Timeline for Due to relativity, does the surface of a pulsar have less area than the layer beneath it?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 7, 2019 at 1:50 | answer | added | Jamey McPherson | timeline score: 0 | |
S May 29, 2017 at 19:25 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
S May 29, 2017 at 19:25 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
May 28, 2017 at 6:40 | vote | accept | Master Drifter | ||
May 26, 2017 at 3:38 | answer | added | Guill | timeline score: -1 | |
May 23, 2017 at 11:30 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
May 23, 2017 at 11:12 | answer | added | Void | timeline score: 14 | |
May 23, 2017 at 9:20 | answer | added | tparker | timeline score: 1 | |
May 21, 2017 at 18:37 | comment | added | Mihai B. | Since you've mentioned charges, take a look at this research regarding the "Relativistic electron spin motion in cycloatoms" treated in the framework of relativistic QM osapublishing.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-8-2-51 | |
May 21, 2017 at 18:28 | comment | added | Mihai B. | You can find the treatment of this problem in Einstein's book "Relativity - The Special and The General Theory" in the cap. 23 "Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring Rods on a Rotating Body of Reference"; the short answer is that a clock on the surface will go slower than a clock near the center. There is another effect described in "The Meaning of Relativity" :"A material particle, moving perpendicularly to the axis of rotation inside a rotating hollow body, is deflected in the sense of the rotation (Coriolis field).". This also tells us that a rotating(spinning) pulsar/black hole loses energy... | |
May 21, 2017 at 18:05 | comment | added | AccidentalFourierTransform | Possible duplicate: Euclidean geometry in non-inertial frame. See also An electromagnetic twist on Ehrenfest's paradox | |
S May 21, 2017 at 18:00 | history | bounty started | Master Drifter | ||
S May 21, 2017 at 18:00 | history | notice added | Master Drifter | Draw attention | |
May 19, 2017 at 23:11 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/865706422541189124 | ||
May 18, 2017 at 18:58 | comment | added | WillO | @CDCM: I think it's pretty clear that the OP intends to ask the question from the viewpoint of an inertial (and hence non-rotating) observer. | |
May 18, 2017 at 18:33 | history | edited | Master Drifter |
[Edit removed during grace period]
|
|
May 18, 2017 at 17:48 | history | edited | Master Drifter |
edited tags
|
|
May 18, 2017 at 17:03 | comment | added | CDCM | Relativistically rotating objects were one of the things that initially led Einstein into thinking about space itself distorting. Special relativity deals with inertial frames of reference, which rotating objects do not have, and to describe a rotating object like that, you do need to move away from a normal euclidean geometry. A caveat: the ideal rigid body doesn't survive into special relativity. Great question, I look forward to reading the answers of the more knowledgeable. | |
May 18, 2017 at 16:53 | history | asked | Master Drifter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |