BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Danny Milano on 12 Jul 2008 22:51 Albert Einstein said in Scientific American April 1950: "I do not see any reason to assume that.. the principle of general relativity is restricted to gravitation and that the rest of physics can be dealt with separately on the basis of special relativity... I do not think that such an attitude, although historically understandable, can be objectively justified. ... In other words, I do not believe that it is justifiable to ask: what would physics look like without gravitation?" From this Eric Baird built an entire theoretical structure about GR without SR and has the following to say (I'd like to know if there are other researchers who also think of it as I can't find it in any net search and also would like your useful opinion). Baird said: "12.17. Blaming special relativity Almost all of the problems and potential problems that we've identified here with Einstein general theory seem to be consequences of the theory's incorporation of special relativity, and its assumption that the relationships of SR have to apply as a limiting case of the theory. The special theory isn't compatible with general relativistic principles, it's not compatible with gravity, it prevents us from building gravitomagnetism into the model, and stops us using acoustic metrics. It seems to be the reason why GR conflicts with quantum theory, Why GR predicts "perfect" black holes instead of "fuzzy" QM-compatible ones, and it stops us from integrating cosmological effects, gravitational effects and velocity effects together into a single block. Almost every time we find a potential problem with general relativity, the reason why that problem exists turns out to be the same: it's that things have to be that way in order to avoid creating conflicts with special relativity, and special relativity - despite its apparent conceptual clashes with the general principle of relativity - is generally reckoned to be an unavoidable foundation-stone for GR. The idea that a general theory must reduce to SR is considered so self-evident that to question it is ris k your fellow Physicists wondering of you've gone mad, or whether you ever really understood the basics of relativity theory to begin with. Reduction to special relativity, according to the articles in section 12.9 isn't just a matter of faith: it's considered to be rigorously-demonstrated geometrical truth. It's not something that we're supposed to question. Although there's been some mainstream work on "classical" alternatives to GR1915 (Brans-Dicke theory being probably the best known), these theories are usually supersets of GR1915, with extra parameters and tweaks and variations on a theme. In order to conform to the established view of what makes a theory "credible", these alternative theories are supposed to be able to demonstrate that they reduce to special relativity, too. But mathematics or geometry, applied without consideration for physical realities or physics principles, doesn't always give us real physics: If can sometimes give us math fiction: reasonably consistent-looking descriptions of worlds that aren't real, or at least, aren't ours. To find whether SR is really the root of all our problems, we need to step away from the subject of general relativity as it actually developed, and look at how it might have developed without this reliance on a Minkowski-metric underpinning. What does general relativity look like when SR is deleted? What does a freestanding, truly general theory look like, that isn't built on an SR base, and which applies the spacetime-curvature paradigm "all the way down"? Are there any other sets of basic relationships t hat might have worked other than those of the special theory? What are the mathematical consequences of General Relativity's engineered reduction to special relativity, and what might the implications be of not making this assumption? Although Einstein's 1950 piece in Scientific American seemed to indicate that he'd come to distrust SR as a foundation for more general theory, and that he now considered the usual two-stage approach to be a "historical" decision that couldn't really be justified with hindsight, the "follow-up" information that we're looking for - telling us what happens when we don't base GR on SR - doesn't seem to be generally available. The standard textbooks and the usual research papers don't seem to tackle this subject, so if we're to proceed, we're going to have to try deriving a few things from scratch." What do you think? I can't find other researchers working on GR without SR. How many relativists or even anti-relativists attempt this? Danny
From: Dono on 13 Jul 2008 00:42 On Jul 12, 8:33 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I just find ordinary anti-relativists like Pencho, Androcles, > Spaceman boring Yes, of course, they are idiots >and find Baird interesting as he is perhaps > the only one who publishes an anti-relativity book in the public. No, there are many more crackpots like Eric Baird who self-publish their BS . I can give you a long list so you can waste a lot of your money buying their BS "books". Do you want the list?
From: Danny Milano on 13 Jul 2008 00:46 On Jul 13, 12:42 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jul 12, 8:33 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > I just find ordinary anti-relativists like Pencho, Androcles, > > Spaceman boring > > Yes, of course, they are idiots > > >and find Baird interesting as he is perhaps > > the only one who publishes an anti-relativity book in the public. > > No, there are many more crackpots like Eric Baird who self-publish > their BS . I can give you a long list so you can waste a lot of your > money buying their BS "books". Do you want the list? Yes. They may be good idea to reflect on road to quantum gravity which may not use ordinary relativity logic.
From: PD on 13 Jul 2008 01:33 On Jul 12, 9:51 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Albert Einstein said in Scientific American April 1950: > > "I do not see any reason to assume that.. the principle > of general relativity is restricted to gravitation and > that the rest of physics can be dealt with separately > on the basis of special relativity... I do not think > that such an attitude, although historically > understandable, can be objectively justified. ... In > other words, I do not believe that it is justifiable to > ask: what would physics look like without gravitation?" > > From this Eric Baird built an entire theoretical structure > about GR without SR and has the following to say > (I'd like to know if there are other researchers who > also think of it as I can't find it in any net search > and also would like your useful opinion). > > Baird said: > > "12.17. Blaming special relativity > > Almost all of the problems and potential problems that > we've identified here with Einstein general theory What problems? > seem > to be consequences of the theory's incorporation of > special relativity, and its assumption that the > relationships of SR have to apply as a limiting case of > the theory. > > The special theory isn't compatible with general > relativistic principles, it's not compatible with > gravity, it prevents us from building gravitomagnetism > into the model, and stops us using acoustic metrics. It > seems to be the reason why GR conflicts with quantum > theory, Why GR predicts "perfect" black holes instead > of "fuzzy" QM-compatible ones, and it stops us from > integrating cosmological effects, gravitational effects > and velocity effects together into a single block. > > Almost every time we find a potential problem with > general relativity, the reason why that problem exists > turns out to be the same: it's that things have to be > that way in order to avoid creating conflicts with > special relativity, and special relativity - despite > its apparent conceptual clashes with the general > principle of relativity - is generally reckoned to be > an unavoidable foundation-stone for GR. The idea that a > general theory must reduce to SR is considered so > self-evident that to question it is ris k your fellow > Physicists wondering of you've gone mad, or whether you > ever really understood the basics of relativity theory > to begin with. This last point I'm inclined to agree with. > Reduction to special relativity, > according to the articles in section 12.9 isn't just a > matter of faith: it's considered to be > rigorously-demonstrated geometrical truth. > > It's not something that we're supposed to question. > Although there's been some mainstream work on > "classical" alternatives to GR1915 (Brans-Dicke theory > being probably the best known), these theories are > usually supersets of GR1915, with extra parameters and > tweaks and variations on a theme. In order to conform > to the established view of what makes a theory > "credible", these alternative theories are supposed to > be able to demonstrate that they reduce to special > relativity, too. > > But mathematics or geometry, applied without > consideration for physical realities or physics > principles, doesn't always give us real physics: If can > sometimes give us math fiction: reasonably > consistent-looking descriptions of worlds that aren't > real, or at least, aren't ours. > > To find whether SR is really the root of all our > problems, we need to step away from the subject of > general relativity as it actually developed, and look > at how it might have developed without this reliance on > a Minkowski-metric underpinning. What does general > relativity look like when SR is deleted? What does a > freestanding, truly general theory look like, that > isn't built on an SR base, and which applies the > spacetime-curvature paradigm "all the way down"? Are > there any other sets of basic relationships t hat might > have worked other than those of the special theory? > What are the mathematical consequences of General > Relativity's engineered reduction to special > relativity, and what might the implications be of not > making this assumption? > > Although Einstein's 1950 piece in Scientific American > seemed to indicate that he'd come to distrust SR as a > foundation for more general theory, and that he now > considered the usual two-stage approach to be a > "historical" decision that couldn't really be justified > with hindsight, the "follow-up" information that we're > looking for - telling us what happens when we don't > base GR on SR - doesn't seem to be generally available. > The standard textbooks and the usual research papers > don't seem to tackle this subject, so if we're to > proceed, we're going to have to try deriving a few > things from scratch." > > What do you think? I can't find other researchers working > on GR without SR. How many relativists or even anti-relativists > attempt this? > > Danny
From: BURT on 13 Jul 2008 01:48
On Jul 12, 6:51 pm, Danny Milano <milanoda...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Albert Einstein said in Scientific American April 1950: > > "I do not see any reason to assume that.. the principle > of general relativity is restricted to gravitation and > that the rest of physics can be dealt with separately > on the basis of special relativity... I do not think > that such an attitude, although historically > understandable, can be objectively justified. ... In > other words, I do not believe that it is justifiable to > ask: what would physics look like without gravitation?" > > From this Eric Baird built an entire theoretical structure > about GR without SR and has the following to say > (I'd like to know if there are other researchers who > also think of it as I can't find it in any net search > and also would like your useful opinion). > > Baird said: > > "12.17. Blaming special relativity > > Almost all of the problems and potential problems that > we've identified here with Einstein general theory seem > to be consequences of the theory's incorporation of > special relativity, and its assumption that the > relationships of SR have to apply as a limiting case of > the theory. > > The special theory isn't compatible with general > relativistic principles, it's not compatible with > gravity, it prevents us from building gravitomagnetism > into the model, and stops us using acoustic metrics. It > seems to be the reason why GR conflicts with quantum > theory, Why GR predicts "perfect" black holes instead > of "fuzzy" QM-compatible ones, and it stops us from > integrating cosmological effects, gravitational effects > and velocity effects together into a single block. > > Almost every time we find a potential problem with > general relativity, the reason why that problem exists > turns out to be the same: it's that things have to be > that way in order to avoid creating conflicts with > special relativity, and special relativity - despite > its apparent conceptual clashes with the general > principle of relativity - is generally reckoned to be > an unavoidable foundation-stone for GR. The idea that a > general theory must reduce to SR is considered so > self-evident that to question it is ris k your fellow > Physicists wondering of you've gone mad, or whether you > ever really understood the basics of relativity theory > to begin with. Reduction to special relativity, > according to the articles in section 12.9 isn't just a > matter of faith: it's considered to be > rigorously-demonstrated geometrical truth. > > It's not something that we're supposed to question. > Although there's been some mainstream work on > "classical" alternatives to GR1915 (Brans-Dicke theory > being probably the best known), these theories are > usually supersets of GR1915, with extra parameters and > tweaks and variations on a theme. In order to conform > to the established view of what makes a theory > "credible", these alternative theories are supposed to > be able to demonstrate that they reduce to special > relativity, too. > > But mathematics or geometry, applied without > consideration for physical realities or physics > principles, doesn't always give us real physics: If can > sometimes give us math fiction: reasonably > consistent-looking descriptions of worlds that aren't > real, or at least, aren't ours. > > To find whether SR is really the root of all our > problems, we need to step away from the subject of > general relativity as it actually developed, and look > at how it might have developed without this reliance on > a Minkowski-metric underpinning. What does general > relativity look like when SR is deleted? What does a > freestanding, truly general theory look like, that > isn't built on an SR base, and which applies the > spacetime-curvature paradigm "all the way down"? Are > there any other sets of basic relationships t hat might > have worked other than those of the special theory? > What are the mathematical consequences of General > Relativity's engineered reduction to special > relativity, and what might the implications be of not > making this assumption? > > Although Einstein's 1950 piece in Scientific American > seemed to indicate that he'd come to distrust SR as a > foundation for more general theory, and that he now > considered the usual two-stage approach to be a > "historical" decision that couldn't really be justified > with hindsight, the "follow-up" information that we're > looking for - telling us what happens when we don't > base GR on SR - doesn't seem to be generally available. > The standard textbooks and the usual research papers > don't seem to tackle this subject, so if we're to > proceed, we're going to have to try deriving a few > things from scratch." > > What do you think? I can't find other researchers working > on GR without SR. How many relativists or even anti-relativists > attempt this? > > Danny I have brought together SR and GR. Acceleration is passing through every speed instantaneoulsy until it stops at an end speed. Mitch Raemsch |