3
   

Fibre-linked atomic clocks put special relativity to the test

 
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 13 Jun, 2017 02:42 pm
@fresco,
This doesn't really merit a response, but, as I think I have often shown, I have great respect for Einstein. Nothing I say or think is 'anti-einstein." I reject SR as being a persuasive "physical' (though it is mathematically consistent) explanation of relative motion, as do a great many others. But that has nothing to do with any "anti-einstein" sentiments.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jun, 2017 04:35 pm
@layman,
The historical significance of Einstein for concepts of 'physical reality' WAS precisely SR in which he rejected a Newtonian fixed reference frame and adopted the axiom of the constancy of the speed of light for all observers. That significance was further developed with GR which demystified 'gravity'. You can witter about 'respecting' Einstein all you like especially when his one liners about 'reality' appesr to you to suit your purpose, but the bottom line is that you a quasi-religious Newtonian at heart in which a simplistic concepts of non relativistic 'objectivity' and assumed access to the ideal of 'an observer independent reality' are part of your evangelistic mission.
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2017 12:21 am
@layman,
NB A layman's guide the unique contribution of Einstein's SR to the establishment of the essential (to modern physics) concept of 'Spacetime' can be found in the second paragraph of the Wiki article on that topic.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2017 02:28 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Have you considered for example that mathematically a Geocentric model of the solar system is equivalent to a Heliocentric one, and that it is only by functional considerations' ( including Occams Razor) that that the second is preferred. The words 'right' and 'wrong' do not apply.


This is about the only relevant "scientific" question you've posed, Fresky, so I'll take a minute to respond to it. Everything else you've said pretty much reduces to contentless generalities design to defend the solipsism that you so fervorently subscribe to, combined with fallacious ad hominem attacks.

Yeah, I've considered your irrelevant claim, have you?

1. Ernst Mach, Einstein's early philosophical idol, said (erroneously, but with some reasonable basis), that the geocentric and heliocentric interpretations of solar motion were "equally valid." But even he, the proto-positivist, immediately added: "But the universe is only given once." Put another way, it is impossible for BOTH views to be right. The universe is not "given twice," once with a geocentric existence, and once with a heliocentric existence.

SR overlooks this, and tries to claim that, because they are supposedly "equally valid," each of two mutually contradictory claims about physical reality are equally "right." SR goes clean over the top with it's solipsism in this regard.

2. They are not "equally valid" to begin with. It's true that, relying on raw sense data alone, we can't confidently say that the sun doesn't "rise" in the east and "set" in the west while the earth remains motionless. But this is just why Einstein came to ridicule Mach's positivisitic insistence that ONLY sense data can be spoken of.

There is more to be considered than "raw sense data." All of our laws of physics would have to be abandoned if we were to accept that the miniscule mass of the earth caused the sun, the planets, the stars,, and all other matter in the universe to revolve around it. In light of the discoveries of modern science, such a claim in patently absurd. Both views are not "true." The correct view can only be that the earth orbits the sun, not vice versa.

With respect to motion within the confines of the solar system, the "correct" (preferred) frame of reference is NOT the earth. It is the barycenter, the "center of mass," which is not even the sun.

You make a claim about what is "mathematically" true. Even assuming you're right (physicists deny this), this just goes to demonstrate (as Einstein and many others have noted) that mathematics, standing alone, can tell us nothing whatsoever about physical reality. It's irrelevant, so why try to pretend otherwise?
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2017 03:30 pm
@layman,
Edit:
Quote:
With respect to motion within the confines of the solar system, the "correct" (preferred) frame of reference is NOT the earth. It is the barycenter, the "center of mass," which is not even the sun.


Upon re-reading this, I realize that I haven't clearly stated what I intended to convey, so let me try again:

Better would have been: "With respect to motion within the confines of the solar system, the "correct" (preferred) frame of reference is NOT the earth. Nor is it the Sun. It is the barycenter, the "center of mass," which even the sun revolves around."

It is only the barycenter which remains motionless relative to all other matter in the solar system. It is therefore the appropriate and proper "preferred frame of reference" to be used when determining what is "moving" within the solar system.

In light of this, neither the "heliocentric" nor the "geocentric" interpretation is really correct. They are both "wrong." That said, one wouldn't need to know a damn thing about gravity or anything else to know that they can't BOTH be right. Elementary logic tells you that, a priori.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2017 09:09 pm
@fresco,
This post of yours betrays your lack of reading comprehension, eh, Fresky? The clear implication of your post is that you think I was rejecting the Hafele-Keating experiment when I was ratifying it. You were purporting to "correct" an error that didn't exist (well, except in your solipsistic mind, I mean). I had simply said:

layman wrote:
That is why this particular endeavor, and similar ones such as the Hafele-Keating experiment, could ONLY use LR (not SR) to make predictions which matched the observed, empirical results they generated.


An extremely simplified summary of that experiment follows:

3 clocks, all synchronized to read the exact same time, are sitting on a desk. 2 of those clocks are removed and put on board airplanes, one is never moved.

Each airplane then takes off and goes around the world at the same speed, except they travel in different directions (one goes east, the other goes west).

When the planes return and all 3 clocks are placed next to each other again, each one shows that a DIFFERENT amount of time has elasped since they were last together.

SR is not capable of explaining, let alone predicting, this outcome. However Lorentizian Relativity explains it completely, and can accurately predict, in advance, what each clock will read.

The 3 different clock readings are NOT the product of a "thought experiment." They are a matter of empirical fact.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 14 Jun, 2017 10:47 pm
@layman,
Quote:
SR is not capable of explaining, let alone predicting, this outcome. However Lorentizian Relativity explains it completely, and can accurately predict, in advance, what each clock will read.


And yet, you could find countless articles which claim that the Hafele-Keating experiment "confirmed" special relativity. In fact it refutes it. That's how misguided the thinking can be when it comes to special relativity.
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2017 12:02 am
@layman,
Your obsession points to you being a college dropout (or throwout).IS THAT CORRECT ?
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2017 02:50 pm
@fresco,
Hahahahaha. Unlike you, Fresky, I'm not a poseur. I dont't try to pretend that my arguments should be accepted because of my claims about my "credentials," misrepresented or not.

My arguments stand on their own. I haven't heard you utter a word of substantive dispute related to any of them. You steadfastly refuse to specifically address any of the theoretical and empirical claims I've made in this thread. I can't say I blame you, because you have no legitimate understanding of the topic to begin with, notwithstanding your pretensions to the contrary. You'd be in way over your head if you tried that.

Rave on, Poseur.
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2017 03:31 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

The historical significance of Einstein for concepts of 'physical reality' WAS precisely SR in which he rejected a Newtonian fixed reference frame


Just one more claim where you display your ignorance, Fresky. Like Einstein, Newton NEVER claimed that there was a (knowable) universal rest frame. He claimed that if such a point existed, then it would be the center of gravity of all matter in the universe. He further claimed that if such a point existed, we would have no way of detecting it. Einstein, like all other competent physicists of his time, was following Newton in this regard.

Newton fully and explicitly conceded that all motion was, as far as we could ascertain, strictly relative. The myth that Einstein "corrected" him on this matter could only be accepted by those who know little about Newton's thought to begin with.

Nor did Einstien "reject" the notion of an aether. In fact he said (in conjunction with his theory of GR) that the notion of an aether was absolutely necessary. In 1905, he merely said that the notion of an aether was "superfluous" as far as his theory of "special" relativity was concerned.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2017 03:36 pm
@layman,
Very Happy I'll take that as a 'yes' !
How else would you account for your 'Ancient Mariner ' syndrome ?
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2017 04:17 pm
Perhaps of interest to some:

Quote:
In physics the Einstein æther theory, also called æ-theory, is a generally covariant modification of general relativity which describes a spacetime endowed with both a metric and a unit timelike vector field named the æther. The theory has a preferred reference frame and hence violates Lorentz invariance....

In addition to the metric of general relativity these theories also included a scalar field which intuitively corresponded to a universal notion of time. Such a theory will have a preferred reference frame, that in which the universal time is the actual time. The dynamics of the scalar field is identified with that of an æther which is at rest in the preferred frame.

Einstein-æther theories were popularized by Maurizio Gasperini in a series of papers, such as Singularity Prevention and Broken Lorentz Symmetry in the 1980s....Einstein æther theories returned to prominence at the turn of the century with the paper Gravity and a Preferred Frame by Ted Jacobson and David Mattingly.

The existence of a preferred, dynamical time vector breaks the Lorentz symmetry of the theory, more precisely it breaks the invariance under boosts. This symmetry breaking may lead to a Higgs mechanism for the graviton which would alter long distance physics, perhaps yielding an explanation for recent supernova data which would otherwise be explained by a cosmological constant. The effect of breaking Lorentz invariance on quantum field theory has a long history leading back at least to the work of Markus Fierz and Wolfgang Pauli in 1939.

Recently it has regained popularity with, for example, the paper Effective Field Theory for Massive Gravitons and Gravity in Theory Space by Nima Arkani-Hamed, Howard Georgi and Matthew Schwartz.[3] Einstein-æther theories provide a concrete example of a theory with broken Lorentz invariance and so have proven to be a natural setting for such investigations. In 2004, Eling, Jacobson and Mattingly wrote a review of the status Einstein æther theory as of 2004.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Jun, 2017 06:24 pm
Again, perhaps of interest to some. These are some excerpts from a scientific paper submitted by Roger Ellman. Ellman is now a retired (from Los Alamos) scientist who now presides over a non-profit corporation called "The-Origin Foundation:"

Roger Ellman wrote:
Solid reasoning and new data not available to Einstein and Lorentz show that Lorentz was correct and that Einstein's Theory of Relativity should correctly be termed Einstein's Principle of Invariance. It is shown that Einstein's comprehensive relativity and denial of an absolute frame of reference for the universe are incorrect and that the universe has an absolute universal prime frame of reference.


https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9808/9808052.pdf

Basically, he is discussing recent findings relating to the cosmic microwave background radiation that Dr. George Smoot called "the cosmic rest frame."

Addressing some of the underlying philosophical and epistemological issues raised, Ellman says (among other things):

Quote:
We have gone from inability to determine the truth to non-belief in its existence and then to belief that truth, and reality, are whatever we choose to believe them to be and can force on our fellows.

[comment: This is the solipsistic/sophistical philosophy favored by the likes of Fresky]

Whether we can know, sense, measure, or understand some aspect of reality or not it still, nevertheless, is. Its being does not depend on our consent nor our observation nor our understanding of it, nor even our own being. We are not gods.

[comment: Here Ellman rejects solipsism, as virtually all sane people do, in favor of "realism." Wiki describes "philosophical realism" as "the belief that some aspects of reality are ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc....it asserts the mind-independent existence of the world, as opposed to skepticism and solipsism."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Put another way, realism posits that the world would exist even if we did not, and that at least some aspects of "reality" are not "controlled by" our minds, but rather by external, material factors which are independent of our subjective minds.
fresco
 
  3  
Reply Fri 16 Jun, 2017 02:12 am
@layman,
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/923/Fe6KyO.jpg
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 16 Jun, 2017 03:58 pm
@fresco,
Well, I gotta admit, Fresky, you're starting to convince me.

After seeing that brilliant post, I'm starting to think that maybe you really do have 27 PhD's in subjects ranging from Anthropology to Zoology (with post-docs in physics and philosophy, of course).
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2017 10:34 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It certainly does not.


It sounds like we disagree, Brandon. I have already stated, over the course of several posts, my basis for taking a different position. Is there something in them that you specifically disagree with?

How does the twin paradox imply the existence of a preferred reference frame?
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 17 Jun, 2017 10:39 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

How does the twin paradox imply the existence of a preferred reference frame?


https://able2know.org/topic/391613-4#post-6445165
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 12:10 pm
@centrox,
centrox wrote:

Time dilation predicted by Special Relativity is confirmed to within one part in 100 million.


To sum up:

Centrox, this is the only sentence in your introductory comment which you composed and which was not cut and pasted from the article. A careful and informed reading of that article reveals that the conclusion you drew was the exact opposite of what the article says.

For example:

Quote:
Atomic clocks in France, Germany and the UK have been used to perform the best-ever confirmation of time dilation as set out in Einstein’s special theory of relativity.


This sentence makes clear that it is time dilation, not special relativity itself, that has been confirmed. It tends to suggest that SR itself has been confirmed, but the articles goes on to show that any such "suggestion" would be wrong.

Quote:
In the RMS framework, the shift in frequency of the returned signal will contain a term that involves the difference between the velocities of the atomic clock locations.


The "frequency shift" being detected and measured would occur ONLY in the RMS framework. It is not predicted (and is, in fact rejected) by SR. The article doesn't tell you that directly, but anyone with knowledge of the difference between RMS and SR would know it.

Quote:
As a result, sending signals between atomic clocks at two different points on Earth could reveal RMS violation.


As this sentence makes clear, they are testing for a violation of the RMS theory, not a violation of SR theory. They found no "violation" of RMS, in fact they confirmed it to a high degree. By doing so, they, in effect, found a violation of SR (which predicts NO time dilation in these circumstances).

Quote:
RMS contradicts special relativity in all other reference frames by assuming that the average speed of light of a return journey varies according to a formula involving the velocities of those frames relative to the preferred frame.


In these circumstances, RMS assumes and predicts results that contradict the assumptions and predictions of SR and those assumptions/predictions (of RMS) were confirmed. This is tantamount to disconfirming SR.

When positing a preferred frame, as RMS does, you are automatically rejecting the "relativity of simultaneity" posited by SR and adopting the "absolute simultaneity" posited Lorentz (and others).

You are also REJECTING a fundamental postulate of SR, i.e., that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames of reference:

Quote:
RMS assumes that there is a preferred reference frame in which the average speed of light measured on a return journey (there and back again) between two points is constant in all directions.


Although the very next sentence following this quote says RMS contradicts SR in all other frames, the import of this in not really made clear in the article. What it's trying to say is that, with RMS, there is ONLY ONE frame where it speed of light is isotropic, i.e., the preferred frame. This alone contradicts SR.

Returning to your conclusion: "Time dilation predicted by Special Relativity is confirmed to within one part in 100 million." For this sentence to be accurate, you would have to replace the words "Special Relativity" with others. The "predictions" of SR are not confirmed, they are disconfirmed. The "other words" could well be..."predicted by theories which contradict Special Relativity..."
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 03:07 pm
@layman,
Lay at 86 w/ Alzie's I'm in kindova fog, and no expert by any means, in spite of my RR. But I can't take that '0.87c' stuff so I have 'em accelerate to (near) c in an instant

So as I understand it, the twins pass by near c in identical perfect rockets hurtled from somewhere back-to-back but with engines off. As they pass they fire up so John comes to a stop, joining you and me, while Sam continues at (near) c but (as we see it ) ever-so-slightly faster. Yet when we meet Sam again (somehow he had decided to come back) we've aged but he hasn't

Maybe Sam traversed the Universe so we're long dead. Anyhow you can see at least what I consider the Paradox; since Al dismisses it almost trivially, out-of-hand

If you fellas are agreeing that there is a ref frame but that your difference is that one of ya says there's only one, while the other says it's different depending on the circumstances, than I'm totally lost. But I tried

dalehileman
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jun, 2017 03:18 pm
@layman,
Lay, Fres, in my old age I got Al and Sam mixed up with Ed. I've corrected the typo, I think....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Physics of the Biblical Flood - Discussion by gungasnake
Suggest forum, physics - Question by dalehileman
The nature of space and time - Question by shanemcd3
I don't understand how this car works. - Discussion by DrewDad
An Embarassment to Science - Discussion by Leadfoot
Gravitational waves Discovered ! - Discussion by Fil Albuquerque
BICEP and now LIGO discover gravity waves - Discussion by farmerman
Transient fields - Question by puzzledperson
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/13/2021 at 09:34:06