vuquta
Senior Members-
Posts
364 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by vuquta
-
OK, if the gluons deal in this color charge, then how does the implementation of the strong nuclear force due to gravity (stars) emit so many photons?
-
E=mc^2 where E=energy M=mass c= the speed of light What value of c is used in a rotating frame? http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
-
Does the infrared photon perform more work than the photo electric photon or the compton scattering photon?
-
OK, why is it that the photon is able to move around molecules in the infrared range (heat) but only knock off electrons for the photo electric effect?
-
You wrote: As a result we can confirm that O” frame with low speed doesn’t observe any length contraction which is contradictory to Lorentz contraction and special relativity. The Ehrenfest paradox is based on the circumference of a rotating cylinder length contracting while the radius does not creating two different values for pi based on rotation and rest. So, I am not seeing how you have proven no length contraction. Could you please go into more detail? Also you wrote: As regards time dilation, if we would synchronize the clocks of O and O”, by considering the time interval between light flashes of a moving clock fixed in frame O with its motion along the x axis, we only need observers along the x axis. In this case also both O and O” frames will have synchronized clocks as it would have happened in Galilean transformation. Since O is the rest frame, how are you synching clocks from the rotatring frame of O'' with clocks in the O frame? Last, can you please explain the below? You wrote: Experiment overview: In this experiment we will construct Michelson Morley experiment in such way that the experiment is observed by three different observers (Fig. 2). Observer O is stationary frame (inertial) attached to the laboratory that moved with velocity vx which performs the experiment. O’ is another inertial frame moving with same velocity (or less) and same direction as O. You mention vx. Is this relative to the rotating observer O''?
-
What value should we use with the earth's rotational sagnac since it is not provably not c. In fact, under that context, how would we interpret energy since by GPS it is direction based.
-
Oh, this is you. I will step it up a bit. I did not even bother to look at the names sorry. Michelson Morley experiment: The Michelson Morley experiment is not consistent with Galilean/Newtonian physics. However its results are explained using Einstein’s principle of relativity. Look at your equation 1. I assume you can do math. Plug in the rotational sagnac and tell me in terms of seconds the precision of detection you need with a 1 meter MMX type experiment. Last time I played with that, I believe the earth's rotational saganc was smaller than the pico second range for detection. Once you figure that out, you will see your entire premise is false. MMX does not prove SR. Using round trip light travel, the ability of MMX is toooooo imprecise to detect the rotational sagnac even though GPS confirms it exists. Your logic above is inconsistent with the earth's rotational saganc and that is one reason I mentioned sagnac. Next, based on my reading of your thought experiment, I felt all you were doing is confirming the sagnac. You had a pinned down center at rest with two inertial frames. Then you had a rotating frame about that center which will produce different results as consistent with sagnac. Did I understand you correctly on this point. I have no problem admitting I am wrong about that understanding if it is false. Here take a look at this to further my argument in the previous post. http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934?context=physics.gen-ph I suggested to him to simply put the moon in the direction of the earth's orbit to prove his case. He has your problem. He is only confirming the earth's rotational sagnac or in your case a general rotational sagnac. After running the number's even from the moon and back, a differential in a round trip light signal could not be detected if the earth's orbital sagnac existed. Certainly MMX then could not detect it then or the earth's rotational sagnac. Length contraction. You cannot apply a general length contraction argument since you have a rotating frame. So, you have no choice but to transform coordinates according to x' = ( x - vt )γ. The logic of length contraction and time dilation applies only to frame origins with the same y coordinate. Once you move away from that you must apply LT to resolve coordinate translations.
-
OK, how does the gluon work? It is an exchange particle I know. But, do you have additional info?
-
OK, is the strong nuclear force under the standard model implemented by say gluons? See, that is a why in a way. Why does the strong nuclear force exist. Because of gluons.
-
Please spew out all you know about the standard model and the photon. Thanks
-
I read that. That is a description and not a cause. In other words, GR will say how it works, but not why it works that way. Of course, let's leave off dark energy and dark matter.
-
I am OK with this. But, what is the source of gravity?
-
From your link There is in fact no way to define a global energy-momentum vector in a general curved spacetime. Another way of saying this is if two different objects of different mass approached a mass of a larger value, then each of the two would have its own view of GR spacetime without any way to associate the two. Yet, each proceed predictably from any frame. Yet, the solar system for example does follow a "locally global" plan. So, what exactly is the source of gravity? I am really curious.
-
OK, you are saying entropy is not a physical quantity. I must assume you mean it is not physically measurable perfectly. Given that entropy is a function of infrared radiation, then we would expect from the QT the better you can measure the infrared radiation, the less you can measure the entropy. However, to claim the Brownian motion does not exist would be silly and so I do not think you are claiming this. So, exactly, put into words, what exactly you mean that entropy is not a physical quantity?
-
Yea, I read all this. I did not say one way or the other whether sagnac refutes SR. First, the paper did not support a linear saganc with any experimental evidence. Next, the author constructs a model in which the circular sagnac is intersected with inertial motion and claims results therefrom. Then, the author did not support the claims mathematically nor with any theory how this intersections works. To be simple, the author needs evidence consistent with SR that intersects sagnac with inertial motion. The author did not provide anything but opinions. Let me point out an error. As a result we can confirm that O frame with low speed doesnt observe any length contraction which is contradictory to Lorentz contraction and special relativity. Let me show you the transformation since this statement was under the context of light motion. x' = ( x - vt )γ Now, the author as confused as many, did not consider the vt term in the LT transformation. SR is not simply about length contractions. Hence, the conclusions are erroneous. Here is another error. As regards time dilation, if we would synchronize the clocks of O and O, by considering the time interval between light flashes of a moving clock fixed in frame O with its motion along the x axis, we only need observers along the x axis. In this case also both O and O frames will have synchronized clocks as it would have happened in Galilean transformation. Let me just refute this quickly. Clock synchronization under SR requires round trip light travel. Clock synchronization cannot occur in a rotating frame and certainly cannot occur from a rotating frame to an inertial frame. In particular, Because Earth rotates, Sagnac effect is large enough in the GPS and the clocks cant be synchronized in the rotating frame and there is necessity for different approach to synchronize the clocks. http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.03Spring/GPS/GPS.html
-
I read the experiment and paper. It proposes to draw conclusions based on circular motion to prove a CPT violation. Unfortunately, it does not cite papers that prove circular motion (non-inertial) with saganc effects occur linearly. It then mixes GR and SR effects and seeks to draw conclusions. I cannot believe this paper was published.
-
Wow! The Gödel metric admits the possibility of a violation of causality/time travel if Gödel is correct. If Gödel is correct, then it is possible GR is logically inconsistent. Thanks for pointing this out.
-
I tried to follow your argument that length contraction somehow affects charge. You then assert one needs to refute SR to prove SR. I am not seeing your logic mathematially. Can you show specifically how these moving electrons refute SR?
-
Neither are finitely decidable.
-
Is it possible the impossibility of the simultaneous observation of the wave and particle properties of an electron proves the existence of infinity?
-
Why is the Brownian motion true? http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/peres/bmbook.pdf If the local infrared light is increased, the Brownian motion increases, why?
-
Agreed. In fact, how about life for any reason in any place should be discussed since noone can logically decide this issue.
-
Yes, this is a problem, I agree. But, then you will need to figure how some of these "characters" bring you information you did not have. This is opinion. Stuff around cannot be you. The fundamentals of creating a number systehm is that you must have the first distinction. It is my view, since we can use numbers then we are not the universe and we are separate.
-
Well it has an answer. If we apply the light postulate in the stationary frame, meaning, [math] \sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2} = ct [/math] And use the following set of points, [math] \frac{(x - vr\gamma/c)^2}{(r\gamma)^2} + \frac{y^2}{r^2} + \frac{z^2}{r^2} = 1 [/math] We will find for each intersection of the two, t' = r/c and [math] x'^2+y^2+z^2 = (ct')^2=r^2 [/math] Whence, based on the light postulate in the stationary frame, we have the light sphere of radius r in the moving frame using the equation for the ellipsoid above in the coordinates of the stationary frame while at the same time, the light sphere in the stationary frame emerges spherically from (0,0,0).
-
Yes, I agree. But, that is not what I am asking. It is all agreed (r/c,-r,0,0) and (r/c,r,0,0) will not be simultaneous in the moving frame. But, what I am asking since (r/c,-r,0,0) and (r/c,r,0,0) will not be simultaneous in the moving frame, then what points are?