PAULI ABOUT LENGTH CONTRACTION

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/pape...real-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’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
**** 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

On Jun 15, 7:48*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/pape...real-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’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
**** 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


xxein: I mostly agree, but what is the true physic? Do you have an
answer?

I'd like to hear your lc. And could you expand that into gravity?

On Jun 15, 3:48*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/pape...real-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’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
**** 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


No Flat Atoms.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jun 16, 5:53*am, xxein wrote:
On Jun 15, 7:48*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/pape...real-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’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
**** 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


xxein: *I mostly agree, but what is the true physic? *Do you have an
answer?

True physics is one in which this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

is called "reductio ad absurdum", not "paradox". True physics is one
in which the argument "Of course, you open them again pretty quickly"
does not exist:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

If we lived in Big Brother's world and you had asked: "What is true
mathematics", I would answer: True mathematics is one in which two and
two make four, not five:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700 (PDT), xxein
wrote:

On Jun 15, 7:48*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/pape...real-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’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
**** 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


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/cp...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.

On Jun 16, 3:52*pm, Surfer wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:53:33 -0700
wrote:





On Jun 15, 7:48*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/pape...real-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’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
**** 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


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 Clockshttp://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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: It is more tricky to be sure. Our science isn't up to it yet.

The key is to ID the difference between how light can move vs. how
matter can move.

Matter depends upon how light can move. Given even a static sea, if
matter moves through it, the energy exchange will have to follow suit
(Lorentz). But the energy exchange has to follow with the sea also.
It becomes biased to a direction.

Don't read Bohr or orbiting electrons or clouds here. Just understand
that we see these seemingly biases all the time. They are not
peculiar. They are the physic we seek. But to which context do we
place it?

I just thought of something. A 3-d gyroscope. Does that give rise to
inertia? Doesn't an an atom have the same properties? Wouldn't it
give resistance to any change of energy flow it might be within?

Holy crap! Inertia.

I knew it was there. I just didn't know how or why. Just remember I
said "change of energy flow" and resistance to it. Gyroscopic.

I know that we all may have different notions of how a physic might
work, but this little gem goes a long way.

I'm no spring chicken to all this, but we all have our stumbling
blocks that prevents us from a more complete understanding.

But that is almost beside the issue of lc. Wheeler described the
effects right for falling objects and still missed the inertial
influence (sort of, but enough to distort the reality). If he missed
it, where are we?

Lc is not the same as td despite the same math description. Can you
see how we can make big mistakes with some math that is supposed to
coordinate our thinking?

Just thinking ahead, there is supposed to be a TV program that
correlates math and logic for life decisions. I cannot give credence
to such a thing. It is again assigning arbitrary values to unknown
conditions. You might as well call Oprah or (dr?) Phil.

Let's DO science without baggage. Are you ready and capable?

On Jun 16, 1:48 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0402/pape...real-may04.pdf
"Let us discuss the difference between Einstein’s and Lorentz’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
**** 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.

In Paris the length contraction effect is "one of perspective", that
is, "il s'agit d'un effet
de perspective spatio-temporelle":

http://inac.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?c...343/t343_1.pdf
Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji: "Chez Poincaré, la contraction des longueurs
et la dilatation des durées sont réelles.....Chez Einstein, la
contraction des longueurs et la dilatation des durées ne sont pas
réelles: elles sont le résultat d'un effet de perspective."

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/memb...ein_Damour.pdf
Thibault Damour: "La "contraction des longueurs" avait, avant
Einstein, été considérée par George Fitzgerald et Hendrik Lorentz.
Cependant, ils la considéraient comme un effet "réel" de contraction
dans l'"espace absolu", alors que pour Einstein il s'agit d'un effet
de perspective spatio-temporelle."

In Oxford length contraction is REAL, particles REALLY "get closer
together", Oxford's intellects do want to explain length contraction
"atomistically", il ne s'agit pas d'un effet de perspective spatio-
temporelle:

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603
"There are many things I might be asking when I ask someone to explain
length contraction. I might be asking, "Why do different inertial
observers (who are not at relative rest) disagree about the length of
a given (inertially moving) rod?" Or I might be asking, "Why is a
moving rod shorter than its stationary counterpart (of the same proper
length)?" Or I might be asking, "If you take a rod that is initially
at rest (in your frame of reference), and accelerate it, why is it
shorter after you accelerate it than it was before you accelerated
it?"......I'm not sure what Brown thinks about geometrical answers to
the first why-question, but he certainly thinks that GEOMETRICAL
ANSWERS TO THE SECOND TWO WHY-QUESTIONS ARE BAD EXPLANATIONS. He
thinks that good answers to these questions say something about the
way in which the forces holding the parts of the rod together depend
on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of what causes the
particles to get closer together, and so what causes the rod to
shrink."

At first sight, length contraction in Paris is different from length
contraction in Oxford but that is not the case. Il s'agit de la même
"Marche Futile":

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Jyu6eioZ4

Pentcho Valev

What physicist mean by "real" has changed for them numerous times.

In the past (~1900+) "real" had its usual meaning and Einstein's
length contraction was coined "apparent" (projection, effet de
perspective, etc).
Many years later, (these days) physicist changed their meaning of the
word "real". "Real" now means the value obtained by the measurement,
which was the "effect de perspective". So now the Lor.Contract is
called "real".

The same happened for "mass". We had "mass". Then in the advent of
SR,it was deduced that "mass" changes ( is not an invariant, it
increases when moving) , and "proper mass" was used for the invariant
"mass". Then ~1960, physicist changed their words again. The changing
"Mass" is now called "relativistic mass" and proper mass is now called
just "mass". Quite confusing heh?

What is even funnier, is the concept of rigid bodies. Many SR text
analyze bodies (rods) calling them "rigid" ( Born rigidity) and then
call them "ideal rigid". A rigid rod changes its shape when traveling
in an i-frame, unless it is an "ideal rigid" rod where it no longer
changes its shape *but* where the Lor.Contraction still manifest
itself!!!??? Many text describe it that way. Very confusing for
beginners (and even for professionals) .

proposition: Instead of using words "real, rigid ..." , just discard
them and call it "measured as...".

wrote:
What physicist mean by "real" has changed for them numerous times.

In the past (~1900+) "real" had its usual meaning and Einstein's
length contraction was coined "apparent" (projection, effet de
perspective, etc).
Many years later, (these days) physicist changed their meaning of the
word "real". "Real" now means the value obtained by the measurement,
which was the "effect de perspective". So now the Lor.Contract is
called "real".

That is where they lost the physical part of physics.
they allowed the use of bent "straight" lines to still be
considered straight.
Totally went off on science.



The same happened for "mass". We had "mass". Then in the advent of
SR,it was deduced that "mass" changes ( is not an invariant, it
increases when moving) , and "proper mass" was used for the invariant
"mass". Then ~1960, physicist changed their words again. The changing
"Mass" is now called "relativistic mass" and proper mass is now called
just "mass". Quite confusing heh?

They needed this to confirm the jump away from science of above.



What is even funnier, is the concept of rigid bodies. Many SR text
analyze bodies (rods) calling them "rigid" ( Born rigidity) and then
call them "ideal rigid". A rigid rod changes its shape when traveling
in an i-frame, unless it is an "ideal rigid" rod where it no longer
changes its shape *but* where the Lor.Contraction still manifest
itself!!!??? Many text describe it that way. Very confusing for
beginners (and even for professionals) .

It is simple,
one is pureley mathematical proof only using a "bendy rigidity" to
measure with, (relativity)
one is using a purely rigid method of masurement
with absolute time also. (classical mechanics/physics)


proposition: Instead of using words "real, rigid ..." , just discard
them and call it "measured as...".

measured as would still have 2 meanings..
measured with a beam of light that can bend and cause a path
that will not be straight to get physical measurement accuruacy
of true distance between A and B.

and then you have physical measurement of A to B
using a stright edge (no curving at all)
The physical method always wins.
That is why triangulation is never wrong.
If the physical method (classical) is proven wrong,
Triangulation will really be mad at you.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

proposition: Instead of using words "real, rigid ..." , just discard
them *and call it "measured as...".

measured as would still have 2 meanings..
measured with a beam of light that can bend and cause a path
that will not be straight to get physical measurement accuruacy
of true distance between A and B.

and then you have physical measurement of A to B
using a stright edge (no curving at all)
The physical method always wins.
That is why triangulation is never wrong.
If the physical method (classical) is proven wrong,
Triangulation will really be mad at you.


Use only one meaning, the current meaning which is an operationnal
procedure. It is independent of the theory used, has nothing to do
with straight or bent beams etc. Use the defined procedure to do the
measurement, that is all.

Eg: Length masurement in an i-frame: 1) make sure no accelerations/
grav.effects are detected. 2) send light from head to tail back to
head, take that time * 299792458 and divide by 2. The value obtained
is the "length". (or simultaneously take "marks" of the ends of the
rod...)