BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Gergely Székely

Gergely Székely contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
math.LOgr-qcmath-phmath.MPmath.MGphysics.gen-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
14works
0followers
6topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

14 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Complexity in the interdefinability of timelike, lightlike and spacelike relatedness of Minkowski spacetime

Interdefinability of timelike, lightlike and spacelike relatedness of Minkowski spacetime is investigated in detail in the paper, with the aim of finding the simplest definitions. Based on ideas scattered in the literature, definitions are given between any two of these relations that use only 4 variables. All these definitions work over arbitrary Euclidean fields in place of the field of reals, if the dimension n of spacetime is greater than two. If n=2, the definitions work over arbitrary ordered fields except the ones based on lightlike relatedness (where no definition can work by symmetry). None of these relations can be defined from another one using only 3 variables. Our four-variable definitions use only one universal and one existential quantifiers in a specific order. In some of the cases, we show that the order of these quantifiers can be reversed for the price of using twice as many quantifiers. Except two cases, we provide existential/universal definitions using 5 variables or show that no existential/universal definition exists. There are no existential/universal definitions between any two of these relations using only 4 variables. It remains open whether there is an existential (universal) definition of timelike (lightlike) relatedness from spacelike relatedness if $n>2$. Finally, several other open problems related to the quantifier complexity of the simplest possible definitions are given.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Groups of Worldview Transformations Implied by Isotropy of Space

Given any Euclidean ordered field, $Q$, and any 'reasonable' group, $G$, of (1+3)-dimensional spacetime symmetries, we show how to construct a model $M_{G}$ of kinematics for which the set $W$ of worldview transformations between inertial observers satisfies $W=G$. This holds in particular for all relevant subgroups of $Gal$, $cPoi$, and $cEucl$ (the groups of Galilean, Poincaré and Euclidean transformations, respectively, where $c\in Q$ is a model-specific parameter orresponding to the speed of light in the case of Poincaré transformations). In doing so, by an elementary geometrical proof, we demonstrate our main contribution: spatial isotropy is enough to entail that the set $W$ of worldview transformations satisfies either $W\subseteq Gal$, $W\subseteq cPoi$, or $W\subseteq cEucl$ for some $c>0$. So assuming spatial isotropy is enough to prove that there are only 3 possible cases: either the world is classical (the worldview transformations between inertial observers are Galilean transformations); the world is relativistic (the worldview transformations are Poincaré transformations); or the world is Euclidean (which gives a nonstandard kinematical interpretation to Euclidean geometry). This result considerably extends previous results in this field, which assume a priori the (strictly stronger) special principle of relativity, while also restricting the choice of $Q$ to the field of reals. As part of this work, we also prove the rather surprising result that, for any $G$ containing translations and rotations fixing the time-axis $t$, the requirement that $G$ be a subgroup of one of the groups $Gal$, $cPoi$ or $cEucl$ is logically equivalent to the somewhat simpler requirement that, for all $g\in G$: $g[t]$ is a line, and if $g[t]=t$ then $g$ is a trivial transformation (i.e. $g$ is a linear transformation that preserves Euclidean length and fixes the time-axis setwise).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Distances between formal theories

In the literature, there have been several methods and definitions for working out if two theories are "equivalent" (essentially the same) or not. In this article, we do something subtler. We provide means to measure distances (and explore connections) between formal theories. We introduce two main notions for such distances. The first one is that of \textit{axiomatic distance}, but we argue that it might be of limited interest. The more interesting and widely applicable notion is that of \textit{conceptual distance} which measures the minimum number of concepts that distinguish two theories. For instance, we use conceptual distance to show that relativistic and classical kinematics are distinguished by one concept only. We also develop further notions of distance, and we include a number of suggestions for applying and extending our project.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

On some Symmetry Axioms in Relativity Theories

In this paper we review two symmetry axioms of special relativity and their connections to each other together with their role in some famous predictions of relativity theory, such as time dilation, length contraction, and the twin paradox. We also discuss briefly counterparts of these symmetry axioms in general relativity and formulate a conjecture, namely that without them the axioms of general relativity would capture general relativistic spacetimes only up to conformal equivalence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

Why Do the Relativistic Masses and Momenta of Faster-than-Light Particles Decrease as their Speeds Increase?

It has recently been shown within a formal axiomatic framework using a definition of four-momentum based on the Stückelberg-Feynman-Sudarshan-Recami "switching principle" that Einstein's relativistic dynamics is logically consistent with the existence of interacting faster-than-light inertial particles. Our results here show, using only basic natural assumptions on dynamics, that this definition is the only possible way to get a consistent theory of such particles moving within the geometry of Minkowskian spacetime. We present a strictly formal proof from a streamlined axiom system that given any slow or fast inertial particle, all inertial observers agree on the value of $\mathsf{m}\cdot \sqrt{|1-v^2|}$, where $\mathsf{m}$ is the particle's relativistic mass and $v$ its speed. This confirms formally the widely held belief that the relativistic mass and momentum of a positive-mass faster-than-light particle must decrease as its speed increases.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2011arXiv

Closed Timelike Curves in Relativistic Computation

In this paper, we investigate the possibility of using closed timelike curves (CTCs) in relativistic hypercomputation. We introduce a wormhole based hypercomputation scenario which is free from the common worries, such as the blueshift problem. We also discuss the physical reasonability of our scenario, and why we cannot simply ignore the possibility of the existence of spacetimes containing CTCs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2010arXiv

First-Order Logic Investigation of Relativity Theory with an Emphasis on Accelerated Observers

This thesis is mainly about extensions of the first-order logic axiomatization of special relativity introduced by Andréka, Madarász and Németi. These extensions include extension to accelerated observers, relativistic dynamics and general relativity; however, its main subject is the extension to accelerated observers (AccRel). One surprising result is that natural extension to accelerated observers is not enough if we want our theory to imply certain experimental facts, such as the twin paradox. Even if we add the whole first-order theory of real numbers to this natural extension, it is still not enough to imply the twin paradox. Nevertheless, that does not mean that this task cannot be carried out within first-order logic since by approximating a second-order logic axiom of real numbers, we introduce a first-order axiom schema that solves the problem. Our theory AccRel nicely fills the gap between special and general relativity theories, and only one natural generalization step is needed to achieve a first-order logic axiomatization of general relativity from it. We also show that AccRel is strong enough to make predictions about the gravitational effect slowing down time. Our general aims are to axiomatize relativity theories within pure first-order logic using simple, comprehensible and transparent basic assumptions (axioms); to prove the surprising predictions (theorems) of relativity theories from a few convincing axioms; to eliminate tacit assumptions from relativity by replacing them with explicit axioms formulated in first-order logic (in the spirit of the first-order logic foundation of mathematics and Tarski's axiomatization of geometry); and to investigate the relationship between the axioms and the theorems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access