The book The Physical and Mathematical Foundations of the Theory of Relativity by Romano and Furnari states the basic Postulate of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR as follows:
- All inertial frames are optically isotropic. (P)
The meaning is that propagation of light in any given Euclidean coordinate system, in a collection of Euclidean coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other (inertial systems), is described by literally the same Maxwell's equations (optically isotropic). This is a more precise formulation of that used by Einstein:
- The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems. (P')
Many-Minds Relativity MMR is an alternative to SR also based on (P), yet fundamentally different from SR.
SR is incompatible with Newtonian mechanics, which is a root cause of the crisis of modern physics.
MMR is compatible with Newtonian mechanics and thus opens a window out of the crisis.
How can it be that MMR is fundamentally different from SR, when they both appear to be based on the same principle (P), which appears to be perfectly reasonable?
The answer is that Einstein in addition to (P) sets as objective to coordinate observations in different inertial systems of the same "event", which leads him to the Lorentz coordinate transformation as the essence of SR with all its strange effects of space contraction and time dilation (as root cause of the crisis).
The basic case considered by Einstein is sending light signals from the origin $x=0$ of an $X$-system, and from the origin $x^\prime =0$ in an $X^\prime$-system moving with respect to $X$ assuming that the light signals are sent when the two origins coincide.
Einstein assumes that the two light signals are the same, which requires coordination of descriptions in $X$ and $X^\prime$ according to the Lorentz transformation. Einstein makes this identification based on an idea of an "event" as having no extension in space, which is unphysical in violation of Maxwell's equations.
However, in MMR the two light signals are not considered to be the same, because
- The physics of light propagation in $X$ (according to Maxwell) is different from the physics of light propagation in $X^\prime$ (according to Maxwell).
This was the topic of a previous post exhibiting connection emitter-receiver as a resonance phenomenon in a specific coordinate system according to Maxwell's equations.
We have now pinpointed exactly where Einstein leaves real physics and enters into "thought experiments" of "emitting light signals" in different coordinate systems while identifying them to be the same.
SR is a very confusing subject, which modern physicists avoid discussing by simply referring to the vast (confusing) literature, which is of little help to the curious or scientific community.
One way to handle this unhappy situation is to understand exactly where Einstein leaves the reasonable physics of (P) by posing an additional objective which is not reasonable from a physical point of view.
If you as a student of physics can understand the above, which is not difficult, you will be able to focus on understandable real physics instead of non-understandable non-physics and so prepare for a career as post-modern physicist. For an established modern physicist it will be difficult to understand. OK?
SR isn't just about light. It's about particles moving at speeds closer to light, or, if you do accurate measurements, far slower than that. If your theory agree with Newton it disagrees with observations.
SvaraRaderaThere are no observations in true conflict with Newton's mechanics.
RaderaA proper "no true scotsman" argument. You got a whole list of tests earlier and just ignore it.
Radera