# Negative Special Relativity

## Recommended Posts

I would like to present an interesting angle to ponder. The mathematics of special relativity does not make provisions for negative special relativity, since velocity squared is the same for both negative and positive velocity. However, consider this scenario. We are on a spaceship traveling a fraction of the speed of light to another galaxy. The special relativity affect is measureable but somewhat small. Because it is going to be a long trip that may take several generations, we decide to normalize our reference as the zero reference. The thinking is this is an easier way to collect data and when we return to the earth we can just translate it using the math.

In essense, the earth reference will be defined via negative special relativity with respect to the zeroed spaceship reference. If we look at the earth, it is not stationary. We rotate on our axis, we revolve around the sun, the sun moves within the galaxy and our galaxy is part of a universe expansion that is probably red shifted with respect to some absolute zero point in the universe (if such a point could be found). The implication is that we are not on the most fundamental zero reference. As such, we should be able to experience negative relativity phenomena on the earth associated with things that occur within a zero universe reference.

What negative special relativity would imply is something that does not appear to last very long in our reference. It will be very small with respect to its measured size and its mass would be very small. If it moved into our finite earth reference, it would now last longer, appear larger and appear to gain mass. It is sort would look like something insignificant becoming something more substantial.

##### Share on other sites

but this has never been observed so why should there be a theory about it. there is NO absolute reference frame in the universe this is why it is called relativity. you just spouted a load of mince there.

##### Share on other sites

In essense, the earth reference will be defined via negative special relativity with respect to the zeroed spaceship reference
No it will not, or maybe it will, I really don't have a clue what you mean by "negative SR". You will see it moving away from you, it's time will seem to go slower and light will be red shifted etc. what's negative about that?

If the Earth is moving away from you it might be moving at 10mph, if it were moving towards you at 5mph then you could say it is moving away from you -5mph, but then you square it so the negative sign is removed.

The implication is that we are not on the most fundamental zero reference
If that sentence means "there is no absolute frame of reference" then I agree. There is no "absolute zero reference" - it cannot be found, it does not exist.

I think what you are referring to as a "zero reference" is in fact called a frame of reference.

##### Share on other sites

The speculations forum exists for a reason...

##### Share on other sites

No it will not' date=' or maybe it will, I really don't have a clue what you mean by "negative SR". You will see it moving away from you, it's time will seem to go slower and light will be red shifted etc. what's negative about that?

If the Earth is moving away from you it might be moving at 10mph, if it were moving towards you at 5mph then you could say it is moving away from you -5mph, but then you square it so the negative sign is removed.

If that sentence means "there is no absolute frame of reference" then I agree. There is no "absolute zero reference" - it cannot be found, it does not exist.

I think what you are referring to as a "zero reference" is in fact called a frame of reference.[/quote']

I too am confused by the term "negative SR".

In "sunspot's" proposition, the velocity observed is between two spacial co-ordinates (albeit moving relative to one another), not frames of reference, which are a fundamental requirement of the calculations of Special relativity.

If a lamp was moving towards you it's light would be blue shifted, wouldn't it?

##### Share on other sites

If a lamp was moving towards you it's light would be blue shifted, wouldn't it?
That is correct.
##### Share on other sites

I too am confused by ... sunspot's proposition

There seems to be a lot of that going around.

I will echo Klaynos's call, which I have voiced before. If you think you have an alternative to established science, especially if you have no evidence to present, put it in "speculations."

##### Share on other sites

Yay another sunspot post. Oh, it doesn't make sense? I'm shocked.

##### Share on other sites

Let me explain this better. We assume that the earth is the zero reference and we measure the red shift of the universe relative to this reference. But only the religious people believe that the earth is at the center of the universe, i.e., absolute zero reference, with the rest of the universe working around us. As a scientist, I believe that the Milky Way is also in motion. This means that our zero reference is not zero at all, but has relativistic velocity away from the true zero reference of the universe. In other words, we are actually on a relativity express to some degree but are calling it zero for convenience. We appear to be time dilated, distance contracted and mass increased relative to an absolute zero reference that has no universal motion. What that means is that there is a reference below our moving reference.

What I called negative special relativity is an artifact of us calling our moving Miky Way reference the zero stationary reference. This reference would have to be adjusted downward in sort of a negave way to express the real absolute zero reference. If we called the absolute zero reference zero, there is no negative special relativity because everything starts at the proper reference.

Along the lines of us moving and not being at a true zero reference, maybe there are phenomena from the zero reference that we come upon in accelerator experiments that are anomolies only because they are in a downward reference from us.

##### Share on other sites

you haven't really grasped the meaning of relativity have you? ther is NO absolute stationary reference of the universe. and from our point of view the galaxy is stationary. however if you are looking from say the andromeda galaxy the andromeda galaxy is stationary and the milkyway is moving. anyway whats wrong with having a moving reference. its perfectly valid. also from our point of view we are at the center of the universe. most galaxies are redshifted(the andromeda is actually blue shifted and will impact in a few hundred billion years.) this would also be true where ever you are in the universe. no matter where you were it would appear that you were at the centre.

##### Share on other sites

The mathematics of special relativity does not make provisions for negative special relativity, since velocity squared is the same for both negative and positive velocity.

That´s pretty nonsaying since

a) "negative special relativity" is a term you made up. Therefore SR does of course not account for it.

b) Any real number squared is positive. Following your example I could claim that stairs can he only taken upwards since the difference in height squared is always positive.

But for what I think your problem is: Velocity does NOT appear squared IN ALL equations used in relativity. Especially not in all entries of the Lorentz Transformations which are the rules for transforming between different coordinate systems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformations

EDIT: @[Thyco?]: Please refrain from posting if you have nothing to say which constructively adds to the thread.

##### Share on other sites

I agree with what you are saying but I may not be fully explaining what I am saying. If I was on a spaceship traveling near C, I would age slower than someone left behind on the earth, because of my time dilation. If I could somehow watch a newborn on earth from conception to birth, from my spaceship, instead of taking nine months in my reference, it would only appear to take say one hour in my reference (just to use a number). If I was unknowingly watching the earth reference, but thought I was seeing this same event from my spaceship reference, I would be amazed how fast this baby developed. It would appear to defy all explanation using the exisiting laws of chemistry and physics. Ignorance of knowing which reference is being observed could appear to create anomolies.

What I was saying before, because our earth reference is not stationary, we may be seeing zero reference phenomena, here and there, but are assuming they are part of our moving reference. The result would be very fast events that appear to be anomalous. If we explained them as though they were actually occurring in our reference (which they were not) we would probably come up with imaginary explanations. I made up the term negative special relativity as the needed adjustment to normalize zero reference phenomena to our moving reference. In other words, if we give the baby anomoly this special relativity adjustment it would not longer appear to defy the known laws of chemisty and physics.

##### Share on other sites

I agree with what you are saying but I may not be fully explaining what I am saying. If I was on a spaceship traveling near C' date=' I would age slower than someone left behind on the earth, because of my time dilation. If I could somehow watch a newborn on earth from conception to birth, from my spaceship, instead of taking nine months in my reference, it would only appear to take say one hour in my reference (just to use a number). If I was unknowingly watching the earth reference, but thought I was seeing this same event from my spaceship reference, I would be amazed how fast this baby developed. It would appear to defy all explanation using the exisiting laws of chemistry and physics. Ignorance of knowing which reference is being observed could appear to create anomolies.

[/quote']

Sorry, but you just don't understand Special Relativity. If you were traveling at near C relative to the Earth, and were watching this newborn on Earth, it would age slower than you by your perspective. Time dilation is not something that affects you it affects how you measure the time rate of something moving relative to you. IOW, time dilation always happens to the "Other Guy".

Now, you might ask: But what of the Twin paradox? Doesn't it say that if one twin takes off and travels at near C relative to the Earth and then returns, he will have aged less?

Yes it does, but to understand why this is you must also take into account two other factors of SR, length contraction and the Relativity of Simultaneity.

The first factor, length contraction means that lengths (and Distances) contract for objects moving relative to you as measured by you.

So, if you are traveling to a star 1 lightyear away (as measured from Earth) at near C, it will take you a little more than one year to get there as measured from the Earth.(two years round trip) For you, however, since both the Star and the Earth are moving at near C relative to you, you will measure the Distance between them as much smaller, (lets say to one light day). Since it only takes a little more than 1 day to cross 1 light day at near C, by your clock, by your reckoning the round trip takes only 2 days.

Of course as measure from the Earth your clock will run at 1/365th of normal and you will age only 2 days.

So by Earth reckoning you aged two days due to time dilation and by your reckoning, you age 2 days due to length contraction.

Now, how do we deal with the fact you see the Earth age more slowy than you during the outbound ands return trips? shouldn't that mean that you would expect the Earth to only have aged 2/365 of a day?

And in fact, that is exactly how much you will determine the Earth aged during the these legs of the Trip.

But there is one more aspect of the trip you have to consider: the Period during which you turn around and head back to Earth. This is the period where the Relativity of Simutaneity plays apart. To make a long story short, during this period, you will see the Time on Earth "fast forward". Again this is not not because your acceleration has any affect on your time rate, but rather it affect how you measure the time rate of the Earth.

##### Share on other sites

I agree with what you are saying but I may not be fully explaining what I am saying. If I was on a spaceship traveling near C' date=' I would age slower than someone left behind on the earth, because of my time dilation. If I could somehow watch a newborn on earth from conception to birth, from my spaceship, instead of taking nine months in my reference, it would only appear to take say one hour in my reference (just to use a number). If I was unknowingly watching the earth reference, but thought I was seeing this same event from my spaceship reference, I would be amazed how fast this baby developed. It would appear to defy all explanation using the exisiting laws of chemistry and physics. Ignorance of knowing which reference is being observed could appear to create anomolies.

[/quote']

Sorry, but you just don't understand Special Relativity. If you were traveling at near C relative to the Earth, and were watching this newborn on Earth, it would age slower than you by your perspective. Time dilation is not something that affects you it affects how you measure the time rate of something moving relative to you. IOW, time dilation always happens to the "Other Guy".

Now, you might ask: But what of the Twin paradox? Doesn't it say that if one twin takes off and travels at near C relative to the Earth and then returns, he will have aged less?

Yes it does, but to understand why this is you must also take into account two other factors of SR, length contraction and the Relativity of Simultaneity.

The first factor, length contraction means that lengths (and Distances) contract for objects moving relative to you as measured by you.

So, if you are traveling to a star 1 lightyear away (as measured from Earth) at near C, it will take you a little more than one year to get there as measured from the Earth.(two years round trip) For you, however, since both the Star and the Earth are moving at near C relative to you, you will measure the Distance between them as much smaller, (lets say to one light day). Since it only takes a little more than 1 day to cross 1 light day at near C, by your clock, by your reckoning the round trip takes only 2 days.

Of course as measure from the Earth your clock will run at 1/365th of normal and you will age only 2 days.

So by Earth reckoning you aged two days due to time dilation and by your reckoning, you age 2 days due to length contraction.

Now, how do we deal with the fact you see the Earth age more slowy than you during the outbound ands return trips? shouldn't that mean that you would expect the Earth to only have aged 2/365 of a day?

And in fact, that is exactly how much you will determine the Earth aged during the these legs of the Trip.

But there is one more aspect of the trip you have to consider: the Period during which you turn around and head back to Earth. This is the period where the Relativity of Simutaneity plays apart. To make a long story short, during this period, you will see the Time on Earth "fast forward". Again this is not not because your acceleration has any affect on your time rate, but rather it affects how you measure the time rate of the Earth.

##### Share on other sites

I thought one of the practical examples that proved special relativity was due to the half lives of certain accelerator particles increasing due to their relativistic velocity. The reference perception may play the tricks that you and the math say occur, but the special relativity affect is connected to the thing with the extra energy of motion. If I was traveling near C, only I would be moving, the movement of the earth is an reference illusion. Since only I would have the extra energy stored in my relativistic time, distance and mass, only I would have any actual special relativity affects.

The idea of two relativistic references appearing at the same place is not that far fetched. The easiest example to see is the electron on an atom. It is moving with relativistic velocity while the nucleus is more connected to our stationary reference. We don't normally look it at this way, but only a stationary electron would be in our reference.

This suggests something quite interesting. The positive charges on the protons are in our reference and the negative charges of electrons are in a faster reference. They may be two faces of the same phenomena. The positron and electron pair may meet in a intermediate reference, which is not a place stable. While the extra mass of the proton, and its lower magnetic induction, will alter the magentic addition, allowing the two references to remain stable.

##### Share on other sites

If I was traveling near C, only I would be moving, the movement of the earth is an reference illusion. Since only I would have the extra energy stored in my relativistic time, distance and mass, only I would have any actual special relativity affects.

There is absolutely no way you can show that.

<normally used example>You are on a perfectly smooth train it passes through a station, which is moving the station or the train? There is no way you can discover which it is.</normally used example>

I'd just like to commend Janus on making that post, I havn't read it all (don't have the time atm), but thanks for the time it must have taken

##### Share on other sites

You guys to not seem to understand special relativity. What causes special relativity affects is the energy associated with velocity and kinetic energy. It is only the reference of the object that has been given the kinetic energy that is exhibiting real special relativity affects. There is a also a reference illusion predicted by the math for the stationary reference.

One way to prove this is to derive relativistic mass from scratch. Mass and energy are related via E=MC2, while kinetic energy is 1/2MV2. If I gives a mass a velocity V the total energy is MC2+1/2MV2. This total energy equals the relativistic mass M*C2. Or M*C2=MC2 +1/2MV2. Solve for M* and you get the mass equation of special relativity. Relativistic mass needs velocity to gain the potential energy needed to make the relativistic mass increase.

When they did the accelarator experiment the mass got heavier, which is why one can never cause mass to reach C. What also happend was the half life increased in time. It wasn't a reference illusion but the product decay actually took longer to happen. The stuff in the test tube nearby retained its normal half life. It did not time dilate, only the sample with the actual velocity showed the real special relativity affects. You guys need to clear you heads of the reference illusion and think in terms of an object needing energy input to express special relativity affects. If we compare two reference we are comparing relative energies for the same phenomena.

##### Share on other sites

You guys to not seem to understand special relativity. What causes special relativity affects is the energy associated with velocity and kinetic energy. It is only the reference of the object that has been given the kinetic energy that is exhibiting real special relativity affects. There is a also a reference illusion predicted by the math for the stationary reference.

Sorry' date=' but it [i']you[/i] that doesn't understand SR. Kinetic energy is relative not absolute. Which object has more kinetic energy depends on who you ask. For it to be otherwise would require a prefered Absolute reference frame from which all objects' kinetic energy shall be measured. Relativity denys the existance of any such frame.

One way to prove this is to derive relativistic mass from scratch. Mass and energy are related via E=MC2, while kinetic energy is 1/2MV2. If I gives a mass a velocity V the total energy is MC2+1/2MV2. This total energy equals the relativistic mass M*C2. Or M*C2=MC2 +1/2MV2. Solve for M* and you get the mass equation of special relativity. Relativistic mass needs velocity to gain the potential energy needed to make the relativistic mass increase.

All this proves is that you have never bother to study SR deeply enough to learn that in Relativity, the kinetic energy of a mass is $KE= mc^2 \left ( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}-1 \right )$

not

$KE= \frac{mv^2}{2}$

When they did the accelarator experiment the mass got heavier, which is why one can never cause mass to reach C. What also happend was the half life increased in time. It wasn't a reference illusion but the product decay actually took longer to happen. The stuff in the test tube nearby retained its normal half life. It did not time dilate, only the sample with the actual velocity showed the real special relativity affects. You guys need to clear you heads of the reference illusion and think in terms of an object needing energy input to express special relativity affects. If we compare two reference we are comparing relative energies for the same phenomena.

These accelerator experiments actual disprove your interpretation of SR. The Earth orbits the Sun at 30Km/sec, relative to the Sun. If your interpretation were right you would have to take this velocity into account while determining the Relativistic effects on a particle being accelerated. If the particle is being accelerated in the same direction as the Earth is moving, then this 30km/sec is added to its velocity, and if it is acclerated in the other direction it will be subtracted. This would mean the particles moving in one direction relative to the Earth would have more kinetic energy than particles moving in the Other and thus a greater Relativistic effect. Our accelerators are to the point that they can get close enough to the speed of light for this difference to result in a noticeable effect. For instance, the difference between .99c and .999c equate to a time dialtion factor difference of 7 to 22.

For example , it would take make more energy to accelerate the same particle up to .999c relative to Earth in one direction than in another. One particle would also show a greater time dilation than the other.

Now, we routinely accelerate particles in opposite directions (Many accelerator experiment consist of coliding accelerated particles), and in all sorts of realtive directions to Earth orbital path, and we have never seen this type of effect. It always takes the same amount of energy to accelerate up to any given speed relative to the Earth and said particles always show the same time dilation no matter what direction they are moving relative to the Earth's orbital vector.

You really need to thoroughly learn about a subject before spouting off about it, rather than just picking up bits and pieces and then trying to fill in the missing parts yourself.

##### Share on other sites

Isn't saying "negative special relativity" like saying "negative Manchester" or "negative coloring book?"

##### Share on other sites

I understand your arguments and there is relative validity to them but I am thinking in terms of practical relativity. As an example, if I wanted to begin an exercise routine to lose weight, but do not like to exert myself or sweat, and decide to take up running, I could go to the track where other people are running, and place myself in a chair.

In my mind, because of the relativity of reference, I will assume that all the runners are stationary (even though they are in actual motion) and that I am the one that is moving. This allows them to do all the work and me to enjoy the benefit of exercise, since I am now in relative motion. If I really want a good workout, I simply focus on the fastest runner and make him stationary in my mind giving me the faster relative running velocity. This is my new special relativity mind workout that requires no effort or actual motion to be able to get all the benefits of running. All we need is one person to actually gain kinetic energy via running.

The reality is, to get the special relativity benefit of the running, I actually need to run and not just create a relative reference within my mind. It requires the input of energy. Our galaxy is in motion so our reference is getting a little exercise whether we like it or not. Electrons orbitting nuclei are getting even more exercise. There is also a stationary reference sitting on the chair somewhere in the universe. This is the only place where one is not getting any exercise.

##### Share on other sites

I understand your arguments and there is relative validity to them but I am thinking in terms of practical relativity. As an example' date=' if I wanted to begin an exercise routine to lose weight, but do not like to exert myself or sweat, and decide to take up running, I could go to the track where other people are running, and place myself in a chair.

In my mind, because of the relativity of reference, I will assume that all the runners are stationary (even though they are in actual motion) and that I am the one that is moving. This allows them to do all the work and me to enjoy the benefit of exercise, since I am now in relative motion. If I really want a good workout, I simply focus on the fastest runner and make him stationary in my mind giving me the faster relative running velocity. This is my new special relativity mind workout that requires no effort or actual motion to be able to get all the benefits of running. All we need is one person to actually gain kinetic energy via running.

[/quote']

ROFL! Do you honestly think that is what reference frames are about? You'd still have no relative velocity to the earth, so you're pictureing the runner as stationary compared to the earth and yourself...

The reality is' date=' to get the special relativity benefit of the running, I actually need to run and not just create a relative reference within my mind. It requires the input of energy. Our galaxy is in motion[/quote']

If I consider a reference frame in which the galaxy is stationary, (which is quite an easy one to assume) then everything is moving and we have no KE...

so our reference is getting a little exercise whether we like it or not. Electrons orbitting nuclei are getting even more exercise. There is also a stationary reference sitting on the chair somewhere in the universe.

An absolute frame of refference has been proven to be false, a large part of this was due to the disproving of the aether by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

If you wish to reintroduce this idea you need evidence, else this is speculation and doesn't belong in this forum.

This is the only place where one is not getting any exercise.

...

##### Share on other sites

You really need to thoroughly learn[/i'] about a subject before spouting off about it, rather than just picking up bits and pieces and then trying to fill in the missing parts yourself.

I´d like to echo that statement. The baseline of some of the points you (sunspot) raise are valid questions that everyone trying to undertstand relativity should sooner or later ask himself. What is a bit disturbing is your attitude to assume that you found a huge gap in the knowledge of mankind instead of being a bit more humble and start with assuming you found a gap in your personal knowledge/understanding.

##### Share on other sites

You could arbitrarily pick a reference somewhere out in space to use as your central zero negative reference point if you wanted... but it is still in motion compared to almost everything else in the universe, therefor, that point of reference would be no more valid than anything else in the universe.

You, sunspot, illustrated this in your runner post, as has been mentioned. It's just that there is no point in space that falls outside of this.

Every point in space has relative motion to something else, everyone understands that. So what could possibly make any one point more special that any other point?

##### Share on other sites

When I spoke of practical relativity I mean special relativity phenomena that are created due to the input of energy. Even our galaxy still has some of the energy push from the creation of the universe. If I was on an actual space ship traveling near C, this is not a simple mind game. It would take a tremendous amount of energy exerted over a long time (modern tech) to be able to reach those speeds. My momentum or velocity would impart practical special relativity affects to me. If the earth reference, saw itself relative, what kind of actual work could that reference do with its percieved special relativity affect? Nothing. The spaceship on the other hand, if we could safely slow it down, would have so much potential energy that I could generate electricity. These are two different things; one is actually due to physical energy and the other is only due to mental energy.

I believe that space within the macro-universe is part of the expansion. However, points of space anywhere within the physical universe can be at the zero reference. There is not a single physical zone of zero velocity reference, but rather the zero references exists everywhere. The MDT model predicts that the zero reference becomes evident during mass/energy conversion. It occurs simulatanteously with the speed of light reference. This potential between the two book ends of reference allows energy and the laws of physics to be the same in all intermediate references. Things sort of touch the zero reference, for an instant, and then proceed in finite reference.

I am not trying to undermine relative reference, since this is how mathematics views the universe. But if one thinks in terms of practical special relativity (needs energy to occur), then one can begin to guage absolute measures of special relativity. This is important because it simplies things. For example, the hydrogen atom has a proton moving at the slow speeds of our reference but the electron is moving with the speed implicit of a relativistic reference. There is potential energy there. If we could normallize the two practical special relativity references we could generate energy from the potential.

##### Share on other sites

If I was on an actual space ship traveling near C

relative to what? If your going to argue about relativity you better start playing by its rules. anyway how would you be able to determine that it was you who was travelling at near C. it could be that the universe is travelling that is travelling at near C and you just put on some breaks so to speak. or you could have sped up and went even closer to C. any of these situation are valid for relativity but i would like the back up of a more physics minded person.

## Create an account

Register a new account