Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Judit Madarász

Publications and source records attributed to Judit Madarász.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Groups of Worldview Transformations Implied by Einstein's Special Principle of Relativity over Arbitrary Ordered Fields

In 1978, Yu. F. Borisov presented an axiom system using a few basic assumptions and four explicit axioms, the fourth being a formulation of the relativity principle; and he demonstrated that this axiom system had (up to choice of units) only two models: a relativistic one in which worldview transformations are Poincaré transformations and a classical one in which they are Galilean. In this paper, we reformulate Borisov's original four axioms within an intuitively simple, but strictly formal, first-order logic framework, and convert his basic background assumptions into explicit axioms. Instead of assuming that the structure of physical quantities is the field of real numbers, we assume only that they form an ordered field. This allows us to investigate how Borisov's theorem depends on the structure of quantities. We demonstrate (as our main contribution) how to construct Euclidean, Galilean, and Poincaré models of Borisov's axiom system over every non-Archimedean field. We also demonstrate the existence of an infinite descending chain of models and transformation groups in each of these three cases, something that is not possible over Archimedean fields. As an application, we note that there is a model of Borisov's axioms that satisfies the relativity principle, and in which the worldview transformations are Euclidean isometries. Over the field of reals it is easy to eliminate this model using natural axioms concerning time's arrow and the absence of instantaneous motion. In the case of non-Archimedean fields, however, the Euclidean isometries appear intrinsically as worldview transformations in models of Borisov's axioms and neither the assumption of time's arrow, nor the rejection of instantaneous motion, can eliminate them.

physics.gen-ph↗

On Andréka's Conjecture that special relativity is the only possible conceptual reduct of classical kinematics

In this paper, we prove a pure mathematical result which has important implications for the history and philosophy of classical physics and the conceptual origins of relativity theory. In formal terms, we show that, up to definitional equivalence, there is no intermediate model of spacetime lying strictly between special relativity and late classical kinematics. Informally, this means that there was essentially no other option but to switch to special relativity to resolve the conflict between late classical kinematics and the null result of the Michelson--Morley experiment.

math-ph↗

Definable coordinate geometries over fields, part 1: theory

We define general notions of coordinate geometries over fields and ordered fields, and consider coordinate geometries that are given by finitely many relations that are definable over those fields. We show that the automorphism group of such a geometry determines the geometry up to definitional equivalence; moreover, if we are given two such geometries $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{G}'$, then the concepts (explicitly definable relations) of $\mathcal{G}$ are concepts of $\mathcal{G}'$ exactly if the automorphisms of $\mathcal{G}'$ are automorphisms of $\mathcal{G}$. We show this by first proving that a relation is a concept of $\mathcal{G}$ exactly if it is closed under the automorphisms of $\mathcal{G}$ and is definable over the field; moreover, it is enough to consider automorphisms that are affine transformations.

math.LO↗

Definable coordinate geometries over fields, part 2: applications

In Part 1 of this study we showed, for a wide range of geometries, that the relationships between their concept-sets are fully determined by those between their (affine) automorphism groups. In this (self-contained) part, we show how this result can be applied to quickly determine relationships and differences between various geometries and spacetimes, including ordered affine, Euclidean, Galilean, Newtonian, Late Classical, Relativistic and Minkowski spacetimes (we first define these spacetimes and geometries using a Tarskian first-order language centred on the ternary relation $\mathsf{Bw}$ of betweenness). We conclude with a selection of open problems related to the existence of certain intermediate geometries.

math.LO↗