I Does Lorentz invariance imply Einstein's synchronization convention?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between Lorentz invariance and Einstein's clock synchronization convention within the framework of special relativity (SR). It is established that Lorentz transformations maintain the form of the Minkowski metric, which is essential for ensuring consistent physical laws across inertial frames. The conversation highlights that while conformal transformations can preserve the squared length of intervals, they do not maintain the metric form required for physical equivalence, thus distinguishing them from Lorentz transformations. The participants clarify that Einstein's synchronization is a practical method for establishing simultaneity in inertial frames, but it is not a prerequisite for the invariance of light speed across these frames. Ultimately, the key postulates of SR are independent of any specific synchronization method, emerging instead from the properties of flat spacetime.
  • #31
PeroK said:
What does that achieve? That's hardly worth a paper.
I believe it simply shows that in the aforementioned condition Einstein's synchronization convention is consistent (i.e. 'simultaneous' according it defines actually an 'equivalence class').
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
cianfa72 said:
I believe it simply shows that in the aforementioned condition Einstein's synchronization convention is consistent (i.e. 'simultaneous' according it defines actually an 'equivalence class of events').
Well, if Weyl proved that in 1923, then it's a waste of time now.

In any case, it's clear if you read the paper that they believe they have proved way more than that.
 
  • #33
PeroK said:
In any case, it's clear if you read the paper that they believe they have proved way more than that.
In MINUL pag 10 they claim to remove an assumption (namely ##z=0##) Weyl employed to show that Einstein's synchronization convention is consistent. In section 4 they show that from ##2c \Rightarrow (z=0)##. Hence since from ##L/c## follows ##2c## then they give a proof of ##L/c \Rightarrow 1c## (note that the latter is actually a two folded statement).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

I Question about full Lorentz transformation
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
I Alternative Ways to Realize Invariance: Lorentz Transformation
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
I SR flat Lorentzian manifold and Anderson simultaneity convention
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
I Why Is the Speed of Light Essential in 4-Velocity Invariance?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
923
I EM Faraday tensor transformation for conductor carrying current
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
I Inertial reference frame and Bondi k-calculus
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
I Conventionality of the One-Way Speed of Light
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
648
I The Einstein Clock aka Light Clock
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
B Einstein-Poincare Clock Synchronization Convention
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
I Does the Invariance of Proper Time Lead to the Lorentz Transformation?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K