/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12091276

265KiB, 900x750, hermann-minkowski-2.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 13:36:01 2020 No.12091276 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12091289 >>12091456 >>12092388 >>12095639

Did he Contaminate the foundations of <insert>, Physics, Maths etc or he was right?
I seriously don't understand relativity. I have tried but I guess I am incompetant to comprehend.

What can a person learn from his teaching, in short sentence?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 2020 13:41:15 No.12091289 Report

Quoted By: >>12091304

>>12091276
Relativity just replaces the Galilean transform with the Lorentz transform as the Lorentz transform ensures a fixed speed of light whereas the Galilean transform does not.

Basically you have to trade in a universal time parameter for a universal speed limit (speed of light).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 2020 13:47:17 No.12091304 Report

Quoted By: >>12091380 >>12091497

>>12091289
Apart for my understanding of transformation as a map I don't know much about
>Galilean transformtion
>Lorentz transformtion
Can you specify in abstract algebra terminology?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 2020 14:07:40 No.12091380 Report

Quoted By: >>12091382 >>12092378

>>12091304
These transformations are maps between coordinate systems. I'm not as well versed in abstract algebra but I'll give it my best shot.

The gallilean group is a symmetry group that is composed of rotational symmetry U(3), boosts (transformation of speed) and translations (in space and time). We say that classical physics is invariant under the gallilean transformation, that is to say that the laws of classical physics apply before and after applying a galilean transformation.

Relativity replaces the galilean symmetry group with the Poincaré group. Physical laws are in fact invariant under the poincaré group, and classical physics follows as a limit for low speed scenarios. The galilean symmetry group can be recovered from the Poincaré group as the limit for low speeds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 2020 14:09:13 No.12091382 Report

Quoted By:

>>12091380
Sorry, I meant SO(3)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 2020 14:27:30 No.12091456 Report

Quoted By: >>12092380

>>12091276
I guess you could partly blame the education system for regurgitating the phrase "Time is constant". Ever since I learned the oh so novel idea of relativity, I kind of struggled, since I've always thought that time was constant. But that was when I was a kid and was still learning. The human brain is surprisingly flexible when you want it to be

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 2020 14:40:03 No.12091497 Report

Quoted By:

>>12091304
spacetime = some four-dimensional vector space $V$ with a distinguished class of coordinates (bases) called inertial frames of reference
recall that every two bases in some vector space differ by a transition matrix. in classical mechanics two inertial frames differ by a Galilean transformation which is just a matrix in some special form (google it). Galilean transformations have the property that they preserve the first/fourth coordinate (the time coordinate) so it implies that there's a well defined projection $V \to \mathbb{R}$ which serves as global time. in special relativity Galilean transformation are replaced by Lorentz transformation which are again just transition matrices between inertial frames, but they don't preserve the time coordinate anymore. there's no well defined global time, i.e. times is "relative" for the observer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 2020 19:12:40 No.12092378 Report

Quoted By: >>12093950

>>12091380
I am understanding a bit.
The terms "limit" and "invariant" are helping.
Thanks.
What is current state of his works? Is anyone doing anything in relatvity and "spacetime" fields?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 2020 19:13:43 No.12092380 Report

Quoted By:

>>12091456
So what would you call it now?
Just algebriac notation for "speed of light"?
And develop theories on top of that?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Sep 2020 19:17:02 No.12092388 Report

Quoted By:

>>12091276

For a Lorentz transformation the distance ds^2 = dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-dt^2 is invariant (choosing suitable units for t). So the transformation is SO(3,1). Minkowski observed that if we replace 't' with 'i t' (where i is sqrt(-1)) the transformation becomes SO(4), so the Lorentz transformation becomes an ordinary 4 D rotation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 2020 05:21:36 No.12093837 Report

Quoted By:

bump

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 2020 06:12:16 No.12093950 Report

Quoted By:

>>12092378
Are you talking about Minkowski? Or how Einstein (and others) furthered the field of relativistic physics?

Einstein obviously went on to develop general relativity, which describes how the curvature of spacetime is what causes the force we know as gravity. Dirac went on to develop the first relativistic theory of quantum mechanics.

I suppose the largest problem which hasn't been reselved yet is that quantum mechanics has not yet been resolved with gravity, which is where the field has been stuck at since about 100 years now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Sep 2020 19:48:18 No.12095639 Report

Quoted By:

>>12091276

What's wrong with his work in number theory?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches