倒相对论

光头

倒相對論指的是一些人提出的，反駁相對論的理論。研究倒相對論的人被稱為「倒相對論者」。他們認為相對論是錯誤的，並且嚴重阻礙社會發展，並希望推翻它。到目前為止，倒相對論研究還沒有得到可信的研究成果。
他們的觀點
不同的倒相對論者的觀點也可能不同，他們所反對的角度也可能不同。
一般有如下幾點：

• 推翻光的波粒二象性，即證明光只是波，或光只是粒子
• 推翻光速不變定律，即證明存在以太或存在絕對坐標
• 證明牛頓理論的正確性

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

到底相对论能被推倒吗？

如果你是支持相对论的，欢迎你针对倒相对论者的观点做出评论。

如果你是倒相对论的支持者，欢迎你提出一些相对论不合理之处若以上的观点还不足够的也欢迎再提出。

tensaix2j

很好奇 einstein 是如何证明 光速不变呢？
他说， 如果 某物件 A 以光速前进， 后头 一个光速炮 随后 轰击， A 看到的光 依然是以光速 前进。。。。很好奇 他是如何证明这个的。。。

kensai

原帖由 tensaix2j 于 12-2-2008 10:36 AM 发表
很好奇 einstein 是如何证明 光速不变呢？
他说， 如果 某物件 A 以光速前进， 后头 一个光速炮 随后 轰击， A 看到的光 依然是以光速 前进。。。。很好奇 他是如何证明这个的。。。

他没有证明过这个东西，他把这个当作是assumption
去看看http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
second posulate,是assume  出来的

没有theory可以证明这个论点，只是practical experiment 得到的结果是这样

新人王伏羲

我认为相对论还是有可能被推翻的因为它的postulate根本无法证明。或许Einstein刚好得到正确的答案但并不代表解释是正确的。

微中子

对于相对论的实验，我不是很清楚，不过详情可以看看：
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph ... .html#Test_Theories
其中一个出名的是Michelson Morley实验，试验结果和相对论符合。

在狭义相对论里，光速不变的意思是在不同的参考系里，光在真空传播的速度是不变的，299 792 458 m / s 。当然，如果光在其他物体里传播，速度将会是比较小。

在广义相对论里比较复杂一点点：

General relativity explains how a gravitational potential can affect the apparent speed of distant light in a vacuum, but locally light in a vacuum always passes an observer at a rate of c.

来源：wikipedia

此外，大部分物理学家认为相对论可能不是完全正确的。和牛顿力学一样，相对论可能是一个更完整的理论里的一个特殊情况。而且，相对论的预测在高能量物理和天文物理得到了证实。

斷羽鳥

我的观点是，要完全推翻目前为止是没有什么作为， 可能最多只能点出不完整／漏洞之处。

fgh

我想每个初期的原理都有漏洞吧，后人都是试图去圆满它。
推翻就难了。除非是一些梦想要成名的小伙子。

中庸

像牛頓定律這樣。。。。還是沒被推翻。。。只是不完整。。。。所以才有相對論和量子力學來complete 它。

liverpool07

谁有本事去"修正"一下, 我估计就是下一个诺贝尔奖的候选人了.

llo_ol

如果你發現當你向一束光前進的時候光速快過你靜止不動觀測，你就推翻相對論了

hidden

原帖由 中庸 于 14-4-2008 06:17 PM 发表 像牛頓定律這樣。。。。還是沒被推翻。。。只是不完整。。。。所以才有相對論和量子力學來complete 它。

Newton's laws has already been proven wrong, by Einstein's general theory of relativity in fact. Newton's laws are just a special case in the inertia system. Theory of relativity wasn't formulated to complete Newton's laws, it is a completely new view of the universe based on the idea that both space and time are not absolute, but are relative to the frame of reference of the observer

edit: 其实是我自己的误解，看第18楼. sorry

[ 本帖最后由 hidden 于 30-4-2008 07:15 AM 编辑 ]

中庸

原帖由 hidden 于 28-4-2008 04:17 PM 发表
Newton's laws has already been proven wrong, by Einstein's general theory of relativity in fact. Newton's laws are just a special case in the inertia system. Theory of relativity wasn't formulated to  ...

no...newton law is not wrong....newton law is used under low speed and large scale.....while relativity use in approches speed of light and curve spacetime and quantum machanics is use in microscopic scale of low speed....both relativity and quantum machanic can be reduced to newton law....newton law is the subset of them...

hidden

原帖由 中庸 于 28-4-2008 06:07 PM 发表 no...newton law is not wrong....newton law is used under low speed and large scale.....while relativity use in approches speed of light and curve spacetime and quantum machanics is use in microsco ...

Well, depends how you define "right" and "wrong". We say a theorem/law is wrong whenever it breaks down, and there is no remedy for that. Like F = ma breaks down at speed close to the speed of light, and there is no formula to remedy that! you have no choice but to use an entirely new system (because we can no longer assume the system is inertial, that's the problem). And NO, you cannot say "theory of relativistic can be REDUCED to Newton's laws". We can only say Newton's laws are the special case in general relativity. The subtle difference here is that, general relativity is NOT a generalized theorem for Newton's law! I know you had got the idea, but you didn't use the words correctly. Anyway,  if you happened to know Hamiltonian system, you will see that Newton's laws are a special case in Hamiltonian system, which is the more correct way to find the interaction between two or more bodies. So, really, Newton's laws are not much. They just allow you to compute the spring-mass problem more easily XD. Furthermore, the Newton's third law is just ... weird. The reaction force is a fictitious force which no one can verify its existence... any more thought on that?

edit: 其实是我自己的误解，看第18楼. sorry

[ 本帖最后由 hidden 于 30-4-2008 07:16 AM 编辑 ]

antimatter

The third force is fictitious force? How to say that?

kensai

Newton's 2nd law

Newton 只是说 F= dp/dt ，他没说 F=ma

F= dp/dt
这个在相对论里面是对的，

hidden

原帖由 kensai 于 29-4-2008 02:38 AM 发表 Newton's 2nd law Newton 只是说 F= dp/dt ，他没说 F=maF= dp/dt这个在相对论里面是对的，

you're right, my mistake. but even if F=dp/dt, the second law still breaks down at speed near c. So, both statements imply the same thing.

原帖由 antimatter 于 29-4-2008 12:21 AM 发表 The third force is fictitious force? How to say that?

No one, to my knowledge, has ever measured this third force. You can measure the force you apply on a chair, but never the other way round. But I haven't seen any conclusive proof to rule out Newton's third law, so maybe I'm being stupid. Don't assume what I said is right, find out for yourself! that's the spirit of science (indeed, physics). Physics is not a religion, you don't `believe' it, you `reason', `rationalize' it

edit: 其实是我自己的误解，看第18楼. sorry

[ 本帖最后由 hidden 于 30-4-2008 07:16 AM 编辑 ]

antimatter

I am not believing in you, that is why i am questioning you.. one of the easiest ways to find out the answer is by asking you. i will only accept what you say only after it matches my reasoning. anyway, cant measure it doesnt mean that it wont exist right? then is there any proof that rule out newton's other laws?

中庸

我不知道你這些理論從哪裏來的。也沒有聼過說牛頓定律錯了。只知道他不完整。

hidden

原帖由 中庸 于 29-4-2008 02:45 PM 发表
我不知道你這些理論從哪裏來的。也沒有聼過說牛頓定律錯了。只知道他不完整。

原帖由 antimatter 于 29-4-2008 11:42 AM 发表
anyway, cant measure it doesnt mean that it wont exist right? then is there any proof that rule out newton's other laws?

我对不起大家。刚刚去看了几张paper，似乎Newton's laws还是valid的，只要take多几个parameters to account for the non-inertia frame of reference。我错了，不好意思！上了一个lesson，以后不敢乱乱说话了>.<

http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.1584

[ 本帖最后由 hidden 于 30-4-2008 07:20 AM 编辑 ]

中庸

大家交流交流嘛