Is special relativity incomplete?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the completeness of special relativity (SR), particularly in relation to the twin paradox and the implications of different inertial reference frames. Participants explore the nature of simultaneity, time dilation, and how different observers perceive motion and aging in relativistic contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about how two observers in different inertial frames can both be correct regarding their motion and aging, questioning the implications of SR on a single event.
  • Others clarify that while both observers may perceive themselves as at rest, the laws of physics remain consistent across frames, though they may disagree on simultaneity and time flow.
  • A participant suggests that the situation resembles classical physics, where frame-dependent quantities lead to different interpretations of motion.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that the twin paradox can be resolved by considering the change in reference frames when one twin turns around, affecting their perception of simultaneity.
  • Concerns are raised about whether SR can definitively determine which observer is moving or aging slower, with some arguing that both perspectives can coexist without contradiction.
  • One participant notes that SR does not account for gravitational effects, suggesting that General Relativity is necessary for a complete understanding of such scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that both observers in the twin paradox can be correct in their perspectives, but they disagree on the implications of this for the completeness of SR. The discussion remains unresolved regarding whether SR can definitively determine motion and aging in all scenarios.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of simultaneity and the unresolved nature of how to interpret motion in a single inertial frame. The discussion also highlights the need for General Relativity in contexts involving gravity.

  • #61
russ_watters said:
You've stated this several times and it has been explained to you that (and how) it is wrong several times. I'm not sure what else can be said - it is up to you whether you want to believe the reality or not.

Sorry if I did something wrong. I did not know there were enough explanations provided and I was thinking to keep asking a new question which is not stated before although the purpose is the one to see the possibility for the existence of absolute time and space.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Vitro said:
So, assuming the same speed of light in this frame too, how can you get the events of the pulse reaching the two ends be simultaneous? Please note that when we say the speed of light is constant we mean wrt the frame where you measure it, not wrt the light source.

What if I move the position of a pulsing light slightly from middle to the leading end after considering the velocity of the rod relative to light? In this way, I think it would be possible to get the events of the pulse reaching to two ends be simultaneous measured with regard to my frame.

Mister T said:
These experimental results have been confirmed to such an overwhelming extent that there is no room left for doubt.

I don't agree the validity of SR is confirmed in the region of singularity point such as black hole. If not confirmed there, then I believe that there should be room left for doubt although it may not be possible to test in practical point of view.
 
  • #63
flexible_time said:
I don't agree the validity of SR is confirmed in the region of singularity point such as black hole.
SR fails way outside the black hole. That's why GR was introduced.
 
  • #64
flexible_time said:
One more thing I would like to point out is that it is impossible to see only the notion of absolute moving without the notion of absolute rest. I think the opposite notion of moving is resting. So if light is absolutely moving in space, then we need to accept that there exists the notion of "absolute rest" because the notion for moving and rest is like the head and tail of a coin as we always can see the relative resting and relative moving between two inertial frames. If you agree with light is moving absolutely in space, you must also accept the notion of absolute rest. What do you think that?
I think you need to read the paper by Pal that I linked to earlier. He shows that the principle of relativity leads to either Newton or Einstein (and no other option) without invoking a constant speed of light. The idea of a constant speed falls out of the maths. So no, the two ideas are not contradictory.

The rest of your post is you attempting to reason verbally about something best described by maths. Try learning the maths; then you'll understand the theory, not the caricature you keep describing.
 
  • #65
What is concerning is that you don't seem to be acknowledging the simple explanation you have been given - that light behaves differently from objects with mass or sound. I'm not sure that you get that what you think is a contradiction, if it were really a problem it would show up in experiments. In fact it is the other way around: the idea that light behaves same as sound or objects was causing problems didn't work. That is the whole reason special relativity was developed.

You seem to be taking a posture that you are trying to argue around this idea rather than learning it. That is not what PF is for and this posture is preventing you from learning how it really works.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
flexible_time said:
What if I move the position of a pulsing light slightly from middle to the leading end after considering the velocity of the rod relative to light? In this way, I think it would be possible to get the events of the pulse reaching to two ends be simultaneous measured with regard to my frame.
Of course. But then they won't be simultaneous in the other frame.
 
  • #67
A.T. said:
SR fails way outside the black hole. That's why GR was introduced.

Yes, thank for correcting me. But my understanding is that GR , another theory of relativity supporting only the relativistic nature of time and space is not perfect to describe all behavior around BH so I still think there may be room for doubt.
 
  • #68
This thread is closed.

This forum is for people who want to learn about relativity, not for people who wish to ignore the evidence and explanations to cling to an outdated philosophy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, russ_watters and jbriggs444

Similar threads

Undergrad Twin Paradox Resolution
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
High School Einstein's Twin Paradox: Confusing Solution?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Is time dilation a real effect?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
High School Trying to calculate proper time of worldlines using rotating frames
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
High School My paraphrased explanation of the Twin Paradox
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
High School Understanding the Twin Paradox: Simplifying with a Clear Experiment
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
High School A scenario to help understand the twin paradox in SR
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
Undergrad Understanding Relativity of Simultaneity in Resnick, Part II
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad The wave equation interpretation of special relativity
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Undergrad Reference systems and apparent counter-explanations on Twin Paradox
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K