Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[Billy T]

...if your exposition proves that a photon travels from A to B across vacummuous space I will be more than happy to part with my $100 usd....but we shall see...
Obviously there is already a significant disadvantage to your presentation and that is it is performed in an ambient medium [ air or nitrogen or whatever as it doesn't matter ] so the need to show light transiting a vacuum is still a concern. However if one can conclude that satisfactory evidence is possible even in an ambient medium such as air we may side step that requirement.
It could be proposed for example that light energy "jumps" from particle to particle across the space in between instantaneously, with out traveling [in a medium such as glass - optic fibre or water or air or anything of mass.] the delay in time being experienced due to distance, being a mass inertia effect*** and not a time to transit effect. So ruling out mass as the medium for transit is very necessary. It is the space that is vacant between particles of mass, the vacuum and the void that is normally inhabited only by photons and em that is in question. …
*** the invariant speed of light could actualy be a significant aspect of "inertia" but is lost to us because we put it the photon outside of mass instead of inside mass. [ which is where we can only observe it any way...]

I agree that what I personally did was not in vacuum, but the molecules of air are much smaller than the 30 cm length of the photons I measured and they were line radiation from a gas discharge glow of a gas not found in air. (Sodium vapor much like those used to on some streets making yellow light.) Each of these facts separately and independently makes your "instantaneous jumps” between atoms (with inertial delays in each atom) alternative impossible (two independent reasons briefly discussed near the end of this post plus another, first discussed, but not much related to my lab experiment that measured the length of the photon.):

Light comes from the sun to the Earth’s very-high, extremely-rarefied atmosphere thru a very high vacuum in about 8.5 minutes. We know the position of the moon, mercury and Venus as function of time very accurately compared to 8.5 minutes. All three occasionally do pass directly between Earth and sun, but for my current purpose Mercury is best as it is closest to the sun. It appears as a small dark spot moving across the sun - Many years between these observations as there are lots of ways sun Mercury and Earth can fail to be well enough aligned almost on one common line. The most recent one was a few years ago and very carefully recorded as the exact size of the AU and the sun can be determined most precisely from the Mercury transit time etc. I.e. Astronomers know exactly (compared to 8.5 minutes) when Mercury's shadow makes "first contact" with the sun's edge actually takes place (about 7 minutes later it is seen on Earth) So we have a start event and a stop event about 7 minutes separated by the delay of light travels yet there are essentially no atoms to be providing your "inertial" delay with instantaneous jumps between atoms.

Furthermore and even more simple and powerful proof against your idea is the fact that the edge of the shadow of Mercury during it transit across the sun is very sharp especially if photographed from an air plane or balloon above almost all of the Earth atmosphere atoms. If the edge of the shadow were jumping between atoms as your alternative suggest the shadow would not have sharp edges. The entire shadow would be a "bell curve" intensity shape darkest at the center with gradual increase in light as one moves away from that dark center - not any well defined edge to the shadow.

This is because with each "jump" to the next atom the energy is moved slightly to the side of the straight line path in some random fashion. I.e. your alternative has the energy making a "random walk" generally towards the Earth. If there are N atoms taking part in the step by step transit to the Earth and each on average causes the energy to "slip sideways" from the straight line path by D on average, then the net total sideways slip when the energy get to the Earth is D times the square root of N. The sharp edged observed shadow would not form - We would observe a "bell curve" intensity pattern with no defined edge at all!

If N is relatively small, say 1500, then each of the sideways steps are very big as is the total sideways slip. This is because the AU = 150 million Km. I.e. each step on average between atoms is 100,000,000 meters long and the typical "slide ways slip" D would be many kilometers away from the straight line path. Likewise in the ~7 minutes of "Mercury shadow" travel to Earth there are ~420 seconds so each the atoms delaying the energy transport must "inertially hold" the energy for ~0.3 seconds, presumable in some energy storing excited state. That is an "eternity” for an excited state to avoid decay back to the ground state. Furthermore when the energy is released 0.3 sec later by the atoms how does it know which way to go?

Consider an atom that is 1,000,000 Km off the straight line path from sun to Earth. It too is in sun light so is holding energy on average of 0.3 sec also. When it releases the stored energy it is just as likely to be instantaneously jumping to an atom that is closer to the sun as to one which is further away. It might jump to one that with subsequent jumps delivered the energy to Earth. Thus even the sun its self (forget about the minor problem of Mercury’s sharp edged shadow) would not appear to be a 0.5 degree wide disk in the sky. Sunlight would be coming to the Earth from EVERY direction if sunlight energy were stored in atoms for 0.3 seconds on average. I.e. some packets of sun energy would get farther from the sun than the Earth is and then the release of energy would send the energy back towards and atom which was nearer to the sun, if the Earth were not in the way. I.e. sun light would come to earth even at midnight! (But of course there would not be any night. Only the minimum light time probably called "mid dim" 12 hours from "max light" - day and night would not exist if your alternative were true (and there were only 1500 or so steps).

Now let’s consider the opposite extreme N is enormous, "zillions of steps" not a mere1500. For example let’s assume that average atmospheric density up to 100,000 feet is the average density of atoms ALL the way to the sun.

First let’s note what the effect of only the 100,000 foot thick atmosphere actually does to star light. "twinkle, twinkle, little star" is caused by very small random density changes in the atmospheric density (as is the sky being blue, but that is another story) let’s say, just to illustrate the problem your alternative faces in this case: the total random deflection of star light, its "twinkle" on average, I will conservatively assume is only 0.000,1 degree. (If it really were that small, the stars would not "twinkle" to the unaided eye as the angular resolution of our vision is not that good.)

For convenience I will call the 100,000 feet 30,000m. Now in the 150,000,000,000 m AU (distance to the sun) there are 5,000,000 or five million of these 100,000 foot thick atmospheres "slabs" to get thru with random deflection of the light path each greater than my conservative 0.000,1 degree in each. The net angular deflection effect is not 5,000,000 times 0.000,1 = 500 degrees but the square root of that or 22+ degree total off sets but I will call it 20 degrees just to be even more conservative. (My 0.000,1 degree is also too small, well below human eye resolution ability, and we do see the little stars "twinkle" do we not?)

Thus in this "N very large" case, the angular width of the sum would be 40 times larger than it is, and just to return briefly to the Mercury transit shadow, in this N large case: There would be no shadow as with the back ground sun light being deflected on average of 20 degrees the tiny (by comparison to the 0.5 degree wide sun) black dot that we see transiting the sun would be invisible.

Hell, as I think Mercury never gets 20 degrees from the sun's center and the sun light would appear to be coming from a "edgeless disk" 40 degrees wide to where the intensity was half the central intensity, we could only know of the existence of Mercury via its tiny gravitational effect on Venus, if we could know that Mercury even exists at all. (I am not sure we could even see Venus, the brightes star in the heavens, with the un aided eye - it too might always be lost in the >40 degree wide sun.)

SUMMARY: Your alternative theory of energy instantaneously jumping from atom to atom with some "inertial storage delay" in each atom to explain why the speed of light it finite conflicts with the most rudimentary observations of even the Neanderthals. - Namely the 24 period is dark for ~12 hours. It also conflicts with the fact the sun appears to be a disk with sharp edges only 0.5 degrees wide (instead of at least 20 degrees wide). It also conflicts with the fact that Mercury is not only visible to the un-aided eye, but one of the brighter "stars" in the heavens.

These observations alone destroy your alternate theory of why light has a delay in going from A to B; however the $100 was not offered for this. It was offered for showing that something is moving between the light source and the screen (or place he energy is absorbed). That I did as I even measured the length of this "something" and found it to be ~30 cm long - much too long to be stored in an atom "as is." If compressed down to atomic size during the storage period many times in both paths T & R of the interferometer, then the spinning (and suffering collisions) atom would have no way to know in which way to send it on its next instantaneous step to another atom of the air.

Even if that precise angular information could somehow be stored in each atom for each delay period, there is still the need for exact "in phase" recombination at the screen to produce the constructive interference peaks observed (and preservation of exact 180 "out of phase" at the screen to make the zero intensity nulls of the interference pattern). This is totally impossible even if one also postulates that somehow both the direction of energy travel and the phase information could be stored in the atom. This is because the atom is in constant motion during the storage interval and moves thru a distance very large compared to the wave length. Thus even if it could regenerate the 30 cm long wave with exactly the phase it had when it was absorbed, that is not the phase it must re-emitted from the atom's new location at the time it releases the stored energy for the next instantaneous step. Thus, the atom must store the 30cm long wave's exact energy* and give it back later, store the phase of the wave it absorbed, record how far and in what direction is has moved during the storage period, compute the correct "phase shift" needed due to the atom's shifted location while storing before sending the new phase information onto the next absorbing atom in the chain of absorbing atoms. Also the sending of all this information correctly requires that the atom knows which of the zillions of atoms is the "next atom" in the chain. For example, the phase shift required and the information about the magnitude of the energy (none actually travels if your alternative is correct) must be tailored to compensate for the speed of BOTH the now emitting atoms and the now (it is instantaneous in you model) speed of the next absorbing atom whose identity must be known by each of he releasing atoms!

----

Finally, although I worked in air the more accurate tests of the "either" were in vacuum. In fact Michelson also made one of the (if not the most) accurate direct measurements of the speed of light in vacuum. For this there was a mile long steel pipe with mirrors at each end to reflect the beam back and forth about 20 times as I recall. - Effectively a 20 mile path thru very high vacuum. With "mirror folded" interferometers, this pipe was also used to do many interferometer studies, some no doubt like mine measured the length of photons from various gases in addion to sodium.

The famous M&M test of the either theory was not done in this vacuum pipe as like the wiki drawing of my prior post, the two paths or "arms" of the interferometer must be nearly orthogonal. I seem to recall that they did have a much shorter pipe that was orthogonal to the mile long pipe and repeated that M&M test again with its help, getting the "null result” still of course. Unfortunately the mile long vacuum pipe no longer exists. (It was owned by some mid western university as I recall. After it had been used for a dozen or so years there was little demand for it, so the university sold it, as scrap iron, I think.)
----
*It is known that sodium line radiation passes thru air with little or no absorption both experimentally (when used to illuminate streets with yellow light) and from the fact that there is no energy level in O2 or N2 above the ground state energy level by an energy difference exactly equal to the energy of each sodium generated photon. Thus for an atom to "swallow the energy" and hold or store it you must violate conservation of energy. - No exactly appropriate energy level exists for the storage of 100% of the energy incident on the atom. Thus, a little energy would be lost in each step (Several pecent at least, I would guess.). So if the radiation entering an air filled room via the door were harsh UV or x-ray it would be only a radio frequency wave by the time it got to the other side of the room!

 

[quadraphonics]

You are merely repeating what I have said. You can make it appear that you are correcting me but you aren't. I have already stated several times that SR can handle acceleration.

I know: I quoted one of them in my response.

The issue, as elsewhere, is that you are also saying other things which contradict that, and so failing to make a valid, consistent point.

 

[CptBork]

4 - I posted in response to BS from CptBork. He made the error of making a couple of aggressive initial posts implying "People that have not studied SR and don't understand.....", etc. ,etc, implying that he has and does.

You're making false statements about the relationship between SR and GR, and you're claiming SR to be full of BS, so that's why I conclude you don't know as much about it as you seem to think. If you prove me wrong, I'll concede on this one.

But his most recent post shows without doubt he does not understand. His claim that making the acceleration period short in comparison to the inertial velocity duration resolves the issue is just plain nonsense.

I didn't say it's needed to resolve the issue, I said if the acceleration occurs within a relatively brief time period, then the precise characteristics of the acceleration make virtually no difference whatsoever to the end result, hence you can save yourself a great deal of time by simplifying your calculations and assuming instant acceleration. I even gave an example of how this is so in the context of the Twins paradox. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and set up the integral to show me how acceleration in SR makes such a huge difference to the paradox.

6 - Having said that and posted the above link I also point out that Einstein applied the Einstein Equivelence Principle and used GR as a part of the the solution.

GR gives a very easy qualitative solution to this problem, i.e. right away one knows that the Earth twin ages more. But to say this is how Einstein originally solved the problem is completely false; he had it solved long before GR was formed, it was a problem he discussed as part of his writings on the strange consequences implied by SR.

So while you can ignore how you switched frames and claim GR isn't involved, technically you are would be correct. GR generally deals with natural gravity; however - GR is also associated with non-inertial frames, rotation and acceleration and acceleration is required to switch frames. So to refer to it in this case is perfectly correct also.

GR can be used in any situation whatsoever, at least in principle. But in flat space, any calculation you do in GR is ultimately equivalent to a calculation in SR. You want to avoid invoking GR whenever possible, since it's introducing an additional layer of complexity.

2 - Acceleration induces a change in velocity. It is the shift in velocity that is the bases for time dilation.

No, it's the instantaneous relative velocity that determines this. You don't see a term describing the "shift in velocity" appearing anywhere in the Lorentz transformations, do you?

3 - You till talk about what Bob "argues", "Reasons", "thinks", etc. I have repeatedly said that there is an "Illusion of Motion" and that each can percieve time dilation but that it is not physically real.

When I say "perceive" or "appear" or "see" or "thinks", I mean that these things are based on any possible measurement scheme one can construct. I speak of relativistic effects as if they actually do occur, but as far as the observers are concerned, everything can be described in terms of what they see when they rig up their various measurement apparatuses.

1 - As I have noted previously and James R tried to deny it you direct SR to change sign -L to +L . That is it is no longer just a matter of relative velocity but of specific vector. That is you are instituting an absolute motion concept by selecting the return path to a prior rest reference and are ignoring the relative velocity affect to the navigation beacon.

Of course. In both classical and relativistic kinematics, velocity is relative, acceleration isn't. The Earth orbits around the sun, not the other way around (though the sun does wobble a tiny bit from the Earth's tug). The sign of L must change because I have to introduce a new coordinate system to account for the astronaut's change in direction.

Reference to the navigation beacon Bob must be dilating and at the same time increasing tick rate to return to Albert's frame. Nothing wrong with your math but plently wrong with the concept which ignores relative velocity when it suits and asserts it vwhen you want.

Relative to the navigation beacon, Bob's time is purely dilating. You seem to forget that from Bob's POV, the navigation beacon and Earth clocks aren't synchronized. Even if on their way to the beacon, they're receiving constant red-shifted transmissions from Earth which prove that Earth's clock is ticking slower from their POV, they will find that the navigation beacon, by comparison, is ticking faster. On the return trip, it will be the opposite, with the beacon seeming to tick slower than normal and the Earth seeming to tick faster.

You are still discussing affect (Illusions) of motion on perception, not physical actual clock conditions.

Nope. Like I said, when I talk about appearances, or say "Bob argues that..." it's entirely based on what their instruments (i.e. clocks) would measure.

1 - Zoom forward, change direction? You are employing absolute mottion not mere relative motion. This has been my contention all along.

Well then your contention would be wrong, because I'm applying absolute acceleration, not absolute motion. As I said, even in Newton's physics you have to work in inertial reference frames and consider acceleration as absolute. If in Newton's physics you take all acceleration as relative, you will get nonsensical results, i.e. you could argue that when a probe flies towards the sun, it's actually the sun picking up an enormous sum of energy and flying towards the probe. Obviously that would be nonsense.

2 - You consider who is accelerating - i.e. who has actual motion not mere relative velocity. That is precisely what I have claimed. Acceleration is a non-inertial frame and that is generally refereed to asGR so you are considering GR when you interject acceleartion. You are also now working in a absolute motion system not merely relative velocity.

I still don't see why you need to refer to GR every time you talk about acceleration. Acceleration is not the problem GR was built to tackle, only gravity. As far as me working with absolute motion, please show me where my solution to the twins paradox invokes anything absolute aside from the astronaut's change in direction. There is no reference whatsoever to absolute motion, only absolute acceleration.

Your attempt to ignore that to switch frames you must accelerate and that acceleration is non-inertial is curious.

If that had been my assumption in solving the twins paradox, I wouldn't have been able to complete the calculations. The non-inertial acceleration is invoked when the astronaut reverses direction, and you have to set up a new coordinate system with a new spacetime origin in order to apply the Lorentz transformations (in their standard form) to the remainder of the problem.

The issue is that SR claims that relative velocity causes time dilation. That is simply false asnd has been shown to be false by every test ever done.

Care to cite some experimental examples? Why is it that the statistical lifetimes of fast-moving particles such as muons increase in the fashion predicted by the Lorentz transformations, independent of their acceleration histories? You can accelerate the particles in any fashion you want, as slow or as fast as you want, then wait for them to pass a certain starting point, and measure their lifetimes from this point on (if you know that a particle has survived up to a certain point in time, then the probability of the particle decaying at a specific time later in the future is the same as if the particle had been freshly created right there on the spot). The acceleration history has no bearing on the results, I guarantee that, and the experiment has been performed with an enormous number of particles over the last 60 years.

Mere relative velocity leads to reciprocity and there is no emperical data to support that view. It has never been and would appear to be untestable. If untestable it falsifies SR as valid theory.

Wrong yet again, I'm afraid. There is no reciprocity in the twins paradox, the symmetry is broken right from the very start. When the two twins agree that the spacefaring twin will head 10 light years out into space and then turn back, we're talking about 10 light years according to whose standard? 10 light years as measured by Earth is not 10 light years as measured by the astronaut. Is there a beacon placed 10 light years away and stationary relative to the Earth, so the astronaut knows when to turn back? Or is the beacon set up to be stationary relative to the astronaut, 10 light years away as seen from the astronaut's perspective, such that they see the Earth fly away and then turn back once it reaches this beacon? The only reason the problem is called a paradox is because most people tend to completely miss these subtle asymmetries, and then proceed to deduce contradictory results as you have.

Including "Who accelerated" in your calculations switches from SR to LR and absolute system.

Sorry, can you tell me what LR stands for in this context? I'm guessing you mean Lorentzian Relativity or something, but I don't know.

 

[CptBork]

Note for Billy T: I'll be happy to show you the particular derivation of $$E=mc^2$$ I mentioned. I just have a few fish to fry here at the moment, but it will be coming soon, probably within a day or 2 at most.

 

[CptBork]

There's actually a simple way to think about the twins paradox that doesn't even require one to think about accelerations at all. Imagine that as the spacefaring twin, Bob, passes the navigation beacon, a volunteer named Charles is going in the opposite direction with opposite velocity, as seen by Earth. From all reference frames they are seen to pass by the space beacon at the same time, and as they do so, Bob sends a synchronizing signal to Charles telling him what to set his clock to. Charles then takes his newly synchronized clock and keeps time as he returns to Earth, while Bob continues out into deep space, where he's eventually sucked into a black hole. When Charles returns to Earth, he compares his clock with Albert's clock (Albert is the Earthbound twin), and finds that the stationary clock has significantly more ticks on it. Exact same thing as considering an instant acceleration, but everyone's in an inertial frame the whole time, and the result is the same regardless of which reference frame you use in the calculations. No reciprocity involved.

 

[MacM]

I know: I quoted one of them in my response.

The issue, as elsewhere, is that you are also saying other things which contradict that, and so failing to make a valid, consistent point.

Good we are making progress. The point seems to be you are misinterpreting my posts.

1 - I have not claimed GR is required to solve time dilation.

2 - I have said that SR can handle acceleration.

3 - I have said Einstein used GR to resolve the Twin Paradox, which he did.

4 - I have said that you can only switch frames by acceleration which is a non-inertial frame and which is GR.

5 - I have said "If you do not integrate the acceleration period you have not correctly computed time dilation between clocks.

I think that is about all I have said on this issue.

Which of the above do you disagree with or do you think is in conflict with other statements?

If I have said somethingelse not listed please post what it is and I'll clarify.

 

[MacM]

You're making false statements about the relationship between SR and GR, and you're claiming SR to be full of BS, so that's why I conclude you don't know as much about it as you seem to think. If you prove me wrong, I'll concede on this one.

Please clarify. I think you are being confused by the fact I am challenging the general claim of relative velocity as a cause of time dilation and not how SR is applied. I have no objection to stating that the relative velocity is between a clock and it's prior inertial rest frame but many (including James R) have tried to claim that relative velocity between clocks and the "Percieved" mutual dilation is physically real. That is what is being opposed. There is no emperical data to support that claim nor does it appear it is testable.

I also oppose the failure of relativists to acknowledge that when they apply the "Switched Frame" standard that they are no longer using mere relative velocity between clocks in their calculation. They are using a form of absolute motion (Who has actual velocity not mere relative velocity).

I didn't say it's needed to resolve the issue, I said if the acceleration occurs within a relatively brief time period, then the precise characteristics of the acceleration make virtually no difference whatsoever to the end result, hence you can save yourself a great deal of time by simplifying your calculations and assuming instant acceleration. I even gave an example of how this is so in the context of the Twins paradox. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and set up the integral to show me how acceleration in SR makes such a huge difference to the paradox.

No now we agree. I understood you to say you were proviong acceleration had no bearing on time dilation and my point was that it is shifts in velocity and it doesn't matter as to what acceleration pattern causes it.

It does simplify calculation but the final time dilation is inertial velocity differential * duration + integration of velocity differentail * duration of the acceleration period.

GR gives a very easy qualitative solution to this problem, i.e. right away one knows that the Earth twin ages more. But to say this is how Einstein originally solved the problem is completely false; he had it solved long before GR was formed, it was a problem he discussed as part of his writings on the strange consequences implied by SR.

I would need to see a bonafide example of his having done that. To my knowledge he was stimmied by the paradox until he developed GR. Perhaps he may have made some comment just before publishing GR but as my link states he used GR to resolve the issue.

GR can be used in any situation whatsoever, at least in principle. But in flat space, any calculation you do in GR is ultimately equivalent to a calculation in SR. You want to avoid invoking GR whenever possible, since it's introducing an additional layer of complexity.

Agreed but the inverse is what was stated and that was that SR can handle acceleration of GR issues.

No, it's the instantaneous relative velocity that determines this. You don't see a term describing the "shift in velocity" appearing anywhere in the Lorentz transformations, do you?

Sorry but you missed the boat on this one. t' = t(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5

The shift in velocity is "v" the velocity you use to compute the affect. It is a shift because it is different than the inertial rest velocity which becomes "0".

When I say "perceive" or "appear" or "see" or "thinks", I mean that these things are based on any possible measurement scheme one can construct. I speak of relativistic effects as if they actually do occur, but as far as the observers are concerned, everything can be described in terms of what they see when they rig up their various measurement apparatuses.

Correct but my point is and has been what you "Percieve", "See", "Think", etc while in motion is not supported by emperical data. NOr does it appear even testable.

In plain english the view from the traveling observer that the resting observer's clock is dilated is not supported as a physical reality.

Of course. In both classical and relativistic kinematics, velocity is relative, acceleration isn't. The Earth orbits around the sun, not the other way around (though the sun does wobble a tiny bit from the Earth's tug). The sign of L must change because I have to introduce a new coordinate system to account for the astronaut's change in direction.

I haven't claimed that to change sign is improper. I make the point that you are now using a form of absolute motion and not mere relative motion.

1 - Given "A" and "B" are at common inertial rest and "A" accelerates ways I think you would agree that "A" is accumulating less time than "B".

Yes/No?

2 - Now if I add the fact that "A" & "B" were initially at common inertial rest in frame "C" and accelerated equally in a co-moving direction to become at common inertial rest as above, you would agree that "A" & "B" are now dilated to "C" and are accumulating less time than "C".

Yes/No?

3 - But when "A" now accelerates away from "B" and its vector is to return to "C" you apply additional algebra so as to cause the clocks to increase it's tick rate so as to match the original "C" frame time standard.

Yes/No?

4 - Yet if "A" accleerates away from "B" in the opposite direction it continues to dilated relative to "B" and "C".

Yes/No?

I hope you can see the conflict here. Not in what you do mathematically but what you are claiming is physics. If motion is not an absolute function how does "A" know it is returning to "C" instead of advancing to a i.e. - "D" frame.

Relative to the navigation beacon, Bob's time is purely dilating. You seem to forget that from Bob's POV, the navigation beacon and Earth clocks aren't synchronized. Even if on their way to the beacon, they're receiving constant red-shifted transmissions from Earth which prove that Earth's clock is ticking slower from their POV, they will find that the navigation beacon, by comparison, is ticking faster. On the return trip, it will be the opposite, with the beacon seeming to tick slower than normal and the Earth seeming to tick faster.

Again I don't care about what "Appears" or "Seems" to be happening while in relative motion. I only care about the final condition of clocks when compared in a common rest frame subsequenct to having had relative velocity.

Nope. Like I said, when I talk about appearances, or say "Bob argues that..." it's entirely based on what their instruments (i.e. clocks) would measure.

]
No, ctually you are. You are attempting to make what "Appears" either by sight or by instrument, while in motion as being something physical about the remote clock.

That view is not upheld by emperical data and is really just down right foolish to assert is physically real. The resting clock never alters it's tick rate all comments about that involve "Illusion of Motion" .

I gave the example of putting on red glasses and then claiming the entire universe is red. It may appear red to you but it's color has not changed. When you take off the glasses you see immediately the truth.

The same is true of the affects of relative velocity. It may cause you to see, measure or bvelieve the remote resting clock is dilated but once you stop the motion the emperical data doesn't support that conclusion.

Well then your contention would be wrong, because I'm applying absolute acceleration, not absolute motion.

I have no problem with absolute acceleration. I do have a problem not recognizing that acceleration casues absolute motion (velocity) change not merely relative velocity.

As I said, even in Newton's physics you have to work in inertial reference frames and consider acceleration as absolute. If in Newton's physics you take all acceleration as relative, you will get nonsensical results, i.e. you could argue that when a probe flies towards the sun, it's actually the sun picking up an enormous sum of energy and flying towards the probe. Obviously that would be nonsense.

My point exactly. If you do not define the probe as having absolute motion you are in fact creating the sitution where the sun is moving to you.

That woudl be and is nonsense just as relative velocity between clocks is a basis for physical time dilation is nonsense. It doesn't happen. Time dilation only occurs to the clock that accelerated and has actual velocity notr merely relative velocity to other objects.

I still don't see why you need to refer to GR every time you talk about acceleration. Acceleration is not the problem GR was built to tackle, only gravity. As far as me working with absolute motion, please show me where my solution to the twins paradox invokes anything absolute aside from the astronaut's change in direction. There is no reference whatsoever to absolute motion, only absolute acceleration.

Perhaps that is because James R and others invariably interject "Acceleration is GR not SR". I agree it might reduce the confusion if I simply stated non-inertial or acceleration but since GR is routinely referred to as non-inertial , rotation or acceleration it is much quicker and easier to just type GR.

These non-gravity frames come about via EEP.

If that had been my assumption in solving the twins paradox, I wouldn't have been able to complete the calculations. The non-inertial acceleration is invoked when the astronaut reverses direction, and you have to set up a new coordinate system with a new spacetime origin in order to apply the Lorentz transformations (in their standard form) to the remainder of the problem.

The problem is that you are ignoring the fact that to switch frames requires acceleration and that you are invoking absolute motion not mere relative velocity.

Also you may have computed the rest of the problem and produced a time dilation but your computation would be in error if you had not integrated the differential velocity during acceleration.

Care to cite some experimental examples? Why is it that the statistical lifetimes of fast-moving particles such as muons increase in the fashion predicted by the Lorentz transformations, independent of their acceleration histories? You can accelerate the particles in any fashion you want, as slow or as fast as you want, then wait for them to pass a certain starting point, and measure their lifetimes from this point on (if you know that a particle has survived up to a certain point in time, then the probability of the particle decaying at a specific time later in the future is the same as if the particle had been freshly created right there on the spot). The acceleration history has no bearing on the results, I guarantee that, and the experiment has been performed with an enormous number of particles over the last 60 years.[/quotre]

Because as I have repeatedly stated you are computing the time dilation of a particle that has actual motion. That is not the issue. The issue is when you want to claim that from the perspective of the muon that the earth bound clock is dilated (has accumulated less time).

I must add again the fact that a recent study found that there is a muon ansitrophy to earth and it was used to compute the solar system motion in the universe replicating the 350km/s motion found by CMB and other measurements.

That is the conclusion of the study was that it was more accurate to compute muon life time via it's absolute motion than relative motion just to earth!!!!!.

Wrong yet again, I'm afraid. There is no reciprocity in the twins paradox, the symmetry is broken right from the very start.

Correct and that has been my point you can only correctly compute time dilation IF you know who has actual velocity and don't rely on mere relative velocity and the "Illusion of Motion" data. If you have two objects in motion to each other you have a 50/50 cahnce of being correct but if you claim both views you will also be incorrect 50% of the time.

Sorry, can you tell me what LR stands for in this context? I'm guessing you mean Lorentzian Relativity or something, but I don't know.

Correct. It is indeed a FORM of LR. The original LR was based on a static aether which does not resolve my issues either. BUt the aspect of selecting a preferred frame and eliminating reciprocity of the mere relative veloicty view is an absolute function and that is better described by LR thanSR.

SR prohibits prefererd frames but then selects a preferred frame by sawying who switched frames and hnce has actual velocity.

It is speaking with forked tongue and trying to continue to give credit to Einstien and not Lorentz.

GPS uses a preferred frame by using the ECI (Earth Center Inertial) where an orbiting clock cannot claim to be at rest and the ECI reference has velocity.

 

[MacM]

There's actually a simple way to think about the twins paradox that doesn't even require one to think about accelerations at all. Imagine that as the spacefaring twin, Bob, passes the navigation beacon, a volunteer named Charles is going in the opposite direction with opposite velocity, as seen by Earth. From all reference frames they are seen to pass by the space beacon at the same time, and as they do so, Bob sends a synchronizing signal to Charles telling him what to set his clock to. Charles then takes his newly synchronized clock and keeps time as he returns to Earth, while Bob continues out into deep space, where he's eventually sucked into a black hole. When Charles returns to Earth, he compares his clock with Albert's clock (Albert is the Earthbound twin), and finds that the stationary clock has significantly more ticks on it. Exact same thing as considering an instant acceleration, but everyone's in an inertial frame the whole time, and the result is the same regardless of which reference frame you use in the calculations. No reciprocity involved.

Sorry this doesn't cut it. Bob and Charles both had to accelerate compared to Albert at some point in history otherwise they would not have actual velocity.

It is that velocity established by historical acceleration that sets their respective tick rates.

Reciprocity would be trying to make poor Bob's view a physical reality when he claims Albert and Charles clocks are ticking slower than his own at the same time Charles and Albert claim Bob is ticking slower than them themselves.

They can claim these things but emperical data does not support those claims.

What Charles finds is that Albert's clock was NOT dilated in contrast to what Bob claims.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Billy T and others, I was wondering if you have missed this posted question regarding Time dilation

Billy T;

A change in tick rates must be due to some causation yes?

The only change that has occurred between the two observers is acceleration of one observer?
Is it it not logical to conclude that the change in tick rates is Dependant on the only change in causation available?
After all the the only change to the situation is in fact acceleration leading to a change in relative v.
That relative v of value is only possible by what? well...the answer can only be a phase of acceleration. [ other wise relative v is impossible from a position of zero relative v.]
As the only aspect that works against inertia is acceleration, as velocity itself is "inertia neutral" IMO one can conclude that it is acceleration and the shift in velocity effecting the universe at large that is primarily the causation of time dilation.


Is this not a sound logical use of the information given?

as to the other issue regarding evidence of the traveling photon I shall address it soon , and most probably by creating another thread and quoting posts already made on the subject.

As JamesR has already stated:

Originally Posted by James R
... To detect a photon means to absorb it, so your $100 is quite safe. Once a photon is detected, it is no longer "in transit" - it has been absorbed by the detector. ...

IMO JamesR has a full understanding of the difficulty involved.

The burden is to show how a photon can be observed in transit without absorbing it with a detector.

Now this may sound like a spurious and silly requirement however it is the alternative theory that places the burden of what is currently held as transit times, upon the massive objects absorbing the photon/EM [an effect of inertia] and not the distance or volume of empty space [ vacuum ] between source and detector mass.

You mention a vacuum tube used by M&M and cite this as further evidence and all this shows is you are not looking deep enough at the question raised and how difficult the challenge indeed is. IN all instances so far you have shown only a event of photon absorption and detection by way of absorption. This fails to eliminate the possibility or alternative theory to support the light/EM effects currently observed and studied.

The purpose at this stage is not to present an alternative but to confirm that an alternative is merely possible. With out evidence of photon transit that is unambiguous then an alternative has a chance of standing up. If unambiguous evidence is presented then an alternative is no longer viable and I can rest my case. Thus $100 usd would be money well spent IMO.

I am so confident that there is no solution that if I had a $1 million usd, I would put it up as a prize for any one that can differentiate the photon from the detecting/absorbing/ reflecting mass in a away that is free of ambiguity.
So I shall PM JamesR and ask whether it would be beneficial to the forum to run a thread exclusively on this issue as it may prove rather enlightening to all who participate or read it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

BillyT:
with all due respect and a little humor;

Your alternative theory of energy instantaneously jumping from atom to atom with some "inertial storage delay" in each atom to explain why the speed of light it finite conflicts with the most rudimentary observations of even the Neanderthals. - Namely the 24 period is dark for ~12 hours. It also conflicts with the fact the sun appears to be a disk with sharp edges only 0.5 degrees wide (instead of at least 20 degrees wide). It also conflicts with the fact that Mercury is not only visible to the un-aided eye, but one of the brighter "stars" in the heavens.

but hey that is not my alternative theory you are quoting...that is yours! [chuckle]
sure I mention the concept of a photon jumping across vacant space [for ease of explanation and not actual] but the rest of your extrapolation isn't mine...it is indeed yours!

and well your version of the alternative doesn't stand up according to your own assessment.
so.......does that imply that a working alternative is impossible?
obviously not, it only implies that there is more thought needed before closing the door on an alternative.

To me it is rather an exciting proposition that for someone to come up a with an alternative that incudes justification and prediction of all universal constants and allows for all other currently unexplainable phenonema universally is possible even if it is in part only by discussion online at the best science forum on the net....[ >>>sneeky grab for Forum management interest ]

 

[Billy T]

... The burden is to show how a photon can be observed in transit without absorbing it with a detector.

Yes, exactly, and that is precisely what I did in post 374 (and in a real experiment many years ago). James R's comments were correct, as I previously said. I.e. if you detect and absorb the photon it no longer exists. Thus, you will not shown that it existed between the source and the ultimate detector where it dies. Thus, you must let it make some observable effect at some point in its flight trajectory without killing it to show it exist between source and detector that does terminate its existence, but lets it continue on to die later in the detector.

If the photon is an x-ray or higher energy quantum / photon, the obvious choice of effect is to Compton scatter it and process the recoiling charge to infer which way the photon scattered. (You can know already it pre scattering trajectory by filtering out thousands of x-ray photons which did not happen by chance to be traveling straight down the bore hole thru some lead bricks.) Then with a detector after the Compton scattering point you can confirm the analysis that of made on measurements of the recoil particle by detection of the photon in the detector at the location where analysis of the recoil said it would go.

As I thought you would not like me using a non-visible photon, I did not suggest the use of Compton Effect with x-ray photons, because I knew how to do essentially the inverse case with weaker visible photons. Let me state in general terms how what I did (in the lab years ago) and described in post 374 are inverses of each other:

In both cases the evidence that some event had taken place between the source and the detector is a shift in the place where the photon is later detected and dies. In both cases knowing the details about the non-destructive photon interaction taking place between the source and the detector allows the location of the subsequent detection to be predicted. (I.e. when it occurs as predicted from these details, that also confirms the event did happen in transit between the source and the final detector that terminates the existence of the photon). The difference between the X-ray Compton and mirror events is that with the stronger X-ray it "pushes" on something of low mass (the recoil charge) and with the weaker visible photon something massive "pushes on" the photon to make the “mid-path,non-destructive event. I.e. in post 374 small movements of the mirror R, which is LOCATED between the source and the detector do not absorb or “kill” the photon (as James R falsely assumed would need to be the case to show the photon existed at this in between point). This intermediate, non-destructive, interaction of the photon in flight only caused a predictable change in the detection location. - Just like the intermediate, non-destructive Compton scattering event caused a predictable change in where the photon dies in the detector.

… the alternative theory that places the burden of what is currently held as transit times, upon the massive objects absorbing the photon/EM [an effect of inertia] and not the distance or volume of empty space [ vacuum ] between source and detector mass.

As is discussed in post 381, this alternate theory has many violent conflict with reality. I.e. if light’s “finite speed of propagation” were suddenly replaced by “sequential instantaneous steps with energy briefly stored in atoms of the path” to explain why it takes time for light energy (photons) to go from source to their death in a detector even Neanderthals would notice several rapid and drastic changes in their environment!

… In all instances so far you have shown only a event of photon absorption and detection by way of absorption.

NOT TRUE. In my post 374 and in the “inverse” of it (the Compton Effect mentioned above) there is a very-definite, non-destructive, photon-matter interaction event that takes place BETWEEN the source and the detector in which the photon ceases to exist. To be brief, call it the “intermediate event.” As described above my post 374, careful examination (possibly only knowing its exact location) of the “matter,” which interacts with the photon during the “intermediate event” allows one to PREDICT the location where LATER detection in the detector will be located.

… This fails to eliminate the possibility or alternative theory to support the light/EM effects currently observed and studied. …

I agree that my post 374 does not eliminate the alternative you propose. It was not designed to. It was designed to demonstrate that the photon existed (and could even interact with matter non-destructively) BETWEEN the source and the photon’s annihilation in the detector. Showing that the photon did exist at an intermediate point between the source and detector was what the $100 prize was offered for, not for disproving your alternate theory of the delay between a photon leaving A until it arrives at B.

In your alternate theory the photon does not exist at any intermediate point, so in some sense I did disprove your alternate theory in post 374 also. But that disproof is trivial to the very forceful disproves of provided in post 381. I admit that I do not disprove ALL alternative theories in post 374. For example animal lover Jack’s theory that the energy of the photon is carried from A to B by very-fast, invisible, tiny, unicorns I did not disprove in post 381 but your alternative is utterly destroyed in post 374.

In post 374 I show with analysis that among the consequences of your alternative being true are that there is no definite edge to the sun as seen in the sky because sunlight in your alternative just “random walks” from one atom to another on its way from the actual spherical mass of the sun to the Earth.

In your model, some sunshine even falls on Earth’s now dark side! This is quantatively discussed in post 381, but the idea is that as the energy random walks between the low density of atoms of space some may initially miss the Earth, but even after being farther from the sun than Earth is, the energy can random walk back and strike Earth where it should be dark. (Recall your photon energy just jumps in zero time for one atom to another, but the atom giving up the energy does not have any way to know where the Earth is or which atom to next transfer the energy to or where that “next atom” is.

After the energy storage time in that atom expires, the next transfer must therefore be in any random direction, even back towards the sun but of course the atom does not know where the sun is either. (You cannot even suggest the sun is “in the direction of the most intense light flux” as your model postulates that there is no flux of light – just instantaneous jumps of energy form one atom to another.) Thus in your model, the sun appears to be everywhere you look up but the intensity is maximal in the actual direction towards the sun and least in the opposite or “midnight direction.” The sun never sets in your model as the Earth spins – its “overhead intensity” just goes form max to min in 12 hours. The max to min ratio depends upon the density distribution of atoms as one moves away from the sun – two case are numerically evaluated to some extent in post 381.

 

[Billy T]

In addition to the two non-destructive photon interactions with matter with observable effects that allow one to predict where on the detector the photon will be annihilated that I spoke of in post 391 as the photons travel between source there is the very useful LAUE DIAGRAM SCATTERING. - So useful Laue received the Nobel Prize for inventing and demonstrating this non-destructive effect on photons on their way from source to film detector. It can only be, and always is, understood as EM waves traveling thru space and interacting coherently inside a crystal.

To quote part of Wiki:

"Von Laue worked with two technicians, Walter Friedrich and his assistant Paul Knipping, to shine a beam of X-rays through a copper sulfate crystal and record its diffraction on a photographic plate. After being developed, the plate showed a large number of well-defined spots arranged in a pattern of intersecting circles around the spot produced by the central beam.[16][17] Von Laue developed a law that connects the scattering angles and the size and orientation of the unit-cell spacings in the crystal, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1914. ..."

More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_crystallography

To QQ I have now given you (and James R too who though it impossible) THREE different examples of the detection without destruction of photons in the space BETWEEN the source and the ultimate detector where they are annihilated.

Your $100 prize offer was for even one. IT DID NOT require the impossible task of disproving every and all possible alternative theories, yet to be conceived, about the nature of photon energy getting from A to B with a finite delay. – Making that a condition now is “moving the goal posts” to avoid paying off.

Your just made, post 390 gives the new goal post as:

....does that imply that a working alternative is impossible? obviously not, it only implies that there is more thought needed before closing the door on an alternative.

To me it is rather an exciting proposition that for someone to come up a with an alternative ...

Now I too say your $100 is safe as no one can disprove all theories in advance of them even being stated.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In addition to the two non-destructive photon interactions with matter with observable effects that allow one to predict where on the detector the photon will be annihilated that I spoke of in post 391 as the photons travel between source there is the very useful LAUE DIAGRAM SCATTERING. - So useful Laue received the Nobel Prize for inventing and demonstrating this non-destructive effect on photons on their way from source to film detector. It can only be, and always is, understood as EM waves traveling thru space and interacting coherently inside a crystal.

To quote part of Wiki:

"Von Laue worked with two technicians, Walter Friedrich and his assistant Paul Knipping, to shine a beam of X-rays through a copper sulfate crystal and record its diffraction on a photographic plate. After being developed, the plate showed a large number of well-defined spots arranged in a pattern of intersecting circles around the spot produced by the central beam.[16][17] Von Laue developed a law that connects the scattering angles and the size and orientation of the unit-cell spacings in the crystal, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1914. ..."

More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_crystallography

To QQ I have now given you (and James R too who though it impossible) THREE different examples of the detection without destruction of photons in the space BETWEEN the source and the ultimate detector where they are annihilated.

Your $100 prize offer was for even one. IT DID NOT require the impossible task of disproving every and all possible alternative theories, yet to be conceived, about the nature of photon energy getting from A to B with a finite delay. – Making that a condition now is “moving the goal posts” to avoid paying off.

Your just made, post 390 gives the new goal post as:
Now I too say your $100 is safe as no one can disprove all theories in advance of them even being stated.

While I read and research.....
I have never moved the goal posts Billy T.....the goal posts have been in place for over 3 years so no I am sure they are still in the same place...

 

[Quantum Quack]

of course you don't have to invalidate an alternative as yet we are not even convinced that an alternative is posible....

 

[Quantum Quack]

maybe also it would be best to ask JamesR whether or not your three cases presented so far are adequate for the $100..while we wait, I'll get on with it because I am sure I have dealt with Crompton Scattering and the other 2 before.....and will find the appropriate notes and present my case...

 

[Billy T]

While I read and research.....
I have never moved the goal posts Billy T.....the goal posts have been in place for over 3 years so no I am sure they are still in the same place...

Yes you have. Here is your original statement of the goal post made in your post, this thread, 321:

...$100usd is up for grabs [and has been for nearly a month] if any one can show effect evidence that clearly demonstrates a photon in transit and note the key words are "in transit" from any point A to B.

I have easily done that and more (by even non-distructively measuring the length of the photon between source (point "A") and detector (photographic film, Point "B") as describled in detail and illustrated in post 374. I.e. I actually made the measurement in the lab and found my sodium D line photons were ~30 cm long.

James R thought that it was impossible to even notice the photon in flight without destroying it. (prior to it reaching point B.)

 

[Quantum Quack]

After the energy storage time in that atom expires, the next transfer must therefore be in any random direction, even back towards the sun but of course the atom does not know where the sun is either. (You cannot even suggest the sun is “in the direction of the most intense light flux” as your model postulates that there is no flux of light – just instantaneous jumps of energy form one atom to another.) Thus in your model, the sun appears to be everywhere you look up but the intensity is maximal in the actual direction towards the sun and least in the opposite or “midnight direction.” The sun never sets in your model as the Earth spins – its “overhead intensity” just goes form max to min in 12 hours. The max to min ratio depends upon the density distribution of atoms as one moves away from the sun – two case are numerically evaluated to some extent in post 381.

As far as the phton is concerned in one alternative there is not space between therefore no distance to "jump".....[ damn I shouldn't have even mentioned the word "jump" as it has only misled you]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes you have. Here is your original statement of the goal post made in your post, this thread, 321:



I have easily done that and more (by even non-distructively measuring the length of the photon between source (point "A") and detector (photographic film, Point "B") as describled in detail and illustrated in post 374. I.e. I actually made the measurement in the lab and found my sodium D line photons were ~30 cm long.

James R thought that impossible.

do you think that your posts are not subject to thorough scrutiny by more persons than just me!

Give it a proper hearing Billy T please...

 

[Billy T]

...Give it a proper hearing Billy T please...

Sure, I will be glad to let others judge if I did or did not give evidence of the photon existing between point A & point B (source and annihilations in a detector)

I even demonstrated that it then had wave properties, measured its wave length while in flight, and also determining the photons to be ~30 cm long - all while the photon was in flight between A & B. (see details in post 374.)

 

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack

A change in tick rates must be due to some causation yes?

The only change that has occurred between the two observers is acceleration of one observer?

Is it it not logical to conclude that the change in tick rates is Dependant on the only change in causation available?

After all the the only change to the situation is in fact acceleration leading to a change in relative v.

That relative v of value is only possible by what? well...the answer can only be a phase of acceleration. [ other wise relative v is impossible from a position of zero relative v.]

As the only aspect that works against inertia is acceleration, as velocity itself is "inertia neutral" IMO one can conclude that it is acceleration and the shift in velocity effecting the universe at large that is primarily the causation of time dilation.

Is this not a sound logical use of the information given?

It would seem that we are now in 100% agreement; except I'm not keen on the comment about effecting the universe. I rather believe the only effect is upon the accelearated clock.