Relativity Theory: What is needed?

[Umer_Latif]

I want to understand Relativity theory and the physics related to it. To gain this, what important fields of Phsyics should I master?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Just try a search on the internet. It's really not heavily reliant on maths to get a basic grounding. The implications are vast but the basic ideas are fairly simple.

You'll need at least a basic grounding in physics but not some really advanced knowledge.

General relativity/special relativity, a high school student can get to grips with these at a basic level, just by surfing the web.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

I'm not sure this helps, but then I'm not sure what you want to know and what level you're at?

 

[chroot]

Special relativity requires nothing more sophisticated than high-school level algebra.

General relativity, on the other hand, requires master's level training in mathematics (mainly differential geometry). The conclusions of the theory are accessible to laypeople, but, unfortunately, the theory itself requires a very high degree of mathematical sophistication.

- Warren

 

[Umer_Latif]

Well, I'm a college students and I have well acquaintance with Physics and Mathematics, but I haven't read Relativity theory thoroughly. I'd try to study it and understand.

I guess one should be very good in differentiation/Integration for that?

 

[cristo]

I guess one should be very good in differentiation/Integration for that?

No, you don't need calculus, although any knowledge of maths helps; special relativity, as chroot says, is accessible with only high school algebra. General relativity, on the other hand, is normally taught as an upper undergraduate or graduate course.

 

[neutrino]

I would have pointed you to Chris Hillman's wonderful site on Relativity, but it seems he has deleted it. Even the cached pages from Google isn't useful.

 

[robphy]

I had posted some replies... but, for some reason, the text, layout, and links were corrupted. I'll try again later.
I suspect that links with * in them are troublesome for the forum software.

 

[neutrino]

Thanks for the link, but it's just like Google's cached pages. While we can see the homepage, all other links end up at 404.

 

[robphy]

Hmm... maybe the link is bad.. as parsed into html by the forum software.

web.archive.org/web/ * /math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/

(no spaces around the asterisk)

[
From archive.org, I just downloaded all of the main pages, except for the popular science page, which I found via the cache of an MSN search for "Popular Science Relativity Websites". (I prefer Google... but I couldn't find the cached version of that page.)
]

 

[rewebster]

see link in 12

 

[rewebster]

see link in 12

 

[rewebster]

OK---lets try this, go to:

http://www.archive.org/web/web.php

and then paste:


math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html



in the 'take me back' address box

then click on 'web tutorials' or anything else to get to the Chris Hillman's 'maintained' stuff (like the RelWWW)
------------------------------

the problem with the asterisk may be with xp, not the forum---it 'looked' fine on my 'archaic' win98 system

 

[robphy]

the problem with the asterisk may be with xp, not the forum---it 'looked' fine on my 'archaic' win98 system

So, you are saying that your posts #10 and #11 (which still contain a url with a * ) are rendered correctly (i.e., the post numbers are in a column on the right)? [If you attempt to quote those posts, you'll see the * in the url.]

They are not rendered correctly for me in FF1.5 and IE6 on WinXP.
(If the display is okay, it may not be an archaic Win98 issue, but an archaic browser issue.) At the root of it, I'm guessing it's a forum software problem [which is trying to somehow interpret the asterisk] that might not show itself as a problem on your setup.

 

[rewebster]

no--posts #10 and #11 are gone (the links anyway), but right after I posted them, they looked and worked fine for me

--------------

10 and 11 are not looking 'right' as the 'edit' (for me) and the 'quote' and 'multi-quote' are now in the 'right' column and not below (the line) and the 'report' button is in an 'in-between' column.

 

[robphy]

no--posts #10 and #11 are gone (the links anyway), but right after I posted them, they looked and worked fine for me

Try hitting the QUOTE button on the lower right of the post.

 

[MaWM]

The math in special relativity is pretty simple. To better appreciate it one should also have a firm grasp of basic physics. I mean easy physics I stuff, but it helps to understand it on a deep level. Otherwise, its very easy to loose the purpose and implications of relativity. "I understand the equations.. but what does this actually mean?"

 

[rewebster]

Try hitting the QUOTE button on the lower right of the post.

well---isn't THAT funny (funny-unusual)----the 'link' with the asterisk came up ---that is, when I hit a 'quote' on 10 or 11

 

[robphy]

The math in special relativity is pretty simple. To better appreciate it one should also have a firm grasp of basic physics.

I agree... but not too firm. One does have to let go of some Galilean/Newtonian intuition.

 

[robphy]

well---isn't THAT funny (funny-unusual)----the 'link' with the asterisk came up ---that is, when I hit a 'quote' on 10 or 11

Yup, as I said.
It might be best to just delete those two posts altogether... or at least delete the URLs in an edit.

 

[rewebster]

Yup, as I said.
It might be best to just delete those two posts altogether... or at least delete the URLs in an edit.

me? or you?---either way

but, why do they (the links) show up only when the 'quote' is used?




the other link I put up works well anyway ---it stays mostly in 'the archive', but some links don't work as they may be gone or not referenced in the archive through those specific links, I guessing

--------------------------------------------

did it--when I changed it the 'format' corrected---yeah--it looks like you're right---the PF 'system' doesn't like an asterisk with back slashes on either side--or when you edited it

 

[neutrino]

Thanks, guys. It works now. I can visit some older pages. :) When I posted my second post, quoting robphy, it came out pretty weird - like some text at the bottom (without the quote) and without a 'box' around it, i.e. didn't appear like a normal post.