New experimental tests of the special principle of relativity

1962 ◽  
Vol 270 (1342) ◽  
pp. 306-314 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Experimental Tests ◽  
Absolute Velocity ◽  
The Sun ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Principle Of Relativity ◽  
Upper Limit ◽  
Propagation Of Light ◽  
Velocity Of Propagation

In view of the far-reaching consequences of Einstein’s principle of relativity it is quite remarkable how few direct experimental tests of this principle have actually been performed. The classical experiments by Michelson (1881), and by Michelson & Morley (1887), on which the theory of relativity was based, date back to the end of the last century. Michelson & Morley utilized an interferometer arrangement which should allow the detection of a possible influence of the absolute velocity of the laboratory on the velocity of propagation of light. In accordance with the principle of relativity, no such influence was revealed by these experiments. However, this result was contested by Miller (1933), and even the later more accurate experiments of this type, performed by Joos as late as in 1930, provided only an upper limit for the ether drift of 1.5 km/s. Although this value is a good deal smaller than the 30 km/s of the earth’s motion around the sun, it is perhaps fair to say that if the principle of relativity had to be based on these experiments only, its foundation would be somewhat shaky. It is true that by now we have good experimental verifications of a large number of special relativity effects which ultimately are based on the principle of relativity. Nevertheless, it would be desirable to have other direct tests of this principle with a higher accuracy than the experiments of the Michelson-Morley type.

Space-time Transformations in Ether Theories

1991 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 419-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Selleri
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Relativity Theory ◽  
Absolute Velocity ◽  
Ether Theory ◽  
Velocity Of Light ◽  
Principle Of Relativity ◽  
Inertial Frames ◽  
Special Relativity Theory ◽  
Time Transformations ◽  
Ether Theories

AbstractBy assuming the validity of the principle of inertia and the existence of a privileged frame, the transformation laws (TL) between inertial frames are investigated in ether theories. For onedimensional space the TL's are fixed up to two undetermined functions of absolute velocity, Δ (v) and E(v). If the principle of relativity is finally assumed, these functions acquire their well known Lorentzian expressions ΔL and EL. It is concluded that special relativity theory is "unstable", in the sense that any shift, however small, of Δ away from ΔL and/or of E away from EL leads to an ether theory. In Earth-based experiments one can expect deviations from c of the two-way and one-way velocity of light of the order of 10-12 and 10 -9 respectively

Derivation of special relativity from Maxwell and Newton

2008 ◽  
Vol 366 (1871) ◽  
pp. 1861-1865 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.J Dunstan
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Experimental Work ◽  
Displacement Current ◽  
Lorentz Transformations ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Principle Of Relativity ◽  
Propagation Of Light ◽  
Newton’S Laws ◽  
Laws Of Motion

Special relativity derives directly from the principle of relativity and from Newton's laws of motion with a single undetermined parameter, which is found from Faraday's and Ampère's experimental work and from Maxwell's own introduction of the displacement current to be the − c −2 term in the Lorentz transformations. The axiom of the constancy of the speed of light is quite unnecessary. The behaviour and the mechanism of the propagation of light are not at the foundations of special relativity.

scholarly journals Discussion on the theory of relativity

1920 ◽  
Vol 97 (681) ◽  
pp. 66-79 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Positive Result ◽  
Second Law Of Thermodynamics ◽  
Second Law ◽  
The Sun ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Universal Principle ◽  
Main Interest ◽  
Conservation Of Energy ◽  
Principle Of Relativity

Mr. J. H. Jeans: During the last century, two great dominating principles of physics emerged—the Conservation of Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The present century has already added a third member to this list, the principle of Relativity, which we are to discuss to-day. The three principles have in common that they do not explain how or why events happen; they merely limit the types of events which can happen. Thus the principle of Conservation of Energy shows that water cannot flow uphill; the Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that heat cannot flow from a cold body to a hot; the principle of Relativity shows that a planet cannot describe a perfect ellipse about the sun as focus. But it would be as unreasonable to expect the principle of Relativity to explain why a planet describes an orbit or how a ray of light is propagated as it would to propound the same questions to the principle of Conservation of Energy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All three principles deal with events, and not with the mechanism of events. The main interest of the new theory, however, is not merely that it discloses a new universal principle; it is rather that it discloses a new universe. Our former belief that the foundations of science had been laid for all time has been shattered; we now find that the land on which we had built was largely a mirage. New and mysterious continents appear for science to explore, but it is not for the theory of Relativity to explore them. The methods of that theory are destructive rather than constructive, and, when the theory predicts a positive result, it is invariably for the same reason, namely, that a process of exhaustion shows that any other result would be impossible.

Special relativity and the Lorentz sphere

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Crothers
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Lorentz Transformation ◽  
Spherical Wave ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Inertial System ◽  
Rectilinear Motion ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Principle Of Relativity

The special theory of relativity demands, by Einstein's two postulates (i) the principle of relativity and (ii) the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, that a spherical wave of light in one inertial system transforms, via the Lorentz transformation, into a spherical wave of light (the Lorentz sphere) in another inertial system when the systems are in constant relative rectilinear motion. However, the Lorentz transformation in fact transforms a spherical wave of light into a translated ellipsoidal wave of light even though the speed of light in vacuum is invariant. The special theory of relativity is logically inconsistent and therefore invalid.

scholarly journals FAC-Net: Feedback Attention Network Based on Context Encoder Network for Skin Lesion Segmentation

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (15) ◽  
pp. 5172
Author(s):  
Yuying Dong ◽  
Liejun Wang ◽  
Shuli Cheng ◽  
Yongming Li
Keyword(s):  
Skin Lesion ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Experimental Tests ◽  
Skin Lesions ◽  
Lesion Segmentation ◽  
Attention Network ◽  
Effective Feedback ◽  
Public Datasets ◽  
Learning Architectures

Considerable research and surveys indicate that skin lesions are an early symptom of skin cancer. Segmentation of skin lesions is still a hot research topic. Dermatological datasets in skin lesion segmentation tasks generated a large number of parameters when data augmented, limiting the application of smart assisted medicine in real life. Hence, this paper proposes an effective feedback attention network (FAC-Net). The network is equipped with the feedback fusion block (FFB) and the attention mechanism block (AMB), through the combination of these two modules, we can obtain richer and more specific feature mapping without data enhancement. Numerous experimental tests were given by us on public datasets (ISIC2018, ISBI2017, ISBI2016), and a good deal of metrics like the Jaccard index (JA) and Dice coefficient (DC) were used to evaluate the results of segmentation. On the ISIC2018 dataset, we obtained results for DC equal to 91.19% and JA equal to 83.99%, compared with the based network. The results of these two main metrics were improved by more than 1%. In addition, the metrics were also improved in the other two datasets. It can be demonstrated through experiments that without any enhancements of the datasets, our lightweight model can achieve better segmentation performance than most deep learning architectures.

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 Discussion on Relativity of Time Interval in the Theory of Relativity

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 41
Author(s):  
Zhonggang Li
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Light Source ◽  
Vertical Line ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Principle Of Relativity

Einstein's principle of relativity is an important fundamental of relativity. It can also be said that relativity is based on the assumption of the principle of relativity. This assumption can be represented by a diagram of "relativity of time interval", as shown in Fig.  a . According to the theory of relativity, a flash emits from the light source in the moving car and returns to the light source after being reflected by the mirror on the roof. The person in the train thinks that the flash returns to the light source along a vertical line, and the person off the train thinks that the flash returns to the light source along the AMB  curve. The time taken in the two routes is inconsistent. In fact, it is a preconception. Einstein believes that the flash will undoubtedly return to the light source, which is a matter of course and need not be discussed. Therefore, he did not think more and immediately carried out the next research on the time taken inside and outside the train. Here's where the problem arose. Is there an experimental evidence? If the flash does return to the light source, then the next analysis carried out by Einstein is correct and impeccable. However, if the flash does not return to the light source, then Einstein's next analysis and the whole theory of relativity make no sense.

Related to Relativity

2019 ◽  
pp. 265-284
Author(s):  
Steven J. Osterlind
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
General Relativity ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Golden Age ◽  
Albert Einstein ◽  
Space Time ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Scientific Exploration ◽  
Richard Burton ◽  
Time Continuum

This chapter provides the context for the early twentieth-century events contributing to quantification. It was the golden age of scientific exploration, with explorers like David Livingstone, Sir Richard Burton, and Sir Ernest Shackleton, and intellectual pursuits, such as Hilbert’s set of unsolved problems in mathematics. However, most of the chapter is devoted to discussing the last major influencer of quantification: Albert Einstein. His life and accomplishments, including his theory of relativity, make up the final milestone on our road to quantification. The chapter describes his time in Bern, especially in 1905, when he published several famous papers, most particularly his law of special relativity, and later, in 1915, when he expanded it to his theory of general relativity. The chapter also provides a layperson’s description of the space–time continuum. Women of major scientific accomplishments are mentioned, including Madame Currie and the mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani.

James Bradley, Sailing on the Thames

Lightspeed ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 49-57
Author(s):  
John C. H. Spence
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
The Sun ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Astronomical Observations ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Independent Estimate ◽  
The Universe ◽  
At Home

The story of the astronomical observations of James Bradley in the eighteenth century, whose measurements of the small movements of a star throughout the year provided an independent estimate of the speed of the Earth around the Sun relative to the speed of light. His work provided the first experimental evidence in support of Copernicus’s theory that the earth is in motion, and against the idea that it is stationary at the center of the universe. His simple telescope at home, his brilliant idea and perseverance, and his life’s work and influence. The importance of his result for the development of Einstein’s theory of relativity and for theories of the Aether in the following centuries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document