Galileo

I love the way one physicist has mixed the Santa Claus fantasy with the legend of Albert Einstein and put it on the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory website. http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/santa/

 

For a sober myth-busting presentation of special relativity, see

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100

That mabey why Einstien chose to call it relativity.

Einstein wasn't the first to call it relativity. Einstein learned of the relativity principle from reading the works of Henri Poincaré.

 

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm

http://www.dmoz.org/Science/Physics/Relativity/Special_Relativity/

How are you going to evade the equation for proper time in a gravitational field being directly comparable with the topologically distinguished, universally applicable background time that characterizes spatially compact spacetime? Take the spacetime cylinder for example. All observers agree on the simultaneity of events. Clock rates everywhere, in this instance, are all physically tied together. Why should a global sense to the order of all spacetime events for all observers miraculously disappear in a spatially compact universe if we were to add the extremely faint gravitational field of an electron to it? Let the radius of the electron shrink to zero. At what step in the limiting process does the universally agreed upon cosmic everywhere present "now" suddenly disappear?

The first reference says it best:

 

Colloquium for 13-NOV-97 Abstract

Absolute Space and Time in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity

 

The Special Theory of Relativity, we teach our students, did away with Absolute Space and Absolute Time, leaving us with no absolute motion or rest, and also no absolute time order. General Relativity is viewed as extending the "relativity of motion" applicable to curved spacetimes, and General Relativity's most probable models of our actual spacetimes (the big-bang models) appear to re-introduce a privileged "cosmic" time order, and a definite sense of absolute rest. In particular, some of the same kinds of effects whose *absence* led to rejection of Newtonian absolute space are present in these models of GTR.

The last paragraph of http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0006/0006039.pdf states this conclusion:

 

Thus in Friedmann–Lemaıtre universes, (i) the expansion of the universe and (ii) the existence of a non–trivial topology for the constant time hypersurfaces both break the Poincare invariance and single out the same “privileged” inertial observer who will age more quickly than any other twin: the one comoving with the cosmic fluid – although aging more quickly than all her travelling sisters may be not a real privilege!

See these references also:

 

http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/abstract-13-NOV-97.html

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79

http://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i6/p1662_1

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101014.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503070.pdf

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm

 

I'm delighted that common sense is finally being recognized in the physics community. When do you think it will be realized that an absolute time order precludes the possibility of anything falling into a black hole?

You have probably noticed that the full force of Poincaré's relativity principle isn't necessary to derive the Lorentz transformation and the essence of special relativity:

 

 

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0302/0302045.pdf

 

You are also very likely aware of the well-known fact that spatially compact spacetimes break global Lorentz invariance and define absolute inertial frames of reference:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/e19ac8581a6148f2

 

Since SR is easily generalized so as to include this interesting class of spacetimes, it's reasonable, then, to amend the relativity principle also. I propose that it be reduced to a tautology.

 

Proposition: All physical laws can be divided into two categories. The two great divisions are the laws that are true in all inertial frames of reference and those that aren't.

 

There are many conjectures, proposed experiments and searches for possible violations of Lorentz invariance. What are the possibilities? Is there a catalog of current conjectures? Let me list a few ideas and concepts based on possible laws from the second category.

 

1. Superluminality (a popular favorite)

2. Perfect matter-antimatter symmetry

3. Object length dependence on frame of reference

 

I'm especially interested in the observed asymmetry between kaons and antikaons and whether or not their asymmetric decay is a consequence of a preferred frame. Has a test for this possibility been seriously considered?

hey, why don't you just derive special relativity yourself galileo, using the light time clock

I view the light clock as a riddle that justifies mumbo-jumbo mysticism and irrational twin paradox confusion. I can't improve on the most beautiful approach to special relativity ever published by a mathematician, so why should I try?

 

once you do that, you'll see that relativity is the only solution for such problems, and has to be right

I have no doubt that special relativity is valid as far as simple classical physics goes but I'm always hopeful of reading about or stumbling upon someone's quantum-spacetime version of a generalized Lorentz transformation.

You can't equate a conspiracy to exclude non-mainstream science with the fact that some people, including physicists, aren't experts in relativity.

Nor did I state your insinuation. I claim it's a conspiracy between snobbery, ignorance, and ego. Snobbery and ego are content to let the herd wallow in their ignorance. Ignorance is outraged that clarity should be published.

 

And I'm not sure what your problem is with the answer that was given in your link, even though it's not a peer-reviewed journal.

All the links are highly competent. The refereed paper cited in post 19, Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), March 1998 (pages 179-185), is amazingly incompetent.

That's pretty funny. You trash peer-reviewed journals, sprecifically the AJP, in post 19, and yet your second link is in article in (you guessed it) the AJP.

I don't deny that the AJP is a highly respected physics journal. My point was that the AJP exists for the sole purpose of catering to the herd mentality. Compare the reference mentioned with other sources and see that what the herd understands about special relativity in one spatially compact dimension is downright incompetent.

If Einstein actually made a silly mistake in his derivation, then there is no physical basis for Lorentz invariance, ... So it's important to check the algebra in SR. Do you think the algebraic error reported at the relativitychallenge site is real?

Why concern yourself with ancient and muddled derivations of the Lorentz transformation when many clear and modern expositions are readily available?

 

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0302/0302045.pdf

swansont,

 

You're too trusting in blind and bigoted human beings. Consider all the trash that's published by professional physics journals generally. If you can, please answer this question: "Why are referees for professional physics journals so hopelessly confused about special relativity in 1+1 dimensions?"

 

Read the AJP paper, "Would a topology change allow Ms. Bright to travel backward in time?" Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), March 1998 (pages 179-185). What a load of crap that paper is! The whole point of the paper is how terribly confused the author is, not understanding coordinates on SxR. Note the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS on page 184 where the author thanks the referees for "critically reading" the manuscript and their "helpful comments."

 

The given reference proves that many learned physicists are terribly confused by special relativity in 1+1 dimensions. The above referenced tripe, published by the American Journal of Physics, while suggesting a pretense of understanding, really reeks of incompetence for freshman physics. The chief editor of the AJP needs someone to teach him the very first principles of special relativity:

 

The Best Way to Learn Special Relativity

The Twin Paradox in a Closed Universe

The physicist Freeman Dyson gives a hint on how the pretense of scientific makebelieve perpetuates itself:

 

Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually published. --Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

Physics is out of control. Instead of wanting to explain things clearly, many physicists, if they're not praising Einstein or promoting some other potential physics superstar, are in a race to create grandiloquent theories. They all believe that they can attain immortality among the gods by mimicking the smarter, more successful gods.

 

This is so obvious: The real deciding factor in determining who gets published and who doesn't depends on the ability to conform to the herd mentality:

 

Followers of large well-supported research programs have lots of powerful senior scientists to promote their careers. People with the uncanny ability to ask new questions or recognize unexamined assumptions are often underappreciated.

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/no-new-einstein.pdf

This is why e.g. creationist magazines that criticize evolution don't count as refereed - you can't have the author and the referees all making the same mistakes. It creates a huge blind spot.

Typically, all journals focus on only publishing the philosophy of the journal. It's unreasonable to expect a thoughtful creationist viewpoint in a journal that's dedicated to opposing belief in intelligent design.

There is literally tons of stuff on the net about Einstein's plagarism and sloppy calculations. People have written whole books about it. Mathematicians in particular have a hard time with his questionable derivations.

 

Alternative Interpretation of SRT

The facts surrounding Einstein's Alleged Plagiarism are fascinating. I have a degree in math and wonder why light velocity in Einstein's original derivation of the Lorentz transformation is c-v and c+v. Let's just say that there are better and clearer derivations of special relativity today. The link you provided says nothing that questions Einstein's conclusions.

If you want to learn special relativity, it's sometimes helpful to begin with familiar concepts and then transition slowly toward the new ideas.

 

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/