Are Lorentz Transformations Empirical Laws?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether Lorentz transformations (LT) are empirical laws and if they can be empirically tested. It is noted that LT originated from an erroneous assumption about object contraction at high velocities but were later validated through Einstein's formulation based on relative motion. The transformations have been confirmed through a century of experimental verification, suggesting they are indeed empirical. However, there is debate about their theoretical nature, as they were established before their application in physics. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complex relationship between theory and empirical testing in the context of Lorentz transformations.
bon
Messages
547
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Are the Lorentz transformations empirical laws? If so, are they empirically testable?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I'm guessing they are. But how do you test the LT?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bon said:

Homework Statement



Are the Lorentz transformations empirical laws? If so, are they empirically testable?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I'm guessing they are. But how do you test the LT?

The LT was originally formulated by an erroneous assumption (by an Irish physicist named Fitzgerald) which postulated an actual shrinking of an object as it passes by an observer at high velocity. The LT exactly agreed with the observations. However, Einstein formulated them based on the uniform motion of two observers relative to each other. They, along with all of Einstein's relativity theories, have withstood 100 years of verification.
 
Empirical law is a law that contains certain parameters that are unable to be determined by theory, but have to be measured from experiment and be used.
I don't see why LT should be such.

A lorentz transformation is being defined by the Ls that have:
[L]*[n][L]=[n] (n is the metric of minkowski and my notation is notation for matrices)

I guess that even group theory and symmetries bring the need of such transformations to exist.

So I guess it is very theoritical as it is, and of course they existed before relativity, or before finding application in physics in order to be "empirical" laws...
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top