Conference noted::sf

    Do you propose to derive mathematical transformations from your
    version of the postulates? or will you re-use Einstein's?  (Nothing
    wrong with either approach, but of course any new transformations
    would have to match experimental results.)
    
    I ask because shortly after Einstein published the special theory of
    relativity (STR), Minkowski re-expressed it in terms of spacetime and
    the spacetime interval (analogous to distance in three-space). 
    That system of kinematics did not add anything new to STR, but it
    provided a very convenient symbolism and terminology for discussing
    and developing it.  In many ways, it parallels the reformulations
    you suggest.
    
    For instance, there is a thing in STR called the "four-velocity,"
    which is indeed an object's velocity through spacetime.  (It is
    measured in seconds per second and so is always equal to 1 in
    magnitude, but its direction varies with the object's state of motion.)
    
    Minkowski's spacetime geometry gives a special status to light,
    as must any treatment of STR.  But in his formulation light does
    not move through time OR space.  The spacetime interval between
    any two events on a light ray is zero.  Lightlike intervals are
    also termed "null intervals."  In its own frame of reference, it
    would seem, light does not exist.  This has always bothered me....
    
    Getting back to science fiction, Ursula K. LeGuin has written a
    series of novels about the "Ekumene," a collection of human-settled
    worlds without FTL ships.  Instead they have NAFAL ships (Nearly As
    Fast As Light -- I didn't make it up, SHE did).  However, she DOES
    allow FTL communication via a device called an "ansible."  Even
    with ansibles, it makes interstellar travel a much more serious
    business, as I'm sure she intended, and planets remain more like
    worlds and don't reduce to spherical nation-states as they tend
    to do in much science fiction that indulges in FTL travel.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    my question is: Are the two postulates really independant?
    Seems to me that they are essentially the same, 2 being a special
    case of 1.
    
    The history of it suggests this. The problem Einstein addressed
    was that the results of the Michelson-Morley Experiment did not
    agree with Newtonian predictions, the speed of light measured the
    same regardless of the relative motion of the observer.
    
    Waht I'm saying is not that you can't do this, but be sure to work
    out the consequences fully.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re 1:
    	The modified postulate indicates a different definition of
    simultaneity, thus a different conception of time and space. This
    implies that just about all the mathematical representation have
    to be reworked. 
    
    	Unfortunately (as any of my physics or astronomy proffessors
    would vehemently testify) I'm hopelessly inadequate at the necessary
    math, and just don't have time to get better at it. I would gladly
    accept any ideas on the direction such a redefinition needs to go.
    
    re Minkowski:
    	What I'm trying to do is define a representation which bases
    definitions of time on the results of relativity, so nicely described
    by Minkowski. 
    
    	The Newtonian vestige I see in Einstein's definition of simulaneity
    is the assumption of space in order to define time. The definition
    of velocity, then, is what makes complex equations nessessary to
    transform from one frame of reference to another. A frame of reference
    is "at rest", but only in 3 dimensions of space, not in the four
    diminsions of spacetime. It seems more reasonable to focus and define
    space and time around more absolute quantities. The frame if reference
    "at rest" is really moving in time at it's maximum velocity, because
    the constant spacetime interval is not translated at all in space.
    Light is the limiting case, not because it is the fastest rate possible
    in the universe (seemingly arbitrarily) but rather it is without
    mass, and cannot move through time at all. It is absolutely at rest.
    
    	What moves, then, I would call moments of time, through space.
    Light originates with an event, and is placed at a moment in time.
    The moment is propogated through space, with the light balancing
    any loss of mass by the event. Mass lost must be energy expelled
    into the universe as a whole. The structure of the expulsion occurs
    according to Minkowski's geometry, connecting all points in the
    universe with the event in exactly one lightlike vector. Following
    the discharge of the light, a spherical shell of such vectors would
    follow the propogation of the moment throughout the universe. 
    
    	The light (or potential light. Presence of energy is irrelevant
    to the geometry) has not moved in time at all...rather the moment
    is connecting all points in the universe, just as we usually think
    of electric fields propogating information across distances. 
    
    	What this view eliminates is a way to synchronize clocks in
    space. Events are synchronized relatively (as Relativity states)
    but the synchronization is independent of distance, dependent only
    on the distance from the common event (like the flash of a light).
    
    	(I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll conclude) The point which
    is a spacetime interval of 0 is like a universe created and which
    grows at the "speed of time" except now translated in space instead
    of time. 
    
    re .2
>    The history of it suggests this. The problem Einstein addressed
>    was that the results of the Michelson-Morley Experiment did not
>    agree with Newtonian predictions, the speed of light measured the
>    same regardless of the relative motion of the observer.
    
 	Einstein was actually unaware of the Michelson-Morley experiment,
    though he understood the results of experiments indicated that a
    direction of Earth's motion through the ether was undetectable.
    He based his postulates on an asymmetry which appeared in the
    mathematics of Maxwell's equations, but which was not experimentally
    observable. 
    
    	Anyway, by changing the postulate, I haven't affected the observed
    effects. Only the interpretation is changed. When measuring the
    speed of light in any frame of reference, the same value will be
    obtained regardless of relative motion of source and observer, because
    the speed of light is independent of any frame of reference moving
    in time. Light is not moving in time, so that any velocity (distance
    between two points divided by the time for light to travel from
    one to the other) is rather the speed at which the observer's frame
    of reference is moving in time. 
    
    	I tried for a long time to explain this well to science professors,
    without terribly much success, but neither did they have any reason
    why it is not a valid restatement of relativity. I welcome any and
    all comments/criticisms.
    
    	Ed
    
    
    	

    Postulate 2 is or is not a special case of postulate 1 depending
    on exactly how it is worded.  A common loose wording for 1 is, "All
    the laws of physics stay the same in any frame of reference."  Then,
    since the speed of light is a natural constant, 2 is a consequence
    of 1.  But sometimes 1 is phrased as, "The *algebraic forms* of
    the laws of physics remains unchanged."  Then 2 becomes an independent
    statement, since changing the value of c does not change the algebraic
    form of the equations where it shows up.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .3:
    
    After careful consideration, I am convinced that you are not changing
    anything at all. You may be re-phrasing the postulate, you are not
    changing the postulate.
    
    Is this your intent?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    re .5:
    	Basically yes. I don't want to change relativity, but I would
    like to "streamline" the conceptualization of it, and offer a more
    appropriate foundation for a new set of mathematical representations.
    
	I DO want to show why different definitions of time and space are 
    more appropriate BECAUSE of relativity. The new definitions I'm
    outlining make intuitive understanding of the behavior of high velocity
    particles easier. The major drawback is that the conversion from
    the present representation to my representation is difficult, because
    the domains delimiting "time" and "space" are different in the two
    definitions.
    
    re .4:
    
    [From Einstein's paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies",
    1905, reprinted by Dover Books in the collection _The Principle
    of Relativity_]
    
    (p. 41 section 2: 'On the Relativity of Lengths and Times')
    
    	The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity
    and on the principle of the constancy of the speed of light. These
    two principles we define as follows:--
    
    	1. The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo
    change are not affected, whether these changes of states be referred
    to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform
    translatory motion.
    
    	2. Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of coordinates
    with the determined velocity _c_, whether the ray be emitted by
    a stationary or a moving body. Hence
    
    		Velocity = (light path)/(time interval)
    
    where time interval is taken in the sense of the definition in section
    1.
    
    __________________________________
    
    (The definition in section 1 dealt with the defining of simultaneity
    by having two clocks an equal known distance from some instantaneous
    event, like a flash of light. It is this definition of simultaneity
    that I argue is not physically appropriate, but was used to make
    the math consistant with Newtonian equations)
    
    	Ed

    After having read the original note and all the replies, I'm still
    not sure why you find Einstein's definition of simultaneity to be
    inappropriate.  Could you elaborate on this discrepancy you find? 
    
    				-- Scott
    
    P.S.  Maybe I'm just too classically trained, but I don't find the
    "new" theories (or should I say new explanations of old theories)
    any less complex.  Was eliminating confusion the purpose here?
    No offense intended, I'm just not sure I understand the point.

    
    	To eliminate any doubts any of you might have about Einstein's
    General Theory of Relativity, read the book "Was Einstein Right?",
    by Clifford M. Will.  The book was just published last year.
    It certainly cleared up any doubts I had!
    
    	The Mad Hacker
    
    

    So which certainty did it leave you with?  That Einstein was right
    or that he was wrong?

    
    	It left me with the definite feeling that Einstein was most
    certainly right!
    
    The Mad Hacker
    
    

Article: 422
Newsgroups: alt.books.reviews,rec.arts.books
From: [email protected] (Chris Hynes)
Subject: Einstein's Dreams by Alan Lightman
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:57:06 GMT
 
EINSTEIN'S DREAMS by Alan Lightman
Pantheon Books, 201 East 50th Street, New York, NY  10022
ISBN 0-679-41646-3
$17.00 hardcover (available now)
 
	This first work of fiction by physicist Alan Lightman is an
elegant and intricate peek inside the brain of Albert Einstein while
he was a young patent clerk in 1905.  Each chapter brings his dreams
and our minds to a different world in which the central element, time,
plays a crucial role in defining that world.  Time defines our world,
and we treat it as a fixed factor of our existence and it is very easy
to forget it is there and ignore the effect it has on our lives.  What
if time stood still instead of advancing at a regular rate?  What if
time moved at a different rate for different people or in different
regions of the world?  What if time were discontinous?  What if time
accelerated and decelerated at an irregular rate instead of being
smooth and steady?  Each short and beautifully written chapter
explores one of these possibilites as Einstein dreams what the world
would be like.  The book is interrupted by interludes in which we see
Einstein himself talking with a friend of his and they discuss his
obsession with his theory of time and his progress in development of
that theory. We see Einstein's thinking progess as his dreams continue
and seemingly take over his life. 

	It may seem like quite an undertaking to imagine what was
going on inside of Einstein's head at this moment in history, but
Lightman does a superb job that perhaps only a physicist of his
caliber could pull off. If you doubt the quality of this book, just go
to your local bookstore (we just got several copies where I work), and
just read one chapter.  Each one is only 3-5 pages long and that is
how long it took me to get hooked on this one.  Lightman's book wastes
no words in trying to alter how we perceive the world in the way that
perhaps Einstein saw the world.  Anyone who reads this, please let me
know if you enjoyed it.  I always like to hear from people when I
recommend a book, and since this is my first on-line review, I think
it will be especially appreciated.  Thanks to all. 
 
[email protected]
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80