Jump to content
Science Forums

The deep conflict between Theory of Relativity and Planck Constant


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

Merely that 2*pi is the conversion factor between polar and Cartesian coordinate systems.

Ah, I see.

 

3 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

I came across the following paper, Assessment of the relativistic rotational transformations, that you might be interested in with regards to data mapping and rotations.

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217732321501133

Thanks! Yeah there seems to be some interesting thoughts in there, with the caveat that you have to also ignore some quite silly assertions...

I mean the very premise of this article is obviously problematic:

"...the point of this study: to determine the kinematic rT that accurately describes the relativistic effects that are observed in rotating frames."

Obviously there's no such thing as kinematic rT (rotational transformation) that describes observed effects, because actual observed effects are subject to also all sorts of dynamic effects.

This really is a "if your horse is a perfect sphere in a vacuum then the correct expectation is..."-type of a deal now.

Obviously kinematic solutions are merely theoretical - experimental verifications always require that you try and apply mathematical corrections against whatever dynamical effects you expect to have - meaning those corrections are purely dependent on your theoretical model of those dynamical effects, so the arguments tend to become circular.

That is why it really bothers me when people just blatantly equate expectations for observers attached to the circumference of a spinning disk, and expectations on observers on orbit of a planet. These are clearly two completely different circumstances - on one the observer is experiencing constant acceleration, and on the other they are not. It's amazing how often people just choose to equate these two cases (including in many junctions of that paper).

Also on the same token they actually seriously discuss the idea of a time gap somewhere along the circumference of a symmetrical disk. What they should just say is "this is obviously paradoxical (asymmetry in symmetrical circumstance), and inconsistent with lab frame expectations, and thus implies there were invalid assumptions involved to get to this point".

So this really is related directly to the solution to Ehrenfest paradox that we discussed here:
https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36985-the-actual-solution-to-the-ehrenfest-paradox-relativistic-spinning-disk/

The complication for any actually realistic (dynamical) analysis is that "in reality" there are no such things as "spinning disks", other than a name we give to some collection of microscopic objects. The collection of those objects does not constitute a naive-realistic object that has "real properties" to itself. It's just collection of microscopic elements that are "communicating" with finite information speed. When the neighboring elements accelerate away, there cannot be instantaneous reaction between them, thus bonding between elements must become stressed (+the communication speed between elements will follow a curved paths, and will become slower).

(On this token, I also do not understand why that effect is always completely ignored when discussing inertia. Another topic, but see https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36920-mechanism-for-inertiamass/)

In that paper they are discussing methods that make things just completely unnecessarily complex, because they don't realize that they can perfectly well analyze the situation in the non-rotating lab frame. The expectations that that analysis gives are going to be consistent with any [i]valid[/i] rotating frame transformation, by the very definition of "consistent". If you get inconsistent results, your transformation is invalid, by definition. Experimental verification never enters that picture - it's just purely an exercise in logic.

This would also allow them to notice they are using a somewhat inconsistent definition of "two-way measurement of light", since their detection site is not in an inertial frame. What they mean by two-way in this paper is two directions along the rotating disk, ending up to a detection site that is also rotating along with the disk. Quite a different topic than linear frame two-way detection. It is rather obvious that one direction of their experiment is going to always be of shorter length, no matter how much you'd like to apply a rotational frame in there to hide this fact.

Of course the common problem of a simple lab-frame analysis is that almost everyone makes the mistake of equating linear transformation to the circumference of the disk (as being discussed in that other thread). But if you want to find results consistent with real experiments, the best bet is to model the behavior of those microscopic elements (including their bonding), when communicating with C in the lab frame, and never confuse "rotational motion" with "linear motion".

-Anssi
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2021 at 8:47 PM, AnssiH said:

The success of Quantum Field Theory already suggests that it's perfectly valid to model matter as merely excitations of space. This implies it is equally valid to model space as excitations of matter - think of matter as a harmonic wave center, and space as simply the extended "veil" of that "wave center", where the veils of all matter combine into single  coherent structure. You can think of this veil as the means for the harmonic wave centers to communicate (which they constantly do - we call it thermal radiation)

Thus we'd have a model where the existence of matter defines the rest frame for space (locally). This model gives you - potentially - a trivial explanation to otherwise strange phenomenon like frame dragging and anomalous galaxy curves (the matter of the galaxy yields a partially rotating rest frame for the space that is local to itself, thus requiring larger orbit speeds to the outer stars). But also it gives you the potential to combine quantum theory and gravity.

Just one thing I've been meaning to comment here but keep forgetting. From the perspective of above thought, it's quite interesting that Fizeau experiment has been long known to indicate that the motion of transparent medium does introduce an element of drag to C. This experiment has been historically difficult to explain because people insist on a view where "matter" and "space" are two completely decoupled entities.

But if you view them as coupled to the same "entity", now you have a quite intuitive expectation that the very close proximity of the "elements" that make up the water could apply some magnitude of local drag to the light passing and bouncing through (as waves - remember it's not being absorbed as per our model of transparency), while the total contribution from the rest of the universe would still mostly dominate the results.

Historically people expected total drag effect (simple velocity addition), which could only occur if water was actually naive-realistic liquid (which of course it is not, it's a collection of discrete elements).

-Anssi

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AnssiH said:

So this really is related directly to the solution to Ehrenfest paradox that we discussed here:

https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36985-the-actual-solution-to-the-ehrenfest-paradox-relativistic-spinning-disk/

The complication for any actually realistic (dynamical) analysis is that "in reality" there are no such things as "spinning disks", other than a name we give to some collection of microscopic objects. The collection of those objects does not constitute a naive-realistic object that has "real properties" to itself. It's just collection of microscopic elements that are "communicating" with finite information speed. When the neighboring elements accelerate away, there cannot be instantaneous reaction between them, thus bonding between elements must become stressed (+the communication speed between elements will follow a curved paths, and will become slower).

My post in that thread referred to a solution to Gron's Figure 9 part c exercise, the optical appearance of photons emitted from a rotating ring, that does accurately describe the relative effects observed in the rotating frame, the axle frame being the center of gravity and the observer being in the same plane as the axle/ring.
https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36985-the-actual-solution-to-the-ehrenfest-paradox-relativistic-spinning-disk/?tab=comments#comment-386650

Quote

Basically the solution uses the length contracted position of any spoke, wrt the axle and therefore the road, to determine the emission time from when the axle can travel at the consistent velocity to be above the camera location in the same time that a photon will travel, in a straight line at c, from the emission point to the camera.

I think the main benefit of this type of analysis is that there is no possibility that the emitted photons will travel at anything but c from their emission point to the camera as it is the plotted points on the plane that are absolute due to the relationship between the wheel/axle/road.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

My post in that thread referred to a solution to Gron's Figure 9 part c exercise, the optical appearance of photons emitted from a rotating ring, that does accurately describe the relative effects observed in the rotating frame, the axle frame being the center of gravity and the observer being in the same plane as the axle/ring.
https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36985-the-actual-solution-to-the-ehrenfest-paradox-relativistic-spinning-disk/?tab=comments#comment-386650

I think the main benefit of this type of analysis is that there is no possibility that the emitted photons will travel at anything but c from their emission point to the camera as it is the plotted points on the plane that are absolute due to the relationship between the wheel/axle/road.

Yeah indeed. Just to be accurate, what he presents is the optical appearance of a rolling wheel in kinematic case (excluding all dynamical effects), i.e. what it optically looks like when it rolls past and we are still on an embankment (flat against the ground - the distance to the top of the wheel is greater than the distance to the bottom, hence asymmetric distortion)

What is very curious here is that he assumes - correctly but without explicitly saying it - that the circumference of a rotating wheel (when axle is at rest) is not impacted by length contraction. Observe; his image B is the correct (kinematic) solution for Lorentz contracted rolling wheel. but to get to that shape it first requires that A is correct shape not only for the co-rotating reference frame, but also for the frame where the axle is at rest but the wheel is rotating. If this was not the case, the height would have to be shrunk in case B (and it can't be because of all the paradoxical consequences discussed in that other thread)

Basically I find his rolling wheel analysis to be absolutely correct, but the curious part is that nowhere in his historical appraisal there's any mention of anyone who'd correctly point out that the actual logic behind Lorentz transformation does not imply length contraction on infinitesimal rotating segments. Yet, that is the implicit requirement in his rolling wheel analysis, probably without him realizing it (at least he never makes a comment about it).

I actually tried to drop him a message but the e-mail in the paper seems to be dead.

-Anssi

Edited by AnssiH
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, AnssiH said:

I actually tried to drop him a message but the e-mail in the paper seems to be dead.

I suppose Gron utilizes simplification to remove some of the inherent issues arising from the (over) analysis of the problem. 😉

While there is no z axis in the model, to avoid Born rigidity issues, removing the y axis, to verify the consistent velocity of the wheel between emission events, does not result in any inconsistencies with the model as a whole.

The following link has contact details although you must create a free membership at ResearchGate. It appears that he is still active.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oyvind-Gron-2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time is very quantifiable. It is not "the fourth dimension", it is not "but a stubborn illusion". It's dictionary definition should be as follows:

The given rate of change in a physical system.

On multi-galactic scales, dark energy concentrations are strong enough to allow superluminal time. In a Dyson swarm, dark energy concentrations can be strong enough to allow superluminal processing power.

My model has so many operations because the number values it yields are similar to graham 64 in nature, that is 3 raised to the power of 27, 3^27 times, 64 times over again simply written as 3}...[64]3}}3...}3

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...