Talk:Introduction to special relativity/Archive 1

message: *I had the same misgiving. (I notice you didn't say "this text belongs in Wikibooks!".) I  agree with you, this article is on the edge. There are two questions here however firstly, how far should an encyclopedia explain its topics and secondly what is the minimum coverage required to provide any sort of explanation at all? I think this article is a minimal rendition of special relativity in such a way that the theory is explained. The difficulty here is that the theory is conceptually challenging for most people. Loxley 17:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Doesn't this belong in Wikibooks? [[User:Oberiko|Oberiko]] 15:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: The beauty of Minkowski's four dimensionalism is that it explains why there is a constant velocity for all observers.  If a thing travels at a velocity such that its space-time interval is zero then all observers, no matter how fast they are travelling, will observe the thing to be travelling at c metres per second.  This is why Minkowski's and the modern approach, is more fundamental than Einstein's original 1905 approach which relied on an assumption (based on the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations)that the speed of the propagation of light in a vacuum is constant. Although Einstein's postulate that the speed of light is constant is correct it confuses students utterly. They go off and ponder how such a thing could occur and, being no Einsteins, and being equipped with no more than school physics, reject the whole of relativity theory. The modern approach overcomes this problem because it predicts that there is a universal constant velocity. In advanced texts 'c' is often not used at all because lengths are specified in light seconds rather than metres. Loxley 10:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'c' as a conversion constant 

message: I think this article needs more information about why there is a i in s^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (ict)^2
There is at least one person (me) that doesn't get it.
:Minkowski included the 'i' because Euclidean geometry applies on the surface of a sphere of imaginary radius.  He reasoned that given that Euclidean geometry seems to apply in our local space then this was due to events being projected so that the observer is at the centre of a sphere of radius ict. In the first year or two after Minkowski's proposal it was probably believed that the observer at the centre of the sphere was no distance from the surface ie: 0 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + (ict)^2 (if we put r^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 it becomes obvious that 0 = r^2 - (ct)^2).  However, mathematicians had long known about non-Euclidean geometry and realised that you can get an almost identical result using real rather than imaginary time and proposing that the universe is entirely non-Euclidean. See the reference about the non-Euclidean form of relativity at the end of the main article. loxley 16:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why i ? 

message: "Special relativity for beginners" is an introduction to special relativity for those who are just embarking on the subject.  The article as it stands assumes a knowledge of Pythagoras's Theorem and the language, apart from the technical terms, is probably about reading age 18. Someone with a less accomplished mathematical and conceptual background could indeed understand that Special Relativity is an important theory that is complicated but could they really understand Special Relativity at all? If you think they could then perhaps we need a "non-technical relativity" article loxley 09:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.  AFD shouldn't be used to propose mergers.  It's also possible this will actually result in the article being deleted; if you like the article's content, this is presumably not what you want to happen.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 23:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think this article is too technical; it presumes a current fluency in higher mathematics.  Nonetheless, a more detailed treatment of this and related subjects than that provided for by certain PBS programs that treat these concepts in a manner that is just too conclusory and glib-even trendy, blithely asserting certain notions as received dogma.  Thus that you are not pandering to the gullible and credulous is appreciated.  It shows that you take your subject matter and potential readers with some seriousness.  However, someone whose primary background is in the social sciences and humanities and whose last math course was college pre-calculus decades ago should be able to apprehend this topic to a greater degree and would be a more effective pedagogical strategy.  Thanks so much.Tom Cod 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too technical?

message: The example given in the beginning (i.e. a body travelling at velocity v) is applied in the very special case of v=c, from which it is shown that for a body travelling with velocity c any interval is zero.
But if we look at the trivial case v < c, then S = sq.rt ( t**2 ( v**2 - c**2 )) 
= t sq.rt ( v**2 - c**2 ) which is an imaginary quantity! Does it mean that all
simple movements in our world are imaginary? 
Demaag
:Even if time were  imaginary the determination of a complex length is problematical - we must not forget that the length is a vector - See complex number. However, the current wisdom is that time in GR is real and that displacements are bilinear forms governed by a metric tensor. This gives very similar results to imaginary time but involves a curious arrangement of two coordinate systems. Unfortunately most articles on differential geometry miss out a detailed discussion of the derivation of the metric tensor (cf: the work of Carl Friedrich Gauss) and hence fail to explain things properly - probably because the tutors do not want students rushing off at tangents. loxley 08:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are intervals in space-time imaginary quantities? 

message: At various points the article talks about illustrations, but there are none! What happened to them? Loom91 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the illustrations? 

message: This article has already been transwikied to Wikibooks:Transwiki:Special relativity for beginners, although some months ago and no doubt not the latest version.  The title is not encylopedic, and there is no reason to have both this article and Special relativity.  The question is, do you all want to merge this, just make this a redirect, or what?  An AfD vote will, in my opinion, almost certainly result in merger with special relativity.  --Xyzzyplugh 15:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, in looking around some more, it turns out there was an AfD done, although for some odd reason it is not mentioned in this talk page as it should be.  And it seems that the content of this article might be different enough from the Special relativity article that this one could simply be renamed.  If that's the case, it should be done, as this article title is not encylopedic.  --Xyzzyplugh 17:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article title needs to go 

message: A simple explanation of time dilation using the Light clock example.--Zachblume 20:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The light clock example 

message: This article seems to jump to the conclusion that time intervals are invariant. Maybe the explanation is too technical, but shouldn't it at least be suggested? Mo-Al 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says that space-time intervals are invariant. Geometer 09:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invariance of time intervals 

message: Many of the images in this article contain images with text in them. New images should probably be created without the text, so that the text can be placed in the article, and will become editable. Mo-Al 14:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text in images 

message: I've suggested at the proposed wikiprojects page that a relativity wikiproject be created. If interested, you can add your name to the list and check out the plan for the project at WikiProject Relativity. MP   (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relativity Wikiproject

message: Tom Cod recently wrote above:
:[This article] should be written on a level not too much higher than that which would allow it to be printed in the back pages of the science section of the New York Times or the Wall St. Journal; that is an educated "general reader" without a current background in math or technology should be able to credibly struggle with this "introductory" treatment.
Your concern is appreciated, but noone seems to be interested in doing the work to rewrite this article.  Are you? --EMS | Talk 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could create a new article: "Special Relativity for Dummies"  :)  Count Iblis 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The contents to this article are part of wikibooks:special relativity, and really are better suited to that venue.  If I had the time, I would take a stab at this rewrite.  As-is the best I can do is suggest an outline (as I did in the "Replace this article" thread above).  This article really should be more accessible. --EMS | Talk 04:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: This is for beginners??? 

message: This article is an introductory text, not waffle.  It orients readers who have the minimum equipment to understand physics, such as school maths, so that they can approach the actual theory. Those who want something simpler should write a "brief description of relativity" article which would just explain that there is a theory that proposes several odd things. People who cannot even understand the simple maths of Pythagoras' theorem can never begin to understand relativity. 
It is obvious from the comments above that several readers would like something simpler but no-one has produced this mythical "simpler" article.  The truth is that this article is the simplest approach that is consistent with understanding. Try writing a "simple" article on Pythagoras' theorem without mentioning squares. 86.14.2.37 12:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not intended for people with no knowledge at all of maths!!!

message: The very first paragraph of this article is wrong. It does not follow from the result of the Michelson Morley experiment that the speed of light is the same regardless of relative speed between the source and receiver of light. It only shows that the earth is not moving through an ether. Without a justification for the claim of the constancy of the speed of light, none of the rest of the article makes sense.
75.32.30.32 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph wrong 

message: Substituted at 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment