On the experimental indistinguibility between Lorentz theory of electrons and special relativity

1977 ◽  
Vol 18 (16) ◽  
pp. 508-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Cavalleri ◽  
Ø. Grøn
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Lorentz Theory

A modified Lorentz theory as a test theory of special relativity

1988 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Chang ◽  
D. G. Torr ◽  
D. R. Gagnon
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Test Theory ◽  
Lorentz Theory

Anti-Relativity in Action: The Scientific Activity of Herbert E. Ives between 1937 and 1953

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Lalli
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Scientific Activity ◽  
Relativity Theory ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Public Network ◽  
Distant Simultaneity ◽  
Lorentz Theory ◽  
Scientific Context ◽  
Special Relativity Theory

Between 1937 and 1953 the industrial physicist Herbert E. Ives pursued an extended research program with the aim of challenging the acceptance of relativity theories, and became the most important American opponent of Einstein during that era. As part of his anti-relativistic efforts Ives also performed the famous Ives-Stilwell experiment. Usually interpreted as the first direct confirmation of the time dilation formula of special relativity theory, this experiment was regarded by Ives as proof of what he called the Larmor-Lorentz theory. Ives’s heterodox views about relativity were mainly ignored by the scientific community during his lifetime. After his death, however, his criticisms of what the majority of physicists took for granted helped spark philosophical discussions in the late 1950s concerning the conventional stipulation of distant simultaneity in special relativity theory. Ives’s anti-relativistic beliefs and actions allow for an analysis of the heterodox efforts of an accredited member of the scientific community and the subsequent process of his professional marginalization in a specific historical and scientific context. This paper has three aims: to uncover the epistemic roots of Ives’s opposition to relativity; to analyze Ives’s rhetorical strategies and the reasons why he failed to persuade his peers; and to reveal the divergence between the public network of allies Ives built in scientific publications and the hidden network of allies present in his correspondence. It will become clear that the hardening of Ives’s tone against relativity and Einstein can be understood in light of his progressive marginalization and loss of recognized socioprofessional identity due to his unorthodox ideas. Ives’s case is illuminating for the historical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives it provides on the complex mechanisms by which the margins interact with the mainstream of science, both in the production of certified knowledge and in the contextually contingent redefinition and reconfiguration of the boundaries of acceptable scientific discourse.

GRAVITY CAN BE OBSERVED IN THE ABSENCE OF CURVED SPACETIME, THUS CURVED SPACETIME IS NOT RESPONCIBLE FOR GRAVITY

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1976-1981
Author(s):  
Casey McMahon
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Relative Position ◽  
Gravitational Force ◽  
Curved Spacetime ◽  
Relative Time ◽  
Curved Space ◽  
Spacetime Curvature ◽  
Equivalence Model ◽  
The Universe

The principle postulate of general relativity appears to be that curved space or curved spacetime is gravitational, in that mass curves the spacetime around it, and that this curved spacetime acts on mass in a manner we call gravity. Here, I use the theory of special relativity to show that curved spacetime can be non-gravitational, by showing that curve-linear space or curved spacetime can be observed without exerting a gravitational force on mass to induce motion- as well as showing gravity can be observed without spacetime curvature. This is done using the principles of special relativity in accordance with Einstein to satisfy the reader, using a gravitational equivalence model. Curved spacetime may appear to affect the apparent relative position and dimensions of a mass, as well as the relative time experienced by a mass, but it does not exert gravitational force (gravity) on mass. Thus, this paper explains why there appears to be more gravity in the universe than mass to account for it, because gravity is not the resultant of the curvature of spacetime on mass, thus the “dark matter” and “dark energy” we are looking for to explain this excess gravity doesn’t exist.

The irreversible part of special relativity.ver4

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vitaly Kuyukov
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity

The irreversible part of special relativity

An analogy between electromagnetic and internal waves

2019 ◽  
Vol 485 (4) ◽  
pp. 428-433
Author(s):  
V. G. Baydulov ◽  
P. A. Lesovskiy
Keyword(s):  
Angular Momentum ◽  
Conservation Laws ◽  
Internal Wave ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Internal Waves ◽  
Maxwell Equations ◽  
Wave Equations ◽  
Lagrange Function ◽  
Lorentz Transformations ◽  
Symmetry Transformations

For the symmetry group of internal-wave equations, the mechanical content of invariants and symmetry transformations is determined. The performed comparison makes it possible to construct expressions for analogs of momentum, angular momentum, energy, Lorentz transformations, and other characteristics of special relativity and electro-dynamics. The expressions for the Lagrange function are defined, and the conservation laws are derived. An analogy is drawn both in the case of the absence of sources and currents in the Maxwell equations and in their presence.

Hunting for the Luminiferous Ether

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Lalli
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Early Twentieth Century ◽  
Null Result ◽  
Morley Experiment

This chapter re-examines the view widely held by physicists that the luminiferous ether became an outdated concept in the early twentieth century and that Albert Einstein’s special relativity killed it. A second common narrative is that the null result of the 1887 Michelson–Morley ether-drift experiment led to Einstein’s theory and the demise of the ether. On the basis of these two simplified narratives, it has become part of the physicists’ ‘imagined past’ that the Michelson–Morley experiment provided the key evidence decreeing the end of the ether. Using scientometrics, this chapter argues that the first part of this idealised narrative is misleading and that the two parts of this narrative are deeply intertwined, as both had historical roots in the reception of Einstein’s relativity theories. In this perspective, the well-known episode of Dayton C. Miller’s repetition of the Michelson–Morley experiment in the 1920s appears in a new light.

The Equivalence Principle

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Wittman
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Equivalence Principle ◽  
Time Dilation ◽  
Gravitational Redshift ◽  
Coordinate Systems ◽  
Spacetime Metric

The equivalence principle is an important thinking tool to bootstrap our thinking from the inertial coordinate systems of special relativity to the more complex coordinate systems that must be used in the presence of gravity (general relativity). The equivalence principle posits that at a given event gravity accelerates everything equally, so gravity is equivalent to an accelerating coordinate system.This conjecture is well supported by precise experiments, so we explore the consequences in depth: gravity curves the trajectory of light as it does other projectiles; the effects of gravity disappear in a freely falling laboratory; and gravitymakes time runmore slowly in the basement than in the attic—a gravitational form of time dilation. We show how this is observable via gravitational redshift. Subsequent chapters will build on this to show how the spacetime metric varies with location.

Spacetime Geometry

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Wittman
Keyword(s):  
Coordinate System ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Displacement Vector ◽  
Proper Time ◽  
Plane Geometry ◽  
Spatial Displacement ◽  
Spacetime Geometry ◽  
Space And Time ◽  
Displacement Vectors

This chapter shows that the counterintuitive aspects of special relativity are due to the geometry of spacetime. We begin by showing, in the familiar context of plane geometry, how a metric equation separates frame‐dependent quantities from invariant ones. The components of a displacement vector depend on the coordinate system you choose, but its magnitude (the distance between two points, which is more physically meaningful) is invariant. Similarly, space and time components of a spacetime displacement are frame‐dependent, but the magnitude (proper time) is invariant and more physically meaningful. In plane geometry displacements in both x and y contribute positively to the distance, but in spacetime geometry the spatial displacement contributes negatively to the proper time. This is the source of counterintuitive aspects of special relativity. We develop spacetime intuition by practicing with a graphic stretching‐triangle representation of spacetime displacement vectors.

Special Relativity: Putting it All Together

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Wittman
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Moving Object ◽  
Velocity Addition

We have introduced the ideas of special relativity in quick succession because none of those ideas can really be understood in isolation. This chapter works through examples in some detail so you can practice applying the ideas and solidifying your understanding.We start with an overview of how to use spacetime diagrams to solve problems in special relativity, then we walk through examples ofmeasuring the length of a moving object; the train‐in‐tunnel paradox; velocity addition; and how clock readings are arranged so that each observer measures the other’s clocks as ticking slowly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document