Lorentz symmetry Violation

[Koorosh]

Symmetries are hot topics is theoretical physics especially Lorentz symmetry, and there currently focus in various areas like String theory, Big Bang, quantum gravity. Symmetry violation are essential in these theories, read this article about Lorentz symmetry violation that shows Physical laws are not at same for different observers, i.e. pair-creation in a lab would not necessary be observed by another observer as length contraction and time dilation would pretty much follow Galilean transformation.

 

Read about this article published at Science Publication NY:

 

 

Full Text:

http://www.scipub.or...i/pi1153-56.pdf

[vuquta]

Symmetries are hot topics is theoretical physics especially Lorentz symmetry, and there currently focus in various areas like String theory, Big Bang, quantum gravity. Symmetry violation are essential in these theories, read this article about Lorentz symmetry violation that shows Physical laws are not at same for different observers, i.e. pair-creation in a lab would not necessary be observed by another observer as length contraction and time dilation would pretty much follow Galilean transformation.

 

Read about this article published at Science Publication NY:

 

 

Full Text:

http://www.scipub.or...i/pi1153-56.pdf

 

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.

[Koorosh]

The Sagnac effect doesn't violate SR or classical physics, and it's about traveling of light in a loop, in our case the exp. is performed in free space linearly but the observer is having a circular motion. Once the symmetry is violated the theories that are related to them can also be impacted. In this case if you can just imagine a alignment of observation by two observer, if these were moving in parallel with exactly same speed the transformation was exactly the same, this is the point.

[vuquta]

The Sagnac effect doesn't violate SR or classical physics, and it's about traveling of light in a loop, in our case the exp. is performed in free space linearly but the observer is having a circular motion. Once the symmetry is violated the theories that are related to them can also be impacted. In this case if you can just imagine a alignment of observation by two observer, if these were moving in parallel with exactly same speed the transformation was exactly the same, this is the point.

 

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

Edited August 27, 2010 by vuquta

[Koorosh]

As mentioned this is not about Sagnac, and as many theoretical physics theories there are thought experiments, as regards mathematical support as it is about Lorentz transformation, same math is valid when you move an ε (Epsilon) on the circumference of a circle certainly you can make a valid approximation for large distance to the experiment's center.

 

As regards length contraction it is contracted with factor γ while the coordinates are transformed by x' = ( x - vt )γ.

You can't compare this situation with terrestrial GPS clock synchronization, rather you need to consider a rod clock that is consider in relativistic case.

[vuquta]

As mentioned this is not about Sagnac, and as many theoretical physics theories there are thought experiments, as regards mathematical support as it is about Lorentz transformation, same math is valid when you move an ε (Epsilon) on the circumference of a circle certainly you can make a valid approximation for large distance to the experiment's center.

 

As regards length contraction it is contracted with factor γ while the coordinates are transformed by x' = ( x - vt )γ.

You can't compare this situation with terrestrial GPS clock synchronization, rather you need to consider a rod clock that is consider in relativistic case.

 

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.

 

As mentioned this is not about Sagnac, and as many theoretical physics theories there are thought experiments, as regards mathematical support as it is about Lorentz transformation, same math is valid when you move an ε (Epsilon) on the circumference of a circle certainly you can make a valid approximation for large distance to the experiment's center.

 

As regards length contraction it is contracted with factor γ while the coordinates are transformed by x' = ( x - vt )γ.

You can't compare this situation with terrestrial GPS clock synchronization, rather you need to consider a rod clock that is consider in relativistic case.

 

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.

 

As mentioned this is not about Sagnac, and as many theoretical physics theories there are thought experiments, as regards mathematical support as it is about Lorentz transformation, same math is valid when you move an ε (Epsilon) on the circumference of a circle certainly you can make a valid approximation for large distance to the experiment's center.

 

As regards length contraction it is contracted with factor γ while the coordinates are transformed by x' = ( x - vt )γ.

You can't compare this situation with terrestrial GPS clock synchronization, rather you need to consider a rod clock that is consider in relativistic case.

 

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.

[Koorosh]

You got same problematic with Ehrenfest or Sagnac in a rotating frame with length contraction and you could involve i.e. y coordinates, but in our case if the experiment center is 1000km away, the telescope of one meter length would move during a typical MM experiment about 0.00001 m or 0.00000001 km, that's an approximation for assuming linearity and was for simplification reason. Adding y coordinates doesn't make you move away from this paradox neither Ehrenfest paradox.

[vuquta]

You got same problematic with Ehrenfest or Sagnac in a rotating frame with length contraction and you could involve i.e. y coordinates, but in our case if the experiment center is 1000km away, the telescope of one meter length would move during a typical MM experiment about 0.00001 m or 0.00000001 km, that's an approximation for assuming linearity and was for simplification reason. Adding y coordinates doesn't make you move away from this paradox neither Ehrenfest paradox.

 

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''?

Edited September 5, 2010 by vuquta

[Koorosh]

Ok, assume a classical Galilean case; assume a train that passes between two points A and B with length L along x axis, for simplicity imagine a passenger O throwing a ball up (along y axis) and he captures that at same place while train moves distance L m during this time. An observer O’ on the platform in middle of AB standing still, he will see the ball moving in x and y direction, now imaging another observer O”, standing next to O’ his eyes following train’s motion (of course along x axis) so during distance L he is totally aligned with the balls motion, he will only see the ball move in y direction as O. Now imagine observer O' is in another train moving with same speed in Parrnell and same direction as 1st train he will also see what O sees.

 

 

 

[vuquta]

Ok, assume a classical Galilean case; assume a train that passes between two points A and B with length L along x axis, for simplicity imagine a passenger O throwing a ball up (along y axis) and he captures that at same place while train moves distance L m during this time. An observer O’ on the platform in middle of AB standing still, he will see the ball moving in x and y direction, now imaging another observer O”, standing next to O’ his eyes following train’s motion (of course along x axis) so during distance L he is totally aligned with the balls motion, he will only see the ball move in y direction as O. Now imagine observer O' is in another train moving with same speed in Parrnell and same direction as 1st train he will also see what O sees.

 

OK, I agree with this, so what?

 

Look, so far, you made the following errors in your paper:

1) You claimed you can sync clocks frame to frame under SR. That is known to be logically undecidable under SR. Worse one of your frames is rotating and you cannot even sync clocks in a rotating frame let alone frame to frame.

2) You claimed MMX proves SR. That is false because it is inconsistent with earth's rotational saganc verified with GPS. The correct answer is that MMX is a false positive because you need equipment that is sensitive to time in 1/100 pico second range at minimum for MMX.

3) You are operating with light beams. You clained length contraction. Light beams must be transformed by LT and length conraction is a part of that but when dealing with light and its interpretation frame to frame, you cannot blindly use length contraction to transform coordinates.

 

You have yet to address these outstanding issues.

[Koorosh]

Good now you agree that with a fair approximation, you can have Galilean transformation, once you understood that, the rest are just consequences.

As regards MMX you can read in the references the most recent experiment with extreme precision, and many systematic errors that MM had, have been corrected. Also keep in mind that there are tons of paper rejecting the results of MMX, and recently it is a paper published that absolute motion is detectable if you make use different gases other then air which arguments that SR was wrong about absolute motion.

As regards objects you'll get length contraction and light beam experiences relativistic Doppler effect. You need a good reading of SR, two systems that move e.g. in inertial frames could under special circumstances could be stationary in regard to each other for those LT will be GT, also people use always GT under low speed regardless frame which is just good approximation. As mentioned for large distances you could assume linearity as people do for low speed and don't bother SR.

[vuquta]

Good now you agree that with a fair approximation, you can have Galilean transformation, once you understood that, the rest are just consequences.

 

No I can't agree to this. You are attempting to slow speeds down and then because of that claim SR is false.

That does not fly.

 

As regards MMX you can read in the references the most recent experiment with extreme precision, and many systematic errors that MM had, have been corrected. Also keep in mind that there are tons of paper rejecting the results of MMX, and recently it is a paper published that absolute motion is detectable if you make use different gases other then air which arguments that SR was wrong about absolute motion.

 

This is odd. You should have approached me with the math to back up this assertion. Further, there are tons of crackpot papers rejecting MMX. There are only a few that have done the actual round trip speed of light calculations so that any scientist can see it is a false positive.

 

Now, you mention absolute motion.

 

So, you will note in GPS the earth's orbital sagnac is not there. If your proposal is correct, we should see a timing differential east-west and we do not. Further, we should see a sagnac differential for our motion in the milky way.

 

Again, your logic does not fit the scientific evidence.

 

 

 

As regards objects you'll get length contraction and light beam experiences relativistic Doppler effect. You need a good reading of SR, two systems that move e.g. in inertial frames could under special circumstances could be stationary in regard to each other for those LT will be GT, also people use always GT under low speed regardless frame which is just good approximation. As mentioned for large distances you could assume linearity as people do for low speed and don't bother SR.

 

No, you are using light beams. If not, then you can apply length contractiuon blindly.

 

But, when you do, you cannot logically apply length contraction unless you are talking about the motion of a clock. You however, were talking about the motion of light.

 

Good now you agree that with a fair approximation, you can have Galilean transformation, once you understood that, the rest are just consequences.

As regards MMX you can read in the references the most recent experiment with extreme precision, and many systematic errors that MM had, have been corrected. Also keep in mind that there are tons of paper rejecting the results of MMX, and recently it is a paper published that absolute motion is detectable if you make use different gases other then air which arguments that SR was wrong about absolute motion.

As regards objects you'll get length contraction and light beam experiences relativistic Doppler effect. You need a good reading of SR, two systems that move e.g. in inertial frames could under special circumstances could be stationary in regard to each other for those LT will be GT, also people use always GT under low speed regardless frame which is just good approximation. As mentioned for large distances you could assume linearity as people do for low speed and don't bother SR.

 

 

 

Also, please communicate with me using math in the future, thanks.

Edited September 8, 2010 by vuquta