![]() | This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page: • Special relativity Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Special relativity Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 June 2015. The result of the discussion was redirect to Special relativity. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
|
||||
There is an article on Minkowski diagrams that I worked on a little lately, in particular in the section "The speed of light as a limit". I think the material is correct, but I have discovered today that the single (inherited) reference to Rindler in the article apparently does not cover the claims in that section, basically that the speed limit seems to be due to the structure of space, time, and our notions of causality, and appears to have little or nothing in particular to do with EM waves or light, despite its historical origins. I think Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics must have it and would be a good reference, but I do not have convenient access to a copy. Does anyone have that handy (and know where it is discussed), or know a good a substitute source?
I assume there is no real doubt about the substance of the matter, but if there is I would be pleased to be enlightened about that, of course. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. By simultaneous of course I mean the only sense simultaneity can have for two events in current physics (at least as I understand it), which is equivalent to their having a spacelike separation. By using scare-quotes on "simultaneous" I hoped to stress the pairwise nature of the term, in view of the non-transitivity discussed above. But my narrow purpose was really to verify that my claim, that such a chain of pair-wise simultaneous events can be constructed to cover all of a connected spacetime, is actually not in dispute, and if possible to find solid sourcing for it in the literature, so that is available for use both in this article and in related ones. This transitivity point may seem vacuous in the strict logical context of special relativity, but when we lay it along side our primitive concepts of "real" (as in local realism and Philosophical realism)) and "cause", I think it is more substantive. Maybe this "Introduction to special relativity" article is not really the best place to inquire, and perhaps I should have taken it to Special relativity. But anyhow, I still solicit further insight or source information from other editors. Thanks Wwheaton (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to clean up the references. But I found something strange: I have a PDF copy of Einstein's 1916 Relativity: The Special and General Theory, and I cannot find the quoted sentence ("It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."). I searched for nearly any single word in it. And the translator of my version is the same as the one cited (Robert W. Lawson). My copy lacks Appendix 5 ("Relativity and the Problem of Space") because it is later than the rest of the book and it's still copyrighted. Does the quoted sentence come from there? Also, I have the Italian translation of Six Not-So-Easy Pieces, and I can't find any sentence which could reasonably be a translation of "The idea that the history of the universe should be viewed, physically, as a four-dimensional spacetime, rather than as a three dimensional space evolving with time is indeed fundamental to modern physics." in the chapter about spacetime. Was it taken from Penrose's introduction? If so, that should be made clearer. -- Army1987 ! ! ! 10:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at speed and velocity. Shortly, speed only specifies how fast something is, whereas velocity also specifies in which direction it is moving. c is a constant defined as 299 792 458 m/s, which of course specifies no direction, so it is incorrect to refer it as a velocity. What does the Hawking cite actually say, exactly? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
<!-- This is a direct quotation; do not change "velocity" with "speed" even if the latter term is used for this meaning in modern English. -->
could be useful to prevent good faith edits such as 24.23.137.215's and mine.← OK, OK, I removed it (adding the hidden comment I was referring above). -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The motivation for this article is a superb one. However the execution is too technical. I learned these ideas 40 years ago from a book titled The Universe and Dr. Einstein by Lincoln Barnett. This entry should be pitched at the same level as that book, with aiming a tiny bit higher being forgiven! For my generation, the classic university intro to special relativity was a nice little paperback by Wheeler and Taylor, titled Spacetime Physics.
I had thought that special relativity was now a settled area of physics, but to my considerable surprise, this is not so. Mitchell Feigenbaum has recently shown how to derive special relativity as a careful extension of Galilean relativity, without making any assumptions about the speed of light. See his: "The Theory of Relativity - Galileo's Child," arXiv:0806.1234 .
The citation and referencing system is also eccentric and must be changed. Adding a Further Reading section is an imperative.123.255.28.117 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
For years there have been attempts by many people to simplify this article. The problem is that some people heavily resist all effort to make this a really non-technical explanation. (See the history of this discussion.) Maybe they want to show how smart they are and make it difficult to understand it even though the beauty of this theory is in its simplicity. It can be understood without all the mathematics and the Minkowski crap. The math is just an exact language to describe it and it's already used in the main Special relativity article. Congratulations, gentlemen. This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia and it's completely useless.
--78.102.85.253 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not everyone has taken a degree in physics. The biggest problem with science-oriented articles on wikipedia is that the amount of pre-learned information needed to read the article is larger than the amount of information CONTAINED within the article. You should be able to open up one of these "introduction to..." articles and be able to jump right in, regardless of experience or lack thereof. To DVdm: have you read the introduction to the regular special relativity article? Can you imagine approaching that with no previous background in science? This article is here for a reason; a very good reason at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.204.104 (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course in the case of special relativity, there happens to be a demand for jump-in-introductions. So we find many in the literature. Unfortunaly, most are just rubbish and merely present the author's misconceptions and misunderstandings about the subject. The more correct you want the treatment of an advanced subject to be, the less accessible it will be for the lay person. That is why, in my opinion, this article should not be here. It will never serve its purpose. DVdm (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I tried to put in a naive explanation, but ran into edit conflicts with someone that I couldn't overcome because of my Wikipedia inexperience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhm15217 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
There is too much jargon in this article for it to be considered introductory. Where is RobotRollCall when you need her? http://www.reddit.com/user/robotrollcall 93.172.56.90 (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think a lot of confusion comes from the standard presentation of the subject. Take for example the "Minkowski metric"
The truth is that this is just NOT A METRIC in any ordinary sense. Neither is its negative. It is such points, never clearly admitted in books, that lead to misunderstanding. Any clear thinking is glossed over to support the conventional (rather rickety) theory of space-time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFB80 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the link to the intro article from the main article because right now the main article is far more accessible to the general reader. The intro is too technical and too incoherent. It's more like a garbled intro to advanced physics students, which makes this article pointless. 109.186.38.41 (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I think this article is close-to-useless "as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject." It mentions concepts such as affine spaces and fibre bundles that even most undergraduate students have no idea of, and say incredibly little of how special relativity came to be. Therefore I'd propose to completely rewrite the article according to the following structure:
What do you think? -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC) Mention that Einstein was lead to the constancy of the speed of light from Maxwell's equations. --Michael C. Price talk 23:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting an AfD or a merge, but doesn't this page conflict with WP:NOTTEXTBOOK? I presume there was discussion at the main article which led to invoking WP:IAR for this page. A link to the debate and conclusion there at the top of this talk page could help avoid misunderstandings. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I was intrigued by the idea of an article that simplified special relativity so that average people could understand it. But I agree with others here who feel that attempt has failed most miserably. Such a page should be accessible and understandable by people who don't have grasps of advanced mathematics and physics beyond a high-school levels. The non-introduction article about special relativity is the place for all the intricacies. I'm not sure why anyone would argue this point, or why discussion about fixing this very broken article has gone on for so long. Instead of equations, arcane physics lingo, and confusing terminology, I really thing this article needs to be absolutely stripped down to its barest components, done in language students in junior high school can understand. If there's something the scientists in the group feel MUST be added to an article about special relativity, there's another one out there that ISN'T an introduction, and they should edit over there. What do we need to do to move this debate out of the debate room and actually move forward with making this introduction article truly an introduction, with words and terms that average folks can understand? Really, I have a decent understanding of special relativity, and this article confuses me! Indy (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It is also the reason why I keep repeating that this article should not be here, as it merely raises false expectations. I.m.o whatever is here, should be moved into the main article. I think that our only chance of ever having a truly lay-intro to the subject, is by using another article title, like, why not, for instance, Special relativity for the layman. That might work, and it might prevent the main authors of this article to be so demanding. DVdm (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Merging this article with the main article will accomplish nothing; presumably, everything here is in there anyway. Why eliminate this instead of making it better? That's like saying "Learning to walk on a balance beam is too difficult for these students, so let's make them all walk tightropes instead."
I think you have an excellent point with renaming the article. But will that keep the experts from ruining it? Is the problem that the best stuff has already been incorporated into the big article, so they keep beefing this one up because it's the only place they have to show what they know?
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that having a simple article written in layman's terms without piles of equations would be very valuable to the average person. Right now, an average person visiting the article on special relativity would be completely overwhelmed. And when he finds an easier article, an "introduction" to special relativity, he no doubt will feel relieved -- until he actually sees it.
I think your title idea makes the most sense. Using the word "layman" should make it clear that simplicity is all that is wanted.
And finally, in order to actually WRITE a simple, layman's-terms article about this, we pretty much need at least one sympathetic expert in the field who actually understands what we mean. Any high-school-physics teachers out there? Indy (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
..
Just want you to know that I think it looks good, to be all to snotty as some guys seemed to have been here is not necessary, to me those seemed more 'elitist' than those contributing the real work here. A good job as far as I'm concerned. Keep it on. Yoron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.30.107.214 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The length of a line in a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system is given by Pythagoras' theorem:
the h of 2D is incorporated into the k of 3D without regard of it variance to the vector.
Is true only for one special case when z=0. Plane and vector are identical and the projection of the vector(h)is identical with the lenght of the vector → 2D.
therefore This follow through is false unless we deal with 2D. And then the rules of 2D apply.--Martin Lenoar (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The answers are coming faster then I expected. I am very new to the editing practices and therefore my editing is not as smooth. So it happens then when I just want to see what it looks like then I might forget to sign. And I was not finished. There is nothing wrong with the article. And nothing wrong with the mathematics. But there is something wrong with the use of mathematics to prove something by simply not considering everything. So please look at it again and then you might see what I mean. --Martin Lenoar (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, DVdm, for pointing out that this is not the right place to discuss the subject, on the other hand you reply to my observation. So where would I go if I would want to reply to your arguments?
Because what you say is basically the main reason why I placed that edit on this page. It would take a long scientific discussion to get to an understanding. Not just between you and me. If you would be interested in how I think then have a look at ACR. A theory of life (space included) which I have worked on for about 10 years now and which made me also look at "special relativity" and other theories of how this universe could be functioning. But I found so many discrepancies, like the one in this article, that I prefer my own version. Thank you for the welcome--Martin Lenoar (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
In the argument for the space-time interval, the argument is made that length is fundamentally different from time intervals and therefore you need to introduce the factor c. However, this is a bogus argument. Particles follow world lines in space-time. While special relativity implies constraints here, that's not evidence for time being fundamentally different from space. Quite the opposite, I would say. Also, many theoretical physicist use natural units in the literal interpretation of c = 1 being dimensionless.
Physics can be formulated in a completely dimensionless way, so the whole idea that "dimensions" as used for units, constants etc. are fundamental properties of Nature, is unfalsifiable nonsense. Count Iblis (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I read this article about 4 years back and thought well done!
The article back then was a bit mathematical but it got over the main points which were that:
1. Spatial length is not invariant
2. In a 4D coordinate system there is indeed an invariant quantity, the space-time interval
3. Equating the formulae for the space time interval between coordinate systems gives you time dilation, length contraction, relativistic phase using no more than simple algebra.
I can still see remnants of this approach in the current article but it is obvious that many of the contributors dont understand the modern approach to Relativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.30.2 (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia already has a first class http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Special_Relativity_V2.11.pdf Wikibooks Special Relativity Introductory Text and this is just a lengthy explanation of the first page or two of any good graduate level Relativity textbook such as http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html Sean Carroll's Book.
this orphaned Section Heading is unsigned and innappropriate imo. References should
be made in the article itself or against the section in the Talk page concerned.
LookingGlass (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have flagged this article as imo it reads like a magazine article instead of an encyclopedia.
The article currently veers between elementary examples (eg passengers on a train) and mathematical proofs. While these two styles are suited to text books, though for widely separated age/competency classes, they are insufficient in style and gradation to satisfy the needs of an encyclopedic article. IMO this is an article that is oriented to a general audience rather than towards a technical one. While the mathematical theorems may be appropriate on wiki (even if to me they seem out of place), in any event I believe that in an encyclopdic entry they should be secondary to the general explanation of the thesis concerned. This would mean that a progression, from everyday examples (passengers on a train) to progressively more complex thought experiments, such as the relativity of simultaneity (the Andromeda paradox), should be followed. These should all be set out in general not mathematical terminology, and with as little recourse to the latter as possible. Extended mathematical proofs could be added as the equivalent of appendices in later sections.
LookingGlass (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The article states that Aristotle thought that all objects tended to cease moving and came to rest if there were no forces acting on them. This is the common view but actually it is not true: he said that they would continue in motion because there was no reason why they should stop (i.e. he originated "Newton's first law of motion"!). I cannot give the exact reference just now -it is in his book on the heavens. When I can I will correct the article. JFB80 (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2013 (UtTC) Later: It is in his work on physics, not the heavens. In book 4 section 8 on motion in a void there is found the quotation Further, no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere; for why should it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way.JFB80 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)JFB80 (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe this section does a good job of presenting these Lorentz distortion concepts, but I'm at a loss to understand the scenario. Perhaps it is missing an introduction. The quote, "Let us return to the example of John and Bill" seems orphaned from a narrative describing their motion through spacetime. Pardon my formatting, this is my first post to a wiki talk page. --davidtheterp (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how to add another talk subject, so I'll add it to this one: the concept of relativistic mass is quite dated and proves no real use in the understanding of special relativity. (D.J. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles, Chapter 3, p90) Although anecdotal, my professor reacted almost annoyed when I asked if γm corresponded with relativistic mass. All in all it is confusing and counterintuitive to define mass as such, since the gamma-factor is rather a consequence of the properties of four-space than an intrinsic property of a point-like particle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatronBernard (talk • contribs) 12:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC) (this was inserted in the middle of the page so I moved it to the end -DavRosen. p.s. you should be able to click on "New Section" at the top of the page)
Since there is already an article on Special Relativity, which includes an introduction, why do we also need a separate article on "Introduction to Special Relativity"? This article is almost entirely unsourced. It seems to be just a place where people can come to present their own personal ideas about special relativity. I don't think there's anything in this article that isn't already in the article on special relativity (other than some things that don't belong in Wikipedia at all).
Shouldn't this article be proposed for deletion?Urgent01 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of Introduction to special relativity with Special relativity.
Section | Paragraph | Comment |
---|---|---|
Lede | In physics, special relativity is... Einstein postulated that the speed of light... The predictions of special relativity... (list) Relativity of simultaneity... Special relativity predicts a non-linear... As Galilean relativity is now considered... |
Nothing is here which is not already in the main Special Relativity article. Would be redundant in a merge. |
Reference frames and Galilean relativity: a classical prelude |
A reference frame is simply... One oft-used example... Consider the seats... The distances between these objects... An observer standing on the platform... Why can't we select one of these frames... |
Unsourced Essay Violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK However, there are interesting bits and pieces. Possibly there may be some things worth keeping in a merge? |
Classical physics and electromagnetism |
Through the era between Newton... As electricity and magnetism... Under the classic model... Designing an experiment... These experiments all showed... The development of a suitable... |
Unsourced Essay Borderline Violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK Most is already covered in the main article, and would be redundant in a merge. |
Invariance of length: the Euclidean picture |
In special relativity, space and time... In everyday experience, it seems... The length of a line... One of the basic theorems... This is invariant under all... Note that invariance of length... Note that rotations are... |
Unsourced Essay Violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK |
The Minkowski formulation: introduction of spacetime |
After Einstein derived special relativity... The concept of a four-dimensional space A path through the four-dimensional... In the same way as the measurement... But there is a problem; time is... There are two major points... In Minkowski spacetime the spacetime... Now comes the physical part... Since by definition rotations must... With the statement of the Minkowski metric... As has been mentioned before... |
Almost completely unsourced Essay Violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK This is the crucial section: Does this tutorial essay succeed in teaching poets and middle-schoolers the essence of relativity, or does this essay, which tries to be both textbook tutorial and at the same time an encyclopedia article, fail in its mixed purpose? This section liberally drops terms such as "rotations in Minkowski space", "Galilean transformations", "Lorentz transformations", "Maxwell's equations and Dirac's equation" without adequate explanation. I do not see how an uninitiated reader can interpret this section as anything other than mysterious mumbo-jumbo. |
Reference frames and Lorentz transformations: relativity revisited |
Changes in reference frame... Maxwell's equations are written... |
Unsourced Essay Violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK As with the previous section, this section drops terms such as "Schrödinger equation", "four-vectors" and "manifestly covariant form" without explanation. As a result, these last two sections really explain nothing at all to an uninitiated reader. |
Einstein's postulate: the constancy of the speed of light |
Einstein's postulate that the speed... Proposition 1... Proposition 2... |
In this section, we see a drawback of shared authorship. The lede was mostly written by editors who took a classic "two postulates" approach towards understanding special relativity, while the intervening sections were dominated by editors who preferred an approach starting with Minkowski spacetime. This section, which shows that the 2nd postulate arises naturally from the Minkowski formulation, is confusing because the distinctiveness of these approaches was not made clear enough in the lede. The next-to-last section The postulates of special relativity also presents the two postulates, adding to the confusion for an uninitiated reader. |
Clock delays and rod contractions: more on Lorentz transformations |
Another consequence of... John observes the length... The spacetime interval... So, if John sees a clock... In special relativity... Similarly it can be shown... These two equations... The above formulas... Alternatively, these equations... A consequence of... |
Unsourced, but accurate so far as I can see. Non-controversial material doesn't always have to be sourced. However, violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK The question is, is this presentation any more understandable over the equivalent material in the main article? I would say, yes, just a bit more so, at the cost of being non-encyclopedic. |
Simultaneity and clock desynchronisation |
The last consequence... Observers have a set of... The net effect... Great care is needed... |
This section is very unsatisfactory. It reads as a set of unjustified assertions. It is not well integrated with the accompanying figure. Overall, inferior to the equivalent section in the main article. |
General relativity: a peek forward |
Unlike Newton's laws of motion... One says that the Minkowski metric... |
What is this doing in an Introduction to Special Relativity? |
Mass–energy equivalence | As we increase an object's energy... Any object that has mass... Similarly, the total of amount of energy... |
Essentially nothing here that is not already covered in the main article. |
Applications | There is a common perception... | A number of inaccuracies. The yellow color of gold ia not an "application". CRTs were designed empirically. GPS requires general relativity to enable coordination of the control and space segments. |
The postulates of special relativity |
Einstein developed special relativity... Special relativity can be derived... |
As I stated previously, this article does not do a good job of explaining that although Einstein's original 1905 derivation began with two postulates, modern pedagogy prefers alternate approaches to teaching this subject. Having this as a last section is rather confusing, since the main body of the article has concerned itself with the Minkowski spacetime approach to understanding special relativity. |
I will expand this comparison over next few days to encompass the entire article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Things are "sort of OK" until I reach the section on The Minkowski formulation, which liberally drops advanced vocabulary terms such as "rotations in Minkowski space", "Galilean transformations", "Lorentz transformations", "Maxwell's equations and Dirac's equation" without adequate explanation. To an uninitiated reader, this section and the ones after must seem a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with DVdm. From what I can see, this article merely raises false expectations. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Summary
Overall, the material that I see in this article is either already covered in the main article on Special relativity, or constitutes unsourced textbook-like essay (rather inferior as such things go), completely non-encyclopedic in style. To quote from WP:NOTTEXTBOOK:
I do not want to be the person performing the merge. That would be setting myself up as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, which is too much of a role for me to take. If somebody else agrees with my analysis and, in performing the merge, decides that nothing is worth saving, I will back him/her up. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
How is any of this even remotely acceptable as a wikipedia entry? No citations, all original thought. Shouldn't this be flagged with about 6 different problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.13.66 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)