Einstein's Theory and Common Sense Jeff Alford I believe that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is entirely invalid. The purpose of the papers is to look critically at Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, primarily his Special Theory of Relativity. In what follows, I will very briefly define Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and then discuss related topics in greater detail. The purpose is to identify a common ground or reference for further discussion, and to outline the content of more detailed papers which are (or will be) linked. But first, let us briefly look at two things. One is the fact that the theory proposes some things which violate common sense. The other is the fact that observers and reference frames play a very fundamental role in this theory.

a. Common Sense You probably already know that the theory proposes some things which violate common sense. Even Einstein admits that it does. I trust my common sense. It is my opinion that the fact that the theory proposes some things which violate common sense, in and of itself, is reason enough to question the theory. In what way does the theory violate common sense? One proposal Einstein makes in the theory that violates common sense is his proposal of space transformation. This proposal says that meters do not always correspond one to one. More specifically, it says that one meter for one observer will not correspond with one meter for another observer if they are moving very fast with respect to one another. The reason this violates common sense is because common sense tells us that meters must always correspond one to one. Or better, common sense tells us that an accurate picture of the real physical world can only be obtained by defining for all meters to correspond one to one. Common sense tells us that if we were to define for one meter over here (or pertaining to this observer) to correspond with two meters over there (or for that observer) then what we would get would be some skewed and inaccurate representation of the real physical world. Since Einstein admits that his theory violates common sense, he has to provide us with an argument as to why it is that common sense cannot be used to interpret the phenomenon that his theory deals with. When objects travel at low relative speeds, relativity predicts only negligible and undetectable effects. So, even according to relativity theory, our common sense can be relied on here. But if the objects travel fast with respect to one another, then the relativistic effects can be very significant. So what Einstein really has to do is provide us with a reason as to why our common sense cannot be relied upon to interpret high-speed phenomenon. Einstein’s argument is as follows. Einstein begins his argument with the empiricist premise that "common sense intuition", as he calls it, is grounded on everyday human experience. But everyday human experience, Einstein continues, is not familiar with the observation of objects moving at high relative speeds. Therefore, Einstein concludes, we cannot rely on our adolescent and underdeveloped common sense intuition to interpret and predict phenomenon which occurs outside of this domain. It is ironic to note that Einstein, the same person who breathed life into the concept of the observer in physics, and the same person who here proposes that common sense cannot be relied upon to interpret phenomenon outside of the everyday experience domain, later opposes common sense violating propositions having to do with the observer measurement process in quantum mechanics. To argue against these propositions of quantum mechanics that violate common sense, Einstein tells us of a belief that he has which relies entirely on common sense and on faith. This is "God does not play dice with the universe". Einstein is not here saying that there has to be a God, but Einstein is saying that physical processes, at the most fundamental level, must be definitive and predictable. Since this author happens to believe in common sense, this author likes Einstein’s claim "God does not play dice with the universe" very much.

b. The Central Theme: Observers and Reference Frames As we will see, the theory revolves around the concepts of observers and reference frames. Einstein starts the theory off with some postulates. These postulates have to do with laws of physics. To create these postulates, Einstein assumes that the motion referred to in a law of physics is always supposed to be taken with respect to an observer or reference frame. Einstein further interprets, here, that it has to be proven as to whether or not a law of physics is valid in a reference frame or for an observer. These postulates, when considered together, produce an assumption about the velocity of light. This velocity is taken with respect to an observer or reference frame. In order to make his assumption about light work, Einstein proposes some modifications of things. These things are space, time, mass and events (or simultaneity of events). These modifications are to be taken between observers or reference frames. But before Einstein can propose that these things be modified between observers or reference frames, he must first define these things to pertain to observers or reference frames. This Einstein does by saying that increments of space and time (such as a meter or second) can only be defined for an observer or reference frame, by certain measuring devices which must remain at rest to the observer or reference frame. In his relativity paper of 1905, the measuring devices he mentions are "rigid rods" and "synchronized clocks".

A. A Very Short Summary of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity

1. Einstein’s Assumption about Light in Terms of a Freeway Thought Experiment What does Einstein’s Theory of Relativity say? That is the question. When I try to describe Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to people who are unfamiliar with the theory, I like to begin with the following very simple freeway thought experiment. Consider three cars on a freeway. Let us say that car S is parked on the freeway. Let us say that car S’ is traveling at 40 MPH on the freeway. But the third car, car three, is a very special car. Car three, says Einstein, must travel at the same velocity of 60 MPH with respect to both S and S’. We cannot comprehend how this can be possible. If car three travels at 60 MPH on the freeway, then it will travel at 60 MPH with respect to S, but it will only be traveling at 20 MPH with respect to S’. If car three is traveling at 100 MPH on the freeway, then it will be traveling at 60 MPH with respect to S’, but it will be traveling at 100 MPH with respect to S. But Einstein says it must travel at 60 MPH with respect to both. In this freeway thought experiment, cars S and S’ represent observers S and S’, and car three represents a light pulse. The requirement that car three travel at the same velocity of 60 MPH with respect to each represents Einstein’s assumption (or requirement, which is probably a better word for it) about light which his Theory of Relativity is built upon. There are really two theories, or if you prefer, a smaller theory which is a subset (or particular case of) a larger theory. The smaller theory is called The Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) and the larger theory is called The General Theory of Relativity (GRT). SRT considers the case where cars S and S’ travel at a constant velocity with respect to one another (i.e. they do not accelerate with respect to one another). GRT considers also the case where cars S and S’ accelerate with respect to one another.

2. Einstein’s Four Primary Modifications Einstein’s assumption about light essentially states that the velocity of light is not additive between observers, S and S’, even when S and S’ move with respect to one another. In the freeway thought experiment above, we have illustrated why the law of addition of velocities (of a light pulse) does not permit Einstein’s assumption when S and S’ move with respect to one another. And Einstein realizes that his assumption about light appears not to be possible for the reasons illustrated in the freeway thought experiment. If Einstein placed more faith in the law of addition of velocities (of a light pulse) than he did in his assumption about light, then he would call it quits at this point and close the books on this theory. But Einstein places more faith in his assumption about light than he does in the law of addition of velocities (of a light pulse). Therefore, Einstein proceeds to look for a way to make room for his assumption by somehow adjusting the law of addition of velocities (of a light pulse). Since rate times time equals distance, it should come as no surprise to learn that Einstein tries to make his assumption work by tinkering with space and time between S and S’. Actually, Einstein finds four primary modifications necessary to make his assumption work. They are: space transformation, time transformation, mass transformation, and "Relativity of Simultaneity". The transformations claim that meters, seconds, and grams do not correspond one to one between S and S’ when they move with respect to one another. Einstein derives his space and time transformations though a thought experiment which is not that different from the freeway thought experiment previously considered. The thought experiment considers an event to create a wavefront of light where and when observers S and S’ pass one another at constant speed (SRT). The transformations are then derived by requiring the wavefront (or pulse of light on the wavefront) to travel radially at c in each of two coordinate systems, S and S’, which are glued to the observers. There are a few different variations of the thought experiment used and of the mathematical derivation itself. "Relativity of Simultaneity" claims that although two events occur "simultaneously" (i.e. at the same time) for one observer, they might not occur "simultaneously" for a second observer, if the second observer is moving with respect to the first. In his relativity paper of 1905, Einstein demonstrated this effect by using a thought experiment involving a rod moving through reference systems. Later, however, Einstein found it more illustrative to demonstrate this effect through a thought experiment involving a train, embankment, and two lightning strikes.

B. Further Discussion 1. The Postulates We have said that each of SRT and GRT are based on an assumption about light. We have noted that Einstein places more faith in his assumption about light than he does in the law of addition of velocities (of a light pulse). We should therefore expect Einstein to tell us why he places so much faith in his assumption about light. Einstein claims that his assumption about light is justified because it follows from the mutual consideration of two postulates which are themselves justified (or so he claims). There are two such postulates in SRT and there are two such postulates in GRT. The second postulate is called The Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light, or The L-Principle. This second postulate remains the same in each theory, but the first postulate is generalized from SRT to GRT via Einstein’s "Principle of Equivalence". In SRT, the first postulate is called The Special Principle of Relativity (SPR), or The Principle of Relativity (in the restricted sense). In GRT, the first postulate is called The General Principle of Relativity (GPR), or The Principle of Relativity (in the widest sense). By "in the restricted sense", Einstein means "without consideration of his ‘Principle of Equivalence’". By "in the widest sense", Einstein means "with the consideration of his ‘Principle of Equivalence’". It is only when you put the first postulate together with the second postulate, says Einstein, that you get his assumption about light upon which each theory is built. Einstein’s assumption about light states that light travels at the same velocity of c, with respect to those observers (reference systems) identified in the first postulate. The difference between SRT and GRT stems from the difference between SPR and GPR.

For a more thorough discussion about the content of and logic behind Einstein’s first postulate, please see my paper "The Mechanical Part of Einstein’s First Postulate in SRT".

2. Einstein’s Assumption and Light Isotropy

As previously mentioned, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is based on an assumption about the constant velocity of light. More specifically, it is based on an assumption about the constant velocity of electromagnetic waves (i.e. not just those within the frequency range of visible light) when the electromagnetic waves travel through empty space. The word "isotropic" means "same in all directions". We can say that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is based on an assumption about what light travels isotropic with respect to, when it travels through empty space. Einstein’s theory competes, here, with other theories that offer descriptions about what light travels isotropic with respect to when it travels through empty space. Prior to Relativity Theory, there were promoted two such theories: Ballistic and Ether. The Ballistic Theory assumes that light travels isotropic to some source of the light. There are different variations of the Ballistic Theory depending on the extent to which the source is assumed to "pass the torch" so to speak. The Ether Theory assumes that light travels isotropic to some hypothetical "ether" which permeates all empty space. There were two primary variations of the Ether Theory: Stationary and Entrained. The Entrained Ether Theory assumes that the ether is dragged by matter (like the earth) which moves through it. The Stationary Ether Theory assumes that the ether remains homogeneously "dense" throughout the universe (i.e. it is not dragged by material matter). Only experiment can decide which of these theories is right and which are wrong. It is obvious that light travels through empty space in outer space but light also travels through the empty space between molecules here on earth. Therefore, the isotropy of light through empty space can be measured here on earth without having to send the light through an artificially created vacuum. Experiments which attempt to measure the isotropy of light through empty space can be subdivided into two classes: Terrestrial and Stellar. Terrestrial experiments attempt to measure the isotropy of light when it travels through the empty space between the molecules in the atmosphere of the earth. Stellar experiments attempt to measure the isotropy of light when it travels through the empty space in outer space before it reaches the earth’s atmosphere. The most popular terrestrial experiment is the Michelson Morley experiment performed in 1881 and 1887. This experiment demonstrates that light, if is emitted by a source at rest to earth, travels isotropic to the earth when it travels through the earth’s atmosphere. The most popular stellar experiment is Bradley’s report of Stellar Aberration in 1726. This finding suggests that light, emitted by a single (not double) star, travels isotropic to the star before it enters the earth’s atmosphere.

For a more detailed discussion, please see my paper "Light Isotropy: Theory and Experiment"

3. Einstein’s Modifications We have mentioned Einstein’s four primary modifications. There are others. In his relativity paper of 1905, Einstein derives the Doppler and aberration formulas. Later that year he published his famous mass energy equivalence principle. In 1907, Minkowski invented his two event interval. At first Einstein was reluctant to accept this formalism, but he got around to it by 1912. But back to the primary four. There are two things that should be noted here about these four primary modifications. First of all, Einstein says that these modifications all occur together. In other words, Einstein claims that his modifications are cooperative modifications (i.e. as opposed to alternative modifications). In other words, observer S will view the length of a fast moving object to contract and he/she will view the mass of the same fast moving object to increase (i.e. as opposed to viewing the length of a fast moving object to contract or the mass of the same fast moving object to increase).

Second of all, for each modification of the system of S’ with respect to the system of S, there occurs also the same modification of the system of S with respect to the system of S’. For example, an earth observer would view a spaceship passing by to contract. But the spaceship observer would view the earth to contract. Since there are four modifications of the system of S’ with respect to the system of S, there are four more modifications of the system of S with respect to the system of S’. In other words, for every two observers, there are a total of eight modifications (four modifications are viewed by S and four modifications are viewed by S’). It should also be noted that the two-way modifications discussed in the above paragraph imply an apparent contradiction inherent in the theory. Relativity advocates have known about these apparent contradictions (dubbed "paradox") ever since the early years of the theory. Relativity advocates attempt to explain why these apparent contradictions are only apparent through thought experiments. There is the Pole-in-the-Barn Paradox (SRT) and there is the Twin Paradox (GRT).

4. Measuring Devices Prior to Einstein, physicists accepted what seemed obviously true- that an accurate picture of the real physical world can only be obtained by defining for all meters and seconds absolutely, or independently of any observer (or reference frame) to whom (within which) the meter or second pertained. But Einstein is proposing that this seemingly obvious condition be broken. More specifically, Einstein is proposing that meters and seconds not correspond one to one between observers (reference frames) when they move with respect to one another at great speeds. Before Einstein can even begin to propose that the one to one correspondence of meters and seconds, between S and S’, be altered, Einstein must first try to define meters and seconds to pertain individually to each of S and S’. In other words, before Einstein can propose that a meter for one observer does not correspond with a meter for another observer, he must first define a meter per each observer. To this purpose, Einstein claims that meters and seconds, for a given observer, can only be properly defined by certain measuring devices which, he finds, must be placed at rest to the observer. There is a clock synchronization process through which Einstein attempts to do this. In his relativity paper of 1905, Einstein calls these measuring devices "rigid rods" and "synchronized clocks". These are purely theoretical measuring devices and the process that Einstein uses to synchronize the clocks is purely theoretical as well. This clock synchronization process is not used in practice. In practice, the lifetime of a naturally disintegrating particle defines a second (or fraction of a second) and the resistance of a charge to accelerate defines a gram (or fraction of a gram). By claiming that measuring devices, themselves, define increments of space and time, Einstein is relinquishing human judgment from determining the reliability of such measuring devices. Common sense tells us that measuring devices can serve as good indicators of increments of space and time. For example, a meter stick is usually a good indicator of a meter and a mechanical watch is usually a good indicator of a second. But not always. Rods can decay and clocks can break down. Common sense tells us that only we human beings can properly judge when a rod or a clock is reliable. Common sense tells us that we should never place more faith in the rods or the clocks, themselves, than we do in our own personal judgment of their reliability. For more information about measuring devices, in theory and in practice, please see my paper "Measuring Devices: In Theory and in Practice".