The Special Theory of Relativity - Special Relativity - SR

[Jan Slowak]

I am a mathematician; has analyzed the following parts of the special theory of relativity (SR):

- time dilation

- Lorentz transformations

- Michelson-Morley experiment

- twin paradox, and more ...

All my research shows that SR is nonsense.

I would like to ask physicists and mathematicians to review my findings and show me why my research leads to this conclusion.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

All my research shows that SR is nonsense.

Please show us what "errors" you have found in the mathematics.

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

 

[Jan Slowak]

Mathematical errors are found in the derivation of Lorentz transformations. These errors are very subtle and you do not see them directly.

I have analyzed the derivation of Lorentz transformations found in the following books:

[3] The special and general theory of relativity; Albert Einstein; The first part; About the special theory of relativity; 2006; swedish

[7] Modern Physics; Second edition; Randy Harris; Chapter 2; Special Relativity; 2008

 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Mathematical errors are found in the derivation of Lorentz transformations. These errors are very subtle and you do not see them directly.

Please show us what "errors" you have found in the mathematics.

[Jan Slowak]

I enclose a copy on page 14-15 from [7]. I will use my own notations.
I do my evidence on a separate document that I enclose.

Modern Physics Randy Harris 2008 pages 14-15-v1.pdf

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

I enclose a copy on page 14-15 from [7]. I will use my own notations.
I do my evidence on a separate document that I enclose.

Modern Physics Randy Harris 2008 pages 14-15-v1.pdf

1. The rules require you to present your evidence here on the forum, not in links or documents

2. The document you have provided just has sections of the text covered up.

If there is an error in the mathematics of special relativity, it should be easy for you to show it here.

Note that the forum supports Latex (between [math][/ math] tags) for setting equations. (I assume you are very familiar with Latex as you are a mathematician.)

[Jan Slowak]

I enclose a document with my explanations and my evidence.

 

LT are not self-consistent-eng.pdf

[swansont]

"Note that the combination LEt', SC1 is NOT used in [7].

This is one of the reasons why LT is not self­-consistent."

Of course you won't need to use all six equations. You have six equations and four unknowns. The problem is over-constrained. You only need to use four of them.

"You combine the two results (B = Av and B = Dv) and get D = A!
This means that this result, D = A, applies only to the points {x'= 0 and x = 0}."

No, that's not how boundary conditions work.

[Jan Slowak]

"No, that's not how boundary conditions work."

I am sorry but to say a sentence is not a mathematical proof. I just prefer a proper mathematical evidence.

[swansont]

D=A is a conclusion from the proof you quoted, which leads to the Lorentz transformation. It comes from applying a boundary condition. A boundary condition places a constraint on the equations, but to say the equations only work at that/those point(s) is nonsense.

[Jan Slowak]

 

Each special case has its scope:

SC1 applies to {x' = 0}

SC2 applies to {x = 0}

If you apply these two SC in the same equation system and get a result then the result applies in {x' = 0, x = 0}.

SC1, SC2, SC3 are completely different thought experiments. If you apply them in the same equation system then the result applies in their common validity area!

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Jan Slowak said:

 

Each special case has its scope:

SC1 applies to {x' = 0}

SC2 applies to {x = 0}

If you apply these two SC in the same equation system and get a result then the result applies in {x' = 0, x = 0}.

SC1, SC2, SC3 are completely different thought experiments. If you apply them in the same equation system then the result applies in their common validity area!

That's not how boundary conditions work. But, OK, you don't like solving equations by applying boundary conditions — that's more of a physics thing anyway. Scary, scary physics. (But note that just because you don't understand the method does not mean it's wrong)

 

Here is a method that does it the more traditional way of just substituting equations into each other. Same answer, though.

https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/derivation-of-the-lorentz-transformations-from-first-principles/

 

 

 

[Jan Slowak]

I have explained at the beginning that I have analyzed the derivation of LT from
[7] Modern Physics; Second edition; Randy Harris; Chapter 2; Special Relativity; 2008
You cannot refer to other letters, we must overcome this first.

My motto:
When studying a physical phenomenon, a mathematical model is developed to describ it. Such a model comprises built-in physical laws held together by mathematical tools. If the description of the physical phenomenon is correct, the mathematical model is also correct.

After we have done a mathematical model and we work with it then only the math applies.
In this part, we must respect mathematics to the fullest!
--> 
One more time:
Each special case has its scope: SC1 applies to {x' = 0} and SC2 applies to {x = 0}
If you apply these two SC in the same equation system and get a result then the result applies in {x' = 0, x = 0}.
SC1, SC2, SC3 are completely different thought experiments. If you apply them in the same equation system then the result applies in their common validity area!

 

[Ghideon]

49 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

You cannot refer to other letters, we must overcome this first.

 

Question just to clarify: are you claiming that each and every derivation of Lorentz transform are wrong, or just the ones you adress above?

Edited June 1, 2019 by Ghideon
Spelling

[Jan Slowak]

I do not know exactly how many different derivations of LT exist.
I have analyzed in detail two in the following literature:
[7] Modern Physics; Second edition; Randy Harris; Chapter 2; Special Relativity; 2008
[3] The special and general theory of relativity; Albert Einstein; The first part; About the special theory of relativity; 2006; swedish
and recently I have read the suggested article on the link
https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/derivation-of-the-lorentz-transformations-from-first-principles/

I firmly claim that all three are not self-consistent (mathematically or logically or physically)!

[Ghideon]

4 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

I firmly claim that all three are not self-consistent (mathematically or logically or physically)!

I am not a mathematician but to me it is a huge difference between claiming there are errors in one or a few books (quite probable) and claiming that each and every possible book and paper is wrong regarding Lorentz (not so probable)

On 5/30/2019 at 9:02 AM, Jan Slowak said:

All my research shows that SR is nonsense.

Are all experiments confirming SR wrong? 

Are we discussing corrections to a specific book about SR or corrections to SR?

[Jan Slowak]

I think I am quite clear in what I write.
It was not about some print errors, it is about fundamental issues.
It is not a misprint or a mistake. It is about that in [7] and [3] one uses the mathematics in a wrong way!

Please do not deviate from the main theme: my analysis of the derivation of LT in [7] which shows that LT is not self-consistent.

[Strange]

17 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

Each special case has its scope:

SC1 applies to {x' = 0}

"Applies to" is not correct. It uses x'=0 as a simplifying assumption. The equations derived from this do not only hold when x'=0 (for example, x' does not appear in eqn 2.5; it is generally true, for all x').

You can do the derivation without making that simplifying assumption, it is just more complicated. (That seems to be the approach taken by the page that swansont linked to.)

36 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Please do not deviate from the main theme: my analysis of the derivation of LT in [7] which shows that LT is not self-consistent.

I think it shows that your claim to be a mathematician is somewhat exaggerated. 

2 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

When studying a physical phenomenon, a mathematical model is developed to describ it. Such a model comprises built-in physical laws held together by mathematical tools. If the description of the physical phenomenon is correct, the mathematical model is also correct.

That is a reasonable description of how the equations of SR were derived.

And, as already noted, it is consistent with experiments.

1 hour ago, Jan Slowak said:

I firmly claim that all three are not self-consistent (mathematically or logically or physically)!

Pleas show what you think the error is in that third one.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

I think I am quite clear in what I write.

You are clear, I think. You are also wrong.

2 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

It was not about some print errors, it is about fundamental issues.

Did anyone claim it was a print error?

2 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

It is not a misprint or a mistake. It is about that in [7] and [3] one uses the mathematics in a wrong way!

Please do not deviate from the main theme: my analysis of the derivation of LT in [7] which shows that LT is not self-consistent.

No, it doesn't. You are claiming that using boundary conditions to solve the problem is incorrect, and you are wrong.

You have a general form of some equations, which have an infinite number of solutions in their general form. Knowing the answer at one point reduces the number of possible solutions — it eliminates an unknown.

I showed another way to solve the problem, which arrives at the same answer.

[Jan Slowak]

Please do not deviate from the main theme: my analysis of the derivation of LT in [7].
Please check out Fig. 04:
SC1 which has conditions x' = 0 gives the result B = -Av. This result applies to x' = 0!
SC2 which has condition x = 0 gives the result B = -Dv. This result applies to x = 0!
If you combine these two results in one, D = A, this result applies to {x'= 0 and x = 0}!

Either you mathematically show that I am wrong or accept my results!

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Jan Slowak said:

Either you mathematically show that I am wrong or accept my results!

I did (Eqn 2.5 does not involve x' and so cannot be dependent on the value of x') 

You are.

No one will. After 115 years of mathematical development and experimentation. You are clearly wrong.

1 hour ago, Jan Slowak said:

Please do not deviate from the main theme: my analysis of the derivation of LT in [7].

You do not have the right to dictate that. (If you think that people are taking the thread off topic by referencing sources that show you are wrong, feel free to report the thread, using the Report Post link.)

[Jan Slowak]

If you with Eqn 2.5 refer to page 15 in [7] then I say again:
The result B = -Av which you get by solving the equation system
LEx': x' = Ax + Bt
LEt': t' = Cx + Dt
SC1: x' = 0, x = vt
applies only to x' = 0.

The result B = -Dv which you get by solving the equation system
LEx': x' = Ax + Bt
LEt': t' = Cx + Dt
SC2: x' = -vt', x = 0
applies only to x = 0.

SC1 and SC2 are two independent experiments and you must NOT mix their results!
Ask a professor of mathematics!

You said
After 115 years of mathematical development and experimentation. You are clearly wrong.

This is no proof! See
Cosmos - a short story; Stephen Hawking; page 15:
"A physical theory is always provisional in the sense that it is merely a hypothesis: one can never prove it. However many times the experimental results are consistent with a particular theory, one can never be sure that the results next will contradict the theory. On the other hand, one can disprove a theory by finding only one that does not conform to the predictions of theory ”

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

applies only to x' = 0.

You can continue to assert that but it isn't true.

You can easily derive the same equations without assuming x'=0, it is just a simplification.

8 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

SC1 and SC2 are two independent experiments and you must NOT mix their results!

They are not experiments.

8 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

Ask a professor of mathematics!

I think you are the one who needs help from a competent mathematician.

6 minutes ago, Jan Slowak said:

This is no proof!

Well, it is a proof that the mathematics is correct, because thousands (probably millions) of real mathematicians have looked at it. There are regular claims from crackpots that it is wrong, but that is always because they have failed to understand it.

It is obviously not proof that the theory is correct because, as Hawking says, that is not how science works.

[Jan Slowak]

I cannot accept your counter-arguments by using words, by saying "it's not true"! Only mathematical arguments! Instead of words, you should use mathematical calculations.

SC1 and SC2 are thought experiments!

You said:
”I think you are the one who needs help from a competent mathematician.”

I hoped that ScienceForum.net has the policy of NOT using personal defamation.
It doesn't matter who we are (I don't know who you are, what education you have) we'll stick to the theme:

The derivation of LT in [7] is not self-consistent! Please do not talk about anything else.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, Jan Slowak said:

I cannot accept your counter-arguments by using words, by saying "it's not true"! Only mathematical arguments! Instead of words, you should use mathematical calculations.

Clearly you are not willing to listen to anything that contradicts what you believe.

As I said, you can easily derive the same equations without assuming x'=0, it is just a simplification. See the link provided by swansont, for example. You haven't shown that is wrong.