China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Special relativity
Published in Andrew Norton, Dynamic Fields and Waves, 2019
Suppose an equation can be expressed in terms of the coordinates of your frame of reference (x, y, z and t). Then, according to the principle of relativity, if the equation represents a law of physics the corresponding equation in a frame of reference that is moving with respect to you has the same form, but can be written in terms of coordinates (x′, y′, z′ and t′). What is clearly needed is the relationship that links the coordinates of an event in your frame of reference and those of the same event in the other frame of reference. Such a relationship is called a coordinate transformation; if you know the coordinate transformation between two inertial frames, you can then transform arbitrary equations and see if they take the same form or not.
Novel Relativity Theories of Synthetic Aperture Radar
Published in Maged Marghany, Automatic Detection Algorithms of Oil Spill in Radar Images, 2019
The principle of relativity commonly involves dual interrelated theories through Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity applies to fundamental particles and their interactions, describing all their physical phenomena barring gravity. General relativity, however, describes the regulation of gravitation and its relation to different forces of nature. It implements to the cosmological and astrophysical realm, which includes astronomy.
Travelling light
Published in Journal of Modern Optics, 2021
Inertial coordinate systems and laws of nature. A standard way of stating the principle of relativity is that laws of nature have the same form in all inertial coordinate systems. This principle is less well defined than is generally acknowledged, due to the indefiniteness of the key term ‘laws of nature.’ What distinguishes laws of nature from true statements about nature that are not laws? Despite the importance of this question, I do not believe that Einstein ever discussed it. All he ever did was to mention supposed examples of laws of nature, as in the following sentence: If we formulate the general laws of nature as they are obtained from experience, by making use of the embankment as reference-body, the railway carriage as reference-body, then these general laws of nature (e.g. the laws of mechanics or the law of the propagation of light in vacuo) have exactly the same form in both cases [19].He seems to have considered the term ‘law of nature’ no more problematic than concrete nouns like ‘carrot’ or ‘cobweb.’