One more thing so we finally say that due to the contraction in the circumference and radius remaining unchanged the space distorts in a non-eucladian way but the rigid disk "resists" this contraction so we don't notice a change in the spatial dimensions of the disk.
Oh thanks that explains a lot. One more thing in the book greene connects the distortion of Space to the accelaration of objects and from equivalance principle to the gravity by this example, Is this approach correct?
The object is moving with the same speed in the circular path, there's no relative speed. And it is said that rulers contract but not the circunference of the rotating disk. Theres no relative speed between the ruler and the disks circunference.
On his book of the elegant universe when he was explaining the warping of spacetime he use an analogy of a toy called tornado. Basically a spinning machine like a merry go round.
Anyway he said, let's give one ruler to the slim who is at the wall of the tornado,to measure the circumference...
I am not trying to push my own theories, no need to be so aggressive. I am just asking questions. I already stated that my knowledge is restircted and i want to learn more.
Thanks but this looks like we found the number 1 from this inner product so it must be probability i am sorry for my ignorance but all i want is to understand this square thing in a more deeper level.
And one other thing. Should i accept this as a postulate of the qm and do not attempt to look for further deeper explanation. In this case i will accept the probability of a particle is proportional to the intensity of the wave which is defined as the amplitude squared. Or should i interpret it...
Hi i want to replenish this thread.
The wave function (not squared) describes the probability of a particle occupying a particular location in space - but this needs to be multiplied by the probability of a particle being detected at that same location in space.
By way of analogy, if Alice and...
http://www.schoolphysics.co.uk/age16-19/Wave%20properties/Wave%20properties/text/Intensity_and_amplitude/index.html
well this may be alittle bit simple but in the link above the energy of a physical wave is shown as squared i mean is this done to eliminate that the positive and negative values...
Hi to all. I searched the net and there is a lot of people confused about this rule or postulate. In feynmans lectures when he was explaining the quantum behaviour even for the water wave interference he took the same wave intensity postulate (wave function squared) and derive the interference...
I probably miss something about synchorinization of clocks, think of the mm device as two light clocks they are obviously in synch in resting frame but are they in synch in moving reference frame?
How do we , (or do we?) automatically assume that for an observer in a moving frame see the both...
Yes i think my confusion is about this. But unfortunately full text is not available with the link you sent. So to explain the null result with SR briefly do we just accept the fact that we are in a an inertial reference frame with the mm device and we don't "observe" any sr effects so the null...