Science Forums 2

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by Bombadil

In fact if they did not give the same expectations one of them would seem to have to be flawed or at least incomplete.

That is the central issue of special relativity: how does one transfer the measurements made in one inertial frame of reference to those made in a second inertial frame of reference moving with respect to the first. It is the actual measurements of the actual phenomena which is of significance. Central to the whole question is the idea that physics (the explanation of reality which is physics) must allow us to explain how that is to be accomplished. The explanation (the physics itself) is not to be changed. Any “change” would clearly be seen as a flaw.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

I assume that by, “by excellent I mean that the nature of the phenomena behind these measures is presumed to be well understood.” that you mean that the object must behave the same over any particular measurement. That is if something is measured at one time and then at a latter time then the measurements will agree or if a particular event is measured at one time the same event will have the same measurements at a latter time. And so by using such a property to define a measure a unit measure will always have the same properties (they will be considered to be the same length) in any frame.

No I do not mean any such thing. That is why I put it the way I did! How these measures are to be established is of utterly no consequence so long as the the procedure used is not confused by either party; that they will agree that the procedure being used is the “correct” procedure as per their explanation of reality (their “physics”). My presentation is much more open to alternate possibilities than is your statement.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

Now since any flaw-free explanation must be scale invariant there must exist frames in which two rods defined to be a unit of measurement by any particular event that is the same property of the explanation was used to define the units of measure.

That sentence just doesn't make any sense to me. The flaw-free explanation is scale invariant when the entire universe is included. If you have a solution (an explanation) and that explanation includes a “scale” obtained by some procedure (internal to that universe) and you change the scale of the entire universe, the scale used in that explanation changes in exactly the same way. That is scale invariance. The problem arises when the two observers are leaving out different pieces of the universe (which is exactly what they are doing when they each propose their frame of reference is inertially “at rest”): i.e., they are presuming that the motion of the far away portions of the universe are of no significance to their physics (their explanation). The consequence of that fact is that, to quote you, “the observers will not agree on what they see” if their personal universes are scale invariant. The obvious answer is that they can not be scale invariant. Their “Physics” must establish a mechanism which “explains” the transformation required.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

So the solution is that if the scale of the flaw-free explanations differ by exactly the Lorentz transformation then both observers can measure the same events and while their measurements will not agree they will agree on what happened if the measurements are transformed into any particular reference frame.

Let us say that their explanations of what happened will agree if those explanation include such a transformation.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

This does not however prove that the explanation obeys the Lorenz transformation only that if it does then there is no frame that is proffered over any other frame and that measurements in one frame can be changed to any other frame.

I think you have the horse on entirely the wrong side of the cart here. You should have said, “This does not however prove that the explanation obeys the Lorenz transformation; only that, if it does not, the explanation is flawed in that “the rest of the universe can not be omitted”. It is entirely possible that the proper “physics” (the flaw-free explanation requires information about the rest of the universe).

We already know that the background microwave radiation sets up a unique frame of reference wherein the common inertial frames used in physics are not at rest. People today commonly speak about the motion of our solar system or our galaxy through the universe so there is very definitely a “preferred” inertial frame. What they don't talk about is the possibility that the “laws of physics” could be a function of that motion. I am afraid my presentation leaves that issue open. Einsteinian relativity presumes such a thing is impossible; however, no such independence of that frame has ever actually been proved. As a matter of fact, when and if we get into general relativity, the issue rises again in a somewhat different form.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

So this is what the reason for using an element that has zero movement in the direction is for. It gives a very convenient way to define time or distance assuming that one has already been defined, because such elements will have the same speed no matter what frame they are in after speed has been defined. Its speed is in fact scale invariant, that is, no matter what the scale of the equation is after speed has been defined it’s speed will be the same in any frame. And so it can be used in any reference frame and the same result will be arrived at. However the speed being invariant is not necessary, all that is necessary is that objects in different frames behave in the same way independent of the scale.

Once again, I find your statement rather askew of what I am saying. I think everything would be clearer if you just left this paragraph out. I certainly would not agree with it.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

Now since Schrödinger’s equation is a solution to the fundamental equation this allows you to define a particular object in a rest frame to be a unit of distance.

Again I find your statement confused. Schrödinger's equation being an approximate solution to my equation implies that “objects” (the structure of which physics explains through Schrödinger's equation) can also be an approximate solution to my equation: i.e., what we call “physical objects” can exist and will obey standard Newtonian rules.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

The question then becomes the problem of moving such an object from one frame into any other frame.

The question then becomes the problem of examining such an object from two different frames. There is no problem of moving such an object: movement from one inertial frame to another occurs all the time in Newtonian mechanics.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

This shows that there exists a way on moving from one frame to any other frame that is adding momentum to the fundamental equation. Now when we compare this to the Schrödinger equation, adding momentum in this way results in adding velocity to a object to change it to a new reference frame.

Yes, but the solution is only flaw-free in the original inertial frame: i.e., these are your expectations if you take the position that the moving frame is “wrong”.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

So all that is being used is that energy and momentum will behave like they do in Newtonian physics and that it is possible to form objects?

Yes!

Originally Posted by Bombadil

So in effect since movement along the direction has no effect in the finale analysis of the problem and any difference from zero of the terms would just be integrated out and so would make no difference in the final analysis of the problem. So there is no reason to assume that there is any reason that the mass operators will sum to zero as it will have no effect in the final analysis of the problem.

Essentially yes.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

But isn’t it also true that if we where to try and define simultaneity in any other way then the results would still have to differ from one frame to another. Unless of course, we define simultaneity to only exist in a particular frame and use it as the rest frame and do all of our calculations in that frame which is not a practical solution to the problem.

Yes, I would have to agree with that; however, you need to define “a practical solution”. Remember, we are talking about an explanation which yields our expectations. An explanation is flaw-free if it does indeed yield our expectations. If, as the basis of our explanation, we are going to presume that there is nothing in our “local” measurements which can identify that preferred frame, then our explanation must include exactly the relativistic transformations we have deduced.

What you have to comprehend is the fact that our solutions (the problems physics can solve exactly) can not be “general many body problems” and are essentially restricted to interactions between two bodies, the things our physics can explain are totally limited to phenomena which obey the transformations we have deduced. Essentially, this can not be taken to imply our expectations are correct. We may perhaps discover events which contradict a physics deduced under such a constraint. In particular, the assumption that such transformations of physics to relativistic velocities compared to the rest frame of the background microwave radiation will have no consequences is an assumption. One which I suspect is in error and I will explain that problem when I get into general relativity.

Have fun -- Dick