[General] Invariability vs reciprocity

[Dr Grahame Blackwell]

Hi Albrecht,

The difference between invariability and reciprocity is quite clear-cut - at least on the surface.  When one looks further into it one then also needs to distinguish clearly between objective reality and subjective impressions.

As you say, Einsteinian Relativity ASSUMES reciprocity - by assuming that all inertial frames are symmetric (hence the use of hyperbolic rotations in 4-D spacetime to represent changes in velocity).  In a universe (the one that you and I know to be the case) where inertial frames are NOT symmetric (since all motion is relative to one unique objectively static reference frame) then of course reciprocity is not an objective reality - it could not be.  If I am in that objectively staic frame my clock will not slow down, whatever any moving observer may think (or even perceive) to be the case.

However, it unquestionably IS the case that experimental evidence appears to support such reciprocity.  How can this be so?  Well, detailed analysis shows that the moving observer's own misperception of events will lead to their view - supported by the instrumentation that is moving with them - that a static observer or system IS contracted as if they were in motion and that the static clock IS slowed, just as if that moving observer were static and the static system actually moving.

I believe that it is this reciprocity (supported by experiments such as Fizeau's, which is actually a total red herring!) that leads most physicists to disregard any suggestions that SRT is a misinterpretation of the available evidence - indeed, even to ridicule those who would wish to show them otherwise, without even being prepared to consider the facts.

Invariability is very easily shown to be an observer effect.  Reciprocity is significantly less easily explained - but nevertheless it can be, quite thoroughly.

[On acceleration: I am broadly in agreement with what you say.]

Best regards,
Grahame
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Albrecht Giese 
  To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 9:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [General] Fw: STR twin Paradox


  Hi Grahame,

  I try to understand where you see the exact difference between invariability and reciprocity. A clear example of reciprocity where we seem to have both the same understanding is the case of two observers in motion who observe and see the clock of the other one slowed down. It is truly a better example than the constancy of the speed of light. Both observers make the same observation. Now I understand your definition in the following way: 


  In Einstein's SRT where all inertial frames are completely equivalent, so reciprocity can be concluded. In the Lorentzian SRT where the equivalence is only an apparent one, an equivalence of measurement results, it is in your view not reciprocity. Is this a correct understanding of your definition?

  Acceleration: time dilation under acceleration is in fact the summation of the actual speeds. To be done carefully, yes; but that is achieved by an integration over the speed values passed. I think, it is nothing more. If in the case of the twin paradox the phase of acceleration back is not too long, it does not have a considerable influence to the result.


  Best regards
  Albrecht




  Am 04.06.2017 um 16:22 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:

    Hi Albrecht (et al.),

    I'm sorry but, like so many others, you appear to be confusing reciprocity with (apparent) invariability.  Until one squarely addresses the issue of reciprocity (which is widely confirmed by experiment, for example in the LHC and by anomalous aberration of starlight), one is in no position to counter the conventional claim that all inertial reference frames are equivalent - that there is no unique objectively static reference frame.

    It's of course axiomatic that any physical effect that leads to physical contraction in an object's direction of motion will also cause contraction of a ruler in that direction - so the object length will appear to be unaltered; likewise, it's axiomatic that an effect leading to reduction in passage-of-time effects in a moving object will cause corresponding reduction in rate of a clock (of whatever nature - including the one in an observer's brain) travelling at that same speed - so speeds, including the speed of light (for a slightly different reason), will appear unaltered.  This is apparent invariability - it is NOT reciprocity.

    Reciprocity requires that if I am moving at speed v and you are static, not only will you see my clock moving at a slower speed as defined by time dilation - but I will, to precisely the same degree, see your clock as moving with the same time-dilation factor as YOU observe in MY clock; likewise, you will see the length of my spacecraft (or whatever) contracted in accordance with Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction - and from MY perspective YOUR spacecraft (or whatever) will appear to be contracted to precisely the same degree.  THIS is reciprocity, and it cannot be so lightly brushed aside as you brush aside (correctly) the phenomenon of apparent invariability (which is in fact TRUE invariability of ratios of measurements in the same inertial frame).

    It is reciprocity, not simply invariability, that leads to assertions of frame symmetry.  Clearly, if (as you and I both are certain is the case) there IS a unique objectively static inertial frame, then reciprocity cannot be simply a comparison of ratios in different frames: in a moving frame time dilation and contraction WILL apply, in the static frame they will NOT.  So how do we square this circle?

    The answer is, once again, observer effects.  It is nothing like so easy as your dismissal of apparent invariance - but it CAN be shown that something which is clearly NOT the case in a static object (time dilation, contraction) will APPEAR to be so from a moving reference frame.  This is a significant feature of my published work, and it's absolutely essential to explaining SRT 'frame symmetry' from the perspective of a system that includes a uniquely static inertial reference frame.  SRT as it's generally accepted IS a myth (Hence the title of my latest book: "The Relativity Myth"), but it's a very pervasive and persuasive myth and one that needs firmly and thoroughly debunking if physics is to progress beyond this point at which it's currently stalled.

    With regard to your comments on acceleration: I agree completely that acceleration is significantly different from gravitational effects, and that time dilation under acceleration is simply a summation of speed-based dilation; however that summation must of course be handled rather more carefully than simple constant-velocity time dilation, which involves simply a constant factor.  It's for this reason that the twins paradox resolves itself quite satisfactorily without breaching the bounds of standard SRT.

    Best regards,
    Grahame
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170606/4d535b74/attachment.htm>