A rather unorthodox view of relativity.

[Doctordick]

I have spent a considerable amount of time in composing this post because, in close to fifty years, I have been totally unable to communicate the rationality of my position to any professional physicists. They invariably turn a blind eye to my arguments. I am trying here to put the issue down in as clear a manner as I can. I hope my efforts yield some success.

 

I personally find it quite difficult to comprehend why the physics community puts such absolute faith in the validity of Einstein's theory of relativity. If you go into the derivation of that theory, you will find that it is fundamentally based upon the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiments. This null result was first explained by the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction hypothesis: the hypothesis that physical structures contracted in the direction of motion according to the equation [imath]L'= L \sqrt{1-\left(\frac{v}{c}\right)^2}[/imath]. Einstein came up with the idea of simply postulating the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and deducing the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction as a consequence of that postulate. But that was not the central issue of his theory. The central issue of his theory was that he replaced the “aether” with a “space-time continuum”.

 

Quoting Wikipedia, “Physics theories of the late 19th century postulated that, just as water waves must have a medium to move across (water), and audible sound waves require a medium to move through (air or water), so also light waves require a medium, the 'luminiferous aether' or the 'ethereal aether'. Because light can travel through a vacuum, it was assumed that the vacuum must contain the medium of light.” Einstein instead hypothesized that they were “??waves??” (which he called distortions in geometric curvature) in the very “fabric” of his space-time continuum. I personally see little difference between his theory and the ethereal aether theory other than the geometry involved and Einstein's removal of the concept “time” as an interaction parameter. By that very removal (making it a dimension of his space-time continuum) he created a rather static description of reality. Calling one of his coordinates “time”, does little to remove the rock hard nature of his description of the universe as absolute fixed paths in a four dimensional space; no matter what geometry he uses.

 

What I want everyone here to comprehend is that, as soon as you accept Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction as experimentally correct, the clock settings (the standard relativistic clock adjustments) follow exactly as they do in Einstein's theory so it is only the mental image of reality we are discussing here. Most physicists seem to lose sight of that fact. Now there is one important fact which should be kept in mind: the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction was originally based upon Maxwell's equation; that is, the contraction is a clearly deduced consequence of electromagnetic phenomena (electromagnetic interactions) and not necessarily binding on other type interactions. On the other hand, from the perspective of Einstein's geometric explanation (his space-time continuum) all interactions should obey the same rules.

 

With that in mind, let us go back to some earlier comments I have made. I made a very important observation in post #42 of the thread “What can we know of reality”. In that post, I showed exactly how the four fundamental constraints I had developed from logical considerations could be expressed in a single equation (what I have come to call my fundamental equation). All I did was demonstrate that the four constraints would be obeyed by any solution to that equation and likewise, that any solution to the fundamental constraints would obey that equation (in the form zero plus zero equals zero). The most important observation occurs in the very end of that post and has to do with the fact that

[math] \sum_q \frac{\partial}{\partial x_q}\vec{\psi} = 0[/math]

 

is valid in only one specific frame of reference.

This means that the fundamental equation is only valid in in one specific Euclidean coordinate system: that would be the coordinate system where [imath] \sum_i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\vec{\psi} = 0.[/imath]. This can be seen as quite analogous to Newton's “inertial” coordinate system in that his equations simplify to F=ma in that coordinate system. Likewise, my fundamental equation is much simpler in the particular coordinate system where [imath] \sum_i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\vec{\psi} = 0.[/imath]. Thus this is a constraint on the coordinate system to be used, not actually a problem with achieving the represented deduced constraints.

The problem is that my equation is not valid unless the entire universe is included (i.e., absolutely all relevant information is expressed in terms of those numerical labels we have indexed) and that makes the issue non trivial.

 

This brings up a very interesting conundrum regarding relativity. Newton's “inertial” system was quite easy to identify: i.e., if you were in an inertial frame, pseudo forces could not be present. But identifying the fact that you are in the frame where the sum of the momentum of the universe is zero is not such an easy task. That brings up a unappreciated fact about conventional physics normally ignored by the physics professionals. In standard conventional physics, they will tell you that the speed of light is c but, if you are a reasonable person, you should comprehend that this statement can not be logically defended. There exists absolutely no way to measure the actual speed of light because, to do so would require setting two clocks to agree (one at each end of the path) and every procedure I am aware of for accomplishing that task makes the assumption that the speed of light is c. What most physicists are talking about when they say that the speed of light is c is that the round trip distance divided by the time to make the trip is c. There exists no way to prove that the speed of light in one direction is the same as the speed of light in the opposite direction (that is in fact the very essence of the Michelson-Morley null result). What is important here is the fact that they are making a very significant assumption. That assumption being that there exists no way to establish a unique frame of reference. An assumption by the way which is in clear violation of their experimental analysis of reality: if your frame of reference were to get very far from the rest frame of our galaxy the microwave background of the universe would become quite Doppler shifted and this very fact is actually being used today to talk about the velocity of the earth through the universe.

 

What I want you to do is keep in mind is the fact that Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is the central experimental result of significance here. If that issue is indeed a fact then all of special relativity (the transformation equations of interest) fall out as required. All I am trying to do is to get you to look at relativity from a slightly different perspective. The two issues I want to build upon are, first, if a paradigm yields the proper contraction, all of relativity can be deduced and, second, there is nothing in relativity to preclude a single preferred reference frame (the real issue of relativity being that there exists no way to “locally” prove you are in that specific frame: a direct consequence of Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction).

 

So, moving on to my fundamental equation, I would like to point out that the equation is scale invariant. Notice that the term I have referred to as the “interaction term” is entirely built of Dirac delta function interactions. These functions only have value when the argument is zero. It follows that the scale of the arguments is of no consequence. If you were to multiply every numerical index by some fixed number “a”, all the arguments I made for that fundamental equation go through exactly as they did before the scale adjustment. You should see that as quite a reasonable fact. The length measurements to be used in your description of your world view must arise out of the data supporting that world view and is not given a-priori as some kind of information above and beyond all other things. This is no more than another symmetry embedded in the problem which you have solved with your flaw-free epistemological construct and it must be embedded in your solution.

 

This fact brings up a rather important possible inconsistency. If you have found a solution to that equation for some subset of all the information available to you, your frame of reference must be at rest with respect to that subset of information (think in terms of a universe where there is no information outside that subset). Suppose you then find a solution for some different subset of information. That solution must reside in a frame of reference at rest with respect to that second subset of information. Now, if you try to combine those two solutions you are confronted by the fact that they may well be in different reference frames. The question arises as to how both solutions can be consistent with that fundamental equation since the equation is only valid in a specified rest frame. There is only one answer to the question: the form of the equation cannot change in going from one frame to the other.

 

If you have the specific solution in each frame, it is a trivial issue to discover the motion of the origin of one frame in the other reference frame and thus establish the velocity of that frame as seen from the other. The only question is, what change in our arguments will make those two problems identical. The solution is quite simple; all we need is a method of transforming the equation from one frame to the other. And here we are quite lucky as others have already found the required transformation many many years ago. If you look at my equation and temporarily ignore the “interaction terms” which are totally scale invariant, the similarity between

[math]\left\{\sum_i \vec{\alpha}_i \cdot \nabla_i + \sum_{i neq j}\beta_{ij}\delta(x_i -x_j)\delta(\tau_i - \tau_j) \right\}\vec{\psi} = K\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\psi} = iKm\vec{\psi}[/math]

 

and Maxwell's equation for the propagation of photons should be obvious. All we need do to make this equation the same in both frames is exactly the same Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction required by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Since my equation is scale invariant, this merely says that the epistemological constructs of your flaw-free solution must obey special relativity. What you need to recognize here is that this is no statement about reality, it is merely a statement about your expectations and the method you use to achieve them.

 

As a statement about reality, it makes the assumption that separate pieces of the information known to you can be regarded as independent of one another; an assumption which could be false. But it is not a statement about reality; it is a statement about your expectations, quite another matter. If your expectations are based upon the fact that other information available to you can be ignored then, in order to be flaw-free, your explanation must conform to special relativity.

 

Please, if you believe you can see an error in my arguments, let me know about it.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Essay]

The most important observation occurs in the very end of that post and has to do with the fact that

 

[math] \sum_q \frac{\partial}{\partial x_q}\vec{\psi} = 0[/math]

 

is valid in only one specific frame of reference.

The problem is that my equation is not valid unless the entire universe is included (i.e., absolutely all relevant information is expressed in terms of those numerical labels we have indexed) and that makes the issue non trivial.

 

...very nice symbology, elegant.

I'd like a T-shirt with that:

"...and G0d spoke:"

[math] \sum_q \frac{\partial}{\partial x_q}\vec{\psi} = 0[/math]

"...and there was light."

 

===

"But it is not a statement about reality; it is a statement about your expectations, quite another matter."

...no pun intended, I'm sure....

 

It is a nice statement that I hope to share with others who seek to help people "get a handle on" or define important, but commonly used words like "fact, truth, theory, and law."

 

"But it is not a statement about reality; it is a statement about your expectations [which are limited to your perceptions, and by your preconceptions], quite another matter."

 

Is that fair?

:)

[Doctordick]

"But it is not a statement about reality; it is a statement about your expectations [which are limited to your perceptions, and by your preconceptions], quite another matter."

 

Is that fair?

:)

Absolutely; however, can you give me any statements about reality which are not, in essence, statements about your expectations? And exactly what are your perceptions if they are not a facet of your expectations? What you have to understand is that understanding itself constitutes having expectations consistent with what you think you know. Please, what else is there? Or, more to the point, what else can there be which you can defend?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Essay]

Absolutely; however, can you give me any statements about reality which are not, in essence, statements about your expectations? And exactly what are your perceptions if they are not a facet of your expectations? What you have to understand is that understanding itself constitutes having expectations consistent with what you think you know. Please, what else is there? Or, more to the point, what else can there be which you can defend?

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

You said, "...it is a statement about your expectations...."

 

I was following your convention; but maybe I should have phrased it as '...one's perceptions, and by one's preconceptions.'

 

p.s. re: my parenthetical addition,

"[which are limited to your perceptions, and by your preconceptions]"

 

I'm in total agreement; relativity (or any formalism) doesn't necessarily inform us about the true nature of reality.

...or am I misunderstanding something?

:)

[Doctordick]

I was following your convention; but maybe I should have phrased it as '...one's perceptions, and by one's preconceptions.'

How can you have perceptions without presuming your senses? And “preconceptions”? Where did they come from? All you know or think you know must be built from information which is totally undefined. The definitions themselves are epistemological structures. The problem of understanding reality can be put in a nutshell. The problem is one of constructing a rational model of a totally unknown universe given nothing but a totally undefined stream of data which has been transcribed by a totally undefined process. That is the problem I have solved.

...or am I misunderstanding something?

I have no way of knowing the answer to that question. I have not the slightest idea as to what is going on in your head as I have no knowledge of what portion of what I have written you have read.

 

Essentially, what I have shown to date is that if one takes the position that the job of a research scientist is to search out the rules which separate the "true" universe from all possible universes, then no classical experiment can provide any guidance on the subject whatsoever. What I have presented up to this point is a pure tautology applicable to any body of information which can be referred to. Classical mechanics is itself a tautology. And I am ready to extend that tautology well beyond what I have already laid out. This thread is nothing but a side note on how relativity arises in that tautology and arguments that the result is experimentally exactly what is produced by Einstein's theory.

 

Have you perused the thread “What can we know of reality?”?

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Essay]

Essentially, what I have shown to date is that if one takes the position that the job of a research scientist is to search out the rules which separate the "true" universe from all possible universes, then no classical experiment can provide any guidance on the subject whatsoever. What I have presented up to this point is a pure tautology applicable to any body of information which can be referred to. Classical mechanics is itself a tautology. And I am ready to extend that tautology well beyond what I have already laid out. This thread is nothing but a side note on how relativity arises in that tautology and arguments that the result is experimentally exactly what is produced by Einstein's theory.

 

Have you perused the thread “What can we know of reality?”?

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

...and again, I agree with your point above.

As I first said, I'd like to quote this for folks who need help understanding concepts like fact, truth, reality, law, etc.

 

Regarding “What can we know of reality?”

I'm sure I've seen it (I'll look again), but for the same reasons you point out, I try to avoid nailing down a vision of reality; and so don't want to get too involved in a discussion.

 

NOW about my first post and reply:

 

My apologies for being so obtuse; in an attempt to be subtle, I suppose.

 

Allow me to start over; re: your formalism,

 

[math] \sum_q \frac{\partial}{\partial x_q}\vec{\psi} = 0[/math]

 

I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion.

 

I especially liked your sentence:

"But it is not a statement about reality; it is a statement about your expectations, quite another matter."

...and similarly:

"What you need to recognize here is that this is no statement about reality, it is merely a statement about your expectations and the method you use to achieve them. "

 

The mistake I may be making is equating "statement about reality" with your elegant, simplified, all-inclusive, formalism; but I don't think that is my mistake (but..?).

 

I think you are saying that your formalism still does not necessarily describe, or make a "statement about reality."

...and that as a formalism it is still limited to describing only what we can perceive or think of to perceive (or think of to measure).

...or maybe: It can function only to explain what we are capable of expecting it to explain?

 

When you referred to "expectations," I hoped to elaborate and added parenthetically, that expectations are "limited by one's perceptions and preconceptions;" asking finally, if that was a fair assessment.

I see elaboration like that as a way of confirming if I understood what you were saying.

 

I did read all of your post. It's been several years since I "learned" all that stuff, but it still looked familiar and coherent; and I liked where you led it to.

[Rade]

Doctordick, as I understand the case, special relativity was a very important step to "general relativity" theory--that is, Einstein realized that special relativity was incomplete. But (a very important BUT I think), without special relativity Einstein never could have moved to the thought processes needed for general relativity. And, although a revolutionary idea, special relativity only shows that space and time do not have independent existences, they are not absolute, but form a fabric of spacetime that is relative. And this fabric does not provide a "static" view of "reality" as you claim. The physicist Brian Green sums it up nicely (that is, the dynamic aspect of "reality" by merging Einstein special relativity with general relativity):

 

"Space and time become players in the evolving cosmos. They come alive...general relativity provides the choreography for an entwined cosmic dance of space, time, matter, and energy" (B. Green, 2004, The fabric of the Cosmos:Space, time, and the texture of reality. Knopf, NY).

 

Doctordick, perhaps you have derived an alternative view of reality than Einstein concerning "time", but to say that Einstein thinking about relativity theory leads to a "static" view of reality is not accurate.

[Essay]

P.S.

to my previous post:

RE:

Regarding “What can we know of reality?”

I'm sure I've seen it (I'll look again), but for the same reasons you point out, I try to avoid nailing down a vision of reality; and so don't want to get too involved in a discussion.

 

Yep, that was the one....

23 long pages; that's why I responded here (much less to read).

 

These past few years I'm focusing on climate change and saving a future so others can continue these fascinating metaphysical discussions into the future.

[Doctordick]

"Space and time become players in the evolving cosmos. They come alive...general relativity provides the choreography for an entwined cosmic dance of space, time, matter, and energy" (B. Green, 2004, The fabric of the Cosmos:Space, time, and the texture of reality. Knopf, NY).

 

Doctordick, perhaps you have derived an alternative view of reality than Einstein concerning "time", but to say that Einstein thinking about relativity theory leads to a "static" view of reality is not accurate.

Rade, do you understand the meaning of the word “obfuscate”? In Einstein's picture, “The fabric of the Cosmos:Space, time, and the texture of reality” is as “dynamic” as a canned reel of movie film. The fact that examination of that film in sequence (i.e., a projection) gives you an impression of a dynamic occurrence has absolutely nothing to do with the physical nature of the film itself. The actual nature of the film is static and “calling the distance along the film “time” does not make the film into a dynamic entity. All the physicists are doing is obfuscating the fact that their space-time picture is static (there is no mechanism for change) and that is exactly why there is a conflict between quantum and relativity theory and the difficulty goes right up through to include general relativity.:hammer:

And, although a revolutionary idea, special relativity only shows that space and time do not have independent existences, they are not absolute, but form a fabric of spacetime that is relative.

It “shows” no such thing. That is purely an assumption embedded in the theory itself.;)

23 long pages; that's why I responded here (much less to read).

That makes it quite clear that you do not understand what I am talking about. The central relationship being discussed is

[math]\left\{\sum_i \vec{\alpha}_i \cdot \nabla_i + \sum_{i neq j}\beta_{ij}\delta(x_i -x_j)\delta(\tau_i - \tau_j) \right\}\vec{\psi} = K\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\psi} = iKm\vec{\psi}[/math]

 

and if you do not know what the symbols in that expression stand for and why that equation must be true, there is no comprehension of what I am talking about. If you have any interest in what I am saying, start with post #33 and follow my conversation with Anssi. That would only be a small fraction of the posts on that thread. If that is too much for you to read, don't worry about it.:shrug:

[math] \sum_i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\vec{\psi} = 0[/math]

 

is a mere facet of that representation.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[AnssiH]

Just wanted to comment that this seems to make perfect sense to me. If the fundamental equation can be used to yield special relativity, it can certainly be used to yield any logically equivalent take on the same matter.

 

If the fundamental equation does not have any fatal flaws, then I cannot fathom what is it in it that makes physicists look away... ...other than the annoyingly persistent tendency to confuse ontology with predictive models of reality. Why do people do that? It is kind of amazing to me. In fact, there has been fair amount of "groping among mere concepts" in this thread already, I would say...

 

The title refers to "unorthodox view", and let me just mention that the typical "orthodox view" (as commented by Brian Green), is an arbitrary interpretation of the math. Amazingly arbitrary.

 

Actually before I get to that, I need to comment that the OP actually seems to make some sloppy comments regarding the history of special relativity. These are irrelevant to the logic of the argument, but any sort of sloppiness may put off some people who would otherwise find the argument quite reasonable.

 

I'm sorry I will also be somewhat sloppy now as I have no time to look for references, but as far as I know;

Einstein has claimed he did not even know about M&M experiment when he put out the first paper about special relativity. There was other problems (e.g. where the electromagnetic field of an object "points" when that object is moving or when it is stationary) that ultimately led to the re-definition of simultaneity as relative to direction of motion, and rest followed; it is that definition that opened the door to this new model, and also constrained everything else in the model the way they are today.

 

I do not know what sort of ontological take Einstein had about all this at first (if any), but let it be said that it was his old math teacher, Minkowski, who only couple years later pushed the idea of conceiving special relativity in terms of 4-dimensional spacetime. Einstein has commented that at first he did not think much of that idea, but later he certainly did come to think of his model in exactly those terms.

 

And yes Rade, that view is static (depending on what you happen to mean by "static" and "dynamic" exactly). Like Doctordick mentioned, that view is dynamic the same way as a moving film reel is dynamic, and I have commented quite a few times that you tend to end up to (slightly incoherent) dualistic view if you really feel the need to lift that interpretation into "ontologically real" status... (some people actually do like to imagine their "consciousness" running through that static spacetime :D )

 

But now, without bothering how we got there, take a good look at that end result; that 4-dimensional spacetime which marks all the events that ever were and ever will be, and that completely defines the causality of everything.

 

Notice now that any relativistic simultaneity planes - the original key components of the model - are completely immaterial/unobservable entities.

 

Likewise, the "scale transformation" (allow me to call it that because that is what it is) that is performed for the whole spacetime when you move from one inertial frame to another, will never have ANY effect on the events and their causality that has been defined into that spacetime; that transformation is also completely immaterial/unobservable thing.

 

I can't imagine anyone has got any problems with the assertions in the previous paragraph, so seems to me it is to be expected that there exists, if one could be bothered to look, a wide variety of models that actually yield everything that "relative simultaneity" yields in that all-familiar geometrical analysis of space & time. There should be nothing unorthodox in me saying that. Claiming that we are a consciousness flying through a static spacetime - or pushing any ontological interpretation for that matter - should be unorthodox to scientific community since it is, did I already say it, arbitrary interpretation of logic.

 

I'm sorry I cannot be completely crystal clear in this post, I need to go to sleep right now, I'll clarify unclear comments later :)

 

-Anssi

[Essay]

That makes it quite clear that you do not understand what I am talking about. The central relationship being discussed is ...

...and if you do not know what the symbols in that expression stand for....

Have fun -- Dick

Thanks DrD,

You're right; it's been years since I tried to fully interpret and follow equations like these.

I may also try to pick up on post #33; I'm at least familiar with the psi....

 

Your "facet" [math] \sum_i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\vec{\psi} = 0[/math] was enough for me at this time.

 

I was just happy to have finally succeeded with LaTex.

 

For over 25 years, I've wanted to see "that T-shirt," except with the Schroedinger wave equation featured.

If I'd thought, I might have seen your larger equation as more appropriate for the T-shirt, but I was just too excited (and ignorant of the details) to not use that elegant little statement already at hand.

 

As a "mere facet of that representation" it's kind of an insult (to G0d) used that way on the T-shirt, I suppose.

 

Fortunately, this is the "philosophy of science" forum and I was much more interested in the (as you said, if I recall) tautological implications for scientific epistemology.

I still hope to use your "slant" on presenting this idea, if not also refer to your "proof," when arguing with folks about the limits of our ability to "know ultimate reality."

 

So, aside from my lame (T-shirt) attempt to be "cute,"

that facet is central to your point about scientific epistemology, isn't it?

:confused:

[Bombadil]

With that in mind, let us go back to some earlier comments I have made. I made a very important observation in post #42 of the thread “What can we know of reality”. In that post, I showed exactly how the four fundamental constraints I had developed from logical considerations could be expressed in a single equation (what I have come to call my fundamental equation). All I did was demonstrate that the four constraints would be obeyed by any solution to that equation and likewise, that any solution to the fundamental constraints would obey that equation (in the form zero plus zero equals zero). The most important observation occurs in the very end of that post and has to do with the fact that

 

[imath]sum_q frac{partial}{partial x_q}vec{psi} = 0[/imath]

 

is valid in only one specific frame of reference.

 

Won’t the explanation also only be valid when the constraint

 

[imath]\sum_{k}^{}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau_k }\vec{\psi}=0[/imath]

 

is also satisfied or will they both be satisfied if one of them is satisfied?

 

So since we can’t solve the equation in a truly general form what can we do? Even if the transformation allows us to combine valid explanations, which is something that you haven’t said it does, you seem to be suggesting that it allows us to use information from one explanation in another one, so it hardly seems that this would allow us to construct more general solutions, so what is it that this allows us to do?

 

Also I am wondering just what is it that we can expect to learn about the fundamental equation. Obviously deriving the Schroedinger equation from the fundamental equation is quite a statement but to me it only seems to be one because the Schroedinger equation is a well know equation which Newtonian mechanics has been shown to approximate.

 

I’m not trying to map an explanation to reality or any other epistemological construct but rather trying to have the fundamental equation in a form in which more can be understood from it then just what can be understood directly from the fundamental equation.

 

Using this for the goal it seems to me that even if you can show that all of physics is an approximation of the fundamental equation under different conditions this still won’t tell us anything unless you can show that the approximations that you make can’t have any big effect on the fundamental equation (that is that it must still behave in the same way) which is something that I suspect is in fact incorrect.

 

and Maxwell's equation for the propagation of photons should be obvious. All we need do to make this equation the same in both frames is exactly the same Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction required by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Since my equation is scale invariant, this merely says that the epistemological constructs of your flaw-free solution must obey special relativity. What you need to recognize here is that this is no statement about reality, it is merely a statement about your expectations and the method you use to achieve them.

 

This is all seems fine but it seems that we can’t just use the transformation if for no other reason then that the transformation that you are suggesting uses the speed of light as one of the constants and velocity as a variable and while you have defined c as a constant. It seems to me that it will require more then to know that the transformation that it must obey has the form of the Lorenz transformation before we can use c as you have defined it. Also as of yet you have not defined velocity although you seem to be defining it as the value of

 

[imath] \sum_{k}^{}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k }\vec{\psi}[/imath]

 

that the origin of one explanation has as taken from the other explanation.

[HydrogenBond]

There is a way to prove that the relative reference assumption violates the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy implies there is an absolute reference scale. Here is the mental experiment.

 

We start at stationary reference. We have a rocket, which we add energy to via propulsion, to get it to achieve relativistic velocity. The final result is we double its mass, due to the energy input into the system, i.e., conservation of the energy.

 

Next, what we do is set up ten distinct stationary references to observed the rocket, none of which had any energy inputted into them. If we use relative reference, the moving rocket will see ten distinct relative references, each appearing to show some relativity. The net result is, although we added only enough energy to create double mass, the rocket see 10 times the total mass. Even if the rocket saw that, we know it can not be real, since it would be in violation of the conservation of energy. From the point of view of any of the stationary references, they all see one extra relativistic mass and nine zero extra masses, which is consistent with energy conservation.

 

The way relative reference is normally presented is using two references, making the conservation of energy appear like a wash. It also tends to start with the object already in motion as though it got there without the requirement of needing energy. But once one adds an extra reference on either side, to create an odd number of one of the reference, relative to the other, then only one reference will add up to the energy.

 

Where the problem lies is there are three SR equations. Relative reference tends to focus on only space-time. By ignoring the mass equation it sort of removes the conservation of energy checks and balances. This is why it has become hard to see, because using 2 of 3 does adds up mathematically. But the illusion doesn't work as well using all three at the same time.

[Qfwfq]

As usual I have very little time, even to just read through exhaustively, let alone to participate. Just a few remarks:

 

If the fundamental equation does not have any fatal flaws, then I cannot fathom what is it in it that makes physicists look away... ...other than the annoyingly persistent tendency to confuse ontology with predictive models of reality.

I'm still unable to rule out there being fatal flaws. Also, most current physicists are rather unconcerned with ontology. However, one thing I saw in the OP is an unjustified "if and only if".

 

([math]A=0;\;B=0;\;C=0)\Rightarrow A+B=C[/math]

 

is a true implication, but the coimplication would not be true.

 

The title refers to "unorthodox view", and let me just mention that the typical "orthodox view" (as commented by Brian Green), is an arbitrary interpretation of the math. Amazingly arbitrary.

Well I don't know exactly what the guy means by arbitrary, I've never read his books, but I believe there isn't all that much wiggleroom and Minkowsi's geometrical interpretation makes much more sense than any other. It certainly hasn't been the only interpretation, between Zur Elektrodynamik Bewegter Körper and Minkowski's work there was much discussion about the meaning of it. The very fact that Einstein argued much more empirically and initially objected to Minkowski's view, but then came to favour it and explicitly based Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie on it, just goes to show.

 

Actually before I get to that, I need to comment that the OP actually seems to make some sloppy comments regarding the history of special relativity.

True.

 

Einstein has claimed he did not even know about M&M experiment when he put out the first paper about special relativity. There was other problems (e.g. where the electromagnetic field of an object "points" when that object is moving or when it is stationary) that ultimately led to the re-definition of simultaneity as relative to direction of motion, and rest followed; it is that definition that opened the door to this new model, and also constrained everything else in the model the way they are today.

He was certainly aware of the most basic problem (conflict with the old principle of relativity) which was the reason for so much discussion including the efforts of folks such as M&M; see the very first sentence of Zur Elektrodynamik Bewegter Körper. It's not like M&M had just woken up one morning and decided to perform such tricky experiments for the heck of it. Whether or not he knew those two names, or what, he knew of the negative result; see the start of the second paragraph of the same paper.

[AnssiH]

As usual I have very little time, even to just read through exhaustively, let alone to participate.

 

:)

 

Well yeah I've been kind of busy for the past week as well... But I should quickly clarify something I said unclearly;

 

The title refers to "unorthodox view", and let me just mention that the typical "orthodox view" (as commented by Brian Green), is an arbitrary interpretation of the math. Amazingly arbitrary.

Well I don't know exactly what the guy means by arbitrary, I've never read his books, but I believe there isn't all that much wiggleroom and Minkowsi's geometrical interpretation makes much more sense than any other.

 

I meant Brian Green's comments (on Rade's post) were pretty much outlining the present day "orthodox view" (Minkowski's), and it was me, not Green, saying that that view is an arbitrary interpretation of the logic. But don't get me wrong; I don't mean arbitrary in terms of usefulness, just arbitrary as an ontological view (if ever one insists on having an ontological view).

 

It would certainly be a desirable thing for physicists to remain unconcerned with ontology, and I do believe many of them do or at least honestly try. That being said, when you comment that Minkowski's geometrical interpretation makes much more sense than any other (assuming you mean "ontologically"), that essentially means it makes more sense than the others, when it is being investigated through certain worldview/paradigm. I.e. there are underlying assumptions about reality that make it seem simple. Don't get that wrong either; those underlying assumptions probably are very much just about the most useful assumptions we ever could have made about reality (in terms of simple predictions)

 

In other words, that "wiggleroom" becomes incredibly large when you take into account that in the absence of any ontological preferences, you are free to change just about any aspect of your worldview without making it invalid prectionwise, as long as you carefully change some other properties appropriately (essentially changing your paradigms from one to another). In many cases that makes your worldview incredibly complicated, and at that point people usually start making assertions that the simplest view is bound to be ontologically correct (people often tend to take that stance somewhat tacitly because they just want to have at least SOME ontological view)

 

So now to steer this thread back towards the original subject (which was not "how relativity was conceived"), the purpose of the epistemological analysis is to completely avoid the complex issues of "what sort of view of reality might look the simplest by whatever criteria", and to avoid the weight coming from the history of physics. The analysis only yields some information regarding what sorts of properties are to be expected from any self-coherent worldview that contains certain symmetries.

 

And if the math checks out, the results of that analysis can be interpreted in many different ways. Right now, regarding the topic of this thread, I'd see it as a proof that such and such symmetries and self-coherence together yield relativistic description of reality (a "relativistic description" can be transformed into many logically equal descriptions, many of which would not be normally called "relativistic" at all)

 

One more comment. The symmetries, that the epistemological analysis refers to, were consequences of certain cases of "ignorance". Just to clarify that one step further, the existence of some ignorance in some specific worldview can be seen as a consequence of using such a semantical concept in our description of reality, which contains facets that are in fact non-sensical when one tries to apply them to actual ontological reality. For example, along with a concept of "space" comes a concept of "identity of locations of space". We certainly conceive an identity to locations of space in any description or even mental conception of reality, even when we at the same time realize this is ontologically meaningless; we are in fact ignorant here; we cannot point out any real, ontological identity to any location of space.

 

I was really struggling with the previous paragraph :( I hope it provided some clarification to the issue, and did not only confuse things... I just have no time to try and clarify it more right now :I

 

-Anssi

[Rade]

...In Einstein's picture, “The fabric of the Cosmos:Space, time, and the texture of reality” is as “dynamic” as a canned reel of movie film. The fact that examination of that film in sequence (i.e., a projection) gives you an impression of a dynamic occurrence has absolutely nothing to do with the physical nature of the film itself. The actual nature of the film is static and “calling the distance along the film “time” does not make the film into a dynamic entity...

Of course the reel of film, by itself is static, the "dynamics" of relativity theory derives from the fact that Einstein plugs in the projector and turns it on. It is the energy of the projector that adds the dynamics--there is nothing static about Einstein relativity when you add the energy into the equation. And, where does Einstein call the "distance" along the film "time" ? For Einstein time and space are separate but not independent (that is, distance does not = time, but the two form a dialectic = spacetime). Spacetime is that which is intermediate between any two moments of existents along the film.

 

Quote: Originally Posted by Rade:

And, although a revolutionary idea, special relativity only shows that space and time do not have independent existences, they are not absolute, but form a fabric of spacetime that is relative.

 

..It “shows” no such thing. That is purely an assumption embedded in the theory itself.

. Well, I see you do not know the "asumptions" of relativity--so I will just let Einstein teach you

 

"...That is what the theory of relativity did. It assumed that there are no privileged physical states of movment and asked what consequence could be drawn from this" A. Einstein in letter to colleague Solovine, undated.

 

One such consequence of the assumption of relativity theory is that it "shows" that space and time do not have independent existences.

[Doctordick]

Anssi, you know, if you weren't here I would be very tempted to just walk away from this. The rest of the people here are so immersed in the validity of their personal world-view that they simply cannot comprehend what I am talking about. I suppose this is entirely due to the fact that you saw the central problem on your own. Probably something you would not have seen if you had been properly indoctrinated in modern physics.

If the fundamental equation does not have any fatal flaws, then I cannot fathom what is it in it that makes physicists look away...

It is their firm belief in the validity of their personal world-view. They absolutely never take the trouble to look at what I say because they are so totally convinced that I could not possibly be correct. Qfwfq's response is quite typical of any educated professional.

I'm still unable to rule out there being fatal flaws. Also, most current physicists are rather unconcerned with ontology. However, one thing I saw in the OP is an unjustified "if and only if".

 

([math]A=0;;B=0;;C=0)Rightarrow A+B=C[/math]

 

is a true implication, but the co-implication would not be true.

He can't rule out there being fatal flaws because he has not taken the trouble to examine what I have said. His comment concerning the co-implication of the above, apparently his inability to comprehend that

[math]\left\{\sum_i \vec{\alpha}_i \cdot \nabla_i + \sum_{i neq j}\beta_{ij}\delta(x_i -x_j)\delta(\tau_i - \tau_j) \right\}\vec{\psi} = K\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\psi} = iKm\vec{\psi}[/math]

 

together with the constraints [imath]\sum \vec{\alpha_i} \vec{\Psi}=\sum \beta_{ij}\vec{\Psi}=0[/imath] directly constrains [imath]\vec{\Psi}[/imath] to obey

[math]\sum_i \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\vec{\Psi}=\sum_i \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_i}\vec{\Psi}= \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}=\sum_{i \neq j} \beta_{ij}\delta(x_i -x_j)\delta(\tau_i - \tau_j) \vec{\Psi}=0[/math].

 

All it takes to understand the necessity of that result is to follow the algebra of post #42 (“Let us not worry about what the equation means; but rather the fact that it is valid!”) and I am quite sure there is nothing in that algebra beyond Qfwfq's capabilities so I can only conclude he merely scanned my posts without taking any of it seriously enough to make sure he understood what I said. I have suspicions that, consistent with most all professionals I have ever talked to, their real interest is finding something they can point to which which makes the need to examine things more carefully seem to be a waste of time. Modern physics is a religion and the priests don't really want a serious analysis of the foundations of their beliefs; no more than the Pope (the authority of his time) appreciated Galileo's reasoning in 1633 (note it took 360 years before that authority admitted the possibility of error). One can expect about the same response from the current scientific society; they have no desire to consider the possibility of flaws in their fundamental beliefs. That would be giving scientific credibility to philosophical insights and every trained scientist knows full well that philosophy is unscientific BS.

The title refers to "unorthodox view", and let me just mention that the typical "orthodox view" (as commented by Brian Green), is an arbitrary interpretation of the math. Amazingly arbitrary.

What they can't convince you of by logic, they do their best to overwhelm you with authoritarianism; a typical religious approach. When really examined, their world-view is quite definitely based on a whole slue of unstated assumptions (issues their subconscious has presented to them; issues which they are confident could not possibly be wrong).

I'm sorry I cannot be completely crystal clear in this post, I need to go to sleep right now, I'll clarify unclear comments later :)

It sure would be nice to see everything clearly but don't expect it.

 

Have fun -- Dick