Real-Time Physics

(cut-off again). I post the remaining part...

For the scenario with receptor R moving towards incoming light, i.e.

S---------->R

(contd) The length contraction mechanism will not work. Light will be expected to arrive even much earlier. If this does not occur, it will be surprising. In the Michelson-Morley type experiment, this did not occur and it was surprising. The result made it seem there was no change in the path length SR, as if the length was extended and not contracted as should have been the case. To avoid inconsistency with first scenario, a different mechanism is invented, called time dilation. Time is dilated so the arrival time which should have been shorter did not happen. The amount of time dilation is given by Eq.2. In the MM experiment, the 'v' considered was the earth orbital motion at 30km/s.

In addition to Pentcho's "postulate-consequence" relation, I have asked what 'v' is, because there are different 'v's that can be simultaneously used. Simultaneous observer's in the same laboratory can decide to choose any of 30km/s orbital motion, 225km/s solar system motion or 371km/s motion relative to CMBR, the amount of length contraction to explain a null experimental finding will therefore be different for the same experiment. That is a rod or an arm of the interferometer will contract by different values at the SAME TIME to explain a null Michelson-Morley experimental result using length contraction mechanism! And if the alternative view is taken that 'v' = 0, after all the observer and interferometer are stationary to each other, then there should be no length contraction mechanism to explain a null experimental result! Both ways you get absurdity.

Still on 'v'. In the equations the receptor is moving away from the incoming light, so v is negative (-). For the case where receptor, R is moving towards the light, '-v' will change to '+v'. This will give us the opposite 'Length dilation' and 'Time contraction' according to Lorentz invariance.

IMHO, it may be erroneous to equate the essence of Lorentz invariance to mass-energy equivalence. That comes under E= mc2. There is no Lorentz factor {в€љ(1 - v2/c2)} in mass-energy equivalence.

In Galilean relativity, Time is not relative, but Velocity can be relative. Dividing Eq.(1) by absolute time, t, we can obtain

c' = c в€љ(1 - v2/c2)

c'2 = c2 (1 - v2/c2)

c'2 = c2 - v2

If you draw a vector diagram, using Pythagoras theorem {AB2 + BC2 = AC2}, c', c and v are the sides of a right angled triangle. c' is the vector component of c due to the observer's motion at v.

c' is the resultant (relative) velocity of light due to observer being in a different vehicle in motion at v, with the light traversing some distance before entering the vehicle. When the light is in the same vehicle with the observer, v = 0, and c' = c. c is the velocity of light when the observer and the light are in the same vehicle.

On mass increase with velocity, Eq.(3). As discussed with Peter, J, if indeed an electron's mass can increase to near infinite value if its speed approaches light speed, then its momentum (mass x velocity) would have destroyed any target it impacts on. Its momentum from calculation when exchanged conservatively with its target is more powerful than an atomic bomb. But instead of a big roar, what we hear from colliders is a difficult to hear whisper.

Is there still any reason not to discard Lorentz invariance?

Akinbo

I am very pleased that you are using math...rest and moving frames are difficult to keep straight without math and Minkowski diagrams. Your graphical arguments, however, hopelessly confuse moving and rest frames. In fact, how we imagine space is the source of the problem, and the solution is to let space come from or emerge from proper time and c as cτ. This is the essence of Lorentz invariance.

Unfortunately, mass-energy equivalence and Lorentz invariance are indeed one and the same thing. For the moving frame, MEE becomes

E2 = m2c4 + p2c2

since you have to include the norm of the energy of motion, which includes kinetic as well as the rest energy in the total energy expression. This expression is where Lorentz invariance math comes from and so by rejecting Lorentz invariance, you are also throwing MEE under the bus as well.

You might as well scrap the entire edifice of science as we know it...nuclear energy, ring laser gyroscopes, atomic clock variations with gravity...just throw it all out...and then try to make sense out of anything.

Look...there are some things wrong with the current paradigm. However, Lorentz invariance and MEE are not what is wrong and these are both valid principles. What are missing are some terms in the expression for MEE. Once MEE includes just one more term of a series expansion,

E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 +/- ((r-ro)2c/α dm/dt)2

the universe is right again, at least within certain diffeomorphic limits as it were. There are probably a dozen different ways to fix the MEE equation, but this way works for a contracting quantum universe.

The math of Lorentz invariance quite simply follows from mass-energy equivalance:

E2 = m2c4 p2c2

once you include the kinetic energy of the moving frame in the energy norm. It really does not get much more mysterious than that simple math. Thus, MEE is equivalent to Lorentz invariance.

How to patch MEE up is quite a different issue...but let's not throw MEE under the bus...

The a priori existence of rest and moving frames in GR without an absolute beginning or source is corrected in quantum gravity. In quantum gravity, motion comes about by excitation from a stationary state and that stationary state of the universe origin provides an absolute frame of reference for all subsequent action.

In quantum gravity, excitation of a stationary state in the past provides a pair of complementary and coherent matter waves and clocks and it is from the action of such matter waves in the present that we interpret as relative motion. A fault of GR is that it deals only with the norms of matter and time and both matter and time actually have amplitude and phase as well as norms.

We need the logic of QM to handle the evolution of the amplitudes and phases of matter and time, but QM and GR become one and the same for the norms of matter and time.

One way to think about moving and rest frame clocks is that while GR merges those clock norms with a smooth 4-space distortion, QM allows the two clocks to interfere with each other during merging. This clock interference permits the coherent effects of QM to invade into the realm of GR norms.

Thanks for sharing your views Steve. In response I point out a few things arising from your post...

"...let space come from or emerge from proper time and c as cП„. This is the essence of Lorentz invariance".

First, I beg to disagree that emergence of space has anything to do with Lorentz invariance. You always say space 'emerge' without telling us how. And what is the unit of measurement of this thing called 'Proper time'? Are you not aware that 'Proper time' is absolute? That is, it remains invariant under dynamical transformations. If this is so, will this not be robbing Newton of his Absolute time and paying Einstein with it?

On the equation: E2 = m2c4 + p2c2

This is the energy-momentum relation.

Yes, it can be reduced to E = mc2, which is the mass-energy equivalence (MEE as you call it). But this equation is not flawless. In the linked Wikipedia entry, 3 "special" cases or what I would call "excuses" are made for it. You can check them yourself. Of course, you may find the excuses reasonable given your preferred hypothesis.

Light and its behavior are central to physics. But a lot of inconsistencies abound. Saying, YES when it suits some situations and NO, when it does not. For instance because a massless particle will not work with the 'mass increase with velocity' scenario, the photon is excused as it leads to absurdity. We therefore get a NO, E = mc2 and m' = m/в€љ(1 - v2/c2) will not apply to photon, only E = pc will apply.

Yet, in another breath, it is claimed that gamma rays (photons) can decay into a positron and an electron (Оі = e++ e-)and that this demonstrates, YES, E = mc2 is applicable to a light photon and massive particles can arise from the massless photon's energy and not just momentum being manifest.

You might as well scrap the entire edifice of science as we know it...nuclear energy, ring laser gyroscopes, atomic clock variations with gravity...just throw it all out...and then try to make sense out of anything.

It is a commonly used tactic to lump what is correct and true with what is a false dogma, with the hope that some of the truth can rub on what is false. It is also a commonly used tactic to 'blackmail' and say, if you throw this away, you must also do likewise to others. Nuclear energy, ring laser gyroscopes, atomic variations with gravity have nothing whatsoever to do with Lorentz invariance. Go and check them out. And if you insust they do be kind enough to show how. Indeed, some of these things have been earlier rejected or covered up because they negated Lorentz invariance. However, when it became inevitable and can no longer be covered up, it is appropriated in a shameless way as an evidence of either Special or General relativity. An example is the GPS which is a Sagnac effect. An effect covered up and denied for more than 50 years.

But let me ask again, from you and others because it appears this question is being dodged. What is 'v' in the Lorentz factor в€љ(1 - v2/c2), noting the importance of this factor in Lorentz transformation and in experimentally explaining the null result of Michelson and Morley, and even in your mass-energy equivalence.

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve,

The topic is real-time physics which means embedding in reality, not just in a closed system. Records and models are abstracted from reality. Spacetime cannot be something real that evades comprehensive modeling and an abstract mathematical construct at a time. Accordingly, spacetime differs from reality, and all attempts to bridge this gap are doomed to fail.

I collected many reasons to doubt that your belief in length contraction etc. is tenable unless one redefines basic quantities like distance, time, and/or mass in a pointless manner.

Could you please point me to literature that refers to the series expansion you mentioned and to someone who seriously shows how Lorentz mathematically derived his transformation from MEE, not just from experimentally found electromagnetic inertia of electric charge.

Did you find out where belonging ideas by T. van Flandern and by T. Phipps are wrong?

Akinbo,

There were and are many opponents of Him because SR is definitely logically flawed.

Is it nonetheless justified as was Boettcher who was arrested because he claimed being able to make gold and actually managed adopting knowledge by someone else for making white gold (China)?

The style of how Steve and Tom are presenting their arguments (e.g. "..nuclear energy, ring laser gyroscopes, atomic clock variations with gravity...) makes me rather doubt.

You asked me whether I am able and willing to translate more of His papers from German to English. I would rather like to compare the 100 arguments against Him with my own. Because much of "Deutsche Physik" was perhaps stupid, I am curious: Were they really wrong altogether including Him? Did nobody else so far realize and admit that in reality the past is quite different from the future?

Eckard

@ Akinbo Ojo,

Still struggling to comprehend textbook SR, despite 6 months effort. Have taken egregious advantage of free online Yale and Stanford courses, as well as the less traditional approaches offered by

Bryant, Kennedy, Meucci, and Savain...

I am stupid, and I am stubborn, but I won't be both for long.

Was hoping you might spare a minute to suggest some other method I might employ

(hands-on experience with an interferometer, maybe?) or other papers I might look at (ideally - papers that YOU have written on SR ?!?)

The algebra is no longer a barrier, due to the gracious assistance from r/askmath on Reddit. But I still have no effing idea what is actually happening in the real world on board that space ship that is traveling at .5c toward a star.

The math of Lorentz invariance follows directly from MEE. There is no mystery in this, it is just math. If you question the momentum term, I do not even know where to begin to comment.

"What is 'v' in the Lorentz factor в€љ(1 - v2/c2)?"

Obviously, you have something else in mind besides velocity and kinetic energy. This v comes from the momentum term in the MEE expression. So if you do not believe in Lorentz invariance, you do not believe in MEE and you do not believe in this term. Why even ask?

I believe in MEE and so Lorentz invariance follows by simple math. That is mainstream and not really anything new. I also believe that there are more terms in the MEE and those terms are what correct many problems with GR and QM, including photon rest mass and dark matter. But if you reject the validity of the simplest MEE expression in the world, then there is no need to go any further.

There is no series expansion in MEE and Lorentz invariance...it is simply algebra.

"Could you please point me to literature that refers to the series expansion you mentioned and to someone who seriously shows how Lorentz mathematically derived his transformation from MEE, not just from experimentally found electromagnetic inertia of electric charge."

I find myself defending a methodology that has flaws, but the flaws that it has are not the ones being attacked. Lorentz invariance is just not a good thing to be against because MEE is right there with it and a lot of other physics. By rejecting MEE, you introduce so many pathologies into any resultant model that it boggles the mind.

I do not know about Flandern and Phipps, but I do know when 1 1 = 2. MEE and Lorentz invariance are on the order of 1 1 = 2. If you disagree with simple math, then there is really no basis for further discussion.

Steve,

There is an African proverb that says you cannot hide behind a finger...

You say: The math of Lorentz invariance follows directly from MEE. There is no mystery in this, it is just math. If you question the momentum term, I do not even know where to begin to comment.

Eckard has corrected you that Lorentz invariance did not start with MEE. On this particular point, we are not talking math but history. The math may be important but please check your history. To repeat, it was "...the attempt to rescue the hypothesis of a light-carrying medium that led to Lorentz invariance hypothesis". MEE came later not before and this is VERY important to know. That does not make MEE false. It could have a different mechanism.

"What is 'v' in the Lorentz factor в€љ(1 - v2/c2)?"

Obviously, you have something else in mind besides velocity and kinetic energy. This v comes from the momentum term in the MEE expression. So if you do not believe in Lorentz invariance, you do not believe in MEE and you do not believe in this term. Why even ask?

I don't have any other thing in mind. The null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was explained by the Lorentz factor, not by MEE. It would be an innovation if you desire to explain the result using MEE and that would be interesting to read. Of course, 'v' is obviously velocity, BUT which one are we to use to determine the length contraction? 30km/s, 225km/s or 371km/s? ALL give different amounts of contraction and ALL are simultaneously operational! That is the corner I am trying to box you to before delivering my killer punch to mark the 40th anniversary of the 'Rumble in the Jungle'. So answer the question what value, 'v' is in the MM experiment and give me the pleasure :)

Eckard,

Some time ago an effort was started to petition the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag) to bring to their awareness the fraud going on in science. I wonder if much has been achieved through this political avenue.

Regards,

Akinbo

Interesting and informative links. Obviously you are not stupid, but probably stubborn in not allowing yourself to be made stupid! :)

On SR, I have Speculations on dark matter as a luminiferous medium on a preprint archive.

I have recently improved and resubmitted to a journal. Hope it does not end in the trash bin as is the usual fate of such papers.

I also have an amateurish idea, Proposal for combined use of parallax and lunar laser ranging for Michelson-Morley experimentation. But I am informed and I think correctly so, that the accuracy of the parallax method will preclude the idea.

A GR related paper that managed to be published because of my care not to annoy the sensibilities of the mainstream would be The Velocity of Light in Flat Space-time.. You can see me here using the politically correct language, 'space-time' to tell my story.

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve,

I knew you'd come around. Are you aware of 'cavitation' (E Smorodov, Dr. Max I. Fomitchev-Zamilov, Mark LeClair etc.) neutron release and transmutation of elements? I know little but it sounds like your department.

Back to mine; I thought of you when finding this supporting my hypothesis even beyond the 2-fluid electron concentrations in shocks;

"The light we look for with our scopes travels across the void of space and seems to be unchanged by what it encounters, but can this really be true. Estimates of the number of gas molecules, individual particles and dust motes in the interstellar medium between us and the stars, have been revised in recent decades from one per cubic meter to the more substantial mass of one per cubic centimetre. This means that a photon travelling through space will likely pass through an atom or near a charged particle, anything up to a hundred times for each light year of its travel."John Malcolm Newell

Published ASSA July 2012.

">http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0213.](https://vixra.org/abs/1401.0213

)

Best wishes

Peter

Steve,

Lets thank Okinbo for pointing to Riebe.

Let me add e.g. T. Phipps Jr.: "Bringing simultaneity back to life", Apeiron 2012

Phipps dealt much with the history of Heaviside/Gibb's version of Maxwell/Hertz equations: "On Hertz's Invariant Form of Maxwell's Equations", Phys. Essays 1993.

Tom Van Flandern and many others agree(d) with Lorentz but not with Einstein.

I don't consider 1+1=2 as trivial as do you Steve. However, my main criticism is perhaps too basic as to to be taken a serious argument against His stolen from Poincaré spacetime. At least I could not easily identify someone who shared my real-time mathematics from Riebe's list or from others that are more comprehensive. It works in practice but is persistently ignored by physicists.

Eckard

The particular history in which a puzzle of mother nature and father time unravels is of course forever interesting...however, the math is the math.

"Eckard has corrected you that Lorentz invariance did not start with MEE. On this particular point, we are not talking math but history."

Intuition and guessing and just trial and error are how difficult puzzles unravel, but once we find the way through the fog, the math is our guide. You seem to agree that mass energy equivalence is valid, but then disgree that Lorentz invariance logically and mathematically follows and so is valid as well. Since the math all seems to work for me, I don't know what to say.

You seem to want me to chase a couple of names down into some rabbit holes and so I can do that...I like rabbit holes. I also like a nice simple universe as well and that is what MEE gives us.

"You seem to agree that mass energy equivalence is valid, but then disgree that Lorentz invariance logically and mathematically follows and so is valid as well. Since the math all seems to work for me..."

What is the value of 'v' in the Lorentz formula for an earth-based experiment in this beautiful math that seems to work ONLY for you and not me?

I have not properly read the paper, Eckard referenced, T. Phipps: "On Hertz's Invariant Form of Maxwell's Equations" but I see that a problem concerning the interpretation of the parameter, 'v' is discussed in section 4. I will check later if it is relevant or just a rabbit hole.

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo and Eckard,

Ditto. Lorentz followed from Fitzgerald as an attempt to salvage the ether hypothesis, and Michelson used the Pythagorean Theorem in the design of his experiment. QM is famous for inventing things to label empirical results without asking the crucial 'why' questions. That should stop before changing history to promote a personal equation. Okay... so one can derive a Lorentz form from MEE, mass:energy equivalence is (guess what?) an equivalence, it's reversible. And in Einsteien's words, "It is a consequence of (SR) that the energy of a closed system is equal to it's inertia." And of course SR is Lorentz dependent. Also, E=mc^2 was independently obtained as a result of application of the Pythagorean Theorem to the motion of an electric charge without employing a Lorentz or Fitzgerald transform. So to constantly harp on 'Lorentz follows from MEE' may be ontologically correct in such a construct, but as an argument it has the form of a rhetorical fallacy, that of substitution. And further, you must assume Lorentz to obtain 'momentum' in the equation anyway.

If I may be permitted a bit of humor in paraphrasing an old Laborer's joke about preparedness, 'Lack of space in your (Steve's) foundation doesn't constitute an emergency in mine". :-) jrc

The velocity seems like a very simple thing.

"What is the value of 'v' in the Lorentz formula for an earth-based experiment in this beautiful math that seems to work ONLY for you and not me?"

For the rest frame, velocity = 0. For the moving frame moving at v, velocity = c. Am not at all sure why you would even ask this question.

This is even more perplexing than rejection of MEE.

"So to constantly harp on 'Lorentz follows from MEE' may be ontologically correct in such a construct, but as an argument it has the form of a rhetorical fallacy, that of substitution. And further, you must assume Lorentz to obtain 'momentum' in the equation anyway."

Galileo and Newton knew about momentum way before Lorentz...if there is a question about the validity of momentum, then of course lots of things do not make any sense.