Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?

On Jul 29, 6:53 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 29, 11:02 am, mluttg...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Jul 29, 3:00 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

  ee91f5fe-fca0-450b-8665-2b8507364...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[snip]

 > At this point in a classroom discussion, when we've moved onto time

dilation, somewhere in somebody's head the wheels about length
contraction are still turning, and something falls softly into place,
and I will usually hear a voice interrupting the discussion:
"You mean that's it?"
And then the conversation goes something like this:
"What do you mean, 'that's it?' "
"I mean, there's nothing more to this special relativity stuff than
that?"
"What were you expecting?"
"To be honest, I was expecting some weird interaction between space
and matter that was making matter shrink. I thought that special
relativity was an effect... the result of some new physics process
that no one was talking about. And I was waiting for you to tell me
about this new physics process. But there's no new physics process,
you're telling me?"
"No, nothing beyond what we've already talked about."
"And so length contraction is nothing more than an artifact of its
definition?"
"More or less. The same is true for momentum."
"But that's DIFFERENT! I mean, we've been using mass times velocity
for momentum. And ANYONE can see that velocity will depend on the
frame of reference, and so momentum will too. I mean, that's obvious.
Momentum is frame dependent because of its definition, and anyone can
see that."
"Yes, exactly."
"And you've just said that the same is true for length, that length is
frame-dependent because of its definition, and nothing more. And
that's IT??"
"Yup. It took us a few more steps to see it, but that's it in a
nutshell."
"Well, forgive me, but what did Einstein get a Nobel prize for? I
mean, where's the new physics in that?? I thought Einstein invented a
way for space to twist matter and squeeze it and slow down process and
stuff."
"As it turns out, he didn't get the Nobel for relativity, but let's
set that aside for a moment and take a step back. Just two days ago,
you were convinced that length was a frame-independent quantity, much
different than momentum, right?"
"I suppose..."
"And we had to get through several steps to even get to this point. We
had to recognize that the laws of physics should be the same in every
inertial reference frame. We had to recognize that this meant that the
speed of light from ANY source had to be the same in ANY frame, which
is a surprise we'd better check experimentally. We had to then
recognize that this meant that simultaneity is a frame-dependent
condition, which is a surprise we'd better check experimentally. And
then we had to recognize that length by its very definition relied on
simultaneity, which is something we probably didn't think about
before. And then we had to recognize that length, then, is also frame-
dependent by its definition, which is a surprise we'd better check
experimentally."
"Yes, I get all that now..."
"Well, at the time Einstein was working on this, many people got some
of the bits and pieces of that, but they chickened out before
following it all the way through. They saw some of the surprises and
said, 'that doesn't seem possible', and they chickened out. Einstein
didn't chicken out."
"And not chickening out is what Einstein won a Nobel Prize for?"
"Not quite. Those many surprises that needed to be checked out
experimentally, were in fact checked out experimentally. And he was
right. And THAT'S when Einstein became famous. Not chickening out was
important. But not chickening out AND being right is the unique
combination that few people get. And that's what wins people prizes.."
"But length contraction isn't HARD. Shouldn't it be hard to
understand?"
"No. The best leaps in physics are always obvious in hindsight and
nearly impossible to see in foresight. The point in teaching you
physics is not so much to teach you the stuff that is easy to see in
hindsight. It's to teach you how to blaze a trail toward something
that is nearly impossible to see in foresight. But on that we've
hardly even begun..."

PD

Alas, no students like *that* remain in *this* classroom.
Either they leave the class when they understand - and there
isn't much of interest here beyond this, or they are insuffienctly
gifted (and more than sufficiently blockheaded) to understand,
so they stay here for years or even decades :-)

Dirk Vdm

There are different ways to derive the Lorentz
transformation, but Paul Draper's approach is so
illustratively interesting, that I consider as
a priviledge to remain in his classroom.

I appreciate the compliment. Keep in mind though, that I'm telling you
nothing that isn't already in some wonderful books and isn't already
the subject of a well-taught university class. It's just that it's
much harder to even find it on the internet, and it's even harder to
isolate it from the mounds and mounds of crap on the internet. You get
what you pay for. What you don't get when you don't pay for it is
*quality control*. It is virtually impossible for a novice on the
internet to exercise that QC by himself -- otherwise he wouldn't be a
novice.

PD

This is a digression:

Almost everybody accept that the observed
velocity of light is independent from the
motion of its source.
But is its velocity independent of the
motion of the observer?

For instance, the observer is moving
directly toward the light source.

Then, one can consider that the velocity
of light relative to the observer is c-v
instead of c (contrary to Einstein's
postulate), thus c / (c-v) = 1 / (1-v/c).
Taking into account the SR factor
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), one gets
f(obs) / f = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) / (1-v/c),
where f(obs) is the observed frequency
and f the frequency of the light emitted
by the source.

Marcel Luttgens
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Koobee Wublees" take on Einstein
    ... few holdouts against the reality of atoms. ... for much subsequent work on atomic physics. ... Einstein showed that quantized light could be used to explain ... acceleration would be causing the contraction, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... about this new physics process. ... "Well, forgive me, but what did Einstein get a Nobel prize for? ... which is a surprise we'd better check experimentally. ... "And not chickening out is what Einstein won a Nobel Prize for?" ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... about this new physics process. ... "Well, forgive me, but what did Einstein get a Nobel prize for? ... which is a surprise we'd better check experimentally. ... "And not chickening out is what Einstein won a Nobel Prize for?" ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Nameless critics on the Internet and critical analysis of Einsteins E=mc2
    ... E=mc2 is the most wonderful and significant equation is physics. ... In his 1905 paper Einstein did not ... Yes, it is completely recognized, as published in peer review journals. ... There may be back door critics but none of the scientists have dared to ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: Einsteins Unfortunate Legacy #1
    ... Dr. Einstein is credited with being a modern Newton who provided a sea change shift in our understanding of physical reality... ... In 1905 an anonymous patent clerk in Bern rewrote the laws of physics ... molecules by studying their motion in a solution. ... on special relativity and the photoelectric effect, ...
    (sci.physics)