(2008) 2, pp. 1-11. (pdf)
T. E. Phipps, Jr.
908 S. Busey Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801
Abstract:
Wave equations exhibit a well-known advanced-retarded solution ambiguity. It is pointed out that a comparable ambiguity arises in special relativistic kinematics regarding relative motion. There, the ambiguity is between the concepts “moving” and “stationary,” or the allocation of motion between two bodies participating in states of relative motion. Something must break the symmetry inherent in that ambiguity in order for physical theory to describe the observed asymmetry of timekeeping in such states. I point out that this has direct bearing on the issue that Herbert Dingle termed “The Question,” concerning rates of clocks in relative motion. To resolve the motion allocation ambiguity, a generalized conception of kinematics is proposed. This brings in causation in order to allow closer conformity of the description to the timekeeping asymmetry inherent in the known physics, through invoking a concept of produced motion. That is, relative motion never occurs in nature without being “produced” through the expenditure of energy (kinetic or potential). That clock is most slowed on which the most energy is expended. The implications are briefly discussed, and similar reasonings are extended to the field-theoretical treatment of gravity.
References:
Bailey, J. et al., “Measurements of relativistic time dilatation for positive and negative muons in a circular orbit,” Nature 268, pp. 301-305 (1977).
Dingle, H., Science at the Crossroads, Martin Brian & O’Keeffe, London (1972).
Einstein, A., “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,” Annalen der Physik 17, pp. 891-921 (1905); English translation in The Principle of Relativity, Dover, NY (1952).
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M., The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Definitive Edition, Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, p. 16-3 (1966).
Kostro, L., Einstein and the Ether, Apeiron, Montreal (2000).
Matolcsi, T. & Matolcsi, M., “Coordinate time and proper time in the GPS,” European Journal of Physics 29, pp. 1147-1151 (2007).
McCrea, W. H., “Why the Special Theory of Relativity is Correct,” Nature 216, pp. 122-124 (1967).
McCrea, W. H., “Definitions and Realities,” The Listener 82, p. 315 (1969).
Møller, C., The Theory of Relativity, Oxford, London, 2nd ed., p. 40 (1972).
Phipps, Jr., T. E., Old Physics for New, Apeiron, Montreal (2006).
Selleri, F., “Noninvariant one-way velocity of light,” Foundations of Physics 26, pp. 641-664 (1996).
Selleri, F., “Sagnac effect: end of the mystery,” in Relativity in Rotating Frames, Rizzi, G. & Ruggiero, M. L., eds., Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 57-77 (2004).
Stedman, G. E., “Stedman’s Answer,” Nature 244, p. 27 (1973).
Wheeler, J. A. & Feynman, R. P., “Interaction with the Absorber as the Mechanism of Radiation,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, pp. 157-181 (1945).
Wheeler, J. A. & Feynman, R. P., “Classical Electrodynamics in Terms of Direct Interparticle Action,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, pp. 425-433 (1949).