This page is not a forum for general discussion about Special relativity. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Special relativity at the Reference desk. |
Special relativity was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Got a question? |
| Don't ask here! |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
@ JRSpriggs: Please comment on the proposed revised statement+notes+references and suggest changes as necessary. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 07:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Primary sources
References
Notes
Primary sources
References
No, it is not trivial. It is at the heart of the "brain freeze" that led to my oversight. I should have known better. I thank JRSpriggs for correcting me, and I thank you for introducing the original version of the footnote.
Pushed to main space. We can work on improving it later, but there are other topics to add. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 04:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't go Deep Into the emission Theory but some of its starting lines say that light is emitted by a speed 'C' relative to the source which is indeed not true as experiments Would see that the speed of light won't increase if emitted from a moving object or from one at rest Om C Thorat ( talk) 16:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@ UKER: objected to the analogy used here, calling the analogy "childish":
While the unprimed frame is drawn with space and time axes that meet at right angles, the primed frame is drawn with axes that meet at acute or obtuse angles. The frames are actually equivalent. The asymmetry is due to unavoidable distortions in how spacetime coordinates map onto a Cartesian plane. By analogy, planar maps of the world are unavoidably distorted, but with experience, one learns to mentally account for these distortions.
Uker replaced it with the following wording
While the observer frame is represented with space and time axes that meet at right angles, the axes for observers in different frames of reference are represented with their axes meeting at acute or obtuse angles. This unavoidable asymmetry stems from the way spacetime coordinates map onto a Cartesian plane, but it should not affect the intuition that all the represented frames of reference are equivalent.
It is not an "intuition" that all represented frames of reference are equivalent. Their equivalence is a fact, and recognition of their equivalence is not a native intuition, but rather is an element of knowledge that comes with experience.
Proposed compromise, removing the analogy, but correcting the introduced error of fact.
While the unprimed frame is drawn with space and time axes that meet at right angles, the primed frame is drawn with axes that meet at acute or obtuse angles. The frames are actually equivalent. The asymmetry is due to unavoidable distortions in how spacetime coordinates map onto a Cartesian plane, but with experience, one learns to mentally account for these distortions.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 12:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw your edit, but that sentence was cringe inducing in that it was written in what seemed like a pedantic-sounding first person, like saying "I'm so experienced I can mentally interpret them properly". Do we really need that remark? What value does it provide? Communicating the article's reader that there's people that can actually read the diagram despite some minor geometric incovenience? -- uKER ( talk) 02:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Gregor4: I understand what you are trying to do. But what you have written is verbose, rather confusing, and not written at a level appropriate for the target audience, which would be high school seniors to first year college students. Let's try and work out a better approach. I would recommend that we first review the presentation in Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Transverse_Doppler_effect which covers many of the same points that you wish to address. Thanks! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 08:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Answer by Gregor4 ( talk) 02:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I had not seen the document Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Transverse_Doppler_effect which gives a good explanation. I think, we should refer to that page, and I have rewritten a contribution for the page Special Relativity below.
I tried a new version. What do you think? Gregor4 ( talk) 04:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added a note about Einstein's formulation in the description of case (2). I do not want to change the order of A and B because the case (1) happens before case (2). Gregor4 ( talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have slightly revised Fig 5-3(a) and have rewritten the explanation for his case. I hope you lie it. Gregor4 ( talk) 23:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The transverse Doppler effect (TDE) is one of the novel predictions of special relativity. Assume that a source and a receiver are both approaching each other in uniform inertial motion along paths that do not collide.
At the beginning, when the observer approaches the light source, the observer sees a blueshift, and later, when the distance with the source increases, he sees a redshift. The transverse Doppler effect describes the situation when the light source and the observer are close to each other. At the moment when the source is geometrically at its closest point to the observer, one may distinguish
The situation of case (1) is shown in Fig. 5-3(a) in the rest frame of the source. The frequency observed by the observer is blueshifted by the factor γ because of the time delation of the observer (as compared with the rest frame of the source). The dotted blue image of the source shown in the figure represents how the observer sees the source in his own rest frame.
The situation of case (2) is shown in Fig. 5-3(b) in the rest frame of the observer. This light is received later when the source is not any more at closest distance, but it appears to the receiver to be at closest distance. The observed frequency of this light is redshifted by the factor γ because of the time delation of the source (as compared with the rest frame of the observer). This situation was Einstein's original statement of the TDE [1]
In the situation of case (3), the light will be received by the observer without any frequency change.
Whether an experiment reports the TDE as being a redshift or blueshift depends on how the experiment is set up. Consider, for example, the various Mössbauer rotor experiments performed in the 1960s. [2] [3] [4] Some were performed with a rotating source while others were performed with a rotating receiver, as in Fig 5‑3(c) and (d). Fig 5‑3(c) and (b) are corresponding scenarios, as are Fig 5‑3(d) and (a).
References
That's not correct. The length of an object is invariant in Galileo's world, but the distance/length between events is not invariant (when two frames are moving with respect to each other). This is an error I've seen before. Johanley ( talk) 11:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Special relativity is occasionally referred by this name, both in educational resources and in research papers. Is it common enough to mention this alternative name in the beginning and to make a redirect? I ask it here so it's not lost in the edit history. Tarnoob ( talk) 10:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting that a citation and comment of the following article would be inserted: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.10490 It shows that the Lorentz transformations and the existence of an invariant speed can be derived based on the principle of relativity and homogeneity of space–time, isotropy of space–time, group structure, causality condition. It is quite an impressive result that there should be a "limit speed" based on these hypotheses onuly. In this presentation, light does not play such an important role in the elaboration of the theory. 88.180.38.188 ( talk) 09:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Special relativity. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Special relativity at the Reference desk. |
Special relativity was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Got a question? |
| Don't ask here! |
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
@ JRSpriggs: Please comment on the proposed revised statement+notes+references and suggest changes as necessary. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 07:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Primary sources
References
Notes
Primary sources
References
No, it is not trivial. It is at the heart of the "brain freeze" that led to my oversight. I should have known better. I thank JRSpriggs for correcting me, and I thank you for introducing the original version of the footnote.
Pushed to main space. We can work on improving it later, but there are other topics to add. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 04:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't go Deep Into the emission Theory but some of its starting lines say that light is emitted by a speed 'C' relative to the source which is indeed not true as experiments Would see that the speed of light won't increase if emitted from a moving object or from one at rest Om C Thorat ( talk) 16:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@ UKER: objected to the analogy used here, calling the analogy "childish":
While the unprimed frame is drawn with space and time axes that meet at right angles, the primed frame is drawn with axes that meet at acute or obtuse angles. The frames are actually equivalent. The asymmetry is due to unavoidable distortions in how spacetime coordinates map onto a Cartesian plane. By analogy, planar maps of the world are unavoidably distorted, but with experience, one learns to mentally account for these distortions.
Uker replaced it with the following wording
While the observer frame is represented with space and time axes that meet at right angles, the axes for observers in different frames of reference are represented with their axes meeting at acute or obtuse angles. This unavoidable asymmetry stems from the way spacetime coordinates map onto a Cartesian plane, but it should not affect the intuition that all the represented frames of reference are equivalent.
It is not an "intuition" that all represented frames of reference are equivalent. Their equivalence is a fact, and recognition of their equivalence is not a native intuition, but rather is an element of knowledge that comes with experience.
Proposed compromise, removing the analogy, but correcting the introduced error of fact.
While the unprimed frame is drawn with space and time axes that meet at right angles, the primed frame is drawn with axes that meet at acute or obtuse angles. The frames are actually equivalent. The asymmetry is due to unavoidable distortions in how spacetime coordinates map onto a Cartesian plane, but with experience, one learns to mentally account for these distortions.
Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 12:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I saw your edit, but that sentence was cringe inducing in that it was written in what seemed like a pedantic-sounding first person, like saying "I'm so experienced I can mentally interpret them properly". Do we really need that remark? What value does it provide? Communicating the article's reader that there's people that can actually read the diagram despite some minor geometric incovenience? -- uKER ( talk) 02:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Gregor4: I understand what you are trying to do. But what you have written is verbose, rather confusing, and not written at a level appropriate for the target audience, which would be high school seniors to first year college students. Let's try and work out a better approach. I would recommend that we first review the presentation in Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Transverse_Doppler_effect which covers many of the same points that you wish to address. Thanks! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog ( talk) 08:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Answer by Gregor4 ( talk) 02:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I had not seen the document Relativistic_Doppler_effect#Transverse_Doppler_effect which gives a good explanation. I think, we should refer to that page, and I have rewritten a contribution for the page Special Relativity below.
I tried a new version. What do you think? Gregor4 ( talk) 04:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added a note about Einstein's formulation in the description of case (2). I do not want to change the order of A and B because the case (1) happens before case (2). Gregor4 ( talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have slightly revised Fig 5-3(a) and have rewritten the explanation for his case. I hope you lie it. Gregor4 ( talk) 23:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The transverse Doppler effect (TDE) is one of the novel predictions of special relativity. Assume that a source and a receiver are both approaching each other in uniform inertial motion along paths that do not collide.
At the beginning, when the observer approaches the light source, the observer sees a blueshift, and later, when the distance with the source increases, he sees a redshift. The transverse Doppler effect describes the situation when the light source and the observer are close to each other. At the moment when the source is geometrically at its closest point to the observer, one may distinguish
The situation of case (1) is shown in Fig. 5-3(a) in the rest frame of the source. The frequency observed by the observer is blueshifted by the factor γ because of the time delation of the observer (as compared with the rest frame of the source). The dotted blue image of the source shown in the figure represents how the observer sees the source in his own rest frame.
The situation of case (2) is shown in Fig. 5-3(b) in the rest frame of the observer. This light is received later when the source is not any more at closest distance, but it appears to the receiver to be at closest distance. The observed frequency of this light is redshifted by the factor γ because of the time delation of the source (as compared with the rest frame of the observer). This situation was Einstein's original statement of the TDE [1]
In the situation of case (3), the light will be received by the observer without any frequency change.
Whether an experiment reports the TDE as being a redshift or blueshift depends on how the experiment is set up. Consider, for example, the various Mössbauer rotor experiments performed in the 1960s. [2] [3] [4] Some were performed with a rotating source while others were performed with a rotating receiver, as in Fig 5‑3(c) and (d). Fig 5‑3(c) and (b) are corresponding scenarios, as are Fig 5‑3(d) and (a).
References
That's not correct. The length of an object is invariant in Galileo's world, but the distance/length between events is not invariant (when two frames are moving with respect to each other). This is an error I've seen before. Johanley ( talk) 11:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Special relativity is occasionally referred by this name, both in educational resources and in research papers. Is it common enough to mention this alternative name in the beginning and to make a redirect? I ask it here so it's not lost in the edit history. Tarnoob ( talk) 10:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting that a citation and comment of the following article would be inserted: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.10490 It shows that the Lorentz transformations and the existence of an invariant speed can be derived based on the principle of relativity and homogeneity of space–time, isotropy of space–time, group structure, causality condition. It is quite an impressive result that there should be a "limit speed" based on these hypotheses onuly. In this presentation, light does not play such an important role in the elaboration of the theory. 88.180.38.188 ( talk) 09:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)