- #1
- 6,974
- 2,442
Pengwuino said:Lets all give SR a present, whos with me
Pengwuino said:Lets all give SR a present, whos with me
selfAdjoint said:How about a moratorium on amateur attempts to falsify it? No more trains, twins, spaceships,...
Pengwuino said:And by the way, when i ask this question to myself, i feel like I am asking a stupid question but i wanted to ask other people anyways incase its not actually stupid. Can you derive SR from classical physics?
Pengwuino said:Can you derive SR from classical physics?
So what exactly is your reason for dropping the word "theory"robphy said:4) drop the word "Theory" when discussing Special Relativity.
[tex]\mbox{Theory of\hspace{-9ex}{\color{red}-------------} Special Relativity}[/tex]
[tex]\mbox{Special Theory of\hspace{-9ex}{\color{red}-------------} Relativity}[/tex]
[tex]\mbox{Special Relativity Theory\hspace{-7ex}{\color{red}-----------}}[/tex]
robphy said:Here are some ideas for a "birthday present for SR":
Aer said:So what exactly is your reason for dropping the word "theory"
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Are you implying Special Relativity is not any of the above?
Pengwuino said:Never! Ether ether ether!
And by the way, when i ask this question to myself, i feel like I am asking a stupid question but i wanted to ask other people anyways incase its not actually stupid. Can you derive SR from classical physics?
Sir Joseph Larmorr (Lormar?) developed an ether theory superficially consistent with classical physics, and thus, in the first decade of the 20th century, Cambridge theoretical physicists dismissed Einsein's approach as both unnecessary and overly philosophical.Pengwuino said:Never! Ether ether ether!
On a more serious note, people should be allowed to try to falsify things. If they figure something out that we all missed, more power to them! Didn't Einstein say one of the reasons he was able to come up with SR was that he thought like a child and went against conventional wisdom?
And by the way, when i ask this question to myself, i feel like I am asking a stupid question but i wanted to ask other people anyways incase its not actually stupid. Can you derive SR from classical physics?
wisp said:The answer to your question is yes. Using basic classical physics and an ether frame you can derive equations that match the predictions of special relativity to almost 100%.
arildno said:Sir Joseph Larmorr (Lormar?) developed an ether theory superficially consistent with classical physics, and thus, in the first decade of the 20th century, Cambridge theoretical physicists dismissed Einsein's approach as both unnecessary and overly philosophical.
However, when GR came along, Larmor's theory was shown to fail miserably when trying to accommodate effects of gravitation. That is why his project was abandoned.
pervect said:Using basic classical physics and an ether frame, one can predict that the Michelson-Morley expeirment should not have a null result. Unfortunately, experimentally, it does have a null result. This should be enough to show that the "ether" idea is not compatible with basic classical physics. Only a wild "ether enthusiast" could make the claims that wisp is making above.
I'm not a wild ether enthusiast, just someone open-minded enough to challenge views that do not comply with commonsense principles.
wisp said:Scientists agree that the "null result" of the MMx does not rule out the existence of ether. And Dayton Miller's work did detect an ether flow effect when he repeated the MMX at altitude.
I believe there is a simple explanation for the null result on the Earth's surface on what effectively is a two-way light speed measurement.
I'm not a wild ether enthusiast, just someone open-minded enough to challenge views that do not comply with commonsense principles.
pervect said:Including a large number of tests of the "one-way" isotropy of the speed of light.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way tests
wisp said:The answer to your question is yes. Using basic classical physics and an ether frame you can derive equations that match the predictions of special relativity to almost 100%.
There are people who think that the second postulate is redndant!Integral said:All you NEED to derive SR is Einstein's 2 postulates. Of course all he had to base it on was Classical Physics. So I would guess if you wanted a derivation based on Classical Physics you need only read Einstein.
bernhard.rothenstein said:There are people who think that the second postulate is redndant!
pervect said:Using basic classical physics and an ether frame, one can predict that the Michelson-Morley expeirment should not have a null result.
Unfortunately, experimentally, it does have a null result.
Seeclj4 said:This is very interesting. Can you provide some proof of this? (references, links)
bernhard.rothenstein said:See
[1] N. David Mermin, "Relativity without light," Am.J.Phys. 52, 119-124 (1984)
[2] Achin Sen, "How Galileo could have derived the special theory of relativity," Am.J.Phys. 62 157-162 (1994) See also the references cited in this paper.
I think that the derivations are relatively complicated, involving so many intermediary steps, that I think nobody has introduced them in his teaching practice.
please have a look atclj4 said:Thank you. Here is what I got for [1]:
"The relativistic addition law for parallel velocities is derived directly from the principle of relativity and a few simple assumptions of smoothness and symmetry, without making use of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."
This is not very interesting, there are a lot of papers like this. The application is very restrictive and it is not a fully developed theory.
Looks like [2] is the same thing as [1], not very interesting.
bernhard.rothenstein said:please have a look at
http:arxiv.org/abs/phyics/0602054
i feel that the derivation could avoid the second postulate if the first one is better exploited. Have you some ideea in that direction? In order to ease communication ou could use
dr_relativ@yahoo.com