On the Definition of an Inertial Frame of Reference

[Eugene Shubert]

Hilbert didn't think general relativity was his theory.

You are correct. Hilbert always gave Einstein the credit but note that Hilbert made it clear that Einstein's contribution wasn't the least bit mathematical.

At a gathering of mathematicians, Hilbert asked:

Do you know why Einstein said the most original and profound things about space and time that have been said in our generation? Because he had learned nothing about all the philosophy and mathematics of time and space. – P. Frank, Einstein – His Life and Times, p. 206.

And also consider this very well-known Hilbert quote:

Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians.

And even more relevant, please note that Einstein cried like a baby at the thought that Hilbert was going to publish first:

Nov 26, 1915 Einstein writes a letter to his friend Zangger accusing Hilbert, without naming him explicitly, in drastic words: “The theory has unique beauty. Only one colleague has understood it really, but he tries in a tricky way to ‘nostrify’ it (an expression due to Abraham). In my personal experience I have not learnt any better the wretchedness of the human species as on occasion of this theory and related to it. However, that does not concern me in the slightest.” and in Nov 30, 1915 he writes Besso “Colleagues behave nastily.”

It is difficult to understand such harsh words of Einstein. He must have been extremely angry having worked for eight years to the solution of his ‘great problem’ and Hilbert in only a few weeks elegantly has found the solution before him. Einstein’s fury shows the Hilbert’s Nov 16 postcard was of considerable help to him. [8]

To ‘nostrify’ means to appropriate.

None of this supports your goofy unpublished paper.

Respected peer reviewed journals do not publish obvious results.

Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually published. – Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

Your lack of appreciation for clear thinking in relativity reminds me of the time I shared my discovery of nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformations with Wolfgang Rindler. It was about 15 years ago. The professor's attitude was that my discovery was obvious and uninteresting and therefore not worthy of being published, even though there are many physicists that are totally confused by the subject. My strongest recollection of Rindler's reaction is that all physics journals should only publish on important theories and that all physicists who couldn't figure out the meaning of a nonlinear version of the Lorentz transformation are insufferably stupid and that no time should be devoted to try to educate them.

The paper by V. Berzi and V. Gorini in the Journal of Mathematical Physics, Volume 10, Number 8, August 1969 admits that the question of the linearity of the transformation formulas has long been debated in the literature. That's a published admission of confusion. See footnote 6.

I admit that I was rejected by a physics journal that sometimes publishes incredibly ignorant stuff. That leads me to ask, "Why are referees for the American Journal of Physics so hopelessly confused about special relativity in 1+1 dimensions?"

There are many published papers in refereed physics journals that derive special relativity in new ways in 1+1 dimensions. Some are laughably bad.

Read the AJP paper, "Would a topology change allow Ms. Bright to travel backward in time?" Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), March 1998 (pages 179-185). What a load of crap that paper is! The whole point of the paper is how terribly confused the author is, not understanding coordinates on SxR. Note the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS on page 184 where the author thanks the referees for "critically reading" the manuscript and their "helpful comments."

The given reference proves that many learned physicists are terribly confused by special relativity in 1+1 dimensions. The above referenced tripe, published by the American Journal of Physics, while suggesting a pretense of understanding, really reeks of incompetence for freshman physics. The chief editor of the AJP needs someone to teach him the very first principles of special relativity.

Why shouldn't terribly confused and ignorant physicists be taught my easy stuff?

 

[przyk]

Why shouldn't terribly confused and ignorant physicists be taught my easy stuff?

Because they aren't as terribly confused and ignorant as you say they are? Relativity is an extremely simple theory. Contrary to what you claim in the abstract in your essay, "Ph.Ds" in physics are not confused about relativity. The fact that you think the twin paradox is still controversial really says more about you than it does about relativity or physicists.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Contrary to what you claim in the abstract in your essay, "Ph.Ds" in physics are not confused about relativity.

Ask Wolfgang Rindler or any world-famous relativist about my explicit nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations. Or ask any mathematician that knows about nonlinear representation theory if my nonlinear transformation equations are correct.

 

[przyk]

Ask Wolfgang Rindler or any world-famous relativist about my explicit nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations. Or ask any mathematician that knows about nonlinear representation theory if my nonlinear transformation equations are correct.

I've already told you: any non-linear transformation is going to rely on a privileged coordinate origin, which is inconsistent with experience. Your non-linear transformation is not a symmetry of the known laws of physics. Quoting all the perceived authority figures in the world won't change that. You're wrong, or at best not correct in any sense that's relevant to physics. Live with that and move on.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

The fact that you think the twin paradox is still controversial really says more about you than it does about relativity or physicists.

The Quintessence of Axiomatized Special Relativity Theory resolves the twin paradox thought experiment in the general case of a nonlinear time equation. The reflection on physicists today is that they generally avoid the problem.

"This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip." [9].

August 1, 2010. "False solutions of the twin paradox date back to the very beginning of the theory of relativity." E. Fischer. [10].

August 20, 1989. "The twin paradox is still, some 85 years after publication of Einstein's paper on special relativity, not generally understood." [11]

The Twin Paradox was one of the longest standing scientific controversies in twentieth century physics. [12].

any non-linear transformation is going to rely on a privileged coordinate origin, which is inconsistent with experience.

How all the spacetime clocks of the universe are synchronized has not been revealed to you. Thus, you don't have any experience about the subject to justify your dogmatism.

Your non-linear transformation is not a symmetry of the known laws of physics.

Sure it is. Time dilation is a known law of physics and the symmetry follows from my nonlinear time equation.

Quoting all the perceived authority figures in the world won't change that.

Your quote from Wikipedia on "Argument from authority" states, "Arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

I simply agree with Wolfgang Rinder on this point: Nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent Lorentz transformations are obvious and physicists that can't figure that out aren't very bright.

 

[przyk]

Your quote from Wikipedia on "Argument from authority" states, "Arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true."

Well then, as someone who holds two degrees in physics and is now starting a Ph.D., please take my word for the following:
1) The twin paradox should be easily resolvable to anyone who understands relativity at undergraduate level and in particular understands the Lorentz transformation and the use of Minkowski diagrams.
2) Your full non-linear transformation is not a symmetry of the most fundamental known laws of physics.
3) Any non-linear transformation is inevitably going to rely on the existence of a privileged point in space-time, which is not observed in nature.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

1) The twin paradox should be easily resolvable to anyone who understands relativity at undergraduate level

A report on the ineffectiveness of standard university instruction in Einstein's theory of relativity clearly proves that tradition in relativity is difficult to distinguish from gibberish and that a new paradigm for the teaching of spacetime physics is needed. [13].

2) Your full non-linear transformation is not a symmetry of the most fundamental known laws of physics.

Why is that a problem for mathematicians? I've read that non-relativistic quantum theory works better than the relativistic version. And supposedly there are significant contradictions in other fundamental physical theories, which prevent axiomatization. It's clear that physicists will just have to work harder to get their theories to agree with first principles.

3) Any non-linear transformation is inevitably going to rely on the existence of a privileged point in space-time, which is not observed in nature.

Understand the theory. Both linear and nonlinear spacetime clock synchronizations are unobservable. [14].

 

[brucep]

Your paper hasn't been published because it contributes nothing to the scientific literature. For all the reasons that przyk has pointed out. If it did you wouldn't need to spend 20 years trying to convince folks in science forums. Einstein is the author of GR regardless of your attempts to trivialize his contribution to the scientific literature. You're a buffoon.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Like przyk, you have shown absolutely no understanding of The Quintessence of Axiomatized Special Relativity Theory.

 

[przyk]

A report on the ineffectiveness of standard university instruction in Einstein's theory of relativity clearly proves that tradition in relativity is difficult to distinguish from gibberish and that a new paradigm for the teaching of spacetime physics is needed. [13].

So what's your point? Yes, introductory texts on relativity aren't very clear. I'm sure most physicists would agree with most of the sentiment described here, and if you can find a copy, I personally agree with J. Bell's "How To Teach Special Relativity". But that's why I said "at university level" - ie. the point where students start to think in terms of Lorentz transformations and Minkowski geometry. As far as I know, discussions of relativity at that level don't bother with the twin paradox simply because it's obvious by that time to students that there's no real paradox. Simply trying to formulate the twin paradox in that language or attempting to illustrate it on a Minkowski diagram will reveal the resolution.

Why is that a problem for mathematicians?

Why do you keep bringing up mathematicians? It's a problem for physics. In physics, unlike in mathematics, we have this black box called "reality" whose behaviour we're trying to imitate in our theories. If you want to try to publish your essay in a mathematical journal, then go ahead and annoy the mathematical community with it. But please quit annoying physicists with it.

I've read that non-relativist quantum theory works better than the relativistic version.

It doesn't. It's simpler, but it only works as a low energy approximation to relativistic quantum theories..

And supposedly there are significant contradictions in other fundamental physical theories, which prevent axiomatization.

So? Yes, you could probably argue that quantum theory isn't convincingly axiomatised. Or that Feynman path integrals still lack a mathematically rigorous definition. Or that the existence of gravitational singularities in general relativity is a problem. Yes, there are cases in theoretical physics where mathematical consistency is an issue, and in general the physicists working in the relevant fields will be well aware of them. They're not ignorant. But special relativity is mathematically trivial and proving its internal consistency amounts to a few exercises in group theory.

Understand the theory. Both linear and nonlinear spacetime clock synchronizations are unobservable. [14].

I've told you that a non-linear transformation will require a privileged coordinate origin, which contradicts the translational symmetry we observe in nature. What does clock synchronisation have to do with this? We build clocks. We define what it means for two clocks to be synchronised. Einstein himself gave the matter attention as the first section of his 1905 paper. It's not taken for granted.

 

[przyk]

Like przyk, you have shown absolutely no understanding of The Quintessence of Axiomatized Special Relativity Theory.

Please, look for the common denominator here.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

I've told you that a non-linear transformation will require a privileged coordinate origin, which contradicts the translational symmetry we observe in nature.

You also told me to not respect self-inflated would-be authority figures and I don't.

Please, look for the common denominator here.

That David Hilbert was right? "Physics is much too hard for physicists."?

 

[przyk]

You also told me to not respect self-inflated would-be authority figures and I don't.

That David Hilbert was right? "Physics is much too hard for physicists."?

Disingenuous and evasive. I've run out of patience with you.

 

[Tach]

You only have two choices:

The definition of an inertial frame of reference should be modernized, corrected and improved.

Inertial frames of reference must be dependent on a linear coordinate system.

The third option: your theory is absolutely worthless. You did not do your homework to verify that Maxwell's equations are covariant wrt your transforms (like Einstein did with the Lorentz transforms). The trouble is that your transforms do not produce covariant forms for Maxwell's equations. These two defects make your theory worthless.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I reject the claims made by backward thinking physicists that mathematicians must not define inertial frames of reference in a coordinate-free way.

(28) doesn't follow from (18)-(20) as it contradicts the supposition g is odd if $$\epsilon \neq 0$$.

You consider solving different sets of expressions independently, they should all be satisfied simultaneously.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

(28) doesn't follow from (18)-(20) as it contradicts the supposition g is odd if $$\epsilon \neq 0$$.

The solution to the problem requires solving equations (18)-(20) but I confess--I don't know how to do that. So I assumed that $$g$$ is odd and found a solution. Then I realized that $$\epsilon + g$$ is also a solution.

If you can find a more general solution, then I will rewrite my paper and add a note of acknowledgement that you were the one that solved equations (18)-(20) with great ingenuity and utmost generality. Or if you can prove that my solution is already the most general one, then I will acknowledge that you have devised a mathematical proof of uniqueness.

 

[Tach]

If you can find a more general solution, then I will rewrite my paper and add a note of acknowledgement that you were the one that solved equations

That would be a total waste of time since your transforms fail the covariance condition.

 

[Eugene Shubert]

Typical crank excuse 'all physicists are misinformed, and stupid'

I certainly don't believe that all physicists are misinformed, and stupid. Here are two clear-thinking, thoughtful, unbiased physicists that understand nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations:

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510260
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pamm.200310502/abstract

 

[rpenner]

Yet physically, the Edwards coordinates in physics:0510260 amount to nothing more than a nonlinear realization of the Lorentz group, which is to say that unless the physics of the universe respects the Edwards-preferred-frame, the Edwards coordinates are bad coordinates. Since Nature doesn't care about a relabeling of t (c.f. sundials which define "noon" as something different than an inertial frame would describe as simultaneous) one concludes that in general Edwards coordinate are a bad choice to use to do physics except when the preferred frame is the laboratory frame for in this instance Edwards = Lorentz.

 

[Tach]

I certainly don't believe that all physicists are misinformed, and stupid. Here are two clear-thinking, thoughtful, unbiased physicists that understand nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations:

What you want is the epitome of bonehead. A strength of GR: most all the local physics can be done using SR. If you need non-linear then just use the general theory. The paper you linked hasn't been cited in the five years since it was written. What does that mean? Maybe physicists don't find it useful.

Shubee's theory fails one of the basic tests: Maxwell's equations aren't covariant in his formalism.