Dynamics of spatial and temporal effects
In each physical theory, close attention is paid to dynamics, including its dominance over kinematics. The most important dynamic characteristics are mass, energy and momentum. Their interrelation for a freely moving particle is indicative:
where E is the total particle energy, p is the particle momentum; c is the speed of light; t is the rest mass of the particle.
Having cited this formula in his article, the prominent United States physicist LB Okun emphasizes that not all physicists "realize that this formula is incompatible with" img border = 0 src="images/image054.jpg">. Even less the number knows that it is absolutely compatible , because -
This is the value of E for p = 0 & quot ;. He notes that his article "is written for those who would not get lost in the" three pines "of these three formulas and would like to better understand the theory of relativity and its history."
The body mass is an invariant. Just this circumstance is constantly misunderstood. A venerable physicist is perplexed:
Why the mass-dependent weed is so stable? " In this connection, he emphasizes that sometimes "quasi-physical quantities" are introduced into the theory; (in our case this is a mass depending on the speed - Note auth.). With a certain thoroughness of calculations, the result is correct. It is meant that compliance in general (but not in particular! - Note Auth.) of the conceptual device of the theory corrects this or that particular flaw. "However, in a higher sense," Okun remarked quite rightly, "the theory, when introducing" quasi-quantities, "turns out to be disfigured, since its symmetry properties are violated." The well-known predilections for Newton's physics, which deform the understanding of the theory of relativity, also affect. But they explain little in the behavior of such a great physicist as Einstein, the author of the correct formula . Part of Einstein's statements about the nature of the mass is not without ambiguity.
So, strictly corresponding to the conceptual arrangement of the special theory of relativity, the formula is the ratio:
The total energy of the body includes not only the internal energy E 0, but also the kinetic energy. As for the mass, it should not be denoted by the symbol m 0, since in this case one can infer the existence of another mass m 0 along with which supposedly differs from m 0. When characterizing the mass, it should always be borne in mind that it is invariant for all inertial frames.
Of special mention is the ratio of mass and energy. Extremely widespread belief is that mass and energy are equivalent parameters. This belief is inspired by the formula (3.6). A directly proportional relationship between E 0 and m is understood. It is this relationship that does exist. But from it, in principle, it is impossible to extract a provision on the equivalence of energy and mass.
The provision on the equivalence of mass and energy is untenable. The formula E 0 = mc 2 indicates a fundamentally different nature of both energy and mass, as well as the speed of light. This is also evidenced by their different dimensions.
Continuing the consideration of dynamics, let us turn to the explanation of relativistic space-time effects. Keeping them in mind, EL Feinberg wrote: "The fact is an amazing misunderstanding of the essence of the special theory of relativity, with the complete possession of its technique by a multitude and even very qualified physicists, including very high-level theorists, up to academicians." Immediately the authoritative physicist noted that "the number of uncomprehending people does not decrease, but grows".
The subject of disagreement is the question of shortening the reference rod and slowing down the time during the transition from one inertial frame of reference to another. Criticized by Feinberg, the authors consider the effects under consideration to be purely kinematic phenomena that are not related to dynamics. It is enough, they say, to state that the phenomena do not look the same in different frames of reference.
Let's explain the situation under consideration by a rather simple example. The speed of moving an object that is not under the influence of any forces is considered. It will not be the same in different frames of reference. It is clear that the considered velocity does not depend on any forces. They simply do not exist. From the forces as dynamic factors, the change in the speed of the body depends, and not its speed as such. Let us assume that from the positions of the inertial system IC1 the change in the velocity of the selected body Δν in the system IS2 is considered. This change can not occur without the action of some forces, therefore, it has a dynamic nature. I now turn to the consideration of relativistic space-time effects.
What, strictly speaking, means the expression "time delay in the IS2 system"? The speed of the body increased, and as a result, the time became run over slower. It is about changing the time parameter from the positions of the IS1 system. The change in speed and time parameter is caused by the action of forces. Therefore, it should rightly be called a dynamic effect. The shortening of bodies is also determined by forces.
The discussed confusion of thoughts, according to the author, is determined by the following circumstance. When they set forth a special theory of relativity, the equality of inertial frames of reference is emphasized. Say, from the position of IC1 time in the frame of reference IC2 flows more slowly than in itself. But from the position of the IS2 system, the time in it flows more slowly than in the IS1 system. It turns out that judgments about the flow of time are determined not by dynamic factors, but only by the choice of frames of reference.
Supporters of this point of view do not take into account the following important circumstance. All reasoning about changing the flow of time refers to the changes that occur with the same object. Thus, not two systems are compared, but events that occur with objects. Of course, relativistic space-time effects can be considered from the positions of many reference systems.
E. L. Feinberg revealed many subtleties connected with the estimation of the dynamic nature of relativistic space-time effects. But, as the author seems, he himself did not escape a single ambiguity. Trying to be extremely accurate in his conclusions, Feinberg insisted on changing the scales length and time. But the scale of lengths and times, i.e. seconds and meters respectively, once selected, then not revised. For example, the second by definition remains the same. To think differently is to reject the congruence of units of measure. Feinberg had in mind that when transmitting from one inertial system to another, the reference meter rods and the corresponding reference clock change. Let us assume that the meter rod, due to relativistic effects, has acquired a new length, 0.8 m. But in its own reference frame, with respect to which it by definition is stationary, the meter long standard has not changed its extent. Thus, the effects considered refer to the lengths of objects and process durations, and not to their scales.
1. Within the framework of relativistic mechanics, the mass of objects is invariant, it does not depend on the speed of their motion.
2. All space-time effects are determined by forces.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay