Can anyone explain the relationship between t²-x² in relativity theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Merkur
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the expression t²-x² in relativity theory, with the original poster seeking clarification on its significance. They express confusion over the concept of distortion in time and space, which is explained by others as a means to maintain the constant value of lightspeed. A participant emphasizes that relativity does not involve distortion but rather preserves the unchanging nature of lightspeed. They also critique the teaching methods in introductory texts for failing to adequately explain the role of lightspeed in calculations. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding fundamental concepts in relativity and the mathematical foundations necessary for deeper comprehension.
Merkur
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hallo!

At the beginning of my first thread I'd like to introduce myself

I'm Alexander and I live in Bavaria ... because of this my English sometimes is really bad ... But I hope you all can understand me...
And my hobbies are: Basketball, Latin (or in general: languages), Uncycling ...
If somebody of you needs help with Latin - or German, of course - I will perhaps be able to help him/her :smile:


But let's talk about my problem:

I'm reading a book about the relativity theory (Sorry ... I don't know what's the correct English word - in German it's "Relativitätstheorie" ) . The author says that everything (i.e. the time and the space) is distorted only to keep difference t²-x² constant. But I don't understand why ...
The book says that t = g-faktor and things like that ...
I don't understand this.

I would be very very very very very ... grateful for help and I hope that you have understood the sense of my question at least (because of my mistakes of course )


Thank you and good night ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thank you very much for your explanations ... :smile:


Now I understand ... So I must imagine of a "ball", whose middle is the origin. And the term t²-x² is actual "accidental".



But you can find a very nice derivation of it in Schutz's book A First Course in General Relativity, if you know some matrix algebra.

Thank you for this clou ... but I think I begin with German books ... ... and I must learn the basics of maths and physics in the beginning, I think :frown: (I've been learning since 2 years physics at school, so we haven't even been tractating the terminus "energy" )

By the way: What's matrix algebra? (I know ...Sometimes I'm asking dumb questions ... )
 
Your book sounds bad. Nothing is "distorted" in relativity theory. Everything preserves the unvarying value of lightspeed just as light would travel through space uninterrupted.

I think it is a mistake for an elementary book to teach relativity theory without the letter 'c' for lightspeed. Physicists like it set to value '1' for computational purposes, but they already understand what it means. When 'c' is set to value 1 (light-seconds per second), then one is apt to forget that there is a speed and to assume space2 and time2 are being combined. The second term of the expression is really a space term, (ct)2, which is the square of the product of a speed and a time, and that yields a space term squared. My second objection is that complex computations with 'c' set to 1 leave the responsibility of reinserting the actual value wherever needed at the end of the computation. This requires much experience.

Sind Sie Münchener?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by quartodeciman
Your book sounds bad. Nothing is "distorted" in relativity theory. Everything preserves the unvarying value of lightspeed just as light would travel through space uninterrupted.
O.K. ... you mustn't listen to each words of mine becuase I don't know how to express all those things in English ... but I hope I will get better ...


Sind Sie Münchener? [/B]

No ... When you open the Atlas, you will find the village I live in there, where the Danube crosses the Bavarian frontier (near Passau)

Ciao!
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Sticky
Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
116
Views
9K
Back
Top