Why Shouldn't I Be Skeptical About SR Postulate No.1?

[roineust]

Why shouldn't i be skeptical about SR postulate no.1 ??

From wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity):

"1. the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial frames of reference (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference) "

1. Particles aren't an experiment accelerated up to a certain constant relativistic speed in order to affirm postulate no.1 , particles are only a part of an experiment. The whole experiment should be accelerated into a constant relativistic speed, as in for example: accelerate to a constant relativistic speed also the sensors that measure the particle collision results. Never been done as much as i know.

2. Therefore, a true affirmation or refute of SR postulate no.1 would be executed on macro bodies (the whole experiment) and not on micro bodies (particles only) i.e. compare results from 2 sets of identical experiment equipment, both executed as a whole entire experiment including all experiment parts, at 2 different up to a satisfying enough degree of difference, relativistic constant speeds. Never been done as much as i know.

3. An environment of 2 sets of identical experiment equipment (macro bodies) traveling at 2 different constant relativistic speeds or even 1 relativistic and other not relativistic (in all cases in relation to Earth ground), does not exist in nature as SR defines it (natural celestial objects movement), as much as i understand, therefor it must be an environment artificially created by human beings. Never been done as much as i know.

4. What kind of experiment? I don't know the exact nature of that experiment, but first such an experiment environment should be created (engineered) and on it, many types of postulate no.1 affirmation/refute experiments should be executed.

If anyone is interested in the details of such as experiment environment engineering in order to affirm/refute SR postulate no.1, i have an idea and can describe it, but this post would probably never get to that and i will probably be very quickly denounced as another crack pot, don't really care about being called so, that is obvious (that i don't care much about being called so).

When it comes to Newtonian vs Relativistic theories, the small but important difference in experiment results, that becomes non-negligible at relativistic speeds, is brought up again and again to explain modern physics vs classic physics, therefore why is this same consideration neglected when affirming so easily the truth of SR no.1 postulate, while that postulate was actually never really tested in a constant relativistic environment, in the true sense of the word i.e. the whole experiment including the sensors?

Perhaps there would be non-negligible result differences, when whole 2 identical experiments will be executed in 2 different up to a satisfying enough degree, relativistic constant speeds? Or perhaps 1 relativistic constant speed and 1 non-relativistic constant speed identical experiments, would be what is needed to see experiment result differences (all speeds described in all cases, relative to Earth ground).

Isn't SR actually all about the question of the sensors constant relative speed and not only the question of non-sensor experiment parts constant relative speed?

 

[Orodruin]

I do not think you understand how physics works as an empirical science. While you can start by making some initial assumptions, what is important is the predictions that follow those assumptions and whether or not those match observations or not. If the observations do not match up with predictions from the theory, then we would conclude that the basic assumptions made were incorrect.

In other words, you can start with whatever postulate you want, what matters is whether the predictions following from those postulates match observations or not.

Also note that assumption 1 is not unique to special relativity. It is also part of classical Newtonian physics, which is Galilei invariant. The new postulate in SR is the invariance of the speed of light (or rather, the existence of an invariant speed), which is in contradistinction to the existence of absolute time in Newtonian physics.

 

[roineust]

I do not think you understand how physics works as an empirical science. While you can start by making some initial assumptions, what is important is the predictions that follow those assumptions and whether or not those match observations or not. If the observations do not match up with predictions from the theory, then we would conclude that the basic assumptions made were incorrect.

In other words, you can start with whatever postulate you want, what matters is whether the predictions following from those postulates match observations or not.

Also note that assumption 1 is not unique to special relativity. It is also part of classical Newtonian physics, which is Galilei invariant. The new postulate in SR is the invariance of the speed of light (or rather, the existence of an invariant speed), which is in contradistinction to the existence of absolute time in Newtonian physics.

As much as i understand, because Galilei never assumes that there is any difference of any kind in experiment results, when traveling at constant relativistic speeds, of course he also does not consider what parts of the experiments are in or out of the relativistic question.

 

[Ibix]

The Hafele-Keating experiment seems to me to be a counter example to the OP's claim: a whole clock (in fact, multiple clocks) were taken around the world in a plane and their readings compared to those of clocks left at home. The results match the predictions of General Relativity, which includes SR as a special case.

 

[roineust]

Hafele-Keating: What is the sensor that a clock holds? Can a clock by itself be considered a physics experiment? Take only 1 clock, is there an experiment happening?

 

[Ibix]

Hafele-Keating: What is the sensor that a clock holds?

A clock counts some regularly repeating phenomenon, radiation emitted by atoms in this case. I don't know much about the design of atomic clocks - but its sensors are presumably EM sensors of some sort.

 

[roineust]

Please see updated Hafele-Keating response.

 

[weirdoguy]

Take only 1 clock, is there an experiment happening?

Take one clock and take it around the world. That's a big difference.

 

[roineust]

I am relating to an apparatus that can be considered as an experiment, also when its results are not compared with a second identical apparatus. For example, particle accelerator, including all experiment parts.

 

[PeroK]

Hafele-Keating: What is the sensor that a clock holds? Can a clock by itself be considered a physics experiment? Take only 1 clock, is there an experiment happening?

This all seems fairly pointless to me. You could go onto a medical forum and proclaim that modern medicine is all wrong and we should return to traditional medicines. You could go onto a mathematics forum and argue that modern mathematics has gone awry and that the Greeks had it right.

Instead, you come to a physics forum and proclaim that ... modern physics is on shaky foundations?

Nothing anyone says on here will make the slightest difference to what you belive, so what is the point?

If you've come to learn physics, all good; if you've come determined not to learn physics, then it's all just a waste of time.

 

[weirdoguy]

also when its results are not compared with a second identical apparatus.

Um, but every experiment is some sort of comparison! You can't have an experiment without (explicit or implicit) comparison. It's contradictio in terminis.

 

[roineust]

This all seems fairly pointless to me. You could go onto a medical forum and proclaim that modern medicine is all wrong and we should return to traditional medicines. You could go onto a mathematics forum and argue that modern mathematics has gone awry and that the Greeks had it right.

Instead, you come to a physics forum and proclaim that ... modern physics is on shaky foundations?

Nothing anyone says on here will make the slightest difference to what you belive, so what is the point?

If you've come to learn physics, all good; if you've come determined not to learn physics, then it's all just a waste of time.

I don't consider my self an ancient or modern Greek sophist. A postulate proved wrong, might strengthen a theory foundation and not necessarily shake it. You are the pointless, explain to me logically why i am wrong or stop accusing me.

 

[roineust]

Um, but every experiment is some sort of comparison! You can't have an experiment without (explicit or implicit) comparison. It's contradictio in terminis.

What comparison are you relating to? done twice at the same speed?

 

[PeroK]

I don't consider my self an ancient or modern Greek sophist. A postulate proved wrong, might strengthen a theory foundation and not necessarily shake it. You are the pointless, explain to me logically why i am wrong or stop accusing me.

You can't prove a postulate of logic or mathematics. And you can't prove a postulate of physics, although you can experimentally test the predictions the theory based on those postulates makes.

The first postulate is not a prediction in itself. It doesn't even say what laws of physics we are talking about. And, once you have GR, you can see that there are no inertial frames in any case.

The first postulate is a founding principle on which the physics is built (Newton is more specific: $F = ma$; and SR has more general unspecified "laws of physics").

The theory is tested by what it predicts. A good example is the relativistic energy-momentum experiments of high-energy physics (SR) and modern cosmology (GR).

Note, also, as others have pointed out, there was nothing radical about the first postulate. It was borrowed from existing Newtonian/classical physics. It was the second postulate that was radical at the time.

 

[Dale]

Why shouldn't i be skeptical about SR postulate no.1 ??

Because of all of the strong experimental evidence supporting it.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Maybe such skepticism was defensible a hundred years ago, but now it is no longer merely skepticism but something closer to the flat Earth society where to maintain that skepticism is to willfully ignore a lot of solid evidence.

The moderators will discuss if we wish to have this discussion, but if we do it will be on the basis of the scientific literature, not willfully ignorant skepticism.

 

[Dale]

We have decided not to continue with this discussion, but to leave it closed with the following point by point rebuttal. @roineust if you wish to pursue this line of inquiry in the future, it must be in the context of the professional scientific literature. The professional literature has many papers of a skeptical nature, and they can be used to guide you in the difference between scientific skepticism and flat-earth style skepticism. Be sure to pay careful attention to the reputation of the source.

1. Particles aren't an experiment accelerated up to a certain constant relativistic speed in order to affirm postulate no.1 , particles are only a part of an experiment. The whole experiment should be accelerated into a constant relativistic speed, as in for example: accelerate to a constant relativistic speed also the sensors that measure the particle collision results. Never been done as much as i know.

First, in many experiments the primary detectors are other particles. While "stationary" particle detectors may be used to detect the results of an interaction between particles, the primary interaction itself can occur at relativistic velocities. It is the physics of this interaction which is being tested regardless of the speed of the detectors. This anti-particle stance is not supported in the literature.

Second, there is no specific speed that serves as a definitive cut off between relativistic and non-relativistic. The distinction is in relationship to the sensitivity and precision of the experiment. If an experiment can measure a difference between relativistic and Newtonian physics at some speed then that speed is relativistic for that experiment. Experiments, such as the one by Brillet and Hall in 1979, are sensitive to relative speeds on the order of 1 μm/s. So there are many experiments which have, in fact, been done with macroscopic detectors moving at relativistic speeds. Other examples include the various Mossbauer rotor experiments, and even the famous Hafele and Keating experiment.

Third, just because an experiment is firmly affixed to the Earth surface does not give justification to claim that it is not moving at relativistic speeds. In fact, even from the days of the Michelson and Morley experiment, the whole reason for running it during the day and night and over the course of the year was to ensure that at some point in the experiment the apparatus would be moving at relativistic speeds. With sufficient sensitivity it is essentially impossible for the experiment to not be moving at relativistic speeds.

2. Therefore, a true affirmation or refute of SR postulate no.1 would be executed on macro bodies (the whole experiment) and not on micro bodies (particles only) i.e. compare results from 2 sets of identical experiment equipment, both executed as a whole entire experiment including all experiment parts, at 2 different up to a satisfying enough degree of difference, relativistic constant speeds. Never been done as much as i know.

Again, your anti-particle stance is not rational and not supported by the professional scientific literature. The first postulate is about the laws of physics and particles are essential for understanding the laws of physics. The fundamental laws of physics as we know them today involve four different types of interactions: electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Of those gravity is outside the scope of special relativity, but all three of the other forces have been investigated and found to conform to the Lorentz transform and hence the first postulate.

3. An environment of 2 sets of identical experiment equipment (macro bodies) traveling at 2 different constant relativistic speeds or even 1 relativistic and other not relativistic (in all cases in relation to Earth ground), does not exist in nature as SR defines it (natural celestial objects movement), as much as i understand, therefor it must be an environment artificially created by human beings. Never been done as much as i know.

The Hafele and Keating experiment is a clear example of exactly what you are asking for. However, I would disagree with your assertion that identical relativistically moving objects do not occur in nature. Astronomical objects, such as stars and quasars, may not be identical down to the atomic level, but neither are any pair of manufactured devices. For the purpose of gathering experimental evidence, there are many cases where astronomical objects can, in fact, be considered identical for the purposes of the experiment, particularly given that there are so many of them and you can easily search among them for pairs that are equivalent.

So, then the question is only if special relativistic effects can be detected in astronomical objects. That is an emphatic yes. Many such experiments are detailed in http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

4. What kind of experiment? I don't know the exact nature of that experiment, but first such an experiment environment should be created (engineered) and on it, many types of postulate no.1 affirmation/refute experiments should be executed.

Already done, many, many times. I encourage you to search the scientific literature. Pay attention to the credibility of the source. Study the results. And definitely lose the anti-particle stance, that is simply not acceptable. Particles are part of the universe and they follow the laws of nature so particle experiments are directly relevant to the first postulate.