Excuse me, but I was tired. FORGET THE STARBLADE RIVEN DARKSQUALL
THING. It's OVER.

In article <1145860777.132538.164250@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

In article <DGZ2g.8700$Qz.3239@fed1read11>, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

<

In article <1145829531.143172.50260@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
Starbles@Earthlink.net writes:

In article <1145824910.841293.128380@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Starbles@Earthlink.net writes:

Apparantly I made a mistake in judgement. I equated a lack of ability
of SR to deal with CERTAIN accelerations to assume that SR cannot deal
with ANY accelerations. However, my point remains valid. SR cannot deal
with ALL forms of acceleration, specifically ones that form energy,
such as rotating motion.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rigid_disk.html

The wording you're after is "SR can deal with accelerations locally,
but not globally".

Thanks.

So, basically, if I accelerate from Earth to go to a distant star, stop
there and accelerate back, then go back to Earth and accelerate to
Earth's reference frame again, there is no net work. That is the kind
of thing that SR cannot deal with, correct?

Oh, it can deal with this, and it is not the work that is the issue.
By "globally" I don't mean that everything happens in a single place,
Just that at any given moment we're we're tracking what happens in a
single place. What SR cannot quite handle is an extended,
accelerating system such that the relative acceleration of its various
components cannot be ignored. Such as the rotating disk.

One should be able to use SR to analyze the disk as a large collection of
particles, though at least in principle.

You may want to look at the web page provided by the OP. Things are a
bit more complex than you think, in this case.

The routine way to analyze accelerated motion, in SR, is to use, at
any given moment, an *inertial* reference frame in which the partcile
is, at that moment, at rest. Given a sufficiently short time interval
dt, the effects of the acceleration on the particle being analyzed,
relative to its momentary frame, are small and easy to handle. Then,
the whole motion is described through a succession of Lorentz
transfromations from one such frame to the next one (perfectly
legitimate, since all those frames are inertial). At the limit of
dt-> 0 you get some integrals and everything is dandy.

This works perfectly OK for a particle, or even an assembly of
particles subject to nearly uniform (at any given moment)
acceleration.

But, there is no inertial reference frame in which the disk is at
rest. You can certainly perform such analysis for any individual
particle of the disk. But you cannot assume rigid rotation of the
disk.

Isn't the principle here that there are stresses which conform a
massive disk to Pauli-like rigidity? I bet someone could create a
quantum field which does this. This would then put Quantum Field Theory
at odds with itself.

I think that the web page describes the issues better than I can. In
any case, creating a quantum field that does this is same sort of
problem as quantizing GR.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

In article <1145860777.132538.164250@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

In article <DGZ2g.8700$Qz.3239@fed1read11>, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

<

In article <1145829531.143172.50260@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
Starbles@Earthlink.net writes:

In article <1145824910.841293.128380@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Starbles@Earthlink.net writes:

Apparantly I made a mistake in judgement. I equated a lack of ability
of SR to deal with CERTAIN accelerations to assume that SR cannot deal
with ANY accelerations. However, my point remains valid. SR cannot deal
with ALL forms of acceleration, specifically ones that form energy,
such as rotating motion.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rigid_disk.html

The wording you're after is "SR can deal with accelerations locally,
but not globally".

Thanks.

So, basically, if I accelerate from Earth to go to a distant star, stop
there and accelerate back, then go back to Earth and accelerate to
Earth's reference frame again, there is no net work. That is the kind
of thing that SR cannot deal with, correct?

Oh, it can deal with this, and it is not the work that is the issue.
By "globally" I don't mean that everything happens in a single place,
Just that at any given moment we're we're tracking what happens in a
single place. What SR cannot quite handle is an extended,
accelerating system such that the relative acceleration of its various
components cannot be ignored. Such as the rotating disk.

One should be able to use SR to analyze the disk as a large collection of
particles, though at least in principle.

You may want to look at the web page provided by the OP. Things are a
bit more complex than you think, in this case.

The routine way to analyze accelerated motion, in SR, is to use, at
any given moment, an *inertial* reference frame in which the partcile
is, at that moment, at rest. Given a sufficiently short time interval
dt, the effects of the acceleration on the particle being analyzed,
relative to its momentary frame, are small and easy to handle. Then,
the whole motion is described through a succession of Lorentz
transfromations from one such frame to the next one (perfectly
legitimate, since all those frames are inertial). At the limit of
dt-> 0 you get some integrals and everything is dandy.

This works perfectly OK for a particle, or even an assembly of
particles subject to nearly uniform (at any given moment)
acceleration.

But, there is no inertial reference frame in which the disk is at
rest. You can certainly perform such analysis for any individual
particle of the disk. But you cannot assume rigid rotation of the
disk.

Isn't the principle here that there are stresses which conform a
massive disk to Pauli-like rigidity? I bet someone could create a
quantum field which does this. This would then put Quantum Field Theory
at odds with itself.

I think that the web page describes the issues better than I can. In
any case, creating a quantum field that does this is same sort of
problem as quantizing GR.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1145860777.132538.164250@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <DGZ2g.8700$Qz.3239@fed1read11>, "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:j%S2g.5$15.262@news.uchicago.edu...

In article <1145829531.143172.50260@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
Starbles@Earthlink.net writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <1145824910.841293.128380@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Starbles@Earthlink.net writes:

Apparantly I made a mistake in judgement. I equated a lack of ability
of SR to deal with CERTAIN accelerations to assume that SR cannot deal
with ANY accelerations. However, my point remains valid. SR cannot deal
with ALL forms of acceleration, specifically ones that form energy,
such as rotating motion.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rigid_disk.html

The wording you're after is "SR can deal with accelerations locally,
but not globally".

Thanks.

So, basically, if I accelerate from Earth to go to a distant star, stop
there and accelerate back, then go back to Earth and accelerate to
Earth's reference frame again, there is no net work. That is the kind
of thing that SR cannot deal with, correct?

Oh, it can deal with this, and it is not the work that is the issue.
By "globally" I don't mean that everything happens in a single place,
Just that at any given moment we're we're tracking what happens in a
single place. What SR cannot quite handle is an extended,
accelerating system such that the relative acceleration of its various
components cannot be ignored. Such as the rotating disk.

One should be able to use SR to analyze the disk as a large collection of
particles, though at least in principle.

You may want to look at the web page provided by the OP. Things are a
bit more complex than you think, in this case.

The routine way to analyze accelerated motion, in SR, is to use, at
any given moment, an *inertial* reference frame in which the partcile
is, at that moment, at rest. Given a sufficiently short time interval
dt, the effects of the acceleration on the particle being analyzed,
relative to its momentary frame, are small and easy to handle. Then,
the whole motion is described through a succession of Lorentz
transfromations from one such frame to the next one (perfectly
legitimate, since all those frames are inertial). At the limit of
dt-> 0 you get some integrals and everything is dandy.

This works perfectly OK for a particle, or even an assembly of
particles subject to nearly uniform (at any given moment)
acceleration.

But, there is no inertial reference frame in which the disk is at
rest. You can certainly perform such analysis for any individual
particle of the disk. But you cannot assume rigid rotation of the
disk.

Isn't the principle here that there are stresses which conform a
massive disk to Pauli-like rigidity? I bet someone could create a
quantum field which does this. This would then put Quantum Field Theory
at odds with itself.

I think that the web page describes the issues better than I can. In
any case, creating a quantum field that does this is same sort of
problem as quantizing GR.

Ah... interesting. Has anyone ever tried? I thought it would be more
like trying to get Schrodinger's Equation to work in curved space more
than anything.