This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of special relativity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ JFB80: in this edit, you wrote that Minkowski later, in his 1908 "Space and Time" lecture, noted that space-time is "in a certain sense" a four-dimensional non-Euclidean manifold. I checked both the original source and the translations, but couldn't find exacly where and how Minkowski noted this. Can you clarify? Thx. - DVdm ( talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The hyperboloid model of hyperbolic geometry explains the relevance to relativity. Rgdboer ( talk) 20:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The mathematics of special relativity is linear algebra. Looking back, the mathematics is clearer today than before linear algebra was developed as a special branch. Alexander Macfarlane contributed to understanding spacetime with his Papers on Space Analysis (1894). At that time he used the idea of a versor#hyperbolic versor to express the linear transformation of a spacetime plane that has come to be called a "Lorentz boost". Articles in this Encyclopedia clarify this linear algebra. A true "History of special relativity" would recount the advances in understanding leading to today's view of the subject, rather than dwelling on obscurities. Rgdboer ( talk) 21:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of special 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This section does not distinguish between experiments done with radium as the source of electrons (beta rays) and cathodes as sources of electrons.
Earlier work by Kaufmann (not cited here) and the cited work by Bucherer used radium. The cited work by Kaufmann used cathodes.
The distinction is material because the electrons from radium have velocities approaching 90% of c. Velocities from cathodes are limited to much smaller velocities discharges from dielectric breakdown. The relativistic effects are much easier to detect at the higher velocities.
Also, Lorentz's 1904 paper reanalyzed Kaufmann's results with a radium source.
WhiteBeard120 ( talk) 14:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I am requesting this edit because the proposed edit cites work that I authored. I am disclosing this COI.
Note also that the changes in this proposed edit bring it into consistency with Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments
WhiteBeard120 ( talk) 22:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
References
As part of the history, I'm interested in the now-standard term "special relativity." When did this theory become known as the "special" version of relativity; once the theory of "general relativity" had come out? And, when did the term "relativity" become associated with both theories? -- Dan Griscom ( talk) 00:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
History of special relativity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ JFB80: in this edit, you wrote that Minkowski later, in his 1908 "Space and Time" lecture, noted that space-time is "in a certain sense" a four-dimensional non-Euclidean manifold. I checked both the original source and the translations, but couldn't find exacly where and how Minkowski noted this. Can you clarify? Thx. - DVdm ( talk) 10:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The hyperboloid model of hyperbolic geometry explains the relevance to relativity. Rgdboer ( talk) 20:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The mathematics of special relativity is linear algebra. Looking back, the mathematics is clearer today than before linear algebra was developed as a special branch. Alexander Macfarlane contributed to understanding spacetime with his Papers on Space Analysis (1894). At that time he used the idea of a versor#hyperbolic versor to express the linear transformation of a spacetime plane that has come to be called a "Lorentz boost". Articles in this Encyclopedia clarify this linear algebra. A true "History of special relativity" would recount the advances in understanding leading to today's view of the subject, rather than dwelling on obscurities. Rgdboer ( talk) 21:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of special 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
This section does not distinguish between experiments done with radium as the source of electrons (beta rays) and cathodes as sources of electrons.
Earlier work by Kaufmann (not cited here) and the cited work by Bucherer used radium. The cited work by Kaufmann used cathodes.
The distinction is material because the electrons from radium have velocities approaching 90% of c. Velocities from cathodes are limited to much smaller velocities discharges from dielectric breakdown. The relativistic effects are much easier to detect at the higher velocities.
Also, Lorentz's 1904 paper reanalyzed Kaufmann's results with a radium source.
WhiteBeard120 ( talk) 14:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
I am requesting this edit because the proposed edit cites work that I authored. I am disclosing this COI.
Note also that the changes in this proposed edit bring it into consistency with Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments
WhiteBeard120 ( talk) 22:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
References
As part of the history, I'm interested in the now-standard term "special relativity." When did this theory become known as the "special" version of relativity; once the theory of "general relativity" had come out? And, when did the term "relativity" become associated with both theories? -- Dan Griscom ( talk) 00:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)