[ 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: 6 KB, 483x154, img423.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3825647 No.3825647 [Reply] [Original]

What observation was Einstein trying to explain when he came up with the theory of relativity?

>> No.3825658

Aether

>> No.3825663

>>3825647
Light and causality

>> No.3825665

The observation that the speed of light in vacuum is the same in every referential.

>> No.3825669

No... what OBSERVATION was he trying to explain?

What did he SEE that made him think.. "Oh, yeah... time is totally relative"

>> No.3825676

>>3825665
But he never observed that... that was his prediction.

>> No.3825681

>>3825669
see

>>3825663

He was actually trying to reconcile light, causality, and Electromangetism

>> No.3825683
File: 390 KB, 800x1198, cutey_Emma_Schirm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3825683

>>3825647
Where (o) is that pic from OP?
I curious becaus of the imaginary units. There is a way of writing down maxwells equations using quaternios, but nobody is doing that anymore.

>> No.3825694
File: 126 KB, 561x370, the-more-you-know.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3825694

>>3825676
Observe light
Observe causality
Observe Electromangetism

\thread

>> No.3825696

>>3825683
Google Image Search "Lorentz Tensor"

>>3825681

So, he wasn't actually trying to explain any actual observation then... but just trying to consolidate the different equations?

>> No.3825699
File: 32 KB, 500x356, 1315248716807.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3825699

Einstein was pondering what it would be like to ride a beam of light.

>> No.3825701

>>3825676
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

>> No.3825711

>>3825694

But he never actually observed anything that would have caused him to make the predictions that he did.

"Mass bends Space-time".. seriously, what observation brought him to that conclusion?

>> No.3825712

He probably started by pondering gravity. wrote some math and everything span out of control from there

>> No.3825713

>>3825676
No its not a prediction, it is the goal of the theory.
Einstein thought : to reconcile causality with the fact that the speed of light is limited, my theory must forbid any no object to go faster than c in every referential.

>> No.3825726

>>3825713
>to reconcile causality with the fact that the speed of light is limited

No, HE was the one that stated that c is absolute... HIS theory predicts this, and is why we STATE that c has a finite limit.

What did he OBSERVE that brought him to this conclusion?

>> No.3825729

>>3825711
"Mass bends Space-time" comes after. Einstein started with special relativity.

>>3825713
>any no object
any object*

>> No.3825730
File: 23 KB, 1081x230, ggg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3825730

>>3825696
oh boy, they are using complex units on a Riemannian manifold instead of Minkowski metric. I died a little.

>> No.3825745

>>3825711
"Mass bends Space-time" is general relativity and came after special relativity.

Special relativity : attempt to make a coherent point cinematic theory.

General relativity : attempt to explain gravity.

>> No.3825747

Einstein was a theoretical physicist, not an experimental physicist.

>> No.3825759

>>3825711
Exactly what fucking theory of Einsteins are you talking about?

He has two theories of relativity, the Special and General. They both are about vastly different things. GO LOOK SOME SHIT UP DUMBFUCK.

Most people in this thread assumed you meant the special theory.

>> No.3825767

>>3825759

I did, until people started bringing GR into the discussion, which is built upon SR...

No need to get mad... I'm just asking some questions.

>> No.3825770

I heard he was riding on a train and wondered 'what if the train was going the speed of light'

>> No.3825777

>>3825726
>HE was the one that stated that c is absolute.
Yes. (more or less)
>HIS theory predicts this
No. His theory predicts the consequences of his statement.

Also, every one could observe that the speed of light was the same, wherever it came from.

>> No.3825776

It was the apparent equivalence of electricity and magnetism when viewed from different reference frames.

>> No.3825783

special relativity reconciles mechanics with electromagnetism in flat space

general relativity takes conclusions drawn from dynamics in special relativity and applies them to gravity

>> No.3825784

>>3825777
>Also, every one could observe that the speed of light was the same, wherever it came from.

Not in all reference frames.

>> No.3825795

>>3825783
And this all started somewhere, right?

I'm just asking what observation caused Einstein to look in that particular way of thinking...

Since Science is about Observation, and then constructing a theory to fit that observation... What observation was Einstein trying to explain?

>> No.3825801

>>3825784
Yes, in all reference frames.

Light isn't faster when it comes from a closing object than when it comes from non moving one.

>> No.3825808

is this possible?

Einstein said that light speed was relative only to other referents but not to itself?

'cause then, neutrinos, if true, just go a little faster.

not sure how that proves Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong

>> No.3825828

Special Relativity was an explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which showed that the speed of light in the direction of the Earth's motion was the same as across it, which was unexpected at the time. Light was assumed to travel in a medium called aether.

Instead, he started from the principle that c is the same in all inertial frames, and went from there.

For General Relativity, he noticed that a person in an accelerating elevator away from a source of gravity could not tell if he were stationary but near a source of gravity. That's not really an observation. It was a thought experiment.

From that he concluded that light would be affected by gravity, and predicted the Sun would deflect light from stars. The effect was confirmed by looking at stars during a solar eclipse.

>> No.3825831

>>3825801
No, I was correcting you.

You stated that:
>Also, every one could observe that the speed of light was the same, wherever it came from.

And this is not true, because we couldn't travel fast enough at the time to actually observe the speed of light being the same in all reference frames...

So, again... What did Einstein *OBSERVE* that brought him to this conclusion?

>> No.3825834

>>3825795

The speed of light was observed experimentally to be constant in all reference frames.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

>> No.3825835

>>3825828
>Instead, he started from the principle that c is the same in all inertial frames, and went from there.

But he didn't actually observe this, did he?

>> No.3825841

>>3825834
That's just one reference frame, not all of them.... it's not even a significant portion of them.

>> No.3825848

>>3825828
>From that he concluded that light would be affected by gravity, and predicted the Sun would deflect light from stars. The effect was confirmed by looking at stars during a solar eclipse.

Do we have any evidence that his is not caused by the refractivity of the plasma that surrounds the stars?

>> No.3825856

>>3825835

Most of the math was done already : Lorentz transform. What Einstein did was explain what it MEANT: I.E. there is no privileged inertial frame... no origin at rest if you will.

>> No.3825864

>>3825835
>>3825828
>>Instead, he started from the principle that c is the same in all inertial frames, and went from there.

>But he didn't actually observe this, did he?

No. He was not an experimentalist. He worked in a patent office.

He also didn't observe the photo-electric effect or Brownian motion, but he read about these things, and wrote papers explaining them.

>> No.3825876

Theoretical physics ≠ observational science
fuck you OP

>> No.3825888

>>3825876
So, what you are saying is that Einstein, While merely copying the work of others, and not actually doing any REAL science, is hailed as the greatest scientist of all time, because he pulled some shit out of his ass?

>> No.3825895

>>3825888

get that many important papers published and we'll talk

>> No.3825901

>>3825895
How fast was that neutrino going again?

>> No.3825916

>>3825888
>REAL science
>implying science is so strict
again, fuck you

>> No.3825925

>>3825916
Awwww... I didn't upset you, did I?

You don't sound like you are arguing, as much as throwing a temper tantrum...

Calm down little one.

>> No.3825940

>>3825841
It's not significant to say that light emitted in the direction of or against Earth's movement (with velocity of 107,200 km/h) moves at the same speed as light emitted perpendicular to that movement?

>> No.3826055

Get with the program physicists... Particles just go faster, until they no longer travel but interact instantaneously (at quantum level). There is no actual limit of velocity in the universe. This solves the "problem of causality" (there was no problem).

>> No.3826100

>>3825888
Mathematicians don't need to re-demonstrate everything from ZFC when they try to prove a conjecture.

Einstein just explained what others observed but were unable to explain.

If you can find someone else that did this, then we can talk.