BryanM

=RELATIVITY: POSSIBLE HOLES IN EINSTEIN'S PERFECT PLAN =

Although approved by physicists for years, Einsteins Theory of Relativity has some holes, still being questioned today.The Theory of Relativity is an extremely hard concept to understand, As I researched the topic, even the physicists explanations seemed to fly in one ear and out the other. I found an article that celebrates the theory, and an article that defames Einstein's thoughts. I am still torn, but I will give it a try.

Albert Einstein is one of the most notable names in the world of science. "His theory of special relativity, his revolutionary explanation of the photoelectric effect and his ground-breaking kinetic theory of liquids were all published in 1905 . Any one of these papers would have assured Einstein a prominent place in the history of science."(Peter Main, Special Relativity) To have published all of them in one year is truly extraordinary. Einstein built upon the discoveries of James Clerk Maxwell. James created a description of the nature of light and electromagnetic radiation in general. Maxwell's ideas led to puzzling contradictions in electromagnetism that questioned the fundamental understanding of physics and even seemed to defy common sense(Peter Main, Special Relativity). Einstein was the superhero of science who provided the gargantuan intellectual leap required to solve the problem.

The author Peter Main was a very convincing man, that really had me rooting for the theory. As I read along the article I was getting dragged more and more into the theory's possibility. That was until I read one of Peter's simple explanations of Relativity. "First of all, we are standing still, watching a stream of electrons flow past. We detect an electric field due to the charged particles. As the charged particles constitute an electric current, they also create a magnetic field. Next, we find ourselves traveling parallel to and at the same speed as the electron stream. We still experience an electric field (actually at a different strength from before), but now there is no magnetic field, because the electrons are not moving past us and so there is no longer an electric current." (Peter Main, Special Relativity) Peter say what?!¿ To start, how on Earth can anyone stand and picture a stream of electrons flowing past, they're extremely extremely extremely small. And once you get past that far fetched example, he begins to say "We still experience an electric field....there is no more electric current" Wait, What? If there is a field, there must be a current...I became lost, and as I continued to read the rest of the paper, I was slipping further and further away from the existence of Relativity. I just cannot comprehend the information in order to make a justified opinion on the subject, so I am sitting on the fence.



I stumbled upon an article from Indiana University's news website. The article was titled "Theory of relativity challenged by scientists, IU physics professor's latest research project." I started to just skim through it, but as I continued to read, the more I got into it. Alan Kostelecky, the theoretical physics professor at the University, has dedicated his life to finding holes in Einsteins theory. Alan proclaimed light is a result of small violations in the theory of relativity. I do not fully understand what that means, but I'm not going to question a man who has dedicated his life to this stuff. From what I have read, I have picked up this. Relativity, Is basically is a statement that the world has Lorentz Symmetry (which means the law of physics are the same for all observers). Alan states light violates Lorentz Symmetry which violates relativity. I am not about to fully agree that relativity is incorrect, but it justifies the question I initially proposed. The fact that there are possible flaws in the theory means that there are still possible explanations to the physical world around us.

I came across a magazine article in New Scientist written by Amanda Gefter. The article is about Nobel prizewinner Sheldon Glashow and his colleague Andrew Cohen. They have dared to question Einstein's theory. They believe it is time to rewrite the rules of Einstein's special theory of relativity. They call their theory very special relativity, or VSR. If Glashow and Cohen are right, it could tell us something profound about the fabric of the universe. It could solve a troubling mystery in particle physics. These men further question so called Lorentz Symmetry. Glashow and Cohen have found a way to break Lorentz symmetry without disturbing any relativistic effects. They modified the special theory of relativity to reduce the amount of symmetry and so formulated very special relativity (Amanda Gefter, New Scientist). In this new theory, Lorentz symmetry is not fully intact, yet the key effects of special relativity remain unaffected. "People are shocked," says Cohen. "I don't believe anyone ever contemplated that there could be Lorentz violation while one of the basic ideas of special relativity, the constancy of the speed of light, could still be preserved."(Amanda Gefter, New Scientist).

Relativity still remains a topic that tends to go in one ear and out the other. It is extremely complex, and without years of teaching and studying, justifying the importance or existence of relativity is a pretty great task. My first article was extremely convincing till the man started to explain himself, and completely lost me and probably everyone in his "imagining a sea of electrons flowing past you...". Relativity may be correct, but there is no text-book definition that rephrases it to an easy understandable way. My second article Alan Kostelecky explained light is a violation of Lorentz symmetry, and how relativity is pretty much a statement that the world has Lorentz symmetry. So if light violates it, then it must not be true for the world, which means relativity has some holes in it. My third article tells the story of Sheldon Glashow and his colleague Andrew Cohen, who continue to poke holes in Einsteins beautiful masterpiece. They conduct experiments where Lorentz Symmetry is not intact, but every other aspect of relativity is, which raises the question whether relativity really needs Lorentz Symmetry.

Citations and Anotations

Gefter, Amanda. "Spinning Einstein: if we want a theory of everything, we might have to break a few rules." New Scientist 193.2587 (Jan 20, 2007): 26(4). Student Resource Center - Bronze. Gale. Hershey High School. 29 Jan. 2009 .


 * The point of my wiki was finding possible holes in Einsteins theories and this article is a Nobel prizewinner explaining a possible flaw in Special Relativity.

Main, Peter. "Special relativity." Physics Review 15.1 (Sept 2005): 26(4). Student Resource Center - Bronze. Gale. Hershey High School. 29 Jan. 2009 .


 * An article in Physics Review magazine which celebrates 100 years of Einsteins published works. This article explains the history of Einsteins created theories, and goes into explanations of special relativity.

Zennie, Michael. "Theory of relativity challenged by scientists, IU physics professor's latest research project." Indiana Daily Student (Apr 26, 2004): Hershey High School. 29 Jan. 2009 


 * An IU professor who dedicated his life to finding flaws in relativity has a break through, which he states light (itself) is a violation of Lorentz Symmetry, which would crumble Einstein's statements that the world has Lorentz Symmetry.