meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3089
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 777
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #400 on: 12/16/2017 03:29 pm »
Given 2 clocks with a relative velocity that are spatially separated, we have an ambiguous situation.
If by ambiguous, you mean reciprocal, then yes. That is the point of reciprocity that you can't tell which is "moving" and it doesn't matter.

If we "assume" the 2 clocks were synchronized when they passed each other, this alone says nothing about the rate of either clock because it is only 1 event.
Really it says nothing at all other than that they had noted the time delta between their clocks when they first passed each other and you are subtracting it off for simplicity.

Work must be done to one of the clocks to bring them back together. It is the clock that had no work done to it, that will have the longest elapsed time. Okay?
As long as you allow "work done to" to include negative values of work, that is fine, though referring to it as the one that accelerated may be clearer and easier to generalize.

...You talk about objects traveling through the earths gravitational field with velocities relative to the center of mass of the earth but in fact we are much deeper into the sun's gravity field than we are the earth's. Shouldn't we use the sun as the center of gravity of of our "region of space"? I think your whole idea of such a "region of space" is incoherent.

The whole point of a transform like the Galilean transform or the Lorentz transform is that it allows you to calculate how things look from any frame of reference at all. Until you define a mathematical WarpTech transform that defines your "region of space" and allows us to transform between between any region at all you have nothing. I think it will be more difficult than you think to come up with such a transform. But good luck.
Exactly, this is one of the main things I have been trying to say, but haven't said clearly enough.
« Last Edit: 12/16/2017 03:31 pm by meberbs »

Povel

• Member
• Posts: 89
• Liked: 49
• Likes Given: 18
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #401 on: 12/17/2017 12:32 am »
I'm sorry if this was already mentioned somewhere in the previous pages, but I wonder if anyone here reads Sabine Hossenfelder's blog.

She wrote a quite interesting piece on FTL and paradoxes a couple of years ago (comments are fairly interesting too)

I think her point could be summarized by saying that the way to solve such paradoxes is to acknowledge the fact that, for macroscopic objects, there exist a sort of "preferred frame" given by the unidirectionality of the arrow of time that is overimposed on top of fundamentally time-symmetric interactions.

She also posted a link to an article by Nemiroff and Russell where they calculate explicitly when the closed loop starts going back in time.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.07489

One surprising conclusion is that there's an interval of superluminal speeds that doesn't lead to time travel in the past.

WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1407
• Do it!
• Statesville, NC
• Liked: 1453
• Likes Given: 1925
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #402 on: 12/17/2017 03:28 am »
It is the clock that had no work done to it, that will have the longest elapsed time. Okay?

That is true of a completed journey where the clocks end up in the same place. But that isn't exactly new. Of course you have to accelerate in order to travel a different path through space/time. It is simple geometry.

But the situation is still symmetric.

Say you have two spaceships with twin one in ship one and twin two in ship two. Now say both twins crawl into a hibernation unit after which one of the ships accelerate to some velocity away. The twins awaken to see relative velocity between them but don't know which of them accelerated.
This is what I mean by "ambiguous". Just because they do not know which one accelerated does not mean that it didn't happen.

So what can they do to determine who has the real velocity and slow clock? After all they see each others clock as slow. If twin one travels back to twin two he will find that the twin one clock is slow. But if twin two travels back to twin one he will find that the twin two clock is slow. Exactly reciprocal.
Say it was twin one who accelerated and twin two did not. Didn't this acceleration affect his clock? If twin two accelerates to catch up to him, then when they meet and are at rest wrt each other, both of their clocks are running slower than before they went into hibernation. Had twin one returned to twin two, then the rate of their clocks would be the same as it was before hibernation. The situation is not symmetrical, it only "appears" to be because the set-up of the problem is ambiguous.

Under special relativity neither clock can be said to be slower or faster than the other until they end up at the same place. Yes it is the acceleration of one or the other that causes one clock to be slower. But it isn't some physical effect of acceleration on the clock mechanism that causes a clock to slow. Ultimately the speed of the clock depends on the path it takes through space/time and acceleration changes that path. It is simple geometry.
...
« Last Edit: 12/17/2017 03:29 am by WarpTech »

KelvinZero

• Senior Member
• Posts: 4311
• Liked: 888
• Likes Given: 201
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #403 on: 12/17/2017 03:52 am »
I'm sorry if this was already mentioned somewhere in the previous pages, but I wonder if anyone here reads Sabine Hossenfelder's blog.
...
Hi Povel,
Looks like she has come to one of the same conclusions we did, with more math

(Paradoxes are avoided if you require the CMB temperature to always be lower at your destination.. ie the universe has to be higher entropy and 'older' . Since relativistic travel also has this property, therefore no combination of this sort of ftl and relativistic travel could get you back to the same point before you left, ie when the universe was a bit hotter.)

I'll paste it into the OP as a reference.

dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 905
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 313
• Likes Given: 355
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #404 on: 12/17/2017 05:21 pm »
One reason I suspect there is no actual time travel involved in relativity, only an apparent time travel, is the behavior of current.

Let's take a current loop in the lab frame.  When a current is applied to a wire the charge picks up a very small velocity.  If all the current around the loop actually Lorentz contracts representing some time travel aspect we will get some serious change in charge in the lab frame and a non-conservation of charge.  The reason for this is because if a Lorentz contraction happens all around the loop we get a time helix of charge where the perimeter is larger than 2*pi*r.

Such changes in charge of such a wire lead to massive voltage induced by local capacitance.  V=Q/C .

There are some strict constraints on charge conservation which seem to suggest a lack of actual time travel, unless I am missing something fundamental about it.  As such this may (depending on experimental evidence) preclude such time paradoxes from actually happening and just the local clock is being modified or slowed/sped back up some how with out actually allowing real time travel.

You will notice in Purcell's book "Electricity and Magnetism" for instance there appears to be no Lorentz contraction between charges during charge acceleration in a current loop.  This appears to imply charge conservation.

$\begin{matrix}&space;\textsc{electrons/m}=\rho_{\,copper}&space;\cdot&space;(r^2&space;\pi)=8.49&space;\cdot&space;10^{28}&space;(0.0005^2&space;\cdot&space;3.14159)&space;\\&space;\textsc{columbs/electron}=1.60217662&space;\cdot&space;10^{-19}&space;\\&space;\textsc{columbs/m}=\textsc{electrons/m}\cdot&space;\textsc{columbs/electron}&space;\\&space;\textsc{m/s}_{charge}=(\textsc{columbs/s})/(\textsc{columbs/m})&space;\\&space;\textsc{Lorentz&space;contraction}=dL=L-L_o\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}=L-L_o(v/c)\sqrt{1/(v/c)^2-1}&space;\\&space;(\textsc{columbs/m})\cdot(\text{dL}_{\,wire})=\textsc{change&space;in&space;charge&space;of&space;wire}&space;\end{matrix}$
« Last Edit: 12/17/2017 05:42 pm by dustinthewind »

meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3089
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 777
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #405 on: 12/17/2017 06:12 pm »
One reason I suspect there is no actual time travel involved in relativity, only an apparent time travel, is the behavior of current.

Lets take a current loop in the lab frame.  When a current is applied to a wire the charge picks up a very small velocity.  If all the current around the loop actually Lorentz contracts representing some time travel aspect we will get some serious change in charge in the lab frame and a non-conservation of charge.  The reason for this is because if a Lorentz contraction happens all around the loop we get a time helix of charge where the perimeter is larger than 2*pi*r.

This argument makes no sense.Time travel in special relativity doesn't happen because for time travel to happen, there needs to be FTL travel. In ordinary situations, things can't go FTL to begin with, so charges travelling in a loop will obviously say nothing about FTL.

Lorentz contraction does not predict any change in the charges in the wire, they will all be uniformly distributed in the lab frame just like you would expect. I am not sure how to clear up whatever misunderstanding led you to your conclusion, because your description includes phrases like "time helix of charge" which simply don't mean anything.

It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about here. You should also be able to realize this when you come to conclusions like "special relativity fails in this simple case," since scientists would have noticed that sometime in the last 100 years. Learning is good, so when you get to such a point showing your work and asking where you went wrong is good. Stating your work as if it was a fact is simply spreading ignorance, and has the potential to confuse other people who come by and don't have a strong physics background. It also reflects poorly on you, because instead of demonstrating a curiosity and desire to learn, it comes off as somewhat arrogant (I am having trouble finding the right word, it is basically like some form of self-centeredness where you either think you know a lot more than you do, or want to look like you know more than you do.)

Please stop making posts like this, it is doing nobody any good. Sharing ideas you had is fine, but your post is full of incorrect statements where you should be asking questions.

There is an interesting phenomenon called "hidden momentum" that happens in a current loop when fields cause the charges to move non-uniformly through the loop. I don't think you should bother reading the link I just posted though, at least not before you have spent some time learning basic relativity and intermediate electrodynamics, it simply wouldn't benefit you and you are likely to come away with more misunderstandings than learning.

Quote from: Elon Musk
One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree — make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to.

dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 905
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 313
• Likes Given: 355
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #406 on: 12/17/2017 07:44 pm »
One reason I suspect there is no actual time travel involved in relativity, only an apparent time travel, is the behavior of current.

Lets take a current loop in the lab frame.  When a current is applied to a wire the charge picks up a very small velocity.  If all the current around the loop actually Lorentz contracts representing some time travel aspect we will get some serious change in charge in the lab frame and a non-conservation of charge.  The reason for this is because if a Lorentz contraction happens all around the loop we get a time helix of charge where the perimeter is larger than 2*pi*r.

This argument makes no sense.Time travel in special relativity doesn't happen because for time travel to happen, there needs to be FTL travel. In ordinary situations, things can't go FTL to begin with, so charges travelling in a loop will obviously say nothing about FTL.

Lorentz contraction does not predict any change in the charges in the wire, they will all be uniformly distributed in the lab frame just like you would expect. I am not sure how to clear up whatever misunderstanding led you to your conclusion, because your description includes phrases like "time helix of charge" which simply don't mean anything.

It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about here. You should also be able to realize this when you come to conclusions like "special relativity fails in this simple case," since scientists would have noticed that sometime in the last 100 years. Learning is good, so when you get to such a point showing your work and asking where you went wrong is good. Stating your work as if it was a fact is simply spreading ignorance, and has the potential to confuse other people who come by and don't have a strong physics background. It also reflects poorly on you, because instead of demonstrating a curiosity and desire to learn, it comes off as somewhat arrogant (I am having trouble finding the right word, it is basically like some form of self-centeredness where you either think you know a lot more than you do, or want to look like you know more than you do.)

Please stop making posts like this, it is doing nobody any good. Sharing ideas you had is fine, but your post is full of incorrect statements where you should be asking questions.

There is an interesting phenomenon called "hidden momentum" that happens in a current loop when fields cause the charges to move non-uniformly through the loop. I don't think you should bother reading the link I just posted though, at least not before you have spent some time learning basic relativity and intermediate electrodynamics, it simply wouldn't benefit you and you are likely to come away with more misunderstandings than learning.

Quote from: Elon Musk
One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree — make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to.

One might surmise time travel is possible via traveling into the future using relativity.  If they really think that then they also think an instant jump backwards while carrying their forward momentum will jump them backwards in time.  The question is if there is any actual travel into some future time or not.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.msg1706244#msg1706244

A time helix is the shortened length (pancaking) of charges because they exist via a gradient in time with in the loop, allowing more charge to exist in the loop.  I am saying this seems to not be the case.

I suppose it's possible there is time travel for each individual charge not considering the entire perimeter of the loop.  The time gradient exist on the charge with its forward velocity maybe causing more charge to exist perpendicular to its velocity but less forward and behind via some rotation of the charge out of our space/time (slowing its time) So for extra charge perpendicular to vector v we also have subtraction parallel to v resulting in a conserved quantity when integrating a charges flux.  Leaving me unsure about actual time travel in that case.

« Last Edit: 12/18/2017 02:01 pm by dustinthewind »

dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 905
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 313
• Likes Given: 355
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #407 on: 12/19/2017 02:49 am »
This is just a personal attack. My post was explaining that you don't understand what you are talking about, and nicely asking you to respect the fact that scientists have been working with relativity for over 100 years, and it won't be overturned with a back of the envelope calculation.

I wasn't taking your earlier comment about me seriously and was instead batting your comment back at you in jest.  I made no claims to have overturned relativity.  The calculation and discussion illustrates that Lorentz contraction doesn't happen for current accelerated in the lab frame which agrees with Purcell in his book.  This is quite interesting to consider because one might naively think such a contraction might occur with a current loop.  This says something about a time loop and charge conservation.  Unfortunately, I think it fails because it considers the loop as a whole rather than the individual charges which I think individually have a time gradient each of their own that is responsible for the relativistic pancaking of the electric field of individual charges.

One might surmise time travel is possible via traveling into the future using relativity.  If they really think that then they also think an instant jump backwards while carrying their forward momentum will jump them backwards in time.  The question is if there is any actual travel into some future time or not.

Your statements here only serve to show that you do not have any understanding of relativity. It shows that you have not let go of your preconceptions, and therefore you are drawing conclusions that don't actually make sense. I won't explain in detail here in PM, especially because your response to my post indicates that you have no interest in learning.

It's your prerogative to presume that.

A time helix is the shortened length (pancaking) of charges because they exist via a gradient in time with in the loop, allowing more charge to exist in the loop.  I am saying this seems to not be the case.

"Colorless green dreams sleep furiously." Your words form perfectly valid English, but they don't communicate anything. "gradient in time" is another term you seem to have made up. (There are probably contexts where that makes sense, but this is not one.)

Some good questions here.  A gradient in time is a slope in time.  A slope in time is what happens when you see an object with relativistic velocity.  Such a length contracted object appears to exist in a sloped time.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction
see "Using time dilation"
Particularly the equation
$T'_{o}=L'_{o}/v&space;\mapsto&space;T'_{o}v=L'_{o}$
with the primed frame being the length contracted frame.  If we consider L' where some clock on board a length contracted (say a ship) is above our heads and synchronized with our clock at t=0 then if we advance position L'=x'_o+x' where x'_o=0 so T'=0 then a gradient in time exist on the ship via its velocity making events aboard non-synchronous.  Conversely considering some point on the ship non-synchronous in time, times the velocity, gives the modified position of the ship so the ship (or any relativistic object) is contracted via the gradient in time. This gradient in time suggest a form of time travel but it always forces one into the future via the forwards direction.  I suppose if the time travel is real then instantly jumping back while retaining ones forward velocity would send one into the past but this seems unlikely to be possible.

A time helix is a time slope around a curved path.

I suppose it's possible there is time travel for each individual charge not considering the entire perimeter of the loop.  The time gradient exist on the charge with its forward velocity maybe causing more charge to exist perpendicular to its velocity but less forward and behind via some rotation of the charge out of our space/time (slowing its time) So for extra charge perpendicular to vector v we also have subtraction parallel to v resulting in a conserved quantity when integrating its flux.  Leaving me unsure about actual time travel in that case.
This paragraph is basically gibberish again. You are conflating time dilation (a real, measured effect) with time travel (something predicted to happen if and only if FTL exists)

You are also talking about rotations through imaginary directions, rather than understanding that in the lab frame, the loop is some shape with constant density. In another frame, the loop will be distorted and have a different density. In any given frame all of the charge exists all of the time.

Lorentz transforms tilt the coordinate axes, but they are not a rotation, because instead of moving in the same direction, the axes squeeze towards each other.

I was poking at the reason for electric field pancaking in the lab frame via the charge with velocity still having charge conserved and no Lorentz contraction between the charges.  This seems to allow a time gradient to exist on the individual charges, allowing time travel on an individual charge level around the circular path and preserving charge.

I was poking if it were possible no actual time travel is involved and instead just the local clock was being modified, while an instant jump would still keep one stuck in the now (non time sloped) universe.   This would restrict an instant jump to the proper time plane of the universe such as jump P to Q below.  An instant jump where actual time travel is taking place might make it possible to jump forward or backward in time such as jump Q to R.  The question being if any such jumps are allowed, can they move backward and forward in time or not.

This time gradient that exist on a relativistic object also suggest via the forward velocity who is aging faster.  The fast moving object has time subtracted from its nose.  Time subtracted from a forward velocity moves the nose backwards.  The tail has time added which is the past so time is continually being subtracted from the object as it moves forward.

On board the object it seems the universe is length contracted but the universe time gradient is reversed.  Its velocity toward the ship has time added with distance and the more so the further away contracting the universe.  This added time represents the universe more rapidly aging.  It is during acceleration this clock de-synchronization accelerates the ageing of the distant universe but via forward motion one actually travels there.  Via the travel sure the universe clock at some point might tick slower but your traveling to points where the universe clock is way in advance of where you were.

The symmetric part is that your clock to the universe appears to tick slower and at the same time and at some point in the universe that clock appears to tick slower.  The non symmetric part is the time gradient or ageing is non-symmetric.  In front of the ship the universe moving towards is positive time times velocity while to the universe the ship nose moving towards is negative time times velocity.  This gives the impression of who is actually moving slower through time and who is not.

The idea that locally light can always have v=c but non-locally, that light can change velocity, reaching some maximum velocity away from gravitational wells, seems to suggest via counter propagating photons from any frame, a frame between them where time ticks the fastest.

An FTL jump between frames maybe allowing instant distance traversal but because of the lack of actual progression through distance in the time gradient one instead jumps between as if there is no time gradient - allowing no progression of ones internal clock nor progression of the universe clocks via de-synchronization, bypassing time travel - eliminating paradoxes.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2017 05:01 am by dustinthewind »

meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3089
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 777
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #408 on: 12/22/2017 07:19 pm »
It is the clock that had no work done to it, that will have the longest elapsed time. Okay?

That is true of a completed journey where the clocks end up in the same place. But that isn't exactly new. Of course you have to accelerate in order to travel a different path through space/time. It is simple geometry.

But the situation is still symmetric.

Say you have two spaceships with twin one in ship one and twin two in ship two. Now say both twins crawl into a hibernation unit after which one of the ships accelerate to some velocity away. The twins awaken to see relative velocity between them but don't know which of them accelerated.
This is what I mean by "ambiguous". Just because they do not know which one accelerated does not mean that it didn't happen.

It doesn't matter if it happened or not. The only thing that matters is that at the start there is a relative velocity between the 2 clocks. You cannot define an experiment that can tell which one accelerated, because there is literally nothing physically different between them.

So what can they do to determine who has the real velocity and slow clock? After all they see each others clock as slow. If twin one travels back to twin two he will find that the twin one clock is slow. But if twin two travels back to twin one he will find that the twin two clock is slow. Exactly reciprocal.
Say it was twin one who accelerated and twin two did not. Didn't this acceleration affect his clock? If twin two accelerates to catch up to him, then when they meet and are at rest wrt each other, both of their clocks are running slower than before they went into hibernation. Had twin one returned to twin two, then the rate of their clocks would be the same as it was before hibernation. The situation is not symmetrical, it only "appears" to be because the set-up of the problem is ambiguous.
The bolded statements are false. You are stating that in one case their clocks are both ticking "slower" at the end and in the other they are both ticking at the "original rate" but there is actually no way to tell these situations apart, because the only physical fact is that after they meet up and match speeds, they both are ticking at the same rate as each other. The situation is truly symmetric and there is no ambiguity in the final results. (Defining ambiguity as: something physically and measurably different between the final states that is undefined due to lack of sufficient initial conditions)

You literally just made the same claim previously, and I already explained exactly why it was wrong, you keep picking one frame, doing all of the work in that frame, and refuse to recognize that there is nothing special about the frame that you are picking:

Add a 3rd clock to step 1 whose energy is never changed by any kicks and it remains in the initial rest frame. Then at the end of Scenario 2, the two clocks that are in motion will be running slower than the 3rd clock. Whereas, at the end of Scenario 1, they are all three running at the same rate, but have elapsed different times during the experiment. See the difference?
No, because, you can just have the third clock already moving with speed v instead. Your choice of relative speed for the third clock is arbitrary, and has no effect on anything. It is equivalent to picking the frame you are working in, having the clock moving at speed v to start with is what I did when I said "use the frame of clock 1(after the unnecessary step 1)" Everything therefore still remains unchanged.

WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1407
• Do it!
• Statesville, NC
• Liked: 1453
• Likes Given: 1925
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #409 on: 12/22/2017 08:40 pm »
It is the clock that had no work done to it, that will have the longest elapsed time. Okay?

That is true of a completed journey where the clocks end up in the same place. But that isn't exactly new. Of course you have to accelerate in order to travel a different path through space/time. It is simple geometry.

But the situation is still symmetric.

Say you have two spaceships with twin one in ship one and twin two in ship two. Now say both twins crawl into a hibernation unit after which one of the ships accelerate to some velocity away. The twins awaken to see relative velocity between them but don't know which of them accelerated.
This is what I mean by "ambiguous". Just because they do not know which one accelerated does not mean that it didn't happen.

It doesn't matter if it happened or not. The only thing that matters is that at the start there is a relative velocity between the 2 clocks. You cannot define an experiment that can tell which one accelerated, because there is literally nothing physically different between them.

So what can they do to determine who has the real velocity and slow clock? After all they see each others clock as slow. If twin one travels back to twin two he will find that the twin one clock is slow. But if twin two travels back to twin one he will find that the twin two clock is slow. Exactly reciprocal.
Say it was twin one who accelerated and twin two did not. Didn't this acceleration affect his clock? If twin two accelerates to catch up to him, then when they meet and are at rest wrt each other, both of their clocks are running slower than before they went into hibernation. Had twin one returned to twin two, then the rate of their clocks would be the same as it was before hibernation. The situation is not symmetrical, it only "appears" to be because the set-up of the problem is ambiguous.
The bolded statements are false. You are stating that in one case their clocks are both ticking "slower" at the end and in the other they are both ticking at the "original rate" but there is actually no way to tell these situations apart, ....

Theoretically, the clock that was accelerated will have a higher temperature relative to the CMB temperature, because when it was accelerated, provided it was accelerated long enough to achieve equilibrium with the vacuum, the Unruh radiation will have elevated its temperature. So there is an experiment that can be done to tell which one was accelerated. It just has to be extremely sensitive.

meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3089
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 777
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #410 on: 12/22/2017 10:07 pm »
Theoretically, the clock that was accelerated will have a higher temperature relative to the CMB temperature, because when it was accelerated, provided it was accelerated long enough to achieve equilibrium with the vacuum, the Unruh radiation will have elevated its temperature. So there is an experiment that can be done to tell which one was accelerated. It just has to be extremely sensitive.
So now you are using the CMB as your special frame, which is at least better defined than what you had been using before. (Although it doesn't help your argument when you keep casually changing the definition of your special frame.) You aren't actually defining anything special about this frame though. There are multiple problems with what you are saying:

-"higher temperature relative to the CMB temperature" does not make sense/ is not relevant. The CMB temperature is 2.7 K. Most things are higher temperature than that. If you are moving relative to the CMB, the CMB temperature will be hotter in some directions and colder in others, but basically will average out.
-"provided it was accelerated long enough to achieve equilibrium with the vacuum," How long it was accelerated for has nothing to do with whether it radiated off enough heat to lower its temperature to 2.7 K.
-"So there is an experiment that can be done to tell which one was accelerated. It just has to be extremely sensitive." We have measured motion relative to the CMB, it is not that difficult. There is no physics that is a function of motion relative to the CMB (not counting the miniscule difference in radiation pressure that results). Relativity applies equally well in frames moving with respect to the CMB or not.

Stormbringer

• Full Member
• Posts: 1340
• Liked: 239
• Likes Given: 92
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #411 on: 12/26/2017 12:48 am »
I resolve resolutely not to let paradox push me around. Instead i suggest showing paradox who's boss.

It is entirely possible that the appearance of paradox is itself a indicator that something is not understood enough; that something has been overlooked. And it may well be that that thing is in the picture of how things work in "established science." Then the paradox is a mirage that fades as you approach it. It does not always have to accrue to an experimenter or observer of something weird. I would be surprised if finding something new didn't in someway tilt established science at least to a small degree. new doesn't mean old.

And with FTL even though i knew reference frames were a bear i had no idea i was dealing with a mega-fauna version of a bear.
People very very often reverse the reference frames for the effects of time dilation for a traveler traveling to a distal star from earth. Simple things like who ages and who doesn't or thinking that both do or don't. i spend pages and days arguing that over and over with lots of people who should know better. And that is one of the easiest bits  WRT relativity to understand.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3089
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 777
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #412 on: 12/26/2017 09:26 pm »
(To anyone confused by the chain between me and dustinthewind: I sent him a PM rather than a public response because I found his response inappropriate, he was quoting from that PM. That is fine, since most of the PM is what I would have said in public anyway.)
This is just a personal attack. My post was explaining that you don't understand what you are talking about, and nicely asking you to respect the fact that scientists have been working with relativity for over 100 years, and it won't be overturned with a back of the envelope calculation.

I was not joking. You do not understand basic aspects of relativity. To use the analogy I quoted, you keep trying to hang up leaves on a tree where you are missing the trunk. I pointed out specifically multiple places where your statements simply contradict relativity. Your statement in "jest" is literally equivalent to the "I'm rubber you're glue" statement kids use when they don't have a meaningful response. If you don't want a serious discussion, you are in the wrong place.

I made no claims to have overturned relativity.  The calculation and discussion illustrates that Lorentz contraction doesn't happen for current accelerated in the lab frame which agrees with Purcell in his book.
The second sentence you wrote says "a basic, universal feature of special relativity doesn't happen in a common situation." That is a claim that you have overturned relativity. There is no length contraction measured in the lab frame because the lab frame is by definition not moving. The electrons are spread out in the wire in a uniform density. From the frame of an electron, the wire is length contracted and the density of the electrons appears higher, but still uniform (for a straight wire). You are misunderstanding what you are reading. The rest of your paragraph is extrapolating from this misunderstanding to greater misunderstandings.

One might surmise time travel is possible via traveling into the future using relativity.  If they really think that then they also think an instant jump backwards while carrying their forward momentum will jump them backwards in time.  The question is if there is any actual travel into some future time or not.

Your statements here only serve to show that you do not have any understanding of relativity. It shows that you have not let go of your preconceptions, and therefore you are drawing conclusions that don't actually make sense. I won't explain in detail here in PM, especially because your response to my post indicates that you have no interest in learning.

It's your prerogative to presume that.
You have made repeated statements that incorrectly describe what relativity concludes, and indicate that you have a variety of misconceptions about relativity that you need to unlearn. This is not a presumption but a fact about what you have demonstrated.

A time helix is the shortened length (pancaking) of charges because they exist via a gradient in time with in the loop, allowing more charge to exist in the loop.  I am saying this seems to not be the case.

"Colorless green dreams sleep furiously." Your words form perfectly valid English, but they don't communicate anything. "gradient in time" is another term you seem to have made up. (There are probably contexts where that makes sense, but this is not one.)

Some good questions here.  A gradient in time is a slope in time.
Yes, slope is a simplistic definition for gradient that in certain cases has the exact same meaning. This word replacement does not change the fact that the phrase is meaningless.

In physics gradient means: "an increase or decrease in the magnitude of a property (e.g., temperature, pressure, or concentration) observed in passing from one point or moment to another."
The mathematical counterpart to that definition is: "the vector formed by the operator ∇ acting on a scalar function at a given point in a scalar field."

Passing between moments doesn't make sense because we are already talking about time. Passing between points doesn't apply, because time dilation is not a function of position. You are missing the "scalar field" (and velocity is not a scalar field, it is sometimes a vector field, but in this case it isn't even a field).

If we were discussing general relativity, you could use the gravitational field to define the gradient in the rate that time passes at different points, excluding velocity dependent effects. We aren't discussing general relativity, and are discussing the velocity dependent effects that would be excluded though.

A slope in time is what happens when you see an object with relativistic velocity.  Such a length contracted object appears to exist in a sloped time.
No. Time dilation and length contraction are things that are observed as differences between frames. When calculating a slope (or gradient) you need to divide the change in the thing you care about by the change in another thing. You haven't defined the second thing. It can't be space or time, and velocity doesn't work either, because different frames are just different perspectives, they are not something that is physically different. You pick a frame and use it, not gradually change between them. (You could be working with non-inertial frames, that change constantly, but that is needless complication, and not what was being discussed.)

a form of time travel but it always forces one into the future via the forwards direction.  I suppose if the time travel is real then instantly jumping back while retaining ones forward velocity would send one into the past but this seems unlikely to be possible.
Traveling forward in time is not time travel at least not in any different way than what you normally experience. The instant jump is what is non-physical and impossible, and it turns out that you need 2 of them in special relativity to actually get to your own past. (Or special situations in general relativity usually needing negative energy density to get "closed timelike curves")

I suppose it's possible there is time travel for each individual charge not considering the entire perimeter of the loop.  The time gradient exist on the charge with its forward velocity maybe causing more charge to exist perpendicular to its velocity but less forward and behind via some rotation of the charge out of our space/time (slowing its time) So for extra charge perpendicular to vector v we also have subtraction parallel to v resulting in a conserved quantity when integrating its flux.  Leaving me unsure about actual time travel in that case.
This paragraph is basically gibberish again. You are conflating time dilation (a real, measured effect) with time travel (something predicted to happen if and only if FTL exists)

You are also talking about rotations through imaginary directions, rather than understanding that in the lab frame, the loop is some shape with constant density. In another frame, the loop will be distorted and have a different density. In any given frame all of the charge exists all of the time.

Lorentz transforms tilt the coordinate axes, but they are not a rotation, because instead of moving in the same direction, the axes squeeze towards each other.

I was poking at the reason for electric field pancaking in the lab frame via the charge with velocity still having charge conserved and no Lorentz contraction between the charges.  This seems to allow a time gradient to exist on the individual charges, allowing time travel on an individual charge level around the circular path and preserving charge.

I was poking if it were possible no actual time travel is involved and instead just the local clock was being modified, while an instant jump would still keep one stuck in the now (non time sloped) universe.   This would restrict an instant jump to the proper time plane of the universe such as jump P to Q below.  An instant jump where actual time travel is taking place might make it possible to jump forward or backward in time such as jump Q to R.  The question being if any such jumps are allowed, can they move backward and forward in time or not.
Instant jumps do move through time. They can't not. (Note the double negative.) No frame is special, and there is always a frame where it is backwards in time (And the reverse instant jump in that frame is backwards in time to the original frame.)

I can't go through the rest of what you wrote, because "gradient in time" "time helix" and other things you wrote are still gibberish. You should go find an introduction to relativity textbook and study it or some other resource. You have insisted on using terms that you made up when there already is an accessible knowledge base out there you can learn from with established terminology. Unless you are willing to go back to the beginning and learn to speak the language that everyone else uses, it will be impossible to communicate with you.

meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3089
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 777
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #413 on: 12/27/2017 04:30 am »
I resolve resolutely not to let paradox push me around. Instead i suggest showing paradox who's boss.

It is entirely possible that the appearance of paradox is itself a indicator that something is not understood enough; that something has been overlooked. And it may well be that that thing is in the picture of how things work in "established science." Then the paradox is a mirage that fades as you approach it. It does not always have to accrue to an experimenter or observer of something weird. I would be surprised if finding something new didn't in someway tilt established science at least to a small degree. new doesn't mean old.
I agree, many paradoxes are not paradoxes the "twin paradox" is a good example, it is only a paradox if you don't think it through completely.

And with FTL even though i knew reference frames were a bear i had no idea i was dealing with a mega-fauna version of a bear.
People very very often reverse the reference frames for the effects of time dilation for a traveler traveling to a distal star from earth. Simple things like who ages and who doesn't or thinking that both do or don't. i spend pages and days arguing that over and over with lots of people who should know better. And that is one of the easiest bits  WRT relativity to understand.
I am having trouble telling if you understand it yourself. There simply isn't a meaningful answer unless they come back together. When they are separated neither can be determined as "older or younger," which is the most basic part of special relativity, that no frame is special, and different frames don't agree on what "simultaneous" means for spatially separated events. (This is the most fundamental part of relativity, but not the simplest, since it seems to be the root of the most confusion.)

ppnl

• Full Member
• Posts: 312
• Liked: 209
• Likes Given: 19
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #414 on: 12/27/2017 07:35 pm »

You know there is a simpler way to see the relativity of simultaneity than the twin paradox.

Say there are two twins in two ships motionless with respect to each other and some distance apart. They look at each other's clock and see that they are both showing the same time and time is passing at the same rate.

Now say a third ship is traveling at a high velocity with respect to the twin ships. It looks at the two twins clocks and see that they are both slowed by the same amount and thus time is passing for them at the same rate as each other. But what it also notices is that the clocks are no longer showing the same time. Also the ships are closer together.

This is where the relativity of simultaneity lives. Relative velocity means that the time space axis is rotated with respect to each other. That means some of the space between the twin ships has disappeared but some distance in time between the ships has been created between them. At least from the point of view of the third ship. This weirdness is called Minkowski space. In Euclidean geometry distance is defined as:

D^2 = X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2.

Distance in Minkowski space is defined differently. First you add time as a coordinate. Then just for fun you make the time coordinate negative and multiply it by the speed of light squared. so you have:

D^2 = X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 - (CT)^2

All of the effects of special relativity are just the results of this new kind of geometry. In this geometry faster than light speed is time travel. Not as a physical effect of motion but as a mathematical fact of geometry.

Now if you want to explain the slow clocks as a real effect caused by absolute motion then you also have to show how two ships motionless with respect to each other can have clocks offset from each other... and not know it.

Stormbringer

• Full Member
• Posts: 1340
• Liked: 239
• Likes Given: 92
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #415 on: 12/29/2017 05:14 am »
I resolve resolutely not to let paradox push me around. Instead i suggest showing paradox who's boss.

It is entirely possible that the appearance of paradox is itself a indicator that something is not understood enough; that something has been overlooked. And it may well be that that thing is in the picture of how things work in "established science." Then the paradox is a mirage that fades as you approach it. It does not always have to accrue to an experimenter or observer of something weird. I would be surprised if finding something new didn't in someway tilt established science at least to a small degree. new doesn't mean old.
I agree, many paradoxes are not paradoxes the "twin paradox" is a good example, it is only a paradox if you don't think it through completely.

And with FTL even though i knew reference frames were a bear i had no idea i was dealing with a mega-fauna version of a bear.
People very very often reverse the reference frames for the effects of time dilation for a traveler traveling to a distal star from earth. Simple things like who ages and who doesn't or thinking that both do or don't. i spend pages and days arguing that over and over with lots of people who should know better. And that is one of the easiest bits  WRT relativity to understand.
I am having trouble telling if you understand it yourself. There simply isn't a meaningful answer unless they come back together. When they are separated neither can be determined as "older or younger," which is the most basic part of special relativity, that no frame is special, and different frames don't agree on what "simultaneous" means for spatially separated events. (This is the most fundamental part of relativity, but not the simplest, since it seems to be the root of the most confusion.)
What i mean is on earth time passes at it's normal pace. on a ship traveling sufficiently fast the trips seems to take very little time. but when the ship returns they find that the earth has aged very roughly eight years plus whatever time was spent at Alpha Centauri.  The confused people i referred to get this simple effect backwards or even worse. In other words they think time dilation effects work on non relativistic velocity innocent bystander observers.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 905
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 313
• Likes Given: 355
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #416 on: 01/01/2018 05:35 am »
Something interesting to note is Einstein used a frame in which the stars were at rest or moving slow w.r.t. light to derive general relativity.

Einstein’s 1917 Static Model of the Universe: A Centennial Review
Quote from: Einstein’s 1917 Static Model of the Universe: A Centennial Review
A third assumption is that there exists a reference frame in which matter is at rest: this
assumption is based on what Einstein terms the “most important fact we draw from
experience as to the distribution of matter”, the low velocities of the stars:

Quote
The most important fact that we draw from experience as to the distribution of matter
is that the relative velocities of the stars are very small as compared with the velocity of
light. So I think that for the present we may base our reasoning upon the following
approximate assumption. There is a system of reference relatively to which matter may
be looked upon as being permanently at rest.

Einstein then embarks on a simple analysis in which he derives values for the components
of the field equation tensors
...
Thus Einstein’s assumption that “there is a system of reference relative to which matter may be looked upon as being permanently at rest” seems reasonable. I

This would seem to indicate a frame in which the stars are near rest, and and other frames in which one is near v=c.  Not sure that would mean the frame is necessarily homogeneous but it appears to be stated.

There also appears to be an experiment in which a test of the dipole electric field of a solenoid in the lab frame did turn up some interesting results. Also had some unusual readings in the lab frame with a solenoid and very low capacitance capacitor myself but didn't pursue it at the time.

Energy-dependent metric for gravitation and the breakdown of local Lorentz invariance
Quote from: Energy-dependent metric for gravitation and the breakdown of local Lorentz invariance
We analyze the data on the comparison of clock rates between a ∞ying clock and a clock at ground, carried out by Alley and coworkers at the end of '70's .The flt to such data is in favour of an energy-dependent metric for gravitation. We discuss also the results of a recently proposed electromagnetic test of breakdown of local Lorentz invariance - based on the detection of a voltage induced by a stationary magnetic fleld - and show that the obtained positive evidence for such an efiect seems to support the derived form of the energy-dependent gravitational metric.

A test I believe might indicate a relative velocity with respect to such a frame would be to measure the static dipole electric field of a magnetic field.  In the lab frame.  If there is no difference in clock rates for the individual charges in the lab frame no dipole electric field should form in the lab frame.

However if for some reason the clock of a charge sped up moving in some particular direction in the lab, as opposed to another direction, there should be a corresponding dipole electric field to go with it.

Such an experiment with sufficient sensitivity, I believe could determine velocity relative to a local field that determines the clock rate.

I suspect existing in a gravity field may induce some effect but I would be curious of it's exact orientation of the lab frame dipole electric field.  Parallel or perpendicular to Earth's surface.

« Last Edit: 01/01/2018 05:55 am by dustinthewind »

meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3089
• Liked: 3379
• Likes Given: 777
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #417 on: 01/02/2018 09:56 pm »
Quote from: Einstein’s 1917 Static Model of the Universe: A Centennial Review
Quote
approximate assumption
As Einstein stated, it was an approximate assumption made while deriving a specific solution to his equations. It allows for picking a frame that makes the math easier, but it does not make that frame "special" as you are presenting it. Also if you actually bothered to read the paper you referenced, you would see that his assumptions were incorrect for our universe, since the universe is expanding. In fact the last sentence you quoted was immediately preceded by:

Quote from: Einstein’s 1917 Static Model of the Universe: A Centennial Review
Indeed, many years were to elapse before the discovery of a linear relation between the recession of the distant galaxies and their distance (Hubble 1929), the first evidence for a non-static universe.

The entire paragraph it was a part of was explaining that our modern knowledge that his assumptions do not describe our universe was not available to Einstein, so his assumptions were reasonable from his perspective. By pulling that sentence out of context you completely changed its meaning.

There also appears to be an experiment in which a test of the dipole electric field of a solenoid in the lab frame did turn up some interesting results. Also had some unusual readings in the lab frame with a solenoid and very low capacitance capacitor myself but didn't pursue it at the time.
Their paper seems to be discussing a distorted metric in the presence of gravity and reconciling this with certain experiments. We already know about this, it is called general relativity, so it is strange that they repeatedly insist on comparing to Minkowski space-time, when it is known that gravitational potential causes time dilation.

As for the circuit, I would find it somewhat surprising, but it is possible they found a case where the difference in gravitational potential energy could affect the circuit. It isn't worth it for me to go through since there are multiple indicators that they are crackpots, and the general idea was already worked out in detail 100 years ago.

As for your experiment, it is really, and truly irrelevant. Actually, none of what you just posted is relevant to this thread, especially since it is a combination of misinterpretation and meaningless claims.

dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 905
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 313
• Likes Given: 355
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #418 on: 01/04/2018 05:22 am »
Quote from: Einstein’s 1917 Static Model of the Universe: A Centennial Review
Quote
approximate assumption
As Einstein stated, it was an approximate assumption made while deriving a specific solution to his equations. It allows for picking a frame that makes the math easier, but it does not make that frame "special" as you are presenting it. Also if you actually bothered to read the paper you referenced, you would see that his assumptions were incorrect for our universe, since the universe is expanding. In fact the last sentence you quoted was immediately preceded by:

Quote from: Einstein’s 1917 Static Model of the Universe: A Centennial Review
Indeed, many years were to elapse before the discovery of a linear relation between the recession of the distant galaxies and their distance (Hubble 1929), the first evidence for a non-static universe.

The entire paragraph it was a part of was explaining that our modern knowledge that his assumptions do not describe our universe was not available to Einstein, so his assumptions were reasonable from his perspective. By pulling that sentence out of context you completely changed its meaning.

If you read the paper then you know that solution was only lacking the cosmological constant which he adds later.  This doesn't change the frame work in which he lays out his conditions (density, stars with low velocity that define a metric, closed universe, 𝜆).

Quote
Einstein soon found that the hypothesis of closed spatial geometry was not sufficient to achieve a successful relativistic model of the universe. A consistent solution could only be achieved with the introduction of
an additional term 𝜆𝑔𝜇𝜈 to the field equations, where 𝜆 represented a constant that later became known as the ‘cosmological constant’.  Thus Einstein’s model appears to have evolved according to the following sequence of assumptions: uniform, static distribution of matter → closed spatial geometry → introduction of additional term to the field equations.
...
“That term is necessary only for the purpose of making possible a quasi-static distribution of matter, as required by the fact of the small velocities of the stars”
...
... Einstein gave his first physical interpretation of the cosmological term, namely that of a negative mass density: “In terms of the Newtonian theory…a modification of the theory is required such that “empty space” takes the role of gravitating negative masses which are distributed all over the interstellar space” (Einstein 1918c)
...
However, the error may be significant with regard to Einstein’s interpretation of the term. Where he intended to introduce a term to the field equations representing an attenuation of the gravitational interaction at large distances, he in fact introduced a term representing a very different effect. Indeed, the later interpretation of the cosmological term as representing a tendency for empty space to expand would have been deeply problematic for Einstein in 1917, given his understanding of Mach’s Principle at the time.
...
“It appears to me that one can raise a grave argument against the admissibility of this solution…..In my opinion, the general theory of relativity is a satisfying system only if it shows that the physical qualities of space are completely determined by matter alone. Therefore no 𝑔𝜇𝜈- field must exist (that is no space-time continuum is possible) without matter that generates it” (Einstein 1918f).

expansion of space sounds a lot like expansion of a metric.    It also seems to suggest the matter generates the metric.  All I am suggesting is that this proper metric generated by the low velocity stars gives a metric of fastest time progression.  Moving relative to is distorts your time so that your time passes slower and gives the illusion of a distorted metric via your distorted clock.  You will notice in the graphics of the moving ship that its the non-distorted metric where time passes faster.

With that said, I reiterate the idea that an ftl jump, when one is moving, would move one with out the progression of ones own internal clock.  With out the actual progression of ones own internal clock to give the illusion of a distorted metric, then one does not appear to move through time.  Instead it would be a classical jump along the metric with no time travel allowed.  So no jumping backward, with forward momentum, to send one back in time, circumnavigating any paradox.  (Still some serious problems with instant jumps though.)

There also appears to be an experiment in which a test of the dipole electric field of a solenoid in the lab frame did turn up some interesting results. Also had some unusual readings in the lab frame with a solenoid and very low capacitance capacitor myself but didn't pursue it at the time.
Their paper seems to be discussing a distorted metric in the presence of gravity and reconciling this with certain experiments. We already know about this, it is called general relativity, so it is strange that they repeatedly insist on comparing to Minkowski space-time, when it is known that gravitational potential causes time dilation.

As for the circuit, I would find it somewhat surprising, but it is possible they found a case where the difference in gravitational potential energy could affect the circuit. It isn't worth it for me to go through since there are multiple indicators that they are crackpots, and the general idea was already worked out in detail 100 years ago.

As for your experiment, it is really, and truly irrelevant. Actually, none of what you just posted is relevant to this thread, especially since it is a combination of misinterpretation and meaningless claims.

I wouldn't be so quick to just dismiss them as crackpots.  It is relevant with respect to possible detection of motion through some form of a metric.
New Experimental Results on the Lower Limits of Local Lorentz Invariance
Fabio Cardone,1,2,3 Roberto Mignani,4−7 and Renato Scrimaglio1
However—at the light of the discussion of Sec. 5.2—the parameters (23) and (29) have to be regarded actually as the result of two contributions to the LLI breaking effect, one of gravitational ...
...
Needless to say, the experiment must be independently repeated,
before one can claim that a LLI breakdown was actually observed.
We attempted an explanation of the results we found in terms of the
phenomenological metrics of electromagnetic and gravitational interactions
derived in the framework of DSR. If this interpretation is sound, we can
state that the LLI violation is expected to occur below an energy threshold
E0,e.m. ≈5µeV. In other words, contrarily to what commonly believed, LLI
breakdown (at least for electromagnetic interaction) would occur at low,
not at high, energies. This would explain why it was not observed before,
and implies that LLI violation would not affect dramatically most of the
phenomena in high-energy physics, astrophysics and cosmology.
Finally, we expect that the effect of LLI breakdown we seemingly
observed may affect some photon interference results, in particular the
photon–photon cross section. This seems indeed to be the case.(33)
Several citations on their work it appears.

Some more related:
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 05:30 am by dustinthewind »

dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 905
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 313
• Likes Given: 355
Re: Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?
« Reply #419 on: 01/04/2018 06:03 am »
One reason I suspect there is no actual time travel involved in relativity, only an apparent time travel, is the behavior of current.

Lets take a current loop in the lab frame.  When a current is applied to a wire the charge picks up a very small velocity.  If all the current around the loop actually Lorentz contracts representing some time travel aspect we will get some serious change in charge in the lab frame and a non-conservation of charge.  The reason for this is because if a Lorentz contraction happens all around the loop we get a time helix of charge where the perimeter is larger than 2*pi*r.

This argument makes no sense.Time travel in special relativity doesn't happen because for time travel to happen, there needs to be FTL travel. In ordinary situations, things can't go FTL to begin with, so charges travelling in a loop will obviously say nothing about FTL.

Lorentz contraction does not predict any change in the charges in the wire, they will all be uniformly distributed in the lab frame just like you would expect. I am not sure how to clear up whatever misunderstanding led you to your conclusion, because your description includes phrases like "time helix of charge" which simply don't mean anything.

It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about here. You should also be able to realize this when you come to conclusions like "special relativity fails in this simple case," since scientists would have noticed that sometime in the last 100 years. Learning is good, so when you get to such a point showing your work and asking where you went wrong is good. Stating your work as if it was a fact is simply spreading ignorance, and has the potential to confuse other people who come by and don't have a strong physics background. It also reflects poorly on you, because instead of demonstrating a curiosity and desire to learn, it comes off as somewhat arrogant (I am having trouble finding the right word, it is basically like some form of self-centeredness where you either think you know a lot more than you do, or want to look like you know more than you do.)

Please stop making posts like this, it is doing nobody any good. Sharing ideas you had is fine, but your post is full of incorrect statements where you should be asking questions.

There is an interesting phenomenon called "hidden momentum" that happens in a current loop when fields cause the charges to move non-uniformly through the loop. I don't think you should bother reading the link I just posted though, at least not before you have spent some time learning basic relativity and intermediate electrodynamics, it simply wouldn't benefit you and you are likely to come away with more misunderstandings than learning.

Quote from: Elon Musk
One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree — make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to.

This hidden momentum sounds a lot like the momentum of the charges set in motion where that motion continues.  Setting them in motion sends out an impulse of equal and opposite effect on similar charges (via light) so in accelerating them they send out some change in momentum but they store the equal and opposite momentum in their relativistic field.  Stopping them causes the relativistic emission of that counter momentum and that stored internal momentum goes to zero.  So it fits the mechanical, magnetic-relativistic nature, stored momentum isn't electrodynamic (yet), u=store energy density of moving charges and field, v=charge velocity.  In the case of a current loop it seems possible they have absolute velocity in the loop.

The relativistic hidden momentum of a particle in motion, related to its velocity is interesting.  Most matter having charge even via nuclear decay.   And the pancaking of relativistic electric fields being like the Lorentz effect could describe their charges also having velocity and slowed clock.
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 06:14 am by dustinthewind »

Tags: