Post by Eric BairdPost by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)Post by Eric BairdAnyway, whatever the outcome, it seems that in order to tidy things
up, we probably either need to rewrite "textbook SR" so that it is not
claimed to have theoretical validity when applied to acceleration
problems, or we need a whole new theory.
Either of those things would involve a pretty major change to current
theory, methinks.
I suppose it comes down to horse shoes and hand grenades. "Close enough"
is good enough?
Yep, "close enough" is probably adequate for a lot of current
engineering work, but if we are talking about /theoretical/ validity,
if a theory is wrong, it's wrong.
The question then becomes: _how_ wrong is the theory, and what are the
consequences of its wrongness?
Relativity reduces the observable effects of finite light distance to
mathematical notation ('c') and effectively robs it of its
astronomical significance.The so-called masterstroke of 'c2' in e=mc2
is almost a taunt and act of defiance to those who are prepared to
use the pronounced observable effects of finite light distance on a
large cosmological scale even though these effects are noticed at
short distances -Io and Roemer for instance.
In your website,you make the common error in designating Newton's
'absolute' space as conditional on gravitation and aether whereas
nothing in the original manuscripts would support it.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0011/0011003.pdf
"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Optics 1704
Following on from this,you have no justification for the stock
standard relativistic appeal to Newton's designation of absolute space
as either containing aether or containing gravitational significance.
"I likewise call attractions and impulses, in the same sense,
accelerative, and motive; and use the words attraction, impulse or
propensity of any sort towards a centre, promiscuously, and
indifferently, one for another; considering those forces not
physically, but mathematically: wherefore, the reader is not to
imagine, that by those words, I anywhere take upon me to define the
kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or the physical reason
thereof, or that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to
certain centres (which are only mathematical points); when at any time
I happen to speak of centres as attracting, or as endued with
attractive powers."
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
You may only associate absolute and relative space in the context of
astronomical methods of that era insofar as retrograde motion and
generally ground based observations of the primary planets were
translated into idealised motions of the primary planets.
Post by Eric BairdSpecial relativity currently depends on the assumption of flat
spacetime being valid for moving-body problems involving
arbitrarily-high energy denisites, and when we get into the
"relativistic" range, that assumption becomes less and less realistic
(even assuming that it was ever realistic in the first place,
Machian/GR-type arguments suggest that it wasn't).
How far do the curvature effects "missing" from SR affect the final
predictions?
If the missing effects are also "relativistic" (presumably they are),
then presumably "SR+curvature" gives a different set of relativistic
equations for real-life situations ... so what are those equations,
and where can one read about their characteristics?
If you are an engineer, where do you go to look up how the real-life
physics is expected to diverge from special relativity's description?
The contemporary mind should find Albert's justification for 'warped
space' an assault on the eyes.Even in 1920 with the cosmological scale
yet to be discovered in terms of galaxies the reasons approach
insanity.
"This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less
satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by
the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are
perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and
without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of
nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become
gradually but systematically impoverished."
"If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as
a
whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us
is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite.
There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html
Post by Eric BairdOTOH, if SR is giving us the /correct/ numerical predictions for many
of these situations, from the wrong geometry, then we need to study
if, where and how that inappropriate geometry may throw the physics
off in other ways.
This is all basic quality-control stuff ... if you build a theory on
certain simplifying assumptions, it's fine to see how far that theory
can be stretched before it fails, but at some point one is then
supposed to go back and work out how far the final structure and
predictions of the theory depended on those simplifications. It's a
"sanity-check" thing. If the final form of the theory is very
sensitive to those simplifying assumptions, it's likely to be a bad
theory.
Now, somehow, after nearly a century of work on SR, all this critical
background work still seems to be missing from the literature.
We know that the basic assumptions of SR are incompatable with wider
gravitational theory, so we know that there's currently a /logical/
flaw in "SR&GR", but AFAIK, nobody's ever yet been able to show that
there's a different way of deriving the same SR relationships in a way
that IS compatable with gravitational theory. It does seem that the
structure of SR is critically sensitive to the assumption of perfectly
flat spacetime, but there seems to be no published research exploring
the consequences of that dependency.
If you are a theorist wanting to look up how non-SR relativity theory
might diverge from SR's predictions, you can't ... because peer review
says that you can't publish work on non-SR gravitational theory,
because SR is already "known" to be an essential part of any
relativistic model (although how we are supposed to "know" this
without conducting any scientific research into the problem is rather
puzzling).
And if you are a mainstream researcher, and try to do this sort of
background study, and people find out about it, you are going to be in
trouble. It means that you are a "crackpot".
If you are an engineer wanting to know how theorists might expect
relativity theory to diverge from SR, there are no reference sources
for you, because the theorists either don't know, or aren't
publishing.
There are many points of entry however I notice it is exceptional to
come across a participant willing to tackle the problematic Scholium
IV of the Principia where the original definitions and distinctions
between absolute/relative time,space and motion are found.
Regardless of the objections in defining absolute/relative time,Newton
is perfectly and astronomically correct in terms of the Equation of
Time,unfortunately you snip the relevant text and frame it in terms of
Mach/Albert.
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions."
Post by Eric BairdHaving looked at the problem, I think part of the reason for the
silence is probably also a lack of nerve ... people genuinely not
believing the conclusions that the geometry seems to be leading them
towards ... because when you look at these issues, however you try to
slice up the problem, you seem to keep coming back to the same answer,
that SR doesn't seem to be the correct theory, and that's not a
conclusion that people want to believe in or be associated with.
Try to "rescue" SR by retrofitting an additional relativistic Lorentz
term to deal with the missing curvature effects, and then make
matching Lorentz modifications to SR's equations of motion to balance
things out ... and you find that by constructing your "advanced"
curved-spacetime gravitational model with a double transverse
redshift, you've actually stripped out all the modifications that
SR/LET made to newtonian mechanics, and you've reverted to the old
Newtonian relationships that SR replaced
(hands up everyone here who knows that Newtonian theory generates a
Lorentz-squared transverse redshift. Now, hands up everyone who's seen
that result mentioned in a book or peer-reviewed paper.
What, nobody?).
So if we go along this route, we end up concluding that special
relativity might actually have been a step backwards in predictive
accuracy in a lot of ways. The experts will tell you that that idea is
preposterous and that if SR was less accurate than NM they's have
noticed, but since they didn't notice the theoretical Newtonian double
redshift effect, I think their opinions are somewhat untrustworthy
here ... they've been trained to "do" SR, they haven't been trained to
"do" proper comparative theory.
Again,if you wish to see how backwards -
"If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as
a whole, is to be regarded......This conception is in itself not very
satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads to the
result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars
of the stellar system are perpetually passing out into infinite space,
never to return, and without ever again coming into interaction with
other objects of nature. Such a finite material universe would be
destined to become gradually but systematically impoverished "
http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html
This lament by Albert in 1920 constitutes his justifaction for 4D
imposed on cosmological structure,I can't believe it and can't imagine
why anyone would consider it as anything but approaching insanity.
Post by Eric BairdQuerying whether the special theory is wrong is probably still a bit
like a Roman Catholic priest querying a Papal Decree. You get
excommunicated and kiss goodbye to your career.
It's simpler just to "believe" what you are told to believe and turn a
blind eye to the inconsistencies.
Which is fine if SR really is correct, but if its wrong, we are just
burying ourselves deeper and deeper as we take more and more extreme
measures to try to protect the theory.
SR's assumption of flat spacetime never was a proper principle, it was
always a simplification, and yet we are now discarding real, proper
fundamental principles of physics like the Equivalence Principle in
order to protect the idea that that simplification doesn't have
consequences.
Finite light distance conditions what we observe and specifically in
terms of cosmological structure and motion,dilute the effects of
finite light distance into mathematical notation if you wish and
create definitional equivocation out of its original conception by
Roemer from the anomalous motion of Io but you are no longer doing
astronomy.Like the Scholium IV it appears that few participants have
little regard for Romer's insight which register tiny variations with
the solar system but are enormous on large cosmological scales.
http://dibinst.mit.edu/BURNDY/OnlinePubs/Roemer/index.html
Post by Eric BairdPost by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)The point is that you can create all sorts of "failures" on the part of SR,
when curved space is involved. As you have correctly pointed out, SR is
not a curved space theory.
I don't mind SR being treated as an approximation, but unfortunately
its treated as more than that ... its presented as an inevitable EXACT
solution of any credible gravitational model. Current peer review says
that any curved space theory, or warpdrive or wormhole problem HAS to
reduce to special relativity, or it's wrong.
So, even though SR is declared to be incompatible with curved space
theories, we insist that curved space theories have to be compatible
with SR, and this (I would suggest) has been seriously screwing up the
whole field of relativity research for at least the last half-century.
If we'd followed up Einstein's suggestion, that he now thought that it
was wrong to base gravitational theory on SR, then I think we should
have been able to have a next-generation theory up and running by,
say, 1965. All the pieces have been there and waiting to be assembled
for decades, it just needed researchers with the will to put it all
together.
You must be prepared to state clearly just what the observational
consequences entail,Albert went out on a limb and give his
cosmological outlook based on 'curved space' and you must do the same.
Post by Eric BairdThat would have meant that we would have had the replacement for GR
forty years ago. Didn't happen. And IMO it never will happen while SR
and flat spacetime are still considered to be compulsory.
For a researcher or team to be seen to be tackling this problem, they
would have to publicly be seen to be allowing the possibility that SR
might possibly be wrong, and that I don't think anyone in the
mainstream is brave enough to risk that.
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)So straining at gnats, however fun it might be, is not the point.
Perhaps not for engineering work, but for developing new theory or
assessing old theory, it's often the way forward.
Post by N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)So conundrum #3, as killing SR, is in fact dead.
I think that #3 seems to give us a straight choice, either the full
equivalence principle is wrong, or special relativity (applied to
centrifuge situations) is wrong, or they are both wrong.
From an engineering point of view, this doesn't matter directly,
because we can use either the SR working or the gravitational working
to get the same centrifuge result.
But from a theoretical point of view, the existence of a verifiable
clock-difference really has to be associated with spacetime curvature,
and that curvature really ought to be capable of explaining away the
entire effect. Compensate for that curvature effect and reduce the
thing to flat spacetime, and there should be _no_ residual shift left
for SR to explain. So the SR result may well be numerically right, but
its theoretically wrong --- you simply aren't allowed that sort of
clock-difference in flat spacetime.
If we take away the idea of flat spacetime, we are no longer sure that
SR's underlying Doppler equations are correct, and if they are wrong,
then the theory can't even be relied upon to always predict the shifts
in simple inertial moving-body problems accurately.
With present technology (devised using SR-based engineering theory),
this may not /yet/ be a serious problem, the vast majority of current
particle-accelerator experiments probably come out pretty much the
same regardless of whether you assume the SR or the emission-theory
Doppler relationships. Again, quirks of the math often help to conceal
which shift law is really operating behind the scenes.
But for a few types of accelerator experiment, the difference suddenly
becomes important, and in those experiments, I don't think you will be
able to get the right answers using special relativity. And in fact,
in those tests, there does seem to be an unexpectedly high failure
rate for tests that try to validate SR. It could be coincidence, or it
could be that those experiments are simply diverging from the SR
predictions in ways that the experimenters are not prepared for.
Is SR theoretically dead?
On logical grounds, I think so. SR may be internally consistent, but
if it is not compatible with the rules that our universe actually
operates under, then it's not quite the right theory. We knew that GR
and SR were philosophically incompatable, but probably hoped that they
would end up meshing mathematically and geometrically anyway.
Now it seems that they don't do either of those things.
And if it also turns out to be true that SR is giving us the wrong
basic equations of motion, and that its amended equations are less
accurate than the Newtonian originals, then that will be the theory
pretty much dead. We could still be grateful for SR helping Einstein
to come up with E=mc^2, and for perhaps introducing the idea of time
dilation so that Einstein's general 1911 paper on gravity-shifts was
less shocking, but we'd really have to retire the theory and treat it
as an evolutionary dead-end, a kind of disposable stepping-stone.
It is ironic the the sci.physics faqs show Albert,e=mc2 and a picture
of a galaxy side by side.In that jungle of images all that is bad in
contemporary thinking (if you call it that) emerges.
"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space."
In 1920 there was no stellar center to consider but in 1923 there was
and remains the most useful and magnificent structure and motion to
consider.
Post by Eric BairdWould this make SR dead as a "practical" theory?
Yes and no. If SR is getting the twins result wrong, that will upset a
lot of educationalists, but it's hardly likely to affect much current
engineering. But if SR is getting the basic Doppler relationships
wrong, then this will already be affecting certain engineering
problems (and would explain why some attempted verifications of the SR
shift law have already been showing higher-than-predicted redshifts
due to "unexpected experimental errror").
So it might well be that our technological progress in these areas is
being held back because we don't understand why why our equipment
doesn't want to work the way that we think it ought to. Those
unexpected engineering difficulties might be examples of the "faulty"
apparatus correctly showing non-SR behaviour that we don't know how to
recognise.
So maybe the proportion of experiments that we carry out that do
"work" with SR is so high partly because we tend to concentrate on the
experiments that we can get to work as expected, with SR. With a
next-generation theory predicting different results in those areas,
and letting us design new technologies that exploit new effects,
perhaps we'd see new types of physics where the difference is very
important.
So even if SR is adequate for most experiments being carried out NOW,
it doesn't necessarily mean that if a replacement theory arrived
tomorrow, that SR would be up to the task of describing the new sorts
of experiments that we would then be wanting to carry out a few years
later.
Nobody cares anymore,one theory is no better or worse than the next
and there is a very good reason why talk.origins fills 6 pages in a
google newsreader and sci.physics half that amount and most of that is
spam.
If you want to achieve 'time' travel,review the original texts from
yesteryear and comprehend in what context these manuscripts were
written,the future will take care of itself.
Post by Eric Baird===========================
Going way back ot the original posts, the question I was trying to ask
If hypothetically, SR really had crashed years ago in some
unrecoverable way that should have told us that the theory was now
finished and that we needed a replacement ... how possible is it that
we could somehow miss all the signs and just continue as before,
oblivious to the fact that we were still using something that should
by rights be considered to be dead?
If SR was a "zombie theory", would most endusers actually know?
I don't think most physicists would be any the wiser.
In fact, if you list the signs that we would expect to see if SR
really had already crashed, they all seem to be out there, along with
the repeated mistakes and exagerrations and mathematical and
historical errors in the literature that you would need in order to be
able to conceal a screwup this big.
But nobody in the mainstream seems to know what they should be looking
out for. Nothing seem to have been published on the subject. Nobody
seems to be properly trained in cross-theory work.
After a century of supposedly intensive study and testing of SR,
there's apparently still no proper general test theory to show for it,
and no references for what we'd expect if SR wasn't the correct
relativistic theory. There don't even seem to be any proper references
to how SR /really/ compares with Newtonian theory, so most
experimenters don't even seem to be able to straight comparison
between SR and what came before.
So lot of our expert opinions on the subject are worthless or
demonstrably wrong, and the really awful thing is that the community
doesn't seem to care.
As long as something seems to support SR, it seems to gets through the
peer review filter, and if it's found to be wrong, well, somehow the
"unhelpful" retraction or correction doesn't seem to happen.
The way things are right now, I think relativity theory has become a
very disreputable subject, and I'm a bit upset about that, because I
count myself as a relativist. I think the positive feedback due to
peer review and education is now so strong that we seem to be locked
into SR regardless of whether its right or wrong, and I honestly don't
know how to break that lock.
I think if we started a research programme tomorrow, we could probably
have most of the replacement theory in a year or so, but the way
things are politically in the community, that might not happen for
another fifty years, or longer, and even then it's probably going to
have to happen as an experimental "lucky accident" that catches the
community so much by surprise that it somehow slips through the peer
review net before people realise what's happening.
I find it all a bit depressing, actually.
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
: Q: How many SR advocates does it take to change a light bulb?
: A: None. the bulb was expected to burn out. It doesn't need changing.