On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:
> Replying to Blah Jim Choate wrote...
>
> >>It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against
> >>which speeds must be referenced.
>
> >Wrong.
>
> OK, Senior Choate,
Pot, Kettle, Black. You should consider asking Tim for membership in the
CACL contingent.
> let's try to communicate here. The phrase you missed in
> Blah's sentence above is "absolute reference frame", and this sentence is
> conscise and precise enough that had we sent it back to about 1890, they
> probably would have been able to derive special relativity from it.
And what -you- keep missing is his reference to -velocity-. There -is- a
reference frame against which -any- velocity can be measured, c. Thus his
statement is incorrect, as is yours. He is -not- talking about 'time' or
'space', he (and you) is in fact comparing apples and oranges.
Look at the Lorentz Transformation, what is 'v' compared to? 'c'.
There is -no- special time-space reference frame. That is -not- equivalent
to 'c' or 'velocity/speed'.
What is 'c'? It is a constant ratio between distance and time. That ratio
is a constant, axiomatically so for Relativity.
I suspect that what 'Blah' -meant- by his commentary that you couldn't
write a transformation for a photon was the fact the equation either
provides a '0' or 'infinity' as an answer depending on how one applies it
(eg time, mass respectively). Clearly photons interact with the cosmos so
they -must- be a valid candidate for an 'observer'. This means that there
must be a transformation to view the cosmos from their perspective. No
exceptions on that one, sorry. Photons are not -special-, otherwise we'd
have an axiomatic conflict and the whole house of cards comes crashing
down. If you believe that no such transform is constructable then don't
bother replying, it's a waste of both our energy. I'd also suggest you
take up another interest other than physics.
What I am saying is that the Lorentz Transform is not complete/sufficient
to explain what is going on. Whatever is going on with photons isn't magic
or anything else, it's just the way the cosmos works.
The transform works for all 'v' <'c', -but not equal to 'c'-. There is a
comparable transform we can look at to see the problem. Mapping a sphere onto
a plane. The mapping works for all points -but the N. pole- of the sphere.
Think of the north pole as comparable to 'c', or latitude is comparble to
'v' if you will.
>From relativity physics (and a little imagination to extend the results of
the transform if not it's absolute representation) we know the following:
- Photons are very weakly interacting particles, they have no mass
are are point-like, they are the boson for the EM force
All the QM 'paradoxes' we have discussed so far relate to some
sort of interaction with a photon, that implies to me that there
is something about a photon we don't understand
- When the v of a particle approaches c its mass grows without limit
Note that a photon has no rest mass, so there isn't anything to
grow to infinity. This appears to be a non-problem in viewing
the cosmos from a photons perspective.
- When the v of a particle approaches c it's time reference frame,
it's view of the rest of the cosmos's clocks approaches 0.
This means that from a photons perspective the cosmos has no time
reference.
- When the v of a particle approaches c it's distance scale, along
the line of flight, approaches 0.
From a photons perspective the cosmos has no distance along its
line of flight. There are some other issues that would seem to
imply that a photon has no particular 'line of flight' and that
would seem to imply that it sees the cosmos as a point in -any-
'direction'.
The typical example is to imagine yourself on a spaceship moving
toward 'c'. What does the cosmos look like as you look out the
window? It begins to form a ring around your axis with a black
void forward and backward. One may extrapolate
- The Lorentz Transform is written as a function of scalars, as
is your presentation of it, yet the actual cosmos is a set of
vectors. Now those vectors are written in reference to a
-particular- time-space reference frame. The principle of
simultaneity comes into play here.
One must be very careful about derivations of functions when
one feeds them the wrong data type.
Q: In the 2-slit experiment in what direction is the photons 'line of
flight' in relation to the axis of the two slits?
A: They are for all intents and purposes co-axial. From the photons
perspective the experimental apparatus has -no length-
One last commment, QM (or any science for that matter) is -not- religion.
It is -ok- to play with its assumptions (in fact its required). You make
the same mistake that Tim, Declan, and the rest of the CACL contingent
make. You believe you -know- and that is the end of the discussion. Your
loss my friend.
When you find a sacred cow, have a bar-b-que.
--
____________________________________________________________________
We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
are going to spend the rest of our lives.
Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
