Re: relativity: what if you can measure how far the light traveled?

On Feb 12, 8:16 pm, "Russell" <russ...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:46 pm, "Alen" <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 13, 1:49 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Alen" <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1171288671.538626.223790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I would discourage anyone trying to use the Minkowski diagram
in an attempt to understand the answer to any paradox in SR
conceptually, rather than purely mathematically, since the
4D spacetime geometric interpretation of SR does not make
sense conceptually. There is a fundamental distinction between
SR's transformation equations, and the spacetime interpretation.
They are distinct topics, sufficiently to be seen as virtually
distinct theories.

Where do you get that idea?
Do you think there is a discrepancy between the mathematical
tranformation and the way the transformation is represented
in a spacetime diagram?

[copy and followup to sci.physics.relativity]

Dirk Vdm

I don't say there is a purely mathematical discrepancy. I do
say that the 4D spacetime geometry goes far beyond what the
original transformation equations actually say. They refer only
to time dilation and foreshortening.

No, that's incorrect, and you are repeating a common
misconception. The time-dilation and Lorentz-Fitzgerald
contraction equations are *consequences* of the Lorentz
transformation equations and refer to the *special cases*
of, respectively, constant x' and constant t. The LTE
themselves are more general, and they imply a third and
(IMHO) more fundamental result: relativity of simultaneity.

They say nothing about

how this actually happens, and say nothing about something
like a 4D spacetime geometry.

On the contrary, that is exactly what they "say". The LTE
are mathematical equations, and mathematically they are
equivalent to a group structure on Minkowski spacetime.

That is an interpretation imposed

on the equations. From a conceptual perspective, as
representing an underlying reality, as distinct from being
a purely mathematical representation, the 4D geometry
doesn't make sense.

I'm tempted to ask, doesn't make sense to *whom*, but
that would miss the more important point:

When you start worrying about the "underlying reality" --
that which cannot be observed -- you leave the realm of
physics. The LTE are part of physics because experience
has shown that they describe very well what can be
observed. You are free to put whatever conceptual
framework onto it that makes you happy, and if that leads
you to make predictions (ideally *new* ones) of things
that can be observed, then your new conceptions might
merit the term "physics". Not until then, though.


Actually they don't interpret what can actually be observed.
We don't observe anisotopic light behavior and we
don't observe nearfield behavior in the far field of
an EM coupling structure.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
<< Figure 3: The wave impedance measures
the relative strength of electric and magnetic
fields. It is a function of source [absorber] structure. >>
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
http://journals.iranscience.net:800/www.conformity.com/www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

Sue...








Alen.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast