Lorentz transforms provide a means to predict what another observer (if diff reference frame) will see or experience for a given shared in their timeline event, i.e the time Flow in the reference, the spped of object related to event etc, between any observers. This is surprisingly and excitibg that a single, unified blueprint can do this job, and it took 3 centuries after Newton's to be discovered. It is a law of nature, although its called transform.
Part of the reason is that the prevaili g interpretation of it is Special Relativity and the spacetime construct and that there is no other.
Few scientists, such as Saha claimed that SR is just one and possible idiosyngratic interpretation of this "blueprint" and that it wrongly has been establishd as the equivalent of it.
The Lorentz transformations are mathematical equations that describe how measurements of time and space differ for observers in relative motion, fundamentally arising from the principles of Special Relativity. For example, if two observers are moving relative to each other, one stationary on Earth and the other traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light in a spaceship, the time experienced by the astronaut (time dilation) will be less than that of the Earth observer. This means that if the astronaut travels for what they perceive as five years, significantly more time may have elapsed on Earth, illustrating the concept of time dilation. Similarly, lengths contract in the direction of motion; if the spaceship travels at near-light speed, it will measure shorter lengths than an observer on Earth would perceive. This profound interplay of space and time challenges our intuitive notions and was only fully recognized in the early 20th century, following centuries of classical mechanics that could not explain phenomena like the invariance of the speed of light. While Special Relativity is the prevailing interpretation, some scientists, like Meghnad Saha, have argued that the Lorentz transformations might offer alternative insights into the nature of spacetime, suggesting that there could be other frameworks that accommodate these transformations, though none have matched the explanatory power of Special Relativity in empirical testing.
Mr Waqar Mahmood Khan,
I agree that none of the proposed frameworks have matched the explanatory power of Special Relativity in either theoretical como
completeness (simplicity, unificational power, predictability, etc) or empirical testing.
The scientist I have in mind who suggested that there could be other frameworks that accommodate these transformations is Saha Sochi
For a physical process, such as movement, it doesn't matter at all, who observes it and from where. That's why the Lorentz transformations based on relative movement of observers, are wrong ab initio. More on this point of view in Preprint Cyclic-time mechanics of isolated systems
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Journalism