I Difference Between Lorentz Transformation & Special Relativity

Click For Summary
Special relativity is a comprehensive physical theory that encompasses the principles of the speed of light and inertial reference frames. The Lorentz transformation serves as a mathematical tool within this theory, allowing for the conversion of measurements between different inertial reference frames. While special relativity provides the theoretical framework, the Lorentz transform facilitates practical calculations related to that framework. The relationship between the two is akin to the connection between geometry and cartography, where one relies on the other for practical application. Understanding both concepts is essential for comprehending the physics of Minkowski spacetime.
BadgerBadger92
Messages
168
Reaction score
89
TL;DR
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v

What exactly is the difference between special relativity and the Lorentz transformation? Reading about them they seem to be really similar.
Sorry for the extra question. Just have a lot of questions lately and I know some people around here are annoyed with that.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Special relativity is a physical theory. The Lorentz transform is a mathematical operation. Special relativity uses the Lorentz transform to make predictions about physical experiments.
 
  • Like
Likes Wes Tausend, vanhees71, malawi_glenn and 2 others
Special relativity is a set of postulates regarding speed of light and inertial reference frames which forms an entire theory.

The Lorentz-transformation is a mathematical operation used to find the quantities measured in one inertial reference frame expressed as quantities measured in another inertial reference frame.

It's like asking what the difference between feynman diagrams and quantum field theory is.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and topsquark
The Lorentz transforms are one way of defining Minkowski spacetime. Special Relativity is the physics of being in a Minkowski spacetime. Naturally, the Lorentz transforms turn up a lot.

It's a bit like the difference between Euclidean (and spherical) geometry and cartography. You can't do much cartography without an understanding of straight lines and angles, but cartography isn't just straight lines and angles.
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K