The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Special Relativity without Light
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Special Relativity without Light

  • 3 Replies
  • 904 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    7%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Special Relativity without Light
« on: 19/09/2019 17:00:32 »
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0302045.pdf

I have been working my way through this approach for a while now (have come back to it 3 or 4 times ) and am getting stuck at this point

Using Eqs. (9) and (10), we obtain
X(x2 + h, t, v) − X(x2, t, v) = X(x1 + h, t, v) − X(x1, t, v). (11)

Dividing both sides by h and taking the limit h → 0, we obtain ∂X /∂x ¦ x2 = ∂X/ ∂x¦ x1   (12)

Apologies for the poor formatting ,copy and paste  comes up short here.


Can anyone help me through this tricky bit?
The author says he is dividing by h  but the result of the partial differentiation (that is what he is doing?) seems to be a division by x .

My partial differentiation skills are rusty and it would take me a lot of work to bring them up to scratch...

What about the article as a whole?Does anyone find it interesting?

He goes on to say that   "Thus, the function X(x, t, v) must be a linear function of x"

Can anyone clarify that particular point as well?
Logged
 



Offline Halc

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 2213
  • Activity:
    25.5%
  • Thanked: 171 times
    • View Profile
Re: Special Relativity without Light
« Reply #1 on: 20/09/2019 00:29:51 »
I cannot follow the notation used to get (12).

Following what the author is trying to do, we're basically assuming our universe but without light or any other thing (gravity waves for instance) that moves at some frame independent constant speed.
That's fine, but there are several sets of physical laws (including Newtonian ones) that work just fine using just Galilean relativity.  To actually derive the laws of relativity from it all, one must distinguish between various sets of rules by there empirical differences.  In other words, if we can't use constant light speed as an empirical premise, we need to use some other observation to derive these laws.  I don't see any at all, and hence SR cannot follow from just a premise of Galilean relativity.

That said, I followed along at least as far as you did, and equation 9 is wrong, which would show up if they actually did an empirical test for it (hard to do without using light).

Working backwards, equations 1,2 are also wrong, or at least uses incorrect terminology.  They seem to be describing an event at x and t, but they don't call it an event.
Quote from: Pal
Let us consider two inertial frames S and S′, where the second one moves with a speed v, along the x-axis, with respect to the first one. The co-ordinates and time in the S-frame will be denoted by x and t, and in the frame S′, they will be denoted with a prime. The space-time transformation equations have the form
x′ = X(x, t, v), (1)
t′ = T(x, t, v), (2)
A frame does not have coordinates.  If it gets assigned an origin (a designated event where x and t are both zero), then an event can be described with (x,t) in that frame.  If no origin is specified, only relations like speeds and such can be specified in the selected frame, but not coordinates.
So the second frame is indeed specified with the v above, but not the origin of this frame relative to the origin of the first frame.  So we need not only x and t of the event we want to transform, but also x0 and t0, the coordinates of the origin of S' in S.
I am assuming both frames use the same origin event, a simplification which allows us to move on.  The author seems to assume this without saying it.

Back to equation 9.  I notice that the equations all came in pairs up until now, but with 9, they drop 10: the T computation.  This is a mistake.
Quote from: Pal
Suppose there is a rod placed along the x-axis such that its ends are at points x1 and x2 in the frame
S, with x2 > x1. In the frame S′, the ends will be at the points X(x1, t, v) and
X(x2, t, v), so that the length would be
l′ = X(x2, t, v) − X(x1, t, v)   (9)
They didn't compute t2' = T(x2, t, v) and t1' = T(x1, t, v).  The above length computation is valid only if t1' and t2' are the same time, but they're not.  An empirical test would verify this, but they don't seem to reference any empirical facts, so this is actually just not demonstrated at this point.  Equation 9 is not valid until it has been demonstrated, and in reality, it isn't the case.
« Last Edit: 20/09/2019 15:22:07 by Halc »
Logged
 

Offline geordief (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 435
  • Activity:
    7%
  • Thanked: 9 times
    • View Profile
Re: Special Relativity without Light
« Reply #2 on: 20/09/2019 14:55:41 »
Thanks,you have given me food for thought.

Perhaps I will get back again when I have digested what you said.
Logged
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Special Relativity without Light
« Reply #3 on: 22/09/2019 14:16:38 »
To add to what Halc has said. You need some way of verifying both time and distance. Even in Galilean relativity. The time at two remote points within a coordinate system is a huge issue. The point itself does not have a time associated with it. An object sitting at or passing through that point can have an associated time. It is the remote location with respect to an 'observer' that matters.

This paper ignores the issue altogether. Which is the wrong way to proceed.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

If we put a mirror millions of light years away and reflected earth, could we see what earth looked like millions of years ago?

Started by thedocBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 9
Views: 11476
Last post 20/05/2018 00:53:37
by raf21
What is "light" pressure?

Started by sorincosofretBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 34
Views: 27601
Last post 13/02/2018 19:46:54
by Bill S
What is a halogen light bulb? What halogen is used and why is this better?

Started by chrisBoard Technology

Replies: 4
Views: 9458
Last post 02/02/2010 11:17:45
by Mazurka
Is solar energy the same as light energy?

Started by FeliciaBoard Technology

Replies: 6
Views: 19687
Last post 19/03/2020 15:17:27
by Paul25
What is Time? If there was no light would Time cease to be?

Started by londounkmBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 291
Views: 99829
Last post 27/06/2020 13:55:35
by Bill S
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.169 seconds with 42 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.