With the Lorentz-Einstein transformations in hands

1. Dec 23, 2006

bernhard.rothenstein

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. Dec 23, 2006

lalbatros

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.

3. Dec 23, 2006

MeJennifer

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.

4. Dec 23, 2006

masudr

Is that meant to be globally? Isn't GR about local Lorentz invariance?

5. Dec 23, 2006

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
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.

6. Dec 23, 2006

masudr

OK. So if we assume E-L equations too, then can translation symmetry imply 4-momentum conservation?

7. Dec 24, 2006

bernhard.rothenstein

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.

8. Dec 24, 2006

bernhard.rothenstein

Imho

Please let me know what do you mean by IMHO?

9. Dec 24, 2006

Staff: Mentor

IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

10. Dec 24, 2006

bernhard.rothenstein

Imho

11. Dec 26, 2006

JM

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.

12. Dec 26, 2006

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.