General versus Special Relativity

[pioneer]

I did this contrast in another post, but would like to present it again as a topic starter. Let us start with general relativity by looking at a box of space. If we place a blackhole in the center, such that the impact of the blackhole, has little impact on the walls of the imaginary box, then what we have essentially done is increase the amount of space, without actually increasing the size of the box. If anything the box will get slightly smaller.

 

In other words, before the blackhole it would take us t-time to move from one side to the other. With the blackhole, if we go through it, we may never reach the other side but appear to be falling into it forever. The net affect is the apparent distance has increased without increasing box size.

 

The simplest way to explain this is the blackhole magnifies distance. As an analogy, say we had 1 cm of water on a microscope. It will only take a small amount of time to go from one side to the other. If we look through the microscope, so we can see a one cell critter, and follow it from one side to the other, one would get the impression distance has increased. Looking at the microscope slowly moving to follow the critter, from the outside, would create the impression the microscope is barely moving. It may take months to scan 1 cm using the critter's microscopic reference.

 

This is consistent with the GR affect. The box will shrink slightly. The falling into the blackhole, apperas to increases distance because it magnifies distance, so reference changes into the microscopic world. The practical advantage of this is, it allows us to see the space between. This allows gravity to make more efficient use of space for closer packing.

 

Special relativity acts in the opposite way. It is more like a telescope affect that allows more distance to be covered in much less time. In an SR reference, distance contracts allowing us to transverse the box of space, in our reference, in less time, relative to a stationary reference. The person on the stationary reference, see the telescope scanning from galaxy to galaxy in very short time. In the stationary reference, the telescope should only have moved a few inches in t-time. But in the telescope reference, in that same amount of t-time, we have been able to jump from galaxy to galaxy.

 

This contrast is consistent with all the mathematical predicitons. If we used both a telescope (SR) and a microscope (GR) at the same time, the result should be a cancelling affect that can return us to zero reference. In others words in we started with the primordial atom, which is high in GR or reflects the microscope where space is used with extreme efficiency, all we need to do is add the telescope of SR (rapid expansion), to create a combined reference, that is neither magnified or telescoped. This allows matter to change reference to where occupies zero reference space.

 

I was always under the impression both GR and SR did the same. But this always led to esoteric explanations for the GR affect. It makes more sense that they are opposite, with the microscope of GR able to create more apparent space simply by magnifying reference, with minimal box impact.

[insane_alien]

what the hell are you talking about. SR is just GR in special circumstances(no acceleration) when you plug in the numbers for zero acceleration to GR it simplifies to GR. GR can handle accelerations and so on.

[ajb]

First thing is that special relativity can handle acceleration. There is a notion of what is called "proper acceleration".

 

General relativity "reduces" to special relativity when we have no gravity, i.e. on flat space-times and when we are looking at small regions of space-time. The second case is really just a version of the equivalence principle.

 

Either way there should not be a "versus" here as really special is contained within general.

[insane_alien]

i meant gravity. i knew there was something wrong with just 'acceleration' but i couldn't quite put my finger on it.

[pioneer]

The tiny space inside the blackhole, relative to our reference, can not be due to the having a reference similar to SR. If this was near a C reference, it would see itself occupying a very large region of space. Or the matter would have to spread out instead of compact to achieve that.

 

With SR if we start with matter all spread out of over that same space and increase the space's velocity to near C, it will only look contracted to us, but it would still occupy the same amount of space. These are opposite affects where one physically gets smaller and other only apparently.

[swansont]

With SR if we start with matter all spread out of over that same space and increase the space's velocity to near C, it will only look contracted to us, but it would still occupy the same amount of space. These are opposite affects where one physically gets smaller and other only apparently.

 

Length contraction depends on the observer and is real, not apparent. To say otherwise implies a preferred reference frame.

 

Alos, I think the notions about GR are wrong (though my expertise in GR is limited). Once again, it depends on the frame in which you do the measurements. One explanation for the Shapiro delay is the longer path length relative to another observer's coordinate system. I don't think you can claim that the system shrinks.

[pioneer]

It is not the reference shrinking, but reference becomes magnified. The 1 cm puddle of water, does not really change sitting on the microscope, but by looking at it through the microscope we know see much more room.

 

At low gravity, we can only compact matter, until the electrons orbitals on the atoms begin to touch. If we increase gravity or magnify the reference, what once appeared like filled in space, now actually has a lot more void space in our magnified reference. It is now possible to rearrange the furniture to take advantage of all this extra space. We call this pressure.

 

Even when we reach neutron density, if this is a box of balls, if we magnify the reference even more ,then we see the gaps between balls. So now we can make use of that space, causing the insides to come out.

 

With SR one is not compacting. Things stay the same, only distance and time become alterred. The people in the ship stay whole. But with the reciprical amount of GR, we would be compacted into a tiny blob, since all the space between are cells and atoms would not try to fill the reference.

 

This does not preclude a continuity going from, "maximum magnification Zulu" that decays magnification until we reach normal zero reference.

[CPL.Luke]

your mixing up alot of different things. for instance the transformation equations are 1-1 and onto which essentially means that every point in space time prior to the transformation gets mappe onto a pointin the spacetime with gravity.

 

also if you are drawing a box with a black hole inside of it and you don't want the sides to be effected by gravity then the sides must be an infinite distance away from the black hole.

 

you also have to be careful with your reference frames. in thecase of special relativity you believe that you are living in a simple cartesian hypercube, and as long as you don't care about other reference frames this is fine. however if you are talking to a friend who's going at say .8c with repect to you, and you want to talk about the objects that surround the two of you, then you must consider special relativity just so that you co-ordinates match up. although his cartesian distances (x^2+y^2+z^2) are contracted, similarly he will believe the same about yours. although you will both agree about the distance in spacetime between two points (-c^2t^2+x^2+....z^2)

 

its important to keep in mind that for two reference frames there is no way of deciding on a preferred one and that the effects you see in his frame are the same ones he see's in yours.

[pioneer]

The contrast I was making is, SR is analogous to a telescopic affect on space-time, while GR is analogous to a microscopic affect on space-time. The microscope of GR is how one can increase apparent space-time even if the boundries of the "box" get pulled and and there should be less.

 

One needs to look at this using a classical reference. For example, in the sun we have fusion. To create fusion, we need to physically get the material close enough so the nuclei are within the range of the nuclear forces. That is why the hydrogen bombs work, without needing much in the way of gravitational force. One had to physically get the nuclei closer, which was done with energy pressure. One's reference needed to take on the space-time dimensions of nuclear forces, i.e., microscope.

 

With SR the affect is telescopic. Even if our moving reference appeared to be closer, in our reference, that will not make things act differenly on the moving reference. In other other words, if we had LiD (lithium deuteride) solid, and made the moving reference look like nuclear distances, in our reference, we would not get fusion, since in the moving reference, it will still exist as chemical LiD, with ionic distances in that reference.

 

The existing assumptions of the references of GR are incorrect. If distance was undergoing a telescope affect like SR, matter would not change. We would be able to get more and more in, but it would stay like it enterred. This is not what is observed, especially in light of neutron stars. There is a physical change in distances where very close forces become affective. The microscope of GR, allows a close reference where this is normal.

[pioneer]

Lets change this a little. Say we have a block of solid deuterium on a table in that ship. If we were traveling fast enough, the earth reference would see this block distance contracted. In the limit, within the zero reference, it would looked like the deuterium atoms are close enough for fusion. Yet on the ship, it is still just block of solid deuterium.

 

This cuts to the heart of the confusion with gravity reference. If the gravity reference was the same type of affect as the SR reference, the deuterium should never be able to get physically close enough to fuse. From our earth reference, all systems would appear go, but if the GR=SR reference was true, the solid block will stay just like it was.

 

The fact, that the distances do indeed get physically smaller inside the center of a star, implies another type of reference affect that is not the same as SR. This reference is actually closer to the zero reference, since the needed distances, we measure for the nuke forces, under low gravity, is what is needed to occur at high gravity. The only real difference is the gravity reference within the star displays an extended reference, that we can only see piecemeal (atom to atom) in our reference. The net affect is that gravity creates a magnification reference, that makes the nuclear distance-time reference, the overall reference for everything in that space.

 

In other words, if one is traveling near C using SR, they will stay the same. If one could hold a bungie cord, so one had the same uniform velocity, while falling into the blackhole, i.e, cancel out acceleration, they would be squished into the local microscopic reference. There would be nothing left to you but highly packed material. If you came out the other side, you would be nothing but sub-particles in a hot material stream.

 

Look at this from a practical level. The distances are very close and the time scale associated with nuclear reactions are very fast, as evident in the very high frquency energy, such as gamma that is given off. The affect is not distance contraction and time dilation, but distance-time expansion where all the affects go faster than in the zero reference. In the solar fusion reference of tiny distances and times, it looks like humans are huge and never appear to change based on our reference time scales. The GR reference acts more like the reciprical of the SR reference affect.

 

Say we had a relativistic ship that is falling into a gravity field but with uniform velocity. The total reference affect would be SR and GR=1/SRg. If the two are balanced, one could end up back at zero reference, even if one was still moving near C, due to the high microscope gravity affect.

[swansont]

Lets change this a little. Say we have a block of solid deuterium on a table in that ship. If we were traveling fast enough, the earth reference would see this block distance contracted. In the limit, within the zero reference, it would looked like the deuterium atoms are close enough for fusion. Yet on the ship, it is still just block of solid deuterium.

 

This cuts to the heart of the confusion with gravity reference. If the gravity reference was the same type of affect as the SR reference, the deuterium should never be able to get physically close enough to fuse. From our earth reference, all systems would appear go, but if the GR=SR reference was true, the solid block will stay just like it was.

 

The conditions under which one would expect to see fusion would not be an invariant under that transformation. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, but that't not the same as measuring one set of conditions in your frame and expecting that to hold in a moving frame, since we know that those measurements are frame-dependent.

 

edit: I moved your post and my response out of the "Compound Relitivity?" thread, since it seemed much more on-topic here rather than there. (That thread was not discussing gravitational effects whatsoever)

[pioneer]

That is fine. I was using this example to contrast SR to GR or gravity. A reciprical of SR appears to work fairly well, conceptually to explain GR reference. Here is some new thinking off the top of the head.

 

At V=C, with SR the relativistic mass/energy would have to be infinite. With the black hole, the reciprical would imply zero relativistic mass-energy. There is no space-time left for virtual mass-energy. There is no exchange in void space because there is no space-time left. All we have is the real thing compressed into a point-instant reference. This does not necessarily mean, the blackhole only has one point, just all points in that zone need to occupy the same point-instant reference. Or the behavior within the entire zone, is the same for all the point-instants.

 

The reason I say multiple point-instants, I remember reading that super particles have an upper energy limit. Maybe each of these occupies one point with the point-instant reference, inside the center of a blackhole. This allows us to rank blackholes, with rank based on how many points it has collected in its point-instant reference. It only needs one to qualify, after that its point-instant refernence gets more points.

 

I know this sounds strange, but a point-instant reference should be able to exist as continuum, just like any other form of reference. That is consistent with the primordial atom having size, with all its point instants existing within the reference of a point-instant continuum. This reference was huge by point-instant standards, about the size of a grape. All we need is SR is expand the space-time reference for virtual mass-energy.

[DanJFarnan]

You speak of a relapse in time and red shift.

 

Brilliant! I am inspired, i thank you for this metaphoric theory.

 

So what have i got to say in reply? If the earth is say - a 'cell' and the sun a 'parasite' of space matter...

 

Now we have a comparason to your box theory.