|
@fermatslibrary | |||||
|
It took us 255 years to go from Galilean transformations for falling bodies to Lorentz transformations that are in accordance with Einstein's special relativity. pic.twitter.com/hY8F60VogW
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Astro_Neel
@Astro_Neel
|
22. sij |
|
where γ is the Lorentz factor that depends upon the velocity of the moving object and is given by:
γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²)
It oscillates between 1 (for objects at rest) and 0 (for speed of light) so the above formulae would be expanded into these forms- pic.twitter.com/j0EI6ubv1A
|
||
|
|
||
|
Jon
@jdou86
|
22. sij |
|
it's btwn 1 and infinity pal
|
||
|
|
||
|
harry miley
@harry__miley
|
22. sij |
|
It took 255 years *for an observer at rest in our reference frame*.
|
||
|
|
||
|
K100dra (10🦄)
@K100dra3
|
22. sij |
|
Is there a math demonstration that takes us there clearly explained somewhere ? What I hated in Physics was that all those formulas were imposed upon us, never demonstrated and that the teacher wasn't usually able to resolve an equation beyond the 3rd line.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Tamás Kisely
@TKisely
|
22. sij |
|
Do you know Hudson-Nelson University physics book? Or Feyman lectures? They could help if you understand calculus.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Bennett
@BennettDams
|
22. sij |
|
255 is the product of the first three Fermat primes and also the maximum value representable by 8-bit, that's why it took us so long.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Paul Cantrell
@inthehands
|
22. sij |
|
Ah, great minds think alike, I see.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Garry W Briggs
@albertfeynman
|
22. sij |
|
|
||
|
Electric Sheep
@pfitzart
|
22. sij |
|
Some clever inventor thinks he can go further into the future by relativistically slowing down his clock in some contraption, meanwhile everyone else’s time is sped up,right?
|
||
|
|
||
|
LeDubstepSimpsonFace
@home_taping
|
22. sij |
|
Yeah, and then it only took Einstein a decade to invent General Relativity, which takes gravity into account, and everyone who mattered, pop sci writers excluded, kinda forgot about "Special" Relativity. E=mc2 is where it's at since about a century, not this curious special case.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Levi 🧪
@SereneBiologist
|
22. sij |
|
Ironically, E=mc^2 is a special case of a more general formula that can be derived starting from lorentz transformations.
|
||
|
|
||