
Originally Posted by
ParticleHater
If space is a giant particle field and it behave in a manner similar to what we can observe with molecular motion then it would make sense that a particular batch of particle grouped into atoms trying to move through this particle fluid would in fact slow down as it had to increasingly higher resistance to movement at the subatomic level. It would also explain why these things are occuring with the observation of time dialation.
No, it wouldn't.
For one, you would have to show how such a "resistance" causes an effect that matches the observed time dialtion factors. Just saying that it would is hand waving. Where's the math?
For another, this explanation is akin to Lorentzian Realtivity, wherein it assumes that there is an absolute frame by which motion can be measured, and that it motion relative to this frame that results in time dilation. But this is not what SR says.
SR says that you cannot perform a one to one transformation of time measurements between relatively moving frames. The key word here is "relatively". There is no absolute motion in SR.
What's the difference?
Assume that you have a lab where you are measuring the decay of sub atomic particles traveling at some speed "v" relative to the lab.
There is a second lab with identical equipment doing the same experiment with particle moving at v relative to them. However this lab is moving at "w" with respect to you.
Now assume that when one the labs does its measurements, it gets the same results in the time it takes for the particles to decay no matter what direction the particle are moving with respect to the lab.
With your particle field idea, this means that it is at rest with respect to the field. The other lab is therefore moving. This means that particles moving at the same speed realtive to the lab but in differenct directions would have different speeds relative to the field, some would be moving at v+w and some at v-w. This lab would get different decay rates for the particles depending on their direction of movement with respect to the lab.
However with SR, both labs would get exactly the same results for their decay rates for all particles. This is because in SR it is only the relative speed with respect to the measuring equipment that counts not some absolute motion with respect to space.
Now here's the thing. We do this type of experiment
all the time. We are always creating high speed particles and measuring their decay rates with particle accelerators and the Earth itself is a moving lab. It orbits the Sun. If there was any credence to the particle field idea, then we should measure differences in particle decay rates depending on whether or not the accelerator is pointing in the direction o fthe Earth's orbital motion or not. (And since the Earth also rotates, any particle accelerator will point in different directions over the course of a day.)
We do not. No matter what, we always get results that are consistant with the accelerated particles speed with respect to the accelerator.
SR holds up to experimental evidence, your particle field hypothesis does not.