Relativity

[David Jackson]

I am a retired engineer studying physics as a retirement project and my question concerns special relativity. Einstein was able to produce his time dilation and mass/energy equivalence equations entirely from the posit that C is invariant. The maths is not hard and experimental evidence confirms time dilation occurs of the order of the calculations. Now it occurs to me that if the particles in the atom are spinning with a tangential velocity of C then the vector velocity of the particle is the combination of the spinning motion within the atom and any motion of the atom itself, This velocity would be always be greater than C whatever the direction of motion of the atom. If all the particles have the same age, time would become absolute and be applied to the particles and then it would be the velocity that changed and time dilation would occur exactly as Einstein calculated. Interestingly C would still be invariant but effect not cause. Further if these particles are spinning at C then the kinetic energy of the particles is the sum of mass times C squared /2. If this is the energy trying to get out then it follows that the energy holding the atom together must be equal to this. If you add these energies together you get Einstein's equation E=MC squared. Now I am aware that this would mean that general relativity would be entirely different, space would not curve and an explanation would be needed for gravitational lensing. Further development of the idea seems to satisfy gravitational lensing and the standard model and even maybe explains entanglement. So my feeling is I cant be the only one to have thought of this it must have been considered and rejected. My question is why?

[Strange]

Now it occurs to me that if the particles in the atom are spinning with a tangential velocity of C then the vector velocity of the particle is the combination of the spinning motion within the atom and any motion of the atom itself, This velocity would be always be greater than C whatever the direction of motion of the atom.

 

There are a couple of problems with this. The first is that particles do not actually "spin"; they have angular momentum, but this is not due to actual rotation. (And fundamental particles such as electrons have zero radius, so there is no concept of angular velocity.)

 

Secondly, velocities do not add linearly in relativity. So if you add 0.5 c + 0.5 c, the result is 0.8 c. As a velocities alwats sum to less than c.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel2.html

[David Jackson]

thank you for your reply. I am aware of the accepted interpretation that particles can have dimensions that are zero. This is one of the 'facts' I have so much trouble with. How do we know? measuring dimensions at sub atomic level seems pretty impossible. Is this a mathematical calculation from the standard model? As for your second point I don't quite understand. I was not suggesting a linear relationship between velocities. I was suggesting a three dimensional vector relationship between velocities. My point is that the posit that C is absolute could be wrong. Entanglement certainly seems to suggest so.

I have taken this idea a lot further if anyone is interested I will post as an attachment

[Strange]

Is this a mathematical calculation from the standard model?

 

Yes. And all attempts to measure a physical size are consistent with that (in other words they appear to have zero, or as close as we can measure to zero, size).

 

 

My point is that the posit that C is absolute could be wrong.

 

All the evidence is consistent with that.

 

 

Entanglement certainly seems to suggest so.

 

No information is transferred and so this doesn't violate relativity.

 

 

I was suggesting a three dimensional vector relationship between velocities.

 

It doesn't really matter. However you sum velocities the total will be less than c.

 

 

I have taken this idea a lot further if anyone is interested I will post as an attachment

 

You should do that in the "speculations" forum.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Strange

[David Jackson]

Thank you again so If I understand it. Zero dimensions occur because of mathematical necessity and confirmed because they are at least too small to measure. As for the absolute speed of light is it absolute? or is it only absolute because we have no means of propelling any thing faster. There seems to me to be a strange situation whereby it is perfectly possible to propel a tiny particle at 99'9% of C and yet at C its mass becomes infinite. If I asked Usain Bolt to push a buggy as fast as he could go he would never be able to push it quite as fast as he could run without the buggy. Friction aside the buggy doesn't get infinitely heavy its speed is determined by how fast the pusher can go. As we must use energy in the form of the electromagnetic spectrum to propel anything it surely must follow this could be the reason we cannot go faster than light. I will post in the speculators forum if I can figure it out if only to give you a laugh.

[ajb]

As for the absolute speed of light is it absolute? or is it only absolute because we have no means of propelling any thing faster.

A more careful statement would be that no inertial observer can measure a relative velocity of another inertial observer greater than the speed of light.

 

This means that the speed of light really is a (local) speed limit that does not depend on how one would try to push a massive object past the speed of light.

[Klaynos]

c being invariant is a result of electrodynamics. Electrodynamics is pretty well tested, you're effectively testing it constantly these days.

 

Nothing massive traveling at c is a result of special relativity (SR). SR is consistent with our observations. This includes things which require SR to be correct for long range high bandwidth communications which again you rely on constantly. There is no required system of acceleration in SR it is true no matter the method.

[Strange]

or is it only absolute because we have no means of propelling any thing faster.

 

No.

 

There seems to me to be a strange situation whereby it is perfectly possible to propel a tiny particle at 99'9% of C and yet at C its mass becomes infinite.

 

What "seems strange" is not a good basis for deciding whether something is good physics or not.

 

Particles in the LHC are accelerated to speeds of about 99.9999991% of c. And they behave exactly as predicted by relativity (otherwise the LHC wouldn't work).

 

Saying that the mass would become infinite is not really accurate as you are talking about an impossible situation.

 

 

As we must use energy in the form of the electromagnetic spectrum to propel anything it surely must follow this could be the reason we cannot go faster than light.

 

Rockets don't use "energy in the form of the electromagnetic spectrum". (Unless you are going to completely re-interpret that phrase to mean anything which can be used to propel something. At which point your argument becomes circular.)

 

And the speed at which something moves is not dependent on the speed of its propellant.

 

Imagine there is a spacecraft passing Earth at 0.5c. On that spaceship someone is using a device that shoots electrons at 0.5c. From the earth, you will measure the speed of those electrons to be 0.8c. Velocities do not add linearly, so you can never get to c.

[David Jackson]

I think I understand the answers but you have not quite killed the question I am not suggesting that C isn't invariant or absolute outside the sanctity of the atom except for entanglement which if information isn't being sent what is the connection doing? Einstein obviously thought the connection was pre-ordained but from what I have read Bell pretty much disproved that. What I was suggesting was a reason why it is invariant. Local suggests to me outside of the atom. I am definitely not denying SR merely trying to understand why. I can easily understand absolute zero temperature or the minimum of anything but the maximum of any other feature space ,mass, temperature doesn't exist except where constrained by other factors such as centrifugal force restricting size. So why is velocity confined absolutely between two limits?

 

Any way thanks guys for your answers I am really enjoying this being a bit of a devil's advocat

[swansont]

As Klaynos has already pointed out, the invariance of c is an observation we already had from electrodynamics. Asking why it's invariant is more philosophy (metaphysics) than physics.

[Strange]

I think I understand the answers but you have not quite killed the question I am not suggesting that C isn't invariant or absolute outside the sanctity of the atom except for entanglement which if information isn't being sent what is the connection doing?

 

Nothing is sent from one particle to the other. It might be better to think of it as a single "thing" (the wavefunction) which is spread though all of space (and time). Any measurement of it in one place must correlate with measurements made somewhere else because you are measuring the same thing. Although what you measure cannot be known in advance.

 

 

So why is velocity confined absolutely between two limits?

 

I think this seems counter-intuitive because, at everyday speeds, time and distance appear to have a linear relationship. But in reality, they don't. So you can only asymptotically approach the speed of light.

[ajb]

So why is velocity confined absolutely between two limits?

No idea. It just seems to be written into nature.

[David Jackson]

Thanks again It seems that the idea that particles could be spinning at C within the atom is impossible because the composite velocity of the particle inside the atom and the movement of the atom itself would violate C invariance and also it would contradict the mathematics of the standard model. Now although my maths is pretty good (I can calculate the forces and strains on complex structures without much trouble) I do not have the depth of mathematical knowledge to comment on the standard model. My problem is still the same how do we know C invariance is a universal and fundamental posit and not just the standard speed of energy in its medium in this case a vacuum? I am also sorry if my terminology is not correct (I'm an engineer after all) but I still don't see any way of propelling anything faster than C without having a means to accelerate it beyond that point. If you had a particle accelerator spinning particles at close to the speed of light in a circle and you put that inside an aircraft that is travelling sufficiently fast to create a vector speed of greater than C relative to the earth What happens ? This is a real life problem at slow speed for helicopter pilots trying to keep vector speed below mach 1. Given that we cannot see inside the atom and the standard model gives no recognisable structure, So for me the answer to my original question is that it probably can't happen but it would not be impossible. It does have the compelling attraction that it would allow both absolute time and SR. It would however have the distinct disadvantage of violating GR.

 

I would post the complete idea if I could work out how to get to the speculation area

[studiot]

 

(I'm an engineer after all)

 

David as an engineer, though you do not say what sort, you should be used to poles appearing in calculations in dynamic formulae.

These occur in resonant systems, whether you are talking electrical or mechanical engineering.

There are even elastic instabilities in non dynamic situations (eg buckling) that exhibit this behaviour.

[Strange]

My problem is still the same how do we know C invariance is a universal and fundamental posit and not just the standard speed of energy in its medium in this case a vacuum?

 

I'm not really sure what difference you are trying to make. But the reasons we accept the postulate are (1) it is derived from Maxwell's theory of EM; (2) the resulting theory (SR) is very well tested (and enables us to manufacture devices like the computer you are using).

 

It seems reasonable that the laws of physics should be the same regardless of your position and state of (inertial) motion. And this is confirmed by many, many tests of Lorentz invariance (to almost ridiculous levels accuracy in some cases).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation

 

 

If you had a particle accelerator spinning particles at close to the speed of light in a circle and you put that inside an aircraft that is travelling sufficiently fast to create a vector speed of greater than C relative to the earth What happens ?

 

The velocities sum relativistically. So if the particles are moving at 99%c and the helicopter is flying at 99%c, then the combined velocity of the particles is 99.99494975001263% c.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel2.html

[David Jackson]

Ok for the record I am a Chartered civil engineer, and I am convinced, but I do have many more questions which I will put to you guys at later dates as I am now going to bed.

 

best regards

[studiot]

Ok for the record I am a Chartered civil engineer, and I am convinced, but I do have many more questions which I will put to you guys at later dates as I am now going to bed.

 

best regards

 

That's something to be proud of.

 

One of the past presidents wrote one of the most famous and deep thinking textbooks on Thermodynamics, a few years ago.

 

Does the name Pippard mean anything to you?

Edited November 21, 2015 by studiot

[swansont]

If you had a particle accelerator spinning particles at close to the speed of light in a circle and you put that inside an aircraft that is travelling sufficiently fast to create a vector speed of greater than C relative to the earth What happens ?

 

We do that, though, in a way. We are on a planet that's rotating, orbiting the sun, with the sun in orbit about the galactic center. And still, relativity works with the accelerator. There is no vector that exceeds c relative to any frame. Speeds don't add linearly.