Lorentz transformation, Einstein transformation,Lorentz-Einstein transformation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the terminology and interpretation of Lorentz transformations, Einstein transformations, and the combined Lorentz-Einstein transformations within the context of special relativity (SRT). Participants explore the implications of naming conventions and the potential for confusion in physics communication.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that there is a state of real rest defined by the ether, while others argue that notions of "really resting" and "really moving" are meaningless, emphasizing only relative motion as real.
  • One participant proposes that the principle of SRT allows for various theories differing only in synchronization procedures, yet remaining equivalent in empirical predictions.
  • Another participant highlights the importance of using established terminology in physics to avoid confusion, noting that the name "Lorentz transform" is widely accepted despite differing interpretations by Lorentz and Einstein.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity of terms like "rest mass of a photon," which can be misleading, yet are entrenched in the language of physics.
  • There is a recognition of the lack of universally agreed conventions in physics terminology, particularly regarding the term "mass."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of terminology and the implications of naming conventions in physics. There is no consensus on the best approach to these terms, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects limitations in the definitions and interpretations of terms used in physics, as well as the unresolved nature of certain concepts related to motion and rest.

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 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K