Talk:Formulations of special relativity

poor quality, should be deleted

In my opinion, this article is of very poor quality and should be deleted. It's a random mixture of (1) crackpot material such as Taiji relativity, (2) equivalent reformulation of SR, and (3) theories that are not equivalent to SR (and therefore don't belong here according to the title of the article). There are currently no articles that link to it.--75.83.64.6 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree that the article should be deleted. Maybe renamed (moved) and also improved but it seems to contain material that is not elsewhere in WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with editor 75.83.64.6: This article should be deleted. The reason is the same as he gave, namely, that the article consists of only three kinds of things, none of which belong here. First, there is the crackpot material like "Taiji Relativity", which should be deleted in any case. Second, there are the things that are expressly not equivalent to special relativity, so they don't belong in an article on alternative formulations of special relativity. This includes things like Doubly Special Relativity, which of course have their own articles, so simply renaming the article would still be redundant. Third, there are a few things equivalent to special relativity, which are already given ample coverage in the article on special relativity itself as well as articles on Lorentz's theory, etc. I see nothing here (aside from crackpot material) that isn't redundant to the coverage in more suitable articles. Fiddlefofum (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest merging Postulates of special relativity with Alternative formulations of special relativity. The 2-postulate formulation is just one of several. We don't need two articles to say that. Roger (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The two articles have different scope. Alternative formulations of special relativity contains a lot of material that doesn't belong at Postulates of special relativity, like the section on Euclidean relativity. Having a separate overview of alternative formulations also allows other articles, like Postulates of special relativity to focus on conventional approaches rather than being cluttered with material that might be more contentious. I also think that, conceptually, an overview article on alternative formulations is helpful, even if the current execution of that concept is flawed and needs improvement. – Scyrme (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Since you have edited both articles, I think both are very misleading about the postulates. One says: "The two-postulate basis for special relativity is the one historically used by Einstein, and it remains the starting point today." No, I don't think it is the starting point. Textbooks commonly use other approaches as starting points, such as Michelson-Morley, Minkowski space, and Maxwell's equations. These articles should present the postulates as just one of several starting points in common use today. Roger (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

In that case, Postulates of special relativity should be amended. The simplest fix, at least to that line, might be tp replace "remains" with "often": and it is often the starting point today.

I still don't think a full merge is appropriate since not all the material relevant. The scope of this article could be adjusted; reword it a bit and move it to Formulations of special relativity. It would still function as a general overview of different approaches, and would link to the main articles for the those that warrant their own articles. Details about single postulate approaches which are excessive for an overview could be copied over to Postulates of special relativity while the rest of the content remains here. – Scyrme (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Much more needs to be fixed. It says the theory is derived from first principles, but that is not true at all. It was derived from the results of some surprising experiments. Roger (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I also do not agree with your reversion of my edit. Einstein's formulation is just one alternative. Others were used historically, and others are used in textbooks. I don't think Einstein's was ever the most popular one. The article should just list the formulations. Roger (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I never intended to suggest otherwise, I only intended to suggest a possible solution for the specific problem you mentioned. There being more to fix is why I said "at least to that line". If you agree with my suggestion, implement it, along with any other amendments to the article that are needed.

As for this article, regardless of popularity, the original formulation is generally attributed to Einstein and this article is clearly intended to cover alternatives to that formulation. I reverted your edit because it's not in line with the current scope and function of this article.

If you feel this article should just list the formulations, then fair enough. As I suggested earlier, the scope/function of the article can be adjusted if you feel it would be an improvement; if you want to pursue that, I won't get in your way. However, I would recommend moving the article to Formulations of special relativity first, so that the title matches its new scope/function. Otherwise, it would be a bit like rewording an article about "Lemons" to make it about lemons and limes while still keeping the original title of "Lemons".

If this article is going to be an overview of differing formulations in general, Einstein's included, then the title should reflect that. (As a bonus, dropping "Alternative" would make the title more concise.) – Scyrme (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Article structure

I've been BOLD and done some major restructuring. 20WattSphere (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)