Should the Special Relativity Principle be Reduced to a Tautology?

[Perspicacious]

You have probably noticed that the full force of Poincaré's relativity principle isn't necessary to derive the Lorentz transformation and the essence of special relativity:

 

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0302/0302045.pdf

 

You are also very likely aware of the well-known fact that spatially compact spacetimes break global Lorentz invariance and define absolute inertial frames of reference:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/e19ac8581a6148f2

 

Since SR is easily generalized so as to include this interesting class of spacetimes, it's reasonable, then, to amend the relativity principle also. I propose that it be reduced to a tautology.

 

Proposition: All physical laws can be divided into two categories. The two great divisions are the laws that are true in all inertial frames of reference and those that aren't.

 

There are many conjectures, proposed experiments and searches for possible violations of Lorentz invariance. What are the possibilities? Is there a catalog of current conjectures? Let me list a few ideas and concepts based on possible laws from the second category.

 

1. Superluminality (a popular favorite)

2. Perfect matter-antimatter symmetry

3. Object length dependence on frame of reference

 

I'm especially interested in the observed asymmetry between kaons and antikaons and whether or not their asymmetric decay is a consequence of a preferred frame. Has a test for this possibility been seriously considered?

[Qfwfq]

Poincaré's relativity principle?

 

I've only heard of the Poincaré group, of which the Lorentz group is a subgroup. The principle of relativity dates back to Galileo.

 

the well-known fact that spatially compact spacetimes break global Lorentz invariance

Yes, it is well known that GR requires Lorentz invariance only locally, but I don't see this implying absolute inertial frames of reference and, afaik, the only generalization of SR so as to include this interesting class of spacetimes is GR.

 

I really don't see the point of what you say.

[Perspicacious]

Poincaré's relativity principle?

If I said Einstein's relativity principle, you wouldn't have questioned what I meant. I'm only alluding to the recognition that Poincaré should have received for restating the relativity principle, which was wrongly given to Einstein.

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/Poincare-RR3A.htm

 

I don't see this implying absolute inertial frames of reference

The link I cited presented many references that demonstrate why spatially compact spacetimes have an absolute frame of reference.

[Tormod]

The title of this topic seems unrelated to the actual questions asked. What makes SR a tautology?

[Perspicacious]

I didn't say that SR is a tautology. I proposed reducing the relativity principle to a tautology with this proposition:

 

All physical laws can be divided into two categories. The two great divisions are the laws that are true in all inertial frames of reference and those that aren't.

[Qfwfq]

It's neither Poincarè's nor Einstein's, I told you it dates back to Galileo. It is also very much a basis of Newton's work. I'll be back tomorrow, today was a tough day here.

[Perspicacious]

It's neither Poincarè's nor Einstein's, I told you it dates back to Galileo.

Of course. But if I said Einstein's relativity principle instead, would you have questioned what I meant?

[Qfwfq]

Because I said that it's neither Poincarè's nor Einstein's, I don't see the point of your echo. :)