Lorentz transformations: 1+1 spacetime only

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the understanding and interpretation of Lorentz transformations, particularly in the context of 1+1, 2+1, and 3+1 spacetime dimensions. Participants express their challenges and perspectives on the implications of these transformations in different dimensional frameworks, touching on theoretical, conceptual, and group-theoretical aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express a clear understanding of Lorentz transformations in 1+1 dimensions but struggle with the complexities introduced in 2+1 and 3+1 dimensions.
  • There is a contention regarding the physical interpretation of the Lorentz group, with some participants stating that no satisfactory interpretation has been provided by physicists.
  • One participant emphasizes the need for a physical assumption underlying the transition from one-dimensional to higher-dimensional Lorentz transformations.
  • Another participant discusses the proper orthochronous Poincare group and its role in defining Minkowski spacetime and the framework for dynamical theories.
  • Concerns are raised about the applicability of the Lorentz group to experimental data, particularly in 3+1 dimensions, with some participants questioning its fit with observed phenomena.
  • Some participants argue that current experimental tests continue to support the relativistic spacetime model, while others challenge the relevance of these tests to higher-dimensional frameworks.
  • There is a humorous exchange regarding the notion of conducting experiments in 2+1 spacetime, highlighting the absurdity of such a scenario.
  • One participant suggests that physicists often simplify discussions to focus on practical applications rather than delving into the complexities of higher-dimensional transformations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation and applicability of Lorentz transformations in higher dimensions. There are competing views on the adequacy of the Lorentz group in describing physical phenomena, particularly in 3+1 dimensions, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of current interpretations and the dependence on physical assumptions when discussing higher-dimensional transformations. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on the relationship between mathematical frameworks and experimental validation.

  • #91
robwilson said:
1+1 dimensions, where we are talking about 2 independent observers. I struggle in 2+1 dimensions, where we have three independent observers. In 3+1 dimensions, with four independent observers

This makes no sense to me. What does the number of spacetime dimensions have to do with the number of observers?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vela, vanhees71, weirdoguy and 2 others
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
robwilson said:
from the one-dimensional Lorentz transformations it is impossible to infer what the two-dimensional group is. Therefore there is a physical assumption going into the process somewhere.

I would assume that the added assumption has to do with invariance under purely spatial rotations, which don't exist in 1+1 spacetime but do exist when there are two or more spatial dimensions. We know that spatial rotations form a group, so then we just have to figure out what larger group includes spatial rotations as a subgroup and also includes Lorentz boosts. The usual definition of "Lorentz transformations" includes spatial rotations (I have seen the group of such transformations referred to as "spacetime rotations") because that group (the proper orthochronous Lorentz group, as I referred to it in a previous post) is the smallest one that includes both spatial rotations and boosts (but, as already noted by @vanhees71, boosts only form a subgroup if we restrict to boosts in a single direction).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #93
The OP considers that this thread has outlived its usefulness. I thank those people who provided useful responses. Those from physicists and engineers trying to teach a group theorist how to do group theory were not useful, and were frankly insulting. Those from people unwilling to distinguish between physical reality and our current best fit mathematical models of reality merely muddied the waters. I notice that many of you have visited my blog, in which I explain the problem as I see it, and the wider context, and perhaps some of you have looked at my three recent papers on the arXiv, where I explain the group theory in detail. I do not claim to have any answers, but I do claim to be asking the right questions.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt, Vanadium 50, PeroK and 1 other person
  • #94
robwilson said:
my three recent papers on the arXiv, where I explain the group theory in detail. I do not claim to have any answers, but I do claim to be asking the right questions.

In any case, you are pursuing your research, and time will tell whether it is useful. Best of luck to you in your endeavors.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt and vanhees71

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K