Comic Theater on Einstein's Relativity
From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 02/20/05
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT"
- Previous message: Mike: "Re: Curved space"
- Next in thread: josephus: "Re: Comic Theater on Einstein's Relativity"
- Reply: josephus: "Re: Comic Theater on Einstein's Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:02:19 GMT
On Feb 20, 2005, at 10:49 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Paul I am telling you there is no "two clock problem". It is a figment
of your imagination.
Look, Jack, I completely agree with you that there is no problem here as
long as you stick to global inertial frames.
That means there is no REAL "two clocks" problem at all for SR! Look you
algebraically-challenged Laputonian Meta-Theoretical Pundefecator
spewing Malapropisms and trite observations as if they were profound
insights of genius in a Rossini comic opera - all you need is the black
wide-brimmed Pedant's Hat in The Barber of Seville! No doubt you shined
at the Academy of Laputa's Floating Castle where your brilliant thesis
was how to get cucumbers from Lady Circe's piggywigs!
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html ;-)
1. Special Relativity is a GLOBAL THEORY by construction for truly flat
Minkowski space-time. It ONLY deals with GLOBAL INERTIAL FRAMES (GIFs).
The translation group T4 is a GLOBAL PHASE SYMMETRY in SR that, when
LOCALLY GAUGED, reduces the Lorentz group to a LOCAL SYMMETRY in the
tangent fiber of the now warped base space. The GIFS are replaced by
LOCAL LIFs & LNIFs. In 1905 SR the base space and the tangent space are
degenerate - the same thing, no distinction. In the LOCAL GAUGING of T4
to Diff(4) the compensating gauge potential, analog to Au in U(1) local
gauging to get Maxwell's EM, is
Bu = bu^aPa/h = (Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean),u
h = Planck's constant
Pa is the energy-momentum generator of T4
The Einstein-Cartan tetrad (that can include torsion fields) is
bu^a = &u^a + bu^a
&u^a is the trivial holonomic tetrad for SR, i.e., the Kronecker-Delta
bu^a is the non-trivial anholonomic tetrad that has all the NEW PHYSICS
of Einstein's 1916 GR beyond his 1905 SR.
guv(Einstein) = (&u^a + bu^a)nab(Minkowski)(&v^b + bv^b)
The above equation IS EEP!
Gauge transforms of Bu <-> Diff(4) GCTs
But if there really is no problem here, than why have card-carrying
physicists been arguing about its resolution for all these years? Do you
really imagine that all these people have overlooked your one-line
formal "solution"? In all this time?
Like who? Where? Cite references!
If you actually read Einstein's 1905 paper, you will see that you are
supposed to have full physical reciprocity of the effects of uniform
relative motion on clocks, as given by the Lorentz-Einstein
transformation rules.
AND SO YOU DO! There is no reciprocity problem in 1905 SR kinematics.
Yes you do get full reciprocity in global inertial frames; but when you
try to apply SR to the rest frame of a moving clock that is not globally
inertial, the accumulated clock retardation effect is *not additive*
across different inertial segments; whereas the clock retardation of a
clock that is *actually* moving is additive in this sense.
This is meaningless gibberish. You simply calculate the frame-invariant
path-dependent integral of ds/c. There is no problem when forces
accelerate the clock to different global inertial frames. Everything is
consistent and reciprocal. It does not matter which GIF you choose to
look at the process. You will always get the SAME INVARIANT ANSWERS for
the PROPER TIME of the clocks, ONE, TWO, .... INFINITY. This is the
first problem Phil Morrison addressed at Cornell when he introduced SR
and Hans Bethe certainly did not disagree when I took his Senior Honors
Seminar (1960) on experimental tests of 1905 SR. How come your "two
clocks problem" never came up? Simple Paul. It is a figment of your
deranged imagination, but of course you know better than Bethe,
Morrison, Rindler, Wheeler, Thorne, Misner, Penrose, Hawking! What do
they know about the logical foundations of 1905 SR compared to the Great
Zielinski who, Samson-like, leaves The Temple of Einstein's Relativity
in ruins! Paul, could you be a victim of delusions of grandeur perhaps?
So if you are switching inertial frames, you do NOT have full cumulative
physical reciprocity of time dilatation, which I am arguing breaks the
supposed physical symmetry of the theory. In other words, you have
formal kinematical "relativity" without actual *physical* relativity.
Hogwash.
My versions of the two-clock experiment show very clearly that this has
nothing to do with the physical effects of acceleration on the moving
clocks, and has nothing to do with the appearance of inertial fields in
the turnaround (as in some textbook solutions to the probem). It shows
that it has only to do with the *purely kinematical* change of inertial
frames that in SR are governed by the Lorentz-Einstein transformation
rules, as to the effects of relative *inertial* motion on the readings
of the clocks.
Hand-waving with no algebra, no math in a worked-out concrete example.
I actually worked out the simple GIF INVARIANT algebra for your Fig 1 to be
s(Green) = s(Red) = (1/2)^1/2(1 - (v/c)^2)^1/2s(Blue)
there is no problem with reciprocity.
So I am saying that this is a deep internal issue inside 1905 SR that I
think points clearly to a fundamental theoretic distinction between
actual and relative motion.
Hogwash! What is true is that one CAN have an absolute rest frame and
still not violate the current battle-tests of 1905 SR (e.g. Reg Cahill's
& Consoli's conflicting experimental claims on Michelson-Morley (MM)
rotation fringe shifts and two-laser frequency beats) as O(1,3) SBVS
(Spontaneous Broken Vacuum Symmetry) in which a particular space-time
direction (AKA "rapidity") is preferred as "absolute rest", i.e. no n
=/= 1 MM rotational fringe shifting) exactly like a preferred direction
in space appears in a ferromagnetic ground state below the Curie point
in a FINITE domain. These are CONTINGENT "More is different" (PW
Anderson) emergent collective phenomena.
Anyone who thinks there is such a problem that rocks the foundations of
this trivial kinematical part of special relativity is simply
incompetent in the subject and doesn't understand the basic concepts of
relativity.
Jack, I don't think it's quite this simple.
Of course the theory still works fine, and is formally consistent; and
has a beautiful geometric model -- but if I'm right, the meaning
traditionally attached to it is simply not supportable.
Z.
You are not right. You are not even wrong and it is completely crackpot
for you to persist in this delusion in spite of empirical evidence and
rational argument.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Paul, this below is what interests me not your weak-minded lame-brained
meta-theoretic philofarcical Laputonian Malapropic misunderstandings of
elementary secondary school special relativity. Your relativity writings
are static, noise.
re: http://stardrive.org/title.shtml
Space-Time Warps & Theory of Everything
All dynamical force fields (and geometrodynamic “force-without-force”)
fields come from locally gauging a global symmetry of the dynamical
action. The initially dynamically broken global symmetry is restored by
the compensating gauge field. Any preferred frame is an emergent SBS
effect in the lowest energy state that leaves the dynamical symmetry
intact. Curvature and torsion in the Einstein-Cartan “tetrad”/”Ricci
rotation coefficients” extension of 1916 general relativity (GR) are
analogous to string vortex lines in superfluid helium. In 1916 GR the
Ricci rotation coefficients Au^bc are not independent dynamical fields,
but are dynamically determined from the non-trivial anholonomic tetrads
bu^a that are the compensating gauge fields from locally gauging T4 into
Diff(4) (AKA GCT) because O(1,3) is not yet locally gauged as it is in
Shipov’s theory. There is a curious cross-play in that the
disclination-curvature strings are characterized by rotations of a
vector parallel transported around a closed loop, whilst the
dislocation-torsion strings are gaps in second order in the attempt to
close the loop. Roger Penrose shows that gaps in third order appear even
in torsion-free 1916 GR. The curious cross-play is that the curvature
disclination rotations about closed loops come from the local-gauging of
the translational group T4 of special relativity generated by total
energy-momentum Pu, whilst the torsion dislocation gaps come from the
local-gauging of the Lorentz group O(1,3) of special relativity
generated from the spin-orbital angular momentum J = L + S (space-space
rotations) and the boosts connecting coincident inertial frames in
instantaneously uniform relative motion. The curious cross-play is this
dual switching between T4 locally gauged to Diff(4), and O(1,3). The
lack of preferred space-time frames with “absolute velocity”, as in the
usual interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, means that the
vacuum symmetry is not spontaneously broken with respect to the boost
sector of O(1,3). If there is such a broken symmetry then a particular
“rapidity” (direction in4D space-time) of “absolute rest” is selected in
a finite space-time domain, much like a particular 3D space direction is
selected in a ferromagnetic domain. Cahill and Consoli have challenged
this assumption in independent papers, which, however, are not
consistent with each other. It’s too soon to know if there is any merit
to these empirical claims, but if there is, their proper explanation is
“More is different” spontaneous broken symmetry (SBR), this time in the
off-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent vacuum relative to O(1,3) and
possibly Diff(4) rather than the on-mass-shell macro-quantum coherent
ground states of equilibrium superfluids (U(1)), ferromagnets (O(3)) and
non-equilbrium lasers (U(1)) and living bio-membranes as in H.
Frohlich's theory. (U(1)).
Bu = bu^aPa/h = (Goldstone Hologram Phase of Higgs Ocean),u
{Pa} = Lie algebra of T4
guv(Einstein LNIF) = (&u^a + bu^a)(Minkowski LIF)ab(&v^b + bv^b)
&u^a are the trivial holonomic tetrads (Kronecker deltas) connecting the
curved base space to the quasi-flat tangent space fiber.
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Androcles asks for Derivation of LT"
- Previous message: Mike: "Re: Curved space"
- Next in thread: josephus: "Re: Comic Theater on Einstein's Relativity"
- Reply: josephus: "Re: Comic Theater on Einstein's Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
