Is Einstein’s Special Theory unavoidable?

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
In , on 07/02/2011
at 09:07 PM, Tom Roberts said:
Sure. But the invariance of the speed of light is not at all an
obvious postulate to make,

It was obvious to Einstein.

A) Nobody else is Einstein. Not even you.
B) I'm not so sure this was obvious to him -- after all this invariance
is NOT his second postulate.


However, Einstein postulated the invariance of c due to Maxwell, not
due to M-M.

Not at all! He postulated that "Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary'
system of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted
by a stationary or a moving body." That is VERY DIFFERENT from postulating
invariance. He DEDUCED invariance in his 1905 paper.

But he surely had his choice of several alternative versions of his second
postulate. I think he selected the version that would be most accepted by his
contemporaries, specifically due to then-current aether models (in which this
postulate is obvious).

BTW in 1905 for him to expect Maxwell's equations to be valid in ANY inertial
frame was definitely unusual and non-mainstream. Maxwell's theory was based on a
unique aether frame, and there was no expectation the equations would be valid
in any other frame -- THAT'S why the then-recent experimental inability to find
the "velocity of the earth relative to the aether" was so puzzling (the earth
orbits the sun and could not be at rest in the aether frame).


The existence of tachyons is problematical in relativity.

As I understand it, the only real issues are with anomalies in QFT.

They are merely one aspect of the self-inconsistencies they introduce. Any
ability to signal via tachyons makes the "grandfather paradox" be a physically
realizable situation, which is exceedingly strange, and not observed in the
world we inhabit.

That is, if I can signal back in time, I can instruct someone
to kill my grandfather before my parent was born, making my
current existence self-inconsistent.


It is far more serious in GR, as their existence would prevent any
region from being globally hyperbolic, and one loses all of the
theorems about the existence of solutions to the field equations.

Not all.

Yes, I'm pretty sure this is so.


Besides "dark energy" already violates the assumptions of a
lot of otherwise useful theorems.

Dark energy is consistent with GR if it is modeled by the cosmological constant.
Only if that fails is it inconsistent, and so far this is OK.


Given that every attempt to search for tachyons has
failed, it is not unreasonable to assume that either they don't
exist, or if they do exist that they don't interact at all with
ordinary matter (bradyons).

Oh, I'm not claiming that they exist, just that their absence is a (so
far) observed fact rather than a theoretical requirement.

If one expects GR to be well behaved, I believe it is a requirement that either
tachyons not exist, or if they do exist that they don't interact with bradyons
and are thus unobservable.


Tom Roberts

On Jul 14, 5:47*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
However, Einstein postulated the invariance of c due to Maxwell, not
due to M-M.

Not at all! He postulated that "Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary'
system of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted
by a stationary or a moving body." That is VERY DIFFERENT from postulating
invariance. He DEDUCED invariance in his 1905 paper.

Desperately red-herringing, Honest Roberts? Elsewhere you and brothers
Einsteinians teach that even if "light in vacuum does not travel at
the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", Divne Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/bup.pdf
Jean-Marc LÉVY-LEBLOND: "Maintenant il s'agit de savoir si le photon a
vraiment une masse nulle. Pour un physicien, il est absolument
impossible d'affirmer qu'une grandeur, quelle qu'elle soit, a
rigoureusement la valeur zéro, pas plus d'ailleurs que n'importe
quelle autre valeur. Tout ce que je sais de la masse du photon, c'est
ce que disent mes collègues expérimentateurs : "Elle est très faible !
Inférieure, selon nos mesures actuelles, à 10^(-50)kg". Mais si
demain, on découvre que cette masse est non-nulle, alors, le photon ne
va pas à la vitesse de la lumière... Certes, il irait presque toujours
à une vitesse tellement proche de la vitesse limite que nous ne
verrions que difficilement la différence, mais conceptuellement, il
pourrait exister des photons immobiles, et la différence est
essentielle. Or, nous ne saurons évidemment jamais si la masse est
rigoureusement nulle ; nous pourrons diminuer la borne supérieure,
mais jamais l'annuler. Acceptons donc l'idée que la masse du photon
est nulle, et que les photons vont à la vitesse limite, mais
n'oublions pas que ce n'est pas une nécessité. Cela est important pour
la raison suivante. Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit
capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a
pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa
masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse
de la lumière". Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les
journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est
trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien
contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité ! Einstein a certe
construit sa théorie en analysant des échanges de signaux lumineux
propagés à la vitesse limite. Si on trouve que le photon a une masse
non-nulle, ce sera que cette vitesse n'est pas la vitesse limite, et
la démonstration initiale s'effondre donc. Mais ce n'est pas parce
qu'une démonstration est erronée que son résultat est faux ! Quand
vous avez une table à plusieurs pieds, vous pouvez en couper un, elle
continue à tenir debout. Et heureusement, la théorie de la relativité
a plusieurs pieds."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdona..._44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time
stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common
space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...)
The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such,
shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Rela.../dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric
physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little
further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy
embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the
physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about
whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto
its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum,
both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths -
one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 2, 8:07 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:

No, he would still be wrong if tachyons[1] (sp?) exist. The invariance
of the speed of light and the Euclidean geometry of space[2] are
enough to establish the distinction between space-like and time-like
intervals.

Sure. But the invariance of the speed of light is not at all an obvious
postulate to make,

Voigt was the first person to make that postulate. He came almost a
generation ahead of Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the
liar. shrug

and indeed it is not needed to derive the equations of SR.

Yes, it is needed. If it is not needed, you will end up with
Michell’s concept of light --- classical particles. In doing so, the
hypothesis would falsify electromagnetism. shrug

For that, all one needs a
1) Einstein's Principle of Relativity

The principle of relativity was first described by Galileo. Get your
fact straight. shrug

2) the definition of inertial frames

There is no such requirement to derive the Lorentz transform. shrug

3) space is homogeneous and isotropic

This point whatever it means is philosophical, hand-waiving. shrug

4) time is homogeneous

Hmmm... You are describing time as if it is a tangible artifact.
shrug

5) neither rulers nor clocks have memories (i.e. their current
lengths and tick rates do not depend on how they got to be
where they are)

This point is a very basic description of any measurement. It goes
back as early as Aristotle. What is the matter? It looks like your
work to look for phantom particle is not keeping you busy enough.

[Einstein acknowledged 2-5 as "hidden postulates" of SR.]

Is this a joke? Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
clearly stated two assumptions, and he really ****ed up re-deriving
the Lorentz transform. The nitwit knew the answer beforehand.
shrug

Those assumptions, plus a little group theory, permit one to derive three
theories, which we can best characterize by their symmetry groups:

This is not true. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar
knew no group theory in 1905. You are manufacturing lies to glorify
your idol as a god. shrug

the Galilei group
the Euclid group (in space-time)
the Lorentz group

The first two are thoroughly refuted by experiments and observations, while SR
and its Lorentz group are extensively validated.

The expected result to the MMX would falsify the principle of
relativity but was definitively interpreted based on the Galilean
transform which satisfies the principle of relativity. If the self-
styled physicists are truly scientifically minded, they would try to
find a transform that does not satisfy the principle of relativity
instead of fudging the unworkable into something full of self-
inconsistencies known as the Lorentz transform or SR. shrug

The existence of tachyons is problematical in relativity. It is far more serious
in GR, as their existence would prevent any region from being globally
hyperbolic, and one loses all of the theorems about the existence of solutions
to the field equations. Given that every attempt to search for tachyons has
failed, it is not unreasonable to assume that either they don't exist, or if
they do exist that they don't interact at all with ordinary matter (bradyons).

It sounds like you believe in ghosts. Well, your alibi is not to be
able to communicate with them. All that crap remains in your own
fantasy world. shrug

BTW the distinction between time-like, space-like, and null-like intervals is
quite general in GR, and is not dependent on either spacetime being flat or on a
flat foliation.

Could He call you Lord of Fantasy aka Tom Roberts, professor of
physics at Illinois Institute of Technology? If no reply, it means
yes. shrug

On Jul 14, 5:47*am, Tom Roberts wrote:
[..]
In , on 07/02/2011
* *at 09:07 PM, Tom Roberts said:
Sure. But the invariance of the speed of light is not at all an
obvious postulate to make,
[..]
this invariance is NOT his second postulate.

Correct - all too many people overlook the fact that the invariance of
the speed of light was not a 1905 postulate. Textbooks present that
postulate in order to simplify the derivation for students.

However, Einstein postulated the invariance of c due to Maxwell, not
due to M-M.

Not at all! He postulated that "Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary'
system of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted
by a stationary or a moving body." That is VERY DIFFERENT from postulating
invariance. He DEDUCED invariance in his 1905 paper.

Is there a reason that you here write "deduced" and not "derived"?

But he surely had his choice of several alternative versions of his second
postulate. I think he selected the version that would be most accepted by his
contemporaries, specifically due to then-current aether models (in which this
postulate is obvious).

Yes, he clarified that in 1907, in his paper on the relativity
principle.

BTW in 1905 for him to expect Maxwell's equations to be valid in ANY inertial
frame was definitely unusual and non-mainstream.

Hmm, no. At the time there was a race going on to come up with a final
theory for the electrodynamics of moving bodies; the expectation that
Maxwell's equations are valid in any inertial frame was one of the
proposed and published options (another option was proposed by Cohn).
Poincare had presented this idea together with some of the
consequences as derived by Lorentz at a conference in St.Louis in 1904
and the related publications by Lorentz and Einstein were immediately
taken up by Planck and Kaufmann.

Harald

In , on 07/13/2011
at 10:47 PM, Tom Roberts said:

A) Nobody else is Einstein.

In case you hadn't heard, he wrote quite a bit. Is there some reason
not to believe what he wrote about his intellectual development?

non-mainstream

A lot of what he did was non-mainstream.

"grandfather paradox"

Within the context of relativity, the solution to the paradox is that
you will fail to kill your grandfather. Asimov wrote an amusing story
based on that resolution, although he didn't describe it as such,
involving the use of Thiotimoline as a weapon.

Dark energy is consistent with GR if it is modeled by the
cosmological constant.

It's consistent with GR regardless. The various energy conditions are
not part of GR, but rather simplifying assumptions.

Only if that fails is it inconsistent,

Consistency is not an issue here. The issue is that it violates, e.g.,
the weak energy condition.

If one expects GR to be well behaved,

FSVO well behaved.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT http://patriot.net/~shmuel

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to

them, which are more powerful than their anangram?

Oh, I'm not claiming that they exist, just that their absence is a (so
far) observed fact rather than a theoretical requirement.

On Jun 2, 12:52*am, abzorba wrote:
There appears to be some vociferous dissent on this matter on these
boards, and I wondered whether these dissenters were aware of the
following. Suppose we accept:

1. that all observers see light moving in a vacuum at the same speed,
never faster or slower, and irrespective of the motion of the observer
with respect to the light source, and

2. We cannot have straightforward and impossible contradictions in our
universe. For example, we cannot have a scenario in which I see a car
crash into another in front of me, while you, standing alongside me,
see the two miss each other. Now while I help the ambulance people
with the wounded people, you see me just miming the whole thing, with
no wrecked cars, no ambulance, no hurt people and so on.

Well,it probably is unavoidable, but the uncertainty principle
also seems unavoidable, Which seems to say, that to find
a true vaccum in the universe, you would need an
infinite amount of time to do it.






Now, I was led to believe that if we simply accept 1. (which has been
experimentally verified over and over, and no exception has ever been
reported), and if we accept 2. (and only completely irrational people
could do otherwise) then Einstein’s Special Theory follows as a
NECESSARY consequence.

That is, time MUST appear to slow down in a fast-travelling space
ship, because if it didn’t, then when we see a ray of light move from
the back to the front of the spaceship (it being made of glass) we may
time it as taking an hour. But the astronauts see it as taking a split
second. If there was NO time dilation, then a straightforward
illogical contradiction would ensue. We could communicate with the
astronauts by radio, so how that contradiction would be solved if not
for time dilation?

It would appear that the conclusion Einstein drew about what would
take place when speeds close to that of light were reached, were
simply logical necessities that should be seen by any normal person
who thinks of the matter. The only way out of it is to simply deny
that light has a fixed speed, and who is doing that now? No one.

The other effects, that of the increase in mass and the space
contraction also follow logically. If we accept time dilation, then we
can see an astronaut bang a nail into a piece of wood, except he does
it in slow motion. Suppose he bangs the nail once and this drives it
right in. *But if WE bang a nail into a piece of wood at the same slow
rate as the astronaut does, then we only drive it in a fraction of an
inch. So, for the laws of physics to be the same there as here, the
hammer must have gained more mass. And so on and forth for the other
relativistic effects. Does anyone have an argument with this line of
reasoning, or am I missing something? I’m not a techie, so when you
post *a reply to this, and you will, please…be kind.

Myles (spaced out) Paulsen