A Derivation of Special Relativity from Causal Sets · HackerPapers discussions

A Derivation of Special Relativity from Causal Sets — mentioned by Jach

Fri, 02 Jun 2017 08:31:07 GMT

Which relativity? :) No idea about Wolfram but special relativity doesn't need very many assumptions; you can do it if all you assume are causal sets and a quantification scheme: https://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172 And since Conway's GoL is Turing-complete, you could maybe construct something using the Strong Church–Turing thesis.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Derivation of Special Relativity from Causal Sets — mentioned by Jach

Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:39:38 GMT

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172 c is a bit more established than "scientific fact" like the behavior of atoms were once thought to be, it is very mathematical, as is the curvature of the earth being > 0. In principle new data could come in showing these things to be false, in the same sort of way twice 2 may not be 4. Another similar fact almost beyond experimental disproval is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Derivation of Special Relativity from Causal Sets — mentioned by Jach

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:42:52 GMT

You might find this paper interesting: A Derivation of Special Relativity from Causal Sets--http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172 It doesn't answer why c is the value of c, but it's an interesting way to show that there must be an invariant bounding speed limit. It doesn't assume the "existence of space or time, motion, constancy of the speed of light, or the principle of relativity."

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Derivation of Special Relativity from Causal Sets — mentioned by Jach

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:40:57 GMT

I don't really get why you're being downvoted to oblivion, that's a great stance to take on science in general. So much media buzz is made over n=1 things; you can cut out a lot from your information diet by ignoring things until they get replication. If special relativity is wrong, we'll find out in due course, and the current counter-evidence against special relativity is hardly a dent compared to the massive evidence in favor (both theoretical and experimental). Just a few days ago I discovered this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172 They assert Events as the only fundamental object…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.