• SR versus Electrodynamics

    From Nicolaas Vroom@21:1/5 to Nicolaas Vroom on Fri May 15 14:06:42 2020
    Copied from the tread "in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false" in sci.physics.relativity

    On Thursday, 14 May 2020 00:55:50 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

    **** Start of posting.
    On 5/13/20 11:00 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
    On Friday, 17 April 2020 02:49:37 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
    Indeed, the second postulate is not needed in a modern derivation of SR.

    However, I also have a problem with this sentence.
    Do you mean that the second postulate is not needed at all in relation to SR? or only in relation to a modern derivation of SR?

    First remember that Einstein's 1905 paper was about ELECTRODYNAMICS.
    Since then we have found it convenient to split his subject into two
    separate theories:
    1. SR, which models the (local) geometry of spacetime.
    2. Electrodynamics, which models electromagnetic interactions.

    Einstein's second postulate involves light, putting it FIRMLY in theory
    #2. So it cannot be used in theory #1.

    Today we understand group theory (which Einstein did not in 1905). We
    can use group theory to show that there can be only three transformation
    groups among inertial frames, and that just one of them, the Lorentz
    group [#], agrees with all the experiments.

    So Einstein's second postulate is not needed at all in theory #1 above,
    SR as understood today by physicists.

    Not all popular articles and elementary textbooks adhere
    to the separation above. But that separation is necessary
    to go from SR to GR -- that relies on the invariant speed
    of SR, and has nothing to do with light.

    [#] Well, the Poincare' group. Which is the same as the
    inhomogeneous Lorentz group.

    The second postulate discusses the speed of light and that seems very important in relation to SR, specific in relation to the invariant:
    ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2

    Do not be deceived into thinking that "c" there is the speed of light.
    IT ISN'T. It represents the invariant speed of the Lorentz group.

    Historically, "c" was used to represent the vacuum speed of light, and
    "c" was also used to represent the invariant speed of the Lorentz group.
    This has caused countless confusion, but it is only a confusion about
    history and nomenclature -- the two theories above are distinct and
    quite clear about the meanings of their symbols.

    The remarkable thing is that the two meanings of "c" in those two
    theories have the same numerical value, established experimentally to
    high precision (yes, separate sets of experiments).

    So in a very real sense, Einstein "lucked out" in 1905.
    Had it happened that those two meanings of "c" were
    significantly different, the history of physics would
    have been VERY different.

    Should this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
    not be updated?

    Perhaps. Even probably. I have not looked at it.

    Tom Roberts
    ****** End of posting

    Any comments

    Nicolaas Vroom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ned Latham@21:1/5 to Nicolaas Vroom on Sat May 16 09:52:41 2020
    Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

    Copied from the tread "in making a new theory cannot be postulated
    what is patentely false" in sci.physics.relativity

    tjrob137 wrote:
    Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
    tjrob137 wrote:

    Indeed, the second postulate is not needed in a modern
    derivation of SR.

    However, I also have a problem with this sentence.
    Do you mean that the second postulate is not needed at all
    in relation to SR? or only in relation to a modern derivation
    of SR?

    First remember that Einstein's 1905 paper was about
    ELECTRODYNAMICS. Since then we have found it convenient to split
    his subject into two separate theories:
    1. SR, which models the (local) geometry of spacetime.
    2. Electrodynamics, which models electromagnetic interactions.

    Einstein's second postulate involves light, putting it FIRMLY in
    theory #2. So it cannot be used in theory #1.

    The second postulate is not even *relevant* to SR?

    Today we understand group theory (which Einstein did not in 1905).
    We can use group theory to show that there can be only three
    transformation groups among inertial frames, and that just one of
    them, the Lorentz group [#], agrees with all the experiments.

    So Einstein's second postulate is not needed at all in theory #1 above,
    SR as understood today by physicists.

    Not all popular articles and elementary textbooks adhere
    to the separation above. But that separation is necessary
    to go from SR to GR -- that relies on the invariant speed
    of SR, and has nothing to do with light.

    [#] Well, the Poincare' group. Which is the same as the
    inhomogeneous Lorentz group.

    The second postulate discusses the speed of light and that seems very important in relation to SR, specific in relation to the invariant:
    ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2

    Do not be deceived into thinking that "c" there is the speed of light.
    IT ISN'T. It represents the invariant speed of the Lorentz group.

    Historically, "c" was used to represent the vacuum speed of light, and
    "c" was also used to represent the invariant speed of the Lorentz group. This has caused countless confusion, but it is only a confusion about history and nomenclature -- the two theories above are distinct and
    quite clear about the meanings of their symbols.

    The remarkable thing is that the two meanings of "c" in those two
    theories have the same numerical value, established experimentally to
    high precision (yes, separate sets of experiments).

    So in a very real sense, Einstein "lucked out" in 1905.
    Had it happened that those two meanings of "c" were
    significantly different, the history of physics would
    have been VERY different.

    Should this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
    not be updated?

    Perhaps. Even probably. I have not looked at it.

    Tom Roberts

    Any comments

    Nicolaas Vroom

    A question, actually.

    SR "models the (local) geometry of spacetime": to what purpose?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nicolaas Vroom@21:1/5 to Ned Latham on Tue May 19 21:05:15 2020
    On Saturday, 16 May 2020 11:52:44 UTC+2, Ned Latham wrote:
    Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

    tjrob137 wrote:

    Einstein's second postulate involves light, putting it FIRMLY in
    theory #2. So it cannot be used in theory #1.

    The second postulate is not even *relevant* to SR?

    See below.


    Any comments

    A question, actually.

    SR "models the (local) geometry of spacetime": to what purpose?

    The concept: SR "models the (local) geometry of spacetime" is not clear.
    IMO it makes more sense to claim that:
    GR "models the (local) geometry of spacetime"
    But even that is not clear.
    How can any theory have any influence on the behaviour of free
    moving objects through space?
    i.e. on the behaviour of the movement of the planets around the Sun.

    The only thing that we humans can do is to describe the movements
    of these objects and if these movements are stable to describe them
    in a more mathematical way.

    Anyway (My opinion) spacetime is not a physical concept.
    This document about 1905: http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/eins_specrel.pdf
    does not mention the word spacetime.
    It should be mentioned that there is nothing wrong to draw
    in one figure an x-axis and a time-axis in order to draw the path
    of a particle through time but that does not mean that there exist
    something like spacetime.

    When you want to understand anything the first step is to identify
    the process that you want to explain.
    For example a clock
    The next is what are the details. For example, a clock using light signals.
    If that is the case it must be clear that the laws that describe
    that behaviour, in principle, can not be used for any other clock
    for example an atomic clock (wich 'uses' its own laws)

    The next step is to describe at least one specific experiment
    that you have used with a clock (using light signals).

    The next step is to mention if your experiment requires certain assumptions. The most important assumption is that the speed of light,
    locally, is considered the same, in all directions.

    One final remark is that the description of your experiment
    should be as detailed as possible, from start to end.
    It is not enough to write that one clock is at rest and that a second
    clock moves with a constant speed.

    I hope this answers your question.

    Nicolaas Vroom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rockbrentwood@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Nicolaas Vroom on Thu Jun 18 05:55:54 2020
    On Friday, May 15, 2020 at 4:06:46 PM UTC-5, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
    Today we understand group theory (which Einstein did not in 1905). We
    can use group theory to show that there can be only three transformation groups among inertial frames, and that just one of them, the Lorentz
    group [#], agrees with all the experiments.

    14, not 3. There are 14 kinematic groups consistent with a general set
    of assumptions - a 3-parameter family of groups distinguished by the
    sign of each parameter, which I'll call here (alpha,beta,kappa), such
    that the (-alpha,-beta,-kappa) group is isomorphic to the
    (alpha,beta,kappa) group.

    They are:
    Static: (alpha,beta,kappa) = (0,0,0)
    Galilei: (alpha,kappa) = (0,0), beta != 0
    Carroll: (beta,kappa) = (0,0), alpha != 0
    Para-Galilei: (alpha,beta) = (0,0), kappa != 0
    Newton-Hooke(+/-): alpha = 0, zeta > 0 (+) or zeta < 0 (-)
    Para-X: beta = 0, lambda > 0 (X = Poincare') or lambda < 0 (X = Euclid)
    X: kappa = 0, gamma > 0 (X = Poincare') or gamma < 0 (X = Euclid-4D) deSitter(+/-): gamma > 0; lambda > 0 (+) or lambda < 0 (-)
    Hyper-X: gamma < 0; zeta > 0 (X = bolic), zeta < 0 (X = spherical)

    where gamma = alpha beta and lambda = alpha kappa and zeta = beta kappa.

    The Bacry Levi-Leblond (BLL) 1968 classification.

    Roughly speaking: alpha = 0 corresponds to c = infinity, beta = 0
    corresponds to c = 0, with beta/alpha = c^2, when alpha beta > 0. The 3
    groups where alpha beta < 0 correspond to geometries with signature 4+0
    and were excluded in the 1968 paper ... though they are relevant for
    geometries with signature-changing metrics.

    Both the c = 0 and c = infinity cases can occur together: alpha = 0 and
    beta = 0 (the Static and Carroll groups). Static and Carroll have the
    same central extension, even though one is trivial; Galilei has the
    Bargmann group as its central extension.

    If the symmetries are denoted:
    * Spatial translations P = (P1,P2,P3)
    * Spatial rotations J = (J1,J2,J3)
    * Time translations H
    * Boosts K = (K1,K2,K3)
    then the groups are those with the Lie brackets:
    * [Ja,Vb] = Vc, where V is (J,K,P), (a,b,c)=(1,2,3), (2,3,1) or (3,1,2)
    * [J,H] = 0
    * [Ka,Kb] = -gamma Jc; [Pa,Pb] = lambda Jc, with (a,b,c) as above
    * [Ka,H] = beta Pa, [Pa,H] = kappa Ka
    * [Ka,Pb] = alpha delta_{a,b} H where delta_{a,b} = 1 if a = b, 0 else
    where gamma = alpha beta, lambda = alpha kappa. The combination zeta =
    beta kappa is also useful, but does not appear as a structure
    coefficient.

    This set is derived from the assumptions:
    * isotropy to fix all the J brackets as above
    * consistency with the discrete transforms (J,K,P,H) -> (J,aK,bP,abH)
    for time reversal (a,b)=(-,+) and parity reversal (a,b)=(+,-), which
    fixes the forms of the brackets,
    * Jacobi identities (from which follow gamma = alpha beta, lambda =
    alpha kappa).
    A slightly more general classification can be derived by seeking out all possible deformations of the (alpha,beta,kappa) = (0,0,0) case.

    The dimensions of the various quantities (using M,L,T,V respectively for
    mass, length, time, speed) are:

    alpha: T/VL, beta: L/TV, kappa: V/LT
    gamma: 1/VV, lambda: 1/LL, zeta: 1/TT
    J: MLV, K: ML, P: MV, H: MLV/T

    The V dimension has to be treated as independent of L/T for consistency
    with beta -> 0, though it can be normalized to L/T for non-zero beta by
    setting beta = +1 or beta = -1.

    All of the kinematic groups have a central extension of the form:

    [Ka,Pb] = M delta_{ab}, where M def= mu + alpha H and mu is the central
    charge.

    Both M and mu have the dimension M. The central extension is only
    non-trivial when alpha = 0; it is "trivial" otherwise; i.e. the group,
    for non-zero alpha, splits into (J,K,P,H,mu) -> (J,K,P,M) x (mu). In
    this case, E = M/alpha can be used in place of M. This corresponds to
    "total energy" in Relativity, while M corresponds to "relativistic
    mass".

    For uniformity, however, it's necessary to use (J,K,P,H,M) or (J,K,P,H,mu); since E is ill-defined for alpha = 0.

    Two of the groups coincide under central extensions, so the number then
    drops to 13.

    The transformations in infinitesimal form are
    * rotations: omega
    * boosts: upsilon
    * spatial translations: epsilon
    * time translations: tau
    * extra translation: psi
    which have dimensions:

    omega: 1, upsilon: V, epsilon: L, tau: T, psi: LV

    Their actions on (J,K,P,H,M,mu) are all given by

    delta X = [X, J.omega + K.upsilon + P.epsilon - H tau + mu psi]

    leading to the following infinitesimal transformations:

    delta J = omega x J + upsilon x K + epsilon x P
    delta K = omega x K - gamma upsilon x J + epsilon M - beta tau P
    delta P = omega x P - upsilon M + lambda epsilon x J - kappa tau K
    delta H = -beta upsilon.P - kappa epsilon.K
    delta M = -gamma upsilon.P - lambda epsilon.K
    delta mu = 0
    where ()x() denotes vector cross-product and ().() vector dot product.

    They can be integrated to finite form to see how each transforms under the respective symmetry.

    Rotations: (J,K,P,H,M,mu) -> (RJ,RK,RP,RH,RM,R mu)
    where R is a rotation operator given by

    RV = V + sin(theta) n x V + (1 - cos(theta)) n x (n x V),
    where the unit vector n is the axis of rotation, theta the rotation angle

    Time Translations by time-shift s:
    (J,H,M,mu) -> (J,H,M,mu)
    (K,P) -> (K - beta s P)/r, (P - kappa s K)/r)
    where r = root(1 + zeta s^2) and zeta s^2 > -1

    For zeta < 0, the transform has an horizon at |s| = root(-1/zeta); time
    is hyperbolic. For zeta > 0, time is circular and the transform is
    actually a rotation and you can take either the + or - sign of the
    square root, root (1 + zeta s^2).

    Spatial Translations by shift-vector a:
    (mu,J0,K1,P0) -> (mu,J0,K1,P0)
    (J1,P1) -> ((J1 + a x P1)/r, (P1 + lambda a x J1)/r)
    (K0,M -> ((K0 + a M)/r, (M - lambda a.K0)/r)
    H -> H - kappa a.K0/r + M/r kappa a^2/(1 + r)
    where r = root(1 - lambda a^2) and lambda a^2 < 1.

    The components (J0,K0,P0) are those parallel to epsilon, while
    (J1,K1,P1) are perpendicular to epsilon.
    J = J0 + J1, K = K0 + K1, P = P0 + P1
    epsilon.V1 = 0 = epsilon x V0, where V is (J,K,P).

    This has an horizon at a = 1/root(lambda) if lambda > 0; the spatial
    dimensions are hyperbolic if lambda > 0, circular if lambda < 0 and flat
    if lambda = 0. For lambda < 0, both signs of the root can be used and
    the transformations are ordinary sinusoidal rotations.

    Boosts by a velocity vector v:
    (J0,K0,P1,mu) -> (J0,K0,P1,mu)
    (J1,K1) -> ((J1 + v x K1)/r, (K1 - gamma v x J1)/r)
    (P0,M) -> ((P0 - v M)/r, (M - gamma v.P0)/r)
    H -> H - beta v.P/r + M/r beta v^2/(1 + r)
    where r = root(1 - gamma v^2) and gamma v^2 < 1.

    This has an horizon at v = 1/root(gamma) if gamma > 0 and reduces to a
    circular rotation if gamma < 0. For gamma = 0, it reduces to the form:

    (J,K) -> (J + v x K, K)
    (P,H,M,mu)-> (P - v M, H - beta v.P + beta v^2 M/2, M, mu)

    If there is a "rest frame" (i.e. where P -> 0), then in terms of the transformed values in that frame (P,H,M) = (0,U,m), one has

    0 = (P0 - v M)/r + P1
    m = (M - gamma v.P0)/r
    U = H - beta v.P/r + M/r beta v^2/(1 + r)

    which, when inverted, yields:

    P = vm/r, M = m/r, H = U + m/r beta v^2/(1 + r),
    mu = M - alpha H = m - alpha U

    which simultaneously generalizes both the non-relativistic and
    relativistic formulas for (relativistic) mass M, momentum P and kinetic
    energy H ... except that U is absent in relativity.

    The appearance of an "internal energy" U term in the relativistic case
    is directly connected with the inclusion of the 11th generator mu. If
    setting U = 0, then both mu and the rest mass m coincide. Otherwise, mu
    would have to be given a separate name, e.g. "Intrinsic Mass".

    To emphasize: the case U != 0 and mu != m is a GENERALIZATION of Special Relativity that is NOT equivalent to it, but only includes it as a
    special case!

    There are, in the general cases of (alpha,beta,kappa), 3 invariants
    under the transforms:
    The Intrinsic Mass: mu = M - alpha H
    The Extended Mass Shell: Phi_2 = beta P^2 - 2MH + alpha H^2 - kappa K^2 +
    alpha beta kappa J^2
    The "Spin" shell: Phi_4 = W^2 - gamma W0^2 + lambda W4^2

    There is also the derived invariant:
    The Mass Shell: mu^2 - alpha Phi_2 = M^2 - gamma P^2 + lambda K^2 - lambda gamma J^2

    The 5-vector (W0, W = (W1,W2,W3), W4) is the generalization of the Pauli-Lubanski vector, and is given by

    W0 = P.J, W = MJ + P x K, W4 = K.J.

    It transforms as

    delta W0 = -upsilon W - beta tau W4
    delta W = omega x W - gamma upsilon W4 - lambda epsilon W4
    delta W4 = epsilon W - kappa tau W0

    If there is a rest frame P = 0, then in it, it reduces to (W0,W,W4) -> (0,mS,m^2 R.S).

    This, along with the fact that there are 5 translation generators (P1,P2,P3,H,mu) in the central extension, instead of 4, strongly
    suggests that the geometry naturally suited for this is 5 dimensional,
    not 4.

    It's something one of us found a couple years ago.

    The centrally extended members of the BLL family all have a uniform
    geometric coordinate representation with the following features:
    * It is non-linear if kappa != 0
    * It is 5 dimensional, not 4.

    Coordinates: (t, u, x, y, z)
    Differential Operators: denoted (T, U, X, Y, Z)

    J = (z Y - y Z, x Z - z X, y X - x Y)
    K = beta t (X,Y,Z) + (x,y,z) (alpha T - U)
    P = -a (X,Y,Z)
    H = aT + bU
    M = a (alpha T - U) = mu + alpha H
    mu = -c U

    where

    a = root(1 + zeta s^2 - lambda r^2)
    b = kappa r^2/(a + c)
    c = root(1 + zeta s^2) = a + alpha b

    r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + 2 beta t u + gamma u^2
    s = t + alpha u

    It is linear if kappa = 0 (with a = 1, b = 0, c = 1), non-linear
    otherwise. The non-linear case reflects an underlying curved geometry.

    The dimensions of the coordinates are x,y,z: L, t: T, u: LV.

    Both a and c play the role of "extra" coordinates in the associated
    conic sections:

    a^2
    + lambda (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) - zeta t^2 = 1
    c^2 - zeta s^2 = 1

    For the Static/Carroll groups (alpha = 0, beta = 0), one has:

    a = 1, b = kappa r^2/2, c = 1, r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2, s^2 = t^2.

    From this, you can integrate to find the action of the symmetry
    transforms on the coordinates. The transform (psi) corresponding to (mu)
    will have a non-trivial effect.

    To determine these - which I won't do here - you will need to calculuate
    the action of (J,K,P,H,M,mu) on (a,b,c); and these can be found from the following actions of (T,U,X,Y,Z) on (a,b,c):

    a (T,U,X,Y,Z) a = kappa (beta t, 0, -alpha x, -alpha y, -alpha z)
    ac (T,U,X,Y,Z) b = kappa (beta (au-bt), beta as, cx, cy, cz)
    c (T,U,X,Y,Z) c = kappa (beta s, gamma s, 0, 0, 0)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)