Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

This is the code that is called when the "Calculate" button is pressed for the SR method (bottom of the GUI). As described in the previous post, it combines the individual contributions from lots of small heights, within each of which the gravitational field can be regarded as uniform. i.e. numerical integration.

Code: Select all

        private void buttonCalcSR_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
        {
            double t = 1.0;
            double r = r_lower;
            for (int i = 0; i < steps; i++)
            {
                t = t * GravitationalTimeDilation(M_planet, r, H);
                r += H;
            }
            textBox1SRTimeDil.Text = t.ToString();
        }


        // As above, but we now calculate the time dilation for a small (local) room sitting
        // at distance 'radius' from the centre of a gravitating mass (planet) of mass 'mass'.
        double GravitationalTimeDilation(double mass, double radius, double h)
        {
            double g = G * mass / (radius * radius);
            return AccelerationalTimeDilation(g, h);
        }

        
        // Special Relativity
        // For an accelerating room/rocket of height 'h' this function returns the difference
        // in the measured tick rate of a clock at the bottom of the room compared to a clock
        // at the top of the room.
        double AccelerationalTimeDilation(double g, double h)
        {
            return 1 - g * h / (c * c);
        }        
        
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Tamminen »

Halc wrote: October 9th, 2018, 7:34 am From an inertial frame POV: The rocket guy is accelerating and the planet guy is not.
I have understood that being in free fall in a curved spacetime is being in an inertial frame. Light propagates in the same way as in an inertial frame in flat spacetime, so the relative time dilation between the top and bottom of the rocket is 0. Accelerating in relation to each of these inertial frames at a = 1 g makes the same effect on the relative time dilation, and one example of this acceleration is the rocket standing on the ground in a gravitational field of 1 g. Have I misunderstood the whole situation or is there a terminological confusion?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

To try to make the above snippets of code clearer, and to try again to explain the process of iterating (numerically integrating) over a long series of small heights, within each of which the gravitational field can be regarded as uniform, here's a simple flowchart which schematically represents that code:
Flowchart.jpg
Flowchart.jpg (11.01 KiB) Viewed 9027 times
As I've said, 'h' is a very small constant value. The smaller it is, the closer each section comes to having a uniform gravitational field within it, and the closer the approximation to the GR result. But each of these small sections is calculated at a different value of 'g' because they are each at a different value of 'r'. This is what happens in a process of numerical integration. That's what numerical integration means.

We must surely all remember, at school, finding the area under a graph of a curve by dividing the graph into a series of thin rectangles? That's numerical integration. The area of each rectangle is not exactly equal to the area of the section of the graph that it represents. It's an approximation. But the thinner the rectangles (and therefore the more of them there are) the more accurate the approximation becomes.

See?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

Tamminen wrote:I have understood that being in free fall in a curved spacetime is being in an inertial frame. Light propagates in the same way as in an inertial frame in flat spacetime, so the relative time dilation between the top and bottom of the rocket is 0. Accelerating in relation to each of these inertial frames at a = 1 g makes the same effect on the relative time dilation, and one example of this acceleration is the rocket standing on the ground in a gravitational field of 1 g. Have I misunderstood the whole situation or is there a terminological confusion?
I don't think you have misunderstood the situation. I think you've understood it. I think in an earlier comment you mentioned that in an accelerating reference frame, we can think of spacetime as being flat but angled i.e. uniform. You were exactly right. The same slope everywhere. The same arrows everywhere. Acceleration is, in every measurable way, equivalent to being in a uniform gravitational field. But real gravitation fields are not uniform. They are radial. They spread out from a point and get weaker with the square of the distance from that point. That's why, when we go from the SR consideration of an accelerating box to GR time dilation, we have to use a series of small boxes. Because within each of those small boxes the gravitational field is approximately uniform. The smaller the box, the better the approximation.

That's what I've been trying to explain to Halc in my last few posts.
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Halc »

Steve3007 wrote: October 9th, 2018, 8:52 am This is the code that is called when the "Calculate" button is pressed for the SR method (bottom of the GUI). As described in the previous post, it combines the individual contributions from lots of small heights, within each of which the gravitational field can be regarded as uniform. i.e. numerical integration.
OK, you seem to be using two different methods to compute the dilation of clocks on/near gravitational wells. This contradicts your description of it:
The second method uses the results of Special Relativity to calculate the time dilation between two clocks at either end of an accelerating room/box/elevator/rocket which is not in a gravitational field.
The second method is actually doing what the first one did: Calculates the numbers for a gravitational field. It computes g from r for instance in the GravitationalTimeDilation function, with r being bumped by H each iteration. But in the case of clocks at either end of an accelerating room/box/elevator/rocket which is not in a gravitational field, g would be a constant instead of a function of a nonexistent r.
So that's why the numbers are the same. They're both the gravity case, and neither is the acceleration case. You're not computing the difference between Alice and Bob in the rocket, just Alice and Bob in an improbably tall building using two different methods.

I'm not disputing that GR does not follow from SR.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

Halc wrote:The second method is actually doing what the first one did
No it's not. The first method uses General Relativity, as described by Schwartzschild.
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Halc »

Tamminen wrote: October 9th, 2018, 9:27 am
Halc wrote: October 9th, 2018, 7:34 am From an inertial frame POV: The rocket guy is accelerating and the planet guy is not.
I have understood that being in free fall in a curved spacetime is being in an inertial frame.
It is equivalent to an inertial frame. Locally, the observer cannot tell the difference. Non-locally, we can. You look in the sky and notice that we're going around the sun once a year. Clearly we're not inertial by this non-local observation.
Light propagates in the same way as in an inertial frame in flat spacetime, so the relative time dilation between the top and bottom of the rocket is 0.
The rocket isn't inertial, but accelerating, so I don't know what you mean by this. It isn't in free fall.
Accelerating in relation to each of these inertial frames at a = 1 g makes the same effect on the relative time dilation, and one example of this acceleration is the rocket standing on the ground in a gravitational field of 1 g. Have I misunderstood the whole situation or is there a terminological confusion?
That part looks good.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

Halc wrote: It computes g from r for instance in the GravitationalTimeDilation function
No, it computes 'g' from 'r' using the standard definition:

g = GM/r2
with r being bumped by H each iteration.
Yes.
But in the case of clocks at either end of an accelerating room/box/elevator/rocket which is not in a gravitational field, g would be a constant instead of a function of a nonexistent r.
It is the equivalent of a uniform gravitational field, in which g is constant. As I've said, in a small volume, with small 'h', g can be regarded as constant within that volume. As I've said, with reference to measuring the area under a graph of a curve using a series of thin rectangles, that's how numerical integration works. The small the value of 'h' the better the approximation but the larger the number of iterations required.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

So that's why the numbers are the same. They're both the gravity case, and neither is the acceleration case. You're not computing the difference between Alice and Bob in the rocket, just Alice and Bob in an improbably tall building using two different methods.
No i'm not because I'm not using the Alice/Bob SR-based equation for the other calculation. For that calculation, as I've said, I'm using the equations of General Relativity. I am thereby demonstrating how the equations of GR derive from those of SR.

To try to make it easier to understand, I drew pictures of the relevant equations on the appropriate parts of the GUI of the application that I wrote. Did you see them?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

Halc, do you get this now?

In the application I use two different methods to calculate the time dilation.

1.
This equation from General Relativity: (1 - 2GM / rc2)0.5

2.
This equation which was derived from Special Relativity: (1 - gh / c2)

Both of those equations are written on the application's GUI to make this easier to see.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

Halc wrote:They're both the gravity case, and neither is the acceleration case. You're not computing the difference between Alice and Bob in the rocket, just Alice and Bob in an improbably tall building using two different methods
No. One is the gravity case, in the sense that it uses the equation from General Relativity. The other is the acceleration case in the sense that it uses the equation from Special Relativity which tells us the time dilation between the top and bottom of a box of height 'h' which is accelerating. It then uses the fact that acceleration is exactly equivalent in every measurable way to a uniform gravitational field.

The only reason why you've read people saying that the equivalence principle only works "locally" is because real gravitational fields are radial. So they can only be approximated as a uniform gravitational field in a small volume. i.e. locally. Hence the integration/iteration.
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Tamminen »

Halc wrote: October 9th, 2018, 9:47 am The rocket isn't inertial, but accelerating, so I don't know what you mean by this. It isn't in free fall.
I am describing the initial situation when the rocket is in free fall instead of standing on the ground. It accelerates relative to that inertial frame.
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Halc »

Steve3007 wrote: October 9th, 2018, 9:27 am To try to make the above snippets of code clearer, and to try again to explain the process of iterating (numerically integrating) over a long series of small heights, within each of which the gravitational field can be regarded as uniform, here's a simple flowchart which schematically represents that code:
I can read the code. The GR functions are also missing. All you posted was the SR parts. The SR formula for the rocket needs no iteration. Just plug in the acceleration and height of the rocket to get the dilation factor, and then multiply that by the duration of the experiment to get the number of seconds difference after X many years.
As I've said, 'h' is a very small constant value. The smaller it is, the closer each section comes to having a uniform gravitational field within it, and the closer the approximation to the GR result. But each of these small sections is calculated at a different value of 'g' because they are each at a different value of 'r'. This is what happens in a process of numerical integration. That's what numerical integration means.
I know what numerical integration is. I used a similar method to simulate a stable inverted pendulum, a really weird effect of classical physics. You did it correctly, but you did it for varying gravity both times, never constant acceleration like you'd get in the rocket. That's why the numbers came out the same.

To do the rocket, you need to ignore r. There is no r in a rocket. There is just a fixed g, and the computations with GR and SR will still come out the same if you use fixed g instead of g computed as a function of r and m (nit: Mass is m, not M), but with a fixed g, there is no dilation in comparison with the clock at infinity, so that would not be computable, which illustrates that actual dilation is not a function of only g.

Correction of one of my comments: I had mistakenly put the escape velocity from the rocket at infinity, but actually its escape velocity is c. Anything slower than that shot from the front of the rocket, and the rocket will eventually catch up to it.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Steve3007 »

Halc wrote:OK, you seem to be using two different methods to compute the dilation of clocks on/near gravitational wells. This contradicts your description of it:
No, it agrees with what I've now said over the last few posts. I have used two different methods and they have given the same numerical result. Method one uses General Relativity's equations that describe time dilation in real, radial gravitational fields. Method two uses Special Relativity's equations that describe time dilation in accelerated reference frames.
User avatar
Halc
Posts: 405
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Does Special Relativity contain contradictions?

Post by Halc »

Steve3007 wrote: October 9th, 2018, 9:47 am
Halc wrote: It computes g from r for instance in the GravitationalTimeDilation function
No, it computes 'g' from 'r' using the standard definition:
g = GM/r2
I thought I just said that. I don't understand the 'No,' part.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021