Recent content by realanswers

I am a bit confused on how we can just say that (z',p) form a 4-vector. In my head, four vectors are sacred objects that are Lorentz covariant, but now we introduced some new variable and say it forms a 4-vector with momentum. I understand that these are just integration variables but I still do...

How did you get to the last line from the previous line?

Where was the first term shown to be 0 / why would it be 0, this seems incorrect...? I get your second reply specifying the off-shell condition but I do not see where you showed that ##\frac{\partial L}{\partial \phi} \delta \phi= 0##

I still do not fully understand your answer and do not see how it answers the question. SO do we need to evaluate the derivate at ##q_3##?

Yes I understand both your points. I am just looking for a good detailed exposition of special relativity that is at the advanced undergraduate/ graduate level.

I am trying to learn special relativity well and I am finding it difficult to have good resources. So any concrete suggestions or recommendations would be helpful other than just "experience"!

Thanks for the enlightening answer. I do want to know however, why does the short cut work? Moreover, you seem to have a great handle on the subject and I would like to gain the insight you have, what book on special relativity do you recommend? The chapters in Morin's and Taylor's classical...

why must I use the difference between the two events rather than just position in a reference frame?

Can you explain more? It would differ by the ##x' v/c^2## How does that "not make any difference" ? Also does this mean it is true that they consider ##x' = 0## to obtain their result? Would appreciate a more verbose, fully-fledged answer!

From the Lorentz transformation equations we know that $$t = \gamma(t^{'} - x^{'} v/c^2)$$ but for the Muon decay example where the setup is as follows : "Assume for simplicity that a certain muon is created at a height of 50 km, moves straight downward, has a speed v = .99998 c, decays in...

Care to elaborate on the modern approaches you are referencing?

Thank you Tazerfish for the excellent question. I also have the same question and am a bit disappointed at the answers. This is an out of touch answer and also a bit rude. Look at any book textbook used in undergraduate/graduate physics : David Morin's classical mechanics, Griffith's E&M...

My issue is in deriving the coordinates of a point on a wheel that rotates without slipping. In Morin's solution he says that: My attempt at rederiving his equation: I do not understand how the triangle on the bottom with sides indicated in green is the same as the triangle on top that is...