Unraveling the Metric Found in Special Relativity

Emilie.Jung
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
In special relativity, we can prove that the metric is -+++ for all observers and that is by making use out of lorentz invariance. Some on this forum say that it comes as a result of constancy of light and others say that Minkowski predated einstein in making that metric, which was confusing. So, how would we make sure how was that metric found?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Emilie.Jung said:
Some on this forum say that it comes as a result of constancy of light and others say that Minkowski predated einstein in making that metric, which was confusing.

The same fact can be proved in more than one way, and the same theory can be described using more than one axiomatization. Are you asking how it was first done historically? That's probably going to be ambiguous because the terminology and notation of tensors wasn't applied to this subject until long after 1905.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
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