Search type Search syntax
Tags [tag]
Exact "words here"
Author user:1234
user:me (yours)
Score score:3 (3+)
score:0 (none)
Answers answers:3 (3+)
answers:0 (none)
isaccepted:yes
hasaccepted:no
inquestion:1234
Views views:250
Sections title:apples
body:"apples oranges"
URL url:"*.example.com"
Favorites infavorites:mine
infavorites:1234
Status closed:yes
duplicate:no
migrated:no
wiki:no
Types is:question
is:answer
Exclude -[tag]
-apples
For more details on advanced search visit our help page
Results tagged with Search options user 207910

The special theory of relativity describes the motion and dynamics of objects moving at significant fractions of the speed of light.

2
votes
The quick answer is "no", in the sense that time dilation and space contraction are simply ways of discussing aspects of the Lorentz transformation, which implies them both. However, in order to answe …
answered Oct 30 '18 by Andrew Steane
1
vote
As I read the question, I think you already know how to calculate the answer which prompts Stanley's statement, but I will calculate it anyway because then I can answer your question which I think is …
answered Apr 24 by Andrew Steane
2
votes
Lorentz contraction doesn't refer to a moving pulse of light, it refers to an object at rest in one frame and moving in another. For a pulse of light the calculation based on wavelength is right, beca …
answered Dec 4 '18 by Andrew Steane
1
vote
I too find that the index notation is unnecessarily distracting for learning the main elements of special relativity (SR). It can be avoided for large parts of SR by adopting the notation of matrices …
answered Mar 10 by Andrew Steane
1
vote
It is indeed true that there is more human convention involved in the definitions of units and physical dimension than one would suspect before looking into it more closely. In the present example, th …
answered Oct 7 '18 by Andrew Steane
0
votes
In special relativity we can write statements such as $\bar{\bf E}_\parallel = {\bf E}_\parallel$ without ambiguity because there is a universal way to agree directions in space (it is not so simple i …
answered Jan 5 by Andrew Steane
0
votes
You are on the right track. First one studies acceleration under various forces and one eventually arrives at a definition of inertial mass. After that one can notice whether the local forces you are …
answered Dec 19 '18 by Andrew Steane
0
votes
Don't forget that the Michelson Morley setup is not the only way to look for possible variations of the speed of light with respect to other things such as relative motion of the source and detector, …
answered Jul 13 by Andrew Steane
10
votes
Einstein was influenced primarily by the electromagnetic theory developed by several people and culminating in the Maxwell equations, and by the experiments on the speed of light in moving water carri …
answered Jul 2 by Andrew Steane
1
vote
Questions like this are best answered by drawing the trajectories on a spacetime diagram. It all works out very nicely. You might find it helpful to note that there is a difference between "relative v …
answered Oct 22 '18 by Andrew Steane
2
votes
Answer 1 is right; answer 2 has the wrong rate of arrival of photons. Suppose the source emits some photons in a pulse which is $N$ wavelengths long. The time taken to emit them must be the time taken …
answered Jan 8 by Andrew Steane
1
vote
The answer depends on what you mean by "vacuum", and then it also depends on what speed you have in mind. If by "vacuum" you mean "far away from any matter" then the answer is no: it's not possible …
answered Feb 12 by Andrew Steane
1
vote
A tensor can be defined and written down in any given reference frame. The Lorentz transformation is a statement about how things change when you switch from one frame to another.
answered Feb 26 by Andrew Steane
3
votes
Use 4-vectors and pay attention to the spacetime location of any events at which the energy and momentum is present. If you don't know how to do the latter, I think the best advice is to read an under …
answered Jul 7 by Andrew Steane
8
votes
Your question is a good one. It springs from a slightly incorrect understanding of the logic of the Einstein box argument. It is not necessary to ascribe mass to a photon in order to present the argum …
answered Jul 14 by Andrew Steane

15 30 50 per page