Timeline for Why is special relativity still in use, if general relativity is more broad?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2018 at 16:32 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 28, 2018 at 14:49 | |||||
| May 26, 2018 at 15:56 | answer | added | my2cts | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 26, 2018 at 15:51 | answer | added | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 5, 2018 at 3:29 | answer | added | Colin MacLaurin | timeline score: 4 | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 12:36 | comment | added | nabla | @prakharlondhe yes, it's a similar idea. Of course you can use Maxwell's equations to obtain more precise results, or even quantum optics, but usually ray optics are just fine for our purposes and, of course, it is much easier to develop an intuition about a simpler model | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 4:00 | comment | added | Prakhar Londhe | Thanks @gerd, i got you. It is the same as dealing with ray optics as a special case of wave optics when we neglect the wavelength of light when dealing with large size objects(as compared to wavelength of light). Isn't it? | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:49 | comment | added | user83548 | @WillO if you combine linear algebra with calculus you get something bigger: distribution theory | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:09 | comment | added | WillO | @prahar---The whole point of calculus is to reduce global problems to local problems that can be solved by linear algebra. The whole point of general relativity is to reduce global problems to local problems that can be solved by special relativity. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:06 | comment | added | Prahar | @WillO really? Could you elaborate? | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:05 | comment | added | WillO | @prahar: actually, calculus generalizes linear algebra in exactly the same sense that general relativity generalizes special relativity. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:01 | comment | added | Prahar | @WillO While I completely agree with the sentiment, calculus and linear algebra deal with two quite different things. Therefor unlike the example here where special relativity is obtained as a special limit of general relativity, linear algebra and calculus are actually different areas. One does not imply the other. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:00 | comment | added | user83548 | same as Newton's laws, they are easier to use and still accurate for some applications | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:59 | comment | added | nabla | When the stress-energy tensor is not too big (that is, usually, when gravitational fields are "weak" and your interactions and processes are not super high energy), and your frame of reference is inertial, special relativity is a really fine model of reality. For instance, quantum electrodynamics uses special relativity, and its predictions are incredibly accurate. You don't need general relativity to know that one apple and another apple add up to two apples; sometimes a simpler model gives the same results as a more complex one within the desired precision. So you choose the simple one. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:56 | comment | added | WillO | Why is linear algebra still in use, if calculus is more broad? | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:46 | history | asked | Prakhar Londhe | CC BY-SA 3.0 |