The Theory of Relativity is widely accepted among the
mainstream community of physicists and consequently by the
general public as well. One philosophical perspective of
scientific theories is that describing a system of physical
behavior with a mathematical model is no more than a
convenient method of representing those phenomena in a manner
consistent with information derived from either observation or
experimentation. The descriptive models have changed through
history, perhaps most notably in the revolutions from the
Copernican to Ptolemaic views on the heavens and the Newtonian
to Einsteinian descriptions of universal gravitation. There
are many insightful and helpful adages that relate to our
scientific understanding of the world. In the discussion of
these models, we remember one that says that a proper
scientific theory should be as simple as possible. That is, of
two competing theories, that both describe a given set of data
and make proper predictions, it is better to adopt the simpler
one. After Ptolemy introduced deferents and epicycles into his
geocentric theory, it was easier to accept the simpler
heliocentric theory of Copernicus.
In mathematics, certain formulas can be expressed in
different ways, but mathematicians prefer to represent their
formulas in the most simplified form, perhaps for aesthetic
reasons. In science, and especially in theoretical physics
which depends heavily on symbolic mathematics, the
mathematically abstract physical models are also shown that
same appreciation for simplicity. Ironically, the
mathematization of physics has allowed physicists to form more
complicated theories than otherwise possible, but unless
proved to the contrary, who would believe this: that
everything in the universe is growing proportionally in
relation to everything else? Since it couldn't be
detected, and since there is a simpler explanation for our
experience of consistent proportionality, we choose to believe
that we are in fact not growing. We figure this to be the
case, despite our inability to measure this property, and this
leads us to another interesting feature of present-day
science, the belief that physical reality is only knowable
insofar as it is measurable.
The heavy reliance of science on measurement gives it the
strengths we associate with the scientific method, but in some
respects, it is also a limitation, and scientists sometimes
cross that boundary. The exact delineation between scienctific
fact and personal opinion can be blurred when a scientist
opines in the context of a scientific discussion. And this can
be the cause of misunderstandings among the public. And it is
in connection with the notion of measurement that the claims
of Relativity become suspect, for there are things that cannot
be physically measured. Some scientists admit that science is
therefore inadequate to address certain things, even physical
things, but others will extend scientific theory to include
one or more non-sequitur opinions. In the theoretical
sciences, there is some room to speculate, but then, those
scientists must shake hands with the philosophers to
accomplish their goals. By allowing for a broader intellectual
environment, a scientist can respectably claim that the
universe is not actually growing or shrinking in tandem with
every object within it.
Even Isaac Asimov, in his 3-volume work, Understanding
Physics, says, in reference to statements he makes about
Relativity, that if something cannot be measured, even in
principle, then it is of no use to science, that such matters
may "amuse" philosophers and theologians, but are of
no interest to him. This division in the intellectual
approaches of the different camps continues to manifest
itself, especially since there are philosophical and
theological theories of the world that have no scientific
basis at all. And scientists are frequently making claims
about Reality in itself as if the philosophical meanings
served no purpose. Other authors in the field of physics will
not hesitate to argue that the relativistic model of gravity
and light are correct and give us a true picture of the "real
world," but, indeed, a stringent and pure scientific
mentality would prohibit such a claim. Indeed, scientists have
actually agreed that relativity is not the correct picture,
for they have found that, while relativity explains things
very well on a large scale, it does not fare so well on the
sub-atomic level. Therefore, scientists believe that the next
big scientific revolution will displace relativity and consist
of some union between that theory and laws of quantum
mechanics. This will not be an easy task, because some of the
tenets held in relativity seem to clash violently with those
in QM. And so, if we can learn from history, we can try to
forge a better understanding of our world in all its facets,
through a cooperative effort of science, reason, and faith.
But I digress. Relativity is dependent on the notion that
the measured speed of light is a constant in a vaccuum.
This is often mistaken for the same statement, sans the term
measured. And this is one of many misunderstandings. You may
be surprised that Isaac Asimov tells us that the Theory of
Relativity does not claim that there is nothing in the
universe faster than light. But he justifies this by saying
that such entities would be completely invisible and
undetectable, making them completely irrelevant to scientists.
But, irrelevant or not, Asimov feels compelled to mention the
topic, in effect saying that he wants to discuss it but can't.
Other scientists don't equivocate at all on these matters and
simply state the facts (of the theory). One such "fact"
is that an object in motion experiences certain physical
effects, according to formulas using the speed of light as the
limiting velocity for moving bodies. A few of the more notable
effects, mathematically described by the Lorentz-Fitzgerald
transformations, are the following:
- Time Dilation
- Length Contraction
- Mass Increase
Time Dilation is worth discussing in its own right, and I
offer my views here. But these three
concepts are all essentially related. Time Dilation is the
effect in which a body in motion will experience a "slower"
time relative to a "non-moving" frame of reference.
Length Contraction consists of the shortening of distances in
the direction of motion. And Mass Increase is just that. As
Velocity increases, the kinetic energy of an object grows. As
the energy of a body grows, the mass of the object rises
proportionally. The concept of a relativistic space and time,
quickly draws many questions. But Einstein offered a
geometrical explanation for the warping of space and time, and
suggested that space and time were woven together in some
intangible "fabric." As a mathematical description,
it seems to work very well. And as a visual tool, the
geometric model almost entices the imagination to believe that
space does indeed consist of this "fabric." But
science cannot make such a claim with any integrity. Though it
is probably true that most physicists are content to believe
that the universe does in fact possess these qualities, they
would likely desist if pressed. However, the problem is not
solved here. As strange as it may seem, this
mathematical/scientific theory does not rest silent and idle
but forcibly demands an accounting from the purveyors of
reality itself. The consequences of events in the physical
world, as described by the present scientific model, are said
to be describable in terms of scientific data, that is, in
measurement, but, these effects must be either real or not
real. As it happens, a dilation in time would not produce a
measurable effect but would logically imply a mathematically
quantifiable result that would have to be considered real.
This can be shown in connection with the effects of Time
Dilation.
Another significant matter of contention relates to the
long-held assumption of Einstein that the speed of light is
constant. In mathematics, the use of assumptions and
definitions have a two-fold property in axiomatic systems.
They can pertain to discoveries or observations of what is
deemed to be true about the outside world, or they can be more
abstract and self-contained logical systems. Of course, these
two facets can also be strongly intertwined, which is usually
the case in higher mathematical studies. For the
mathematically intensive physics of today, these principles do
apply. However, since mathematics and physics are not
identical, it is not obvious that the nature of the assumptive
act is the same as that used in physics. Indeed, mathematical
axioms can be supported with reasoning and insight, whereas
there is no clear correlation between our intuitive
understandings of the world and the assumption that the speed
of light is constant.
The Theory of Relativity depends heavily on this very
assumption, and, therefore, so also do many of the results of
relativity. It is thus important to delve into the meaning and
validity of this starting point.
It is said that what began as assumption has now been
verified by fact. However, it would seem that the manners and
approaches of verification have wrongly included this very
assumption in some form or another.
When an atomic clock is measured to be delayed on account of
time dilation, isn't it assumed that this result is due to
time dilation... as opposed to an inconstant speed of light?
If we choose to regard time as constant and the speed of light
as changing, then we can still explain a moving clock's delay
relative to a stationary one. The assumption is so widely
applied, it is even used to verify itself. But that, of
course, is logically erroneous.
I propose that all the results of physical measurement can
be strictly accounted for using a different set of
assumptions, namely that the speed of light is not a constant,
and that time and space are dimensional immutables. Speed is
merely the measure of distance over time. Since the
measurement of the speed of light may indeed be constant, it
may well simplify the mathematical model to presume constancy in
the design of the physical model. But in the case of the
physical model, the "assumptions" are really design
considerations, and descriptive conventions. The design of a
good physical model involves some judgment, since it should be
both mathematically simplified as well as highly symbolic and representative of
the real world. To strike a good balance is important if we
are to consider the study of physics to be also the study of
the real world. Since we have direct encounters with the
world, we can gain some knowledge without the aid of models.
When the physical models clash strongly with our natural
intuitions, a critical analysis becomes pertinent. The natural
instinct against time dilation is sufficient to stir objection
on the appropriateness of the current model in theoretical
physics.
According to Relativity, if an object moves from a stationary point and travels at
high speed away from its origin and then returns to the point
of origin, there will be a quantifiable difference in the time
experienced by objects in their respective reference frames.
That is, the moving object will have aged less than an object
stuck at the origin. Such a result is no longer material for
the theory-builders alone, since those mathematical models
require the acceptance of certain realities, such as
we see here. Hence, a philosopher can contend the Theory of
Relativity from the logical vantage point of arguing those
conclusions derived in step from the original theoretical
base. I, in fact, disagree with the notion of time dilation,
and, therefore, I cannot fully accept the tenets of
Relativity. Please find more information in my essay on
time.
