Er, did you miss my earlier post? This has nothing to do with admiring relativity's "fantastic forms", whatever those are. Relativity is simply extremely well supported. If you understand how relativity is integrated into general relativity and the Standard Model, and you have any idea just how well supported these theories (especially the latter) are, it's really an open-and-shut case.
Unbelievable velocity mass variation!
- Thread starter martillo
- Start date
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
That is sort of what I am finding. Unless they admit to each other their history of changes in inertia they won't know how each other got there.
So in the classic experiment where a train shoots through the station at near light speed we tend to think of the observer at the station as the unmoving one. But from the viewpoint of the person on the train it was the station that flew past them. Only if they were to admit they accelerated to near light speed earlier in the journey can we be sure the train is moving and not that the Earth (along with the station) has suddenly started rotating faster than ever.
No, you missed the point. Remember that I said that it did not matter if it were man1 or man 2 who originally changed direction, the end results would be the same as long as it was man 1 who changed direction to bring their paths back together again.
Put another way, we can assume that they are already walking in different directions when their paths first cross. How they got that way or their history before that moment has no bearing on the end result as to who ended up being further from that point once their paths cross again. What does determine this is which one of them changed direction after that in order to bring them back together.
Robittybob1
It is important to determine the frame you are measuring in. In the twin paradox we start in the frame A and measure the result in frame A, frame B accelerates in relation to frame A, travels at Relitivistic speed in relation to frame A, decelerates and reaccelerates relative to A, then decelerates to a stop at A, therefore frame B will travel through less time than frame A.
Grumpy
It is important to determine the frame you are measuring in. In the twin paradox we start in the frame A and measure the result in frame A, frame B accelerates in relation to frame A, travels at Relitivistic speed in relation to frame A, decelerates and reaccelerates relative to A, then decelerates to a stop at A, therefore frame B will travel through less time than frame A.
Grumpy
That's what they say. But do you travel "through time" or travel for a period of time. I think we travel through space for a period of time, rather than travel through time.Robittybob1
It is important to determine the frame you are measuring in. In the twin paradox we start in the frame A and measure the result in frame A, frame B accelerates in relation to frame A, travels at Relitivistic speed in relation to frame A, decelerates and reaccelerates relative to A, then decelerates to a stop at A, therefore frame B will travel through less time than frame A.
Grumpy
As we travel through space, time lengthens. The period lengthens, so motion (other than forward motion) slows to an outside observer, but for the person moving through space they still get the same amount done in the same period.
So if we could communicate with these fast traveling persons they would appear to be talking and responding very slowly. If it was recorded and played back at a faster speed we'd be able to understand them. But it might take years of our time for the full message to come across.
There are some weird thoughts for discussion.
I did notice I was getting a bit lost in the featureless landscape by the time some of them had turned around, etc. I was thinking maybe I'd have to draw it out in a diagragm, make a map of the area, so to speak, so I wouldn't get lost.
Robittybob1
Do you travel through space or do you travel a distance in space? I really don't see a major difference.
You are always travelling in time, even if you are not travelling in space. You will always travel in time at the same rate within your own frame of reference. But if you are travelling in space as well you travel more slowly in time, relative to an outside frame. All travel in space is relative to an outside frame, all time dilation is also relative to an outside frame.
I would avoid using the word lengthens when describing time. And the motion of a photon on a ship travelling by you would not be slower, it would be measured to be travelling exactly at lightspeed with a redshift component proportional to the speed of the ship. The occupants would, however, appear to be moving slower, but would experience a normal rate of passage of time in their own frame.
Grumpy
Do you travel through space or do you travel a distance in space? I really don't see a major difference.
You are always travelling in time, even if you are not travelling in space. You will always travel in time at the same rate within your own frame of reference. But if you are travelling in space as well you travel more slowly in time, relative to an outside frame. All travel in space is relative to an outside frame, all time dilation is also relative to an outside frame.
I would avoid using the word lengthens when describing time. And the motion of a photon on a ship travelling by you would not be slower, it would be measured to be travelling exactly at lightspeed with a redshift component proportional to the speed of the ship. The occupants would, however, appear to be moving slower, but would experience a normal rate of passage of time in their own frame.
Grumpy
It reminded me of the saying, often mentioned, "does a tree falling in the forest make a sound, even when there is no one to hear it?" Or something like that!Robittybob1
All travel in space is relative to an outside frame, all time dilation is also relative to an outside frame. ...
Grumpy
Sometimes I think it must be wonderful to be religious like this: "I really don't know anything about this, but I'm sure it is true."
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
It reminded me of the saying, often mentioned, "does a tree falling in the forest make a sound, even when there is no one to hear it?" Or something like that!
No, it is more akin to two people standing next to each other but facing in opposite directions. According to each, it is the other person who is to the left.
????? Are you sure? L ---- R + R ----L or
R ---- L + L ---- R. seems to be two possible alignments.
Is there a reason you have dropped a negative sign on your energy term? You had it before.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
Anyway the proposed experiment would verify experimentally if the Lorentz factor 1/root(1-v2/c2) is really present in the De Broglie law.
I mean De Broglie law hasn't been verified experimentally at relativistic speeds!
The Davisson-Germer experiment uses very slow velocities (about 0.2% of the c velocity of light) and only classical formulas are applied (for instance Kinetic Energy = (1/2)mv2).
There's no mention in the entire web for any experiment showing the "relativistic effect" in the De Broglie law!
The presented pages (http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-3_The_experiment_at_high_velocities.htm and http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-4_The_experiment_as_a_proof.htm) point out a possible problem that could appear and that could give "strange results". That is considering the possibility that actually the Electric and Magnetic Fields not be exactly the classical ones and could have a dependency with the Lorentz factor. That is the possibility that the Lorentz factor could actually belong to the Electric and Magnetic Fields and not to the De Broglie law.
The proposed experiment points out a way to overcome this problem.
I think the experiment must be done to verify the De Broglie relation at some high enough velocities to show the "relativistic" effect.
I think is a very interesting an important experiment to be done in Physics.
I mean De Broglie law hasn't been verified experimentally at relativistic speeds!
The Davisson-Germer experiment uses very slow velocities (about 0.2% of the c velocity of light) and only classical formulas are applied (for instance Kinetic Energy = (1/2)mv2).
There's no mention in the entire web for any experiment showing the "relativistic effect" in the De Broglie law!
The presented pages (http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-3_The_experiment_at_high_velocities.htm and http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-4_The_experiment_as_a_proof.htm) point out a possible problem that could appear and that could give "strange results". That is considering the possibility that actually the Electric and Magnetic Fields not be exactly the classical ones and could have a dependency with the Lorentz factor. That is the possibility that the Lorentz factor could actually belong to the Electric and Magnetic Fields and not to the De Broglie law.
The proposed experiment points out a way to overcome this problem.
I think the experiment must be done to verify the De Broglie relation at some high enough velocities to show the "relativistic" effect.
I think is a very interesting an important experiment to be done in Physics.
martillo
The experiment has already been done many times and the time dilation confirmed in every instance. Even our GPS satellites confirm it every day, millions of times per hour, without correcting for the time dilation effects they would direct you into a lake instead of the parking lot of the 7-11 down the road. And the mass gain by particles driven to near lightspeed is what consumes the massive power of our particle accelerators like CERN. The particles need more and more power to produce smaller and smaller gains in velocity as they near lightspeed BECAUSE they gain so much mass due to their velocity.
Grumpy
The experiment has already been done many times and the time dilation confirmed in every instance. Even our GPS satellites confirm it every day, millions of times per hour, without correcting for the time dilation effects they would direct you into a lake instead of the parking lot of the 7-11 down the road. And the mass gain by particles driven to near lightspeed is what consumes the massive power of our particle accelerators like CERN. The particles need more and more power to produce smaller and smaller gains in velocity as they near lightspeed BECAUSE they gain so much mass due to their velocity.
Grumpy
martillo
Registered Senior Member
No Sir. There's no data published about the experiment I mention and it has nothing to do with time dilation. I'm talking about an experimental verification of De Broglie law at high velocities.
As I said it has nothing to do with time dilation. I think you haven't understood properly what is being treated in the thread.
As it was concluded by many in this and other threads actually is not mass which augments with velocity. It could be energy or momentum but not mass. And what I think is that actually are the Electric and Magnetic Fields wich vary with the Lorentz factor 1/root(1-v2/c2). This would give the same dynamical results. I'm asking to check this experimentally with the proposed experiment which has never been done or no data has been published about it.
Last edited:
martillo, I am not sure exactly what the proposed experiment is at this point. Perhaps, you could just describe the experiment without too much diversion into other aspects of the discussion.
martillo said:
Some of the above sounds a lot like it may be being addressed, by some of the attempts in the last several years to describe inertia as an emergent phenomena, from the interaction of the motion of matter through the zero point energy or quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy. A subject that seems to ultimately lead toward a description of quantum gravity or loop-quantum gravity. All still entirely theoretical and as far as I have been able to tell, not without some unresolved issues. Still some of the fundamental conceptual structure, sounds promising.
Note: with the exception of one paper on the Dynamical Casimir Effect, I am also unaware of any experiment test or proof even remotely associated with the involved ideas and theory. One of the issues with quantum gravity is this lack of experimental proof of concept.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
The experiment is just a modification on the original Davisson-Germer experiment in which the velocities of the electrons are calculated through the measured Electrical Potential between the accelerator plates using the classical Kinetic Energy (1/2)mv2. I'm asking to make the experiment at some higher velocities to account for the "relativistic" Lorentz factor 1/root(1-v2/c2) and for a more direct measurement of the velocities with a velocity selector (which is based in crossed elecrtric and magnetic fields to obtain electrons with a given velocity in the experiment) added to the original apparatus. Just that. That will really verify the De Broglie formula at some "relativistic" speeds. Why not to do it?
I have reasons to think that unexpected results will be obtained since I think the Lorentz factor actually belong to the Electric and Magnetic Fields and not to the De Broglie formula.
You can find some more information about my point of view at:
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-1_Davisson-Germer_experiment.htm
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-3_The_experiment_at_high_velocities.htm
http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-4_The_experiment_as_a_proof.htm
You know, this sounds as you were talking another language for me and I don't know anything about but if you could find some common points of my point of view in other approaches in Physics it would be good, I would not be alone, but I would not be able to treat them.
Since the late 1980s there have been a number of papers by various authors that explore inertia and gravitation as an interaction between the motion of matter through the zero point field—ZPF or quantum vacuum. This does involve an attempt to explain inertia and how the Lorentz factor is associated with a particle's acceleration through the ZPF. I think some of the earlier papers were by H. E. Puthoff and should be available on arXiv. There are too many of these papers by Puthoff and others to list links. Some are pretty good papers and some are not.
The one reference to the Dynamical Casimir effect—DCE, I added by association because it involved an experiment rather than just a theoretical treatment. A link to that paper on arXiv is, Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect in a Superconducting Circuit. There are many others on the DCE also. This paper claims no direct connection to the initial discussion here. It does to me seem to involve a similar interaction between matter and the quantum fluctuations of virtual particles in the ZPF.
None of these seem directly connected to the experiment you mention, but may be at least perifereally connected or associated with the underlying mechanisms involved. I mentioned this only because I saw some vague similarity in the underlying concepts.
martillo
E=MC^2. Energy and mass are two forms of the same thing. The most massive portion of our Universe(comprising 70% of the observed total mass)is what we call Dark Energy. Atomic weapons produce so much energy because the reaction converts mass into energy. This is really basic stuff far too well supported by the facts to be questioned by you, at least successfully.
Non-sense. No one who has the least bit of understanding of Relativity and it's effects would conclude any such thing. When you say energy, you are also saying mass, period. Any kind of energy. The main reason that no object with mass can reach lightspeed is that every increase in velocity causes an increase in mass, which requires even more energy to accelerate further, which causes even more mass, which requires more energy...more mass...more energy... It approaches infinity in both mass and energy to accelerate those last few bits toward zero Tau, even if you start with a single electron in an accelerator. This is why an accelerator with 1 Tev power will drive electrons at 99% of the speed of one with 100 Tev. All that additional energy is simply to accelerate that last 1%. Neither can accelerate an electron to lightspeed, nor could an accelerator of 1000 Tev, or a million Tev, or ten trillion Tev. All of that additional energy would go into that last percentage of lightspeed, but each step up in power(orders of magnitude)would only give you less and less additional speed, the energy increase is almost all in the mass increase of the particle, very little actual increase in speed occurs.
Grumpy
E=MC^2. Energy and mass are two forms of the same thing. The most massive portion of our Universe(comprising 70% of the observed total mass)is what we call Dark Energy. Atomic weapons produce so much energy because the reaction converts mass into energy. This is really basic stuff far too well supported by the facts to be questioned by you, at least successfully.
Non-sense. No one who has the least bit of understanding of Relativity and it's effects would conclude any such thing. When you say energy, you are also saying mass, period. Any kind of energy. The main reason that no object with mass can reach lightspeed is that every increase in velocity causes an increase in mass, which requires even more energy to accelerate further, which causes even more mass, which requires more energy...more mass...more energy... It approaches infinity in both mass and energy to accelerate those last few bits toward zero Tau, even if you start with a single electron in an accelerator. This is why an accelerator with 1 Tev power will drive electrons at 99% of the speed of one with 100 Tev. All that additional energy is simply to accelerate that last 1%. Neither can accelerate an electron to lightspeed, nor could an accelerator of 1000 Tev, or a million Tev, or ten trillion Tev. All of that additional energy would go into that last percentage of lightspeed, but each step up in power(orders of magnitude)would only give you less and less additional speed, the energy increase is almost all in the mass increase of the particle, very little actual increase in speed occurs.
Grumpy
martillo
Registered Senior Member
No. In the modern approach of Relativity that equivalence between mass and energy holds "at rest" only. I mean in the frame of the particle or object being considered. The equation of energy of a moving mass actually is E=gamma.m.c2 where gamma is the Lorentz factor 1/root(1-v2/c2) and does not belong to mass which is considered constant. Even Einstein formulated the energy this way calling that mass the "inertial mass". The momentum is p=gamma.m.v with a constant mass. The concept of a velocity varying "relativistic mass" is not being used anymore and may be should have never been used.
Other viewpoint if you want is to realize that in the modern 4-vector formulation of Relativity mass is an invariant. You can see this even at wikipedia.
Hei, someone else to explain this to grumpy to show him this is not just my opinion but the current modern approach?
Last edited:
I an beginning to sound like a broken record lately on this issue, but the "E" in E = mc^2 only represents the total energy associated with an object's rest mass (aka invariant mass, inertial mass and gravitational mass). It does not represent the total energy of an object in motion. Any kinetic energy associated with acceleration or velocity has no affect on an object's mass...
When an object is moving its momentum and total energy do increase, but neither of these increase the invariant mass, of the particle or object. The whole Lorentz factor issue where relativistic velocities are involved, describes an object's velocity or acceleration dependent inertia, not its invariant inertial mass. (I know that sounds a little confusing.)
There was a recent thread on Physics Forums, where this was discussed and described nicely. I appologize that I cannot provide a link at this time. I am posting on a 1st gen iPad and often loose data when moving between cites.
Edit: Here is a link to a PhysicsForums discussion that touches on this issue. Light and Relativistic Mass
Last edited: