New physics model - null space framework

[rjbeery]

Hello! This is the first draft of a paper I've been working on. It's a model for physics which has interesting properties. I would love any and all feedback / comments / questions / criticisms. Thanks!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RSWe...sp=sharing

[C C]

Welcome, RJ. Hopefully in the course of this week your paper will also provide stimulus to flush some rarely seen members out of the woodwork for contributing to that constructive commentary.

[rjbeery]

Thanks bud!

[Secular Sanity]

I don’t understand your reason for rejecting relative velocity as the cause of time dilation.

[rjbeery]

I don’t understand your reason for rejecting relative velocity as the cause of time dilation.

OK, from a dimensional analysis perspective:

v = m/s
v^2 = m^2/s^2

and

a = m/s^2
d = m

therefore if we have a value for velocity squared we can just as easily consider it to be an acceleration multiplied by a distance.

gamma = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = sqrt(1-(a*d)/c^2)

The reason for wanting to do this is because velocity plays no role in gravitational time dilation, but acceleration and distance (i.e. a gravity well) do. It elevates the equivalence principle to being a physical identity.

[Secular Sanity]

We could also plausibly analyze the situation in terms of time dilation. In this analysis we shall require that the time dilation be absolute in the sense that both (or all) parties agree as to the behavior of respective clock rates.

"In special relativity, the time dilation effect is reciprocal: as observed from the point of view of either of two clocks which are in motion with respect to each other, it will be the other clock that is time dilated. (This presumes that the relative motion of both parties is uniform; that is, they do not accelerate with respect to one another during the course of the observations.) In contrast, gravitational time dilation (as treated in general relativity) is not reciprocal: an observer at the top of a tower will observe that clocks at ground level tick slower, and observers on the ground will agree about the direction and the magnitude of the difference. There is still some disagreement in a sense, because all the observers believe their own local clocks are correct, but the direction and ratio of gravitational time dilation is agreed by all observers, independent of their altitude." [Source]

It has been suggested that special relativistic time dilation is a consequence of velocity, and only velocity. This conclusion is problematic for a variety of reasons, one of which is the fact that clock rates due to relative inertial velocity are observer dependent, while we are seeking absolute answers.

What?   

We submit that the velocity-vs-acceleration debate on the cause of time dilation is a false dichotomy.

What?

[rjbeery]

What?

Hi SS, I'm afraid I need more information about what is confusing. The wiki excerpt seems to support my contention that SR time dilation is considered to be a consequence of velocity, and I claim that it is in fact a consequence of acceleration and distance. Did you read the section on the twin paradox?

[Secular Sanity]

Hi SS, I'm afraid I need more information about what is confusing. The wiki excerpt seems to support my contention that SR time dilation is considered to be a consequence of velocity, and I claim that it is in fact a consequence of acceleration and distance. Did you read the section on the twin paradox?

Acceleration is defined as the rate at which an object changes its velocity. If it’s not changing its velocity, then it’s not accelerating.

[rjbeery]

Hi SS, I'm afraid I need more information about what is confusing. The wiki excerpt seems to support my contention that SR time dilation is considered to be a consequence of velocity, and I claim that it is in fact a consequence of acceleration and distance. Did you read the section on the twin paradox?

Acceleration is defined as the rate at which an object changes its velocity. If it’s not changing its velocity, then it’s not accelerating.

Of course, but that breaks down in GR. I first show that we can reframe time dilation as a function of acceleration and distance, and then extend that to gravitational time dilation if we consider acceleration to be asymmetric forces on an object rather than the second derivative of position with respect to time.

[Secular Sanity]

Acceleration is defined as the rate at which an object changes its velocity.  If it’s not changing its velocity, then it’s not accelerating.

Of course, but that breaks down in GR. I first show that we can reframe time dilation as a function of acceleration and distance, and then extend that to gravitational time dilation if we consider acceleration to be asymmetric forces on an object rather than the second derivative of position with respect to time.

But I’m still confused because…

"One difference between general and special relativity is that in the general theory all frames of reference, including spinning and accelerating frames, are treated on an equal footing. In special relativity accelerating frames are different to inertial frames. Velocities are relative but acceleration is treated as absolute. In general relativity all motion is relative. To accommodate this change, general relativity has to use curved space-time. In special relativity space-time is always flat."