Need for Lorentz transformation in pre-relativity period

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the necessity of Lorentz transformation prior to the establishment of relativity, particularly in relation to the invariance of the speed of light across different inertial frames. It questions the role of Lorentz transformation in addressing the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment and its connection to the invariance of Maxwell's equations. The invariance of these equations under Lorentz transformations is highlighted as a fundamental mathematical property that has been inherent since their formulation by Maxwell, despite his lack of awareness of this aspect. Without this invariance, Maxwell's equations would not retain their identity as understood in modern physics. The conversation underscores the critical link between Lorentz transformation and the foundational principles of electromagnetism.
faheemahmed6000
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
What was the need for Lorentz transformation in pre-relativity period?

Why was it necessary for the velocity of light to be invariant between different inertial frames and hence what was the need for Lorentz transformation when it was believed that velocity of light was constant with respect to aether. Was Lorentz transformation build in order to explain the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment?

What goes wrong if Maxwell's equations are not invariant under a transformation? What is the need for necessarily making Maxwell's equations invariant by introducing Lorentz transformation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you google a bit ?

[edit] looked at your other post and found what you are doing. Hats off !

I hope my reply wasn't too flippant and you indeed hadn't found this piece of history. Found it and its companion via Lorentz
 
Last edited:
faheemahmed6000 said:
What goes wrong if Maxwell's equations are not invariant under a transformation? What is the need for necessarily making Maxwell's equations invariant by introducing Lorentz transformation?
It is an intrinsic mathematical property of Maxwell's equations, that they are invariant under Lorentz transformations. This property has been contained in the equations ever since Maxwell put them in their final form with his addition to Ampere's Law, even though Maxwell himself did not know about it!

If Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Lorentz transformations, they would not be Maxwell's equations as he knew them (and as we know them).
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'

Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'

So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Transformation Riemann tensor to an accelerating frame
Replies
10
Views
1K
Variance of the EM wave equation under Galilean transformation
Replies
10
Views
3K
I Galilean transformation of non-inertial frame
Replies
35
Views
4K
I Does Lorentz invariance imply Einstein's synchronization convention?
Replies
32
Views
3K
B Confusion in notation of Lorentz Transformations
Replies
6
Views
2K
I Can we choose different functional forms for Lorentz transformation?
Replies
10
Views
1K
I Deriving Lorentz Transformations: Hyperbolic Functions
Replies
33
Views
3K
I Proving Galilean Transformation for Inertial Frames
Replies
14
Views
2K
B Understanding the Galilean transformation
Replies
3
Views
3K
I Velocity transformation between frames rotating relative to one another
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top