Skip to main content
Log in

Special Relativity Cannot Be Derived from Galilean Mechanics Alone

  • Published:
Foundations of Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A recent paper suggested that if Galilean covariance was extended to signals and interactions, the resulting theory would contain such anomalies as would have impelled physicists towards special relativity even without empirical prompts. I analyze this claim. Some so-called anomalies turn out to be errors. Others have classical analogs, which suggests that classical physicists would not have viewed them as anomalous. Still others, finally, remain intact in special relativity, so that they serve as no impetus towards this theory. I conclude that Galilean covariance is insufficient to derive special relativity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There are other problems, however. In this model, the absorption of such force-particles, and hence the strength of the interaction, depends on surface area rather than mass. These two quantities are independent in classical mechanics and the model still conflicts with the theory it supposedly generalizes.

References

  1. Sela, O., Tamir, B., Dolev, S., Elitzur, A.C.: Can special relativity be derived from Galilean mechanics alone? Found. Phys. 39, 499–509 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Ignatowski, W.v.: Einige allgemeine Bemerkungen über das Relativitätsprinzip. Phys. Z. 11, 972–976 (1910)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ignatowski, W.v.: Eine Bemerkung zu meiner Arbeit ‘Einige allgemeine Bemerkungen über das Relativitätsprinzip’. Phys. Z. 12, 779 (1911)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Frank, P., Rothe, H.: The transformation of the space-time coordinates of stationary to moving systems. Ann. Phys. 34, 825–855 (1911)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Weinstock, R.: New approach to special relativity. Am. J. Phys. 33, 640–645 (1965)

    Article  ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Mitvalsky, V.: Special relativity without the postulate of constancy of light. Am. J. Phys. 34, 825 (1966)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lévy-Leblond, J.M.: One more derivation of the Lorentz transformation. Am. J. Phys. 44, 271–277 (1976)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Srivastava, A.M.: Invariant speed in special relativity. Am. J. Phys. 49, 504–505 (1981)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mermin, N.D.: Relativity without light. Am. J. Phys. 52, 119–124 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sen, A.: How Galileo could have derived the special theory of relativity. Am. J. Phys. 62, 157–162 (1994)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. Feigenbaum, M.J.: The theory of relativity - Galileo’s child (2008). http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1234v1

  12. Pauli, W.: Theory of Relativity. Pergamon, Oxford (1958)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Drory, A.: The many faces of the second postulate of special relativity. Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. (2013, submitted)

  14. Turnbull, C.M.: Some observations regarding the experiences and behavior of the BaMbuti pygmies. Am. J. Psychol. 74, 304–308 (1961)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alon Drory.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drory, A. Special Relativity Cannot Be Derived from Galilean Mechanics Alone. Found Phys 43, 665–684 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-013-9709-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-013-9709-5

Keywords

Navigation