Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By xinhangshen
  • 1 Post By Mohammad Sarif Islam

Thread: Is Special Relativity Wrong?

  1. #1 Is Special Relativity Wrong? 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Two twin clocks are examined to illustrate that time displayed on any clock is an invariant in Lorentz Transformation, which contradicts the time conversion formula in Lorentz Transformation. Therefore, this contradiction has proved that Special Relativity is wrong.

    Since Einstein published the theory of Special Relativity in 1905, many people have been struggling in understanding the meaning of time and space and many other people are fascinating on time traveling: imagining traveling back to the past and forward to the future. However, all these now seem just pure imagination and will never happen in the physical world. According to Special Relativity, there is no time dilation that can be observed on any clock. That is, no matter how fast a clock moves, the display of time on the clock will never change after Lorentz Transformation. Here is my reasoning to show the contradiction of Special Relativity.

    Assume there are two clocks (clock A and clock B) which were exactly at zero time (t = t’ = 0) and zero position (xA = x’A = xB = x’B = 0) in both reference frames: the inertial reference frame attached to clock A (called frame A) and the inertial reference frame attached to clock B (called frame B) when the two clocks started moving away from each other at a constant speed v in x-direction (note: variables with apostrophe are referred in frame B). Each clock uses two different ways to display its time: one is an analog way in which its time is displayed as the position of a ball moving at a constant speed 1 on a ruler in y-direction and the other is a digital display on which time is shown as a number. The core of such a clock can be any existing clock including the most accurate atomic clock. Using a moving ball on a ruler in y-direction is just an intuitive way to show that the displayed time of a clock will not change after Lorentz Transformation, just the same as the image of the time shown on its digital display.

    After the time lapse in frame A equals t, clock B has moved a distance xB = vt and its ball has moved a distance yB = t in frame A while clock A itself remains still (xA = 0) and its ball has moved a distance yA = t. Therefore, the two clocks have the same time shown on their digital display. According to special relativity, the ball of clock A and the ball of clock B in frame B have time lapses and positions:

    (1) x’A = γ(xA – vt) = - γvt
    (2) t’A= γ(t – vxA/c2) = γt
    (3) y’A = yA = t

    and

    (4) x’B = γ(xB – vt) = 0
    (5) t’B= γ(t – vxB/c2) = γ(t – v2t/c2) = γt(1 – v2/c2) = t/γ
    (6) y’B = yB = t

    where γ = 1/(1 – v2/c2)1/2.

    Equation (2) and (5) show there is a time dilation of a moving clock in Special Relativity.

    From Equation (3) and Equation (6), we have yA = y’A = yB = y’B = t, which has confirmed that time shown on both clocks will not change after Lorentz Transformation as y' is t' according to the definition of the clocks. This matches the images of the time shown on the digital display of the two clocks because the number on an image will not change after Lorentz Transformation. However, Equation (2) states that the time of clock A has been increased by a factor of γ and Equation (5) states that the time of clock B has been decreased by the same factor γ after Lorentz Transformation. Since time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads[1], therefore, Equation (2) and Equation (5) are wrong, which confirms that Special Relativity is wrong.

    People may argue that in the above derivation, y’A = u’At’A and y’B = u’Bt’B which are not the same as the times in the moving reference frame as u’A and u’B are no longer equal to 1 in the moving reference frame (i.e., u’A = 1/γ and u’B = γ). This argument has admitted that what a clock reads is not the time in Special Relativity and all moving clocks will fail to tell the correct time in Special Relativity. Moreover, this argument has also mystified the time in Special Relativity and made it unmeasurable by clocks.

    Above derivation has shown that in Special Relativity, a moving reference frame has a time slower than the time on the static reference frame, but every process in the moving frame has a speed or rate faster than that in the static reference frame. Therefore, the observed result of any process which is the result of speed or rate multiplied by time will be the same no matter at what speed the reference frame moves because the increase of the speed or rate and the decrease of the time have canceled their effects by each other in the multiplication. Therefore, time dilation will never be noticed in the physical measurement as predicted by Special Relativity. Therefore, the introduction of the mixed space-time in Special Relativity becomes an unnecessary manipulation of physics. All experiments with time measured by physical clocks do not verify the predictions of Special Relativity.

    Many people believe that according to Special Relativity, space traveling will make the twin brother younger than his twin brother remaining on the earth. Actually this will never happen even in Special Relativity. Though the time in the fast moving rocket is expanding, the aging speed of the traveling brother is also increasing. The result of the age of the traveling brother remain the same as his twin brother on the earth because the faster aging speed has canceled the effects of the time dilation caused by motion. Similarly, the times displayed on clocks moving at different speeds will never show any differences or time dilation because the clock tick rate has increased by motion which will cancel the effects of time dilation in the final display of the time.

    Though Special Relativity is beautiful in mathematical formulation, it contradicts itself in the prediction of time dilation in the physical world. There is no such thing called time dilation in the physical world. People will never be able to travel to the past or future.

    References
    1. Considine, Douglas M.; Considine, Glenn D. (1985). Process instruments and controls handbook (3 ed.). McGraw-Hill. pp. 18–61. ISBN 0-07-012436-1.
    Last edited by xinhangshen; 07-19-2013 at 02:08 PM.
     

  2. #2  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    You do know that we have repeatedly proved the validity of the time-dilation in Special Relativity, using measurements of atomic clocks flown around the world (the Hafele-Keating experiment), using measurements of muons caused by cosmic rays reaching instruments on the ground (where their decay times would not allow them to penetrate the atmosphere if they weren't time-dilated), using the GPS system (where the motion of the GPS satellite causes time-dilation in relation to a GPS unit on earth, and the system takes account of this time-dilation and would lose accuracy if the time-dilation were not present) and every time we perform an experiment in a particle accelerator, don't you?

    Special Relativity does not contradict itself. It predicts that time-dilation is symmetrical between inertial frames in relative motion - each frame will calculate the clock in the other frame to show less elapsed time than the clock in their own frame, by the same amount, since the point where the clocks were synchronised.
    mvb likes this.
     

  3. #3  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    It is trivial to give a general proof that Special Relativity is self-consistent and free of contradictions :

    General Proof that Special Relativity is Self-Consistent

    Two twin clocks are examined to illustrate that time displayed on any clock is an invariant in Lorentz Transformation
    That is trivially wrong.
     

  4. #4  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    time is displayed as the position of a ball moving at a constant speed 1 on a ruler in y-direction...

    After the time lapse in frame A equals t, clock B has moved a distance xB = vt and its ball has moved a distance yB = t in frame A

    Fail. You're saying that the ball is moving at speed 1 in B's frame of reference, yet after time t in A's frame of reference, it has moved distance t. You've not accounted for the time-dilation and therefore you have assumed what you are trying to prove, invalidating the proof.
     

  5. #5  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It is trivial to give a general proof that Special Relativity is self-consistent and free of contradictions :

    General Proof that Special Relativity is Self-Consistent



    That is trivially wrong.
    The problem of Special Relativity is not in mathematical derivation. The problem of Special Relativity is that it is not a pure mathematical theory, but a theory of physics which has to be connected to the physical world. Einstein made an assumption that the time in Special Relativity is the time measured by a clock, which has led to a contradition as I illustrated above:

    if Einstein admits the time shown on the clocks (i.e. the values of y-direction coordinates of the ball of an above clock) is the time in his Special Relativity, then the same position of y-direction or y'-direction of each ball means the time of each clock in each reference frame is always the same, which contradicts the time conversion formula in Lorentz Transformation;

    if he does not think my clocks tell the correct time of Special Relativity (i.e., u’ is no longer equal to 1 and then y' != t'). , then the time of Special Relativity becomes mysterious which can not be directly measured by any physical clock, which contradicts his claim that Special Relativity is a theory of Physics.
    Last edited by xinhangshen; 07-18-2013 at 03:38 PM.
    KosmicKos likes this.
     

  6. #6  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Fail. You're saying that the ball is moving at speed 1 in B's frame of reference, yet after time t in A's frame of reference, it has moved distance t. You've not accounted for the time-dilation and therefore you have assumed what you are trying to prove, invalidating the proof.
    All variables of the two clocks in frame A are set by the observers, and all valuables in frame B are calculated through Lorentz Transformation. Since they are clocks and the position of the ball of each clock has already calibrated as the mark of time, according to the definition of time: time is what a clock tells, the position of the ball actually represents the time of the clock in both reference frames. If they are all the same in all clocks and reference frames, then it means time is invariant in Lorentz Transformation, which contradicts the time conversion formula in Lorentz Transformation.
     

  7. #7  
    Administrator SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    350
    But, as I already stated, time-dilation works exactly as Special Relativity predicts. We HAVE connected the theory to the physical world. Repeatedly.
     

  8. #8  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    But, as I already stated, time-dilation works exactly as Special Relativity predicts. We HAVE connected the theory to the physical world. Repeatedly.
    Here is another thought experiment that may confuse people:

    Assume there are two syncronized clocks (clock A1 and clock A2) static relative to inertial reference frame A. Clock A1 is at the origin and clock A2 is at x = L. Now comes a moving clock (clock B) with which another inertial reference frame (frame B) is attached. When the moving clock moves to the origin of frame A, it triggers a camera (very close to the clocks) on each reference frame to take a picture of two clocks (clock A1 and clock B) respectively (i.e., two pictures and each of the pictures have images of the two clocks), both pictures show that both clocks are syncrozed too. When clock B arrives at x = L which triggers a camera (very close to the clocks) on each frame to take one picture of two clocks (clock A2 and clock B) respectively, what will the pictures show? Will clock B is slower than clock A2?
     

  9. #9  
    Junior Member Mohammad Sarif Islam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    18
    Actually, you cannot apply special relativity in two different Inertial Reference frames.
     

  10. #10  
    Junior Member Mohammad Sarif Islam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    18
    Also,physicists have done many experiments and they unanimously agreed that time dilation,length contraction and relativistic mass
     

  11. #11  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    The problem of Special Relativity is that it is not a pure mathematical theory, but a theory of physics which has to be connected to the physical world.
    Again, you are mistaken. All laws of special relativity are quite simply a subset of the Poincare symmetry group, and, by extension, Lobachevsky geometry. Both special relativity and general relativity reduce the laws of physics down to relations between geometric objects; this is pretty much pure mathematics.
     

  12. #12  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    xinhangshen, I must ask you to desist from further statements of the form "relativity is wrong". This forum is reserved solely for the discussion of mainstream science; anti-relativity ideas and such like are not tolerated here.

    You are welcome to ask any genuine question you may have, but if you persist in your anti-relativity ideas despite having been explained and shown where you are wrong, I will have no option but to lock this thread.
     

  13. #13  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    A's clock is measuring time in A's frame of reference, and B's clock is measuring time in B's frame of reference. B's clock isn't measuring time in A's frame of reference, and A's clock isn't measuring time in B's frame of reference. Sure, all observers agree on the reading of the clocks, but this agreement is only that the clock is measuring time in the particular frame of reference in which the clock is at rest. That is, all observers agree that one second in B's frame of reference is one second in B's frame of reference, and in particular that objects in B's frame of reference have aged one second. But only if one is in B's frame of reference is B's clock measuring time in the frame of reference that one is in.
     

  14. #14  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by xinhangshen View Post
    if he does not think my clocks tell the correct time of Special Relativity (i.e., u’ is no longer equal to 1 and then y' != t'). , then the time of Special Relativity becomes mysterial which can not be directly measured by any physical clock, which contradicts his claim that Special Relativity is a theory of Physics.

    There is no "correct time" in special relativity. Clocks do correctly measure the time that has elapsed for that particular clock, but this doesn't provide for the notion of a universal time (in technical language, one would say that d is not an exact differential). However, one thing that does connect each frame of reference is that they all measure the vacuum speed of light to be the same.
    Last edited by KJW; 07-18-2013 at 06:32 PM.
     

  15. #15  
    Junior Member Mohammad Sarif Islam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    18
    The speed of light is the only thing which will be same in all reference frames,but if your experiment is in different reference frames,the results will differ.(except the light-speed)
    cosmos maniac likes this.
     

  16. #16  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3
    I will attach a link,which gives a proof to the Limitations of Special Theory Of Relativity.
    The link is [LINK REMOVED]
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; 07-20-2013 at 07:15 AM.
     

  17. #17  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    I have warned you not to continue with this; you chose to disregard that warning, so this earns you a 1-week suspension. Also, sock puppetry is against forum rules.

    Thread locked, sock puppet banned.
     

Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •