Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Question on Special Relativity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Question on Special Relativity

    So, I was having a "debate" with a fellow regarding special relativity. My argument was that Bell's Inequality suggests that a Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is correct.

    The person I was debating argued that a Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is false because it's mathematical formalism differs from special relativity in such a way that precludes general relativity. (I assume he is referring to the Minkowskian interpretation of special relativity here.)

    The problem being, literally everything I have read on the subject has stated that all three interpretations of special relativity have the same mathematical formalism.They are simply different ways of physically representing the mathematics. Also, GR apparently predicts the 'aether' postulated by the Lorentzian interpretation of SR.

    The fellow I am debating claims he has studied physics and mathematics for 5 years.

    Any input?

    Cheers.
    My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

  • #2
    I have a question: how does a Lorentzian perspective of SR extend into GR?

    Comment


    • #3
      Bell's Theorem deals with quantum interactions. How does it apply to SR? Also, if the mathematics doesn't extend SR into GR, I don't see its physical relevance.

      Interesting discussion topic!

      K54

      Comment


      • #4
        The implication of Bell's Inequality is that the reality assumption and locality can't both be true at the same time. If locality is false, then this implies that the Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity is correct, because it allows for a privileged reference frame.
        My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          I have a question: how does a Lorentzian perspective of SR extend into GR?
          GR introduces the notion of cosmic, or absolute time. The Lorentzian interpretation of SR has a privileged reference frame allowing for absolute time.
          My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

          Comment


          • #6
            Anyway, this guy has since modified his argument. He is now saying that geometric gravitation cannot happen if we do not treat time as a dimension. However, the four-dimensionality of space-time is not an indispensable element of either SR or GR, so I don't see how this is so.
            My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
              GR introduces the notion of cosmic, or absolute time. The Lorentzian interpretation of SR has a privileged reference frame allowing for absolute time.
              I don't think it does. When used in cosmology to conceptualise of a beginning, yes, cosmic time is brought into the picture, but the notion of cosmic time isn't inherent in GR.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
                Anyway, this guy has since modified his argument. He is now saying that geometric gravitation cannot happen if we do not treat time as a dimension. However, the four-dimensionality of space-time is not an indispensable element of either SR or GR, so I don't see how this is so.
                How is GR to be understood under 3+1 instead of Minkowskian 4-D spacetime?

                Comment


                • #9
                  "The choice is not about the equations, it is about their interpretation. Einsteinís equations can be interpreted as indicating a curvature of space-time, unpicturable as it may be, or as describing a quantum field in three-dimensional space, similar to the other quantum force fields. To the physicist, it really doesnít make much difference. Physicists are more concerned with solving their equations than with interpreting them... So if you want, you can believe that gravitational effects are due to a curvature of space-time (even if you canít picture it). Or, like Weinberg, Wilczek (and me), you can view gravity as a force field that, like the other force fields in QFT, exists in three-dimensional space and evolves in time according to the field equations."
                  http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/app-b/
                  My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rational Gaze View Post
                    "The choice is not about the equations, it is about their interpretation. Einsteinís equations can be interpreted as indicating a curvature of space-time, unpicturable as it may be, or as describing a quantum field in three-dimensional space, similar to the other quantum force fields. To the physicist, it really doesnít make much difference. Physicists are more concerned with solving their equations than with interpreting them... So if you want, you can believe that gravitational effects are due to a curvature of space-time (even if you canít picture it). Or, like Weinberg, Wilczek (and me), you can view gravity as a force field that, like the other force fields in QFT, exists in three-dimensional space and evolves in time according to the field equations."
                    http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/app-b/
                    Most fascinating. My math just isn't sufficiently up to speed so I'll have to look it up later.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The closest thing to a cosmic reference frame is cosmic background radiation, but even that isn't isotropic. Right now you're talking about interpretations of SR. And the Lorentz equations that Einstein built upon with his postulates of constant c with no privileged frame explain time dilation. Of course GPS satellite use it all the time (as it were!). And so does GR with its much more difficult differential geometry and tensor analysis.

                      Also, a quick note that is probably not relevant -- there is a LOT of advanced completely consistent maths that don't have anything to do with reality. The truth of the maths is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it to apply to physics. E.g., Cauchy-Riemann manifolds have a robust mathematical presentation including tensor analysis but have absolutely no relation to reality.

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity (SR) is really no longer necessary in that up to a point their calculations are the same and SR has more explanatory value in understanding space/time and development of General Relativity.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          Also, a quick note that is probably not relevant -- there is a LOT of advanced completely consistent maths that don't have anything to do with reality. The truth of the maths is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it to apply to physics. E.g., Cauchy-Riemann manifolds have a robust mathematical presentation including tensor analysis but have absolutely no relation to reality.
                          I have to admit, the concept is not new but it has always baffled me. The layman version is that we can use math to figure out physics problems while claiming the math has nothing to do with reality, yes? I don't get how that's possible.
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            I have to admit, the concept is not new but it has always baffled me. The layman version is that we can use math to figure out physics problems while claiming the math has nothing to do with reality, yes? I don't get how that's possible.
                            Because mathematics is a LANGUAGE with which to express certain physical concepts. Maths by itself is abstract. A poem or a science fiction novel use language in a perfectly consistent manner but have no usefulness in a technical sense. There are no di-lithium crystals or warp drive.

                            Of course a poem or a fiction can express abstractions of reality. And maths is the ultimate abstract discipline.

                            Again, the proper logical statement is "Maths are necessary for a physics hypothesis to be correct, but not sufficient." If the maths don't work out, then the hypothesis ain't right.

                            K54
                            Last edited by klaus54; 04-20-2014, 11:41 PM. Reason: typos

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              *Edited*

                              Ignore this post. I'll re-post later when I can better express what it is I meant and what I was getting at.
                              Last edited by Carrikature; 04-21-2014, 12:13 PM.
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              4 responses
                              38 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              58 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              30 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X