Is Relativity Reality?

[mistermack]

Energy based matter seems to be all there is. ( e=mc2 ).

Childinazoo, if you don't understant that, there is no hope for you.
.

[lpetrich]

Mistermack: time dilation is the result of moving fast through space, or by being located in a region of high spatial energy density.

But can you make QUANTITATIVE predictions of how much time dilation there will be? Mainstream physics can easily do that. Your physics can't.

Mainstream physics: 1
Farsight physics: 0

The latter is synonymous with a low gravitational potential, but not spacetime geometry. For example, if you were able to sit in a void at the centre of the earth, there's no spacetime curvature at that location, and no discernible gravity, hence you flaot around and you don't fall down. However this is the location where gravitational time dilation is at a maximum.

That's by continuity of gravitational potential, not from whatever word-drool you think is superior to making quantitative predictions.

It's low-energy proton-antiproton annhililation to neutral pions which decay in a femtosecond to gamma photons. All the "fundamental" quarks and gluons and strong force have totally disappeared, and all that's left is photons. You'll doubtless try to duck the issue by blustering on about cross-sections and charged pions, forgetting that they decay in a nanosecond to muons and neutrinos, and that muons then decay in a microsecond to electrons and neutrinos. And you'll also skate over the fact that the neutrino is a lepton. It isn't electromagnetic like the photon and the electron, but it certainly isn't some baryon.

I mentioned charged pions because you had chosen not to take them into account. As to those decays, they happen not because a charged pion contains a muon and a neutrino, but because it's energetically permissible. A charged pion can also decay into an electron and a neutrino, something that mainstream physics accounts for very well, even down to the branching fraction, but which your theories cannot.

[Farsight]

Yes, it's trivial. I've already show you Simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity. It's just Pythagoras' Theorem. And pair production and annihilation back up what Close said and mistermack's understanding. Particles are made of dynamical spatial stress-energy, the water-clock analogy goes to the heart of why we always measure the speed of light to be the same. Because in a nutshell, we're made of it. And all your desperate bluster can't hide the actual scientific evidence:

[ChildInAZoo]

Energy based matter seems to be all there is. ( e=mc2 ).

Childinazoo, if you don't understant that, there is no hope for you.
.

The problem is, I do understand it, whereas you simply want that equation to stand for some kind of fiction that you have created. If you want to justify your fiction, show me that all energy is electromagnetic energy.

[mistermack]

Energy based matter seems to be all there is. ( e=mc2 ).

Childinazoo, if you don't understant that, there is no hope for you.
.

The problem is, I do understand it, whereas you simply want that equation to stand for some kind of fiction that you have created. If you want to justify your fiction, show me that all energy is electromagnetic energy.

No, if you've got a point to make, make it. Tell us clearly what you're getting at. Everybody else on here makes their points clearly, you make vague hints and never get to the point. If you want to argue, make it specific, otherwise you're a waste of time. What forms of energy are you referring to, and why are they relevant exactly?
For once in your life, make a relevant point.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

I tried to make my point very clearly. Let's try again.

Even if sonar clocks show time dilation relative to the speed of sound that is like that we see in special relativity, this does not mean that all the time dilation that is produced by SR is from a similar source. That is, it does not follow that all time dilation is because of the bouncing around of light relative to detectors. We have identified non-electromagnetic processes that nonetheless occur in time and that nonetheless show time dilation of the sort we expect from SR. So Close is ignoring a very important difference in some physical systems, i.e., that there are some physical systems that are not electromagnetic.

Until someone actually makes the case that all processes are electromagnetic processes, then Close cannot complete his argument. In order to make the case that all physical processes are electromagnetic processes, someone will have to come up with an explanation that accurately captures all the measurements that we are able to do with physical systems.

[Farsight]

Close isn't ignoring anything. You are, and yours is a straw-man argument that also ignores patent scientific evidence. We do not describe nuclear processes as electromagnetic processes, but we note that low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation yields light. Those nuclear processes have been rendered down to electromagnetic processes, and the strong force has gone along with all the quarks and gluons. Hence we deduce that low gravitational potential, which reduces the rate of electromagnetic processes, will also reduce the rate of nuclear processes. And we can test this by comparing an atomic clock with a nuclear clock.

[ChildInAZoo]

You keep using words like "deduce" and "rendered down". Show us that this idea can capture the actually observed behaviour. Show us that we can use your theory to actually predict the results that we get in experiment. We are not members of the Church of Farsight; we know that you are the Pope, but it holds no weigh with us. Show us the numbers.

[Farsight]

No comment.

[mistermack]

We have identified non-electromagnetic processes that nonetheless occur in time and that nonetheless show time dilation of the sort we expect from SR. So Close is ignoring a very important difference in some physical systems, i.e., that there are some physical systems that are not electromagnetic.
.

This is why you're a waste of time. You say you are trying to be clear, and specific, but you just say "some processes" or "some physical systems". Is that your idea of being clear or specific?
Yet again, how can someone reply, or even follow your reasoning, when you don't say what you're talking about.
You seem to have a mental block of some sort. Why can't you say what you mean? Is it fear of getting something wrong? It's no big deal, you can learn from it, and correct it in a sentence.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

NUCLEAR DECAY.

[mistermack]

NUCLEAR DECAY.

There, that wasn't so hard was it? You could have gone a lot farther, but at least it's a start.
Now am I wrong, or is ALL THE MATTER in a nucleus directly convertible into energy? ( e=mc2 again ). And isn't ALL the interaction between fundamental particles done by electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak forces, all of which are properties of fields and limited by the speed of light?

Gravitational effects propagate at exactly the speed of light. Is that just a coincidence, or do you suspect any connection? And the same goes for any kind of particle. If they are totally foreign to light, why do they experience the same limit? Why not half the speed of light, or double?
We may not DESCRIBE nuclear processes as electormagnetic, but nobody is saying what fundamental particles are made of, they just say "fundamental" and magically, every scrap of that particle can become energy.
So I see no reason why nuclear decay is not energy based, and no reason why it shouldn't undergo time dilation for the same reason as everything else.

If you want to be clear and specific, tell us what you think fundamental particles consist of, why they can totally convert to energy, and why they are limited by c.
.

[ChildInAZoo]

So in order to combat your fiction, I should also come up with some fiction?

[lpetrich]

The Einstein speed c being a limiting speed is a result of the geometry of space-time. mistermack, why don't you try studying the math behind special relativity? If you can do some algebra, you won't find it all that difficult.

As to how particles can be created and annihilated, that is a consequence of quantum field theory. There's an extremely simplified example of how it works that's typically taught in physics-major quantum-mechanics courses, the quantum harmonic oscillator

You start with its "Hamiltonian", a function that equals its total energy. It is, of course, the sum of the kinetic and the potential energies:
H = (1/(2*m))*p2 + (1/2)*m*w2x2

The position x and the momentum p don't commute:
[x,p] = x*p - p*x = i*hbar

In the Schroedinger approach, you take p = - i*d/dx and solve a differential equation for the wavefunction, giving a rather complicated-looking solution in "Hermite polynomials" that has
energy = (n + 1/2)*hbar*w
for n a nonnegative integer.

Paul Dirac invented an alternative, the "ladder operator" approach, in which one substitutes:
x = sqrt(hbar/(2*m*w))*(a + a+)
p = -i*sqrt((2*m*w)/hbar)*(a - a+)
Their commutator becomes
[a,a+] = 1
and the Hamiltonian
H = hbar*w*(a+a + 1/2)

Now consider what happens when one multiplies a wavefunction by a or a+, and then by H.
H*(a+*wvfn)) = a+*(H + hbar*w)*wvfn
H*(a*wvfn) = a*(H - hbar*w)*wvfn
Let's consider the ground state, wvfn0. One cannot go less in energy than it, therefore,
a*wvfn0 = 0
H*wvfn0 = (1/2)*hbar*w*wvfn0
Now repeatedly multiply by a+:
H*(a+)n*wvfn0 = (n + 1/2)*hbar*w*(a+)n*wvfn0
Thus yielding energy = (n+1/2)*hbar*w as before.

The a+ is a "raising operator" or a "creation operator", while the a is a "lowering operator" or an "annihilation operator". Applying a+ n times adds n quanta of energy (hbar*w), while applying a n times subtracts n quanta of energy.

-

Now to quantum field theory. In it, one turns the field values into quantum-mechanical operators. The kinetic and mass terms are quadratic in them, and one can use the harmonic-oscillator approach on each of their wave modes. The field operators become sums of raising and lowering operators, one set for each mode, and these operators correspond to creation and annihilation of particles. For integer-spin particles, the number per mode can be any nonnegative integer (Bose-Einstein statistics; bosons), while for half-odd-spin particles, one finds that the number per mode can only be 0 or 1 (Fermi-Dirac statistics; fermions).

Let's now consider what an electromagnetic interaction looks like. I'll try to simplify it and ignore details like space-time structure of the fields. They won't affect the essential results, however.

Imagine a particle with field value F. Translated into QFT, F becomes an operator that creates a particle or annihilates its antiparticle. Likewise, its "Hermitian conjugate" F+ annihilates a particle or creates an antiparticle. The electromagnetic field comes in as A, the 4-vector potential. Translated into QFT, A becomes an operator that both creates and annihilates photons.

The interaction term of the Hamiltonian looks like
q*F+*F*A

where q is the particle's electric charge. Let us now see what can be created and annihilated.

1. Particle annihilated | particle created
2. Particle annihilated | antiparticle annihilated
3. Antiparticle created | particle created
4. Antiparticle created | antiparticle annihilated

Each reaction creates or annihilates 1 photon.

Possibility 1 yields a particle interacting with the electromagnetic field in familiar classical fashion. Likewise, possibility 4 yields an antiparticle doing that. If one does it carefully, one finds that the signs are opposite.

But possibility 2 is a particle and its antiparticle annihilating and producing a photon, while possibility 3 is a photon producing a particle and its antiparticle. Furthermore, from QFT, one can predict the strength of reactions 2 and 3 from reactions 1 and 4. And as far as can be determined in this and other cases, QFT comes out correct -- one gets the right pair production and annihilation rates whenever they can be calculated and compared to experiment.

[Farsight]

NUCLEAR DECAY.

There, that wasn't so hard was it? You could have gone a lot farther, but at least it's a start. Now am I wrong, or is ALL THE MATTER in a nucleus directly convertible into energy? ( e=mc2 again ). And isn't ALL the interaction between fundamental particles done by electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak forces, all of which are properties of fields and limited by the speed of light?

Gravitational effects propagate at exactly the speed of light. Is that just a coincidence, or do you suspect any connection? And the same goes for any kind of particle. If they are totally foreign to light, why do they experience the same limit? Why not half the speed of light, or double? We may not DESCRIBE nuclear processes as electormagnetic, but nobody is saying what fundamental particles are made of, they just say "fundamental" and magically, every scrap of that particle can become energy. So I see no reason why nuclear decay is not energy based, and no reason why it shouldn't undergo time dilation for the same reason as everything else.

If you want to be clear and specific, tell us what you think fundamental particles consist of, why they can totally convert to energy, and why they are limited by c.

And while you're at it, ChildInAZoo, tell us whether you think nuclear decay rates are affected by relativistic time dilation.

You're right mistermack.