1 Ed Lake | Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Wednesday 5 February 2020 |
2 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Friday 7 February 2020 |
3 Ed Lake | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Friday 7 February 2020 |
4 tjrob137 | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Saturday 8 February 2020 |
5 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 9 February 2020 |
6 Ned Latham | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 9 February 2020 |
7 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 9 February 2020 |
8 The Starmaker | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 9 February 2020 |
9 Ed Lake | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 9 February 2020 |
10 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Tuesday 11 February 2020 |
11 tjrob137 | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Tuesday 11 February 2020 |
12 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Wednesday 12 February 2020 |
13 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Wednesday 12 February 2020 |
14 Ed Lake | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Wednesday 12 February 2020 |
15 tjrob137 | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Wednesday 12 February 2020 |
16 Ed Lake | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Wednesday 12 February 2020 |
17 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Thursday 13 February 2020 |
18 tjrob137 | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Thursday 13 February 2020 |
19 Ed Lake | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Thursday 13 February 2020 |
20 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Friday 14 February 2020 |
21 Odd Bodkin | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Friday 14 February 2020 |
22 Ed Lake | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Friday 14 February 2020 |
23 Michael Moroney | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Friday 14 February 2020 |
24 Odd Bodkin | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Saturday 15 February 2020 |
25 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Saturday 15 February 2020 |
26 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Saturday 15 February 2020 |
27 Ed Lake | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Saturday 15 February 2020 |
28 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 16 February 2020 |
29 Odd Bodkin | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 16 February 2020 |
30 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 16 February 2020 |
31 Odd Bodkin | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 16 February 2020 |
32 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 16 February 2020 |
33 Odd Bodkin | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 16 February 2020 |
34 The Starmaker | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Sunday 16 February 2020 |
35 Nicolaas Vroom | Re :Logical vs Mathematical Universes | Monday 17 February 2020 |
Logical vs Mathematical Universes
217 posts by 25 authors
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.relativity/jpvj5GulB3M
"It appears that certain fundamental properties of our universe cannot be expressed in mathematical equations, and as a result, mathematicians argue that the universe is preposterously different from how simple logic says it must be."
Here's the link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v1.pdf
Ed
On Wednesday, 5 February 2020 16:12:45 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote:
> |
If anyone is interested, I just completed a new paper about our "Logical vs
Mathematical Universes." The abstract says:
"It appears that certain fundamental properties of our universe cannot be expressed in mathematical equations, and as a result, mathematicians argue that the universe is preposterously different from how simple logic says it must be." Here's the link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v1.pdf Ed |
You wrote: Many years ago, I read Stephen Hawking’s book “A Brief History of Time” and
found this comment about an “infinite static universe” on page 6: The difficulty is that in an infinite static universe nearly every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. Thus one would expect that the
whole sky would be as bright as the sun, even at night. That was something I could easily visualize and understand. If the universe was of infinite size and has existed for infinity, the night sky would be white, not black. There would be a star everywhere you look, with no blackness between stars, just more stars that are more and more distant. It is called “the dark night sky paradox.”
The problem is that the Universe is neither logical nor mathematical.
Our universe is physical and 'shaped'/'transformed' by physical processes.
What we humans observe is the visible universe. Generally speaking we
cannot see the present state of the universe because it takes time for
light signals to reach us. The further away the longer.
What we observe are spheres of the state of physical universe in the past.
This picture is not totally correct because of space expansion.
To get a better idea select this link:
https://www.nicvroom.be/friedmann's%20equation.htm
The whole issue is that light is photons. Photons travel from a point of emission to a point of absorption, our eyes. Our eyes have only a limited capability to detect photons. Because photons are emitted in a sphere that means the stronger the source the larger distance photons can be detected above a certain limiting density. (A factor 10 larger increases the distance with a factor 3.16) If the source, based on distance, is larger than this limiting density you will be able to observe the source. If the source is smaller in that particular direction you will see nothing. If there is a larger source behind this smaller source you will also not see this larger source, because of the smaller 'dark' source in front covers the larger source in the back. This is not always true because if the source in the back is much larger ,like a galaxy, as the source in front, you will be able to see this galaxy.
Anyway, this explains why the night sky generally speaking is dark.
Nicolaas Vroom
> |
Logical vs Mathematical Universes
On Wednesday, 5 February 2020 16:12:45 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
> > |
If anyone is interested, I just completed a new paper about our "Logical vs
Mathematical Universes." The abstract says:
"It appears that certain fundamental properties of our universe cannot be expressed in mathematical equations, and as a result, mathematicians argue that the universe is preposterously different from how simple logic says it must be." Here's the link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0072v1.pdf Ed |
> |
You wrote: Many years ago, I read Stephen Hawking’s book “A Brief History of Time” and found this comment about an “infinite static universe” on page 6: The difficulty is that in an infinite static universe nearly every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. Thus one would expect that the whole sky would be as bright as the sun, even at night. That was something I could easily visualize and understand. If the universe was of infinite size and has existed for infinity, the night sky would be white, not black. There would be a star everywhere you look, with no blackness between stars, just more stars that are more and more distant. It is called “the dark night sky paradox.” The problem is that the Universe is neither logical nor mathematical. |
If the universe is not logical, then it cannot be understood. Logic is used to gain understanding. It is all we have to help us understand.
I say the universe IS logical and it CAN be understood.
The universe appears to work in ways that can also be described by mathematics. Mathematics is used to compute and measure. Using mathematics we can verify what LOGIC says must be true.
> |
This is not always true because if the source in the back is much larger
,like a galaxy, as the source in front, you will be able to see this galaxy.
Anyway, this explains why the night sky generally speaking is dark. Nicolaas Vroom |
There has not been enough TIME for light from the most distant galaxies to reach us. Your argument seems to be that, even if there was enough time, we still wouldn't be able to see distant galaxies because their photons would be so widely scattered that no telescope could collect enough photons to generate an image.
To solve that problem, astronomers use longer exposures. The Hubble telescope can spend DAYS collecting photons from a source.
The limit to what we can see is not how many photons we can collect, it is the amount of time it takes for the light to reach us. If it takes longer than the age of the universe to reach us, we'll see nothing. We cannot collect photons from stars that had not yet formed. Those stars were moving away from us when they emitted their light, and we are moving away from those stars, so light just has not had time to catch up with us.
Ed
> | If the universe is not logical, then it cannot be understood. |
Hmmm. The universe is QUITE CLEARLY not "logical" -- it is what it is, and that is not at all "logic" (or "logical"). Logic exists only in human minds, not the world we inhabit.
We have no hope of "understanding" the universe, for the simple reason that the world we inhabit is incommensurate with our thought processes. The best we can do is MODEL various phenomena in the universe (i.e. generate THOUGHTS that correspond to the observed phenomena). Humans are very good at this, and we have highly accurate and useful models of an enormous set of phenomena. But we "understand" none of it -- we understand our MODELS, not the universe itself.
Hint: if you use a word or phase for some phenomenon in the world, it is at best a MODEL of the phenomenon. The word or phrase QUITE CLEARLY is not in the world we inhabit, it is IN YOUR MIND.
Tom Roberts
> | On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:38:53 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> > |
The problem is that the Universe is neither logical nor mathematical. |
> |
If the universe is not logical, then it cannot be understood. |
Why has something to be logical in order to understand? Understanding often involves to collect more information, more detail. By doing that you can better follow the path between cause and effect.
> |
Logic is used to gain understanding. It is all we have to help us understand.
I say the universe IS logical and it CAN be understood. |
Understanding the universe starts by performing observations. These observations reveal that there are stars and planets and that often stars form a pair. These same observations also reveal that there are star clusters, galaxys etc. All of this has nothing to do with logic and mathematics.
> | The universe appears to work in ways that can also be described by mathematics. |
> | Mathematics is used to compute and measure. Using mathematics we can verify what LOGIC says must be true. |
Mathematics can not be used to measure. You need special tools to measure.
> > |
The whole issue is that light is photons. Photons travel from a point
of emission to a point of absorption, our eyes.
Our eyes have only a limited capability to detect photons.
Because photons are emitted in a sphere that means the stronger the
source the larger distance photons can be detected above a certain
limiting density.
(A factor 10 larger increases the distance with a factor 3.16)
Anyway, this explains why the night sky generally speaking is dark. |
> | There has not been enough TIME for light from the most distant galaxies to reach us. |
> | Your argument seems to be that, even if there was enough time, we still wouldn't be able to see distant galaxies because their photons would be so widely scattered that no telescope could collect enough photons to generate an image. |
> | To solve that problem, astronomers use longer exposures. The Hubble telescope can spend DAYS collecting photons from a source. |
That timescale is possible for the Hubble telescope, but why we humans observe the nightsky as dark the time scale is minutes.
> | The limit to what we can see is not how many photons we can collect, it is the amount of time it takes for the light to reach us. |
This time scale is in millions of years, which has nothing to do with exposure time. Anyway, and that is the borderline message: All this has nothing to do with mathematics or logic but with physics.
Nicolaas Vroom.
> | Ned Latham wrote: |
> > | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: |
----snip----
> > > | For instance, where Rhett Allain writes "In fact, just about everything you see in undergraduate physics can be explained with a classical wave model of light along with a quantum model of matter." This possibility was disproven in 1924, when Bothe & Geiger demonstrated that ejection of an electron in the Compton effect, even at low intensity of illumination, occurred *instantaneously* upon absorption of a gamma photon, rather than requiring time for buildup of energy sufficient to eject an electron as would be predicted by a wave model. |
> > |
It was disproven in 1839 by Becquerel's discovery of the photovoltaic effect. |
> |
Which opened the door to the possibility that light is best described by something neither particle nor wave but a third category. |
Crap. It opened the way for them to discover the particulate explanation of Young's experiment and recognise that the particle model *does* explain "just about everything you see in undergraduate physics". All by itself.
> | That description didn't surface for another 60 years or more. |
Could have been working on a valid basis for the last 170 years.
> | By the way, how are you doing on researching the experimental measurements of speed vs energy and momentum that've been pointed to for you? |
You haven't. liar. You alleged them.
BTW, do you understand apparent wavelength yet?
> | On 2/8/20 9:25 AM, Ed Lake wrote: |
> > | If the universe is not logical, then it cannot be understood. |
> |
We have no hope of "understanding" the universe, for the simple reason that the world we inhabit is incommensurate with our thought processes. The best we can do is MODEL various phenomena in the universe (i.e. generate THOUGHTS that correspond to the observed phenomena). |
Understanding IMO describes the human capability to predict the future. Understanding improves the more detail we know about the processes evolving in the universe, starting from here on earth. A model is a way to describe how these processes evolve. They are an approximation. In general, there are two types of processes: stable and unstable or chaotic. Stable processes are 'easy' to describe by mathematics and their future state can accurate be predicted. Unstable processes are difficult to describe by mathematics and their future state is difficult to predict.
> | Humans are very good at this, and we have highly accurate and useful models of an enormous set of phenomena. But we "understand" none of it -- we understand our MODELS, not the universe itself. |
As I said above models are only an approximation. In some cases they are accurate and in other cases, they are not. The same with laws and mathematical equations. Many processes can 'not' be described by mathematics, like human behavior. As such, they all are open for discussion and improvement.
> | Our MODELS are both logical and understandable, because that is how our minds work; don't deceive yourself into thinking your models "actually correspond to the world", because both you and your models are limited. |
It is wrong to think in concepts like our models and your models assuming that our models are better. All models have their limitations and it is possible that his models are better.
Nicolaas Vroom
> |
On Friday, 7 February 2020 17:21:26 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
> > | On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:38:53 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> > > |
The problem is that the Universe is neither logical nor mathematical. |
> > |
If the universe is not logical, then it cannot be understood. |
> |
Why has something to be logical in order to understand? |
He doesn't understand ...women.
> | On Friday, 7 February 2020 17:21:26 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
> > | On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:38:53 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> > > |
The problem is that the Universe is neither logical nor mathematical. |
> > |
If the universe is not logical, then it cannot be understood. |
> |
Why has something to be logical in order to understand? |
Because logic is the process we use to understand things.
> | Understanding often involves to collect more information, more detail. By doing that you can better follow the path between cause and effect. |
Right. Cause and effect are logical. We collect more information when we see something that is not logical. We know there must be some additional cause behind the effect we see. So we search for that cause in order to make things logical.
> |
> > |
Logic is used to gain understanding. It is all we have to help us understand. I say the universe IS logical and it CAN be understood. |
> |
Understanding the universe starts by performing observations. These observations reveal that there are stars and planets and that often stars form a pair. These same observations also reveal that there are star clusters, galaxys etc. All of this has nothing to do with logic and mathematics. |
IT REQUIRES LOGIC. If all you do is perform observations, you UNDERSTAND NOTHING. You have to THINK about what the observations MEAN. You fit what the MEAN and tell you together with what you know about other things and you figure out LOGICALLY what must be true.
Thinking is logic. Why did this happen? What could have caused it? What other things work the same way? Logically it cannot be caused by x because x has a different effect. Can it be cause by y? If it is caused by y, then logic says there must be a temperature change. I need to do a temperature check.
> |
> > |
The universe appears to work in ways that can also be described by mathematics. |
> | The universe does not work or appears to work that it can be described by mathematics. In general there are two types of processes: stable and unstable. These last also can de called chaotic. The issue is when processes are stable they can be described by mathematics. When processes are unstable or chaotic this is much more difficult on the long run. |
> > |
Mathematics is used to compute and measure. Using mathematics we can verify what LOGIC says must be true. |
> |
Mathematics can not be used to measure. You need special tools to measure. |
A----------B------------C
If I measure the distance from A to B and from A to C, logically the distance you will measure from B to C must be the difference between the two measurements I actually did.
> |
> > > |
The whole issue is that light is photons. Photons travel from a point of emission to a point of absorption, our eyes. Our eyes have only a limited capability to detect photons. Because photons are emitted in a sphere that means the stronger the source the larger distance photons can be detected above a certain limiting density. (A factor 10 larger increases the distance with a factor 3.16) Anyway, this explains why the night sky generally speaking is dark. |
> |
> > |
There has not been enough TIME for light from the most distant galaxies to reach us. |
> | That is no reason why the night sky is dark. |
> > |
Your argument seems to be that, even if there was enough time, we still wouldn't be able to see distant galaxies because their photons would be so widely scattered that no telescope could collect enough photons to generate an image. |
> |
> > |
To solve that problem, astronomers use longer exposures. The Hubble telescope can spend DAYS collecting photons from a source. |
> |
That timescale is possible for the Hubble telescope, but why we humans observe the nightsky as dark the time scale is minutes. |
> > |
The limit to what we can see is not how many photons we can collect, it is the amount of time it takes for the light to reach us. |
Correct, but I was arguing with someone who claimed that light dies after certain distances and cannot go further.
> |
This time scale is in millions of years, which has nothing to do with exposure time. Anyway, and that is the borderline message: All this has nothing to do with mathematics or logic but with physics. |
No, the bottom line message is: Understanding is all about LOGIC, but mathematics and laws of physics can be LOGICALLY applied to help us understand.
I think there may be some language problems here. Perhaps logic does not translate into a different language perfectly.
Ed
> | On Sunday, 9 February 2020 4:48:34 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> > | On Friday, 7 February 2020 17:21:26 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
> > > | On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 9:38:53 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> > > > |
The problem is that the Universe is neither logical nor mathematical. |
> > > |
If the universe is not logical, then it cannot be understood. |
> > |
Why has something to be logical in order to understand? |
> |
Because logic is the process we use to understand things. |
WE use: Yes.
> > | Understanding often involves to collect more information, more detail. By doing that you can better follow the path between cause and effect. |
> |
Right. Cause and effect are logical. We collect more information when we see something that is not logical. We know there must be some additional cause behind the effect we see. So we search for that cause in order to make things logical. |
Two events are generally speaking not interrelated. When WE know the physical path in between these two events WE define them as cause and effect. That involves some logical thinking on our part.
> > | Understanding the universe starts by performing observations. These observations reveal that there are stars and planets and that often stars form a pair. These same observations also reveal that there are star clusters, galaxys etc. All of this has nothing to do with logic and mathematics. |
> |
IT REQUIRES LOGIC. If all you do is perform observations, you UNDERSTAND NOTHING. You have to THINK about what the observations MEAN. You fit what the MEAN and tell you together with what you know about other things and you figure out LOGICALLY what must be true. Thinking is logic. Why did this happen? What could have caused it? What other things work the same way? Logically it cannot be caused by x because x has a different effect. Can it be cause by y? If it is caused by y, then logic says there must be a temperature change. I need to do a temperature check. |
All that you mention are human capabilities. The universe doe not have these capabilities.
> > | Mathematics can not be used to measure. You need special tools to measure. |
> |
A----------B------------C If I measure the distance from A to B and from A to C, logically the distance you will measure from B to C must be the difference between the two measurements I actually did. |
When I measure the distance from A to B to be 30 km and from B to C to be 50 km. Next, YOU claim that the distance from A to C is 80 km than that is mathematics.
> > | Anyway, and that is the borderline message: All this has nothing to do with mathematics or logic but with physics. |
> |
No, the bottom line message is: Understanding is all about LOGIC, but mathematics and laws of physics can be LOGICALLY applied to help us understand. |
Understanding starts with performing observations and experiments as detailed as possible. The next step is to describe all the processes involved and how they interrelate which each other. The final step is to define the mathematical equations which describe the more stable processes or the processes which can be tested under laboratory conditions.
Thinking logically....
Nicolaas Vroom
> | Can't you see how CRAZY your comments are??? |
It's not that our comments are "crazy", it's that YOU do not understand how humans actually survive in the world.
> | If it is impossible for anyone to understand how the Universe works, why are so many people studying it? |
Because we are doing what humans have been doing since time immemorial: making models of how the world works, testing and verifying those models in the world, and then using the models to improve our lives.
> | Tom Roberts has his own BELIEFS, which are repeatedly disproved by experiment. |
Again, the problem is YOURS. I am discussing modern physics, and models that have been developed and verified by thousands of physicists over many decades. These are not "beliefs", they are summaries and distillations of observations and models that have been validated experimentally. That you think what I say has been "disproved by experiment" is your personal fantasy, fueled by your serious lack of understanding of basic physics -- essentially everything I say around here HAS been verified experimentally.
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS. You have managed to MISREAD the paltry number of physics papers/books you have read. You do not even know enough to recognize what you don't know.
Tom Roberts
> | On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: |
> > | El lunes, 10 de febrero de 2020, 18:51:03 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: |
> > > | On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 12:15:38 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: |
> > |
> > > |
> > > > |
We, professors, teach subjects that we know by study, research, practice and teaching. Our students know that our current models may change in the future and they all know that the key to be a good physicist is to work hard into studying, research, practice and teaching a given physics subject. |
> > > |
The problem is that teachers have been teaching NONSENSE about physics for many decades, so you are teaching the same NONSENSE that you were taught. (*) |
> > |
Again, you misread. Knowledge comes not only from our teachers teaching, but from personal study, independent researching and practicing and teaching > > others. You seem to appreciate Feynman as a reference. You should read his biography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman) and see how he followed all the steps I describe. He was not only considered a powerful researcher (getting the Nobel prize), but a fantastic teacher of a subject that himself considered to be close to nonsense. |
> |
Yes, one favorite Richard Feynman quote I use is: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." |
That is 100% correct. All scientific investigations should start by performing experiments. Thousands of experiments. Millions of experiments. And when they are performed, all these experiments should be critically analysed and discarded if they can't be repeated or contain errors. Of specific interest are the results of experiments which show something which is not directly predicted. This can lead to new experiments.
> |
It's always interesting to see how Tom Robert ignores the experiments
which show his beliefs are wrong. He considers the NIST to be incompetent,
because they produced experiments showing him to be wrong. (*)
Most others here just ignore experiments and only discuss mathematics. (*) |
Ed,
Of course, you have all the rights to claim that there is an error in a
certain book, article or experiment. However, when that is the case,
the first step is to investigate if there are more who share your opinion.
IMO what you write above (*), with not enough detail, is poor science. Sorry.
Nicolaas Vroom
> | On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 9:56:30 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> > |
WE use: Yes. |
> > | Two events are generally speaking not interrelated. When WE know the physical path in between these two events WE define them as cause and effect. That involves some logical thinking on our part. |
> > | All that you mention are human capabilities. The universe does not have these capabilities. |
> > | When I measure the distance from A to B to be 30 km and from B to C to be 50 km. Next, YOU claim that the distance from A to C is 80 km than that is mathematics. |
> > | Understanding starts with performing observations and experiments as detailed as possible. The next step is to describe all the processes involved and how they interrelate which each other. The final step is to define the mathematical equations which describe the more stable processes or the processes which can be tested under laboratory conditions. |
> | I cannot make much sense of most of what you post, Nicolaas. |
> | The Universe cannot think. |
> | Humans think. |
> | Humans use logic to figure things out. |
That is not what this discussion is all about.
It's about "Logical versus Mathematical Universes".
As if there are two types of Universes: Logical and Mathematical.
With the question: Which type is the Universe in which we live?
My answer is that the Universe is neither Logical nor Mathematical. It is
something physical. What I personally like are the similarities.
> |
I have a patent for a bi-directional hydraulic flow
meter. I invented it when I had almost NO experience with hydraulics
or flow meters.
It took me about 3 days to figure out how to build one. Figuring out how other flow meters worked just required logic on my part. |
> | The flow meters didn't use logic. |
> | The inventors used logic to create them. |
> | The universe appears to work logically. |
> | Why this is so is one of the great mysteries of all time. |
Nicolaas Vroom https://www.nicvroom.be/
> | On Tuesday, 11 February 2020 17:15:44 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
> > | On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 9:56:30 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> > > |
WE use: Yes. |
> |
> > |
I cannot make much sense of most of what you post, Nicolaas. |
> | Sorry. I hope to do better. |
> > |
The Universe cannot think. |
> | I don't think I ever wrote that. Specific, not above. |
> > |
Humans think. |
> | Some humans think deeper, show more insight, show more clarity, show something from a different angle as others. |
> > |
Humans use logic to figure things out. The flow meters didn't use logic. |
> | This sentence is completely in line with my comment that the universe does not use any logic (or mathematics) |
No one said "the universe uses logic." The statement was: "The universe is logical." That means it operates in a logical way.
> | I assume logic in the sense of a PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) |
> > |
The inventors used logic to create them. |
> | The inventers used logical reasoning, some thinking (like you did in order to understand how flow meters worked), meetings and experiments. |
> > |
The universe appears to work logically. |
> | This sentence is not clear because you use words like 'appears' and 'logically'. As I already have written before: in the universe, there are processes which are stable and unstable. These are also called chaotic. On the long run, all processes are chaotic or unpredictable. That is the way of life we have to live with. |
> > | Why this is so is one of the great mysteries of all time. |
> | Why this is so is one of the great mysteries of all time. |
It is the question: Why are we here? Do you have the answer?
The universe is logical because, if it wasn't we couldn't exist.
I don't think arguments over word definitions is productive. You have your definition of "logic" and I have mine.
Ed
> | Name a lightspeed measurement that does *not* have source and destination in the same frame. |
You mean AT REST in the same frame.
> | "In the same frame" means there's no delta v between them. |
Only to people who do not understand the nomenclature (or like you, make up their own). The words "at rest" are required to say what you mean.
Here are two experiments you claim have never been done:
Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965). Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Optical extinction is not a problem for such high-energy gamma rays. The speed of the pi0 is not measured, but is assumed to be similar to that measured for pi+ and pi-.
BTW these are also one-way measurements.
Tom Roberts
> | On 2/11/20 3:30 PM, Ned Latham wrote: |
> > | Name a lightspeed measurement that does *not* have source and destination in the same frame. |
> |
You mean AT REST in the same frame. |
> > |
"In the same frame" means there's no delta v between them. |
> |
Only to people who do not understand the nomenclature (or like you, make up their own). The words "at rest" are required to say what you mean. Here are two experiments you claim have never been done: Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964). Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965). Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. Optical extinction is not a problem for such high-energy gamma rays. The speed of the pi0 is not measured, but is assumed to be similar to that measured for pi+ and pi-. BTW other experiments have measured the pi0 momenta and found them distributed the same as pi+/pi-. Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%. |
Tom, this is also the BEST example of an experiment that does NOT prove what many people claim it proves.
Why didn't you provide the title of the paper? It is "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a MOVING SOURCE." The abstract is at this link: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071
It says, "We have compared our results with what would have been expected, taking account of extinction, on the assumption that the INITIAL photon velocities were c+v and c-v. The results were in complete disagreement with this assumption."
In other words, anyone who ASSUMES that light from a moving EMITTER is emitted at c+v is WRONG.
The FALSE claim is that c+v is proved to be impossible. IN REALITY, all the experiment does is confirm Einstein's Second Postulate, which states "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body."
The experiment says NOTHING about what an outside observer would see and measure. A MOVING observer MOVING toward the emitter WILL encounter the photons at c+v where v is the speed of the OBSERVER toward the emitter.
Ed
> | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 7:22:53 AM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> > |
> > > |
The flow meters didn't use logic. |
> > | This sentence is completely in line with my comment that the universe does not use any logic (or mathematics) |
> |
No one said, "the universe uses logic." The statement was: "The universe is logical." That means it operates in a logical way. |
See my comment at the bottom.
> > > | The universe appears to work logically. |
> > | This sentence is not clear because you use words like 'appears' and 'logically'. As I already have written before: in the universe, there are processes which are stable and unstable. These are also called chaotic. On the long run, all processes are chaotic or unpredictable. That is the way of life we have to live with. |
> > > | Why this is so is one of the great mysteries of all time. |
> > | Why this is so is one of the great mysteries of all time. |
> |
It is the question: Why are we here? Do you have the answer? |
This is a whole different question. The problem is that the question "Why are we here?" is not clear. Part of the answer lies in the evolution theory. The evolution theory is a response to the fact that the universe, more specific the earth slowly changes. This is a physical process and has nothing to do with mathematics or with logic. In fact, this is not one process but there are many processes. It is the human mind that makes it possible to describe certain of these processes using mathematics and equations, but that does not mean that the universe is mathematical. To derive or discover these equations requires logical thinking from our side, but also this does not mean that the universe is logical. Humans call some of these mathematical equations laws, but - I know that there are people who disagree with me - that does not mean that these laws in any way control or govern the evolution of the universe or any process here on earth.
Technical speaking the evolution of the universe is an open process not controlled by anything. The same for the evolution of the earth.
> | The universe is logical because, if it wasn't we couldn't exist. |
> | I don't think arguments over word definitions is productive. You have your definition of "logic" and I have mine. |
It is very important first to agree on the definition of the words we use. If that is the case, people who are interested in this subject can follow us. Otherwise, there is a problem.
Nicolaas Vroom.
> | On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:17:04 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: |
>> | [experiment by] Filipas and Fox, [...] |
> | In other words, anyone who ASSUMES that light from a moving EMITTER is emitted at c+v is WRONG. |
Yes.
> | The FALSE claim is that c+v is proved to be impossible. |
Straw man -- nobody claimed that, HERE.
But the totality of the experimental record shows that the emission of light at "c+v" never happens. As does the theory of Special Relativity.
> | IN REALITY, |
You mean "in the mind of Ed Lake". It's sad that you confuse your personal fantasies with reality. Of course that is a well-known psychological aberration.
> | all the experiment does is confirm Einstein's Second Postulate, which states "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body." |
That is not Einstein's second postulate. But yes, the experiment does confirm his ACTUAL second postulate, as well as the SUMMARY you quote here.
> | The experiment says NOTHING about what an outside observer would see and measure. |
Yes, the experiment does not say anything about measurements in any other frame(s).
But SR itself certainly does: The first postulate of SR says that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. So in the context of SR it is FULLY JUSTIFIED to consider this from the emitter's frame: in that frame the measurement is made by instruments moving at very high speed relative to the emitter, and still measured c. NOT "c+v" as you fantasize.
> | A MOVING observer MOVING toward the emitter WILL encounter the photons at c+v where v is the speed of the OBSERVER toward the emitter. |
This is WRONG -- it is pure fabrication by Ed Lake, and is utterly inconsistent with SR. He does not even know the meaning of "always" in the above quote; nor does he understand the implications of Einstein's ACTUAL postulates.
Tom Roberts
> | On 2/12/20 3:20 PM, Ed Lake wrote: |
> > | On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 12:17:04 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: |
> >> | [experiment by] Filipas and Fox, [...] |
> > | In other words, anyone who ASSUMES that light from a moving EMITTER is emitted at c+v is WRONG. |
> |
Yes. |
> > |
The FALSE claim is that c+v is proved to be impossible. |
> |
Straw man -- nobody claimed that, HERE. But the totality of the experimental record shows that the emission of light at "c+v" never happens. As does the theory of Special Relativity. |
Agreed. Light is NEVER EMITTED at c+v.
> |
> > |
IN REALITY, |
> |
You mean "in the mind of Ed Lake". It's sad that you confuse your personal fantasies with reality. Of course that is a well-known psychological aberration. |
> > |
all the experiment does is confirm Einstein's Second Postulate, which states "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body." |
> |
That is not Einstein's second postulate. But yes, the experiment does confirm his ACTUAL second postulate, as well as the SUMMARY you quote here. |
That IS Einstein's Second Postulate. A postulate is an ASSUMPTION that is being given to start a discussion. You MISTAKENLY BELIEVE a postulate is the DISCUSSION.
Here's a definition of "postulates" that I found in a book a couple days ago: "Postulates are assumptions that are regarded as self-evident and are not expected to be ‘proved’."
Before YOU can discuss Einstein's postulates YOU need to LEARN what the word "postulate" means!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> |
> > |
The experiment says NOTHING about what an outside observer would see and measure. |
> |
Yes, the experiment does not say anything about measurements in any other frame(s). But SR itself certainly does: The first postulate of SR says that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. So in the context of SR it is FULLY JUSTIFIED to consider this from the emitter's frame: in that frame the measurement is made by instruments moving at very high speed relative to the emitter, and still measured c. NOT "c+v" as you fantasize. |
You are spouting NONSENSE. I fully AGREE that light is ALWAYS measured as c in the EMITTER's frame. I DISAGREE that it is always measured as c in any OBSERVER'S frame.
Einstein's FIRST postulate says that in two different frames, one that is stationary and one that is moving, EMITTERS in BOTH frames will measure the speed of light to be c.
To understand what that means, you must understand that when light EMITTED from one frame is measured in another frame that is not stationary relative to be first frame, the light will NOT be measured to ARRIVE at c. That is called "The Theory of Special Relativity." Movement affects time AND THE LENGTH OF A SECOND, and if the length of a second is different in another frame, the speed of light PER SECOND will also be different.
> |
> > |
A MOVING observer MOVING toward the emitter WILL encounter the photons at c+v where v is the speed of the OBSERVER toward the emitter. |
> |
This is WRONG -- it is pure fabrication by Ed Lake, and is utterly inconsistent with SR. He does not even know the meaning of "always" in the above quote; nor does he understand the implications of Einstein's ACTUAL postulates. |
You are MISTAKEN! It is TOTALLY consistent with SR! YOU do not understand the implications of Einstein's ACTUAL postulates! You endlessly DEMONSTRATE that by claiming that Einstein's ACTUAL postulates are not what he STATED are his postulates but what YOU BELIEVE are his postulates as described in mathematical equations later in the paper.
If you do not understand what the word "postulate" means, you cannot understand what Einstein's postulates mean!!!!!!
Ed
> | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 12:17:04 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: |
> > |
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast p0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%. |
> |
Tom, this is also the BEST example of an experiment that does NOT prove what many people claim it proves. Why didn't you provide the title of the paper? It is "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a MOVING SOURCE." The abstract is at this link: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 |
maybe this is a better link: https://www.physics.gmu.edu/~rubinp/courses/122/readings/apstemplate.pdf
I try to study the meaning of Fig 1. What Fig 1 shows are moving neutral pions (pi0), entering from the left and moving towards the centre at the target. I expect that at the target each pi0 particle creates to alpha rays (in the vertical direction) which are detected at the counters 5 and 6. My expectation is that, as a first approximation, these two photons arrive 'simultaneous' at these detectors and that the speed of each is the speed of light. I don't know if that is correct; it is just a guess.
At the end of the article I read: "(1) We conclude that our results provide strong evidence that the velocity of radiation from a moving source is not the classical vector sum of c and the velocity of the source. (2) Within our accuracy, the resultant sum is c"
A) Why should the speed of the photons be different as a function of the speed of the source? b) Did they test if this has any influence of the frequency of the photons? c) as of (2). Why this calculation. It is more important to know the velocity in each direction.
> |
It says, "We have compared our results with what would have been expected,
taking account of extinction, on the assumption that the INITIAL photon
velocities were c+v and c-v. The results were in complete disagreement with
this assumption."
In other words, anyone who ASSUMES that light from a moving EMITTER is emitted at c+v is WRONG. The FALSE claim is that c+v is proved to be impossible. IN REALITY, all the experiment does is confirm Einstein's Second Postulate, which states "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the EMITTING body." The experiment says NOTHING about what an outside observer would see and measure. A MOVING observer MOVING toward the emitter WILL encounter the photons at c+v where v is the speed of the OBSERVER toward the emitter. |
Nicolaas Vroom
> | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 21:20:17 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
>> | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 12:17:04 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: |
> |
>>> |
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast p0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%. |
>> |
Tom, this is also the BEST example of an experiment that does NOT prove what many people claim it proves. Why didn't you provide the title of the paper? It is "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a MOVING SOURCE." The abstract is at this link: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 |
> |
maybe this is a better link: https://www.physics.gmu.edu/~rubinp/courses/122/readings/apstemplate.pdf I try to study the meaning of Fig 1. What Fig 1 shows are moving neutral pions (pi0), entering from the left and moving towards the centre at the target. I expect that at the target each pi0 particle creates to alpha rays |
Alpha rays are not photons.
Stopped reading.
> | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 21:20:17 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
> > | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 12:17:04 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: |
> |
> > > |
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast p0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%. |
> > |
Tom, this is also the BEST example of an experiment that does NOT prove what many people claim it proves. Why didn't you provide the title of the paper? It is "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a MOVING SOURCE." The abstract is at this link: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 |
> |
maybe this is a better link: https://www.physics.gmu.edu/~rubinp/courses/122/readings/apstemplate.pdf I try to study the meaning of Fig 1. What Fig 1 shows are moving neutral pions (pi0), entering from the left and moving towards the centre at the target. I expect that at the target each pi0 particle creates to alpha rays (in the vertical direction) which are detected at the counters 5 and 6. My expectation is that, as a first approximation, these two photons arrive 'simultaneous' at these detectors and that the speed of each is the speed of light. I don't know if that is correct; it is just a guess. At the end of the article I read: "(1) We conclude that our results provide strong evidence that the velocity of radiation from a moving source is not the classical vector sum of c and the velocity of the source. (2) Within our accuracy, the resultant sum is c" A) Why should the speed of the photons be different as a function of the speed of the source? |
That is the "emission theory" or "ballistic theory" that people believed before experiments showed that the speed of the emitter is NOT added to the speed of the light that is emitted. For everything EXCEPT light, the speed of the vehicle is added to the speed of an object thrown or fired from that vehicle. A moving gun fires shells at g+v or g-v where g is the speed of the gun and v is the speed of the shell.
> | b) Did they test if this has any influence of the frequency of the photons? c) as of (2). Why this calculation. It is more important to know the velocity in each direction. |
I don't know. To me, the experiment is just an annoyance because mathematicians like Tom Roberts FALSELY claim that the experiment also demonstrated that an outside observer or target ALSO always RECEIVES light at c.
Ed
> | On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 12:21:44 PM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> | That is the "emission theory" or "ballistic theory" that people believed before experiments showed that the speed of the emitter is NOT added to the speed of the light that is emitted. For everything EXCEPT light, the speed of the vehicle is added to the speed of an object thrown or fired from that vehicle. A moving gun fires shells at g+v or g-v where g is the speed of the gun and v is the speed of the shell. |
Umm, no, the SR velocity combination formula is used. When both speeds are non-relativistic, the difference between it and simple addition is tiny and can be ignored. But if one of the things is light, this is not true, light speed is not non-relativistic.
>> | b) Did they test if this has any influence of the frequency of the photons? c) as of (2). Why this calculation. It is more important to know the velocity in each direction. |
> | I don't know. To me, the experiment is just an annoyance because mathematicians like Tom Roberts |
He is a physicist, not a mathematician.
> | FALSELY claim that the experiment also demonstrated that an outside observer or target ALSO always RECEIVES light at c. |
As Einstein stated in his second postulate:
2. Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
Meaning that in the observer's frame (stationary frame), the speed of light is measured as c regardless of whether the emitter is moving or not.
> | On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 12:21:44 PM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
>> | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 21:20:17 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
>>> | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 12:17:04 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: |
>> |
>>>> |
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast p0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%. |
>>> |
Tom, this is also the BEST example of an experiment that does NOT prove what many people claim it proves. Why didn't you provide the title of the paper? It is "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a MOVING SOURCE." The abstract is at this link: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 |
>> |
maybe this is a better link: https://www.physics.gmu.edu/~rubinp/courses/122/readings/apstemplate.pdf I try to study the meaning of Fig 1. What Fig 1 shows are moving neutral pions (pi0), entering from the left and moving towards the centre at the target. I expect that at the target each pi0 particle creates to alpha rays (in the vertical direction) which are detected at the counters 5 and 6. My expectation is that, as a first approximation, these two photons arrive 'simultaneous' at these detectors and that the speed of each is the speed of light. I don't know if that is correct; it is just a guess. At the end of the article I read: "(1) We conclude that our results provide strong evidence that the velocity of radiation from a moving source is not the classical vector sum of c and the velocity of the source. (2) Within our accuracy, the resultant sum is c" A) Why should the speed of the photons be different as a function of the speed of the source? |
> |
That is the "emission theory" or "ballistic theory" that people believed before experiments showed that the speed of the emitter is NOT added to the speed of the light that is emitted. For everything EXCEPT light, the speed of the vehicle is added to the speed of an object thrown or fired from that vehicle. |
That’s where your mistake is, Ed. You are apparently under the impression that if you are in a car going exactly 60 mph relative to the road, and you throw a stone forward at exactly 30 mph relative to the car, then the stone will be going exactly 90 mph relative to the road.
I’m sure you were taught that way in school. You will probably even find some claim like this on a web page somewhere. But have you yourself validated that common sense expectation with a measurement? Without that measurement, how do you KNOW it’s right?
By the way, it’s not right.
> | A moving gun fires shells at g+v or g-v where g is the speed of the gun and v is the speed of the shell. |
>> |
b) Did they test if this has any influence of the frequency of the photons? c) as of (2). Why this calculation. It is more important to know the velocity in each direction. |
> |
I don't know. To me, the experiment is just an annoyance because mathematicians like Tom Roberts FALSELY claim that the experiment also demonstrated that an outside observer or target ALSO always RECEIVES light at c. Ed |
-- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> |
Nicolaas Vroom |
> > | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 21:20:17 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
> >> |
Tom, this is also the BEST example of an experiment that does NOT prove what many people claim it proves. Why didn't you provide the title of the paper? It is "Velocity of Gamma Rays from a MOVING SOURCE." The abstract is at this link: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B1071 |
> > |
maybe this is a better link: https://www.physics.gmu.edu/~rubinp/courses/122/readings/apstemplate.pdf I try to study the meaning of Fig 1. What Fig 1 shows are moving neutral pions (pi0), entering from the left and moving towards the centre at the target. I expect that at the target each pi0 particle creates to alpha rays |
> |
Alpha rays are not photons. Stopped reading. |
This should have been: each pi0 particle creates two gamma rays
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
Nicolaas Vroom
> | On Friday, 14 February 2020 19:16:13 (UTC-3), Ed Lake escribió: |
> > | On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 3:37:19 PM UTC-6, Paparios wrote: |
> > |
You are just wasting my time.
Ed |
> |
You continue to evade the problem: The word Einstein originally used was "Voraussetzung". The word Voraussetzung translates to English as: requirement, assumption, prerequisite, condition (see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/aleman-ingles/voraussetzung?q=Voraussetzung Furthermore, the german word postulat translates to English as: demand and postulate, as seen in: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/aleman-ingles/postulat So all your insults only show your ignorance. You think the translators knew better the German than Einstein, what it is totally ridiculous!!! |
I agree with what you say.
It is interesting what Wikipedia in german says about postulates Please select this link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsteinsche_Postulate Also this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity The text gives the impression that today there is no difference between the meaning of the word postulate in English and german.
That does not mean that Einstein meant the same. Maybe he only meant assumptions or principles. In the Dutch language the verb 'to postulate' means: To make an assumption without any proof. Most often IMO because experiments are impossible.
A much more difficult problem is if it is allowed to make assumptions without any proof and to declare them as a fact.
IMO a more important question is: Do we really need both principles or assumptions to understand the processes in the universe? Specific if we want to understand the movement of the planets around the Sun or the movement of the stars in our Galaxy?
I think to understand these processes you only need one reference system and to make things simpler: only use 'one' clock. Don't use separate clocks moving with different speeds.
Nicolaas Vroom.
> | Odd Bodkin wrote: |
> > | Ed Lake wrote: |
> |
----snip---- |
> > > |
That is the "emission theory" or "ballistic theory" that people believed before experiments showed that the speed of the emitter is NOT added to the speed of the light that is emitted. For everything EXCEPT light, the speed of the vehicle is added to the speed of an object thrown or fired from that vehicle. |
> > |
That's where your mistake is, Ed. You are apparently under the impression that if you are in a car going exactly 60 mph relative to the road, and you throw a stone forward at exactly 30 mph relative to the car, then the stone will be going exactly 90 mph relative to the road. I'm sure you were taught that way in school. You will probably even find some claim like this on a web page somewhere. But have you yourself validated that common sense expectation with a measurement? Without that measurement, how do you KNOW it's right? By the way, it's not right. |
> |
According to SR. That, Slow Boy, is no more than a theory. ----snip---- |
I neglected to mention that the gun and the bullet must be fired in a vacuum. If fired on earth, air will slow the bullet and the numbers won't quite add up.
Ed
> |
Ed Lake |
> > | On Friday, February 14, 2020 at 12:21:44 PM UTC-6, Nicolaas Vroom wrote: |
> >> | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 21:20:17 UTC+1, Ed Lake wrote: |
> >>> | On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 12:17:04 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote: |
> >> |
> >>>> |
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071. Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast p0 (~0.2 c) in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c+v, and are consistent with SR. k < 0.5 with a confidence level of 99.9%. |
> >>> |
> >> |
maybe this is a better link: https://www.physics.gmu.edu/~rubinp/courses/122/readings/apstemplate.pdf I try to study the meaning of Fig 1. What Fig 1 shows are moving neutral pions (pi0), entering from the left and moving towards the centre at the target. I expect that at the target each pi0 particle creates to alpha rays |
two gamma rays
> >> |
(in the vertical direction) which are detected at the counters 5 and 6.
My expectation is that, as a first approximation, these two photons arrive
'simultaneous' at these detectors and that the speed of each is
the speed of light.
I don't know if that is correct; it is just a guess.
At the end of the article I read: "(1) We conclude that our results provide strong evidence that the velocity of radiation from a moving source is not the classical vector sum of c and the velocity of the source. (2) Within our accuracy, the resultant sum is c" A) Why should the speed of the photons be different as a function of the speed of the source? |
> > |
That is the "emission theory" or "ballistic theory" that people believed before experiments showed that the speed of the emitter is NOT added to the speed of the light that is emitted. For everything EXCEPT light, the speed of the vehicle is added to the speed of an object thrown or fired from that vehicle. |
> |
That’s where your mistake is, Ed. You are apparently under the impression that if you are in a car going exactly 60 mph relative to the road, and you throw a stone forward at exactly 30 mph relative to the car, then the stone will be going exactly 90 mph relative to the road. I’m sure you were taught that way in school. You will probably even find some claim like this on a web page somewhere. But have you yourself validated that common sense expectation with a measurement? Without that measurement, how do you KNOW it’s right? By the way, it’s not right. |
Odd, I agree with you. In general, it is not allowed to add (subtract) speeds in case each speed is related to a different object. IMO if different objects are involved you should always study them from one reference frame.
The article from Filipas and Fox is interesting because an experiment is discussed. However, it is difficult to follow in the sense what is really measured and what the results are. The article uses the factor beta=v/c = 0.20 What physical means v and c? This sounds simple but is very complex. Fig 1 the pions enter from the left. What is beta if the pions enter from the right?
Nicolaas Vroom
> | On Saturday, 15 February 2020 04:04:34 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: |
>> |
Ed Lake |
>>>> | I try to study the meaning of Fig 1. What Fig 1 shows are moving neutral pions (pi0), entering from the left and moving towards the centre at the target. I expect that at the target each pi0 particle creates to alpha rays |
> |
two gamma rays |
>> |
That’s where your mistake is, Ed. You are apparently under the impression that if you are in a car going exactly 60 mph relative to the road, and you throw a stone forward at exactly 30 mph relative to the car, then the stone will be going exactly 90 mph relative to the road. I’m sure you were taught that way in school. You will probably even find some claim like this on a web page somewhere. But have you yourself validated that common sense expectation with a measurement? Without that measurement, how do you KNOW it’s right? By the way, it’s not right. |
> |
Odd, I agree with you. In general, it is not allowed to add (subtract) speeds in case each speed is related to a different object. IMO if different objects are involved you should always study them from one reference frame. The article from Filipas and Fox is interesting because an experiment is discussed. However, it is difficult to follow in the sense what is really measured and what the results are. The article uses the factor beta=v/c = 0.20 What physical means v and c? This sounds simple but is very complex. Fig 1 the pions enter from the left. What is beta if the pions enter from the right? Nicolaas Vroom |
Nicolaas, the problem here is you want to run before you walk, and you presume you can walk but you haven’t learned to crawl. When I say you need to learn the basics, this means starting with a freshman physics textbook. Yes, that’s not what you want to learn about but it’s what you need to learn first. You have to play scales before you play jazz.
> | Nicolaas, the problem here is you want to run before you walk, and you presume you can walk but you haven’t learned to crawl. |
I don't understand what this has to do with the subjects discussed. My deeper feeling is that you also don't know the answers, nor really want to discuss physics.
Anyway thanks
> | On Sunday, 16 February 2020 14:00:36 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: |
>> |
Nicolaas, the problem here is you want to run before you walk, and you presume you can walk but you haven’t learned to crawl. |
> |
I don't understand what this has to do with the subjects discussed. My deeper feeling is that you also don't know the answers, nor really want to discuss physics. Anyway thanks |
For the record v is the pion speed, c is the speed of light, beta is the fraction of the speed of light and ranges from 0 to 1.
> |
Nicolaas Vroom |
> > | Anyway thanks |
> |
For the record v is the pion speed, c is the speed of light, beta is the fraction of the speed of light and ranges from 0 to 1. |
I agree, with you, but as I wrote before this issue is very complex. Exactly how are v and c measured? A slightly different question is: how is beta measured?
This question is important if you want to answer the question: What is beta if the pions enter from the right? The underlying reasoning is: Is this experiment symmetric.
You see IMO, you can only learn science by performing experiments. Only by performing experiments you can unravel the laws of nature (or the mathematics that describes these processes)
Nicolaas Vroom.
> | On Sunday, 16 February 2020 14:30:20 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: |
>> |
Nicolaas Vroom |
>>> | Anyway thanks |
>> |
For the record v is the pion speed, c is the speed of light, beta is the fraction of the speed of light and ranges from 0 to 1. |
> |
I agree, with you, but as I wrote before this issue is very complex. Exactly how are v and c measured? |
The value of c was measured a long time ago. It’s now a physical constant. The speed v is measured by time of flight over a known distance. It is then distance divided by time of flight. Beta does not need to be measured since it is measured v divided by a constant c.
> |
A slightly different question is: how is beta measured?
This question is important if you want to answer the question: What is beta if the pions enter from the right? The underlying reasoning is: Is this experiment symmetric. |
No it is not symmetric.
> |
You see IMO, you can only learn science by performing experiments. |
But first you have to learn how to perform experiments, and there are a number of key skills involved. This comes with hands-on training and years and years of repeated practice.
> |
Only by performing experiments you can unravel the laws of nature
(or the mathematics that describes these processes)
Nicolaas Vroom. |
> |
Nicolaas Vroom |
> > | On Sunday, 16 February 2020 14:30:20 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: |
> >> |
Nicolaas Vroom |
> >>> | Anyway thanks |
> >> |
For the record v is the pion speed, c is the speed of light, beta is the fraction of the speed of light and ranges from 0 to 1. |
> > |
I agree, with you, but as I wrote before this issue is very complex. Exactly how are v and c measured? |
> |
The value of c was measured a long time ago. |
Measurements by instruments that were not working to well...
just as the age of the universe was measured... a long time ago.
Measurements by instruments that were not working to well...
you just accept it without question...which is not very science of you.
-- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
> |
Nicolaas Vroom |
> > | On Sunday, 16 February 2020 14:30:20 UTC+1, Odd Bodkin wrote: |
> >> | For the record v is the pion speed, c is the speed of light, beta is the fraction of the speed of light and ranges from 0 to 1. |
> > |
I agree, with you, but as I wrote before this issue is very complex. Exactly how are v and c measured? |
> |
The value of c was measured a long time ago. It’s now a physical constant. |
This sounds like a silly question: But how is c measured.
> | The speed v is measured by time of flight over a known distance. It is then distance divided by time of flight. |
If (If!) that is the way v is measured than 'we' should also use that same methodology to measure the speed of light.
In order to measure the time of flight, you need a clock. Maybe two clocks. That means you need a readout in counts when the pion crosses the start line of the 'known distance' and a readout when the pion crosses the finish line of the 'known distance'. The difference in counts we call: delta_pion_count In order to calculate the time of flight of a light signal, we do the same. The difference in counts we call: delta_c_count When you divide delta_c_count by delta_pion_count you get Beta1.
One very important issue is how are the clocks synchronised.
> | Beta does not need to be measured since it is measured v divided by a constant c. |
> > |
A slightly different question is: how is beta measured? This question is important if you want to answer the question: What is beta if the pions enter from the right? |
We call this Beta2 In order to calculate Beta2, we use almost the same setup as before. We also use the same clock synchronisation. As a result, we get a delta_pion_count2 and a delta_c_count2. The question is now (1) is delta_pion_count1 = delta_pion_count2 and (2) is delta_c_count1 = delta_c_count2?
Question 1 means: does it take the same amount counts for a pion to move from left to right or from right to left to travel a standard distance. Question 2 means: does it take the same amount counts for a light flash to move from left to right or from right to left to travel a standard distance.
SR claims that the answer on Q2 is Yes. This experiment is used to test that assumption or postulate.
> > | The underlying reasoning is: Is this experiment symmetric. |
> |
No it is not symmetric. |
This answer implies that the answer to Q1 is No.
IMO (for what that counts) the most probably answer on both Q1 and Q2 is No.
A real experiment should show what is correct.
> > |
You see IMO, you can only learn science by performing experiments. |
> |
But first you have to learn how to perform experiments, and there are a number of key skills involved. This comes with hands-on training and years and years of repeated practice. |
> > |
Only by performing experiments you can unravel the laws of nature (or the mathematics that describes these processes) |
IMO to perform both experiments in real (To answer Q1 and Q2) is extremely difficult.
To answer the question, if the factor Beta is the same left to right or right to left is also important when using the Lorentz transformations because of the Lorentz transformations also use the factor Beta (=v/c)
Nicolaas Vroom.
Back to USENET overview USENET
Back to my home page Contents of This Document