scholarly journals Time in the Special Theory of Relativity

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Savitt
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Reference Frame ◽  
Inertial Frame ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Inertial Reference Frame ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Crucial Element ◽  
Most Significant Change ◽  
Conventionality Of Simultaneity

Restricted to special relativity, this chapter observes that the most significant change in the concept of time is certainly the relativity of simultaneity. What events are simultaneous with some event for one observer are different from those that are simultaneous with respect to an object traveling in a different inertial frame. Many believe that this relativity can play a role in an argument for eternalism. This chapter critically surveys these arguments before taking on the implications of relativity for the metaphysics of time. It also tackles the conventionality of simultaneity. Many philosophers of science, especially during the early days of relativity, felt that simultaneity is not only relative but also conventional—there is a crucial element of choice in deciding what events are simultaneous for any other in a given inertial reference frame, so that there is no fact of the matter about what is simultaneous.

scholarly journals On the Support that the Special and General Theories of Relativity Provide for Rock’s Argument Concerning Induced Self-Motion and Vice Versa

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Michael Snyder
Keyword(s):  
Reference Frame ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Relativity Theory ◽  
Inertial Reference Frame ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Self Motion

Though Einstein and other physicists recognized the importance of an observer being at rest in an inertial reference frame for the special theory of relativity, the supporting psychological structures were not discussed much by physicists. On the other hand, Rock wrote of the factors involved in the perception of motion, including one’s own motion. Rock thus came to discuss issues of significance to relativity theory, apparently without any significant understanding of how his theory might be related to relativity theory. In this paper, connections between Rock’s theory on the perception of one’s own motion, as well as empirical work supporting it, and relativity theory are explored. Paper available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9908025v1 .

scholarly journals Special Relativity sans Lorentz Transformation (OR) Perceptional Relativity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
SEBASTIN PATRICK ASOKAN
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Lorentz Transformation ◽  
Fast Moving ◽  
Inertial Frame ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Slowing Down ◽  
Inertial Frames

Abstract This paper shows that from the fact that the same Reality is perceived differently by the observers in different inertial frames, we can draw a simple and straightforward explanation for the constancy of light's speed in all inertial frames without any need for bringing in paradoxical Lorentz Transformation. This paper shows that the premise that each inertial frame has its unique time, which Lorentz Transformation introduced to explain the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames is incompatible with the interchangeability of the frames, an essential requisite of the First Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity. This paper also points out the misconceptions regarding the claimed experimental verifications of Lorentz Transformation's predictions in the Hafele–Keating experiment and μ meson experiment. This paper hints at the possibility of attributing the observed slowing down of fast-moving clocks to the Relativistic Variation of Mass with Velocity instead of Time Dilation. This paper concludes that Einstein's Special Theory Relativity can stand on its own merits without Lorentz Transformation.

The Ultimate Sophistication of Special Theory of Relativity

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 43-49
Author(s):  
Hamdoon A. Khan ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Mathematical Approach ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Past ◽  
The One ◽  
The Universe ◽  
Faster Than Light

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.

scholarly journals Special Relativity sans Lorentz Transformation (OR) Perceptional Relativity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastin Patrick Asokan
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Lorentz Transformation ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Inertial Frames ◽  
Impossible Task

Abstract This paper shows that from the fact that the same Reality is perceived differently by the observers in different inertial frames, we can draw a simple and straightforward explanation for the constancy of light's speed in all inertial frames without any need for bringing in paradoxical Lorentz Transformation. This paper also proves that Lorentz Transformation has failed in its attempt to do the impossible task of establishing t' ≠ t to explain the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames without contradicting the interchangeability of frames demanded by the First Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity. This paper also points out the misconceptions regarding the claimed experimental verifications of Lorentz Transformation's predictions in the Hafele–Keating experiment and μ meson experiment. This paper concludes that Einstein's Special Theory Relativity can stand on its own merits without Lorentz Transformation.

scholarly journals Derivation of All Linear Transformations that Meet the Results of Michelson-Morley’s Experiment and Discussion of the Relativity Basics

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Szostek
Keyword(s):  
Inertial Frame ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Formal Proof ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Linear Transformations ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Velocity Of Light ◽  
Zero Values

The article presents formal proof that the Special Theory of Relativity is wrong, that is, the interpretation of the mathematics on which STR is based, proposed by Einstein is incorrect. The article shows that there are infinitely many kinematics in which one-way speed of light is always equal to c. The kinematics of Special Theory of Relativity (STR) is only one of those infinitely many kinematics. It presents that mathematics on which STR kinematics is based can be interpreted differently and this leads to other conclusions on the properties of this kinematics. In this article, the whole class of linear transformations of time and coordinate was derived. Transformations were derived on the assumption that conclusions from Michelson-Morley’s and Kennedy-Thorndikea’s experiments are met for the observer from each inertial frame of reference, i.e. that the mean velocity of light in the vacuum flowing along the way back and forth is constant. It was also assumed that there is at least one inertial frame of reference, in which the velocity of light in a vacuum in each direction has the same value c, and the space is isotropic for observers from this distinguished inertial frame of reference (universal frame of reference). Derived transformations allow for building many different kinematics according to Michelson-Morley’s and Kennedy-Thorndikea’s experiments. The class of transformations derived in the study is a generalization of transformations derived in the paper [10], which consists in enabling non-zero values of parameter e(v). The idea of such a generalization derives from the person, who gave me this extended transformations class for analysis and publication.

scholarly journals A New Problem with the Twin Paradox

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Koshun Suto
Keyword(s):  
Coordinate System ◽  
Constant Velocity ◽  
Inertial Frame ◽  
Thought Experiment ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Twin Paradox ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Coordinate Systems ◽  
Accelerated Motion

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.

Inertia and inertial resistance in the Special Theory of Relativity

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Peter J. Riggs
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Minkowski Spacetime ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Classical Dynamics ◽  
Relativistic Motion ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Particle Inertia ◽  
Spacetime Structure

A broader concept of “resistance to acceleration” than used in classical dynamics, called “inertial resistance”, is quantified for both inertial and non-inertial relativistic motion. Special Relativity shows that inertial resistance is more than particle inertia and originates from Minkowski spacetime structure. Current mainstream explanations of inertia do not take inertial resistance into account and are, therefore, incomplete.

scholarly journals An Elucidation of the Symmetry of Length Contraction Predicted by the Special Theory of Relativity

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 31
Author(s):  
Koshun Suto
Keyword(s):  
Common Sense ◽  
Constant Velocity ◽  
Inertial Frame ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Length Contraction ◽  
Inertial Frames ◽  
Objective State

In this paper, consider a rod A (inertial frame A) and rod B (inertial frame B) moving at constant velocity relative to each other. Assume that the lengths of two rods are equal when they are stationary. According to the STR, when length in the direction of motion of rod B, moving at constant velocity, is measured from inertial frame A, the rod contracts in the direction of motion. Also, the time which elapses on clock in inertial frame B is delayed compared to the time which elapses on clock in inertial frame A. If, conversely, inertial frame A is measured from inertial frame B, rod A contracts in the direction of motion, and the time which elapses on clock is delayed. However, according to classical common sense, if rod B contracts when measured from inertial frame A, then rod A measured from rod B must be longer than rod B. Thus, this paper discusses the symmetry of rod contraction, and elucidates this problem. It is found, based on the discussion in this paper, that the contraction of a rod includes true physical contraction, and relativistic contraction obtained due to measurement using the method indicated by Einstein. However, in the STR, any two inertial frames are equivalent, and therefore is not possible to accept points such as the fact that reasons for contraction are different. This paper concludes that STR is not a theory which describes the objective state of reality.

scholarly journals Re-interpretation of the Two-World Background of Special Relativity as Four-World Background

2020 ◽  
pp. 10-38
Author(s):  
O. Akindele Adekugbe Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Many Worlds ◽  
Natural Laws

The appropriate placements of the four-dimensional spacetimes of different universes make their coexistence possible, such that corresponding points in spacetimes within the universes are not separated in space or time. The corresponding points do not touch, because they are points in separate spacetimes. The different universes are described heuristically as existing in separate spacetime ‘compartments’. This new conception of many worlds (or universes) is therefore entitled compartment worlds (or universes) in this article. Compartment universes is a potential platform for many-world interpretations and uniform formulation of the natural laws. The two-world background of the special theory of relativity (SR) (involving two compartment universes), demonstrated elsewhere, is re-interpreted as four-world background (involving four compartment universes) in this article.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document