Re: A Derivation of Special Relativity without Invoking Group Theory

From: Gerald L. O'Barr (globarr_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/25/05 

Date: 24 Jan 2005 20:08:15 -0800

Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@lucent.com> wrote:
>Eugene Shubert wrote: . . .
>> Symmetry groups are undeniably basic but why must
>> spacetime have a group structure? . . .

Tom Roberts wrote:
> Note it is the transforms between coordinate
> systems that must have a group structure, not
> spacetime itself.

Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com> comments:
It might be true that the math transforms must have
a specific nature, with specific characteristics, in
order to 'work.' However, it is also just as true
that it is nature (reality) that determines the way
the math must perform, in order for the math to
produce for us what we would call useful results. It
certainly is important that we know that the math is
not reality, and that reality is not the math. But
at the same time, when we have an expectation that
the math is to produce something useful, then this
forces there to be some kind of a relationship
between the math and reality.
In this particular case, I agree with Roberts that
spacetime does not have to have a group structure as
one might teach in modern-day SR. LET physically
provides to us (allows) the identical math results as
SR, all within a simple 3-D space, and with a simple,
independent, 1-D time variable. And our present-day
math, our present-day science, our present-day
testing, is not able to differentiate between these
two choices (between SR and LET.)
Let me repeat this thought again. Take a camera,
and a picture it might take of reality, and the
reality that was taken by the picture. The picture
is not reality, nor is reality the picture. The
picture might have a zillion flaws, depending on the
lack of perfection that might exist in the camera,
its lens, its film, etc. And the picture will only
show the view of possibly a very narrow range of
light frequencies, while of course reality would have
all kinds of radiation frequencies, and other things
occurring that the camera never sees. But yet, the
view seen and recorded by the camera is due to real
responses (actions of nature or of reality), and a
direct one-to-one connection between the picture and
reality must exist, to one degree or another, since
it was a real response being recorded.
While many on this net might want to dwell on the
fact that there is a real disconnect between reality
and what our instruments might record, at the same
time, there is a real connection that is also
present. Our intelligence is adequate to eventually
be able to understand all this, and we should not
sell ourselves short on any of these problems!

Tom Roberts wrote:
>These transforms must have a group structure because
>that is the only possible way that multiple
>observers using multiple coordinate systems can
>share consistent views of a single underlying
>reality.

O'Barr comments:
And how I love these thoughts! Our reality has to
be real and independent of all observers, and thus it
must have real explanations as to what is happening,
independent of all observers. Yes, we do have
multiple observers of the same reality, and these
multiple observers can share observations of common
objects within this reality. And if in any of this,
there occurs similar results where none should be
expected, then there has to be a reason. The only
reason possible is that there is a common bond that
allows it. There can be no other way. What we see
and what we observe tells us there is a common
reference in which all these results are coordinated.
And no one can be so dumb that this can not be
understood.

Tom Roberts wrote:
>So without such a group structure among coordinate
>transforms, physics itself would be impossible. At
>base this is a limitation on humans and their
>theories, not Nature; but that's OK, as coordinate
>systems are artifacts of human imaginations and have
>no effect whatsoever on Nature.

O'Barr comments:
Whatever one might think about men's theories, and
about math, or about coordinate systems, all being
only human inventions, and that none of these things
can therefore have any effects on reality, it is
totally wrong to say that our understanding of
coordinate systems and our understanding of math
cannot help us to deduce certain things about
reality. Certainly we must exercise care in all
this! Certainly, it might not be easy and many times
the actual results or meaning might have multiple
solutions. But every result has some meaning. Just
like a photo from a camera, there are some things
that can be correlated. And correlated in very
absolute ways! There is a large expanse between
perfect correlation, and no relationship at all!
Every result has its affect, and places some limit on
what reality is all about.

Tom Roberts wrote:
>That means that invoking group theory on the set of
>possible coordinate transforms is not a detriment --
>it is a requirement.

O'Barr comments:
This is correctly said, as far as we presently
know, about the math. But of course the interesting
thing, is what exactly does all this say about our
reality? And this is where the rubber contacts the
road. This is where progress is made. And this is
where physics really begins. What is the reality
that forces the transforms to be what they are? What
physically forces all this to happen? How or why
does all this happen?
SR is sick, and it is unable to even begin to give
us reasons (physical reasons) for even one single
point! It is a very weak physical theory. It is, in
fact, only a math theory.

But LET is a physical theory. The physical base
to LET produces the math, it does not just assume it,
and it produces the math transforms. And being
physical, it provides to us an explanation to every
aspect of the theory. It provides to us the exact
limits that are required, which we are forced to
assume in SR. In all these ways, and many more, LET
ends up being a superior theory to SR.
Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr@yahoo.com>

Relevant Pages
Quantcast