The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Einstein's wrong assertions: split from Do the mechanism in clocks really run slow?  (Read 9654 times)

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
This has fallen out of favor mostly because it is experimentally indistinguishable from special relativity (which has no preferred reference frame) and introduces extra complexity.

David, if both interpretations are equivalent in terms of predictions, then you can't make the claim that Einstein's is somehow scientifically flawed.  If either is to be discarded, it's Lorentz's interpretation, since it adds complexity without adding any new predictions, which is generally frowned upon in physics.  In fact, you can always take an existing theory and add some undetectable feature to it to make a new theory, so the simplicity test is a pretty useful feature in science.

It's Einstein's interpretation that adds the extra complexity - it depends on the very same extra complexity of the Lorentz interpretation to provide a crucial mechanism for its functionality, and then denies that that mechanism exists, leaving it all to happen by magic instead.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile

 and then denies that that mechanism exists, leaving it all to happen by magic instead.


Yes, you mentioned that already. What's the magic trick? Is it that c is invariant?

 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile

 and then denies that that mechanism exists, leaving it all to happen by magic instead.


Yes, you mentioned that already. What's the magic trick? Is it that c is invariant?

The trick is using a convenient frame as if it is a preferred frame so that time can be treated as if it's running slow in other frames, then once the work's all been done, the mechanism that's just been used is denied and the assertion is made that time doesn't run slow in any frame.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
A rogue moderator is wrongly moving all of this out of the thread it legitimately belongs to and into a forum to which it clearly does not belong. I am going to make an official complaint to the owners of the forum.

Edit: official complaint sent and copies of both threads stored.
« Last Edit: 29/07/2012 23:02:19 by David Cooper »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
David, if you want to argue for Lorentzian aether, then it might be best to just come out and say you prefer it, but both are equivalent in their predictions.  Coming out of the gate insisting Einstein's theories are wrong and involve "magic," doesn't help your argument.  It also amounts to essentially arguing against a widely-accepted century-old theory because you don't care for the philosophical interpretations.  Also, coming up with pejorative names for the theories you disagree with ("magic") and name-calling doesn't help. 

As I mentioned above, you can create an infinity of relativity theories by introducing undetectable features.  In science, we don't choose one from among those because it happens to be the most comfortable to our preconceptions of how the universe should work.  We choose one by (generally) using Occam's razor to remove all unnecessary features.  We then worry about the interpretation of what's left.

If we're going to start introducing undetectable features because we feel more comfortable with them in the theory, who decides which features to allow and which to reject? 
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Coming out of the gate insisting Einstein's theories are wrong and involve "magic," doesn't help your argument.

I'm saying his interpretation is wrong, and it's demonstrably inferior - it does depend on magic because it depends on a mechanism which it denies.

Quote
It also amounts to essentially arguing against a widely-accepted century-old theory because you don't care for the philosophical interpretations.

No, it's arguing against a philosophical interpretation which is clearly wrong.

Quote
Also, coming up with pejorative names for the theories you disagree with ("magic") and name-calling doesn't help.

What can I call it other than magic? If you depend on a mechanism which you simultaneously deny exists, you render that mechansim magical - I'm using it as a technical term.

Quote
As I mentioned above, you can create an infinity of relativity theories by introducing undetectable features.  In science, we don't choose one from among those because it happens to be the most comfortable to our preconceptions of how the universe should work.  We choose one by (generally) using Occam's razor to remove all unnecessary features.  We then worry about the interpretation of what's left.

That is certainly how you should do things, but in this specific case you are doing the exact opposite.

Quote
If we're going to start introducing undetectable features because we feel more comfortable with them in the theory, who decides which features to allow and which to reject?

Einstein's interpretation involves using an undetectable feature (the exact same one) which he relies on while at the same time denying the existence of it. That is not being scientific. If all frames are equal, he has no mechanism for time to record differently on different paths other than to borrow the idea of a preferred frame to do the calculation and then pretend there is no preferred frame on the basis that the frame chosen to serve as a preferred frame can't be distinguished from a different frame which might actually be the preferred frame.
« Last Edit: 29/07/2012 23:29:18 by David Cooper »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Let me run through it again. This time we can start with two rockets which are sitting alongside each other, somewhere in open space. One of them accelerates away from the other and then coasts away for a long time. At some point, it decelerates, turns round, accelerates back towards the other rocket and then coasts back to it, decelerating to avoid an impact when it arrives. Now, where is Einstein's mechanism to cause its clocks to record less time if all frames are equal? He simply doesn't have one, so he has to borrow it from Lorentz and then deny the mechanism he's just used after using it, justifying this on the woeful basis that he can't tell which frame might actually be preferred. As soon as he does this, he renders all frames as equal, so either he can't have any clocks recording less time than others or he has to have an infinite variety of simultanious applications of the mechanism borrowed from Lorentz: one for every possible frame of reference. That isn't a simpler interpretation - it involves infinitely more extra features than the interpretation involving just one single preferred frame, all of them being duplicates.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
I chose two rockets for a reason. Each rocket has another rocket within it, and during the first phase while the two original rockets are moving apart, the other two rockets inside them are released and sent out on similar journeys, each moving away (but towards each other) and later returning (to the rocket they started in). Each case of this is identical to the original case - one of the rockets accelerates away from the other, then stops and accelerates back again, although almost all the whole of each of these trips is done by coasting.

Accelerations are shown by this to be inadequate as a mechanism - one acceleration of a rocket causes that rocket to record less time passing, while an identical acceleration of another rocket causes that rocket to record more time passing - the frames are not equal. This issue can be brushed under the carpet by only accepting the result of a round trip, not allowing more time to be recorded after one acceleration and less to be recorded after the other, but that's a cop out. The mechanism only works as a mechanism if there is an actual difference between the two halves of a round trip. Einstein refuses to accept that and insists that the mechanism doesn't apply to either half the trip, but only to both halves once added together. The only rational way to account for that is to allow one half of the trip to be recording both less time and more time at the same time, an infinite number of instantiations of the mechanism being used all at once in order to make all the frames equally valid. That is not a simpler explanation of anything!
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile

Edit: official complaint sent and copies of both threads stored.


That being the case, this thread is locked pending resolution.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
What is the mechanism behind time dilation in SR?
« Reply #34 on: 09/08/2012 20:54:34 »
What is the mechanism behind time dilation in Special Relativity? When calculating how things behave in different frames of reference there appear to be a few different methods based on a mechanism dependent on there being a preferred frame of reference, but none of them can be an actual mechanism if there is no actual preferred frame of reference. Clearly these methods are fine for working out how lengths appear to shorten and clocks appear to slow, but they have nothing to say about how things actually work in reality if there is no preferred frame. Worse than that, any attempt to use them as a mechanism leads to an infinite number of contradictions.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2012 21:05:58 by David Cooper »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind time dilation in SR?
« Reply #35 on: 09/08/2012 23:24:48 »
When we measure something we use local time and a local ruler, then we measure some other locality relative that. NIST shows us that even on Earth you will find different 'frames of reference' based on gravitational time dilations in actual real experiments with atomic clocks. If it is so that two clocks on earth, synchronized resting beside each other on a table, start to diverge as you move one to the floor in their time measurement then you need to explain why they can do so.

A 'frame of reference' is a position in space and time, you have one, I have another, and our clocks will most probably differ. But if I would travel to you and put my clock beside yours we would find that they measure the exact same (hopefully being correctly synchronized once before we split up)

As for a preferred frame of reference? You have yours and I have mine :) What we share is 'locality' meaning the constant 'c' we can measure locally using our ruler and clock. Locally there should be no difference between your measurements and mine if using our own measuring devices but when we compare our own frame of reference to some other we will find that there is a discrepancy in 'time' and possibly in our definition of distance too depending on the relative motion measured between us. And that's where my head starts to hurt a little :) thinking of a system A. and B. Where A and B from a third observer C. is found to have different uniform motions relative him, but from A measuring B only, and B measuring A only, also can be defined as both having anything from 'zero motion' to having 'all the motion' assuming all moving uniformly.

If you think of it, having two objects moving uniformly A and B from eachother, can yhou prove which one 'really' is the culprit? You could use possibly use very distant 'fixed' stars, or the CBR (cosmic background radiation) but? Then you need to prove without doubt that those don't 'move'. So far there exist no proof for that, although I've seen some suggesting using just fixed stars as a practical reference point for 'motion'. Remember that all uniformly moving planets behave the same. If Earth went double the speed it has today through the universe, still uniformly, it wouldn't mean a thing to us as far as I can see. All experiments would behave the same as long as we're not talking about its rotation.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11999
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: What is the mechanism behind time dilation in SR?
« Reply #36 on: 09/08/2012 23:32:31 »
Although, there might be a way if getting to relativistic speeds, thinking of LorentzFitzGerald contractions, but that assumes that you accept relativity. And then we have the radiation of course that would become blue shifted in a very fast speed, but that is also a relativistic phenomena. There is also the way the light would behave, describing the 'room' you see thinking of it :)
=

You need to find a frame that won't 'budge' to disproof relativity. The only 'frame' I can think of there is 'c' and if you use that one as your proof :) Then you will reach very interesting conclusions, in fact you will reach relativity as 'c' is a local definition to me, although shared by all frames of reference.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2012 23:41:37 by yor_on »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
David, starting new topics to continue an argument that was moved to new theories is a quick way to get your posts removed.  I've unlocked this thread so you can continue the discussion here if you want, but please keep it on topic and don't bring it back to the mainstream boards again.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
David, starting new topics to continue an argument that was moved to new theories is a quick way to get your posts removed.  I've unlocked this thread so you can continue the discussion here if you want, but please keep it on topic and don't bring it back to the mainstream boards again.

This discussion does not belong in new theories. Why are you so scared of such a simple question? I'm simply asking what your rational mechanism is for time dilation without a preferred frame, and you have none.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
This forum has a connection through Chris to Radio 5. It consequently has a responsibility to treat its users with more respect than this, and to treat questions fairly. I don't want to have to get in touch with Radio 5 to tell them how people are treated here.
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
I don't think that Einstein proposed a mechanism for the time dilation - he just produced a set of equations which neatly combined electromagnetism into one force, and have since been shown to work again and again.

Whether equations need mechanisms on a fundamental level is really quite deep philosophy, and every mechanism will end up with 'because that's how the universe is' after digging down through enough layers, and it is not obvious to me that is a great problem, unless you can find evidence for another deeper layer of mechanism underneath it.

A lot of problems with special relativity stem from trying to apply it to situations which it wasn't designed for. It only works for inertial reference frames - moving at a constant velocity, this means that the twin paradox can't be solved using it - moving two twins apart and then moving them back again involves accelerations, which are not included in special relativity.

To deal with these you need General Relativity, which is 'difficult', seems to involve a 1000 page A4 text book which sits 'waiting for a couple of years' to read on most academic physicist's shelves and which I avoided at undergrad. But I am assured by people who would love to prove it wrong (Nobel prize anyone) that it fixes the problems everyone has with special relativity.

I am not saying that there can't be problems with General relativity (though it has passed all the tests it has had so far) but that to propose them you need to understand it at lot better than I do. Happy reading....
« Last Edit: 13/08/2012 15:57:00 by daveshorts »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
This topic has moved to another place and will not be returning here.

Link removed by moderator
« Last Edit: 23/08/2012 00:53:30 by imatfaal »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums