I'm trying to follow along with Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation, but am having some hurdles.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'll be referring to step (5) which states:

x'=ax-bctIn paragraph marked 6, I see that the author tries to get eqn (5) to describe motion of the K' frame. This is an important move, but not understood. Up until that point, I believe x' has been a description of the position of light on the frame K' with x' having rules of motion that include x'=ct'. x'=ct' suggests to me that x' is at the K' origin for only a moment when t'=0, but the author states that:

ct'=act-bx

I don't understand the "permanence" here. Does x' linger at the K' origin? Did x' change meaning? Is it poor notation? Is it that since t'=0 is the only valid moment* for (5) that the state of that moment constitutes a permanent state for (5)? Is there a better description of why (5) begins to be used to track the motion of the frame? I don't see how the position of x' helps understand the movement of K' here.For the origin of k' we have permanently x' = 0[...]

* "The only valid moment" is an unconfirmed assumption on my part. (5) was derived from equations like x-ct=0 and x+ct=0 (inferred) and x'-ct'=0 and x'+ct'=0 (inferred). Upon combining equations in (5), I think all former conditions need to be satisfied by any x, t, x', or t' used with (5). That is, valid x,t,x',t' must not contradict any of: x-ct=0, x+ct=0, x'-ct'=0, or x'+ct'=0, which implies that x=0, t=0, x'=0, and t'=0. What perspective am I missing?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Lorentz Transform Derivation questions

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**