# Difference between revisions of "Theory of relativity"

The Theory of Relativity is a theory of physics, that proponents argue is the best way to discribe the universe at speeds of near light speed (299,792,458 meters/second). It has been repeatedly confirmed by experiments. Criticism of the theory, however, caused physicist Robert Dicke to be denied the Nobel Prize for his flat-out rejection of what has been experimentally confirmed. It is unlikely tenure or a Ph.D would be awarded to any critic of the theory for the same reason.

Relativity refers to two closely-related mathematical theories in physics:

• General Relativity (GR) is a theory which explains the laws of motion as viewed from accelerating reference frames and includes a geometric explanation for gravity. This theory was developed by David Hilbert and Albert Einstein as an extension of the postulates of Special Relativity.[3] A dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir Arthur Eddington of experimental proof of General Relativity in 1919 made Einstein a household name.

These theories have augmented earlier approaches, such as Galilean Relativity.

Unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity have discontinuities whereby the limit of a physical quantity as a variable (such as mass or velocity) approaches a fixed value is not the same as the physical quantity at the fixed value. For example, the limit of momentum as mass approaches 0 and velocity approaches the speed of light is not equal to the momentum of (massless) light.[4]

More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses. For example, at Hofstra University general relativity is taught as part of an upperclass math course on differential geometry, based on three stated assumptions.[5] The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested. Relativity rejects Newton's action at a distance, which is basic to Newtonian gravity and quantum mechanics. The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid.

Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world. To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.[6] Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis.[7] Relativity is in conflict with quantum mechanics,[8] and although theories like string theory and quantum field theory have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven.

Unlike Newtonian physics, in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity.

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality, but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."[9] Consequently, in 1928 Paul Dirac derived the Dirac equation, one of the first quantum mechanical equations compatible with special relativity, by which Dirac predicted the existence of antimatter. Four years later, antimatter (the positron) was discovered by Carl Anderson, as successfully predicted by relativistic quantum mechanics. Quantum field theory, a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the graviton.

## Special Relativity

Lorentz and Poincare developed Special Relativity as way of understanding how Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism could be valid in different frames of reference. Einstein famously published an explanation of Poincare's theory in terms of two assumptions (postulates):

1. The speed of light is constant for all (inertial) observers, regardless of their velocities relative to each other.
2. The laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames.

In layman's terms, these two assumptions can be restated as:

1. It is impossible ever to transmit information faster than the speed of light.[10]
2. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, in every location throughout the universe.
3. The laws of physics are identical, without any variation, no matter how fast something is traveling (in the absence of acceleration).

Or, in more concise, clearer terms, these assumptions are this:

1. there is no action at a distance (because that would make observations dependent on the frame of reference)
2. space and time are completely symmetric throughout the universe (because otherwise frames of reference would not be interchangeable)

When the assumptions are stated clearly as above, the weaknesses in the theory are more apparent. There “is” action at a distance in quantum entanglement and apparently also in gravity, as no gravitons can be found. However, no information has yet been transmitted via quantum entanglement, so while non-locality violates the spirit of relativity it is consistent with it if relativity is limited to the transmission of information. Quantum field theory, an attempt to partially reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity, is incomplete at best. As to the second assumption, it is contrary to the arrow of time, which illustrates the lack of symmetry in time. Logical defects include the incoherence of relativistic mass (see discussion below) and the lack of relativistic constraints near the beginning the universe (see above).

Special Relativity (SR) was initially developed by Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz, working on problems in electrodynamics and the Michelson-Morley experiment, which had not found any sign of luminiferous aether, which was believed to be the substance which carried electromagnetic waves. Special relativity alters Isaac Newton's laws of motion by assuming that the speed of light will be the same for all observers, despite their relative velocities and the source of the light. (Therefore, if A sends a beam of light to B, and both measure the speed, it will be the same for both, no matter what the relative velocity of A and B. In Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, If A sends a physical object at a particular velocity towards B, and nothing slows it, the velocity of the object relative to B depends on the velocities of the object and of B relative to A.)

At low speeds (relative to light-speed), the Lorentz-Poincare relativity equations are equivalent to Newton's equations. The media-promoted equation E=mc², implausibly suggests a relationship between typically unrelated concepts of energy, the rest mass of a body and the speed of light.

Under relativity, particles at low mass and low speed can be accurately approximated by classical mechanics (such as Isaac Newton's laws of motion). At the two extremes, modeling the behavior of electrons requires that relativistic effects be taken into account (the chemically significant phenomenon of electron spin arises from relativity), and the course light passing through a region containing many massive bodies such as galaxies will be distorted (classical mechanics, in which light travels in straight lines, does not predict this). These are both experimentally confirmed (electron spin was known before relativity arose, and telescopic observations confirm that galactic clusters distort the paths of the light passing through them).

Many scientists have indicated problems with the postulates of special relativity. Paul Davies, formerly of Macquarie University and now at the University of Arizona believes that the speed of light has changed over time. Since the speed of light is a constant speed 'c' this indicates problems with the theory light speed. Other engineers and scientist have written about problems in the basic set of special relativity equations. Based on the ideas of not Einstein but of the scientist Fitzgerald as well as others, a length contraction effect was predicted as an explanation of the failure of the Michelson Morley experiment. This idea was taken up by Hendrik Lorentz and shown by others to be a useful mechanism by which theory could be forced into conformance with experimental results. However, in 2005, Michael Strauss a computer engineer invalidated much of Special Relativity theory by showing clear contradictions in the theory. relativity

## General Relativity

General Relativity is a theory of gravity that is compatible with Special Relativity. Einstein explains a thought experiment involving two elevators. The first elevator is stationary on the Earth, while the other is being pulled through space at a constant acceleration of g. Einstein realized that any physical experiment carried out in the elevators would give the same result. This realization is known as the equivalence principle and it states that accelerating frames of reference and gravitational fields are indistinguishable. General Relativity is the theory of gravity that incorporates Special Relativity and the equivalence principle.

General Relativity is a mathematical extension of Special Relativity. GR views space-time as a 4-dimensional manifold, which looks locally like Minkowski space, and which acquires curvature due to the presence of massive bodies. Thus, near massive bodies, the geometry of space-time differs to a large degree from Euclidean geometry: for example, the sum of the angles in a triangle is not exactly 180 degrees. Just as in classical physics, objects travel along geodesics in the absence of external forces. Importantly though, near a massive body, geodesics are no longer straight lines. It is this phenomenon of objects traveling along geodesics in a curved spacetime that accounts for gravity.

At one time the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion seemed to support the Theory of General Relativity, but increasingly accurate measurements show a divergence of the data from the theory.[11] There are other explanations based in Newtonian gravity, such as factoring in the pull of the other planets on Mercury's orbit. One Newtonian explanation requires a slight alternation to the precise inverse-square relation of Newtonian gravity to distance, which is disfavored by mathematicians due to its inelegance in integrating.

British Historian Paul Johnson declares the turning point in 20th century to have been when fellow Briton Sir Arthur Eddington, an esteemed English astronomer, ventured out on a boat off Africa in 1919 with a local Army unit to observe the bending of starlight around the sun during a total eclipse. Upon his return to England declared that his observations proven the theory of relativity. In fact recent analysis of Eddington's work revealed that he was biased in selecting his data, and that overall his data were inconclusive about the theory of relativity. The prediction was later confirmed by more rigorous experiments, such as those performed by the Hubble Space Telescope [12][13][14]. Lorentz has this to say on the discrepancies between the empirical eclipse data and Einstein's predictions.

It indeed seems that the discrepancies may be ascribed to faults in observations, which supposition is supported by the fact that the observations at Prince's Island, which, it is true, did not turn out quite as well as those mentioned above, gave the result, of 1.64, somewhat lower than Einstein's figure.[15]

The prediction that light is bent by gravity is predicted both by Newtonian physics and relativity, but relativity predicts a larger deflection.

Special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity where all gravitational fields are weak. Alternatively, special relativity is the limiting case of general relativity when all reference frames are inertial (non-accelerating and without gravity).

## The concept behind Eddington’s experiment is flawed

Eddington measured the angle of a deflected light wave off the coast of West Africa during the 1919 eclipse and confirmed Einstein’s theory of relativity. But . . . for a light wave to produce an angle, means the light wave was pulled round to Eddingtons line of sight. Proving the image used in comparison was not the image destined for West Africa, but an image already offset, thus increasing the angle. The error in this experiment is difficult to explain but easy to visualise. To see diagrams explaining the error, click here and then click on the front cover image and go to page 5 and 6. [16]

## Lack of evidence for Relativity

The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "arrow of time" admitting how time is not symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or entropy. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., wormholes) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS) are false. A 1996 article explains:

"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."[17][18]

This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."[19] Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. While Van Flandern believed that relativity is unnecessary for GPS, he also asserted that observations of GPS satellites supported both general and special relativity, writing that "we can assert with confidence that the predictions of relativity are confirmed to high accuracy over time periods of many days," with unrelated factors interfering with longer-term observations. [20]

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences confirm the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks, likely because in Newtonian Mechanics every clock in the universe keeps time at the same rate regardless of velocity, acceleration, or the presence or absence of force.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.[21]

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to Earth several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the sun (see image at right)[22] or Saturn[23]. A satellite called Gravity Probe B was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space[24][25], but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection, but only if we treat light as capable of being accelerated and decelerated like ordinary matter, which is contrary to all measurements and observations to date.[26] Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space so long as they do not undergo accelerations near the speed of light or enter any massive gravity wells.[27]

A decade of observation of the pulsar pair PSR B1913+16 detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.[28] In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The perihelion of Mercury's orbit precesses at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the solar system, Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 arcseconds per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.[29] [30] [31] Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.[32] This phenomenon is known as gravitational lensing. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.[33] [34] [35] Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.[36]

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.[37] However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.[38] Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.[39] The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities.[40]

## Experiments that Fail to Prove Relativity

The different effects predicted by special relativity, compared to classical formulations, are extremely tiny. Most relativistic effects are negligible at the speeds of ordinary phenomena observed by humans. The effects only become significant when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, which is  meters per second—such speeds are called relativistic. (However, it's worth noting that ordinary magnetism can be considered an effect of relativity, dictated by the need for electrostatic theory to be correct under relativity. The speed of light in fact appears in the formulas (Maxwell's Equations) governing electricity and magnetism, though these equations were developed long before relativity was proposed.)

Because the effects of relativity are so tiny, scientists have been devising sophisticated and sensitive tests ever since the theory was formulated in 1905.

• At the end of Einstein's original 1905 paper "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend its Energy Content?", he speculates on the possibility that the equation , which would normally be very hard to verify, could be verified with the extremely high energies of the newly-discovered phenomenon of radioactivity.[41] In the 1910's, with the invention of the mass spectrometer, it became possible to measure masses of nuclei accurately. This led to the clearing up of the mystery of atomic masses not being exact integers,and strongly suggested the existence of a "mass defect" (or "packing fraction") consistent with the mass-energy equivalence. In the 1930's, experiments with known nuclear reactions showed a very accurate correlation between the masses of the nuclei involved and the energy released.
• Another prediction of special relativity was time dilation in rapidly moving objects. This effect was most famously verified in the anomalously slow decay of relativistic cosmic muons[42]. Time dilation has since been verified many times, and is routinely taken into account in all high-energy nuclear physics experiments, as in Hadron collision experiments[43].

Predictions of general relativity turned out to be more obscure and difficult to test. The two most famous predictions were the bending of light in a gravitational field and the precession of the perihelia of orbiting planets.

• The first of these was famously tested during a total eclipse in 1919. That test was somewhat muddled by an incorrect initial calculation, by several people including Einstein himself, of what the effect would be, and some "cherry picking" of the data to be used [44]. The data selection could be considered "manipulation" or "fudging", by a person (Arthur Eddington) who had a personal stake in the outcome. His analysis techniques would not pass muster today.
It should be noted that pre-relativistic (Newtonian) physics may also predict a bending, of half the observed value, depending on whether one uses the 17th century "corpuscular" formulation or the 19th century "wave" formulation.
Nevertheless, it has been verified with ever-increasing precision in subsequent eclipses, and in the observations of quasar 3C273.
• The second "classical" test of general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury. There are many complex effects contributing to this, including gravitational perturbations from other planets and the effect of the oblateness of the Sun. These are hard to calculate accurately, but, by 1900 it was known quite accurately that there was an "anomalous" precession, that is, a precession beyond all other known effects, of 43 arc seconds per century. This is a very tiny effect, but astronomical measurements were sufficiently accurate by that time to show it clearly.
This created quite a problem—physicists by then were accustomed to having their theories check out very accurately. One proposal that was made, by Simon Newcomb and Asaph Hall, was that the exponent of the radius in the gravitational formula wasn't exactly 2. He showed that, by choosing an exponent of , the precession, as a fraction of a full orbit per planet's year, is . By setting  to .000000157, that is, an exponent of 2.000000157, Newcomb was able to get a precession of .000000078 revolutions per Mercury year, or 43 arcseconds per Earth year. The primary resistance to this approach came from mathematicians unable to do the integration without an exponent of precisely 2, and they insisted, incorrectly, that was impossible for the exponent to be slightly different from 2. Due to this desire for mathematical elegance rather than objective observation-based science, Newcomb's approach was not pursued. Furthermore as can be seen from the table below the measured values of the anomalous precessions of other planets agree well with the predictions of general relativity but poorly with those predicted by Newcomb and Hall.
While Newcomb's theory, and general relativity, don't lead to closed-form solutions, both theories can be solved numerically to as much precision as one desires.
Increasingly precise measurements of the precession demonstrate that it conflicts with General Relativity, despite claims of relativists for decades that it predicted the precession accurately in the amount of  revolutions per planet's "year", where  is the planet's average orbital speed.[45] The conflict is greater than the margin of error, and many relativists avoid the discrepancy rather than address it.
The following table show some approximate parameters for the planets. Note that Mercury has the smallest orbit, the fastest speed, and the highest gravitational pull. Precession of planets other than Mercury is extremely hard to measure, but measurements of the actual anomalous precessions are in good agreement .[46]
Planet Period, seconds x 106 Semimajor axis, meters x 109 Speed, meters/second x 103 Gravitational force, Newtons per kilogram Anomalous precession, arcseconds per (Earth) century, pure Newtonian mechanics Anomalous precession, Newtonian with exponent of 2.000000157 Anomalous precession, general relativity Measured anomalous precession (estimated uncertainty)[47]
Mercury 7.57 58.9 48 .039 0 43 43 43.5(5)
Venus 19.6 108 35 .011 0 16.6 9 8(5)
Earth 31.6 150 30 .006 0 10.3 4 5(1)
Mars 59.3 227.9 24 .0025 0 5.5 1.4
Jupiter 374 778.4 13 .0002 0 0.87 0.07
Saturn 929 1426 9.7 .00006 0 0.35 0.014
Uranus 2651 2870 6.8 .000016 0 0.12 0.002
Neptune 5200 4498 5.5 .000007 0 0.063 0.0008
The Shapiro effect: A spacecraft signal dipping into a gravity well around the Sun is delayed slightly.

As the 20th century progressed, more tests of general relativity were proposed.

• One was the Shapiro effect, involving time delay in radio signals passing through the gravity well of the Sun or a planet. Various spacecraft have confirmed this.
• Another is gravitational time dilation. This is an effect separate from the time dilation of special relativity. It was tested by the Pound-Rebka experiment in 1959.
• Later in the 20th century, even more subtle phenomena were tested. One was the phenomenon of gravitational radiation, or "gravity waves". These waves are incredibly difficult to observe, and have never been observed. But extremely dense binary pulsars radiate gravitational waves with sufficient energy loss that, even though we can't detect the waves from Earth, we can see the effect of the energy loss from the radiation. The extreme precision of the timing of pulses from pulsars makes it possible to observe their energy loss with great accuracy. Observations by Hulse and Taylor of the pulsar pair known as B1913+16, if assumptions are made, could make the energy loss appear consistent with the predicted radiation. Those observations have not been followed up with more recent, precise data, raising questions about whether the pulsar data is consistent with the theory today.
• Two other effects, geodetic precession (also known as "de Sitter precession"), and frame dragging (also known as the "Lense-Thirring effect") were tested by the "Gravity Probe B" satellite early in the 21st century[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. The precision required to observe this was phenomenal. The results were announced on May 4, 2011.

## Predicted consequences of the Theories

### Time dilation

Light-cone diagram

One important consequence of SR's postulates is that an observer in one reference frame will observe a clock in another frame to be "ticking" more slowly than in the observer's own frame. This can be proven mathematically using basic geometry, if the postulates are physically true without exception.

The length of an event , as seen by a (relative) stationary observer observing an event is given by:



Where

 is the "proper time" or the length of the event in the observed frame of reference.
 is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
 is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Evidence for time dilation was discovered by studying muon decay. Muons are subatomic particles with a very short halflife (1.53 microseconds at rest) and a very fast speed (0.994c). By putting muon detectors at the top (D1) and bottom (D2) of a mountain with a separation of 1900m, scientists could measure accurately the proportion of muons reaching the second detector in comparison to the first. The proportion found was different to the proportion that was calculated without taking into account relativistic effects.

Using the equation for exponential decay, they could use this proportion to calculate the time taken for the muons to decay, relative to the muon. Then, using the time dilation equation they could then work out the dilated time. The dilated time showed a good correlation with the time it took the muons to reach the second sensor, thereby supporting the existence of time dilation.

The time taken for a muon to travel from D1 to D2 as measured by a stationary observer is:



The fraction of muons arriving at D2 in comparison to D1 was 0.732. (Given by )

Since (from the equation for exponential decay)  then



This gives the time for the proportion of decay to occur for an observer who is stationary, relative to the muon.

Putting this into the time dilation equation gives:



This is in good agreement with the value calculated above, thereby providing evidence to support time dilation.

#### Time Dilation and Creation Science

For a more detailed treatment, see Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model.

Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. John Hartnett have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.

### Length contraction

When two inertial reference frames move past each other in a straight line with constant relative velocity, an observer in one reference frame would observe a metre rule in the other frame to be shorter.

The length, , of an object as seen by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:



Where

 is the "proper length" or the length of the object in the observed frame of reference.
 is the relative velocity between the reference frames.
 is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

### Mass increase

For decades the theory of relativity taught that as a body moves with increasing velocity its mass also increases.[56]

Under this view, the mass, , of an object as detected by a (relative) stationary observer is given by:



Where

 is the "rest mass" or the mass of the object when it is at rest.
 is the relative velocity of the object.
 is the speed of light (3x108 ms-1).

Since speed is relative, it follows that two observers in different inertial reference frames may disagree on the mass and kinetic energy of a body. Since all inertial reference frames are treated on an equal footing, it follows that mass and energy are interchangeable.

In recent years most physicists have shifted away from Einstein's original reliance on relativistic mass and his suggestion that mass increases[Citation Needed]. Instead, most physicists today teach that



where  is the momentum defined by ,  is the standard Lorentz factor, and  is the proper time. Force F defined this way is a vector and thus can handle the directional aspect of the relativistic effects better than the concept of relativistic mass can.

The abandonment by physicists of the concept of relativistic mass, however, has the consequence of undermining the traditional claim under relativity that



also popularly known as



Now a concept of the 4-momentum  of a particle is taught, such that the square of the magnitude of  satisfies:



in any inertial reference frame. The magnitude of the 4-momentum, in any inertial frame, equals the rest mass  of the particle (in units where ).

The predictions of the theory of relativity throw up a number of apparent paradoxes and anomalies relating to the effects of time dilatation and length contraction. Whilst these paradoxes are consistent with the theory, they are contrary to everyday human experience and therefore can seem like impossibilities.

### The Twin Paradox

The twin paradox is usually stated as a thought experiment involving two twins, one of whom is sent on a long journey in a spacecraft travelling at close to the speed of light, whilst the other remains on Earth. Time dilatation means that the travelling twin, on his return to Earth, is younger that the twin who has remained at home. However because neither twin is in a special position - each being in an inertial frame of reference - the reverse must also be true, and so the twin remaining on Earth must be younger. Hence each twin is younger than the other - a paradox.

The problem can be resolved in two ways. One is to examine the effects of General Relativity: to come back to Earth, the travelling twin must undergo acceleration in order to reverse his course, causing temporal effects which make him permanently the younger. Alternatively, it can be explained entirely using Special Relativity and noting that the twins are not in symmetrical situations: the one on earth has remained in a single inertial frame of reference, whilst the travelling twin has travelled in two[57].

### The Ehrenfest Paradox

The Ehrenfest Paradox considers a rigid wheel or disc rotating a bout its axis at high speed (somewhat like a bicycle wheel spinning freely on its axle). The rim of the wheel travels at close to the speed of light and therefore undergoes length contraction, whereas the radius (the spokes, for the bicycle wheel) does not. Hence the circumference is no longer equal to 2r, which is paradoxical.

The apparent paradox was finally resolved in 1975 by the Norwegian scientist Øyvind Grøn[58].

## Variable Speed of Light

The Theory of Relativity implies that physical constants like c, the speed of light in a vacuum, have remained constant. But at least one study suggests that physical constants, and possibly even the speed of light, have changed as the universe has aged.[59]

"For the first time, scientists have experimentally demonstrated that sound pulses can travel at velocities faster than the speed of light, c. William Robertson's team from Middle Tennessee State University also showed that the group velocity of sound waves can become infinite, and even negative. ... Although such results may at first appear to violate special relativity (Einstein's law that no material object can exceed the speed of light), the actual significance of these experiments is a little different. These types of superluminal phenomena, Robertson et al. explain, violate neither causality nor special relativity, nor do they enable information to travel faster than c. In fact, theoretical work had predicted that the superluminal speed of the group velocity of sound waves should exist. 'The key to understanding this seeming paradox is that no wave energy exceeded the speed of light,' said Robertson."[60]

"A team of researchers from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) has successfully demonstrated, for the first time, that it is possible to control the speed of light – both slowing it down and speeding it up – in an optical fiber, using off-the-shelf instrumentation in normal environmental conditions. Their results, to be published in the August 22 issue of Applied Physics Letters, could have implications that range from optical computing to the fiber-optic telecommunications industry."[61] Both slowing down and speeding up of light within a substance other than a vacuum is made possible, because the light travels through the material, and that material affects the speed of light, i.e. a photon hits an electron, which then exits and emits a slightly lower energy photon out in the direction that the original photon was traveling, thus maintaining conservation of momentum. No matter how transparent an object may appear, it radically impacts the speed of the light traveling through it, as demonstrated by the refractive production of a rainbow by a crystal, which Newton himself discovered.

This apparent change in speed can be explained, however, by noting that the constant c refers to the speed of light in a vacuum, ie, when it is unimpeded. The speed of light when traveling through physical media is, in fact, variable.

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time. ... Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: 'For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of.'"[62]

## Pending research

Today some physicists are working on hypothesizing how general relativity might have related to the other three forces of nature during the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang. Two of the more commonly studied attempts are string theory and loop quantum gravity, but they have failed to produce any evidence that science mandates a science must have, and both typically take large amounts of work to even conform to what scientists believe. Critics increasingly point out that string theory and loop quantum gravity are largely untestable and unfalsifiable, and thus potentially unscientific under the principles of science advanced by Karl Popper.[63]

Relativity continues to be tested and some physics professors remain skeptical of the theory, such as University of Maryland physics professor Carroll Alley, who served as the principle physicist on the Apollo lunar project.[64]

## Political aspects of relativity

Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic President Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[65] As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this liberal application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.[66] Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.[67] Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.[68]

Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[69] of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[70] Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a Nobel Prize, and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity. A dubious 1993 Nobel prize in physics was awarded Hulse and Taylor for supposedly finding the first evidence of gravitational waves in the orbital decay of the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 [71]. A close reading of the paper reveals that that is based heavily on assumptions in trying to retrofit the data to the theory.

The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today.[72] In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.[73] ## References 1. "German mathematician who developed the geometrical theory of numbers and who made numerous contributions to number theory, mathematical physics, and the theory of relativity." Hermann Minkowski -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia 2. Hermann Minkowski, Biography 3. "[T]he German mathematician David Hilbert submitted an article containing the correct field equations for general relativity five days before Einstein."Nobel Prize historical account 4. Discontinuities in General Relativity are also well-recognized. See, e.g., [1] 5. http://people.hofstra.edu/Stefan_Waner/diff_geom/tc.html 6. Increasingly the Nobel Prize Committee has attempted to relate its physics awards to Relativity in some way, including perhaps 20 of the more recent prizes. 7. http://ephysics.fileave.com/physics/Essen/oxford5-essen.pdf 8. For example, Relativity claims that space and time are smooth and continuous, while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. [2] Relativity also denies action-at-a-distance, while quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. Relativity denies any role for chance, while quantum mechanics is heavily dependent on it. 9. This assumption is commonly restated in this manner. For example, a discussion of hypothetical tachyons talks "about using tachyons to transmit information faster than the speed of light, in violation of Special Relativity."[3] However, there is some question whether the Theory of Special Relativity really restricts faster-than-light communication of information. 10. Hubble Gravitational Lens Photo 11. [4] 12. Lorentz, H.A. The Einstein Theory of Relativity 13. http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf 14. Some do claim that relativity is "vital" to GPS even though GPS developed independently of theoretical predictions and theoreticians disagree about how the relativistic effects for GPS should be calculated. See id. See also [5] 15. http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html See also [6], where Van Flandern discusses how relativistic corrections might improve GPS accuracy. 16. http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp 17. "General Relativity in the Global Positioning System." Neil Ashby, U. of Colorado 18. Saturn-Bound Spacecraft Tests Einstein's Theory 19. Encounter with Saturn confirms relativity theory 20. NASA Gravity Probe B mission page 21. Gravity Probe B project page 22. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm 23. There is no reported reliance on relativity by any space probe. 24. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1993/press.html 25. http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html#SECTION032121000000000000000 26. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm 27. http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/1919/guide/gravity_bends_starlight.html 28. Hafele-Keating Experiment 29. Louis Essen, Electron. Wireless World 94 (1988) 238. 30. A. G. Kelly,Reliability of Relativistic Effect Tests on Airborne Clocks, Monograph No.3 Feb.1996, The Institution of Engineers of Ireland, ISBN 1-898012-22-9 31. http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=8&idContribution=922 32. This equation is not related to quantum mechanics. 33. Some have suggested that other explanations are possible for this effect. We are trying to track this down. 34. Experiments specifically designed to check dilation are rarely conducted any more. 35. Einstein's Luck, John Waller, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-860719-9 36. That is a simple approximation, designed to relate the precession to the planet's speed relative to the speed of light. A more accurate approximation is , where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity. 37. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm 38. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-02/6-02.htm 39. http://prl.aps.org/accepted/L/ea070Y8dQ491d22a28828c95f660a57ac82e7d8c0 40. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/306430 41. http://www.nap.edu/html/gpb/summary.html 42. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73870/title/Gravity_Probe_B_finally_pays_off_ 43. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/ 44. http://einstein.stanford.edu/ 45. http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout 46. http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/06/nasa-concludes-gravity-probe-b-space-time-experiment-proves-e/ 47. For example, this was taught as recently as in the 1991 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. 48. http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm 49. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=224955 50. James Glanz and Dennis Overbye, "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds," August 15, 2001.[7] 51. http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html 52. http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html 53. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml 54. See, for example, Not Even Wrong, by Peter Woit 55. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/21jul_llr.htm 56. Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the Constitution should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded abortion and that, more generally, Roe v. Wade does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic "curvature of space" could achieve this result by expanding application of the Constitution based on its impact on personal choice. "The Roe v. Wade opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. ... [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a 'curved space' perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law's geometry." Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989). 57. Search conducted by User:Aschlafly in the LEXIS database "US Law Reviews and Journals, Combined," conducted June 1, 2008. 58. "Mistakenly, in the minds of many, the theory of relativity became relativism."[8] 59. Although the liberally biased Wikipedia contains lengthy criticisms of the subjects of many entries, and even though publications like The Economist recognize the lack of scientific satisfaction in the theory (see, e.g., "Weighing the Universe," The Economist (Jan. 25, 2007)), Wikipedia's entry on Theory of Relativity omits one word of criticism. 60. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943324,00.html 61. "Initially a popular alternative to General Relativity, the Brans-Dicke theory lost favor as it became clear that omega must be very large-an artificial requirement in some views. Nevertheless, the theory has remained a paradigm for the introduction of scalar fields into gravitational theory, and as such has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[9] 62. Weisberg, Joel M.; Taylor, Joseph H. (2003), "The Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16"", in Bailes, M.; Nice, D. J.; Thorsett, S. E., Proceedings of "Radio Pulsars," Chania, Crete, August, 2002, ASP Conference Series 63. The Democratic Congress insisted on the$250 million LIGO project despite substantial criticism by scientists that it was wasting scarce research dollars. John Travis, "LIGO: a $250 million gamble; Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory; includes related article," Science p. 612 (Apr. 30, 1993). "Adding to the acrimony is LIGO's$ 250 million price tag, which some hold responsible for NSF's recent funding woes." Id.
64. http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index.html