Is the Lorentz Transform the Complete Picture?

[marlowgs]

As an alternative to looking for Lorentz transformation violations, has anyone ever considered that the Lorentz transformation may not be a complete description? If you look at Einstein's equation for energy, E^2 = (pc)^2 + Eo^2, it looks like the Pythagorean theorem. This suggests that a more encompassing theory may involve complex quantities. The complex equation for energy ~E = pc + j*Eo, includes Einstein's equation as magnitude, but also includes a phase component. The real part is the one that describes the motion of particles. A particle of light energy has no rest energy (no imaginary component) and has electric and magnetic waves that are in phase. This implies that rest energy (the imaginary component) is made of electric and magnetic waves that are 90 degrees out of phase. At some fundamental level matter must be 90 degree out of phase electric and magnetic waves. If everything is made of electric and magnetic waves it shouldn't be too hard to find a unifying theory for all forces.

[Erasmus00]

If you look at Einstein's equation for energy, E^2 = (pc)^2 + Eo^2, it looks like the Pythagorean theorem.

 

This is because that very equation comes from considering the length of a four vector (in this case momentum-energy), a process very much like taking the length of a three vector in which the pythagorean theory is used.

 

This suggests that a more encompassing theory may involve complex quantities. The complex equation for energy ~E = pc + j*Eo, includes Einstein's equation as magnitude, but also includes a phase component.

 

Traditionally, complex quantities are useful because they allow us to deal with periodic phases using algebra. You haven't presented at all a convincing case that a classical lump of matter has any sort of periodicity.

 

This implies that rest energy (the imaginary component) is made of electric and magnetic waves that are 90 degrees out of phase. At some fundamental level matter must be 90 degree out of phase electric and magnetic waves.

 

Must is certainly a strong word. I don't think you've really put forth anything to support this, other then some baseless conjecture. Saying "matter is different then light, so it MUST be different in this specific way" is a bit lacking of an argument.

 

If everything is made of electric and magnetic waves it shouldn't be too hard to find a unifying theory for all forces.

 

Thats a big if though.

-Will

[marlowgs]

If you look at the Lorentz transformation gamma factor written in the form of the Pythagorean theorem c^2 = v^2 + c^2/g^2, you can see there also exists a complex equation that includes it ~c = v + j* c/g . The velocities that Einstein used to derive the Lorentz transformation only come from the real part of this complex quantity. So the result of his derivation will be incomplete, i.e. they only represent magnitude.

 

Particles of matter do exhibit periodic properties when moving, i.e. de Broglie waves. If you take the complex equation for energy and divide by Plank’s constant you get ~f = pc/h + j*fo. The real part gives the de Broglie wavelength L = h/p. The real part is the one that describes light energy and in the same way particles of matter produce an interference pattern when passed through a slit. The annihilation of matter with antimatter produces to photons with wave properties. In a complex representation, the electric wave would lead the magnetic by 90 degrees for matter and lag the magnetic wave by 90 degrees for antimatter (or visa versa). Add the two waves and there can be no imaginary component. Energy can’t be lost so it’s converted to real waves of light. One can’t see the waves of the imaginary component because we live in a world described by the real motion of particles. The imaginary waves of the electric field may appear as the property of charge and those of the magnetic field as spin in a real world.

 

I do agree that MUST is a strong word but I hope I’ve provide a bit more evidence.

[arkain101]

If this was his paper, I am sure he would support his thoughts with a much more thorough means.

 

I notice alot of people share thoughts on here and so many pecker heads come in and miss the point of the post because they are too busy trying to hammer down the ideas and thoughs proposed. I suppose it could be put in a different section of the forum, but come on people chill out and use your imagination, not everyone is trying to be right on here.

oh and Erasmus00, I am not refering to you about this, but I agree, we do have to remain accurate, but this does not mean you need to lose your imagination.

[marlowgs]

I welcome the challenge of defending my idea – it helps me think about things I may not have considered. So bash and slam on!

 

If you’re wondering where I’m coming from on this, take a look at AC circuits. Resistors are represented on the real axis and capacitors and inductors on the imaginary axis. The alternating voltage across a component is basically the same thing as an alternating electric field. The current through a component is basically the same thing as an alternating magnetic field. For a resistor the voltage and current are in phase and power is radiated from the resistor – in fact it is light energy. In the case of an inductor or capacitor energy is stored in these components and the current and voltage are 90 degrees out of phase. In the inductor voltage leads current by 90, and in the capacitor it lags by 90. From Einstein’s principle of mass-energy equivalence, if you were to measure the mass of a capacitor when it is fully charged, you would see that it is greater then when it is discharged. So you have the energy dissipated away from the circuit by resistors that is analogous to the momentum energy (real component pc) and you have the energy stored within the circuit by capacitors and inductors that is analogous to the stored rest energy of matter (imaginary component Eo).