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

From: Eugene Stefanovich (eugenev_at_synopsys.com)
Date: 10/13/04 

Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:36:14 -0700

chaverondier wrote:
> Eugene Stefanovich <eugenev@synopsys.com> wrote in message news:<416A36AE.1060605@synopsys.com>...
>
> Eugene
>
>>I am not sure I exactly understand what you are saying.
>>I think we first need to agree about definitions. Could you please
>>give me your definitions (with examples) of the following:
>>
>>ideal inertial frame is.... for example...
>
>
> Systems of coordinates where the space coordinates are
> Orthonormalized, where the time flows according to ideal (Loreentz
> covariant) clocks at rest in these frames, where free particles move
> along straight lines at constant speed, that transform into each other
> thanks to Lorentz transforms (and can be defined mathematically
> without ambiguity in the proper geometrical framework).
>
>
>>non-ideal inertial frame is.... for example...
>
>
> Possibly non ideal systems of space-time coordinates associated to
> identical material systems moving at constant velocity but which
> associated non ideal system of space-time coordinates don't transform
> into each other according to Lorentz transform because of
> interactions.
>
> A real rod of a real inertial frame which measures 1 meter in the real
> frame R'0 at rest in the ideal frame R0 will always measure 1m in the
> real frame R'0 once R'0 has been boosted at speed v (of course,
> because the rod is the unit of length of this real frame) but this rod
> will not measure 1 meter length in the ideal frame R0 boosted at same
> velocity that R'0 (because R0 is an ideal frame, so that its ideal
> rods shrinks according to the ideal Lorentz contraction coefficient
> (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) hence differently form the real rods of the real
> frame, ie the symmetry of point if view is broken).
>
> Hence when a real rod measures L0 = 1 meter in an ideal inertial
> frame, this rod doesn't measure in meter any more (for the boosted
> observer) when both the real rod and the ideal frame containing the
> observer have been boosted at the same velocity. If the rod undergoes
> a contraction K_r(v) (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2), the boosted observer will know
> of the absolute velocity of his frame because the rod will have the
> new length K_r(v) L0.
>
> The assertion of the contrary would work only when the Lorentz
> covariance (that can be deduced mathematically form the symmetry of
> point of view without additional axioms) is satisfied by any
> considered rods and clock attached to bodies moving at constant
> velocity.
>
>
>>I never made an assumption that two events coinciding in one
>>reference frame also coincide in other reference frame. I actually
>>wrote the opposite: see 2nd paragraph in 1.2.2.
>
>
> This problem of non uniqueness of events standing at the same location
> in an given inertial frame and at different locations in other
> inertial frames can be fixed as soon as you neatly distinguish ideal
> inertial frames (defined in the appropriate geometrical framework) and
> "real" possibly Not Lorentz covariant inertial frames violating the
> Lorentz covariance hence the principle of symmetry of point of view.
>
> If the Break of symmetry of point of view caused by the break of
> Lorentz covariance is accounted for in your theory, the
> inconsistencies (I know of) are fixed.

I have a different take on inertial observers.

1. I postulate that all inertial observers are exactly equivalent.
There is no distinction between "real" and "ideal" inertial observers.
(I wonder how you are going to distinguish between them?).

2. Each observer has the same set of measuring devices: a set of
rulers and a set of clocks. I postulate that all rulers measure
exactly the same length of 1m (in their own frame of reference). All
clocks tick at the same speed (in their own frame of reference).
I do not allow rulers and clocks to be transferred from one observer to
another (to be "boosted", as you say). Nobody knows what may happen
to a ruler or a clock after such an acceleration. Rulers and clocks
belong to observer, and they are not shared.

3. Some of these rulers and clocks may be interacting, others
may be interacting. It does not matter whether I use interacting
or non-interacting clocks and rulers for my measurement, because
they are exactly the same from my point of view. Other observers
may have different opinion, but that's their opinion, not mine.

4. If all observers use non-interacting rulers
and clocks (this is the preferred method), they will see exact
Einsteinian slowing down of non-interacting clocks of other observers,
and they will see exact Einsteinian contraction of non-interacting
rulers of other observers. Things will be different if
interacting clocks and rulers are used. However, this does not
geopardise the equivalence of observers in any way. If I see
that your clock slowed down by a non-Einsteinian factor,
you see the same behavior of my clock.

>
> Bernard Chaverondier
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/transformation.htm
> Derivation of Lorentz transforms and "canonical" inertial system
> of coordinates in the framework of Aristotle space-time.
> http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/epr.htm
> Quantum determinism or Relativist locality ?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... > A real rod of a real inertial frame which measures 1 meter in the real ... I postulate that all inertial observers are exactly equivalent. ... rulers and a set of clocks. ... I postulate that all rulers measure ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... > A real rod of a real inertial frame which measures 1 meter in the real ... I postulate that all inertial observers are exactly equivalent. ... rulers and a set of clocks. ... I postulate that all rulers measure ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... ray is growing using k's rulers and clocks, it is growing at the rate c. ... suppose we want to transform into a new coordinate system moving at ... depend on the rest frame of the aether) should strike both clocks at the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ton of Bricks Paradox/Contradiction?
    ... Yes, but that direction is *towards* one of the observers, ... either in the stationary frame, ... According to the observers' own, synchronised clocks, ... explained before, clock synchronization is frame-dependent. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Ton of Bricks Paradox/Contradiction?
    ... they are not consistent within any one frame. ... Moving clocks are measured to undergo time dilation. ... Moving rods are measured to undergo length contraction. ... observers. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading