Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Discussion
Started 15 January 2025
Is This Truly the Most Unbiased Experimental Design in Physics?
I believe Einstein provided one of the most intriguing designs for an experiment. Let me illustrate this with an example.
- First, imagine using a blindfold. To make it more scientific, instead of a blindfold, you must enter a laboratory with no windows. Now, unable to see the outside world, you are free to conduct experiments to determine whether you are accelerating in the universe or at rest on a planet.
- Through "thought experiments", Einstein concluded that no experiment conducted by a "blindfolded" scientist could resolve this dilemma.
- Even if you think of a few experiments that could help determine your status, there is always a way to render those experiments ineffective. For instance, Einstein suggested you could reduce the height of your laboratory to an extremely thin layer, making such experiments impossible.
And that’s it — with this design of experimentation, we can propose a new paradigm shift in science.
Kindly refer to the attached presentation for further details.
Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion
Most recent answer
In the thread rather popular discussion about what "thought” and “real” experiments" are, happens; and it looks as that the position that
“…No thought experiment can prove a theory right or wrong, …”
- in the discussion is admitted as is correct; this is admitted as is correct in rather numerous other discussions on RG, where non-professional scientists take part, also, though.
The claim really is principally wrong, first of all since there cannot be principally some “purely non-thought experiments”, every real experiment is made aimed at testing of some “purely thought” product – a theory, and so every experimental result isn’t only “some digits on some instruments screens’, the result always is “the digits + interpretation in framework of the theory”
Correspondingly some digits can be interpreted in a number of theories, and the results can be well different, however “confirm”, all theories, etc.
Say, long time experimental “digits” that Sun rotates around Earth well confirmed the theory that Sun rotates around Earth.
Etc. - moreover mainstream physics, first of all the SR?GR are based on postulates that Matter’s spacetime can be impacted by material objects as “space is contracted”, “time is dilated” , “spacetime is curved” [again etc. ] - despite that nobody and never directly observed experimentally any contracted/dilated/ curved spacetime.
At that really, as that rigorously scientifically proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception [more see, say, the compact but rather complete consideration of this point in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception ] all these postulated in the SR/GR the spacetime properties and effects are some illusory interpretations of real experimental “digits”.
Besides: really “thought experiments” are one of the main obligatory approaches at development and experimental testing of any real theory, including all real experiments before their realizations are made, are made as often numerous “thought experiment” versions, utmost reliable ones are realized as real experiments;.
Again etc., and again moreover – one of principal criteria of any theory validity is that from theory postulates [which are based on experimental digits, however are interpretations of the digits] no any senseless consequences must follow, and this criterion is applied mostly as just “thought experiments”.
One of utmost known now is the Dingle’s “thought experiment” that considers relative motion of two inertial reference frames, from which completely rigorously scientifically it follows that the SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all/every IRF are absolutely equivalent and legitimate are wrong, since from the postulates completely rigorously it follows that both observers in the frames age simultaneously faster and slower each other, what is evident nonsense;
- and, moreover, from this thought experiment so completely rigorously by completely rigorous “Proof by contradiction” follows the really fundamental point in physics that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, etc.
The post is rather long already, so now
Cheers
All replies (9)
Universidad Nacional de Asunción-FACEN
Through "thought experiments", Einstein concluded that no experiment conducted by a "blindfolded" scientist could resolve this dilemma.
I would phrase it a little differently. He did not conclude anything for certain but that situation suggested to him that it could be true so he postulated the equivalence principle.
Although the equivalence principle can be considered philosophically problematic regarding the foundations, the truth is that it led him to a gravitation theory that as far as we know is correct.
No thought experiment can prove a theory right or wrong, it is experimentation and observation that proved him right, at least so far there does not seem to be a concluding experiment proving him wrong.
Dear Justo Pastor Lambare
What I wrote under the discussion title aligns closely with what is taught to students at leading universities. For instance, you can refer to the following lecture by Professor Susskind, beginning at 0:24:00.
General Relativity Lecture 1
And what conclusion have you come to now? That you don't know whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth?
Or is this question rather unproblematic for you? Then I ask you: How could people have found that out, when everything is relative and we are completely incapable of knowing?
Personally I think it is very true what Jesus said: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
Dear Carmen Wrede
CW "And what conclusion have you come to now?"
I apologize if my main comment was not clear enough. I intended to highlight that "the emperor has no clothes." In other words, relativity is fundamentally based on metaphysical concepts dressed up in the guise of scientific principles.
In the past, I have engaged in more serious discussions and critiques of relativity, such as:
However, this discussion approaches the issue from a different perspective.
Ziaedin Shafiei You have errors in your preprint. For example the discrepancy between F and F′ arises when the transformations are not applied correctly or when additional assumptions are made that are not properly justified. Sadly this is not the only mistake.
Dear Carmen Wrede
Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Could you please clarify where (which file) I went wrong? Additionally, I would greatly appreciate it if you could highlight any other mistakes I might have made. I am more than willing to learn from them.
I also hope you've had the chance to review my critique of Einstein in this thread. Do you see any errors in my judgment there?
Ziaedin Shafiei Unfortunately, I don't have the time to provide a full peer review at the moment. I encourage you to revisit your assumptions and analyses critically, as this often leads to fresh insights. Best of luck with your work!
Dear Carmen Wrede
Could you please let me know which file you reviewed so that I can revisit it? Is the file ?
Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
In the thread rather popular discussion about what "thought” and “real” experiments" are, happens; and it looks as that the position that
“…No thought experiment can prove a theory right or wrong, …”
- in the discussion is admitted as is correct; this is admitted as is correct in rather numerous other discussions on RG, where non-professional scientists take part, also, though.
The claim really is principally wrong, first of all since there cannot be principally some “purely non-thought experiments”, every real experiment is made aimed at testing of some “purely thought” product – a theory, and so every experimental result isn’t only “some digits on some instruments screens’, the result always is “the digits + interpretation in framework of the theory”
Correspondingly some digits can be interpreted in a number of theories, and the results can be well different, however “confirm”, all theories, etc.
Say, long time experimental “digits” that Sun rotates around Earth well confirmed the theory that Sun rotates around Earth.
Etc. - moreover mainstream physics, first of all the SR?GR are based on postulates that Matter’s spacetime can be impacted by material objects as “space is contracted”, “time is dilated” , “spacetime is curved” [again etc. ] - despite that nobody and never directly observed experimentally any contracted/dilated/ curved spacetime.
At that really, as that rigorously scientifically proven in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception [more see, say, the compact but rather complete consideration of this point in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387933457_A_response_to_question_What_is_the_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception ] all these postulated in the SR/GR the spacetime properties and effects are some illusory interpretations of real experimental “digits”.
Besides: really “thought experiments” are one of the main obligatory approaches at development and experimental testing of any real theory, including all real experiments before their realizations are made, are made as often numerous “thought experiment” versions, utmost reliable ones are realized as real experiments;.
Again etc., and again moreover – one of principal criteria of any theory validity is that from theory postulates [which are based on experimental digits, however are interpretations of the digits] no any senseless consequences must follow, and this criterion is applied mostly as just “thought experiments”.
One of utmost known now is the Dingle’s “thought experiment” that considers relative motion of two inertial reference frames, from which completely rigorously scientifically it follows that the SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all/every IRF are absolutely equivalent and legitimate are wrong, since from the postulates completely rigorously it follows that both observers in the frames age simultaneously faster and slower each other, what is evident nonsense;
- and, moreover, from this thought experiment so completely rigorously by completely rigorous “Proof by contradiction” follows the really fundamental point in physics that Matter’s spacetime is absolute, etc.
The post is rather long already, so now
Cheers
Similar questions and discussions
Length contraction, a real and necessary non-reciprocal, asymmetrical phenomenon
In the following paper;
considering
a) the experimentally verified two-way SOL = c to very high accuracy [1],[2],[3],[4]
finding the light times in a configuration of train and embankment with
b) the experimentally verified twin effect, to second order approx in v/c [6],[7],[8],
c) the Sagnac effect, verified to first order approximation in v/c [5]
the result is that the SOL in the embankment is L/c
while the SOL in the train is gamma*L/c, at variance with a)
Since a) must be complied, the Sagnac effect in longitudinal motion, an experimental evidence with a lower accuracy must be ameneded by assuming the Length contraction of the train as REAL.
THis means that Length contraction cannot be niether reciprocal nor symmetrical. That involves the existance of a preferred frame in which it is clear what is the non-accelerated system which moves more or moves less once the isotropy of SOL of one system is assumed considering what has been accelerated from where.
Out and back Speed of light
[1] Michelson, A. A., Pease, F. G., & Pearson, F. (1935). "Measurement of the Velocity of Light in a Partial Vacuum." Astrophysical Journal, 82, 26.
[2] Essen, L., & Gordon-Smith, A. C. (1948). "The Velocity of Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves Derived from the Resonant Frequencies of a Cylindrical Cavity Resonator." Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 194(1038), 348-361.
[3] Evans, J., & Eisenhower, E. (1951). "An Interference Method for the Measurement of the Speed of Light." American Journal of Physics, 19(4), 356-359.
[4]. Hall, J. L., & Borde, C. J. (1976). "Measurement of the Speed of Light Using Laser Techniques." Applied Optics, 15(2), 300-304.
Test of Sagnac effect
[5] Ring laser gyro https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.15603
Test of time dilation twin effect
[6] J. Bailey “Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit” Nature, 268-5618,pp. 301-305, (1977).
[7] D. Hasselkamp, E. Mondry, A. Scharmann, “Direct observation of the transversal Doppler-shift” A. Z Physik A, 289: 151, (1979).
[8] B. Botermann et al, “Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as
Clocks at Relativistic Speed” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 239902 (2015).
Frank R. Tangherlini - Iconventient truth or Honest Omission?
Dear Collegues,
Frank R. Tangherlini turned 100 years March this year.
His remarkable achievement is derivation of linear transformations known by his name as an alternative to Lorentz Transformation, which implement absolute simultaneity. He is also behind the "Tangherlini metric," an exact solution to Einstein's field equations that generalizes the Schwarzschild metric to higher dimensions. This work has important implications for our understanding of black holes and general relativity as well as fundamental meaning of time.
However, I've noticed that Tangherlini's biography is woefully underrepresented on the English version of Wikipedia, with only a single sentence mentioning his name. In contrast, the French Wikipedia has a substantive article (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Robert_Tangherlini) providing basic details and related links.
I believe Tangherlini's centennial milestone and his significant scientific legacy deserve more prominent recognition on the world's largest online encyclopedia. Could some of you with strong English writing skills and a passion for science history consider contributing to an expanded and informative English Wikipedia article on Frank R. Tangherlini?
This would be a wonderful way to give this pioneering physicist the recognition he deserves, especially on the occasion of his 100th birthday. Let's work together to correct this potential oversight and ensure Tangherlini's important work is properly documented for future generations in the English speakers global online resource.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to seeing what we can accomplish as a team. Please keep me posted
General commmentary on Tangherlini's achievements:
Related Publications
The field of astronomy serves not only to perform research on matters of astronomical and astrophysical relevance, but also to administer an invaluable didactic function: that of guiding and contributing to the scientific education of the general public as well as of future astronomers, physicists, and other scientists. In this regard, instructors...
The application of a concept of educational ``science maps" to astronomy
education is discussed. By analogy with geographical maps, scales of
educational science maps -- scales of integration -- are introduced. In
astronomy education, scale A represents the level of branches and fields
of astronomy and astrophysics, where interconnections between v...
The application of a concept of educational ``science maps" to astronomy
education is discussed. By analogy with geographical maps, scales of
educational science maps -- scales of integration -- are introduced. In
astronomy education, scale A represents the level of branches and fields
of astronomy and astrophysics, where interconnections between v...