B Is Special Relativity Universally Accepted?

[zonde]

Wow, thanks to all for such an informative set of answers. You have all very kindly provided lots of extra reading into the history and validity of SR which is exactly what I wanted. I can't thank you all enough and I will definitely read over all the extra links/info provided. I have never come across crack pot scientists yet I can't quite get over how angry they made me feel. They were saying that professors know SR is wrong but they don't tell their students this otherwise they would have to scrap most of modern physics as it is based on SR like we are all leading some kind of lie in the science community.

I would like provide a viewpoint from a bit different perspective in addition to valid and informative things others have said in this thread.
There is possible reason why such crack pots show up and keep spreading nonsense. The reason as I see it is that SR often comes with a bit of philosophy. That bit of philosophy is that inertial reference frames are fundamentally equivalent. That piece of philosophy is unacceptable for some (including me). But there are two things about it:
1. Even if you reject that, let me rather call it - interpretation, you still get the exactly the same physics. There is a term for this approach - Lorentz Relativity.
2. If people are incapable to separate interpretation from actual physics they might start to attack the physics because they wrongly perceive that actual physics depend on that interpretation while it does not.

I hope my explanation can help you reduce your emotions and help you defend physics better if you ever need to.

 

[NoTe]

inertial reference frames are fundamentally equivalent.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-special-relativity-universally-accepted.935879/page-2: this is not philosophy, it is plain physics!

 

[NoTe]

Oops, something went wrong, #31 was meant as a reply to #30.

 

[zonde]

inertial reference frames are fundamentally equivalent.

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-special-relativity-universally-accepted.935879/page-2: this is not philosophy, it is plain physics!

How do you experimentally test the difference between fundamental equivalence and non fundamental equivalence?

 

[NoTe]

"How do you experimentally test the difference between fundamental equivalence and non fundamental equivalence?"

Equivalent just means that you cannot distinguish whether you are on the one or on the other, as an observer: you will find exactly the same laws of physics. This holds for all inertial reference frames. That's why the equivalence is physics and not philosophy. Does that answer your question? (P.S. I do not know what you mean by fundamentally equivalent, I would say equivalent is equivalent).

 

[PeterDonis]

That bit of philosophy is that inertial reference frames are fundamentally equivalent.

Please provide a mainstream reference--textbook or peer-reviewed paper--that makes this claim. Otherwise it is not SR, it is just your personal opinion.

 

[PeterDonis]

There is a term for this approach - Lorentz Relativity.

Which is off topic per the PF rules.

 

[vanhees71]

To expand on what I said about CERN. It’s particle accelerators work by creating an electromagnetic pulse that gives the projectiles a little push. These pulses have to be synced up so that they push the particles at exactly the right time, so you have to be able to calculate where they are going to be.

As you approach relativistic speeds (well within the capabilities of CERN) those pushes give each particle less speed because it’s harder to push. This has to be accounted for and is. If it wasn’t, the beam and the pulses would be out of sync.To address professors knowing SR is wrong: sort of? They know it’s a special case of general relativity: as in it doesn’t work in the real world because it doesn’t allow for acceleration. But teaching it is a required step to understand general relativity. Teachers teach Newtonian physics first, and that’s not necessarily wrong, just incomplete. If you want to be technical, GR still is incomplete and everyone knows that. People tend to cherry pick specific flaws in a theory in order to try and throw out the whole thing and that’s not how science works.

Well, you can calculate the trajectories of particles without ever using the idea of a speed-dependent mass. These are relics of the very early years of SR, and you don't need relativistic masses anymore to precisely calculate relativistic trajectories, and indeed LHC wouldn't work if you'd not use precise relativsitic analysis.

 

[zonde]

Otherwise it is not SR

Of course it's not SR, that was what I claimed.
Ok, maybe I was not clear enough so let me reformulate the statement: SR often comes with a bit of philosophy that is not part of SR.

Please provide a mainstream reference--textbook or peer-reviewed paper--that makes this claim.

And here are references:
Bell,J.S.(1987).How to teach special relativity. Speakable and Unspeakable in quantum mechanics:papers on quantum philosophy. CUP, Cambridge
Special Relativity from the Dynamical Viewpoint
This is arxiv publication, but it contains references to relevant textbooks: On the Lorentzian route to Relativity

 

[mfb]

This is simply a case for Occam’s razor. You can use special relativity. Or you can use a framework that makes exactly the same predictions as special relativity but has to add various elements that are not observable and make the mathematics more complicated. It’s like working with special relativity but additionally assuming the existence of an invisible unicorn without any interactions. The unicorn doesn’t change anything but you still include it in every statement you make.

 

[vanhees71]

It's ridiculous to claim the teaching of outdated ideas as pedagogical. Lorentz's route to relativity with his insistence on the existence of an aether even after Einstein's breakthrough is really outdated and should be taught in lectures on the history of science (which should be offered to interested students far more than is the case) but not in physics lectures. Here the Einsteinian point of view is the most clear and convincing way accepted by the majority of physicists.

 

[zonde]

Or you can use a framework that makes exactly the same predictions as special relativity but has to add various elements that are not observable and make the mathematics more complicated.

Can you provide a reference that changing philosophy behind SR leads to any changes in mathematics of SR?

It's ridiculous to claim the teaching of outdated ideas as pedagogical.

What is your pedagogical perspective on these findings?
Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames
From abstract: "Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist."

 

[vanhees71]

Well, of course we all have gone through this stage of confusion when learning SR for the first time. That's natural since we enter a realm of experience we are not exposed to in everyday life, where everything seems pretty much Newtonian. You have to try to teach the ability to get rid of prejudices of "common sense" when entering such unusual realms of phenomena. This can and has to be done in very different ways since it's not a priori clear which representation of the material suits each individual student. Some understand things better in terms of formulae, others prefer graphical presentations in terms of Minkowski diagrams or other alternatives. The only thing that must be avoided in physics lectures in my opinion is to teach outdated points of view first, because at least for me such approaches were most confusing. E.g., it was very difficult for me to get rid of the wrong ideas of Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic theory to think in terms of electron trajectories around the nucleus. Here one should teach modern QT right away without even mentioning the wrong ideas. The same holds true for relativity and electromagnetics: I'd never present the old-fashioned mechanical aether models used by Maxwell to derive his theory, finally leading him indeed to the still valid Maxwell equations, whose later analysis finally lead to abandoning aether and substitute it by Einstein-Minkowski spacetime.

On the other hand, for a full understanding of the contempory points of view provided by the most modern theories, some knowledge about the historical development of ideas indeed is important, but this should be clearly separated from the main sequence of arguments in a physics lecture which should teach the subject without reference to historically important but outdated ideas, but there should be used some time to also teach the historical development to get a better understanding of the meaning of the modern theories, but it must be clearly said that these are outdated points of view to prevent confusing the students and cementing prejudices rather than getting rid of them.

 

[zonde]

The only thing that must be avoided in physics lectures in my opinion is to teach outdated points of view first

Right. Therefore modern authors seem to have adopted the term "dynamical interpretation" to separate outdated historical viewpoints from current actual viewpoint (about alternative pedagogical approach to SR).

 

[PeterDonis]

here are references

The first and third references appear to discuss pedagogy. Pedagogy is not physics.

The second reference talks about a "dynamical viewpoint", and says that this viewpoint does not require postulating a preferred frame. It nowhere claims that you cannot postulate a preferred frame. It simply ignores that issue since the issue is irrelevant to the dynamical mechanisms it is discussing.

 

[PeterDonis]

Can you provide a reference that changing philosophy behind SR leads to any changes in mathematics of SR?

It doesn't. Nobody said it did.

What is your pedagogical perspective on these findings?

Pedagogy is not physics.

"Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist."

So what? How does that relate to the claim I asked you to provide a reference for? Answer: it doesn't.

 

[PeterDonis]

The OP question has been addressed, and the thread is turning into a discussion of LET, which is not allowed per the PF rules. Thread closed.