Relativity Lorentz Transformation Equations Part 1of 2

Back


Part one of two of a blog-lecture version of chapter one section one of Modern Relativity's special relativity Unit at

Channel: People & Blogs
Uploaded: July 7, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Author: WaiteDavid137

Length: 00:09:58
Rating: 4.90
Views: 11748

Tags: Special Relativity Lorentz Transformation Equations Einstein light

Embed Code: Paste this code in your page


Video Comments:
oldpython (September 28, 2008 at 12:45 pm)
Since Einstein stated that things being relative occur from a perspective, if the magnet iss moving toward the ring at the speed of light time would for the magnet. Then if the ring were moving toward the magnet at any speed slower than the speed of light, would this create a different relative perspective due to the effect time travel has on the ring and the magnet?
Neithax (July 16, 2008 at 11:18 am)
As you clearly state in your video, the MM experiment was an uppercut to the Lorentz static ether field theory. Yet no one really set the record straight because we are still using it. We are still using the Lorentz gauge, we are still using the partial time derivatives and we justify it because of SRT which is in fact not so much different then the LET. We still use the adhoc length contraction and time dilation. But not justified at all!
WaiteDavid137 (July 16, 2008 at 10:16 pm)
No we use them because they are convenient. I gave you the frame independent equations below. It is not ad hoc. They were derived from first principles. LOOK AT THEM.
WaiteDavid137 (July 16, 2008 at 10:40 am)
The real force law which is not "patchwork" is given by a tensor equation
F = mA
equation 5.3.2
F{lambda} = gmunuq(U{mu}/c)F{mulambda}
equation 7.1.9
This is manifestly frame covariant. It is the absolute law independent of frame and implies that there is no perfered frame(coordinates are whats relative).
Neithax (July 16, 2008 at 11:15 am)
What am I trying to say that any force law is independant of frame of reference. Because all force laws till the beginning of the 20th century were force laws between interacting particles depending on the relative distance of those particles. True relativity force laws. True galilean invariant. You cannot say that about Lorentz force which clearly shows it stems from a static field theory. It wasnot galilean invariant because there simply is no static ether.
WaiteDavid137 (July 16, 2008 at 9:47 pm)
Take a close look at the two equations I gave. Those ARE the absolute laws of motion for a charged particle and include the Lorentz force without patchwork and are independent of the coordinate frame thus the coordinates are relative to the observer.
WaiteDavid137 (July 16, 2008 at 10:32 am)
Einstein's postulate is that the laws are frame invariant (absolute) not relative. You are confused as to what it is that is relative in relativity... the coordinates.
Neithax (July 17, 2008 at 3:37 pm)
I amnot confused at all. His first postulate is Galileo's. Of course the Lorentz relativistic force law is frame invariant. Because the original Lorentz force wasnot. So they had to come up with a real mathematical tour de force to make it frame invariant. You arenot telling me anything new here. The thing is you only consider the Maxwell-Lorentz-Gibbs electrodynamics and you have to take a broader picture here.
WaiteDavid137 (July 18, 2008 at 12:15 am)
Actually I do have the broader picture. It is broader than you realize. The force law as I defined it in chapter 5 is general. It is good for any kind of force whatsoever and includes gravitation even yielding the geodesic equation when F = 0. The Electromagnetic force equation as defined in chapter 7 is so general it even includes electrodynamics in gravitation as well. It can be derived generally from a vector potential from first principles. That's not patchwork.
WaiteDavid137 (July 16, 2008 at 10:30 am)
No its not in them as they are Lorentz invariant and can be written in tensor equation form. We do get rid of the partials in exchange for frame covariant differentiation in coordinate independent index notation.