Talk:Special relativity: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nathaniel Dektor
imported>Greg Woodhouse
(Applications)
Line 15: Line 15:
This is a nice article! Since you mention the Pythagorean theorem in the example of the light beam in the train, why not complete the thought and note that the formula for time dilation follows directly from it? The Lorentz transformations don't actually involve any advanced mathematics. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 22:41, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
This is a nice article! Since you mention the Pythagorean theorem in the example of the light beam in the train, why not complete the thought and note that the formula for time dilation follows directly from it? The Lorentz transformations don't actually involve any advanced mathematics. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 22:41, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
:I'm trying to keep the article pitched as non-technically as possible, since--amazingly--relativity's basic effects are much more accessible than people would have thought in 1905. If you mean to ''derive'' Lorentz from Pythagoras, I think that would make a lot of people's heads spin. If you mean just mention the connection in the article, then I think you should work it in if you see a good way to fit it. My only concern about the Lorentz Transformation is that it's kind of its own deal, and paying too much attention to it here might only distract. It's interesting you brought this up, though. I labored over whether to say more about Lorentz, but I came to believe that even though it apparently doesn't require more than high school algebra, the idea of transformation, of mapping one coordinate system onto another is ''not'' a high school notion, especially with time involved. I think even the Galilean Transformation would actually cause people more difficulty to fully comprehend than anything else in the article. Thanks for catching my latex typos, by the way. [[User:Nathaniel Dektor|Nathaniel Dektor]] 22:53, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
:I'm trying to keep the article pitched as non-technically as possible, since--amazingly--relativity's basic effects are much more accessible than people would have thought in 1905. If you mean to ''derive'' Lorentz from Pythagoras, I think that would make a lot of people's heads spin. If you mean just mention the connection in the article, then I think you should work it in if you see a good way to fit it. My only concern about the Lorentz Transformation is that it's kind of its own deal, and paying too much attention to it here might only distract. It's interesting you brought this up, though. I labored over whether to say more about Lorentz, but I came to believe that even though it apparently doesn't require more than high school algebra, the idea of transformation, of mapping one coordinate system onto another is ''not'' a high school notion, especially with time involved. I think even the Galilean Transformation would actually cause people more difficulty to fully comprehend than anything else in the article. Thanks for catching my latex typos, by the way. [[User:Nathaniel Dektor|Nathaniel Dektor]] 22:53, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
== Applications ==
The article seems to suggest that relativity is of no practical significance. This may be true in the macroscopic world (unless we want to rely on an atomic clock  on fast moving spaceship!), but it is certainly not true of subatomic particles. For example, if muons decay in 2.2 microseconds, how is it possible that we're able to detect muons from outer space? (Answer: if they are moving at speeds approaching c, then they will take a very long time to decay by our reckoning, or, if you like, will travel very far before decaying). [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 23:52, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 23:52, 25 June 2007


Article Checklist for "Special relativity"
Workgroup category or categories Physics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Greg Woodhouse 20:59, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Pythagorean theorem

This is a nice article! Since you mention the Pythagorean theorem in the example of the light beam in the train, why not complete the thought and note that the formula for time dilation follows directly from it? The Lorentz transformations don't actually involve any advanced mathematics. Greg Woodhouse 22:41, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm trying to keep the article pitched as non-technically as possible, since--amazingly--relativity's basic effects are much more accessible than people would have thought in 1905. If you mean to derive Lorentz from Pythagoras, I think that would make a lot of people's heads spin. If you mean just mention the connection in the article, then I think you should work it in if you see a good way to fit it. My only concern about the Lorentz Transformation is that it's kind of its own deal, and paying too much attention to it here might only distract. It's interesting you brought this up, though. I labored over whether to say more about Lorentz, but I came to believe that even though it apparently doesn't require more than high school algebra, the idea of transformation, of mapping one coordinate system onto another is not a high school notion, especially with time involved. I think even the Galilean Transformation would actually cause people more difficulty to fully comprehend than anything else in the article. Thanks for catching my latex typos, by the way. Nathaniel Dektor 22:53, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Applications

The article seems to suggest that relativity is of no practical significance. This may be true in the macroscopic world (unless we want to rely on an atomic clock on fast moving spaceship!), but it is certainly not true of subatomic particles. For example, if muons decay in 2.2 microseconds, how is it possible that we're able to detect muons from outer space? (Answer: if they are moving at speeds approaching c, then they will take a very long time to decay by our reckoning, or, if you like, will travel very far before decaying). Greg Woodhouse 23:52, 25 June 2007 (CDT)