Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process

From: Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato (valls_at_icmf.inf.cu)
Date: 09/24/04 

Date: 23 Sep 2004 17:52:36 -0700

harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch (Harry) wrote in message news:<3bff5641.0409210336.6b260c25@posting.google.com>...
> valls@icmf.inf.cu (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) wrote in message news:<33d06fe2.0409170950.18a5bd28@posting.google.com>...
> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<414ab4a6$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> SNIP
>
> > > > 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 its 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.
>
> Interesting.
>

Of course that you will need more time to understand all about my HIS
approach.

> > > > 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.
>
> Indeed, it seems that I had somehow inversed the equation of the Bohr
> model -thanks for pointing that out to me!

I really do not understand what had you inversed in the Bohr frequency
equation (or what I had pointed you about it). The equation state the
frequency of an emitted photon when an electron jump from the orbit n
to the lower energy one n'. Using SI units it is the following:
nu=(En-En')/h = [m e^4 / 8 epsilon0^2 h^3 (1+m/M)][1/n'^2 – 1/n^2]
This was a non-relativistic equation, where m and M are the electron
and proton rest masses, considered constants. The part of interest for
me is that the frequency nu is directly proportional to m. I make then
a relativistic correction, different from the historic one made by
Wilson and Sommerfeld (W&S). Instead of considering INTERNAL relations
inside the H atom (as W&S did), I consider EXTERNAL relations between
it and the outside world (do not forget my HIS point of view!).
The really important point here is the rest mass measuring potential
energy (this is NOT today Physics, and I am ready to confront a strong
opposition here). If the H atom is in a gravitation field, both m and
M changes in some tiny proportion following the gravitation potential.
Being nu and m directly proportional, the change in emitted frequency
nu follows the gravitation potential, the same derivation obtained in
General Relativity.

> But then the problem is how
> to explain that an increase in motional mass ("relativistic mass")
> does the opposite, for in that case the heavier electron emits a lower
> frequency...
>

I am considering the H atom at rest in the field, but we can put to it
a velocity if you want. The reduction of a clock's time rate when
exists a kinetic energy (and its associated motional mass) is a
well-known fact in SR. But the relativistic mass (total mass) is not
only motional mass, it is the adding of a rest mass and a motional
mass. In my approach this is related to a total energy (relativistic
or total mass) equal to a potential energy (rest mass) plus a kinetic
energy (motional mass). It sounds very classics, isn't it? (the simple
the better). We have not the need to make a distinction between a
pre-relativistic energy conservation law and a relativistic one (I am
referring to total energy being equal to potential energy plus kinetic
one). Rest energy, particle energy, potential energy, field energy…are
all one and the same thing.

Yes, I noticed that an increase in motional mass corresponds to a
decrease in time rate and that an increase in rest mass corresponds to
an increase in time rate (an electron –or any other entity- can be
heavier for two different causes, each with a different effect in the
time rate). But it is not a problem at all to explain these two
effects. The first one is the well-know time dilation with velocity,
the second one is a direct consequence from the rest mass measuring
potential energy. Both of them are valid derivations from basic SR
principles, without any contradiction between them. I recommend you to
re-read Einstein's September-27-1905 paper (it is only a little more
than 2 short pages!). You can obtain it easily at
http://www.fourmilab.ch Read it taking into account that the only
energy a rest body could have in 1905 was potential one.

The two effects considered in the last paragraph are used in a very
ordinary way to synchronize GPS clocks, taking into account their
height and rotating speed. A direct experimental verification that the
two effects are very real ones, occurring at the same time without any
contradiction between them. And now both of them explained using only
SR basic principles.

> > Quantum Mechanics and Relativity in
> > complete agreement in the beginning of both theories! Pound and Rebka
> > experiment explained without GR!
>
> Not really, I think that the change of mass insight followed from GRT.
> SRT and GRT are like the conservation of energy, one can use that or
> sometimes one can use other ways to reach the same result - sometimes
> in a much more complex or cumbersome way.
>

Without any doubt, the explanation of P&R using the
rest-mass-measuring-potential-energy concept is very much simpler than
the one using space-time warp, Gaussian coordinates, symmetric
4-tensors, non-inertial frames, etc.

> > One of the three 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.
>
> No. Also to me, relativity laws suggest that energy has a real effect
> - it boils down to the concept that what usually has been taken as
> mere calculation aids, actually always correspond to something "real".
> The question is more how to properly account for it, and that's where
> I focussed on. Depending on the correct accounting, your conclusion is
> right or wrong. I now think it may be right, and that would even be
> simplest solution.
>
 
I repeat my conviction that the so-called relativistic effects are
completely real (without " "). Of course, in the context of my HIS
approach.
An end remark:
My intention is to apply the rest-mass-measuring-potential energy
concept (that I attribute to Einstein's 1905 work, or a direct
derivation from it) to ANY kind of field (electrical, gravitational,
nuclear, etc), that can exist at the same time. Rest mass is for me
the key concept to reach all field unification! (Sorry, Higgs, your
in-any-place-existing special field, the cause of mass, sounds to me
like…aether).

> Harald

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
    ... modeled also by a high hierarchy HIS. ... >> body set where we can compute its center of mass. ... >> the only energy a rest body could have is potential one. ... I consider rest mass as kinetic 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)