Yes, You Can Go Faster Than Speed Of Light

[Super Polymath]

 

 

VS

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZtPhdfF3Gs

[Shustaire]

This is suppose to help ?

[Super Polymath]

Why would you think the CMB has anything to do with antimatter ? In particular an antimatter universe ?

 

No that it matters as it is off topic to this thread but wow call the presses Pink unicorns ride again.

Because there were a lot more anti-protons whose annihilation can be viewed as the last inelastic scattering and in the formation of the galaxies as antiprotons fused to fuel the growth of the first SMBH of this cosmic cycle

 

I recall a debate with your hubby about this on .net

Edited July 9, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Shustaire]

Ah leptogenesis and baryogesis  The timing issue with inflation may coincide roughly to the start of inflation but the exact timing is model dependant upon the type of EWSB model being used. However Leptogenesis  occurs prior to Baryogenesis in all cases.

 

 

 

Doesn't explain the antimatter universe conjecture though... Although some FAR FAR older models once attempted to model such. Well before antimatter was properly understood.

 

Anyways the surface of last scattering is when electrons start to combine with atoms. This is as far back as it is possible with our current instruments will be able to see . The constituents of the CMB surface is matter dominant with very little antimatter.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Because there were a lot more anti-protons whose annihilation can be viewed as the last inelastic scattering and in the formation of the galaxies as antiprotons fused to fuel the growth of the first SMBH of this cosmic cycle

 

I recall a debate with your hubby about this on .net

 

Sounds like you may have misunderstood my spouse, he is away right now at UVIC. Either that or your having trouble formulating his response, Trust me I know that feeling if you are lmao.

 

Are you sure he wasn't suggesting there may be remnant clues to be found in the CMB with regards to baryogenesis ?

 

Or was he referring to the Higgs's field and its possible connection to Baryogenisis and Leptogenesis as well as inflation and the cosmological constant. and DM ? That happens to be an arena he is currently researching.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Shustaire

[Super Polymath]

Sounds like you may have misunderstood my spouse, he is away right now at UVIC. Either that or your having trouble formulating his response, Trust me I know that feeling if you are lmao.

 

Are you sure he wasn't suggesting there may be remnant clues to be found in the CMB with regards to baryogenesis ?

These cannot be of the BBT as the LCDM defines it, they can only exist in a cyclic cosmology & would instantly eat any evidence of anti-proton dominance as the first atoms and galaxies are wrought from the quark constituents of the primordial gas & dust after the last scattering. Said quark constituents, with heavy a ionization that compactified the light by trapping photons in a short wavelength created the antiprotons that became the protons in the first atoms

[Super Polymath]

Suspended by the electrons, with the positrons being suspended as electrons by the protons

[Shustaire]

I can't see him ever using that descriptive but anyways its off topic so lets not derail this thread anymore than it already is

[Moronium]

I do not see why it is logically impossible for both to not be correct.

 

 

Perhaps Einstein's thought's on the subject would interest you, Popeye.  In 1918 he wrote what is now a rather obscure paper, entitled "Dialogue about Objections to the Theory of Relativity," addressing critics of SR.  He wrote it in dialogue form, i.e., he wrote all the words but attributed some of the "dialogue" to his critic and some to a "relativist" (himself).  Here's an excerpt:

 

Critic:  People like me have quite often expressed doubts of the most varied kind about the theory of relativity in journals; but rarely has one of you relativists responded....the delaying influence of motion upon the rate of clocks has elicited protest and, as it seems to me with good reasons. This result seems necessarily to lead to a contradiction with the very foundations of the theory...

 

...Even the most devout adherents of the theory cannot claim that of two clocks, resting side by side, each is late relative to the other.

 

Einstein:  Your last assertion is, of course, incontestable.  But the entire line of reasoning is not legitimate because according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate systems K and K' are not equal.

 

 

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.0922.pdf

 

Einstein here addressed the issue of the clocks themselves, not observers' impressions or assumptions about time in other frames.  Back then you could talk theory all day without any fear of being contradicted by an empirical test of the theory.  There was no way you could possibly detect any difference in two clocks where one had travelled at the highest speed then-attainable.  Those clocks back then were far too imprecise.

 

These days, we can actually put two clocks side by side, one of which has been moving, and measure the miniscule time difference.  But, again, there is no need to "test" this.  Einstein flatly rejected the possibility out of hand because it's logically impossible.

 

I think Einstein was misjudging the theory's "most devout adherents" a little, though.  As evidenced by this thread, even today many claim that there is no logical contradiction implied.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

This is the also the paper I had in mind earlier (but couldn't find at the time) when I spoke of Einstein's comments on the issue of whether the train or the tracks are moving.  Here's the verbatim passage I was thinking of:

 

The uniformly moving train could as well be seen 'at rest' and the tracks, including the landscape, as 'uniformly moving'. Will the 'common sense' of the locomotive engineer allow this? He will object that he does not go on to heat and grease the landscape but rather the locomotive, and that consequently it must be the latter whose motion shows the effect of his labor...Only utilitarian reasons can decide which representation has to be chosen; but not arguments about principles.

 

 

Unless you're going to totally reject Newton's laws it is obvious that the power of a locomotive cannot set the whole earth in motion (F=MA)  Yet Einstein wants to stand on principle that it "could be" the other way around.  Where exactly this "principle" came from is not that clear, except for the fact that SR REQUIRES the engineer to regard the train as stationary and the "landscape" as moving.  Without that assumption the theory self-destructs.  He states the "principle" this way:

 

We do not have two mutually exclusive hypotheses about the location of movement but rather two, in principle equivalent, ways to describe the same factual phenomenon.

 

 

Sorry, Al, but the two are mutually exclusive.  Either (1) the train is moving relative to the tracks, or (2) the tracks are moving relative to the train.  It can't be both, as a matter of objective reality.  Common sense and all pertinent physical laws eliminate (2). That leaves us with (1), so now we know which one is moving. Nor are they truly "equivalent" under SR, because it forces us to say that (2) is the case and that (1) is NOT the case. We can't "choose" on "utilitarian" or any other grounds in SR.  So the "principle" is violated right there   

 

Sorry, SR, but I aint buyin it.  You can keep your bogus "principle" to yourself if you like it, but, me, I'm sticking with common sense and all other known physical laws.

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's another excerpt from that Einstein same paper:

 

Strictly speaking, one should, for example, not say the earth moves in an ellipse around the sun, because this statement assumes a coordinate system in which the sun is at rest...Nobody would investigate our solar system in a coordinate system in which the earth is at rest—because this would be impractical ...But in principle, such a coordinate system would still be equivalent to any other one. The phenomenon that in such coordinate systems fixed stars would race around at tremendous velocities is no argument against its admissibility, but merely against the usefulness of this choice of coordinates.

 

 

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/89

 

There's that 'principle" again, eh?  But aren't the flaws in this argument rather self evident?  Yes, the idea of the fixed stars "racing around" the earth at speeds greatly exceeding that of light WOULD be inadmissible.  In all other cases superluminal speed is inadmissible under SR, so why should there be an exception here?  He's saying that we shouldn't say the earth is moving, but of course we do, and always have since Galileo and (especially) Newton.

 

So why is he advancing these specious arguments?  Why is he suggesting that Newton's entire concept of gravity can be completely jettisoned based on a dubious "principle?" Because he's desperately trying to kill the notion that the sun could be at rest, relative to the earth.  And he's doing that because then the earth would be moving if you took that view.  In that event it couldn't be "at rest" for SR purposes.  The ultimate effect of that would be to invalidate SR as a theory of relative motion and adopt the type of preferred frame that SR prohibits (strictly for purposes of satisfying the implications of SR's unproven postulates).  But he can't change the accepted physical facts.  He can only hope to persuade others to ignore the physical facts.

 

I can understand Einstein's motivations, but what puzzles me is how readily, and even eagerly, so many people accept these lame arguments as not only being acceptable, but as indisputable "scientific" propositions.  What's up with that?

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I can understand Einstein's motivations, but what puzzles me is how readily, and even eagerly, so many people accept these lame arguments as not only being acceptable, but as indisputable "scientific" propositions. What's up with that?

 

 

The best answer to this question that I can come up with can be summarized in one word:  Math.

 

Especially after Minkowski came along, mathematicians greatly preferred SR to LR because it simplified their calculations and offered (what was to them) an "elegant" mathematical structure, imbued with aesthetically-pleasing symmetry.  Considerations of correspondence to "reality" were strictly subordinate to that.

 

You can see it in this thread:  The mathematically-inclined think math gives answers to real world problems.  It doesn't.  It can't.  If garbage is put into a math system, then only garbage can come out.  Math won't "correct" it.  Math never tells you anything new, nor can it "prove" the validity of the premises which ultimately underlie it.  It will simply repeat your assumptions to you, ad infinitum, whether they are right or wrong.  But many people still get the idea that mathematical consistency "proves" the validity of a theory.   But you can't "prove" your theory by merely reiterating it in myriad ways. 

 

Many people seem to get the idea, for example, that the "velocity addition formula" supports and helps confirm SR.  Fraid not.  SR implicitly assumes  that formula, as soon as the postulates are first stated.  It would never exist if those unproven postulates were not presumed to be "true" from the get-go.  Einstein certainly knew that.

 

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.  (Albert Einstein)

 

Many people will tell you that you can't understand the theory until you understand the math.  But they're skipping the most important step, which is to understand the concepts and the assumptions of the theory.  The math is way down the preordained road from that.  In fact, the opposite assumption is true: You'll never understand the math until you understand the conceptual assumptions underlying the theory.  You can competently manipulate the math without knowing a thing about what it's supposed to represent, of course, but that's not understanding, nor does it require understanding (of anything but math).

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

This is the also the paper I had in mind earlier (but couldn't find at the time) when I spoke of Einstein's comments on the issue of whether the train or the tracks are moving.  Here's the verbatim passage I was thinking of:

 

 

Unless you're going to totally reject Newton's laws it is obvious that the power of a locomotive cannot set the whole earth in motion (F=MA)  Yet Einstein wants to stand on principle that it "could be" the other way around.  Where exactly this "principle" came from is not that clear, except for the fact that SR REQUIRES the engineer to regard the train as stationary and the "landscape" as moving.  Without that assumption the theory self-destructs.  He states the "principle" this way:

 

 

Sorry, Al, but the two are mutually exclusive.  Either (1) the train is moving relative to the tracks, or (2) the tracks are moving relative to the train.  It can't be both, as a matter of objective reality.  Common sense and all pertinent physical laws eliminate (2). That leaves us with (1), so now we know which one is moving. Nor are they truly "equivalent" under SR, because it forces us to say that (2) is the case and that (1) is NOT the case. We can't "choose" on "utilitarian" or any other grounds in SR.  So the "principle" is violated right there   

 

Sorry, SR, but I aint buyin it.  You can keep your bogus "principle" to yourself if you like it, but, me, I'm sticking with common sense and all other known physical laws.

 

 

Ah, well even the great Einstein can be confused at times.

 

Of course, if the tracks were in motion under the locomotive, they could not turn the wheels and the camshaft linkages and the then push the steam pistons to compress the gas and reverse the flow of heat from the burning coals!

 

In short, the entire process by which the locomotive moves cannot be reversed simply by reversing the relative motion between the tracks and the wheels, and we know this from the second law of thermodynamics. To put it as succinctly as possible, Newtonian mechanics is reversible but yet it does have the 2nd law.

 

Even if were to forget about the locomotive and concentrate only on the wheeled carriages that are moving behind at a uniform velocity, the second law would still impose restrictions on a strict interpretation of relative motion. The tracks are cool until the wheels pass over them, and then they are heated by the friction of the wheels passing. If the tracks were moving, I would expect they would be somewhat warm from such motion even before they encounter the wheels. And then there is the problem of wheel deformation that I mentioned before; a rolling wheel has a very distinctive deformation that a wheel being spun by a moving surface does not. This could also be described in terms of energy and the second law because deformation involves heat, which is the exchange of energy.

 

To put it as briefly as possible, anyone who truly believes a train moving on stationary tracks is Exactly the same as the tracks and the entire planet, moving under the stationary train, is either insane or hasn’t studied much physics or a combination of both.

 

Now, after saying all that, I agree with Einstein that the principle of relative motion is a useful one, as long as it is not taken to insane extremes. Believe me, in my field of engineering I have met more than my share of nutcases who believe in such extremes and they are frankly dangerous people to be around.

 

I would not trust one of them to even attempt such a minor task as changing a spark plug, yet they may have a PhD in mathematics and physics.

 

But, don’t misunderstand me; I very much appreciate and enjoy mathematics and I also believe that someone cannot fully understand physics, especially advanced theories, without having at least a basic working knowledge of mathematics.

[OceanBreeze]

Just to expand on that,  how can anyone say they understand

[math]E\quad =\quad m{ c }^{ 2 }[/math]

Without at least some mathematics?

Just to make a point, I will go through a derivation:

Starting with the familiar Lorentz Factor

Which is:

 

[math] \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1\quad -\quad \frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 2 } }  }  }[/math]

The next step is to let this Lorentz factor operate on mass, (instead of time) so that we have:

[math]\frac { m }{ { m }_{ o } } =\frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { 1\quad -\quad \frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 2 } }  }  }[/math]

By simple algebraic manipulation, we solve this expression for v²:

[math]\frac { { v }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 2 } } =\quad 1-{ \left( \frac { { m }_{ o } }{ m }  \right)  }^{ 2 }[/math]

And:

[math]{ v }^{ 2 }=\quad { c }^{ 2 }\left\lceil 1-{ \left( \frac { { m }_{ o } }{ m }  \right)  }^{ 2 } \right\rceil[/math]

 

Next, we need to use a bit of calculus to differentiate the expression for v² with respect to m:

 

[math]d{ v }^{ 2 }=\quad 2{ c }^{ 2 }\left( \frac { { m }_{ o }^{ 2 } }{ { m }^{ 3 } }  \right) dm[/math]

 

That is the second important building block. One thing to make note of is the m in the denominator is cubed, not squared.

 

So now we have expressions for v² and dv², what are we going to do with them? One approach is to find an expression for Energy and see if those other expressions can be plugged in.

We can make use of the work energy principle in that Work = Force x Distance and the derivative of that is just dW = Fdx, so:

 

[math]dE\quad =\quad \frac { d }{ dt } \left( mv \right) dx[/math]

 

 

 

[math]dE\quad =\quad { v }^{ 2 }dm\quad +\quad mv\quad dv[/math]

 

[math]dE\quad =\quad { v }^{ 2 }dm\quad +\quad \frac { 1 }{ 2 } m\quad d{ v }^{ 2 }[/math]

 

 

In case that last part throws you off, just remember that

 

[math]\frac { 1 }{ 2 } \quad \frac { d }{ dt } { v }^{ 2 }=\quad v\quad dv[/math]

 

And everything should be crystal.

 

But look what we now have, an expression for dE that contains both a v² term and a dv² term!

 

All we need to do now is substitute in the two expressions that were derived earlier:

 

[math]dE\quad =\quad { c }^{ 2 }\left\lceil 1-{ \left( \frac { { m }_{ o } }{ m }  \right)  }^{ 2 } \right\rceil dm\quad +\quad \frac { 1 }{ 2 } m\quad 2{ c }^{ 2 }\left( \frac { { m }_{ o }^{ 2 } }{ { m }^{ 3 } }  \right) dm[/math]

 

By very simple algebraic manipulation you can see the two expressions in the parentheses cancel each other out, leaving only :

 

[math]dE\quad =\quad { c }^{ 2 }dm[/math]

 

 Integrating both sides:

 

 [math]E\quad =\quad m{ c }^{ 2 }[/math]

 

Notice that this famous equation can be derived without any of the tenets of SR, such as time dilation and length contraction, by only using the Lorentz factor applied to mass.

Edited July 10, 2018 by OceanBreeze

[Moronium]

 

 

To put it as briefly as possible, anyone who truly believes a train moving on stationary tracks is Exactly the same as the tracks and the entire planet, moving under the stationary train, is either insane or hasn’t studied much physics or a combination of both.

 

Now, after saying all that, I agree with Einstein that the principle of relative motion is a useful one, as long as it is not taken to insane extremes. 

 

But, don’t misunderstand me; I very much appreciate and enjoy mathematics and I also believe that someone cannot fully understand physics, especially advanced theories, without having at least a basic working knowledge of mathematics.

 

I agree with your statement about math, and I wasn't trying to deny it in other posts.   My main point is that math is a mere tool, not a scientific theory, and that it is all based on assumptions which may be right or wrong.  Math cannot even enter the picture until AFTER the concepts are formulated.

 

SR is useful, because it can mimic a preferred theory in many (limited) circumstances.  Kinda like a geocentric model of the solar system can make highly accurate and useful predictions.  It can predict solar eclipses centuries in advance, for example.  However, there are many things those theories can't do, which alternate theories can.

 

I know I've said this before, but I think you underestimate the damage necessarily done to SR as a theory by accepting the premise that the earth orbits the sun, rather than vice versa.

[Moronium]

Notice that this famous equation can be derived without any of the tenets of SR, such as time dilation and length contraction, by only using the Lorentz factor applied to mass.

 

I'll take your word on the math, Popeye.  Truth be told, I didn't even try to follow it.

 

But, to reciprocate your kindness, I would ask you to notice that LR also uses the lorentz factor.  "Relativity," as a topic, is not limited to SR.  I've tried to make this same point in response to "confirmations" of SR, many of which only test the LT.  Those tests confirm LR just as much.  But they're not the only ones.  Every test which confirms SR also confirms LR.  The converse is not true, however.  Not every test which confirms LR also confirms SR. 

Edited July 10, 2018 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

Nicely explained. Where did you learn this?

 

I have a Masters in mech eng so not unfamiliar with advanced mathematics. I enjoy doing things like this but don't have much time for it.