1,143 reputation
520
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 11 months
seen yesterday

Jul
6
comment Why did we need relativity to derive $E=mc^2$?
My point was why shouldn't the internal energy contribute to the radiation, rather than the mass? Isn't this a physical assumption? And since energy is frame dependent, I'd expect potential energy to be also.
Jul
5
comment Why did we need relativity to derive $E=mc^2$?
@RonMaimon if you look at the derivation, the constant C doesn't change during emission of radiation and so the internal energy is constant - why should this be so?
Jul
5
comment Why did we need relativity to derive $E=mc^2$?
In your link you say "Because the H-E terms measure the change in energy of the box due to the relative motion of the two frames only, the additive constant C representing any other energy left over (such as the internal molecular energies of the box etc) is constant" why shouldn't the internal energy of the body and therefore C change?
Jul
4
comment Why did we need relativity to derive $E=mc^2$?
The main problem with the derivation is it assumes mass is converted to radiation, whereas the conversion of internal energy to radiation is an established explanation anyway. E.g heating an object causes it to radiate where internal kinetic energy is converted to radiation.
Jul
4
comment Why did we need relativity to derive $E=mc^2$?
There isn't one way of deriving $E=mc^2$, although by the sounds of it, you're referencing Einstein's controversial first derivation which lead to others upto the 1940s.
Jul
1
awarded  Citizen Patrol
Jun
25
comment Why don't most physics programs study the primary sources?
@RonMaimon goddamnit you're right on Newton.
Jun
25
comment Why don't most physics programs study the primary sources?
yeah, his second law as in "A change in motion is proportional to the motive force impressed and takes place along the straight line in which that force is impressed" which isn't expressed as proportional to the rate of change of momentum. And Lagranges Analytical Mechanics is very long winded when it comes to explaining virtual work, whereas Feynman does it in a paragraph - why? because we've moved on from 250 years ago as teachers and researchers refine and improve the interpretation and techniques. Please remove the -1
Jun
24
comment study quantum mechanics without physics background
+1 for the Griffiths recommendation. The reviews on Amazon.com are very favourable and his electrodynamics books is great.
Jun
22
comment Why don't most physics programs study the primary sources?
I think even Maxwell isn't worth reading today because he predates special relativity. Far better to read the works of talented teachers who teach as a profession and get feedback such as Griffiths with his Classical Electrodynamics book. Prof Lewin is another fantastic teacher who hasn't written a book, but has lectured on the web and maybe this is his medium. Maybe you're starting to fall asleep in the past and not keeping upto date with modern books.
Jun
22
answered Why don't most physics programs study the primary sources?
Jun
22
comment Does a static electric field and the conservation of momentum give rise to a relationship between $E$, $t$, and some path $s$?
Jackson and Griffiths don't say anything about this stuff so can you recommend a good book that goes into this?
Jun
3
comment How did L.H. Thomas derive his 1927 expressions for an electron with an axis?
I know that Goldstein and Jackson do it in the spirit of Thomas via the Lorentz matrix.
Jun
3
comment How did L.H. Thomas derive his 1927 expressions for an electron with an axis?
You don't understand what Thomas is doing. He's setting up a set of parallel moving frames in the lab. The electron enters comoving frame1 at $t$, enters comoving frame2 at time $t+ dt$ etc which are parallel to one another, whereas in the electron's frame, they're generally rotated through an angle. You seem to think there is a frame attached to the electron rather than seeing the electron as simply moving from one inertial frame to another.
Jun
3
comment What are the increasingly sophisticated ways to perform a Lorentz transformation?
Thanks for your answer and I'll have a look at HansdeVries's chapter
Jun
2
comment What are the increasingly sophisticated ways to perform a Lorentz transformation?
sure, they're the same transformation, but carried out using increasingly sophisticated methods that offer greater insight, and that seems to be what the question is asking for.
Jun
2
comment What are the increasingly sophisticated ways to perform a Lorentz transformation?
-1 the people before Einstein merely wrote down the transformations, whereas Einstein did indeed derive them from his two postulates, and not in a matrix form. Secondly, Minkowski reinterpreted the lorentz transformations as rotations in hyperbolic space, emphasising the invariance of the space time interval.
May
20
revised Is the electric field zero inside an ideal conductor carrying a current?
added 62 characters in body
May
20
comment Is the electric field zero inside an ideal conductor carrying a current?
I said an ideal conductor - meaning zero resistance
May
20
asked Is the electric field zero inside an ideal conductor carrying a current?