Relativity problem ...

[Thomas] " ... SR isn't internally consistent and you can find a paradox that could not be resolved with SR ... "

Many have tried, all (so far) have failed. (The odds are against you.)

========
POP QUIZ
========

TRUE or FALSE:
If a theory is internally consistent, it cannot also be wrong.

MULTIPLE CHOICE:
According to SR, time in a reference frame that is moving relative to you is -

A) a function of the velocity difference between the other frame and your frame
a function of the position difference between the other frame and your frame
C) both A and B
D) neither A nor B

Good Luck,
LB

I can't (and don't want to) force you to take my little quiz. But I'd appreciate it if you did. Neither of these questions is a trick, but read the question carefully and think about it before answering.

BTW, if anyone else wants to take the quiz, please do so. I'll post the answers a day or two after any responses.

One has to hope that at some point in the future quizzes will be the only context within which questions regarding SR can be legitimately asked.
Your questions miss however the points I made above (or rather in the links I gave).

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Thomas,

Perhaps my questions do miss your points, perhaps not. But I'm not likely to spend any time looking at your paradox unless I have reason to believe that you understand why SR can handle all paradoxes that have been thrown at it so far. If you answer these two questions correctly, and understand why the answers are correct, I'll take a look at your stuff.

To repeat an important point, these are not trick questions. Anyone that understands science in general and SR in particular well enough to devise a paradox that SR is not able to handle should have no trouble answering them.

Of course, once you understand the answers you suddenly see that worrying about SR paradoxes (even one that SR really can't handle) is a waste of time.

LB

To All,

I've begun receiving off-line responses to my quiz (thank you for your interest), so I will wait a little more before discussing the answers in case anyone else wants to respond that way.

Regards,
LB

One respondant has suggested that question 2 ought to mention a reference frame moving "at constant velocity" relative to you.

SR actually does have the ability to analyze accelerating frames, but this is an advanced topic and most discussions of SR are restricted to constant relative velocities. Congrats to this respondant for getting both questions right, and extra credit for the fine tuning suggestion.

LB

POP QUIZ ANSWERS


==========================
TRUE or FALSE:
If a theory is internally consistent, it cannot also be wrong.

FALSE - if a theory is based on an incorrect assumption it will be wrong ( externally inconsistent ? ). Nevertheless, that theory can be internally consistent. The cosmology of Tolemy is an example. That theory is now known to be wrong, yet it is still able to make reasonably accurate predictions about the future positions of objects in the heavens. And it's accuracy could still be improved by adding more wheels.



==========================
MULTIPLE CHOICE:
According to SR, time in a reference frame that is moving relative to you is -

A) a function of the velocity difference between the other frame and your frame
a function of the position difference between the other frame and your frame
C) both A and B
D) neither A nor B

C - since time in the other frame is a function of relative position as well as relative velocity, a paradox like the "twins" or the "pole in the barn" is easily resolved due to the time differences at the location of each twin, or the time differences at each end of the pole.

This time difference you see at various locations in the <u>other</u> frame is called <b>lack of remote simultaneity</b> by most people, and it is one of the "tricks" that more or less assures SR's internal consistency. Kind of like Tolemy's wheels. Until you understand how this works it is very easy to convince yourself that an unresolvable paradox can exist.

Regards,
LB

The problem with (special) relativity is not that it's hard to understand. It is that it's hard to believe.

I've searched high and low for the name of the author of this statement. No luck so far. I'm beginning to wonder if I might have dreamed it instead of read it? If anyone can find a reference, I'd appreciate a heads-up. It should date to the early 1980s or before.