Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

I haven't been around physics for a while and probably won't be around for a good long while. However, I came across a video that the mumble minded illiterates on physics forums have been trying to tell me about. They always say, "if you don't believe in length contraction, then what about electricity and magnetism?" I say what about it? This video is the answer and I just want to mark it here for when I come back.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0&feature=emb_rel_end

[ralfcis]

So can someone explain if the cat is relatively stationary to the wire with moving electrons, length contraction would be relatively occurring between the electrons thereby causing greater negative charge density relative to the cat causing the cat to be attracted to the wire. Yet, hocus pocus, the video says the wire is neutral so they contradict their own explanation. Maybe someone has an explanation before I start trashing Einstein's relativity again.

[ralfcis]

As I suspected, no retorts from any of the non-cranks on here. That makes you guys just as useless as any of the cranks. I doubt any of you understood the video. I just noticed another logical fallacy with this example. He defines the cat`s charge as being magnetic and electric whichever fits his narrative. The electrons length contracting will repulse a stationary positive magnetic charge while the protons length contracting will repulse a moving positive electric charge. All you non-cranks just bought this bogus explanation without question. It`s typical relativistic misdirection. That`s why you`re all parrots. Parrots vs cranks.

Edited July 7, 2020 by ralfcis

[OceanBreeze]

As I suspected, no retorts from any of the non-cranks on here. That makes you guys just as useless as any of the cranks. I doubt any of you understood the video. I just noticed another logical fallacy with this example. He defines the cat`s charge as being magnetic and electric whichever fits his narrative. The electrons length contracting will repulse a stationary positive magnetic charge while the protons length contracting will repulse a moving positive electric charge. All you non-cranks just bought this bogus explanation without question. It`s typical relativistic misdirection. That`s why you`re all parrots. Parrots vs cranks.

 

 

You do know that forum responses are not posted immediately, right? For example, I just saw today, what you posted 2 days ago and I may want to think about it for a day before replying as this is not a trivial issue.

 

The video has it right about the force on the external + charge in both the stationary and the in-motion cases, but I agree that the explanation given is woefully deficient, but not flat out wrong. But, if the video did make an attempt at a complete explanation, it would need to be an hour long and still probably most people would not understand it.

 

Putting special relativity aside for the moment, the force F on the + charge can be explained by non-relativistic classic electromagnetic theory, which says the magnetic force on a charged particle is orthogonal to the magnetic field such that: [math]\text{F}=\text{qv} \times \text{B}=\text{qvBsin}\theta[/math]

 

Notice that if the particle’s velocity happens to be aligned parallel to the magnetic field, or is zero, the magnetic force F will be zero.

 

This differs from the case of an electric field, where the particle velocity has no bearing.

 

In a static, unchanging electric field E, the force on a particle with charge q will be: [math]\text{F}=\text{qE}[/math]

 

In the video’s first case (particle is stationary and electrons are moving) there is a magnetic field generated by the moving electron current and this is a stationary magnetic field and the + charged particle is stationary in this field, so, as the first equation indicates, no magnetic force is acting on it.

 

The video also says that, although the electrons are moving, the distribution of charges remains equal on average so there is also no electric force acting on the particle. In sum, there is no electromagnetic force acting on the + charged particle so it remains where it is.

 

In the second case (particle is moving parallel to the flow of electron current) that same magnetic field still exists, but the particle is now in motion with respect to this field and so a force will be on that particle in accordance with:[math]\text{F}=\text{qv} \times \text{B}=\text{qvBsin}\theta[/math]

 

And the particle is pushed away from the wire by a repelling force.

 

The video “explains” this using SR, saying that the relative motion between the + charged particle and stationary distribution of positive metal ions results in relativistic length contraction between the positive metal ions, increasing their charge density. The increased positive charge density, while the negative charge density of the electrons stays constant or decreases, results in a repellent electric force, pushing the + charged particle away from the wire.

 

Your question is why doesn’t the length contraction between the electrons in the first case case result in a higher negative charge density, attracting the + charge to the wire?

 

 

Damned if I know.

 

 

No, no that’s not my answer! (but maybe it should be)

 

My first observation is “if the cat is relatively stationary to the wire with moving electrons, length contraction would be relatively occurring between the electrons thereby causing greater negative charge density relative to the cat causing the cat to be attracted to the wire” that is not a correct transposition of the case where the cation is moving along with the electron current AND in motion with respect to the stationary positive metal ions in the wire.

 

A correct transposition of this case would be if the cation were moving along with a flow of positive ions and in motion with respect to a distribution of stationary electrons. In that case, there would indeed be a force attracting the cation to the wire.

 

That is exactly the case you will find if you follow this link:

 

Remember there are three layers to this cake: the external cation, the electrons in the wire, and the positive metal ions in the wire. To transpose from one situation to another you need to consider all three.

 

That is the easy part of my answer. The much harder part is to remember what special relativity is all about and why Einstein came up with it in the first place.

 

Einstein, as well as some others, realized that two of Maxwell’s equations are NOT Galilean invariant. Actually, the two equations are Gauss’ law and Ampere’s law but Maxwell absconded with them.

 

Light, being an electromagnetic phenomenon, does not obey the principle of Galilean invariance. That is, the speed of light does not depend in any way on the motion of the observers; the same constant speed, c, is measured by all observers in a vacuum regardless of how they are moving. Of course, you already knew this but maybe you are forgetting that this property of Galilean non-invariance applies to all classical electromagnetic phenomena and not only light.

 

When we consider the motion of electrons or cations in a wire, we are considering the electrodynamics of moving bodies, exactly what Einstein wrote about when he came up with SR.

 

Do you see your answer yet?

 

Galilean non-invariance in classical electromagnetism means there can be a detectable difference between electrons flowing with respect to positive ions or positive ions flowing with respect to electrons, something that Galilean invariance would not allow.

 

That is basically all there is to it!

 

Of course, there is a hell of a lot more to it but mere words do not suffice.

 

If you are interested in a mathematical treatment, you can find it here:

 

Now you know why the video skipped over that part!

[AnssiH]

As I suspected, no retorts from any of the non-cranks on here. That makes you guys just as useless as any of the cranks. I doubt any of you understood the video. I just noticed another logical fallacy with this example. He defines the cat`s charge as being magnetic and electric whichever fits his narrative. The electrons length contracting will repulse a stationary positive magnetic charge while the protons length contracting will repulse a moving positive electric charge. All you non-cranks just bought this bogus explanation without question. It`s typical relativistic misdirection. That`s why you`re all parrots. Parrots vs cranks.

Now, this relates pretty much exactly to the post I made here;

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36821-what-is-the-crank-obsession-with-einstein-being-wrong/?do=findComment&comment=385965

 

What you are probably picking on is the terrible and sloppy metaphysical language usually employed in the context of relativity. And you are absolutely right, lots of people just tend to parrot it without giving things a second thought.

 

At this point some people would say "yeah that's why you should just shut up and calculate". I would disagree - having a self-consistent "intuitive" view of a model can be useful. So I would rather just suggest people to try to be more careful with how they describe relativity, and make more attempt to separate the metaphysical ideas from the actually important relationships.

 

With that, I would not pay too much attention to whimsical videos on the youtube. He is instantly onto saying things like "space and time are perceived differently by observers relative to each other", which is far to ambiguous statement to be meaningful for a thinking person.

 

The video is essentially about a "moving magnet and a conductor problem", which is the basis of the original paper about special relativity.

 

For a more robust explanation of how that's described in terms of relativity, you might want to view this;

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_13.html

Chapter "13–6 The relativity of magnetic and electric fields"

 

For a better idea about why things in relativity are described like this, there's probably no better source than the original paper about Special Relativity, which starts off from this very same topic;

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

 

How does this relate to my earlier post? Well, what is relevant to notice in that paper is that nowhere there's a mention of "space-time" concept whatsoever. It is in fact quite neutral in terms of ontology - it does not strongly suggest any specific ontological interpretation. Minkowski's space-time was defined later in a lecture that yielded a cult-like following, and nowadays the theory is almost always equated with Minkowski spacetime. For no rational reason whatsoever. (While it is a convenient view, it does contain some rather childish assumptions if taken too seriously)

 

Now, here's something everyone should think about carefully (and yes, most "relativists" have too slim idea of this stuff).

 

When people were setting up experiments to detect "electromagnetic aether wind" (e.g. Michelson-Morley experiment), the overwhelming expectation was that we would "obviously" detect a dragging in the electromagnetic propagation.

 

But why exactly did everyone expect that? This expectation can only result from a rather naive view of "space" and "objects" in space. If macroscopic objects are thought to be bound by electromagnetic propagation, surely one cannot possibly expect them to be themselves completely unaffected by propagation disturbances coming from an aether? Basically everyone expected macroscopic objects to NOT interact with an aether in one hand (to maintain their exact configuration), but actually still kind of interact with it in other hand (to still also measure drift). The point is, surely this view could easily be inconsistent!

 

After the negative results of those experiments, Lorentz constructed a model where the microscopic propagation effects are taken into account for the macroscopic objects themselves, and described this situation via what is now called "Lorentz" transformation. The metaphysical idea was that the disturbances to the electromagnetic propagation are to be taken into account - objects contract in the direction of motion, because of microscopic effects acting on them.

 

However, since all observers are by definition "in the aether", none of them could in any direct way detect this effect. And furthermore this also leads into a simple fact that it's not possible to measure the "fastest information speed in nature" in any single direction;

 

You can't be in two locations simultaneously; you always need two clocks to measure the "elapsed time" to calculate the speed. But you can't synchronize two clocks without knowing the "information propagation speed" - the very property you are trying to measure. Also you can't know how moving the clock from one location to another impacts how it measures time (effectively clocks count electromagnetic oscillations) without knowing the one-way speed of the propagation of electromagnetic information itself. Therefore, you can only calculate the two-way speed of light (one clock and a mirror), which says nothing about one-way speed of light.

 

This is where we get to the actual crux of special relativity; it's basically just a clock synchronization convention where each observer chooses to synchronizes their clocks via assuming exactly speed C in all directions at all times. The point is not that they "must" do this. The point is they can do this, because no natural observer can measure anything outside of their own location, and thus setting isotropic C by convention also defines one's own simultaneity. And that is just the flip-side of defining lengths of moving objects (because obviously the length depends on simultaneous measurement of front and rear - change the definition of one, you change the definition of other).

 

And if we manage somehow to communicate faster than the speed of light one day, the only thing that changes is that Lorentz transformation wraps around that speed. It is related to maximum signaling speed, not to the speed of light per-se.

 

And if we managed to somehow communicate "instantly", that would yield a method of measuring absolute simultaneity, and Lorentz transformation would become just a representation of how electromagnetic objects interact (and Lorentz aether theory would become clearly more meaningful metaphysical view)

 

What Einstein's paper is about, is that this convention yields a per-inertial frame definition of simultaneity, and a consistent coordinate system transformation is basically Lorentz transformation (the same exact equation also used in Lorentz' theory). Everything in there is a direct consequence of this clock synchronization convention.

 

Philosophically then the difference from Lorentz theory is simply that SR does not make an assumption of something that - by Lorentz's own definitions - can't be measured by a natural observer; a universal rest frame. The original commentary favoring the SR "flavor" was just about how it removes seemingly unnecessary (unmeasurable) ontological concept (a rest frame of the universe). I would agree with this when I read the original paper as merely pointing out how these *definitions* are connected to each other. It did not originally replace one ontological concept with another (the space-time). It seems to just argue that "hey, here's a handy way to describe these relationships".

 

But as soon as Minkowski came up with his spacetime interpretation, proclaiming it's the only sensible view (which is completely false), lots of people started to believe that his view represents the actual ontological reality in itself (as oppose to just a handy mental hack to handle the important relationships in self-consistent ways). Nowadays there are not one but two redundant metaphysical concepts that many people hold dear. There's Minkowski spacetime, and there's a sort of "space and time within which the spacetime is malleable" (the very source of difficulties in quantum gravity, mind you).

 

Now, the point is, when you start to push into any single metaphysical (unmeasurable) view of any of this, you are also starting to push outside of science and towards belief. But also just in order to handle any of this mentally, and to communicate it, you have to assign some concepts to the metaphysical parts. It's just important to be clear on what parts are mental constructs, and what parts are the actually the relevant relationships that maintain a self-consistent model.

 

Philosophically, if you take relativity of simultaneity as literal fact of reality, it leads into some kind of "static time block" reality where time is just an illusion of consciousness. Claiming this is the only possibility is incredibly naive and misinformed.

 

Lorentz theory is exactly the same math as special relativity, but it chooses one absolute frame of reference, and thus absolute simultaneity, outside of our ability to measure it.

 

You can easily convince yourself that these views are identical to natural observers, from the fact that they use the exact same transformation between frames. Special Relativity still works even if you choose to describe the universe from one arbitrarily chosen frame.

 

So Minkowski's argument boils down to "since simultaneity cannot be measured, it does not exist. Thus, everything that happens has already happened, and time does not actually move". Something doesn't exist if it can't be measured is pretty bold assumption, I'd say :facepalm:

 

Another way to view this is that Special Relativity describes a transformation which makes the laws of nature look the same in all frames. Of course there's no such things as "laws of nature" that we know of, there are only descriptions we defined ourselves, so the "same laws in all frames" is just rehashing exactly the same idea that natural observers can't measure something because they are also part of this universe.

 

So the only difficulty is that natural observers don't have any objective way to measure any "real frame of reference" in terms of physical laws there isn't. But in terms of cosmology, well, everything massive kind of is almost stationary in the universe, and the cosmic background radiation is sitting only in one magical rest frame. Yes, the same radiation that some believe is remnant from the universe "beginning", is actually sitting in one frame only. One might be moved to think that it's possible that that frame also represents the actual simultaneity of the universe. But they would be labeled as cranks so this rarely gets any attention. And still the fact remains - this also would still be a result of assumptions - not a measurable thing in itself.

 

So you see, many people will automatically think you are a crank for even suggesting the possibility of absolute simultaneity over relativistic simultaneity simply because they don't have a grasp of the actual fundamentals of special relativity - instead they've confused somewhat wild metaphysical assumptions with the theory itself.

 

Okay, so now I have hopefully established a sense of how special relativity really is just about our ability - but not necessity - as natural observer to assume isotropic speed of light, you should start seeing that when people say things like "...and moving things really do contract in length", this is just a case of sloppy language and (sometimes) their own mental confusion between metaphysical interpretation and the actual underlying facts. Ironically, in Lorentz theory things would "really contract", but in Special Relativity they don't! Because in SR terms the length contract is just a result of freely choosing a coordinate system where something is plotted down as contracted.

 

Obviously nothing really happens to a body when someone somewhere just decides to describe it in different coordinate system!

 

Yes, I know people often say "it really shrinks" just to differentiate from mere optical illusion (and btw optically things do not "shrink"), but that's just what I mean by sloppy ambiguous language, which only serves to generate misconceptions about relativity.

 

So hopefully I've managed to shed some light on the fact that people generally talking about relativity have very poor grasp at philosophy and metaphysical aspects of theories in general. A lot of energy is spent in arguing about beliefs. Personally I'd rather not see religious behaviour in science...

 

Just to point out some important facts behind all of this; All physical theories are ultimately sociological constructs, taking old concepts and modifying them bit by bit to yield as simple model of reality as possible. None of us have got direct experience in the microscopic reality, all we have are analogies drawn from macroscopic elements which we have defined as part of our own mental compartmentalization of reality. Newtonian world view is using naive analogies that assume there's no relevant interaction between "space" and "matter". I think Lorentz's theory would have led into refinements where there's actually no such a naive clear separation between space and matter, but everything would have become defined as interactions between extended elements of sort, much like Quantum Field Theory. (After all, where "atom" ends and "space" begins is really just a question of how do we define this boundary).

 

So what does this have to do with that whimsical cat video? Well, whenever people tell you "but how do you explain this thing", what they are really pointing at is just one model's description of something. The fact that a model can describe a situation in self-consistent manner, is not a proof that no other valid theories exist (there's always going to be infinite number of possible theories), nor does it prove that the model is how reality is.

 

And furthermore, Maxwell's description of electromagnetism (the very theory that SR and Lorentz' theories build upon) makes a separation between electric and magnetic fields. Clearly this separation is artificial - these are different things only in terms of how we model reality. If a moving charge creates a magnetic field, and if "motion" cannot be measured by a natural observer, that just implies our description of the situation is - perhaps - unnecessarily obfuscated. Or perhaps it is unnecessarily simple (perhaps reality is more complex than our description of it).

 

The cat video only described how that situation is described in terms of special relativity. Other self-consistent theories might describe the situation in different manner.

 

And lastly, I do not know what is your original question - I admit I don't understand your posts (and this thread is far too large for me to read through with any sort of focus).

 

Take this as just my small reaction to the cat video :D

 

Really need to go get some coffee now...

[ralfcis]

Mostly correct except one way measurement of the speed of light is possible if you start with the clocks together and move them apart at a small constant velocity and maintain it while measuring the speed of light (otherwise a stop causes a permanent time diff and de-sync between the two clocks).

 

This is important:

"Obviously nothing really happens to a body when someone somewhere just decides to describe it in different coordinate system!"

 

Just like Einstein's seemingly innocuous clock sync method is actually the source of his interpretation of relativity, so too do Minkowski's spacetime diagrams create the false idea of length contraction. There is no rule the x-axis also needs to be rotated but once you make it a rule, the concept of spacetime magically appears out of thin air. In my diagrams, space is invariant and all the math still works to support relativity. I also show how my creation of the Loedel reference frame allows the concept of a universal instantaneous time to be calculated between non-co-located frames. No way for parrots to be able to understand this. A different coordinate transform creates a totally different interpretation of relativty and fixes all its bandaided flaws. I gotta say Einstein was too dumb to see this when others started to tack on to his theory. He also made many wrong assumptions to appease Lorentz. I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong.

 

My original question was the parrots were always telling me if length contraction doesn't exist, then how do you explain electromagnetism. Then I saw the video.  I've just outlined how flawed Einstein's explanation is and challenged anyone on here to show where my reasoning is flawed. Of course on this or any other forum I've been on, they have no understanding of the question or the answer. I see you have put thought into this. Thanks.

Edited July 8, 2020 by ralfcis

[AnssiH]

Mostly correct except one way measurement of the speed of light is possible if you start with the clocks together and move them apart at a small constant velocity and maintain it while measuring the speed of light (otherwise a stop causes a permanent time diff and de-sync between the two clocks).

Actually, in order to calculate the impact of one-way speed of C to a moving the clock, you also need to already know that one-way speed. You can see this if you define clocks as "two-mirror light oscillators". Or another way to put it, since clocks are electromagnetic devices, you can't make assumptions on how they eat up disturbances to electromagnetic propagation without being able to "see" that propagation, Which as a natural observer you can't. This is the single most important issue underpinning relativity (and understanding how Minkowski's view of it is not in any way "provable")

 

 

This is important:

"Obviously nothing really happens to a body when someone somewhere just decides to describe it in different coordinate system!"

 

Just like Einstein's seemingly innocuous clock sync method is actually the source of his interpretation of relativity, so too do Minkowski's spacetime diagrams create the false idea of length contraction. There is no rule the x-axis also needs to be rotated but once you make it a rule, the concept of spacetime magically appears out of thin air. In my diagrams, space is invariant and all the math still works to support relativity. I also show how my creation of the Loedel reference frame allows the concept of a universal instantaneous time to be calculated between non-co-located frames. No way for parrots to be able to understand this. A different coordinate transform creates a totally different interpretation of relativty and fixes all its bandaided flaws. I gotta say Einstein was too dumb to see this when others started to tack on to his theory. He also made many wrong assumptions to appease Lorentz. I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong.

 

My original question was the parrots were always telling me if length contraction doesn't exist, then how do you explain electromagnetism. Then I saw the video.  I've just outlined how flawed Einstein's explanation is and challenged anyone on here to show where my reasoning is flawed. Of course on this or any other forum I've been on, they have no understanding of the question or the answer. I see you have put thought into this. Thanks.

Well the real question is, is your method producing self-consistent coordinate transformation, taking properly into account finite propagation speed of electromagnetic information?

 

If it is, then it also maps to special relativity exactly (yields the same expectations), and the metaphysical implications are just metaphysical implications.

 

I'm sure you can easily see that since Lorentz transformation can be seen as just rotation and stretching of a spacetime diagram, it's easy to convince oneself that it is self-consistent transformation (it yields the same set of events no matter which way you draw it). And thus all of this rotation and stretching is immaterial to natural observers - they literally represent observer-centric opinions.

 

I think if you can see that, then you understand relativity, and you may have been just wasting your time arguing with people who confuse a metaphysical interpretation of relativity with the actually relevant bits..

 

If you have a case that yields different expectations than SR would, then that could be more interesting to discuss.

[ralfcis]

I don't need a clock sync method since atomic clocks are universally accurate and since I do not require closed spacetime paths because I use the Loedel reference frame to determine instantaneous universal time at a distance. Where I yield different expectations than SR is in permanent time difference where clocks have no need to start or end co-located. SR artifically bans such determinations. If you go out 3 ly at .6c and stop, SR states the permanent time diff of 1 year is indeterminate even though if you took a million years to return, the co-located clocks upon that return would show a 1 yr permanent time difference. This silly, artificial ban on a mathematical result is absolutely crucial to prevent relativity from imploding on itself. My theory has no such limitations. I wrote up a list of other areas where my theory is simpler than relativity such that there is no physical need for length contraction to explain the constancy of c. It also explains all relativistic phenomena as due only to the relativity of simultaneity (there is no time dilation) which even in relativity makes the concept of length contraction superfluous. The simplest theory wins.

 

PS. I have not begun to explain how length contraction isn`t the only way to explain electromagnetism until all the flaws in the video's explanation have been corrected. That probably won't happen here but will have to be posed as a Physics Stack Exchange question where my questions are banned on sight. They just say go read a book (Feynmann) because pop sci videos are all flawed. The place is just a roost for parrots.

Edited July 8, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Thank you Popeye, I did not know there was a posting delay. I have read through your answer once and will read it a few more times. I didn`t even know you had posted.

[ralfcis]

Some of my questions were specifically addressed. We`d have to go through each scenario (I count about 4) and I promised I wouldn`t do any physics until Dec. I`ll try my best to sneak. The main problem is terminology. Relativity sucks at defining its terms. It refuses to do so and the definitions that you squeeze out of experts (spurts) are ridiculously stupid and well guarded because they're so stupid.

 

So first off, what does the guy define as charge? There's no way a magnet is electrically charged with some right handed electrical charge called magnetism. So his example of a current in a wire deflecting a magnet is confusing and irrelevant. Using a cat as a positively charged piece of fluff is also confusing. Is he saying the moving fluff ball being repulsed is the same as a stationary magnet being repulsed? That makes zero sense unless there's something basic I don't understand here. I guess a moving electrical charge generates a magnetic field and that generates the magnetic repulsion from one perspective and electrostatic repulsion that looks the same in another perspective. The analysis of a stationary magnet or fluff ball is irrelevant. The fluff ball must be moving relative to the protons like the electrons are. Is that what I'm missing?

 

I hope everyone understands that "length contraction" is due to the relativity of simultaneity of when the clocks of two different frames measure the  start and end times of events from their perspective. Since the start and end times are coordinate points, it's ridiculous to equate the duration between those points as some sort of physical length. To say there is actual physical length contraction outside of this definition is having 2 separate definitions for length contraction in relativity. So bringing physical charge density into the discussion is not totally accurate (see below). So let's just tackle these points so we're both talking about the same meaning when we use terms.

 

PS. The spacing of the protons doesn't change in either perspective. What changes is that more proton (1.000000001 proton) is simultaneously (using fluff ball clocks) within the same section of wire between two electrons (like the pole in the barn example). More proton charge spends the same time between the electrons according to the fluff ball perspective. It's not a spacing thing but a time thing which makes it look like a increase in physical charge density. Yes I made a mistake in that the fluff ball moving with the electrons is equivalent to the fluff ball and electrons stationary perspective with the protons moving but not equivalent to the fluff ball and protons stationary with only the electrons moving. The last one is equivalent to the protons and fluff ball moving while the electrons are stationary. Thanks Popeye for catching that. I guess if you agree with what I wrote then you did answer my questions. Still no such thing as physical length contraction.

Edited July 9, 2020 by ralfcis

[AnssiH]

I don't need a clock sync method since atomic clocks are universally accurate and since I do not require closed spacetime paths because I use the Loedel reference frame to determine instantaneous universal time at a distance.

But you see, now you are just making blind assumptions about the behavior of atomic clocks - you assume that they are not impacted by the very mechanisms that we are trying to apply to all natural objects. But surely atoms too are "part of this world".

 

This is basically a same sort of assumption that I alluded to when I said that the expectation for negative result in Michelson-Morley type experiments must arise from the idea that some objects in this world are in some ways "not really completely part of this world".

 

You can't make blind assumptions like this if you are trying to describe rules that supposedly govern all natural objects.

 

I googled what Loedel reference frame is, and it's just the Minkowski-space reference frame where two observers are moving at the same velocity (i.e. the "in-between" frame). So basically it just represents our free choice of reference frame as I discussed earlier. The fact that the frame transformations are consistent means you can always choose to use any frame you want. That is also why Lorentz aether theory is mathematically identical to Special Relativity.

 

And yes it is perfectly valid to do that, like I also discussed earlier.

 

Where I yield different expectations than SR is in permanent time difference where clocks have no need to start or end co-located. SR artifically bans such determinations. If you go out 3 ly at .6c and stop, SR states the permanent time diff of 1 year is indeterminate even though if you took a million years to return, the co-located clocks upon that return would show a 1 yr permanent time difference. This silly, artificial ban on a mathematical result is absolutely crucial to prevent relativity from imploding on itself. My theory has no such limitations. I wrote up a list of other areas where my theory is simpler than relativity such that there is no physical need for length contraction to explain the constancy of c. It also explains all relativistic phenomena as due only to the relativity of simultaneity (there is no time dilation) which even in relativity makes the concept of length contraction superfluous. The simplest theory wins.

 

It looks like the only differences you are describing are things that can't be measured by any natural observer? In which case you are absolutely right, but also I'd caution you about placing too much wager on purely metaphysical assumptions.

 

I feel like perhaps you should read my long post again and pay attention to the point about natural observers not being able to be in two places at the same time, and how thus finite information propagation speed always gives us the logical freedom (but not necessity) to define simultaneity any way we want.

 

Perhaps you've ran into people who think that Special Relativity means that relativistic simultaneity is the only valid choice, and that somehow all sorts of experiments prove this. This is a very common misconception, and only arises from poor grasp of Relativity. It is perfectly valid to view Minkowski spacetime and relativistic simultaneity as sort of a mental "hack" that can be used (in that it yields logically valid observables), because natural observers are limited to finite information speeds when they are probing reality.

 

There is no "physical need for length contraction to explain the constancy of c" in Special Relativity. That assertion puts the cart before the horse, and it's an assertion made by people who have confused a metaphysical interpretation of SR with SR itself. In SR too everything (length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass etc) arises as a logical consequence of the concept of relativistic simultaneity (which arises from the concept of per-frame clock synchronization).

 

If you read the original paper, you will see it never makes any claims to the contrary. This is the great misconcept of relativity - people usually defend superfluous concepts that were never even part of Special Relativity - they are just part of the commonly used language to discuss it.

 

PS. I have not begun to explain how length contraction isn`t the only way to explain electromagnetism until all the flaws in the video's explanation have been corrected. That probably won't happen here but will have to be posed as a Physics Stack Exchange question where my questions are banned on sight. They just say go read a book (Feynmann) because pop sci videos are all flawed. The place is just a roost for parrots.

 

All they are talking about in that video are just consequences of choosing to use relativistic simultaneity to describe the situation. If your theory is just about choosing to describe the situation in some specific frame, it should yield the exact same result, so long that it is self-consistent theory. Nothing in that video proves any metaphysical view of relativity to be "the one true one" - if people have told you so they just hold the very misconceptions I talked about earlier. The "flaws in that video" are just the usual sloppy language people use to whimsically describe relativity (see Feynmans lecture that I linked to if you are interested of a more robust description). And trust me, that sloppy language also bothers me... 

 

What I alluded to earlier is that additional confusion in this example comes from the fact that we have originally defined electric fields and magnetic fields as two separate concepts, while also at the same time magnetic field arises only when a charged particle is "moving". That just means that the idea of handling this phenomena as "two fields" is somewhat superfluous; Surely reality is not "different" based on which inertial frame you choose to describe it in (in one hand magnetic field exists - or has values, in another hand it does not).

 

It's just a property of our world model that we describe the situation in such a different manner based on a free choice of an inertial frame. What it means is that we should not take the concepts (that we define) too seriously. If people would realize that the concepts we use to describe reality (like "electric field" and "magnetic field" really are not stuff "out there" but more properly just stuff we defined inside our heads (inside our world models), then it's also easier to accept that it perfectly fine to use any model that produces good observables - the exact concepts we use are always metaphysical and no worth fighting about.

 

And btw if you are interested of following an exact mathematical proof about why the relativistic time relationships always arise in any self-consistent world model, you might want to start from here;

 

http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.com/2014/09/some-background-on-special-relativity.html

and here:

http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.com/2014/09/epistemological-derivation-of-special.html

Edited July 9, 2020 by AnssiH

[ralfcis]

"you assume that they are not impacted by the very mechanisms that we are trying to apply to all natural objects"

 

Correct and you assume that all clock ticks are electromagnetic in nature and must be affected by relativity the same way anything electromagnetic would be. Atomic clock ticks are not. They are indeed outside of my relativity in that I neither have time dilation nor length contraction that could affect them.What appears as time slowing is a difference between observing clocks of when a tick starts and ends, the duration of the ticks is invariant as is consistent with the proper time in each frame.

 

OMG!

 

"I googled what Loedel reference frame is"

 

I've been banned for 6 months from the Physics Stack Exchange because they say there's no such thing as the Loedel reference frame. They say it isn't on Google yet you have come up with the correct definition and all of those spurts can't figure it out. I find all but one of those super credentialed PhD's know absolutely nothing about math except what they have learned to parrot. I found it on Google but not with the clear definition you've come up with. The Loedel reference frame is special because it's the only one where proper times are the same numerical value for both frames the same way it would be for the underlying instantaneous present. Other perspectives blur that time and are superfluous unless you erroneously assume reality is personal. If the sun disappeared and we circled nothing for 8 minutes, we can only determine that reality from hindsight. Einstein's reality is that we're just fine until we're not and it ignores the underlying reality because there's no way to determine in the true present that the sun is gone.

 

 

"It looks like the only differences you are describing are things that can't be measured by any natural observer"

 

Almost correct but you must add "in real time". The universal present can't be shared in the present but it it can later be figured out. See Einstein's biggest mistake was to use his clock sync method to create an artificial local present. For a pole (frame) he'd force every clock on that pole to share the same numerical time. But that's not the same as a shared local present because of the separation between clocks. It's a false construct of his idea of the present that creates all sorts of problems with relativity.

 

" In SR too everything (length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass etc) arises as a logical consequence of the concept of relativistic simultaneity (which arises from the concept of per-frame clock synchronization)."

 

Absolutely correct. Why can't dumbass parrots understand this. The clock sync method is not some background framework on which to build relativity, it is what taints Einstein's  interpretation of relativity. Wow, you're fn smart!

 

" phenomena as "two fields" (in one hand magnetic field exists - or has values, in another hand it does not)."

 

Yes that's what had me confused, a stationary electric charge is nothing like a stationary magnet as the video implied to me. It's relative velocity that ties the two together.

 

" perfectly fine to use any model that produces good observables - the exact concepts we use are always metaphysical and no worth fighting about."

 

If everyone realized this, there'd be no flame wars on physics forums. But SR has become an orthodox religion and you get banned for even insulting the great prophet. He may not have been a moron but his religion is wrong in that it's not the simplest explanation and it excludes the physical reality of non-closed world lines. Fn parrots just don't get this.

 

Oh no, I'm hooked on physics again. I can't be spending time on this.

Edited July 9, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

These are the pole in the barn paradox videos on what length contraction actually is:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-ZUHhaC17w&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZfqv2MJyIg&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=59&t=274s

 

In the 1st one, the barn sees the pole shrink and the pole sees the barn shrink. Parrots need not see any more than this. The 2nd video says there is no shrinking of either. The front of the pole is always outside the barn when the back is just entering the barn from both perspectives. The times the front and back are measured have nothing to do with the actual length of the pole or barn. Think of it as a race. The front of the pole hitting the back of the barn is the start and the back of the pole inside the front of the barn is the end of the race. But there are two stop watches that are not started simultaneously. The barn waits to start its watch giving the back of the pole extra time to fit on the track from the barn's perspective even though it is not physically possible to do so. The front of the pole is sticking way out the back of the barn at the end of the race. There is no such thing as physical length contraction or an actual slowing of time itself no matter what wiki or all the scientists that ever lived say.

 

PS You will never see reciprocal length contraction as the video depicted. You will never measure on an odometer that the distance to a star has contracted due to your velocity approaching c. These are persistent myths in relativity that have no basis in fact because there's no such thing as length contraction.

 

PPS Since there's no such thing as length contraction or time dilation, relativity needs to come up with a completely new story explaining how the constancy of the speed of light from all perspectives works. My explanation does not depend on those made up concepts.

Edited July 9, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok let me dumb it down even further. The barn's (or race track's) length is equivalent to the spacing between the electrons as seen from the fluff ball moving with the electron stream. The pole's length is the spacing between protons which is the same proper spacing as between electrons. Without the relativity of simultaneity, there would not be enough time for more than 1 proton to appear in the spacing between electrons. Since the barn's stopwatch has a delayed start, it gives a bit of the next proton time to make it between the electrons in the same way the pole being longer than the barn is clocked in as being entirely inside the barn from the barn's perspective. From a Loedel perspective, which allows us to peer into what an instantaneous universal present looked like, the front of the pole was clocked outside the barn and from the pole's perspective, the front of the pole was even farther outside the barn. Because the pole's stopwatch was not delayed there is just not enough time for the whole pole to be clocked simultaneously within the barn. If either end of the pole is within the barn, the other end is not from the pole's perspective.

 

Relativity of simultaneity clocks the ends of the pole as being within the barn but the pole's actual length remains unchanged and hence invariant. Physical length contraction is a completely different phenomenon than how relativity of simultaneity explains it. Both explanations can't be true or interchangeable. If length is invariant then  the Minkowski coordinate transform is wrong to rotate the x-axis since it's invariant. Hence the Lorentz transform equations, which are based on the Minkowski coordinate system, are also wrong since there would be no transform equation for length. I've extensively shown how the math works using the Loedel perspective on Ralfski coordinates to correctly and unambiguously explain relativity based solely on relativity of simultaneity. I've led the horses to water but can't make any of them think.

Edited July 10, 2020 by ralfcis

[AnssiH]

Correct and you assume that all clock ticks are electromagnetic in nature and must be affected by relativity the same way anything electromagnetic would be.

Actually I was saying that it's not a good idea to blindly assume one or the other at the get-go. Which one it is going to be depends largely on our definition of "time", and indeed whether everything can be described as electromagnetic systems (or more generally, whether everything can be described with finite speed interaction mechanisms - no action at a distance). Since we are in a situation where we define everything like that, it means we must also carefully specify what happens to clock cycles of natural clocks.

 

Now, whether one calls that cycle count as "time itself" or not, is another matter. You might be interested to know that there are in fact fair amount of well known problems that seem to arise from the usual Relativistic view where clock measurement = metaphysical "time". It does lead into mathematical (and philosophical) inconsistencies because time is also used as interaction parameter (objects ought to interact if they occupy the same space at the same "time")

 

In fact, usually attempts to define quantum gravity will throw this convention out of the window (because time as a metric that is also a dynamical variable... well that just shows the limits of this metaphysical interpretation doesn't it?).

 

I commented with more detail on this issue here;

http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.com/2015/03/towards-quantum-gravity.html

 

In particular, I think you will find the quote from "Gravitation" very interesting in here;

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/121380/special-relativity-and-imaginary-coefficient-of-the-time-coordinate

 

Anyway, the point is, it can be pretty difficult to decipher what someone means when they say "time" as people don't usually define their terms, and it's common to use the term in inconsistent manner. Sloppy language, like I said earlier.

 

I'm afraid many people don't have the faculties to even realize they are being inconsistent with their terms.

 

I've been banned for 6 months from the Physics Stack Exchange because they say there's no such thing as the Loedel reference frame. They say it isn't on Google yet you have come up with the correct definition and all of those spurts can't figure it out.

It was the first result that came up on Google for me (of course Google gives different results for different people)

Anyway, it's in here;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Loedel_Palumbo

 

I guess it's not that well known because most people just say "the in-between frame" without giving the concept any name.

 

Of course this choice is also arbitrary in that you have to arbitrarily choose two inertial frames first. But if you are looking for ways to pick inertial frames with some cosmological importance, see my first post and comments about the cosmic background radiation (it becomes redshifted in one direction and blueshifted in another in all frames but one).

 

Almost correct but you must add "in real time". The universal present can't be shared in the present but it it can later be figured out. See Einstein's biggest mistake was to use his clock sync method to create an artificial local present. For a pole (frame) he'd force every clock on that pole to share the same numerical time. But that's not the same as a shared local present because of the separation between clocks. It's a false construct of his idea of the present that creates all sorts of problems with relativity.

Well you see, if you read what Einstein has said about the matter, you might find that he didn't seem to view the concept of relativistic simultaneity as nothing more than artificial mental concept himself. You should not confuse the modern minkowski view with the original history of this concept. I mean, the original paper is really very small step, amalgamation of the ideas coming up at that time, if you will. Everywhere in it the language is "observer measures this thing as..." and "IF we define X, the consequence if Y".

 

To me, it doesn't read as more than pointing out some important relationships, and it's really also the responsibility of the reader to avoid taking the ideas as ontological (Minkowski failed to avoid this, and Einstein did in fact criticize his view).

 

Anyway, obviously I can't with any degree of certainty know what flavor of this actually existed in Einstein's mind, and it's likely it has fluctuated over the years. All I'm saying is that from his comments over the years, he appears to have more rational grasp of ontology than most of his peers, and its his peers ideas that get always pinned on Einstein as if he said those things.

 

" perfectly fine to use any model that produces good observables - the exact concepts we use are always metaphysical and no worth fighting about."

 

If everyone realized this, there'd be no flame wars on physics forums.

Well I won't argue with that.

 

But SR has become an orthodox religion and you get banned for even insulting the great prophet. He may not have been a moron but his religion is wrong in that it's not the simplest explanation and it excludes the physical reality of non-closed world lines. Fn parrots just don't get this.

It is certainly true that great majority of people lack the sort of understanding of Relativity that allows them to see how what they have in their head (usually Minkowski interpretation) is really just one possible description of unobservable events - and indeed quite naive one if taken too seriously.

 

But also I think you'll have some success if you manage to build up a very clear language where it is easier for people to understand what exactly you are trying to say. For example, making it clear whether or not you are talking about identical observables helps a bunch. And in general making clear separation between metaphysical and physical aspects of what you are saying. Easier said than done, I know...

 

I will also say that there's a good number of people who understand clearly that length contraction is really just a logical result of defining a per-frame simultaneity, but they lack the language to make it clear that they understand this. They will just shorthand a circumstance by saying "length contraction".

[ralfcis]

Sure if you press them into a corner they'll all say length contraction is just shorthand but that doesn't explain away all the other parts of relativity that depend on length contraction being an actual physical phenomenon. The Lorentz transforms incorporate time dilation, relativity of simultaneity and length contraction. There'd be no need to include the last if they truly believed space itself didn't actually contract. I guess it's up to Popeye to confirm my argument is the beginning of the end for Einstein's interpretation of relativity. I can't present my case any clearer and this example of electromagnetism is the last nail in the coffin. Science and math differ in the nature of their rigorous proofs. Science requires only the simplest story to explain a set of real physical facts and Einstein's is riddled with holes and contradictions.

Edited July 10, 2020 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

AnssiH, here's a link to my Loedel perspective question and the extents those dishonest people went to hiding the truth including anonymously deleting my supporting math.

 

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/520866/can-the-loedel-reference-frame-be-used-as-the-basis-for-establishing-loedel-age?noredirect=1#comment1268437_520866

 

This is science today, liars with credentials.

Edited July 10, 2020 by ralfcis