# Occam's Razor and the Special Theory of Relativity.

Discussion in 'Physics' started by socratus, Apr 12, 2012.

1. ### socratus Thread Starter Active Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
Occam's Razor and the Special Theory of Relativity.
1.
In 1905 Einstein wrote the paper:
 On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies. ( SRT).
He wrote about moving of Electrodynamics Bodies (!)
It means he wrote about particles like quantum of light, electron. (!)
And this movement is going in a negative 4D continuum.
2.
One postulate of SRT says: the speed of quantum
of light in a vacuum is a constant ( c=1).
3
Another postulate of SRT says that motion, every motion (!),
(even including the motion of quantum of light ) is relative. (!)
4.
One postulate of SRT says the speed of quantum
of light is going in a vacuum.
Minkowski, trying to understand Einsteins idea, decided to take
time as a fourth coordinate and created his negative spacetime
4D continuum.
What is negative 4D spacetime continuum really?
Really the negative spacetime 4D continuum is vacuum.
Why?
Because only vacuum has negative parameter ( negative temperature )
and only in vacuum the space and time tied together in unrequited continuum.
===.
My conclusion.
Einsteins SRT explains the behavior of light quanta in vacuum.
=====.
Best wishes.
=========================..

P.S.
"Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:
One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy
and universality of the speed of light.
Could the first postulate be true and the other false?
If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two
postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently
that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only
the second postulate."
/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /

===.

2. ### Wendy Moderator

Mar 24, 2008
21,824
3,039
Speed of light (a photon) in a vacuum is a constant to the observer. This simple fact is well established and all the quotes and wishing otherwise does not change the science.

It can be hard to get your head around, but the facts are still there.

BTW, Occam's Razor is a philosophy, not science.

3. ### K7GUH Member

Jan 28, 2011
191
23
I agree, Occam's razor is philosophy. By definition, philosophy is the science of all things pursued through their causes, gained by the natural light of reason. That definition seems to have been quite good enough for generations of scientists and/or philosophers.

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
5. ### Wendy Moderator

Mar 24, 2008
21,824
3,039
You left a few parts out there. In a vacuum, to an observer. Relativity is all about the observer, and it is about the incoming speeds to that observer, not what they are seeing in the distance.

6. ### studiot AAC Fanatic!

Nov 9, 2007
5,003
522
The short answer is nobody knows.

What would have to be different for the assumed universal constant, c, to be different and what would be the observable effects?

I say assumed because any difference could be in time or space.

Don't forget

${c^2} = \frac{1}{{{\varepsilon _0}{\mu _0}}}$

So variation would imply a change in either the permeability or permittivity of free space or both.

Incidentally your website contains some errors.

In particular the photon is not the only 'particle' with zero rest mass. The neutrino is another such.

7. ### russ_hensel AAC Fanatic!

Jan 11, 2009
825
57
As I just learned all particles that are force mediators ( the photon in QED, the Gluon for the strong force and others.... ) travel with a speed of c and have no rest mass ( ok because they are never at rest in any frame ). The neutrino may or may not have rest mass 0, this used to be the best theory, but is now in doubt, the rest mass if not 0 is very low.

8. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,431
469
Actually, the neutrinos have been shown to have a very tiny nonzero mass. I suppose the graviton is another candidate, but technically it has not been experimentally observed directly. Even the photon might have a tiny rest mass (despite the fact that we assume it is zero) because all we can do experimentally is determine an upper bound on the mass, and although that upper bound is very very small, it is not zero.

9. ### studiot AAC Fanatic!

Nov 9, 2007
5,003
522
Shown by the same physicists who recently 'measured' the speed of neutrinos between Switzerland and Italy as greater than c?

Incidentally we should of course be careful what we mean by c when talking relativistically since c is just a constant in some equations, it is not a speed in the conventional sense.

10. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,431
469
I'm not sure if that's true, but I don't really keep track of the various scientists names for these various discoveries (both real and erroneous). There are so many people on the Cern's OPERA team, that it might be true.

However, the neutrino mass discovery was made about 14 years ago and is an indirect observation based on the "flavor" oscillations.

ScienceDaily (June 5, 1998)  BOSTON, Mass.--A research team of scientists from the United States and Japan organized by physicists at Boston University, the University of California-Irvine, and the University of Tokyo, has found the first evidence that neutrinos--tiny electrically neutral sub-atomic particles--have mass.

The possibility of FTL travel for neutrinos has been a question for quite some time but the error bound has always been quite small. The Cern result is far outside this bound, and is almost certainly an experimental error. However, the neutrino's nonzero mass is fairly well established and accepted by all physists.

I understand your point that nothing is ever certain in physics, but it's not fair to say the website is erroneous about neutrinos having nonzero mass when it is well accepted by the current mainstream theory. There is always an implied footnote, that the "main stream" may be redirected to irrigate more fertile soil.

11. ### studiot AAC Fanatic!

Nov 9, 2007
5,003
522
The difficulty is that relativity, gauge theories, and the like are all 'continuum mechanical theories'.
That is they are obey the mathematics of continuous functions.

On the other hand we have various varieties of quantum mechanical theories that obey the mathematics of discrete systems or functions.

These two have never, to my understanding, been successfully reconciled.

One of the requirements of QM is that physical quantities cannot occur at any arbitrary value assigned from the real number line ie they are not continuous over the entire real interval, albeit they may be continuous over part of it.

One of the implications of this granularity is that whilst zero is a permissible mass value, there is a lower bound below which no mass be be assigned to any particle.

The implications of this granularity on the main physical quantities of mass, length and time are well discussed in Majid's book.

I don't know where the alleged mass of the neutrino falls on this scale, but it must be either zero or above the first quantum point at which it should have evidenced a long time ago from simple momentum considerations.

12. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,431
469
This is still part of ongoing research. For example, this reference provides the following information.

In 1998, research results at the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector determined that neutrinos can oscillate from one flavor to another, which requires that they must have a nonzero mass.[37] While this shows that neutrinos have mass, the absolute neutrino mass scale is still not known. This is because neutrino oscillations are sensitive only to the difference in the squares of the masses.[38] The best estimate of the difference in the squares of the masses of mass eigenstates 1 and 2 was published by KamLAND in 2005: ${\Delta m_{21}}^2= 0.000079 \; eV^2$ .[39] In 2006, the MINOS experiment measured oscillations from an intense muon neutrino beam, determining the difference in the squares of the masses between neutrino mass eigenstates 2 and 3. The initial results indicate ${\Delta m_{32}}^2= 0.0027 \; eV^2$, consistent with previous results from Super-Kamiokande.[40] Since ${\Delta m_{32}}^2$, is the difference of two squared masses, at least one of them has to have a value which is at least the square root of this value. Thus, there exists at least one neutrino mass eigenstate with a mass of at least 0.04 eV.[41]
In 2009 lensing data of a galaxy cluster were analyzed to predict a neutrino mass of about 1.5 eV.[42] All neutrino masses are then nearly equal, with neutrino oscillations of order meV. They lie below the Mainz-Troitsk upper bound of 2.2 eV for the electron antineutrino.[43] The latter will be tested in 2015 in the KATRIN experiment, that searches for a mass between 0.2 eV and 2 eV.​

13. ### studiot AAC Fanatic!

Nov 9, 2007
5,003
522
I think my most important points in posts 9 and 11 were about the inadequacies of our current mathematical models and the fact that as a result we all too regularly predict some value for some physical effect in astrophysics or particle physics and find that our experiments return different values, sometimes by mind blowing orders of magnitude.

14. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,431
469
I don't disagree with that good point.

But, you seem to be saying that because of this, we aren't allowed to state the present mainstream view (held by all modern physicists that I know of) that neutrino's don't have zero rest mass. I say this because you went so far as to say that a website was wrong for saying (or at least implying) that neutrino's have mass. And you said, "... Incidentally your website contains some errors. In particular the photon is not the only 'particle' with zero rest mass. The neutrino is another such."

It's one thing to say that our current views might be wrong. After all, perhaps neutrinos have zero rest mass and photons don't have zero rest mass, despite the evidence that the reverse is true. However, that is always implied any time we talk about science. Because of that implied caveat in all our discussions, it is wrong to say that mainstream scientific facts are wrong (at least in a scientific discussion).

The bottom line is that we should say that the evidence supports the view that photons have zero rest mass and neutrinos have non zero rest mass and not say that anyone (or any website) who claims this is fact - is wrong, despite the fact that those facts might ultimately be proved wrong, someday. When you and I were younger, we were taught that neutrino's have zero rest mass, but now that view has changed. In 1982 we were right to say neutrinos have zero rest mass, and 30 years later we are right to say they have nonzero rest mass.

I guess that's just the crazy way the scientists communicate. We speak of "maybe" as if it is "truth".

15. ### studiot AAC Fanatic!

Nov 9, 2007
5,003
522
First let me thank you for opening the door on some modern results I hadn't appreciated.
Having now consulted some modern authorities I have ready access to, I can observe that modern unified theories require twin significant results.

1) That protons eventually decay to other particles.

This event has never been observed, despite significant effort

(Wilczek)

2) That there are three neutrino rest masses.
These have been indirectly observed.

(Connes)

However Penrose points out, the theory only predicts the difference between these masses, not the absolute values and also allows or requires them to deacay to zero.

It should also be pointed out that introducing the 'standard' and then the unified theories involves introducing many more particles, several of which have yet to be verified.

So this is really a 'work in progress'

Meanwhile I asked (indirectly) in post11 the implications of substituting these very small masses or mass differences into the uncertainly principle.
I am away this weekend, but will try to do this next week.

I also asked about the implications of using the special relativity continuous function (the Lorenz factor) to obtain differential changes in mass, length and time in the light of the uncertainty principle. Could you not specify a small enough change in velocity that would lead to a change in M, L, T incompatible with the UP?

16. ### socratus Thread Starter Active Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
==.
A New Limit on Photon Mass.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2003/split/625-2.html
# ​
Every sentence I utter must be understood
not as an affirmation but as a question
/ Niels Bohr./

==.

17. ### socratus Thread Starter Active Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
The book: Albert Einstein and the Cosmic World Order.
/ Six lectures delivered at the University
of Michigan in the Spring of 1962 /
by Cornelius Lanczos / The lecture № 3 /
=============.
Cornelius Lanczos (served as assistant to Einstein during
the period 192829 ) wrote:
SRT was created on two postulates.
First postulate  there isnt absolute speed of movement.
Every movement is relative.
Second postulate  the speed of light ( quantum of light)
is constant.
Lanczos wrote: from the first point of view it seems that
to unite these two different postulates is impossible,
trying to do this is absolute nonsense. (!)
But . . . . It was be done. (!)
. . It was needed the Einsteins courage to do this unity. (!)
How did Einstein connected them ? (!)
1
He solved this problem saying that Newtons absolute space
and time are relative.
And they can be unite in negative spacetime - 4D.
2
As the result we can see different occurrences :
( for example: the physical parameters of particles can change )
==.
And Lanczos wrote: now we are accustomed to this conception
and never, not for the world give up from such manner of thinking.
==================.
Very well ! !
There is only small problem in this conception:
What is the negative 4D spacetime ?
Nobody knows.
! !
===.

18. ### russ_hensel AAC Fanatic!

Jan 11, 2009
825
57

This original poster seems to put the same posts on other forums. He does not often respond to responses, or post straight ahead questions. It is a bit like trolling. Some of the ensuing discussions are, however, not without any interest.

19. ### russ_hensel AAC Fanatic!

Jan 11, 2009
825
57
At least in the case of the Schroedinger equations the discreteness is not much of a mystery, boundary conditions on the differential equations give the discrete values of electron energy. A free electron, without a boundary can have any energy ( although the function also cannot be normalized ).

Some of the theory being discussed here is very new and untested, surely at least some of it is wrong or incomplete.

Wait a bit for the Higgs and we will see a bunch of pruning of many of the branches of theory.

20. ### socratus Thread Starter Active Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
God particle may not exist.
Thursday, 6 December, 2001, 13:13 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1695390.stm
===..

Will CERN find the God - Particle?

Hawking bets CERN will not find the God Particle

Page last updated at 06:01 GMT, Tuesday, 9 September 2008 07:01UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7598000/7598686.stm
#
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-141650.html
==.

Hawking bets CERN mega-machine won't find 'God's Particle' (Update)

Renowned British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has bet 100 dollars
(70 euros) that a mega-experiment this week will not find an elusive
particle seen as a holy grail of cosmic science, he said Tuesday.
September 09, 2008
South Africa former President Nelson Mandela (right) meets with British
scientist Professor Stephen Hawking in Johannesburg. Hawking has bet
100 dollars (70 euros) that a mega-experiment this week will not find
an elusive particle seen as a holy grail of cosmic science, he said.

===.

Last edited: Apr 15, 2012