Critics of Relativity

[gluon]

So here are some critical and yet scientific comments about relativity. After some investigation into a seperate issue, i came across this information quite happily;

George Gamow likens the EFE to the Taj Mahal;

"a structure standing out there in majestic isolation, without any connection to the rest of Physics".

Dewey Larson comments;

"Most scientists accept the General Theory of Relativity but no one uses it except as a mental and mathematical exercise; indeed it is doubtful if anyone knows how to use it in anything other than an artificially simplified situation."

Lincoln Barnett in his book, "The Universe and Dr.Einstein, quotes Einstein;

"The idea that there are two structures of space independent of each other, the metric-gravitational and the electromagnetic, is intolerable to the theoretical spirit."

Einstein himself and Rosen made in 1935;

"In spite of its great success in various fields, the present theoretical physics is still far from being able to provide a unified foundation on which the theoretical treatment of all phenomena could be based. We have a general relativistic theory of macroscopic phenomena, which however has hitherto been unable to account for atomic structure of matter and for quantum effects, and we have a quantum theory, which is able to account satisfactorily for a large number of atomic and quantum phenomena but which by its very nature is unsuited to the principle of relativity."

David Bohm discusses the causality problem of tachyons and concludes;

"Either we have to assume that no physical action faster than light is possible, or else we have to give up Einstein's form of principle of relativity."

Pari says "That photons exist and travel at the speed c, is sufficient to invalidate the equations of special relativity; the reality of velocities greater than c, is an additional argument to refute the theory."

She then discusses the illogical theory of 'tachyons', proposed to rationalize the existence of superluminal velocities within the theory of relativity. Richard Tolman's equations that would have an 'effect precede the cause' and Bilaniuk's (et al) 'reinterpretation principle' which attempts to confirm Tolman's equation by having a tachyon travelling with negative energy and backwards in time, interpreted as one traveling with positive energy forward in time.

Pari concludes;

"The logical consistency of this reinterpretation principle has been challenged by a number of authors who have convincingly demonstrated that cause and effect cannot be interchanged arbitrarily".


Louis Essen cautions;

"The continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory"

He is concerned that;

"students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma."

 

[prometheus]

Firstly, most of these quotes are at least 80 years old and when a theory is in it's infancy you can't expect it to really be useful. Now GR is well understood there are many uses that it has, for example the calibration of GPS satellites.

David Bohm discusses the causality problem of tachyons and concludes;

"Either we have to assume that no physical action faster than light is possible, or else we have to give up Einstein's form of principle of relativity."

I don't know where you're getting the causality problem from - in relativity nothing can travel faster than light so there is no tachyon.

Pari says "That photons exist and travel at the speed c, is sufficient to invalidate the equations of special relativity; the reality of velocities greater than c, is an additional argument to refute the theory."

Pari is wrong, there are no superluminal velocities in relativity. Equations like $$E=\gamma mc^2$$ break for photons because you aren't applying them correctly.

She then discusses the illogical theory of 'tachyons', proposed to rationalize the existence of superluminal velocities within the theory of relativity. Richard Tolman's equations that would have an 'effect precede the cause' and Bilaniuk's (et al) 'reinterpretation principle' which attempts to confirm Tolman's equation by having a tachyon travelling with negative energy and backwards in time, interpreted as one traveling with positive energy forward in time.

Pari concludes;

"The logical consistency of this reinterpretation principle has been challenged by a number of authors who have convincingly demonstrated that cause and effect cannot be interchanged arbitrarily".

All of this is not necessary. Who is this Pari anyway?

Louis Essen cautions;

"The continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory"

He is concerned that;

"students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma."

I understand relativity. Just because Louis Essen or you do not doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't make the experimental confirmations of the theory over the past 100 years wrong.

 

[gluon]

No - nothing with mass can accelerate up to c. It does not mean a tachyon is not real. Secondly, the qoutes, no matter how old, are still part of physics mainstream history.

 

[gluon]

Pari Spolter by the way, is not a physicist. She is an author of ''gravitation and the sun'' a very popular book. And again, for the second time, relativity is said to never have been proclaiming superluminal velocities do not exist... they can, according to relativity, prometheus. You should know these things.

 

[prometheus]

No - nothing with mass can accelerate up to c. It does not mean a tachyon is not real.

Your statement proves the tachyon does not exist. Mass must be strictly positive by the weak energy condition so something with mass will always have positive mass. Something with zero mass travels with v = c. Something with mass travels at v < c. There is no such particle that can travel at v > c.

In QFT which is both relativistic and quantum you do sometimes hear people talk about tachyons, but what that really means is that they aren't in the physical vacuum. A physical observer will always see tachyons as being impossible.

Secondly, the qoutes, no matter how old, are still part of physics mainstream history.

You have to read them in context. Gamow's quote for example is simply saying that at the time GR was not developed enough to be useful. Now it is.

 

[prometheus]

And again, for the second time, relativity is said to never have been proclaiming superluminal velocities do not exist... they can, according to relativity, prometheus.

No you are wrong. An emergent prediction of SR is that speeds faster than the speed of light are not possible.

 

[gluon]

Your statement proves the tachyon does not exist. Mass must be strictly positive by the weak energy condition so something with mass will always have positive mass. Something with zero mass travels with v = c. Something with mass travels at v < c. There is no such particle that can travel at v > c.

In QFT which is both relativistic and quantum you do sometimes hear people talk about tachyons, but what that really means is that they aren't in the physical vacuum. A physical observer will always see tachyons as being impossible.



You have to read them in context. Gamow's quote for example is simply saying that at the time GR was not developed enough to be useful. Now it is.

Actually, because matter cannot accelerate up to c, does not mean a quantum system cannot begin their lifetime with a superluminal speed. This is pure physics.

 

[gluon]

No you are wrong. An emergent prediction of SR is that speeds faster than the speed of light are not possible.

No its not. I've told you you are wrong, which indeed you are, by this dogmatic interpretation you seem to have adopoted.

 

[BenTheMan]

I don't know where you're getting the causality problem from - in relativity nothing can travel faster than light so there is no tachyon.

To be fair, this is a bit circular.

gluon---I don't know what you're trying to prove with this thread, but it's going to Pseudoscience.

Take it up with someone else if you have a problem with it.

 

[gluon]

Well, its not exactly pseudscience is it, so i might?

 

[BenTheMan]

Well, its not exactly pseudscience is it, so i might?

Trying to discredit a proven theory on the basis of some 80 year old quotations? Who knows? Who cares?

 

[gluon]

I never discredited anything.

Maybe you would like to read over the nature of the post again. I was qouting critics, not being one.

 

[prometheus]

Actually, because matter cannot accelerate up to c, does not mean a quantum system cannot begin their lifetime with a superluminal speed. This is pure physics.

This is pure bunkum. What exactly do you mean by "begin their lifetime?" If something cannot accelerate to v > c then it cannot have that speed. Simple logic.

 

[prometheus]

To be fair, this is a bit circular.

Not really, a tachyon is something that goes faster than c by definition. If that can't happen as relativity shows, there can be no tachyon.

Lets think of it another way, what is the kinetic energy of a faster than light object? The kinetic energy of a particle is $$T = \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} -mc^2$$. If v > c then the first term in that expression is a complex number and how do we interpret a complex kinetic energy? Making the mass be a complex number too doesn't fix it because that wouldn't cancel the imaginary part of the denominator of the first term. Even then it simply shifts the problem to how to interpret a complex mass?

 

[gluon]

This is pure bunkum. What exactly do you mean by "begin their lifetime?" If something cannot accelerate to v > c then it cannot have that speed. Simple logic.

No you are wrong, also see bens remark.

Look at it this way, since a peice of matter cannot accelerate to c, should that disprove the existence of luxon particles?

Your arguement is but circular. You will eventually find, when you study relativity long enough, it does not admit ''real'' objects existing with speeds v>c, however, with this said, it does admit an imaginary entity. Imaginary entities have an imaginary mass, which [from the source of origin] began their lifetime with speeds greater than light.

Go investigate the laws of relativity, without this wave-army response.

 

[gluon]

Not really, a tachyon is something that goes faster than c by definition. If that can't happen as relativity shows, there can be no tachyon.

Lets think of it another way, what is the kinetic energy of a faster than light object? The kinetic energy of a particle is $$T = \frac{mc^2}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}} -mc^2$$. If v > c then the first term in that expression is a complex number and how do we interpret a complex kinetic energy? Making the mass be a complex number too doesn't fix it because that wouldn't cancel the imaginary part of the denominator of the first term. Even then it simply shifts the problem to how to interpret a complex mass?

You remind me of the new-age philosopher who said Stephen Hawking played with buzzwords like ''imaginary''. We are reminded that ''imaginary'' is still real, no matter how much you ask how one interprets, or for qoutation ''how do we interpret the complex kinetic energy?''

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Actually, because matter cannot accelerate up to c, does not mean a quantum system cannot begin their lifetime with a superluminal speed. This is pure physics.

So relativity allows superluminal speeds because quantum mechanics might? Brilliant logic.

No - nothing with mass can accelerate up to c. It does not mean a tachyon is not real. Secondly, the qoutes, no matter how old, are still part of physics mainstream history.

Just because its part of mainstream physics history doesn't mean its relevant today. Mainstream science used to believe in 4 elements, fire, wind, water and earth but that doesn't mean quoting someone from 500BC Greece in a discussion on Thorium isotopes is relevant.

"The continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory""

I would say that's fglat out wrong. Maxwell's electromagnetism was one of the first areas of physics to show that Newtonian physics wasn't the be all and end all, because its not invariant under Galillian transforms, but it is under Lorentz transforms, precisely those symmetries of special relativity. The symmetry they have under relativity means that you can view electric and magnetic fields are the same underlying thing. Further more the combination of electromagnetism and special relativity and quantum mechanics, ie quantum field theory, has fully generalised electromagnetism to any number of dimensions and any kind of consistent interaction. Its known as Yang Mills theory and is something which is the focus of a huge number of researchers. So to say relativity has hindered electromagnetism is quite frankly BS.

Reiku, whats the purpose of this thread. You don't know any relativity or electromagnetism and you're trying to tell Prom, someone who does, someone who researches that Yang Mills theory I just mentioned, that he's not done things he has? You seem to be deliberately trying to generate an argument on a topic you're not familiar with with people who know a great deal more than you about it. Why don't you save us all the hassle and just sit in your room punching yourself in the face?

 

[gluon]

So relativity allows superluminal speeds because quantum mechanics might? Brilliant logic.
Just because its part of mainstream physics history doesn't mean its relevant today. Mainstream science used to believe in 4 elements, fire, wind, water and earth but that doesn't mean quoting someone from 500BC Greece in a discussion on Thorium isotopes is relevant.
I would say that's fglat out wrong. Maxwell's electromagnetism was one of the first areas of physics to show that Newtonian physics wasn't the be all and end all, because its not invariant under Galillian transforms, but it is under Lorentz transforms, precisely those symmetries of special relativity. The symmetry they have under relativity means that you can view electric and magnetic fields are the same underlying thing. Further more the combination of electromagnetism and special relativity and quantum mechanics, ie quantum field theory, has fully generalised electromagnetism to any number of dimensions and any kind of consistent interaction. Its known as Yang Mills theory and is something which is the focus of a huge number of researchers. So to say relativity has hindered electromagnetism is quite frankly BS.

Reiku, whats the purpose of this thread. You don't know any relativity or electromagnetism and you're trying to tell Prom, someone who does, someone who researches that Yang Mills theory I just mentioned, that he's not done things he has? You seem to be deliberately trying to generate an argument on a topic you're not familiar with with people who know a great deal more than you about it. Why don't you save us all the hassle and just sit in your room punching yourself in the face?

First off, the third is not a qoutation of me. Secondly, i am studying physics, just as much as prometheus is, so pull the other one alphanumeric.

Thirdly, you yourself knows that relativity does not actually forbid tachyonic matter as prometheus suggested, so maybe you can contribute a little instead of being such a fucking pain.

 

[James R]

Most of the people quoted in the OP aren't/weren't critics of relativity at all - most of all Einstein himself.

The quotes are taken out of context and give a false impression. Moreover, most are significantly out of date, as has already been pointed out.

 

[gluon]

Where is the falsity of the impression? These where notable critics over the history of physics, critics in the sense they where criticising on the validity of relativity. This is beyond the point really, because

THIS STILL REMAINS NOT PSUEDOSCIENCE, SO AGAIN, INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE