Relativity: what's wrong with this logic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dEdt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logic Relativity
dEdt
Messages
286
Reaction score
2
Okay, suppose we know that the laws of physics are invariant with respect to a shift in position, and invariant wrt a shift in time (ie the transformations \mathbf{r}\ \rightarrow\ \mathbf{r}+\delta\mathbf{r}\ \mathrm{and}\ t\ \rightarrow\ t+\delta t preserve the laws of physics). Then wouldn't that imply that the laws are *also* invariant wrt a change in inertial reference frame because a change in velocity amounts to continuously alternating between the transformation \mathbf{r}\ \rightarrow\ \mathbf{r}+\delta\mathbf{r}\ \mathrm{and}\ t\ \rightarrow\ t+\delta t? Or is there something wrong with this logic?

Incidentally, I posted this in another site, and someone replied that the logic is fine. But I'm skeptical: I've always viewed the principle of relativity as an experimental fact which is not deducible from other, simpler symmetries.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As a counterexample, take a theory involving two particles at positions \mathbf{r}_1 and \mathbf{r}_2. This theory has one law of physics, which is that d\mathbf{r}_1/dt=-d\mathbf{r}_2/dt=k(\mathbf{r}_1-\mathbf{r}_2). This predicts that the particles scoot directly away from each other at an exponentially increasing speed. The theory is clearly not invariant with respect to Galilean relativity or Lorentz transformations. For example, in a frame that happens to be co-moving with particle 1 at a certain time, particle 1 disobeys the law of motion. But the law of motion is form-invariant with respect to translation in time and space.
 
bcrowell said:
The theory is clearly not invariant with respect to Galilean relativity or Lorentz transformations.

Perhaps there exists another coordinate-transformation law which preserves your law of physics.

One could have said something similar about Maxwell's equations: they are symmetric wrt temporal and spatial translations, but are not invariant wrt Galilean transformations. But they contain within themselves the seeds of the Lorentz transformations, which do preserve Maxwell's equations.
 
dEdt said:
a change in velocity amounts to continuously alternating between the transformation \mathbf{r}\ \rightarrow\ \mathbf{r}+\delta\mathbf{r}\ \mathrm{and}\ t\ \rightarrow\ t+\delta t?

No, it doesn't. You can translate in space and time without changing velocity, and you can change velocity without translating in space and time. They are independent transformations.

For example, the Lorentz transformation:

x' = \gamma \left( x - vt \right)

t' = \gamma \left( t - vx \right)

boosts the velocity but does not translate in either space or time. And of course a translation like

x' = x + X_{0}

t' = t + T_{0}

translates in space and time but doesn't change velocity.
 
dEdt said:
Okay, suppose we know that the laws of physics are invariant with respect to a shift in position, and invariant wrt a shift in time (ie the transformations \mathbf{r}\ \rightarrow\ \mathbf{r}+\delta\mathbf{r}\ \mathrm{and}\ t\ \rightarrow\ t+\delta t preserve the laws of physics). Then wouldn't that imply that the laws are *also* invariant wrt a change in inertial reference frame because a change in velocity amounts to continuously alternating between the transformation \mathbf{r}\ \rightarrow\ \mathbf{r}+\delta\mathbf{r}\ \mathrm{and}\ t\ \rightarrow\ t+\delta t? Or is there something wrong with this logic?

Incidentally, I posted this in another site, and someone replied that the logic is fine. But I'm skeptical: I've always viewed the principle of relativity as an experimental fact which is not deducible from other, simpler symmetries.

The laws of physics need to be locally invariant under translation. What you've described is global invariance. Local invariance is expressed by
<br /> x^\mu \rightarrow x^{\mu &#039;}=x^\mu + \epsilon^\mu(x^\mu)<br />
which is saying that the translations depend on position. Global invariance entails action-at-a-distance which is not relativistic.

Interestingly, the translation group is associated with energy and momentum, which are the sources of gravity, and it's possible to make gravity appear in the same way as the Lorentz force, by demanding local translation invariance.
 
dEdt said:
Perhaps there exists another coordinate-transformation law which preserves your law of physics.

One could have said something similar about Maxwell's equations: they are symmetric wrt temporal and spatial translations, but are not invariant wrt Galilean transformations. But they contain within themselves the seeds of the Lorentz transformations, which do preserve Maxwell's equations.

You're missing the point. The logic in your #1 can't be correct, because if it were correct, it would apply to this theory, but the contradiction it leads to when applied to this theory is false.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top