Re: The true crackpots

Androcles wrote:

"This fall when you are raking oak leaves, remember the problem isn't
that you lack a leaf blower, it is the acorn your predecessor planted.
The acorn of the problem with SR, no matter how many examples you find
as a consequence, is Einstein's definition of time. Get to that and ALL

the problems vanish."

You are not alone, see

http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys_archive/2005/msg00022.html

I don't think physics should divide over what is logically acceptable -
rather, an
agreement can be reached in the end. Logic in physics differs
essentially from
logic in mathematics in that, in an argument, apart from explicitly
employed
premises (axioms), there is an indefinite number of implicit ones
coming from
common sense, scientific practice etc. Due to their implicitness they
form a
"twilight zone" where almost all logical abuses occur. Two examples:

1. A true (implicit) premise is "overlooked" and replaced with its
false negation.
For instance, reversible machines cannot perform a cycle in the absence
of an
operator - someone or something belonging to the surroundings and
undergoing
INDEFINITE changes in the process. If this true premise had been made
explicit, the
second law of thermodynamics would have never been established.

2. A false explicit premise naturally contradicts true premises from
the twilight
zone but since it is too dark there a harmony rather than contradiction
is
officially announced. For instance, the postulate of constancy of speed
of light
plays this role in relativity.

Pentcho Valev

http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys_archive/2005/msg00003.html

The postulate of constancy of speed of light
is a false axiom but still Einstein was able to "deduce" the true
result
(the formula of the redshift factor) from it by introducing, somewhere
in the middle of the deductive sequence, invalid but "useful" steps.
Unfortunately scientists prefer to worship at Einstein's portrait and
the problem of logical verification is totally alien to their minds.

Pentcho Valev

http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys_archive/2005/msg00011.html

I think that, apart from being active in fierce celebrations,
philosophers of physics could analyse Einstein's logic from time to
time. It is possible to expose, in the absence of any prior knowledge
of
physics, the depth of Einstein's thoughts which are so deep indeed
that,
at first sight, one might find them silly, confusing etc. Interested
people should just read initially the very short Section 7 in
Einstein's
"Relativity" and then discuss possible conclusions as follows:

(1) The principle of constancy of speed of light is a corollary of the
principle of relativity ("....the law of the transmission of light in
vacuo must, ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, be the same for
the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body
of
reference.")

(2) The principle of constancy of speed of light and the principle of
relativity apparently contradict one another ("In view of this dilemma
there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the
principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light
in
vacuo.")

(3) If (1) is true, Einstein should not claim that the theory is based
on TWO principles - rather, it is only based on the principle of
relativity.

(4) If (1) is true, Einstein still has the right to claim that the
theory is based on TWO principles - after all, he is the author.

(5) The illusion hinted at in (2) is so haunting that both profanes and
"prominent theoretical physicists" are longing for the rejection of one
of the two principles. The need for a divine mind to resolve the
contradiction is urgent.

(6) And the divine mind comes in the end ("At this juncture the theory
of relativity entered the arena"). The two principles are not
incompatible and this discovery by the divine mind becomes evident "as
a
result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space"
(Poincare has certainly nothing to do with the discovery). Now it is
time for sycophants to enter the arena.

Perhaps in Section 7 Einstein is just joking. Of course he could be
more
serious. Einstein:

"Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of
thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of
fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

If Einstein is right, an assessment of the theory should first of all
answer two questions: Are the axioms true? Do the conclusions really
follow from the axioms?

An axiomatic system can be presented as a sequence of propositions with
the axioms at the beginning followed by theorems (deduced
propositions),
where each theorem is accompanied by an explicit identification of the
exact deductive path leading to it. In other words, the path from the
axioms to a particular proposition (theorem) can be disintegrated into
steps each of which has the form

a,b,... -> c

and can undergo the scrutiny of everybody. In the case of relativity,
one can perform the following operation (I am ony suggesting a possible
beginning):

Axiom (1) Principle of relativity
Axiom (2) Constancy of speed of light
1,2 (3) Time dilation in BOTH inertial frames
........(4)........................

The derivation is set out as a sequence of numbered lines (1), (2), (3)
etc. The fact that line (3) was obtained from (1) and (2) used as
premises is shown by writing 1,2 to the left of the line number (3).

According to Einstein, the sequence eventually leads to

p,q,... (r) A clock in a non-rotating system undergoes time
CONTRACTION relative to a clock on the periphery of a rotating disc.

x,y,... (z) Two clocks placed at different gravitational potentials
will run at different rates in accordance with v=v_0(1+phi/c^2).

If relativists were fair scientists, they would present all the steps
leading to the above two propositions and eventually replace
p,q,r,x,y,z
with real numbers. They will fail because both (r) and (z) are just
Einstein's "intuitions" (rather, results of Einstein's tricks), not
theorems. Still "what follows from what" would be revealed - something
that should have been done 100 years ago. Of course, logical
verification of the theory is the last thing relativists will ever do.
They prefer science to continue to obey principles similar to that
advanced by Ignatius of Loyola:

"That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in
anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see
white I believe to be black if the Romish Church define it so to be".

Pentcho Valev

However, "in cauda venenum":

http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys_archive/2005/msg00014.html

>>From what follows, I a.o. retain:

"...(at least some) relativists should study the logical
structure of the theory. :-) The good news is that it has already
been started."

But I never saw one of those "enlightened" SRists on this NG!

Marcel Luttgens

Dear Professor Pentcho Valev:

In my posting of Sat. 29 Jan. 2005 17:57, (Re: arguments (inferences)
in physics) I answered your posting "Einstein's logic". Literally my
answer was triggered by an earlier posting of yours (of similar spirit
as the present one) but by some luck what I wrote is exactly what
I think is the appropriate answer to your new posting.

Therefore:

(1) I would be grateful for your reaction to my posting of
Sat. 29 Jan 17:57, in particular to the paper
http://www.math-inst.hu/pub/algebraic-logic/lstsamples.pdf
where we build up a logical analysis of parts of relativity
in the spirit you are proposing in your sentences ``Still "what
follows from what" ... "logical verification of the theory"...''.

(2) You mention Chapter 7 of Einstein's book claiming that there
is an inconsistency there. I think that this is a misunderstanding:
In Chapter 7 Einstein claims only that there is an illusion of
an apparent contradiction between (i) the principle of relativity
and (ii) the law of the propagation of light. Note that (ii) is NOT
the constancy of the speed of light. It is some law which was believed
before Relativity.

(3) You are right, the constancy of the speed of light can be
considered as a consequence of the principle of relativity (modulo
some extra book-keeping axioms). But the finiteness of the speed
of light does NOT follow from the principle of relativity. Hence
the two key axioms of (special) relativity are (I) the principle
of relativity, and (II) the speed of light is finite (in every
direction). Besides axioms (I), (II) one needs some simple extra
axioms of a "book-keeping" nature which we do not discuss here
but the whole axiomatic picture (together with these extra axioms)
is available in
http://www.math-inst.hu/pub/algebraic-logic/lstsamples.pdf .

(4) I agree with you in your writing what axiomatic systems are
like, and that (at least some) relativists should study the logical
structure of the theory. :-) The good news is that it has already
been started.

Best wishes

Istvan

.

Relevant Pages