Talk:Special relativity/Archive 11

message: I have archived the latest discussions.  Once again, it is requested that future discussion be on the article and not on the theory.  If no one other than Cadwgan objects, I propose that it be our policy that blatantly anti-relativity content will be removed from this page in the future. --EMS | Talk 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's stick to Wikipedia policy - in fact we are obliged to do so! For sure, the discussions must be about the redaction of the article. Harald88 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived (again) 

message: In the 'Physics in spacetime' section in this article, it's claimed (in fact I think I wrote it) that the Lorentz transformation is a tensor. Does it truly transform as a tensor? (I was hoping someone already knows and so it'd save me from doing a tedious bit of algebra).
--Masud 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it it a tensor.  Just note that {\Lambda^\mu}_\nu {\Lambda_\mu}^\pi = \delta^\pi_\nu.  Then {\Lambda^\mu}_\nu {\Lambda_\mu}^\pi {\Lambda^\nu}_\sigma =  {\Lambda^\pi}_\sigma . --EMS | Talk 15:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorentz transformation 

message: what are wrong in these 2 situations:
many far away stars are measured to be traveling faster than the speed of light from us
this concept of warp bubbles takes the spaceship inside it faster than light speed by twisting space and so on
both these situation can carry information. wat is wrong? i think it might be something to do with the fact that the objects themselves arent accelerating itself from some experimenter, but rather spacetime is pushing them like a wave. can someone correct me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duel me (talk • contribs) 13:04 UTC, June 8, 2006.
: Please be advised that these talk pages are for discussion of the related articles.  Wikipedia is not a buliten board.  However, since you are a newbie, I will respond briefly.  
: You are asking about general relativity related phenomena.  The "warp bubble" business involves the Alcubierre metric, which may not desribe a physically realizable situation.  On the other hand, I can only guess at that you mean by "far stars measured to be traveling faster then light from us".  If I take out the words "measured to be" (as such stars cannot be seen), then I get a reference to the Big Bang and its related expansion of the universe.  --EMS | Talk 15:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Survey of edits by the 11 most recent anon editors:
# Half Hollow Hills Central School District, CVNET, in Huntington Station, NY: repeated silly vandalism by a known vandal
# legit edit
# legit edit
# Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Siberia: added link to arXiv eprint in Russian by Z.K. Silagadze, apparently identifiable with this anon; I am not sure external link in English wiki to expository paper in Russian is appropriate!
# Half Hollow Hills Central School District, CVNET, in Huntington Station, NY: repeated silly vandalism
# ns25.sprise.com anon near Amherst, NH: blanking vandalism by a known vandal
# legit edit
# act.netspace.net.au anon in Adelaide: link to a webpage at Australian National University; probably legit
# legit edit
# BTnet UK Regional network: added link to magen.co.uk and Image:hx3.png; some kind editor should check whether this is legit
# serial.ac-act.ondsl.gr anon in Greece: rather nasty vandalism (same IP has been used for some other vandalisms)
By my count, 4 vandals, 2 anons making dubious edits, and 5 anons making legit edits.
It is certainly unfortunate that this article attracts to much vandalism (too bad we can't easily semiprotect it, with apologies to the anons who made legit edits).
Please help us monitor edits by , who uses handles such as Hexenmeister, Androcles in UseNet posts which tend toward personal attacks; see Google.---CH 03:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey of recent edits 

message: I'm going to have a whack at rewriting the lead from scratch. I see the following as being problems with the current version: (1) It would be hard for a nonspecialist to understand. (2) It doesn't explain where the word "relativity" comes from, or mention the fundamental idea that all frames of reference are equally valid. (3) It doesn't explain its relation to classical mechanics (the limit of v<<c).--24.52.254.62 00:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only comment is in regard to your first point.  While the intro doesn't really address some of the things a nonspecialist might want addressed, I thought that was the point of the Introduction to Special Relativity article, which is linked to right at the top.  Basically, isn't the audience of this article supposed to be more technically minded, or if not to have gone through and read and understood the intro article?  Just food for thought.  DAG 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can tell me if you think what I did is an improvement. I don't think there's any virtue in writing unclearly what could be written clearly, and I don't think there's anything in the lead that needs to be expressed in a very technical or mathematical way. I looked through some of the discussion of the relationship between the two articles, and agree with those who say that they should be merged. Every article in WP is theoretically supposed to be understandable to the general reader. Of course that's just an ideal to be striven for, but special relativity is not a subject that inherently requires a lot of math to develop properly -- a little algebra is all that's really needed.--24.52.254.62 01:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't like the new lead.  It is way too big.  The older lead, being shorter and move concise, was much better.  I you think that this materaial needs to be discussed first, then I would advise creating a "Background" section.  I also advise that you get an account if you are going to be bere a lot.  Finally, you may want to consider a broad rewrite of this article.  At this time, it is a hodge-pogde of various viewpoints operating at various levels of sophistication.  (One thing that I would like to do is to take the "phsyics in spacetime" section and turn it into an article entitled "Tensors in special relativity".) --EMS | Talk 02:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree 100% that the article needs a broad rewrite, and that it's a hodgepodge of levels of sophistication. I think a rewrite should happen in the context of merging it with the Introduction to special relativity article. It's not normal on wp to have two different articles on the same topic. I disagree that the lead is too long, however. If you take a look at the discussion of nominations for FA, the expectation for any substantial article is generally that it should be about four paragraphs. In fact, if you look at the relativity article's own archived discussion on its nomination for FA, you'll see that one of the criticisms was that the lead was too short (although I don't know if it was even shorter then).--24.52.254.62 03:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  One thing that I would like to do is to take the "phsyics in spacetime" section and turn it into an article entitled "Tensors in special relativity". I like this idea. There is absolutely no reason to be using matrix notation in this article. WP articles are supposed to be written for the general reader, so if there's a fancy mathematical technique that isn't indispensible for the development of the topic, then it should be omitted. I also think the ict stuff should be taken out. Very few authors use ict, and again, it's just an unnecessary mathematical obstacle to allowing a lay reader to follow the article.--24.52.254.62 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead