Some elementary things about relativity and the other forces of nature

       I guess what I'm going to say here is really a non-epiphany for anyone thinking about physics for any period of time, but as I think about it I am re-inspired by relativity.  Relativity begins by insisting that the laws of nature be invariant under change in reference frame, whether inertial or not.  It doesn't matter what induces change from one reference frame to another -- gravity, electro-weak, strong -- the invariance principles must apply, else the laws of physics are inconstant, or, non-'covariant' in the Einsteinian sense.  So, while gravity stands out in that it induces an 'accelerated frame' for all masses in the area, the principle of relativity is almost a kind of theorem for all physical law, so that whatever causes a change in motion in an object also creates a context where relativity must be considered.  In this regard then, relativity is logically prior.  If acceleration didn't produce dilations and contractions, the laws of nature would be incomprehensible.

     From this vantage point I can see Einstein's problem with nonlocality.  Nonlocality allows the universe to routinely violate limitations on motion imposed by relativity.  A great faith in the consistency of nature would lead one to look for a union between relativity and the other forces so that spooky-action-at-a-distance would somehow be reconciled with non-quantum effects.

Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM

    Had an interesting conversation with a physicist who said the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is also of a fundamental nature, independent of the particular(no pun intended) force being described. There are, therefore, competing sets of ideas that have the status of consistency principles. I'm a little shakier on how the measurement problem is as fundamental as relativity. I see the measurement problem as exhibited in the dual relation between a function and its Fourier transform, but why Fourier analysis should be so fundamental to the physics of INDIVIDUAL particles is unknown to me. Obviously one gets the uncertainty relation right out of the product of the variances of a function and its Fourier transform, but why is THIS the model? Why is the Schrodinger equation and/or the commutator stuff so fundamental?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responses and some links for my readings of James Baldwin Post 1

My recent reading of James Baldwin has turned into a full-on binge. In order simply to keep up with myself, I'm going to be putting links and thoughts in this blog. The first link below is the YouTube video of the debate between James Baldwin and William F. Buckley, which is a must-see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ Next are two videos of James Baldwin on Dick Cavett: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWwOi17WHpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzH5IDnLaBA The next video is an examination of James Baldwin's  No Name in the Street  with Darryl Pinckney: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW6KwSE4958
Read more

Waiting For Godot and the Myth of Sisyphus part 1

     I bought the Harold Bloom 'Modern Critical Interpretations' edition for 'Waiting for Godot' and read several of the essays.  All of the essays mention Albert Camus's short essay, 'The Myth of Sisyphus', so I figured I would start by looking over this essay and quoting what some of the interpreter's say; this is an essay I first read in high school and it was a poignant experience to read it again as I remember the effect the essay had on me all those years ago.      One of the first things I noticed when I got my old copy of the essay was an underlining I had made in the essay;  I would have done this some time around 1982: "But when he had seen again the face of this world, enjoyed the water and sun, warm stones, and the sea, he no longer wanted to go back to the infernal darkness."(pg. 88-89) When I recall the bouts with depression, the sense of futility, along with the melodramas of my adolescence, this line, with its emphasis on si
Read more

Derek Parfit -- The Final Entry

After a long, tedious, explanation of what is wrong with various versions of "Subjective Theories", without really dealing with what I would call the 'real problem', nihilism, he talks about Kant. I have to say that I find actually reading the text unbearable.  So, I'm going back to the summary to see if he gives me an argument I can sink my teeth into. So, after skimming through much more tedium I  violated all canons of what is good and decent by going right to the "conclusions" section! Sigh, and here is what I was treated to: "everyone ought always to do whatever would make things go best."(pg. 74)   Let's read that again: "everyone ought always to do whatever would make things go best."(pg. 74)  I need a 600 page book for this? Here's another gem: "When there is only one set of principles that everyone could rationally will to be universal laws, these are the only principles, we can argue, that no one could re
Read more