Room-temperature superconductivity?

[mvanwink5]

Simon,
The same could be queried to the twins (which one is younger than the other?) if they wore muon shoes, but there we have the same issue, no one has met the twins that travel those speeds or that wear those shoes.
Best regards

[MSimon]

Simon,
The same could be queried to the twins (which one is younger than the other?) if they wore muon shoes, but there we have the same issue, no one has met the twins that travel those speeds or that wear those shoes.
Best regards

Of course. It was my weak attempt at humor.

[johanfprins]

Johan,

If you buy relativity time is not invariant.

The time rate is exactly the same universal time rate within any and every inertial reference frame. Thus, in this sense, it is invariant since all clocks are stationary within their OWN inertial reference frames and MUST thus keep exactly the same time no matter at what speed one clock moves relative to another clock. To put it another way, without using the time coordinate: No matter how high the momentum of a body with mass is within your reference frame, this body stays AT REST within its own reference frame. Thus "being at rest" is a similar invariant as time-rate

I will live 100 years (say) if I am traveling near the speed of light or am sitting in my chair on Earth.

This must be so since the clocks within the two reference frames are ticking at exactly the same universal time-rate.

However, my aging near the speed of light will be slower relatively than my aging sitting in my chair on Earth.

Nonsense! Similarly one can argue that the earth is moving relative to your reference frame with a speed near the speed of light; thus this means that on earth you will live longer than within the other reference frame. Obviously this cannot be. In fact one can derive directly from the Lorentz trnsformation that a time interval measured on a clock within one inertial reference frame MUST be the same as a time interval measured on an identical clock within another inertial refrence frame. This rate is universal. In fact I have given the proof several times on this thread that it must be so.

Muon decay is the proof of this.

No it is not proving this, since the muon decays at the same rate within ANY inertial reference frame within which it is at rest; whether this reference frrame is approaching the earth a a high speed or whether this reference frame is stationary on earth.

Say the actual decay time of the muon is (tau) then the coordinates at which the muon forms within its own frame is x=0 and t=0. When it decays, the coordinates are x=0 and t=(tau) When you now transform these coordinates into the earth's reference frame by synchronising the clocks when the muon reaches the earth where it decays, you will find that, relative to earth, the distance above earth at which the muon has formed is H which is larger than h=v*(tau): h is the actual distance above the earth while H is the observed distance when observed relative to earth. You also find that relative to earth the muon must now have a decay time ot (TAU)>(tau): Why? Because the relative speed v must stay invariant so that one must have that v=H/(TAU).

So both the position and time coordinate are modified when viewed from earth: NOT just the time coordinate. Thus the muon DOES NOT live longer. The effect is totally caused by the non-simultaneity of two simultaneous events within a passing reference frame: BTW Einstein's explanation of this effect is wrong, just like his derivation of length contraction is wrong.

If you are going to come up with a different theory

I have NOT come up with a DIFFERENT THEORY, I have just interpreted the exsisting theory correctly; after it has been INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED for more than 100 years.

you need to explain the muon numbers.

I have just done it above. Do the transformation as I have told you and you will see what I mean.

[johanfprins]

BTW Johan,

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying you haven't explained the muon results:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... /muon.html

I have looked at these calculations and they are wrong since it is assumed that an one observer can actually observe length contraction while the other observer can observe time dilation. This is of course nonsense since length contraction does not occur, and the observation on earth must be explained in terms of a single Lorentz transformation from the reference frame of the moving muon into the reference frame of the earth. This requires the clock on the erath to be synchronised with the clock moving with the muon. Since in these calculations there is no synchronisation of the clocks, the results are nonsense. When you do it correctly, you will find that both the height relative to earth INCREASES as well as the time interval so that v=H/(TAU). This does not mean that the muon lives longer within its own inertial reference frame; since according to its own inertial refrence frame the earth is at a distance h=v*(tau) when it forms.

The next week I want to enjoy a bit of relaxation in Florida; and will thus sign off untill some time next week.

[mvanwink5]

So, the muon only appears to live longer due to measurement complications, like trying to measure mass using a force measuring device, the device measurement of mass has to be compensated for gravity. In this time measurement case, the time measurement must take into account the relative velocity.

[tomclarke]

Why? I don't see any problem with a fast muon aging slower (in my frame) than it does in its frame. And in fact that is what is observed.

It's not aging at all in your frame. It's aging in its (inertial) frame.

In your frame you are just seeing a time-dilated (delayed) image of what is actually occurring in its (inertial) frame.

Your observation involves primarily geometry (kinematics), not calculus (dynamics).
Its aging involves primarily calculus (dynamics), not geometry (kinematics).

Calculus involves integration (integrators). Integrators embody system "memory" (aging).
There is no "memory" intrinsically associated with the kinematics of the Lorentz transform.

Edit: For the Twin Paradox, replace "dynamics" above with "biochemical dynamics".

OK. I get it. We see many more muons at the earth surface when they are going fast because their speed..... uh. I'm having a little trouble here. Perhaps you can fill in the blanks.

So what you are saying is that all that changes is space and time is invariant? The fact that things appear to live longer in my frame the faster they are going is only appearance.

So the lifetime of fast moving muons is only a function of space and not time?

My understanding is poor and my math not so good (my calculus is very rusty) so could you put up the appropriate math and explain it?

How about this. Put a muon mirror on the moon. Buy a muon flashlight. Shine it at the mirror, observe the muons coming back.

In your FOR, muon is travelling at c - epsilon, travels 6E8m, takes approx 2s round trip.

In the muon FOR length is contracted and time dilated relative to your FOR.

The muon thinks it travels for only 6E5m, and that only 2ms has elapsed.

No contradition, and anything in muon FOR will age slower than in earth FOR.

Situation is not symmetric because muon FOR is actually two FORs, travelling away and towards earth at nearly c. It is the change in FOR which makes the asymmetry of 2s lapsed time (on earth) vs 2ms lapsed time (travelling with muon).

Most people arguing on this thread are using intuitive ideas of "faster", "slower" "contracted" without specifying relative to what. Unhelpful. Speed, length, time only have meaning relative to a given FOR.

The math here is LF coordinate transformation. Only 1D is needed.

Here is the math:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classe ... trans.html

[johanfprins]

This an abstract of a publication that proves meticulously that the mainstream interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong. Obviously it will never be allowed to be published by the mainstream dogma-defenders since they are worse than the Spanish Inquisition could ever hope to be: But mull over it during the next week or two until I again have time to proceed on this thread:

Non-simultaneity of two simultaneous events which occur at different positions within an inertial reference-frame passing by at a speed v; length-contraction of a rod passing by at a speed v; and time-dilation caused by a clock passing by at a speed v, have been milestones of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity for more than 100 years: Here, these aspects are meticulously derived from the Lorentz-transformation: It is found that the actual physics responsible for non-simultaneity of two simultaneous events has not been correctly explained by Einstein. It is also found that length-contraction cannot occur at all, and that time-dilation does not violate Newton’s concept of absolute time at every position in gravity-free space.

HAVE FUN!!

[tomclarke]

This an abstract of a publication that proves meticulously that the mainstream interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong. Obviously it will never be allowed to be published by the mainstream dogma-defenders since they are worse than the Spanish Inquisition could ever hope to be: But mull over it during the next week or two until I again have time to proceed on this thread:

Non-simultaneity of two simultaneous events which occur at different positions within an inertial reference-frame passing by at a speed v; length-contraction of a rod passing by at a speed v; and time-dilation caused by a clock passing by at a speed v, have been milestones of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity for more than 100 years: Here, these aspects are meticulously derived from the Lorentz-transformation: It is found that the actual physics responsible for non-simultaneity of two simultaneous events has not been correctly explained by Einstein. It is also found that length-contraction cannot occur at all, and that time-dilation does not violate Newton’s concept of absolute time at every position in gravity-free space.

HAVE FUN!!

Johan,

I grew up on that weird (1 1 1 -1) metric and the Loretz transformation group. It is neat, self-consistent, has been validated by experiment.

I'll need more than an abstract (published or not) to convince me oytherwise!

[Teemu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

The Lorentz transformation describes only the transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed, so they can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space.

According to wiki also by some logic if you used Lorentz transformation (time dilation) on one way, you could conclude that each twin should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
But once you take in account that Lorentz transformation requires the spacetime event at the origin is left fixed, and do the analysis in Minkowski space, it seems that the twin paradox is not a paradox.

So it seems Lorentz transformation is just a phenomenological transformation, reduced from by observations, and is only a subset of the wider set discovered later, not a fundamental/first principles equation. Because of it's origins and limits, I think there are limits to how you can use it as a tool of logic, I don't think it is "strong" enough to be used to repeal solid, repeated experimental results, especially when there is a logic behind those experimental results too.

So considering that Lorentz transformation came out of observations, forming rules on how to use it based on observation, does make sense.

[johanfprins]

Johan,

I grew up on that weird (1 1 1 -1) metric and the Loretz transformation group.

So did I!! AND horror of horrors, although I had some misgivings from the start, I taught it for years to my students as if it is gospel truth. I am ashamed that it took me 50 years to concisely formulate the gaping physics-inconsistencies in Minkowsi’s arguments. No wonder Einstein, when he was a student, bunked Minkowski’s mathematics course.

It is neat, self-consistent,

I do not think so anymore: The reason for my change of mind is as follows: It cannot be “neat and self-consistent” since the “derivation” of this “metric” is based on a physical impossibility: It is based on the assumption that a light source can be simultaneously stationary within two passing inertial reference frames.

To obtain his “metric”, Minkowski equated the transformation from reference frame K/ to reference frame K (when the light source is stationary within K/) to the transformation from K to K/ (when the light source is stationary in within K) and in the process Minkowski, by sleight of hand, slipped in a “time-distance parameter “s”; which he claimed is not zero even though both expressions which he equated are only valid when they are each identically zero. Do you call this neat and self-consistent?

Einstein, who has had a real nose for physics also mistrusted the Minkowski construction for years. He finally reluctantly accepted it as valid when he found that he had to use curvilinear space-time coordinates to model gravity. But the Lord was again maliciously subtle in this case, since this does not really prove that the Minkowski construction is physically-real when there is no gravitational field. The curvature of space-time generating a gravity field is most probably manifesting because all matter consists of matter-waves, each having mass-energy that is continuously distributed within the volume of such a wave. The reason why such a matter-wave sometimes “acts like a particle” is that any distributed mass-energy has a centre-of-mass, which moves like a “point-particle” even though the body itself is not a “particle”.

Furthermore, inherent in the Minkowski-picture is the assumption that time is not the same at all positions within a Euclidean space. This is just plain WRONG physics. If this were true, two separated events within such an inertial reference frame, along its direction of motion, can NEVER be simultaneous WITHIN such a reference frame. Thus, although Minkowski’s construction, which is obtained by equating two expressions which are both zero (a mathematical and physical nonsensical thing to do), seems “self-consistent and neat”, it is not the case.

I have come to the conclusion that modern theoretical physics lost its way after it was decided that “when the mathematics is beautiful and self-consistent, the physics must be correct”. In effect Minkowski started this trend, which was further cemented by people like Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, Weyl, Feynman, Aharanov and Bohm, etc. etc. They were all walking along the garden path into Alice’s Wonderland. We ended up “doing physics” by looking for “symmetries” in mathematics, which are then interpreted as “fundamental laws” of physics, instead of realising that any symmetries of physical relevance in mathematics are solely caused by the physics: Not by the mathematics on its own. And when we do not find the “self-consistent symmetry” we want, we simply claim that it must be there but it has been “broken”. Don’t you find it hilariously funny?

Not just that, in some instances even the fundamental laws of mathematics are summarily ignored in order to fit the physics that the model or theory are supposed to fit. For example, it is claimed that a gauge-field does not alter the physics being modelled and can be chosen at will: But then our modern day theoretical physicists blandly choose a unique gauge to get the physics they want to get: Physics that will not be there with an arbitrary choice of the gauge!! If the choice of gauge did not matter, then their model must be wrong if it is only valid for a unique gauge; is it not? Another example: They take the gradient of a differentiable scalar field and then claim that a loop integral within the resultant vector field can be non-zero: i.e. that a conservative vector field can suddenly become a circular vector field! The reason given for this is that the scalar field is supposedly representing a phase angle.

Mathematics do not give a hoot about what we want to call a differentiable scalar field: Mathematics is very clear on the fact that the vector field obtained by taking the gradient of a differentiable scalar field MUST always give zero for a loop integral. But, of course, why would our present day geniuses adhere to the principles of mathematics if one can “get the physics you want to get” by violating the rules of mathematics? After all, such WRONG mathematics did “predict” the Aharanov-Bohm effect, and this effect has been experimentally verified. This must surely prove that wrong mathematics is required to model physics; does it not?

To obtain an idea where the modern madness in physics comes from, let me quote Dirac (with some inserts by myself) from his famous publication in which he predicted the non-existing magnetic monopole by also, in this case, violating the impeccable mathematical rules on which vector calculus is based. But ignore the latter for the moment: What I want you to concentrate on is Dirac’s insidious reasoning about how physics should be approached after 1931.

“There are at present fundamental problems in theoretical physics awaiting solution, e.g., the relativistic formulation of quantum mechanics and the nature of atomic nuclei (to be followed by more difficult ones such as the problem of life), the solution of which problems will presumably require a more drastic revision of our fundamental concepts than any that have gone before. Quite likely these changes will be so great that it will be beyond the power of human intelligence to get the necessary new ideas by direct attempts to formulate the experimental data in mathematical terms”. In other words, according to Dirac, we must accept that experimental data cannot be the primary guide for physics anymore! This reasoning is nothing else than treason against the scientific approach, which was set out by the Royal Society of London when it was founded during the 17th century!

“The theoretical worker in the future will therefore have to proceed in a more indirect way. The most powerful method of advance that can be suggested at present is to employ all the resources of pure mathematics in attempts to perfect and generalise the mathematical formalism that forms the existing basis of theoretical physics, and after each success in this direction, to try to interpret the new mathematical features in terms of physical entities (by a process like Eddington’s Principle of Identification)”. In other words, according to Dirac, we must search for physics that fits our pre-conceived “self-consistent” mathematics; even if it requires the butchering of this same-self mathematics by creating “new mathematics”! What he in essence advocates is that we must fudge reality to fit mathematics! Holy Cow!

“A recent paper by the author may possibly be regarded as a small step according to this general scheme of advance. The mathematical formalism at that time involved a serious difficulty through its prediction of negative kinetic energy values for an electron”. NEGATIVE KINETIC ENERGIES!!! What utter rot. An entity with mass can only have kinetic energy when its total energy is larger than its rest mass energy. It you postulated a differential wave-equation for a SINGLE SOLITARY electron and the lowest kinetic-energy solution is minus infinity, then the differential equation must be rubbish.

“It was proposed to get over this difficulty, making use of Fault’s Exclusion Principle which does not allow more than one electron in any state, by saying that in the physical world almost all the negative-energy states are already occupied, so that our ordinary electrons of positive energy cannot fall into them”. Here is the BIGGEST FUDGE in physics ever!!! And, I have come to the conclusion that it served as the final nail in the coffin of rationality. “The question then arises to the physical interpretation of the negative–energy states, which on this view really exist. We should expect the uniformly filled distribution of negative–energy states to be completely unobservable to us (Why? Should an infinite density of electrons not blow up our universe? It surely must.), but an unoccupied one of these states, being something exceptional, should make its presence felt as a kind of hole. It was shown that one of these holes would appear to us as a particle with a positive energy and a positive charge and it was suggested that this particle should be identified with a proton. Subsequent investigations, however, have shown that this particle necessarily has the same mass as an electron and also that, if it collides with an electron, the two will have a chance of annihilating one another much too great to be consistent with the known stability of matter”. It was just fortuitous that the positron was discovered and that this unfortunately gave a veneer of respectability to Dirac’s equation.

The fact is that both Schroedinger’s and Dirac’s equations cannot model a SINGLE SOLITARY electron. In each case an infinite density of extra electrons has to be invoked: In the case of the Schroedinger equation it is done so that this infinity of electron-waves, each of which can only exist within an infinite universe, can supposedly superpose (for no physical reason whatsoever) in order to form a localised wave-packet: In the case of the Dirac equation these electrons are required to fill the physically-impossible states of “negative kinetic energy” which also can only exist within an infinitely large Alice’s Wonderland. In both cases the physics is thus fudged to fit the mathematics.

From Special Relativity we know that we can write for an entity with rest mass m and momentum p that it has a total energy E where:

E^2=(p^2)^c^2+(m^2)*c^4

If the entity is a SINGLE “photon-wave” it has within ALL inertial reference frames that m=0, and therefore one has that:

E=p*c

which shows that the wave equation that should be used for a SOLITARY SINGLE photon is Maxwell’s wave equation: i.e. the photon must be a light-wave. By simply multiplying Maxwell’s equation for a free light wave with (hbar) we have the correct equation for a SINGLE SOLITARY photon-wave. We do not require a square root of the first equation above.

In the case of an electron, the momentum has different values within different inertial reference frames AND there is a unique inertial reference frame within which p=0. Thus, the correct differential wave equation for a SINGLE SOLITARY electron must give a unique solution that corresponds with the first equation above after setting p=0: i.e. it must be a standing wave that corresponds with

E=m*c^2

The lowest-energy solution of the correct differential wave equation for a SINGLE SOLITARY electron must be its rest mass energy within its own inertial reference frame. Thus to obtain the relativistically correct differential wave equation for an electron, one also do not need to take the square root of the first equation above.

Both Schroedinger and Dirac, however, used the rest mass as an input parameter for their equations. Fortunately, it turned out that Schroedinger’s equation is a good approximation for an electron when its energy is less than its rest mass energy (eg. a bound electron within an atom, an electron forming part of a chemical bond, or any electron within a solid which assist to bond the atoms together). But Dirac’s equation? It should be relegated to being a curiosity; since negative kinetic energy is a contradiction in terms.

But let us return to the rest of your comments:

It has been validated by experiment.

It has NOT been validated by any experiment that a perfect clock taken on a journey through gravity-free space will, on its return, lag an identical perfect clock which stayed behind.

I'll need more than an abstract (published or not) to convince me otherwise!

The full manuscript can now be found at: http://www.cathodixx.com and selecting the button “Einstein”

Try and study it with an open mind and if you disagree please do so in terms of compelling experimental results and/or impeccable physics-logic.

[MSimon]

johanfprins,

That is your very best explanation to date. You ought to get it passed around far and wide. Normally I would pass it around (the whole thing) since it is just a blog comment. But I think it is so important that I would like your permission to post it to my various sites.

Also how would you like to be credited? i.e. any contact information you would like to provide. Or I could just link back to here.

[johanfprins]

johanfprins,

That is your very best explanation to date. You ought to get it passed around far and wide. Normally I would pass it around (the whole thing) since it is just a blog comment. But I think it is so important that I would like your permission to post it to my various sites.

You have my full permission to post it where-ever you want, since it is clear that the main-stream physicists will never allow it to be published. I have tried for already 8 years.

Also how would you like to be credited? i.e. any contact information you would like to provide. Or I could just link back to here.

What do you mean by credited? For my post above or for the manuscript on my website? I have also dealt with these aspects in my book "The Physics Delusion" which is available on my website and should also be on Amazon by early next year. Thanks for your enthusiasm

[icarus]

Thanks Johan. I found that piece very worthwhile reading.

[Giorgio]

Try and study it with an open mind and if you disagree please do so in terms of compelling experimental results and/or impeccable physics-logic.

Hats off Johan, your no nonsense logic is one of the aspect that convinced me more about your absorption-desorption model theory.
I really look forward to some experimental set up in the coming future!

[tomclarke]

Furthermore, inherent in the Minkowski-picture is the assumption that time is not the same at all positions within a Euclidean space. This is just plain WRONG physics. If this were true, two separated events within such an inertial reference frame, along its direction of motion, can NEVER be simultaneous WITHIN such a reference frame. Thus, although Minkowski’s construction, which is obtained by equating two expressions which are both zero (a mathematical and physical nonsensical thing to do), seems “self-consistent and neat”, it is not the case.

I think this is where we disagree.

I have found myself, many times, that I must distrust "intuition" until it is proven. I first learnt the wonders of this when looking at axiomatic maths - no more hand-waving and just because you think something is obvious it does not at all mean it is proven.

Now, my understanding of space-time is that you can define, in an inertial reference frame, space-time coordinates in which there is an absolute time, and simultaneity wrt that frame can be defined.

Globally there is no such possible measurement, because different reference frames give different global times and no one frame is privileged.

This is self-consistent.

I am not sure quite what you mean above. You will forgive me for going over it sentence by sentence because I just can't guess without help:

Furthermore, inherent in the Minkowski-picture is the assumption that time is not the same at all positions within a Euclidean space.

Although global time can be defined there is no unique global time. But actually what you say does not make sense without further qualification. You see positions in space are only well-defined when you have chosen a reference frame. The position of a given event could be any straight time-like line from that event. There are lots to choose.

This is just plain WRONG physics. If this were true, two separated events within such an inertial reference frame, along its direction of motion, can NEVER be simultaneous WITHIN such a reference frame.

OK. I'm trying to understand this. What is the direction of motion of an inertial frame? I only understand relative motion? What condition on the two events do you suppose? If the line joining the two events is timelike they will never be simultaneous in any frame. If it is spacelike then simultaneity is always possible, in the right frame. I see no contradiction.

Thus, although Minkowski’s construction, which is obtained by equating two expressions which are both zero (a mathematical and physical nonsensical thing to do), seems “self-consistent and neat”, it is not the case.

I'm need your help with which two expressions here.

Best wishes, Tom