Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity Flawed?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ingodszoo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Einstein
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the potential flaws in Einstein's Theory of Relativity, specifically focusing on the equation e=mc² and the implications of treating the speed of light as a vector. Participants explore theoretical objections, implications for energy, and the experimental validation of relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the definition of mass in e=mc² and suggests that the speed of light lacks a vector component.
  • Another participant proposes a hypothetical scenario where the speed of light is treated as a vector and asks how e=mc² would change under this assumption.
  • Some participants assert that speed is not an invariant vector in relativity and that the speed of light does not have an associated vector, framing 'c' as a proportionality constant between space and time dimensions.
  • There is a discussion on the nature of relativistic energy, with one participant noting that rest-mass energy is not present in non-relativistic mechanics and questioning why relativistic energy should depend on direction.
  • One participant argues that Einstein's theories have been confirmed by experiments to a high degree of precision, suggesting that any flaws would be minimal.
  • Another participant introduces a perspective that emphasizes fundamental principles, such as conservation of spin currents, suggesting that Riemann geometry may not adequately address these principles.
  • A later reply challenges the utility of the aforementioned perspective without experimental verification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, with some defending its experimental support while others raise theoretical objections. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views present.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about mass and the treatment of the speed of light. The discussion also reflects a dependence on definitions that may not be universally accepted.

ingodszoo
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I can't help but think that e=mc2 has a flaw. One mass is not defined to its simplest form and the speed of light has no vector accounted for. Any thoughts about this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To address your second objection, let's imagine for a moment that c were a vector. How would you write the new and improved e=mc2 when c is a vector?
 
Speed is not an invariant vector in relativity. Also, speed of light doesn't have any associated vector.

Constant 'c' is just proportionality between space and time dimensions.
 
Speed is not an invariant vector in relativity. Also, speed of light doesn't have any associated vector.

Constant 'c' is just proportionality between space and time dimensions.
 
Relativistic energy is rest-mass energy plus kinetic energy. In non-relativistic mechanics, rest-mass energy doesn't exist, of course, and kinetic energy doesn't depend on the direction of motion. So why should relativistic energy depend on direction?
 
To addresses the title more directly: Einstein couldn't possibly have been wrong by more than a tiny fraction of a percent: his theories have been confirmed by experiments to a high degree of precision.
 
russ_watters said:
To addresses the title more directly: Einstein couldn't possibly have been wrong by more than a tiny fraction of a percent: his theories have been confirmed by experiments to a high degree of precision.

That's one perspective provided by the sieve of practicality and application. The sieve I favor is less forgiving, comprised of principles that seem to have a fundamental nature. Included in these might be the conservation of spin currents for which Riemann geometry appears to fall short.
 
Last edited:
Phrak, your sieve is useless without experimental verification.
 
nnnm4 said:
Phrak, your sieve is useless without experimental verification.

Gad Zooks! All these years conserving momentum gone to waste. Please elaborate.
 

Similar threads

High School How does Einstein's equation work? Why do we need to square c?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
High School Gravity and speed of information for orbiting planets
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
Undergrad "Time is an illusion" according to Einstein
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
14K
Graduate Electrodynamics of moving bodies - §2: On the relativity of... (again)
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Undergrad GR as Gauge Theory
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad The Einstein Clock aka Light Clock
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Undergrad Understanding Einstein's second postulate of special relativity
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
Undergrad A problem in the equations for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Relative Nature of Speed: Einstein and Orbits
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad What if one is in 1905 and debating foundational fundamentals?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K