Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:12 am Post subject: Is Lorentz Contraction Objectively Real?
Those who teach special relativity consider it a very important exercise to have students decide how to measure the length of a rapidly moving object. That's religious indoctrination and a wrongheaded approach to physics. The theoretical process that physicists talk about to measure the length of a rapidly moving object requires belief in simultaneity. In actual reality, according to the math of relativity theory, simultaneity doesn't exist.
Lorentz contraction is just a peculiarity of a simplistic coordinate system that physicists believe in.
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:30 am Post subject: Did Albert Einstein understand special relativity?
Tom Roberts wrote:
How silly. How is one to discuss motion without deciding how to measure it? And properties of moving objects?
The silliness is that either you don't understand the question or are purposely distorting my words. I'm not asserting that a mathematical formulation of motion or its measurement is impossible. [1]. I'm addressing the use of the convention called simultaneity and the use of a pure convention in deciding if something is objectively real. Simultaneity is used in hypothetically measuring the length of rapidly moving objects. [2]. The question is, Is Lorentz contraction objectively real?
Tom Roberts wrote:
If one marks the position of the front of a train at time T0, and marks the rear an hour later, the distance between those marks is only distantly related to the train's length.
Could you rephrase that so your meaning is clear?
Tom Roberts wrote:
Nothing you say can change this basic fact, or alter the need for simultaneity in measuring a moving object....
I'm not disputing the need for simultaneity in measuring [the length of] a moving object. I affirmed that very clearly. I'm asserting that Lorentz contractions are not objectively real. If Lorentz contractions were objectively real, then it would also be true that nature violates ~S-symmetry. See, Do the Laws of Physics Demand that Clocks be Synchronized? ~S-symmetry means that the laws of physics do not physically compel a special synchronization of clocks. Nature does not impose a preferred clock synchronization scheme.
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Lorentz contraction is just a peculiarity of a simplistic coordinate system that physicists believe in.
It's far more than mere "belief" -- these are the coordinates used in essentially every laboratory on earth. And in myriad engineering projects. And by anyone who thinks very much about it at all
Right. And the question is, How could there ever be objectively real experimental evidence demonstrating that Lorentz contraction is real without equally compelling experimental evidence that nature favors E-synchronization above ~S-symmetry?
Tom Roberts wrote:
Cartesian coordinates are clearly the simplest coordinates on Euclidean space, and Minkowski coordinates are likewise the simplest coordinates on spacetime (locally, of course).
I agree that most human conventions are the simplest that humans can conceive of. However, there's a big difference between human conventionalizations and the laws of the physical universe.
Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:57 am Post subject: The essence of special relativity theory
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Just as it's religious indoctrination and a wrongheaded approach to have young students do arithmetic problems, or to have them work problems involving F=ma? It would be a strange philosophy that has a teacher teach special relativity, but to tell the students not to use the theory in the problem sets.
I'm just a precocious inquiring mind with a degree in math imagining that simultaneity and Lorentz contraction doesn't objectively exist. My thesis is that the Lorentz contraction is just as subjective as is simultaneity. I agree that we can pretend that such things exist and that such a pretense is internally self-consistent. Why is that relevant? I am asserting that the imagined everyday shrinking of rulers is not a real objective phenomenon.
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
If you disagree with extant theory, or have a theory of your own, that doesn't make you a crackpot. But if you can't understand why anyone would have thought the theory was a good idea in the first place, can't understand why it would have been used world-wide for a hundred years, can't understand why it's good science even if it ultimately proves to be wrong, you're reaching beyond your abilities in criticizing it.
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. -- The Apostle Paul to the Corinthians.
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
Struggling to comprehend, the crackpot decides everyone is stupid except for himself.
I've written a simple, flawless, easy to understand interpretation of the Lorentz transformation [1] but can't get a single endorsement for it to be included in the physics.ed-ph section of arXiv. I've made the announcement at sci.physics.research and, to this date, no one there can get beyond their irrational, emotional, knee-jerk reactions. [3]. Apparently, tradition and prejudice have greater weight than reason and logic.
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> The theoretical process that physicists talk about to measure the length of a rapidly moving object requires belief in simultaneity. In actual reality, according to the math of relativity theory, simultaneity doesn't exist.
In actual reality, according to the math of relativity theory, simultaneity exists.
I believe that physicists are promoting naive human conventionalizations as physical, natural law. Lorentz contraction, as represented by the high priests of physics and the popularizers of science, is a misleading and unscientific theory that falsely suggests that a subjective convention is a very objective and real fact about the nature of the physical universe. See my reply to Tom Roberts.
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> Lorentz contraction is just a peculiarity of a simplistic coordinate system that physicists believe in.
I suppose you'd rather replace relativity with your own religious indoctrination, then.
Relativity Lite is merely the most obvious interpretation of the Lorentz transformation without the imposed clutter of having to believe in the conventionality of simultaneity as objective reality.
One is, of course, permitted to add whatever clutter to the distilled essence of relativity that they desire. I just don't understand why including the non-essentials is required for publishing at http://xxx.lanl.gov.
When I carry a 2-meter long rod through a doorway that is 1 meter wide, I must rotate it so its 2-meter length is not parallel to that 1-meter aperture. Is that "objectively real"?
Yes.
Tom Roberts wrote:
If so, then so is "Lorentz contraction"; Note I did NOT shorten the rod in any way, I merely rotated it to fit.
Apparently, you don't perceive any physical distinction between rotating in space and traveling at relativistic speeds.
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Eugene Shubert wrote:
>>> Lorentz contraction is just a peculiarity of a simplistic coordinate system that physicists believe in.
> Tom Roberts replied:
>> It's far more than mere "belief" -- these are the coordinates used in essentially every laboratory on earth. And in myriad engineering projects. And by anyone who thinks very much about it at all
> Eugene Shubert responded:
> Right. And the question is, How could there ever be objectively real experimental evidence demonstrating that Lorentz contraction is real without equally compelling experimental evidence that nature favors E-synchronization above ~S-symmetry?
I was describing your sliiy claim about "belief in coordinate systems", not "belief in Lorentz contraction".
I believe in rulers. You believe in shrinking rulers and label my belief in rulers silly.
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Eugene Shubert wrote:
> I've written a simple, flawless, easy to understand interpretation of the Lorentz transformation but can't get a single endorsement for it to be included in the physics.ed-ph section of arXiv.
I would not call that paper "simple and flawless" at all. The very first sentence of the abstract shows quite clearly that the author does not understand the modern vocabulary of physics.
I wrote: "The Lorentz transformation group may be interpreted physically as a universal, everywhere present multi-clock that defines time at every point."
Is it that you don't understand the phrase, "may be interpreted" or are you insulted that I have discovered a revolutionary new way to think about relativity and that the limited vocabulary of traditional physics isn't rich enough to explain it?
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Eugene Shubert wrote:
> Relativity Lite is merely the most obvious interpretation of the Lorentz transformation
Somehow, imagining sliding rulers does not agree with "the most obvious"....
Hypocrite, Physicists are infatuated with shrinking rulers and they use the illustration incessantly, but when I ask my readers to imagine sliding rulers you disapprove as if such an idea is unimaginable.
Joined: 15 Mar 2005 Posts: 8 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Is Lorentz Contraction Objectively Real?
Eugene Shubert wrote:
Those who teach special relativity consider it a very important exercise to have students decide how to measure the length of a rapidly moving object. That's religious indoctrination and a wrongheaded approach to physics. The theoretical process that physicists talk about to measure the length of a rapidly moving object requires belief in simultaneity. In actual reality, according to the math of relativity theory, simultaneity doesn't exist.
Lorentz contraction is just a peculiarity of a simplistic coordinate system that physicists believe in.
We don't live in objective reality. Any measurement we make isn't a measurement of reality - reality is an infinite dimenionsal Hilbert space, we live in a projection of that space.
yes, it is objectively real. You measure the length of something by putting a ruler at one end of the something and read off the number on the ruler where the other end aligns with it. (This is how you do it regardless of how fast it may be moving relative to you.) If you do this for a moving object (along the direction of its motion), you will find this number to be less than you would find if it later slows down and comes to rest. The Lorentz transformation eqns. (which you fervently believe in since you are obsessed with alternative ways of deriving them) show this rather convincingly. Thus a moving object is contracted => Lorentx contraction is objectively real.
Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:38 am Post subject: Let's see a straightforward computation
Chris Osborne wrote:
(This is how you do it regardless of how fast it may be moving relative to you.) If you do this for a moving object (along the direction of its motion), you will find this number to be less than you would find if it later slows down and comes to rest.
Chris,
I seriously doubt that you understand the issues or recognize the presuppositions that you are using. If a 1+1 dimensional spacetime were governed by the group of transformations generated by equations (78) and (79) of my paper, what would be the outcome of your proposed experiment? How would moving objects shrink in a nonzero epsilon universe? Can you derive the amount of shrinkage mathematically in this instance?
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:50 pm Post subject: The length of a moving object
Chris,
The way you compute the length of a moving object isn't physically relevant. Why should a clock resynchronization scheme alter physical reality?
You seem to have difficulty understanding the 1+1 dimensional nonzero epsilon universe. Try to find an informed physics professor and ask him to explain it to you. A 1+1 dimensional nonzero epsilon universe is isomorphic to 1+1 dimensional Minkowski space. These two spacetimes are mathematically and physically indistinguishable.
I'm not surprised that isomorphic universes with different clock synchronization schemes yield dissimilar coordinate dependent results. Thanks for demonstrating this simple fact. You have confirmed my thesis with a simple computation.
Believing in Lorentz contraction requires accepting a universal everywhere present "now". True laws of physics are independent of how clocks are synchronized.
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:36 am Post subject: Re: The length of a moving object
Shubert wrote:
The way you compute the length of a moving object isn't physically relevant.
Of course it is. You have to do it right to get the correct physical length.
Shubert wrote:
Why should a clock resynchronization scheme alter physical reality?
It shouldn't, and it doesn't. We've been over this before.
Shubert wrote:
You seem to have difficulty understanding the 1+1 dimensional nonzero epsilon universe.
I understand it very well. It's a 2D universe with transformation equations that you made up. Such is not our universe.
Shubert wrote:
Try to find an informed physics professor and ask him to explain it to you.
I guarantee most physics professors have never heard of such gobbledygook.
Shubert wrote:
A 1+1 dimensional nonzero epsilon universe is isomorphic to 1+1 dimensional Minkowski space. These two spacetimes are mathematically and physically indistinguishable.
Prove your claim. As far as I can tell a non-zero epsilon universe gives different values for length contraction and time dilation. (see above). Thus it is NOT physically indistinguishable from Minkowski space since those are measurable quantities. Our universe has epsilon=0, as has been experimentally verified to incredible accuracy.
Perhaps you can find a source that talks about or has this epsilon that you have mysteriously introduced. In order for it to be isomorphic to our universe the meanings of space and time would have to change. Anyway, I'll leave up to you to figure this out and save your own ass from humiliation on this matter.
Shubert wrote:
I'm not surprised that isomorphic universes with different clock synchronization schemes yield dissimilar coordinate dependent results.
Length contraction is a coordinate independent result.
Shubert wrote:
Thanks for demonstrating this simple fact. You have confirmed my thesis with a simple computation.
Oh shut up.
Shubert wrote:
Believing in Lorentz contraction requires accepting a universal everywhere present "now".
No it doesn't. It requires that the concept of "now" is well-defined in any inertial frame.
Shubert wrote:
True laws of physics are independent of how clocks are synchronized.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Too bad it's always the same time it gets right.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
