both cases are covered by classical physics. corrections from relativistic are completely neglected if You take maximal speed of a car. the most hard part is how to take just one direction velocity by human jump from the car.
-
-
Replying to @Sebkaz83
relativistic velocity addition is not an implication of galilean physics
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
Relativistic velocity relations even for formula1 cars are, with very good agrement, Gallileo relations. I did’t say anything abouth implication. I just said that this example is very bad for teaching relativity and relativistic speed roules.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Sebkaz83
yea sure i agree.. the correction will be of order v^2/c^2 which is tiny
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @InertialObservr
Relativistic physics is also classical physics ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @InertialObservr
So why we use classical field theory ? Or maybe by classical You mean (not correctly) just Newtonian physics ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
lol i was just trying to read a larger audience.. and in most intro texts (UG level) they refer to it as "relativistic physics" .. but yes the classical field theory differs from the QFT by the imposition of the canonical commutation relation on the degrees of freedom
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
