> << one of Einstein's two main two reasons for > abandoning special relativity as a suitable > framework for physics was the fact that, no > less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity > is based on the unjustified and epistemologically > problematical assumption of a preferred class > of reference frames, precisely the issue raised > by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" > exists only (aside from its historical importance) > as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas > for important limiting cases of the general theory, > but the phenomenological justification for those > formulas can only be found in the general > theory. >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
.---------------------------------------------
Our persistent correspondent Sue has published the above quotation in this NG many, many times, apparently in the belief that its message is a catecism that she wants to be read every day by her practicing faithful, if any.
It inspired my curiosity as to who was writing these words and what was the context in which they were written.
Her link is to a book published online entitled "Reflections on relativity." Mysteriously, it is not at all clear who wrote it. A Google search on the title turns up possibilities but no clear answer.
More to the point is the slant of the book. Sue thinks it is a condemnation of special relativity, at least, but that is also not so clear.
The passage concerns Einstein's thoughts about the relation between special and general relativity. It is well-known that he went through different phases of opinion in the years between 1905 and 1920, sometimes thinking that what he had done was to generalize special relativity to a larger class of reference frames than just inertial frames. That fits the quotation Sue has impressed on us.
But the years have passed. The modern view is that general relativity is a theory of gravitation, and that special relativity is about space and time, considered in a way compatible with electromagnetic theory, and discovered to be useful in all physics in which space-time can be considered flat enough that the full mechanism of the general theory is not necessary.
The author of "Reflections on relativity" is certainly not in Sue's camp. The bottom of the page linked by Sue contains a link to the table of contents of the book. I recommend that you read the preface, which concludes with the following words:
"This book examines the evolution of the principle of relativity in its classical, special, and general incarnations, both from a technical and a historical perspective, with the aim of showing how it has repeatedly inspired advances in our understanding of the physical world."
Sue, is this what you think says to us when you quote it so often?
> > << one of Einstein's two main two reasons for > > abandoning special relativity as a suitable > > framework for physics was the fact that, no > > less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity > > is based on the unjustified and epistemologically > > problematical assumption of a preferred class > > of reference frames, precisely the issue raised > > by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" > > exists only (aside from its historical importance) > > as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas > > for important limiting cases of the general theory, > > but the phenomenological justification for those > > formulas can only be found in the general > > theory. > >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
> .---------------------------------------------
> Our persistent correspondent Sue has published the above > quotation in this NG many, many times, apparently in the > belief that its message is a catecism that > she wants to be read every day by her practicing > faithful, if any.
> It inspired my curiosity as to who was writing these words and what > was the context in which they were written.
> Her link is to a book published online entitled "Reflections on > relativity." Mysteriously, it is not at all clear who wrote it. A > Google search on the title turns up possibilities but no clear > answer.
> More to the point is the slant of the book. Sue thinks it is a > condemnation of special relativity, at least, but that is also not so > clear.
> The passage concerns Einstein's thoughts about the relation between > special and general relativity. It is well-known that he went through > different phases of opinion in > the years between 1905 and 1920, sometimes thinking that what he had > done was to generalize special relativity to a larger class of > reference frames than just inertial frames. That fits the quotation > Sue has impressed on us.
> But the years have passed. The modern view is that general relativity > is a theory of gravitation, and that special relativity is about space > and time, considered in a way compatible with electromagnetic theory, > and discovered to be useful in all physics in which space-time can be > considered flat enough that the full mechanism of the general theory > is not necessary.
> The author of "Reflections on relativity" is certainly not in Sue's > camp. The bottom of the page linked by Sue contains a link to the > table of contents of the book. I recommend that you read the preface, > which concludes with the following words:
> "This book examines the evolution of the principle of relativity in > its classical, special, and general incarnations, both from a > technical and a historical perspective, with the aim of showing how it > has repeatedly inspired advances in our understanding of the physical > world."
> Sue, is this what you think says to us when you quote it > so often?
> Ben
Ben:
The author is as obscure as Sue real identity. It seems to be a certain Kevin S. Brown. In the whole site that name appears only once. There are several other Kevin Brown in the Internet but none of them appears to be this guy.
Uncle Ben wrote: >> << one of Einstein's two main two reasons for >> abandoning special relativity as a suitable >> framework for physics was the fact that, no >> less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity >> is based on the unjustified and epistemologically >> problematical assumption of a preferred class >> of reference frames, precisely the issue raised >> by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" >> exists only (aside from its historical importance) >> as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas >> for important limiting cases of the general theory, >> but the phenomenological justification for those >> formulas can only be found in the general >> theory. >>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
This quote seems reasonably correct to me. I have known for a long time that the foundations of SR can only be found in GR. But I would say that the "phenomenological justification" of SR is found in the many EXPERIMENTS that have tested it within its domain. This is basically a disagreement on what the words "phenomenological justification" mean.
> More to the point is the slant of the book. Sue thinks it is a > condemnation of special relativity, at least, but that is also not so > clear.
The few parts of it I have looked at are not a condemnation of SR at all. But they do sometimes display the writer's rather narrow perspective (e.g. his misunderstanding of the role of topology in modern manifold theory, in section 9.2).
> But the years have passed. The modern view is that general relativity > is a theory of gravitation, and that special relativity is about space > and time, considered in a way compatible with electromagnetic theory, > and discovered to be useful in all physics in which space-time can be > considered flat enough that the full mechanism of the general theory > is not necessary.
I think the modern view is more that GR is about space and time, and gravitation is merely one aspect of that, and that SR is merely its local limit. But this limit can be much more useful than the full theory throughout an enormous regime of the world we inhabit.
> The author of "Reflections on relativity" is certainly not in Sue's > camp.
NOBODY is in Sue's camp, not even Sue. A random quote generator has no "camp".
> > << one of Einstein's two main two reasons for > > abandoning special relativity as a suitable > > framework for physics was the fact that, no > > less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity > > is based on the unjustified and epistemologically > > problematical assumption of a preferred class > > of reference frames, precisely the issue raised > > by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" > > exists only (aside from its historical importance) > > as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas > > for important limiting cases of the general theory, > > but the phenomenological justification for those > > formulas can only be found in the general > > theory. > >>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
> .---------------------------------------------
> Our persistent correspondent Sue has published the above > quotation in this NG many, many times, apparently in the > belief that its message is a catecism that > she wants to be read every day by her practicing > faithful, if any.
> It inspired my curiosity as to who was writing these words and what > was the context in which they were written.
> Her link is to a book published online entitled "Reflections on > relativity." Mysteriously, it is not at all clear who wrote it. A > Google search on the title turns up possibilities but no clear > answer.
> > << one of Einstein's two main two reasons for > > abandoning special relativity as a suitable > > framework for physics was the fact that, no > > less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity > > is based on the unjustified and epistemologically > > problematical assumption of a preferred class > > of reference frames, precisely the issue raised > > by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" > > exists only (aside from its historical importance) > > as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas > > for important limiting cases of the general theory, > > but the phenomenological justification for those > > formulas can only be found in the general > > theory. > >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
> .---------------------------------------------
> Our persistent correspondent Sue has published the above > quotation in this NG many, many times, apparently in the > belief that its message is a catecism that > she wants to be read every day by her practicing > faithful, if any.
> It inspired my curiosity as to who was writing these words and what > was the context in which they were written.
> Her link is to a book published online entitled "Reflections on > relativity." Mysteriously, it is not at all clear who wrote it. A > Google search on the title turns up possibilities but no clear > answer.
> Let me state up front that I don't know who wrote it.
> Uncle Ben wrote: > >> << one of Einstein's two main two reasons for > >> abandoning special relativity as a suitable > >> framework for physics was the fact that, no > >> less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity > >> is based on the unjustified and epistemologically > >> problematical assumption of a preferred class > >> of reference frames, precisely the issue raised > >> by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" > >> exists only (aside from its historical importance) > >> as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas > >> for important limiting cases of the general theory, > >> but the phenomenological justification for those > >> formulas can only be found in the general > >> theory. > >>> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm
> This quote seems reasonably correct to me. I have known for a long time > that the foundations of SR can only be found in GR.
Bravo Honest Roberts! Let us put things straight. The statement:
"Special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox."
seems "reasonably correct" to Tom Roberts. Einsteiniana is, if not dead, at least in agony. Einsteinians are not inclined to defend dead science anymore:
http://www.orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/petshop1.htm Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it? Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it! Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting. Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage! ............................ Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk. Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords. Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home? Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!
|
