Re: Testing the oneway lightspeed constancy

On Mar 21, 7:12 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 21, 2:00 pm,xray4abc<lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 11:45 pm, dlzc <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Dearxray4abc:

On Mar 20, 1:25 pm,xray4abc<lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 19, 4:12 pm,dlzc<dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
...
   I am not thinking of a special case solution.
I think that the behaviour of muons could be explained
by considering the increase in the number of internal states
of the muon as a system of components rather than time
dilation.

     You can think of the behavior of muons in any way you like as
long as the calculations are consistent with experimental results.
However, your way of thinking will still be consistent with special
relativity.
    The error you are making does not have anything to do with modern
physics. Your error is with formal logic. It is called, "false
exclusion of the middle." If one develops a theory that predicts the
exact same experimental results as another theory under any and all
conditions, the two theories are not considered separate. They are
called "representations" of the same theory.
    I don't know if your model predicts the results of the muon theory
or not. I do know that special relativity predicts the results. I
don't want to discourage you. Your representation of special
relativity may be simpler for many situations. However, you have not
proven special relativity wrong until your model predicts  an
experimental result that isn't predicted by special relativity.
     Another thing you have to realize is that special relativity is
not intrinsically classical. Special relativity is what is called a
symmetry. Special relativity is not the underlying dynamics. Newton's
Laws is a case of classical dynamics, quantum mechanics is another
type of dynamics.
     There are versions of quantum mechanics where the Hamiltonian
does not follow special relativity. These are considered
approximations, and most physicists find these approximations very
useful. There are versions of quantum mechanics where the Hamiltonian
fully follows special relativity. The special relativity quantum
mechanics are in principle more exact than the nonrelativistic quantum
mechanics. If you want to calculate the muons lifetime precisely at
high relative velocities, you may be advised to use the relativistic
quantum mechanics. I think one can diddle the nonrelativistic
Hamiltonian in certain ways to get relativistic results. However, that
is merely a representation of relativistic quantum mechanics.
     Note: there are versions of quantum mechanics consistent with
special relativity. The problem is with general relativity. There is
no version of quantum mechanics known that is fully consistent with
general relativity. To say that "relativity is classical" is to make a
misrepresentation.

I agree with you basically.
I have studied special relativity in last few years with the
aim to make it understandable to the average layman.
I can't say that I succeded, as I have found that this is an
overly difficult job.
So I tried to start from scratch following Einstein's steps.
Well, to cut it short, I reached an even more complicated version
of special relativity. I am still working on it, comparing it to the
classical one, rethinking things etc.
I have tried to show some of the results I obtained to the guys in
the
news-groups. Nobody was able to understand anything as their
thinking is so much biased, in one direction or another.
As SRT is so much based on the light-speed constancy
(energy or action speed-limit constancy) I was inquiring if there is
after all direct experimental validation of this postulate.
I imagined an experiment like this and asked, in this thread if
anybody knows about it as done by astronomers.
As I have said a few times, nobody seems to understand
anybody in these discussions when it comes to new ideas.
What is good though is ,that you can get sometime directed to
good information-sources.
So, this is what I am looking for !
Best regards,LL
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Testing the oneway lightspeed constancy
    ... You can think of the behavior of muons in any way you like as ... your way of thinking will still be consistent with special ... I do know that special relativity predicts the results. ... There are versions of quantum mechanics where the Hamiltonian ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: "Overview of the Einsteinhoax Website"
    ... Relativity but rather the showing that mathematics could used to make ... "Gravity" athttp://einsteinhoax.com/gravity/htm. ... "Corrections to Errors in Special Relativity" ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Testing the oneway lightspeed constancy
    ... I have studied special relativity in last few years with the ...     I wouldn't start from scratch following Einstein's steps. ... hold the detector together. ... Not all force laws result in Lorentz ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Relativistic Dynamics
    ... Special relativity is verified for v/ ... if you can derive it from first principles or not? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Objects dont exist in spacetime, they Are spacetime.
    ...   independently of the actual objects of physical reality. ... Einstein showed we're hyperrocks. ... First, to show that the block universe view, regarding the universe as ... is the only one that is consistent with special relativity. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast