From quantum reference frames to deformed special relativity

2009 ◽  
pp. 509-527
Author(s):  
F. Girelli
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Reference Frames

Electromagnetism and special relativity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Pierrus
Keyword(s):  
Electromagnetic Field ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Point Charge ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Classical Electrodynamics ◽  
Covariant Form ◽  
Field Tensor ◽  
Electromagnetic Field Tensor ◽  
Preferred Reference Frame ◽  
Physical Quantities

In 1905, when Einstein published his theory of special relativity, Maxwell’s work was already about forty years old. It is therefore both remarkable and ironic (recalling the old arguments about the aether being the ‘preferred’ reference frame for describing wave propagation) that classical electrodynamics turned out to be a relativistically correct theory. In this chapter, a range of questions in electromagnetism are considered as they relate to special relativity. In Questions 12.1–12.4 the behaviour of various physical quantities under Lorentz transformation is considered. This leads to the important concept of an invariant. Several of these are encountered, and used frequently throughout this chapter. Other topics considered include the transformationof E- and B-fields between inertial reference frames, the validity of Gauss’s law for an arbitrarily moving point charge (demonstrated numerically), the electromagnetic field tensor, Maxwell’s equations in covariant form and Larmor’s formula for a relativistic charge.

Uniformly accelerated reference frames in special relativity

1987 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 252-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward A. Desloge ◽  
R. J. Philpott
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Reference Frames

What is Structure? Why Care about It?

2021 ◽  
pp. 17-51
Author(s):  
Jill North
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Euclidean Plane ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Coordinate Systems ◽  
Newtonian Physics ◽  
Different Types ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Relevant Notion ◽  
Mathematics And Physics

This chapter explains the notion of structure that will be the focus of the book and illustrates it by means of examples drawn from mathematics and physics. The discussion begins with a simple example of the structure of the Euclidean plane, and goes on to explain how similar ideas apply to physical theories such as Newtonian physics and special relativity. Taken together, the examples illustrate that this notion is implicit in many aspects of our theorizing in physics and mathematics. The chapter also discusses the idea of allowable coordinate systems and reference frames; contrasts the relevant notion of structure with other related notions, including invariance, symmetry, and objectivity; and explains how to compare different types and amounts of structure.

Mathematics shows that the Lorentz transformations are not self-consistent

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Jan Slowak
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Constant Speed ◽  
Lorentz Transformations ◽  
Self Consistent

Einstein's theory of special relativity is a generally accepted theory that analyses relationships between two inertial reference frames moving at a constant speed against each other. In this work, we analyze the derivation of the Lorentz transformations only from the point of view of mathematics. This analysis comes to contradiction with the original conditions for the derivation of the Lorentz transformations. This leads to the conclusion that the Lorentz transformations are not self-consistent.

The Nature of Gravitation

2016 ◽  
pp. 4412-4414
Author(s):  
Homero G. Luna
Keyword(s):  
Gravitational Field ◽  
Special Relativity ◽  
Rest Frame ◽  
Gravitational Constant ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Flat Space ◽  
Electrical Field ◽  
Frame Field ◽  
Weak Force ◽  
Residual Product

Taking into account the equivalent principle of Einstein and the special relativity equations, we infered, for a flat space time, a new formulae of gravitation. We assume two reference frames, one of these at rest, in the center of gravitatiuonal field, and another one, corresponding to the field itselft. If the gravitational field is an inverse square law, the rest frame field results a modified newtonian force. We applicate the same procedure to the electrical field and results a weak force comparable with gravitation strength. The proportional constant must be the gravitational constant. We calculate the gravitatiobal constant using the value of the electrical constant and the parameter of the electron, and we found a close value with the expererimental results sugesting the the gravitation is a residual product of the electricity.

scholarly journals Answering Mermin’s challenge with conservation per no preferred reference frame

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
W. M. Stuckey ◽  
Michael Silberstein ◽  
Timothy McDevitt ◽  
T. D. Le
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Reference Frame ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Relativistic Quantum ◽  
Symmetry Plane ◽  
Real Space ◽  
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics ◽  
General Reader ◽  
Famous Paper ◽  
Preferred Reference Frame

Abstract In 1981, Mermin published a now famous paper titled, “Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody” that Feynman called, “One of the most beautiful papers in physics that I know.” Therein, he presented the “Mermin device” that illustrates the conundrum of quantum entanglement per the Bell spin states for the “general reader.” He then challenged the “physicist reader” to explain the way the device works “in terms meaningful to a general reader struggling with the dilemma raised by the device.” Herein, we show how “conservation per no preferred reference frame (NPRF)” answers that challenge. In short, the explicit conservation that obtains for Alice and Bob’s Stern-Gerlach spin measurement outcomes in the same reference frame holds only on average in different reference frames, not on a trial-by-trial basis. This conservation is SO(3) invariant in the relevant symmetry plane in real space per the SU(2) invariance of its corresponding Bell spin state in Hilbert space. Since NPRF is also responsible for the postulates of special relativity, and therefore its counterintuitive aspects of time dilation and length contraction, we see that the symmetry group relating non-relativistic quantum mechanics and special relativity via their “mysteries” is the restricted Lorentz group.

scholarly journals Was Einstein in need to impose the stability of the speed of light in the Theory of Special Relativity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
mohamed abouzeid
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
The Stability

According to Einstein's first hypothesis only, it can be reached to transfer formats Between reference frames in the special theory of relativity

scholarly journals Scrutiny of the So-Called Einstein’s Causality

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Elmansour Hassani
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Relative Velocity ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Relativity Theory ◽  
Lorentz Transformations ◽  
Universal Principle ◽  
Light Speed ◽  
Physical Phenomena ◽  
Special Relativity Theory ◽  
Superluminal Signals

In the present paper, the so-called Einstein’s causality is scrutinized and proven to be an illusion, a sort of mathematical fallacy. Causality as a well-established universal principle was and is absolutely valid for subluminal, luminal and superluminal signals under any natural and/or artificial circumstances. It is also shown that conceptually special relativity theory (SRT) is inapplicable to superluminality of physical phenomena since SRThas the light speed in vacuum as an upper limiting speed in its own proper domain of applications, and also because SRT is crucially based on the concept of inertial reference frames (IRFs) which are related to each other by Lorentz transformations, that is why the relative velocity of any two IRFs must be smaller than light speed.

scholarly journals A novel visualization of the geometry of special relativity

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (05) ◽  
pp. 1650055
Author(s):  
John H. Marr
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Doppler Effect ◽  
Reference Frames ◽  
Graphical Representation ◽  
Logarithmic Spiral ◽  
Twin Paradox ◽  
Mathematical Treatment ◽  
Length Contraction ◽  
Mathematical Relationships ◽  
Effect Time

The mathematical treatment and graphical representation of Special Relativity (SR) are well established, yet carry deep implications that remain hard to visualize. This paper presents a new graphical interpretation of the geometry of SR that may, by complementing the standard works, aid the understanding of SR and its fundamental principles in a more intuitive way. From the axiom that the velocity of light remains constant to any inertial observer, the geodesic is presented as a line of constant angle on the complex plane across a set of diverging reference frames. The resultant curve is a logarithmic spiral, and this view of the geodesic is extended to illustrate the relativistic Doppler effect, time dilation, length contraction, the twin paradox, and relativistic radar distance in an original way, whilst retaining the essential mathematical relationships of SR. Using a computer-generated graphical representation of photon trajectories allows a visual comparison between the relativistic relationships and their classical counterparts, to visualize the consequences of SR as velocities become relativistic. The model may readily be extended to other situations, and may be found useful in presenting a fresh understanding of SR through geometric visualization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document