The Necessity of Solving the Clocks Contradiction in SR.

                                                                Copyright © 2004 2005 2006 2007, 2008 David V Connell.

      The question to be answered is "which of two apparently identical atomic clocks moving relative to each other runs faster than the other?" According to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR) both clocks are running faster than the other, which is not logically possible.
      A particular problem for over 45 years has been to get an intelligent answer from supporters of SR to the question of how this contradiction can be explained by Einstein's theory. Without an explanation, the validity of Einstein's theory is refuted absolutely, but no regard to this failure has ever been implemented. Professor H. Dingle spent 13 years trying to get a sensible answer to this simple question, without success, eventually putting all the history of his attempts and failures into a book [1], but even this failed to elicit any sensible response from physicists of authority , or a refutation of the theory.
      In August 1970, a letter to The Times from the Rev. Dr. W. J. Platt, formerly General Secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society, stated the situation quite clearly, that this failure to recognize that Einstein's theory was faulty was putting the public and the integrity of scientists in great danger. An excerpt from his letter follows:-

"I have been waiting for some authoritative statement showing either that the assertions were unfounded or that steps were being taken to rectify a dangerous situation. As far as I am aware, none has appeared, and the implications of the matter seem so serious that public interest demands one without delay.
"Prof. Dingle, who, I believe, is recognized as a leading authority on Einstein's special relativity theory, on which physicists acknowledge that they rely, has advanced what he claims to be a fatal criticism of that theory. On such a matter the layman is, of course, not qualified to speak: he is, however, entitled to an assurance that the scientific world remains true to its principle of answering or accepting informed criticism. This appears to be not only, as it has always been, a moral duty of scientists, but in these days, when the experiments performed are of such enormous potential danger, a necessity. According to the un-contradicted assertion in the Listener of October 30 last, however, the President of the Royal Society failed to give an assurance that scientific integrity is still preserved. If earlier statements in the correspondence are true, he could hardly . . . . . do so."

      But this did not produce any progress on the matter either. And after another 36 years still nothing has changed! SR still appears to be the accepted theory of Relativity.
      Perhaps the establishment is waiting for a constructive solution to the problem, not a destructive one such as refuting a theory without offering a better alternative. If so, that alternative, "Natural Relativity" (NR) [2], (written Sep 05) now exists and, because of abnormal publishing delays and suppressive policies, it was eventually published in Sep 09, its main results are have been used to explain the errors in SR and GR on this web site SR's problems.
      This simpler, coherent theory, not only has none of the anomalies, paradoxes and contradictions found over the years in SR and GR, but also agrees with all known (valid) experiments, does not require distortions to space and time, and reveals the widespread use of several false assumptions, which are at the bottom of the problems with SR (and relativity in general). The chief culprits for at least one of those assumptions were probably ALL the leading physicists at the turn of the 20th century. Basing a theory on widely accepted assumptions without adequate evidence will eventually produce contradictory situations and raise conflicts with practical experience or experiments, if any of them are not true. Such appears to be the case with SR.
      The solution to the clocks paradox (contradiction), according to NR, is dependent on the relative energy levels of the clocks (assuming they are both at the same gravitational potential):-
      When two clocks are moving relative to each other, one is probably at a higher energy level than the other and so it works more slowly than the other. If it is known which clock has been accelerated relative to the other and is at a higher energy level, the answer is known. In the case of the acceleration being a deceleration relative to a common speed, then energy is subtracted and that clock will run faster. In any case there is no contradiction, the higher energy level clock runs slower.
      The twins paradox differs from the clocks paradox in this respect, one twin is stated to be accelerated to a high velocity relative to the other and returned, so the answer is known and any common velocity cancels out, but the clocks are only stated to be moving relative to each other. Even if they are at the same energy level there is no contradiction, they run at the same rate, even if moving in different directions. SR cannot resolve the problem as SR is based on relative velocity and any suggested answer is equally applicable to both clocks.

References.
  [1] H. Dingle, Science at the Crossroads, (Martin Brian & O'Keefe, London, 1972).
  [2] D.V.Connell, "Natural effects of applied energy, motion, and gravity, on mass", Phys. Essays 22(3) 402-412 (2009).

              Click here to return to CONTENTS.
.