20
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 885:
Line 885: − + − Discuss here:+ + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of relativity (view source)
Revision as of 15:38, October 15, 2009
, 15:38, October 15, 2009no edit summary
: Your quote is misleadingly incomplete, and Maxwell's equations do not describe an additional dimension.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
: Your quote is misleadingly incomplete, and Maxwell's equations do not describe an additional dimension.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
== Quantum Field Theory ==
== Quantum Field Theory/Changes to the Intro ==
As it stands, the introduction currently contains false information- it asserts that relativity stands apart from the rest of physics, in that it relies on hypotheses and complex mathematics. All of physics relies on hypotheses and mathematics- for instance: Newtonian mechanics relies on the assumptions F=ma, objects at rest remain at rest, objects in motion remain in motion. Quantum mechanics relies on the Von Neumann postulates,etc.
Also, the mathematics of special relativity are really no more complicated then Newtonian mechancis, and less complicated then Maxwell's equations or quantum mechanics.
The introduction also asserts that quantum field theories are not entirely successful (in combining special relativity with quantum mechanics). This is blatantly not true-the standard model is the most successful theory we have, and it is a quantum field theory.
The last change I made was to the rewording of the assumptions of relativity in section 1. The constant speed of light cannot be reworded as nothing can travel faster then light- the latter follows from the former. The first is an assumption of the theory, the second a result of the theory (the difference between an axiom and a statement proven from the axiom).
Also, I think the paragraph about special relativity and Newtonian gravity being in conflict is an excellent opportunity to talk about the need for general relativity, so I would like to add something about that.
On a stylistic note, maybe the references to quantum mechanics should be grouped together in their own section, or their own article? Also, perhaps-we should include an "evidence for" section to contrast with the "evidence against"?--[[User:WLink|WLink]] 11:38, 15 October 2009 (EDT)