Special Relativity in the 21st century

On Jul 29, 10:14*pm, shuba wrote:
Those seriously interested in special realaitivity may find the
following paper enlightening and useful.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009

Warning: contains scary mathematics.

* * * * *---Tim Shuba---

This paper contains one of Einsteiniana's great mysteries:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.3009v1.pdf
"However, it was soon realized after Einstein's great breakthrough
that the principle of constancy of the velocity of light was not
necessary in order to obtain the Lorentz transformations."

Does this mean "Lorentz transformations could be obtained even if the
light postulate is false"? How soon "after Einstein's great
breakthrough" was that realized? Why did the realizers fail to inform
Einstein zombie world about their discovery?

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 30, 12:28 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 29, 10:14 pm, shuba wrote:

Those seriously interested in special realaitivity may find the
following paper enlightening and useful.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009

Warning: contains scary mathematics.

---Tim Shuba---

This paper contains one of Einsteiniana's great mysteries:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.3009v1.pdf
"However, it was soon realized after Einstein's great breakthrough
that the principle of constancy of the velocity of light was not
necessary in order to obtain the Lorentz transformations."

Does this mean "Lorentz transformations could be obtained even if the
light postulate is false"? How soon "after Einstein's great
breakthrough" was that realized? Why did the realizers fail to inform
Einstein zombie world about their discovery?

Pentcho Valev


special relativity in 21 century is obsolite!! 21 century the levers
are back

On Jul 30, 12:34 am, dedanoe wrote:
On Jul 30, 12:28 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:



On Jul 29, 10:14 pm, shuba wrote:

Those seriously interested in special realaitivity may find the
following paper enlightening and useful.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009

Warning: contains scary mathematics.

---Tim Shuba---

This paper contains one of Einsteiniana's great mysteries:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.3009v1.pdf
"However, it was soon realized after Einstein's great breakthrough
that the principle of constancy of the velocity of light was not
necessary in order to obtain the Lorentz transformations."

Does this mean "Lorentz transformations could be obtained even if the
light postulate is false"? How soon "after Einstein's great
breakthrough" was that realized? Why did the realizers fail to inform
Einstein zombie world about their discovery?

Pentcho Valev


special relativity in 21 century is obsolite!! 21 century the levers
are back

http://dedanoe.googlepages.com/index.htm

Il me semble qu'il y a une faute de frappe à l'équation (2.23) : je
verrais plutôt SO(5) comme groupe avec des boost compacts.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009

Laurent

On 30 Jul, 02:32, moky wrote:
Il me semble qu'il y a une faute de frappe à l'équation (2.23) : je
verrais plutôt SO(5) comme groupe avec des boost compacts.http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009

Laurent

Mais la transformation de Lorentz est SU(2). Rotation.

L'electron et le positron sont les generateurs.


- Ian Parker

On Jul 30, 12:28*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jul 29, 10:14*pm, shuba wrote:

Those seriously interested in special realaitivity may find the
following paper enlightening and useful.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3009

Warning: contains scary mathematics.

* * * * *---Tim Shuba---

This paper contains one of Einsteiniana's great mysteries:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.3009v1.pdf
"However, it was soon realized after Einstein's great breakthrough
that the principle of constancy of the velocity of light was not
necessary in order to obtain the Lorentz transformations."

Does this mean "Lorentz transformations could be obtained even if the
light postulate is false"? How soon "after Einstein's great
breakthrough" was that realized? Why did the realizers fail to inform
Einstein zombie world about their discovery?

Einsteinians, do you agree with the authors that the Lorentz
transformations can be deduced "solely on the basis of the principle
of relativity"?

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians, do you agree with the authors that the Lorentz
transformations can be deduced "solely on the basis of the principle
of relativity"?

Pentcho Valev


Here is my take on the subject. The definitions used in physics ( defs
of length and time...) entail (imply) that the speed of light is
constant in all i-frames. There is therefore no need to postulate it.
Since it is constant, and with the princ. of relativ. imply the usual
consequences of SR.

The Lor. trans. can not be deduced *solely* from the princ. of
relativ. for one must define the words (terms and concepts) used.
Without such definitions, "principle of relativity" has no meaning.

a écrit :
Einsteinians, do you agree with the authors that the Lorentz
transformations can be deduced "solely on the basis of the principle
of relativity"?

It is not a matter of agreeing, it is a matter of proving.
If I correctly read the article by Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond, here is
what he *proves*.

If a theory satisfies
1. causality
2. homogeneity of space and time
3. all inertial frames are equivalent,

then the transformations laws are Lorentz with a parameter $c$ to be
fixed by experiments.

If you put c=infinity, then you get Gallilée, if c has any finite
value, you get special relativity with all the contractions stuffs.

Just reading the Levy-Leblond's article, you cannot conclude
"Gallilée" or "Lorentz". You have to add some phenomenological
assumptions.

Adding the assumption "light speed is invariant" implies c=light speed
and c=finite.
One can replace the latter by the weaker assumption "there exists an
invariant speed", and one gets a theory with all the contraction of
lengths, but not specially that light has an invariant speed.

You can even replace by the more intuitive assumption "there exists a
maximal speed", but I have no proof at hand right now[1].

If you want a *proof* of Lorentz under the assumption of existence of
an invariant speed (denoted by c), read this one, and replace
everywhere "light" by "something that displaces at speed c" :
http://student.ulb.ac.be/~lclaesse/echa.pdf
(and forget the introduction about Michelson and all the
electromagnetism stuff : just replace all that by the assumption that
there exists an invariant speed)

Have a good night
Laurent

[1] If someone has a reference, I accept

On Aug 1, 9:10*pm, moky wrote:
a écrit :

Einsteinians, do you agree with the authors that the Lorentz
transformations can be deduced "solely on the basis of the principle
of relativity"?

It is not a matter of agreeing, it is a matter of proving.
If I correctly read the article by Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond, here is
what he *proves*.

If a theory satisfies
1. causality
2. homogeneity of space and time
3. all inertial frames are equivalent,

then the transformations laws are Lorentz with a parameter $c$ to be
fixed by experiments.

If you put c=infinity, then you get Gallilée, if c has any finite
value, you get special relativity with all the contractions stuffs.

Just reading the *Levy-Leblond's article, you cannot conclude
"Gallilée" or "Lorentz". You have to add some phenomenological
assumptions.

Adding the assumption "light speed is invariant" implies c=light speed
and c=finite.
One can replace the latter by the weaker assumption "there exists an
invariant speed", and one gets a theory with all the contraction of
lengths, but not specially that light has an invariant speed.

You can even replace by the more intuitive assumption "there exists a
maximal speed", but I have no proof at hand right now[1].

If you want a *proof* of Lorentz under the assumption of existence of
an invariant speed (denoted by c), read this one, and replace
everywhere "light" by "something that displaces at speed c" : http://student.ulb.ac.be/~lclaesse/echa.pdf
(and forget the introduction about Michelson and all the
electromagnetism stuff : just replace all that by the assumption that
there exists an invariant speed)

Your masters have almost all abandoned the sinking ship so you may
some day become a great boss in Einsteiniana. Judging from your
thoughts above, you are able to introduce even more confusion in
Einstein zombie world than they did (most of your masters would not go
as far as to say that Divine Albert's Divine Theory would remain
correct even if the speed of light depends on the speed of the light
source). Bonne chance!

Pentcho Valev

most of your masters would not go
as far as to say that Divine Albert's Divine Theory would remain
correct even if the speed of light depends on the speed of the light
source.

How do you know that ?

It seems that YOU abandoned the sinking ship of c'=c+v, because you
already gave up in 7 threads on a question as simple as "is Lorentz
the good group in the non gravitational case ?" :

http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...4a7c7121f36f7c
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...c07d03bfd85ca&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...fdc42e9464510a
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...b8d7306?hl=fr&
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...41aed26491b359
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...4ee0e291b1760d
http://groups.google.fr/group/fr.sci...a62537bda02ab5

Good night
Laurent