Special Relativity and momentum

[The Man]

Lawrence factor?

That paper refers to "Lawrence" twice. It does not mention "Lorentz" even once.

Optics and Photonics Journal for the win loss:


Reviewed by "a minimum of two external reviewers", yet no reviewer noticed such obvious errors, and no editor insisted upon changes to this sophomoric first paragraph of the paper:



Does it get better? Consider this sentence from the second paragraph of the paper:



Oh, and if you're wondering about that reference [7]:

That's right, folks: H. G. Well [sic] "designed the time machine which can be used for time travel, just like space shuttle".

ETA: By the way, formula (1) is already incorrect because the formula holds only for an inertial frame in which the particles are at rest, but the presence of a "Lawrence" factor in the formula indicates it's supposed to hold in other frames as well. I think it's safe to assume most of the papers' other equations are incorrect as well. Note, for example, that the paper does not deign to explain any difference between the primed and unprimed gammas in equations (1), (2), (3), (4), or between the primed and unprimed v in equations (5) through (8) and (10) through (12). Then there's a blank page between pages 37 and 38. Need I go on?

Yeah, that really got me when the author started talking about time travel in the introduction. Seriously?!?!

 

[Ziggurat]

Right, now you talking like Einstein. There is no way God plays dice.
What is the hidden variable? The speed through space.

This is completely incomprehensible. Momentum is not a hidden variable.

The more you post, the wronger you get.

 

[SDG]

You aren't paying attention. The mistake I pointed out was right AFTER equation 2. It's equation 3 which fails.

Why it would fail?
There is g on the left side and g' on the right.
They are looking for the ratio between those two.

 

[SDG]

This is completely incomprehensible. Momentum is not a hidden variable.

The more you post, the wronger you get.

The spontaneous events are part of the accepted quantum mechanics, correct?
Are you taking Einstein side? Events cannot be spontaneous?

Edit: I am fully behind Einstein. The causality rules.

 

[SDG]

Yeah, that really got me when the author started talking about time travel in the introduction. Seriously?!?!

Exactly, the author points out those other guys talk and dream about time travel, speed of light travel.
This author shows the limitation why it is not so simple.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

ETA2: I goofed. Please ignore all of the following.

Why it would fail?
There is g on the left side and g' on the right.
They are looking for the ratio between those two.

Hey, SDG: Tell us how Wei-Xing Xu got equation (8) from equation (7).

ETA:

By miscalculating.

Let

X = (m_n⁰ + m_e⁰ - (μe⁴ / (8 ε₀²n²h²c²)))² / (m_n⁰ + m_e⁰)²​

Then the part of the calculation that changes

1 - (v²/c²) ≤ (1 - (v'²/c²)) X​

to

v²/c² ≥ 1 − (1 − (v'²/c²)) X​

is correct, but the part of the calculation that changes X to

(1 − ((μe⁴) / (8 ε₀²n²h²c²(m_n⁰ + m_e⁰)))²)​

is not even close to being correct.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why it would fail?
There is g on the left side and g' on the right.
They are looking for the ratio between those two.

It fails for the reasons I described at length in post 153, namely, it violates conservation of momentum.

The spontaneous events are part of the accepted quantum mechanics, correct?

Spontaneous transitions have to obey conservation laws. That's part of the theory too. If a spontaneous transition would violate a conservation law (as this one does), then it cannot occur.

Are you taking Einstein side? Events cannot be spontaneous?

Edit: I am fully behind Einstein. The causality rules.

You are most definitely not fully behind Einstein. You do not even understand Einstein.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hey, SDG: Tell us how Wei-Xing Xu got equation (8) from equation (7).

Going from equation 7 to 8 looks OK to me. The fundamental error I see is way back in equation 3 and the preceding paragraph.

 

[The Man]

Exactly, the author points out those other guys talk and dream about time travel, speed of light travel.
This author shows the limitation why it is not so simple.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the paper and just shows the author to be, well, simple.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You aren't paying attention. The mistake I pointed out was right AFTER equation 2. It's equation 3 which fails.

In an earlier version of my ETA, quoted for posterity by The Man, I said equation (1) was incorrect. I changed my mind about that, deleted that entire ETA, and replaced it with an ETA that noted the high-school algebra mistake made by the author in going from equation (7) to equation (8). mentioned no mistake but my own.

 

[The Man]

In an earlier version of my ETA, quoted for posterity by The Man, I said equation (1) was incorrect. I changed my mind about that, deleted that entire ETA, and replaced it with an ETA that noted the high-school algebra mistake made by the author in going from equation (7) to equation (8).

Sorry, meant to leave off the ETA in the quote as it wasn't what I was addressing and just got lazy.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Going from equation 7 to 8 looks OK to me.

Ah, you're right.

I apologize to SDG for my error.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hey, SDG: Tell us how Wei-Xing Xu got equation (8) from equation (7).

ETA:

By miscalculating.

Let

X = (m_n⁰ + m_e⁰ - (μe⁴ / (8 ε₀²n²h²c²)))² / (m_n⁰ + m_e⁰)²​

Then the part of the calculation that changes

1 - (v²/c²) ≤ (1 - (v'²/c²)) X​

to

v²/c² ≥ 1 − (1 − (v'²/c²)) X​

is correct, but the part of the calculation that changes X to

(1 − ((μe⁴) / (8 ε₀²n²h²c²(m_n⁰ + m_e⁰)))²)​

is not even close to being correct.

I think you goofed here.

Your last line is:

(1 − ((μe⁴) / (8 ε₀²n²h²c²(m_n⁰ + m_e⁰)))²)​

But the paper has

(1 − ((μe⁴) / (8 ε₀²n²h²c²(m_n⁰ + m_e⁰))))²​

You've got the last exponent on the wrong side of one set of parentheses. Or to remove a few now-redundant parentheses:

(1 − μe⁴ / (8 ε₀²n²h²c²(m_n⁰ + m_e⁰)))²​

So that step is OK. It's equation 3 which is the primary failure point, and it's conceptual, not algebraic.

 

[SDG]

It fails for the reasons I described at length in post 153, namely, it violates conservation of momentum.



Spontaneous transitions have to obey conservation laws. That's part of the theory too. If a spontaneous transition would violate a conservation law (as this one does), then it cannot occur.



You are most definitely not fully behind Einstein. You do not even understand Einstein.

Agreed.
Something spontaneous in one frame has a cause in the other frame though.
The hydrogen atom changes potential energy for kinetic in the GCI frame.
This corresponds to no change in the rest frame. These PE to KE change creates a balance to no change in the rest frame.
Having said that the hydrogen atom changes binding energy (total mass) in the GCI frame on top of that.
Do you agree?
What is correspondent change in the rest frame?
A spontaneous event.

 

[Ziggurat]

Agreed.
Something spontaneous in one frame has a cause in the other frame though.

Uh... no.

The hydrogen atom changes potential energy for kinetic in the GCI frame.

What transition are you talking about?

The transition your paper proposes is impossible, and what you describe here is backwards from what they are proposing.

This corresponds to no change in the rest frame. These PE to KE change creates a balance to no change in the rest frame.

Uh... no.

Having said that the hydrogen atom changes binding energy (total mass) in the GCI frame on top of that.
Do you agree?
What is correspondent change in the rest frame?
A spontaneous event.

No, I do not agree. You aren't making sense.

 

[SDG]

So that step is OK. It's equation 3 which is the primary failure point, and it's conceptual, not algebraic.

What is the conceptual failure?
Is the left side correct for the binding energy/mass change in the GCI frame?
Is there a problem with the right side?

 

[SDG]

Uh... no.



What transition are you talking about?

The transition your paper proposes is impossible, and what you describe here is backwards from what they are proposing.



Uh... no.



No, I do not agree. You aren't making sense.

When a hydrogen atom falls in a gravity field it trades potential energy for kinetic energy.
There is no total (sum) energy change.
There is no force acting on the falling hydrogen atom in the rest frame, there is no energy change.

How do we treat the binding energy/mass change (the left side of eq3) in the gravity frame on top of that?
Why there would be no corresponding change in the rest frame?

 

[Ziggurat]

When a hydrogen atom falls in a gravity field it trades potential energy for kinetic energy.
There is no total (sum) energy change.

OK, but that has nothing to do with the article you cited.

There is no force acting on the falling hydrogen atom in the rest frame

If you take a GR view, then there's no force in any reference frame because gravity isn't a force in GR.

If you want to stick with special relativity where we can treat weak field gravity as being a force, then there is a force acting on the falling hydrogen in all inertial frames, and the falling hydrogen atom isn't an inertial frame.

So which way do you want to handle it?

How do we treat the binding energy/mass change (the left side of eq3) in the gravity frame on top of that?

"Gravity frame" doesn't mean anything. If you mean the free falling frame, well, that's not inertial under special relativity. You can't calculate energy in a non-inertial frame as if it was inertial, not even in Newtonian mechanics.

Under general relativity, well, things get a lot messier, but there still won't be any contradictions as long as you don't screw it up. If you try to do GR, you will screw it up.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is the conceptual failure?
Is the left side correct for the binding energy/mass change in the GCI frame?
Is there a problem with the right side?

Yes, there's a problem. I already told you. The state represented by the right side doesn't have the same momentum as the left side. It violates conservation of momentum.

 

[SDG]

Yes, there's a problem. I already told you. The state represented by the right side doesn't have the same momentum as the left side. It violates conservation of momentum.

There is g on the left side and there is g' on the right side.
The left can be less than the right, equal, or more ... based on g and g'.
The equation is the start of finding out the ratio between g and g'.
What is conceptually wrong with that?

Here are some steps how to think about it.
There is a free electron and free proton stationary with each other, in an intergalactic space far away.
They are moving with g' in a GCI frame.
The attraction sparks and they will start to move towards each other.
The electron and proton have a barycenter inertial reference frame.
When electron undergoes the Bremsstrahlung, being caught in the proton orbit, recombined, it will emit a photon.
Now we have a hydrogen atom that has g Lorentz factor.
The hydrogen atom will keep falling towards the galaxy with increasing g.
The left side value will be bigger then the right side after some time.
The reverse process of recombination.

What is conceptually wrong with this?