Abstract (MT)
There
is an objective impossibility (prohibition) for simultaneous accurate
measurement of length and time in nature. When the length is exact, the time is
approximate and back when the time is exact, the length becomes approximate. The Ratio of
indefiniteness confirms the
Second postulate only in the part that the speed of light is a
constant with a limit value с . Respectively, it refutes the Second postulate in the assertion that,
as path and time, the directions "going" and "return" of
the light signal always (in all systems) are fully equivalent. The Second postulate, as defined in the Special Theory will is entirely
valid only in an absolutely stationary system. In this sense the ratio exact length/exact
time, what offers us the Theory thanks to the in question postulate, can be
achieved solely in the ideal (real inaccessible) conditions of this system. In other words, the Theory denies its
existence, but in practice use it for their conclusions. The
Ratio of indefiniteness speaks in support of the conclusions of the Special
theory that the moving length and time are changing. Conversely, these findings
of the Theory are argument for the veracity of the Ratio of indefiniteness. The same finds confirmation in the experimental results (Roemer – 1676, Sagnac – 1913 and others whose
contemporary interpretation is wrong).
Keywords: length,
time, special theory, second postulate, ratio of
indefiniteness
INTRODUCTION
The
realization of Cognition
in cognitive closed
contours is
a natural law (Theory of the Cognition: attainment of Cognition in an open
configuration is not
possible). [1] We will present this circular order
in the traditional method for measurement of speed in
which should fits and the measuring of the speed of light.
EXPOSITION
As
is known, the measurement of speed, including that of light (for now we
disregard the Second
postulate of the Special
theory) based on two bases - spatial and temporal, respectively, of a measured
length L and the time t
for its covering. Demonstration
of such a measurement we will do in the treatment:
Test piece - inertial system K',
with center O', is moving towards a
stationary system K with center O, to right with some kind of velocity v along the axes X'=X . Again to
right on the X' and
X, are the points marked A' and A, so that, with peace
of the systems relative to one another, is available the identity length L' (distance
O'A') = length L
(distance OA).
The so configured task has emerged in several variants of
presentation.
1a) Measuring in system K with a clock at point O and a base length L :
We (with the clock) are at point O. When point
O' coincides with O, we start the clock,
fixing the moment of making of the body-system K'
in the control length
L. Follows a coincidence of point O'
with the ultimate point A . This is the
moment at which we have to stop the
clock, shooting on the necessary time
t for covering of length L . However in reality
we cannot do that, because the event of overlapping O'=A remains hidden to us. (OA
is an open configuration, so that
it is invisible from
point O).
The
manner to overcome the problem
is clear
– we need to use an auxiliary light signal,
which going back to point O, to notify us about the event O'=A (which to close the cognitive
contour). Exactly this later point in time we will mark as end of the
measurement. Another
possibility does not exist.
And
so going OA becomes
for the exact time t, which
cannot be registered. Is why at the moment O'=A light signal is
emitted to point O. The same
covers our way back AO for the additional time Dt. I.e., for covering the exact length L, the clock actually will
show no the real time t, but
only the accessible time t* = t + Dt
for measuring. Time t* in
fact is approximately,
incorrect time t. Difference Dt
is infinitely small due
to boundary speed of light. But theoretically it
enters the
account. In this sense, about the velocity v we receive:
v = exact
length L/inexact time t –
the possible, the actual measurement
(v =
exact length L/exact
time t
– this
measurement
is impossible)
1b) Measuring in system K with a clock at point O and a base time t*:
If
we take for base the real
measured time t*, while it passes,
system K' should cover, except the measured length L, also and one
additional length DL, corresponding
to extra time Dt. I.e., in the real measured exact time t*, K' will be located at the corresponding
of t* exact length L* = L + DL. But now there is no way to capture this exact length
L*. In a word,
we have no other possibility but to work with the initially
metered length L, which is an approximate, inexact
length L*. Or, in the case,
for the velocity
v we
get:
v = inexact
length L*/exact time t*
– the possible, the
actual measurement
(v =
exact length L*/exact
time t* – this
measurement
is impossible)
Thus, we arrive at the
following important conclusion:
In
the Nature, there is an objective impossibility for simultaneous accurate measurement of length and time.
When the length is accurate, the
time is approximate and back when the time is accurate, the length becomes
an approximate (the same regularity we see in
quantum mechanics – Heisenberg
1927).
We
should emphasize expressly
that the inexact time t, with
exact length L, as
well as inexact length L* at
base, exact time
t*, do not come from the fact that the quantities Dt
and DL
are infinitely small and there is no technical possibility of their
measurement. Here
the case in point irresistible natural
law.
For
demonstrativeness, we will show its action in
an example of engineering
theory and practice in machinery construction. The
case in point absolute
impossibility to realize exact positioning (assembly)
of details simultaneously at two bases. If
we achieve precision one, the other will inevitably remains free.
More
specifically, let upon the two rungs of
single detail to be mounted the same tiered concrete
structure of a second detail.
In
whatsoever ultimate precision to be drawn up the two
details, the second can never be
in contact simultaneously with both surfaces of the
first. There will always lie
snugly on the one, and will be
with gap on the other. This
is a principled situation. In real circumstances
the attitude tightly/tightly (exactly/exactly) is impossible (as, of
course, the pending position
clearance/clearance).
In
the practice, if one of the two bases is
not a purposely with clearance
(or compensated with
a soft tool tray – gasket), is obtained a irregular action
of the piecing together,
with subsequent deformation and fracture. To avoid such a technical untenable
(unintelligent) installation are prescribed relevant assumptions of preparing the details. It is take a base or the shaft
(system "main shaft") – in the
physics base "length"
and the philosophy base "materially", or
aperture (system "main aperture") – in the physics base
"time" and the philosophy
base "ideally". Looked at in depth the
constructor is obliged to provide the opposites "tightly, matching exactly against freely,
loosely, inaccurate." Looked at
in depth the constructor is obliged to provide the opposites "tightly, adjusted, exactly against freely, loosely,
inaccurate".
It
should be abundantly clear
that the World is structured
on the Principle of opposites,
which precisely is played back in the lower levels of
community – from the
laws of physics to the concrete practice.
In this sense, in the reality the differences are in force, ergo, the asymmetry. [2]
But to
continue with
the variants.
2a) Measuring in system K with a clock at point A and a base length L :
We (with the clock) are at
point A. In this case,
there is no way to mark either initial moment O'=O, in which the body-system K' is making
to the control length L. The same remains hidden to us.
And
now the way to overcome the problem is clear - we need to use an
auxiliary light signal, which emitted to
point A in the moment O'=O, will
notify us about this event.
To its arrival at A, however, passes time Dt. Barely this latter moment we will mark like the beginning of the measurement,
starting the clock. Then comes the
coincidence O'=A,
in which final moment,
closing the temporal contour, we stop the
clock, fixing the real time t*. Another possibility for carrying out the measurement does not exist. That is, to cover the exact length L, the clock will not
register the true time t, and
the only accessible for measuring
time t* = t - Dt. Factually time t*
is approximate, inexact
time t. Thus, for the velocity v again we get:
v = exact
length L/inexact time t – the possible, the
actual measurement
(v =
exact length L/exact
time t – this
measurement
is impossible)
The
case 2b) "Measuring in system K with a clock at point A and a base time t*" is
similar to 1b) and we shall not dwell on it.
3a)
Measuring in system K with
a clock at point B, a bisecting the line segment OA:
This
case is a combination of
the previous two.
We (with the clock) are
at point B situated in the middle of the line segment OA – part 1 (OB) = part 2 (BA). It is clear that now we should receive a subsidiary messages and about
the start of the measurement (the moment O'=O), and about its finale
(the moment O'=A).
The
signal for the initial
event O'=O will arrive in point
B with a
delay Dt1
,
at which moment we start the clock.
The signal for the final event
O'=A will arrive in point B with a delay Dt2, at
which moment we stop
the clock. Thus, to covering the exact length L, we will measure
the real time t* = t - Dt1
+ Dt2
,
where t = t1 + t2 . And as
usual, t* represents
approximate inexact t , which fact repeats the
result:
v = exact
length L/inexact time t – the possible, the
actual measurement
(v =
exact length L/exact
time t – this
measurement
is impossible)
And
here we will not dwell on the case 3b)
– inexact length L*/exact time t*.
This
formulation is of particular
interest in that into it the two auxiliary light
signals are in opposite directions
– the first carried out "going" and the second "return".
According
to the Ratio of indefiniteness, times Dt1
and Dt2 will be different,
which means that the path "going"
(OB) and the path "return" (AB) of the light
signal cannot be
equal (bearing in mind that the system
K, with the
line segment O(B)A is stationary only
for system K', and
otherwise, in the general case, moves
relative to all other systems).
That same asymmetry is confirmed
by the observations of Roemer – 1676, as well as from the experience of Sagnac – 1913 (and others whose contemporary
interpretation is wrong). And all this we know
is against the outside experienced assertion of
the Second postulate Dt1
= Dt2 (the
same will be in force
only if the system K is in an absolute piece). [3]
In
a word, in cases 1), 2) and 3) the Ratio of indefiniteness is not coordinating
with the Second postulate.
Now we will show the
conversely in
cases 4) and
5).
4)
Measuring of line segment OA (length L) with a clock accompanying
the body-system K' (with a clock at point O' on K') – base length L:
It
is obvious that the clock for measuring the time have a possibility to
accompany the body from start to final. In this way
the same with certainty
and absolute precision will
capture and the initially moment O'=O, and the
final moment O'=A. Now, however, of the exact length L will meet not the required exact
time t,
but the measured exact time t'.
According
to the Ratio of indefiniteness between the times t'
and t there will be a
difference. As we know, this difference
is found by the Special
theory, thanks to the Second postulate. I.e., exact time t' is approximate, inexact time t, so that again is available the
condition:
v = exact
length L/inexact time t – the possible, the
actual measurement
5)
Measuring of line segment O'A' (length L') with a clock
at point O of system K – base time
t:
And
now the clock for
measuring the time with absolute precision will mark and the initially moment O=A', and the final moment O=O' of the line segment O'A'. This time, on the measured exact time
t will meet not the required exact
length L, but the measured exact
length L'.
According
to the Ratio of indefiniteness between the lengths L' and L there will be a
difference. As we know, this difference
is found by the Special
theory, thanks to the Second postulate. I.e., exact length L' is approximate, inexact length L , so that again
is available the condition:
v = inexact
length L/exact time t – the possible, the
actual measurement
In
a word, in cases 4) and 5) the Ratio of
indefiniteness is coordinating with the Second postulate.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the careful analysis of the situation suggests the findings:
– The
Ratio of indefiniteness
confirms the Second postulate only in the
part that the speed
of light is a constant with a limit value с .
Respectively, it refutes
the Second postulate in the
assertion that, as path and time, the directions "going" and
"return" of the light signal always (in all systems) are fully
equivalent (fundamentally identical).
– The Second postulate, as defined in the Special Theory will is entirely
valid only in an absolutely stationary system...will relate precisely and only
for her. In this sense the ratio exact length/exact time,
what offers us the Theory thanks to the in question postulate, can be achieved
solely in the ideal (real inaccessible) conditions of this system.
In other words, the Theory denies its
existence, but in practice use it for their conclusions.
– The
Ratio of indefiniteness speaks in support of the conclusions of the Special
theory that the moving length and time are changing. Conversely, these findings
of the Theory are argument for the veracity of the Ratio of indefiniteness. As we stated, the
same finds confirmation
in the experimental
results (Roemer – 1676,
Sagnac
– 1913 and others). [4]
Reference
[1] Николов А. – Разгримиране (25), (26), (27), (28) на
Специалната теория
(Nikolov A. – Removing
the make-up (25), (26), (27), (28) of the Special theory)
[2] Николов А. – Към смяна на идеите във философията и
физиката, С. 1999
(Nikolov A. – To change of ideas in philosophy
and physics, Sofia, 1999)
[3] Николов А. – Извеждане трансформациите на Лоренц от
опита на Майкелсон-Морли
(Nikolov A. – Working
out of the Lorentz transformations from the Michelson-Morley experiment)
[4] Николов А. – Разгримиране (29), (30), (31), (32) на
Специалната теория
(Nikolov A. – Removing
the make-up (29), (30), (31), (32) of the Special theory)
__________________________________________________________________________
Alexandar Nikolov ©
2010-2013
All rights reserved (COPYRIGHT © 2010-2013)
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар