Ripping Apart Einstein

"BIPM define a metre and a second with that same value which you say has no meaning."

No they don't. A universal metre length is defined as a rest mass maintained under constantly controlled conditions; a universal second is defined as a certain number of oscillations of an atom maintained under constantly controlled conditions.

This has nothing to do with the uncontrolled conditions of nature in situ. These conventions are no different in principle than defining a yard as the distance from the king's nose to the tip of his middle finger.

The *meaning* of special relativity is E = m; i.e., the constant of proportionality is 1. The constant c is allows calculation of proportions of energy to mass less than 100% energy, which remains as rest mass potential.

Eckard,

You used "untenable" inappropriately. It's proper definition is; "incapable of being maintained, defended, or vindicated" which does not apply to the well proven hierarchical structure of Truth Functional Logic used for 'nested' local backgrounds ('Proposition' = 'System'), or any empirical evidence cited ('disagreement' is not 'falsification'). I'd suggest perhaps more precise words are; 'unappealing' (subjective) or; 'undesirable' (to anybody with contrary beliefs or who dismisses logic).

Tom,

It seems you forgot the other 'm'. Either rest mass or inertial mass must be used whichever is most convenient, so for proportionality to be 'consistent'; E = m_r = m_i = 1, where m_r varies from m_i when not at rest. Otherwise m - E/c^2 would be false.

Did you see and comment in the 'paper of the year' I posted above explaining that the description;

"that the speed of massless particles (i.e. the speed of light) is the same independently of the chosen reference system in which the measurement is performed....is true and false at the same time."

In case not it's here; Stefano Liberati 2013. Your views?

Best wishes

Peter

Thomas Howard Ray wrote: "Valev, you know that if this were any other forum, you would have been booted long ago for trolling. Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points. Your futile "argument" amounts to internet pollution."

The first and the third sentences are very clear, thanks, I love you too, but the second one:

"Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points."

is enigmatic. Could you elaborate on that?

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

In regards to:

"A whole tranche of anomalies and paradoxes may be resolved by more precisely matching the mathematical description to the underlying physical 'mechanism' of Maxwell's near / far field transition (which includes deriving the 'LT' non-linearity). The SR postulates re-emerge with a more complete specification and explanation."

I do not think that any "fundamental" mathematical description of such anomalies is possible. As described in my 2012 FQXI essay, concise sets of equations are almost devoid of information. Consequently, they can never describe phenomenon that are not similarly devoid of information.

Maxwell's equations for electrodynamics, the equations of hydrodynamics, thermodynamics etc, are all secondary, rather than fundamental laws; they describe statistical behaviors of large sets of "initial conditions", too large to deal with individually at a more fundamental level. In other words, they are an amalgam of the information content of more fundamental laws, together with gross characterizations of the information content of the myriad, specific initial conditions.

For example,

I am in orbit around the sun. But Einstein's equations are never going to describe my exact orbit, to the same precision it can describe the orbit of the earth's center of mass.

The motions of waves on the surface of the ocean can be described by the equations of hydrodynamics. But near the shore, where wave height becomes comparable to water depth, non-linearities set in and the equations are no longer accurate. But this is not a failure of any fundamental law; no attempt was ever made to track the motion of each and every water molecule, much less all the atoms making up those molecules.

And when a high intensity sound wave drastically heats the air as it passes through it, and thereby changes it's propagation characteristics, again, it is not the failing of any fundamental principle, anymore than a baseball, encountering air-resistance, and thus not following a Newton's law derived parabolic path, represents a failure of Newton's law.

In all these cases, a "short-cut" was taken, to avoid the obstacles of having to deal with high-infomation-content initial-conditions. But it is not the fault of the fundamental laws, that a such a short-cut was attempted and then went astray.

Einstein said that light, traveling down an empty highway, can go at cruise-control at a constant speed. He never said it could do the same during rush-hour, with roads packed with free-electron pot-holes and deep gravitational mud covering the surface.

Rob McEachern

Robert McEachern,

Greetings, I thought you comments on SR easily intelligible, thank-you.

In keeping with your criteria that many equations (Theorems) are secondary to fundamental laws, what about Planck's Theorem? Does the Planck Constant as stated in erg sec. mean it must always be associated with the phase velocity of any ascribed wavelength, or can it be used properly as the energy value alone as the content of that wave? If the sec. parameter is dropped, is the Quantum 6.626196 x 10^-27erg? And is that energy quantity fundamentally discrete, or continuously divisible as a constituent of a coupled charge, the proportions of which are dependent on wavelength? Your thoughts would be welcomed.

Also, anybody, is there an agreed upon value in gram measure for the Planck Mass (mP) and a link would be nice? Thanks- jrc

"'"Special relativity assumes measurement between mass points, not spacetime points.'"

is enigmatic. Could you elaborate on that?"

I could. However, if you know special relativity well enough to ridicule it, the statement should not be enigmatic.

A spacetiime field influence convergent on center point of mass is self-limiting in its relation to every other mass. This is known as Mach's Principle, the philosophical foundation of general relativity.

Special relativity, which refers to rigid metric transformations, is divergent and therefore not self-limiting; rather, the local transformations are limited to the distance at which two bodies can have physically exchanged information instaneously. That limit is c. Point convergence and line (ray) divergence leaves a 1-dimension singularity. Therefore, no such term as c' is admitted. Ironically, it is the flaw in general relativity inherited from the pathology of special relativity that makes your proposition untenable. The singularity will form before you can add a velocity.

Tom

The actual problem:

A light source emits pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d=300000 km).

A stationary observer/receiver measures the frequency to be f=c/d; accordingly the speed of the pulses relative to him is c.

An observer/receiver moving with speed v towards the source measures the frequency to be f'=(c+v)/d; accordingly the speed of the pulses relative to him is:

c' = ?

The reasonable answer:

c' = df' = c + v

The unreasonable answer (given by special relativity):

c' = d'f' = c

where d'=cd/(c+v) is an ad hoc requirement without any physical meaning - it is just the factor able to convert the dangerous c'=c+v into the glorious c'=c, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Peter,

Florin confessed being "completely speechless on" OMG. I wonder what OMG stands for, and why did Florin not distinguish between d in case of constant didtance and d in case of changing distance.

What about my judgment that your main idea is untenable, I would like to distinguish between my suspicion that you seem to prefer wording the problem vaguely enough so that no one can figure out what your talking about and my argument that the constant speed of light in vacuum must not be explained by postulating local extinction and subsequent reemission.

I guess that reddening of light by interstellar absorption and scattering is certainly important and should not be prematurely substituted by the BB hype.

However, already Michelson's 1881 experiment gave rise to question the ether wind hypothesis, and MGP 1925 implies that we must not infer that there is no absolute space and no absolute time. Instead we have to consider that there is no a priori preferred point of reference in space if we assume space a limitless scenario of distances like an ideal sheet of white paper, while the rotation in case of MGP defines such reference point.

Eckard

Nice analogy Rob,

Makes me understand Relativity better. The more the gravitational mud, the lower speed of light. Less mud, slightly higher speed. Our Earth is certainly not the muddiest nor the least muddy place in the Universe. In our slightly muddy gravitational environment we measure light transit time over one metre as 1/299792458 seconds. Thank you sir! I can see clearly now the rain is gone (with lyrics)/ I can see all obstacles in my way... More later.

Tom,

Thanks for the David Lerner lecture link. The ongoing battle is between Galilean and Lorentzian transformation. We are on opposite sides of the battle line but I believe we are all soldiers fighting for the truth.

Peter,

I have read the paper by Stefano Liberati . More of a review meant to maintain the status. The paper contains a reference to a paper by Brendan Foster who anchored the last contest which I also intend to see. I have made a few notes and if I think it furthers the cause I will post them. I am not yet familiar with extinction but will familiarize myself with it. But what does it change in the battle between Galilean and Lorentz transformation? I doubt little.

Eckard,

Waiting for your expert advice before commencing my trip into space (testing reality in space blog). I don't feel safe enough with Tom's advice.

Akinbo

There *is no* c' term. To introduce one is to divide by zero, because you have assumed a privileged point of reference ("stationary observer").

You have absolutely no understanding of special relativity -- the motion of the observer is independent of the speed of light, such that measurements recorded by every observer in every inertial frame are valid. "Inertial frame" is the critical component; it ensures that all physically real measurements are between mass points in relation, not between imagined fixed and moving points of spacetime.

Thomas Howard Ray wrote: "There *is no* c' term. To introduce one is to divide by zero, because you have assumed a privileged point of reference ("stationary observer")."

The c' term has nothing to do with division by zero, and division by zero has nothing to do with "a privileged point of reference", and "a privileged point of reference" has nothing to do with the stationary observer who is just at rest with respect to the light source.

Are you facetious?

Pentcho Valev

Tom'

"The singularity will form before you can add a velocity."

Which goes to the point that you can't just pull 'action' out of the hat and then say that 'time' is the result. jrc

John,

Equations and theorems are not one and the same thing. I am not quite sure what you are referring to by "Planck's Theorem"; there is Planck's Law, Planck's Relation and Planck's Constant. Planck's law describes the electromagnetic radiation emitted by a MACROSCOPIC black body in thermal equilibrium at a definite temperature. Since it is concerned with a MACROSCOPIC entity (an amalgam, as noted in my previous post), it is not dealing with the fundamentals.

I think you are referring to Planck's Relation: E = hv. As long as you restrict the application of this relation to individual photons, it does appear to be fundamental, since photons seem to be fundamental. But, as was originally the case, if you apply it to a river of photons (a wave), then it is another amalgamation of fundamental behaviors and "emergent" statistical behaviors, like the schooling of fish, that seeks to produce concise descriptions at the expense of lost information; a lossy compression algorithm.

Contrary to popular quantum mythology, waves are not fundamental; they are emergent manifestations of amalgamations of large numbers of more fundamental entities.

Consider an analogy between the flow of a river down a valley and the flow of electrons through the famous double-slit apparatus. Rivers are amalgamations of rain-drops. The so-called "source" of the river, is the point furthest from the mouth of the river. But you will not find many raindrops there. Most of the river's flow originates elsewhere - most of the information content of the river also originates elsewhere. So where does the information content present at the "mouth" of the double-slit experiment (the interference pattern) originate? At the electron source, or "down-river"? It is easy to show that it originates down-river, at the slits, just as the path of the river's flow is determined by the structure of the river-valley, not the properties of rain-drops or their amalgamated river flow. The confusion arises by attempting to treat the source with fundamental, quantum laws, but then trying to characterize their interactions with the walls of the river valley (slits) as purely classical amalgamations, rather then attempting to deal with the trillion, trillion, trillion particles making up those walls. So you end up with a part fundamental (particle) and part classical amalgam (wave) description, that seems much more mysterious than it actually is. But it is no more mysterious than looking at the lips of a ventriloquist's dummy, and expecting to see rivers of information pouring forth. The source of the information lies elsewhere. When you "attribute" the source of information incorrectly, as being an "attribute" of something other than the true source, it is no wonder that confusion and "weird" behaviors materialize to haunt quantum theory.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

Thanks for your response, yes I did mean Planck's Relation. And in regards a 'single' photon, I think I have some appreciation for your interest in Fourier Transforms trying to thin out the herd. There is a current TV ad by a vitamin brand that says the healthy human eye can see the light of a candle at a distance of 10 miles, which for me is a glimpse of how vast the amalgamation from even a small source must be.

I was struck by your preponderance on the role of the slit in creating interference patterns. I guess I always just assumed that was how the experiment was understood to give confidence in results. Any particle we might assume as being matter, will have an electromagnetic field which would effect an electromagnetic waveform, whether on a slit edge or the lattice in a diffraction crystal. Like a tiny little electric motor/genset. So why wouldn't gravity curve it some too! Think of the amalgam of electrostatic repulsion at the surface of the sun, and gravity is so strong it can still curve starlight. Pardon the digression, but if gravity is not the strongest of unified forces wouldn't the sun deflect EMR like the slit edge? You and Tom could put your heads together. It seems to me both phenomenon are similarly acceleration related.

But back to the lonely photon, my interest is in idealizing a stream emission as a simple theoretic geometric model which interprets the sinusoidal wave as the signature of a rise and fall of EM field strengths. So I try to ask questions to find out how conventions treat the subject. Thanks again, jrc

John,

"I think I have some appreciation for your interest in Fourier Transforms..."

"But back to the lonely photon, my interest is in idealizing a stream emission as a simple theoretic geometric model which interprets the sinusoidal wave as the signature of a rise and fall of EM field strengths. So I try to ask questions to find out how conventions treat the subject."

Now think of how QM describes that lonely photon's rise and fall in amplitude... As a Fourier Superposition of INFINITELY long, in both directions, sinusoids, that just happen to add up to the "pulse shape" of a single photon. But what casual agent knew, infinitely long ago, that it had to start emitting those sinusoids, all with just the right phases and amplitudes, eons before the big bang, so that they would all add up, at just the right moment, to form that photon?

The math works, but in terms of providing any insight into causal agency, the Fourier Transforms (and thus superposition), at the heart of Quantum Theory, are the ultimate source of all the confusion. Continuing with my river analogy, the confusion flows out of the choice to use non-causal Fourier Transforms to describe casual phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself.

Rob McEachern

Rob,

"(...superposition), at the heart of Quantum Theory, are the source of all the confusion."

The maths drown me so I'll have to go with the flow. But yes, indeed. I would take it back a bit further to the original Bohr 'quantum leap' being a case of classic Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It assumes that because the Planck Quantum is evidenced in any wave event that the quantum leap is the cause. Looking at it from an electrical engineering perspective, a resistance circuit will draw only as much current as the resistor can pass. The quantum leap simply supplies it. Which brings me to my question as to whether it is conventionally permitted to continuously divide the quantum as a constituent of a coupled charge, the proportions of which are dependent on wavelength. The implication being that the "pulse shape" is determined by an amplitude predicated on a charge quantity; that accelerates the charge quantity predicated on the finite time interval of the wavelength. Fourier Transforms applied to that rationale would be causal at origin, and arguably necessary, there is no reason to assume that the stream of emission would be consistently regular producing a uniform series of wavelength. While an excited atom would shed energy continuously it would firstly be a quantity relating to the time interval establishing a wavelength. We could call it a Planckton. This of course doesn't explain why spacetime chooses the Planck Quantum in the first place, but neither did Bohr. jrc

"Which goes to the point that you can't just pull 'action' out of the hat and then say that 'time' is the result. jrc "

That's right, John R. To stick my neck out a little, I think that the principle of least action being scale invariant is the best argument that time is continuous, and therefore spacetime resists quantizing.

Tom,

"I think that the principle of least action being scale invariant is the best argument that time is continuous, and therefore spacetime resists quantizing."

I agree, and conversely that because there is nothing we can look to establishing a universal metric for scale, least action requires at least operational scale invariance, where the action is least. In pondering this post, it occurred to me that could be at the Schwarzschild radius horizon. Singularity being a mathematic property, which you have often tried to explain as being inherited by GR from the equivalence principle in SR, is not the 'fault' of SR. You could have that stemming from any sort of equivalence, it's a property of the limit conditions. The singularity beyond the horizon then might be resolved as existential true scale invariance. I've been trying to tease out a simple geometric progression from any covariance to invariance for some while, but something's got ahold of my toe. 'e, phi, c' hhmmm... jrc

OOOPS, Tom, sorry,

I meant "....you so often try to explain, 'cause it don't always take."

{cheers} jrc