Relativity Paradox

ImaFungi
reply to post by mbkennel

 

But if it is thought that an object like an atom exists, does relativity really suggest that by changing your own reference frame, you are in reality changing that objects existence( Like if I were to shake my head really fast back and forth while looking at a rock the rock may look bigger and more blurry)? Or its just suggesting, that there is no way for any reference frame to know the truth about an object, so while there may be exact truths regarding velocity and position and composition and length etc. There is no fail safe way to prove those things (so like all things that exist exist in exact ways, there is absolute truth to everything, but any conceivable means of observing while in this system, cannot achieve true comprehension of the absolute ways all things, or even any things are?) ?

That's getting all wordy and mixed up. Yes, things are actually quite certain when you do physics as opposed to words.

You'd have to be more specific mathematically about how to define any given object's "existence" and then see how that property transforms under relativistic transformations. If you have a a "word question" try to transform it into one or more questions which can be answered by physics. Then you have your answer.

Think about the example of electric and magnetic fields. You can have zero E or zero B field in some reference frames, and then non-zero E and B in others without anything physically changing? Does this mean "nothing is certain" or "there's no way to know the truth" or any mumbo jumbo like that? No. Relativity says "this set of values of certain properties here" will look like "this other set of values of certain properties" in a different coordinate system. There are verified formulae and predictions for all of these. So contrary to the idea which is that "nothing is certain", we do know that plenty of things are certain to behave a certain way.

The Standard Model like all particle physics is always constructed in the proper relativistically invariant coordinates.

So, if you define 'existence' to mean some value of some eigenstate of a wave function, then see what happens in new relativistically transformed coordinate systems. From here on out I defer to Moduli & Eros433 on how to do this in QFT.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I wouldn't use the word "superposition" in this case, but let's look at an example which is a little simpler than the one in the video.

Obviously I'm using the term "superposition" in a very broad sense. It would be something even weirder than quantum superposition in reality.

So did the ball move in a straight or curved path? Relativity says both are true, but again going back to using a reference frame which is stationary relative to the CMB, we would see neither is true once we observe these additional motions of the ball:

This I agree with, because you're trying to explain how both frames of reference are wrong and that there is an absolute frame of reference which can describe the true and definite motion of the ball. What I disagree with is the part where "both are equally true", clearly they are not both equally true because the real motion of the ball was very different to what was observed in both those frames of reference, and in fact the frame of reference which witnessed the ball curve is more true than the frame of reference where it moved in a straight line.

peacevic
These two very different events couldn't be explained away like in the first thought experiment I don't think...?

Seems like just a slight variation on the experiment in the video.

Someone has programmed the relativity formulas into a java applet so you can see what happens in that case:

www.cabrillo.edu...

Einstein's Train and Tunnel

The Einstein's Train and Tunnel model displays the famous thought experiment from special relativity where a train enters a tunnel as seen from two points of view. In one case the train is seen in the reference frame of the tunnel, while in the other case the train is seen in its reference frame.

Your example needs to be specific on who's reference frame sees the back end of the train enter the tunnel. Are you talking about an observer on the train? Or a stationary observer on the ground? In the former case the guillotine will chop off the front end of the train which you can verify with the java applet. If it's triggered by an observer on the ground seeing the back end of the train enter the tunnel, then the guillotine won't chop off the front end of the train.

ChaoticOrder
What I disagree with is the part where "both are equally true", clearly they are not both equally true because the real motion of the ball was very different to what was observed in both those frames of reference, and in fact the frame of reference which witnessed the ball curve is more true than the frame of reference where it moved in a straight line.

Mathematically, you can transform from one observer's reference frame to the other, so this is what's meant by equally true. If you're on the train, looking at the ball fall straight down, you see no curvature, so I'm not sure why you say the curved path is more true. It's not, to the observer inside the train.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

If you're on the train, looking at the ball fall straight down, you see no curvature, so I'm not sure why you say the curved path is more true. It's not, to the observer inside the train.

It's more true because it's more representative of the actual motion of the ball. The person on the train has the smallest scope of observation. What your explanation on the last page shows, is that the wider the scope, the more complex the motion becomes, and as you widen the scope of observation you move closer to observing the real motion of the ball.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Your example needs to be specific on who's reference frame sees the back end of the train enter the tunnel.

I can't download the applet (interesting site though). But since it's a thought experiment, I think we can still discuss. To answer your question, I'm not convinced I need either of those reference frames at all, which is my point. Let's say there is no observer in either place. There is only an automated trigger on the train and an automated guillotine mechanism on the bridge. Something happens. The observer will come after the fact to see what happened to the train. So it's a third reference point not associated with the event itself.
And if a definitive frame of reference can exist in this case, then it could in the previous case as well.

peacevic
I can't download the applet (interesting site though). But since it's a thought experiment, I think we can still discuss. To answer your question, I'm not convinced I need either of those reference frames at all, which is my point. Let's say there is no observer in either place. There is only an automated trigger on the train and an automated guillotine mechanism on the bridge. Something happens. The observer will come after the fact to see what happened to the train. So it's a third reference point not associated with the event itself.

Your experiment still isn't defined. You added some variables to the original experiment, and didn't define what they are. In the video, the length of the train is only compared to the tunnel because both guillotines are simultaneous in one reference frame or the other.

You are using two different reference frames, one being the trigger on the train, and the other being the guillotine mechanism outside the train. So what you would have to do is draw a spacetime diagram (which that java applet will optionally do, amazingly, to accompany the train illustration). The variable you have introduced is how long it takes the (presumably radio?) signal to travel from the end of the train, to the guillotine mechanism (which wasn't an issue before since the guillotines were simultaneous from the ground).

So let's say the train is traveling half the speed of light, and the radio signal from the train sensor is traveling at the speed of light. By the time the radio signal reaches the guillotine, the end of the train will no longer be where it was when the signal was sent, rather it will be well inside the tunnel by the time the guillotine starts falling.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

In that example I suppose I buy that argument, however, you can easily construct thought experiments where there is no apparent "larger scope", like you could have two spaceships passing by each other in opposite directions and someone can move the ball inside either spaceship, so it's somewhat symmetrical if you will. So there doesn't have to be a more correct reference frame.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So there doesn't have to be a more correct reference frame.

They can only be equally correct if both sequences of events do not contradict each other (the sequence of events are contradictory in the train thought experiment). If both frames of reference are equally true, yet they contradict each other, we arrive back at my superposition argument... the inescapable conclusion is that there are no true and definite occurrences in the universe. If all frames of reference are equally true and "real" and yet contradict each other, it means that reality literally revolves around the observer, allowing separate and even contradictory realities to be experienced by each observer. THAT is what I refuse to believe... in mind opinion there must be one reality we all share and there is an absolute frame of reference which dictates how things really happened.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

The space time diagrams show there is one reality, so that much is true, but they also show how that reality is perceived differently by different observers. The space-time diagrams are how physicists make sense out of the relativity of simultaneity (this issue).

Here is the same reality as seen by three different observers, which shows the three observers see three different things:

Relativity of simultaneity

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

So is the reality sequence A, B, C, or sequence C, B, A, or did all three happen simultaneously? The single reality is that all three are mathematically equivalent in relativity so it's a single reality, just seen differently by different observers.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

The single reality is that all three are mathematically equivalent in relativity so it's a single reality, just seen differently by different observers.

Ok, that is a much more helpful way of explaining it. But what that also says it that not all observers are equally correct, because it's a matter of perspective, and some perspectives are going to be more correct than others. For example, with the train thought experiment, there must be a physical reality (regardless of the mathematical reality) which is definite. My example with the circuit proves there must be only one entirely correct perspective, because the bulb will either light up or it wont light up, depending on if the blades come down at the same time or not. There's no logical way the bulb could light up from one perspective and not light up from another perspective, even if both perspectives are said to be mathematically equivalent, there must be a true physical reality which determines if the bulb lights up or not. If the bulb does light up then the observer who reports the blades coming down at different times is clearly not seeing a reality which is as truthful as the observer who sees the blades come down at the same time.

reply to post by mbkennel


What is the reason one observer may detect zero E and B and another may detect non zero E and B? Is it because the moving observer is detecting with moving electrons which create non zero E and B?

I was asking, if length contraction is not just an optical illusion; How do objects that are length contracted physically contract, is it as I tried to explain, because of the structural nature of material and under extreme velocities the material cannot exist in the same structure as it does when not traveling at extreme velocities? Like a dogs face cannot maintain the same structure when it sticks its face out of a moving car, its face is contracted.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


So we know light always travels at the speed of light, but could all this funny business be do to the difference in the detection of light according to the relativity of the observer detecting? Or this is the weird thing about light, it has no mass and momentum I know... so a stationary observer will detect light and label its properties and come up with the same numbers and details as an observer who is moving near the speed of light away from the source of light, and another observer who is moving near the speed of light towards the source, and another observer moving half the speed of light perpendicular to the source. They will all get the same results, even if the experiment 2.0 is the source of light being reflected off of an object, with the relative means in which the observers are moving, will they have equal descriptions of the image they are detecting?

Now regardless of these observers detections, the object they are detecting is a real existing object, that takes up space, is composed of a quantity of matter with its qualities; regardless of detection does this object not exist absolutely and exactly as it does, so cant relative detection/descriptions of this object be false and untrue descriptions?

ImaFungi
reply to post by mbkennel

 

What is the reason one observer may detect zero E and B and another may detect non zero E and B? Is it because the moving observer is detecting with moving electrons which create non zero E and B?

Yes. For example, what may be stationary charges in one frame, creating E only, but they look like moving charges in another frame, creating B. These considerations are one of the hints which led Einstein to develop relativity theory in the first place and come up with the equations which not only show the transformations of length and time, but also electric and magnetic fields. The title of his paper is notable: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

Once you include all the mechanical and electromagnetic corrections properly, everything works out just as it should.

I was asking, if length contraction is not just an optical illusion; How do objects that are length contracted physically contract, is it as I tried to explain, because of the structural nature of material and under extreme velocities the material cannot exist in the same structure as it does when not traveling at extreme velocities? Like a dogs face cannot maintain the same structure when it sticks its face out of a moving car, its face is contracted.

This is not what is meant by contraction, because that would be a physically noticeable different in the co-moving reference frame, physical squashing changing chemical bonds.

The idea is that something moving by really fast "appears' to be squashed by an observer in another frame, but all parts of physics, and I mean ALL, are 'contracted' in such a way that the forces and distances etc are all transformed. So the 'face' is not physically squashed the way a dog in a wind is (there is force moving flesh around).

It's rather unusual but electric charge doesn't change in changing reference frames, even though apparently 'mass' does (though people use rest mass these days for 'mass'), or more properly the relationship between mass, velocity and momentum is different.

In some way this means to me that electromagnetism might be 'more fundamental' and mechanical properties are less fundamental.

The relationship of gravity to electromagnetism is still not entirely clear either. For instance, you can find papers from professional scientists on the opposite side of a seemingly simple issue: does an isolated charge supported at rest in a gravitational field radiate? Yes or no?

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So we know light always travels at the speed of light, but could all this funny business be do to the difference in the detection of light according to the relativity of the observer detecting? Or this is the weird thing about light, it has no mass and momentum I know...

It has no mass but it does have momentum.

It is my personal opinion that everyone lives in their own personal reality via observation. When multiple people are within the same observation area their realities mesh together to create one unified reality for them both.

It is possible (In my personal beliefs) for this to become un-synchronized and cause people observing the same event to observe it differently.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by wtbengineer

 

The ball appears to curve, but that is only from one frame of reference. I have a problem with the mentality that a thing can be in two different states in absolute terms.

Exactly, just because one frame of reference reports that the ball did curve and the other reports that it didn't curve doesn't mean it did both things at the same time. But that is exactly what the theory of relativity is trying to say, that two different things can occur simultaneously and both are equally true in absolute terms. It's just insane imo.

The flaw is that there is no such thing as more than one frame of reference for any singular event. It's a hypothetical fantasy. There is only one frame of reference, and that's the one you experience from your own point of view -- the reality you see out of your own eyes. You will never, ever see the same thing happening from two different perspectives.

Mathematics, all the way up and through Relativity, is a fundamentally inaccurate way of representing reality, because it falsely eliminates or inadequately describes the part YOU play in interacting with reality.

mbkennel


It has no mass but it does have momentum.

so a stationary observer will detect light and label its properties and come up with the same numbers and details as an observer who is moving near the speed of light away from the source of light, and another observer who is moving near the speed of light towards the source, and another observer moving half the speed of light perpendicular to the source. They will all get the same results, even if the experiment 2.0 is the source of light being reflected off of an object; with the relative means in which the observers are moving, will they have equal descriptions of the image they are detecting? Or is it the momentum of the observer, and momentum of the light that causes things like length contraction, and potentially redshift?

ImaFungi

mbkennel


It has no mass but it does have momentum.

so a stationary observer will detect light and label its properties and come up with the same numbers and details as an observer who is moving near the speed of light away from the source of light, and another observer who is moving near the speed of light towards the source, and another observer moving half the speed of light perpendicular to the source.

No, there are red and blue shifts, because time transforms.

They will all get the same results,

which is that in collisions of photons with other particles, or classically interaction of macrosopic E&M fields with conductors, there is a balance of total relativistic momentum and energy, summing total momentum & energy of both fields and particles.

en.wikipedia.org...

mbkennel


No, there are red and blue shifts, because time transforms.

Im not sure I get all of what the second part of your reply entails, but I asked something like, will the observers get the same results, and I think your answer means that they will get the same results, but the results will be configured in different ways though be equal, perhaps as a rectangle may be equal with another rectangle even if one appears long horizontal and the other long vertical. Because of their positions and velocities their measurements will appear different, but objectively and comparatively their measurements will be compatible and this is the nature of relativity which is the nature of being an observer in nature?

Im wondering what is meant by, time transformations.

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by wtbengineer

 

The ball appears to curve, but that is only from one frame of reference. I have a problem with the mentality that a thing can be in two different states in absolute terms.

Exactly, just because one frame of reference reports that the ball did curve and the other reports that it didn't curve doesn't mean it did both things at the same time. But that is exactly what the theory of relativity is trying to say, that two different things can occur simultaneously and both are equally true in absolute terms. It's just insane imo.

No, I believe it is saying both report the SAME thing occuring, they just each see the reason WHY differently. Both report the same outcome.