Prev: missing mass with its solid-body-rotation conundrum solved Chapt 4 #214; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Acedia Allover Earth...
From: Surfer on 2 Jul 2010 04:50
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:51:10 -0500, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Student understanding of time in special relativity:
>> simultaneity and reference frames
>
>> Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos
>> Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
>
>> This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of the concept of
>> time in special relativity. A series of research tasks are discussed that illustrate,
>> step-by-step, how student reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was
>> probed. The results indicate that after standard instruction students at all academic
>> levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the role
>> of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented that suggests
>> many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute
>> simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist.
>
>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109
>
>VII. CONCLUSION
>This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that
>students have with the definition of the time of an event and
>the role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than
>2/3 of physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in
>physics are unable to apply the construct of a reference frame
>in determining whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many
>students interpret the phrase �relativity of simultaneity� as
>implying that the simultaneity of events is determined by an
>observer on the basis of the reception of light signals. They
>often attribute the relativity of simultaneity to the
>difference in signal travel time for different observers. In
>this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity of
>simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail
>to confront the startling ideas of special relativity.
>
Perhaps this would be easier....

Unravelling Lorentz Covariance and the Spacetime Formalism
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1767

".....We report the discovery of an exact mapping from Galilean time
and space coordinates to Minkowski spacetime coordinates, showing that
Lorentz covariance and the spacetime construct are consistent with the
existence of a dynamical 3-space, and "absolute motion". We illustrate
this mapping first with the standard theory of sound, as vibrations of
a medium, which itself may be undergoing fluid motion, and which is
covariant under Galilean coordinate transformations. By introducing a
different non-physical class of space and time coordinates it may be
cast into a form that is covariant under "Lorentz transformations"
wherein the speed of sound is now the "invariant speed". If this
latter formalism were taken as fundamental and complete we would be
lead to the introduction of a pseudo-Riemannian "spacetime"
description of sound, with a metric characterised by an "invariant
speed of sound". This analysis is an allegory for the development of
20th century physics, but where the Lorentz covariant Maxwell
equations were constructed first, and the Galilean form was later
constructed by Hertz, but ignored. It is shown that the Lorentz
covariance of the Maxwell equations only occurs because of the use of
non-physical space and time coordinates. The use of this class of
coordinates has confounded 20th century physics, and resulted in the
existence of a "flowing" dynamical 3-space being overlooked. The
discovery of the dynamics of this 3-space has lead to the derivation
of an extended gravity theory as a quantum effect, and confirmed by
numerous experiments and observations...."





 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: missing mass with its solid-body-rotation conundrum solved Chapt 4 #214; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Acedia Allover Earth...