There is no physical charge of any physical object nor is there any change in the continuous onward advance of time. It is that the measurement of length of an object or an interval of time will yield different results when performed in inertial reference frames moving relative to to the reference frame in which the object or clock is at rest. It is only the results of measurement that differ between moving frames - there is no physical change of anything.

I'm not sure I understand all of your questions, but is it that you are trying to reason your way out of the Lorentz transformation? The object becomes shorter only when viewed from an observer at rest, not when viewed from an observer in the moving vehicle. Same applies to time dilation. The time for an observer inside the vehicle isn't dilating compared to other objects inside the vehicle, but only compared to objects at rest.

And beyond the speed of light, assuming one can find a way through the singularity, the object mass, time, and length become ... well, imaginary. According to the Lorentz transformation. If v > c, then m becomes imaginary.

m = mr / SQR (1 - v2/c2)

It sounds like you are trying to show that the Lorentz transformation is only describing an optical illusion, caused by the way light bouncing off this speeding object reaches the observer. But that wouldn't describe the same proportional changes to mass and time, as occur to length.

In classical physics, mass, time, and dimensions are not functions of speed. But relativity says that these are functions of speed, when observed from rest. And so far, experiments seem to bear this out. Particles that should exist for extremely short periods of time, when accelerated to relativistic speeds, have much longer lifespans. Not sure that could be called an optical illusion.

Now if we could only observe some imaginary masses whipping around. Like for example, there could be a parallel universe to ours, same three dimensions, where everything is moving at speeds as much higher than c as we are slower than c.

In fact, Lorentz transformations are only kinematics. In the real world we have dynamics, that is real forces or (if masses are too large) GRT. All we need - right equations. Every observer can do own calculations, whatever he likes. Theory guarantee no contradictions in the results for different observers.

I read the Lorentz Transforms and do not see what relativists see. I agree that length contraction is a real physical process. The Lorentz Transform for length contraction correctly predicts it when the transform is applied, i.e. read, correctly. The Special Theory of Relativity reading of the transform is wrong. The transform describes a condition where the observer, from whom's perspective the transform is being applied, is stationary with respect to the environment. An environment is implied for the speed of light to be C. If that speed does not vary, then the environment does not vary. The observer in motion has his velocity not only with respect to the stationary observer but also, more importantly for length contraction to occur as a real physical effect, with respect to the environment. The speed of light is C in the environment. The environment is implied to be infinite and homogeneous. That is the condition that the transform is describing. The transform cannot be applied reciprocally. The environment cannot be immediately changed from that of the first observer to that of the second observer. The environment is not reciprocal.  Yes this is not what is taught.  

There is no physical charge of any physical object nor is there any change in the continuous onward advance of time. It is that the measurement of length of an object or an interval of time will yield different results when performed in inertial reference frames moving relative to to the reference frame in which the object or clock is at rest. It is only the results of measurement that differ between moving frames - there is no physical change of anything.

Two results I find that support the reality of length contraction:

One is that the speed of light measures as a constant locally. It varies otherwise. The local observer measures it to be C because length varies as the speed of light varies. If the speed of light is C/2, then, the length of an object in that light's environment shrinks by 1/2. The time measurement does not change. The result is that a local observer will measure the speed of light to be C. 

The second is that my work tells me that there is empirical evidence for it as a common everyday measurable molecular effect. I work with a defined mass and its use in determining the size of atoms shows me that the fraction of 3/2 in the thermodynamic equation for internal energy of an ideal gas results from length-contraction of the molecules. The contraction is the difference between length before the molecule is formed, a loose proton and loose electron looking to form a hydrogen atom. When the atom is formed local length, meaning between the electron and the proton, shrinks by 1/3. With regard to the 3/2 fraction, there is no need for external walls to help account for it as is done in the molecular theory of gases. The solution I describe here applies even if the gas extends very far in all directions. 

When the electron and proton join to form the hydrogen atom their masses come close together and cause a 1/3 length contraction of the photons that hold the atom together. When temperature is measured, it is measured locally so that this fraction does not show. Local length measurements give the same size regardless of the amount of length-contraction. However, the measurement of the average molecular kinetic energy is a remote measurement. This remote perspective sees the effect of length-contraction. If the pressure of the gas is measured, that is a remote measurement. The remote length used to measure pressure is a non-contracted length.

My previous answer apparently was unclear. There is no physical change (e.g., of length)  of an object whose speed, measured relative to some reference frame, is relativistic. Let the speeding reference frame in which the object is at rest be K' and the frame from which the speeding object is observed be K. In K the object and its reference frame K' are speeding by as seen by an observer in K with velocity v that is near the velocity of light c. If the observer sets up apparatus in K to measure the length of the speeding object in its direction of motion through K he will obtain a measurement of length of the object whose numerical vaue will be less than the  (proper) length of the object that is measured in reference frame K' in which the object is at rest. In this measurement in K' the meter stick and the person making the measurement are also in K'. Nothing "physical" is happening. It is only the measurement of length of an object that is affected by the relative speed between two reference frames in one of which the object is at rest and in the other the object is moving and the length of the moving object is to be measured.

Note that it is a misconception to say that the mass increases at relativistic speeds. Mass is like charge, it is a constant. It is actually the inertia, the resistance to acceleration, that increases.

Dear V. G. Rousseau,

"Note that it is a misconception to say that the mass increases at relativistic speeds. Mass is like charge, it is a constant. It is actually the inertia, the resistance to acceleration, that increases."

Where is inertia represented in a transform equation? 

Dear  Zbigniew Motyka,

"Thank you for turning my account to the environment."

You are welcome and thank you for your positive message. I posted that same message in answer to a similar question. In that case I received a message that told me to not read things into the transform equations. In my reply I will go more into the derivation of the transforms for the purpose of strengthening the interpretation presented here. I will post my reply here also. It was nice to receive your message. Best wishes to you.

Dear Zbigniew Motyka,

No, special relativity (STR) introduces the concept of a four-dimensional spacetime in which "events" occur as "points" in this spacetime. An example of "events" occurring in spacetime is the measurement of the length of an object moving in spacetime in which both the location and the time at which the object occupies that location are changing. The events in this case are the measurements made by the observer to measure the length of the object. "Measurement" in this case is just an example of the consquences of STR. The fundamental tenet of STR is that an "interval" as defined in spacetime is an invariant (the same) however observed in spacetime. A measurement of length serves as an example.

Dear Zbigniew,

I agree with what you say. We have quantum mechanics for the quantum world and relativity for the "cosmic" world and classical Newtonian mechanics for our world. Relativity is much bigger than measuring the length of a moving rod since it incorporates electrodynamics as well, General relativity is broader yet as a theory of gravity. But we are still missing "the theory of everything."

Dear Zbigniew Motyka,

Quoting Erkki J. Brändas · 71.05 · Uppsala University

"STR is based on the postulates of relativity, i.e. the properties of space-time and the constancy of the speed of light etc. The Lorentz Transformation, LT, is a unique consequence from these postulates that "translates" space-time coordinates in an inertial system K to another system K' moving with velocity v in relation to K."

"There is no environment defined, only the systems K and K' and space-time fulfilling the axioms of relativity. LT has a very simple mathematical form and it can easily be inverted. Do not "read" anything else into STR."

The properties of space-time are not one of the postulates of special relativity.

The second postulate says that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant independent of the inertial system, the source, and the observer. The vacuum is not represented in the transforms. Therefore, the actually used second postulate is that the speed of light is a constant,  independent of the inertia system, the source, and the  observer. The only condition in which it is a constant is that it measures locally as the same constant everywhere. 

Everything that the transforms are communicating to us should  be read in  them. 

Has the dilation of the property of time been confirmed by empirical evidence to be physically real? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Has_the_dilation_of_the_property_of_time_been_confirmed_by_empirical_evidence_to_be_physically_real [accessed Aug 23, 2016].

Dear Zbigniew,

The answer is Euclidean space. That is the actual universe. I don't assume that you agree with my following statements. I add them here to show some of my viewpoint. Physics attempts to introduce other levels of existence are due to errors or insufficient information in fundamental physics. The main condition that drives physics into imaginary lands is the lack of fundamental unity. Fundamental unity was removed from physics equations when mass was made an indefinable property. Temperature and electric charge are the other two indefinable properties.

Fundamental unity cannot be regained unless these three properties are made defined properties with defined units. Many physicists are not going to back up and make those corrections. They don't see the problem. They struggle to find additions to theory that will merely give the appearance that unity has been achieved. Not fundamental unity, that unity, if not lost, would have been apparent in all of physics equations. The substitute unity sought for by some of today's theoretical physicists is an afterthought kind of unity that is to be added onto theory.  I have to be careful to not describe all theoretical physicists in the same manner. I hope I have not given that impression. I do though feel that theoretical physics is more of our problem than our solution. 

Dear James,

Why do you say "space is Euclidean" Is that not a rather narrow point of view? Why can't space be characterized by some other geometry? Space may appear to be sort of Euclidean to us here on earth but why should our local characterization of space apply to the megascopic space of the Universe as a whole? And what about traveling around on the surface of the earth? The space defined by the surface of sphere most certainly is not Euclidean.

Dear James,

you speak of physics - what do you mean by "fundamental unity" and "other leves of existence"? I don't know about "indefinables" but I sometimes find your words to be "undecipherable".

Dear Dwight,

Fundamental unity means there is a single cause for all effects. All properties become connected together. Other levels of existence refers to the use of imagined higher dimensions and our being some projection of them. With regard to undecipherable, I have attached a paper of mine to an earlier message. Should you read it, you will find that we are speaking about very different worlds. That is why I keep stressing the need to rely as directly as possible upon what we can learn from empirical evidence.That evidence consists of patterns in changes of velocities of objects. Its units consists of combinations of meters and seconds. When I  write and  speak about physics, I am reporting on what I have learned, from relying as directly as possible upon empirical evidence, about filling in the blanks that theoretical physics has left behind. If this all seems toooo much, I understand. I do put up a warning sign :) My description provided right here at Researchgate about what I do and why is:

"I remove theorists' empirically unsupported intrusions into physics equations. The equations are returned to their empirical forms. Physics fundamentals are reconstructed by expressing all properties in the same terms as their empirical evidence is expressed. A major benefit gained is that fundamental unity is immediately returned to physics equations. It was lost at the beginning of theoretical physics when mass was made an indefinable property. My work presents the new results."   

Dear Dwight,

"Why do you say "space is Euclidean" Is that not a rather narrow point of view? Why can't space be characterized by some other geometry? Space may appear to be sort of Euclidean to us here on earth but why should our local characterization of space apply to the megascopic space of the Universe as a whole? ... " This is the empirically unsupportable conjecturing that theoretical physics thrives on. I suggest it is a process of substituting imagination rather than fix the nuts and bolts problems the theorists could not solve. They remain as blanks or wrong guesses in our quest to learn about the nature of the universe. An example is the indefinable properties that I keep stressing. they represent an early breakdown in scientific learning. I claim it is imperative that this deficiency be corrected. Physicists mostly dismiss it as not important. What is one to do but to press forward. I am not attracted to the empirically unsupportable D 4's and 5's and higher levels where the answers we seek are claimed to exist permanently out of our reach.   

Do the true objects really contract at relativistic velocities? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_the_true_objects_really_contract_at_relativistic_velocities#57bd1c123d7f4be0ec2f7241 [accessed Aug 23, 2016].

I'm always baffled by the extremely frequent arrant misuse of the simple word 'the' in RG posts. You'd think it'd be straightforward ....

It's not the particular object that contracts. It's the space - or indeed the spacetime - within which the object is embedded.

Dear Manfredi,

The object becomes shorter only when viewed from an observer at rest, not when viewed from an observer in the moving vehicle. Same applies to time dilation. The time for an observer inside the vehicle isn't dilating compared to other objects inside the vehicle, but only compared to objects at rest.

I basically agree with you but there is a crucial point. The atomic clocks in some experiments reveal such a variation with an actual retardation, so there is an actual phenomenon regarding clock retardation. I don't really know how to determine an actual length contraction rather than an "optical effect".

Dear James,

At last I think I understand your point of view, which I deeply respect. You wish a fundamental unity founded on empirical data, that is, measurements etc. that we make right here and from which physics has strayed off into a never-never land of fancy mathematics and multi-dimensions. Even if that is not exactly your point of view it is something that has troubled me.

There are, methinks, two avenues: The first is that physics does not explain the Universe but only tries to describe the Universe using whatever linguistic devices necessary such as quantum mechanics and relativity, to complete the description. Implicit in this approach is the possibility of an underlying fundamental unity such as you envision.

A second avenue is to assert up-front that the Universe is internally very complicated and operates on principles that we in our laboratories on earth can only glimpse. In this case the abstractions of physics are considered to represent physical reality.

I have problems with the second approach because it strikes me, as I think it strikes you, to overcomplicate the picture. Is the Universe really that complicated?

Can we agree that space and time are fundamentally given elements that constitute the structure of the Universe that therein contains the constituents of the Universe like mass, energy, you and me?

“…It's not the particular object that contracts. It's the space - or indeed the spacetime - within which the object is embedded.”

- that is one of very few frank statements that is in complete accordance with the SR; when in other cases many other SR true believers now say about some “length contraction” – what is a some trick: in the reality indeed concrete material objects [having a length L] that move in the Matter’s space with an absolute speed V interact with other material objects so as they have the length L’=L(1-V2/c2)1/2 – but, at that the word “length” can be interpreted as a distance between some spatial points – i.e. without relation to concrete object  also -  and so allegedly “in accordance with the SR”.

In the reality the objects “contraction” happens not because of that the space “contracts” and so all objects within become be contracted – Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, this emptiness cannot be transformed by something that is placed inside;

-  the SR’s claim that the space can be contracted (“time can be dilated”, “spacetime can be curved”, etc. as well) is nothing more then a fantasy.

 In the reality a moving object rotates in the (X,ctcoor) plain (where ctcoor is 4-th coordinate in the spacetime, i.e. “coordinate time” dimension) so that its 3D spatial projection becomes be equal to L’. Thus, since all objects in Matter interact only in the 3D space and true time (5-th coordinate in the spacetime) where [in the true time] all Matter’s objects are always simultaneously, independently on – where they are in the coordinate time,  all interactions in Matter happen “between objects’ projections”.

More – see, for example first 6 pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34960

(it would be useful to read whole paper, though).

Cheers

Article Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

Dear Zbigniew Motyka,

I assume that the question is inspired by the results that are given by the Lorentz Transforms and influenced by the relativity interpretation.

In fact, the genius Prof Oleg Jefimenko has proven that the very Lorentz Transforms are obtained when solely calculating the *retardation* of the fields (by the speed of light) between two reference frames, of which one is steadily moving. This means that solely the retardation of the fields are at the origin of the obtained measurements and of the Lorentz Transforms calculus.

Hence, the *fields* are deformed, the *fields* get retardation (dilatation), get contraction, get anisotropic gravitational fields, not the object itself.

When the objects themselves are considered, one can argue that particles are formed out of "trapped light". With that respect, particles behave like trapped light, and could be analyzed as moving trapped light in electromagnetic and gravity fields. It would result that the bending of light would be altered by the amplitude of the gravity fields.

Now, it can then be proven that fast moving matter will get contracted, radially upon the velocity vector, due to a gravitational self-induction. Hence, the expected Lorentz contraction will not occur on matter itself. Instead, a radial contraction will occur upon matter.

Dear Dwight,

Theoretical physics teaches of causes and effects. This in spite of the fact that no one knows what cause is. Empirical evidence consists entirely of effects. We receive knowledge only about what cause does and not what cause is. When it occurs that there is a place in a physics equation that remains unfilled due to lack of learning from empirical evidence, many theorists turn to their imaginations to guess what may be a workable substitute for the real thing. The place where physics goes wrong most often is when they decide that a workable substitute should be adopted as the real thing.  

Fundamental unity must be preserved. I accept the existence of fundamental unity because the universe operates in an orderly manner. That requires that fundamental unity exists. Every part or piece of the universe works together with the whole toward a universal purpose and meaning. Fundamental unity is the only condition capable of producing that result. The practice of properly defining properties and their units does preserve fundamental unity. 

All effects that will ever have occurred in the universe had to have been provided for at the beginning  of the universe by a single cause. There are not several fundamental forces. There are only different aspects of a single universal cause. Explaining those aspects are what my work consists of. I write about a single cause for all effects. 

In answer to your question: 

"Can we agree that space and time are fundamentally given elements that constitute the structure of the Universe that therein contains the constituents of the Universe like mass, energy, you and me?"

Yes! Space and time exist to provide for our existence, but, not accept our interference. The universe will not cease to exist because of anything that we do. Considering a scenario where everything is destroyed, it would only be objects that are missing. Can I prove that? I can only continue to argue that there is no empirical evidence for any effects suffered by space or time, and, no empirical evidence for any effects caused by space or time.  The geometries that including extra dimensions, are, to me, forms of theoretical Heavens. The power to act is up there or out there. The why of what happens is up there. Wherever there is. It is inevitably out of our reach.

The one thing missing is the one thing that many theorists cannot allow for. It is the existence of intelligence. Human free will is the greatest accomplishment of the universe. Intelligence can only come from intelligence. Intelligence cannot arise out of dumbness. Yet theoretical physics will only accept intelligence as an effect arising from mechanical causes. Since their equations cannot make that jump, the fog of complexity is recruited to serve to both contain and to hide the origin of intelligence. 

I am thinking that I will return to your thermodynamic 'balloon' example and give my analysis of it.   

Do the true objects really contract at relativistic velocities? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_the_true_objects_really_contract_at_relativistic_velocities [accessed Aug 24, 2016].

Dear James,

Thank you for your reply,which I need to ponder but I do have a question about your statement below:

“Fundamental unity must be preserved. I accept the existence of fundamental unity because the universe operates in an orderly manner. That requires that fundamental unity exists. Every part or piece of the universe works together with the whole toward a universal purpose and meaning. Fundamental unity is the only condition capable of producing that result. The practice of properly defining properties and their units does preserve fundamental unity. “

How do you know that the Universe “operates in an orderly manner”? What is the empirical evidence for this claim? I suppose that it depends on what one means by “orderly” but I would argue that on a cosmic scale the Universe is very “disorderly” and as it evolves in time is becoming increasingly “disordered”. There may be order of some kind on a local scale for intervals of time (the sun’s annual revolution around the sun until disrupted by passing star) and at the fundamental quantum level the Universe is probabilistic albeit in a predictable but not “ordered” way.

Dear Dwight,

In my view, your example is an example of an orderly universe:

"There may be order of some kind on a local scale for intervals of time (the sun’s annual revolution around the sun until disrupted by passing star) ... "

Orderliness does not mean existence will go smoothly. It means that rules, laws, principles are followed and equations can be written to model patterns in changes of velocities of objects. The existence of patterns is evidence of an orderly universe. The science of physics is evidence that the universe is orderly. We look outward into space as far as we can and we receive, locally, very, very old information that we understand because the universe has remained orderly. Meaning and means have not changed.

Orderliness is the opposite of disorder. There is no disorder in the universe. Whereas orderliness contains meaning and means, disorder has no meaning and no means. The two cannot co-exist. If disorder existed anywhere in the universe, it would destroy order. Without order, the universe would not exist. The evidence that the universe is orderly is that it continues to exist.  

Disorder is analogous to computer data becoming corrupted. The computer stops. Every instruction must have meaning and the computer must have means for it to function. The universe, however, is not a computer. A computer contains no property of intelligence. The universe produced us with the talent to receive a wildly mixed vast storm of photons from innumerable sources and assign complex meanings to it. Patterns are perceived out of that always changing, never repeated storm.  

Do the true objects really contract at relativistic velocities? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_the_true_objects_really_contract_at_relativistic_velocities [accessed Aug 25, 2016].

Quote "Can we agree that space and time are fundamentally given elements that constitute the structure of the Universe that therein contains the constituents of the Universe like mass, energy, you and me?"

No, we can't.

Evidence against this viewpoint is overwhelming. Space itself is likely unstable (see Joseph Lykken et al.'s exposition.) Time is not straightforward at all (see e.g. delayed choice experiments, etc.)

There are no objective grounds whatsoever supporting this statement, apart perhaps from 'common sense', so often shown to be evolution-determined & thoroughly unreliable,

Hi Chris Ransford,

Quoting Dwight Hoxie: "Can we agree that space and time are fundamentally given elements that constitute the structure of the Universe that therein contains the constituents of the Universe like mass, energy, you and me?"

Chris Ransford: "No, we can't. Evidence against this viewpoint is overwhelming. Space itself is likely unstable (see Joseph Lykken et al.'s exposition.) Time is not straightforward (see e.g. delayed choice experiments, etc.)"

There is no empirical evidence for effects experienced by space or time. None!

Chris Ransford: "There are no objective grounds whatsoever supporting this statement, apart perhaps from 'common sense', so often shown to be evolution-determined & thoroughly unreliable. "

Unreliable for supporting the conjectures that flow from the imaginations of some theoretical physicists. An example of imaginative conjecture is that there is any empirical evidence whatsoever resulting  from experiments on either space or time. There have never been controlled specimens of space or time held in any laboratory. 

Do the true objects really contract at relativistic velocities? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_the_true_objects_really_contract_at_relativistic_velocities [accessed Aug 25, 2016].

Do the true objects really contract at relativistic velocities? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_the_true_objects_really_contract_at_relativistic_velocities [accessed Aug 25, 2016].

We here on Earth observe the universe from our rotating vantage point that revolves around a star that revolves around the center of a galaxy moving in space relative to or in company with other galaxies. What is it that we see thanks to telescopes and the Hubble space telescope? Beautiful images for one thing. But suppose now we are in a spceship traveling near the speed of light relative to the rest of the Universe. What then will we see through our moving telescope? Blue-shited light in front and red-shifted light in our rear? Or will the Universe look the same in all directions as is the case in the large scale from our present low-velocity vantage point? What do photons "see" on their long journeys from there to here?

Zbigniew> Do the true objects really contract

I don't think it is fruitful to ponder what "true" objects are, and what "really" happens.

But I find a good description (equivalence principle) to be that hydrogen atoms do not really shrink when set in motion, and do not really oscillate slower (spectral lines remain unchanged), although it may look that way when described in a stationary coordinate system. Which is not the same as what is seen by a stationary observer, since the latter must take into account the finite speed of light from emission to observation.

Zbigniew> And all the mystery is in the light velocity properties and, therefore, specific nature of light only, itself.

I would not call it a mystery any more. And it does not only depend on the properties of "light" (actually electromagnetism), although historically that may have gotten the story started: Assume you know how to calculate how a classical electron moves around a proton at rest, due to the Coulomb force.

With Maxwells equations, the Lorentz force law, and a lot of hard work you can next compute how the electron orbit will look like for a proton in motion (actually, this is best done in quantum mechanics, to avoid the continuum of allowed orbits), to discover that the orbit will shrink in the direction of motion (Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction) and oscillate slower (time dilatation). But not exactly as predicted by a Lorentz transformation, unless you also change the dynamical equations for the electron.

I.e., it is not only the Lorentz transforming properties of light that matters; one must impose a Lorentz invariant dynamics on all particles and forces involved.

In fact, many elementary formulas involving photons in media can be obtained by simply changing the speed of light (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.2606.pdf), quite natural because the dynamics of noninteracting photons in a medium obey Lorentz invariance with the changed speed of light. However, when one takes other types of particles into account, and their interactions with photons, this symmetry breaks down.

Zbigniew> And what about the Doppler shift

I would rather not go into it in detail here. Doppler shifts occur for all kind of waves; for a proper discussion one must be willing to do the quantitative details.

Zbigniew> Is it not in contradiction..

Why??? I said a moving hydrogen atom may look like contracted and time dilated, when described in a stationary frame. Which is also the result of a theoretical calculation in the same frame.

The short answer is that the question doesn't make sense, because its answer depends on the reference frame. Quantities that depend on the reference frame only make sense for constructing quantities that don't. What's non-trivial is that such invariant quantities do exist. These are the only quantities that are physical. Length and time aren't invariant quantities, so it doesn't make sense focusing on them, if one doesn't calculate the invariant quantities for the process under study.

“…The short answer is that the question doesn't make sense,… Length and time aren't invariant quantities, so it doesn't make sense focusing on them…”

- that seems a s rather questionable claim. Near 150 years ago a focusing on contraction of an interferometer’s arm when it is directed along the interferometer’s speed

[because of this arm rotates in the (X,ct) plain in Matter’s [5]4D absolute Euclidian spacetime so that the 3D spatial distance between its ends becomes be lesser, comparing with the transverse position, in 1/gamma times, at that photons, which move in the 3D space only, move correspondingly lesser distance then in the transverse arm]

- has lead to rather interesting changes in physics…

Cheers

Once more: the non-trivial statement is the existence of invariant quantities. So the result of the experiment matters, not the details, that do depend on the reference frame or the experimental technique, that involved rotating it in a certain way. The invariant quantity for the Michelson-Morley experiment is the number of interference fringes and what matters is that this number is equal to zero.

“…Once more: the non-trivial statement is the existence of invariant quantities…”

- a next rather questionable claim. In the SR well known invariant is the speed of light in the inertial reference frames; and in the reality [first of all] from this invariant the SR’s author claimed that there exist no absolute Matter’s spacetime and all/every inertial reference frames are totally equivalent;

from what immediately and directly a very big number of evidently absurd consequences follow, well known – the Dingle problem in the SR, rather fantastic claims that the Matter’s spacetime really transforms/differs in different IRFs, including, say, relativistic “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc., etc., etc.

Cheers

Dear Zbigniew,

“…Sergey,… You represent dominating today point of view….”

-? Regrettably the dominant point of view is till now indeed dominant; but it is by no means a my point of view, which is - see the link in SS post on4-th page.

As to “…real" than spacetime interval, which even not possess any standard etalon ;) and to determine which you must refer to "unreal" :) …”

- any “own” spacetime "etalon", including a 3D spatial interval and 1D temporal interval indeed principally doesn’t exist, any spatial/temporal measurements are principally relative, with using concrete material etalons; and the etalons are quite real.

As to “…In any case, if it could not make any sense to talk about length…”

- physics cannot exist without “talking about length”, but this talking must take into account that any measurement has two steps (i) – “the measurement”, i.e. some physical interaction of material objects, i.e. of an instrument and something measured, what is objective; and (ii) – the interpretation of this interaction, what is totally subjective, and an one result in different theories, or, more correct – in different humans, can have quite different meanings.

Including lengths measurements – that can be a measurement of length of a rigid body by using rigid etalon, which also rotates in the (X,ct) plain as the body does; and so the body’s length is invariant,

or can be measurement of a distance between free moving bodies; at that if the bodies, having at rest positions on a distance L, were accelerated equally to a common speed V – and so are in the same IRF and this distance is measured in this IRFby rigid etalon, then, because of the distance in this case remains be L – there is no any “space contraction”, of course,

this distance measured in the IRF will be L/(1-V2/c2)1/2, what isn’t correct since is larger then the real value (“Bell paradox” in the SR)

- etc.

Cheers

Zbigniew@

My description of how the ideas of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contractions and time dilatations was ignited probably came from something I have read (and forgotten to have read), and later distorted to my own liking. I am puzzled about how they could have reached such conclusions long before the advent of quantum mechanics. It would be nice if someone with an interest in the history of science made an investigation of this, and presented here.

Today, it is possible to write a logically coherent story, supported by mathematics. But it would be a false story; the development of science is neither logical nor coherent. But it is the end result which matters.

The topic of oscillation periods/spectral lines, and their Doppler shifts before observation, really requires a mathematical environment for presentation and discussion. Here the devil have hidden in the details.

The question of whether an object is "spherical" (rotation symmetric)  or not can be described in an invariant way in terms of (coordinate invariant) Lie derivatives. In more layman terms it translates to: If there is a coordinate system where the object is obviously spherical, then it is spherical.

I think it important to emphasize that under the Lorentz transformation there is no physical change of anything. For example, of a moving object what changes is the projection of the moving object on our at-rest reference frame from which we observe the object. This applies to time as well. There is no physical clock that is running slower than the clock that is at rest relative to us. In speaking of "length contraction" and "time dilation" relativity speaks of invariant intervals between events and to preserve the invariance of intervals of events the measurement of intervals will change when projected from one reference frame onto another that is in motion relative to the first..

“…But absolute "observer-independence" apparently is an erroneous idea that is refused by nature...”

- and how poor nature existed and evolved before on some planet some “observers” appeared…

Cheers

Christian, yes, right. However, if I look through glasses with the wrong dioptry, as a scientist, I still will be able to *reproduce* the reality, the same as with the Doppler effect and the GPS calculus. This indeed segregates what is *seen* and what really *is*.

“… I think it important to emphasize that under the Lorentz transformation there is no physical change of anything… a moving object what changes is the projection of the moving object on our at-rest reference frame from which we observe the object. This applies to time as well. There is no physical clock that is running slower than the clock that is at rest …”

- the Lorentz transformations depict  motions/positions/interactions  of point-like particles and non-point-like rigid bodies in the Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime quite adequately. They aren’t adequate in some cases when are applied to systems of free bodies. And the rotations in          the (X, ctcoor) plain of fast bodies, slowing of internal processes rate [and so – position in the coordinate time relating to particles/bodies having lesser absolute seeds] are quite physical processes that determine how  physical interactions happen. Including, for example,  it is well known that “clocks” in fast unstable particles are slowed down and they tick slower/longer then “clocks” in such particles at rest…

Cheers

Zbigniew> And what about the Doppler shift

There is a nice Wikipedia page discussing this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect, with good illustrations of what an observer actually can see by light, in contrast to the mathematical results of Lorentz transformations.

I have noted that some of the mathematical formulas on that page disappear in some browsers, probably due to the lack of mathematical fonts.

In addition to what I wrote above, this segregation between what is *seen* and what really *is* requires a theory that is fully causal (within a physical scope). If the theory is not causal, it is difficult if not impossible to eventually *reproduce* the reality.

Dwight, I follow your thoughts as long as we speak of objects that are made of mechanical elements. But what happens if the clock is made of a set of charged particles that internally interact with the help of electromagnetic fields?

Take for example an up-down vibrating electron in the middle of two charges. Will this clock (oscillation period) be affected by speed? The Lorentz Transformations say "yes", because the interacting fields will be affected by speed, more precisily, by the retardation of the fields by the speed of light.

It is even so that, depending form the axis of motion (x, y, z) wrt the defined system, the recorded time retardation (oscillation period) will be each time different.

It is true that space-time is not Lorentz invariant. Therefore shapes of objects will certainly change from one observer to another (due to length contraction) if they are in different reference frames. While constructing a theory one therefore includes only Lorentz scalars in the Lagrangian density, which should never depend explicitly on quantities those change during a Lorentz transformation. This is a fundamental consequence of the Einstein's relativity theory.

Hartland S. Snyder pointed out in 1947 that space-time need not be continuous. In such a case it is possible to provide examples of discrete space-times which are Lorentz invariant.

http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.71.38

Dear All,

Consider a telephone pole standing upright on a sunny day. Consider the shadow that the pole casts upon the ground. As the day passes, waxes and wanes, the shadow shortens and lengthens but the length of the pole remains unchanged. Crude though it may be there is your relativistic "length contraction". A meter stick in moving inertial frame K' is a physical object only in reference frame K' in which it is fixed. When viewed from reference frame K with respect to which K' is the moving frame it is the "shadow" (projection) cast by the meter stick on reference frame K whose length in K is measured to be less than 1 meter. The meter stick itself continues hale and hearty on its way in reference frame K' where it remains 1 meter long.

“… work, which states that there may be built also Lorentz invariant discrete space...”

- there cannot be some Matter’s spacetime that would be as “…there may be built also Lorentz invariant discrete space…” – neither continuum nor “discrete”.  Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D absolute Euclidian empty container, when Lorentz transformations depict relative positions of moving concrete  material bodies in this spacetime – the emptiness doesn’t move to somewhere and the emptiness doesn’t depend on even there is something or not inside it.  Including it cannot be some "invariant" or "non-invariant" depending on that something moves inside – it simply exists as the possibility for Matter’s objects to exist and to move.

Cheers

Dear Zigniew:

The shape of a fast moving object will remain the same. That is because the velocities space has constant ( negative curvature) = Lobachevskian velocities space . That fact also was shown in a different way  in 1960 or so by Andrzej Trautman of Warsaw University dept of physics.. ( see his book on special relativity) So the wheels of fast moving bicycle will be circular and not elliptic. Do not believe all scrap about the subject.

There will be however apparent rotation , called the Wick rotation, named after Wick who described that. Se also our works on that site or elsewhere  In fact in Lobachevskain universe the distant , fast moving object can be seen almost from the back

Ref. Topological Intensity Shifts, Journal of electromagnetic Waves and Applications.

Regards, Georg.

From my previous message: The transforms describes a condition where the observer, from whom's perspective the transforms are being applied, is stationary with respect to the environment. An environment is implied for the speed of light to be C. If that speed does not vary, then the environment does not vary. The observer in motion has his velocity not only with respect to the stationary observer but also, more importantly for length contraction to occur as a real physical effect, with respect to the environment. The speed of light is C in the environment. The environment is implied to be infinite and homogeneous. That is the condition that the transform is describing. The transform cannot be applied reciprocally. The environment cannot be immediately changed from that of the first observer to that of the second observer.

Adding to that message: I read the Lorentz transforms, and, they have only to do with relative velocity between two observers  and their relationship to the presence of light. That is it. The add-ons of theoretical physics are not included in the derivation process. The add-ons are needed to successfully incorporate the Lorentz transforms into theoretical extra-dimensional imaginings. The extra-dimensions are not needed and their add-ons are not needed. The point of the transforms is to learn: What are the physical consequences, to observers and their possessions, of the speed of light always measuring as the constant C? It is a two dimensional plane problem with activity occurring so the inclusion of a substitute for the measurement of time is necessary. Time, of course, has never been directly represented  in physics equations.  There is no unit for time. There is a substitute unit called the 'second'. The 'second' is a unit of 'clock ticks'. The result of the derivation is that there are physical effects predicted to occur directly and only on the observers and their possessions. The cause for these effects is involved with the presence of light. The light fills a portion of the plane. The observers exist in that portion of the plane. The observers do not have the means to measure the speed of light, but, the problem is solved as if they could use their own local length of a meter stick to measure length of the other observer and their possessions. There are clock tick measurements that are both limited in the same way and carried out in the same manner. The problem being solved has to do with what are the physical effects, in this the real world, of the speed of light always measuring as C? 

“…what are the physical effects, in this the real world, of the speed of light always measuring as C?”

- a next time – the result “the measured speed of light is always C” is true only if it is obtained in some rigid systems, because of in such systems at accelerating a system to a speed V the system rotates in the (X, ctcoor) plain of the [5]4D absolute Matter’s Euclidian spacetime so that its front parts become be “younger” then the back end part on the Voigt/Lorentz temporal decrement Vx/C2, when light moves in the 3D space of this spacetime only.

Thus in the system for an observer  the possibility to arrange some inertial reference frame so that measured speed of light is equal to C appears, when “real” speed of light in the system at that  always isn’t equal to C. An example – if in a moving with a speed V wagon light moves vertically (relating to V), the light’s speed is evidently equal to C(1-v2/C2)1/2, but because of clocks in the wagon ticks slower in the same value, measured speed of light is equal to C; if the light of a flash in the wagon center moves horizontally, its speeds to the wagon ends are (V+C) and (V-C), but because of the decrement [above] the measured speed is equal to C again, etc.

At that the result (=C) will be the same – were the clocks in the wagon synchronized by using “Einstein synchronization” or by “slow clocks transport synchronization”. But if an observer will measure the speed of light between a pair of free clocks, which were synchronized  by slow transport, (s)he will obtain some result that isn’t equal to C .

Cheers

Hi Sergey Shevchenko,

I did intend to be careful to say that the speed of light always measures locally as C. I think your point is well taken and I, therefore, clarify my intended meaning. The speed of light is not always C. It varies and is almost, or even perhaps always, never truly C. When the speed of light is measured locally, it measures as C. By locally, I mean that the clocks and rods experience the same environmental experience as does the light. When measured remotely, the speed  of light will not be C. By remotely,Ii mean that the measuring instruments are not subject to the same environmental experience that light undergoes. And, if light existed in free space, its speed would actually be C.  It would  also measure as C. 

James,

 The [absolute 3D spatial] speed of light doesn’t change – at least seems on distances near hundreds of millions of light years, if light doesn’t cross a medium besides the vacuum; including, very probably, in, at least in non-exotic, gravity fields. 

And that is another point, when measured by some subjects/[“observers”], which use always till now subjectively, for example – in accordance with concrete theory, specifically arranged “reference frames”, i.e. sets of [meter] sticks and specifically synchronized clocks. Besides, in such [“subjective”] cases a number of different light speeds’ – and any other speeds as well, though, definitions can be used. Examples – if it is necessary to know  time intervals when   the light of a flash in the middle of a moving (with a speed V) wagon reach the ends, the light speed relating to the ends are l/[2(V+/-C).

As well as that is true, in first approximation, if two bullets are shot into the ends with a speed Vb - l/[2(V+/-Vb). But if Vb value is near C, then to obtain physical results of interactions ballets/ends is necessary to use the relativistic sum of the speeds, when in any case a bullet cannot have a speed that is more then C.

- etc.

At that the “speed of light” problem isn’t principal for physics; the incorrectness of the SR practically doesn’t depend on this problem. The main problems in this theory are fundamental; the SR postulates, mainly based on incorrect absolutization of the relativity principle:

- that there doesn’t exist the absolute Matter’s spacetime when the real spacetime is the Minkowski space with imaginary either the time or the space;

- that all inertial reference frames are totally equivalent, from what any number of absurd consequences follow;

- that  space and time really are transformed by some mystic way by every IRF and so that the “relativistic effects” i.e. “time dilation”, “space contraction” really exist and really by some mystic way the “contracted” space contracts material objects inside and “dilated” time by some mystic way dilates, say, tick rate of  moving clocks; - etc.

- aren’t true.

At that the SR (more correct – the Minkowski theory) is very useful mathematical tool in physics, including the relativity principle works very well in most physical situations, especially if in a considered problem interacting bodies form some rigid systems.

However, for example, if a car hits in a pillar, the relativity principle works well; and to estimate/explain the result of the interaction “the car/the pillar” is the same – what was moving, the car or the pillar. But if somebody will say, that in this case just the pillar moved, about this somebody other somebodies will think that he has problems with his mind – that is evidently impossible as a rule.

An similar situation exists in physics now, when, in spite of rather evident and fundamental problems (above),  these problems stubbornly are claimed as non-existent because of rather high efficiency of this theory.

Cheers

  Christian,

“…if you say that "the relativity principle works very well in most physical situations", then you stubbornly suggest that there are cases when it doesn't. Then of course, you should make the case, give examples, propose (or better perform) measurements ..”

-?

To “…then you stubbornly suggest that there are cases when it doesn't…”

- for example see the example above, when a car hits into a pillar and when the relativity principle evidently doesn’t work…

As to “…give examples, propose (or better perform) measurements and (possibly) get a Nobel prize for showing that relativity is wrong. …”

-  the proof that the SR is wrong  doesn’t require some experiments, here is enough of purely logical Dingle problem and rather evident for any normal human fact that the Matter’s spacetime cannot be transformed

 – when the SR (and the GR as well) hasn’t any experiments where, for example, just “space contraction” (“time dilation”, “spacetime curvature”…) were measured, any normal human understands that in all “confirming SR/GR” experiments concrete effects of concrete objects that were impacted by concrete Nature forces  were observed/measured; claims that at that those “relativistic effects were observed” are nothing more then bare declarations; when, for example seems nobody felt or registered by some instruments just the “space contractions” that happen on Earth billions time/day when, for example,  a next fast notorious muons are created in Earth atmosphere – and, of course, when particles in working accelerators move as well. Etc.

As to, for example, the experimental proof   that the basic SR postulate that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime is wrong – a next time see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible

As to “a Nobel prize” – for me now more actual problem is how to remain be alive.

Cheers

Article Measurement of the absolute speed is possible?

The true objects extend throughout spacetime. Their merely spatial extension is just one of their aspects. That this should shrink or expand depending on th eviewpoint is no more strange than the fact that a stick appears shorter when you look at it from an angle. The true stick is three-dimensional and does not change. In relativity, the true stick is four-dimensional, its dimensions are given by an expression called the invariant interval, and there is no shrinking of the *true* 4-dimensional object.

But the far more illusory three-dimensional projection doe all kids of strange things, just as do our shadows. Nothing breaks (neither we nor our shadows) as these lengthen while the sun goes down. The true object is that which casts the shadow. In relativity, it is the object existing both though space and time.

Christian> I have not the slightest idea what the car and the pillar have to do with relativity...

A lot, if insurance companies are involved:

If you should ever be so unlucky (I hope not) to drive into a pillar with your car, just  refer to the principle of relativity, and blame it all on the pillar hitting you  ;-D

I believe we fully understand each other. Your speculation about the possible existence of a fifth dimension in which the invariance of the spacetime interval would itself become approximate also crossed my mind while I was writing this comment. It is an amusing thought, but suffice it to say, for the moment, that there is no experimental need for introducing such a hypothesis.

To all:

There are two camps: the first sees a problem; the second does notrecognize the problem of the first camp to be a problem.

Under the special theory of relativity (STR) there is no physical object that experiences any kind of physical change. There is no clock whose time-keeping capabilities undergo any kind of physical change whatsoever. The only thing that changes is the nonphysical (that is, not directly attached to the object or clock.) measurement of the length of the object in its direction of motion or of the time-keeping of a clock which measurement is made from an inertial reference frame (IRF) that is taken to be "stationary"  relative to the moving IRF in which the object or clock are located and fixed. There is no physical change of anything (which, after all, would require energy to effect the change and that energy simply cannot be extracted from nowhere!).

To those who think otherwise, you are tilting at windmills!

Dear Dwight,

"To those who think otherwise, you are tilting at windmills!" 

No we are not. There is empirical evidence for physical changes. There is physical length contraction and there is the slowing of object activity. Measurement has nothing to do with the occurrence of the changes. Measurement need never be made and the effects will exist. The energy point you make is moot. The energy was put into establishing the relative velocity. The application of reciprocity does not refute this. Reciprocity is debatable even for the Special Relativity Case. You are making a grand pronouncement without working your way up to it. You have to at least define mass before claiming correctness for your view. You would learn how windmills, even tilting ones, experience length contraction and slowing of rotation if loaded onto a moving train. 

Dear James,

With all due respect, you simply are wrong. There is no physical length contraction nor is there any physical time dilation of anything! What we perceive as changes are changes in the projection of events from a moving system onto our "stationary" system. There is nothing mystical or magical, it is the geometry in which we live and in which our Universe flourishes.

I am not sure why there is a long discussion about facts that were also proved experimentally. It seems to me that there is a group of scientists that are trying to make a sense if the space contraction and time dilation are just optical illusions. NO, they are not, as Albert Manfredi and Stam Nicolis pointed out. The mathematical apparatus is described by 4D rotations in Minkowski space-time. The physical world is what we measure/perceive, and it can viewed from another frame, i.e. point of view, by Minkowski transformations. Two indisputable facts (following many experiments) should convince the most unbelievers of SR: 1) Time dilation for a fast moving decaying particle; 2) The origin of magnetic fields. For the latter, if there was no real space contraction, we could not observe magnetic fields (see basic Physics textbook "Physics of Berkeley Vol. 2-a and 2-b). I am posting a single slide without any comment to show the latter fact (I prepared it to introduce Kaluza-Klein = GR+Maxwell in 5D, followed by String Theory, at JPL NASA in 2005). I hope that you can make the correct deductions from the slide. Anyway, I work directly in many experiments in space in which we need to adjust atomic clock frequencies due to time shifts generated by SR, satellites speed, and GR, satellites Altitude. This shifts are so important that, by neglecting them, will cause GPS errors up to 30 m, for instance.   

Dear Sante and all,

I fully agree with what you say but perhaps for a quibble. Forgetting the earth's rotation, we on the earth are in the rest frame and clocks and meter sticks in the orbitting satellite above are in the moving frame. Assuming the speed of the satellite relative to our position as observer on earth to be sufficient to introduce relativistic effects, we on earth will observe that the meter sticks on the statellite are shorter than our meter sticks on earth and that the clocks on the satellite run slower than our clocks on earth. In order to control operations on the satellite from earth we need to take these relativistic effects into account. The spacetime geometry has changed but but no physical object nor any clock has undergone any physical change.

Dwight,

No I am correct. Length-contraction in particular is a real physical change that. I have offered new empirical evidence for. No theory. No projection from another level of a world view that lacks empirical support.  No need for Relativists to approve it. Besides, it results from the use of a defined mass. The historical description of a defined property carries no special value here. There are many more readers than discussion participants. Many readers choose to not participate, but follow discussions and read papers posted here. Circular definitions can't be acceptable to everyone. 

Dear Dwight et All,

I understand your point and perhaps it is your way of identifying the physical object as the one in the co-moving frame, while the other frames get the Minkowski "projections" of it. That's fine, and I respect your view!

But, I would like to be a bit more precise: The Minkowski transformations are not quite projections, rather they are closer to rotations of physical objects. Probably, if you use the complex, or split-complex, representation of the Minkowski transformations, you can symbolically see the rotation. Instead, the projections do not really represent physical objects, but part of them. The combination of all projections can reconstruct the original object.

By the way, when I have some doubt about SR, I always found very reassuring thinking about the relativistic origin of the magnetic field. If a charge is at rest with respect to (w.r.t.) an observer, it will manifest an electric field. If the charge moves w.r.t. an observer, it will manifest an electric and a magnetic field. If the charge is at rest and the observer moves w.r.t. the charge, it will measure an electric and a magnetic field. The origin of the magnetic field is essentially entailed to the physical space contraction of the (invariant) charge, i.e. squashed in an oval shape, with electric field lines concentrate more in the perpendicular direction of the relative velocity, i.e. space-contracted direction. In the past, not knowing SR, scientists gave a name to this SR effect of the electric field, and called it magnetic field.

The question that I am trying to answer is "Do the true objects really contract at relativistic velocities?". The answer is "no". I find it absurd to imagine that a steel meter stick physically undergoes different amounts of physical contraction when observed from different moving reference frames. To compress the length a steel meter stick requires the application of a (large) compressive force to the ends of the meter stick. To apply such a force would require a great deal of energy to pop out of nowhere. The Lorentz transformations do not provide a source for this "hidden" energy. So let me try again to express my point of view and then I shall remain silent. I used the term "projection" figuratively and Sante pointed out that what we are really talking about are rotations in a Minkowski four-dimensional spacetime. So from different moving reference frames what changes is the "aspect" from which we view the objects - meter sticks and clocks - that themselves remain unchanged in the reference frame in which they are fixed.

At this point I step down off my soapbox and take the jaded view offered up by Queen: "it really doesn't matter, it really doesn't matter to me". 

Zbigniew,

“…Does the object moving with relativistic velocity through (curved) space-time really contract or not in relation to that (curved) space-time?…”

- there cannot be “curved space-time”, Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian “empty container” and the emptiness cannot be impacted/contracted/dilated…  by anything inside.;

including the time[s] in the spacetime cannot “flow slower”,  only internal processes in material objects that always move with 4D speeds be equal [by absolute value] to the speed of light, including clocks, slow down, if the objects were impacted by some 3D spatial momentums and so have non-zero absolute 3D spatial speed. At that just constant changing of the internal state is the motion in 4-th, i.e. the “coordinate time” dimension; the changing either internal state or spatial position is the motion in 5-th, i.e. the “true time” dimension and all material objects move so always along true time dimension with the speed of light – in parallel with 4D motion with the speed of light.

Any rigid body at inertial motion with  a speed V, if at acceleration to V it wasn’t deformed, always has the same 4D length, but at  motion body rotates in the (X,ctcoor) plain so, that its 3D spatial projection becomes be “contracted”, at that, because of every particles’/bodies’… interaction happens  only in the 3D space and in the “true time” moment, independently on particles’/bodies’…positions in the coordinate time, every interaction happens as real lengths of  particles’/bodies’…are contracted.

“…The original supposition of Lorentz seems to be more valid than, then the STR of Einstein?”

- yes, that is the case; and is in that the SR postulates that the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction of moving bodies appears because of when the body moves, it by some mystic way contracts all Matter’s space and further this contracted space contracts by some mystic way the body itself; when  the Lorentz theory only postulates the contraction of concrte bodies as the consequence of experimental facts. Thus in the Lorentz theory the contraction is an empirical postulate, attempts, e.g. of FitzGerald to explain this phenomenon by electrodynamics (at that the contraction is real) were erroneous; so the SR “explanation” was (and is till now to many humans) accepted.

Though the correct explanation – see above.

Cheers

I liked the summaries of Zbigniew (but since they are a bit long I may have overlooked something). My executive summary is:

Local physics is everywhere, everyday, everyway, and everyhow the same.

I.e., it is independent of position, time, orientation and state of motion. That is a GOOD THING!

If physics were not like that, it would be very difficult to do. For example, how could we understand, and manage, a world where material constants varies as the earth changes its direction of motion around the sun? That is an observational answer to the question of this thread.

Dear Dwight,

"I find it absurd to imagine that a steel meter stick physically undergoes different amounts of physical contraction when observed from different moving reference frames."

You are correct  that this does not happen: " ... a steel meter stick physically undergoes different amounts of physical contraction when observed from different moving reference frames."My support for length contraction has nothing to do with the special relativity interpretation of the Lorentz transforms. i am not saying that " ... a steel meter stick physically undergoes different amounts of physical contraction when observed from different moving reference frames." that is absurd. i guess we probably disagree about Relativity theory. I see it as a theory that needs to be gotten rid of.

You will perhaps have noticed that when I gave the example of length-contraction for the windmill, I spoke of putting it on a train. The point is that length contraction occurs on the Earth because of a relative velocity with respect to the environment of the Earth. That environment is the gravitational field. (The idea of a gravitational field is subject to clarification when a defined mass is introduced, but, it serves its purpose for this message.) Special relativity theory has misinterpreted and misused the Lorentz transforms. 

Do the true objects really contract at relativistic velocities? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_the_true_objects_really_contract_at_relativistic_velocities/9 [accessed Sep 6, 2016].

The point I have been trying to  make is that Lorentz contraction is less strange than it seems, and that the answer to the question *when correctly understood* is no: the ``true objects'' neither contract, nor lengthen, nor anything. They are only affected by Lorentz transformations, which change none of their physical or geometrical properties.

But to get there, we must first understand what is a true object. Consider a stick, moving around at will. I argue that the ``true stick'' comprises all the points of space-time it ever occupies. So it is not a particular ``slice'' of its history, but its whole history. A ``one-dimensional'' stick is therefore a two-dimensional object in spacetime.

But what we usually call ``this stick'' is not that. Rather, it is that particular part of the spatiotemporal object we view to be simultaneous. So we talk of the evolution of the stick in space, assuming ``the spatial stick'' to be a given simultaneous slice of the absolute spacetime stick.

This is what leads to problems without end. There is no spatial stick, defined as the simultaneous slice of the spatiotemporal stick. Or rather, such slices change as one goes from one point of view to the other. Observers in motion withe respect to each other all see different cuts of the spatiotemporal stick. From a spatial point of view, they see different objects. These, however, are mere shadows of the ``true object'' and there is no reason to worry about the changes in shapes in the shadows. There are no changes in the absolute spatiotemporal object, which is the only ``true object'' there is.

The mathematics of relativistic extended objects is provided and fully deployed in String Theory!

Dear F. Leyvraz, 

I after with you say but remember that It is the interval between two events that is affected by relativity. So It is the measured ends of the meter stick that undergo the Lorentz transformation not the stick.

@ Dwight: we largely agree. But saying: it is merely the measured values which are affected, is a bit disingenuous. After all, in a sense, nothing is more important than the measured values. So if you want to have an understanding of the ``unchanging stick'' behind the contracted and deformed one, you should go to the four-dimensional object.

An example which has always struck me. Imagine the stick is slowly growing warmer, uniformly in its own reference frame. So the stick has no temperature gradients, hence no heat flow.

But as viewed from a fast moving observer, it does have a temperature gradient. That is because the observer cuts differently through the spacetime version of the stick and sees parts of the stick as simultaneous which, in the stick's rest frame, are not.

It seems only some few and new on the RG true SR believers remain to claim that “…the space contraction and time dilation are just optical illusions. NO, they are not…”, etc. i.e. that moving material bodies are contracted by contracted Matter’s space – as that is indeed postulated in the SR; others say already about rotations of concrete bodies in the 4D spacetime. At that – as Einstein, who “used” often ideas of other authors without reference on the authors, the true believers also don’t say about – why they claim now so heretic for the SR thoughts, though…

Zbigniew,

“… there can be “curved space-time”… theory may be (in my opinion) searched among 5D theories which treat 5D Euclidean space as some container (in your sense) of dense of mass and energy and, therefore, in this sense material curved manifolds of space-times…”

- the notions/phenomena “Space” and “Time” are Meta-mainstream-philosophical and mainstream-physical notions that can be [and are] properly defined only in the “The information as Absolute” conception (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute   ) and  are fundamental  Rules/Possibilities that are necessary for anything  to exist/to change. As the Possibilities they form “spacetimes” for concrete [in depth – only informational] systems of objects, including – for the system “Matter”. As the rest grammar Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” act “logically”, implicitly, – thus forming corresponding “empty containers”, and so cannot be impacted by something “written” inside.

What you write about is something that is placed in the Matter’s empty container, which is some material object/structure, called “physical vacuum”, “aether”, etc.; seems as rather probable that the Matter’s aether is a dense lattice of some fundamental logical elements, when material objects – particles an systems of particles – are some disturbances of this lattice. But that is all – there cannot be “curved spacetime” by definition; though an existence of a “curved aether”, as some mathematical instrument at analyzing of some physical problems, can be, in principle, acceptable in some pecular cases.

“…Many space-times interconnected into their quantum multiverse…”

- there cannot be, with very great probability, “multiverses” and, correspondingly, many spacetimes – because of the energy limitations: even to force to change uninterruptedly a huge number of “masses” that constitute the system “Matter” at the Beginning very huge amount of energy was used. For multiverses – in corresponding conceptions number of a multiverse's  Matters is infinite - would be necessary to use infinite number of very huge amounts of energy, what seems as rather improbable.

“…Moreover, no 5D Euclidean (or not) container is any more needed here…”

- that isn’t so, because of if  “…You may restrict yourself to a single compact graph of nodes consisted of all possible events and links interconnected them..”  a corresponding spacetime is obligatory necessary  [again - as always] to place somewhere “graphs of nodes”,   “all possible events”, “networks”, and “links”...

Cheers

Article the Information as Absolute

Dear F. Leyvraz,

Let us consider the now standard scenario of two inertial reference frames (IRFs) K and K’ in relative motion with respect to each other with velocity v along their common, coincident x-axes in an Euclidean system of space coordinates. Let a meter stick and a clock be fixed in IRF K’ with the meter stick aligned with and on the x’ axis in K’ and the clock in K’ attached to the leading end of the meter stick. Let the observer and his clock be at rest within IRF K from which observations of the meter stick in K’ are to be made – in particular the length of the meter stick in K’ is to be determined from measurements made by the “stationary” observer in K. We asume that the velocity v is, say, 0.5c where c is the speed of light. The meter stick is made of steel.

How do we proceed? Well, the observer in K can position himself at the origin x1 = 0 of his x-axis with his clock and await the passage of the meter stick as it speeds along the common x- and x’-axes. When the leading end of the meter stick arrives at the origin x1 = 0 in K the observer starts his clock at t1 = 0 and the clock in K’ at time t1’ = 0. When the trailing end of the meter stick arrives at the origin in K the observer in K stops his clock at time t2 in K. At this moment in K the leading end of the meter stick will be located at x-coordinate x2 in K and the clock in K’ will register time t2’ in K’.

The observer at the origin x1 = 0 in K does not know either the value of x2 in K nor the value of t2’ in K’. But x2 – x1 = x2 is the length of the meter stick as measured in K. Notice that there has been no physical change of any object in either K or K’ nor has any change been made either to the clock in K nor to the clock in K’. It is assumed that the clocks in K and K’ are of identical manufacture and run at the same rate when they are both together in the same IRF.

What do we have? We have two events E1 and E2 in the xt-coordinate plane: event E1 with coordinates x1 = x1’ = 0 and t1 = t1’ = 0 and event E2 with coordinates x2 = ?, x2’ = L and the time t2 registered in K and the time t2’ = ? in K’. We want to solve for the unknown values of x2 and t2’.

Now enters the non-physical, mathematically constructed Minkowski space which is a 4-dimensional pseudo-Euclidean coordinate space composed of mathematical events (not physical objects!). It is in this space that we invoke the Lorentz transformations to solve for x2 and t2’. We find, for example, that the length of the meter stick in K, that is, the value of coordinate x2, is x2 = vt2 – γL where γ = (1-v2/c2)1/2.  We have length contraction but no physical object itself has undergone any physical contraction.

This example illustrates the “meaning” of “length contraction” in special relativity. No physical object shrinks! A similar example can be constructed to illustrate “time dilation”.