Special Relativity breaks down in matter?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of the Abraham-Minkowski controversy in the context of Special Relativity, as proposed by authors such as Ravndal (arXiv:0810.1872v1), Crenshaw (arXiv:0812.3348v2), and Wang (arXiv:0909.1856v2). They argue that the speed of light, c, should be modified to c/n, where n is the refractive index, suggesting that Special Relativity is not universally applicable. This theory reverts to the traditional model when n equals 1, as confirmed by recent experimental reports published in Optik. The discussion also touches on the implications for neutrinos, indicating that their speed does not necessarily equal c, which is relevant to recent findings from CERN (arXiv:1109.4897v1).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity principles
  • Familiarity with the Abraham-Minkowski controversy
  • Knowledge of refractive index and its implications in physics
  • Basic concepts of neutrino physics and their properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Abraham-Minkowski controversy in detail
  • Study the implications of refractive index on light speed in various media
  • Explore experimental reports related to neutrino speed and mass
  • Examine the latest findings from CERN regarding neutrinos and their behavior
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in theoretical physics, and students studying the implications of Special Relativity and particle physics will benefit from this discussion.

Mr.GaGa
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Special Relativity breaks down in matter?

The same idea was proposed by several authors( Ravndal arXiv:0810.1872v1, Crenshaw arXiv:0812.3348v2 , Wang arXiv:0909.1856v2, et al ) to study Abraham-Minkowski controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham–Minkowski_controversy). They pointed out light speed c of special relativity should be replaced by c/n (n is refractive index) within a medium. That is, the theory of relativity is not universal and extended theory will reduce to the old one in case of n=1(vacuum). See Wiki, an experimental report "Crucial experiment to resolve Abraham-Minkowski controversy" published by Optik just now supports their argument.

Are they reasonable? If wrong, how to explain "Abraham-Minkowski Controversy"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


atyy said:

Thanks.But this is a review and not to introduce any new idea. Above three papers are important although they were not collected by arxiv0710.0461. For example, the speed of a neutrino is unnecessary to be c which is useful to understand the newest report of CERN (arXiv:1109.4897v1). The neutrino has a zero rest mass and two components provided the speed is a constant,no matter it is subluminal,c or superluminal. The apparent non-zero rest mass(or imaginary) given by other experiments should originate from the difference between the constant and c.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 153 ·
6
Replies
153
Views
26K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 264 ·
9
Replies
264
Views
24K