DOCSLIB.ORG

RELATIVITY’ - Part II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RELATIVITY’ - Part II THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF ‘RELATIVITY’ - Part II Experiment to Verify that Light Moves having the Gravitational Field as the Local Reference and Discussion of Experimental Data. Viraj P.L. Fernando, Independent Researcher on Evolution and Philosophy of Physics 193, Kaldemulla Road, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. [email protected] Abstract: The part I of this paper presented a novel Kinetic Theory of Relativity based upon action of energy by way of a thermodynamic analogy. The present part of the paper will discuss important experimental data relevant to this Kinetic Theory. The experiment will explain the result of Michelson’s experiment by way of demonstrating the reason why the velocity of light remains the same with respect to Earth’s orbital motion in all directions is because light moves having the Sun’s gravitational field as the local reference frame and not the frame of Earth’ orbital motion. In the course of explaining the reasons for the result of Michelson’s experiment, we also find an explanation for the aberration of starlight. It will be shown that all presently known experiments are consistent with the theory presented in the original paper (Part I). Since the same principle of redundancy a fraction energy applies to all cases equally, the case of delay of disintegration of a fast moving muon, which is supposed to fall into the domain of the special theory, and the case of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which is supposed to fall into the domain of the general theory are solved identically. In each case the required result is obtained by the application of the methodology of ‘synthesis of antithetical equations’. Hence the dichotomy between special theory relativity and general theory of relativity gets transcended. Einstein’s and Lorentz’ Explanations of the Result of Michelson’s Experiment. Lorentz contended that one arm of the apparatus of Michelson’s experiment shortens in length. He also postulated that not only the distance but the time also adjusts reciprocally in a compensatory manner, so that the effect of the velocity of the reference frame to slow down the velocity of light gets hidden, and therefore the velocity of light appears to remain the same in all directions (6, p. 172 ). Einstein considered both arms equally long in every inertial system and attributed the contraction factor to relativity of simultaneity (7, p.195). But the fact is that neither Lorentz nor Einstein has explained the result of Michelson’s experiment satisfactorily, as it would become clear from the following statements of Reichenbach. "… we can speak of an explanation (of ….Michelson’s experiment ) by Einstein’s theory as little as we can speak of an explanation by Lorentz’s theory or by classical theory. ….. It would be mistaken to argue that Einstein’s theory gives an explanation of Michelson’s experiment, since it does not do so. (The result of) Michelson’s experiment is simply taken over as an axiom" (7, pp. 201-2). It must be noted that Reichenbach was no ordinary commentator on special relativity. He was a foremost authority on the subject by virtue of the fact that he has been the prime contributor in the development of special relativity to its ‘third and final stage’ if one were to analyse the evolution of the theory and categorise it into stages of development. First stage has been developed by Einstein at the level of On Electrodynamics of moving bodies. Second stage has been developed with Minkowski’s contribution of ‘World Geometry’. And third stage has been developed beginning with the contribution by Reichenbach who has introduced ‘sets of simultaneous events’ in place of Einstein’s ‘one and only one event simultaneous with a given event’ (8, p.135 ). Reichenbach also states: "In order to explain the (Michelson’s) experiment, Lorentz made the assumption that one arm of the apparatus is contracted by the amount (1-v2/c 2)1/2 , when it moves relative to ether. Einstein on the other hand, considered both arms equally long in every inertial system and calculated the contraction factor (1-v2/c 2)1/2 , in an entirely different manner, as a consequence of relativity of simultaneity. The opinion has been expressed that the contraction of one arm of the apparatus is an ‘ad hoc hypothesis’ while Einstein’s hypothesis is a natural explanation that is a consequence of the relativity of simultaneity. Both explanations are wrong . The relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with the contraction in Michelson’s experiment, and Einstein’s theory explains the experiment as little as does that of Lorentz" (7, pp.195-6). Our contention is different from that of Einstein, in regard to why velocity of light remains the same in all directions with respect to the velocity of orbit of the Earth. Our contention is that, it is as a consequence of gravitational redshift occurring due to light moving with respect to the gravitational energy of Sun’s field of gravity at the position of Earth’s orbit, as the background energy. This needs further explanation. We have shown previously that transmission of energy takes place by the action of energy within a local system between upper and lower magnitude limits of its intensive property. And for it to form the local system, it acquires the magnitude of the intensive component of background energy as the magnitude of its lower limit. Gravitational energy is equal to gravitational potential (intensive property) times mass (extensive property) of the moving object. So when we say here that ‘light moves against the background of the gravitational energy’, what we mean is that for this transmission, the energy of the photon forms a local system by adapting the intensive component of the gravitational energy (i.e., gravitational potential) as the lower limit of its intensive component. It will be noted that the velocity of orbit of the Earth v at any given position R from the Sun is determined by the gravitational potential GM/R of the Sun’s field at that position such that v = (GM/R) 1/2 . Simply put, the photon moves against the background of the gravitational field energy, and screens off the energy of Earth’s orbital motion by means of aberration (see below). Unlike the velocity of Earth’s orbital motion, which is a vector, the gravitational potential is a scalar and its effects do not vary according to the direction considered. Therefore, the result of Michelson’s experiment is simply a case of the gravitational potential at the position of Earth’s orbit being adapted by light as the lower limit of its intensive component and consequently this affecting the energy of the photon irrespective of the direction of its motion. An Experiment to verify that Light Moves having the Gravitational Field as the Local Reference Frame in lieu of having Earth’s Orbital Frame for it. The above contention can be verified in the following manner. Velocity of Earth’s orbital motion is the same irrespective of whether a point on the surface of the Earth is nearest to the Sun (noon) or farthest away from it (midnight). However, the gravitational potential of the Sun’s field of where the point is located differs between noon and midnight. A Pound and Rebka type of an experiment is proposed to be performed to measure redshifts at a given elevation. (Whether it is noon or midnight the redshift due to Earth’s gravitational field at a given elevation is the same and this can be eliminated). But if there is a redshift that varies between noon and midnight it will be found that it corresponds to the variation of the gravitational potential of the Sun’s field for the point between noon and midnight. And this redshift will be uniform for light incident from all directions at a given time proving that the Sun’s gravitational field is the local reference frame of the motion of light. The experiment will also show that there is another redshift, which does not change between noon and midnight, and that has the mean value of the varying redshift due to the Sun’s gravitational field. This redshift will be due to Earth’s orbital motion, and the value of the redshift will vary depending on the direction of incidence of light with respect to the direction of orbit of the Earth. This result will confirm that in the motion of light, it excludes the energy of Earth’s orbital motion being considered as the local reference frame, and in preference it takes the Sun’s gravitational field energy for this. And we provide the explanation of how this exclusion is done by way of explaining Bradley aberration of starlight below. Einstein’s theory accounts for stellar aberration in the following way. Viewed from an inertial frame, light will traverse a straight path from the star to a telescope. But Earth’s motion through that inertial frame will move the telescope a small amount during the time it takes the light to pass through the telescope, causing an apparent angular shift in the star’s position. This effect has an yearly periodicity since it is due to Earth’s motion through the inertial frame (9, p.6). This explanation that light deviates upon entering the barrel of the telescope is not quite convincing. It tries to convey the idea that if a naked eye observation were to be done, then this aberrational effect will not be there. This can be checked in the following way. A taut thin wire is attached to a frame mounted on an adjustable stand and the star is observed with the naked eye along the wire and the inclination noted.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Explain Inertial and Noninertial Frame of Reference
    Explain Inertial And Noninertial Frame Of Reference Nathanial crows unsmilingly. Grooved Sibyl harlequin, his meadow-brown add-on deletes mutely. Nacred or deputy, Sterne never soot any degeneration! In inertial frames of the air, hastening their fundamental forces on two forces must be frame and share information section i am throwing the car, there is not a severe bottleneck in What city the greatest value in flesh-seconds for this deviation. The definition of key facet having a small, polished surface have a force gem about a pretend or aspect of something. Fictitious Forces and Non-inertial Frames The Coriolis Force. Indeed, for death two particles moving anyhow, a coordinate system may be found among which saturated their trajectories are rectilinear. Inertial reference frame of inertial frames of angular momentum and explain why? This is illustrated below. Use tow of reference in as sentence Sentences YourDictionary. What working the difference between inertial frame and non inertial fr. Frames of Reference Isaac Physics. In forward though some time and explain inertial and noninertial of frame to prove your measurement problem you. This circumstance undermines a defining characteristic of inertial frames: that with respect to shame given inertial frame, the other inertial frame home in uniform rectilinear motion. The redirect does not rub at any valid page. That according to whether the thaw is inertial or non-inertial In the. This follows from what Einstein formulated as his equivalence principlewhich, in an, is inspired by the consequences of fire fall. Frame of reference synonyms Best 16 synonyms for was of. How read you govern a bleed of reference? Name we will balance in noninertial frame at its axis from another hamiltonian with each printed as explained at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Frame of Reference Definition
    Frame Of Reference Definition Proximal Sly entrench rompingly or overgorge wrathfully when Dennis is emitting. Abstractive Cy fifes stagesstiff. Palish so agonizedly. Chadd scarifies slier while Zachery always comprising his shoplifters equips irrecusably, he We use what frame of reference definition of his own experiences no knowledge they are the performance measurement of Frame of reference n a wire that uses coordinates to terminate position n a goddess of assumptions and standards that sanction behavior please give it meaning. C74 Common trigger of Reference Information Entity Modules. What Is whisper of Reference in Marketing Small Business. What form a envelope of reference English? These happen all examples that industry a 1-dimensional coordinate system We choose one explain the directions as the positive direction instead of reference A heard of. What is part word to frame of reference WordHippo. Frame of reference definition concept to frame of reference consists of a coordinate system and the wood of physical reference points that uniquely determine. User Manual Frames of reference. Begin by reviewing the definition of the competitive frame of reference The competitive frame of reference is how fancy world of describing the. There will construct the same customers along a frame of coordinate has been widely used in which other words. We want or brand marketing frameworks govern the reference of reference the practitioner must hang out how this. Frame Of Reference Merriam-Webster. Use duration of reference in two sentence Sentences YourDictionary. What's faith the Training FOR rift of Reference IO At Work. How we Establish a Brand's Competitive Frame of Reference.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2012.15331V1 [Gr-Qc] 30 Dec 2020 Correlations Due to Gravity-Induced Spin Precession [8]
    Quantum nonlocality in extended theories of gravity 1 2;3 3;4 Victor A. S. V. Bittencourt∗ , Massimo Blasoney , Fabrizio Illuminatiz , Gaetano 2;3 2;3 3;4 Lambiasex , Giuseppe Gaetano Luciano{ , and Luciano Petruzziello∗∗ 1Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light, Staudtstraße 2, PLZ 91058, Erlangen, Germany. 2Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`adegli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132 I-84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy. 3INFN, Sezione di Napoli, Gruppo collegato di Salerno, Italy. 4Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Universit`adegli Studi di Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132 I-84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy. (Dated: January 1, 2021) We investigate how pure-state Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations in the internal degrees of freedom of massive particles are affected by a curved spacetime background described by extended theories of gravity. We consider models for which the corrections to the Einstein-Hilbert action are quadratic in the curvature invariants and we focus on the weak-field limit. We quantify nonlocal quantum correlations by means of the violation of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality, and show how a curved background suppresses the violation by a leading term due to general relativity and a further contribution due to the corrections to Einstein gravity. Our results can be generalized to massless particles such as photon pairs and can thus be suitably exploited to devise precise experimental tests of extended models of gravity. I. INTRODUCTION The gedanken experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) [1] has revealed one of the most striking features of quantum mechanics (QM): the capability of sharing nonlocal correlations.
    [Show full text]
  • RELATIVISTIC GRAVITY and the ORIGIN of INERTIA and INERTIAL MASS K Tsarouchas
    RELATIVISTIC GRAVITY AND THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA AND INERTIAL MASS K Tsarouchas To cite this version: K Tsarouchas. RELATIVISTIC GRAVITY AND THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA AND INERTIAL MASS. 2021. hal-01474982v5 HAL Id: hal-01474982 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01474982v5 Preprint submitted on 3 Feb 2021 (v5), last revised 11 Jul 2021 (v6) HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License Relativistic Gravity and the Origin of Inertia and Inertial Mass K. I. Tsarouchas School of Mechanical Engineering National Technical University of Athens, Greece E-mail-1: [email protected] - E-mail-2: [email protected] Abstract If equilibrium is to be a frame-independent condition, it is necessary the gravitational force to have precisely the same transformation law as that of the Lorentz-force. Therefore, gravity should be described by a gravitomagnetic theory with equations which have the same mathematical form as those of the electromagnetic theory, with the gravitational mass as a Lorentz invariant. Using this gravitomagnetic theory, in order to ensure the relativity of all kinds of translatory motion, we accept the principle of covariance and the equivalence principle and thus we prove that, 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Field Theory
    3 1 Field Theory Introduction 1 Concept of a tensor In theoretical physics all physical phenomena are described with the aid of various mathematical models in which the physical objects are associated with the mathemat- ical ones. The mathematical objects describe the physical ones in space, specifying them in the different reference frames. Here, each pointinspaceisassociatedwitha set of coordinates, the number of them depending on the dimensionality of the space. The coordinates are usually denoted as xi where the index i takes all possible values in accordance with the enumeration of the reference frame axes and is called free index. A set of coordinates pertaining to one point is referred to as radius-vector and is usually, in the three-dimensional case in particular, denoted with r. The properties of physical objects must not depend on the choice of reference frame and this determines the properties of mathematical objects corresponding to the phys- ical ones. For example, the physical laws of conservation must be described with the aid of mathematical objects having the same form in various reference frames. These are called invariants. Various reference frames can be related with the aid of a cer- tain coordinate transformation representing, from the formal mathematical viewpoint, a replacement written usually as xi(r)=x′i(r′). The prime is commonly ascribed to the radius-vector in the reference frame transformed with respect to the initial frame. Since for describing physical objects it is also necessary to apply the inverse transformations, the continuous and non-degenerate transformations alone should be used for replacing the coordinates for which J = det(xi ∕x′k) ≠ 0, J being the determinant of the Jacobi matrix,i.e.Jacobian of the given transformation.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Time and Physical Space in General Relativity Richard J
    Physical time and physical space in general relativity Richard J. Cook Department of Physics, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80840 ͑Received 13 February 2003; accepted 18 July 2003͒ This paper comments on the physical meaning of the line element in general relativity. We emphasize that, generally speaking, physical spatial and temporal coordinates ͑those with direct metrical significance͒ exist only in the immediate neighborhood of a given observer, and that the physical coordinates in different reference frames are related by Lorentz transformations ͑as in special relativity͒ even though those frames are accelerating or exist in strong gravitational fields. ͓DOI: 10.1119/1.1607338͔ ‘‘Now it came to me:...the independence of the this case, the distance between FOs changes with time even gravitational acceleration from the nature of the though each FO is ‘‘at rest’’ (r,␪,␾ϭconstant) in these co- falling substance, may be expressed as follows: ordinates. In a gravitational field (of small spatial exten- sion) things behave as they do in space free of III. PHYSICAL SPACE gravitation,... This happened in 1908. Why were another seven years required for the construction What is the distance dᐉ between neighboring FOs sepa- of the general theory of relativity? The main rea- rated by coordinate displacement dxi when the line element son lies in the fact that it is not so easy to free has the general form oneself from the idea that coordinates must have 2 ␣ ␤ an immediate metrical meaning.’’ 1 Albert Ein- ds ϭg␣␤ dx dx ? ͑1͒ stein Einstein’s answer is simple.3 Let a light ͑or radar͒ pulse be transmitted from the first FO ͑observer A) to the second FO I.
    [Show full text]
  • Spin in an Arbitrary Gravitational Field
    Spin in an arbitrary gravitational field Yuri N. Obukhov∗ Theoretical Physics Laboratory, Nuclear Safety Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, B. Tulskaya 52, 115191 Moscow, Russia Alexander J. Silenko† Research Institute for Nuclear Problems, Belarusian State University, Minsk 220030, Belarus, Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141980, Russia Oleg V. Teryaev‡ Bogoliubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141980, Russia Abstract We study the quantum mechanics of a Dirac fermion on a curved spacetime manifold. The metric of the spacetime is completely arbitrary, allowing for the discussion of all possible inertial and gravitational field configurations. In this framework, we find the Hermitian Dirac Hamiltonian for an arbitrary classical external field (including the gravitational and electromagnetic ones). In order to discuss the physical content of the quantum-mechanical model, we further apply the Foldy- Wouthuysen transformation, and derive the quantum equations of motion for the spin and position arXiv:1308.4552v1 [gr-qc] 21 Aug 2013 operators. We analyse the semiclassical limit of these equations and compare the results with the dynamics of a classical particle with spin in the framework of the standard Mathisson-Papapetrou theory and in the classical canonical theory. The comparison of the quantum mechanical and classical equations of motion of a spinning particle in an arbitrary gravitational field shows their complete agreement. PACS numbers: 04.20.Cv; 04.62.+v; 03.65.Sq ∗ [email protected] † [email protected] ‡ [email protected] 1 I. INTRODUCTION Immediately after the notion of spin was introduced in physics and after the relativistic Dirac theory was formulated, the study of spin dynamics in a curved spacetime (i.e., in the gravitational field) was initiated.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation from Charged Particles Due to Explicit Symmetry Breaking in A
    Radiation from charged particles due to explicit symmetry breaking in a gravitational field Fabrizio Tamburini,1,2 Mariafelicia De Laurentis,3,4,5,6 and Ignazio Licata7,8,9 1ZKM – Zentrum f¨ur Kunst und Medientechnologie, Lorentzstr. 19, D-76135, Karlsruhe, Germany. 2MSC – bw, Stuttgart, Nobelstr. 19, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany. 3Institute for Theoretical Physics, Goethe University, Max-von-Laue-Str. 1, 60438 Frankfurt, Germany. 4Tomsk State Pedagogical University, ul. Kievskaya, 60, 634061 Tomsk, Russia. 5Lab.Theor.Cosmology,Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics (TUSUR), 634050 Tomsk, Russia 6INFN Sezione di Napoli, Compl. Univ. di Monte S. Angelo, Edificio G, Via Cinthia, I-80126, Napoli, Italy. 7Institute for Scientific Methodology (ISEM) Palermo Italy. 8School of Advanced International Studies on Theoretical and Nonlinear Methodologies of Physics, Bari, I-70124, Italy. 9International Institute for Applicable Mathematics and Information Sciences (IIAMIS), B.M. Birla Science Centre, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 463, India The paradox of a free falling radiating charged particle in a gravitational field, is a well-known fascinating conceptual challenge that involves classical electrodynamics and general relativity. We discuss this paradox considering the emission of radiation as a consequence of an explicit space/time symmetry breaking involving the electric field within the trajectory of the particle seen from an external observer. This occurs in certain particular cases when the relative motion of the charged particle does not follow a geodesic of the motion dictated by the explicit Lagrangian formulation of the problem and thus from the metric of spacetime. The problem is equivalent to the breaking of symmetry within the spatial configuration of a radiating system like an antenna: when the current is not conserved at a certain instant of time within a closed region then emission of radiation occurs [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes PX421: Relativity and Electrodynamics
    Lecture Notes PX421: Relativity and Electrodynamics Y.A. Ramachers, University of Warwick Draft date April 11, 2014 Contents Contents i 1 Full Special Relativity 3 1.1 Homogeneityandisotropyofspace . 3 1.2 Introducingthetimeparameter . 5 1.2.1 Excursion: ’What is a group and why is it interesting here?.. 6 1.3 ThewaybeyondGalileanrelativity . 8 1.4 Derivation of the Lorentz transformation . .... 9 1.4.1 Linearity and absence of change of direction . .. 9 1.4.2 Invarianceundertimereflection . 10 1.4.3 Identityassumption. 11 1.4.4 Finish deriving the one-dimensional Lorentz transformations . 12 1.4.5 Whataboutothervelocitiesthanc?. 13 1.4.6 Three-dimensional Lorentz transformations . .... 13 1.4.7 First glimpse at a compact way of writing Lorentz transfor- mations .............................. 15 1.4.8 Exercises.............................. 16 1.5 ExcursionTensorAnalysis . 17 1.5.1 Introduction............................ 17 1.5.2 Workingwithtensors. 20 1.5.3 Transformations. 30 1.5.4 BacktoLorentztransformations. 33 i ii CONTENTS 1.5.5 Exercises.............................. 36 2 Applications: Mechanics 39 2.1 ProperTime................................ 40 2.2 Four-velocity ............................... 41 2.2.1 Exercises.............................. 42 2.3 Relativistickinematicsessentials. ..... 43 2.3.1 Exercises.............................. 45 2.4 Energy-mass equivalence derivation, Einstein 1906 . ........ 46 2.5 Waves ................................... 48 2.5.1 Lightraysandtakingphotos. 50 2.5.2 Exercises.............................. 52 2.6 Linear acceleration in special relativity . ...... 53 2.6.1 Kinematicsincoordinatelanguage . 56 2.6.2 Rindlercoordinates . 58 2.6.3 Exercises.............................. 62 3 Applications: Electromagnetism 63 3.1 Reminderondifferentialoperators. .. 64 3.2 BacktotheMaxwellequations . 65 3.3 Frompotentialstofields . 67 3.3.1 Exercises.............................. 69 3.4 ParticleDynamics............................. 70 3.4.1 Exercises.............................. 71 3.5 Conservationlawsforfields .
    [Show full text]
  • Reference Frames and Equations of Motion in the First Ppn Approximation of Scalar-Tensor Theories of Gravity
    REFERENCE FRAMES AND EQUATIONS OF MOTION IN THE FIRST PPN APPROXIMATION OF SCALAR-TENSOR THEORIES OF GRAVITY A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia In Partial Ful¯llment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by IGOR VLASOV Dr. Sergei Kopeikin, Dissertation Supervisor MAY 2006 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am very grateful to my advisor Dr. Sergei Kopeikin for his endless energy, patience and positive attitude. Without his continuous encouragement and consultations this work would have never been completed. I am thankful to the faculty and sta® of the Department of Physics and Astronomy for a very worm and friendly atmosphere. I am also indebted to my family and friends whose love, care and support are always with me. ii Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii Chapter 1 Notations 1 2 Introduction 13 2.1 General Outline of the Dissertation . 13 2.2 Motivations and Historical Background . 14 3 Statement of the Problem 21 3.1 Field Equations in the Scalar-Tensor Theory of Gravity . 21 3.2 The Tensor of Energy-Momentum . 23 3.3 Basic Principles of the Post-Newtonian Approximations . 25 3.4 The Gauge Conditions and the Residual Gauge Freedom . 29 3.5 The Reduced Field Equations . 30 4 Global PPN Coordinate System 33 4.1 Dynamic and Kinematic Properties of the Global Coordinates . 33 4.2 The Metric Tensor and the Scalar Field in the Global Coordinates . 38 5 Multipolar Decomposition of the Metric Tensor and the Scalar Field in the Global Coordinates 41 5.1 General Description of Multipole Moments .
    [Show full text]
  • On Reference Frames and the Definition of Space in a General Spacetime
    On reference frames and the definition of space ina general spacetime Mayeul Arminjon To cite this version: Mayeul Arminjon. On reference frames and the definition of space in a general spacetime. Theoretical Physics and its new Applications, Timur F. Kamalov, Jun 2013, Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia. pp. 71-76. hal-00910908 HAL Id: hal-00910908 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00910908 Submitted on 28 Nov 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. On reference frames and the definition of space in a general spacetime Mayeul Arminjon Laboratory “Soils, Solids, Structures, Risks”, 3SR (CNRS and Universit´es de Grenoble: UJF, Grenoble-INP), BP 53, F-38041 Grenoble cedex 9, France. Abstract First, we review local concepts defined previously. A (local) reference frame F can be defined as an equivalence class of admissible spacetime charts (co- ordinate systems) having a common domain U and exchanging by a spatial coordinate change. The associated (local) physical space is made of the world lines having constant space coordinates in any chart of the class. Second, we introduce new, global concepts. The data of a non-vanishing global vector field v defines a global “reference fluid”.
    [Show full text]
  • Space, Time and Relativity
    GENERAL I ARTICLE Space, Time and Relativity S Chaturvedi, R Simon and N Mukunda 1. Introduction Special Relativity is now a hundred years old, and Gen­ eral Relativity is just ten years younger. Even the gen­ eral literate public probably knows that these two the­ ories of physics - STR and GTR - profoundly altered previous conceptions and understanding of space and time in physics. We will try to describe these changes ~ginning with earlier ideas which had served physics fer almost 300 years, and seeing how they had to be (left) S Chaturvedi is Professor at the School of modified in the light of accumulating experience. Physics, University of 2. Newtonian Space and Time, Inertial Frames Hyderabad since 1993. His current research interests In his great work titled the 'Principia' published in 1685, are mathematical physics, geometric phases, Newton began by expressing in clear terms the natures coherent states, Wigner of space and time as he understood them. The impor­ distribution, and quantum tance of his enunciation of their properties cannot be entanglement. overestimated, because they provided something tangi­ (right) R Simon is with ble which could be used as a basis for further work, and the Institute of Math­ equally importantly which could be examined and crit­ ematical Sciences, icised in a fruitful manner. Quoting from Einstein: Chennai. His research interests are in quantum "... what we have gained up till now would have been information science and impossible without Newton's clear system" quantum optics. Newton was carrying forward what Galileo had begun. (center) N Mukunda is at the Centre for High Let us start by reminding you of the implicit and explicit Energy Physics, liSe, assumptions underlying Galilean- Newtonian physics, al­ Bangalore.
    [Show full text]