LTE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR andan inertial frame in IRT
Next: About the maximal electrostatic potential energy U(r) of a pair electron-positron at rest with distance r
From: glird on 16 Jul 2010 14:53 It is said that the Lorentz Transformation Equations (LTE) have been experimentally confirmed by many different experiments. I would appreciate it if someone would provide a list of all the experiments that did so. glird
From: dlzc on 16 Jul 2010 16:07 Dear glird: On Jul 16, 11:53 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > It is said that the Lorentz Transformation > Equations (LTE) have been experimentally > confirmed by many different experiments. I > would appreciate it if someone would provide > a list of all the experiments that did so. Doubt that this is all of them, but Tom Roberts made a very nice list that maps from theory to quantifiable observation via application of the LT: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html David A. Smith
From: xxein on 16 Jul 2010 18:39 On Jul 16, 2:53 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > It is said that the Lorentz Transformation Equations (LTE) have been > experimentally confirmed by many different experiments. I would > appreciate it if someone would provide a list of all the experiments > that did so. > > glird xxein: Don't worry about it. Experiments are measuremental observations and affects. They are put into a math form without regard to really understanding the physic that caused them to be observed and effect in this way. Oh wow! There is a velocity addition formula. Does it explain what is really happening or is it just a math wysiwyg? The Lorentz transormations are fine, but when you math-shortcut them to SR (and its postulates), you strip the essense of the physic out of it. I told you this before (in some fashion) but you decided that it was too much for you to try to understand. And now an appeal. Does anyone out there know how velocity addition works to describe how we measure it besides a math? What is the physical reason? I know what it is but I doubt that anyone else does. Geez! Doesn't anybody know how to think logically of the physic beyond the archaic sceintific method?
From: Jack Campin - bogus address on 16 Jul 2010 19:36 > It is said that the Lorentz Transformation Equations (LTE) have been > experimentally confirmed by many different experiments. I would > appreciate it if someone would provide a list of all the experiments > that did so. This has nothing to do with logic. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland mobile: 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
From: Tom Roberts on 16 Jul 2010 21:48
xxein wrote: > Does anyone out there know how velocity addition > works to describe how we measure it besides a math? What is the > physical reason? Consider a pointlike object moving with constant velocity v along the x axis, and plot its x position vs time t. You'll get a straight line with a slope of v. Now do the same for 2v, and get a straight line with slope 2v. In such a graph, relative velocity is a rotation of the axes, and by considering the angle related to the relative velocity, not its slope, it's clear that in Galilean relativity when composing relative velocities the angles merely add (when plotted on a Euclidean piece of paper). In relativity there is also an angle associated with relative velocity, called rapidity. When composing relative velocities, their rapidities add. But this is hyperbolic geometry, and when plotted on a Euclidean piece of paper the angles corresponding to the rapidities do not simply add, they combine in such a way that the sum of angles never exceeds 45 degrees (= the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform = the speed of light). If you think this is far fetched, remember that v is the slope of the relative velocity, not an angle. Look up the formula for composing two Euclidean rotations in terms of the slopes of lines and you'll find a formula quite similar to the Lorentz addition of velocities, differing only in a sign. You'll also find that composing two large-enough slopes can flip the sign of the line's slope. That's highly unphysical when applied to relative velocities.... As for "why" hyperbolic geometry applies rather than Euclidean geometry, that is outside the realm of science. In the world we inhabit it just does. > I know what it is but I doubt that anyone else does. Such hubris! Such cowardice! Tom Roberts |