Relativity

[Resha Caner]

I've had this strange idea bouncing around in my head for some time. But, to better understand how plausible (or implausible) it is, I need to have some questions answered about relativity.

So, let's take mass and relativity as an example. Given that m = rest mass, v = velocity, and c = speed of light, the simple equation that people use to describe the relative mass (M) is:

M = m / sqrt(1 - (v/c)[sup]2[/sup]) ... BTW, is there a code for sqrt?

So, let's start with these questions:

I think I've seen it said that the above equation is an oversimplification of the effect of relativity on mass. In what way?

I've also seen several recent challenges saying that the speed of light is not the maximum speed a physical object can achieve. If so, I guess it's pretty obvious that the equation is wrong. But are the general principles still correct, i.e. that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, relativistic mass increases with speed, time slows down, etc?

If the speed of light is the maximum, is there a new "ultimate speed"? What things can exist above light speed? What is time like above light speed? Would it be something like light speed is a singularity, and above light speed time goes backwards?

 

[AV1611VET]

M = m / sqrt(1 - (v/c)[sup]2[/sup]) ... BTW, is there a code for sqrt?

1. Go to your character map (type CHARMAP in the run box).
2. Type SQUARE ROOT in the 'search for:' box.
3. Click SELECT, then COPY.
4. Paste it into your post.

 

[Resha Caner]

1. Go to your character map (type CHARMAP in the run box).
2. Type SQUARE ROOT in the 'search for:' box.
3. Click SELECT, then COPY.
4. Paste it into your post.

√

Thanks.

 

[Tinker Grey]

1. Go to your character map (type CHARMAP in the run box).
2. Type SQUARE ROOT in the 'search for:' box.
3. Click SELECT, then COPY.
4. Paste it into your post.

It would appear that you need to check the advanced view check box, too.

√

 

[AV1611VET]

It would appear that you need to check the advanced view check box, too.

√

Hmmm ... I never noticed that.

Mine is already checked.

 

[juvenissun]

I've had this strange idea bouncing around in my head for some time. But, to better understand how plausible (or implausible) it is, I need to have some questions answered about relativity.

So, let's take mass and relativity as an example. Given that m = rest mass, v = velocity, and c = speed of light, the simple equation that people use to describe the relative mass (M) is:

M = m / sqrt(1 - (v/c)[sup]2[/sup]) ... BTW, is there a code for sqrt?

So, let's start with these questions:

I think I've seen it said that the above equation is an oversimplification of the effect of relativity on mass. In what way?

I've also seen several recent challenges saying that the speed of light is not the maximum speed a physical object can achieve. If so, I guess it's pretty obvious that the equation is wrong. But are the general principles still correct, i.e. that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, relativistic mass increases with speed, time slows down, etc?

If the speed of light is the maximum, is there a new "ultimate speed"? What things can exist above light speed? What is time like above light speed? Would it be something like light speed is a singularity, and above light speed time goes backwards?

Without considering the relativity stuff, could I hear your strange idea? That is more attractive to me than the speed of light.

 

[Hobz]

As far as I understand it your equation is perfectly valid in it's current form. However the equation is commonly critised because it uses two constants for mass, "rest mass" and "relativistic mass." This makes us think about the change in relativistic mass in terms of the object losing matter or a change in internal structure which is incorrect. Einstein preferred only one constant for mass, and I believe he only used one in his own notes. He preferred the formula:

p = mv/sqrt(1 - (v/c)2)

Which speaks of momentum, which must be conserved in any closed system. The other form of the equation is perfectly valid but it critised as being misleading more than anything.

As far as the speed of light is concerned, the speed of light in a vacuum commonly denoted c, is the fastest speed at which energy, matter, and information can travel in the universe. Although things can give the appearance of moving faster than light, they can be proven not to be.

Most people have heard of the neutrino experiment done by CERN which has produced results that neutrinos were travelling faster than the speed of light, however these results need to be verified by another lab, hopefully FERMIlab will have more results for us sometime this year. If the results are confirmed, it'll be paradigm shift time.

 

[Hobz]

.

 

[Resha Caner]

First of all, thanks for the reply.

If the results are confirmed, it'll be paradigm shift time.

Yes, it certainly would. But are people holding their breath, hoping the results will be invalidated? I would expect someone is working furiously to support the findings with a theoretical framework. Unless it's a big secret, hasn't someone started brainstorming what that would be?

the speed of light in a vacuum

Like this. Isn't this a concept that is no longer valid, given the quantum foam and such. It seems light has a medium for its propagation through "space" after all ... or is there something I'm missing.

 

[Hobz]

The results as they stand coming from a single laboratory don't hold enough weight to simply dismiss the idea of relativity, as I said before what we are waiting for is confirmation from another totally independent source to rule out any possible error which may be due to some unknown laboratory condition. Whether or not there are some scientists hoping the results will be invalidated should ultimately have no effect on the results we get from FERMIlab, and that's all that should matter. If the results are not confirmed the next step would be for CERN to quantify the errors present in their measurements, and if the results are confirmed, the next step would be to quantify the results. Until we have confirmation we would rather assume unknown error than paradigm shift.

I'm not really studied up on exactly what is being proposed to account for the evidence as it stands, but I would believe proposed frameworks would be dime a dozen until further experimental work is planned. This is definately an assumption as I don't work in physics, but I would think you could only reasonably take a theoretical framework so far before you would need additional experimental results to help confirm or deny your theory. Also, these proposed frameworks are not even close to what anyone would consider a scientific consensus, more a best guess, or an idea worth discussing.

Whether or not we can create a true vacuum or not has nothing to do with the validity of the concept. Whether or not light is ever observed to be travelling at exactly c also has no bearing on the concepts of relativity. Think of c as a bound which can be extrapolated quite easily from a variety of measurements, it's only real function is to serve as a bound in relativity, and whether or not anything is seen travelling at c has no real impact on this theory. Even in the vacuum of space light travels slightly below c, and we don't even need quantum foam to explain why. The tiny amount of hydrogen and whatnot which is present means the mean free path of light is not infinite (as assumed in a perfect vacumm) and as a result it is not travelling at exactly c.

 

[sfs]

Yes, it certainly would. But are people holding their breath, hoping the results will be invalidated? I would expect someone is working furiously to support the findings with a theoretical framework. Unless it's a big secret, hasn't someone started brainstorming what that would be?

What makes you think theorists aren't brainstorming? Take a look here. Not all of it was motivated by the MINOS experiment, but some certainly was.

 

[Resha Caner]

The results as they stand coming from a single laboratory don't hold enough weight to simply dismiss the idea of relativity

I didn't mean to imply they would. I expected the basic concepts of relativity would still be valid whether CERN's results stand or not. That part of my question was a request to confirm such is the case. It wasn't meant as a challenge. My challenge regarded the parameters used with those concepts, not the concepts themselves.

Whether or not there are some scientists hoping the results will be invalidated should ultimately have no effect on the results we get from FERMIlab, and that's all that should matter... Until we have confirmation we would rather assume unknown error than paradigm shift.

Formally, sure. I just know for myself that I'm always thinking ahead. When one of my engineering theories is challenged, I'm thinking through the ramifications long before the data confirms whether I'm right or wrong. I've found people lend you far more credibly if you're prepared to explain why you're wrong than if you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, give me some time to think about that."

Also, these proposed frameworks are not even close to what anyone would consider a scientific consensus, more a best guess, or an idea worth discussing.

Again, I understand that. And I'm interested in knowing what ideas are being discussed.

Think of c as a bound which can be extrapolated quite easily from a variety of measurements, it's only real function is to serve as a bound in relativity, and whether or not anything is seen travelling at c has no real impact on this theory.

Mmm, I think it does ... and an even bigger impact if something is seen traveling at a velocity higher than c. That implies the extrapolations (always a very dangerous thing to do in science) are wrong.

But that's one of my questions. Is c an extrapolation or a measurement? I thought it was a measurement.

I understand the idea that c is a bound, and I understand that we can extrapolate what we know to what we don't know. But that's what I'm trying to better understand. How was that extrapolation done (if it was)? Light (or should I say electro-magnetism) is the only thing that has (supposedly) been found that can travel with wave-like properties without a medium to travel in. I'd be surprised if I was the first to realize that the idea of quantum foam means light actually is traveling in a medium. So, wouldn't some previous assumptions need to be corrected?

If c is an extrapolation that assumes no medium, does it need to be corrected for the medium we now know about? Or, if the value of we use for c was measured, does the parameter need to be corrected to say c is actually a higher value than previously thought? Or, is it that light is not the fastest thing?

 

[Resha Caner]

What makes you think theorists aren't brainstorming?

I don't think that. As I said, I would expect they are. I just haven't heard about it.

Take a look here. Not all of it was motivated by the MINOS experiment, but some certainly was.

I will. Thanks.

 

[sfs]

I don't think that. As I said, I would expect they are. I just haven't heard about it.

I took you to mean you were surprised at the lack of work. My mistake.

 

[Resha Caner]

I took you to mean you were surprised at the lack of work. My mistake.

np. I gave you one of those lightbulb thingys for your rep. Your link is exactly what I was looking for. Obviously I haven't had time to absorb the information in any depth, but by the time I do this conversation will most likely have withered.

So, in the interest of having fun talking, I'll proceed in ignorance. Surely you can agree I'm good at that.

Even more than the link, I like how the papers were categorized with a few summary comments. Though I know the "evidence" (said tongue in cheek) will decide the day, I already know where I want to place my bet.

Take, for example, the paper with the opinion that time is imaginary. In the very recent past I would have agreed with that, but I'm going through a paradigm shift at the moment. Though there were many appealing implications in saying time is imaginary, it had at least one very unappealing theological consequence (which doesn't really belong in this forum). As such, I am rapidly heading toward the opposite extreme, and don't like that idea anymore. Similarly, I don't like the papers that suggest a space/dimensional aspect to the solution.

The three ideas I like the best are: 1) c is higher than previously thought, 2) light is not what determines the limit, 3) c is changing with time. I didn't see it in my quick review, but other possibility might be 4) there is no limit.

 

[Hobz]

Sorry if I misunderstood you Resha, didn't mean to come out all guns blazing like that, I think I've spent too much time lurking in the Creo vs Evo forums.

I didn't mean to imply they would. I expected the basic concepts of relativity would still be valid whether CERN's results stand or not. That part of my question was a request to confirm such is the case. It wasn't meant as a challenge. My challenge regarded the parameters used with those concepts, not the concepts themselves.

Given that CERN's results do stand, my educated opinion would be that yes, relativity would be continued to be taught as it is still accurate under many (even most) circumstances, but of course it would be taught along with it's limitations and implicit assumptions. This would make it analogous to the Newtonian physics we still teach, and use given the right conditions.

Formally, sure. I just know for myself that I'm always thinking ahead. When one of my engineering theories is challenged, I'm thinking through the ramifications long before the data confirms whether I'm right or wrong. I've found people lend you far more credibly if you're prepared to explain why you're wrong than if you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, give me some time to think about that."

I'm sure there are many competing theories out there explaining away the anomaly in CERN's results, I'd think they would be dime a dozen. I'd also speculate that these competing theories will sit on the backburner till more experimental data arrives, as there's so many possibilities open to explore. But honestly, not having ever worked in Physics, I could be very, very, wrong.

Mmm, I think it does ... and an even bigger impact if something is seen traveling at a velocity higher than c. That implies the extrapolations (always a very dangerous thing to do in science) are wrong.

I'd agree that when we confirm something going faster than c, we have a large problem. However whether or not we ever observe something travelling at c has no bearing, as I understand it, on relativity. The chances of observing something travelling at the maximum speed possible would be slim no?

But that's one of my questions. Is c an extrapolation or a measurement? I thought it was a measurement.

c can be found in a variety of ways, the most accurate is determination of wavelength and frequency, then using the product to get c. However time of flight can be used, and it can also be extrapolated from other laws, such as the electric and magnetic constants and their relation to c.

How was that extrapolation done (if it was)? Light (or should I say electro-magnetism) is the only thing that has (supposedly) been found that can travel with wave-like properties without a medium to travel in. I'd be surprised if I was the first to realize that the idea of quantum foam means light actually is traveling in a medium. So, wouldn't some previous assumptions need to be corrected?

There are only 2 assumptions in the theory of special relativity:

1: The same laws of physics hold in all inertial reference frames (theory of relativity)

2: The speed of light is invariable.

Everything else in special relativity follows from those 2 postulates, and I don't see them being corrected any time soon. Again, I could be very wrong. If you havn't seen them Google Einstein's Gedanken for an interesting look at how relativity comes about from a more practical standpoint.

 

[Hobz]

Take, for example, the paper with the opinion that time is imaginary. In the very recent past I would have agreed with that, but I'm going through a paradigm shift at the moment. Though there were many appealing implications in saying time is imaginary, it had at least one very unappealing theological consequence (which doesn't really belong in this forum). As such, I am rapidly heading toward the opposite extreme, and don't like that idea anymore. Similarly, I don't like the papers that suggest a space/dimensional aspect to the solution.

Resha, go where the evidence and reason take you, even if you don't like it at first.

 

[Farinata]

Relevant to this topic. People might be interested in the following paper about the theoretical implications of the possible existence of superluminal photons via the scharnhorst effect.

arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0107091v2.pdf

It seems that FTL particles don't necessarily violate special relativity though not having an invariant speed exist, i.e. the speed of light, would.

 

[Resha Caner]

Resha, go where the evidence and reason take you, even if you don't like it at first.

Sure, though I might modify your statement a bit. I go where truth takes me. That is, evidence can be misleading just as much as anything else, so I don't pretend like there are no metaphysical elements to science.

And, I don't pretend to be perfectly objective. I have theories I like better than others. I can be stupidly stubborn in sticking to the theories I like, but I have occassionally come to a point where I realize I am wrong and I change. I think I am often better at arguing against the theories I onced believed than those I never believed at all.

 

[Hobz]

I go where truth takes me. That is, evidence can be misleading just as much as anything else, so I don't pretend like there are no metaphysical elements to science.

How do we determine what is the truth?

How are "metaphysical elements" part of science?