Lorentz transformation, Einstein transformation,Lorentz-Einstein transformation

In summary, Lorentz transformations are a state of real rest, defined by the ether. Einstein transformations are the relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects. The principle of SRT allows for a wide range of theories that differ from the standard only for the chosen synchronization procedure, but are wholly equivalent to SRT in predicting empirical facts.
  • #1
bernhard.rothenstein
991
1
When it is about the "Lorentz transformations" I have in mind: There is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the ether. Hearing about "Einstein transformations" I would think: The notions of "really resting" and "really moving" are meaningless. Only relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Hearing abouit "Lorentz-Einstein transformations" I would have in mind the following statement [1]: "Once correctly stated the principle of SRT allow for a wide range of "theories" that differ from the standard SRT only for the in the chosen synchronization procedure, but are wholly equivalent to SRT in predicting empirical facts". even if the last namimg is not in use. I have found it in a single publication (AJP)
I end with full respect for the two physicists and for all the answers in the spirit of "sine ira et studio.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
bernhard.rothenstein said:
When it is about the "Lorentz transformations" I have in mind: There is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the ether. Hearing about "Einstein transformations" I would think: The notions of "really resting" and "really moving" are meaningless. Only relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Hearing abouit "Lorentz-Einstein transformations" I would have in mind the following statement [1]: "Once correctly stated the principle of SRT allow for a wide range of "theories" that differ from the standard SRT only for the in the chosen synchronization procedure, but are wholly equivalent to SRT in predicting empirical facts". even if the last namimg is not in use. I have found it in a single publication (AJP)
I end with full respect for the two physicists and for all the answers in the spirit of "sine ira et studio.
I understand the point you are making.

However, when we communicate physics (or anything else) we have to use the same language as everyone else, otherwise there is confusion. Like it or not, almost everyone uses the name "Lorentz transform", presumably reflecting the fact that Lorentz was amongst the first to use these equations. Einstein's later use of the same equations had a significantly different interpretation, but nevertheless Lorentz's name has stuck.

There are other phrases in physics which ideally would not be used, but the name is too well established by now. For example the phrase "rest mass of a photon" is pretty confusing (given that photons are never at rest) but the name is too well established to abolish.

And just look how much confusion there is over what the word "mass" alone means. If only there were a universally agreed convention on what it was. But there isn't. (There is a convention among most modern physicists but it's not agreed by all writers and practitioners of the subject.)
 
  • #3
DrGreg said:
I understand the point you are making.

However, when we communicate physics (or anything else) we have to use the same language as everyone else, otherwise there is confusion. Like it or not, almost everyone uses the name "Lorentz transform", presumably reflecting the fact that Lorentz was amongst the first to use these equations. Einstein's later use of the same equations had a significantly different interpretation, but nevertheless Lorentz's name has stuck.

There are other phrases in physics which ideally would not be used, but the name is too well established by now. For example the phrase "rest mass of a photon" is pretty confusing (given that photons are never at rest) but the name is too well established to abolish.

And just look how much confusion there is over what the word "mass" alone means. If only there were a universally agreed convention on what it was. But there isn't. (There is a convention among most modern physicists but it's not agreed by all writers and practitioners of the subject.)
Thanks Dr.Greg. I think that the moral is that when you go with the wolfs learn to howl like they do.
 
  • #4
bernhard.rothenstein said:
Thanks Dr.Greg. I think that the moral is that when you go with the wolfs learn to howl like they do.
That's one way of putting it!:smile:
 

1. What is the Lorentz transformation?

The Lorentz transformation is a mathematical formula developed by Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz in the late 19th century, which describes how the measurements of space and time change for an observer in motion relative to another observer. It forms the basis of Einstein's theory of special relativity.

2. What is the Einstein transformation?

The Einstein transformation, also known as the Lorentz-Einstein transformation, is a set of equations developed by Albert Einstein in 1905 that describe how physical quantities, such as time, length, and mass, change for objects in motion at high speeds. It is a crucial component of the theory of special relativity and has been experimentally verified many times.

3. How do Lorentz and Einstein transformations relate to each other?

The Lorentz transformation and the Einstein transformation are essentially the same thing. Einstein's equations were derived from and are mathematically equivalent to Lorentz's equations. However, Einstein's interpretation of these equations, which led to the theory of special relativity, was groundbreaking and revolutionized our understanding of space and time.

4. What are the applications of Lorentz and Einstein transformations?

The Lorentz and Einstein transformations have numerous applications in modern physics, particularly in the fields of electromagnetism, particle physics, and astrophysics. They are essential for understanding the behavior of objects moving at high speeds and are used in technologies such as GPS, particle accelerators, and space travel.

5. Are there any limitations to Lorentz and Einstein transformations?

While the Lorentz and Einstein transformations have been experimentally verified and are incredibly accurate, they do have some limitations. They only apply to objects moving at constant speeds in a straight line and cannot account for the effects of gravity. To describe the behavior of objects in accelerated or gravitational fields, the more complex theory of general relativity is needed.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
101
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top