A thought for all those who claim that Relativity proves that "nothing exceeds the velocity of light" might be that Einstein based his equations entirely on the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation, which previously assumes that nothing exceeds lightspeed, because if it did, the denominator of the equation goes to 0.
You all know what I am talking about, right?
So, of course if you assume nothing can exceed c (186,282 mps), then you can prove that nothing exceeds c.
This is only a tautology of the form If A then A.
Can anyone show me the flaw in my argument? I have read a fair bit on Relativity, and I have seen the complete set of equations and tensor algebra that Einstein uses to derive E=mc^2
from the Lorentz equation.
I know that the Lorentz equation has repeatedly proved to be very accurate, but does that make it perfect? And doesn't it still mean that Einstein is already assuming that which he seems to prove?
I am somewhat convinced that I have found a logical flaw in the equations, here, and would be interested in other people's opinions on this.
My view is that Einstein's work was a tremendous advance, but that, like F=ma (which is an equation that has flaws), E=mc^2 has to have some flaws, too. Perhaps in another hundred or so years we'll have a better answer.
Thoughts, please?
You all know what I am talking about, right?
So, of course if you assume nothing can exceed c (186,282 mps), then you can prove that nothing exceeds c.
This is only a tautology of the form If A then A.
Can anyone show me the flaw in my argument? I have read a fair bit on Relativity, and I have seen the complete set of equations and tensor algebra that Einstein uses to derive E=mc^2
from the Lorentz equation.
I know that the Lorentz equation has repeatedly proved to be very accurate, but does that make it perfect? And doesn't it still mean that Einstein is already assuming that which he seems to prove?
I am somewhat convinced that I have found a logical flaw in the equations, here, and would be interested in other people's opinions on this.
My view is that Einstein's work was a tremendous advance, but that, like F=ma (which is an equation that has flaws), E=mc^2 has to have some flaws, too. Perhaps in another hundred or so years we'll have a better answer.
Thoughts, please?
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
-
Unsu...
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sat, June 18, 2005 - 11:57 AMI deleted my first thread and reposted the complete thing, here.
One response was that Relativity doesn't apply at speeds close to light. I believe what you meant was that Newtonian mechanics doesn't apply at speeds close to lightspeed, wasn't it?
Relativity (General and Special) deals with near lightspeed phenomenon quite a bit, as I understand it. -
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sat, June 18, 2005 - 12:00 PMactually relativity theory gets very shaky once you get very close to light speeds. too many things depend on an accurate estimation of the speed of light -
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sat, June 18, 2005 - 4:29 PMA philosophical response:
The speed of light appears to be calculable, observable and measurable in the 3rd dimensional realm however nearing and going beyond the speed of light, as a time portal gateway is penetrated; it seems that a whole new set of rules would apply.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sat, June 18, 2005 - 8:30 PMI like Aleksonder's response, although I don't really know if it is scientifically accurate. But, at least for the sake of imagination and for the sake of argument, suppose a whole new set of rules does exist when you hit c, the "limit".
The thing is, at c, mass of the object should become infinite, so what does that mean?
I guess my point is that clearly the equations break down at close to light speed, and the conventional wisdom is that therefore FTL (faster than light) travel is simply impossible.
My thought was that equations "aren't the boss of me", if they are only invented and discerned by humans.
I would really like to hear the input of a physicist on my question, though, if there are "any in the house"... Erufailon, are you there? -
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sat, June 18, 2005 - 10:16 PM<<equations "aren't the boss of me">>
While the equations are not the "boss" of you, the rules of the universe are. Some equations seem to reflect the behavior of the universe very well, such as F=MA, the inverse-square law of gravity, Faraday's electromagnetics equations, etc. It's not that humans, coming up with the equations, are forcing the universe to work the way it does, it's that the universe works a certain way, and by observing it, we can describe it using math.
I'm not a physicist, but as I recall there are no massive particles that travel at the speed of light (at least, none have ever been observed, and that does agree with the equations). Some travel at a pretty good fraction of c, but only massless particles ever travel at c. Unless the mass is zero, the mass will head toward infinity as a particle gets closer to the speed of light. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 1:19 PMElectrons have mass, and they do approach the speed of light, c.
Tachyons are always faster than c. But do they have mass?
Equations "aren't the boss of me".... they aren't.... as I mentioned, F=ma is an imperfect equation, very good for fractional, sub-light speed, but it doesn't govern what happens at near-lightspeed. In the same way, I imagine, maybe another as yet undiscovered equation or phenomenon can account for velocities above c.
Also, some experiments have shown that speeds of 300 c can be achieved, as Li Jun Wang's experiments at NEC Research lab at Princeton, NJ have shown. Other scientists like Guenter Nimtz have sent radio waves at 4 x c (University of Koln experiment), and also Chiao at UC Berkeley.
There are some quantum tunneling effects that may put this into some doubt, at least. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 1:22 PMAgain, all I was saying was that Einstein assumes Lorentz contraction: (1-v^2/c^2) becomes 0 as a denominatar in the equation as velocity approaches c, lightspeed.
AND, E=mc^2 is derived by a tensor manipulation of the Lorentz equations. So, isn't Einstein's assumption tantamount to assuming A, and then stating A is true, as a result? What I am saying is, where does Einstein prove nothing exceeds lightspeed velocity, if he is already, in effect, assuming it?
-
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 2:15 PMThanks, Nicholas, for your encouragements; here's another philosophical notion:
Maybe the essence of what Einstein meant may be misconstrued if one literally thinks 'nothing'. It’s not that absolutely 'nothing' exceeds the speed of light, it’s that “no thing tangible” as observed in the 3rd dimension as “intangible” is “tangible” in the 4th dimensional realm.
As the limit "c", from the equation E=mc^2 is attained, the mass of the object is realized in 4th dimensionally as something “finite” for that dimension, however it becomes omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent relative to 3rd dimension, since this mass simultaneously becomes infinitesimal, imperceptible and only imaginable in 3rd dimension as it becomes unified with 4th dimensional realm.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 8:28 PMThat sorta makes sense to me, but I am looking for some mathematical and logical precision, here....
So, I guess I'm not satisfied with the answers yet, while I definitely appreciate the efforts. -
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 9:44 PMEinstein based his mathematics on the Lorentz-Fitgerald contraction because they accurately described why Lorentz-Fitzgerald couldn't find the ether. His conclusions were inexorable, once you started on that train of thought.
So far, all (and I mean all!) experiments done on relativity have come to the conclusion that the mass/speed relationship absolutely follows the equations as laid out by Einstein (as derived from the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contractions). For example, the lifetime of shortlived atomic particles increase their lifespans exactly as predicted. The masses of particles have been shown to increase with speed, exactly as predicted. For whatevever reason, the relativity equations accurately describe the behaviour of particles at all speeds and masses. There is no breakdown at near light speeds, because nothing with mass can achieve that speed without an infinite supply of energy.
As always Wikipedia has a good overview of the subject:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 9:46 PMUm, well using basic logic with precision and mathematical sets we have: If 3D is the set of all possible manmade perceptions, 4D is the set of no possible manmade perceptions and a time portal is the intersection of set 3D and set 4D; then any v (velocity) less than c (speed of light) is a member of set 3D, any v equal to c is a member of intersection set 3D & 4D, and any v greater than c is member of set 4D. Naturally limits create skewed scalings, and more precise measurements can be calculated to an iota, however most basic principles often do apply. This is still somewhat simplistic perhaps, and an advanced mathematics professor can surely elaborate, however these top secret formulas can't actually be shared without proper security clearances, sorry. ;-) -
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 9:50 PMYikes, Spaceman preempts with a deep link. Bravo, Spaceman! -
-
Unsu...
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Sun, June 19, 2005 - 11:56 PMSpaceman seems to be quite accurate, but I don't think he answered the question.
I wasn't asking whether Einstein was right, but whether his assumption of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Equation's accuracy was logically the same as a tautology.
So, again, did he assume A, in order to prove (partly) A?
The argument that it requires infinite energy to accelerate a particle to lightspeed is probably valid, but what about electrons? They certainly aren't massless, and travel at very nearly lightspeed without mugh expenditure of energy at all. So, why is that? Where am I wrong on that point? The electron weighs 9.11 x 10 exp -31 kilograms, which isn't 0.
I actually found a partial answer to my question, so I include it.
I found this on the web:
------------------------------------------------------------------
How fast do electrons move?
As fast as you can get them going! Well not quite. One of the facts of life discovered in the 20th century is that the speed of light (300,000 kilometers per second) is the ultimate speed limit. As you add energy to the electron, it will go faster, but as you get it to go close to the speed of light, you find that you have to add even more energy just to bump it a bit faster. For example, with just over 220,000 eV (which stands for a convenient unit of energy called the "electron-volt"), you can get the electron up to 90% of the speed of light. But to get it to 99.9% (just another 9.9%), you need a total of over 11 million eV! One way of looking at this is that the electron gets "heavier" (more massive) as it goes ever faster. So it's harder to push it faster. At Jefferson Lab, a typical energy for the electrons in the beam is 4 GeV which is 4 billion eV. That means the electron is traveling at 99.9999992% of the speed of light. Close but still not 100%.
------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the point was NOT whether the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation is correct, but whether its assumption as the basis for the derivation of E=mc2 equation might be a specious basis for claiming that "Einstein says that nothing can exceed the speed of light".
Also, this is probably false for tachyons, which are postulated to always exceed lightspeed. What is the mass of a tachyon?
-
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Mon, June 20, 2005 - 2:11 AMTo the best of my knowledge, no one has ever observed a tachyon, so we don't even know if they exist. The have only been posited because they are a mathematically valid answer to the equation; whether that has any bearing whatsoever on the real world remains to be seen. However, according to the equation, their mass would have to be imaginary (in the sense of being a factor of the square root of -1). Also, since they travel faster than light, there are some potential causality issues that the existance of tachyons would introduce. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
Finally, to return to the main thread, another quote from Wikipedia:
-----
Because of the freedom one has to select how one defines units of length and time in physics, it is possible to make one of the two postulates of relativity a tautological consequence of the definitions, but one cannot do this for both postulates simultaneously, as when combined they have consequences which are independent of one's choice of definition of length and time. For instance, if one defines units of length and time in terms of a physical object (e.g. by defining units of time in terms of transitions of a caesium atom, or length in terms of wavelengths of a krypton atom) then it becomes tautological that the law determining that unit of length or time will be the same in all reference frames, but then the invariance of c is non-trivial. Conversely, if one defines units of length and time in such a way that c is necessarily constant, then the second postulate becomes tautological, but the first one does not; for instance, if the length unit is defined in terms of the time unit and a predetermined fixed value of c, then there is no a priori reason why the number of wavelengths of krypton in a unit of length will be the same in all reference frames (or even in all orientations).
----- from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stat...relativity
Also see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post...relativity for some background on the geometrical roots of the Postulates.
-
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Thu, December 1, 2005 - 4:43 AMI am going to jump in here for the first time. Hopefully what I have to say will help someone get an idea or two. Or maybe it is just for me to get my feet wet with physics, etc.
Are these things paradoxical? It seems like when talking about 3rd and 4th dimensions, there has to be a leap of faith. Knowing that they exist although putting it into words or finding the right equation is impossible. For example, with buddhism, the negative of the golden rule is Do Not Do unto others what you don't want done unto them. Trying to figure this one out is tricky and is a paradox. To see it only comes from knowing, like the knowing that comes from drinking water or tasting an orange. As soon as we start talking about it, we have lost it. One has to be awake. To be awake will help us with the golden rule.
I hope it adds something to the discussion.
-
-
-
Tachyons Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Thu, September 1, 2005 - 6:07 AM"Tachyons are always faster than c. But do they have mass?"
They have an imaginary rest mass, which gives them a real energy only at speeds greater than the speed of light.
A tachyon has no minimum mass/energy, but does have a minimum momentum, which is directly proportional to the imaginary rest mass. The mass/energy of a fast tachyon is approximately proportional to the time it takes to travel a fixed distance.
Other things can travel faster than light such a beam of light from a light house or a pulsar. The beam can traval faster than the light in that beam.
Karl -
-
Re: Tachyons Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Tue, September 6, 2005 - 8:54 PMThere will be ways around Einstein's theory of relativity. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: Tachyons Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Tue, September 6, 2005 - 10:35 PMThe Monitor you are staring at (if it is a CRT) is shooting an electron at a bit of phosphorus witch ignites and emits a pulse of light. this light travels to your eye at "the speed of light"? As what?
The argument still remains. is light a particle or a wave? some experiments have shown a wave and some a particle. yet light travels at this C speed and stimulates your cornea to cause an electrical sensation in your brain you interpret as light. if its a particle it must have some mass.
how does a wave stimulate the cell's of the eye? what is acting on the cell to cause this "reaction" Is a wave just pure energy. then what is its means of transmission?
Some of you on hear seem very educated and obviously intelligent and make excellent points. and of course it is great fun to speculate and try and solve the riddle of the universe. Einstein was in his early 20's i think when he wrote his relativity paper as a patent clerk. i hope one of you discovers the meaning of it all! Just let me know when you got it and we will all have a BBQ and celabrate.
Cheers
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Wed, September 7, 2005 - 11:42 AMThe flaw in your argument is that Einstein did not use the Lorenz-Lorentz equations. He DERIVED them from his assumptions. The LL equations were previously empirically noted to be an invariant transformation of the Maxwell equations of electricity and magnitism (not yet a unified field).
Einstein assumed: 1) the speed of light is constant for any observer in a non-accelerated frame of reference; 2) the laws of physics are the same in any of these frames of reference. From these simple assumptions, he derived the equations of special relativity. The relativistic equations turned out to have the same invariance transformation of the Maxwell equations, however one set applied to electricity and magnetism, the other set applied to motions of reference frames.
Later Einstein discovered that this was not a coincidence and showed that electricity and magnetism are not separate fields, but just different manifestations of the same unified field in different reference frames. Hence, justifying the use of the nomenclature of LL contractions in relativistic situations, and putting the empirically noted Maxwell-equations' invariance transformation on a firm theoretical footing.
As for the speed of light being a limit -- generally speaking, mass and information are classically limited to being on the light cone (traveling at the speed of light), inside the cone (slower), or outside (faster). Passing through the boundary would require more energy (infinite) than is locally available. Classical causality considerations (locality) exclude the outside.
Quantum mechanics is a non-local model of nature, and hence can allow superluminal 'travel' under certain conditions. An example are the famous Alain Aspect experiments often cited as 'proving' Bell's theorum. Other things can classically travel faster than light, but carry no information, energy, or mass. For example, the phase fronts of a 'scissors' effect or a 'lighthouse' effect. The leading edges of these are sequences of events that can be made to have an arbitrarily high speed. However, no information, etc. travels at that high speed, just the apparent motion of the 'phase' front.
-
Re: Einstein's Assumption Proves Itself
Wed, October 5, 2005 - 11:14 AMI am not a trained technician of the science of chemistry psysics, or however it's spelt.
But you're seeing something something with this that is truly amazing, in so far as "science" goes.
there are millions of people.
There have been trillions of living things.
One was named Colonel William Light and they sent him off to the south pacific to "discover" terra australis, Australia, and he founded the city I am in; and in the last couple of years that Los Angeles based religion, SRF, Paramahansa Yogananda has published a couple books with a name of a scientist from here in it, who writes about that science. His nname was given as Paul davis, or similar, patti davis, and a couple months ago his crew harassed me. earlier the same had placed an "organised crime" billionaire as the chancellor; mining magnate.
the point I am making is that "science" itself, is in many ways a pseudo religion; and so it follows that discoveries of this magnitude were made after pseudo religious things happened such as "in the beginning there was light" Bible, first chapter; as if that was equivalent to Colonel William Light finding this city.
Relatively speaking it is.
But in the absolute sense, it isn't.
God will not be mocked in particular if he's some thing like Krsna or Shiva etc.
In that level crossing idea, science is worthless.
But that's the trick.
All I know is that he was not my Uncle Albert.
I quite liked reading his books when I was 5 or 6 years old.
