Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity

From: Jesse Mazer (vze2ztqw_at_mail.verizon.net)
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:25:31 GMT

kenseto wrote:

>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:41F5B120.90600@mail.verizon.net...
>
>
>>kenseto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:41F597CA.5030007@mail.verizon.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>kenseto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:41F4AEB8.8090007@mail.verizon.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you saying that an observer at rest wrt the ether will see moving
>>>>>>clocks slow down, but he *won't* see moving rulers shrink, as measured
>>>>>>by his own coordinate system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Yes the physical length of a ruler remains the same in all frames
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>including
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the rest frame of the ether. However the light path length of a ruler
>>>>>
>>>>>
>is
>
>
>>>>>dependent of the state of absolute motion of the ruler. The higher is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>the
>
>
>>>>>state of absolute motion of a ruler the longer is its light path
>>>>>
>>>>>
>length.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>The
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>ruler at the rest frame of the ether has the shortest light path
>>>>>
>>>>>
>length.
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>How do you define "light path length"? Do you just look at the amount of
>>>>time the light took to get from one end to the other as measured by your
>>>>own clocks, and then multiply by c?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>NO...the light path length of the observer's rod is assumed to be t*c
>>>
>>>
>where
>
>
>>>t is the transit time from one end of the rod to the other end. The
>>>
>>>
>observer
>
>
>>>will determine the light path length of an identical moving rod using IRT
>>>
>>>
>as
>
>
>>>follows:
>>>A is the observer and B is the observed frame:
>>>Lba=Laa(Faa/Fab) or Lba=Laa(Fab/Faa)
>>>Laa=the light path length of the observer's rod in A's frame as measured
>>>
>>>
>by
>
>
>>>A.
>>>Lba=the light path length of an identical rod in B's frame as predicted
>>>
>>>
>by
>
>
>>>A.
>>>Faa=the mean frequency of a standard light source in A's frame as
>>>
>>>
>measured
>
>
>>>by A.
>>>Fab=the mean frequency of an identical standard light source in B's frame
>>>
>>>
>as
>
>
>>>measured by A.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Why would B choose to define "light path length" by imagining what
>>things would look like in A's frame?
>>
>>
>
>NO....B doesn't do that. B thinks that his light path length for a meter
>stick is 1 meter and he predicts that A's light path length for a meter
>stick is:
>Lba=Lbb(Fbb/Fba) or Lba=Lbb(Fba/Fbb)
>

OK, but can B define "light path length" in his frame by looking only at
the position and time the light was emitted, and the position and time
the light hit the other end of the moving stick, with position and time
measured by rulers and clock at rest in *his own* frame? Suppose the
moving stick is moving parallel to a ruler which is at rest in B's
frame, and along this ruler at regular intervals are placed clocks which
are also at rest in B's frame, and which are synchronized in B's frame.
At the moment the light flash is emitted from the back end of the stick,
the back end of the stick is next to the 93,000 mile mark on B's ruler,
and at that moment the clock sitting on the 93,000 mile mark reads t=1
second. Then at the moment the light flash hits the front of the moving
stick, the front of the stick is next to the 186,000 mile mark on B's
ruler, and at that moment the clock sitting on the 186,000 mile mark
reads t=2 seconds. If B measures the stick to be moving at 93,000
miles/second, can you figure out the light-path length using these
numbers alone?

>
>
>
>>That's a pretty odd way to define
>>measurements in different frames. Do you agree that if B uses his own
>>clocks to measure the time, he will get a different time for the light
>>to cross a ruler moving relative to the ether depending on which end the
>>light is emitted from, assuming (as in your theory, but not in SR) that
>>all observers agree about simultaneity?
>>
>>
>
>NO.....My ether theory predicts that the speed of light in B's frame is also
>isotropic.
>

But what physical procedure does B use to measure the speed of anything
in his own frame, including that of light? Can he just look at the
position and time a light beam was emitted vs. the position and time it
was received, according to rulers and clocks at rest in his own frame?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>No, but in SR each observer defines his time-coordinates in terms of the
>>>>readings on a set of clocks which are all at rest relative to himself,
>>>>and which have been "synchronized"based on the assumption that light
>>>>travels at the same speed in all directions (so two clocks are defined
>>>>as synchronized if a light shined at their midpoint will reach each
>>>>clock at the same time).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What is the purpose of synchronizing two clocks in the same frame?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>So you can assign t-coordinates to events at any location in space just
>>by looking at the reading of a clock at the same spatial location as the
>>event. This is how coordinate systems are defined in SR.
>>
>>
>
>Isn't that that's what the LT is designed to do??
>

Sure, but the LT is not just some totally abstract piece of mathematics,
it's meant to transform between the coordinates of one observer and
another, assuming that each observer defines coordinates by the
measurements on *physical* rulers and clocks which are at rest relative
to himself, and which are synchronized using the above procedure.

>I must admit that I missed this point of SR entirely. What this assume is
>that all relative clocks are moving at the same intrinsic rates and thus
>what A's synchronized clock read at B's location is the clock reading of B's
>clock.
>

I think you're misunderstanding, SR certainly does *not* predict that
all clocks tick at the same intrinsic rate, it only predicts that clocks
which are *at rest with respect to one another* all tick at the same
intrinsic rate. Each observer measures time using a large collection of
clocks at different locations, but every single one of the clocks in a
given observer's measuring-system must be at rest in his own frame, so
there is no relative motion between any of his clocks. The clocks of
*different* observers who are moving with respect to one another
certainly don't tick at the same rate, and clocks in one observer's
system are not "synchronized" with clocks in a different observer's system.

Suppose you have two rulers A and B moving parallel to one another, and
each ruler has a series of clocks mounted on it, which have been
synchronized in their own frame using the procedure above. In this case,
SR predicts that each ruler will see the *other* ruler's clocks as all
being out-of-sync, and likewise will see all the other ruler's clocks
ticking slow, and the marking on the other ruler will appear too close
together. Assuming you set things up so that the clocks at each ruler's
"0 meters" marker read "0 seconds" at the moment they pass each other
(so x=0,t=0 in one coordinate system maps to x'=0,t'=0 in the other),
then what the Lorentz transforms are designed to do is to tell you what
readings on the first ruler/clock system will coincide with what
readings on the other. For example, if I take a picture of the "3
meters" mark on one ruler at a particular moment, and in my picture the
clock at that mark read "5 seconds", then if SR is correct, the Lorentz
transforms should predict what mark I will see on the other ruler next
to the 3-meter mark on the first one, and what reading I will see on the
other ruler's clock which is attached to that mark.

I drew some diagrams a while ago to illustrate this sort of thing. In
this example, we have two rulers with clocks mounted on them moving
alongside each other, and in order to make the math work out neatly, the
relative velocity of the two rulers is (square root of 3)/2 * light
speed, or about 259.628 meters per microsecond. This means that each
ruler will observe the other one’s clocks tick exactly half as fast as
their own, and will see the other ruler's distance-markings to be
squashed by a factor of two.

Also, I have drawn the markings on the rulers at intervals of 173.085
meters apart—the reason for this is again just to make things work out
neatly, it will mean that observers on each ruler will see the other
ruler moving at 1.5 markings/microsecond relative to themselves, and
that an observer on one ruler will see clocks on the other ruler that
are this distance apart (as measured by his own ruler) to be out-of-sync
by exactly 1 microsecond, some more nice round numbers.

Given all this, here is how the situation would look at 0 microseconds,
1 microsecond, and 2 microseconds, in the frame of ruler A:

http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerAFrame.gif

And here’s how the situation would look at 0 microseconds, 1
microsecond, and 2 microseconds, in the frame of ruler B:

http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerBFrame.gif

Some things to notice in these diagrams:

1. in each ruler's frame, it is at rest while the other ruler is moving
sideways at 259.6 meters/microsecond (ruler A sees ruler B moving to the
right, while ruler B sees ruler A moving to the left)

2. In each ruler's frame, its own clocks are all synchronized, but the
other ruler's clocks are all out-of-sync

3. In each ruler's frame, each individual clock on the other ruler ticks
at half the normal rate. For example, in the diagram of ruler A’s frame,
look at the clock with the green hand on the -519.3 meter mark on ruler
B--this clock first reads 1.5 microseconds, then 2 microseconds, then
2.5 microseconds. Likewise, in the diagram of ruler B’s frame, look at
the clock with the green hand on the 519.3 meter mark on ruler A—this
clock also goes from 1.5 microseconds to 2 microseconds to 2.5 microseconds.

4. Despite these differences, they always agree on which events on their
own ruler coincide in time and location with which events on the other.
If you have a particular clock at a particular location on one ruler
showing a particular time, then if you look at the clock right next to
it on the other ruler at that moment, you will get the same answer to
what that other clock reads and what marking it’s on regardless of which
frame you’re using. Here’s one example:

http://www.jessemazer.com/images/MatchingClocks.gif

You can also see that I based these diagrams on the Lorentz transforms.
The equations for transforming between two different Lorentzian
reference frames S and S', where S' is moving at velocity v relative to
S along its x-axis (and S is moving at velocity -v relative to S' along
its x' axis) would be:

x'=gamma(x - vt)
t'=gamma(t - vx/c^2)

x=gamma(x' + vt')
t=gamma(t' + vx'/c^2)

where gamma = 1/squareroot(1-v^2/c^2)

In the diagram above I showed that the position x=346.2 meters, t=1
microsecond as measured by ruler/clock system A matches up with position
x'=173.1 meters, t'=0 microseconds as measured by ruler/clock system B.
If you use v=259.6 meters/microsecond, and gamma=2, then you can see
that the Lorentz transforms correctly transform between measurements
made in the two systems. So again, you can see that the Lorentz
transforms are not just some piece of arbitrary mathematics, they are
supposed to predict how physical measurements made in one reference
frame will match up with physical measurements made in another.

I think it would be a lot easier for me to understand the various
statements you have been making about how measurements work in your
theory if you'd be willing to give me a similar set of equations for
transforming between measurements made in one frame to measurements made
in another, analogous to the Lorentz transforms. For example, you have
said that clocks slow down just like in relativity when they move
relative to the ether, but rulers do not shrink, and unlike in
relativity all reference frames will agree about simultaneity. So, let's
say ruler A is at rest relative to the ether, and ruler B is moving
parallel to ruler A at velocity v, and x=0,t=0 according to ruler A
matches up with x'=0,t'=0 according to ruler B. After some time t as
measured in A's frame, ruler B will have moved right a distance vt, and
clocks on ruler B will only have ticked forward by a time t/gamma. Since
you said the clocks on both rulers would agree about simultaneity, this
should mean that time t in A's frame will always map to time t/gamma in
B's frame, regardless of the position of the clock:

t' = t/gamma

Meanwhile, if there is no contraction in length of B's ruler as seen in
A's frame, then the only difference in their position-measurements
should be that the origin of B has moved right by a distance vt at time t:

x' = x - vt

This suggests that in your theory, the equivalent of the Lorentz
transforms would be:

x' = x - vt
t' = t/gamma

and

x = x' + vt
t = t'*gamma

where the (x,t) coordinates are measured by an observer whose ruler and
clocks are at rest with respect to the ether.

If I'm misunderstanding your theory, could you tell me what the correct
equations would be for transforming between two ruler/clock systems like
the ones described above?

>
>
>>What do you mean by the phrase "see the strikes to be simultaneous at
>>X"? Each observer either will see the light from both strikes reach him
>>at the same moment or he won't.
>>
>>
>
>That's not true. Different observers will have different light path lengths
>for an identical physical distance. In the case of the train gedanken, the
>train observer have a higher state of absolute motion than the track
>observer and thus the light path length in the train is longer than the
>light path length in the track and thus the train observer will see the
>strikes to be simultaneous at a later time.
>

I wasn't talking about light path lengths, I was just talking about
whether the light beams from two different events reach a given observer
at a single moment, or if he recieves the light from one event before he
recieves the light from the other. These are the only two options, so he
either receives both beams simultaneously, or he doesn't.

>
>
>
>>If the train observer and the track
>>observer are both at the same position when the light from both strikes
>>reaches them, they will both *see* the light from both strikes
>>simultaneously. However, the train observer will say the strikes weren't
>>really simultaneous, because he was heading towards one strike and away
>>from the other,
>>
>>
>
>This assertion is bogus and it violates the isotropy of the speed of light
>in the train.
>

Ah, you're right, I messed up the explanation...what I should have said
is that the observer on the train sees the two flashes to have happened
at different distances from himself as measured by a ruler at rest in
his own frame, so that they could occur at different times and the light
from both would reach him at the same moment (for example, one flash
might have occurred 3 seconds ago and 3-light seconds away in his frame,
while the other occurred 6 seconds ago and 6-light seconds away in his
frame). According to the track observer's ruler, though, the two flashes
were equidistant from him at the moment each one occurred.

>
>
>
>>so for the light from both to reach him at the same
>>moment, he will have to say that the strike he was heading away from
>>happened before the strike he was heading towards (if he assumes light
>>travels at the same speed in all directions in his own rest frame, as in
>>SR).
>>
>>
>
>This reasoning assumes that you know how light moves from the source to the
>target. IOW, you assumed that you know the velocity and position of the
>leading edge of the light ray (the first photon). This is a direct violation
>of the uncertainty principle.
>

When you're dealing with large distances, the uncertainty principle
becomes negligible. All I need to know is the position and time the
light flash was emitted and the position and time the light flash was
first received--if the space and time intervals between these events is
large, the error introduced by the uncertainty principles can be pushed
back by as many decimal points as I wish.

>
>
>>But simultaneity is a lot easier to think about if you assume both
>>observers have a network of clocks at rest relative to themselves, and
>>synchronized using light signals (or slow transport, if you prefer), and
>>they assign time-coordinates to events based on the reading on the clock
>>in their network which was at the same location as the event when it
>>happened. This is the standard way that Einstein assumed coordinates
>>should be assigned to events. If you have a different way to assign
>>time-coordinates to events, please outline it.
>>
>>
>
>This is based on the faulty assumption that the intrinsic rate of the train
>and the track clocks are running at the same intrinsic rate.
>

No, as I said before you only need to assume that each observer uses a
network of clocks which are at rest relative to himself, but the clocks
in different observer's respective networks won't tick at the same
intrinsic rate and won't agree about simultaneity.

Jesse

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... >>in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion ... you are saying that Einstein assumed the observer using the Lorentz ... same speed in all directions in his own frame. ... plugging numbers into the Lorentz transformation, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... "light path length" in terms of some function of these measurements. ... can also add the light's frequency as measured by B's clocks and rulers ... >>moving stick is moving parallel to a ruler which is at rest in B's ... >>are also at rest in B's frame, and which are synchronized in B's frame. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... "light path length" in terms of some function of these measurements. ... can also add the light's frequency as measured by B's clocks and rulers ... >>moving stick is moving parallel to a ruler which is at rest in B's ... >>are also at rest in B's frame, and which are synchronized in B's frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity
    ... This definition by B is not the true light path length. ... > moving stick is moving parallel to a ruler which is at rest in B's ... > frame, and along this ruler at regular intervals are placed clocks which ... according to rulers and clocks at rest in his own frame? ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading