Relativity and its philosophy

The purpose of the present study is to develop a counterpart of the special relativity theory that is consistent with the existence of a preferred frame but, like the standard relativity theory, is based on the relativity principle and the universality of the (two-way) speed of light. The synthesis of such seemingly incompatible concepts as the existence of preferred frame and the relativity principle is possible at the expense of the freedom in assigning the one-way speeds of light that exists in special relativity. In the framework developed, a degree of anisotropy of the one-way speed acquires meaning of a characteristic of the really existing anisotropy caused by motion of an inertial frame relative to the preferred frame. The anisotropic special relativity kinematics is developed based on the symmetry principles: 1) Space-time transformations between inertial frames leave the equation of anisotropic light propagation invariant and 2) a set of the transformations possesses a group structure. The Lie group theory apparatus is applied to define groups of transformations between inertial frames. Applying the transformations to the problem of calculating the CMB temperature distribution yields a relation in which the angular dependence coincides with that obtained on the basis of the standard relativity theory but the mean temperature is corrected by the terms second order in the observer velocity.

called the special theory of relativity, no doubt one of the boldest and most interesting theories ever designed.' Generations of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers were inspired by it. Bitter battles were fought over its principles and deductions which clashed with many an honourable idea backed up by honourable philosophical and scientific traditions. Yet all the knocks and bites from left and right seem to have left Einstein's theory unshaken. Today the battle-grounds of yesterday look rather deserted. The critic is likely to be silenced in the face of the theory's spectacular success. In the following I shall try to throw some new light on one or two old problems which Einstein's theory gives rise to. Section z is concerned with the obstacles we are faced with when we try to combine Einstein's special theory of relativity with a causal account of relativistic phenomena. The argument does not show, of course, that Einstein's theory is false, but it points to a possible incompleteness and to certain limitations inherent in the special theory of relativity. In section 3 a substratum theory of relativity is outlined which seems to be as simple and coherent as Einstein's special theory of relativity; the Lorentz transformations are deduced from two basic principles without making use of the principle of relativity. Finally, in section 4, the two theories are compared and some general conclusions are drawn. But let us first have a short look at the ideas underlying Einstein's theory. To begin with, the special theory of relativity is a transformation theory. This is its most fundamental aspect. Suppose we know the space and time co-ordinates of an event particle e (event with negligible spatiotemporal extension) in an inertial frame of reference F; then the theory

Having established in previous articles that the principle of the constancy of speed of light of Special Relativity Theory is false in general, we examine some consequences of the non-constancy of speed of light in vacuum for different Galilean reference systems. We consider the modified Lorentz transformation incorporating different speeds of light for different inertial frames and which is a result of the non-constancy of speed of light in vacuum for different Galilean reference systems, i.e., reference systems in uniform rectilinear motion with respect to each other. Some consequences of this transform including the limit speed concept, transformation of lengths, summation and transformation of velocities are considered. Results of the transformation of the electromagnetic field are given. Also discussed are some consequences of the relativity of the electromagnetic field, all under the modified Lorentz transformation. These include variance of the electric charge, transformation of the potentials, transformation of the force. Some of the highlights of these consequences are as follows. The transformation of lengths abide by the same rule as in Special Relativity Theory, at least in form. Transformation of time intervals and velocities now involve the speeds of light in vacuum for both inertial frames in distinction from Special Relativity Theory. The invariance of charge no longer applies and charge measured depends on the reference frame the measurement is made from. Force acting on a charge q in an external electromagnetic field has the same form as in Special Relativity Theory, but now because charge is no longer invariant, the force transformation also has to be modified accordingly.

Light from a distant γ-ray burst backs up a key prediction of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity — that photon speed is the same regardless of energy. But it might set the stage for evolution of the theory. Observations of the distant and short γ-ray burst GRB 090510 with the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have provided an opportunity to test a central prediction of Einstein's special theory of relativity — the Lorentz invariance. This holds that all observers measure exactly the same speed of light in a vacuum, independent of photon energy. A key test of the violation of Lorentz invariance is a possible variation of photon speed with energy. Accumulated over cosmological light-travel times, even a tiny variation in photon speed should become observable — as for instance sharp features in the light curve of a γ-ray burst. No evidence for the violation of Lorentz invariance was found in the GRB 090510 spectrum, at least down to a limit of the Planck length divided by 1.2. This argues against quantum-gravity theories where the quantum nature of space–time linearly alters the speed of light with photon energy.

The subject of this study is the special theory of relativity (SRT) by A. Einstein, the debate about which has been going on for more than a hundred years. The aim of the study is to evaluate SRT from the side of whether everything that is discussed in this theory and thus in the new, relativistic physics is possible in nature itself. At the same time, the author pays special attention to three issues: the principle of relativity, the necessary condition for the objectivity of the content of scientific theories and the Einstein style of scientific thinking, which predetermined the ideological component of SRT and all relativistic physics. But such issues as relativistic reductions of lengths and durations, the relativity of simultaneity and a single space-time do not remain without attention. The study revealed the fallacy of a long-standing and widespread opinion about the relativity of properties. The necessary condition for the objectivity of scientific theories is revealed. The natural form of expression of quantities is revealed and the non-relative nature of all natural quantities is shown. The hidden form of relativity inherent in the SRT postulate about the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames and extended in SRT to the magnitude of all lengths and durations considered in it is revealed. It is shown that such relativity is based on the dependence of the quantities on the choice of their reflection systems. It is shown that such dependence is impossible in nature itself. It is concluded that the SRT is erroneous. At the same time, the factors that served as favorable ground for the emergence and spread of this erroneous theory are listed.

Based on special relativity, we introduce a way to develop a new field theory from (1) the relativistic property of the particle coupling coefficient with the field, and (2) the field due to a static point source. As an example, we discuss a theory of electromagnetic and gravitational fields. The results of this special relativistic gravitational theory for the redshift and the deflection of light are the same as those deduced from general relativity. The results of experiments on the planetary perihelion procession shift and on an additional “short-range gravity” are more favorable to the special relativistic gravitational theory than to general relativity. We put forward a new idea to test experimentally whether the equivalence principle of general relativity is correct.

It is often claimed that the special theory of relativity (STR) necessitates the block universe view, according to which all the events spread out in space-time are determinate, ‘fixed’ once and for all. After having briefly recalled the basic notions of STR (principle of relativity, constancy of the speed of light, relativity of simultaneity) (Sect. 6.2), I will distinguish and discuss the different arguments taken from STR in favor of the block universe view: the ‘geometric argument’ (the spatialization of time) (Sect. 6.3), the ‘becoming-argument’ (the loss of the becoming) (Sect. 6.4), and the ‘determinateness-argument’ (the determinateness of the future) (Sect. 6.5). Among these, I will focus in particular on the last argument, which can be summarized as follows: STR entails this puzzling consequence that any future event in a given inertial reference frame is already present or past in another inertial reference frame. Any future event is therefore already determinate. I will show that this argument contains a fallacy, and present several replies to it. My conclusion is that the notion of time in STR does not necessarily imply the block universe view; rather, it gives rise to a new ontology that is more complex but nevertheless consistent.

Maxwell unified the disparate concepts of electric and magnetic fields with one theory (electromagnetism) and Einstein then unified the disparate theories of electromagnetism and mechanics with one kinematics (Minkowski space of special relativity). In this talk, we will briefly explain how the disparate kinematics of quantum mechanics (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) and special relativity can be unified with one principle (relativity principle). This result follows from the axiomatic reconstruction of quantum mechanics via information-theoretic principles, which has successfully recast quantum mechanics as a principle theory a la Einstein, i.e., the formalism of the theory follows from an empirically discovered fact, just like special relativity. According to the quantum reconstruction program, the empirically discovered fact whence the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics is Information Invariance & Continuity. Of course, the empirically discovered fact whence the Lorentz transformations of special relativity is the light postulate, i.e., everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Obviously, the light postulate can be justified by the relativity principle—the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames—because c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s electromagnetism. [We label this “NPRF + c” for short, where NPRF stands for “no preferred reference frame.”] As we will show, Information Invariance & Continuity can also be justified by the relativity principle by first spatializing the quantum reconstruction program’s operational notion of measurement. In that case, Information Invariance & Continuity entails the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations (Planck postulate). Since Poincar’e transformations relate inertial reference frames via spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, and h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, the relativity principle justifies the Planck postulate (NPRF + h) just like it justifies the light postulate (NPRF + c). Thus, the kinematics of quantum mechanics and special relativity are unified in that both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle in the adynamical global constraints NPRF + h and NPRF + c. This approach provides a principle solution to the mystery of quantum entanglement that does not violate locality, statistical independence, intersubjective agreement, or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes and it does not alter quantum mechanics as a principle theory. An ontology consistent with this unification is introduced and we deflate both the ‘big’ and ‘small’measurement problems.

Einstein assumed the “principle of relativity” when constructing the special theory of relativity (STR). He claimed that all inertial frames are equivalent, and that it is impossible to discriminate between inertial frames. However, among the coordinate systems regarded by Einstein as inertial frames, there are some in which light propagates isotropically, and some in which light propagates anisotropically. A method has been found which discriminates between these. This paper discusses the “triplet thought experiment” in which accelerated motion is eliminated from the famous twin paradox thought experiment of the STR. Here the inertial frames regarded as equivalent by the STR are identified as “classically stationary frames SCl” and “classically moving frames (S'Cl) ” First, an observer M in frame performs the triplet thought experiment, and it is confirmed that the delay in time which elapses in the moving frame agrees with the predictions of the STR. Next, an observer in rocket A (S'Cl) performs the triplet thought experiment, and observes the same time delay. Before starting movement at constant velocity, rocket A experiences accelerated motion. The coordinate system of rocket A cannot be regarded physically as a stationary frame. Even so, observer A observes the delay predicted by the STR. If it can be accepted that frames SCl are included in inertial frames, then the problem of the twin paradox will no longer be a paradox.

This chapter introduces the concepts relevant to the special and general theories of relativity. In the theory of special relativity, measured time intervals are, in general, distinct for different observers. In this framework, space and time can be described in the form of a particular four-dimensional space–time. The new expressions for the kinetic energy and the momentum imply that no object can move faster than the speed of light.

Is the special theory of relativity (STR) a “simple” or “tricky” theory? They who think that it is a simple theory say (i) that its postulates are simple, that Nature is such, (ii) that the mathematics of STR is perfect, and (iii) that experiments support it. I consider its two postulates to be very true, whereas the mathematics of the STR has a shortcoming, and, as for the experiments, the question must be posed: which theory do they support best? The problem for STR lies in the transition from its postulates to its basic equations, i.e., Lorentz transformation and the velocity addition formula. The passage from the principle of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light to the basic equations of the STR is affected by four fundamental errors—three physical and one mathematical. Continuous attempts to reconcile these latent mistakes have made STR increasingly tricky. As a result, it is in a similar situation to Ptolemy's geocentric model after “improvements” thereto by Tycho Brahe. However, the “Copernican solution” for relative motion—offered by extended Galilean relativity—is very simple and effective.

Galileo Galilei was the first scientist to hypothesize a universal principle of relativity, but he neither proposed, nor limited his principle to, the so-called “Galilean transformation.” The danger in calling the classical transformation “Galilean” is that students begin to believe that Galilei's principle of relativity is somehow limited to the classical transformation and classical mechanics, thus neglecting its universality. Because Galilei's 1632 statement [Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems—Ptolemaic and Copernican, 2nd ed., translated by S. Drake (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1967), pp. 186–188] of the principle is remarkably similar to Poincaré's well accepted statement [Proceedings of the Congress of Arts and Science, Universal Exposition, St. Louis, 1904, edited by H. J. Rogers (Houghton Mifflin and Company, Boston, 1904), Vol. 1, pp. 604–622], Galilei should be given greater recognition for it. However, the so-called Galilean transformation might be better named the “Euclidean space-time transformation” since it is shown here that universal Euclidean space actually requires time to be universal, that is, t′ = t. It is not usually realized that the Euclidean transformation assumes lightspeed to be infinite. Pedagogical thought should be given to combining the Galilean principle of relativity, the Euclidean transformation and Newton's mechanics as “Ordinary Relativity” to distinguish it from “Special Relativity.” This would have pedagogical and conceptual value as a model and precursor to special relativity. Finally, it is suggested that the current use of “relativistic” is incorrect when applied exclusively to special relativity, for it implies that classical mechanics is non-relativistic.

Since my undergraduate days, I have been puzzled by the fact that we have Newton’s laws of motion but only Einstein’s theory of special relativity. We have finished celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of the theory of special relativity, and it seems to me that after a century of validation, it’s time to rename it as more than just a theory. I propose that we, as physicists, define a set of Einstein’s laws, just as we have Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. I begin the discussion by offering the following three laws: ▸ The laws of physics are identical in all non-accelerating (that is, inertial) frames.▸ The vacuum speed of light, c, is the same for all inertial frames.▸ The total energy E of a body of mass m and momentum p is given by E=m2c4+p2c2. In particular, the energy of a body measured in its own rest frame is given by E = mc 2, and the energy of a massless body is E = pc. Collectively, these laws should, in my opinion, be called Einstein’s laws of special relativity. Others may prefer slightly different wording, or more lawyerly definitions; with that I have no quibble. Time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity could be considered corollaries of these laws.Some may ask what is the consequence of renaming a “theory” to a “law”; obviously Nature does not care. To my way of thinking a theory is speculation based on incomplete knowledge, and a law is valid in all cases where the appropriate circumstances apply. I believe that the special theory of relativity falls into the latter category equally with Newton’s laws, Coulomb’s law, or Faraday’s law. If nothing else, this change would help us impress upon students and nonscientists (a) the importance of special relativity to our understanding of nature and (b) the multitude of advances in science made possible as a consequence of its formulation.© 2007 American Institute of Physics.

Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, or Special Relativity for short, came into being in 1905 in a paper with the unassuming title of “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies.” As the title suggests, Special Relativity is a theory of “moving bodies,” that is: motion. In particular, it is a theory of how motion is perceived differently by different observers. Since motion is the process in which an object's location in space changes with time , any theory of motion is also a theory of space and time . Therefore, Special Relativity can be said to be a theory of how space and time are perceived differently by different observers. The “electrodynamics” part of the paper title refers to the fact that the theory has something to do with light , which is an electromagnetic wave. As we will learn in this book, the speed of light in vacuum, which we will call c , plays a very special role in the theory of relativity. Einstein (1879-1955) was not the first to construct a successful theory of motion. Building upon pioneering work by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) had constructed theories of motion and gravity which were spelled out in his famous book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica , which is so famous that when people say the Principia , it is understood that they are referring to Newton's book.

The Symmetries of Quantum and Classical Information. The Ressurected “Ether" of Quantum Information