Blog Ekkehard Friebe

By  I. S. Minhas 2004

Beitrag aus dem GOM-Projekt: 2394 weitere kritische Veröffentlichungen
zur Ergänzung der Dokumentation Textversion 1.2 – 2004, Kapitel 4. 

Special relativity prescribes a new definition of measurement [Part 1]: [datiert: 15.4.04].
In: The general science journal. 2004 = – 5 S.
http://wbabin.net/physics/minhas.htm

Auszug: "Abstract – It is brought out that special relativity is afflicted with an inconsistency which can be removed only by postulating that light is not an electromagnetic phenomenon but is associated in an identical manner with all phenomena. A clue to the nature of this association is given by an analysis of length contraction which shows that light is necessarily involved in the operations of measuring length and that these operations are the same for all inertial observers. This entails a new definition of the term "measurement." (…)

Now, there are a few points which make the link alleged by Einstein (and accepted ex cathedra by Bridgman and others) between length contraction and his procedures (a) and (b) look suspicious. For example, consider another inertial frame S‘ in which also the rod R is moving parallel to its length but with a speed v‘ which is different from its speed v in S. According to special relativity, its length l‘ as measured by the observer in S‘ is given by [4] l‘ = lo (1 – v’²/c²)[½] . (2) This observer has to necessarily use the same procedure for the measurement of l‘ as that used by the observer in S for the measurement of l because the rod is moving relative to both of them. So we have the observers in frames S and S‘ measuring the length of the rod using identical procedures and yet obtaining different results, l and l‘, respectively. Now, special relativity has the same explanation for the difference of l and l‘ as that for the difference of l and l[o]; thus, l is different from l‘ because v is different from v‘, and l is different from lo because v is different from zero. But the explanation which Einstein [5,6], Bridgman [7] and others concerned give for the difference of l and l[o], namely, in terms of different procedures (a) and (b), is not valid for the difference of l and l‘, and is therefore wrong.

This mistake of Einstein not only went undetected but was also made the launching pad of a new philosophy of physics called operationism. And the builders of this philosophy also made many more mistakes on their own. One of these concerns length contraction.

To bring it out, let us read Frank’s rendering of the operational meaning of concepts. He writes, "A concept (e.g., "length") has an operational meaning if we can give an "operational definition" of that concept. This means that we have to describe a set of physical operations, which we must carry out, in order to assign in every individual case a uniquely determinate value to the concept (e.g., to the length of an individual piece of iron). We know that the "length" depends on temperature, pressure, electric charge, and other physical properties. Since Einstein’s theory of relativity, we know that the length of a body will "alter" with its speed [this is length contraction]. Hence the description of the operation by which we measure a length contains also the operation by which we keep temperature, pressure, speed, etc., constant. Or, in other words, the operational definition of length contains, strictly speaking, also the operational definitions of temperature, pressure, speed, etc." [9]

Before coming to the mistake in question, note that there is a circularity implicit in the last sentence of this quotation; this is because the operational definition of each of temperature, pressure and speed, in turn, contains the operational definition of length. Popper has just this in mind when he writes that "it can be shown quite easily that all so-called operational definitions will be circular." [10]"

Lesen Sie bitte hier weiter!