Connections with the Lorentz Group of Special Relativity

1995 ◽  
pp. 242-253
Author(s):  
Arlan Ramsay ◽  
Robert D. Richtmyer
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Lorentz Group

scholarly journals A Spacetime Symmetry Approach to Relativistic Quantum Multi-Particle Entanglement

Symmetry ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 1259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abraham A. Ungar
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Symmetry Group ◽  
Lorentz Transformation ◽  
Lorentz Group ◽  
Transformation Group ◽  
Relativity Theory ◽  
Symmetry Violation ◽  
3 Dimensional ◽  
Dimensional Spacetime ◽  
The Common

A Lorentz transformation group SO(m, n) of signature (m, n), m, n ∈ N, in m time and n space dimensions, is the group of pseudo-rotations of a pseudo-Euclidean space of signature (m, n). Accordingly, the Lorentz group SO(1, 3) is the common Lorentz transformation group from which special relativity theory stems. It is widely acknowledged that special relativity and quantum theories are at odds. In particular, it is known that entangled particles involve Lorentz symmetry violation. We, therefore, review studies that led to the discovery that the Lorentz group SO(m, n) forms the symmetry group by which a multi-particle system of m entangled n-dimensional particles can be understood in an extended sense of relativistic settings. Consequently, we enrich special relativity by incorporating the Lorentz transformation groups of signature (m, 3) for all m ≥ 2. The resulting enriched special relativity provides the common symmetry group SO(1, 3) of the (1 + 3)-dimensional spacetime of individual particles, along with the symmetry group SO(m, 3) of the (m + 3)-dimensional spacetime of multi-particle systems of m entangled 3-dimensional particles, for all m ≥ 2. A unified parametrization of the Lorentz groups SO(m, n) for all m, n ∈ N, shakes down the underlying matrix algebra into elegant and transparent results. The special case when (m, n) = (1, 3) is supported experimentally by special relativity. It is hoped that this review article will stimulate the search for experimental support when (m, n) = (m, 3) for all m ≥ 2.

VERY SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THOMAS PRECESSION

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (02) ◽  
pp. 139-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
SURATNA DAS ◽  
SUBHENDRA MOHANTY
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Lorentz Group ◽  
Relativistic Velocity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Thomas Precession ◽  
Spin Orbital ◽  
Interesting Observation ◽  
Velocity Addition ◽  
Very Special Relativity ◽  
Spin Orbital Coupling

Glashow and Cohen make the interesting observation that certain proper subgroups of the Lorentz group like HOM(2) or SIM(2) can explain many results of special relativity like time dilation, relativistic velocity addition and a maximal isotropic speed of light. We show here that such SIM(2) and HOM(2) based VSR theories predict an incorrect value for the Thomas precession and are therefore ruled out by observations. In VSR theories the spin-orbital coupling in atoms turn out to be too large by a factor of 2. The Thomas–BMT equation derived from VSR predicts a precession of electrons and muons in storage rings which is too large by a factor of 103. VSR theories are therefore ruled out by observations.

GRAVITY CAN BE OBSERVED IN THE ABSENCE OF CURVED SPACETIME, THUS CURVED SPACETIME IS NOT RESPONCIBLE FOR GRAVITY

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1976-1981
Author(s):  
Casey McMahon
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Relative Position ◽  
Gravitational Force ◽  
Curved Spacetime ◽  
Relative Time ◽  
Curved Space ◽  
Spacetime Curvature ◽  
Equivalence Model ◽  
The Universe

The principle postulate of general relativity appears to be that curved space or curved spacetime is gravitational, in that mass curves the spacetime around it, and that this curved spacetime acts on mass in a manner we call gravity. Here, I use the theory of special relativity to show that curved spacetime can be non-gravitational, by showing that curve-linear space or curved spacetime can be observed without exerting a gravitational force on mass to induce motion- as well as showing gravity can be observed without spacetime curvature. This is done using the principles of special relativity in accordance with Einstein to satisfy the reader, using a gravitational equivalence model. Curved spacetime may appear to affect the apparent relative position and dimensions of a mass, as well as the relative time experienced by a mass, but it does not exert gravitational force (gravity) on mass. Thus, this paper explains why there appears to be more gravity in the universe than mass to account for it, because gravity is not the resultant of the curvature of spacetime on mass, thus the “dark matter” and “dark energy” we are looking for to explain this excess gravity doesn’t exist.

The irreversible part of special relativity.ver4

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vitaly Kuyukov
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity

The irreversible part of special relativity

An analogy between electromagnetic and internal waves

2019 ◽  
Vol 485 (4) ◽  
pp. 428-433
Author(s):  
V. G. Baydulov ◽  
P. A. Lesovskiy
Keyword(s):  
Angular Momentum ◽  
Conservation Laws ◽  
Internal Wave ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Internal Waves ◽  
Maxwell Equations ◽  
Wave Equations ◽  
Lagrange Function ◽  
Lorentz Transformations ◽  
Symmetry Transformations

For the symmetry group of internal-wave equations, the mechanical content of invariants and symmetry transformations is determined. The performed comparison makes it possible to construct expressions for analogs of momentum, angular momentum, energy, Lorentz transformations, and other characteristics of special relativity and electro-dynamics. The expressions for the Lagrange function are defined, and the conservation laws are derived. An analogy is drawn both in the case of the absence of sources and currents in the Maxwell equations and in their presence.

Hunting for the Luminiferous Ether

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Lalli
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Early Twentieth Century ◽  
Null Result ◽  
Morley Experiment

This chapter re-examines the view widely held by physicists that the luminiferous ether became an outdated concept in the early twentieth century and that Albert Einstein’s special relativity killed it. A second common narrative is that the null result of the 1887 Michelson–Morley ether-drift experiment led to Einstein’s theory and the demise of the ether. On the basis of these two simplified narratives, it has become part of the physicists’ ‘imagined past’ that the Michelson–Morley experiment provided the key evidence decreeing the end of the ether. Using scientometrics, this chapter argues that the first part of this idealised narrative is misleading and that the two parts of this narrative are deeply intertwined, as both had historical roots in the reception of Einstein’s relativity theories. In this perspective, the well-known episode of Dayton C. Miller’s repetition of the Michelson–Morley experiment in the 1920s appears in a new light.

The Equivalence Principle

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Wittman
Keyword(s):  
General Relativity ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Equivalence Principle ◽  
Time Dilation ◽  
Gravitational Redshift ◽  
Coordinate Systems ◽  
Spacetime Metric

The equivalence principle is an important thinking tool to bootstrap our thinking from the inertial coordinate systems of special relativity to the more complex coordinate systems that must be used in the presence of gravity (general relativity). The equivalence principle posits that at a given event gravity accelerates everything equally, so gravity is equivalent to an accelerating coordinate system.This conjecture is well supported by precise experiments, so we explore the consequences in depth: gravity curves the trajectory of light as it does other projectiles; the effects of gravity disappear in a freely falling laboratory; and gravitymakes time runmore slowly in the basement than in the attic—a gravitational form of time dilation. We show how this is observable via gravitational redshift. Subsequent chapters will build on this to show how the spacetime metric varies with location.

Spacetime Geometry

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Wittman
Keyword(s):  
Coordinate System ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Displacement Vector ◽  
Proper Time ◽  
Plane Geometry ◽  
Spatial Displacement ◽  
Spacetime Geometry ◽  
Space And Time ◽  
Displacement Vectors

This chapter shows that the counterintuitive aspects of special relativity are due to the geometry of spacetime. We begin by showing, in the familiar context of plane geometry, how a metric equation separates frame‐dependent quantities from invariant ones. The components of a displacement vector depend on the coordinate system you choose, but its magnitude (the distance between two points, which is more physically meaningful) is invariant. Similarly, space and time components of a spacetime displacement are frame‐dependent, but the magnitude (proper time) is invariant and more physically meaningful. In plane geometry displacements in both x and y contribute positively to the distance, but in spacetime geometry the spatial displacement contributes negatively to the proper time. This is the source of counterintuitive aspects of special relativity. We develop spacetime intuition by practicing with a graphic stretching‐triangle representation of spacetime displacement vectors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document