Re: TOM ROBERTS - Dono is confused, please help him out (was SR cannot determine Contraction)

On Feb 26, 12:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


2. can you send me the original paper, I would highly appreciate it.

I'll have to hunt for it. It's a paper comparing ISR (collider)
rapidity distributions with those at FNAL (fixed target), if I
remember right. I think I remember seeing some references in Don
Perkins' book on particle physics, too.



Would be nice to have a look at it, I bet that Tom would like to see
it as well.




Because there should be no difference between rest and uniform
relative motion, I thought that this should be self-evident.

And there isn't. If you have an object that is in motion in a
particular reference frame and you want to change its length without
changing its motion in that frame, then you have to compress the
lattice by introducing a stress. However, this does not mean that the
change that is observed in going from frame to frame has to be
attributed to the same process.



But this is not a valid proof, you realize that? A valid proof would
be to show that:

-while in the proper frame S_0 : \ Sigma (F_internal) = 0

-in a frame moving with v wrt S_0 \Sigma (F'_internal)=0 (where F'_i
is the Lorentz transformation of F_i) and that , somehow, magically,
the atom sizes have Lorentz contracted. I think Lorentz spent a good
10 years of his life trying to prove that and it amounted to nothing.




It just isn't. And in fact, collisions of nuclei on nuclei
demonstrate just this fact, that the physical density of that nuclear matter is *higher* when the nucleus is in relative motion.

Are these experiments related to rigid lattices or to free atoms?

Yes, in the sense that those nuclei are lattices of quarks and gluons,
and that the introduction of additional stress would have experimental
implications that are not seen.

Is there any acceleration involved in the above?

Not in the region being probed.



Is there ANY acceleration involved? You know why I am asking, we've
been thru this before.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proposing Physics Experimentation with Eff. Premises
    ... > frame we consider stationary - the frame of the magnet or the frame of the ... > thing of relevance is their relative motion so the underlying physics must ... > Lorentz invariant ie the equations describing it take the same form in all ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: RSA Challenges
    ... Other irish magenta soaps will focus legally round stations. ... Who did Timothy roar including all the blokes? ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • The Axis of Evil is East of Eden
    ... You do not have a clear understanding of the Lorentz picture. ... "Absolute Rest" where the 90 degree rotation fringe shift vanishes. ... Lorentzian preferred inertial frame at the macro-level. ...
    (sci.math)
  • The Axis of Evil is East of Eden
    ... You do not have a clear understanding of the Lorentz picture. ... "Absolute Rest" where the 90 degree rotation fringe shift vanishes. ... Lorentzian preferred inertial frame at the macro-level. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Eugene Wigners Greatest Blunder?
    ... Lorentz invariance is a local symmetry. ... The kind of "preferred frame" Cahill reports is merely ... and its Euler-Lagrange equations not to the vacuum solutions! ...
    (sci.physics.particle)