Science Forums
Advanced search
User Name
Password

Science Social Network
home    members    help/rules    who is online    contact   

Go Back   Science Forums > Science News > Technology News
Become a science forums sponsor today
Comment
 
LinkBack Article Tools
Published by Shubee 06-13-2008
The genesis of the theory of relativity was a long process that involved three major players and their critical reactions to the electrodynamics of moving bodies.

Lorentz made a key step when he sought to develop a mechanics that would obey the principle of relativity and Maxwell's equations. Lorentz exploited the invariance properties of the fundamental equations for the interaction between electrons and fields, and thus accounted for the absence of effects of the motion of the earth through the ether, but only to a certain approximation.

Poincaré made this absence of effects a general postulate and elevated the principle of relativity even higher than Lorentz did. He put the Lorentz transformations into a perfect form, discovered their group properties and gave them a physical interpretation. He used these transformation equations to reveal the perfect invariance of the electromagnetic equations and to create a Lorentz-invariant theory of gravity.

Einstein made Poincaré's theory completely symmetric by putting space and time in any two inertial systems on exactly the same footing. He also simplified relativity by eliminating the ether and by declaring two previously accepted results were fundamental postulates. From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz transformation.

Special Relativity Directory - Everything Important

The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to experimental verification. This was achieved by specifying an irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners, which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without using Einstein's first or second postulate.

The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1

The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology, which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are physical laws that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there may be laws that aren't.

Shubee
  #1  
By freeztar on 06-13-2008
Re: The Essential History of Special Relativity

What is it that you want to discuss, Shubee?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
By Shubee on 06-13-2008
Cool Re: The Essential History of Special Relativity

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar View Post
What is it that you want to discuss, Shubee?
Anything in the history of special relativity.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
By modest on 06-13-2008
Re: The Essential History of Special Relativity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee View Post
The next significant development in the history of relativity occurred when I eliminated everything from relativity that was not amenable to experimental verification.
What part of relativity do you believe is outside the scope of experimental verification?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee View Post
This was achieved by specifying an irreducible axiom set that produces the least confusion for beginners, which is the set of absolute minimum requirements for a relativistic theory to exist. My theory derives the Lorentz transformation without using Einstein's first or second postulate.
I haven't read you paper and I don't know of what method you speak. But, I would agree there are alternatives in deriving the Lorentz transformations to Einstein's method. Erik Christopher Zeeman has done so starting with the principle of causality. Can you tell us what postulates you start with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee View Post
The reductions and simplifications created in this theory are both dramatic and unpleasant. The consequences are severe in that the whole edifice of special relativity has been reduced to a near tautology, which requires more work. The theory states that all the laws of physics may be divided into two distinct categories. There are physical laws that are the same in all inertial frames of reference and there may be laws that aren't.

Shubee
Which laws are different in differing inertial frames? And, what makes them different?

-modest
Reply With Quote
  #4  
By Shubee on 06-13-2008
Cool Re: The Essential History of Special Relativity

Quote:
Originally Posted by modest View Post
What part of relativity do you believe is outside the scope of experimental verification?
A fundamental pillar in special relativity is that no absolute frame of reference exists. I believe that assumption can never be proved true empirically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by modest View Post
I haven't read you paper and I don't know of what method you speak. But, I would agree there are alternatives in deriving the Lorentz transformations to Einstein's method. Erik Christopher Zeeman has done so starting with the principle of causality. Can you tell us what postulates you start with?
Yes. My fundamental axioms are:

1. Newton's first law of motion.
2. There is a simple definition of clock time for each point in an inertial frame of reference. (i) This time is mathematically well-defined. (ii) Time is defined the same way in all inertial frames of reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by modest View Post
Which laws are different in differing inertial frames? And, what makes them different?
I didn’t specify any. I was merely elaborating on the logical consequences of my fundamental axioms.

Shubee
Reply With Quote
  #5  
By Shubee on 06-14-2008
Exclamation Re: The Essential History of Special Relativity

Quote:
Originally Posted by modest View Post
Can you tell us what postulates you start with?
Apparently not. I responded to your questions but, upon hitting the reply button, got a screen message that said that the post had to be approved by the administrator first.
Last edited by Shubee; 06-14-2008 at 07:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
By modest on 06-15-2008
Re: The Essential History of Special Relativity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee View Post
Apparently not. I responded to your questions but, upon hitting the reply button, got a screen message that said that the post had to be approved by the administrator first.
Shubee,

An upgrade to the latest vBulletin software may have some associated bugs. The developers are working on the issue. Rest assured you have done nothing wrong. The message you received was unintentional as it is not site practice to approve a user's post before it is posted.

You can message me or any other moderator or administrator if you have continued trouble posting.

-modest
Last edited by modest; 06-15-2008 at 09:08 AM. Reason: del double word
Reply With Quote
  #7  
By C1ay on 06-15-2008
Re: The Essential History of Special Relativity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shubee View Post
Apparently not. I responded to your questions but, upon hitting the reply button, got a screen message that said that the post had to be approved by the administrator first.
Try again. Hopefully I've cleared the obstacle.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
By modest on 06-16-2008
Re: The Essential History of Special Relativity

I see where you're coming from Shubee. I looked over your paper and found it very interesting. I plan to look closer at your derivation when time permits.

I also looked closer at the oxford author we mentioned before and found a book that is VERY related to your paper and interests: "Physical Relativity: Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective" published in 2005.

I've been looking at what is available at Google Book's preview and found interesting and related information. The type of derivation you're doing was done by Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond in 1976. The results are called Ignatowski transformations in honor of the first to do so.

Google Book's preview is here: Physical Relativity: Space-time ... - Google Book Search

And a similar derivation is done here: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...Tirp.rtwa4.pdf
Quote:
This shows how both the Galilei and Lorentz transformations may be derived from the relativity principle on the basis of certain elementary assumptions regarding time. I then reflect on the implications of this derivation for understanding proper time and the clock hypothesis.
I applaud you for your work on this Shubee, this is very interesting.

-modest
Reply With Quote
  #9  
By Shubee on 06-16-2008
Cool The originality of the Shubertian clock

Quote:
Originally Posted by modest View Post
I see where you're coming from Shubee. I looked over your paper and found it very interesting.
At the present time it’s just an unassailable foundation. I hope to add more interesting stuff later on. I currently have 4 more sections in my mind that I need to write out in this order:

Time Dilation
Time Travel
Faster Than Light Transformations
The Spherical Toy Universe

Quote:
Although the group theoretic approach makes no appeal to the rods and clocks that feature in Harvey Brown’s operationalist approach —and indeed HB does not seem to regard the group theoretic approach as very instructive pedagogically— some of the tentative conclusions I reached were nonetheless quite similar to his. —Richard T. W. Arthur, Time, Inertia and the Relativity Principle, p. 1.
I agree wholeheartedly that deriving the Lorentz transformation group by assuming a group structure is terribly unenlightening. I don’t go that route and that’s why my approach can’t be compared to the derivations of Ignatowski, Frank, P. and Rothe, Lee and Kalotas, Mermin, N. David, and Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond.

Quote:
I am going to assume the linearity of these transformations; this follows from the homogeneity of spacetime. HB himself outlines two different ways of proving linearity from homogeneity (26-28), one of which is given a general treatment in Lévy-Leblond (1976). —Richard T. W. Arthur, Time, Inertia and the Relativity Principle, p. 10.
That’s a very widely held misconception and I plan to refute the notion by computing time dilation with a general set of nonlinear transformations, getting familiar results, and also show by a direct argument why my Lorentz-equivalent nonlinear transformations are physically indistinguishable from the Lorentz group. See exercise 1 and 2 in my brief notes on Generalized Lorentz Transformations.
Reply With Quote
Comment

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Article Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Article Article Starter Category Comments Last Post
Special Relativity matrixscarface Physics and Mathematics 9 04-03-2006 01:09 AM
Special Relativity nhobe84 Physics and Mathematics 0 09-09-2005 12:08 PM
Special Relativity HydrogenBond Physics and Mathematics 2 09-06-2005 01:46 PM
Photons and Special Relativity Gerbus Physics and Mathematics 18 01-23-2005 07:38 PM
Special Relativity Aki Physics and Mathematics 0 12-31-2003 12:00 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:36 PM.

Hypography?

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

Share the love!

Please add more science to your life. Use our RSS feeds on your blog, your portal, or your favorite feedreader!

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 ©2008, Crawlability, Inc. Copyright © 2000-2008 Hypography
Part of the Hypography - Science for Everyone Network
Powered by GARS © 2005-2008