Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Jaaanosik on 07/05/2024 12:46:42
-
This is from Susskind's book
The Principle of Relativity was first formulated about 250 years before Einstein was born. So why is Einstein so famous? It's because he revealed the apparent conflict between the Principle of Relativity and another principle of physics - a principle that we might call Maxwell's Principle. As discussed in chapters 2 and 4, James Clerk Maxwell discovered the modern theory of electromagnetism - the theory of all electric and magnetic forces in nature. Maxwell's greatest discovery was unraveling the great mystery of light. Light, he argued, consists of waves of electrical and magnetic disturbances moving through space like waves through the sea. But for us the most important thing that Maxwell proved is that light moving through empty space always moves at exactly the same speed: approximately 300,000 kilometers per second. That's what I call Maxwell's Principle:
Light moving through empty space, no matter how it was created, always moves at the same velocity.
But now we have a problem: a serious clash between two principles. Einstein was not the first to worry about the clash between the Principle of Relativity and Maxwell's Principle, but he saw the problem most clearly. And whereas others were troubled by experimental data, Einstein - master of thought experiments - was troubled by an experiment that took place entirely within his head. According to his own recollection, in 1895, at the age of sixteen, Einstein produced the following paradox. Picturing himself riding in a railroad carriage moving with the speed of light, he observes a light wave moving alongside him in the same direction. Would he not see the light ray standing still? There were no helicopters in Einstein's day, but we might imagine him hovering above the sea, moving with exactly the speed of ocean waves. The waves would appear to be standing still. In the same way, the sixteen-year-old reasoned that the passenger in the railway carriage (remember, he is moving with the speed of light) would detect a completely motionless light wave. Somehow, at that early age, Einstein knew enough about Maxwell's theory to realize that what he was imagining was impossible: Maxwell's Principle asserted that all light moves with the same velocity. If the laws of nature are the same in all reference frames, then Maxwell's Principle had better apply in the moving train. Maxwell's Principle and the Principle of Relativity of Galileo and Newton were on a collision course.
Susskind, Leonard. The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics (pp. 205-206). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.
Apparently Einstein was troubled with similar thoughts.
If we believe the book then Einstein screwed up his conclusion compared to what is proposed here, right?
-
...
OK, you wanted an example of same magnitude of acceleration, but different dilation. I'm sure I've posted something of that nature, but it's easier to do it again. Remember that time dilation (due to speed at least) is a coordinate effect, not a physical one. Differential aging is a physical effect, meaning the difference isn't frame dependent.
...
If the coordinate effect does not represent physical one then the mathematical coordinate physics model does not represent reality therefore this model has no value. It is being relegated into fantasy land.
-
Apparently Einstein was troubled with similar thoughts.
If we believe the book then Einstein screwed up his conclusion compared to what is proposed here, right?
That's not what's being implied by your excerpt at all.
Special relativity has been supported with large amounts of experimental evidence.
-
Apparently Einstein was troubled with similar thoughts.
If we believe the book then Einstein screwed up his conclusion compared to what is proposed here, right?
That's not what's being implied by your excerpt at all.
Special relativity has been supported with large amounts of experimental evidence.
Expect an experiment of a mass moving at v=c.
That's what Einstein was thinking according to Susskind.
Susskind specifically talks about railroad carriage moving with the speed of light in Einstein's thought experiment.
The conclusion in your thread is that frame is undefined under the Lorentz transformation.
Do I miss anything?
-
Expect an experiment of a mass moving at v=c.
That's what Einstein was thinking according to Susskind.
Susskind specifically talks about railroad carriage moving with the speed of light in Einstein's thought experiment.
Einstein's thought experiment was intentionally absurd. It shows that the scenario isn't possible. There are no reference frames where light is sitting still.
The conclusion in your thread is that frame is undefined under the Lorentz transformation.
My thread? What thread are you talking about?
By the way, this is still true:
Special relativity has been supported with large amounts of experimental evidence.
If your conclusions disagree with the evidence, then you need to reconsider your conclusions.
-
...
My thread? What thread are you talking about?
...
This is your thread: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86862.0
-
Expect an experiment of a mass moving at v=c.
That's what Einstein was thinking according to Susskind.
Susskind specifically talks about railroad carriage moving with the speed of light in Einstein's thought experiment.
Einstein's thought experiment was intentionally absurd. It shows that the scenario isn't possible. There are no reference frames where light is sitting still.
...
This is not about motionless light waves but about Einstein's flawed assumption.
The carriage cannot move at v=c.
That frame does not exist, it is undefined according to the Lorentz transformation, right?
My conclusions are correct, there is no real physical inertial frame with mass that moves at c.
Is there any experiment with mass moving at c?
An experiment that disproves my conclusion?
-
I am going to submit my understanding of relativity with the following thought experiment.
It is time dilation calculation done through EM fields and transformation of EM fields.
This is all aligned with the current relativity math.
When this part is agreed upon then conservation of momentum will follow afterwards.
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i001.png)
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i002.png)
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i003.png)
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i004.png)
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i005.png)
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i006.png)
-
This is not about motionless light waves but about Einstein's flawed assumption.
The carriage cannot move at v=c.
That frame does not exist, it is undefined according to the Lorentz transformation, right?
My conclusions are correct, there is no real physical inertial frame with mass that moves at c.
Is there any experiment with mass moving at c?
An experiment that disproves my conclusion?
It's a thought experiment. You can imagine the carriage being massless if you really want to. Or you can replace it with another light wave. Besides, he thought this up 10 years before he published his paper on special relativity. He wouldn't have known at the time that objects with mass can't reach the speed of light.
-
This is not about motionless light waves but about Einstein's flawed assumption.
The carriage cannot move at v=c.
That frame does not exist, it is undefined according to the Lorentz transformation, right?
My conclusions are correct, there is no real physical inertial frame with mass that moves at c.
Is there any experiment with mass moving at c?
An experiment that disproves my conclusion?
It's a thought experiment. You can imagine the carriage being massless if you really want to. Or you can replace it with another light wave. Besides, he thought this up 10 years before he published his paper on special relativity. He wouldn't have known at the time that objects with mass can't reach the speed of light.
Even if you choose another light wave.
How does the light inertial frame calculate time with the Lorentz transformation?
How did you answer your own question from the other thread?
-
Even if you choose another light wave.
How does the light inertial frame calculate time with the Lorentz transformation?
How did you answer your own question from the other thread?
From the jist of what was told to me, it appeared that no such frame existed.
-
Even if you choose another light wave.
How does the light inertial frame calculate time with the Lorentz transformation?
How did you answer your own question from the other thread?
From the jist of what was told to me, it appeared that no such frame existed.
Right, this is about the consistency in logic and staying with experimental results.
It appears the infinity does not exist in real physical world based on experiments.
The real world does not go beyond Planck values and beyond the speed of light.
If this is the case then the logical conclusion is the light speed inertial frame is like infinity and it just does not exist.
I hope it is not only what you were told but you see all the steps how that conclusion was made.
-
So what's your point?
-
So what's your point?
The most noble inclination of Human Nature is pursuit of truth.
That itch to find out how things work.
Our discussion here is a manifestation of our Human Nature.
There is a reality on one side and then there is our worldview/understanding of the reality.
How accurate is our worldview?
Personally I go with two levels: hypothesis/concept and theory.
When hypothesis matures and experiments support the hypothesis then it evolves to theory.
Many more details surround a hypothesis, for example assumptions, postulates, principles...
If a mistake was made here then a theory built on it will fall.
No questions from anybody regarding my thought experiment so I'll move to conservation of linear momentum analysis.
-
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i007.png)
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i008.png)
-
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i009.png)
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i010.png)
-
If a mistake was made here then a theory built on it will fall.
There was no mistake.
-
Any questions regarding the linear momentum?
Before going to conservation of angular momentum there is this important attribute of electromagnetism.
(https://i.imgur.com/ULkrUkX.png)
The intrinsic magnetic field loop of moving charges.
The shape and size of the field is velocity dependent.
-
We know all that stuff, what point are you making here? re post #17
-
We know all that stuff, what point are you making here? re post #17
The conservation of linear momentum, the electron interacts through the field and moves the plates in +y direction during its acceleration so the isolated system keeps its barycenter inertial.
The question, if the intrinsic magnetic field loop of the moving charge rotates, does the electron interact through the field and causes the plates to rotate in opposite direction to conserve the angular momentum and to keep the barycenter inertial?
This is the most important question!
-
The intrinsic magnetic loop of moving charge is being represented by the flywheel.
When the flywheel accelerates in the rest frame there is no flywheel rotation predicted.
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i011.png)
When the flywheel accelerates in the moving frames then the rotation is being predicted.
Does the conservation of the angular momentum hold?
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i012.png)
No rotation in K frame, K'1 and K'2 rotations but in opposite directions.
The rotation of the plates is absolute.
If the plates rotate clockwise in K'1, then the plates cannot stay without rotation in K or rotate counter clockwise in K'2 frame.
There is going to be only one frame that predicts true proper rotation.
-
The electromagnetic nature of things undresses the relativity.
The relativity is 'naked'. :D
Is there any 'Einstein' out there to defend it?
-
Is there any 'Einstein' out there to defend it?
No need. We have a lot of observational data to defend it for us.
-
Is there any 'Einstein' out there to defend it?
No need. We have a lot of observational data to defend it for us.
The 21cm hydrogen line observed from space.
How does relativity explains it?
What is the cause of the emission according to relativity?
-
The 21cm hydrogen line observed from space.
How does relativity explains it?
What is the cause of the emission according to relativity?
I think you'll need to consult quantum physics for that answer, not relativity.
-
The 21cm hydrogen line observed from space.
How does relativity explains it?
What is the cause of the emission according to relativity?
I think you'll need to consult quantum physics for that answer, not relativity.
Right, the current relativity does not have explanation for it.
Having said that, if there is a preferred frame than the force between electron and proton varies based on the hydrogen atom speed in the preferred frame as shown in the thought experiment.
When the hydrogen atom slows down in the preferred frame the force is stronger and the electron is pulled to lower energy state. Suddenly 'spontaneous' emission has a cause.
The 'relativity' anchored in the preferred frame can explain the emissions.
The Lamb shift... the same story.
-
Right, the current relativity does not have explanation for it.
It isn't supposed to, not any more than it's supposed to explain why sugar is sweet.
Having said that, if there is a preferred frame than the force between electron and proton varies based on the hydrogen atom speed in the preferred frame as shown in the thought experiment.
When the hydrogen atom slows down in the preferred frame the force is stronger and the electron is pulled to lower energy state. Suddenly 'spontaneous' emission has a cause.
The 'relativity' anchored in the preferred frame can explain the emissions.
There is no preferred frame. The isotropy of the speed of light has been demonstrated to extremely high precision.
-
...
There is no preferred frame. The isotropy of the speed of light has been demonstrated to extremely high precision.
How is speed of light measured?
Are you familiar with this video?
-
The two-way speed of light is good enough to detect anisotropy.
-
The two-way speed of light is good enough to detect anisotropy.
Isotropy is established by definition. There is no experiment to prove it.
-
Isotropy is established by definition.
Only because it was discovered to be true experimentally.
There is no experiment to prove it.
Sure there is. The Michelson-Morley experiment was one, as are more recent optical resonator experiments: https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1284
-
Isotropy is established by definition.
Only because it was discovered to be true experimentally.
There is no experiment to prove it.
Sure there is. The Michelson-Morley experiment was one, as are more recent optical resonator experiments: https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1284
The paper you linked has no word about length contraction.
How is that possible?
The quality of papers is going downhill. :D
No, the isotropy of the speed of light is not tested here if the length contraction is not being discussed.
-
The paper you linked has no word about length contraction.
How is that possible?
The quality of papers is going downhill.
No, the isotropy of the speed of light is not tested here if the length contraction is not being discussed.
And how did you come to that conclusion?
-
The paper you linked has no word about length contraction.
How is that possible?
The quality of papers is going downhill.
No, the isotropy of the speed of light is not tested here if the length contraction is not being discussed.
And how did you come to that conclusion?
It's a hole in the analysis.
Any opinion about conservation of angular moment as shown in post #20?
-
It's a hole in the analysis.
How so? Light doesn't experience length contraction and the speed of the device itself is so low that length contraction shouldn't be an issue.
Any opinion about conservation of angular moment as shown in post #20?
It's been a while since I've studied magnetism and currents, so I'm not equipped at the moment to give an analysis.
-
...
It's been a while since I've studied magnetism and currents, so I'm not equipped at the moment to give an analysis.
Here is a textbook figure. The shape of EM field around a moving charge is velocity dependent for both, E and M.
(https://i.imgur.com/slmRXuF.png)
The electron E field rotates counter clockwise in the figure below.
(https://theelectromagneticnatureofthings.com/img/ent/i015.png)
It is stronger ahead of electron because of the tilt.
The orientation of E field repels the plates clockwise and the conservation of angular momentum is preserved.
I hope this helps.
-
... to discuss the most important point of our understanding of the physics!?!?!?
-
This is continuation of the analysis.
The field of accelerated electron rotates:
(https://i.imgur.com/zU62WiA.png)
We pick electron Q charges as per the figure above.
Using the following Lorentz force equation as per David J. Griffiths Introduction to Electrodynamics page 460:
(https://i.imgur.com/XDvwL4k.png)
We calculate the Lorentz forces.
The repulsive Lorentz force between qQ1 is equal to qQ2 in K rest frame.
The repulsive Lorentz force between qQ1 is bigger than qQ2 in K'1 frame.
The repulsive Lorentz force between qQ2 is bigger than qQ1 in K'2 frame.
Angular momentum has two parts, orbit - the curved trajectory and spin/rotation of a body.
The orbit is frame dependent but the direction of the spin/rotation has to be agreed upon by all inertial observers.
The rest frame K calculations do not predict any spin/rotation of the plates.
The K'1 calculations predict clockwise spin/rotation of the plates.
The K'2 calculations predict counter clockwise spin/rotation of the plates.