|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:44:53 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 7/24/11 4:19 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: Damn it!! Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Wanna bet, Marvin! The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later re-derived the transformation from his postulates of special relativity. The Lorentz transformation supersedes the Galilean transformation of Newtonian physics, which assumes an absolute space and time (see Galilean relativity). See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ He didn't "re-derive" ****. He showed how his "postulates" are consistent with the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation predates SR - Einstein's paper on the electrodynamics of moving particles QUOTES it. The whole paper is nothing but an application of the Lorentz transformation. (Sometimes called the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation) Since the Lorentz transformation is the mathematical transform under which maxwell's equations are invariant, and SR is nothing more than the Lorentz transformation itself, this his first "postulate" is stupid. The transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate at all, it is a theory. The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also a direct result of Maxwell's equations. The MM experiment was nothing more than another experiment that affirmed this. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:38:57 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz, without justification or explanation. No, the Lorentz transform holds Maxwell's equations invariant. He did not even display them in the form we use today until after 1905. Irrelevant if they are in the form of a matrix or not. Einstein derived them from his two postulates, and displayed them in the form used today. Bull****. The Lorentz transformation was DESIGNED to hold Maxwell's equations invariant under change of velocity. The first "postulate" is thus circular logic. So is the second, since the velocity of all electromagnetic radiation is a constant according to MWE. I believe Einstein was instrumental in christening them "Lorentz transformations". Actually, they were called the Lorentz Fitzgerald transformation. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
On Jul 24, 2:19 pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Damn it!! shrug Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. That is very correct. The Lorentz transform was not derived by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and a liar. shrug Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. No, technically it was Larmor, but conceptually it was Poincare. shrug |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:38:57 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz, without justification or explanation. No, the Lorentz transform holds Maxwell's equations invariant. Your "no" is just plain wrong -- go read his 1904 paper. He pulled his "change of variables" out of the air with no explanation or justification, as I said. Yes, the Lorentz transforms do hold the ME invariant, but that was first shown by Poincaré, not Lorentz. Indeed, Lorentz made a mistake in his 1904 paper, and the equations he presented are not invariant (his error relates to the transformation of charge density, not the transformation of coordinates). That paper is the basic reason they carry his name (1904 preceding 1905). (Einstein only discussed the vacuum Maxwell-Hertz equations, and thus did not have this issue.) He did not even display them in the form we use today until after 1905. Irrelevant if they are in the form of a matrix or not. None of the early papers display them as a matrix. That came much later as group theory was applied. Matrix notation is almost essential to display them in their full 4-d splendor. But yes, this is more a side comment, not a major point. Einstein derived them from his two postulates, and displayed them in the form used today. Bull****. The Lorentz transformation was DESIGNED to hold Maxwell's equations invariant under change of velocity. The first "postulate" is thus circular logic. So is the second, since the velocity of all electromagnetic radiation is a constant according to MWE. Strong words from someone who clearly does not understand either the issues or the history. Einstein's contribution was showing that Maxwell's equations and the PoR are not inconsistent. The PoR is NOT AT ALL "circular logic", because Maxwell's theory has a unique aether frame, and the PoR does not apply -- in Maxwell's theory the speed of light is c only in the aether frame, and is most definitely NOT the same in all frames. The inconsistency between Maxwell's theory (which violates the PoR) and classical mechanics (which includes the PoR) was the central conundrum of theoretical physics just before 1905. Especially because experiments showed that electrical, optical, and magnetic phenomena did obey some sort of relativity, but Maxwell's theory did not. Note that today's non-quantum theory of electromagnetism is called "Classical Electrodynamics" and not "Maxwell's theory" -- it merely retains Maxwell's equations as a part of the theory, in a way completely unanticipated by Maxwell. IOW: you are applying today's understanding of electrodynamics, not the context of 1905. The Maxwell's equations of Classical Electrodynamics are most definitely NOT Maxwell's theory; Classical Electrodynamics was developed specifically with SR in mind, and a subset of equations from Maxwell's theory was rescued from oblivion and carry his name. Einstein, of course, made many other major contributions to theoretical physics.... You don't seem to understand that before 1905 the coordinate transformations between Cartesian coordinates of relatively moving frames were strictly the province of MECHANICS, not electrodynamics. Einstein was breaking new ground when he melded them together in his 1905 paper. For instance, that's why his entire first part does not discuss electrodynamics at all, just coordinate and velocity relationships, i.e. MECHANICS. Tom Roberts |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:44:53 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: On 7/24/11 4:19 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: Damn it!! Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Wanna bet, Marvin! The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later re-derived the transformation from his postulates of special relativity. The Lorentz transformation supersedes the Galilean transformation of Newtonian physics, which assumes an absolute space and time (see Galilean relativity). See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ He didn't "re-derive" ****. Einstein derived the equations (called the Lorentz transformations) from the two postulates of special relativity. Historically, though, he was not the first to write down those transformations. He showed how his "postulates" are consistent with the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation predates SR - Einstein's paper Einstein showed that the Lorentz transformations are a consequence of the two postulates. All physical laws are the same in all reference frames and that includes Maxwell's laws. Since the Lorentz transformation is the mathematical transform under which maxwell's equations are invariant, and SR is nothing more than the Lorentz transformation itself, this his first "postulate" is stupid. The There is nothing stupid about it and relativity is more than just one set of transformations. Relativistic invariance applies to gobs of other things beyond Maxwell's equations ... e.g. the uncertainty principle, matter waves, the color force, gravity waves, and so on. transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate at all, it is a theory. Correct, the theory of relativity has been experimentally proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The term "postulate" is just a linguistic remnant; a way of speaking now and no longer a reference to a speculative idea. The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also a direct result of Maxwell's equations. It is a trivial result of relativity but not a direct result of Maxwell's equations. If Maxwell's equations are used with the Galilean transformations then, in many reference frames, the speed of light is not the same in all directions. * |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
"K_h" wrote in message ... | Einstein derived the equations (called the Lorentz transformations) from the two | postulates of special relativity. No he didn't, you are bull****ting. Einstein "derived" xi = (x-vt) DIVIDED by sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which is NOT a Lorentz transformation. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
On Jul 24, 5:38 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz, without justification or explanation. On the contrary, Einstein the nitwit was the one who derived the Lorentz transform based total gibberish. Einstein the plagiarist was the one who knew about the Lorentz transform beforehand. Einstein the liar lied about all that in his 1905 papers as well as his 1920 book on relativity. shrug He did not even display them in the form we use today until after 1905. It does not matter how you write down the particular presentation of the Lorentz transform. As long as it is mathematical the same as the modern accepted form all is fine. That is unless you are algebra illiterate. shrug Einstein derived them from his two postulates, and displayed them in the form used today. These two assumptions were reverse-engineered from the Lorentz transform. shrug I believe Einstein was instrumental in christening them "Lorentz transformations". Your belief is totally wrong. The reason why Poincare called it the Lorentz transform was because Lorentz was the first person to realization there are actually an infinite such transforms that will satisfy the null results of the MMX as well as the classical Maxwell’s equations. shrug The earlier paper by Voigt that displayed an equivalent transform was not (re-)discovered until the name "Lorentz transform" was well established. Your understanding is not even close. Here are the Voigt, Larmor’s, and Lorentz’s transforms. **** The Voigt Transform ** dt0 = dt + v0 dx / c^2 ** dx0 = dx + v0 dt ** dy0 = dy sqrt(1 – v0^2 / c^2) ** dz0 = dz sqrt(1 – v0^2 / c^2) **** Larmor’s Transform ** dt0 = (dt + v0 dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v0^2 / c^2) ** dx0 = (dx + v0 dt) / sqrt(1 – v0^2 / c^2) ** dy0 = dy ** dz0 = dz **** Lorentz’s Transforms ** dt0 = (dt + v0 dx / c^2) / (1 – v0^2 / c^2)^n ** dx0 = (dx + v0 dt) / (1 – v0^2 / c^2)^n ** dy0 = dy (1 – v0^2 / c^2)^(n – 1/2) ** dz0 = dz (1 – v0^2 / c^2)^(n – 1/2) Where ** dt0, dx0, dy0, dz0 = Parameters of the absolute frame of reference ** sqrt(v0^2) = Absolute speed of the oberver ** n = Any real number Given another observer using primed coordinate system, of course, Larmor’s transform can be written as follows. ** dt0 = (dt’ + v0’ dx’ / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v0’^2 / c^2) ** dx0 = (dx’ + v0’ dt’) / sqrt(1 – v0’^2 / c^2) ** dy0 = dy’ ** dz0 = dz’ If the vectors [v0] and [v0’] are in parallel, Larmor’s transform for both the primed and the unprimed observer nullifies the absolute frame of reference which is the Lorentz transform: ** dt’ = (dt + v dx / c^2) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) ** dx’ = (dx + v dt) / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) ** dy’ = dy ** dz’ = dz Where ** [v] = Velocity of dt as observed by dt’ ** [v0] * [v0’] = sqrt(v0^2) sqrt(v0’^2) And that was how Poincare wrote down the Lorentz transform above. Notice if the vectors [v0] and [v0’] are not in parallel, the Lorentz transform should not be valid. shrug |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:07:33 -0700, K_h wrote:
"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:44:53 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote: On 7/24/11 4:19 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote: Damn it!! Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Wanna bet, Marvin! The Lorentz transformation was originally the result of attempts by Lorentz and others to explain how the speed of light was observed to be independent of the reference frame, and to understand the symmetries of the laws of electromagnetism. Albert Einstein later re-derived the transformation from his postulates of special relativity. The Lorentz transformation supersedes the Galilean transformation of Newtonian physics, which assumes an absolute space and time (see Galilean relativity). See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ He didn't "re-derive" ****. Einstein derived the equations (called the Lorentz transformations) from the two postulates of special relativity. Historically, though, he was not the first to write down those transformations. He showed how his "postulates" are consistent with the Lorentz transformation. The Lorentz transformation predates SR - Einstein's paper Einstein showed that the Lorentz transformations are a consequence of the two postulates. All physical laws are the same in all reference frames and that includes Maxwell's laws. No. The two "postulates" are a direct result of Maxwell's equations (which are NOT laws, btw) and the Lorentz transformation. Einstein was confused. Since the Lorentz transformation is the mathematical transform under which maxwell's equations are invariant, and SR is nothing more than the Lorentz transformation itself, this his first "postulate" is stupid. The There is nothing stupid about it and relativity is more than just one set of transformations. Relativistic invariance applies to gobs of other things beyond Maxwell's equations ... e.g. the uncertainty principle, matter waves, the color force, gravity waves, and so on. The math IS the theory. All the rest is non-science and subjective. You're impressed that a transformation that was designed to keep Maxwell's equations invariant... keeps Maxwell's equations invariant. That, I find amusing. There is nothing at all about SR that has any relevance at all the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle or quantum mechanics. Where the hell did THAT come from? Einstein didn't even believe or understand QM, he had an irrational belief and a stupid preconceived bias AGAINST Quantum mechanics (and a few other things, like Lemaitre's Big Bang Theory). transform has been verified by experiment and thus isn't a postulate at all, it is a theory. Correct, the theory of relativity has been experimentally proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The term "postulate" is just a linguistic remnant; a way of speaking now and no longer a reference to a speculative idea. Actually, length contraction has never been shown experimentally. Don't overstate the case. The consistency of the speed of light and time dilation has been shown experimentally. I guess you don't know what a postulate is. It has nothing to do with a speculative idea. The second postulate about the speed of light being constant is also a direct result of Maxwell's equations. It is a trivial result of relativity but not a direct result of Maxwell's equations. The hell it isn't. Once you solve Maxwell's equations for the wave equation, the speed of the wave, c, falls right out. If Maxwell's equations are used with the Galilean transformations then, in many reference frames, the speed of light is not the same in all directions. Maxwell's equations are not invariant under a Galilean transformation, which leads to the conclusion that the physics of electromagnetism would have to be dependent upon the frame of the observer, which is an absurd result. Once you solve for the correct transformation, you see that the speed of light is a constant wrt all observers. Einstein's contributed three things: * He used circular logic to claim that the laws of physics under the proper invariant transformation are invariant. * That the speed of light is constant, which he took to be a postulate instead of looking at Maxwell's equations, which show that the speed of the electromagnetic wave is a constant. * He wrote a paper that said "Hey!! What Lorentz and Fitzgerald Said!" Of his three contributions to SR, the first two are silly and the last one useful, as even Lorentz didn't understand the significance of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation. Einstein showed the significance of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation - THAT was his contribution. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
On Jul 24, 5:19*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Damn it!! Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. The wiki on the history of the Lorentz tranformation indicates that Einstein was the first to publish a paper with the Lorentz transformation in its final from. Poincare had a draft of a paper with the final form mid 1905. Poincare named an number of similar equations "Lorentz Tranformation" starting around 1901, but Einstein was the first to publish the final form. Poincare was close to a theory that made it impossible to detect the aether wind, but he still thought light needed a medium. The unique thing Einstein did in 1905 was to be the first to completely reject the existence of aether. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the LorentzTransformation
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 00:39:40 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote: On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:38:57 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote: Marvin the Martian wrote: Einstein did NOT derive the Lorentz transformation. Lorentz derived the Lorentz transformation. I disagree. Lorentz obtained the transform equation via an ansatz, without justification or explanation. No, the Lorentz transform holds Maxwell's equations invariant. Your "no" is just plain wrong Go ahead and show they don't hold Maxwell's equations invariant then. -- go read his 1904 paper. He pulled his "change of variables" out of the air with no explanation or justification, as I said. SO? Yes, the Lorentz transforms do hold the ME invariant, Oh, so admit I'm right. Amusing. but that was first shown by Poincaré, not Lorentz. Not the issue. True enough, Lorentz was trying to explain the MMX with time dilation and Fitzgerald's contribution was length contraction, but Maxwell's equations are invariant under a Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation. Indeed, Lorentz made a mistake in his 1904 paper, and the equations he presented are not invariant (his error relates to the transformation of charge density, not the transformation of coordinates). That paper is the basic reason they carry his name (1904 preceding 1905). Even if, so what? The fact remains, it is true that the Lorentz transformation holds Maxwell's equations invariant. (Einstein only discussed the vacuum Maxwell-Hertz equations, and thus did not have this issue.) That was Einstein's usual excuse for plagiarism. "oh! I didn't know it was done before!" In the real world, utter failure to do a literature search is no excuse for plagiarism. He did not even display them in the form we use today until after 1905. Irrelevant if they are in the form of a matrix or not. None of the early papers display them as a matrix. That came much later as group theory was applied. Matrix notation is almost essential to display them in their full 4-d splendor. But yes, this is more a side comment, not a major point. Then what are you gibbering about? Einstein derived them from his two postulates, and displayed them in the form used today. Bull****. The Lorentz transformation was DESIGNED to hold Maxwell's equations invariant under change of velocity. The first "postulate" is thus circular logic. So is the second, since the velocity of all electromagnetic radiation is a constant according to MWE. Strong words from someone who clearly does not understand either the issues or the history. Einstein's contribution was showing that Maxwell's equations and the PoR are not inconsistent. As I said, that was a trivial and stupid exercise, as Einstein's postulates are a direct result of Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz transformation. Postulates are not needed if they can be derived. The PoR is NOT AT ALL "circular logic", because Maxwell's theory has a unique aether frame, No it doesn't. That's bull****. and the PoR does not apply -- in Maxwell's theory the speed of light is c only in the aether frame, Given Maxwell's equations and the transformation that holds them to be invariant, where the hell are you getting that an aether frame is required or indicated? That's simply NOT SO. It isn't there. No aether frame is in the equations NOW, and an aether frame wasn't there in 1904 when they had the same exact math. and is most definitely NOT the same in all frames. The inconsistency between Maxwell's theory (which violates the PoR) Holy **** that was a dumb thing to say. Maxwell's equations do NOT say that the speed of light is not constant or that the laws of physics are different for different observers. The whole moving magnetic field thing was one of the issues that bothered physicist back then. Geeze louise, you don't know basic physics! and classical mechanics (which includes the PoR) What?! Classical mechanics are not consistent with Einstein's silly postulates!! This is absurd. You're clearly talking out of your ass. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 7 | August 9th 11 09:27 AM |
DARK ENERGY AND FLAT UNIVERSE EXPOSED BY SIMPLE METHOD -Einstein's assumption seemingly confirmed | mpc755 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 26th 10 03:22 PM |
Einstein's Simple Mistake; All Big Bang Theorists Are Incorrect | John[_29_] | Misc | 51 | September 28th 10 12:25 PM |
Can time dilation be computed with just the Lorentztransformation and no other assumptions? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | July 24th 08 01:58 PM |
Key to understanding universe is understanding our brains | GatherNoMoss | Policy | 8 | October 3rd 06 01:27 PM |