In reference to the three attached articles in which it is shown that
- The theory of length contraction and time dilation are based on a simple oversight. When analyzing the Michelson & Morley experiment, both FitzGerlad and Lorentz only examined the movement of light and proposed the theory of length contraction. They, however, failed to explore the movement of the half-silvered-mirror to realize that length contraction is not a viable idea. One of the main result of the oversight was the introduction of Lorentz Transformation Equations. Later on, special relativity (SR) accepted and adapted Lorentz’s ideas and mathematics.
- An imaginary instrument, the light clock, was created and used as the clock of choice for SR. Examination of the working of the clock, as described by SR, shows that the supposed time dilation is correct for only one positioning of the clock. Any other orientation creates irregular ticks and overall longer unit of time, which is linked to the orientation of the clock. Finally, the direction of the clock movement influences the unit of time.
- The laws of physics are not always binding to an outside observer moving with a constant speed.
Making a mistake in science is common and unavoidable, but science has an honourable practice of not insisting on it when the error is found. The longer it takes for the mistake to be discovered and discarded the more damaging it would be to the integrity and reliability of science.
This question is a test for upholding the acclaimed integrity of science. Either the correctness of each case above and Lorentz transformation should be defended or all the theories and claimed experiments based on the mistakes must be banned in textbooks and classrooms, except as a lesson-learned case in the history of science.
Preprint Special Relativity: The Revival of Metaphysics
Preprint Michelson and Morley Experiment Does not Validate Length Con...
Article Is Time Dilation a scientific theory?
Mr. Shafiei,
The theory should be empirically adequate or it should be evidenced by means of the experiment.
I agree with the previous answer. It probably will be considered accurate, until improved, rejected, proven otherwise etc. Since you seem sceptical about the applications of this theory and have pointed out points of concern, perhaps you can be the one to improve it.
Respected Ziaedin,
Any theory that does not fulfill the criteria of proving it right through experimentation, ideally should not be the part of curriculum or taught in class rooms but it could provide a learning opportunity for students as the theory which is ambiguous, and gives mix results and fulfills one criteria and does not other can be used as example for learners to give them real sense of falsifiability, verification, scientific evidence.
Dear all
We have the experiment. It is M&M experiment. But, unfortunately, those who tried to interpret the result only looked at the favourite part which apparently solved their immediate dilemma. What they did not see and has not been seen for more than 120 years is the part which rejects the initial solution.
After helping hand from an inconsistent thought-instrument, light clock, and mathematics, special relativity came into the limelight and the idea of spacetime was introduced, all based on the same analytical mistake and we never looked back. What I ask is; please re-examine. What is the use of an experiment if it is not correctly examined.
I am still hoping that my analysis is wrong. But if I am right, what we are left with, from relativistic physics, is more than 120 years of straying in the wrong paths, which is hard for physics to swallow. That is why I borrowed from Bob Dylan’s “blowin in the wind” lyrics to ask my question, as I know the answer to my question is in fact blowin in the wind.
I am not expert in the advanced QM but have studied Physics and not in while. Which would you consider is correct for Quantum Mechanics: Schrödinger Picture, Heisenberg Picture, or Dirac Picture (https://uncw.edu/phy/documents/Shafer_09.pdf)?
I would suggest that we have difficulties because many quantities are RATIOS and not NUMBERS (simplification to make a point because I have not even defined what a number is). If the quantity changes, is it the numerator or the denominator or both or neither (in ratio) which changes?
Since velocity is distance over time, and we measure velocity as (x/t), these are related thru differentiation with fixed relations (dx/dt) which feeds back to the velocity via time relations over time but assumed not at that instant. Is it the quantities or the relations that change?
I call these quantities compound variables. If the processes are associative and commutative and distributive, you can't separate them because different values can give the same compound value.
H^[p] = E[p]. Is the time dependence in H, or [p], or does even E vary, a time varying result independent of the system (external influences such as gravity affecting vectors and operators both)?
To state that the movement of the mirror changes the properties of the mirror needs some description how that actually translates into something that can be measured. It leads to Ether approaches. The problem of needing to integrate over all space to find a local value (action-at-a-distance) at a specific time appears to be a wack-a-mole. It has no generalizability to other points in space at the same or different times.
Ziaedin, I see your studies are in Philosophy. These issues smack one in the face in Physics all the time, if one is honest. Tensor Calculus gives an approach, but not a very successful one beyond the current status of Unified Theory. Special Relativity gives insight, but so far only a doorway into your questions. String Theory apparently gives unverifiable approaches. All I can say is GPS satellites seem to function pretty well accounting for time dilation. The searching continues.
M/M experiment is not explained by Special Rel:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/m-m-experiment-is-not-explained-by-special-rel.275063/
Estimado Timothy,
Primeiramente, peço desculpas pela demora em responder-te.
A tua pergunta é interessantíssima, mas, infelizmente acredito que não haja uma resposta única. Penso que as teorias são passíveis de serem questionadas e, portanto, devem ser melhoradas constantemente.
Agreed. Not only the theories, but our learning about the theories and relation to world evolves from the newest beginner to the most advanced expert.
I was stimulated by my teachers of course, but also the writings of learned men available as popular books.
It is too bad the popular culture tends to remain out of touch with important ideas, often because of the anxieties they provoke. Russia might have been a different place now. The best way to find how little you understand is to try and explain it to a beginner.
_________________________________
de acordo. Não apenas as teorias, mas nosso aprendizado sobre as teorias e a relação com o mundo evolui desde o mais novo iniciante ao mais avançado perito.
Foi estimulada pelos meus professores, mas também os escritos de sábios disponíveis como livros populares.
É uma pena que a cultura popular tende a permanecer fora de contato com ideias importantes, muitas vezes devido a ansiedade que provocam.Rússia pode ter sido um lugar diferente agora.
A melhor maneira de encontrar o quão pouco você entende é para tentar explicar para um iniciante.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Two_Three..._Infinity
http://scihi.org/george-gamow-bigbang-cosmology/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics