Simplified explanation of SR for relativity-denier

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pellis
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around strategies for explaining Einstein's Special Relativity (SR) to individuals who deny its validity, particularly those without a mathematical background. Participants explore various approaches, analogies, and the challenges of communicating complex scientific concepts to skeptics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using simplified analogies, such as comparing time dilation to changes in perspective in spacetime or the appearance of a train's velocity vector from different angles.
  • Others express skepticism about the effectiveness of arguing with relativity-deniers, asserting that it may be a waste of time.
  • A participant proposes providing links to experimental evidence supporting SR, emphasizing that any alternative theory must account for established experiments.
  • Some argue that the denial of SR may stem from a misunderstanding of how scientific concepts are constructed from observations and measurements.
  • Participants discuss the idea that some individuals may have a strong emotional attachment to their denial of SR, complicating the discussion.
  • There are mentions of specific experiments, such as the Bertozzi experiment and the behavior of muons, as evidence supporting SR, though it is noted that these may not convince a skeptic.
  • One participant highlights the practical applications of SR in technology, such as GPS and particle accelerators, as a potential persuasive angle.
  • Another participant argues that the invariance of the speed of light and the spacetime interval are key differences between SR and Newtonian physics, which the denier may not recognize.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the challenges of persuading relativity-deniers and the limitations of simplified arguments. However, there are multiple competing views on the effectiveness of different approaches and the nature of the denial itself, leaving the discussion unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion is complicated by the emotional and psychological factors influencing the denial of SR, as well as the varying levels of understanding of scientific concepts among individuals.

  • #61
Dale said:
Your arguments are fine, but doomed to failure anyway. I would give them this link and then walk away:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Any alternative theory must explain all of these experiments. Not just Michelson Morley

I liked how he made space for a whole section just to roast people. It's like the Darwin/Razzy awards but for experimentalists:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/phys...ments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_SR
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sagittarius A-Star
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
ergospherical said:
I liked how he made space for a whole section just to roast people. It's like the Darwin/Razzy awards but for experimentalists:

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/phys...ments.html#Experiments_not_consistent_with_SR
He mis-spelled the name of the anti-relativist Hartwig Thim.

Thim's dubious IEEE paper "Absence of the relativistic transverse Doppler shift at microwave frequencies":
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1240186

A counter-argument against Thim's anti-SR interpretation of his experiment:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5374026
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
935
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
11K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K