History of Lorentz transformations
The Lorentz transformations relate the space-time coordinates, (which specify the position x, y, z and time t of an event) relative to a particular inertial frame of reference (the "rest system"), and the coordinates of the same event relative to another coordinate system moving in the positive x-direction at a constant speed v, relative to the rest system. It was devised as a theoretical transformation which makes the velocity of light invariant between different inertial frames. The coordinates of the event in this "moving system" are denoted x′, y′, z′ and t′. The rest system was sometimes identified with the luminiferous aether, the postulated medium for the propagation of light, and the moving system was commonly identified with the earth as it moved through this medium. Early approximations of the transformation were published by Voigt (1887) and Lorentz (1895). They were completed by Larmor (1897, 1900) and Lorentz (1899, 1904) and were brought into their modern form by Poincaré (1905), who gave the transformation the name of Lorentz. Eventually, Einstein (1905) showed in his development of special relativity that the transformations follow from the principle of relativity and the constant light speed alone, without requiring a mechanical aether, and are changing the traditional concepts of space and time. Subsequently, Minkowski used them to argue that space and time are inseparably connected as spacetime.
In this article the historical notations are replaced with modern notations, where
If the right-hand sides of his equations are multiplied by they are the modern Lorentz transformation. In Voigt's theory the speed of light is invariant, but his transformations mix up a relativistic boost together with a rescaling of space-time. Maxwell's electrodynamics is scale, conformal, and Lorentz invariant, so the combination is invariant too. But scale transformations are not a symmetry of all the laws of nature, only of electromagnetism, so these transformations cannot be used to formulate a principle of relativity in general. Lorentz acknowledged Voigt's work in 1909 by saying:
|“||In a paper "Über das Doppler'sche Princip", published in 1887 ... and which to my regret has escaped my notice all these years, Voigt has applied to equations of the form (6) ... a transformation equivalent to the formulae (287) and (288). The idea of the transformations used above ... might therefore have been borrowed from Voigt and the proof that it does not alter the form of the equations for the free ether is contained in his paper.[A 2]||”|
Also Hermann Minkowski said in 1908 that the transformations which play the main role in the principle of relativity were first examined by Voigt in 1887. Voigt responded in the same paper by saying, that his theory was based on an elastic theory of light, not an electromagnetic one. However, he concluded that some results were actually the same.[A 3]
Heaviside (1888), Thomson (1889), Searle (1896)
In 1888, Oliver Heaviside[A 4] investigated the properties of charges in motion according to Maxwell's electrodynamics. He calculated, among other things, anisotropies in the electric field of moving bodies represented by this formula:
Thereby, inhomogeneous electromagnetic wave equations are transformed into a Poisson equation. Eventually, George Frederick Charles Searle[A 6] noted in (1896) that Heaviside's expression leads to a deformation of electric fields which he called "Heaviside-Ellipsoid" of axial ratio .
Lorentz (1892, 1895)
In order to explain the aberration of light and the result of the Fizeau experiment in accordance with Maxwell's equations, Lorentz in 1892 developed a model ("Lorentz ether theory")[A 7] in which the aether is completely motionless, and the speed of light in the aether is constant in all directions. In order to calculate the optics of moving bodies, Lorentz introduced the following quantities to transform from the aether system into a moving system (it's unknown whether he was influenced by Voigt, Heaviside, and Thomson).
where x* is the Galilean transformation x-vt. While t is the "true" time for observers resting in the aether, t' is an auxiliary variable only for calculating processes for moving systems. It is also important that Lorentz and later also Larmor formulated this transformation in 2 steps. At first the Galilean transformation - and later the expansion into the "fictitious" electromagnetic system with the aid of the Lorentz transformation. In order to explain the negative result of the Michelson–Morley experiment, he (1892b)[A 8] introduced the additional hypothesis that also intermolecular forces are affected in a similar way and introduced length contraction in his theory (without proof as he admitted). The same hypothesis was already made by George FitzGerald in 1889 based on Heaviside's work. While length contraction was a real physical effect for Lorentz, he considered the time transformation only as a heuristic working hypothesis and a mathematical stipulation.
In 1895,[A 9] Lorentz further elaborated on his theory and introduced the "theorem of corresponding states". This theorem states that a moving observer (relative to the ether) in his „fictitious“ field makes the same observations as a resting observers in his „real“ field for velocities to first order in v/c. Lorentz showed that the dimensions of electrostatic systems in the ether and a moving frame are connected by this transformation:
For solving optical problems Lorentz used the following transformation, whereby for the time variable he used the expression "local time" (Ortszeit):
Larmor (1897, 1900)
Larmor in 1897[A 10] and 1900[A 11] presented the transformations in two parts. Similar to Lorentz, he considered first the transformation from a rest system (x, y, z, t) to a moving system (x′, y′, z′, t′)
This transformation is just the Galilean transformation for the x, y, z coordinates but contains Lorentz’s "local time". Larmor knew that the Michelson–Morley experiment was accurate enough to detect an effect of motion depending on the factor v²/c², and so he sought the transformations which were "accurate to second order" (as he put it). Thus he wrote the final transformations (where x* = x − vt) as:
Larmor showed that Maxwell's equations were invariant under this two-step transformation, "to second order in v/c", as he put it. Larmor noted that if it is assumed that the constitution of molecules is electrical then the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction is a consequence of this transformation. It's notable that Larmor was the first who recognized that some sort of time dilation is a consequence of this transformation as well, because individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [rest] system in the ratio 1/γ.
Lorentz (1899, 1904)
Also Lorentz, by extending his theorem of corresponding states, derived in 1899 the complete transformations. However, he used the undetermined factor l as an arbitrary function of v. Like Larmor, in 1899[A 12] also Lorentz noticed some sort of time dilation effect, and he wrote that for the frequency of oscillating electrons "that in S the time of vibrations be kl times as great as in S0", where S0 is the ether frame,
and l is an undetermined factor. This factor was set to unity by him in 1904,[A 13] so Lorentz's equations now assumed the same form as Larmor's (as mentioned above x* must be replaced by x − vt):
In connection with this he also derived the correct formulas for the velocity dependence of mass. He concluded, that this transformation must apply to all forces of nature, not only electrical ones and therefore length contraction is a consequence of this transformation.
Poincaré (1900, 1905)
Neither Lorentz or Larmor gave a clear physical interpretation of the origin of local time. However, Henri Poincaré[A 14][A 15] in 1900 commented on the origin of Lorentz’s “wonderful invention” of local time. He remarked that it arose when clocks in a moving reference frame are synchronised by exchanging signals which are assumed to travel with the same speed c in both directions, which lead to what is nowadays called relativity of simultaneity, although Poincaré's calculation does not involve length contraction or time dilation. In order to synchronise the clocks here on Earth (the x*, t* frame) a light signal from one clock (at the origin) is sent to another (at x*), and is sent back. It's supposed that the Earth is moving with speed v in the x-direction (= x*-direction) in some rest system (x,t) (i.e. the luminiferous aether system for Lorentz and Larmor). The time of flight outwards is
and the time of flight back is
The elapsed time on the clock when the signal is returned is δto + δtb and the time t* = (δto + δtb)/2 is ascribed to the moment when the light signal reached the distant clock. In the rest frame the time t = δto is ascribed to that same instant. Some algebra gives the relation between the different time coordinates ascribed to the moment of reflection. Thus
Poincaré gave the result t* = t − vx*/c2, which is the form used by Lorentz in 1895. Poincaré dropped the factor ε ≅ 1 under the assumption that
On June 5, 1905 (published June 9)[A 18] Poincaré simplified the equations (which are algebraically equivalent to those of Larmor and Lorentz) and gave them the modern form (Poincaré set the speed of light to unity):
Apparently Poincaré was unaware of Larmor's contributions, because he only mentioned Lorentz and therefore used for the first time the name "Lorentz transformation". He pointed out the group characteristics of the transformation, and modified/corrected Lorentz's derivation of the equations of electrodynamics in some details in order to fully satisfy the principle of relativity, i.e. making them fully Lorentz covariant.
In July 1905 (published in January 1906)[A 19] Poincaré showed in detail how the transformations and electrodynamic equations are a consequence of the principle of least action; he demonstrated in more detail the group characteristics of the transformation, which he called Lorentz group, and he showed that the combination x2 + y2 + z2 − c2t2 is invariant. He noticed that the Lorentz transformation is merely a rotation in four-dimensional space about the origin by introducing ct√−1 as a fourth imaginary coordinate, and he used an early form of four-vectors.
On June 30, 1905 (published September 1905) Einstein[A 20] published what is now called special relativity and gave a new derivation of the transformation, which was based only on the principle on relativity and the principle of the constancy of the speed of light. While Lorentz considered "local time" to be a mathematical stipulation device for explaining the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein showed that the coordinates given by the Lorentz transformation were in fact the inertial coordinates of relatively moving frames of reference. For quantities of first order in v/c this was also done by Poincaré in 1900, while Einstein derived the complete transformation by this method. Unlike Lorentz and Poincaré who still distinguished between real time in the aether and apparent time for moving observers, Einstein showed that the transformations concern the nature of space and time.
The notation for this transformation is identical to Poincaré's of 1905, except that Einstein didn't set the speed of light to unity:
The work on the principle of relativity by Lorentz, Einstein, Max Planck, together with Poincaré's four-dimensional approach, were further elaborated by Hermann Minkowski in 1907 and 1908. Minkowski particularly reformulated electrodynamics in a four-dimensional way (Minkowski spacetime) and gave a geometric representation of the Lorentz transformation by using Minkowski diagrams.[A 21][A 22][A 23]
- Primary sources
- Voigt, Woldemar (1887), "Ueber das Doppler’sche Princip" [On the Principle of Doppler], Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität zu Göttingen (2): 41–51
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1909/16), The theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat on Internet Archive, Leipzig & Berlin: B.G. Teubner
- Bucherer, A. H. (1908), "Messungen an Becquerelstrahlen. Die experimentelle Bestätigung der Lorentz-Einsteinschen Theorie. (Measurements of Becquerel rays. The Experimental Confirmation of the Lorentz-Einstein Theory)", Physikalische Zeitschrift 9 (22): 758–762. For Minkowski's and Voigt's statements see p. 762.
- Heaviside, Oliver (1889), "On the Electromagnetic Effects due to the Motion of Electrification through a Dielectric", Philosophical Magazine, 5 27 (167): 324–339
- Thomson, Joseph John (1889), "On the Magnetic Effects produced by Motion in the Electric Field", Philosophical Magazine, 5 28 (170): 1–14
- Searle, George Frederick Charles (1897), "On the Steady Motion of an Electrified Ellipsoid", Philosophical Magazine, 5 44 (269): 329–341
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1892a), "La Théorie electromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants", Archives néerlandaises des sciences exactes et naturelles 25: 363–552
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1892b), "De relatieve beweging van de aarde en den aether" [The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether], Zittingsverlag Akad. V. Wet. 1: 74–79
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1895), Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern [Attempt of a Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Bodies], Leiden: E.J. Brill
- Larmor, Joseph (1897), "On a Dynamical Theory of the Electric and Luminiferous Medium, Part 3, Relations with material media", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 190: 205–300, Bibcode:1897RSPTA.190..205L, doi:10.1098/rsta.1897.0020
- Larmor, Joseph (1900), Aether and Matter, Cambridge University Press
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1899), "Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems", Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 1: 427–442
- Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon (1904), "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light", Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 6: 809–831
- Poincaré, Henri (1900), "La théorie de Lorentz et le principe de réaction", Archives néerlandaises des sciences exactes et naturelles 5: 252–278. See also the English translation.
- Poincaré, Henri (1904/6), "The Principles of Mathematical Physics", Congress of arts and science, universal exposition, St. Louis, 1904 1, Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, pp. 604–622
- Cohn, Emil (1904), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Systeme II" [On the Electrodynamics of Moving Systems II], Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1904/2 (43): 1404–1416
- Abraham, M. (1905). "§ 42. Die Lichtzeit in einem gleichförmig bewegten System". Theorie der Elektrizität: Elektromagnetische Theorie der Strahlung. Leipzig: Teubner.
- Poincaré, Henri (1905b), "Sur la dynamique de l’électron" [On the Dynamics of the Electron], Comptes Rendus 140: 1504–1508
- Poincaré, Henri (1906), "Sur la dynamique de l’électron" [On the Dynamics of the Electron], Rendiconti del Circolo matematico di Palermo 21: 129–176, doi:10.1007/BF03013466
- Einstein, Albert (1905), "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", Annalen der Physik 322 (10): 891–921, Bibcode:1905AnP...322..891E, doi:10.1002/andp.19053221004. See also: English translation.
- Minkowski, Hermann (1907/1915), "Das Relativitätsprinzip", Annalen der Physik 352 (15): 927–938, Bibcode:1915AnP...352..927M, doi:10.1002/andp.19153521505
- Minkowski, Hermann (1908), "Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern" [The Fundamental Equations for Electromagnetic Processes in Moving Bodies], Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse: 53–111
- Minkowski, Hermann (1908/9), "Space and Time", Physikalische Zeitschrift 10: 75–88
- Secondary sources
- Miller (1981), 114–115
- Pais (1982), Kap. 6b
- Brown (2003)
- Miller (1981), 98-99
- Miller (1982), 1.4 & 1.5
- Janssen (1995), 3.1
- Darrigol (2000), Chap. 8.5
- Macrossan (1986)
- Jannsen (1995), Kap. 3.3
- Darrigol (2005), Kap. 4
- Pais (1982), Chap. 6c
- Katzir (2005), 280–288
- Miller (1981), Chap. 1.14
- Miller (1981), Chap. 6
- Pais (1982), Kap. 7
- Darrigol (2005), Chap. 6
- Walter (1999)
- Brown, Harvey R. (2001), "The origins of length contraction: I. The FitzGerald-Lorentz deformation hypothesis", American Journal of Physics 69 (10): 1044–1054, arXiv:gr-qc/0104032, Bibcode:2001AmJPh..69.1044B, doi:10.1119/1.1379733 See also "Michelson, FitzGerald and Lorentz: the origins of relativity revisited", Online.
- Darrigol, Olivier (2000), Electrodynamics from Ampère to Einstein, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, ISBN 0-19-850594-9
- Darrigol, Olivier (2005), "The Genesis of the theory of relativity", Séminaire Poincaré 1: 1–22
- Janssen, Michel (1995), A Comparison between Lorentz's Ether Theory and Special Relativity in the Light of the Experiments of Trouton and Noble (Thesis)
- Katzir, Shaul (2005), "Poincaré’s Relativistic Physics: Its Origins and Nature", Physics in perspective 7 (3): 268–292, Bibcode:2005PhP.....7..268K, doi:10.1007/s00016-004-0234-y
- Macrossan, M. N. (1986), "A Note on Relativity Before Einstein", The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37: 232–234
- Miller, Arthur I. (1981), Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Emergence (1905) and early interpretation (1905–1911), Reading: Addison–Wesley, ISBN 0-201-04679-2
- Pais, Abraham (1982), Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-520438-7
- Walter, Scott (1999a), "Minkowski, mathematicians, and the mathematical theory of relativity", in H. Goenner, J. Renn, J. Ritter, and T. Sauer, Einstein Studies 7, Birkhäuser, pp. 45–86