The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Amazing Predictions of Relativity; an insight to a breakdown in conceptualit  (Read 3764 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
 [?]

And so since relativity's establishment as the ultimate new theory on gravitationally-stressed regions of spacetime and relative speeds to the universal invariant of c, we've had many maveriks within the field who have attempted to show ''incompleteness'' or ''error'' within relativity, and all have failed by every means to have a worldwide influence. Many reasons persist to why this is evident, and whilst one reason is that many people pick mistakes out of nothing, most of their work is not as appealing as to resolve the issues (if there are any) in any fasionably-simple way. I would possibly be quite accurate if i said many who surf the net have seen many of these oddities.

Many of the theorists attempt to tackle the mathematical side, and most of the time their arguements are really not worth considering, based on fundamental errors of understanding. On the other hand, what fundamental errors of understanding has the entire community got on relativity and what has caused this?


Relativity, now with a universal formulation that we all come to (hopefully) understand actually has many strange predictions which can manifest as possible indications where the theory of relativity is either incomplete, or false. The two incongruities I have concerning the theory of relativity (from now on, abbreviated to ToR), is concerning the nature of timelessness on two forms: First, the timelessness of a cosmological evaluation found within the mathematics of relativity, and then the timelessness apparently experienced by a photon.

Timeless, or the notion that the universe is timeless (of a canonical formalism) on its grand scale of past, present and future actually arises from pure mathematical intuition of relativity. It is a Hamiltonian formulation which requires a singling out of a time parameter and seems to be too tied to the classical evolution in time. The diffeomorphisms which lead to timelessness in physics has been appropriately named ''the time problem''. The time problem, really is a problem, because it seems to contradict our everyday experiences of the universe. We afterall, see energy changing state. And where there is a change in energy, there is almost certainly a passing of time. But no time passes in the comsological analysis of the Wheeler-de Witt equation. The time variable is completely zero H*| \psi> = 0. Note that it takes a non-relativistic approach to its dynamics.

Is this a problem so bad that it is a breakdown in ToR?

Well if the theory is a true description of reality, then it would mean that we greately, perhaps infinitely cannoy fathom the difficulties which arise. The general scope of reality seems to be completely without bound and far beyond what we could have expected - but equally, how can such a radical theory be true? How could the universe be completely timeless, despite what we experience, the so-called linear flow of time.

Nevertheless, whatever the answer is, it certainly remains as a bold candidate to a possible breakdown in the theory of relativity, at least, Einsteins version.

The second problem, is of course the infinite stretching of time for a photon. As an indication that perhaps the notions Einstein arrived to concerning the speed of light c may not entirely be safe. Afterall, it predicts that for particles moving at lightspeed experience no time whatsoever. More problems arise though.

In relativity, explained not so long ago, is that it predicts that the metric of space is in fact unified with a metric vector of one temporal dimension. The very fact space is unified with time, means that events which involve temporal calculations invariantly require spatial calculations; so concerning the photon that never moves through time, should never move through space either! But it does...

It's clear that all the assertions concerning the phenomena is either incorrect or incomplete. You cannot have a particle experience timelessness when we know for sure they move through space. So is there a breakdown necesserily in the conclusion that space and time are unified dimensions of the same metric or are we to truely believe that time becomes so stretched for photons that they don't even move through space? For one last problem, if it never ages, how can it decay?


1) It might be correct also to note, that a major conceptually-misunderstood area of physics involves the metric. ToR defined the metric as having a temporal dimension, inextricably woven into the very fabric of space, however not everyone seems to be happy with such a notion.


Ref:

Kuchaˇr K 1992 Time and interpretations of quantum gravity in Proc. 4th Canadian Conf on
General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, Winnipeg 1991 ed Kunstatter G Vincent D
« Last Edit: 04/11/2009 14:10:35 by Mr. Scientist »


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
If you look at the problem of relativity phenomena while insisting upon a clear notion of cause and effect you immediately arrive at the notion of the phenomena as it was developing before Einstein mucked it up. :) I suspect that Poincare and Lorentz had it nailed. H. Ziegler discussed this with Einstein around 1909. But the notion was much older than that. Relativity phenomena develops naturally in flat space-time when you consider that the most elemental constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.

It is all simple, straight forward, and mathematically sound as demonstrated by Lorentz. (actually it was Poincare who first used both the Lorentz transforms and E = MC2). I guess we didn't give Poincare credit for it because we didn't like the French much back then. :)

Edit: Add citation: Add note: It was Poincare himself who attached the name of Lorentz to the transforms; so we don't have to feel guilty.  :)

Wiki on Henri Poincare

Quote from: the link
Principle of relativity and Lorentz transformations

He discussed the "principle of relative motion" in two papers in 1900[10][11] and named it the principle of relativity in 1904, according to which no mechanical or electromagnetic experiment can discriminate between a state of uniform motion and a state of rest.[12] In 1905 Poincaré wrote to Lorentz about Lorentz's paper of 1904, which Poincaré described as a "paper of supreme importance." In this letter he pointed out an error Lorentz had made when he had applied his transformation to one of Maxwell's equations, that for charge-occupied space, and also questioned the time dilation factor given by Lorentz.[13] In a second letter to Lorentz, Poincaré gave his own reason why Lorentz's time dilation factor was indeed correct after all: it was necessary to make the Lorentz transformation form a group and gave what is now known as the relativistic velocity-addition law.[14] Poincaré later delivered a paper at the meeting of the Academy of Sciences in Paris on 5 June 1905 in which these issues were addressed.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2009 15:00:11 by Vern »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Darn french.

 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
 ;D ;D I added a note to clear it up.  ;D It was actually Poincare who named the transforms.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Vern,

As an outsider what would your immediate contentions be on timeless as posed by the two possible erreneous examples given in the OP?
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
MS - You wrote: "You cannot have a particle experience timelessness when we know for sure they move through space."

Are you talking about photons? They are without mass. However, no massive particle CAN achieve the speed of light and so according to relativity there is no paradox there. Massless photons are exempt.

Photons do decay, from our relativistic point of view, during red shift. We observe a longer, less energetic wavelengh photon then the one that was sent to us.

I have also pondered what in the hell is a photon. For instance, since it has both velocity and wave length, it might seem logical to expect we will see a longitudinal dimension as it passes by. Do you know if that has been resolved through experiment?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
No.

This is why i am here to help with these things; for mass is not in this model dependant on the arguement. When timelessness for photons are given, we also have timelessness for all particles which travel at c. The absence of mass might be one of the reasons why photons and all other luminal-speed particles travel at, such as gluons or Higgs, but that is certainly not the reason why they experience no time. It has to do with the contaction of time due to their speeds not their mass, which is nevertheless, subsequently zero.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
And yes, photons do decay, which would mean that time passed for them - but obviously relativity cannot allow this.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
MS

How do photons decay? Do you mean at somepoint they will simply dissapear, or do they decay through gradually reduced frequency and lose energy until the frequency goes flatline?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Vern,

As an outsider what would your immediate contentions be on timeless as posed by the two possible erreneous examples given in the OP?
I guess I don't get the concept of a timeless photon. The real stuff that is the photon is electric and magnetic change in local space. The little pieces of space (or whatever space is) need not move laterally. It is the effect that is moving, like a water wave. So the way I see a photon, there is no timelessness involved.

It is only a problem when you try and consider a photon as its own particle (or wave function) that is intact as it moves through space. It is as someone here likes to say; you get in trouble when you consider photons to be like little bullets. It don't work. :)
« Last Edit: 04/11/2009 19:59:36 by Vern »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
MS

How do photons decay? Do you mean at somepoint they will simply dissapear, or do they decay through gradually reduced frequency and lose energy until the frequency goes flatline?

What do you know of antiparticle-particle interaction? The changing of a positron or electron into a photon is a decay process.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Vern,

As an outsider what would your immediate contentions be on timeless as posed by the two possible erreneous examples given in the OP?
I guess I don't get the concept of a timeless photon. The real stuff that is the photon is electric and magnetic change in local space. The little pieces of space (or whatever space is) need not move laterally. It is the effect that is moving, like a water wave. So the way I see a photon, there is no timelessness involved.

It is only a problem when you try and consider a photon as its own particle (or wave function) that is intact as it moves through space. It is as someone here likes to say; you get in trouble when you consider photons to be like little bullets. It don't work. :)

Yeh, i agree timelessness does not work and is a fail factor of relativity.
 

Offline litespeed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
MS

I asked how photons decay to something else or nothing, not how something else decays to be photon. Anti-matter matter interactions completely annihialted each other into energy. A presume that energy is electromagnetic in form (Photon). So how does the photon decay?

Which brings up another question, as I understand it matter-antimatter annhialation does not result result in entrophy. Do you think that is the case?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
MS

I asked how photons decay to something else or nothing, not how something else decays to be photon. Anti-matter matter interactions completely annihialted each other into energy. A presume that energy is electromagnetic in form (Photon). So how does the photon decay?

Which brings up another question, as I understand it matter-antimatter annhialation does not result result in entrophy. Do you think that is the case?
From what i know, photons do not decay spontaneously in space. However, given enough energy in a slice of spacetime can have photon energy flux into matter. This was first observed in september 1997.

And, if i have understood you properly, you are asking whether decay processes given above result in entropy? Well, sure it does.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums