Mod-01 Lec-35 Noether's Theorem. Special Relativity (Part 1)

18 thoughts on “Mod-01 Lec-35 Noether's Theorem. Special Relativity (Part 1)”

1. Emmy nother is genius

2. Good

3. He looks so neat and clean.

4. Constants serve as a generator for a group of transformations, under which the equations of motion don’t change.

5. absolute gold

6. Love the intro

7. [2] So yes, withour the shade of a doubt, Poincaré made with Lorentz all Relativity, including for infinesimal accelerated frames (that Einstein never understood, reason why he gave so stupid adjective of "special" and "general" to theories he did not even understand properly).

   But much more, since in 1905 Poincaré already "generalised" it to Gravitation. More precisely set up the Lorentz Covariant form of Gravitation in the paradigm of a flat Poincaré (Minkowski) metric.
   Moreover explaining very clearly that Space and Time are not observables and that no physical experience can choose between Euclidian and Lobatchevsky metrics. All theroy can be dressed in curved metric and all can be expressed in flat metric. And believe his words since he was THE WORLD MASTER of his time of Differential non-euclidian Geometry and Intrinsic universal geometry (now called Topology). HE KNEW SOO DEEPLY WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. And if you still have some doubt, ask yourself how much of breathtaking work of Poincaré have you red and studied. You will have to admit ZERO! You don't have any clue of who he was, how brilliant he was, how deep was his mastering of Maths, Physics, and Epistemology. You probably don't have the begining of a clue of the power of his knowledge.

   So as for Realtivity you probably also ignore that he made the first coherent theory of Quantum Mechanic, prooving brilliantly that Planck quantifications hypothesis were in fact NECESSARY. Yes he prooved it… Again look for yourself at his breathtaking work, that he wrote 2 weeks after the Solvay meeting of 1911 : The Theory of Quanta! Perhaps will you then start to question why and how such a genious was intentionaly mediatically left aside and because of his prematurous death in 1915, such brain washing propaganda has been made on the new idole of Einstein.

   In sumerism, Poincaré was thus the one that forged the "Principle of Relativity" and stressed out since 1895 (the dates are important, with total confirmation in his 1902 brilliant book on "Science and Hypothesis"), in acordance with Lorentz, that this extended "Principle of Relativity" was actually now to be consider indeed as a central universal principle of Physics : for Mechanic, EM AND Gravitation! Poincaré nevertheless knew that this "universality" was not total, and that in macoscopic rotations it doens't hold, no matter what Einstein pseudo bulshit about false "principle of equivalence" propaganda that even Synge beg to FORGET with condescendance and ill at ease "respect".

   Poincaré was a suprem master of Science, full of universal genious, very carefull with scienctific predictions, always meticoulously comparing deferent models, knowing that models are not reality, knowing that space-time has NO PROPER GEOMETRY but that the one we choose to use is a question of commodity. In total opposition with Einstein that played the permanant prophet, making confusions after confusions, and false capricious predictions after other fasle statments. Very poor mathematician. Obtus and naive, opportunist.

   Einstein made a fool of himslef increasingly. His "field theory" was a joke and a total proof of his clown true face. Not only did he had it all by plagiat for Special and General Relativity, misunderstanding both theory, but he walked totally counter courant the entire Cosmology with his nuts predictions of static universe, or with his disregard of Quantum Mechanic (of course he could hardly understand what was a matrice, an egenstate, a Hilbert space, a group representation!!!… how could he had undesrtood a clue to all that).

   And not to speak of growing field theory. I know no "supposed genious", in fact more mediatic clown than true scientist, so drastically walking aside Science for the 50 last years of his life. There is only one expalanation. He was a FAKE from the very begining and made him self knowen by strong opportunism and some "luck". Poincaré did have not died before time in 1915, a lot will have been different. Very different!…

8. [1] A few remarks : Light IS NOT TRAVELING! We see it traveling which is very different! Proper time of a light ray vanishes, so time does not pass for a photon. It arrives at the same proper time that it start. Thus IT DOEST NOT TRAVEL since travel means something hapening in proper time. This is one great suttle aspect of Relativity.
   In occidental world, the concept of Relativity was "primarely" brilliantly stressed out by Giordano Bruno. Then Galileo Galilei who supported the "universality" in the paradigm of Mechanics (the only one really known at this time), but without droping his preference for circular motions for planets. Finaly by Newton, but in the paradigm of Mechanic and limited to inertial frames.
   But the first to really understand that Relativity not only applied to Mechanic but also to EM was the French grand master Henri Poincaré that noticed in 1895, in his synthesizing analysis of Hertz Theory that the great physicist did formulate his theory in the langage of Ether, but that in fact he didn't use it in his entire theory, except as a convinient word. Thus Poincaré realised and stressed it out very clearly in his admirable theory of Light and EM that the concept of Ether was superfluous and that all Hertz theory would work as well without this concept.
   Poincaré then corrected in 1904 the brilliant work of Lorentz of 1904 that had partly but incorrectly proven that his Lorentz transformations did let the maxwells equations covariant whereas they both knew since 1895 that they did not let Newton second law covariant.

   Moreover Poincaré, in finding the correct transformations (partly but incorrectly found by Lorentz), to whom he gave the name of Lorentz Transformation, he rigorously proved that the they were linear, that the scaling factor was 1 for them to form a group. But he proved even a much greater result, that very few seem to know. Indeed he prooved that because they not only let the macroscopic space-time quadratic t2-r2 invariant, but more importantly the quadratic differential form ds2=d(ct)2 – dr2 invariant, that as a consequence, not only did the Lorentz Group was acting but more importantly his Lie Algebra. Why was this so important? Because it alows Relativity Theory to cope not only with inertial frames, but also with accelerated ones. This Einstein never understood it, by a lack of mathematical skill and lucidity! And it is the main point! Thus attributing the Theory of Relativity to Einstein is some kind of a joke since, as the great russian physicist Vladimir Fock stresses out, Einstein made countable misinterpretations and hard core confusions about either what he illicitaly called the Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity. As Fock explaines it very clearly, the very adjectives chosen by Einstein "Special" and "General" deeply shows that he understodd neighter one nor the other. Moreover the ones that attribute the Theory of Relativity to Einstein, surrely HAVE NOT RED EINTEIN 1905 paper of the Annalen Der Physics. Since if they had, and if they are not totally ignorant in science, they will immediately realise that in the very central proof of Einstein-Mileva (since all his scientifc work was secretely but strongly a two brain work), of the transformations (that he hardly attribute to anyone even though Lorentz and Poincaré made it all from 1887 to 5 June 1905), Einstein dreadfully contradict his "own" principles not less than 3 times. Stating firts that c is invariant, and then using three times, in his fallacious and vacuous "proof" that the speed of light is c-v, then c+v, and finally, last but not least, that the speed of light is sqrt(c^2 – v2)!!! You surely don't believe it! So why don't you look for yourself in his article. Be carefull with wikipedia, some funny "corrections" have been made to Einstein article by unknown authors. Choose then the original article in germain, or a trustfull translation in your langage. You will see how vacuous and dreadfully contradictory is the "proof" of Einstein. And of course without Lorentz transformation, that Einstein get right with a totally false proof, all his article is pure vacuity.

   But it's even worse, because all the clocks synchronising processes that Einstein exposes in his article of 1905, were invented and published by Poincaré since 1895, and widely spred to a world wide passionate and high cultured public in his book of 1902. A crucial book, where all the main ideas of Relativity are widely exposed and developed. And a crucial book that Françoise Balibar and Einstein great friend Solovine proved that Einstein and his Academia closed friends studied extensively. Thus for the one that still believe that Einstein article of 1905 is from his own work, is totally misled historically. Not even did Einstein wrote a asingle article without the main aid of his fisrt wife Mileva, even if Einstein never mentioned it nowhere in none of his article. Just as he did for General Relativity, that was mainly the work of Grossmann, who tought to Einstein ALL Ricci intrinsic Calculous and Riemanian Manifold and also Mileva hard work, up to their divorce in 1919, when he become famous, and divorced her for his own cousin.

   But there is much more, far more than Fock even points out. Since Poincaré, in 1905, not only give the final touch to the Theory of Relativity that he had been constructed with Lorentz since 1885, but pushed much farther. Indeed in his 1905 article he not only promoted the "Principel of Relativity" to a universal principle of Mechanic AND EM, including infinitesimal accelerated frames, but even more, he exhibit THE LORENTZ COVARIANT THEORY OF GRAVITATION AND PREDICTED GRAVITATIONAL WAVES. You don't believe it. Well check here how brained washed you have been made. Just look for yourself in his 5 June 1905 note at the French Academy of Science, where he gives a summerism of all this, that you will find in full in Redicotti di Palermo full article set in sept 1905 and published in 1906.

9. Kindly note that the formula that he wrote down (during 18:20–18:47) for a transformed vector under rotation is valid only if the angle Psi represents clockwise twist of the coordinates. But since, we always take anti-clockwise twist to be positive, there would be a minus sign in front of the sin(Psi), in general, instead of plus sign. However, this doesn't change any conclusion in the lecture. An elegant proof of this formula can be found in an article written by Dr. V. Balakrishnan himself under the name "How is a Vector Rotated?" which was published in Resonance, 1999.

10. These lecture series ignited my interest toward classical mechanics. Thanks Prof V. Balakrishnan.

11. The definition of inertial frames of reference (FoR'): Prof Balki says that the definition for inertial FoR's can be either that an inertial FoR is one in which Newton's first law holds in an inertial FoR. But he quickly adds that this means you need to perform an experiment to confirm the inertial nature – uniform motion continues to be uniform. And that this is question of experimental precision, finally, to do so. He also goes on to say that a (possibly) better definition is to use the criterion that for an inertial frame by definition would be that "space-time should be flat." It's not obvious to me as to how this is better or gets rid the "need to perform an experiment to determine whether or not the FoR of interest is inertial". In other words, wouldn't you (again) need an experiment to determine whether space-time is flat or not?
    Any insights on this, folks?

12. Is the /epsilon*F(q,t)/ mentioned there F standard for a function or Force?

13. Nice definition of time from 33:06 to 33:14 😀

14. bleesed by his lectures 🙂

15. Till 35:00: Conservation Laws and Noether theorem. From 35:00 onwards: Intro. to Special Relativity.

16. Thank you sir,I found a professor…who will help me a lot in learning Physics.

17. Prof. Balakrishnan, you are superb teacher. your lectures are a blessing for students of physics in India as well as from abroad.

18. Beautifully delivered lecture! His great insight provides much depth to the listener. Fantastic.

Comments are closed.