Preamble to relativity pages
“There is no unique picture of reality”
Stephen Hawking
We should perhaps issue a health warning to those of you who are about to read the pages on relativity. This is well expressed by Paul Davies who writes:
“Probably half the papers received by professional journals from private addresses return to the theme of time and relativity, seeking to find a flaw in Einstein’s ideas or some contradiction in the theory. They just cannot accept that time is elastic and can stretch and shrink relative to other observers.”
(Paul Davies, p35, Superforce The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Unwin Paperbacks, London, 1984)
Not to question Einstein’s ideas may put science in an unnecessary straight jacket when, as scientists – amateur or professional – we should always keep an open-minded approach to everything even if this flies in the face of received wisdom. It may not be that we “cannot accept that time is elastic”, for example, it’s just that it may be worth considering the possibility that whatever time is it may not be elastic.
Could it be that our interpretation of time in SR is a consequence of one of Donald Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” ie an implicit assumption we are not even aware is being made?
Rel Part 1 claims just such a possibility.
This does not necessarily indicate a flaw in SR it simply offers a choice between competing descriptions of physical reality, one possessing an implicit assumption made explicit in the other.
The challenge is to make testable predictions which should settle the issue.
If SR fails the test then it is flawed.
The odds against replacing SR are high given the incredible success of quantum electrodynamics (QED) which combines quantum theory and SR so neatly; but that just makes the task more difficult.
Koestler, in describing the history of cosmology from the Babylonians to Newton, wrote in the preface to his book:
“The progress of Science is generally regarded as a kind of clean, rational advance along a straight ascending line; in fact it has followed a zig zag course, at times almost more bewildering than the evolution of political thought. The history of cosmic theories, in particular, may without exaggeration be called a history of collective obsessions and controlled schizophrenias; and the manner in which some of the most important discoveries were arrived at reminds one more of a sleepwalker’s performance than an electronic brain’s.”
(Arthur Koestler, p11, The Sleepwalkers A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe, Penguin Books, 1984)
By not questioning SR we could be unwittingly signing up to one of Koestler’s “collective obsessions”. Isn’t it worth trying something a little different even if our stumbling attempt may resemble a “sleepwalker’s performance”?
As long ago as the mid-60’s David Bohm offered the following, radical, note of caution:
“Nevertheless, as is true of any theory of science, it must not be supposed that relativity is an iron-clad certainty, which should not be questioned, and which could never be shown to be wrong in certain respects, an approximation to the facts, or of limited validity for other reasons. For example, there is even now an appreciable number of scientists who are inclined to suspect that the theory of relativity (both special and general) may be wrong when applied in the domain of very small distances (much less than the presumed size of the “elementary” particle). Besides, there seem to be reasons to suspect that relativity may not be adequate when applied to extremely large distances of the order of the presumed “size” of the universe (out to where the “red shift” becomes appreciable). In addition, the theory of relativity may break down in yet other ways. It is therefore necessary, especially when we enter into new domains of phenomena, to apply the theory of relativity in a tentative manner, being alert and ready to criticize it, and if necessary to replace it with a more nearly correct theory, which may be as radically different from relativity as relativity is from Newtonian mechanics.”
(David Bohm, p109, The Special theory of Relativity, W A Benjamin Inc, New York, 1965)
In attempting to find a “more nearly correct theory” we should perhaps urge supporters of the status quo to heed John Locke’s words of wisdom:
“To prejudge other men’s notions before we have looked into them is not to show their darkness but to put out our own eyes.”
It is always difficult to go beyond convention in science and perhaps rightly so, but not impossible.
In the words of Lewis Carrol:
“ ‘One can’t believe impossible things.’ ‘I dare say you haven’t had much practice,’ said the Queen. ‘Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.’ ”
That should give us heart so let’s follow this regal, off-piste example.