What should I do with my spacetime model?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a newly developed spacetime model that extends the principle of relativity, featuring unique coordinate transformations that preserve the speed of light, differing from the Lorentz transformation. The model successfully derives classical mechanics at low speeds and accurately predicts the rest energy as mc^2 and photon momentum. However, the community expresses skepticism regarding its validity, suggesting that the model may not be publishable and could be perceived as non-viable. The consensus indicates that further validation and formal publication are necessary for serious consideration.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the principle of relativity
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations
  • Knowledge of energy and momentum in physics
  • Basic mathematical skills for deriving physical equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the process of publishing scientific theories in peer-reviewed journals
  • Study the differences between Lorentz transformations and alternative coordinate transformations
  • Explore classical mechanics and its relationship with relativistic physics
  • Investigate the implications of isotropic and homogeneous spacetime models
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in theoretical physics, and individuals interested in the development and validation of new scientific models.

Ahmed1029
Messages
109
Reaction score
40
I created a model of spacetime based on an extension I added to the principle of relativity. I then derived the coordinate transformations which preserve the speed of light in all frames, which are different from the Lorentz transformation. I worked out the formulae for energy and momentum, and what's strange is that they become classical mechanics at low speeds, predict that the rest energy of a body is mc^2 just like relativity, and the momentum of the photon turns out to be correct, out of totally different eauations. Should I publish it at this point, or will I be thought of as a crank? What should I do now?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For homogeneous and isotropic space and time, there are only three possibilities: Newtonian space and time , Minkowski spacetime, or a Euclidean spacetime. See the link below. I'm sceptical you have found anything additionally valid.

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/teaching/Lorentz.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark, berkeman and Ahmed1029
I didn't include any assumptions about the nature of space in my formation, just that newly hypothesised premise and worked out the rest. What do you suggest I do to make sure that it's not just some fool's babble? I was ready to get rid of it in case it gave me wrong answers about fundemental values, but up till now the momentum of the photon and the rest energy are okay.
 
The model however makes time necessraily the same in all frames, yet length behaves in some weird fashion that depends on direction. This is all weird but the formulae turn out to be true in the regimes I'm familiar with.
 
Ahmed1029 said:
The model however makes time necessraily the same in all frames, yet length behaves in some weird fashion that depends on direction.
If your mathematics is valid, the you might have a mathematical curiosity.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark
PeroK said:
If your mathematics is valid, the you might have a mathematical curiosity.
The math is actually too simple to be wrong
 
Thread locked for Moderation...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark
Ahmed1029 said:
I created a model of spacetime based on an extension I added to the principle of relativity. I then derived the coordinate transformations which preserve the speed of light in all frames, which are different from the Lorentz transformation. I worked out the formulae for energy and momentum, and what's strange is that they become classical mechanics at low speeds, predict that the rest energy of a body is mc^2 just like relativity, and the momentum of the photon turns out to be correct, out of totally different eauations. Should I publish it at this point, or will I be thought of as a crank? What should I do now?
This is not something we at PF can help with. PF is not for discussion of personal theories or personal research. If you want your model to be discussed here at PF, you need to get it published first. I do not think that will happen because, just from your description, it sounds like your model is not even wrong. But ultimately the decision of whether to try to get it published or not is up to you.

As for the question of whether you will be thought of as a crank, I think so after reading your description, because, as above, it sounds like your model is not even wrong. I suspect a lot of other people will agree.

Thread will remain closed.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: topsquark, russ_watters and Bystander

Similar threads

  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
940
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K