One Of The Pitfalls With Relative Velocity Is It Can Create Energy Illusions

[HydrogenBond]

One of the pitfalls with relative velocity is it can create energy illusions that become misinterpreted. 

 

For example, one of the original tests that verified special relativity were particle accelerator experiments using radioactive atoms that had half-lives. If there was time dilation, due to motion, the half life should get longer, which was observed.

 

If we apply relative motion, from the POV of the moving radioactive atoms, the lab will appear to have the relative motion. If we had another batch of radio active material, on a lab bench, it should appear to show a longer half life, relative to the moving reference. After the experiment was done only the moving reference had any real change. The moving reference saw kinetic energy that was not there, fooling itself into add imaginary affects, that could not be proven; when compared. 

 

My conclusion is special relativity works, in reality, only for a reference that has tangible energy driving it. Special relativity, to create real affects needs kinetic energy input. Only the moving radioactive atoms, driven by the energy within magnetics fields, will exhibit a real affect. The final affect; concentration, was reference dependent, since only one reference showed any tangible affect. 

 

The same affect occurs in space clocks in motion. All the clocks on the earth will not change, just because these appears to be in motion relative to a satellite. When we bring the clock back to earth to compare, the satellite clock was hallucinating. That fantasy, if it fools you, can lead to theories that are not real, but can appear to be justified, based on what you appear to see. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[HydrogenBond]

Here is an interesting experiment. If we had radioactive elements, with half life T, being accelerated to velocity V, in a circular path; constantly changing direction. Will this have the same half life concentration, as the same material moving in a linear path? My guess is only kinetic energy matters and not directional vectors. The velocity is squared in kinetic energy, thereby eliminating the impact of the vector change. Both should show the same final concentrations of atoms. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by HydrogenBond

[A-wal]

One of the pitfalls with relative velocity is it can create energy illusions that become misinterpreted. 

 

For example, one of the original tests that verified special relativity were particle accelerator experiments using radioactive atoms that had half-lives. If there was time dilation, due to motion, the half life should get longer, which was observed.

 

If we apply relative motion, from the POV of the moving radioactive atoms, the lab will appear to have the relative motion. If we had another batch of radio active material, on a lab bench, it should appear to show a longer half life, relative to the moving reference. After the experiment was done only the moving reference had any real change. The moving reference saw kinetic energy that was not there, fooling itself into add imaginary affects, that could not be proven; when compared. 

 

My conclusion is special relativity works, in reality, only for a reference that has tangible energy driving it...

Kind of. You need to study the twin paradox. Each twin sees the other as time dilated and length contracted while they're in motion relative to each other just as "If we apply relative motion, from the POV of the moving radioactive atoms, the lab will appear to have the relative motion".

 

But once they meet back up and are in the same reference frame again it's the one that accelerated that experiences less proper ti,e than the one that didn't, just as "After the experiment was done only the moving reference had any real change". That's because that's the one that accelerated, they were both moving relative to the other one.

 

So in a sense "My conclusion is special relativity works, in reality, only for a reference that has tangible energy driving it" is right, in the sense that only the one that used energy to accelerate is the one that experience less proper time. It's just that the one that accelerates is the one that's length contracted and time dilated from the perspective of the original frame and that's the frame that they return to, so in that frame they are the ones that were time dilated and length contracted and so they are the ones that experience less proper time.

[sluggo]

pop quiz:

Anaut Ann leaves earth twin Edith at .4c in x direction.

After 1 hr E-time Edith leaves earth at .8c in x direction.

After .97 hr A-time Ann reverses (instantaneously) and returns at .8c.

When they pass and exchange time values, is there any difference in clock readings?

Edited January 12, 2017 by sluggo

[CraigD]

...

When they pass and exchange time values, is there any difference in clock readings?

According to my calculation, yes. I get them passing at a distance of about 0.23501406 light-hour from their origin in their original frame, with Ann’s clock reading about 1.1112465 hrs, Edith’s clock about 1.1762605., a difference of about 4 minutes.

 

I think you made a mistake calculating Ann changing from 0.4 to -0.8 c at 0.97 hrs on her clock. When I have her do it at about 1.1582575, she and Edith pass at 0.35825756, with both their clocks at about 1.2686932.

 

It’d be an easier quiz if Ann’s speed was 0.6 instead of 0.4 c, since[math]\sqrt{1-0.6^2}=0.8[/math], a nice rational number, while [math]\sqrt{1-0.4^2}=\frac{\sqrt{21}}{5} \dot= 0.91651514[/math], a gnarly irrational one.