Alternate derivation of Lorentz Trans.

In summary, the Lorentz transformation is equivalent to the statement that the speed of light is the same to all inertial observers. The derivation of the rest of special relativity, including the Lorentz transformation, does not require the use of the 2nd postulate of special relativity.
  • #1
timetraveldude
42
0
Has anybody come up with a way to derive the LT not based on the constantcy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
WHY would one want to? The constancy of the speed of light was the experimental data that led to the Lorenz transformation. If the speed of light was not constant why would one want or need the Lorenz transformation?
 
  • #3
I'm not sure what you (timetraveldude) have in mind here. The Lorentz tranformation is equivalent to the statement that the speed of light is the same to all inertial observers. I don't think the question really makes sense. Any postulate that you can use as a starting point for a derivation of the Lorentz tranformation will include that stuff about the speed or light, whether it's apparent or not.
 
  • #4
I think Lorentz himself had another way...:wink:
If I remember correctly, he made some ad-hoc assumption that objects contracted in the direction of motion.
This is of course only of historical interest; I think Lorentz attempted to account for the Michelson-Morley experiment while simultaneously saving the ether hypothesis.

Einstein, of course, presented a far more elegant, and convincing, chain of argument for the necessity of the Lorentz transformation.
 
  • #5
HallsofIvy said:
WHY would one want to? The constancy of the speed of light was the experimental data that led to the Lorenz transformation. If the speed of light was not constant why would one want or need the Lorenz transformation?
I am not sure if you are correct. As I understand it, Maxwell's equations were not invariant under the Galilean transformations. Einstein felt that the laws are physics should be the same in all inertial reference frames. So either the Galilean transformations were wrong or Maxwell's equations.
 
  • #6
Simultaneity post

Maybe you should see my other post in this forum. The relativity of simultaneity argument is based on light but if you use sound instead of light all inertial observers will agree whether two events were simultaneous. On the other hand if you can derive the Lorentz transformations without using the 2nd postulate (i.e. through a different means) then the relativity of simultaneity is preserved.
 
  • #7
Fredrik said:
I'm not sure what you (timetraveldude) have in mind here. The Lorentz tranformation is equivalent to the statement that the speed of light is the same to all inertial observers. I don't think the question really makes sense. Any postulate that you can use as a starting point for a derivation of the Lorentz tranformation will include that stuff about the speed or light, whether it's apparent or not.
This is not true. The Lorentz transformations only describe distance and time transformations between coordinate systems if there is a universal speed limit.

The impression I get from the people here is that they have memorized the details but do not know how to think critically. I have proved that you can derive the Lorentz transformations without utilizing the 2nd postulate of SR. Am I the only one? There was a paper in 1972 that did this exact thing but using a different method from mine. The idea is basically that if you are teaching a mechanics course and want to incorporate SR without reference to electro-dynamics you need a different way of introducing the Lorentz transformations.
 
  • #8
The problem is for you argument to have any validity you need something that travels on a null worldline, light does whereas sound does not.
 
  • #9
timetraveldude said:
This is not true. The Lorentz transformations only describe distance and time transformations between coordinate systems if there is a universal speed limit.
OK. When I think of "the speed of light" I don't even think of light. To me "the speed of light" is just a name that represents the universal speed. That's why I thought your suggestion sounded so strange. But OK, you don't want to do a derivation that doesn't involve a universal speed, you want to do a derivation that doesn't involve light (or anything else from the classical or quantum theory of electrodynamics). That's a different story.

I've seen a derivation like that once, or at least a part of it. Unfortunately I don't remember who wrote it. Their idea was to assume nothing at all about the properties of space, except rotational and translational invariance, and try to determine the most general rule for addition of velocities. The result they got was of course not the non-relativistic "u+v" but a relativistic-looking formula (u+v)/(1+Kuv), where K was a non-negative real number that couldn't be determined from the postulates they had started with.

The constant K can of course be identified with 1/c², but there's no need to do that just yet. Instead, we can use the velocity addition formula as the starting point of a derivation of the rest of special relativity, including the Lorentz transformation.
 
  • #10
jcsd said:
The problem is for you argument to have any validity you need something that travels on a null worldline, light does whereas sound does not.
My argument is perfectly valid. Again you are using as evidence what I am questioning. If you want to remain in the realm of logical thinkers you need to understand this is not acceptable.
 
  • #11
timetraveldude said:
My argument is perfectly valid. Again you are using as evidence what I am questioning. If you want to remain in the realm of logical thinkers you need to understand this is not acceptable.

The problem is that sound is totally irrelevant to considerations of simultaneity in relativity. Special relativity is inertanally self-consistent so any questioning of well-know results such the fialure of simulatenity at distance cannot come from poniticating it must come from experimental evidmnece, yet you offer none.
 
  • #12
To answer the OP, yes, there are many alternative derivations of the Lorentz Transformations, some of which do not assume the constancy of the speed of light. I'll just list a few that don't assume the constancy of the speed of light:

Y.P.Terletskii, "Paradoxes in the Theory of Relativity", Plenum Press, New York, 1968, P17
R.Weinstock, "New Approach to Special Relativity", Am. J. Phys. 33 640-645 (1965)
A.R.Lee and T.M.Kalotas, "Lorentz Transformation from the First Postulate", Am. J. Phys. 43 434-437 (1975)
J.M.Levy-Leblond, "One more Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation", Am. J. Phys. 44 271-277 (1976)
A.Sen, "How Galileo could have derived the Special Theory of Relativity", Am. J. Phys. 62 157-162 (1994)
J.H.Field, "Space-Time Exchange Invariance: Special Relativity as a Symmetry Principle", [http://arxiv.org/physics/0012011 [Broken]]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
cragwolf said:
To answer the OP, yes, there are many alternative derivations of the Lorentz Transformations, some of which do not assume the constancy of the speed of light. I'll just list a few that don't assume the constancy of the speed of light:

Y.P.Terletskii, "Paradoxes in the Theory of Relativity", Plenum Press, New York, 1968, P17
R.Weinstock, "New Approach to Special Relativity", Am. J. Phys. 33 640-645 (1965)
A.R.Lee and T.M.Kalotas, "Lorentz Transformation from the First Postulate", Am. J. Phys. 43 434-437 (1975)
J.M.Levy-Leblond, "One more Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation", Am. J. Phys. 44 271-277 (1976)
A.Sen, "How Galileo could have derived the Special Theory of Relativity", Am. J. Phys. 62 157-162 (1994)
J.H.Field, "Space-Time Exchange Invariance: Special Relativity as a Symmetry Principle", [http://arxiv.org/physics/0012011 [Broken]]
Thank you. You are the first person I have met in this thread who actually thinks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Have you tried K calculus? Developed by Milne in his Kinematic cosmology in the 1930's and used by d'Inverno in "Introducing Einstein's Relativity".
Garth
 
  • #15
Garth said:
Have you tried K calculus? Developed by Milne in his Kinematic cosmology in the 1930's and used by d'Inverno in "Introducing Einstein's Relativity".
Garth
Thanks. WOW! Two useful posts in a row. This is a violation of statistics.

It is amazing that the people who make the most useless posts are the so called mentors.
 
  • #16
Just to make sure you realize, these approaches will derive the constancy of the speed of light.
 
  • #17
Fredrik: The Lorentz tranformation is equivalent to the statement that the speed of light is the same to all inertial observers.

timetraveldude: This is not true.

Yes, it is true.

Einstein started with the constant speed of light postulate and Maxwell's equations. Requiring the latter to be covariant, he derived the Lorentz transformation. But you could just as easily start from the Lorentz transformation and derive from that the speed of light postulate, and of course the covariance of Maxwell's equations.

timetraveldude said:
It is amazing that the people who make the most useless posts are the so called mentors.

Lose the attitude.
 
  • #18
Never mind folks. Timetraveldude is just another alias for our beloved protonman and tenzin.

He won't be joining us in this thread anymore.
 
  • #19
Tom Mattson said:
Yes, it is true.

Einstein started with the constant speed of light postulate and Maxwell's equations. Requiring the latter to be covariant, he derived the Lorentz transformation. But you could just as easily start from the Lorentz transformation and derive from that the speed of light postulate, and of course the covariance of Maxwell's equations.
The lorentz transformations say nothing about the speed of light being the same in all inertial reference frames. I derived the LT without any reference at all to light.
 
  • #20
fixizrox said:
The lorentz transformations say nothing about the speed of light being the same in all inertial reference frames.

Of course they do. As has been said repeatedly, you can derive the speed of light postulate from the LT.

I derived the LT without any reference at all to light.

Good for you. Now use it to derive the relativistic velocity addition law, and then then Einstein's speed of light postulate.
 
  • #21
timetraveldude said:
Has anybody come up with a way to derive the LT not based on the constantcy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames?


fixizrox said:
I derived the LT without any reference at all to light.

Looks like you had the answer to your own question all along.

It makes one wonder why you bothered to ask it here.
 
  • #22
Tom Mattson said:
Of course they do. As has been said repeatedly, you can derive the speed of light postulate from the LT.
I think timetraveldude knows that. I think he understands that the Lorentz transformations imply the existence of a velocity that's the same to all inertial observers. What he's trying to make a big deal of here, is that there's nothing in the Lorentz transformations that explicitly mentions light. Sure, they mention the speed of light (the universal velocity), but they don't say that this is the same thing as the speed of light (photons/electromagnetic waves). That's why he won't accept that the Lorentz transformation is equivalent to the speed of light postulate.
 
  • #23
Timetraveldude, if you have derived the Lorentz transformations without using light, that's not really a big deal. As I mentioned before, the most general velocity addition law that's consistent with rotational and translational invariance has been shown to be (u+v)/(1+Kuv), where K is just a constant to be determined later.

If K is not 0, we can define a constant c that has dimensions of velocity: c²=1/K. The velocity addition formula can be used to derive the Lorentz tranformations, and this will lead us to the idea of Minkowski space. Now, if we try to construct a theory of light that's consistent with the idea that Minkowski space is an accurate representation of space and time, we will eventually end up with QED, Maxwell's equations, and the identification c = the speed of light.
 
  • #24
Umm, lorentz invariance is *required* for Maxwells equations to be self consistent. Now, the identification is that the universal speed is precisely C, the somewhat arbitrary constant that appears in those equations.

You are free of course to pick a higher value.. call it vmax, but then you contradict experiment. So experiment ultimately fixes the consistency of the theory.
 
  • #25
I agree. I just think it's interesting that even if you've never heard of Maxwell's equations, and have no idea what the speed of light is, it's still possible to realize that SR (with some universal velocity) is at least a possibility.
 
  • #26
Fredrik said:
I agree. I just think it's interesting that even if you've never heard of Maxwell's equations, and have no idea what the speed of light is, it's still possible to realize that SR (with some universal velocity) is at least a possibility.

Interestingly, you can go even further in that "what if" scenario. If you write down Newtonian physics (including Newtonian gravity, but not electromagnetism) in a spacetime-like geometric form, you find that it is very natural to add a 1-parameter extension to the theory. If that parameter is set equal to 1/c^2, you have general relativity!
 
  • #27
Fredrik said:
Timetraveldude, if you have derived the Lorentz transformations without using light, that's not really a big deal. As I mentioned before, the most general velocity addition law that's consistent with rotational and translational invariance has been shown to be (u+v)/(1+Kuv), where K is just a constant to be determined later.

If K is not 0, we can define a constant c that has dimensions of velocity: c²=1/K. The velocity addition formula can be used to derive the Lorentz tranformations, and this will lead us to the idea of Minkowski space. Now, if we try to construct a theory of light that's consistent with the idea that Minkowski space is an accurate representation of space and time, we will eventually end up with QED, Maxwell's equations, and the identification c = the speed of light.
Fredrik,

I assumed that the idea that you can derive an equation for a universal speed limit independent of the constantcy of the speed of light was not original. But I teach SR and have come to know it a bit. It often occurred to me to think of the 'c' in the Lorentz transformations as a universal speed limit and no t the speed of light. This was the result of contemplating some of the pedagogical derivations of time dilation and Lorentz contraction. They were not rigorous enough to be conclusive.

I then did a literature review and found that this idea has been taken up and written about in academic journals.

I would be curious to know if you have any references to "the most general velocity addition law that's consistent with rotational and translational invariance has been shown to be (u+v)/(1+Kuv)" as you mentioned above.

Congrads on an excellent post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
timetraveldude said:
Has anybody come up with a way to derive the LT not based on the constantcy of the speed of light in all inertial reference frames?
There are many derivations of the Lorentz transformation that do not use Einstein's second postulate. See http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf for example.
 
  • #29
There are many derivations of the Lorentz transformation that do not use Einstein's second postulate. See http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf for example.
Also see http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=AJPIAS000043000005000434000001 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Hurkyl said:
Just to make sure you realize, these approaches will derive the constancy of the speed of light.

I think these approaches will derive the existence of a fundamental velocity scale instead. Experimentally equal to the speed of light in vacuo for not to short wave length.
 
  • #31
timetraveldude said:
This is not true. The Lorentz transformations only describe distance and time transformations between coordinate systems if there is a universal speed limit.

The impression I get from the people here is that they have memorized the details but do not know how to think critically. I have proved that you can derive the Lorentz transformations without utilizing the 2nd postulate of SR. Am I the only one? There was a paper in 1972 that did this exact thing but using a different method from mine. The idea is basically that if you are teaching a mechanics course and want to incorporate SR without reference to electro-dynamics you need a different way of introducing the Lorentz transformations.

Lorentz derived the Lorentz transforms without assuming the speed of light was the same in every frame of reference. He thought that there was one frame of reference where it was true and in every other frame there was distortion of space and time that gave a sort of delusion that the speed of light was the same in that frame.

I am told that the math is exactly the same as the Einstein math, so there is no way to distinguish these same two interpretations. Lorentz transforms work perfectly well when applied to sonons, wave packets that are limited to the speed of sound and really do have a preferred frame of reference.

The reason the Einstein interpretation is preferred is that there is no reason to prefer any particular frame over any other and the preferred frame is impossible to identify. So there is no reason to believe that it exists and it seems an unnecessary, arbitrary complication.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
PatrickPowers said:
[..]
The reason the Einstein interpretation is preferred is that there is no reason to prefer any particular frame over any other and the preferred frame is impossible to identify. So there is no reason to believe that it exists and it seems an unnecessary, arbitrary complication.

It's an alternative way to derive the invariance of the (measured) speed of light.
On a side note: I think that it's a misnomer to call such a presumed cause that corresponds to a frame that is not preferred over other frames for doing physics, a "preferred frame". And evidently Newton and Lorentz disagreed with such Machian (positivistic) reasoning... I read somewhere that following that same line of reasoning, Mach also held that there was no reason to believe that atoms exists because they could not directly be measured.
This could be a new discussion topic and I now found more about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach
 
Last edited:
  • #33
This thread had been dead for more than 7 years. I wonder if it's a new necropost record. :smile:
 
  • #34
Fredrik said:
This thread had been dead for more than 7 years. I wonder if it's a new necropost record. :smile:

Wow! OK then I guess that this thread can go back to its old state. :tongue2:
 
  • #35
Just been looking over some old physics books of my student days.
In Special Relativity, Rindler,W. 1960, section 3 describe how Lorentz and Fitzgerald derived L-F length Contraction formula based on an ether, which is familiar from Einstein's Relativity theory. The same section in Rindler also shows how Lorenz derived the time-dilation (the same one as in Relativity), based on either theory and the constancy of observed light speed. The derivations are easy...much easier than the derivations I have seen in Relativity theory.
Exercise 12 on p24 Rindler says "as far as it goes, the Lorentz theory (with ether) is parallel to the Einstein theory (with no ether, but with the relativity principle).

But, on further reading, I find I still do not understand the purported resolutions of the twin paradox.
The twin scenario is: (i) two twins move apart at a constant speed relative to each other.
(ii) By relativity they both observe, by em-signals, that the other seems to be ageing faster than themselves.
(iii) One of the twins misses the other, turns around, and returns to their twin at the same relative velocity.
When they meet again the one who turned around has aged less.
The turnaround, which we may assume instantaneous, is the only difference between the twins, since they are both in inertial frames during the rest of their separation.

The derivation of the age difference usually considers one twin stationary on earth, and the other moving away. In moving away, the L-transformations shorten lengths and dilate times of the mover. The time-space measurement coordinate frame of the mover tighten up on the null/light cone.
But, why is this reasonable, relativistically speaking? In all inertial frames the speed of light is the same, so why is one coordinate measurement frame more lightlike than any other?
Some (including Mach?) justify the asymmetry by invoking the distant universe towards which the mover moves, and the stayer does not. This seems to be invoking a kind of "ether" in terms of the distant stars. But we know they are not fixed, but moving and accelerating away! Not convincing.
Some explanations note the red or blue shift observed in light from the partner, and this does seem to correspond to differing relative rate of aging behaviour. But, why do such considerations overcome the inertial frame equivalence of the two twins on the bulk of their journeys?
Sorry if these are all well warn and ignorant considerations...as I am sure they are. A reference to a really clear and solid resolution of the twin paradox would be appreciated.
 
<h2>1. What is the Lorentz Transformation?</h2><p>The Lorentz Transformation is a mathematical formula that describes how measurements of space and time change between two frames of reference that are moving relative to each other at a constant velocity. It is a fundamental concept in the theory of special relativity.</p><h2>2. What is the purpose of an alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation?</h2><p>An alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation is useful for gaining a deeper understanding of the concept and for verifying its validity. It also allows for different perspectives and approaches to solving problems related to special relativity.</p><h2>3. How does the alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation differ from the traditional derivation?</h2><p>The traditional derivation of the Lorentz Transformation is based on the principles of symmetry and invariance, while the alternate derivation uses the concept of hyperbolic geometry to derive the same equations. It also provides a more intuitive understanding of the equations.</p><h2>4. What are the advantages of using the alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation?</h2><p>One of the main advantages of the alternate derivation is that it does not rely on the concept of simultaneity, which can be difficult to define and measure in relativistic scenarios. It also allows for a more geometric interpretation of the equations.</p><h2>5. Are there any limitations to the alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation?</h2><p>While the alternate derivation provides a different perspective on the Lorentz Transformation, it still relies on the same underlying principles and assumptions. It may not be suitable for all applications and may be more complex than the traditional derivation for some individuals.</p>

1. What is the Lorentz Transformation?

The Lorentz Transformation is a mathematical formula that describes how measurements of space and time change between two frames of reference that are moving relative to each other at a constant velocity. It is a fundamental concept in the theory of special relativity.

2. What is the purpose of an alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation?

An alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation is useful for gaining a deeper understanding of the concept and for verifying its validity. It also allows for different perspectives and approaches to solving problems related to special relativity.

3. How does the alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation differ from the traditional derivation?

The traditional derivation of the Lorentz Transformation is based on the principles of symmetry and invariance, while the alternate derivation uses the concept of hyperbolic geometry to derive the same equations. It also provides a more intuitive understanding of the equations.

4. What are the advantages of using the alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation?

One of the main advantages of the alternate derivation is that it does not rely on the concept of simultaneity, which can be difficult to define and measure in relativistic scenarios. It also allows for a more geometric interpretation of the equations.

5. Are there any limitations to the alternate derivation of the Lorentz Transformation?

While the alternate derivation provides a different perspective on the Lorentz Transformation, it still relies on the same underlying principles and assumptions. It may not be suitable for all applications and may be more complex than the traditional derivation for some individuals.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
911
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
101
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
824
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
72
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top