Did Lorentz or Einstein theoretically derive special relativity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the theoretical derivation of special relativity, specifically examining the contributions of Hendrik Lorentz and Albert Einstein. Participants explore the mathematical foundations, conceptual advancements, and historical context of special relativity, including the role of the Lorentz transformations and the implications of Einstein's reformulation of spacetime laws.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the Lorentz transformations are fundamental to special relativity itself.
  • Others suggest that while Einstein may not have contributed significantly to the mathematics, he made a crucial conceptual leap in reformulating the laws of spacetime.
  • A participant cites Einstein's writings, indicating that Lorentz's transformations were initially used to model electron behavior and support the aether theory, while Einstein's theory extends beyond this and rejects the aether.
  • Some participants note that both Lorentz and Einstein contributed to the development of special relativity, with Einstein's 1905 papers making important advancements.
  • There is a discussion about the historical context of the debate, with some attributing the focus on Einstein to celebrity culture and media influence, contrasting it with the naming conventions in quantum mechanics.
  • A participant mentions that Einstein's approach utilized simple geometry and inertial frames, suggesting that the mathematics of special relativity is not as complex as often perceived.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that Einstein was not a strong mathematician, indicating that this claim may not be accurate.
  • Some participants clarify that Lorentz's transformations were derived to align with the Michelson-Morley experiment results, while also noting that Lorentz's assumptions about the aether were limiting compared to Einstein's framework.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the contributions of Lorentz and Einstein to special relativity, and the discussion remains unresolved with no clear consensus on who derived the theory more fundamentally.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in Lorentz's assumptions regarding the aether and the implications of his transformations, as well as the historical context influencing the perception of contributions to special relativity.

  • #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

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K