Is it possible to rewrite the Lorentz-transformations (for quantum particles) in terms of effective mass m* known from condensed matter physics?

"From pencil lead to relativistic quantum physics"

"A Mechanism for the effects of Relativity"


  • $\begingroup$ Any help to rewrite this question in a more precise manner would be highly appreciated. The starting point for this question was the cited article "A Mechanism for the effects of Relativity" Thanks! $\endgroup$ – v217 Aug 10 '14 at 11:29

Sorry to disappoint you, but the second "article" you are citing is the usual pseudo-science nonsense published by the crank crowd. I would suggest you pick up half a dozen good textbooks on relativity and study the introductory chapters until you understand the experimental difference between relativity and ether models. It's the only way to get past the mental block that exists in the human mind to getting over our evolved intuitive understanding for the Galilean metric, which, fortunately, is not how the world works (if it was, the world couldn't exist, to begin with!).

It takes time. In case of my personal experience it took several attempts at special and general relativity to "grock" the difference, which is profound.

Having said that, while many problems in condensed matter physics can be approached with techniques from field theory, the similarities of solid state systems to the physical vacuum are limited. The similarity of carrier transport in graphene to relativistic motion, in particular, is limited to a narrow energy range. In contrast, the consequences of relativity to the daily world (i.e. your existence in particular), require that relativity holds over an extremely large range of scales, which is probably well beyond 50 orders of magnitude.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, the author of the second article is a postgraduate in the Engineering and Material Science Department of the University of London. So in terms of academic hierarchy he has more to say about physics, than me. $\endgroup$ – v217 Aug 11 '14 at 20:34
  • $\begingroup$ What I am interested in, are the overlapping areas of definition. Let me quote Diels, "The Power and Precision of Light", p. 3: "The minimum energy state of the quantum harmonic oscillator is not zero, but (1/2)hν. This is often referred to as vacuum fluctuation or zero point energy. The absence of vacuum (the ether concept) has been replaced by an absence of zero energy. Since, according to Einstein, there is an equivalence of matter and energy, the two concepts are not so far apart." $\endgroup$ – v217 Aug 11 '14 at 20:40
  • $\begingroup$ So given the relativistic dispersion relation, (see first cited article), can we find an akin concept to the Lorentz-transformation in Condensed Matter language. Sorry for this very vague ideas. $\endgroup$ – v217 Aug 11 '14 at 20:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user22207: Education and titles from educational institutions, no matter how good, do not stop people from going off on a tangent that misses reality by a fair amount. Judging from my personal experience (and this is COMPLETELY anecdotal), engineers (EE, CS) are especially prone to misunderstanding the fundamental symmetry properties of Maxwell's Equations. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Aug 11 '14 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ @user22207: Having said that, one can find solid state systems which MIMIC relativistic mechanics in a narrow energy range. That doesn't make them relativistic as a simple excitation with phonons (fancy language for sound waves) or the application of an external magnetic field would show, both of which would immediately break the approximate Lorentz symmetry of the material. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Aug 11 '14 at 21:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.