Special Relativity - SR - Lorentz transformations

[Jan Slowak]

I would like to ask everyone to look again at the pictures Fig. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3. For the most part, I talk about the distances on the x-axis and their length.
I'm not going to complicate the pictures with units of measure.

Can you then confirm or reject (you can say yes or no if you want) if the following applies in all three pictures:
length (OV) = v, length (OC) = c, length (VC) = c - v.

Thank you, I stop for the day. Will continue tomorrow.

 

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

If you do not understand what I mean in the pictures Fig. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 and if you have problems interpreting when using speed and when using distance then I wonder if you understand what the following equation is about:
E=mc²
For the most part, they do not stand which units of measurement you use!

 

I can go about my job (doing physics) regardless of whether you understand relativity. Your concern is misplaced.

[Ghideon]

49 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

If you do not understand what I want to say in the pictures Fig. 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 then I can not help you.

 

8 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

I would like to ask everyone to look again at the pictures Fig. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3.

I have analysed the post and given you an answer in the format you requested: "No"

Here are some questions, since your posts seem not to correctly consider the postulates and implications of postulates required for a proper analysis:

1: Are you unfamiliar with or have limited knowledge about implications of Einsteins postulates* that are used in SR and derivation of Lorentz transform, but are genuinely interested to study and learn more?

2: Are you rejecting Einsteins postulates used in SR, making this discussion kind of pointless?

If answer is yes to the first question, a staring point might be reading, trying to understand and following up on my post with pictures 3a-3c. That might taking you closer to the original question regarding visualisation of SC3 in [7]. We can also try some alternative angles to discuss the implications of Einsteins postulates.

 

 

*) As a reference, here is a version of the postulates. 

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

 

Edited June 6, 2019 by Ghideon
x-post with @Jan Slowak, added citation for better context

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Can you then confirm or reject (you can say yes or no if you want) if the following applies in all three pictures:
length (OV) = v, length (OC) = c, length (VC) = c - v.

To use v and c as distances, you need to multiply them by time. So, for each diagram, do you mean:

1. length (OV) = vt, length (OC) = ct, length (VC) = ct - vt

Or:

2. length (OV) = vt', length (OC) = ct', length (VC) = ct' - vt'

All three diagrams appear to represent measurements in the same frame of reference, S. So, in all three diagrams length (OV) = vt, length (OC) = ct, length (VC) = ct - vt.

Therefore these diagrams, with their current annotations, only represent one frame of reference. Therefore these diagrams are useless for answering your question that started this thread.

I already showed you what the situation looks like when measured in the moving frame of reference S'

 

This is why it is important that you don't wrongly use v and c as distances, and why you can't use S for two different frames of reference.

 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

When you say "your ignorance in this area" then you have judged me in advance and you hurt me as others have done before. I do not understand this. Here I acknowledge that I do not understand: what are you for people who use such methods on an open site.

!

Moderator Note

Gaps in our knowledge cause us ALL to be ignorant about many things. It's not an insult to point out where such gaps are creating an obstacle that prevents someone from learning. The only time ignorance is bad is when it's willful, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. It's plain that you've missed some essential piece of the puzzle that makes you skeptical of the explanations SR offers, and are simply convinced something is wrong with SR rather than with your understanding of it.

Please be patient, ask questions, deal with the replies without trying to constrain them, and I think you may find a "Eureka!" moment right around the corner.

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

o use v and c as distances, you need to multiply them by time. So, for each diagram, do you mean:

1. length (OV) = vt, length (OC) = ct, length (VC) = ct - vt

Or:

2. length (OV) = vt', length (OC) = ct', length (VC) = ct' - vt'

Perhaps you are going to say, "I am talking about time = 1, so I don't need to say it." But the problem is: time = 1 in which frame of reference.

Not being absolutely explicit about which frame of reference is being referred to, at every stage, can confuse other people. But, perhaps more importantly, it may be the reason you have confused yourself.

[beecee]

8 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

Answer to Strange, swansont, Ghideon:

I asked you to confirm that in Fig 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 the lengths of the three distances are as follows:
length (OV) = v, length (OC) = c, length (VC) = c - v

Nothing else! You should not draw any other pictures. We talk about pictures I have drawn. You should not deviate from the subject. You should not ask any further questions.
If you are a physicist or mathematician with college education then you just need to answer my question. The answer should be Yes or No. If you answer No, you can argue briefly. Thanks!

For someone who has previously accused others of insults and ironic answers, your reply seems pretty arrogant and reflective of your intentions of not listening beyond your own closed mind as evidenced in your quoted statement.

Being someone who is totally bereft of the maths and actual inner workings of SR and GR, may I thank Strange, Swansont and particularly Ghideon with your excellent sketches and explanations that even I am beginning to understand. 

[Jan Slowak]

Reply to anyone who mentioned QFT:

Quote from Wikipedia:
"In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics ...! 
You also claimed that SR is a special case of GR.

Quote from: Cosmos - a short history; Stephen Hawking; swedish edition
page18:
"Today, the researchers describe the universe with the help of two basic sub-theories: the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, however, we know that these two theories are incompatible - they cannot both be true ”

So ... what are you talking about?

You do not have to answer this because I do not give in this discussion. On this topic I wanted to talk about SR and Lorentz transformations. Only!

[Ghideon]

5 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

So ... what are you talking about?

You do not have to answer this because I do not give in this discussion. On this topic I wanted to talk about SR and Lorentz transformations. Only!

Then why are you asking questions about it?

To get back on topic you could check my comment above instead.

 

 

[Jan Slowak]

21 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Then why are you asking questions about it?

To get back on topic you could check my comment above instead.

 

 

I have not asked anything about quantum field theory!
I wanted to discuss the derivation of LT in [7]. I have my question marks I wanted answers to. But you deviate all the time and instead of answering my questions you ask others. You dare not take a real stance! You do not run a fair scientific dialogue.

Say if you want to do it!

 

[Ghideon]

4 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

I wanted to discuss the derivation of LT in [7]. I have my question marks I wanted answers to. But you deviate all the time and instead of answering my questions you ask others. You dare not take a real stance! You do not run a fair scientific dialogue.

Say if you want to do it!

Ok! Your initial question is answered by pictures 3a,3b,3c in this post. To have a scientific dialogue some kind of scientific comment is required by you. 

 

[Strange]

52 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

So ... what are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

As your first quote says, quantum field theory is based on special relativity.

As your second quote says, we do not yet know how to combine quantum theory and general relativity. (Actually, we know several ways of combining them, but we don't know how to test them yet.)

You seem to be implying some sort of contradiction. But, like so much else, that only exists in your imagination.

25 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

I wanted to discuss the derivation of LT in [7]. I have my question marks I wanted answers to. But you deviate all the time and instead of answering my questions you ask others. You dare not take a real stance! You do not run a fair scientific dialogue.

You have been several detailed answer, with illustrative diagrams, that should indicate where your error lies. You have chosen to ignore those answers. 

It is up to you to start being fair.

[Jan Slowak]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

What are you talking about?

As your first quote says, quantum field theory is based on special relativity.

As your second quote says, we do not yet know how to combine quantum theory and general relativity. (Actually, we know several ways of combining them, but we don't know how to test them yet.)

You seem to be implying some sort of contradiction. But, like so much else, that only exists in your imagination.

You have been several detailed answer, with illustrative diagrams, that should indicate where your error lies. You have chosen to ignore those answers. 

It is up to you to start being fair.

 

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

What are you talking about?

As your first quote says, quantum field theory is based on special relativity.

As your second quote says, we do not yet know how to combine quantum theory and general relativity. (Actually, we know several ways of combining them, but we don't know how to test them yet.)

You seem to be implying some sort of contradiction. But, like so much else, that only exists in your imagination.

You have been several detailed answer, with illustrative diagrams, that should indicate where your error lies. You have chosen to ignore those answers. 

It is up to you to start being fair.

I do not want such discussions. I want to talk about the derivation of LT. Then "there" is not yet SR. If you understand what I mean.

 

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

I do not want such discussions. I want to talk about the derivation of LT. 

You are ignoring the answers you have been given.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

Quote from: Cosmos - a short history; Stephen Hawking; swedish edition
page18:
"Today, the researchers describe the universe with the help of two basic sub-theories: the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, however, we know that these two theories are incompatible - they cannot both be true ”

Actually that at best is a poorly worded article, and at worst is just plain wrong. Both QM and GR are correct and entirely evidenced by much data, each within their own zones of applicability. In fact as Strange has mentioned, they have been combined, the problem being that as yet we do not have the technology to verify and observe at such levels.

Quote

You also claimed that SR is a special case of GR.

Sure! Are you also going to deny that? One encompasses gravity, the other is a subset excluding gravity. Both theories have been tested and passed with flying colours and continue to make predictions that have been verified...eg: Gravitational waves.

Quote

You do not have to answer this because I do not give in this discussion. On this topic I wanted to talk about SR and Lorentz transformations. Only!

But your so called questions have been answered many times by experts.

In essence I believe the mods are being extremely generous in keeping this in the sciences section, as I see an underlying agenda, illustrated by some of your arrogance and refusal to accept answers. And particularly in light of your other thread in speculations where you outright deny the validity of SR. 

The gist of the whole affair is that SR is accepted and shown to be totally valid everyday, and by extension GR. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by beecee

[Ghideon]

On 6/7/2019 at 9:47 PM, Jan Slowak said:

I do not want such discussions. I want to talk about the derivation of LT. Then "there" is not yet SR. If you understand what I mean.

Your initial question is answered by pictures 3a,3b,3c in this post. Are you requiring further help regarding the diagrams?