Two Theories of Special Relativity ?

Recently, [3], it was shown that Special Relativity is in fact based just about on one single physical axiom which is that of Reciprocity. Originally, Einstein, [1], established Special Relativity on two physical axioms, namely, the Galilean Relativity and the Constancy of the Speed of Light in inertial reference frames. Soon after, [2,4,5], it was shown that the Galilean Relativity alone, together with some implicit mathematical type conditions, is sufficient for Special Relativity. The references in [7,3] can give an idea about the persistence over the years, even if not the popularity, of the issue of minimal axiomatic foundation of Special Relativity. Here it is important to note that, implicitly, three more assumptions have been used on space-time coordinate transformations, namely, the homogeneity of space-time, the isotropy of space, and certain mathematical condition of smoothness type on the coordinate transformations. In [3], a weaker boundedness type condition on space-time coordinate transformations is used instead of the usual mathematical smoothness type conditions. In this paper it is shown that the respective boundedness condition is related to the Principle of Local Transformation Increment Ratio Limitation, or in short, PLTIRL, a principle introduced here, and one which has an obvious physical meaning. It is also shown that PLTIRL is {\it not} a stronger assumption than that of the mentioned boundedness in [3], and yet it can also deliver the Lorentz Transformations. Of interest is the fact that, by formulating PLTIRL as a physical axiom, the possibility is opened up for the acceptance, or on the contrary, rejection of this physical axiom PLTIRL, thus leading to {\it two} possible theories of Special Relativity. And to add further likelihood to such a possibility, the rejection of PLTIRL leads easily to effects which involve unlimited time and/or space intervals, thus are not accessible to usual experimentation for the verification of their validity, or otherwise. A conclusion is that a more careful consideration of the assumptions underlying Special Relativity is worth pursuing. In this regard, a corresponding trend has lately been observable in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. In the former, the respective analysis is more involved than has so far been the case for Special Relativity. As for the latter, the technical and conceptual difficulties are considerable. Regarding Quantum Field Theory, the situation is, so far, unique in Physics since, to start with, there is not even one single known rigorous and comprehensive enough mathematical model. This paper is a new version of [20].

Data and Resources

Additional Info

Field Value
Source https://hal.science/hal-00678949
Author Rosinger, Elemer Elad
Maintainer CCSD
Last Updated May 24, 2026, 19:04 (UTC)
Created May 24, 2026, 19:04 (UTC)
Identifier hal-00678949
Language en
Rights https://about.hal.science/hal-authorisation-v1/
contributor Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics [Pretoria] ; University of Pretoria [South Africa] (UP)
creator Rosinger, Elemer Elad
date 2012-03-14T00:00:00
harvest_object_id 6aebc851-8002-4669-952a-84ce953eae44
harvest_source_id 3374d638-d20b-4672-ba96-a23232d55657
harvest_source_title test moissonnage SELUNE
metadata_modified 2024-11-13T00:00:00
set_spec type:REPORT