Relativity Trail Copyrighted material. © relativitytrail.com Cite (Book): Internet Archives APA Book Luebeck, R. Relativity Trail. Mpls: L B Writ Publishing, (2008) Cite (this web page)
09/25/2011 update, reflecting news from CERN: (Main document is below) The absolute interpretation of relativity, as presented in Relativity Trail, is unaffected, and in fact would be elevated, by the recent results from the OPERA detector in Gran Sasso, Italy, which detected neutrinos generated at CERN arriving sooner than expected, indicating they were moving faster than light. First note that Relativity Trail is completely consistent with Einstein's relativity, with its effectively equivalent inertial frames, including the consistent measured speed of light in all inertial frames. In Relativity Trail, the effects of relativity are deduced by considering that clock functioning, as well as the speed of our perceptions, are dictated by the finite speed of light. The only relevant issue is that all phenomena is constrained by some finite speed, which is what light speed is regarded as, whether it is the maximum speed or not. In Einstein's relativity, it is deduced that the speed of light is the maximum speed, based on assumptions about time. With that arbritrary starting point, he made relativity more sacred than it should have been, with the subsequent shrieking we now hear. Well, perhaps it has now been experimentally confirmed that the effects of relativity are, as claimed in Relativity Trail, a very close approximation of reality. It is plausible, as mentioned on page 20 of Relativity Trail, that a photon may have nil, rather than zero mass. If a neutrino's speed is greater than that of a photon, a precise enough measure would reveal that, leaving us to conclude that a photon actually has a very tiny mass, as does a neutrino. In fact, it's well known that unless we consider photons as having some rest mass, certain definitions and equations of physics break down. The development and understanding of relativity in Relativity Trail are unnaffected by such considerations. As explained in Relativity Trail, the effects of relativity are, in either case, actually an approximate effect, dependent on the complexity of the universe, since the sum total of the universe itself serves as the ultimate and true frame of reference for motion and acceleration. That frame of reference changes some tiny amount with every action of any particle in the universe. It's really not fundamentally different from the Uncertainty Principle. An object's inertial properties (e.g. mass) are integral to its relationship with totality. Because the effects of relativity are ever more precise with an increasingly complex universe, relativity is virtually true in our very complex universe. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From page 35: "This has everything to do with the notion of complexity giving rise to the meaningfulness of physical properties, which is implicit in all our arguments pertaining to an object's relationship to totality. A very simple universe would impart inertial properties in a much rougher manner than does the universe in which we live, and those properties would mean much less." From page 121 (3rd edition, c 2010): "Now from the God's eye view we can assess the dynamics of a, say, three component universe. As noted on pages 35 and 140-141, such a simple universe will produce cruder results: There will be substantial time contraction for all three components, assuming their "masses" are comparable to one another. But there really isn't much to talk about here. It's irrelevant to the extent that it is not nearly complex enough to produce the virtual absolute effects as we know them." From page 141 (different page number for 1st and 2nd edition) regarding the effect on the rest of the universe when an object moves: "Technically, this is true even for the universe as it actually is. It's just that it is far too small an effect to be detected or to be of any practical consequence."
Relativity in Absolute Terms
A Twins Paradox Animation
diagramming special relativity in the absolute frame of reference.
This diagram will be animated further down the page.
Before moving on to the twin paradox animation,
you should take a minute to familiarize yourself
with some basic information by reading these
few paragraphs:
Consider the following simple situation which all physicists
will agree upon:
An outbound astronaut can start his clock as he passes by Earth.
That outbound astronaut's clock might record 100 hours during his
outbound journey. An inbound astronaut can start his clock at the
moment he passes by the outbound astronaut. The inbound astronaut's
clock might record 100 hours during his inbound journey. The Earth
clock might show a reading of 250 hours at the moment the inbound
astronaut passes by Earth. Thus, the Earth clock will register 250
hours while the combined recorded time for the outbound and inbound
astronauts' clocks is only 200 hours. One can thus hold two renunited
clocks in ones hand and see a disparity of 50 hours.
(If, instead, a second astronaut had started his clock as he passed
Earth, and were traveling fast enough to overtake the first astronaut,
then the combined recorded time of the Earth clock and the second
astronaut's clock would be less than the recorded time of the first
astronaut's clock. The time contraction formula is not linear. The
time registered on a clock is dependent on the combination of speed
and distance covered in relation to the universe. Thus, the party
that changes inertial frames will be the party whose clock registers
the least time.)
You might find the following surprising: The most revered relativist
of our time, John A. Wheeler of Princeton, states in no uncertain terms
that during no interval of the preceding scenarios does anyones clock
run any slower than anyone elses. Instead he attributes the disparity
in the clock readings to a "misperception" on the part of the
inbound astronaut.
This might also surprise you: Virtually all commentators on
relativity sign on to that explanation. The "misperception"
explanation (often called a "miscalculation") is interminably
bound with the "sudden tilt of a line of simultaneity", "Einstein's
clock synchronization" and a "jump in time". They are all one and
the same thing.
Just as acceleration is not involved in the "paradox", niether is any force.
Yet, without fail, examiners appeal to the experience of force associated with
a change of inertial frames, as if some force could affect the transfer of a
clock reading from one inertial frame to another.
Another fatal mistake made by examiners of the "paradox" (a paradox strictly of
their own making) is to apply Einstein's clock synchronization (identically
space-time) to the "paradox". It is responsible for the notorious "jump in time".
Without Einstein's clock synchronization, there is no spacetime.
Einstein's clock synchronization is a convention.
It is optional. All the measuring results of relativity
can be deduced independent of Einstein's clock synchronization.
Therefore, spacetime is optional. Spacetime is simply a geometrical
representation of Einstein's clock synchronization. A person
cannot travel along a world line, because
there is no world line. A world line is simply a geometrical construct.
A person can travel through space
while his clock is ticking. That is all a person can do.
A spacetime diagram is not an explanation for what has created
the time differential between two reunited clocks. With
or without Einstein's clock synchronization,
there will be a time differential, with the party whose change
of frames facilitates the reunion being the one who ages the least.
Recall that the time dilation equation is not linear.
What has created the time differential? The rate at which one ages
is dependent on ones speed relative to the speed of light.
The total aging of a person is dependent on the combination
of his speed and distance traveled in absolute terms.
A simple discussion of the twins paradox of special relativity must incorporate
the transfer of clock information from an "outgoing" astronaut to an "incoming"
astronaut; otherwise acceleration would need to be involved, and acceleration
is not involved in any kinematical effects of special relativity. The time
differential between two reunited clocks is deduced through purely uniform
linear motion considerations, as seen in Einstein's original paper on the
subject, as well as in all subsequent derivations of the Lorentz transformations.
The twins paradox (and special relativity) can be analyzed in the context of the
absolute frame of reference, wherein the sum total of the universe constitutes
an experimentally indiscernable rest state. Though experimentally indiscernable,
such frame of reference shows, in an actual sense, what is generating the
observational effects of special relativity.
Photons, being massless, move at constant speed relative to the universe,
and dictate time-keeping of EVERY nature. (At the subatomic level, we
also speak of virtual photon events, wherein communication occurs at light
speed without any energy exchange.)
(All processes -- chemical, biological, measuring apparatus
functioning, human perception involving the eye and brain, the
communication of force -- everything, is constrained by the speed of
light. There is clock functioning at every level, dependent on light
speed and the inherent delay at even the atomic level.)
The time registered on a clock is dependent on the combination of speed and
distance covered in relation to the universe. The time contraction formula
is not linear. Thus, the party that changes inertial frames will be the party
whose clock registers the least time over the course of a "round trip".
Note that time-keeping, distance and speed are interminably bound in one
equation. Thus, to acknowledge various states of actual motion relative
to the universe (as opposed to merely observed differences) is to acknowledge
various states of actual clock rates (as opposed to merely observed differences)
and various states of actual lengths of rigid bodies (as opposed to merely
observed differences).
======================================================
The animations below illustrate two basic possibilities for completing a round
trip between two parties. They show the symmetry in time differentials,
and corollary to that, the impossibility of anyone determining their true
motion status relative to the universe.
For maximum clarity, the trips themselves involve just a light second or two
in distance, and all parties make use of photon clocks which are a whopping
1/2 light second in width. The photon clocks tell the story of time
contraction.
In the twins paradox animation below, an astronaut and a space station occupant
start their clocks as the astronaut passes by. A second, incoming, astronaut
starts his clock as he passes by the first astronaut. The incoming astronaut
and the space station occupant stop their clocks as the incoming astronaut
passes by the space station.
In the twin paradox animation below, an astronaut and a space station occupant
start their clocks as the astronaut passes by. A second, also outbound,
astronaut starts his clock as he passes by the space station. This second
astronaut chases down the first astronaut. As the first astronaut is caught,
both astronauts stop their clocks.
The time contraction formula is easily obtained from the above diagrams.
For instance, in the first diagram (animation), the clock at rest with the
universe ticks off one cycle while the traveling clock ticks off .8 of a cycle.
A simple application of the Phythagorean Theorem yields:
t' = t * sqr rt of ( 1 - V^2 )
where t' is the time recorded by the traveler,
t is universal time (full clock rate, since at rest with the universe),
and v is the speed of the traveler.
Keep in mind that the traveler, moving at .6 light second
per second of universal time, went a distance, in absolute
terms, of .6 light second.
A photon went the same distance in the station's clock as
it did in the traveler's clock, namely, 1 light second.
Thus, .8 = 1 * sqr rt of ( 1 - .6^2)
= 1 * sqr rt of ( 1 - .36)
= 1 * sqr rt of ( .64 )
= .8
(There is no need to use c (light speed) in the equation, since
we are using units of light seconds. Light travels one light
second in one second.)
See the book Relativity Trail for more details, including
an analysis of how all parties involved assess each other's
clock speed and lengths in mutually symmetrical fashion,
as well as detailed derivations of length contraction,
the Lorentz transformations and e = mc^2.
==================================================
That two reunited clocks show a disparity in their recorded time is
proof that the two clocks experienced actual differing clock rates
while in differing states of uniform linear motion. If the disparity
one can see at the same place moment is a reality, then so too is the
notion of actual differing clock rates a reality. Those two realities
are inseparable. They are one and the same reality.
Regardless of the fact that the structure of space is ever evolving,
the twins paradox (twin paradox or clock paradox) can be understood
only in the context of an absolute frame of reference, in which the
speed of light is constant in an absolute sense, while clock rates
and lengths of rigid bodies vary in an absolute sense. "Absolute
sense" here refers to the "God's eye view" or the view from a
higher dimension, not to an unchanging structure. In this context,
no twins paradox arises because clock rates do actually vary. Such
treatment of special relativity is completely consistent with, and in
fact subsumes, Einstein's special relativity, with its effective
(observational) equivalence of inertial frames, including the consistent
measured speed of light in all inertial frames.
From the vantage point of a higher dimension, clock speeds and lengths
of rigid bodies are seen in absolute terms and the time differential
is easily explained by virtue of actual differences in clock rates.
In this treatment of special relativity, incorporating the absolute
(universal) frame of reference, clock functioning is seen to be dependent
on the speed of light. Similarly, the postulated need for stability at
the base of our structures (which parallels the Principle of Relativity)
in combination with the constant speed of light and the notion that
no information can exceed the speed of light, dictates length contraction
for objects in motion relative to the universal frame of reference
(absolute frame of reference).
Postulate 1:
The speed of light is constant and is the maximum speed for any
phenomena, including the transmission of positioning information.
Basis: Experiments towards the end of the nineteenth
century pointed towards a transformational relationship
between matter and energy (radioactivity experiments).
Einstein's interpretation of Max Planck's solutions
for discreet energy levels introduced the notion of
light existing as a massless photon. Being massless,
the photon would necessarily possess constant and
maximum speed.
Postulate 2:
Stability (synchronization) is required at the base of our
structures (specifically atomic functioning).
Basis: This simply parallels the Galilean Principle of Relativity.
All of Einstein's results stem from these two postulates. These two
postulates may look similar to Einstein's postulates, but are not his
postulates.
=========================================================
You'll often hear it said, concerning inertial frames, that "there is
no truth of the matter", and that "absolute motion is a meaningless
concept". However, if one were to hold to that, then one could argue
that a change of inertial frames is meaningless, because we could
just as well assume that the universe itself had changed inertial frames,
rather than the astronaut. That would make the twins paradox irresolvable.
Of course, one should never even need consider the preceding point,
since the reality of the time differential between reunited clocks
tells us plainly that the universe itself is the truth of the matter,
the imparter of all our inertial properties, such as clock speed and
length.
Accepting the fact that there is an interconnectedness between all
particles in the universe, just as we see in general relativity,
is the key to understanding that clock rates and lengths of rigid
bodies vary in an absolute (or universal) sense. The complexity of
the universe insures that all physical phenomena (including relativistic
effects) have a smoothness, a high degree of predictability, a virtual
absoluteness of character.
Again - there is no twins paradox, and there is no jump in time, either
real or as measured by any traveler. A clear presentation of relativity,
utilizing the absolute (and constant) speed of light through an absolute
frame of reference, both precludes any such paradox and subsumes
Einstein's treatment. Detailed diagrams and arithmetical anaylsis in
absolute terms of all kinematic effects of special relativity can be
found in the book Relativity Trail.
I have other documents online which expand on this topic: Twinparadox.pdf includes a table of an analysis of the incrementally building time differential of the Twins Paradox. Relativitytrail_abstract.pdf discusses the absolute version of Einstein's postulates. Twins Paradox Theory discusses the basics of motion in absolute terms. Twins Paradox Explained A lively discussion about the misperceptions common among leading physicists. Relativity Trail, with 210 pages, 65 diagrams and 75 illustrations, will provide you with complete detailed arithmetical derivations of all the kinematical effects of special relativity. Everything is charted out in absolute terms against the rest state of the universe for perfect clarity as well as soundness of theoretical basis. It is the totality of the universe that imparts the inertial properties of clock rates and lengths which generate the effects of relativity. This is explained in detail in Relativity Trail. Copyrighted material. © relativitytrail.com