I know that it is a bit hard to believe, but just now, a wonderful idea has struck me. It may look as if I am not eligible to talk on this matter, but this certainly looks to me quite convincing. Now, after having reflected upon it for many times; the more I think of it, the more I am convinced of its authenticity and correctness.
This is in regard to the Einstein’s theories.
Given the respect he possesses in the scientific as well as the non-scientific community, it looks as if it has no significance to what am I writing, and I hope that I am wrong, but I will not be convinced of its untruthfulness, unless I am explained satisfactorily.
It all started when I read the book called “Special Theory Of Relativity”, written by Ajoy Ghatak, a professor of physics at IIT DELHI. He is a renowned researcher in the field of fiber optics as well as quantum mechanics. He is a well devoted engineering educator as well. When taking a look at the theory of relativity, I noticed everywhere that Einstein had proposed that because the speed of light is constant in all frames of references and that it is independent of the motion of the source or emitter, time is not invariant but only an observation. It looks a bit conspicuous to me. The first thing that comes to my mind that light has a finite velocity and it is the fastest means of observation. After taking a rigorous look at the Lorentz transformation, I get the feeling that the validity of it lies in the fact that the only means of observation is through travelling light. It is because that we observe using travelling light and its absorption and reflection, that we find the postulates of Einstein’s theories correct. It is because that we cannot observe through any other means, we cannot foresee the inaccuracy or the redundancy of the theory of relativity. It is tough to imagine it right away, so let us take a situation. Imagine that we human did not have eyes, but only ears. Then, all the observation stuff would have been though sound, and not through the travelling light. Then, the theory of relativity would have been still there, but it would have taken into consideration the speed of sound, and not the speed of light. Moreover, our observation would never have taken into account the vacuum into account as sound cannot travel in vacuum and the theory would have failed. Light could not be taken into account. Thus, only for not being able to have eyes, or rather optical sensors and detectors, we would have made an entirely new theory and that also a lot more inaccurate.
Similar discrepancy lies in the quantum mechanical theory. The root of quantum theory lies in the Heisenberg principle. It states that the momentum and position of a particle, specifically for an electron, cannot be found out simultaneously, to the fullest accuracy. This can also be contradicted through similar argument. Because we cannot observe a particle without light, as soon as we shed light on it to observe, it is disturbed. So, it can never be observed accurately. The lack of observation technology has resulted in the evolution of quantum theory. If we can somehow, create a technology of observation without light, but through a non-energy transferrable technology, then, I hope, we will find out the exact position and momentum of a particle and the Heisenberg principle will prove to be inaccurate.
The only purpose of these arguments was more out of curiosity and less due to contradiction. I know that a mind as enlightened as that of Einstein’s can never make such a mistake, but I do believe that my arguments are not useless and may invoke a new surge in the scientific minds.
This is in regard to the Einstein’s theories.
Given the respect he possesses in the scientific as well as the non-scientific community, it looks as if it has no significance to what am I writing, and I hope that I am wrong, but I will not be convinced of its untruthfulness, unless I am explained satisfactorily.
It all started when I read the book called “Special Theory Of Relativity”, written by Ajoy Ghatak, a professor of physics at IIT DELHI. He is a renowned researcher in the field of fiber optics as well as quantum mechanics. He is a well devoted engineering educator as well. When taking a look at the theory of relativity, I noticed everywhere that Einstein had proposed that because the speed of light is constant in all frames of references and that it is independent of the motion of the source or emitter, time is not invariant but only an observation. It looks a bit conspicuous to me. The first thing that comes to my mind that light has a finite velocity and it is the fastest means of observation. After taking a rigorous look at the Lorentz transformation, I get the feeling that the validity of it lies in the fact that the only means of observation is through travelling light. It is because that we observe using travelling light and its absorption and reflection, that we find the postulates of Einstein’s theories correct. It is because that we cannot observe through any other means, we cannot foresee the inaccuracy or the redundancy of the theory of relativity. It is tough to imagine it right away, so let us take a situation. Imagine that we human did not have eyes, but only ears. Then, all the observation stuff would have been though sound, and not through the travelling light. Then, the theory of relativity would have been still there, but it would have taken into consideration the speed of sound, and not the speed of light. Moreover, our observation would never have taken into account the vacuum into account as sound cannot travel in vacuum and the theory would have failed. Light could not be taken into account. Thus, only for not being able to have eyes, or rather optical sensors and detectors, we would have made an entirely new theory and that also a lot more inaccurate.
Similar discrepancy lies in the quantum mechanical theory. The root of quantum theory lies in the Heisenberg principle. It states that the momentum and position of a particle, specifically for an electron, cannot be found out simultaneously, to the fullest accuracy. This can also be contradicted through similar argument. Because we cannot observe a particle without light, as soon as we shed light on it to observe, it is disturbed. So, it can never be observed accurately. The lack of observation technology has resulted in the evolution of quantum theory. If we can somehow, create a technology of observation without light, but through a non-energy transferrable technology, then, I hope, we will find out the exact position and momentum of a particle and the Heisenberg principle will prove to be inaccurate.
The only purpose of these arguments was more out of curiosity and less due to contradiction. I know that a mind as enlightened as that of Einstein’s can never make such a mistake, but I do believe that my arguments are not useless and may invoke a new surge in the scientific minds.
Comments
Post a Comment