In my current work on the theory of hyperbolic functions, I, as a completely extraneous observer of the turbulent debates relating to the subtlest intricacies of the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT), have drawn attention to the fact that hyperbolic functions are most used not in constructing bridges, aqueduct arches or describing complex cases of X-ray diffraction, but in those sections of the SRT that are related to the name of Professor Minkowski. Since my personal interest in SRT is essentially limited to the correct application of hyperbolic functions when describing moving physical realities, I would be grateful to the experts in the field of SRT for the most concise explanation of the deep essence of the theory of space-time patterns of surrounding me reality.
Naturally, my question in no way implies the translation into human language of the lecture of the Creator of the Theory, the honour of acquaintance with which in 1907 belongs to the academic/medical community of the city of Cologne and its surroundings. My level of development and my agreeableness have ensured that I not only managed to read independently the text underlying the concept of « Minkowski four-dimensional continuum », but also to formulate my question as follows:
Which of the options I propose is the most concise (i.e. non-emotional-linguistic) explanation of the essence of Minkowski’s theory:
1. The consequence of any relative movement of massive physical objects is that we are all bound to suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs and mammoths, i.e. extinction.
2. Understanding/describing the spatial movements of physical objects described by a^2-b^2=const type mathematical expression implies acquiring practical skills of constructing second-order curves called «hyperbolas».
3. All of us, including those who are in a state of careless ignorance, are compelled to exist in curved space.
4. Everything in our lives is relative, and only the interval between physical events is constant.
5. The products of the form ct (or zct), where c is the speed of light and z is some dimensionless mathematical quantity/number symbolizes not a segment of three-dimensional space, but a time interval (or time?) t between uniquely defined events.
6. The electromagnetic radiation generated by a moving massive object always propagates in a direction orthogonal to the velocity vector of the moving object.
Of course, I will be grateful for any adjustments to my options, or expert’s own formulations that have either eluded my attention or whose substance is far beyond my level of mathematical or general development.
Most respectfully
Sergey Sheludko
Dear Sergey Sheludko,
It is simply the result of a mistake in a paper wrote by Woldemar Voigt in 1887. The paper is called "On Doppler's Principle". Voigt worked on the convective wave equation (the wave equation for a moving observer) and forced this equation to have the same form than the wave equation for an observer at rest. This process introduced auxiliary variables of space and time. Unfortunately, these variables, which are called nowadays Lorentz Transformations and can be represented by Minkowski diagram, are considered by the majority of researchers to represent reality. You will never have clear responses about what is relativity and what is Minkowski diagram, because no one knows what they really are (there is nothing to know about it except following the algorithms that are taught). In science, most people follow what is taught and think it should be correct because everyone is following it.
You are asking what is the meaning of Minkowski diagram. The response is very simple, there is no meaning at all and this should be abandoned. Voigt work can be corrected by working on the modifications of frequency and propagation constant for problems with moving bodies.
Article On the Origin of the Lorentz Transformation
Dear Halim Boutayeb , thank you for your explanation (which hardly made my life any easier).
May I interpret your explanation as an opportunity for students who have attended the Minkowski Theory course to claim tuition fees refunds and financial compensation for the moral damage inflicted on them by confiscating their lecturers' property, acquired through fraud?
Regards
Dear Sergey Sheludko
Do you have a reference to such a course?
Thank you
You can look to this upto about min 9:
https://youtu.be/zquRw7eddNs
Dear Sergey Sheludko
Minkowski geometry has no any physical meaning in reality. It is also not a transformation. It is only a geometry! SRT is the principle of relativity, while in Minkowski geometry, there is no place for the principle of relativity or classical acceleration. So who is causing the time dilation according to the proper time in Minkowski's theory is only the geometry, neither velocity (according to the principle of relativity) nor classical acceleration.
Regards
Dear Azam,
I hope you are well.
Just in one sentence, what is the principle of relativity?
This is a wrong word invented by Poincare in 1904 because of the result of Michelson-Morley experiment. Michelson resolved the problem of his interferometer with Michelson-Gale experiment in 1925. If Michelson-Gale interferometer were used instead of the biased Michelson-Morley experiment, the words relativity and relativistic would never exist.
These two words have no any physical meaning. You can replace relativistic speed with speed close to c. Relativistic effect does not exist.
Dear Halim Boutayeb
I'm good! I hope you are well too!
I meant by the classical principle of relativity according to Galilean transformation. I do not consider it according to SRT because it is meaningless in SRT and LT. In my theory, there is no place for the classical principle of relativity because it is talking about field and retardation by the entanglement. The relativistic effect is related to the increase in the mass-energy according to the invariance comparing to the classical form (Galilean and Newton). For example the relativistic mass is measured experimentally! I refer this increase to the vacuum polarization and magnetization.
Regards
Dear Azzam Almosallami ,
What do you mean with Galilean transformation?
Please see this book from Ernst Mach where Mach reports the most important historial works on Mechanics including Galieo's work, that were known at Mach's time:
https://archive.org/details/scienceofmechani005860mbp/page/50/mode/2up
Please read it carefully, and tell me if there is any idea about Galilean transformation. Please search on internet, all papers and all books pre-1905 if there is anythink about a transformation made by Galileo.
Galilean transformation is just an invention of STR.
speed=distance/time is very simple concept that is understood by everyone. If I say an object moves along x axis with speed v and starts at position x0, then the position of that object is given by xobject=x0+vt.
speed=v, Distance=(xobject-x0), time=t. Thus v=(xobject-x0)/t, which is the same formula than xobject=x0+vt.
Please see page 5 of Einstein paper:
http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
Eisntein write correctly tB-tA=rAB/(c-v) and tA'-tB=rAB/(c+v).
These two time intervals are differents. This is exactly the Sagnac effect used in GPS.
However, Einstein didn't like that tB-tA and tA'-tB are different, because he could not synchronize his clocks. Thus he concluded in the same paragraph that time is relative!
Einstein concluded that time is relative because of the Sagnac effect, which is now employed in GPS, otherwise it would not be possible to obtain the correct location of a GPS receiver. GPS uses four satellites to get the position of a receiver based on time intervals of the signals to travel between the satelitte and the receiver. Because of the rotation of Earth the downlink time and the uplink time are different (tB-tA and tA'-tB are different, as noticed by Einstein).
Dear Halim Boutayeb
You asked "What do you mean with Galilean transformation?"
You can read about Galilean transformation here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
I'm not telling anything from me. Galilean transformation is well known for physicists! I told you about Galilean transformation and Newton
a Galilean transformation is used to transform between the coordinates of two reference frames which differ only by constant relative motion within the constructs of Newtonian physics.
That is because I know well classical physics and the philosophy behind classical physics.
Relative to the GPS, do not forget the relativistic effect in this case. The classical theory, Galilean and Newtonian physics can't help you in this case.
The Sagnac effect in this case is explained in my theory according to the relativistic invariant which is related to the vacuum polarization and magnetization. Review how I explained the Sagnac effect in my theory according to the relativistic invariant. The flyby anomaly which is explained in my theory is good proof also for the vacuum polarization and magnetization. Pioneer anomaly is solved in my theory, and no need to dark matter or dark energy or inflation field and the cosmological constant problem is solved.
Regards
Dear Azzam Almosallami
I am talking about the original work of Galileo. Is there anything in his original work about a transformation?
Dear Halim Boutayeb
You asked me "What do you mean with Galilean transformation?" And I gave you what do I mean with Galilean transformation and how it is related to Newtonian physics! If you want to cancel Newtonian physics then that up to you. I do not understand what is your physics if you do not believe in Galilean and Newtonian physics. I thought you support Newtonian physics when you are discussing with me. If you want to say there was not Galilean transformation, then I say also there was not QM or Maxwell's equations or electromagnetic theory! Science is developed! There was not also LT! These are the discoveries and inventions of human beings and science and knowledge is developing and will continue to develop! Relative to Sagnac effect and the GPS system, reply to me if there is no relativistic effect and if your classical theory can explain the GPS system! Also how can you solve the problem of flyby anomaly, dark matter and dark energy in this case!
Regards
Dear Azzam,
GPS employ the Sagnac effect and the Sagnac effect is not a relativistic effect. GPS do not use any relativistic effect. Also, in GPS, they have t'=t.
The idea called "Galilean transformation" is an invention of STR. Newton and Galileo physics are very interesting and I suggest you read about what really are their works not what STR says what are their works. In Galileo's work there is nothing called transformation.
Dear Halim Boutayeb
You wrote "GPS employ the Sagnac effect and the Sagnac effect is not a relativistic effect. GPS do not use any relativistic effect. Also, in GPS, they have t'=t."
That is not true! Schrodinger showed that the emission of a light quantum by a (flying) atom is regulated by the conservation laws of energy and linear momentum. Therefore, the Doppler effect for photons is the consequence of the energy and momentum exchange between the atom and the photon: a central role is played by the quantum energy jump ∆E of the transition (a relativistic invariant)
Giuseppe Giuliani, “Experiment and theory: the case of the Doppler effect for photons,” e-print arXiv:1502.05736v1
That is how in my theory as a result of vacuum polarization and magnetization by the vacuum fluctuations the energy of the vacuum plays the rule! In my theory I explained the t'=t. That is how if you considered Galilean transformation and Newtonian physics, you can't explain the GPS system or Mercury precession or light bending by gravity, flyby anomaly or Pioneer anomaly! That explains also how by the vacuum polarization and magnetization by the vacuum fluctuations you got the relativistic ether depending on the energy of the vacuum.
As written here
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
Regards
Dear Azzam,
Schrodinger work is about wave mechanics. He excluded STR and thus he does not have relativistic effects. Schrodinger considers also the ether.
You said that your theory has t'=t and that you have an ether, this is interesting.
Dear Halim Boutayeb
Schrodinger used the relativistic invariant which is leading to the relativistic effect. Read the topic well. That is how the ether in my theory is relativistic. In physics we seek invariance.
Dear Azzam,
Please read carefully this paper from Schrodinger in 1926:
http://people.isy.liu.se/jalar/kurser/QF/references/Schrodinger1926c.pdf
Look to equation 1: Schrodinger work uses Newton's mechanics. Schrodinger equation is based on a absolute time (like in your theory, Schrodinger considers t'=t).
See page 1051, in the end:
... as stationary wave system in an optically non-homogeneous (but isotropic) medium...
Schrodinger work is about a wave equation that deal with wave mechanics that implement Planck constant, in a medium (ether).
As you know, waves are phenomena that occur in media. The light medium is called ether.
Minkowski "spacetime" and Lorentz's Transforms are just contrived geometrical tricks based on the axiom that the velocity of light c is an universal constant in any IRF :
"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology"
INSPIRE: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
Dear Halim
Schroedinger work is depending on the relativistic invariant, that is clear! I do not understand basis on what you refuse the relativistic invariant!? My theory does not depend on the absolute time. You forget the retardation by the Entanglement. When we talk about ether, there must be retardation and since this ether in my theory is depending on the energy of the vacuum, in this case we talk about retarded potential. This ether is relativistic.
Dear Halim Boutayeb
You wrote "Look to equation 1: Schrodinger work uses Newton's mechanics."
Equation 1 is related to classical kinetic and it is used in the hamiltonian. I showed in my paper how the relativistic kinetic energy can be approximated to classical kinetic energy. I used in my paper the relativistic Hamiltonian and that is how the ether depending on the energy of the vacuum is relativistic. So, you proved my theory, the ether depending on the energy of the vacuum according to the relativistic invariance is relativistic! That is how in the case of Doppler effect and Sagnac effect must be relativistic. Review also the Lamb shift and how it is related to the vacuum polarization.
Regards
Dear Halim Boutayeb , thanks for the link, the video is really useful.
My previous attempts to discuss the Minkowski’s theory with its fans have usually concluded that «there is nothing more beautiful in science than the Theory, but only those who at the genetic level are able to understand its essence, are able to fully enjoy the correct configuration of their genes». Now I’m calm: I’m not the only carrier of the wrong genes, and I’m company with some well-known characters.
Even here, on researchgate.net, I can encounter materials on this topic even in my native language (eg. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328410755 ), but as “a lecture for sleep” I prefer something more solid, eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFV2feKDK9E ; because I do not understand English speech at all and, therefore, I can completely turn off the sound without any harm to my health!
To be perfectly honest, I was expecting to discuss Minkowski’s fans rather than his opponents. Hence my question: Are you able to play a very difficult role of the «devil», as it was practised in the course of rhetoric in some theological schools? Why would I want that? The fact is that I always knew the most vulnerable points of the Theory, the disclosure of which translates any discussion from the plane of «believe – do not believe» in the absolute impossibility of constructing arguments in its favour.
Regards
Dear Sergey Sheludko,
I understand what you mean. For me, I am just sharing my scientific point of view on the hope that this can be helpful for others. I also learn from the contributions of others. No one is forced to follow my point of view. It is good to have a scientific forum like researchgate where we can discuss freely about science. It is unfortunate that some researchers become aggressive because they feel that their research domain is attacked. They should not feel like this and they should not be aggressive. They just need to explain their points of view or they can ignore if they don't feel it is making sense for them. By being aggressive they just confirm that their theory is not science and it is wrong.
Actually Einstein taught us to question everything, even the most basic ideas that everyone accept naturally.
I have no problem with time being relative. Anything is possible in science. My own research on STR made me conclude that this theory is totally wrong and useless. Time could be relative but this is not by sending waves or by moving that we will discover such important physical phenomenon. Physics should always be based on experiments and never on hypotheses or thought experiments. The origin of the problems of STR is simply in the work of Voigt as I wrote you in the first post. Now I let others share their points of view on this subject.
Dear Halim
You wrote "It is unfortunate that some researchers become aggressive because they feel that their research domain is attacked. "
What do you mean by this statement? Was I aggressive with you!? Review all my comment with you! I do not care with my theory or proving my theory. I care for real scientific discussion. We have been now 8 years in researchgate, and we explained everything. I can't imagine how you refuse Galilean transformation while Newtonian physics is depending on Galilean transformation. If you are scientific, then explain to me your point of view.
Regards
Dear Halim Boutayeb ,
Rotating satellites do not exchange signals with each other while in motion, but they always refer to a central base on earth at much lower speed in ECI frame.
The GPS is made like that to avoid as much as possible the Sagnac effects due to light exchanged in circular motion, although the ground base cannot avoid such effect between each other due to rotation of Earth in ECI frame.
Yes, the Sagnac effect is a simple first-order effect about detecting light beams in a rotational motion. In the lab rest frame, if the rotation of the source occurs clockwise, (being the speed of light the same), the light emitted in a counter-clockwise direction crosses a shorter path in reaching the absorber in motion compared to the one other. Hence a fringe shift is detected in the interferometer which is proportional to the speed of rotation.
This has nothing to do with "relativistic effects" but the same fringe shift would occur at rest with emission over one path and another shorter.
Dear Azzam,
I was not talking about you. You know I have no problem to talk science with you. We were talking about some supporters of the theory of relativity, who don't accept the questioning of this theory. You know that.
Halim Boutayeb > "GPS do not use any relativistic effect. Also, in GPS, they have t'=t."
Very true! There is no so-called "relativistic effect" in GPS, because the theory of relativity is a geometrical fiction:
"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology:
INSPIRE: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
Please see what the two Engineers Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond DiEspositi, (of the GPS Joint Program Office), who were involved in the development of GPS, back in 1997, had to say in the following link publication. Their conclusion:
“Except for the leading γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short there are no ‘missing relativity terms.’ They cancel out.” General Relativity Theory is not needed."
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1997ptti.conf..189F
If you believe in the two engineers I cited above, then you have to accept the fact that all the claims of the theoretical physicists on GPS or on Einstein’s theories of relativity are either honest confusion deceived by propaganda or confirmation bias or outright false claims, motivated by the lure of fame fortune and fund. On the question of GPS alone, you can see how even some prominent theoretical physicists (aka, charlatans) are engaged in propaganda in the following video. The change of 2/3 mm of the engineers of the GPS system, becomes 10 km of a prominent British theoretical physicist Brian Cox!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc]
Stefano Quattrini
You wrote "The GPS is made like that to avoid the Sagnac effects due to light exchanged in circular motion"
That is not true! Review Ashby
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0528-8_3
The Sagnac Effect in the Global Positioning System
Please when you give scientific information, you must be sure from your information. It is not good to confuse the readers by wrong information.
You wrote "GPS adopts countermeasures to avoid the disruption of relativistic effects on synchronization"
That is not true. The velocity derived from the relativistic invariant is relativistic not classical and it can be applied in the case of black holes also.
That is how in my theory infinity disappeared as a result of vacuum.polarization and magnetization by vacuum fluctuations. That is how by quantum.tunneling the effect of gravitation escape the back hole. Wormholes in GR are no more quantum.entanglement/tunnelling. Hard luck for your TT
Dear Hong Du , take your time! You see, that there are already almost two bloody dozen attempts to answer my question, and not one in fact. I have the impression that all fans of Minkowski seriously suffered during the last epidemic. You are one of the few survivors (?)
Best regards
As I promised, I will very briefly apply the orthogonal space-time relation to explain the Minkowski's space-time interval in the form of (ct)2-dx2-dy2-dz2.
Looking at the Minkowski expression, you will see that x,y and z are orthogonal, represented by the squares applied to the three-dimensional space. But what makes us uncomfortable is that there exist subtractions instead of additions between dx2, dy2, dz2 and (ct)2.
First of all, the orthogonal space-time relation explains where the squares come from, the reason is that they are orthogonal, just like the squared length of hypotenuse of a right triangle. Between time and space, a constant coefficient of speed of light is needed to make them comparable.
Secondly, we need to find out where the minus signs come from. Similar to proper time (I prefer to call it intrinsic time), there exists an absolute distance, a true distance that is not affected by observation. We can call it proper distance (I prefer to call it intrinsic distance), both proper time and proper distance are good definitions, because they are all defined at perfect conditions: for proper time, the clock is not changed in space; for proper distance, the time is not changed (distance defined at zero time interval or measured at the same time). Again we see this orthogonal space-time relation: when defining time, space is zero; when defining space, time is zero.
When measuring distance however, we must use time, because we don't have a good way to measure pure proper distance at the same time, especially when an object is moving, we simply don't know how to take a measurement of distance with 0 time. Then the time "t" used to measure distance between two point as defined by dx, dy, dz will have component of both the well defined proper distance ds and the time component ct. Because space-time are orthogonal, so the measured distance in dx,dy and dz is an orthogonal mixture as in dx2+dy2+dz2=ds2+(ct)2. As we previously mentioned, ds is a good definition, so it doesn't depend on observers, so from the previous equation, we get ds2 =(ct)2-dx2-dy2-dz2 as an observer-independent physical property. And this is the well-know Minkowski space-time interval. Of course, no one knows that Minkowski space-time interval is actually the squared proper distance, it has nothing to do with time any more, because the expression removes the time component completely. So even though Minkowski discovered the expression, he himself doesn't know what it really is.
Again, photons are massless, so they don't have time, they have 0 proper time, their time never moves forward, so they can be used to measure distance at the same time. That is why proper distance can be safely defined by speed of light multiplied by measured time. And we know the speed of light is simply a physical constant that serves as a coefficient to convert between time and space. And this is why speed of light is always the same regardless of reference frames, because in all reference frames, space and time are orthogonal, and speed of light connects space and time.
Dear Hong Du ,
the transformation used by Minkowski, the LT just preserves the form invariance of the wave equation.
Somebody recently went through the main paper of electrodynamics by Lorentz and Einstein and found something quite unexpected... you can find some hints in this thread
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_Lorentzs_and_Einsteins_approach_to_electrodynamics_the_same
Dear Hong Du , thanks.
Continue. (Don’t be surprised, I made my « initiating» in my native language, but my translator refused to translate it into English, demanding to remove the abnormal/obscene vocabulary. So I will add my «start comment» a little later.)
You wrote: >>As I promised, I will very briefly apply the orthogonal space-time relation to explain …//
You probably didn’t read the explanation of the question, where I give six (from 1 to 6) examples of «very briefly»; look, you will not see more than four or five lines of text anywhere :)) … But let’s go!
You wrote: >>So even though Minkowski discovered the expression, he himself doesn't know what it really is.//
Okay, I agree that Minkowski was either a jerk or a fraud; but you’re not, are you? If even small children understand what the interval is, what prevents you, too?
If I understand correctly, you have tried very long and confusingly retelling the content of the sixth option I proposed: >> 6. The electromagnetic radiation generated by a moving massive object always propagates in a direction orthogonal to the velocity vector of the moving object.// (???)
Let’s figure this out. Light can propagate a) nowhere, b) in all directions simultaneously and c) in a direction strictly chosen by us (useful for us). In the first case, there is only complete darkness in which you are with some useless number c = 300… m/s in your head. In two other cases, the cΔt expression determines the spatial distance in meters that light will travel in time Δt (don’t think You can fool me, You don’t stand a chance); exactly the same as the expression vΔt is the distance that will travel at the velocity v some physical object in time interval Δt. Since physics never operates by the concept of "time" but only by the concept of "the interval of time between events", I agree, to save the printed signs, throw away the signs "Δ" or “d” everywhere. If you want, we can consider the option b) later, but now it is wiser to focus on the option c).
Should one consider the case where light is propagate orthogonally to the direction of motion of another physical object? Usually the use is not great, but is known from the first attempts to measure the speed of light: the light through the slit is directed to the reflecting mirror, and the slits itself moves orthogonally to the direction of light propagation (1). But more accurate and convenient is the method of measurement of light speed when light propagates not orthogonal (2) (see sketch MinDu.png).
Now that we have my sketch, can you repeat your story by being tied to one of the two situations 1 & 2?
Since I know perfectly well that one plane is enough to represent the spatial movements of two objects, I threw one of the components away so as not to fool each other’s head arcs. But if you really want to draw something else in the direction orthogonal to the plane of drawings, you do not hesitate: describe what and where to put, and I will try to create a 3D image.
Regards
Dear Stefano Quattrini ,
I am not trying to go with electromagnetic fields. In the grand unified framework, electric field is the result of potential energy, which is determined by distance, while magnetic field is the result of potential energy in motion, which is the consequence of observation in a moving reference frame.
All the electromagnetic theory is a mathematical product of potential energy, which is solely described by distance, so electrodynamics is a secondary theory that cannot be used for the most fundamental property of spacetime.
Best regards,
Hong
Dear Sergey Sheludko ,
I will sure miss one or two of your statements.
Again, when you measure the speed of light in 1, light goes straight up and down and s=ct, that is right because you are doing physics inside the same reference frame. When you measure the speed of light in 2, light goes obliquely, you are doing in your physics inside your own reference frame. Everything is good because light travels at speed of light.
But why do you try to think that x=vt in 1 is the same as x=vt in 2 ? This is the most common mistakes that human being have been making all the time including Einstein and Minkoski. I already explained that this is wrong when you try to mix different things from two reference frames even they look similar. The up-down time t is like the time of the boy on the train, the oblique time t is like the time of the observer on the ground. They are not the same. There is no way to think the distance traveled over the up-down direction and the distance traveled over the oblique direction is the same. If you admit that the distances are different, then the time should also be different. Isn't this very natural? Why do you force yourself to believe that light travels in the same time t should cover up-down and oblique path all the same?
All the problem comes from this subconscious mistake. Why the two time t be the same? No one or no physics principle tells you the two time is the same. The t for the oblique light used by the observer is longer than the t for the up-down t.
No more mixing. If you keep mixing, you are trying to bounce the ball from the train without moving the bat moving along the train.
I attached the correct drawing.
This should be very clear now.
Best regards,
Hong
Dear Hong Du , you surprised me this time: I mean, I thought a man with a diploma PhD in Physics must know how to measure the speed of light. But first I have to address related issues not directly related to your text (the text in italics need not read).
I have already written to you in a very soft and streamlined form that: >> It is very difficult for me to discuss with you the questions containing the letters «reference frame» because we have different meanings in such letters; …//
But since you keep bombarding me with a variety of meaningless letters, such as «space-time», «reference frame», «proper time», «intrinsic time», «absolute distance», «true distance» and so on, and we practically use different concepts, I am obliged to make the following remark/clarification.
When I first met the art work «Raum und Zeit » [the paper presents the text of the talk Minkowski gave at the 80thMeeting of the German Natural Scientists and Physicians in Cologne on September 21, 1908 (earlier, on November 5, 1907, the same talk was given at the Göttingen Mathematical Society)] as a schoolboy, I had a persistent image of the author as a stupid and narcissistic turkey, attached to his back body peacock feathers.
Naturally, the author, like each of us, can make mental and mathematical mistakes, but in the author’s reasoning it seemed to me the most disgusting desire to mark his contribution to science by inventing self-made linguistic constructions (“Begriffsbildungen” in German) such as «world-point», «world-line», «reference system», «forward-cone», «group G_c» etc. But neither the psychiatrists and gynaecologists who made up much of the German scientific community, nor the physicists or mathematicians, nor even the character who thought his former teacher was underdeveloped, became interested in "new views of space and time". And only Professor Sommerfeld, as the true inspirer of the excavation of Professor Poincaré’s intellectual waste, was fervently promoting a "new scientific discovery".
And what feelings should cause I, as a person who is confident in the cognitive insolvency of the author, his enthusiastic self-praise, expressed in the form of «an extraordinary triumph for pure mathematics», « we may see as only due to the audacity of mathematical culture» or «The validity without exception of the world-postulate, I like to think, is the true core of an electromagnetic world picture »?!!
If Prof. Minkowski did not possess the same degree of degeneracy of thinking as most of his followers, he would not have immersed himself in linguistic forms of creativity, but he would have realized that in only one rare case с1 (α ≡ 0 ) ratio of velocities v/c is equal to tan (β) (whereas in the case с2 v/c = sin (α)) and not only would he have been able to explain this to Professor Sommerfeld, but he would throw his four-dimensional space-time into the trash can himself.
And now to the content of your comment
>> … that is right because you are doing physics inside …// ???
I schematically depicted two known experimental schemes for measuring the speed of light. If you missed this material in school years, I suggest you refresh your knowledge (subtitles in English are available):
Fizeau method https://youtu.be/cShhYC7zZxg?t=215 s = 3,733 km с = 312000 km/s
Michelson method https://youtu.be/cShhYC7zZxg?t=286 s = 35,4 km c = 299 792 km/s
>> But why do you try to think that x=vt in 1 is the same as x=vt in 2 ?//
I don’t need to think anything, because I know very well that the absolute quantity x (like the interval length s) plays no role, because almost all measurements in physics are based on comparing two quantities, one of which is assumed to be known. In both cases (c1 and c2) the values of the interval s are completely different; this does not prevent the achievement of the goal of measuring the magnitude v/c. Naturally, the intervals of Δt in both cases can be absolutely different in duration; it is sufficient only their equality when the light propagate "there" and "back". «Dirty time» is a delightful option, because there is no other in nature.
If I understand correctly, you did not like the red colour of the light beam in case 2 (?) No problem, I, being delightful at agreeableness, replaced this colour with your favourite green. Do you feel how comical the title of your drawing «correct.png» looks?
Summing up, we conclude that there is no way to measure the speed of light or time «sweaty Hong Du», because you physiologically are not able to state the way of measurement in your race for the train. Additionally, you have ignored my hope I expressed earlier: >> I would hope that your «a bat flat viewed inside the train and also seen from the ground» does not include the assumption that the train is at some certain and EXCLUSIVE point of space.// I do not understand where you are going to run if the train is 1,000 km away from you, approaching or moving away from you? Or are you only interested in those trains that can be used to repeat Anna Karenina’s feat?
With kind regards
Dear Sergey Sheludko , no worry about my PhD, I do have high school, middle school and primary school diplomas. Sadly I never had a chance to attend preschool or kindergarten, so maybe because of this, I might had some trouble measuring speed of light.
It is not necessary to repeat how you concluded that measuring speed of light or time is impossible. I just want to point out that you are trying hard to mix up 1 and 2 and convincing yourself that these two things (space or time or the ratio) are the same. I have to borrow the power from my middle school diploma to convince you that mixing up 1 and 2 is not beneficial.
You probably have already noticed that in 1, light goes up and down, and in 2, light goes obliquely. These are two different things. It is even unnecessary to upgrade to high school diploma to recognize this difference. There is absolutely no reason to believe the distance traveled by light is the same for 1 and 2 reaching from bottom to top. That is the same thing as the ping pang ball on the train going up-down on the train and appearing and truly going oblique observing on the ground. Even when I was in primary school, I know that a rock tossed off a moving truck was pretty scary even it was slowly tossed out, and I had to toss really hard back and wouldn't even do to much to the truck.
Now back to light: light travels different distance for 1 and 2, even though they both travel the same vertical distances. There are things that are different between 1 and 2: (1) distance (2) time. So distance is different, and time is different too! Compared to 1, distance increases by a factor of 1/cosβ, time increase by a factor of 1/cosβ. And speed of light per conventional definition remains the same in both 1 and 2. Do you recognize that distance is increased by 1/cosβ? do you recognize that time is increased by 1/cosβ? If you don't, nature recognizes it everywhere regardless human being.
Dear Hong Du ,
You wrote: >> If you don't, nature recognizes it everywhere regardless human being. //
First, the use of overly pathos expressions, like «The validity without exception of the world-postulate, I like to think, is the true core of an electromagnetic world picture», can cause irreparable damage to mental health.
Secondly, I have a «hotline» with a very smart girl named «Nature»; although I must admit that I am more interested in communicating with my wife, who, before experimenting to achieve the right course of action, prefers to try everyone else, i.e. all possible wrong decisions. There is a certain beauty, charm and mystery of the fair sex.
Your question >> do you recognize that time is increased by 1/cosβ? // leads me to a less-than-pleasant form of discussion, namely, the famous manner in which representatives of one of the ethnic groups of our planet tries to answer any question with counter questions.
Do you recognize the letters α and β in the Greek alphabet? I assure you that the ruthless "Nature" forces you to pick one of the two letters at the beginning; if you decide to change your choice during you run toward away train, you will be forced to go back to the beginning and repeat your experiment. Everything will happen inside the train in exactly the same way as if you are far away or you are not in our world at all and no amount of you cognitive effort can change anything.
You wrote: >> Sadly I never had a chance to attend preschool or kindergarten …// It’s not critical at all; talking to my neighbour has taught me to anticipate the most difficult life situations. That is why, in order to avoid unnecessary internal shocks of the interlocutor, I tried to carefully fill in the gaps.
You remember how easily and painlessly we got rid of the superstition called «Lorenz transformftions» with the sketch «LoDu.png» at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Speed_of_light_independent_of_the_speed_of_the_source_or_constant_for_all_observers/9
You also already know that in your race behind the train you will not be able to realize the clock type с1, and always face the need to consider the only practicable option 1 on the sketch «Lo.png» at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Speed_of_light_independent_of_the_speed_of_the_source_or_constant_for_all_observers/2 (although you can use more beautiful drawing « immagine_2022-01-05_120849.png» at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory/420 )
It’s just a little more difficult to understand that you don’t have to follow the train; it’s enough to put a c1 clock on top of the train car to get the same picture called "fiasco". Do you understand? Can you already smile cute looking at silly relativistic pictures like «Untitled1.png» at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory/473 (or 458; 459; 460; 461; 462; 450 x 3!!!; the stupid people think that if you repeat the stupidity many times, it becomes less stupid)?
If you have learned the material well, I propose a sketch «DuClocks.png» to consolidate the knowledge; as you have already understood, I like octagonal prisms with mirror faces; in this case, the prism is translucent and hollow so that an initiating flash of light can be produced inside the cavity. The questions arise: if such a clock is placed inside a moving train (or in a laboratory on a moving Earth), will there be many different times inside the train? What happens if you try to run with that clock behind the leaving train?
With kind regards
Dear Sergey Sheludko ,
I really want to say it again: everything is good on the train, everything is good on the ground. The problem is artificially created by using the ground idea to explain the observation on the train.
Speed of light is good on the train, speed of light is good on the ground, even the speed of the light bouncing up and down on the train that looks oblique on the ground is also good. But do not think that you can define the speed of light using the up-down distance on the train but divide it by the time on the ground. This faulty definition of speed will cause mental problems.
What happens on the train has nothing to do with what happens on the ground. You either use the physics principles on the ground, or use the physics principles on the train, including your octagonal prisms, or clocks hanging on the wall. The clocks on the train and the clocks on the ground are ticking at the same rate, but they appear to be different because the two clocks are keep changing distance even though they are really ticking at the same rate, the difference is caused by observing it at different moments of the clock in space! If the clock stays motionless, then you see the real time; if the clock is moving, you only see the time at a different moment in a different place! Same thing can be said about space: if the clock stays motionless, then you see the real location; if the clock is moving, you only see the location at a different moment and depending on at what moment the location is observed, the location is not the real location you think!
Because of motion, light bouncing up and down on the train appears to bounce obliquely on the ground, for the same reason, the clock on the train appears moving slower because the reading of the clock was noted down at the wrong location.
I just think these statements are hard to sink in, even every word is simple and non-Greek.
Best regards,
Hong
Dear Hong Du , in my view, we can take stock of our discussion. Since the discussions are scientific only when people are looking for differences of opinion, rather than trying, like circus clowns or minkowskis, to derail someone’s applause, I will concentrate solely on the differences in our views. In doing so, I completely omit the few places where our views are a little bit similar.
1. Absolutely groundless is the fantasy that time, at least in some form, is orthogonal to space. An expression ct is a segment of three-dimensional space, just as an expression vt is a segment that a physical object passes in time interval Δt, moving at velocity v.
2. Having put the question:>> Secondly, we need to find out where the minus signs come from. //, you have switched to pointless linguistic exercises, mysteriously ended in a statement in which there is not even a hint of the mathematical sign «minus»: >> Again we see this orthogonal space-time relation: when defining time, space is zero; when defining space, time is zero.// (???) I can’t see anything you see. Perhaps one of us should be examined by an ophthalmologist and/or a psychiatrist? ... I am encouraged by the fact that you have not started to extract the sign «minus» in a stupid game, which consists in substitution of the letter «i».
3. I am unable to support any thought experiments with the observation of light rays within a train by running near a moving train, as you have no justification for any experimental measurements related to the paths of light rays. On the contrary, I am absolutely sure that you are physiologically incapable of observing the light rays inside the train. ... Maybe we should discuss what happens if you see a respectable lady sitting on a WC toilet inside a train car? Perhaps you’ll forget all about physics?
4. I am sorry to inform you that the 133Cs moving outside the trains will be destroyed by losing the electrons of their shells at a certain speed relative to the environment in which the train is moving. Electrons will fly off the core along with energy levels, from super-thick to hyper-thin, and Planck’s constant. Remember that no one has ever seen the atoms of any chemical element moving at any decent speed relative to the environment. (While inside the inertial system «Earth» any atoms and molecules move at sufficiently high speeds relative to the centre of our galaxy as stowaway passengers.)
With kind regards
Dear Sergey Sheludko ,
I will only address these points very briefly and sorry if they becomes too brief.
1. First of all, time and space cannot have linear relation, they cannot be added like vt+ct. You know this already, because you will get (v+c)t, which you know is unphysical. It is up to you to figure out how to add up vt and ct physically. If you take the hint from the squares in Lorentz factor and Minkowski expressions, you will know that something is orthogonal. I will not continue this discussion because you cannot see it from the squares, your mindset has blocked you from taking the hint.
2. You know the minus sign in Minkoski spacetime expression, and you also see the minus sign in Lorentz factor, but you cannot recognize it. You might want to recommend Minkoski and Lorentz see an ophthalmologist and/or a psychiatrist so that you can spare yourself the time for the trip.
3. If you cannot understand how the photon appear bouncing up in the train by running as fast as the train, you are incapable of understanding the problem, you forcefully prevented yourself from understanding the problem, and you also want to force the boy on the train to see the photon bounce up and down. The only way for you to physiologically release your pain of incapable of dealing with such a simple investigation is to study something that you can understand.
4. Your imagination of electrons flying off the core when Cs is moving fast is very interesting to you, but at the same time you should go to visit a heavy ion accelerator to examine your concepts and rethink what you can do with physics.
With the best regards.
Dear Hong Du , unfortunately, you have not added any new item in the differences of our views on the objective reality. But, instead, you returned again to linguistic constructions from a meaningless set of letters «pcemitase » (or something similar, difficult to reproduce without the help of an optical scanner).
You are showing your supremacism and lack of tolerance in vain using expressions such as «cannot understand» and «incapable of understanding». Learn from me admirable goodness and benevolence; because I’m successful in hiding my thoughts that relativists are social parasites and the untalented garbage of the physical community that stumbles at the moment that they see an indirect/bevelled triangle. :))
With kind regards
Dear Sergey Sheludko ,
I am only borrowing the words and languages from your previous message as you used them during the discussion and I thought those words are your typical way of communication. Now you are telling me that you are not so comfortable with them. So let's not use those words and focus on physics, try not to comment on people. Stay on physics if you can.
Best regards.
Dear Hong Du ,
physicists, usually, if they don’t have to lie like morose relativists, have a sense of humour. You, as always, do not pay attention even to such subtleties as typographical signs «:))». ... I’m sorry, I love the term «white supremacism» so much that I couldn’t resist mentioning :))
Don’t take it personally, because we’ve already found out the differences of our views on the objective reality (?).
With kind regards
Dear Sergey Sheludko ,
No worries, I have seen physical differences, and you have seen different physicists, and such differences seldom reduce or enhance sense of humor.
Again, I will show you the difference between my physics and ordinary physics as follows: I am adding another paradox that will reduce the differences in the concept of time presently used by human being. I call it triplet-paradox. It is in fact not a paradox, but an anti-paradox or double-paradox that defeat the twin-paradox and demonstrate how erroneous the time dilation is.
For any two reference frames that are moving relatively to each other, I declare that they must have the same time and aging at the same rate, like the observer on the ground and the boy on the train, they must age at the same rate. The reason is very simple: choose a referee that run at half the speed of the train. According to present theories, the referee will see the boy and the observer becoming younger at the same rate because both the boy and the observer are moving at the same velocity. So because of this, both the boy on the train and the observer on the ground are aging at the same rate. Now I have proven that the observer and the boy are using the same time, and aging at the same rate.
Of course, this is a humorous way to laugh at the so-called time dilation, but I bet none of the human being can appreciate the humor in this. I have seen differences between me and the human being, and of course, I can understand the difference.
Best regards.
Dear Hong Du , You are a very strange man!
Please understand my position. I, at every opportunity, honestly and sincerely report that I have never been interested in such an abomination as SRT. I have absolutely no need for relativistic stupidity, as I have no problems or paradoxes with physics.
A very, very long time ago, in the last class of secondary school, my father was called to a talk with a director of the school as a result of a complaint from my teacher, to whom I conveyed my opinion that Minkowski was either a fraud or a mental degenerate. As a result, I have received a strong message that I must respect teachers; even when the teacher’s face is not disfigured by signs of intelligence (my father did not realize that Minkowski and my teacher are different people).
Unfortunately, even you failed to question my belief that my teacher was not an intellectual.
So I am completely indifferent to relativistic fairy tales, but I am very bad (disrespectful and even a little contemptuous) about anti-relativists, as they seem to me to be worms digging through the waste/shit of other people’s "intellectual" activities. In my opinion, if a person does not agree with other people’s fictions, then he should make his own description of objective reality, free from mentions and references to opponents. Can you understand that? But instead you offer me a discussion of some meaningless (for me) sets of letters, such as «сerfenere sramfe» :(( For me, there are no problems in dealing with any physical phenomena. But remember that our communication began with my request: >> I really hope that you have wrote the text of your lecture based on the results of your own mental tension, and not compiled it from other people’s thoughts …//
If you want to discuss the rather complex problem of relative movement of three bodies - describe it in human language. It is best to consider three (or two?) Galilean ships; most of all, I will be interested in whether the events in question occur, inside the holds of these ships or on their decks. But it is possible to discuss trains with rockets from opaque materials. But if you want to perform a glass rocket, I will immediately ask you to depict the paths of light between the characters inside/outside various physical objects. And don’t even doubt that the very first question you have to answer is how to guess the speeds of relative motion of these objects.
Another important aspect is that I have little interest in linguistic problems, but I always pay more attention to mathematical expressions (look at the available short message in my profile) which allow verifying linguistics by substituting specific numbers.
With kind regards
Dear Sergey Sheludko ,
I don't have the tendency to comment on people like you did on Minkowski, instead I focus on science. What you told us about your secondary school is probably true as I feel that it is coherent based on prior messages.
I will focus on physics and I will use some math this time as I have been very strict with math. This is about the triplet paradox, related to the speed of light independent of speed of emitter or receiver, and the confusion about the clock of a moving object and the clock of the observer.
Assume the train has a speed of 2v relative to the observer on the ground. I will prove that the clock on the train and the clock of the observer is the same by using the triplet-paradox to see the humorous theory of time-dilation. Now select a referee that moves at speed of v relative to the observer on the ground. According to the referee, the train is moving at speed of v forward, and the the observer is moving at speed of -v backward. So both the train and the observer are moving at a relative speed of v relative to the referee. Now apply the humorous time-dilation, the clock on the train and the clock carried by the observer will have time t'=t/(1-v2/c2)1/2. So, by way of the referee, both the boy on the train and the observer on the ground should have the same time because their clocks all dilated at the same ratio.
Any trouble understanding the mathematically humorous result? If you failed to understand it, congratulations ! you are on the right track.
I don't know who started the concept of time-dilation: the twin-paradox already shows that such understanding of time is problematic, and so many exotic theories have been developed to make up the flaws including acceleration and many other things. But none of them realize that the way time is treated is fundamentally wrong. Let's think again abuot Galileo's relativity theory: physics is true regardless if the train or boat is moving. This is a correct theory, but a lot of people don't understand the consequence: it is true inside the train or boat, but do not jump on and off the train or boat, there will be brain damage if not done carefully. Galileo says that anything works well inside the boat or train: light on the boat or train all moves at speed of light, there is no other principles. Galileo's principle is not only physical, but philosophical and even medical.
Someone says that the boy on the train plays with a photon in the up-down direction traveling at c on the train, why it looks oblique with a tilted angle of β, but still traveling at c? shouldn't the the oblique distance traveled by light gets greater by a factor of γ=1/cos(β)=t/(1-4v2/c2)1/2 with a good sense of mathematical humor linguistically? I will say this involves a single-minded mindset: does it takes longer time by a factor of γ for the light to travel that greater distance increased by a factor of γ? if the distance is increased, why not the time? Then the mindset will ask this classic questions: are you saying that the boy on the train's time is different from the time on the ground? Then I say, wait a minute, why should you think the two types of time on the train and on the ground are the same or different? don't you know that the train is moving? don't you know that you are talking about and comparing two physically different things? did you see that the clock is moving on the train and the clock on the ground is not moving? they are two different types of time. Do not equate these two physically different things in one single sentence in any language at any moment. It is analogical to asking a question like will a bag of rice get heavier when throwing sand into the bag, don't even think about it. If you do want to think about time in the same sentence, then I will tell you that time and space are orthogonal. The clock on the train traveled a distance of 2vt' when observer checked it, and this distance costs an extra time of 2vt'/c, and this time is orthogonally additional to the time at rest like the boy's time t, so the time t of the boy appears "dilated", so when the observer see the clock on the train reaching time t, the observer's local time t' is is t'2=t2+(2vt'/c)2. But in any case, do not use observer's time t' to compare with the time t of the boy, they are the same after orthorgonally removing the distance traveled between the boy and the observer.
I will be very happy if anyone can mathematically understand now, because it is easy to see that t'=γt, and the boy and the observer are using their clocks correctly. It is very difficult to understand, just because time and space are orthogonal, and no one has ever thought of it this way. Without removing the spatial component from the observed time, there will be twin-paradox, triplet-paradox and quadrillion-paradox. If time is not well understood, it is impossible to understand speed because the reason is very mathematical.
Best regards.
Hong Du ,
All right, let’s try. But very slowly, step by step, paragraph by paragraph; my obsolete brain is unable to capture the overly voluminous images of our being.
Your first paragraph contains elements of your loftiness and nobility, and I look rather lost on your background. But I have the following question: «Do you really believe that I am stupid enough to fight against perfectly harmless, long dead people?». Look, I already wrote: «Naturally, the author, like each of us, can make mental and mathematical mistakes, …». After all, even some ridiculous human qualities of characters from the past can be viewed with some degree of leniency; we are all not angels. But my teacher decided that my thought «Minkowski was a fool» means nothing more than the statement that it is he, the teacher, trying to retell other people’s stupidity, passing them off as his own wisdom, seems to me a charlatan. … That is why I constantly urge you to express your own thoughts, as attempts at plagiarism may serve you badly. Want to Lorentz transforms – get a question in connection with the drawing «LoDu.png»; want the orthogonality of something – be prepared to independently reveal the fulfilment of the conditions of orthogonality, without reference to the authorities.
Remember that if you want to accept an unexpected inheritance, you should be prepared for the fact that debts can significantly exceed assets, and you usually do not have the opportunity to choose only the part of the inheritance that you like.
The second paragraph does not give me much ground for comment, except for some vague and unpleasant guesses in connection with your idea of the properties of light clock.
But in the third paragraph, we will have to dwell on some fundamental questions about which we may have serious misunderstandings.
Let me try to depict what you have told me in the simplest possible way (since I am too lazy to build orthogonal projections, I will limit myself to one plane). I cannot deceive you into saying: >> And don’t even doubt that the very first question you have to answer is how to guess the speeds of relative motion of these objects.//
On the sketch « 3 body Du.jpg» I depicted the situation described by you as I imagine it. The resting object is marked with the letter C; object A moves with respect to object C at twice the speed of object B. Points A and A' (or B and B') correspond to a pair of visible positions of objects from point C; repeated flashes are directed from C to observed objects immediately after the first of two reflections.
If this is too difficult for you, I am ready to consider your suggestions for further simplifying the task. My only wish is that even when conducting thought experiments, we must comply with safety rules!
With kind regards
P.S. You can learn about copyright and ResearchGate here, and find links to specific publishers' policies here.
Sorry, you can't add your file "3 body Du.jpg". The publisher, name unknown, has required us to block public uploads of this file. Learn more.
Please remove the file. You can try adding a different file. :((
Dear Sergey Sheludko ,
I cannot upload image either due to copyright. But it won't stop the discussion. So the triplet-paradox picture is not very difficult as follows.
Observer’s point of view:
Boy moving -----------------------------> 2v
Referee moving ------------>v
Observer at rest |
Referee’s point of view:
Boy moving ------------> v
Referee at rest |
Observer moving -v
Dear all,
I thank all those who have not only expressed their desire but also had an understanding of the problem. The discussion helped me to understand the level of development and understanding of the topic.
Thank you
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics