Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle

Sep 07, 2012
This is a general method for measuring the precision and disturbance of any system. The system is weakly measured before the measurement apparatus and then strongly measured afterwords. Credit: Lee Rozema, University of Toronto

Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, formulated by the theoretical physicist in 1927, is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics. In its most familiar form, it says that it is impossible to measure anything without disturbing it. For instance, any attempt to measure a particle's position must randomly change its speed.

The principle has bedeviled for nearly a century, until recently, when researchers at the University of Toronto demonstrated the ability to directly measure the disturbance and confirm that Heisenberg was too pessimistic.

"We designed an apparatus to measure a property – the – of a single photon. We then needed to measure how much that apparatus disturbed that photon," says Lee Rozema, a Ph.D. candidate in Professor Aephraim Steinberg's quantum optics research group at U of T, and lead author of a study published this week in .

"To do this, we would need to measure the photon before the apparatus but that measurement would also disturb the photon," Rozema says.

University of Toronto quantum optics graduate students Dylan Mahler (l) and Lee Rozema (r) prepare pairs of entangled photons to study the disturbance the photons experience after they are measured. The pair are part of a team that demonstrated the degree of precision that can be achieved with weak-measurement techniques, causing a re-evaulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Credit: Dylan Mahler, University of Toronto

In order to overcome this hurdle, Rozema and his colleagues employed a technique known as weak measurement wherein the action of a measuring device is weak enough to have an imperceptible impact on what is being measured. Before each photon was sent to the measurement apparatus, the researchers measured it weakly and then measured it again afterwards, comparing the results. They found that the disturbance induced by the measurement is less than Heisenberg's precision-disturbance relation would require.

"Each shot only gave us a tiny bit of information about the disturbance, but by repeating the experiment many times we were able to get a very good idea about how much the photon was disturbed," says Rozema.

The findings build on recent challenges to Heisenberg's principle by scientists the world over. Nagoya University physicist Masanao Ozawa suggested in 2003 that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not apply to measurement, but could only suggest an indirect way to confirm his predictions. A validation of the sort he proposed was carried out last year by Yuji Hasegawa's group at the Vienna University of Technology. In 2010, Griffith University scientists Austin Lund and Howard Wiseman showed that weak measurements could be used to characterize the process of measuring a quantum system. However, there were still hurdles to clear as their idea effectively required a small quantum computer, which is difficult to build.

"In the past, we have worked experimentally both on implementing weak measurements, and using a technique called 'cluster state quantum computing' to simplify building quantum computers. The combination of these two ideas led to the realization that there was a way to implement Lund and Wiseman's ideas in the lab," says Rozema.

It is often assumed that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle applies to both the intrinsic uncertainty that a quantum system must possess, as well as to measurements. These results show that this is not the case and demonstrate the degree of precision that can be achieved with weak-measurement techniques.

"The results force us to adjust our view of exactly what limits places on measurement," says Rozema. "These limits are important to fundamental quantum mechanics and also central in developing 'quantum cryptography' technology, which relies on the to guarantee that any eavesdropper would be detected due to the disturbance caused by her measurements."

"The quantum world is still full of uncertainty, but at least our attempts to look at it don't have to add as much uncertainty as we used to think!"

Explore further: Duality principle is 'safe and sound': Researchers clear up apparent violation of wave-particle duality

More information: The findings are reported in the paper "Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements". prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v109/i10/e100404

Related Stories

Physicists resolve a paradox of quantum theory

Jan 14, 2009

University of Toronto quantum physicists Jeff Lundeen and Aephraim Steinberg have shown that Hardy's paradox, a proposal that has confounded physicists for over a decade, can be confirmed and ultimately resolved, a task which ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 342

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ArtflDgr
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2012
Before each photon was sent to the measurement apparatus, the researchers measured it weakly and then measured it again afterwards, comparing the results. They found that the disturbance induced by the measurement is less than Heisenberg's precision-disturbance relation would require.

They just said its imperceptible… so how did they perceive it? do they know what these words mean? They are wrong… all they did was shrink the uncertainty down till it seems to go away… but if you scale the view, and get down there, and could sit on the particle, you would find that within the size of the perturbations, its unpredictable… ie. when you use more energy, the size of the zone of perturbation is larger and so more unpredictable. When you use less energy, the zone of perturbation is smaller and so you can see the general in it more easily. But in BOTH cases. Given a point target to strike… both would miss the target equal times, but be clustered near it inversely to the power…
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2012
If the HUP is true than scale is continuous, if scale is discrete then the HUP is false. If you can subdivide units of time and distance to infinity then nothing ever exists anywhere... otherwise, if there exists the smallest possible units of these quantities (such as the plank time/distance) then things exist in a particular place at a particular time.
Sonhouse
5 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
You have repeated their setup?
HTK
Sep 07, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
El_Nose
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2012
@artflDgr

I understood what was stated maybe you got confused.

HUP = Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

1) weak measurement -- should not change the photon
2) normal measurement -- HUP says this will greatly change the photon
3) weak measurement -- should not change the photon

delta(3,1)= change created by 2 small change from 3

if the results from 1 and 3 are almost identical then 2 did not do much change. That was the experiment. If each tradiditonal measurement is changing the particle then a measurement before and after that do not change the particle should be able to measure the change that the traditional measurement makes on the photon.

that is pretty straight forward.
Eikka
2 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2012
if there exists the smallest possible units of these quantities (such as the plank time/distance) then things exist in a particular place at a particular time.


Non-sequitur.

They could be existing in multiple particular places at the same time with some probability, or not completely in any one particular place.
hemitite
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
It will certainly be nice to be certain about however much uncertainty we will certainly find in certain quantum systems!
panorama
5 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2012
It will certainly be nice to be certain about however much uncertainty we will certainly find in certain quantum systems!

I see what you did there.
hemitite
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2012
You certainly did! ;)
antonima
1.8 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2012
YES! I was sure of this for the longest time. Now I can rest assured knowing I was right!
indio007
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
Or you could just make the uncertainty principle pretty much irrelevant.
Quantum Entanglement of Very High Angular Momenta

"Furthermore, the OAM degree of freedom can
be used to increase the difference in the quantum number between entangled photon pairs (19),
such that before any measurement took place both photons can carry different, arbitrarily high
values of OAM. As soon as the OAM value of one photon is measured, the amount of OAM
carried by the other photon is instantaneously well-defined no matter how big the difference of
the two possible angular momenta is."
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2012
In essence, the single photon is transverse wave, so it cannot be used for transfer of information with superluminal speed. But the entanglement of two or more photons from multiple directions allows the propagation of portion of information in form of longitudinal waves and as such with speed, which exceeds the speed of light. This information is not fully deterministic, but with repetition of transfer by principle of so-called weak measurement its determinism may be restored. In essence, the fully deterministic transfer of the same amount of information in this way would take the same time, like the transfer of the same information with single photon, so that neither special relativity, neither uncertainty principle is broken in this case.
This comment was downvoted here, whereas it represents exactly the point of this new article.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2012
The confusion between uncertainty principles and the observer effect was a historical artifact, it is long gone. Even Heisenberg later proved a correct, though simple, HUP. There are many uncertainty principles besides the one tested in the paper (Robertson's, the most general one). [ http://en.wikiped...rinciple ]

One such test was described recently here. [ http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv ]

In fact, weak measurements in and of themselves would be a failed test for the observer effect. But it is nice that they test every situation.

"if the results from 1 and 3 are almost identical then 2 did not do much change." The reason for the particular experiments involved were a lot more complicated. In principle they could have gotten away with two measurements, #1 measuring weakly the property #2 measured strongly. (Fig 1 in the paper.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2012
india007, so called squeezed quantum state allow for knowing some properties of a system thoroughly, as do weak measurements. As you say, there are ways to make the HUP irrelevant in some cases.

@ ValeriaT:

Fractal failure comment.

- This article says precisely nothing on light speed limits.

- The phase velocity says precisely nothing on light speed limits.

- Group velocities and wave forms combine to say something, and it is known beyond reasonable doubt that signals obey relativity (causality allows at most vacuum speed of light information transfer).

This is well known, it is conceptually simple, and it has been well tested for a century without fail despite very, very, yes in fact very, many tests. Open a physics book and check out for yourself.

Oh, and I need to let my browser access the voting scripts. Thanks for the tip!
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2012
it is conceptually simple, and it has been well tested for a century without fail despite very, very, yes in fact very, many tests
Nope, just the principle of weak measurement enabled to reconstruct the quantum wave function of photon, which changes superluminaly. Inside of photon which is moving with the speed of light by itself no separate change should be observed.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
if there exists the smallest possible units of these quantities (such as the plank time/distance) then things exist in a particular place at a particular time.


Non-sequitur.

They could be existing in multiple particular places at the same time with some probability, or not completely in any one particular place.


This is an expression of our inability to probe at these scales... that's all. Existing in multiple places at the same time violates the definition of a "thing"... it would be multiple things with the same properties. Physical location is a property of a "thing"... The difference between one "thing" existing in multiple locations and multiple identical "things" each existing in their own location is purely semantics.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2012
clearly "I" only exist in one place... but if somehow there were two identical copies of me and the only difference between them was their location in space then that is still TWO copies of me, not one of me existing in two places at the same time.

Obviously we are talking about the most fundamental constituents of reality here and not complex things like me, but the principle is the same. Physical location is a defining property of a thing, to say that something exists in two places simultaneously is the same as saying that two identical things exist in different places.

Try not to get confused between human-invented concepts used to refer to reality and ACTUAL reality.
dtyarbrough
1 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2012
If an object can exist in two places at once, how do you measure its speed. Do you subtract the average of it origins from the average of its destinations? Once you measure its origins, will it only have one destination? If it can exist in two places at once, maybe it is only entangled with itself.
del2
not rated yet Sep 07, 2012
Surely HUP doesn't say we can't measure anything precisely, just that we can't measure both of a pair of conjugate parameters with infinite precision: position and momentum, or energy and time. What is being measured here is polarisation - what is the conjugate parameter? Is there one?
dtyarbrough
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
As much as I want to believe this article, a second weak measurement may only return a small percentage of the effect of the first weak measurement. A prior weak measurement and the intermediate measurement needs to be followed by a strong measurement. If they can't correlate between the two, the weak measurement is meaningless and does not void HUP. Just because the measurement changes the more the measurement is made, does not indicate an accurate measurement.
Dug
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
Isn't casting doubt on uncertainty like casting a shadow in the dark?
fmfbrestel
not rated yet Sep 07, 2012
Surely HUP doesn't say we can't measure anything precisely, just that we can't measure both of a pair of conjugate parameters with infinite precision: position and momentum, or energy and time. What is being measured here is polarisation - what is the conjugate parameter? Is there one?


OHH! You got them! They tried to sneak one past us, but you didn't let them. Good for you. /sarcasm

google it yourself.
jimbo92107
not rated yet Sep 07, 2012
This is an expression of our inability to probe at these scales... that's all. Existing in multiple places at the same time violates the definition of a "thing"... it would be multiple things with the same properties. Physical location is a property of a "thing"... The difference between one "thing" existing in multiple locations and multiple identical "things" each existing in their own location is purely semantics.


What is location? Perhaps we have been misunderstanding what the word means. If we limit the definition of "location" to discrete cubicles of space, then we're telling nature how to be, rather than observing and describing it. Perhaps under certain conditions location has no more meaning than time does to a photon.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2012
Philosophic photons indeed...!

Now, if I rode on a photon, how long would I be in transit according to the passage of time as far as the photon perceives it, ends up as approaching infinity or rather T over 0 - which too me, isnt infinity - rather I interpret that to mean "time does not apply to the perception of time from a photon's perspective"
Sorry to hijack this discussion, this has been bothering me for a while until a dream put some things in context last month hmmm...
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
Location is the position of the center of mass of object. The speed of its movement is limited with special relativity. The quantum mechanics managed a trick though, which enables to evade this limit for entangled pair of distant objects.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2012
If an object can exist in two places at once, how do you measure its speed. Do you subtract the average of it origins from the average of its destinations? Once you measure its origins, will it only have one destination? If it can exist in two places at once, maybe it is only entangled with itself.


An object cannot exist in two places at once because it violates the definition of an object... an object has a location, ONE location... If you tell me that an object exists in two places simultaneously I will tell you that you are wrong, that there are actually two objects, and they are identical EXCEPT for their location in space... the different locations of the two objects, if identical in every other way, is itself enough to make them TWO objects.

An "object" is an abstract and concept... it means what we dictate that it means, and right now, due to our perception of reality, existing in a single location is a defined property of EVERY object.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2012
Mike:

The question is meaningless, photons cannot perceive anything. Perception is an emergent phenomenon of neural activity, which operates at FAR less than light speed. I know it's a hypothetical question, I know that you know that photons cannot perceive anything, but I think it's important to realize that some questions are simply nonsense. You might as well ask how happy a photon is... it simply doesn't apply, "happiness" and "perception" are properties that photons do not possess.

The passage of time is a perception, the perception of change of the physical state of reality. If nothing perceives it, the presence or absence of it is meaningless.

Furthermore, as far as we know photons are merely energy and energy is eternal... what meaning would time possibly have to something that is eternal? Photons ARE time... in that energy IS time, in that energy is responsible for change.
logic_run
not rated yet Sep 08, 2012
Can someone please explain how it is possible to measure the polarisation of a single photon?

I understand that it is possible to send a beam of light through a polarizing lens and those photons that make it through are considered to be "polarised." But viewing the property of polarisation as something inherently contained within the photon, how is it possible to test for this?

I have a suspicion about what the answer may be. I think polarisation may relate to "spin" (otherwise called "angular momentum") and there may be magnetic resonance involved? But I would be interested to hear from anyone that knows this in empirical terms or someone who can give me an insight into the accepted theory.

Help much appreciated.
Job001
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
The Heisenberg principle is based upon a single measurement not multiples and statistical improvements (N^-0.5) of knowledge of mean position x momentum vectors. We can now photograph atom electron clouds with massive electron microscope electron flux and yet this valuable new image does not change the single measurement Heisenburg principle. The massive statistical result is a different animal needing a different name, like Lee's photo, IMHO.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
When you make a measurement, you need an apparatus; and this means the introduction of boundary conditions (BC's). A change in BC's can change what you want to measure into something else. This is NOT just true for quantum mechanics. For example, it is impossible to verify experimentally that there is an electric field-energy around a solitary charge, since you need to use a second charge to measure this field if it exists. All you can conclude is that when there are two charges there is a force between them. To conclude that there is an electric field-energy is an assumption without any experimental proof. There is, most probably, not an electric-field energy which has to be renormalised to disappear as is done in QED.

HUP is not, anymore, about not being able to measure without changing the result. It has become a postulate that "uncertainty" is inbuilt into Nature whether you measure or do not measure: The latter is claptrap, since it violates Galileo's concept of inertia.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (60) Sep 08, 2012


HUP is not, anymore, about not being able to measure without changing the result. It has become a postulate that "uncertainty" is inbuilt into Nature whether you measure or do not measure:


I was under the impression that was always the case, that the measurement aspect of the principal was merely a some what 'classical' analogy to explain to classically minded physicists of the time ,.... while fundamentally it expresses that conjugate variables are Fourier transforms of each other, which still holds of course.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (59) Sep 08, 2012
In other words, historically, I though Heisenberg invented the (measurement aspect) analogy for "classical explanation purposes", not as a fundamental principal. He thought it quit meaningless to make statements about a qm entity between measurements.
Bernd
1 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2012
Did Heisenberg implicitly assume (as Leibniz and Newton did) that euclidean geometry is valid on infinitesimal length scales? Then this assumption would be inherent to Quantum mechanics.
ValeriaT
1.1 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2012
An object cannot exist in two places at once..an object has a location, ONE location..
It doesn't apply to quantum mechanics, in which one electron is at many places around atoms, these places are called the orbitals. I admit, it's simplification of the physical situation - as the probability of the particle occurrence doesn't say, where the particle actually is - but such questions have no meaning in rigorous quantum mechanics. As you can see from this scheme, nothing can even actually move in quantum mechanics: just the probability of occurrence of particle at some place is decreasing and it increases congruently somewhere else. If you perceive it like motion, it's solely your perspective - the rigorous quantum mechanics doesn't recognize the concept of motion at all: everything observable in it happens immanently with superluminal speed. It's important to understand, the spirit of QM is dual to spirit of GR and it defies it deeply.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
...that the measurement aspect of the principal was... 'classical' analogy to explain to classically minded physicists of the time
Wrong
.fundamentally it expresses that conjugate variables are Fourier transforms of each other, which still holds of course.
Of course!

This is where Heisenberg misled physicists: Mind you he was clever like a fox: He even misled Einstein!!

There is NO uncertainty in momentum and position of an electron when solving the Schroedinger wave-equation. The electron-wave, like ALL harmonic waves has a size (delta)x in position space and a size (delta)k in reciprocal space. This has NOTHING to do wih the centre-of-mass of such a wave: For example, any stationary Schroedinger-wave of an electron has distributed mass-energy and therefore a centre-of-mass which has a DEFINITE position (say x=0) and a definite momentum whuch MUST be p=0: This is mandatory for Newton's first law (Galileo's inertia), which must be valid, even within the QM domain
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2012
Whole the physics of the new century is about discussions, whether the general relativity doesn't somehow allow the superluminal phenomena which would violate its determinism and vice-versa: whether the quantum mechanics doesn't allow some subluminal phenomena, which would violate its probabilistic character. For me this question is solved already: the perspective strictly local in space and time doesn't allow it - but because we human observers aren't local and we have a memory, the observable violations of both theories are allowable easily.

The another question is, both these theories are formulated being as local (causual) as possible - so that the conservative purists will always adhere on their strictly local formulations, which would enable to work with them (and to generate articles, jobs and money) most reliably and comfortably. All these extensions of relativity and quantum mechanics are dirty mixes, which violate the original postulates of these theories on background.
johanfprins
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2012
Whole the physics of the new century ....... which violate the original postulates of these theories on background.
Waht a lot of mumbo-jumbo.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2012
If the people wouldn't have any memory and if they couldn't operate in space-time, then the principle of so-called weak measurement wouldn't have any meaning for QM, because we wouldn't be able to correlate consecutive observations into context of single experiment. But because we human creatures are capable to do so, we can artificially reconstruct the inner working of quantum mechanical objects (quantum wave function) in sequence of stroboscopic/tomographic observations. Such a results connected into single interpretation would indeed violate both quantum mechanics both special relativity in their strictly local and atemporal formulation. These theories weren't simply constructed for being handled so.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2012
In other words, historically, I though Heisenberg invented the (measurement aspect) analogy for "classical explanation purposes", not as a fundamental principal. He thought it quit meaningless to make statements about a qm entity between measurements.

I know he did and therefore he and Bohr led physics back into a New Age of superstition. WE are not supposed to know how Nature does it! If we "look" at what the "particles" are doing, they do not want to diffract anymore: What a load of claptrap!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2012
Waht a lot of mumbo-jumbo. What a load of claptrap!
You're occupying single (i.e. yours) rigid observational perceptive of quantum mechanics, so you cannot see the things/theories/interpretations in their particular context. But from certain perspective the Copenhagen interpretation is as relevant, as the pilot wave or any other of dozens interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's like the recognition of garden with using of snapshots: each photo will be quite different from others, yet they all illustrate the same garden. What you're doing is you're standing aside while waving with your own photograph in hands and screaming: "Go fuck yourself all of you - your gardens is not what my photo is illustrating!" This is how I do perceive your posts here.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
It's like the recognition of garden with using of snapshots: each photo will be quite different from others, yet they all illustrate the same garden. What you're doing is you're standing aside while waving with your own photograph in hands and screaming: "Go fuck yourself all of you - your gardens is not what my photo is illustrating!" This is how I do perceive your posts here.
I believe in freedom of speech and thought and respect your perception of me! Maybe it is more than a perception!

One cannot reconcile the Copenhagen-interpretation with realism and causality, so I doubt whether you have any sapshots of a real garden that you are able to wave around. Thus, maybe my snapshot is the only correct one??
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2012
The relevance of various interpretations of quantum mechanics can be demonstrated with iconic double slit experiment with photons of different energy. The diffraction pattern of long-wavelength photons appears like the diffraction of pure waves with no dots. The diffraction pattern of energetic photons appears similarly, but it's composed of many dots. The pilot wave interpretation of QM is saying: the particle is point object, the wake wave of vacuum around it is what gives its wave character. The Copenhagen interpretation says instead: whole the particle is wave packet and its wave function is what participates to diffraction. But as we can see, the relevance of both models depends on the relative energy of particle involved: for low energies the wave functions of particle and vacuum converge mutually. We therefore cannot say without deeper analysis, which interpretation is more relevant to particular situation: the contemporary quantum mechanics has no tools how to distinguish it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
The diffraction pattern of long-wavelength photons appears like the diffraction of pure waves with no dots. The diffraction pattern of energetic photons appears similarly, but it's composed of many dots.
Nope!! With longer wavelengths the "dots" are just larger. What Planck really discovered was not "light-particles" BUT only that an absorber of coherent-light cannot emit or absorb less light-energy than that of a quantum.

Furthermore, as we know from radio-waves, an EM wave can only be absorbed when it resonates with an absorber (antenna). The lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength, and the larger the dimensions of the absorber must be. The observation screen consists of a distribution of absorbers for each frequency. Since the absorbers for light with long wavelengths cause larger "dots" they merge sooner, giving the perception that these photons do not cause "dots".

It is really very simple you know; unless you prefer to believe in Voodoo instead of reality.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
The pilot wave interpretation of QM is saying: the particle is point object, the wake wave of vacuum around it is what gives its wave character.
Why do you rquire a "pilot wave"? The energy of a light wave consists of ditributed dynamic-mass: Distributed mass has a centre-of-mass. Thus you only require a wave: Not a particle AND a pilot wave.

The Copenhagen interpretation says instead: whole the particle is wave packet and its wave function is what participates to diffraction.
A wave packet is NOT a coherent wave and will therefore give a washed-out diffraction pattern. This is not observed for single photons: Therefore Copenhagen is claptrap.

But as we can see, the relevance of both models depends on the relative energy of particle involved: for low energies the wave functions of particle and vacuum converge mutually.
BS!! They are both nonsense!
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
Valeria, I accidentally gave you a 1 when I meant to give you a 5... not that I put much meaning on the ratings here, but I didn't want you to get the wrong idea if you happened to notice it. For whatever reason in my browser (chrome) I cannot even see the stars at the bottom right of the posts anymore, I just blindly click to the far left or right now!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2012
Nope!! With longer wavelengths the "dots" are just larger.
They're softer and more fuzzy too and more difficult to recognize from background. After all, it's very easy to imagine, when the wavelength of photons expands into wavelength of CMBR photons, then these photons will become indistinguishable from its noisy background and the light will propagate like pure relativistic wave without any particle character.
A wave packet is NOT a coherent wave and will therefore give a washed-out diffraction pattern. This is not observed for single photons: Therefore Copenhagen is claptrap
I explained you already, the wake wave around photon is, what is diffracted during double slit experiment. And this wake wave is essentially coherent and monochromatic. Which is the reason, why the deBroglie pilot wave theory has its place in physics.

@Deathclock: I'm not following the voting here as well because of its abusing with various individuals.
indio007
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
Wow this comment section sure degenerated into a nebulous state.
NMvoiceofreason
1 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2012
Heisenberg's principle ONLY applies to the measurement of momentum OR the measurement of position. Measuring one increases the uncertainty in the other. It says nothing about measuring OTHER PROPERTIES.

This is a non-conflict conflict.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
I explained you already, the wake wave around photon is, what is diffracted during double slit experiment. And this wake wave is essentially coherent and monochromatic. Which is the reason, why the deBroglie pilot wave theory has its place in physics.
Will you please stop sniffing herion and get back to reality: THERE IS NO "WAKE-WAVE": ONLY WITHIN A DEMENTED MIND!!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2012
Heisenberg's principle ONLY applies to the measurement of momentum OR the measurement of position. Measuring one increases the uncertainty in the other. It says nothing about measuring OTHER PROPERTIES.
What about energy and time?

When you make a measurement which changes the boundary conditions a wave will morph to adapt to the new boundary conditions, but this does not mean that there is an uncertainty in the position or the momentum of a wave. There NEVER has been NOR ever will be such uncertainties.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
Deathclock got wound up in tangent
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !!

Try telling the perception to gps satellites too etc...

When I meant perception surely its best to see that as 'passage of time, from the perspective of the particle' and this is a real issue !

Take a radioactive nucleon if its travelling relativistically with respect to a stationary reference frame it *does* last longer before the classic decay, this is not mere perception it is demonstrable as a fact. SR does apply !

There are experiments where photons are slowed right down at very low temperatures and in relation to bose-einstein condensates so the equations of SR must be applied, photons have also disappeared ! variants of SR equations therefore must apply !

Dont oversimplify my query, see it in context and lift your intellect/game ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !!
Voodoo. Unless one twin experienced more gravity than the other their ages will be exactly the same when they meet up.

classic decay, this is not mere perception it is demonstrable as a fact. SR does apply !
It is so relative to a clock on earth but not a clock travelling with the decaying entity. But this is another topic!

There are experiments where photons are slowed right down at very low temperatures and in relation to bose-einstein condensates so the equations of SR must be applied,
The eqs. of SR do apply. When stopping a light-wave the time within the body of the wave stops and its energy becomes rest-mass.
photons have also disappeared !
They do not "disappear" they only stop to add to the mass-energy of the absorber
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2012
johanfprins showed his extreme ignorance of maths and special relativity with
Voodoo. Unless one twin experienced more gravity than the other their ages will be exactly the same when they meet up.
WRONG !
The SR equations re twins dont require gravity its v^2 related, ie Velocity not gravitational field, look up SR and do the maths yourself - they wont be the same age at all - no arbitrary claims, dont be a dunderhead - check it and get an education Please before commenting again so as not to waste time !

Photons dont have a 'rest mass' (as such), observations of photon 'decay' or loss under those bose-einstein conditions dont increase the mass of the system - the photons do seem to disappear...

The relationship between electrons, relativistic effects, photons and the photoelectric effect appears much more complex than initially described. Understand why Einstein got the Nobel, there might be another opportunity in that field for another Nobel...

sstritt
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2012
Understand why Einstein got the Nobel

Actually he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, not SR or GR, but agree with the rest.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
sstritt possibly got habituated to other people who dont know whay Einstein got a Nobel and assumed it applied to me
Understand why Einstein got the Nobel
Actually he got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, not SR or GR, but agree with the rest.
Thats what I said :-)
..photoelectric effect appears much more complex than initially described. Understand why Einstein got the Nobel..
Should the dot have been a comma ?, regardless the context is appropriate and yes most people dont know precisely why Einstein got the Nobel.

btw. I did expand by suggesting the photoelectric effect has a great deal more to be understood, the relationship between the e- creating a photon, time, the photon being absorbed and moving an e- or ejecting it etc There seems to me to be more room for another Nobel in that field...
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2012
Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, formulated by the theoretical physicist in 1927, is one of the cornerstones of quantum mechanics. In its most familiar form,


Okay, but it is interesting to note that nowadays physicists still not know its physical meaning, may be this (below) could help us to understand it.
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
daywalk3r
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2012
the photoelectric effect has a great deal more to be understood, the relationship between the e- creating a photon, time, the photon being absorbed and moving an e- or ejecting it etc There seems to me to be more room for another Nobel in that field...
Of course there is alot more to be understood..

Pinning down the real fundaments (principles) behind the whole process (eg. understanding what planck units really mean) would finally allow us to move beyond quantum mechanics, which I think is a feat worth many Nobels, not just one.

Though there's a pletora of mental/formal straitjackets currently standing in its way, so it might be a bit rough of a journey before it gets finally recognized/accepted.

But, most importantly, we are getting there.. just slowly :-)
rah
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
"Scientists cast doubt on renowned uncertainty principle"
No, they didn't.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2012
I see, they just accidentally called their article a "Violation of Heisenberg's Measurement-Disturbance Relationship by Weak Measurements" - but they don't doubt this relationship otherwise¡
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2012
Deathclock got wound up in tangent
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !!

Try telling the perception to gps satellites too etc...


Wow you really didn't understand what I said... Two people can of course perceive time differently per time dilation of GR, no shit... you completely missed the point I was making.

nevermind... not worth my time.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
WRONG !
The SR equations re twins dont require gravity its v^2 related, ie Velocity not gravitational field, look up SR and do the maths yourself - they wont be the same age at all - no arbitrary claims, dont be a dunderhead - check it and get an education Please before commenting again so as not to waste time !
I know SR far better than you will ever be able to understand it; and I have done the mathematics better than anybody before me has done it. The fact is that according to twin1's clock the clock ot twin2 is running slower, while according to twin2's clock the clock of twin1 is running slower: However twin1's clock is STATIONARY relative to twin1 AND twin2's clock is STATIONARY relative two twin2: AND ACCORDING TO SR STAIIONARY CLOCKS KEEP THE SAME TIME!! Maybe it is too much for your bonehead to grasp such simple logic?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
Photons dont have a 'rest mass' (as such)
When they move with the speed of light, you are correct: But even so their total energy is, according to E=m*c^2, mass-energy
observations of photon 'decay' or loss under those bose-einstein conditions dont increase the mass of the system
Who would be so stupid to claim this? It will violate energy-conservation. But, when photons merge to form a single stationary-wave within say a laser cavity, the energy of this wave is rest-mass energy
the photons do seem to disappear...
So you really are such a bonehead that you believe that energy can disappear? Wow!!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
The relationship ..... initially described. ..there might be another opportunity in that field for another Nobel...
Einstein's model of a "collision" between two "particles" is wrong. Firstly, there are no "free-electrons" within any material since this will require that the electron must have a mass-energy larger than its rest-mass.

What is generated within a metal are pseudo-electrons, each having a mass energy LESS than the rest-mass energy of a free electron. An incoming photon-WAVE resonates with the pseudo e-WAVE, stops in its tracks and converts its dynamic mass-energy partly or totally into rest-mass energy which increases the mass-energy of the pseudo-electron: If this increase in mass-energy is larger than the rest-mass of a free electron, the pseudo-electron ejects from the metal to be a really free-electron.

The energy does not disappear when a ph is absorbed by an electron-wave: It is gobbled-up by the e-wave which then morphs into a higher energy e-wave.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (59) Sep 09, 2012
...according to twin1's clock the clock ot twin2 is running slower, while according to twin2's clock the clock of twin1 is running slower: However twin1's clock is STATIONARY relative to twin1 AND twin2's clock is STATIONARY relative two twin2: AND ACCORDING TO SR STAIIONARY CLOCKS KEEP THE SAME TIME!! Maybe it is too much for your bonehead to grasp such simple logic?


The two clocks are only stationary relative to their own reference frame, not to each other. Perhaps you misspoke. The situation for the two twins is not symmetrical,... as the traveling one must enter two reference frames to arrive back at earth.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (61) Sep 09, 2012
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !! Try telling the perception to gps satellites too etc... When I meant perception surely its best to see that as 'passage of time, from the perspective of the particle' and this is a real issue !


I think 'Deathclock's-tangent' (cool name for a band btw) was saying is that Time is a conceptual artifact, not a physical entity in itself. There is no observable time-particle or time-field. You say "time passes" which is vague physically. Fundamentally, time is the comparison between the number of cycles of one standard physical system congruent with the number of cycles of other systems. Thats it. It's a difference in physical circumstance that causes this relative difference, and which we conceptualize as "time".
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (58) Sep 09, 2012
..that the measurement aspect of the principal was... 'classical' analogy to explain to classically minded physicists of the time -Noumenon
Wrong.-johanfprins


Are you sure. I'm saying the "measurement aspect" of HUP, that is, as Heisenberg explained it in intuitive terms, i.e. can't measure without disturbing the system.

...fundamentally it expresses that conjugate variables are Fourier transforms of each other, which still holds of course.- Noumenon
Of course!-johanfprins
In other words, what is being defeated above (if valid) is merely his intuitive analogy, not his physical relation dxdp>h.

Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (60) Sep 09, 2012
There is NO uncertainty in momentum and position of an electron when solving the Schroedinger wave-equation. The electron-wave, like ALL harmonic waves has a size (delta)x in position space and a size (delta)k in reciprocal space. This has NOTHING to do wih the centre-of-mass of such a wave: For example, any stationary Schroedinger-wave of an electron has distributed mass-energy and therefore a centre-of-mass which has a DEFINITE position (say x=0) and a definite momentum whuch MUST be p=0: - johanfprins


Wrong. #obnoxious buzzer sound#

Your mistake is in interpretation of the wave-function as having a center of mass. The wavefunction is NOT a physical entity.

This state-vector as represented in Hilbert space, is NOT observable unless it is congruent with a basis vector. That is to say, it must collapse or project onto a basis vector representation,... which are the possible observables.

The wave-function expresses probabilities, not center-mass physical entities.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
The two clocks are only stationary relative to their own reference frame, not to each other.
Exactly!! Einstein's very first postulate states that the laws of physics are the same within ANY inertial reference frame? So if each twin has an atomic clock with him/her these clocks MUST keep time at the same rate or else the laws of physics will NOT be the same within their respective inertial reference frames. So how can one age faster than the other?
Perhaps you misspoke.
I did not misspoke
situation for the two twins is not symmetrical,... as the traveling one must enter two reference frames to arrive back at earth.
It does not matter in which direction you move relative to one another, the atomic clocks with the twins MUST keep the same time unless Einstein's first postulate is wrong! Are you totally unable to follow simple logic?

Why are we arguing about SR: This thread is about HUP; which you also obviously do not understand.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
Fundamentally, time is the comparison between the number of cycles of one standard physical system congruent with the number of cycles of other systems.
Bravo! I never thought that YOU would be able to understand this
It's a difference in physical circumstance that causes this relative difference,
Such a difference does not exist for different inertial reference-frames; or else physics will not be the same within these reference frames; as have been postulatede by Galileo, Newton AND Einstein.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2012
In other words, what is being defeated above (if valid) is merely his intuitive analogy, not his physical relation dxdp>h.
For a Schroedinger-wave, say an orbital around a nucleus, the relationship is dxdk>1. Such a wave is a stationary wave and has NO momentum whatsoever. An electron moving through free space has momentum but it is a coherent wave with a single frequency; and in this case dxdp>h does also not apply.


Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (59) Sep 09, 2012
The two clocks are only stationary relative to their own reference frame, not to each other.
Exactly!! Einstein's very first postulate states that the laws of physics are the same within ANY inertial reference frame? So if each twin has an atomic clock with him/her these clocks MUST keep time at the same rate or else the laws of physics will NOT be the same within their respective inertial reference frames. So how can one age faster than the other?

Yes in each frame the laws of physics don't change, but the representation does. The entire point of Einstein was to state "Lorenzt invariance", not time invariance. The components of a physical representation vary wrt velocity, but not the physics being represented,.. for example the four-momentum vector does not change, but the components used in a particular coordinate system do change,.. one of which is time, i.e. in time dilation, length contraction.

It's even worse in GR, where there are NO synchronized clocks.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2012
Your mistake is in interpretation of the wave-function as having a center of mass.
The wave-function is the amplitude of a wave: The energy of a wave is the square of this amplitude: This gives the energy-intensity of the wave: Since all energy can be written as E=mc^2 , both a light-wave and an electron-wave has distributed mass. When you have distributed mass, you have a centre-of-mass.
The wavefunction is NOT a physical entity.
Oh yes it is: For a light-wave moving through free space it is the electric-potential of the electric-field: Similarly an electron moving through free space also has a wave amplitude that is the potential of the electric-field of the wave; except that the electron-wave moves with a speed v which is slower than light speed: And therefore it has rest-mass.

The wave-function expresses probabilities, not center-mass physical entities.
You like to believe in Voodoo physics!! Einstein correctly stated: God does not play dice!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2012
.... but the representation does.
"Representation" my ass!
The entire point of Einstein was to state "Lorenzt invariance",
The concept of "invariance" has been misapplied. I blame Minkowski!
The components of a physical representation vary wrt velocity, but not the physics being represented,..
Arguing mathematics instead of physics-reality.
for example the four-momentum vector does not change,
The Lorentz transformation transforms the physics that is occurring within one coordinate system, as it will APPEAR TO BE OCCURRING when viewed from another coordinate system.

If you synchronise all the clocks along a railway-line and a train passes by, an observer within the train will observe these clocks along the platform to be out of synchronisation WHILE THEY ARE NOT. An observer on the platform will find that the nose and tail are simultaneously further apart than the actual length of the train! No contraction but an elongation!!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (59) Sep 09, 2012
.... but the representation does.
"Representation" my ass!
By representation I mean coordinate representation, the components (i.e. t,x,y,z) can change while the physics being represnetated remain constant.

The entire point of Einstein was to state "Lorenzt invariance"
The concept of "invariance" has been misapplied. I blame Minkowski!
How so? You correctly pointed out above that Einstein stated that physics should remain the same irrespective of reference frame,... That's what Lorentz invariance IS.

It's called "Lorentz" invariance because of the signature (-, , , ) of the spacetime. The Lorentz transformation is another concept.

Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (60) Sep 09, 2012
The Lorentz transformation transforms the physics that is occurring within one coordinate system, as it will APPEAR TO BE OCCURRING when viewed from another coordinate system.


Correct, the physics observed "appear", and thus ARE, effected by relative velocity of different frames of reference. Apart from the philosophical issue of time tangent, Mike mentioned several good examples about of measurable effects that SR correctly predicts. That is what a theory does,.. it predicts observations.

What is your objection?
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 09, 2012
situation for the two twins is not symmetrical,... as the traveling one must enter two reference frames to arrive back at earth.
It does not matter in which direction you move relative to one another, the atomic clocks with the twins MUST keep the same time unless Einstein's first postulate is wrong! Are you totally unable to follow simple logic?


Are you totally unable to follow SR? The Twin thought experiment is not a paradox, because the situation is not symmetrical wrt reference frames, the moving one changing frames.

Einsteins postulate IS correct, yes,, AND time dilation occurs. The two atomic clocks will run at different rates if they move at different velocities, which IS the physics. Einstein was a physicist. Btw, wrt appearances, the speed of light is already taken account of in SR, so it's not merely about an appearance due to a finite light speed, if that was your meaning above.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 09, 2012
In other words, historically, I though Heisenberg invented the (measurement aspect) analogy for "classical explanation purposes", not as a fundamental principal. He thought it quit meaningless to make statements about a qm entity between measurements.

I know he did and therefore he and Bohr led physics back into a New Age of superstition. WE are not supposed to know how Nature does it! If we "look" at what the "particles" are doing, they do not want to diffract anymore: What a load of claptrap!


Actually, their point was to remove metaphysics and conceptual assumptions from physics. That 'god does not play dice' is an intuitive assumption. That the wavefunction is a physical entity is an intuitive assumption. It is you who wish to keep superstition, while physics progresses from observations only, not from "what goes on in between". In fact in QM, the exact "realism" mechanism of electron absorption and emission is entirely unknown.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
By representation ... the components (i.e. t,x,y,z) can change while the physics being represnetated remain constant.
I also suffered for years from a frontal lobotomy owing to this seemingly correct, but misleading argument: It creates the perception that you have a time coordinate which changes with position within an inertial reference frame (IRF); so that synchronised clocks at different positions will show different times within the same IRF.

In my example above, I pointed out that an observer on the train will see the sync clocks along the railway showing different times while these clocks do no such thing. Similarly if there are sync clocks within the train along the whole length of the train, they will also not show different times. Thus, within both IRF's time does not change with position. Neither does any clock in one IRF keep time at a different rate than an identical clock within the other IRF.

Sync clocks will not go out of sync when a train is passing by.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
How so? You correctly pointed out above that Einstein stated that physics should remain the same irrespective of reference frame,... That's what Lorentz invariance IS.
Lorentz invariance is nonsensical since this "coordinate transformation", if one can call it that, is based on the assumption that time is an actual coordinate which is different at different positions within an IRF. IT IS NOT THE CASE! The interpretation of the Lorentz transformation is more subtle than this.

It's called "Lorentz" invariance because of the signature (-, , , ) of the spacetime.
It would only have been correct if time-rate could actually have been different at different positions within an IRF. This is not the case! Minkowski caused this misperception.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
Correct, the physics observed "appear", and thus ARE, effected by relative velocity of different frames of reference.
I do not disagree with this
Mike mentioned several good examples about of measurable effects that SR correctly predicts.
Again I do not disagree: Muon decay in the atmosphere measures a longer lifetime on your clock on earth: However this DOES NOT mean that a clock travelling with the muon and the clock on earth are keeping time at different rates. Only from earth it seems as if the clock with the muon is going slower while it is not going slower at all.

This is what relativity is all about: When a ball is launched vertically within a passing IRF you will observe it to follow parabolic path while it is not doing so within the IRF within which it has been launched. If you want it to follow a vertical path in your IRF, you will have to ensure that it is launched at an angle. For the same reason you have to adjust the clock-rate on a GPS.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
Are you totally unable to follow SR?
YOU are the one who wants to believe in Voodoo!
The Twin thought experiment is not a paradox,
I have not said it is a paradox since it is not based on real logic. It is a stupid illogical argument which should have been seen as such, since the clock with one twin keeps time at the same rate as the clock with the other twin when the IRF's move relative to one another.

Einsteins postulate IS correct, yes,, AND time dilation occurs.
It is incorrectly understood: Two simultaneous events at different positions within a passing IRF will be observed at different times within your IRF, but this does not mean that the clocks at the positions within your IRF, where you observe the two events, are simultaneously showing different times. They are keeping the exact same time: If they did not, you would not have been able to conclude that the two events are not simultaneous within your IRF.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 09, 2012
By representation ... the components (i.e. t,x,y,z) can change while the physics being represnetated remain constant.
I also suffered for years from a frontal lobotomy owing to this seemingly correct, but misleading argument: It creates the perception that you have a time coordinate which changes with position within an inertial reference frame (IRF); so that synchronised clocks at different positions will show different times within the same IRF. In my example above, I pointed out that an observer on the train will see the sync clocks along the railway showing different times while these clocks do no such thing.


It is implicit in SR that relative simultaneity fails. That is to say the person on the train will disagree with the person on the platform over what is simultaneous.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
Actually, their point was to remove metaphysics
Nope, just the opposite: Bohr stated: "Albert wil you stop telling God what He can or cannot do!" This is unadulterated superstition.
and conceptual assumptions from physics.
What is wrong with conceptual assumptions? This is how physics prospered for over 400 years!
That 'god does not play dice' is an intuitive assumption.
It proves that Einstein had more sense in his intuition than in Bohr's head .
That the wavefunction is a physical entity is an intuitive assumption.
Nope! All waves ever discovered before have been real waves which can, for example, diffract. It was found that electron-waves can actually diffract: It is only a fool who would then argue that an electron-wave is not a real wave.

There is NO experimental proof that the wave-intensity of an electron is a probability distribution. All experiments quoted in support of this ridiculous assumption can be explained in terms of wave-behaviour
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
@johanfprins
To clarify, in respect of the twin problem/paradox, that when the twins are reconciled after travel will:-

i. Be the same age ?
ii. Have different age but *only* due to GR (GTD) ?
iii. Have different age due to GR (GTD) and to a lesser effect of SR (Velocity TD) than conventionally accepted ?

In light of your thoughts above on the three points,
Would you care to comment specifically on corrections applied to GPS satellites being in line with predictions of GR *and* SR ?

Finally, as it seems many experiments for decades confirm GR and SR effects re time dilation, are you aware of and can you reference any definitive experiments which confirm your objection/theory re SR TD and by what degree etc ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2012
It is implicit in SR that relative simultaneity fails. That is to say the person on the train will disagree with the person on the platform over what is simultaneous.
Where did I disagree with this? Are you all there? Can you read? Even BETTER: Try to use any grey matter which might be (?) between your ears!

I am first taking a break: But will be back!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 09, 2012
Sync clocks will not go out of sync when a train is passing by.


To know that you have to be in the IRF with all the sync'd clocks, so therefore in accord with SR, your spacial coordinates define simultaneity. The passenger on the train will disagree though, as there is no absolute space-time.

Consider a modified version; Two space ships in different IRF fly at different velocities passed two exploding bombs. Ship A says they both exploded at the same time, while ship B says they didn't. Who is correct?

The question itself is entirely frame dependant.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
@johanfprins
To clarify, in respect of the twin problem/paradox, that when the twins are reconciled after travel will:-

i. Be the same age ?
ii. Have different age but *only* due to GR (GTD) ?
iii. Have different age due to GR (GTD) and to a lesser effect of SR (Velocity TD) than conventionally accepted ?


If there is an age difference it will NOT have been caused by SR.

In light of your thoughts above on the three points,
Would you care to comment specifically on corrections applied to GPS satellites being in line with predictions of GR *and* SR ?
Of course these corrections are required for both. In the case of GR, the clock is actually going faster since it is in a lower gravitational field. In the case of SR, the correction is required since it seems from earth as if the clock is running slower while it is not doing so.

If you do not correct for SR and bring the clocks together after say 50 years you will find no time difference that was caused by SR.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
To know that you have to be in the IRF with all the sync'd clocks, so therefore in accord with SR, your spacial coordinates define simultaneity. The passenger on the train will disagree though, as there is no absolute space-time.
Although there is absolute space-time within his/her IRF, he/she does not see the simultaneous events within the other reference frame (within which there is also an absolute space-time or else simultaneity will not be possible) as being simultaneous.

Consider a modified version; Two space ships in different IRF fly at different velocities passed two exploding bombs. Ship A says they both exploded at the same time, while ship B says they didn't. Who is correct?
Obviously, simultaneity only makes sense when the two events occur simultaneously within a single IRF within which space-time is absolute. Since the two simultaneous events did not occur within the IRF's of either spaceship, your question is irrelevant.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (58) Sep 09, 2012
Actually, their point was to remove metaphysics and conceptual assumptions from physics.
Nope, just the opposite: Bohr stated: "Albert wil you stop telling God what He can or cannot do!" This is unadulterated superstition.


Bohr and Heisenberg were anything but superstitious (metaphysicians), they were in fact logical positivists. It was a sarcastic response to Einstein saying "God does not play dice". In other words, Einstein expected reality to accord with his intuitions. To presume an a-priori conceptual structure as consistently operative to all of reality, is metaphysics in pure form.

Such was the quantum revolution and the break with tradional "classical" physics, where intuitive conceptualizations had to be abondoned to make progress.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 09, 2012
Consider a modified version; Two space ships in different IRF fly at different velocities passed two exploding bombs. Ship A says they both exploded at the same time, while ship B says they didn't. Who is correct?
Obviously, simultaneity only makes sense when the two events occur simultaneously within a single IRF within which space-time is absolute. Since the two simultaneous events did not occur within the IRF's of either spaceship, your question is irrelevant.


It's relevance is in showing that you're talking out of your ass. So, in other words my example, the purpose of which was to demonstrate failure of relative simultaneity, ,.. is "irrelevent" because simultaneity doesn't make sense in that example?

Read it again. I said one of the ships OBSERVES the bombs going off simualtaneously. The space ship example is as valid as your train example, and shows that different observers at different velocities will not agree on what are simultaneous events.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 09, 2012
,... I could modify the example and label the two bombs 1 and 2. It could be depending of relative reference frame that Ship A does not agree with Ship B, even over which bomb exploded first, bomb 1 or bomb 2.
Botopfbber
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
They detect a thing and then detect it again only harder? What's that about and how do you do that? The dual slit experiment, detecting an electron collapses the wave function. They are saying detecting an entangled photon isn't doing that until they want to, and then go on to say any WEAK observation has nothing to do with the stronger detection of its spin, but that the HUP is wrong. They say any detection removes uncertainty, and then to measure it again with less error is unexpected. That's stupid.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
It's relevance is in showing that you're talking out of your ass. ..... because simultaneity doesn't make sense in that example?
As usual you are writing about concepts well beyond what you are able to grasp or being able to define. First define simultaneity so that we can see whether you understand what the hell you are writing about!

Read it again. I said one of the ships OBSERVES the bombs going off simualtaneously.
I did, and I again noted that you give no definition of what simultaneity means. If you are a scientist you are a very sloppy one!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 09, 2012
I already defined it above, from your own example, when I stated ,...

To know that you have to be in the IRF with all the sync'd clocks, so therefore in accord with SR, your spacial coordinates define simultaneity. The passenger on the train will disagree though, as there is no absolute space-time.


In response to you stating,...

Sync clocks will not go out of sync when a train is passing by.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2012
Bohr and Heisenberg were anything but superstitious (metaphysicians), they were in fact logical positivists.
LOL! Are you serious?
It was a sarcastic response to Einstein saying "God does not play dice".
It does not matter whether it is sarcastic: The intent is clear: We are not here to question the gods but to accept what they are doing: Utter superstitious metaphysics!
In other words, Einstein expected reality to accord with his intuitions.
No he expected that waves should act like they always did.
To presume an a-priori conceptual structure as consistently operative to all of reality, is metaphysics in pure form.
This is not what Einstein did at all. This is the dogmatism currently in vogue, of which you are an enthusiastic supporter.

Such was the quantum revolution and the break with tradional "classical" physics, where intuitive conceptualizations had to be abondoned to make progress.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2012
I already defined it above, from your own example, when I stated ,...
Stop deliberately lying: I will nudge you a bit ahead: Two events occur at two different positions: Are these positions moving relative to one another when these events are simultaneously occurring?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
Such was the quantum revolution and the break with tradional "classical" physics, where intuitive conceptualizations had to be abondoned to make progress.
I discovered that I did not wipe this stupid remark by you. There is NO BREAK with traditional "classical physics". Ony people who believe in metaphysical Voodoo will argue that this is the case.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
If someone is interested: there is a preprint
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
Re GPS, a practical example, johanfprins offered re GR & SR
Of course these corrections are required for both. In the case of GR, the clock is actually going faster since it is in a lower gravitational field. In the case of SR, the correction is required since it seems from earth as if the clock is running slower while it is not doing so.
So when the GPS atomic clocks are interrogated and spit back their 'local' time, how do the admins know precisely how much is real & how much is mere perception when, according to you, SR isn't real ?

johanfprins went on to offer a stark contradiction with
If you do not correct for SR and bring the clocks together after say 50 years you will find no time difference that was caused by SR.
If that were the case why do you think it is necessary to correct for SR as in your statement earlier each & every day ?

So when the admins have corrected for GR & SR as if they are real effects & not perceptions you claim they are totally wrong, how so ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
So when the GPS atomic clocks are interrogated and spit back their 'local' time, how do the admins know precisely how much is real & how much is mere perception when, according to you, SR isn't real ?
They do not need to know this to adjust the time on the GPS clock.

If you do not correct for SR and bring the clocks together after say 50 years you will find no time difference that was caused by SR.
If that were the case why do you think it is necessary to correct for SR as in your statement earlier each & every day ?
This was clearly explained: If it is not corrected for this relativistic perception from earth, one will not be able to calculate positions on earth correctly!

So when the admins have corrected for GR & SR as if they are real effects & not perceptions you claim they are totally wrong,
I did not claim this at all!! The correction is required when it is real (as for gravity) and when it is a perception (as for SR).
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2012
The passage of time is a perception..
Try telling that to a pair of twins, where one goes off at great rate of speed vs the other who stays behind, there is a real difference, age wont be the same !! Try telling the perception to gps satellites too etc... When I meant perception surely its best to see that as 'passage of time, from the perspective of the particle' and this is a real issue !


I think 'Deathclock's-tangent' (cool name for a band btw) was saying is that Time is a conceptual artifact, not a physical entity in itself. There is no observable time-particle or time-field. You say "time passes" which is vague physically. Fundamentally, time is the comparison between the number of cycles of one standard physical system congruent with the number of cycles of other systems. Thats it. It's a difference in physical circumstance that causes this relative difference, and which we conceptualize as "time".


Thank you!
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2012
So when the GPS atomic clocks are interrogated & spit back their 'local' time, how do the admins know precisely how much is real & how much is mere perception when, according to you, SR isn't real ?
They do not need to know this to adjust the time on the GPS clock.
Are you claiming the admins of the GPS system never need to correct for SR at all ?

Which doesn't invalidate my question. The atomic clocks on the GPS when interrogated spit out their 'local' time, presumably after being calibrated just prior to launch. It is reported they run faster by 45,900 ns/day due to the lower gravitational field but also run slower by 7,200 ns/day due their velocity re SR.

So when they spit out a number which is 45,900-7,200 ns diff. per day how can *you* or the admins tell if real and measurable change in rate as being due to what combination of GR or SR since you seem to only suggest SR is a perception, But the numbers are real they are not a mere perception its a measurable quantity?
johanfprins
1.2 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2012
Time is a conceptual artifact, not a physical entity in itself.
This is open to debate: Time and kinetic-energy goes hand-in-hand. If time cannot manifest, kinetic-energy cannot manifest. Kinetic-energy is a physical entity which we can experience through temperature. This could mean that time IS "a physical entity in itself". When the entropy is maximum, time is a stationary physical entity: When entropy changes, time has a direction, defining a past and a future.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (59) Sep 09, 2012
I already defined it above, from your own example, when I stated ,...
Stop deliberately lying: I will nudge you a bit ahead: Two events occur at two different positions: Are these positions moving relative to one another when these events are simultaneously occurring?


Do you mean, 'are the two events moving'? It depends on the circumstances of your thought experiment. You tell me.

It is possible that Ship A sees two events as simultaneous even though the two events may be moving relative to each other. Simultanety being of an instant, naturally.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
Are you claiming the admins of the GPS system never need to correct for SR at all ?
If you read what I am writing you will NOT ask such a stupid question. I have clearly stated that they have to adjust for ALL time differences whether these differences are real or perceptions.

So when they spit out a number which is 45,900-7,200 ns diff. per day how can *you* or the admins tell if real and measurable change in rate as being due to what combination of GR or SR since you seem to only suggest SR is a perception,
As I have pointed out, you do not need to know this to adjust the clock on the satellite.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2012
Do you mean, 'are the two events moving'? It depends on the circumstances of your thought experiment. You tell me.
You are either incredibly stupid or dodging my question.

I am asking YOU to define when two events separated by a distance L in space are simultaneous or not. And I have asked you whether two events at two points can be simultaneous when the two points are moving relative to one another. It is a simple question with a yes or no answer. Einstein used simultaneous events to explain SR: So there MUST be conditions under which two events are actually simultaneos or not simultaneous. If there are not such conditions, two events can NEVER be simultaneous.

It is possible that Ship A sees two events as simultaneous even though the two events may be moving relative to each other. Simultanety being of an instant, naturally.
That is correct but it does not define when two events are actually simultaneous!
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (59) Sep 09, 2012
Time is a conceptual artifact, not a physical entity in itself.
This is open to debate: Time and kinetic-energy goes hand-in-hand. If time cannot manifest, kinetic-energy cannot manifest. Kinetic-energy is a physical entity which we can experience through temperature. This could mean that time IS "a physical entity in itself".


To measure a velocity requires a standard of time. But, this standard of time is really just the number of cycles of some reference system, which will be congruent with the event in question. So, what is physically being compared are two events. It's just easier to say one second than "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."

When the entropy is maximum, time is a stationary physical entity: When entropy changes, time has a direction, defining a past and a future.

Entropy is an epiphenomenon.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2012
Entropy is an epiphenomenon.
Classification of a physics reality with a fancy word is utter stupidity. You are starting to bore me!
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (59) Sep 09, 2012
I am asking YOU to define when two events separated by a distance L in space are simultaneous or not. And I have asked you whether two events at two points can be simultaneous when the two points are moving relative to one another.


I answered both questions somewhere above, but I'll answer the former one again; When the two events are observed at the same time in a particular reference frame. There is no absolute simultaneity however, it is observer dependent.

Entropy is an epiphenomenon.
Classification of a physics reality with a fancy word is utter stupidity. You are starting to bore me!
Google is your friend and mentor. I mean entropy is not a fundamental physical law, it's just a statistical based result, thus cannot be physical "time" .
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2012
From perspective of particle model of space-time, the relativity is theory, which deals with transverse waves only, but it considers the gradients of environment and time dimension of space-time. Whereas the quantum mechanics is the theory, which considers both transverse, both longitudinal waves, but it doesn't recognize the gravity or time dimension: it's atemporal by its very nature. The special relativity can be violated with introduction of quantum indeterminism with introduction of quantum entanglement of objects across space (essentially the observation of reality with using of longitudinal waves between entangled pairs). And the quantum mechanics can be violated with introduction of time dimension, i.e. knowledge about history (principle of weak measurement). Therefore the knowledge of history allows us to break the limits of quantum uncertainty principle with entanglement in time even under situation, when the classical (atemporal) uncertainty principle doesn't allow it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
The description of first experiment from last year: http://www.scienc...abstract

I highly recommend the supplemental information if you want to actually follow how many ways these guys semi-collapse the photons polarization state.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2012
hmmm, @johanfprins can we just for a moment see the GPS atomic clocks as an instrument ?

The admins report the atomic clocks speed up by 45,900ns/day due to GR and slow down by 7,200 ns due to SR.

So when they interrogate the atomic clocks they see a real difference between ground clocks of 45,900-7,200 then, following your issue re perception, how do they know which aspect of that number is real and which is mere perception ?

You stated earlier that if they didnt correct for SR that after 50 years the clocks will be the same (as ground units) if only corrected for GR.

Are you therefore implying SR is to be treated much like doppler shift and it will therefore (mostly) cancel out after 50 years ie sometimes plus & sometimes minus etc ?

The Lorentz factor seems to me to be a scalar, if so, then how can it cancel out after 50 years ?
cyberCMDR
not rated yet Sep 10, 2012
Of course, all this becomes moot once we develop Heisenberg compensators as part of our transporters...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2012
....When the two events are observed at the same time in a particular reference frame. There is no absolute simultaneity however, it is observer dependent.


It has nothing to do with the presence of an observer or not. Let us cut through your BS:

Simultaneity of two events can only occur within a specific IRF. This mens that the two events MUST be stationary relative to one another. It also means that two clocks at the positions of the two events MUST show the SAME time. Since two events can occur simultaneously at any two separated points within the IRF, it mandates that within an IRF clocks at different positions can be synchronised to keep the exact same time: This, in turn, means that time is NOT position-dependent within an IRF: i.e. that an IRF defines an ABSOLUTE space-time: Just like Newton has assumed.

This does not mean that you will observe events within a passing IRF to be the same as observed within the passing IRF: Even Newton new this: Ergo his first law.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2012
Google is your friend and mentor. I mean entropy is not a fundamental physical law, it's just a statistical based result, thus cannot be physical "time" .


I have not stated that entropy IS physical time: YOu really have a problem with reading and comprehension you know.

What is clear is that when you have maximum entropy, time does npt have a direction (a past and a future). For time to have a direction, irreversable processes must occur and the latter requires a change in entropy. Have you EVER read a book on thermodynamics? I doubt it!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2012
From perspective of particle model of space-time, the relativity is theory, which deals with transverse waves only, but it considers the gradients of environment and time dimension of space-time. Whereas the quantum mechanics is the theory........ to break the limits of quantum uncertainty principle with entanglement in time even under situation, when the classical (atemporal) uncertainty principle


PLEASE stop drowning us in verbose bollox!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2012
The admins report the atomic clocks speed up by 45,900ns/day due to GR

This is probably actually happening WITHIN the satellite
and slow down by 7,200 ns due to SR.

This is as observed from earth: It is a purely relativistic effect and does not actually occur on the clock within the satellite.

Let me try and explain again in terms of relativity without involving time: When an aeroplane passes by and drops a bomb, you will from the earth see the bomb following a parabolic path: Relative to the aeroplane the bomb will drop straight down. If you use this straight-down motion to also be the motion relative to earth, you will miscalculate where the bomb will explode.

Although the parabolic motion relative to earth is REAL, it is NOT REAL relative to the aeroplane.

Similarly although the SR time-dilation relative to earth is experienced as being real it is not really occurring on the clock within the satellite.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2012
... how do they know which aspect of that number is real and which is mere perception ?
As I have stated above THEY DO NOT HAVE TO KNOW!

You stated earlier that if they didnt correct for SR that after 50 years the clocks will be the same (as ground units) if only corrected for GR.
That is obviously correct, since the SR ajdustments are made to get the correct results on earth. If they are not made, the clock on the satellite (excluding GR) will keep the SAME time as the clock on earth.

Are you therefore implying SR is to be treated much like doppler shift
It is not neccessary to complicate the issue by bringing the d-shift into this.

The Lorentz factor seems to me to be a scalar,. .how can it cancel out after 50 years ?
It only gives you the change in time as observed from earth, which is not the same as what is actually occurring on the satellite: On the sattelite, except for GR, the clock keeps EXACTLY the same time as the clock on earth.
drhoo
3 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2012
Isn't the HUP fundamentally a mathematical construct. Applying to many things where conjugate attributes exist.
One basic example is frequency/value as the observed time scale becomes small.

As for position of small particles i though it was settled that until measured a small particle does not have a precise position.

Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2012
@johanfprins
I notice you have ignored my idea to use the GPS atomic clock as an instrument. Please dont get fixated on corrections of time, use it as an instrument of the environment it is in, can we converge on the detail of the use as an instrument which has no issue of anthropomorphism or judgement of reality vs perception.

ie. When the GPS is interrogated it spits out a number which must reflect the rate of the clock - whether GR or SR or *any* issue as to why faster or slower, the GPS doesnt care ! The numbers spat out surely are real reflection of its environment however it is impacted by GR or any other factor making it report it is faster or slower, how can you separate confidently that which you claim is real from that which you claim is perception for a scalar number ?

Presumably when the base atomic clock & the GPS atomic clock are both on ground & both stationary with respect to each other than they would show the same rate, those initial conditions are valid surely ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
Isn't the HUP fundamentally a mathematical construct. Applying to many things where conjugate attributes exist.
These "conjugate attributes" prove that matter and light consist of waves. Only a wave has "conjugate attributes" since it lives in both position and reciprocal space,
One basic example is frequency/value as the observed time scale becomes small.

as well as time and reciprocal time (frequency) space. These attributes have NOTHING to do with a "particle" having "uncertainties" in position and momentum; nor with "uncertainties" in time and frequency. They are proof that light- and matter-energy consist purely as waves.

As for position of small particles i though it was settled that until measured a small particle does not have a precise position.
This is the Voodoo dogma which is at present accepted by the mainstream physicists (read "mainstream" as "mediocre"). But it is of course total nonsense: It leads to a non-real interpretation of physics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2012
@johanfprins
When the GPS is interrogated it spits out a number which must reflect the rate of the clock - whether GR or SR or *any* issue as to why faster or slower, the GPS doesnt care ! The numbers spat out surely are real reflection of its environment
They are of the environment on the satellite; however, you are not on the satellite: What you observe on earth is determined by the Lorentz-transformation (LT) FROM the satellite to earth
how can you separate confidently that which you claim is real from that which you claim is perception for a scalar number ?
What you observe on earth is real, no matter whether it is caused by GR or SR. What you observe on the satellite is not changed by SR, since the LT from the sat into the sat itself does NOT change the rate of the clock relative to the sat! Only the LT from the sat. to earth changes the time-rate relative to earth. The SR-time-dilation on earth is not also occurring on the GPS clock on the sat.
Yes
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2012
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle could be bypassed and is not valid, when you become the particle.
In that case, you know where you are and you know your impulse so to say. However you could not communicate the results with others, without changing your own properties.
LOL
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 10, 2012
This is the Voodoo dogma which is at present accepted by the mainstream physicists (read "mainstream" as "mediocre"). But it is of course total nonsense... - johanfprins


I noticed at your profile page under other interests your wrote;

"To promote integrity in Physics"

...It leads to a non-real interpretation of physics.


Reality has no use for your notion of "realism". You are promoting metaphysics by imposing your subjective concepts onto reality. The QM revolution was the lesson that physics is about making predictions based only on observations, not to satisfy our intuitive predilections.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
I noticed at your profile page under other interests your wrote;

"To promote integrity in Physics"
Correct: And I have found it to be nearly impossible at present. Well what can one expect if even the Royal Society of London is betraying everything that its founding fathers tried to mandate!

...It leads to a non-real interpretation of physics.


Reality has no use for your notion of "realism". You are promoting metaphysics by imposing your subjective concepts onto reality. I am not doing that at all. You must be talking about Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, Dirac etc. This is exactly what they have done and what the mainstream theoretical physicists are still doing at present.
The QM revolution was the lesson that physics is about making predictions based only on observations, not to satisfy our intuitive predilections.
If you think you are doing physics by not trying to find out what causes what you are observing, you are not a physicist but superstitious fool.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
johanfprins just promotes another version of dogma - in this sense he is not any better, than the mainstream physics, which he criticizes here all the time.
As they say it is the inalieniable right of every person to make an utter fool of him/herself. Time will tell whether YOU or I are the fool in this case. Any person, even I can be a fool, but in this case I have very little doubt who the fool is.

If I try to imagine the physics lead with people like Prins, then I'd rather prefer to stay with mainstream physics with all its mistakes and dogmatism.
I hope you do, since it will be extremely embarrassing to have a fool like you on my side!
FS1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
@johanfprins: Why do you feel the need to insult people here? Who gave you that right? Are you unable to present your arguments without calling people names? And you lambast 'mainstream' scientists for letting subjectivity clutter their reasoning? Honestly...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
@johanfprins: Why do you feel the need to insult people here? Who gave you that right? Are you unable to present your arguments without calling people names?
No I am not; but for more than 10 years people on these bloggs insulted me as being a crackpot etc., while they refuse to argue logic. I am not out to insult them but just to point out that they are acting like idiots and fools.
And you lambast 'mainstream' scientists for letting subjectivity clutter their reasoning? Honestly...
Well I have enough proof which will stand up in any court of law that this is the case at present: And now I am talking about people like Wilczek, Jopsephson, 'tHoofd, Berry, Eckern, Saller, Toyama etc. It is in the interest of the future of physics that I should not stay polite anymore. We are wasting billions of dollars looking for non-existing "particles" like the Higgs boson. This is a waste of taxpayers money; and the future of our children!!
remoran
1 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2012
del is spot on HUP still holds. The thing accomplished here is the accuracy is a bit improved but the principle itself remains valid.
drhoo
1 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2012
I was under the impression that HUP is really a mathematical concept that is well proven and that can be extended to the physical world directly through conjugate attributes.
One experiment that seems to prove HUP is the stellar interferometer that uses HUP directly to measure stellar diameter
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
One experiment that seems to prove HUP is the stellar interferometer that uses HUP directly to measure stellar diameter
Although they called it HUP, it is not HUP but just the Raleigh resolution criterion which applies to any wave. This has NOTHING to do with an uncertainty in position and momentum of a "particle".

"Particles" do not exist, only mass-intensities with centres-of-mass. A centre-of-mass is NOT a "particle": Whatever the latter undefined term means.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2012
johanfprins offered opinion re SR and the clock on the GPS slowing down by 7,200ns/day
This is as observed from earth...and does not actually occur on the clock within the satellite.
Just to be really clear, when the admins interrogate the GPS clock, they send a signal to the computer and get a report back as to the elapsed time the GPS actually experiences since the last interrogation. The stream of data back is the count of the clock as a series of numbers since last access.

For the sake of brevity and to pin this down please:-
- Neglect effects due to GR
- Neglect comms delay, either up or down.
- Assume GPS computer response time is the same
- Assume ground electronics response time is the same.
- Assume signal path length is the same, Eg. Directly overhead

Are you claiming the data stream back from the GPS will show the same count as the clock on earth since the last time the earth and GPS clocks were interrogated ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
The stream .. is the count of the clock as a series of numbers since last access
For the sake of brevity and to pin this down please:
- Neglect effects due to GR
- Neglect comms delay, either up or down.
- Assume GPS computer response time is the same
Even if the response time is the same, it is only the same wrt the satellite: It cannot be the same as observed from earth than it is on the satellite: If it is, The Lorentz transformation will be null and void.

Are you claiming the data stream back from the GPS will show the same count as the clock on earth since the last time the earth and GPS clocks were interrogated ?
A measurement made from earth is subject to the LT, and it is thus impossible to measure the same rate, even when the GPS clock keeps the same time-rate as a reference clock on earth. The LT does not allow this to be possible.

Just as it is impossible to measure an up-and-down movement on the satellite as an up-and-down movement wrt to earth.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (58) Sep 11, 2012
"Particles" do not exist, only mass-intensities with centres-of-mass. A centre-of-mass is NOT a "particle": Whatever the latter undefined term means. - johanfprins


Are you saying that the qm wave-function describing a system has a "classically" identifiable center-of-mass-[energy]? Even the pilot-wave interpretation is non-local.

The problem with such (desperate) attempts at maintaining the 'classical' notion of Realism, is that one is lead into metaphysics, precisely because you are making statements about what is not observable. The aether was a like idea, a theoretical crutch to lean on,.. entirely unobservable and redundant.

Physics cannot make progress without observations. 'Center of mass energy' is not observable in itself.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 11, 2012
That the wavefunction is a physical entity is an intuitive assumption. - Noumenon
Nope! All waves ever discovered before have been real waves which can, for example, diffract. It was found that electron-waves can actually diffract: - johanfprins


Only after repeating many diffractions, with many electrons, does it become apparent that the electron interferes with itself. A Single electron is never observed as a wave, ....as a spread of electron-intensity.

This only means that the electron is neither a wave, nor a particle,... that what it is, in-itself, apart from the act of observation, ...is unknowable in principal.

As I explained above the Hilbert-space formulation of qm defines what is Observable; The basis frame onto which the state is projected, is experimentally dependant, which is to say, is supplied given the nature of the experiment.

Your desire of "realism" requires that you speak of metaphysics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2012
Are you saying that the qm wave-function describing a system has a "classically" identifiable center-of-mass-[energy]? Even the pilot-wave interpretation is non-local.


For simplicity let us stick to a single-electron-wave. Within its own IRF it MUST have a stationary centre-of-mass (NO uncertainties in position and momentum or else inertia on which ALL physics equations are based must be scrapped). It must thus be an actual stationary wave with distribued mass-energy.

The problem with such (desperate) attempts at maintaining the 'classical' notion of Realism, is that one is lead into metaphysics,
It is not "desperate" and it does not need metaphysics to explain physics like the probability interpretaion requires: eg. Wheeler's delayed choice experiment.

What can be more metaphysical than to postulate that photons or electrons "know" when we are looking at them?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2012
The aether was a like idea, a theoretical crutch to lean on,.. entirely unobservable and redundant.
It was not a "like idea"! In fact, it is quite funny that the absence of aether is mandatory for an electron to be an electromagnetic wave.

When you derive the relativistic equation for an electron moving through free space correctly (not the Dirac nonsense) you will find that this wave is modelled by Maxwell's equation for the potential of light, but where this light-energy is moving at a speed less than c.

Physics cannot make progress without observations. 'Center of mass energy' is not observable in itself.

It is: Wnen an entity follows a classical path through space, this path is delineated by the centre-of-mass. An electron does follow such a path and must thus have a centre-of-mass. If this were not so, we would not have had electron microscopes. Thus the electron is an electromagnetic wave with a centre-of-mass.

Assuming wave-particle duality is metaphysics!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2012
Only after repeating many diffractions, with many electrons, does it become apparent that the electron interferes with itself. A Single electron is never observed as a wave, ....as a spread of electron-intensity.


If it could not have moved through both slits and spread out on the other side, one would not have observed a diffraction pattern on a screen after many of them have passed through the slits.

The spread-out wave that reaches the screen must be stopped to be observed: This requires that the electron-wave must morph from being a moving (spread-out) wave to become a stationary wave. It thus ACTUALLY collapses and leaves a spot.

The probability to leave a spot is highest where EACH IDENTICAL, spread-out electron-wave has the highest intensity: Voila, after many electrons formed spots, one can see the diffracted intensity of each identical spread-out electron-wave: No metaphysics required. Why do you like Voodoo?

I am taking a short break!

Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 11, 2012
What can be more metaphysical than to postulate that photons or electrons "know" when we are looking at them?


That doesn't require a metaphysical explanation at all. In fact the non-intuitive nature of qm is an epistemological issue...;

The notion of Realism in physics is untenable because Reality 'as it is in itself', that is, apart from our conceptualizations of it, can not be known, by definition. All we can do is subject Reality to a conceptual structure supplied by us, in the way we design, perform, and interpret experiments.

This is implicit in von Neumann's Hilbert formulation of qm, since we supply the basis in which the qm-state is decomposed.

Assuming wave-particle duality is metaphysics!


Those are the forms in which that reality is conceptualized,... I stated above that the Reality apart from those forms are NOT of that nature.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 11, 2012
If it could not have moved through both slits and spread out on the other side, one would not have observed a diffraction pattern on a screen after many of them have passed through the slits. The spread-out wave that reaches the screen must be stopped to be observed: This requires that the electron-wave must morph from being a moving (spread-out) wave to become a stationary wave. It thus ACTUALLY collapses and leaves a spot. The probability to leave a spot is highest where EACH IDENTICAL, spread-out electron-wave has the highest intensity:


This is correct, except it is not about "intensity", which is a misapplication of that notion. Intensity implies many electrons, or many photons. We are speaking of one indivisible. Do you mean mass-energy density?

How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real? Theoretically, your "electron wave" could be spread out over large distances. How does the detecting atom suck in this "physical wave".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2012
This only means that the electron is neither a wave, nor a particle,... that what it is, in-itself, apart from the act of observation, ...is unknowable in principle.
Can you not see that what you are saying here is superstitious metaphysics: "There are unknowable things"; "Albert, stop telling God what He can or cannot do".

As I explained above the Hilbert-space formulation of qm defines what is Observable; The basis frame onto which the state is projected, is experimentally dependant, which is to say, is supplied given the nature of the experiment.
This is mathematical jargon for saying that when you measure, you might change the boundary-conditions and since reality consists of waves, the waves change when their boundary conditions change! Mathematics is a useful language when doing physics BUT IT IS NOT IN ITSELF PHYSICS!! Physics requires visualisation of what is occurring!!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
I do agree, but after then the particles aren't pure waves - they're solitons,
Please read up what a soliton is: It is a non-harmonic wave. The "restoring force" is NON-LINEAR. Electron-waves are harmonic waves all the way.
Your desire of "realism" requires that you speak of metaphysics.
Yes, it's exactly so. This principle has more general scope, as just the most formally thinking physicists depend on metaphysics quite often (you know, all these extradimensions, parallel universes, holographs etc..).
Parallel universes etc.! And I am blamed to practice metaphysics? You must all be demented!!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 11, 2012
How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
The concept of wave function and its collapse is physically real. It's merely an entanglement, i.e. the synchronization of wave function of observer with wave function of observed object. Whenever both waves get entangled, they start to undulate at phase. Which means, from perspective of observer the (wave function of) observed object doesn't undulate anymore. We are saying, the wave function "collapsed" from perspective of observer. It's very trivial and easy to imagine.

The discussion here becomes somewhat confused, because you're opposing the concept of wave function, despite the wave function collapse belongs into concepts of Copenhagen interpretation, which is denied with johanprins obstinatelly.


No, I'm not opposing the concept of "wave function", only a physical interpretation of it. Yes, decoherence occurs, but with the probability interpretation.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
Assuming wave-particle duality is metaphysics!
IMO the idea, that everything is wave is as abstract and reductionists, like the idea, everything is particle particle only.


As usual your opinion is BS! A photon is a real EM coherent wave moving with speed c. A moving electron is also a real EM coherent wave but propagating at a speed v
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2012
It thus ACTUALLY collapses and leaves a spot.
It's way more natural and simpler and I already explained it here many times: The electron is pin point particle, what interferes with double slits is the wake wave of vacuum, which electron does with its motion - not the wave inside of electron.
AG PLEASE stop this absolute nonsense!! You have been spreading it for years using a myriad of names: Using multiple names leaves a great question mark about your integrity!?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2012
What can be more metaphysical than to postulate that photons or electrons "know" when we are looking at them?


That doesn't require a metaphysical explanation at all. In fact the non-intuitive nature of qm is an epistemological issue...;
Stop your metaphysical pomposity!

The notion of Realism in physics is untenable because Reality 'as it is in itself', that is, apart from our conceptualizations of it, can not be known, by definition.
Whose definition?
All we can do is subject Reality to a conceptual structure supplied by us, in the way we design, perform, and interpret experiments.
I will buy this but why do you then insist to interpret these results in terms of the absurd and impossible? It makes much more sense when you interpret the results in terms of what we have experienced is possible and not absurd. We know that diffraction usually occurs when coherent wavefronts move consecutively through both slits: Why assume that this is not what happens?
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 11, 2012
This only means that the electron is neither a wave, nor a particle,... that what it is, in-itself, apart from the act of observation, ...is unknowable in principle.


Can you not see that what you are saying here is superstitious metaphysics: "There are unknowable things"


The exact opposite is being stated by me. I am denying it is meaningful to speak of things that are unobservable in principal.

Our intuitive conceptualizations of reality changes the form of reality to one dependent upon us,.. thus purely logically, conceptualized reality must be different in form from Reality as it is in itself. Mind(R) != R.

This is why qm is non-classical and non-intuitive. This is why Bohr told Einstein " Albert, stop telling God what He can or cannot do". Einstein wish to subject Reality to preconceived notions (determinism),... while Bohr denied the validity of doing so.

The mention of God by both men was purely an allegory.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
This is correct, except it is not about "intensity", which is a misapplication of that notion. Intensity implies many electrons, or many photons.
Why? A photon is a single coherent EM wave which MUST have an intensity proportional to h*(nu).
We are speaking of one indivisible.
Exactly: A coherent wave is just that, whether it is a photon or a laser beam: It IS ONE INDIVISABLE!
Do you mean mass-energy density?
A photon has EM-energy, and this equates to dynamic mass-energy! My God man; we already know this since 1910!!!

How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
When the bounadary conditions change, the wave MUST change shape and size (sometimes also energy) to adapt: This need not just happen by becomong smaller (collapse) but also by becomong larger (inflate). It has NO OTHER CHOICE when its boundary conditions change! Have you never solved a differential wave equation subject to different boundary conditions?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2012
I asked
Are you claiming the data stream back from the GPS will show the same count as the clock on earth since the last time the earth & GPS clocks were interrogated ?
johanfprins assumed
A measurement made from earth is subject to the LT..
I see you misunderstood, the GPS *reports* its count rate to the ground station as digital data count of its atomic clock, it is *not* measured from the ground per se'

Furthermore, my understanding is that immediately prior to launch each GPS has their clock speed altered to account for GR *&* SR together as real factors which affect the atomic clock on board according to the experience the GPS is exposed to in its environment ie. GR *&* SR.

GPS has been in use for years, without this correction (in the GPS clock rate) for SR it would not show the correct position *&* would be progressively worse especially so after 50 years.

Earlier, I asked re experiments which confirmed your theory you ignored/skipped it with no comment - why ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2012
Assuming wave-particle duality is metaphysics!
WTF is metaphysical with soliton concept? The soliton is neither wave, neither particle.

AND IT IS NOT RELEVANT IN THIS CASE!!
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
If there is anything I am sure of it is that in 100 years 12 year old children will laugh at the ideas being expressed in this conversation... but that's usually the case with bleeding-edge science.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
The concept of wave function and its collapse is physically real. It's merely an entanglement, i.e. the synchronization of wave function of observer with wave function of observed object.
Do you REALLY expect me to comment on this "entangled", garbled nonsense?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012

No, I'm not opposing the concept of "wave function", only a physical interpretation of it. Yes, decoherence occurs, but with the probability interpretation.

To interpret the intensity of an electron wave as a probability-distribution is the worst metaphysical Voodoo EVER!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
The exact opposite is being stated by me. I am denying it is meaningful to speak of things that are unobservable in principal.
The word is "principle".

I observed electron-diffraction which confirms that an electron moving through space is a single coherent wave, AND I observed the path of an electron within a bubble chamber which confirms that the electron has a centre-of-mass; and a centre-of charge.

Our intuitive conceptualizations of reality changes the form of reality to one dependent upon us,.. thus purely logically, conceptualized reality must be different in form from Reality as it is in itself. Mind(R) != R.
Thus the interpretation of the intensity of an electron wave as a probability-distribution is not a conceptualisation? It is just another one which prefers superstitious Voodoo!

If it is simpler to conceptualise it so that the wave-intensity dovetails with what we already know about waves, why is this a SIN? Get out of your drug-stupor!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2012
This is why qm is non-classical and non-intuitive. This is why Bohr told Einstein " Albert, stop telling God what He can or cannot do". Einstein wish to subject Reality to preconceived notions (determinism),.
No he did not! He just found it strange that harmonic waves must now act as Voodoo entities while it was NEVER required before!..
while Bohr denied the validity of doing so.
Bohr refused to accept that the waves around a nucleus are stationary waves WITHOUT MOMENTUM AND KINETIC-ENERGY: This would have knocked his earlier model from its perch; which is what it shoulod have done. You cannot have stable orbits with momentum around a nucleus EVER!! No matter what their orbital momentums are. An electron ONLY stops emitting EM when it is NOT accelerating: Whatever its orbital momentum!

The mention of God by both men was purely an allegory.

I know that! But the mentality shown by Bohr by his remark proved that he is a metaphysicist; not a REAL physicist!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Sep 11, 2012
This is correct, except it is not about "intensity", which is a misapplication of that notion. Intensity implies many electrons, or many photons.
Why? A photon is a single coherent EM wave which MUST have an intensity proportional to h*(nu).


No, a single photon does not have an "intensity", which is why in the photo-electric effect phenomenon, the energy imparted to an electron from light depends not on it's intensity, but on it's frequency,... because the electron is absorbing single photons. Your e=hv is the energy.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2012
A measurement made from earth is subject to the LT..
I see you misunderstood, the GPS *reports* its count rate to the ground station as digital data count of its atomic clock, it is *not* measured from the ground per se' Digital data are transmitted as time intervals (delta)t: The LT transformation mandates that (delta)t on the GPS clock cannot be observed to be the same on earth. Why is this simple fact so difficult to understand?

Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 11, 2012
How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
When the bounadary conditions change, the wave MUST change shape and size (sometimes also energy) to adapt: This need not just happen by becomong smaller (collapse) but also by becomong larger (inflate). It has NO OTHER CHOICE when its boundary conditions change! Have you never solved a differential wave equation subject to different boundary conditions?


I asked you physically. You are the one stating that the wavefunction is a real thing.

Didn't you just say to me a few days ago,.....

"The components of a physical representation vary wrt velocity, but not the physics being represented - Noumenon"

Arguing mathematics instead of physics-reality - johanfprins

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2012
Furthermore, my understanding is that immediately prior to launch each GPS has their clock speed altered to account for GR *&* SR together as real factors which affect the atomic clock on board according to the experience the GPS is exposed to in its environment ie. GR *&* SR.
I am not an expert on setting GPS clocks: But from what I have read, they have to be regularly reset owing to SR. I might be wrong, but it is not important for me to become a GPS expert.

Earlier, I asked re experiments which confirmed your theory you ignored/skipped it with no comment - why
What experiments do you want? I am not NASA you know. I am just stating what the LT mandates MUST be the case when SR applies: AND this is that even when the clocks on the sattelite and on earth keep the exact same time, from the perspective of earth the clock on the satellite will be slower, while from the perspective of the satellite the clock on earth will be slower. This is in all elementary textbooks!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 11, 2012
How physically does the collapse occur then, if the wave-function is Real?
The concept of wave function and its collapse is physically real. It's merely an entanglement, i.e. the synchronization of wave function of observer with wave function of observed object.
Do you REALLY expect me to comment on this "entangled", garbled nonsense?


Is it not clear to you that natello was referring to decoherance? You should have taken this as help.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2012
If there is anything I am sure of it is that in 100 years 12 year old children will laugh at the ideas being expressed in this conversation... but that's usually the case with bleeding-edge science.

Especially your inane ideas!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2012
No, a single photon does not have an "intensity", which is why in the photo-electric effect phenomenon, the energy imparted to an electron from light depends not on it's intensity, but on it's frequency,...
Are you deliberately a knucklehead? The photon energy is h*nu because this is the minimum energy that a coherent wave can have: This DOES not mean that it does not have an intensity proportiobal to h*nu.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
I asked you physically. You are the one stating that the wavefunction is a real thing.
And I told you how. A moving electron wave DOES NOT have a complex wave-amplitude: Its wave amplitude is the potential of an electric field. It is thus real, and like any real wave amplitude it changes when the boundary conditions change: Have you EVER heard about wave-guides. Did you study physics anywhere?

Furthermore ant staionary light-wave; for example within a laser cavity or a black-body cavity has a comples wave-amplitude: When the dimensiona of the cavity changes, the complex amplitude and the intensity it represents must also change physically.

Arguing mathematics instead of physics-
I am arguing physics as you can see, but also using the correct mathematics: Not Dirac's singularities and similar claptrap.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
Is it not clear to you that natello was referring to decoherance? You should have taken this as help.

Why? It is clear that neither natello, or you, even knows what decoherence is. If you cannot even understand the simplest of simplest issues that I have been trying to explain to you, why should I even try to get into decoherence?

OK goodnight for now!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 11, 2012
No, a single photon does not have an "intensity", which is why in the photo-electric effect phenomenon, the energy imparted to an electron from light depends not on it's intensity, but on it's frequency,.. because the electron is absorbing single photons.
Are you deliberately a knucklehead? The photon energy is h*nu because this is the minimum energy that a coherent wave can have: This DOES not mean that it does not have an intensity proportiobal to h*nu.


Intensity by definition in qm, means the number of photons per unit area per unit time.

Should you really be insulting me?
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2012
johanfprins said
A measurement made from earth is subject to the LT..
Please understand, they are NOT measuring it from earth. Ground interrogates the GPS and it REPORTS its #count as per its environment.
johanfprins went on
Digital data are transmitted as time intervals (delta)t: The LT transformation mandates that (delta)t on the GPS clock cannot be observed to be the same on earth..
NO.
GPS packet digital data is not a (delta)T WRT earth. The digital data are numbers in a comms packet from the GPS, cannot change in transit !

We are not observing (delta)T on earth, we get the REPORT of only what the GPS experiences. Btw: This interrogation is not the method used by consumers, purely used by the admins to check GPS atomic clock.

This is the correct experimental methodology to cut through many types of issues as measurement is made at source etc...

Surely you can see the value of that approach ?
Argiod
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2012
if there exists the smallest possible units of these quantities (such as the plank time/distance) then things exist in a particular place at a particular time.


Non-sequitur.

They could be existing in multiple particular places at the same time with some probability, or not completely in any one particular place.


This is an expression of our inability to probe at these scales... that's all. Existing in multiple places at the same time violates the definition of a "thing"... it would be multiple things with the same properties. Physical location is a property of a "thing"... The difference between one "thing" existing in multiple locations and multiple identical "things" each existing in their own location is purely semantics.


Or, the universe is wholly made up of pure energy, in all its magnificent forms; and, like in the Matrix... there is no spoon (or matter)...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
Intensity by definition in qm, means the number of photons per unit area per unit time.
I know that this is the standard WRONG interpretation.

The fact is that a photon is a SINGLE coherent light-wave which propagates through space like ANY other SINGLE coherent light-wave does (for example a laser beam WHICH DOES NOT CONSIST OF DISTINGUISHABLE PHOTONS). Thus, the photon-wave has oscillating electric- and magnetic-field components. It is well known from Maxwell's equations that such a wave has a real energy-intensity.

A single electron wave MOVING through free space is simIlarly propagating as an EM field (except that it moves at a speed v
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
I do not know why only halve om my message was posted above.

To complete: ......(except that it moves with a speed v
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2012
@ johanfprins Further to my last post.

SR is asymmetrical, it applies to the IRF that moves away under acceleration (no matter how brief or otherwise) & if/when the moving IRF returns the clocks will not reconcile, the period of time at motion & velocity are critical.

This is confirmed by the GPS in their role as instruments (& designed that way to report on GR and SR as required to maintain accuracy).

Change in atomic clock rate is measured in the GPS environment & assessed not by (delta)T from Earth but instead by a comms packet containing the digital data count (ie doesnt change in transit).

Your claim SR is merely a perception (with impatient, nasty & impolite bluster) is NOT correct.

General discussion can be found on here:- http://en.wikiped...lativity

Understandably as its wikipedia (can be amended) its obviously appropriate to rifle through the references with due diligence.

Your polite response please, when convenient (& take your time too) ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
Again it does not get through: ..v
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
Intensity by definition in qm, means the number of photons per unit area per unit time.


LET ME TRY AGAIN:
I know that this is the standard WRONG interpretation.

The fact is that a photon is a SINGLE coherent light-wave which propagates through space like ANY other SINGLE coherent light-wave does (for example a laser beam WHICH DOES NOT CONSIST OF DISTINGUISHABLE PHOTONS). Thus, the photon-wave has oscillating electric- and magnetic-field components. It is well known from Maxwell's equations that such a wave has a real energy-intensity.

A single electron wave MOVING through free space is simIlarly propagating as an EM field (except that it moves at a speed v that is less than c). It thius has an EM field-intensity equal to m*c^2.

I apologise if you find me insulting; but you are exasperating since you are not even willing to try and think outside mainstream dogma: Not even for argument's sake: Mainstream dogma is like the Pater Noster to you!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
We are not observing (delta)T on earth, we get the REPORT of only what the GPS experiences. Btw: This interrogation is not the method used by consumers, purely used by the admins to check GPS atomic clock.
As I have stated: I am not an expert on the resetting of GPS clocks: Neither do I have the time on this forum to become one; since we are discussing the HUP.

All I am stating is that when two IRF's move relative to one another with a relative speed v, no matter whether they are approaching or receding, the clock running at a rate measured within the IRF, within which it is stationary, is observed to be running slower within the other IRF and vice versa. This means that the rate within your IRF is NOT the rate at which the moving clock actually keeps time.

Whether this is also the case when the clock follows a circular path relative to me, I do not know, and frankly I do not care. All I know is that twins receding from one another cannot age at different rates.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
@ johanfprins Further to my last post.

SR is asymmetrical, it applies to the IRF that moves away under acceleration (no matter how brief or otherwise) & if/when the moving IRF returns the clocks will not reconcile, the period of time at motion & velocity are critical.
There is no experimental proof whatsoever that this is so.

Please read my statement above and let us stick to HUP.

Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2012
SR is asymmetrical, it applies to the IRF that moves away under acceleration (no matter how brief or otherwise) & if/when the moving IRF returns the clocks will not reconcile, the period of time at motion & velocity are critical.
There is no experimental proof whatsoever that this is so.
Wrong johanfprins, unless you have ignored it because it doesnt fit your dogma.

Please look here:- http://en.wikiped...periment

And prelim discussion http://en.wikiped..._paradox

There does appear to be significant evidence confirming SR is asymmetrical.

There is no evidence suggesting your hypothesis has foundation that SR is merely a perception. GPS deals with this many many times on a daily basis !

Please take my advice and sleep on it, a week is fine, get to grips with not being needlessly emotionally attached to an idea and willing to seek out the provenance of truth with great detachment & integrity as claimed.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
Wrong johanfprins, unless you have ignored it because it doesnt fit your dogma.
Where has an experiment been done outside of a gravitational field where a clock has been accelerated to a high speed, allowed to move with a constant speed v, then decelerated to return at the same constant speed, then decelerated to stop at the position of the clock that has been left behind and then compared to see whether there is a time difference which can be solely ascribed to the LT for the periods that the clocks moved with a constant speed relative to one another? Nowhere!

There is no evidence suggesting your hypothesis
I made NO hypothesis. I only applied the LT when IRF's are moving with a constant speed relative to one another, and found that the clocks must be keeping the same time-rate relative to their own IRF's.

Where have I been emotional? YOU are deducing results from experiments which are contaminated by gravitational effects. This is irresponsible and naive!
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (5) Sep 12, 2012
@ johanfprins
Did you BOTHER to read the links I offered fully & with integrity ?

There are many experiments which confirm SR is not perception, read links fully PLEASE & browse references !

In case of the jumbo jets, (delta) gravitational field is small wrt the atomic clocks on ground, the effect shown re eastward and westward is significant & does fit with the predictions of SR.

Please read & try not to get impolite again and argue for the sake of it - else I'll recommend you see your doctor re the onset of alzheimers, no joke, I have studied this with great depth along with engineering, psychology & food science.

Please take the TIME & re-examine honestly your thinking processes, you seem to be falling into the classic crystalline paradigm of ignoring evidence which doesnt support your hypothesis & seeking evidence which supports it, so far there is NONE in that latter respect.

Please Please, take your time, quick responses show reactionary zeal not integrity or maturity !
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (58) Sep 12, 2012
I apologise if you find me insulting; but you are exasperating since you are not even willing to try and think outside mainstream dogma: Not even for argument's sake: Mainstream dogma is like the Pater Noster to you!


I know enough, not be so confident with naïveté to think I can improve upon SR and QM.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 12, 2012
I know enough, not be so confident with naïveté to think I can improve upon SR and QM.
You have just now broken the most important golden rule in physics (in fact all science): If you are a REAL physicist you MUST accept that every theory and model we rely on at present can be proved wrong in future. If this is not your approach you are a traitor to everything that objective science stands for. In fact you are guilty of high treason, and should, in the interest of the future of physics, be given the death penalty!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 12, 2012
LOL, what are you talking about? Where did I say that those theories can't be improved upon? I said "I" am unable to do so, not that no one can. Reread, then issue a retraction.

I'm saying that one can know just enough to think they know better, but not enough to know they don't.

You've have stated a few factually incorrect things, then when called on it you retort that "mainstream" physics is wrong. Generally, they are not "wrong" per say since they are back by experimental confirmation directly or indirectly.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2012
I said "I" am unable to do so, not that no one can. Reread, then issue a retraction.
That we all agree on. It is clear that you are totally lost when it comes to physics.

You've have stated a few factually incorrect things,
Examples please! Obviously I disagree with quite a bit of mainsteam physics but I also give valid reasons why it is wrong. You in your typical dishonest manner try to create the impression that I do not give any physics-reasons for what I claim. Neither do you follow up on my valid arguments. It is clear that you are not willing to argue issues but to at all costs defend mainstream dogma; no matter how absurd and Voodoo it has become.
Generally, they are not "wrong" per say since they are back by experimental confirmation directly or indirectly.
Like the Higgs boson, like claiming that what we do at present affects the past? Sheez
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
@ johanfprins
Did you BOTHER to read the links I offered fully & with integrity ?
I have read many of these links and not one of them is giving any proof that the clocks travelling with two twins are keeping different time-rates while the twins are moving at constant speed from, or towards one another. The Lorentz transformation is very clear on this; namely that both twins esxperience that the other twin's clock is running slower. If you do not agree with this, then the LT must be wrong and it is up to you to prove that it is wrong!

It is ludicrous to claim that when twin A experiences twin B's clock to be slower by a certain amount while twin B experiences that twin A's clock is slower by the same amount, that there can be asymmetry so that one clock does actually go slower than the other. It is like stating that the two twins are identical, especially the one!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
Please take the TIME & re-examine honestly your thinking processes, you seem to be falling into the classic crystalline paradigm of ignoring evidence which doesnt support your hypothesis
I NEVER do this
& seeking evidence which supports it, so far there is NONE in that latter respect.
I have given you what I get when applying the LT. YOU are the one ignoring this. Now since you are so objective: Start with twinB and an time interval t(S) on his/her clock and use the LT to derive the time interval t(A) which twinA experiences. Now take the same time interval t(S) on twinA's clock and use the reverse LT to derive the time t(B) that twinB experiences: YOU will see that t(A)=t(B).

Please Please, take your time, quick responses show reactionary zeal not integrity or maturity !
This is what I am asking YOU to do!!! Take your time to do the derivation I have just pointed out, then take your time to try and figure it out: The asymmetry is your Alzheimer head.
drhoo
not rated yet Sep 12, 2012
Johan
My question is that if an electron is a traditional EM wave propagating in every possible direction with energy density decreasing as the wavefront expands then how is it that a detector finds all the electron energy at one point when a detection occurs??
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 12, 2012
I already explained above why there is an asymmetry in the two twins relative movement, and so, why it's not a paradox and that the moving twin is younger upon return. In order to return home, the moving twin must enter a different IFR (another application of LT). PRIOR to this 2nd application of the LT yes there was symmetry.

But I guess John Wheeler, Albert Eintein, Roger Pentose, Stephen Hawking, Rochard Feynman, etc,.. are all wrong, and johanfprins who spends time arguing about it over the Internet , is right. Is this what you're telling me?

http://en.wikiped..._paradox tripy
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Sep 12, 2012
Johan
My question is that if an electron is a traditional EM wave propagating in every possible direction with energy density decreasing as the wavefront expands then how is it that a detector finds all the electron energy at one point when a detection occurs??


He will tell you it's because the "electron wave" enters boundary conditions at the detection point as a standing wave. He wil not say how physically the electron enters a particular atom rather than another some distance away. I already tried.
drhoo
5 / 5 (1) Sep 12, 2012
Johan
My question is that if an electron is a traditional EM wave propagating in every possible direction with energy density decreasing as the wavefront expands then how is it that a detector finds all the electron energy at one point when a detection occurs??


He will tell you it's because the "electron wave" enters boundary conditions at the detection point as a standing wave. He wil not say how physically the electron enters a particular atom rather than another some distance away. I already tried.


Standing wave ??? A standing wave at least in my understanding is only something that is set up after very many reflections back and forth between two boundaries, not sure how that would apply here..

What happens to the energy that was propagating in all the other directions after the detection at a particular point?
It would have to mysteriously vanish if thermodynamics is valid.

drhoo
3 / 5 (1) Sep 12, 2012
Whichever entity undergoes acceleration to leave a reference frame is the one who has the time slow down relative to the other.
It is the acceleration that makes the difference.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
Whichever entity undergoes acceleration to leave a reference frame is the one who has the time slow down relative to the other.
It is the acceleration that makes the difference.


It is impossible to know which one accelerated and which one remained stationary...

It's possible that when we send a rocket into space it is all of reality that moves around it while the rocket remains stationary. It may sound ridiculous, but that's the fundamental point of relativity, that it's impossible to determine whether one object is moving or the other, or if they are both moving, and if both are moving which percentage of the relative velocity is contributed by each... there is no difference between any of these possibilities.
drhoo
not rated yet Sep 12, 2012
Acceleration from a reference frame is verifiable due to the forces generated from f=ma.

I don't know for sure what i am talking about but i always wondered what would happen if you had two perfect timepieces, one on each wrist that were perfectly synchronized with the wrists together and then one moved away and returned. Which timepiece would run slower after the return. The one that moved i always reasoned.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
Johan
My question is that if an electron is a traditional EM wave propagating in every possible direction with energy density decreasing as the wavefront expands then how is it that a detector finds all the electron energy at one point when a detection occurs??

It is refreshing to have an intelligent question:

A coherent light-wave need not be a spherical wave: For example, a laser-beam of any length is a coherent wave along the direction in which it moves.

An electron-wave is similar: Its wavelength is determined within te IRF relative to which it is moving. Within the IRF within the e-wave is stationary it is spherical. When viewed from another IRF moving with speed v, it is longer and it has wave-fronts owing to the Lorentz transformation. In fact, the LT is responsible (or is the result) of the wave nature of matter.

The wave-energy within the IRF within which the e-wave is stationary is the rest-mass of the electron. No Higgs boson needed to explain mass-energy
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
But I guess John Wheeler, Albert Eintein, Roger Pentose, Stephen Hawking, Rochard Feynman, etc,.. are all wrong, and johanfprins who spends time arguing about it over the Internet , is right. Is this what you're telling me?
You do not have to guess. Just do the calculation that I asked you to do and you will find that, YES, they are all wrong! Quite a shock is it not?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
He will tell you it's because the "electron wave" enters boundary conditions at the detection point as a standing wave. He wil not say how physically the electron enters a particular atom rather than another some distance away. I already tried.
No you have not!! You are such a liar! Really, have you got NO SHAME WHATSOEVER?

In order for a wave to be detected it has to resonate with the detector: Do you know what a radio is and how to detect radio-waves? Or have you not yet understood this simple physics.

Resonance involves (delta)E*(delta)t of Heisenberg. This allows the electron wave to borrow energy and to jump into the absorber with which it resonates.

If the buffoons in charge of mainstream physics did not consistently block my publications you will have known how it works already 8 years ago.

There is not enough space here to do the simple mathematics involved.

Part of a radio-wave also collapses into your radio's antenna, or else your radio would not have worked
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
Standing wave ??? A standing wave at least in my understanding is only something that is set up after very many reflections back and forth between two boundaries, not sure how that would apply here..
Again, you are a breath of fresh air! A "standing wave" still oscillates and this requires a medium (aether). A light-wave within a laser cavity can thus not be a standing wave: It is a stationary wave which must have a complex amplitude so that its intensity is time-independent rest-mass energy.

When a light wave resonates with an electron wave, it "enters" the electron-wave and thus adds mass-energy to the electron-wave: For this reason the electron-wave must morph into a higher-energy electron wave. Bohr stupidly called this morphing a "quantum jump".

What happens to the energy that was propagating in all the other directions after the detection at a particular point?
As pointed out above, an electron-wave cannot propagate in all directions.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
Whichever entity undergoes acceleration to leave a reference frame is the one who has the time slow down relative to the other.
It is the acceleration that makes the difference.
Well at least you are not as retarded as Mike Massen, who claims that the time difference develops while the twins are moving with a constant speed relative to one another.

Even so there is no proof that time slows down on a clock when it accelerates except for Einstein's postulate of equivalence: I suspect that this postulate is not correct. But I am willing to accept for the time being that acceleration might be responsible. This, however, does not mean that the LT mandates a difference in time rate when the relative motion is at constant speed.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
It is impossible to know which one accelerated and which one remained stationary...
For once I can agree with you! ignoring any reaction-forces and looking out, one can conclude that the other body is accelerating relative to you while the oher body can conclude that it is you who are accelerating relative to him/her.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2012
Acceleration from a reference frame is verifiable due to the forces generated from f=ma.
This is an excellent reponse but except for feeling an artificial "gravity", there might not be an effect on a clock as in the case of curved space-time. The clock might keep the same time-rate even though it is accelerating.

These issues still need objective studies from balanced phycisists: If one can still find such persons! Not people like Noumenon!! God forbid!!

After all, why would light move at another speed than c relative to an accelerating IRF. If it could, one should be able to break the light-barrier by accelerating. I do not think so!

dutchman
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012

What I read, when I saw the headline was: "We are not sure about the uncertainty principle." But what about Heisenberg...?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2012
johanfprins ignores evidence, makes personal attacks & LIES
Well at least you are not as retarded as Mike Massen, who claims..
I'm not making claims, I'm pointing to evidence !

johanfprins is fixated on interpretation of LT hypothesised BEFORE experiments were undertaken !

Please exercise "INTEGRITY" by examining evidence Eg:-
http://en.wikiped...periment

There are others if able to move outside blind attachment to LT.

Ah johanfprins, 'might' be waking with
But I am willing to accept for the time being that acceleration might be responsible. This, however, does not mean that the LT mandates a difference in time rate when the relative motion is at constant speed.
EXACTLY what GPS shows as they were also SET UP to examine it!

Confirmed you know little of GPS, look it up with "INTEGRITY".

The clocks are preset faster to account for GR *&* SR, the results are successful & for decades, continuous confirmation.

Evidence & INTEGRITY please !
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2012
I'm not making claims, I'm pointing to evidence !
Of course you are claiming that when two clocks move with a constant speed RELATIVE to one another, the one clock has a slower rate than the other. This violates the LT on which SR is based.

johanfprins is fixated on interpretation of LT hypothesised BEFORE experiments were undertaken !
If, as you claim the experiments prove that the two clocks keep different rates then LT must be rejected as being wrong! Do you conclude that LT is wrong?

There are others if able to move outside blind attachment to LT.
There is no blind attachment on my part: There are only two possibilities: 1. LT is correct and no time rate difference OR 2. experimenatlly there is a time difference so LT has to be rejected. You claim the experiments prove there is a time difference. Do you reject LT?

I do not see any EVIDENCE in the experimental data that LT is wrong.

Evidence & INTEGRITY
Yes! Why do you not try your own advice?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2012
Please exercise "INTEGRITY" by examining evidence Eg:-
http://en.wikiped...periment
I know these pathetic experiments and after having analysed the results I see no proof whatsoever that two clocks moving in free space with a constant speed relative to one another, will keep time at different rates. Only a physics-fool will conclude this from this data.

I am willing to accept for the time being that acceleration might be responsible. This, however, does not mean that the LT mandates a difference in time rate when the relative motion is at constant speed.
EXACTLY what GPS shows as they were also SET UP to examine it!
So what is your argument? After attacking me like a rabid dog, you now agree that GPS does not prove that two clocks moving with a constant linear speed relative to one another keep different times: Bravo!

Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 13, 2012
Of course you are claiming that when two clocks move with a constant speed RELATIVE to one another, the one clock has a slower rate than the other. This violates the LT on which SR is based.


You a crank and a fraud and are dishonest. You continue to purposely and dishinestly ignore that the two moving clocks are not simply moving away from each other,... one of them RETURNS, meaning changes IFR during the return.

You have been told by me and mike multiple times that in order for the moving twin to return to earth he must change his IRF, so they're asymmetrical wrt SR.

In fact the effect of acceleration is not even required to get the point, if one imagines upon taking a gradual. urged path back to earth, each tangent along the path is another IRF and therefore another application of LT.

We are talking about speeds approaching c, and there for space-time.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 13, 2012
In fact the effect of acceleration is not even required to get the point, if one imagines upon taking a gradual [...] path back to earth, each tangent along the path is another IRF and therefore another application of LT.

[edited above]
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2012
You a crank and a fraud and are dishonest.You continue to purposely and dishinestly ignore that the two moving clocks are not simply moving away from each other,... one of them RETURNS, meaning changes IFR during the return.
I have not done so and even admitted that during acceleration and deceleration the clocks MIGHT be affected: Although one cannot derive this from the LT; and there is NO experimental evidence that this is so!

You have been told by me and mike multiple times that in order for the moving twin to return to earth he must change his IRF, so they're asymmetrical wrt SR.
You can only say this if the twins are referenced to a third really stationary IRF. This does not exist.

If it is possible that two clocks are moving at a constant, relative speed to one another can keep time at a different rates, the LT is invalid. I have asked Mike to do the calculation: but he refuses: And YOU call me dishonest and a fraud?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2012
In fact the effect of acceleration is not even required to get the point, if one imagines upon taking a gradual. urged path back to earth, each tangent along the path is another IRF
So along a curved path there is no acceleration? Where and from who did you learn physics my boy?

Please derive from Einstein's postulates that each tangent is an IRF! You are just assuming this with no theoretical OR experimental evidence. And YOU think you are a scientist?

But even if you are correct, the LT still demands that two clocks moving with a constant relative speed to one another cannot keep different time rates.

We are talking about speeds approaching c, and there for space-time.


So? Define what you mean by space-time in SR, so that I can see whether you really know what the Hell you are spouting about.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 13, 2012
In fact the effect of acceleration is not even required to get the point, if one imagines upon taking a gradual [curved] path back to earth, each tangent along the path is another IRF and therefore another application of LT.
So along a curved path there is no acceleration? Where and from who did you learn physics my boy?


Where did I say in moving along a cured path there is no acceleration? This is what I mean by you being dishonest.

Clearly I said the EFFECT OF ACCELERATION is not required TO GET THE POINT (of the twin experiment), that is to say, ...one can instead imagine a gradual series of straight tangent lines to the curved path taken to return to earth. Each of these tangent paths in (space-time) are separate IRF, therefore each require the LT applied again,..... so it is obvious that the experiment is asymmetrical.

You continue to misrepresent the experiment by insisting the two twins just recede at constant IRF from each other. Factually incorrect.

Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 13, 2012
Please derive from Einstein's postulates that each tangent is an IRF! You are just assuming this with no theoretical OR experimental evidence.


We are talking about SR, so a tangent line (to a return path) at constant velocity is a straight line in space-time. Imagine the moving twin has a friend taking such a path, clearly the friend is moving in a different IRF than the moving twin. Theoretically the moving twin could jump onto the friends ship and there change his IRF. This would require another application of LT for the earth bound twin, would it not?

I'm saying one could approximate close enough using a jump onto space-time tangent paths (to the curve returning to earth), to show that within SR, the moving twin will age slower. Got it?
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 13, 2012
But even if you are correct, the LT still demands that two clocks moving with a constant relative speed to one another cannot keep different time rates.


The LT does NOT say this in SR, where the space and time components get mixed.

It is not "speed" that is required to be constant, it is "velocity", which obviously means direction. The tangent paths may have the same speed, but different velocity because the coordinate component are different.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2012
Clearly I said the EFFECT OF ACCELERATION is not required TO GET THE POINT (of the twin experiment), that is to say, ...one can instead imagine a gradual series of straight tangent lines to the curved path taken to return to earth.
This still means that acceleration is occurring along the whole path. So how can you say that the EFFECT OF ACCELERATION is not required.." You are playing with words and lying in the process.
Each of these tangent paths in (space-time) are separate IRF, therefore each require the LT applied again,.....
And I ask you again to derive this ASSUMPTION from Einstein's two postulates.

You continue to misrepresent the experiment by insisting the two twins just recede at constant IRF from each other.
ANOTHER LIE BY YOU. I am just saying that during the stretches of the journey that the two IRF's are moving with a constant speed relative to one another, the clocks cannot keep different time rates.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2012
We are talking about SR, so a tangent line (to a return path) at constant velocity is a straight line in space-time.
But it IS NOT the path of the clock!!!
Imagine the moving twin has a friend taking such a path, clearly the friend is moving in a different IRF than the moving twin.
When they are moving in a straight line from or towards one another they are in also in differenet IRF's : So what?
Theoretically the moving twin could jump onto the friends ship and there change his IRF. This would require another application of LT for the earth bound twin, would it not?
Why? The clocks within both IRF's will show the same time.

I'm saying one could approximate close enough using a jump onto space-time tangent paths (to the curve returning to earth), to show that within SR, the moving twin will age slower. Got it?
I am afraid that you are hallucinating!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2012
The LT does NOT say this in SR, where the space and time components get mixed.
Do the mathematics and prove that this is the case? My derivation from LT is that the time-intervals on the two clocks are in synchronisation. I will gladly acknowledge that I am wrong if you can prove your claim by deriving it from the LT.

It is not "speed" that is required to be constant, it is "velocity", which obviously means direction. The tangent paths may have the same speed, but different velocity because the coordinate component are different.
You might have a point here, Although I even doubt that this is correct: BUT this does not change the fact that, according to the LT, a time-interval on one clock is equal to a time-interval on the other clock when the clocks are moving with a constant VELOCITY relative to one another. I ask you again to derive these time-intervals and compare them.


johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2012
Correction:

ANOTHER LIE BY YOU. I am just saying that during the stretches of the journey that the two IRF's are moving with a constant VELOCITY relative to one another, the clocks cannot keep different time-rates.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 13, 2012
@johanfprins Re: http://en.wikiped...periment
claims
..pathetic experiments and after having analysed the results I see no proof..
Please have INTEGRITY to answer:-
i. Why you feel it's 'pathetic' ?
ii. What did the analysis of 'results' show ?
iii. You feel maths of LT is more important than experiments ?

Surely it's analysis of experimental method that's key (not just results - a table of numbers), what did you find that you so strenuously object to, details please ?

May I remind you, experiment was performed in 1971 & must have formed part of your education since you claim to know more about SR than I will ever know - yet in all your comments you have never brought a reasoned refutation of this historical proof of asymmetrical SR to bear.

Maybe you're applying Lorentz Factor (LF) inappropriately & falling into confusion with Lorentz Transformation (LT).

Doesn't it make sense to focus on the specific experiment & earnest analysis thereof ?
Edouard A_M_L_ Duriau
not rated yet Sep 14, 2012
One question still...

I am fully aware that we cannot extract a wave function for a photon. However, in the context of "normal" wave functions (i.e. for particles), polarization is is a berry phase of the wave function (a property induced by the phase of the wave function). In other words, it is a property that cannot be cast by any observable. BUT Heisenberg's uncertainty principle stands for OBSERVABLES without any mention of Berry phases. How does this fit into this result?

(I really would like to have an enlightened answer to this ;)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2012
@johanfprins

i. Why you feel it's 'pathetic' ?
They made use of the Sagnac effect which nobody yet understands AND they were so stupid not to know that when acceleration occurs, one must adjust the synchronisation time in order to apply the LT.
ii. What did the analysis of 'results' show ?
What the investigators wanted it to show.
iii. You feel maths of LT is more important than experiments ?
Only experimental results which have been correctly analysed without any fudging.

Surely it's analysis of experimental method that's key (not just results - a table of numbers), what did you find ...
I have just now given my reasons. LT was not correctly applied; and therefore their results violate LT.

May I remind you, experiment was performed in 1971
I find it patronising that you are suggesting that I do not know this.

Doesn't it make sense to focus on the specific experiment
I already did this 25 years ago!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2012
I am fully aware that we cannot extract a wave function for a photon.
Of course you can: A photon is a coherent wave which is modelled by Maxwell's equation for the electric-potential of the photon-wave.
However, in the context of "normal" wave functions (i.e. for particles), polarization is is a berry phase
There is no berry-phase it is just berry-nonsense.

A stationary electron-wave has NO MOMENTUM but one can still write the "uncertainty" in position and "momentum" while momentum cannot be observed. By dividing by Planck's constant you get the reciprocal relationship between position and wave number which is valid for ALL stationary harmonic waves. It gives the reciprocal sizes of the electron wave within real and reciprocal space: It has NOTHING to do with "uncertainties" in mom. or pos. of the centre-of-mass of an electron.

An electron is a wave with a COM. This COM can during resonance jump non-classically. This does not mean an uncertainty in pos. or mom.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 14, 2012
You continue to misrepresent the experiment by insisting the two twins just recede at constant IRF from each other.a

ANOTHER LIE BY YOU. I am just saying that during the stretches of the journey that the two IRF's are moving with a constant speed relative to one another, the clocks cannot keep different time rates.


That's correct, but that is NOT the twin experiment, so why do you continue to mention this? The moving twin subsequently undergoes acceleration in order to return, which by definition, is a change in IRF, as I tried to explain with my tangent path example.

IOW, you can determine who the moving twin was because of the changes in acceleration, changes in IRF,... thus you can see that the experiment is asymmetrical, and therefore not a paradox.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2012
That's correct,
So you agree that after 50 years when the twins are nearly 40 light years from one another they will have the same age before the departing twin turns back?

but that is NOT the twin experiment, so why do you continue to mention this? The moving twin subsequently undergoes acceleration in order to return, which by definition,
Whose definition? YOURS? You can define anything you want but you must prove from the postulates of SR and the LT that this actually does cause the clock-rate to change. A definition is not a proof. As Sam Goldwyn would have said: It is like a verbal contract: Not even worth the paper it is written on.

IOW, you can determine who the moving twin was because of the changes in acceleration, changes in IRF,... thus you can see that the experiment is asymmetrical, and therefore not a paradox.
Give me proof that the time will be different, not daffynitions.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (57) Sep 14, 2012
I'm not giving you definitions, i'm describing the theory, and you were given examples of experimental confirmation above in the GPS system, and the Hafele–Keating experiment.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2012
I'm not giving you definitions, i'm describing the theory, and you were given examples of experimental confirmation above in the GPS system, and the Hafele–Keating experiment.

You are NOT describing what can actually be derived from SR based on the LT. You are grabbing DAFFYNITIONS out of the air for which you have no proof whatsoever.

In fact, on the return trip, the LT transformed time rate of the returning twin is now faster relative to the clock at home. You must take BOTH your time and poosition coordinates into account as well as the direction of the relative velocity!

Nonetheless, this is irrelevant in the case of thye twins since both their clocks actually keep time at exactly the same rate during the whole trip. It is only the LT transformed times that differ.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2012
Nope, Maxwell's theory doesn't support quantization and so it cannot be used for modeling of photons. ... etc. You're inventing stuffs .. spreading BS.


As usual you do not have a clue.

A "photon" is the smallest-energy, coherent light-wave that can be emitted by a source or be absorbed by an absorber. This determines its "quantum" of energy.

When it moves through free space it is modelled by the SAME Maxwell equation which models ANY coherent light-wave with ANY energy which moves with speed c through free space.

You can derive this by starting off from the relativistic energy equation for a body with mass m moving through free space. When you set m=0, so that the equation is that for a photon, you get Maxwell's equation for light moving at a speed c (NOT THE KLEIN-GORDON EQUATION).

When you set m equal to the rest-mass of the electron, you AGAIN get Maxwell's equation for light (NOT DIRAC's EQUATION), but now the coherent light-wave is moving with a speed less than c.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2012
johanfprins has no clue re Hafele–Keating, looks dumb
They made use of the Sagnac effect(SE) which nobody yet understands
LOL!
Sorry you can't understand SE or GPS for that matter. Easy for me as I'm an engineer.
But, to make generalisation NOBODY understands is plain idiocy, obviously we're smarter.
SE relates to interferometry & EM relativity confirms SR, your education starts here:- http://en.wikiped...c_effect

Re: Hafele–Keating
Couldnt use SE because there was no interferometry or EM signalling, clearly you HAVENT read their paper!

johanfprins claimed about the results
What the investigators wanted it to show.
Implying Hafele–Keating are guilty of fraud by interfering with atomic clocks & fabricating readings, what conspiracy here ?

Clocks provided numerical output & confirmed asymmetrical SR!

johanfprins blurted
..one must adjust the synch time.. re LT

Why, what's wrong with all clocks sync'ed with ground before takeoff ?

Your integrity please ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2012
Sorry you can't understand SE or GPS for that matter. Easy for me as I'm an engineer.
Obviously not a very clever engineer. BTW my doctorate was done at an engineering school. I thus have a background in BOTH engineering and theoretical physics. What is your qualifications?
Re: Hafele–KeatingCouldnt use SE because there was no interferometry or EM signalling, clearly you HAVENT read their paper!
I have read it and analysed it. I state again that if their conclusion is correct it actually violates the LT, not confirms it.

Implying Hafele–Keating are guilty of fraud
You do not have to be a fraud to subconsciously manipulate your data to get what you expect to get.

Why, what's wrong with all clocks sync'ed with ground before takeoff ?
Nothing! If you do not have to again adjust them, it proves that time-dilation as derived from SR does not occur; and that Haefele-and Keating reached the wrong conclusion.

Your integrity
Have you got any!!
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
A "photon" is the smallest-energy, coherent light-wave that can be emitted by a source or be absorbed by an absorber. This determines its "quantum" of energy. When it moves through free space it is modeled by the SAME Maxwell equation which models ANY coherent light-wave with ANY energy which moves with speed c through free space.
This is just not true at all. You must introduce the Schroedinger equation into classical electrodynamics for to get the solution for photon. After then you have a quite different theory, so-called the quantum electrodynamics (QED). The knowledge of yours in this area is apparently quite rudimentary: it's like the discussion of rocket science with tribal people, which do consider the planes as a sort of birds: you cannot get an agreement in such discussion by its very nature.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2012
A "photon" is the smallest-energy, coherent light-wave that can be emitted by a source or be absorbed by an absorber. This determines its "quantum" of energy. When it moves through free space it is modeled by the SAME Maxwell equation which models ANY coherent light-wave with ANY energy which moves with speed c through free space.
This is just not true at all. You must introduce the Schroedinger equation into classical electrodynamics for to get the solution for photon.
Nope: Schroedinger's equation can only model stationary electron-states with mass less than rest-mass. It cannot model a freely moving electron-wave OR a freely moving photon-wave at all.

QED is the utter the pinnacle of BS; even worse than the BCS model which is also based on the same BS of QED. QED is based on Bohr's hallucination called complementarity. This is not required since light and all matter consist of electromagnetic wave-energy. There are no particles to be "compliment" the waves
ValeriaT
2.4 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2012
QED is based on Bohr's hallucination called complementarity. This is not required since light and all matter consist of electromagnetic wave-energy.
Electromagnetic wave doesn't describe the particles and their complementarity at all, as it deals with waves only. This is how the electromagnetic wave appears in Maxwell's theory: you see, no particles, only waves. Your way of thinking is wave centric and you're ignoring all particle-like phenomena in similar way, like the relativists tend to ignore quantum mechanics, string theory tends to ignore the quantum gravity, communist tends to ignore the capitalism and so on...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2012
Electromagnetic wave doesn't describe the particles and their complementarity at all, as it deals with waves only. This is how the http://upload.wik...tion.gif appears in Maxwell's theory: you see, no particles, only waves.
Exactly! This must be so since there are no particles; only waves.
Your way of thinking is wave centric and you're ignoring all particle-like phenomena in similar way,
What do you call "particle-like" phenomena that cannot be modelled in terms of waves: Examples please?
like the relativists tend to ignore quantum mechanics, string theory tends to ignore the quantum gravity, communist tends to ignore the capitalism and so on...
You are way of beam here!! But you are very funny you know!
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
johanfprins Demanded !
Give me proof that the time will be different, not daffynitions.
Best work it out for yourself, surely after all that has been said & your change in view re Sagnac effect on Hafele-Keating results & the presetting of clock rate on each GPS & radioactive decay rate increasing for accelerated atoms & many other experiments etc.

Why are you so dogmatically attached to view there's no asymmetrical SR effect, even to extent of CLAIM Hafele_Keating 'subconsciously' altered readings on the 4 atomic clocks AND the printed records just to follow consensus in the early 70's ? Pretty LAME that !

Cant you see johanfprins, there is a huge preponderance of evidence that doesn't favour your dogmatic view one little bit !

What is odd, you shift to want to compare qualifications, isnt analysis better !?

Asymmetrical SR is well documented and much experimental evidence, yet there is no evidence for your view, why is that ?

You claim integrity, demonstration please ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
Why are you so dogmatically attached
I have NEVER been dogmatically attached. Neither do I have believe results extracted from data by using assumptions which could be wrong. There is only one way to do an experiment that proves that a "moving" clock keeps time at a slower "rate" than a stationary clock, and that is to do the experiment within gravity-free space.
What is odd, you shift to want to compare qualifications, isnt analysis better !?
Yes, provided that the analysis is based on data which cannot be contaminated by other effects.

Asymmetrical SR is well documented and much experimental evidence, yet there is no evidence for your view, why is that ?
Because these experiments were not done in gravity-free space as they must be done to test SR.

You claim integrity, demonstration please
Where does my integrity come into this? No person with integrity will try and bully another person as you are trying here to do to me.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2012
johanfprins is being vague & defensive all over again
do the experiment within gravity-free space.
Where does this magical place exist please ?

johanfprins offered yet more unclear issues for argument
Yes, provided that the analysis is based on data which cannot be contaminated by other effects.
are you implying there is an interaction between GR and SR effects as 'contamination' if not then what 'contamination' is most likely other than subconscious ?

AND that all experiments which show GR and SR are arithmetically linear are also incorrect, how so ?

Then what is your hypothesis then that offers a realistic alternative ?

johanfprins mumbled
Where does my integrity come into this? No person with integrity will try and bully another person..
Have you heard of the word hypocrisy, care to refresh yourself re your claims & insults of me & others on this thread since day one - how is that evidence of your integrity ?

Gone back on claiming Sagnac effect misuse have you ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
johanfprins is being vague & defensive all over again: do the experiment within gravity-free space.
Where does this magical place exist please?
It exist in large spaces between the galaxies. At least do the experiments with constant gravity. This is a simple experiment to devise on earth if you have some grey matter in your bony head.

johanfprins offered yet more unclear issues for argument
Yes, provided that the analysis is based on data which cannot be contaminated by other effects.

are you implying there is an interaction between GR and SR effects as 'contamination' if not then what 'contamination' is most likely other than subconscious ?


Flying aeroplanes have changing gravity and acceleration. Any person with brains would insist on having both gravitometers and accelerometers continuously measuring this.

AND that all experiments which show GR and SR are arithmetically linear are also incorrect,
No such experiments: this is an assumption
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
Then what is your hypothesis then that offers a realistic alternative ?
Use two identical radio-active shuttles and a simple weaving loom: Send the one shuttle on many cycles to an fro: Then compare their radio-active decay afterwards. Yoy will find : NO DIFFERENCE! Two clocks travelling relative to one another will always have the same time-rate.

johanfprins mumbled
Where does my integrity come into this? No person with integrity will try and bully another person..
Have you heard of the word hypocrisy,
You demonstrated it very well on this thread. If ever I did not understand this word I now do: Hypocrisy = Mike Massen.

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Sep 23, 2012
johanfprins cant understand he is the bully with constant insults
..constant gravity.This is a simple experiment to devise on earth if you have some grey matter in your bony head.
Open up your reading, many of these experiments have been done. Atomic clocks are now precise and stable enough to discern special relativity at speeds as low as 36Km/hr, open up your reading !

Why are you ignorant of the large amount of experiments ?

johanfprins cant understand differential analysis when I asked
AND that all experiments which show GR and SR are arithmetically linear are also incorrect ?
johanfprins forgot the precision of GPS with
No such experiments: this is an assumption
Why not email the physicist employed by the Naval authority that manages GPS corrections ?

johanfprins sputtered
.. two identical radio-active shuttles..
Why are you ignoring prior experiments with high speed moving radioactive atoms, there are many, why dont you open up your reading ?

Bony Head ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
Open up your reading,
You do not have the knowledge or intelligence to give me this advice: Just accept you are a numbskull
any of these experiments have been done. Atomic clocks are now precise and stable enough to discern special relativity at speeds as low as 36Km/hr, open up your reading!
I know of all these experiments and do not find the analysis of the data in any one of them to be objective.

johanfprins sputtered
.. two identical radio-active shuttles..
Why are you ignoring prior experiments with high speed moving radioactive atoms, there are many, why dont you open up your reading ? There is not a single experiment which was done while ensuring that there is NO change in gravity.

Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2012
johanfprins ugh, continues insults
Just accept you are a numbskull
johanfprins is vague, sloppy
I know of all these experiments and do not find the analysis of the data in any one of them to be objective.
You claim to know of them but write as if you haven't heard, pick the top 3 out of the 20 or so & explain why you think they are not objective, its just numbers & maths how can you claim details are subjective ?

johanfprins makes odd claims re theoretical/experimental logic
There is not a single experiment which was done while ensuring that there is NO change in gravity.
What do you interpret as maximum experimental bound of "NO change" ?

ie.
Implies you claim even a small delta_g has significant effect on SR, as you claim you know this then surely you have made an expert calculation between the differential of delta_g vs delta_v to delineate GR from SR in terms of experimental assessment, what then is your uppermost delta_g to qualify ?

johanfprins its Physics !!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
johanfprins its Physics
Exactly! And physics is based on logic. And simple logic will tell you that when two clocks move past one another and you synchronise them that after a time interval t on the one clock the distance to the other clock as calculated on this clock is v*t.

Simple logic should also tell you that after a time-interval t' on the other clock the distance as calculated on this clock to the first clock is v*t'.

Even more logical is the fact that the one clock cannot be further from the other than the other is from this clock. Thus if at a distance D apart the time on the first clock is t and on the other clock is t', one MUST have that

D=v*t=v*t':

This tells you in no uncertain terms that t MUST be equal to t': i.e. THAT SIMPLE LOGIC TELLS YOU THAT THEY CANNOT KKEEP DIFFERENT TIMES!

Clearly, logic is not your strong point and therefore I am wasting my valable time when arguing with you. So I hope this is not goodbye but farewell.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2012
johanfprins lurched off on a tangent with simplistic claim
..physics is based on logic.
Completely WRONG, physics is based on a (dynamic) process:-

a. Observation with
b. Mathematics with
c. Hypothesis &
d. Experiment, interpretation, go to a. above

It is NOT based upon simplistic static logic (to suit feeble minds).

johanfprins continued simplistic waffle
..simple logic will tell you that when two clocks move past one another and you synchronise them that after a time interval t on the one clock the distance to the other clock as calculated on this clock is v*t.
Is this your best Daffynition ?

How does that narrow 'simple logic' predict:-

- Universal speed limit 'c'
- Lorentz Factor & how not to apply it
- Proper Time as maths application to determine SR effect ?

Please focus on key question of your claim to assess "NO change" in gravity ie (d)g

What's your max (d)g bound to allow minimal change affecting SR observation in a suitable experiment Eg Car park, runway ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
narrow 'simple logic' predict:-

- Universal speed limit 'c'


As usual you do not know what you are talking about. Just take you first statement quoted just above: "Universal speed limit".

The Lorentz transformation mandates that the speed of light must always be equal to c relative to any moving object. This means that you can NEVER have light moving with a speed v plus c into an object moving with speed v,
You will notice that in the analyses done in all these experiments which you so religiously want to believe, it is assumed that light approaching an object moving with speed v head-on, can approach this object with speed v plus c; or can recede with a speed c minus v. If you can do the mathematics, which I doubt, you will find that this violates the Lorentz transformation: Why? Because you are applying the Galilean transformation to light-speed and thus violating Einstein's second postulate.

To even try to explain SR to you is a waste of my valuable time!

Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2012
johanfprins gawked
..to explain SR to you is a waste of my valuable time!
Dont, surely why so many experiments show SR is real, not perception AND why many physicists accept issue of Proper Time vs Coordinate Time based upon Minkowski space.

You write as if you are trying to apply LF equally to a non accel. reference frame to one which is or has been accelerated, isnt that Wrong ?

Isnt the relative non-accelerated reference frame THE preferred reference frame ?

Experiments so far, lets see who is 'religious' in their denial of SR:-

GPS
You claim to not know how its reset & claim GR & SR cant be separated arithmetically.

Hafele-Keating
You claim both of them AND the recorders 'subconsciously' altered results.

Recent experiments & radioactive atoms.
You claim there should be "NO change" in gravity BUT

You REFUSE to show the maximum delta g is allowed to be to show definitive SR effect & try to sidestep it !

Why not converge & show maximum (delta)g at least as a good step ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2012
johanfprins gawked
..to explain SR to you is a waste of my valuable time!
Dont, surely why so many experiments show SR is real, not perception AND why many physicists accept issue of Proper Time vs Coordinate Time based upon Minkowski space.
Because time is not a coordinate that changes with position as Minkowski has claimed. If time could have been a function of position simultaneous events within an inertial refrence frame would not be possible.

Isnt the relative non-accelerated reference frame THE preferred reference frame ?
All inertial reference frames are equal: There is no preferred reference frame since this will be in violation of Einstein's very first postulate! It is just incredible that a person like you who have no clue what you are talking about keeps on coming back.

Recent experiments & radioactive atoms.
You claim there should be "NO change" in gravity BUT
Obviously the experiments must be done within constant gravity.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2012
johanfprins repeated
Obviously the experiments must be done within constant gravity.
BUT
johanfprins Still hasn't indicated what the uncertainty level of this 'constant' has to be to separate influence of delta g from an observed effect of SR ?

Claim you have seen all SR experiments with recent stable & precise atomic clocks at lower speeds in large car parks & runways BUT,

You still haven't stated the maximum level of 'constant' as any mature physicist knows there is no such paradigm as 'constant' in measurement frameworks !

So on a disused runway near Bristol in UK, g is ~ 9.81m/s^2 what then is the allowed maximum variation - to how many significant digits to qualify as 'constant' ?

And why do you digress and diverge instead of being smart & converge on this crucial experimental detail you can factor into the theoretical calculations ?

Why are you suspicious so intently on all experiments & especially the ongoing GPS operation of decades which proves SR is real ?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
Completely WRONG, physics is based on a (dynamic) process:- a. Observation with b. Mathematics with c. Hypothesis & d. Experiment, interpretation, go to a. above It is NOT based upon simplistic static logic (to suit feeble minds)
Contemporary physics is rather bunch of theories concentrated around quantum mechanics and general relativity, which are connected with few equations each (at the best case). This is as logically coherent system as the USA democracy (which is - not quite accidentally - concentrated about two main political parties too).
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
johanfprins repeated
Obviously the experiments must be done within constant gravity.
BUT
jfp Still hasn't indicated what the uncertainty level of this 'constant' has to be to separate influence of delta g from an observed effect of SR ?
Why should I?
Claim you have seen all SR experiments with recent stable & precise atomic clocks at lower speeds in large car parks & runways BUT,
When they analyse these results by assuming that light can travel at speeds c plus v or c-v, they will get wrong results even if the gravity is 100% the same. A stupid analysis gives wrong results.

Why are you suspicious so intently on all experiments & especially the ongoing GPS operation of decades which proves SR is real ?
I am not suspicious! The time-rates on two clocks travelling with a constant speed relative to one another can according to Einstein's own first postulate NOT keep different time. If you want to believe they can, you must first reject Einstein.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
johanfprins is fixated on impossible issue
The time-rates on two clocks travelling with a constant speed relative to one another can according to Einstein's own first postulate NOT keep different time.
This is true if & only if both ARE inertial reference frames (IRF) ie ARE not & HAVE not been accelerated to arrive at that constant speed.

You are missing the key issue of how they get there !

Of course this can never happen can it, in order to make this experiment functional they both start in the same IRF at SOME point & THEN one of them is accelerated, that accelerated RF is no longer an IRF. This is Einstein's SR which you strenuously object to & has been verified many times.

Along with educating you re Sagnac & how its easy to understand, when you claimed no-one understands it, your education continues with:-

http://en.wikiped..._paradox
&
http://en.wikiped...lativity
&
http://en.wikiped...per_time

Where is Einstein wrong then ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
johanfprins is fixated on impossible issue
The time-rates on two clocks travelling with a constant speed relative to one another can according to Einstein's own first postulate NOT keep different time.
This is true if & only if both ARE inertial reference frames (IRF) ie ARE not & HAVE not been accelerated to arrive at that constant speed.
So why are you fighting? The SR formula which you are claiming IS valid, has been derived for constant speed: Acceleration or deceleration has NEVER been part of it. Only now, after all your raging and ranting you admit that this dilation in time cannot occur. What is your BLOODY point, my boy?

If the time difference is caused by acceleration and deceleration then give me the bloody formula for this. I do not see ANY acceleration term in the formula for "time-dilation" obtained from SR. So there cannot be any time-dilation when two clocks travel with a constant speed relative to one another! Finally you realised this. Bravo!
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2012
(sigh) @johanfprins

Just look at the links PLEASE, SR is a special case of GR, the time dilation as real phenomena pops out, just READ the links and by the equivalence principle it makes perfect sense as it is derived.

You claim asymmetric SR is only perception - WRONG.

Read and study the links, esp the DETAILS re Proper Time calculations...

Asymetrical SR as derived from GR with the equivalence principle works, there is no need for an explicit acceleration term in these formulae it is implicit by virtue of the derivation, wakey wakey...!

So instead of all your excuses & distractions re:-

1. GPS
2. Hafele_ Keating
3. radioactive atoms in motion
4. atomic clock tests of SR in car parks

All above have accelerated *and* de-accelerated the calculations re this effect are rather well described in the link re Proper_Time, if you open your eyes you will see there need be no specific issue re acceleration as the velocity is reached and implicit re equivalence principle...

night night
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 24, 2012
(sigh) @johanfprins

Just look at the links PLEASE, SR is a special case of GR,
That is what is believed; but it is easy to prove that this is wrong. It is sad that Einstein based his arguments to use tensors on "time-dilation" and "length contraction" in SR: Both of which does NOT occur: At least he reached the right conclusion even though his arguments to reach it were based on BS.
mathe time dilation as real phenomena pops out, just READ the links and by the equivalence principle it makes perfect sense as it is derived.
If you want to argue that owing to the equivalence priniple a clock-rate changes owing to acceleration, then good and fine: But this does not mean that two clocks moving with a constant speed relative to one another keep time at different rates: Which clock is moving and which clock is not moving? It is obviously an absurd argument!

Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2012
johanfprins might awaken
@johanfprins
Just look at the links PLEASE, SR is a special case of GR,
That is what is believed; but it is easy to prove that this is wrong.
AH ! Is it possible YOUR CLAIM can actually be progressed ? without:-

- insults
- claiming recorded data is 'subconsciously' altered
- ignoring a need that "Constant" gravity needs experimental qualification
- Expecting to only test in intergalactic space, where gravity still exists
- Claiming ALL other's analyses are wrong when YOU can get the data directly !

This long series of dialectic with your psychoses does look as if you are grasping for ways to PROTECT your notion & ignore experimental evidence as much as you can.

There is nothing definitive in any of your objections.

Integrity, get the base data from any of the 30 or so experiments of last 40 years & do the analyses yourself without resorting to claim it need "Constant" gravity, which is an experimental paradigm you refuse to qualify !

Practice !
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
johanfprins might awaken
@johanfprins
Just look at the links PLEASE, SR is a special case of GR,
That is what is believed; but it is easy to prove that this is wrong.
AH ! Is it possible YOUR CLAIM can actually be progressed ?


Yes if I am not attacked by people who claim the imposssible, and then only after many altercations admit that two clocks moving with a constant speed relative to one another are both stationary within an inertial reference frame and can therefore not keep time at different rates.

The formula for so-called SR time dilation was deived for such clocks and must thus have another interpretation than that the the clocks keep time at different rates.

I know what the correct interpreation of this formula is, and have tried for years to publish it. I am at present again writing it up, hopefully in a simpler manner, so that even the Orwellian swine in charge of theoretical physics might be able to understand it.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
@johanfprins
"In science, relevant experimental facts supersede theoretical arguments"

I am stunned you hand-wave away so MANY SR experiments with accusations of subconscious alterations or wrong analyses yet have NEVER provided one of your own ?

You said earlier "its easy to prove" !

Why not focus on the design of an experiment if and only if you are so certain the 30 or so experiments that independently prove SR up till now are wrong in all the various dubious ways you claim ?

My youngest is also about to embark on relativity, so you might want to explain to him (WITHOUT INSULT PLEASE) what is wrong with the explanation on this link:-

http://www.phys.u...adox.htm

And if you are unable to answer all those SIMPLE questions I have asked then respectfully, I think you need to see your aged care doctor re variants of Alzheimers :-(

night night
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
Physical location is a defining property of a thing, to say that something exists in two places simultaneously is the same as saying that two identical things exist in different places.


Nope, because two separate identical things cannot converge back to one thing in one location without breaking the conservation of energy.

Whereas quantum mechanical systems can demonstratably do this. For example, a mechanical oscillator can maintain a superposition of two different physical modes of vibration which means that its individual atoms appear in two different points of space simultaneously.

It seems that your definition of a "physical thing" is somehow lacking or naive.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2012
I have to attend to important other aspects in my life. I will be back especially to save your young from being brainwashed. Young people are my passion since they are the future! I will try to give a comprehenive answer asap. Probably by Monday after I have travelled from Johannesburg to Cape Town.

Cheers for now!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
My youngest is also about to embark on relativity, so you might want to explain to him (WITHOUT INSULT PLEASE) what is wrong with the explanation on this link:-

http://www.phys.u...adox.htm


I am going to ask you and your youngest a question at a time: Maybe your youngest should answer these questions, since she/he has probably inhereted your brains: This will explain why you now have none!

If the twin who has left does not decelerate and turn around, how old will she be, at any instant in time during the journey, compared to her twin who stayed behind?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2012
@johanfprins
Any person involved with discussion and/or dialectic who makes the claim, which you have, that you know more about special relativity than I will ever know, has therefore put the onus on themselves as a self-styled teacher & source of education to explain.

But instead you want to diverge & waste time with
If the twin who has left does not decelerate..
When clearly you therefore accept the twin who leaves has already accelerated but instead want to add a hypothetical to cause divergent argument !

I will ask you again what is your interpretation of the proposition on this link, as a whole:-
http://www.phys.u...adox.htm

Perhaps I should make it easy for you, can you possibly focus on the geometry ?

Are you able in fact, even a little, to be able to converge without making insults ?

Eg1
Have you seen your Doctor & had tests for cholesterol, amyloid-beta & any genetics which may predispose you to any form of alzheimers ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
@johanfprins
.. who makes the claim, which you have, that you know more about special relativity than I will ever know,
That is a fact! YOU claim that SR, on its own, demands an actual difference in time rate between the clocks. I say it is impossible!

I ask you again, and will try and make it simpler so that even YOU might be able to understand it: Let the moving twin accelerate in one direction, then turn around and move past the other twin at a constant speed v, which need not be very high so that the twin's ages are not yet signifibcantly different (if they are different as only a fool will claim): The twins then synchronise their clocks while they are still looking about the same age. If the twin leaving the other twin behind keeps moving with this speed for 40 years, will this twin, according to SR, have aged more than the other twin from the instant that they have synchronised their clocks? This is a simple question!
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2012
@johanfprins
You are doing it again, diverging.
You claim to be a theoretical physicist, fine but, are you a good one?
have you ability to analyse data without insults ?

All GOOD theoretical physicists can exercise mental flexibility to analyse experimental results, yet all you can say about such data is:-
"They subconsciously altered the data."
Since they had data recorders & you have access to that data & question I have asked of you is long before any issue of passing from IRF to NIRF in your last few posts then I ask WHY are you NOT able to use your mindset to PROGRESS an analysis of existing experimental data ?

There are some 30 SR experiments, not one it seems is able to be analysed by you, even a little, without distraction or insults.

You have neglected:-
What is wrong with the proposition, ie the geometry on this link ?
http://www.phys.u...adox.htm

And
What problem do you have thinking analytically about any experimental data ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2012
@johanfprins
You are doing it again, diverging.
I have asked you a simple question which you refuse to answer. So who is REALLY diverging?

Let me reframe the question without using twins. Two persons born on different planets pass each other with a constant speed on two spaceships and synchronise their clocks: Which one will age faster than the other during the subsequent time of say 40 years?

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2012
@johanfprins seems to have a problem with sequence of events

Long before you raised the issue in your last post, I asked you about the 30 or so experiments which confirm SR, all of which you have sidestepped - WHY ?

Why cant you, as a claimed theoretical physicist with integrity, offer analyses on data from any of the 30 or so experiments ?

Have you a problem with time sequence ?

These experiments go back decades, where is ONE of your analyses that does not rely on claims the experimenters "subconsciously altered the results" ?

Clearly any issue of speed depends on the origin of the frame of reference whether inertial or otherwise, so please deal with the much earlier question I raised instead of meaningless divergence which does not deal with experimental data...

Please reread yours and my earlier posts in the last few days.

NOW, please deal with my much earlier questions and with INTEGRITY you claim to follow.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2012
NOW, please deal with my much earlier questions and with INTEGRITY you claim to follow.

This is what I want to do; but it is obvious that your physics-logic is so out of kelter that I first have to ask you some questions. The question I asked just above is simple: Why do you not want to answer it? A lack of INTEGRITY I suppose!
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2012
johanfprins is suffering very bad thinking
NOW, please deal with my much earlier questions and with INTEGRITY you claim to follow.
This is what I want to do; but it is obvious that your physics-logic is so out of kelter that I first have to ask you some questions...
Why do you, as someone who has claimed they know more about SR than I will ever know, to need to ASK questions. I'm not stopping you offering at least one of a dozen or so analyses you would HAVE to have considered when experimental results arose decades ago to refute all your claims,

WHY are you not able to offer AT LEAST ONE analysis of ANY of the experiments of the last 40 years or so ?

Why does it suit your bloated ego to claim:-
"The experimenters 'subconsciously' altered their data" ?

Why didnt you just get data from DECADES ago and perform the analysis & so long ago ?

Whats wrong with your approach, your thinking, your analysis ?

Why do you insist on showing you are feebly behind the times ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2012
Why do you, as someone who has claimed they know more about SR than I will ever know, to need to ASK questions.
In order to determine whether you have the capability to think logical physics. So far you have failed dismally.
I'm not stopping you offering at least one of a dozen or so analyses you would HAVE to have considered when experimental results arose decades ago to refute all your claims
To do this on a thread is impossible. I am in the process of completing a manuscript on "Time-rates on moving and stationary clocks". When it is completed I can send you a copy. Not that I think that you will have the intelligence to understand the logic.

You see things already went wrong 100 years ago when Einstein, after brilliantly concluding that the speed of light must be c relative to ALL moving bodies, then assumed that light approaching a moving body can do so at a speed c-v when "chasing" the body and with a speed c v when moving into an approaching body: continued

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2012
Einstein is one of my heroes: But it amazes me that after postulating that light can never approach a moving body with any other speed than c, Einstein explained non-simultaneity as if light can do this. If you do not mix the Gallilean-transformation with the Lorentz-transformation, one finds that a passing clock keeps time at exactly the same rate as a clock which it passes; and that a passing rod becomes longer: NOT shorter.

All the analyses which you refer to have been done by mixing Galilean relativity, according to which the speed of light can be c-v and/or c plus v, with the Lorentz-transformation according to which the speed of light relative to all moving bodies MUST ALWAYS BE JUST c.

Obviously the analyses, on which you want to force me to waste my valuable time, MUST all therefore be wrong!

So will you now be honest enough to answer my question above?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2012
Is johanfprins thinking clearly with
All the analyses which you refer to have been done by mixing Galilean relativity...Obviously the analyses, on which you want to force me to waste my valuable time, MUST all therefore be wrong! So will you now be honest..
Who is dishonest here?

I've NEVER suggested you REPEAT analyses of others by using THEIR assumptions EVER, show INTEGRITY please.

ie.
Get raw data (before ANYONE'S analysis) on at least ONE of the 30 experiments of the last 40 years which test SR & analyse afresh, INTEGRITY demands it.

Raw data re clock rates of moving or stationary clocks is just raw data no odd assumptions!

ie.
You know the path of each clock, you have the recorded data why dont you share YOUR analysis NOT based on other's assumptions ?

You CLAIMED you did this, where & what does it show ?

Prior onus is on YOU, show a critique of prior experiments, there is NO onus on me to render opinion on hypotheticals when you haven't done your F.CKING job yet!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2012
Who is dishonest here?
You are!
Get raw data (before ANYONE'S analysis) on at least ONE of the 30 experiments of the last 40 years which test SR & analyse afresh, INTEGRITY demands it. Raw data re clock rates of moving or stationary clocks is just raw data no odd assumptions!
Not as easy as that. Their data does not give me all the information I need to make an analysis.

You know the path of each clock,
No I do not
you have the recorded data
They did not have gravitometers or accelerometers on the their vehicles.
CLAIMED you did this, where & what does it show ?
I found their experiments and analyses to be flawed. Furthermore I do not think it is possible to disentangle those data caused by gravity and acceleration from all the data.

There is an easier path to just argue about SR without having to disentangle other effects caused by gravity and acceleration. We can proceed with this if you will F-ing answer the simple question I have asked above.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2012
Who is dishonest here?
You are!
How so?
I dont claim to be an expert in special relativity, YOU CLAIM to "know more than I will ever know", which is a very stupid EGOTISTICAL claim!

Yet, you try to distract from having done BASIC analytical work in the last 40 years & keep excusing it. You realise YOU are going around in circles.

SR does not require knowledge of acceleration in formulae!

Gravitometers can only be deemed necessary if you have a maximum bound where gravitational variations expect to impact on SR. Of course if you REALLY are a 'theoretical physicist' then you can work backward from experimental results to determine the max variation in gravitational readings to be of significance, what are these?

For the experiments done on an airfield near Bristol UK, which you CLAIM to "know all about" what is the tolerable differential in gravitational data which might impact (even a little) on atomic clock readings?

Physics is based on experimental data not ego bluff!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2012
You are!
How so?
I dont claim to be an expert in special relativity, YOU CLAIM to "know more than I will ever know", which is a very stupid EGOTISTICAL claim! Your raving and ranting on this thread proves that this calaim is not egotistical; but just a statement of fact.

Yet, you try to distract from having done BASIC analytical work in the last 40 years & keep excusing it.
Any experiment that gets a result that violates the most basic aspect of relativity: i.e. that different inertial refrence frames are the same and must give the same experimental results, MUST be flawed and totally wrong. To claim that two clocks moving with a constant speed relative to one another keep different time rates is just as impossible as to claim that an elephant can wipe its arse with a piece of confetti.
You realise YOU are going around in circles.
You are the one who is going around in circles by refusing to answer a simple question.
continued:

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2012
SR does not require knowledge of acceleration in formulae!

Gravitometers can only be deemed necessary if you have a maximum bound where gravitational variations expect to impact on SR.
When you do an experiment in a real scientific manner you will measure all parameters that can have an impact. If you do not since you have decided beforehand, in terms of the dogma you want to believ, that this parameter will not have an impact, you are not a competent scientist, but an idiot.

Of course if you REALLY are a 'theoretical physicist' then you can work backward from experimental results to determine the max variation in gravitational readings to be of significance, what are these?
Only a fool will try and work backwards from incomplete data. We know that gravity affects clock-rate and we SUSPECT that acceleration does the same. Thus by doing an experiment without continuously recording gravity and acceleration is the same as f--ting against thunder.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2012
For the experiments done on an airfield near Bristol UK, which you CLAIM to "know all about"
I did not claim that I know ALL about it. What I know is that two clocks moving at a constant speed relative to one another in gravity-free space can NEVER keep time at different rates: If they do, it will be a violation of Einstein's first postulate of relativity.
what is the tolerable differential in gravitational data which might impact (even a little) on atomic clock readings?
This would be prejudging the results. I never do that when I do an experiment: Only a fool will do this and I am not a fool!

Physics is based on experimental data not ego bluff!

Then why are YOU ego bluffing all the time on this thread?

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2012
what is the tolerable differential in gravitational data which might impact (even a little) on atomic clock readings?
This would be prejudging the results. I never do that when I do an experiment: Only a fool will do this and I am not a fool!
NO, it is foolish to assume you can find any scenario with zero influence its therefore mature, sensible & essential to calculate the effects !

It is part of the essential analytic technique to assess potential for ANY external influence. To ignore this step is sheer incompetence.

In the case of the runway experiment acceleration is known, I recall it was recorded, gravitation can be assumed to be 9.81m/s^2 to within 1 part in 100,000 in such a small area, I understand it was also assessed.

Why do you wish to ignore experimental history ?

Why do you maintain the claim experimenters 'subconsciously' altered data, there were too many people involved ?

Where is the INTEGRITY by making stupid claims which have no evidence ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2012
In the case of the runway experiment acceleration is known, I recall it was recorded, gravitation can be assumed to be 9.81m/s^2 to within 1 part in 100,000 in such a small area, I understand it was also assessed.
If what you claim is correct, give me the reference and I will look at it.

Where is the INTEGRITY by making stupid claims which have no evidence ?
If one clock keeps slower time than the other while they are moving at a constant velocity relative to one another it will be proof that Einstein's first postulate is wrong. Maybe it is wrong, but I doubt it very much.

BTW: If you synchronise two clocks and after a time t1 on the first clock the second clock shows a time t2>t1, which clock is slower than the other one? Try to have INTEGRITY by answering this simple question, by not dishonestly dodging it as you have done to my previous question.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2012
johanfprins get a grip:-
1.
I've never claimed to be a theoretical physicist & dont keep track of the articles I've read over the last 30 years.
I am not your secretary.

2.
You claim to know more about SR "then I will ever know", so why questions.
You are not my teacher.

johanfprins claimed
Only a fool will try & work backwards from incomplete data.
IDIOT. Its called "solving for the unknown" with differential calculus YOU can work out WHAT value of (delta)g might spill over in SR. You refuse or cant do analysis re (delta)g variance affecting SR records !

johanfprins lumbered a contrived example
If you synchronise 2 clocks & after a time t1 on the first clock the second clock shows a time t2>t1, which clock is slower than the other one?
You have worded this badly, not 'after a time' you need to review the conditions 'at a time' in coordinate or the proper time of c1,c2!

My advice is to find a local theoretical physicist who has a good grounding in differential calculus.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2012
I've never claimed to be a theoretical physicist
Neither have I, but I clearly know far more about theoretical physics than you do
& dont keep track of the articles I've read over the last 30 years.
Neither do I
I am not your secretary.
Neither am I your slave to drop all I am doing to convince you that you are an idiot. I do not care that you are one, and I do not care to prove to you that I am not one like you. I have far more important fish to fry.

You claim to know more about SR "then I will ever know", so why questions.
In order to prove to you that you do not have the logic to understand anything in physics.
You are not my teacher.
Thank God for that since you are not teachable.
My advice is to find a local theoretical physicist who has a good grounding in differential calculus.
I know more about differential calculus than an ape like you can learn in three lifetimes.
This thread is NOT about SR: So just F-off!
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Oct 07, 2012
Intensity by definition in qm, means the number of photons per unit area per unit time.
I know that this is the standard WRONG interpretation. The fact is that a photon is a SINGLE coherent light-wave which propagates through space like ANY other SINGLE coherent light-wave [...] DOES NOT CONSIST OF DISTINGUISHABLE PHOTONS. Thus, the photon-wave has oscillating electric- and magnetic-field components. It is well known from Maxwell's equations that such a wave has a real energy-intensity.


Let me ask a question then. Lets say you pass light through a polariod film, to polarize it in some direction. Then you setup another such sheet parallel to the first but turned at an angle, say 30*. One can then calculate the amount of em energy that gets absobed or passes through,... say 75% gets through.

Continued,....
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (55) Oct 07, 2012
,..... The problem is this,... if the source is reduced in intensity such that it emits a single photon ("coherent light-wave"), ...it no longer makes sense to say 75% of the photon gets through. As the photo-electric effect demonstrated light is absorbed and released in packets. The 75% in such a case then must be interpreted as the PROBABILITY that a "photon" gets through.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (55) Oct 07, 2012
... so many experiments show SR is real, not perception AND why many physicists accept issue of Proper Time vs Coordinate Time based upon Minkowski space.- mike.m.
Because time is not a coordinate that changes with position as Minkowski has claimed. If time could have been a function of position simultaneous events within an inertial refrence frame would not be possible.- johanfprins


Perhaps you could explain, because Minkowski never claimed that. Within a particular IFR the time coordinate is orthogonal to the spacial coordinates, so time does not change with position, and therefore simultaneity is not violated (within the same IRF).

From the perspective of an observer determinng the 'proper time' of a moving object, it is a mixture of time and space coordinates of the observer, and thus based on the objects relative velocity,.. not position.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (55) Oct 07, 2012
You see things already went wrong 100 years ago when Einstein, after brilliantly concluding that the speed of light must be c relative to ALL moving bodies, then assumed that light approaching a moving body can do so at a speed c-v when "chasing" the body and with a speed c + v when moving into an approaching body...... But it amazes me that after postulating that light can never approach a moving body with any other speed than c, Einstein explained non-simultaneity as if light can do this.


Another misrepresentation. IF Einstein assumed that light can chase an observer at c - v , it was only in using reductio-ad-adsurdum to show that Galilean relativity must be wrong, and that either time dilation and or spacial contraction must occur, depending on experimental arrangement.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2012
,..it no longer makes sense to say 75% of the photon gets through. As the photo-electric effect demonstrated light is absorbed and released in packets.


Light is not necessarily absorbed and released in photon-packets. A laser emits a SINGLE coherent light-wave with a MUCH larger energy than that of a photon.

What Planck has ACTUALLY discovered is that one cannot have a source or an absorber which can emit or absorb a single coherent-wave which has LESS energy than that of a photon. He DID NOT discover that this photon cannot be sliced into two or more parts while it is not being emitted or being absorbed.

When the photon moves through the polariser set-up, it does actually split up into two parts (just as it does when it moves through a double slt diffractometer). To measure the photon, one needs a detector: But it cannot detect less energy than that of a photon. When the photon resonates with a detector it sliced parts must collapse for the detector to observe it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2012
The 75% in such a case then must be interpreted as the PROBABILITY that a "photon" gets through.

Nope! You are half-witted correct. To be absorbed by a detector, the photon must resonate with the detector: The PROBABILITY that it resonates with a detector at a position in space is higher when its intensity is higher at this position. But once it resonates to be absorbed, no matter how large the wave is, and no matter out of how many sliced pieces it exists, the whole wave MUST collapse into the detector; since the detector cannot detect less energy than this. Thus the PROBABILITY that a detector will collapse the sliced photon-wave is 75% higher for a dtector on the exit side of the impinging photon-wave than on the entrance side.

The same for double-slit diffraction: The photon actually splits into two parts as any coherent light-wave can do. These parts interfere so that the single photon-wave has a diffracted intensity distribution when it reaches the observation screen.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2012
When the diffracted photon-wave reaches the screen it is confronted by a myriad of absorbers, each of which cannot absorb less energy than that of a single photon. The first absorber it resonates with, collapses the photon, so that it forms a spot.

Consecutive photon-waves form many spots, and since the PROBABILITY of resonance is higher for each impinging photon-wave where its intensity is higher, the spots eventually coalesce to form a picture of the wave-intensity each photon-wave has had when arriving at the screen.

If you now try to be clever in a stupid manner, you will place two detectors at the slits to record through whivh slit each photon has moved. The photon which has actually moved through BOTH slits now has a 50-50 probability to resonate with either one of the detectors.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2012
Thus, after many photons have passed through both slits, one half ended up in one detector and the other half in the other detector. So, a not too clever experimenter will conclude that each photon has only moved through a single slit!

The fact is that by collapsing the photon waves at the slits, each one does not consist of two sliced pieces anymore; which can interfere to develop a diffracted intensity: AND Voila! There is no diffraction pattern anymore.

Take: E^2=pc^2 (mc^2)^2: For a photon m=0; and e=(hbar)(omega) and p=(hbar)k:
Thus:
k=(omega)/c: The latter is the relationship between frequency and the wave-number FOR any and ALL coherent light waves NO MATTER WHAT THEIR ENERGIES ARE. It is also valid for a photon wave since (hbar)cancels out.

Substitute the standard operators for momentum (-iDEL) and energy (id/dt) into E^2=C^2P^2: You obtain Maxwell's equation for a coherent light wave; which is valid for ANY energy; also that of a photon-wave!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2012
Within a particular IFR the time coordinate is orthogonal to the spacial coordinates, so time does not change with position, and therefore simultaneity is not violated (within the same IRF).
I am impressed since MOST scientists do not realise what you have just stated. You just did not take the argument far enough by noting that when you synchronise two passing clocks in two IRF's, and since within both IRF's the clocks keep simultaneousl time, the clocks within both the IRF's moving relative to one another must be keping the same time, or else simultaneous events can only occur within one IRF and not the other.

From the perspective of an observer determinng the 'proper time'
I dislike the concept of "proper time@ since it bonly serves to confuse the issue.
it is a mixture of time and space coordinates of the observer, and thus based on the objects relative velocity,.. not position.
Position does play an important role: See further below.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2012
Position does play an important role since the Lorentz-transformed coordinates are determined by the choice of the origin of the moving IRF(m) relative to the origin of the IRF(s) relative to which it is moving.

The fact is that at any instant in time, the positions within IRF(m) and IRF(s) all overlap. If you could stop time, and teleport around you will find that ALL clocks within both IRF's will show the EXACT same time.

When an event occurs within IRF(m) at coordinates x(m) and t(m), then at the position within IRF(s) which overlaps with the position x(m) at the same time t(m), an observer will observe the event simultaneously with its occurrance within IRF(m).

The Lorentz transformation, however , gives the coordinates and time as referenced to the origin O(s)of IRF(s) and this information can only reach O(s) with the speed of light which is the same within both IRF(m) and IRF(s).

See below
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2012
To correct for this, the Lorentz transformation gives the coordinates within IRF(s) at which the event SHOULD have occurred so that the information reaches O(s) at the same instant when it moves with speed c within IRF(m) or with speed c within IRF(s): Both which are happenning.

If IRF(m) moves away from IRF(s), the Lorentz-transformed time in IRF(s) t(s)>t(m) and the position is also further away. Thus, even though the event occurs simultaneously within both IRF(m) and IRF(s) at time t(m), the time for the event as referenced at the origin O(s) is later: The event only manifests within IRF(s) after it manifested within IRF(m).

The interesting aspect of this is that when the event occurs within IRF(m) while the origin of IRF(m) approaches the origin of IRF(s), the Lorentz-transformed-time within IRF(s) is BEFORE the event occurs within IRF(m).

continued

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2012
Thus if an event in IRF(m) occurs at a poition that is moving away from O(s), this event occurs in the future of O(s), while if an event occurs at a position which approaches O(s) it happens in before it happens within IRF(m): According to O(s) it happenned in the past.

Now send a twin(m) away within a spacewship IRF(m) at a speed v: All the events occurring within IRF(m) of this twin occurs within the future of the twin(s) who stayed at home. If after 20 years, twin(m) turns around and comes back, he/she is approaching twin(s) and every event that occurs within the spaceship of twin(m) now occurs within the past of twin(s).

If you add up the time at the end, you will find that the twins experienced the exact same amount of time.

Note, however, that I have neglected acceleration effects!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2012
Another misrepresentation. IF Einstein assumed that light can chase an observer at c - v , it was only in using reductio-ad-adsurdum to show that Galilean relativity must be wrong, and that either time dilation and or spacial contraction must occur, depending on experimental arrangement.


As usual you do not know your physics. Go to Einstein's popular book which he wrote in 1916, and look at his explanation for non-simutaneity. He explitly states that an oberser on the train will move INTO the light coming from the front (to do this c v) and AWAY from the light coming from the back (to do this c-v), and that this is the reason why the observer will conclude that the two lightning flashes were not simultaneous.

Kaku als wrote a book about Einstein is which he describes how a motorcyclest rides into an oncoming light wave (c v).
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2012
Again johanfprins goes on and on with
If you add up the time at the end, you will find that the twins experienced the exact same amount of time.
You claim this is wrong then:- http://www.phys.u...adox.htm

Can you explain ?

Can you explain the longer decays radioactive ions in synchrotrons recorded by several experimental physicists ?

The continuous operation of Global Position Satellites which have their clock rates set to account for General & Special relativity are all wrong as well ?

And all the other 30 or so experiments of the last 40 plus years all produce data that you claim is "subconsciously altered" ?

How is it you are the one who claims experiments are all fake ?

You have claimed to have background in theoretical physics, interesting, so has anyone who has been at school and done any physics even before high school, you are therefore in good company :-)

Can you maybe focus on one special relativity experiment in detail ?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2012
Can you explain the longer decays radioactive ions in synchrotrons recorded by several experimental physicists ?
Of course this is correct! The radio-active atoms are not slowed down and then compared. The same for the muon in cosmic rays. This is a relativistic effect while motion occurs: It does not mean that the radio-active atoms now have longer lifetimes within the reference frame moving WITH them. Neither does the muon live longer within the reference frame travelling with it!

How is it you are the one who claims experiments are all fake ?
I have never claimed this: I have claimed that the experiments have not tested SR which does not involve acceleration and gravity.

Let us now stick to Heisenberg's so-called "uncertainty relationship".
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Oct 08, 2012
When the photon moves through the polariser set-up, it does actually split up into two parts (just as it does when it moves through a double slt diffractometer). To measure the photon, one needs a detector: But it cannot detect less energy than that of a photon. When the photon resonates with a detector it sliced parts must collapse for the detector to observe it.


Why are you changing the experiment? The polarizer experiment is fundamentally different from the two-slit experiment. Please stick to the experiment as I have described it.

The polaroid film can be used as a DETECTOR when it absorbs the em energy, by measuring it's temperature say.

By your own admittance then, the wave-packet collapses upon this detector, the polaroid film, if absorbed,... otherwise passes through. There is no interference of these two possibilities, since in principal one can determine which path the photon took.

Thus, the wave-function (^2) interpretation is of probability, not energy.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Oct 08, 2012
@johanfprins,

The time dilation effect of SR cannot be explained away 'to correct for the time for light to reach one observer or the other'. Way before Maxwell and Einstein, it was known that the speed of light was finite, and thus that was already being taken into account.

Because c is finite, the components of any 4-vector which describes an invariant physical event with a Lorentzian metric (-, + , + , +), must transform to another reference frame, according to the Lorentz Transformation. Each Component.

This means, that in order to maintain invariance of a physically measurable event,
both the time and spatial components get mixed together, from the perspective of an observer. This is what brings about time dilation or spatial contraction.

You can't compare two twins to ask which time has dilated, unless you bring them back together,... by then you have performed more Lorentz transforms on one than the other, and thus the experiment is asymmetrical.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2012
The polaroid film can be used as a DETECTOR ....

...the wave-packet collapses upon this detector, the polaroid film, if absorbed,.
Correct
.. otherwise passes through.
75% passes through, the other 25% moves backwards: The photon is sliced. A detector collapses the photon with a 75% probability, as if it has moved through, and with a 25% probability, as if it was reflected.
There is no interference of these two possibilities,
I have not stated that there is.
since in principal one can determine which path the photon took.
The photon takes BOTH paths by being sliced in two, like any coherent light-wave will, when encountering a polariser. Since the wave is a single photon-wave, these two parts stay entangled, until a measurement is made which collapses them into one.

Thus, the wave-function (^2) interpretation is of probability
Since it is a light-wave its intensity is energy: It only seems as if it is a prob-distibution when many of them collapse
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Oct 08, 2012
[...] IF Einstein assumed that light can chase an observer at c - v , it was only in using reductio-ad-adsurdum to show that Galilean relativity must be wrong, and that either time dilation and or spacial contraction must occur[...]
As usual you do not know your physics. Go to Einstein's popular book which he wrote in 1916, and look at his explanation for non-simutaneity. He explitly states that an oberser on the train will move INTO the light coming from the front (to do this c+v) and AWAY from the light coming from the back (to do this c-v), and that this is the reason why the observer will conclude that the two lightning flashes were not simultaneous.


I don't have that book, can you quote it verbatim?

IF it is assumed that Galilean relativity is correct,... that is, that velocities are additive (c-v, c+v) even approaching c, then since light is fixed irrespective of observer, it must be that time dilation or length contraction occurs.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Oct 08, 2012
Can you explain the longer decays radioactive ions in synchrotrons recorded by several experimental physicists ?
Of course this is correct! The radio-active atoms are not slowed down and then compared. The same for the muon in cosmic rays. This is a relativistic effect while motion occurs: It does not mean that the radio-active atoms now have longer lifetimes within the reference frame moving WITH them. Neither does the muon live longer within the reference frame travelling with it!


The cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere deeper, so while yes they don't "feel themselves as if they have aged slower", they have according to an observer, and thus have according to us.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2012
You can't compare two twins to ask which time has dilated, unless you bring them back together,... by then you have performed more Lorentz transforms on one than the other, and thus the experiment is asymmetrical.

Eisntein Loretz-transormed (LT) a second on a stationary clock onto a moving clock and obtained that on the moving clock an interval tau has passed given by (beta)(tau). Since beta>>1, E concluded that this clock keesp slower time than the stationary clock, notwithstanding the fact that a larger time interval on onme clock as compared to another demands that the clock with the larger time interval must have kept time at a faster rate. To determine what the moving clock is doing relative to the staionary clock, he should have transformed 1 second on the moving clock onto the stationary clock. Copntinued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2012
He will then have found that this transformed time is now longer on the stationary clock. This would have indicated that 1 second on the moving clock now takes longer on the stationary clock. If, however he used the same argument that he used in his book, he should have concluded that the stationary clock is keeping time at a slower rate than the moving clock.

The mistake Einstein made was not to use the FULL LT: Both time and position: If he did that he would have found that after a time t the clocks have moved a distance D apart: Then according to the stat-clock, the mov-clock would be (beta)D from it, and that the time on the mov-clock will be (beta)*(v/c^2)t. Now say at this distance D, the mov-clock abruptly stops and moves back with the same speed: The LT still gives the same distance (beta)D, but the time on the moving clock is now (MINUS)(beta)(beta)(v/c^2)t. The time has jumped from future-time to past-time. When the clocks meet up these times cancel.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2012
I don't have that book, can you quote it verbatim?


p 26: "If an observer sitting in the position Mp in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning at A and B would reach him simultaneously: i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A."

From the mouth of the genius himself.

What does "hastening towards" mean other than c PLUS v and what does "riding ahead" mean other than c MINUS v?
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Oct 08, 2012
75% passes through, the other 25% moves backwards: The photon is sliced. A detector collapses the photon with a 75% probability, as if it has moved through, and with a 25% probability, as if it was reflected.

The photon takes BOTH paths by being sliced in two, like any coherent light-wave will, when encountering a polariser. Since the wave is a single photon-wave, these two parts stay entangled, until a measurement is made which collapses them into one.


You are contradicting yourself. The polaroid film does not reflect 25% or pass 75%, it can be arranged to either ABSORBE 100% of the wave-packet energy OR pass 100% of the wave-packet.

It is NOT like the two-slit experiment, which is why I choose it here, ...the polaroid can DETECT the photon by absorbing the measurable energy, thus by your own statement, "which collapses them into one.". The film IS the DETECTOR, therefore the classical interpretation is wrong for singular wave-packets, and the M.Born must be the case.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
The cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere deeper, so while yes they don't "feel themselves as if they have aged slower", they have according to an observer, and thus have according to us.
I agree with this, since this is how relativistic effects manifest:

owever, in text books the muon is incorrectly modelled by invoking length contraction; which does not occur. By just stating that the muon decays at a height H above earth and therefore can only reach earth when the time it takes to reach the earth is less than its stationary decay time, AND then applying the Lorentz transformation, the LT height is (beta)*H which is higher than H, and it sit LT lifetime is longer by an amount (beta)(v/c^2)H. This higher height and longer lifetime is observed on earth even though the muon decays at a height H which is less than v*(tau) where (tau) is the decay time of a stationary muon.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
You are contradicting yourself. The polaroid film does not reflect 25% or pass 75%, it can be arranged to either ABSORBE 100% of the wave-packet energy OR pass 100% of the wave-packet.
Obviously when you use crossed polaroids. A photon and a laser beam acts in exactly the same manner, because both are SINGLE coherent light-waves modelled by Maxwell's equations.

It is NOT like the two-slit experiment, which is why I choose it here, ...the polaroid can DETECT the photon by absorbing the measurable energy, thus by your own statement, "which collapses them into one.". The film IS the DETECTOR,
So? What is your problem? Even for the "probability distribution" the wave collapses when being absorbed!
therefore the classical interpretation is wrong for singular wave-packets,
A photon is NOT a "wave-packet". Did they not teach you that a wave-packet is NOT a single coherent wave? Where in hell did you learn your physics?
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Oct 08, 2012
From the mouth of the genius himself. What does "hastening towards" mean other than c PLUS v and what does "riding ahead" mean other than c MINUS v?


OK, I now see the text Here. Yes, it is a poor choice of wording.

Einstein has stated of course (probably earlier in that text) that all observers see the speed of light as c, irrespective of their velocity, therefore, one should interpret what he is saying with that in mind....

He is not saying that the speed of light as seen by M' is slower or faster coming from A or B. He is saying that the TIMING of those EVENTS are different as determined by M',...

"...Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A - Einstein"

The Minkowski description shows explicitly that the spatial coordinates of two relative moving observers are not congruent, thus absolute simultaneity is false.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Oct 08, 2012
therefore the classical interpretation is wrong for singular wave-packets
, A photon is NOT a "wave-packet". Did they not teach you that a wave-packet is NOT a single coherent wave? Where in hell did you learn your physics?


We're talking about polaroid film, so it should be obvious given the context, what I was saying.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2012
Einstein has stated of course (probably earlier in that text) that all observers see the speed of light as c, irrespective of their velocity, therefore, one should interpret what he is saying with that in mind.


So why does he violate his own postulate and why do ALL textbooks do the same: As you should know if you knew your physics: Which you have demonstrtaed time and again the you do not.

I am sick and tired of your semantics to worm yourself out of positions in order to defend your blind-stupid faith in mainstreanm dogma. You will NEVER be able to think outside of the HEAVY eyeflaps you are wearing.

Einsnein's explanation of non-simultaneity is WRONG. His deduction of time dilation is WRONG. And his deduction of length contraction is also WRONG.

This does NOT mean that he was not brilliant to notice that the Lorentz transformation demands that the speed of light is the same relative to ALL moving objects. Why he then violated this fact is a mystery!
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
johanfprins lumbered
When I said
Can you explain the longer decays radioactive ions in synchrotrons recorded by several experimental physicists ?
Of course this is correct! The radio-active atoms are not slowed down & then compared.
Huh? Who says they need to be, something odd the way you see time dilation.

Case 1. Radioactive ions in trap have expected half life Th
Case 2. Radioactive ions in synchrotron at high v have
longer Th by OUR experience in accordance with Lorentz Factor, prove's Special Relativity & confirmed frequently. Of course the time ions experience in THEIR IRF does not change thats why its called Special "RELATIVITY" !

Odd thing is you agree with this yet do not accept even a little that GPS HAS TO work with SR. You claimed before when clocks are 'brought together' they will be the same - this shows ignorance of how they are set up & administered & continue to WORK for our benefit reliably !

Please look at GPS closely & get an education & save time...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 08, 2012
We're talking about polaroid film, so it should be obvious given the context, what I was saying.

No it is NOT obvious at all. What do you mean by polaroid film? Any film that absorbs light totally will collapse a photon when absorbing it! So what?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2012
Case 1. Radioactive ions in trap have expected half life Th
Correct
Case 2. Radioactive ions in synchrotron at high v have
longer Th by OUR experience in accordance with Lorentz Factor,
Also correct!
prove's Special Relativity & confirmed frequently.
If you are not so stupid, you would have realised that I never argued with this at all.
Of course the time ions experience in THEIR IRF does not change thats why its called Special "RELATIVITY" !
Thank God! The penny has FINALLY dropped. Congratulations.

Odd thing is you agree with this yet do not accept even a little that GPS HAS TO work with SR.
I did not: I only disagreed that the SR correction is required since the clock in the sattelite is actually slowing down.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Oct 08, 2012
What do you mean by polaroid film? Any film that absorbs light totally will collapse a photon when absorbing it! So what?


You're being abuse. Reread my original post of the polarizer experiment. The photon concept cannot be explained via the classical Maxwell wave notion.

If you pass polarized light through another polarizer at an angle to the polarization of the light, one can determine the amount of light intensity and thus energy that gets through or is absorbed by the polarizer,.. see Malus_Law.

When the intensity is lowered so that a single photon is emitted one at a time, however, one can no longer say that (i.e.) 25% of the photon was absorbed,... so, one then requires a Particle interpretation of light, in that either it is absorbed or it is not. One requires a probability interpretation for many such trials,.. 25% of the time a photon will be absorbed.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Oct 08, 2012
I have already mentioned the photo-electric effect, where it is demonstrated that a light particle interpretation is required, as the momentum of a electron knocked loose from the metal does not depend on the intensity of light as the wave interpretation assumes, but instead, the frequency of light.

If you perform the experiment twice using two EM waves at different frequencies yet with the SAME intensity, and thus carrying the SAME energy,... one can see that the EM at the higher frequency will cause electrons to eject with more momentum,.. AND there will be less electrons ejected. This implies that the EM at higher frequency contains fewer photons.

Another case where the wave picture of EM fails is in Compton scattering, at low intensity, and another in the case of Thermal equilibrium of EM and a gas.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
You're being abuse. Reread my original post of the polarizer experiment. The photon concept cannot be explained via the classical Maxwell wave notion.
It can, when coupled to the fact that you cannot OBSERVE a coherent light wave with less energy than that of a photon: Which is what Planck discovered!

If you pass polarized light through another polarizer at an angle to the polarization of the light, one can determine the amount of light intensity and thus energy that gets through or is absorbed by the polarizer,.. see
Correct! It does not require that the photon first split up, like any coherent wave does, and then collapses when it passes through, or when it does not pass through. Thus, you are correct that a probability is involved, but not as interpreted according to the Voodoo of wave-particle duality and complementarity.

Or do you believe Wheeler's Voodoo-concept of what we do now changes the past?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
When the intensity is lowered so that a single photon is emitted one at a time, however, one can no longer say that (i.e.) 25% of the photon was absorbed,...
I have NEVER said that!
so, one then requires a Particle interpretation of light,
No you do not!
in that either it is absorbed or it is not. One requires a probability interpretation for many such trials,.. 25% of the time a photon will be absorbed.
Correct, but this does NOT require wave-particle duality. The photon-wave is split in two parts, like any coherent light wave does. When observing the photon it has to collapse to become a single coherent wave: It then has a 25% probability to collapse into the part that has not yet moved through, and thus being absorbed when it moves through; or to collapse into the part already on the other side and to move on. NO particle interpretation is required whatsoever.

Just as I have derived above that the photon is modelled by Maxwell's equation.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
I have already mentioned the photo-electric effect, ....demonstrated that a light particle interpretation is required,
No it is not required at all.

as the momentum of a electron knocked loose from the metal does not depend on the intensity of light ..,
Why should it depend on the intensity when a bound electronic-state can only absorb a photon as Planck has discovered.
but instead, the frequency of light.
Obviously the energy of a photon-wave is determined by its frequency: What has this to do with a "particle"?

When the pseudo-electron traps a photon, the photon becomes a stationary wave so that its energy adds to the mass-energy of the pseudo-electron. If this increase in mass-energy exceeds the rest-mass energy of an electron, an electron is ejected from the metal. The photo-electric effect is thus purely a wave-wave interaction owing to the absorbtion of a photon-WAVE: In the same manner as an atomic electron absorbs a light-wave.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2012
If you perform the experiment twice using two EM waves at different frequencies yet with the SAME intensity, and thus carrying the SAME energy,... one can see that the EM at the higher frequency will cause electrons to eject with more momentum,.. AND there will be less electrons ejected.
Correct! But this DOES NOT demand that the photon must be a "particle".
This implies that the EM at higher frequency contains fewer photons.
If it is a laser beam it does NOT CONTAIN separate photons since it is a single holistic coherent wave: It does, however disentangle a photon when it resonates with a pseudo-electron so that this electronic state absorbs the photon-wave.

Another case where the wave picture of EM fails is in Compton scattering, at low intensity, and another in the case of Thermal equilibrium of EM and a gas.
These experiments do NOT prove that a photon is a separate "particle" which cannot be a coherent wave: Maxwell's equations prove that it must be a wave.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2012
johanfprins has changed position
When I said
Of course the time ions experience in THEIR IRF does not change thats why its called Special "RELATIVITY"!
Thank God! The penny has FINALLY dropped. Congratulations.
Beg your pardon, I have never changed my position for decades, clearly you have changed your position & recently...
Eg. Sep 29
YOU claim that SR, on its own, demands an actual difference in time rate between the clocks. I say it is impossible!
& Sep 24
"time-dilation" and "length contraction" in SR: Both of which does NOT occur:
& Sep 16
..it proves that time-dilation as derived from SR does not occur..
& 9 Sep
If there is an age difference it will NOT have been caused by SR.
So how is it you accept the issue re radioactive ions now & argued against SR before ?

Also I've asked before but, you have never commented on this explanation re geometry regarding SR, why?
http://www.phys.u...adox.htm
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2012
johanfprins has changed position
I have not!
Beg your pardon, I have never changed my position for decades, clearly you have changed your position & recently...
You have not understood relativity for decades, and I doubt that you have the intelligence to ever understand it. Therefore you are wasting my time.

I have jsut finished a letter-paper on moving clock rates: This is the abstract:Simultaneous events are only possible within gravity-free space when identical perfect-clocks, even when moving relative to one another, keep time at exactly the same rate. Since it is known that events can occur simultaneously, there must be a global time-rate in gravity-free space. The mechanism responsible for relativistic time-dilation, even though a global time-rate must exist, is derived from the Lorentz-transfor-mation and explained. This mechanism requires transformation of both time- and distance-intervals. The decay-time of cosmic-ray muons is used as an example to show that the
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2012
Complete Abstract again:

Simultaneous events are only possible within gravity-free space when identical perfect-clocks, even when moving relative to one another, keep time at exactly the same rate. Since it is known that events can occur simultaneously, there must be a global time-rate in gravity-free space. The mechanism responsible for relativistic time-dilation, even though a global time-rate must exist, is derived from the Lorentz-transformation and explained. This mechanism requires transformation of both time- and distance-intervals. The decay-time of cosmic-ray muons is used as an example to show that the explanation found in text books, for the increase in decay-time, is wrong.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2012
johanfprins slumbers
..within gravity-free space .. global time-rate in gravity-free space.
NO. You're dreaming, NO such place exists!

johanfprins still imagines
..The mechanism responsible for relativistic time-dilation, even though a global time-rate must exist..
NO. Not possible, gravity is everywhere, even if weak & everything is ALWAYS MOVING, its ALL RELATIVE !

You're starting out on a WRONG basis, wasting ALL our time.

Makes far more sense to 'solve for the unknown' in respect of maximum allowable gravitational field before SR is affected in ANY experiment by (d)g.

Now THAT algorithm would be really USEFUL.

Why not explain errors in this ?
http://www.phys.u...adox.htm

THEN, you can perhaps, consider these guys:-
http://en.wikiped...periment

Had integrity & professionalism to not 'subjectively alter data' from printouts, your claim of that is really NUTS & nicely CONVENIENT for you !

sigh
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2012
@johanfprins

Please READ para below:-
http://en.wikiped...periment

Because the Hafele-Keating experiment was reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified.[7] Criticisms of the experiment did not address the subsequent verification of the result by more accurate methods, and have been shown to be in error.[8]
Are you also claiming ALL other separate entities & their physics staff & students ALL collaborated & were subject to the same EQUAL 'subjective altering of data' ?

Do you know how you come across claiming ALL these people are dumb or lying but have EXPERIMENTAL evidence consistent over 25 plus years ?

I think your reaction to my posts shows much linguistic misunderstanding, you seem to be arguing against what you think I said not what I actually did say !
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2012
I am visiting in the Cape Province and will reply next week.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2012
..within gravity-free space .. global time-rate in gravity-free
NO. You're dreaming, ..


Clock Km passes clock Ks with speed v and they synchronise: After a time tm on Km, Km is a distance

Ds=v(tm)

from Ks. According to the LT, the time on clock Ks is ts where:

ts=(beta)tm

This is the "time-dilation" formula. BUT! One MUST LT BOTH time and space. According to the LT, Km is at a distance Dm from Ks where:

Dm=(beta)(v)(tm)=(beta)Ds.

Thus according to the LT the distance between the clocks when the time on Ks is ts, is larger than the distance between the clocks when Km reached the time tm.

Km did NOT keep time slower: The LT time on Ks is larger since Km is now further from Ks as it was when it showed the time tm. Thus, the time-difference HAS NOTHING to do with time dilation on Km, but by the fact that the LT time on Ks is the time on clock Km after it has moved further to also show the time ts at a distance Dm from Ks.

The clocks keep the same time!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2012
Do you know how you come across claiming ALL these people are dumb or lying but have EXPERIMENTAL evidence consistent over 25 plus years ?
For nearly 2000 years ALL the people believed that the earth is the stationary centre of the universe; and all their experiments and analyses of their experiments confirmed this. So according to your reasoning Galileo should still be considered an idiot who was wrong!

You see it is closed-minded bigots like YOU who placed Galileo under house arrest; and who are even at present still keeping physics back.

Just accept it, you are an idiot and will die being an idiot!

Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
This is the "time-dilation" formula. BUT! One MUST LT BOTH time and space. According to the LT, Km is at a distance Dm from Ks where:
Dm=(beta)(v)(tm)=(beta)Ds
Ds=v(tm)


The above LT is not in terms of Ks coordinates, and you have to be careful to state from 'who's perspective'.

dm = y(ds - v*ts) and ds = y(dm + v*tm) ,.... where y = gamma.

If you substitute to eliminate dm and ds in the above you can solve for ts,...

ts = y(tm + v*dm),... which would be the time of the event according to ts,.... of an event that occurred at tm according to Km.

At close to c, in the above, ks will determine a later time for the event than km, implying km is running slow.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2012
This is the "time-dilation" formula. BUT! One MUST LT BOTH time and space. According to the LT, Km is at a distance Dm from Ks where:
Dm=(beta)(v)(tm)=(beta)Ds
Ds=v(tm)


The above LT is not in terms of Ks coordinates, and you have to be careful to state from 'who's perspective'.
Oh, yes it is. Use the full Lorentz transformation from Km to Ks, and this is what you get! I have done it in detail above: Can you not follow simple algebra?

dm = y(ds - v*ts) and ds = y(dm v*tm) ,.... where y = gamma.
Why do you have to go to differentials? The equations of the LT are NOT based on differentials! And where does ds (whatever it is) come into the picture? NOWHERE!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2012
SUMMARY ABSTRACT:
Logic demands that simultaneous events at different positions within gravity-free space can only occur when identical perfect-clocks, even when moving relative to one another, keep instantaneous time at exactly the same rate. Since it is known that events can occur simultaneously, there must be a global time-rate in gravity-free space. Relativistic-effects, which have been interpreted to date as being caused by "time-dilation" on moving clocks, are found to be caused by the comparison of non-simultaneous times on stationary and moving clocks which can be synchronized to simultaneously show identical times. The decay-time of cosmic-ray muons is used as an example to show that the explanation found in textbooks, for the increase in such a muon's decay-time relative to earth when it approaches earth at a high speed v, has nothing to do with "time-dilation" as this concept has been introduced by Einstein 100 years ago.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
Why do you have to go to differentials? The equations of the LT are NOT based on differentials! And where does ds (whatever it is) come into the picture? NOWHERE


I'm not using differentials, i'm using YOUR variables Dm and Ds for distance, I just didn't capitalize the D's.

dm = y(ds - v*ts) and ds = y(dm + v*tm) ,.... where y = gamma,... (I took c = 1 here)

Substitute the 2nd equation into the 1st to find ts , where y = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2 = gamma

dm = y(y(dm + v*tm) - v*ts),...
dm = y^2*dm + y^2*v*tm - y*v*ts,.... divide by y^2 ,...
dm/y^2 = dm + v*tm - v*ts/y,..... now since 1/y^2 = (1-v^2/c^2),...
dm - v^2*dm/c^2 = dm + v*tm - v*ts/y,.... subtract out dm,...
- v^2*dm/c^2 = v*tm - v*ts/y,... divide out by v,...
- v*dm/c^2 = tm - ts/y,....
ts/y = tm + v*dm/c^2,... multiply both sides by y (gamma)

ts = y(tm + v*dm/c^2) ----> the time on Ks of the event (the event being the time tm on Km, say of a explosion).

ts will show a later time than tm.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2012
johanfprins got caught out yet again
..in gravity-free space.
Have you NOT learned yet !

There is NO such place as "gravity-free space", what an immature concept, you are wasting our time with childish pursuits !

Are you pretending to have a thick skull with minimal neurons ?

Gravity free space is a dream - it DOESNT exist !

And yet you CLAIM to know more about SR then I do, what a laugh !

LOL

Why cant you focus on any of the 60 or so experimental results of SR and GR and methods of 'disentangling' them, why ONLY theory ?

Physics is SO MUCH MUCH more than your banal theory - where is there ANY analysis of ANY experiment that does NOT involve the CLAIM the experiments of so many people were "subjectively altered" the data ?

You come across as a paranoid schizophrenic with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) about THEORY, where is your understanding of PRACTICE & EXPERIMENTS already DONE ?

HA

Lets see you make sense of experimental data or are you so UNABLE to do that ?
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
According to the LT, Km is at a distance Dm from Ks where: Dm=(beta)(v)(tm)=(beta)Ds Ds=v(tm)
The above LT is not in terms of Ks coordinates, and you have to be careful to state from 'who's perspective'.
Oh, yes it is. Use the full Lorentz transformation from Km to Ks, and this is what you get! I have done it in detail above: Can you not follow simple algebra?


A transformation equation means the left side represents one IRF and the right the other. You are using Km's time tm to derive Dm,... you need to use ts there instead of tm, plus take into account that Km is moving,... as was already required prior to SR to compare two events.

Ds=v(tm)


You should use ts time for Ds here, not tm!
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
Logic demands that simultaneous events at different positions within gravity-free space can only occur when identical perfect-clocks, even when moving relative to one another, keep instantaneous time at exactly the same rate. Since it is known that events can occur simultaneously, there must be a global time-rate in gravity-free space.


Logic is not what determines that, definitions is what determines that,.... and the definition of "simultaneous" implies "wrt the SAME IRF",... otherwise such a relation has no logical meaning.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
The above LT is not in terms of Ks coordinates, and you have to be careful to state from 'who's perspective'.
Oh, yes it is. Use the full Lorentz transformation from Km to Ks, and this is what you get! I have done it in detail above: Can you not follow simple algebra?


If you call event A the event when the two clocks passed and synced with ts = tm, and the event B some time later when Km reads tm,... then the Space-Time Interval between them is invariant and thus the SAME. It is therefore wrong to say ,...

Thus according to the LT the distance between the clocks when the time on Ks is ts, is larger than the distance between the clocks when Km reached the time tm. ,... [and so]...The LT time on Ks is larger since Km is now further from Ks


johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2012
ts will show a later time than tm.
So? Are you saying that the difference in ts and tm are simultaneous?

Obviously the time ts will be later than tm since by the time ts is observed within Ks, the clock within Km has moved FURTHER away from the clock in Ks: So that it also MUST show this same later time equal to ts. The times ts and tm ARE NOT SIMULTANEOUS!

This what relativity is all about: Events that are simultaneous are not observed to be simultaneous UNLESS the observer is at the position at which the event is occurring.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
,.... We are no longer speaking about spatial distance independently of temporal distance,... it is space-time distance, ds^2 = sum(g[ab]dx[ab]dx[ab]),... where g[ab] = Kronecker delta,... like the pythagorean theorem except with time as a coordinate in addition to space, and with a Lorentzian signature.

Events that are simultaneous are not observed to be simultaneous

If they are not observed to be simultaneous then it is meaningless to proclaim that they are.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2012
johanfprins, Are you pretending to have a thick skull with minimal neurons ?
No I will NEVER try and compete with you on this issue, since I will lose everytime!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2012
A transformation equation means the left side represents one IRF and the right the other. You are using Km's time tm to derive Dm,...
No I am not! Only an idiot who cannot understand grade 8 algebra will make this claim.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2012
If you call event A the event when the two clocks passed and synced with ts = tm, and the event B some time later when Km reads tm,... then the Space-Time Interval between them is invariant
This is of course Minkowski's Bullshit. It is quite hillarious that Einstein and Minkowski who HATED one another made exactly the same mistake. They both inherently assumed that if you can instanteously stop all motion in the universe, clocks at different positions will show different times. This is just not so. ALL clocks will show exactly the same time if they had all been simultaneously synchronised in the past.

Thus according to the LT the distance between the clocks when the time on Ks is ts, is larger than the distance between the clocks when Km reached the time tm. ,... [and so]...The LT time on Ks is larger since Km is now further from Ks
This is the correct physics interpretation! Unless you want to believe in Voodoo: Which you have done time-and again on this forum.

Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
Are using beta = v/c instead of gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2,..... because that would cause opposite scaling of the interval components.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2012
Are using beta = v/c instead of gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-1/2,..... because that would cause opposite scaling of the interval components.

Correct! I have used beta=(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 all along. By synchronising clocks after they have been intially synchronised when time started, you choose an artifical origin for time and you can then get negative time intervals from the LT.

All this means is that the event is moving towards the observer instead of away from the observer. This is why a twin leaving the earth moves into the future, but when he/she moves back he/she is approaching from the past. These times cancel so that both twins will have the SAME age when again meeting up!

Obviously I have ignored any acceleration effects; if they play a part: Which I doubt!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2012
Events that are simultaneous are not observed to be simultaneous

If they are not observed to be simultaneous then it is meaningless to proclaim that they are.


So Einstein also talked BS when he claimed that two events within an IRF can be simultaneous even though they can be observed from a passing IRF not to be simultaneous?
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
you choose an artifical origin for time and you can then get negative time intervals from the LT. ,...the event is moving towards the observer instead of away from the observer. This is why a twin leaving the earth moves into the future, but when he/she moves back he/she is approaching from the past. These times cancel so that both twins will have the SAME age when again meeting up!


You use +v or -v as I have done above. I think that you are "approaching from the past" in order to refute time dilation.

To any given observer A, in his IRF his motion is 100% in Time and zero in space, thus time can never be negative for him. From a different observer B, observer A's relative spatial motion in B's coordinate frame, takes away from A's time-component, thus again B's determination of A's time would not be negative.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
Events that are simultaneous are not observed to be simultaneous

If they are not observed to be simultaneous then it is meaningless to proclaim that they are.


So Einstein also talked BS when he claimed that two events within an IRF can be simultaneous even though they can be observed from a passing IRF not to be simultaneous?


No, he was stating a fact. Simultaneity is fundamentally observer dependent, and not an absolute concept.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2012
You use v or -v as I have done above. I think that you are "approaching from the past" in order to refute time dilation.


Why do not at least try and use your three braincells (and that is giving you a HUGE credit). Take three clocks at a distance Dm apart moving past a clock Ks so that the centre-clock in Km coincides with the clock is Ks and they are3 synchronised.

Assume that simultaneous events are happening at this instance in time on all three clocks. Use the LT to calulate the times and postions of the other two clocks within Km as observed from the clock in Ks. What do you get?

If you cannot do this calculation, ask a grade 8 pupil to do it for you!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2012
Events that are simultaneous are not observed to be simultaneous

If they are not observed to be simultaneous then it is meaningless to proclaim that they are.


So Einstein also talked BS when he claimed that two events within an IRF can be simultaneous even though they can be observed from a passing IRF not to be simultaneous?

No, he was stating a fact. Simultaneity is fundamentally observer dependent, and not an absolute concept.


Only when the observer is moving relative to the simultaneous events. If not, the events remain simultaneous even if the observer see them as occurring at seperate times owing to he speed of light! Jeesh, my man, are you REALLY so slow?

BTW: Einstein's explanation of non-simultaneity (his train and lightning-flashes thought-experiment) is wrong, since an observer cannot move INTO a light beam or AWAY from a light beam. The relative speed of light to ANY observer is c!!

Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
He was speaking about the timing of events as I explained then. The failure of simultaneity does not depend upon c - v or c + v being so relative to an observer.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Oct 21, 2012
Only when the observer is moving relative to the simultaneous events. If not, the events remain simultaneous even if the observer see them as occurring at seperate times owing to he speed of light


The is NO independent and absolute "the simultaneous events".

If two explosions occur at the same time ACCORDING TO observer O not moving relative to the explosions,... and two more observers, A and B at different velocities see these two events, ...it is possible given the arrangement, that A and B will not only disagree that the two explosions occured simultaneously, but may not even agree with each other over which explosion occurred first,... all three points of view equally justified and legitimate.

Yes, c is taken into account (as i've stated in this thread a few times), so observer O sees the two explosions as being simultaneous even if they occur at different distances in O's IRF.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2012
He was speaking about the timing of events as I explained then. The failure of simultaneity does not depend upon c - v or c v being so relative to an observer.

Thank God that it SEEMS that you at least understand this! Although I do not think that you have yet been competent enough to understand the full implication!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 21, 2012
The is NO independent and absolute "the simultaneous events".


There must be: If this were impossible then Einstein's argument that two simultaneous events are not observed to be simultaneous by an observer moving past is based on the false premise that two simultaneous events can occur; while "his holiness" Noumenon states that simultaneous events are not possible.

If two explosions occur at etc.... equally justified and legitimate.
So what? The fact is still that two events occurring at two separate positions CAN OCCUR simultaneously; even when there is no observer. Any person who denies this is an ape!

Yes, c is taken into account (as i've stated in this thread a few times), so observer O sees the two explosions as being simultaneous even if they occur at different distances in O's IRF.
So what are you trying to say? I have not disagreed with this. Try to THINK before posting further BS?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2012
SUMMARY of Einstein's genius and blunders when he formulated his Special Theory of Relativity:

1. All IRF's are equivalent and must give the same results when doing the same experiment within any one of them: GENIUS.

2. The speed of light relative to ANY object must always be the same constant value c: GENIUS

3. Two events that occur simultaneously at two different positions within a single IRF, cannot be observed to be simultaneous from ANY position within a passing IRF: GENIUS

4. Thought experiment of train with two lightning strikes to explain non-simultaneity: BLUNDER (it violates point 2 above)

5. Conclusion that a moving clock keeps slower time than a clock relative to which it is moving: BLUNDER

6. Conclusion that a moving rod contracts: BLUNDER