Talk:Theory of relativity/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Theory of relativity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mercury

Mercury is mentioned in the article, but Venus and some other planets show relativistic effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.84.215 (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't bothered to look at the article in this regard, and perhaps the wording is confusing. At the time the Mercury observation was made, just after WWI, the technology and the weather and the orbital dynamics barely sufficed for the Mercury experiment to work. Since, mostly bcz the technology has improved, the fundamentally identical phenomenon has presumably become measurable using Venus. You may be able to do the experiment using the Earth as planet and observing from space -- but Earth orbit may not be good enuf. The same effect applies with every other planet, but presumably the Venus, and other, eclipse experiments produce no new knowledge (even if someone with limited resources has done one or more of them just for practice, or just in the hope of stumbling on a more bizarre fiasco-Gran-Sasso career opportunity, whereas other relativity-relevant experiments either exploit different mechanisms or improve precision by orders of magnitude.
I'd be surprised if adding mention of Venus could improve the article, and i'd be shocked if rewording the discussion of Mercury in a way that clarifies why it was the obvious planetary candidate didn't improve it more than mentioning Venus.
--Jerzy•t 01:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Relativity has been proven

See this NASA article: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

The theory of relativity has been proven by a satellite which has been in orbit for about 8 years. See article for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.64.253 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Queen Anne is dead, as my grandmother used to say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

See Tests of general relativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.86.73 (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I dunno if NASA claimed proof or not, but whatever they said, they didn't mean proof in Euclid's sense, as 64... seemed to imply. Experiments like the one in question are steps in a series of confirmations that continues indefinitely unless the theory is disproven, or a more broadly applicable or "simpler" (usually, more compact) theory displaces it. Relativity is a big theory, predicting many phenomena that previous theories claimed to rule out, and each fulfillment of one of those predictions is of interest as another proof of the weakness of preceding theories -- but no theory is ever proven. Presumably we explain that at Philosophy of science.
--Jerzy•t 03:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Name from '06 but theory from '05

I haven't thot the wording thru, but the lead section mentions the name of the theory dating from 1906 w/o having clarified that the (special) theory was published in '05.
--Jerzy•t 03:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing out galilean invariance

hi, i have a problem with these losers in "physics" removing the galilean relativity mention.

first of all, the lorentz transformation has NO, ZERO (get this through your heads, please) GEOMETRIC INTERPRETATION.

I cannot emphasize this enough. i find it comical that this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lorentz_transforms_2.svg is used as some sort of diagram that's mathematically rigorous.

it is both laughable and tragic that people suddenly feel a need to remove galilean relativity because they've spent their lives researching very narrow and contrived "transformation" by lorentz.

facts: i have yet to see a mathematically rigorous diagram, with graduated axes, explaining what exactly the lorentz transformation is and how it is geometric.

in contrast, it is quite clear when you read sir isaac's intrepretation of absolute space & time, and also the galilean transformation, that there is a very clear geometric interpretation.

looking at a PROPER MATHEMATICAL DIAGRAM over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation, you see that that the x-axis is time, and the y-axis ('z') are clearly labelled, depicting a clear "slide" of the axis to the right. i have yet to see anything like this for the lorentz transformations.

maybe if the "physics" people realized that data collected in 4D (such as fMRI data, which is four dimensional. LxWxHxT), you can vectorize the spatial indices of the data (resulting in LWH rows and T columns in matrix form), which allows this data to transformed as described in the diagram.

i have yet to see anything similar for the much-bandied-about lorentz transformation. given that fMRI data is inarguably some of the highest quality data when it comes to spacetime measurements (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Basic_Physics_of_Nuclear_Medicine/MRI_%26_Nuclear_Medicine), i am getting increasingly irritated by stupid people trying to defend their useless work.

get a life, and accept the fact that the lorentz transformations are useless. if they were so good, how come using gauss' principle of least constraint (http://www.jmlr.org/papers/volume4/saul03a/saul03a.pdf) on fMRI data is going to be used for biological discovery of the neurological underpinnings of disease?

it is so disappointing that these "physics" people (arxiv superstars) can't accept reality. if their beloved transformation was so good, we would have seen something by now demonstrating its power.

some will say "GPS USES IT" but i am still not convinced that's how GPS truly resolves' ones locations (i think it triangulates using towers--even if this isn't correct, i don't think we can prove how it works because companies don't release code for things like that).

i am tired of you arxiv superstars. good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.213.121 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed the word "Losers" from your header, as it's inappropriate to treat other users as such just because you disagree with them. The link you posted is now in the See also section, rather than in the lead. Coldcreation (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

They're just two distinct operations. This is like claiming that multiplication is superior to addition. 2600:1002:B103:8A:54A7:C821:127:7D59 (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction on limit of speed

Article mentions no physical object or message can trave faster than speed of light in vaccuum and then again it says that farthest parts of universe are moving farther by more tha speed of light?? 202.50.49.8 (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Pranav Gaikwad.

That would be due to the metric expansion of space itself. See that article for more details. - DVdm (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Relativity was accepted in the physics community

In the 3rd paragraph under 1.1 it is written that "Third, special relativity was accepted in the physics community by 1920.". Can an exact year be given for the acceptance of a theory by a scientific community? I mean, Einstein's papers were peereviewed and lectures were given on the subject in earlier years. As time passed, more and more physicists came to accept the theory, but I don't believe there is any reason to give a specific date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EitanTs (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

Thanks, good point. I have tweaked the statement and added a proper source for the current content: [1]. - DVdm (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually got here after an argument with someone about whether special relativity was generally accepted by the scientific community 90 or 110 years ago. According to another entry about the history of special relativity it was accepted by most theorists by 1912, but it's also somewhat of a vague statement. EitanTs (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Relativity of simultaneity

The article introduces the relativity of simultaneity as a CONSEQUENCE of the theory, as though it had physical significance. As I understand it, simultaneity is DEFINED in a precise way, and the theory is based partly on that definition. So the relativity of simultaneity is merely a simple LOGICAL consequence of a definition. There's a lot about many physics theories which are merely 'accounting' and which result from definitions. I think it would be good to point out that the relativity of simultaneity is not any sort of physical discovery and explains nothing, but is merely a consequence of the definition and must be kept in mind when when interpreting other parts of the theory, some of which have a physical basis. ClarkoEye (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Relativity of simultaneity is mentioned twice in the article, in accordance with the literature. The first mention is in a sentence that says that it is one of the concepts that were introduced with the theory, which is clearly true, as the concept did not exist before the theory. The second mention is as a consequence of the theory, which is also true, since a theory can perfecly be reduced to its set of postulates-plus-definitions, and clearly ROS can be derived from all that. It is precisely the postulates part that ensures that the ROS is a physical concept, which can be used to "explain" things, and it's certainly not a consequence of the definitions only. - DVdm (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Relativity of simultaneity comes from the "definition" that two events (at say points A and B in space-time) can be considered simultaneous (with respect to a point O of space-time) if light rays issued from O arrive at A and B at a fixed time T later (as measured from O).

But this is the most symmetrical possible definition — and it nevertheless leads to paradoxes stemming from the nonexistence of absolute simultaneity. Therefore, there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity no matter how you look at it.

For this reason it is perhaps misleading to say that the relativity of simultaneity is a consequence merely of "the definition" of simultaneity. Rather there is no definition of simultaneity that leads to absolute simultaneity. Thus this relativity most assuredly has "physical significance".108.245.209.39 (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Seriously questionable statement in introduction

The second sentence of the introduction states "Special relativity applies to elementary particles and their interactions, describing all their physical phenomena except gravity."

Although special relativity does "apply" to elementary particles, the physics of elementary particles cannot be adequately described without quantum theory, which is universally considered to be a separate theory from relativity. For this reason I hope that someone knowledgeable about the subject can improve this introduction.108.245.209.39 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Both SR and quantum theory are required in the analysis of elementary particles. Theories such as QED and QFT are grounded in both quantum mechanics and special relativity. I'm afraid that you are reading implications in the second sentence of the introduction that are simply not there.

On the other hand, I agree that this is not a particularly well-written article compared with, say, General relativity, but it suffers from too much churn in the sections dealing with special relativity. The GR sections are relatively stable, but the SR sections are almost unrecognizable compared with three years ago. Every kid who has read a popular book on the subject thinks that he/she has something useful to say about SR. Nobody truly competent wants to contribute significantly to an article knowing that they are scratching their writings in the electronic equivalent of sand. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Rewritten start

Hello! I have moved text between the Intro and the former Sections 1 and 2 so that it flows better. I have replaced the sections with titles Two-theory view and On the theory of relativity with the new first section, Development and acceptance. I have tightened up the text, dropped the numbered-list structure formerly in Two-theory view, and removed the emphasis on the increasing popularity of the theory. I did not intend to change anything of substance, except that I read Richard Feynman and added a few words to better explain his role. I hope this makes it more readable. Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

PS--Also merged the History at the end of the article with that at the start of the article and made other clerical edits. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

PPS--On 27-Nov, Stigmatella aurantiaca removed the sentence on Feynman completely, complaining that I had in fact changed the sentence's meaning and that, in any case, the sentence lacked a citation. I have no problem with this edit. If Feynman deserves a mention, someone else should provide an acceptable sentence. Spike-from-NH (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spike-from-NH: The original wording of the sentence was based on a statement that Feynman made in The Character of Physical Law: "There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." I was never quite happy with the original sentence. I knew where it had come from, but as written it was somewhat confusing and a bit out of place. But it wasn't untrue, and I tend to be a bit conservative in my edits, so I let it stand. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well; again, you or others are welcome to elaborate on specific things that Feynman may have done to popularize the theory, if it fits. Spike-from-NH (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spike-from-NH: Belated "thanks for understanding!" Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Theory of relativity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)