From: scerir (scerir@libero.it)
Date: Sat Aug 24 2002 - 12:33:34 MDT
> > 1 - According to the postulate of relativity, if two clocks
> > separate and re-unite, there is no observable phenomenon
> > which may show, in an absolute sense, that one, rather than
> > the other, has moved.
Louis:
> I think this is an overstatement. Relativity says that there is no
> fixed frame of reference, so if one clocks move relative to each other,
> it doesn't matter which. But this is refering to their POSITION (and
> velocity).
In Einstein's words: "By the 'special principle of relativity' is meant
the generalization of this definition [definition of an inertial system]
to include any natural event whatever: thus, every universal law of nature
which is valid in relation to a coordinate system C, must also be valid,
as it stands, in relation to a coordinate system C', which is in uniform
translatory motion relatively to C."
So, all the laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference
frame, and also the form of those laws are the same, and also the numerical
values of the constants are the same. There is no way to distinguish
one inertial frame from another. (Of course the 'principle' does not
say that times or distances are the same, in two reference frames).
Thus, Dingle's first statement of his syllogism does not appear to be, imo,
an overstatement. Dingle knew a lot of physics, and wrote one of the very
best book about SR, at that time.
But perhaps Einstein himself exaggerated, with that 'principle'!
> > Of course experiments do show asymmetrical effects. So many
> > authors (i.e. Selleri) think that the postulate of relativity is not
> > true.
> Only because they don't understand it.
Well, they understand it, of course. But they don't like it. Precisely
people (like Bohm, Hardy, Percival, Selleri, etc.) working in the
QM area, know very well there is a tension between QM and that 'principle'.
s.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:23 MST