Jump to content

Talk:History of Lorentz transformations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Prehistory: re lk
Line 10: Line 10:
The basic idea behind the Lorentz transformation can be understood as [http://imechanica.org/node/10543 Corner Flow] from hydrodynamics. When you go to the essence of the matter, the planar mapping of a Lorentz boost is an old idea, older than the linear algebra which frames the subject today.[[User:Rgdboer|Rgdboer]] ([[User talk:Rgdboer|talk]]) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The basic idea behind the Lorentz transformation can be understood as [http://imechanica.org/node/10543 Corner Flow] from hydrodynamics. When you go to the essence of the matter, the planar mapping of a Lorentz boost is an old idea, older than the linear algebra which frames the subject today.[[User:Rgdboer|Rgdboer]] ([[User talk:Rgdboer|talk]]) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Corrected link to Corner Flow.[[User:Rgdboer|Rgdboer]] ([[User talk:Rgdboer|talk]]) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Corrected link to Corner Flow.[[User:Rgdboer|Rgdboer]] ([[User talk:Rgdboer|talk]]) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

== improve required of a sentence concerning Poincare 1905 ==

I noticed one sentence that will have to be improved:

"He showed that Lorentz's application of the transformation on the equations of electrodynamics didn't fully satisfy the principle of relativity."

That suggests to reader (at least, to me!) that this was something that was not shown by Lorentz; however that's not true.
Moreover, it is too far from the way it is presented in the source:

"I was only led to modify and complete them in a few points of detail. [..] These formulas differ somewhat from those which had been found by Lorentz."

I would thus rephrase it as follows:

"He modified/corrected Lorentz's derivation of the equations of electrodynamics in some details in order to fully satisfy the principle of relativity."

I'm Ok with either "modified", as Poincare phrased it, or "corrected", which better characterises it.

On a side note: I don't think that "The views of Lorentz and Einstein, together with Poincaré's four-dimensional approach, were further elaborated by [[Hermann Minkowski]" has been well sourced. The only factual and verifiable part is IMHO the second part, Poincaré's four-dimensional approach.

Regards, [[User:Harald88|Harald88]] ([[User talk:Harald88|talk]]) 18:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:34, 12 February 2012

WikiProject iconHistory of Science B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPhysics: History B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Prehistory

The article says nothing about the symmetry of Lorentz transformations as it was known by English mathematicians. Relativity was rather quickly adopted due to familiarity with biquaternions and writings of William Kingdon Clifford and Alexander Macfarlane. Fundamental work by Gilbert N. Lewis and Edwin Bidwell Wilson set the Lorentz transformation into the context of synthetic geometry. Furthermore, Whittaker spelled out for everyone just how the Lorentz transformation works to express the Principle of Relativity. This article, like History of Special Relativity, neglects the developments in abstract algebra and transformation geometry that made possible relativity science. While I appreciate that numerous references and given and the viewpoint is orthodox, the article does not stand up the standards of due diligence in academic research.Rgdboer (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you should append a new section about this. --D.H (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea behind the Lorentz transformation can be understood as Corner Flow from hydrodynamics. When you go to the essence of the matter, the planar mapping of a Lorentz boost is an old idea, older than the linear algebra which frames the subject today.Rgdboer (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Corrected link to Corner Flow.Rgdboer (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

improve required of a sentence concerning Poincare 1905

I noticed one sentence that will have to be improved:

"He showed that Lorentz's application of the transformation on the equations of electrodynamics didn't fully satisfy the principle of relativity."

That suggests to reader (at least, to me!) that this was something that was not shown by Lorentz; however that's not true. Moreover, it is too far from the way it is presented in the source:

"I was only led to modify and complete them in a few points of detail. [..] These formulas differ somewhat from those which had been found by Lorentz."

I would thus rephrase it as follows:

"He modified/corrected Lorentz's derivation of the equations of electrodynamics in some details in order to fully satisfy the principle of relativity."

I'm Ok with either "modified", as Poincare phrased it, or "corrected", which better characterises it.

On a side note: I don't think that "The views of Lorentz and Einstein, together with Poincaré's four-dimensional approach, were further elaborated by [[Hermann Minkowski]" has been well sourced. The only factual and verifiable part is IMHO the second part, Poincaré's four-dimensional approach.

Regards, Harald88 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]