On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT), xxein
bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>On Jun 15, 7:48Â pm, Pentcho Valev
yahoo.com> wrote:>>
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/papers/montreal-may04.pdf
>> "Let us discuss the difference between EinsteinÂ’s and LorentzÂ’spoints
>> of view still further...It is...of great value that Einstein rendered
>> the theory independent of any assumptions about the constitution of
>> matter. Should one, then,...completely abandon any attempt to explain
>> the Lorentz contraction atomistically? We think the answer to this
>> question should be No. The contraction of a measuring rod is not an
>> elementary but a very complicated process. It would not take place
>> except for the covariance with respect to the Lorentz group of the
>> basic equations of the electron theory, as well as of those laws, as
>> yet unknown to us, which determine the cohesion of the electron
>> itself. We can only postulate that this is so, knowing that then the
>> theory will be capable of explaining atomistically the behaviour of
>> moving rods and clocks." (Pauli, Theory of Relativity, 1921)
>>
>> Einsteinians love Pauli but are reluctant to explain length
>> contraction "atomistically". They used to teach Einstein zombie world
>> that the effect is "one of perspective" but now neither teachers nor
>> students think the effect is "one of perspective". They don't even
>> think the effect is "not one of perspective". They just don't give a
>> shit about length contraction or any other idiotic corollary of
>> Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Divine Albert's Divine Theory
>> is not a money-spinner anymore.
>>
>> Pentcho Valev
>> pva...@
yahoo.com>
>xxein: I mostly agree, but what is the true physic?
>
There is a physical explanation here of how motion would slow the
ticking of light clocks.
Understanding the Retardation of the Returned Astronaut's Clock and
GPS Clocks Using the Physical Behaviour of Moving Clocks
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/V14N4MCA.pdf
Finding a physical explantion of length contraction is more tricky.
But suppose the average distance of an electron from the nucleus of an
atom (lets assume spherical symmetry for simplicity) is related to the
two way travel time for virtual photons traveling between the nucleus
and the electron.
Then if the atom was moving relative to 3-space and the electron
orbital remained spherically symmetrical in the 3-space frame, the
average two way travel time for virtual photons in the direction
parallel to the motion would become longer than the average two way
travel time perpendicular to the motion.
However, if we assume that the electron tends to adjust its motion to
maintain two way travel times that are the same in all directions[#],
then the orbital of the electron would contract in the direction of
motion, so as to maintain such equal travel times.
# Eg. The two way travel time of virtual photons travelling
between an electron and the nucleus might provide
the only indication of distance between the two.
If so, an atom would "believe" it has a spherical
orbital when the two way travel time for virtual
photons between the nucleus and the electron in
the orbital, is the same in all directions.
The relative degree of contraction would be the same as that required
to maintain equal two way travel times for light in vacuum in the two
arms of an MM interferomenter, if one arm was pointing in the
direction of motion and the other was perpendicular to the motion.
-- Surfer.
