# Special Relativity Between Reality and Illusion

Hi,
Q1: Do the effects of time dilation and length contration really happen, or they seem to happen to us being in different inertial frame, because our means of observation ( say, by looking by means of coming relativistic beams of light) draw this illusion on us and show us something different from the reality.

Q2: Do the 2 effects kind of cancel each other (contraction/dilation) so as to make the light speed constant?

Q3: In Twin paradox, the difference in ageing should be just a relativistic concept (or at least, that's what I think). How could the physiological and chemical processes inside the bodies be affected. Is It possible that the chemical reaction used to proceed in 1 sec and now in 2 sec just because you travel so fast?!!

thanks

Related Special and General Relativity News on Phys.org
DaveC426913
Gold Member
Q1: A reality does not exist over and above what we measure. So yes, it really happens.

Q2: You've got the cart before the horse. Because space and time are limited by light speed, so it is that contraction and dilation are what happens.

(Think of a seesaw. Spacetime and lightspeed are the axle, the 2 seats are measurable effects. You're saying "the seats go up and down, thus ensuring any movement of axle cancels out and it remains motionless". I'm saying "no - the axle remains motionless, period. It is the seats that are free to move, subject to the axle's domination".)

Q3: "...a relativistic concept..." Relativity is the reality of our universe. What is illusory is our misguided perception that time runs at the same speed everywhere in it.

This is very important to accept or you will always struggle with these issues. Our universe is not built the way Netwon thought. Time is not constant and unchanging, mass is not constant and unchanging. These things are resultant properties of the controlling principle of the universe which is relativity.

Last edited:
pervect
Staff Emeritus
Manaf said:
Hi,
Q1: Do the effects of time dilation and length contration really happen, or they seem to happen to us being in different inertial frame, because our means of observation ( say, by looking by means of coming relativistic beams of light) draw this illusion on us and show us something different from the reality.
A question about reality is ultimately a philosophical question. What is "real" - and how do you know when something is "real"?

Because philosophical views vary so widely, we would need to know more about your personal philosphical views to give an intelligible answer.

I personally tend to regard things which are observer-independent as "real". This philosophical viewpoint works well in most disciplines (but perhaps not in quantum mechanics). From my philosophical viewpoint, time and distance are not "real", or perhaps not "as real" as the Lorentz interval, because time and distance depend on the observer, while the Lorentz interval is observer-independent.

This may or may not be useful to you, depending on your personal philosophy as to what constitutes "real".

CarlB
Homework Helper
Manaf said:
Hi,
There are several different points of view that these questions can be approached from. I will give here an approach that gives the same computations as the more common interpretation, but is less common. Essentially, it was this interpretation that was eliminated by Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity. This is the "Lorentz-Poincare ether theory". You can learn more about it by searching on the web. For example:

A1: Reality does exist over and above what we measure, so no the effect does not "really" happen, at least in my opinion. You can choose either way of thinking about it, in that you will get the same result no matter which way you think about it. It's just a matter of interpretation. However, do note that if you get asked questions on an exam, your professor may insist that you accept one particular interpretation over another. In this case, simply parrot back what you've been told.

A2: Yes, the speed of light is in units of length over time, so length and time both have to be affected together if the speed of light is to be unchanged by change of inertial reference frame.

A3: Yes, if you wish you can think of the aging of a twin as being slowed down because the chemical reaction rates are slowed down. All these effects boil down to the same thing, that electricity and magnetism (and other forces) are effected by changes in reference frame. Since chemical processes are made out of electricity and magnetism, they too are slowed down.

Maybe a parable would help here. When God designed the universe, he wanted complicated creatures to be able to exist on it. Complicated creatures need complicated chemistry and chemistry depends (almost) exactly on the laws of physics. In order to allow His creatures to thrive, He therefore designed the universe so that the laws of physics would be nearly identical for every inertial frame. That way, if a planet moved from one part of the galaxy to another, it wouldn't have all its creature's DNA suddenly quit working, for example.

As a result of His design, it is very difficult for physicists to discern the difference between one inertial frame and another. This fact gives a tool for determining what physical laws matter must follow. The rule is that the results of your calculation cannot depend (much) on the choice you make for the frame of reference.

Regarding the "almost" and "much" included in parentheses in the above. Compared to God (and mathematics), humans are very ineffective things. Humans are very weak and short lived. The equipment that they build is very clumsy and produces very inaccurate measurements. If humans were strong they would be able to accelerate electrons to the Plank mass with their bare hands. If humans were long lived they would be as old as the stars. If our equipment were not clumsy it could probe space down 10^500 factors below the size of quarks. If our measurements were accurate, we would know the mass of the electron to a trillion decimal places instead of twelve.

Because of the ineffectiveness of humans, it is not possible for us to (yet) discern the difference between two inertial rest frames. Now there is a true reference frame and if we knew what it was, we could figure out how fast the twins were really aging, and we would know which was getting older faster. But God created the universe so that our chemistry would not depend on the inertial frame and in doing this, as an accidental side effect, He made it very nearly impossible for us to distinguish between inertial frames.

Therefore, so long as the twins never meet again, we cannot tell which one is really aging faster. God knows, but we do not. Maybe someday we will figure out how to find the true reference frame, the one that gives real times. However, if the twins do eventually meet up again, then we can cancel out the effects of our not knowing what the true reference frame is, and then we can deduce which twin has aged more.

Carl

Last edited:
Hi,
thanks to all of you.
Wow..I didn't know my question is a topic of such controvestial arguments..I felt a bit that my question is somewhat philosophical.

What I meant by "real" is that it is a physical phenomenon that is , as pervect said, observer-independent.
I thought maybe these effects should not happen but because of our ineffective means of observation, they appear to be like so, which is against DaveC426913 veiw:)
Like because the light (means of perception) travels from different positions or emitted at different times ,or because our motion makes us moving closer to a source of light farther than the other while they were simulatanious.

russ_watters
Mentor
Just for a little simple (too simple, but it is something that may not have been clear from the more in depth posts above), we do observe relativistic effects to occur. While determining exactly what happened depends on the observer, both observers will agree that relativity is the cause of any disagreement.

To give an example, GPS satellites have their clock rates adjusted prior to launch so that they will stay in sync with earthbound clocks once launched in orbit.

Regarding Q3, the twins paradox is a thought experiment and AFAIK, we have not yet been able to witness relativistic phenomena in biologic processes. But time dilation has shown up in enough differing physical processes that it is reasonable to conclude that it is not just individual physical processes that happen to be affected by speed in exactly the same way, but it is time itself that is observer dependent.

Last edited:
George Jones
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
I agree with pervect about philosophy and personal philosophy.

Personally, I (like, I think, Russ) vote real.

After all, the universe isn't Strawberry Fields!

Manaf said:
Hi,
Q1: Do the effects of time dilation and length contration really happen, or they seem to happen to us being in different inertial frame, because our means of observation ( say, by looking by means of coming relativistic beams of light) draw this illusion on us and show us something different from the reality.

Q2: Do the 2 effects kind of cancel each other (contraction/dilation) so as to make the light speed constant?

Q3: In Twin paradox, the difference in ageing should be just a relativistic concept (or at least, that's what I think). How could the physiological and chemical processes inside the bodies be affected. Is It possible that the chemical reaction used to proceed in 1 sec and now in 2 sec just because you travel so fast?!!

thanks
A1: The data on the ISS satellite shows a slower clock while
the GPS satellite shows a faster clock (compared with a ground
clock). Since elevation makes all clocks faster (gravitational
red shift), the slower clock can be argued to be real velocity time dilation,
if mechanical effects are all accounted for.

A2: This is the problem with Special Relativity. If length is contracted
and time is dilated as well, neither length contraction nor time dilation
are real but mere math manipulations.

A3: It's possible that one moves through time at different "rates"
according to their initial accelartions.

Pervect gave the enlightening answer to all the questions - it is the Lorentz interval that is real - it is the same for all observers. Space measurments and time measurments individually are observer dependent - and therefore one needs a precise definition of what "real" means

Example - in a GPS satellite - the satellite clock appears to run slower than the earth based clock (if we ignor altitude) - but the satellite clock has both a temporal component and a spatial component when measured from the earth clock - so the satellite clock accumulates less time during a one orbit journey - but according to SR it cannot be said that it runs slower - it just accumulates less time during the spacetime interval. In contrast, in Lorentz ether theory, the satellite clock is claimed to actually run slower.

Last edited:
yogi said:
Example - in a GPS satellite - the satellite clock appears to run slower than the earth based clock (if we ignor altitude) - but the satellite clock has both a temporal component and a spatial component when measured from the earth clock - so the satellite clock accumulates less time during a one orbit journey - but according to SR it cannot be said that it runs slower - it just accumulates less time during the spacetime interval. In contrast, in Lorentz ether theory, the satellite clock is claimed to actually run slower.
Quite correct, that is the difference between the two theories!

While the theory of special relativity postulates a length contraction as a contraction of space and a time dilation as a contraction of time the Lorentz ether theory maintains the notion of absolute time and space and postulates that clock rates slow down due to mass increase and lengths get contracted due to traveling in the ether.

So far both theories show the same results.
Personally the Lorentz ether theory makes makes a lot more sense.

Last edited:
MeJennifer said:
Quite correct, that is the difference between the two theories!

While the theory of special relativity postulates a length contraction as a contraction of space and a time dilation as a contraction of time the Lorentz ether theory maintains the notion of absolute time and space and postulates that clock rates slow down due to mass increase and lengths get contracted due to traveling in the ether.

So far both theories show the same results.
Personally the Lorentz ether theory makes makes a lot more sense.
Aren't you forgetting that Lorentz theory needed (and still needs) to have additional ad-hoc assumptions tailored specifically for each experiment? I.e. the LET principles are not sufficienr, one needs those ad-hoc additions in order to justify the results of the many experiments that are explianable by SR from first principles, no ad-hoc additions.
So, SR and LET are NOT equivalent.

Last edited:
CarlB
Homework Helper
clj4 said:
Aren't you forgetting that Lorentz theory needed (and still needs) to have additional ad-hoc assumptions tailored specifically for each experiment? I.e. the LET principles are not sufficient, one needs those ad-hoc additions in order to justify the results of the many experiments that are explianable by SR from first principles, no ad-hoc additions. So, SR and LET are NOT equivalent.
I've never heard of any such assumptions. To get the Lorentz theory from Einstein's special relativity, all one need do is assume that one of the inertial frames is the ether.

The physical issues are well described in Physics Letters A 333 (2004) 355:
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0410245 [Broken] or
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0410245

Carl

Last edited by a moderator:
CarlB said:
I've never heard of any such assumptions. To get the Lorentz theory from Einstein's special relativity, all one need do is assume that one of the inertial frames is the ether.

The physical issues are well described in Physics Letters A 333 (2004) 355:
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0410245 [Broken] or
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0410245

Carl
The Consoli paper is well known as an example of what happens when someone writes papers about hypothetical experiments in ignorance of previously executed experiments. Consoli/Constanzo seem ignorant of the fact that the MMX experiment in refractive media had already been run. Twice: once by Shamir and the second time by Trimmer, both times with null results. See references here:

Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, p3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 p2489 (1974).
A triangle interferometer with one leg in glass. They set an upper limit on the anisotropy of 0.025 m/s. This is about one-millionth of the earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its rotational velocity.

Shamir and Fox, N. Cim. 62B no. 2 (1969), p258.
A repetition of the MMX with the optical paths in perspex (n = 1.49), and a laser-based optics sensitive to ~0.00003 fringe. They report a null result with an upper limit on Vaether of 6.64 km/s.

As to the support of my
post, it comes from a well known CMWill paper on the subject:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v45/i2/p403_1

It is not sufficient to assume the presence of the one priviledged frame, one must also assume that light speed is isotropic in tha frame (but not in the other frames). One must also ad ad-hoc assumptions for each particular experiment (see the CMWill paper) or see the well known Mansouri-Sexl papers from 1977.

Last edited by a moderator:
CarlB
Homework Helper
clj4 said:
The Consoli paper is well known as an example of what happens when someone writes papers about hypothetical experiments in ignorance of previously executed experiments.
I don't mean to quote Consoli on the experiments, but instead simply to point out that Lorentzian relativity is equivalent to Einstein's special relativity. By "Lorentzian relativity" I do not mean to describe the 1904 theory of Lorentz (which if I recall, had moving objects contracted but did not deal with the rate of time experienced by moving objects and so was just wrong), but instead simply Einstein's relativity with the additional supernumerary postulate that one of the inertial reference frames is preferred (but undetectable). This, of course, is equivalent to Einstein's relativity.

The phrase from logic that comes to mind is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

clj4 said:
As to the support of my
post, it comes from a well known CMWill paper on the subject
I don't have access to that at home, maybe you can quote from it. The abstract certainly doesn't read on Lorentzian relativity. I'm going to guess that the author showed that some theory that is not equivalent to Einstein's relativity was eliminated by experimental data.

Carl

Last edited:
CarlB said:
I don't mean to quote Consoli on the experiments, but instead simply to point out that Lorentzian relativity is equivalent to Einstein's special relativity. By "Lorentzian relativity" I do not mean to describe the 1904 theory of Lorentz (which if I recall, had moving objects contracted but did not deal with the rate of time experienced by moving objects and so was just wrong), but instead simply Einstein's relativity with the additional supernumerary postulate that one of the inertial reference frames is preferred (but undetectable). This, of course, is equivalent to Einstein's relativity.
"That" is the Mansouri-Sexl theory. And it requires additional ad-hoc hypothesises for each experiment. I have a scan of the Mansouri-Sexl papers, I'll try to append them on my next post.

I don't have access to that at home, maybe you can quote from it. The abstract certainly doesn't read on Lorentzian relativity. I'm going to guess that the author showed that some theory that is not equivalent to Einstein's relativity was eliminated by experimental data.
I have a scan of this paper someplace as well. CMWill is talking about the "official" LET, which is the Mansouri-Sexl test theory. He quotes exactly the ad-hoc "additions" for a series of experiments. That would complete the proof, correct?

samalkhaiat
Manaf said:
Hi,
Q1: Do the effects of time dilation and length contration really happen, or they seem to happen to us being in different inertial frame, because our means of observation ( say, by looking by means of coming relativistic beams of light) draw this illusion on us and show us something different from the reality.
Experiments show that fast moving elementary particles live longer than their lifetimes. This is a real fact not illusion. It has been conclusively verified and confirmed by direct experiments, and it is now beyond any doubt.

Q2: Do the 2 effects kind of cancel each other (contraction/dilation) so as to make the light speed constant?
The constancy of the speed of light is one of the two postulates of SR. As such, it is logically impossible to determined the truth-value of any of the postulates. Using a result from the theory to examine the postulate leads only to a trivial information.

Q3: In Twin paradox, the difference in ageing should be just a relativistic concept (or at least, that's what I think). How could the physiological and chemical processes inside the bodies be affected. Is It possible that the chemical reaction used to proceed in 1 sec and now in 2 sec just because you travel so fast?!!
Why not? Almost every thing indicates that physiological processes follow the laws of physics.
As for the twin, they are not "realy" a Twin because their reference frames are not equivalent. One of them uses non-inertial frame. A complete explanation of the paradox can only be given within the framework of general relativity.

regards

sam

samalkhaiat
CarlB said:
Now there is a true reference frame and if we knew what it was, we could figure out how fast the twins were really aging, and we would know which was getting older faster.
Does God live in this reference frame?

But God created the universe so that our chemistry would not depend on the inertial frame and in doing this, as an accidental side effect
Accidental? Does this mean that God did not mean to do it?

He made it very nearly impossible for us to distinguish between inertial frames.
One would think that God makes things either possible or impossible, NOT "very nearly impossible"!

sam

CarlB
Homework Helper
samalkhaiat said:
Accidental?
Accidental means that it is a low energy symmetry, one that disappears at higher energies. Since the standard model is only an effective theory, any of its symmetries could be accidental.

samalkhaiat said:
One would think that God makes things either possible or impossible, NOT "very nearly impossible"!
No, a lot of things are very very difficult. For example, if it were just a little bit easier to build nuclear weapons, a good bit of the world would have become radioactive wastelands back in the 1940s.

Getting back to physics, if the elementary particles are composites made up of preons, we really cannot be certain what the maximum speed of those preons are. It's easy to suppose that they are just like everything else we see and limited to speed c, but then again, we can't get at them so we can't measure their speeds. It's a region where we have no measurements.

Carl

Last edited:
samalkhaiat
CarlB said:
Accidental means that it is a low energy symmetry, one that disappears at higher energies.
Yeh, this symmetry is the fairyland symmetry.:rofl:
Look Carl, if you want to look for violation of some Lie symmetry, then you should look at low energy phenomena (at large length scale).

Since the standard model is only an effective theory, any of its symmetries could be accidental.
The correct statement is; the standard model could be an effective theory of more symmetric one. And this "deep" theory must show, in certain limit, all the symmetries of the SM.

No, a lot of things are very very difficult. For example, if it were just a little bit easier to build nuclear weapons, a good bit of the world would have become radioactive wastelands back in the 1940s.
We were talking about what God can or cann't make. What I wanted to tell you is this;
It is IMPOSSIBLE, even for God, to distinguish between inertial frames full stop.

Getting back to physics, if the elementary particles are composites made up of preons, we really cannot be certain what the maximum speed of those preons are. It's easy to suppose that they are just like everything else we see and limited to speed c, but then again, we can't get at them so we can't measure their speeds. It's a region where we have no measurements.
Physics! This is rubbish not physics.

1) Do we measure the speed of quarks?
No, we don't because we cann't.
2) At the quark-level,Do we know that c is still the c we know?
Yes we do.
3) How do we know that without any measurment?
Because, the physics at the quark-level (theory & experiments)
respects Lorentz symmetry.
Regarding the unsuccessful preon models, as far as I know almost all of them are Lorentz invariant, which means that the "speed" of massive(massless) preon is less than (equal to) c.

regards

sam

CarlB
Homework Helper
samalkhaiat said:
CarlB said:
The correct statement is; the standard model could be an effective theory of more symmetric one. And this "deep" theory must show, in certain limit, all the symmetries of the SM.
Are you willing to make this a general statement about all physical systems? That is, that the low energy phenomena of any possible physical system must always be less symmetric than higher energy phenomena of the same system? If you are, I'm willing to provide counterexamples (that quantum field theory applies to). If you are not, then please expand on why a deeper theory must be of the very limited sort that you describe rather than the more general sort that can be of the type I suggest.

Carl

samalkhaiat
CarlB said:
samalkhaiat said:
Are you willing to make this a general statement about all physical systems? That is, that the low energy phenomena of any possible physical system must always be less symmetric than higher energy phenomena of the same system? If you are, I'm willing to provide counterexamples (that quantum field theory applies to). If you are not, then please expand on why a deeper theory must be of the very limited sort that you describe rather than the more general sort that can be of the type I suggest.
READ my statement carefully. This is what I said;

The SM COULD (not must) be an effective theory of more symmetric one. And this deep theory (if any) MUST show, in certain limit, all symmetries of the SM (correspondence principle).

Is this a general statement? No, it is not. And nobody knows whether it is true in general. Nevertheless, we do make such a statements for the following reasons;
1) we want to do physics.
2) the whole history of (symmetries in) physics has been the gradual realization that Lie symmetries do not appear and/or disappear in an arbitrary or (accidental) manner. On the contrary, our experiences show that deeper theories have a larger Lie symmetry. So, nuless experiment shows otherwise, is is only natural to suppose that this order should apply to the SM.
3)we have no reason to abandon the correspondence principle which asserts that "the expression of a new theory must approach the mathematical formalisim of the theory that it attempts to supersede".
4) the success of the electroweak theory;
At high energy the symmetry is SU(2)XU(1).
At low energy it is only a U(1).

regards

sam

CarlB
Homework Helper
samalkhaiat said:
2) the whole history of (symmetries in) physics has been the gradual realization that Lie symmetries do not appear and/or disappear in an arbitrary or (accidental) manner.
Are you willing to make this statement about all known physical systems? That is, that the Lie symmetries of the low energy physics of a system are never more symmetric than the Lie symmetries of the high energy physics of the system? If you are, I'm willing to prove you wrong with physical examples. If you are not willing, then you must admit that there are physical examples of effective theories that are more symmetric than the deeper theories that lie beneath them, and that these provide counterexamples to your logic.

samalkhaiat said:
So, nuless experiment shows otherwise, is is only natural to suppose that this order should apply to the SM.
In the early 20th century there was no reason to suppose that mass and energy were not individually conserved. Do you admit that it would have been very natural to apply your word "rubbish" to Einstein's work that suggested that energy and matter could be converted into each other?

samalkhaiat said:
3)we have no reason to abandon the correspondence principle which asserts that "the expression of a new theory must approach the mathematical formalisim of the theory that it attempts to supersede".
I agree with this completely and have never ever suggested anything to the contrary. In the many physical systems where the low energy (effective) physics has more symmetry than the high energy physics, the correspondence principle applies. What bothers me about many recent attempts at unification is that the correspondence to the standard model is expected to show up only at some very distant time in the future (i.e. after everyone involved with the theory has already gotten tenure). [Not even wrong.]

samalkhaiat said:
4) the success of the electroweak theory; At high energy the symmetry is SU(2)XU(1). At low energy it is only a U(1).
I agree that this could be a clue. But on the other hand, many thousands of very intelligent physicists have spent large amounts of time trying to use this clue to further unify the forces for several decades and have failed. This is also a clue.

Many physicists have expressed disatisfaction with the standard model particularly with its large numbers of arbitrary parameters. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are so numerous that it is easier to find two physicists with the same birthday than two who agree on what quantum mechanics means. That is reminiscent of the situation when Einstein broke off into new ground. Under these sorts of conditions, ALL of the assumptions of physics should be examined anew.

But we've gotten far afield of the original question, which was about the possibility of a preferred reference frames in relativity. Let me write another post and get us back on topic.

Carl

Last edited:
CarlB
Homework Helper
samalkhaiat said:
It is IMPOSSIBLE, even for God, to distinguish between inertial frames full stop.
David Bohm, of Bohmian mechanics fame, believed otherwise. See "The Undivided Universe". Chapter 12 has to do with relativity. Of particular interest is section 12.8, "On the meaning of non-Lorentz invariance of processes involving individual beables". The index lists page 292 for "preferred frame" and page 290 for "Lorentz ether" which reads on my comments on the Lorentz Ether Theory directly. Also see page 346 which shows up in the index. As I recall, this is where he discusses the possibility of future experiments showing violations of Lorentz symmetry.

samalkhaiat said:
Physics! This is rubbish not physics.
Bohm has an important physical effect named after him, the Aharonov-Bohm effect. I don't see how you have the standing to call his ideas rubbish. There are still a lot of physicists working on his ideas.

samalkhaiat said:
1) Do we measure the speed of quarks? No, we don't because we cann't.
I've never suggested otherwise

samalkhaiat said:
2) At the quark-level,Do we know that c is still the c we know? Yes we do.
I agree completely. This was never an object of disagreement.

samalkhaiat said:
3) How do we know that without any measurment? Because, the physics at the quark-level (theory & experiments) respects Lorentz symmetry.
Agreed. You've made a series of clearly true statements but I'm not sure what your point is. I'm going to guess that your logic is to point out that quarks are subparticles of protons and neutrons and yet quarks obey Lorentz symmetry just like neutrons and protons do. Therefore, perhaps by a sort of induction, all deeper subparticles must also obey Lorentz symmetry.

Let's apply your logic to the neutrons and protons themselves. Back before quarks were accepted would you have argued that all known particles carry integral electric charges and therefore quarks must too? Would you have argued that all known particles can be found in a free state and therefore quarks must too?

samalkhaiat said:
Regarding the unsuccessful preon models, as far as I know almost all of them are Lorentz invariant, which means that the "speed" of massive(massless) preon is less than (equal to) c.
Agreed. But what is your point? Is it that since "almost all" preon models are Lorentz invariant then any accurate preon model must also be Lorentz invariant? Do you have an outline of a proof that it is impossible for a non Lorentz invariant preon model to produce Lorentz invariant bound states? Or are you saying it's impossible only because you've never heard of it?

If you had been around in 1905 would you have rattled on about how "almost all" spacetime models include a universal time? Would you have gone on about how "almost all" models of elementary particles are symmetric under parity? Before quantum mechanics would you have used the logic that "almost all" models of elementary particles allow simultaneous knowledge of position and momentum? My experience with democracies and truth have not convinced me that the majorities are always right. Especially when physics requires revolutions.

Carl

Last edited:
samalkhaiat
CarlB said:
Are you willing to make this statement about all known physical systems? That is, that the Lie symmetries of the low energy physics of a system are never more symmetric than the Lie symmetries of the high energy physics of the system? If you are, I'm willing to prove you wrong with physical examples. If you are not willing, then you must admit that there are physical examples of effective theories that are more symmetric than the deeper theories that lie beneath them, and that these provide counterexamples to your logic.
I stand ready to be converted in a moment by convincing argument. The question is; Are you able to provide such an argument? I am very much in doubt!

Generalization of my statement is (as I said before) meaningless, because it is a common BELIEF among physicists. The SM, string theory and supergravity represent a solid ground for this belief.
We know of no fundamental principle as to why nature seems to reveal a larger Lie symmetry at small distances.
Having said this, I do, however, want you to tell me where, in physics, do I find a Lie symmetry that gets larger in the low energy limit?

In the early 20th century there was no reason to suppose that mass and energy were not individually conserved. Do you admit that it would have been very natural to apply your word "rubbish" to Einstein's work that suggested that energy and matter could be converted into each other?
NO, because this was a result from a mathematically sound theory with countless experimental verifications.
By "mathematically sound" I mean logical consistency and ability to explain a number of known facts.

I agree that this could be a clue. But on the other hand, many thousands of very intelligent physicists have spent large amounts of time trying to use this clue to further unify the forces for several decades and have failed. This is also a clue.
Like most physicists, I think science is going in the right direction.

ALL of the assumptions of physics should be examined anew.
If you think that physics needs to be rewritten, then DO IT and show us a solid results. Don't just sit there and through garbage on us.

regards

sam

I would like to apologize for the delayed-reply. I promised my two daughters not to do any work during our holiday.