Seyed Saied Mirahmadi
Abstract
Newton considered the dynamical effects exerted upon accelerating bodies (such as the concavity of the surface of the water in Newton’s bucket experiment, etc.) to be caused by their acceleration relative to absolute space. Following Mach’s ideas, Einstein, based on the thought that all motion ...
Read More
Newton considered the dynamical effects exerted upon accelerating bodies (such as the concavity of the surface of the water in Newton’s bucket experiment, etc.) to be caused by their acceleration relative to absolute space. Following Mach’s ideas, Einstein, based on the thought that all motion is relative, knew very well that if he could show that the inertial effects are actually due to the acceleration relative to distant matter instead of absolute space, then he would be able to dispose of the Newtonian concepts of absolute space and motion. There is a widespread belief that the general theory of relativity get rid of the preferred (inertial) frames corresponding to Newtonian absolute space and time. In this article, by examining Einstein’s thought process in creating the general theory of relativity, the claim: despite Einstein’s efforts and contrary to the name of the theory, Mach’s principle in the sense of “relativity of all motion” or “inertial forces are exerted by matter, not by absolute spacetime” is neither included in the principles of the general theory of relativity nor results from it, is confirmed. Therefore, the absolute elements such as “absolute rest and motion”, “absolute acceleration”, “absolute inertial forces” and “absolute spacetime” are yet essentially retained in the general theory of relativity. Due to the epistemological importance of Mach’s principle, the effort to provide an efficient physical theory based on this principle continues.
Sayyed Saied Mirahmadi; Seyed Amir Sekhavatian; Majid Mohsenzadeh Ganji
Abstract
Since Aristotle denied the possibility of a space independent of bodies (absolute space), it is clear that in his view, the motion relative to absolute space (absolute motion) is impossible. But, has Aristotle been able to provide a consistent explanation of motion without using the concepts of absolute ...
Read More
Since Aristotle denied the possibility of a space independent of bodies (absolute space), it is clear that in his view, the motion relative to absolute space (absolute motion) is impossible. But, has Aristotle been able to provide a consistent explanation of motion without using the concepts of absolute space and motion—what has not been achieved in Einstein’s general relativity? Is his explanation of motion consistent with Mach’s principle (relativity of motion)? To answer these questions, it is necessary to examine the relationship between Aristotle’s theory of motion and Mach’s principle. This paper demonstrates that Aristotle’s explanation of ‘motion’ does not satisfy Mach’s principle. Moreover, it becomes clear that despite Aristotle’s attempt to remove the concepts of absolute space and motion from physics, his theory is not entirely devoid of these absolute concepts. In other words, it is demonstrated that Aristotle’s theory of motion suffers from an internal inconsistency in the case of rotatory motion. In this study the library data gathered is analyzed based on the descriptive-analytical methodology.
Sayyed Saied Mirahmadi
Abstract
As is well known, special theory of relativity rests on two postulates: (1) the postulate of “relativity”; (2) the postulate of “the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum in all inertial frames”. In this theory, the second postulate is neither an obvious principle nor a logical ...
Read More
As is well known, special theory of relativity rests on two postulates: (1) the postulate of “relativity”; (2) the postulate of “the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum in all inertial frames”. In this theory, the second postulate is neither an obvious principle nor a logical consequence of other obvious principles. Therefore, in order to evaluate the validity of this postulate, its experimental verification is necessary. In this paper, it becomes clear that by accepting the common thesis of the conventionality of distant clocks synchronization, the experimental verification of the second postulate is not possible. However, it is shown that by conducting experiments to examine “the independence of the speed of light from the speed of its source”, the experimental refutation of the second postulate is possible. It is explained that under what conditions these experiments are crucial.
