List of common misconceptions about relativity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on common misconceptions about relativity, particularly in a freshman calculus-based physics course. Key misconceptions identified include the belief that light cannot have momentum due to its zero mass, the misunderstanding of black hole formation, and the idea that relativity only applies at high speeds. The instructor plans to facilitate group discussions among students to address these misconceptions, using resources such as Gardner's "Relativity Simply Explained" and pedagogical methods from Takeuchi and Mermin. Additional misconceptions suggested by participants include the nature of time dilation and the concept of absolute rest.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity (SR) and general relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with spacetime diagrams and Lorentz transformations
  • Basic knowledge of Maxwell's equations and electromagnetic waves
  • Concept of the energy-momentum four-vector
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Misconceptions in Physics Education" to explore common errors in understanding relativity
  • Study "The Ehrenfest Paradox" to understand rotating disks in relativity
  • Examine "Relativistic Velocity Addition" to clarify how velocities combine in different frames
  • Investigate "The Nature of Time Dilation" in both special and general relativity contexts
USEFUL FOR

Physics educators, students in introductory physics courses, and anyone interested in clarifying common misunderstandings about relativity and its implications in modern physics.

  • #31
rjbeery said:
For a myth, how about "SR has proven the aether does not exist." I'm not advocating for aether, but there's a big difference between proving that something cannot exist in a theory versus merely acknowledging that it isn't necessary in that theory.
As I see this is rather complicated question. Obviously it's a myth. But at the time people where probably hung on the idea of finding preferred frame. So such a myth would ban useless discussions.
But nowadays I would say that such a myth promotes kind of magical thinking. That's because dimensional modelling is very powerful tool for consistency checking but that myth kind of prevents using it. But that's my viewpoint.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
And another thing that I considered quite interesting (somewhat related to relativistic interpretation of aberration). This is actually a paradox kind of thing but it of course is related to some misconception (if you have it).

Let's say we have situation like this:
2vcdl3k.jpg

Observers "1" and "2" are observing box with an "A" printed on it's side. We view this situation in rest frame of the box and first observer. Second observer is in motion in that frame. Neither observer can see the "A" on the side of the box when both observers are side by side.

Now let's change to rest frame of second observer:
mcgoxw.jpg

The box and first observer is in motion in that frame. Because the box is in motion and light doesn't get to observer instantly second observer see the box in it's past position. So should the "A" be visible for him?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
38K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K