Relativity, Scepticism and Humility in Science

From: Alex Green (dralexgreen_at_yahoo.co.uk)
Date: 09/10/04 

Date: 10 Sep 2004 05:38:40 -0700

The current foundations of physics are relativity and quantum theory.
Relativity theory is very badly taught. There are two ways of
presenting it, in the first the assumptions for SR are:

1. the speed of light is a constant for all observers
2. the laws of physics are the same for all observers (includes all
motion is relative).
3. the universe is homogenous and isotropic

In the second, modern approach, the assumptions are:

1. The universe has a metric ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2
2. Any coordinate displacement (delta Y) in one coordinate system can
be expressed as a sum of terms of differentials of the coordinates in
another coordinate system.
3. Noether's theorem applies and ds^2 is invariant.

See http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/notes/

The first approach is not inconsistent with the second, it just has
sweeping assumptions that unnerve the novice (ie: the novice thinks
'why should the speed of light be constant, what is so special about
light?' and misses the whole point of relativity). The second
approach needs a lot of study but has simpler assumptions.

If contributors to sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity wish to
object to relativity they have several attack points:

1. The assumed metric ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2 is wrong ie:
inconsistent with observations or a special case.

2. A change in a first set of coordinates is not given in terms of the
second by:

deltaY = delta x (dY/dx) + delta y (dY/dy)+ etc..

This is a basic theorem of maths so might be hard to criticise.

3. Symmetries do not exist and/or there is not an invariant for every
symmetry.

Now, attacking relativity because you don't like the twin paradox or
time dilation or can't see why the speed of light is constant is where
lack of humility comes in. Nobel prize winning physicists are the
intellectual equivalent of olympic gold medallists but much more
selected. Even your university physics/maths professor is a regional
champ. If you believe that all of these people could have considered
time dilation and the twin paradox over a whole century and all got it
wrong then humility should suggest to you that the fault could be with
yourself.

So how can we be sceptical about a century old theory such as
relativity?

Any new, replacement theory must contain most of the results of the
old theory because Relativity predicts a host of phenomena from black
holes to quantum physics that have been discovered. Sorry, but if
your new replacement for relativity does not contain most of the
tensor maths of the current theory then you must be wrong. So
sceptics, off you go to uni for a 3 year course on advanced maths.

Alternatively you might replace the original assumptions in some way
so that relativity is a special case. I have been trying to do this
with the metric tensor but sci.physics.research will not post these
musings for a good reason: without strong predictions for experiment
and a clearly argued case the ideas are unduly speculative.

One method of criticising Relativity that is absurd is to go back to
Einstein's century old papers and nit pick every problematic phrase.
This is as crazy as maintaining that science is 'wrong' because Roger
Bacon was not always consistent. Relativity theory is the product of a
million or more papers over the past century, it is not contained in a
single publication a century ago.

Sci.physics is a good place for punting odd ideas around but if we are
sceptical of current theory we should also be sceptical of our own
theories, especially if no one but ourselves accepts them.

Best Wishes

Alex Green

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... physics ideas, ... rotation between yourself and the stars. ... I know that its common for people trying to state Mach's Principle so ... rather than "absolute relativity". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... physics ideas, ... rotation between yourself and the stars. ... I know that its common for people trying to state Mach's Principle so ... rather than "absolute relativity". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • SR, curvature terms, and Realms of Validity
    ... >is a false theory of physics, while it may very well be ... Yep, people sometimes talk about SR's "realm of validity", but I don't ... It assumes that light is in no way affected by the presence or motion ... relativity, so that the total Doppler effect on a "gravitational" and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT: From Dr Michio Kaku
    ... to a physics journal, just as Physical Review D or Nuclear Physics B. ... Relativity is useful in its domain of velocities near the ... the quantum theory works quite well at ... The language of nature is mathematics (e.g. tensor calculus and Lie ...
    (talk.origins)
  • OT: From Dr Michio Kaku
    ... to a physics journal, just as Physical Review D or Nuclear Physics B. ... Relativity is useful in its domain of velocities near the ... the quantum theory works quite well at ... The language of nature is mathematics (e.g. tensor calculus and Lie ...
    (talk.origins)