Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Absolute vs. Relative

  1. Aug 10, 2005 #1
    I have arrived at the conclusion that relativity is by no means the only explanation for the so called 'relativistic effects'. I shall go through the following phenomena that a currently accepted as a proof that SR is correct and show that they can be given an explanation in terms of absolute space and time.

    The Lorentz Contraction.

    As follows from(or rather the explanation of) the MichelsonMorley experiment the length L of an object undergoes a contraction of the form L = L_o(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) in the direction of its motion. I hold this to be a real, physical phenomenon. This change is taking place for any observer. For an observer inside a spaceship that undergoes such contraction, the observer's own length changes in the exact same proportion and thus for him it seems that nothing has contracted. That is however just an illusion. The change in length has actually taken place for all observers no matter their speed and their contractions.

    Mass

    Lorentz showed that if the contraction is applied to subatomic particles carrying an electrical charge, one can deduce that the mass of a body must increase in proportion to its length, if exact -

    m = M_o/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

    This conclusion follows from the electrodynamics if the contraction holds true. There is no reason to think that it is not so for any other object considered.

    Time Dilatation

    It has been confirmed that particles traveling at near speed of light live(exist) longer than those traveling at smaller velocities. Or that time runs slower for particle with greater velocity than for the one with smaller velocity. This however can be explained with much more ease by saying that it is the increase in mass of a particle that results in it living longer, not time dilation. For surely, the greater the mass, the longer it will take for a particle to start the decay process. There is no need for a time dilation. Again, it is just an illusion. Time doesn't procceed slower for high velocity particles, - they just gain in mass and as a result it makes them live longer before they start decaying. Silimilar arguments can be given for other similar cases.

    Thus the relativistic effects are not a real phenomenon but rather an illusion. There is no need to abandon the absolute space and time and it will surely get rid of or at least simplify explanations for many paradoxes involving SR.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 10, 2005 #2
    What about the relativity of simultaneity?

    By the way, although special relativity requires space to be relative and time to be relative, Minkowski proved that they can be unified as an absolute concept: spacetime. Minkowskian geometry, however, upholds the fact that space and time are relative concepts.
     
  4. Aug 10, 2005 #3

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What about completing a roundtrip to A. Centauri well within my lifetime aboard a starship traveling arbitrarily close to lightspeed?

    Have a few drinks, eat dinner, watch a movie, stretch my legs, chat with a flight attendant, use the toilet, read a little, sleep, wake up, eat breakfast, use the toilet again, fill out a customs form, and we're there! Same thing coming back. Upon arrival, I look younger than my great-grandchildren.

    What exactly is illusionary about this?
     
  5. Aug 11, 2005 #4
    Simultaneity

    Refer to the diagram on this page, - http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Einstein/rel.TS.html

    Since the train is in motion, its length will contract just by the right amount so that M' will move L = L_o(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))/2 to the left just the right amount for it to coincide with M. It is obvious why it should move left. Since the length of the train is now smaller, its midpoint will have to move further to the left. Thus both flashes will reach M' at the same time.

    The fact that you are younger has to do with the increase in mass as the result of Lorentz contraction and the effects it has on moving electromagnetic fields, it has nothing to do with relativity. Refer to my example with high velocity particles under "Time Dilatation".
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2005
  6. Aug 11, 2005 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Every inertial reference frame carries its own personal clock, and that clock is unique to that reference frame. There is nothing illusory about that, it's been confirmed by every experiment performed to date.
     
  7. Aug 11, 2005 #6
    What experiment do you have in mind? I can assure you, that at the end it will come to changes in particles' mass and energy and thus their life times, - and these do not have to be explained by using relativistic concepts. They can be very well explained in much more simplistic terms as I have done above with the high velocity particles.
     
  8. Aug 11, 2005 #7
    So you're saying there's really no relativity of simultaneity? According to your link, the two flashes reach M' at different times, but you're stating this is wrong and they will really reach M' simultaneously?
     
  9. Aug 11, 2005 #8
    And if an absolute zero velocity exists (as you are suggesting), how would you find it?
     
  10. Aug 11, 2005 #9
    How electric Coulombian force turns to Magnetic force ? Two wires carrying electric current are neutral objects and even so there arel forces between them (magnetic ones). Does this also have to do with mass enlargement ?

    Best Regards,

    DaTario
     
  11. Aug 11, 2005 #10

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    All of them, as stated. Do you have one in mind [a credible one, preferably] that does not agree with the SR prediction? Arriving at the same conclusion by following a more torturous route does not a better theory make - e.g., Kepler vs Ptolemy.
     
  12. Aug 11, 2005 #11

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    In a word, electromagnetism. Most high school physics textbooks answer this question. It has nothing to do with mass.
     
  13. Aug 11, 2005 #12

    EnumaElish

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You must mean "relativistic mass gain." As its name implies, it is a phenomenon due to relativistic effects. You can find well educated participants in these forums who disgree even with this characterization of relativistic mass gain (within special relativity) and prefer to use the terms "increased energy" to describe that effect. It is doubtful that one can allude to an increase in mass while remaining faithful to physics, relativistic or otherwise.
     
  14. Aug 11, 2005 #13
    err... particles with higher mass have longer life? ithink they decay faster.
     
  15. Aug 11, 2005 #14
    compare tau and electron. which one lives more?
     
  16. Aug 11, 2005 #15
    I do agree that it is really an increase in energy not mass, not the kind of mass that we usually have in mind. The particles with higher velocities and energies correspodingly live longer principally because of the Lorentz contraction. A particles starts decaying because the electromagnetic forces over power the nucler forces. The nucler force is much stronger for smaller radii. Thus when a particles undergoes contraction it aids the nuclear forces keeping the particle together for a longer time.

    The link I've provided was for the diagram only, I do not agree with its content. In fact I disproved it. And how does my conclusion suggests that there is an absolute zero velocity?

    Does relativity explain how electric Coulombian force turns to Magnetic force? As for present, I do not have a decent explanation of why it is so, but if you have a relativistic argument that does that, I'll be glad to consider it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2005
  17. Aug 11, 2005 #16

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    There is a lot of misconception and wrong physics in the OP (the relativistic EM in QED seems to be completely ignored, for some reason). It is also trying to express another one of those "SR is wrong, I have the right theory", which violates our rules for posting in the main section of PF. This thread will be closed. The originator is welcome to submit his idea to the IR section for review.

    Zz.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Absolute vs. Relative
Loading...