[Bart]

Interesting explanations with the surprising conclusions regarding the interpretation of the SR theory, are shown in the link:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/TransparencySRtheory.pdf

Has anyone already seen it? What can be think about the explanations presented there? Can they be true?

This post has been edited by Bart: 12 November 2011 - 05:41 PM

[Janus]

Bart, on 12 November 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

Interesting explanations with the surprising conclusions regarding the interpretation of the SR theory, are shown in the link:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/TransparencySRtheory.pdf

Has anyone already seen it? What can be think about the explanations presented there?

That they are written by someone that hasn't the faintest idea of what he is talking about.

Quote

Can they be true?

Absolutely and un equivocally, No.

His first argument is something we've already gone over and is easy to dismiss by the actual results from accelerator experiments. If the argument was true, particles leaving the accelerator would have much less energy than predicted by Relativity. Since we can measure the energy of these particles after they leave the accelerator and their energies equals those predicted by Relativity, the argument fails in the face of the physical evidence.

It is like arguing that rockets won't work in the vacuum of space because they would have nothing to push against. No matter how much you may believe that your argument is correct, the fact that real rockets in the real world do work in space makes it a pointless argument.


The second argument trying to link relativistic mass increase and length contraction is just silly. The idea that the density of the mass as viewed from different frames, must remain the same is misguided.

My advice it to ignore anything written by this individual, his own estimation of his understanding of Relativity far exceeds his actual understanding.

[Schrödinger's hat]

It's incoherent to the point where I'm not entirely sure what he's claiming.

As far as I can see he's saying 'if we do calculations where we mix variables from different frames we get different answers', and somehow claiming that disproves relativity.

He's also mixing up the concept of rest mass and relativistic mass.
Relativistic mass is a bit of a tricky thing, because it does change significantly between different frames.

[swansont]

Relativity is mathematically self-consistent, which means that any thought experiment cannot contradict itself. If you get a contradiction, you've done the math wrong. What the author has done in a few places is double-count the effects of relativity. It's crap. It lacks any comparison with experimental results, which is the only way you can falsify a theory.

The first section hasn't suddenly become correct since it was discussed a month ago
http://www.sciencefo...-mass-increase/

[Mystery111]

swansont, on 12 November 2011 - 08:55 PM, said:

Relativity is mathematically self-consistent, which means that any thought experiment cannot contradict itself. If you get a contradiction, you've done the math wrong. What the author has done in a few places is double-count the effects of relativity. It's crap. It lacks any comparison with experimental results, which is the only way you can falsify a theory.

The first section hasn't suddenly become correct since it was discussed a month ago
http://www.sciencefo...-mass-increase/

I am going to regret this, but how does a contradiction mean that the mathematics is wrong? Some mathematical theorems are provided to show that there is a contradiction in the midst?

For instance, you may have a subject A which is in contradiction of B, and using a theorem, you may prove the contradiction. It doesn's establish however whether A or B simultaneously is wrong. It just says some aspect of it is wrong. So your initial theory might be right, inconclusively in respect to any contradiction.

[imatfaal]

in some cases you can devise a thought experiment which takes a set of data and through using the ideas of the theory provide contradictory results (ie a result that is both fixed and variable, or always zero and a positive amount etc ) - if the maths is done correctly, all progress in line with the theory, and the data is truly within that set which the theory deals with; then you have shown that the theory is incorrect to an extent. if a theory is completely mathematically consistent then no internal contradiction are possible - no matter how tortured and convoluted the data and methods are, as long as you stay within the theory, then all results/methods etc will be consistent. If you do get an internal contradiction, it is either because you have screwed up the maths, you are using the theory for the wrong thing, or you don't understand the theory. The only way SR can be shown to be incorrect is if experimental results can be found and duplicated which cannot fit into the theory - and as SR is incredibly well checked this is unlikely (nothwithstanding the recent results in Gran Sasso)

[Mystery111]

imatfaal, on 14 November 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

in some cases you can devise a thought experiment which takes a set of data and through using the ideas of the theory provide contradictory results (ie a result that is both fixed and variable, or always zero and a positive amount etc ) - if the maths is done correctly, all progress in line with the theory, and the data is truly within that set which the theory deals with; then you have shown that the theory is incorrect to an extent. if a theory is completely mathematically consistent then no internal contradiction are possible - no matter how tortured and convoluted the data and methods are, as long as you stay within the theory, then all results/methods etc will be consistent. If you do get an internal contradiction, it is either because you have screwed up the maths, you are using the theory for the wrong thing, or you don't understand the theory. The only way SR can be shown to be incorrect is if experimental results can be found and duplicated which cannot fit into the theory - and as SR is incredibly well checked this is unlikely (nothwithstanding the recent results in Gran Sasso)

Yes, understood. However, not all contradictory results make the desired math imperfect.

I might be being padantic here.

[imatfaal]

Mystery111, on 14 November 2011 - 02:04 PM, said:

Yes, understood. However, not all contradictory results make the desired math imperfect.

I might be being padantic here.

In a thought experiment, and whilst working properly within a mathematically consistent theory, then contradictory results show a screw up in maths.

[Mystery111]

Mmmm... but to which end is it being screwed up? I mean, what if you have the right theory, but some other theory contradicts it?

It don't mean necessrily a mathematical mistake. What if it was experimental, like the nuetrino experiment recently?

(note for any readers, the neutrino experiment has not been proven as a mistake yet, just used as an analogy.)

[imatfaal]

Mystery111, on 14 November 2011 - 02:31 PM, said:

Mmmm... but to which end is it being screwed up? I mean, what if you have the right theory, but some other theory contradicts it?

It don't mean necessrily a mathematical mistake. What if it was experimental, like the nuetrino experiment recently?

(note for any readers, the neutrino experiment has not been proven as a mistake yet, just used as an analogy.)

Ah - I get the confusion - two points of difference. The above comments were about thought experiments. And this applies to results within the theory - not for judging between two theories or bridging the gap.

Many posters will try and show that SR can give rise to paradoxical results through convoluted thought experiments - in SR's case this is not possible. This does not mean that SR cannot be challenged by a good set of repeated results. It also does not mean that outside the axiomatic base/limits of operation of SR that problems will not occur - ie need for GR. But it is not possible to prove SR incorrect from within by postulating that SR is paradoxical and not internally consistent

[Mystery111]

Fair.

[DrRocket]

Mystery111, on 14 November 2011 - 01:14 PM, said:

I am going to regret this, but how does a contradiction mean that the mathematics is wrong? Some mathematical theorems are provided to show that there is a contradiction in the midst?

For instance, you may have a subject A which is in contradiction of B, and using a theorem, you may prove the contradiction. It doesn's establish however whether A or B simultaneously is wrong. It just says some aspect of it is wrong. So your initial theory might be right, inconclusively in respect to any contradiction.

This makes no sense.

Swansont's point is that, given that special relativity is mathematically consistent, it cannot be shown to be wrong by a thought experiment. Any demonstration that special relativity is wrong must come from a disagreement with enpirical data. exactly the same statement applies to Newtonian mechanics -- it is shown to be wrong because it disagrees with effects seen at high speed and with the observed constancy of the speed of light.

So, the question that ought to be asked is whether special relativity is really mathematically consistent.

Now special relativity can be mathematically formulated in terms of Minkowski space and transformations that preserve the Minkowski metric (ortochronic inhomogeneous Lorentz transformations). This is straightforward, and will be consistent so long as the structure of mathematics -- the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms plus choice -- are consistent.

Cohen showed that the Axiom of Choice is independent of the ZF axioms, so the question boils down to he consistency of those axioms. Godel's theorems show that one cannot prove the consistency of ZF by means of formal first order logic within the structure of ZF itself. But those theorems do not rule out metamathematical proofs, and such proofs of consistency have been devised. So, if you are willing to either believe that mathematics itself is consistent, perhaps by accepting the meta proofs, then special relativity is also consistent.

The short answer is that Swansont is correct and special relativity cannot be disproved by a thought experiment.

[Bart]

swansont, on 12 November 2011 - 08:55 PM, said:

Relativity is mathematically self-consistent, which means that any thought experiment cannot contradict itself. If you get a contradiction, you've done the math wrong. What the author has done in a few places is double-count the effects of relativity. It's crap. It lacks any comparison with experimental results, which is the only way you can falsify a theory.

The first section hasn't suddenly become correct since it was discussed a month ago
http://www.sciencefo...-mass-increase/

What energy is measured in accelerators? Is it the energy of the particle mass, or the energy that is generated by the charge of this particle in motion? Since they are two different things. When measuring the energy generated by the charge, the cumulation of its may occur, distorting the measurement, similar to the cumulation of acoustic energy when approaching a sound barrier.

This post has been edited by Bart: 16 November 2011 - 03:09 PM

[swansont]

Bart, on 16 November 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

What energy is measured in accelerators? Is it the energy of the particle mass, or the energy that is generated by the charge of this particle in motion? Since they are two different things. When measuring the energy generated by the charge, the cumulation of its may occur, distorting the measurement, similar to the cumulation of acoustic energy when approaching a sound barrier.

AFAIK it's the kinetic energy.

This post has been edited by swansont: 17 November 2011 - 10:48 AM
Reason for edit: typo fix

[ravell]

imatfaal, on 14 November 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

Ah - I get the confusion - two points of difference. The above comments were about thought experiments. And this applies to results within the theory - not for judging between two theories or bridging the gap.

Many posters will try and show that SR can give rise to paradoxical results through convoluted thought experiments - in SR's case this is not possible. This does not mean that SR cannot be challenged by a good set of repeated results. It also does not mean that outside the axiomatic base/limits of operation of SR that problems will not occur - ie need for GR. But it is not possible to prove SR incorrect from within by postulating that SR is paradoxical and not internally consistent

If I understood the description shown in the link, it does not apply to the thought experiment, but applies to the calculations based on the real and verified observations. The results given in the Table 3, strongly undermine the credibility of the SR theory, and it's hard not to agree with this conclusion here.

This post has been edited by ravell: 16 November 2011 - 07:52 PM

[imatfaal]

ravell, on 16 November 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

If I understood the description shown in the link, it does not apply to the thought experiment, but applies to the calculations based on the real and verified observations. The results given in the Table 3, strongly undermine the credibility of the SR theory, and it's hard not to agree with this conclusion here.

Sorry Ravell but that is impossible. I didn't read the paper thoroughly - but table 3 had a rod going at 200,000,000 m/s which is physically not possible at present.

[DrRocket]

ravell, on 16 November 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

If I understood the description shown in the link, it does not apply to the thought experiment, but applies to the calculations based on the real and verified observations. The results given in the Table 3, strongly undermine the credibility of the SR theory, and it's hard not to agree with this conclusion here.

Calculations are not based on "real and verified experiments". Calculations are based on a theoretical model. Potentially valid models, like Newtonian mechanics or special relativity are self-consistent and cannot produce self-contradictory calculations.

What they can produce are calculations that fail to match experimental results. Such is the case for Newtonian mechanics when speeds approaching that of light are encountered.

Thus far no verifiable disagreement between relativity and experiment has been found, but researchers are xconstantly looking. See the controversy surrounding recent announcemenrts from the OPERA group -- but the concensus remains that SR is valid.

That link is a confusing mess, and it is rather hard to determine what the author's point is, or if he has one. But SR is just fine and the author apparently fails to understand the theory. It is not possible to discredit special relativity with a calculation alone.

[SSDS]

Bart, on 12 November 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

Interesting explanations with the surprising conclusions regarding the interpretation of the SR theory, are shown in the link:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/TransparencySRtheory.pdf

Has anyone already seen it? What can be think about the explanations presented there? Can they be true?

- No. But, as it seems, as well as the SR theory:

Historically some theory that explains the effects appearing at high speeds, i.e. – Michelson–Morley experiment and non-invariance of Maxwell equations at Galilean relativity principle – was created by Voigt, FitzGerald and Lorentz (mainly, there were a number of other contributors) - in 1887 – 1905 (further – "VFL –T"(heory)). In 1905 A. Einstein created some version of the theory that was called "special relativity theory" (SRT). In contrast to the VFL-T, though both were rather similar since were based on the same "Lorentz transformations" (LT), the SRT, as that was declared, is based on two postulates: P1 – relativity principle and P2 – that speed of light is constant in any reference frame. (The postulates weren’t new and implicitly were used at developing of the VFL-T).

But the declaration above isn’t complete – in reality – and what indeed differs the SRT from the VFL-T – the SRT is based on two additional postulates: P3 – the SRT is a global theory, i.e. the LT are true for special and temporal coordinates x, y,z,t from 0 to +/- infinity, and P4 - there is no absolute reference frame in Universe, all reference frames are absolutely equivalent.

Just the last two postulates allowed Minkowski to declare:
…“We should then have in the world no longer space, but an infinite number of spaces, analogously as there are in three-dimensional space an infinite number of planes. Three-dimensional geometry becomes a chapter in four-dimensional physics. Now you know why I said at the outset that space and time are to fade away into shadows, and only a world in itself will subsist".

From what follows, e.g., that at movement some body/ particle the full space is transformed (4D space time is rotated).

At that neither P3 nor P4 cannot be proven or experimentally tested – as well as by no ways one can detect "spacetime transformations" and there aren’t any conceivable methods in the SRT – how the spacetime can be affected.

Besides – given P1 and P2 are true, the SRT became self-contradictory - e.g. – got the twin paradox; from the P4 immediately follows that if there are in spacetime a number of RFs that move with different speeds, then Matter in our Universe has a number of corresponding masses – when it seems evident that there is only unique one, etc.

The VFL-T is local theory and so hasn’t these contradictions and so is more correct then the SRT. But under unknown reasons just the SRT is used in physics (and in this forum) as standard theory till now.

See, also, e.g. http://www.sciencefo...vity-questions/ and arXiv links in this thread…

Cheers

[swansont]

SSDS, on 18 November 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

Besides – given P1 and P2 are true, the SRT became self-contradictory - e.g. – got the twin paradox;

The twin paradox isn't a paradox and is not a self-contradiction.

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

SSDS, this is a thread in the mainstream-physics forum, which means we stick to mainstream-physics accepted theories. If you want to discuss a 'new idea' or your own interpretation of phenomena in the universe, you can post them in the speculation forum.

Please stay on topic.