Relativity and Time

[CraigD]

To summarize, this thread has moved from a discussion of how accurately the predictions of the formulas of the theory of relativity and observed data match, to a claim put forth by Uclock that the predictions of Special Relativity are not accurate at all.

 

According to SR, after accounting for a delay in observing a distant, moving clock given by [math]t_{delay}=\frac{d}{c}[/math] (where d is the distance between observer and clock as measured by the observer, and c is the speed of light), the change in time observed on the moving clock is [math]t'=t\sqrt{1-\(\frac{v}c)^2}[/math] (where t is the time observed on a stationary clock, and v is the speed of the moving clock as measured by the observer).

 

Uclock rejects this description, proposing that the difference between t' and t can be explained in terms of the force experience by the moving clock. In his model, the observer would see all of the difference appear while the clock was being accelerated. While the moving clock is not accelerated, not additional difference between t’ and t accumulates.

 

This is an entirely legitimate scientific hypothesis, and can be used to make testable predictions that can be compared against existing experimental data.

 

Uclock, is my description of your hypothesis accurate? If not, please rewrite it. It should then be possible to make and test the predictions science requires of a hypothesis, and see how it fares.

 

At the same time, I encourage Uclock and anyone else interested in his hypothesis to consider the implications of the hypothesis – in particular, consider how the traditional light-clock thought experiment must be altered to support it. They’re likely to prove surprising.

[arkain101]

Very interesting Craig.

 

Yes. There are alot of stories out there to describe Einstein. Some sources and people will tell you, he wasn't really all that intelligent so on and so forth. It got me to wonder about his acadademic abilities..

 

Anyhow, I just wanted to include an essay that is claimed to have been written by Einstein when he was 16 or 17 years old.

 

The use of language and writing structure are quite impressive. He was definetly well educated.

 

Concerning the Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields: by Albert Einstein

 

"When the electric current comes into being, it immediately sets the surrounding aether in some kind of instantaneous motion, the nature of which has still not been exactly determined. In spite of the continuation of the cause of this motion, namely the electric current, the motion ceases, but the aether remains in a potential state and produces a magnetic field. That the magnetic field is a potential state [of the aether] is shown by the [existence of a] permanent magnet, since the principle of conservation of energy excludes the possibility of a state of motion in this case. The motion of the aether, which is caused by an electric current, will continue until the acting [electro-] motive forces are compensated by the equivalent passive forces which arise from the deformation caused by the motion of the aether itself."

 

"The most interesting, but also the most difficult, task would be the direct experimental study of the magnetic field which arises around an electric current, because the investigation of the elastic state of the aether in this case would allow us to obtain a glimpse of the mysterious nature of the electric current. This analogy also permits us to draw definite conclusions concerning the state of the aether in the magnetic field which surrounds the electric current, provided of course the experiments mentioned above yield any result."

 

"I believe that the quantitative researches on the absolute magnitudes of the density and the elastic force of the aether can only begin if qualitative results exist that are connected with established ideas. Let me add one more thing. If the wavelength does not turn out to be proportional to [math]\sqrt {A + k} [/math], then the reason (for that) has to be looked for in the change of density of the moving aether caused by the elastic deformations; here A is the elastic aether force, a priori a constant which we have to determine empirically, and k the (variable) strength of the magnetic field which, of course, is proportional to the elastic forces in question that are produced."

 

 

 

 

 

To me, this smack of paranoia. For all his youth - Einstein dropped out of high school in order to attempt admission to university at age 16 - and academic difficulties, by the time he wrote his 1905 papers, he knew conventional mathematical physics as well as nearly anyone alive. Even at 16, his scientific writing was good, and after correcting some academic failings, he was allowed into university.

 

I taught freshman Math and physical science at a small state university for a couple of semesters, and had regular contact with admissions staff, so can say with certainty that no one who could write and test as well as Einstein did at age 17 would be denied admission to that or any other legitimate university in America, or, I suspect, any non-religious university in most of the world.

 

If your math and language is strong, you will not be refused admission into the universities of today.

[The_Right_Stuff]

I have been writing a page or two to try and get my point across.

 

It is still a W.I.P. , but most of it is done.

 

If you get the time, tell me what you think of it.

 

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/work_pdf_text.pdf

 

It starts out looking at motion, and analyse it step by step while assuming that motion is a universal constant. By this I am saying that all matter is in motion constantly, and does so with the same degree of motion as a Photon has across space.

[arkain101]

I recently finished reading the article (above post) about Einstein's youth and journey with science, of which includes one of his first papers.

 

It was one of the most pleasent reads related to Einstein I have come across, which is very little infact, but none the less, I think you all interested in relativity and einstein himself would really enjoy reading this.

http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf

[Uclock]

CraigD

 

To summarize, this thread has moved from a discussion of how accurately the predictions of the formulas of the theory of relativity and observed data match, to a claim put forth by Uclock that the predictions of Special Relativity are not accurate at all.

They are close but I think if Einstein’s relativity were really accurate it could be used to keep all clocks on this planet and those in space synchronised but it can’t. Time varies depending on how deep the clock is inside the gravitational field and the centripetal acceleration due to the rotation of the Earth.

I am not knocking Einstein because he IMHO possessed the greatest mind in the last century but I think his view of spacetime is incorrect.

 

 

According to SR, after accounting for a delay in observing a distant, moving clock given by (where d is the distance between observer and clock as measured by the observer, and c is the speed of light), the change in time observed on the moving clock is (where t is the time observed on a stationary clock, and v is the speed of the moving clock as measured by the observer).

 

Uclock rejects this description, proposing that the difference between t' and t can be explained in terms of the force experience by the moving clock. In his model, the observer would see all of the difference appear while the clock was being accelerated. While the moving clock is not accelerated, not additional difference between t’ and t accumulates.

 

This is correct and can be mathematically worked out but not with acceleration but by using displacement.

 

 

This is an entirely legitimate scientific hypothesis, and can be used to make testable predictions that can be compared against existing experimental data.

 

Uclock, is my description of your hypothesis accurate? If not, please rewrite it. It should then be possible to make and test the predictions science requires of a hypothesis, and see how it fares.

 

Ok I will post two papers and an article on a new thread and will be glad to answer any of your questions on the concept.

 

Tony

[arkain101]

I am not knocking Einstein because he IMHO possessed the greatest mind in the last century but I think his view of spacetime is incorrect.

 

What exactly was his view I've heard and read he changed it a few times.