Why the Galileo transformations are not correct for inertial systems

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the inadequacy of the Galilean transformations for inertial systems moving close to the speed of light and the subsequent development of the Lorentz transformations. Participants explore the historical context and theoretical implications of these transformations, particularly in relation to electromagnetism and relativistic effects such as time dilation and length contraction.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the Galilean transformations fail to account for relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction, which prompted Lorentz to develop his transformations.
  • Others contend that Lorentz's transformations were not derived by imposing conditions related to time dilation and length contraction, suggesting that these concepts were not experimentally validated at the time.
  • A participant notes that Lorentz's corrections were motivated by the need for electromagnetism to appear consistent across different inertial frames, highlighting the confusion this caused among physicists.
  • Another participant emphasizes that Einstein's postulates regarding the uniformity of physical laws in all inertial frames were later validated through improved measurements, necessitating adjustments to Newton's laws.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the dependence of length on speed, indicating a belief in the existence of length contraction and time dilation.
  • There is a mention of Michelson's work with the interferometer as a significant observation related to the failure of Galilean transformations in electromagnetism.
  • One participant raises a point about the importance of historical context in teaching special relativity, suggesting that while Einstein's contributions are crucial, it is not mandatory to always reference Maxwell's equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the derivation and implications of the Lorentz transformations, with no clear consensus on the historical accuracy of the accounts or the necessity of referencing specific contributions in teaching special relativity.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the historical development of the transformations and the conditions under which they were derived remain unresolved, with participants holding varying interpretations of the significance of time dilation and length contraction in this context.

Physicsissuef
Messages
908
Reaction score
0
Why the Galileo transformations are not correct for inertial systems which are traveling close to the speed of light? What made Lorentz to correct this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


because they are not able to account for relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction. Lorentz extended them imposing the condition that they should account for them.
 


bernhard.rothenstein said:
because they are not able to account for relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction. Lorentz extended them imposing the condition that they should account for them.
No, and that is not how Einstein derived them either. Those can be derived from relativity, but they weren't conditions that were imposed to arrive at lorentz transformations. (I do not believe there even was any experimental evidence of time dilation for Lorentz or Einstein to use at the time.)

Physicsissuef said:
Why the Galileo transformations are not correct for inertial systems which are traveling close to the speed of light? What made Lorentz to correct this?
The correction came from looking at electromagnetism. Luckily this was already written in its correct form before special relativity was "discovered". Unlike all the other empirical laws of the time, electromagnetism did not look the same in another frame if you applied a Galilean transformation. This confused many people.

Lorentz created a coordinate transformation specifically to make the equations of electromagnetism "look" the same as in the original inertial frame. I say "look" because he believed this was just a nice mathematical trick and had no real physical significance.

Later Einstein postulated that ALL physical laws should look the same in inertial frames ... it turns out this was correct, for with better measurements it turned out Newton's laws needed to be adjusted to have the same Lorentz symmetry as electromagnetism ... and even the unknown forces at the time (weak and strong nuclear force) turned out to have this symmetry as well.
 


JustinLevy said:
No, and that is not how Einstein derived them either. Those can be derived from relativity, but they weren't conditions that were imposed to arrive at lorentz transformations. (I do not believe there even was any experimental evidence of time dilation for Lorentz or Einstein to use at the time.)


Thank you for your oppinion. Since Einstein presented his derivation of the transformation equations, history of physics has registered many derivations of them, imposing the condition that they account for time dilation and length contraction. Arxiv presents many derivations of them. The formulas which account for time dilation and length contraction could be derived without using the Lorentz-Einstein transformations. The author of the thread did not mention Einstein's name. I think he could find out something updated from the way in which I answered his question.
With respect for your oppinion.
 


Thanks for the posts. First, I was confused, since the length should not depend from the speed. So I also think like Bernhard Rothenstein that there are some length contractions and time dilation.
 


I agree with Justin Levy. Einstein realized that Gallilean transformations did not work with electromagnetisn as described by Maxwell's equations. Most people were surprised by the subsequent predictions of length contraction and time dilation.
 


I think Michelson realized that Galilean transformations did not work with electromagnetism, using the Michelson interferometer.
 


Mentz114 said:
I agree with Justin Levy. Einstein realized that Gallilean transformations did not work with electromagnetisn as described by Maxwell's equations. Most people were surprised by the subsequent predictions of length contraction and time dilation.

I think that the problem is not about what Einstein did. Stating his postulates and starting to teach special relativity it is not compulsory to mention Maxwell's equations. There are many ways to do that. The problem is if teaching special relativity it is compulsory to respect history, without diminishing Einstein's contribution! I think that doing so we gain more audience. Of course I respect the oppinions of others.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad About the notion of non-standard inertial frame
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Undergrad Principle of relativity and Galileo's group
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Alternative Ways to Realize Invariance: Lorentz Transformation
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Undergrad The Einstein Clock aka Light Clock
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Undergrad EM Faraday tensor transformation for conductor carrying current
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Is the Lorentz Boost Speed Nontrivially Related to Galilean Speed?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Reference systems and apparent counter-explanations on Twin Paradox
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Does Lorentz invariance imply Einstein's synchronization convention?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Undergrad Spacetime coordinate smoothness requirement
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Question about “Inertia arises from interaction with the Universe’s mass”
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K