The Lorentz transformations form the mathematical core of the 1905
theory of Special Relativity as well as the earlier version of
relativity created by Lorentz himself, originally in 1895 but developed
further in the ensuing years. These two theories interpret the physical
significance of the transformations quite differently, but in ways that
are generally not considered to be empirically distinguishable. It is
widely believed today that Einstein’s Special Relativity presents the
superior interpretation. A number of lines of evidence, however, from
cosmology, quantum theory and nuclear physics present substantial
evidence against the Special Relativity interpretation of the Lorentz
transformations, challenging this traditional view. I review this
evidence and suggest that we are now at a point where the sum of the
evidence weighs against the Special Relativity interpretation of the
transformations and in favor of a Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian approach
instead.
1. Introduction
I’m sitting in a public square in Athens, Greece, biding my time as I
write these words. The battery on my phone ran out as I was trying to
navigate to my lodgings on my first night in this historic city, forcing
me to stop and charge my phone for a little while. I’m waiting for the
passage of time.
The nature of time has been debated vigorously since at least the age of
Heraclitus and Parmenides in ancient Greece. “All things flow,” said
Heraclitus. “Nothing flows,” said Parmenides as a counter-intuitive
rejoinder, suggesting that all appearances of change are an illusion.
How could Parmenides make the case that nothing flows, nothing changes?
It would seem, from easy inspection of the world around us that indeed
all things do flow, all things are always changing. So what was
Parmenides talking about?
Parmenides’ arguments illustrate well the rationalist approach that
Plato was later to more famously advocate, against the empiricist or
“sensationist” approach that Heraclitus and Aristotle too would
champion as a contrary approach. Parmenides and Plato saw reason as the
path toward truth and they were not afraid to allow reason to contradict
what seemed to be obvious sensory-based features of the world. Apparent
empirical/sensory facts can deceive and, for these men, Parmenides,
Plato and their followers, reason alone was the arbiter of truth. Wisdom
entailed using reason to see through the world’s illusions to the deeper
reality.
Heraclitus and Aristotle, to the contrary, stressed the need to be
empirical in our science and philosophy (science and philosophy were the
same endeavor in the era of classical Greece). Reason was of course a
major tool in the philosopher’s toolbox for these men too, but it seems
that reason unmoored from evidence should not be used to trump the
obvious facts of the world. The Aristotelian approach is to find a
pragmatic balance between empirical facts and reason in attempting to
discern the true contours of reality.
Einstein was firmly in the camp of Parmenides and Plato (Popper, et al.
1998). He famously considered the passage of time, the distinction
between past, present and future, to be a “stubbornly persistent
illusion.” This view of time, as an illusory construct hiding a deeper
timeless world, was based on his theories of relativity. Einstein and
his co-thinkers held this view, of time as illusory, despite the obvious
passage of time in the world around us, no matter where we look. The
widely-held view today is that Einstein finally won the long war,
decisively, between Heraclitus and Parmenides. Despite appearances,
nothing flows and the passage of time is just that: only appearance.
I suggest in this paper, however, that this conclusion is premature.
Einstein’s thinking is indeed an example of rationalism trumping
empiricism and it is time for us to take a more empirical approach to
these foundational questions of physics and philosophy. Today’s physics
lauds empiricism rhetorically, but in practice a rationalist approach
often holds sway, particularly with respect to the nature of time.
2. An overview of Special Relativity and Lorentzian Relativity
In discussing the nature of time with respect to modern physics, I will
focus on the Special Theory of Relativity (SR) and avoid discussion of
the general theory. Einstein’s 1905 theory of relativity adopted the
Lorentz transformations directly, unchanged from Lorentz’s own version
of these equations (Einstein 1905, Lorentz 1895 and 1904, in Lorentz
1937). Einstein’s key difference from Lorentz’s version of relativity
(first put forth in 1895, but developed further in later work) was to
reinterpret Lorentz’s equations, based on a radically different
assumption about the nature of physical reality. Lorentz interpreted the
relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation—which
follow straightforwardly from the Lorentz transformations—as resulting
from interaction with an ether that constituted simply the properties of
space (Lorentz’s ether was not some additional substance that pervades
space, as was the case in some earlier ideas of the ether). Einstein, to
the contrary, interpreted these effects as resulting from the dynamics
of spacetime, a union of space and time into a single notion, and
dismissed the ether as “superfluous.”
Because Lorentz’s and Einstein’s versions of relativity both use the
Lorentz transformations, they will yield in many cases the same
empirical predictions. The prevailing view today, then, is that while
these two theories are empirically indistinguishable there are other
considerations, relating to parsimony primarily, that render special
relativity the preferred approach. I discuss below, however, why we now
have good empirical reasons to distinguish between these two
interpretations—in favor of the Lorentzian approach.
Length contraction and time dilation occur as a result of the assumed
absolute speed of light because either space or time, or both, must
distort if we consider the speed of light to be invariant. This is
because speed is measured simply by dividing distance traveled by the
time elapsed; and if the speed of light remains the same in all
circumstances then space and/or time must distort in order to maintain
this invariance. As an object travels closer and closer to the speed of
light, its length must decrease (length contraction) and/or the time
elapsed must increase (time dilation) – but only from the perspective
of an observer in a different inertial frame. In the original inertial
frame there is no length contraction or time dilation.
“Moving clocks run slow” is a good shorthand for relativistic time
dilation, but again only from the perspective of a different inertial
frame. Time moves at the same rate for an observer in the moving frame
of reference, no matter what one’s speed in relation to other frames.
Relativistic effects only occur when considering the relationship
between two different frames of reference, not in the same frame.