-
#2780 by VAXHeadroom on 27 Nov, 2017 15:02
-
New article about tunneling electron behavior which I thought may be relevant and interesting, especially as they discuss the combination of electrons, the orientation of the magnetic fields plus the material's ions.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_window_into_electron_behavior_999.html -
#2781 by meberbs on 28 Nov, 2017 03:04
-
The equation, t + ivt / c = 0 , is just a statement that the two components (first clock time and second its complex conjugate, the addition of which is required to describe a time interval between charges or objects in relative motion) sum together to zero.
It seems you are misusing the term "complex conjugate" The conjugate of a complex number a+bi is a-bi (where a and b are pure real.) This also means that the conjugate of a pure real number is itself, and that the sum of a complex number and its conjugate is simply twice the real part.Yes you can scramble this relationship by mixing the components but, and correct me if I am wrong, you can do that with any complex number where the units allow. You will, however, destroy the information they contain when you do.
No, the manipulations I did do not destroy any information. Also, the units always allow, a complex number is still just a single number, so itt doesn't make sense to say different parts have different units
I am extrapolating some here, but it seems that you are trying to use complex numbers to sum 2 different things together such as 2 apples + 3 oranges, while keeping them separate. That simply is not what complex numbers do, vectors are a bit better suited for this (though they still should have everything have the same units.)The evidence for the existence of photons is a more involved question. First must be the double slit experiment which has been a source of controversy, and in my opinion misinterpretation, for two hundred years. The results of two slit experiments rely on the phase interaction consequent on variation of distance.
I am not sure what controversy you are referring to, because the results of this type of experiment have been conclusive and clear. They have put an end to controversies, not been the source of them.
I can possibly go into some of the other stuff I mentioned in more detail at some point, but I just want to make a couple quick notes: The big thing about the LHC that helps enable photon-photon collision detection is the high energy per photon, which really is an extreme case. Here is an early release about the experiment last year: http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/66878
For the photon fields I mentioned, the "extreme" part about it is the huge number of overlapping photons present, but this is an every day occurrence. Even a simple 1 Watt RF source at 2 GHz emits around 7*10^23 photons per second. This is around 2*10^15 within 1 meter of the source at any instant. Given the wavelength of about 15 centimeters, that is a lot of overlapping photons. -
#2782 by spupeng7 on 28 Nov, 2017 04:21
-
The equation, t + ivt / c = 0 , is just a statement that the two components (first clock time and second its complex conjugate, the addition of which is required to describe a time interval between charges or objects in relative motion) sum together to zero.
It seems you are misusing the term "complex conjugate" The conjugate of a complex number a+bi is a-bi (where a and b are pure real.) This also means that the conjugate of a pure real number is itself, and that the sum of a complex number and its conjugate is simply twice the real part.Yes you can scramble this relationship by mixing the components but, and correct me if I am wrong, you can do that with any complex number where the units allow. You will, however, destroy the information they contain when you do.
No, the manipulations I did do not destroy any information. Also, the units always allow, a complex number is still just a single number, so itt doesn't make sense to say different parts have different units
I am extrapolating some here, but it seems that you are trying to use complex numbers to sum 2 different things together such as 2 apples + 3 oranges, while keeping them separate. That simply is not what complex numbers do, vectors are a bit better suited for this (though they still should have everything have the same units.)The evidence for the existence of photons is a more involved question. First must be the double slit experiment which has been a source of controversy, and in my opinion misinterpretation, for two hundred years. The results of two slit experiments rely on the phase interaction consequent on variation of distance.
I am not sure what controversy you are referring to, because the results of this type of experiment have been conclusive and clear. They have put an end to controversies, not been the source of them.
I can possibly go into some of the other stuff I mentioned in more detail at some point, but I just want to make a couple quick notes: The big thing about the LHC that helps enable photon-photon collision detection is the high energy per photon, which really is an extreme case. Here is an early release about the experiment last year: http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/66878
For the photon fields I mentioned, the "extreme" part about it is the huge number of overlapping photons present, but this is an every day occurrence. Even a simple 1 Watt RF source at 2 GHz emits around 7*10^23 photons per second. This is around 2*10^15 within 1 meter of the source at any instant. Given the wavelength of about 15 centimeters, that is a lot of overlapping photons.
Thanks meberbs for the CERN Courier article.
The controversy I am referring to is the particle wave duality and its seeming impossibility. Are you saying that you find nothing at all confusing about quantum mechanics?
Your critique of my attempt to express complex time mathematically did not include any recommendation for a better approach. I would happily consider such. Presuming that you agree with Special Relativity that, the time dilation experienced by a photon should reduce its duration to zero from its own perspective, then you may see why it helps to express the relationship between time for the observer and time for the photon in a single equation.
The point of all this being that where there is no passage of time, there is coincidence. -
#2783 by meberbs on 28 Nov, 2017 06:59
-
The controversy I am referring to is the particle wave duality and its seeming impossibility. Are you saying that you find nothing at all confusing about quantum mechanics?
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition. Wave particle duality is less strange than some other aspects of quantum, and it makes some sense if you recognize that all "particles" behave as waves, but still exist in discrete and quantized units. The dichotomy between waves and particles doesn't actually exist, but there simply are situations where large numbers or proper scale allow you to gloss over some of the details, and treat something as just one or the other.Your critique of my attempt to express complex time mathematically did not include any recommendation for a better approach. I would happily consider such.
Because of your misuse of the term "complex conjugate," and because the equation you posted has solutions that don't really mean anything, I am not sure what you were trying to say, so I don't know how to help you say it. My mention of vectors was the best I could do. What imaginary time usually would mean is to wrap up the imaginary number i with the time coordinate basis vector. Note that time would always be pure imaginary in this case, never a complex number. Also, for equations like x = x_0 + v*t, you would still be using the real value of t. You might be able to find a way around this, but it would be simpler to stick to using 4-vectors.
Also, I believe Rodal has mentioned before that when you get into GR, keeping the imaginary number around causes problems, so it is better to handle it the standard way by just putting a -1 in the metric (which is basically the definition of how to take a dot product.)Presuming that you agree with Special Relativity that, the time dilation experienced by a photon should reduce its duration to zero from its own perspective, then you may see why it helps to express the relationship between time for the observer and time for the photon in a single equation.
Specifically what special relativity says when you look at things from the photon's perspective is <ERROR: DIVIDE BY ZERO>. For some specific cases if you are careful and take limits properly, you can still get some answers out. I am not sure how your equation is supposed to be linking time for an observer versus time for the photon, but there already is the Lorentz transformations which calculate the relationship between any 2 desired frames (This includes the photon frame, but if you fully go there, the divide by 0 collapses one spatial direction to nothingness, and in the process you lose the information needed to switch back.)The point of all this being that where there is no passage of time, there is coincidence.
This is why physicists came up with the term lightlike interval to describe the path taken by a photon. It rides the boundary between spacelike and timelike, and photons have the special property that since nothing can go faster than them, all frames agree on whether they are moving forward of backward. -
#2784 by spupeng7 on 30 Nov, 2017 00:01
-
Thankyou meberbs, I appreciate the consideration you give to my questions.
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
The notion that the physical universe is something we cannot understand is not acceptable to me. Yes I accept my own obvious limitations, but bearing them in mind I must insist that my solutions make sense to me, at least, without being obtuse.
You are, as yet, the only person to disagree with my use of a complex number to describe time but I doubt that you will be the last. I am keen to hear from anyone who understands what I am trying to do but does not like the way I am doing it, or has a better way
If, however, I stick to using 4-vectors then my argument will not be properly expressed. In my opinion the fault lies with the mathematical methodology which is why the attempt to include Machian considerations into GR failed in the first place.
Where you are forced to devide by zero, there your methodology is broken and you may eventually have to accept that those vectors are failing to describe your universe. Complex time is, in my opinion, a way out of the fog of incomprehension which surrounds quantum mechanics. -
#2785 by Bob012345 on 30 Nov, 2017 16:04
-
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;QuoteIt is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned. -
#2786 by WarpTech on 30 Nov, 2017 17:17
-
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;QuoteIt is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned.
The problem with understanding wave particle duality is realizing that particles cannot be separated from their fields. The particle is not an independent, isolated entity and its field spans the entire universe.
-
#2787 by spupeng7 on 30 Nov, 2017 23:25
-
WarpTech,Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;QuoteIt is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned.
The problem with understanding wave particle duality is realizing that particles cannot be separated from their fields. The particle is not an independent, isolated entity and its field spans the entire universe.
the problem with a field which spans the universe is that to realize the power inherent in its quantum, it must be able to collapse instantly to a single point. Do you have in mind and explanation of that mechanism? -
#2788 by spupeng7 on 30 Nov, 2017 23:31
-
(...)
If your considering imaginary time this might be a line of related thought: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10342783944069976021&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
dustinthewind,
thankyou for the link to 'Timeless Approach to Quantum Jumps' it is a revelation to learn that someone somewhere said something which almost agrees with some small part of what I have been trying to say
-
#2789 by WarpTech on 30 Nov, 2017 23:48
-
WarpTech,Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;QuoteIt is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned.
The problem with understanding wave particle duality is realizing that particles cannot be separated from their fields. The particle is not an independent, isolated entity and its field spans the entire universe.
the problem with a field which spans the universe is that to realize the power inherent in its quantum, it must be able to collapse instantly to a single point. Do you have in mind and explanation of that mechanism?
What is the quantum nature of the detector which measures this "single point"? The two form a system that is different than either system considered independently. So the problem you're looking to answer changes the moment you add a detector to the field. It's no longer measuring "just" the particle, the detector itself is part of the system.
-
#2790 by Bob012345 on 01 Dec, 2017 15:35
-
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;QuoteIt is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned.
The problem with understanding wave particle duality is realizing that particles cannot be separated from their fields. The particle is not an independent, isolated entity and its field spans the entire universe.
Some say there are no particles, there are only fields, a view which is articulated here;
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf
-
#2791 by meberbs on 01 Dec, 2017 16:04
-
I think most if not all physicists feel the same way. The one thing they prioritize over that is theories actually matching with reality. It turns out that when it comes to quantum, reality is quite stubborn about being unintuitive.Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
The notion that the physical universe is something we cannot understand is not acceptable to me. Yes I accept my own obvious limitations, but bearing them in mind I must insist that my solutions make sense to me, at least, without being obtuse.You are, as yet, the only person to disagree with my use of a complex number to describe time but I doubt that you will be the last.
To be clear, pure imaginary time I don't have a problem with and there is a solid basis for how that would work. Complex time where time has both real and imaginary components seems like it is guaranteed to produce complex results for position as well when put into any dynamics equation. You could put sqrt(t**t) (note that superscript asterisk denotes complex conjugate) in place of t in all the standard equations, but then you don't have any meaning associated with t being complex, and you are just using the magnitude.
I don't think I can say anything else of value at this point. Let me know if you figure out a way to write down dynamics equations that don't break when you use complex time.
-
#2792 by Stormbringer on 01 Dec, 2017 23:02
-
The universe is weird.
https://phys.org/news/2017-12-arrow-relative-concept-absolute.html
Well that's that then.
-
#2793 by spupeng7 on 02 Dec, 2017 00:10
-
Thanks meberbs, and WarpTech to,
I think most if not all physicists feel the same way. The one thing they prioritize over that is theories actually matching with reality. It turns out that when it comes to quantum, reality is quite stubborn about being unintuitive.Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
The notion that the physical universe is something we cannot understand is not acceptable to me. Yes I accept my own obvious limitations, but bearing them in mind I must insist that my solutions make sense to me, at least, without being obtuse.You are, as yet, the only person to disagree with my use of a complex number to describe time but I doubt that you will be the last.
To be clear, pure imaginary time I don't have a problem with and there is a solid basis for how that would work. Complex time where time has both real and imaginary components seems like it is guaranteed to produce complex results for position as well when put into any dynamics equation. You could put sqrt(t**t) (note that superscript asterisk denotes complex conjugate) in place of t in all the standard equations, but then you don't have any meaning associated with t being complex, and you are just using the magnitude.
I don't think I can say anything else of value at this point. Let me know if you figure out a way to write down dynamics equations that don't break when you use complex time.
I certainly will attempt to "figure out a way to write down dynamics equations that don't break when you use complex time" as you suggest, my argument for gravity as an electrical effect relies on it. Thanks to you all for a vigorous conversation regarding quantum mechanics, a subject which I think is at the very heart of emdrive development.
Roger Shawyer maintains that what special relativity tells us about "momentum exchange via radiation pressure" is a complete explanation for emdrive thrust. If we do not agree we must, or at least I must, begin by explaining the need to complicate the issue.
In my opinion, this forum makes a solid contribution. By allowing dissent you are giving the dissenters reason to consider their own prejudice. -
#2794 by dustinthewind on 02 Dec, 2017 18:09
-
I originally posted this in the Woodward effect thread but it seemed highly connected to this thread.
Something related to WarpTech's equations above
How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.
I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.
I realized this morning is that Puthoff's equations for the polarizable vacuum suggest a changing mass per change in acceleration also.
That isPolarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity
so as an object falls into a gravity well undergoing a change in acceleration is mass changes also.
H. E. Puthoff
m(K) = m_o*K^(3/2)
Thanks WarpTech
I suspect I may have connected the dots that describe how the EM drive is related to the Woodward effect. The magnetic field at the tip of the frustum, being up, is of greater magnitude than the magnetic field at the lower portion of the frustum, down. There is a dynamic effect that occurs when this happens. The magnetic fields in the EM drive when created may initially be at equilibrium but as energy rapidly builds in the frustum the equilibrium may shift to compress the magnetic field below as in the crushing of a spring.
This rapid build up in energy causes a rapid jerk or change in acceleration of the circulating current in the cavity toward the large end as the large end magnetic field is compressed.
The trick to maximize the Woodward effect in the EM drive may be to maximize the amount of this current being displaced by this effect, maximize the change in energy in the input phase (bust pulse), allow gradual loss of energy in the dissipation phase to minimize jerk back (Quality effect).
The greater change in acceleration of charge toward the large end (smaller da/dt toward the small end) suggest pushing the vacuum toward the large end (Thrust) and the resultingthrustforce is toward the small end.
I am still considering if this change in mass of the charges is akin to a change in mass of the light upon reflection and if it could lead to a 2nd order Doppler effect. I.E. Absorption of energy by the vacuum.
The trick now should be to get an estimate on the magnitude of such an effect. -
#2795 by RotoSequence on 03 Dec, 2017 08:41
-
The Flyby Anomaly persists with the Juno mission
https://www.universetoday.com/137984/juno-isnt-exactly-supposed-flyby-anomaly-back-happen/amp/Quote“Our conclusion is that an anomalous acceleration is also acting upon the Juno spacecraft in the vicinity of the perijove (in this case, the asymptotic velocity is not a useful concept because the trajectory is closed). This acceleration is almost one hundred times larger than the typical anomalous accelerations responsible for the anomaly in the case of the Earth flybys. This was already expected in connection with Anderson et al.’s initial intuition that the effect increases with the angular rotational velocity of the planet (a period of 9.8 hours for Jupiter vs the 24 hours of the Earth), the radius of the planet and probably its mass.”
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08893QuoteAbstract
In the last decades there have been an increasing interest in improving the accuracy of spacecraft navigation and trajectory data. In the course of this plan some anomalies have been found that cannot, in principle, be explained in the context of the most accurate orbital models including all known effects from classical dynamics and general relativity. Of particular interest for its puzzling nature, and the lack of any accepted explanation for the moment, is the flyby anomaly discovered in some spacecraft flybys of the Earth over the course of twenty years. This anomaly manifest itself as the impossibility of matching the pre and post-encounter Doppler tracking and ranging data within a single orbit but, on the contrary, a difference of a few mm/s in the asymptotic velocities is required to perform the fitting.
Nevertheless, no dedicated missions have been carried out to elucidate the origin of this phenomenon with the objective either of revising our understanding of gravity or to improve the accuracy of spacecraft Doppler tracking by revealing a conventional origin.
With the occasion of the Juno mission arrival at Jupiter and the close flybys of this planet, that are currently been performed, we have developed an orbital model suited to the time window close to the perijove. This model shows that an anomalous acceleration of a fewmm/s2 is also present in this case. The chance for overlooked conventional or possible unconventional explanations is discussed. -
#2796 by Augmentor on 03 Dec, 2017 18:18
-
Dustinthewind,
Warptech is headed in the right direction. Compare his equation on acceleration and change in acceleration to Woodward's. As to QVF, that is beyond the scope of Woodward's GR derivation. Quantum Mach Effects (QME) are considered at this point to be "minuscule". Even so, QME is worth exploring theoretically.
The Mach Effect experimental device families (MET, MEGA) have asymmetric masses with a forced damped oscillator. Once resonance has been established, then timed electrical pulses add dielectric energy resulting in expansion of the material (PZT et al). GR Mach Effects (GRME) occur when a internal acceleration occurs collinearly within an external acceleration; GRME can also occur for a system at velocity (momentum) and an external change in force (jerk) is applied. This can be seen in both Woodward's derivation as well as Warptech's approach.
ref: https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/stargates.pdf
Woodward derives in a paper preceding his book, MSAS-2013, a formula of the form...
F = A a^2 + B j v
where v is velocity, a is acceleration and j is the change in acceleration (jerk).
F has units kg-m/sec^2 and a^2 and jv have units of m^2/sec^4
A and B are constants. So A and B have units of kg-sec^2/m
This formula applies to straight-line free travel in flat space. One should consider time dependencies of m, v, a and j as well the additional challenges of the orbital mechanics of a flyby and traveling along gravitational geodesics.
For applied Mach theory, you may also need to perform relativistic corrections for doppler effect and heat conduction among other things. IMHO the emDrive propulsion may be due in part to relativistic heat conduction.
Since Woodward derives Mach theory from General Relativity, consider four-vector implications.
Warptech does introduce four gradient. However, a comprehensive review of all four-vector physics is required eventually. From Wiki "Four vector", here is a nice checklist in the form of table of contents.
4 Fundamental four-vectors
4.1 Four-position
4.2 Four-gradient
5 Kinematics
5.1 Four-velocity
5.2 Four-acceleration
6 Dynamics
6.1 Four-momentum
6.2 Four-force
7 Thermodynamics
7.1 Four-heat flux
7.2 Four-baryon number flux
7.3 Four-entropy
8 Electromagnetism
8.1 Four-current
8.2 Four-potential
9 Waves
9.1 Four-frequency
9.2 Four-wavevector
10 Quantum theory
10.1 Four-probability current
10.2 Four-spin
11 Other formulations
11.1 Four-vectors in the algebra of physical space
11.2 Four-vectors in spacetime algebra
The rocket equation derivation I will need to examine closer. One would have to relate Q to the rocket equation to make sense of what Warptech is proposing.
You mileage may be relativistic,
David -
#2797 by WarpTech on 03 Dec, 2017 21:07
-
Is Temperature a Lorentz Invariant quantity in SR?
I found this: http://www.physastromath.ch/uploads/myPdfs/Relativ/T_SRT_en.pdf
It is an interesting question because energy is frame dependent, but temperature depends on molecular/atomic vibration.
Time dilation would suggest that relative to a fast-moving observer, all vibration should stop and the temperature should go to zero. Same is true for the energy of blackbody oscillators, h*f goes to zero as time dilation increases.
On the other hand, Temperature ~ Kinetic Energy, which increases relative to a fast-moving observer.
Or, is Temperature an invariant because it is defined by an "absolute" Kelvin scale, and things such as boiling points, melting points and triple points, are not frame dependent, but rather material dependent.
If Temperature is invariant, then the Boltzmann constant must be frame dependent. That comes as a bit of a surprise to me, but it has to be one or the other. Either the Boltzmann constant is frame dependent or energy is not.
Is there any final consensus on this? It seems that after 100+ years of Relativity, the effects of SR on Thermodynamics are still unresolved. The consequences brought up in the article seem rather profound.
Thanks. -
#2798 by OnlyMe on 03 Dec, 2017 23:46
-
Is Temperature a Lorentz Invariant quantity in SR?
I found this: http://www.physastromath.ch/uploads/myPdfs/Relativ/T_SRT_en.pdf
It is an interesting question because energy is frame dependent, but temperature depends on molecular/atomic vibration.
Time dilation would suggest that relative to a fast-moving observer, all vibration should stop and the temperature should go to zero. Same is true for the energy of blackbody oscillators, h*f goes to zero as time dilation increases.
On the other hand, Temperature ~ Kinetic Energy, which increases relative to a fast-moving observer.
Or, is Temperature an invariant because it is defined by an "absolute" Kelvin scale, and things such as boiling points, melting points and triple points, are not frame dependent, but rather material dependent.
If Temperature is invariant, then the Boltzmann constant must be frame dependent. That comes as a bit of a surprise to me, but it has to be one or the other. Either the Boltzmann constant is frame dependent or energy is not.
Is there any final consensus on this? It seems that after 100+ years of Relativity, the effects of SR on Thermodynamics are still unresolved. The consequences brought up in the article seem rather profound.
Thanks.
WarpTech,
Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.
For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.
… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?
-
#2799 by WarpTech on 04 Dec, 2017 01:06
-
WarpTech,
Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.
For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.
… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?
There is a difference between Doppler shift and higher/lower temperature. Atoms have very well defined spectral lines. When moving toward or away, the entire spectrum is Doppler shifted. The same is true for time dilation.
Whereas, if the temperature is increased or decreased, the spectrum doesn't shift. Increasing temperature just excites additional spectral lines in the atomic energy levels. The lower spectral lines are still there.
If, however, I stick to using 4-vectors then my argument will not be properly expressed. In my opinion the fault lies with the mathematical methodology which is why the attempt to include Machian considerations into GR failed in the first place.