Trying to understand Lorentz Transformations

In summary, the Lorentz transformation is a transformation that allows you to change the time reference frame without changing the speed of the objects in the reference frame. You first convert the time in the original reference frame to time in the new reference frame and then convert the new time back to the original reference frame.
  • #1
NoahsArk
Gold Member
237
22
I am trying to understand the general form of the Lorentz Transformations before I even get into the long process of deriving that into the specific equations. In Taylor and Wheeler's, Spacetime Physics book they give this as the general form:

t= Bx1 + Dt1
x= Gx1 + Ht1

In the equation for t, why is x being added into the equation? I don't understand, if we are trying to convert time in one reference frame to time in another, why we'd be adding x when x is distance.

Similarly, in the equation for x, why are we adding t?

Also, in the equation for t, I know that the coefficient, D, in front of t1 is γ which is derived from the invariance of the interval. In the equation for, x, though, the authors give vγ (where v is the velocity of the second (rocket) frame from the perspective of the first (earth) frame), as the coefficient of t1. What is the explanation for that?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
NoahsArk said:
In the equation for t, why is x being added into the equation? I don't understand, if we are trying to convert time in one reference frame to time in another, why we'd be adding x when x is distance.

Similarly, in the equation for x, why are we adding t?
It's just the most general linear transformation. They're not really adding x or t into the equation - they're just not assuming they can leave either out. So this is the form of transformation with the fewest possible assumptions. If the transformations had turned out not to depend on x or t (like the Galilean t transform) the relevant coefficient would be zero.

NoahsArk said:
Also, in the equation for t, I know that the coefficient, D, in front of t1 is γ which is derived from the invariance of the interval. In the equation for, x, though, the authors give vγ (where v is the velocity of the second (rocket) frame from the perspective of the first (earth) frame), as the coefficient of t1. What is the explanation for that?
The derivation should justify the values somewhere. It depends what derivation you are following. Where are you looking in Taylor and Wheeler?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
NoahsArk said:
Similarly, in the equation for x, why are we adding t?

If you go back to basic Newtonian physics and have one reference frame moving at velocity ##v## relative to another, then:

##x' = x - vt##

That's because the origin of the second reference frame is moving at velocity ##v##.

This is called the Galilean transformation, the other part of which is the obvious ##t' =t##.

The basic idea of the Lorentz transformation is that you want to generalise these two equations:

##x' = x - vt## becomes in general ##x' = Ax + Bt##

And ##t' = t## becomes ##t' = Ct + Dx##

And, to see whether anything else makes sense, apart from the Galilean solution: ##A = 1, B = -v, C = 1, D = 0##. Are there any other possible solutions that make physical sense?
 
  • Like
Likes m4r35n357
  • #4
Ibix said:
It's just the most general linear transformation. They're not really adding x or t into the equation

I'm not sure why, when trying to figure out t based on t1[/S
UP], we need to know what x is at all.

Ibix said:
The derivation should justify the values somewhere. It depends what derivation you are following. Where are you looking in Taylor and Wheeler?

In my book it's the "special topic" chapter which is between chapters 3 and 4. It's on page 100.

PeroK: "The basic idea of the Lorentz transformation is that you want to generalize these two equations:"

For the case where x1 = 0, then the equation to convert time would be t = γt1. I am still not sure why when x1 is greater than zero, we have to add x1 into the equation.
 
  • #5
t' = t is very familiar, but it's just not compatible with special relativity. Basically, you'll have to come to terms with the fact that t' depends on t and x, and not just t, in order to understand special relativity. Truly understaning all of the consequences of this will take a while, some are not obvious. Unfortunately, just rejecting the idea that t' depends on t and x out of hand isn't going to get you anywhere useful :(.
 
  • #6
NoahsArk said:
I'm not sure why, when trying to figure out t based on t1, we need to know what x is at all.
Why wouldn’t you? You are just assuming that you can neglect x, but there is no physical basis for that assumption.

The idea here is to make as few assumptions as possible and then derive as much as you can with as few assumptions as possible. You are assuming that B=0, which is a very strong and unjustified assumption. The derivation is not assuming any value for B, it could turn out to be 0, but they are not assuming that. It could turn out to be non-zero, but they are not assuming that either.

So leaving B in is not an assumption, so it needn’t be justified. Setting B=0 a priori is an assumption and requires justification
 
  • Like
Likes Pencilvester
  • #7
Dale said:
Why wouldn’t you? You are just assuming that you can neglect x, but there is no physical basis for that assumption.

My understanding of the Lorentz transformations is that we use them for situations where some event in the rocket frame (x1) occurred some distance in front of the rocket. To know that distance from Earth's frame, we need to know how far away that event occurred from the rocket (using the rocket measurement) and multiply that distance by γ, and add that number to the distance that the rocket traveled from us (v times γt1). So, it would make sense to me why we use t1 to try and figure out x. The reverse, though, I can't explain- i.e. why we need x1 to figure out t.

Dale said:
So leaving B in is not an assumption, so it needn’t be justified.
.

To me though, putting X into the equation has no more reason than putting any other variable in it. The only reason I can think of is my vague notion that it has something to do with relativity of simultaneity, and if an event occurred some distance away from the rocket, the mere distance alone from the rocket will affect x1's time measurement of that event. Seems like there should be a simpler explanation than that though.
 
  • #8
NoahsArk said:
To me though, putting X into the equation has no more reason than putting any other variable in it.
What other variable would you put in? Are there any other coordinates you would use to label an event in an inertial frame other than three for position in space and one for time?
 
  • #9
NoahsArk said:
putting X into the equation
X isn’t being put into the equation. If B=0 then x is not in, which is not rejected a priori.

Again, what is your physical justification for asserting B=0, a priori?

NoahsArk said:
Seems like there should be a simpler explanation than that though.
You have already been given the simpler explanation multiple times. The goal is to make as few a priori assumptions as possible. If you don’t make assumptions then you have to allow the possibility that x might be in the equation or it might not.
 
  • #10
NoahsArk said:
My understanding of the Lorentz transformations is that we use them for situations where some event in the rocket frame (x1) occurred some distance in front of the rocket.
They are much more general than that. They answer the question:

I say that something happened at point x and time t. You are moving relative to me. Where and when did it happen according to you?
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #11
NoahsArk said:
t= Bx1 + Dt1
x= Gx1 + Ht1

In the equation for t, why is x being added into the equation? I don't understand, if we are trying to convert time in one reference frame to time in another, why we'd be adding x when x is distance.

From this postulate
[tex]c^2t^2-x^2=(c^2D^2-H^2)(t^1)^2-(G^2-c^2B^2)(x^1)^2+2(c^2BD-GH)x^1 t^1[/tex]

The SR relation, square of invariant distance, $$c^2t^2-x^2=c^2(t^1)^2-(x^1)^2$$ requires non zero B. Thus
[tex]cD=cosh\ \alpha,\ H=sinh\ \alpha[/tex]
[tex]G=cosh\ \gamma,\ cB=sinh\ \gamma[/tex]
[tex]cosh\ \alpha \ sinh\ \gamma=cosh\ \gamma \ sinh\ \alpha[/tex] so [tex]\alpha=\gamma=arctanh\ \beta[/tex]
Introducing beta=v/c above, we get familiar Lorentz transformation formula, assured by uniqueness of series expansion by beta.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
NoahsArk said:
In the equation for t, why is x being added into the equation? I don't understand, if we are trying to convert time in one reference frame to time in another, why we'd be adding x when x is distance.

Similarly, in the equation for x, why are we adding t?

Say all the lattice points of the two frames of reference are occupied with synchronized clocks.
The transformation formula tell correspondence of the superposed two FR in space coordinates and clock readings or time coordinates. In this correspondence
[tex]x \approx x'+vt'[/tex] has been obvious at latest since time of Galilei, but
[tex]t \approx t'+v/c^2 x'[/tex] has not been noticed until 20th century because of smallness of vx'/c^2 in most cases.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Thank you for the responses.

To take an example, let's say a rocket is moving ahead of me at v = .8 c. For the time between any two events happening in the rocket, I multiply by 1.67 to get my measurement of the time between the events. No need for Lorentz transformations.

Now say two events occurred at a distance of one light year in front of the rocket. It wouldn't cross my mind to say that I now have to take whatever the rocket time was, multiple by 1.67, and then add one light year to that amount? I'm pretty confused.

Also, if the rocket were very long, do we consider any events happening inside the rocket, whether at the nose or tail of the rocket, as being at X1 = zero in the rocket frame? I am assuming that Lorenz transformations come into play in situations where there is a third frame of reference, like another rocket traveling in front of the first one, but even then I can't see why we'd be thinking of adding X1 to get t.
 
  • #14
Following up on this, I was just watching a coursera video on SR (second video on the Lorentz transformations) where he says that the X1 in the equation for t is basically the leading clocks lag principle built into the Lorentz transformations. This makes sense, but I don't see how we could assuming from the beginning that the equation for t must take that general form without prior knowledge that leading clocks lag.
 
  • #15
NoahsArk said:
To take an example, let's say a rocket is moving ahead of me at v = .8 c. For the time between any two events happening in the rocket, I multiply by 1.67 to get my measurement of the time between the events.
Be precise. There are four events here: the two events you're talking about which we will call E1 and E2, but also E3 ("you look at your wristwatch at the same time as E1") and E4 ("you look at your wristwatch at the same time as E2"). The rocket observer is present at both E1 and E2 so he can directly measure the time between them (call that ##\Delta{T}'##). You multiply ##\Delta{T}'## by 1.67, and that gives us... the time you'll measure between E3 and E4. We then assert (because E1 and E3 happen at the same time, as do E2 and E4) that this is also our measurement of the time between E1 and E2.
No need for Lorentz transformations.
How so? The "multiply by 1.67" formula you used is the result of applying the Lorentz transformations in the specific case in which event E1 has coordinates ##(x'=X_0,t'=T_0)## in the spaceship frame and event E2 has coordinates ##(x'=X_0,t'=T_0+\Delta{T}')##.

Please, please, please... don't just take my word for this. First, satisfy yourself that the coordinates I just wrote down for E1 and E2 are right for two events that happen at the same place and different times according to the spaceship observer. Then plug them into the Lorentz transformations to see that according to you they happened at different places (separated by ##1.67v\Delta{T}'##) and that if events E3 and E4 happened at the same time as E1 and E2 according to you, then E4 happened ##1.67v\Delta{T}'## after E3.
Now say two events occurred at a distance of one light year in front of the rocket. It wouldn't cross my mind to say that I now have to take whatever the rocket time was, multiple by 1.67, and then add one light year to that amount?
In this case, the coordinates for E1 in the spaceship frame would be ##(x'=1ly,t'=T_0)## and the coordinates of E2 would be ##(x'=1ly,t'=T_0+\Delta{T}')##. Plug this into the Lorentz transformations and you'll find that the corresponding E3 and E4 are still separated by ##1.67\Delta{T}'##.
Also, if the rocket were very long, do we consider any events happening inside the rocket, whether at the nose or tail of the rocket, as being at X1 = zero in the rocket frame?
No. suppose the length of the rocket is ##L##. We could choose the tail of the rocket to be ##x'=0##, and then an event happening at time T (using the rocket frame) at the nose of the rocket would have coordinates ##(x'=L,t'=T)## while an event happening at the same time at the tail of the rocket would have coordinates ##(x'=0,t'=T)##. (This is exactly your previous question, if the rocket were one lightyear long).

Also, note that although these events happen at the same time using the rocket frame (they both have the same ##t'## coordinate) they do not happen at the same time using the frame in which you are at rest.

I am assuming that Lorenz transformations come into play in situations where there is a third frame of reference
No. The Lorentz transformations come into play any time that we know an event happened at location X and time T according to one frame, and we want to calculate the location and time at which that event occurred using another frame.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #16
NoahsArk said:
This makes sense, but I don't see how we could assuming from the beginning that the equation for t must take that general form without prior knowledge that leading clocks lag.
We start with the most general possible transformation. We're making no assumption about whether leading clocks might lag, trailing clocks might lag, or whether they all stay synchronized... we just don't know, so we assume nothing.

This most general assume-nothing transformation will be of the form$$t'=Ax+Bt\\x'=Cx+Dt$$We use what we know about the behavior of light (the same speed in all frames tells us that ##x\pm{ct}=0## implies ##x'\pm{ct'}=0##) to solve for the values of A, B, C, and D and we end up with the Lorentz transformations...

And then we look at these transformations and see that they're telling us, among other things, that leading clocks lag. So we didn't have any prior knowledge of this, it's the conclusion that we came to at the end.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
NoahsArk said:
Following up on this, I was just watching a coursera video on SR (second video on the Lorentz transformations) where he says that the X1 in the equation for t is basically the leading clocks lag principle built into the Lorentz transformations. This makes sense, but I don't see how we could assuming from the beginning that the equation for t must take that general form without prior knowledge that leading clocks lag.

It's not a question of prior knowldege, it's a question of exploring the alternatives to ##t' =t##.

Let's suppose you were a physics student in 1850 and you and a friend were discussing time and thought of this question: is there any alternative to ##t' = t##? You might say "no, nothing else could possibly make any physical sense". Your friend might say "but, what if, ##t'## depended in some way on ##x## and ##t##? And, you'd say: "it's impossible". Your friend says: "but what if we try?" Just imagine that it's linear (because that's the simplest alternative). What if ##t' = At + Bx## for some ##A, B##?"

You'd say: "you must have prior knowldege of the leading clocks lag rule"! And your friend would say "what's that. then?".

So, your friend simply wants to try something - to see where it leads. But, you are resolute, there is no point in considering an alternative to ##t'= t## unless you already know what the answer will be! You're not allowed even to try.
 
  • #18
NoahsArk said:
let's say a rocket is moving ahead of me at v = .8 c. For the time between any two events happening in the rocket, I multiply by 1.67 to get my measurement of the time between the events. No need for Lorentz transformations.
Not really.

The multiplication only works if the events happen at the same location in the rocket’s frame. If one happens in the front of the rocket and the other happens in the rear of the rocket then the simplified formula fails and you have to use the full Lorentz transform.

Furthermore, if they are in the same location in the rocket’s frame then the simplified formula is the Lorentz transform. Since ##\Delta x=0## that term drops out and you are left with the multiplication. So saying “no need for the Lorentz transform” fails to recognize that the simple multiplication is the Lorentz transform in this specific case.

NoahsArk said:
Now say two events occurred at a distance of one light year in front of the rocket. It wouldn't cross my mind to say that I now have to take whatever the rocket time was, multiple by 1.67, and then add one light year to that amount? I'm pretty confused.
No matter what, you will apply the Lorentz transform. If you are in a special scenario then the Lorentz transform will automatically simplify to the time dilation formula or some other relevant simple formula. Always using the Lorentz transform will prevent mistakes that arise from incorrectly using a simplified formula and confusion about when to apply the simplified formulas.
 
  • #19
NoahsArk said:
This makes sense, but I don't see how we could assuming from the beginning
For like the fourth time now, no such assumption is made.

Do you understand the concept of a general formula? A general formula is one that captures all of the possibilities. It makes no assumptions about which specific formula is correct, but allows you to pick between the various possible specific formulas by setting one or more parameters. In this case the parameter is B. We make no assumptions about the value of B.

This is getting very frustrating. It seems that you are not even making an effort to understand this point. You keep on saying that we are making an assumption when in fact it is you that are the only one making an assumption, and you have not once even attempted to justify your assumption! You have this totally backwards and are repeating it over and over with no attempt to figure it out. Stop! We are not assuming anything! Stop saying that we are. The only assumption here is your unjustified assumption that B=0. The next time you use the word “assumption” please make sure that it refers specifically to your assumption that B=0.
 
  • #20
@NoahsArk - are you asking your question backwards? Is the underlying question "why ##x## and not ##z## or temperature or the price of gold or something"?
 
  • #21
Ibix said:
are you asking your question backwards? Is the underlying question "why xxx and not zzz or temperature or the price of gold or something"?

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking.

Dale: It's a difficult concept for me. I understand what the general form of an equation is. I just don't see how people originally came up with the idea that the general equation took that form.
 
  • #22
NoahsArk said:
Yes, that is exactly what I am asking.

Dale: It's a difficult concept for me. I understand what the general form of an equation is. I just don't see how people originally came up with the idea that the general equation took that form.

Maybe they took a guess!

How much of physics started with an educated or inspired guess? Where did Newton get his law of gravitation? Maybe he guessed:

##F = \frac{GMm}{r}##

And that didn't work.

Then he guessed:

##F = \frac{GMm}{r^2}##

And that worked.

If that hadn't worked he might have tried:

##F = \frac{GMm}{r^3}##

In fact, it doesn't matter at the end of the day where the equation came from. As long as you can demonstrate that it has the properties you want. The law of gravitation being a case in point.
 
  • #23
PeroK said:
In fact, it doesn't matter at the end of the day where the equation came from. As long as you can demonstrate that it has the properties you want. The law of gravitation being a case in point.

Hmmm. Are you saying that as long as the equation is giving the right results, I should just learn it and use it and not get too bogged down in how it originated?
 
  • #24
NoahsArk said:
Dale: It's a difficult concept for me. I understand what the general form of an equation is. I just don't see how people originally came up with the idea that the general equation took that form.
OK, that is fine, but please stop asserting that the equation with B is an assumption, it is the opposite of an assumption. So the question is what reasoning led them to believe that the linear expression was the correct generalization.

The first thing that we need to do is to understand what it is that a transformation is doing and what kind of transformation we are looking for. A transformation is intended to change one set of coordinates into another set of coordinates. So if we have Cartesian coordinates we might change them into polar coordinates. Coordinates are just ways to numerically label different times and places.

Now, we are particularly interested in inertial coordinate systems, that is we like coordinates where free particles go in a straight line at constant velocity, following Newton's first law. Any coordinates where all free particles have straight lines as their worldlines are inertial coordinates, so if we want to study the transformations from one inertial frame to another inertial frame then we want to study transformations that map straight lines to other straight lines.

The simplest such transformation is a linear transformation, which is the form chosen in the derivation you cited. So the reason for choosing that generalization is that it is the simplest generalization that has the necessary property of mapping straight lines to straight lines.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes SiennaTheGr8, Pencilvester and PeterDonis
  • #25
Nugatory said:
No. suppose the length of the rocket is LLL. We could choose the tail of the rocket to be x′=0x′=0x'=0, and then an event happening at time T (using the rocket frame) at the nose of the rocket would have coordinates (x′=L,t′=T)(x′=L,t′=T)(x'=L,t'=T) while an event happening at the same time at the tail of the rocket would have coordinates (x′=0,t′=T)

Thank you for clarifying that.

Dale said:
The simplest such transformation is a linear transformation, which is the form chosen in the derivation you cited.

In the equation y = mx + b, the first time I read it and the description for it it made sense to me right away. It makes sense because I visualize that what it's describing is a straight light which isn't curved, and I understand why we use each of the terms. The Lorentz equation for time, though, doesn't jump out at me in the same way as being intuitive.
 
  • #26
NoahsArk said:
Yes, that is exactly what I am asking.

Dale: It's a difficult concept for me. I understand what the general form of an equation is. I just don't see how people originally came up with the idea that the general equation took that form.
Originally, Einstein didn't come up with it that way - he used his train thought experiment. But then people showed that the transforms are simply an expression of symmetries, and this is a more abstract but much more powerful way of thinking, that underlies all fundamental physics post-Einstein.

The transforms simply relate coordinates on spacetime, so they can only depend on the coordinates and the relative velocity of the frames. There are no other physical concepts that are relevant. The transforms have to be linear because if they aren't there's either a special place or a special time or both. We can arbitrarily choose an origin that the coordinates share, and we can arbitrarily choose our x-axis to lie parallel to the relative velocity of the frames.

With those assertions, the most general transformation we can possibly write is$$\begin{eqnarray*}t'&=&At+Bx+Cy+Dz\\
x'&=&Et+Fx+Gy+Hz\\
y'&=&It+Jx+Ky+Lz\\
z'&=&Mt+Nx+Oy+Pz\end{eqnarray*}$$where the capital letters are constant. We are not making any assumptions about these constants. Many of them may be zero - but we'll prove that, we won't assume it.

All the off-diagonal elements including ##y## or ##z## must be zero from symmetry. Simply rotate your coordinate axes 180° about the x-axis and ##y## becomes ##-y## - but this shouldn't have any effect on ##x'## or ##t'##, and the only way for it to have no effect if those cross terms are zero. We cannot make this argument about off diagonal terms with ##x## because there is a difference if we flip the x-axis (the velocity changes sign) and we can't make this argument about ##t## because flipping the direction of time also flips the direction of velocity.

That tells us that our four equations are just
$$\begin{eqnarray*}t'&=&At+Bx\\
x'&=&Et+Fx\\
y'&=&Ky\\
z'&=&Pz\end{eqnarray*}$$Adding that the inverse transforms must look the same as the forward transforms except for the sign of the velocity (i.e., the principle of relativity) means that we want ##y'=Ky## and ##y=y'/K## to look the same which means ##K=1##, and similarly ##P=1##.

This is where you started. Sweetsprings already posted the derivation from here.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #27
NoahsArk said:
The Lorentz equation for time, though, doesn't jump out at me in the same way as being intuitive.
People may have worked on this for a long time. You should not assume that it was intuitively obvious to the casual observer.
 
  • Like
Likes nitsuj and Ibix
  • #28
NoahsArk said:
In the equation for t, why is x being added into the equation?

Note that if the coefficient B has a value of zero then the term containing x will be zero. So the possibility is there, but it's only a possibility.
 
  • #29
NoahsArk said:
In the equation y = mx + b, the first time I read it and the description for it it made sense to me right away. It makes sense because I visualize that what it's describing is a straight light which isn't curved, and I understand why we use each of the terms. The Lorentz equation for time, though, doesn't jump out at me in the same way as being intuitive.
If you do not include time then you cannot distinguish between a particle that travels in a straight line at a constant velocity and a particle which travels in a straight line at an accelerating velocity. So you lose the critical distinction between inertial and non-inertial coordinates. Once you include time as a coordinate, then a general linear transformation includes time. Leaving it out is making an assumption.

It may not be intuitive, but sometimes that is why you have to use the math, to make logical leaps that are not intuitive. For you, this is one of those times. You specifically need to use the math a little more until you develop some new intuition.
 
  • #30
One way of formulating special relativity is to postulate that the speed of light equal to "c" for all observers. This goal can't be accomplished if one limits oneself to the transform t'=t.

A longish quote from Einstein's 1905 paper might clarify the assumptions made:

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discoverany motion of the Earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that thephenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possesses no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as hasalready been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which theequations of mechanics hold good.1We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the statusof a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in emptyspace with a definite velocitycwhich is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties...

In the end though, it's a matter of whether one wants to learn how the theory works, or not. Ideally, one would let experiment decide whether relativity or classical Newtonian mechanics best matched experimental evidence. In practice, perhaps, if one is a student, one doesn't bother to learn a new theory unless one is pretty sure it's going to be a better theory.

A bit of motivation as to why classical Newtonian mechanics doesn't work quite right might be helpful in motivating one to learn special relativity. I am rather fond of "The Ultimate Speed"



There is a peer-reviewed paper associated with this video that goes into more detail. The video is less dry than the paper, one reason I link to it, though in general one needs to be cautious about accepting any video one may encounter on the internet.

Assuming that one has already decided that special relativity is worth learning, it becomes simple. One can't assume that t'=t and still learn special relativity. The question of why one should learn special relativity is more complex, but it boils down to the fact that it works very well. One can't really understand this point, about how well it works, until one learns the theory in the first place, however.

There are other routes to learning and formulating the theory than EInstein's original approach, but they'll all lead to similar results, where t' is not equal to t.
 
  • Like
Likes gmax137
  • #31
FactChecker said:
People may have worked on this for a long time. You should not assume that it was intuitively obvious to the casual observer.
Indeed. The mathematical tools to derive the Lorentz transforms from symmetry arguments existed at least as far back as Newton. Nobody did it (edit: or as PeroK points out below, nobody published it) for around 250 years.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
NoahsArk said:
Hmmm. Are you saying that as long as the equation is giving the right results, I should just learn it and use it and not get too bogged down in how it originated?

In many ways, SR can be the opposite of that. Everything ought to make sense and, in the end, you wonder how no one thought of it before Einstein.

The problem here is perhaps one of mathematical experience and technique. For example, you see posts on here where some typical mathematical operation (squaring both sides of an equation, say) is seen by the inexperienced as a great leap of imagination.

At the next level, you are viewing a set of linear equations as something almost mystical that a mathematician dreamed up out of nowhere. But, once you have a bit of mathematical experience, it's the most obvious thing to do.

At the most basic level you are asking: why on Earth would anyone ever come up with the idea of analysing a possible linear relationship between time and space coordinates?

And our answer is, well no one did for several hundred years, but why not try? Maybe someone in 1850 did try but was too appalled by the consequences and didn't even publish!?

There is an element of hindsight, of course, that the great symmetries of time, space, energy and momentum etc. have been studied in depth and we know that SR could have been built on these.

I know some texts on SR simply produce the Lorentz Transformation as a postulate. That would be too much like pulling a rabbit out of a hat for me. But, developing it from symmetry and homogeneity principles seems very natural to me, even if it relies on a fairly modern view of physics.

It's good that you want to understand why this approach is valid. But, you must also try to develop the scientific capabilities of your brain. And sometimes that means going with the flow and seeing where it leads. It feels to me sometimes that there's a part of your brain that wants to reject this stuff and, obviously, you do want to learn it. So, perhaps you yourself have to start beating up on the reactionary part of your brain - instead of asking us to do it :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and Ibix
  • #33
NoahsArk said:
In the equation y = mx + b, the first time I read it and the description for it it made sense to me right away. It makes sense because I visualize that what it's describing is a straight light which isn't curved, and I understand why we use each of the terms. The Lorentz equation for time, though, doesn't jump out at me in the same way as being intuitive.

I would say that if you have two different inertial coordinate systems systems in one spatial and one time dimension, ##(x,t)##, and ##(x',t')## we can describe their "disagreement" using four factors:
  1. They may disagree about what objects are at rest.
  2. They may disagree about the length of objects.
  3. They may disagree about the time between two events.
  4. They may disagree about which events are simultaneous (take place at the same time).
(There are actually a couple of other sources of disagreement that I'm going to ignore: 5. They can disagree about the direction in which ##x## increases. 6. They can disagree about the origin of the ##(x,t)## coordinate system.)

Effect 1 leads to the transformation for ##x'## involving both ##x## and ##t##.
Effect 4 leads to the transformation for ##t'## involving both ##x## and ##t##.
Effects 2 and 3 are matters of scaling, in a sense.

Galilean transformations only involve effect 1.

Why would different inertial coordinate systems disagree about which events are simultaneous? Well, you have to go through, as Einstein did, the thought process of asking how do you establish that distant clocks are synchronized. One possibility is that you bring two clocks together, synchronize them, and then take them to different locations. But how do you know that moving clocks around doesn't affect them? Another possibility is that you use some signal with a known speed (such as light) to synchronize distant clocks, and take into account the transit time. But if two different coordinate systems disagree about whether objects are at rest, then they will disagree about transit time, as well (it takes longer to catch up to a moving object, if it's moving away, and it takes less time to catch up to a moving object, if it's moving toward you).

So if you're willing to buy that clock synchronization might be relative to an inertial coordinate system, then effects 2 and 3 follow. The way that you would measure the length of a moving object is by noting that one end is at location ##x## at the same time that the other end is at location ##x+L##. You subtract those two coordinates to get a length ##L##. But if different coordinate systems disagree about whether clocks are synchronized, then they will disagree about whether the two ends were measured at the same time. So they will disagree about the length of the moving object. There is a similar reason that different inertial coordinate systems may disagree about the time between events.
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
  • #34
(Hoping not to divert the thread... but replying to a side comment by PeroK...)

PeroK said:
At the most basic level you are asking: why on Earth would anyone ever come up with the idea of analysing a possible linear relationship between time and space coordinates?

And our answer is, well no one did for several hundred years, but why not try? Maybe someone in 1850 did try but was too appalled by the consequences and didn't even publish!?

If anyone was able to do that, it would have been Felix Klein.
https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Felix_Klein

In 1872, he developed his Erlangen Program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlangen_program
which essentially laid the foundations for Minkowski spacetime.
(Klein essentially unified elliptic, hyperbolic, and Euclidean geometry via projective geometry.
The scheme was extended to the "Cayley-Klein Geometries" (9 in 2-dimensions),
of which Minkowski spacetime, Galilean spacetime, and the DeSitter spacetimes are included (but apparently not interpreted physically).

Here's a curious comment from Toretti's Philosophy of Geometry from Riemann to Poincaré, p.129
https://books.google.com/books?id=EcLrCAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=torretti&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwio6bP235bhAhUkUt8KHZydCAIQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=finite sequence of rotations&f=false
upload_2019-3-22_18-28-49.png


The passage in Klein that Toretti refers to is
on p.189 of Klein's Vorlesungen uber Nicht-Euklidische Geometrie (1926)
(which [if i decoded the preface correctly] is partly based on lectures from 1892 and 1893
[possibly these handwritten lectures https://archive.org/details/nichteuklidische01klei ],
plus additional material the editors put together). In that passage,

upload_2019-3-22_18-42-47.png


(update: here are the figures Klein refers to... looks like worldlines in Minkowski and Galilean spacetimes. Note how the lines bunch up near the [light-cone] edge in 114.)
upload_2019-3-22_19-23-35.png
upload_2019-3-22_19-23-53.png


I transcribed the section
Felix Klein (1926 posthumous) said:
Die Erfahrung zeigt uns, daß wir stets durch eine endliche Anzahl derartiger Drehungen in die Nähe der Ausgangslage zurückkommen, ja sogar über sie hinausgelangen können. Diese Eigenschaft ist aber bei der hyperbolischen und parabolischen Messung von Winkeln nicht vorhanden, da wir dort durch die entsprechende Abtragung untereinander kongruen ter Winkel nie über bestimmte Grenzlagen herauskommen können (vgl. die Abb. 114 und 120). In einer Maßbestimmung, die in der Außenwelt anwendbar ist, muß also sowohl die räumliche, wie auch die ebene Winkelmessung elliptisch sein.
and fed it into Google translate (bolding mine)
Google Translate of Klein said:
Experience shows us that we can always come back by a finite number of such rotations in the vicinity of the starting position, and even get beyond them. However, this property is not present in the hyperbolic and parabolic measurement of angles, since we can never get beyond certain boundary layers there by the corresponding removal of congruent angles (see Figures 114 and 120). In a measure that is applicable in the outside world, so both the spatial, as well as the level angle measurement must be elliptical.
In hindsight, the hyperbolic and parabolic measurement of angles [between radial lines... thought of as inertial worldlines] refer to rapidity in Minkowski spacetime [so velocity [itex]v=c\tanh\theta[/itex] ] and in Galilean spacetime [here, where, it turns out, Galilean-rapidity coincides with velocity [up to a constant carrying units] ].
So, the point is:
the foundations were there.. but maybe not yet realized in the physical world.

(As I said, these lectures were published posthumously in 1926 and drawn on material from 1892 and 1893 onward...
but it's not clear how far onward. Was this passage before 1905 (when Einstein published) or 1908 (when Minkowski formulated "spacetime geometry")?)From the Wikisource link, it might be interesting to read the transcription of
https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Über_die_geometrischen_Grundlagen_der_Lorentzgruppe (1910)
(which Google Translate translates to "About the geometric foundations of the Lorentz group")
which can be read via Google Translate [in the Chrome browser].

My $0.02.
(Sorry for intruding.)
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-3-22_18-28-49.png
    upload_2019-3-22_18-28-49.png
    22.1 KB · Views: 441
  • upload_2019-3-22_18-42-47.png
    upload_2019-3-22_18-42-47.png
    76.4 KB · Views: 540
  • upload_2019-3-22_19-23-35.png
    upload_2019-3-22_19-23-35.png
    3.7 KB · Views: 476
  • upload_2019-3-22_19-23-53.png
    upload_2019-3-22_19-23-53.png
    5.8 KB · Views: 433
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeroK and Ibix
  • #35
Ibix said:
With those assertions, the most general transformation we can possibly write is$$\begin{eqnarray*}t'&=&At+Bx+Cy+Dz\\
x'&=&Et+Fx+Gy+Hz\\
y'&=&It+Jx+Ky+Lz\\
z'&=&Mt+Nx+Oy+Pz\end{eqnarray*}$$where the capital letters are constant. We are not making any assumptions about these constants. Many of them may be zero - but we'll prove that, we won't assume it.

All the off-diagonal elements including ##y## or ##z## must be zero from symmetry.

The above transformation is already a complete Lorentz transformation (in matrix form ##\mathbf{x=g}\mathbf{x}'## or ##\mathbf{x'}=\mathbf{g}^{-1}\mathbf{x}##) leaving invariant ## -x_{0}^{2}+x_{1}^{2}+x_{2}^{2}+x_{3}^{2}## by using the conditions

$$\begin{matrix}\mathbf{g}^{{\rm T}}\mathbf{A}\mathbf{g}=\mathbf{A}\\
\mathbf{A}=\mathrm{diag}(-1,1,1,1)
\end{matrix}$$

One can see, that the Lorentz transformation and its group can be understood as a branch of linear algebra.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Ibix
<h2>1. What are Lorentz Transformations?</h2><p>Lorentz Transformations are mathematical equations that describe how measurements of space and time change for an observer moving at a constant velocity relative to another observer.</p><h2>2. Why are Lorentz Transformations important?</h2><p>Lorentz Transformations are important because they are a fundamental part of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which revolutionized our understanding of space and time. They also have practical applications in fields such as physics, engineering, and astronomy.</p><h2>3. How do Lorentz Transformations differ from Galilean Transformations?</h2><p>Lorentz Transformations take into account the principles of special relativity, including the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity of simultaneity, while Galilean Transformations do not. Lorentz Transformations are also more accurate at high speeds and can account for the effects of time dilation and length contraction.</p><h2>4. Can you provide an example of a Lorentz Transformation?</h2><p>One example of a Lorentz Transformation is the equation for time dilation, which states that the time interval between two events is longer for an observer in motion relative to the events than for an observer at rest. This equation is t' = t/√(1-v^2/c^2), where t' is the time interval for the moving observer, t is the time interval for the stationary observer, v is the relative velocity between the two observers, and c is the speed of light.</p><h2>5. How are Lorentz Transformations related to the Lorentz factor?</h2><p>The Lorentz factor is a term that appears in many Lorentz Transformations and is defined as γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2). This factor takes into account the effects of special relativity, such as time dilation and length contraction, and is used to adjust measurements of space and time for observers in motion. In other words, the Lorentz factor is a key component of Lorentz Transformations.</p>

1. What are Lorentz Transformations?

Lorentz Transformations are mathematical equations that describe how measurements of space and time change for an observer moving at a constant velocity relative to another observer.

2. Why are Lorentz Transformations important?

Lorentz Transformations are important because they are a fundamental part of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which revolutionized our understanding of space and time. They also have practical applications in fields such as physics, engineering, and astronomy.

3. How do Lorentz Transformations differ from Galilean Transformations?

Lorentz Transformations take into account the principles of special relativity, including the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity of simultaneity, while Galilean Transformations do not. Lorentz Transformations are also more accurate at high speeds and can account for the effects of time dilation and length contraction.

4. Can you provide an example of a Lorentz Transformation?

One example of a Lorentz Transformation is the equation for time dilation, which states that the time interval between two events is longer for an observer in motion relative to the events than for an observer at rest. This equation is t' = t/√(1-v^2/c^2), where t' is the time interval for the moving observer, t is the time interval for the stationary observer, v is the relative velocity between the two observers, and c is the speed of light.

5. How are Lorentz Transformations related to the Lorentz factor?

The Lorentz factor is a term that appears in many Lorentz Transformations and is defined as γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2). This factor takes into account the effects of special relativity, such as time dilation and length contraction, and is used to adjust measurements of space and time for observers in motion. In other words, the Lorentz factor is a key component of Lorentz Transformations.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
551
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
911
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top