Talk:Special relativity#GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Neither this nor any of the related articles mention what units should be used for e, m, and c. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.165.219 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:You can use any units you like as long as all three come from the same system of units of measurement. For further information, see Mass–energy equivalence#Practical examples.  Dr Greg  talk  14:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

:Your claim is false. See {{slink|Mass–energy_equivalence#Practical_examples}} Johnjbarton (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I was reading the article and by the end of the article i was so overwhelmed by complexity that i forgot half of the things. Then i started to find simpler version and found out Simple WIkipedia (a haven to beginners) but the problem is there is not a single mention or alternative for that page. I tried to add an instruction for people like me and an inexperienced editor deleted it multiple times and said "i will be blocked', now i feel threatened and both misunderstood. IHitmanI (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

: That's how it goes here: we work by wp:consensus. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_relativity&diff=1286346718&oldid=1286333411 undid other your edit] to the page per WP:NOTSEEALSO: "See also section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." - DVdm (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::The "External links" section of the page could have link like:

::* Special relativity in Simple English.

::Johnjbarton (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Your edit is redundant as interlanguage links exist for users to read the article on a different Wikipedia. The interlanguage links on both articles list the Simple English variant, so there is no need for that. ZergTwo (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have used Wikipedia for 25 years and I never imagined that I would look under a tool bar for link to a simple version of an article. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It's quicker, simpler, and easier to use the interlanguage link than scrolling to the bottom to access a simpler version, especially for long articles. There's no need for redundancy. ZergTwo (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::A beginner would have no reason what so ever to look in a pull down menu labeled "110 Languages" for a simpler version of the article. But a beginner who "...was reading the article and by the end of the article ..." found "Special relativity in Simple English" would simply see and click. Menus are known usability issue, see eg https://www.nngroup.com/articles/drop-down-menus/

::::I am not advocating removing the menu: "110 Languages" is exactly what we need for non-English speakers who are looking for translation. As the poster points out, the Simple English is also a simplified version. As such it is not a Language so much as another viewpoint on the topic suitable for an External link. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think there's a misunderstanding about my suggestion. The interlanguage links section is primarily designed to connect equivalent articles in different languages, and yes, it does include Simple English. However, most readers — especially beginners or casual users — are unlikely to explore that section or even realize that a Simple English version exists among 100+ language links.

:::::What I'm proposing is accessibility like adding a small, in-page reference (such as under “See also”) to inform readers that a simpler version of the article already exists. This improves discoverability for those who might find the main article overwhelming and who want a clearer, easier-to-understand alternative.

:::::Simple Wikipedia exists for a reason — and we should help users find it, not bury it. A well-placed link improves user experience without disrupting content integrity. IHitmanI (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::What I stated was not about overuse of drop down menu, which is a case for people who visit Wikipedia to read more than understand the written stuffs, it was about a alternative that exist in front of reader to "go read simpler version if you want" which every formal Student would be willing to do so. IHitmanI (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"Time and space cannot be defined separately from each other as was previously thought. Instead, space and time are interwoven into a single continuum known as "spacetime". Events that occur at the same time for one observer can occur at different times for another."

The passage initially states that space and time cannot be defined separately and are instead part of a unified continuum called spacetime. However, the following sentence illustrates exactly why they cannot be defined separately—by stating that simultaneity is relative and depends on the observer. This means the latter sentence actually supports the first, not contradicts earlier thinking. Therefore, the phrasing may misleadingly suggest a contradiction where there is none. AnonX365 (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:The second sentence supports the first, so I fail to see how that might suggest a contradiction. - DVdm (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:How about this one?

:"Time and space are not independent entities, but are interwoven into a single continuum known as spacetime. This unification is evident in the principle of relativity of simultaneity: events that occur at the same time for one observer may occur at different times for another, depending on their frame of reference." IHitmanI (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for clarifying! English isn't my first language, so I misunderstood the original wording. Your suggested text is much clearer and easier for me to understand. I appreciate your help! AnonX365 (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You are most welcome. Ready to help anytime. IHitmanI (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:I replaced that unsourced paragraph with a new one based on the Taylor/Wheeler book. Please check if it is clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::New version- A defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of . Distances in Euclidean geometry are calculated with the and only involved spatial coordinates. In Lorentzian geometry, 'distances' become 'intervals' and include a time coordinate with a minus sign. The separate ideas of space and time are replaced by the combination of time and space is called. The relationship between two sets of coordinates in relative motion is also changed. Thes of Newtonian mechanics are replaced with the Lorentz transformations.

::Previous version- A defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of the Galilean transformations of Newtonian mechanics with the Lorentz transformations. Time and space cannot be defined separately from each other as was previously thought. Instead, space and time are interwoven into a single continuum known as "spacetime". Events that occur at the same time for one observer can occur at different times for another

::The edited version does not explain the 'spacetime' more clearly, in this specific passage, even though it clearly mentions contrast between Euclidean and Lorentzian geometry. 'I think' it does not explain what PO wanted to be clear about. what i explained makes its clearer but these are words of my understanding and have sources that WK may not accept. IHitmanI (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::A defining feature of special relativity is the shift from Euclidean to Lorentzian geometry, where time and space are treated as parts of a unified four-dimensional continuum called spacetime. Unlike Euclidean space, which uses only spatial coordinates, Lorentzian geometry introduces the concept of intervals—distances that include both space and time, with time contributing a negative sign. This change alters how observers in relative motion perceive events: instead of using Galilean transformations, relativity uses Lorentz transformations, which show that the faster an object moves through space, the slower time passes for it. What one observer considers simultaneous may not be so for another. Spacetime isn’t just a stage—it fundamentally shapes the way observers experience motion, time, gravity, and causality.

::this paragraphs explaines it more clearly. I just mixed Taylor and Carroll books idea into one. IHitmanI (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, but your new version is not correct and does not summarize Carroll, a book on general relativity, AFAICT. Relativity has no effect on "how observers in relative motion perceive events". This characterization makes it seem that subjective "perception" rather than objective physics is involved. Similarly a phrase like "the slower time passes for it" implies a singular perception rather than the comparison essential for relativity.

:::Please add pages number to citations from books; please do not remove them from existing citations.

:::Carroll's page 3 calls "spacetime the background on which particles and fields evolve", which to me contradicts the idea that "spacetime isn't just a stage". Carroll's treatment in his section "Space and time, separately and together" involves events, worldlines, and light cones, no perceptions or concepts like "time passing".

:::I did not find the word 'continuum' or 'unified' any where in Taylor and a phrase like "time and space are treated as parts of a unified four-dimensional continuum called spacetime" sounds very unlike any thing Taylor typically writes. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflisttalk}}

The section "Origins and significance" is a hodge-podge. It's not clear to me why these topics are grouped. I think it would be easier and clearer if we had History as in many other articles.

I can see that since the article goes on and on and on that some form of overview would be nice, even if that would invite the essentially impossible task of summarizing special relativity in a few paragraphs. But I think a starting point should be an intro that summarizes the article.

A related idea is to have a "Background" section to lower the entry point for the article. This section would summarize "relative", Galilean relativity, invariance, simultaneity, speed of light, coordinates, change of coordinates.

Feedback? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, kind of thing that will improve article readability but is also very complex, heavy and commiting-task.

:With your idea, I have came upon some interesting theories.

:I propose the following changes:

:# Introducing a history section might be best choice, and it should focus only on the history instead of jumping between stuffs.

:# Adding a "Background" section (as you said) can help to lower the entry barrier for readers unfamiliar with the foundational concepts. This section could briefly introduce Galilean relativity, simultaneity, invariance, coordinate systems, and the constancy of the speed of light—concepts that are crucial for understanding special relativity.

:# Revising the lead/intro section to act as a concise conceptual summary rather than a technical overview. Its role should be to frame the topic—what special relativity is, why it matters, and what key ideas it introduces—rather than attempt to explain it.

:Additionally, I think that adding some interlink on formula or specific topics that beginners may fail to fully grasp will help them to explore it more neatly and understand it in-depth.

:Altogether, I stand with your plan. But as I said it is both commiting-task and complex, so an experienced hand is also needed. IHitmanI (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Regarding #3, the Manual of Style expects the intro to be an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. Thus to the extent that the article has technical content it should be summarized in the intro. This can be short and should not cause too much of an issue. As a general guideline however, the intro should not have any claims beyond the article content. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You are right, i think since this is a Science topic and already have way too much technical words beforehand, summarising it just for its essential content might be a big change, in terms of readability. IHitmanI (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::And yes An Intro should be intro just like any other field except wiki. IHitmanI (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I am working on this. Thanks for pointing out. IHitmanI (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:OK I made a number of changes, mostly I think successful. The History is pretty ok and I like the Background section as a way of reoriented readers to the particular terminology of special relativity. The Overview is honestly just a long Lead section and it duplicates the content further down to some extent. One the other hand is covers the basic material without the derivation approach that makes it hard to see the picture. Maybe it makes more sense to remove the two-postulate bits from the Lead and Overview, merge some of the Overview content into the Lead as article summary, and use the overview to expand the points raised in sources like Hughes/Kersting on differences between visual observations and event measurements. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton removed a sentence, "It has, for example, replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position.", with the edit summary " Delete an unsourced and erroneous claim. Time does not 'depend' on location.". On the contrary, to an observer at rest the time measured by a moving observer does depend on both his velocity and his location as well as when (according to the observer at rest) the observation occurs. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Yes clocks in motion report different time. However this conclusion involves relative motion and distant observation. There is no "t(x)" and "reference frame" is "coordinate system" so that is not good either. I like the start of the sentence, "It has, for example, replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time..." and I will look for a source that completes the sentence. Shouldn't be hard. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Ok I added back an absolute time sentence. Please check.

:I plan to expand this "consequences" section with brief synopsis of the conceptual consequences which have full articles or sections in the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The definition given here is wrong, even though the one given in the article linked to is correct. 2600:6C4E:3000:3232:1DE5:44DA:E218:656E (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:I can't make out which part of the article you are concerned with, but I found one problem and made a change. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Johnjbarton Surely he is talking about this in the Chapter Background:

::"inertial reference frame: a region of spacetime within which all objects move with the same acceleration,[4]: 44" 

::This is incorrect. The word acceleration should be replaced with velocity 2A02:1210:44D0:5700:75C3:D3AB:EFF7:185A (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok thanks, I made an update. "same velocity" is not a requirement. The key is for all the objects to be subject to the same gravitational acceleration. This limitation is what separates "special" relativity. In general gravitational fields vary so only the uniform parts obey special relativity. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)