Difference between revisions of "Will on special relativity"

From Relativity
Jump to: navigation, search
m (1 revision imported)
(-keyboarding errors, some rephrasing)
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
==Critical analysis==
 
==Critical analysis==
The problem with Will's list is that items 1, 3 and 4 are easily checked out and turn out to be correct regardless of whether we use special relativity of the previous system, Newtonian mechanics. if we take Einstein's argument for E=mc^2, which uses the SR shift relationships, and we replace them with the relationships of Newtonian theory, we get precisely the same result. if we calculate the penetration depth of a muon before decay using NM and SR, starting from agreed inputs such as energy and momentum, we fund that the particles decay at precisely the same height regardless of which theory we use. if we turn to #4 and particle accelerators, we find that since the NM relationships both predict that a receding or passing radiation-source drops towards zero as the velocity approachers lightspeed, so for an accelerated particle, the coupling efficiency of the accelerators fields drops to zero at v=c for both theories.
+
The problem with Will's list is that items 1, 3 and 4 are easily checked out and turn out to be correct regardless of whether we use special relativity of the previous system, Newtonian mechanics. If we take Einstein's argument for E=mc^2, which uses the SR shift relationships, and we replace them with the relationships of Newtonian theory, we get precisely the same result. If we calculate the penetration depth of a muon before decay using NM and SR, starting from agreed inputs such as energy and momentum, we find that the particles decay at precisely the same height regardless of which theory we use. If we turn to #4 and particle accelerators, we find that since the NM relationships both predict that a receding or passing radiation-source drops towards zero as the velocity approaches lightspeed, so for an accelerated particle, the coupling efficiency of the accelerators fields drops to zero at <math>v=c</math> for both theories.
  
Point #2 which says that the effect wouldn't happen if it were not for SR is provably wrong, and points #1 and #4 which imply a significant linkage between SR and the effects are as the very least, desperately misleading. The truth is that we get all three effect regardless of whether we use the SR or NM shift relationships.
+
Point #3 which says that the effect wouldn't happen if it were not for SR is provably wrong, and points #1 and #4 which imply a significant linkage between SR and the effects are as the very least, extremely misleading. The truth is that we get all three effect regardless of whether we use the SR or NM shift relationships.
  
Evaluating claim #2 is obviously more difficult. SR is a classical theory, and QM predicts nonclassical behaviours that do not exist in SR or in an SR-based general theory. However, the alternative to SR, a [[relativistic acoustic metric]], appears to be ''dual'' with quantum mechanics, and ''does'' predict apparently non-classical effects such as [[Hawking radiation]], from classical principles. So where Will says that "the welding together of special relativity with the quantum theory" has led to a total understanding of chemistry, it might be that the success is due to QM providing all the mechanisms that are missing from an SR description, but which might not be missing under a different, better system – if we replaced SR with a relativistic acoustic metric, it might be that it and QM simply fit together, with no "welding" necessary.
+
Evaluating claim #2 is obviously more difficult. SR is a classical theory, and QM predicts nonclassical behaviours that do not exist in SR or in an SR-based general theory. However, the alternative to SR, a [[relativistic acoustic metric]], appears to be ''dual'' with quantum mechanics, and ''does'' predict apparently non-classical effects such as [[Hawking radiation]], from classical principles. So where Will says that <q>the welding together of special relativity with the quantum theory</q> has led to a total understanding of chemistry, it might be that the success is due to QM providing all the mechanisms that are missing from an SR description, but which might not be missing under a different, better system – if we replaced SR with a relativistic acoustic metric, it might be that it and QM simply give dual descriptions, with no "welding" necessary.
  
It is troubling that a world expert in relativity testing would be making these sorts of elementary errors in the 1980s. Assuming that Will's general knowledge on SR testing wasn't ''worse'' than that of the average physicist of the time, it seems that as late as 1986 (when the book was published), the general physics community may still have had no real idea as to the correct way to assess the validity of special relativity or judge the significance of its results.
+
It is troubling to see a world expert in relativity testing saying these sorts of things as late as the 1980s. Assuming that Will's general knowledge on SR testing wasn't ''worse'' than that of the average physicist of the time, it seems that as late as 1986 (when the book was published), the general physics community may still not have had much of an idea about the correct way to assess the validity of special relativity, or the proper way to judge the significance of its results.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 22:10, 4 July 2016


Clifford M. Will is one of the foremost authorities on the testing and classification of gravitational theories, and one of the main architects of the PPN (Parameterised Post Newtonian) system for evaluating gravitational models.

His popular book, "Was Einstein Right: Putting General Relativity to the Test" gives an engaging account of the history of GR testing, and is a recommended source for anyone interested in the subject. Will comes across as pleasant, humorous, cheerful, highly-informed and very, very credible. However, in the Appendix to the book, "Special Relativity: Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt", scientific rationality appears ot be put on holdand replaced by faulty theological arguments:

"IT IS DIFFICULT to imagine life without special relativity. Just think of all the phenomena or features of our world in which special relativity plays a role."

Will then lists

  1. "Atomic energy" (SR's prediction of E=mc^2)
  2. "Chemistry, the basis of life itself" (the success of a combination of QM and SR in describing atomic structure)
  3. "Evolution of the species" (the amount of mutation-inducing high-energy particles that reach ground level when cosmic rays strike the upper atmosphere: "The muon ... would decay long before reaching sea level ... if it weren't for the time dilation of special relativity")
  4. "The US National Budget" (the high cost of the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC), due to the difficulty of accelerating particles closer and closer to the speed of light)


"Special relativity is so much a part not only of physics but of everyday life, that it is no longer appropriate to view it as the special "theory" of relativity. it is a fact, as basic to the world as the existence of atoms or the quantum theory of matter. ..."

Critical analysis

The problem with Will's list is that items 1, 3 and 4 are easily checked out and turn out to be correct regardless of whether we use special relativity of the previous system, Newtonian mechanics. If we take Einstein's argument for E=mc^2, which uses the SR shift relationships, and we replace them with the relationships of Newtonian theory, we get precisely the same result. If we calculate the penetration depth of a muon before decay using NM and SR, starting from agreed inputs such as energy and momentum, we find that the particles decay at precisely the same height regardless of which theory we use. If we turn to #4 and particle accelerators, we find that since the NM relationships both predict that a receding or passing radiation-source drops towards zero as the velocity approaches lightspeed, so for an accelerated particle, the coupling efficiency of the accelerators fields drops to zero at [math]v=c[/math] for both theories.

Point #3 which says that the effect wouldn't happen if it were not for SR is provably wrong, and points #1 and #4 which imply a significant linkage between SR and the effects are as the very least, extremely misleading. The truth is that we get all three effect regardless of whether we use the SR or NM shift relationships.

Evaluating claim #2 is obviously more difficult. SR is a classical theory, and QM predicts nonclassical behaviours that do not exist in SR or in an SR-based general theory. However, the alternative to SR, a relativistic acoustic metric, appears to be dual with quantum mechanics, and does predict apparently non-classical effects such as Hawking radiation, from classical principles. So where Will says that the welding together of special relativity with the quantum theory has led to a total understanding of chemistry, it might be that the success is due to QM providing all the mechanisms that are missing from an SR description, but which might not be missing under a different, better system – if we replaced SR with a relativistic acoustic metric, it might be that it and QM simply give dual descriptions, with no "welding" necessary.

It is troubling to see a world expert in relativity testing saying these sorts of things as late as the 1980s. Assuming that Will's general knowledge on SR testing wasn't worse than that of the average physicist of the time, it seems that as late as 1986 (when the book was published), the general physics community may still not have had much of an idea about the correct way to assess the validity of special relativity, or the proper way to judge the significance of its results.

References

  • Clifford M. Will, Was Einstein Right?: Putting General Relativity to the Test (OUP, 1986), Appendix ISBN 0192822039