onsdag 31 juli 2019

Special Theory of Relativity: Empty of Real Physics 2

Modern physics is supposed to be based on in particular on Einstein's special theory of relativity SR. In discussions with theoretical physicist Ulf Danielson recorded in a previous post, and in an upcoming post with physics philosopher Lars-Göran Johansson, my position is that SR is empty of real physics because the two basic Postulates of SR are definitions or analytic propositions true by definition (or stipulations without truth value), and not synthetic propositions about physics which may be false. To see this, recall the two basic Postulates of SR:
  1. Laws of physics have the same formal expression in different inertial systems.
  2. Measurements in different inertial systems (must) give the same constant speed of light.  
Inertial systems are space-time coordinate systems traveling with constant speed with respect to each other. 

Is Postulate 1 a synthetic proposition stating something about physical reality which may be false? No! It only states that a "law of physics" must meet a requirement of looking the same in all inertial systems.  It does not say what a "law of physics" is, nor gives any example, only states that it must look precisely the same in all inertial systems. It is thus a stipulation like a legal law, which has no truth value, or definition true by semantic construction. No physics in Postulate 1.

Postulate 2 is also a stipulation about the result of measurement of the speed of light by different observers using different inertial systems. Since speed is measured in terms of measures in space and time, Postulate 2 says that measures in space (meter) and time (seconds) must be chosen so that the speed of light comes out the same in all inertial systems. This is the SI standard since 1983 where the meter is defined as the distance traveled by light over a certain length of time as measured by a cesium atom clock.

Is Postulate 2 a synthetic proposition stating something about physical reality which may be false. No! It is a definition of the length scale to be used in different inertial systems, a stipulation or legal law to follow a certain standard, which again has no truth value. No physics in Postulate 2.

We arrive at the conclusion that since the Postulates of SR contain no physics, neither does SR.  Empty of physics = pseudo-physics!

Further evidence on the strange unphysical form the Postulates of SR is obtained from the observation that Postulate 2 appears to be a consequence of Postulate 1 using the following reasoning: If there is a law of propagation of light it must be viewed to be a "law of physics" and as such it must take the same form in all inertial systems by Postulate 1 and thus in particular express the same constant speed of light = the statement of Postulate 2. 

In fact, Postulate 1 is ridiculous and as such unphysical: Laws of physics in general have different formal expressions in different coordinate systems and so very few, if any, satisfy Postulate 1. Not even Maxwell's equations for the propagation of light waves in vacuum take the same form in different inertial systems since initial conditions change form and waves are extended in space and thus require initial values as wave forms extended in space at a specific time.  

Modern physics is thus based on empty physics, and so it is no surprise to meet modern physics empty of physics, such as multiversa and string theory. 

PS1 Recall Leibniz strict separation between space and time, in direct contradiction to the mixing of space and time in SR, with 
  • space = order of coexistence  (connecting to initial value),
  • time = order of succession.
PS2 In the upcoming discussion with philosopher Lars-Göran Johansson the question of analytic vs synthetic statement and Kant's synthetic a priori, will come up. LGJ will argue that the distinction between analytic and synthetic cannot be made and that there are propositions which are both analytic and synthetic, or neither. This can be a tricky debate, and to avoid getting bogged down in sophistry, I will seek to focus on the question which real physics is expressed in the Postulates of SR, if any.

PS3 Modern physics is based on Einstein's mechanics including SR, and not Newton's mechanics,  and thus it would seem to be one of the fundamental missions of education and practice of modern physics to subject SR to a critical analysis concerning form and physical meaning, right?

This is anyway the objective of the book Many-Minds Relativity. My conclusion is that SR is empty pseudo-science or fake-physics, which does not say anything of interest concerning the real physics of the world. But this is viewed simply as crackpot heretics, which a modern theoretical physicist can dismisses without any argument from a position that a critical analysis of SR is not needed nor possible, as shown in the discussion with Ulf Danielson.

1 kommentar:

  1. I agree with Claes Johnson 100%. He says that "SR is empty of real physics".
    I say in my research and in my book that SR does NOT verify our physical reality. Claes says that SR is "Empty of physics = pseudo-physics", I say that Special Relativity is Nonsense.

    I have read some books and heard from some people that:
    The Special Theory of Relativity has been verified many times (I think it says somewhere thousands of times) and it is true!

    These verifications are similar to the following:
    We say that
    P1: 2 = 3 (which is false). Then we build a more advanced expression using P1.
    P2: 2 + a = a + 3
    We now verify if P2 is correct. We use current mathematical rules and do calculations. We add -a to both joints.
    → 2 + a + (-a) = a + 3 + (-a)
    → 2 + 0 = 3 + 0
    → 2 = 3
    We got P1. We have verified that the experiment P2 verifies P1 although P1 is false !!!

    I would also like to quote another book:Introduction to Physics; J. D. Cutnell, K. W. Johnson;
    ”Since the laws of physics are the same in all referens frames, there is no experiment that can distinguish between an inertial frame that is at rest and one that is moving at a constant velocity”

    If this is so why is one within SR talking about one reference system at rest and another in motion? How do you know which is which?