Has Special Relativity really been proven?

[Dusty_Matter]

Special relativity differs from the aether theory in that while the aether carry’s the idea of an absolute reference frame for determining true motion, SR states that everything is relative, and that there is no absolute frame of reference from which motion can be truly determined. SR theory then by it's very nature implies that symmetrical time dilation events must occur. (exp. "twin paradox")

So has the full definition of special relativity been proven? Have any real symmetrical time dilation events ever been documented?

 

[chinglu1998]

Special relativity differs from the aether theory in that while the aether carry’s the idea of an absolute reference frame for determining true motion, SR states that everything is relative, and that there is no absolute frame of reference from which motion can be truly determined. SR theory then by it's very nature implies that symmetrical time dilation events must occur. (exp. "twin paradox")

So has the full definition of special relativity been proven? Have any real symmetrical time dilation events ever been documented?

Here is an answer to your question.

From the GPS Master Control Station (MCS) at Schriever Air Force Base, Colo., the Air Force exercises 24/7 command and control of the GPS satellite constellation, regulating the clocks and orbits of the satellites. Six Air Force monitor stations keep watch over the satellites. NGA operates another 10 stations that also monitor the system. In NGA’s GPS Division in St. Louis, orbit analysts operate the 24/7 GPS Monitor Station Network Control Center (MSNCC), monitoring station performance and real-time GPS data flow from NGA’s globally dispersed network of GPS tracking stations. Additionally, orbit analysts provide around-the-clock integrity monitoring of the GPS satellites and are able to immediately report any anomalies to the Air Force GPS MCS.

https://www1.nga.mil/Newsroom/Pathfinder/0705/Pages/GPSReliabilityDependsonAirForceandNGA.aspx

Now how answers your question. GPS satellites are launched by increasing the frequency for time dilation effects. There are other factors also. You can see in link. See Chapter 5.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/

Yet, using military link above, ground based clock controls all clocks in GPS. If GPS clock viewed ground based clocks as time dilated, then correction would need to be performed based on ground based data. This does not occur.

 

[bcrowell]

So has the full definition of special relativity been proven? Have any real symmetrical time dilation events ever been documented?

Please see the sticky titled "FAQ: Experimental Basis of Special Relativity" at the top of this forum. You may also be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

 

[phyzguy]

SR theory then by it's very nature implies that symmetrical time dilation events must occur. (exp. "twin paradox")

Hopefully you are aware that the "twin paradox" is only a paradox to those who have not studied special relativity, and that the resolution of this "paradox" is well understood. There are a large number of excellent explanations available on the web.

Special and General Relativity have both passed every experimental test that they have been subjected to.

 

[Dusty_Matter]

I know that it is always stated that Special relativity has passed every experimental test, but I wanted to know which ones. GPS satellites do not experience symmetrical time dilation. The Hafele-Keating experiment certainly does not show any symmetrical time dilation, and the twin paradox with it's supposed symmetrical time dilation has never been proven to even be a valid paradox.

If you only have a one directional time dilation for objects in greater motion or less gravity, then SR has not been proven, because you can determine which object is in greater motion compared to another. SR states that there is no preferred frame of reference over another. Symmetrical time dilation events should occur, but they do not.

If there is a preferred frame of reference for motion, then only the aether concept has been proven.

 

[bcrowell]

I know that it is always stated that Special relativity has passed every experimental test, but I wanted to know which ones. GPS satellites do not experience symmetrical time dilation. The Hafele-Keating experiment certainly does not show any symmetrical time dilation, and the twin paradox with it's supposed symmetrical time dilation has never been proven to even be a valid paradox.

You haven't explained what you mean by "symmetrical time dilation." The Hafele-Keating experiment is a physical enactment of the twin paradox, so I don't understand why you would say that the twin paradox is "symmetrical time dilation" while the Hafele-Keating experiment isn't.

 

[russ_watters]

...and the twin paradox with it's supposed symmetrical time dilation has never been proven to even be a valid paradox.

Again, the "twins paradox" is only an apparent paradox, appearing to be a paradox until you apply SR and realize it isn't a paradox. It's a teaching tool, not a flaw in the theory.

If there is a preferred frame of reference for motion, then only the aether concept has been proven.

There is no preferred frame of reference. Experiments validate this.

I think you misunderstand what the point of the twins paradox is and are looking at it backwards. That the twins both think the other is aging slower is the easy part and is the apparent flaw in SR. The hard part - the point of going through the exercise - is figuring out how the paradox gets resolved.

Remember, the idea that velocities are relative doesn't come from SR; even Galileo recognized it. And you experience the phenomena all the time - are you sitting still right now or moving at 1,000 mph? That depends on what you are measuring your speed against.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Special relativity differs from the aether theory in that while the aether carry’s the idea of an absolute reference frame for determining true motion, SR states that everything is relative, and that there is no absolute frame of reference from which motion can be truly determined. SR theory then by it's very nature implies that symmetrical time dilation events must occur. (exp. "twin paradox")

So has the full definition of special relativity been proven? Have any real symmetrical time dilation events ever been documented?

I know that it is always stated that Special relativity has passed every experimental test, but I wanted to know which ones. GPS satellites do not experience symmetrical time dilation. The Hafele-Keating experiment certainly does not show any symmetrical time dilation, and the twin paradox with it's supposed symmetrical time dilation has never been proven to even be a valid paradox.

If you only have a one directional time dilation for objects in greater motion or less gravity, then SR has not been proven, because you can determine which object is in greater motion compared to another. SR states that there is no preferred frame of reference over another. Symmetrical time dilation events should occur, but they do not.

If there is a preferred frame of reference for motion, then only the aether concept has been proven.

If, by æther theory, you mean Lorentz Ether Theory and you are looking for a test that will distinguish between the validity of LET and SR, then you will never find such a test because the two theories are compatible in every respect except a philosophical one.

In LET, the idea is that nature operates with an absolute æther rest frame but one which can never be identified. The assumption is that inertial observers are moving through this æther and experience time dilation and length contraction, although they can't tell it because all our measuring devices experience the same time dilation and length contraction. Somewhere, though, there could be an observer that is at rest in the æther, we just don't know where.

In SR, the assumption is that any inertial observer is exactly the same as being at rest in the æther and all other moving observers are experiencing time dilation and length contraction, even the one that could have been at rest in the æther according to LET.

If, on the other hand, by æther theory, you mean classical theory, in which there is an absolute æther rest frame but there is no time dilation or length contraction for observers moving through it, then there are plenty of tests to show that both LET and SR are valid and that classical æther theory is invalid.

Now you asked about whether any real symmetrical time dilation events have ever been documented, and you have implied that if there haven't been any, then only the æther concept has been proven. But you haven't stated whether the æther concept you are talking about is the classical æther theory or the Lorentz Ether Theory.

Could you please let us know which æther theory you think would be proven if there haven't been any real symmetrical time dilation events documented?

 

[Dusty_Matter]

Here are some comments that I wish to address.

"You haven't explained what you mean by "symmetrical time dilation." The Hafele-Keating experiment is a physical enactment of the twin paradox, so I don't understand why you would say that the twin paradox is "symmetrical time dilation" while the Hafele-Keating experiment isn't."

“Symmetrical time dilation” is when, from both frames of reference, time appears to run slower for the other person than for the one observing, and vice versa. An apparent paradox. How do both see the others clock as running slower than their own, when only one actually experiences a slower time flow? (I don’t need you to try and give me the answer as to how to solve the paradox. The question I am asking is, do such paradoxes actually exist?)

In partial answer to this, I think we should consider the H-K experiment. There are three clocks that are synchronized. An Earth bound clock, and one clock on each of two planes.

One plane flies west, in the opposite direction of the earth’s rotational direction. (The Earth is rotating in an easterly direction.) And so the west bound plane is traveling at a slower rate than the clock on the ground. The west bound plane is essentially cancelling out the easterly motion of the earth.

The other plane flies towards the east, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, but this plane is adding to the speed of the earth’s rotational speed. So how do the atomic clocks on those planes read upon their return?

According to General Relativity and/or the aether theory (LET) time flow rate slows with acceleration and increased motion (either in relation to an absolute frame of reference, or your previous unaccelerated frame of reference.) According to Special Relativity, all motion is relative, and so time flow rates would just be symmetrical readings because there is no particular frame of reference that is more valid than another. What did the H-K experiment show?

The plane that flew west had a faster time flow rate than the Earth bound clock because it was moving slower than the Earth bound clock. The east bound plane ended up having a slower time flow rate than the Earth bound clock, because it was moving faster than the Earth bound clock. This is what the atomic clocks showed in regards to time flow.

This experiment showed no symmetrical time flow results, but only asymmetrical time flow rates. This is different than what the twin paradox states. The H-K experiment is therefore much different than the “twin paradox” and is not the same.


Someone else stated:
"There is no preferred frame of reference. Experiments validate this."

No, this is not true as has just been shown. According to the H-K experiment, there is a preferred frame of reference. The Earth is obviously in motion, as shown by this experiment, and so the question arises; To what frame of reference is the Earth moving? According only to the H-K experiment the frame of reference could only be compared to a frame of reference in which the Earth was not rotating, or spinning at all. Perhaps the center of the earth, where the earth’s rotation would essentially be nonexistent.

The point is that the H-K experiment shows that there are preferred frames of reference.

Someone else stated:

"Remember, the idea that velocities are relative doesn't come from SR; even Galileo recognized it. And you experience the phenomena all the time - are you sitting still right now or moving at 1,000 mph? That depends on what you are measuring your speed against."

Yes all motion can be considered to be relative. “Relative”, or “relativity” is not a bad word to me. However it is when it is stated that there is “no preferred frame of reference” that I have a tendency to say, “Prove it.”

When SR was postulated, there was no way to prove if there were any preferred frames of reference. There were no atomic clocks. There was no way to prove SR or disprove it. Now we have them, and so I ask; Has SR been proven, by showing any symmetrical time dilation events? If it hasn’t, then only GR and perhaps an aether concept has been proven.

 

[Dale]

Symmetrical time dilation is when, from both frames of reference, time appears tn slower for the other person than for the one observing, and vice versa.

LET also shows this feature. It is not unique to relativity.

 

[bcrowell]

According to Special Relativity, all motion is relative, and so time flow rates would just be symmetrical readings because there is no particular frame of reference that is more valid than another.

I see. So by "symmetrical," you mean that the clock readings agree when they're reunited? That is not what SR predicts. Your reasoning about how all motion is relative is not correct; in SR, as in Newtonian mechanics, only inertial motion is relative.

What did the H-K experiment show?

The plane that flew west had a faster time flow rate than the Earth bound clock because it was moving slower than the Earth bound clock. The east bound plane ended up having a slower time flow rate than the Earth bound clock, because it was moving faster than the Earth bound clock. This is what the atomic clocks showed in regards to time flow.

This experiment showed no symmetrical time flow results, but only asymmetrical time flow rates. This is different than what the twin paradox states. The H-K experiment is therefore much different than the “twin paradox” and is not the same.

The Hafele-Keating experiment was consistent with general relativity.

 

[phyzguy]

So can you outline what experiment would satisfy you? As I read your post, it seems you are asking for the following experiment:

(1) Two observers in relative motion at constant velocity meet and compare clocks.
(2) At a later time, the same two observers, still in relative motion at constant velocity, meet again and compare clocks.

But since the world lines of two observers in relative motion at constant velocity can only intersect once, no experiment can ever be done which would verify "symmetrical time dilation" in the sense that you are asking.
Do you agree? Or is there a possible experiment that would satisfy you?

 

[phyzguy]

Another question. Consider two observers in relative motion at constant velocity, each sending out a video signal from a camera pointing at their clock. Each observer will, in fact, see that the other's clock is running slow, as you can easily verify with space-time diagrams. Of course, this is just a thought experiment today. Would a real version of this experiment satisfy you, or don't you consider this "proof" of "symmetrical time dilation"?

 

[D H]

Time to back up a bit. Dusty_Matter is asking for something that cannot be done.

So has the full definition of special relativity been proven?

Scientific theories cannot be proven to be true. The best that can be done is to show that the logic/mathematics of the theory is sound and that the results of experimental tests of the theory do not falsify the theory. All the experimental evidence in the world will not "prove" the theory to be true.

That said, once enough evidence has been accumulated the theory is deemed to be "true", or at least close enough to true for all practical purposes. Relativity is one of those. The evidence in favor of it is overwhelming. Arguing that it is not true is tilting at windmills. You don't want to go there.

 

[ghwellsjr]

In post #9, I asked Dusty_Matter if what he meant by "aether theory" was "LET" or classical aether theory and he indirectly answered here that he meant "LET":

According to General Relativity and/or the aether theory (LET)

So as I pointed out, in post #9, since LET and SR are identical in every way except in the philosophical notion of the existence of a preferred reference frame, there can be no experiment to validate one and not the other.

In any case, I think what he is looking for is an experiment that would validate the outbound leg of the Twin Paradox where both twins see the other one's clock as going slower than their own and in which they never come back together. He's apparently thinking that if they forever remained "younger" than each other, then SR would be validated because it would truly be relative but if it turns out that one of them is "really" younger than the other then LET would be validated.

Of course, this "interpretation" still would not distinguish between LET and SR (nothing can) but it has the problem that there is no way to compare the absolute times on the two remote clocks. Whatever additional assumption we want to make to evalutate the "absolute" times on the two clocks is itself philosophical and will lead us to whichever answer we want.

 

[Dusty_Matter]

I will try and reply to each in the order received.

DaleSpam stated: (in regards to symmetrical time dilation)
"LET also shows this feature. It is not unique to relativity."

Yes, it is unique to Special Relativity. LET does not have this feature because LET is based on there being an absolute frame of reference by which all motion can be compared to. The Lorentz/Fitzgerald equation works from the frame of reference that is least in motion towards the frame that is in greater motion. Time dilation is therefore asymmetrical, with the frame that is in greater motion being the only one having a slower time flow rate.

Because SR says there is no valid frame of reference for determining which is actually in motion, time dilation is supposedly therefore symmetrical with both frames seeing the other frame’s clock running more slowly than their own.

Bcrowell stated: (in regards to my poor explanation)
"I see. So by "symmetrical," you mean that the clock readings agree when they're reunited? That is not what SR predicts. Your reasoning about how all motion is relative is not correct; in SR, as in Newtonian mechanics, only inertial motion is relative."

No, that is not what I meant. When in the “twin paradox” scenario, each twin see’s the other’s clock running more slowly than their own,- that is a symmetrical time dilation statement. Both see the others clock running more slowly than their own.

SR says all motion is relative and makes no statement as to whether it is inertial or not. General Relativity makes the distinction between types of motion.

"The Hafele-Keating experiment was consistent with general relativity."

Yes, the H-K is consistent with GR, not SR. General Relativity though is also consistent with LET. It is those two theories that give identical results.

The first statement of SR, that light travels at the same speed for every observer, whether in motion or not, is also consistent with LET, because Lorentz postulated that idea first in his aether theory (1904). The second statement of SR that “there is no absolute frame of reference” has never been proven and appears to not fit with any results so far obtained. No symmetrical time dilation events ever recorded.

Pyzguy stated:
"…no experiment can ever be done which would verify "symmetrical time dilation" in the sense that you are asking.
Do you agree? Or is there a possible experiment that would satisfy you?"

I think experiments have already been done, but no symmetrical time dilation events have ever been recorded.

"Consider two observers in relative motion at constant velocity, each sending out a video signal from a camera pointing at their clock. Each observer will, in fact, see that the other's clock is running slow, as you can easily verify with space-time diagrams. Of course, this is just a thought experiment today. Would a real version of this experiment satisfy you, or don't you consider this "proof" of "symmetrical time dilation"?"

The spacetime diagrams that are given are all based on SR. Thought experiments are not proof either, as you can imagine anything you wish. Let's imagine that the universe is made up of strings vibrating in 11 dimensions. No, thought experiments are not proof. Isn’t the
H-K experiment, and GPS satellites a real version of the twin paradox experiment?

D_H stated:
"Scientific theories cannot be proven to be true. The best that can be done is to show that the logic/mathematics of the theory is sound and that the results of experimental tests of the theory do not falsify the theory. All the experimental evidence in the world will not "prove" the theory to be true."

So the theory that the Earth is round could not be proven? That the sun is the center of our solar system could not be proven? That lightning is actually electricity, that there are more than just one galaxy that make up the universe, and the equivalence of energy to matter could not be proven?

The only theories that cannot be proven are those that are false, and those that offer no evidence in support of themselves. If experimental evidence does not help to prove or discover things, then why perform them? I pretty much disagree with you on that D H.

"That said, once enough evidence has been accumulated the theory is deemed to be "true", or at least close enough to true for all practical purposes. Relativity is one of those. The evidence in favor of it is overwhelming. Arguing that it is not true is tilting at windmills. You don't want to go there."

Yes, I do want to go there. To which Relativity are you referring too. GR has lots of support and evidence in support of it. SR has no evidence to back up it’s statement that there is no valid frame of reference, and in fact atomic clocks show otherwise. By arguing you can learn, and that is what I am doing. Can you prove to me that there is no valid frame of reference for determining motion?


Ghwellsjr stated:
“So as I pointed out, in post #9, since LET and SR are identical in every way except in the philosophical notion of the existence of a preferred reference frame, there can be no experiment to validate one and not the other.”

SR is not identical to LET. General Relativity (1916) is for all practical purposes the same as LET. Here is a quote from Einstein on this point.

"The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events. …"

Translation: The aether of General Relativity is not moving, but it affects objects moving through it.

"What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same."

Translation: My aether of General Relativity deals with physical objects of substance, and Lorentz’ only deals with electromagnetic fields.

"The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativization."

Translation: Really these two theories are interchangeable in their conceptual workings, so General Relativity and Lorentz Ether Theory are pretty much the same.

You also stated:
"In any case, I think what he is looking for is an experiment that would validate the outbound leg of the Twin Paradox where both twins see the other one's clock as going slower than their own and in which they never come back together. He's apparently thinking that if they forever remained "younger" than each other, then SR would be validated because it would truly be relative but if it turns out that one of them is "really" younger than the other then LET would be validated."

In away you are correct, but really it’s already answered for us when the space bound twin comes back having aged the least. LET is validated (or GR) because it is an asymmetrical time dilation event, and there has never been a recorded symmetrical time dilation event to prove SR.

"Of course, this "interpretation" still would not distinguish between LET and SR (nothing can) but it has the problem that there is no way to compare the absolute times on the two remote clocks. Whatever additional assumption we want to make to evalutate the "absolute" times on the two clocks is itself philosophical and will lead us to whichever answer we want."

SR and LET are completely separate theories with different accounts as to what is happening. GR is a correction of SR by recreating an aether outcome that fits with reality. With increased motion comes a slowdown in the flow rate of time.

This is not a philosophical topic and you cannot pick or choose an answer. There are real ramifications to these theories, and developing evidence that indicates that there are indeed valid frames of reference for determining real motion. Atomic clock tests bear this out.

 

[ghwellsjr]

First off, SR does not deny the existence of an absolute ether. Here is what Einstein said in his 1905 paper:

The introduction of a "luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space''.

So you are misrepresenting SR if you think that it proves that an ether cannot exist or that it does not exist. Einstein merely said it is not necessary for his Theory of Special Relativity.

You are also misrepresenting LET if you think it is the same as GR or is in any way related to GR in a way that SR is not. Neither SR nor LET have anything to do with gravity which is what GR is all about.

Now Dusty_Matter, I'd like to try to help you understand the relationship between LET and SR and why I say they are identical. Please pay close attention. You need to hear this:

Let's suppose that there exists a "luminiferous ether" and that it is absolutely stationary in space. Let's assume that there is no ether drag by the motion of the Earth as Michelson suggested but rather, as the Earth moves through this ether, there really is an ether wind but because the length of all objects subjected to this ether wind is contracted along the direction of motion and their time is dilated, both of which Lorentz believed, the effects cancel out and no ether wind can be detected. And let's assume that when a light beam is projected against the ether wind, it takes longer for the light to travel and when the light beam is projected in the direction of the ether wind, it takes light less time to propagate. I hope I have accurately described the essence of LET for you because it is what Lorentz proposed.

Now the question of why MMX did not detect any ether wind is explained in LET by the ideas of length contraction and time dilation both of which increase as the speed of the ether wind increased as calculated by the factor gamma. The only problem was that Lorentz and everyone else had no idea what the gamma factor was because they had no idea where the absolute rest frame for the luminiferous ether was.

Now maybe they made an educated guess based on the known motions of the surface of the Earth as it rotated on its axis, as it revolved around the sun, as the solar system revolved around our galaxy, and as our galaxy moved through the expanding space (which they did not know about at the time). Maybe they actually proposed some co-ordinates that they thought might describe the absolute rest of the ether. Maybe Lorentz had one idea and Poincare had another candidate and Fitzgerald had another one. Maybe they took the average of all the ideas. Maybe they fought about which one was best. Maybe you know, Dusty_Matter, the exact co-ordinates to describe the absolute ether.

While all this confusion was going on, along comes Einstein and he says secretly to Lorentz, "your best guess as to the co-ordinates for the absolute ether rest frame are perfect" and Lorentz proceeds to calculate gamma for different times of the day and night and for different seasons of the year and he's happy as a lark. Everything works out just right.

Then Einstein goes and tells Poincare the same thing and even though his candidate is different than Lorentz's, he goes off and does the same thing and he's tickled pink, because he doesn't know that Einstein had already told Lorentz the same thing.

Ditto for Fitzgerald and ditto for you, too, Dusty-Matter. You pick any co-ordinates that you think is where the ether is at rest and everything will work out just perfectly.

Then one day Poincare was bragging to Fitzgerald about how he had determined where the absolute rest frame for the either was but Fitzgerald says he already knows. When they compare notes, they discover that there was a velocity difference between their two co-ordinate systems. So they go and tell Lorentz and Lorentz says "well there must be an answer to this because mine is different from both of yours" and he sets down to come up with a way to transform between the co-ordinate systems.

Well it turns out that everybody is happy because now they no longer have to figure out exactly where that pesky ether is at rest.

But then one day, Einstein tells everyone that he's going to pick a co-ordinate system that eveyone else knows is no where near the correct one, he's going to pick one in which he, himself is stationary. Now for him gamma is 1 and the equations are so much easier to deal with and everybody thinks he is a genius but it's really because he doesn't like doing math.

Well, Lorentz continues to transform Einstein's co-ordinates into the one that he thinks is much closer to the ether rest frame and even though his math is so much more cumbersome he feels superior to Einstein because he knows he is closer to the correct rest frame. Still he has this nagging feeling that it isn't perfect and he wonders if Poincare's co-ordinates or maybe Fitzgerald really have it right.

So, Dusty-Matter, are you going to tell us the co-ordinates of the absolute rest frame of the ether? Or are you going to cheat like Einstein and use yourself as the absolute rest frame?

 

[PhilDSP]

So, Dusty-Matter, are you going to tell us the co-ordinates of the absolute rest frame of the ether? Or are you going to cheat like Einstein and use yourself as the absolute rest frame.

But isn't it the case that the re-structuring of Maxwell's equations (into the form that Lorentz received and worked with) mathematically precludes any reference to an absolute rest frame? So to conceptually reference or experimentally measure motion with respect to an absolute rest frame you cannot compare results within either SR or LET or "Maxwell's Equations" because they have nothing at all to say about it.

 

[ghwellsjr]

But isn't it the case that the re-structuring of Maxwell's equations (into the form that Lorentz received and worked with) mathematically precludes any reference to an absolute rest frame? So to conceptually reference or experimentally measure motion with respect to an absolute rest frame you cannot compare results within either SR or LET or "Maxwell's Equations" because they have nothing at all to say about it.

Any inertial reference frame as defined by SR will appear identical to an absolute ether rest frame as proposed by LET. The definition of the absolute ether rest frame is one in which light makes a round trip with both halves taking the same time which is exactly the same as the definition of an inertial frame in SR. I'm not sure what your concern is with regard to Maxwell's Equations but if they fit in with an inertial frame as defined by SR, then they will also fit in with a LET frame. How can it be otherwise? They both have the same definition.

 

[Tantalos]

Hopefully you are aware that the "twin paradox" is only a paradox to those who have not studied special relativity, and that the resolution of this "paradox" is well understood. There are a large number of excellent explanations available on the web.

And what about length contraction. Will the traveling twin not only be younger than his brother but also thinner when he returns?

 

[espen180]

No. Length contraction is, as time dilation, a phenomenon only present between non-comoving frames. Just like the twins' times run at the same length when they meet up again, they will be equally thin, assuming neither pigged out during the other's absence.

 

[Dale]

Yes, it is unique to Special Relativity. LET does not have this feature because LET is based on there being an absolute frame of reference by which all motion can be compared to. The Lorentz/Fitzgerald equation works from the frame of reference that is least in motion towards the frame that is in greater motion. Time dilation is therefore asymmetrical, with the frame that is in greater motion being the only one having a slower time flow rate.

Then please use the Lorentz/Fitzgerald equation to derive what each observer would measure experimentally.

SR says all motion is relative and makes no statement as to whether it is inertial or not. General Relativity makes the distinction between types of motion.

Do you have a reference for that? These references make a distinction between inertial and non-inertial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/postulate.html
http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/physics/relativity/relativity1.html
www.phys.ufl.edu/~acosta/phy2061/lectures/Relativity2.pdf
http://www.osc-ib.com/ib-revision-guides/pdf/Physics Option D relat-part.pdf
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s3-01/3-01.htm
and many others

SR and LET are completely separate theories with different accounts as to what is happening. GR is a correction of SR by recreating an aether outcome that fits with reality. With increased motion comes a slowdown in the flow rate of time.

No, SR and LET are two interpretations of the same theory. GR is a generalization of SR. The metric of GR has none of the material properties of the "luminiferous aether" (specifically no velocity). What it does have are geometric properties that are just as easy to associate with the clearly defined concept of a "manifold" as with the rather loosely defined concept of an "aether".

 

[Dusty_Matter]

Ghwellsjr,

That was a most excellent explanation! Thank you and I will try answer the two questions. But first I will reply to your 3rd and 4rth paragraphs.

you stated:
“…you are misrepresenting SR if you think that it proves that an ether cannot exist or that it does not exist. Einstein merely said it is not necessary for his Theory of Special Relativity.”

I’m sorry but it’s not me that that is misrepresenting SR. I am merely stating what I’ve read that most are saying. That an aether cannot be proven, and so therefore it must not exist. That the aether theory is dead.

On the other hand it seems that almost everyone has excepted the statement that has been attributed to SR, namely that: “There is no absolute frame of reference for which motion can be measured.” From this it has been stated that an aether does not exist. I didn’t say this or make this up.

“You are also misrepresenting LET if you think it is the same as GR or is in any way related to GR in a way that SR is not. Neither SR nor LET have anything to do with gravity which is what GR is all about.”

GR is also about acceleration. Einstein showed that gravity and acceleration are the same. They are both a warping of the flow rate of time. The faster you move the slower your flow rate of time. Atomic clocks have proven this is true, and so have particle accelerators.

This is also what Lorentz postulated as well. That the faster you move through the aether, the slower your flow rate of time, and yes, there is also a shortening of depth for the object in motion. In fact the mathematical formulas used for both theories are the same.

However because SR says there is no way to determine which frame of reference is actually in motion, then the formula is said to be used from both perspectives, and hence it is said that from each frame of reference you can view the other’s frame of reference as being slower than your own, and vice versa. A paradox that has never happened.

The aether has no paradox involved in it’s predictions because motion can always be determined, and GR cancels out any paradoxes by explaining motion in terms of accelerations. You can’t have a motion unless you have an acceleration first.

So SR is not at all like LET, but GR is very similar, and the answers are the same.

The body of your post was most excellent. Thank you. You asked

"So, Dusty-Matter, are you going to tell us the co-ordinates of the absolute rest frame of the ether? Or are you going to cheat like Einstein and use yourself as the absolute rest frame?"

I don’t have a true set of co-ordinates, and so I must cheat. I’m not that good at math either. Atomic clocks can give us a more accurate co-ordinate system though, which kind of throws SR out the window don’t you think?

Also, maybe you’ve heard about the antistrophic dipole effect of the CMB. It’s blue shifted in one direction and red shifted in the opposite, indicating motion. We are apparently in motion in comparison to the CMB. Maybe we could get a fairly accurate co-ordinate system based on more accurate readings from the CMB. Or we could just keep on cheating.
I am not concerned about co-ordinate systems. It's that I find that SR does not make sense with it's paradoxes, and it has not ever been proven. That some frames of reference are more valid than others does make sense, and apparently it has been proven.

Thanks for you insight.

 

[russ_watters]

This forum exists to teach Relativity, not to provide crackpots who aren't interested in learning it a place to give speeches. Thread locked.