- #1
DanMP
- 179
- 6
Please tell me if Lorentz Transformation would be altered in any way if the invariance of c is explained, instead of postulated.
Great! Thank you.FactChecker said:The mathematical derivation of the Lorentz transformation is the same as long as c is constant. It does not depend on why c is constant (explained or postulated).
DanMP said:Please tell me if Lorentz Transformation would be altered in any way if the invariance of c is explained, instead of postulated.
DanMP said:Great! Thank you.
What about the rest of the math in relativity (both special and general)?
If I postulate 2+2=4, is that result in any way affected if I, instead, postulate 1+1=2 and treat 2 as derived instead of fundamental?DanMP said:What about the rest of the math in relativity (both special and general)?
Maybe I'll post my explanation for the invariance of c. The basic idea is that we rely on atoms/molecules when it comes to measure anything, including time intervals and distances in space (our instruments are made of atoms/molecules), but atoms/molecules are structures held together by electromagnetic forces, with the photon as the force carrier ... So, we are measuring the speed of light using something that depends on it ...Grinkle said:@DanMP I'm not comprehending your question. Can you give some conceptual example to show how you imagine SR or GR might change if a physical cause for constant c were identified?
Work all the way through this line of thought (and "all the way" is a very long hard slog with not much reward at the end) and you will come up with the Lorentz Ether Theory. LET makes the same predictions as special relativity so we can't say that it is exactly wrong; but it is a very poor base on which to build any deeper understanding of general relativity or relativistic quantum mechanics so is generally rejected by physicists.DanMP said:I don't expect that the math of SR or GR would change in any way by replacing a postulate with an explanation stating the same thing, but when I wrote this in another forum, I was not believed, so I'm here to ask for experts opinion.
I don't quite understand this. The invariance of c is not used/necessary in GR?PeroK said:GR does not have the invariance of the speed of light as a postulate. It does, however, assume that light travels on null paths. But, that is not fundamental to the development of the theory; only to the behaviour of light within the theory.
So what? You can construct a theory in which there is a finite invariant speed but light does not travel at it (Proca's work). Experiment does not match it. You can construct a theory in which there is no finite invariant speed (Newton). Experiment does not match it. You can construct a theory that does not respect the principle of relativity (ether theories are one such type). Experiment does not match it.DanMP said:Maybe I'll post my explanation for the invariance of c. The basic idea is that we rely on atoms/molecules when it comes to measure anything, including time intervals and distances in space (our instruments are made of atoms/molecules), but atoms/molecules are structures held together by electromagnetic forces, with the photon as the force carrier ... So, we are measuring the speed of light using something that depends on it ...
There are no global inertial frames in general relativity, so "the same speed in all inertial frames" doesn't have inertial frames to work with. It's still true locally - light will always pass you at c.DanMP said:I don't quite understand this. The invariance of c is not used/necessary in GR?
No, my explanation has nothing to do with LET. Maybe I'll post it tomorrow.Nugatory said:Work all the way through this line of thought and you will come up with the Lorentz Ether Theory. LET makes the same predictions as special relativity so we can't say that it is exactly wrong; but it is a very poor base on which to build any deeper understanding of general relativity or relativistic quantum mechanics so is generally rejected by physicists.
This is great. It is exactly what my explanation concludes. Thank you!Ibix said:There are no global inertial frames in general relativity, so "the same speed in all inertial frames" doesn't have inertial frames to work with. It's still true locally - light will always pass you at c.
Don't. That will put you on the wrong side of the Physics Forums rule prohibiting posting theories that have not been previously published in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal.DanMP said:No, my explanation has nothing to do with LET. Maybe I'll post it tomorrow.
The Lorentz Transformation is a mathematical tool used in physics to describe the relationship between space and time in Einstein's theory of special relativity. It allows for the conversion of coordinates and measurements between two frames of reference in relative motion. It is important because it helps us understand the behavior of objects moving at high speeds, and is essential in many modern theories of physics.
The Lorentz Transformation is based on the principle of relativity, which states that the laws of physics should be the same for all observers in uniform motion. This means that the speed of light, as a fundamental physical constant, must be the same for all observers regardless of their relative motion. The Lorentz Transformation takes this into account and shows that the speed of light remains constant in all inertial frames of reference.
Sure, imagine two observers, A and B, moving past each other at high speeds. Observer A measures the length of a moving object and finds it to be shorter than its actual length. Observer B measures the same object and finds it to be longer. The Lorentz Transformation allows us to convert between these measurements and reconcile the differences, ensuring that both observers agree on the speed of light.
The Lorentz Transformation shows that time and space are relative concepts and are affected by an observer's frame of reference and their relative motion. This means that two events that appear to occur simultaneously for one observer may not be simultaneous for another observer in a different frame of reference. It also shows that distances and time intervals are not absolute, but rather dependent on the observer's perspective.
The Lorentz Transformation is a highly accurate and well-tested mathematical tool, but it is not applicable in all situations. It only applies to objects in uniform motion and does not take into account the effects of acceleration or gravity. It also does not apply to objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, in which case more complex equations, such as those in general relativity, must be used.