Archives de la catégorie: Anti-Relativité

Discussions dans le forum Anti-Relativité

Unreal Time

Farsight wrote:Time is a velocity-dependent subjective measure of event succession rather than something fundamental – the events mark the time, the time doesn’t mark the events. This means the stuff out there is space rather than space-time, and is an “aether” veiled by subjective time.

I like your definition of time. It is close to my own view that time is “unreal.” It is possible to treat space as real and space-time as something different, as you do. This calls for some careful thought. I will outline my thinking in this post and illustrate it with an example, if my friends don’t pull me out for lunch before I can finish. :)

The first question we need to ask ourselves is why space and time seem coupled? The answer is actually too simple to spot, and it is in your definition of time. Space and time mix through our concept of velocity and our brain’s ability to sense motion. There is an even deeper connection, which is that space is a cognitive representation of the photons inputs to our eyes, but we will get to it later.

Let’s assume for a second that we had a sixth sense that operated at an infinite speed. À savoir, if star explodes at a million light years from us, we can sense it immediately. We will see it only after a million years, but we sense it instantly. Je sais, it is a violation of SR, cannot happen and all that, but stay with me for a second. Maintenant, a little bit of thinking will convince you that the space that we sense using this hypothetical sixth sense is Newtonian. Ici, space and time can be completely decoupled, absolute time can be defined etc. Starting from this space, we can actually work out how we will see it using light and our eyes, knowing that the speed of light is what it is. It will turn out, clairement, that we seen events with a delay. That is a first order (or static) effet. The second order effect is the way we perceive objects in motion. It turns out that we will see a time dilation and a length contraction (for objects receding from us.)

Let me illustrate it a little further using echolocation. Assume that you are a blind bat. You sense your space using sonar pings. Can you sense a supersonic object? If it is coming towards you, by the time the reflected ping reaches you, it has gone past you. If it is going away from you, your pings can never catch up. En d'autres termes, faster than sound travel is “forbidden.” If you make one more assumption – the speed of the pings is the same for all bats regardless of their state of motion – you derive a special relativity for bats where the speed of sound is the fundamental property of space and time!

We have to dig a little deeper and appreciate that space is no more real than time. Space is a cognitive construct created out of our sensory inputs. If the sense modality (light for us, sound for bats) has a finite speed, that speed will become a fundamental property of the resultant space. And space and time will be coupled through the speed of the sense modality.

Ce, bien sûr, is only my own humble interpretation of SR. I wanted to post this on a new thread, but I get the feeling that people are a little too attached to their own views in this forum to be able to listen.

Leo a écrit:Minkowski spacetime is one interpretation of the Lorentz transforms, but other interpretations, the original Lorentz-Poincaré Relativity or modernized versions of it with a wave model of matter (LaFreniere or Close or many others), work in a perfectly euclidean 3D space.

So we end up with process slowdown and matter contraction, but NO time dilation or space contraction. The transforms are the same though. So why does one interpretation lead to tensor metric while the others don’t? Or do they all? I lack the theoretical background to answer the question.

Hi Leo,

If you define LT as a velocity dependent deformation of an object in motion, then you can make the transformation a function of time. There won’t be any warping and complications of metric tensors and stuff. Actually what I did in my book is something along those lines (though not quite), as you know.

The trouble arises when the transformation matrix is a function of the vector is transforming. Si, if you define LT as a matrix operation in a 4-D space-time, you can no longer make it a function of time through acceleration any more than you can make it a function of position (as in a velocity field, par exemple.) The space-time warping is a mathematical necessity. Because of it, you lose coordinates, and the tools that we learn in our undergraduate years are no longer powerful enough to handle the problem.

Of Rotation, LT and Acceleration

Dans l' “Philosophical Implications” forum, there was an attempt to incorporate acceleration into Lorentz transformation using some clever calculus or numerical techniques. Such an attempt will not work because of a rather interesting geometric reason. I thought I would post the geometric interpretation of Lorentz transformation (or how to go from SR to GR) ici.

Let me start with a couple of disclaimers. First of, what follows is my understanding of LT/SR/GR. I post it here with the honest belief that it is right. Although I have enough academic credentials to convince myself of my infallibility, who knows? People much smarter than me get proven wrong every day. Et, if we had our way, we would prove even Einstein himself wrong right here in this forum, wouldn’t we? :D Deuxièmement, what I write may be too elementary for some of the readers, perhaps even insultingly so. I request them to bear with it, considering that some other readers may find it illuminating. Thirdly, this post is not a commentary on the rightness or wrongness of the theories; it is merely a description of what the theories say. Ou plutôt, my version of what they say. With those disclaimers out of the way, let’s get started…

LT is a rotation in the 4-D space-time. Since it not easy to visualize 4-D space-time rotation, let’s start with a 2-D, pure space rotation. One fundamental property of a geometry (such as 2-D Euclidean space) is its metric tensor. The metric tensor defines the inner product between two vectors in the space. In normal (Euclidean or flat) spaces, it also defines the distance between two points (or the length of a vector).

Though the metric tensor has the dreaded “tensor” word in its name, once you define a coordinate system, it is only a matrix. For Euclidean 2-D space with x and y coordinates, it is the identity matrix (two 1’s along the diagonal). Let’s call it G. The inner product between vectors A and B is A.B = Trans(A) G B, which works out to be a_1b_1+a_2b_2. Distance (or length of A) can be defined as \sqrt{A.A}.

So far in the post, the metric tensor looks fairly useless, only because it is the identity matrix for Euclidean space. SR (or LT), d'autre part, uses Minkowski space, which has a metric that can be written with [-1, 1, 1, 1] along the diagonal with all other elements zero – assuming time t is the first component of the coordinate system. Let’s consider a 2-D Minkowski space for simplicity, with time (t) and distance (x) axes. (This is a bit of over-simplification because this space cannot handle circular motion, which is popular in some threads.) In units that make c = 1, you can easily see that the invariant distance using this metric tensor is \sqrt{x^2 - t^2}.


Anti-relativité et Superluminality

Leo a écrit:J'ai quelques problèmes avec la partie introductive si, quand vous confrontez effets de voyage de la lumière et transforme relativistes. Vous dites à juste titre que toutes les illusions perceptives ont été déblayé dans la conception de la relativité restreinte, mais vous dites aussi que ces illusions perceptives sont restés comme base subconscient pour le modèle cognitif de la relativité restreinte. Dois-je comprendre que vous voulez dire ou je me trompe?

Les effets de perception sont connus dans la physique; ils sont appelés effets de lumière Voyage Heure (LTT, faire cuire un acronyme). Ces effets sont considérés comme une illusion d'optique sur la motion de l'objet observé. Une fois que vous prenez les effets LTT, vous obtenez l' “réel” mouvement de l'objet . Ce mouvement réel est censé obéir SR. C'est l'interprétation actuelle de SR.

Mon argument est que les effets LTT sont si semblables à la RS que nous devrions penser de SR comme une simple formalisation de LTT. (En fait, une formalisation légèrement erronée.) Beaucoup de raisons de cet argument:
1. Nous ne pouvons pas disentagle l' “illusion d'optique” parce que beaucoup de configurations sous-jacentes donnent lieu à la perception même. En d'autres termes, va de ce que nous voyons à ce qui cause notre perception est un à plusieurs problème.
2. SR transformation de coordonnées est partiellement fondée sur les effets LTT.
3. LTT effets sont plus forts que les effets relativistes.

Probablement pour ces raisons, ce SR-t-à-dire que ce que nous voyons est ce qu'il est vraiment. Il tente alors de décrire mathématiquement ce que nous voyons. (C'est ce que je voulais dire par une formaliztion. ) Plus tard, quand nous avons compris que les effets LTT n'ont pas tout à fait correspondre avec SR (comme dans l'observation d' “apparent” mouvement supraluminique), nous avons pensé que nous devions “sortir” les effets LTT et puis disent que le mouvement sous-jacent (ou l'espace et le temps) SR obéi. Ce que je dis dans mon livre et les articles que nous devrions juste deviner ce que l'espace sous-jacent et l'heure sont comme et travaillons sur ce que notre perception de celui-ci sera (parce que dans l'autre sens est un problème mal posé un-à-plusieurs). Ma première hypothèse, naturellement, était Galiléen espace-temps. Cette conjecture résultats dans un explantions plutôt soignées et simples de sursauts gamma et DRAGNs que booms luminal et leurs conséquences.