Re: Relativity Allows Us To Measure Absolute Motion?
- From: "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:57:52 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 30, 2:09 pm, "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Simon G Best" <simon.g.b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:d8KdnW7IGOw7c9LanZ2dnUVZ8tuqnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
Martin Hogbin wrote:
Motion relative to the frame in which the CMBR is locally isotropic
is detectable at every point in the universe but there is nothing necessarily
absolute about this. If you arrange to be in such a frame nothing special
happens (except of course the CMBR is isotropic).
What I was wondering was how a lot of the stuff in the universe happened
to end up in such frames, as it were. (Okay, that's really sloppily
put, but I hope you know what I mean.)
I am not sure that it is. I would guess that in the rest frame of most matter
in the universe the CMBR is not wildly anisotropic, if that is what you
mean. I would also guess that that fact is not just coincidence.
The CMBR might even be used to provide a convenient reference
frame at every point in the universe, if we ever get round to
intergalactic travel, rather like the Earth's magnetic field is used now.
However, this does not give the isoCMBR frame any special
properties. We could alternatively use a powerful radio beacon
for the same purpose.
Compare this with something which does seem to be absolute
such as acceleration. If you arrange to be in a non-accelerating
(inertial) frame, Newton's laws of motion take on a simpler form
that they would do in, say, a rotating (non-inertial) frame.
Okay, yes, I understand that relativity means we don't need
absolute-velocity-dependent laws of physics.
Let's imagine being inside a sealed lab. We can't look outside the lab,
or measure anything outside the lab. We can only do our measurements
and observations inside the lab. We conduct various experiments and
derive various laws of physics, but none of this enables us to measure
the lab's velocity. We can measure velocities within the lab relative
to the lab itself, but we can't establish any kind of absolute velocity
for the lab itself.
Now let's have the whole universe as our lab. How come, with no
special, preferred places in space, and no special, preferred frames, we
end up with such things as the CMBR in our lab? It's as if, following
the instant of the Big Bang, we've conducted an experiment that looks
like it's allowing us to measure velocities at particular places
relative to the universe as a whole.
Does that help clarify what it is I'm trying to get at?
I think so. It is tempting to speculate that the isoCMBR frame might
have some special significance but, if it has, no one has found it yet.
The isoCMBR frame may turn out to have some usefulness but this
will not make it any more absolute.
It is also tempting to speculate that the induction components
of the CMBR align domains in the dielectric of this laser:
"Always Knowing Precisely How Fast the Earth is Turning"
http://www.zeiss.com/C125716F004E0776/0/DB95426F0494AB1DC125717500445CEE/$File/Innovation_10_18.pdf
<< The inductive coupling takes place in the
near field ν± << c/r12 between coherently coupled
individual dipoles, through their red-shifted local
antipodal image. This allows the exchanged photons to
be virtual and the coherent modes to genuinely belong
to the coupled oscillators while ensuring that the
range of gravity spans the Universe. In this sense,
the Zitterbewegung of all matter near and far can be
felt here, in the far infrared (λred shifted > 1010 LYrs),
by the Zitterbewegung of a test charged particle or
dipole, in direct proportion to the rate of both,
that is, to their energy, owing to their common
coherent modes with the universe at large, through
red-shifted tunneling photons. This is in agreement
with the equivalence principle. >>
--C.P. Kouropoulos
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0107015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect
Sue...
Perhaps we could start with what the term "absolute motion" does and
does not conventionally mean?
I guess it conventionally means detectable within a sealed lab in
the way that rotation is for example. Of course, that does leave the
question of what the lab is sealed against. We might fancifully ponder
what would happen inside a lab sealed against gravity (or spacetime).
But as we have no gravity shielding means and its existence looks
extremely unlikely this remains sci-fi.
As things stand at the moment we can say that something is, or is not,
accelerating but we cannot say whether something is moving or not.
Of course we are free to define absolute motion any way we like
(such as relative to the isoCMBR frame, relative to the centre of
the Earth, or relative to me) but this has never proved fundamentally
useful.
--
Martin Hogbin- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- Relativity Allows Us To Measure Absolute Motion?
- From: Simon G Best
- Re: Relativity Allows Us To Measure Absolute Motion?
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Relativity Allows Us To Measure Absolute Motion?
- From: Simon G Best
- Re: Relativity Allows Us To Measure Absolute Motion?
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Relativity Allows Us To Measure Absolute Motion?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is It Worth Asking Real Questions Here?
- Next by Date: Re: A challenge to Tom Roberts re LET,SR and an alternative.
- Previous by thread: Re: Relativity Allows Us To Measure Absolute Motion?
- Next by thread: Re: Relativity Allows Us To Measure Absolute Motion?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
