Relativity Principle

[Skaffen]

I would like to offer a context for considering and discussing the principal of Relativity. It is abstract but is derived using an anti-reductionist train of thought (i.e. bottom - up) rather than the conventional top - down.

 

- The Universe has been shown to be Relativistic, however this tends to lead to a unsatisfactory position regarding the basis from which we can derive our starting position. Intuitively, the position would be most easily considered as a consequence of the only Absolutes, namely 0 (nothing) & 1 (Infinity/God, everything) - in Philosophical terms it is often illustrated as the Yin Yang. Our Universe does not contain either, so the inference is that it must be the boundary/potential/tension/equilibrium between them.

 

So, from nothing - No Time, No space:

 

This is always going to be the 'leap of faith', however even before Time (1st dimension not 4th IMO, contrary to mainstream scientific thought), we can imagine a 'potential observer' as a point with zero spatial freedom, but requiring Time. The concept of Time in this framework is reduced to a state of potential, as are all subsequent derived spatial dimensions - this is supported by Quantum Mechanical observations. Conservation dictates that this leap requires a strong constraint - Strong Nuclear (pointlike, high localised magnitude)

 

To intellectually grasp this imaginary 'potential observer' we must recognise that it incurs an additional potential to keep it distinct (i.e. Relative). Therefore our framework must incur two potential frames of reference to fully appreciate the initial proposition. This separation is the minimum necessary to resolve the characteristics at play - It is, I believe, the very essence of Einstein's theory (consistent in all potential reference frames). This additional potential is the 1st spatial dimension and incurs a force to conserve, namely Electromagnetic (linear, polar attribute, positive/negative, attraction/repulsion)

 

To resolve these two dimensions it is necessary to create an additional potential, the 2nd spatial dimension - all equal points being represented by a circle on a plane. Conserved by the Weak Nuclear force which governs the Electron orbit. (Circular, Orbital: Complex Attraction due to increased degrees of freedom)

 

To resolve these three dimensions.......Gravity. (Spherical, extensive range thus dilute/weak)

 

Throughout these translations we have encountered the 'observer' driving the evolution/potential whilst incurring a known fundamental force (constraint) in the process of conservation. Geometrically the influences of both aspects appear to reconcile.

 

The use of an additional/outside frame of reference to understand the nature of our Universe is, I believe, the only way to give context.

 

Furthermore the translation to 5 dimensions incurs a toroidal geometry synonymous with Galaxies, and is suggestive of an additional Fundamental Force (Dark Energy?) - which is only apparent on such scales but constrains all within.

 

This is my attempt to put Relativity into words and may well be hidden within the complexities of the Mathematics that I do not understand, and therefore unoriginal....but I hope approachable.

Rgds, Skaff.

[ajb]

This is my attempt to put Relativity into words and may well be hidden within the complexities of the Mathematics that I do not understand, and therefore unoriginal....but I hope approachable.

 

Relativity is really just the statement that the laws of physics has the same form in any admissible coordinate system (frame of reference).

 

To paraphrase this, "the physics should not depend on the details of how you chose to present it".

[Skaffen]

Relativity is really just the statement that the laws of physics has the same form in any admissible coordinate system (frame of reference).

 

To paraphrase this, "the physics should not depend on the details of how you chose to present it".

 

Indeed.

 

It is surprising that when it was brought to light only a handful of people grasped the consequences and many refuted it years after, considering it's simplicity.

[swansont]

Indeed.

 

It is surprising that when it was brought to light only a handful of people grasped the consequences and many refuted it years after, considering it's simplicity.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "many refuted it." Some have attempted to refute relativity, but nobody has been successful.

[Skaffen]

I'm not sure what you mean by "many refuted it." Some have attempted to refute relativity, but nobody has been successful.

 

Apologies you are correct. Many have tried to refute it as you state.

 

Point being that even those familiar with it's implications have great difficulty accepting it due to it's dismissal of objectivity.

[pioneer]

In Special Relativity there are three equations, one for mass, distance and time. Although space-time reference can be relative, mass-energy can not be relative to reference, or else one could violate the conservation of energy. One reference could end up with more or less energy than the other reference, thereby needing to alter the laws of physics to complete the relative energy balance.

 

Let me give an example. Someone is on a train moving at V. They see the background scenary moving at V, since they consider themselves stationary. Another person is standing near the track watching the train move at V. If we do an energy balance to include mass-energy, based on these relative references, one references see the energy of the moving train, while the other sees the energy of the moving landscape.

 

If both references are the same, the laws of physics will need to different for each reference, since in the train reference huge mountains and lakes can move with relatively little energy input. Their unique reference bends space-time in revolutionary ways. Maybe dark matter and dark energy are particularly strong in the train reference or maybe new laws of physics are at work.

 

With GR, this also involves mass, distance and time, with mass the potential that bends space-time. It is not space-time that results in mass, since space-time references can be relative and can alter the energy balance of the universe.

 

The earth's mass is what bends the local space-time. When the earth interacts with the moon, the mass interacts allowing us to maintain the energy balance. If we wish to model this as space-time interaction we can't use relative reference or will run the risk of violating energy conservation, since space-time bending is an effect and not a cause. We can still use space-time but we need an absolute reference which we know neither creates or destroys energy.

Edited November 9, 2010 by pioneer

[imatfaal]

Relativity doesn't dismiss objectivity - quite the opposite in fact. AJB called it the demand that "the physics should not depend on the details of how you chose to present it" - which sums up well the idea that it dismisses subjectivity and local variations.

[Skaffen]

Relativity doesn't dismiss objectivity - quite the opposite in fact. AJB called it the demand that "the physics should not depend on the details of how you chose to present it" - which sums up well the idea that it dismisses subjectivity and local variations.

 

 

 

Relativity is the 'opposite' of objectivity. The formulation is built on recognising there is no absolute background/frame of reference (demonstrated by Michelson & Morley).

 

The consistency of mass and energy behaviour/interaction in all reference frames is achieved by the curvature of space and Time dilation. Which is to say they have to be there for everyone to agree.

[imatfaal]

Relativity predated M&M by about 300 years. The opposite of objectivity is subjectivity - which means that the law and even the information are dependent on the individual being measured. velocities being relative doesn't mean that objectivity is lost merely that observations must be understood in a certain frame of reference; as these FORs and the calculations used with them are easily defined and universally agreeable then there is absolutely no loss of objectivity. The same applies to the transformations required to deal with coordinate systems in non-flat space.

[Skaffen]

Relativity predated M&M by about 300 years. The opposite of objectivity is subjectivity - which means that the law and even the information are dependent on the individual being measured. velocities being relative doesn't mean that objectivity is lost merely that observations must be understood in a certain frame of reference; as these FORs and the calculations used with them are easily defined and universally agreeable then there is absolutely no loss of objectivity. The same applies to the transformations required to deal with coordinate systems in non-flat space.

 

Must be consistent in all reference frames.

 

Don't fret though, your reaction is common when faced with the understanding there is no objectivity...pretty scary! Science illustrates the consequences on a human level by never asserting Truth....only Theory. No doubt it is the closest to truth we can achieve....absolute Truth doesn't even come into it.

 

Heisenberg & QED also demonstrate the correct framework (ie Probabalistc)....spooky

[Sisyphus]

Skaffen, it seems like you are defining "objective" in a very curious and specific way. Relativity is as consistent and objective as anything else.

[imatfaal]

Skaff - I am not fretting, but thanks for your concern. R, SR, and GR are also not probabilistic as your last comment implies (unless perhaps at some arcane depth I have not reached).

[Skaffen]

Skaffen, it seems like you are defining "objective" in a very curious and specific way. Relativity is as consistent and objective as anything else.

 

I appreciate that words as definitive concepts are inadequate to express Relativity. Objectivity requires a fixed frame of reference or at a minimum implies a preferred frame of reference. This viewpoint has been shown to contradict the nature of our Universe. It is the counter intuitive aspect which Heisenberg illustrated with a cat in a box - the cat is both probably alive & probably dead. Humans are discreet constructs and require discreet measurement, however nothing is discreet (absolute/objective), everything is defined by everything else. Curvature of space and Time dilation are the consequences and are evident.

 

Give an example of an Absolute that exists in our Universe and I will reconsider.

[Sisyphus]

I appreciate that words as definitive concepts are inadequate to express Relativity. Objectivity requires a fixed frame of reference or at a minimum implies a preferred frame of reference.

 

Why? Observers in two different frames of reference will both agree on reality. That seems objective to me.

[Skaffen]

Why? Observers in two different frames of reference will both agree on reality. That seems objective to me.

 

No, it implies consistent. When you define it as result between 2 points you have objectified it at the expense of all other frames of reference. This limitation is inherent in us and indeed necessary to function on the scales practical to us...it is only an approximation however. Good enough to last 300 years without anyone noticing.

[Sisyphus]

When you define it as result between 2 points you have objectified it at the expense of all other frames of reference.

 

I don't know what this sentence means.

[Skaffen]

I don't know what this sentence means.

 

When it is reduced to a single point of view, in this case yours, it is similar to adopting a preferred reference frame. A bit like taking a snapshot - you can see everything but the dynamics. I appreciate you can move and take a number of snapshots at different times and infer the dynamics however no single snapshot will give evidence of it.

[Sisyphus]

What point of view? You mean one reference frame?

 

And how is this different than anything else? You can't deduce much about anything from one snapshot. For example, it took a lot of careful observations at different times to deduce that the geocentric model of the universe was wrong.

[Skaffen]

What point of view? You mean one reference frame?

 

And how is this different than anything else? You can't deduce much about anything from one snapshot. For example, it took a lot of careful observations at different times to deduce that the geocentric model of the universe was wrong.

 

A singular frame of reference as we must experience it at any given moment or location. It is not different from anything else it just has profound implications such as; we can only infer the dynamics but never witness them (Uncertainty Principle). The analogy is limited and only in a limited way illustrates our limits.

[Sisyphus]

What would count as "witnessing" them? Inferring is all we ever do - we take in sensory data, and infer things about the world around us. That doesn't mean that objective reality doesn't exist, and it's not new to relativity.

 

The uncertainty principle is not based on relativity, btw.

[Skaffen]

What would count as "witnessing" them? Inferring is all we ever do - we take in sensory data, and infer things about the world around us. That doesn't mean that objective reality doesn't exist, and it's not new to relativity.

 

The uncertainty principle is not based on relativity, btw.

 

I won't change semantics as it won't accomplish anything (re "witnessing"). It does mean that objective reality doesn't exist or if so considered can only be reconciled as a potential. This conforms to a Godlike (Infinite) viewpoint which is not evident in our Universe and is addressed in my initial post.

 

The Uncertainty Principle was an implication of the Theory of Relativity - an implication that even Einstein revolted against yet could not counter effectively....we are the tumbling dice that will never come to rest.

[ajb]

The Uncertainty Principle was an implication of the Theory of Relativity - an implication that even Einstein revolted against yet could not counter effectively....we are the tumbling dice that will never come to rest.

 

This will need careful explaining. What is the uncertainty principle in Einsteinian relativity?

[Skaffen]

This will need careful explaining. What is the uncertainty principle in Einsteinian relativity?

 

It is the inability to derive consistent/accurate (physical laws) from an objective frame of reference, as no such state exists. Einsteinian Relativity is the precursor to the Uncertainty Principle (you get to UP via RP). Einstein jumped off the bus but wasn't able to refute Heisenberg....and he tried. The implications of Relativity, such as the Principle of Uncertainty, and consequently QED is hard to take in a single lifetime. We know it to be accurate due to our good fortune of being told so and having it demonstrated throughout our lifetimes.

[Sisyphus]

It does mean that objective reality doesn't exist or if so considered can only be reconciled as a potential.

 

How do you figure? Or, more to the point, if "objective reality doesn't exist," then why do all observers agree on it? And how is this implied by relativity but not by classical mechanics?

 

It is the inability to derive consistent/accurate (physical laws) from an objective frame of reference, as no such state exists.

 

Well, first of all, that's not what the uncertainty principle is. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle It isn't an implication of relativity.

 

Second, relativity is consistent, so that principle as quoted isn't even true.

[Skaffen]

from wiki -

 

-"Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. Moreover, the principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.

Consistency is not the same as objectivity, unless you reduce the Universe to a state of potential.

Einstein hinted at the "nature" of the system (Universe), however he did not like the implications and did not accept the probabilistic derivative that is QED and the essence of the Uncertainty Principle. - Key is, however, that he could not offer a better counter point.

 

Furthermore (wiki) -

 

In March 1926, working in Bohr's institute, Heisenberg realized that the non-commutativity implies the uncertainty principle. This was a clear physical interpretation for the non-commutativity, and it laid the foundation for what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg showed that the commutation relation implies an uncertainty, or in Bohr's language a complementarity.

Copenhagen Interpretation (wiki) -

In the earlier work of Planck, Einstein and Bohr himself, discrete quantities of energy had been postulated in order to avoid paradoxes of classical physics when pushed to extremes

[bold for chronological emphasis]

 

from wiki -

 

-"Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. Moreover, the principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.

Consistency is not the same as objectivity, unless you reduce the Universe to a state of potential.

Einstein hinted at the "nature" of the system (Universe), however he did not like the implications and did not accept the probabilistic derivative that is QED and the essence of the Uncertainty Principle. - Key is, however, that he could not offer a better counter point.

 

Furthermore (wiki) -

 

In March 1926, working in Bohr's institute, Heisenberg realized that the non-commutativity implies the uncertainty principle. This was a clear physical interpretation for the non-commutativity, and it laid the foundation for what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg showed that the commutation relation implies an uncertainty, or in Bohr's language a complementarity.

Copenhagen Interpretation (wiki) -

In the earlier work of Planck, Einstein and Bohr himself, discrete quantities of energy had been postulated in order to avoid paradoxes of classical physics when pushed to extremes

[bold for chronological emphasis]

 

 

also from wiki

 

 

The results of their own burgeoning understanding disoriented Bohr and Heisenberg, and some physicists concluded that human observation of a microscopic event changes the reality of the event.

(bold: emphasis of the common misunderstanding)