Two electrons, A at rest and B moving at high speed. According to the theory of relativity, there is a "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect in the space-time of the electron moving at high speed, but not in the electron at rest. Now if electron B is moving with velocity v, towards stationary electron A, at the moment of their collision:
(1) assuming that they are both point particles*, what is the measure of spacetime at the moment of their collision, where exactly is the measure? and is the spacetime of A and B the same spacetime?
(2) Assuming that they are structured particles‡, how is spacetime measured at an interface at the instant before their "collision"?
(3) Is the "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect¶ of SR absolute or relative ? Note that no matter how you set up the inertial systems, the spacetime of all inertial systems is a common spacetime that overlaps, and the difference is only in the relative coordinate values.
(4) What causes the "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect? Is it the "motion" itself, or is it the increase in "energy-momentum" caused by the motion? If the cause is energy-momentum, then it is consistent with GR?
A realistic example is the "gold-gold (Au + Au) collisions" at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) by the Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR ) Collaboration[1][2]. Two gold (Au) ions move in opposite direction at 99.995% of the speed of light. As the ions pass one another without colliding, two photons (?) from the electromagnetic cloud surrounding the ions can interact with each other to create a matter-antimatter pair: an electron (e-) and positron (e+). When two Au particles pass one another, approaching two times the speed of light, how is space-time measured here? And whose spacetime measure is it? This example gives the answer to the relationship between the speed of light and the platform of the light source, how the speed of light is interfaced with the speed of the Au. Light does not change its speed when Au keeps changing its speed, so what determines the difference in speed in between? It must be their spacetime measure. That is, we always have: Δx/Δt = c, assuming that Δx and Δt express spatial and temporal measures, respectively.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
* During Einstein's original proof [3], objects were considered as point particles, or independent of the structure of the object.
¶ The "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect in SR is not shown where exactly it manifests itself.
‡ Regardless of the structure, the electric field of the electron is radially dynamically diffuse and it is part of the electron.
-----------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] BROOKHAVEN NTIONAL LABORATORY. (2021). "Scientists Generate Matter Directly From Light – Physics Phenomena Predicted More Than 80 Years Ago." from https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-generate-matter-directly-from-light-physics-phenomena-predicted-more-than-80-years-ago/?expand_article=1.
[2] Adam, J., L. Adamczyk and etl. (2021). "Measurement of e+ e− momentum and angular distributions from linearly polarized photon collisions." Physical Review Letters 127(5): 052302.
[3] Einstein, A. (1905). "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." Annalen der physik 17(10): 891-921.
Chian Fan
A. Velocity Time Dilation
According to Einstein’s Special Relativity, it is postulated that the light speed in space is always constant, no matter the light sources and observers (reference points). As a consequence, time on a moving object runs slower than that is stationary to the observer (reference point). This phenomenon is known as “Velocity Time Dilation”.
In contrast, based on Equation of Light Speed, in addition to Absolute Light Speed (light speed observed at light source) which is dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe, Normal Light Speed (light speed observed at the reference point) also changes with Inertia Light Speed (the relative moving speeds and directions between the light source and reference point). Also, duration (time) of an event remains unchanged no matter of the relative speed between light source and the reference point, except gravitational field and aging of the universe. As a result, light speed is not constant, thus Einstein’s Special Relativity is false, as is the Velocity Time Dilation.
B. Length Contraction
Since length contraction is described by physicists as a common experience observed by a high speed traveler (nowhere close to light speed), therefore, I propose that it is caused by human visual memory rather than the Velocity Time Dilation and related Relativism Theories that are derived from Einstein’s Special Relativity at a speed close to light speed. A detailed mathematical analysis is shown in the attached publication. In fact, not only length contraction can be observed as traveler moves along the length of the object, but also length expansion can be found as traveler moves away from the length of the object.
Length contraction and time dilation are coordinate artifacts of Lorentz boosts-it makes as much sense to focus on them as it makes in focusing on the fact that the components of a vector x=(cosθ,sinθ) depend on θ, upon rotating a vector on the plane. Similarly, the components of 4-vectors depend on the rapidity, that describes the Lorentz boost.
Only quantities that are invariant under the transformations make any sense, mathematical or physical.
Lorentz boosts are the linear transformations of a space and the time coordinate that leave the wave equation invariant. This is true for any wave.
For electromagnetic waves it's of interest because a standard exercise involves showing that any solution of Maxwell's equations is a solution of the wave equation (homogeneous or not) with velocity parameter the speed of light. The reason that's interesting is that, while Maxwell's equations are coupled equations, the wave equations are uncoupled and, thus, easier to solve.
(1)
The spacetime of both particles is the same. They collide means x1μ=x2μ, μ=0,1,2,3, where the two particles are labeled 1 and 2. While the equality between only some components isn't invariant under Lorentz transformations, the equality between ALL components is, since the transformations are linear; so if the two particles collide in one frame, they collide in all frames related by Lorentz transformations.
(2) As usual. However, once more ``measuring'' means computing the quantities that are invariant under Lorentz transformations.
(3) Neither make any sense, they're coordinate artifacts.
(4). They're the artifacts of the Lorentz transformations. There's no ``increase'' in energy or momentum, since that, too, is a coordinate artifact.
All the confusion stems from not asking the right questions.
The introductory section of the thread question is rather long, and mostly looks as a set of rather quite natural for any normal human rational questions that appear if some the SR application in physics is considered, from which looks as that the SR is rather strange theory,
- while, nonetheless, the SR is standard theory in mainstream physics.
The introduction is long, so below only some general comments are given.
First of all – the “fundamental properties and effects of/in Matter’s spacetime”, including [not “length contraction”] “space contraction” and “time dilation” really are strange for any normal human – and, at that these properties and effects have in the SR no any rational explanation – so for what reason and how space is contracted?, and for what reason and how “time is dilated”?
The last is quite natural, since really in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, and for the SR authors, the fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all “Matter” “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- and so really the properties/effects above in the SR are nothing else than some completely bare transcendent declarations, which are postulated in the theory.
The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
https://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712
- and more concretely in physics in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, 3 main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force
Including in the conception/model it is rigorously scientifically shown that Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct); and the spacetime fundamentally cannot be impacted, including “contracted/dilated” by anything in Matter, and fundamentally cannot impact, including “contract/dilate” anything in Matter;
- while in the SR moving inertial reference frames, and so even moving particles, contract space and dilate time, and the “contracted/dilated” space/time really contracts real bodies’ lengths, and slows tick rates real clocks.
All that in the SR is because of that in the SR, again without any rational grounds, it is postulated that the letters x,y.z,t in Lorentz transformations relate to all/every points in Matter’s spacetime, and so Lorentz transformations describe real whole spacetime transformations.
Really – see the SS&VT model above, where it is explained what are Lorentz transformations, and why they are as they are, moving bodies lengths really are contracted, and internal processes in moving particles, bodies, etc., including clocks, really are slowed down, but that happens only at real material impacts of some particles, bodies, etc., on other particles, bodies, etc., when they are accelerated up to some speed;
- whereas the letters x,y,z,t in the transformations relate only to the points in the spacetime, which particles, bodies, etc., occupy in given time moment.
More see the linked above papers, though in this concrete case it is enough to read the 2-nd link.
Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_the_view_of_space-time_is_unified_1-Gods_Gauge and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_Sagnac_effect_be_considered_a_disproof_of_Special_Relativity_Theory/38are well relevant to this thread question as well.
Cheers
First of all, this world is not complicated as most people thought. God doesn't play dice on quantum world (Complementarity and Superposition) , nor on cosmic universe (Relativity and Spacetime).
In Double Slit Interference experiment, particle detector can be used to influence the phase angles of particle waves such that the coherency is disturbed and the interference patterns are diminished or even totally disappeared. However, the interruption of the interference patterns cannot to be used to prove the non-existence of wave property, or even to prove that wave and particle properties cannot coexist at the same time under observation. Therefore, “Complementarity Principle” is not true.
Bell’s Inequality is based on Set Theory and can only be applied on the same sample space. Therefore, in photon multiple polarization experiments, Bell’s Inequality applying on the mixed sample spaces cannot be used to prove if Hidden Variables exist or not. On the other hand, in electron entanglement experiments, because the Bell Inequalities applied are in lack of probability of polarization transformation, also the experiments used have many loopholes, therefore the conclusions of Bell’s Inequality Experiments are incomplete.
In fact, probability of polarization transformation for each electron or photon is equal to the ratio of the transformed electrons or photons to the total electrons or photons in the polarization transformation process. This is proved by experiments which confirm that quantum energy states are indeed the Hidden Variables. In other words, "Superposition" doesn't exist.
Einstein's Special Relativity and Lorentz Transformation are both based on the postulation "Light Speed doesn't change with the light sources and observers (references)". Therefore, Lorentz Transformation and Relativism (Lorenz Factors) can not be used to prove Special Relativity, nor to calculate the Length Contraction and Time Dilation.
Space and Time are nature quantities. They don’t change with anything at all. However, the Dimension of a corresponding identical object and Duration of a corresponding identical event are associated quantities of the object and event. They can change with local gravitational field and aging of the universe. Most people don’t understand the differences of “Space” and “Time” with respect to “Dimension” and “Duration”, even including Einstein himself. It is why Special Relativity is based on a wrong postulation that light speed is constant. Also, General Relativity is derived from a wrong theory that space and time are driven by acceleration instead of gravitational field. Even more, Einstein created a magic word “Spacetime” trying to correlate space and time together, which in fact is only a property (potential energy) of the object or event reflecting the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. Also, Einstein’s Field Equation is nothing but a transformation of energy based field equation from a nonlinear geometry system (geodesics) to a Normal Spacetime System (Cartesian Coordinate System) on earth.
Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_Pythagorean_theorem_conform_to_the_length_contraction_implied_by_Einsteins_special_relativity
- is relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
"Length Contraction and Time Dilation", even if it's just a numerical "marker", should have a place to mark that information in reality.
“In the process, the old dream of a final theory grounded solely on electromagnetic concepts slowly faded and ultimately disappeared, carried away by the emergence of a deeper understanding of the structure of matter, which brought to the forefront of research new interactions, new physical mechanisms at work and new formal languages to talk about them. But bits and pieces of the old way of thinking survived through the process and made their way into the new emerging language. We keep discussing, and teaching, the ‘Lorentz contraction’, and the very words we use still convey the idea of some kind of ‘shrinking’ of a moving object, suggesting a mental representation of the phenomenon not dissimilar from the original interpretation of the Dutch physicist, quite at variance with the relativistic notion of length as a property whose relative character stems from a defined measurement procedure in space and time. And still largely dominant in the standard presentations of the theory (though slowly disappearing from more advanced textbooks) is the concept of ‘relativistic mass’, a remnant of the old notion of the velocity dependent, electromagnetic inertia of charged particles worked out by the supporters of the electromagnetic worldview, which survived the fate of the general framework into which it was conceived and through the weapon of formal resemblance forced its place into the new physics. History, so it seems, has its own inertia, and we can trace its marks, even a century later, into the timeless discourses of physics textbooks, into our language and representations.”[2]
Who determines who, Lorentz invariance determines the speed of light invariance, or the speed of light invariance determines Lorentz invariance. Does mathematics determine physics, or does physics determine mathematics? In fact, such a proposition is inherently incorrect. Maths and physics are not distinguished in this way. They are simply one is abstraction and the other is reality. It is two aspects of one thing.
In this case Einstein stated [1]: You can't get Maxwell's equations from Lorentz transformations, but you can get Lorentz transformations from Maxwell's equations.
--------------------------
[1] Einstein, A. (1976). 爱因斯坦文集（一）Selected Works of Einstein （I）. China, 商务印书馆.
[2] Battimelli, G. (2005). Dreams of a final theory: the failed electromagnetic unification and the origins of relativity. European Journal of Physics, 26(6), S111.
“…"Length Contraction and Time Dilation", even if it's just a numerical "marker", should have a place to mark that information in reality…”
- really that in the quote above is some too questionable passage. Really in physics there exist two fundamentally different approaches at description of some observed objects/events/effects in Matter in this case:
- when really observable “contraction of moving rigid bodies’ lengths” and “slowing down of intrinsic processes in the bodies [moving clocks’ tick rates]” – Lorentz-Poincaré 1904-1905, Einstein 1905; and
- when it is stated that what is observed really above is because of “Space Contraction and Time Dilation” - Minkowski 1908, and in standard mainstream SR till now; despite that nobody and never observed any “contracted space” and/or any “dilated time”.
Really the standard now approach is fundamentally nothing else that some fantastic illusion; really as that is rigorously proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
- Matter’s utmost universal spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where nothing can be “contracted”, “dilated” , etc. by anything in Matter. More see the link above, where, including, it is rigorously scientifically explained why Matte’s spacetime is as it is, why and how lengths of moving bodies are contracted and the intrinsic processes in them are slowed, what are Lorentz transformations and why they are as they are, etc.
Else here only a brief comment to the rest in the post above
“In the process, the old dream of a final theory grounded solely on electromagnetic concepts slowly faded and ultimately disappeared, carried away by the emergence of a deeper understanding of the structure of matter,…”,
- etc. from “Battimelli, G. (2005). Dreams of a final theory: the failed electromagnetic unification and the origins of relativity. European Journal of Physics, 26(6), S111.”
- that is a typical mainstream physical set of mostly really strange and even evidently wrong factually, including historically, claims. Considering of whole passage would be too long, so only one example: really in history there was no some “electromagnetic unification” and some abstract “relativity”.
Really Einstein after 1915 attempted to unify two known in those times theories – electromagnetism and his general relativity theory of Gravity. What really is fundamentally impossible, and that Einstein didn’t “unify” the theories means that he was really professional physicist.
That is another thing that he was typical mainstream physicist, i.e. had principally only some transcendent/fantastic imagination about what are fundamental phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time”, “Matter” [and not only, though; besides all mainstream physicists have such imagination till now] and so frankly believed that the GR is true, despite that it is fundamentally wrong – Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Nature force – and fundamentally by no means is some “spacetime curvature”, which is in a few traits is similar to Electric Force, more see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 Planck scale initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces
Moreover, both Forces above and Nuclear Force act by the same scheme, see the 2023 Planck scale initial model of Nuclear Force in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force
- however all Forces are fundamentally different, and so really fundamentally there is no any necessity in their “unifying”.
To read SS posts in last couple of pages in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_physical_meaning_of_the_relativistic_contraction#view=65623209f3f68c44970b2b12/6/7/6/7/6/8/5/6/8/8/9/9/9/10/9/10/10/10/10/10/11/10/11/10/11it useful as well.
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics