I believe we already had this discussion. There is no need to believe in the ether anymore, as relativity already solves that problem for us. Further, if we actually do use the ether as an absolute frame of refernce, we can completely violate the principle of relativity - not something I would prefer to have, thank you very much.
    Let me tell you that the aether is perfectly consistent with relativity. I do not deny relativity. It is a proven fact, albeit greatly misunderstood. The aether and relativity can peacefully co-exist, here is why. Lets quickly review the posulates of relativity (first worded by Poincare, but if it makes you happy I will use Einsteins name in this post :wink: ).

    Einstein said that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. This is perfectly true and I fully agree with this. So, this means that there is nothing particularly special about the aether's frame of reference, other than it is perfectly stationary. This simply means that its time and length units are absolute and do not change. That is the only difference. No anomalies will occur and no strange and impossible "superluminal speeds" will be recorded by the aether.

    Heres another of Einsteins phrases: The speed of light is a constant, c. This means that light as viewed by the aether will always travel at c.

    Heres the next postulate, and this is where things get messy: The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. This is totally false, because that would contradict the last two of his phrases. Lets say an observer is moving at .5 c through the aether and a beam of light is coming straight at him. The light must pass him at 1.5 c.

    BUT he still observes the speed of light as being the same because as he moves, he undergoes the lorentz transformations hence his clocks absolute frequency as judged by the aether slows down, and his absolute length in the aether will contract. This causes him to be misled. THIS is what causes any observer to always record the speed of light as c. This is lorentz's relativity and it is far more usefull at determining what is REALLY going on. Einsteins relativty only describes the effects, not the cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    This is lorentz's relativity and it is far more usefull at determining what is REALLY going on. Einsteins relativty only describes the effects, not the cause.
    Have you read Einstein's original paper on relativity? You'll find out that the only real difference between the two is that Einstein chose not to let the ether appear, while, according to you, Lorentz's relativity placed the ether as an absolute frame of reference.

    This simply means that its time and length units are absolute and do not change. That is the only difference. No anomalies will occur and no strange and impossible "superluminal speeds" will be recorded by the aether.
    Very well. Now let's see why the principle of relativity cannot exist because of this.

    If, as you say, the units of time and length in the ether are absolute i.e. they are constant, then an observer can find out he is moving simply by measuring the amount by which his clock has slowed down and comparing it to the ether. If the two are the same, he is not in motion. If the two are not the same, then he is in motion, and he has violated the principle of relativity, as he can tell with absolute certainty that he is in motion (the ether must be perfectly still, as you said, so the observer can never say that the ether might be in motion).

    A theory of relativity without the ether is much better off than this, because then one observer can measure his speed relative to that of an observer who considers himself to be at rest. However, he cannot tell if he is in motion mainly because he can also say that the second observer might be moving at his speed while he is at rest, protecting the principle of relativity.

    In this way, we can see that relativity with the ether contradicts the principle of relativity, while a relativity without the ether protects it from violation.

    This is my contention with the ether: that if we accept it, then we must deny the principle of relativity. Are you willing to do that?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Hey guys, read THIS and tell me what you think? :wink:

    More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

    Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else with the help of small floats, for instance we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of inovable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Quote:
    More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

    Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else with the help of small floats, for instance we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of inovable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium
    Einstein, in this case, is correct; however, this is only because he asserts that we must make sure the ether has the ability to be in motion, as opposed to a constant state of rest, making it completely consistent with relativity. Of course, since we don't know what the ether will do when it is in motion, we can't make any predictions for it, and hence the ether will remain forever undiscoverable.

    Quite frankly, believing in the ether is a bit like believing in God; he might exist, but we sure as heck don't know how to prove it.

    Also, if you read Einstein's lecture carefully, I think you'll find he advocated a return to a completely different ether, one divested of all the properties previously conferred upon it. Popular misconception represents this as space-time, conferring upon the concept the sort of ether-like quality which einstein proposed this 'new' ether had.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Einstein, in this case, is correct; however, this is only because he asserts that we must make sure the ether has the ability to be in motion, as opposed to a constant state of rest, making it completely consistent with relativity.
    And this is why I provided the link, i.e. to show us what would be required of an aether for it to be consistent with relativity.

    Of course, since we don't know what the ether will do when it is in motion, we can't make any predictions for it, and hence the ether will remain forever undiscoverable.
    I don't agree. In fact, this is where the cool part comes in. We can make up as many different types of aether as we like and then test them using mind experiments and preferably using mathematical modelling to see which ones fit the picture. It is my belief that, in case an aether exists, that we can explain exactly why relativity and QM work like they do. We could make predictions that are testable. We could custom fit the aether so we can end up with one that explain the unexplained, even provide the possibility of a true ToE.

    Of course, current understanding holds that an aether is not really necessary. But if a model of an aether is put forward that provide new answers, then that assumption has to be booted.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    I don't agree. In fact, this is where the cool part comes in. We can make up as many different types of aether as we like and then test them using mind experiments and preferably using mathematical modelling to see which ones fit the picture. It is my belief that, in case an aether exists, that we can explain exactly why relativity and QM work like they do. We could make predictions that are testable. We could custom fit the aether so we can end up with one that explain the unexplained, even provide the possibility of a true ToE.
    True. But, then, we'll have to make the assumption that the ether does exist, and certainly being unable to predict its properties is a huge disadvantage.

    In fact, let's assume for a moment that the ether does exist. if so, why is it there? What fundamentally does it do? We can rule out its luminoferous properties; that was excluded long ago. Is it perhaps some sort of constant observer, the mythical ever-present observer that exists to collapse our wave functions? If so, what collapses its wave function? And if it is constantly watching, wouldn't that lead to the uncertainty principle coming down on full force, forcing all particles to speed up to the speed of light as their position is constantly being defined by the ether?

    The bottom line is that because we know absolutely nothing of the properties of the new ether, we can make up anything we want about them. We could say that green ducks swim inside the ether and vanish everytime we looked at the ether, and we would have no way of checking that prediction because there is no experiment that can actually check if the ether is present. We could make realistic predictions about the ether, based on a couple of assumptions, and have no way of checking our hypothesis. Because we have no starting point to explain what the ether is, we could spend years trying to prove that the ether is continuous, discrete, infinite, limited, stretchable, twistable and so on.

    String theory is in the same situation. It makes no predictions that are testable at present. We have a theory that cannot be tested.

    However, since I seem to really like discussing such an ether, for no discernible reason , I'll play along. What do you suggest is the function of the ether? What are its fundamental properties?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    However, since I seem to really like discussing such an ether, for no discernible reason , I'll play along. What do you suggest is the function of the ether? What are its fundamental properties?
    Well, I have thought about this part for a while now. Here follows something I came up with, mostly arbitrarily of course.

    First you need volume. Let's first assume that the aether is made up of point sources.

    If you plotted the distance of each point source to its nearest neighbour against the number of point sources with the same scalar distance to its neighbour at , you'll end up with this graph:



    Which takes the form: ,

    Where and

    Now, the scalar distance between each point source and its closest neighbour has to change, which would require a time and consequently a speed. I then propose the speed at which points move relative to each other as and the time between each change as a unit of Planck time (). So, basically, if you took a measurement of the scalar distances between each point source and its closest neighbour every unit of Planck time, you would end up with the graph above. The more distances you measure, the closer the plot will begin to resemble the one above. This provides leeway for the famed quantum foam that seems to have actually been discovered.

    As to its function: I am working on an idea where all matter and forces are natural emergent properties of this medium.

    Let me leave it there for now. :?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Liongold, there is a fatal error in your understanding of relativity. Relativity is not about what really happens, but what what an observer thinks happened. Relativity is basically the science of illusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    If all observations say it's happening, what's the difference? Can you describe any experiment that could show that it's only an illusion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Alright. What I'm getting out of all of this, is that light is kind of an exemption to the rules that govern matter. (Which fits, since light apparently has no mass)

    Ie. Light can move at C. Light experiences an absolute perfect zero advancement of time. It's also incapable of having any speed other than C, except when moving through a medium.

    Most of the principles of relativity, then, only apply to matter, or at least they only applies to objects with mass.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Therefore if you were sitting on a beam of light travelling at C you could not calculate your speed at all because to calculate your speed you would need to know the value of distance/time; and as you will not be able to KNOW the time because you do not experience it, you will not be able to calculate the equation to work out your speed.
    Technically speaking, time dilation does not imply that you will not know the time; you will simply measure zero time passing from the moment you attained light speed.

    And that doesn't really solve the problem. Not knowing the time and being unable to calculate the speed doesn't imply that you can take it to be at rest, which the principle of relativity demands for the situation I outlined above.

    By



    the time measured will be equal to infinty as you correctly surmised.

    However, distance is equal to speed multiplied by time, implying firstly that according to your clock you will have covered infinite distance, and your speed will be equal to one (by dividing distance by time).

    However, this hasn't much to do with the problem. How can the photon be allowed to measure itself to be at rest, as the principle of relativity demands, and yet still obey the constancy of light postulate, which demands that it must always be in motion from any refernce frame?
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    The rules of SR pertain to inertial reference frames, and in Relativity, light does not have a valid inertial reference frame, so it is little wonder that you won't get a reasonable answer when you try to apply the rules of SR to the frame of light.
    So, fair enough. If these arguments don't apply to ordinary matter, then we don't need to worry about them, but ....

    What about the limiting case where an object's velocity approaches C?

    Limit V -> C

    I guess I have a different question. If a space ship is moving close to C, and starting at Earth, calculates the time it takes to reach Proxima Centauri as being 23 seconds..... how does relativity reconcile that?

    Is the distance shorter? We know the space ship can't perceive Proxima Centauri, or itself, to be moving faster than C. Yet, it's reasonable that the crew might perceive the trip to have taken 23 seconds.


    How is that possible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I guess I have a different question. If a space ship is moving close to C, and starting at Earth, calculates the time it takes to reach Proxima Centauri as being 23 seconds..... how does relativity reconcile that?

    Is the distance shorter? We know the space ship can't perceive Proxima Centauri, or itself, to be moving faster than C. Yet, it's reasonable that the crew might perceive the trip to have taken 23 seconds.


    How is that possible?
    The distance is shorter for the crew. From their perspective, it is Earth and Alpha Centauri that are moving at near c velocity, and thus the distance between the two undergoes length contraction.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Alright. What I'm getting out of all of this, is that light is kind of an exemption to the rules that govern matter. (Which fits, since light apparently has no mass)

    Ie. Light can move at C. Light experiences an absolute perfect zero advancement of time. It's also incapable of having any speed other than C, except when moving through a medium.

    Most of the principles of relativity, then, only apply to matter, or at least they only applies to objects with mass.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Therefore if you were sitting on a beam of light travelling at C you could not calculate your speed at all because to calculate your speed you would need to know the value of distance/time; and as you will not be able to KNOW the time because you do not experience it, you will not be able to calculate the equation to work out your speed.
    Technically speaking, time dilation does not imply that you will not know the time; you will simply measure zero time passing from the moment you attained light speed.

    And that doesn't really solve the problem. Not knowing the time and being unable to calculate the speed doesn't imply that you can take it to be at rest, which the principle of relativity demands for the situation I outlined above.

    By



    the time measured will be equal to infinty as you correctly surmised.

    However, distance is equal to speed multiplied by time, implying firstly that according to your clock you will have covered infinite distance, and your speed will be equal to one (by dividing distance by time).

    However, this hasn't much to do with the problem. How can the photon be allowed to measure itself to be at rest, as the principle of relativity demands, and yet still obey the constancy of light postulate, which demands that it must always be in motion from any refernce frame?
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    The rules of SR pertain to inertial reference frames, and in Relativity, light does not have a valid inertial reference frame, so it is little wonder that you won't get a reasonable answer when you try to apply the rules of SR to the frame of light.
    So, fair enough. If these arguments don't apply to ordinary matter, then we don't need to worry about them, but ....

    What about the limiting case where an object's velocity approaches C?

    Limit V -> C

    I guess I have a different question. If a space ship is moving close to C, and starting at Earth, calculates the time it takes to reach Proxima Centauri as being 23 seconds..... how does relativity reconcile that?

    Is the distance shorter? We know the space ship can't perceive Proxima Centauri, or itself, to be moving faster than C. Yet, it's reasonable that the crew might perceive the trip to have taken 23 seconds.


    How is that possible?
    May i take a stab then?

    [/quote]

    So asymptotically-speaking, if then it prooves synonymous with . This then prooves does it not your point:

    What about the limiting case where an object's velocity approaches C?

    Limit V -> C


    EDIT

    ''[unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]''

    what have i done wrong, here is the format i gave minus the latex shelves,

    (\frac{v^2}{c^2})=\frac{\frac{F^2t^2}{M^2c^2}{1+ \frac{F^2t^2}{M^2c^2}


    ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I guess I have a different question. If a space ship is moving close to C, and starting at Earth, calculates the time it takes to reach Proxima Centauri as being 23 seconds..... how does relativity reconcile that?

    Is the distance shorter? We know the space ship can't perceive Proxima Centauri, or itself, to be moving faster than C. Yet, it's reasonable that the crew might perceive the trip to have taken 23 seconds.


    How is that possible?
    The distance is shorter for the crew. From their perspective, it is Earth and Alpha Centauri that are moving at near c velocity, and thus the distance between the two undergoes length contraction.
    Are you sure this is right? It's sort of a backwards version of Bell's spaceship paradox. I would think that the measured distance between Earth and Alpha Centauri would remain the same, since it's the spaceship crew who underwent acceleration and not the Earth or Alpha Centauri. But I'm probably wrong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: Relativity 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    For the last few weeks, I have been trying to solve a problem regarding relativistic conceptions.

    keep at it, its a very hard subject, even i am still learning about it and its very hard to visualize sometimes.

    I'm sure that we are all aware of the principle of relativity i.e. it is impossible to tell whether you are in motion or not.

    You seem to be inquiring about the photon point of view as it moves along a null path, which is just mathematical jargon meaning from its point of view there is no time that passes, and if there is no time - that must also mean space, because if this is what you meant, you are slighty wrong in the following:

    [b]Consequently, if a photon were to pass by an observer, the observer can say that he is at rest and the photon is in motion. By the principle of relativity, however, the photon has equal rights to say that it is in motion and the observer is in motion. Yet the second postulate of relativity (light always moves at the same constant speed) implies that a photon, no matter what, will always measure itself to be in motion, contradicting the principle of relativity, as it prevents the photon from ever considering itself at rest.[b]

    If a photon passed an observer IT WOULD REQUIRE an external observer to measure it somehow move from one phyical distance to another, however, the observer needed here would be either a human or some physical particle.... From a particles point of view, it doesn't experience any vectors of time or space, so it i best to say it doesn't really have any reference point which makes sense locally.

    I would appreciate any help in solving this contradiction. Would it, I would also like to ask, be consistent with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem with this contradiction here?

    Godels Incompleteness Theorem, doesn't really have any specific say in this matter. The incompleteness it performs is just a mathematical performance which in the end of the day could quite simply refer to anything, but specifically-speaking, no. There is no real relation that isn't distant.

    Note: I realise I may be attracting naysayers of relativity here, so I wish to clarify that this thread is only to discuss ways to solve the problem I have just outlined here. In no way am I claiming relativity is false.


    Not at all. We come to learn, that's what we are all here to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    EDIT

    ''[unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]''

    what have i done wrong
    Were you aiming for this?

    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plutonia
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    EDIT

    ''[unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula]''

    what have i done wrong
    Were you aiming for this?

    Yes, thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So does this length contraction just occur in the direction of motion, or in all directions? The universe seem less wide, as well as seeming shorter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Wow, this thread has certainly bloomed.

    First you need volume. Let's first assume that the aether is made up of point sources.

    If you plotted the distance of each point source to its nearest neighbour against the number of point sources with the same scalar distance to its neighbour at t = 0 , you'll end up with this graph
    I should warn you, Kalster: I'm only 14. I've never learned any calculus and certainly no analysis. So forgive me if I might make some critical error in understanding what you say.

    Very well. I take it you're trying to simply plot the distance of each point to its nearest neighbour against the number of point distances having equal distance to the first points' neighbour. (I realise I've simply rewritten what you say; I only state it here just to be sure there is no confusion between you and me)

    How will that generate a logarithmic function? That is to say, exactly how have you calculated the resultant graph?

    Now, the scalar distance between each point source and its closest neighbour has to change, which would require a time and consequently a speed. I then propose the speed at which points move relative to each other as C and the time between each change as a unit of Planck time (5.39124 x 10^44s).
    i.e. the points move relative to each other at the speed of light and the time for each change is the Planck time. Very well.

    However, here I have a few questions. If we consider the aether to be continuous, then exactly which point can be considered to be in motion? Certainly, if all of them would have to move, they would have to move at a different speed for every single observer, meaning the points must possess two speeds at once. Assuming the distance they cover is the same, they must experience different times. However, by taking C to be their relative speed, you automatically make the time experienced by the aether point to be infinite, implying that they must all be travelling at the same time. Consequently, they cannot travel at two speeds at once, which is a contradiction.

    I realise I may be confusing relative time for the points with the relative time for the observer, here, though. However, think of it this way: obviously not every point cannot be considered to be in motion, otherwise each observer would observe two different speeds for the same points, even if both are considered to be at rest, because the points also have to move in such a way that the first observer cannot violate the relativity principle and the second observer must also not violate the relativity principle. Again, the points must experience different times, and we come to the same contradiction we saw above.

    A third question, assuming I've made any sort of sense so far, is exactly how do we determine which points can be considered to be in motion relative to us? I've already pointed out all points cannot move together. Obviously, some must then be at rest. I realise that the resulting situation is indeterminate between rest and motion, but that is not what I wish to point out. What I wish to say is that the ether cannot then move as a whole; it must move separately, as parts of a whole, each and every part in different directions, each compensating for different observers. The ether cannot consequently remain harmonious for long; it must change. So basically my question here is this: is there any way to predict the way the ether will change? A Calabi-Yau manifold might work here, but I personally believe the resultant manifold will be well beyond that; it might even be impossible to determine the amount of change in the ether.

    Also, do these points fall in with the uncertainty principle? I'm assuming here it must be possible to reconcile the ether with quantum theory, so there must be a way to obscure postion or velocity of the ether to account, likewise, for the relative position and velocity of the particles. If the ether can move relatively to the particle, there must be a way for it to somehow determine its velocity and know its position, otherwise it would be unable to move relatively to it.

    These are my only problems with your theory. I realise I've prbably shown just how convoluted my brain's thinking is willing to go, but please, I ask you to try to answer them.

    Liongold, there is a fatal error in your understanding of relativity. Relativity is not about what really happens, but what what an observer thinks happened. Relativity is basically the science of illusion.
    The science of illusion? According to relativity, time dilation really happens, as does length contraction. Both events have been measured to happen. the only uncertainty relativity predicts is that you can't tell who the effect is really on. Are you experiencing time dilation and the muon is at rest, or is it the other way around?

    I guess I have a different question. If a space ship is moving close to C, and starting at Earth, calculates the time it takes to reach Proxima Centauri as being 23 seconds..... how does relativity reconcile that?

    Is the distance shorter? We know the space ship can't perceive Proxima Centauri, or itself, to be moving faster than C. Yet, it's reasonable that the crew might perceive the trip to have taken 23 seconds.
    According to relativity, the crew can't tell if their in motion or if Alpha Centauri and Earth suddenyl decided to start moving really fast. Obviously, knowing Einstein's equations, they know somebody will experience time dilation; they just don't know what is experiencing time dilation.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Liongold, I think my idea should be taken to the New Hypothesis section. I'll open up a thread there in the next day or two. It is not a theory or even an hypothesis maybe. It is just a mind experiment I am trying. Everything I say should be taken with a handfull of salt. :?

    I should warn you, Kalster: I'm only 14. I've never learned any calculus and certainly no analysis. So forgive me if I might make some critical error in understanding what you say.
    I am well aware of your age and I have to say that you are showing amazing abilities for someone your age. :wink: If I have any edge over you, it would be 4 extra years of high school maths, which isn't much. I have a feeling that it does not count in your case though.

    See you there!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman ultraviolet_catastrophe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Let me tell you that the aether is perfectly consistent with relativity. I do not deny relativity. It is a proven fact, albeit greatly misunderstood. The aether and relativity can peacefully co-exist, here is why. Lets quickly review the posulates of relativity (first worded by Poincare, but if it makes you happy I will use Einsteins name in this post :wink: ).

    Einstein said that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. This is perfectly true and I fully agree with this. So, this means that there is nothing particularly special about the aether's frame of reference, other than it is perfectly stationary. This simply means that its time and length units are absolute and do not change. That is the only difference. No anomalies will occur and no strange and impossible "superluminal speeds" will be recorded by the aether.

    Heres another of Einsteins phrases: The speed of light is a constant, c. This means that light as viewed by the aether will always travel at c.

    Heres the next postulate, and this is where things get messy: The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. This is totally false, because that would contradict the last two of his phrases. Lets say an observer is moving at .5 c through the aether and a beam of light is coming straight at him. The light must pass him at 1.5 c.

    BUT he still observes the speed of light as being the same because as he moves, he undergoes the lorentz transformations hence his clocks absolute frequency as judged by the aether slows down, and his absolute length in the aether will contract. This causes him to be misled. THIS is what causes any observer to always record the speed of light as c. This is lorentz's relativity and it is far more usefull at determining what is REALLY going on. Einsteins relativty only describes the effects, not the cause.
    The concept of ether is absolutely not consistent with relativity. As a matter of fact, Einstein, in 1905, was the first to realize that physicists should abandon the deceiving and useless concept of ether, so the whole pilar of your argument is invalid. He accepted the hipothesis that light propagates in vaccum and that vaccum is actually empty, which is the exact oposite of the whole ether concept. Without an ether referential, the only valid referential system that can have any meaning to an observer who is measuring the speed of light is the fixed referential that relates to himself, so the concept of ether is absolutely obsolete, as well as incorrect.
    Einstein's postulate says:
    "The laws of electromagnetic phenomena, as well as the laws of mechanics, are the same in all systems of inertial referentials, although these systems move in relation to one another. Consequently, all the inertial referentials are completely equivalent for all phenomena."

    I believe you are completely mistaken in your arguments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Re: Relativity 
    Forum Freshman ultraviolet_catastrophe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    I dont mean to go off on a tangent here, but light can have a valid frame of reference if the aether (an absolute point of view) is considered. Lorentz clearly showed this, so if you are experiencing trouble with this issue in your studies, I recommend using his equations.
    this is also incorrect. Lorentz equations are used to convert space and time variables from one referential system to another one that moves with constant speed in relation to the first. the equations do not imply an absolute inertial referential such as ether, and the two referentials are most likely in movement. as a matter of fact, the lorentz equations only have a valid use with the concept of relativity, which rejects the concept of ether, associated with classical physics. otherwise, it would be much more rational to simply use the galilean convertions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Liongold, I think my idea should be taken to the New Hypothesis section. I'll open up a thread there in the next day or two. It is not a theory or even an hypothesis maybe. It is just a mind experiment I am trying. Everything I say should be taken with a handfull of salt.
    Hope you don't mind, Kalster, but I took the liberty of actually creating such a thread in the New Hypotheses forum. So please, I would appreciate it if you could expand your ideas there. Again, hope you don't mind I did it in your place.

    The title of the thread is The Ether And Relativity.

    I am well aware of your age and I have to say that you are showing amazing abilities for someone your age. If I have any edge over you, it would be 4 extra years of high school maths, which isn't much. I have a feeling that it does not count in your case though.
    Thank you, Kalster, for that compliment. :-D

    The concept of ether is absolutely not consistent with relativity. As a matter of fact, Einstein, in 1905, was the first to realize that physicists should abandon the deceiving and useless concept of ether, so the whole pilar of your argument is invalid. He accepted the hipothesis that light propagates in vaccum and that vaccum is actually empty, which is the exact oposite of the whole ether concept. Without an ether referential, the only valid referential system that can have any meaning to an observer who is measuring the speed of light is the fixed referential that relates to himself, so the concept of ether is absolutely obsolete, as well as incorrect.
    Einstein's postulate says:
    "The laws of electromagnetic phenomena, as well as the laws of mechanics, are the same in all systems of inertial referentials, although these systems move in relation to one another. Consequently, all the inertial referentials are completely equivalent for all phenomena."

    I believe you are completely mistaken in your arguments.
    Um, ultraviolet, Einstein himself admitted that an ether is acceptable in relativivty, provided it has the capability of being in motion, instead of being constantly at rest, as proposed before relativity. Just wanted to correct that; no offense.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Light and Time 
    Forum Freshman vistotutti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Australia/Adelaide
    Posts
    18
    I'm still learning of relativity, so this is in part a question in the form of a series of statements.

    1) Light does not deserve it's own frame of reference, unlike any other observer in the universe.
    2) Light travels always a C, no matter who observes it.
    3) Time/space will alter in order for 1) and 2) to remain true.

    If light cannot be said to be (nearly) stationary in relation to "Bob", who has attained the speed of light (minus a little bit) in the same direction as the light, then does light inhabit the time dimension at all?

    The reason I ask this is because; Bob and Jane inhabit a 4 dimensional space, and as Bob moves past Jane in the "across" dimension at near C speed. Jane is not sure if she is not moving at near C speed in the opposite direction.

    The only way I can see for a light beam/particle to be exempt from the same principle is if light does not inhabit a four dimensional world as do Bob and Jane.

    Let me explain...

    If light is not involved in the time dimension, then it would be exempt from the distance/time rule. Without time, there is just instantaneous distance.
    Speed being distance traveled over time, after all.
    Bob and Jane, both, see time, and they see distance traveled over that time.

    Can we deny the existence of distance? we can distort it, but it's still there.
    So that leaves Time...

    What is time ... I dont know!

    Does light travel from the big bang to the end of the universe with only distance as a measure, with time not in the equation?

    Does light bounce back from the end of the universe and interfere with itself on the way back to the beginning, in a quantum wave kind of way?

    I'm not sure the English language is up to the task of explaining the concepts I'm grappling with here, but comments in the same flawed language are welcome.
    --
    There is that which is known.That which is known to be Unknown. The unknown that is unknown to be unknown... and that which is thought to be known, but is actually unknown.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman ultraviolet_catastrophe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The concept of ether is absolutely not consistent with relativity. As a matter of fact, Einstein, in 1905, was the first to realize that physicists should abandon the deceiving and useless concept of ether, so the whole pilar of your argument is invalid. He accepted the hipothesis that light propagates in vaccum and that vaccum is actually empty, which is the exact oposite of the whole ether concept. Without an ether referential, the only valid referential system that can have any meaning to an observer who is measuring the speed of light is the fixed referential that relates to himself, so the concept of ether is absolutely obsolete, as well as incorrect.
    Einstein's postulate says:
    "The laws of electromagnetic phenomena, as well as the laws of mechanics, are the same in all systems of inertial referentials, although these systems move in relation to one another. Consequently, all the inertial referentials are completely equivalent for all phenomena."

    I believe you are completely mistaken in your arguments.
    Um, ultraviolet, Einstein himself admitted that an ether is acceptable in relativivty, provided it has the capability of being in motion, instead of being constantly at rest, as proposed before relativity. Just wanted to correct that; no offense.
    none taken.
    allow me to evolve this: (im basing this on eisberg/resnick quantum physics book)
    just as sound waves propagate through a mechanical enviroment (the air), then, according to that view, electromagnetic waves must propagate through a mechanical enviroment, and those early scientists called this enviroment "ether". they needed this supposed enviroment to have very strange properties, as not to contradict known facts. for example, it should not have mass, once electromagnetic waves, like light, can propagate through vacuum; but it must have elastic properties as to be able to transmit vibrations that are linked to the idea of undulatory movement. besides all of this, physicists of that time thought the concept of ether was much more atractive than the alternative of electromagnetic waves propagating without the assistance of an enviroment.
    to sum up, theoretical physics of the late XIX were based in three fundaments: newton's equations, maxwell equations and the galilean transformations. mostly everything that could be deducted from these fundaments were in perfect accord with the experiences that had been made at the time. they would predict that systems of reference in uniform movement relatively to one another were completely equivalent regarding mechanical phenomena, but were not equivalent when electromagnetic phenomena were being analised: there should be one absolute referential, ether, in which light speed would have a numeric value, c.
    then came the michelson-morley experiment, and all experimental evidence were consistent only with the conclusion that there is not a special referential system, or ether referential, with the sole property that only in this referential light speed has module "c". exactly the same way that for inertial referentials and mechanical phenomena, all the referentials in relative movement with constant speed are equivalent, meaning that light speed measured in each referential has the same module "c".

    anyways, once the obsolete concept of ether was abandoned, einstein finally realised he had to modify maxwell's equations or the galilean transformations, once the two of them together implied the opposite of the postulate. so he modified the galilean transformations. and why all of this?
    because the concept of ether was abandoned and considered not only obsolete but also incorrect.

    so i maintain the affirmation that ether and relativity are two concepts that simultaneously exclude one another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraviolet_catastrophe
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Let me tell you that the aether is perfectly consistent with relativity. I do not deny relativity. It is a proven fact, albeit greatly misunderstood. The aether and relativity can peacefully co-exist, here is why. Lets quickly review the posulates of relativity (first worded by Poincare, but if it makes you happy I will use Einsteins name in this post :wink: ).

    Einstein said that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. This is perfectly true and I fully agree with this. So, this means that there is nothing particularly special about the aether's frame of reference, other than it is perfectly stationary. This simply means that its time and length units are absolute and do not change. That is the only difference. No anomalies will occur and no strange and impossible "superluminal speeds" will be recorded by the aether.

    Heres another of Einsteins phrases: The speed of light is a constant, c. This means that light as viewed by the aether will always travel at c.

    Heres the next postulate, and this is where things get messy: The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. This is totally false, because that would contradict the last two of his phrases. Lets say an observer is moving at .5 c through the aether and a beam of light is coming straight at him. The light must pass him at 1.5 c.

    BUT he still observes the speed of light as being the same because as he moves, he undergoes the lorentz transformations hence his clocks absolute frequency as judged by the aether slows down, and his absolute length in the aether will contract. This causes him to be misled. THIS is what causes any observer to always record the speed of light as c. This is lorentz's relativity and it is far more usefull at determining what is REALLY going on. Einsteins relativty only describes the effects, not the cause.
    The concept of ether is absolutely not consistent with relativity. As a matter of fact, Einstein, in 1905, was the first to realize that physicists should abandon the deceiving and useless concept of ether, so the whole pilar of your argument is invalid. He accepted the hipothesis that light propagates in vaccum and that vaccum is actually empty, which is the exact oposite of the whole ether concept. Without an ether referential, the only valid referential system that can have any meaning to an observer who is measuring the speed of light is the fixed referential that relates to himself, so the concept of ether is absolutely obsolete, as well as incorrect.
    Einstein's postulate says:
    "The laws of electromagnetic phenomena, as well as the laws of mechanics, are the same in all systems of inertial referentials, although these systems move in relation to one another. Consequently, all the inertial referentials are completely equivalent for all phenomena."

    I believe you are completely mistaken in your arguments.
    You will never understand the universe until you accept that all that exists is waves in a medium. This medium is called the aether. This is NOT the luminiferous aether. It is simply the medium in which matter waves propagate. It is that simple. There is nothing else to our universe. These waves explain everything including all forces, relativity and mechanics. Current physics is a horrible mess. Anyone who ignores the aether is wasting their entire scientiffic career.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    why must you be so absolutist? Isn't the grand idea behind a scientific process the willingness to accept that you might be wrong, and that a better explanation than your's could, invariable, become reality? Isn't, by that, your whole obsession with aether a little misguided? is it not possible that you are wrong Wave, and that some other explanation for the universe and how it works potentially better and, to some extent, possible more correct than yours? Why must you stick to this as if it is the one and only? This sort of absolutism has, in my opinion, room only in religion; where absolutist points of view are, for some religions, the only way to say they are right. You are treating aether as if it is God, and is the one and only correct way of seeing the world around us. I impart to you, Wave, to look through some other lens and see if you can still get a pretty picture of the universe. Become objective in your arguments, and please, try to see the different views and respect them. Don't be absolutist, as it leads to logical fallacies galore and serves to make you look like you and your arguing style belong in the Religion sub-forum.

    Aether is not the only way to explain phenomena, as the other posters have pointed out. In relativity, the idea of a lack of a medium is central to Einstein's view light, and to say that the universal medium of aether is necessary cancels out Einstein's theories and postulates. Without a vacuum, relativity must be altered considerably to be coherent and compatible with your view on the universe through the medium that all matter exists as 'waves'. I will take the non ethereal route, personally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathamatition
    why must you be so absolutist? Isn't the grand idea behind a scientific process the willingness to accept that you might be wrong, and that a better explanation than your's could, invariable, become reality? Isn't, by that, your whole obsession with aether a little misguided? is it not possible that you are wrong Wave, and that some other explanation for the universe and how it works potentially better and, to some extent, possible more correct than yours? Why must you stick to this as if it is the one and only? This sort of absolutism has, in my opinion, room only in religion; where absolutist points of view are, for some religions, the only way to say they are right. You are treating aether as if it is God, and is the one and only correct way of seeing the world around us. I impart to you, Wave, to look through some other lens and see if you can still get a pretty picture of the universe. Become objective in your arguments, and please, try to see the different views and respect them. Don't be absolutist, as it leads to logical fallacies galore and serves to make you look like you and your arguing style belong in the Religion sub-forum.

    Aether is not the only way to explain phenomena, as the other posters have pointed out. In relativity, the idea of a lack of a medium is central to Einstein's view light, and to say that the universal medium of aether is necessary cancels out Einstein's theories and postulates. Without a vacuum, relativity must be altered considerably to be coherent and compatible with your view on the universe through the medium that all matter exists as 'waves'. I will take the non ethereal route, personally.
    I completely agree that open-mindedness is essential to come to any meaningful conclusion in terms of your understanding of the universe and its intricate laws, and I have indeed been open-minded my entire life. It is this quality that has led me to see that waves in a medium is the way the universe works. I have been down the quantum path, it makes no sense, is incomplete and it full of paradoxes and dead-ends. "Einsteins" relativity is also incorrect for many of the same reasons. I have extensively analysed and studied most theories on the universe such as gauge theory, etc. and they are all helplessly devoid of logic and common sense. What's more, relativity at present is actually full of many simple mistakes and assumptions. I will not provide any examples in this post, it will take far too long at present to convince you and everyone else, and frankly im glad in a sense that my knowledge of the universe is greater than the vast majority of other scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    What's more, relativity at present is actually full of many simple mistakes and assumptions. I will not provide any examples in this post, it will take far too long at present to convince you and everyone else
    These two statements taken together are the classic definition of a crackpot. If you cannot back your assertions quantitatively, they are just that - assertions, and meaningless to boot,

    I suppose you realize (maybe you don't) that the theories you dislike have been experimentally confirmed (rather I should say, not shown to be false) to an extraordinary degree of accuracy? What experiments have you in mind that falsify these theories? Or is it you don't understand the logical status of a "scientific theory"?
    and frankly im glad in a sense that my knowledge of the universe is greater than the vast majority of other scientists.
    Ignorance and arrogance are an ugly blend, again, one typically found in crackpots
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    you've become close-minded in your determination to show that you are superior to everyone else because that specific explanation makes sense to you and that you feel it is 'obviously' right. That quality of closed-mindedness is continued by your unwillingness to show examples to support your claims and cast doubt on the opposing theories. Provide these examples, and then you can take comfort in the ability of having a scientific discussion, debate even, and quite possibly educating us to be at your self proclaimed level of understanding of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: Relativity 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    For the last few weeks, I have been trying to solve a problem regarding relativistic conceptions.

    I'm sure that we are all aware of the principle of relativity i.e. it is impossible to tell whether you are in motion or not. Consequently, if a photon were to pass by an observer, the observer can say that he is at rest and the photon is in motion. By the principle of relativity, however, the photon has equal rights to say that it is in motion and the observer is in motion. Yet the second postulate of relativity (light always moves at the same constant speed) implies that a photon, no matter what, will always measure itself to be in motion, contradicting the principle of relativity, as it prevents the photon from ever considering itself at rest.

    I would appreciate any help in solving this contradiction. Would it, I would also like to ask, be consistent with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem with this contradiction here?

    Note: I realise I may be attracting naysayers of relativity here, so I wish to clarify that this thread is only to discuss ways to solve the problem I have just outlined here. In no way am I claiming relativity is false.
    I recognzie that I am a little late to the party here, but you have started with a false premise. While it is true that there is no means of detecting uniform motion, the special of relativity is based on just two postulates:

    1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.

    2. The speed of light is a constant that is the same in all inertial reference frames.

    From those two premises you can derive all of special relativity. See for instance Introduction to Special Relativity by Wolfgang Rindler.

    That derivation actually shows something more. It shows that if you modigy postulate number 2, to be merely the assumption that there is something, anything, that propagates at a constant speed X in all inertial reference frames, then you get the Lorentz transformation of special relativity with "X" in place of "c". That shows that there can be at most one such universal speed of propagation. Then one takes the experimental fact that c is such a speed and you also get special relativity as a result. That is how one concludes that it is impossible to transmit information faster than c.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Fair enough, i will show you where everything went wrong.

    The postulates of Einsteins relativity are:
    1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
    I agree that this statement is perfectly true.
    2. The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.
    This statement is totally false. The speed of light APPEARS to be the same in all inertial frames of references, but in fact it is really not. This is the key difference between accepting and refuting the aether, and unfortunately physics went down the wrong path. When an observers absolute speed increases, its clocks begin to slow down and its length contracts in the direction of its motion. This causes them to be misled when measuring the speed of light. The slower time and contracted lengths cancels the difference in speed between it and the light, so the lights speed appears to be always constant. It is that simple. This simple fact changes everything in terms of how we think about the universe and the aether. The speed of light is always constant, which means that if we speed up we should be able to notice a difference in its speed. But as I said before, this cannot occur, because as we speed up, our clocks and lengths change, making light have the same speed in all reference frames, BUT THIS IS JUST AN ILLUSION. It is not what is really happening, it is only what an observer will record.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    ... see my post above dude. you are talking about the aether religiously, step back. and observe it through a different perspective
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Fair enough, i will show you where everything went wrong.

    The postulates of Einsteins relativity are:
    1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
    I agree that this statement is perfectly true.
    2. The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.
    This statement is totally false. The speed of light APPEARS to be the same in all inertial frames of references, but in fact it is really not. This is the key difference between accepting and refuting the aether, and unfortunately physics went down the wrong path. When an observers absolute speed increases, its clocks begin to slow down and its length contracts in the direction of its motion. This causes them to be misled when measuring the speed of light. The slower time and contracted lengths cancels the difference in speed between it and the light, so the lights speed appears to be always constant. It is that simple.
    This explanation falls flat on its face through a couple of simple examples.

    Start with a rod 299,792,558 m long. Light will take exactly 1 sec to traverse its length while at rest.

    Start it moving at 0.866c. At this speed, its length would contract to 1/2 and its clock will run at half speed.

    So let's say that a light beam is fired towards the front of the rod at the instant the back end passes the point from which the beam is emitted.

    Now according to your explanation, the light is really traveling at 1c-.866c =.134c relative to the rod, but because of length contraction and time dilation, he measures this as 1c.

    Now taking the rod's length contraction into account, the light will take 149,896,294/.134c = 3.73 sec to travel from the back to front of the rod.

    Considering that the clock of an observer traveling with the rod would be running 1/2 as fast, he would measure the light as taking 1.866 sec to travel from end to end. Since, by his measurement, the rod is 299,792,588 m long, then he would measure the speed of light relative to himself as being 0.536c not 1c.

    It gets worse if we fire the beam from front to back, because now the back end is rushing to meet the beam and the relative velocity between beam and rod is 1.866c, the time it takes for the beam to go from front to back is 0.268 sec, which the observer on the rod measures as 0.134 sec, meaning he measures the light as moving at 7.46c relative to himself not 1c.

    So you can't just say that the length contraction and time dilation caused by the absolute motion of the observer causes him to measure a passing beam of light's speed as being c, as it does not.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    So you can't just say that the length contraction and time dilation caused by the absolute motion of the observer causes him to measure a passing beam of light's speed as being c, as it does not.
    What happens if you make either length or time constant and C a variable? (if that even makes sense)
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    There is more to it then, or does an observer not always see light as traveling at 'c'? I personally have an interest in this topic, and would like to see some sort of (non aetheral!) answer to this question, as all I'm getting is the religious rant of Waveman.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Fair enough, i will show you where everything went wrong.

    The postulates of Einsteins relativity are:
    1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
    I agree that this statement is perfectly true.
    2. The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.
    This statement is totally false. The speed of light APPEARS to be the same in all inertial frames of references, but in fact it is really not. This is the key difference between accepting and refuting the aether, and unfortunately physics went down the wrong path. When an observers absolute speed increases, its clocks begin to slow down and its length contracts in the direction of its motion. This causes them to be misled when measuring the speed of light. The slower time and contracted lengths cancels the difference in speed between it and the light, so the lights speed appears to be always constant. It is that simple.
    This explanation falls flat on its face through a couple of simple examples.

    Start with a rod 299,792,558 m long. Light will take exactly 1 sec to traverse its length while at rest.

    Start it moving at 0.866c. At this speed, its length would contract to 1/2 and its clock will run at half speed.

    So let's say that a light beam is fired towards the front of the rod at the instant the back end passes the point from which the beam is emitted.

    Now according to your explanation, the light is really traveling at 1c-.866c =.134c relative to the rod, but because of length contraction and time dilation, he measures this as 1c.

    Now taking the rod's length contraction into account, the light will take 149,896,294/.134c = 3.73 sec to travel from the back to front of the rod.

    Considering that the clock of an observer traveling with the rod would be running 1/2 as fast, he would measure the light as taking 1.866 sec to travel from end to end. Since, by his measurement, the rod is 299,792,588 m long, then he would measure the speed of light relative to himself as being 0.536c not 1c.

    It gets worse if we fire the beam from front to back, because now the back end is rushing to meet the beam and the relative velocity between beam and rod is 1.866c, the time it takes for the beam to go from front to back is 0.268 sec, which the observer on the rod measures as 0.134 sec, meaning he measures the light as moving at 7.46c relative to himself not 1c.

    So you can't just say that the length contraction and time dilation caused by the absolute motion of the observer causes him to measure a passing beam of light's speed as being c, as it does not.
    Careful. I have not tried to decipher Waveman28's gibberish (nor do I intend to waste my time trying to work through the details), but if the crux is that you can postulate the existence of an "aether" for the propagation of light, and then recover by also postulating that the Lorentz transformation rather than the Galilean transformation applies, then that is in fact a viable formulation. The constancy of the speed of light then comes out as a logical consequence. It is a rather poor formulation and not very compact and efficient, but it does get the job done, at least within the bounds of special relativity. But you can also describe the orbits of celestial bodies with epicycles, and not use Newtonian mechanics. Neither is a very smart way to go. Just because you can do it, does not mean that you should do it. And when you do that you lose all contact with intuition -- whyever would you think that the Lorentz transformation just sort of "pops out of thin air" with no other motivation or explanatioin?

    But whether or not you take that somewhat silly approach, you have NOT invalidated special relativity (big surprise, huh).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman ultraviolet_catastrophe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by ultraviolet_catastrophe
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Let me tell you that the aether is perfectly consistent with relativity. I do not deny relativity. It is a proven fact, albeit greatly misunderstood. The aether and relativity can peacefully co-exist, here is why. Lets quickly review the posulates of relativity (first worded by Poincare, but if it makes you happy I will use Einsteins name in this post :wink: ).

    Einstein said that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. This is perfectly true and I fully agree with this. So, this means that there is nothing particularly special about the aether's frame of reference, other than it is perfectly stationary. This simply means that its time and length units are absolute and do not change. That is the only difference. No anomalies will occur and no strange and impossible "superluminal speeds" will be recorded by the aether.

    Heres another of Einsteins phrases: The speed of light is a constant, c. This means that light as viewed by the aether will always travel at c.

    Heres the next postulate, and this is where things get messy: The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. This is totally false, because that would contradict the last two of his phrases. Lets say an observer is moving at .5 c through the aether and a beam of light is coming straight at him. The light must pass him at 1.5 c.

    BUT he still observes the speed of light as being the same because as he moves, he undergoes the lorentz transformations hence his clocks absolute frequency as judged by the aether slows down, and his absolute length in the aether will contract. This causes him to be misled. THIS is what causes any observer to always record the speed of light as c. This is lorentz's relativity and it is far more usefull at determining what is REALLY going on. Einsteins relativty only describes the effects, not the cause.
    The concept of ether is absolutely not consistent with relativity. As a matter of fact, Einstein, in 1905, was the first to realize that physicists should abandon the deceiving and useless concept of ether, so the whole pilar of your argument is invalid. He accepted the hipothesis that light propagates in vaccum and that vaccum is actually empty, which is the exact oposite of the whole ether concept. Without an ether referential, the only valid referential system that can have any meaning to an observer who is measuring the speed of light is the fixed referential that relates to himself, so the concept of ether is absolutely obsolete, as well as incorrect.
    Einstein's postulate says:
    "The laws of electromagnetic phenomena, as well as the laws of mechanics, are the same in all systems of inertial referentials, although these systems move in relation to one another. Consequently, all the inertial referentials are completely equivalent for all phenomena."

    I believe you are completely mistaken in your arguments.
    You will never understand the universe until you accept that all that exists is waves in a medium. This medium is called the aether. This is NOT the luminiferous aether. It is simply the medium in which matter waves propagate. It is that simple. There is nothing else to our universe. These waves explain everything including all forces, relativity and mechanics. Current physics is a horrible mess. Anyone who ignores the aether is wasting their entire scientiffic career.
    youre grasping at straws here, buddy. dont give me dr phill unless youve got some stephen hawkings, please.
    there is no wavemedium unless you can prove and show me there is one, once i am sure you cannot prove such thing, i will stand by what i have affirmed. physics is different from psychology or literature, so dont give me poetry, give me facts, and you dont have any, i'll see you later. current physics is not a horrible mess. quantum mechanics is the only theory that can explain all phenomena including traditional newtonian phenomena, so unless you have a new theory that can at the same disprove quantum mechanics AND explain the universe in a way that it fails, please, lay off the straws.
    when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    I recognzie that I am a little late to the party here, but you have started with a false premise. While it is true that there is no means of detecting uniform motion, the special of relativity is based on just two postulates:

    1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.

    2. The speed of light is a constant that is the same in all inertial reference frames.

    From those two premises you can derive all of special relativity. See for instance Introduction to Special Relativity by Wolfgang Rindler.

    That derivation actually shows something more. It shows that if you modify postulate number 2, to be merely the assumption that there is something, anything, that propagates at a constant speed X in all inertial reference frames, then you get the Lorentz transformation of special relativity with "X" in place of "c". That shows that there can be at most one such universal speed of propagation. Then one takes the experimental fact that c is such a speed and you also get special relativity as a result. That is how one concludes that it is impossible to transmit information faster than c.
    DrRocket, if you don't mind, I don't exactly understand what this has to do with my original post. Certainly, it is possible to derive all of special relativity this way. However, I original posted a conundrum which Janus resolved by pointing out that light has no inertial frame of reference, and hence is not bound by relativity to measure its speed to constantly be c.

    If I may, I'm not doubting special relativity. However, I occasionally like to ask myself questions about topics I am interested in, to broaden my understanding of it. In this case, I spotted a certain inconsistency between the principle of relativity - here simplified to īt is impossible to tell whether you are in motion or at rest with respect to another body"- and the second postulate of relativity, which has already been resolved.

    Still, thank you for the reference.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •