{"id":3130,"date":"2012-03-05T08:41:52","date_gmt":"2012-03-05T07:41:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/?p=3130"},"modified":"2012-03-05T08:41:52","modified_gmt":"2012-03-05T07:41:52","slug":"dingle%e2%80%99s-argument-and-question-about-special-relativity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/dingle%e2%80%99s-argument-and-question-about-special-relativity\/","title":{"rendered":"Dingle\u2019s Argument And Question About Special Relativity"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\" <\/dt>\n<\/dl>\n

In der bereits genannten Internetseite http:\/\/twinparadox.net\/<\/span><\/strong><\/a> der Natural Philosophy Alliance<\/span><\/strong><\/a> (NPA) aus den USA wurde inzwischen folgender, wichtiger Link erg\u00e4nzt: Dingle’s Question<\/span><\/a><\/strong>: Dingle\u2019s Argument And Question About Special Relativity.<\/strong> Nachstehend bringen wir Ausz\u00fcge hieraus:
\nProfessor Herbert Dingle<\/span><\/a><\/strong> ( see his book: "Science At The Crossroads"<\/span><\/a>\u00a0) was one of the most respected relativists of his era \u2013 at least until he started asking questions that no one could answer. As discussed on the Report page, Dingle became involved in a much publicized debate about the Twin Paradox and his name became intimately linked with that paradox. However, Dingle soon took the essence of the Twin Paradox and created a very simple question about Special Relativity. He was to pursue his questioning of Special Relativity for decades. Many relativists heaped scorn and ridicule on Dingle and his question, but no answer was received.\n<\/p>\n

In his book, "Science At The Crossroads"<\/span><\/a>, Professor Herbert Dingle,<\/strong> on page 7, gave the simple, basic question \u2013 see below:<\/p>\n

THE QUESTION
\n\u201cAccording to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates (a more detailed, but equally simple, statement is given on pp. 45-6, but this gives the full essence of the matter), i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the ‚moving‘ one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly?<\/span><\/strong> Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A –which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false. But, as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort have failed to produce either response.\u201d<\/span>\n<\/p>\n

Din<\/span>gle saw that if one could not explain the net proper time difference using Special Relativity\u2019s time dilation equation, then Special Relativity could not be directly describing actual clock slowing, i.e., it could not be directly describing proper time. In time, most of the mainstream quietly came to agree with Dingle regarding his view on the Twin Paradox, but they either did not see or publicize the corollary that, therefore, Special Relativity could not be directly describing proper time.<\/p>\n

Further Interpretation
\n<\/strong>If one contends that a clock cannot accumulate proper time both faster and slower than another clock, then one cannot interpret Special Relativity\u2019s time dilation equation as describing proper time and, hence, cannot interpret it as directly describing what\u2019s occurring physically. Since Special Relativity\u2019s length contraction equation was derived using the same basic logic as for the time dilation equation, an analogous conclusion holds for that equation. It then follows that Special Relativity\u2019s equations for kinetic energy and momentum cannot be directly describing what\u2019s occurring physically. Putting it succinctly, Special Relativity cannot directly describe what\u2019s occurring physically and that includes, given its definition of clock synchronization, its postulate on the speed of light in inertial frames.\n<\/p>\n

Einstein, in his 1905 \u201crelativity\u201d paper, selected a convention for synchronizing clocks. This convention stated that if one sent a light signal from to A to B and it was reflected back to B, then the time for going from A to B would equal the time for going back from B to A. Thus, the time it took for light to go from A to B would be \u00bd the time for the complete round trip. This convention is consistent with and, in fact, is required by the 2nd<\/sup> relativity postulate that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames. The 2nd<\/sup> postulate and this synchronization convention are, of course, part of the foundation of Special Relativity.<\/p>\n

However, Prof. Selleri, in Chapter 5 of his book \u201cWeak Relativity<\/span><\/a>\u201d, notes that professors H. R. Reichenbach and Max Jammer have shown that one can choose the ratio of the time it takes for light to go from A to B to the time for the complete round trip to be any fraction between 0 and 1 and that will yield a theory that is as valid as Special Relativity. Using \u201ce\u201d as the ratio that Einstein chose to be \u00bd, Reichenbach showed that any value for e, where 0 < e <1, would likewise be adequate and could not be considered false. Jammer agreed with Reichenbach and wrote, "The thesis of the conventionality of intrasystemic distant simultaneity … consists in the statement that the numerical value of e need not necessarily be 1\/2, but may be any number in the open interval between 0 and 1, i.e., 0 < e <1, without ever leading to any conflict with experience."<\/em> None of these choices for e would lead to a theory that described what was happening physically as they would all be based on a premise that was, in general, false.<\/p>\n

Hence, the selection of e = 0.5 for all directions in all frames is a convention that does not represent what\u2019s happening physically. For the unique<\/span> frame where the speed of light is<\/span><\/em><\/strong> isotropic, the selection of e = 0.5 would be accurate. However, Einstein\u2019s convention simply tries to make every frame simulate<\/span> the unique frame so, when the conventions of Special Relativity are followed, each observer (erroneously) observes the world as though<\/span> he were at rest in the unique frame.<\/p>\n

It is, therefore, recommended that the physics community seriously consider the construct of a unique physics frame and the associated construction of what\u2019s happening physically in addition to Special Relativity\u2019s description of each observer\u2019s conflicting views.<\/p>\n

References
\n<\/span><\/strong>H. Dingle, Science at the Crossroads<\/em> (Martin Brian &amp; O’Keeffe, 1972), Downloadable from the NPA – Click Here<\/span><\/a>\u00a0
\nF. Selleri, LA<\/em> RELATIVITA‘ DEBOLE La fisica dello spazio e <\/em>del<\/em> tempo senza paradossi<\/em> (Melquiades, Milano 2007-2010) [The online English version, "<\/em>Weak Relativity<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/span>"<\/span> <\/em>is downloadable.]
\nH. R. Reichenbach, The<\/em> Philosophy of Space and Time<\/em> (Dover, New York, 1958)
\nH. R. Reichenbach, Philosophie<\/em> der Raum-Zeit-Lehre<\/em>, (Berlin, 1928) p. 224
\nM. Jammer, Concepts of Simultaneity<\/em> (The John Hopkins University Press, 2006)
\nM. Jammer. at page 205 of G. Toraldo di Francia, ed., Problems ni the Foundations of Physics<\/em> (Societa Italiana di Fisica, Bologna and North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979)\n<\/p>\n

Printable Version<\/span><\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In der bereits genannten Internetseite http:\/\/twinparadox.net\/ der Natural Philosophy Alliance (NPA) aus den USA wurde inzwischen folgender, wichtiger Link erg\u00e4nzt: Dingle’s Question: Dingle\u2019s Argument And Question About Special Relativity. Nachstehend bringen wir Ausz\u00fcge hieraus: Professor Herbert Dingle ( see his book: "Science At The Crossroads"\u00a0) was one of the most respected relativists of his era […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3130","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-englischsprachige-kritik-der-relativitatstheorie"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3130"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3130"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3130\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3130"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3130"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ekkehard-friebe.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3130"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}