vanholten Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 Hello, I have a question regarding uniform motion and Special Relativity. How can the first postulate of Special Relativity hold on to inertial frames of references when these three statements have to be accounted for: 1- “In an inertial frame of reference an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.” Newtons first law. 2 - “The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.” First postulate of Special Relativity. 3- “When the theory matches the facts radiation transfers inertial mass between emitting and absorbing objects” A. Einstein. Quote from „Does the inertia from a body depend on its energy contents? (E=mc²)” A.Einstein Analen der Physik 17. p.891.1905 In other words: Putting these elements together implies that when radiation transfers inertial mass between emitting and absorbing objects, there should be acting a force on these objects also in case mutual observation through light is involved. It appears to me the combination results in a theoretical contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 14 minutes ago, vanholten said: 3- “When the theory matches the facts radiation transfers inertial mass between emitting and absorbing objects” A. Einstein. Took me a while to find that quote because in this translation, this sentence is slightly different: "If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies." https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf But that doesn't make a material difference. You haven't said why you think that there should be a force or why you think there is a contradiction. Are you thinking of the momentum of the radiation or conservation of momentum or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 39 minutes ago, vanholten said: Hello, I have a question regarding uniform motion and Special Relativity. How can the first postulate of Special Relativity hold on to inertial frames of references when these three statements have to be accounted for: 1- “In an inertial frame of reference an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.” Newtons first law. 2 - “The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.” First postulate of Special Relativity. 3- “When the theory matches the facts radiation transfers inertial mass between emitting and absorbing objects” A. Einstein. Quote from „Does the inertia from a body depend on its energy contents? (E=mc²)” A.Einstein Analen der Physik 17. p.891.1905 In other words: Putting these elements together implies that when radiation transfers inertial mass between emitting and absorbing objects, there should be acting a force on these objects also in case mutual observation through light is involved. It appears to me the combination results in a theoretical contradiction. Emission and absorption of radiation does cause a force. The momentum of the emitting and absorbing bodies will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 27, 2018 Author Share Posted October 27, 2018 3 hours ago, Strange said: Took me a while to find that quote because in this translation, this sentence is slightly different: "If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies." https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf But that doesn't make a material difference. You haven't said why you think that there should be a force or why you think there is a contradiction. Are you thinking of the momentum of the radiation or conservation of momentum or something else? Thanks for the right translation. It was kind of do it myself, from German into Dutch to English. Wasn't sure about " when" or "if", so I guessed wrong. I appreciate the link. Do you agree with swansont on this? Thanks swansont. 3 hours ago, swansont said: Emission and absorption of radiation does cause a force. The momentum of the emitting and absorbing bodies will change. When you have an observer of a certain light source in inertial relative motion, the change of momentum due to the light making the observation possible, should boost the velocity. I expect the inevitable change of momentum to result in acceleration. However, the first postulate only accounts for internal frames of reference. The contradiction I think of is that an accelerated frame of reference is not an inertial frame of reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 27, 2018 Share Posted October 27, 2018 3 hours ago, vanholten said: When you have an observer of a certain light source in inertial relative motion, the change of momentum due to the light making the observation possible, should boost the velocity. I expect the inevitable change of momentum to result in acceleration. However, the first postulate only accounts for internal frames of reference. The contradiction I think of is that an accelerated frame of reference is not an inertial frame of reference. You can observe the motion from an inertial frame, rather than the target's. The lab frame, for example. You shine a laser near resonance on some atoms, and will observe that the atoms accelerate as they absorb and emit the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, swansont said: You can observe the motion from an inertial frame, rather than the target's. The lab frame, for example. You shine a laser near resonance on some atoms, and will observe that the atoms accelerate as they absorb and emit the light. I am thinking of the theoretical implications. The first postulate only mentions inertial frames of reference. While the second postulate is about the observation concerning the propagation velocity of light in vacuum that inevitably results in forces. The relativistic formulas have no parameter to account for this. In general when the postulates of a theory contradict each other, the theory is not valid. For those reasons I think Special Relativity is no valid theory. Edited October 28, 2018 by vanholten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 6 minutes ago, vanholten said: In general when the postulates of a theory contradict each other, the theory is not valid. I don’t see how they contradict one another. That first postulate is for the case where there are no forces - Newton’s other laws explain how to account for the effects of forces. So if you want to take the forces into account you need to do the appropriate calculations. 9 minutes ago, vanholten said: For those reasons I think Special Relativity is no valid theory. And yet it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Strange said: I don’t see how they contradict one another. That first postulate is for the case where there are no forces - Newton’s other laws explain how to account for the effects of forces. So if you want to take the forces into account you need to do the appropriate calculations. And yet it works. It works only to a certain point. It's possible to derive the relativistic formulas without respecting the first postulate; to show it actually doesn't work. Edited October 28, 2018 by vanholten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 56 minutes ago, vanholten said: It works only to a certain point. It's possible to derive the relativistic formulas without respecting the first postulate; to show it actually doesn't work. Your first “postulate” is not a postulate of relativity (apart from the fact that the “real” first postulate says it applies to all inertial frames of reference). And, obviously, if you derive something that contradicts Newton’s laws, then you will get a result that doesn’t work in the real world. However, SR does work in the real world. So what is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Hanke Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 56 minutes ago, vanholten said: It works only to a certain point. It's possible to derive the relativistic formulas without respecting the first postulate; to show it actually doesn't work. SR is far more general than just a relationship between inertial frames; it describes how events are related in regions of spacetime where gravity can be neglected. As such, it applies to any type of reference frame, not just inertial ones - it’s just that the relationship between inertial frames takes on a particularly simple form (Lorentz transformations), since the world lines of such local frames represent the longest possible separation between given events. Of course it also works with accelerated frames, but naturally the relationship between such frames has a more complicated form than a simple Lorentz transformation (i.e. such frames are in general not symmetric). To “derive” SR, all you need to know is that the metric of spacetime is diag{-,+,+,+} or diag{+,-,-,-}. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 2 hours ago, vanholten said: I am thinking of the theoretical implications. The first postulate only mentions inertial frames of reference. While the second postulate is about the observation concerning the propagation velocity of light in vacuum that inevitably results in forces. The relativistic formulas have no parameter to account for this. In general when the postulates of a theory contradict each other, the theory is not valid. For those reasons I think Special Relativity is no valid theory. No, you are misinterpreting this. The inertial frame requirement is for the observer only. The same thing is true of Newton's laws: the first law says that they apply in inertial frames, and yet F=ma still works, because the first law refers to the observer, not the object or system being observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 46 minutes ago, swansont said: No, you are misinterpreting this. The inertial frame requirement is for the observer only. The same thing is true of Newton's laws: the first law says that they apply in inertial frames, and yet F=ma still works, because the first law refers to the observer, not the object or system being observed. Why is that? The observer is subjected to a force resulting from observation, because he needs to receive light to make his observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, vanholten said: The observer is subjected to a force resulting from observation, because he needs to receive light to make his observation. If you want to, you can take this into account in your calculations but in most case it is not significant. It is important for people to be aware of this though: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics) note that this implicit in the first postulate of SR. Edited October 28, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Strange said: Your first “postulate” is not a postulate of relativity (apart from the fact that the “real” first postulate says it applies to all inertial frames of reference). And, obviously, if you derive something that contradicts Newton’s laws, then you will get a result that doesn’t work in the real world. However, SR does work in the real world. So what is your point? This is not my postulate , I copied it from Wikipedia. Why should you want to derive something that contradicts Newtons laws? I think we need a theory that explains the mechanism that causes the calculations to work in reality. To free our minds first we have to be aware that that SR is no valid theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, vanholten said: Why should you want to derive something that contradicts Newtons laws? I have no idea. It would be crazy. So why would you want to derive relativity "without respecting the first postulate"? 6 minutes ago, vanholten said: I think we need a theory that explains the mechanism that causes the calculations to work in reality. The calculations are the theory. 6 minutes ago, vanholten said: To free our minds first we have to be aware that that SR is no valid theory. To support that claim, you would need some evidence. Do you have any? (No, you don't.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Strange said: I have no idea. It would be crazy. So why would you want to derive relativity "without respecting the first postulate"? The calculations are the theory. To support that claim, you would need some evidence. Do you have any? (No, you don't.) Calculations are not the same as theory. And yes I do have some evidence. Edited October 28, 2018 by vanholten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, vanholten said: Calculations are not the same as theory. I meant to say, the equations are the theory. The calculations are the application of the theory. 14 minutes ago, vanholten said: And yes I do have some evidence. Good. Now is the time to present it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said: SR is far more general than just a relationship between inertial frames; it describes how events are related in regions of spacetime where gravity can be neglected. As such, it applies to any type of reference frame, not just inertial ones - it’s just that the relationship between inertial frames takes on a particularly simple form (Lorentz transformations), since the world lines of such local frames represent the longest possible separation between given events. Of course it also works with accelerated frames, but naturally the relationship between such frames has a more complicated form than a simple Lorentz transformation (i.e. such frames are in general not symmetric). To “derive” SR, all you need to know is that the metric of spacetime is diag{-,+,+,+} or diag{+,-,-,-}. I found a simple example of the Lorentz-transformation working in accelerated events. You can derive the lorentz-transformation from this diagram consisting of two intersecting circles. Next you can derive (γ-1); the addition for kinetic energy. The diagram gives you insight in the geometrical proportions of γ-1 and why it leads, or better why it shouldn't lead to infinity. Both circles will maintain a mutual point of rest, and require a minimum overlap to make sense. 54 minutes ago, Strange said: I meant to say, the equations are the theory. The calculations are the application of the theory. Good. Now is the time to present it. I meant to also reply you, by inserting the image above. Edited October 28, 2018 by vanholten bit smaller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 59 minutes ago, vanholten said: You can derive the lorentz-transformation from this diagram consisting of two intersecting circles. Why don't you then. But before you do that: What is the meaning of these two circles? What is 'a'? What is 'f'? What is 'v'? What is 'c'? You appear to have labelled two different length lines as 'c' - why is that? what is the relation between a, f, c, v and the Lorentz transform? 59 minutes ago, vanholten said: I meant to also reply you, by inserting the image above. No evidence that SR is wrong then? Not surprising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Strange said: Why don't you then. But before you do that: What is the meaning of these two circles? What is 'a'? What is 'f'? What is 'v'? What is 'c'? You appear to have labelled two different length lines as 'c' - why is that? what is the relation between a, f, c, v and the Lorentz transform? No evidence that SR is wrong then? Not surprising. It pictures geometrical relations based on the constant c. v is velocity. Sorry about that unclear c, it expands to the dashed line. The lorentz-transformation γ= c/f The kinetic energy supplement is (γ-1)= a/f I did not write the calculations of SR are wrong. I said a theory should explain the mechanism resulting in SR calculations. This diagram results from a theory concerning the universe. It will eventually show that the calculations regarding e=mc²( γ-1 ) should not result in (∞ -1). You might be surprised what else is to derive from this simple and fully natural relationship. Edited October 28, 2018 by vanholten -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, vanholten said: It pictures geometrical relations based on the constant c. It is not clear how. You might need to explain it. Do you mean constant c or invariant c? 9 minutes ago, vanholten said: The lorentz-transformation γ= c/f What is f? Quote The kinetic energy supplement is (γ-1)= a/f What is a? 9 minutes ago, vanholten said: I did not write the calculations of SR are wrong. Then what is your point? You started off claiming that SR is wrong. 9 minutes ago, vanholten said: I said a theory should explain the mechanism resulting in SR calculations. That is what SR does. But what do you mean by "mechanism"? What is the mechanism you are providing? 9 minutes ago, vanholten said: This diagram is results from a theory. What is this theory? Why are you unable to explain anything? (-1 for being unnecessarily cryptic and difficult.) Edited October 28, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strange said: It is not clear how. You might need to explain it. Do you mean constant c or invariant c? What is f? What is a? Then what is your point? You started off claiming that SR is wrong. That is what SR does. But what do you mean by "mechanism"? What is the mechanism you are providing? What is this theory? Why are you unable to explain anything? (-1 for being unnecessarily cryptic and difficult.) Edited October 28, 2018 by vanholten useless attempt -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 6 minutes ago, vanholten said: c= Propagation velocity of light. Yes, you have already said that. 6 minutes ago, vanholten said: The circles are placed proportional to v. Place how? What is proportional to v? 7 minutes ago, vanholten said: f represents acceleration factor, resulting from v. What is "acceleration factor"? And how does it result from v? What is "a"? 10 minutes ago, vanholten said: Again, I did not start claiming SR is wrong, I started claiming the theory is invalid. What is the difference between "wrong" and "invalid"? It gets the right results and so it is a valid and correct theory. 10 minutes ago, vanholten said: The mechanism is energy. Once again, that explains nothing. How can energy be a "mechanism"? What roles does energy play in your theory? 11 minutes ago, vanholten said: Consider the energy c² to match the rhombus when it shapes a square, when v= 1/2√2 c2 is not energy. What rhombus? 12 minutes ago, vanholten said: The diagram reveals the geometrical proportions as used in the formulas of SR. How? -1 for being totally obtuse and refusing to explain anything. (We already have geometrical representations of Lorentz transformations. Because it is a geometrical theory. Geometry is the "mechanism" if you like.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanholten Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 6 minutes ago, Strange said: Yes, you have already said that. Place how? What is proportional to v? What is "acceleration factor"? And how does it result from v? What is "a"? What is the difference between "wrong" and "invalid"? It gets the right results and so it is a valid and correct theory. Once again, that explains nothing. How can energy be a "mechanism"? What roles does energy play in your theory? c2 is not energy. What rhombus? How? -1 for being totally obtuse and refusing to explain anything. (We already have geometrical representations of Lorentz transformations. Because it is a geometrical theory. Geometry is the "mechanism" if you like.) If you decided you don't want to understand it, what's the use of me trying. My posts were a serious attempt to introduce you to another point of view. However you are degrading them even before you worked out the difference between a theory and equations. After that becomes clear you might want to begin researching why energy might be a mechanism of nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, vanholten said: If you decided you don't want to understand it, You can’t blame me when you still haven’t explained what “a” is, what “acceleration factor” is, or what the circles represent. You claim to have an alternative theory but refuse to say what it is. You said you have evidence but won’t say what it is. It is your “secrecy” that is the problem. I am not a mind reader so you need to explain what is in your head. 7 minutes ago, vanholten said: you worked out the difference between a theory and equations. I asked you that. You have refused to explain. 7 minutes ago, vanholten said: why energy might be a mechanism of nature. This is your claim so it is up to you to explain it. Edited October 28, 2018 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts