relativity theory

What is Theory of Relativity?

I have read so many complicated description of whats theory of relativity that I tend to think such complicacy serves two purposes;

Misleading: it takes us away from the real concepts.

Complicated: It does not make the concepts easy at all to grasp.

Ineffective: It ill-prepares even very good students — as their precious time is wasted and the mediocre rejoice.

Here is an appropriate description of relativity theory.

Relative as suggests hinges on in reference to what? So you may call it a reference-dependent theory. But if you understand what theory of relativity is you may as well call it an equivalence theory.

This theory establishes for the first time in greater depth the equivalence of many ideas, concepts, physical laws and methods. This is the work of Albert Einstein. But if you dig deeper you will see that most of the concepts were known before, and classical physics is capable of producing these ideas 1st hand.

It is for no strange reason relativity theory is included as classical physics, in greater conceptual frameworks. Its because its merely a more refined calculation of certain problems, some of which were known and some which were not, but never to the extent and power of the methods of Einstein.

Einstein eg solved the problem of perihelion of mercury very exactly which was not as exactly understood in the canonical formulations of the old classical theory, so theory of relativity is the new classical theory.

But there are two episodes of this story.

1. Special theory of relativity: this is a regime of the theory of relativity where it pertains exclusively to kinetic energy:

3 aspects of Relativity of Einstein that are probably Newtonian.

You may read the linked article — Time Dilation, before or after reading the current one. 

It’s a beauty of physics that not only the most successful laws of physics viz quantum mechanics and theory of relativity are super-set of the canonical laws of physics which is classical mechanics and over-binding on the latter but they are also a good extension of the latter. They are a modified version of the latter, hence they must all fall back onto the classical laws in their requisite limits.

In some situations this fact is amply reflected in the equations or ideas itself. I have hit upon two of these, while thinking of the same, another one is perhaps well known. The one that is known well enough is the so-called principle of relativity which is a set of transformations relations, between quantities in one frame-of-reference to another.

But this is merely a different form of transformation laws, the principle of relativity being one known even in Newtonian mechanics. In the latter, the principle of relativity of ordinary classical mechanics, it lacks the characteristics of certain kind, which are only envisaged by Einstein.

I am going to show why the two other such similarities of relativistic nature of our world known to be special relativistic properties are actually Newtonian properties. The only difference that crops up is perhaps in the newer ideas of Einstein, perhaps because I haven’t reviewed the constancy of speed of light.

Property 1. 
The first one is time dilation. Time dilation is strictly speaking not an Einsteinian property. It’s a Newtonian property. And this I described in much detail in my last article “Time dilation”. Here one does not even need any equations explicitly, to see the idea.

Why is time dilation a Newtonian property? Because as I explained in that article “time dilation is a result of energy disappearance or unavailability”. Period. And there is no special Einsteinian thinking here. If there is no energy there is no “running of time”. If there is less of energy there is slower running of time and if there is more energy there is faster running of time.

Change Relativity? Is neutrino tailgating photon?

Is causality also relative, if that is so, son you hit a golden pot in physics, “that’s your causality man, that’s your problem. I don’t have a f** with that.” But you travel backwards in time. “Nay that’s how you see it, you speed blinded moron, I don’t give a damn about what you think of me. Even if I start late at home, I am gonna kick your ass man, I will reach work early. You will think I started now and came back last nanosecond but that’s because you have a sloppy watch hen hen hen”

Whats happening?

Last night I wrote a very long article and its now a featured blog on “physics” at this website. It has happened many times already. But there I told you that “speed of invariance” — invariance of speed also means speed of invariance, I changed linguistic grammar, not the physics, is broken when invariance of proper-time is broken. For photons we thought taking clue from its zero-mass we can also set the proper-time to be zero.

What to do with OPERA-II event by event neutrino information?

I was thinking, as an experimentalist, what OPERA (experimental collaboration) should now do, since they have 20 event by event neutrinos — gift just one of that to the world.

That neutrino should have the complete information one needs to compare with a photon. eg the total satellite motion — its path for about a second, since tof is about 2.43 milli-secs. Just one of the satellite, since there could be multiple. And the neutrino’s complete trajectory-profile.

By that I mean the exact baseline, as an elevation and angular deflection, all along the path. Then one can apply the Vincenty’s formula for total distance computation to milli-meter accuracy and any effect of satellite can be exactly computed.

What will result is a truer deviation, if any, of the neutrino’s speed from c=1. I am not thinking Volcanoes, although high degree temperature also causes time dilation, they will produce, far less, than the first order gravity effects.

Haversine formula and Vincenty formula, millimeter accuracy for earth distances

I propose Haversine formula for exposition of material reg. distances on earth.

Vincenty’s formula calculates distances to millimeter order. Bowring and Lambert’s formula are easier than Vincenty’s but do not have good accuracy especially if distances on earth are quite large.

You should know spherical earth formula, all the other formula mentioned here are oblate-sphere formula. For flat earth, where you can use your ordinary Euclidean rules such as $latex \sin^2\theta + \cos^2 \theta=1$, you can just project distances on earth to a plane but the results you will get may have undesirable errors because first of all earth is a large sphere and your approximations will be valid only for short distances because you are all “frog in the well” you learned about the well to measure the earth.

When the frog went out of the well it met Riemann and he told that he had been having some real-time fun which Euclid did not. The frog came back and told this to all others and they all went out to the town bought over Riemanian formula books and started learning about the earth.