Eckard,

Sorry to hear of all your tribulations. I consider your essay largely excellent even without considering all those issues and am pleased to report I have it down for a high mark. I really loved your "Wheeler's preposterous idea" comment!

I'm sorry about the over-literal English in my own essay, too much Shakespeare and Chaucer in my youth! But my essay is too richly constructed to be able to extract the value from in a 'quick scan'. It builds a full ontological construction using orbital angular momentum to show how the stupidities of FTL assumed from Bells' theorem can be dispensed with. That's not an easy task! I do hope you get to read it carefully.

The blog comments also expand on precisely how the cosine curve is produced at EACH detector, thus reproducing the predictions of QM without spookyness. Your incisive falsification is most welcome. If you like donuts you can perform the experiment very simply yourself!

(I post this down here for convenience).

Stay well. And I hope and expect to see you finish higher up the field. Best wishes.

Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #109

    Eckard

    I really wanted a translation of the second half of that sentence, which in the 1923 version is: "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good"

    There are lots of references to first/second order. It seems to be associated with this differentiation of effects: Michelson (1887) para 2: "first, the ether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media, in which secondly, it is supposed to move with a velocity less than the velocity of the medium in the ratio (n2-1)/ n2, where n is the index of refraction". Hendrik Lorentz (1895) section 1: "Now according to Maxwell, two kinds of deviations from the equilibrium state can exist in this medium. The deviation of first kind, which (among others) can be found in the vicinity of any charged body, we call the dielectric displacement...The second deviation of the equilibrium state of the aether will be determined by the magnetic force... whose applicability we also presuppose for the interior of ponderable matter..."

    There are then a whole host of arguments as to why there was no 'ether effect' and the justification boiled down, effectively, to 'reality occurred at a local time'. Before GR then took over.

    Paul

    Dear Israel,

    The question whether or not there is length contraction due to velocity is not my primary concern. Nonetheless, I consider it an important one. Let me tell you some of my arguments:

    a) As far as I know, such contraction was never measured so far.

    b) FitzGerald and Lorentz might have ad hoc fabricated it in order to rescue Maxwell's aether when they explained Michelson's null result.

    c) Velocity does not cause a force that could deform a body and change its length. Forces belong to accelerations.

    d) To my understanding, velocity of a body as well as kinetic energy is always relative. For instance, in a crush between two cars of equal mass the relative velocity counts. This does not preclude that there is a limit to the velocity between any emitter and belonging receiver and in particular the speed of light.

    e) Length contraction corresponds to Einstein's asymmetrical synchronization.

    You asked for the meaning of negative time. Negative elapsed time is the temporal distance of an expected event from now. Where is the problem?

    I only see a problem in the denial of the now in physics. Well, the laws of physics are invariant under shift and even reversal of time. However, doesn't this merely indicate that the laws alone cannot completely describe the reality?

    Well, I do not see a necessity to operate with different time scales belonging to differently moving relatively to each other bodies. And - despite of the many perhaps pointless discussions you mentioned - I prefer in theory the logically correct synchronization by slow transport of clocks.

    Best regards,

    Eckard

    Paul, Please stop nonsensical quoting. First or just second order refers to the expansion of a function in terms of a power series. Even functions, e.g. the cosine function, do not have odd coefficients. This would mean mirror symmetry wrt v.

    Eckard

    Dear Christian,

    When I wrote "infinitely long rigid bodies (coordinate systems) [21] could ..." my hint to [21] (p. 892) meant that I blame Einstein for having written "The theory to be developed is based on - as every other electrodynamics - the kinematics of the rigid body, because the statements of every theory belong to relationships between rigid bodies (coordinate systems), clocks ...". I agree that no body is strictly rigid, and I wrote could, not can.

    I argued that the non-existence of strictly rigid bodies implied that there are strictly speaking also no coordinate systems which are moving relative to each other.

    Incidentally, did the uncertainty explain the limitation to c? I rather tend to imagine every body elastic.

    Cheers for today,

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #113

    Eckard

    Whether a body is rigid or not, in the sense meant by Einstein, is to some extent irrelevant. In that rigidity is an attribute over time. That is, a body is only that body once, whenever it exists. At any other point in time, physically it is something else. It might look the same at the higher level we are conceiving it at, but physically there will have been alterations, so it is different. In other words, there is only ever one physically existent state of something , which one could say is rigid, in effect, because there is only one discrete definitive occurrence. Whether subsequent states, which are actually a different something, happen to have the same spatial configuration is another matter.

    Paul

    Eckard

    In ordinary usage, that is what the term means, but it is plainly not what they were referring to. Clearly the argument was not about the level of accuracy to which they worked out an effect, but an allusion to different effects (especially when one follows the point through the various writers over time, and does not just rely on one quote).

    You did not give a translation of the sentence as requested.

    Paul

    Paul,

    He wrote: ... for all coordinate systems for which the mechanical equations are valid, the same electrodynamic and optic equations are also valid ...".

    You will perhaps not find out what is wrong by interpreting texts rather than checking the logic. Einstein correctly excluded that the velocity of light depends on a medium as do e.g. waves in air. He also correctly excluded that it refers to the velocity of the emitter as e.g. does a bullet. He concluded that it must refer to the receiver/observer because nothing other can be involved. I see this an understandable fallacy, see my endnotes.

    According to what Einstein wrote, I can SR only understand as a mistake. This does not yet exclude the admittedly unlikely possibility that Einstein arrived by chance on a correct result although using wrong premises.

    Eckard

    Eckard

    So 'all co-ordinate systems' instead of 'frames of reference'. And the caveat of 'in uniform translatory motion' which is explicit in section 2, is implicit here by virtue of the condition 'for which the mechanical equations are valid'. Because if there was any form of altering motion, caused by a differential in force incurred, then something else happened (supposedly).

    There is no duration in a reality, so x=vt is only conceptual, ie it is expressing distance in terms of duration incurred whilst something travels it, had it been able to. And by substituting c for v, ie a specific velocity for a generic one, c was asserted to be: 2AB/(t'(a) - t(a)). Which was wrong, because that time involved duration incurred from subsequent timings, apart from being deemed an elapsed time in both cases anyway, which it is not. Assuming the quantity is doubled, it should have been either twice A to B or B to A, or the sum of A to B and B to A incurred at the same time. So it should have been: c = 2AB/2(t(a) - t(b)). Or simply, as considering either direction is irrelevant, c = AB/(t(a) - t(b)). Which, although correct, is a statement of the obvious. That is, the velocity is a ratio of total distance travelled to the time taken to do so, ie the definition of velocity.

    Their quest was to find something that was an absolute reference against which to calibrate velocity. He did not then conclude that light velocity refers to the observer. He correctly concluded that light always starts at the same velocity, and like anything else, will continue at that velocity unless impinged upon. In other words, light, in ideal circumstances, is the nearest thing to an absolute reference. He failed to differentiate reality from light reality, and did not understand timing. So in effect, ie he did not mean to, he attributed the relativity of receipt of light to an inherent characteristic of reality. That is, contradicting the fact that reality occurs at a specific time. SR (as defined by him) is valid. It is the only circumstance in which the two postulates reconcile, had the second one been about observational light.

    Paul

    Paul,

    Perhaps you do not even know the Kramers-Kronig relations.

    I see myself between e.g. Christian Corda's believe in a block of spacetime and your denial of the existence of past and future. I consider traces of the past existing. That's why I am distinguishing between the measurable elapsed time and the abstracted from it and then extended ordinary notion of time.

    Eckard

    Eckard

    There are a lot of things I have not heard of, but I do not need to, because I am only interested in the generic circumstance.

    There cannot be a block of 'spacetime', unless the 'block' is just the spatial occurrence at one point in time. Which is the reality, but hardly a block. There can be no duration in reality, because whatever constitutes it is altering, and it cannot exist in different states at the same time. So reality is the discrete definitive physically existent state of whatever comprises it at any given time. And reality is what physically occurs, not what we conceive.

    So the real reference for timing would be the fastest rate of alteration which occurs in existence. It might be that ultimately everything is comprised of the same substance and in effect everything, irrespective of its physical manifestation and therefore superficial difference is really (physically) altering (ie being a different reality in a sequence) at the same rate. It might be the opposite. In which case some components could have altered, whilst others have not, in the same timing frame. But one needs to find that out. The point is, physical existence does not occur in accordance with some arbitrary rule we impose for the purposes of discerning it.

    There might be a problem with expression here, because, obviously, the past does not exist. That is why it is called the past. It did exist, but not now. And obviously since it did exist, thee are going to be existent 'traces of it' (like light for example), but this is not the reality, but, as you say, traces of it. Equally obviously, the future is non-existent. That is why it is called the future. It is what will occur as a consequence of what occurs immediately before it. One can only examine reality in terms of what happened at a point in time (though in practical terms we will probably never achieve the level of differentiation required), because that is how it exists. We are mixing up components from different realities and designating them as being of the same one.

    I do not understand your last comment on time. Existence alters, at a rate. This is really what time is. But the important point to recognise there is that an alteration is a difference, ie it is another reality. Difference is difference. There is no time in a reality, it is about a feature of the difference between realities (ie physically existent states). Indeed, I should not refer to this in terms of 'altering', because that confuses the notion of difference. But the entire way in which we conceive existence, and hence the language used, is built on the incorrect concept of 'it changes'. We calibrate this with a timing system which involves the comparison of rates of change.

    Paul

    Dear Christian,

    Didn't Goedel starve and eventually die because of paranoia? I was told he didn't eat because he suspected his nutrition could be poisoned. Sometimes, common sense might be helpful.

    When Einstein was ready to swallow looping time then I see this an indication for his support for claimed usefulness of his own theories. As you wrote he disagreed with the existence of singularities. Didn't he consider them as mere mathematical models?

    When I wrote: "Time scale can be shifted without any restriction" I reiterated what is common use, and I tried to contrast it with measurable elapsed time in a property that is not yet expressed with Kramer's Kronig relations.

    Isn't Hawking's chronology protection conjecture an add-on to what Schulman's textbook claims? Admittedly, I found out that the time-symmetry in the micro-world looks like a simple mathematical mistake, cf. previous essays of mine.

    Cheers,

    Eckard

    Paul,

    While velocity is a difference that can be positive or negative, Lorentzian length contraction does always shorten the length. What did you not understand?

    I share to some extent presentist idea that the very moment is something special. Let me merely add that there one cannot find a state of existence between past and future if time elapses continuously. Practically, we can resolve and measure the time as accurately as required, e.g. in terms of intervals as small as a femtosecond. Virtually any relevant event extends over a huge number of femtoseconds. We can only attribute existence to something with a life time. You did certainly exist before this very moment, and you are expected continuing to exist for a while without noticeable change.

    Please do not get me wrong. I do not attack you personally. I just do not agree with Hilbert's finitism. Euclid defined a point as something that has no parts.

    Eckard

    Peter,

    When I picked up the word preposterous from comments about Wheeler, I largely agreed with the context but did not exactly understand the meaning. My dictionary tells me now:extremely unreasonable and foolish.

    Aren't I myself extremely unreasonable and foolish when I am uttering what virtually every contestant tries to carefully hide?

    Eckard

    Paul,

    You wrote: [Einstein] "did not then conclude that light velocity refers to the observer. He correctly concluded that light always starts at the same velocity."

    No. I didn't find that E. mentioned "light starts". He merely claimed that "light propagates in vacuum with a certain velocity V independent of the state of motion of the emitter", and he did not attribute a vector of velocity to a "Lichtaether".

    In other words, he understood that both emission and ether theories are disproved. However, he did not at all immediately address the question what the velocity c refers to. His reasoning then incorporated Lorentz ideas and focused on the observer. He wrote observer but meant receiver, and he ignored the fact that an ideal observer does not influence the observed object. In the end he referred c to the receiver which is obviously not justified in case of emitter and receiver are in motion relative to each other.

    Eckard

    Eckard

    Not so. This is only because they tended to speak of the force which caused an acceleration in motion. They then referred to the body returning to its rest dimensions, ie expanding having contracted. And of course this physical affect only occurred in the line of travel, being an explanation for what they saw as the result of M&M. Lorentz 1895 section 6: "and thus it would cause a contraction in the direction of motion in the ratio of 1 to √(1-p2/V2)...In reality the molecules of a body are not at rest, but there exists a stationary motion in every "equilibrium state"." Lorentz, 1904, para 1: "The first example of this kind is Michelson's well known interference experiment, the negative result of which has led Fitzgerald and myself to the conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered by their motion through the aether." Etc, etc.

    Einstein discounts all this, and explains the apparent alteration in dimension as a function of relativity. Einstein 1905 section 2 refers.

    "Let me merely add that there one cannot find a state of existence between past and future if time elapses continuously."

    It isn't time that is elapsing, it is existence which is altering, at a rate. And anyway, the response to your assertion is, why not? Something must be existent so that it can become the 'past' and determine the 'future'. You are trying to define existence in terms of time, rather than in terms of how it must occur.

    "Virtually any relevant event extends over a huge number of femtoseconds"

    What is a "relevant event"? Is it a unique physically existent state? Because that is what reality is. It may look to you as if this relevant event exists over n duration, but for that to physically be true, there must be no alteration of any form whatsoever. Since if there is then there is more than one reality involved.

    "We can only attribute existence to something with a life time. You did certainly exist before this very moment..."

    Incorrect. You are defining reality from a higher level of conceptualisation than that which physically exists, ie in terms of 'things'. From one point in time to the next, I am not the same, physically. I just retain certain superficial characteristics which are utilised to determine me. So I am, like other 'things, thought of as existing over time, which is incorrect. The other way to explain this is to ask, what is "noticeable change"? Any change is noticeable, if you can notice it. But any change is a change, whether it is noticed or not. So precisely when do we say I am not physically altering, even though there is evidence that I am? This leads you back to the point that reality is a discrete definitive physically existent state of whatever comprises it.

    Paul

    Eckard

    No he didn't say 'starts'. He sad its speed is not dependent on whether the emitting body was 'moving' or not, and that speed will remain constant, at c, unless it is impinged upon. Which means it always starts at the same speed. The recipient observer is not determining that velocity.

    I am not sure about your ether theories point. He was only referring to an unreal circumstance, ie in vaccuo. In real life light travels somehow.

    No, he ignored Lorentz. Just took his local time, which meant something else, and turned it all into, supposedly, a function of observation. Unfortunately though, he didn't have any. Neither is c with respect to the receiver, it is independent, that is the whole point of his derivation of c in part 1.

    Paul

    Paul,

    You wrote: "He [Einstein] sad its speed is not dependent on whether the emitting body was 'moving' or not, and that speed will remain constant,... ".

    When he wrote V (=c) is "independent of the state of movement of the emitting body", he rejected Newton's emission theory, and he further claimed not to require a "Lichtaether". While he didn't explicitly write that c remains constant, he wrote of "a certain velocity V". Such behavior of light did correspond to a wave in a medium.

    It would have been possible to define c as I did in my endnotes. Instead, Einstein got aware of the possibility to agree with Lorentz's local time and his equivalences by means of his unjustified Poincaré synchronization.

    Eckard

    Dear Christian,

    Because of restricted length of my essay, I did not mention in my endnotes what is well known to those who are familiar with antenna fields and in particular evanescent modes: The latter do not propagate, they are locally restricted to the immediate vicinity of the antenna, the so called near field, and they move with it e.g. relative to ground.

    The velocities of motion of emitting as well as receiving antennas, e.g. relative to ground, doe not have an immediate effect on the velocity of light propagation in vacuum, which is given as the distance between the position of the emitting antenna at the moment of emission and the position of the receiving antenna at the moment of arrival divided by the time of flight. Hence, the MMX didn't yield the expected outcome.

    What about Lorentz's local times and the distinction between proper time and coordinate time, I didn't yet arrive at a self-consistent understanding. Let's discuss three differently moving relative to each other points A, B, and C, each the origin of a coordinate system along a straight line. Does this work in any case?

    Cheers,

    Eckard

    Eckard

    According to the 1923 version he wrote: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c, which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". How it works in a medium, etc, is irrelevant. So, if not impeded, then light was constant, at c. That is, all light, because the state of movement of the body which was interacted with to generate the light (ie a light based representation of it) was irrelevant, ie all light starts at c.

    It wasn't Lorentz, Poincare highjacked this concept (I think Lorentz was using it properly) and 'explained' everything in terms of time, "the most ingenious idea is that of local time", having previously written a lot of rubbish which effectively boils down to 'it's all relative'. Einstein agreed/copied this idea, he even had an AB with light example to explain it. So he then used c as his reference, since it was a constant (which is what they had been searching for), in order to calibrate distance and duration. And he is initially also thinking of that light being the conveyer of the reality to an observer.

    So the whole point of section 1, part 1 (1905) is that if two distant timing devices are to be in synch, in the sense that they show the time of the event as it happens, then...But that does not involve the notion of 'back and forth' and he has ignored the calculation for A, by saying it is zero/non-existent, when in the same proximity. So the idea of a 'common time' gets perverted. And anyway, he never actually has any light for observers to observe with.

    Put another way. Had he said an event (reality) occurs at a given time. Dependent upon where the observer is, and the environmental conditions for that circumstance, then light of that event will be received at different times. Assuming, for the sake of simplicity that all light travels at a constant then the time will be a function of spatial position. Etc. Then nobody would argue with this, because it is what happens. But unfortunately, whilst I think he meant to say this, in effect he did not, and ended up attributing the relativity to existence.

    Paul