Relativity Challenge

[Mowgli]

The beauty of SR is that you can derive the Lorentz transormation from 2 postulates:

1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames.

2. The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames.

Well' date=' not if the derivation in SR contained an algebraic error. An error would mean that the Lorentz transformation [i']cannot [/i] be derived from the postulates of SR. The transformation itself may be correct, but does not follow from the postulates. Unless, of course, the error is inconsequential, in that correcting it does not derail the derivation.

 

Mowgli

[Mowgli]

The danger here is that the refereeing may be of extremely poor quality, if the only hurdle is to disagree with established theory.

This argument can be turned around - if all the articles published by a particular journal have to comply with established theories, then that journal won't be able to contribute to any breaktrhoughs. PRD, for instance, will reject a phenomenolgy that violates the Lorentz invariance, even though the proposed idea may explain some unexplained experimental observations. This rejection stems from the belief that the Lorentz invariance was derived from physical assumptions by Einstein in SR. If Einstein actually made a silly mistake in his derivation, then there is no physical basis for Lorentz invariance, nor for rejecting an article simply because it violates the L. invariance. So it's important to check the algebra in SR. Do you think the algebraic error reported at the relativitychallenge site is real?

 

Mowgli

[CPL.Luke]

I personnally have derived SR in a physics class room. I have seen countless textbooks with the derivation in them. If every physisist in the world is that incapable in algebra, I would question every theory physics has ever created.

 

so far no phenomena has required that the lorentz transformation be different from what it is. Any paper that proposed an explanation of an already explained phenomena, that contained the idea of the lorentz transformation being wrong would quickly be dismissed because its like arguing for creationism

[ydoaPs]

Well' date=' not if the derivation in SR contained an algebraic error. An error would mean that the Lorentz transformation [i']cannot [/i] be derived from the postulates of SR. The transformation itself may be correct, but does not follow from the postulates. Unless, of course, the error is inconsequential, in that correcting it does not derail the derivation.

 

Mowgli

did you not see my post where i said that i derived it? it isn't that hard. it doesn't even take a knowlege of calculus.

[Galileo]

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]

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

 

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.

[swansont]

This argument can be turned around - if all the articles published by a particular journal have to comply with established theories' date=' then that journal won't be able to contribute to any breaktrhoughs. PRD, for instance, will reject a phenomenolgy that violates the Lorentz invariance, even though the proposed idea may explain some unexplained experimental observations. This rejection stems from the belief that the Lorentz invariance was derived from physical assumptions by Einstein in SR. If Einstein actually made a silly mistake in his derivation, then there is no physical basis for Lorentz invariance, nor for rejecting an article simply because it violates the L. invariance. So it's important to check the algebra in SR. Do you think the algebraic error reported at the relativitychallenge site is real?

 

Mowgli[/quote']

 

Are you guessing that they will, or have you established that they will automaticall reject such a paper? Because it's possible that they reject such papers because they are flawed, i.e. if Lorentz invariance is true, as it seems to be, the conclusions you draw from assuming that it isn't will be at odds with what we observe, and at that point you reject the paper.

[Galileo]

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.

[swansont]

Do you think the algebraic error reported at the relativitychallenge site is real?

 

 

No. It appears they have assumed the transformation d = ct, i.e. the coordinate systems are moving with a speed c with respect to each other, and find that under those conditions, the general transform for moving at speed v doesn't work. The error is theirs.

[swansont]

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[/url'] and see that what the herd understands about special relativity in one spatially compact dimension is downright incompetent.

 

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

 

(And I'm not prepared to chase down a bunch of links to find out what specific errors someone else has made in interpreting SR)

[Galileo]

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.

[CPL.Luke]

hey, why don't you just derive special relativity yourself galileo, using the light time clock (a simple two plate experiment wit ha photon bouncing around between them)

 

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

[Galileo]

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.

[CPL.Luke]

no, you can't improve upon it, but you certainly can see how it works