Lorentz Boost Help: Why Use Hyperbolic Functions?

fys iks!
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
I was reading a section on lorentz boosts and i need some help understanding what they did:

the book starts off by defining the line element dS where:

(dS)^2 = -(CΔt)^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

then they say: "consider the analogs of rotations in the (ct) plane. These transformations leave y and z unchanged but mix ct and x. The transformations with this character that leave the analogies of rotations of (3.9) but with trig functions replaced by hyperbolic functions because of the non euclidean nature of space time. Specifically

ct= [cosh(theta)]*[ct] - [sinh(theta)]*x
x = [sinh(theta)]*[ct] + {cosh(theta)]*x
y= y
z = z

and 3.9 was

x = cos(gamma)*x - sin(gamma)*y
y = sin(gamma)*x + cos(gamma) * y


So what i don't understand is why did they decide to use the hyperbolic functions in 4 dimensions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fys iks! said:
So what i don't understand is why did they decide to use the hyperbolic functions in 4 dimensions?

If you use a transformation with an ordinary sin and cos in it, you get a rotation. If you keep on rotating the x-t plane, at some point you'll have rotated it so it's 180 degrees upside-down. At that point you've reversed the direction of time. This violates causality.
 
Thanks! That helped out a lot.

So by using hyperbolic sin/cos they were able to create the same shift without violating causality.

Do you have any links that further explain this in more detail?
 
So what i don't understand is why did they decide to use the hyperbolic functions in 4 dimensions?
You have not been paying attention, have you. An ordinary rotation in 3D space leaves the length of a vector unchanged, where the length element is ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2. Rotating this by \theta gives in the xy plane gives

<br /> ds&#039;^2= (cos(\theta)dx+sin(\theta)dy)^2+(sin(\theta)dx-cos(\theta)dy)^2+dz^2<br />
and because cos(\theta)^2+sin(\theta)^2=1 it follows that ds&#039;=ds.

In the ct-plane, we wish to preserve ds^2=dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2. If you do the calculation as above with cosh and sinh instead, you find ds&#039;=ds because cosh(\theta)^2-sinh(\theta)^2=1. The geometry of the cx plane is not Euclidean.

[posted simultaneously with bcrowell]
 
fys iks! said:
Thanks! That helped out a lot.

So by using hyperbolic sin/cos they were able to create the same shift without violating causality.

Do you have any links that further explain this in more detail?

http://www.lightandmatter.com/area1book6.html
 
In 4 dimensional spacetime intervals of constant length are hyperbolas. Also it is sometimes easier to work with hyperbolic functions

<br /> tanh(\theta) = v/c<br />

The addition of velocities is reduced to adding hyperbolic functions.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top