The Untestable Einstein

[Shubee]

The physicist Tom Roberts once wrote in a trash-filled newsgroup that Einstein discussed the hidden postulates of special relativity in his "Jahrbuch" article of 1909. Today I checked a Wikipedia article (another unreliable source) on special relativity, in the section titled “Postulates”, and found that it mentions “several tacit assumptions,” one of which is “the independence of measuring rods and clocks from their past history.” The reference cited there is Einstein, "Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of Relativity", 1920.

 

I’ve never heard of an experiment to test “the independence of measuring rods and clocks from their past history.” If this principle is referring to reality, then why can’t it be tested? If the principle could cease to be true at this instant, then how would the world change? If changing the principle wouldn’t change the world, then exactly what did Einstein mean by this so-called tacit assumption?

[Pyrotex]

Hello Shubee,

You have asked a REALLY good set of questions here. I am prolly unqualified to answer your questions directly, though Relativity and Optics were my specialties in obtaining my Physics degree. I may have a book that will address these.

 

Reminds me of an online dual I fought back in 1996, with a slightly younger fellow from The Netherlands, who had a general Arts & Sciences degree. The question then was, "why can't you prove that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant?"

 

I replied, "of course you can!" And the dual was on. Back and forth we went, blasting each other with our gigawatt logic cannons. I am most happy to report that I LOST that battle most decisively. :) Yes, I learned more about Relativity during those few weeks than I had learned in college. Even went back to my old textbooks and read the chapters we never got to in class -- that's where I discovered that I was wrong and my Dutch friend was correct.

 

These assumptions or postulates that Einstein came up with are not easy to understand, any more than "the constancy of the speed of light cannot be proven".

 

One explanation is this: The postulate must be true, because otherwise, we would not observe the predictions of the Theory of Relativity. More later.