1,889 reputation
326
bio website
location
age
visits member for 2 years, 9 months
seen 12 hours ago

The following questions (in no particular order) which I had submitted have been "removed from PSE for reasons of moderation":

  1. Which geometric relations obtain between two distinct rest systems?

Consider, as a thought experiment, a set of participants who measure throughout the experiment having been at rest to each other; among them explicitly participants ${\mathbf A}$, ${\mathbf B}$ and ${\mathbf F}$ who determine the ratios of their (chronogeometric) distances between each other as real number values $\frac{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf B}}{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf F}}$, $\frac{{\mathbf B}{\mathbf F}}{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf F}}$, and $\frac{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf B}}{{\mathbf B}{\mathbf F}} = \frac{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf B}}{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf F}} / \frac{{\mathbf B}{\mathbf F}}{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf F}}$.

Further let there be another set of participants (of which neither ${\mathbf A}$, nor ${\mathbf B}$, nor ${\mathbf F}$ are a member) who measure throughout the experiment having been at rest to each other as well; among them ${\mathbf J}$, ${\mathbf K}$ and ${\mathbf Q}$, who determine the ratios of their (chronogeometric) distances between each other as real number values $\frac{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf K}}{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf Q}}$, $\frac{{\mathbf K}{\mathbf Q}}{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf Q}}$, and $\frac{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf K}}{{\mathbf K}{\mathbf Q}} = \frac{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf K}}{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf Q}} / \frac{{\mathbf K}{\mathbf Q}}{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf Q}}$,

such that

  • ${\mathbf J}$ passed ${\mathbf A}$, then passed ${\mathbf B}$,

  • ${\mathbf A}$ passed ${\mathbf J}$, then passed ${\mathbf K}$,

  • ${\mathbf Q}$ passed ${\mathbf F}$, in coincidence with ${\mathbf Q}$ and ${\mathbf F}$ observing ${\mathbf J}$ and ${\mathbf A}$ having passed each other,

  • ${\mathbf B}$ and ${\mathbf F}$ determined that ${\mathbf B}$'s indication of the passage of ${\mathbf J}$ was simultaneous to ${\mathbf F}$'s indication of the passage of ${\mathbf Q}$, and

  • ${\mathbf K}$ and ${\mathbf Q}$ determined that ${\mathbf K}$'s indication of the passage of ${\mathbf A}$ was simultaneous to ${\mathbf Q}$'s indication of the passage of ${\mathbf F}$.

Question:
Is thereby guaranteed that for these distance ratios obtains

(1)
$\frac{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf B}}{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf F}} = \frac{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf K}}{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf Q}}$ ?,

and (moreover)

(2)
$\left( \left(\frac{{\mathbf B}{\mathbf F}}{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf F}}\right)^2 + 1 - \left(\frac{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf B}}{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf F}}\right)^2 \right) \left( \left(\frac{{\mathbf K}{\mathbf Q}}{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf Q}}\right)^2 + 1 - \left(\frac{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf K}}{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf Q}}\right)^2 \right) = 4 \left( 1 - \left( \frac{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf B}}{{\mathbf A}{\mathbf F}} \right) \left( \frac{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf K}}{{\mathbf J}{\mathbf Q}} \right) \right)$ ?

Or otherwise:
What could be concluded if (1) and/or (2) were not found satisfied?


Jun
30
revised Why are neutrino and antineutrino cross sections different?
Corrected spelling the surname of N. Cabibbo; together with some minor copy-editing to reach the required change of at least six characters.
Jun
30
comment Why are neutrino and antineutrino cross sections different?
Paganini: "I've added few lines of explanations that might help." -- They do; thanks, +1. "thanks for the typo" -- Well, looks like I should still lay hand on it myself. Also, there's still an entire sentence left which I find difficult to grasp as it stands: "[...] So necessarily this configuration cannot be possible explaining the null cross-section at this angle!" -- Is this perhaps supposed to mean (rather, as far as I understand the argument described): "[...] So this explains that the cross-section of this process at this angle ($\theta = \pi$) is null."?
Jun
30
suggested approved edit on Why are neutrino and antineutrino cross sections different?
Jun
29
revised Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley in an accelerated frame?
corrected spelling the last name of A. A. Michelson; cmp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (NB: also consistent with the spelling used in R. A. Mould, "Basic Relativity".)
Jun
29
suggested approved edit on Has anyone tried Michelson-Morley in an accelerated frame?
Jun
29
answered I know light's speed in vacuum is constant, but what about its velocity?
Jun
28
comment Is it possible for two events happen at the exact same time?
@Gennaro Tedesco: "[...] measure [...]" -- By Einstein description: The indication of "piece of embankment A" being hit by lightning, and the of "B" being hit by lightning may (or may not) be determined having been simultaneous to each other. (Where A and B shall remain separate and at rest to each other.) "times to be the same" -- No: Either way these are distinct indications; not the same. (Don't confuse "times" with "time coordinate values".)
Jun
28
answered Is it possible for two events happen at the exact same time?
Jun
27
comment Does “$\mathbf r[~t~]$” correctly denote the trajectory of a point particle wrt. a reference system w/o having to decide on a particular origin?
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Jun
27
comment Does “$\mathbf r[~t~]$” correctly denote the trajectory of a point particle wrt. a reference system w/o having to decide on a particular origin?
@CuriousOne: "You seem to have missed my answer completely: generalized coordinates." -- Perhaps you haven't quite noticed my initial reaction to your initial suggestion. There's certainly no mentioning of any coordinates in my OP. If you believe you could answer my question (read it over once again, to make sure at least for yourself) then please consider submitting a regular answer. "You are a grownup who can grab a textbook and start reading, aren't you?" -- We grownups write (textbooks, or by any means available) on subjects we don't find sufficiently covered in the TBs we read.
Jun
27
comment Does “$\mathbf r[~t~]$” correctly denote the trajectory of a point particle wrt. a reference system w/o having to decide on a particular origin?
@CuriousOne: I strongly disagree with all parts of your assessment. (And yes: I participate especially in PSE to make my disagreement with such assessments public and archived.) However, they all seem tangential to my question here. If you have specific comments or questions to other contributions of mine, I'd appreciate it if you submit them there directly.
Jun
27
comment Does “$\mathbf r[~t~]$” correctly denote the trajectory of a point particle wrt. a reference system w/o having to decide on a particular origin?
@CuriousOne: "Kinematics and dynamics are separated in high school physics to simplify the entry for students" -- Excellent. "but there is no obvious professional interest in separating them" -- Of course there is, and specifically in that order. Because (plainly) one shouldn't speak about "$\frac{d}{dx}|_{x_a}$" etc. without being sure how to evaluate "$x - x_a$" (in the denominator); and (fundamentally) because: "All our well-substantiated space-time propositions amount to the determination of space-time coincidences [such as] encounters between two or more [...] material points.".
Jun
27
revised Does “$\mathbf r[~t~]$” correctly denote the trajectory of a point particle wrt. a reference system w/o having to decide on a particular origin?
(v3.14159265: minor edit)
Jun
27
comment Does “$\mathbf r[~t~]$” correctly denote the trajectory of a point particle wrt. a reference system w/o having to decide on a particular origin?
CuriousOne: "[...] the chosen coordinates [...]" -- What?! Coordinates?? ... "Did you look into generalized coordinates?" -- Well, as far as I did, "generalized coordinates" seemed to presume and rely on notions of dynamics. (Which I hesitate to consider before having a grasp on geometry and kinematics. Therefore my question is specificly about geometry and kinematics.)
Jun
27
asked Does “$\mathbf r[~t~]$” correctly denote the trajectory of a point particle wrt. a reference system w/o having to decide on a particular origin?
Jun
27
comment Is magnitude of velocity same as speed?
@Tim Krul: "what does double modulus mean?" -- That's the notation for "norm". (Having seen this in diracpaul's answer I find it more appropriate than "modulus, or absolute value".) "what does square bracket signify?" -- In square brackets I usually enclose arguments to functions, or operators; here e.g. the argument to which the differential operator is applied. (That's "Mathematica style"; reserving parentheses for grouping only).
Jun
27
comment Is magnitude of velocity same as speed?
Tim Krul: "what do you people mean by two moduli ?" -- The double bars which appeared in @diracpaul's answer and which I subsequently used as well (in comments and in editing my answer) is the notation for "norm". I think that's more appropriate for denoting a distance value (which in geometry/physics usually has some dimension: "length") than using only single bars which denote "modulus, or absolute value" (which is just some non-negative real number).
Jun
27
revised Is magnitude of velocity same as speed?
(v3.14159: Note on the distinction between "speed before reaching the evaluation point" and "speed afterwards"; particularly in response to the example in yuggib's answer PSE/a/191299.)
Jun
27
comment Is magnitude of velocity same as speed?
Tim Krul: "Is magnitude of velocity same as speed?" -- If by "speed" you specificly mean the left term of your equation then apparently you don't mean to distinguish between "speed on the journey before reaching" e.g. some particular "origin" of the description, and "speed afterwards". However, the right term of your present equation, $$ \frac{d}{dt}[\| ~\vec r \|~], $$ makes this distinction; and some answers make a point of that. So consider asking instead about $$\left\lvert \left\lvert \frac{d}{dt}[~\vec r~] \right\rvert \right\rvert =?\!\!= \frac{d}{d|t|}[~\|\vec r\|~].$$
Jun
27
comment Is magnitude of velocity same as speed?
yuggib: I've just suggested to the OP to ask instead about $$\left\lvert \left\lvert \frac{d}{dt}[~\vec r~] \right\rvert \right\rvert =?\!\!= \frac{d}{d|t|}[~\|\vec r\|~].$$ (I wonder if that's going to happen. Or which title I would choose if I'd try to ask this question myself, eventually ...)