| Related sites for http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html |
| Bird_Families_of_the_World Short descriptions and sounds of the world's bird families by Chris Butler. | | Bird_Hybrids_Database Worldwide database compiled from the ornithological literature of birds with two different species as parents. Includes complete references for each species combination. In English, French, and Spanis | | Birdhybrids Mailing list for discussion of bird hybrids. | | Birds_of_North_America Comprehensive reference series on North American birds, with information and sample profiles. | | Birds_of_North_American,_Audubon\'s_Watercolors Fifty-one images of North American birds from watercolors done by John James Audubon. List can be browsed by common or scientific name. | | Birds_of_the_World List of current valid scientific avian names subdivided by order and family, based on the Sibley and Monroe and AOU lists. Includes scientific names and publication details. | | Birds_of_the_World Lists of all species with scientific and English names, subdivided by Family. Choice of list based on the Clements or the Sibley and Monroe classification schemes. | | Eggs_-_A_Virtual_Exhibition The Provincial Museum of Alberta's on-line, searchable, field guide of over 300 bird eggs. Global, with emphasis on birds of Alberta. Includes photos and taxonomic information. | | Exotic_Pet_Veterinarian_-_Avian_Anatomy Describes the anatomy and physiology of birds for the lay audience, explaining technical terms along the way. Some emphasis on details of psittacines. | | A_Field_Guide_to_the_Birds_on_the_Web Links to pictures, sounds, and video of the birds of the world, systematically indexed. | | Handbook_of_the_Birds_of_the_World Information about the book series that will illustrate and deal in detail with all the species of birds in the world. Site includes tables of contents, sample pages, and publication schedule. | | History_of_North_American_Bird_Names Details all the changes in the American Ornithologists' Union Checklists from 1886 - 2000. | | The_Internet_Bird_Collection Video library of footage of the world's birds, sponsored by the Handbook of the Birds of the World. | | Introduction_to_the_Aves Scientific background and information on birds. | | John_Penhallurick\'s_Bird_Data_Project Attempt to build a comprehensive database about the birds of the world, both extant and extinct since 1600. | | Mango_Verde Photos and sounds for almost 2000 bird species; field guide quick indices. | | Multilingual_Bird_Search Translates world bird names between several languages, including scientific names. Includes photo gallery. | | Photographs_by_Victor,_Ornithonut Photographs of over 100 species found in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec. | | Virtual_Bird A collection of bird photographs, videos, and songs from North America and Europe (mainly Finland). | | Wildlife_Bird_Photography_in_Greece This gallery of photographs by Panos Oikonomou, besides many varieties of bird, includes mammals and a few reptiles and amphibians, all photographed in the wild. | | Approximation_and_Imaging Université de Pau. Research topics, faculty, publications, meetings. | | Approximation_People A list of home pages kept at the University of Erlangen. | | Approximation_Theory Lecture notes for Part III of the Mathematical Tripos by A. Shadrin, DAMTP, University of Cambridge. (PS) | | Approximation_Theory Notes for courses given by Carl de Boor, Madison. (PS) | | Approximation_Theory_Network_(AT-NET) Publishes a Bulletin and lists journals, theses, people, events and other links. | | History_of_Approximation_Theory Articles and web resources developed by Allan Pinkus and Carl de Boor. | | NZ_Approximation_Theory_Group Members, meetings, visitors and links. | | People_in_Approximation_Theory Amos Ron's list of links. | | A_Short_Course_on_Approximation_Theory Lecture notes for a graduate course by Neal Carothers, Bowling Green State University. (DVI,PS) | | A_View_from_the_Back_of_the_Envelope About approximation and the fun it enables. Includes examples, exercises, and links to help grasp concepts such as measurement, scale and magnitude. Sections include simplifying numbers, exponential | | Algorithmic_Information_Theory G. J. Chaitin's series of lectures at the Santa Fe Institute in April 1995. | | The_Computational_Notion_of_Life Claus EMMECHE, 1994. This paper makes an interesting link between concepts of computation, cellular automata and the definition of the concept of information. | | Does_the_Universe_in_Fact_Contain_Almost_No_Information? A controversial paper by Max Tegmark suggesting that the algorithmic information content of the universe as a whole is close to zero. [PDF] | | Entropy_and_Information A 306 page online book in PDF format by Robert M. Gray of Stanford University. | | How_Many_Bytes_in_Human_Memory A 1988 paper by Ralph C. Merkle. | | Information__the_Concept An introductory article on information and probability distributions( version of 98-06-10). The first in a sequence of introductory articles on information and probability distributions by Marijke va | | Information_Theory_Primer_With_an_Appendix_on_Logarithms A introduction written for molecular biologists who are unfamiliar with information theory | | Intelligent_Design_as_a_Theory_of_Information A particular philosophical approach to the definition of information. | | Irreducible_Complexity_and_Multiscale_Reductionism System complexity seen from a different point of view. | | On_the_descriptive_terminology_of_the_information_transfer_between_organisms Koszteyn and Lenartowicz consider the information transfer between organisms as a multi-layer reality consisting of at least two levels: the message and its production. |
|
Proof of the Falsity of the Special Theory of Relativity
Proof
of the Falsity of the Special Theory of Relativity
An
example of a popular, but faulty derivation of the
Lorentz or transformation equations, followed by a philosophical proof of
the falsity of the special theory of relativity.
© Erik
J. Lange 1999-2008
Last revision: 11-12-2006 (dd-mm-yyyy)
Short
introduction
Today (1999) the theory of relativity by Albert
Einstein is still a generally accepted theory. Although there have been
raised a number of objections against the theory since its first
publication in 1905, none of these have been able to convince the
scientific community of the falsity of the theory.
On philosophical, mathematical and empirical grounds,
there are nevertheless many valid objections against the theory to be
found. This article focuses on two of these, in an analysis of a popular derivation of the
Lorentz transformation
according to the theory of special relativity and by means of a
philosophical argument showing a contradiction between the two postulates of special
relativity.
The purpose of Einstein's theory was to create a
system of equations which would describe the transformation of co-ordinates
from one reference frame to another. Hereby the two reference frames have
a relative velocity v with
respect to each other, and the co-ordinates to be transformed, describe the
movement of the front of a light signal which is supposed to have a
velocity c with respect to all
uniformly moving reference frames.
The general opinion at the time was that one could
conclude from experiments, that light (in vacuum) would always have the
same (measured) constant velocity, irrespective of the velocity of the observer.
Because this was in contradiction with classical
relativity according to Newton, there had to be thought up a new theory
which would unite classical relativity with the constancy of the speed of
light. This resulted in special relativity theory.
Analysis
1
Einstein based his special theory of relativity on
two postulates:
1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial
systems (reference frames that move uniformly and without rotation). There
are no preferred inertial systems. When a certain reference frame moves
with constant speed with respect to another, processes of nature will obey
the same laws of physics in either reference frame.
2. The speed of light in vacuum has the same constant
value c in all inertial systems.
The
two postulates can be translated to mathematics by using a schematic
situation in which there are two reference frames which have a uniform
motion with respect to each other (see the figure). If the second
postulate is true, observers in both reference frames will measure the
same speed of light.
Simplified, the speed of light can be written as the
covered distance x of a light signal, divided by the transit time t. With
respect to a reference frame C a light signal propagates along the x-axis
in positive direction, according to: x = ct (where c equals 300.000 km/sec)
The same light signal travels, according to Einstein,
also with respect to reference frame C' with a speed equal to c.
With respect to C', the equation for the movement of the light signal then
becomes x'=ct'.
The
velocity v of frame C' with respect to frame C, can be calculated
by dividing the covered distance along its x-axis by the transit time.
Because of symmetry, v can be observed equally from within C and
C'.
Do
note that, from within C, at any point in time (co-ordinate) t>0, the
co-ordinate x of the origin of C' will be smaller than the co-ordinate x
of the front of the light signal.
To
the entire derivation discussed in this article, it applies that C' coincides with C at
co-ordinates t=0 and t'=0. The
coordinates x and x' of the front of the light signal are at that very moment also equal to
zero.
Because
of his second postulate, Einstein had to make concessions in relation to
both the spatial properties of moving objects (in the form of a
length-contraction), as well as to the concept of absolute time as it was generally conceived back
then (resulting in a time-dilation in the moving reference frame).
________________________
The following derivation of the
Lorentz transformation according to the special theory of relativity, is a
version of the derivation of the transformation equations that can be found
frequently in the literature1, 2. This version is taught on universities around the world.
The light signal (in figure above) moves uniformly
rectilinear with respect to both reference frames. So we need to transform
a uniformly rectilinear motion in C into another in C'. This means there
must be a linear relation between co-ordinates x, y, z, t and x', y', z', t'. The
most common form of this relation, as needed by, and according to the
special theory of relativity, is as follows:
Note
that the inclusion of the co-ordinates t and t' is specific to relativity
theory: this is necessary if one hopes to find a transformation equation
between them.
Because C' moves linearly along the x-axis of C, it
always applies that y=y' and z=z'. From this follows for the coefficients:
Because of symmetry, t' can only depend on x
and t. From this follows:
Then it is assumed that
x'=0 in C' has to correspond
with x=vt in C. It follows for the coefficients that:
When the coefficients in equations (1), (2), (3) and
(4) are substituted by their values we get:
The
falsity in this derivation can be located in the
assumption that x'=0 has to correspond with x=vt.
The
equations (1) up to and including (4) are the most general form of a linear transformation of four-dimensional space-time co-ordinates,
of an event that is - events have a location in space, dependent
on a time co-ordinate. At that point in the derivation this event is the observation from within C and
from within C' of the spatial co-ordinates of any phenomenon (not necessarily the front of a light signal yet) in
uniform, rectilinear motion, at a certain point in time which may be
different to both observers.
We should not interpret x'=0 as being the origin of C', the reference frame itself,
because when observed from within C' it is not an event in the intended
sense: this x' is independent of time. Any assumed co-ordinate must relate
to a proper event.
Therefore
x'=0 for x=vt must apply to an event just coinciding with the origin of C', and
is not a part of the reference frame C' itself. But only of the origins of the reference frames
themselves we know for sure that the distance between them is vt: we do not know if the co-ordinate x of said proper event as observed from within C can transform to x'=0 as observed from within C', for an observed t co-ordinate (>0) relating to x according to x/t=v. After all, the derivation of the Lorentz equations is meant to be able to determine such a
transformation in the end: we cannot assume it at the start.
So we must conclude that x'=0 for x=vt is an invalid assumption here. In
effect, this
falsifies
the resulting transformation equations (14) and (15) as valid derivatives of the two postulates of the special theory of
relativity.
The
only correct, but useless, way I can see to bring v into play, is by deducing:
x=vt+x'C.
(Note the important subscript C in x'C.)
This variable x'C represents the travelled distance of the
uniformly, rectilinear moving phenomenon in C',
as observed from within C. This will be different from the co-ordinate x'
in equation (1) which must result from observation from within C'. As
mentioned, this
correction won't help the derivation of the transformation equations at
all. The problem is that we can't make any one of the co-ordinates zero,
without making them all zero.
Note
that the relativistic transformation of space-time co-ordinates is a
transformation from one observation system into another. Therefore, all
primed co-ordinates in this derivation are to be observed from within C';
the primed co-ordinates as observed from within C are subject to classical
transformation and should be trivial here.
The mistake which was being made in the assumption
that led to equations (5), (6), (7) and (8) does indeed show up in those equations.
Specifically in equation (5) an error can be found, for in equation (5) a11
can’t be solved (as is intended later on):
For the sake of completeness, the rest of the
derivation will be shown in short.
When a light signal is transmitted in
arbitrary direction at co-ordinates t=t'=0, then the covered distance of the signal
with respect to C can be determined with Pythagoras and satisfies
therefore:
With respect to C'
applies (according to the second postulate):
Substitution of equations (5), (6), (7) and (8) in
equation (10) gives:
Equation of (9) and (11) leads to the next three
equations for determining a11, a41 and
a44:
In deriving (12) and (13), the signs (- or +) are
chosen so that when v becomes
equal to zero (!), the equations (5), (6), (7) and (8) change into:
Substitution of equations (12) and (13) in (5), (6),
(7) and (8) gives the Lorentz transformation:
(H.A.Lorentz derived equations (14) and (15) first,
based
on an ether theory, years before Einstein first published his special
relativity theory.)
Note
again that these equations describe the transformation of two co-ordinates
x and t (as observed from within C) into x' and t' (as observed from
within C') of the front of a light signal, where x/t=c and x'/t'=c
according to special relativity.
This means that an apparent validation of Einstein's assumption that
x'=0 in C' has to correspond
with x=vt in C for all phenomena in uniform rectilinear motion, by
the identity following from simply entering these values in equation (14),
is in fact a false one since x may only be substituted by ct
here; and v is not equal to c by definition. Therefore, if
follows from (14) that indeed there does not exist a relativistic
transformation from a co-ordinate x (for t>0) into x'=0.
The
error leading to the falsity of this derivation also appears in Einstein's
other derivations of the transformation equations (in his original article3 and much later in
another and “simplified” form in his book about relativity4 ).
But the falsity of these derivations does not prove of
course that in principle a good derivation can’t be made at all. A proof
of this sort lies more on a philosophical and empirical plane I think.
I
consider, for instance, the postulate of the constant speed of light to be
in contradiction with Galilean transformation and therefore false: the
relativity of speeds in general makes one absolute speed impossible.
Furthermore and perhaps foremost, I think the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment5 (an altered version of the
famous Michelson-Morley experiment) shows that the relativistic transformation
equations can never explain nor describe the results thereof. (The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment implies that for each
conceivable difference in length between the arms of an interferometer, a different length contraction factor should
apply.)
See
analysis 2 below for a proof based on a contradiction between the two
postulates of special relativity theory.
Analysis
2
To
proof relativity theory wrong it is not enough to show the errors in the
several existing mathematical derivations of the transformation equations,
since it might always be possible to derive a new one in the future. So
probably we have to focus more on non-mathematical, experimental and philosophical
arguments (as mentioned above) to falsify relativity. This is
especially hard because almost any observation or experiment concerning
the propagation of light has apparently been explained within relativity theory and
because argumentative reasoning quickly results in vagueness and endless
discussions.
Now,
proving explanations for experiments wrong can only be the last step in
the process of falsifying a theory, I think, since to be convincing at
this, agreement is required about the principles of the theory, the
behavior of what is measured, the justness of the method of measuring, and
the interpretation of the measurements. So I'll first have to attempt to
make a logical argument anyway.
Other
attempted proofs of the falsity of special relativity theory often founder
on confusion about the relativistic effects of time-dilation and
length-contraction. The question of whether these effects are real or only
observational, and thus relative (subjective), and how the nature of these effects
relates to the moving reference frames and their physical reality are at
the heart of the problem of dealing with relativity. Therefore, the
following text will try to clear up this issue for once and for all.
As
we know, Einstein based his special theory of relativity on the following
two postulates:
1.
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial systems (reference frames
that move uniformly and without rotation). There are no preferred inertial
systems. When a certain reference-frame moves with constant speed with
respect to another, processes of nature will obey the same laws of physics
in either reference-frame.
2.
The speed of light in vacuum has the same constant value c in all inertial
systems.
In
relativity, time is a matter of clocks. A clock which is in rest with
respect to one's own inertial system will run correctly and at a
"normal" pace. This last statement is true in classical physics
as well as in relativity theory. Whatever clock we use, its working is
based on some natural process, which is assumed to repeat itself evenly
and therefore mark even "lengths of time". According to
Einstein's first postulate these processes of nature will obey the same
laws of physics in all inertial frames. So clocks behave in the same way
in all inertial frames, irrespective of the relative (uniform) motion those
frames have with respect to each other. The first undisputable conclusion based
on the first postulate and on logic reasoning is therefore:
3.
Relativistic time-dilation is never a real physical phenomenon, that is to
say: in the inertial system of a clock, the clock always runs normal, and
behaves the same as it would in any other reference system. Measuring the
time it takes any physical process to complete within the inertial system
of the clock, will in all inertial frames yield the same results using
said clock in the same system as in which the process takes place.
Length-contraction
in relativity is something that applies to moving physical objects of
practicably measurable lengths. The idea came out of an ether theory in
which the earth (and all objects on it) was thought to get contracted in
length in the direction of its motion around the sun, whilst moving
through a medium for light-waves (which was supposed to be at rest with
respect to the sun). In this theory there clearly existed a physical cause
for a possible contraction. However, when with the advent of relativity
theory the notion of the ether was discarded, the physical possibility of
a contraction was also taken away. Since the first postulate states that
there is no preferred inertial system, an object must have the same
spatial properties in all inertial systems, regardless of its speed with respect
to other inertial frames. In other words: a real length-contraction would
have to be correlated to one particular speed, but since any inertial
frame has an infinite number of (relative) velocities (depending on the inertial
frame from which this velocity is measured, because of the lack of a
preferred inertial system), a real length-contraction is impossible:
4.
Relativistic length-contraction is never a real physical phenomenon.
Spatial properties of any object are constant within its own inertial
frame of reference, and are not physically altered due to any velocity
this frame might have with respect to another.
From
3 and 4 we can induce:
5.
All basic relativistic effects (time-dilation and length-contraction) can,
if observed, only be of relative or subjective nature, due to observational
circumstances, as in the observation of a natural process from within
another inertial frame than the one in which said process takes place, or
because of the limited speed of information transfer in the observation.
So,
when discussing thought-experiments, real experiments or observed
phenomena within relativity theory, conclusions 3, 4 and 5 should always
apply as should the postulates of course. With this in mind (at least when
agreement on these conclusions has been reached) it suddenly becomes much
easier to discuss empirical and thought-experiments.
Now,
assuming that in principle it is possible to directly (!) measure
space-time co-ordinates of the front of a light signal, we can deduce from
the relativistic transformation equations that the value of the x'
co-ordinate (as observed from within C') will always (for t>0 and 0<v<c) be
in between ct and 0 (with x=ct), but greater than the
result of the Galilean transformation ct-vt.
Note
that the greater value of x' is indeed a consequence of contraction.
This is because length-contraction only applies to physical objects such
as rulers, not to the space in which light travels. So as the ruler
contracts, the measurement of the location of the front of the signal will
increase. For all physical objects however, no length-contraction will
manifest itself to the observer in C', since all objects are contracted by
the same factor as the rulers are.
The
value of the t'
co-ordinate (as observed from within C') will always (for t>0 and 0<v<c) be
in between t and 0, while in classical physics time is absolute so that t'
is always equal to t.
(The relativistic relation
between both primed co-ordinates is of course x'/t'=c).
Just the fact that these
co-ordinates differ from what would be expected
from Galilean transformations
(which in relativity do still apply to the calculation of the primed
co-ordinates observed from within C) demonstrates that the second
postulate (which is the sole foundation of the relativistic transformation
equations) requires the relativistic effects to be real physical
phenomena.
Without
real physical relativistic effects, all measuring tools in C'
would be left unchanged and the observer in C' would measure different values for x' and
t'. In other words: if you negate
the physical reality of the relativistic effects,
then from the unchanging properties of space and time in all inertial
systems it follows that the classical addition of velocities should always
apply, and that Einstein's absolute and constant speed of light is in
contradiction with that addition theorem.
So the second postulate requires length-contraction and time-dilation to be real physical phenomena, while from the first postulate it follows, as proven above in conclusions 3, 4 and 5, that
any observed relativistic effects cannot be real. Ergo, the second postulate is in contradiction with the first.
And
since without the second postulate there is no relativity theory, an obvious attempt to fix this problem would be to dismiss the first postulate. But there were good reasons to include this
postulate in the special theory of relativity: within classical relativity an
absolute and constant speed of light is ridiculous, and the only way around that problem (although questionable) is to make that
absolute speed of light a "law of physics" as meant in the classical principle
of relativity that is the first postulate. So the second postulate needs the first, and cannot exist alone.
Thus the absolute and constant speed of light is a false postulate, and it renders the whole theory of relativity meaningless.
For a
century now, special relativity managed to achieve the impossible: to make
spatial dimensions and the pace of time, derivatives of (one particular) velocity, when only the opposite can be true since velocities can't be measured directly, only calculated from measurements on time and space. A thorough review of our physical paradigm appears to be necessary.
Erik
J. Lange
__________________
1. Introduction to Special Relativity, R.
Resnick, J.
Wiley & sons Inc., 1968
2. Klassieke Mechanica en
Relativiteitstheorie, J.J.J. Kokkedee, Uitg. T.U. Delft, 1992
3. A. Einstein, “Zur elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”,
Annalen der Physik. IV. Folge. 17, page 891, 1905. (Note: if the above link
doesn't yield results, try this
one.)
4.
Relativiteit, speciale en algemene theorie, A.
Einstein, Het Spectrum, 1978. (See also the online English version of this
book: Relativity, the
special and general theory.)
5. R.J. Kennedy and E.M.Thorndike, “Experimental
establishment of the relativity of time”, the Physical Review, vol. 42,
second series, page 400, 1932.
The following links might be of interest:
Google,
Relativity/Alternative
Google,
Relativity/Special Relativity
Sapere
aude
Special
relativity, an analytical assessment
_______________________________________________________________
Advertisement
 Play
Turnover, a puzzle
game developed by the author of the above article. Click
here to visit the game's homepage.
|
|
