<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tgill</i>
<br />Hi
The discussion is interesting and I am glad that some people are still trying to understand the Special Theory(OR WHY IDEAS COUNTER TO OUR INTUITION MUST BE REAL). I have a few comments that may be of interest.
1. First, as Tom noted earlier, Einstein postulated that the speed of light is constant for all observers. Using this, he derived the Lorentz transformations to enforce this postulate on all observers. Thus, the Lorentz transformations are the mathematical outcome of the postulates.
A postulate in physics is equivalent to a definiton in mathematics, which means that when you accept the postulates as physically correct, you essentially accept the whole theory, in the sense that it follows from correct mathematical deduction.
2. Einstein's assumption that the speed of light is constant came from the standard representation of Maxwell's equations (as stated by Einstein in a footnote to his second paper).
In this context,Feynman (among others)has consistenly called for the exploration of different formulations of the basic theories in the hope to find representations which do not have the many existing problems.
3. Einstein and everyone since, assumes that the correct clock to use in observing physical systems is the clock of the observer. "This is the zeroth postulate".
Here, we should realize that this postulate is quickly violated in order to explain how cosmic ray muons and other high energy particles arrive to earth from the top of the atmosphere, by using the clock of the particle (or the co-moving observer)and claiming time dilation or length contraction. Clearly, the distance form the top of the atmosphere is an objective number and if we use the clock of the observer, this cannot be explained.
4. Minkowski postulated that the correct way to combine space and time is to treat time as a forth coordinate, which created the four-geometry. "This is the third postulate".
I consider this last the most vexing. It imposes a geometry on physics based solely on philosophy with no physical justification. This is even considered a plus by many. It is the main reason, we do not have a version of relativistic mechanics which includes Newtonian Mechanics. Any attempt to go beyond the one particle formulation must contend with the famous No-Interaction Theorem, to the effect the any theory which requires a Hamiltonian formulation and, canonical variables, which transform like geometric coordinates is only compatible with non-interacting particles. All attempts to by-pass this problem has led to other problems which are no less vexing.
I will close by pointing out that the 3K background radiation offers an ideal preferred frame of reference, which is avalable to all observers (independent of the various cosmological conjectures about its origin). It is cause by radiation from charges and generates a macroscopic quantum effect (the Planck distribution), and yet it is only discussed in the context of Big-Bang cosmology.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You mispelt "fourth". In that sentence, the usage requires
the spelling of 4th as f-o-u-r-t-h and not "f-o-r-t-h" as
you provided.
