CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

[Faradave]

You didn't explain why >> "Invariant" is a completely different phenomenon than "stationary"... a, practically speaking, opposite meaning.

In SR "invariant" is the opposite of "relative". hyksos was alluding to the fact that "stationary" (i.e. "at rest" is a relative term. This is fairly basic. as other forms of "relativity" were known long before SR. What makes SR valuable is that it offers other "invariant" quantities as well (for example, spacetime intervals, speed limit c & the mass-energy of a particle in its rest frame).

If you are in deep space and see an asteroid approaching steadily, SR asserts there is no distinction between you moving toward the "resting" asteroid, the asteroid moving toward "resting" you or some combination of motions. "Rest" and "stationary" are relative terms in SR as are all constant velocities. The most that can be asserted is that they are not accelerating (changing speed or direction).

a simultaneous flash of light somewhere along the “space” axis
...
another possibility where separation in space always includes a c related separation in time so we never have separation of space without an observed separation in time “spacetime.”

"Simultaneous" implies "without separation in time". There's a conflict if you both assert and deny separation in time.

This makes the “spacelike” part of chart unobservable and probably nonexistent

"Unobservable" Yes, by someone at a distance from that location. But different observers can observe different locations simultaneously, so we can be confident those locations do exist. Besides, essentially all observations involve some sort of time delay. No one is surprised by this. Observation by lightlike interaction gives an invariant (i.e. agreeable) delay.

The remote end of an entangled spin state may be depicted as occurring on the horizontal, spatial coordinate

Correct.

an energy exchange by entanglement

No such thing! The entanglement connection is non-traversable by mass, energy or information. It mainly serves as a correlation reference for shared quantum states. You are correct to surmise that communicating a verification of a change in quantum state is limited to speed c. But the actual change in quantum state (e.g. from entangled to disentangled) has no such limit.

I see no reason to interpret the slope of the "communication" coordinate as a speed rather than a time/space dimensional constant and I prefer the latter. Largely because it appears as an absolute

I don't think you'll get in any major trouble with that. Keep in mind that particle accelerators push those little buggers very, very, very, very, very close to c and you would agree that those are actual "speeds".

[socrat44]

You didn't explain why >> "Invariant" is a completely different phenomenon than "stationary"... a, practically speaking, opposite meaning.

In SR "invariant" is the opposite of "relative".
hyksos was alluding to the fact that "stationary" (i.e. "at rest" is a relative term.
This is fairly basic. as other forms of "relativity" were known long before SR.
What makes SR valuable is that it offers other "invariant" quantities as well
(for example, spacetime intervals, speed limit c & the mass-energy
of a particle in its rest frame).

If you are in deep space and see an asteroid approaching steadily, SR asserts
there is no distinction between you moving toward the
"resting" asteroid, the asteroid moving toward
"resting" you or some combination of motions.
"Rest" and "stationary" are relative terms in SR as are all constant velocities.
The most that can be asserted is that they are not accelerating (changing speed or direction).

It seems, in my opinion, you are contradicted yourself.

a) the fact that "stationary" (i.e. "at rest" is a relative term. )
b) "invariant" quantities as well . . .( of a particle in its rest frame).

If "stationary" = "at rest" and "invariant" = (rest frame) then
"stationary" = "invariant" = (rest frame)

If ''a = 0'' and ''b=0 '' then ''a=b=0 ''

Or an other variant.

a) "stationary" (i.e. "at rest" is a relative term.
This is fairly basic. as other forms of "relativity" were known long before SR.
by Faradave on December 17th, 2017, 10:32 pm

It means, that '' long before SRT'' we knew Descartes frame, Galileo transformations.

What makes SR valuable is that it offers other "invariant" quantities as well (
for example, spacetime intervals, speed limit c & the mass-energy of a particle
in its rest frame).
by Faradave on December 17th, 2017, 10:32 pm

It means that "invariant" quantities need another reference frame (Minkowski)
and another transformations (Lorentz )

Here, there are differences that explain nothing concrete about Minkowski spacetime.

==========================

[Faradave]

When I wrote "'Rest' and '"stationary'" are relative terms in SR as are all constant velocities.", I should have added "except universal speed limit c, which is invariant."

If "stationary" = "at rest" and "invariant" = (rest frame)

We need to be clear here. In SR "at rest" is a relative term. You are always at rest(translationally) in a reference frame attached to your center of mass. Other observers may however find you to be in motion.

SR does not allow an "invariant rest frame".

I have, in two posts above, referred to an "invariant frame", which would suggest an "invariant rest" for that frame. But that's just my attempt to be intriguing and clever. It's also a reason that mods get irritated when I make such statements in the Physics section. You should consider my claim of an invariant rest frame false, until shown otherwise.

Please, don't forget to explain why yours'' An invariant frame (which I will soon describe in detail) ''

I actually typed out the description. However, I have hesitated in posting it because I don't want to further confuse you (and others) regarding the above. It belongs in the Personal Theories section (if anywhere) and is meant for those who already have a firm grasp of SR.

[socrat44]

When I wrote "[color=#408040]

You are always [i]at rest(translationally) in a reference frame attached to your center of mass.
Other observers may however find you to be in motion.

You are correct, even I am in motion my centre of mass must be in rest.
( this rest-balance doesn't give the body to fall.

======

[hyksos]

QFT is the unification of S-R with G-R. While it is truly "difficult to imagine", it is mathematically consistent and experimentally sound.

(errata : should be "unification of S-R with Q-M")

[hyksos]

This means that the total momentum of the universe may not be well defined and I don't know how we could prove that it is. If the total momentum of the universe is not well defined then how can we claim there is a reference frame with zero total momentum for the whole universe -- it would only be the case for a finite portion of it.

This is true and we might need to append a qualifier "Given some finite collection of massive bodies," However, this would not make it better for those on this forum who claim the existence of preferred stationary IRFs -- it would make it far worse. Not only would we not have preferred stationary IRFs, we wouldn't even have a rest IRF to define. (the weaker form).

For the benefit of passersby, I will define some of the phrases I'm using here. The word "preferred" in S-R means that an IRF either has a "magical direction" to it or a "magical location". This would mean that if you align your laboratory with the "magical direction" the results will come out differently than an unaligned lab. Analogously, if you place your lab in the "magical location" in space, your experimental results come out differently than in locations outside of that "magical location".

A "preferred stationary IRF" is a preferred stationary inertial reference frame. While such a beast may exist in some grand metaphysical sense, the theory of S-R makes absolutely no reference to it. The equations of S-R can be derived without any leanings or derivations or assumptions about that thing. In some ways, the theory even claims that we puny humans have no access to it (if it exists at all). Using instruments of electromagnetism, we can only ever detect relative motion.

"Invariant" technically means you can switch your axis system from one observer to another, make no changes to the equations, and the theory will still be correct. The ironic part about S-R deniers is that they are, in fact, looking for what is invariant in the world, and so are we. So we find ourselves at first experiencing a kind of dizziness, because we can no longer grab ahold of a comforting "space fabric" through which we move. But is there anything which we can rely on? In other words, is it all senseless or is there something that is invariant?

There are invariant things in this word after all, they are just not in the place where you would expect.

[hyksos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_frame

[Faradave]

I like your working definitions of "preferred" and "invariant". With regard to the latter, we should clarify the term "absolute" (see definitions 15 & 17).

Its ambiguity can be confusing. "Absolute" can mean "unexceeded" as with the temperature "absolute zero" (kelvin) and would apply in that way to "absolute speed limit c". This is my personal preference but I'm afraid that is not the most common interpretation.

"Absolute" can also mean "invariant", which also applies to "absolute speed limit c". I'm going to assume this is what people mean by "absolute" in this thread however, it would be clearer to avoid "absolute" and stick with "invariant" if that's what is intended.

[phyti]

by bangstrom on December 17th, 2017, 5:35 pm
Faradave » December 15th, 2017, 3:02 pm wrote:
[In Minkowski spacetime, speed is the inverse of slope (a consequence of having vertical proper time and horizontal space coordinates). It's divided by a lightlike boundary into a timelike region (slope >1) where the temporal component of slope exceeds spatial component, and a spacelike region (slope <1), where the spatial component of slope exceeds the temporal.

The timelike region contains the subluminal (speed <c) worldlines for translation (motion) of massive particles. This region includes the vertical, proper time coordinate.

The spacelike region contains superluminal (speed >c) worldlines which are nontraversable but may nevertheless act as connections about which correlations (such as entangled spin states) may occur. This region includes the horizontal, spatial coordinate.

The lightlike boundary corresponds to speed c, conveniently depicted with slope = 1, in natural units. This is where massless communication (of energy & information) occurs. It is not included in either neighboring region and is thus not easily explained in terms of phenomena of those regions.]

No, this doesn’t help. The chart depicts the possibility that we can have separation in space without separation in time. If there is a flash of light at the origin and a simultaneous flash of light somewhere along the “space” axis ( t=0 on the “time axis) an observer at the origin will see the local flash first and the remote flash later. The time delay is c related and one explanation is that the delay is observed because of the time it takes a light signal to travel from the remote location to the origin.

This observation does not rule out another possibility where separation in space always includes a c related separation in time so we never have separation of space without an observed separation in time “spacetime.” The implication of this latter possibility is that the slope of the “communication” line depicts the constant ratio between units of length and units of time. Units of space are interchangeable with units of time as indicated by the slope of the “communication” line so the line is a dimensional constant and not necessarily a speed.

-------------
The vertical axis is now ct (a distance), resulting from Minkowski's generalization. The lines (trajectories) therefore represent speed, vt/ct, or v/c, i. e. simultaneous object motion and light motion. The spacelike, timelike, labels are trivial nonsense, since the light speed limit is a given, and moving matter must remain within the upper 45deg.
---------------

This makes the “spacelike” part of chart unobservable and probably nonexistent because we never have intervals of distance separated by fewer than the c related intervals of time to space.

-------
Space is not observable, only objects in space. Thus coordinates are only assigned to objects.

I see no reason to interpret the slope of the "communication" coordinate as a speed rather than a time/space dimensional constant and I prefer the latter. Largely because it appears as an absolute rather than a speed which should be different for different observers.

----------
It's a ratio as explained above. The propagation speed of light is a constant 'c'. Since motion affects perception and measurement, an observer moving relative to light will measure light speed as c.
------------

[ralfcis]

Good majority of real physics people here. Can someone help me find where I went wrong in Ralfativity 2.0 on the personal theories forum. I keep coming up with an absolute reference frame which is not related to the one in this thread. Read from the last post there.

[Faradave]

It's helpful to include a link to the referenced thread or its relevant post as I've done here.

This is accomplished with the "URL" tab (in Full Edit mode). You can click the "QUOTE button in the upper right corner of this post to see how it's done. (When you're finished, just click your browser's "back to last page" arrow to escape the quote). Don't forget to include an equal sign (=) before pasting your link. (e.g. url=http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=331568#p331568)

The link for a given thread is displayed in your browser's address field when you're in that thread. The link to a specific post is obtained by putting your cursor on the tiny (often red) triangle, just under the title of the post in the upper left corner. Then right click and select "copy link".

In taking a quick look, I admire your persistence and intellect. But it's futile to attempt an "absolute" or invariant frame with coordinates, such as space and time, which are themselves inherently relative. That's the point I was trying to make above.

[ralfcis]

Thanks, I just need the right guy to judge my theory on it's own merits. That's the futility I face, the theory is absolutely mathematically correct. I'd accept your evaluation if you found an actual flaw in the math not in the philosophy which I'm obviously at odds with. The math is just simple algebra, shouldn't take long to find the flaw. Once I get into the way ralfativity handles age difference, there's just no comparison with the way relativity handles it because ralfativity makes predictions that relativity can't. And isn't that what science is really all about?

P.S. That being said, you did contribute greatly to my journey with some very important information (twice) that was just not forthcoming from any other source. My journey is now over except for the final write up. I hope I can find something as difficult as relativity to tackle next.

[aramis720]

Can anyone send links or pdfs on published research addressing this question? I know that the "cosmic frame" is commonly used for various purposes in astronomy but I've not seen this common practice assessed in light of special relativity and its assumed lack of any preferred frame.

[Faradave]

I know that the "cosmic frame" is commonly used for various purposes in astronomy but I've not seen this common practice

I don't think it is common practice, though it should be because it's implied. I find support in future, and absolute future (particularly causal future)
"In special relativity, the future is considered absolute future,"
and age of universe.
"In physical cosmology, the age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. "
"Since the universe must be at least as old as the oldest things in it, ..."

How do we know we are in the future?
The universe is expanded, its background temperature is cooler, the entropy has increased and reference objects have aged (e.g. Earth's total radio isotopes have decreased).

[aramis720]

I'm referring more to navigation and telescopy. Isn't the cosmic frame commonly used in these instances?

[DJ_Juggernaut]

Can this phenomenon be used to establish the existence of an absolute stationary reference frame?

That is correct. Lorentz' ether theory (LET) and SR are mathematically and experimentally identical. All aether theories are absolute stationary reference frame theories. The aberration formula is the same in both theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberratio ... xplanation

Θ is as measured in the absolute stationary reference frame, whether the source moves or not. Or if the observer moves or not. Θ is Θ. However, ϕ, which is the tilting angle of the telescope changes if the observer (telescope) moves. The tilting angle of the telescope, ϕ, which is the aberration angle, tells you how fast you're moving relative to a photon's path.

Does this phenomenon indicate there is something wrong with the theory of Special Relativity?

Yes. If you have a telescope and a photon, you know how fast you're moving relative to a photon's path because you tilt your telescope if you're moving. Michelson measured this in his apparatus. SR says you can't know your own velocity, yet SR's formula implies the opposite.

Note:
Θ = photon's path - a line traced by a moving photon.
ϕ = tilting angle of the telescope

[aramis720]

Great response DJ. Can you provide links or papers explaining this more (beyond the aberration link you supplied)? Why in your view are these facts, which seem rather obvious to me, so difficult to convey to the cosmology and physics community in terms of empirical challenges to the SR framework?

[DJ_Juggernaut]

Here's a quote from a Michelson paper, about aberration (tilting angle of the telescope), usually, 20 arcseconds. In the quote below, the observable angle is roughly 40 arcseconds.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_R ... rous_Ether
"The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab1 being equal to the aberration = a, is returned along ba1, (aba1 = 2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered."

[DJ_Juggernaut]

Can you provide links or papers explaining this more (beyond the aberration link you supplied)?

Michelson wrote two papers on this. It is best you read them both and see how they are connected. He was trying to determine the velocity of our sun, in an absolute rest frame. CMBR dipole is pretty much a measure of what he was looking for. That the earth moves around the sun (20.5 arcseconds) was a given. He mentions this (20 arcseconds) in his second paper. Let me know if this helps you. If not, ask me.

Why in your view are these facts, which seem rather obvious to me, so difficult to convey to the cosmology and physics community in terms of empirical challenges to the SR framework?

Not sure, really.

[aramis720]

DJ, do you have the names or links to the two papers?

[DJ_Juggernaut]

Aberration is referred to in both the papers. But the second paper has a diagram of it. And the transit times for the transverse arm are different in both the papers. Find out why he changed them. I noticed that you're writing a paper on the HK experiment (time dilation). I recommend that you write a paper on the MME. It is the most misrepresented experiment in the mainstream.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rela ... rous_Ether (1881)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_R ... rous_Ether (1887)

PS. and this:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Effect_o ... y_of_Light (1913)