Einstiens Theory of Relativity?

General Relativity and Special Relativity. I was told like only 12 people on the planet fully understand it. I read about it and I get the idea of it, but I don't understand how it works or how they came to that. I think that there has to be more people than that who understand it, more common of a knoweldge in the scientific community (whatever that is).

 

I don't profess to be one of the 12. I remember reading some of Steven Hawking's work, and tend to recall it had something to do with the idea that the faster an object is traveling, the less precise you will be in recording it's exact position, or vica versa. In other words, If I would have only had time to think.
SpaceTime is something I'm very interested in, thank you for providing me this link to Einstein's archives. If I figure it all out, I'll get back to you .. someday

Kids, this is a perfect example of the phrase "It's better to remain silent and appear ignorant, than to open you mouth and remove all doubt".

Even spelled Stephen's name wrong .... but I had fun that night !

 

That's quantum theory (sort of), not relativity.

The theory of relativity basically explains that there is no absolute frame of reference. There is nothing special about the earth, the sun, or even empty space that makes it a superior frame of reference to any other.

Space-time is a four dimensional entity, and the faster you go, the slower time goes. As you approach the speed of light, time drastically slows down for you compared to someone not travelling at light speed. You won't notice the difference while you're travelling...but as soon as you stop, you'll notice (for example) something is wrong when you've aged a few hours and the earth has aged many centuries.

As you approach light speed, your mass increases, making it more and more difficult to accelerate any more. You can never pass light speed, because theoretically if you reached light speed you'd weigh an infinite amount, therefore requiring an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any more.

The theory of relativity is truly fascinating...it also has many implications in the theory of gravity, the nature of light, and the shape of space-time.

 

Neither am i part of the '12'. I think following on from kandahar that thinking is being questioned by 'quantum theory' and 'super string theory' and many other 'theories'..

einstein ultimatly failed to move on from his original brilliant work and believed ultimatly in a 'higher power' and the idea of perfection but then the concept of 'chaos theory' came along..

i have been slowly reading (it is very good).

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/billbryson/bb_title/display.pperl?isbn=9780767908184

good luck too any one trying to get upto speed with those lucky twelve people.

 

The theory of relativity exlains that there is no frame of reference for electromagnetic waves, which aren't subject to gravity among other things as they (the other things, like us for examle) are. A frame of reference is just a system in the human mind that is used to tell that something is moving. Systems don't really exist, they are made by humans for humans; language is a system, math is a system.

I feel stupid.

 

.

 

.

 

I think that quote about 12 people is old now. Special relativity is routinely taught (and should be understood) on undergrad courses around the world. General relativity is harder to understand and fully evolves the idea of spacetime.

Relativity began when Einstien asked what would happen if you travelled along side a light wave. The principle behind relativity is that however fast you travel light always travels at 300000000m/s. As opposed to on a road where if you do 60mph and another car does 50mph, that other car will appear to be going 10mph to you. No matter how fast you travel light always travels at that large number in the last sentence. That has, by the way, been shown experimentally along with many other of the bizarre effects of relativity such as time dilation.

 

.

 

Yeah tensors aren't so much the problem, they are a pain, but you get them in other areas. But comprehending the result of the equations I think is harder, just getting your head round what they are telling you. Much the QM equations in that respect.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

.

 

As a gneral rule the larger the length scale being studied the less i know or indeed care, but hasn't the speed of gravity been measured as c? I appreciate its bad to post without a refernce, ill try and find it but maybe someone here can save me a job.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030107.html here you go, I cant find a link to the actual report I think its hidden in some conference proceedings (in my experience where some of this stuff is best hidden). It appears to have come in for some abuse but still dont find it any more or less convincing the van Flandern's stuff, which i didnt really follow, whether thats his fault or mine is a matter of opinion.

 

ah this is more to my interest. Last thing I heard about this whihc i admit was a few years ago, was work going on in Sweeden. There were still quite a few problems then about vorticies breaking up to reduce angular momentum. I think this experiment will succeed soon, like all these things whether it will be as amazing as its supposed to be i question. Many of the interaction analogous to a real black hole would take part via virtual photons, so hardly going to be a stunning light show.

 

We can all understand some concepts from reletivity, but how they ended up getting an equation to determin potential energy . . . ask one of the 12.