Difference between revisions of "Popper's Response to Dingle on Special Relativity and the Problem of the Observer"
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
| − | Dingle contended that Einstein's special theory of relativity was physically impossible for the simple reason that it required clocks to be simultaneously faster and slower than each other. McCrea refuted Dingle using an operationalist argument. An operational response did not satisfy Popper, who wrote an unpublished essay to counter Dingle's claim. Popper developed an analysis that avoided operationalism by using a system of coinciding clocks, contending that this system showed special relativity withstood Dingle's criticism that it was not a symmetrical and consistent physical theory. However, Popper mistakenly included an asymmetric calculation in his analysis. Once this is corrected, the amended result supports Dingle's position. Popper went on to argue that to avoid determinism, special relativity had to be reconciled with absolute time; this too supports Dingle. Popper's failure to refute Dingle calls into question his claim that ?the observer' is superfluous to special relativity. | + | Dingle contended that Einstein's special theory of relativity was physically impossible for the simple reason that it required clocks to be simultaneously faster and slower than each other. McCrea refuted Dingle using an operationalist argument. An operational response did not satisfy Popper, who wrote an unpublished essay to counter Dingle's claim. Popper developed an analysis that avoided operationalism by using a system of coinciding clocks, contending that this system showed special relativity withstood Dingle's criticism that it was not a symmetrical and consistent physical theory. However, Popper mistakenly included an asymmetric calculation in his analysis. Once this is corrected, the amended result supports Dingle's position. Popper went on to argue that to avoid determinism, special relativity had to be reconciled with absolute time; this too supports Dingle. Popper's failure to refute Dingle calls into question his claim that ?the observer' is superfluous to special relativity. |
| − | [[Category:Relativity]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|popper 's response dingle special relativity problem observer]] |
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Relativity|popper 's response dingle special relativity problem observer]] | ||
Latest revision as of 19:50, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Popper\'s Response to Dingle on Special Relativity and the Problem of the Observer |
| Author(s) | Peter Hayes |
| Keywords | operationalism |
| Published | 2010 |
| Journal | None |
| Volume | 41 |
| Number | 4 |
| No. of pages | 8 |
| Pages | 354-361 |
Abstract
Dingle contended that Einstein's special theory of relativity was physically impossible for the simple reason that it required clocks to be simultaneously faster and slower than each other. McCrea refuted Dingle using an operationalist argument. An operational response did not satisfy Popper, who wrote an unpublished essay to counter Dingle's claim. Popper developed an analysis that avoided operationalism by using a system of coinciding clocks, contending that this system showed special relativity withstood Dingle's criticism that it was not a symmetrical and consistent physical theory. However, Popper mistakenly included an asymmetric calculation in his analysis. Once this is corrected, the amended result supports Dingle's position. Popper went on to argue that to avoid determinism, special relativity had to be reconciled with absolute time; this too supports Dingle. Popper's failure to refute Dingle calls into question his claim that ?the observer' is superfluous to special relativity.
