Special Relativity: Alternatives?

[arkain101]

There is a group of concepts I have thouroughly thought out that I would like to discuss here.

These concepts are related to motion, light, and matter. In otherwords, it relates to the dilations described the theory of Special Relativity.

First I want to list the things that occur and can be measured in near speed of light velocities.


1)
As an object nears the speed of light its observable posistion becomes altered.

When an object is nearing very close to the speed of light the distance it is observed from becomes perportionally equal (the perportionallity is depending on how close the speed of light the observed object is traveling) to the distance the observed object travels in the time it takes for the light to cover that distance to the observer from the observed moving object.

The light takes time to reach you. In that time the object continues in motion. So when the light reaches the observer the posistion of that object may not be measured to where it really is. There is time between observation frames relative to the distance between them.

Note: this is to imagine an object traveling perpendicular to the observer.

2)
As an object travels directly away from an observer the time it takes for the light to reach that observer increases. So as an object accelerates away from an observer at nearly the speed of light, the time it takes for the light to reach the observer continually increases even if and when the light remains at a constant velocity. If the object travels 1 year away at nearly the speed of light, the time it takes for the observer to detect the object in that posistion will also take (aprox) a year. Thus when the light reaches the observer (which took a year) the object will now be close to 2 light years away.

Likewise, when an object travels towards an observer the light that comes from that object has less and less distance to travel. Thus the time it takes for the light to reach the observer will continually decrease. When the object nears the speed of light it keeps (a significant) pace with the light it is eminating, to the observer.

3)
When an object travels in any direction to an observer at a signifcant distance (where time visuals can be managable) at nearing the speed of light, the observer measures only the light of the object but not the object itself (with a ruler for example). Furthermore, what happens to the object directly is not measureable (because it is moving near the speed of light) but only the light that eminates from it is.

4)
Any observer, moving or not, can only detect light that has had an interatcion with them. The light that eminates from an observer is undectable, unmeasurable, and in a way like a phantom photon that may never be reached, and can in a sense allow it to not exist. However the only method to detect that photon is to have it absorbed by another object and reflected back to the observer. However at this point it is not the same photon.

5)
The wavelength of light from a moving object will always change to an observer as that object changes velocities. This is, anything that has a frequency increases distance between each 'peak' as the velocity increases. Because all forms of light are frequencies they will observed to change when eminating from a moving object in comparison to rest. (we must also assume the observer is at rest [note that when a person is at rest it also means they can not move their eyes if they want pure rest observations. Moving your eyes is a way to catch different angles of light and will change your observation details making the light coming from a moving object behave differently. However this is not all that important since measurements in most cases will be done by a machine and not the eyes, but it does help for minds eye thought experiment])


This is the list so far on the top of my head (I got no notes) of things which occur in motion systems, before we introduce any theory with Relativistic effects. This is to keep the discussion on track with the interests at hand.

So when objects increase speed and near the speed of light great distances are being covered very quickly and these lets say regular relative occurances should take place.

It is alloweable to ignore Special Relativity because its effects are not introduced in a significant way untill the velocities involved reach a specific value.

The regular effects in this list also do not appear in a significant way untill the velocities involved reach a specific value. (fractions of light speed as it were).


My request is to discuss the sections of this list and recieve your input.

[arkain101]

Are any of these effects used and input into current physics forumla?

I have spent some time studying SR and general physics, however I have failed to see these concepts considered or mentioned.

I dont have the mathamatical knowhow to crunch the numbers and see how these effects would play out, but I will see what I can put together. I know it can be difficult to follow so much description without combining it with maths and diagrams.

[arkain101]

I thought what I would do is add some observations of absolute basics in relation motion and force.


As an object moves it carries momentum that is relative to all other reference frames. It may have zero momentum for one frame and high momentum for another frame. Whether it has motion or not, momentum or not (kenetic energy or not) the object will only be able to move one direction and while moving one direction it will want to continue in a strait line untill affected by outside forces. Thus it is to say a body in motion or at rest can only obtain 1 dimension motion, that is infinite in direction relative to all other reference frames.

Any object that is taking a curved path of motion can be said to be under the influence of a force. So where a curved path is found so is a force found. Where a force is found curvature is found. This relates to objects with rotation. That which rotates, is under the influence of a force. Where there is a force, rotation may be found.

An object that is following a strait path is not under influence of force. As said before it can be many things to many different reference frames. It may be at rest or motion, in infinite directions, relatively. However, an object with rotation will always be intwined with force and will contain motion to ALL and any observation frame.

In the micro world things such as atoms and particles have spin/rotation, thus they have force amongst them.

There are these known fundamental forces. Gravity, Electromagnetic, Strong Nuclear, and weak nuclear. with the possibility of the casmir.

Where these forces are found there is found what we call mass that is entwined with these forces. If mass is found to be in motion it contains a force that can act upon a seperate frame.

I do not know what this all concludes, but as you can see I am listing basic occurances to develope a simple basic structure to work with.

Any responses are welcome. I want to make sure things are correct.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by arkain101

In the micro world things such as atoms and particles have spin/rotation, thus they have force amongst them.

Although this is an accurate description of composite particles and ensembles of particles such as protons, neutrons, and atoms, the term “spin” when applied to fundamental particles like electrons and quarks refers to a attribute more like charge, color, flavor, or several more obscure quantum attributes. The “spin” of the these fundamental particles appears to require no interaction with another particle. This is not simply a case of theoreticians fancifully borrowing a existing term for an unrelated quality – the spin of fundamental particles is similar to that of composite particles and macroscopic systems, having a axis and direction. It’s tempting to suspect that fundmental particles are not quite completely fundamental.

The wikipedia article section ”Spin of elementary and composite particles” briefly describes this.

There are these known fundamental forces. Gravity, Electromagnetic, Strong Nuclear, and weak nuclear. with the possibility of the casmir.

Although many sources (including the linked wiki article) state that the Casimir effect is unrelated to the other four known fundamental forces, I believe this characterization is inaccurate. To the best of my understanding, the force associated with the Casimir effect is due to the usual forces, mostly the electromagnetic. What is unusual about the Casimir effect is not the force associated with it, but the origin of the particles with which the force interacts.

There’s also an argument to be made that inertia is a special fundamental force that acts always in opposition to one of the four “regular” fundamental forces.

I said the same in a previous post, ”13 or 5” in the “How many forces do we know off in physics?” thread.

Other than noted above, arkain’s preceeding post seems to me an accurate summary of classical Newtonian physics

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by arkain101

I thought what I would do is add some observations of absolute basics in relation motion and force....

I do not know what this all concludes, but as you can see I am listing basic occurances to develope a simple basic structure to work with.

Any responses are welcome. I want to make sure things are correct.

I could be misguided, but it seems from the title of your thread that there is a disatisfaction with SR when gravity is not thrown into the mix. And so the word alternatives. What is it exactly that SR does not offer? And why the need to develope a simple basic structure to work with. Why not simply work with SR, or better yet general relativity. Why limit yourself to special cases of a more general theory.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by CraigD

]Casimir effect[/wiki] is unrelated to the other four known fundamental forces, I believe this characterization is inaccurate. To the best of my understanding, the force associated with the Casimir effect is due to the usual forces, mostly the electromagnetic. What is unusual about the Casimir effect is not the force associated with it, but the origin of the particles with which the force interacts.

Hey CraigD. Long time.

The Casimir effect would make a great subject for a new thread. The effect itself is easier to understand when waves are considered rather than particles. Simply put, the waves are zero-point energy fluctuations, ZPE, ZPF.
My guess is that Einstein's Lambda, the cosmological constant, is related to the above effect but the terms are not interchangable, i.e., lambda and the Casimir force are not synonyms. Either way the concept of four forces of nature (as we know them) sounds untenable.

[arkain101]

What is it exactly that SR does not offer? And why the need to develope a simple basic structure to work with. Why not simply work with SR, or better yet general relativity. Why limit yourself to special cases of a more general theory.

Thanks for the attentiont to the thread.

I want to work with the concepts and facts in the opening post because they are things that I am sure occur in high velocity motion, and I think I have come to understand they have been overlooked and possibly unknown.

Of course I could be wrong and if so, I would be happy to be corrected.

If it has been overlooked, and left out, then special relativity is incomplete and the very dilations that are predicted (and calculated) in the theory could have a completely alternative explanation.

This is why I find it important. I think if special relativity does not include these motion occurrances, such as; false object posistioning at near light speed velocities, then, the theory of SR can not be complete. If it is not complete (including all things in motion) then it is then false, and if it is false our conceptions of what happen are also wrong.


As I understand it, SR does not include such occurances at near light speed velocites. I think there is the possibility that the result of excluding these occurances will lead to a result of the exact things included in SR. These things being dilations of dimensions (in comparison to, lets say.... dilation in observation perception?).

I think but I am not absolutly positive, that if you work these factors into the math of high velocity motion there will not be the same or no dilations to deal with.

I hope this explains it clear enough.

I am stating that the dilations predicted in SR may have an alternative explanation. That explanation is in the principles of motion that I described.

I know, far fethced, but its worth a shot to me.

[arkain101]

Title: Combing these principles into Alternative SR theory that aligns with quantum mechanics.


The theory that is formed is a theory of an possible alternative of special relativity.

What I discovered was what the following princple that I stated earlier (quote) translates into;

1)As an object nears the speed of light its observable posistion becomes altered.

When an object is nearing very close to the speed of light the distance it is observed from becomes perportionally equal (the perportionallity is depending on how close the speed of light the observed object is traveling) to the distance the observed object travels in the time it takes for the light to cover that distance to the observer from the observed moving object.

The light takes time to reach you. In that time the object continues in motion. So when the light reaches the observer the posistion of that object may not be measured to where it really is. There is time between observation frames relative to the distance between them.

The above is saying that the motion of bodies in the macro scale also contains the same or very similar (hiesenberg) uncertainty principle. That is that this relativity aligns with quantum mechics principles.

(in very high velocity scenarios)
To elaborate; As an observer measures the posistion of a moving body (of any size) they are left unable to prove the objects momentum. This is because any moving object can be measured in two forms. It can be measured by causing it to have a collision, which detects its posistion and momentum, or it can be measured by detecting its velocity and posistion via the light that eminates from that object.
The earlier is uncertain but predictable, but not proveable, the latter is certain and proveable.

thus It can be said that an object can be measured in two ways. One that is certain and one that is not, one that is in particle form and one that is in wave form.

The reason for this,
The objects position in high velocity (near light speed) systems is able to escape instantanious report to observer. It is also able to accellerate into time of report. This is, as a particle moves away, or perpendicular to an observer at a significant velocity the light that comes from that object will take a period of time to travell the # distance from object to observer, and as it does, the object itself will be predicted to continue on its path. Predicted because the measurement can no longer be instant enough to know what the object is doing in the present.
The object to the observer will act like it is moving into the future. In the same way the actions on the sun are in our 'future' and take time to reach us, the action of the moving object likewise acts as if it is in the future, it is no longer instantanious measurement.

The direction of movement of the moving object will be the cause for the occurances of the observation. If the object moves towards an observer a clock will apear to accelerate, and the posistion of the object will not be certain, depending on its distance. If the object moves perpendicular, a clock will act in sync with the observer due to the moment where distance is not changing between the frames. Finally as an object accelerates more away from an observer a clock will apear to slow down, and the posistion of the object will become uncertain but theoretically predictable.

However, in this case a clock is not what measures time in the conventional way. The rate a clock ticks in the observers frame is its own constant, this is, as long as that clock remains at rest the period length between tocks will remain constant. When a clock at rest is compared to a clock in a moving moving frame, it is only the light that displays the moving clock -IN THE OBSERVERS FRAME- which is used to observe and measure the difference between the clocks. However, the observation can reach no further than outside its own rest frame.
When put in short it means any change that occurs is in the light but not in the clocks own material.

It is important to note that this difference in clock tick is not as intwined with passage of time in the frames. The reason for this is any observation made is an observation made in the observing frame, any distance outside that frame is undetectable and impossible to reach and must be introduced as a law to understand this relativity.

Time, as it were, ticks by in syncronization for the matter in each frame. Thus regardless of distance all matter may act in syncronicity. However the light that traverses between any frame may alter the measurement of time comparison, and run in difference.

We end up with, as I understand (hopefully) coinciding an alternative SR theory to quantum mechanics theory due to the fact they both share the uncertainty princple, and mesh in macro and micro.

Here we have a list of what is described in this theory, (in this post).

- the uncertainty principle in both micro and macro (quantum thoery and Relativity)
- The wave particle duality of both light and matter
- syncronicity between systems
- dilations observed in an observers frame
- Time, the observation of time, and the conception of time.

[Farsight]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Special Relativity, arkain. I don't think the observed position really makes the difference you're looking for. I also think that waves and particles are a red herring, frames don't matter, and clocks don't matter. These things are all related to how you experience the world, not how it is. What really counts is events. Like when you collide with a fast moving object. Then there's no doubt, no argument, and everything's cut and dried. If there is a link to be made between SR an QM, IMHO it'll be by focusing more on the events and less on the party tricks of relativistic travel. Sorry.

[KickAssClown]

Well, Popular, I wouldn't be so dismissive of Arkain's studies. What he is talking about here regarding observed position and real position at relativistic speeds is rather germaine to the whole of physics.

What he is discussing here is fundamentally what we would call Heisenberg Uncertainty, which is huge to quantum mechanics.

Events are good and all, but what happens if an event happens further into your future, and their past? See in this, arkain quite correctly points out that for an object at near the speed of light, the position that we observe would not be the actual "current" position of the object, but rather it's doppler.

How then can you accurately predict the object's position, and when-where an event will occur, if you do not know it's real world position?