Jump to content

DanMP

Senior Members
  • Posts

    363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DanMP

  1. So, instead of using QM/QPh or my simple explanation (see here), I may write a postulate stating something like that: "All our instruments are made of atoms, and they compensate any apparent change in light/interaction speed, giving the same result for the speed of light in vacuum: c ". This would cover also the other Einstein postulate, because all the atoms in the same frame are affected in the same way, so they will not notice any difference within the frame. Time dilation, length contraction, etc. affect all the atoms in the frame in the same way. (Now you have the reason why - and you can understand how - "time" affects everything in a frame, not only clocks, you can see beyond mathematics). And Mordred, my postulate being in agreement with Einstein's postulates, the maths may remain the same, giving the same validity to such a theory. Do you agree? So Swansont, after 37 posts, you agree at least that it is possible to have a non-relativistic explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac?
  2. I wrote from the very beginning (and repeated many many times): I also wrote: You never agreed. You said: I replied: You never answered. Please answer. I also need an answer to this:
  3. Ok, Fizeau in one frame was not posted (yet), so please refer to Sagnac explanation in vacuum posted by imatfaal.
  4. Did you read this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93360-simple-explanation-for-time-dilation/page-1#entry903983 ? Read from here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93360-simple-explanation-for-time-dilation/page-5#entry906396
  5. First, the invariance of c is not a product of relativity. It was postulated based on experimental results. Confirmed, yes, but not the result of a relativistic (or any) calculation. Lorentz transformations (used to explain Fizeau & Sagnac) are actively based on the above mentioned postulate, because 2 frames with the same speed for light in vacuum, c, are considered (in Fizeau exp.: the lab frame and the moving water frame). So here we do have a relativistic calculation. If we consider only the lab frame, we don't really use the postulate that claim: "The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.". We use only the fact, proved experimentally, that in the lab frame the speed of light in vacuum is c, in all directions. The lab may be in a special/preferred frame. The result is the same. So, this is not a relativistic calculation. As I said, I know that the lab frame is not special, and the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference, but the explanation/calculation doesn't use/need that, so it is not a relativistic calculation. To be entirely correct we can call it non-Lorentzian, as I proposed above. By the way, how many theories based on postulates do we have? Are you happy with this kind of "solving" things?
  6. My claim is not arbitrarily. It is based on the fact that we don't know any exception (big differences for v<<c and no GR effects) and, more important, on the fact that we have an excellent non-relativistic explanation for Sagnac effect in vacuum. You really think that for n>1 everything changes and a non-relativistic (non-Lorentzian) explanation is impossible? This is a good point That's why I wrote "almost": On the other hand, the fact that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, c, in one place (the lab) is not exclusively from relativity. It may be true also for aether theories. So, a theory based only on that is not necessarily "a relativistic calculation". However, I know that the constancy of c in our real lab is due to relativity, so let's use non-Lorentzian instead of non-relativistic.
  7. I used underline and bold for you to see that basically you are saying the same as I said. Now you agree? Anybody else? Please help us here to get over it.
  8. For the car going 100km/h we do have a pretty good non-relativistic model/result. We need to get to page 3 until you admit it?
  9. Where? If you know examples, other than Fizeau exp. and Sagnac effect in materials (n>1), where, with v<<c and no GR effects, we have only a relativistic explanation for a result, please provide them. Sorry for the "shot". Your mistakes were indeed small, but I was bothered by the fact that you didn't acknowledged the second one, the one where you considered I made a humongous mistake, when in fact what I claimed was correct: all inertial frames/observers agree with the differences between H-K exp. clocks. My Fizeau/Sagnac solution includes maths and agrees with the relativistic ones. Still, I'm pretty sure that you will be not satisfied or interested ... You prefer to remain ignorant about how light really travels trough transparent materials (and many more).
  10. You never agreed with so it appears that you consider Fizeau & Sagnac entirely relativistic. If you do, please explain how imatfaal solution is entirely relativistic. If you don't, please agree with my statement above, statement that implies that we should have a (complete, better) non-relativistic explanation for Fizeau & Sagnac. This is post #19. How many more do you need to agree with that or anything from me?
  11. Do we have an explanation for them? There is a different thread about it?
  12. imatfaal posted here a non-relativistic explanation for Sagnac effect. It is incorrect (he lost an r; typical for imatfaal) and the same thing I mentioned above it 3 times, but the point is that it shows that a non-relativistic solution is possible. You insisted that Sagnac effect is relativistic. I said: You never agreed to that, so please agree or explain how imatfaal solution is entirely relativistic.
  13. swansont, you wrote some things to consider. Between them there is: 6. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it. You don't have to observe this rule?
  14. Based on what? You know how much of the Universe "became" "dark" 100 years after Einstein's relativity? Considering this, you shouldn't be so sure. We all should be humble and open minded, not over-confident in old theories ... And a new theory must agree with the old one findings. Check my edited message above to see that mine does ...
  15. I thought again about it and realized that the START photo/moment is seen also differently from your spaceship/train and the differences you mention are not only very small but also cancelled out from START to STOP, leaving the differences between the H-K clocks the same for all inertial frame/observers. Am I right? I said I want to lead you towards a simple/physical explanation for time dilation in matter, not that I will give you a complete answer. For me it's important here just to see if you are interested to pursue this idea, if you find it as interesting as the people that awarded Ryan's idea did. Only if you are, I will post my "pet theory". You have to admit that something must happen in atoms when force transmitting particles appear to move slower. The way to determine exactly what happens is by using quantum physics, not relativity, because QPh is the theory that describe the atom. Change the speed of light/interactions from c to a fraction of c, Fc, and see what happens with the energy levels in atoms. If energy levels in atoms change, than the interval for the "hyperfine transition" also changes, meaning that the frequency you measure in the atomic clock changes ... Calculate this and you will have the time dilation. Then apply it to see how this "modified" atomic clock would see the speed of light. I'm confident that you will get again c, not Fc. In my theory I used an over-simplified, almost naive, but logical approach and I obtained the fact that the speed of light in meters per second is always c, even it appears to change. Al our instruments are made of atoms, and they compensate any apparent change in light/interaction speed. This finding is in agreement with Einstein's relativity, so the maths may remain the same. Only the understanding changes (and much more than that, as you may see in my theory if you give me a pozitive feedback).
  16. Ok than, let the STOP moment be a real stop, meaning that the man in the lab stops the clocks by pushing one button, "freezing" the displays. So, between START and STOP, 3 photons, one for each light clock, flew between mirrors with the same speed c, same time (different observers will not agree about the value, but will agree that the time was the same, between the START and STOP, for all clocks/photons) but completed different number of cycles. That can be explained by longer routes/paths taken by each photon (the "saw teeth" for kinematic time dilation and spacetime warping for gravitational time dilation). And this time, all the observers agree with the differences in path between the 3 clocks. We can mimic the result of the experiment by building light clocks with different distances between mirrors and keeping all on the same table, near the first one. We can adjust the distances until we get exact the same result. Or, we can keep the distance between mirrors identical and "adjust" (it is a thought experiment) the speed of 2 photons, until we get the same result. Now, consider that one mirror of a light clock is the nucleus of an atom and the other one electron in its cloud, and that electromagnetic force is considered to be transmitted through virtual particles travelling exactly like photons (same speed/path). In my opinion the change in path observed in light-clock photons translates in similar changes in paths for force transmitting particles between different elements of the atom, and this is what cause the time dilation in atoms, not the mathematics, not the frames. In order to verify this assumption, just calculate what a change in electromagnetic interraction speed does in an atom used in a real, atomic, clock. See how energy levels change ... an how the frequency you use to measure time (in atomic clocks) changes. I wrote this in a hurry, because I'm busy and forced by the moderator to do it now or never, so I'm sure you will have a great laught, but do the maths first and that laugh. This is not my "pet theory"! Just an idea from it, similar with Ryan's rewarded idea. My theory is much more than that.
  17. Nothing changes between the "border" and the surface of the Earth. No more/less shift. Using spectroscopic measurements, as usual.
  18. Ok, let's try again with the Hafele-Keating (H-K) experiment: We have 3 atomic clocks on a table, perfectly synchronized. We take a photo with their displays (the START moment) and then fly one around the globe westwards and another eastwards. When reunited on the same table, we take another photo with their displays (the STOP moment). Now, what we see in the STOP photo? We see that the clocks are no longer synchronic. There are differences between them, in nanoseconds, exactly how relativity predicted. If the clocks remain there, on the same table, they will keep having these differences as long as they function. So, what I'm trying to say is that any observer from any frame will agree with those differences. It is impossible to disagree with the end result recorded on the photo. Do you understand/agree until here? @Mordred
  19. You think that Einstein Field Equations are a simple explanation for time dilation? Please don't close this discussion until we reach to a simple explanation. I hope you don't agree with the statement: "Everything that can be Invented has been Invented". I wrote in the beginning: This is not because I reject mathematics. It is because I have an idea on how a physical explanation should be and I want to lead you to it. That's the reason for "cherry-pick"-ing. On the other hand, I noticed the same "cherry-pick"-ing from the others. They lead me again and again towards mathematics and refuse to cooperate with me. There are a lot of questions I wrote still unanswered ... Last but not least, keep in mind that Einstein wrote his relativity more than 100 years ago. Since then we learned a lot about the Universe. To name a few: Higgs field, dark matter, dark energy. Back in his time, an intuitive relativity was not possible, but now it is. Just folow my lead and you will understand it. Another thing, English is not my first language, so it's harder for me to make myself clear. Also my computers are very old and slow ... Please have patience. I am pretty close to get where I want, so, again, please don't close this thread until we get to a simple explanation for time dilation in matter (atoms, molecules).
  20. "frequency w" for what? What 'it "turns off" and you have none'? If you talk about redshift/blueshift of incoming electromagnetic radiations, there is no problem, no difference. We will have exactly the same shift. The shift occurs at the co-moving border and it is the same as if it ocurred at the observer on Earth. Nothing is changed in between.
  21. The clocks travel in spacetime with the speed c, right? "The photon" in a light clock travel with the same speed, c, right? So, the distance traveled in space-time by the light clock is equal with the distance covered by "the photon" between mirrors in the same light clock, because there is only one time interval for that clock. In H.K. experiment, all the observers agreed with the time intervals measured by the clocks. After the clocks were reunited and the stop button pressed simultaneously, there is no way to see another end result from another frame. Agree? So, time dilation in light clocks is related to the distance travelled by the photons between mirrors.
  22. I still don't understand why it should be a shift. Nobody replied to this. If there is no total linear frame dragging, rotational frame dragging should be considered just a (tiny) deformation of the space-time while the rotating massive object is passing through it. The instrument that measured it traveled with the Earth, so it was able to measure the rotation/deformation only for a tiny moment ...
  23. You are an analogy? As far as I know you are not the Einstein Field Equations or an equation derived from them. I live in spacetime, so for me it's real enough. You think it isn't? I can move left-right, forward-backward, up-down, so at least space is real. Let the kinematic time dilation aside for now. In my theory the problem you mentioned is solved. In gravitational time dilation all observers agree. What is wrong in my considerations about gravitational time dilation above? How exactly?
  24. A very real thing, for me, is a person, a tree, a car, something I can see, touch, smell, etc.. A less real thing is a word, a distance, the measured time. They are real for us, because we defined and use them, but they are invented, not discovered. We may call them abstract things. So, in my view, the real thing in our discussion/problem is considered space-time and less real, abstract, is the time we obtained using (real) instruments called clocks. In order to obtain a simple-explanation-for-time-dilation we have to understand how the real thing, spacetime, influences clocks in different ways, so they return different values for the time interval between 2 (same for all) events (in Hafele-Keating exp., the first event is the START moment, in the same place, and the second one is the STOP moment, when all 3 clocks are back at the starting point). If we consider just gravitational time dilation and light clocks, the answer is very simple: "the real thing", spacetime, influences the clocks by being more or less curved. That means more travel time between mirrors for "the photon" in the light clock situated closer to the massive object, or (as in cars odometers analogy) longer route in spacetime for different clocks. Strange considers that this is actually the same thing, and it is: both "the photon" in each light clock and the clock as a whole travel same time, with the same speed, c, trough spacetime, so the distance covered in the curved spacetime is exactly the same. Same thing, as Strange wrote. Do you agree with the above or you know other influences?
  25. As far as I understand, analogy is only the one with car odometers. The fact that we have different routes through space-time for different clocks is something deduced from/in Einstein's relativity. Am I wrong? And the light clock, although is impossible to build, is just a simple example of a clock, used everywhere on the internet, including Wikipedia, not an analogy.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.