Relativistic centripetal force

  • #51
kev said:
The expression you derived in attachment 1 of your blog starts with the statement "dv/dt and v have the same direction and sense"

I don't know what attachment you have been reading but your claim is clearly false. We are talking about circular motion so, acceleration (dv/dt) and velocity (v) certainly do not have the same direction and sense. Which attachment are you reading?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
kev said:
You start with F = m_0 \gamma^3 dv/dt (the coordinate parallel force) and jump to the conclusion that the coordinate parallel acceleration is a = F/(m_0 \gamma^2) = d(\gamma v)/dt which is unjustified and probably wrong.

You are reading the wrong attachment. I have always pointed you towards the "Relativistic Lorentz Force" (attachment 1). For some reason, you decided to read a totally different attachment that has nothig to do with the subject of this thread.
I explained to you that this type of calculation is the foundation of cyclotron design, so why do you keep insisting that it is incorrect? Do you want me to get you a reference book on accelerator design? I
 
  • #53
kev said:
In this paper http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/matthews_ajp_73_45_05.pdf they give the parallel (longitudinal) acceleration transformation (Eq29) as:

a_x = \frac{a_x '}{\gamma^3 (1+u_x ' V/c^2)}

which reduces to:

a_x ' = \gamma^3 a_x
Yes, this is textbook stuff for LINEAR motion, derived from Lorentz transforms for linear motion. Has nothing to do with the subject of circular motion. You are talking about LINEAR acceleration in the X direction, a_x. Why do you keep insisting on using concepts that are irrelevant for the subject being discussed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
kev said:
Jorrie and I did not call it the comoving observer. We explicitly called it the Momentarily Comoving Inertial Frame (MCIF). You are deliberately ignoring the word "momentarily". Momentarily means instantaneous and so it does not apply to an observer that continually follows the particle around the circle as you implied here:

I am not ignoring anything, I have just been telling you for a few days now that you have no right to use Lorentz transforms derived for linear motion in deriving the way force transforms for circular motion. I am getting tired of your continued bickering, I put up an attachment that deals with the Lorentz transforms for circular motion that show how to calculate the force transformation correctly. If you want to learn, I suggest you read it.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
kev said:
I have read it. There seems to be an error in the expression (6) where you have dy/dt but I suspect it should read d^2 \frac{y}{dt^2}

Thank you, it is an obvious typo. The equation is correct and the previous one should clue you in that it is about d^2 \frac{y}{dt^2}
Also the equations in (6) are incomplete. Can you complete them and then we will see if we can make sense of them?

No, they are left as an exercise for you to complete. If you manage to do it, you will have an interesting surprise as a result
 
Last edited:
  • #56
kev said:
In this #18 of this old thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=187041&page=2,
pervect (with over 5000 posts and respected former pf staff) comes to the conclusion that relativistic coordinate centripetal (transverse) force is: \gamma^2 v^2/r which agrees with the equations I gave in #1.

I checked, pervect DOES NOT calculate the acceleration transformation in rotating frames (what we want to find out), he applies the well-known standard formula in calculating four-acceleration (what pervect wanted to find out).
Do you even understand the difference between the two concepts? If you did, you would not have brought this up as a relevant argument in the discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
starthaus said:
I checked, pervect DOES NOT calculate the acceleration transformation in rotating frames (what we want to find out), he applies the well-known standard formula in calculating four-acceleration (what pervect wanted to find out).

But, I read pervect saying: "Note that I'm not the one calling this the "centripetal force". What I'd call what I'm computing is the proper acceleration of the body, i.e. the acceleration that someone on the body would measure with an accelerometer."

Read with kev and pervect's prior posts, it seems to me exactly the 'proper centripetal acceleration' that kev and I want. The only contentious issue that I spot is how to transform that proper acceleration to a force in the inertial frame of the center of the circle.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Jorrie said:
But, I read pervect saying: "Note that I'm not the one calling this the "centripetal force". What I'd call what I'm computing is the proper acceleration of the body, i.e. the acceleration that someone on the body would measure with an accelerometer."

Read with kev and pervect's prior posts, it seems to me exactly the 'proper centripetal acceleration' (d^2r/d\tau^2) that kev and I want.
1. This is not what kev calculates in post #1. He calculates a transform for the force between frames by using the Lorentz transform for translation instead of rotation.
2. It is precisely this attempt of using the inappropiate transform that I have objected to throughout this thread, starting with post #3
3. Both you and kev have insisted that the Lorentz transform for translation is appropiate treatment for deriving the force in the observer's frame throughout this thread.
4. I do not think that this is correct and I provided the appropiate treatment using the transform for rotating frames.
The only contentious issue that I spot is how to transform that proper acceleration to a force in the inertial frame of the center of the circle.

Using the Lorentz transforms for translation is not justified. I gave you both the correct method based on the Lorentz transforms for rotation. If you or kev finish the computations, you are in for a big surprise.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
starthaus said:
I find this particularly amusing, especially in the light of explaining (see also attachment 1) that
the proper acceleration is, by definition, \frac {d}{dt}(\gamma \vec{v}). In the case of the cyclotron, \gamma is constant so \vec{a}=\gamma \frac {d \vec{v}}{dt}.

What is even more amusing is that the assertion you make above in #34

proper acceleration by definition is , a ' = \gamma \frac {d \vec{v}}{dt}

directly contradicts what you said in #29 (below):
starthaus said:
F'=m_0 a' (correct) where, from your chain of equalities, it results that the proper acceleration a' is equal to: \gamma \frac {d}{dt} (\gamma v) . This is clearly incorrect since the proper acceleration a' is equal, by definition to: \frac {d}{dt} (\gamma v)=\gamma^3 \frac{dv}{dt} .

proper acceleration by definition is , a ' = \gamma^3 \frac {d \vec{v}}{dt}

What is really funny, is that having come up with two contradicting definitions of proper acceleration, neither of them is correct. The correct solution for proper acceleration in the case of centripetal acceleration is:

a ' = \gamma^2 \frac {d \vec{v}}{dt}

starthaus said:
I checked, pervect DOES NOT calculate the acceleration transformation in rotating frames (what we want to find out), he applies the well-known standard formula in calculating four-acceleration (what pervect wanted to find out).
Do you even understand the difference between the two concepts? If you did, you would not have brought this up as a relevant argument in the discussion.

I do understand the difference. Four acceleration is the acceleration in terms of proper time so the equation that pervect gives is the proper centripetal acceleration so:

a ' = \gamma^2 \frac {d \vec{v}}{dt}

Note that the proper time is all we need because transverse distances are not subject to length contraction. It is also clear that pervect is talking about acceleration in a rotation context because the title of that thread is "relativistic centripetal force" (very like the title of this thread).

However I do concede that pervect, jorrie and I are talking about the proper acceleration as measured by an instantaneously comoving inertial observer, while a comoving rotating non-inertial observer might measure some things differently. One obvious difference is that to a non-inertial non-instantaneous comoving observer the orbiting particle has no acceleration or movement at all in his rest frame. In that sense the proper acceleration measured by an observer in the comoving rotating reference frame is always zero, no matter what the accleration according to the coordinate lab frame is measured to be.

So it seems we have to come to a consensus at to what exactly you mean by "proper acceleration" in the context of your blog article which is very sparce on explanatory or supporting text. One definition that comes to mind, is what acceleration an particle would be measured to have by a non-inertial comoving observer, if the particle was released and shot off on a straight tangential trajectory as seen in the non-rotating lab frame.

So is proper acceleration that which is measured by an accelerometer (which is the usual definition of proper acceleration in relativity) or is it change in spatial location per unit time per unit time as you seem to be using in your blog?
 
Last edited:
  • #60
starthaus said:
You are reading the wrong attachment. I have always pointed you towards the "Relativistic Lorentz Force" (attachment 1). For some reason, you decided to read a totally different attachment that has nothig to do with the subject of this thread.

I read the "wrong" attachment because earlier you said:
starthaus said:
... especially in the light of explaining (see also attachment 1) that the proper acceleration is, by definition, \frac {d}{dt}(\gamma \vec{v})
...
so naturally I assumed you said something about proper acceleration in attachment 1 but not a single equation there relates directly to acceleration or even to to a transformation between frames. Seeing nothing there, I looked in the other attachments where you do talk about acceleration, to see how you come to the conclusion that proper acceleration has a factor of gamma^3 and find that the source of your confusion is that the only kind of acceleration that you analyse is linear acceleration, rather than the transverse acceleration that we require here.
 
  • #61
starthaus said:
Using the Lorentz transforms for translation is not justified. I gave you both the correct method based on the Lorentz transforms for rotation. If you or kev finish the computations, you are in for a big surprise.

I have finished your computations and the final result is just as messy and ugly as the equations that precede it. If your computations are correct then they have to resolve in the simplest situation to either a' = \gamma a or a' =\gamma^3 a because that is what proper acceleration is by (your) definition. It does not seem to do that but maybe I am doing it wrong. Can you demonstrate that your definition is correct and in agreement with your rotation transforms?

In your blog attachment you state:

t = \gamma \left(t ' + \frac{\omega R y '}{c^2} \right)

It seems odd in that in that expression there is no x'. Is the transformation between coordinate time and proper time really completely independent of movement in the x' direction? Somehow I doubt it because these are supposed to generalised transformations with no preferential direction.

Can you elaborate on how you arrive at the equations for dx and dy in (4)?

I have managed to locate a copy of the article you reference in your blog (Generalized Lorentz transformation for an accelerated, rotating frame of reference [J. Math. Phys. 28, 2379-2383 (1987)] Robert A. Nelson) and none of the equations in that paper match the equations in your blog. I guess that is a credit to you that you are not just copying other people's work, but since it is your work perhaps you could clarify what you are thinking. One advantage of a forum over books is supposed to be that you can ask the author what he means or to elaborate on something. All this "surprise" stuff is not very helpful. Relativity is complicated enough with plenty of opportunities for error and misunderstanding, without playing silly games.
 
  • #62
Let's have a look at the method you use in your generalised transformation for rotating reference frames. You start with:

\frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{dx}{dt '} \frac{dt '}{dt} = \gamma^{-1}\frac{dx}{dt '}

Fine. In the next step you obtain an equation for acceleration by:

\frac{d^2x}{dt ^2} = \frac{d^2 x}{dt '^2} \frac{dt '^2}{dt^2} = \gamma^{-2}\frac{d^2x}{dt '^2}

Rearrange:

a ' = \gamma^2 \frac{d^2x}{dt ^2}

Now by definition:

a ' = \gamma^2 \frac{d^2x}{dt ^2} = \gamma^2 \frac{dv}{dt}

which is the result obtained by pervect and me (which you say is wrong) using your method.
 
  • #63
kev said:
I have finished your computations and the final result is just as messy and ugly as the equations that precede it.

These are not "my" computations. These are the "correct" computations for the application of the appropiate transforms. If you complete the calculations (left to you as an exercise), you will have the pleasant surprise to find the correct transformation of accelerations, which, by the way, looks very ellegant. That is, if you want to learn.



t = \gamma \left(t ' + \frac{\omega R y '}{c^2} \right)

It seems odd in that in that expression there is no x'. Is the transformation between coordinate time and proper time really completely independent of movement in the x' direction? Somehow I doubt it because these are supposed to generalised transformations with no preferential direction.

Why don't you read the reference?


Can you elaborate on how you arrive at the equations for dx and dy in (4)?

Through simple differentiation.


I have managed to locate a copy of the article you reference in your blog (Generalized Lorentz transformation for an accelerated, rotating frame of reference [J. Math. Phys. 28, 2379-2383 (1987)] Robert A. Nelson) and none of the equations in that paper match the equations in your blog. I guess that is a credit to you that you are not just copying other people's work, but since it is your work perhaps you could clarify what you are thinking.

If you have difficulty with simple math, HERE is another reference where the calculations are all done for you.


One advantage of a forum over books is supposed to be that you can ask the author what he means or to elaborate on something. All this "surprise" stuff is not very helpful. Relativity is complicated enough with plenty of opportunities for error and misunderstanding, without playing silly games.

Hey, you need to learn how to calculate for yourself, not to cherry pick from formulas derived by others.
 
  • #64
kev said:
I read the "wrong" attachment because earlier you said:

...which is the definition of proper acceleration. This is the 4-th time I'm explaining this to you.
so naturally I assumed you said something about proper acceleration in attachment 1 but not a single equation there relates directly to acceleration or even to to a transformation between frames. Seeing nothing there,

I guess everything needs to be spelled out to you, you did not see the \frac{d}{dt}(m_0 \gamma \vec {v})=q \vec{v} X \vec{B} equation. One more time, the term \frac{d}{dt} (\gamma \vec {v}) is the proper acceleration. By defintion.
I looked in the other attachments where you do talk about acceleration, to see how you come to the conclusion that proper acceleration has a factor of gamma^3

The other attachments talk about translation motion. It is not my fault that you seem unable to tell the difference between rotation and translation.
If you were able to do that maybe you could stop ascribing me all the errors that you keep making.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
kev said:
Let's have a look at the method you use in your generalised transformation for rotating reference frames. You start with:

\frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{dx}{dt '} \frac{dt '}{dt} = \gamma^{-1}\frac{dx}{dt '}

Fine.

I am glad that it met with your approval.

In the next step you obtain an equation for acceleration by:

\frac{d^2x}{dt ^2} = \frac{d^2 x}{dt '^2} \frac{dt '^2}{dt^2}

You sure about this? This is basic calculus. What you wrote is wrong, I am doing none of the stuff you are claiming I am doing. Here is what I am really doing:

a= \frac{d^2x}{dt ^2} =\frac{d}{dt} \frac{dx}{dt}=\frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} \frac{dt'}{dt}

Do you see the difference? The object is to get the correct expression for a.

Rearrange:

a ' = \gamma^2 \frac{d^2x}{dt ^2}

Nope, you need to get your basic calculus straightened out. Only after that your physics will come out correct.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
starthaus said:
You sure about this? This is basic calculus. What you wrote is wrong, I am doing none of the stuff you are claiming I am doing. Here is what I am really doing:

a= \frac{d^2x}{dt ^2} =\frac{d}{dt} \frac{dx}{dt}=\frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} \frac{dt'}{dt}

Do you see the difference? The object is to get the correct expression for a.

I can extend your expression, using the methods you use, like this:

a= \frac{d^2x}{dt ^2} =\frac{d}{dt} \frac{dx}{dt}= \frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} \frac{dt'}{dt} = \gamma^{-1} \frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} = \gamma^{-1} \frac {d^2x}{dt'dt'} \frac{dt'}{dt} = \gamma^{-2} \frac {d^2x}{dt'dt'} = \gamma^{-2} \frac {d^2x}{dt'^2}

which gives:

a' = \gamma^2 \frac{d^2x}{dt ^2}

which is what I have always claimed and which you keep insisting is wrong. I think that since it obvious we are never going to agree it might be helpful if some of the pf staff gave a second opinion on the disputed items in this thread.
 
  • #67
kev said:
I can extend your expression, using the methods you use, like this:

a= \frac{d^2x}{dt ^2} =\frac{d}{dt} \frac{dx}{dt}= \frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} \frac{dt'}{dt} = \gamma^{-1} \frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} = \gamma^{-1} \frac {d^2x}{dt'dt'} \frac{dt'}{dt} = \gamma^{-2} \frac {d^2x}{dt'dt'} = \gamma^{-2} \frac {d^2x}{dt'^2}

which gives:

a' = \gamma^2 \frac{d^2x}{dt ^2}

which is what I have always claimed and which you keep insisting is wrong. I think that since it obvious we are never going to agree it might be helpful if some of the pf staff gave a second opinion on the disputed items in this thread.

Look at the attachment I wrote for you, \frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} is not a'.
You should know better than that:

a'=\frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2}\frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} means nothing.

Your exercise is to express \frac {d^2x}{dt^2} as a function of \frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2}. I gave you all the tools to do that correctly.
 
  • #68
At this step:

a= \frac{d^2x}{dt dt} = \frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} \frac{dt'}{dt}

you are using the simple fact that:

\frac{1}{dt} = \frac{1}{dt'}\frac{dt'}{dt}

(Nothing wrong with that - basic algebra.) I am using exactly the same algebraic fact to complete this step:

\gamma^{-1} \frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} = \gamma^{-1} \frac {d^2x}{dt'dt'} \frac{dt'}{dt}

Are you really saying the above equality is invalid? If so, then it you who needs to think about it.
 
  • #69
starthaus said:
Look at the attachment I wrote for you, \frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} is not a'.

We are discussing centripetal acceleration which is orthogonal to the instantaneous velocity. Orthogonal distances do not length contract so dx = dx' and they are interchangeable.

\frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} is the same thing as \frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2}


starthaus said:
You should know better than that:

a'=\frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2}
See above.


starthaus said:
\frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} means nothing.

It means the same thing as

\frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2}

when dx' = dx, as it does in this case.
 
  • #70
kev said:
At this step:

a= \frac{d^2x}{dt dt} = \frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} \frac{dt'}{dt}

you are using the simple fact that:

\frac{1}{dt} = \frac{1}{dt'}\frac{dt'}{dt}

(Nothing wrong with that - basic algebra.) I am using exactly the same algebraic fact to complete this step:

\gamma^{-1} \frac {d^2x}{dtdt'} = \gamma^{-1} \frac {d^2x}{dt'dt'} \frac{dt'}{dt}

Are you really saying the above equality is invalid? If so, then it you who needs to think about it.

\frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} is physically a meaningless entity, you are mixing frames. Can you write down the correct definition for a'?
 
Last edited:
  • #71
kev said:
It means the same thing as

\frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2}

when dx' = dx, as it does in this case.

:lol:
 
  • #72
starthaus said:
\frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} means nothing.
which is unfortunate, because that is exactly what you derive in the final expression (6) in your blog.
 
  • #73
kev said:
which is unfortunate, because that is exactly what you derive in the final expression (6) in your blog.

Nope. \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}. New glasses, perhaps?
 
  • #74
starthaus said:
Nope. \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}. New glasses, perhaps?

You effectively derive:

\frac{d^2x}{dt^2} = \gamma^{-2}\frac{d^2x}{dt'^2}

in expression (6) of your attachment, although you probably don't realize that.
 
  • #75
kev said:
You effectively derive:

\frac{d^2x}{dt^2} = \gamma^{-2}\frac{d^2x}{dt'^2}

I would never write such frame-mixing nonsese.
in expression (6) of your attachment, although you probably don't realize that.

You definitely need to learn how to read math :

\frac{d^2x}{dt^2} = \gamma^{-2}(\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}+...

Can you see the pairing x,t in the LHS and the pairing x',t' in the RHS?
If you were less obsessed with finding errors where there are none, maybe you would be more able to learn.
 
  • #76
kev said:
You effectively derive:

\frac{d^2x}{dt^2} = \gamma^{-2}\frac{d^2x}{dt'^2}
starthaus said:
I would never write such frame-mixing nonsese.
You wrote such frame-mixing nonsense at step (5) when you derive the velocity transformation as:

\frac{dx}{dt} = \gamma^{-1}\frac{dx}{dt'}
 
  • #77
kev said:
You wrote such frame-mixing nonsense at step (5) when you derive the velocity transformation as:

\frac{dx}{dt} = \gamma^{-1}\frac{dx}{dt'}

You definitely need a new pair of glasses :


\frac{dx}{dt} = \gamma^{-1}(\frac{dx'}{dt'}+...

Are you getting that desperate to prove me wrong that you can't even follow simple arithmetic anymore?
 
  • #78
kev said:
You wrote such frame-mixing nonsense at step (5) when you derive the velocity transformation as:

\frac{dx}{dt} = \gamma^{-1}\frac{dx}{dt'}

I have a feeling that the reason behind this 'brutal' argument is a miscommunication. Starthaus's full equations treat the general solution of rotating to Cartesian coordinate transformations. In this case, saying that dx' and dx are equivalent is not valid.

Kev and myself were mainly interested in one point only, say when omega=0, y=0 and dx' and dx are momentarily equivalent. If we have the magnitude of the proper acceleration at that point, we have it for all time (e.g., the reading of the mass on the scale against the inside wall of the rotating cylinder will remain constant). That way we simplify the route to a simple result.
 
  • #79
Jorrie said:
I have a feeling that the reason behind this 'brutal' argument is a miscommunication. Starthaus's full equations treat the general solution of rotating to Cartesian coordinate transformations. In this case, saying that dx' and dx are equivalent is not valid.

Good, you are making the effort to understand rather than find fault, like kev.
Kev and myself were mainly interested in one point only, say when omega=0,

\omega cannot be ever zero, the frame is totating.
dx' and dx are momentarily equivalent.

This never happens. Look at the expression of dx, it is a function of (dx',dy',t')

There is something that you can do , though. You can consider the point (0,0) in the frame S'. When you do that you will obtain the correct expression for the transformation between frames but you need to do the math correctly, without attempting ugly hacks like setting dx=dx'.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
starthaus said:
\omega cannot be ever zero, the frame is totating.
Sorry, I actually meant when \theta = 0, where \omega=d\theta/dt

It is perhaps time that you clear up your attachment - the first line of your equations [5] of "Uniformly Rotating Frames" does use the contentious 'mixing of frames' (dx/dt').

It would also be immensely helpful to all around here (especially me as an engineer, no mathematician) if you would correct the typo and complete equations [6]... :smile:
 
  • #81
starthaus said:
\omega cannot be ever zero, the frame is totating.
Jorrie obviously meant that when the angle (theta or phi or whatever you choose to call it) between the x axes of the two frames is zero and by the definition given in this link that you gave http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9904/9904078v2.pdf this occurs when t' =0.
dx' and dx are momentarily equivalent.
starthaus said:
This never happens. Look at the expression of dx, it is a function of (dx',dy',t')

It does happen. At time t' = 0, the axes are aligned and x = x' = 0 and y = y' =0.
By expression (4) of your attachment, when t' = 0, all the terms containing sin(y\omega t') vanish and the term containing y' vanishes too, leaving

dx = dx'cos(0) = dx'.

Although that seems trivial, the same is not true for dy at time t'=0.
The dy equation in expression (4) becomes:

dy = \gamma dy' +R\gamma\omega dt'
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Jorrie said:
Sorry, I actually meant when \theta = 0, where \omega=d\theta/dt

It is perhaps time that you clear up your attachment - the first line of your equations [5] of "Uniformly Rotating Frames" does use the contentious 'mixing of frames' (dx/dt').

No, it doesn't. It contains the standard "chain rule" for calculating derivatives.

\frac {dx}{dt}=\frac{dx}{dt'} \frac{dt'}{dt}

This is standard math, not the type of frame-mixing that kev does.


It would also be immensely helpful to all around here (especially me as an engineer, no mathematician) if you would correct the typo and complete equations [6]... :smile:

I am quite sure that you and kev can complete expressions (6). I left them unfiinished on purpose, to lead you to the correct results and to teach you the correct way of solving this problem. If I give you the result ready made, kev will continue to find imaginary errors. Much better if I guide you to finding it.
 
  • #83
kev said:
Jorrie obviously meant that when the angle (theta or phi or whatever you choose to call it) between the x axes of the two frames is zero and by the definition given in this link that you gave http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9904/9904078v2.pdf this occurs when t' =0.


It does happen. At time t' = 0, the axes are aligned and x = x' = 0 and y = y' =0.
By expression (4) of your attachment, when t' = 0, all the terms containing sin(y\omega t') vanish and the term containing y' vanishes too, leaving

dx = dx'cos(0) = dx'.

True, it happens in ONE PARTICULAR case. It does NOT happen in ANY other INFINITE number of cases. What does this tell you?


Although that seems trivial, the same is not true for dy at time t'=0.
The dy equation in expression (4) becomes:

dy = \gamma dy' +R\gamma\omega dt'

Yep, it NEVER happens. What does this tell you? Do you still claim that you can use the expressions derived from Lorentz transforms for translational motion?
 
  • #84
I hesitate to get involved in a good sparring match, but I have an old Mathematica notebook on relativistic uniform circular motion using four-vectors. I could post the results here if that would be helpful in any way.
 
  • #85
DaleSpam said:
I hesitate to get involved in a good sparring match, but I have an old Mathematica notebook on relativistic uniform circular motion using four-vectors. I could post the results here if that would be helpful in any way.

I think that it is probably best to let kev work out the answers on his own. Only this way will he learn, giving away the answers is not the best way to teach somebody. He has been given all the tools, it is now up to him to complete the derivation.
 
  • #86
DaleSpam said:
I hesitate to get involved in a good sparring match, but I have an old Mathematica notebook on relativistic uniform circular motion using four-vectors. I could post the results here if that would be helpful in any way.

I would be very interested in your contribution. I think this thread is well overdue some input from the more knowledgeable members of this forum.
 
  • #87
starthaus said:
I think that it is probably best to let kev work out the answers on his own. Only this way will he learn, giving away the answers is not the best way to teach somebody. He has been given all the tools, it is now up to him to complete the derivation.

This thread is not just about "teach kev a lesson". It's primary objective is to discuss the issues involved in relativistic centripetal force and acceleration in a way that might be useful for members of this forum. If that means I, you, Jorrie or anyone else learns something along the way, then all well and good. It is not just about your ego. A think a worthy secondary objective would be debug the document you presented in your blog, so that it might become a useful reference document for members of this forum. At this moment in time it far from status.
 
  • #88
kev said:
dx = dx'cos(0) = dx'.
starthaus said:
True, it happens in ONE PARTICULAR case. It does NOT happen in ANY other INFINITE number of cases. What does this tell you?
That tells me that the x and y components are changing over time, but because of the circular symmetry and because the rotation is uniform and constant, the angular velocity, centripetal force, centripetal acceleration and gamma factor all remain constant over time and for any any angle theta and those are the physical quantities jorrie and I are interested in. Your equations seem unable to determine those quantities.

starthaus said:
Do you still claim that you can use the expressions derived from Lorentz transforms for translational motion?

Yes I do when we talk about MCIF's and proper acceleration as measured by an accelerometer. Your equations are about acceleration in terms of spatial displacement where a glass paperweight on your table has zero acceleration because its location is not changing over time, while an accelerometer will show the paperweight is accelerating despite the fact it appears to be stationary in your accelerating reference frame.


The reference paper that you lifted the initial eqations from http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9904/9904078v2.pdf explicitly disagrees with your last statement when they say at (19):
In particular, at t′ = 0 these transformations ... coincide with the ordinary Lorentz boost at t′ = 0 for the velocity in the y-direction.

and later on when they say in Section 6:
Therefore, for a small range of values of t′, the transformations (6)-(7) can be approximated by the ordinary Lorentz boosts (see (19)). From this fact we conclude that if a moving rigid body is short enough, then its relativistic contraction in the direction of the instantaneous velocity, as seen from S, is simply given by L(t) = L′/(t), i.e., it depends only on the instantaneous velocity, not on its acceleration and rotation. (“Short enough” means that L′ ≪ c2/a′ k, where a′k is the component of the proper acceleration parallel to the direction of the velocity [11]).
By a similar argument we may conclude that an arbitrarily accelerated and rotating observer sees equal lengths of other differently moving objects as an inertial observer whose instantaneous position and velocity are equal to that of the arbitrarily accelerated and rotating observer.
 
  • #89
kev said:
This thread is not just about "teach kev a lesson". It's primary objective is to discuss the issues involved in relativistic centripetal force and acceleration in a way that might be useful for members of this forum. If that means I, you, Jorrie or anyone else learns something along the way, then all well and good. It is not just about your ego.

It's not about my ego. It is about you stopping trying to find errors where they don't exist and starting to do a couple of differentiations such that you find the answer for yourself. (the first differentiation is already done, you only need to complete the second order).

A think a worthy secondary objective would be debug the document you presented in your blog,

There is no "debug". There is rolling up your sleeves and calculating how acceleration transforms under rotation using the appropiate Lorentz transforms.
I will give you a hint: the method that you need to apply is identical to the one one uses to derive acceleration from the Lorentz transforms for translation. Except that you need to use the Lorentz transforms for rotation that have been provided for you. Rather than arguing for days about imaginary errors you could have obtained the answer by now.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
starthaus said:
Your exercise is to express \frac {d^2x}{dt^2} as a function of \frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2}. I gave you all the tools to do that correctly.

You have not obtained \frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2} in your document. All you have done is taken the derivative of x with respect to time twice and then transformed the result by converting dt to dt' using dt = gamma(dt'), What you have failed to do, is convert dx to dx' using dx = f(dx') where f is the long function inplicit in expression (4) of your document.

starthaus said:
I am quite sure that you and kev can complete expressions (6). I left them unfiinished on purpose, to lead you to the correct results and to teach you the correct way of solving this problem. If I give you the result ready made, kev will continue to find imaginary errors. Much better if I guide you to finding it.

It is easy to complete expression (6) because it is obvious from the terms you have completed and from the method you use in obtaining expression (5), that all you are doing is dividing each term by \gamma dt'. The completed expressions are (as far as I can tell):

\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=\gamma^{-2}\left(\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}\cos(\gamma\omega t')-\gamma\omega\sin(\gamma\omega t') \frac{dx'}{dt'}-\gamma\frac{d^2y'}{dt'^2}\sin(\gamma\omega t')-\frac{dy'}{dt'}\gamma^{2}\omega\cos(\gamma\omega t') - \frac{d}{dt'}R\gamma\omega\sin(\gamma\omega t')\right)

\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=\gamma^{-2}\left(\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}\sin(\gamma\omega t')+\gamma\omega\cos(\gamma\omega t') \frac{dx'}{dt'}+\gamma\frac{d^2y'}{dt'^2}\cos(\gamma\omega t')-\frac{dy'}{dt'}\gamma^{2}\omega\sin(\gamma\omega t') + \frac{d}{dt'}R\gamma\omega\cos(\gamma\omega t')\right)

If that is not what you intended, I have done the hard work of formatting the tex and all you have to do is edit it.

Note that for constant uniform rotation, the last term of each expression containg R probably vanishes, because none of the quantities R,\gamma,\omega are changing over time.

Also note that neither jorrie or myself claim to be expert mathematicians and it would be helpful to both of us if you would break down how you get from (1) to (4). After all, you claim your goal is educate me.
 
  • #91
kev said:
You have not obtained \frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2} in your document. All you have done is taken the derivative of x with respect to time twice and then transformed the result by converting dt to dt' using dt = gamma(dt'), What you have failed to do, is convert dx to dx' using dx = f(dx') where f is the long function inplicit in expression (4) of your document.

You need to stop trying to find fault with what I am trying to teach you. The method is showing how to find \frac {d^2x}{dt^2} as a function of \frac {d^2x'}{dt'^2}, \frac {dx'}{dt'}, etc. Looks that after a lot of prodding, you went ahead and you did it yourself.


It is easy to complete expression (6) because it is obvious from the terms you have completed and from the method you use in obtaining expression (5), that all you are doing is dividing each term by \gamma dt'. The completed expressions are (as far as I can tell):

\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=\gamma^{-2}\left(\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}\cos(\gamma\omega t')-\gamma\omega\sin(\gamma\omega t') \frac{dx'}{dt'}-\gamma\frac{d^2y'}{dt'^2}\sin(\gamma\omega t')-\frac{dy'}{dt'}\gamma^{2}\omega\cos(\gamma\omega t') - \frac{d}{dt'}R\gamma\omega\sin(\gamma\omega t')\right)

\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=\gamma^{-2}\left(\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}\sin(\gamma\omega t')+\gamma\omega\cos(\gamma\omega t') \frac{dx'}{dt'}+\gamma\frac{d^2y'}{dt'^2}\cos(\gamma\omega t')-\frac{dy'}{dt'}\gamma^{2}\omega\sin(\gamma\omega t') + \frac{d}{dt'}R\gamma\omega\cos(\gamma\omega t')\right)


Good, this is correct.


Note that for constant uniform rotation, the last term of each expression containg R probably vanishes,

False, it doesn't "vanish". This is basic calculus, remember?
 
Last edited:
  • #92
kev said:
I would be very interested in your contribution.
Since the vote is split 50/50 I will appoint myself vice president and cast the deciding vote in favor of posting it :smile:

So throughout this I will use the convention that the time coordinate is the first coordinate and that timelike intervals squared are positive. So given a wheel centered at the origin and rotating about the z axis in a counter clockwise direction we can describe the worldline for any particle on the rim by:
\mathbf s =(ct,\; r \; cos(\phi + \omega t),\; r \; sin(\phi + \omega t),\; 0)

The four-velocity is given by:
\mathbf u=c \frac{d\mathbf s/dt}{|d\mathbf s/dt|}=(\gamma c,\; -\gamma r \omega \; sin(\phi + \omega t),\; \gamma r \omega \; cos(\phi + \omega t),\; 0)
where |x| indicates the Minkowski norm of the four-vector x and \gamma=(1-\frac{r^2 \omega^2}{c^2})^{-1/2}

The four-acceleration is given by:
\mathbf a=c \frac{d\mathbf u/dt}{|d\mathbf s/dt|} = (0,\; -\gamma^2 r \omega^2 \; cos(\phi + \omega t),\; -\gamma^2 r \omega^2 \; sin(\phi + \omega t),\; 0 )

So the magnitude of the four-acceleration (which is frame invariant and equal to the magnitude of the proper acceleration) is given by:
|\mathbf a|^2=-\gamma^4 r^2 \omega^4

That is what I had in my Mathematica file, but I certainly can go from there or explain things if either of you have questions or requests.
 
Last edited:
  • #93
DaleSpam said:
Since the vote is split 50/50 I will appoint myself vice president and cast the deciding vote in favor of posting it :smile:

So throughout this I will use the convention that the time coordinate is the first coordinate and that timelike intervals squared are positive. So given a wheel centered at the origin and rotating about the z axis in a counter clockwise direction we can describe the worldline for any particle on the rim by:
\mathbf s =(ct,\; r \; cos(\phi + \omega t),\; r \; sin(\phi + \omega t),\; 0)

The four-velocity is given by:
\mathbf u=c \frac{d\mathbf s/dt}{|d\mathbf s/dt|}=(\gamma c,\; -\gamma r \omega \; sin(\phi + \omega t),\; \gamma r \omega \; cos(\phi + \omega t),\; 0)
where |\mathbf x| indicates the Minkowski norm of the four-vector x and \gamma=(1-\frac{r^2 \omega^2}{c^2})^{-1/2}

The four-acceleration is given by:
\mathbf a=c \frac{d\mathbf u/dt}{|d\mathbf s/dt|} = (0,\; -\gamma^2 r \omega^2 \; cos(\phi + \omega t),\; -\gamma^2 r \omega^2 \; sin(\phi + \omega t),\; 0 )

So the magnitude of the four-acceleration (which is frame invariant and equal to the magnitude of the proper acceleration) is given by:
|\mathbf a|^2=-\gamma^4 r^2 \omega^4

Careful, see here. There is the additional condition \gamma=1 that must not be overlooked.
That is what I had in my Mathematica file, but I certainly can go from there or explain things if either of you have questions or requests.

We've been over this, this is exactly the same as pervect's post. The subject of the discussion is the appropiate transforms between frames (see post #3). Lorentz transforms for translation are not appropiate for describing rotation. kev is almost done with learning how to use the Lorentz transforms for rotation.
 
Last edited:
  • #94
starthaus said:
Careful, see here. There is the additional condition \gamma=1 that must not be overlooked.
No. Since,\gamma=(1-\frac{r^2 \omega^2}{c^2})^{-1/2} the condition \gamma=1 would imply \omega=0 which is not true in general.

starthaus said:
We've been over this, this is exactly the same as pervect's post. The subject of the discussion is the appropiate transforms between frames (see post #3). Lorentz transforms for translation are not appropiate for describing rotation. kev is almost done with learning how to use the Lorentz transforms for rotation.
I deliberately didn't do any Lorentz transforms nor did I look at any other reference frame.

Although a boost is not a spatial rotation you can always find a momentarily co-moving inertial frame (MCIF) for any event on any particle's worldline. This frame will be related to the original frame via a Lorentz transform. In such a frame the particle will only be at rest for a moment, hence the term "momentarily co-moving". So you cannot use a Lorentz transform to find a (non-instantaneous) rest frame for a particle in general, but there is a lot of useful parameters you can obtain from the MCIF. I don't know how kev was using it.
 
Last edited:
  • #95
DaleSpam said:
Since the vote is split 50/50 I will appoint myself vice president and cast the deciding vote in favor of posting it :smile:
Thanks DaleSpam, I should have voted for it - I have been asking Starthaus for his treatment before.

Anyway, it seems that your magnitude of the proper acceleration answers the original question of the OP: the relativistic centrifugal force, measured in the way that kev described.

To me it does not seem as if Starthaus's treatment answered that question, but rather a different one on coordinate transformations for rotating frames. I am sure that it is useful in its own right and can possibly be extended to answer the original question.
 
  • #96
DaleSpam said:
I deliberately didn't do any Lorentz transforms nor did I look at any other reference frame.

True, neither did you answer the question in discussion. You found the expression for four-acceleration (something that we already knew) but you did not answer the question as to how centripetal force transforms. In order to do that , you need to start from the Lorentz transforms for rotating frames.
Although a boost is not a spatial rotation you can always find a momentarily co-moving inertial frame (MCIF) for any event on any particle's worldline. This frame will be related to the original frame via a Lorentz transform. In such a frame the particle will only be at rest for a moment, hence the term "momentarily co-moving". So you cannot use a Lorentz transform to find a (non-instantaneous) rest frame for a particle in general, but there is a lot of useful parameters you can obtain from the MCIF.

Sure but why use this hack when you are being shown how to use the appropiate Lorentz transforms?
I don't know how kev was using it.

With lots of mistakes.
 
Last edited:
  • #97
Jorrie said:
Thanks DaleSpam, I should have voted for it - I have been asking Starthaus for his treatment before.

Physics is not decided by voting.
Anyway, it seems that your magnitude of the proper acceleration answers the original question of the OP: the relativistic centrifugal force, measured in the way that kev described.

No, it doesn't. Look at post #3, the issue being contested is usage of the appropiate transforms in finding out the way the centripetal force transforms between frames.
To me it does not seem as if Starthaus's treatment answered that question, but rather a different one on coordinate transformations for rotating frames. I am sure that it is useful in its own right and can possibly be extended to answer the original question.

kev is not finished with his exercise , he is just one step away from finishing it. If he corrects his last mistake, he's one step away from getting the correct answer using the correct formalism.
Would you like to finish it for him? It is a matter of doing the derivative correctly and setting some conditions.
 
Last edited:
  • #98
Jorrie said:
To me it does not seem as if Starthaus's treatment answered that question, but rather a different one on coordinate transformations for rotating frames. I am sure that it is useful in its own right and can possibly be extended to answer the original question.

The method I am showing solves a much more general question. I will show you how it also solves the question asked by the OP , as a trivial particular case. Just stick with the approach and you will find out the correct answers obtained through the appropiate formalisms.
 
  • #99
DaleSpam said:
No. Since,\gamma=(1-\frac{r^2 \omega^2}{c^2})^{-1/2} the condition \gamma=1 would imply \omega=0 which is not true in general.

No, it doesn't mean that, it only means that the comoving frame (for which you are calculating the proper acceleration) is characterized by \omega=0 . Because the frame is co-moving with the rotating object.
So, you should have obtained the proper acceleration magnitude as:

a=r\omega^2
 
  • #100
OK, if I understand correctly, because of the t' contained in the cos and sin functions in the last terms, the expressions for (6) should be:

\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=\gamma^{-2}\left(\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}\cos(\gamma\omega t')-\gamma\omega\sin(\gamma\omega t') \frac{dx'}{dt'}-\gamma\frac{d^2y'}{dt'^2}\sin(\gamma\omega t')-\frac{dy'}{dt'}\gamma^{2}\omega\cos(\gamma\omega t') - R\gamma^2\omega^2\cos(\gamma\omega t')\right) (Eq6x)

\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=\gamma^{-2}\left(\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}\sin(\gamma\omega t')+\gamma\omega\cos(\gamma\omega t') \frac{dx'}{dt'}+\gamma\frac{d^2y'}{dt'^2}\cos(\gamma\omega t')-\frac{dy'}{dt'}\gamma^{2}\omega\sin(\gamma\omega t') - R\gamma^2\omega^2\sin(\gamma\omega t')\right) (Eq6y)

Is that correct? As I said before, I am no math expert. Should the same be done for the other terms in the expression?

If they are correct, then when t' = 0, \sin(\gamma\omega t') = 0 and \cos(\gamma\omega t') = 1 and the equations simplify to:

a_x = \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=\gamma^{-2}\left(\frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}-\frac{dy'}{dt'}\gamma^{2}\omega- R\gamma^2\omega^2\right) (Eq7x)

a_y = \frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=\gamma^{-2}\left(\gamma\omega \frac{dx'}{dt'}+\gamma\frac{d^2y'}{dt'^2}\right) (Eq7y)

Now if the particle is stationary in the rotating frame and located on the y'=0 axis, which is the radial line from the centre of rotation to the particle, the result is:

a_x = \frac{d^2x}{dt^2}= -R\omega^2\right)

a_y = \frac{d^2y}{dt^2}= 0

which is a good result, because that is what we expect in the non-rotating lab frame. This is the coordinate acceleration.

Equations (7x) and (7y) can be rearranged to give:

a'_x = \frac{d^2x'}{dt'^2}=\gamma^{2}\left(\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}+\frac{dy'}{dt'}\omega+ R\omega^2\right)

a'_y = \frac{d^2y'}{dt'^2}=\gamma\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}-\omega \frac{dx'}{dt'}

If the particle is released so that it flies off in a straight line from the point of view of the lab frame at time t’=0, its initial velocity in the rotating frame was zero so that upon release dx\prime/dt\prime \approx 0 and dy\prime/dt\prime \approx 0 then:

a&#039;_x = \frac{d^2x&#039;}{dt&#039;^2} =\gamma^{2}\left(\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}+\frac{dy&#039;}{dt&#039;}\omega+ R\omega^2\right) <br /> =\gamma^{2}\left(0+\frac{dy&#039;}{dt&#039;}\omega+ R\omega^2\right)<br /> \approx \gamma^{2}\left(R\omega^2\right)

a&#039;_y = \frac{d^2y&#039;}{dt&#039;^2}=\gamma\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}-\omega \frac{dx&#039;}{dt&#039;}<br /> =0-\omega \frac{dx&#039;}{dt&#039;} \approx 0

So in the lab frame the centripetal acceleration of the particle when it is traveling in a circle is R\omega^2 and when it is released the acceleration of the particle according to the observer in the rotating frame is initially \gamma^{2} R\omega^2. This magnitude of this measurement coincides with with the magnitude of the four acceleration given by Pervect and Dalespam (Thanks for the imput by the way :smile: ), which is the proper acceleration as measured by an accelerometer.

Note:The x and x' axes always pass through the center of rotation so a_x and a_x&#039; represent the inward pointing centripetal acceleration at time t'=0, which these calculations are based on. a_y is the angular acceleration directed tangentially.

Conclusion

Coordinate centripetal acceleration:

a_x = R\omega^2 (Proven by Starthaus)

Proper centripetal acceleration:

As measured by an accelerometer in the rotating frame:

a\prime_x = \gamma^2 R\omega^2 (Proven by Dalespam and Pervect)

As measured by initial “fall rate acceleration” in the rotating frame:

a\prime_x \approx \gamma^2 R\omega^2 (Proven by Starthaus)

The above is basically in agreement with everything I said in #1 but the methods of measurement have been more carefully defined now.

This has significance because it tells us how a particle behaves in a gravitational field, by applying the equivalence principle.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
3K
Back
Top