This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Rindler coordinates:
|
Looks my previous todo list somehow got wiped (did someone move the article but forget to move the talk page?), but I will try to reconstruct it. This is an important article needed for many other topics such as Bell's spaceship paradox. Rindler chart is an important example of a coordinate chart, and the Rindler frame is an important example of a frame field.--- CH 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... even worse, the allegedly nonsingular version someone added is obviously not free of coordinate singularities! I propose to start with a clean slate. There is a lot to say, but this article confuses some fundamental points early on and both the figures are unfortunately misleading.--- CH 01:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In order to address various concerns, I have written a completely new version from scratch with entirely new figures, and have modified the todo list accordingly. The new version currently focuses on elementary considerations. In the future I may elaborate on the analogies between two Killing horizons: the Rindler horizon and the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole.
The old version is here. Be careful, since this body of this article and the figures contain some mistakes and is generally misleading in various ways. --- CH 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely rewrote the May 2005 version, and had been monitoring this article for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning it to its fate.
As a courtesy, I have removed the "expert" items from the todo list. I doubt anyone else will know how to implement the suggested improvements since this was mostly a note to myself.
See User:Hillman/Archive for the last version I edited. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. Unfortunately, just before departing I became embroiled in a content dispute with Rod Ball ( talk · contribs) and Harald88 ( talk · contribs). I believe their edits of the related articles Bell's spaceship paradox and Ehrenfest paradox have turned factually accurate articles into gravely misleading and even mathematically incorrect articles.
Good luck to all students in your search for information, regardless!--- CH 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the fact that a=1 in this article. Though permissible mathematically, it hides some of the physical content. CHF ( talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think one should empahsize in the article, that what is meant by "motion in constant acceleration" is not what people are used to as constant 3-accelration. This is clearly seen from the path of the particle which is in the globaly flat coordintas. Where what people usually(newtonian) mean by constant accelration is motion of the type .The whole pardox part of the article is somewhat confusing and missleading. If I hold a string, and a car has the other end of it and starts driving at constant 3-acceleration - the string will brake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 ( talk) 09:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, an old version of this page (not edited since 2006) has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to comment, please do so here. Thanks. -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Does "motion in constant acceleration" mean that the rapidity increases linearly with time? Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what it is about American educational system but the correct spelling in "artanh" (pronounced "area hyperbolic tangent"), not "arctanh". The inverses of hyperbolic functions are not arcs, they are areas. Any decent high schooler in the world will tell you that. Why do we always have to be so bottom-of-the-barrel, culturally speaking? Jan Bielawski ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
For some unknown reason, the following comment on this article was left on my talk page:
Please find some comments:
- 1-"by dividing the round trip travel time, as measured by an ideal clock carried by our observer."
- - When you say "dividing", I suppose you mean "divided by two"?
- 2- a few line below, you give as expression of the null geodesics equations : . Then you conclude that the "radar distance" is . Isn't there some factor missing in the expression for ? My interpretation is that we actually have , where is the acceleration of the first observer in . Therefore we have indeed , which makes it consistent with your second expression.
- 3- The conclusion would then be that the difference between "radar distance" and "ruler distance" between the two observers will be negligible if << 1, where is the acceleration of the first observer.
Do you think this is correct?
-- Dr Greg talk 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've expanded the article by providing a new introduction, many new references, detailed history (including Kottler and Møller and others), as well as different variants of the coordinates depending on the observer's position. -- D.H ( talk) 21:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I've expanded and rewritten
Draft:Rindler coordinates. For further assessments, please see and participate in the discussion at
Draft talk:Rindler coordinates. --
D.H (
talk)
16:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Rindler coordinates:
|
Looks my previous todo list somehow got wiped (did someone move the article but forget to move the talk page?), but I will try to reconstruct it. This is an important article needed for many other topics such as Bell's spaceship paradox. Rindler chart is an important example of a coordinate chart, and the Rindler frame is an important example of a frame field.--- CH 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... even worse, the allegedly nonsingular version someone added is obviously not free of coordinate singularities! I propose to start with a clean slate. There is a lot to say, but this article confuses some fundamental points early on and both the figures are unfortunately misleading.--- CH 01:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In order to address various concerns, I have written a completely new version from scratch with entirely new figures, and have modified the todo list accordingly. The new version currently focuses on elementary considerations. In the future I may elaborate on the analogies between two Killing horizons: the Rindler horizon and the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole.
The old version is here. Be careful, since this body of this article and the figures contain some mistakes and is generally misleading in various ways. --- CH 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely rewrote the May 2005 version, and had been monitoring this article for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning it to its fate.
As a courtesy, I have removed the "expert" items from the todo list. I doubt anyone else will know how to implement the suggested improvements since this was mostly a note to myself.
See User:Hillman/Archive for the last version I edited. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. Unfortunately, just before departing I became embroiled in a content dispute with Rod Ball ( talk · contribs) and Harald88 ( talk · contribs). I believe their edits of the related articles Bell's spaceship paradox and Ehrenfest paradox have turned factually accurate articles into gravely misleading and even mathematically incorrect articles.
Good luck to all students in your search for information, regardless!--- CH 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the fact that a=1 in this article. Though permissible mathematically, it hides some of the physical content. CHF ( talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think one should empahsize in the article, that what is meant by "motion in constant acceleration" is not what people are used to as constant 3-accelration. This is clearly seen from the path of the particle which is in the globaly flat coordintas. Where what people usually(newtonian) mean by constant accelration is motion of the type .The whole pardox part of the article is somewhat confusing and missleading. If I hold a string, and a car has the other end of it and starts driving at constant 3-acceleration - the string will brake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 ( talk) 09:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as a heads up, an old version of this page (not edited since 2006) has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to comment, please do so here. Thanks. -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Does "motion in constant acceleration" mean that the rapidity increases linearly with time? Lemmiwinks2 ( talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what it is about American educational system but the correct spelling in "artanh" (pronounced "area hyperbolic tangent"), not "arctanh". The inverses of hyperbolic functions are not arcs, they are areas. Any decent high schooler in the world will tell you that. Why do we always have to be so bottom-of-the-barrel, culturally speaking? Jan Bielawski ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
For some unknown reason, the following comment on this article was left on my talk page:
Please find some comments:
- 1-"by dividing the round trip travel time, as measured by an ideal clock carried by our observer."
- - When you say "dividing", I suppose you mean "divided by two"?
- 2- a few line below, you give as expression of the null geodesics equations : . Then you conclude that the "radar distance" is . Isn't there some factor missing in the expression for ? My interpretation is that we actually have , where is the acceleration of the first observer in . Therefore we have indeed , which makes it consistent with your second expression.
- 3- The conclusion would then be that the difference between "radar distance" and "ruler distance" between the two observers will be negligible if << 1, where is the acceleration of the first observer.
Do you think this is correct?
-- Dr Greg talk 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've expanded the article by providing a new introduction, many new references, detailed history (including Kottler and Møller and others), as well as different variants of the coordinates depending on the observer's position. -- D.H ( talk) 21:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I've expanded and rewritten
Draft:Rindler coordinates. For further assessments, please see and participate in the discussion at
Draft talk:Rindler coordinates. --
D.H (
talk)
16:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)