Lorentz transformation, Einstein transformation,Lorentz-Einstein transformation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the distinctions and implications of the "Lorentz transformations," "Einstein transformations," and "Lorentz-Einstein transformations." Participants emphasize that while Lorentz's name is historically associated with these equations, Einstein's interpretations introduced significant conceptual shifts. The conversation highlights the importance of consistent terminology in physics to avoid confusion, noting that terms like "rest mass of a photon" can lead to misunderstandings. Ultimately, the dialogue underscores the necessity of adhering to established language in scientific discourse.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Special Relativity Theory (SRT)
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations and their applications
  • Knowledge of Einstein's contributions to physics
  • Awareness of the terminology used in modern physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical formulation of Lorentz transformations
  • Study the implications of Einstein's interpretation of these transformations
  • Examine the concept of synchronization procedures in SRT
  • Explore the historical context of terminology in physics and its evolution
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of physics, and educators seeking clarity on the terminology and conceptual differences in the discussion of Lorentz and Einstein transformations.

bernhard.rothenstein
Messages
988
Reaction score
1
When it is about the "Lorentz transformations" I have in mind: There is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the ether. Hearing about "Einstein transformations" I would think: The notions of "really resting" and "really moving" are meaningless. Only relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Hearing abouit "Lorentz-Einstein transformations" I would have in mind the following statement [1]: "Once correctly stated the principle of SRT allow for a wide range of "theories" that differ from the standard SRT only for the in the chosen synchronization procedure, but are wholly equivalent to SRT in predicting empirical facts". even if the last namimg is not in use. I have found it in a single publication (AJP)
I end with full respect for the two physicists and for all the answers in the spirit of "sine ira et studio.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bernhard.rothenstein said:
When it is about the "Lorentz transformations" I have in mind: There is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the ether. Hearing about "Einstein transformations" I would think: The notions of "really resting" and "really moving" are meaningless. Only relative motion of two or more uniformly moving objects is real. Hearing abouit "Lorentz-Einstein transformations" I would have in mind the following statement [1]: "Once correctly stated the principle of SRT allow for a wide range of "theories" that differ from the standard SRT only for the in the chosen synchronization procedure, but are wholly equivalent to SRT in predicting empirical facts". even if the last namimg is not in use. I have found it in a single publication (AJP)
I end with full respect for the two physicists and for all the answers in the spirit of "sine ira et studio.
I understand the point you are making.

However, when we communicate physics (or anything else) we have to use the same language as everyone else, otherwise there is confusion. Like it or not, almost everyone uses the name "Lorentz transform", presumably reflecting the fact that Lorentz was amongst the first to use these equations. Einstein's later use of the same equations had a significantly different interpretation, but nevertheless Lorentz's name has stuck.

There are other phrases in physics which ideally would not be used, but the name is too well established by now. For example the phrase "rest mass of a photon" is pretty confusing (given that photons are never at rest) but the name is too well established to abolish.

And just look how much confusion there is over what the word "mass" alone means. If only there were a universally agreed convention on what it was. But there isn't. (There is a convention among most modern physicists but it's not agreed by all writers and practitioners of the subject.)
 
DrGreg said:
I understand the point you are making.

However, when we communicate physics (or anything else) we have to use the same language as everyone else, otherwise there is confusion. Like it or not, almost everyone uses the name "Lorentz transform", presumably reflecting the fact that Lorentz was amongst the first to use these equations. Einstein's later use of the same equations had a significantly different interpretation, but nevertheless Lorentz's name has stuck.

There are other phrases in physics which ideally would not be used, but the name is too well established by now. For example the phrase "rest mass of a photon" is pretty confusing (given that photons are never at rest) but the name is too well established to abolish.

And just look how much confusion there is over what the word "mass" alone means. If only there were a universally agreed convention on what it was. But there isn't. (There is a convention among most modern physicists but it's not agreed by all writers and practitioners of the subject.)
Thanks Dr.Greg. I think that the moral is that when you go with the wolfs learn to howl like they do.
 
bernhard.rothenstein said:
Thanks Dr.Greg. I think that the moral is that when you go with the wolfs learn to howl like they do.
That's one way of putting it!:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K