Simplified Special Relativity: Looking to get roasted on this

[DavidMiranda]

TL;DR

Messed around with Special Relativity and found I could model the same things with different assumptions. For example, the constant speed of light was a consequence, instead of a postulate. Can't figure out if there are mistakes.

After doing some calculations, I found a model that leads to some of the same results as Special Relativity, specifically time dilation and the relativistic Doppler Effect, but that doesn't assume the same things.

In fact, in this model, the constant and equal speed of light in all reference frames is a conclusion, not a postulate.

I tried to ask my teachers for help, but obviously no one would touch this with a ten meter pole, and I understand that, but it is frustrating because they keep telling me I must have a mistake without ever looking through the calculations.

Does anyone more experienced have suggestions on what I could/should do with this?

 

[Ibix]

There are multiple ways to arrive at SR, and not all of them directly put in the invariant speed of light as a postulate. So-called "one postulate" derivations (here for example) start with the principle of relativity and show that the only two theories consistent with it are Galilean and Einsteinian relativity; experiment rules out Galileo. Or you can deduce it by figuring out the coordinate transformations under which Maxwell's equations are invariant.

Generally, if you derive implications from postulates then you can take some set of those implications as postulates and derive your original postulates as implications of your new ones. I think what gets called the postulates of a theory are chosen for historical reasons, or because someone later found a better (perhaps smaller, or more simply defined) set.

So the idea of deriving the invariant speed from other postulates is not crazy. Whether you have done so correctly and/or in a novel way, I don't know. I'd advise direct messaging the mentors before posting any details, since this is at least on the boundaries of "personal theory".

 

[DavidMiranda]

Thank you for the suggestion. I am new here and was unaware I could/should send a direct message to the mentors for this.

Don't worry, I wasn't going to post the calculations without being prompted to do that: that much I understood.

 

[Ibix]

The question you asked is fine, I think. Assuming you've done what I'm supposing you've done posting the details should be fine too, but given that the mentors can just delete anything you post this is one of those situations where it's probably wiser to ask permission than forgiveness.

 

[DavidMiranda]

The question you asked is fine, I think. Assuming you've done what I'm supposing you've done posting the details should be fine too, but given that the mentors can just delete anything you post this is one of those situations where it's probably wiser to ask permission than forgiveness.

Well, what I was more preoccupied about, here in particular, was what I could do to pursue the idea. I was aware this wasn't the place to actually ask for someone to give an opinion about the model itself.

The problem is, as an undergraduate, it would be really difficult to publish, especially since no teacher will help me.

That's the crux of the matter. I don't know what to do with this.

Also, I'm starting to think I may have posted in the wrong topic... I hope I didn't get into trouble.

EDIT: Uhm... I've been looking around but I am having trouble knowing who to contact... where can I see a list of mentors and their preffered topics? Do you mean the Staff?

EDIT: Sent a message, waiting for reply. Thank you for you help.

 

[Dale]

In general, a mathematical framework has a large set of statements that are true in the framework. Usually, you can take some small subset of the true statements and prove all the remaining ones from those. That subset of statements are called postulates or axioms, and they are typically not unique.

My favorite set of postulates for special relativity is simply the statement that “spacetime is a flat pseudo-Riemannian manifold with signature (-+++)”. And demonstrating alternative sets of postulates is a pretty common thing to do in the scientific literature.

I would recommend first doing a good literature search to see what postulates are out there already. Perhaps your set is already done, or perhaps you will see that your set is insufficient for some reason.

 

[DavidMiranda]

I understand that not all axiom systems are minimal or categorical, let alone unique.

That you raised that point clearly shows I did not explain myself correctly, so let me clarify.

The issue is not that the assumptions are different from existing ones, nor that they represent a subset of them. It is they appear to conflict with well established principles, which I believe should not be contradicted lightly.

Of course, the first assumption I must make is that there is an error somewhere in my reasoning. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet after repeatedly checking the calculations and arguments, I have not been able to identify the mistake.

This leaves me in an difficult position. Any scientific work requires critical review, but in this case independent scrutiny is especially important. At the same time, the conflict with accepted principles makes it difficult to persuade others (teachers included) to spend time analyzing it.

So my question is: what is the best way to proceed when you have a result that is probably mistaken, but you cannot find the mistake yourself, and no one seems willing to review it because the claims are not acceptable?

As for searching the literature, you are absolutely right. I tried to do it with the resources at my disposal, but all I could find were studies that don't use the same arguments or give the same results, and very few of them, probably because of the claims.

EDIT: I forgot to emphasize the work does not contradict observations, only some postulates.

 

[Sagittarius A-Star]

As for searching the literature, you are absolutely right. I tried to do it with the resources at my disposal, but all I could find were studies that don't use the same arguments or give the same results, and very few of them, probably because of the claims.

EDIT: I forgot to emphasize the work does not contradict observations, only some postulates.

@Ibix linked a related paper in posting #2. It does already, what you claim in the OP.
A general boost transformation in $x$-direction between intertial frames in equation (27) is derived without using the 2^nd SR postulate:
$$\begin{pmatrix}
x' \\
t'
\end{pmatrix}
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-Kv^2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -v \\
-Kv & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
x \\
t
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Source:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045

Then 3 cases remain:
$K<0$ is shown to be not self-consistent
$K=0$ would mean that an absolute true time $t=t'$ exists (Newton) -> refuted by experiment
$K>0$ would mean special relativity ($c$ is invariant, Einstein) -> not refuted by experiment

 

[Matterwave]

The postulate that the speed of light is constant and independent of frames is borne out by observation. Most famously by Michelson Morley and then subsequently over many experiments later on. It's probably one of the more well tested postulates of a physical theory since its result is quite unintuitive.

There might be some wrinkles in how you want to define "testing the principle of relativity" (I don't want to get into it here). But I think most physicists would say the principle of relativity is also very well tested.

It is somehow a bit dismissive of the body of experimental scientific work and literature to say "I violate no experiment, I only violate the postulates of SR" if those experimentalists spent all that effort to "validate the postulates of SR". Have you looked through all these experimental tests to see if they convince you of the postulates?

Certainly the problem could be theoretical. Maybe we haven't developed the theory of SR to "really be a consequence of the postulates". There, it might be useful to see some of Einstein's original work to see if his arguments convince you.

I feel like this basically exhausts the possibilities. If your claim is your theory is consistent, arising from postulates that contradict the postulates of SR, while still reproducing all of its observations, then you have a pretty uphill battle to climb.

The only thing I could say there is the overwhelming possibility is that there is an error in your calculations or chain of logic. If the error is purely calculational, maybe an AI would pick it up. If the error is logical, and it's non obvious, then it's very easy to deceive an AI into agreeing with you.

Note that other responders here have in their responses, as I read them, generally assumed your postulates don't contradict the SR ones, only that you chose a different initial set.

EDIT: I forgot to emphasize the work does not contradict observations, only some postulates.

 

[DavidMiranda]

@Ibix linked a related paper in posting #2. It does already, what you claim in the OP.
A general boost transformation in $x$-direction between intertial frames in equation (27) is derived without using the 2^nd SR postulate:
$$\begin{pmatrix}
x' \\
t'
\end{pmatrix}
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-Kv^2}}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & -v \\
-Kv & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
x \\
t
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Source:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045

Then 3 cases remain:
$K<0$ is shown to be not self-consistent
$K=0$ would mean that an absolute true time $t=t'$ exists (Newton) -> refuted by experiment
$K>0$ would mean special relativity ($c$ is invariant, Einstein) -> not refuted by experiment

It is difficult to explain my claim without saying what the assumptions actually are, but it is true, if you only change the Principle of Relativity, you wouldn't get anywhere.

Mind you, I have no problem showing the calculations, that's the whole point of my question. I am not sharing because, if I'm not mistaken, it is against the rules of the Forum. Just wanted to clarify this point.

That said, in experiments you measure time differently, but even inside Special Relativity there is a difference between what you can measure, and what the model implies is happening, as for example with the Andromeda paradox: everyone gets the same information at the same time, if they are in the same place at the same time, but what they calculate is the time at Andromeda is different, if they are moving at different speeds (even if they cannot receive that information).

That's what happens in what I've been studying. What can be directly observed is the same, until now, but what the model says is happening is different. Although, this raises a very interesting issue which I'm well aware of: if what I said is true, so far the model is not falsifiable. I believe it is, but perhaps it's a bit premature to discuss that if I can't even show the arguments in the first place

The postulate that the speed of light is constant and independent of frames is borne out by observation. Most famously by Michelson Morley and then subsequently over many experiments later on. It's probably one of the more well tested postulates of a physical theory since its result is quite unintuitive.

There might be some wrinkles in how you want to define "testing the principle of relativity" (I don't want to get into it here). But I think most physicists would say the principle of relativity is also very well tested.

It is somehow a bit dismissive of the body of experimental scientific work and literature to say "I violate no experiment, I only violate the postulates of SR" if those experimentalists spent all that effort to "validate the postulates of SR". Have you looked through all these experimental tests to see if they convince you of the postulates?

Certainly the problem could be theoretical. Maybe we haven't developed the theory of SR to "really be a consequence of the postulates". There, it might be useful to see some of Einstein's original work to see if his arguments convince you.

I feel like this basically exhausts the possibilities. If your claim is your theory is consistent, arising from postulates that contradict the postulates of SR, while still reproducing all of its observations, then you have a pretty uphill battle to climb.

The only thing I could say there is the overwhelming possibility is that there is an error in your calculations or chain of logic. If the error is purely calculational, maybe an AI would pick it up. If the error is logical, and it's non obvious, then it's very easy to deceive an AI into agreeing with you.

Note that other responders here have in their responses, as I read them, generally assumed your postulates don't contradict the SR ones, only that you chose a different initial set.

Well, I understand your frustration at yet another bizarre claim, but I'd like to point out I didn't contradict the constant and equal speed of light, I just said in this model that would be a consequence, not a principle. I contradict other things, but those can't be directly measured.

Interesting you mentioned Einstein's work. I did read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." It's a wonderful work. Couldn't agree more with his arguments, just wish I were more used to the notation of the time.

I must say, I agree with all of the arguments that have been provided here, with the notable exception of

I feel like this basically exhausts the possibilities.

and

It is somehow a bit dismissive of the body of experimental scientific work and literature to say "I violate no experiment, I only violate the postulates of SR" if those experimentalists spent all that effort to "validate the postulates of SR". Have you looked through all these experimental tests to see if they convince you of the postulates?

The problem is I cannot discuss the content of my work here, as far as I can tell, and so the only thing I asked was what I should do about it.

I do claim it seems to be right, but I don't claim it is right. Whether it is right or wrong is what I want to find out.

 

[martinbn]

So my question is: what is the best way to proceed when you have a result that is probably mistaken, but you cannot find the mistake yourself, and no one seems willing to review it because the claims are not acceptable?

I'd say, move on. Study physics, special relativity in particular, but don't limit yourself to it. Later, when you have a reasonable undertanding of the subject, revisit your calculations and the mistake will be obvious to you.

 

[Matterwave]

Sorry if this got lost, but I was responding specifically to this quote:

EDIT: I forgot to emphasize the work does not contradict observations, only some postulates.

By this I read you are saying you contradict the postulates -- i.e. you state the postulates are false.

There's really just two postulates of SR. Constancy of speed of light and the principle of relativity.

If you "contradict some postulates" (plural) then I assume you mean both.

 

[Matterwave]

Btw, I'm not frustrated, I'm only trying to flesh out the logical possibilities. If you read frustration in my tone, it was unintentional.

 

[martinbn]

It is difficult to explain my claim without saying what the assumptions actually are,

Why don't you say what these assumptions are?

 

[DavidMiranda]

Sorry if this got lost, but I was responding specifically to this quote:



By this I read you are saying you contradict the postulates -- i.e. you state the postulates are false.

There's really just two postulates of SR. Constancy of speed of light and the principle of relativity.

If you "contradict some postulates" (plural) then I assume you mean both.

You are absolutely right. I was trying to eat the cake and have it: I didn't want to say what the assumptions I was making were, to avoid breaking the rules, but at the same time being clear on what I meant. I achieved none of those things, probably.

Btw, I'm not frustrated, I'm only trying to flesh out the logical possibilities. If you read frustration in my tone, it was unintentional.

I am sorry I misinterpreted you. I will be more careful next time.

Why don't you say what these assumptions are?

I don't mind doing so, but there are two things I'd like to point out on that subject.

The first, which I have mentioned before, is that it might not be appropriate. The very first person to reply to me said it might not be acceptable here, and that I should contact a Mentor just in case. I did, but I am still waiting for a reply.

The second is that I wasn't expecting the Forum to be willing to review my work. Because of this all I was expecting to do was ask: what can I do with my work if it is so hard to get anyone to read it.

 

[Dale]

The issue is not that the assumptions are different from existing ones, nor that they represent a subset of them. It is they appear to conflict with well established principles, which I believe should not be contradicted lightly.
...
EDIT: I forgot to emphasize the work does not contradict observations, only some postulates.

So this combination is really not possible. You cannot both have conflicting/contradicting assumptions and no contradiction with observations. As Robertson explained in his famous 1949 paper "Postulate versus Observation in the Special Theory of Relativity" (https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.21.378), you don't actually need any of the usual postulates. You can simply use observation to constrain the most general possible model and arrive at the Lorentz transforms.

So, the usual approach is to start with the usual relativistic postulates, let's call those $P$. From $P$ you can derive the Lorentz transform, $L$. So $P \rightarrow L$, which was Einstein's big contribution. However, you can also derive $P$ from $L$, so really it is $P \leftrightarrow L$.

And from $L$ you can predict the set of all special relativistic observations $O$. So the usual approach is $P \leftrightarrow L \rightarrow O$. And what Robertson showed is that $O$ implies $L$, so then we have $P \leftrightarrow L \leftrightarrow O$.

So now, if you have a different set of principles $P'$ that also imply $O$ then we immediately have $P' \rightarrow O \leftrightarrow L \leftrightarrow P$. So, either your $P'$ must be consistent with $P$ or your $P'$ cannot predict $O$.

 

[DavidMiranda]

I'm argumenting with both hands tied behind my back, because I cannot show my arguments.

I could keep trying to argue my case by trying to find the issues in your own, but that doesn't solve anything until I can actually show the work.

I didn't give any arguments to validate my work, and was expecting none to refute it.

What I am really interested in is that someone with experience (hopefully a professor or a doctorate student) to advise me on what I could do with my work to get it reviewed, to clarify things for me.

Whoever reads the work will then be in a good position to say if there is a mistake in a calculation, or if there is a fallacy in one of the arguments, or if it has been done before, etc.

If a member of the staff says I can post my findings, then I will do so gladly, and everyone will be able to find the flaws in my arguments.

If, in the meantime, someone can answer the question I made, I will be extremely thankful.

 

[Matterwave]

Tbh probably the most productive thing that could be done is to do as martin suggested earlier. Study the theory or theories and in the future the mistake will be clear to you. With overwhelming probability, there is a mistake somewhere either in your chain of reasoning or calculations.

But you will find, the people who should be most receptive to proofreading your work are your peers or professors or TAs at uni. Going beyond that circle and asking people online is much harder and has higher bars to clear.

 

[martinbn]

You are absolutely right. I was trying to eat the cake and have it: I didn't want to say what the assumptions I was making were, to avoid breaking the rules, but at the same time being clear on what I meant. I achieved none of those things, probably.



I am sorry I misinterpreted you. I will be more careful next time.



I don't mind doing so, but there are two things I'd like to point out on that subject.

The first, which I have mentioned before, is that it might not be appropriate. The very first person to reply to me said it might not be acceptable here, and that I should contact a Mentor just in case. I did, but I am still waiting for a reply.

The second is that I wasn't expecting the Forum to be willing to review my work. Because of this all I was expecting to do was ask: what can I do with my work if it is so hard to get anyone to read it.

Which rule would it violate? You are stating the assumpyions of a calculation!

 

[DavidMiranda]

Tbh probably the most productive thing that could be done is to do as martin suggested earlier. Study the theory or theories and in the future the mistake will be clear to you. With overwhelming probability, there is a mistake somewhere either in your chain of reasoning or calculations.

As far as that is concerned, my position is indefensible. I cannot convince you I did research, and even if I could, I don't know how much of it would be enough to satisfy that criterion.

But you will find, the people who should be most receptive to proofreading your work are your peers or professors or TAs at uni. Going beyond that circle and asking people online is much harder and has higher bars to clear.

I totally agree with you. It is indeed one good answer to my problem, to contact the professors.

That would be ideal, but as I noted on my first post, not even my teachers are willing to touch this.

Which rule would it violate? You are stating the assumpyions of a calculation!

I don't know how to answer that after what I have already said.

 

[martinbn]

I don't know how to answer that after what I have already said.

By quoting the forum rule that forbids you to state the assumptions of the calculations.

 

[Dale]

argue my case

In all honesty, there is no point in trying to argue your case. As I showed in post 16 you have two mutually contradictory claims, so you are guaranteed that your arguments are wrong. What you need is to not argue your case but to learn where exactly your mistake is. It must* be the case that $P'$ does not imply $O$ or that $P'$ does not contradict $P$.

What I am really interested in is that someone with experience (hopefully a professor or a doctorate student) to advise me on what I could do with my work to get it reviewed, to clarify things for me.

Your best bet will be to actually meet a professor at your local university and discuss it with them. Any university and most colleges will have some professor on campus that teaches relativity and could both look at your work and teach you the mistake.

if there is a mistake in a calculation, or if there is a fallacy in one of the arguments, or if it has been done before, etc.

There is no "if". It is "where" is the mistake.

*by "not contradict" I also include the possibility that $P'$ approximates $P$ to within the experimental precision of $O$. I.e. one is a limit of the other. In this sense, relativity generalizes Newtonian mechanics rather than contradicting it.

 

[DavidMiranda]

In all honesty, there is no point in trying to argue your case. As I showed in post 16 you have two mutually contradictory claims, so you are guaranteed that your arguments are wrong. What you need is to not argue your case but to learn where exactly your mistake is. It must* be the case that P′ does not imply O or that P′ does not contradict P.

I believe you are misinterpreting what is "my case."

Your best bet will be to actually meet a professor at your local university and discuss it with them. Any university and most colleges will have some professor on campus that teaches relativity and could both look at your work and teach you the mistake.

This is an answer to my case, which was, "what can I do with my work?" However, as I have stated, my teachers won't touch this. All they say is that it is wrong, without ever telling me why it is wrong, because they never actually get to see the arguments.

 

[Dale]

my teachers won't touch this

Then you need to branch out beyond your teachers.

The other possible approach is to just learn relativity yourself. In the course of learning it then you will gain enough knowledge to find where you made the mistake. That approach worked for me.

 

[martinbn]

I believe you are misinterpreting what is "my case."

This is an answer to my case, which was, "what can I do with my work?" However, as I have stated, my teachers won't touch this. All they say is that it is wrong, without ever telling me why it is wrong, because they never actually get to see the arguments.

I don't think that peole here will change their answers simply because you keep repeating your question. It looks like you are not interested in what they have to say, but you are going to ask untill you get the answer you had in mind before you started this thread.

 

[martinbn]

Then you need to branch out beyond your teachers.

The other possible approach is to just learn relativity yourself. In the course of learning it then you will gain enough knowledge to find where you made the mistake. That approach worked for me.

I suggested this in post 11, he wants something different.

 

[Dale]

I think that is pretty exhaustive: either get help or do it yourself. Those are the two basic options for most tasks

 

[DavidMiranda]

I don't think that peole here will change their answers simply because you keep repeating your question. It looks like you are not interested in what they have to say, but you are going to ask untill you get the answer you had in mind before you started this thread.

You assume I didn't study Relativity, which is fair, since I stated "If it is wrong" which clearly means I assume it might be right, and you are certain I'm am not. However, I did study.

I suggested this in post 11, he wants something different.

Even though you were not speaking to me, I would like to ask, do you mean studying Relativity, or reaching out to teachers? Because I did both of those things.

I don't think that peole here will change their answers simply because you keep repeating your question. It looks like you are not interested in what they have to say, but you are going to ask untill you get the answer you had in mind before you started this thread.

You are right, and the answers where "study harder" or "talk with your teachers." I don't know how harder I should study, in order to adequately react to the first answer, and I already said I tried the second approach, to no avail.

Moreover, most of the posts have focused on why I am wrong, not on answering my question, and that is why I have been repeating it.

I think I understand why it is difficult to answer the question beyond those two items, when the question is related to something that is anathema to you. Perhaps it is best not to press the issue. If someone suggests anything other than "study harder" and "talk to your teachers", I will be thankful. If not, well, I guess I will have to stick to those two.

 

[javisot]

So my question is: what is the best way to proceed when you have a result that is probably mistaken, but you cannot find the mistake yourself, and no one seems willing to review it because the claims are not acceptable?

Have you tried IA? You should ask it to critique your idea. It's true that if you ask it to help you create an absurd theory, it will, but if you ask it to find flaws and criticisms in your theories, it will do that too.

 

[DavidMiranda]

either get help

Well, I couldn't find help in my university, so I guess I'll have to go on the internet, search for some sort of Forum (I think they are called Forums in English), where people who know more than me about the subject might give me some hints... know of any such place?