Relativity Challenge

[Mowgli]

I found this web site http://www.relativitychallenge.com, which claims that there is an algebraic error in the 1905 paper. Has this been discussed in this forum? I could not find it using a forum search.

 

Here is a direct link to what the author points out as a mistake:

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/math1905Mistake.htm.

 

Looking at it, it seems that the transformation of a coordinate (x,y,z,t) to its boosted values is valid only if t=x/c. Which, of course, is not generally true.

 

The author does not seem to be physicist and is interested only in the mathematical correctness of the derivation, not the physical interpretation nor the experimental validation. He makes a pretty good case, IMHO. Any comments?

 

Mowgli

[MetaFrizzics]

This is a very readable criticism of SRT.

 

Einstein was such a kludger.

[Daecon]

But what does that mean in "real world" terms? SRT is wrong?

 

(What exactly do the letters stand for, anyway? All these acronyms annoy me...)

[Mowgli]

But what does that mean in "real world" terms? SRT is wrong?

I guess the implication is that SR is "inaccurate." Its predictions may be right for reasons other than the arguments on which its derivation is based, because the derivation is flawed.

 

(What exactly do the letters stand for' date=' anyway? All these acronyms annoy me...)[/quote']Well, SR is Special Relativity, as I'm sure you know. SRT may be Special Relativity Theory? I guess it should have been STR, the Special Theory of Relativity.

[MetaFrizzics]

There is literally tons of stuff on the net about Einstein's plagarism and sloppy calculations. People have written whole books about it. Mathematicians in particular have a hard time with his questionable derivations.

 

Alternative Interpretation of SRT

 

D-Theory

 

Motherload for Anti-SRT

 

Example of Re-assessment of E=mc^2

[Severian]

Considering that SR is derived from first principles in pretty much all undergrad physics degrees, I very much doubt that there could be a mathematical mistake. This is without having to mention the overwhelming body of scientific evidence to support SR.

[CPL.Luke]

out of curiosity how many physisists/mathmaticians who have real degrees question relativity.

 

 

I would guess none but who knows?

[timo]

There are millions of mathematicans and physicists around. You´ll certainly find a few who question relativity. Even it it´s a vanishing minority: That doesn´t count because they are all brainwashed and don´t think outside the box :].

 

On topic: Didn´t understand what the author was saying. But it´s impressive how many "I found a flaw in relativity"-authors do this by trying to find flaws in papers which are a hundred years old.

[MetaFrizzics]

Well, its not the age of the manuscript that counts, unless it is remarkable, as in biblical mss.

 

Mathematical approaches and proofs are always being revised. It should not be surprising that Einstein's papers are indeed flawed in several places for some good reasons:

 

(1) when on the cutting edge of a concept, often steps are poorly understood and corners are cut.

 

(2) It takes many years for formulations and teaching methods to stabilize by practise and experiment.

 

(3) Physics is rife with examples of physicists who have lept ahead through faulty reasoning processes or unfounded guesses, only to turn out to be right about something, even though they didn't understand what they were doing in the first place.

 

(4) Physicists, like other humans display all the faults of humankind like plagarism, cheating, laziness, and failure to give or share credit appropriately. Einstein was no exception to this in his early years.

 

(5) There have been indeed many errors regarding both interpretation and application of both relativity theories, even by the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century, right up until the late 80's, if not still. It is hard to deny this. I have dozens of books on relativity which are filled with erroneous statements of every kind.

 

(6) Relativity is still not a 'stable' discipline, but rather a 'new' one. 100 years in physics is a short blip on the radar screen. It took Newtonian mechanics 400 years to settle down to an established form, and that theory is relatively simple.

 

(7) Relativity grew up side by side with quantum mechanics, and we are still working out just how the two can be blended with intelligent results. It is not surprising that a theory or set of theories that from their inception were known to be 'incomplete' or limited in their scope of application would contain inconsistencies and 'errors' or paradoxes at the very least.

 

out of curiosity how many physisists/mathmaticians who have real degrees question relativity.

There are certainly many physicists who have doubts about both relativity theories, and in fact most physicists will be painfully aware of the incompleteness of both theories. That is why the greatest minds are currently either working on Quantum Gravity theories or GUTs, which would result in any case in serious modifications to Einstein's original papers.

There are even more mathematicians than physicists who scoff at most papers on relativity, for many reasons, not the least the lack of mathematical rigor of physicists.

 

Many of the scientists in the links I posted earlier are accredited and respectable physicists and mathematicians. AJAY SHARMA for instance has been published in international physics and mathematical journals many times, and is highly respected also as a historian of relativity.

[Mowgli]

Considering that SR is derived[/b'] from first principles in pretty much all undergrad physics degrees, I very much doubt that there could be a mathematical mistake. This is without having to mention the overwhelming body of scientific evidence to support SR.

SR is typically presented starting from the Lorentz transformation. ie, you write

x' = L x

and describe what the matrix L looks like. At least, this is the way it was taught to me. There was no derivation.

 

The body of evidence is another matter. An algebraic error in the orginal derivation may mean that the reason for the observed phenomena is something other than the assumptions proposed in the original derivation.

 

Mowgli

[Mowgli]

out of curiosity how many physisists/mathmaticians who have real degrees question relativity.

 

I would guess none but who knows?

In fact, there is peer-reviewed journal that encourages "dissident" physics. It is "GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS" (http://www.galileanelectrodynamics.com/).

 

Mowgli

[Galileo]

There is literally tons of stuff on the net about Einstein's plagarism and sloppy calculations. People have written whole books about it. Mathematicians in particular have a hard time with his questionable derivations.

 

Alternative Interpretation of SRT

The facts surrounding Einstein's Alleged Plagiarism are fascinating. I have a degree in math and wonder why light velocity in Einstein's original derivation of the Lorentz transformation is c-v and c+v. Let's just say that there are better and clearer derivations of special relativity today. The link you provided says nothing that questions Einstein's conclusions.

[swansont]

In fact' date=' there is peer-reviewed journal that encourages "dissident" physics. It is "GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS" (http://www.galileanelectrodynamics.com/).

 

Mowgli[/quote']

 

refereed by professional scientists, that are critical of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang theory and other establishment doctrines.

 

The danger here is that the refereeing may be of extremely poor quality, if the only hurdle is to disagree with established theory. This is why e.g. creationist magazines that criticize evolution don't count as refereed - you can't have the author and the referees all making the same mistakes. It creates a huge blind spot.

[J.C.MacSwell]

refereed by professional scientists' date=' that are critical of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang theory and other establishment doctrines.[/i']

 

The danger here is that the refereeing may be of extremely poor quality, if the only hurdle is to disagree with established theory. This is why e.g. creationist magazines that criticize evolution don't count as refereed - you can't have the author and the referees all making the same mistakes. It creates a huge blind spot.

 

You have to admit though, it is "peer" reviewed!

[swansont]

You have to admit though, it is "peer" reviewed!

 

In much the same way that a jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty is a jury of ones peers.

[Locrian]

In much the same way that a jury of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty is a jury of ones peers.

 

Hah.

 

Doh.

[Galileo]

This is why e.g. creationist magazines that criticize evolution don't count as refereed - you can't have the author and the referees all making the same mistakes. It creates a huge blind spot.

Typically, all journals focus on only publishing the philosophy of the journal. It's unreasonable to expect a thoughtful creationist viewpoint in a journal that's dedicated to opposing belief in intelligent design.

[swansont]

Typically, all journals focus on only publishing the philosophy of the journal. It's unreasonable to expect a thoughtful creationist viewpoint in a journal that's dedicated to opposing belief in intelligent design.

 

What science journals have a philosophy of opposing intelligent design? What science journals have a philosophy of opposing "Galilean Electrodynalmics" or whatever?

 

Science journals review based on the quality of the science. ID would be rejected because it's bad science or not science at all, not because of some pre-existing policy. Similarly, an anti-relativity paper will be rejected because it's flawed somewhere in its analysis.

 

"Mainstream" science gets rejected, too, by peer-review, because of flaws. Scientists criticize each other quite readily when mistakes and misunderstandings appear.

[Galileo]

swansont,

 

You're too trusting in blind and bigoted human beings. Consider all the trash that's published by professional physics journals generally. If you can, please answer this question: "Why are referees for professional physics journals so hopelessly confused about special relativity in 1+1 dimensions?"

 

Read the AJP paper, "Would a topology change allow Ms. Bright to travel backward in time?" Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), March 1998 (pages 179-185). What a load of crap that paper is! The whole point of the paper is how terribly confused the author is, not understanding coordinates on SxR. Note the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS on page 184 where the author thanks the referees for "critically reading" the manuscript and their "helpful comments."

 

The given reference proves that many learned physicists are terribly confused by special relativity in 1+1 dimensions. The above referenced tripe, published by the American Journal of Physics, while suggesting a pretense of understanding, really reeks of incompetence for freshman physics. The chief editor of the AJP needs someone to teach him the very first principles of special relativity:

 

The Best Way to Learn Special Relativity

The Twin Paradox in a Closed Universe

The physicist Freeman Dyson gives a hint on how the pretense of scientific makebelieve perpetuates itself:

 

Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually published. --Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

Physics is out of control. Instead of wanting to explain things clearly, many physicists, if they're not praising Einstein or promoting some other potential physics superstar, are in a race to create grandiloquent theories. They all believe that they can attain immortality among the gods by mimicking the smarter, more successful gods.

 

This is so obvious: The real deciding factor in determining who gets published and who doesn't depends on the ability to conform to the herd mentality:

 

Followers of large well-supported research programs have lots of powerful senior scientists to promote their careers. People with the uncanny ability to ask new questions or recognize unexamined assumptions are often underappreciated.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/no-new-einstein.pdf

[[Tycho?]]

Well even if physics is "out of control" (something I would fine quite unlikely, considering how much has been learned in the past 100 years) it doesn't really matter if it is.

 

If a theory is accepted or rejected by the mainstream only matters so much. If a rejected theory allows people to make more accurate predictions of real world events, it will gain in popularity, regardless of what anyone else thinks. Similarly an accepted theory that is trash will not allow people to make real predictions, and so wont be used.

 

Herd mentality certainly does exist in physics, but the herd goes where the accurate predictions are.

[Severian]

SR is typically presented starting from the Lorentz transformation. ie' date=' you write

x' = L x

and describe what the matrix L looks like. At least, this is the way it was taught to me. There was no derivation.

[/quote']

 

And where do you think the transformation came from? It was actually written down by Lorentz long before Einstein, but it wasn't understood where it came from. The beauty of SR is that you can derive the Lorentz transormation from 2 postulates:

 

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

2. The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.

[Severian]

This is so obvious: The real deciding factor in determining who gets published and who doesn't depends on the ability to conform to the herd mentality:

 

So I suppose the reason you have had no work published is because you are such an innovative thinker?

[ydoaPs]

The beauty of SR is that you can derive the Lorentz transormation from 2 postulates:

 

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

2. The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.

we did it in my high school physics class last year

[swansont]

swansont' date='

 

You're too trusting in blind and bigoted human beings. Consider all the trash that's published by professional physics journals generally. If you can, please answer this question: "Why are referees for professional physics journals so hopelessly confused about special relativity in 1+1 dimensions?"[/quote']

 

Who are you quoting in the passage that follows?

 

1+1 = 2, does it not? I'm confused by your notation. Also, you do realize that AJP publishes articles for teachers, right? It's not research that goes in there.

[CPL.Luke]

I think he's talking about 1 spatial dimension and 1 time dimension. I have never seen nything where physisists were confused by 1 dimensional relativity