Completed (24 days)
Completed (57 days)
Completed (26 days)
Completed (47 days)
Completed (19 days)
Completed (14 days)
Critical analysis of the main premises of special relativity: Lorentz & Minkowski
Completed on 14-Jun-2015 (14 days)
About 10 years ago, I was studying for my Master's Degree in Industrial Engineering specialising in energy. Most of the speciality subjects were related to either engines (& turbines) or Nuclear Engineering. More specifically, I had an introductory subject to Nuclear Engineering, mostly focused on Modern Physics theories (e.g., relativity and Quantum Physics), which I found particularly interesting.
I have always felt that the Physics (and Engineering) approach to energy was somehow incomplete; or, at least, that a comprehensive systematisation was missing. This feeling grew much stronger after improving my Modern Physics knowledge with the aforementioned subject. That's why I wondered myself: why not putting all these ideas together? I have a good knowledge about different types of energy (from a theoretical and calculations perspective) and am not bad at systematising more or less complex sets of ideas. Why not trying to come up with a good enough definition of energy? It would just be a relaxed mentally challenging distraction.
Note that I see theoretical developments as the required pre-step of a more or less immediate practical application; basically, the way in which most of engineering problems are faced (unlikely what happens in other more theoretical fields). For this reason, I never liked too much certain parts with a too-abstract or not-directly-applicable essence; for example, the famous E=mc^2 (or any other variant of this formula). The underlying static form of energy was completely against my (and the remaining theories') understanding of energy as "way to measure the transmission of movement". Bear in mind that certain movement is always present, even when dealing with potential energy (i.e., the one resulting from applying the given potential force when it becomes effective). On the other hand, Einstein's energy is expected to exist in absence of movement ("c" refers to an abstract speed which is not related in any way to the phenomenon whose energy is being analysed). Nevertheless, I (and the remaining theories) didn't have any problem to understand the underlying justification of this "static energy" (i.e., by bringing into account the potential or kinetic energies of the associated atoms); the real problem was finding a way to include a so abstract theory within the remaining forms of energy.
Thus, I do recognise that, when starting my analysis of Einstein's theory, my whole focus was put on finding certain not-too-right bit (or, more unlikely, a convincing set of reasons explaining how this theory could be seamless included within the remaining forms of energy). Perhaps that's why I was able to quickly come to certain conclusions, which might be seen as quite surprising.
At some point, I decided to share my findings with more people to know about their impressions. Unexpectedly, the fact of having more or less knowledge about this specific matter didn't seem to have any effect on the answers of these persons: all of them replied with the same (disappointing-to-me) indifference. Such negative results represented a good enough reason to stop working on my energy theory and to lose interest in all the related issues (e.g., the analysis included in this project). That is: I cannot see the point of working on something unless being completely certain about its practicality. I enjoyed this short attempt and my knowledge on various fronts was appreciably improved, but what would have been the point of continuing?