Generalize Special Relativity for Flat Spacetime

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the quest for generalizations of Special Relativity (SR) specifically for flat spacetime. While General Relativity is the most recognized generalization, the forum participants highlight the challenges of extending SR without introducing contradictions or violating experimental evidence. Notable concepts mentioned include the Minkowski metric, the Relativity Postulate, and the Light Postulate. The discussion also references de Sitter spacetime and Doubly Special Relativity as potential avenues for exploration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity and its foundational postulates
  • Familiarity with Minkowski spacetime and its properties
  • Basic knowledge of General Relativity and its implications
  • Awareness of Lorentz violation concepts and their significance
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "de Sitter Special Relativity" and its implications for flat spacetime
  • Explore the concept of "Doubly Special Relativity" and its theoretical framework
  • Investigate the structured concept analysis methodology for clarity in theoretical discussions
  • Review literature on Lorentz violation and its relevance to flat spacetime theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in theoretical physics, and students exploring advanced concepts in relativity and spacetime theories.

Ans
Messages
22
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Generalizations of special relativity for flat spacetime
I am looking for generalizations of special relativity for flat spacetime.
Of course, most well known generlaization of SR is general relativty.
There are many other generalizations of SR for curved spacetime. All what I found is for curved spacetime.
Are any more or less successfull attempts to generalize SR for flat spacetime? May be there is review article on the topic?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not sure what it would mean to generalize special relativity for flat spacetime.
 
Dale said:
I am not sure what it would mean to generalize special relativity for flat spacetime.
I also don't know how it can be done and what it would mean. So I looking for is anyone did it somehow with some level of success, such as no internal logical contradictions and no obvious contradictions to experiments.
 
Isn't SR already plenty general for flat spacetime? You want it to be more general in what way?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, Motore, russ_watters and 2 others
Ans said:
I also don't know how it can be done and what it would mean. So I looking for is anyone did it somehow with some level of success, such as no internal logical contradictions and no obvious contradictions to experiments.
If you don't even know what it would mean, how can you possibly know what you are even looking for?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nasu, vanhees71 and Vanadium 50
Ans said:
Are any more or less successful attempts to generalize SR for flat spacetime?
Adding to what others have already said, if you insist on "flat spacetime" then you imprison yourself in a straitjacket. The usual Minkowski metric for flat spacetime is usually derived from the "Relativity Postulate" and the "Light Postulate". (If you're not familiar with these, a bit of googling will turn up lots of references. The search should probably also turn up several older threads here on PF that discuss this stuff about postulates in more detail.)

Some treatments of SR assume Minkowski spacetime as an axiom, then proceed to explore the consequences. I prefer the more physics-oriented textbooks that start from the postulates and derive the concept of spacetime and its properties.

As for generalizations, one can actually drop the "Light Postulate" and (after a lot more math) discover that de Sitter spacetime is also compatible with the Relativity Postulate. But de Sitter spacetime has constant curvature, i.e., not flat. You can google for "de Sitter Special Relativity" if you want to know more about this.

There's also at least one other attempt called "Doubly Special Relativity", but I don't much about that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and dextercioby
PeterDonis said:
If you don't even know what it would mean, how can you possibly know what you are even looking for?
Heh, "if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research". :oldsmile:

In @Ans's case, the discipline of structured concept analysis might help (meaning an inquiry/analysis of exactly what each word/phrase/concept means, where they came from, what assumptions they depend on, and what interdependencies might exist between them).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71, dextercioby and Demystifier
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
7K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K