Is the Special theory of Relativity wrong?

[vhbelvadi]

I came across the following text in a certain web site, and was, at first convinced of its truth; but later, I started having certain doubts about the content, so I'd like as many comments as possible.

_ _ _

These days it would appear that the Special Theory of Relativity was beyond any form of doubt however I have a theoretical proof that would strongly suggest that the theory is fundamentally flawed. Indeed the proof is so straight forward it is a wonder so many supposedly acute minds have previously overlooked it. The proof runs as follows :

If an observer with velocity v heads towards a beam of light one would have expected that the measurable velocity of the light beam would have been c + v. However according to the Special Theory of Relativity because time slows down and length decreases with velocity, the measured velocity of the beam would still be c. In other words a change in space and time for the observer slowed the new velocity of c + v back down to c again. However if the observer now heads in the opposite direction with the same velocity one would have expected that the measurable velocity of the beam without any relativistic effects, would now be c – v. But on this occasion a change in space and time for the observer would have to increase the measured velocity of light, the exact opposite of the case with c + v. But how could this be if time slows and length decreases with velocity, for the opposite to occur one would have expected that time would have needed to have speeded up and length increased? However both cannot be the case so therefore the speed of light could not remain constant when an observer’s velocity changed with respect to either magnitude or direction.

The origin of this scientific red herring lies with the famous (though some may perhaps argue infamous) Michelson-Morley experiment. It was conducted by the two Americans whom it was named after in 1887 in order to prove or disprove the existence of ‘aether’, the enigmatic substance thought to be contained in a vacuum upon which a light wave was able to move upon. The apparatus consisted of two beams of light meeting at right angles at an interferometer. If the Earth’s speed effected either of the velocities of the light beams then the interference pattern obtained would change. However it was found that the speed of the Earth about the Sun did not appear to effect the interference pattern in any way and it was upon this observation that Einstein based his Special Theory of Relativity.

However just the briefest look at the exact set-up of the apparatus used by Michelson and Morley clearly reveals that the experiment could never have worked anyway. Indeed the logic supporting it is so flawed it is a wonder that no-one appears to have ever noticed. The two light beams which meet at the interferometer first travel away from it and at equal distances are reflected back again to the same half-silvered glass it started from. However because each light beam exactly doubles back on itself each time, it is obvious what the light beam would have gained as a result of the Earth’s velocity in one direction, it would exactly lose on the way back again in the opposite direction, and vice versa. Indeed the experiment would never have proved or disproved the existence of the aether either.

Since the proof stated above clearly shows that the Special Theory of Relativity could never work, it must also be the case that a large part of the General Theory of Relativity is equally unsound since it is entirely based upon the Special Theory. As a consequence it would therefore appear that a significant part of twentieth century physics needs to be re-thought since the Theory of Relativity is intimately interwoven into it. Indeed Einstein’s theory is so well established these days that it is even included in many of the physics text books.

_ _ _

You can read the content at the website, here.

[narrowbandpaul]

something that simple has to be wrong.

bear in mind it was einstein that devised this theory, and he was a clever cookie. Also subsequent tests of both special and general relativity have always been correct.

so I dont think relativity is wrong, its more likely that the author clearly doesnt understand relativity properly. I believe that!

i dont understand it properly, in fact very few do. Its like quantum mechanics.....a head ****

[vhbelvadi]

something that simple has to be wrong.

bear in mind it was einstein that devised this theory, and he was a clever cookie. Also subsequent tests of both special and general relativity have always been correct.

so I dont think relativity is wrong, its more likely that the author clearly doesnt understand relativity properly. I believe that!

i dont understand it properly, in fact very few do. Its like quantum mechanics.....a head ****

My thoughts exactly! The author doesn't understand the theory fully.

Parenthetically, if you check the link I've provided above, you'll see how the author (pardon me) wastes his time rejecting theories with strong foundations.

[Ben Ritchie]

As a scientist i'd never say never - so I didn't vote - but special (and general) Relativity has been remarkably robust and has withstood a century of experimental tests.

I remember a university professor who received so many of these "disproofs" of relativity that he had cards printed saying "Thank you for your theory. Your first error is on line ______ "

[vhbelvadi]

As a scientist i'd never say never - so I didn't vote - but special (and general) Relativity has been remarkably robust and has withstood a century of experimental tests.

I remember a university professor who received so many of these "disproofs" of relativity that he had cards printed saying "Thank you for your theory. Your first error is on line ______ "

Impressive indeed!

But why wouldn't you say never? Do you have doubts, yourself?

[GazOC]

I remember a university professor who received so many of these "disproofs" of relativity that he had cards printed saying "Thank you for your theory. Your first error is on line ______ "

I've heard a similar story involving Fermats Theory before it was proven.

[NickH]

The guy is a fool, and has posted up some complete drivel...like the space shuttle is a hoax

The Space Shuttle and the ISS are a hoax!

Utter kn*b

[narrowbandpaul]

my thoughts exactly Nick.

well expressed! :-)

paul

[Ben Ritchie]

But why wouldn't you say never? Do you have doubts, yourself?

Doubts? Not really - Relativity appears to be an extraordinarily robust theory. But someone might still come along tomorrow with (reproducable) experimental evidence that contradicts what the theory predicts. Who knows?

More likely, I suppose, is that someone clever will one day show that it's a particular limit of a wider theory, much as Newtonian gravity is a special case of Relativity.

[Ben Ritchie]

I've heard a similar story involving Fermats Theory before it was proven.

This chap was emeritus professor of Astronomy when I joined the department, and could be a fairly terrifying chap when provoked - showed no mercy to me as a clueless first-year postgrad when I was trying to bluff my way in a talk on something I didn't understand

[NickH]

Yup...they are the best type...you want to try messing with the worlds leading CCD expert... take no prisoners

I learnt loads with him in one hour...nice bloke.

[narrowbandpaul]

CCD expert, jim janesick, no?

i hope to meet him one day :-)

[NickH]

Nah...this guy is at Caltech, working on the Keck amoungst other systems

[narrowbandpaul]

whats the name Nick? his name may have come up before, but I didnt remember!

cheers

paul

[Phil Fargaze]

Something is wrong somewhere though. They can`t find dark matter or explain dark energy. A Modified Newtonian Dynamics theory has been created, the Pioneer space crafts are travelling at the wrong velocity. I reckon cosmology is going to go back to the idea of an `aether`. OK I`ve said it now, flame me if you have to!

[GazOC]

Something is wrong somewhere though. They can`t find dark matter or explain dark energy. A Modified Newtonian Dynamics theory has been created, the Pioneer space crafts are travelling at the wrong velocity. I reckon cosmology is going to go back to the idea of an `aether`. OK I`ve said it now, flame me if you have to!

The Higgs field/ Bosun certainly just seems a new version of the aether that the Greeks believed in.

Dark matter/ Energy just seems too easy a fix to me, you can just put however much is needed to fit the observations, when they havn't got enough space to fit it in they just use "dense dark matter"...

[Matthew.Blake]

The problem with all these theories is that they are far too complex for anyone here to understand. What we need is a nice simple explanation for it all. It'd be wrong, but we would understand it.

[Phil Fargaze]

Funnily enough Matthew I believe`the new answer` will be simple but no less a creation of genius such as Einstein. Just think what makes a computer run? The binary numeral system, very simple, but it enables the computer to do complicated tasks.

[Matthew.Blake]

Funnily enough Matthew I believe`the new answer` will be simple but no less a creation of genius such as Einstein. Just think what makes a computer run? The binary numeral system, very simple, but it enables the computer to do complicated tasks.

It's not the binary system that makes a computer run though. It's our understanding of electricity. We just use binary to store the information as it is the most practical. The operation of the transistors inside the computer is far more complicated.

[Karo]

Dark matter/ Energy just seems too easy a fix to me, you can just put however much is needed to fit the observations, when they havn't got enough space to fit it in they just use "dense dark matter"

Sarcasm meter failed to read, but it could give the wrong impression, so I think that's a little harsh, this isn't just a case of "oh the numbers didn't work, make something up", it's a case of "the observational results do not agree with our current knowledge, hence we suspect there seems to be something or things we don't yet know about."

Something is wrong somewhere though. They can`t find dark matter or explain dark energy. A Modified Newtonian Dynamics theory has been created, the Pioneer space crafts are travelling at the wrong velocity. I reckon cosmology is going to go back to the idea of an `aether`. OK I`ve said it now, flame me if you have to!

What's the difference? If you distil them to their essence you get the same thing:

There's this mysterious stuff pervading the universe that we can't yet observe directly or explain, but has [or we expect to have] certain observable effects.

The classical aether was just a theoretical possibilty, and in the strictest sense so are dark matter (DM) and energy (DE). However while the aformentioned Michelson-Morley experiment drew a blank or gave inconclusive results, we are seeing what we think are the indirect effects of both DM - flyweight galaxies with few stars remain intact - and DE - the universe continues to expand.

-x-

I'm voting "Hmmm..." - Special Relativity *could* be proven wrong by appropriate empirical evidence gathered in a repeatable manner, but for now it's the best we have. It certainly isn't going to be proven wrong by someone who thinks the space shuttle is a hoax.

[GazOC]

Sarcasm meter failed to read, but it could give the wrong impression, so I think that's a little harsh, this isn't just a case of "oh the numbers didn't work, make something up", it's a case of "the observational results do not agree with our current knowledge, hence we suspect there seems to be something or things we don't yet know about."

A lot of very eminent scientists believe DM and DE to be correct so I'm realistic enough to acknowledge that it is probably the correct theory but the point I was making is that (IMHO) its too far into being accepted 'fact' for something that hasn't been seen or experimentally verified.

Its a pretty robust theory at least partly for the reasons I outlined in my (only very slightly sarcastic!!) post you quoted....;O)

[Milamber]

Relativity *theory* is a springboard in my opinion, the more you understand it, the more confident you get and the higher you can bounce away from it on your own. Some people can't even get into their cossies yet, let alone up the steps to the board though... and some are afraid of heights.

Strange then that a man in a wheelchair jumps the highest is it not?

Arthur

[SC-Pulsar]

Apart from the fact the writer of this theory has no scientific credibility, the reason his arguement is wrong is that he is surmising his theory with classical Newtonian Mechanics.

In Special Relativity, Newtons laws do not hold, just as they don't in the quantum world. You can't just simply add velocities.

Yes time dialation and length contraction are consequences of Special Relativity, different observers are in different inertial frames and will have different measurements of quantities, however the speed of light will always be 'c' arriving at the detector.

Relativity isn't an easy thing to understand, but with a few thought experiments of your own, its simple to disregard this theory.

And also, the Michaelson-Morley experiment wasn't the only experiment done to disprove the aether.

Personally, I think relativity is correct. It is even taken into account today when programming GPS satellites and time dilation has been measured from clocks used on commercial airliners.

Stacey

[narrowbandpaul]

GPS is a GR correction I believe stacey, is it not correcting for time dilation induced by the weaker field experienced at orbit?

spoken like a true physicist....nice one!

[vhbelvadi]

Something is wrong somewhere though. They can`t find dark matter or explain dark energy. A Modified Newtonian Dynamics theory has been created, the Pioneer space crafts are travelling at the wrong velocity. I reckon cosmology is going to go back to the idea of an `aether`. OK I`ve said it now, flame me if you have to!

FLAME ON!!!