Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
From: FrediFizzx (fredifizzx_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/26/04
- Next message: Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy): "Re: Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Neutrino Mass and Supernovae"
- In reply to: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: jem: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:18:13 -0700
"Eugene Stefanovich" <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message
news:41552169.3050005@synopsys.com...
|
|
| FrediFizzx wrote:
| > "Eugene Stefanovich" <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message
| > news:4154EB6E.9020707@synopsys.com...
| > |
| > |
| > | 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.
| >
| > This seems to be somewhat the same as SR and LET both being right only
with
| > SR having the most effect by a long shot. But I arrive at that
conclusion
| > by matter and spacetime being made of the same "stuff". What is going
to
| > "distort" more? Spacetime or matter? Well, I would think it would be
| > spacetime. But matter should "distort" a tiny tiny amount also.
Hmmm...
| >
| > FrediFizzx
| >
|
| I am glad that we find some agreement, but your ideas about "stuff"
| and "distortion" seem rather foreign to me.
IMHO, "stuff" is the bare quantum entity that makes everything including
spacetime. "Distortion" is the deviation of the "normal" geometry of
spacetime or matter from the vacuum equilibrium "state". Well, matter is
already a distortion of that "state" so it is difficult to say what is the
"normal" geometry of matter. It depends on the energy level. But we would
think that spacetime is much more distortable than matter by the presence of
matter than matter is by the presence of other matter. Spacetime can
transmit the distortion of electric charge out to infinity as well as the
distortion of neutral matter but the distortion of neutral matter is much
much weaker. It is easy to see the distortion of electric charge. Not so
easy to see the distortion and cause of the gravity anomaly because it is so
freakin' weak. But I would bet that it is due to the vacuum equilibrium
being changed by the presence of real matter. It is like real matter leaves
a hole in the equilibrium and the holes don't want to be and "want" to be
filled in. But since electrons and protons are stable, the holes can't be
filled in. I know you don't want to talk about gravity but this picture
that I have supports your contention that gravity can safely be ignored in
what you are doing. If the bare quantum entities do have a slight mass it
would have to be less than the electron neutrino and that is put at less
than 3 eV/c^2 with a confidence level of 95 percent. This mass quantum, if
around 1 eV/c^2 would make a gravity coupling constant that is ~ 10^-57.
Extremely weak.
FrediFizzx
- Next message: Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy): "Re: Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away"
- Previous message: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Neutrino Mass and Supernovae"
- In reply to: Eugene Stefanovich: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Next in thread: jem: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
