This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Velocity addition in relativity is, in the usual presentation in a textbook something quite easy. It is captured in essence by the formulae ("standard configuration")
and, when confined to a plane,
Derivations are two- or three-liners.
Velocity addition in relativity is, when taken to the full extent, as mathematically involved as you wish. Goldstein:
Physically, it has implications that made people (non-cranks) see paradoxes (Macanu paradox). I believe the situation was not fully resolved until 1990.
Now we have these two articles where Velocity-addition formula actually treats a little advanced stuff truly belonging elsewhere, while (imo) failing to treat the simple stuff (not all formulae there, complicated proof) adequately, which should include the formulae (all of them), full easy proofs and applications, e.g. aberration of light. Thomas precession is entirely nontechnical today.
I suggest we collect the advanced stuff somewhere, perhaps Thomas precession, perhaps a new article Thomas rotation, which would make sense because Thomas precession really is a physical phenomenon with mathematical root Thomas rotation. Lorentz transformation would make sense too, but I don't know whether people want to allow for that article to swell much more. Meanwhile, Velocity-addition formula should be reduced to the basics as given in textbooks. YohanN7 ( talk) 14:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Lifshitz Theory of Van der Waals Force is up for review. I believe Lifshitz's contributions are duly stated in van der Waals force. Would there be any need to have a separate article? I wouldn't think so, as they can always expand the latter one. Any comments are appreciated. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone contacted me about reviewing ongoing dubious edits at Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot, ( diff of the relevant edits). Looks suspicious to me, but the changes are fairly technical, and other than going through and tagging with a bunch of CNs, I don't think I'll be much help at the moment. Anyone with a bit of time and some understanding of Thermodynamics want to take a crack at this? Previous discussion on Vsmith's talk page and my talk page. 0x0077BE ( talk · contrib) 12:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
For some reason this isn't picked up by AAlerts, so I figured I'd give a notice here. You can join the discussion at Talk:Hexaquark. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone interested in Lagrangian mechanics and field theory may want to see this, since it will affect a number of articles. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:Weyl semimetal. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Velocity addition in relativity is, in the usual presentation in a textbook something quite easy. It is captured in essence by the formulae ("standard configuration")
and, when confined to a plane,
Derivations are two- or three-liners.
Velocity addition in relativity is, when taken to the full extent, as mathematically involved as you wish. Goldstein:
Physically, it has implications that made people (non-cranks) see paradoxes (Macanu paradox). I believe the situation was not fully resolved until 1990.
Now we have these two articles where Velocity-addition formula actually treats a little advanced stuff truly belonging elsewhere, while (imo) failing to treat the simple stuff (not all formulae there, complicated proof) adequately, which should include the formulae (all of them), full easy proofs and applications, e.g. aberration of light. Thomas precession is entirely nontechnical today.
I suggest we collect the advanced stuff somewhere, perhaps Thomas precession, perhaps a new article Thomas rotation, which would make sense because Thomas precession really is a physical phenomenon with mathematical root Thomas rotation. Lorentz transformation would make sense too, but I don't know whether people want to allow for that article to swell much more. Meanwhile, Velocity-addition formula should be reduced to the basics as given in textbooks. YohanN7 ( talk) 14:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Draft:Lifshitz Theory of Van der Waals Force is up for review. I believe Lifshitz's contributions are duly stated in van der Waals force. Would there be any need to have a separate article? I wouldn't think so, as they can always expand the latter one. Any comments are appreciated. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 20:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Someone contacted me about reviewing ongoing dubious edits at Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot, ( diff of the relevant edits). Looks suspicious to me, but the changes are fairly technical, and other than going through and tagging with a bunch of CNs, I don't think I'll be much help at the moment. Anyone with a bit of time and some understanding of Thermodynamics want to take a crack at this? Previous discussion on Vsmith's talk page and my talk page. 0x0077BE ( talk · contrib) 12:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
For some reason this isn't picked up by AAlerts, so I figured I'd give a notice here. You can join the discussion at Talk:Hexaquark. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyone interested in Lagrangian mechanics and field theory may want to see this, since it will affect a number of articles. M∧Ŝ c2ħε Иτlk 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
See Draft:Weyl semimetal. Thank you, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 18:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)