Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space

Akinbo,

I suggest any scale 'cut off' is arbitrary above the wavelength of light. Within the bulb is the filament. If 'at rest' in an ambient medium the wavelength emitted is found as emitted.

If it then accelerates to v wrt the medium we know very well that there are near/far field states with a 'transition zone'. This is NOT a different case. It gives a delta lambda as all radio antenna engineers will tell you! Sure it's not 'understood' as a frame change, but that's due to the theoretical confusion which produces all the paradoxes.

Simply apply the speed and wavelength change at the TZ as in any other case of kinetic medium state change and all the paradoxes evaporate. Unfamiliar for sure, but consistently true none the less. Doppler shift is then also an entirely consistent mechanism.

If you try to falsify that mechanism scientifically you'll find it impossible, and that it only resolves problems. It only 'confuses' WRONG theory. When consistently applied it's powers of clarification emerge. Yet it does seem to be one intellectual step beyond present comprehension. The question is; is that still a step too far?

Best wishes

Peter

Length Contraction and Schizophrenia

"The simplest version of the problem involves a garage, with a front and back door which are open, and a ladder which, when at rest with respects to the garage, is too long to fit inside. We now move the ladder at a high horizontal velocity through the stationary garage. Because of its high velocity, the ladder undergoes the relativistic effect of length contraction, and becomes significantly shorter. As a result, as the ladder passes through the garage, it is, for a time, completely contained inside it. We could, if we liked, simultaneously close both doors for a brief time, to demonstrate that the ladder fits. So far, this is consistent."

Is it? An unlimitedly long ladder gloriously trapped inside an unlimitedly short garage? Einsteinians? Have you destroyed rationality in science? Einsteinians couldn't care less:

Lawrence Krauss teaches length contraction

Happy Einsteinians

Pentcho Valev

Hi Pentcho ,

thanks for linking "the simplest version of the paradox". The coloured diagram is useful but the writer is still equating the manifestations seen with the substantial objects themselves which is not correct. The ladder, source of EM sensory data, and observed manifestation, output of sensory data processing, are distinct aspects of reality that belong to different categories of reality. These are on different sides of the Observer's Prime reality interface. Due to different observers obtaining different sensory data from the environment there is non simultaneity of events I.E they have different present experiences. Accounting for differences in dimensions of the objects observed and different reckoning of relative location of the objects in space. Thence different reckonings of when/where in relation to doors of garage. This is only paradoxical because the mathematics is not differentiating the different categories of reality. Making it seem that solid substantial objects are "magically" transformed into contradictory states of being.Where as it is perfectly reasonable that different observers produce different manifestations from differently acquired sensory data.

The Barn Pole Paradox, Mark L Lions

I think the next given example in the Ladder paradox, Wikipedia article (your "the simplest version of the paradox") is daft because it is talking about a man walking fast, not a significant fraction of the speed of light , and then falling down a grate. The man represented by a rod. At the speed needed for the length contraction to occur the momentum of man or rod Object would prevent him/it from falling. (Though he might trip) It seems there is no momentum in the paradox which makes it invalid.

The last example again I don't believe it would happen,as described in the article. The rod passing through the ring due to length contraction part. - the appearance of contraction is not the same as contraction of the source of the sensory data from which the contracted manifestation was formed. Though the change in orientation of the bar when considered from a different reference makes sense. Making this example of an optical illusion rather than a paradox.

While it is reasonable to assume there are substantial objects corresponding to the manifestations observed (Feynman Steak like) it is wrong to assume that the (sensory data)source objects are themselves exactly as they are seen. For analogy: I can see a 1cm tall building through my window (Image reality). I do not therefore assume that I can fit that corresponding substantial building (Object reality) through the crack of my open window. In fact a resident of the distant building might regard my own house as small enough to fit through an open window over there. There is no paradox in this scenario as what each observer sees is not the actual substantial building.

The bug-rivet paradox offers an even more breathtaking spectacle:

"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c. (...) The paradox is not resolved."

In the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall" - the bug is squashed. In the bug's frame, "the rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole" - the bug remains alive.

Needless to say, the bug being squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame is fatal for Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Accordingly, Einsteinians resort to an idiotic ad hoc "requirement" - the rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length and poor bug gets squashed in both frames:

John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. (...) But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. (...) Isn't physics great?"

This physics is absolutely great indeed! The end of the rivet keeps on going at 87% the speed of light and a wave travelling at the speed of sound is chasing it in order to stop it! Here is more breathtaking discussion in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

Abhishek Maniyar: "According to the solutions provided for bug and rivet paradox, in the bug's frame of reference the head of the rivet first collides with the wall but the end of the rivet continues to extend unless the information that the head has collided with the wall reaches the end of the rivet and so finally bug is crushed...the information goes at the speed of sound which is quite small when compared to speed of rivet..so by that time when the information reaches to the end of the rivet to stop extending,it already has expanded by a huge amount!! Doesn't it seem strange?"

Rob Carroll: "The information does not necessarily travel at the speed of sound, but is limited by c, and even if the information is sent at this speed the paradox is resolved and both frames of reference will agree with each other that the bug is crushed."

Abhishek Maniyar: "thanks Rob...From your explanation I understood how the paradox is resolved...but just consider this case- if the information is traveling with the speed of sound which is very small compared to speed of rivet. so by the time information has reached the bottom of the rivet it must have expanded by a 'huge' amount than its natural length... don't you think this is weird?"

Rob Carroll: "That would be true, but the expansion would also be limited by the surface on the other side of the rivet. Another thing is that the speed of sound in a dense solid such as the material forming a rivet has a much larger magnitude than the speed of sound through air."

Pentcho Valev

The bug rivet paradox is again about appearances. The rivet as seen by the bug and the rivet, as would be seen by the rivet (in the setting of this paradox), are theoretical manifestations.

The substantial rivet object itself is not a reality interface nor does it possess a reality interface so without such there is no rivet perspective. Therefore that theoretical manifestation of rivet does not exist and can not even threaten the bug.

As soon as the rivet enters the hole; Only the Object reality, IE the substantial, absolute, reality of the rivet exists and the Image reality estimation of the bug prior to rivet's hole entry. As this happens so fast (Bug does not have time for further update or second thoughts: ). Bug is safe but it was a closer call than bugs estimate.

My previous answer was referring to the first linked example of the paradox. At hyperphysics As I see it, even if the rivet is tiny sentient superman it still doesn't matter. Bugs can't be squashed because of the perspective given by a manifestation, an Image. Only the actualized, rather than manifest, dimensions of the substantial rivet and hole can squash it. The relative positions appear different for the different 'observers' because- if they were both observers- they would be fabricating different experienced presents from the sensory data available at their location, giving perceived non simultaneity of events.Non simultaneity of events is a perceptual difference, different experienced presents within the same absolute time. It does not affect substantial objects that are not within the perceived space-time fabrication but are always only within uni-temporal -Now, the existing configuration of the Object universe. What actually will happen is the substantial objects, material containing hole and the rivet, that are sources for both reference frame perspectives will come together and the different reference frame perspectives will cease to be relevant.

John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: Cute animation but he gives the bug no chance due to a longer rivet in the at rest frame.

Brian Clegg's tale is interesting but surely the elasticity of the object upon impact will depend upon such things as the material,is it soft aluminium or titanium? and temperature affecting density, and the hardness of the table.Will the table even stop the rivet or will the head penetrate the surface at that speed? The bug could well be squashed in that case but these considerations all seem incidental to the paradox itself.

This is the formula governing Length contraction -

L' = L в€љ(1 - v2 /c2)

L is the original length

L' is the length due to moving at a speed v close to light velocity

c is the value of light speed

A question arises for when the flying ladder comes to rest in the garage. Does it remain contracted in the garage when it's velocity v becomes zero or does it re-expand on coming to rest?

If the former is the case, it means it can be removed from the garage and put to flight time and time again, with a new original starting length L on each occasion. If done repeatedly, the ladder would shrink eventually to an infinitesimal or a zero length. What then would be its density? Note that this same Lorentz transformation says the ladder's mass would increase with the velocity in flight. If the latter is the case then such length contraction would be an illusion and not real since the length of the ladder cannot be measured while in flight. Why then is this portrayed as a real effect?

How can this absurdity make sense to anyone?

Akinbo

Akinbo,

"A question arises for when the flying ladder comes to rest in the garage. Does it remain contracted in the garage when it's velocity v becomes zero or does it re-expand on coming to rest?"

John Baez & Co do give a partial answer to this question:

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. (...) If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

It is easy to see that trapping long objects inside short containers drastically violates the law of conservation of energy. The trapped object, in trying to restore its original volume, would produce an enormous amount of work the energy for which comes from nowhere. Einsteinians don't care - some even teach that length contraction is a geometrical projection, not a physical event:

Tom Roberts: "There is no "physical length contraction" in SR, there is only "length contraction" which is a geometrical projection -- nothing "physical" happens to the object itself."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho, James Putnam, et al.

It would be nice to hear a comment from James on how he interprets this length contraction hypothesis. Does he agree to the trapping in a compressed state or a re-expansion, which as Pentcho said will tend to violate the energy conservation law?

For a pole 80m long (L) travelling at about .999c (v), its length would contract to about 3.57m (L'). If the barn door is opened and the pole is again put in flight again at same speed, its original length this time will be 3.57m, and its length at a subsequent trapping will become 0.16m (L"). This can go on and on till the pole becomes invisible to the eye.

James has a nice idea concerning on the F = ma equation (Newton's second law) but why he insists on believing in length contraction is hard for me to tell.

It should be noted that the flying pole can vary in speed as it flies, i.e. 0.999c to say 0.75c and back again to 0.999c. Does its length expand when it reduces in speed to 0.75c? If that be the case, then we should be talking of hypothetical length variation and not strictly length contraction.

Regards,

Akinbo

Anonymous replied on May. 21, 2015 @ 00:45 GMT, That's me, Georgina

Sp. "Quote"

Hi Akinbo,

"Does he agree to the trapping in a compressed state or a re-expansion, which as Pentcho said will tend to violate the energy conservation law?"

I'll get to your concerns in the future, but, I will speak immediately to there being no violation of the energy conservation law. And:

"...we should be talking of hypothetical length variation and not strictly length contraction."

The effect named length-contraction accounts for both increasing and decreasing length. The length is proportional to relative velocity whether increasing or decreasing. I didn't name it, and it is not going to be renamed, but, it has always been clear that the effect includes both increasing and decreasing lengths.

"It would be nice to hear a comment from James on how he interprets this length contraction hypothesis."

I interpret it according to an accurate understanding of the meanings contained in the Lorentz transforms. Einstein messed the interpretations up. His theory of relativity messed up theoretical physics. If actual interest exists, after I explain why the relativist explanation for two "correct" contradictory solutions holding for the same event is wrong, I will offer an alternative solution to the problem. I presented it here once before with no responses. That solution includes a decreased length for the pole in the pole-barn problem. For clarity in future messages, I usually use the word "light" to refer to electromagnetic radiation.

James Putnam

Hi James,

You may need to clarify your interpretation of what you accurately understand by Lorentz transform and how it differs from how it is generally and officially understood. For instance in your interpretation

- does the mass of the pole increase and reduce depending on its velocity? That is mass increasing as velocity increases and reducing as velocity reduces.

- can the movement of an observer after emission and during light's transit influence light's arrival time? That is, can the arrival times of the light pulses be hastened by moving towards the incoming light or delayed by moving away from the already emitted light when it already in-flight on its way towards the observer?

I think your response will clarify how your interpretation differs from the official or Einstein's interpretation of Lorentz transformation.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Your questions:

"- does the mass of the pole increase and reduce depending on its velocity? That is mass increasing as velocity increases and reducing as velocity reduces."

Yes the mass of the pole increased from its rest value to its value as a function of the pole's velocity.

"- can the movement of an observer after emission and during light's transit influence light's arrival time? That is, can the arrival times of the light pulses be hastened by moving towards the incoming light or delayed by moving away from the already emitted light when it already in-flight on its way towards the observer?"

If a traveler is moving toward light that is coming toward the traveler, the traveler will receive the light sooner than if the traveler remained at rest. If the traveler is moving away from the approaching light, the traveler will receive the light later. The speed of the light, while not close to the traveler, is unaffected locally. Its speed is determined by the environment it is passing through. That environment will have specific electric permittivity and magnetic permeability values. Those values can be substituted into Maxwell's equation to determine the local speed of light. The light will typically pass through changing environments. At no time when the light is distant from the traveler will the speed of the light be affected by the traveler. The Lorentz transforms allow for only one environment and that environment is the environment of the observer who is stationary in that environment. That observer undergoes no changes. A second observer traveling through that environment, either toward or away from the stationary observer, will undergo length contraction. There will be an increase in mass for the traveler. There will also be an effect of slowing of rate of activity for the traveler.

James Putnam

James,

Thanks for your response. You say, "...If a traveler is moving toward light that is coming toward the traveler, the traveler will receive the light sooner than if the traveler remained at rest. If the traveler is moving away from the approaching light, the traveler will receive the light later."

This response is sufficient in identifying and clarifying the MAIN bone of contention between Galilean/Newtonian relativity and Lorentzian transformation/ Special relativity.

Light travels at a certain velocity, c which value as you have correctly stated 'is determined by the environment it is passing through'. That is light covers a distance, d in that environment in a time, t seconds with the speed value being d/t.

In Galilean relativity, an observer travelling at a velocity, v towards or away from the light can influence light arrival time in the manner

d/(c + v), if moving towards the light, or

d/(c - v), if moving away from the incoming light

leading to your correct conclusion that the former receives the light earlier, i.e. in a shorter time and the latter later, i.e. in a longer time. This effect on velocity of objects or propagating waves is why the need arises in Newtonian Mechanics to introduce the concept of resultant velocity, resultant force, etc. The resultant velocity of light (c±v) is to be differentiated from just the velocity of light, c.

In Special relativity/ Lorentz transformation, the arrival time of a photon that is ALREADY in flight cannot be altered by the motion of the observer during the transit time. The velocity, v of the observer has no influence on arrival time, t whether moving away or towards the incoming light. v = 0 in the equation t = d/(c + v) AND t = d/(c - v). Thus the velocity of light and its resultant are of the same value. This is the meaning of the often stated cliché, "The velocity of light is constant to ALL observers irrespective of their motion". Because of its frequent repetition and use, its fundamental meaning is not often looked at any more. And I guess from your truthful reply, that you have yourself overlooked the fundamental meaning of this statement or cliché. I find this to also be the case even among experts.

('invariance' is another frequently used word in this regard, i.e. arrival times 'cannot be varied' by the observer's motion while light is in transit).

In summary, your reply supports Galilean relativity even if you profess Lorentz transformation. Georgina's position also supports same as does Pentcho's and Eckard's. It therefore seems that many who claim to support Lorentz/Special relativity and oppose Galilean relativity need to critically look at what exactly is the bone of contention between the two so as not to be fighting against what they support and befriending what they are against.

This informed my framing my poser to you in this fashion. Of course, if Lorentz invariance is incorrect there is no need to go further about the mass increase/ decrease with velocity at this stage in my opinion.

Regards,

Akinbo

*I am replying under a new post so that this is not hidden. Thanks.

Akinbo,

You preceded your questions with:

"You may need to clarify your interpretation of what you accurately understand by Lorentz transform and how it differs from how it is generally and officially understood. For instance in your interpretation: ..."

I was not giving you a description of the Lorentz transforms as used in relativity theory. I answered about my interpretation which you can review in my essay.

"This is the meaning of the often stated cliché, "The velocity of light is constant to ALL observers irrespective of their motion". Because of its frequent repetition and use, its fundamental meaning is not often looked at any more. And I guess from your truthful reply, that you have yourself overlooked the fundamental meaning of this statement or cliché. I find this to also be the case even among experts."

I haven't overlooked it. I wasn't explaining a view that even includes it. The velocity of light is not constant to all observers irrespective of their motion. The velocity of light is a variable. In the description I gave: The traveler's speed of light is not the same as the observer's speed of light.

James Putnam

The only thing that you enjoy more than exploring the deep rabbit holes that are the nature of physical reality is dragging others down into those same deep rabbit holes. I have to admit, though, that your questions do make me think...

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 23, 2015 @ 11:41 GMT, "Concerning travelling at light speed, you may want to consider the 'photon existence paradox' discovered by Armin Nikkah Shirazi with whom I had some discussions on his forum also in this years essay contest. If time does not flow for a photon or if 'time' stops at light velocity as John puts it, then the time of emission of a photon is the time also of its absorption, how then can photon exist?"

Yes, photons do have a null time and according to a photon's clock, emission and absorption are simultaneous events without a time delay. While I do not think that this is completely true, it is in fact largely true.

Akinbo Ojo wrote on May. 24, 2015 @ 11:29 GMT, "In Special relativity/ Lorentz transformation, the arrival time of a photon that is ALREADY in flight cannot be altered by the motion of the observer during the transit time."

I get a kick out of your paradoxes. As far as I know, photons are always ALREADY in flight. You are simply tying yourself into the well known knots of space time and fighting the windmills of la Mancha.

The barn pole "paradox" is pretty well laid out in hundreds of different ways and so it is clear that you simply like to mix it up by mixing it up. Unless you deal with the complexity of simultaneity and what inside means, you will go on with those pesky photons already in flight.

The barn pole "paradox" is experienced by muon packets in accelerators all of the time. A 50 m long packet will fit in a 1 m long barn as soon as its velocity reaches 99.98% c. This is not a thought experiment...it is what happens.

The muon clock ticks at 2.2 micros, the muon rest decay, but at 99.98% c, it ticks at 110 micros in the rest frame. This is not a thought experiment, this is what happens. Does the muon pole gain mass? Yes. Does a muon packet meet up with photons already in flight? Yes. Can the muon pole meet the photon inside of the barn? Yes. This is not a thought experiment...this is what happens.

A moving muon pole collides with a photon sooner than a muon pole at rest according to a rest clock. However, the moving muon pole has a different clock than the muon pole at rest and so sooner has a different meaning. When you go on and on about sooner and later without stating which clocks you are using, you simply jump from rest to moving to rest frames and get really confused.

Once again, there are problems with relativity, but it is futile to doubt mass-energy equivalence and gravity slowing of clocks. Chasing the wrong issues for correcting relativity means spending a lot of time in deep rabbit holes with little to show...except perhaps a lot of photons already in motion...

James,

I re-read your essay again. You bring up some interesting numerical co-incidences between velocity of light and sound. This could be worth further study.

Since we are in agreement that RESULTANT velocity of light is variable (as to be differentiated from velocity of light which depends on permitivity and permeability), I think we at least have a common ground.

The last sentence here remains curious and mysterious. Can a traveler observe and/or can an observer travel? Can a traveler travel and decide not to observe?

Akinbo

Steve,

The intention is not to waste time in rabbit holes. I think bringing up paradoxes are a way to find out where we may have gone wrong in our theories and where better to examine and attack than the fundamental postulate (the root) on which Special relativity stands. If it can no longer stand on that postulate then Special relativity must either collapse or be reformed upon a more correct postulate.

Thanks for pointing out that photons are ALWAYS in flight. I know this but deliberately emphasized it to block the escape route for an answer such as that the light arrival time can be varied because the observer's position was different at the time of photon emission and not while it is in transit.

You always say there are problems with relativity, is it at the root, stem or the branches you never say.

If you cut a tree at the root, the reward is that the diseased stem and its branches like twin-paradox, grandfather paradox, barn and pole, black holes, space-time will perish. Even mass-energy equivalence may require a new mechanism to explain it. James in his essay has questioned the concept of mass. It is likely even you do not have an all encompassing definition of what mass and energy are.

Regards,

Akinbo