<i>...it is assumed that inertia (and inertial reference frames), as well as the equivalence of physical laws in inertial reference frames, will simply drop out of the definition of the cosmic medium's structure.</i> That is a fairly major assumption. Once you have defined "inertial reference frame", you're off and running with the standard relativity principles. That can be done in a couple of short sentences. You are attempting to replace that by a "cosmic medium". To define your cosmic medium will be considerably more difficult, I think.
Hi all, Overdoze, "Why would you think that? First of all, anyone moving identically to me would be able to verify what I claim. Anyone not moving identically to me would know as much, and so won't be surprised to make different measurements than I. Regardless, who says there wouldn't be a transformation that can map our disparate measurements to the same event? Maybe if we took our relative movement into account, we could arrive at a transformation of my laws into the other guy's laws." If the laws of physics are not the same for every observer, there is no a priori way to relate your own measurements to ones in another frame of reference. You don't know what the other observer measures, and as far as you are concerned, his results would be completely random, i.e. unpredictable. You cannot solve this by saying "well, why don't we both stop and discuss/compare what we measured over a pint", since a transformation between observers has to be independent of inter-observer communication Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. We're talking very abstract here: the observers remain in their frame of reference and have to relate eachothers measurements without communication inbetween. "Imagine a universe where everything is always accelerated and nothing is ever at rest. Would there be no point in doing science in such a universe, even if there was a way of measuring acceleration?" Hrm, good point. I guess we are lucky that this isn't the case Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. "Not necessarily. If someone knows my laws, they can assume my point of view and apply them, and verify my results." Ah, that is not allowed ofcourse, because then the other observer assumes your frame of reference. Repeatability has to do not only in the same frame of reference, but also in other inertial frames. By assuming the same frame of reference, you eliminate the original problem (relation between different frames of reference). "1. There exists a cosmic medium within which all observable events take place 2. Within this cosmic medium, the velocity of light is the same in all directions" These two postulates do not take the definition of an observer into account. Or, ofcourse, you assume that the cosmic medium is an absolute frame of reference, but then there is still the open question on how other observers relate to this frame of reference. I think you'll need to add at least one extra postulate. Bye! Crisp
Crisp, You forgot about "quantum entanglement" where one particle can be in two or more frames of reference at the same time. If you assume that the particles are equivalent to tiny observers, then an observer CAN be in multiple space-time coordinates at the same time. Tom
James, The answer to your first two questions is that it's basic trigonometry: The farther you move away from an object, the smaller the angle between the top and the bottom of the object, which results in the object looking smaller. I'm not sure what you are asking for in your second question.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tom
Hi all, James, "Yeah...er...what Crisp said, too!" Yeah bro! High five! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tom, "You forgot about "quantum entanglement" where one particle can be in two or more frames of reference at the same time. If you assume that the particles are equivalent to tiny observers, then an observer CAN be in multiple space-time coordinates at the same time." :bugeye: ... Perhaps I missed something about quantum entanglement, but if I recall correctly, it has nothing to do with one particle being at multiple coordinates, but rather with two particles that have symmetrical (or antisymmetrical) properties. Read more about it <a href="http://www.mtnmath.com/whatth/node54.html">here</a>. Bye! Crisp
Crisp, In quantum entanglement one particle can be effected by the fields it travels through, and the fields its sister particle is travelling through. Technically, both particles are measuring the fields in two different locations at the same time. Tom
*whistling 'Hey Jude'* I have no idea why my brain does such masochistic things to itself, but I've had this melody stuck in my head for the last half-hour or so with no respite. Aaaaaagh (naa-naa-na-na-na-naa...na-na-na-naa...hey Jude)! Anyways...I'll try and stay coherent. That's the whole idea. I'm not proposing to invalidate relativity. I'm hoping to encompass it. Naturally. But that's the paradox of science: the more fundamental it gets, the harder it is to arrive at. Ergo the historical progression through Ptolemy to Aristotle to Galileo to Kepler to Newton/Leibnitz to Einstein as opposed to the other way around. By no means am I implying my own name likely to be included in that sequence. All I'm trying to convey is my general sense of the direction things seem to be headed. I may be wrong of course, but so far I haven't seen any reason to conclude so and neither have I seen an alternative. That was the point, no? A hypothetical universe where inertial observers are not equivalent unless moving identically. True, there wouldn't be an a priori way. But there might still be a deterministic relation between your absolute direction of motion and your measurements. If so, there will be an a posteriori way of relating measurements. It would work like this: 1) I determine physical laws in my frame 2) I change my frame to match the frame of another observer 3) I determine the new physical laws 4) I change my frame to match the frame of yet another observer 5) I determine a third set of physical laws ... 2n-1) I determine n<sup>th</sup> set of physical laws n) The n sets of physical laws are sufficient for me to derive a general relationship that morphs any set of laws into any other depending on direction and velocity of movement with respect to my original frame (1). I define (1) as the "standard" frame. Now I can observe a new frame n+1, compare it to my current frame (whose relationship to frame (1) I already know) and predict its set of laws based on my model, and then based on that set of laws predict its measurements. I hope this made sense. (damnation upon all forms of music.) The postulate is that all observable events occur within this medium. This would include observers themselves. IMHO, an observer is not fundamentally different from a photon ("fundamentally" in terms of the basis for definition/existence of either.) IOW everything more complex than the medium's fundamental structure -- including degrees of freedom (aka coordinate systems), light waves, bits of matter, and observers -- are all emergent phenomena.
Tom, <i>You forgot about "quantum entanglement" where one particle can be in two or more frames of reference at the same time.</i> As I explained to you over a month ago, and several times since then, <b>any</b> object can be in as many reference frames at the same time as you want. A reference frame is not dependent on any object. It is a <b>point of view</b>. <i>If you assume that the particles are equivalent to tiny observers, then an observer CAN be in multiple space-time coordinates at the same time.</i> Yes. So?
James R, I am saying that if the same observer is percieving the same object from many different coordinates, the properties of the object that the observer percieves would average out to the absolute properties of that object. In other words, the multi-locational observer would view the universe without the "illusions" of relative frames of reference. However, if you and Crisp are correct, the object should disappear to this multi-locational observer since the object doesn't posess any absolute values. Tom
Hrmmmmm Hi all, Overdoze, "True, there wouldn't be an a priori way. But there might still be a deterministic relation between your absolute direction of motion and your measurements. If so, there will be an a posteriori way of relating measurements." Ok, I agree that you could perhaps find an a posteriori way of relating the measurements, but doesn't this put serious limitations on the predictability aspect of science ? For example, you would not be able to predict what happens in another frame of reference without first visiting it, and this - as you can imagine - can be very troublesome (e.g. for a particlebeam at 0.99c). I should add that the postulate that all laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames is indeed not as trivial as I first thought it to be, but I can't see how consistent science can be conducted without it (which seems to be what you are saying ?). "The postulate is that all observable events occur within this medium. This would include observers themselves. IMHO, an observer is not fundamentally different from a photon ("fundamentally" in terms of the basis for definition/existence of either.) IOW everything more complex than the medium's fundamental structure -- including degrees of freedom (aka coordinate systems), light waves, bits of matter, and observers -- are all emergent phenomena." Could you perhaps give an example on how these concepts emerge from that postulate ? I find it a very interesting claim, but I can't immediatelly see how one would could deduce a logical definition for an observer from one underlying medium. Do you consider the medium to be some sort of absolute frame of reference ? Tom, "In quantum entanglement one particle can be effected by the fields it travels through, and the fields its sister particle is travelling through. Technically, both particles are measuring the fields in two different locations at the same time." Yes, but we're still talking about two seperate particles here. The fact that they are entangled (which is really nothing more than a coupling between properties of the particles themselves) does not really add much to how they perceive other events, does it ? I am not really much into quantum entanglement, but if I remember correctly, the entanglement only shows up when a measurement is performed on the particle, i.e. the fact that they are travelling through fields (which you could argue to be a perception of an event of some sort) is irrelevant for the entanglement. Corrections are welcome ofcourse Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. "I am saying that if the same observer is percieving the same object from many different coordinates, the properties of the object that the observer percieves would average out to the absolute properties of that object. In other words, the multi-locational observer would view the universe without the "illusions" of relative frames of reference." Once again: how would that observer locate an event ? Relative to which of the many points he coexists at ? I think this would get extremely messy since you loose the uniqueness of distance (e.g. in Minkowskispace) etc etc... I am not saying it would not work, but I think it would require some very strange geometry that will only complicate things instead of simplifying them. "However, if you and Crisp are correct, the object should disappear to this multi-locational observer since the object doesn't posess any absolute values." Why should that happen ? Some thoughts on your multi-location observer though: it remains an observer, and at each coordinate can be considered as a "common" relativistic observer: he would still perceive length contraction and time dilatation, but because of some strange mechanism, would know of all different time dilatations and length contractions at each of his "observer points" at the same time. For example, if your observer would observe the particle from three locations, he would get three different values for the time of an event. Which one would he choose ? The average ? On what ground ? Bye! Crisp PS: I won't be near any computer for the next couple of days, it is possible that it might take a while for me to reply Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
<i>I am saying that if the same observer is percieving the same object from many different coordinates...</i> No, you're still not getting it. In this context, an observer has a spacetime coordinate system which covers the whole universe. The location of the observer in that coordinate system is totally irrelevant. The observer is assumed to have a bird's eye view of all spacetime events, relative to the coordinate system. It is not a case of "perceiving... from many different coordinates". There is only ever one coordinate system involved with one observer.
Okay, I see you guys have been very busy on the matter. It nice to see the fire burning fiercome again Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I haven't reaf the new stuff, but I will now focus on this post: """I don't want to sound preachy, but you have an idealistic view of science. That is not bad, in fact, it is the most beautiful view on science you can have. Unfortunately I cannot agree with that view""" I think what you mean (otherwise you are contradicting yourself - as you find it the most beautiful view on science) is that you don't think it is a realistic view. """This is what I meant with an "idealistic view" (and let me remind you that it is not meant in a bad way). Yes, I would also like to have a theory that explains exactly how nature works, and I would also like to be 100% sure that it indeed describes how all those wonderful things happen. Unfortunately, there is no possible way whatsoever of verifying this. The closest you could come is to perform all possible experiments imaginable, and see if your theory holds. I think - and this is even disputable - that a fundamental theory that could explain *all* experiments would indeed be "correct" (i.e. it would describe exactly how nature works). """ I think you are missing out somerthing here - I said the CLOSEST. We'll never reach, that's for sure. """"Because of this fundamental restriction, I think we cannot define science as "what matches reality" but rather "what matches reality in a close way".""" You did misread what I said, nothing to say, we agree. But I think where *you* will sit back and think, "That's close enough for me", I'll be still yapping, "I want to get closer!!!". just difference in attitude """"How would you know that the latter stands the closest and not another one?" """ (watch out, this is where RIGHT and WRONG become almost invisible - it is almost 100% philosophy) """"Your answer: "I think that the one which feels right to most people is the one which stands closest to objective reality. It would give us a mere taste of that real reality, a taste which looses almost all its strengths once it gets mixed with our world of thoughts. You see, the taste of it would appear familiar to everyone, not for a mere 50% of all people, but for 99,9%." I have some problems with the concept "objective reality". This assumes that there is some underlying structure in all matter and energy that is absolute, but is only perceived by us in the wrong way (i.e. through our own world of thoughts). The question here is if this really exists. We'll get back to that in a second."""""" Look at it in this way: Imagine 'reality' is like a spice. Our tongues are our thoughts who taste (read: interpret) it. Everyone has a tongue, they are all similar, but they don't taste the same stuff equally. Some will find it more hot than others, etc. But, all of them wil have some percentage of agreement on what kind of spice it is. There is not a 100% of disagreement. Of course, I can't prove that I'm correct on this, this is just my view on the matter. """"First, I don't think one can define reality by using "familiarity" or "feelings about it being right". This is very subjective, something we want to avoid at all costs to define the "objective reality" we are talking about."""" If you aren't familiar with reality, how would you be able to know it? The processing of recording incoming data through your sense organs IS always subjective. Science will ALWAYS have this certain percentage of subjectivism. Familiarity with reality is included in that. As for that "objective" reality. maybe the spice changes over time, but how would we know it if it goes slower than a life time? Or, we can't experience the change of it because it is changing to slow for us? By all mean, you have to see 'objective' reality in a relative way. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! """Intuition can really mislead you.""" I don't think this is the same kind of intuition. This is the most basic intuition: the intuition of believing that what you are registering is close enough to reality in order that it can be called "reality" and not an illusion. """To answer the question on whether an underlying reality exists or not... I really liked the analogy with the magician: """ I like analogies Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! """"""Tricks of a magician look also most real to the unexperienced audience [...] There are some tricks of magicians that, even though you know how they work, you'd still see the same thing happening. Only then, the difference is that you now understand that what you see, isn't actually real." """""" """"Yes, but it is an unwritten code between magicians never to reveal their tricks.""""" I guess you didn't watch VT4??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! """""Then, by logic: 1) You see it happen, i.e. it seems real. 2) There is no possible way of finding out whether what you perceive is real or not. 3) Then there are two possible choices: either it is real, or either it is not. """"" """"If it isn't real, then you know you can't trust your perceptions and senses. However, the real "reality" is hidden by your incapability to perceive it. Hence nothing rationally can be said about it, since it is not falsifiable - you can make any claim you want. This is ofcourse not the way science chooses, since it tries to be consistent. Hence from a pure scientific point of view, one is obliged to assume that what one perceives (directly or indirectly) is truelly reality."""" The real reality can be seen, not through your eyes, but in your imagination. Note: imagination not in the bad sense of the word. For example: The magician reveals how the trick works. You watch but see the same thing happening, but in your mind you are imagining what is REALLY going on. Imagine that this trick seems to be breaking the laws of physics. Would you then accept the option you choose? If somehow we could get to know how the trick works, then we would see things differently. Never understimate your thoughts, they connect everything together. If you see particles appear out of thin air and other weird stuff, you work out those String theories some more etc etc. and you are able to explain this in a consistent way with your theory (mathematically). Will you still believe that it appeared out of nowhere?? Nope, you will say that we can't experience those dimensions but that they must be there because 1) otherwise the laws of physcis would break down 2) imagine you could even predict this weird shit with your theory Science would then have to accept that what you see with your eyes is a deformation of what really happens. """If I drop a penny on the floor here, someone on the sun will only know I did that after 8 minutes (once he measured it with his equipment). There seems to be a fundamental constraint in nature that prevents us from perceiving events instantaneously (the finite transmission speed of information). This fundamental limitation leads me to think that the only reality is what one perceives, it is almost if nature wanted it to be that way.""" Your objection is not a real one. Read it again for yourself. I think it is like that because otherwise we would go crazy. We just wouldn't be able to handle so much information + we don't need it. This is not an objection against this "underlying reality" + of course, read all the things I have said above from the beginning Hope it was a worthwile reply ta ta
Re: Hrmmmmm Not true. I've already outlined a way one could predict these things. All you need to have is a deterministic relationship between frame of reference and its laws. Once you derived this transformation, you can apply it to any other hypothetical frame -- including ones you've never visited. But this is quite a digression now... Hmmm, strange. For me, the postulate itself was always the counterintuitive part. Everything that follows from it...well, it merely follows. But I'm glad you are able to glimpse some of my insanity. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Always nice to share. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for consistent science, don't get me wrong. In this universe of ours, the postulate holds (as mathematically predicted and experimentally verified.) To discard this postulate would indeed unravel science. However, this applies only to our universe. If you could for a moment picture a hypothetical alternative universe with an alternative set of behaviors, you'll see what I'm trying to say. Which is, there must be an underlying reason why the postulate holds in our universe, and it might be worthwhile to search for that reason instead of taking the postulate for granted. Yeah, this is where it gets monumentally hard. But let's see if I can construct a convincing simile. You may be familiar with Conway's "game of life". If you are not, it's a simple board game with simple rules; you can look it up on the web. The game is a classical example of a cellular automata system. In this game, take the board and its rules as the "medium". The "organisms" on the board are merely conceptual markers corresponding to a set of local properties of the medium. Now, as you let the game evolve the patterns of "organisms" change and flow across the board. These patterns are the quantum-mechanical phenomena of our material world. In Conway's game, the set of rules gives rise to certain patterns that can persist over time while remaining stationary with respect to the grid, translating along the grid, rotating, or both. This is roughly analogous to the behaviors of matter. Of course, the patterns can interact with each other -- sometimes constructively, sometimes destructively, and sometimes transforming into something totally new. Now of course, the particular rules and layout of Conway's game are hardly adequate to model the universe. For example, the rules do not contain any notion of energy conservation. But perhaps it might be possible to come up with such a "board" and such rules, that the observable universe emerges as a result. Without question, this would be incredibly hard to do. But basically my hunch is that an ultimate theory of everything would take the form of a cellular automaton. Or at least something highly evolved from this primitive concept. Major problems include: <ol> <li>How to define the "grid" for the automata (what is this grid made of; how it has N degrees of freedom; what gives rise to its rules)</li> <li>Deriving the simplest possible set of rules while taking care of all known physical phenomena</li> <li>How to make the system self-sufficient (i.e. not reliant upon postulated concepts that do not already arise from its own definition)</li> </ol> I think that (1) is a general problem for all theories dependent on systems of coordinates; we need to explain how the dimensional continuities and degrees of freedom come about. (2) is a tall order indeed, but generally is a goal of any theory. (3) is a potential showstopper. For example, any geometry relies on a minimal set of axyoms that is irreducible within confines of that geometry. Is it possible to construct a theory of "everything" that does not rely on axyoms outside the theory? If not, we could never in principle have a theory of everything. But then again if that were so, existence in itself would be a paradox. Well, I imagine you're now more confused than before. Sorry, I'm trying my best. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Take an object passing you at 0.9c. Now you observe that particle, you measure its mass. You then catch up with it and measure its mass. The two answers disagree. You try as many different method of measurring mass as you can and get the same answers. Q1) Which interpretation do you want ? A) The mass is really the mass you measured when you caught up with it, and had the illusion of more mass when you started out. B) The mass is really different for different observers. The maths is equivalent which ever way you answer. This question can be posited for many relativistic effects. Can we devise an experiment to tell the difference ? If the detectable effects are the same, then the maths (which we may not yet have correct) is the same for both, and the answer is no. Questions like the one above (Q1) where the answer has no detectable effect are by defintion not answerable by science. However taking the other view might lead to better insight into the list of things yet to be investigated. One answer may make the maths easier to formulate and understand. We can do the maths for orbits assuming the earth is stationary - we just add correcting terms for the earths motion,mass etc. It makes the equations ugly, but equvalent to the ones we have. We tend to express the formula in the simplest form, and this tends to set an interpretation. Because the maths is simpler in this form, we say "the earth orbit's around the sun obeying such and such rules". But we can not say if that interpretation is correct only that the rules describing it's motion are so far as we can tell correct. Science is predicated on the idea of formulating testable rules etc to enable us to give the answer to questions of "What if this is done and what happens next when this occurs ? and I want to do this can it be done and what do I need to do to make it happen ?" Fortunately Nature seems to have given us a helping hand and the rules seem to be able to be formulated in a way that allows them to be the same in every location and time. But we have no way of knowing if this is just an illusion, but until it is detectable as not true we will continue to go on AS IF it is true. The "common sense" earth bound experience would suggest the interpretation that the real mass does not change. However the interpretation that the mass is different, for the different observers is the simplest mathematical formulation and the interpretation adopted by physicists. The same for the apparent constancy of the speed of light, length contraction, time dilation and the other effects of S/R and G/R. For example the maths is simpler if you say time has slowed for the accelerated object. The illusion is for the observer on the moving object who has the illusion (unless they look carefully at the rest of the world) that their time has not slowed down. The Majority rules! <VBG>
don't know for the rest, but yes, you confused me a lot with your post Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Just found a neat page on Conway's "game of life": http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html Maybe now it would be a little clearer what I meant.
