Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

With the Lorentz-Einstein transformations in hands

  1. Dec 23, 2006 #1
    Is it correct to say that having the Lorentz-Einstein transformations in our hands we have also all the fundamental equations of special relativity?
    sine ira et studio
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 23, 2006 #2
    Probably the answer should be no, since the lorentz transformation was known many years before relativity.
    Special relativity is about making the whole physics (locally) invariant under the Lorentz transformation. The firt step to do that was to undestand its meaning.
     
  4. Dec 23, 2006 #3
    Yes IMHO.

    While the onthology of Einstein's special relativity theory is different from Lorentz ether theories the numerical results are identical.
    When two theories give exactly the same results it really becomes a "battle of religions" to argue which one is the right one.
     
  5. Dec 23, 2006 #4
    Is that meant to be globally? Isn't GR about local Lorentz invariance?
     
  6. Dec 23, 2006 #5

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As per the Erlanger program, knowing the Lorentz group amounts to knowing the geometry of Minkowski space -- but that's all it tells you. It doesn't tell you, for example, that 4-momentum is conserved.
     
  7. Dec 23, 2006 #6
    OK. So if we assume E-L equations too, then can translation symmetry imply 4-momentum conservation?
     
  8. Dec 24, 2006 #7
    Let

    I fully aggree with you. As I see from the answers I have received I should add to my riddle that I mean by Lorentz-Einstein transformation an equation which establishes a relationship between the space-time coordinates of the same event detected from two inertial reference frames in relative motion ensuring the invariance of the expression xx-ctt, no more and no less. It has nothing to do with the debate between the two theories.
     
  9. Dec 24, 2006 #8
    Imho

    Please let me know what do you mean by IMHO?
     
  10. Dec 24, 2006 #9

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    IMHO = In My Humble Opinion :smile:
     
  11. Dec 24, 2006 #10
    Imho

    Thanks. When we speak about special relativity we all should start with IMHO.
     
  12. Dec 26, 2006 #11

    JM

    User Avatar

    May I add an IMHO? Note that the LET is not general because an arbitrary constant has been omitted. That was OK in the 1905 paper because he was interested only in derivatives. Also I have not seen yet how slow clocks etc arise out of the LET.
     
  13. Dec 26, 2006 #12

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I assume by "LET" you are referring to the Lorentz-Einstein Transformations? Are you familiar with how they are used? What are you talking about with an "arbitrary constant"? Clocks "slowing" is a trivial consequence of the LT.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?