Simplified Special Relativity: Looking to get roasted on this

[Sagittarius A-Star]

if you only change the Principle of Relativity, you wouldn't get anywhere.

Do you refer to the Lorentz Ether Theory?

Andromeda paradox

All SR "paradoxes" are only apparently paradoxical but not really. Therefore, they are not valid arguments against the SR postulates.

 

[DavidMiranda]

Do you refer to the Lorentz Ether Theory?

No, and I don't believe that theory is correct. It doesn't fit observation.

All SR "paradoxes" are only apparently paradoxical but not really. Therefore, they are not valid arguments against the SR postulates.

I describe the "paradox" as it is: an effect completely within what is explained by SR. I should have put the word in quotation marks to specify that it is only called a paradox, even though it is not. The Andromeda "paradox" is not a true contradiction, it is a prediction of SR, and I thought the way I described it made that clear. I am sorry if it did not.

Likewise, I didn't say it was an argument against SR. I used it to make a point about measurements and predictions of a theory. Maybe I wasn't clear.

 

[Sagittarius A-Star]

No, and I don't believe that theory is correct. It doesn't fit observation.

It's final version does fit observation:

In the absence of any way to experimentally distinguish between LET and SR, SR is widely preferred over LET, due to the superfluous assumption of an undetectable aether in LET, and the validity of the relativity principle in LET seeming ad hoc or coincidental.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

See the related PF policy:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/pfs-policy-on-lorentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe/

 

[DavidMiranda]

I stand corrected.

 

[Dale]

No, and I don't believe that theory is correct. It doesn't fit observation

It does fit observation!

 

[PeterDonis]

I did study.

"Study" is a very broad term.

Would you be able to pass a graduate level exam in relativity? For example, go to any of a number of university websites that offer course materials, including exams, online for free (MIT's OpenCourseware is one). Look at the final exam for a graduate level course in relativity, and try to complete it, without using AI or any other kind of help (but looking up references in textbooks if you have to, assume it's an open book test). Then see how you did.

If your reaction to the above is "geez, I'm nowhere near being able to do that", then I would say you have not studied enough to be able to spot whatever flaw there is in your reasoning, and you should fix that first, before even trying to convince other people to help you. After all, you're basically trying to command the time and attention of people who can pass the test I described above, and who have lots of other things to do. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect them to look for flaws in your reasoning (and you've already seen why there must be flaws in your reasoning somewhere) when you're not at the same level of knowledge they are to begin with.

 

[Dale]

It doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect them to look for flaws in your reasoning

That is why I suggested a local college. It is absolutely not reasonable to expect, but nevertheless people who enjoy teaching this material may be willing to go to an unreasonable length to help a student in front of them learn a difficult topic.

Of course, there is no guarantee that such an unreasonably generous person does exist at any given college, but that is the best shot. If it doesn't work out, then there is always the self-study option to fall back on.

 

[DaveC426913]

Im groping my way toward what I think the OP is trying to express. It sounds like their idea results in the same observations as SR but, as they said themself, the postulate becomes a consequence, rather than a premise.

It certainly would be interesting if they found another way of showing why the two postulates are "proven" rather than postulated.

One other note: there are other science fora out there that allow speculation. They're not the same quality as PF, but its possible you might make some progress.

 

[DavidMiranda]

Im groping my way toward what I think the OP is trying to express. It sounds like their idea results in the same observations as SR but, as they said themself, the postulate becomes a consequence, rather than a premise.

It certainly would be interesting if they found another way of showing why the two postulates are "proven" rather than postulated.

One other note: there are other science fora out there that allow speculation. They're not the same quality as PF, but its possible you might make some progress.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

I'm not sure the fora/fori (I never get the case right) you mentioned will be able to help, but it is an answer I can work with.

In any case, I'll try with the professors again next year.

Perhaps I will follow the other posters' advice as well. I will have free time, so why not attend the Classical Mechanics II class I had last year again just to make sure I didn't miss anything in the SR chapters? It is true I can't pass the GR classes yet, but I could certainly review the SR classes.

I mentioned in one of my posts that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That was a quote from Carl Sagan and it is known as the Sagan Standard. I agree with it completely.

However I noticed some people here like Feynman quotes, so I'll leave one of those I like here as well: "I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned."

I believe in both, and I think they are complementary. Do with that what you will.

 

[Dale]

It sounds like their idea results in the same observations as SR but, as they said themself, the postulate becomes a consequence, rather than a premise.

That is also what I thought.

 

[berkeman]

In any case, I'll try with the professors again next year.

Perhaps I will follow the other posters' advice as well. I will have free time, so why not attend the Classical Mechanics II class I had last year again just to make sure I didn't miss anything in the SR chapters? It is true I can't pass the GR classes yet, but I could certainly review the SR classes.

Sounds like two great ideas going forward. Always ask questions and learn from the answers from knowledgeable folks.

 

[pervect]

I was thinking earlier that I should suggest you look at some of the already existing alternate formulations of special relativity. But hearing that your theory is somehow both the same and yet different than the standard formulation makes me wonder if that's going to work out.

If the idea interest you, you sound like your in a position to find out some of the alternate formulations on your own, but I imagine you could start a thread on it if you're interested. I think we had at least a brief discussion, but I couldn't find it. I vaguely recall someone posting a diagram of some of the different approaches to formulations. It was in the context of the group theoretical approach, which basically limited the possible group structure of relativity to either being Gallilean theory or Minkowskii theory. The group structure is not all there is to a theory, but sadly I haven't seen a discussion about that - since it's a digression, though, this is probably not the right place to talk about it. You might also look at some of the test theories of special relativity - I couldn't find the name, google finds Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test framework. You could see if your theory fits into that framework or not - which gets to the second point below.

The second suggestion I have is to develop your theory enough that it makes testable predictions. PF isn't in the business of helping people formulate their personal theories. This policy is based on both the goals as an educational forum, and experience that it just doesn't turn out well as threads get what is usually described as "overly speculative".

If you follow the scientific method (I have been assuming you are at least attempting to do so), a good part of your end goal would be to be to settle on how your theory could be tested, then to look at the actual tests that have been done and comparing them to your theory to see if it could be falsified.

 

[Hornbein]

I thought you were trying to say that you could derive special relativity from a different set of postulates than Einstein's. That seems quite possible to me. In math a theory can often be derived from a variety of sets of postulates/axioms. This used to be a popular topic maybe a hundred years ago.

If you actually contradict -- assume the negation -- of one of the usual postulates and nonetheless derive special relativity then something has gone wrong.

While a party reviewed my book for free he was quite interested in the topic and didn't have to check the math. Often it isn't easy to get anyone to proofread mathematics. You could try to hire an impecunious grad student.

People don't like to do it. Maybe it is because most people don't like being told they are wrong. They can be argumentative and that's not pleasant. Isaac Newton had someone proofread his Principia but in the end tired of the criticism.

 

[DavidMiranda]

Again, thank you for the thoughtful replies.

I was thinking earlier that I should suggest you look at some of the already existing alternate formulations of special relativity.

You know, I only did a skim of that because everytime I started reading one the approach was different from my own. But you are right, that is something I should have delved deeper into.

You might also look at some of the test theories of special relativity - I couldn't find the name, google finds Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test framework.

I didn't look up test theories, but I did look up experiments that proved SR, and not just the most known ones. I remember reading one from 1958 that actually cleared a doubt I had, and I had never heard of it before I started researching for my work.

The second suggestion I have is to develop your theory enough that it makes testable predictions.

Well, it is testable, it is tested by by all the same experiments that prove SR, and it fits. If you mean falsifiable then that is something I am working on. However, a theory need not be falsifiable to be useful, it needs only fit observations. At least that's what I understood by reading modern philosophers of science, hence someone posting here something about the Lorentz Ether Theory and SR and saying they both predict the same thing.

Here:

Do you refer to the Lorentz Ether Theory?


All SR "paradoxes" are only apparently paradoxical but not really. Therefore, they are not valid arguments against the SR postulates.

It's final version does fit observation:

Next I'd like to answer this

If you follow the scientific method (I have been assuming you are at least attempting to do so), a good part of your end goal would be to be to settle on how your theory could be tested, then to look at the actual tests that have been done and comparing them to your theory to see if it could be falsified.

Yes, I'm looking into that. For now I am just focusing on making it fit current observations, but as I explore the theory more, I hope to find a way to actually differentiate this theory from SR.

I thought you were trying to say that you could derive special relativity from a different set of postulates than Einstein's. That seems quite possible to me. In math a theory can often be derived from a variety of sets of postulates/axioms. This used to be a popular topic maybe a hundred years ago.

The way I explained the theory was a mess, mostly because I couldn't explain it at all, but that is why my question wasn't "Is it right?" but "What can/should I do with it to have it reviewd?"

 

[Matterwave]

It seems there's some fundamental misunderstandings. Falsifiability is a very loose criterion, it just says your theory "makes some prediction that in principle (from a logical point of view) could be proven wrong". That's kind of the point. If your theory doesn't fit the falsifiability criterion, it can't be thought of as an empirical theory in the standard sense. There would be no observation that could say your theory is wrong.

Maybe another way to think about things. Do you claim you know everything there is to know about SR? If not, are there parts of SR that are of interest to you to learn? If so, this forum is a good place to ask such question. Perhaps by asking enough questions, and thinking hard about the answers, you will get better clarity.

If the only thing you desire is to have your theory reviewed, maybe think about why that is and what it is that you really want to prove.

But if that's all you desire, you could start a podcast. You could create a webpage. You can talk to people you know. You can write (polite) emails. Nobody prohibits this.

 

[martinbn]

@DavidMiranda I have to say that I misunderstood you. I thought you had been doing some calculations (to understand things better or some other reason), and you have come with something that looks like it contradicts well established science. Hence you want someone to take a closer look and find your mistakes. But now I've relized that you acctually have your own theory and you want someone to check it (and your hope is that it is all good). It is a waste of time for every one, that is why no one wants to do it (and because you do not say anything about it). Chances are that it is full of misconseptions and errors. It is almost certain that it is not even science. Most likely it is some sort of a medieval philosophical musings about nature which, peraphrazing Pauli, are not even wrong.

ps This will probably sound harsh and will offend you, but it has happend many times before, and it is very likely that I am right. Of course, I might very well be wrong. You can state your assumptions that you alluded to, and we can see.

 

[Dale]

a theory need not be falsifiable to be useful, it needs only fit observations

Not really. The classic example of a non-falsifiable theory is “God willed it so”. It fits all the observations perfectly.

The goal of a scientific theory is not merely to fit the observations, but to predict them. “God willed it so” fits all data but makes no predictions. It is precisely this feature, making predictions, that leads to a theory being both useful and falsifiable. You cannot have a theory that is useful but not falsifiable because both usefulness and falsifiability come from making predictions.

 

[PeroK]

@DavidMiranda if you are an undergraduate, are you not sitting your end of year exams now?

I don't believe your story about your professors simply saying your theory is wrong without explaining why.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't believe your story about your professors simply saying your theory is wrong without explaining why.

Not even invoking Pauli's "not even wrong" rationale?

 

[DavidMiranda]

Not even invoking Pauli's "not even wrong" rationale?

It wasn't like that. My professors are quite nice, unlike Wolfgang there

Basically one said he had too many doctorate students (and hence too much work) to read it, and said I had to have a mistake. When I talked to another, he said he couldn't because we were getting to Exam season at the time, and that I should review it again because I had to have a mistake.

The second one told me to reach out to a third one, which wasn't my professor, but which I know (he is very nice too, just a little bit more introverted, but I had previously exchanged e-mails with him because of some physics themed t-shirts) because he is the one teaching GR. I sent an email, without mentioning my work, just asking for help with an introduction to research, but he didn't reply.

I mentioned this to the second professor, and he said the third might be very busy, but that he knew him and he wouldn't mind if I knocked on his door. I didn't do that out of respect, because if he was that busy, there is no way I would impose like that.

In any case, they did say it was wrong, and didn't say why.

I will talk to those three again, next year, out of exam season, and see if any one of them will be able to give me a hand.

But thank you for that comment, DaveC426913

 

[Matterwave]

If I were your Prof and you made the statement:

If you mean falsifiable then that is something I am working on. However, a theory need not be falsifiable to be useful, it needs only fit observations.

I would probably want to clear you of that misconception first. Reviewing your theory at that point becomes secondary.

I don't know the correspondences you've had with your professors, but is it possible you left them with similar impressions that you have some deep misconceptions?

 

[robphy]

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.

These are some questions that one could ask oneself.

It would be a good idea to clearly state the assumptions, using precise definitions and mathematical structures.
It’s not just about words.
Details are important.
From these assumptions, what then is the specific conflict with “well established principles”?

You could ask how Special Relativity (which of course is very well tested by numerous experiments) handles that well-established principle… possibly by working backwards from that result and identifying specific details. Then, look at your own attempt and identify the specific details that led to your conclusion.
(When I grade an incorrect answer, if the error isn’t obvious at the beginning, I often start from the obviously wrong answer and work backwards to identify their mistake”.

With any new attempt, the usual questions include “can the new method handle the already established cases?” , “does it do them better (at least in some important cases)?”, “does it predict something new?”, and “does it avoid predicting something false?”.

 

[bhobba]

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.

Note that usually such derivations stick, at least implicitly, but sometimes explicitly, with the definition of an inertial frame as one where Newton's first law holds. While true, the alternate definition found in Landau Mechanics (a brilliant book) is possibly a better starting point. An inertial frame is one in which all points, directions, and instants of time are equivalent in the sense that the same laws of physics hold. The one-postulate derivations make use of this fact, but often do not state it explicitly, although a bit of thought shows it follows from the POR.

Thanks
Bill

 

[AlexB23]

For what it is worth, you might be able to contact a professor in your local area, as many have their email or phone available on their college/university websites. If you are lucky, you could schedule a conversation with them.

 

[sbrothy]

Im groping my way toward what I think the OP is trying to express. It sounds like their idea results in the same observations as SR but, as they said themself, the postulate becomes a consequence, rather than a premise.

It certainly would be interesting if they found another way of showing why the two postulates are "proven" rather than postulated.

One other note: there are other science fora out there that allow speculation. They're not the same quality as PF, but its possible you might make some progress.

Keep in mind that I'm a self-studied hack. I appreciate your reachout to the OP; I also appreciate that the OP was prepared for "a slide-rule spanking". Changing the axioms you can probably reach some of the same conclusions, but as some of the more educated folks here said (perhaps indirectly), its probable that someone already reached the same conclusions if you read the litterature closely.

So, to repeat them: "read the fine manual" (the papers I mean).

 

[pervect]

The idea that a theory needs to be falsifiable can be traced back to the philosopher Karl Popper. This is about the philosophy of science - while I generally have a personal preference to avoid much of philosphy (which I can trace back to reading Feynamn's essay "Is Electricity Fire") this is one of several philosophical issues I feel connected to.

Google finds a pretty good popular level video on the topic, https://thecrashcourse.com/courses/karl-popper-science-and-pseudoscience-crash-course-philosophy-8/.

Popper's ideas are qute influential. If you are not familiar with them, it would be worthwhile to study them to some extent, as it might help you understand other people's reactions, especially with regard to "new theories". Note I've sort of absorbed them through context and discussion, , rather than studied them in detail. If you're already familiar with them and have decided to reject them, so be it.

In a large part, Popper's idea is a litmus test for detecting when someone is so attached to their own theories that they can't accept any criticism of said theory. At that point, it makes little sense (to me, at least) to put in the effort to make such criticisms. I do mostly try to make helpful and useful criticisms, at least in the context of science discussions. Things are more complex for more general political discussions, but that's defintiely off topic.

 

[Dale]

And both Popper’s falsifiability and Occham’s razor are naturally implemented quantitatively using Bayesian statistics.

 

[PAllen]

I ask again what has been asked before. I don’t believe it is a violation of PF to state: here is a set of formal assumptions I tried to derive consequences from. With that spirit, you can post your starting assumptions. Note also, someone in this thread referred to the notion of test theories. They can be discussed here, and often involve assumptions as well as results that may be false, but in an interesting way for testing. So end this circus by stating your set of assumptions in a precise way.

 

[Dale]

What does it mean to "replicate" a theory? I would say SR is a special (non gravitating) case of GR. Not the other way around.

I would say that too. A special case always fails to replicate a general case.

By “replicate” I am talking about predictions. GR makes correct predictions that SR does not.

 

[PeterDonis]

I don’t believe it is a violation of PF to state: here is a set of formal assumptions I tried to derive consequences from.

It is if the assumptions are someone's personal theory. Discussion of personal theories is off limits here.

someone in this thread referred to the notion of test theories. They can be discussed here

If they appear in a valid reference (textbook or peer-reviewed paper), yes. Not if they are part of someone's personal theory.

end this circus by stating your set of assumptions in a precise way.

For the record, @DavidMiranda, do not do this. See above.