John C. Huang (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The time formula in STR is wrong
In the following 6 steps I will explain why Lorentz Transformation (LT) was not proved in year 1905, then briefly introduce old SR and current SR and then I will explain why Ives-Stilwell experiment did not verify SR. I will use the last two steps to prove that SR is wrong.
1). Lorentz Transformation (LT) was not proved in year 1905
To expand his method from two fixed points to 3 points situation with emitting point E, reflecting point R, and terminating point T we must add one more condition to the definition, that is the distance ER = RT. Because with tA'-tB = tB-tA, if ER>RT, then (tA+(ER/c))-tB = (ER-RT)/2c, we have clock B earlier than clock A by (ER-RT)/2c; if ER < RT, then tB-(tA+(ER/c)) = (RT-ER)/2c, we have clock B later than clock A by (RT-ER)/2c; only when ER=RT we have two clocks synchronized to each other.
1-1. M-M experiment reported 1887
2). First version of SR, old SR, was based on LT, did not have length contraction.
According to that old SR a time period t' measured by an observer at the origin O' of the moving system from point B to point E would be measured as expanded to t = kt' by the observer at the origin O of the stationary system. Since the speed was v = BE/t', the v would be measured as reduced to BE/t = BE/kt' = v/k by the observer at the origin of the stationary system. Why? Because in old SR, Einstein focused on a special situation that x = vt, so that x' = k(x-vt) = 0 and there was no length contraction in old SR. BE remained the same in both inertial systems.
3). Current version of SR, SR, was based on the 3rd postulate.
Einstein introduced the 3rd postulate so that he could remove the condition of x = vt. The 3rd postulate is against to commonsense. I have two reasons here:
3-1. Doppler effect theory
However, when the observer moved toward a stationary source of light, the theory stated that the wavelength would remain the same with new frequency of f' = ((c+v)/c)f so that the speed of light would be calculated faster as c' = c+v. That meant according to the theory, the 2nd postulate was good, but the 3rd postulate was wrong.
3-2. An experiment when we have superclock to measure nanosecond
We will check the recorded event at camcorder L to see that the ring A will be lighted roughly from 10:00 pm, 1 minute, and 80 ns to 100 ns while ring B will be lighted from 160 ns to 180 ns. That will mean the speed of light is measured as about c/2. In the video recorded by camcorder C we will see both of ring A and ring B will be lighted from 120 ns to 140 ns. That will mean the speed of light is measured as about infinitely fast. This experiment will verify that Einstein's 3rd postulate is wrong.
4). Ives-Stilwell experiment did not verify SR.
Based on that understanding, we would find out that current mainstream physicists have not applied SR correctly yet. To apply SR to Ives-Stilwell experiment correctly, my explanation is that the speed v of the source of light would be measured as v/k by the stationary observer, that means, SR would expect l' = (1+-(v/c))l be measured as L' = (1+-(v/(kc)))l. When c>v>0, we have k>1 so that v > v/k. Then, when the source moved toward the observer, SR expected L' > l' and when the source moved away from the observer, SR expected L' < l'.
However, the main stream explanation has stated SR would expect l' = (1+-(v/c))l be measured as L' = k(1+-(v/c))l so that L' > l' for both situations and that matched the experiment result. I think they have not applied SR correctly yet.
5). C Transformation (CT) is to replace LT.
Let me introduce and prove the time equation. When an event happened at point A(x,y,z) and time tA as measured at A, the picture was sent to all directions by light. If the speed of light was infinitely fast like in GT, the picture would be sent to all observers instantly so that they all measured the same event time, t' = tA = t. But as we know now, the speed of light is limited and we could use c to represent it. The event time measured by the observer at origin point O would be t = tA+(OA/c) and by the observer at origin point O' would be t' = tA+(O'A/c) so that t' = t+((O'A-OA)/c) and t = t'+((OA-O'A)/c) are proved.
5-1. LT is wrong
6). C Relativity (CR) is to replace the equation of SR
6-1. SR is wrong
6-2. When v is approaching c
6-3. When v > c
Please let me know if you find any mistake in CT and/or CR so that we can correct it. Thanks.
John C. Huang (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
How Galileo helped Einstein 2008-8-8 by: John Huang
Two years ago I found this letter dated 1955-5-5 from a Chinese book I bought at a Half-Price store. It was a Chinese letter with “Galileo” and “Einstein” in English. The writer, Ah-Shang, told his physics teacher about the second choice of the Galilean Transformation. I knew that Galileo tried to find out if the speed of light was finite in his 1638 experiment. The result showed that the time for light (photons) to travel 1 mile was smaller than the measurement error. That meant Galileo had two choices.
1. Two Choices
The smart one was to take advantage of algebra by using a symbol, liked c, to represent the speed of light so that no matter c is infinite or finite his Transformation would be always correct. The stubborn one was to follow his true belief. We learned from the history that Galileo was stubborn and he believed that the speed of light was infinite.
1-1. Ah-Shang’s Decision Ah-Shang did not have interest on “why did Galileo choose infinite?”. His purpose of writing that letter was to show his teacher how lucky Einstein was to have enjoyed the title of “the smartest person” for more than 50 years with the help of stubborn Galileo. To understand how lucky Einstein was on June 30th, 1905, people had to learn the Galilean Transformation (GT) in detail. Ah-Shang did not provide it in his letter but I would try to make GT easy for people graduated from high school. It would be short and in detail.
2. About Stubborn GT
Here was what I learned in year 2005. There were two inertial systems in GT.
2-1. Two Inertial Systems One was rest with origin point O (0,0,0) and 3 axes x, y, and z while the other one with origin point O’ and 3 axes x’, y’, and z’ was moving at a constant velocity v toward the positive-direction of x-axis. All positive-directions of 3 axes of the moving system were pointing to the same respective positive-directions of 3 axes in the stationary system and the x’-axis was merged into the x-axis. The last condition arranged for these two systems was about time. The time t in the stationary system and the time t’ in the moving system were equal to 0 when two origins met. That meant before O’=O the time was negative. As you might know, the famous Lorentz Transformation (LT) had the same arrangement.
2-2. The Purpose of GT There was an observer, Mr. M, at the origin point O and an observer, Mr. M’, at the origin point O’. The purpose of the first set of GT was for Mr. M to calculate (x’, y’, z’) and t’ based on the measured numbers (x, y, z) and t from observing an event happened at point A (x, y, z) and time t. The first set was (x’, y’, z’) = (x-vt, y, z) and t’=t. The second set of GT was for Mr. M’ to calculate (x, y, z) and t from measured numbers (x’, y’, z’) and t’ for the same event happened at the same time and the same point A with coordinates measured from the origin point O’. It was (x, y, z) = (x’+vt’, y’, z’) and t=t’. We all knew that LT had the same purpose of GT but only half of their equations were the same: (y’=y and z’=z) in the first set and (y=y’ and z=z’) in the second set.
3. Einstein and the LT
Since Galileo believed the speed of light was infinite he thought when an event started, the image of the starting of that event would be sent by light to all directions at an infinite speed so that all observers of that event, no matter how far they were away from that event, they would record same time for that moment, the starting time of that event. That was why the stubborn GT stated t’=t and t=t’.
3-1. Cheated In year 1982, scientists already knew the speed of light in vacuum was about 300000000 meters per second. People knew that t’=t and t=t’ were wrong. The image of the starting of an event would be sent to all directions under the speed of light so that the farther observer would measure a later time. When Mr. Lorentz suggested to replace GT by LT scientists were very excited, not because of t’=t would be replaced but it was for another reason. Scientists were too eager to establish a new theory for that other reason so that when Einstein claimed he proved LT on 1905-6-30 most scientists were “cheated”, as described by Ah-Shang in his letter.
4. Algebra Version of GT
“If someone had updated t’=t and t=t’ by using c to represent the speed of light for Galileo then people would not have to be cheated by the Theory of Special Relativity (TSR) for almost 50 years.” It was another comment in Ah-Shang’s letter. Here was what Ah-Shang did to update t’=t and t=t’.
4-1. t = ta+(d/c) Beside using c to represent the speed of light Ah-Shang used d for the distance between point A and O, d’ for the distance between point A and O’, then he used ta for the time of the starting of that event, but, it was measured at the point A. Since the time t was measured by Mr. M at point O, t was later than ta by the time the image was sent by the speed of light from the point A to the point O, that meant t = ta+(d/c). We also had t’ = ta+(d’/c). Since ta = t-(d/c), we had the time formula for the first set of Algebra version of GT (AVO-GT) t’ = t+((d’-d)/c). It simply stated, to calculate t’ from t, we could think through ta, first deducted (d/c) from t to get ta then added (d’/c) to ta to get t’.
4-2. x’ = x-vt’ The formula of the coordinates in the first set of AVO-TG was a little bit tricky because the origin point O’ was always moving. The most important step was to understand which was that particular location of O’ we should use to calculate the variant x’. Since it was at time t’ that Mr. M’ saw the image of the starting of that event, the location of O’ at time t’ was O’ (vt’, 0, 0) as displayed by the coordinates of system O. According to mathematical formula to shift coordinate system from (0, 0, 0) to (vt’, 0, 0), the coordinate (x, y, z) would be changed to (x-vt’, y, z). Then we had (x’, y’, z’) = (x-vt’, y, z) as well as x’ = x-vt’. The first set of AVO-TG was (x’, y’, z’) = (x-vt’, y, z) and t’ = t+((d’-d)/c). The second set was (x. y. z) = (x’+vt’, y’, z’) and t = t’+((d-d’)/c).
5. Algebra Version of TSR
Einstein was honored with the title of “the smartest person” because of his TSR was taught by most professors of physics and it was also verified by most students of physics. They all admired that TSR was a miracle. Only a few scientists did not believe in TSR but none of them mentioned about the algebra version of TSR (AVO-TSR). Here was what Ah-Shang stated in his letter.
5-1. About TSR TSR was an application of LT. There were 8 equations in LT, 4 in each set, and TSR was just part of one equation in LT. That was t’ = k (t-(vx/(c^2))), k was the famous Lorentz Factor. The formula t’ = k (t-(vx/(c^2))) was for any event happened at any point A (x, y, z) so that it looked complicated. Einstein was very smart that he focused on events happened at the origin point O’ so that the x coordinates of events would be always represented by x = vt when it was measured by Mr. M. After you replaced x by vt and simplified that equation you would get t’ = t/k if x = vt. It was amazingly neat.
5-2. LT or GT However, since LT and GT were based on the same arrangement of two inertial systems the relationship of t’ = t+((d’-d)/c) and t’ = k (t-(vx/(c^2))) could not be correct at the same time for the same event. If LT was wrong then TSR had to follow it.
5-3. AVO-TSR When formula t’ = t+((d’-d)/c) was used to analysis events happened at origin point O’ we had d’=0 so that t’ = t-(d/c). Since the distance between O and O’ at any time t’ was d = v |t’| we had two different AVO-TSR formulas. When t>0, d = vt’, t’ = t-(vt’/c) so that t = ((c+v)/c)t’ or t’ = (c/(c+v))t. When t<0, d = -vt’, t’ = t+(vt’/c) so that t = ((c-v)/c)t’ or t’ = (c/(c-v))t.
5-4. Infinitely Fast When t<0 the point O’ was approaching the point O. To Mr. M, the time t’ spent by the moving of Mr. M’ was measured as t = ((c-v)/c)t’. That meant when Mr. M’ moved from a beginning point B at time tb’ to an ending point E at time te’ the recorded time tb and te would have relationship as te-tb = ((c-v)/c) (te’-tb’) = ((c-v)/c) (BE/v) = BE/(cv/(c-v)). Ah-Shang stated if the moving speed of Mr. M’ was measured by Mr. M as V then since the averaged speed for Mr. M’ to move from point B to point E was BE/(te-tb) we had V = BE/(te-tb) = BE/(BE/(cv/(c-v))) = cv/(c-v).
When the moving speed of Mr. M’ was approaching c the measured speed of Mr. M’ would be approaching infinitely fast to Mr. M. That meant to all human beings all photons run into their eyes at a speed looked like infinitely fast to them! That might be the reason why Galileo believed that the speed of light was infinite.
6. TSR or AVO-TSR
TSR did not consider the absolute value of t’ in d = v |t’| and assumed that when Mr. M’ was approaching Mr. M the time relationship was the same as when Mr. M’ was moving away from Mr. M. TSR even went further and claimed that t’ = t/k could stand alone without the support of LT because Einstein assumed the speed of light was measured the same, c in the vacuum, by any inertial observer.
6-1. Measuring the speed of photons If we had super camcorder with built-in super timer to record nanoseconds then we could measure the speed of photons. After we recorded a ray started at 10:00 pm from a flashlight to two posts 12 m and 30 m away from the camcorder we could calculate the speed of photons in the ray. The result would be around (30m-12m)/((10:00+200ns)-(10:00+80ns)) = 0.15 m/ns. That was about half of the speed of light in vacuum, 0.3 m/ns. Above experiment was based on the similar formula in section 5-4, V = cv/(c+v) for t>0, and when v=c, we had V = 0.5c. As we learned from section 5-4, the speed of a photon was looked like infinitely fast if it was running toward the observer; now, above experiment showed that the speed of photons was about 0.5c if photons were running away from the observer. That meant the assumption of Einstein, “the speed of light was measured the same, c in the vacuum, by any inertial observer”, was not correct.
6-2.TSR when k = (c+v)/c The time relationship in TSR was at the same direction of AVO-TSR when t>0. When t>0 both of them showed t’<t. When t>0, in AVO-TSR, t’ = (c/(c+v))t < t. When v>0, k = (1- ((v/c)^2))^(-1/2) > 1, so that in TSR, t’ = t/k < t. That meant when 1/k = c/(c+v) TSR was the same as AVO-TSR. That meant TSR was correct when Mr. M’ was moving away from Mr. M at a speed around 0.85c.
6-3.Speed in TSR If Mr. M’ was approaching Mr. M at a speed of 0.85c, then, the speed of Mr. M’ if measured by Mr. M was V = (0.85c/0.15). V was about 5.66c, faster than c. If Mr. M’ was moving away from Mr. M at a speed of 0.85c then V = (0.85c/1.85). V was about 0.46c. However, TSR claimed that the direction of moving would not change the relation of t’ and t. In TSR, Mr. M’ knew his moving speed was v but to Mr. M the time that Mr. M’ moved from point B to point E was V = B’E’/(tb-te). If we assumed that the distance B’E’ was fixed that B’E’ = BE then V = BE/(k(tb’-te’)) = BE/(k(BE/v)) and we had V = v/k. Judged from the x’ = k(x-vt) and x = k(x’+vt’), looked like B’E’ would be measured differently by Mr. M. If B’E’ = BE/k then V = v/(k^2), if B’E’ = kBE then V = v. In any situation, the relation between V and v would not be verified by the experiment stated in the section 6-1.
6-4. Your Answer I had told you everything on Ah-Shang’s letter. Only one of TSR and AVO-TSR could be correct. You might find the answer for yourself. I appreciated your concern.
John C. Huang (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Einstein is well known by the Special Theory of Relativity. However, the time formula in STR is not correct. The correct time formula should be:
Ta' = Ta + (ao/C) ----- [1]
Ta represents the time of an event started at point a and Ta' stands for the time recorded by the camcorder at point o for the same event started at point a. ao stands for the distance from point a to point o and C represents the speed of light.
The time formula for a period of time should be:
Tab' = Tab + ((bo-ao)/C) ----- [2]
Tab represents the time period of the event started at point a and ended at point b and Tab' is the time period recorded by a camcorder at point o for the same event.
The proof for formula [1] is very simple. Since the 'picture of the event-starting' takes time to travel from point a to point o, when the camcorder recorded that 'picture of event-starting' the time should be (ao/C) after the actual starting time. Ta' = Ta + (ao/C).
The Lorentz transformation is not proved yet. There are some minor mistakes and one major mistake in Einstein's 1905 paper.
Thank for let me keep my user page. I will try to explain my view points in better way in the future. John C. Huang (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)