With the Lorentz-Einstein transformations in hands

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bernhard.rothenstein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transformations
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the Lorentz-Einstein transformations and the fundamental equations of special relativity. Participants explore whether possessing these transformations implies a complete understanding of special relativity, considering both historical context and theoretical implications.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether having the Lorentz-Einstein transformations means one has all the fundamental equations of special relativity, suggesting that the transformations were known prior to the theory of relativity.
  • Others argue that special relativity is about ensuring local invariance under the Lorentz transformation, raising questions about the global versus local nature of this invariance.
  • A participant notes that while the ontology of Einstein's theory differs from Lorentz ether theories, the numerical results are identical, leading to a discussion about the implications of this similarity.
  • There is a suggestion that knowing the Lorentz group relates to understanding the geometry of Minkowski space, but it does not imply conservation laws like 4-momentum conservation.
  • One participant proposes that if the Euler-Lagrange equations are assumed, translation symmetry could imply 4-momentum conservation.
  • Concerns are raised about the generality of the Lorentz-Einstein transformations, specifically regarding the omission of an arbitrary constant and its implications for understanding phenomena like time dilation.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the meaning of "IMHO" (In My Humble Opinion) as participants express their views.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the Lorentz-Einstein transformations and their relationship to special relativity. No consensus is reached on whether these transformations encompass all fundamental equations of the theory, and multiple competing perspectives remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions touch on the historical context of the Lorentz transformations and their application in special relativity, highlighting potential limitations in understanding due to omitted constants and the focus on derivatives in early papers.

bernhard.rothenstein
Messages
988
Reaction score
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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
Bernhard.Rothenstein said:
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
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.
 
lalbatros said:
Special relativity is about making the whole physics (locally) invariant under the Lorentz transformation.

Is that meant to be globally? Isn't GR about local Lorentz invariance?
 
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.
 
OK. So if we assume E-L equations too, then can translation symmetry imply 4-momentum conservation?
 
Let

MeJennifer said:
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.

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.
 
Imho

MeJennifer said:
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.
Please let me know what do you mean by IMHO?
 
bernhard.rothenstein said:
Please let me know what do you mean by IMHO?
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion :smile:
 
  • #10
Imho

Doc Al said:
IMHO = In My Humble Opinion :smile:
Thanks. When we speak about special relativity we all should start with IMHO.
 
  • #11
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
JM said:
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.
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.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Lorentz transformation on mode functions
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Graduate Show Lagrangian is invariant under a Lorentz transformation without using generators
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad The Einstein Clock aka Light Clock
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
Undergrad Alternative Ways to Realize Invariance: Lorentz Transformation
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Undergrad Does Lorentz invariance imply Einstein's synchronization convention?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
Undergrad Lorentz Transformation: Premises + Derivation
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Question about full Lorentz transformation
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
Undergrad Assumption in the derivation of the Lorentz transformation
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Undergrad Can we choose different functional forms for Lorentz transformation?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad A problem in the equations for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K