Theory of relativity especial – his misinterpretation
To get to raise the invalidity of the concept of "time dilation" we expose first the "example of the "twin brothers" as a focused point of view where we can get to the wrong theses.
This example we will see exposed in some treaties physics and its contents are as follows:
It is two twins in which one of them is astronaut and embarks on a journey in outer space reaching speeds close to the speed of light. The example says that, after a while, when the astronaut returns to Earth, he finds his twin brother much older than him because the brother who has not traveled, has spent more time
The figure is intended to represent this situation. It means farewell, travel and return.
In some books of physics that in a certain paragraph expose this example, add another paragraph below, entitled: "The paradox of the example of the twin brothers" The title of this paragraph be added and in itself it demonstrates the insecurity of giving by this thesis valid. The serious thing is that by "twisted" hypothesis, such as changes of address or slowdowns during the trip rocket, idealize and try to justify the unjustifiable. They try to justify anything less than "time dilation"
In our test we intend to demonstrate flaws in the argument that lead to the approach of this tale of "science fiction".
We can admit that the presentation of that example is a way of trying to explain what we would understand by the concept of "time dilation" if such a situation should occur. What we can not accept is the truth of the fulfillment of its outcome.
To demonstrate the origin of the error of that is committed by accepting valid the example of science fiction twin brothers, will follow the following guidelines:
We will rely on the statements made by A. Einstein in his book: "On the theory of special and general relativity" and we will make our critical remarks.
In these statements we quote in which paragraph they appear and its text, to make it stand out, we will transcribe it in italian letter
3. THE ERROR OF INTERPRETATION IN THE CONCEPT RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY
In the book referred to in paragraph 9, page 27, he says:
"Two events, such as two rays, which are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, NO are relative to the train and vice versa.
Each reference body (coordinate system) has its special time. A temporary location has only sense when the reference body to which it refers is indicated. "
In this paragraph, as in the following we will discuss, he are referring to the experienced from two different SITUATIONS. From an observer who is on top of a moving train wagon, considered as a Mobile Reference System (SRM) and from other situation considered as a fixed reference system (SRF)
(NOTE: The concepts of "mental experiment", the Inertial Reference Systems and the SITUATION appear in the book of this same author: "Teoria de la relatividad. Una falsa teoría" )
The explanation he intends to give to his statement, which is quite confusing, is explained by the following image, in which the simultaneous appearance of two rays is represented.
The figure depicts the Mobile Reference System (SRM), the car, and the Fixed Reference System (SRF), which is the person who is fixed to the ground at the point where the two rays fall.
According to the theory expounded in that book, the rays would be seen as simultaneous only by the person we have designated as (SRF). As for the person who is mounted on the rail car (SRM), due to their displacement observe before lightning appeared `from his right, since it is closer to him than that has appeared on the left, and that is moving away from him.
In the proposition of this "mental experiment" it seems to want to show that the same phenomenon observed from two different SITUATIONS are observed at different times of appearance. This is true but … Careful! Do not confuse OBSERVATION with the PRODUCTION of the phenomenon.
We must consider as ONE SUCCESS the emission and appearance of two rays of light ONCE. A logical error is made if we consider that this EVENT is not SIMULTANEOUS with itself.
We must distinguish between the vision of the PRODUCTION of the Event (E) detected from the SITUATION of a certain (SRF) and the VISION OF THE IMAGE OF THE TRAVEL of this Event from other SITUATIONS
Of the (SRM).
If we do not take this into account, it is when we are considering that two instantaneous phenomena are not SEEN simultaneously and evokes to us to think that these are two phenomena of the same type but individually different and this is where the confusion is generated. There is only one real phenomenon and this is the one perceived by the observer that is fixed on the ground. As we will see, this error of unfolding physical phenomena is an error that affects the erroneous concept of "time dilation."
Continuing the theme of SIMULTANEITY observed from an Inertial Reference System, we can now consider the case of the PRODUCTION of a single ray. The Event (E) is the appearance and observation of lightning. We can use the following picture to represent this Event
This drawing reveals that it is NOT simultaneously the VISION OF THE TRIP OF THE IMAGE OF THE EVENT, contemplated from two different points of observation, in which one of them is the (SRM) It is absurd to reason that an Event is not simultaneous with itself.
In summary, for a traveler located in a Mobile Reference System (SRM) two events that were born at the same instant should be considered as such, as instantaneous. We think it is logical to consider it. Another consideration is that he SEE or DETECTE with times outdated. In other words, your VISION is not simultaneous. Lorenz transformations allow us to calculate these mismatches.
It is clear that: THE TIME OF THE EVENT IS NOT DILATED, nor is it "DESTROY" the SIMULTANEITY OF THE EVENT.
NOTE: The previous figures could be considered as a "mental experiment" of which we are worth to demonstrate a certain law, occurrence … etc. We must not go unnoticed the unreal of such representation. ) Should the train wagon circulate to fulfill the coordination of movements exposed? … We will have to idealize speeds and dimensions to try to assimilate what the figure wants to explain to us ..
4. THE ERROR OF INTERPRETATION IN THE CONCEPT OF STRETCH PROCESS
In a paragraph of the book to which we are referring, page 29, reads as follows:
"… the time required for a process in relation to the wagon can not be equated to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment"
Here it refers to a train car, which takes it as Mobile Reference System (SRM) and a fixed observer on the ground that it considers it as a fixed reference system (SRF).
We will consider as a PROCESS the occurrence of two or more EVENTS (E) that keep a certain sequence in its realization. In the subject that occupies us we will always refer to physical phenomena. The previous statement affirms that inside the car a certain physical phenomenon is produced that is valued of different form by a fixed observer in the ground, Fixed Reference System (SRF), that by a mobile observer located above the railway car (SRM).
n the treatises on the subject we are exposing, they use images similar to the following.
The right side of the figure represents three vertical sections of the car. These figures correspond to three views snapshots of the same car, in its straight forward at a constant speed (v) On the roof of the car is located a mirror.
Inside the car appears an observer (O1) who shoots a ray of light towards the said mirror.
In the left part of the figure we have drawn a separate view of the said forward sequence, and it represents the same wagon in which we can appreciate the travel time of the ray (round trip) recorded by said observer (O1) that has The lightning bolt.
In contrast, in the figure on the right is represented the vision of the path of the ray of light that will have an observer located immobile on the ground (O2). That is the (SRF). The (SRF), will see the length of lightning travel lengthened in the PROCESS: Start-Reflection-Finalization.
It is a question of comparing the observation times of the ray path, recorded by the observers (O1) and (O2).
If we call (tp) while recording the observer (O1) and (td) while registering the observer (O2), after the corresponding mathematical approach, we obtain the following result:
(td) ˜ (L). (tp)
The process of obtaining this result and the content of the variable (L) is detailed in the book: "Teoría de la relatividad. Una falsa teoría "
What we are now interested in revealing is the error of interpretation that is made with this expression and that leads to admit that time expands.
It is shown that the value of the variable (L) is always greater than one. Consequently, from the above relation it follows that (td) is always greater than (tp).
ERROR OF INTERPRETATION
In the interpretation of said mathematical expression an error is made. The treatises on the subject under study expose that expression as if it were an Equality.
(td) = (L). (tp)
That is, they make the intervene equal (=) instead of the equivalent sign (˜). This error of interpretation leads to reason that, as it happens that: (td) > (tp) this means that the "time has been dilated". This meaning is incorrect
The said expression we have to consider that allows us to establish an EQUIVALENCE of values of a physical quantity; time. No lengthening of time! No "mysterious" factors, such as the Lorentz Factor (L), involved in this "dilation"
(Note: In the book "Theory of relativity. A false theory" is demonstrated in mathematical form, as the Factor (L) intervenes and the mathematical process of obtaining the formulas of the Lorentz Transformations)
The previous paragraphs may have served to ask: is it not more logical to admit that there is a single physical phenomenon that has a certain time duration. One time! It is your own TIME.5.- ONE PHYSICAL PHENOMENON
Another issue is that depending on the SITUATION of Observation (SRF), this afternoon takes longer to appreciate its duration due to the displacement of the train car. This will be the (td) of the following figure.
The proper time (tp) of the physical phenomenon is recorded by the observer (O1) who is the one who is mounted on the car and who shoots the lightning. The other observer who is fixed on the floor will record a time (td) of duration of the PROCESS.
6. NOT BEEN EXTENDED THE VITAL TIME NEITHER TWIN BROTHERS
From what we have explained in the previous paragraphs we can say that: The TIME OF OBSERVATION is lengthened, we can not say that the TIME OF OWN PROCESS expands.
The following figure represents the train carriage traveling at a constant and constant speed (v). Inside there is a pendulum clock and the PROCESS that will register an observer located inside the car will be the (Tic-Tac) pendulum
We can admit that the OBSERVATION TIME is ALLEGED with respect to an observer (SRF) that is fixed on the ground. The following figure attempts to represent this situation:
The fact that the Observation Time is ALARGED does not mean that time is DILATED and justifies the utopia of the "example of twin brothers". The twin brother who stayed on the ground if through a hypothetical telescope could see the said pendulum, would count greater intervals of oscillation, but this would not justify that the Real Time was not the same for the two brothers
AN OBSERVATION
One question we must not overlook, has been to have used the pendulum law experiment to expose the measurement of time and not to have made any further comment. As the reader may have observed in the drawing, this mental experiment is supposed to be realized on the soil of our planet. The Earth. But this circumstance does not remove generality to the exposed argument. What do we need to add? … We must add that for the corresponding oscillations of the pendulum, there must be a force of attraction such as the Force of Gravity. And this force is universal and occurs in any sidereal body. So that gives generality to the example.
7.- THE ERROR IN THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE MEASURING BAR
So far we have talked about the "elongation of time". Now we have to talk about another concept that is even more contradictory and twisted. These are the "longitudinal elongations". If we have seen written critiques of "time dilation," we have even seen more criticism of lengthening.
In paragraph 10 of this book A. Einstein speaks of a bar measuring distances. This bar is used both above the car and on the track to measure the same distance, examining the ends of the same. The conclusion reached with these two measures is:
"… As if the man in the car travels in a unit time measured the distance w from the train, this distance measured from the track, does not have to be equal to w. "
What it pretends to affirm is that the lengths of the bodies located in a (SRM) to be observed from a (SRF) "have been dilated".
We think we should say "I would not have to SEEN from a (SRF) with the same breadth of measure"
To assert this, here we apply the same reasoning that we have used in the previous paragraph, when referring to the pendulum that serves to compute time. In this case it is the length of the mass. The actual length is that measured by the observer on top of the car. Equating its measurement with the (Tic-Tac) an Event is the record made at the start of the bar and the second Event is the record taken at the end of the bar.
The length recorded by a fixed observer (SRF) outside the car will depend on the distance the car has traveled from the start of the experiment. The following figure is intended to highlight this idea:
8.- A CONTRADICTORY APPROACH. THE THEORY OF CONFUSION
We have described the false interpretations of the elongation of the "bar of measurement", of the elongation time of the processes and of the Simultaneous Relativity. Recall that, as exposed by A. Einstein, these concepts have been proposed considering what happens between a (SRF) and a (SRM); That is, the track and the railway car
On these concepts we can argue the following:
Recall that: in paragraph 9 of A. Einstein's book "On the theory of special and general relativity" says on page 29, referring to the "lengthening of processes
"… the time needed for a process with respect to the wagon can not be equated to the duration of the same process judged from the reference body of the embankment …"
We reply to this breakdown of identity, as if a new process is created, arguing the following:
The fact that two processes do not appear simultaneously does not mean that a TRANSFORMATION has occurred in the process. So it has become two different processes. The error lies in interpreting as two different phenomena the VISION of the same phenomenon contemplated with two different means of vision
And if, as it seems that considers the physical mentioned, interpreting them as different, he contradicts himself because: It 's against your FIRST PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY From the book of A. Einstein "On the theory of special and general relativity." (Page 18) on the First Principle of Relativity, says:
"If a (SRM) moves relative to a (SRF) then pass respect to natural phenomena (SRM) according to general laws identical with respect to (SRF)"
The following figure aims to highlight this principle.
We denounce next a CONTRADICTORY APPROACH that we find in the reading of the mentioned book.
In the following figure on the left side, it is intended to represent the assertion that the same physical phenomenon, in this case the oscillation of a pendulum, must be interpreted as two different phenomena, since different results will be obtained when considering them from the (SRM) or the (SRF). Whereas in the right part of the figure the First Principle is announced that says that the same type of physical phenomenon must have identical results among the Inertial Reference Systems
He says that the phenomena ( First Principle are different
Another contradictory concept that we find in the mentioned book is the following one:
In the previous paragraph when we talk about the "dilation of the measuring rod" we have transcribed
"… For if the man in the carriage travels in a unit of time the section w measured from the train, this section measured from the road, does NOT have to be equal to w. "
However, in the same book, on page 103, in claiming to obtain in a "pseudo" mathematical form the formulas of the Lorentz Transformations, states the following:
"… In addition, the principle of relativity is clear that the length, as judged from K, a ruler measuring unit which is at rest relative to K 'must be exactly the same as the length, as judged from K', a rule unit is at rest relative to K '… "
What we are left with … The length of the mentioned bar is lengthened or not … Our common sense leads us to think that it does not lengthen …
The error of interpreting as two different phenomena the vision of the same phenomenon contemplated from two different SITUATIONS, we can compare it with the vision of the same phenomenon contemplated with two different means of vision.
With regard to this subject we have come up with a metaphor. We have called it the metaphor of the convex mirror. Equating the vision of the image of a person who is observed in two different mirrors
When a person looks at the flat mirror, it reflects the actual image. If you look at the concave mirror his image is distorted, but this does not mean that your body is deformed.
10.- PERHAPS WE CAN DETERMINE THE ORIGIN OF THESE MISINTERPRETATIONS?
Based on the writings of some scientific historians, we may be able to determine when and where the origins that gave rise to the errors of interpretation that we have discussed in the previous paragraphs were given.
Another clue that also gives us some light in our precarious skills as an "amateur researcher" is the order in which the paragraphs of the book "On special and general theory of relativity" are written. Its sequence seems to lead us along the path of the mistakes that were made.
We make only a summary of the historical information that we have obtained, giving by understanding that the reader already knows something of this history or that it can consult it by Internet.
The steps we will take will be called: THE SIX POINTS OF HISTORY
Point 1.-
We wanted to find out how the light was transmitted.
Like waves and sound that need a medium to transport (water or air) it was thought that light needed a means to transmit.
This medium was called "ether."
Point 2
To detect the existence of the "ether" was created and experimented with a device called interferometer
The experiment did NOT give the desired response.
In order to justify the unjustifiable, it was argued that the arms of the apparatus and time had been enlarged.
Point 3
They agreed that this change was experienced by outside observers to experiment. Rl fixed reference system (SRF) were considered.
Point 4
Based on his false assumptions assessed that these expansions had a value (L), we know it as Lorentz factor
Point 5
The researcher Hendrik Antoon Lorentnz had EMPIRICALLY obtained formulas to resolve certain inconsistencies between electromagnetism and classical mechanics. The physicist A. Einstein were going well these formulas that allowed him to expand his theory including laws of electromagnetic phenomena.
In these formulas it appeared precisely the mathematical expression (L) that had been taken as a measure of time dilation and length
Point 6
In this step we establish the hypothesis of the sequence of steps that could lead to the error. False Dilations of the arms of the Interferometer => Assign to the Dilations a correction factor (L) that pretends to value them => In the Lorentz Formulas appears the Factor (L) => The physicist A. Einstein incorporates these formulas that are well for Expand its theory => The incorporation of these formulas transmits as "inheritance" the belief of the expansion of time and the lengths and the relativity of simultaneity.
Autor:
Enrique Martinez Viladesau