Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?

On Jul 5, 4:13 am, mluttg...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Are *observed* SR effects real?

Luttgens:

Two persons, A and B, are both 1.60 m tall when their
height is mesured in the same room.
After some jogging, the distance between A and B is
x meters, and A will claim that B measure 0.80 m, whereas
B will observe that A measures 0.80 m. Of course, both
are right, but this doesn't change the intrinsic height of
A and B, i.e. 1.60 m.

Similarly, Kat considers that Dirk Vdm measured
only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock,
and Vdm claims that Kat travelled during 5 years, but
measured 5 * sqrt(1-0.866^2) =~ 2.5 years on her clock.

SRists don't realize that such observational differences
represent a mere perspective effect, but not an intrinsic
modification of clock rates. They claim that Kat's time has
been physically 'dilated' by a factor 2 because of her
motion wrt the Earth, even if other observers wrt
to which Kat would be moving at othir velocities would
find other 'dilation' factors.
They nevertheless believe that such 'time dilation' is
a permanent effect, which is of course stupid, as it is
simply an observational artefact.

Their belief  that clock rates are physically and
*permanently* affected by motion is not different from
that of primitive people, who think that distances
physically affect the height of observed persons.
But those primitive people, unless they were very stupid,
don't believe that the perspective effect is permanent.

PD:

False dichotomy. Both of the alternatives you
present, which you assume to be the only ones
available, are incorrect.

SR does not say that there is something physical
that happens to the clock that alters the way
they work. Nor does SR say anything about
this being a permanent affect.

However, SR does not dismiss it as a perspective
effect or an illusion, either.

You have falsely presumed that if it is not one,
then it must be the other.

What is in fact the case is that physics is
about measurement and a theoretical structure
that allows you to predict what will be *measured*.

It does absolutely no good to have a theory
that tells you that what is going on is one thing,
but that that's not what you'll measure.

The interesting thing about SR is that it
emphasized (not revealed nor added, but
emphasized) that there are certain assumptions
that are built into the *definition* of
measurements. For example, simultaneity of two
events is intrinsic to the *meaning* of
measured length. So if simultaneity is
frame-dependent, then so is length, as length
is *defined*. It does absolutely no good, then,
to insist that length should be a frame-independent
quantity, as it is impossible to define length
as a *measurable* quantity that separates it
from simultaneity.
So then insisting that length be frame-independent
in some underlying reality is to either
a) say that the underlying reality is
unmeasurable, or
b) define length in a self-contradictory way,
making it a one-word oxymoron.

Luttgens:

You wrote: "SR does not say that there is

something physical that happens to the clock
that alters the way they work. Nor does SR
say anything about this being a permanent affect."

I agree, but some 'experts' claim that the
effect is permanent, cf. their interpretation
of the H&K experiment.

PD:

I'm not sure I understand what you think the
interpretation is. In the H&K experiment, when
the airborne clock landed, it was indeed behind
the ground-bound clock. However, when the
two clocks were then compared side-by-side,
they were "ticking" at the same rate.

So the "behindness" did not go away when the
clock landed, but the rate change did.
So is that "permanent" or not?

Luttgens:

Airborne clocks would have been *observed*
to tick slower than ground clocks in the H&K
experiment, but, as you rightly pointed out,
SR does not say that there is something
physical that happens to the clock that alters
the way they work. Nor does SR say anything
about this being a permanent effect.

Btw, the H&K experiment doesn't allow to
conclude that time 'dilation' physically
and permanently affects airborne clocks.

The authors themselves recognized:

1) that "real" cesium beam clocks generally
show systematic rate differences, which in
extreme cases may amount to time differences
as large as 1 microsecond per day
2) that the relative rates for cesium beam
clocks do not remain precisely constant.
3) the number of measured values is too small
for a good statistical analysis.

Well, I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the
relativity
of simultaneity, if you are interested:

We are in the midst of a renaissance in the historiography of set
theory.
Above all, I recommend A. Garciadiego, BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE
ORIGINS OF
THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES,' but there's also Grattan-Guinness and
Ferreiros, discussed in the paper linked below.

Here is the central issue in the understanding of the relativity of
simultaneity:

Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical
geometry."
He thought the formulation of this point of view was his crowning
achievement,
and thought very highly of the lecture in which you can read his
discussion
of it, "Geometry and Experience." I recommend it.

Today this mathematical point of view is called constructivism or
natural
mathematics, and in his day it had three branches: intuitionism,
logicism and
formalism.

So you have to understand, first, that Einstein expressed the
relativity of
simultaneity in practical geometry. I don't see any acknowledgment of
that
in this chain of remarks. If you want to understand what he said, you
have
to understand the issues which were important to him.

From Poincare (SCIENCE AND HYPOTHESIS), but also from the long
tradition of
natural mathematics stretching back to Aristotle's concern over the
"paradox"
of Zeno, he adopted the idea that all argumentation leads inevitably
to
paradox. This is certainly the gist of the response to Cantorian set
theory,
hence the fame of the supposed set-theoretic 'paradoxes.'

The most important result of this concern was the idea that there is
no such
thing as logical content: arguments, if expressed in a certain way,
can
approach logical content but can never actually contain it, because,
again,
argumentation necessarily leads to paradox.

So, for practitioners of constructivism or practical geometry, the
only way
out was a compromise: construct an argument, but make it contain the
constructivist idea. That idea is that mathematics is an inherent
human
function.

For those interested in logical content, this is already so far afield
that
eyes glaze over. And it was never seen to be relevant to relativity,
because
no one was able to say how Einstein used practical geometry as a
technique in
constructing an argument. "Geometry and Experience" was seen to be a
bunch
of genial generalities with no relevance to relativity. Why were
people
unable to understand where Einstein used "practical geometry"?
Because, I
think, we share so much of constructivist mathematical thinking that
we are
blind to its presence in arguments.

In any event, you ought to know that Einstein DID use practical
geometry in
developing the relativity of simultaneity. Whatever else you may now
argue
regarding the relativity of simultaneity, you can no longer ignore the
constructivist mathematics in it--that, now, HAS to be taken into
account.
There is an historical sidetrack to this: Einstein's use of
constructivist
math is in "disguised" form in the 1905 paper.

So, I think intentionally, he made it explicit in the "train
experiment." If
you notice, the train experiment and the clock experiments are the
same
experiment: they can be translated mechanically, one into the other.

Thus, the constructivist term Einstein inserted into the train
experiment is
also present in the clock experiment.

Remember, that in doing this, he intentionally deprived the argument
of
logical content, because he felt he had to do so. If YOU feel that
one must
do so, this will not bother you. If you insist on logical content in
your
argument, it will bother you A LOT. So it's really a matter of taste,
and
not one for debate.

As the paper below says, at one stage of the argument, point M is said
to
"naturally" (fallt zwar...zusammen" in the original German) coincide
with
point M'. (By the way, close readers of this text--translators--have
realized that this was a conceptual anomaly: they treat it differently
in the
French and Italian translations of RELATIVITY).

The logical problem with this notion is as follows:

1. if you drop the term, and M and M' coincide in traditional
Euclidean
fashion, you are led to the contradiction of assuming two Cartesian
coordinate systems and deducing one such system (I leave the proof of
this to
you).

So M and M' cannot coincide in a Euclidean way: that much cannot, I
think, be
contested and no one has ever argued that they could so coincide and
that
Einstein was saying that they did so coincide. At least, I haven't
seen any
such contentions.

2. if you retain the term, you find that it is not part of the
formulation
of the relativity of simultaneity. It is not a definition, an
assumption, a
principle, a deduction or anything else. You will look in vain for
the
logical role it plays in the argument. It doesn't play any at all.
It
simply rattles around in the argument--a loose cannon on deck.

So what is it? It is what Einstein always meant it to be: it is an
arbitrary
insertion into the argument, made necessary--according to his approach
of
"practical geometry"--in order for the argument to avoid paradox. So
Einstein did exactly what he wanted to do. However, I think we have
had an
unconscious prejudice against the lack of logical content, so we never
wanted
to think that that's what he wanted to do, or did do. But that's not
taking
Einstein seriously. I suggest you take him seriously--at least do him
that
courtesy, if you are going to pay any attention to what he says.

By the way, are there any paradoxes? That is, was there anything for
Einstein to worry about? No. Not even Zeno's paradox has stood up to
analysis. The "logical" compulsion we feel with respect to the
paradoxes so
far proposed, is an artifact of their construction--it's their
rhetoric--it
is not a result of logical content in these arguments. They have
none. Too
bad, because they are very seductive. But that's the way it is.

This is where the new set theory history is making all kinds of
contributions.
Particularly Garciadiego is devastating with his care with respect to
the
history and the terms, showing that Richard didn't even consider his
argument
a paradox, that there is no Cantor paradox, no Russell paradox, and so
on.
They are glib sleights of hand which do not stand up historically or
logically.

So you really have to do some more work understanding the history of
math.

Another thing which is being revealed by new work into Einstein, is
how
little he probed into contemporary set theory debates. He never
criticized
anything Poincare said about those debates, although particularly
Grattan-
Guinness is scathing in his discussion of Poincare. Einstein didn't
really
know anything about the set theory which set him off on his
mathematical
approach. Very remarkable, I think--very eye-opening.

Einstein is not alone in the sloppiness with which he approached the
mathematical foundation of his argument. The Fefermans and other
commentators are amazingly critical of Godel in their remarks in the
collected works, regarding his understanding of set theory debates.

We tend to think of these twentieth-century mandarins as close
students, as
scrupulous thinkers. It turns out that they were slobs.

And of course, Cantor has been subjected to recent research which is
even
more embarrassing for his work than the many longstanding critiques.

Again, there's more to the background of constructivism than the set
theory
debates. And it has had an influence far beyond Einstein. You find
it in
Darwin, Godel, Sraffa, really everywhere. It has stood in the way of
logic
for a long long time.

Finally, you should consider where "natural" coincidence leaves us.
If we
can't get to general relativity because of "natural" coincidence, then
that
means that once again the Pythagorean theorem is at issue (it was a
resolved
issue under general relativity, for reasons you know). Does the
Pythagorean
theorem have logical content?

My feeling is, no. I think it also has a "natural" coincidence in
it. But
where?

Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and
Twentieth-
Century Ideas" (June 17, 2008). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... >> which used Dr. Einstein's Special Relativity (which is easily seen to>> be ... >> the showing that mathematics could used to make advances in the>> physical ... >> "The Einstein Hoax",http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm, was written>> to ... There is no skewed physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?
    ... only 2.5 years on his clock, aginst 5 years on her clock, ... For example, simultaneity of two ... I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the ... Here is the central issue in the understanding of the relativity of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The relativity of simultaneity
    ... I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the relativity ... Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical geometry." ... So, for practitioners of constructivism or practical geometry, the only way ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The relativity of simultaneity
    ... I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the relativity ... Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical geometry." ... So, for practitioners of constructivism or practical geometry, the only way ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The relativity of simultaneity
    ... I can give you a fresh perspective on the mathematics of the relativity ... Einstein used a mathematical approach which he called "practical geometry." ... So, for practitioners of constructivism or practical geometry, the only way ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)