In special relativity the mass is invariant under Lorentz transformations-so doesn't change: It's the (Lorentzian) norm of the energy-momentum 4-vector, E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2.
In general relativity the mass isn't invariant under general coordinate transformations; it's only defined on the boundary of the spacetime. Cf. also: https://lib-extopc.kek.jp/preprints/PDF/1992/9201/9201362.pdf
I think that in Special relativity there are two notions of mass. A mass at rest or the invariant mass which would not change with the location of the observer. The other notion is the notion of the relativistic mass which would depend on the relative acceleration of the frames of reference.
In general relativity there is no universal definition of mass of the system. There are different notions for different situations. I cannot comment on your question in this regard.
The following are a very superficial discussion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity
I'll provide an answer, at a lay level, just so it's clear. I repeat what Muhammad posted, just in other words.
First, what Special Relativity and it's math predicts. If the mass is moving past the observer, then the observers sees the object's mass increase, as well as other parameters, like energy and frequency.
If the observer is not moving relative to the mass, then the observer sees no increase in mass. The rest mass is the minimal mass possible, under any observation conditions, particular if you are next to it, with no relative movement.
General Relativity must include Special Relativity, but I know of no one who has shown this. GR does not deal with mass in a singularly, effective manner.
I see you teach physics, and publish in other fields. That is why I provide a lay answer, for your students. Now, I volunteer some additional insights.
SR is used in Quantum Dynamics when relative velocities reach a fraction of the speed of light, to get accurate answers. Particle Theory uses Higg's Field to account for mass.
Dear Peter, thanks a lot!
The problem is the difference between the rest mass and the inertial mass. According to some researchers, approaching the light speed, the mass does not change, but just the momentum changes, because they say that the true parameters that modifies is the spacetime curvature, not the mass. Further: special relativity states that, approaching light speed, one of the three spatial dimensions shortens, and therefore the object appears to "squeeze", but does not say explicitly that the mass of the object changes... It talks about changes in spacetime frame, not in the mass... I'm confused, also because my true job is pediatrics...
Indeed, there's something weird...
It seems that, for an observer in special relativity, an object approaching the speed light increases its mass, but decreases its surface... How is it possible?
Dear Arturo, you told us this, “Indeed, there's something weird...It seems that, for an observer in special relativity, an object approaching the speed light increases its mass, but decreases its surface... How is it possible?”
AZ: Those questions were asked for Relativity from the time of its first publication in 1905. Proponents of the theory use sophisticated calculations offered Einstein himself to prove the theory and its predictions.
However, later progress in the development of measurement devices showed much inconsistency of the theory.
As you remember, Einstein uses two sources of his theory. Those are so-called “Null Result” of famous Michelson-Morley experiment and the postulate about the constant duration of light propagation in any direction regardless observer-to-light relative motion.
However, later experiments like Acoustic Michelson-Morley experiment conducted by German researcher Norbert Feist show the same so-called null result of signal propagation regardless direction as long as the observer keeps a constant speed of observer-to-air relative motion. That exactly coincides the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
In other words, Einstein’s idea about the constant observer-to-signal speed of relative motion is applicable to any signal and any signal-medium combination (not only to light signals).
Therefore, recent experiments destroy all Einstein’s speculations and postulate at the physical level.
Moreover, Einstein has zero knowledge about one-way experiments with signals (including light) because such experiments were technically impossible that time. As a result, he produced a lot of postulates which look wrong today. Those one-way experiments show something hidden for round-trip experiments (or experiments with mirrors or mirroring objects).
A few years ago a Signal Medium Motion Measurement Apparatus (SMA) was introduced in the form of international patent application (WO/2015/040505). That device shows a physical possibility to do one-way experiments in any signal-medium combinations using the same unique technology (including light-space combination).
In other words, wrong postulates led Einstein to a wrong point of view on physical processes and further to a wrong theory. You can see a lot of weird and ugly things in that theory because those categories come from the wrong beginning of Relativity.
Despite that problem, we have a possibility to set the physics on the right way. We have results of many experiments which contradict Relativity and proponents of that theory say nothing against those experiments which lead to the easy idea of detectable and measurable observer-to-light relative motion.
Would you like to know more? You can read my papers with a detailed explanation of the situation in modern physics. Those are
The first article can be reached by the site of the journal by the link mentioned below. The second one can be download from my profile.
Please use any parameter of my article you like in the Quick Search string (left-upper corner of the page). It can be my last name (Zade) or part of article name (Physics and Philosophy). Push ‘Go’ button.
You can see my article ‘Physics and Philosophy of Wave Reference Frames in a Retrospective of 20-th Century Findings and Illusions’ in the search result and the direct link to the article. That link is ever correct because the journal supports it. The link leads directly to my article (pdf-file).
In other words, if you like to have something significant in physics, it is possible now. We have everything to make falsification of relativity and build a new theory free of all mind-twisting categories of relativity. We need only a research group that under\stands the situation and is ready to do research in physics instead of speculations and “calculations.”
You can use the following link
https://globaljournals.org/papers/index.html
Dear Allan, thanks a lot for your skillful comment. I will read your intriguing stuff.
Here you can find the answer of this topic
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314113654_The_Precession_of_Mercury%27s_Perihelion_and_the_Free_Fall
In special relativity the mass is invariant under Lorentz transformations-so doesn't change: It's the (Lorentzian) norm of the energy-momentum 4-vector, E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2.
In general relativity the mass isn't invariant under general coordinate transformations; it's only defined on the boundary of the spacetime. Cf. also: https://lib-extopc.kek.jp/preprints/PDF/1992/9201/9201362.pdf
Dear Stam,
Thanks a lot! Very clear and accurate as always!
And... what happens to the length? For an inertial observer at rest, does the length of an object (moving at speed light) change?
Dear Arturo,
Stam gave you proper answers for SR and GR.
In electromagnetism however, motion is driven by kinetic energy being provided in addition to the invariant rest mass of particles, half of which converts to the relativistic mass increment that can be measured when the trajectory of a moving electron for example, is forced to be deflected by transverse interaction.
These experiments were carried out by Walter Kaufmann at the beginning of the 20th century (first paper below)
You can calculate the various parameters from relativistic mechanics considerations from info given in the second paper, and from strict electromagnetic considerations from the third paper:
http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PPN=PPN252457811_1903&DMDID=DMDLOG_0025
Article From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell
Article Field Equations for Localized Photons and Relativistic Field...
Dear André,
Stam Nicolis: “In special relativity the mass is invariant under Lorentz transformations so doesn't change: It's the (Lorentzian) norm of the energy-momentum 4-vector, E^2-(pc)^2=(mc^2)^2.”
André Michaud: “In electromagnetism however, motion is driven by kinetic energy being provided in addition to the invariant rest mass of particles, half of which converts to the relativistic mass increment that can be measured when the trajectory of a moving electron for example, is forced to be deflected by transverse interaction. “
AZ: Does not it mean some self-contradiction in relativity? From the one hand, “In special relativity the mass is invariant under Lorentz transformations so doesn't change.” From the other hand, “In electromagnetism, however, motion is driven by kinetic energy being provided in addition to the invariant rest mass of particles.”
In other words, electromagnetic interaction with a moving particle leads to a measurable variation of its mass without gravitational interaction with the particle. Therefore, electromagnetic interaction changes gravitational field of a particle because gravitational and inertial masses are equal to each other.
What do you think about that at the physical level?
Dear Allan,
For dealing with inertia increase in GR, I recommend "Gravitation and Inertia" by Wheeler and Ciufolini.
SR-GR and electromagnetism are different representations.
There is definite incompatibility between both. Inertial motion is fundamental in SR-GR, while it is impossible in electromagnetism because it relates to motion of charged particles. In SR-GR, force does not exist and is completely replaced by space-time curvature, while in electromagnetism the Coulomb force is fundamental.
You ask: "In other words, electromagnetic interaction with a moving particle leads to a measurable variation of its mass without gravitational interaction with the particle.
Fundamentally, electromagnetic interaction is Coulomb force interaction between charged particles. The force induces kinetic energy locally in charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distance between them. Half of this kinetic energy remains unidirectional and causes the particles to move at the related velocity if local electromagnetic equilibrium states do not hinder their motion. This unidirectional half of the induced kinetic energy is vectorially directed towards the other particle in case of opposite sign charges and away from the other particle if same sign.
In electromagnetism, SR-GR "relativistic" mass increments become "adiabatic" mass increments. Both terms describe the same thing. In SR-GR, relativistic mass increment is related only to velocity. While in electromagnetism, adiabatic mass increment is dependent only on the amount of kinetic energy induced by the sum of Coulomb force interactions of a charged particle with all other charged particles, and does not mandate that velocity be expressed. Even if an electron is maintained stationary in resonance state on an atomic orbital for example, the adiabatic mass increment remains present, and also its companion unidirectional other half of the total kinetic energy induced now hindered.
The closer the particles come to each other, the more their adiabatic mass increment (the other half of their induced kinetic energy) will be important. Being an adiabatic process, this means that if the particles are forced to move away from each other, this mass increment will diminish in sync with the inverse square of the distance.
From the electromagnetism viewpoint, the only candidate for "gravitational interaction" is the Coulomb force.
If you want to get a clear mind about adiabatic processes as applying to charged particles, I had this paper published recently in the Journal of Physical Mathematics:
https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.php?aid=75602
The statement about length doesn't mean anything, because it depends on the frame.
In any description, only the quantities that are invariant under the transformations under consideration make sense-what's non-trivial is that such quantities, constructed out of non-invariant quantities, can be shown to exist.
So, in special relativity, the Minkowski norm of 4-vectors makes sense; in general relativity only certain global quantities make sense.
Dear Arturo, maybe in your question you could specify which mass you mean, inertial and/or gravitational.
My suggestion relates to the following: in SRT, velocity causes masses to increase, but the perpendicular direction and the direction in line with motion give different equations (an increase resp. decrease).
Einstein seems to state at several occasions that the calculated anisotropic mass increase/decrease is inertial.
From the linearized GRT, more specifically the gravity-theory as an analogy of electromagnetism, it can be found (the late Oleg Jefimenko did a genious job) that the anisotropic mass increase is in fact an energy increase, and more specifically, an increase (perpendicularly) and decrease (in line of motion) of an anisotropic gravity field!
Oleg Jefimenko calculated the reference frames at a distance by accounting for the retardation of the fields by the speed of light, and he obtained the identical mathematical formulation as SRT!
However, gravitomagnetism, as the analogy of classical electromagnetism, results in "relativistic" results, without following the SRT reasoning, but by only taking the retardation of the fields. He in fact gave a physical ground to SRT, within the limit that not the "observer", but the non-rotational most important mass of the studied system, is the approprate preferred reference frame.
The same tactic was made by Hafele and Keating for their well-known experiment and calculus: they used the non-rotating Earth as the preferred reference frame.
Dear Thierry, thanks a lot for the very clear comment.
Taken together, all the interesting response deeply clarify the issue. Thanks to all!
Thierry De Mees: “My suggestion relates to the following: in SRT, velocity causes masses to increase, but the perpendicular direction and the direction in line with motion give different equations (an increase resp. decrease). Einstein seems to state at several occasions that the calculated anisotropic mass increase/decrease is inertial.”
AZ: I guess, it is time to come back to my papers published recently. Application of SMA gives a possibility to determine observer-to-space relative motion. In that case notion of “motionless elements of physical experiments” become redundant because all elements possess some absolute speed relative to Space.
In that case, there is the only one source of all fields hidden from observation because of absolute motion. That is Z-Field. That field appears for us in two “static” fields which we call positive and negative electric fields. Dynamic variation of that field gives us another field that we call “magnetic field.”
A common body that has equal number of positive and negative charges produces some field that appears for us as “gravitational field.” Therefore, we cannot detect any source of gravitational field unlike a source of electric field.
Z-Field has a constant speed of disturbance propagation relative to Space. As a result, we have the same constant speed of disturbance propagation relative to Space for any field we know.
A constant motion of a given celestial body relative to Space in the Universe makes some disturbance (anisotropy) of Z-field propagation in every direction and appears to us as “anisotropic mass increase/decrease” regarding the direction of absolute motion as well as anisotropy of light propagation in space relative to an observer with absolute motion.
That explanation answers a lot of questions in modern physics (maybe all of them and destroys relativity completely). Moreover, it needs determination of absolute speed of motion (observer-to-space relative motion) that is possible now by a Signal Medium Motion measurement Apparatus.
What do you think about thaw way of research in 21-th century physics?
Dear Allan, to me, it is important to substantiate a theory to the reality in qualitative and if possible, quantitative form.
The analogy between electromagnetism and gravitomagnetism allowed to define local absolute velocities, just as in Newtonian physics and just as Hafele and Keating did with their experiment: they took a preferred reference frame: the non-spinning Earth.
However, the analogy with electromagnetism should be followed carefully.
This approach allowed me to calculate the anisotropic gravity of Mercury, causing its perihelion advance, perfectly fitting with the observation of the missing 43"/century.
It allowed me to state that all the inclined orbits about a spinning, large mass' center, finally will become prograde in the equatorial plane.
It allowed me to state that the supernova SN1987A exploded under latutudes of (max.) 35°16'.
Several other descriptions perfectly fit with this analogy, including the explanation of the absence of dark matter in galaxies and galaxy clusters.
As you are teaching physics, I assume at the high school level, I will provide some wording suitable for that age group. Also fine for college freshmen.
Before I do that, do read Einstein's original source paper published in 1905. Why? You will understand it. Print it out for your students. Why? They will understand it. I can not stress enough how easy his papers are to understand. Including for GR in 1916.
Moving faster and faster has three physics effects.
1) Energy increases stored in the object, and SR gives an equation for Energy. It includes the rest mass, and the momentum energy. The traveler does not notice the increase, and feels they weigh the same. Observers can only measure this mass increase by 'getting in the way' and Blam, impact. Instead of being bounced off by the amount of the rest mass plus Earth bound type momentum, the observer feels like the Moon hit them.
2) Length shortens in the direction of travel, not in the left/right or up/down directions. The traveler does not notice. Why? The ruler used to measure is also shorter. Remote observers do see the shortening. But do read the 1905 original source paper. I can not explain better.
3) Time slows down. This happens in all 3 dimensions, just not in the direction of travel. The traveler does not notice time slows down. They look out at the rest of moving world, and notice that they have all slowed down. Which seems very counter intuitive. Should they not speed up? Well, they do not. They slow down, too.
I hope that answers the question you asked on the first page. The "effective" mass increases beyond mere momentum increases. This increase can be seen in the SR equation, where the momentum is multiplied by the square of the speed of light, added to the rest mass energy, then the square root taken, for total Energy. That speed of light square is a large change in Energy. Much greater than what we experience on the Earth's surface.
"Spacetime" is not a concept in the 1905 paper. The single word, SpaceTime, came with reviewers of the 1916 GR paper. So, I would not tell students that SR deals with SpaceTime. SR deals with space and time, as separate concepts. While you can say things about spacetime and mass, the GR paper and subsequent papers do not say explicitly that mass increases "due to an 'interaction' with spacetime." So mass increase is not yet related to spacetime, though I may have missed such a claim (unlikely).
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your answer. I was sure that my question was controversial!
Indeed, we are not able to state whether the mass is a rest mass, or a rest mass plus momentum. This is not a question as stupid as it seems, because the different concepts of mass are used in different fields, giving rise to misunderstandings....
The question isn't controversial and the rest mass is well defined, in special relativity, because it can be shown to be Lorentz invariant.
Any confusion stems from not considering invariant quantities.
I agree with Stam. Being Lorentz invariant carries not just significant weight in the main stream physics world, but is often the proof of theory, that makes main stream accept the theory as the last word. There are non main stream scientist who continue to seek to invalidate accepted theories, and that is as it should be. I look forward to when a graviton detector is designed and built. It will be very large.
Now, what theories to teach K12 and college students is a question. I opt for main stream theories accepted over the last 30-400 years. The theories not on the main stream are for postdocs and such, IMHO. I would not teach K12 students any proposed theories in the last 30 years. There are exceptions, like Higgs and gravity waves, but those theories actually were only proved by experiments in the last year, while their first proposed theory seeds go back before 1950.
Point is, there is a dividing line, for what to teach K12 and in college. The basics for sure. Stuff they can use in daily decisions for sure. SR is one of those? These days, yes. GPS is critical now to daily infrastructure of students, whose cell phones depending on SR theory to have GPS be accurate. Students should know this, IMO.
The variations away from SR ... are not used for daily infrastructure, and I believe the proper forum for discussion of them may be ResearchGate.com itself. It certainly has been interesting reading.
More to the point, how do I distinguish between what new theories to spend my personal reading time on, is a question worthy of more typing.
Why? So, people like you can evaluate how much of my opinion to incorporate in your own personal decision making method for what to read, in the way of theories that expand the envelop of main stream physics, in ways that are seen by many, both in and out of the main stream, as controversial.
I think 'that' is what you are referencing as controversial.
Some of the theories proposed in this thread, make main stream SR seem controversial. While my personal view is those proposed theories are controversial, not the main stream accepted theories, like SR.
Also, there are some posters on this thread that detail their own theories. This is good to voice one's theories.
I find key is comparing those theories with main stream theories. I can do that as I read in both main stream theories and off main stream theories (Spinor, M Theory, Multiple Universes, Non Copenhagen QM interpretations, Creation Myths other than Big Bang, etc).
What I first look for is the author to compare and contrast their pet theories with main stream theorems, using equations and numerical values, to convince me. If there are no equations, or equations with no homework numerical values, to show the value of the equations in explaining commonly known phenomena, then I tend to spend my reading time elsewhere.
A quick scan of the posted paper can save me in depth reading time, by just looking for equations. Any equations. If there are no equations for my evaluation, then I spend my reading time elsewhere.
The next level I look for is solid math equations backed by experimental measurements. This information aids me in evaluating off main stream theories. When I see experimental data backing the theories, I am impressed, as where there is smoke, there can be fire.
I hope this aids you, and others, in sorting through the chaff that ResearchGate has attracted. Some of that chaff is quite exciting, and may be the seed of something great.
Dear all, thanks again!
What happens to the time, length, mass of an object traveling at speed light, by the standpoint of an inertial observer traveling also at the speed light, but in a direction OPPOSITE to the object? They travel on parallel trajectories, but the observer travels towards the right, the object towards the left... What does he see about the object?
Thierry De Mees: “it is important to substantiate a theory to the reality in qualitative and if possible, quantitative form.”
AZ: That is the only one possibly way for physics. Calculations mean nothing without the understanding of physical processes.
For example, Einstein never “calculate” the answer on question “What is Time.” He offered no definition of so-called Time, but he put “Time” in his speculations and “calculations.”
Thierry De Mees: “The analogy with electromagnetism allowed me to state that all the inclined orbits about a spinning, large mass' center, finally will become prograde in the equatorial plane.”
AZ: My congratulations to you, Thierry. You have the perfect physical solution for that idea in the Solar System. Those are rings of Saturn. All of them share the same equatorial plane of the planet. Newtonian gravitation gives no explanation for that phenomenon despite its “well-known equations.”
Thierry De Mees: “Several other descriptions perfectly fit with this analogy, including the explanation of the absence of dark matter in galaxies and galaxy clusters.”
AZ: That is another good example. Nobody offers any definition of so-called “dark matter,” but mainstream physics accepted that idea without any explanation as well as zero definition of Time in Einstein’s case.
Peter Benjamin: “do read Einstein's original source paper published in 1905. Why? You will understand it. Print it out for your students. Why? They will understand it.”
AZ: That paper has a lot of postulates “without any mathematical support.” How does it possible to use a postulate that cannot be described mathematically?
Peter Benjamin: “If there are no equations, or equations with no homework numerical values, to show the value of the equations in explaining commonly known phenomena, then I tend to spend my reading time elsewhere.”
AZ: That point of view is a good one for a student not for a researcher. It denies any progress in measurement devices for more than 100 years as well as any possibility of many experiments impossible at Einstein’s time.
That point of view destroys physics because so-called “mainstream” does not think. It uses only “well-known equations” without any understanding of their physical origin.
That means the God of Mathematics in Physics. Strictly speaking, Mathematics is a tool for physics and nothing more. It cannot be used “instead of physics” or bring any weird ideas to physics.
Arturo Tozzi: “What happens to the time, length, mass of an object traveling at speed light, by the standpoint of an inertial observer traveling also at the speed light, but in a direction OPPOSITE to the object? They travel on parallel trajectories, but the observer travels towards the right, the object towards the left... What does he see about the object?”
AZ: According to Einstein’s point of view, there is not any notion of observer’s motion in his inertial reference frame. In other words, Relativity denies any possibility of such motion. There is only one “observer” in any “Einstein’s thought experiment.” That observer ever sees the same speed of light in his “inertial reference frame.” Therefore, relativity gives the only one answer on that question. Any observer sees only the same speed of light in any direction regardless of his motion.
There is one more “thought experiment” close to the experiment you mentioned. That is a double-ray experiment. It has the only one difference from your thought experiment. In that case, two light rays use the same direction of motion.
According to Einstein, an observer riding one of them (Ray A) sees another light ray moving at the speed of light in his inertial reference frame. At the same time, an observer riding another ray (ray B) sees another light ray ‘A’ moving at the speed of light in his inertial reference frame. Therefore, every ray moves faster than another one. Relativity has no answer on that thought experiment despite any “well-known calculations.”
However, a physical double-ray experiment is possibly now. It shows zero relative speed of light beams to each other in complete disagreement with relativity. More than that, everyone from “Mainstream physics” does not comprehend that experiment because it shows nothing from “well-known equations.”
I strongly recommend you to read the paper of Norbert Feist (attached below). He conducted an Acoustic Michelson-Morley experiment with the same so-called Null result in complete disagreement with all “calculations” and “speculations” of Michelson and Einstein.
Any student can do the same experiment today and offer the result to his professor in complete disagreement with Relativity. That is pure Physics.
Dear Arturo,
You ask:
"What happens to the time, length, mass of an object traveling at speed light, by the standpoint of an inertial observer traveling also at the speed light, but in a direction OPPOSITE to the object? They travel on parallel trajectories, but the observer travels towards the right, the object towards the left... What does he see about the object?"
The answer is: He sees nothing, because this is an impossible situation out of touch with physical objective reality.
No offence meant, but my humble opinion is that asking this question, means that you are falling into the "thought experiments" trap that drives thinking processes away from analyzing "real experiments" which are the only source of knowledge that we have about physical reality.
Here are a few example of real experiments.
The Walter Kaufmann experiments on longitudinal and transverse inertia of moving electrons that I gave a link to previously, or the experiments carried out between 1966 and 1968 at the SLAC facility that revealed the only two point-like behaving scatterable inner components of protons and neutrons (up and down quarks), or the data from all spacecrafts showing acceleration peaks not explained by either SR or GR that they all suffered during slingshot acceleration close bys.
Those are only a few of the sources of real experimental data. If interested, I could dig out links to some important sources I could get my hands on.
it seems to me that it is only from this sort of data that anyone should try to relate time, length, mass, speed of light and any other question about physical objective reality.
In my view, this is the only sort of material that is worth spending time studying. Any theory, established or not as mainstream that is in contradiction is de facto incorrect.
Dear André, thanks a lot!
Remind, however, that Einstein's relativity comes from the Ernst Mach's Gedankenexperiments against Newton. Without Mach's naive science, and Riemann's highly speculative approaches to physics, we would not be here to discuss of general relativity...
Dear Arturo,
I agree.
But alternately if actual data had been taken more account of, we would now be discussing of the possible solutions to the unexplained systematic fly by inconsistency instead of discussing the merits of a theory that can't explain it.
Dear Christian,
Those are not "interesting" experiments. They are objective data gathered from objective reality. No data is more important than those not explained by current theories.
I keep being perplexed at the apathy of the physics community regarding data on hand that is still unexplained by SR-GR, like the unexplained excess acceleration flybys. Stuff that sent the whole physics community in an enthousiastic race to discovery at the beginning of the 20th century.
And you are wrong about relativistic mass. The inability of SR and GR to account for the flybys is not their only defect. The magnetic aspect of energy is simply not integrated into SR and this is why m=m_0 gamma is unable to discriminate between the invariant rest mass of the electron and the relativistic mass increment provided by its carrying energy.
Since you are already convinced that SR covers all angles, I know that no amount of explaining can convince you to reconsider. But people still in the learning phase, so to speak, will carefully do the math and eventually understand. Some already have and more will in the future.
Call me a pragmatic stickler for details.
Regarding the thought experiment of two observers moving in opposite directions at the speed of light ... that contains two paradoxes, or more, and so is an invalid "What if ..." question. Say what?
First, for an observer with 'mass' to reach the speed of light ... not possible. Why? It would take all the energy in the universe to accelerate the observer. Including the 2nd observer' total energy moving towards the first. And even more energy? No. Why? There is nothing to observe any more, as all energy, everything but the first observer, is now stored as energy in the first observer. Right? So, there is "nothing" to measure velocity of the first observer relative to. So, there is no paradox. Huh? Does something smell bad?
Second, at that speed, time does not just slow down, it stops. So, observers are no longer observing, as time is stopped for them. They do not move. Their brains are frozen in time. No observing is possible from either observer.
If the 'observer' is a massless photon, two photons passing each other, being massless, ah, time can pass for them? But they are not 'observing' the other, as any 'energy' that leaves one photon in the direction of the other, just merely 'matches' speed of the emitting photon. Say ... does something seem fishy here?
Call me a pragmatic stickler for details. I deal only with reality in my physics thought experiments. ;-)
So, the thought experiment is invalid. Right? Feedback please.
Dear André,
You told us this “I keep being perplexed at the apathy of the physics community regarding data on hand that is still unexplained by SR-GR, like the unexplained excess acceleration flybys.”
AZ: I guess, you already have an answer on that question. You can see this discussion also. Some representative of the physics community told us that they go away from any article as soon as they do not see equations “known for them." They have not any interest in research and creation of new and better theories.
Strictly speaking, that point of view is good for a student (not for a researcher). Therefore, they “do not see any problem” even you give them direct physical counterarguments against “well-established theories.”
For example, no one of them tells us anything about Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment (by Norbert Feist) mentioned above (full article is attached to my comment). They do not understand the meaning of those experiments. Therefore, we should not spend our time with them because they never change their point of view. As you remember, they are believers in Relativity, and you cannot show “another God” to an adept of that religion.
That situation exists at any level of scientific community. The best example is the situation about CERN “faster than light neutrino experiment.” They deny that experiment because it contradicts Relativity, but they agree with detection of Higgs Boson because it supports Relativity. As a result, they do anything to hide every experiment that contradicts Relativity. Norbert Feist mentioned that situation in his article too.
To change the situation, we need a small research group that likes to conduct some critical experiments and makes the in-depth analysis of them. Other scientists should stay aside without any problem. As soon as the group has a result, they cannot do anything against that result. In other words, we should do our research without in-depth explanation of our results for them.
In other words, a researcher should not fight a professor because they have a very different purpose of their activity. A professor cannot tell the students that the University says them nonsenses for 100 years. A researcher can do it because he has instruments inaccessible for science 100 years ago.
Peter Benjamin: “If the 'observer' is a massless photon, two photons passing each other, being massless, ah, time can pass for them? So, the thought experiment is invalid. Right? Feedback please.”
AZ: Relativity is full of such nonsenses as we discussed above. Strictly speaking, that theory explains some experiment for the Earth-bound observer and nothing more. The theory becomes wrong as soon as another observer appears and makes measurements.
For example, you can use any suitable experiment to show this. A coherent light beam changes the phase of EM-wave in the direction of propagation of that beam. According to Einstein, light moves at the speed of light. Therefore it has zero change in so-called “Time” as long as it keeps that speed of light.
Therefore, changing phase tells us this. There are easily measured changes in the physical condition of EM- wave. Therefore, those changes happen in zero “Time.” We have reached a contradiction because no change is possible in zero “Time.” However, a physical experiment shows those changes. Therefore, the Einstein’s idea about time dilation becomes falsified (wrong).
That is a standard way of falsification of a theory by physical experiments. Proponents of Relativity cannot answer your question because “there is not any equation in that question.”
Dear Allan,
Regarding your comment that you guess I must have an answer to the excess flyby acceleration issue, well I do have clues to a possible answer.
But technically it is difficult to explain for many reasons.
Since it involves an adiabatic process inside nucleons that does not exist in SR, it is clearly not possible to explain it to people who have accepted SR as fundamental. So I do not even try. Only people still in the process of trying to understand what gives are likely to invest the effort required to explore other possibilities.
Einstein conceived of SR before it was known that protons and neutrons are not elementary particles, so he logically assumed that their rest mass was as invariant as that of the electron.
After it was confirmed that protons and neutrons are not elementary in the 1960's at the SLAC facility, this was not reconsidered, so the belief that their rest mass is invariant is still deeply anchored for people having accepted that SR covers all angles, despite these new clues that the invariance of nucleons rest mass should possibly be reexamined.
The issue is rendered more complex by the fact that "adiabatic mass increase" is wrongly named "relativistic mass increase" in the community due to the fact that SR wrongly links mass variation only to velocity, whereas clear understanding of adiabatic processes inside nucleons reveals that this mass variation is not directly related to velocity.
And now, as you can see from Christian's comment, even the reality of this mass increase with velocity is being put in doubt for people accepting SR as fundamental and is now largely seen as "just wording" to quote him, and I have observed that this trend is rather extensive in the community. So, how could they even begin to relate to really existing adiabatic mass variation when they even deny the already correct real mass variation with velocity.
Finally, the word "adiabatic" being meaningless to most people, I felt compelled to use the wrong term "relativistic" instead in the various separate papers I issued that put in perspective the real adiabatic mass variation of nucleons, trying to use a term that people can at least relate to the real concept. I do mention the adiabatic relation also all over, but I had to do it indirectly.
This is something I clarify in the last paper of the series in a section titled "Relativistic Velocities Mass Increase Dependence versus Stabilized Unreleasable Adiabatic Energy Mass Increase Dependence"
This should be clearer yet in the monograph that I was then invited to publish by editors who liked this paper.
I can do nothing more than put my material at the disposal of people still asking questions. I am positive that understanding will progressively seep in for the up coming generation.
https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf
Dear Christian,
You wrote: "The question whether one uses the "invariant mass" (rest-mass) or the so-called "relativistic mass" does not imply different physics, just a different naming convention and is (per se) not related to the question, if SR is a complete theory or not."
You are right within the reference frame of SR, because SR is self consistent.
Again, I will not try to convince you that even if SR is self consistent, this does not mean that it completely and correctly describes all related physical processes.
All experiments I mentioned as a few examples are of the "reproducible" nature that you say is of interest, and that I invite interested readers to have a look at.
Even the excess acceleration flybys are systematic for all cases observed, which I did mention, and that readers can find info about in the attached paper.
The fact that SR correctly addresses some issues does not mean that it correctly addresses all observed issues, the proof being the blatant case of the excess acceleration observed for all slingshot flybys, just like the fact that Newton's mechanics addressed all non relativistic issues did not mean that it could address relativistic issues.
The same way, the fact that SR correctly addresses free moving particles relativistic velocities issues in the LHC does not mean that it correctly addresses all adiabatic issues. In fact it simply doesn't. These issues are just as absent from SR as relativistic issues were absent from Newton's mechanics, and this is why the excess acceleration flybys are impossible to explain within the too restricted frame of SR.
And mind my words, when this is understood, SR will be invalidated, because clear understanding of nucleons adiabatic mass variation will be the death knell for length and time contraction.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0608087.pdf
Dear Christian,
Well, what you say about cyclotron physics is no surprise to me. Thinking about it, this seems to be the only particle acceleration set up where a spiralling relativistic trajectory is smooth enough so that relativistic mechanics equations can be used to exactly confirm the trajectory defined with the usual fields equations, that on their part do not use the mass parameter.
As I mentioned, I think, soon in this thread, transverse interaction is the only means available to directly measure any relativistic mass increment, which was first done by Kaufmann. This is why its use cannot be circumvented in any transverse interaction cases, such as cyclotron spiral particle trajectories.
But if you think about it, it makes no logical sense that this mass increment of a moving electron not be permanently present even if you are not measuring it by transverse interaction, such as in the cyclotron case, or in the also quite reproducible Kaufmann experiments.
The proof is simple to do in fact. If you calculate any amount of kinetic energy required to drive an electron at any "real" velocity v with E=m_0 c2 (gamma -1), and then apply this "relativistic E" to the non relativistic equation to calculate the velocity of only the electron invariant rest mass that you assume is the only mass component, then you will see that the velocity becomes completely off as you get to even the low relativistic range and that you eventually overshoot the speed of light with higher energies even if the electron is moving in a straight line, so the velocity related mass increment has to always be physically present for the real relativistic velocity to match physical reality.
Let's just take the example you gave earlier that m=m_0 gamma, if you find X= (m_0 gamma) - m_0, X will be the velocity related mass increment that is used in cyclotron calculations in addition to the rest mass of a single electron being accelerated on the spiralling trajectory.
Now, if you calculate the corresponding translational energy required to propel m at the related velocity E=m_0 c2 (gamma -1), you will find that E is exactly equal to Xc2. This means that m= m_0 + E/(c2)= m_0 gamma for all calculations that can be made for the cyclotron trajectory.
Here the fact that X is the velocity related mass contributed by the carrying energy becomes clearer, that is half the provided energy behaving inertly and displaying omnidirectional inertia, just like the inertly behaving energy making up the invariant rest mass of the electron. The other half of the carrying energy is E=m_0 c2 (gamma -1), which is the translational kinetic energy sustaining the velocity of the complete momentary mass (rest mass plus velocity related mass increment) irrespective of whether the electron is moving in a straight line or spiralling outwards from the center of the cyclotron.
(I hope I did not mix my sticks up quickly explaining this).
No surprise either that my last remark would make no sense to you. You see, the adiabatic variability of nucleons' rest masses is not the tip of the trispatial model iceberg, it is the bottom scraping underside of the iceberg. The tip is the correct electromagnetic definition of localized electromagnetic photons. From this entry level, you discover as you get deeper that length and time contraction become unrequired and extraneous, and also that spacetime curvature is not required to explain all aspects of gravitation. Ultimately, you get to the adiabatic variability of nucleon rest masses and associated benefits, one of which is a possible coherent solution to the excess acceleration flybys issue. This will eventually lead to SR and GR retiring with honors for service rendered.
There is no way to understand adiabatic nucleon mass variability before the whole structure has been studied in depth. Only people still assessing what model covers the most ground are likely to really dig in until they understand.
Dear Christian,
There is no confusion.
As I said, there is no way that this can be explained to people who have accepted SR and GR as fundamental.
In Einstein’s special and general relativity, does the mass change, depending on the observer's standpoint?
Although the mass appears to change, it doesn’t. It appears to change because the metrical scale diminishes in a relative sense for objects in motion. This means that the actual velocity is v/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2] rather than v, where v is the observed velocity. Voigt’s transformation applies instead of Lorentz’s. A moving object is in a different four-dimensional manifold of GR embedded in a five-dimensional hyperspace, where the scale of spacetime is the fifth dimension.
GR seems to do away with the need for kinetic energy to cause motion due to the spacetime curvature, but in physical reality, whatever GR self-consistently asserts, and whether or not an observer is involved, it is impossible for an electromagnetic particle such as an electron to move in space without being propelled by a "real" amount of unidirectional kinetic energy, just like it is impossible for it to stabilize on the ground state of a hydrogen atom without being induced with an adiabatically unreleasable amount of 27.2 eV of kinetic energy, half of which displays omnidirectional inertia. Plain and simple physical reality.
Dear Johan,
hi! Interesting issue.
However, concerning the Voigt transformation, I found on Wikipedia that: "Lorentz did not adopt this transformation as he found in 1904 that only the Lorentz contraction corresponds to the principle of relativity. Since Voigt's transformation preserves the speed of light in all frames, the Michelson–Morley experiment and the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment can not distinguish between the two transformations. The crucial question is the issue of time dilation. The experimental measurement of time dilation by Ives and Stillwell (1938) and others settled the issue in favor of the Lorentz transformation".
Dear Arturo,
I guess we can make some summarizing of this thread.
Dear Arturo, you asked:
"What happens to the time, length, mass of an object traveling at speed light, by the standpoint of an inertial observer traveling also at the speed light, but in a direction OPPOSITE to the object? They travel on parallel trajectories, but the observer travels towards the right, the object towards the left... What does he see about the object?"
I can answer this from the point of view of the analogy of electromagnetism (E-M) for gravity.
In gravity, velocities are transmitted by a second field in addition to Newton's gravity field. That field is alike the magnetic field in E-M, and this field works upon other moving objects. Hence, gravity gets a vectorial component.
Therefore, the definition of speed (velocity) is essential. In gravity, it must be taken wrt the "main" mass of the studied system.
For your question, one must consider two very different options:
option 1: there are just the two objects in the empty universe, traveling in opposite sense at the speed of light. In that case, none of the masses will see the other mass, because the speed of propagation of the fields is the same speed as their own, and can never reach them.
option 2: both masses are traveling in opposite direction at "c", and both masses are 'bathing' in the gravity field of another, large mass (say, the Earth). Then, the local absolute speed of both masses wrt the Earth are determining their speeds. In most of the cases, since the relative speed is "c", none of the masses will go at the speed "c" and both will see the other mass, because the propagation speed of the fields is larger.
For N masses, every mass and every velocity of the (N-1) masses wrt the remaining mass has to be included in the calculus in order to get the fields that reach the remaining mass.
Remark that there are no "observers" disconnected from a mass is this calculus, which is as it should.
In the case of rotating masses, the velocities must be taken wrt the non-rotating reference mass. This was also done by Hafele and Keating: they *chose* the non-rotating Earth as the reference frame for their *SRT* calculus (sic).
Dear Christian,
You wrote "I do not even consider space-time to be fundamental".
So we agree on this rather large piece of "physical reality".
Dear Christian,
Quite an interesting paper.
I read it thoroughly and here are some comments.
I will not address every issue but only some major points of agreement or disagreement since the paper generally touches all aspects of physics, not to unduly overburden the thread.
Note also that whatever conclusions I drew myself about issues does not imply that I either like or dislike the conclusions drawn by others. If provided (such as is the case here), I assess whether or not I am in agreement with the choice of premises (mostly axioms, axiomatic statements). If I see premises that I previously concluded should not be used, I will try to explain why.
To me, logic is logic. Once a set of premises is established, logical conclusions can always be drawn. Clearly establishing sets of premises is an exercise I see you are good at. To me, the only possible cause in any variation in conclusions between people resides strictly in the variation of the sets of premises chosen by each person. Identical sets will lead to identical conclusions.
I note that you find unsatisfactory that CM, relativity, electrodynamics and QM are depicted as separate realms of physics. I agree. I personally see electromagnetism as underlying all theories and measurement methods.
Very early in your paper you posit that "Energy" is probably the most fundamental concept in physics, and you also state that "physics assigns to the energy the role of a substance"
I go much deeper in the same direction. My personal conclusion is that Energy is the most fundamental substance not in physics, but in the universe. Presumetly the only substance that exists.
You did not elaborate on your opinion about the idea that energy is a "substance" and simply work with it as de facto involving motion, "cyclic rate of change" as I conclude from the accompanying equation. I will come back to this notion of energy being a "substance" further on.
You also state that "conservation of energy has no serious exception".
My own conclusion is that there is a serious exception that has gone unnoticed to this day: adiabatic induction of kinetic energy "substance" in charged elementary particles by the Coulomb force, physically "unreleasable" kinetic energy whose level in any pair of charged particles varies as a direct function of the inverse square of the distance separating them, without any possibility of it being released in the environment.
The most obvious example is the unreleasable 27.2 eV energy "substance"permanently induced in the electron stabilized in the electromagnetic equilibrium least action ground state of the hydrogen atom.
This is however real kinetic energy, just like the 13.6 eV kinetic energy "substance" amount that is released in the environment as a bremmsstrahlung photon when this electron was captured in this equilibrium state.
If you re-feed this electron with an energy conservation complying 13.6 eV photon of energy coming from the environment, thus satisfying the conservation of energy principle, then the electron will move away while its complement of unreleasable 27.2 eV diminishes with distance without being released in the environment. This unreleasable, thus adiabatic, amount of energy is not subject to the principle of conservation of energy but it is nevertheless very real (a real substance), half of which contributes the adiabatic mass increment typical of an electron being induced with 27.2 eV, and that if free moving with this energy will travel at the very precise relativistic velocity of 2187647.561 m/s provided by its remaining 13.6 eV of unidirectionally (aka translationally or tangencially) oriented amount of carrying energy "substance".
You also state that "the wavefunction is considered to be the fundamental description of reality"
Note that as formulated, this is the very cornerstone of the Copenhagen school of thought (that nothing describable can underly the wavefunction).
I agree with Jaynes that QM and QED are not physical theories. I vaguely recall that we might have discussed this in the past. To me, they are only "measuring tools".
I further agree that imaginary variables are not required to describe the physical properties of energy.
You rightfully elaborate about the need for stable and invariant measurement means that do not change in space and time. I agree.
My own view is that since the meter is already defined with respect to the universally invariant speed of light in vacuum, if the second was to be redefined with respect to the invariant frequency of the electron rest mass energy and the kilogram eventually redefined with respect to the invariant rest mass of the electron, all three fundamental units (second, kilogram and meter) of the SI system would finally become universally stable and invariant.
In 2011, I even submitted a proposal on a technically feasible method (see paper below) to use the electron mass as an invariant standard anywhere on the planet (in the whole universe in fact), to NIST and the BIPM, but got no feedback except one acknowledgement of reception from one of the two, I don't recall which. I am not very well connected in the community.
Back to the statement that "the wavefunction is considered to be the fundamental description of reality"
Don't you think that if the wavefunction was so fundamental, it would be possible to derive Maxwell's equations from it?
My conclusion was that no, it is not possible because the wavefunction does not completely incorporate the magnetic aspect of energy that clearly is involved and that is a known property of the "substance" that you assume yourself that Energy is. A property such that this magnetic aspect induces the electric aspect of this "substance"and vice-versa. You cannot extract from QM something that isn't there.
Therefore, although it correctly describes certain states of elementary particles and fundamental interactions, it cannot be fundamental. My conclusion.
This is where our sets of basic premises diverge in a major way. In my set, Energy is the most fundamental "substance", and its oscillating alternance between electric and magnetic states is a property of the "substance" whose behavior QM can only partially describe.
You state that "electrons have to be described by their structure" I fully agree, and in my case, it is the stable dynamic structure of the "substance" of which electrons (and photons) are made that I addressed. This dynamic structure allows mechanically explaining how unidirectionally moving massless photons substance of energy 1.022 MeV or more can decouple into pairs of 0.511 MeV massive electron and positrons, made of the same substance and moving in opposite directions with the residual energy in excess of the 1.022 MeV that converted to the two 0.511 MeV massive particles split between the two and defining their velocity away from each other, and much more.
I heavily insisted on the idea that Energy is a phycally existing substance to make clear how important this idea is to really properly analyze energy (in my view of course).
I will stop here. My post is already too abusively long in such a thread. Sorry for this.
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2465
Dear Christian,
Right. I have not finished reading it. I will finish tomorrow. I stopped before I forgot the issues I wanted to address, I already had too much material to cover all I could have commented..
Regarding the fact that fundamental energy might be a substance. I totally disagree that this could be a side issue. "something" that can display inertia cannot be a side issue. If "it" displays inertia, "it" must have "physical presence". That's my conclusion.
Regarding the magnetic aspect of EM energy, I am not at all talking of the stripped down notion of spin as used in QM. I am talking about a state of the energy substance just as important and at the same level as the electric state of the same energy, a state that can only involve a timewise oscillation of the energy substance that alternates between this timewise magnetic oscillation and a perpendicularly oriented spacewise electric state oscillation of. the same amount of substance oscillating between the two states, and motion in space perpendicularly to the plane on which both timewise and spacewise oscillation occur. Impossible to represent in the 4D space geometry as de Broglie already concluded in the 1930's and that can be achieved in the trispatial space geometry.
This timewise oscillation is what can explain the inverse cube magnetic interaction between point-like behaving elementary particles such as the electron. Confirmed for electrons in 2014. (first paper):
In 1998, I carried out a simple lab experiment to confirm this interaction, and drew interesting conclusions from the data, quite easy to reproduce by anybody with quite easy to obtain, but particularly magnetized magnets available all over the place, published in 2013, 1 year before the Kotler et al. paper.
I will read this other paper of yours tomorrow.
Pending reading it, I see that in your message you seem to oppose mass and spin, and consider them as invariants. I must say that I have reasons to disagree in both cases. Spin from my comprehension of electromagnetism is a dynamic relative process (relative in the sense that it becomes meaningful in the QM sense only if two EM particles are in interaction. Difficult to describe here). and rest mass can be made to vary in certain conditions,
in electromagnetism magnetism is opposable to electric state, not to mass. Mass is only omnidirectional inertia of the energy substance when its structure is oriented differently from when it is in photon state.
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature13403.epdf?referrer_access_token=yoC6RXrPyxwvQviChYrG0tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PdPJ4geER1fKVR1YXH8GThqECstdb6e48mZm0qQo2OMX_XYURkzBSUZCrxM8VipvnG8FofxB39P4lc-1UIKEO1
http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue5/H0705050066.pdf
Dear all, thanks a lot for your interesting insights!
To be honest, I asked this question for a very specific reason: I am investigating the relationships between relativity, Bekenstein-Einstein theorems and information.
I asked to myself: does an observed object shadow encompass more information than the object itself?
Indeed, an observed two-dimensional shadow might encompass more information than its corresponding three-dimensional object. By changing the orientation of a three-dimensional object or the observer’s position, we detect different shadows from diverse perspectives, therefore increasing our available information. Starting from this simple observation and extending it to the Einstein’s four-dimensional spacetime and to Bekenstein and Hawking equations, we show how, in terms of special and general relativity, information content is not a stationary and fixed quantity as currently believed, but rather depends on the observer’s standpoint. This has deep implications in digital physics, information theory, computer vision, shape theory and cosmology.
You can find the details here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314261237_Does_an_observed_object_shadow_encompass_more_information_than_the_object_itself_The_end_of_the_information_paradigm
Preprint Does an observed object shadow encompass more information th...
Dear Christian, that's why I did not think the problem of rest or inertial mass was a stupid problem...
if the object mass (and/or the length) increases, this means that also the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy encompassed in its surface increases...
Dear Christian,
Interesting angle. I will read this other paper also.
I see what you mean regarding the notion of substance in the context of your paper.
Dear Christian,
Re-skimming the beginning of your Minkowski… paper before reading on, I hit upon this, that there was too much material yesterday for me reasonably address:
(page 5) "It follows from this conception that fundamental “material objects” like for instance electrons have to be described by their structure. They have no material identity, but a structural identity. The only structure at hand is the structure of the variations of the variables - the structure of their dynamics. The fundamental objects (elementary particles) are not directly represented by variables, but rather by the dynamical structure of the variables. If objects do not change their structure (i.e. their “identity”) in some interaction, then the involved dynamical processes must be structure preserving: If a material entity like an elementary particle is defined and understood by its structure, then its continuous existence requires - besides a continuous variation of its constituents (the variables) - that the dynamical structure must be preserved."
I was noticing that if you replace the word "variable" by the word "substance" in these statements, then this would be exactly how I would have described the dynamic structure of each "glob" of substance making up photons and electrons in the 3-spaces model.
See below first the dynamic structure of the substance of a photon, followed by the dynamic structure of that of an electron at rest, and then a table showing the components of an electron in motion.
The first 2 are LC equations while the table shows the same equations using fields representations. Too long to explain here, but you certainly see that both LC and fields representations have the same dynamic structure.
Then you go on writing:
"However if objects can only be identified by a certain dynamical structure then two objects with the same structure can not be distinguished. If we could distinguish particles experimentally that are indistiguishable in our physical model, then the model would be incomplete."
I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?
Dear Christian, it's a pleasure to listen to the discussion about your noteworthy paper! Therefore, feel free to discuss about it here, or elsewhere! You are a guest star!
Dear Pierre, to be very, very honest, I did not read very well your paper... Sorry...
In order to write this manuscript, I "used" Einstein (1905 and 1915), Bekenstein (2003) and some Hawking papers. I had the idea while I cut my hairs: in the barber shop there was a picture of a woman with a very long shadow...
Dear Arturo,
I have read through your paper. You write this, “An observed two-dimensional shadow might encompass more information than its corresponding three-dimensional object.”
Every step in science should be done with respect to details. Because “Devil” is “in details.” Therefore, any “research” in any branch of knowledge should be started from definitions of “basic categories” used in that research. Otherwise, everyone understands different aspects under the same category and fight others for nothing.
For example, in case of philosophy (the father of all knowledge) every manuscript that uses any reference to Space and Time should define those categories before they application to any problem. Those categories have not widely accepted definitions until today despite Einstein’s papers. That happens because Einstein gave not any definition of Space or Time but used them in his speculations. As a result, his “gedankenexperiments” lead to obvious absurd.
For example, you can send a light beam by any trajectory and determine the duration of light propagation by a given trajectory. You determine a given value of duration. The second light beam follows the same law of propagation and spends the same duration to cover the same path. If you use two light beams simultaneously, you see the same constant value of duration for every light beam.
That is the physical reality coming from experiments. Despite that reality, Einstein claims the result of his “gedankenexperiments” that every light beam moves at the speed of light relative any observer even that observer moves at the speed of light. As a result, from the Einstein’s point of view, every light beam should be “faster than another one, ” and the “gedankenexperiment” gives no answer on the physical experiment mentioned above.
As you can see, there is not any proponent of relativity who can explain such obvious disagreement between a theory and a physical experiment. Despite that obvious problem, they “discuss” a “higher problems” paying no attention to basic categories of “the best theory ever created by the human mind.”
Moreover, if you ever read my papers, you should notice this. “An observer should explain step-by-step physical process put under question as well as physical interaction of that process with measurement devices.” Otherwise, he produces only his fantasies instead of theories rest on the solid ground of measurements.
In your case, you claim this. “An observed two-dimensional shadow might encompass more information than its corresponding three-dimensional object.” It causes the following list of questions to you.
There are a lot of other questions. Can you answer all of them?
By the way, can you tell me why do we need theories?
Dar Allan,
thanks for your comments.
There is not a definition of information valid for all the observers (this is my thesis in the manuscript). The information cannot be created, of course: it is linked with informational entropy, that is linked with thermodynamic entropy and with energy. But an observer (for example one external to our Universe) might very well, in the proper conditions, to to see NOT information at all, in our Universe... Therefore, we cannot know the objective value of information (despite its quantification in bits), because it is a subjective parameter...
Dear Arturo,
You told us this. “Therefore, we cannot know the objective value of information (despite its quantification in bits), because it is a subjective parameter...”
If information has not any objective value, then all measurements in science lose their value because there is not any relationship between information and objective reality (expressed in objective value of information).
Therefore, quantitative description (expressed in numbers) of any process of the Universe becomes impossible.
Do you agree that?
Dear Arturo,
You told us this. “The information cannot be created, of course: it is linked with informational entropy that is linked with thermodynamic entropy and with energy.”
Suppose I give you a description of a Unicorn, its behavior, habits and animal power. A unicorn does not exist in the Universe. Therefore, we come to difficult questions.
- Does that information linked with informational entropy that is linked with thermodynamic entropy and with the energy of the Unicorn?
- Where does the information about the Unicorn come from?
Can you answer those questions?
Dear Allan,
the question is nice... indeed, we are producing just now a paper called: "TOWARDS THE MEASUREMENTOF THE INFORMATION ENCOMPASSED IN HUMAN ABSTRACT IDEAS". When it will be ready, as usual, I will put it on RG and Vixra at first, then i will send it to the proper Journal. Wait just another couple of days, I'm almost ready!
And thanks again for your intriguing comments!
Dear Arturo,
I’m glad to help you to make better imagination of some categories in your mind. That is an interesting process indeed. However, many scientists never use it because the process includes deep analysis of basic categories.
Arturo: “we are producing just now a paper called "TOWARDS THE MEASUREMENT OF THE INFORMATION ENCOMPASSED IN HUMAN ABSTRACT IDEAS.”
Allan: Streaky speaking, the Scientific Method based on measurements. Measurements should be understood in the broadest way. For example, observation in some experiments means measurement too. However, an observer should understand his way of interaction with a measurable (observable) object or process.
That understanding sometimes leads to a completely different explanation of the observable process. For example, obvious observation of the motion of the Sun in the sky leads to the idea that the Earth is the center of the Universe and the Sum moves around the Earth. That idea was the central one in the human mind for centuries. Therefore, an isolated observation has not any guarantee of the right idea appears in the human mind after observation (and measurements). The right idea can be reached only by different approach and measurements by various devices. Moreover, an observer should be able to explain step-by-step the physical interaction of the measurable physical process and the physical device. Measurements become useless without that understanding.
The best example in that area is this. Everyone in modern physics claims this. Physical time does exist. Einstein claimed physical Time dilation as a result of his “gedankenexperiments.” However, nor Einstein nor anyone else makes any explanation of the step-by-step interaction of physical Time and a physical (mechanical) clock.
As a result, we have a Unicorn problem here. Information comes from nowhere but becomes recognized by the human mind as a real information about some physical category that they call “Time.”
Would you like to know more? You can read my article ‘Human’s delusion of Time.’
Do you mention such categories (problems) in your paper?
Dear Allan,
thanks for your very intriguing suggestions.
I will read your paper with interest!
Dear Arturo,
I’m glad to see your interest in that subject. The article ‘Human’s delusion of Time’ offers an entirely new point of view on “the most fundamental category of the human mind” and destroys all illusions of so-called “Time.”
We can discuss your counterarguments to that paper if you have any of them. If you agree that paper, there is nothing to stop you to read the next paper titled ‘Philosophy, physics, and mathematics of relative and absolute motion.’
That paper explains a lot of illusions of 19-th and 20-th century physics. Moreover, some categories of “well-established theories” become redundant. The paper shows the easiest way of explanation of some experiments which cannot be explained ever in the theoretical framework of Relativity.
For example, Norbert Feist’s Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment contradicts Relativity and cannot be explained by that theory.
Dear Arturo,
I guess, you noticed the silence of Question followers in this discussion. That is “standard” reaction of the community to a paradigm shift. A Paradigm Shift means a complete change of basic categories of the human mind. It is a difficult process for many people (researchers) because it requires to go away from “well-known categories.”
However, it is a common situation after the creation of a measurement (observation) device that uses a different way of measurements. I mentioned that device in my papers as SMA (a Signal Medium Motion Measurement Apparatus). It can be used in any signal-medium combination and gives data unreachable for other devices by one-way experiments.
Strictly speaking, the device shows many mistakes and misunderstanding put on the basis of relativity. Those mistakes led to huge self-controversy of the theory as I explained above that the theory is unable to give a correct description of some easy experiments.
If you like to do something significant in physics we can discuss the possibility of application of the SMA in any suitable place (a laboratory). It can be a University, a research center a private lab and so on. I can give them a license to produce at least one device for physical measurements.
Personally, I’d like to make collaboration with open-minded scientists who like to think independently and build a better science free of 20-th century illusions.
Dear Allan,
I want to be honest. Even if you have the best idea ever, you need to convey it in the mainstream of physics. If you publish on useless Journals, nobody will trust you. Therefore, try with IF Journals. You will be rejected more than once by useless reviewers, of course, but, if your ideas are good, scientists will start to notice you. Therefore, send your papers everywhere. Without such an approach, your observations will be just curiosities for RG people. You think Einstein's relativity is old. Well, publish something, make previsions, and people will trust you. Until then, your theories are just exotic observations. This the way how it works: even if you do not like this way, that's all. Your best theory is just a mud puddle that will evaporate, if it does not reach the big flood of the scientific river. Try, try, try!
Dear Arturo,
You have some interesting ideas, and I‘d like to explain something more to you regarding the situation.
Arturo: “Even if you have the best idea ever, you need to convey it in the mainstream of physics. If you publish on useless Journals, nobody will trust you.”
Allan: Suppose you have two articles from two different journals. Can you make an evaluation of those articles by yourself? Obviously, you can do it if you understand the subject in both cases. What if you do not understand the subject in both cases? Obviously, you should watch “reference to the most prominent journal.” Doing that you transfer your personal responsibility (as a scientist) of evaluation of a given article to another scientist who plays the role of the journal reviewer because you do not understand the subject.
A reviewer uses the same way and thinks this. If he does not understand the subject, that subject cannot be understood by everyone else who has the same education because basic categories depend on education. As a result, all mainstream publications shares that way of appearance and try to reject every article that discusses and explains something beyond comprehension horizon of the mainstream science.
Arturo: “Your best theory is just a mud puddle that will evaporate if it does not reach the big flood of the scientific river. Try, try, try!”
Allan: I do, do and do! For example, a USA based scientific journal ‘Physics and Space Science’ from Global Journals of Science Frontier Research made publication of my article ‘Physics and Philosophy of Wave Reference Frames in a Retrospective of 20-th Century Findings and Illusions.’ You can find the article in their archive by the link mentioned below. It is a featured article of the journal that has about $ 300 USD charge for paper publication.
Is it more valuable paper for you? Have you any counter-arguments against that paper? By the way, I do not see any counterarguments from you against ‘Hyman’s delusion of Time.' If we are scientists, we should put arguments against arguments. Science has not any other way for a scientific discussion.
Moreover, Physics unlike other branches of science has the primary method of external verification of any idea it uses. Obviously, we can fight mainstream for ages by arguments, but there is another and more efficient way to make “a torpedo and launch it to the mainstream ship.”
I mentioned that idea recently. We can build SMA. The device shows physical counterarguments to all postulates of relativity and “gedankenexperiments” because the device extracts more information from experiments. Nobody from the mainstream can withstand such impact.
Moreover, unlike Michelson, I understand the power of my device. Therefore, I described it in the form of a patent application. Therefore, nobody can touch the device without my explicit written permission. As a result, I offered a collaboration to you if you have any interest in that area of knowledge and research. Therefore, it is possible to discuss the terms of the license for any lab that likes to make the device and conduct experiments.
Therefore, all other “mainstream proponents” come to us “after the explosion” because they have not any other way.
https://globaljournals.org/papers/index.html
Dear Arturo,
I can tell you something more going further in our discussion. We have a good example of theoretical explanations of an experiment from proponents of relativity.
Stam Nicolis: “In special relativity the mass is invariant under Lorentz transformations. In general relativity the mass isn't invariant under general coordinate transformations.”
Therefore, there are two different theories which give us two completely different points of view. Therefore, application of those theories to the same physical experiment gives two different results. In other words, a single object should use two different trajectories simultaneously during the experiment. However, nobody saw such way of motion of a physical object because it is physically impossible.
A physical object uses the only one trajectory and cannot have two (or more) locations simultaneously.
In other words, it is possible to have more than one theory that describes a given phenomenon. However, predictions of those theories should be consistent with experiments. As soon as two theories predict different results of a given experiment one of them supposed to be wrong.
We have the same situation in every aspect of Relativity.
For example, so-called “time dilation” appears a different way for every observer who has a different speed of relative motion toward a given observer. As a result “theoretical predictions” show this. A given observer should have many “indications of a clock” simultaneously (one indication per an external observer). That is physically impossible because a clock shows only one indication at a given moment.
As you can see from my paper ‘Human’s delusion of Time,' “a clock” counts only oscillations of its internal oscillating device. Therefore Einstein “predicts” this. The motion of an external observer changes physical process of all physical oscillators in the Universe by some “magical interaction with them by the speed of their relative motion.” That is physically impossible. Moreover, Einstein gave not any explanation of that physical interaction.
Suppose now this. Einstein read through my paper ‘Human’s delusion of Time’ before any thought about his theory.
Relativity has no chance to appear that way because something that does not exist physically cannot be dilated, expanded twisted or distorted any other way.
Dear Arturo,
You told me this. “Without such an approach, your observations will be just curiosities for RG people.”
Allan: That is a common situation for researchers. Suppose we live in 14-th century. Everyone believes in the idea of flat Earth and “transparent celestial spheres” in the sky which carry celestial bodies.
In that case, you cannot explain categories of the Universe, outer space and so on for such people because lesser categories in their mind block their ability to reach higher categories. Therefore, they make counter arguments because of a condition of their mind instead of the physical condition of the Universe. As a result, a category of “a celestial sphere” denies any possibility of a category of a rocket because a rocket “reaches the lowest celestial sphere crush, burn and fall to the Earth.”
In other words, a person with strong belief in equality between categories in his mind and things of the physical world denies any possibility that changes his mind. Therefore, such person refuses any changes because of his mind instead of physical experiments in complete disagreement with the scientific method.
Obviously, elimination of “transparent celestial spheres” leads to a creation of many branches of science which were blocked by “a well-established idea.”
We have the same situation now. A lot of scientists believe this. There is not anything beyond relativity. However, that point of view is incorrect. Do you like to know more?
You can read my article ‘Motion and transposition in conservative fields.’ It shows some approach to the problem of motion in time-free Universe and physical space. That is a little element of a big theory that cannot be fully comprehended how.
Dear Allan, if somebody want to change the current paradigms, the procedure is simple: to propose a testable model, and to publish it in a good Journal...
Dear Arturo,
“If somebody want to change the current paradigms, the procedure is simple: to propose a testable model, and to publish it in a good Journal.”
I do not think so. That way is a good one for action inside the paradigm and a bad one for everything that stays beyond the paradigm.
Usually, a Journal has not reviewers who can understand the power of a new paradigm and even detect that paradigm. More than that, a model can be proposed in case of known experiments. Nobody can propose a model without an experiment.
Therefore, I propose the device that can be used to prove my point of view and my explanations of known and feasible experiments. In other words, I propose more than “calculations” unlike many modern theorists who never seen a lab.
By the way, what is “a good Journal” that likes new paradigms from your point of view?
There is one more thing here regarding your initial question of this discussion. All Einstein’s speculations and “conclusions” based on his idea of equal inertial reference frames. In that case, all physical experiments show the same result in moving reference frame and in a reference frame at rest.
Suppose now this. You have two charged objects with the same sign. In case of a reference frame at rest, they show only some force of repulsion. Now, you push them in uniform straight motion making another reference frame at motion. In that case, you see this. The force of repulsion shows a lesser value because those objects show some force of attraction “coming from nowhere.”
It looks like a famous experiment with electric current (by Ampere). Two conductors show some force of attraction, as soon as you make electric current through them.
In other words, two reference frames become unequal that way because observers associated with them see a certain difference in the magnitude of force interaction between charged objects.
Einstein knew that, but he never used that “gedankenexperiments” in his works.
What do you think about that?
Dear Arturo,
As you can see, “modern science” keeps silence in a debate on this subject. It looks like a position of a student who “believes” in some categories explained to him by his professor. A student cannot think by himself because he is involved in the process of education. Modern education system denies any possibility of a student to ask a fundamental question regarding any area of knowledge.
As a result, students keep the same way after graduation. They “believe” in some “ever correct” categories and do not pay attention to any counter argument to those categories. In other words, we are unable to make a critical analysis of basic categories put in their mind. Therefore, research in some areas just blocked because nobody likes to see his thesis to be falsified. As I mentioned recently, that is a point of view of “a believer” not a scientist because a scientist should be ever ready to meet a new paradigm that changes his mind completely.
However, that situation means nothing now. I mentioned at least a few ways of falsification of “the best theory” by experiments, physics, and philosophy.
The real interest now is the pace of first creation of the SMA. Obviously, the first nation that makes the device will hold the palm in physics of 21-th century.
Modern science keeps silence, because scientists cannot read all the rubbish around. It could be that, in one thousands useless self-productions, somebody writes something genial, but you cannot pretend that a scientist reads something different from the well-consolidated Journals. Send your paper to a fees-free Impact Journal. If you are not able to persuade three persons (the Editor and two reviewers), how could you hope to persuade the world? I hate revisions, but I understand that it is the sole way in order to be known and recognized. And, sometimes, reviewers give also good suggestions in order to improve the readibility and diffusion of a manuscript.
``“modern science” keeps silence in a debate on this subject.''
By no means. Modern science, in that case Stam Nicolis, has said its say. Being simple, it is short. There is no sense in attempting to rebut all misconceptions aired on this particular forum. Understand what was said, and you may have some kind of reasonable answer. Keep on listening to the likes of the oter participants in this discussion and you will remain in unending confusion.
Dear Arturo,
“If you are not able to persuade three persons (the Editor and two reviewers), how could you hope to persuade the world?”
My article that I recommended you ‘Human’s Delusion of Time’ has about 100 reads in last two weeks. No one from those readers put any single counter argument against that article as well as the editor and two reviewers (as you insist).
Therefore, there is no problem with that article and my point of view explained in it. In science, we put arguments against arguments and nothing more. If a scientist has not any counterargument against a given point of view that contradicts his point of view then his point of view becomes incorrect (and should be changed). Yes, that is a doom situation for everyone, but it is the only one possible way of scientific progress.
By the way, my article ‘Physics and Philosophy of Wave Reference Frames in a Retrospective of 20-th Century Findings and Illusions’ became accessible from my profile. It comes from a USA based scientific journal as you wished. I guarantee you the same situation with that article. Everyone read it, has no counter argument and does nothing despite the article contradicts his point of view.
That happens because they think this. Keep on listening to the likes of the other participants in this discussion, and you will remain in unending confusion (F. Leyvraz).
That is a wrong point of view for a scientist because “listening to the likes of the others” leads to complete stagnation of the science. As you remember, nature has not any imagination about humans and their mind. Therefore, our likes or dislikes to other’s point of view have no impact on physical experiments. We can change only our imagination and explanation of those experiments.
You asked the initial question of this discussion. You know the answer from relativity, but you become suspicious to that answer. Why? It happens because you see some self-contradiction in theory. Therefore, you asked that question and seen two points of view on the same subject. Now, you can share one of them.
That is the primary way of science. As a result, the highest rank of a scientist becomes Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) (not a person pleasurable for others) because a Philosophy Doctor can make a comparison of categories of his mind and other categories coming from minds of other researchers. The result of that comparison becomes clear.
It is a separation the best category (explanation) that explains the highest number of observations by the easiest explanation without reference to other weird artificial categories (like physical “Time”).
Maybe I should shut up, but this discussion has been going on for over 100 years now without any clear resolution. But, things are simple.
We must realize that what we see in a moving frame is distorted, and that clocks in motion do not really run slower. But, you say that this has been confirmed in many tests. Although clocks appear to run slower in motion, they don't. The problem is not in the clocks but that the velocity, v, we observe is not the true velocity in terms of distance moved per second. This is also true in Special Relativity due to time-dilation.
We don't see the true velocity because we use light signals with limited velocity to observe any moving object. How can we expect to get the right result when observing an object moving close to the speed of light, when we use light signals to measure it? We cannot, and thus the velocity v in the Special Relativity is not right.
Mathematically, spacetime in motion is compressed by the scale-factor sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. This means that a moving object is in a different 4D manifold than a stationary. In other words, the four dimensions of classical physics, do not suffice to model motion, and SR and GR cannot model our world.
We must add a new dimension, which is the scale of 4D spacetime. The cosmological expansion is in this scale. This new cosmos model not only agrees with all astronomical observations, but it also explains the origin of the inertial force.
However, since this would overturn physics and cosmology as we know it, it has not been well received; except by the Russian Academy of Sciences, who published my Monograph in the spring of 2015. You may find the translation on my Researchgate site.
If the US and the rest of the West don't pick up on this new development soon, we will be left behind.
Respected Dr. Masreliez,
As I can see, you share a critical point of view on modern science. You know that scientific knowledge comes from experiments and facts. We need theories with the only one reason to put facts together and make predictable results of other experiments. A theory becomes wrong as soon as it becomes unable to predict a result of a given experiment. I mentioned that problem of Relativity in this discussion for a double-ray and other experiments.
Moreover, relativity as many other theories uses some artificial categories which cannot be found in physical Universe. We should not use such theories because they block our vision of the physical facts.
Moreover, physics based on facts regardless any point of view of a given scientist. A scientist can or cannot agree with experimental data. It never changes the value of those facts.
In other words, data from a lab are more important than a theory that denies those facts. That coincides with the scientific method that requires theories based on facts instead of postulates and speculations including “gedankenexperiments.”
Strictly speaking, I propose the in-depth application of the scientific method based on my device that mentioned. We need only a lab that likes to build and use that device (SMA). An operation of the lab has not any relationship with any opponents or proponents of a given theory.
However, as soon as we have data of physical experiments from SMA, everyone comes to us because Relativity becomes to the end.
In other words, if you like to build a new and better theory based on facts instead of illusions we can discuss that possibility in private.
To Christian Baumgarten,
As I mentioned above, any point of view of opponents or proponents of Relativity has not any impact on the current situation because it depends only on the operability of SMA does not matter who likes it or not.
“No, then the theory is not wrong, but inapplicable. It is wrong if it makes false predictions.”
As I mentioned in another discussion, Norbert Feist Acoustic MMX gives the same so-called Null result. According to Michelson and Einstein calculations, a signal must give another result. However, both experiments (optical and acoustic) disagree with their calculations. Therefore, basic categories and suggestions put on the basis of the theory were wrong.
Moreover, Einstein postulated this. Light uses the same duration to cover a given distance in forward and backward propagation. De Witte experiments disagree that postulate. Therefore, the theory uses wrong postulates from the beginning.
Einstein uses an artificial category of so-called “Time” without any definition of that category. He never proposes any explanation of the physical interaction of a physical escarpment clock and so-called flow of Time.
Moreover, you as well as everyone else, never put a single counterargument against my articles which explain all those problems and give solution for them.
As I told you earlier, you point of view looks like a point of view of religion proponents who defend the idea of the flat Erath despite any physical counter-evidence.
The obvious vulnerability of your position is this. You dislike conducting any experiment that contradicts your point of view. That is out of physics. As you understand, you cannot defend a wrong point of view that way.
It causes more questions to you. What can you do as soon as those experiments put together to destroy Relativity? What can you do without Relativity?
Why did not you conduct any experiment that contradicts Relativity by yourself (Like De Witte does)?
Dear all,
we estabilished that there is a difference between the "true" mass, i.e., the mass at rest, and the inertial mass, that encompasses also the momentum. However, thinking well, the mass at rest is just the inertial mass arising when particles cross the ubiquitous Higgs field...
Therefore, the mass at rest is an inertial mass... What a confusion!
Dear Christian, CB: "Either you stay with the Lorentz covariance, then the question of a preferred frame is pointless anyhow or you come up with a new theory, which, first of all, would have to explain, why relativistic kinematics (and electrodynamics) works so extremely well. Non of the anti-relativists on RG that I know so far, do at all understand the problems they would have to attack to be taken serious."
Unfortunately, "the problems one has to attack to be taken serious", is in contradiction with the state of cult in which SRT and GRT are, and the related impossibility to publish any possible paper that does not follow that cult.
It is in no way the description of physics that is the issue. For example, the work of Oleg Jefimenko in electromagnetism and gravity is based upon the *classic* Maxwellian EM, that he used for any velocity, acceleration, distance and time. He did this by accounting for the retardation of the fields by the speed of light.
He can deduce SRT as a special case of EM between reference frames, that communicate with light.
He found a number of clock constructs that comply with SRT, however, he also found EM clock constructs that don't comply.
The reaction of relativists is then that he *must* have made mathematical errors.
Instead, since SRT is only a special case, and since the description of Nature is working amazingly well with his fully Maxwellian theory, that theory should have been popular since a long time.
I applied that theory for cosmic events and the description is fitting amazingly well.
On the other hand, mainstream continues to support the wrong interpretation and the wrong maths wrt the physics, of the Virial Theorem, by supposing it valid for galaxies.
In my RG question, "Can the virial theorem be used for disc galaxies (as it is now)?", I prove many errors in the actual use of this theorem.
The mess in mainstream science for gravity, cosmology and astronomy is really disastrous.
https://www.amazon.com/Causality-Electromagnetic-Induction-Gravitation-Gravitational/dp/0917406230
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_D._Jefimenko
Thierry De Mees:
I would have been interested in taking a peek at your book, but its cost is too high for a casual look.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics