Did Lorentz or Einstein theoretically derive special relativity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the theoretical derivation of special relativity by Hendrik Lorentz and Albert Einstein. It establishes that Lorentz's transformations, while crucial, were initially developed to support the aether theory and the Fitzgerald contraction, whereas Einstein's 1905 formulation of special relativity rejected the aether concept and introduced a more comprehensive framework applicable to all matter and electromagnetic waves. Einstein's approach utilized simple geometry and the concept of inertial frames, leading to a more profound understanding of space and time without relying on auxiliary hypotheses. Ultimately, both Lorentz and Einstein contributed significantly to the development of special relativity, but Einstein's work represented a pivotal leap in theoretical physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations and their historical context
  • Familiarity with the Michelson-Morley experiment and its implications
  • Basic knowledge of electromagnetic theory and Maxwell's equations
  • Concept of inertial frames in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and implications of Lorentz transformations in detail
  • Explore Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity and its foundational principles
  • Investigate the historical context of the aether theory and its rejection in modern physics
  • Learn about the mathematical framework of special relativity, including time dilation and length contraction
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the historical development of special relativity and its foundational concepts.

  • #91
GrayGhost said:
Atyy,

Thanx for the fine reference. I'm looking thru it. BTW, in an attempt to put it in a nutshell:

would you agree that any derivation (no matter what the foundation) that ...

(1) allows for contractions given invariant light in at least 1 frame, and
(2) requires all POVs to agree with the proper frame of the lightclock ...​

must end up Lorentz covariant and uphold the PoR?

GrayGhost

I don't understand what invariant light in 1 frame is, nor what a proper frame is (they're both probably right, but I don't know the jargon). But yes, any correct derivation must end up Lorentz covariant and uphold the principle of relativity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
atyy said:
I don't understand what invariant light in 1 frame is, nor what a proper frame is (they're both probably right, but I don't know the jargon). But yes, any correct derivation must end up Lorentz covariant and uphold the principle of relativity.

Yes, I do of course recognize that any derivation "that does not result in the LTs" cannot be correct, because it cannot uphold the PoR (nor be Lorentz covariant).

Wrt "invariant light in 1 frame", by 1 frame I mean "the aether frame" per LET, and "any arbitrary frame" per SR. Basically, the starting frame for the LT derivation. By "proper frame of the lightclock", I suppose I could have just left that out and said "the light clock's frame" ... which of course deems itself stationary with the photon bouncing back-and-forth, while it moves thru the starting frame.

Requirement ... the starting frame cannot disagree as to whether (sync'ed) clocks and rulers attached to the reflectors of the lightclock recorded what they did. And said rulers and clocks do their thing no matter if observers of other frames are around to witness it or not, so the ray bounces back and forth per the lightclock POV just as in classical mechanics.

Just for cut-to-the-chase sake ... it seems to me that it's this requirement "in conjunction with the invariant light speed of the starting frame" that forces the LTs to always result as they do ... even though the foundations differ. IOWs, it can end up no other way unless you make a mathematical error in derivarion. no?

GrayGhost
 
  • #93
GrayGhost said:
Yes, I do of course recognize that any derivation "that does not result in the LTs" cannot be correct, because it cannot uphold the PoR (nor be Lorentz covariant).

Wrt "invariant light in 1 frame", by 1 frame I mean "the aether frame" per LET, and "any arbitrary frame" per SR. Basically, the starting frame for the LT derivation. By "proper frame of the lightclock", I suppose I could have just left that out and said "the light clock's frame" ... which of course deems itself stationary with the photon bouncing back-and-forth, while it moves thru the starting frame.

Requirement ... the starting frame cannot disagree as to whether (sync'ed) clocks and rulers attached to the reflectors of the lightclock recorded what they did. And said rulers and clocks do their thing no matter if observers of other frames are around to witness it or not, so the ray bounces back and forth per the lightclock POV just as in classical mechanics.

Just for cut-to-the-chase sake ... it seems to me that it's this requirement "in conjunction with the invariant light speed of the starting frame" that forces the LTs to always result as they do ... even though the foundations differ. IOWs, it can end up no other way unless you make a mathematical error in derivarion. no?

GrayGhost

The first requirement just seems to mean that we assume classical (not quantum) reality. I don't understand what "invariant light speed in the starting frame" means. (Sorry, you must have discussed this many pages ago while I wasn't paying attention).
 

Similar threads

High School Derive Special Relativity: Alternative Paths
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad A Hidden Zero in Einstein's Simple Derivation
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Undergrad Special relativity vs Lorentz invariance
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Undergrad Assumption in the derivation of the Lorentz transformation
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
High School Development of Special Relativity
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
Undergrad A problem in the equations for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Undergrad Derivative w.r.t. time of relative position in special relativity
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Undergrad Derive the Lorentz transformation in Minkowski four-dimensional spacetime spacetime
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
825
Graduate Special Relativity Fiber Bundle: R^3 & Lorentz Metric
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad The Einstein Clock aka Light Clock
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K