Mermin's (Special) Relativity without Light

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter uby
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Relativity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on clarifying the notation used in David Mermin's paper on special relativity, specifically regarding the function f and its partial derivatives. The notation f2(x,y) = df(x,y)/dy is understood as the partial derivative with respect to the second variable, but confusion arises when Mermin later uses f2(y,0). Participants seek clarification on this notation and its implications, as well as alternative resources for understanding Mermin's treatment of invariant velocity between reference frames. A recommended alternative is A. Sen's paper, "How Galileo could have derived the Special Theory of Relativity," which offers a more algebraic approach.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial derivatives and their notation
  • Familiarity with the concepts of special relativity
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical functions and their evaluations
  • Access to Mermin's paper, "Special Relativity without Light" (Am. J. Phys, 52(2) 1984 p. 119-124)
NEXT STEPS
  • Review Mermin's presentations on special relativity available online
  • Study A. Sen's paper, "How Galileo could have derived the Special Theory of Relativity" (Am. J. Phys. 62 157-162, 1994)
  • Explore additional resources on the mathematical foundations of special relativity
  • Investigate further discussions on notation in mathematical physics
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, mathematicians, and educators seeking to deepen their understanding of special relativity and its mathematical representations, particularly those interested in Mermin's approach and notation.

uby
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
I am not mathematically inclined. However, I would love to be able to follow Mermin's treatment deriving an invariant velocity between reference frames (Am. J. Phys, 52(2) 1984 p. 119-124).

Unfortunately, I cannot follow his initial setup regarding the form of the function relating multiple inertial frames. He shows a shorthand notation for partial derivative which I am familar with, but later shows the same notation using a zero in place of a variable which makes no sense to me but upon which further work depends.

For example, he writes: f2(x,y) = df(x,y)/dy as shorthand for partial derivative by the second variable of the function f. Then, later, uses the notation f2(y,0). This becomes jibberish to me unless it perhaps indicates derivative by the 'hidden' variable followed by evaluation of that variable for the value shown? He doesn't say.

Can anyone familiar with this paper help clarify what is meant by his notation? Or, alternatively, point me to either extended discussions on this paper or derivations by other authors?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
uby said:
For example, he writes: f2(x,y) = df(x,y)/dy as shorthand for partial derivative by the second variable of the function f. Then, later, uses the notation f2(y,0).
If he wrote f2(x,0) I would assume that this meant \left.\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\right|_{y=0}. Placing the y first does seem a little strange.

I don't have access to the paper, but Mermin has posted various presentations of SR online. Is either of these similar? --
http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~mermin/homepage/ndm.html
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~mermin/homepage/minkowski.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your reply, bcrowell.

Unfortunately, I do not think our interpretation of the implied notation is correct. For example, he also states that it is "evident from the definition of f" that f(y,0) = y.

This, of course, makes no sense to me given that the function is general and could be anything. I should have some time on Friday to type out all of the equations in question (there aren't too many) and where my trouble lies more precisely.
 
I agree with bcrowell's reading of f2(y,0) as the partial derivative of f with respect to the second argument evaluated with the first argument set to y and the second argument set to 0.

He writes f(y,0)=y because he defines vca=f(vcb,vba), where vca is the velocity of c relative to a, so if b=a then vca=f(vca,vaa)=f(vca,0).
 
Try the paper

A.Sen, "How Galileo could have derived the Special Theory of Relativity", Am. J. Phys. 62 157-162 (1994)

The presentation is very much in the spirit of Mermin, but a bit more algebraic.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
904
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K