A simple thought experiment to discuss the mass–energy equivalence in the special theory of relativity

2021 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 035028
Author(s):  
Sergio Duarte ◽  
Nathan Lima
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Koshun Suto

This paper discusses the “triplet thought experiment” in which accelerated motion is eliminated from the famous twin paradox thought experiment of the special theory of relativity (STR). The author considers the coordinate systems of an inertial frame M and rocket A moving at constant speed relative to each other. First, an observer in inertial frame M performs the triplet thought experiment, and it is confirmed that the delay in time which elapses in the moving system agrees with the predictions of the STR. However, the delay in time predicted by the STR is observed even in the case when an observer A in rocket A carries out the triplet thought experiment. Before starting movement at constant velocity, rocket A experiences accelerated motion. The coordinate system of rocket A cannot be regarded physically as a stationary system. Even so, observer A observes the delay predicted by the STR. If the previous, traditional interpretation is assumed to be correct, observer A will never observe a delay in time agreeing with the predictions of the STR. To avoid paradox, the previously proposed traditional interpretation must be revised.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Koshun Suto

In the thought experiment in this paper, we consider inertial frames M and A moving at constant velocity relative to each other. First, a light signal is emitted from inertial frame M toward inertial frame A when the time on a clock in inertial frame M is 1 (s). In the scenario of this paper, that light arrives at inertial frame A when time on the clock in A is 2 (s). Next, the situation is reversed, and a light signal is emitted from inertial frame A toward inertial frame M when the time in inertial frame A is 1 (s). That light arrives at inertial frame M when the time in M is 2 (s). According to the special theory of relativity (STR), the two inertial frames are equivalent, and thus it is not surprising that symmetric experiment results are obtained. However, it has already been pointed out that, among the coordinate systems regarded by Einstein as inertial frames, there are “classically stationary frames” where light propagates isotropically, and “classically moving frames” where light propagates anisotropically. If a classically stationary frame is incorporated into a thought experiment, it becomes easier to predict the experiment results. This paper elucidates a system whereby symmetrical experiment results can be obtained, even if the two coordinate systems are not equivalent. If one attempts to explain such experiment results from the standpoint of the STR, it ironically requires the use of logic that is unacceptable under the STR. Thus, this paper explains those experiment results by using logic different from the STR, and demonstrates the breakdown in the STR.


2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 369-371
Author(s):  
Noriaki Namba

Numerous paradoxes have been noted with regard to Einstein’s special theory of relativity (STR) [A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 322, 891 (1905)]. This is because the logical consistency of the two guiding principles he adopts has not been fully verified. Here, the author discusses Einstein’s “light clock” thought experiment based on the two guiding principles of STR. Following those principles would lead to a logical breakdown in the STR.


2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Koshun Suto

<p class="1Body">In the thought experiment in this paper, we considered inertial frames M and A moving at a constant velocity relative to each other. A light signal emitted from inertial frame A, when time of a clock in inertial frame A was 1(s), arrived at inertial frame M when time of a clock in inertial frame M was 2(s). In this paper, the time in inertial frame A when the time in inertial frame M was 2(s) was predicted by observers in inertial frames M and A by applying the special theory of relativity (STR). Predictions of the two observers did not match. Einstein regarded all inertial frames as equivalent, but there are cases where a velocity vector is attached to some inertial frame. Einstein overlooked this fact, and thus a discrepancy appeared in the values predicted by the two observers. It is not the case that all inertial frames are equivalent. This paper concludes that the STR is a theory incorporating a contradiction which must be corrected.</p>


1988 ◽  
Vol 156 (9) ◽  
pp. 137-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anatolii A. Logunov ◽  
Yu.V. Chugreev

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-49
Author(s):  
Hamdoon A. Khan ◽  

With the consideration of the light which carries the photon particles, the Lorentz transformation was constructed with an impressive mathematical approach. But the generalization of that equation for all the velocities of the universe is direct enforcement on other things not to travel faster than light. It has created serious issues in every scientific research that was done in the last century based on the special theory of relativity. This paper replaces the velocity of light with some other velocities and shows us the possible consequences and highlights the issues of special relativity. If I travel through my past or future and was able to see another me there, who would be the real Hamdoon I or the one I see there in the past or future! If the real one is only me, the one I saw, is not me, so, I could not travel through my or someone else's past or future. Therefore, no one can travel through time. If both of us are the same, can the key of personal identity be duplicated or be separated into two or more parts? These are some of the fundamental philosophical arguments that annihilate the concept of time travel which is one of the sequels of special relativity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 175-195
Author(s):  
Vladimir P. Vizgin ◽  

The article is based on the concepts of epistemic virtues and epistemic vices and explores A. Einstein’s contribution to the creation of fundamental physical theories, namely the special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity, as well as to the development of a unified field theory on the basis of the geometric field program, which never led to success. Among the main epistemic virtues that led Einstein to success in the construction of the special theory of relativity are the following: a unique physical intuition based on the method of thought experiment and the need for an experimental justification of space-time concepts; striving for simplicity and elegance of theory; scientific courage, rebelliousness, signifying the readiness to engage in confrontation with scientific conventional dogmas and authorities. In the creation of general theory of relativity, another intellectual virtue was added to these virtues: the belief in the heuristic power of the mathematical aspect of physics. At the same time, he had to overcome his initial underestimation of the H. Minkowski’s four-dimensional concept of space and time, which has manifested in a distinctive flexibility of thinking typical for Einstein in his early years. The creative role of Einstein’s mistakes on the way to general relativity was emphasized. These mistakes were mostly related to the difficulties of harmonizing the mathematical and physical aspects of theory, less so to epistemic vices. The ambivalence of the concept of epistemic virtues, which can be transformed into epistemic vices, is noted. This transformation happened in the second half of Einstein’s life, when he for more than thirty years unsuccessfully tried to build a unified geometric field theory and to find an alternative to quantum mechanics with their probabilistic and Copenhagen interpretation In this case, we can talk about the following epistemic vices: the revaluation of mathematical aspect and underestimation of experimentally – empirical aspect of the theory; adopting the concepts general relativity is based on (continualism, classical causality, geometric nature of fundamental interactions) as fundamental; unprecedented persistence in defending the GFP (geometrical field program), despite its failures, and a certain loss of the flexibility of thinking. A cosmological history that is associated both with the application of GTR (general theory of relativity) to the structure of the Universe, and with the missed possibility of discovering the theory of the expanding Universe is intermediate in relation to Einstein’s epistemic virtues and vices. This opportunity was realized by A.A. Friedmann, who defeated Einstein in the dispute about if the Universe was stationary or nonstationary. In this dispute some of Einstein’s vices were revealed, which Friedman did not have. The connection between epistemic virtues and the methodological principles of physics and also with the “fallibilist” concept of scientific knowledge development has been noted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document