[Posts are sequential, to be read/heard in date order - opposite to the order they’re generally displayed in. Paid-for posts have technical content.]
To hear an audio version of this post (9 mins 45 secs), click the arrow below:
Ok, so in our previous two posts – the first as an overview, the second for the detail – we saw how one of Einstein’s two mainstays for his Theory of Relativity has turned out not to be about Relativity at all. The notion that Fizeau’s experiment was strong evidence for this universe-redefining theory has turned out to be a complete fallacy. Of course, Einstein can hardly be blamed for that, he was working with the best information available at the time. But science moves on: we know now that the earth isn’t flat; we know now that there are countless planets orbiting other stars; and we know now that the speed of light through moving water isn’t governed by some mysterious property of space and time, but rather by that light interacting with the atoms of the water itself. Obvious, innit, with hindsight?
So that immediately begs the question: what other presumed ‘proofs’ of Relativity might actually be down to more straightforward explanations? This question is rather important for three reasons:
(1) If our understanding of interactions of space & time, matter & energy is off-beam then we run the dual risk of (a) missing opportunities that could be open to us if we had a better understanding, and (b) assuming that certain procedures, based on false assumptions, are safe when in fact they may be highly dangerous.
(2) The present (mis)understanding of ‘relativistic effects’ and their causes leads to various bizarre proposed situations which are counter-intuitive and counter to conventional common sense (as well as being totally untestable, now or in the near future). See previous post for details.
(3) This same (mis)understanding leads to the false belief that FTL (faster than light) communication could lead to distortions in time; also that explanations for cosmic effects such as gravitation and inertia are subject to serious limitations. Again, see previous post for details.
Between them these three points create a situation which seriously restricts the possibility of major advances in science (as well as posing potential risks), at a time when what we need more than anything is the scope to safely explore new possibilities, new opportunities, new ways forward for our species and our planet.
So: now that we know that Fizeau’s results were NOT the evidence for Relativity that Einstein believed them to be, what other ‘proofs of Relativity’ might not be quite what they appear to be?
One of the main contenders for such ‘proof’ is the phenomenon of time dilation: the slowing down of time in objects travelling at high speed. This effect has been shown to be genuine in a variety of situations; perhaps the most obvious is the need to adjust GPS satellites for this slowing of time in their circuits, otherwise they quickly get out of synch. The question is not whether this effect is real, but rather is it down to relativity or some more mundane readily-explainable cause?
For the answer to this we can turn to a panel of top scientific experts – and a teenage youth. Those experts are the evaluation and judging panel for The Breakthrough Junior Challenge, endorsed by the Hawking Foundation (among others); Professor Stephen Hawking’s daughter Lucy is one of the judges. The teenager was the first winner of that Challenge, in 2015, who netted a quarter of a million dollars for his 7.5-minute video explaining aspects of Special Relativity. Almost 40% of this video was taken up with his explanation of how time dilation works * – and NONE of that explanation requires any reference to special properties of space and time; it’s just about how signals between parts of a system (such as a GPS satellite) take longer when all those parts are moving to new positions very rapidly as those signals travel from one part to another. (* Starting at 4 mins 18 secs into the video.)
In other words, that panel of experts endorsed – to the tune of $250,000 – an explanation of time dilation which relies not one whit on Special Relativity as proposed by Einstein, i.e. a special property of space and time. Note that Ryan Chester refers a few times to the fact that light travels at a constant speed, but note also that this has absolutely no bearing on his explanation of time dilation; indeed, he explicitly states that bodily functions and perception would slow down to the same degree in a person travelling at speed, for the same reason, so they wouldn’t notice that time-slowed-down effect. He is in fact spelling out very clearly that the lack of perceived time dilation by the moving observer is a subjective ‘observer effect’ – NOT a difference in reality due to the objective equivalence of static and moving reference frames.
So there it is, spelt out to the satisfaction of a panel of experts and worth very big bucks in prize money: ‘relativistic’ time dilation, like Fizeau’s light-through-water effect, is totally down to straightforward physical causes, with no need for a special theory to explain them – even less, special properties of space and time. We’ll look some other time at time dilation within particles, including a notable observation relating to exotic particles known as muons as well as the humble electron; that’ll take us into a whole new field of discovery in a future post.
Just these two examples, though, from Fizeau and Ryan Chester, tell us something quite mind-blowing. In both cases we’re looking at effects which appear to depend on some special property of time and space – Special Relativity; but in each of those cases, when we look behind the curtain, there’s actually something pretty straightforward going on – certainly not some esoteric property of the fabric of the cosmos.
And of course, that’s got to be the case. As Ryan so ably points out, although from the perspective of those fast-moving space travellers everything seems to be just as it would be if their spacecraft were static, from the perspective of those back home on earth there has to be a definable reason why those space-clocks are running slow, and why those astronauts don’t see that. Definable, that is, in terms of “This is what the laws of physics say about the situation as seen by us who aren’t in that fast-moving craft”. It’s not enough to say “If we were moving fast….” – because we’re not. Ryan’s explanation fulfils that requirement.
Likewise, in that Fizeau experiment, it’s all very well to say “If we were moving with that stream of water, we’d see the light like so” – but we’re not, so what we’re seeing from our static position should be fully explainable in terms of the laws of physics as they apply from our position (which, as we’ve seen, it is). Whatever Relativity says about how things will be from the moving perspective, those things – whatever they are – must be consistent with the laws of physics as they apply for us in our static situation.
And there you have it. Any situation that Relativity predicts as being so in a (relatively) moving frame of reference (i.e. state of motion) must also be supported by science as it applies for us in our static frame of reference. If those events in the moving frame aren’t 100% consistent with scientific principles as applied in the static frame, then by definition they are contrary to those principles.
It follows logically that there can’t be effects happening in a moving frame that are explainable in terms of Special Relativity applied to that moving frame but not explainable in terms of the physics of the static frame. So any such effects must be explainable in terms of the physics of the static frame – without reference to any effects due specifically to Special Relativity (since such effects relate to the physics in the moving frame). So there is no such effect that cannot be explained without reference to Special Relativity. So Special Relativity isn’t needed to explain any such effects. So why is it needed at all???
Even if an effect in a moving frame can’t at present be explained in terms of the physics of the static frame, such an explanation must exist (unless physics is inconsistent with itself – which doesn’t make sense). So again, why is Special Relativity needed at all?
The ground on which Relativity is standing is steadily disappearing…. Watch it disappear yet further in the next post.
In the meantime, check out Transfinite Mind for books plus free articles and presentations.