[humanbydefault]

[The following was not intended to be a thread but an article instead, I'll
appreciate any help I could get from members of this forum in trying to make this text into the archive of toequest's library]

“A QUANTUM MECHANICAL REVISION OF EINSTEIN’S RELATIVITY”

[M. De Zayas]

“Clocks slay time… time is dead as long as it is being clicked off by little wheels; only when the clock stops does time come to life.” William Faulkner


IN 1905 Albert Einstein in what was known by “his miracle year,” impressed the world with the unexpected publication of few articles. Among them, however two very important ones were related to the roll of light and observers: Relativity and the so-called photoelectric effect.
It is often found in books on the subject both recently published as well as those from the time of his discoveries a footnote written by those same authors in a form of open incredulity about the way Einstein handled light according to his personal convenience. In Relativity light was referred to as a “beam of light.” A fluid ray of energy with no apparent quantum mechanical structure whatsoever… As if the very concept of quantum of light “discovered” by Einstein himself were intentionally omitted from existence.
On the other hand, the photoelectric effect was the result of the same light now transformed into “pieces” or “particles” showing no particular interest about being considered to be a wave… If you have thought for a moment that such event took place by an innocent coincidence I assure you one thing: It didn’t!
I will attempt to give you what I believe it could be seen as a sort of “autopsy” performed inside Einstein’s relativity focusing in principles and facts derived from experimentation alone.
Before “dissecting” the concept of relative motion and frames of reference, two basic pillars in understanding special relativity, I’ve considered crucial to define what we have taken for granted all this time: “the actual position of an object.”
It may sound too simple a concept at first glance but it isn’t and I’ll prove it to you in a moment. When we see ourselves on front of a mirror, when we recognize a friend walking cross the street or even when we follow the flight path of a passing plane in all these instances we assume we receive the image of the picture instantaneously. How many of you have interrupted your thoughts to consider the number of possible processes involved in that seemingly natural phenomenon?
Well, my point is that the reception of an image involves several steps with an alternating transformation of light from one quantum mechanical state to the other affecting [whether you like it or not] the overall timing of the event.
Let’s be more specific and bring an easy example:
A plane is flying right above your position. Just before the image of the plane pumped into your brain a bunch of photons had to “collapse” their momentum in your retina. Let’s ignore [for the moment] the delay produced by our nervous system transferring the signal to our brain and its properly identification procedure of the actual plane in our minds. Light from the sun [assuming the event occurred under daylight] moved at the speed of light (300,000 km/s) across the vacuum until a group of photons collapsed with the fuselage of the aircraft. At that moment in time light that was behaving as a wave until suddenly became a bunch of photons illuminating the flying object. But wait a second! We haven’t being able to receive those photons yet since they still have to be reflected from the surface in almost zero time to become again a wave traveling toward our position. After [an impossible to measure] lapse of time the same group of photons leaving the surface of the plane had to move from zero velocity [a definite position with no momentum] to a fast speed of 300,000 km/s.
Yes indeed! It’s logical to assume that for anything, that has a position with no momentum [zero speed] being able to move at any velocity [no matter what] a lapse of time HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
Otherwise we would be denying the laws of physics and I don’t think light would be an exception.
But let’s move on!
A group of light waves carrying the information of the plane image begin to move at light speed in our direction. Then, we have to consider the actual distance between the plane and the observer [us] and one that will be completed by the wave in a very brief time as we all know by now. A final step will end up with the collapse of the wave carrying the information against our retina… another “inconvenient” quantum mechanical mutation from wave to quantum with a defined position in the four coordinates.
As you have probably realized by now there are a series of steps and time consuming events that HAVE TO BE TAKEN into future consideration when we attempt to describe what we’ve just seen as an object.
Let’s begin without any further delay to translate the images participating in what’s known as “relative motion” including every single one of their “complex quantum mechanical history.”
Let’s borrow the examples commonly used in every text on relativity. Let’s assume an observer is standing on one side of the road and is watching a car moving at the speed of 50 miles per hour. In this simple case we have to admit that the magnitude of time-delay involved by the information carrying the image of the moving car could be considered [for practical purposes] depreciable. Don’t let you be confused by the convenience, intentionally assumed, in such every day type of case. The light from the sun was exposed to a series of transformation [wave-particle-wave-particle] until it reached his retina. The fact that we are dealing with objects of the macro-world does not necessary implies that the laws of the quantum world are totally alien to the specifics of each case. Since the time it takes to assimilate the information once available in photons from the observer’s eyes to become a mental representation is always the same for the same observer I decide to exclude it from every further experiment. We will use the same volunteer human observer so we don’t have to relay in biological differences between frames of references… It will make things simpler.
My next task will be to talk about “simultaneity.” When two or more events happen at THE SAME TIME we say that we are in a presence of simultaneous events. Special relativity counts with a broad version of examples where an observer at rest is the witness of two identical events happening simultaneously in two opposite direction on points bearing the same distance in relation to the observer’s position.
Of course the answer to the question whether which event [the shot of one single photon of light for example or the striking of a lightning] happened first would always be: “both photons were received at the same time.”
To complicate things more, the case was always followed by another observer [we are going to use always the same guy remember?] that is moving inside a vehicle [an incredibly fast one] when the two events repeat itself once again. An interesting detail deserves to be mentioned though, This fast moving observer was also right half the distance between the two points where photons were shot… just like the first case. However the only element included in the puzzling experiment was the fact that it was moving in the direction where one of the events took place and therefore in opposite direction respect to the other.
Special relativity is not in contradiction with logic and common sense when the observer arrives to the conclusion that one event took place BEFORE the other… But according to you which one was it?
The answer couldn’t be simpler: the one occurring in the direction toward he was speeding.
You see… A moving observer won’t see collapsing in his retina the photons carrying the information of the event that gets farther away from him as he continues with his super-high speed. On the other hand, those photons "“riding in the front of the light wave” and being originated in a closing target will collapse first bringing the information of the event fraction of a second earlier.
Now! Is this so difficult to assimilate? You tell me! Oh! But let’s clarify a couple of things here.
When Maxwell said that light moves at a constant velocity he didn’t know then about the uncertain nature of a quantum of energy. On those old days not even Plank was experimenting with black body radiation yet, so let’s put light and its duality nature in its right perspective here.
Light is borne in the propagation of a quantum of E-M energy in a wave structure across the vacuum. It is energy lying inside a source showing a defined position and “0” speed… When it accelerates [under an undetermined lapse of time] it will reach the constant speed of 300,000 km/s [approx.]
You’ll excuse me if I choose to adopt the moving light as one single photon… I will not repeat the same mistake of looking at light as an entity with a given position and momentum at all times. The image of one single piece of light turning into wave and back into a pinpointed location will help us understanding some of the puzzles [still today] blamed to an early XX century’s metaphysical image of space and time.
It’s a fact that light moves in the vacuum at a constant speed. The direction of the ray is always in a straight line from the source. Since we have considered a single photon [only], it won’t be too difficult to accept this second feature at all… Of course unless you want to argue against quantum mechanics saying that a photon could divide itself into other pieces and fly in every direction… I didn’t think so either!
Back to the example I’ve just discussed with you concerning a moving and a stationary observer with respect to two simultaneous events, the phenomenon is known as “relativity of simultaneity.” [It makes sense isn’t it?] Well, what doesn’t make any sense to me is the fact that one was cheating! I bet you know who was… To the stationary observer both events where recorded at the same time since he wasn’t closing into the distance of any of those two incoming photons from opposite directions. The moving observer used his high speed to close into the way of an incoming photon leaving behind the one coming from the rear.
Both photons were moving at maximum speed in a wave toward the observer, however it was the observer who change his position while both incoming photons were still in their way to intercept! The first collapsing took place [needless to say] well beyond the exact middle way between both events. Now, you tell me where was here a truly simultaneous event if there was any such thing at all?
This example, ladies and gentlemen, was used to “prove” that time gets shorter [contracts] for the one moving with respect to the one at rest… (?)
Another interesting feature of special relativity is the story of clocks running slowly. Allow me to describe to you the example they use and continue to use [even as we speak] in universities across the globe. They have “constructed” a hypothetical clock made up of two parallel mirrors [looking just like the symbolism use in electrical condensers: two lines parallel one on top of the other]. Ticking up and down is a pulse of light composed by one single quantum of light moving at light speed from one plaque [mirror] to the other.
Imagine two identical clocks are going to be used for the purpose of measuring time and velocity. One is installed in a satellite that is going to orbit the Earth and the other left behind in the surface.
The theoretical argument is entirely based in a simple vector analysis of the pulse of light [jumping in the satellite’s clock] as seen from the surface as an incline instead of an up and down straight line.
The logic behind it is obviously based on the fact that the length of the path [as seen from the Earthy observer] coming from the satellite’s clock is longer than the shorter up and down pulse observe here on Earth. Who’s cheating this time?
To begin with the theory does not mention the conversion from wave to pulse [ultimately responsible for each tick of the clock] and its consequent time-consuming process from zero speed and fix-position to a constant light-speed with uncertain position and fix velocity… Anyway! Let’s continue with our discussion.
Einstein’s argument incorporates the idea of two equal apparatus clicking at the same time with a relative delay between both reference points. Again the reason for the delay is not explained in special relativity so let’s try to figure it out for ourselves.
Let’s assume that both ticks were simultaneously pulsing in the lower mirror for both clocks. But how could we know that this assumption is correct? Well the answer to it is that we can not know it!
We can not affirm without a margin of error that there is a moment in time where we could even consider that both clocks are ticking at the same time!
The answer to this couldn’t be simpler! Because the signal carrying the necessary information to synchronize both clocks also moves at the speed of light and the time consumed by the information to get to the surface is being delayed by several factors here. One is the distance between the Earth and the position of the satellite. Light takes its time to move from the source or any of the two-mirror clock of the satellite back to Earth and finally collapse into a third light sensor for synchronizing purposes.
So in no circumstances we could state that at any given time we could be sure that both clocks work in sync. The second objection is that we are missing a complex picture here. The pulsing photon has to strike one of the mirrors in order to click its position inside the clock, right? We all know that before this happens we don’t have a fixed target moving at a constant speed. Yes we do have a wave with a momentum of 300,000 km/s but to plot a point to point vector-looking incline as if we knew its position at all times is a violation of the “Uncertainty Principle” and a mistake. My point is that those beautiful arguments and line of reasoning employed by Einstein in the early 1900’s are obsolete today and we all know it!
Back on Earth we will have an exact information about the ticking made in the satellite’s clock only after it happened and the photon responsible somehow sends a signal that will travel back to Earth at the speed of light. After the arrival [some time later] the signal will hopefully collapse in a sensor prepared to receive it giving us then the absolute certainty that a pulse took place on board the satellite. It is sad to inform you that by the time we were properly prompted about a given ticking took place God knows how many others have already being observed on board the satellite… To make matters even worse, the path of the satellite with respect to the one positioned on the Earth’s surface is moving away in a complex path that I’ll explain next:
Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Now mark one X right on the surface of the circle… any point. Now! If an external point [one moving outside the circle] start rotating around the circle with a perfect radius, what is the rate of increase distance from point “x”? You’ll see that the rate of increase in the distance apart between both points is non-linear.

MAKING STRAIGHT THE “FABRIC OF SPACE-TIME”


The point I’m trying to make with this article of mine is that the covariance between [among] different inertial frames should be found in a comprehensive and unique time system. The computation of a Central Time coordinates is the only way out even when we include correlated systems. If we wanted to have a perfect picture of what’s going on in outer space and on Earth [if we looked for ways to achieve a sync system including every possible frame] then we would need to consider a central clock right in the center of the Earth. A hypothetical clock from where every single event could be related to in a proportional equivalence. I’m not kidding! Just follow me on this!
Let’s go back to the example of the two mirror-clocks above for a second!
As the satellite clock concluded its first tick, the picture “seen” (according to special relativity) was something looking more like an incline than a straight vertical line [as the one happening on Earth’s clock].
That was the argument used to “demonstrate” theoretically that time suffers a sort of dilation or contraction in one inertial frame respect to the other. (BUT) If instead of considering a fix clock in the surface we hypothetically build a clock located at the very core of the planet the situation would be entirely different.
Then, no matter the position of the satellite our new clock would always rotate having a perfect straight alignment with any clock on space. Both pulses will be oriented in 0 degree at all times leaving the distance from the center of the Earth to the satellite’s position a simpler alternative to calculate the equivalence. The altitude of the satellite from the surface would be referred to the point in the center of the planet. It will be a point whose location will always be equidistant from any other point within the same radius [orbit around the globe]. It would be possible to build a planetarium system of time coordinates that could supply scientists with a universal clock capable of simultaneous coordination between inertial frames of observation.
Every clock in every observation post must have to be in sync with the central one even if its existence could be a hypothetical one the plan would work. The fact that we can’t visit the center of the Earth it doesn’t mean that we don’t know where it is! It’s just a matter of measuring the time that will have to be CHANGED. Air towers around the world and its computers would have to be synchronized into a new set of time coordinates originating at the center of the Earth and every single flight around the world would have to be time-related to the same point.
You see… It wasn’t space-time what needed to be bent and warped when trying to make covariant every possible existent inertial frame around the planet using as reference our lazy position! Human have always considered in the past the possibility that the entire universe spins around us and we were the center of creation!
Einstein followed in those same steps. He built a theoretical concept of space and time with flexibility equal to a rubber gum so we didn’t have to move from the same place we were…

“MEASURING RODS APPEAR SHORTENED…”


Nothing but nonsense!
Remember the first example about the plane? If instead of a plane we could build a space ship that could travel close to the speed of light [which is impossible to begin with…] why is the front of the ship appearing to us a contracted? Come on! Use your imagination!
What did I say about the actual reception of an image before? The information about the size, color and other qualities that help us identify any object travels at the speed of light from the source. An object moving in a complex path from a stationary observer on the surface will send a DEFORMED stream of information toward the observer. Pay attention to one key point! An image is not an image until it is finally received! As the rocket moves a changing path of photons carrying the needed information to earth is constantly super-imposing its own light waves as they meet each other in different phase. The same arguments used with the delay in the mirror-clock are valid here also. Light as wave is subject to the quantum laws ruling energy. A wave delayed by the speed and increased distance creates a case where a mutual interference of waves [carrying the needed info] interacts with each other. The final image obtained by an observer on the surface will have to be truncated right in the head of the rocket since those are precisely the ones exposed to the interference of other train of waves coming “right behind it.” The rear of the space ship won’t suffer from contraction for the same reasons: they are free from interference.
As you see, not always what we observe is the perfect picture we assume it always was…
Is there a way to prove me right? I believe so!
Instead of relaying on the information originated from the source [the actual image emitted from the object to be measure] let’s place a beam of light [Could be a laser] aiming at a sensor. When a fast object pass by our position the laser ray will be automatically interrupted the exact amount of time the object acts as an obstacle for its trajectory. Once the laser clicks the sensor we could make the right calculations about the actual measurements of the object’s length. Knowing the distance of the laser source to the sensor, the speed of light and the exact time of interruption wouldn’t be too difficult to calculate within a safe margin of error the fact that the mass of the object. We could finally reach the conclusion that no matter the speed of the moving object its length NEVER suffer from any sort of contraction. All it was another testimony of the danger of rushing conclusions in the race for personal recognition and fame.

M. De Zayas [HUMANBYDEFAULT] www.humanbydefault.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------