[Home]History of Spacetime/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 4 . . (edit) November 6, 2001 1:41 am by (logged).203.83.xxx
Revision 3 . . (edit) November 6, 2001 1:41 am by (logged).203.83.xxx
Revision 2 . . November 5, 2001 3:22 pm by (logged).123.179.xxx [*Responding to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority with a bigger one ;)]
Revision 1 . . November 5, 2001 2:39 pm by The Cunctator [*Summarizing earlier Talk]
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (minor diff, author diff)

Added: 30a31,39
The Wikipedia should present the mainstream state of a field as much as possible, presenting relevant dissenting views as such when they arise. The use of the i is just a lazy way to make finding the "length" squared of a four vector feel like finding the length of any other vector (dot product the vector on to itself). It is, however, just as easy to define a new "length" operator for four vectors that doesn't require complex numbers.

And if bandying about names is the game, a quick look at the Feynmann Lectures on Physics explanation of four vectors shows nary an i, even though he had a discussion of using c=1.--BlackGriffen

I concur: both 'space-time' and the 'i' notation appear to be common early usage, and physicists everywhere seem now to have standardised on both 'spacetime' and the 'i'-less notation -- The Anome





Changed: 32c41

New Talk



New Talk




HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: