Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

SR, illusion or reality

  1. Mar 27, 2006 #1
    The fundamental mistake in SR is making a direct comparison
    between the movement of objects and the movement of light.
    If we take into consideration the fact that the light
    simply can not have a zero speed, these are different.

    Maybe there is a more profound explanation of why this
    approach was used, but nobody until now, not even Einstein,
    gave any explanation in this respect.

    Of course that by doing this an exotic physics is obtained,
    in which time dilates and lengths contract.

    Despite the fact that subsequent experiments confirm
    the Relativity Theory, it is possible that the latter
    is an illusion – meaning that it approximates well the physical
    phenomena – but this is not the logic of obtaining the equations
    that describe these phenomena.

    Neculai Agavriloaie
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 27, 2006 #2
    I have never seen an direct image of a contracted proton or electron, nor of any length contraction in particular, however, light does have the nature of contracting its wavelength upon approach, although, it is not by the same function as the factor for Lorentz contraction.

    It is known that an object moving at relativistic speeds will be preserved, such as muon particles for instance. When you freeze an organism, the brownian motion inside the organism slows down, and the decay rate is reduced. Instead of this however, in Special Relativity, at relativistic velocities there is a contraction in the x direction, or the direction of travel. As far as I know Special Relativity does not induce the idea of slowed down brownian motion with regards to relativistic speeds. Instead, the effect of relativistic speeds is described as strictly a time dilation and length contraction phenomenon, and not one of changing the rate stochastic processes.
  4. Mar 27, 2006 #3

    You got a better theory?
  5. Mar 27, 2006 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Since SR has mountains of experimental data supporting it, I can't see how you can seriously claim it is an illusion. If you have two clocks sitting next to each other that read different times because one went on a trip to Mars and back at half the speed of light, is that an illusion?
  6. Mar 27, 2006 #5
    It's not an illusion. Causality is maintained in Special Relativity, but simultaneity is not. For illustration, you could have two strings representing the two timelines of different objects. Suppose you join them at two places representing two different events. One of these strings may have 10 cm of line between these two points, the other string may have 30 cm of line connecting these events. The time between events depends on the observer, the length of the string. Calling this rate of change "time" is preffered over calling time the "rate of change". The latter is more complicated: one might desire to define time dilation as constriction or slowing down of the motion of internal particles kinematically (and therefore the slowing of the operation of particles which behave mechanically). The former involves "time slowing down" which is conceptually easier to understand.
  7. Mar 29, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    First of all, if you look carefully at the origin of the Lorentz invariance in SR, you will note that the speed of light is a parameter that shows up in Maxwell's equation, which are Lorentz invariant, and that governs the propagation of E&M waves or wave packets. To get a good sense of this, and the additional role of particle speeds, all you need do is consult a calculus-level freshman physics text. That you think there is a fundamental mistake in SR is a fundamental mistake on your part.

    Is it not possible that you are an illusion, or your computer is an illusion, or your dinner, ..... Experimental verification is usually good enough for most of us; it's the name of the physics game.

    Reilly Atkinson
  8. Mar 29, 2006 #7
    You are correct in the fact that Einstein did not have a physical explanation for actual time dilation - but it has been verified many times - so you at least have to have a theory that is consistent with experimental results. There are such theories - and with enough testing it should be possible to eliminate which are flawed.

    Apparent time dilation and length contraction are in one sense an illusion just as a one meter long stick appears shorter when viewed at an angle. Most but not all authors take the view that contraction is an apparent phenomena that results from the measuring process - contraction is real in the sense that the measurments are real - but except in the original Lorentz Ether Theory, there is no physical foreshortening that takes place.
  9. Mar 30, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Dear PF member,

    This thread has been closed because it contains opinions that are contrary to those currently held by the scientific community. This is against the Posting Guidelines of Physics Forums. If you would like to discuss your ideas, we invite you to submit a post to the Independent Research Forum, subject to the applicable guidelines, found here.

    We appreciate your cooperation, and hope you enjoy the Forums.

    Best regards,

    The Staff of Physics Forums
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook