# A question about how to understand the relativity

• timeanalyser
In summary, observers in different universes will each think that the stars they are observing are rotating. However, this is an illusion caused by the rotational motion of the observers themselves.
timeanalyser
Suppose that there exists a special universe,in this universe, only have two congruent stars A and B, stars A side always facing the star B (similar to the moon is always only one side toward the Earth), star B in a certain angular velocity of rotation.

In a super observer's vision, the two stars around the same center of site O in circular motion, then the centrifugal force and gravitational forces just cancel each other out.

I want to kow:

1.In the star A, a observer A, what will he understand the movement of the two stars?

2.In the star B, a observer B, what will he understand the movement of the two stars?

This is a classic example used by Einstein, related to Mach's principle. See http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch03/ch03.html#Section3.5 , subsection 3.5.2. You get one answer in general relativity, another answer in Brans-Dicke gravity. The one you get in GR is not the one Einstein thought/hoped you would get in GR. Brans-Dicke gravity is currently not very viable, http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/genrel/ch08/ch08.html#Section8.3 , so Mach's principle doesn't seem to apply in our universe.

Last edited by a moderator:
In fact, what I want to say is:
1, Observer O in space, he saw the scene in full compliance with the laws of physics;
2, in the view of the observer A, the law of universal gravitation is wrong, because he will feel that the two stars are stationary, but not close to each other;
3, in the view of the observer B, Newtonian mechanics is wrong, because he could not draw the same mechanics formula to the observer O's view .
But I do not believe that ,So:
1, can we consider that the existence of absolute space and time system?Observer O's system.
2, or all the laws of physics are not universally applicable?
3, or there are other answers ? I want to hear your views.
4 My view is the laws of physics are generally applicable, but there is not real physical universe, the three observers in three different universe, each observer is an absolute time and space . Classical universe is the universe of the observer O; in universe of observer A , the two stars will be close to each other the final collision; in universe of observer B , star A circular motion around the star B, but the two stars look like in accordance with the physical constraints of the law of the quality as well as other physical quantities were adjusted accordingly.

Ok, let's start over. And I will answer in the framework of general relativity since it is backed by reliable evidence. Clearly what you are thinking is that the observers A and B will not realize they are rotating, because there are no distant stars in this universe to compare their motion to. This is false.

Rotation in general relativity is absolute. It does not require any outside observation to determine a local nonrotating frame. You can do it very simply in a sealed room, using for example what they call a photon gyroscope. Aim a photon at a mirror and let it come back at you. If you think the received direction is different from the direction it was transmitted, you are rotating. If you think they are the same direction, you are not.

Observer A, who constantly faces the other star, will measure his own rotation and use it to determine that both stars are in orbit about each other, including the plane of the orbit. If he is sufficiently accurate he will also be able to notice the frame dragging effect caused by the rotation of the surface of his own star. (These guys live on stars??) Likewise for B.

Bill_K said:
And I will answer in the framework of general relativity since it is backed by reliable evidence.

I agree with your #4. I would also point out that Brans-Dicke gravity is backed by all the same reliable evidence as GR, since BD gravity is equivalent to GR for large values of the unitless parameter $\omega$. BD gravity gives the Machian result in this thought experiment. However, the value of $\omega$ is constrained to be so high by solar system measurements that it is no longer considered a competitive theory, since there is no good motivation for any value of $\omega$ that is not of order unity.

Bill_K said:
Rotation in general relativity is absolute. It does not require any outside observation to determine a local nonrotating frame. You can do it very simply in a sealed room, using for example what they call a photon gyroscope. Aim a photon at a mirror and let it come back at you. If you think the received direction is different from the direction it was transmitted, you are rotating. If you think they are the same direction, you are not.

Thank you, but If the three observers individually do the Michelson - Morley experiment in the respective location, what happens?

My view is three experiments are the same results.

Last edited:
Timeanalyser, what you're trying to define with the angles in the MM experiment is probably equivalent to the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect has been thoroughly studied both experimentally and theoretically, so you might want to try using it instead of a hypothetical and poorly defined variation on the MM experiment.

Last edited:
bcrowell said:
I agree with your #4. I would also point out that Brans-Dicke gravity is backed by all the same reliable evidence as GR.

I am glad that someone can agree the world is unreal not quite in line with common sense, but I do not know that there are no more mature point of view to establish a set of theoretical system from this perspective.
If you have , can you tell me?
In fact, from this point of view(the world is unreal ), with only a small number of reasonable assumptions and simple geometry will be able to deduce all of the special theory of relativity.I thinke the universe should be simple.
We can take some time to discuss as follow:
1, Assume that each different point is different time and space system, just like a whole universe.(A universe = a Planck length area)I think this is a reasonable assumption, your opinion?
2, On the basis of that the universe is illusion, I think that each observer named A0 are independent of absolute space and time system, other observers (time and space ) relative to the observer A0 for relative time and space system, which is a reasonable assumption.

First discuss these two issues, and there are more.

bcrowell said:
Timeanalyser, what you're trying to define with the angles in the MM experiment is probably equivalent to the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect has been thoroughly studied both experimentally and theoretically, so you might want to try using it instead of a hypothetical and poorly defined variation on the MM experiment.

What I mean is only to the observer O(if the guy has enough good vision), observers A and B see the instrument will draw the desired result(Line with the known laws of physics) , but to the observer A or B, they observed the instruments will be different results with observer O's.

Is that possible?

timeanalyser said:
In fact, what I want to say is:
1, Observer O in space, he saw the scene in full compliance with the laws of physics;
2, in the view of the observer A, the law of universal gravitation is wrong, because he will feel that the two stars are stationary, but not close to each other;
3, in the view of the observer B, Newtonian mechanics is wrong, because he could not draw the same mechanics formula to the observer O's view .
But I do not believe that ,So:
1, can we consider that the existence of absolute space and time system?Observer O's system.
2, or all the laws of physics are not universally applicable?
3, or there are other answers ? I want to hear your views.
4 My view is the laws of physics are generally applicable, but there is not real physical universe, the three observers in three different universe, each observer is an absolute time and space . Classical universe is the universe of the observer O; in universe of observer A , the two stars will be close to each other the final collision; in universe of observer B , star A circular motion around the star B, but the two stars look like in accordance with the physical constraints of the law of the quality as well as other physical quantities were adjusted accordingly.
Bill_K said:
Ok, let's start over. And I will answer in the framework of general relativity since it is backed by reliable evidence. Clearly what you are thinking is that the observers A and B will not realize they are rotating, because there are no distant stars in this universe to compare their motion to. This is false.

Rotation in general relativity is absolute. It does not require any outside observation to determine a local nonrotating frame. You can do it very simply in a sealed room, using for example what they call a photon gyroscope. Aim a photon at a mirror and let it come back at you. If you think the received direction is different from the direction it was transmitted, you are rotating. If you think they are the same direction, you are not.

Observer A, who constantly faces the other star, will measure his own rotation and use it to determine that both stars are in orbit about each other, including the plane of the orbit. If he is sufficiently accurate he will also be able to notice the frame dragging effect caused by the rotation of the surface of his own star. (These guys live on stars??) Likewise for B.
A could equally claim to be at rest and in this view B is spinning at a constant distance away, or B could be orbiting them and spinning at a faster rate then they themselves are. B could come to the exact same conclusions and there's no contradiction.

Spin-Analyser said:
A could equally claim to be at rest and in this view B is spinning at a constant distance away, or B could be orbiting them and spinning at a faster rate then they themselves are. B could come to the exact same conclusions and there's no contradiction.

But this is tantamount to admitting the existence of absolute space and time.
Moreover,your laws of physics can be arbitrarily prescribed.

How is it tantamount to admitting the existence of absolute space and time? Just the opposite. You view them as orbiting each other in which case both are spinning, just at different rates. Or you could view B as spinning and A as not spinning and remove orbit.

The laws of physics cannot be arbitrarily prescribed. The two views are equivalent.

## 1. What is the theory of relativity?

The theory of relativity is a fundamental concept in physics that explains how the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion. It consists of two main theories - the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity.

## 2. How does the theory of relativity impact our understanding of time and space?

Einstein's theory of relativity states that time and space are not absolute concepts, but are relative to the observer's perspective. This means that time and space can appear differently depending on an observer's relative speed and position.

## 3. What is the difference between special and general relativity?

The special theory of relativity deals with the relationship between time and space for objects moving at constant speeds, while the general theory of relativity extends this concept to include accelerated motion and the effects of gravity on space and time.

## 4. How does the theory of relativity relate to the famous equation, E=mc²?

This equation, also known as the mass-energy equivalence, is a consequence of the special theory of relativity. It states that mass and energy are two forms of the same concept and can be converted into each other through the speed of light.

## 5. How has the theory of relativity been proven?

The theory of relativity has been extensively tested and proven through numerous experiments and observations, such as the bending of starlight by massive objects, the time dilation of high-speed particles, and the precision of GPS systems. It has also been incorporated into many technological advancements, further solidifying its validity.

Replies
35
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
33
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
659