WHY DOES THE STRUGGLE AROUND SRT CONTINUE TO THIS DAY?

A. Chubykalo; A. Espinoza; V. Kuligin; M. Korneva

doi:10.29121/granthaalayah.v7.i1.2019.1050

Authors

A. Chubykalo Unidad Académica de Física, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, A.P. C-580, Zacatecas, México
A. Espinoza Unidad Académica de Física, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, A.P. C-580, Zacatecas, México
V. Kuligin Physical Faculty Department of an Electronics, Voronezh State University, Russia
M. Korneva Physical Faculty Department of an Electronics, Voronezh State University, Russia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v7.i1.2019.1050

Keywords:

Epistemological Errors, Galileo Parametric Transformation, Space, Time, Theory of Cognition

Abstract [English]

The purpose of this article is not to criticize the theory of relativity, but to try to understand why, despite more than a century of dominance in physics, it is constantly criticized by physicists. In this paper, a thorough analysis of A. Einstein's theory of relativity is carried out. It relies on philosophical, physical-mathematical, logical-historical methods of investigation. It is shown that in SRT there is an error in the physical interpretation of the mathematical formalism of the Lorentz transformation (epistemological error). Therefore, the interpretation of the SRT phenomena contains logical contradictions and paradoxes. It is also shown that a consistent interpretation can be given for the Lorentz transformation within the framework of classical space-time representations. It is established that the real speed of the relative motion of inertial reference frames in is greater than the speed entering the Lorentz transformation. A new explanation is offered for relativistic phenomena without violating logic and without paradoxes. The results are of great importance for the description of relativistic phenomena in physical theories, and also for applied disciplines, for example, for the theory of cyclic accelerators, etc.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Crother S. (2017). “ON THE LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY OF THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.” American Journal of Modern Physics, 6, 43-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajmp.20170603.12

Leus V. (2018). “CRITICAL COMMENTS ON THE PAPER ‘ON THE LOGICAL INCONSISTENCY OF THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY’.” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 6 925-931. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2018.64079

Poincare ́ H. (1906). “SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L’E ́LECTRON.” Ren. Circ. Mat. Palermo, 21, 129-175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03013466

Lenin V. I. (2002). Materialism and Empirio-Criticism: Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy (Univ. Press of the Pacific).

Kuligin V., Kuligina G., and Korneva M. (1994). “EPISTEMOLOGY ANDSPECIAL RELATIVITY.” Apeiron, 20, 21.

Panofsky W. and Phillips M. (1990). Classical Electricity and Magnetism (2nd ed., Dover Publ.).

Burshtein E. (2011). “ACCELERATORS OF CHARGED PARTICLES” Great Soviet Encyclopedia (Translation from Russian into English University Library of Nijmegen).

Alvager T., Farley F., Kjellman J., and Wallin J. (1964). “TEST OF THE SECOND POSTULATE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY IN THE GEV REGION.” Physical Letters, 12(3), 260 -262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9163(64)91095-9

Chubykalo A., and Kuligin V. (2018). “UNKNOWN CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS.” Boson Journal of Modern Physics, 4(2), 384-425.

Engels F. (1964). Dialectics of Nature (3rd ed. Progress Publishers).

Martínez A. (2004). “RITZ, EINSTEIN, AND THE EMISSION HYPOTHESIS.” Physics in Perspective, 6(1), 4-28 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-003-0195-6