Relativity lies at the heart of the most fundamental theories
of physics. Formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, relativity is built on the key idea that physical laws take the same form for any inertial observer--that is, for an observer oriented in any direction and moving at any constant speed. The theory predicts an assortment of well-known effects: among them, constancy of the speed of light for all observers, slowing of moving clocks, length contraction of moving objects, and equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2). These effects have been confirmed in highly sensitive experiments, and relativity is now a basic, everyday tool of experimental physics: particle colliders take advantage of the increase in mass and lifetime of fast particles; experiments with radioactive isotopes depend on the conversion of mass into energy. Even consumer electronics is affected--the Global Positioning System must allow for time dilation, which alters the rates of clocks on its orbiting satellites.
This article was originally published with the title The Search for Relativity Violations.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentRelativity Violation is quite possible because entire Universe and its phenomena at quantum level still remain unexplained.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is known that time dilates length contracts, etc but we do not know why and how. Even it is unknown that how time and space are precisely integrated at quantum level.
Probably there are answers to some of the unanswered questions in the blog---
“http://philosophieuniversology.blogspot.com”
Einstein’s “Law of Relativity”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am no scientist, just an amateur Physicist, however I truly love physics, and within my understanding of what is defined as E=MC(2)… I have some doubts: There is one basic issue or missing component.
When Einstein made reference of relativity, he spoke about observing a specific event from the point of view (observation made) by an individual sitting at a position where the relativistic event took place. I will call this location A for the purposes of this discussion. Position A is therefore the position of the INITIATOR of a specific relativistic event. From the initiator’s point of view it is clear that the formula E=MC(2) makes sense. The reason for this is that the missing piece in the formula is equivalent to zero, therefore is it logically invisible for the initiator of the event. From an initiator’s point of view, nothing else impacts the relativistic E=MC(2) formula. In this case, all is good, Science remains predictable and Einstein remains correct.
However, he forgot to expand that ‘vision’ from the point of view of ‘external’ observers. To put it more clearly, Einstein is totally correct in defining the ‘local’ impact of relativity from the point of view of where a relativistic event takes place or starts. However, very simply, he forgot to go a bit further. If there was someone else observing the relativistic event (herein called observer B) from a different position (location), I then ask what are the things that would impact what observer B is seeing?
Well. In very simple terms, observer B would need to understand a few things:
1. Mass
2. %Speed of light
3. Energy
4. And something else. He would only be able to calculate an outcome from what he observes if he also takes into account his DISTANCE from the initiator, or distance from the event for which the initiator created.
There is a critical part here, and it still conforms to Einstein’s law of relativity.
There is a missing component missing in the formula to make it truly relative to everything else, not only to the initiator of the event, and this is DISTANCE.
From observer B standpoint, he will observe an event created by observer A, however, from his point of view, he also needs to take into account how far away he is from the event which observer A created so that he can appropriately calculate how the laws of relativity impact him in terms of where he is located. Assuming that observer B can only observe a certain action taking place at the speed of light, it therefore means that the further away he is from the event created by observer A will determine (mathematically) how early or late he will observe the event.
So to make Einstein’s relativity formula complete, you need to add r=distance to it. Here, therefore it now becomes easy to understand the relationship between distance and time : r and t: And it becomes clear that r and t are one and the same, therefore r and t are the same, therefore r=t.
So the actual formula is E=MRC(2)
And by inference, therefore, the definition of Time IS R=MC (2)/E
This also implies that Distance is equivalent to Mass x % Speed of light / Energy, therefore also implies that a spaceship can cross the universe in an instantaneous manner, depending on who is observing the spaceship.
There is a ‘wave type’ duality between distance and time. Here I am not sure how it works, however if you take into account the above formula the human definition of time will be directly related to the definition of distance. So here, time and distance is the same thing.
I have many sketches on this, which, from a visual perspective, simplify what I am discussing here.
In summary, Einstein was totally right. Time, and therefore Distance… is relative however, its relativity depends on distance from the relativistic event.
If you are interested I can forward sketches.
To spice up the subject, observer B would experience something very different if he decided to get closer to the event initiated by observer A. In the first stage, prior to getting close to the relativistic event, he would see TIME compressing relative to the event in front of him, but as soon as he reaches and clearly overtakes the event, if he looks back at the event created by observer A, he would see time dilation. At the same time all this is happening, his own reference to his own initial location of observation would be one where his own time has slowed down relative to his initial location.
In other words, this, to me proves a number of things:
1. Distance is indeed a factor which was not taken into account
2. The multiplicity of time (relative to specific events, its creators and observers) and its mutual relationships are complex… therefore it is clear that TIME is something which can be manipulated, dependent on location of observation
3. There are multiple dimensions of observations, and depending on who is observing a specific event, the outcome will be different. It will be different in terms of TIME, and if TIME is equals Distance, it means that there could be a number of places (distances) an event will take place, and if this is so, and although there is one reality and one outcome for a specific observer, there is an infinite number of TIME/DISTANCE outcomes for different observers.
4. And finally, it therefore seems that one can predict a PHYSICAL outcome, but one cannot predict when and where it will happen as this will depend on where the observer is located.
5. However if we were able to build a framework where you can predict a specific event outcome from an infinite number of observer
positions, one
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this6. Would be able to predict a specific location and time for the outcome of an event to everyone observing it.
7. It further implies that the speed of light limit does exist, however it only exists in relation to observer A, not to observer B. And therefore it means that the speed of light restriction is not real, as it is only real to observer A, whilst not for the remainder of INFINITE observers watching the same event from different locations. And therefore, distance from event initiation is FUNDAMENTAL in terms of defining the law of relativity.
Sorry, mistake... observer B , when approaching a relativistic event created by observer A would see time dilation until such time when he reaches the event, and thereafter he would see time compressing looking back at the event once he passed it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must apologize, the first instance of my comments/response was not clear. I am posting below a clearer discussion point. Again, I apologize for not being clear the first time:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEinstein’s “Law of Relativity”
I am no scientist, just an amateur Physicist, however I truly love physics, and within my understanding of what is defined as E=MC(2)… I have some doubts: There is one basic issue or missing component.
When Einstein made reference of relativity, he spoke about observing a specific event from the point of view (observation made) by an individual sitting at a position where the relativistic event took place. I will call this location A for the purposes of this discussion. Position A is therefore the position of the INITIATOR of a specific relativistic event. From the initiator’s point of view it is clear that the formula E=MC(2) makes sense. The reason for this is that the missing piece in the formula has no effect or is equivalent to 1 as he is the initiator of the event, therefore is it logically invisible for the initiator of the event. From an initiator’s point of view, nothing else impacts the relativistic E=MC(2) formula. In this case, all is good, Science remains predictable and Einstein remains correct.
However, Einstein forgot to expand that ‘vision’ from the point of view of ‘external’ observers. To put it more clearly, Einstein is totally correct in defining the ‘local’ impact of relativity from the point of view of where a relativistic event takes place or starts. However, very simply, he forgot to go a bit further. If there was someone else observing the relativistic event (herein called observer B) from a different position (location), I then ask you, what is observer B going to see?
Well. In very simple terms, observer B would need to understand a few things:
1. Mass
2. %Speed of light
3. Energy
4. And something else. He would only be able to calculate an outcome from what he observes if he also takes into account his DISTANCE from the initiator, or distance from the event the initiator created. To add complexity, if observer B is not stationary, he would need to also include in his formula his own change in direction (distance) from the event.
There is a critical part here, and it still conforms to Einstein’s law of relativity.
However, there is, therefore, a missing component in the formula to make it truly relative to everything else, not only to the initiator of the event. The missing variable in the formula is DISTANCE as defined (distance from relativistic event).
From observer B standpoint, he will observe an event created by observer A, however, from his viewpoint (distance from the event itself) he needs to take into account how far he is from the event created by observer A so that he can appropriately calculate how the laws of relativity impact him in terms of his ability to observe the event as well as its outcome in terms relative to his own time reference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAssuming that observer B can only observe a certain action taking place at the speed of light it means that the distance he is from the event created by observer A will determine (mathematically) how early or late he will observe the event and its outcome.
So, to make Einstein’s relativity formula universally complete, you would need to add r (=distance) to it. It now becomes easy to understand the relationship between distance and time: r and t: and it becomes MORE clear that r and t are somehow related, in some sort of exponential relationship, where r and t are equal when r(x)=t(x).
So, the actual formula should be E=MR(x)C(2)
By inference, therefore, the definition of Time IS R (x)=MC (2)/E
This implies Distance and Time is equivalent to equivalent to [Distance (x)(Mass) (% Speed of light) / (Energy), therefore implying that a spaceship can cross the universe in an instantaneous manner, dependent on the distance/time reference of the observer.
There seems to be a duality/relationship between distance and time. I am not sure how it works however it seems that the definition of time will be directly related to the distance of the observer. So in this case, time and distance have a very close relationship where distance is more significantly affected as it relates to time.
I have a number of sketches that visually simplify this analogy.
In summary, Einstein was totally right. Time is relative however its relativistic properties are also dependent on distance as it relates to the location of observation.
To spice up the subject, observer B would experience something very different if he decided to get closer to the event initiated by observer A. In the first stage, prior to reaching the location of the relativistic event, observer B would see TIME dilation relative to the event in front of him, but as soon as he overtakes the event and looks back into it, he would see time compression of that event.
At the same time (don’t forget) whatever observer B is observing must be measured from his own locality in relationship to the event created by observer A, therefore his own time has slowed down relative to his initial location of observation as he speeds up towards the event created by observer A.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn other words, this would complete Einstein’s Law of Relativity by taking into account not only the impact on the observer (observer A who initiated the event), but would also mathematically predict the outcome of that event for observer B.
1. Distance from the initial relativistic has, therefore, not been taken into account as a critical factor in terms of determining the time/distance the outcome of the event will take place.
2. The multiplicity of time (relative to specific events, its creators and observers) and its relationship to distance is a complex one… therefore it seems that TIME and DISTANCE will alter the outcome of a specific event outcome location and time, which is dependent on the location for which the event is observed.
3. There are an infinite number of locations where you can choose to observe an event created by someone else, therefore depending on the location of observation, the outcome will be different as compared to the initiator of the event. It will be different in terms of TIME, and if TIME is related to distance, it will therefore be different in terms of Distance. It therefore implies that there could be a number of possible places (distances) where the final outcome of an event will take place as well as a number of possible TIMES such outcome will also take place, totally dependent to the location in which such event is being observed.
4. However if we were able to build a framework where you can predict a specific outcome from an infinite number of observer positions, one would be able to build a framework to predict a specific location and time for the outcome of an event to everyone observing it. But remember, it would be impossible to build an infinite framework… right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this5. It further implies that the speed of light limit does exist, however it only exists in relation to observer A (who created the event) and not to observer B. Therefore it means the speed of light restriction is not real, as it is only real to observer A BUT NOT TO ANY OTHER OBSERVER.
6. What is interesting is that this fits quite nicely with the definition of Atoms and Electrons where one cannot predict the location of an electron until such time the electron is observed by someone in a specific position related to the electron. Therefore, the position of a specific electron is related to the location of the observer. Have we ever been able to do experiments where there are two or more independent observers simultaneously looking at one specific electron? [Schrödinger’s cat]
7. And finally, if there are differences in outcomes dependent on place of observation, it also implies energy transfer is not perfect, and that every time energy is transferred from one state into another there is a very tiny (very very tiny) degradation of energy transfer. And if this is the case, it tells us that the laws of physics are not constant, but evolve (change) as they relate to time/distance. In other words, everything in the universe evolves, including the laws of physics. The universe is a ‘learning’ entity, always working its laws to achieve perfect balance.
8. It is a fact that magnets, for example, eventually lose their magnetism. Why is this? The only reasonable answer is that energy transfer is not perfect or infinite, as we believe. Energy transfer is ALMOST perfect. But its not. After enough time/distance, it eventually dissipates. It is clearly observable that it dissipates with distance, and therefore, if distance is correlated with time, it therefore assumes that, with time, magnetic waves emitted by the magnet will weaken. Otherwise a magnet’s magnetic field would be able to reach infinite distances right?
laurob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be wanting to take the final (and partial) results of the theory of special relativity (i.e. E=mc^2) and then re-apply the relativity of time (i.e. Lorentz transformation).
Your thoughts on time dilation and time compression when an observer is approaching and then passing an event seem to not account for Einstein's 2nd postulate (speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all inertial reference frames) or is the same error created in the twin paradox.
Your concept of "relativistic event" also does not make sense to me. An event is an event. Relativistic observations only occur when observing an event from a different inertial reference frame.