There must exist an Absolute Frame of Reference

[dkv]

An electron moving forward at constant velocity in time does not emit photons.

However if an accelerated observer observes the electron then will he see electron emitting energy due acceleration ?

No .

 

Which means he can find out whether his own reference frame is accelerating or the electron's.

Suppose that accelerated observer observes electron emitting photons then the electron will eventually come to rest due to loss of energy.

However this is not possible becasue it is the observer who is acclerating and not the electron.

 

Therefore one easily differentiate between the frames of electron and observer.

[modest]

Nothing of relativity says an accelerated frame is equivalent to an inertial frame. The twin ages, eh?

 

~modest

[dkv]

So you are saying that in an accelerated frames one can always find an Absolute frame of reference ?

If so then why do we propose equivalence principle ?

[DI5STURBED]

dkv,

In General and even Special Relativity, there is no such thing as an inertial frame. If there was there would be no need for General or Special Relativity. Seeing as Newton’s theory was completely based on an inertial reference frame. As for the electron if it is not emitting any photons in one frame it sure as hell better not emit something in any of the other reference frames. Just because there is no absolute reference frame doesn’t mean something can happen in one frame and not the other. All reference frames have to agree that the events occurred, just not on the timing and special locations. I hope this helps clarify at least some of the confusion here. And now my question to you is why does there have to exist an absolute reference frame? Plus the example you have presented I think is a bit confused. How can you be so certain that they are both not accelerated and you the observer is not just traveling faster than the electron? If you say that the experiment was done on earth well the earth is defiantly an accelerated frame of reference. This is partially why we needed a theory that did not need an inertial reference frame.

[dkv]

Accelerated Electrons must emit radiation. But we ask with respect to what ?

Suppose I am in a reference which is at rest (without any forces as in free fall) and I am carrying an electron then the electrons will emit radiations with respect to an external observer at rest who also has a electron(which is not radiating).

If as per your requirement events can not change then I will also see that my electron is radiating therefore I can conclude that I am accelerating.

Hence I can use electrons to find out whether I am accelerating or not.

[DI5STURBED]

dkv,

Sure if what you say is true, but even if it is possible to find an inertial reference frame, I ask you where do you propose to look because even the slightest perturbation will trigger a response from an electron, so I really doubt that this is the best way to find an inertial frame? Not to mention all of the forces of nature gravity, electrical, nuclear,... will be acting on you and there is no escaping them unless you go out to infinity and well where is that? It's a cool idea but I doubt it will work since you still haven’t proved that there exits an inertial frame and I still don't see any reason for why there should be an inertial frame.

[dkv]

General relativity claims that it is the space time which curved and particles follow a trajectory called geodesics(which is an inertial frame). The amount of curvature is determined by the gravitational constant G.

 

However my contention is that it is not possible to create an inertial frame because a point inertial frame can be differentiated from the accelerated frame.

[modest]

Nothing of relativity says an accelerated frame is equivalent to an inertial frame.

 

So you are saying that in an accelerated frames one can always find an Absolute frame of reference ?

 

No. I'm responding to this:

 

Which means he can find out whether his own reference frame is accelerating or the electron's.

Suppose that accelerated observer observes electron emitting photons then the electron will eventually come to rest due to loss of energy.

However this is not possible becasue it is the observer who is acclerating and not the electron.

 

Therefore one easily differentiate between the frames of electron and observer.

 

You seem to have the idea that relativity wants the accelerated frame to have some equivelance with the inertial frame. It does not. Einstein's original paper on SR:

If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the traveled clock on its arrival at A will be 1/2 tv^2/c^2 second slow.

 

Thence we conclude that a balance-clock7 at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.

In the twin paradox, one of the twins ages more than the other. There is not equivalence between frames! And, we don't need background dependence of qft to get us there. So, what's your point?

 

~modest

[dkv]

The inertial frame of references which are used in the original derivation of the GR are said to be without any forces. That given the geodesic we can say that there is no force in the space time but only curved space time...

 

In other words acceleration can not be distinguised from gravitational acceleration.Moreover the acceleration becomes inertial when we say that the space and time is curved thus doing away with the gravity also.(that is why geometerical changes are equated with physical energies and momentum)

 

As I said that in a geodesic there is no cause for an electron to radiate... because there is no force. It simply travels along a curved path.

When an electron covers a geodesic the net radiation content of the Universe increases. We can ask why it is increasing ? It increases because the electron is travelling along the "straight lines" called geodesics which is inertial.. without any cause how can electron radiate?

Law of inertia says that things remain in its intial state if no external force is applied.

A comoving particle will find that the electron is radiating for no reason... he will have no explanation...(in gravitational case the comoving particle can say that the drifting or contraction is happening due to the "curved" space time.. which we understand as gravity)

 

 

If we can not have an absolute relative understanding of the universe then there must be absolute frame of reference.

[modest]

The inertial frame of references which are used in the original derivation of the GR are said to be without any forces.

 

An inertial frame is equivalent to a free falling frame. In either case - NO acceleration.

 

As I said that in a geodesic there is no cause for an electron to radiate... because there is no force. It simply travels along a curved path.

 

An electron traveling a geodesic feels no acceleration. :rolleyes:

 

~modest

[dkv]

An electron traveling a geodesic feels no acceleration

If it feels no acceleration then it should not radiate.

 

But we know that electron will radiate because it will accelerate due to gravity.

[DI5STURBED]

dkv,

First of all what you are talking about is not an inertial frame it is a "local inertial frame" which is different, you can have a local inertial frame with out the existence of an absolute inertial frame. So I guess what is your argument for an absolute frame and why does thier have to be an absolute inertial frame? If what you have presented is your argument, then it is weak and confused.

[modest]

If it feels no acceleration then it should not radiate.

 

But we know that electron will radiate because it will accelerate due to gravity.

 

Are you still talking about the Unruh effect? Or, perhaps:

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9706/9706016v1.pdf

 

Can you please point to something demonstrating what aspect of quantum theory you're referring to.

 

~modest

[dkv]

Ok. I agree that Unruh effects helps to achieve the required relativity but at what price ? We have paid huge price . We are now talking about inconsistent set of events... Person in the virtual frame will claim to see no real particles...

The objectivity of the reality is lost.

[Erasmus00]

Ok. I agree that Unruh effects helps to achieve the required relativity but at what price ? We have paid huge price . We are now talking about inconsistent set of events... Person in the virtual frame will claim to see no real particles...

The objectivity of the reality is lost.

 

All the measurements stay the same- only the interpretations change.

-Will