Talk:Rindler coordinates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

To-do list for Rindler coordinates:	edit · history · watch · refresh
correct spelling, grammar complain on talk page if anything is not clear

Looks my previous todo list somehow got wiped (did someone move the article but forget to move the talk page?), but I will try to reconstruct it. This is an important article needed for many other topics such as Bell's spaceship paradox. Rindler chart is an important example of a coordinate chart, and the Rindler frame is an important example of a frame field.---CH 01:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... even worse, the allegedly nonsingular version someone added is obviously not free of coordinate singularities! I propose to start with a clean slate. There is a lot to say, but this article confuses some fundamental points early on and both the figures are unfortunately misleading.---CH 01:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my fault. When I first edited this article, I merely tried to clean it up and didn't really check it for errors--such as the coordinate singularity. Unfortunately I also propogated that error by introducing the term "non-singular" (Minkowski space is non-singular to begin with). Anyway, did a major rewrite, will try to get around to truncated Minkowski space which introduces an artificial singularity at R=0. DonQuixote 21:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

1 New version of Rindler coordinates
2 Todo list and student beware
3 Units
4 rigidity/pardoxial property

[edit] New version of Rindler coordinates

In order to address various concerns, I have written a completely new version from scratch with entirely new figures, and have modified the todo list accordingly. The new version currently focuses on elementary considerations. In the future I may elaborate on the analogies between two Killing horizons: the Rindler horizon and the event horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole.

The old version is here. Be careful, since this body of this article and the figures contain some mistakes and is generally misleading in various ways. ---CH 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo list and student beware

I completely rewrote the May 2005 version, and had been monitoring this article for bad edits, but I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning it to its fate.

As a courtesy, I have removed the "expert" items from the todo list. I doubt anyone else will know how to implement the suggested improvements since this was mostly a note to myself.

See User:Hillman/Archive for the last version I edited. I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions. Unfortunately, just before departing I became embroiled in a content dispute with Rod Ball (talk · contribs) and Harald88 (talk · contribs). I believe their edits of the related articles Bell's spaceship paradox and Ehrenfest paradox have turned factually accurate articles into gravely misleading and even mathematically incorrect articles.

Good luck to all students in your search for information, regardless!---CH 03:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units

I don't like the fact that a=1 in this article. Though permissible mathematically, it hides some of the physical content. CHF (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rigidity/pardoxial property

I think one should empahsize in the article, that what is meant by "motion in constant acceleration" is not what people are used to as constant 3-accelration. This is clearly seen from the path of the particle which is $X=\sqrt{T^2+a}$ in the globaly flat coordintas. Where what people usually(newtonian) mean by constant accelration is motion of the type $X = a * T 2$ .The whole pardox part of the article is somewhat confusing and missleading. If I hold a string, and a car has the other end of it and starts driving at constant 3-acceleration - the string will brake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)