Principle of Causality and Inertial Frames of Reference

[andsm]

I would like to discuss the hypothesis. Hypothesis: the principle of causality is applied separately and independently for each different inertial reference frame (IFR). Inertial reference frames are considered different if they have a non-zero relative velocity.

We consider only inertial reference frames. For space-time with gravity, we consider local inertial reference frames.

Independent application of the causality principle for different IFRs means that events in different IFRs may differ. The events here are events described by the causality principle, not events in special relativity.

The difference in events here is not related to the difference in the simultaneity of events. The difference in events in different IFRs means that in one IFR, for example, a collision of two photons may occur. And in another IFR, this collision will not occur or, for example, there will be a collision of two muons. With a sufficiently large difference in events between two IFRs, the Moon may exist in the first IFR and be absent in the second.

The independent application of the principle of causality to different IFRs means that the transition between IFRs is not simply a change of coordinate system in the space-time continuum.

If we analyze this hypothesis, it is easy to obtain that from the observer's point of view, events in all IFRs are the same.

In what frame of reference does the observer observe? The answer to this question is quite obvious. The observer observes in the frame of reference relative to which he is stationary. If this were not so, then, for example, receiving a signal from a satellite about his observations, it would be impossible to say that the signal from the satellite carries information about what is happening in the frame of reference relative to which the satellite is stationary.

The conclusion immediately follows from this: An observer cannot have information about an event that did not occur in his IFR, the IFR relative to which he is stationary.

You can try to build various schemes on how to get information from more than one IFR, but they all run into one insurmountable problem. The problem is that to get information from some other IFR, you need to eliminate the transition transformation between IFRs, which is impossible.

If we analyze this a little further, we can conclude that from the observer's point of view, events in all IFRs are the same, even if in reality they are different.

From this it follows that there must be two types of transformations when moving between IFRs. The first type is transformations from the observer's point of view. Such transformations must preserve events. And such a type of transformation exists, it is special  theory of relativity. The second type of transformations is direct transformations, taking into account the difference in events. This is a new type of transformation that the hypothesis predicts.

A little about where this hypothesis came from, to understand the context. I have a theory that, if true, is a unified field theory. This theory has not yet been published. We will not consider the theory in this topic, we will only consider the hypothesis described above. The theory assumes that causality is absent at the fundamental level. It is clear that the phenomena we observe have a cause-and-effect relationships. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain causality. I have obtained causality in my theory, but there is only one way to obtain it, and from it the conclusion clearly follows that the principle of causality is applied separately and independently for each different inertial reference frame. Events in different IFRs may differ.

I have formulated this conclusion from the theory as a separate hypothesis, and now I am trying to publish it, without references to the main theory. So far, it has not worked. At the same time, I have not received any reasonable objections from reviewers. Several reviews that I received contained obvious errors. In one case, the reviewer privately called me by phone and said that he did not see any errors in the article, but was not ready to approve the article, since there would definitely be a lot of criticism from authoritative scientists. Appeals are simply not accepted for consideration. In general, there is a feeling that the main objection is metaphysical - this cannot be, because this can never be.

I would like some substantive criticism of the hypothesis.

In advance, for those who suggest going to study physics. I studied, I have a master's degree in physics, there are articles from my postgraduate studies, for example in Physics Review Letters. Now I do not work in academia.

The full text of the article with the hypothesis can be found here: https://vixra.org/abs/2303.0089. Also, added it to attachment to the post.

To start a discussion, you don’t need to read the entire article; what I’ve already written in the topic is enough.

 

PrincipleOfCausalityGeneralization_en.pdf

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, andsm said:

The difference in events here is not related to the difference in the simultaneity of events. The difference in events in different IFRs means that in one IFR, for example, a collision of two photons may occur. And in another IFR, this collision will not occur or, for example, there will be a collision of two muons.

How could this happen? What principle lets you change the number of leptons when you switch frames? Or makes an interaction not happen?

[andsm]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

How could this happen? What principle lets you change the number of leptons when you switch frames? Or makes an interaction not happen?

The answer consists of two parts.

First, from the observer's point of view, the events in all IFRs are the same. This is what I have already written about above. The observer observed a collision of two photons in one IFR, after which he changed its speed and moved to another IFR, where instead of a collision of photons there was a collision of muons. Here, there are different cause-and-effect relationships, which include the observer. There cannot be information about a collision of photons, because this would violate the principle of causality in this IFR. Accordingly, according to all the observer's data, it will follow that in the previous IFR he observed a collision of muons.

The second part, about the lepton number conservation law. The hypothesis implies two types of transformations. The first is transformations from the observer's point of view. This type of transformation preserves events during the transition. It is important to understand that it preserves them from the observer's point of view only, for the reasons described above. The second type of transformation is direct transformations that take into account the difference in events. If the hypothesis is true, then all modern theories existing in physics take into account only the first type of transformations. This means that all theories widely accepted in modern physics, including the lepton number conservation law, operate only within one IFR.

 

 

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, andsm said:

The answer consists of two parts.

First, from the observer's point of view, the events in all IFRs are the same. This is what I have already written about above. The observer observed a collision of two photons in one IFR, after which he changed its speed and moved to another IFR, where instead of a collision of photons there was a collision of muons. Here, there are different cause-and-effect relationships, which include the observer. There cannot be information about a collision of photons, because this would violate the principle of causality in this IFR. Accordingly, according to all the observer's data, it will follow that in the previous IFR he observed a collision of muons.

That’s not what you described. A collision of two photons does not change an observer’s reference frame, and there’s no way to change into another frame and then observe an event that has already happened, much less have it be different.

Your proposal would mean that one observer sees photons, while someone on a train sees muons.

 

14 minutes ago, andsm said:

The second part, about the lepton number conservation law. The hypothesis implies two types of transformations. The first is transformations from the observer's point of view. This type of transformation preserves events during the transition. It is important to understand that it preserves them from the observer's point of view only, for the reasons described above. The second type of transformation is direct transformations that take into account the difference in events. If the hypothesis is true, then all modern theories existing in physics take into account only the first type of transformations. This means that all theories widely accepted in modern physics, including the lepton number conservation law, operate only within one IFR.

 

You’re left with the task of finding evidence that lepton number will differ between reference frames, as well as a mechanism for having this happen. IOW, you’ve done the trivial part, but nothing that counts as actual science.

[andsm]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not what you described. A collision of two photons does not change an observer’s reference frame, and there’s no way to change into another frame and then observe an event that has already happened, much less have it be different.

To move to another IFR, the observer needs to change his speed. In the new IFR, according to the hypothesis, the causality principle is applied independently of the previous IFR. Accordingly, in the new IFR there may be different causal relationships between events, and different events. If in the first IFR there was a photon collision, and in the second IFR a muon collision, then after the observer moves to the second IFR there can be no causal relationships starting from the photon collision. The observer will think that in the first IFR he observed a muon collision.

Is there an understanding that with the described application of the causality principle, events, from the observer's point of view, are the same in all IFRs, even if in fact they are different? This is one of the key conclusions of the hypothesis, on which everything else is based. If this is not clear, then I suggest first discussing this issue before discussing other issues.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your proposal would mean that one observer sees photons, while someone on a train sees muons.

Yes

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

You’re left with the task of finding evidence that lepton number will differ between reference frames, as well as a mechanism for having this happen. IOW, you’ve done the trivial part, but nothing that counts as actual science.

No. My task is to prove that the hypothesis does not contradict existing well-tested theories of physics when they are applied within one IFR. Including that it does not contradict the lepton number conservation law. I do not need to prove that some law is or is not satisfied when switching between IFRs, because a new type of transformation is at work here, which is not described by any of the existing theories.

If it is not clear why it does not contradict, I suggest first considering the question of whether events in different IFRs are the same from the point of view of an observer, if the causality principle is applied independently for different IFRs.

[Genady]

IIUC, this hypothesis is untestable.

[andsm]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

IIUC, this hypothesis is untestable.

The hypothesis, in my opinion, is testable.

The hypothesis allows us to build a new class of theories. And the predictions of such a theory can be tested. Therefore, it can be stated that the hypothesis is, in principle, testable.

The conclusion obtained above that, from the observer's point of view, events in all IFRs are the same, excludes the possibility of direct testing of the hypothesis by comparing events in different IFRs.

There are theories of physics that expect the same events in all IFRs. If a pair of particles collided in some IFR, then all modern theories of physics expect that such a collision will occur in all reference frames. It turns out that all modern theories of physics agree with this hypothesis, although they satisfy only transformations from the observer's point of view.

One can try to find other ways to test the hypothesis. One way is to build a theory based on a hypothesis. And then it would be possible to test the predictions of such a theory.

We can see a way to indirectly test the hypothesis, try to find restrictions from above and below on how much events can differ in different IFRs. Exactly how to do this is not entirely clear, but some considerations can be made. A person changes his speed in a fairly wide range. At the same time, a person exists in all these IFRs. Using this fact, and based on various models about how events change between IFRs, by chance or otherwise, it is possible to get a restriction from above on how different events are between IFRs. This idea of indirect verification is quite simple. This may mean that one can find a number of indirect ways to test the hypothesis.

Perhaps a detailed analysis will allow us to find ways to also find opportunities to check the restriction from below.

 

[Genady]

36 minutes ago, andsm said:

it is possible to get a restriction from above on how different events are between IFRs

... and then, to test this restriction, one would have to compare events between IFRs. But the hypothesis

 

38 minutes ago, andsm said:

excludes the possibility of ... comparing events in different IFRs.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, andsm said:

To move to another IFR, the observer needs to change his speed. In the new IFR, according to the hypothesis, the causality principle is applied independently of the previous IFR. Accordingly, in the new IFR there may be different causal relationships between events, and different events. If in the first IFR there was a photon collision, and in the second IFR a muon collision, then after the observer moves to the second IFR there can be no causal relationships starting from the photon collision.

You don’t need to move to another frame; you can have a second observer. So: A observes one event and then accelerates into another frame and now observes a different event instead, what does observer B see, who has been in that second frame all along, and never changes frames? Causality still holds for B, since they don’t switch frames.

And time still runs forward. There’s no way to have an event repeat itself. You require time travel, in addition to particle identity being frame-dependent

Quote

The observer will think that in the first IFR he observed a muon collision.

Why? You said they observe photons. 

2 hours ago, andsm said:

Is there an understanding that with the described application of the causality principle, events, from the observer's point of view, are the same in all IFRs, even if in fact they are different? This is one of the key conclusions of the hypothesis, on which everything else is based. If this is not clear, then I suggest first discussing this issue before discussing other issues.

It’s a principle in relativity that an event occurs in all frames; the laws of physics are the same.

The order of events can be different. Not the event itself.

2 hours ago, andsm said:

No.

I’m saying that yes, it is, if you wish to discuss this here. It’s a requirement of the speculations section.

2 hours ago, andsm said:

My task is to prove that the hypothesis does not contradict existing well-tested theories of physics when they are applied within one IFR. Including that it does not contradict the lepton number conservation law. I do not need to prove that some law is or is not satisfied when switching between IFRs, because a new type of transformation is at work here, which is not described by any of the existing theories.

You are not limiting yourself to one frame in your description, so I’m not sure why you would think this is sufficient.

2 hours ago, andsm said:

If it is not clear why it does not contradict, I suggest first considering the question of whether events in different IFRs are the same from the point of view of an observer, if the causality principle is applied independently for different IFRs.

As above, the laws if physics don’t change from one frame to another, per relativity.

[KJW]

This seems confused or at least confusing to me. The only way I can make any sense of it at all is if it is describing a multiverse. Is it describing a multiverse?

 

[studiot]

I too am confused by the OP.

 

Photons have zero charge

Muons have -1 charge.

Charge is not affected by relativity transformations or causality.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I too am confused by the OP.

 

Photons have zero charge

Muons have -1 charge.

Charge is not affected by relativity transformations or causality.

That’s another invariance issue; in mainstream physics particles do not change charge just because there is relative motion. Neither does rest mass. 

[Mordred]

I find it remarkable that not once has the speed limit of information exchange hasn't once been included in regards to causality. 

why ?

Perhaps you should include relativity as its obviously not being applied correctly if at all. You should also learn what is meant by invariant vs variant quantities. As others have already noted. Further more there is causality between an event and a non inertial frame of reference. So stating that causality only occurs with inertial reference frames  is false.

Take for example all Observers regardless of being inertial or non inertial will record the same velocity for massless particles that being c.

How does that work under your hypothesis ? there is obvious causation when you take a measurement. Information exchange counts

Nor does causation even require observers. Causation simply requires sufficient time for exchange between two events. This can occur even without any observers. Primary example the BB and all processes prior to any lifeforms that could observe or make measurements.

So how are you defining an observer ? Under QM its the act of measurement which includes interference obvious causation in that regard.

 

Or perhaps your only discussing local causality defined by c to an observer in regards to the Observers past, present and future light-cones. None of which has been mentioned yet. One could readily argue that everything in our Observable universe has a past causal connection. That is what defines our Observable universe to begin with.

However I assume you wish to keep this under SR in which case all time-like separated events are in causal connection while space-like separated events are not. All Observers will agree on the ordering of events to all time-like separated Observers. For observers that are accelerating one can preserve time-like separation via the relevant  proper time transformations.

a simple treatment using instantaneous velocities in time ordering

\[\tau=\int_{t1}^{t2}\frac{dt}{\gamma(t)}\] for varying \(\gamma\).

Now without downloading your paper I bet dollars to donuts you don't have any spacetime treatment and is strictly looking at Euclidean Geometry instead of Minkowskii ?

Ie your not applying the Lorentz transforms

\[\acute{(ct)}=\gamma(ct)-\beta x\]

\[\acute{(x)}=\gamma(x-\beta (ct))\]

am I correct in that ?

 

Edited September 30 by Mordred

[andsm]

17 hours ago, Genady said:

. and then, to test this restriction, one would have to compare events between IFRs. But the hypothesis

Yes, a direct test of a hypothesis is impossible. Only an indirect test is possible. However, the possibility of an indirect test also means that the hypothesis is testable.

So far, it seems that you are the only one on this forum who has understood some of the ideas of the hypothesis. The rest still think that this hypothesis can be easily disproved.

I looked, in several answers there is a reference to STR, there is a mention of Minkowski space. I want to clarify the question of how this hypothesis and STR are connected. First, I will note that all modern physical theories, directly or indirectly, rely on the principle of causality. STR is no exception.

I will copy part of the text from the article:

 

Let's consider possible objections to the hypothesis:

….

3.       In any space-time, an event, if it occurs, occurs in all IFRs. It is impossible to find such a space-time that the event occurs only in the part of IFRs. Therefore, the hypothesis is incorrect.

4.       The special theory of relativity leads to the Minkowski space. In the Minkowski space, an event, if it occurs, occurs in all IFRs. Therefore, this hypothesis contradicts STR.

…

On objection #3. As already mentioned, the hypothesis indicates the existence of something that is more fundamental than spacetime, precisely because it is impossible to obtain different events in different IFRs in spacetime.

On objection #4. The answer to it has already been given, but we will write again, in more detail. STR is dependent on the principle of causality. So, in the first postulate of STR, the laws of nature are mentioned. The laws of nature connect the initial state, which can be considered as a cause, and the state at some subsequent point in time, which can be considered as consequences. The second postulate of STR mentions the motion of light in a vacuum. That is, there is something that moves in some conditions at some point in time, and it is claimed that it will behave this way from now on. Here, too, the cause and effect are visible. There are no ways to formulate the postulates of STR without relying on the principle of causality. The hypothesis generalizes the principle of causality, and leads to two types of transformations. One of the transformations, transformations from the observer's point of view, conserves events during the transition between IFRs. According to the STR, the event, if it has occurred, occurs in all IFRs. Therefore, STR is consistent with transformations from the observer's point of view. STR, if the hypothesis is correct, describes only transformations of the first type, transformations from the point of view of the observer. The hypothesis, indeed, does not agree with Minkowski space, as with any other space-time, but this does not mean that it contradicts STR. The Minkowski space remains here as a useful tool describing only what the STR describes. STR does not describe transformations of the second type.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

You don’t need to move to another frame; you can have a second observer. So: A observes one event and then accelerates into another frame and now observes a different event instead, what does observer B see, who has been in that second frame all along, and never changes frames? Causality still holds for B, since they don’t switch frames.

Yes, there is a clear misunderstanding of what the hypothesis is.

The hypothesis assumes that the principle of causality applies independently to different IFRs. Accordingly, different IFRs contain different events and different cause-and-effect relationships.

In IFR 2, observer B experienced a muon collision. This IFR does not contain causal relationships that originate from a photon collision. In IFR 1, observer A experienced a photon collision. This IFR does not contain causal relationships that originate from a muon collision. Observers A and B, without changing their speed, can exchange signals with information about what they observed. However, both observers cannot receive information about events that did not occur in their IFRs, because this would violate the causality principle within their IFRs. Accordingly, observer A will receive a signal from B that he observed a photon collision, and B will receive a signal from A that he observed a photon collision. In order for information to arrive without distortion, it is necessary that the information be preserved during the transition between IFRs. And it cannot be preserved if there is a difference in the events between IFRs.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

Why? You said they observe photons. 

Because in the IFR where observer B is, there are no cause-and-effect relationships from the collision of photons. In order for observer A, after changing speed and moving to the same IFR as B, to remember that he observed a collision of photons, it is necessary that in this IFR there be cause-and-effect relationships starting from the collision of photons. But they cannot be, because this would violate the principle of causality in this IFR.

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, andsm said:

 

Yes, there is a clear misunderstanding of what the hypothesis is.

Probably because your example is atrocious

40 minutes ago, andsm said:

The hypothesis assumes that the principle of causality applies independently to different IFRs. Accordingly, different IFRs contain different events and different cause-and-effect relationships.

In IFR 2, observer B experienced a muon collision. This IFR does not contain causal relationships that originate from a photon collision. In IFR 1, observer A experienced a photon collision. This IFR does not contain causal relationships that originate from a muon collision.

Causal relations refer to two events

 

40 minutes ago, andsm said:

Observers A and B, without changing their speed, can exchange signals with information about what they observed. However, both observers cannot receive information about events that did not occur in their IFRs, because this would violate the causality principle within their IFRs.

What prevents them from sending this signal? 

40 minutes ago, andsm said:

Accordingly, observer A will receive a signal from B that he observed a photon collision, and B will receive a signal from A that he observed a photon collision. In order for information to arrive without distortion, it is necessary that the information be preserved during the transition between IFRs. And it cannot be preserved if there is a difference in the events between IFRs.

What causes this “distortion”?

How are charge and rest mass no longer invariant quantities? What is the transform that governs this? What other aspects of relativity are you trashing?

40 minutes ago, andsm said:

Because in the IFR where observer B is, there are no cause-and-effect relationships from the collision of photons. In order for observer A, after changing speed and moving to the same IFR as B, to remember that he observed a collision of photons, it is necessary that in this IFR there be cause-and-effect relationships starting from the collision of photons. But they cannot be, because this would violate the principle of causality in this IFR.

Ah, circular logic. The foundation of great science.

[andsm]

On the law of conservation of lepton numbers and similar questions.

I will explain why I do not need to prove that lepton numbers are conserved when transitioning between inertial frames. A similar explanation applies to any other law from modern theories.

Let's say that the observer in IFR 1 somehow measured the total number of all leptons in the Universe. Let this number be N. Then the observer changed his speed and moved to another IFR, IFR 2. Let's say that in this IFR the total number of leptons K and K differs from N, from the observer's point of view the events in all IFRs are the same. Therefore, after moving to IFR 2 the observer will think that in IFR 1 he got the number K, not N. For the reason described above. Thus, the law of conservation of lepton number, from the observer's point of view, will be fulfilled, although in fact this number will differ between IFRs.

Similarly with any other laws of physics. The only exceptions to this are those laws of physics that do not directly or indirectly depend on the principle of causality. But such laws do not exist in physics, the principle of causality is the most fundamental principle. This hypothesis modifies this principle in such a way that the unmodified version is fulfilled from the point of view of the observer. And this means that all laws of physics that depend on the principle of causality will also, from the point of view of the observer, be fulfilled when switching between IFRs.

 

16 hours ago, studiot said:

Photons have zero charge

Muons have -1 charge.

Charge is not affected by relativity transformations or causality.

This hypothesis is more fundamental than STR. STR in the hypothesis arise as transformations from the observer's point of view, STR  is not fundamental here.

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Probably because your example is atrocious

I think this is a good example. It illustrates the hypothesis well. Because it seems so easy to prove that the hypothesis is wrong based on this example. However, if you start analyzing it, it turns out that you can't do it.

 

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Causal relations refer to two events

Yes. And the hypothesis adds that these connections operate only within one IFR, and do not operate between IFRs.

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

What causes this “distortion”?

I described. Cause-and-effect relationships in IFR2 do not contain corresponding events. Are there any misunderstandings in this?

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Ah, circular logic. The foundation of great science.

And where exactly is the cyclic logic here?

Two IFRs, each with its own events and its own cause-and-effect relationships. Some events between the IFRs differ, as do the cause-and-effect relationships. How can cause-and-effect relationships starting from this event appear in an IFR that did not have an event that was in another IFR?

Edited September 30 by andsm

[Mordred]

I noted you haven't addressed my questions yet

[andsm]

37 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I noted you haven't addressed my questions yet

I think I have already answered these questions. Above, when I explained the connection between SRT and hypothesis. Is there anything left unanswered?

I have already answered above, but I will write again. No, this hypothesis does not rely in any way on STR. The principle of causality is more fundamental than STR. This hypothesis should be considered without any references to STR.

All that is required of the hypothesis, in relation to STR, is to show that STR transformations are possible in it. STR transformations preserve events described by the principle of causality when switching between reference frames. Two types of transformations arise in the hypothesis. One of them, transformations from the observer's point of view, preserve events when switching between reference frames. From this I conclude that the hypothesis is compatible with STR.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, andsm said:

And where exactly is the cyclic logic here?

There is no causality, and because of this causality doesn’t exist.

What you’re missing is evidence. i.e. the science part of all of this. What you have so far is science fiction, of the sort often proposed while in a chemically-altered state.

“Dude, what if movement affected memory and changed things you wrote down?”

”Whoah!”

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, andsm said:

I think I have already answered these questions. Above, when I explained the connection between SRT and hypothesis. Is there anything left unanswered?

I have already answered above, but I will write again. No, this hypothesis does not rely in any way on STR. The principle of causality is more fundamental than STR. This hypothesis should be considered without any references to STR.

All that is required of the hypothesis, in relation to STR, is to show that STR transformations are possible in it. STR transformations preserve events described by the principle of causality when switching between reference frames. Two types of transformations arise in the hypothesis. One of them, transformations from the observer's point of view, preserve events when switching between reference frames. From this I conclude that the hypothesis is compatible with STR.

How ?

You haven't included time dependency that I can determine. No where have I seen any reference to the speed limit of information exchange. Nor have you at any point specified a coordinate system.

Is your examination strictly Cartesisn with no speed limit of information exchange where time is absolute or are you at some point applying causality in accordance to the lightcones of Minkowskii metric ?

In your article you do not have either the Galilean transformations nor the SR transformations so how are you determining causality in accordance to anything applying relativity ?

 

Edited September 30 by Mordred

[andsm]

40 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is no causality, and because of this causality doesn’t exist.

Wrong. I say that the principle of causality applies independently for different IFRs. And I explain how it is deduced from this that from the observer's point of view, events in different IFRs are the same. I have not yet seen any comments on how this is deduced.

[studiot]

23 hours ago, andsm said:

after which he changed its speed and moved to another IFR

3 hours ago, andsm said:

This hypothesis is more fundamental than STR. STR in the hypothesis arise as transformations from the observer's point of view, STR  is not fundamental here.

 

1 hour ago, andsm said:

I think I have already answered these questions. Above, when I explained the connection between SRT and hypothesis. Is there anything left unanswered?

I have already answered above, but I will write again. No, this hypothesis does not rely in any way on STR. The principle of causality is more fundamental than STR. This hypothesis should be considered without any references to STR.

All that is required of the hypothesis, in relation to STR, is to show that STR transformations are possible in it. STR transformations preserve events described by the principle of causality when switching between reference frames. Two types of transformations arise in the hypothesis. One of them, transformations from the observer's point of view, preserve events when switching between reference frames. From this I conclude that the hypothesis is compatible with STR.

No you have neither explained nor supported your answer you simply made statements about something called STR

What is STR or SRT the one time you used that version please ?

I think I have managed to decypher IFR please confirm you mean inertial frame of reference ?

 

If that is the case you clearly misunderstand what a frame of reference is, let alone an inertial one.

Frames of reference are abstract constructs to aid calculation.
Real world objects do not enter or leave frames of reference, they do what they do regardless of such abstract overlays.

 

23 hours ago, andsm said:

after which he changed its speed and moved to another IFR

 

[andsm]

19 minutes ago, Mordred said:

How ?

The answer was given in the topic above. What exactly is unclear about it, or what problems do you see in this answer?

4 hours ago, andsm said:

Let's consider possible objections to the hypothesis:

….

3.       In any space-time, an event, if it occurs, occurs in all IFRs. It is impossible to find such a space-time that the event occurs only in the part of IFRs. Therefore, the hypothesis is incorrect.

4.       The special theory of relativity leads to the Minkowski space. In the Minkowski space, an event, if it occurs, occurs in all IFRs. Therefore, this hypothesis contradicts STR.

…

and below.

Also:

3 hours ago, andsm said:

.....

Similarly with any other laws of physics. The only exceptions to this are those laws of physics that do not directly or indirectly depend on the principle of causality. But such laws do not exist in physics, the principle of causality is the most fundamental principle. This hypothesis modifies this principle in such a way that the unmodified version is fulfilled from the point of view of the observer. And this means that all laws of physics that depend on the principle of causality will also, from the point of view of the observer, be fulfilled when switching between IFRs.

 

[swansont]

5 minutes ago, andsm said:

Wrong. I say that the principle of causality applies independently for different IFRs. And I explain how it is deduced from this that from the observer's point of view, events in different IFRs are the same.

You didn’t claim this. You said an event in frame 1 will be different than an event in frame 2.

You still haven’t explained what the role of causality is; you agreed that it requires two different events

[andsm]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

No you have neither explained nor supported your answer you simply made statements about something called STR

STR, SRT - special theory of relativity

IFR - inertial reference frame

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

You didn’t claim this.

First post of the topic:

On 9/29/2024 at 9:07 PM, andsm said:

I would like to discuss the hypothesis. Hypothesis: the principle of causality is applied separately and independently for each different inertial reference frame (IFR). Inertial reference frames are considered different if they have a non-zero relative velocity.

 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

You said an event in frame 1 will be different than an event in frame 2.

Independent application of the causality principle to different IFRs means that different IFRs can contain different events and different cause-and-effect relationships. The transition between IFRs ceases to be a simple change of coordinate system in the space-time continuum.