Basic postulates of SR
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: curvature of spacetime
Next: Hard SR questions?
From: Harry on 9 Aug 2006 05:38 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:lqTBg.2942$1f6.1869(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > Harry wrote: > > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > news:V80Bg.4398$gY6.3733(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > >> Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > >>> We will study the basic postulates of special theory of relativity: the > >>> postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames [...] > >>> Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>>that is not at all a postulate of SR. <shrug> > >>> It was Einstein himself who has > >>> introduced the term "L-postulate". > >> I repeat: anyone who can READ would avoid your error. Just go back and > >> actually READ Einstein's 1905 paper. He does not use what you claim is a > >> postulate, he formulates his postulate in a significantly different way. > >> <shrug> > > > > Although I tend to agree with you on this point, a number of physicists > > happen to disagree and read it roughly the way Sergey reads it. It's > > ambiguous for sure. > > This is not ambiguous in the least. Einstein's second postulate is > significantly different from what Sergey claimed above. There is > absolutely no doubt: > > 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im <<ruhenden>> Koordinatensystem > mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhaengig davon, ob dieser > Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Koerper emittiert ist. > -- A. Einstein, Ann. d. Physik, 4.17, p891-921 (1905). > > In English: > > 2. Every light ray moves with the precise speed c relative to the > "stationary" coordinate system, independent of whether the ray is > emitted by a stationary or moving source. > [translation mine, using modern terminology. Note that earlier > in the paper he defined "stationary system" as any specific > inertial frame (again, I'm using modern terminology here).] > > Nobody who actually reads Einstein's paper will claim that Einstein's > second postulate is anything at all like Sergey claimed above. <shrug> > > I'm not talking about the subtleties of translation (e.g. > in this usage is "bestimmten" best translated as > "determined", "definite", "certain", or "precise"?). > I mean the basic content of the postulate. > > Yes, numerous textbooks use alternate derivations of the equations of > SR, including significantly different statements of the second > postulate. That does not change what Einstein actually wrote. As for any > mathematical theory, there are many different sets of postulates that > lead to the same theory. But if, as Sergey said, "We will study the > basic postulates of special theory of relativity", then it is necessary > to get them right. Accurate scholarship IS important. <shrug> > > Tom Roberts Tom, sorry but you're making an elephant out of a mosquito as they say in Dutch: - Einstein called his second postulate as "the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo" (1916, official English translation). - Sergey here calls that second postulate "the postulate of constant speed of light in all reference frames". - You now point out that it's about any specific inertial frame. Thus I suppose that you merely criticize him for leaving out the essential word "inertial". He likely will agree! Harald
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 9 Aug 2006 08:37 Harry пиÑ?ал(а): > Sergey: > The point is, Harry, this factually is not an inaccuracy, though we > cannot exclude that the interpreters really were inaccurate in words. > I said you, there is many other evidences confirming that Einstein > meant just what Russians translated. Here is one of them: > > Harald: > I showed here that the text that you claim to be that of Nauka, is not just > inaccurate but simply *erroneous*. > As the official English translation appears to be generally quite accurate, > you would be wise to dispose of that Russian source and instead rely on the > English translation. > And distorting text isn't "translating", even if they think to know better > what Einstein meant than Einstein himself. > > Sergey: > << The special theory of relativity showed physical equivalence of all > inertial reference frames. In this way it proved the bankruptcy of the > hypothesis of resting ether. So it was necessary to reject the idea > that electromagnetic field has to be considered as a state of some > material carrier. Thus, the field becomes a non-reducible element of > physical description, non-reducible in the same meaning that the > concept of substance in the Newton's theory >> > [Einstein. The relativity and the problem of space. Original version in > German: Relativitat und Raumproblem. The supplement V to the German > edition of 1954 of the book "On special and general theory of > relativity". First published in 1952]. > And one more citation: > << But while in the special theory of relativity the region of space > without matter and without electric field seems to be absolutely void, > i.e. we can characterise it by no physical values, in the general > theory of relativity even space void in this meaning has physical > properties >> > [Einstein. The dialogue on the objections against the theory of > relativity. Original version in German: Eine Dialog uber Einwande gegen > die relativitatstheorie. Naturwiss., 1918, 6, 697-702]. > In this connection, we are ready to put a footnote in the paper, > referring to you. However, kindly look again at your English-language > citation, specifically at the word intropes. This word is absent in our > dictionaries. > Thank you. > Sergey > > [Something strange with your posting, it sabotages my setting for including > ">" before your text; so I had to improvise]. > > - I didn't discuss the translation of those other texts, the one I referred > to is pertinent (and the official English translation which I gave is not > the machine translation which I also gave and which is available on > internet). > - About those new citations, they are probably again from Russian; the first > one is from a much later date and I see no disagreement with the official > English text of 1920; the second one of 1918 clearly *agrees* with > Einstein's 1920 opinion in the official English text. > > Note that I won't discuss those new texts, my purpose was only to warn you > that your Russian sources are unreliable. > > Cheers, > Harald Thank you, Harry, very, very much for this check, and nonetheless, I would ask you to explain me that word, â??intropesâ??, of which I asked in my previous post, to put things in agreement. We will immediately put the reference onto website. If you are against, we will not mention your name (though I donâ??t see any reason or damage for your reputation), but we have to improve it immediately, as many people are reading now. Thank you, Sergey
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 9 Aug 2006 08:38 Harry пиÑ?ал(а): > Tom, sorry but you're making an elephant out of a mosquito as they say in > Dutch: > > - Einstein called his second postulate as "the postulate of the constancy of > the velocity of light in vacuo" (1916, official English translation). > - Sergey here calls that second postulate "the postulate of constant speed > of light in all reference frames". > - You now point out that it's about any specific inertial frame. > > Thus I suppose that you merely criticize him for leaving out the essential > word "inertial". He likely will agree! > > Harald Possibly, we have omitted the word â??inertialâ?? in some phrase, lest to repeat one and the same, as it goes without saying that SR works only with inertial frames. While we say in the whole paper maybe 40 times that all this â??novelâ?? is about just inertial frames. And how could it be otherwise when we are speaking of SR? But we saw in Tomâ??s last post one more nuance to which I will reply in an hour. Best to you, Sergey
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 9 Aug 2006 13:09 Tom Roberts пиÑ?ал(а): > Sergey Karavashkin wrote: > > Tom Roberts пиÑ?ал(а): > >> 2. Jeder Lichtstrahl bewegt sich im <<ruhenden>> Koordinatensystem > >> mit der bestimmten Geschwindigkeit V, unabhaengig davon, ob dieser > >> Lichtstrahl von einem ruhenden oder bewegten Koerper emittiert ist. > >> -- A. Einstein, Ann. d. Physik, 4.17, p891-921 (1905). > >> In English: > >> 2. Every light ray moves with the precise speed c relative to the > >> "stationary" coordinate system, independent of whether the ray is > >> emitted by a stationary or moving source. > >> [translation mine, using modern terminology.] > >> Nobody who actually reads Einstein's paper will claim that Einstein's > >> second postulate is anything at all like Sergey claimed above. <shrug> > > > > Dear Tom, I hardly can understand you. You first claimed that there are > > no postulates in SR. > > I have never said that. Perhaps your reading of English is not fluent. > That's why I quoted the original in German. > > > > Now you are writing: > > << Einstein's second postulate is > > significantly different from what Sergey claimed above >> > > Yes. Just look above to see that is true. <shrug> > > > > Of which my incorrect opinion in > > German and English versions of postulate are you speaking? > > Your wording of the postulate is SIGNIFICANTLY different in meaning from > both Einstein's original and my translation. <shrug> > > > Tom Roberts Most funny in how relativists defend their sophistic theses is that they try to do it with help of their own cut off and distorted theses, claiming that everyone around is ignorant and incorrect. You this time do same. Maxwellian theory premised the light speed constancy in relation to the material substance â?? aether. This constancy well agreed with the equivalence of inertial frames after Galilee. So this needed no additional postulating or, as Einstein said, assumption of the light speed constancy in the stationary frame, neither the statement of equivalence of reference frames. These terms well existed in classical physics long before Einstein. So the phrase which you cited we have to read not from the view, what exactly Einstein said in it but from the view, what he humbly omitted and then used namely the omitted in all his further studies. And he used his assumptions and principles namely so that the light speed in his schemes had to be constant not only in the stationary but in any frame, which in no way agrees with the Maxwellian formalism. And we have lots of examples. In the same paper of 1905, section 3, he writes the statement of problem as follows: << Now we have to show that each ray of light â?? when measured in the moving frame â?? propagates with the speed V, if this statement, according to our assumption, is true in the resting frame . . . >> [A.E., On electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905]. Where can you find such in the Maxwellian theory? Or similar: << The same propagation of light we can consider in the frame Kâ??. In this case also, the principle of light speed constancy has to be true >> [A.E., The essence of theory of relativity, 1921, lecture 2]. This also is after Maxwell? It is not worthy, Tom, to augment sophisms, or it can happen that Achilles is unable to catch up the tortoise because it makes more steps per minute. :) And the less is worthy to so self-confidently claim everyone fools supporting nonsense of exaggerated authorities. Should Einstein were sequential in his referring to Maxwell, he would have no right to state the light speed constancy in any inertial frame, to take the aether from his conception, and if he did such incorrect assumptions, he would have, without referring to Maxwellâ??s hydrodynamic formulas, to derive himself from the beginning all his formulas in his void space. He did not so. He has torn away from Maxwellian formalism the basis of physical modelling from the final formulas and started manipulating with the bare formulas on the basis incompatible with Maxwellian theory. So we must distinct the light speed constancy after Maxwell and after Einstein. According to this first, the light speed is constant with respect to aether, which means, only in the stationary frame. According to Einstein, the light speed is constant in all inertial frames. And references that Einstein has not written â??in all reference framesâ?? are irrelevant, he implemented namely this, and not because of principle of equivalence of reference frames. As we showed in the very first citation in our section 2, the relativity principle was changed for the light speed constancy in all frames, not vice versa. So your conclusion as if we misunderstand are groundless. Simply as the physicists we look at the problems completely, not in relativistic way â?? â??here read, there donâ??tâ??. Sergey
From: Sergey Karavashkin on 10 Aug 2006 08:05
Harry пиÑ?ал(а): > Sergey, about the translation of: > > "Die elektromagnetischen Felder erscheinen als letzte, nicht weiter > zurückführbare Realitäten, und es erscheint zunächst überflüssig, ein > homogenes, intropes Ã?thermedium zu postulieren, als dessen Zustände > jene Felder aufzufassen wären. > Anderseits läÃ?t sich aber zugunsten der Ã?therhypothese ein wichtiges > Argument anführen." , > > as I said, that's the machine translation, to compare the official Russian > and English translations. > Obviously the machine didn't know that word (just like it doesn't know > "svodimoy"), and probably it was a scanning error for "isotropes". > > I can improve it, also removing a few surprising grammatical errors, so that > the very literal translation becomes: > > "The electromagnetic fields appear as last, not further reducible realities, > and it appears at first redundant, to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic > ether medium when its conditions would be interpretable to be those fields. > On the other hand however an important argument can be stated in favor of > the ether hypothesis." > > But that's without interest except as third, independent opinion (and as > unbiased as a computer translation can be). > > It makes sense to quote from the full official English version in those > cases that you have it. This one is on the internet, for example: > http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html > > Cheers, > Harald Thank you again, dear Harald. But now I understand nothing at all. Here is our translation from Russian: << Electromagnetic field is a primordial cause, a reality that cannot be reduced to something, so it is absolutely excessive to postulate additionally the existence of homogeneous and isotropic ether and imagine the field as a state of this aether >> This is your translation from German: "The electromagnetic fields appear as last, not further reducible realities, and it appears at first redundant, to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether medium when its conditions would be interpretable to be those fields. On the other hand however an important argument can be stated in favor of the ether hypothesis." Now the official English version from your first post: "The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium. But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis." The difference of official English version from your German-English translation is â??at first it seems ...â??. In this citation it looks like an ungrounded alternative to the second, and in absence of it looks like a statement that has a second side of medal. Namely so translated you and we. Namely so state other citations from other Einsteinâ??s works. So it appears that the official English translation is not so solid as Naukaâ??s? Do I understand you well, Harald? Sergey |