Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process

From: Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato (valls_at_icmf.inf.cu)
Date: 09/17/04 

Date: 17 Sep 2004 10:50:32 -0700

"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<414ab4a6$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> "Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato" <valls@icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
> news:33d06fe2.0409161116.24bc58c1@posting.google.com...
> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:<4147fd8c$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> > > "xxein" <xxein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cce403e3.0409141800.2146794@posting.google.com...
> SNIP
> > > > > Dear Joseph,
> > > > >
> > > > > I still wonder how real and unreal these things are in the
> Einsteinian
> > > > > interpretation. I know that Feynman didn't care much about such
> issues,
> > > > > according to him what *appears* to be true for someone *is* true for
> that
> > > > > person... But here's the crucial thing about the Lorentzian
> interpretation
> > > > > which has no ambiguity:
> > > > >
> > > > > According to Lorentz' theory a rod which moves relative to the ether
> > > > > contracts. Consequently, when a rod moves relative to a random
> observer
> > > > > frame S, we can't know if it is more *or less* contracted than when
> it
> was
> > > > > stationary in S. With that interpretation, reciprocity between two
> frames of
> > > > > observation S and S' is due to an unknown mixture of correct
> observation
> and
> > > > > distorted observation in each frame.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course, based on that interpretation it seems plausible that fast
> > > > > particles such as in accelerators are truly contracted, simply
> because
> we
> > > > > could suppose that the earth has a small speed relative to such an
> ether
> > > > > frame.
> > > > >
> > > > > Harald
> > > >
> > > > xxein: Now you are really getting it!
> > >
> > > No new understanding - this newsgroup sharpens my thoughts and improves
> my
> > > ability to express myself.
> > >
> > > > Continue and call on me if you
> > > > run into problems with gravity.
> > >
> > > Already happened... as a result I now have a very unorthodox idea about
> the
> > > effect of potential energy on mass...
> > >
> > > Harald
>
> > Hello Harald, surely you remember me (reflection on a moving mirror!).
>
> Yes indeed!
>
> > I was following the interesting discussion in this thread about the
> > real or apparent nature of relativistics effects, but what decided me
> > to post here was your last words "I now have a very unorthodox idea
> > about the effect of potential energy on mass...". I will put first my
> > position about the topic of this thread.
> >
> > I believe that relativistics effects are real, result from physical
> > changes on bodies and clocks, but rejecting the reciprocity (or as I
> > refer frequently, the symmetry or equivalence among the inertial
> > frames). Even then, I also reject completely the aether theories. I
> > vindicate Galileo! The Earth moves and not the Sun (considering the
> > Sun's mass infinite, of course). I developed the Hierarchical Inertial
> > System (HIS) concept, with its associated body set, where its center
> > of mass is considered at rest (following Bohr 1913 H atom model). The
> > solar system can be modeled by a HIS, that has lower hierarchy than
> > the Galaxy, modeled also by a high hierarchy HIS. Every HIS models a
> > different part of the Universe, always with a completely determined
> > body set where we can compute its center of mass. Every HIS is limited
> > to describe the movements of its own associated body set. We can
> > describe the Earth-Moon movement in the solar system, but not the Sun
> > movement in the Earth-Moon system (no reciprocity, no symmetry, no
> > equivalence). For the low hierarchy Earth-Moon system the Sun does not
> > exist!(as nothing more exists outside the pair electron-proton in
> > Bohr's model, the unique entities taken into account when computing
> > the center of mass).
> >
> > Now to potential energy and mass. "Mass measures energy" was the
> > principal conclusion of Einstein's Sep.27, 1905 paper (where he
> > introduced for first time the mass-energy relationship), valid for all
> > inertial frames, including the one the body is at rest. In that epoch
> > the only energy a rest body could have is potential one.
>
> In contrast, I consider rest mass as kinetic energy: think of a running
> gyroscope. it is at rest, but it's energy is kinetic. Apart of that, the
> gyroscope's position can give it potential energy.
>
No problem at all with my HIS model. A low hierarchy HIS can be
considered as a material point in its center of mass that belongs to
the body set of a higher hierarchy HIS. A HIS implies a distinction
between an interior and an exterior. The interior is the associated
body set, with its center of mass considered always at rest. Inside
you can have kinetic and potential energy (any kind of them,
electrical, gravitational, nuclear, etc.) for every body of the set,
and adding all of them you obtain the total energy of the system. The
equivalent mass of this total energy is the rest mass of the total
system associated to the material point mentioned. The exterior is the
body set of the higher hierarchy HIS that includes the low hierarchy
HIS as a material point. The material point, as part of the higher
hierarchy HIS, can has a velocity and a position with their
corresponding kinetic and potential energies. The total energy of the
low hierarchy HIS considering only internal data is the one for the
material point at rest and positioned far away from all the others
bodies of the high hierarchy body set. For attractive fields this
corresponds to a point of maximal potential energy. As you see, for a
HIS we have internal energies associated to the relations among the
bodies of its associated set, and external energies associated to the
relations of the HIS as a whole with the others bodies of the
associated set of the high hierarchy HIS.
Your gyroscope is included in this general view.

> > Then, as a
> > particular case, "rest mass measures potential energy". As an example,
> > the rest mass of a body is increased when it is put at a higher height
> > in a gravitational field, or decreased when put at a low height.
>
> Which is contrary to my thinking. Please tell me how HIS models clock
> frequency as function of potential energy, maybe you will change my mind!
>
Again no problem at all. Remember that for me (following 1905
Einstein) rest mass measures potential energy. Take into account the
variation of mass with the position of the clock in a field and that's
all. I can advance you that the formula obtained for a gravitation
field is exactly the same one obtained with General Relativity! Go to
the Bohr 1913 H atom model and see how the emitted frequency is
altered putting an adjusted little less rest mass for the electron.
The less mass electron emits a less frequency photon following the
gravitation potential variation. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity in
complete agreement in the beginning of both theories! Pound and Rebka
experiment explained without GR! One of the tree basic experimental
supports for GR explained without it!
I have others big surprises for you.

> > Energy of any kind makes a real change in the body state,
expressed in
> > its velocity or position in a given HIS, what is pretty close to the
> > original topic of this thread. I know that these ideas are not today
> > orthodox relativity ones, but I am ready to defend them as the
> > original Einstein's 1905 ones, or with a direct derivation from them.
> > I believe strongly that what Einstein discovered in 1905 was an
> > absolute natural zero point for all kind of potential energies,
> > measured all of them at the same time by the rest mass. The field
> > energy and the particle rest energy is one and the same thing! A
> > direct reference to the original paper is necessary here, not
> > forgeting never that General Relativity does not exist yet.
> > No part of Physics was excluded from Relativity in 1905, gravitation
> > included.
>
> Harald

Well, I see that you did not consider the more heretical parts of my
post at the end. I realize that it is perhaps too much for a simple
initial one.

RVHG

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rest mass
    ... before that you are in agreement with 1905 Einstein). ... He speaks of mass not rest mass. ... things like potential energy and kinetic energy [and in the frame of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... >> the body set of a higher hierarchy HIS. ... with its center of mass considered always at rest. ... >> and adding all of them you obtain the total energy of the system. ... >> Einstein) rest mass measures potential energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the mass of a free falling body increasing?
    ... kind of stored kinetic energy. ... > photon with zero rest mass (pure kinetic energy with only dynamic ... "relativity" is irrelevant for determining the rest mass. ... implied to include gravitation at that point, as it was also not included in ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... > to the lower energy one n'. ... > The really important point here is the rest mass measuring potential ... > referring to total energy being equal to potential energy plus kinetic ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... >> gyroscope's position can give it potential energy. ... > the body set of a higher hierarchy HIS. ... > body set, with its center of mass considered always at rest. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)