Room-temperature superconductivity?

[rcain]

...
...
For the record, I entered this discussion with a "reset" and open mind. I have listened to both sides, done my homework, and come the conclusion that SR has real measurable impact that does not unwind.
...

pretty much here also.

...
I think it calls for a dedicated experiment involving a deep space mission as a science package addition.

i nominate Johan as the pilot of said vehicle; at the end of the day its the only way he'll believe the answer - though of course it will unfortunately still be his word against everyone else's.... so that's no better really ... except it'll be your great great grandchildren that have the pleasure of arguing with him

[mvanwink5]

The problem I have with the argument that SR implies that the returning twin will be younger, is that the SR calculation is independent of acceleration. Nowhere in the prediction of a young twin is this included. However, when the paradox of doing the calculation from the the supposed younger twin's point of view, predicts the other twin will be younger, the paradox escape route is to drag in the acceleration and deceleration. It is easy to design the experiment so that both twins experience the same acceleration and deceleration with no paradox escape.

To summarize, it is easy for me to accept Johan's view that SR is useful as a time measurement correction, and that the reality is there is no such thing as a younger twin due to SR. Symmetry is the ultimate issue with a younger twin, and that there is no counter to the symmetry issue no matter how much smoke is blown.
Best regards

[tomclarke]

Let's see if we can untangle this:

Johan, I'm not going to argue about interpretation of words. I will argue about physically observable phenomena. And that means Twins case where one twin changes frames, the other does not, and they meet up.

If clocks can only be compared once they meet up within the SAME inertial reference frame, how come one MUST do an SR correction on a clock within a satellite to bring it in sync with a clock on the earth; without first bringing the clock on the sattellite back to earth? Can you not see that you are contradicting yourself?

It is all about when you can unambiguously synchonise clocks.

All this needs is for them to be close, so that light-time is small.

This works independent of velocities (they don't need to be in same frame) with error ~ light-time.

Satellite stays close to earth. If it was single FOR it would get further with time. So for satellite (but not single FOR) case we can wait a long time till SR correction is large compared with error due to light travel between satellite and earth.

Actually we can do better, but this is more complex, and not needed for a proper thought experiment.

Because the sat distance and velocity are identical relative to earth on successive orbits we can synchronise in a frame-independent way such that we frame-depedent compare clocks, but cancel the light speed error which is frame-dependent but identical for the two synchs. That is what GPS sats do.

In this (measurable) case relative time dilation is real and as given by SR.

I thought you argued that it is also real on the clock within the satellite without having to bring this clock back to the earth's reference frame. So is the time dilation REAL on the clock which stays in orbit and keeps on moving relative to earth, or can it only be real AFTER this clock has been brought back to earth so that the clock "meets up" with a clock on earth? Can you not see that you are illogical?

real <==> physically measurable in an unambiguous (frame-independent) way.

sat => measurable (see above)
twins => measurable
clock in single FOR moving away => not measurable

Where there is no change of frame, ie one clock goes away from the other forever with speed v, since clocks cannot be directly compared, I am not interested in the "relative rates". In fact don't think these are well defined, because the ratio you get is frame-dependent.

So you are arguing that a clock that "goes away" from earth and stays away from earth while moving with a speed v relative to earth, like a clock within a satellite actually does, cannot be directly compared with a clock on earth since this situation is not "well-defined"? So why are you then also arguing that an SR correction is required for the clock on the sattelite if such a situation is not "well-defined"? A "mushy" SR correction which is not well-defined??

It all comes down to how you do the observation. You use light to synch. In the moving further away case the synch errors increase linearly with time, so the "dilation ambiguity" is fixed and cannot be got rid of.

In the sat case the dilation ambiguity is inversely proportional to measurement time since:
error is fixed (~ light time)
dilation effect is proportional to measurement time.

So there we can compare dilation more and more accurately just by waiting longer.

[johanfprins]

I REALLY want to run an SR experiment that looks at isotope decay rates. Atomic oscillations are measurable, and we see that they do change in what we call GR and SR constraints. But I am curious to the conflicting looks (ancillary as they are by looking at date collected for other reasons) that say decay rates do not change.

I think it calls for a dedicated experiment involving a deep space mission as a science package addition.

Amen. But why such an expensive experiment? How about a loom shuttle designed to go to and fro at the highest speed possible. Each cycle IS a return trip for one of the two twins.

Manufacture two loom shuttles out of the same radio-active material. Then send one to and fro for millions of cycles while keeping the other stationary. Then compare their decay rates. I predict that it will STILL be the same! Let experiment decide this folly of one twin ageing at a different rate than the other twin. It DOES NOT HAPPEN!!!!

[ladajo]

...
...
For the record, I entered this discussion with a "reset" and open mind. I have listened to both sides, done my homework, and come the conclusion that SR has real measurable impact that does not unwind.
...

pretty much here also.

...
I think it calls for a dedicated experiment involving a deep space mission as a science package addition.

i nominate Johan as the pilot of said vehicle; at the end of the day its the only way he'll believe the answer - though of course it will unfortunately still be his word against everyone else's.... so that's no better really ... except it'll be your great great grandchildren that have the pleasure of arguing with him

Well, I have thought more on this, and I am currently wondering how I can decellerate my speed right now (sitting in a chair, and not moving relative to the earth, which is my reference). In effect, I want to impose negative G's and "slow down". I guess to do that I would have to get off the earth and let it drive away from me. Hmm. Now I get into a complexity of having to accelerate myself to get off the earth, and then impose decel and watch the earth "fly away". Now I am thinking there is no such thing as a straight line, it is going to be curved for someone...

So, I am off the earth, but at the same orbital distance from the sun. I have established an orbit slightly off plane from teh earth's and am in the opposite direction, counter orbiting. I am now orbiting "slower" around the sun, and the earth is passing me. So does that mean that the earth's clock is slower compared to mine? I would think yes...hmm. Somehow, applied force, accel/deccel has to play into this...hmm.

[JohnFul]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6 ... a033b78f3e

Is interesting. Any thoughts?

[johanfprins]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6 ... a033b78f3e

Is interesting. Any thoughts?

Very interesting since it also demonstrates macro-entanglement: Just as is happenning when I extract electrons from an n-type diamond so that they form a superconducting phase within the vacuum between the diamond and an anode.

The great tragedy is that the mainstream physicists still do not realise that entanglement is proof that the concepts of "wave-particle duality" and "complementarity" are Voodoo, paranormal metaphysics. And they refuse to even consider this possibility.

Einstein was, and still is correct that two "particles" (two sparate electron waves or separate photon waves) cannot communicate faster than the speed of light. So what is entanglement?

Entanglement occurs when two waves merge to lose their separate identities. The simplest example is when two electrons form a covalent bond. The covalent bond, once formed, does NOT consist of two seperate electrons within a bag, but it is a single wave with a single distributed charge equal to -2e. In the case of a double bond, four electrons entangled, and in the case of a triple bond, six electrons entangled: And in the case of my superconducting phase millions of electrons are entangled.

The latter phase is similar to a laser beam which is formed by the entanglement of millions of photons. Once entangled there are no separate photons in the beam. The beam is a single holistic light wave as modelled by Maxwell's equations.

When two or more waves entangle, the holistic wave does not have separate parts which require communication with one another. The whole wave is in instantaneous contact with itself. It responds "instantaneously", as a single holistic entity, when the boundary conditions change. [Added in on Monday 5 December: Obviously this means that a single electron wave and a single photon wave also respond like holistic entities when the boundary conditions change]. When the latter happens, it requires the wave to morph: The latter can occur by means of collapsing or inflating: The latter are the quantum jumps when the "orbital" electrons entangle or disentangle with a photon-wave.

A change in boundary conditions can also cause the wave intensity to "fragment" while these fragments still stay in instantaneous contact with one another. This is what happens when a single electron-wave or a single photon-wave encouters a double slit diffraction screen. The wave actually moves through both slits. When one now stupidly measures behind the screen "through which slit" the wave has moved, you change the boundary conditions in such a way that the wave has to collapse into becoming a smaller non-fragmented entity. One then concludes that the wave only moved through one slit, even though now the diffraction pattern disappears. The latter is proof that your measurement collapsed the two fragments of the wave which passed through both slits while staying in instantaneous contact with each other.

Many examples of macro-entanglement have already been found: As already mentioned there is the laser beam; there is my superconducting phase; there are the Bose-Einstein Condensates which form a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero when suitably cooling an atomic gas. There is then the entanglement of a macro-light pulse with such a BEC so that the light becomes stationary within the BEC. By tickling this macro-entangled BEC+light-pulse with another laser, the light can disentangle and then moves on again. At a low enough temperature the atoms and electrons forming a buckey ball can entangle to form a single holistic wave, and the buckey ball can then move simultaneously through two slits to be diffracted.

So what is reported here is not surprising to me. Just a pity that I do not have the money to buy these papers.

I have speculated that "dark matter" might consist of a single, or a collection of very large (parsecs) single holistic matter waves, each being in instantaneous contact with itself. It is probably the inflation of such a matter wave which generated our universe during the Guth inflation-period. If this is so, and one can build a spaceship which can entangle with such a wave, you will enter timeless space so that you might be able to pop out at distances which are parsecs away. One can dream, can one not?

[Teahive]

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on the postulate that there is no absolute refrence frame, like the ether, relative to which different speeds for different inertial refrence frames can be measured.

I believe once one holds that all observable processes are conducted through the aether – including those driving clocks or the brains of observers – a luminiferous aether becomes a perfectly valid theoretical model for SR, even though it's impossible to detect. If Einstein had been familiar with computer simulations he may well have chosen it as the most intuitive approach.

[johanfprins]

Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on the postulate that there is no absolute refrence frame, like the ether, relative to which different speeds for different inertial refrence frames can be measured.

I believe once one holds that all observable processes are conducted through the aether – including those driving clocks or the brains of observers – a luminiferous aether becomes a perfectly valid theoretical model for SR, even though it's impossible to detect. If Einstein had been familiar with computer simulations he may well have chosen it as the most intuitive approach.

The ether Einstein rejected is an unique stationary substance within which light is moving with the speed c predicted by Maxwell's equations. This would mean that when an observer moves relative to such a substance he/she will measure another speed for light than c. Einstein concluded that it does not matter with which speed you are moving, you will always measure the same speed c for light relative to you. And in fact when you use the Lorentz trabnsformation, which was discovered by Lorentz on the assumption of length contraction, and you calculate the speed of light relative to any moving object moving with any speed v you find that light can never approach such an object with a speed c+v or c-v. Even Einstein missed this fact since he explained non-simultaneity by assuming that an observer can "rush into a light beam" (this moving wioth speed c+v relative to the light beam) and "rush away from a l;ight beam (thus moving with a speed (c-v) relative to the light beam). By directly using the Lorentz transformation it is easy to prove that the light beam coming from the front is still approaching the moving observer with speed c and the light beam from the back also still approaches the observer with a speed c. Although non-simultaneity occurs, Einstein's explanation of it is wrong.

The proof is oveerwhelming that there is not a unique ether which is such that light can move with a speed c ONLY within this ether. That there might be another substance which one might call an ether, is a possibility, but it is not the ether which had been assumed during the 19th century that is required for light to have a unique speed c ONLY relative to this ether.

[happyjack27]

luminiferous aether becomes a perfectly valid theoretical model for SR, even though it's impossible to detect. If Einstein had been familiar with computer simulations he may well have chosen it as the most intuitive approach.

...to expand on johan's response. neither SR, nor einstien himself ever claimed that a "luminiferous aether", or more generally an arbitrary inertial reference frame, is NOT a "perfectly valid theoretical model for SR". quite to the contrary, the point is that ALL inertial reference frames are "perfectly valid theoretical model for SR", and furthermore that all of the laws of physics, as well as all of the universal constants, remain unchanged regardless of what inertial reference frame you choose.

the point is really that there is no non-trivial inertial reference frame that stands out from the others. no inertial reference frame has any physical or computational properties unique from any other. there is no non-arbitrary (i.e. non-trivial) frame of reference.

[happyjack27]

which, i might add, provides a sort of conceptual precursor to modern day "gauge theory" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory .

which one might state to be a bit more rigorous and unforgiving, as "something is a law of physics if and only if it applies consistently and without modification under such and such a variety of circumstances." here one asserts a difference between a "law of physics" and a law of e.g. one's particular inertial reference frame. the simple act of making this assertion restricts the set of mathematical conjectures that would be found to be acceptable theories, with out -- interestingly enough -- restricting the generality. (for the most part, they are restricting it to certain "topological" constraints. which is an interesting approach; to start by asking what is the _topology_ (or "abstract algebra") of the universe?) it forces them to be stated in a way that is more, for lack of a better term, useful.

[happyjack27]

interesting that by making certain logical / mathematical assertions (sometimes contrary to doctrine!), such as "no electron can possibly know the path of least resistance in advance", we force constraints that guide us to grand physical revelations, such as the Feymann path integral. (which shows how an electron can APPEAR to know the path of least resistance, without actually knowing it.) but we need not look so near to ourselves to find such examples -- this has been done since aristotle.

[happyjack27]

i see the changes in the rate of clocks due to gravity as a spatio-temporal-differential effect. gravity is said to be the consequence of an intrinsic curvature in space-time; of a differentially continuous change in how the "rest" paths, as far as newton's first law of motion is concerned, are connected. namely, as you go away from an energy source, the connectedness slowly changes. -- or i suppose it depends on how you measure it. you could just say that if you use a slightly different value for pi it remains concentrically constant. but you get the drift. now these differential changes in rest path connection density could also be viewed as a differential change in rate of clocks as they move towards or away from the source.

really in a certain sense, what you see when you bring two clocks back together that have travelled a different path, is a difference in their times proportional to the difference in the sum of divergent pathways they traversed. i.e. a difference in time proportional to the cumulative uncertainty they've experienced.

putting it otherwise, differential changes in the rate of clocks relative to each other is proporitonal to the cumulative differential changes in the "channel capacity" of the neighborhoods of the paths they traverse.

i'm sure that all sounds like gibberish. but it makes sense in my head.

[happyjack27]

what i'm postulating is that, for instance, the probability of a radioactive decay is proportional to the net quantum uncertainty it "experiences" in its local environment, and this is directly impacted by the local "curvature" of space. if it was traveling to higher or lower curvature, it's "internal clock", so to speak, would thus likewise accelerate or decelerate.

thus changes in the "rates of clocks", as relativity might put it, is equivocable to changes in "quantum information rate", as one might put it in information theory terms.

it is unsurprising, therefore, that this changes depending on the proximity to mass/energy sources; around singularities of uncertainty.

[Teahive]

The ether Einstein rejected is an unique stationary substance within which light is moving with the speed c predicted by Maxwell's equations. This would mean that when an observer moves relative to such a substance he/she will measure another speed for light than c. Einstein concluded that it does not matter with which speed you are moving, you will always measure the same speed c for light relative to you.

What I tried to express is that, if one assumes an aether, all moving observers would still determine the same c in any case.

Even Einstein missed this fact since he explained non-simultaneity by assuming that an observer can "rush into a light beam" (this moving wioth speed c+v relative to the light beam) and "rush away from a l;ight beam (thus moving with a speed (c-v) relative to the light beam). By directly using the Lorentz transformation it is easy to prove that the light beam coming from the front is still approaching the moving observer with speed c and the light beam from the back also still approaches the observer with a speed c. Although non-simultaneity occurs, Einstein's explanation of it is wrong.

This is incorrect. Einstein's explanation does not require the light to move faster relative to an observer. For a "stationary" observer the distances travelled in each direction are different, though.

the point is really that there is no non-trivial inertial reference frame that stands out from the others. no inertial reference frame has any physical or computational properties unique from any other. there is no non-arbitrary (i.e. non-trivial) frame of reference.

Yes, you're absolutely right of course. It just seems to be a common misunderstanding that an aether would be measurable as a unique FOR.