scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers on "Special relativity (alternative formulations) published in 1986"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors study the quantum mechanics of N electrons and M nuclei interacting by Coulomb forces and modify the usual kinetic energy to take into account an effect from special relativity.
Abstract: In this article, we study the quantum mechanics of N electrons and M nuclei interacting by Coulomb forces. Motivated by an important idea of Chandrasekhar and following Herbst [H], we modify the usual kinetic energy -? to take into account an effect from special relativity. As a result, the system can implode for unfavorable values of the nuclear charge Z and the fine structure constant a. This is analogous to the gravitational collapse of a heavy star. Our goal here is to find those values of a and Z for which the system is stable.

149 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The two major proposed first-order test theories for special relativity are shown to be equivalent and the results of many experimental tests of this unified test theory are given.
Abstract: The two major proposed first-order test theories for special relativity are shown to be equivalent. The results of many experimental tests of special relativity are given in terms of the free parameters of this unified test theory.

53 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the possible alternative models in which actual superluminal motions take place and conclude that some of them appear to be physically acceptable and are statistically favoured with respect to the orthodox ones.
Abstract: The orthodox models devised to explain the apparent «superluminal expansions» observed in astrophysics—and here briefly summarized and discussed together with the experimental data—do not seem to be too much successful, especially when confronted with the most recent observations, suggesting complicated expansion patterns, even with possible accelerations At this point it may be, therefore, of some interest to explore the possible alternative models in which actual Superluminal motions take place To prepare the ground, we start from a variational principle, introduce the elements of a tachyon mechanics within special relativity, and argue about the expected behaviour of tachyonic objects when interacting (gravitationally, for instance) among themselves or with ordinary matter We then review and develop the simplest «Superluminal models», paying particular attention to theobservations which they would give rise to We conclude that some of them appear to be physically acceptable and are statistically favoured with respect to the orthodox ones

28 citations






Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the Lorentz force on a charged particle and its energy conservation condition are obtained by making Newton's second law for the particle in an electrostatic field consistent with special relativity.
Abstract: Maxwell’s equations are obtained by generalizing the laws of electrostatics, which follow from Coulomb’s law and the principle of superposition, so that they are consistent with special relativity. In addition, it is necessary to assume that electric charge is a conserved scalar. The Lorentz force on a charged particle and its energy conservation condition are obtained by making Newton’s second law for the particle in an electrostatic field consistent with special relativity. Magnetic monopoles can be introduced into Maxwell’s theory in a way consistent with special relativity.

19 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
01 Mar 1986-Isis
TL;DR: This paper used the Vossische Zeitung and Einstein's correspondence and documents to give an account of German public reaction to the General Theory of Relativity and found that the German reaction differed significantly from the Anglo-American one.
Abstract: Recent articles have used the pages of the Times (London) and the New York Times in the period 1919-1920 to document the British and American public reaction to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.' Both newspapers couched their reports in terms of a fight-in Britain between Newton and Einstein, in America between the common folk and the scientists-and both indicated that the theory was incomprehensible. They thus helped to create two persistent myths. The present article uses contemporary sources-the leading newspapers (particularly the Vossische Zeitung) and Einstein's correspondence and documents-to give an account of German public reaction at the time. We shall see that the German reaction-both for better and for worse-differed significantly from the Anglo-American one.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The revised Robertson's test theory of special relativity (SR) has been constructed upon a family of sets of passive coordinate transformations in flat space-time [J. G. Vargas and D. G Torr, 1986] as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The revised Robertson's test theory of special relativity (SR) has been constructed upon a family of sets of passive coordinate transformations in flat space-time [J. G. Vargas and D. G. Torr,Found. Phys., 16, 1089 (1986)]. In the same paper, it has also been shown that the boosts depend in general on the velocities of the two frames involved and not only on their relative velocity. The only exception to this is SR, if one has previously used an appropriate constraint to remove the other relativities—like Galilean relativity—from the family.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a Stokes-Planck-like ether theory was proposed to explain the deviations of starlight when refracting through a prism and then through air, for different stars.
Abstract: Classical ether theories and special relativity predict different results for the experiment of Arago. This consists in observing deviations of starlight, when refracting through a prism and then through air. Apparently, Arago's experiment indicates a nonnull result since he observed, for different stars, different deviation differences. If these differences are due to experimental errors, only special relativity is confirmed; if they represent a real effect, its magnitude is such that it can be predicted only by a Stokes-Planck-like ether theory, while it rules out the other ether theories and special relativity.




Book
01 Jan 1986
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the following classes of classical and special properties of physics: classical mechanics. Special Relativity. Quantum Mechanics. Optics. Thermal Physics. Electricity and Magnetism.
Abstract: Classical Mechanics. Special Relativity. Electricity and Magnetism. Optics. Quantum Mechanics. Thermal Physics.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, it was shown that there is no incompatibility between special relativity and spacelike causal processes, and this conclusion might have some bearing on problems in the interpretation of quantum mechanics such as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen problem.
Abstract: In Mundy [a] I offered an axiomatic analysis of the physical content of the kinematics of special relativity which suggests that, contrary to common belief, there is no incompatibility between special relativity and spacelike (faster-than-light) causation. An anonymous referee pointed out that this conclusion might have some bearing on problems in the interpretation of quantum mechanics such as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen problem, since one line of solution to these problems involves the postulation of spacelike causal processes. The present note will develop this idea.




Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1986
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe recent developments in the bimetric general relativity theory and discuss the space-time of the theory, in particular the relation between the theory and the theory itself.
Abstract: Several years ago, at the Sixth Course of the International School of Cosmology and Gravitation, I presented a report1 on the bimetric general relativity theory. This time I would like to describe recent developments in this theory and to discuss, in particular, the space-time of the theory.


Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1986
TL;DR: Zahar's (1978) rejoinder to Essay 5 is based on historical and scientific points that are substantively incorrect and as mentioned in this paper addresses this postscript to these points, which also affords me the opportunity to enlarge on certain aspects of the reception of special relativity that are at times misunderstood.
Abstract: Zahar’s (1978) rejoinder to Essay 5 is based on historical and scientific points that are substantively incorrect I address this Postscript to these points, which also affords me the opportunity to enlarge on certain aspects of the reception of special relativity that are at times misunderstood

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1986
TL;DR: The tensor field equation as discussed by the authors is a simplified version of the field equation, which was introduced by one of my professors in first-year university, who assured us that mathematics was really very simple and that all equations are, after all, nothing more than A = B. I was not sure it was reassuring to most of the students, but it will at least help us now since it applies to Einstein's equation.
Abstract: Just as Einstein became dissatisfied with special relativity shortly after 1905, realizing it had to be generalized to all types of motion, so too did he become dissatisfied with general relativity. There were several problems, all of which involved his field equation. Let us begin, then, by considering this equation. I do not want to scare you by writing it out in detail, so I will consider a simplified version that was stressed by one of my professors in first-year university. Looking down at the anxious faces before him, mine included, on the first day of lectures, he assured us that mathematics was really very simple. “All equations are, after all, nothing more than A = B,” he said. I’m not sure it was reassuring to most of the students, but it will at least help us now since it applies to Einstein’s equation, although A and B are a little, or maybe I should say a lot, more complicated than most equations. They are both the mathematical quantities we talked about earlier called tensors.


Journal ArticleDOI
01 Mar 1986-Nature