Why all theories are Lorentz invariant?Maxwell equations invariant under Lorentz transformation but not Galilean transformationsLorentz and Galilean transformationMaxwell's equations invariant under all linear transformations?Invariant equations of motion under Lorentz transformationsProof that Maxwell equations are Lorentz invariantWhat is the significance of Maxwell's equations being invariant under the Lorentz transformation?Lorentz Transformations Vs Coordinate TransformationsWhat does a Galilean transformation of Maxwell's equations look like?
What are the IPSE’s, the ASPE’s, the FRIPSE’s and the GRIPSE’s?
Unlock your Lock
Curves with isogenous Jacobians
Set orthographic view using python?
If I said I had $100 when asked, but I actually had $200, would I be lying by omission?
Redacting URLs as an email-phishing preventative?
Why is the UK so keen to remove the "backstop" when their leadership seems to think that no border will be needed in Northern Ireland?
Can I get a PhD for developing an educational software?
Expanding powers of expressions of the form ax+b
Which old Technic set included large yellow motor?
What is the name of this plot that has rows with two connected dots?
Dealing with stress in coding interviews
Thought experiment and possible contradiction between electromagnetism and special relativity
How is linear momentum conserved in case of a freely falling body?
What is the meaning of “these lederhosen are riding up my Bundesliga”?
Given current technology, could TV display screens double as video camera sensors?
Is it ok to record the 'environment' around my workplace?
Who was the most successful German spy against Great Britain in WWII, from the contemporary German perspective?
Why does a sticker slowly peel off, but if it is pulled quickly it tears?
rationalizing sieges in a modern/near-future setting
Book featuring a child learning from a crowdsourced AI book
74S vs 74LS ICs
How to say "I only speak one which is English." in French?
What is the loud noise of a helicopter when the rotors are not yet moving?
Why all theories are Lorentz invariant?
Maxwell equations invariant under Lorentz transformation but not Galilean transformationsLorentz and Galilean transformationMaxwell's equations invariant under all linear transformations?Invariant equations of motion under Lorentz transformationsProof that Maxwell equations are Lorentz invariantWhat is the significance of Maxwell's equations being invariant under the Lorentz transformation?Lorentz Transformations Vs Coordinate TransformationsWhat does a Galilean transformation of Maxwell's equations look like?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Ok, in studying of Maxwell equations we have violation of Galilean relativity. This implies necessity of other transformations which make Maxwell equations covariant (invariant in form) under this transformation. This transformation is Lorentz transformation which conserve speed of light for all observers. Question is why any other process must be Lorentz invariant, how we know that all other processes are Lorentz invariant ?
electromagnetism special-relativity maxwell-equations lorentz-symmetry
edited 5 hours ago
Frobenius
6,3491 gold badge16 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Filip GeorgijevskiFilip Georgijevski
93 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ok, in studying of Maxwell equations we have violation of Galilean relativity. This implies necessity of other transformations which make Maxwell equations covariant (invariant in form) under this transformation. This transformation is Lorentz transformation which conserve speed of light for all observers. Question is why any other process must be Lorentz invariant, how we know that all other processes are Lorentz invariant ?
electromagnetism special-relativity maxwell-equations lorentz-symmetry
edited 5 hours ago
Frobenius
6,3491 gold badge16 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Filip GeorgijevskiFilip Georgijevski
93 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ok, in studying of Maxwell equations we have violation of Galilean relativity. This implies necessity of other transformations which make Maxwell equations covariant (invariant in form) under this transformation. This transformation is Lorentz transformation which conserve speed of light for all observers. Question is why any other process must be Lorentz invariant, how we know that all other processes are Lorentz invariant ?
electromagnetism special-relativity maxwell-equations lorentz-symmetry
edited 5 hours ago
Frobenius
6,3491 gold badge16 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Filip GeorgijevskiFilip Georgijevski
93 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Ok, in studying of Maxwell equations we have violation of Galilean relativity. This implies necessity of other transformations which make Maxwell equations covariant (invariant in form) under this transformation. This transformation is Lorentz transformation which conserve speed of light for all observers. Question is why any other process must be Lorentz invariant, how we know that all other processes are Lorentz invariant ?
electromagnetism special-relativity maxwell-equations lorentz-symmetry
electromagnetism special-relativity maxwell-equations lorentz-symmetry
edited 5 hours ago
Frobenius
6,3491 gold badge16 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Filip GeorgijevskiFilip Georgijevski
93 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
Frobenius
6,3491 gold badge16 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Filip GeorgijevskiFilip Georgijevski
93 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
Frobenius
6,3491 gold badge16 silver badges33 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
Frobenius
6,3491 gold badge16 silver badges33 bronze badges
edited 5 hours ago
Frobenius
6,3491 gold badge16 silver badges33 bronze badges
6,3491 gold badge16 silver badges33 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Filip GeorgijevskiFilip Georgijevski
93 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Filip GeorgijevskiFilip Georgijevski
93 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
Filip GeorgijevskiFilip Georgijevski
93 bronze badges
93 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We know this from experiments.
Actually, there are quite a number of attempts and experiments to find out if really all processes are Lorentz invariant - and thus far they all came to the conclusion that (within some experimental measurement error) all processes indeed are Lorentz invariant.
An experiment to the contrary would actually break quite a number of currently accepted theoretic models.
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. It just is so and we measure that. Of course we could also claim that nature followed certain laws and then try to deduce this from these laws, but that's not how physics is done (in mathematics this is different, however).
answered 8 hours ago
Nobody-Knows-I-am-a-DogNobody-Knows-I-am-a-Dog
3481 silver badge11 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. This is not really accurate. There are logical interrelations among lots of different things in physics. We don't have to determine every single fact empirically. For example, if you assume some very basic symmetries of space and time, then it follows that spacetime must be either Galilean or Lorentzian. For a treatment in this style, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenCrowell I assume you could have other wacky invariants if you assume sufficiently wacky symmetries... right?
$endgroup$
– Mateen Ulhaq
14 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The path to relativity that you're describing is the historical one, but it's not the only possible one. With hindsight, it's basically a historical mistake that Einstein thought electromagnetism played some special role in the logical basis of relativity. For an example of a more modern approach, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
It's logically possible for physics to follow either Galilean relativity or Lorentz-Einstein-style relativity. However, it's not logically possible for some phenomena to follow one and some the other. Both state that (a) there is no preferred frame, and (b) the transformation between frames works in a certain way (which is different in the two cases). If one set of phenomena (say, mechanical phenomena) transformed one way and another set of phenomena (say, optical phenomena) transformed the other way, then there would be no way to keep them consistent with each other, and there would be a preferred frame. That is in fact what physicists believed before 1905, in the days of aether theories.
answered 4 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
59.6k6 gold badges176 silver badges337 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f498863%2fwhy-all-theories-are-lorentz-invariant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
We know this from experiments.
Actually, there are quite a number of attempts and experiments to find out if really all processes are Lorentz invariant - and thus far they all came to the conclusion that (within some experimental measurement error) all processes indeed are Lorentz invariant.
An experiment to the contrary would actually break quite a number of currently accepted theoretic models.
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. It just is so and we measure that. Of course we could also claim that nature followed certain laws and then try to deduce this from these laws, but that's not how physics is done (in mathematics this is different, however).
answered 8 hours ago
Nobody-Knows-I-am-a-DogNobody-Knows-I-am-a-Dog
3481 silver badge11 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. This is not really accurate. There are logical interrelations among lots of different things in physics. We don't have to determine every single fact empirically. For example, if you assume some very basic symmetries of space and time, then it follows that spacetime must be either Galilean or Lorentzian. For a treatment in this style, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenCrowell I assume you could have other wacky invariants if you assume sufficiently wacky symmetries... right?
$endgroup$
– Mateen Ulhaq
14 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know this from experiments.
Actually, there are quite a number of attempts and experiments to find out if really all processes are Lorentz invariant - and thus far they all came to the conclusion that (within some experimental measurement error) all processes indeed are Lorentz invariant.
An experiment to the contrary would actually break quite a number of currently accepted theoretic models.
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. It just is so and we measure that. Of course we could also claim that nature followed certain laws and then try to deduce this from these laws, but that's not how physics is done (in mathematics this is different, however).
answered 8 hours ago
Nobody-Knows-I-am-a-DogNobody-Knows-I-am-a-Dog
3481 silver badge11 bronze badges
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. This is not really accurate. There are logical interrelations among lots of different things in physics. We don't have to determine every single fact empirically. For example, if you assume some very basic symmetries of space and time, then it follows that spacetime must be either Galilean or Lorentzian. For a treatment in this style, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenCrowell I assume you could have other wacky invariants if you assume sufficiently wacky symmetries... right?
$endgroup$
– Mateen Ulhaq
14 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
We know this from experiments.
Actually, there are quite a number of attempts and experiments to find out if really all processes are Lorentz invariant - and thus far they all came to the conclusion that (within some experimental measurement error) all processes indeed are Lorentz invariant.
An experiment to the contrary would actually break quite a number of currently accepted theoretic models.
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. It just is so and we measure that. Of course we could also claim that nature followed certain laws and then try to deduce this from these laws, but that's not how physics is done (in mathematics this is different, however).
answered 8 hours ago
Nobody-Knows-I-am-a-DogNobody-Knows-I-am-a-Dog
3481 silver badge11 bronze badges
$endgroup$
We know this from experiments.
Actually, there are quite a number of attempts and experiments to find out if really all processes are Lorentz invariant - and thus far they all came to the conclusion that (within some experimental measurement error) all processes indeed are Lorentz invariant.
An experiment to the contrary would actually break quite a number of currently accepted theoretic models.
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. It just is so and we measure that. Of course we could also claim that nature followed certain laws and then try to deduce this from these laws, but that's not how physics is done (in mathematics this is different, however).
answered 8 hours ago
Nobody-Knows-I-am-a-DogNobody-Knows-I-am-a-Dog
3481 silver badge11 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Nobody-Knows-I-am-a-DogNobody-Knows-I-am-a-Dog
3481 silver badge11 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Nobody-Knows-I-am-a-DogNobody-Knows-I-am-a-Dog
3481 silver badge11 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
Nobody-Knows-I-am-a-DogNobody-Knows-I-am-a-Dog
3481 silver badge11 bronze badges
3481 silver badge11 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. This is not really accurate. There are logical interrelations among lots of different things in physics. We don't have to determine every single fact empirically. For example, if you assume some very basic symmetries of space and time, then it follows that spacetime must be either Galilean or Lorentzian. For a treatment in this style, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenCrowell I assume you could have other wacky invariants if you assume sufficiently wacky symmetries... right?
$endgroup$
– Mateen Ulhaq
14 mins ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. This is not really accurate. There are logical interrelations among lots of different things in physics. We don't have to determine every single fact empirically. For example, if you assume some very basic symmetries of space and time, then it follows that spacetime must be either Galilean or Lorentzian. For a treatment in this style, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenCrowell I assume you could have other wacky invariants if you assume sufficiently wacky symmetries... right?
$endgroup$
– Mateen Ulhaq
14 mins ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. This is not really accurate. There are logical interrelations among lots of different things in physics. We don't have to determine every single fact empirically. For example, if you assume some very basic symmetries of space and time, then it follows that spacetime must be either Galilean or Lorentzian. For a treatment in this style, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Beyond experiment there is no other reason why a process must be Lorentz invariant. This is not really accurate. There are logical interrelations among lots of different things in physics. We don't have to determine every single fact empirically. For example, if you assume some very basic symmetries of space and time, then it follows that spacetime must be either Galilean or Lorentzian. For a treatment in this style, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@BenCrowell I assume you could have other wacky invariants if you assume sufficiently wacky symmetries... right?
$endgroup$
– Mateen Ulhaq
14 mins ago
$begingroup$
@BenCrowell I assume you could have other wacky invariants if you assume sufficiently wacky symmetries... right?
$endgroup$
– Mateen Ulhaq
14 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The path to relativity that you're describing is the historical one, but it's not the only possible one. With hindsight, it's basically a historical mistake that Einstein thought electromagnetism played some special role in the logical basis of relativity. For an example of a more modern approach, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
It's logically possible for physics to follow either Galilean relativity or Lorentz-Einstein-style relativity. However, it's not logically possible for some phenomena to follow one and some the other. Both state that (a) there is no preferred frame, and (b) the transformation between frames works in a certain way (which is different in the two cases). If one set of phenomena (say, mechanical phenomena) transformed one way and another set of phenomena (say, optical phenomena) transformed the other way, then there would be no way to keep them consistent with each other, and there would be a preferred frame. That is in fact what physicists believed before 1905, in the days of aether theories.
answered 4 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
59.6k6 gold badges176 silver badges337 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The path to relativity that you're describing is the historical one, but it's not the only possible one. With hindsight, it's basically a historical mistake that Einstein thought electromagnetism played some special role in the logical basis of relativity. For an example of a more modern approach, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
It's logically possible for physics to follow either Galilean relativity or Lorentz-Einstein-style relativity. However, it's not logically possible for some phenomena to follow one and some the other. Both state that (a) there is no preferred frame, and (b) the transformation between frames works in a certain way (which is different in the two cases). If one set of phenomena (say, mechanical phenomena) transformed one way and another set of phenomena (say, optical phenomena) transformed the other way, then there would be no way to keep them consistent with each other, and there would be a preferred frame. That is in fact what physicists believed before 1905, in the days of aether theories.
answered 4 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
59.6k6 gold badges176 silver badges337 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The path to relativity that you're describing is the historical one, but it's not the only possible one. With hindsight, it's basically a historical mistake that Einstein thought electromagnetism played some special role in the logical basis of relativity. For an example of a more modern approach, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
It's logically possible for physics to follow either Galilean relativity or Lorentz-Einstein-style relativity. However, it's not logically possible for some phenomena to follow one and some the other. Both state that (a) there is no preferred frame, and (b) the transformation between frames works in a certain way (which is different in the two cases). If one set of phenomena (say, mechanical phenomena) transformed one way and another set of phenomena (say, optical phenomena) transformed the other way, then there would be no way to keep them consistent with each other, and there would be a preferred frame. That is in fact what physicists believed before 1905, in the days of aether theories.
answered 4 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
59.6k6 gold badges176 silver badges337 bronze badges
$endgroup$
The path to relativity that you're describing is the historical one, but it's not the only possible one. With hindsight, it's basically a historical mistake that Einstein thought electromagnetism played some special role in the logical basis of relativity. For an example of a more modern approach, see Pal, "Nothing but relativity," https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0302045
It's logically possible for physics to follow either Galilean relativity or Lorentz-Einstein-style relativity. However, it's not logically possible for some phenomena to follow one and some the other. Both state that (a) there is no preferred frame, and (b) the transformation between frames works in a certain way (which is different in the two cases). If one set of phenomena (say, mechanical phenomena) transformed one way and another set of phenomena (say, optical phenomena) transformed the other way, then there would be no way to keep them consistent with each other, and there would be a preferred frame. That is in fact what physicists believed before 1905, in the days of aether theories.
answered 4 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
59.6k6 gold badges176 silver badges337 bronze badges
answered 4 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
59.6k6 gold badges176 silver badges337 bronze badges
answered 4 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
59.6k6 gold badges176 silver badges337 bronze badges
answered 4 hours ago
Ben CrowellBen Crowell
59.6k6 gold badges176 silver badges337 bronze badges
59.6k6 gold badges176 silver badges337 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f498863%2fwhy-all-theories-are-lorentz-invariant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
