Discussion:
This discussion explores the inherent limitations of the Lorentz transformation, a cornerstone of special relativity, particularly concerning its treatment of acceleration. While the Lorentz transformation adeptly describes relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and mass increase, it falls short in directly accommodating acceleration. This discrepancy becomes pronounced when the velocity-dependent Lorentz transformation fails to reconcile velocities between rest and inertial frames without the presence of acceleration, thus highlighting a significant gap in its applicability.
The discussion delves into the historical context of the Lorentz transformation, acknowledging its development by Mr. Lorentz and its status as a final form in science. However, it also underscores the expectation for accurate physics within its framework, especially considering the pre-existence of the concept of acceleration predating Mr. Lorentz. This expectation includes honouring Isaac Newton's second law, which governs the dynamics of accelerated motion in classical mechanics.
While the scientific community initially accepted the Lorentz transformation without questioning its treatment of acceleration, there is now a growing recognition of the importance of integrating principles from classical mechanics, such as Newton's second law, to address these limitations. The discussion emphasizes the need for a more comprehensive theoretical framework that harmonizes the principles of classical mechanics and relativity, thereby offering a more unified and accurate depiction of physical phenomena.
The Impact of Acceleration on Kinetic Energy in the Relativistic Lorentz Factor in Motion?
The Lorentz factor (γ) becomes relevant when the object attains its desired velocity and is in motion relative to the observer. Initially, when both reference frames are at rest, the object's energetic state reflects its lack of motion, resulting in zero kinetic energy (KE). As the frames separate, the moving object undergoes acceleration until it reaches its desired velocity. At this stage, the object's energetic state reflects its motion, and it possesses kinetic energy (KE) due to its acceleration. This acceleration is not accounted for in the Lorentz factor (γ). Once the object reaches its desired velocity, its energetic state reflects its motion, and it possesses kinetic energy (KE) due to its velocity. The Lorentz factor (γ) and kinetic energy (KE) play significant roles in relativistic motion. However, the acceleration component is not considered in the Lorentz factor (γ).
The subject of discussion is really interesting. However, the author should have formulated his initial positions in an acceptable form - not so vague, but in generally accepted terms and comparisons.
Discussion Re: Bridging the Gap between the Lorentz Transformation in Relativity and Classical Mechanics:
Dear Dr. Alexey Orlovsky ,
Thank you for your engagement with our discussion on the integration of classical mechanics and relativity, particularly concerning the limitations of the Lorentz transformation. Your feedback has been invaluable, prompting a deeper analysis of the interaction between acceleration, kinetic energy, and the Lorentz factor in relativistic motion.
The initial acknowledgment of the Lorentz transformation's strengths and limitations, as highlighted in our discussion, elucidates its role in describing relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and mass increase. However, the subsequent exploration of acceleration underscores a significant gap in its applicability, particularly when considering the discrepancy in reconciling velocities between frames without accounting for acceleration.
The text further emphasizes the importance of the Lorentz factor (γ) and kinetic energy (KE) in understanding relativistic motion. As the object undergoes acceleration to attain its desired velocity, its energetic state evolves, resulting in kinetic energy due to acceleration. This crucial aspect, not accounted for in the Lorentz factor, highlights the necessity of a more comprehensive theoretical framework.
In light of this, our discussion aims to bridge the gap between classical mechanics and relativity by exploring the implications of acceleration on the Lorentz transformation. By acknowledging the role of kinetic energy and acceleration, we seek to enhance our understanding of relativistic motion and refine our theoretical frameworks accordingly.
Your recognition of the interest and relevance of our discussion reinforces our commitment to addressing fundamental aspects of theoretical physics. We appreciate your engagement and look forward to further enriching our discourse on this intriguing subject.
Thank you once again for your feedback and valuable contributions to our ongoing discussion.
Best regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
SRT is completely erroneous since it is based on the wrong kind of transformations: they have lost the scale factor characterizing the Doppler effect (which defines the asymmetry between approach and removal).
First, Lorentz considered a more general form of transformations (with a scale factor), but then he, and also Poincare and Einstein equated it 1 without proper grounds. Their form was artificially narrowed, the formulas became incorrect. This led to a logical contradiction of the theory, to unsolvable paradoxes. Accordingly, GRT is also incorrect. For more details, see my brochure "Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory" (2000):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339090652_Memoir_on_the_Theory_of_Relativity_and_Unified_Field_Theory
Dear Mr. Lev Verkhovsky,
Thank you for your response and for engaging in the discussion on the Lorentz transformation and its implications for the theory of relativity. Your insights and perspective on the limitations of the Lorentz transformation are intriguing and raise important considerations regarding its foundational assumptions.
Your assertion regarding the erroneous nature of Special Relativity Theory (SRT) due to the treatment of transformations without a scale factor characterizing the Doppler effect is thought-provoking. It prompts a re-evaluation of the assumptions underlying the Lorentz transformation and its implications for the broader framework of relativity.
The observation that Lorentz, Poincaré, and Einstein initially considered a more general form of transformations with a scale factor, only to later narrow it down to equate it to 1 without sufficient grounds, is indeed significant. This narrowing may have inadvertently led to inconsistencies and paradoxes within the theory, as you suggest.
Your brochure, "Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory" (2000), presents a comprehensive exploration of these ideas, and I look forward to delving into its contents to gain a deeper understanding of your perspective on relativity and unified field theory.
It is through constructive dialogues and alternative viewpoints such as yours that we can continue to refine and advance our understanding of fundamental principles in physics. I appreciate your contribution to the discourse and look forward to further discussions on these intriguing topics.
Best Regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur
“…Bridging the Gap between the Lorentz Transformation in Relativity and Classical Mechanics:…..”
- really there is no “Gaps” between Lorentz Transformation in Relativity and Classical Mechanics.
Really any “inertial reference frame” is nothing else than only humans/physicists’ set of instruments, i.e. set of scaled rulers and specifically synchronized distant clocks, where a system of coordinates is established, practically always frames are “stationary” ones, i.e. are at rest in 3D space,
- by using of which data about coordinates of points of interacting, moving, accelerated, etc., bodies, and time intervals between events, in some systems of bodies are measured; and further, by using these data, in this frame that is described by this frame equations of motion of points of the bodies.
If there is some other frame that moves in a stationary frame, and in this frame the same as in stationary frame system of bodies is studied, the measurement results differ from that are in stationary frame.
Lorentz transformationsare nothing else than the equation of motion in stationary frame but, instead own frame data, the measured in other, i.e. moving in the stationary, frame data are used.
At that the transformations depend only on relative frames speed, and don’t depend on acceleration, if a moving frame accelerates, the transformations, are valid at every time moment depending only on current speed. That’s all.
Besides, again, there is no any “Gaps” above, the Lorentz transformations are completely valid at any speed, including in Classical Mechanics, simply at small speeds using of the transformations would only really senselessly complicate decryption and analysis of studying physical situations.
Really in practice practically always only one some “stationary” frame exists, where bodies/systems of the bodies, including that move, interact, and accelerate, are studied; any other frame is unnecessary. So the transformations aren’t, in principle, necessary as well; though are often applied in physics at analyzing of, say, experimental data or at simulations of some physical situations, mostly at considering the data, etc., in central mass frames”.
More about what is the physical sense of Lorentz transformations, i.e. why they are as they are, and what is fast bodies mechanics at all, including what is the SR, and when/why it is correct and isn’t correct, see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, in this case it is enough to read one paper
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics
Cheers
19-05-2024
Dear Mr. Sergey Shevchenko ,
I thank you for your response and for engaging in this discussion. I appreciate your detailed explanation on redefining inertial reference frames, their usage, comparison with moving frames, Lorentz transformations, practical use of stationary frames, further understanding of Lorentz transformations and special relativity, and for referencing further reading.
While your statement asserts that there are no gaps between relativistic Lorentz transformations and Classical Mechanics, our research shows significant differences in predicted length changes between these two frameworks.
Our study highlights the importance of considering relativistic effects beyond velocity alone. It underscores the need to factor in acceleration dynamics and material stiffness in Relativistic Mechanics to accurately depict length deformation in high-speed scenarios.
The research also emphasizes that length changes as velocity changes, whether in classical deformation or relativistic length contraction. Deformation measured at any point during acceleration, speed, or velocity is the cumulative result of the applied force between the rest frame and the force in application.
Motion-induced force is the primary cause of material deformation, and material stiffness determines the rate of deformation, irrespective of the scientific discipline applied. There is a notable disparity in the outcomes of deformation across these scientific fields.
For further details, you can refer to our research here: Preprint Comparative Analysis of Length Deformation in Classical and ...
Relativistic Mechanics.Thank you once again.
Best regards,
Soumendra Nath Thakur