Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.

From: Eugene Stefanovich (eugenev_at_synopsys.com)
Date: 09/25/04 

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 20:52:14 -0700

jem wrote:
> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>>
>> jem wrote:
>>
>>> Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hope you will find this book not boring and thought-provoking.
>>>> I would be glad to read your comments either on these newsgroups
>>>> or at my e-mail address eugene_stefanovich@usa.net
>>>> You can also visit my web-site www.geocities.com/meopemuk
>>>>
>>>
>>> Re section 1.2.1 - are you suggesting that a quartz clock and a
>>> balance clock that are collocated and in-synch when viewed from their
>>> rest frame, could be observed to be out of synch by a moving
>>> observer? And are you suggesting that a tungsten rod and a wooden
>>> rod that are coincidental in their rest frame could be seen to have
>>> different lengths by a moving observer?
>>
>>
>>
>> That's exactly what I am saying.
>
>
> So what would the moving observer see if the 2 rods were lightly glued
> together along their lengths?
>

That's a very good question. I am glad you asked. I actualy waited when
somebody asks this kind of question, because it cuts to the heart of my
approach.

When you glue two rods together you introduce interaction between them.
In my approach, interaction has effect on boost transformations.
  Therefore, from the point of view of moving observer, two glued rods
will look different from two free rods. I can't tell you exactly what
  this difference will be, because such an answer requires a full
dynamical solution for this system. For example, I can imagine that the
  two glued rods may become slightly bent.

The main point is that until now we considered boost transformations as
kinematical (universal) transformations, like translations and
rotations. This is not correct. Boost transformations are dynamical,
so they are more like time translations. You are not surprised that
when time passes, objects can dramatically change their appearance and
  internal structure. If we take the same glued rods as an example, then
as time passes by and glue hardens, the two rods may bend. The same
with boost transformations. They are just as dynamical as time
translations,
and they may lead to rather drastic changes in the appearance of
  physical objects. (of course the primary effect will be the usual
length contraction, and we are talking here about some miniscule
corrections to this primary effect).

You could invoke another example, which also seems impossible on the
surface.
Take two clocks of different design, but exactly the same rate
(e.g., balance clock and quartz clock). Connect these clocks to
an explosive device in such a way that when they start to show
different time (e.g. 1 msec difference) the bomb goes off. The observer
at rest may feel safe, because the clocks are guaranteed to go at the
same rate and explosion never happens. The moving observer has different
view: he may observe that clocks have slightly different rate and at
some point in time, the difference of their readings may reach 1 ms.
So, in principle, the moving observer can register an
explosion while observer at rest can't.
The idea that observer at rest does not see explosion
and moving observer does see the explosion may seem crazy. But if you
change in the preceding sentence words "at rest" and "moving" to
words "today" and "tomorrow", respectively, then the statement doesn't
  look that stupid.

Actually, in my book I discussed a similar effect in the case of
unstable particle (see subsection 13.2.1). If at time t=0
observer at rest prepares unstable particle (with 100% certainty),
then for the moving observer there is a (very small) chance to see this
particle as decayed (i.e., to register the decay products even at
t = 0).
If this particle is an unstable nucleus of Uranium 235, which can
initate the chain reaction in the bomb, then, here you are: the moving
  observer sees an explosion while observer at rest doesn't.

It is important to realize that we are dealing here with ridiculously
  small effects. In my treatment of the decay of fast moving unstable
particles (subsection 13.2.2) I estimated the order of magnitude
of corrections to the
Einstein's formula as dM/M where dM is the width of mass distribution
and M is the total mass. For example, for muon this ratio is only 10^{-17}.
I think this estimate is roughly true for other situations. Thus in the
case of two rods glued together you should consider the ratio
E/Mc^2, where E is the binding energy due to the glue and M is the
mass of the rods. There is no chance such corrections can be observed.
Even the much bigger effect of length contraction has not been directly
observed yet.

However, no matter how small these corrections are, they are nonzero,
and they undermine the universality of Lorentz transformations
proclaimed by Einstein and entire Minkowski space-time picture.
These corrections are unavoidable. If you accept

1) Poincare group relationships between inertial observers
   (every relativist must accept it)
2) dynamical (interaction dependent) character of (the representation
    of) time translations
3) kinematical (interaction independent) character of (the
    representation of) space translations and rotations

then you have no other choice but to accept the dynamical character
of (the representation of) boosts.

Eugene

Relevant Pages
Quantcast