Q&A with David Rideout: Testing Reality in Space

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

Qote :"How can this absurdity make sense to anyone?"Akinbo

Consider that a 6m tall building can appear to become a 1cm tall building by walking away from it and then looking back at it. Without any change in dimension of the building object itself occurring. That is taken as normal and is part of everyday life- Not bizarre. How is this less bizarre than the transformation giving different apparent length contractions and different door opening/closing times from different points of view? Shrinking buildings etc. is evidence that we are not seeing objects themselves but always fabricated images of them.

At everyday speeds of locomotion and transit of objects the image fabricated closely matches the proportions of the object [though there is also perspective] and timing of local events closely correlates, albeit with minute delay, with the occurrence of local substantial events due to the very high speed of light.

Investigating the paradox:If a very high speed cameras are used as the observers, its possible that any blur could be digitally compressed after the events. If the different "times" of data origin are suitably identifiable(like in the colour changing pole example), it will be possible to see what different time (Object universe configuration) representations were amalgamated into the observed output. What data is received near simultaneously, from which the manifestation or the observer's present is fabricated, has a significant impact upon the theoretical image output at a significant proportion of the sped of light. Not bizarre.

IMO The substantial objects are not changing dimension but the observers are experiencing different emergent Presents, formed from different selections of EM data. Thus disagreeing about the dimensions of observed objects and the timing of events: While still being within the same substantial configuration of the Object universe/uni-temporal -Now.

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

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

Akinbo,

Thank you for reading my essay. I have added a couple of explanations here for other readers. They are necessarily pulled out of context where the context is a fundamentally unified theory with one cause for all effects.

"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."

My essay for this recent contest contains the derivations of equations to replace Maxwell's equations. It is in those derivations that a connection between the speed of light and the speed of sound arises. They make their appearances together in the definitions of magnetic permeability, u=vs/vc, and electric permittivity, e=1/(vsvc). The s identifies the speed of sound and the c identifies the speed of light.

"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 speed of light is almost wholly determined by the background environment. That environment is formed from effects of the matter in the universe. When approaching close to local matter, the speed of light is affected increasingly by that local matter whether it is the Earth or an observer or an atom or a particle of matter. The strength of the effect is proportional to the amount of matter. In the case of a particle, such as a proton, its effect on the speed of light is significant only up to a distance of an atomic radius.

James Putnam

Ohhh...indeed, what mass and energy are? You do have a wonderful poetic way of expressing reality...since math is not your game, poetry can be to blame!

You love to mix it up...that is okay with me since mainstream science needs some mixing up. Science is so afraid of metascience that it forgets that its mission is to understand, not to die on the sword of the mainstream.

What we can do here is simply point out the flaws of relativity, not to deny it obvious successes. MEE is extremely and continually successful. Gravity slowing of time is demonstrated in so many ways. Why fight the obvious?

We need to focus on the soft underbelly of relativity, not on its strong points. Only by showing an absolute frame of reference and by showing that space and motion are emergent can relativity every be supplanted by a more effective theory.

Akinbo,

"James in his essay has questioned the concept of mass."

As must physicists since it remains an indefinable property. The status of lack of definition means lack of knowledge of what mass is. No one can tell you what mass is. Even though this is the case, mass is one of three properties used to define all other properties of mechanics. The continued indefinable status of mass passes that fundamental lack of knowledge into all those other properties. Circular 'definitions' and indirect explanations are the result.

James Putnam

James, Steve et al.

"(Mass)... remains an indefinable property. The status of lack of definition means lack of knowledge of what mass is. No one can tell you what mass is."

But this we can tell. ALL without exception that has mass occupies some region of space. Thus 'extension' is fundamental to having the property which we call 'mass'.

The next logical question is to ask what and what could be happening in a region of space to confer it with the attribute of mass, when another region of similar size has no such attribute?

In my theory, and I think Rene Descartes and Newton say similarly, it is the activity, specifically the manner of motion of the parts in a region of space that confer the attribute of mass. Matter and Space are both substance.

To quote Newton in his uncompleted paper, De Gravitatione, which relied heavily on Descartes thoughts:

"...it is clear that they (philosophers) would cheerfully allow extension (space) to be substance, just as body is, if only extension could move and act as body can", p.8.

"...space is capable of having some substantial reality. Indeed, if its parts could move..., and this mobility was an ingredient in the idea of vacuum, then there would be no question about it - parts of space would be corporeal substance".

"And my account throws a satisfactory light on the difference between body and extension (i.e. between a body and a region of space). The raw materials of each are the same in their properties and nature, and differ only in how God created them...",, p.18

I find Newton's reasoning here impeccable, if not complete. Give the man some respect. I wonder which aspects you may want to fault.

The relevance of the above to this discussion is that if you want to understand Mass, first understand Space and give it also its due respect.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

I think that I have made it very clear repeatedly what it means to define a property and to define its units. Newton did not define mass and talking about ideas is not the same as rigorously forming physics equations. Mass in Newton's f=ma needed fixing and I fixed it. The fix was to define its units in the same terms as its empirical evidence is expressed. This message is not for the purpose of informing you any further. Its purpose is to make the meaning of my previous message clear for other readers.

James Putnam

Careful...you have implicitly assumed that space first exists for mass to occupy. First, define space, then define matter. There is no reality for an empty universe.

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 28, 2015 @ 09:58 GMT: "But this we can tell. ALL without exception that has mass occupies some region of space. Thus 'extension' is fundamental to having the property which we call 'mass'."

What if it was matter that existed before space? Space would then simply emerge as a container for matter, right? The universe of matter changes in time. It is not possible to define matter or time or action as anything else than what they are: axioms. In a closed universe, matter, time, and action reflect each other and represent the limits of what we can know. Matter is the time differential of action, time is the matter differential of action, and action is the path integral of the product of matter and time.

However space emerges from matter time delays and motion emerges from matter changes. So space and motion are very flexible notions and can have lots of different definitions. The incommensurate definitions of space and motion between gravity (and Newton) relativity and quantum action are what preclude any unifying notion.

Akinbo Ojo replied on May. 28, 2015 @ 09:58 GMT: "I find Newton's reasoning here impeccable, if not complete. Give the man some respect. I wonder which aspects you may want to fault.The relevance of the above to this discussion is that if you want to understand Mass, first understand Space and give it also its due respect."

Space and motion simply cannot be the continuous and infinitely divisible notions of any of Zeno or Newton or Einstein if we are ever to resolve the paradoxes of relativity and derive a quantum gravity. A simpler universe with just matter and time conforms to MEE and gravity time delays, which is consistent with observations. We do need to recognize that space and motion simply emerge as whatever they need to be (like constant c) to keep track of objects and predict their futures. Frames of reference become objects of reference; an object that is very slowly changing we call at rest. Another object that changes much faster we call moving.

Thus, first understand matter and time and action and then space and motion will follow, not the other way around. There is no a priori reality to the lonely dark nothing of empty space.

Steve,

Be careful, too, in assuming space is nonexistent. There is no experimental means to solve the emergent question, 'what came first - the chicken or the egg?' The common misconception of what spacetime means rests on the taking of time and space separately, as macroscopically apparent, post a break in symmetry. While it is quite true that Minkowski did not identify at what scale that break occurs, which leads to singularity without an empirical limit applied, that is no different than QM applying an empirical limit to the zero point particle.

But spacetime is *particle-like* as Tom iterates. Its a chicken and egg salad sandwich. Energy is the mayo. The big bang scenario just puts the mayo in the mixing bowl first and then adds the other ingredients marketed as the Emergent brand. Even Quantum Machinists at Cern admit that following the Higg's celebration, the search is still on for how the break in symmetry might be found. So Quantum Gravity is very much like Minkowski gravity, the difference being that in Minkowsi the field is a physical extension the zero point particle not a probabilistic extension of where, when and why it might be found next. Spacetime properly construed, is 'many energy time-like spaces', it does not mean a priori background space with time. It does none good to argue against another paradigm by changing what that paradigm is, to fit the argument. I'm sure you would agree.

On another topic, what happens in your decay scenario when you plug in the mutual exclusivity of permeability and permittivity. Both operate as proportionate to c but in opposite sign, the product thus being c^-2. It occurred to me some while back, that mutual exclusivity only exists theoretically in computing measure but both are physical properties that must be taken as states in coexistance of action. So the empirical limit applied to either the Quantum, or Minkowski, zero point particle would be in the proportional factor of c^2. What do you think? Take your time. jrc