Alternative special relativity theory?

[Rettich]

I am no physicist, my knwoledge is very small. When I was beginning to think about SR I experienced, like many others, the conclusions of SR as counter intuitive and thought that that could mean SR was wrong. I soon realized that all observations supported the conclusions of SR and that time dilation was very easy calculated. An alternative theory had to meet with the following conditions:

 

1 Present SR had to be incomplete or unjust

 

2 It had to meet the two postulates of Einstein and the clock hypothesis

 

3 The same observations had to be predicted and calculated in the same easy manner

 

4 The theory had to be consistent

 

5 The asssumptions it needed had to be not many more than the implicit asssumptions of SR

 

6 The better predictions had to outweight the worse predictions

 

I thought up an alternative theory which I am calling the General Special Relativity Theory (GSR). This theory, invented by a layman, is perhaps rubbish, but because of its, in my opinion, intriguing prediction I have the urge to present it here. Concerning the above mentioned conditions:

 

1 Proving SR incomplete or unjust is beyond my ability. Such a proof can, now or ever, be impossible. SR can simply be correct.

 

2 I don't think my theory GSR conflicts with the postulates and hypothesis. The role of the first postulate in GSR is different.

 

3 GSR predicts and calculates, in my opinion, in the same easy way the obervations.

 

4 I don't know if GSR is consistent or could be made consistent.

 

5 Theories mentioned by others like the aether theory have more assumptions than SR. Though GSR has two assumptions I do not think they are so much greater than those needed for SR.

 

6 GSR predics at least two things in the same easy manner. These are: an increasing expanding of the universe particularly after the bigbang and an angular velocity of the outer stars of a spiral galaxy larger than predicted by classical theories. These two phenomenons are, as far as I know, never been explained by one same cause.

 

DESCRIPTION OF THE GENERAL SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY

 

SR compares two objects, moving in respect to each other while none of them experiences any forces. Observations done by each object will see the clock of the other object tick slower than his own clock. This time dilation is calculated with the Lorentz-factor, and as a consequence time dilation increases disproportional with increase of speed.

 

GSR states that when two objects move in respect to each other that they will always experience forces. Considering only two objects, because every object has a mass, both objects move through each others gravity-field. Clocks on an object will experience two gravity-fields; one gravity-field which does not move in respect to the clock (the gravity-field caused by the mass on which the clock resides) and one field that moves in relation to the clock. The first assumption of GSR is that a clock experiences a time dilation depended on the Lorentz-factor (time dilation increases disproportional with increase of speed), but that the "weight" of speed v in the Lorentz-factor depends on the ratio of the force of these gravity-fields. Time dilation is not anymore calculated by the observer from the other object and then compared with his own clock. Time dilation is compared with the rate of the clock in case the other object wasn't moving. After for both objects time dilation is calculated the speed of both clocks can be compared. This has far reaching consequences, but for a lot of situations the consequences are negligible.

 

The application is as follows: Suppose there is a movement between two objects A and B with speed 'v'. Concerning the clock on A there is a gravitational field with force g1 caused by the mass of A and the clock also experiences a gravitational field from B with a force g2. The ratio between g1 and g2 determines the weight of speed v. Because g2/g1 varies between zero and infinite, making calculating difficult, I decided "arbitrary" to calculate with Q= g2/(g1+g2).

 

The speed of the clock on A will now be compared with the speed of that clock in the situation A and B were not moving in respect to each other. The Lorentz-factor will be used, but with "v" replaced by "Q.v".

 

When applied to the situation where a satellite orbits the earth we get the following calculations: -for the earth Q equals like zero and therefore the earth experiences no timedilation; -for the satellite Q equals like 1 and therefore the clock of the satellite moves slower according to the Lorentz-factor.

 

When applied to a very small particle moving very quickly we get the same result. But we have to assume that the clock, what ever that may be, of that very small particle experiences a small gravityforce caused by the mass of that particle.

 

As a consequence of GSR the relativistic mass of a moving object/particle will decline when, while retaining the same speed, the distance to a strong gravityforce increases. The conservation of momentum then requires the speed to increase with distance. This increase in speed will be most notable when speed is very high. In this way there will be an high increase in speed after the bigbang. In the same way there will be an increased speed when a spiral-galaxy is formed, stars at the outside will have a greater rotational speed than classical theory predicts . The same could perhaps be said of the corona of the sun and thus causing a higher temperature. You also would expect clocks of the Pioneer 10 and 11 to tick faster than predicted; the faster ticking clock was a proposed cause of its anomaly.

[Implicate Order]

Hi Rettich

 

Interesting ideas. You have obviously spent considerable time thinking about them.

 

One of the issues I have with your thoughts however deals with the importance of inertial motion in SR which provides a context to understand how moving reference frames under inertial motion do not enable any physics experiment to be undertaken which can deduce whether one reference frame is moving with respect to another. This is a clincher for me when reading your alternative. Your alternative theory addresses some issues as you have stated but SR seems to me at least, to address many more issues as a more comprehensive theory dealing with a special condition of inertial motion in euclidean space and we can then go and extend the theory to GR where we can competently deal with all forms of classical mechanics in curved space.

 

For example, let's assume we are playing ping-pong here on earth in a 'stationery' reference frame (a comoving reference frame with respect to us as hypothetical observers). Also assume for this exercise that there are no additional forces to consider such as winds etc. We play our normal game of ping pong.

 

Now let's get into a moving train and get up to a constant velocity (inertial conditions) and we can now go about playing our normal game of ping pong in the train. Then get in a plane travelling at supersonic speeds (yet in inertial motion) and we can still play our ping pong.

 

This is well understood in terms of SR. With your alternate hypothesis, how would this stack up given the balancing act with respect to all the different gravitational fields that you would need to take into account to allow this game of ping pong to be played in each of these different conditions?

 

I can see where you are coming from, but there are a number of conclusions from inertial motion alone that are incredibly powerful reasons to take SR seriously even though it appears to be counter-intuitive. I always need to keep in my mind that we as human beings have been sheltered in a particular 'goldilocks' region of our universe where speeds are slow and gravitation is relatively weak. The counter-intuitivity of it all to me lies in my assumption that the universe needs to take heed of my earthly condition when it is more likely that the universe doesn't care at all what I think.

 

Also aside from the point above relating to inertial conditions, while I can see in your alternate description how you might be striving for a unification of SR and GR with an amended version of a gravitational theory, from my initial read this attempt of yours is resurrecting the need to re-instate the notion of 'force' in terms of gravitation. One of the powerful points of GR is how this theory actually does away with the notion of a force and replaces it with a more robust solution in terms of spacetime curvature. In our attempts to unify different theories that are applicable in different domains, it is helpful to be able to unify forces or reduce their number as opposed to necessitating their inclusion.

 

Anyway, these are just my opinions and I appreciate reading your views.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Implicate Order

[swansont]

Can you make specific predictions with your conjecture? The acid test is comparing a model to what we observe in nature.

[Rettich]

I don't know how to put an image (of my formula) in my post, therefore I try to tell it in words. As far as I can tell, for all our observations we do with a direct use of the Lorentz-factor, we can predict it in the same way as in SR. That is because the conditions of our experiments are within boundary's of very small errors. The Lorentz-factor gamma will be the same, only v in this formula will be replaced by [g2/(g1+g2)].v. In our measurements g1 will always be very small compared to g2 and this way g2/(g1+g2)=1. My point is that this theory results in stating dark matter and dark energy having the same cause. I think this is very remarkable I just wonder what else could result from this theory, I don't know, for all I know solving the vacuum catastrophe.

[swansont]

You don't have a theory, sorry. You have an ad-hoc modification of relativity that seemingly has no data to show that it's correct. Since it's ad-hoc there's no justification for thinking it's right. You at least need one of the two for starters.

[ajb]

You have an ad-hoc modification of relativity ...

I agree with this, it looks like an attempt to modify special relativity to cope with gravitational fields. We have a good and well tested theory of how to do this; General Relativity.

[Rettich]

Thanks for making clear this is not a theory

[ZVBXRPL]

If you have spaceship A with clock A on board then the system of spaceship A and clock A will have energy level of A

If you have spaceship B with clock B on board then the system of spaceship B and clock B will have energy level of B

If spaceship A and spacehip B move at different speeds, then the systems will have different energy levels

The energy within each system determines the nature of the clock, so if energy levels change because of different speeds, the clocks will be different

Relationship between energy and mass is what is most important

c2 is just a constant and the reason "time" seems to alter is because it is inserted into the formula for showing relationship between energy and mass

Edited February 7, 2014 by ZVBXRPL