Marc Millis
Nov14-06, 05:00 AM
In <eie3n1$65n$2@skeeter.ucdavis.edu> carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu
wrote:
> Marc Millis <marc.g.millis@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Consider that Special and General Relativity were set up --by
>> definition-- to provide a tool where physics is valid in all local
>> inertial frames. Since so much of nature appears to behave that way,
>> it is a powerful tool. But not ALL of nature behaves that way,
>> specifically the CMBR. So, what other tools are at our disposal that
>> can entertain frame- dependent effects that we do not yet understand,
>> and still be translatable to the Relativistic formalisms?
>
> You would need a theory with some physical object that picks out a
> preferred frame, and that interacts with the rest of the fields in
> the theory. You can find a good review of how to do this -- and of
> a huge number of experimental tests -- in a Living Reviews article,
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html,
> by Dave Mattingly.
>
> Steve Carlip
Steve;
Thanks for this.
Marc
wrote:
> Marc Millis <marc.g.millis@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Consider that Special and General Relativity were set up --by
>> definition-- to provide a tool where physics is valid in all local
>> inertial frames. Since so much of nature appears to behave that way,
>> it is a powerful tool. But not ALL of nature behaves that way,
>> specifically the CMBR. So, what other tools are at our disposal that
>> can entertain frame- dependent effects that we do not yet understand,
>> and still be translatable to the Relativistic formalisms?
>
> You would need a theory with some physical object that picks out a
> preferred frame, and that interacts with the rest of the fields in
> the theory. You can find a good review of how to do this -- and of
> a huge number of experimental tests -- in a Living Reviews article,
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html,
> by Dave Mattingly.
>
> Steve Carlip
Steve;
Thanks for this.
Marc