[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 87 KB, 660x433, shutterstock_1027733020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14782147 No.14782147 [Reply] [Original]

Recommend a brainlet engineer that only knows classical physics a path to understanding Einstein's relativity. I have some background knowledge of tensor calculus but that's pretty much it. Also, I'm really hoping for a book or books written with self-study in mind.
Thanks.

>> No.14783084

Watch the eigenchris channel on youtube
The guy has many vids, starting with basic tensor calculus, then gradualy moving up from classical physics to SR and GR, its very math oriented

>> No.14783088

>>14782147
Mass bends spacetime (which exists in 4 dimensions. Your pic is a 3D representation of what's actually happening in 4D)

Light goes straight but follow spacetime, meaning if spacetime is curved then light will curve as well.
Gravity isn't a force. It's things going perfectly straight on a curved space that makes them diverge. They aren't attracted to each other, they're just walking along lines that are going to meet, essentially.

>> No.14783098

>>14783088
>Your pic is a 3D representation of what's actually happening in 4D)
Wouldn't be the representation of diffraction around the globes a better imagination than this woven tablecloth?

>> No.14783099

>>14783098
>wouldnt this representation be better than that representation
maybe? who gives a fuck

>> No.14783114

>>14782147
GR is useless, all you need is time dilation and length contraction

>> No.14783131

>>14783084
>>14783088
I don't want the pop-science explanation, I want a genuine understanding of the theory.

>> No.14783137

>>14783131
Say so first, then, you fucking idiot. Would have saved me writing the post trying to help you

>> No.14783151

>>14783137
>Also, I'm really hoping for a book or books written with self-study in mind

>> No.14783152

>>14783131
>>14782147
Just google "general relativity textbooks for dummies" or something. It's not that hard

>> No.14783165

>>14783152
I was hoping to be spoonfed.

>> No.14783182 [DELETED] 

Would be it be correct to say that special relativity is a special case of the theory of the general relativity? So someone that understands general relativity also understands special relativity?

>> No.14783185

Would be it be correct to say that special relativity is a special case of the theory of general relativity? So someone that understands general relativity also understands special relativity?

>> No.14783189

>>14783182
Yes

>> No.14783198

>>14783189
Cool, so all I need is a book on general relativity.

>> No.14783200

>>14783165
Fuck you

>> No.14783274

>>14782147
Read MTW cover to cover, it aint hard.

>> No.14783530

>>14783185
Yes. SR is the limit of GR applied to a flat spacetime with observers travelling at constant respective velocity.

>> No.14783624

>>14783274
>MTW
This is the kind of book I was looking for, thanks anon.

>> No.14784525

>>14782147

unironically this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec&list=PLkyBCj4JhHt_pz8HUG7rbMeKFsStae10k

>> No.14784528

>>14784525

it's a whole 19 videos playlist about relativity with good relativity for dummies info

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfThVvBWZxM&list=PLkyBCj4JhHt_pz8HUG7rbMeKFsStae10k&index=17

>> No.14784649

>>14784525
>>14784528
Damn, I only watched the first video but it was beautiful.
I have a question. Isn't the fact that the theory of relativity predicts infinite spacetime curvature at a black hole proof that the theory is incomplete or incorrect? Because there are no infinites in the physical universe, right? Infinite is a human concept.

>> No.14784668

>>14784649
The Science says you have to take your meds

>> No.14785524

>>14784668
Go back to /pol/.

>> No.14786317

>>14784649
Bump for answer.

>> No.14789376

>>14782147
lorentz matrix

>> No.14789410

why would you study something you will never experience?

>> No.14791675

>>14789410
It's fascinating.

>> No.14792159

>>14782147
it's not possible to "understand" something that isn't true
relativity theory has been total nonsense since the very beginning, it has zero basis in reality
what you can understand, however, is all the errors in thought that led to its conception
see this excellent thread for among the most comprehensive explanations to that and several other phenomena (just ignore the math if it's too much for you to understand, but you should be able to understand some of it if you really are an engineer with some physics knowledge):
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did-I-actually-measure-a-superluminous-signal-thus-disproving-the-relativity-theory

>> No.14792167

>>14782147
>>14792159
see:
>Yes, it would disprove relativity once and for all, and rightly so. You may be interested in the work of Ron Hatch, who held like 30 patents on GPS and was one of the most outspoken critics on relativity:
>https://youtu.be/CGZ1GU_HDwY
>The history of relativity starts with Maxwell, which is incorrect because Faraday's law is incorrect, although obviously very close to the truth. This error a/o led to the problem that Maxwell's equations are not invariant to the Galilean transform. So, the Lorentz transform was invented, which requires a universally constant speed of light c:
>https://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf
>And it's the Lorentz transform that eventually led to relativity.
>As said, the root of the problem is with Faraday's law:
>curl [E] = -d[B]/dt.
>The actual relation between the [E] and [B] fields follows from the physics of the vortex, whereby the [E] field delivers the centripedal force required for the medium to flow along a circular path. And actually, the magnetic field from a permanent magnet forms an irrotational vortex, strange as it may sound:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex#Irrotational_vortices
>So, every electro*magnetic* phenomena involves vortices which require a pressure gradient, the [E] field, in order to be stable. In the "static" case, whereby we have an irrotational vortex, the [E] and [B] fields are indeed at a 90 degree angle, BUT that is not the only possibility.
>Besides electromagnetic phenomena, one can also have a longitudinal sound-like wave, which does NOT have a magnetic, rotating component, which is why it propagates at a theoretical speed of pi/2 times c.
>And since current is defined as the curl of the magnetic field [B], this type of wave also does NOT have "current", which is why it is very hard to excite. This experiment was the first time I succeeded in actually measuring something that seems to confirm the existence of this longitudinal wave, the kind of wave Tesla was working with.

>> No.14792175

>>14792159
>>14792167
Nothing to see here, just the typical boomer electrical engineering schizos

>> No.14792180

>>14792175
enjoy being an ignorant moron all you like, drooling over meaningless garbage with zero basis in reality like relativity theory
>>14782147
here's an even better thread where tons of people are providing all the myriad different refutations, both experimental and theoretical, to the totally clownish nonsense that is relativity theory:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_major_and_most_effective_refutations_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Question_Asked_December_6_2019

>> No.14792255

>>14792159
What is it with all the schizos on /sci/ recently?

>> No.14792271

>>14792255
>recently

>> No.14792290

>>14782147
I'm going to give you the steps to actually really understand GR instead of becoming a retarded wannabe physicist.

1. Study and solve all problems of the book differential topology by Guillemin Pollack

2. Study and read Introduction to differentiable manifolds and Riemannian geometry by Boothby.

3. Once you read and master the last two books, any introductory GR book will be enough. Since you will have an advanced understanding of the geometry, understanding the foundations of GR will be a piece of cake.

Before any offended physics brainlet complains, fuck off and learn math you retards.

>> No.14792308

>>14792290
>mathlet attempts to be relevant

>> No.14792354

>>14792290
>differential topology by Guillemin Pollack
Errr...
>I don’t normally write reviews for products, and this is my first time writing a 1 star review for a book. Reading this book makes me recall the famous quote by Albert Einstein “the more I learn, the more I realized I don’t know”.
>Although a good math text book shouldn’t be a “spoon feed” book, the authors for this book not only have been overly terse on many important definitions, they have also saved tons of inks on providing helpful examples. Since clearly the authors don’t lack paper as they have printed every page with large margins, I’m considering donating some inks to the author to help them compose a better book.
>If you feel my languages are long-winded and confounding, this is exactly what I’m feeling when I’m reading this book. The authors write not as if they are writing a text book for undergraduate students, but as if they are writing a course outline for their professional peers. On exercise 1.1, the author writes “Show that smooth functions on R^k, considered as a subset of R^l, are the same as usual”. What does “as usual” mean? Should this equivocal term ever exist in an introductory text book that supposes to be rigorous???????
>In conclusion:
>It’s good ONLY IF you have VERY INTENSIVE backgrounds.

>> No.14792519

>>14792255
what's hilarious is that you and other morons who still cling to abject nonsense like relativity theory despite how it has zero basis in reality are the ones who are clearly "schizo", since you've lost all touch with the real world

>> No.14792588

>>14792519
Bro, you can't just stop taking your pills. It's dangerous.

>> No.14792628

>>14782147
Start with the Michelson-Morley experiment. In particular I recommend searching for the effect of Doppler shift in relation to the Michelson-Morley interferometer.

>> No.14793324

>>14792588
bro, you can't just not turn on your brain
it's dangerous

>> No.14793345

>>14792628
yeah, start with the piece of nonsense that literally every "physicist" robotically parrots whenever someone calls them out on their bullshit
>"muh M-M experiment tho!"
except they didn't prove the aether doesn't exist at all, their experiment was insanely flawed
>>14782147
don't listen to these retards
if you're going to look at experiment, start with Dayton C. Miller's experiments

>> No.14793372
File: 91 KB, 500x375, timetostop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793372

>>14793345

>> No.14793398

>>14793372
classic, get savagely schooled on the bullshit, always reply with insubstantial piss
this is why science is still stuck in the braindead ignorance of retardation like relativity theory, instead of acknowledging the actual facts of reality and moving on

>> No.14793455

>>14783114
But how do you get that without GR?

>> No.14793768

>>14782147
>Visual differential geometry (Needham)
>Gravitation (MTW), follow the guide rather than reading cover to cover
>Topology (Jänish)
>An introduction to manifolds (Tu)
>Differential geometry (Tu)
>The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Hawking)
In that order.

>> No.14794109

>>14782147
Make sure you understand special relativity first. It's easy from a
>shut up and calculate
perspective, but it's easy to coast on math and miss key understandings. I remember liking David Tong's notes for undergrad level mathematical physics stuff.
>>14783131
Videos can still be useful for avoiding the intuitional complacency that results from coasting on math. Pop-sci stuff can often be "tabloidised" for wow factor and clickbait, eigenchris is more towards the accessible but technical end iirc.

>>14784525
>>14784528
I strongly recommend this series, since it clears up some very common misunderstandings of special and general relativity propagated both by pop-sci channels and by speakers, books etc. In fact I recommend all of his videos. His style is intuitional rather than mathematical, but it's heavily focused on conceptual rigour.

Not understanding why the twin paradox is a real paradox in SR, and commonly accepted non-resolutions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRuVGOm7560
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGoAZKyI6ZY
Misconceptions about the origin of gravity in GR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjT85AxTmI0&t=1s

>> No.14794164
File: 349 KB, 1494x783, fedneck-enters.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14794164

>>14783084
Terrible advice.
>>14783088
Wrong.
>>14783098
>t. didn't learn physics
>>14783114
Wrong.
>>14792159
Peak midwit.
>>14792180
Retard.
>>14792290
It's obvious you haven't studied GR.
>>14792519
Hilariously false.
>>14792628
Midwit approach.
>>14793345
Retard.
>>14793768
Bad approach.
>>14794109
Couldn't be more wrong.

>> No.14794173

>>14794164
w
>>14794164
h
>>14794164
o
>>14794164
a
>>14794164
s
>>14794164
k
>>14794164
e
>>14794164
d

>> No.14794175

>>14792628
Actual answer.

>> No.14795188

>>14792354
then Milnor if you like