Room-temperature superconductivity?

[MSimon]

Tom,

I don't see how you get past the idea that if you go faster wrt to my frame I will see you live longer. OTOH the "folks" in the other frame will think I live longer.

Of course my conception may be wrong. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept.

[johanfprins]

I think this is where we disagree.

I have found myself, many times, that I must distrust "intuition" until it is proven.

I totally distrust intuition until it is proven: That is why I am now discarding the intuitive interpretation that there can be a real Minkowski space-time.

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.

Exactly! But in physics the axioms are not grabbed from the air; as you are free to do in mathematics: They are tested by logic and experiment. Simple logic must tell you that when time has different values along a line within Euclidean space, two events cannot occur simultaneously at any two separated positions along such a line. Can you not understand that for two separated events to occur simultaneously the time at their positions MUST be exactly the same? And that within an inertial reference frame two events can occur simultaneously at ANY two points. Even Einstein agreed on this since he assumed in his thought experiment of non-simultaneity that simultaneity within an inertial reference frame is ALWAYS possible at any two separated points! Therefore time MUST be the SAME at all points within ANY inertial reference frame. We are not in Alice's Wonderland you know!

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.

Are you thus agreeing that the time at every point must be the SAME and that therefore there is no actual time coordinate which changes with position in such a space? If yes; then congratulations since this is the actual case in physics, no matter whatever any mathematical axiom states.

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

If they give different global times, then Einstein's very first postulate (which reconfirms Galileo's postulate) MUST be wrong. The two reference frames will not give the same physics within them.

This is self-consistent.

How can it be self-consistent that according to our reference frame on earth the universe is 14 billion years old while according to another reference frame travelling near to the speed of light relative to the earth it is possible that the universe might be a mere 3 seconds old?

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.

I would think that it should be crystal clear that Minkowski space is assumed to be a Newtonian space with the difference that clocks at different positions supposedly do not keep the same time.

Although global time can be defined there is no unique global time.

Clocks within ALL inertial reference frames keep exactly the same time: So how can this time rate not be global?

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.

Correct, any inertial reference frame does that.

The position of a given event could be any straight time-like line from that event. There are lots to choose.

This is nonsensical mathematics. When the points are defined within an inertial reference frame you do not require “time-lines” to define the position of an event; since the time is the same at every point

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?

It depends from which other inertial reference frame you view it.

I only understand relative motion?

Correct! I did not dispute that there is only relative motion.

What condition on the two events do you suppose?

I do not follow what you are asking here.

If the line joining the two events is timelike ...

Let us stop using mathematics to fudge the physics. An inertial reference frame moves relative to an infinite number of other inertial reference frames at any velocity you can think off. According to your arguments this means that simultaneity can never be possible within any inertial reference frame.
I suggest that you first read and study the manuscript which you asked for and which is now available on my website. It will be courteous of you to read the full physics logic before attacking using obscure mathematics.

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

Read the manuscript. I do not mean to be rude, but I really do not have the time to repeat in this post what is already available in detail within the manuscript.

Best wishes, Johan

[rcain]

just to confuse matters further, and in light of a) axiomatic approaches to SR, mentioned by Tom above, and b) a reduction of the 'model' to simplest form, (ie. without even assuming a 'space-time') i would like to present the following two derivations of non-linear Lorentz and the Minkowski metric, which i've just come across in my reading:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/rela ... pecial.pdf - The Quintessence of Axiomatized Special Relativity Theory - Eugene Shubert

- really just a 'simplified SR primer', which despite a couple of seemingly circular substitutions, does seem to provide an elegant derivation of the time-dilation formula from first principles.

more interesting (from my point of view), since it assumes even less, a priori, and focuses solely on 'causal sets':

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/org/cfe/collo ... ---017.pdf - A Derivation of Special Relativity from Causal Sets - Kevin H. Knuth

- seems to bear some similarity with Bondi's k-Calculus approach, and actually derives space and time dimensions themselves, as well as Lorentz/Minkowski (not to mention a 'c' equivalent).

(I should point out that the second paper in particular lost me about 3/4 ways through - I'll need to re-read it several times more I think to make sure nothing was skipped over).

Anyway, I'd be interested to know Johan, where you think the 'mistakes' lie in these (types of) derivations of SR. (or more straightforwardly perhaps in Bondi's - though sorry I don't currently have a link to his work to hand).

[johanfprins]

Anyway, I'd be interested to know Johan, where you think the 'mistakes' lie in these (types of) derivations of SR. (or more straightforwardly perhaps in Bondi's - though sorry I don't currently have a link to his work to hand).

As in the case of most modern physics the "mistakes' do not lie in the formulas, but in the interpretation of the formulas. In The Special Theory of Relativity the major mistake is to assume that the clocks of "different observers show different times". And in the case of quantum mechanics it is the interpretation that the intensity of a matter wave is a probability distribution instead of a mass-energy distribution. At present I just do not have the time to go through esoteric mathematics leading to the same equations, since I am not criticising the mathematical equations but the interpretation of these equations which leads to metaphysics being taught and believed.

Minkowski space is really an interpretation that space and time form an actual physically REAL four-dimensional space-time so that clocks at different positions keep time at different rates. That is wrong: The Lorentz transformationl transforms an event from one inertial reference frame in which all clocks at ALL and any position keep the same time, into another inertial reference frame within which all clocks at ALL and any position also keep the same time as in the original reference frame from which the event is transformed.

That an event is observed at "another time" within the reference frame into which such an event has been transformed, is an artifact of where one chooses to synchronise two identical clocks within the two reference frames. If you synchronise them at the correct position and time, an event occurring within one inertial reference frame can occur at the same exact time within the other inertial reference frame. This is well explained within my manuscript.

For the next week I will mostly not have access to the internet. So goodbye for now.

[rcain]

Anyway, I'd be interested to know Johan, where you think the 'mistakes' lie in these (types of) derivations of SR. (or more straightforwardly perhaps in Bondi's - though sorry I don't currently have a link to his work to hand).

As in the case of most modern physics the "mistakes' do not lie in the formulas, but in the interpretation of the formulas. In The Special Theory of Relativity the major mistake is to assume that the clocks of "different observers show different times".

yes, i appreciate what you are saying and that is precisely the reason i referenced the alternative 'causality' (sequence) based approach above - since it does NOT assume clocks (or rulers) of any sort, yet arrives at the same (phenomenological) conclusions.

further, the concept of causality to me seems more intuitive and straight forward than either space or time in this context, hence the matter of 'interpretation' (as you say), within this type of derivation also seems more consistent with an 'ordinarily' observable state of the universe - certainly more accessible to a common description of 'experience'.

to quote the paper above:

...Rather than being fundamental, we find that space-time arises as a construct made to make chains of events look simple....

And in the case of quantum mechanics it is the interpretation that the intensity of a matter wave is a probability distribution instead of a mass-energy distribution. ...

this seems to me a separate and distinct subject (view) - or are you saying it is 'convolved' in your theory (apropos SR)?

Minkowski space is really an interpretation that space and time form an actual physically REAL four-dimensional space-time so that clocks at different positions keep time at different rates. That is wrong:
...
This is well explained within my manuscript.

as i mentioned before, i can't fault your logic, indeed am in sympathy with its 'intuition'. but i neither can i ignore the 'rigor' of (particularly) the causal/sequential models. the fact that several alternative derivations all reach the same/similar conclusions, from different starting assumptions, suggests to me the balance still lies in favor of SR.

albeit experimental evidence of time dilation due to SR alone seems scant/non-existent, as you say, significant evidence for the same through GR appears conclusive. it seems 'improbable' to me that one is true without the other, since they are so closely derived.

For the next week I will mostly not have access to the internet. So goodbye for now.

oh well. bye for now. more on your return perhaps

[icarus]

All coordinate systems, of space or space-time, that form the basis for physical laws are metaphysical constructs. A coordinate system is a mathematical object, not physical.

[rcain]

All coordinate systems, of space or space-time, that form the basis for physical laws are metaphysical constructs. A coordinate system is a mathematical object, not physical.

indeed. conversely, an (causal) 'event' IS something physical - in that either our senses or our instruments can observe it, and is what ultimately 'comprises' the universe.

[DeltaV]

I don't see how you get past the idea that if you go faster wrt to my frame I will see you live longer. OTOH the "folks" in the other frame will think I live longer.

Of course my conception may be wrong. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept.

Replace "longer" with "slower".

[DeltaV]

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.

Johan, did you also try arXiv.org?

[MSimon]

I don't see how you get past the idea that if you go faster wrt to my frame I will see you live longer. OTOH the "folks" in the other frame will think I live longer.

Of course my conception may be wrong. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the concept.

Replace "longer" with "slower".

I don't see how that helps. And I do sometimes think "slower" so that is not new to me.

I'm slower wrt the "fast" frame. And the folks in the "fast" frame think I'm slower.

I like Johan's concept - time is universal and the differences between frames is the curvature of space. I must say that my math skills are not up to the requirements of getting this mathematically. My calculus has deteriorated from 40+ years of non-use.

[Teemu]

Thought experiment:

You are inside a closed box.

Now time is just going at rate t.

Now it suddenly goes at rate 1000t.

Then it changes to 100t.

Then to 10t

Then to 50t.

And back to t.

Now if this would have actually happened, would you have noticed anything strange happening in your reference frame where that happened? Of course you would have not. It really isn't some magical thing that makes you feel like you're in the Matrix movie, or in reverse-Matrix, or Alice in the wonderland. If there was some wild time rate fluctuations affecting the whole Milky Way, would you notice anything? Nope.

Special relativity doesn't give any unique state to any reference frame, but when you do special relativity by Lorentz transformation rather than Minkowski space, you need to set a origin that is fixed in space time. Physics didn't set that origin, but choice of mathematical tools did.

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.

[tomclarke]

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.

Are you thus agreeing that the time at every point must be the SAME and that therefore there is no actual time coordinate which changes with position in such a space? If yes; then congratulations since this is the actual case in physics, no matter whatever any mathematical axiom states.

OK, such a space-time is (mathematically & actually) a 4D manifold which can have 4D coordinate systems put onto it. So a "point" would be a space-time event. If by point you mean spatial coordinates, then of course this is dependent on the coordinate system.

I don't understand what you mean about "time coordinate which changes with position". That implies you have a preferred spacelike slice on the space (position) and you have chosen a coordinate system in which this slice is not completely spacelike.

That is very easy to do! After all, the "real physics" is a gemetric object without coordinates. precisely what coordinates you choose to put onto it is up to you.

Our physical intuition says that "space" "time" etc all exist. But then we do not normally manipulate objects at speeds or distances where we see the true relativistic structure.

All this seems neat to me, and physical.

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

If they give different global times, then Einstein's very first postulate (which reconfirms Galileo's postulate) MUST be wrong. The two reference frames will not give the same physics within them.

OK. Read (or read again, with this emphasis) "Misner Thorne & Wheeler" GR? Now very old, but a good tutorial on how reality is different from coordinate system. Physics is defined by the (geometric) mathematical reality, not the coordinate system. Both spatial position and time are artifacts of a specific coordinate system - they have no privileged meaning in physics.

Further the physics is provably identical whatever coordinate system you choose to use. that is expected, because the mathematics is intrinsically coordinate-free. you add coordinates when you need to compute an answer, and you can add whatever coordinates you like.

This is self-consistent.

How can it be self-consistent that according to our reference frame on earth the universe is 14 billion years old while according to another reference frame travelling near to the speed of light relative to the earth it is possible that the universe might be a mere 3 seconds old?

You are using intuitive notions of what is likely based on human experience. Mathematically your question assumes that there is a single global time coordinate that applies to both frames. otherwise you would not know when in the moving frame to compare with "now" in the (stationary) frame. Of course moving and stationary would need to be defined, presumably wrt local objects in the universe.

Or, if you consider a neutrino emitted in the big bang that intersects the earth in 2011, you do not need global time because you have colocality. In that case the neutrino would indeed think the universe was much younger than we do. Why is that a problem?

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

I would think that it should be crystal clear that Minkowski space is assumed to be a Newtonian space with the difference that clocks at different positions supposedly do not keep the same time.

Minkowski space is of course profoundly different from Newtonian. It is a 4D construct with symmetries that require 4D consideration. newtonian space is 3d + time, with a 3d symmetry group!

I think that is why we disagree - you are viewing this 4d construct as a new version of a 3d construct. But of course it never can be.

Although global time can be defined there is no unique global time.

Clocks within ALL inertial reference frames keep exactly the same time: So how can this time rate not be global?

I don't know what the first statement here means! If it did have any meaning, maybe the second question would prove your point?

"Keeping time" means clocks agree with each other even when moved, spatially separated, brought back together. Which is our intuition. But in Minkowski space that is just not true.

I know you don't accept that. But others do. You cannot use it as a proof that Minkowski space-time is wrong unless others accept your view that two twins separated by relativistic travel and brought back together will always have equal subjective (and biological) age.

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.

Correct, any inertial reference frame does that.

The position of a given event could be any straight time-like line from that event. There are lots to choose.

This is nonsensical mathematics. When the points are defined within an inertial reference frame you do not require “time-lines” to define the position of an event; since the time is the same at every point

Indeed, if you define "inertial" as "Newtonian space + time". Which is why Newtonian physics does not properly represent the universe we know. But inertial frames can equally be defined on Minkowski space-time and this means there is no universal privileged time.

OK. I'm trying to understand this. What is the direction of motion of an inertial frame?

It depends from which other inertial reference frame you view it.

I only understand relative motion?

Correct! I did not dispute that there is only relative motion.

What condition on the two events do you suppose?

I do not follow what you are asking here.

If the line joining the two events is timelike ...

Let us stop using mathematics to fudge the physics. An inertial reference frame moves relative to an infinite number of other inertial reference frames at any velocity you can think off. According to your arguments this means that simultaneity can never be possible within any inertial reference frame.

No. I am suggesting that simultaneity (across spacelike separations) is only defined WRT an FOR. You can always choose an FOR to make two spatially separated points simultaneous. Of course, causal relationships do not exist between spatially separated points, since there is no possible timelike path.

that is entirely self-consistent.

Intuitively it replaces a lower dimensional 3D spatial section through space-time (Newtonian space) with a 4D hypercone of pacelike paths. It is mathematically beautiful and physically complete.

I suggest that you first read and study the manuscript which you asked for and which is now available on my website. It will be courteous of you to read the full physics logic before attacking using obscure mathematics.

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

Read the manuscript. I do not mean to be rude, but I really do not have the time to repeat in this post what is already available in detail within the manuscript.

Best wishes, Johan

Johan. I am no expert on Einstein. I will defend what I understand of Minkowski space-time since it seems to me very beautiful, clear, and there are no paradoxes providing you abandon "3D" thinking which of course does not apply.

Nor am I attacking anything. But Minkowski space-time is well explained in many textbooks (I suggest MTW as above) and that explanation is coherent, supported by evidence, etc.

If you wish to comment on Einstein's manuscript without suggesting flaws in a Minkowski model of space-time that is now generally accepted and which I personally think is wonderful (in the true meaning of the word) we will have no argument - since I have not read Einstein's manuscript and do not intend to do so.

On the other hand, if you wish to criticise the self-consistency or physical reality of Minkowski space-time it is surely fair for me to reply to the criticism?

Best wishes, Tom

[tomclarke]

Thought experiment:

You are inside a closed box.

Now time is just going at rate t.

Now it suddenly goes at rate 1000t.

Then it changes to 100t.

Then to 10t

Then to 50t.

And back to t.

Now if this would have actually happened, would you have noticed anything strange happening in your reference frame where that happened? Of course you would have not. It really isn't some magical thing that makes you feel like you're in the Matrix movie, or in reverse-Matrix, or Alice in the wonderland. If there was some wild time rate fluctuations affecting the whole Milky Way, would you notice anything? Nope.

Special relativity doesn't give any unique state to any reference frame, but when you do special relativity by Lorentz transformation rather than Minkowski space, you need to set a origin that is fixed in space time. Physics didn't set that origin, but choice of mathematical tools did.

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.

Yes.

The full symmetry group of course includes spatial & temporal translations as well as Lorentz tranformations, so there is no privileged origin.

[DeltaV]

I don't see how that helps.
...
I must say that my math skills are not up to the requirements of getting this mathematically. My calculus has deteriorated from 40+ years of non-use.

It helps by emphasizing that there is no actual change in aging rates going on.

What's happening is a slowdown in the observed rates of change. Rates of change imply calculus. But, that calculus of aging is occurring only in the inertial frame of the aging entity (clock, twin, rotting orange, ...). It is not involved in the spacetime geometry of the Lorentz transform. Aging dynamics vs. spacetime kinematics.

The Lorentz transform is the funhouse mirror. Just because you and others look warped does not mean the mirror is actually warping anyone.

Of course, being an EE, you may be pre-warped. :)

[DeltaV]

the differences between frames is the curvature of space

In General Relativity.

In Special Relativity (flat spacetime) it's the velocities.