Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum SRT: The Essence.

SRT: The Essence.
1.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
This postulate has no conception of acceleration.
2.
The other postulate says: every speed, even the
speed of quantum of light in a vacuum is relative.
It means it has acceleration and this acceleration
is hidden in Lorentz transformations.
#
It means that quantum of light in a vacuum can have
two kinds of motions: constant and relative. And the
SRT explains only the behavior of Quantum of Light !
#
Only quantum of light has a constant speed (c=1).
All another bodies and particles cannot reach this speed.
Quantum of light and all another particles are two
incompatibles quantities of quality. And we know from
school that two incompatibles quantities cannot be
compared. And therefore the SRT is a special theory
only for the Quantum of Light.
#
It is our stupid prejudice that instead to understand
what Quantum of light is and how it interacts with
another particles we try to compare them.
=.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=====================.

Socratus, Once again I have no idea what you are talking about, but I will try to make some sense of a couple of the things you say.

First: The Special Theory of Relativity (SR) does not involve acceleration. That is what makes it special. It was formulated to work with frames of reference (FRs) that were in unaccelerated motion with respect to each other.

Second: Light moves at the same speed, C, in all FRs. There is no acceleration associated with C in any FR.

The rest of what you say doesn't mean much to me, except that is seems to show a great lack of understanding of physics on your part. I suggest that you find a good introductory book on relativity and read it. In fact Einstein wrote a book about relativity that might be helpful to you if you can find a copy.

Bill Gill

SRT: The Essence.
1.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
The acceleration is zero.
2.
The other postulate says: the Lorentz transformations
don’t have constant speed (the formula of speed is another)
The Lorentz transformations have relative speed and
therefore an acceleration is hidden in it.
3.
SRT was grown from Maxwell’s electrodynamics.
We cannot compare Maxwell’s electrodynamics with
Newton mechanics. And the Lorentz transformations
we cannot compare with Galileo's transformations.
The Galileo's transformations belongs to inertial moving.
The Lorentz transformations doesn’t belong to inertial moving.
The Lorentz transformations is another kind of movement.
The Lorentz transformations explains the SPIN of particle.
The Lorentz transformations describes the SPIN of Quantum
of light. The Rotation of Quantum of light in Vacuum changes
not only its parameters but the surrounding region too.
The Rotate Quantum of light has other mass, energy, length,
time and surrounding space.
Not vice versa.
#
Therefore I say:
SRT is a special theory only for the Quantum of Light.
SRT explains the behavior of the Quantum of Light.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=====================.

SRT: The Essence.

Einstein wrote that as a boy 15 -16 years old:
‘ I wonder what would happen to light if I were
moving right along with it at the speed of light.’ (c=1)
From this perspective and after 10 years of hard work
he published his SRT.
So, Einstein flew at the speed c=1 and around him flew
many other light quanta. No other particles were around.
Only the light quanta were around at the speed c=1.
And Einstein saw that they can change not only all their
parameters but the surround region too, according to
Lorentz transformations.
#
Therefore I say:
SRT is a special theory only for the Quantum of Light.
SRT explains the behavior of the Quantum of Light.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=====================.

Stop. Back the truck up. WHAT?? Suddenly you've jumped from sensible to total rubbish. Would you like to explain the intermediate steps that you didn't write? Or do they not exist?

It doesn't matter what Einstein wrote. At the end of the day you only wrote nonsense. Science doesn't work by name-dropping.

- The Special Theory of Relativity.
==========================..
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space"
- said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
"OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces".
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But……….
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
#
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
===============.
The SRT is a real theory.
But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
Minkowski's mathematic theory has nothing to do with physics,
with the Nature. There isn't any proof of its existence.
And if we mix these two theories then we are
surprised with its paradox.
What does the man usually do in such situation?
It is clear, he must understand
what “ 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.
But somebody can say: “ You are wrong,
4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.”
Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
And if we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is 4-D negative space
( 4-D positive Minkowski space )
how can we understand 11-D space ( string theory) ?
In another words, if we don’t know what “ 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
The proof of SRT isn’t over yet. We must give a real
interpretation to “ 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that
a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.
======. =========
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense".
Why?
Because they have won us over using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==============..
I think this 4-D negative space is a real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
1.“ Minkowski space “ has no gravity field, but has negative parameter.
2. Only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but has negative parameter : T= - 273= 0K.
3. The negative parameter is united with space/ time , which are
joined together absolutely and this unit we can see in Vacuum .
4. And the second SRT postulate tells about constant moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
====== ======
P.S.
Sorry.
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"
…………..or to " the God "......................
Then ...............
The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
He sits at his “ D- home” and plays with all things.
For example.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
I don’t know who is right.
But I came to conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . "
======= ======..
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
beginning of his calculations then after some
operations it grows into a big one.
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………
………………………..
and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
============ . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
==========================.

I guess it hides its destructive powers beneath that smiling facade

SRT: The Essence.
#
In his Miracle 1905 Einstein wrote the Fourth paper:
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
And as a postscript to his forth, the Fifth paper:
“ Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?”
As he realized the answer was:
“ Yes, it depends on its energy E= Mc^2.”
It means what SRT must be connected with E= Mc^2 .
It means what must be connection between Lorentz’s
transformation and E= Mc^2.
#
The same Einstein’s question in a little detail interpretation:
“Does the inertia of a body ( for example: of light quanta
or of an electron) depend upon its energy content E=Mc^2 ?”

Thinking logically, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.”
But the energy of a quantum of light or of an electron can
be written as E= h*f.
When new question arise: ‘ How is possible to understand the
connection between E=Mc^2 and E= h*f ?’

On my opinion " The Law of Conservation and Transformation
of Energy/ Mass" (according to one single light quanta /electron )
gives answer to this question..

The problem is that now nobody wants to ask yourself that
„The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
means according to one single light quanta / photon /electron.
============== . .
Socratus

SRT: The Essence.

SRT is theory about relativity of motion, of every motion (!),
including the motion of quantum of light. (!)
The reason of this motion is spin.
Four physicists discovered spin :
Planck, Einstein, Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck.
#
Planck explained the spin by formula: h=Et. ( 1900)
#
Einstein explained the spin by formula: h=kb. ( 1905)
#
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck wrote the spin by formula:
h = h/ 2pi. (1925)
==========.
How is possible to understand their work?

SRT: The Essence.
1.
On the one hand Einstein used quantum of light in SRT.
According to SRT postulate:
When quantum of light moves in a straight line with speed
c=1 its geometrical form must be flat – as a circle.
We can say that its flatness has infinite density.
SRT is theory about relativity of motion, of every motion (!),
including the motion of quantum of light too. (!)
Therefore this quantum of light can change its parameters
( according to the Lorentz transformations ).
2.
On the other hand Lorentz used electron in SRT which had
geometrical spherical form and lost it, changed it during its
movement. And when it reachs speed c=1 its geometrical
form will be infinite flat ( according to the Lorentz
transformations) .

Source: / Book: The story of physics.
By Lloyd Motz and Jefferson Hane Weaver.
Chapter15. Page 254. /
‘ . . . Lorentz . . . to explain the Michelson-Morley
null-result, using his electro theory of matter. . . . .
His analysis showed that a moving spherical electron is
flattened somewhat in the direction of its motion owing
to its electrical properties, and the faster it moves,
the more it is flattened.’
3
What can be the reason of their moving and changes?
The reason of these motions and changes can be only ‘spin.’
There are three kinds of spins:
Planck’s: h=Et., Einstein’s: h=kb and
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck: h = h/ 2pi.

What is their philosophical essence?
4.
Can quantum of light and electron be one and the same
particle in different conditions?
================.
Socratus.

SRT: The Essence.
1.
On the one hand Einstein used quantum of light in SRT.
According to SRT postulate:
When quantum of light moves in a straight line with speed
c=1 its geometrical form must be flat – as a circle.
We can say that its flatness has infinite density.
SRT is theory about relativity of motion, of every motion (!),
including the motion of quantum of light too. (!)
Therefore this quantum of light can change its parameters
( according to the Lorentz transformations ).
2.
On the other hand Lorentz used electron to explain constant
speed of light. His electron had geometrical spherical form
and lost it, changed it during its movement. And when it
reachs speed c=1 its geometrical form will be infinite flat
( according to the Lorentz transformations) .

Source: / Book: The story of physics.
By Lloyd Motz and Jefferson Hane Weaver.
Chapter15. Page 254. /
‘ . . . Lorentz . . . to explain the Michelson-Morley
null-result, using his electro theory of matter. . . . .
His analysis showed that a moving spherical electron is
flattened somewhat in the direction of its motion owing
to its electrical properties, and the faster it moves,
the more it is flattened.’
3
What can be the reason of their moving and changes?
The reason of these motions and changes can be only ‘spin.’
There are three kinds of spins:
Planck’s: h=Et., Einstein’s: h=kb and
Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck: h = h/ 2pi.

What is their philosophical essence?
4.
Can quantum of light and electron be one and the same
particle in different conditions?
================.
Socratus.

SRT: The Essence.

To understand SRT we need to answer to the simple question:
In which Reference frame the SRT event is happened?
One of the SRT postulate says – in Galileo/ Newtonian space.
The other postulate says - in the vacuum.
But the common opinion – the SRT takes place in Minkowski
absolute negative 4D.
Minkowski gave explanation of 4D using his ‘Light cone’.
In the picture of the ‘Light cone’ we can see that in the past the
particle moved along the straight line of time with speed c=1.
In the future it will move also along the straight line with speed c=1.
But what is happened on the border, in the moment of present?
In that moment was needed ( by some reason) to use Fitzgerald /
Lorentz transformation (speed). Why?
More than 100 years we don’t have clear answer.
Without known the physical (thermo dynamical ) and geometrical
parameters of the Reference frame ( -4D) we cannot assign any
meaning to the SRT at all.
==============================.
Socratus.

SRT: The Essence.

To understand SRT we need to answer to the simple question:
In which Reference frame does SRT take place?
One of the SRT postulate says – in Galileo/ Newtonian space.
The other postulate says - in the vacuum.
But the common opinion – the SRT takes place in Minkowski
absolute negative 4D.
My opinion is:
The SRT explains how quantum of light, using Lorentz
transformation, can transfer from one Reference frame –vacuum
to another Reference frame- Galileo/ Newtonian space.
And of course, according to ‘ The law of conservation and
transformation energy/ mass’ this process can go vice versa.
====.
Socratus.

Socratus, are you using "reference frame" in the sense of "inertial frame", or do you have a definition that you should explain for the benefit of the un-initiated?

Bill S.
I think you are confused because Socratus is confused. He keeps talking about SRT, which I think means the Special Theory of Relativity (SR). But he keeps jumping around and doesn't seem to understand what SR means. He keeps saying things like the quote you have in your latest post. In fact SR says nothing about transforming from a reference frame he calls "-vacuum" to a Galileo/Newtonian space. The fact is that SR completely replaces the basis of the Newtonian theory. Newton based his theories on the assumption that there is a sort of universal reference frame against which all motion is referenced. That is if you have a measuring rod 1 meter long it will be one meter long wherever or whenever you measure it. If you have a 2 clocks that are in absolute synchronization they will always be in synchronization no matter where or when they are. SR completely threw out these concepts. There is no way to make an absolute measurement of either length or time. They vary according to how they move. So Socratus' statements seem to be without any foundation.

I wonder if Socratus has been studying information about relativity in a language other than his own. It appears that English is not his native language, and in that case he may just be misunderstanding what the literature is trying to tell him.

Bill Gill

SRT: what is it about?
1.
One of Einstein’s postulate says that particle – quantum of light-
moves in a straight line with constant speed c=1 in the vacuum.
So, in SRT we have one reference frame and it is vacuum.
But because Einstein took Time as a length (1 sec= 299,792,458 m)
Minkowski decided to take this time as a fourth coordinate
and created his minus 4D continuum. And we lost the direction.
But the root of the SR theory is the postulate:
constant and independence speed of quantum of light in the vacuum.
2.
The other Einstein’s SRT postulate says that movement is relative
conception. The name of Einstein’s SRT is :
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” ( SRT).
Einstein wrote about moving of ‘Electrodynamics Bodies’ (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And then this other Einstein’s SRT postulate must be understand
as: ‘every speed, even the speed of quantum of light is relative.’
It means that quantum of light in a vacuum can have
two kinds of motions: constant and relative.
3
SRT is theory about relativity of every particle’s speed,
including the motion of particle - quantum of light. (!)
SRT explains only the behavior of Quantum of Light (!)
So, in my opinion the essence of Einstein’s SRT is hidden
in the questions:
a)
What will be happen if the particle – quantum of light – changes
its constant and straight movement in the vacuum?
b)
How can quantum of light change his movement?
=========.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
==============..

This seems to be evolving along the same lines as "Occam's Razor". Perhaps it would be valuable to try to sort out the questions in that thread, and see if that resolves this one as well.

The discovery of the electron spin
/ S.A. Goudsmit /

And that was it: the spin; thus is was discovered, in that manner.
Of course we told Ehrenfest about it and then summer was over
and I went again to Amsterdam and various episodes followed.
Naturally, I found it wonderful, because in the formalism which
I knew it fitted perfectly. And the rigorous physics behind it
I did not fathom. But Uhlenbeck, being a good physicist, started
to think about it. ...... "A charge that rotates"......? He claims that he
then went to Lorentz and that Lorentz replied: "Yes, that is very
difficult because it causes the self energy of the electron to be wrong".

And Uhlenbeck also tells you that ........
We had just written a short article in German and given to
Ehrenfest, who wanted to send it to "Naturwissenschaften".
Now it is being told that Uhlenbeck got frightened, went to
Ehrenfest and said:
"Don't send it off, because it probably is wrong;
it is impossible,
one cannot have an electron that rotates at such high speed and
has the right moment". And Ehrenfest replied:
"It is too late, I have sent it off already".
But I do not remember the event, I never had the idea that is was
wrong because I did not know enough. The one thing I remember
is that Ehrenfest said to me:
"Well, that is a nice idea, though it may be wrong.
But you don't yet have a reputation, so you have nothing to lose".
That is the only thing I remember.
http://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/history/spin/goudsmit.html
======================…
“ . . . . . it is impossible,
one cannot have an electron that rotates at such high speed
and has the right moment".
/ S.A. Goudsmit /
==.
1.
Do we have another way to explain the high speed of rotation
( frequency) of elementary particles?
2.
And if it is possible (!) . . . . . then . . . the constant speed c=1
of quantum of light will be minimal.
And we have theory . . . theory of ‘ Tachyon.’
===.
S.

I can't let a mention of the tachyon pass without suggesting you have a look at "The Divided Universe". I'm still hoping for comments.