Passage from Einsteinian to Galilean Relativity and Clock Synchrony

1991 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Ghosal ◽  
K. K. Nandi ◽  
Papia Chakraborty

AbstractThere is a general belief that under small velocity approximation. Special Relativity goes over into Galilean Relativity. Should this be interpreted exclusively in terms of the kinematical symmetry transformations (Lorentz vs. Galilei) a misconception could easily arise that would stem from overlooking the role of conventionality ingredients of Special Relativity Theory. It is observed that the small velocity approximation cannot alter the convention of distant simultaneity. In order to exemplify this point further, the Lorentz transformations are critically compared, under the same approximation, with two other space time transformations, one of which represents an Einstein world with Galilean synchrony whereas the other describes a Galilean world with Einsteinian synchrony

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Xu ◽  
Yu-Ming Chu ◽  
Saima Rashid ◽  
A. A. El-Deeb ◽  
Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar

The present article deals with the new estimates in q-calculus and fractional q-calculus on a time scale Tt0=0∪t:t=t0qn,n is a nonnegative integer, where t0∈ℝ and 0<q<1. The role of fractional time scale q-calculus can be found as one of the prominent techniques to generate some variants for a class of positive functions n n∈ℕ.Finally, our work will provide foundation and motivation for further investigation on time-fractional q-calculus systems that have an intriguing application in quantum theory and special relativity theory.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 59-67
Author(s):  
Łukasz Mścisławski

The book written by Wojciech Sady is an interesting and inspiring attempt to reconstruct the mechanism of the revolution that took place in physics at the beginning of the 20th century. As part of the attempts to characterize the process of the emergence of special relativity theory and the old quantum theory, author also raises the issue of the role of genius and imagination in the process of searching for new scientific theories. The work is based on rich factual material, however, has several weaknesses and — as it seems — several places that would not require greater precision. This work aims to identify these points.


2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Lalli

Between 1937 and 1953 the industrial physicist Herbert E. Ives pursued an extended research program with the aim of challenging the acceptance of relativity theories, and became the most important American opponent of Einstein during that era. As part of his anti-relativistic efforts Ives also performed the famous Ives-Stilwell experiment. Usually interpreted as the first direct confirmation of the time dilation formula of special relativity theory, this experiment was regarded by Ives as proof of what he called the Larmor-Lorentz theory. Ives’s heterodox views about relativity were mainly ignored by the scientific community during his lifetime. After his death, however, his criticisms of what the majority of physicists took for granted helped spark philosophical discussions in the late 1950s concerning the conventional stipulation of distant simultaneity in special relativity theory. Ives’s anti-relativistic beliefs and actions allow for an analysis of the heterodox efforts of an accredited member of the scientific community and the subsequent process of his professional marginalization in a specific historical and scientific context. This paper has three aims: to uncover the epistemic roots of Ives’s opposition to relativity; to analyze Ives’s rhetorical strategies and the reasons why he failed to persuade his peers; and to reveal the divergence between the public network of allies Ives built in scientific publications and the hidden network of allies present in his correspondence. It will become clear that the hardening of Ives’s tone against relativity and Einstein can be understood in light of his progressive marginalization and loss of recognized socioprofessional identity due to his unorthodox ideas. Ives’s case is illuminating for the historical, philosophical, and sociological perspectives it provides on the complex mechanisms by which the margins interact with the mainstream of science, both in the production of certified knowledge and in the contextually contingent redefinition and reconfiguration of the boundaries of acceptable scientific discourse.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document