From: Jimmy Wales jwales@joey.bomis.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--] Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:11:51 -0700
I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here. Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be made here?
Dear Mr. Wales,
You've sold us both short! :-) (<--please note smiley, Mr. Poor!) You have assumed that you could not have anything helpful to say about the physics of this situation, so you have also assumed that it cannot be simply explained if one tries hard enough!
Since SR pertains only to rulers and clocks, and to the results of measurements made thereby, this should tell us that it is not exactly an inherently complex subject. (If you want one of those, try quantum mechanics!)
I believe that the average layman can see that special relativity does not pertain to E=mc^2, and my simple 5-step proof should make a believer out of you.
Here is a brief 5-step proof/explanation for the average layman:
Everyone agrees that special relativity (SR) has some sort of mass increase,* just as everyone agrees that SR has some sort of time dilation and some sort of rod contraction. The question is, What is physically happening in these three cases? [* a minor technical point, it's really a momentum (which is simply mass x velocity) increase]
Since most laymen feel much more comfortable discussing a clock and its rhythm than discussing mass and momentum, and since all three of the above SR effects are alike, it is much better to begin by using a simple clock-rhythm example.
Step 1: Picture a single, normally-operating atomic clock that is sitting on a stationary table some where. (In "tech talk," it is continuously at rest with respect to an inertial frame).
Step 2: Note the fact that this clock cannot have more than one atomic (internal, time-keeping) rhythm. (A clock that had two or more different "tick rates" would have to be thrown away!)
Step 3: Note the fact that observers in different SR frames will find many "different rhythms" for this clock. (Indeed, in SR, one and the same clock has an infinite number of "different rhythms.")
Step 4: Reach the unavoidable conclusion that SR's "time dilation" does not pertain to a clock's intrinsic (atomic, in this case) rhythm.
Step 5: Apply this same argument to the other two cases (i.e., to the momentum and rod contraction cases), and similarly reach the equally unavoidable conclusion that SR does not pertain to either intrinsic mass or to intrinsic rod length.
(Not that anything more is needed, but strength is added to our argument by the fact that each of SR's cases are reciprocal; e.g., I see your clock is "running slow," but you also see _my_ clock "running slow." If we were talking about real (atomic, intrinsic) clock rhythms, then this would clearly be a physically impossible situation, and the same applies to both the SR momentum and rod contraction cases.)
At this point, although we have not answered our original question about what was physically happening in these three cases, we have answered the question about what was _not_ happening in these cases, which means that we have answered the important question Does SR pertain to physically real (or intrinsic) characteristics? And we have found that the answer to this question is No. This tells us all we need to know in order to prove our main point that SR does not pertain to the equivalence of real mass with real energy (which is of course stated explicitly by the equation E=mc^2).
-----RR----- _______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
Well, see my other email. I don't really care about the physics of the matter. Does this proof of yours appear in any standard text? If so, cite that text and include the conclusion as appropriate.
If not, then it's original research, right or wrong, and it doesn't belong in the central treatment of the subject on wikipedia.
Just to show you that I read what you wrote, I have some questions, below. But, please don't respond on the list, because this list is really for questions of wikipedia policy, not physics.
You have assumed that you could not have anything helpful to say about the physics of this situation, so you have also assumed that it cannot be simply explained if one tries hard enough!
Actually, I assumed neither. Really, the actual *content* of the article is of little interest to me, outside of our following standard wikipedia procedures.
Everyone agrees that special relativity (SR) has some sort of mass increase,* just as everyone agrees that SR has some sort of time dilation and some sort of rod contraction. The question is, What is physically happening in these three cases? [* a minor technical point, it's really a momentum (which is simply mass x velocity) increase]
You already lost me here.
Picture a single, normally-operating atomic clock that is sitting on a stationary table some where. (In "tech talk," it is continuously at rest with respect to an inertial frame).
I don't know what an atomic clock is, and I'm having trouble visualizing a stationary table. All my tables are moving, rotating with the earth, going around the sun, and what not.
Note the fact that this clock cannot have more than one atomic (internal, time-keeping) rhythm. (A clock that had two or more different "tick rates" would have to be thrown away!)
O.k.
Note the fact that observers in different SR frames will find many "different rhythms" for this clock. (Indeed, in SR, one and the same clock has an infinite number of "different rhythms.")
You lost me there. I don't know what an "SR frame" is.
Reach the unavoidable conclusion that SR's "time dilation" does not pertain to a clock's intrinsic (atomic, in this case) rhythm.
Step 5: Apply this same argument to the other two cases (i.e., to the momentum and rod contraction cases), and similarly reach the equally unavoidable conclusion that SR does not pertain to either intrinsic mass or to intrinsic rod length.
O.k.
At this point, although we have not answered our original question
Except, for me, I have not even understood the original question.
--Jimbo
At 12:01 PM 9/29/2003, you wrote:
At this point, although we have not answered our original question about what was physically happening in these three cases, we have answered the question about what was _not_ happening in these cases, which means that we have answered the important question Does SR pertain to physically real (or intrinsic) characteristics? And we have found that the answer to this question is No. This tells us all we need to know in order to prove our main point that SR does not pertain to the equivalence of real mass with real energy (which is of course stated explicitly by the equation E=mc^2).
-----RR-----
Mr. Royce, could you please define what you mean by "real" in the sense that you've used it in your "proof"? You say "real clock rhythm", "real mass", and "real energy", but don't fully define those terms. Perhaps the root of the misunderstanding here is a difference in word usage? Maybe people on the list are missing your fundamental point because they aren't using the same words to mean the same things...
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Mr. Royce, could you please define what you mean by "real" in the sense that you've used it in your "proof"? You say "real clock rhythm", "real mass", and "real energy", but don't fully define those terms. Perhaps the root of the misunderstanding here is a difference in word usage? Maybe people on the list are missing your fundamental point because they aren't using the same words to mean the same things...
Yes, but please do it elsewhere. We don't need a discussion of physics here.
It doesn't matter a bit whether what Mr. Royce is saying is true or not. The only real question we need to ask is: can we find it in a textbook or similar?
We don't _do_ physics on wikipedia, we merely report encyclopedically on the state of the subject.
--Jimbo
At 12:19 PM 9/29/2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Dante Alighieri wrote:
Mr. Royce, could you please define what you mean by "real" in the sense that you've used it in your "proof"? You say "real clock rhythm", "real mass", and "real energy", but don't fully define those terms. Perhaps the root of the misunderstanding here is a difference in word usage? Maybe people on the list are missing your fundamental point because they aren't using the same words to mean the same things...
Yes, but please do it elsewhere. We don't need a discussion of physics here.
It doesn't matter a bit whether what Mr. Royce is saying is true or not. The only real question we need to ask is: can we find it in a textbook or similar?
We don't _do_ physics on wikipedia, we merely report encyclopedically on the state of the subject.
--Jimbo
Quite right, my fault. Mr. Royce, please take it back to a talk page and I promise to participate there. I never saw the original conversation, but I'll head there if you privately email me with the talk page that you're using. I hope others will do the same and join us on the talk page so that this topic can be removed from this list.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
Dear Mr. Wales,
You've sold us both short! :-) (<--please note smiley, Mr. Poor!) You have assumed that you could not have anything helpful to say about the physics of this situation, so you have also assumed that it cannot be simply explained if one tries hard enough!
Since SR pertains only to rulers and clocks, and to the results of measurements made thereby, this should tell us that it is not exactly an inherently complex subject. (If you want one of those, try quantum mechanics!)
I believe that the average layman can see that special relativity does not pertain to E=mc^2, and my simple 5-step proof should make a believer out of you.
Here is a brief 5-step proof/explanation for the average layman:
Everyone agrees that special relativity (SR) has some sort of mass increase,* just as everyone agrees that SR has some sort of time dilation and some sort of rod contraction. The question is, What is physically happening in these three cases? [* a minor technical point, it's really a momentum (which is simply mass x velocity) increase]
Since most laymen feel much more comfortable discussing a clock and its rhythm than discussing mass and momentum, and since all three of the above SR effects are alike, it is much better to begin by using a simple clock-rhythm example.
Step 1: Picture a single, normally-operating atomic clock that is sitting on a stationary table some where. (In "tech talk," it is continuously at rest with respect to an inertial frame).
Step 2: Note the fact that this clock cannot have more than one atomic (internal, time-keeping) rhythm. (A clock that had two or more different "tick rates" would have to be thrown away!)
Step 3: Note the fact that observers in different SR frames will find many "different rhythms" for this clock. (Indeed, in SR, one and the same clock has an infinite number of "different rhythms.")
Step 4: Reach the unavoidable conclusion that SR's "time dilation" does not pertain to a clock's intrinsic (atomic, in this case) rhythm.
Step 5: Apply this same argument to the other two cases (i.e., to the momentum and rod contraction cases), and similarly reach the equally unavoidable conclusion that SR does not pertain to either intrinsic mass or to intrinsic rod length.
(Not that anything more is needed, but strength is added to our argument by the fact that each of SR's cases are reciprocal; e.g., I see your clock is "running slow," but you also see _my_ clock "running slow." If we were talking about real (atomic, intrinsic) clock rhythms, then this would clearly be a physically impossible situation, and the same applies to both the SR momentum and rod contraction cases.)
At this point, although we have not answered our original question about what was physically happening in these three cases, we have answered the question about what was _not_ happening in these cases, which means that we have answered the important question Does SR pertain to physically real (or intrinsic) characteristics? And we have found that the answer to this question is No. This tells us all we need to know in order to prove our main point that SR does not pertain to the equivalence of real mass with real energy (which is of course stated explicitly by the equation E=mc^2).
-----RR-----
Forgive me if I'm being naive, but I thought there were no absolute time frames, and if any time frames existed, then they must be relative for the reasons of special relativity. This would mean that, while if one person is comparing his atomic clock to another person's clock that's on a space ship they would get different results, internally, the clocks have a constant rate. LDan
PS. This sounds like a typical crackpot theory steming from a fundimental misunderstanding of a science. I think we should drop this because, even if it is correct (which it isn't), it is still not for Wikipedia until he gets through the Establisment and writes a scientific paper on it.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com