8-10-96,
6:22 p.m. Moving day. [From one apt. to another in San Marcos.]
To even draw a picture of the relativity of
simultaneity thought experiment, you have to “postulate” a common time, as in Brehm & Mullin Intro to Structure of Matter, p. 9: “These
two coordinate systems are shown at two instants of time in Figure 1-3.”
Secondly, the simultaneity of an event—two particles
passing in the night [very close to one another] and a flash of light emitted
at their closest approach—with a clock reading in more than one relatively
moving frame is not a relative matter anyway, so Einstein’s result is not about
the existence of a common moment for
observers in relative motion.
The question seems to be, then: What is the relativity of simultaneity really
about? The answer seems to be: Relative appearance of simultaneity for
separated events as viewed by two or more observers in relative motion. Also: relative motion means none of the
observers considers himself or herself to be in motion! If any did, you’d have runaway relativity—no
times to associate uniquely with separated events.
8·
11· 96 In
other words, all observers consider themselves to be at rest relative to the
speed of light. This is another way of
expressing Einstein’s postulate—which is still a postulate and not an
experimentally verified result—that c is a constant.*
Why is it necessary to have a reference frame? To get unique results—a unique time
associated with an event, for one thing.
Generally speaking, it’s a way of imposing order, or an organizing
device, as the name implies.
8· 14· 96 : 4111
Ave. F 9 pm
W
E D N
E S So the state of rest relative
to the ether (AEther) has been
D A Y replaced by state of rest
relative to speed of light, except that we now have
10 am 8/15 no way of determining our velocity
relative to speedolight.
9· 6· 96 (1) Movie: opening scene, students getting off
bus with drum beat soundtrack.
(2) Mathematics and Ignorance. It seems simpler to ignore most of the
definitions or assumptions or “let so-and-so” statements that precede most
descriptions of mathematical ideas. But
is it possible? It seems better to
introduce something using an analogy or just an example.
Function
spaces, for instance. Chapt. 15 of
Speigel Catalogue—oops—I mean Schaum’s Outline on general topology says, with
italics put in by me: “Let X and Y be arbitrary sets, and let f(X.Y) denote the collection of all
functions from X into Y. Any
subcollection of f(X,Y) with some topology
is called a function space.”
Is
called . . . ? Hello? Who’s there?
Hamiltonian operator? Nope,
Hilbert space operator (function space = Hilbert space).
What’s
needed first is a specific example.
That’s where physics comes in handy.
I think that rules and the need for them should be introduced by trying
to solve a particular problem.
*so
you say; most people say it is
verified
