Misplaced Pages

Talk:Length contraction: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:37, 9 October 2013 editDVdm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers138,494 edits Undid revision 576466622 by LCcritic (talk) Remove talk page chat per wp:TPG. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Article talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject.← Previous edit Revision as of 18:23, 10 October 2013 edit undoLCcritic (talk | contribs)389 edits →Physical?: geometric model or physical contraction... Wiki contradictionsNext edit →
Line 17: Line 17:
Also, 'according to Hendrik Lorentz', should be part of the history. ] (]) 10:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Also, 'according to Hendrik Lorentz', should be part of the history. ] (]) 10:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
:Thanks. The term "physical" (which was used in the article for years) can lead to misunderstandings, since in relativity it's only a geometric effect. --] (]) 11:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC) :Thanks. The term "physical" (which was used in the article for years) can lead to misunderstandings, since in relativity it's only a geometric effect. --] (]) 11:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Reality of Length Contraction" section ends with this quote:
"John Bell and Harvey Brown have argued that there are some advantages to explaining relativity in a more constructive way, with the length contraction being caused by electromagnetic forces pulling atoms closer together."
This perpetuates the misunderstandings by "explaining relativity in a more constructive way" as physical compression physically shortening objects.
Also this Wiki reference to the Ehrenfest paradox insists that there are no rigid bodies in relativity... more of the argument for physical contraction, leading to more misunderstanding:
“Another famous paradox is the Ehrenfest paradox, which proves that the concept of rigid bodies is not compatible with relativity.”
Length contraction can not have it both ways,..."only a geometric effect" and a physical shortening of objects (and distances between them.)This basic contradiction in presentation of length contraction is in dire need of "disambiguation." ] (]) 18:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:23, 10 October 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Length contraction article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Length contraction article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
WikiProject iconPhysics: Relativity / History C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the relativity task force.
This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Physical?

The first line of the article refers to a 'physical' effect. What is this intended to mean?

Also, 'according to Hendrik Lorentz', should be part of the history. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The term "physical" (which was used in the article for years) can lead to misunderstandings, since in relativity it's only a geometric effect. --D.H (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Reality of Length Contraction" section ends with this quote: "John Bell and Harvey Brown have argued that there are some advantages to explaining relativity in a more constructive way, with the length contraction being caused by electromagnetic forces pulling atoms closer together." This perpetuates the misunderstandings by "explaining relativity in a more constructive way" as physical compression physically shortening objects. Also this Wiki reference to the Ehrenfest paradox insists that there are no rigid bodies in relativity... more of the argument for physical contraction, leading to more misunderstanding: “Another famous paradox is the Ehrenfest paradox, which proves that the concept of rigid bodies is not compatible with relativity.” Length contraction can not have it both ways,..."only a geometric effect" and a physical shortening of objects (and distances between them.)This basic contradiction in presentation of length contraction is in dire need of "disambiguation." LCcritic (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Length contraction: Difference between revisions Add topic