Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

Hi rcain,

If I have to respond to all the issues that you have raised in your last post it will require Years of extra research. Furthermore, my present understanding of many of these issues have been summarised in my book. And lastly, my time is going to be spent more on prototype electronic and magnetic devices using phases that superconduct at room and higher temperatures. Therefore I have just lifted out a few issues from your post:

however, with reference to your linkage below, between (general) relativity and quantum mechanics, it seems that Bells theorum gets in the way of any attempt to combine them at this level, without that is, declaring quantum gravity (i dont know what further problems that causes) - at least according to th the paper cited above.

If you read my book, you will see that it is correct explanation of the EPR paradox which unifies gravity with quantum mechanics.

by 'matter wave' - i assume you mean (something analageous to) Schrodinger Wave or perhaps DeBroglie wave?

Both, but there is a difference since a solution of the Schroedinger equation is always a standing wave within an inertial reference frame, while a De Broglie wave is a Schroedinger-wave as observed from another passing inertial reference frame: i.e it is a Lorentz-transformed Schroedinger wave.

- again what do you mean by 'matter waves',

The intensity of any matter wave is proportional to its mass and gravitational energy NOT a probability distribution for a “particle”.

and when you say 'are actually' i suspect yu meant to say 'can be rewritten as' (which is not quite the same thing)?

The intensity of a light wave is proportional to it’s electric (and magnetic) energy. Since it moves with speed c it can never be staionary within any inertial reference frame: i.e. it has NO MASS ENERGY. A matter wave’s intensity, similar to that of alight wave, is also proportional to electric- and magnetic energy: But since the matter wave can be stationary, within its own inertial reference frame, the electric-energy determines its rest mass, and the magnetic energy its “spin”. Within a passing inertial reference frame the mass energy is larger since the wave has now in addition kinetic energy. It thus also now has momentum and therefore it is ONLY now a De Broglie wave.

i am very interested to know, however, what sort of 'formula' we will end up with once a) recent netrinos b) entanglement, have been successfuly resolved with SR (+GR). i have a feeling it we may all be 'astonished' by a new grand-theory very soon.

A new theory is LONG overdue. If it is, however, based on “wave-particle duality” and “complementarity” it will again be wrong; Just as any theory of superconduction based on the assumption that the charge-carriers MUST be bosons is wrong and will always be wrong.

I am flying back to South Africa tomorrow. So for now So Long

[sparkyy0007]

You quote "Section 4 from the original" and point me to an interpretation!??

Here's the original translation with variables correction.
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/200-06/specrel.pdf

Your translation seems to be identical to mine. They're the same paper. Section 4 is the historic beginning of the Twin's Paradox. How you could have read it and posted the paradox is not there, is hard to understand.

Yes just realized, first glance was the bottom of page (no LateX) and went no further.
I will have a second look, thanks.

[GIThruster]

GPS AND RELATIVITY: AN ENGINEERING OVERVIEW
Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti
GPS Joint Program Offlce
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, California 09245, USA

In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics;
we show how large or small the differences are, and how and for what applications those difference are large
enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics.

Nevertheless, in practice, neglect of relativity does not now contribute measurably to the GPS error budget, as
the OCS software is currently configured.

(OCS = Operational Control System)

As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result.
In short, there are no "missing relativity terms." They cancel out.

I think you've misunderstood the Aero report. I would point you to page 194, paragraph 4 that states explicitly that the clocks onboard the sats are updated regularly to avoid the relativistic error. As I have already posted and explained, the relativistic fix is certainly necessary because without, you have a CUMULATIVE error that left uncorrected, after only 1 day has an error of more than 10 kilometers. This stuff from Aero doesn't even speak to the issue of cumulative error.

One more time:

"The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day!"

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

That's the third time I've posted this. Have you read it even once?

[johanfprins]

You quote "Section 4 from the original" and point me to an interpretation!??

Here's the original translation with variables correction.
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/200-06/specrel.pdf

Your translation seems to be identical to mine. They're the same paper. Section 4 is the historic beginning of the Twin's Paradox.

Since I am not a bigot, I must admit that one can interpret this analysis of Einstein as the beginning of the twin paradox; although he did not mention the word TWINS. I am shocked that Einstein, who is one of my heroes, could also here have made such a stupid mistake; Just as he has made with length contraction. Nonetheless I am sure that if Einstein was alive today he would have agreed that he mixed up tranformed coordinates with real coordinates and that the clocks would not differ once they are stationary next to one another.

[GIThruster]

Johan, 1905 is basically the beginning of Einstein's career as a professional physicist. IIRC, he was still working at the Austrian patent office when he wrote this. In 1911, he amplifies the issue and I believe it was at that time he first added the "Twins" illustration. Also in 1911, was the first time someone offered a solution to the paradox.

Given this is the stuff Uncle All spent his life on, you really think he, and all the physicists reading his work in excitement, and all the students of relativity for the last 100 years, all missed this "stupid mistake" as you call it? You're willing to believe you're correct and Einstein and all the physicists living these last 100 years are wrong, and you're willing deny all the physical evidence we have?

Just saying, that sounds pretty crazy to me, especially coming from someone who doesn't know what an inertial frame is.

Even though I don't generally look at math, I can guess that it is possible, it is not Einstein, but you, whom have made a coordinate system mistake. I therefore suggest you give a read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

with special attention to the section on "Temporal coordinate systems and clock synchronization" and "Einstein's Synchronization Procedure" as explained in the 1905 paper.

[GIThruster]

Johan, I have shown you the mistake, above.

You have not. If it is a mistake then the same mistake was made when they integrated over the flight paths of the flying clocks.

No. An inertial observer can have his observed time dilation of a non-inertial frame integrated.

Your argument requires the non-inertial observer coordinates to remain unchanged by the change in FOR. That is incorrect.

Tom, what I wrote last night, very late, after sipping tequila for several hours, was certainly not well phrased. Please allow I explain better what I was trying (and failing) to say.

Special Relativity does not deal with non-inertial frames, nor acceleration. If you look at the 1905 paper, what you'll immediately notice is that there's no mention of acceleration. The subject is only velocity. Acceleration is missing from SR. Einstein went on to deal with acceleration in GR, but many years later.

Given the subject is Time Dilation, the Twins Paradox and SR, this is why I was saying that discussion of acceleration is not necessary. Granted, I used harsher words, but that was my point. In discussion of the Twins Paradox, Time Dilation in general and even Length Contraction, "acceleration" is a red herring that doesn't get a hearing from Einstein until GR.

Hope that's helpful and I do apologize for any unintended slights toward anyone as regards these issues we're discussing.

Now for some tequila.

[DeltaV]

GPS AND RELATIVITY: AN ENGINEERING OVERVIEW
Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti
GPS Joint Program Offlce
The Aerospace Corporation
El Segundo, California 09245, USA

In this paper, we compare the predictions of relativity to those of intuitive, classical, Newtonian physics;
we show how large or small the differences are, and how and for what applications those difference are large
enough to make it necessary to correct the formulas of classical physics.

Nevertheless, in practice, neglect of relativity does not now contribute measurably to the GPS error budget, as
the OCS software is currently configured.

(OCS = Operational Control System)

As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result.
In short, there are no "missing relativity terms." They cancel out.

I think you've misunderstood the Aero report. I would point you to page 194, paragraph 4 that states explicitly that the clocks onboard the sats are updated regularly to avoid the relativist error. As I have already posted and explained, the relativistic fix is certainly necessary because without, you have a CUMULATIVE error that left uncorrected, after only 1 day has an error of more than 10 kilometers. This stuff from Aero doesn't even speak to the issue of cumulative error.

One more time:

"The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day!"

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

That's the third time I've posted this. Have you read it even once?

I think you've misunderstood the Aero report.

You think wrong.

I would point you to page 194, paragraph 4 that states explicitly that the clocks onboard the sats are updated regularly to avoid the relativist error.

You mean this part?

Station clocks, satellite clocks, and ephemeris parameters are all allowed to move together, and so Monitor Station time is controlled entirely by the satellite clocks. (If several satellites are in view, the Monitor Station clock is mathematically redundant, and in practice it drops out of the solution.) But if the filter were retuned to be very "stiff," with long time constant and reasonable weights assigned to the Monitor Station clocks, then the appropriate time over which the relativistic effects would act would no longer nearly equal the signal propagation time, but would be several hours or days; and then the error due to the neglected γ factor would approximate that incurred in the hypothetical accumulated doppler scenario - many meters.

Note the part I highlighted. That means the monitor station time is controlled by an observed, Lorentz transformed satellite time.
The actual clock rate in the satellite frame is not transformed, only the clock rate seen on the ground. What is so hard for you to understand about this?

Did you read the next paragraph?

Nevertheless, in practice, neglect of relativity does not now contribute measurably to the GPS error budget

I'd rather believe engineers who actually worked on the GPS system than some astronomer expressing his opinion.

Long-Term Prediction of GPS Accuracy: Understanding the Fundamentals

NAVIGATION ERROR SOURCES
This error source list is not meant to be all-inclusive, but
includes those with the largest effects
· Dilution of Precision
· Signal-In-Space Range Error
o Ephemeris Error
o Clock Error
· Atmospheric Error
o Ionospheric Error
o Tropospheric Error
· User Equipment Error
o Multipath
o Receiver noise

Show me where this document contains the words "relativity" or "relativistic".

[GIThruster]

DV, please do read the paper more carefully.

The point that relativistic corrections in future operations is not necessary, is contingent upon the fact that the clocks in GPS sats, are updated very often by design. It's because they're updated so often that relativistic errors do not accumulate. If the clocks were not so updated, the relativistic error would be as in the post I've made several times now.

I'm not saying Aero is wrong. They're correct. There is no need for further relativistic correction, BECAUSE the clocks are updated so often, that error cannot accumulate.

And no. The snippet you provided is not page 194, paragraph 4.

[DeltaV]

DV, please do read the paper more carefully.

The point that relativistic corrections in future operations is not necessary, is contingent upon the fact that the clocks in GPS sats, are updated very often by design. It's because they're updated so often that relativistic errors do not accumulate. If the clocks were not so updated, the relativistic error would be as in the post I've made several times now.

I'm not saying Aero is wrong. They're correct. There is no need for further relativistic correction, BECAUSE the clocks are updated so often, that error cannot accumulate.

You read more carefully.

Monitor Station time is controlled entirely by the satellite clocks.

That means it's the ground clocks that are updated, not the satellite clocks.

[GIThruster]

Whatever. Makes no difference. Look at the paragraph I referenced.

"But this error would be incurred only if the station clocks were independent of the GPS satellite clocks. . ."

GPS uses regular, often, clock correction to avoid all relativistic error accumulation.

[DeltaV]

Whatever. Makes no difference. Look at the paragraph I referenced.

"But this error would be incurred only if the station clocks were independent of the GPS satellite clocks. . ."

GPS uses regular, often, clock correction to avoid all relativistic error accumulation.

Observed-from-ground (Lorentz transformed) time error, if the relativistic effects didn't cancel, mixed in with all the non-relativistic errors.

All of your assertions about what a big problem relativity is for GPS are flat wrong. You've been caught.

[GIThruster]

Whatever. Makes no difference. Look at the paragraph I referenced.

"But this error would be incurred only if the station clocks were independent of the GPS satellite clocks. . ."

GPS uses regular, often, clock correction to avoid all relativistic error accumulation.

Observed-from-ground (Lorentz transformed) time error.

DV, I've always enjoyed your posts here and I can't understand why you have this adversarial tone to your posts.

GPS would not function, if allowances weren't made to correct for time dilation. I supplied you with the figures. I showed you from your own source, that GPS does indeed correct for time dilation by regularly updating its clocks. Where is the boggle?

The people who designed GPS, understood the issues that SR gives, and planned accordingly. They side-stepped the cumulative error issue, by providing for regular clock correction. Calcs are that if they had not, GPS would wander 10 km/day.

If there were no clock correction in the GPS system, GPS would be useless. That was my point. Einstein was and is correct. Johan is not. He's proposing physics that contradicts all field theorists this last century, because he has made some sort of mistake.

The proof is in the physical evidence. If you doubt Time Dilation, Length Contraction and Special Relativity, you do so as an affront to all physicists studying such things for the last century, and all the physical evidence the last half century.

You wanna do that to support a delusional old man, that's up to you.

[DeltaV]

DV, I've always enjoyed your posts here and I can't understand why you have this adversarial tone to your posts.

Look who's talking. You have defined "adversarial" in this thread.

GPS would not function, if allowances weren't made to correct for time dilation.

BS. The links I provided disprove that.

I supplied you with the figures.

You supplied us with some astronomer's opinion.

I showed you from your own source, that GPS does indeed correct for time dilation by regularly updating its clocks. Where is the boggle?

Where did you get "time dilation" from that? Not that observed times aren't dilated, but the authors clearly stated relativistic effects cancel out. The correction is mostly for the other non-relativistic errors that you conveniently ignore.

The people who designed GPS, understood the issues that SR gives, and planned accordingly. They side-stepped the cumulative error issue, by providing for regular clock correction. Calcs are that if they had not, GPS would wander 10 km/day.

The people who designed GPS clearly did not include any correction for relativity, per those links.

Einstein was and is correct. Johan is not. He's proposing physics that contradicts all field theorists this last century, because he has made some sort of mistake.

Einstein was not correct in everything. Stop making a God out of a man.

The proof is in the physical evidence. If you doubt Time Dilation, Length Contraction and Special Relativity, you do so as an affront to all physicists studying such things for the last century, and all the physical evidence the last half century.

No one is denying time dilation and length contraction as an observed effect. You err in attributing dynamic powers to mere kinematics.

You wanna do that to support a delusional old man, that's up to you.

His qualifications impress me more than yours.

[johanfprins]

I have derived from the Lorentz transformation and the equally valid reverse Lorentz transformation that when the distance between the two clocks is X, then in terms of the clock in Kp this distance is v*tp, while in terms of the clock in K this same distance is v*t. Since the speed is the same (it is RELATIVE), the mathematics is impeccably correct: namely that the Lorentz transformation demands that tp=t. If this is not the case, the Lorentz-transformation MUST be wrong!! Thus either Einstein made a mistake, or his own postulates which led him to the Lorentz transformation must be wrong. SO PLEASE!!!! Goodbye until I am back in South Africa next Friday.

[ladajo]

I thought this was an interesting read on topic...

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp