A rather unorthodox view of relativity.

I have spent a considerable amount of time in composing this post because, in close to fifty years, I have been totally unable to communicate the rationality of my position to any professional physicists. They invariably turn a blind eye to my arguments. I am trying here to put the issue down in...

Thanks DrD,
You're right; it's been years since I tried to fully interpret and follow equations like these.
I may also try to pick up on post #33; I'm at least familiar with the psi....

Your "facet" was enough for me at this time.

I was just happy to have finally succeeded with LaTex.

For over 25 years, I've wanted to see "that T-shirt," except with the Schroedinger wave equation featured.
If I'd thought, I might have seen your larger equation as more appropriate for the T-shirt, but I was just too excited (and ignorant of the details) to not use that elegant little statement already at hand.

As a "mere facet of that representation" it's kind of an insult (to G0d) used that way on the T-shirt, I suppose.

Fortunately, this is the "philosophy of science" forum and I was much more interested in the (as you said, if I recall) tautological implications for scientific epistemology.
I still hope to use your "slant" on presenting this idea, if not also refer to your "proof," when arguing with folks about the limits of our ability to "know ultimate reality."

So, aside from my lame (T-shirt) attempt to be "cute,"
that facet is central to your point about scientific epistemology, isn't it?

Won’t the explanation also only be valid when the constraint



is also satisfied or will they both be satisfied if one of them is satisfied?

So since we can’t solve the equation in a truly general form what can we do? Even if the transformation allows us to combine valid explanations, which is something that you haven’t said it does, you seem to be suggesting that it allows us to use information from one explanation in another one, so it hardly seems that this would allow us to construct more general solutions, so what is it that this allows us to do?

Also I am wondering just what is it that we can expect to learn about the fundamental equation. Obviously deriving the Schroedinger equation from the fundamental equation is quite a statement but to me it only seems to be one because the Schroedinger equation is a well know equation which Newtonian mechanics has been shown to approximate.

I’m not trying to map an explanation to reality or any other epistemological construct but rather trying to have the fundamental equation in a form in which more can be understood from it then just what can be understood directly from the fundamental equation.

Using this for the goal it seems to me that even if you can show that all of physics is an approximation of the fundamental equation under different conditions this still won’t tell us anything unless you can show that the approximations that you make can’t have any big effect on the fundamental equation (that is that it must still behave in the same way) which is something that I suspect is in fact incorrect.

This is all seems fine but it seems that we can’t just use the transformation if for no other reason then that the transformation that you are suggesting uses the speed of light as one of the constants and velocity as a variable and while you have defined c as a constant. It seems to me that it will require more then to know that the transformation that it must obey has the form of the Lorenz transformation before we can use c as you have defined it. Also as of yet you have not defined velocity although you seem to be defining it as the value of



that the origin of one explanation has as taken from the other explanation.

There is a way to prove that the relative reference assumption violates the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy implies there is an absolute reference scale. Here is the mental experiment.

We start at stationary reference. We have a rocket, which we add energy to via propulsion, to get it to achieve relativistic velocity. The final result is we double its mass, due to the energy input into the system, i.e., conservation of the energy.

Next, what we do is set up ten distinct stationary references to observed the rocket, none of which had any energy inputted into them. If we use relative reference, the moving rocket will see ten distinct relative references, each appearing to show some relativity. The net result is, although we added only enough energy to create double mass, the rocket see 10 times the total mass. Even if the rocket saw that, we know it can not be real, since it would be in violation of the conservation of energy. From the point of view of any of the stationary references, they all see one extra relativistic mass and nine zero extra masses, which is consistent with energy conservation.

The way relative reference is normally presented is using two references, making the conservation of energy appear like a wash. It also tends to start with the object already in motion as though it got there without the requirement of needing energy. But once one adds an extra reference on either side, to create an odd number of one of the reference, relative to the other, then only one reference will add up to the energy.

Where the problem lies is there are three SR equations. Relative reference tends to focus on only space-time. By ignoring the mass equation it sort of removes the conservation of energy checks and balances. This is why it has become hard to see, because using 2 of 3 does adds up mathematically. But the illusion doesn't work as well using all three at the same time.

As usual I have very little time, even to just read through exhaustively, let alone to participate. Just a few remarks:

I'm still unable to rule out there being fatal flaws. Also, most current physicists are rather unconcerned with ontology. However, one thing I saw in the OP is an unjustified "if and only if".

(

is a true implication, but the coimplication would not be true.

Well I don't know exactly what the guy means by arbitrary, I've never read his books, but I believe there isn't all that much wiggleroom and Minkowsi's geometrical interpretation makes much more sense than any other. It certainly hasn't been the only interpretation, between Zur Elektrodynamik Bewegter Körper and Minkowski's work there was much discussion about the meaning of it. The very fact that Einstein argued much more empirically and initially objected to Minkowski's view, but then came to favour it and explicitly based Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie on it, just goes to show.

True.

He was certainly aware of the most basic problem (conflict with the old principle of relativity) which was the reason for so much discussion including the efforts of folks such as M&M; see the very first sentence of Zur Elektrodynamik Bewegter Körper. It's not like M&M had just woken up one morning and decided to perform such tricky experiments for the heck of it. Whether or not he knew those two names, or what, he knew of the negative result; see the start of the second paragraph of the same paper.

Well yeah I've been kind of busy for the past week as well... But I should quickly clarify something I said unclearly;

I meant Brian Green's comments (on Rade's post) were pretty much outlining the present day "orthodox view" (Minkowski's), and it was me, not Green, saying that that view is an arbitrary interpretation of the logic. But don't get me wrong; I don't mean arbitrary in terms of usefulness, just arbitrary as an ontological view (if ever one insists on having an ontological view).

It would certainly be a desirable thing for physicists to remain unconcerned with ontology, and I do believe many of them do or at least honestly try. That being said, when you comment that Minkowski's geometrical interpretation makes much more sense than any other (assuming you mean "ontologically"), that essentially means it makes more sense than the others, when it is being investigated through certain worldview/paradigm. I.e. there are underlying assumptions about reality that make it seem simple. Don't get that wrong either; those underlying assumptions probably are very much just about the most useful assumptions we ever could have made about reality (in terms of simple predictions)

In other words, that "wiggleroom" becomes incredibly large when you take into account that in the absence of any ontological preferences, you are free to change just about any aspect of your worldview without making it invalid prectionwise, as long as you carefully change some other properties appropriately (essentially changing your paradigms from one to another). In many cases that makes your worldview incredibly complicated, and at that point people usually start making assertions that the simplest view is bound to be ontologically correct (people often tend to take that stance somewhat tacitly because they just want to have at least SOME ontological view)

So now to steer this thread back towards the original subject (which was not "how relativity was conceived"), the purpose of the epistemological analysis is to completely avoid the complex issues of "what sort of view of reality might look the simplest by whatever criteria", and to avoid the weight coming from the history of physics. The analysis only yields some information regarding what sorts of properties are to be expected from any self-coherent worldview that contains certain symmetries.

And if the math checks out, the results of that analysis can be interpreted in many different ways. Right now, regarding the topic of this thread, I'd see it as a proof that such and such symmetries and self-coherence together yield relativistic description of reality (a "relativistic description" can be transformed into many logically equal descriptions, many of which would not be normally called "relativistic" at all)

One more comment. The symmetries, that the epistemological analysis refers to, were consequences of certain cases of "ignorance". Just to clarify that one step further, the existence of some ignorance in some specific worldview can be seen as a consequence of using such a semantical concept in our description of reality, which contains facets that are in fact non-sensical when one tries to apply them to actual ontological reality. For example, along with a concept of "space" comes a concept of "identity of locations of space". We certainly conceive an identity to locations of space in any description or even mental conception of reality, even when we at the same time realize this is ontologically meaningless; we are in fact ignorant here; we cannot point out any real, ontological identity to any location of space.

I was really struggling with the previous paragraph I hope it provided some clarification to the issue, and did not only confuse things... I just have no time to try and clarify it more right now :I

-Anssi

Of course the reel of film, by itself is static, the "dynamics" of relativity theory derives from the fact that Einstein plugs in the projector and turns it on. It is the energy of the projector that adds the dynamics--there is nothing static about Einstein relativity when you add the energy into the equation. And, where does Einstein call the "distance" along the film "time" ? For Einstein time and space are separate but not independent (that is, distance does not = time, but the two form a dialectic = spacetime). Spacetime is that which is intermediate between any two moments of existents along the film.

Quote: Originally Posted by Rade:
And, although a revolutionary idea, special relativity only shows that space and time do not have independent existences, they are not absolute, but form a fabric of spacetime that is relative.

. Well, I see you do not know the "asumptions" of relativity--so I will just let Einstein teach you

"...That is what the theory of relativity did. It assumed that there are no privileged physical states of movment and asked what consequence could be drawn from this" A. Einstein in letter to colleague Solovine, undated.

One such consequence of the assumption of relativity theory is that it "shows" that space and time do not have independent existences.

Anssi, you know, if you weren't here I would be very tempted to just walk away from this. The rest of the people here are so immersed in the validity of their personal world-view that they simply cannot comprehend what I am talking about. I suppose this is entirely due to the fact that you saw the central problem on your own. Probably something you would not have seen if you had been properly indoctrinated in modern physics.
It is their firm belief in the validity of their personal world-view. They absolutely never take the trouble to look at what I say because they are so totally convinced that I could not possibly be correct. Qfwfq's response is quite typical of any educated professional.
He can't rule out there being fatal flaws because he has not taken the trouble to examine what I have said. His comment concerning the co-implication of the above, apparently his inability to comprehend that

together with the constraints directly constrains to obey

All it takes to understand the necessity of that result is to follow the algebra of post #42 (“Let us not worry about what the equation means; but rather the fact that it is valid!”) and I am quite sure there is nothing in that algebra beyond Qfwfq's capabilities so I can only conclude he merely scanned my posts without taking any of it seriously enough to make sure he understood what I said. I have suspicions that, consistent with most all professionals I have ever talked to, their real interest is finding something they can point to which which makes the need to examine things more carefully seem to be a waste of time. Modern physics is a religion and the priests don't really want a serious analysis of the foundations of their beliefs; no more than the Pope (the authority of his time) appreciated Galileo's reasoning in 1633 (note it took 360 years before that authority admitted the possibility of error). One can expect about the same response from the current scientific society; they have no desire to consider the possibility of flaws in their fundamental beliefs. That would be giving scientific credibility to philosophical insights and every trained scientist knows full well that philosophy is unscientific BS.
What they can't convince you of by logic, they do their best to overwhelm you with authoritarianism; a typical religious approach. When really examined, their world-view is quite definitely based on a whole slue of unstated assumptions (issues their subconscious has presented to them; issues which they are confident could not possibly be wrong).
It sure would be nice to see everything clearly but don't expect it.

Have fun -- Dick

If you disagree with an empirically validated prediction of General Relativity, you are wrong.

Experimental Basis of Special Relativity
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
[gr-qc/0311039] 35 Years of Testing Relativistic Gravity: Where do we go from here?
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

Relativity in the Global Positioning System
Relativistic effects on orbital clocks

[gr-qc/9909014] Kinetic Energy and the Equivalence Principle
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Nature 425 374-376 (2003).
The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
Section 3.4.1, Figure 5
falling light

GPS and

[astro-ph/0609417] Tests of general relativity from timing the double pulsar
http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
Deeply relativistic neutron star binary PSR J0737-3039A/B
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance

You are wrong.

Looking at some of the responses, I am not surprised... But I hope you won't walk away.

And I wish someone better versed in math (and someone with some time in their hands) was here to help also :I

My god you are right; UncleAl's post is just almost too appropriate to this comment. Well maybe he is not a professional but, what can I say... I actually had to look at what was he quoting exactly, and it was the fifth sentence of the OP. Fifth! I'm speechless

To the benefit of anyone else skimming this thread; no one is disagreeing with any experiments. Please make sure you have at least some idea about the topic before you create unnecessary noise.

-Anssi

It is clear to me that the above is true.

James