Abstract
OBJECTIONS to my analysis of re-entrant motion generally fall into one of two categories, (1) criticisms that accept the analysis within its terms of reference (namely, those of ordinary special relativity), but view the result as sufficiently ludicrous to refute one or more of the idealizations (for example, linear mathematics, rigid bodies) embodied in those terms of reference; (2) criticisms of the analysis as false and incompatible with special relativity.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Landau, L., and Lifshitz, E., The Classical Theory of Fields, 24 (Addison-Wesley, 1951). These authors, as a result of failing to define ‘circumference’ as a locus, unfortunately confuse the metric of a stationary observer with the metric that would be attributed by such an observer to a moving observer. Thus, the particular ‘absurdity’ they expose has a definitional origin and is unconnected with the rigid-body property to which they ascribe it. (All reference to the matter has been eliminated from the second revised edition, 1962.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
PHIPPS, T. Re-entrant Motion in Special Relativity. Nature 196, 886–888 (1962). https://doi.org/10.1038/196886c0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/196886c0
This article is cited by
-
Re-entrant Motion in Special Relativity
Nature (1963)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
