Re: Question: Lorenz' interpretation of SR v. Einstein's
From: joseph levy (josephlevy1_at_compuserve.com)
Date: 08/09/04
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Mathematics and God"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: self-study recommendations?"
- In reply to: Andrew Dabrowski: "Question: Lorenz' interpretation of SR v. Einstein's"
- Next in thread: joseph levy: "Re: Question: Lorenz' interpretation of SR v. Einstein's"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 23:19:12 +0200
"Andrew Dabrowski" <dabrowsa@indiana.edu> a écrit dans le message de
news:4115DDDA.1030307@indiana.edu...
> I'm not a physicist. My understanding of the history of SR is that Lorenz
came
> up with the the transformation equations several years before Einstein did
> (independently). Both also proved (independently) that the Maxwell
equations
> are invariant under the Lorenz transformation.
>
> The main difference between them is in their interpretations of the
equations.
> Lorenz treated them as purely a mathematical convenience, while Einstein
took
> them at face value as defining a second equally valid coordinate system,
and
> elevated that notion into a fundamental law of physics, the Principle of
> Relativity (PoR).
>
> However, one thing that usually gets lost in the shuffle is the physical
cause
> of the contraction and time dilation. Einstein, at least in his first
papers on
> SR, seems to have regarded them purely as a consequence of the PoR, and
saw no
> need to propose any more conventional mechanism.
>
> But Lorenz suggested that a body whose structure is determined by
> electromagnetic forces when in motion will undergo the contraction because
of a
> weakening of those forces along the direction of motion. In fact, both
the
> contraction and the time dilation are immediate *consequences* of the
invariance
> of the Maxwell equations under the Lorenz transformation.
>
> My question is: why is Einstein's account here preferred to Lorenz'?
Lorenz
> actually provides a mechanism for the time and space transformations, and
a
> mechanism that actually follows from classical physics: the Maxwell
equtions
> themselves essentially predict the theory of SR, once it's understood that
those
> equations are invariant under the Lorenz transformation.
>
> By comparison Einstein's account of SR makes it all seem much more
mysterious.
> Wouldn't popular and textbook accounts of SR be clearer and more
accessible if
> the exposition leaned more on Lorenz' account of the mechanism behind the
> transormation and less on Einstein's PoR?
>
> Note that I am not quarrelling with the PoR; I am just suggesting it
should be
> regarded as less fundamental than it usually is. It's a meta-principle
derived
> from Maxwell's equations, not a fundamental law in itself.
>
> Or have I misunderstood something? I'm not a physicist (I'm a logician)
and I
> may well have missed some important consideration that makes physicists
reject
> Lorenz interpretation.
>
> Can anyone clarify, or refer me to sources that address this issue?
Thanks.
>
>
> --
> Andrew Dabrowski |...it is a ghost's right / his element is so fine /
being
> Bloomington IN USA |sharpened by his death / to drink from the wine
breath /
> dabrowsa@indiana.edu|while our gross palates drink from the whole
wine. -Yeats
Dear Andrew
The question you asks should take a long time. There is a great confusion in
this field.
In fact in his original formulation of his theory, Lorentz considered that
the speed of light
was not constant in all frames. See his explanation of the Michelson
experiment where
the speed of light is C-v in one direction, and C+v in the opposite
direction.
The explanation of Einstein was preferred because the speed of light was
always
found to be C, and because all the physicists of his time were convinced
that the
relativity principle was unquestionable (that is the laws of physics should
assume the
same form in all inertial frames). But today, several arguments speak in
favour of the
existence of an aether frame (that is the vacuum is not void) and of a slow
variation of the
laws of physics depending on the speed of a certain frame with respect to
the aether frame.
[Contrary to what Einstein thought, (in its 1916 conception of aether) it
seems that one can
assign a reference frame to the aether and a velocity of this frame with
respect to other inertial
frames]. This conception of the aether corresponds better to that of
Lorentz.
As for the transformations of space and time, there is an analogy of their
mathematical
form between the transformations of Lorentz (L T) and the Einstein
transformations(E T).
But in the LT, the term C is not a universal constant, but designates the
speed of light
with respect to the aether frame.
What appears amazing is that one always find C when one measures the speed
of light, but
one must not forget that the measurements are made (if one assumes the
Lorentz postulates)
with contracted meter sticks and retarded clocks. The synchronization of
clocks also generates
different problems.
What one measures is an altered speed of light. After correcton of the
systematic errors of
measurements one can demonstrate that the approach of Lorentz was closer to
the truth than
the Einstein approach.
The Lorentz approach in its original form was not relativist. In fact the L
T are completely
exact only when they connect the aether frame with other inertial frames.
Since the astrono-
mical observations seem to indicate that the speed of the Earth with respect
to the aether
frame is low with respect to the speed of light, in several experimental
situations, the Lorentz
and Einstein transformations are approximately equivalent.
Today several arguments speak in favour of the Lorentz postulates, but the
Lorentz transfor-
mations are incomplete and they need to be completed in order to be
applicable between any
pair of inertial frames.
I have applied myself to answer this requirement in my book "From Galileo to
Lorentz and beyond"
The book is available at my publisher's web site http://redshift.vif.com or
at http://www.amazon.com
it has been reviewed by Prof J.P Vigier. In the publisher's website you can
have some informations
about the content of the book.
Best regards, Joseph
PS Rod contraction in the Lorentzian approach is a real process, it depends
of the speed of the
rod with respect to the aether frame. Rod contraction in Einstein relativity
is observational and
reciprocal. A rod is at the same time in motion with respect to different
inertial frames. So the rod has
at the same time different lengths, which is not realist. So one must
conclude that length contraction in
relativity is only observational.
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Mathematics and God"
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: self-study recommendations?"
- In reply to: Andrew Dabrowski: "Question: Lorenz' interpretation of SR v. Einstein's"
- Next in thread: joseph levy: "Re: Question: Lorenz' interpretation of SR v. Einstein's"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
