Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Caviness [mailto:caviness@SOUTHERN.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 10:38 AM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: The fallacy of affirming the consequent
Pentcho Valev wrote:
However Einstein needs something different:equations on B and
B -> A, A, therefore B /4/
He proceeds in accordance with /4/ - builds Lorentz
so creates the sequence (A therefore B therefore Lorentzequations) -
the illusion is thata corollary
Lorentz equations ultimately stem from A. In fact, A CAN be
of B or Lorentz equations, in accordance with /3/, butLorentz equations
can BY NO MEANS be
deduced from A.
I vividly remember an assignment in my freshman year
Engineering Physics class
where we were asked to _derive_ the Lorentz transformation
equations from
Einstein's postulates that the laws of physics and the speed
of light are the
same for all inertial observers. I have since used this in
my classes or as a
homework assignment. The only additional assumption needed
is that the
transformations be linear in all the variables
(x,y,z,t,x',y',z',t'). That
was handled by the statement that we would _first_ seek a set of
transformation equations which was linear, but if necessary
we could back off
from that requirement.
Briefly, if you let
x = A x' + B y' + C z' + D t', y = E x' + ..., etc., the
unknown constants can
be identified by symmetry arguments and the requirement that
the speed of
light be measured by both primed and unprimed observers as c.
The Lorentz
transformation falls out in your lap, i.e., the Lorentz
equations can indeed
"be deduced from A" + the additional requirement that the
dependence be
linear.
For what it's worth,
Ken Caviness
Physics Department
Southern Adventist University
http://physics.southern.edu/