An “analytical-metaphysical” take on Special Relativity!

[Bombadil]

And I must say I am not able to interpret what you are trying to say exactly... But since you comment that it would be better to say they agree on the location of a particular point rather than length, I take it you understood how the notion of simultaneity and notion of length are connected. The moments when some part of the "moving" ship is passing some "stationary" marking poles, are taken as events, and it's the assumptions regarding how the information about those events reached different observers, that give those observers their idea of "simultaneity", and consequently the notion of length of "moving objects".

 

Consider it like this suppose that one observer wants to measure the length of a train and he knows that he can’t be on both ends of the train at the same time he also knows that by the time that he receives a signal of where the front of the train is it will have moved. As a result one option that he has is to use a clock to describe the movement of the train and mark the end of it when he thinks that the other end is at a particular location lets say a flag that he placed earlier and then measure the distance between them. In order to do this he has to find a way to predict when the front of the train is even with the flag. In order to predict the location of the front of the train he will have to know how far it moves for every oscillation of his clock.

 

We will still have to define everything that was defined before and in the same way but it is a different way of doing the same thing. And we are now in a way hiding how we define simultaneity by defining the location of the train.

 

However it is done in order to define length one will define what a clock measures at the same time and this will result in a constant speed of the oscillator. But also in order to make measurements of a moving object one has to define a method of determining where the object is when it is measured or equivalently when to make measurements. It makes little sense to mark one end of a object then mark the other end of the object at a latter reading of a clock and say the distance between the two marks is the length of the object unless this is required for the definition of simultaneity that we are using.

 

Are there other ways to defining a coordinate system? I’m going to say yes, however, if we choose to use the fundamental equation this method will drop right out in a completely consistent way. And that is what we are really after, a consistent way that everyone can define a coordinate system.

 

 

I guess you could say that.. I mean, there are many ways to look at the issue, but the fact remains that the same consequences can be modeled in many different ways, and the relativistic idea of simultaneity is kind of a case of taking the spacetime ontology way too seriously (ontologically isotropic C etc.)

 

Yah, I can see how it could be seen like that although it seems that the idea of simultaneity could also be taken without the idea of space-time and rather be taken as a question of what interactions can occur between objects if they are traveling at some defined speed. This probably is not a common way of looking at things though.

 

Now your idea of "agree on location" is what confuses me a lot, I don't know how two different inertial frames agree on the location of something; In terms of the two different inertial frames, "Eiffel Tower" of course is not found form the same coordinates. At least not all the time :)

 

Yah, I haven’t been vary clear by what I mean. basically what I am saying is that any observers no matter what reference frame they are in, can agree on what the rest of the universe represents with only changes that have no consequences on what is being explained. That is, both observers can explain the rest of the universe in the same way up to a question of scale which has no effect on what the order that the rest of the universe has and a question of velocity which can have no effect on how the universe changes over time or the order of the universe. It can only have a effect on how the universe is explained and when they say a event happened.

 

In other words there is a way that even without defining a definition of length that two observers can determine if they are talking about the same collection of elements. We just have to remember that ideas like length and speed don’t exist yet. We are simply identifying that they are the same patterns of elements, and map one pattern to another in such a way that we can say that they are the same object.

 

So when I say that two observers agree on the location that a event takes place I mean for instance that if one observer says that a light on a moving train blinked when the light was even with a flag next to the train. All observers must agree that the light blinked when the light was next to the flag. Our coordinate system has nothing to do with if the light was next to the flag only when in our coordinate system the light blinked.

 

At any rate, this is all just absolutely conventional relativity, while the focuse of this thread is in displaying the epistemological roots of those ideas being valid.

 

We are kind of straying from the original topic. Do you think we should back track and try to get back on the intended topic, just keep going like we are or do you think that we should move to the Dirac delta equation thread? Or is there something else that you think we should do?

 

Well there is the idea of "tachyons" in relativity, or another name for basically the same thing, "advanced waves" (as oppose to "retarded waves"), which arises as a QM interpretation, and it's basically like a photon traveling backwards along the same paths as ordinary photons are traveling forwards in time... ...only that in ontological sense, that whole subject is made possible by the idea of static reality (and, transactional interpretation is nothing but ontological interpretation; predictionwise it doesn't offer anything at all)

 

See:

Transactional interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

But are such things a consequence of cause happening after effect. Is it a case of taking space-time too seriously, or is it a question of how you interpret the equations? Either way I get the impression from that link that space-time is taken a little too seriously and time is considered nothing more then a axis of the equation. That is, there is no evolution parameter, it is a static model mapped in a four dimensional space.

 

I think you may also misunderstand what I mean by a signal traveling backwards in time. My understanding of the conventional view is that if a signal travels faster then light then it must arrive at the location that it was sent to before it was sent. Literally it is arriving at a earlier value of t, for instance let’s suppose that when it arrives we can then send a second signal back along the same path again faster then light, then it will arrive before the first signal is sent. My point is that this is not the case in the model that we are using. We can have waves that we say originate at a latter value of t and say that they travel backwards along t but this is all just a mathematical convenience. There is no reason or way to conclude that this is what reality is like and not just a mathematical convenience for what we are doing.

 

Further more there is no way for a signal that is only traveling faster then light to arrive at its destination at a point where less oscillations of our clock where counted then when we sent it unless it is traveling backwards along the t axis which seems to be more of an interpretation of the equations then a reality. The direction of travel along the [math]\tau[/math] axis has no effect on the equations. At least that is how I am understanding this. There is no backwards in time if a clock measures time. There is only waves traveling backwards along t which defines when elements interact and is our evolution parameter.

 

In looking at that Wikipedia page and following some of the links, I found what looks like an interesting result and link between the Schrödinger equation and Dirac equation threads. It appears to be a relatively obvious and necessary link but I’m not going to go into it in this thread as it is way off topic and will fit nicely into the Dirac equation thread.

[AnssiH]

I added two blog posts directly aimed to help understand the derivation in the OP. They are here;

 

http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.com/2014/09/some-background-on-special-relativity.html

 

and

 

http://foundationsofphysics.blogspot.com/2014/09/epistemological-derivation-of-special.html

 

I figured perhaps it is not necessary to copy the whole post here, but if anyone wants to comment on anything, feel free to do so into this thread.

[Rade]

AnssiH. Peace \/

 

Are you aware that the interesting ideas of Dr. Stafford are cited on this web page, along with many other contributions that I think will interest you concerning Euclidean Relativity?

 

http://www.euclideanrelativity.com/

[AnssiH]

AnssiH. Peace \/

 

Are you aware that the interesting ideas of Dr. Stafford are cited on this web page, along with many other contributions that I think will interest you concerning Euclidean Relativity?

 

http://www.euclideanrelativity.com/

Yeah I remember seeing that. I have not really looked at the other formulations much, but of course it should not come as a surprise that alternative formulations are possible. Lorentz' theory is one, and it predates Special Relativity. The significant aspect of DD's analysis is how relativity falls out. The fact that it's not arrived at via speculative ontology, but by defining a generally valid terminology of an explanation.

 

Also when we are just in the context of Relativity alone, that is probably not a very surprising find to some people who have thought about the definitions of Relativity little bit more deeply. It is not that hard to see that its definitions define each others into a self-consistent set, and the associated ontology is not really relevant. Having practically all the fundamentals of modern physics (SR being an important part of that) fall out as generally valid terminology is quite significant however.

[Rade]

.... It is not that hard to see that its definitions define each others into a self-consistent set, and the associated ontology is not really relevant. Having practically all the fundamentals of modern physics (SR being an important part of that) fall out as generally valid terminology is quite significant however.

But why would such a result be significant ?  Why would anyone expect the fundamental of modern physics, chemistry, biology, economics, etc. not to fall out as generally valid terminology ?  By which type of terminology would we expect such fundamentals to fall out ?  What I think is significant for this thread is the fact that other physicists cite the work of Dr. Stafford and view it as being consistent with the terminology they are using to understand modern physics.  Do you agree ?

Edited September 12, 2014 by Rade

[AnssiH]

But why would such a result be significant ?  Why would anyone expect the fundamental of modern physics, chemistry, biology, economics, etc. not to fall out as generally valid terminology ?  By which type of terminology would we expect such fundamentals to fall out ?  What I think is significant for this thread is the fact that other physicists cite the work of Dr. Stafford and view it as being consistent with the terminology they are using to understand modern physics.  Do you agree ?

I think the fact that people are doing alternative formulations is nice in that it demonstrates on its own right how unimportant some ontological interpretation of a theory is. There appears to be a wikipedia page listing some of the formulations;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity_(alternative_formulations)

 

And the plain fact is that you could create an infinite number if you did not care about simplicity at all.

 

Yet, there are so many people who argue about merely language issues, thinking they are arguing about reality, or about something that relativity supposedly proves (because they happen to interpret it that way).

 

Why the result of DD's analysis is significant is simply that it is a mathematical demonstration of virtually all of modern physics as a language feature; a language for expressing expectations of completely unknown data.

 

If you watch the language that people use today to talk about physics, the overwhelming majority is talking about the defined elements of physics as if they are real things. The whole quantum mystery is based on the assumption that the particles are real things. People are not intuitively grasping the idea of viewing all the elements of their worldview as language elements that we create in our minds to represent reality.

 

There really is no mystery why quantum mechanical objects behave in such an absurd way, once you realize they just represent a great way to predict the future. It also binds quantum mechanics and gravity under the same framework (as far as I can verify, but don't consider my judgment as being enough). Isn't that quite significant?

 

It's just not a "physical theory" in the strict meaning of those words. The situation is similar to having a room full of people arguing what God is, while someone is trying to point out that any concept of God anyone could create would always be something they created in their minds as part of their explanation of the world.

 

Like these guys for instance;

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/

 

They are talking about language concepts without realizing it. “We’re just forging ahead, and time will tell. The truth wins out in the end” means they don't even understand the topic. Like trying to figure out which one is more true, english or spanish. :shrug:

 

Try to tell a physicist they just created quantum mechanical particles (or any objects of any theory) in their mind as part of their explanation of the world. There are people who understand this perspective, calling themselves constructivsts, but they appear to be a minority.

 

That's the thing tough, any constructivist should be able to grasp exactly what the analysis is referring to, without constantly thinking about some speculative "reality".

 

-Anssi

Edited September 16, 2014 by AnssiH

[HydrogenBond]

One practical problem, that relativity points outs, is although references are relative in terms of space-time and motion, they are not relative in terms of energy balances. Rather an energy balance requires an absolute hierarchy of references and not relative references. 

 

As an example, picture two blocks, one with mass M and the other with mass 2M. We are in space, without any reference point, so we are not sure which is moving and which is stationary. Since motion is relative we can pick either for our relative reference to do calculations. 

 

Say we crash the two masses into each other. The collision rebound will be different depending on which had the velocity, since the 2M will have twice the energy and momentum as the M. If the M is moving and hits the 2M it will bounce backwards. But if the 2M is moving it will plow through M and continue in the same direction. 

 

If we assume no preferred reference, our energy balance has a 50/50 chance of being too high or too low. The relative motion of the universe, we see from the earth reference, does not allow us to do an accurate energy balance, except what our reference appears to see based on motion. Unless you can do all the collisions, we can be high or low in terms of our assumed universal energy balance. 

 

Space-time is not enough to do an energy balance, which is why Einstein also included a third or mass term. Mass is invariant and can help define the reference hierarchy. 

Edited September 20, 2014 by HydrogenBond

[Rade]

ANSSIH SAID...

 

Try to tell a physicist they just created quantum mechanical particles (or any objects of any theory) in their mind as part of their explanation of the world. There are people who understand this perspective, calling themselves constructivsts, but they appear to be a minority.  That's the thing tough, any constructivist should be able to grasp exactly what the analysis is referring to, without constantly thinking about some speculative "reality".

 

====

 

Hello.  Are you aware of this online journal that publishes peer reviewed works dealing with constructivist philosophy ?

 

http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/index.html

Edited September 26, 2014 by Rade

[Rade]

ANSSIH SAID:

 

.....Try to tell a physicist they just created quantum mechanical particles (or any objects of any theory) in their mind as part of their explanation of the world....

 

==

 

But more difficult is to convince them that they also created in their mind the world (e.g., a perceived regularity that exists designed by a label) that they seek to explain. 

[AnssiH]

Hello.  Are you aware of this online journal that publishes peer reviewed works dealing with constructivist philosophy ?

 

http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/index.html

No I wasn't aware of that, that is quite interesting. They ought to be interested of the analysis. Thanks!

[Rade]

No I wasn't aware of that, that is quite interesting. They ought to be interested of the analysis. Thanks!

Hi,

 

This abstract from the constructivist journal outlines how I integrate the ideas that DD and you discuss with my understanding of 'realism'.  I strongly suggest you consider this approach.

 

http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/3/3/153.gadenne