Ciro Santilli @cirosantilli  40

Wikipedia mentions that it is completely analogous to Planck's law.

Published as On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether.

We can reach it by taking the rotations in three directions, e.g. a rotation around the z axis:then we derive and evaluate at 0:$L_z$ therefore represents the infinitesimal rotation.

Note that the exponential map reverses this and gives a finite rotation around the Z axis back from the infinitesimal generator $L_z$:

Repeating the same process for the other directions gives:We have now found 3 linearly independent elements of the Lie algebra, and since $SO(3)$ has dimension 3, we are done.

Has $SU(2)$ as a double cover.

A 4D gradient with some small special relativity specifics added in (the light of speed and sign change for the time).

${\mathbb{R}}^4$ with a weird dot product-like operation called the Minkowski inner product.

Because the Minkowski inner product product is not positive definite, the norm induced by an inner product is a norm, and the space is not a metric space strictly speaking.

The name given to this type of space is a pseudometric space.

Why should I care when I can calculate new x and new time with Lorentz transformation?

Answer: it can give some qualitative intuition on what is larger/smaller happens before/after based only on arguably more intuitive geometric considerations, without requiring you to do any calculations, see e.g. Figure "Spacetime diagram illustrating how faster-than-light travel implies time travel".

In the standard formulation of Maxwell's equations, the electric current is a convient but magic input.

Would it be possible to use Maxwell's equations to solve a system of pointlike particles such as electrons instead?

The following suggest no, or only for certain subcases less general than Maxwell's equations:This is the type of thing where the probability aspect of quantum mechanics seems it could "help".

This is a good approach. The downside is that while you are developing the implementation and testing interactively you might notice that the requirements are wrong, and then the tests have to change.

One intermediate approach Ciro Santilli likes is to do the implementation and be happy with interactive usage, then create the test, make it pass, then remove the code that would make it pass, and see it fail. This does have a risk that you will forget to test something, but Ciro finds it is a worth it generally. Unless it really is one of those features that you are unable to develop without an automated test, generally more "logical/mathematical" stuff. This is a sort of laziness Driven Development.