Talk:PlanetPhysics/In What Respects Are the Foundations of Classical Mechanics and of the Special Theory of Relativity Unsatisfactory

Original TeX Content from PlanetPhysics Archive

%%% This file is part of PlanetPhysics snapshot of 2011-09-01
%%% Primary Title: In What Respects Are the Foundations of Classical Mechanics and of the Special Theory of Relativity Unsatisfactory?
%%% Primary Category Code: 04.20.-q
%%% Filename: InWhatRespectsAreTheFoundationsOfClassicalMechanicsAndOfTheSpecialTheoryOfRelativityUnsatisfactory.tex
%%% Version: 1
%%% Owner: bloftin
%%% Author(s): bloftin
%%% PlanetPhysics is released under the GNU Free Documentation License.
%%% You should have received a file called fdl.txt along with this file.        
%%% If not, please write to gnu@gnu.org.
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\pagestyle{empty}
\setlength{\paperwidth}{8.5in}
\setlength{\paperheight}{11in}

\setlength{\topmargin}{0.00in}
\setlength{\headsep}{0.00in}
\setlength{\headheight}{0.00in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.00in}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.00in}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9.00in}
\setlength{\voffset}{0.00in}
\setlength{\hoffset}{0.00in}
\setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.00in}
\setlength{\marginparsep}{0.00in}
\setlength{\parindent}{0.00in}
\setlength{\parskip}{0.15in}

\usepackage{html}

% this is the default PlanetMath preamble.  as your knowledge
% of TeX increases, you will probably want to edit this, but
% it should be fine as is for beginners.

% almost certainly you want these
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amsfonts}

% used for TeXing text within eps files
%\usepackage{psfrag}
% need this for including graphics (\includegraphics)
%\usepackage{graphicx}
% for neatly defining theorems and propositions
%\usepackage{amsthm}
% making logically defined graphics
%\usepackage{xypic}

% there are many more packages, add them here as you need them

% define commands here

\begin{document}

 \subsection{In What Respects Are the Foundations of Classical Mechanics and of the Special Theory of Relativity Unsatisfactory?}
From \htmladdnormallink{Relativity: The Special and General Theory}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/SpecialTheoryOfRelativity.html} by \htmladdnormallink{Albert Einstein}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/AlbertEinstein.html}

We have already stated several times that \htmladdnormallink{classical mechanics}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/NewtonianMechanics.html} starts
out from the following law: Material \htmladdnormallink{particles}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/Particle.html} sufficiently far
removed from other material particles continue to move uniformly in a
straight line or continue in a state of rest. We have also repeatedly
emphasised that this fundamental law can only be valid for bodies of
reference $K$ which possess certain unique states of \htmladdnormallink{motion}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/CosmologicalConstant.html}, and which
are in uniform translational motion relative to each other. Relative
to other reference-bodies $K$ the law is not valid. Both in classical
mechanics and in the special theory of relativity we therefore
differentiate between reference-bodies $K$ relative to which the
recognised ``laws of nature'' can be said to hold, and
reference-bodies $K$ relative to which these laws do not hold.

But no person whose mode of thought is logical can rest satisfied with
this condition of things. He asks: ``How does it come that certain
reference-bodies (or their states of motion) are given priority over
other reference-bodies (or their states of motion)? What is the
reason for this Preference?'' In order to show clearly what I mean by
this question, I shall make use of a comparison.

I am standing in front of a gas range. Standing alongside of each
other on the range are two pans so much alike that one may be mistaken
for the other. Both are half full of water. I notice that steam is
being emitted continuously from the one pan, but not from the other. I
am surprised at this, even if I have never seen either a gas range or
a pan before. But if I now notice a luminous something of bluish
colour under the first pan but not under the other, I cease to be
astonished, even if I have never before seen a gas flame. For I can
only say that this bluish something will cause the emission of the
steam, or at least possibly it may do so. If, however, I notice the
bluish something in neither case, and if I observe that the one
continuously emits steam whilst the other does not, then I shall
remain astonished and dissatisfied until I have discovered some
circumstance to which I can attribute the different behaviour of the
two pans.

Analogously, I seek in vain for a real something in classical
mechanics (or in the special theory of relativity) to which I can
attribute the different behaviour of bodies considered with respect to
the \htmladdnormallink{reference systems}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/CoriolisEffect.html} $K$ and $K$.\footnotemark\ Newton saw this objection and
attempted to invalidate it, but without success. But E. Mach recognsed
it most clearly of all, and because of this objection he claimed that
\htmladdnormallink{mechanics}{http://planetphysics.us/encyclopedia/Mechanics.html} must be placed on a new basis. It can only be got rid of by
means of a physics which is conformable to the general principle of
relativity, since the equations of such a theory hold for every body
of reference, whatever may be its state of motion.


\footnotetext{The objection is of importance more especially when the state of
motion of the reference-body is of such a nature that it does not
require any external agency for its maintenance, {\it e.g.} in the case when
the reference-body is rotating uniformly.}


\subsection{References}
This article is derived from the Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org) 1999, 2002. \htmladdnormallink{Einstein Reference Archive}{http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/index.htm} which is under the FDL copyright.

\end{document}