Ask any question you want about Physics

about non locality few armature thoughts.

I am talking on the phone from north america to my relative who is in Japan. I often say a joke at the end of the conversation, that it is late night 23 of August where I am and it is 24 of August morning where you are, and I can go to bed knowing that for me tomorrow will come as I am talking to a person from tomorrow))). Time is local to me here and for him in Japan. To me he is in the future and I to him am in a past and our conversation is time independent because we agree on what ever we discuss over the phone in real time.
We can replace me and my relative in Japan with two dots in coordinate system. Point A and B. As I move from point A toward point B, that point B is my destination and time wise is event of the future. And as I left point A, point A for me is a thing of the past. Since I cannot see the future, why would I assume that I can see the past? Instead I assume that I live and experience the flow of 'now'.


If some cataclysmic event like an asteroid strike destroys Earth, both of us, me and my relative who is in Japan will parish simultaneously. That moment is to both of us non local. We both perish from universal time point of view, if I can say that.
What is that 'universal time'? I think, it could be described as continuous flow of 'now'. We live in a flow of 'now'. There is no future or past. Past is purely human construct and seeing it, just like seeing future is prohibited by this very nature of 'now'.
If that's the case, red (aged) light is an artifact. A present state and we are not seeing past event but looking at the artifact (a post fact of some event). That's why I compared light we capture from distant super nova as a fossil. I could not come up with better term. What we see in a night sky no matter how far out, we look at current state of events, not what they were billion years ago. Good example if we substitute light with sound. When I hear a sound, I do it now. With instruments I can determine probable location of the source and calculate when that sound was produced. But it does not mean I hear past events per se.


That might sound like very childish and naive idea, but I have to pass this point and decide to myself what is going on. This is very interesting to think about. I am just looking to build a concept in my mind, looking for possible logical explanations.

So, with all that being said, here is my raw version of non locality. For that we have to agree that only 'now' is real.
When photon pair produced and sent opposite direction we have to remember that both were born from single parent event.
When one of two is passing through a prism or something that changes polarity of one photon, when that photon is captured we see only its current state, we can disregard past event of passing through prism. We get what we get. Second photon has no past or the future. Only 'now' polarity is different. Remember, both photons were the product of the same parent event and are same thing divided in two -- me and my friend in Japan on the phone and our conversation is non local to neither time frame, and during phone conversation we agree or disagree with what we talk about but it is not local, it does not matter how far from each other we are..we experience real time phone talk. I find nothing 'spooky' about that.))) Kidding.

On a side note, I can view myself as a stationary device through which time passes. I capture and process only an immediate state of that time flow.


I re read my opus and it's total rubbish. But I post it anyway just for fun)))

cheers)

originally posted by: greenreflections
about non locality few armature thoughts.
...
I re read my opus and it's total rubbish. But I post it anyway just for fun)))

I can tell you're not a physicist, but you're not even an armature so what you posted aren't even armature thoughts.

As I said in this post on page 293, your knowledge of physics is so outdated I'd prefer you let people with more up-to-date knowledge answer questions, because your out-of-date answers are subtracting from, rather than adding to, this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
...
2. ...you're at least 100 years behind the present in your understanding of physics.

On the basis of #2
I think it's probably best if you let the people who have more up-to-date knowledge of physics answer the questions in this thread.

Actually that's being too generous for your latest post where even over a century ago we knew better than this:

What we see in a night sky no matter how far out, we look at current state of events, not what they were billion years ago.

As I mentioned some pages back we have every reason to believe that the "Pillars of creation" of which one pillar is shown in my avatar, do not exist currently, yet when we look into the sky we see them exist. This means we are not seeing what they look like currently as they've likely already been destroyed by the shock wave we see approaching it from a nearby supernova.

As I said to EnkiEa on page 294, there are places on ATS to post non-science posts outside the science forum, though I edited the bracketed part to substitute a snip from your post instead of what was snipped from EnkiEa's post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
ATS allows you to make posts like "[I re read my opus and it's total rubbish.]" in the skunk works forum (snip), but in this science forum you're expected to provide scientific support for your claims and I'm sure you don't have any, so I must point out that you're posting in the wrong forum.

Please note the topic of this thread is "Ask any question you want about Physics", not "post your opus of total rubbish here". Feel free to do the former but not the latter.

This thread will be closed at page 400 and I don't want the remaining pages filled with rubbish. Some people have asked some good questions and that's what this thread is for.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Time can be an interesting topic when we truly understand time I think we will understand the universe. Now Hawkings sort of had something similar to this he sees time as just another direction. Einstine sort of played on this thought as well. Bit I won't go in to this right now. Back to hawking he made a paper and discussed what he called imaginary time it basically sits at right angles to what we can call now. Trying to simplify this a bit so people can understand he says the Universe consists of all times past present and future. Each can be looked at as say a slice of thr universe it is unchanging. Imagine being able to take one moment and know where ever ting is every particle photon etc. When an object moves it doesn't only move through space but it moves through these times which are right angles to the last. Think of say firing a bullet into a book the bullet will pass through each page individually. This is very similar to how he sees time,This can also explain why we can see a photon as a wave or a particle depending on thr slice of time we look at.

The further away something is the further back it's time slice would be from us. What makes this interesting though is it doesn't rule out time travel since the future is set. I must admit I don't like this idea mostly because I don't like thinking of a static universe with its beginning and end all ready played out and we are just sort of traveling through it. But this is also similar to Feynmans idea he basically said particle moving from point A to B would travel every possible path, curved paths, oscillating paths, squiggly paths, even backward in time and forward in time. Each path has an amplitude and when summed up most of these amplitudes add up to zero, and all that remains is the comparably few histories that the laws and forces of nature allow. So he made time just another direction.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This thread will be closed at page 400 and I don't want the remaining pages filled with rubbish. Some people have asked some good questions and that's what this thread is for.

That's bad news! I've learned so much from this thread - lots of food for thought and research. Hope you intend to start another one!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

My post above was to suggest that non locality could be explained from temporal pov.

But I hear ya. No problem. I am out so you can enjoy the remaining time left on the thread. You've deserved it.

cheers)

originally posted by: greenreflections
This particular thread to me was meant to ask OP a question an answer to which is final and not open for further discussion.

That's why "physics" is capitalized at the end of the thread title - as in written in granite by supposed authority figures.

a reply to: dragonridr
@arbitrageur

What do you think of Nima Arkadi-Hamed's theory that the concept of space-time is finished. I'm just starting to read his work. Sounds like a new age for physics and cosmology?

He's been contracted by the Chinese to build the next generation collider as well.


Visions of Future Physics
Nima Arkani-Hamed is championing a campaign to build the world’s largest particle collider, even as he pursues a new vision of the laws of nature.

www.quantamagazine.org...

originally posted by: Phantom423
Nima Arkani-Hamed is championing a campaign to build the world’s largest particle collider . . .

Is a particle collider really the way to go for future understanding of the laws of nature?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Phantom423
Nima Arkani-Hamed is championing a campaign to build the world’s largest particle collider . . .

Is a particle collider really the way to go for future understanding of the laws of nature?

those in that field think so, to keep the funding coming

originally posted by: ConnectDots
That's why "physics" is capitalized at the end of the thread title - as in written in granite by supposed authority figures.

Nothing is written in granite, but as Nima Arkani-Hamed points out, we've done a lot of experiments, and it's not easy to come up with new theoretical ideas that match all previous experimental results. He and other physicists are trying though, and if you would listen to him, you'd realize he doesn't want to take anything for granted, except that he has to explain experiments with whatever ideas he comes up with. Some people would like to toss those experiments out too, but if you do that, you're no longer doing science.

originally posted by: Phantom423
That's bad news! I've learned so much from this thread - lots of food for thought and research. Hope you intend to start another one!

That depends. If it's going to be another 400 pages of the same questions I'd just as soon people refer to this thread. I'm not criticizing people for not reading a 300 page thread as I can't expect them to, but the inevitable result is that people who don't read it end up asking questions that have already been asked, so it wouldn't be that interesting for me to answer another 400 pages of questions that have already been answered in the previous 400 pages.

originally posted by: Phantom423
What do you think of Nima Arkadi-Hamed's theory that the concept of space-time is finished. I'm just starting to read his work. Sounds like a new age for physics and cosmology?

He may be right, but I'm not completely sold on his rationale about the measurement problem, where he infers that because we can't measure space-time on a planck scale because a photon energetic enough to do that would create a black hole, that space-time on that scale may not exist. Maybe or maybe not.

However the problem between relativity and quantum theory really does seem intractable at high energies so it does seem parts of those theories may have to be replaced to come up with a theory that works with both at high energies. It's really not a shocking claim when you consider that, so I think we know something's got to go (and maybe that something is space-time), the big question is what's going to be the replacement?

Here's one of his videos discussing the doom of space-time:

The Doom of Space Time (Dinner at the University of Oxford) - Nima Arkani-Hamed

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Phantom423
Nima Arkani-Hamed is championing a campaign to build the world’s largest particle collider . . .

Is a particle collider really the way to go for future understanding of the laws of nature?

That's such a narrow question. You can't probe what goes on at high energies without high energies, and it's at the highest energies where we are having some of the biggest problems with our understanding.

That said, particle colliders aren't the only option. I read where someone proposed trying to use ultra high energy cosmic rays since they far exceed the energies we can attain in any conceivable particle collider by orders of magnitude. The problem is they are infrequent and their locations are unpredictable, and we generally need statistically large numbers of events to figure out what's going on in high energy collisions. So it's an idea but one which doesn't seem immediately practical to implement.

There are also cosmological observations that increase our understanding.

Also there are dark matter experiments which have nothing to do with colliders which might potentially increase our knowledge about the composition of dark matter, so I see colliders as just one type of observation/experiment to increase our knowledge, there are certainly others.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Maybe it be a good idea to create a thread were we can discuss scientific papers that might be fun.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

if this is a physicist, we are all doomed

Apart from this theoretical "black hole" QM fairy tell and other mathematical theories that calculate first and then find experiments to substantiate the calculated, there is not really much in modern physics at all than just adding apples to melons.

He wants to break with the "space/time" ?? right, it is a dead end road, I agree.
What is space time anyway ?
It is just a construct in a theory that has no physical counterpart at all.

Space is matter, you can measure it, "you can put things into it", you can move in it and you can not exist without it, time on the other hand is just counting and nothing else.
Time needs a substance, an regular periodic appearance of any sort, so that you can count it and by counting one to another make a statement how many you have counted. One second is something between two heartbeats. Sixty heartbeats is a minute, and so on.

Not sure why Einstein was so eager to make just one of them two, sure it sounded good at that time...
SPACETIME !!!

....
that's really fun...
....

Today we hear "DARK ENERGY", "DARK MATTER", "BLACK HOLE"...


you can add apples to melons if you just count, but if you mix them, you get jam (jelly)

A big cluster of matter, you call it gravity, slows down "the clock". If you count radiation to calculate time, field density makes it "run slower".
Fast speed also make it slower, simply said, when atoms move, orbits are not spherical but elliptical.

a reply to: dragonridr

still waiting for your respond to www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: dragonridr
still waiting for your respond to www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma

Ok you apparently are clueless on what the strong force does. You have some convoluted idea of what it does.The strong force is what is binding the quarks and gluons into protons and neutrons. Without the strong force we couldn't have an atom we would have a universe filled with fundamental particles that couldn't form atoms. Sonce you seem unclear about what the weak force does this causes radio active decay basically allows nuclear reactions to occur without it we wouldn't have nuclear reactors.

Now a personal question how can you come in here making claims when you don't even understand basic interactions in an atom?? Wow instead of spouting garbage why not pick up a physics book and read about experiments done and how we discovered these things. Until you understand physics arguing against it is pointless. You can't make a valid assessment of something you don't understand. Be like me arguing with an oceanographer a out some fish I've never seen before but he's spent decades studying.

originally posted by: KrzYma
blah blah blah....

dragonridr is correct that you are criticizing the strong force but you don't even understand it. There is no effective rebuttal to your "blah blah blah" counterpoint so I suppose that means you win that part of the debate? But as for the rest of your post, it's kind of pointless to answer assuming you have some understanding of the strong force when your misconceptions about it are so vast, I don't see the point.

Dragonridr's suggestion "why not pick up a physics book and read about experiments done and how we discovered these things" seems quite valid in this case. You replied that you did, but if that's true then which physics textbook did this come from?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: KrzYma
Strong force ? is just an invention that fits the theory, preventing electrons fall into a proton.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Maybe it be a good idea to create a thread were we can discuss scientific papers that might be fun.

Yes, that yould be more interesting than a repeat of this thread, however I can count on two hands the number of participants I know of on ATS who might even have any interest and ability for reading those papers, and of those the number that have time to do it would be even smaller. There's also the issue that the sciences are so specialized now that sometimes it's difficult for even physicists to read papers of other physicists if they specialize in different areas of physics. For example Peter Woit was saying in his blog that he's tried reading Susskind's work on ER=EPR conjecture and he can't figure out what Susskind et al are doing, and as far as I can tell Woit is no dummy on these topics.

I think that's not a bad idea for a thread but you might have a broader audience of people who might read the papers on physicsforums.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Time can be an interesting topic when we truly understand time I think we will understand the universe.

I've read some interesting ideas on time, but the question is, do they survive "Newton's flaming laser sword"?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

you are criticizing the strong force but you don't even understand it

because it does not exist in the sense it has been invented. I know QM is using it in a different way now, but look at the beginning dude !!!

But as for the rest of your post, it's kind of pointless to answer assuming you have some understanding of the strong force when your misconceptions about it are so vast, I don't see the point.

there is really no sense talking to you at all...
it's like talking to a priest about non existence of god.

I see you are out of arguments against my theory so you start attacking me directly, questioning my knowledge and understanding... this is typical and very common in science.
let me repeat what I have said
"first of all... electromagnetism are two forces.. electric and magnetic... not one !"
as long as you don't get it and think it's just one force, you will do no progress.

"strong and weak nuclear forces are just assumptions"
please read this again maybe you will understand

Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain as to how the atomic nucleus was bound together. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge, while neutrons were electrically neutral. By the understanding of physics at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the positively charged protons should cause the nucleus to fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon. A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus.

this is how it started, you can tell me whatever you want about quantum mechanics, QM is an invention based on false assumptions and staged experiments.
I know what I'm saying is blasphemy for you, so let me ask you...
If the theory you believe in is so right, please show me a working model of an atom with more that two charges.

originally posted by: KrzYma
let me repeat what I have said
"first of all... electromagnetism are two forces.. electric and magnetic... not one !"

Do Maxwell's equations deal with electricity or magnetism and do they treat them as two things or one, or do you have any clue what Maxwell's equations say? It seems that you don't.

this is how it started, you can tell me whatever you want about quantum mechanics, QM is an invention based on false assumptions and staged experiments.

Yes all man-made models are man-made inventions, how can they not be? They are our current best effort at making predictions of how nature works. The part you're leaving out is that many scientists didn't want quantum mechanics to be true, and were looking for ways to hang on to classical mechanics. It's the experiments that matched quantum mechanics that gave them no other choice than to admit that the predictions of quantum mechanics seemed to work well even if the ideas were not philosophically pleasing and sometimes very difficult to calculate for complex systems.

What do you mean by "staged experiments", is "staged" supposed to mean "fake" or what? They are experiments, and it seems to me like you're trying to make up bogus reasons to deny the results like calling them "staged". Have you performed the same experiments and got different results?

I know what I'm saying is blasphemy for you, so let me ask you...

It's not blasphemy, I'm open-minded to alternate models if they are supported by evidence but you've provided nothing in the way of evidence and your arguments demonstrate you don't even understand the models you're rejecting, like you seem to not understand Maxwell's equations at all when you talk about electricity and magnetism involved in electromagnetism.

If the theory you believe in is so right, please show me a working model of an atom with more that two charges.

Helium atom:

The Helium Ground State
The First Excited State(s)
Variational Helium Ground State Energy

We will now add one parameter to the hydrogenic ground state wave function and optimize that parameter to minimize the energy. We could add more parameters but let's keep it simple...
(math)
Now we are within a few percent. We could use more parameters for better results.

Now a question for you, do you have a better model? From your past posts it appears that you don't have any coherent models at all that make quantifiable predictions that can be tested in experiment.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur The tension does not exist because physicists have some delusion that quantum objects behave classically, they clearly understand that's not the case, as described by this physics FAQ site:

Start quote from Ask the Van

the cloud really is the state of the electron. It's not a picture of where some dot-like particle probably is. It isn't anywhere in particular. It also doesn't have any particular velocity. In a hydrogen atom, it's certainly not going in a circle. The cloud doesn't go anywhere at all. There's no reason for it to radiate.

The world at a small scale cannot be put together out of anything like the pictures we're used to at a large scale.

End quote from Ask the Van, of the following link:

Ask the Van

I believe we can take much of our classical thinking into the quantum realm. The original QM treatment of the hydrogen atom gets things extremely close with regard to the spectral data, and it is founded on several classical concepts. It starts with a classical two body problem being proposed and then adds a classical central Coulomb potential. The quantization is applied by letting the classical momentum go over to a partial derivative with respect to the spatial coordinates for an underlying, assumed, wave-function. (Schrödinger's equation.) We can then envision the resulting wave-function in the old classical sense. Essentially, we can think of the wave-function as being the square root of the density of the electron, just as we classically treated the electric field as the square root of the intensity of light. There is nothing really non-classical here yet. The only new idea so far is that the electron is not a particle orbiting the nucleus, but rather a wave-function surrounding a nucleus. There was a classical wave theory of light before all of this - it just didn't apply to matter until de Broglie. Even quantized waves were known classically, as musical instruments have quantized pressure waves within them, and waves on a string held on its ends have quantized oscillatory options as well. So I believe a strong case can be made that the original QM was pretty classical in its thinking.

Setting aside the higher order effects for the moment, the non-classical pieces of the puzzle concerned spin, the collapse, and "exchange forces".

Spin was handled by putting spin matrices into the formalism as a new degree of freedom. However, I believe one can include it just as easily by assuming that there is an internal spinning of the electron cloud, as we can then include the spin effects in the potential energy term of the Hamiltonian. If you look at my other thread you can see that I have done this. It is rather straight forward to do. (See A New Quantum Mechanics.)

The oddities of the QM collapse concern things like a single wave-function interacting with two slits before recombining and collapsing to a single spot on a distant wall. The separation of the slits is far larger than the pin-prick size of the interaction at the wall, and so this quantized-wave-function thing must sometimes be large and other times small. Still, if we envision the entity as being a diffuse object, none of that is really a problem for classical waves either. You can think of gasses getting greatly compressed, for instance. The problem is the instantaneous nature of any collapse, not just the collapse per se.

The Pauli exclusion rule is essentially equivalent to allowing only anti-symmetric states under a particle exchange operator, and this too is something a bit different than in the classical realm. However, no two billiard balls can occupy the same space either. So really even this quantum phenomenon is not to difficult to reconcile with classical thought either, at least for fermions. More problematic are entities that obey Bose-Einstein statistics, where two particles can occupy the same state. (That, I believe has no classical counterpart.)

Under a Lorentzian approach (with or without a length contraction) what I have just outlined dovetails nicely with what is proposed by the "Ask the Van" quote you give. However, if the Van whom I ask is also a proponent of relativity (and how many of us Lorentzians are really left?) then Van has badly mangled things. Relativity is a point-like theory in four-space, and within it actions must occur at points. Van's description appears to me to run pretty far afoul of the special theory.

So which is it? Electron clouds within a Lorentzian space time reality? Or point-like interactions and a probabilistic QM interpretation within an Einsteinian space time reality? Or do we go with the many-worlds interpretation where we keep both Einstein and cloud-like QM reality at the expense of a new universe created for every interaction? Or do we just give up on the concept of objective reality itself?

When I am instructed that I am one of those who must move on from classical thinking by giving up my penchant for an objective reality, I recoil. I do not believe Einstein made a mistake in his devotion to an underlying objective reality. Rather, I believe it is relativity that needs to be set aside. Once we do so, and return to Lorentz (possibly without a length contraction), we can then return to a physics that attempts to model an underlying objective reality rather than just playing with high end mathematics and fantasies.

a reply to: KrzYma
You forgot to tell me which physics book you got this from:

Strong force ? is just an invention that fits the theory, preventing electrons fall into a proton.

You also didn't answer my question about whether Maxwell's equation treats electricity and magnetism as the same thing.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
Under a Lorentzian approach (with or without a length contraction) what I have just outlined dovetails nicely with what is proposed by the "Ask the Van" quote you give. However, if the Van whom I ask is also a proponent of relativity (and how many of us Lorentzians are really left?) then Van has badly mangled things. Relativity is a point-like theory in four-space, and within it actions must occur at points. Van's description appears to me to run pretty far afoul of the special theory.

So which is it? Electron clouds within a Lorentzian space time reality? Or point-like interactions and a probabilistic QM interpretation within an Einsteinian space time reality?

You seem to be convinced that Lorentzian relativity and Special relativity are not equal theories, while László Szabó seems convinced they are equal theories. I'm not sure which one of you is correct, but since your views seem contradictory it appears at least one of you two must be incorrect. Have you read his paper?

Lorentzian theories vs. Einsteinian special relativity – a logico-empiricist reconstruction, p24

37. With these comments I have completed the argumentation for my basic claim that special relativity and the Lorentz theory are completely identical.... They are not only “empirically equivalent”, as sometimes claimed, but they are identical in all sense; they are identical physical theories.

Consequently, in comparison with the classical Galileo-invariant conceptions, special relativity theory tells us nothing new about the spatiotemporal features of the physical world. As we have seen, the longstanding belief that it does is the result of a simple but subversive terminological confusion.

If you think he's wrong maybe you can explain where he went off the rails?

originally posted by: delbertlarson
Under a Lorentzian approach (with or without a length contraction) what I have just outlined dovetails nicely with what is proposed by the "Ask the Van" quote you give. However, if the Van whom I ask is also a proponent of relativity (and how many of us Lorentzians are really left?) then Van has badly mangled things. Relativity is a point-like theory in four-space, and within it actions must occur at points. Van's description appears to me to run pretty far afoul of the special theory.

So which is it? Electron clouds within a Lorentzian space time reality? Or point-like interactions and a probabilistic QM interpretation within an Einsteinian space time reality?

You seem to be convinced that Lorentzian relativity and Special relativity are not equal theories, while László Szabó seems convinced they are equal theories. I'm not sure which one of you is correct, but since your views seem contradictory it appears at least one of you two must be incorrect. Have you read his paper?

Lorentzian theories vs. Einsteinian special relativity – a logico-empiricist reconstruction, p24

37. With these comments I have completed the argumentation for my basic claim that special relativity and the Lorentz theory are completely identical.... They are not only “empirically equivalent”, as sometimes claimed, but they are identical in all sense; they are identical physical theories.

Consequently, in comparison with the classical Galileo-invariant conceptions, special relativity theory tells us nothing new about the spatiotemporal features of the physical world. As we have seen, the longstanding belief that it does is the result of a simple but subversive terminological confusion.

If you think he's wrong maybe you can explain where he went off the rails?


Thank you for sharing the reference. It is a bit opaque, but I studied it up until page 8 where I found this claim: "Relativity theory would tell us something new if it accounted for physical quantities ˆx and ˆt differently....If, for example, there were any two events simultaneous in relativity theory which were not simultaneous according to classical physics, or vice versa—to touch on a sore point. But a little reflection shows that this is not the case." The author then presents some math saying that relativity and Lorentz agree on simultaneity at a single point. This is the error. Hence I stopped studying the paper there.

Earlier in the paper, on page 6, the author has the correct Lorentzian view in his Eq. (1), which is that in the preferred frame clocks are synchronous, and that moving clocks (ala Lorentz) must defer to the preferred frame and hence account for the fact that they are running slow. Earlier n page 6, in his point D5, he says that in relativity the moving clocks will establish their own time in their moving frame. On page 6 I agreed with the author - as this will lead to simultaneity being different in Lorentz vs. Einstein. Yet on page 8 the author stipulates otherwise, so the author has clearly made an error somewhere.

The issue of relative simultaneity being different from classical (Lorentzian) simultaneity is quite well known of course. It is, indeed, the entire reason for the celebration of relativity. When one does the calculations on what occurs to moving bodies, one gets the same results in either relativity or Lorentz. Indeed, the equations are still called the "Lorentz transformations" since Lorentz had precedence over Einstein in their publication, and those calculations are identical whether we follow Lorentz or Einstein. The exciting differences in special relativity are in the concept of simultaneity, whether or not there is a preferred frame, and whether there is an aether involved in the transmission of light and other electromagnetic phenomena.

Einstein's enormous breakthrough was to boldly propose that spatial intervals in one frame will become partly spatial and partly temporal intervals when observed by someone moving with respect to the original frame. In Einstein's view, space becomes time, and time becomes space. It isn't just that clocks and sticks change when they move through a fixed space and time - it is that space and time themselves change. That was a truly revolutionary way of thinking. And as a result, simultaneity was no longer well defined - what occurs at the same time for two separated stationary observers will not be viewed as simultaneous for observers who are in motion with respect to the original two. This is entirely different than the classical view.

In Lorentz's approach, moving observers must correct their measuring instruments to account for the fact that their moving clocks run slow and their moving meter sticks contract. Once they do so, they agree with stationary observers about simultaneity, and the classical view of time and space are retained. The problem is that there is no way to determine (at least not yet) where that stationary frame is!

The author seems to know much of this, as in the early pages the author says all of the right things. It is only on page 8 that I found the error. My suspicion is that the author never considered the case of two events in the transformations. If you only transform a single event it is easy to justify Lorentz and Einstein. It is when you add that second event, spatially separated from the first in at least one frame, that the issue of simultaneity becomes clear.

In fact, I know this because of a similar error I made in my early days. I wrote to John Bell about a theory I had that there was no length contraction, as I had derived equations showing how everything came about from time dilation alone. John Bell wrote back to tell me he didn't see how a length contraction could come out of time dilation, and I realized I had done the calculations at a single point (just like the author you referred me to). Once I did things at two separated points it got a lot more difficult. I had to come up with another reason for the null result of the Michelson Morley test. (I postulated that mirrors enforce nulls in the aetherial oscillations similar to enforced nulls on a vibrating rubber band.)

Since the author only uses a single event in his paper, I am quite sure that is the source of the error. You must look at a minimum of two events, spatially separated in at least one frame, to really understand the difference between Lorentz and Einstein.

originally posted by: KrzYma
"first of all... electromagnetism are two forces.. electric and magnetic... not one !"

And is the negative to positive push of the electric force actually the same thing as gravity?