[Jerry]

Hi. What type of observations does the Lorentz Transformation present to physical reality? A main idea I’ve heard is that when the Lorentz Transformation is applied to “faster than light” velocities of objects, that it always prevents travel at or over c.

If possible, what could we describe accurately in words about this, with the least amount of math and technical terminology?

Thanks!

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi everyone. Whenever you consider Quantum Mechanics, which main ideas occur to you most? I tend to think of the uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, wave-function collapse, quantum entanglement, the idea that “you can’t know a particle’s position and momentum at the same time”, that particles “jump in and out of existence”, and have been detected to “occur in two places at the same time”. Plus, there’s the Many Worlds theory, the Copenhagen interpretation, and Schrodinger’s cat (which was originally intended as a joke). What thoughts or questions does anyone here have about any of these? that might differ from the other common or established views? Is there that much of “dissident” objections or further ideas with which to view Quantum Mechanics?

[Jerry]

Hi Kasim! Sorry about the slight delay. Quite intriguing thoughts you’ve written. I hadn’t yet heard of the actual interaction of protons and positrons, except only to theorize. Some of what you’ve written I’m unfamiliar with. Why would positive and negative annihilate? Is your hypothesis currently testable? Have you had any experiments yet? I had only recently heard of how protons and electrons, could turn into neutrons (through a process I don’t understand. lol)

[Jerry]

Oops! I think I didn’t “word” clearly what I wanted to say in one of those sentences. lol I mentioned how the idea is often accepted, that all “standard” particles have the exact same size, mass, charge, etc. What I meant to ask was if “could the Particle Model view account for how even <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>planets (within the macroscale) also exist at different size, mass, charge, and such?” Or does this scenario bring too much in mind of the “solar system model” of the atom? This “outdated theory”, to me, does continue to seem somewhat understandable. Is Quantum Mechanics said to have disproved it? I’m also quite skeptical about Quantum Mechanics! Anyway, sorry about the mix-up!

[Jerry]

Actually, I often find myself questioning and considering thoughts that I haven’t fully accepted. Some of them that might even seem quite outlandish. I could present a few of them, maybe just to somewhat entertain. If I’m mistaken, I could at least maybe find out why, and to search for more truthful ways to observe the universe. 🙂

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi Ken. I plan to respond more thoroughly. Could I ask though, how much would you say you agree (or disagree) with Relativity? Of which specific ideas?

[Jerry]

Thanks Ken.

That does sound convincing to hear that today’s telescope technology is easily “up to the task” of providing the way to accurately observe exceedingly distant celestial objects. Why though, is practically every picture of a solar eclipse I’ve seen, the moon doesn’t completely cover the sun? So when within the eclipse were the most relevant pictures observed and studied? Was it slightly before, and slightly after, the “total” solar eclipse? Since the “total eclipse” is when the moon appears within the center of the sun, where the sun’s light surrounds the moon’s sort of slightly “irregular shadow” all the way around. I would guess that all of the nearby stars that were present within a total eclipse, couldn’t have been seen, since the sun’s light would interfere. Just a thought.

[Jerry]

John-Erik,

Have you read or heard of The Particle Model (TPM) ? It sounds quite compelling, though I’m unsure if the theory is completely accurate.

When you speak of the MMX and the “transverse arm” and “Potier in reference arm”, were you referring to the “arms” of the interferometer? That they’re somehow affected by the invisible and undetectable “aether”? I’m unsure if you accept any of the theory involving the MMX and the “arms” of the interferometer. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

[Jerry]

Good point, Laura. This does seem a complex problem.

Whenever a given object is “at rest”, or “stationary”, if the object or frame doesn’t accelerate, it is inertial, and could serve as a reference of “exactly how fast” another given object exists or travels. Of course, with Special Relativity, gravity and acceleration were ignored or considered irrelevant specifically for the purpose of solving this given problem.

And there’s also a much larger question, “what is everything within the whole universe relative to?” The answer considered by many over a century ago, was the aether, which was said to have been the ultimate valid frame of reference within which all objects exist or travel.

[Jerry]

Hi Ken.

Maybe time for a lithium clock in a high orbit does run slower than one on earth. Why to compare this to a clock at the north pole? Is it different from how time goes at the equator? Anyway, what is your view of why there is time dilation within the plane? Is it to account for the velocity of the plane, or the time dilation caused by the gravity of the earth compared to (at least slightly) outer space?

[Jerry]

John-Erik,

Also, what is your viewpoint of exactly where physics went wrong 140 years ago? Was that caused by specific, yet mistaken, ideas of some one or many scientists? Of course, there have been countless other scientists at many other given times through the centuries who weren’t necessarily contributing valuable ideas. That there were even many detrimental ideas throughout the history of science, that were accepted by some or many others. Anyway, just a thought.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

With Michelson and Morley, were you referring to their experiments with the interferometer there? And also “length contraction”?

[Jerry]

Ken,

I would say that I don’t believe the twins ages would differ, so 🙁. Though I wouldn’t want either of the twins to seem so sad!

Also though, I’m highly skeptical (almost complete disbelief) about the “a clock on the plane and one on the ground” experiment, with Hafele and Keating, and from what I’ve heard, many others.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Thanks, Ken.

The first answer you provided for my inquiry, seems to agree with the same view I had previously expressed with what seems my “rhetorical question”. That is, (in statement form), “to know the position or velocity of a given object, requires a direct reference to another object or frame.”

To consider your answer a bit further though, if a spacecraft were in outer space, far away from anything observable, such as planets or stars, to know its position or velocity definitely is impossible to know. At least, it could appear that way, since there isn’t anything else around to compare it to. If the spacecraft isn’t accelerating, it could seem to exist as “stationary”, or it could travel at almost the velocity of light at a <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>constant velocity. That each scenario is virtually indistinguishable to the other. This, of course, is essentially the truth that Galilean Relativity (and the first postulate of Special Relativity) states.

<font face=”inherit”>I would definitely endorse the view that critical analysis is most valuable and necessary to advance the sciences. Of course, physics is a vast field, with countless interconnected instances of accurate knowledge. However, theoretical physics, over at least the last century, </font><font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>has often accepted multiple </font>unverifiable<font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”> hypotheses, many of which there isn’t any possible way of which to provide adequate evidence. </font>

<font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Of course, mathematics is highly necessary within the field of physics. I personally tend towards the idea that words and concepts have also had the capacity to convey accurate ideas, and to increase our understanding of our world and universe. </font>

<font face=”inherit” style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>Just a few thoughts. </font>

[Jerry]

Hi Ken. Please forgive my mathematical ignorance. 🙂 I have to admit that most of what you wrote I didn’t understand. Perhaps I could if I were to learn the definitions to the technical terminology and symbolism, and how they correlate with each other within the scientific and mathematical “framework”.

I had asked a slightly different question that is added in italics, of “How can we determine the velocity of an object within an inertial frame?”

Here’s a similar question, that seems to answer the first, “How to know the position or velocity of a given object without direct reference to another object or frame?”

Aren’t all inertial frames equally valid? If a given object travels at a constant velocity at almost the velocity of light, couldn’t we technically consider it just as “stationary” as all other objects throughout the universe that don’t accelerate?

Thanks for responding, Ken.

Did you agree with much that I had written at the top of this conversation?