Encyclopedia > Talk:Special relativity

Article Content

Talk:Special relativity

Tom Van Flandern argues that the Lorentz Relativity[?] theory, the primary competitor to special relativity, does a better job of explaining the Speed of gravity, and is suppored by all the existing experimental evidence that supports special relativity.

There are a hundred and three alternatives to special relativity, and next to noone takes them seriously. Discussion of the particular alternatives definitely does not belong on a main page like special relativity, any more than discussion of Velikovsky belongs on history or discussion of Nostradamus belongs on theology.

While Josh Grosse may feel this way, I'd like him to at least name five of these hundred and three alternatives that are known to fit all the existing experimental evidence. I have my doubts that they exist, based on what I have read about physics. Having read Tom Van Flandern's article, I think Ben was right in putting this note in the article on special relativity. (hmm. maybe I should let Ben fight his own battles though...)

Ok, so I was a little quick to judge, and I apologize. On a careful reading Flandern is indeed working with standard Lorentz ether theory, something which gives the same results as special relativity and so can't be dismissed experimentally, yet which physicists continually reject anyways (having talked to some). The reason is that it is essentially SR plus the concept of a preferred frame, and yet the symmetries in the equation make this frame indistinguishable from the others. Flandern argues that the gravitational field established a preferred frame, but this is no different than saying the observer establishes a preferred frame - it is not in fact a difficulty with frame equivalence. The gravitational field doesn't transform properly in SR, of course, but that is because SR is the gravityless case of general relativity, where there is no preferred frame. But this is beside the point. Flandern's work is not a mainstream position, nor is it a noteable competitor to the mainstream position except in so far as it is a particular argument for Lorentz ether theory, and there are plenty of others - for instance, the supposition that an ether is in fact falsifiable because it places strong constraints on spatial topology. I think it might be worth discussing on a page about ether theory or about Flandern, but it isn't really that relevant to SR in particular.

The following was posted to sci.physics.relativity:

Well, I can tell you that you're not going to get far with "real

experts" if the only person you reference (besides Einstein) is

Tom Van Flandern - a notorious crank, who has been effectively

refuted many times (see, e.g., the article in

http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index)

--LMS

I've removed the following from the article:

(Asterisk)* To postulate means that one supposes that what one has postulated could happen in nature; Einstein supposedly postulated one-way, two-clock light speed isotropy and invariance; however, since such a speed calls not only for two clocks, but for two synchronized clocks, and since nature cannot synchronize clocks, there cannot be any such speed, so there cannot be any scientific postulate calling for its isotropy and invariance. Proof: The one-way, two-clock light speed measurement has never been made because it cannot be made. (The above note was added by Brian D. Jones bdj@access-4-free.com Aug-14-2002)

because it's essentially completely unsupported. Brian, feel free to put it back in if you can give a good reason why "nature cannot synchronize clocks" (other than plain assertion, and no, simply stating "X has not been done because X cannot be done" is not proof of anything - if you can show that it's a physical impossibility to make this measurement, please explain how). Anyway, I really don't understand what you're driving at here. SR only requires the existence of a time coordinate, not necessarily an actual physical clock. --Bth 14:17 Aug 14, 2002 (PDT)

B D Jones is happy to reply, as follows:

Here is my simple explanation re the fact that nature cannot possibly synchronize clocks (although, as you will see after this explanation, it is almost too obvious to need any explanation):

Clock synchronization requires three physical operations, none of which can be accomplished by Mother Nature (as will be self-evident).

Given, two spatially-separated, unstarted clocks, these three operations are as follow:

[1] deciding upon their temporal relationship

(i.e., devising a definition of synchronization),

and

[2] adjusting their hands/dials in accordance with the definition,

and

[3] somehow starting the clocks.

Re [1]: Since Nature has no brain, She obviously cannot possible concoct a clock synchronization procedure.

Re [2]: Since Nature has no hands (or any other means), She obviously cannot possibly adjust the hands of clocks.

Re [3]: Since Nature has no brain or hands, She obviously cannot possibly start clocks at the proper moment and in the proper manner (i.e., in accordance with some clock synchronization procedure).

Clearly, only man can synchronize clocks.

However, it is just as clear that all two-clock measurements are dependent upon how the clocks are synchronized. Indeed, no two-clock measurement can be made unless the clocks have been synchronized somehow.

Therefore, it is impossible to measure light's one-way, two-clock speed without clock synchronization, and the result is dependent upon the given synchronization.

Clearly, only if Nature Herself has synchronized the clocks can the result of any two-clock measurement be a natural result.

Of course, as was proved above, only a thinking being, namely, man, can synchronize clocks in any way, so there is no possible means of obtaining a natural result in any two-clock measurement case.

Conclusion: There can be no natural (or nature-given or experimental) value for light's one-way, two-clock speed because Nature cannot synchronize clocks.

Hint re the above conclusion: If it were possible for Nature to synchronize clocks, then the one-way counterpart to the round-trip Michelson-Morley experiment would have been performed long, long ago, but, as we all know, the one-way experiment has never been performed. In other words, no one has ever used two clocks (in the same frame) to measure light's one-way speed.

Unlike the one-way case, the round-trip case does not contain the unnatural (artificial, man-given) ingredient known as "synchronization."

The round-trip case contains only natural rod length (as given by Nature by giving the atomic shape of the rods' atoms) and natural clock rhythm (by Nature controlling the atomic transitions of an atomic clock's atoms).

Clearly, the round-trip and the one-way case are fundamentally different.

When only one clock is involved, the experimental result depends upon the clock's natural atomic rhythm and the rods' natural intrinsic lengths. But when two clocks are involved, the result depends upon the added unnatural element known as clock synchronization.

This is precisely why the round-trip experiment was performed long ago (in 1887), but the one-way "experiment" has never been performed because it can never be performed.

Note carefully that the round-trip case was (essentially) closed in 1887, so Einstein was perfectly correct to incorporate the round-trip results of isotropy and invariance in his 1905 paper.

This left only the one-way case for Einstein to theorize about.

In creating special relativity, Einstein was essentially asking the following question: What is the natural value of light's one-way, two-clock speed?

However, as we have seen, this is not a scientific question because there can be no natural (or nature-given) value in the one-way, two-clock case because nature cannot synchronize clocks.

But Einstein did not realize this simple-yet-critical fact, so he went on to try to imagine an answer to his (improper, unscientific) query.

To obtain an answer, he looked to the round-trip case. There, he saw isotropy and invariance. Baselessly, he extrapolated these to the one-way case. That is, he decided to set (or synchronize) clocks to cause light's one-way speed to be isotropic and invariant. But this was not only a forced result from man, it was an arbitrary result.

Nothing in experiment or in scientific theory says "one-way, two-clock light speed invariance and isotropy" because nature cannot say these things because they are dependent upon clock synchronization, and nature cannot synchronize clocks.

The round-trip experiment (i.e., the Michelson-Morley experiment) certainly did not say or even imply one-way, two-clock invariance or isotropy. Just as a jogger can run the two legs of a round-trip journey at different speeds each time, and yet take the same round-trip time each time, light can also have different one-way times even if its round-trip time is constant.

As I said, Einstein obtained his one-way isotropy and invariance improperly by fallaciously extrapolating them from the round-trip results of one-clock invariance and isotropy.

Here is the bottom line re light's one-way, two-clock speed and Einstein's special relativity:

Since nature cannot synchronize clocks, there can be no nature-given, one-way, two-clock value for the speed of light, so there can be no experiment in the one-way case. And if there can be no experiment, there can be no postulate or hypothesis or theory pertaining to the one-way case. Thus, special relativity is not a scientific theory. As we all know, Einstein's basis for special relativity was his "postulate" of light's one-way, two-clock invariance/isotropy. (Note carefully that this does not come from the principle of relativity because this principle cannot be invoked until after an experimental result has been found in at least one frame, and yet, as we know, experimental one-way invariance has not been found in any frame. Also note carefully that the principle of relativity does not even imply one-way invariance; all this principle says is if one frame finds invariance, then all others must find it. Of course, the principle says also that if one frame finds variance, then all others must find it, so the principle of relativity is compatible with either variance or invariance.) Since there can be no postulate in the one-way case, Einstein certainly was incorrect to claim that he was postulating one-way invariance, and he was also incorrect in thinking that there was a scientific theory involved in the one-way case.

Some final comments: Special relativity cannot exist without synchronized clocks in every frame, but these clocks will have been manipulated by man (Einstein) to obtain a man's mandated result, so all of the unique results and all of the unique math of special relativity is given merely by man, and not by nature. For example, nature does not say that light's one-way, two-clock speed is invariant. For another example, nature does not say that all two-clock speed measurements must follow Einstein's addition of velocities theorem. Nature did not give us the relativistic transformation equations. Nature did not give us special relativity. Special relativity says nothing about the nature of nature as far as Einstein's two-clock measurements go. For example, nature does not say that a passing rod should be measured as shorter than a stay-at-home rod. And nature does not say that a passing clock should be seen to run slower when compared with two on-board clocks. Indeed, given correctly (or absolutely) synchronized clocks, we would obtain none of these relativistic effects. However, via the round-trip experiment, nature did say that a clock's intrinsic or natural rhythm varies with its speed, as does a rod's intrinsic length. But this is H. A. Lorentz's scientific theory, not Einstein's unscientific special relativity. Only the former can physically explain the Michelson-Morley null result. Only the former can explain the Twin Paradox if triplets are used to eliminate all acceleration.

A special note re special relativity: Despite Einstein's insistence that he had no unique frame or frames, it is clear that each of his frames is physically unique. For example, even though events in space are observer-independent, observers in each Einsteinian frame always find a different time span for the same two given events. Likewise, observers in each Einsteinian frame will find a different length for the same passing rod, and we all know full well that any given rod moving at a constant velocity must have only one physical length. If the physical act of making a length measurement involves physically different results for each Einsteinian frame, then there must be something physically different about each of these frames to cause the different results. All (macro) physical effects have physical causes.

All of the above given by Brian D. Jones (bdj(at)access-4-free.com) August 16, 2002

It pays to know what a scientific postulate is.

I too had to make a removal to talk. I hope BDJones will read Welcome, newcomers and Wikipedia policy, and enter into proper discussion - on the talk pages, where it belongs. Removed material below.

Brian Jones replies: Begging your pardon, I did read all of the Wiki preliminary stuff, and I -- unlike you -- followed the Canon-of-human-knowledge rule precisely. Note that you did not even dispute one of my simple facts, much less did you refute any of them.

By the way, are you aware that there are many different "talk pages"? It is not all that easy to stumble upon the right one at the right moment! (It would have been nice if you had simply said "removal to the relativity page talk page.")

Trivial point: Wikipedia norms are that "removed to talk" means removed to the talk page associated with the article. Also, we do not "sign" articles here; all articles are co-authored and edited by everyone.

That the "removed to talk" message is associated with the page associated with the article is not at all obvious.

Also, I see people's names all over the place. Do you really expect someone to learn all of the rules in a couple of days? Amazing!

Key point: the "canon of human knowledge" means all human knowledge, not simply your view of it. We cover things so that within an article, views are represented roughly in proportion to the amount of credence they're given - particularly among those who study such things. Your "disproof", as one person's opinion, weighs very, very little against all the many proofs of special relativity.

B Jones replies to the above: First of all, there are obviously no proofs because it is still called a 'theory,' and second, it is impossible to prove a circular statement, and that is all that special relativity is, a mere circular statement. All it says is if clocks are set to get one-way, two-clock invariance, then of course that is precisely what they will get. Present one "proof" of special relativity that is not fully dependent upon how Einstein baselessly chose to set his clocks, and I will eat it! As should be obvious, there cannot be any such "proof" because all of special relativity is based solely and directly upon a man's definition of clock synchronization. Nature cannot devise definitions; only man can. The very word "definition" tells anyone that what we have is not from nature, but is only from mere man, and therefore is not a part of natural science any more than the value 212 degrees is re water's boiling point. Only man can give the numerical values for water's boiling point, so there be no scientific theories "predicting" that this value is supposed to be 100 degrees instead of 212 degrees.

B Jones repeats his challenge: Name one proof that is fully independent of a man's definition of clock sychronization.

Rebuttal points: will be inserted in italics below. -- April

Removed material: (asterisk) *

       Hey, let's play by the rules!

According to the Wikipedia rules from /wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not, specifically, #8 on the list, whatever is "in the canon of human knowledge" may be placed in this encyclopedia. Unless you can prove that some part of my addition to this relativity article is not in the canon of human knowledge, then my addition deserves to remain in full or at least in part.

I can prove that the following key statement from the above article is simply incorrect:

"SR postulated that the speed of light in vacuum is the same to all observers ...."

Here is my proof:

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 1: No one-way, two-clock speed can be measured without clock synchronization.

Why not? You have yet to justify this, your first point.

B Jones replies: You cannot be serious. It is self-evident. But if you still cannot see it, then read Einstein's 1905 paper where he stated that without clock synchronization of some sort, no two-clock time measurements of any kind are possible.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 2: If man sets (or synchronizes) the clocks, then the result will not be from nature, but will be from man.

Man is a natural creature. This has no relevance to anything. If an ape sets the clocks, is that from nature? How about a monkey? Dog? At what point does it become "unnatural"?

B Jones replies: I admit that this can be tricky at first. Here is a simpler example: A man sticks an uncalibrated thermometer into a pot of boiling water. He then calibrates it by making marks on it, and then labeling these marks. To do this, he cannot turn to Nature to ask What is the natural value of water's boiling point? because Nature does not calibrate thermometers, just as She does not synchronize clocks. Man, and only man, can calibrate thermometers. There can be no scientific theory based on the question What is the natural (or nature-given) value for the boiling point of water? There can be no competing scientific theories with one saying that the natural boiling-point value must be 212 instead of 100 degrees.

Furthermore, there can be more than one legitimate thermometer calibration system in the world at the same time.

Such systems are arbitrary and are all merely from man, not nature.

Clearly, Nature cannot inscribe little marks on a thermometer, and even if She could, She has no brain to tell Her how and where to place the marks.

Just as clearly, Nature cannot place numerical values beside the marks.

Only man can do such things, and - as history tells us - only man has always done such things.

However, Einstein forgot this critical fact when he invented special relativity.

At the start, he asked the improper (unscientific) question What is the natural value for the one-way, two-clock speed of light?

He forgot that - just as in the thermometer calibration case - only man can synchronize (start and adjust clocks according to a pre-chosen plan) clocks.

You must think carefully about my critical example where I noted that two separated clocks would never be synchronized by Nature because Nature has no brain or hands. This is also why Nature cannot calibrate thermometers or any other such instruments.

All Nature can do with clocks is control their natural rhythms.

Of course, if man stepped in during a one-clock experiment and held back the hands of a clock, then man has interfered with nature, so the experimental result would not be fully natural or fully from Nature.

And this is exactly what happens in all two-clock experiments. Man steps in (as he must) to set (or synchronize) the clocks his way (because Nature has no way), and this certainly affects the outcome of the experiment.

Indeed, the manner in which the clocks have been synchronized controls the value of light's one-way, two-clock speed.

In other words, Einstein merely and simply forced his clocks to obtain one-way light speed invariance by setting them to obtain it. (See his 1905 paper for details.)

In conclusion for this section, just as Nature cannot give us the natural value for water's boiling point(s) (even though it is Nature who is boiling the water), Nature cannot give us the value for light's one-way, two-clock speed because She cannot synchronize clocks.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 3: Only if nature can set clocks can there be a natural value (or a nature-given value) for any one-way, two-clock speed, including that of light.

Let me direct your attention to the decay-times of atoms, lovely natural clocks on which our own artificial clocks are based.

B Jones replies: Yes, as I said, Nature can and does control any clock's rhythm. But my point was that Nature cannot and therefore does not control clock synchronization. Place two unstarted clocks in opposite corners of any room in your house, and see how long it takes for Nature to synchronize them in some way (but make sure that the clocks are not so close as to be able to copy each others vibrations). (Einstein's special relativity supposedly accounts for all clock separation distances, including those of light-year magnitudes.)

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 4: Nature cannot synchronize clocks. (For example, place two unstarted atomic clocks 1 light-year apart, and see how long it will take for nature to start and adjust {or synchronize} these clocks.)

How the heck do you not start an atomic clock? If you can stop atomic decay, I shall be much surprised. If you take two quantities of radioactive material, with the same rate of decay, you have natural synchronized clocks. Presto.

B Jones replies: You misunderstood; I was speaking of starting it on a certain time value, which is usually zero for most time measurements, such as a measurement of light's one-way speed.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 5: Ergo, there cannot be any natural (or nature-given) value for the two-clock, one-way speed of light.

Given that 1-4 are wrong, 5 does not impress.

Given that 1 thru 4 are practically self-evidently correct, 5 should be merely the icing on the cake.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 6: By way of contrast, there can certainly be a natural result in the one-clock, round-trip light speed case because nature controls both the atomic clock's rhythm and the rods' intrinsic lengths (by controlling the natural shapes of the rods' atoms). (There is no synchronization involved!)

Considering the howler, "by controlling the natural shapes of the rods' atoms", I suggest that you may wish to study more physics before formulating physics proofs. The shape of the atoms has very little to do with it; the quantity of material - the number of atoms - is the key point. The rest is pretty much meaningless; nature controls the clocks in both cases.

B Jones replies: You have just applied the "wonderful" adjective "howler" to the words of one of the greatest relativists of all time, namely, John A. Wheeler, who co-wrote the famous book "Spacetime Physics." If you had taken the time to read this book carefully, you would have known that Wheeler (despite being an ardent relativist) fully agreed with H. A. Lorentz's hypothesis of intrinsic rod shrinkage. And ---- guess what, dearie ---- Lorentz's rod shrinkage comes from the distortion of the shapes of the rod's little atoms. It seems as if it is you who needs to study physics a little more.

As any schoolchild knows, the number of atoms in a given rod is constant, so there is no way that the number of atoms could affect a rod's intrinsic length.

I am beginning to wonder if you know that the Michelson-Morley experiment was a closed-lab experiment.

Do you know what such an experiment is?

It is one in which all of the causes and therefore all of the results are fully contained within the given lab.

No outside influences are involved.

No outside observations have anything to do with the results of a closed-lab experiment.

But Einstein attempted to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment by invoking outside observations.

Indeed, Einstein attempted to explain all of flat-space physics by invoking mere outside observations.

But Einstein's scheme cannot work. For example, it cannot work in the Michelson-Morley case because it was a closed-lab experiment, which means, as I said, that no mere outside observation(s) can have any affect upon its outcome.

As I said, the closed-lab nature of the Michelson-Morley experiment means that any and all results must have been caused by only that which is contained within the lab during the experiment.

And --- guess what --- this means that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment must have been caused by the rods.

And since the later Kennedy-Thorndike experiment --- which simply added a single clock to the Michelson-Morley experiment --- was also a closed-lab case, we see that its null result must have been due to either the rods or the clock or both.

Here is another example of why Einstein's scheme cannot work: If Triplets are used instead of Twins in the Twin Paradox case, then there is no acceleration. But the Triplets still have really different ages at the end. How does Einstein's scheme try to explain this real age differential? By merely invoking outside observation. But anyone can see that nothing done by a mere passing (but not touching) observer can possibly make a person age differently or a clock run slower.

Disclaimer: Einstein incorporated the fact of intrinsic clock slowing by accepting the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and assuming that the one-clock experiment would also have a null result). But this was not a theoretical statement made by Einstein; it was merely his acceptance of an experimental result. Therefore, special relativity per se does not explain either the Michelson-Morley experiment or the Twin Paradox even though Einstein did accept real clock slowing and real rod shrinkage as facts before going on to present his "theory" of special relativity. In other words, intrinsic slowing and intrinsic shrinkage are "in" the "theory," but are not predictions of it.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 7: Ergo, we can easily perform the round-trip light speed experiment determine the natural value of this speed, and we did this as long ago as 1887 (the Michelson-Morley experiment).

That ergo's a no-go, sorry. The key point in special relativity experiments is that the clocks travel with respect to the observer (or don't). Incidentally, for a simple breakdown on the flaw of the Michelson-Morley experiment, try the webpage http://www.ebtx.com/ntx/ntx28.htm .

B Jones replies: There were no clocks in the Michelson-Morley experiment, so I have no idea why you mentioned clocks in this rebuttal.

By the way, your cited site could not even properly spell the words "Michelson-Morley experiment," so its credibility was exactly zero up front. Contrary to this web page, Michelson and Morley did not measure any length. They simply compared round-trip light journeys over two paths. I challenge you to cite any reputable source which says that there was a flaw in the Michelson-Morley experiment. I have already said the a preeminent relativity physicist accepted H. A. Lorentz's physical explanation of the Michelson-Morley null result.

No reputable physicist would say that we cannot measure light's round-trip speed. Everyone knows that this was done long ago. In fact, as I said, Einstein in his 1905 paper accepted as fact both null results even though only one had been found at that time.

I really feel that arguing with you is a complete waste of my precious time. Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em! But - he says valiantly - I shall plow on!

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 8: However, as we have seen clearly, there cannot be any one-way, two-clock light speed experiment because nature cannot synchronize clocks in order to give us her value in this case.

Again, since your premises are wrong, your conclusion is unproven.

B Jones replies: Instead of merely saying that the premises were wrong, how about proving that they were wrong! You utterly failed to present any means whereby Nature could synchronize two spatially-separated clocks in any way.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 9: Ergo, despite the fact that the round-trip case was closed many decades ago, no one, including Einstein, has ever performed the one-way "experiment" because this is physically impossible. (No, Ole Roemer's experiment was not a proper two-clock experiment because it involved clock transport, which we all agree will yield invariance due to the intrinsic slowing of the transported clock. In order to properly measure light's one-way, two-clock speed, we must use two synchronized clocks, but Roemer did not do this.)

On the other hand, satellites and astronomical observations make daily uuse of special relativistic principles, which wouldn't work if SR was invalid. Which rather knocks a hole in that premise, doesn't it.

If you are speaking of real clock slowing, then this is not a part of special relativity per se, but snuck in via Einstein's up-front acceptance of the Michelson-Morley experiment null result. Special relativity does not predict anything except what would happen if clocks are set per some man's arbitrary clock-setting scheme, namely Einstein's definition.

As John Wheeler noted and admitted, real clock slowing is a part of Lorentz's theory.

Not to mention the fact that your above was merely a non sequitur because it said nothing about my given fact that no one-way, two-clock light speed measurement can be made.

If you still think that this is possible, then all you have to do to really rebut it is to simply describe how it can be done.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 10: Since a scientific postulate is a guess about the nature of nature or about the outcome of some scientific experiment, we can all see clearly that there can be no postulate re light's one-way, two-clock speed. (And we know that Einstein was trying to postulate about this speed because the round-trip case was closed, as was the Maxwell equations case. The latter pertained only to light's propagational movement through space; no direct light speed measurements were involved relative to some frame; Maxwell's c came from electrical and magnetic measurements, and, as we all know, electrical and magnetic phenomena are purely relative, i.e., frame-independent, so we can expect to obtain frame-independent or absolute results in such cases. To repeat: At no time did Maxwell use any clock or clocks to measure light's one-way speed relative to his frame.)

You may wish to review English as well as physics. A postulate is not a "guess". It is the "If" in an "if-then" statement. (Or as per dictionary, "a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning".) "Electrical and magnetic phenomena" are not frame-independent by any means; only the speed of light is. Add "Doppler shift" to your reading list.

B Jones replies: It is you who needs the English tutoring. Any statement (call it whatever you wish - postulate, supposition, hypothesis, guess, hunch, theory) made about the nature of nature must be either a guess or an experimental fact. You tell us how there can be any other meaning. We are either right or wrong about the nature of nature. (And of course, I was speaking of a scientific postulate, not a math postulate.)

And electrical and magnetic phenomenon (as Einstein mentioned in his 1905 paper, the one you must have ignored) are indeed frame-independent. All that matters is their mutual interaction. Frankly, I am getting weary of having to educate you re the basics.

And I have no idea why you brought up the (optical) Doppler shift.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 11: Everyone agrees that Einstein's primary basis for special relativity was his (alleged) postulation of the isotropy and invariance of light's one-way speed relative to inertial frames, but we have just seen that no scientific postulate can exist in this case, so there is no basis for special relativity.

Premise wrong, conclusion unproven. And incorrect use of alleged, but who's counting.

B Jones replies: You need to learn what "postulate" means in science.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 12: In fact, since special relativity is supposedly [a] theory which predicts the outcome of the one-way, two-clock light speed "experiment," and since no such experiment exists (unless man sets the clocks in some arbitrary manner, thereby forcing man's outcome), there can be no scientific theory in this case, so special relativity is not a scientific theory.

Another incorrect statement, for reasons cited above in response to 2 and 9. Also beware of the false syllogism.

B Jones replies: I made three statements above; which one are you saying is incorrect. Vagueness of speech is bad enough in a normal argument, but is much worse in any argument re relativity "theory."

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 13: Nothing in experiment or in theory (i.e., scientific theory) says anything about light's one-way, two-clock speed, much less that it is isotropic and invariant with respect to inertial reference frames.

Since the first premise is based on the incorrect material above, this remains unproven. Given that SR does say quite a lot on those subjects, which agrees wonderfully with experiment, we must shift that to "disproven"'.

B Jones replies: No experiment supports special relativity. No experiment can support special relativity. This is because the "theory" of special relativity does not say anything at all about the nature of nature. All the "theory" says is that once clocks have been forced by man (Einstein) to obtain one-way invariance, observers using these clocks will find certain results, but the problems are, not only are all of these results due to man, but there is no basis for forcing clocks to get one-way invariance.

So far, you have not successfully rebutted any of my (practically self-evident) facts.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 14: Not realizing the fact that the round-trip and one-way cases are fundamentally different (with the latter containing clock synchronization, which is not a natural phenomenon), Einstein incorrectly extrapolated "one-way invariance" from the round-trip case.

So if something travels in a circle, is that a round-trip or a one-way case? Enquiring minds want to know... in other words, the distinction is artificial the way you put it.

B Jones replies: You forgot about the main thing, namely, clock synchronization. A round-trip measurement requires only one clock, and therefore no clock synchronization. A one-way measurement requires two clocks, so it calls for some sort of clock synchronization. But only man can synchronize clocks, so Nature cannot give us any result in the one-way, two-clock case.

I wonder how many times I am going to have to repeat myself.

And there is really no need for snide remarks such as your "Enquiring minds" thingie.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 15: The equivalence of mass with energy (i.e., E=mc²) has nothing to do with the two-clock measurement of light's one-way speed, so it has nothing to do with Einstein's "theory" of special relativity, as Einstein himself showed by presenting a relativity-free derivation of this famous equation.

On the other hand, the difference between rest-mass and relativistic-mass, which has been measured in the laboratory and is predicted by SR, has everything to do with it. Bit disingenuous to leave that out, isn't it?

B Jones replies: Not at all. Special relativity per se says nothing about intrinsic mass, just as it says nothing about intrinsic clock slowing or intrinsic rod shrinkage.

If you are speaking of real or intrinsic mass above, then tell us in detail how special relativity predicts real mass increase, and how does this mass increase? If it is in proportion to the object's speed through space, then you have already contradicted Einstein's dictum there is no meaning to the notion of motion through space, but if it is not motion through space, then how can mere relative movement (the mere passage of frames) actually cause a real or intrinsic mass increase?

Are you aware that the "v" in all of Einstein's relative equations is ambiguous? That is, it is a veiled combination of two unknown v's. Proof: Einstein's "v" varies with either frame's velocity. So whenever you attempt to use Einstein's math in a rebuttal (as you did above in the mass case), you must be prepared to explain the ambiguity problem with Einstein's math (his "v" is ambiguous).

For example, since Einstein's "v" (in all of his relativistic math) varies with either frame's velocity, we are led to ask the critical question What sort of velocity is this latter velocity? It is clearly not merely one of Einstein's mere relative (frame-to-frame) velocities because he cannot give a numerical value for the velocities in questions.

Let me put it this way: If I am moving through space and I change my speed, which sort of speed have I changed, a merely frame-to-frame relative speed or some other sort of speed? Note carefully that this is a closed-lab experiment, so no mere outside observations can be the cause of my result. My speed change can be detected by me in a closed lab. Ergo, my speed change has nothing to do with any outside observer who may be passing. So what sort of speed are we talking about here?

Einstein has only frame-to-frame relative speeds. Indeed, he flatly denied all meaning to any other sort of speeds.

But, as we know, all of his relativity math contains a speed "v" which is dependent upon two other speeds which cannot be mere frame-to-frame relative speeds because Einstein's "v" varies when either frame's speed varies, and such speed variances are closed-lab results, so they cannot be due to the mere relative motions of frames passing each other in space.

In fact, these closed-lab speed variances reflect the simple fact that motion through space exists and is very meaningful, despite Einstein's insistence to the contrary.

Clearly, Einstein's "theory" of purely frame-to-frame relative motion cannot escape the reality of actual motion through space, despite his denial of any meaning to such motion.

Returning to your mention of relativistic mass, note carefully that the experiments showing mass variance are also closed-lab cases. Thus, no outside observation can explain these results. But all Einstein has are outside observations. So his "theory" cannot possibly explain the real or intrinsic mass variance that is felt or detected in closed labs all over the world. This real mass increase is detected or felt by the magnets which attempt to push the subatomic particles ever faster but then run into resistance. This phenomenon is purely between the participates involved, so it has nothing to do with Einstein's "theory" which attempts to explain it in terms of the mere relative motion of two or more passing frames.

How, then, can relativists find the correct numerical value for time dilation and mass increase cases? They do so by cheating. That is, they plug in the value of zero for the Earth's speed through space, thereby forcing the particle to have all of the velocity. For example, in the pion case of time dilation, the relativists cheated by giving the pion a speed of .75c whereas they forced the Earth's speed to be zero. There is of course no justification for this; why not split the difference? Because then the relative math would yield an incorrect value for the pion's time dilation.

If the pion really lives longer, and it does, then this really longer life must be due to some physical cause. But since the effect is closed-lab, the cause cannot due to a passing observers. The time dilation of any object must be caused by the object's movement through space. Similarly, the intrinsic mass increase of any object must be caused by the object's movement through space.

All relativity has are mere reciprocal results such as "I find your rod to be shorter than my rod, but you find my rod to be shorter than yours"; clearly, no two rods can both be shorter than each other physically speaking; clearly, this is merely the result of measurement. Specifically, it is due (as is everything else in Einstein's "theory") to the use of Einstein's definition of clock synchronization. Since Einstein's clocks are not absolutely synchronous, his clocks cannot pin down the ends of passing rod truly simultaneously, so his clocks cannot correctly measure the length of a passing rod. Each frame's observers therefore can and do find each other's rod to be shorter! This has nothing to do with the rod's real or intrinsic length, but has everything to do with how Einstein sets clocks in his "theory."

If you believe that Einstein's clocks are set correctly or properly or scientifically, then prove it. Einstein said that we must adjust clocks to obtain "c" as the value of light's one-way speed. What is the justification for this rule?

I say that there is absolutely no justification for Einstein's way of setting clocks. It is certain that Nature did not endorse it because Nature says nothing at all about clock synchronization, much less that clocks must be set Einstein's way!

Here is another challenge: Prove in full detail that anyone has ever correctly measured any speed, including mere relative speeds, round-trip or one-way.

Careful - in order to prove this, you must be able to prove that Einstein's clocks are synchronized properly or correctly (for all two-clock measurements), and you must be able to prove that Einstein's clocks either do not intrinsically slow or that they do not slow intrinsically, and you must be able to prove that Einstein's rods either do not intrinsically shrink or that they do not shrink intrinsically.

Canon-of-human-knowledge fact 16: All of the math and all of the results of special relativity (such as the relativistic transformation equations and the "Each frame's observers find the other frame's rod to be shorter" reciprocal, observer-dependent result) are based solely and directly upon Einstein's clock synchronization definition (one that came only from man, and not from nature), so all of the math and all of the results of special relativity are merely man-given, and so say nothing about the nature of nature. (Proof: One cannot derive anything re special relativity until clocks in all frames have been set per Einstein's definition of clock synchronization.)

Your man/nature dichotomy belongs to philosophy, not physics. If I throw a rock or the rock falls from above, gravity works just the same. That basic understanding invalidates at least half your argument.

B Jones replies: Do you not know that the word "definition" denotes "from man"?

No mere definition from man can be a law of nature.

However, you and all of the other relativists continue to claim that Einstein's merely defined one-way invariance is a law from nature.

Man cannot define or make-up the laws of physics; only nature can give us the laws.

My point --- contrary to your above severe misunderstanding --- has absolutely nothing to do with philosophy. It pertains to the state of today's physics.

Your conclusion re your own falling rock example reveals the depth of your misunderstanding.

Sure, gravity would work just the same, but the rock would certainly not fall just the same if man interferes, especially if man throws the rock downward.

I honestly fail to see your problem here. What is so hard to see?

You cannot even imagine Nature starting and synchronizing clocks, but you seem to think that my saying that only man can set clocks is some sort of irrelevant balderdash.

You think that one-way invariance is a law from nature, and yet you must know that all one-way, two-clock speed values are determined by man because man is who synchronizes clocks.

You cannot even describe, much less perform, an experiment which uses two clocks to measure light's one-way speed, but you insist that we have already done this and have found the result to be one-way light speed invariance.

You simply ignore all of my challenges, and yet you continue to impugn my integrity.

You do not know the meaning of the phrase "scientific postulate," but you say that I need some education re physics.

Again, I ask you to present even one physical result of Einstein's special relative which is not fully dependent upon Einstein's definition of clock synchronization.

And of course, since all of the math of special relativity was derived only after all observers' clocks were Einstein-synchronized, it is clear that none of the math of special relativity can be independent of Einstein's synchronization.

This means that none of Einstein's relativity math came from nature because all of it came from a mere definition from man.

Here is a repeated challenge: Tell us in detail how you would measure light's one-way speed today. This means of course that you must not only tell us how you would synchronize the clocks, but that you must justify your synchronization procedure.

In conclusion: The so-called "theory" of special relativity is not a scientific theory because it predicts absolutely nothing about the nature of nature.

The simple fact that the theory of special relativity makes physical predictions, which have been observed in nature, disproves your conclusion right there.

B Jones replies: How does special relativity predict intrinsic mass increase? How does special relativity predict intrinsic rod shrinkage? How does special relativity predict intrinsic time dilation? Prove that the "v" in Einstein's equations is not ambiguous or else explain its ambiguity.

And if you say that special relative does predict some intrinsic changes, please tell us what causes them.

And you cannot say that Einstein's mere relative motion causes them because each of the intrinsic changes is a closed-lab effect.

As I said, all Einstein's special relativity predicts is what will happen if observers set their clocks per Einstein's definition, so none of these predictions pertain to nature because Einstein's definition was not given by nature.

Einstein's special relativity is merely the circular and trivial and irrelevant statement "If clocks are forced by Einstein to obtain one-way isotropy and invariance, then, by cracky, they will obtain it!"

This is of no more importance to physical science than the statement "If thermometers are forced to read 212 degrees when placed in boiling water, then, by cracky, they will read it!"

Since Nature cannot set clocks, and since clocks must be set in order to measure light's one-way speed, there cannot be any natural value for light's one-way speed. Accordingly, there cannot be any one-way light speed experiment performed to determine the "natural value of light's one-way speed." Ergo, there cannot be any scientific theory purporting to predict the natural value of light's one-way speed. Conclusion: Einstein's special relativity is not a scientific theory.

Rebuttal by -- April, a bit on the irate side, I fear.

Well, that's a merry mess to untangle! B Jones, please reread what April wrote about clocks! She knows what she is talking about. You seem to be under the impression that clocks in the experiment must have hands and faces. Not so. The "clock" is anything which can be used to measure elapsed time. -- Tarquin

I agree with --April's removal of the paragraph in question. And although I admire her quixotic rebuttal, I am not sure it is even necessary. Brian D. Jones' assertion is really a very trivial example of a semantic argument. The argument goes like this: If you define "postulate" as "x," then what Einstein claimed is not a postulate. Well, okay, but what is the big deal? If you are completely wedded to this definition of "postulate," just call it something else.

However, Jones's trivial semantic argument does reveal a more profound misunderstanding of both English and science, (hence the value of --April's rebuttal), but I think itcan be reduced to two simple points (--April, I am sorry if I am repeating you)

1) "Postulate" does not mean what Jones says it means. Just look it up in a dictionary 2) Science does not proceed solely through statements that correspond to the natural world. For one thing, "the natureal world" is itself a construct, and all we have are partial representations of the natural world; the whole game of science is to come up with models that are, according to agreed-upon criteria, better. Jones makes all sorts of definitive claims about nature as if we have total knowledge of nature, when it is precisely more knowledge of nature that we seek.

One kind of claim is a hypothesis, which can be falsified through experimentation (in other words, compared to some part of "the natural world" and judged accordingly. I think Einstein himself agreed that the value of his theories lay in part in their ability to generate hypotheses.

But that doesn't mean that all claims are hypotheses, or (call them "postulates" or "propositions" or whatever, what you call them does not matter as long as the meaning of the term is clear) are isomorphic representations of some natural phenomena or part of the natural world. Einstein himself pointed out that propositions in geometry aren't "true" in the sense of corresponding with nature (meaning in this instance, the physical universe), since they are about logical relaitonships among ideas.

Einstein worked in part through "thought experiments" meaning mental puzzles that could help generate ideas, but that did not claim to be actual physical experiments.

It is ironic that Jones is accusing Einstein of being a sort of idealist, when this is precisely Jones's problem. He makes claims about what "sicnece" is, claims that represent ideas in Jones' own mind but not an empirical study of actual scientists. I am not saying that everything Einstein said or did was scientific, or good science. But he was a noted and respected scientist, and before making claims about what "science" is, I would look at Einstein and other respected scientists, try to understand what they did and why, and develop my claims about "science" based on that. If you want to be scientific about it ... Slrubenstein

I don't want to make this into an endless chain of rebuttals-of-rebuttals-of... et cetera. My experience with similar discussions on news:sci.astro and news:sci.skeptic suggests that such discussions can go round and round ad nauseum. As a result, I really appreciate Slrubenstein's boiling it down to two key points. I don't intend to rebut every misconception that BDJones can possibly throw at the issue for the next few months; I'll just remove non-science additions to the article, with justification where I feel necessary.

I believe that the misuse of terms above, such as "postulate" (see Logical fallacy/Equivocation)and the "man-nature" false dilemma, are fairly evident to most readers, and so won't bother saying any more on those. For the layman who may not have followed all of the physics above, I'll use one example to show how BDJones is not using the same physics as the rest of us... I'll attack one weak link of the chain of reasoning of his "disproof", by way of showing the chain is fundamentally unsound. As a side note -- there are other links that also don't hold the weight of logic.

BDJones states, "as we all know, electrical and magnetic phenomena are ... frame-independent". I used the Doppler effect as a counter-example. The wavelength of light from an object moving toward one is shifted by an amount relative to the speed of the moving object. Great. Now, let us increase the speed of the moving object until it is close to c, the speed of light. Without special relativity, the amount of wavelength shift due to the Doppler effect will follow the same relationship as it would for slower objects. But, if special relativity is correct, there will be a relativistic Doppler effect -- the relationship between the amount of wavelength shift and the speed of the object emitting light will be different. (The difference is described by the Lorenz factor.) When we observe light from astronomical objects, we see that in fact the relativistic correction to the Doppler effect is necessary to correctly describe the observations. Ergo, the evidence supports the relativistic Doppler effect as predicted by special relativity. Ergo, the evidence shows that special relativity is valid.

When BDJones can make predictions from his own ideosyncratic theory that match our observations, then I will be glad to reconsider my position on the matter. Until then, I see no reason such unsupported (by evidence or by majority opinion) claims of "disproof" should be considered in the special relativity article. -- April

An additional note: Ned Wright has a really good tutorial on relativity, both special and general, at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm - it's not what you'd call simple, but it does illustrate the principles very clearly and in a step-by-step fashion. Might be a useful resource in fleshing out this article. -- April

Brian Jones responds:

Physics comprises only two categories, namely,

(a) that which is theoretical,

and

(b) that which is factual (i.e., experimental results).

Eventually, all that becomes true physics must be backed by experiment. As we learned long ago, man cannot sit in an armchair and make up the laws of physics. Only nature - through experiment - can give us the laws of physics or the laws of nature; indeed, I much prefer the phrase "laws from nature."

Someone - I care not who - has asserted that light's one-way, two-clock speed is isotropic and invariant. We can take this - for convenience - as a single statement.

This statement - made as a scientific assertion - implies that there is a physical experiment involved, namely, the one-way, two-clock measurement of light's speed.

No, Brian Jones just does not get it. Maxwell's model, the strength of which involves modeling magnetic and electrical radiation the same way, suggests that there is a fixed, or absolute, speed for light. The question then becomes, speed measured relative to what? "Ether" was the conventional answer, and what Einstein did was develop a model in which the question (speed measured relative to what?) is only a question if one has an absolute notion of time. If one simply do not assume an absolute notion of time, the question doesn't come up and one does do not have to speculate about ether.

So, Brian Jones is both unclear, and has not met the challenge of proving certain things. Brian Jones is unclear as to whether he is disagreeing with Einstein, or disagreeing with Maxwell, who is the one who argued that there is an invariant speed of light. If Brian Jones disagrees with Maxwell he has not provided his reasons. And if Brian Jones disagrees with Einstein, Brian Jones must

prove that ether exists, and
prove that "time" is an absolute

Wikipedia of course is not the place to prove it. But I am sure once Brian Jones has published his article in a peer-revued journal, and his experiments have been replicated or his math checked, someone will be able to report that in the encyclopedia, Slrubenstein

If the given statement is theoretical, then the pertinent experiment would be a potential one, and if the given statement is factual, then the pertinent experiment would be an actual one, but, in any case, there must be some physical experiment involved.

                     My Final Challenge

That said, the task of all those in Wiki-land who feel that Jones has been writing nonsense re relativity, is to fully describe the experiment in question.

If there is no experiment involved - either an actual experiment which has already been performed, or a potential experiment - then the above-given assertion of one-way, two-clock light speed invariance/isotropy has nothing to do with physics, being merely from man, and not from nature.

Here is Jones's equation:

         No Experiment (potential or actual) ≡ No Physics

Disclaimer: Contrary to someone's assertion, I have no theory. I am like the atheist, being merely an innocent bystander listening to someone's assertion. The theist asserts that God exists; the relativist asserts that the one-way, two-clock light speed measurement can be made experimentally. Both are baseless assertions, but the latter is physically impossible because nature cannot synchronize the two clocks which are to be used to measure light's one-way speed.

April's fundamental problem is as follows: She utterly fails to understand the simple fact that all of the relativity math was derived only after clocks in all frames were set in accordance with a man's definition of synchronization. No one has yet verified the correctness of this definition. Worse, physics does not consist of man's definitions, but consists solely of experimental results.

Any and all relativistic effects (e.g., the relativistic Doppler effect) are due to Einstein's definition of synchronization.

Any effects that are real (e.g., the real difference in ages for the Triplets in the Triplet paradox, or a non-reciprocal and frame-independent changing Doppler effect, etc.) cannot be due to some man's definition but must have some physical cause. Only H. A. Lorentz's theory contains physical causes for such effects.

Nothing in Nature can be due to a mere definition except the direct effects of applying the definition (such as the merely reciprocal, frame-dependent "Your rod is shorter than my rod" result).

Mere definitions from man cannot cause a real change in a clock's rhythm, a real change in a rod's length, a real age difference among people, or any other physically real effect or phenomenon.

Wake up, people! This is physics, not Alice in Wonderland!

No one in Wiki-land has responded to a single one of my challenges.

Makes one wonder about the folks in Wiki-land. Should they really be in control of scientific articles?

I predict here and now that my latest (and greatest) challenge will go completely ignored by those in Wiki-land.

This challenge - to repeat it - was for anyone here to fully describe the experiment that is supposedly involved re the supposedly scientific assertion that light's one-way, two-clock speed is isotropic/invariant.

Brian Jones, there is a book I really recommend you read. It is called An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (by Dave Hume) Slrubenstein

Jones, the people here at wikipedia shouldn't have to answer your challenges, and it is unreasonable of you to expect them to do so. The statements you are including are inappropriate, because they are generally considered incorrect. If you want to know why they are considered so, or what is wrong with them, please research the matter elsewhere! Books are excellent. Also, usenet is designed for this sort of thing, with many people who enjoy dealing with such matter as well as many who are practicing scientists. Though I think even a cursory glance at qualifications and knowledge gives the lie to your claim that you are the only wikipedian qualified to deal with scientific matters.

Answering BDJones' "Final Challenge": If he had read the webpage above, he would have seen just such an example, actually, of "one-way, two-clock" lightspeed. It's based on a supernova. Summerized here: if light travelled at different speeds, the light from a spupernova should reach us over a multi-year span, because different fragments of the supernova-expelled material are travelling at different velocities (over a range of some thousands of kilometers per second). The light, "redshifted" and "blueshifted" by the Doppler effect, nonetheless contrives to arrive within a very short span of time.

Consider what happens here. The "origin", the point at which we start our "clocks", is when the supernova explodes. Fragment A is flung out travelling away from Earth at 5000 km/sec with respect to the origin. Fragment B is flung out travelling toward Earth at 5000 km/sec with respect to the origin.

<--- A -- SN -- B ---> ------------------------- Earth

Because of the motion of these particles, light from A will be redshifted (Doppler effect, light source moving away) and light from B will be blueshifted (Doppler effect, light moving toward). Now, if the speed of light depends on the frame of reference, light from B (conveniently marked for us by its blueshift) should arive quite a bit ahead of light from A (redshifted) which has some catching up to do relative to B. But it doesn't. The webpage cites a maximum difference in red- and blue-shift arrival of about 10 days. If lightspeed was dependent on frame, there should be a several-century delay even for nearby supernovae.

One way (supernova-ejecta-to-Earth), two clocks (relative velocities of two ejecta fragments), evidence implies invariant lightspeed. QED. And now I really will try harder to avoid getting sucked into an Eternal Argument. -- April

B Jones replies: Everyone agrees that light is source independent. I was speaking of light's one-way, two-clock speed. You are speaking of its source-independent movement through space. "relative velocities" are not clocks. The only way this could be an "Eternal Argument" is if you refuse to see the light re light, as you have thus far. Your insistence upon changing the subject is annoying at best. I try to focus upon Einstein's man-given definition of clock synchronization, and you bring up the optical Doppler shift and light rays moving from supernova fragments toward the Earth. There was no clock at the supernova. There was no clock synchronization involved. If you insist otherwise, then please tell us how the clocks were synchronized.

You do not have to reach out to supernovae in space in order to show us how Einstein's one-way, two-clock invariance can be proved or disproved. All you need to do is draw two clocks sitting on a rod and do the math.

You in no way fully (or even partially) described the one-way,

two-clock light speed experiment upon which special relativity was supposedly based.

To repeat: It takes only two clocks and a rod, not supernovae.

The reason for my challenges is self defense. I have every right to defend myself.

This all started when I read the Relativity Page assertion that "SR postulated that the speed of light in vacuum is the same to all observers ...."

This is a claim that light's one-way, two-clock speed is invariant. The only way to prove this claim is by direct experiment. But there cannot be any experiment because Nature cannot set clocks in order to give us Her result.

And if no experiment possible, then there can be no postulation re any "results."

Ergo, Einstein's primary relativity "postulate" is not a scientific postulate.

If you insist otherwise, then all you have to do is tell us how to perform the one-way, two-clock light speed experiment, but this must involve two synchronized clocks, and you must tell us exactly how they were synchronized.

Not only did the folks who wrote the Relativity Page fail to understand this simple conclusion, but they also failed to understand the meaning of "physical postulate."

Here is a simple example: "The American theorists Murray Gell-Mann & George Zweig independently postulated the existence of quarks."

Clearly, this postulate can be confirmed or tested only via experimentation, as is the case with all other physical postulates.

It is very strange that someone who writes about relativity does not even know what a physical postulate is. BDJ[?]

I've seen your page on rods on Meta, but I'm afraid I don't understand it -- Tarquin

Maybe if you asked me a question I could help.BDJ[?]

It is a reference to pages 35-37 in Einstein's book, Relativity, in which Einstein is not describing an experiment but rather using an analogy to illustrate certain implications of the Lorentz transformation (Einstein's larger point is that if we accept that space is relative, we run into some very strange problems unless we also assume that time is relative -- it is a shame (maybe?) that Brian Jones does not respond to my challenge up above), Slrubenstein

Maybe the whole discussion could be shifted to Meta (where, BTW, Brian has already written up a disproof of Relativity). I look forward to some of this being copied and refactored over to Simple Science wiki! There are the beginnings of a great article, I think -- Tarquin

The "disproof" on Meta is not a disproof at all, of course. B.Jones may wish to take a look at my comment on it. --DrBob

Asking an already answered question is not a refutation of my disproof.

I stated clearly that X was the frame distance in each frame. I labeled my graphics that way. What more can one do? What have you done to knock down my disproof? Absolutely nothing, so it still stands. --BDJ[?]

"Tarquin," I (BJones) appreciate your sentiment that "There are the beginnings of a great article, I think." (I also have to give you credit for tracking down and mentioning by meta-wiki article!)

In order to convince you that I am indeed sane, allow me to present a simpler argument - one that doesn't talk about that tricky stuff known as clock synchronization.

It is instead based on something familiar to us all, namely, cause and effect (in the non-quantum or macro arena of course).

 Here is the argument:
 As we all know, there is a fundamental rule of (macro) events known as 
 the law of cause and effect. This means simply that there must be a
 physical cause for any and all physical effects. As we all also know, 
 in Einstein's special relativity, there is a physical effect known as 
 the relativistic length contraction. Specifically, in Einstein's world 
 of special relativity, observers in Einsteinian frames find different 
 lengths for the same passing rod. The law of cause and effect says 
 that there must be a physical cause for this physical effect. What is 
 the full physical explanation for this relativistic effect? I am not 
 asking for a mere mathematical rendition of it; I am asking for the 
 precise and actual physical cause. And I know that one must exist.

Here is the argument in a different guise: As any physicist knows, events are observer-independent. However, in Einstein's special relativity, observers find different time spans between the same two events. Again, my simple question is, what is the physical cause?

"Because it is a deduction of the postulates of special relativity" is my answer. A question for you: If we assume that Galilean relativity is true, then all observers will find the same time span between the same two events. What is the physical cause of this effect? Why do they measure the same time elapsed? Why must it be the same? --DrBob

BDJ[?]Since time spans are determined or measured by clocks, I can say for a simple fact that clocks are to blame. And since two clocks in each frame are involved in both the Einsteinian and the Galilean cases, I can say for another simple fact that clock synchronization is to blame. Here is a news flash for Dr. Bob: Mere postulates and the mere deductions from same can never be the physical causes of anything. Wake up an smell the physics!

To be as precise as possible, what I am looking for is a full description of the exact physical cause of either of the above physical effects.

The purpose of this little exercise is to show that the full story of special relativity is mostly unknown and untold.

Here is a specific example of the above second version of my argument: Einsteinian observers in Frame A find two events to be simultaneous, but Einsteinian observers in Frame B find these same two events to not be simultaneous. What is the specific physical cause for this? Can we blame the events? No, because two events cannot occur in two different ways, and events are observer-independent anyway. Not being able to blame the events, we are left with only the observers and the light rays from the events. But which of these is to blame? Do we really believe that light rays from the events can move in two entirely different ways as they travel from the events to the observers eyes? If so, then we can believe that the light rays are to blame. However, I do not believe this for a minute, so I am left with only the observers and their eyes and their frames. But we must remember that there is another entity involved, namely, space. Yes, the observers' frames reside in space. And the light rays do also. In fact, I would go so far as to say that both the frames and the light rays move through space. But now I am already outside of Einstein's strict boundaries because he denied all meaning to the notion of motion through space. But I still insist that the relativists must be able to come up with a physical cause for this physical effect known as "Einstein's relativity of simultaneity." If not, then I can rightly claim that neither they nor Einstein know/knew what they are/were talking about.

BDJ[?]

BDJ, please specify: do you mean the material cause, the formal cause, efficient cause, or final cause? Slrubenstein

Mercy, Rubenstein, just describe how it happened on paper! Tell us step by step what happened from the first step to the last. BDJ[?]

Bjones, I wonder if your problem with the ideas of measuring and clocks is similar to one I had with colour. When I was doing chemistry at school, we were taught about the Transition Metals. Salts of transition elements are often brightly coloured, as opposed to Group I and II salts which tend to be white. The explanation is that the electrons in the transition ions jump up to higher shells when light hits them, and this absorbs some of the energy from the light. The frequencies that remain give the colour. (this may not be completely right, it was several years ago...). Upon hearing this, my immediate reaction was -- but if Copper Sulphate is only blue because of the electrons jumping when light has hit it -- what colour is it in the dark when the electrons haven't jumped up? Of course, the answer is that the question makes no sense. We're think of colour as an absolute property of a body, like my jeans being blue. In a red light they're darker, in artificial light they are more yellow, in twilight they become greyish -- I still imagine them as blue, but as Terry Pratchett would say, this is just one of those bubbles we humans construct around themselves to prevent us from going insane. Similarly, I think with your idea of measuring lengths of rods or people "absolutely". There isn't an absolute. You can measure one thing against another, that's all. Relativity, and the Uncertainty Principle, and Godel's Theorem, tell us that the world is a very ungrounded place. -- tarquin

The Problem With Einstein's Second Postulate:

It is supposed to be a law of physics, but there is no evidence for this, much less proof.

For almost a century, physicists have claimed that the correct value for light's one-way (two-clock) speed is "c" relative to all frames.

Proof that Einstein claimed that one-way invariance is a law of physics:

From Einstein's book "Relativity":

"w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have

w = c - v.

The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result [of a one-way, two-clock light speed measurement on paper] comes into conflict with the principle of relativity.... For, like every other general law of nature, the LAW of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same [for observers in both frames]."

But saying it does not make it so.

I demand proof.

What is it that I want proof of?

I want proof that when two clocks are sitting at the ends of a table, and a ray of light is sent from one of these clocks to the other, the natural (or correct) result will be one-way (two-clock) light speed invariance.

In other words, I want proof that one-way (two-clock) invariance for light's speed is a law of physics (as Einstein claimed).

When Einstein spoke of one-way, two-clock light speed invariance, he did not also speak of the optical Doppler effect or of anything else. He spoke only of two inertial frames using two clocks per frame to measure the one-way speed of a passing light ray. Accordingly, whoever gives me my proof must also not bring up anything other than the ingredients just mentioned.

And if you try to avoid the burden-of-proof responsibility by saying that Einstein's one-way (two-clock) invariance was just a postulate, bear in mind the fact that all scientific postulates must pertain to nature. In other words, Einstein was saying either that light's one-way speed already is invariant per experiment or would be invariant (postulation) if the experiment were to be performed.

 BDJ[?]

Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, much less crakpot ideas being placed in legit and well accepted theories. --mav

"Mav" (who cannot even spell "crackpot") failed to notice that my above was a challenge, and was not "original research." "Mav" also failed to answer my challenge, as did all the other relativists.

If "Mav" believes in one-way light speed invariance, then it is up to "Mav" to prove it, to put his/her money where his/her mouth is, to put up or shut up! BDJ[?]

Whatever. You obviously don't want to play nice and instead force your idiosyncratic views onto others. This article must be about special relativity. Period. --mav

Pointing out the simple fact that there is no proof that light's one-way, two-clock speed is invariant is certainly pertinent to special relativity. Pointing out the simple fact that there can be no scientific theory or postulation about a non-existent experiment is certainly pertinent to any article about special relativity. I am not - as you said - forcing my views on others. I am - as I said - merely asking for any evidence for what the Wiki relativity article claims. Why don't you tell us how light's one-way, two-clock speed can be measured? And if it cannot be, then why don't you tell us how Einstein (as the Wiki article claimed) could postulate the result of such a measurement? The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. Instead of wrongly saying that I don't want to play nice, why did you not try to do the right thing by facing up to my challenge to prove the invariance of light's one-way, two-clock speed. Or, as I said, merely prove that it can even be measured! Or is this too much to ask of the relativists of Wiki-World? --BDJ[?]

apparently every other reader of Wikipedia understands the difference, and relationship, between theory and hypothesis. Slrubenstein

The burden of proof here is on the person wanting to change the article to something that several other contributors don't care for. That person is you BDJ. --mav

Now that I (BDJ) have stopped laughing at the two above statements, I can reply. So, if everyone in the world except Jones believes in one-way, two-clock invariance, but no one has provided any evidence for it, much less proved it, then Jones is wrong, even though he has proved (see my Meta-Wiki article) one-way variance. Somehow, this sort of thinking doesn't seem to be scientific. It does seem like "the majority rules, regardless" though! --BDJ[?]

Well, that depends. In which Journal did Jones publish his proof? Who reviewed it? -- GWO

Pay attention, Mr. "GWO"; it is (as I said) in the Meta section. Why don't you try to find something wrong it? More importantly, why don't you try to prove that light's one-way, two-clock speed is invariant? This is my main beef, as it is what the silly Wiki relativity article (falsely) claims.

Why should he try and prove such things? That's not his job, or the job of any other wikipedian, as this isn't a forum for the advancement of new theories. Why don't you understand this?

In fact, I can guarantee that you will not be able to tell us (step by step with no important details missing) how to (even on paper) correctly measure any one-way, two-clock speed, including light's.

It's so easy to say things such as "Who reviewed it?" in lieu of saying anything really important. -- BDJ

There's a cleaner version of BDJ's stuff at http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/2-4/Jones-pub.htm, care of the Journal of Theoretics, which to my untrained eye ppears to be a fine breeding ground for crackpots of all manner. Quotable quote: "the frames move differently relative to any passing entity, including a light ray" -- since light is always measured at c from any frame, then any frame moves at the same speed relative to light. BDJ, I suggest you take this whole discussion to your meta page. Even better, put your money where your mouth is and go take a degree in physics. Argue with your professors, they're paid to do that, we're not. Do your thesis on this stuff. Come back here in 6 years' time and we will bow down to you & graciously admit we were wrong -- Tarquin

1. Contrary to your above claim, no one, including all the physics professors, has ever even measured light's one-way speed, much less proven it to be "c" in any frame. 2. Your demand that one get a degree is just another version of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority. 3. I have consistently and overwhelmingly put my money where my mouth is by presenting the challenge to anyone here to back up the claim on the Wiki relativity page that the assertion of one-way light speed invariance is a scientific assertion, among other equally-powerful and equally-unanswered challenges.

no, you have not put your money where you mouth is. to put your money where yourmouth is, you would have to conduct the experiment itself.

4. I have proved experimentally (it was a thought experiment which can easily be performed, and whose outcome is obvious) that light's one-way speed varies with frame speed.

in other words, you have not proven it experimentally. (an "experiment" is something you actually try to do, not just think about doing). Also, if the "outcome is obvious" it isn't even an experiment, it is merely a description of a conclusion you have already reached non-experimentally.

Which part of my experiment would not happen exactly as described?

5. Since my experimental facts speak for themselves, and since you have zero such facts, guess who wins this argument? 6. Why wait 6 years to admit that you are wrong? 7. And why play dirty pool by calling me a crackpot sans any evidence?

Ah my dear boy -- I do not think people have ever had such an abundance of evidence as here!

No one but you is still arguing, and you have not properly rebutted a single thing. And neither have you answered a single challenge. In order to properly defend the Wiki relativity page, you have three and only three options, as follow:

Admit that Wiki merely parrots current dogma
Admit defeat
Prove your claim that light's one-way (2-clock) speed is invariant

(Are you really that desperate?)

And just to put some icing on the cake, here are another couple of challenges:

Subject: Time Dilation

First Question: How can a change in my speed physically affect your aging process (given that I have no physical contact with you, but am merely a passing frame observing you)?

Second Question: If you try to cop out by claiming that time dilation is merely apparent (i.e., a mere point-of-view) phenomenon, then why should different frames see the same clock running differently? -- BDJ

In answer to 1, it doesn't. A change in your speed affects your ageing -- well your perception of time. But because you age more slowly than me, I appear to age faster than you. It's relative. ... er ... hence, er, the name, er "relativity". In answer to earlier stufff, no it wasn't an appeal to authority, it was a "go and argue this out with people who are PAID to do so". Besides, the staff of a University physics department would be legitimate authorities on this subject. See Logical fallacy/Appeal to authority. You plainly don't understand relativity, and seem troubled by it -- why? In everyday life the effects of relativity are invisible -- ignore it. I don't claim to understand it either, but what I know of it I find intriguing, moreover it has an elegance which appeals to me as a mathematician. Jean-Pierre Petit does excellent vulgarizations of the theory in the Anselme Lanturlu books, I recommend them. They're in French but I think I've heard of English translations. The "Cosmic Park" model of onion layers of velocities is a great illustration. It's probably worthy of an article here just to itself. -- Tarquin

Tarquin, for the record, two moving observers will each see the other age slower. Unless one accelerates, which complicates matters.

I am indeed troubled by relativity, as you put it, and I have told you why. It makes the baseless claim that light's one-way (2-clock) speed is invariant. Indeed, special relativity is based on this baseless claim.

Just for fun, I would like to prove to you (yes, you personally) that I am not by any means a crackpot. Here is how I am going to do this (and it is extemely simple):

Suppose I give you two brand new atomic clocks still in their original boxes. That is, these clocks are not yet running. You are to place one clock at each end of a long table. You are to then place a light source at one end of the table. Your mission now begins, and it is simply to use these two clocks, the long table, and the light source to correctly (properly, scientifically) measure light's one-way, two-clock speed relative to the table. (Please do not omit any crucial steps, and you must prove each step.)-- BDJ

This is not the place to raise these concerns. Wikipedia presents articles from a Neutral point of view, which means that we present both the mainstream views (which you call 'current dogma') and significant alternative views, properly attributed to make it clear what the majority of scientists think. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to 'debate' or 'prove' scientific theories - that's a job for scientists. We should only debate how best to describe them in articles. Enchanter 11:25 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)

You said that this is not the place to raise these concerns; however, this is the place wherein I was called a "crackpot," so it is the place wherein I deserve to defend myself by proffering proof (such as the above little challenge) that I am by no means a "crackpot."

Re your comments re the Wiki relativity article, it would seem more than appropriate to add to the article (if only as a footnote) the twin facts that (1) no one has ever measured light's one-way, two-clock speed, and (2) this is because no one knows how to do this. Even if you reject (2) (baselessly, I might add), no one can in any way reject (1) because there is no record of any such experiment in the history of science. In other words, it is an indisputable historical fact that such an experiment has not been performed. --BDJ

In that spirit, I suggest BDJ take it to news:sci.physics.relativity and discuss his disproof there.

It's a much more appropriate forum, and this page is becoming too large to be manageable. In fact, if the community approves, it might be best to move the above debate to a meta page, clearing up this one for discussions on the article itself. -- April 11:32 Sep 4, 2002 (PDT)

This page's size would not have increased a millimeter had anyone in Wikiland known the meaning of the phrase "scientific postulate." --BDJ

Brian, whilst I definitely agree that the Wikipedia is not the correct forum for this, I have posted a possible experiment to the talk page of your meta article; please go and have a look. Bth

Is the Wikipedia afraid of historical scientific facts? No one has ever measured light's one-way speed using a pair of same-frame clocks. This is not merely my opinion. It is in the historical record (which all can read). --BDJ

Oddly enough, relativity predicts that you shouldn't be able to do this - two clocks separated by position can't really be in the same frame. But verifying Maxwell's equations in the frame works just as well.

I don't know who wrote the above, but it is worse than nonsense. By definition, all clocks which are at mutual relative rest are in the same frame, no matter what their relative (and unchanging) positions! --BDJ

I will of course take a look at the talk page of my meta article to see what has sprung up there. --BDJ

The Special Theory of Relativity was constructed to explain earlier experiment results, and the most significant of them was the Michelson-Morley experiment. However M-M experiment was performed in air, giving the famous null result. But SR uses speed of light in vacuum in its postulate, so it can't explain at all M-M experiment (because the theory can not be derived using the speed of light in air).

So let's take a closer look to the M-M experiment and consider it performed using following mediums where light propagates:

(i) vacuum (speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s) (ii) air (speed of light is 299 702 547 m/s) (iii) water (speed of light is 225 407 863 m/s)

(iv) consider also the experiment performed using electrons instead of photons, travelling much lower speed (say 100 m/s)

It is quite well known that (i) produces null result. In 1887 Michelson concluded null result from (ii) with then known methods, but what is result got now? If M-M experiment supports SR, (ii) shall produce non null result. Also (iii) shall produce unambigious non null result, because of bigger speed different. But it is quite clear, that (iv) produces null result. So, which speeds of information carriers in medium produce null result and which not?

In fact, if (ii) and (iii) produce null result, this contradicts SR.

- TS

As I said on Talk:Michelson-Morley experiment, take it tosci.physics.relativity (news:sci.physics.relativity). Or any of the other physics newsgroups. Just not here, because talk pages are not intended for this kind of discussion. -- Tim Starling 12:06 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

What's that bit about cellular automata in aid of? It's not relevant at all. -- CYD

Cellular automata: I put that section in, so I take responsibility for it. It's there for pedagogical purposes. It is completely relevant. In contrast to pretentious intellectual babble, it actually transmits information, which is exactly what language is for, last I checked. Cellular automata is a paradigm that is perfectly appropriate for special relativity. The point of using it is to get the point across(i.e. educate). So long as it helps build the appropriate neural pathways, it is completely relevant, for if the criteria for relevance stood independant of such a goal, the 'relevant' material would be doomed to meaninglessness. -- Kevin Baas

It doesn't get the point across to me. Perhaps you could elaborate? In fact that whole section, starting from "Geometrically", seems suspect to me. "All 'points' along the null dual-cone represent the same point in space-time" - say what? -- DrBob 16:50 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

The idea that all points on the cone are the same simply because the interval between them is zero is incorrect. Pseudometrics don't work the same as metrics, and you can see this by noting that there are points with non-zero separation that both have zero separation from some appropriate third point.

As I understand it, Kevin, what you are trying to communicate with the reference to CAs is that the structure of SR is local, i.e. repeated at every point. But they really don't have much in common - space-time is neither cellular nor has any of the properties of automata associated with it. I think it suggests far more that is not true than it does that is true. Surely if the point is so important there is some other way to state it?

DrBob-I refer you to tensors, and null geodesics[?]. You should also study special relativity, ofcourse. The classical text on tensor calculus, which includes a decent( thou small and partial) section on special relativity., is Synge's "Tensor Calculus". What I mean by that specific statement is that the measure between any two points on the null geodesic is zero. Minkowski space, and, in general, Non-Euclidean(Riemannian geometry), does not operate the same way as Euclidean geometry. If you're still confused, or are too stubborn to reference these materials, you could also read Einstein's own book on special relativity, which is written for the layman.

Regarding intervals: 1. Refer to Topology regarding the mathematical meaningfullness of a distinction between 'two' points which cannot be distinguished mathematically by any means whatsoever. 2. By a pseudometric I assume you mean a metric on an unorientable manifolds? I would imagine that if you measure the distance incorrectly the two distances cancel out. However, if you measure them correctly, you'll see that, according to standard procedure, there is no such thing as a negative distance(measure). Negative only implies that one is measuring in the opposite direction, or with a complementary orientation. Furthermore, the proper way to measure distance in Riemannian geometry, is via variational calculus, which produces a unique and positive-definite result.

Regarding space having local structure: yes, that is what I am trying to say. But let me quote someone who I think said it more clearly:

"Another radical consequence is the rejection of the notion of an absolute, unique, frame of reference. Previously it had been believed that the universe traveled through a substance known as "aether" (absolute space), against which speeds could be measured. However, the results of various experiments, culminating in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, suggested that either the Earth was always stationary (which is absurd), or the notion of an absolute frame of reference was mistaken and must be discarded."

Try to figure out where I took that quote from.

The speed of light is the same in every inertial reference frame. An inertial reference frame is a 'cell'. I think the analogy is pretty obvious and simple. The implication is simultaneity.

--Kevin Baas 2004.05.01

Kevin, no.

A pseudometric is like a metric, but it is not positive-definite, and as a result various properties cease to hold. The Minkowski metric falls into this category. Thus, for instance, there are two completely different sorts of non-zero intervals, ones where ds² is positive and ones where it is negative. These correspond to the interior and the exterior of the cone, and are completely distinct, not just different in orientation. Also, the points on the cone can't be identified just because they have zero interval between them.

A simple thought experiment should confirm this. At event A, I send out a pulse of light. At event B, it is reflected by a mirror. At event C, I receive it again. Obviously if events A and C are distinct, then at least one must distinct from event B - but they are both connected to event B by null geodesics. Really, though, a decent treatment of Minkowski space should explain such things. Your assumption that the people who disagree with you simply haven't had enough exposure to Riemannian geometry is, I can assure you, false.

As for the cells, the analogy is badly stretched. A frame of reference in relativity is a local coordinate system, describing some neighborhood of a point. A cell in a cellular automaton is a particular structure associated with a point, i.e. an automaton whose inputs are the states in the neighboring cells. I think the comparison is more misleading than enlightening.

Assuming one considers 'automaton' a valid philosophical construction. Insofar as the validity of an 'automaton' is a stretch, I concede that the analogy is a stretch. However, putting aside the false sentiment of a 'thing-in-itself' implied by an 'automaton', i mantain that insofar as SR implies that information propagates at the speed of light, the -t half-plane of minkowski space can be considered the 'input' or the past which is observable from thereference frame, and the 'output' of the reference frame is that which is in the -t half-plane of all other referencee frames, which is by inverse relation in the +t half plane of the reference frame. Again, I am not stating that an object or event at any point 'exists' in a reference frame, or even that such a proposition would be meaningfull.

In your thought experiment, event A, B, and C are clearly distinct because the origins of the null geodesics that you used in your model are clearly distinct.(for instance, on frame A, the origin of frame C is at t=k(and does not lie on a null geodesic), where k is nonzero) Ofcourse, the fact that they are local Minkowski spaces is shared by all three.

I concede that A and B are connected via a null geodesic, and that B and C are -- in fact, I do not need to concede that because it is my point.

Ofcourse, SR is not cellular because it is not discrete, and insofar as a cell is a 'structure' I concede that the analogy is stretched, ect.. But that's just what an analogy is: an exposition of the likeness of two entities which are not exactly similiar. What I mean to imply by the analogy is purely and simply the intuitive spatio-temporal geometry, which I think would be the primary concept that would be carried over by the association. If you can find a more fitting analogy that enables higher-level thinking and is appropriate to an audience that is not already familiar with the subtleties of SR, then I'm all for it. But I think you're overstating the dangers of sacrificing a few subtleties for a clear, accessible, and concept-building presentation.

btw, forgive me for my patronizing. it was inappropriate. i had a bad day. :(.

--Kevin Baas 2004.05.01

Ok, I don't see what it is you are trying to say about null geodesics. The article says that all points along the "null dual-cone" are actually the same point. That should identify B with A, and C with B, since they are connected by light paths. But here you say you aren't doing that. So what are you doing? I must be misunderstanding the comment from the article, then.

As for the analogy, I think that if I missed the point, CYD missed the point, and DrBob missed the point, then the point can't be that obvious. You have done a good job explaining what is meant here on the Talk page, I'll see if I can transport some of that to the article.

Cool. I am not a miser with my words. The main point of me writting that section was for there to be such a section: a clear and generally accessible section which develops a basic geometric understanding of SR.

Perhaps the misunderstanding came from this "point". I did not mean that the null geodesic represented the same point in a global reference frame, or so called 'space'; aether (for, as the theory states, one cannot be validly constructed), but rather that it was the same point within the local reference frame, according to it's intrinsic geometry, in much the same way that (1,0) and (1,2*pi) are the same point in a polar coordinate system.

I agree that if three people missed the point to the extent that they made a point of that fact, then it is evident that the(my) presentation is not effectively communicating the point. I would like to see it more clearly presented.

--Kevin Baas

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!