YeSS - Yet (often) elaborated SR Stuff
More often than not I encounter a certain kind of people I'm tempted to call 'Pop art SR critics'.
It's about a certain flavor of 'alternative approaches' (to put it put overly tame) to solving the problems already solved by Special Relativity (SR):
- highly creative in finding colorful metaphors and sort-of 'knockout' thought experiments
- often highly creative in giving colorful names to Einstein's findings and himself
- highly creative in redefining physical quantities and terms
- and last not least highly creative in inventing a most intuitive own formalism:
Sample SR critics Pop artist: "I'm not obliged to use 'E' for Energy!".
My cynical weaker self: No, of course not. It's of course much more intuitive to label it 'F'...
It's about a certain flavor of 'alternative approaches' (to put it put overly tame) to solving the problems already solved by Special Relativity (SR):
- highly creative in finding colorful metaphors and sort-of 'knockout' thought experiments
- often highly creative in giving colorful names to Einstein's findings and himself
- highly creative in redefining physical quantities and terms
- and last not least highly creative in inventing a most intuitive own formalism:
Sample SR critics Pop artist: "I'm not obliged to use 'E' for Energy!".
My cynical weaker self: No, of course not. It's of course much more intuitive to label it 'F'...
Besides all the colorfulness and creativity Pop art SR critics usually demonstrate, there's another common trait - the failure to show that those highly creative approaches do better, or at least as good as, SR does in terms of consistency with empirical data.
The most often occurring, also also most obvious, lapse of that kind is 'forgetting' to test the Pop art theorem by applying it on Electrodynamics (ED) and demonstrating that they leave the wave equation (WE) of ED invariant.
Recently I felt again the need to have some assembly of the Lorentz Transformation LT (and, as a counter-example, the Galilean Transformation (GT) ) applied on the WE along with the basic maths needed to elaborate on the maths in a c&p-friendly form.
So I will deposit here some maths useful to elaborate on that and, of course, the application of transformations on the WE in both LaTeX and Unicode; the former mixed with some prose explanations, the latter maths only.
Of course, anyone who spots an error is highly welcome to point me to it, but pls dont let this turn into a general debate about SR and SR critics - this is just intended for having some stock of c&p-friendly formulae handy for debates to come and for nothing else.
Table of Contents(to be expanded incrementally)
- Notation and Conventions
- Transformation of operators
- Some useful derivatives
- Relativistic velocity-addition (1 spatial dim only) (externally at MAHAG forum, German, Unicode)
- Galilean and Lorentz transformations
- C++ tool for numerics
- ...
THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS.