Generalization of Einstein’s synchronization for the case of anisotropic light speed

2009 ◽  
Vol 87 (9) ◽  
pp. 969-971 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Sfarti
Keyword(s):  
Clock Synchronization ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Light Speed ◽  
Inertial Frames ◽  
Anisotropic Light Speed

The current paper derives a generalized version of Einstein’s clock synchronization rule for the case of inertial frames in which light speed is assumed to be anisotropic. The current paper is the result of a discussion started with Professor N.D. Mermin. We show how we can construct the theory of relativity from only one base principle: the postulate of relativity. The postulate of relativity is the requirement that the equations, describing the laws of physics, have the same form (are covariant) in all admissible frames of reference.

scholarly journals Special Relativity sans Lorentz Transformation (OR) Perceptional Relativity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastin Patrick Asokan
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Lorentz Transformation ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Inertial Frames

Abstract This paper shows that if we accept that there is no absolute perception of Reality and the same Reality is perceived differently by different observers, then a simple and straightforward explanation for the constancy of Light's speed in all inertial frames of reference is possible without any need for paradoxical Lorentz Transformation. This paper also proves that Lorentz Transformation, as incorporated in the Special Theory of Relativity, is conceptually flawed. This paper also points out the misconceptions regarding the claimed experimental verifications of Lorentz Transformation's predictions in the Hafele–Keating experiment and μ meson experiment. This paper concludes that Einstein's Special Theory Relativity can stand on its own merits without Lorentz Transformation.

IMPROVED TESTS OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY VIA LIGHT SPEED ANISOTROPY MEASUREMENT

2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (02) ◽  
pp. 125-133
Author(s):  
A. SFARTI
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Doppler Effect ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Test Theory ◽  
Current Paper ◽  
Order Effects ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Light Speed ◽  
Prior Literature ◽  
Anisotropy Measurement

The Mansouri–Sexl theory is a well-known test theory of relativity. In the following paper we demonstrate a novel way of detecting second-order effects in terms of both lab and ion speed for light speed anisotropy detection. Prior literature15,18–21 has shown the way of constraining the Mansouri–Sexl parameter "a" via the Ives–Stilwell experiment, however, the prior approaches have proven to be incomplete in managing to constrain only one parameter, the "a" parameter. In the current paper we will take the unprecedented step of reconstructing the Mansouri–Sexl formalism for the Ives–Stilwell experiment and by showing how to improve on the theoretical and experimental bases such as to constrain both the parameter "a" and the parameter "b". Our paper is organized as follows: in the first section we give a new and more complete derivation of the Mansouri–Sexl Doppler effect. In the second part, we apply the newly expanded Mansouri–Sexl Doppler formalism in order to revise the principles of the Ives–Stilwell experiment. We continue by showing how the revised experiment is to be used in order to constrain both the parameter "a" and the parameter "b" in a measurement of light speed isotropy. This turns the Mansouri–Sexl Ives–Stilwell experiment into a very powerful tool for constraining light speed anisotropy.

scholarly journals On relativistic entanglement and localization of particles and on their comparison with the nonrelativistic theory

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (29) ◽  
pp. 1450163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Horace W. Crater ◽  
Luca Lusanna
Keyword(s):  
Bound States ◽  
Clock Synchronization ◽  
Center Of Mass ◽  
Particle Beams ◽  
Open Problems ◽  
Inertial Frames ◽  
Classical Trajectories ◽  
Particle Localization ◽  
Relativistic Bound States ◽  
Classical And Quantum Mechanics

We make a critical comparison of relativistic and nonrelativistic classical and quantum mechanics of particles in inertial frames as well of the open problems in particle localization at both levels. The solution of the problems of the relativistic center-of-mass, of the clock synchronization convention needed to define relativistic 3-spaces and of the elimination of the relative times in the relativistic bound states leads to a description with a decoupled nonlocal (nonmeasurable) relativistic center-of-mass and with only relative variables for the particles (single particle subsystems do not exist). We analyze the implications for entanglement of this relativistic spatial nonseparability not existing in nonrelativistic entanglement. Then, we try to reconcile the two visions showing that also at the nonrelativistic level in real experiments only relative variables are measured with their directions determined by the effective mean classical trajectories of particle beams present in the experiment. The existing results about the nonrelativistic and relativistic localization of particles and atoms support the view that detectors only identify effective particles following this type of trajectories: these objects are the phenomenological emergent aspect of the notion of particle defined by means of the Fock spaces of quantum field theory.

scholarly journals Special Relativity sans Lorentz Transformation (OR) Perceptional Relativity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastin Patrick Asokan
Keyword(s):  
Special Relativity ◽  
Lorentz Transformation ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Special Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Speed Of Light ◽  
Inertial Frames ◽  
Impossible Task

Abstract This paper shows that from the fact that the same Reality is perceived differently by the observers in different inertial frames, we can draw a simple and straightforward explanation for the constancy of light's speed in all inertial frames without any need for bringing in paradoxical Lorentz Transformation. This paper also proves that Lorentz Transformation has failed in its attempt to do the impossible task of establishing t' ≠ t to explain the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames without contradicting the interchangeability of frames demanded by the First Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity. This paper also points out the misconceptions regarding the claimed experimental verifications of Lorentz Transformation's predictions in the Hafele–Keating experiment and μ meson experiment. This paper concludes that Einstein's Special Theory Relativity can stand on its own merits without Lorentz Transformation.

Thomas–Wigner rotation and Thomas precession in covariant ether theories: novel approach to experimental verification of special relativity

2015 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 503-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander L. Kholmetskii ◽  
Tolga Yarman
Keyword(s):  
Inertial Frame ◽  
Empty Space ◽  
Special Theory ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Thomas Precession ◽  
Wigner Rotation ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Inertial Frames ◽  
Crucial Test ◽  
Ether Theories

We continue the analysis of Thomas–Wigner rotation (TWR) and Thomas precession (TP) initiated in (Kholmetskii and Yarman. Can. J. Phys. 92, 1232 (2014). doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0015 ; Kholmetskii et al. Can. J. Phys. 92, 1380 (2014). doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0140 ), where a number of points of serious inconsistency have been found in the relativistic explanation of these effects. These findings motivated us to address covariant ether theories (CET), as suggested by the first author (Kholmetskii. Phys. Scr. 67, 381 (2003)) and to show that both TWR and TP find a perfect explanation in CET. We briefly reproduce the main points of CET, which are constructed on the basis of general symmetries of empty space–time, general relativity principles, and classical causality, instead of Einstein’s postulates of the special theory of relativity (STR). We demonstrate that with respect to all known relativistic experiments performed to date in all areas of physics, both theories, STR and CET, yield identical results. We further show that the only effect that differentiates STR and CET is the measurement of time-dependent TWR of two inertial frames, K1 and K2, related by the rotation-free Lorentz transformation with a third inertial frame, K0, in the situation, where the relative velocity between K1 and K2 remains fixed. We discuss the results obtained and suggest a novel experiment, which can be classified as a new crucial test of STR.

scholarly journals Dust in the York canonical basis of ADM tetrad gravity: The problem of vorticity

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (07) ◽  
pp. 1550076 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Alba ◽  
Luca Lusanna
Keyword(s):  
Clock Synchronization ◽  
Canonical Basis ◽  
York Time ◽  
Back Reaction ◽  
Hamiltonian Description ◽  
Perfect Fluids ◽  
Minkowski Space Time ◽  
Hamilton Equations ◽  
Inertial Frames ◽  
Tetrad Gravity

Brown's formulation of dynamical perfect fluids in Minkowski space-time is extended to ADM tetrad gravity in globally hyperbolic, asymptotically Minkowskian space-times. For the dust, we get the Hamiltonian description in closed form in the York canonical basis, where we can separate the inertial gauge variables of the gravitational field in the non-Euclidean 3-spaces of global non-inertial frames from the physical tidal ones. After writing the Hamilton equations of the dust, we identify the sector of irrotational motions and the gauge fixings forcing the dust 3-spaces to coincide with the 3-spaces of the non-inertial frame. The role of the inertial gauge variable York time (the remnant of the clock synchronization gauge freedom) is emphasized. Finally, the Hamiltonian Post-Minkowskian linearization is studied. This formalism is required when one wants to study the Hamiltonian version of cosmological models (for instance back-reaction as an alternative to dark energy) in the York canonical basis.

scholarly journals Local and global theories of relativity in flat and curved spacetimes

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Zahid Zakir ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Relativistic Effects ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Local Theory ◽  
Theory Of Relativity ◽  
Global Theory ◽  
Spacetime Geometry ◽  
Global Properties ◽  
Locality Principle ◽  
The Subject ◽  
First Descriptions

Special and general theories of relativity consist in describing both local and global phenomena - the first in flat, and the second in curved spacetime. In the paper it is shown that each of these two classes of relativistic effects, local and global, is universal and is the subject of a separate theory. First, descriptions in local frames of reference, related by the local Lorentz transformations, form the local theory of relativity, or local relativity (LR). The locality principle allows to apply LR to non-inertial local frames, and the equivalence principle to the local frames in gravitational field. Secondly, descriptions in global frames of reference, constructed from local frames coexisting on a common hypersurface of simultaneity, form the global theory of relativity, or global relativity (GlR). LR and GlR are based on physical coordinates and complement each other, the special and general theories of relativity were hybrids of these two theories. LR and GlR describe the local and global properties of gravity, separating the field effects from the effects of motion by different methods, such as bimetric formalism, where one metric describes geometry of the global frames, and other describes spacetime geometry. It is shown that GlR leads to a picture of collapse with formation of frozars, and also leads to a cutoff of the loop integrals of quantum fields at the Planck length. In GlR, cosmological models are built on hypersurfaces of simultaneity, where both stretching and the Doppler effect contribute to redshifts, and aberration is also taken into account. Predicted an initial violetshift removing the double redshift paradox, and this leads to the slowing time cosmology consistent with observational data.

scholarly journals Invariance Properties of the Entropy Production, and the Entropic Pairing of Inertial Frames of Reference by Shear-Flow Systems

Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (11) ◽  
pp. 1515
Author(s):  
Robert K. Niven
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Flow ◽  
Shear Flow ◽  
Entropy Production ◽  
Absolute Temperature ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Invariance Property ◽  
Solid Boundary ◽  
Galilean Invariance ◽  
Invariance Properties ◽  
Inertial Frames

This study examines the invariance properties of the thermodynamic entropy production in its global (integral), local (differential), bilinear, and macroscopic formulations, including dimensional scaling, invariance to fixed displacements, rotations or reflections of the coordinates, time antisymmetry, Galilean invariance, and Lie point symmetry. The Lie invariance is shown to be the most general, encompassing the other invariances. In a shear-flow system involving fluid flow relative to a solid boundary at steady state, the Galilean invariance property is then shown to preference a unique pair of inertial frames of reference—here termed an entropic pair—respectively moving with the solid or the mean fluid flow. This challenges the Newtonian viewpoint that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. Furthermore, the existence of a shear flow subsystem with an entropic pair different to that of the surrounding system, or a subsystem with one or more changing entropic pair(s), requires a source of negentropy—a power source scaled by an absolute temperature—to drive the subsystem. Through the analysis of different shear flow subsystems, we present a series of governing principles to describe their entropic pairing properties and sources of negentropy. These are unaffected by Galilean transformations, and so can be understood to “lie above” the Galilean inertial framework of Newtonian mechanics. The analyses provide a new perspective into the field of entropic mechanics, the study of the relative motions of objects with friction.

Acceleration and Force

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Wittman
Keyword(s):  
Centrifugal Force ◽  
Constant Velocity ◽  
Frames Of Reference ◽  
Second Law ◽  
Know How ◽  
Free Objects ◽  
Inertial Frames ◽  
Acceleration Force ◽  
Newton's Second Law

This chapter develops crucial distinctions between constant‐velocity (also called inertial) frames of reference and accelerating ones. Inertial frames respect Newton’s first law—objects maintain constant velocity unless acted upon by a net force—while accelerating frames violate this law. Therefore, much of our thinking about whether the laws of physics are the same in all frames will really concern *inertial* frames. Newton’s first law gives us a foolproof test for distinguishing accelerating frames from inertial frames; this testworks even if velocitymeasurements are not directly available. We sometimes invent fictitious forces (such as “centrifugal force”) to explain the acceleration of free objects in accelerating frames, but we know how to determine that these are indeed fictitious.We also examine relationships between acceleration, force, andmass (Newton’s second law).We *define*mass as the ratio of force to acceleration, so mass represents a resistance to acceleration, or inertia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document