"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

A while ago a program was presented on NOVA in which a
physicist described an experiment. In this experiment he used two identical
atomic clocks and transported one of them around the world in a jet
aircraft. He
observed that the transported clock recorded less elapsed time than the
identical clock that remained in place. He concluded from this that time
slowed
down as a result of the aircraft's velocity. He asserted that "as far as he
was
concerned, time is what clocks measure". It is the purpose of this posting
to
examine the validity of his belief.

Suppose we consider an experiment in which we measure the
price of gasoline in two different locations (reference frame #1 and
reference
frame #2) using the units of measurement existing at those locations and
denoted
as dollars and gallons in both. In reference frame #1 we observe that
gasoline
costs $1/gallon and in reference frame #2 we also observe that gasoline
costs
$1/gallon. We can assert from this that the price of gasoline is "a
constant"
(1$/gallon) between those locations that, for this example, are only 10
miles
apart. Can we rigorously assert that the price of gasoline does not change
("is
constant"} between those locations? The answer is that we cannot without
further
information. Suppose one of the locations was in Windsor, Ontario, Canada
and
the other location is across the river in Detroit, Michigan, USA? At the
Canadian location, the price of gasoline would be measured in terms of
Canadian
dollars and Imperial Gallons while at the US location; the price of gasoline
would be measured in US gallons and US dollars. Since the Imperial Gallon is
25%
larger than the US gallon, the price of gasoline, while being "a constant"
(invariant) between those locations, would not be "constant" between them
except
for the case where the Canadian dollar was worth 1.25 US dollars. In this
experiment, in order to draw a legitimate conclusion it is necessary to take
in
consideration the relative sizes of the units of measurement for fluid and
money
at the two locations (reference frames) even though they have the same
names.

The same requirement is incumbent on an experimenter who is
making measurements between reference frames (elevation or velocity). Before
we
can draw any conclusion as to what is actually occurring between two
reference
frames which differ in elevation or velocity, we must first determine how
the
appropriate units of measurement are affected by the difference in reference
frame and correct the readings made locally appropriately. (This is no
different
than the technique used by land surveyors when they correct their
measurements
of distance for the effects of ambient temperature on their steel tapes. I
would
assert that the science of physics should be at least as rigorous as the
more
mundane field of land surveying.) The information needed to make the
corrections
for reference frames that differ in velocity were provided in 1903 by
Fitzgerald, Larmor, and Lorentz and are collectively known as the Lorentz
Transformations. The resultant theory was denoted as the Lorentz
Transformation-Aether Theory. Using these transformations, one finds that
the
effects of velocity are quite reasonable in terms of classical Newtonian
Physics, THERE IS NO MYSTERY. In 1905 Dr. Einstein derived Special
Relativity
using mathematics applied to accepted physical laws. If one examines both
theories one finds that they are actually the same theory since one may be
derived from the other, with the Aether Relativity Theory being a special
case
solution of STR in which one of the infinite number of solutions that STR
allows
between the limits of +/- C represents the Aether but we are prevented from
measuring that velocity with respect to it by the Lorentz Transformations
and
the velocity limit on communications imposed by the velocity of light.

When one examines the atomic clock experiment one must decide
between one of two interpretations. One must consider the possibility of
whether
that velocity of the trip caused the moving clock to speed up during one
part of
its trip around the world and to slow up on the part so that the total
elapsed
time was consistent with the observation. The other interpretation was that
the
velocity made the rate of passage of time itself change due to its movement
through space-time. In order to distinguish between the possibilities, it is
necessary only necessary to consider the effects of a change in reference
frame
occurring when the observations are made and these observations are made at
the
same location and at the same velocity reference and, as a result, we must
conclude that it was not time which slowed during the trip, it was the speed
of
the clock. (This conclusion may be made easier to accept when one recognizes
that the experiment could have been set up, in principle, in a form akin the
auto speed tests on the Bonneville Salt Flats in which the clock travels at
a
constant rate of speed and in a straight line in one direction and then is
stopped and reversed indirection and returns to its starting point along the
same straight line. All of the measurements would be made by identical
clocks
with the time required to turn the vehicle around subtracted from the time
difference. Spacetime is not involved in this analysis.) Since all of the
measurements of the actual experiment were made at the same location and
velocity reference frame, the actual elapsed time must have been the same
for
both clocks one must conclude that it was the moving clock that slowed its
speed
and not a reduction of the actual passage of time.

The physicists assertion that "time is what clocks measure" is
naive. "Time is what clocks measure after the assumed speed of the clock has
been corrected for the change in size of the units of measurement for time
resulting from velocity". (In other words, changing the velocity of the
clock
caused its scale factor to change. there are sound and easily understood
physical reason as why this occurs.) Larmor was intelligent enough to
provide
the necessary correction factor (the Lorentz Transformation for Time and Dr.
Einstein was considerate enough to derive it rigorously from basic
principles.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm .

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.

sam ende wrote:

snip

... i have no idea where all the other dimensions in
string theory are supposed to come from ?

Each 'dimension' corresponds to an independent variable.

There seems to be a common misconception that the 'dimensions'
mentioned in string theory (ST) and in QM are *geometric* dimensions.

For example, the 'dimensions' used to describe electron orbits in an
atom are the principle quantum number n, the angular momentum l (or j
if you prefer), the magnetic quantum number m, and the spin quantum
number s.

ST postulates that 10 orthogonal quantum variables are both necessary
and sufficient to specify a subatomic particle, be it a baryon, a
hadron, or a lepton, or anything else.

Hence the 'dimensions.'

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"sam ende" wrote in message
...
tadchem wrote:


There seems to be a common misconception that the 'dimensions'
mentioned in string theory (ST) and in QM are *geometric* dimensions.

yes, that is probably my misconception, from what i have read recently
though it seems that string theory is more a mathematical construct ?

Yes. Most theories in physics start with a more abstract mathematical
representation. For example, the Lorentz transformations predate Einstein's
Theory of Relativity.

Theories only become *explainable* when all the variables, operations, and
values can be correlated to quantities already known to physics or *defined*
for the purpose of use in the context of the theory.

For example, the 'dimensions' used to describe electron orbits in an
atom are the principle quantum number n, the angular momentum l (or j
if you prefer), the magnetic quantum number m, and the spin quantum
number s.

ST postulates that 10 orthogonal quantum variables are both necessary
and sufficient to specify a subatomic particle, be it a baryon, a
hadron, or a lepton, or anything else.

Hence the 'dimensions.'

okay, i don't really understand what you have written but i'll do some
reading, mainly it's the keywords you use, i don't know what they mean.
thank you.

This site links to many dictionaries, and gives some definitions based on a
'consensus' of the dictionaries:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=dimension&ls=a
If you examine the 'quick definitions' box on the right, you will see
several definitions for 'dimension.' The ordinary journalist-on-the-street
(IQ about 90) only knows the first definition:

noun: the magnitude of something in a particular direction (especially
length or width or height)

The typical mathematician (those who derive the equations on which physics'
theories are built) uses mainly the fourth definition:

noun: a construct whereby objects or individuals can be distinguished

Hence the confusion...

By the time he gets a Ph. D. the average physicist knows almost enough math
to have earned a B.S. in applied mathematics, so they are comfortable with
the terminology.


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Dear sam ende:

"sam ende" wrote in message
...
tadchem wrote:
....
ST postulates that 10 orthogonal quantum variables are both
necessary and sufficient to specify a subatomic particle, be
it a baryon, a hadron, or a lepton, or anything else.

Hence the 'dimensions.'

okay, i don't really understand what you have written but i'll
do some reading, mainly it's the keywords you use, i don't
know what they mean. thank you.

Just some close approximations, then:
Imagine a spreadsheet. Rows are one dimension, columns are
another. The result is a 2 dimensional "space". If you
implement it as Excel (and more?) does, you can have multiple
pages, each with similar 2D "names". Now you have 3 dimensions.

Place something on your desk in front of you. It has width,
depth, height. It has temperature. It has color. It might in
different specific locations at different times. It might have
"food quality". It might be like a gyroscope, and have a
specific angular momentum. A dimension can represent a
continuous quantity that is unbounded/unconstrained by other
choices for "dimensions" (orthogonality).

A 10D particle has 10 pieces of information that are required to
complete its "address".

Maybe one of these will get you closer... if the links Tom
provided don't

David A. Smith

Dear sam ende:

"sam ende" wrote in message
...
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:


A 10D particle has 10 pieces of information that are required
to
complete its "address".

as such the other dimensions are more a refinement ?

No, since "refinement" implies that some of the dimensions are
"degenerate" or can be mapped directly onto other dimensions, to
reduce the necessary count. The 10 dimensions necessary are
orthogonal to each other. Meaning there is no rotation, or
scaling, capable of mapping 10D to less than 10D.

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message newsK0Ze.265997$E95.151707@fed1read01...

snip

No, since "refinement" implies that some of the dimensions are
"degenerate" or can be mapped directly onto other dimensions, to
reduce the necessary count. The 10 dimensions necessary are
orthogonal to each other. Meaning there is no rotation, or
scaling, capable of mapping 10D to less than 10D.

Well said, sir!


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Dear tadchem:

"tadchem" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in
message newsK0Ze.265997$E95.151707@fed1read01...

snip

No, since "refinement" implies that some of the dimensions
are "degenerate" or can be mapped directly onto other
dimensions, to reduce the necessary count. The 10
dimensions necessary are orthogonal to each other.
Meaning there is no rotation, or scaling, capable of
mapping 10D to less than 10D.

Well said, sir!

Thanks. I've had good role models.

David A. Smith