|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
WHY THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../Minkowski.pdf
Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "What has been shown is that rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame." More explanation: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...ontraction.pdf Harvey Brown: "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether, a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable drag. The MM experiment is rightly regarded today as one of the turning points in physics, and although it is discussed widely in textbooks, it is remarkable how much confusion still surrounds its structure and meaning. In order then to understand the FL hypothesis, it is necessary first to go over some welltrodden ground; sections 2 and 3 below are designed to show what the 1887 null result does and does not imply. In particular it is shown in section 3 that IN THE CONTEXT OF A THEORY OF LIGHT IN WHICH THE LIGHT-SPEED IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE, A CERTAIN MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF RIGID BODIES, OF WHICH CONTRACTION IS A SPECIAL CASE, IS REQUIRED." Harvey Brown is the President of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science so there can be no doubt: the MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF RIGID BODIES is the fundamental effect, the constancy of the speed of light is just a consequence. If this is not a genuine revolution in Einstein criminal cult, what else coud be? Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WHY THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY
On Sep 9, 11:43*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../Minkowski.pdf Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "What has been shown is that rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame." This seems to be a rant against the circularity of using relativity to analyze experiments, rather than trying to establish the validity of relativity first. I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but I have thought of that point. Relativity is a "symmetry property, and as describes a subset of physical causes. Being an spectroscopic experimentalist who has worked with his hands, I have often used the established symmetries of a system to determine other properties. A priori rejecting a symmetry as being part of the system would have eliminated just about every useful physical study. In most fields of physics, the symmetries of a system are considered part of the cause for the systems behavior. Yes, the symmetries are part of the description of the forces. Yet, a lot of physics is greatly simplified by concentrating on the symmetries of a system. If you want to generalize your attacks, there are many physical scientists that you can blame for "not considering causes." Crystallographers often analyze the chemistry, optics and mechanics of a system in terms of the crystal symmetry. Chemists and spectroscopists frequently analyze the symmetry of a molecule. When analyzing a Raman spectrum, the symmetry of the molecule and its bonds are the first things discovered. When the symmetry of the molecule is discovered, the scientific study of that substance doesn't end. However, one must know the symmetry of the molecule first. The symmetry of a crystal or molecule is sometimes just as important as the elements it is made from. I note that you never rant against the use of group theory in chemistry. Group theory is important in analyzing IR absorption spectra, Raman spectra, and X-ray diffraction spectra. The symmetry of a molecule or crystal is the first thing that has to be known when studying the nonlinear optical properties (or even the linear optical properties) of a substance. When Einstein postulated special relativity, he was really saying that the universe was invariant to the Poincare group. This means all forces and interactions are invariant to the Poincare group. This is a perfectly good "physical description" of the universe. Whether or not you like the words "space and time" are immaterial, so to speak. General relativity adds a few more group operations to the description of the universe. However, this is all part of the symmetry of dynamic interactions. Complaining that "Einstein did not give a cause" is rather stupid since Einstein did give a cause. All interactions are invariant to a certain group of interactions described by tensor theory. Certain interactions can't exist because of this invariance. The nonexistence of these interactions is a cause for the odd effects on space and time. If you read the papers of Einstein carefully, you will see where he made these assumptions. Lorentz did a more complete job in that he mentioned more causes than symmetry. He didn't actually assume a symmetry, he used the well known equations for electromagnetic force and derived the invariance. However, he ended up guessing at the forces that held together an electron. The electron flattens according to the formula necessary to make the invariance exact. He was wrong for two reasons. First, electrons don't have a spherical form that flattens with velocity because electrons are better described by quantum mechanics. Second, he never explained "the cause" of electrons being so special. From Lorentz's writings, one can see even from his writings how this conjecture of "special relativity" was so "useful" (his word). The difference between Einstein's and Lorentz's results was that Einstein assigned a "symmetry" as a cause. This made Lorentz's results both simpler to calculate and more accurate. However, there was something more important. Einstein's work on relativity broadened the concept of "cause." A symmetry can be a "cause." The invariances (i.e., symmetries) of a system contain most of the important features of that system. There is a lot to study after the symmetries are established. However, if you don't understand the symmetry of a system you can't find out anything else about it. Try analyzing a Raman spectrum without any consideration of symmetry, and you will know what I mean. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
WHY THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Pentcho Valev wrote: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../Minkowski.pdf Harvey R. Brown and Oliver Pooley: "What has been shown is that rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame." More explanation: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...ontraction.pdf Harvey Brown: "The FitzGerald-Lorentz (FL) hypothesis was of course the result of a somewhat desperate attempt to reconcile the null result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment with the hitherto successful Fresnel-Lorentz theory of a stationary luminiferous ether, a medium through which the earth is assumed to move with unappreciable drag. The MM experiment is rightly regarded today as one of the turning points in physics, and although it is discussed widely in textbooks, it is remarkable how much confusion still surrounds its structure and meaning. In order then to understand the FL hypothesis, it is necessary first to go over some welltrodden ground; sections 2 and 3 below are designed to show what the 1887 null result does and does not imply. In particular it is shown in section 3 that IN THE CONTEXT OF A THEORY OF LIGHT IN WHICH THE LIGHT-SPEED IS INDEPENDENT OF THE SPEED OF THE SOURCE, A CERTAIN MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF RIGID BODIES, OF WHICH CONTRACTION IS A SPECIAL CASE, IS REQUIRED." Harvey Brown is the President of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science so there can be no doubt: the MOTION-INDUCED DEFORMATION OF RIGID BODIES is the fundamental effect, the constancy of the speed of light is just a consequence. If this is not a genuine revolution in Einstein criminal cult, what else coud be? How about truth or understanding? Pentcho Valev First remember that Philosophy of Science has nothing to do with science. Philosophy is nice because you are not constrained to deal with facts. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WHY THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT IN SPECIAL RELATIVITY
On Sep 9, 1:44*pm, doug wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../Minkowski.pdf First remember that Philosophy of Science has nothing to do with science. Philosophy is nice because you are not constrained to deal with facts. Your "Philosophy of Science" sounds like middle management. It does not describe modern physics. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentcho Valev and the constancy of the speed of light in special relativity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 10 | July 31st 07 07:32 PM |
The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | October 16th 05 11:07 PM |
The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 16th 05 11:07 PM |
Speed of Light: A universal Constant? | Stan Byers | Astronomy Misc | 108 | April 28th 05 11:38 PM |
Light Speed Test versus Special Relativity | Stan Byers | Astronomy Misc | 35 | April 4th 05 01:43 PM |