1 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

They are applied in the theory, in such a way that the first justifies the second and the second justifies the first.

The coincidental correct experimental results don't make them true.

There is a tricky way to use the gamma factor that Lorentz introduced to explain the MMX null result.

The Lorents gamma factor has a math symmetry that can be used wrongly giving at same time correct results.

Some limitate SR results are correct; Though, the SR theorical justification is irrational.

regards beda

2 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

Only in the opinion of someone who clearly does not understand the actual issues involved.

>	They are applied in the theory, in such a way that the first justifies the second and the second justifies the first.

Nonsense!

Indeed, the second postulate is not needed in a modern derivation of SR.

>	The coincidental correct experimental results don't make them true.

They are not "coincidental"; if the experimental results did not agree with the predictions of the theory, the theory would have been abandoned long ago and you would not need to be so befuddled.

Of course "true" does not apply to physical theories -- at best they are valid with a given domain.

>	[... further nonsense]

Tom Roberts

3 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

Hmmmm. I suppose the theory abstracted from Einstein's 1905 paper cannot model the photoelectric effect at all. Ditto for most aspects of atomic theory, most aspects of the standard model, and anything regarding gravitation.

[Ironic, isn't it? -- after all he also wrote a paper in 1905 describing how to approach the photoelectric effect. It is one of the most-cited papers of the era, as is his 1905 paper on SR.]

>	It's not *outside* SR's domain: it *contradicts* SR's requirement of wavelike behaviour.

Hmmmm. Within Maxwell's equations, light is modeled as a wave. That is within the domain of classical electrodynamics; it is far too constricting for SR, which applies to QED (in which light is not at all a wave), and the standard model (which goes far beyond light and electrodynamics, and also has no waves).

So TODAY, the photoelectric effect is outside the domain of SR. It does refute classical electrodynamics (no surprise), but not QED. Nobody really cares how it relates to Einstein's ancient paper (except people who don't know any better).

>	How does SR deal with the photovoltaic effect, Roberts?

See above. It doesn't.

Hint: look at a calendar.

See above. It doesn't. Photons are within the domain of QED, not SR.

Even so, individual photons (insofar as that makes sense) have no property "wavelength" (or "frequency" or "energy" or "momentum"). QED (and other QFTs) are quite subtle (e.g. one cannot count photons, nor assign to them any specific path)....

In the fact that light is not sound -- DUH! -- they are QUITE different. You REALLY need to learn something about very basic physics.

A major part of your problem is that you simply do not know how to read in the context of modern physics. You are WOEFULLY out of date and seem to not understand the fact that nomenclature morphs over time to fit the needs of the people who use it (not the desires of physics wannabes). "SR" means what we use it to mean TODAY, and not what was thought in 1905.

Over the past decades in physics journals I see a highly desirable movement away from calling it "SR" towards discussing local Lorentz invariance. Not in popular articles, and especially not around here.

4 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

5 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

I agree with you that the above sentence does not make much sense.

>	Indeed, the second postulate is not needed in a modern derivation of SR.

However, I also have a problem with this sentence. Do you mean that the second postulate is not needed at all in relation to SR? or only in relation to a modern derivation of SR? The second postulate discusses the speed of light and that seems very important in relation to SR, specific in relation to the invariant:

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2

6 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

7 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

First remember that Einstein's 1905 paper was about ELECTRODYNAMICS. Since then we have found it convenient to split his subject into two separate theories:
1. SR, which models the (local) geometry of spacetime.
2. Electrodynamics, which models electromagnetic interactions.

Einstein's second postulate involves light, putting it FIRMLY in theory #2. So it cannot be used in theory #1.

Today we understand group theory (which Einstein did not in 1905). We can use group theory to show that there can be only three transformation groups among inertial frames, and that just one of them, the Lorentz group [#], agrees with all the experiments.

So Einstein's second postulate is not needed at all in theory #1 above, SR as understood today by physicists.

Not all popular articles and elementary textbooks adhere to the separation above. But that separation is necessary to go from SR to GR -- that relies on the invariant speed of SR, and has nothing to do with light.

[#] Well, the Poincare' group. Which is the same as the inhomogeneous Lorentz group.

Do not be deceived into thinking that "c" there is the speed of light. IT ISN'T. It represents the invariant speed of the Lorentz group.

Historically, "c" was used to represent the vacuum speed of light, and "c" was also used to represent the invariant speed of the Lorentz group. This has caused countless confusion, but it is only a confusion about history and nomenclature -- the two theories above are distinct and quite clear about the meanings of their symbols.

The remarkable thing is that the two meanings of "c" in those two theories have the same numerical value, established experimentally to high precision (yes, separate sets of experiments).

So in a very real sense, Einstein "lucked out" in 1905. Had it happened that those two meanings of "c" were significantly different, the history of physics would have been VERY different.

>	Should this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity not be updated?

Perhaps. Even probably. I have not looked at it.

Tom Roberts

8 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

Stop fucking, trash. How many times have you written here, at this forum, that coordinates are just an arbitrary human choice? Yes, they are. No "experiments" have ever forced you. It's you responsible for your violating common sense idiocies.

9 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

Sorry, this is the first time that I read about this split. Who are the people identified as we?

>	Einstein's second postulate involves light, putting it FIRMLY in theory #2. So it cannot be used in theory #1.

Why can the second postulate (maybe in a revised form) not be used in theory #2?

>	Today we understand group theory (which Einstein did not in 1905). We can use group theory to show that there can be only three transformation groups among inertial frames, and that just one of them, the Lorentz group [#], agrees with all the experiments.

10 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

> >	First remember that Einstein's 1905 paper was about ELECTRODYNAMICS. Since then we have found it convenient to split his subject into two separate theories: 1. SR, which models the (local) geometry of spacetime. 2. Electrodynamics, which models electromagnetic interactions.

>	Sorry, this is the first time that I read about this split. Who are the people identified as we?

Hundred of thousands physicists who have studied and use SR and GR models.

> >	Einstein's second postulate involves light, putting it FIRMLY in theory #2. So it cannot be used in theory #1.

>	Why can the second postulate (maybe in a revised form) not be used in theory #2?

Read again, Tom says the second postulate is used in theory 2!!!

>	Which specific experiments do you have in mind? Do you mean twin type like experiments using moving clocks?

All the experiments which need the use of SR and or GR models to predict their results.

11 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

> >	Should this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity not be updated?

>	Perhaps. Even probably. I have not looked at it.

Wikipedia's article on special relativity definitely sucks, having suffered from the defects of multiple authorship without clear editorial leadership. About 1/3 of the article is my writing, and I sometimes flatter myself into thinking that I am better than the average contributor, but the reality is that I do not currently have the technical expertise to completely re-write sections 6 through 10, which are in pretty foul shape and will probably remain so for an indefinite future. Nor do I have the courage to completely re-write sections 1 through 3, which suffer from too many cooks not having been able to decide whether they were baking a cake or roasting a turkey.

Overall, stay away from Wikipedia, and pick up a good textbook, if you want to learn special relativity.

12 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

Just studied. Even you(plural) are not stupid enough to use them.

13 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

Or rather from following an idiot guru and his idiot minions.

14 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

Physicists. Basically because this makes sense for the generalization from SR to GR -- light is simply not involved.

>>	Einstein's second postulate involves light, putting it FIRMLY in theory #2. So it cannot be used in theory #1.

>	Why can the second postulate (maybe in a revised form) not be used in theory #2?

It can.

It cannot be used in theory #1 because it is inherently about electrodynamics, not geometry.

>>	Today we understand group theory (which Einstein did not in 1905). We can use group theory to show that there can be only three transformation groups among inertial frames, and that just one of them, the Lorentz group [#], agrees with all the experiments.

>	I assume that group theory belongs to theory #1.

No. Group theory is mathematics, and can be used in any physical theory, whenever needed. It is essential in the derivation of the equations of theory #1. It is also highly indicative in theory #2, classical electrodynamics, because the Lorentz group is a subgroup of the invariance group of Maxwell's equations (that's how Einstein "lucked out" in 1905, and was able to commingle theories #1 and #2, even though they are really quite different).

>

In order to get some understanding I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_group The first line of that document reads: "In physics and mathematics, the Lorentz group is the group of all Loren transformations of Minkowski spacetime, the classical and quantum setting for all (non-gravitational) physical phenomena." Is that correct?

Yes. Well sort-of -- the Lorentz group does not apply to Minkowski spacetime, it applies to inertial frames _IN_ Minkowski spacetime.

The Lorentz group also applies to locally inertial frames in GR.

>	Which specific experiments do you have in mind? Do you mean twin type like experiments using moving clocks?

Those, and all others that test SR.

>>

So Einstein's second postulate is not needed at all in theory #1 above, SR as understood today by physicists. Not all popular articles and elementary textbooks adhere to the separation above. But that separation is necessary to go from SR to GR -- that relies on the invariant speed of SR, and has nothing to do with light.

>	The above text mentions that the Lorentz group is non-gravitational. What do you mean with the speed of SR?

The INVARIANT speed of SR is the unique speed such that an object moving with that speed relative to one inertial frames moves with that same speed relative to every inertial frame.

>>>	The second postulate discusses the speed of light and that seems very important in relation to SR, specific in relation to the invariant: ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2

>>

Do not be deceived into thinking that "c" there is the speed of light. IT ISN'T. It represents the invariant speed of the Lorentz group. Historically, "c" was used to represent the vacuum speed of light, and "c" was also used to represent the invariant speed of the Lorentz group. This has caused countless confusion, but it is only a confusion about history and nomenclature -- the two theories above are distinct and quite clear about the meanings of their symbols.

>	First what 'we' did is to declare the 'speed of light c' to be a constant.

Hmmm. In theory #1 c is necessarily a constant, from its definition. The fact that theory #1 is an inherent part of theory #2 is the theoretical justification for the redefinition of the meter in 1983, making 'the speed of light c' to be a constant.

>	Secondly, why mention vacuum?

Because light only moves with speed c in vacuum (relative to inertial frames).

>	Is the space in our solar system considered a vacuum?

Yes to high accuracy, but not exactly.

>	The concept 'speed of light' is rather clear. Not clear how it is measured.

In the usual way: time a light pulse over a known distance, and calculate distance/time. Many undergraduate lab courses do this; it's not difficult to obtain 100 parts-per-million accuracy (but obtaining the much more precise values used in 1983 is much more challenging).

>	The concept 'speed of Lorentz group' is not clear.

You missed the important word: I discuss the INVARIANT speed of SR. That is unique.

>>	The remarkable thing is that the two meanings of "c" in those two theories have the same numerical value, established experimentally to high precision (yes, separate sets of experiments).

>	Please can you give a little more detail about these two experiments and what they tried to measure.

There are MANY more than two experiments.

To determine the invariant speed of SR, accelerate particles with more and more energy and observe that their speed asymptotically approaches c. Or compare particle travel times to light travel times, as a function of energy.

To determine the vacuum speed of light, measure it in the usual way.

The remarkable thing is that these two VERY DIFFERENT experiments yield the same numerical value: 299792458 m/s.

Of course for them to make sense one must use a definition of the meter earlier than 1983.

15 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

What really amazes me that light is not part of SR. I assume the same is true with GR.
If that is the case I'm not amazed. Newton assumed the same.

> >	Which specific experiments do you have in mind? Do you mean twin type like experiments using moving clocks?

>	Those, and all others that test SR.

But those moving clocks can also use light signals?

> >>	So Einstein's second postulate is not needed at all in theory #1 above, SR as understood today by physicists.

> >	The above text mentions that the Lorentz group is non-gravitational. What do you mean with the speed of SR?

>	The INVARIANT speed of SR is the unique speed such that an object moving with that speed relative to one inertial frames moves with that same speed relative to every inertial frame.

IMO that is 'exactly' the same as when the speed of light is considered an invariant.

> >>>

The second postulate discusses the speed of light and that seems very important in relation to SR, specific in relation to the invariant: ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2

> >>

Do not be deceived into thinking that "c" there is the speed of light. IT ISN'T. It represents the invariant speed of the Lorentz group. Historically, "c" was used to represent the vacuum speed of light, and "c" was also used to represent the invariant speed of the Lorentz group. This has caused countless confusion, but it is only a confusion about history and nomenclature -- the two theories above are distinct and quite clear about the meanings of their symbols.

> >	The concept 'speed of Lorentz group' is not clear.

>	You missed the important word: I discuss the INVARIANT speed of SR. That is unique.

Sorry, above you used both.

16 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

17 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

You know nothing of how physics is studied or used!!

In 1905, Einstein used the result of a well know experimental result, to formulate the Special Relativity model (contained in the first 5 sections of his paper). The second part of his paper (sections 6 to 10) addresses the Electrodynamics results.

> >	All the experiments which need the use of SR and or GR models to predict their results.

>	And how do you know that an experiment needs SR or GR?

All physics models have a domain of applicability.

Newtonian Mechanics is very good model to apply when speeds and gravity are very low.

Special Relativity is a very good model to apply when speeds are very high and gravity is very low.

General Relativity is a very good model to apply when speeds and gravity are very high.

Quantum Electrodynamics is a very good model to apply when objects are very very small.

There is no available model which can be applied to all conditions found in Nature.

Since we do not yet have devices which can travel at 100000 km/sec or placing instruments near a black hole, we need to use experiments which use our available devices (planes, rockets, atomic clocks, linear accelerators, etc.) to perform experiments which serve to validate our physical models.

18 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false

On 5/14/20 8:55 AM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:

>	On Friday, 17 April 2020 02:49:37 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

>>	First remember that Einstein's 1905 paper was about ELECTRODYNAMICS. Since then we have found it convenient to split his subject into two separate theories: 1. SR, which models the (local) geometry of spacetime.

>>>	Today we understand group theory (which Einstein did not in 1905). We can use group theory to show that there can be only three transformation groups among inertial frames, and that just one of them, the Lorentz group [#], agrees with all the experiments.

>

>>	I assume that group theory belongs to theory #1.

>	No. Group theory is mathematics, and can be used in any physical theory, whenever needed. It is essential in the derivation of the equations of theory #1.

Oh dear....

You really like to get on that pretentious high horse Tom.

You claim that group theory is "essential", yet also state Einstein did not understand it in 1905. Ahmmm.....

er.... no, group theory is not "essential" to derive the equations of SR. No standard derivation of SR uses group theory, explicitly.

Sure, it might give a tad more of an insight, but whatever...

19 in making a new theory cannot be postulated what is patentely false