| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Shubee" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2007 11:50:02 PM |
| Object: |
The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 |
In reference [1], physicist J. H. Field makes two important points:
"A much weaker statement of the Relativity Principle than Einstein's
first postulate is sufficient to derive the Lorentz Transformation."
"It was recognised at an early date by Ignatowsky and Frank and Rothe
that Einstein's second postulate was not necessary to derive the
Lorentz Transformation. The questions then arise: what are the weakest
postulates which are sufficient to derive it and what is their minimum
number?"
I believe that I have completely solved this problem. In my view of
physics, the most natural axioms for elegant special relativity are:
1. Newton's first law of motion.
2. The spatial geometry of every inertial frame of reference is
Euclidean.
3. Every point in space can be conceptualized as a tiny arrow that
moves steadily along a continuum of numbers.
4. The most general definition of time in the universe Xi_2 is given
by equation (1) and (2) in The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1. See
reference (2). It is therefore natural to assume that all frames of
reference have a mathematically similar definition of time.
5. Clock time in each frame of reference is well-defined.
So, not only is Einstein's second postulate not required, we can also
weaken the relativity postulate substantially by replacing it and the
many other confused postulates of special relativity with these five
points. I believe it's important to mention the other outdated
assumptions in special relativity that are not required:
1. The reciprocity of clock synchronization schemes.
2. A presupposed group structure.
3. The assumed linearity of the transformation equations.
4. That distances in the distinct Euclidean spaces that model
reference frames are on the same scale.
Shubee
1. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0410/0410262.pdf
2. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 |
01 Apr 2007 01:20:38 AM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 8:50 pm, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
But why should anyone care?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 |
01 Apr 2007 08:05:28 AM |
|
|
On Apr 1, 5:35 am, "T.H. Ray" <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 8:50 pm, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[...]
But why should anyone care?
Indeed, that is the key question. If physics (or any scientific
discipline, for that matter) were axiom dependent, its standard
of truth would not rest on the correlation of theory with result;
i.e., on the comparison of experimental data with a closed
semantical judgment.
Mathematics, which is the language of science, is, like all
language, a liberal art. The axiomatic basis of mathematics does
not determine what is phenomenologically true; axioms only limit
true statements to what can be logically deduced within the
axiomatic system. Simplifying first principles in physics (which I
think the O.P. may actually be aiming at, rather than "axiomatization,")
is not the same thing as determining the set of root assumptions
that support a given conclusion.
Tom
Tom,
Your question is answered in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.
See reference 2 section 2 and reference 3 section 1.1 titled, "Physics
as a mathematical discipline". Section 1.2 of reference 3 is also very
interesting. The subject there is "Physics and the axiomatic method".
Shubee
2. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
3. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9811050
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 |
01 Apr 2007 04:20:01 PM |
|
|
On Apr 1, 5:05 am, "Shubee" <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Physics is already in an axiomatic form, Shooby.
Your method adds nothing to physics, and you are an asshat.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shubee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 |
01 Apr 2007 02:37:18 PM |
|
|
On Apr 1, 8:24 am, "T.H. Ray" <thray...@aol.com> wrote:
Our knowledge in the philosophy of science and philosophy of
mathematics has advanced considerably since Hilbert's 1915
paper. Science can be no more formalized a la Hilbert, than can
Hilbert's (and Russell's and Frege's) plan to formalize arithmetic.
See, e.g., Popper's 1934 Logik der Forschunng (published
in English in 1959 as The Logic of Scientific Discovery) and of
course, Godel's work of the same period. Hermann Weyl, as well,
was a major contributor to our understanding of the boundaries
between science and mathematics (Philosophy of Mathematics and
the Natural Sciences, 1949). You neglect also that relativity isn't the
only claimed "foundation of physics." Quantum Theory and String
Theory both qualify.
Tom
It sounds to me like you're an apologist for occult science and that
you are arguing against the possibility of clear thinking and the
mathematization of the laws of physics. What is wrong with Peano's
axioms for arithmetic?
Shubee
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Axiomatization of Physics - Step 1 |
01 Apr 2007 12:39:29 PM |
|
|
Shubee wrote:
Your question is answered in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.
See reference 2 section 2 and reference 3 section 1.1 titled, "Physics
as a mathematical discipline". Section 1.2 of reference 3 is also very
interesting. The subject there is "Physics and the axiomatic method".
Shubee
2. http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
3. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9811050
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
is a crank/crackpot site
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
