I Can a Geometric Animation Help Visualize the Special Theory of Relativity?

stickman76
Gold Member
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
There is a relationship between each of the mathematical values in each of the paradoxes with regard to each observers. There is obviously also a relationship between every situation we study in the Special Theory of Relativity. The Lorentz Transformations obviously prove this. So, I began to wonder, is it possible to visually represent these situations with a geometric shape that changes when the values change? For educational purposes- to help beginners visualize what is happening-

Example: Each side would have a mathematical value (or maybe descriptively) each individual side would represent time dilation, length contraction, light constancy, etc) and as one side's value increased, another decreased so that the sum total of the lengths of the shape would stay the same, the area of the shape would stay the same even as the shape was distorted. The side representing light constancy would stay the same illustrating light constancy. The length of the side representing time dilation would change representing the amount of time dilation, etc.

Could this be an interactive animation similar to the Minkowski diagram but shown as a geometric shape instead of a plot?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stickman76 said:
Could this be an interactive animation similar to the Minkowski diagram but shown as a geometric shape instead of a plot?
Have you looked at the "Adamtoons" representation of SR/GR? It is a good little 2D interactive utility, based on Epstein's 'Relativity Visualized'. It depicts not Minkowski spacetime, but rather 'space-propertime'. It is exact for SR, though only correct to first order for GR.
 
  • Like
Likes stickman76
I checked it out, thank you. Anything utilizing graphics is helpful to learn these concepts. I’m compiling a list of bookmarks to animations like this so anything else you can suggest is greatly appreciated.
 
Ibix said:
My own http://www.ibises.org.uk/Minkowski.html let's you draw Minkowski diagrams and smoothly animates frame changes. You may alsowish to check out the Insights article on relativity on rotated graph paper by @robphy.
Is that yours? I love that tool, been using it for awhile. It's a great help when I'm having trouble visualizing a scenario. If you have any interest in updating it and are receptive to requests or ideas, I could send a few your way.
 
Arkalius said:
Is that yours? I love that tool, been using it for awhile. It's a great help when I'm having trouble visualizing a scenario. If you have any interest in updating it and are receptive to requests or ideas, I could send a few your way.
Yes, I wrote it. Happy to take suggestions, although I don't know if or when I'd get round to implementing them. If you know javascript you're welcome to take a copy and modifumy it yourself - it's all self-contained.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...
Thread 'Relativity of simultaneity in actuality'
I’m attaching two figures from the book, Basic concepts in relativity and QT, by Resnick and Halliday. They are describing the relativity of simultaneity from a theoretical pov, which I understand. Basically, the lightning strikes at AA’ and BB’ can be deemed simultaneous either in frame S, in which case they will not be simultaneous in frame S’, and vice versa. Only in one of the frames are the two events simultaneous, but not in both, and this claim of simultaneity can be done by either of...
Back
Top