Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Tach]

So, we'd have our travellers coming back - or even just getting there, dwarfed down significantly, or even pancaked, depending on their hibernation pods attitude to their line of travel .. could even become 2 dimensional if they travelled far enough

False. In the frame co-moving with him, the traveler length doesn't change. Proper length is invariant, it is only relativistic length that is frame variant, it changes with the relative speed between the frames. There is a very good book, by W. Pauli on the subject of special relativity. This is a book that you should buy and read.

 

[Janus58]

Hi Janus58 and thank you for your contribution.

Am I reading your post wrong, or did you read the Dingle quote wrong ? Most likely the former, but I should clarify in any case.

I don't think Dingle is implying absoluteness of the clock rates. I think he is saying that SRT requires it.

That's just it, SR doesn't require this, in fact, it says something completely different: That it is meaningless to talk about an absolute difference in clock rates. Dingle's claim of absoluteness of clock rate is something he brings into the argument which is not a part of SR.

Thanks for your interesting example. In the paragraph I underlined, it seems you are saying something not at cross purposes with Dingle, ie, there is no absolute, and so, in the absense of observer C, who is right ? They can't both be right .. or something like that.

No, Dingle says that they can't both be right and I'm saying that SR says that they can, you just have to adjust the way you deal with the concepts of time and space.

Dingle is like the people who used to argue against the idea of a spherical Earth on the grounds that the people on the "underside" would fall off. With a flat Earth model, "down" was an absolute direction and when introduced to the idea of a spherical Earth, some people just could not shale this idea. To them, a spherical Earth would have to have a topside and underside. They couldn't even wrap their minds around the idea that "down" could be defined as being towards the center of the sphere because that would mean that the direction of "down" changed and how could that be? I mean "down" is down and that is all there was to it. The idea that two people standing on different parts of the Globe could have their have their feet pointing in different directions and yet still both have their feet pointing down was impossible and a contradiction to their minds.

This is what Dingle is doing, he is clinging to a way of looking at time that has to be abandoned according to SR. SR isn't contradictory, it is just incompatible with his view on how time behaves.

 

[Lakon]

A waste of time , then.

More proof of relativity right there !

 

[Lakon]

That's just it, SR doesn't require this, in fact, it says something completely different: That it is meaningless to talk about an absolute difference in clock rates. Dingle's claim of absoluteness of clock rate is something he brings into the argument which is not a part of SR.

No, Dingle says that they can't both be right and I'm saying that SR says that they can, you just have to adjust the way you deal with the concepts of time and space.

Dingle is like the people who used to argue against the idea of a spherical Earth on the grounds that the people on the "underside" would fall off. With a flat Earth model, "down" was an absolute direction and when introduced to the idea of a spherical Earth, some people just could not shale this idea. To them, a spherical Earth would have to have a topside and underside. They couldn't even wrap their minds around the idea that "down" could be defined as being towards the center of the sphere because that would mean that the direction of "down" changed and how could that be? I mean "down" is down and that is all there was to it. The idea that two people standing on different parts of the Globe could have their have their feet pointing in different directions and yet still both have their feet pointing down was impossible and a contradiction to their minds.

This is what Dingle is doing, he is clinging to a way of looking at time that has to be abandoned according to SR. SR isn't contradictory, it is just incompatible with his view on how time behaves.

I still can't work out where my confusion was. Lets forget about Dingle for the moment. In the following statement;


Two exactly similar clocks, A and B, are in uniform relative motion.
Einstein's special relativity theory requires
(1) that the motion is wholly relative,
i.e. it belongs no more to one clock than to the other;
(2) that the clocks work at
different rates, i.e. one works faster than the other.

Could you please point what part is not consistent with SRT.

 

[Lakon]

False. In the frame co-moving with him, the traveler length doesn't change. Proper length is invariant, it is only relativistic length that is frame variant, it changes with the relative speed between the frames. There is a very good book, by W. Pauli on the subject of special relativity. This is a book that you should buy and read.

Several posts ago I asked you ..

Is it's length contraction a real, physical contraction or just a visual thing, i.e., in the eyes of the observer A?

You replied ..

It is real.

Meaning that it's a real, physical contraction of length. I underdstand that in his internal frame, the traveller will experience no change.

The questions I have not yet resolved, are;

1) Who observes the contraction ? Observers in other frames I suppose you will say. OK, so if there were say two other transverse observers, in different positions, would they make diffferent length observations ? If so, how can it have 3 physically different sizes at the same time.

If it were to stop suddenly in front of a transverse observer. Would it spring back to it's original size of remain contracted ?

 

[Tach]

Several posts ago I asked you ..

Is it's length contraction a real, physical contraction or just a visual thing, i.e., in the eyes of the observer A?

You replied ..

It is real.

Meaning that it's a real, physical contraction of length. I underdstand that in his internal frame, the traveller will experience no change.

The questions I have not yet resolved, are;

1) Who observes the contraction ? Observers in other frames I suppose you will say.

1. This is what mainstream science says. I already explained that to you.

OK, so if there were say two other transverse observers, in different positions, would they make diffferent length observations ?

2. I already explained that as well: observers in motion transverse to the object measure no length contraction.

If it were to stop suddenly in front of a transverse observer. Would it spring back to it's original size of remain contracted ?

3. See answer to point 2.

 

[Tach]

I still can't work out where my confusion was. Lets forget about Dingle for the moment. In the following statement;


Two exactly similar clocks, A and B, are in uniform relative motion.
Einstein's special relativity theory requires
(1) that the motion is wholly relative,
i.e. it belongs no more to one clock than to the other;
(2) that the clocks work at
different rates, i.e. one works faster than the other.

Could you please point what part is not consistent with SRT.

Two 6 foot people walk away from each other on a street. They look at each other over their shoulder, each concludes that , as the distance between them increases, the other looks shorter than himself. If you understand and accept this, as applied to length, you can apply the same reasoning to time.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Speaking on time.... the question comes to mind:
Is time absolute for all photons?
if we select one photon is it in an absolute time relationship with all other photons , universally?
Does this not make time "absolute" for photons?

Example: at any given "hsp" or present moment all photons are in an inertial and absolute relationship regardless of vector.
Does this not imply that the universe is in an absolute time relationship regarding "energy" ?
If so, then how can you justify a "relative time" position for objects of mass given that there exists an absolute time relationship for the mass-less and virtual particles/waves or energy?

 

[Tach]

Example: at any given "hsp" or present moment all photons are in an inertial and absolute relationship regardless of vector.
Does this not imply that the universe is in an absolute time relationship regarding "energy" ?
If so, then how can you justify a "relative time" position for objects of mass given that there exists an absolute time relationship for the mass-less and virtual particles/waves or energy?

Photons babaganoosh, fnerk gibble wonton lotocatmorible, aether noctamle snarted Einstein and borftol. Quantum gortman der macilination tombo; toto toto waves!

 

[Neverfly]

Photons babaganoosh, fnerk gibble wonton lotocatmorible, aether noctamle snarted Einstein and borftol. Quantum gortman der macilination tombo; toto toto waves!

I agree, but as a minor nitpick, you meant gobblesnarf instead of borftol. As I said, minor, but accurate little details are still important.

 

[Masterov]

Please answer this simple question:

Why is the distance between the mirrors (L) is absolute?

If $$L'=L\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$ then $$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation

 

[Lakon]

1. This is what mainstream science says. I already explained that to you.




2. I already explained that as well: observers in motion transverse to the object measure no length contraction.






3. See answer to point 2.

So no contraction experienced by traveller, none noticed by transverse observers .. only by observers on the same line of travel .. which begs the question, how would you know how short or long a rod was when looking at it from only its end ..

And, such contraction disappears when traveller stops.

Sounds like magic !

 

[Lakon]

Two 6 foot people walk away from each other on a street. They look at each other over their shoulder, each concludes that , as the distance between them increases, the other looks shorter than himself. If you understand and accept this, as applied to length, you can apply the same reasoning to time.

Let' see ..

Two 30 year old people walk away down the street. They look at each other over their shoulder, each conclude that, as time passes, the other is younger than himself.

Nah ..

Although I think you just confirmed Dingles dilemma !

 

[Lakon]

Photons babaganoosh, fnerk gibble wonton lotocatmorible, aether noctamle snarted Einstein and borftol. Quantum gortman der macilination tombo; toto toto waves!

Ah, now you're making some sense. Though I think clock B is still the same as A !

 

[Lakon]

Please answer this simple question:

Why is the distance between the mirrors (L) is absolute?

If $$L'=L\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$$ then $$\Delta t'=\Delta t$$.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation

Bump ..

 

[Tach]

So no contraction experienced by traveller, none noticed by transverse observers .. only by observers on the same line of travel .. which begs the question, how would you know how short or long a rod was when looking at it from only its end ..

This is why scientists stick to measuring proper length.

And, such contraction disappears when traveller stops.

The contraction is dependent on multiple factors, the most important being the relative speed between rod and observer. There are other factors (there is no such thing as a perfectly rigid rod) but given your stubborn refusal to read (and learn) mainstream science, I will leave you to bask in your ignorance.

Sounds like magic !

Sounds like you, Quantum Quack and Masterov went to the same "school". Now you are coming out of the closet.

 

[Tach]

Let' see ..

Two 30 year old people walk away down the street. They look at each other over their shoulder, each conclude that, as time passes, the other is younger than himself.

Nah ..

Although I think you just confirmed Dingles dilemma !

The Lorentz transformation for time is:

$$t' = \gamma (t-vx/c^2)$$.

This equation implies :

$$t' = \gamma t$$ at $$x = 0$$.

Its algebraic inverse is:

$$t = \gamma (t'+vx'/c^2)$$.

This equation implies $$t = \gamma t'$$ at $$x' = 0$$.

Dingle alleged that these two facts are mutually contradictory, because the first implies $$t'/t = \gamma$$ and the second implies $$t/t' = \gamma$$. However, these ratios apply to two different conditions, namely, $$x = 0$$ and $$x' = 0$$ respectively. Hence, contrary to Dingle's assertion, there is no contradiction, nor are these relations merely "appearances". They are the actual ratios of the inertial time coordinates along two different directions in space-time. In order to for you to understand relativity, you will need to learn the underlying math. At the rate you are going, this is not going to happen, you are just going to repeat the gobbblygook forever. You and Masterov seem to have gone to the same "school".

 

[Tach]

A second way at explaining away your confusion is as follows:

$$t' = \gamma (t-vx/c^2)$$.

In differential form:

$$\Delta t' = \gamma (\Delta t-v \Delta x/c^2)$$.

This equation implies :

$$\Delta t' = \gamma \Delta t$$ for $$\Delta x = 0$$. In layman's words this means that two ticks coming from the same clock located in frame F (i.e. ($$\Delta t, \Delta x =0)$$), are measured as being separated by the interval $$\Delta t' = \gamma \Delta t$$ when measured in frame F'. Frames F' and F are in relative motion with the relative speed $$v$$.

On the other hand:

$$t = \gamma (t'+vx'/c^2)$$ implying:


$$\Delta t = \gamma (\Delta t'+v \Delta x'/c^2)$$

This equation implies $$\Delta t = \gamma \Delta t'$$ at $$\Delta x' = 0$$. In layman's words this means that two ticks coming from the same clock located in frame F' (i.e. ($$\Delta t', \Delta x' =0)$$), are measured as being separated by the interval $$\Delta t= \gamma \Delta t'$$ when measured in frame F.

As expected, the relationship is perfectly symmetrical (there is no way of telling frames F and F' apart).

 

[Janus58]

I still can't work out where my confusion was. Lets forget about Dingle for the moment. In the following statement;


Two exactly similar clocks, A and B, are in uniform relative motion.
Einstein's special relativity theory requires
(1) that the motion is wholly relative,
i.e. it belongs no more to one clock than to the other;
(2) that the clocks work at
different rates, i.e. one works faster than the other.

Could you please point what part is not consistent with SRT.

#2.

It is akin to saying that the two men in my earlier example walk at different rates.

 

[RealityCheck]

#2.

It is akin to saying that the two men in my earlier example walk at different rates.

Wouldn't it be more like saying that they both walk at the same 'rate', but that their strides (read 'ticks') are of different 'length' so one will have taken more 'steps' (read 'ticks') than the other during the 'same' relative separation distance/motion? Just another perspective. Enjoy your discussion, guys! Cheers.