Apart from the two known postulates of special relativity, so called Lorentz' transforms are usually introduced arbitrarily, without a solid scientific bases.
The Lorentz transformations are the linear transformations between the time-like and a space-like coordinate, that leave the wave equation invariant, are connected to the identity and map one solution to another. Just like rotations are the linear transformations between any two space-like coordinates, that leave the wave equation invariant, are connected to the identity and map one solution to another. It would be useful not to conflate history of physics and of mathematics with physics and mathematics.
So all wave equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations. Special relativity is nothing more or less than a way of describing this invariance of the wave equation. And another reason this is of physical interest is that it can be shown that any solution of Maxwell's equations is a solution of the wave equation (the converse isn't true, Maxwell's equations impose constraints).
"....so called Lorentz' transforms are usually introduced arbitrarily, without a solid scientific bases."
FALSE. Length contraction was introduced by Fitzgerald to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment. So, it had a solid scientific basis.
The length contraction was very arbitrary supposition, without any explanation. Moreover, it is contradictory by itself in a few ways.
Concerning the invariance of Maxwell's or wave equations.
This request is contradictory by itself. With respect to the physical forces dependent on the position, motion and acceleration of the objects, the invariant laws are very rough ideal.
The recommended Einstein's text is the most chaotic and inconsistent exposition that I saw in may life. Only the belivers can accept it.
Dear Branko V. Mišković ,
Fitzgerald put forward length contraction and then Lorentz did the same in order to give account for the (null) results of Michaelson Morely (MMX) experiment. This occurred at least 10 years before any relativity theory.
They based their conjecture on Heaviside's experiments and proposed formulas about the deformation of the field for a moving electron at constant speed (HEAVISIDE ELLIPSOID), that was based on the existence of a preferred frame.
I wrote a paper which does not involve LT but provides explanations using the experimental evidences in a real Physical fashion..
Preprint Length contraction as a necessary consequence of the two-way...
That characterisic has been described certainly in a contradictorily fashion since, according to SR, it should be reciprocal.
But it cannot be, if it is a real effect between a moving and stationary system, it must be non-reciprocal, asymmetric.
It incontrovertibly shows that the LAB in an experiment is the preferred frame, for any non-accelerated bodies inside travelling at constant speed in that preferred frame.
It is the case to understand though that Einstein derived LT from first principles from the equivalence of inertial frames which was a sort of revisitation of the concept of the "Galilean Vessel".
It is not fair to accuse Einstein of being incoherent. He ingeniously applied one postulate and the experimental evidence of the Two way SOL = c (out and back speed of light) given by MMX experiment and obtained inevitably that the one-way-SOL = c hence the Lorentz Transformations in the form obtained also by Poincarè.
These were equivalent to the ones found one year before by Lorentz by postulating the invariance of the Maxwell equations.
More than that it would be quite complicated to renounce to the "equivalence of inertial frames" since that would imply that same experiments might not give same outcomes in different inertial frames if there is a preferred one...
Certain relations, experimentally verified, were predicted correctly by SR like the mass-energy equivalence with the relativistic energy relations, the time dilation (twin effect) up to a certain extent. The main feature which distinguishes SR from Max Abraham, Heaviside, Larmor electrodynamics for example, is the relativity of simultaneity which has never received experimental evidence and it is the feature which is supposed to single out the preferred frame.
Time-counting is relative is one thing (time dilation), and simultaneity is relative yet another thing.
Also the THomas precession which was initially found with the relativity of simultaneity can be found otherwise and with more precision.
Einstein in this regard in his TRAIN and EMBANKMENT thought experiment exploited only the isotropy of light in the embankment frame which is equivalent to consider the embankment a preferred frame, so the Relativity of simultaneity cannot be demonstrated there
Preprint A common origin for the Sagnac effect and Einstein's train
Beside that there have been a lot of criticism which was partially solved in the 70's about possibility for SR to predict the twin effect.
Paradoxical predictions like clocks in synch when at rest, accelerated in the same way, do not keep their simultaniety (consequence of the Relativity of simultaneity in the LT) is maybe the largest blunder up to date for SR.
Branko V. Mišković,
Lorentz transformations are derived from the two postulates introduced by Einstein and thus they are not arbitrarily introduced. As Feynman once said,"Shut up and calculate".
The solid scientific basis is formed by the two postulates because they are experimentally well established. They are sufficient on their own.
Honestly the Lorentz transformations were originally developed in the context of the ether theory. The concept of the ether was an idea that there was a medium filling space through which light waves propagated, similar to how sound waves travel through air. In the late 19th century, physicists believed that light required such a medium, known as the "luminiferous ether."
Hendrik Lorentz and other physicists, such as George FitzGerald, worked on the problem of how the motion of objects through this ether could affect the propagation of light. Lorentz transformations were formulated to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to detect any relative motion between the Earth and the ether. This suggested that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference, which was at odds with the ether theory.
The transformations, which include time dilation and length contraction, were initially intended to explain how the laws of electromagnetism would appear the same in different inertial frames moving through the ether. It wasn't until Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905 that the need for the ether was completely discarded. Einstein reinterpreted the Lorentz transformations in a way that removed the need for the ether entirely, showing that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference, independent of any medium.
Here's the catch: what if Einstein's reinterpretation is incorrect? I have written a paper that explains the cause of particle motion and how and why the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference. This explains why the aether wind was not detected. We should have never expected the M&M Experiment to detect an aether wind.
Hello, I have a completely different interpretation of the Lorentz Transformation (starting at 21:00). Please see my lecture: https://youtu.be/Atd9gQmeyT4.
BR
Sobolewski
Fitzgerald said in his 1889 Science letter:
"We know that electric forces are affected by the motion of the electrified
bodies relative to the ether and it seems a not improbable supposition
that the molecular forces are affected by the motion and that the size of
the body alters consequently."
It seems that Fitzgerald understood if the EM forces holding bodies together behaved the same as the light waves in the the M-M experiment, then the contraction would follow. In 1889 understandings of EM forces were just emerging. This suggests that the M-M experiment led to the adoption of SR, but might not have if there had been more information about bodies being held together electromagnetically.
Mark Fiorentino
Lorentz Transformations were found in 1897 by Larmor by imposing the invariance of Maxwell equation for every inertial frame in the same form which Lorentz derived them in 1904.
It is a coincidence, to a certain extent, that length contraction, as conceived by Lorentz and Fitzgerald, to explain MM results, was a sort of a feature (although disputable) of the Lorentz Transformations. Time dilation was first found by Larmor as well within aether theory. A Length contraction was found by Larmor
The equivalence of inertial frames implies necessarily that SOL one way is c, once the experimental evidence of SOL 2 way is provided.
With a suitable interpretation of Sagnac, it is not hard to show that SOL measured by systems moving in the lab cannot be isotropic.
MM experiment is a 2 way SOL experiment to check the isotropy of the 2 way SOL (right angle interferometer). There is no aether wind because ECIF is isotropic. Second, even if there was an "aether wind", they would not be able to detect it with that device. It is not Fizeau.
The 2-way-SOL violation can occur only in the presence of a particular configuration of gravitation (SHAPIRO)
Preprint SHAPIRO TIME-DELAY, Curved 4D space-time or Variable speed of light
David Thomas Cornwell
There is only one postulate, Galileo's postulate : the equivalence of inertial frames (EOIF).
With the experimental evidence of the 2-way-SOL = c (coming from MM experiment) a necessary feature is then 1-way-SOL = c.
Not (1-way-SOL =c) -> Not (equivalence of inertial frames).
a) A scientific theory cannot be based on "postulates" because "Scientific" is all that should be verified with experiments. We could says that the EOIF is a principle, otherwise such theory is not Physics, or an assumption. Another principle, the principle of Equivalence for gravitation, why should not be used the same for the EOIF, so the principle of equivalence of inertial frames.
b) Is it more important the principle of EOIF or the conservation laws?...
If one is able out of two inertial frames to build a "Perpetuum mobile", then EOIF is gone forever...
The Lorentz transformations are indeed based on two postulates: The speed of light in vacuum is a constant and "The laws of nature must be the same in any reference frame". The first one is true based on experiments (if you consider the medium, you can get a result stating that the speed of light is less in the medium, but we already said that it is constant in vacuum, not in the medium). The second is obvious from the logic of using said laws regardless of formulation (Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics). We want laws we can use everywhere so it is only logical that we want to only derive generally formulated laws.
We could observe relativistic laws if we were to just state the first postulate.
it is enough one principle and one experimental evidence. Then everything is mathematically deduced and embodies on the Lorentz Transformations in Einstein's form.
The principle of the equivalence of inertial frames is for sure a first-order approximation. It is possible to break it down at higher orders with yet another experimental evidence and the energy conservation laws.
No. The form of the Lorentz transformations (without specification of their single parameter, having the dimension of velocity^2) can be derived rigorously from the relativity principle and homogeneity of space and time plus isotropy of space. That is a sound physical basis. One experiment then is sufficient to determine the parameter to be c^2.
Let me suggest the paper:
Jacek Szarski: Some axiomatic approach to the special theory of relativity}, ANNALES SOCIETATIS MATHEMATICAE POLONAE Series I: COMMENTATIONES MATHEMATICAE, XIV (1970), pp. 79 -- 85.
pdf available at: https://wydawnictwa.ptm.org.pl/index.php/commentationes-mathematicae/article/view/5691/5232
From the introduction: "The purpose of this paper is to deduce the Lorentz transformation from some axioms, special emphasis being laid on three points: 1) clear physical meaning of notions, axioms and definitions, 2) precise mathematical deduction without having recourse to any physical intuition, 3) the role of the proper choice of units of length and of time by one observer when the units of another observer are already fixed."
The third point seems most interesting since the system of axioms refers only to existence of limit value of the velocity of motion in any inertial reference frame, possibly different in different frame. The existence of units leading to equal value of the limit velocity is simply implied from the axioms so that the passage from one reference frame to another one is given by the standard Lorentz transformations.
The sentence is scientifically worthless, since there is nothing commonly accepted as first order approximation for this principle.
By the same argumentation also the next sentence: > is worthless. Additionally this sentence is misleading since there are NO experiments and/or considerations being an evidence of braking the energy conservation law caused by the principle of equivalence of inertial frames. On the contrary, the Special Relativity Theory is an consistent model which fulfills the principle and is confirmed experimentally.
that is infact the equivalence of inertial frames which Einstein used and in addition to that he added the constraint of the constancy of SOL two ways to obtain the LT.
Galilean relativity...is a first order approximation which is based on that principle
>
it is worthless for whom is allergic to conservation laws...
unfortunately there is
This is not a definition of first order approximation. I criticise such statements since they sound AS IF they had some mathematical meaning. Approximation in mathematical applications to physics MUST be rigorously defined. Only after this one can check what is or isn't an approximation of something else.
Reason, there are researchers which work without rigorous definitions for which for instance
------ gamma in first oder approximation equals 1 and
------ gamma-1 in first order approximation equals beta^2 [OR zero? who knows?]
which proves unacceptable INCONSISTENCY. But the dispute continues! That's what counts!
I did not give any definition of FO approximation. It is well known that GT is a first-order approximation in v/c
Here we have an example of changing the subject of dispute by Stefano Quattrini - still he has not given any explanation of the objected statements written in #5 on p.2:
Namely the following questions have NO answer yet:
1. What is approximated be the principle of equivalence of inertial frames?
2. What does it mean that the approximation is of first order?
3. Which evidence is mentioned in the second statement?
4. How the principle of equvalence of inertial frames breaks the energy conservation law?
here we have the usual accusations of Joachim Domsta which are as usual off topic.
I repeat : It is well known that Galilean Transformations which rely on equivalence of inertial frames, is not valid at high speeds so it can be considered valid only as a first-order approximation at v/c
We can observe said effects in this simple setup: (you can switch the rocket for any moving object that houses a laser and a detector.)
Suppose there are two people, one of whom is on a rocket, and the other observing the first person from some point in space. The rocket is equipped with a laser and a detector, which are directed perpendicular to the direction of travel, but at the same time pointing at each other. Person moving with the rocket is looking at this laser-detector system and thinks ’Light is traveling in a straight line to a detector and it’s path is D = c∆t0’. The other person is looking at this picture and thinks ’Light is moving along a hypotenuse S = c∆t’. They are both right! After this experiment they went to a laboratory and thought of Pythagorean theorem S^2 = L^2 + D^2 where L = v∆t is the path a rocket made. And now we can derive time dilation:
S^2 = L^2 + D^2 ⇒ c^2∆t^2 = v^2∆t^2 + c^2∆t'^2 ⇒ ∆t = ∆t'/√[1 − ( v/c)^2]
To get the length contraction we just multiply by the velocity of said rocket.
In this example we both accepted that c is a constant (postulating speed of light in vacuum as a constant) and both researchers are right (postulating the equivalence of two laws in different frames of refference).
SQ in #2.5:
JoaD in #2.7: "The sentence is scientifically worthless, since there is nothing commonly accepted as first order approximation for this principle."
SQ in #2.10:
JoaD in #3.2: "Approximation in mathematical applications to physics MUST be rigorously defined. Only after this one can check what is or isn't an approximation of something else."
SQ in 3.3:
The thread topic “The origin of Lorentz transforms” looks as has at least a couple of meanings. First one is “historical origin” – why, who, and how the transformations were derived in first 1900s, the other is – what is real “physical origin” of the transformations, i.e. why and how the transformations exist at all, and are as they are.
The first origin is rather clear and known – the transformations were developed by a few physicists, first of all Lorentz and Poincaré in 1904, aimed at to solve mostly two existent in last half of 1800s problems
- that Maxwell equations in relatively moving frames aren’t transformed by using Galileo transformations - what violates the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle [and in 1887 Voigt developed his transformations], and
- the result of 1887 M&M experiment; though Voigt transformations could be rather essentially applicable, but further physicists pay no attention to these transformations.
Though FitzGerald 1889 idea “explained” the M&M result, however that was some ad hoc idea, which had no any physical ground, but what was more important – that didn’t clarify the first problem.
In last 1800s-first 1900s a few physicists’ work resulted in the Lorentz derivation, where Lorentz and Poincaré introduce letters x,y,z,and t, as coordinates in some “local space” and some “local time”; both had no any real physical sense, and considered by the authors as some mathematical variables that ,fit the transformations with experimental data and relativity principle; physical sense will be clarified later, that is rather typical situation in physics; the transformations act in Matter’s absolute 4D Euclidian spacetime, according to transformations the speed of light in all frames is equal to c.
In 1905 Einstein found rather simple derivation of the transformations, basing on a few additional postulates – that the speed of light isn’t some “derivative”, but is some extremely fundamental constant, and because that in all frames the speed of light is equal to c, lengths of moving bodies are contracted, and tick rates of moving clocks are slowed [in Lorentz factor]. To make the speed of light so extremely potent, in the SR-1905 it is postulated that Matter’s absolute spacetime doesn’t exist, and all/every inertialy reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate in some so strange 4D Euclidian spacetimes.
In 1906 Poincaré shows that Lorentz transformations can be derived by the condition that quadratic form x2+y2+z2-t2 [he used c=1] is invariant in 4D space, where the t-coordinate is imaginary; for him that was some interesting mathematical fact, while Matter’s spacetime is absolute 4D Euclidian one.
In 1908 Minkowski postulated that this space above is the real Matter’s spacetime, including that the letters x,y,z,it [“i” is imaginary mathematical unit] are coordinates of all/every points in the spacetime, and using the derived so Lorentz reformations “discovered” “relativistic properties and effects” – “space contraction” , “time dilation”, etc. This Minkowski version is the standard SR now.
Really from the postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all/every frames are absolutely equivalent and legitimate any number of really senseless consequences completely directly, rigorously and unambiguously follow; the simplest one is the Dingle objection to the SR;
- from what by completely rigorous “Proof by contradiction” it completely directly, rigorously and unambiguously follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, that so the relativistic properties and effects fundamentally don’t exist, etc.
The post is rather long already, so about “2-nd origin” seems in next post, now,
Cheers
So what? Should I start to check next preprint by Stefano Quattrini while my DETAILED remarks on his other one "Length contraction as a necessary consequence of the two-ways constancy of lightspeed to train and embankment" have been rejected by the Author without showing any single error of my posts?
Remark. The doubtful statements by Stefano and my requests for explanation appeared in this thread (cf. post #7 on p.3). Thus the answers should appear here, too.
Joachim Domsta
rejected by whom?
In any case learn some physics..
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
There is the tragical truth that a sequence of believers into SRT do not know, the origins of its main equations. Some transformations of the two EM fields, one incomplete and other fully fictional, were the starting bases. The artificial symmetry of the direct and inverse pairs, made for the sake of principle of relativity, called in question the form of Maxwell's equations. Tre arbitrary reparation of this difficulty has been achieved by deformation of space and time.
Warning: Stefano Quattrini in post #2 p. 4 quoting me changed substantially content of my post #1 p.4.
I expect that he will explain this ugly step jointly with the delayed answers to my requests formulated within post #7 on p.3.
all the answers are written in these two pages.
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
So what? Should I start to check next preprint by Stefano Quattrini while my DETAILED remarks on his other one "Length contraction as a necessary consequence of the two-ways constancy of lightspeed to train and embankment" have been rejected by the Author without showing any single error of my posts?
The error was in Joachim Domsta assumption that the structure in the embankment and in the wagon as shown in the picture were necessarily the same length while in motion.
The equality is SEEN from the picture under the assumption that all lines and points are illustrating their position in the IRF of the embankment.
Possible objection could be understood by SQ if he wanted to pass all my questions asking about the frame chosen by him for drawing the pics.
So what: should the reader guess that the embankment is drawn as posed in space part of IRF and the train depicted on THE SAME pic is drawn as it were posed in the space part of IRF' ?
instead of the usual polemics about nothing Joachim Domsta should read this to get the proper replies as I said..
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
>
Indeed, there is nothing to be discussed wheneer announced by my Esteemed Opponent: Roma locuta, causa finita!
… Read more
Share
Let hope that rather strange, but vivid, “polemics about nothing” after SS post on page 3, stopped. So continue [see the pointed above SS post], here about “physical origin” of the Lorentz transformations. However firstly some notes about what are inertial reference frames and Lorentz transformations in physical practice.
That essentially repeats what is written in an other thread, and in this case it would be enough to point corresponding SS post on concrete pages addresses – such evidently useful option works usually in RG threads; but for some rather strange reasons, if in a thread really scientific posts appear, the thread URL obtains rather specific coding, as, say, “/81/82/82/81/83/83/84/86….” , and at attempts to address to some necessary page, only the last page opens.
The below relates to a simple scheme, when some frame K’“a train” moves with a speed V relatively a stationary frame K “embankment”, along X-axis, X-axes of both frames have the same direction, both observers really measure [explicitly or implicitly] the speed of light. At that really:
- both observers can, in principle, measure anything, including the speed of light, by two ways:
- ether directly by using own instruments,
- or measuring only the speed of other frame, and using data of measurements that the other frame observer makes [and sends the data to other observer, in this case - to “stationary” one, i.e. on “embankment”],and applying to moving observer’s data the Lorentz transformations. So:
If:
- one observer is in the “embankment” reference frame, K, somewhere on embankment, where the coordinate origin point x=0 is set;
- another observer is on “train”, reference frame K’, the train moves in K with a certain finite speed V
Dear Sergey
Your exposition is too long, inconvenient for the discussion.
Instead, the complete papers would be more appropriate.
In this sense, please consider my paper just attached.
Pointing out again that inertial frames equivalence is unfeasible...
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
since the prediction of the DOppler RADAR of LT provides a perpetuum mobile of the first kind.
Not only. The mass function depending on speed, included into SRT, distinguish two inertial frames. There is the preferential frame relevant for the mass value. Otherwise, the mass and respective energy would be arbitrary. The relativistic dynamics is not relativistic at all.
Dear Branko V. Mišković and Diego Saa, that below contains some comments to your posts.
Let’s continue about what are Lorentz transformations [see SS posts on pages 3 and 5 in last post it is pointed that observer in a stationaryframe can observe and measure what exists and happens in some system of bodies by two ways – using own instruments and measuring only velocity of some relairvely moving frame, and using the moving frame observer’s data and LT. Here are a couple of points.
- first of all - the 2-nd way, when the moving observer sends his date to stationary one, isn’t used in practice, and mostly because of in practice really only one stationary “laboratory” frame exists. So some other frames are used only at mental/gedanken simulations of what can happen in an other frame by using data in stationaryone - and again using LT. That is widely used in physics, say, in center mass frame most equation in mechanics are simpler than in other, including laboratory, frames; and this “gedanken” practice existed in mechanics much earlier LT derivation – by using Galileo transformations.
The second point is about what is “stationary” frame. As that pointed in SS posts above, from the SR postulate that all/every frames, every of each can be set as “stationary” one, are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate completely directly, rigorously and unambiguously any number of senseless consequences follows, and so absolutely for sure there can exist “absolute” frames that are at rest in 3DXYZ space of Matter’s absolute spacetime,
- which, of course, are “stationary” frames, but fundamentally differ from any moving in the 3D space frames in that measured by absolute frame instruments values of kinematic parameters of what exists and happens in Matter are fundamentally real, while the values that are measured in moving frames are unreal.
An example – if a rod that has a length L if it is at absolute rest, moves in the space with a speed V, its length in 3D space is absolutely really lesser/contracted than L in Lorentz factor, however measured length of this rod by instruments of the co-moving is L;
- and if in the moving frame observer measures length of the moving rod copy that is at rest in the space, he obtains that this rod’s length is lesser/contracted than Lin Lorentz factor.
Both measurements in moving frame are unreal – really all is on the contrary, however that is in accordance with extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle, and so, as that Poincaré showed in 1905, Lorentz transformations form a “velocity group”, so any moving frame is rigorously traceable to any absolute frame. Just so till now in practice evidently really moving in space frames are used and are well scientifically applicable; while absolute motion, say, of lab frames on Earth, till now isn’t observed. Poincaré thought that that is principally impossible at all.
However all hat is correct only provided that the moving frames are “Lorentzian” ones, i.e. the frames instruments are set in accordance with LT,
- and, as that is rigorously scientifically shown in the SS&VT 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,
- only if the frame’s system of instruments is a rigid system. If the frame instruments don’t compose rigid system, it isn’t universally, if at all, applicable. However if in a system bodies/instruments are free, that allows to observe the absolute motion and to measure absolute velocity, more see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible
Cheers
These speculations, initiated by Einstein, are primitive, prone to the formal mistakes and inconsistences. The original more systematic approach started from the two field transformations and their artificial symmetry, conditioned by the principle of relativity. The form of Maxwell's equations, thus called in question, has been compensated by respective transformation of space and time. The full procedure is presented in the attached paper.
The document that best explains Lorentz's original mechanical assumption, which led to his discovery of the Lorentz transformations, is his paper titled "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity less than that of light," published in 1904. This paper laid out Lorentz's theory of electrons and the electromagnetic field and introduced what are now known as the Lorentz transformations, which describe how quantities such as space and time coordinates change under a boost (change of reference frame) in special relativity.
In this paper, Lorentz proposed that objects contract in the direction of motion and that clocks slow down when moving relative to an observer. These assumptions were initially formulated as ad hoc adjustments to Maxwell's equations to account for the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed the constancy of the speed of light regardless of the observer's motion.
Lorentz's mechanical assumption was based on the idea that there exists an "ether" through which light propagates, and that this ether carries electromagnetic fields. Lorentz hypothesized that material bodies (such as electrons) interact with this ether, causing the observed phenomena of length contraction and time dilation when in motion relative to the ether.
The paper by Lorentz from 1904 is crucial because it outlines his detailed mathematical framework and physical assumptions that eventually formed the basis for Einstein's theory of special relativity. Lorentz's work was foundational in developing the understanding of how space and time behave at high velocities, even though the theoretical framework was later refined and generalized by Einstein.
Stefano Quattrini
You like everyone else in that time and still in this time do not understand why and how the photon moves. If the world of science understood the cause of particle motion they would know exactly why the M&M experiment failed to detect the earth’s motion within the aether. Einstein finally realized this and began the search for the cause of particle motion. In my paper on this site I reveal the cause of the photon’s motion and why its speed is constant in all inertial frames of reference. With this knowledge it becomes obvious why the M&M experiment had a null result. The reason is that the photon was absolutely the wrong particle to use to detect an aether wind. My solution demonstrates that the photon’s motion is internally caused by the photon’s electrostatic field dipole structure. This Means that its velocity will always be separate from externally moving frames of reference. There is no need for using length contraction or time dilation to explain the null result. My solution set works perfectly at describing the cause of photon motion and it also reveals the equation that determines the constancy of the speed of light. I build the photon and assign it a wave length and then I apply the constancy formula. Then I take the linear mass generated by the photon charges and input into newton’s law of gravitation. The result is always the speed of light in a vacuum. You will have to read the paper to get the full explanation. The bottom line is that everyone who worked on those transformations initially used an aether model for the basis of the math. That includes Einstein.
In the above discussion everyone exposes his own ideas and believes, irrespective of the other partakers. Not only that nobody wants to read the recommended texts, but also does not try to understand each other.
Sergey Shevchenko wrote:
In fact you have included not even one reference to any one of my observations.
On the contrary, you have begun a rant against SR and against current Physics. In particular about some discredited absolute frame of reference. For your information, I will leave next just one reply, given by Google Gemini:
I find incomprehensible your assertions that , or that , or that
All such assertions have no meaning for SR or the use of LT. For such reasons I decline to continue the present discussion.
Regards.
Mark Fiorentino
That the aether wind does not exist, it is undisputable.
On the other hand MM experiment checked if the two-way SOL was anysotropic and it is not in the short range.
Let’s continue [see SS posts on pages 3 and 5] about what are Lorentz transformations. In last post it is pointed that from the fact that from the SR postulate about absolute equivalence and legitimacy of all inertial reference frames any number of evidently senseless consequences follow completely directly, rigorously and unambiguously by completely rigorous Proof by contradiction it follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and so there can exist “absolute” frames. i.e. that are at rest in the absolute 3DXYZ space of [as that is shown in the SS&VT model below] Matter’s utmost universal “kinematical” fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct),
- where all dimensions are fundamentally independent on each other. I.e. the spacetime is fundamentally nothing else than some “empty container”, where Matter is placed, and everything in Matter exists and happens.
Including the emptiness fundamentally cannot impact on anything in Matter, and be impacted by anything in Matter, i.e. cannot be “contracted”, “dilated”, so on, all these “relativistic properties and effects” are completely ad hoc postulated by Minkowski his illusions, which can have some rational sense only provided that the postulates that there is no absolute spacetime, and about the absolute frames equivalence are true.
These really transcendent fundamentally wrong postulates, properties and effects, etc., appeared in the SR quite logically inevitably follow from the fact, that in mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics in 1900s , and till now, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, were/ are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- and the rather young authors of the SR-1905/1908, who had only completely transcendent imaginations about what are “Space/space” and “Time/time”, postulated for the space/time/spacetime really fantastic “properties and effects” , etc., while more adult and professional Lorentz and Poincaré, who at their work well knew that 99% of on first glance fine ideas can be, and mostly are, banal illusions, didn’t “discover” some “fundamental” things.
So, again, in Lorentz 1904 theory letters X,Y,Z,ctin the transformations relate to some ad hoc frankly mathematical trick “local space” and “local time”, when Minkowski postulated that these letters completely really relate to all/every point in Matter’s spacetime, and just only by this way “discovered” the properties and effects, etc.
The fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really scientifically defined only in framework of the SS&VT really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- and more concretely at application of the definitions to the informational system Matter“, i.e. in physics, in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read one of 3 main papers
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics.
- where, including, it is rigorously scientifically rationally shown that the letters x,t,z,t and x’,y’, z’, t’ in LT relate only to points that are occupied by rigid bodies/rigid systems of the bodies in a given time moment, and by fundamentally no means relate to any Matter’s spacetime points. At that practically all real – absolutely necessary in all/every physical experiments - real reference frames are rigid enough ones, and at least Electric and Gravity Forces fields make the frames and studied material objects/systems be rigid ones as well; say that happens in GPS systems, etc.
- and so because of extremely mighty Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle action the based essentially on this principle SR-1908 is well adequately to the reality applicable in physical everyday practice, despite that is based on really strange Minkowski really imaginary mathematically space – since the SR formalism really is nothing else than a well convenient mathematical trick at application of LT in really Euclidian 4D “spacetime” with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z), where really the specific space cτ-dimension is postulated as the time dimension.
The post is rather long, so note that last [and not only, though] SS post in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_is_the_most_convincing_physical_experiment_Not_Thought_Experiment_that_conclusively_validates_Einsteins_Special_Theory_of_Relativity#view=6653a3a99e4b36de0a068daf/156/157/157/158/156/158/156/156/159/158/159/156/158/159/159/159/160/159/156/160, page 161, is relevant to this thread question.
Cheers
Stefano Quattrini
Undisputed conclusions such as the aether does not exist means that there is a consensus or general agreement on what the null result means among experts or within a community. However, it does not necessarily mean their conclusion of what the null result means is absolutely correct without any chance of error. Scientific and scholarly consensus can evolve over time as new evidence and perspectives emerge. Therefore, while an undisputed interpretation is widely accepted, it is still subject to revision or refutation in light of new information or understanding. I have presented new information explaining the null result as a result of the internal independent cause of motion of the photon. So this exposes the false conclusion that there is no aether wind. I now dispute what the scientists say. I predict that the aether wind will be detectable if we use particles that have mass, like neutrons or protons. The aether wind will show up in particle beam timing differences in the Late December or early January time frame in an accelerator's East and West tunnels. The aether wind can also be detected by checking radioactive decay rates in the same time frame. This has already been noticed.
Mark Fiorentino ,
the result of MM experiment in no way singles out a background. It was a big mistake to think that...
On the contrary the two-way speed of light (which is isotropic locally) also according to MM to a very good approximation, implies necessarily the existence of a background.
Preprint Length contraction as a necessary consequence of the two-way...
Branko V. Mišković
For example, the Lorentz transformation results from the following two assumptions:
1) There is space and time. They can be equipped with Cartesian coordinate systems.
2) Inertial systems are physically equivalent.
Let’s continue [see also SS posts on pages 3, 5, and this one] about what are Lorentz transformations. In last post the main points in this case are clarified – that Matter’s utmost universal “kinematical” spacetime is the fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where cτ,X,Y,Z are really 4D space dimensions, ctis real/ “true” time dimension, the spacetime is fundamentally nothing else than some “empty container” that fundamentally cannot be impacted by/impact on anything in Matter, and so any theory where some impacts/corresponding spacetime transformations are postulated, are for sure wrong, and so LT variables xyzt/x’y’z’t’fundamentally relate only to points in the spacetime, which are occupied in every time moment by rigid bodies/systems of the bodies, including only provided this a system of rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks “inertial reference frame” can be really scientific instrument, using measurements in/by which provide really adequate to the reality data.
Besides in the posts link to the paper, where the LT problem is rigorously scientifically clarified, is given, so more see the link, here only a few notes to this problem.
First of all - that the Matter’s spacetime is as it is fundamentally follows from that, as it is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the SS&VT model above basing on really foundational von Weizsäcker and Fredkin-Toffoli findings, the Matter’s ultimate base is the dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE].
FLE has 4 main/utmost universal degrees of freedom at changing its state , i.e. at “binary flip”: 3 “von Weizsäcker’s” degreases of freedom, and “reverse flip” “Fredkin-Toffoli 1 degree of freedom,
- what, as that follows from really scientific definition in the model of fundamental phenomenon/notion “Space”, correspondingly is actualized in Matter as the fundamentally infinite 4D space above, which “automatically” absolutely obligatorily appeared in parallel with first FLE creation at Matter’s Beginning [more see section “Cosmology” in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics],
- and all that happened/happens in the unique universal for everything [in the “Information” Set, including “Matter”] time dimension; i.e. by another word FLE is [5]4D structure.
Further the dense [5[4D FLE lattice was created/placed in the [5]4D spacetime above.
As that quite scientifically rationally postulated in the model, FLE “size” in 4D space and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.
Everything in Matter exists and happens only as some disturbances in the lattice that always constantly moves in the lattice – and so in 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) – with “equal footing”, and having 4D velocities that have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, c, c= lP/tP.
Particles are specific – cyclic algorithms [more see the model] - disturbances that appear if some the lattice’s FLE is impacted with transmission to it some 4D momentum P, If P is directed along cτ-axis, the particle, if is at rest in 3DXYZ space, has “rest mass” in this space, moves in cτ-dimension with speed of light, and its algorithm ticks with maximal frequency. If such particle is impacted by a 3D space momentum, it moves also in the 3D space, its speed in cτ-dimension decreases, the algorithm becomes be “diluted” by “blank” space FLEs, and so ticks slower, moving in 3D space unstable particle lives longer, clocks tick slower, etc.,
- all of what by the Pythagoras theorem is in Lorentz factor.
The post is rather long, so about “physical origin” of LT here, besides general grounds, only about one concrete point.
Cheers
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
The Lorentz transformations, fundamental to special relativity, indeed originate from more than just Einstein's two postulates;
1. Constancy of the Speed of Light: According to Einstein's first postulate, the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer. This invariance of the speed of light underpins the need for a transformation that maintains this constancy across different inertial frames.
2. Principle of Relativity: Einstein's second postulate states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. This principle implies that no preferred inertial frame exists and that the transformations between inertial frames must preserve the form of the physical laws.
3. Lorentz and Poincaré's Work: Before Einstein, Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré worked on problems related to electromagnetism and the Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to detect the motion of Earth through the supposed "aether." Lorentz proposed transformations that could explain the null result, suggesting that lengths contract and time dilates for objects moving relative to the aether. Poincaré further formalized these transformations, which we now know as the Lorentz transformations.
4. Mathematical Consistency: The Lorentz transformations arise naturally from the requirement that the spacetime interval (or distance in four-dimensional spacetime) remains invariant between inertial frames. Mathematically, this is expressed by the invariance of the Minkowski spacetime interval:
\[ s^2 = c^2t^2 - x^2 - y^2 - z^2 \]
The transformations must preserve this interval, leading to the form of the Lorentz transformations.
5. Symmetry Considerations: Special relativity can also be derived from the assumption of the symmetry of spacetime. The Poincaré group, which includes translations, rotations, and Lorentz transformations, is the symmetry group of spacetime in special relativity. This symmetry requirement leads directly to the Lorentz transformations.
6. Experimental Evidence: Experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment provided empirical evidence that supported the need for the Lorentz transformations. These experiments showed that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer and that time dilation and length contraction occur as predicted by the transformations.
Suffice to say that I completely disagree with the discussion statement….
Let’s continue [see also SS posts on pages 3, 5, 6] about what are Lorentz transformations, and what is the LT’ “physical origin”. In last post it is pointed that particles are close-loop cyclic disturbances in the [5]4D FLE-lattice – cyclic algorithms that, if a particle is created by impacting of an FLE by a directed along the cτ-axis momentum, P, and so has “rest mass” in 3DXYZ space, is at rest in this space, its algorithm has minimal length and so ticks with maximal frequency; if it is impacted by 3D space directed momentum, it moves also in this space, the algorithm is diluted by blank space FLEs, becomes be so longer, and so ticks slower in Lorentz factor. To this add here that some particles [now for sure known only photons] are created in the lattice by 3D space directed P, such particles move only in the space, quite naturally with the speed of light.
For answering the 2-nd point in the LT problem it is necessary to know more about particles creation. So: if the momentum Pis practically infinitesimal, that causes in the lattice sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping/motion with 4D speed c=lP/tP of “FLE-flipping point” along a straight line; however if Pisn’t small, since motion with speed more than c in the lattice is impossible, the impacted FLE start to precess, and the FLE-flipping point 4D trajectory is a 4D “helix”; just so the close-loop algorithm – a particle - appears, which [the particle] so exists [in more than first approximation] always at every time moment as FLE flipping point that has size ~Planck length;
- when radius of the helix, λ, λ =ћ/P. 3D projection of the helix so is the de Brogile wave λs =ћ/p, p is 3D space component of P, what is observed as the “particle-wave”.
At small 3D space speeds the radius of the helix is particle’s Compton length, λ =ћ/mc, while, at that, so the “particle-point” has 4D angular momentum be equal to ћ, its 3D projection is observed as [in many cases] particle’s spin, ½ ћ. Photons observed spin is ћ.
So every particle is some “gyroscope”, 4D axis of which is always directed along the particle 4D momentum P. If a having rest mass particle is at rest in 3D space, the 4D angular momentum is directed along cτ-axis, if also moves in 3D space along, say, X-axis, it rotates in the (X,cτ) plane on some angle;
- and, if many-many particles compose a moving with a speed V along X-axis rigid body that has, if is at rest in 3D space, in X-axis length L, they rotate whole body in the plane above, so that the body’s 3D space projection becomes be lesser than L;
- and in the cτ-dimension the body’s front end becomes be lower than the back end. Since in mainstream physics and everyday humans practice the cτ-dimension is the time dimension, the front end is “younger” than the back end. At that by the Pythagoras theorem:
- the observed – and allowed for photons interaction – the body’s 3D space projection is lesser/ “contracted” than L in Lorentz factor,
- while the front end is younger than the back end in the Voigt-Lorentz decrement Δt=-VL/c2.
The points 1 [last SS post] and this point 2 are physical origin of Lorentz transformations, and so to derive the transformations it is enough to know Pythagoras theorem – and what is in the SS&VT model, of course. So more see the SS posts and links in the posts,
- here only once again remind: the Lorentz transformations relate only to points in the Matter’s spacetime that are occupied in given time moments by points of rigid bodies/rigid systems of the bodies, and fundamentally have no any relation to other spacetime points, and
- LT are intended for using in humans’ rigid systems of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks “inertial reference frames”, while everything in Matter exists and happens only in “absolute frame” without any relation – how many of what frames what humans are inventing.
Cheers
Critique of the Proposed Physical Origins
1. Lack of Empirical Basis:
- The model described lacks direct empirical evidence. Mainstream Lorentz transformations are strongly supported by experimental data, such as time dilation observed in particle decay and length contraction in high-energy particle physics.
2. Complexity of the 5D FLE-Lattice Model;
- Introducing a 5D lattice and cyclic disturbances may add unnecessary complexity without providing clear predictive power or experimental validation.
3. Mainstream Physics Consistency:
- The mainstream derivation of Lorentz transformations from the constancy of the speed of light and the principle of relativity is simpler and more robust. The proposed model should demonstrate how it aligns or improves upon this established framework.
4. Observable Consequences:
- The helical trajectories and precession described for particles should have observable consequences. For instance, the model should predict unique experimental outcomes that differ from those predicted by special relativity.
5. Quantum Mechanics Integration:
- The explanation integrates quantum mechanical concepts like spin and the de Broglie wavelength, but it does not address how these concepts fit within the broader framework of quantum field theory or general relativity.
6. Mathematical Rigor:
- The mathematical formulation and derivation of the Lorentz transformations within this model need to be as rigorous as those in special relativity. Any new model must reproduce the well-established results of special relativity in appropriate limits.
Specific Points of Critique
1. Gyroscope Analogy:
- The analogy of particles as gyroscopes with 4D angular momentum is intriguing but should be connected more clearly to observable phenomena and experimental data.
2. Absolute Frame of Reference:
- The concept of an absolute frame of reference contradicts the principle of relativity, which has been extensively validated. How does this model reconcile with the lack of detectable absolute motion, as shown by experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiment?
3. Physical Interpretation of Lorentz Factor:
- The dilution of the particle’s algorithm by blank space FLEs leading to the Lorentz factor is not intuitive. It should be explained how this approach provides a more comprehensive understanding than time dilation and length contraction derived from the invariance of the speed of light.
4. Rest Mass and Helical Motion:
- The transition from impacting an FLE to creating a particle with rest mass through helical motion needs more detailed exposition. How does this process correlate with known particle creation mechanisms?
5. Consistency with General Relativity:
- Any new model needs to be consistent with general relativity, especially regarding the treatment of spacetime and gravity. The proposed model's implications for gravitational phenomena should be explored.
While the proposed model offers a novel perspective, it must be critically examined against established experimental data. the mainstream derivation of Lorentz transformations is grounded in empirical data and well-validated principles.
best
H
Harri Shore ,
yes to a certain extent, nevertheless to mainstream's astonishment they infringe energy conservation laws .
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
the concept of a "local absolute reference frame" or preferred frame or propagation domain for EM waves is at variance with relativity which has the issue described above. To understand what is a "propagation domain" which is the one first theorized by Maxwell, in our case it is the ECIF on earth, SCIF in the field of SUN at a certain distance from planets, then there are other reference frames according to stationary gravitational fields...
MM experiment is just a 2-way-SOL isotropy test which is always successful in the short range. It was thought that the length contraction and time dilation were ad hoc reason for the non detected anisotropy.
They are not ad hoc reasons at all if one considers also the Sagnac effect in the game... Lenght contraction and Time dilation are actually real effects and cannot be symmetrical unless falling again in Dingle's objection
Preprint Length contraction as a necessary consequence of the two-way...
they testify the presence of a local preferred frame.
Dear Branko V. Mišković ,
You’re absolutely right, comrade Einstein created his famous theory by compiling all that intellectual garbage, which was spilled onto the pages of scientific journals at the end of the before last and the beginning of the last century. It seemed that this theory had demonstrated the achievement of an absolute bottom in the degradation of humanity; but suddenly, from below, Mr Minkowski and Mr Sommerfeld were knocking.
What is the secret of SRT’s enduring popularity to this day? The answer is surprisingly simple: the vast majority of the adherents of this theory are not subjects of scientific activity, but only the objects-transponders that relay obsolete nonsense to the young generation’s infirm brains. (Naturally, most students show natural ingenuity, acting on the principle «passed the exam - forgotten as a nightmare».) Such relativists are «scientists» only on the basis of the place of receipt of their salary.
The unquestionable merit of relativists is that they have a good ability to memorize logically crazy texts (often not inferior in this respect to religious preachers), strong corporate mutual support and the existence of a well-developed system of texts («Bible of SRT»).
Another important factor in maintaining SRT status is that so-called anti-relativists are the complete opposite of relativists: they’re completely fragmented and quite lazy. They construct their «research», trying to replace the lack of education and integrity of any scientific concept by pulling out individual puzzles/pieces of relativism, remaining in the paradigm of the theory they criticize. In other words, anti-relativists are like dung worms that feed on the waste of someone else’s intellectual activity, but they do not even try to make their own «Gospel».
Based on the quick review of the replies that emerged during the discussion, I would, without a shadow of doubt, give the palm to one of our colleagues on the first tab, which comes down to the following borrowed thought of a famous educator: «Shut up and count, not caring whether you have turned on your brain».
With kind regards
Dear Sergey Sheludko ,
the point is that anti-relativist most of the time do not know relativity well enough to present falsifications and through away the baby with dirty water..
I am slow, it took me some years to have a sound basis from which I could counter-react to "fake Physics"
it is enough to follow Maxwell, Helmholtz, Larmor, Heaviside and some others also contemporaries and realize that:
a) Lorentz Transformations tried to bring us back to Galilei and they are not usable..
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
to use them for advanced physics you have to go back to mathematics which looks like pre-Galilean epicycles
b) The length contraction predicted by Heaviside and the time dilation predicted by Larmor are real non-reciprocal effects, otherwise one would not be able to explain the constancy of the two-way SOL.
Preprint Length contraction as a necessary consequence of the two-way...
For those readers who really want to understand – what are Lorentz transformations and what the LT both origins – historical and physical – see SS posts on pages 3,5,6,7, and links in the posts, here only a brief comment to “Critique of the Proposed Physical Origins”, which is typical mainstream physical critique, and so contains a typical set of typical – an so practically all really non-adequate to the reality – claims. Practically all the claims are, in fact, commented in the pointed SS posts, so see the responds there; here only a few comments to a few basic points.
First of all to
“… The concept of an absolute frame of reference contradicts the principle of relativity, which has been extensively validated. How does this model reconcile with the lack of detectable absolute motion, as shown by experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiment? …”
- the concept of absolute Matter’s spacetime and so possible existence of absolute frames principally doesn’t require any experimental validations. That completely directly, rigorously and unambiguously follows from that from the SR postulates that there is no absolute spacetime and that all/every [inertial reference] frames are absolutely equivalent and legitimate any number of senseless consequences follow; the simplest ant evident is the Dingle objection to the SR, etc.. From what by completely rigorous Proof by contradiction completely directly, rigorously and unambiguously it follows that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, and so there can be absolute frames that are at rest in 3DXYZ space.
The Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle is indeed extremely mighty, however the SR relativity principle is tooo mighty. Say, if a car crashes into a pole at a speed of 100 km/h, for physics – because of the true relativity principle - it is completely all the same what really happened – either the car moved at 100 km/h while the pole was at rest, or the pole moved at 100 km/h while the car was at rest, however any normal human, even a true the SR believer, understands that really in this case only car moves, the frames aren’t equivalent.
But in mainstream physics soon 100 years already muons that are created by cosmic rays in Earth atmosphere quite completely validate the SR since reach Earth surface because of they “dilate time” [in Earth frame], and “contract space” in absolutely equivalent own frames,
- despite that, say, if a muon that was created by a momentum ~ 20GeV/c, and so moves with Lorentz factor ~100, in its frame Earth moves with Lorentz factor ~100, for what is necessary at the muon’s creation for Earth be accelerated to this factor in time interval ~ 10-20s or well lesser; that is evident absurdity.
The real relativity principle indeed is extremely potent, but non-omnipotent, as that is postulated in the SR. It completely acts only for rigid bodies/rigid systems of the bodies. If a system is system of free bodies, it is possible to measure the system’s absolute velocity, corresponding experiments were proposed in SS&VT physical model yet in 2913-2016. More see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible
“…The model described lacks direct empirical evidence. Mainstream Lorentz transformations are strongly supported by experimental data, such as time dilation observed in particle decay and length contraction in high-energy particle physics. …..”
- the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model is in complete accordance with all reliable experimental data in physics, the derived in the model by using Pythagoras theorem Lorentz transformations are completely the same as the Mainstream Lorentz transformations,
- while that time dilation and length contraction are strongly supported by experimental data, say, as observed in particle decay, looks as rather, if too, strange claim. Really, of course, nobody and never observed any just “time dilation” or “space contraction”, all what was/is observed is/are, say, that moving unstable particles live longer than if are at rest in 3D space, but particles evidently aren’t ”time”; in M&M experiment the interferometer’s arm indeed is observed be contracted when is directed along Earth motion direction, but the arms evidently aren’t “space”, and so space quite experimentally doesn’t want to contract – see the muons example above.
Really – as that really rigorously scientifically shown in the SS&VT model – unstable particles algorithms have some defects, and so exponentially brake with a fixed probability at every tick; when particle moves, the algorithm ticks slower, the particle lives longer; rigid body “interferometer’s arm” rotates in the (X,cτ) plane by Pythagoras theorem so that its experimentally observed projection on X-axis is lesser than its length at space rest/if is orthogonal to Earth motion direction in Lorentz factor, etc. But, again, nothing at that happens with time and space.
The post is long already, so
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko: Dear Sergey, please consider the following (admittedly most tragical) two cases:
1) A hammer is thrown at a human head at rest (depicted, perhaps, in some movies, though I cannot name anyone).
2) A human head is thrown at a hammer at rest (in Bertolucci's movie 1900, the hammer is the wall of a building).
What is the difference?
it changes the boundary conditions... to accelerate the hammer is one thing to accelerate the human body is yet another thing although it looks the same.
That way does work at all, for Earth and a hammer. We have to pay a lot of attention to the dynamics....making a theory relying on "relativistic" kinematics made Physics step back of 200 years, disrupting an existing link at least at energy level, between electrodynamics and gravitation
For those readers who really want to understand – what are Lorentz transformations and what the LT both origins – historical and physical – are, see SS posts on pages 3,5,6,7, and links in the posts, here only a few concrete comments else.
[Peter Enders] Dear Peter, sorry, but I don’t understand for what reason you ask me “to consider the following (admittedly most tragical) two cases. In both cases because of the Galileo-Poincaré relativity principle it is the same – what moves, a human head or a hammer – and that [speeds of head and hammer are small] is considered in the last SS post above in example where a car crashes into a pole.
In this SS post so more important is the example when muons that are created in Earth atmosphere reach the surface, where, because of the relativity principle above, for physics again it is all the same – what moves, muons with Lorentz factor 100 or Earth, but the 2-nd case [when muons reach surface because of “space contraction” in their frames] is evident absurdity, from what follows that the SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all/every frames are absolutely equally equivalent and legitimate – while only provided this the SR effects “time dilation”, “space contraction”, etc., can really exist,
- really are wrong, in this [muons] case the space evidently experimentally doesn’t want to contract.
As, say, the space doesn’t want to contract also in the Bell paradox, where the distance between the freely moving ships – while the Bell’s consideration is in full accordance with the SR. Here note also, that if Bell would consider what clocks on the ships show, he would obtain that if some events happen simultaneously according to [distant] clocks on the same places in the ships, say both clocks are on the ships front ends,
- these events happen simultaneously also according to clocks showings “on Earth”, i.e. there is no the “relativity of simultaneity” effect, and so there would be two Bell paradoxes.
And a note to some “Critique of the Proposed Physical Origins” [page 7] point.
“…2. Complexity of the 5D FLE-Lattice Model; - Introducing a 5D lattice and cyclic disturbances may add unnecessary complexity without providing clear predictive power or experimental validation.….”
- the completely correct introducing in the SS&VT Planck scale physical model the (at least) [5]D FLE lattice that is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), and particles that are cyclic disturbances in the lattice, is in complete accordance with all reliable experimental data, including experimentally observed antiparticles,
- which principally don’t exist in the SR, and are introduced in mainstream physics by introducing of evidently mystic “sea of negative energies” [Dirac], and postulating in QFTs also quite mystic – and fundamentally wrong, if we say about real time – Feynman–Stueckelberg assumption that antiparticles move “back in time”. Motion “back in time” is fundamentally impossible.
Really, as that is rigorously scientifically shown in the SS&VT model, antiparticles are cyclic disturbances in the lattice, which are the same algorithms as corresponding particles, but the algorithms run in reverse command order, so antiparticles really move in opposite to particles [negative] direction in fundamentally spatial cτ-dimension, which, as that is pointed in SS posts above, is used in mainstream 4D physics as the real time dimension.
The post is rather long, so now
Cheers
. . Rigorous balance of [energy;momentum] for
. . . . . . . Relativistic Radar Doppler Effect
. . . . .(valid also for Backward Compton Effect)
I. Meaning of symbols:
---- M the mass o Mirror
---- f0 and f1 denote frequencies of emitted and reflected Photons
---- v0 and v1 denote Mirror subluminal velocities before and after reflection
---- for any subluminal velocity v, β:=v/c, γ:=1/√{1-β²},
II. Basic equations
Energy {before = after}:
E(M,f0,v0):=h·f0 + γ0·M·c²
. . . .= h·f1 + γ1·M·c²=:E(M,f1,v1)
c·Momentum {before = after}:
c·P(M,f0,v0):=h·f0-β0·γ0·M·c²
. . . . = -h·f1-β1·γ1·M·c²=: c·P(M,f1,v1)
III. The resulting ratio of the Doppler Effect equals
R(M,f0,v0) := f1/f0 = (1+β0)/[1- β0 + 2·h·f0/(γ0·M·c²)]
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
IV. Passing with M→∞ we arrive at β1→β0 and
E(∞,f0,v0)=∞ . . . AND . . . E(∞,f1,v1)=∞ . . . (energy is conserved)
P(∞,f0,v0)=-∞ . . . AND . . . P(∞,f1,v1)=-∞ . . . (momentum is conserved)
R(∞,f0,v0) = (1+β0)/(1- β0)
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
V. Passing with f0→0 we arrive at f1→0 and β1→β0, and therefore we also have
E(M,0,v0):=γ0·M·c²
. . . . = γ1·M·c²=:E(M,0,v1) . . (energy is conserved)
c·P(M,0,v0):=-β0·γ0·M·c²
. . . . = -β1·γ1·M·c²=: c·P(M,0,v1) . . . (momentum is conserved)
R(M,0,v0) := lim (f1/f0) = (1+β0)/(1-β0)
= = = = = = = = = == = = = =
Dear Stefano Quattrini , 1 day ago you wrote:
>> the point is that anti-relativist most of the time do not know relativity well enough to present falsifications and through away the baby with dirty water. //
You know how warm I am to you; since I have no interest in the SRT after my first acquaintance with it as a child; you are often an invaluable source of information for me on the intricacies of this stupid theory. I’m always curious what it is that has caught your attention as an engineer who must keep a clear head so he doesn’t fall for the trickster’s ploy ("fake Physics" according to your wording).
>> I am slow, it took me some years to have a sound basis from which I could counter-react to "fake Physics" … it is enough to follow Maxwell, Helmholtz, Larmor, Heaviside and some others also contemporaries … //
In my perception, the verb «to follow» is usually associated with a picture of sheep herd that follow somewhere either under the influence of sharpened «stimulus», whip and watchdogs, or just follow some black goat without knowing the right way. I hope that in your case it is only the second option.
Now, once again, I need your help as a man who has devoted some years to a rather useless occupation. My many years of experience show that my appeals for explanations to orthodox relativists produce only deathly silence https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_can_explain_H_Minkowskis_theory_to_me ), or transition (on other platforms) to the use of foul language; a problem, I think, is that the inherent characteristic of relativists is their pathological cowardice and ability to tell their fairy-tales only in front of a taciturn audience. Unfortunately, no one appreciates my titanic work and huge contribution to the defense of SRT from random miscreants (see for example https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_special_theory_of_relativity_Special_Relativity_SR_The_time_dilation ) :(
I hope that I have explained quite clearly the reasons why I am addressing you with a proposal, which is as follows: You will leave the herd for a short period come up to me on the top of the nearby hill and we’ll watch your herd together. I don’t want to look like another black goat that someone has to follow; your job is to exhorting/admonish me by answering critically the very simple allegations/questions (the essence of which will not go beyond what you have already stated in your stories), and then you will easily return to your herd, because it’s not moving anywhere for a long time. That is I offer you to be a short time in my role of «defender of the SRT», which does not give me much pleasure.
My first question is not about the essence of SRT, but merely reflects my idle curiosity about your personality. You use such combinations of letters as «world lines», «proper times», «frame» etc. I’m curious, do you use such expressions as symbols of belonging to a particular isolated community (like the early Christians in your region used schematic «fish»), or you put some physical meaning into them, trying to be similar to such a degenerative (in a good sense naturally) linguist-innovator like Mr Minkowski?
With kind regards
in Reply to the result of the rigorous balance of Joachim Domsta ,
thanks for providing eventually a formula which I reported already in my paper as f1/f0 = (1+β0)/[1- β0 + 2·h·f0/(M·c²)]
and showed for some days at least, as the correct solution for the problem of the Doppler RADAR.
The formula of Domsta is even more accurate than the one I provided according to the paper I referenced in my script below
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
I am quite confident that it is the right one, since it considers the relativistic energy of the Mirror γ0·M·c² instead of its rest energy M·c² .
It makes more sense physically, since the resistance that the mirror in motion offers, is proportional to that energy in the "local absolute frame" of the RADAR.
The above is the case considering infinite masses, the one involving two inertial frames instead of just one so far considered.
At variance to what is declared, it is quite evident that the energy is not conserved at all because at the RADAR the final frequency f1 detected when the mirror approaches will be higher than f0 (same for momentum).
That is to say that in the inertial frame of the RADAR there is excess energy which does not correspond to any other change in the system RADAR and MIRROR.
This also point out how absurd can be the use infinite quantities in physics.
Although it is declared the opposite, that is the example that SINGLES out the EQUIVALENCE OF INERTIAL FRAMES, because it blatantly infringes the conservation of laws creating an excess energy out of nothing.
Well explained also here.
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
Dear Sergey Sheludko ,
I do not use much of them although I learned about them.
Proper time is just the time you read in a clock which has your same position in space. That makes sense since the twin effect shows that the clock rate of clocks changes with kinetics and potential energy (see Hafele and Keating), and the speed of transmission of information is limited.
Mr Minkowski made a lot of damages in Physics as Poincarè did..
as a matter of fact there is no space time because "inertial frames" cannot be used in physics as some would like to.
First they infringe the conservation law then they reinstate conservation with
the four momentum transformations of finite masses.. it is better to avoid to infringe them since the beginning...this is already an EPYCYCLE.
I just demonstrated that it is not possible to use light between two inertial frames and expect that they keep inertial unless infringing conservation laws.. that is a good approximation which works for Galilean Relativity, In which light has negligible momentum and everything is an approximation, but not more than that.
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
It is a faltal error if one argues as follows:
negligibility of the term 2h f0/(Mc^2) as M->oo allows to neglect the energy and momentum of the mirror, which on the contrary becomes a reservuar of infinite energy whenever in motion.
Example.
A harmonic oscillator of mass M under force
F= -kx
governed by ODE
M x'' = - kx
have a world line
x(t) = A sin(ωt+φ), ω^2 = k/M
The energy conservation holds since then for arbitrary A and φ we have
M(x'(t))^2/2 + k(x(t))^2/2 = const,
In the irf moving with vonstant velocity V =/ 0 the total energy varies as follows
M(x'(t)-V)^2/2 + k(x(t))^2/2
which is NOT constant.
This alleged failure of energy conservation law is caused by UNJUSTIFIED neglecting the INFINITE mass of the moving point which ensures that the spring equilibrium position possesses constant velocity.
again pointing out infinite mass or energy which does not exist Physically, it is the bread of whom does not understand what is physical and what is not, it is just Mathematics according to which everything is possible..
The larger the mass the smaller the variation of speed but the effect stays.
Unfortunately it is not even possible that the effect stays in the limit of infinite mass since infinite mass does not exist, it is non a reachable limit.
Energy conservation does not allow anything UNPHYSICAL or unrealistic, it is one "principle of reality" or Physical realizability of a system.
The "Principium" of conservation laws tells that such a thing (infinite mass) is absurd since at the RADAR in any case the observer will have an excess energy against that has been "generated" somewhere and in that case there is no somewhere since the system proceed at constant speed.
It gives the extent to which people dealing only with math cannot distinguish what can be suitable for physics and what cannot.
At least it is a good approximation for sufficiently low speeds although still suitable for high energy radiation.
f1/f0 = (1+β0)/[1- β0 + 2·h·f0/(γ0M·c²)]
for v/c
If it is seen unphysical then it is no evidence of braking the energy conservation. as the calculations show? it is a VERY GOOD APPROXIMATION OF CASES WITH HUGE MASS OF THE MIRROR. Briefly: it is an ALLEGED braking of conservation laws.
Another example:
Probably there is no physicist who will say that the bouced ball from a wall of infinite mass obtains the the same velocity but of opposed direction, despite the conservation of momentum is OBVIOUSLY broken. OK, despite such a wall does not exist in reality, pnly wrongly taught people will claim that photoelectric singles out the theory of this effect. Alleged reason: the photon and the electron brake the momentum conservation law since are of opposite direction.
.
we are already getting better. It is a good approximation, full stop.. provided that the relative speed is sufficiently low, otherwise the excess energy measured at the RADAR : Delta E= 2Eph|β|/(1-β) gets larger, the infringement is smaller the lower the relative speed.
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
it is not the same thing at all.
In that case, the conservation of momentum is satisfied, because in such case one does not have two "equivalent frames" but just one frame where an object of the very large mass is "attached". It is like the RADAR on the surface of earth or example.
There is no variation of the speed of the bouncing mass velocity yes, initial speed or squared speed and final speed the same, initial momentum and final one the same, initial end final energy the same. No excess energy or momentum.
In that case one does not have at all the following blunder :
(Delta P)/(Eph/c) = (Delta E)/ Eph= 2|β|/(1-β)
where P is the momentum of the photon, but no variation of the speed of the Mirror is possible due to the postulated constant speed.
JoaD: "Probably there is no physicist who will say that the bouced ball from a wall of infinite mass obtains the same velocity but of opposed direction, despite the conservation of momentum is OBVIOUSLY broken."
SQ:
Which physicist would support such a physical absurdity?
SQ:
DOMSTA: Which physicist would support such a physical absurdity?>>
In such case of the mass bouncing mass, there is no excess energy or momentum so the approximation of a very large massive wall works. So basically the approximation does not provoke absurd consequences...
I guess there is somebody making an effort to understand such a simple fact..
To bring forth the example of the ball bouncing on a large mass wall, does not help to understand the blunder of the relation between infinite masses.
The mass can bounce like that because it is very small compared to the massive wall and no conservation laws has issues.
The fundamental point which Domsta makes an effort to understand is that,
the wall and the mass define a isolated system together with no problem because the ball is not inertial, hence everything comes to be fine.
On the other hand the two inertial frame which exchange EM waves cannot be both inertial, it is not acceptable either than a mere FIRST ORDER APPROXIMATION. YOU CANNOT HAVE TWO ISOLATED SYSTEMS (INTERTIAL) WHICH EXCHANGE ENERGY AND MOMENTUM it is a CONTRADICTION IN TERMS!!!!
-- My last three examples of calculations (one relativistic (about a radar DE), two non-relativistic (about a ball bouncing off a wall of infinite mass, and about an oscillator in a moving IRF))
-- my remark about the calculations used for calculating the momentum within the photoelectric effect
-- obtained answers, among them the totally false one about conservation of momentum of the ball bounced off from the wall of infinite mass
-- the non-obtained answers
compose into an evidence refuting the propagated here claim that the formulas for radar Doppler effect refute the consistency of the SRTheory.
Joachim Domsta not able to defend the undefendable.
AGAIN the illogical of all this has this specific ROOT:
inertial frame is an isolated system by definition.
One can use only one at a time in physics.
Two inertial frames interacting is a contradiction in terms: light exchange defines an interaction.
All the above starts from this contradiction in LOGICAL THINKING:
right after defining what is inertial, Einstein immediately threw that into the bin since an interaction with light is associated with energy momentum exchange, since he also calculated the radiation pressure.
Conservation laws are born to unmask such absurdities.
It is clear that the quantity below comes out at the RADAR
(Delta P)/(Eph/c) = (Delta E)/ Eph= 2|β|/(1-β)
in case of inertial frames and this cannot happen... it is creation of energy from nothing...
A theorem about the energy and momentum conservation laws in one dimentional space:
If during the evolution of a closed system of particles and fields its total energy and momentum calculated with respect to one inertial reference frame are constant, then their values are constant in any other inertial reference frame.
Exemplary 'positive' application to a ball of finite mass bounced off a wall of mass M:
The values before and after the bounce are finite and the same.
Exemplary 'positive' application to a ball of finite mass bounced off a wall of infinite mass:
The values before and after the bounce are infinite and the same.
Exemplary 'negative' application to a ball of finite mass bounced off any wall of finite or infinite mass: At least one of the values of energy and momentum of the ball change value due to the bounce in ANY inertial reference frame.
but unfortunately the ENERGY at the RADAR is higher and there is not compensation to that...
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
If during the evolution of a closed system of particles and fields its total energy and momentum calculated with respect to one inertial reference frame are constant, then their values are constant in any other inertial reference frame. - no exclusions.
Useless to repeat what is actually infringed, it is a point of no return.
The detection of excess energy at the RADAR is not compensated by anything else if the mass of the mirror diverges.
It is always necessary a finite mass of the mirror in order to have conservation of energy and momenta, the Radar can be considered sitting on any large mass. If it is added the condition of the non-finiteness of the mass of the mirror, an absurdity is originated from which every blunder can be derived...
Basically this contradiction should have been pointed out since the beginning to avoid all the paradoxes which the equivalence of inertial frames brings if considered valid beyond the Galilean Transformations.
Example illustrating the theorem about conservation laws for Galilean transformation.: Two points of mass m each move with velocities v and -v respectively against each other. Assume that after their collision the first obtains velocity -v and the other +v. Energy before and after collosion is the same equal m v^2. The mommentum as well, remains constant equal v m +(-v) m =0 before and after the collision .
In the irf comoving with the first point, the velocities before the collision are 0 and -2v, respectively, and after the collision they equal -2v and 0, respectively. Again the energy before and after the collision is the same equal m (2v)^2 /2 + m 0^2= 2 m v^2. The momentum is conserved too since it equals before and after the collosion equals m (-2v) + m 0 = -2mv.
Joachim Domsta: "Assume that after their collision the first obtains velocity -v and the other +v." This seems to equal Huygens' argument.
@Peter Enders
My knowledge is more concerned on the issues than their Authors. I am sorry about this.
In this particular case the aim of the assumptions is to determine a readable example of kinematics during which the conservation of energy and momentum holds obviously (without caring for the dynamics). And then to SHOW that the conservation of them holds also in another reference frame easily seen as obtained under Galileo transform.
Here is another example. It in turn illustrates consequences of lack of conservation of the momentum:
A ball with constant mass starts with velocity -v and ends with velocity v. Thus the energy is conserved but the momentum is not. In the IRF comoving with the ball at the beginning the velocity of the ball is 0 and ends with value +2v. It means that after the Galileo transform both quantities become not conserved. Therefore in the formulation of the presented theorem on conservation it is important to deal with systems where BOTH, energy and momentum are conserved at least in one IRF. Only then we can infer their consevation in ANY other inertial reference frame.
Peter Enders ,
there is a specific issue: the Doppler Radar frequency ratio, found with Lorentz Transformations also in 1905 as f/f0=(1+beta)/(1-beta) gives an excess energy at the Radar for approaching bodies/frames. That is due to the fact that for approaching bodies the frequency detected at the Radar raises of a certain amount function of the speed. That formula is experimentally verified to a certain degree of accuracy and the consequence is
Delta E= 2Eph|β|/(1-β) >0 where Eph=hf0 .
measured at the RADAR.
If the mirror is inertial, conservation laws are infringed since there is not a counterpart for that excess energy.
Preprint CONSERVATION LAWS -LIMITS in the applicability OF THE EQUIVA...
The following form comes out from the conservation of energy and momenta for a mirror of finite mass m (as it is always in any real problem)
f/f0=(1+beta)/(1-beta+ Eph/(gamma*E0)) where E0=mc2
which tells us that the mirror must slow down to comply with conservation laws and in particular conservation of energy. The excess energy
found at the RADAR corresponds to a decrease in the kinetic energy of the mirror in the center of mass frame of the RADAR which is inertial.
Since Poincare introduced the term 'Lorentz transformations' (in his paper of 1906 but written in 1905) he meant that it is such transformations of the coordinates which Lorentz made in his work of 1895 (Eq. (24)) in order to explain why the moving electron must contract along a direction of its motion. It is the origin of the Lorentz transformations used to explain possible contraction of bodies moving through the ether.
In work of 1899, Lorentz added his transformations of the coordinates by transformation of the time variable - to reply to Poincare that the experiments in the frame linked with the stationary ether and in the Earth frame give the same results.
Poincare was satisfied by Lorentz's results and he considered in detail how the moving electron should change its sizes.
If some person disagrees with this origin of these transformations, she/he should present firm arguments in favor of other origin - but with references to papers of the end of XIX - beginning of XX centuries. For example, why Kauffmann showed the correspondence of his experimental data to Lorentz but not to Einsten.
Stefano Quattrini: You wrote,
Delta E= 2Eph|β|/(1-β) >0 where Eph=hf0 .
I wonder if Delta E is independent of the mirror's direction of motion.
In the laboratory system, we have prior the absorption:
pph = h*f0/c , pm = gamma*m*v
Eph = h*f0 , Em = gamma*m*c2
and after the absorption (mph = Eph/c2):
p'ph = 0 , p'm = gamma'*(m+mph)*v'
E'ph = 0 , E'm = gamma'*(m+mph)*c2
Momentum conservation:
gamma'*(m+mph)*v' = h*f0/c + gamma*m*v
Energy conservation:
gamma'*(m+mph)*c2 = h*f0 + gamma*m*c2
I hope somebody has a computer algebra system that can check if both equations are compatible so that v' can be calculated. If yes, the Doppler effect and Delta E seem not needed to describe that impact process, at least not in the lab system.
Vladimir Onoochin: Dear Vladimir, Thank you for your hints. I don't know why Kaufmann showed the correspondence of his experimental data to Lorentz but not to Einstein. Maybe Einstein very seldom cited the sources he used.
He may have disagreed with Einstein's far-reaching conclusions. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann_(physicist) and, more detailed, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann_(Physiker). -- IMHO, this thread is on the physical rather than the historical origin(s).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing