Einstein on Relativity

[ZenMonkeyNZ]

When we ascribe properties to space and time, they would only be attributes that commensurate with the endowed faculties of man as a created being. But there is no reason why space and time exist only because we exist. Absolute space and time may exist without man. Only the mathematical space and time are dependent on the faculties of man, not the real metaphysical space and time. Only the mathematical space time have attributes commensurate with the endowed faculties of man.

Precisely. This is why it is vitally important to keep the notion of measurement distinct from the real property being studied, and not confuse/conflate them. The difficulty with this subject, even though it presents a relatively (excuse the pun) straight forward issue, is that common ground is required as a starting point. In this case, the epistemological aspects of measure and abstraction must be agreed upon.

I have a gripe with the term absolute space (or time), purely because of the connotation that arises – that they are things, rather than being the fundamental relationships between aspects of reality by which we make sense of the physical world. But that is a semantic preference.

Thanks for your links in your other Relativity thread.

[Chan Rasjid]

Precisely. This is why it is vitally important to keep the notion of measurement distinct from the real property being studied, and not confuse/conflate them. The difficulty with this subject, even though it presents a relatively (excuse the pun) straight forward issue, is that common ground is required as a starting point. In this case, the epistemological aspects of measure and abstraction must be agreed upon.

I have a gripe with the term absolute space (or time), purely because of the connotation that arises – that they are things, rather than being the fundamental relationships between aspects of reality by which we make sense of the physical world. But that is a semantic preference.

Thanks for your links in your other Relativity thread.

From the wiki, it seems it was Newton who have used the terms absolute space and absolute time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space
Wiki : "These notions imply that absolute space and time do not depend upon physical events, but are a backdrop or stage setting within which physical phenomena occur."

You are correct that the true issue we have is about "relationships between aspects of reality by which we make sense of the physical world". I use the term "absolute" for space and time as it has been commonly done in the past. I believe that if Newton used it, there should be a good explanation why we may again come to use it again under proper context.

I think the space and time in relativity theory are "relative". They are not just the dimensions with which to discuss and treat motion, but they are being treated within the theory itself as being amenable to the theory; space and time have attributes that are amenable to changing physical conditions. So space acquires different curvatures dependent on the proximity of mass; time too may run differently.

With absolute time, there is no numerical rate that may be ascertainable that could be ascribe to absolute time. We may set up systems to keep track of the motion of the sun throughout a day by using a sundial, hourglass, water clock or pendulum clock. It is these clock gadgets that have motion that we interpret as time flowing unceasingly forward - thus giving the notion of "arrow of time". Man is never endowed with the faculty to imagine what it means for a pendulum to swing "backward in time". So the time of physics is a reference motion - that of clocks. Clock rates all may be quantified with a number but there is no way true time may be quantified with a flow number. I think it is in this manner that Newton used the term absolute time.

So in the opinion of Isaac Newton, if time itself is treated within a theory which allows it to acquire quantifiable and amenable attributes, such a theory fails as a scientific theory.

When it concerns the physics of motion, a man must have a stature commensurate with that of "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" before he should try to refute an opinion of Isaac Newton.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

[TalonThorn]

Back when I started thinking about Einstein's theories and the speed of light, I thought it must be some sort of viewpoint problem (relative to one observer but not to another). The whole theory has been obfuscated too much for me to actually read and make sense of the theory of relativity, however, so I never looked very close at it.

Later I took a different direction and realized that there is no "physical" quantity that we call "time." Thus, any kind of thought experiment that changes "time" is just the same as saying "nothing happens." When you eliminate time dilation, the velocity/shape of a thing dissolves as well.

Has it ever been established that light has a speed? On this I have heard that some experiments show that light is a relationship between objects, and thus has no "speed." Nothing travels between the objects, but rather some energy event occurs (chains?) between the objects, creating a "linking" between them. Think of it as perhaps all material between the source of light and another object as being energized at a certain rate. When that rate tops out, "light" is said to have traveled from source to object. It would be more of a resonance than a traversal effect.

Nice summary and discussion.

[TalonThorn]

When it concerns the physics of motion, a man must have a stature commensurate with that of "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" before he should try to refute an opinion of Isaac Newton.

But who gets to decide what your stature is? Isn't this just gate-keeping based on personal/paradigm bias?

[querious]

Einstein's relativity theories, SR and GR are invalid - trivially invalid. They are trivially invalid because they violate a natural physical principle, that of the absoluteness of space-time:

Absolute space-time is a principle of the natural physical world.

Are you saying the ERT are invalid philosophically, but correct experimentally?

If you think they are invalid experimentally, could you please elaborate?

[Chan Rasjid]

When it concerns the physics of motion, a man must have a stature commensurate with that of "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" before he should try to refute an opinion of Isaac Newton.

But who gets to decide what your stature is? Isn't this just gate-keeping based on personal/paradigm bias?

Yes! Exactly! This is how the real world works and not because certain matter is right or wrong. Almost everything in this world is based on opinions and majority acceptance by persons or group of persons with the influence to make decisions. Why huge sums of money are poured into particle physics with the LHC is not because of any "rightness" or "excellence" of the Standard Model of physics, but because of decisions by men - made with their "personal/paradigm bias".

Newton's laws of motion have been accepted almost universally without much controversy - at least before relativity. It is not a causal result directly related to the fact that Newton's laws have not been violated by any experiments. It is likewise with Einstein's relativity theories - if the most influential universities in the world start to desert relativity, very soon, others may follow and within 50 years, the theories may be officially viewed as incorrect.

Of course, ultimately, science should only be based on an accepted paradigm - the scientific method. But in the real world, it is still like with a judicial system - the laws are there clearly written, but it is the judges who interpret them and the evidence and pass judgments. It is only with historical hindsight that certain periods in history may be called "the Dark Age" or Renaissance. Some physicists do consider the current 100 years of modern physics to be a Dark age - but only time will tell.

Einstein's relativity theories, SR and GR are invalid - trivially invalid. They are trivially invalid because they violate a natural physical principle, that of the absoluteness of space-time:

Absolute space-time is a principle of the natural physical world.

Are you saying the ERT are invalid philosophically, but correct experimentally?

If you think they are invalid experimentally, could you please elaborate?

I don't know what ERT is. From google, I think you mean extended relativity theory.

The principle of absolute space time is not a mere philosophical viewpoint, but is a logical requirement of empirical verifiability of a scientific theory. There are mathematical settings that are necessary so that standards of physical units may implemented; without such, no coherent scientific measurement and comparison is possible.

So based on this principle, if a proper experimental test is done to test the constancy of light speed, the second postulate of special relativity would be found to be violated - light speed is variable. I know of the view of the mainstream - that all and many tests have been conducted and the postulate has been solidly established. I hold a different opinion.

If extended relativity theory indeed is a theory based on non-absolute space or time, then by the principle of absolute space-time, the theory would be invalidated either through logical inconsistencies or through properly done experiments which would contradict the theory.

On the other hand, a principle that is found to fail, even just once, is not a principle.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

[kiwi]

Enjoying the thread ZM, Chan, etc ...

Here are a couple of papers originally supplied by Goldminer some time ago, and invariably end up added to discussions of this type. cheers

----snip----

The reader must be warned, at this point, against a probable misinterpretation of the import of statements made so far: That would be to assume, that, were my perfectly accurate historical statements to be proven valid to his satisfaction, it would only be necessary to correct some names and dates to make the accounts in existing textbooks more or less valid. The reader’s persisting error would involve, among other things, a confusion over our use of the term relativistic. From Kepler’s rejection of a reductionist treatment of the inverse square law of gravitation discovered by him, through the work of Leibniz, Huygens, and the Bernoullis on the common isochronic principle governing falling bodies and light propagation in an atmosphere, to Gauss’s devastating proof of Kepler’s planetary harmonics, in his discovery of the orbit of Ceres, there prevailed a conception of the foundation of physics entirely different from that taught in today’s respectable institutions of learning. Today, the term relativistic, means a formulaic correction to a system of equations and other formalisms premised on an assumed, self-evident notion of three-fold extension in space and one-fold in time. Up to, approximately, the 1881 seizure of power by Hermann von Helmholtz at Berlin University’s Physics Department, the leading minds of European continental science rejected such an underlying assumption as sophomoric.


...... It is among the delightful ironies of the official cover-up known as modern scientific historiography, that the expression for the classical electron radius (a concept which is not supposed to come into existence for another 30 or more years), falls out of Weber’s expression—indeed, as a trivial case!

It gets more interesting. Weber has already dared, in the 1870 paper, to conceive the notion we know today as the proton-electron mass ratio, which leads him to wonder as to the possible motions of the different configurations of particle pairs. It turns out that, according to his relativistic electrical law (one which was never considered in the accepted, modern formulations of atomic theory), it is possible to develop an orbital system for the case of a lighter electrical particle of one sign, orbiting a heavier particle of the opposite sign! It is also possible for two similar particles of the same sign to develop a closed system of oscillations along the straight line connecting them.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... amics.html

A letter of 19 March 1845 from Carl Friedrich Gauss to
his younger collaborator, Wilhelm Weber, ranks as one
of the most singular interventions of all time by an individual
in changing the course of history. Modern atomic science,
physics, and chemistry, and everything in the modern
world that depends upon them, would not have existed without
it. It is, thus, one of the clearest proofs of the existence of
the consumer fraud, which passes for university science education
today, that the issues discussed in the letter are scarcely
known to any but a few specialists today, and that not even
one among these shows any adequate understanding of the
fundamentals involved.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... cience.pdf

----snip----
Enter Einstein

I am in some ways naive, but one does not live a large portion of one’s life in New York City without developing a certain instinct for knowing when he is being swindled. A look into yet another but older textbook (under what perverse impulsion I know not), brought me nearer to the truth. For here, on page 8, just upon entering the topic of electrostatics, we are told that, before going any further, we must become familiar with the concept of inertial frames. (That was 1930, when everybody was not so familiar with this idea.) For situations arise in which an observer in one inertial frame will measure an electric field and no magnetic field, while another might measure both an electric and a magnetic field, for example. If we do not take into account inertial frames, we are warned, many problems in electrodynamics, especially those involving rotating magnets will create difficulties for us.

Just at that point I began to suspect the exact nature of the swindle. Was it possible, that—despite all the talk of moving trains, clocks, and shrinking rods—the anomaly being addressed in Special Relativity was actually the much more mundane case before me—the asymmetry between motion of the magnet and motion of the disk? Then I remembered the title of Einstein’s famous paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Suddenly, its first paragraph made sense:

“It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. . . .”

Was Einstein talking about anything other than the anomaly of the sort manifested in the unipolar generator? If there were any doubt, one needed only to turn to “II. Electrodynamical Part, Section 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion.” There, in the last paragraph we read:

“Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the ‘seat’ of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point.”

And so, a true physical anomaly has been caused to disappear by the introduction of an arbitrary postulate—and an absurd one, at that. Thus are Maxwell’s equations “saved.” Could a magician do better?

There, dear reader, is the fraud—or a big part of it—which today’s well-paid fraternity of professional physicists are committed to defend.4 Heed and respect these hoaxsters if you wish. You will pay, like Faust, with your soul. Science, like all creative practice, is a precious tradition of thought, which begins with a profound and religious love for one’s fellow man, and most of all, for those among one’s predecessors who have ventured into that fearful territory “from whose bourn no traveller returns”: the realm of independent, creative thought. Nothing will so quickly turn a gifted thinker into a hopeless sack of lost potential, as moral compromise.

There is the challenge for science, as we enter the new millennium.

—Laurence Hecht
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

[Zendo]

“It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. . . .”

Was Einstein talking about anything other than the anomaly of the sort manifested in the unipolar generator? If there were any doubt, one needed only to turn to “II. Electrodynamical Part, Section 6. Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space. On the Nature of the Electromotive Forces Occurring in a Magnetic Field During Motion.” There, in the last paragraph we read:

“Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the ‘seat’ of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point.”

And so, a true physical anomaly has been caused to disappear by the introduction of an arbitrary postulate—and an absurd one, at that. Thus are Maxwell’s equations “saved.” Could a magician do better?

There, dear reader, is the fraud—or a big part of it—which today’s well-paid fraternity of professional physicists are committed to defend.4 Heed and respect these hoaxsters if you wish. You will pay, like Faust, with your soul. Science, like all creative practice, is a precious tradition of thought, which begins with a profound and religious love for one’s fellow man, and most of all, for those among one’s predecessors who have ventured into that fearful territory “from whose bourn no traveller returns”: the realm of independent, creative thought. Nothing will so quickly turn a gifted thinker into a hopeless sack of lost potential, as moral compromise.

There is the challenge for science, as we enter the new millennium.

—Laurence Hecht
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html

Oh my God I love this quote.

Fun(?) fact: Did you know Einstein's famous equation E=MC^2 was first discovered by the not so well know Olinto De Pretto and later plagiarized by Einstein: http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/fis/depret-bombay.htm

Sorry to break some peoples illusions, but Einstein is the biggest fraud of this century...

[TalonThorn]

Einstein's relativity theories, SR and GR are invalid - trivially invalid. They are trivially invalid because they violate a natural physical principle, that of the absoluteness of space-time:

Absolute space-time is a principle of the natural physical world.

Are you saying the ERT are invalid philosophically, but correct experimentally?

If you think they are invalid experimentally, could you please elaborate?

I might note that there is a third possibility. It seems more likely to me that the fault is in the interpretation. Experiment and philosophy can both be sound as possible, but still fail in the interpretation. For example, a theory could explain how a dog's tail makes the dog wag (from a certain perspective this might be true, but it's missing the bigger picture). Similarly, when there wasn't enough material in the universe for the big bang theory, theorists came up with an interpretation: dark matter. Also, those who use observation and experimentation often pay attention only to that which works (a natural human fault for all of us), and a good example of this is the redshift theory.

Another example of interpretation flaw is that Einstein's work pays attention to gravity and ignores all electromagnetic.

[Zyxzevn]

I had a thought about special relativity, and find that it seems to be in conflict with quantum-entanglement.

First lets start with a time-delation example:
I have three objects. One going left (L), one static(S), one going right(R). They are moving horizontally.
L <- S -> R

The time is measured by a vertical moving light that is reflected between two mirrors. This is exactly how it
is described in some time-delation examples.
From S both L and R seem to have slower clock, because the light needs to go over a longer distance.
The light in their "clocks" follow a zigzag pattern. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Because light has constant speed, and the path it takes is longer, the clocks are slower.

L and R have speed v. And after some time they reach a wall (|), which is on both sides.
| L <-------- S --------> R |

Because speed is relative in Relativity, from L it seems that S has a slower clock.
And from L, R is even slower. So from L it seems that R is reaching the wall later than L.
In reverse, for R is the same thing. For R it seems that L is reaching the wall later than R.

Because of this we have a relativity of simultaneity.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit ... multaneity
It is like the train-and-platform thought experiment.

After that they bounce against the wall.
| L -> S <- R |
Now the same thing is valid.
For L the clock in S seems slower. And the clock in R slowest.
For R the opposite is valid.

Now they reach S again.
What is the difference between clock L and R?
Logically it should be the same, as that what we observe from S.
From L and R the clocks seem different.
That is already a bit confusing isn't it?

I think that according to relativity, I switched from one reference frame to another,
because I changed speed. I moved from the L-frame to the R-frame.
Still the clocks in L and R will not suddenly change, since they are based on the bouncing light.
I hope that a relativity wizard can solve this problem.

But let's look at the real problem. It's incompatibility with quantum-entanglement.
Let us start with an L and R that are entangled.
That means at any time a change in L will cause a change in R.
From quantum-physics we know that this happens at the same moment.
So if we replace the wall with a detector, we can be certain that the outcome
of measuring L will yield the same outcome at R.
We can measure that with another detector, a bit further.
From relativity we would expect a delay if we measure L, because according to the L-frame-of-reference,
L will have reached the detector before R.
Now we have the same problem as before, but without changing the reference-frame.
And from the R-frame, L will be later.

But from observations of speed of entanglement this does not seem to be true.
It seems that we can only use the static S-frame-of-reference.
While there could be more testing, I think that this means
that time can be universal, only clocks are relative.

[querious]

But let's look at the real problem. It's incompatibility with quantum-entanglement.
Let us start with an L and R that are entangled.
That means at any time a change in L will cause a change in R.

I don't think measuring L causes a change in R. The measurement results are just anti-correlated.
I doubt we'll ever be able to use entanglement to send information, so I think it's compatible with SR.
But it would be cool!

[querious]

When it concerns the physics of motion, a man must have a stature commensurate with that of "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" before he should try to refute an opinion of Isaac Newton.

But who gets to decide what your stature is? Isn't this just gate-keeping based on personal/paradigm bias?

Yes! Exactly! This is how the real world works and not because certain matter is right or wrong. Almost everything in this world is based on opinions and majority acceptance by persons or group of persons with the influence to make decisions. Why huge sums of money are poured into particle physics with the LHC is not because of any "rightness" or "excellence" of the Standard Model of physics, but because of decisions by men - made with their "personal/paradigm bias".

Newton's laws of motion have been accepted almost universally without much controversy - at least before relativity. It is not a causal result directly related to the fact that Newton's laws have not been violated by any experiments. It is likewise with Einstein's relativity theories - if the most influential universities in the world start to desert relativity, very soon, others may follow and within 50 years, the theories may be officially viewed as incorrect.

Of course, ultimately, science should only be based on an accepted paradigm - the scientific method. But in the real world, it is still like with a judicial system - the laws are there clearly written, but it is the judges who interpret them and the evidence and pass judgments. It is only with historical hindsight that certain periods in history may be called "the Dark Age" or Renaissance. Some physicists do consider the current 100 years of modern physics to be a Dark age - but only time will tell.

Einstein's relativity theories, SR and GR are invalid - trivially invalid. They are trivially invalid because they violate a natural physical principle, that of the absoluteness of space-time:

Absolute space-time is a principle of the natural physical world.

Are you saying the ERT are invalid philosophically, but correct experimentally?

If you think they are invalid experimentally, could you please elaborate?

I don't know what ERT is. From google, I think you mean extended relativity theory.

ERT is "Einstein's relativity theories"

[Zyxzevn]

But let's look at the real problem. It's incompatibility with quantum-entanglement.
Let us start with an L and R that are entangled.
That means at any time a change in L will cause a change in R.

I don't think measuring L causes a change in R. The measurement results are just anti-correlated.
I doubt we'll ever be able to use entanglement to send information, so I think it's compatible with SR.
But it would be cool!

In quantum-physics there are some experiments where they change the outcome, by changing one of the interfering objects. The outcome is usually an interference wave pattern (super-position state) or a simple pattern.
These experiments all require for the particles to get back to the start again.
As the particles travel, the interfering objects are changed. And even when the particle has almost
reached the end, its pattern is still changed when we change the interfering object.
This influence is immediately and faster than light, and according to relativity the particles can not even know
that its pattern has changed.
This gives me the impression that time is something different than the clock.
Which means that relativity is only about clocks and not about time.

I think we can phenomena like the Aharnov Bohm effect
to see a difference between a particle that is "observed" and one that is in a "super-position"-state,
without the need to bring them back together.
The one in the super-position is affected (in phase) by a shielded external field.
So if we can see its phase, we might calculate where the super-position ended.

If anyone wants to know more about quantum-physics, I found a website that
simulates the experiments. It explains many experiments and the calculations
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/physics/quvis/

[scowie]

I have three objects. One going left (L), one static(S), one going right(R). They are moving horizontally.
L <- S -> R

The time is measured by a vertical moving light that is reflected between two mirrors. This is exactly how it
is described in some time-delation examples.
From S both L and R seem to have slower clock, because the light needs to go over a longer distance.
The light in their "clocks" follow a zigzag pattern. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Because light has constant speed, and the path it takes is longer, the clocks are slower.

L and R have speed v. And after some time they reach a wall (|), which is on both sides.
| L <-------- S --------> R |

Because speed is relative in Relativity, from L it seems that S has a slower clock.
And from L, R is even slower. So from L it seems that R is reaching the wall later than L.
In reverse, for R is the same thing. For R it seems that L is reaching the wall later than R.

Because of this we have a relativity of simultaneity.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativit ... multaneity
It is like the train-and-platform thought experiment.

After that they bounce against the wall.
| L -> S <- R |
Now the same thing is valid.
For L the clock in S seems slower. And the clock in R slowest.
For R the opposite is valid.

Now they reach S again.
What is the difference between clock L and R?
Logically it should be the same, as that what we observe from S.
From L and R the clocks seem different.
That is already a bit confusing isn't it?

There are too kinds of clock slowing in your example that need to be differentiated between. There is the slowing that is intrinsic to the clock due to it's speed with respect to the effective absolute frame of reference (presumably S in your example) that light moves at a constant speed with respect to (hence the zigzag pattern you mentioned). Then there's the apparent slowing/speeding up of a distant clock due to the changing distance that a signal must travel to reach you. After a round trip where L, S and R begin and then return to the same spot, there is obviously no element of apparent slowing afterwards as the slowing that was observed due to recession is countered by a speeding up on approach and the effects cancel. So if L and R move at the same speed for the same duration there can be no difference in their clocks after this round trip. They will both have lost the same amount of time compared to S.

[Zyxzevn]

.. So if L and R move at the same speed for the same duration there can be no difference in their clocks after this round trip. They will both have lost the same amount of time compared to S.

Thanks for trying to solve the puzzle...

just a little thing:

If you look from L only it is different.
R has to move a much larger path, and the speed-of-light can not be different.
That means that R's clock must be slower than L's clock.

According to relativity, the time delation "delta" is:
delta= deltaT/sqrt(1 - v*v/(c*c))

Because it says v*v it means that the direction of R does not matter.

The time-shift you mean is due to the speed of L and C, similar to the Doppler effect:
shift= v/c
Here the direction does matter, and the problem is solved.
But this is not relativity.

If we use light as a clock. And assume constant speed of light for all observers.
Then we get relativity. In this case light is bouncing up and down
between mirrors with speed c for every observer.
For L and R the clocks do not suddenly jump. So if I keep following L as an observer,
I see no reason for R's clock not be delayed, using bouncing light as a clock.
Unless I do not use relativity, like you described.