List of magnetic confinement fusion reactors by 
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 35 Updated 2024-12-23 +Created 1970-01-01Same motivation as Galilean invariance, but relativistic version of that: we want the laws of physics to have the same form on all inertial frames, so we really want to write them in a way that is Lorentz covariant.
This is just the relativistic version of that which takes the Lorentz transformation into account instead of just the old Galilean transformation.
The key question is: why is this not symmetrical?
One answer is: because one of the twin accelerates, and therefore changes inertial frames.
But the better answer is: understand what happens when the stationary twin sends light signals at constant time intervals to each other. When does the travelling twin receives them?
By doing that, we see that "all the extra aging happens immediately when the twin turns around":
- on the out trip, both twins receive signals at constant intervals
- when the moving twin turns around and starts to accelerate through different inertial frames, shit happens:
- the moving twin suddenly notices that the rate of signals from the stationary twin increased. They are getting older faster than us!
- the stationary twin suddenly notices that the rate of signals from the moving twin decreased. They are getting older slower than us!
- then when the moving twin reaches the return velocity, both see constant signal rates once again
Twin paradox illustration with twins sending light signals at regular intervals
. Source. 
Another way of understanding it is: you have to make all calculations on a single inertial frame for the entire trip.
Supposing the sibling quickly accelerates out (or magically starts moving at constant speed), travels at constant speed, and quickly accelerates back, and travels at constant speed setup, there are three frames that seem reasonable:
- the frame of the non-accelerating sibling
- the outgoing trip of the accelerating sibling
- the return trip of the accelerating sibling
If you do that, all three calculations give the exact same result, which is reassuring.
Another way to understand it is to do explicit integrations of the acceleration: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242043/what-is-the-proper-way-to-explain-the-twin-paradox/242044#242044 This is the least insightful however :-)
Bibliography:
It is said, that once upon a time, programmers used CSV and collaborated on SourceForge, and that everyone was happy.
These days, are however, long gone in the mists of time as of 2020, and beyond Ciro Santilli's programming birth.
Infinitely many SQL answers.
As mentioned at Ciro Santilli's Stack Overflow contributions, he just answers every semi-duplicate immediatly as it is asked, and is therefore able to overcome the Stack Overflow maximum 200 daily reputation limit by far. E.g. in 2018, Gordon reached 135k (archive), thus almost double the 73k yearly limit due to the 200 daily limit, all of that with accepts.
This is in contrast to Ciro Santilli's contribution style which is to only answer questions as he needs the subject, or generally important questions that aroused his interest.
2014 Blog post describing his activity: blog.data-miners.com/2014/08/an-achievement-on-stack-overflow.html, key quote:so that suggests his contributions also take a meditative value.
For a few months, I sporadically answered questions. Then, in the first week of May, my Mom's younger brother passed away. That meant lots of time hanging around family, planning the funeral, and the like. Answering questions on Stack Overflow turned out to be a good way to get away from things. So, I became more intent.
www.data-miners.com/linoff.htm mentions he's an SQL consultant that consulted for several big companies.
2021 Reddit thread about him: www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/puok1h/a_single_person_answered_76k_questions_about_sql/ mentions that by then he had:
answered 76k questions about SQL on StackOverflow. Averaging 22.8 answers per day, every day, for the past 8.6 years.
This is a good first concrete example of a Lie algebra. Shown at Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4.2 "How to linearize a Lie Group" has an example.
Every element with this parametrization has determinant 1:Furthermore, any element can be reached, because by independently settting , and , , and can have any value, and once those three are set, is fixed by the determinant.
To find the elements of the Lie algebra, we evaluate the derivative on each parameter at 0:
Remembering that the Lie bracket of a matrix Lie group is really simple, we can then observe the following Lie bracket relations between them:
One key thing to note is that the specific matrices , and are not really fundamental: we could easily have had different matrices if we had chosen any other parametrization of the group.
TODO confirm: however, no matter which parametrization we choose, the Lie bracket relations between the three elements would always be the same, since it is the number of elements, and the definition of the Lie bracket, that is truly fundamental.
Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4.2 "How to linearize a Lie Group" then calculates the exponential map of the vector as:with:
TODO now the natural question is: can we cover the entire Lie group with this exponential? Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 7 "EXPonentiation" explains why not.
There are unlisted articles, also show them or only show them.