The Theory of Special Relativity for the Totally Confused Beginner

[Damo2600]

Hi guys,

 

I know this is a long post but this is my conclusion on The Theory of

Relativity which you don't have to read.

 

 

 

The Theory of Special Relativity for the Totally Confused Beginner

 

By Josephine Sage

 

 

 

Chapter 1 - What is the Theory of Special Relativity

 

 

 

 

Part 1/ Relativity in Gallilean Terms

 

 

 

 

A drunk in the bar, no matter how drunk he is, realises with

certainty that if someone throws a peanut at him it will take some

time before it actually hits him. If you see a woodcutter at a

distance there is a brief moment before the sound hits you. So we

realise sound travels at a certain speed. Finally light, travelling

from stars billions of miles away, has it's own delay between the

time the signal is sent and the time that it is recieved.

 

In gallilean terms we can register this logic in our own reference

frames.Although 300 000km/s is too fast for us to notice the effects

in our everyday life. If I am travelling on a train and a friend were

to be waving me off at the station there would be a time difference

between the first wave and the second wave. The distance is growing

so the light has further to go between each wave. The longer I travel

in a straight line, at a constant speed, the waves will be a constant

slower speed than the stationary observer. If I were accelerating the

time between each wave will become acceleratingly slower. This is

my 'friends waving' analogy.

 

 

 

 

Part 2/ Relativity According to Einstien

 

 

 

 

If we take a look into Einstien's world we see that time appears to

do many things our mind cannot comprehend. The speed of light is

astronomically fast which makes it even more difficult to grasp the

concept of relativity. For a moment, during this paper at least, we

will slow the speed of light down. We will make the velocity of light

equal to 4 metres per second. A bite size mouthful our brains can

chew.

 

Now we will have two obsevers OA and OB. OA will be stationed on the

platform and OB will be sitting on a train travelling at 2 metres per

second. Next to each observer will be two mirrors, two metres apart.

The light will travel, between the two mirrors, perpendicularly to

the ground. For ease we will title them LA (light A) and LB (light

:). We will compare each event by the two observers watches. In my

own working out of the Theory of Special Relativity I drew this

situation on a peice of paper many times and stared at the drawing in

order to understand what was happening in both reference frames. (I

might suggest that you do the same as a reference for reading this

paper.)

 

First we will consider the observations of OA: It will take LA one

second to complete it's full journey between the two mirrors and

reflect all the way back. The second light LB should be travelling in

the shape of an isoceles triangle in gallilean terms. According to OB

the LB travels for a 1/2 second, 2.236 metres down, then another 1/2

second, 2.236 metres up, and in one second the train travels 2m.

Considering the 'friends waving' analogy we logically would think

this journey of LB, according to OA, should take longer than LA.

Einstien understood for OA, due to time dilation and length

contraction, LB should take an equal 1 second. Einstien concluded

that time must be slowing down for OB in order for him to return an

equal 1 second time of LB.

 

So here we have our first difficulty in comprehension of Einstiens

theory. According to the 'friends waving' analogy time would ONLY

appear to be slowing down, for both observers, yet Einstien states

that two different observers are seeing the same light at exactly the

time. So we must have two different clock speeds, observing the speed

of light, in order for light to remain the constant it is considered

to be. We may decide due to length contraction that light appears to

be travelling straight up and down. That does not make sense, to the

logical mind, because appearances aside the distance is still

becoming larger between OA and OB. So here we have the obvious choice

that time on the train is slowing down.

 

Someone offered the suggestion to me that light actually is

travelling two different distances at two equal time speeds. I can

respect their comment, however, it is the same as the previous

statement whereby time slows down merely in reverse.

 

 

 

Part 3/ Length Contraction in Gallilean Terms

 

 

 

We all know that a full moon looks flat. How can this be? If we were

moving away from a ball the light from the closest point of the ball

will hit us first and, due to the movement of the train, the light at

the furthest point, at the circumference, should hit us later. Our

logical mind tells us this. However the length contraction Einstien

suggests we should think that the light from the circumference should

hit us much sooner than our logical mind says.

 

In gallilean terms the time should slow down yet the ball should

appear longer. Animation on TV seems to think that objects should

appear longer. When you slow down highspeed objects on camera footage

the object appears to elongate and not contract. Here we have another

contradiction between our logical mind and relativity.

 

Our minds should surely be spinning by now. I will leave this for now

and get back to the issue of time.

 

 

 

Part 4/ How Special Relativity and Gallilean Relativity Are Unrelated

 

 

 

In the 'friends waving' analogy if someone is moving away relative to

you their time will appear to SLOW down. In Einstien's theory if

someone is moving away relative to you their time will appear to SLOW

down. Sounds like we are discusing the same issue here. In

the 'friends waving' analogy if someone is moving closer to you their

time will appear to SPEED* up. In Einstien's theory if someone is

moving closer relative to you their time will appear not to SPEED up.

(*By this I mean that at a distance your time will be a slower time

speed due to the distance light has to travel.) We certainly have

found another discrepancy our logical mind will not let go of.

 

If you speed toward an object then your time and the time of the

distant object are coming into line. In galillean terms the

acceleration will make the oncoming object appear to speed up (from a

slower time speed) and deceleration would also basically mean time

will also speed up from a slower clock speed. When you stop next to

the object your clock will tick at the same rate as the stationary

clock. This is true whether your clocks agree or not. This last

statement appears to be true of Special Relativity aswell.

 

We are getting to the crux of the matter. In relativity the problem

we have in understanding is in the object moving toward you at a

constant speed. The issue is far from being resolved.

 

Now, according to *you* stationed on the platform, you will observe

time, according to the train, moving from a slower time speed to

a 'slightly faster' slower time speed at a constant rate. This is

true of Gallilean Relativity. At the point where you are next to the

train your time will tick at almost the same rate as the train's

clock and will begin to slow down as the train passes you once more.

So we can understand relativity in the 'friends waving' analogy.'

 

The same situation in reverse is:

 

If you pass a clock at a train station you will notice on a very fine

level that the clock ticks are almost the same as your clock. When

you approach the station clock time will appear to speed up. When you

pass the clock time will appear to slow down once again.

 

 

 

Part 5/ Contradictions in Special Relativity and Gallilean Relativity

Arise

 

 

 

We now understand relativity in gallilean terms however we do not

understand the contradictions of time dilation and length

contraction. How does LA and LB have the exact same 1 second speed

for both observers, OA and OB, attempting to do both calculations?

 

So we have the 'friends waving' analogy and the Einstienian theory.

The 'friends waving' analogy works both ways for the logical mind.

The Einstien theory only works one way because if time is actually

slowing down for OB then how can it also slow down in the reverse

situation. The mind boggles to comprehend this. For OA to measure LA

to be 1 second then how can OB, whilst experiencing a slower time

speed, observe LA to be 1 second as well.

 

To solve this problem we 'could' say that time for both observers is

slowing down but this would bring us back 'full circle' to the

problem we had in the first place. In this case both observers are

experiencing the same reference frame time although at different

distances apart.

 

So now we suggest another option perhaps the time slows down only

when we are looking at the light moving relative to us. Perhaps this

is not as absurd as it sounds. We can conclusively dispel this

option, though, due to the fact that if two observers, situated on

the platform, were recording the elapsed time of LA and LB from the

same clock the elapsed times would need to be unequal. Our mind is

obviously troubled on many levels.

 

The extra 'special' absurdity this theory contains is that if both

observers, OA and OB, calculate the time of both LA and LB for an

hour then all four calculations would equal 360 minutes and LA and LB

would have bounced exactly the same amount of times yet travelled

uneven distances. This goes against the 'friends waving' analogy in

an extremely wierd way. This suggests that no matter how fast the

train is travelling, for OA and OB, then there will be no delay

between the time it takes to observe LB and LA respectively and

reversedly. This would further suggest that the clock speed for both

observers would have to be equal.

 

Unfortunately it somehow equates to 'magic'.

 

I have been assured that this theory of Einstien's has been proven on

many occasions and that to this day it is still being proven. Yet if

we try to understand how this works we come up with a situation that

contradicts the physical nature of light taking time to travel over

distances. I have been rebuked on many occasions and told that I am

assuming an absolute reference frame. With my constant attempts at

trying to see the mental experiment without the absolute gallilean

reference frame the theory still remains contradictory.

 

So what does the logical mind do with this?

 

In Gallilean terms all times are accounted for and Special Relativity

does not account for all time. We will discuss this further in Part 6.

 

 

 

Part 6/ The Connection between length Contraction and Time Dilation.

 

 

 

Einstien uses the intrinsic connection, between length Contraction

and Time Dilation, in the following case in order to explain this:

 

OA and OB each time both LA and LB for one hour. We return with four

360 second times recording 360 trips that LA and LB make. So we will

throw off the Gallilean blanket with it's absolute reference frame

and see what happens. For OA he experiences time dilation and length

contraction with regard to LA. The mix of the above shortening of

time and space suggests that the LB could return a value of 360 trips

regardless of movement. This means that the distance between OA and

the train appears shorter and the time experienced by OB appears

shorter. We can see the logic in that.

 

So the isoceles triangle is closer to a straight line up and down.

Let us now suggest that in OA's time, for the rest of the isoceles

triangle, light appears to be going faster for OA and slower for OB.

Forget the absurdity of this. Let us state that the reverse is true

as well for OB. OA sees the train as shorter and OB sees the platform

as shorter.

 

So now we have an equal time for all observers regardless of

distance, direction or velocity. IT's absurd we know it however we

are assured emphatically and empirically this is true. Somewhere

along the line spacetime and our logical mind is playing tricks on

us. We can test the difference. We can measure the difference. But it

is impossible for the logical mind to understand the difference.

 

Our logical mind suggests it's impossible. Special Relativity says it

is 'actual'. Gallilean Relativity is an approximation whereas Special

Relativity is reality.

 

This is my first chapter in understanding Relativity for beginers the

next chapter will be entitled 'Testing the Theory of Relativity'.

 

 

Thank you

Josephine Sage

[Tormod]

A warning to our readers: This thread is mistitled. It is *not* recommended reading if you want to learn about relativity.

 

It should be titled "Josephine's paper on relativity". This is *not* a theory of special relativity but a paper which shows that the author has very little understanding of what Einstein's work was all about.

[Damo2600]

Hi Tormod,

 

You really dislike me don't you. I put a lot of work into that. As far as I have been assured the Theory of Special Relativity doesn't make sense if you consider it using the absolute reference frame that Gallileo put forward. So what is the problem with my understanding now? I'm really interested...

 

Josephine

[Tormod]

Moved to the Strange Claims forum.

 

Josephine, you have not produced a theory but a confused paper. It has nothing to do with you as a person (I do not know you). It has something to do with the fact that you do not have a scientific theory, and you do not understand relativity.

 

I am not going to attempt to teach you anything - you have ignored any such attempt so far - but I could perhaps point out that you even spell Einstein's name wrong.

[Qfwfq]

:)

As far as I have been assured the Theory of Special Relativity doesn't make sense if you consider it using the absolute reference frame that Gallileo put forward.

Galileo did nothing of the sort, he wrote what is considered to be the first statement of the principle of relativity ever published, which Newton also refers to as "the experiment of the ship" when arguing toward the principle of relativity.

 

Both Newton and Galileo argue that we can't detect an absolute rest or motion, except for one of rotation. The difference is they both consider the principle for the three spatial coordinates, not for space-time. Before Einstein and Lorentz, time wasn't known to be a coordinate, different for different observers, though Newton's argument includes the discussion of relative and absolute times but not as being part of a same geometry with space.

[quantum quack]

Jos,

As an excersise that by the end of which you will know just how complex debunking relativity is you should attempt to understand how SRT applies to the GPS satelite system in use today. No mean fete I can assure you.

 

Possiby also in your wrtings you would like to describe why AE determined light to be invariant to all observers and why it became necessary to accommodate relative time and abandon absolute time. Also why E=mc^2 became a necessary outcome of SRT.

 

I must admit i would be inetersted in your discourse and discoveries.

[C1ay]

Why not get it straight from the horse's mouth? Relativity : The Special and the General Theory

by Albert Einstein is still in print. A good companion book is Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified

by Richard Wolfson. FWIW, your post is confusing to me and I would not recommend it for anyone that is already confused even if I thought it an accurate depiction.

[Damo2600]

You guys are great,

 

Well if you can't understand it I guess the Totally confused beginner would experience the same problem. It merely represents the turmoil I went through in trying to logically grasp relativity. I am curious as to whether you guys actually read it properly. It seems from your responses that you understood it to be against Special Relativity.

 

The conclusion of the paper is that Special Relativity is correct. I am also aware that Special Relativity makes absolutely no sense in a Gallilean absolute reference frame - whereby *your* time equals *my* time regardless of velocity. We as a society are brought up in a Gallilean world and are somewhat unprepared to understand Special Relativity.

However IF you guys DO seem to think that relativity does make sense I suggest that you have no grounding in logic.

 

Allow me to quote myself:

 

"Somewhere along the line spacetime and our logical mind is playing tricks on us. We can test the difference. We can measure the difference. But it is impossible for the logical mind to understand the difference.

 

Our logical mind suggests it's impossible. Special Relativity says it

is 'actual'."

 

Josephine

[Tormod]

Nobody said we couldn't understand your paper. It is a misguided document and does not do any favors towards relativity - it does not enhance understanding of it, it does not make things simpler but *harder* to understand (and you still haven't bothered to fix the spelling of "Einstein").

 

Our logical mind is not playing tricks on us. The stuff you write about the moon is complete nonsense. The difference in time it takes for the light at the middle of the lunar disk to reach us, as compared to the light at the edges, is so vanishingly small that has absolutely no bearing on anything. And most importantly..it has *no* relevance to special relativity.

 

We do not grow up in a "Galilean" society. The very fact that space and time has a theoretical beginning and an end in current cosmological models (ie, the big bang model) is firmly rooted in current thinking and has been so for quite a while. If anything, our kids grow up in a Einsteinian society with the addition of the quantum knowledge that we are gaining, where the catchword of the decade is "everything is relative" and Einstein is sold on T-shirts on every corner.

 

The average John and Jane (and most non-average ones, too) will *never* understand relativity. Nor will they understand Plato's allegory of the cave, for that sake. They do not need to, and they don't care. And it really doesn't help to confuse the matter when you in other threads state that time dilation does not happen - when that very concept is the basis of Einstein's relativity theory.

[Tormod]

BTW, if you want a *really* good popular explanation of relativity where the speed of light is brought down to manageable levels, watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos TV documentary series which was released on DVD a few years back. There is a great sequence in one of the episodes where he drives a moped through an Italian village (where Einstein first started thinking about what the Maxwellian equations said about light) and comes back to find his brother is an old man, while he himself has only aged a few minutes. It is a brilliant explanation of time dilation.

[maddog]

The conclusion of the paper is that Special Relativity is correct. I am also aware that Special Relativity makes absolutely no sense in a Gallilean absolute reference frame - whereby *your* time equals *my* time regardless of velocity. ...

Your paper was long winded and used a lot of words and didn't say much. What it did say, did not

easily get to the conclusion. After reading a couple of times, I did agree you were on the protagonist

side (with SR and not against). I agree with Tormod and others. C1ay's references are much better

at explaining SR. I learned my glimpse with, "The Meaning of Relativity", by Albert Einstein when I

was just turning 13. We do NOT live in a "Galilean world" in that the "average man on the street"

does not understand even Galileo's simple notion of Relativity in depth. To most everyone is their

own reference point. "All coordinates are Relative to Me!" This is often people can not extend their

conciousness to even see another's point of view. Galilean my ***!

However IF you guys DO seem to think that relativity does make sense I suggest that you have no grounding in logic.

The grounding of logic is "if p imlies q then, if p is true, then q is true. Also, we can deduce if q is

Not true, then p is Not true. Nothing that I have seen Tormod, Qfwfq, paultr, or myself (in fact

many more) have in any way construed as illogical (not grounded in logic). This would mean though

that you can follow the logic given. In some of your earlier posts, you had admitted that you did not

fully understand SR (let alone the others) and that you were working to understand such. So when

did you suddenly become an expert in the subject by writing an expose. I studied SR on my own

as it was not offered as a physics topic in my undergraduate studies. Even I don't claim to be and

expert. I have studied it for quite a few years.

"Somewhere along the line spacetime and our logical mind is playing tricks on us. We can test the difference. We can measure the difference. But it is impossible for the logical mind to understand the difference. Our logical mind suggests it's impossible. Special Relativity says it is 'actual", says Josephine

I am not in dispute with you quote. When Tormod, Qfwfq, or I say "it makes sense to me [sR]", we

are meaning that this fits in with the theories of the day {SR, GR, QM, QFT, etc}.

[Damo2600]

Well I agreed that my post is obviously too complicated for the beginner. I used every recess of my brain to comprehend Relativity and it was, as such, impossible. How can you travel at a certain speed for a certain time and arrive much earlier than your odometer and clock states? It makes absolutely no sense. For the unprepared beginner trying to squeeze an understanding of this, out of their tiny brain, could very well cause a hemorage. So relativity needs to be stated as a function of spacetime that the logical mind cannot comprehend.

 

I attempted to explain this to members of the forum who were still obviously having trouble with this. Rather than back me up you decided I had failed miserably. I can and have accepted that.

 

If you are in agreeance with me on the fact that Relativity is true but totally illogical then I guess we have no problem. However I feel that if people decide to state that relativity makes perfect sense then many people are going to continue to have problems with it. Which is evident on this and many other forums. You all must have gone through the stage of attempting to understand all this and at a much younger age than I did. So you must know the contortions your mind needs to go through to come to an understanding.

 

If my expertise is crappy then I suggest, if one of you have time, you produce this thread. You could entitle it 'Time to end all misconceptions for all time - Part two'

 

We can then move on from discussing the basics on relativity.

 

Just a thought

 

Josephine

 

I did write many posts stating that Relativity was untrue and that time dilation did not happen and they did not end up in the strange claims forum. When I did state that relativity was true I ended up here (This is where all the cool people end up BTW).

This fact is way stranger than my post.

[Tormod]

The problem at heart here is that you don't seem to grasp that

 

a) we don't have a problem with SR - it is a *theory* which none of us will fully understand

:xx: it makes perfect logical sense - that it is difficult to comprehend all of it is *natural* and it is true of *everything* in science. It takes a long time to learn things. There is no Relativity 101 in high school for a very good reason. One needs years and years of studies to understand Einstein's theories

c) the *implications* of Einstein's theories may be difficult to comprehend. But that does not mean they are illogical. They are simply counterintuitive. Different thing.

 

We are discussing the basics of relativity quite often. We also touch upon some of the harder issues. Your attitude has become that of a misunderstood genius who demands our support. We are under no obligation to do so. Nor do we have any obligation to redo your work. Writings about relativity has filled so many volumes in the past 100 years that there should be plenty for everyone.

 

I and others have suggested many articles and books for you. Now is the time to read them.

 

For beginners I suggest you stop trying to make tutorials about things you don't understand. Recommend that people read other people's work instead. Like Feynman's "Six Easy Pieces" which are an astonishing example of marvellous science writing. And Feynman's humble approach should be a lesson for us all.

[Tormod]

I'll reply in detail, maybe it makes it easier to show you what I mean.

 

Well I agreed that my post is obviously too complicated for the beginner.

 

Then the topic should be renamed as I proposed.

 

I used every recess of my brain to comprehend Relativity and it was, as such, impossible.

 

...and you extended this to include everyone else.

 

So relativity needs to be stated as a function of spacetime that the logical mind cannot comprehend.

 

That your logical mind cannot comprehend. Huge difference.

 

I attempted to explain this to members of the forum who were still obviously having trouble with this.

 

You are still obviously having trouble with this. Let it go.

 

Rather than back me up you decided I had failed miserably.

 

You need to differentiate between your own person and the posts that you make. We have all agreed that your "paper" is not a good paper, and it is not a good introduction to relativity for confused beginners. Why on Earth would we back it up then? No, we (as in myself on behalf of the admins) quickly moved it it into the strange claims forum because someone who had openly stated that she did not understand relativity, had started studying it about a month ago, and did not believe time dilation was real, suddenly began publishing a PAPER on it! *That* is what makes this a strange claim.

 

If you are in agreeance with me on the fact that Relativity is true but totally illogical then I guess we have no problem.

 

Stop making requirements as to what people should think and mean. If that is a problem for you then you are in the wrong place.

 

However I feel that if people decide to state that relativity makes perfect sense then many people are going to continue to have problems with it. Which is evident on this and many other forums.

 

Whether or not relativity makes perfect sense is not the issue here. That people are having problems with it is because they either have not studied it, or have studied it well enough to have found flaws in it (and not only something they believe to be flaws because their logical minds cannot comprehend it) is a sign that it is difficult. So is quantum physics. In fact, so is a lot of stuff.

 

If I had a dollar for every person who posted wrong things about relativity I would be very rich.

 

You all must have gone through the stage of attempting to understand all this and at a much younger age than I did. So you must know the contortions your mind needs to go through to come to an understanding.

 

No, none of us have the same degree of understanding of any idea or theory. That is why we discuss things. We do not suppose we know everything about anything. But we might know a thing or two about how the scientific method works, how science is communicated, the workings of logic, and a knowledge of the history of science.

 

If my expertise is crappy then I suggest, if one of you have time, you produce this thread. You could entitle it 'Time to end all misconceptions for all time - Part two'

 

Again, stop telling us what to do.

 

I did write many posts stating that Relativity was untrue and that time dilation did not happen and they did not end up in the strange claims forum. When I did state that relativity was true I ended up here (This is where all the cool people end up BTW).

This fact is way stranger than my post.

 

To you, of course. Like I wrote above, it was a turnabout from you. But the manner of your post did not in any way imply to me that you understood relativity. Nor was it a good tutorial. So it was a strange claim that you suddenly had accepted relativity over night.

[Damo2600]

Tormod on relativity:

 

'none of us will fully understand'

 

then

 

'it makes perfect logical sense'

 

I'm just saying that is all.

 

'who demands our support.'

 

When did I demand your support.? When?

 

Josephine

[Qfwfq]

I am also aware that Special Relativity makes absolutely no sense in a Gallilean absolute reference frame - whereby *your* time equals *my* time regardless of velocity.

That's not what "an absolute reference frame" means.

 

We as a society are brought up in a Gallilean world and are somewhat unprepared to understand Special Relativity.

Our daily experience has to do with low velocities, at least the ones we are able to percieve. Our fastest vehicles on Earth have top speeds well below 0.00001, even visible celestial bodies including meteors are below 0.001 in velocity.

 

At such velocities, Lorentz-invariant mechanics are tangent to the mechanics developed by Galileo and Newton.

 

However IF you guys DO seem to think that relativity does make sense I suggest that you have no grounding in logic.

There's nothing illogical about relativity. It's based on math, which is based on logic.

[Tormod]

Josephine, before I ban you for being endlessly obnoxious, please try to straighten your brain out for a second.

 

Special relativity is a theory. As a theory it is coherent and the predictions it makes were revolutionary and infuriating at the time, yet today they are becoming more and more understood.

 

As a theory, it makes perfect logical sense. That is why it was one of the major innovations in human history.

 

However, Einstein's theories are very difficult to understand.

 

Look at it this way: it is easy to learn how to drive a car (for most people, at least). But it is extremely difficult to build one yourself. You can take it apart, yet it wouldn't instantly become clear to you what each part does, why they are were they are, or even what they are needed for in the first place.

 

So it is with scientific theories - you study what has been done before, try to understand it. A theory may make more or less sense to each and every one of us, but there are rules for how a theory must be constructed, just like there are certain ways a car needs to be built in order to work.

 

These things are, for example, coherence, logic (ie, A required B, so we need to have B which then requires C, or even A1 etc), testability (we must be able to test out the car, but also each part of it).

 

Yet we may not have a complete understanding of how the car is constructed, nor can we construct our own. But we can study it and learn. We can appreciate it for the practical uses it has. But it is still just a car.

 

The same goes for a scientific theory. As long as it follows the requirements of proof, validity, logic and testability, it is accepted as a theory and can make perfect logical sense. We don't have to understand it to accept this.

 

In fact, this is the very reason there are things like peer reviewed journals, scientific societies etc - so that people can submit theories and have them thoroughly tested by *many* others. When this is doen, we accept the new theory as a theory. Nobody is saying it is the only truth or even that it is necessarily correct. But it is, at the time, the best way to describe what we observe.