Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Relativity and GPS

  1. Oct 15, 2006 #1
    Hello there!
    Am actually doing my end of year project on GPS and GR. It's actually a review of Ashby's work. I am kinda stuck with a term. In the choice of metric, Mr Ashby (God bless him! ;-) ) makes use of the Langevin metric. He propounds that it is well know. But lo and behold, on the net, I can scarcely find searches where "Langevin" and "metric" are not disjoint!!! Geeee!! That is sooooo frustrating. So I'd just wonder if any of you guys, enlightened souls, could help me out?
    Thanks in advance guys! In return I propose to share songs with you. :p
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 15, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The wikipedia article on the Ehrenfest paradox (i.e. the "paradox" of the spinning disk) mentions this metric:


  4. Nov 21, 2006 #3

    Chris Hillman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The Langevin metric

    Try the version of "Born coordinates" listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hillman/Archive, which describes the Langevin observers in terms of the Born chart (you didn't quote from whatever paper by Neil Ashby you are reading, so I can't be absolutely sure, but the subject of this article is almost certainly what Ashby apparently calls the "Langevin metric"). And don't just take my word for it: check out the papers I cited (many of which are available on-line) and work some computations in order to verify my claims.

    Obligatory warning: I cannot vouch for more recent versions, which might be better than the version I wrote, or much much worse. It may be particularly important to be wary of what you read in Wikipedia in articles related to relativistic physics, especially relativistic "paradoxes", because, you know, Wikipedia is the thing which anyone can edit.. ANYONE. Sometimes that results in very good articles. Often it results in very bad ones. Sometimes a very bad article is rapidly and greatly improved. Sometimes just the opposite. If you don't already know a subject well, it can probably be difficult at times to know whether you are reading a hoax article, a well-informed and accurate article, or a highly misleading presentation of a dissident or even woefully incorrect approach as if said approach represents mainstream physics.

    Chris Hillman
  5. Nov 21, 2006 #4

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook