Timeline for A Hidden Principle in Relativity
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 10, 2020 at 10:37 | vote | accept | Noumeno | ||
| Aug 10, 2020 at 10:25 | answer | added | akreuzkamp | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 22, 2020 at 13:35 | history | edited | Noumeno | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 649 characters in body
|
| Jul 22, 2020 at 12:44 | vote | accept | Noumeno | ||
| Jul 22, 2020 at 13:16 | |||||
| Jul 11, 2020 at 13:31 | answer | added | Stéphane Rollandin | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 15:44 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | I gave it a shot. Let me know what you think :) | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 15:44 | answer | added | BioPhysicist | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 15:23 | comment | added | Noumeno | Yes. A rule that tells me which facts must be identical in every frame of reference. For example the fact that: the distance between two things is two meters, can be different in different frames; but the fact that a bombs explodes must be true in every frame. Maybe for me it explodes now and for you after a year, but it should explode for everybody. Problem is: in relativity there are different kinds of facts, some we must agree on and some not, and I want a precise way to distinguish them, and I also what to know where this rule comes from.The world "fact" here is used in a philosophical way | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 15:18 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 10, 2020 at 15:57 | |||||
| Jul 10, 2020 at 15:12 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | Ok, so you want a single rule that let's you decide whether or not something is invariant in relativity? | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 15:10 | comment | added | Noumeno | I will try to explain better: In relativity we don't agree about distances, we don't agree about time intervals, we don't agree about simultaneity, we don't agree on redshift, we don't agree about shapes, ecc. ecc. But we agree for example on the fact that a coin has been tossed four times, or on the fact that someone punched someone else. Intuitively I get what we should agree on and what not. But I seek a precise definition on this. | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 15:00 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | I am still somewhat confused about your question here... Are you looking for a principle that essentially says "If there is an event that has a well-defined space-time coordinate in one frame, then there is a well-defined space-time coordinate for that event in all other frames"? | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 14:45 | comment | added | Noumeno | You are right. On my way to comment. | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 14:41 | comment | added | BioPhysicist | IMO Dale's answer answers your question. So I think you make your question clearer you need to explain why Dale's answer is not sufficient for you other than just saying you think it is a partial exposition. It could also be beneficial to actually comment on Dale's answer stating, asking about, etc. things that still do not make sense after reading their answer. Then Dale could edit their answer accordingly. Dale might not know that their answer has not sufficiently helped you, as you have not directly notified them that this is the case. | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 14:40 | history | edited | BioPhysicist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 46 characters in body
|
| Jul 10, 2020 at 13:58 | history | edited | BioPhysicist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed grammar and removed unnecessary edit specification
|
| Jul 10, 2020 at 13:54 | answer | added | WillO | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 11:22 | comment | added | Noumeno | Maybe, but seems to me that this is not obvious. Furthermore the "hidden principle" that I am talking about applies also in the context of General Relativity, so it applies with non inertial frames of reference and so on. The Relativity Principle does not talk about those situations. | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 11:06 | comment | added | jacob1729 | Surely point 4 is the principle of relativity? | |
| Jul 10, 2020 at 10:35 | history | edited | Noumeno | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1296 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2020 at 11:39 | history | edited | Dale | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Jul 9, 2020 at 11:38 | answer | added | Dale | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 11:31 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | It's ok to ask a follow-on question if the original answers don't fully satisfy you and you can't edit the original to focus better on your problem without invalidating the existing answers. I think this new version does focus better on your real problem, so it should be ok. I posted my previous comment so new readers will also see the old question, and so that the system would create links between the two questions. | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 11:14 | comment | added | Noumeno | Yes you are right. Is this acceptable or is it a problem? | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 11:13 | answer | added | Lelouch | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 11:10 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | This is a follow-up question to physics.stackexchange.com/q/564555/123208 | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 11:07 | comment | added | Noumeno | Events are not obviously invariant quantities. Furthermore invariant quantities are not defined in a principle, but derive from principles. Seems to me that your solution creates circular reasoning. | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 11:01 | comment | added | m4r35n357 | I think the concept you need to learn about is invariance. Different observers agree on invariant quantities. | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 10:57 | comment | added | Noumeno | This is one of the issues yes. The other one is the name and the formulation of the principle in question. | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 10:56 | comment | added | Lelouch | I think your confusion is regarding what is mathematically defined as '"what's happening" or an event ? | |
| Jul 9, 2020 at 10:54 | history | asked | Noumeno | CC BY-SA 4.0 |