Relativistic centripetal force

  • #151
Why should I admit I am wrong when you have shown no evidence to support that assertion? So far the only "error" you have pointed out is that you disagreed with my expression for the worldline. Now we find that it is not, in fact, an error and that you agree with my expression for the worldline in a standard inertial frame.

So, given that we now agree on the expression for the worldline, do you agree or disagree with my expression for the four-velocity in the standard inertial frame:
\mathbf u=(\gamma c,\; -\gamma r \omega \; sin(\phi + \omega t),\; \gamma r \omega \; cos(\phi + \omega t),\; 0)
where \gamma=(1-\frac{r^2 \omega^2}{c^2})^{-1/2}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #152
DaleSpam said:
Why should I admit I am wrong when you have shown no evidence to support that assertion? So far the only "error" you have pointed out is that you disagreed with my expression for the worldline. Now we find that it is not, in fact, an error and that you agree with my expression for the worldline in a standard inertial frame.

So, given that we now agree on the expression for the worldline, do you agree or disagree with my expression for the four-velocity in the standard inertial frame:
\mathbf u=(\gamma c,\; -\gamma r \omega \; sin(\phi + \omega t),\; \gamma r \omega \; cos(\phi + \omega t),\; 0)
where \gamma=(1-\frac{r^2 \omega^2}{c^2})^{-1/2}

I think that I have already told you several times that the error occurs at the last step of your derivation, when you need to use \gamma=1

Another way of looking at it: if you calculate the proper acceleration in RF \frac{d^2\Theta}{dT^2}=\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2} . Earlier in this thread (post 120), the coordinate acceleration in IF has been found to be R\omega^2. What does this tell you?
 
Last edited:
  • #153
starthaus said:
I think that I have already told you several times that the error occurs at the last step of your derivation, when you need to use \gamma=1
And I already told you:
DaleSpam said:
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.

I deliberately didn't do any Lorentz transforms nor did I look at any other reference frame.
I think that you get hung up on symbols instead of paying attention to what they mean. For instance, you thought that my expression for the worldline of the particle was an expression for the line element simply because I used the symbol s to represent it, and you failed to notice that I had clearly stated that it was the worldline and you also failed to notice that it was a four-vector and not a scalar so it clearly was not the line element. Now, I suspect that you think that the expression (1-\frac{r^2 \omega^2}{c^2})^{-1/2} resulted from a Lorentz transform simply because I used the symbol \gamma to represent it and you failed to notice that I did not do any Lorentz transforms. The substitution \gamma is only there because I did not want to write a lot of nested fractions. I don't know why you have such a mental block and cannot realize that in my notation \gamma=1 would imply a particle at rest in the inertial frame, not a particle undergoing uniform circular motion.

starthaus said:
Another way of looking at it: if you calculate the proper acceleration in RF \frac{d^2\Theta}{dT^2}=\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2} . Earlier in this thread (post 120), the coordinate acceleration in IF has been found to be R\omega^2. What does this tell you?
This tells me that you don't know the difference between proper acceleration and coordinate acceleration.
 
Last edited:
  • #154
Sigh,

Let's try a different way. Earlier I mentioned that you can read all the necessary info straight off the line element. Now, if you look at Gron's line element (5.5) :

ds^2=(1-\frac{r^2\omega^2}{c^2})(cdt)^2+2r^2\omega dt d\theta+(r d \theta)^2+z^2

and you compare this against the standard metric:

ds^2=(1+\frac{2\Phi}{mc^2})(cdt)^2+...

You get the potential \Phi=-1/2mr^2\omega^2
This gives you immediately the force:
\vec{F}=grad(\Phi)=-m\vec{r}\omega^2
 
Last edited:
  • #155
Hi Starthaus,

I have looked back over your previous posts and I think I have now identified the root of all your misunderstandings and confusion. Dalespam is correctin that all you have done in your blog document is transformed from one coordinate system to another, but what you have NOT done is found the PROPER centripetal acceleration which the quantity everyone else in this thread is talking about.

These are the quotes that identify your confusion:

starthaus said:
\frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} is physically a meaningless entity, you are mixing frames. Can you write down the correct definition for a'?
\frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} is not a physically meaningless entity. It is the PROPER centripetal acceleration which is what is measured by an accelerometer and therefore very physically meaningful. Yes, I do mean x without the prime and for the sake of this discussion we will take x to be the direction pointing to the centre of the circle.

kev said:
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.
starthaus said:
I would never write such frame-mixing nonsese.
Well you need to learn to frame mix, because PROPER quantities (the quantities all observers agree on and coordinate independent are frame mixed entities.

Relativity 101 especially for Starthaus:

In Minkowski spacetime take two inertial frames S and S' with relative linear velocity.

Let there be a rod in S such that the two ends of the rod x2 and x1 are both at rest in frame S. The quantity x2-x1 is the proper length of the rod. (dx)

A stationary clock in S' moves from x1 to x2 in time t2'-t1' as measured by the clock. The time interval t2'-t1' is the proper time of the clock. (dt')

The PROPER velocity of the clock is dx/dt'.

Proper velocity is a "frame mixed" quantity. If you never write "frame mixed" quantities then it is about time you learned to use them, as they are very useful and at the heart of all four vectors.

dx/dt is the coordinate velocity of the clock in frame S.

dx'/dt' is the coordinate velocity of the clock in frame S' and equal to zero in this case.
 
Last edited:
  • #156
kev said:
Hi Starthaus,

I have looked back over your previous posts and I think I have now identified the root of all your misunderstandings and confusion.

There is no confusion and no misunderstanding. I have taken you step by step through all your errors in doing the coordinate transformation from IF to RF. This is what I have corrected in your derivation starting from post #3 : you can't apply the Lorentz transforms derived for translation to a rotation problem.
all you have done in your blog document is transformed from one coordinate system to another,

...and this is precisely what I have been telling you all along I am doing. I am showing you how to use the appropiate Lorentz transforms. I have been telling you the same exact thing from post #3.
but what you have NOT done is found the PROPER centripetal acceleration which the quantity everyone else in this thread is talking about.

This is a separate issue, to be discussed only after I corrected all your errors.
You are also incorrect, in the last posts I have provided several methods that produce the proper acceleration or the centripetal force. You only had to look up, at post #154.
These are the quotes that identify your confusion:\frac {d^2x}{dt'^2} is not a physically meaningless entity.

:lol: You are jumping frames. Again.

It is the PROPER centripetal acceleration which is what is measured by an accelerometer and therefore very physically meaningful. Yes, I do mean x without the prime and for the sake of this discussion we will take x to be the direction pointing to the centre of the circle.

:lol:

Sorry, I had to snip your "lesson" , you are in no position to offer lessons. You wrote so many incorrect things that it prompted me to write a detailed followup of my file on accelerated motion in SR. I have just posted it under "Accelerated Motion in SR part II". You have a lot to learn
 
Last edited:
  • #157
starthaus said:
:lol: You are jumping frames. Again.

I will quote Dalespam:

DaleSpam said:
This tells me that you don't know the difference between proper acceleration and coordinate acceleration.
 
  • #158
kev said:
I will quote Dalespam:

Ad-hominems make very poor scientific arguments :lol:
It is especially bad form when I spent so much time teaching you the appropiate physical formalism and correcting your calculus errors.
 
Last edited:
  • #160
atyy said:
Eqn 9.26 of http://books.google.com/books?id=MuuaG5HXOGEC&dq=Wolfgang+Rindler&source=gbs_navlinks_s gives the centrifugal force as gamma.gamma.r.w.w. , which seems to be in agreement with DaleSpam.

Correct. Rindler uses a different line element (9.26) than Gron. He also uses a completely different definition of the potential (9.13). The line element determines the force as I have shown in post 154, so you'll need to take your pick as to which one to choose.
 
Last edited:
  • #161
starthaus said:
Correct. Rindler uses a different line element (9.26) than Gron. He also uses a completely different definition of the potential (9.13). The line element determines the force as I have shown in post 154, so you'll need to take your pick as to which one to choose.

Wouldn't one need to use the standard form for a stationary metric rather than a static one?
 
  • #162
starthaus said:
Correct. Rindler uses a different line element (9.26) than Gron.

No, line elements (5.3) from Gron and Hervik and (9.26) from Rindler are exactly the same.
 
  • #163
atyy said:
Wouldn't one need to use the standard form for a stationary metric rather than a static one?

Yes, this is what both authors use. Rindler rearranges his metric in a strange way, in order to line up with his definition (9.13).
 
Last edited:
  • #164
atyy said:
Eqn 9.26 of http://books.google.com/books?id=MuuaG5HXOGEC&dq=Wolfgang+Rindler&source=gbs_navlinks_s gives the centrifugal force as gamma.gamma.r.w.w. , which seems to be in agreement with DaleSpam.
starthaus said:
Correct. Rindler uses a different line element (9.26) than Gron. He also uses a completely different definition of the potential (9.13). The line element determines the force as I have shown in post 154, so you'll need to take your pick as to which one to choose.

Do you understand proper acceleration is independent of choice of cooordinate system?

If Rindler states the proper centripetal acceleration is \gamma^2R\omega^2 then the proper centripetal acceleration is \gamma^2R\omega^2 in any coordinate system including the one used by Gron, in agreement with Dalespam, myself, Jorrie, Pervect etc.
 
  • #165
So, from Gron (p. 89), using the convention that spacelike intervals squared are positive, in a rotating reference frame with cylindrical coordinates given by:
(t,r,\theta,z)

The line element is:
ds^2 = -\gamma^{-2} c^2 dt^2 + dr^2 + 2 r^2 \omega dt d\theta + r^2 d\theta^2 + dz^2
where
\gamma = (1 - r^2 \omega^2/c^2)^{-1/2}

And the metric tensor is:
\mathbf g =<br /> \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> -\gamma ^{-2} c^2 &amp; 0 &amp; r^2 \omega &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 1 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> r^2 \omega &amp; 0 &amp; r^2 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br />

NB \gamma is given by Gron as part of the line element and metric for the rotating frame in equations 5.3-5.5, and is only equal to 1 for the special case of \omega=0.

Finally, some of the Christoffel symbols in the rotating reference frame are non-zero (Gron p. 149). Specifically:
\Gamma^{r}_{tt}=-\omega^2r
\Gamma^{r}_{\theta \theta}=-r
\Gamma^{r}_{\theta t}=\Gamma^{r}_{t \theta}=-\omega r
\Gamma^{\theta}_{rt}=\Gamma^{\theta}_{tr}=\omega/r
\Gamma^{\theta}_{\theta r}=\Gamma^{\theta}_{r \theta}=1/r

Now, the worldline of a particle starting on the x-axis at t=0 and undergoing uniform circular motion at angular velocity \omega in the x-y plane in an inertial frame is given by the following expression in the rotating frame:
\mathbf X = (t,r_0,0,0)

From this we can derive the four-velocity in the rotating frame as follows:
\mathbf U = \frac{d \mathbf X}{d \tau} = i c \frac{d \mathbf X}{ds} = i c \frac{d \mathbf X}{dt} \frac{dt}{ds} = i c \; (1,0,0,0) \; \frac{1}{\sqrt{-\gamma^{-2} c^2}} = (\gamma,0,0,0)

The norm of the four-velocity is given by:
||\mathbf U||^2=U_{\mu} U^{\mu}= g_{\mu\nu} U^{\nu} U^{\mu} = -c^2
So this agrees with my previous results so far as expected since the norm is a frame invariant quantity.

Now we can derive the four-acceleration in the rotating frame as follows:
A^{\mu}=\frac{DU^{\mu}}{d\tau}=\frac{dU^{\mu}}{d\tau}+\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}
\frac{d \mathbf U}{d\tau}= i c\frac{d \mathbf U}{ds}= i c\frac{d \mathbf U}{dt}\frac{dt}{ds}= i c \; (0,0,0,0) \; \frac{dt}{ds}=(0,0,0,0)
There is only one non-zero component of:
\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}=\Gamma^{r}_{tt}U^{t}U^{t}=-\gamma^2 r \omega^2
So, substituting back in we obtain the four-acceleration in the rotating frame:
\mathbf A = (0,-\gamma^2 r \omega^2,0,0)

The norm of the four-acceleration, which is equal to the magnitude of the proper acceleration, is given by:
||\mathbf A||^2=A_{\mu} A^{\mu}= g_{\mu\nu} A^{\nu} A^{\mu} = \gamma^4 r^2 \omega^4
So this also agrees with my previous results as expected since the norm is a frame invariant quantity.

In summary, if you use four-vectors it does not matter which frame you do the calculations in, they will all agree on the norms. The magnitude of the proper acceleration, which is equal to the norm of the four-acceleration, is a frame-invariant quantity, and it is given by the above expression. The quantity starthaus derived is a frame-variant coordinate acceleration, not the frame-invariant proper acceleration.
 
Last edited:
  • #166
DaleSpam said:
The quantity starthaus derived is a frame-variant coordinate acceleration, not the frame-invariant proper acceleration.
You are repeating the same error as before: proper acceleration is equal to four-acceleration for \gamma=1.
Post #154 shows that your claim is not true. One can read the potential straight off the line element and calculate the force through a simple derivative.
Anyway, this is going nowhere , so it is time for me to give up. I wrote another attachment that corrects all of kev misconceptions about proper acceleration.
 
Last edited:
  • #167
starthaus said:
You are repeating the same error as before: proper acceleration is equal to four-acceleration for \gamma=1.
Post #154 shows that your claim is not true.
The mistake is yours, the magnitude of the proper acceleration is equal to the norm of the four-acceleration in all reference frames and regardless of gamma. This should be obvious since the norm of the four-acceleration is a frame invariant scalar. You simply don't know what proper acceleration is. Also, the use of gamma in the metric is Gron's convention, not mine. You cannot seek to rely on Gron as an authority on the metric in the rotating system and then reject his metric in the rotating system.

In post 154 you once again calculated the coordinate acceleration and erroneously called it proper acceleration. All post 154 shows is that you don't know the difference between the two.
 
Last edited:
  • #168
DaleSpam said:
In post 154 you once again calculated the coordinate acceleration and erroneously called it proper acceleration. All post 154 shows is that you don't know the difference between the two.
Wrong, I calculated the force directly off the line element. This is standard procedure, you can see it in any book.
Anyway, this is going nowhere, let's agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
  • #169
starthaus said:
Wrong, I calculated the force directly off the line element. This is standard procedure, you can see it in any book.
Yes, it is a standard procedure for calculating the coordinate acceleration, not the proper acceleration. That is the part that you just don't seem to understand.

Note that the line element depends on the choice of coordinates as does the force you calculated. The proper acceleration does not. So the force you calculated cannot possibly be the proper acceleration.
 
  • #170
DaleSpam said:
So, from Gron (p. 89), using the convention that spacelike intervals squared are positive, in a rotating reference frame with cylindrical coordinates given by:
(t,r,\theta,z)

The line element is:
ds^2 = -\gamma^{-2} c^2 dt^2 + dr^2 + 2 r^2 \omega dt d\theta + r^2 d\theta^2 + dz^2
where
\gamma = (1 - r^2 \omega^2/c^2)^{-1/2}

And the metric tensor is:
\mathbf g =<br /> \left(<br /> \begin{array}{cccc}<br /> -\gamma ^{-2} c^2 &amp; 0 &amp; r^2 \omega &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 1 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 \\<br /> r^2 \omega &amp; 0 &amp; r^2 &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br />

NB \gamma is given by Gron as part of the line element and metric for the rotating frame in equations 5.3-5.5, and is only equal to 1 for the special case of \omega=0.

Finally, some of the Christoffel symbols in the rotating reference frame are non-zero (Gron p. 149). Specifically:
\Gamma^{r}_{tt}=-\omega^2r
\Gamma^{r}_{\theta \theta}=-r
\Gamma^{r}_{\theta t}=\Gamma^{r}_{t \theta}=-\omega r
\Gamma^{\theta}_{rt}=\Gamma^{\theta}_{tr}=\omega/r
\Gamma^{\theta}_{\theta r}=\Gamma^{\theta}_{r \theta}=1/r

Now, the worldline of a particle starting on the x-axis at t=0 and undergoing uniform circular motion at angular velocity \omega in the x-y plane in an inertial frame is given by the following expression in the rotating frame:
\mathbf X = (t,r_0,0,0)

From this we can derive the four-velocity in the rotating frame as follows:
\mathbf U = \frac{d \mathbf X}{d \tau} = i c \frac{d \mathbf X}{ds} = i c \frac{d \mathbf X}{dt} \frac{dt}{ds} = i c \; (1,0,0,0) \; \frac{1}{\sqrt{-\gamma^{-2} c^2}} = (\gamma,0,0,0)

The norm of the four-velocity is given by:
||\mathbf U||^2=U_{\mu} U^{\mu}= g_{\mu\nu} U^{\nu} U^{\mu} = -c^2
So this agrees with my previous results so far as expected since the norm is a frame invariant quantity.

Now we can derive the four-acceleration in the rotating frame as follows:
A^{\mu}=\frac{DU^{\mu}}{d\tau}=\frac{dU^{\mu}}{d\tau}+\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}
\frac{d \mathbf U}{d\tau}= i c\frac{d \mathbf U}{ds}= i c\frac{d \mathbf U}{dt}\frac{dt}{ds}= i c \; (0,0,0,0) \; \frac{dt}{ds}=(0,0,0,0)
There is only one non-zero component of:
\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}U^{\nu}U^{\lambda}=\Gamma^{r}_{tt}U^{t}U^{t}=-\gamma^2 r \omega^2
So, substituting back in we obtain the four-acceleration in the rotating frame:
\mathbf A = (0,-\gamma^2 r \omega^2,0,0)

The norm of the four-acceleration, which is equal to the magnitude of the proper acceleration, is given by:
||\mathbf A||^2=A_{\mu} A^{\mu}= g_{\mu\nu} A^{\nu} A^{\mu} = \gamma^4 r^2 \omega^4
So this also agrees with my previous results as expected since the norm is a frame invariant quantity.

In summary, if you use four-vectors it does not matter which frame you do the calculations in, they will all agree on the norms. The magnitude of the proper acceleration, which is equal to the norm of the four-acceleration, is a frame-invariant quantity, and it is given by the above expression. The quantity starthaus derived is a frame-variant coordinate acceleration, not the frame-invariant proper acceleration.

The result is incorrect, a correct application of covariant derivatives (as shown here) gives the result a_0=r\omega^2.
 
  • #171
When you compare different sources for a derivation of centripetal acceleration, you need to know what \omega actually is.

In the Gron example above it is d\phi/dt. In the Wikipedia article it is d\phi/d\tau. The two are related by a factor of \gamma = dt/d\tau.

So in fact both derivations agree when you take that into account.
 
  • #172
DrGreg said:
When you compare different sources for a derivation of centripetal acceleration, you need to know what \omega actually is.

In the Gron example above it is d\phi/dt. In the Wikipedia article it is d\phi/d\tau. The two are related by a factor of \gamma = dt/d\tau.

So in fact both derivations agree when you take that into account.

Gron (5.20) shows the potential to be :

\Phi=1/2r^2\omega^2

This gives an acceleration of :

r\omega^2

which is contradictory to his definition of \omega=\frac{d\theta}{dt}.

In the end, my derivation is correct and so is Dale's, we are differing on the definition of \omega. My two derivations reproduce the result from wiki, yet they use different approaches. Dale's claim that I cannot tell the proper from the coordinate acceleration is false.
 
  • #173
starthaus said:
In the end, my derivation is correct and so is Dale's, we are differing on the definition of \omega.
kev explicitly gave the definition of \omega=d\theta/dt in the very first equation of the very first post. If you were going to use a different definition than everyone else was using then it would have been quite helpful for you to post your definition instead of assuming that everyone on the forum has mystical psychic powers and could read your mind.
 
  • #174
DaleSpam said:
kev explicitly gave the definition of \omega=d\theta/dt in the very first equation of the very first post. If you were going to use a different definition than everyone else was using then it would have been quite helpful for you to post your definition instead of assuming that everyone on the forum has mystical psychic powers and could read your mind.

If it weren't for DrGreg, none of us would have figured out the difference.
It is hard to understand why one would define the [proper acceleration as a function of coordinate angular speed when proper angular speed is the natural choice (and produces a much more elegant expression).
 
  • #175
starthaus said:
It is hard to understand why one would define the [proper acceleration as a function of coordinate angular speed when proper angular speed is the natural choice (and produces a much more elegant expression).
It isn't that hard to understand. The coordinate transformations are easy in terms of coordinate time, they would be much more difficult in terms of proper time. In fact, with your alternate definition of \omega = d\theta/d\tau, what exactly are the transformations between your coordinates and an inertial coordinate system? And, what is the metric in your coordinate system?

Btw, the advantage of my approach is that it applies for any arbitrary worldline in any arbitrary coordinate system and will always give the correct proper acceleration. A derivation based on potentials only works for static spacetimes where potentials can be defined, and I am not sure that it works in any coordinates where the particle is not stationary. I don't see any advantage to it when the general approach is so straightforward.
 
  • #176
DaleSpam said:
It isn't that hard to understand. The coordinate transformations are easy in terms of coordinate time, they would be much more difficult in terms of proper time. In fact, with your alternate definition of \omega = d\theta/d\tau, what exactly are the transformations between your coordinates and an inertial coordinate system? And, what is the metric in your coordinate system?

Btw, the advantage of my approach is that it applies for any arbitrary worldline in any arbitrary coordinate system and will always give the correct proper acceleration. A derivation based on potentials only works for static spacetimes where potentials can be defined, and I am not sure that it works in any coordinates where the particle is not stationary. I don't see any advantage to it when the general approach is so straightforward.

The advantage is that \omega = d\theta/d\tau is what the experimenter measures directly.
As to the potentials, they can always be calculated, see Moller, see Gron.
 
  • #177
I am still very curious about the coordinate transform and metric that you are using. Please post them at your earliest convenience.

AFAIK a scalar potential can only be calculated in a static spacetime. What is the general formula for calculating a potential? The one in Gron 5.20 was certainly not general.
 
  • #178
DaleSpam said:
I am still very curious about the coordinate transform and metric that you are using. Please post them at your earliest convenience.

Both were posted in this thread.


AFAIK a scalar potential can only be calculated in a static spacetime. What is the general formula for calculating a potential?

That was also posted.

The one in Gron 5.20 was certainly not general.

But it gives the correct answer to the problem. An answer that you still have not admitted that it is correct.
 
  • #179
starthaus said:
DaleSpam said:
I am still very curious about the coordinate transform and metric that you are using. Please post them at your earliest convenience.
Both were posted in this thread.
As far as I could tell, the only metric you posted in this thread was Gron's metric.

starthaus said:
Gron's line element (5.5) :

ds^2=(1-\frac{r^2\omega^2}{c^2})(cdt)^2+2r^2\omega dt d\theta+(r d \theta)^2+z^2
But you are not using Gron's \omega so you are not using Gron's coordinates nor his metric. I already demonstrated how using Gron's coordinates and metric leads to the expression involving \gamma.

You cannot have it both ways, either you are using Gron's coordinates and metric, in which case my formula follows, or your formula is also correct, in which case you are not using Gron's coordinates and metric.
 
  • #180
DaleSpam said:
As far as I could tell, the only metric you posted in this thread was Gron's metric.

I think Starthaus is talking about the derivation in his blog attachment titled "acceleration in rotating frames". It is incomplete, but I completed it for him in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2693087&postcount=100"and he said my final solution is correct.

I am not 100% sure it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #181
Those metrics are incomplete, please provide the remaining terms. Especially all of the terms involving \omega. I don't know why you are being so evasive about this.
 
Last edited:
  • #182
DaleSpam said:
Those metrics are incomplete, please provide the remaining terms.

Here.
You DON'T NEED the remaining terms.
 
Last edited:
  • #183
kev said:
I think Starthaus is talking about the derivation in his blog attachment titled "acceleration in rotating frames". It is incomplete, but I completed it for him in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2693087&postcount=100"and he said my final solution is correct.

I am not 100% sure it is.

Yes, this is the method that uses coordinate transformations in rotating frames. You did complete the calculations after a lot of prodding and prompting and correcting your calculus errors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #184
starthaus said:
Here.
You DON'T NEED the remaining terms.
The post you linked to has only Gron's metric which you are not using and the "standard" metric which is incomplete.

I find your evasiveness very disturbing. It is not as though it is unreasonable to ask for the metric.
 
  • #185
DaleSpam said:
The post you linked to has only Gron's metric which you are not using and the "standard" metric which is incomplete.

Of course I am using the Gron metric. It is the same as the metric used in Rindler (9.26). If you read this thread rather than jumping in, you would have seen that.
You only need the first term (the coefficient for dt^2) of the "standard" metric, you get the potential through a simple identification.

-ds^2=\left(1+\frac{2\Phi}{c^2 }\right)^{-1}dr^2+r^2(d \theta^2 +\sin^2 \theta d \phi^2)-c^2 \left(1+\frac{2\Phi}{c^2}\right)dt^2

I find your evasiveness very disturbing. It is not as though it is unreasonable to ask for the metric.

This is your problem, the same exact approach is used in Rindler chapter 11. It can also be used very successfully in deriving the gravitational acceleration of a radial field (much more elegant than the covariant derivative solution)
 
Last edited:
  • #186
Thanks for posting the "standard" metric.

starthaus said:
Of course I am using the Gron metric.
If you are using the Gron metric then your result is wrong. The \omega he uses is \omega=d\theta/dt (see eq 5.2). The only way your result can be right is if you are using a different metric where \omega=d\theta/d\tau.
 
  • #187
DaleSpam said:
Thanks for posting the "standard" metric.

You are welcome.
If you are using the Gron metric then your result is wrong. The \omega he uses is \omega=d\theta/dt (see eq 5.2). The only way your result can be right is if you are using a different metric where \omega=d\theta/d\tau.
I am using the metric present in the Gron book, also present in the Rindler book.You need to look at Rindler, chapter 11.
If you use the weak field approximation, you get the result I showed you.
If you use the strong field approximation:

ds^2=e^{2\Phi/c^2} dt^2-...

you get :

\Phi/c^2=\frac{1}{2}ln(1-\frac{r^2\omega^2}{c^2})

\vec{F}=-grad(\Phi)=\frac{r\omega^2}{1-r^2\omega^2}

Now:

\omega=\frac{d\theta}{dt}=\frac{d\theta}{d\tau}\frac{d\tau}{dt}=\omega_{proper}\sqrt{1-r^2\omega^2}

So:

\vec{F}=r\omega_{proper}^2

Same exact result as in chapter 92, expression (97) page 247 in Moller ("The General Theory of Relativity")
 
Last edited:
  • #188
starthaus said:
If you use the strong field approximation:

ds^2=e^{2\Phi/c^2} dt^2-...

you get :

\Phi/c^2=\frac{1}{2}ln(1-\frac{r^2\omega^2}{c^2})

\vec{F}=-grad(\Phi)=\frac{r\omega^2}{1-r^2\omega^2}

Now:

\omega=\frac{d\theta}{dt}=\frac{d\theta}{d\tau}\frac{d\tau}{dt}=\omega_{proper}\sqrt{1-r^2\omega^2}

So:

\vec{F}=r\omega_{proper}^2

Same exact result as in chapter 92, expression (97) page 247 in Moller ("The General Theory of Relativity")
OK, your results using the strong field approximation are correct and agree with the covariant derivative approach.

Is this the correct full expression for the strong-field approximation metric:
-ds^2=\left(e^{\frac{2\Phi}{c^2 }}\right)^{-1}dr^2+r^2(d \theta^2 +\sin^2 \theta d \phi^2)-c^2 \left(e^{\frac{2\Phi}{c^2}}\right)dt^2
 
  • #189
DaleSpam said:
OK, your results using the strong field approximation are correct and agree with the covariant derivative approach.

Is this the correct full expression for the strong-field approximation metric:
-ds^2=\left(e^{\frac{2\Phi}{c^2 }}\right)^{-1}dr^2+r^2(d \theta^2 +\sin^2 \theta d \phi^2)-c^2 \left(e^{\frac{2\Phi}{c^2}}\right)dt^2

yes,it is
 
  • #190
starthaus said:
The result is incorrect, a correct application of covariant derivatives (as shown here) gives the result a_0=r\omega^2.

starthaus said:
...
Now:

\omega=\frac{d\theta}{dt}=\frac{d\theta}{d\tau}\frac{d\tau}{dt}=\omega_{proper}\sqrt{1-r^2\omega^2}

So:

\vec{F}=r\omega_{proper}^2

OK, you have effectively defined proper centripetal acceleration as:

a_0=r\omega_{proper}^2

using your definition:

\omega=\frac{d\theta}{dt}=\omega_{proper}\sqrt{1-r^2\omega^2}

This means in your coordinates, the coordinate acceleration is:

a=r\omega_{proper}^2(1-r^2\omega^2) = r\omega^2 = a_0 \gamma^{-2}

and the fundamental relationship

a_0 = a\gamma^2

between proper and coordinate centripetal acceleration, given by myself in #1 and later by Dalespam and others is correct.
 
Last edited:
  • #191
kev said:
OK, you have effectively defined proper centripetal acceleration as:

a_0=r\omega_{proper}^2

using your definition:

It is not "my" definition, it is the standard definition.
\omega=\frac{d\theta}{dt}=\omega_{proper}\sqrt{1-r^2\omega^2}

This means in your coordinates, the coordinate acceleration is:

a=r\omega_{proper}^2(1-r^2\omega^2) = r\omega^2 = a_0 \gamma^{-2}

and the fundamental relationship

a_0 = a\gamma^2

between proper and coordinate centripetal acceleration, given by myself in #1 and later by Dalespam and others is correct.

The difference is that you did not derive anything (unless we factor in the stuff that I guided you to derive from the rotating frames transforms). Putting in results by hand doesn't count as "derivation".
Besides, post #3 shows that the naive transformation of force you attempted is wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #192
starthaus said:
The difference is that you did not derive anything (unless we factor in the stuff that I guided you to derive from the rotating frames transforms). Putting in results by hand doesn't count as "derivation".
Besides, post #3 shows that the naive transformation of force you attempted is wrong.

I never claimed that I derived the equations in #1. I merely stated them and pointed out some relationships between the equations.

The transformation of force that you object to in #3 is the perfectly standard Lorentz transformation of force and unless you are claiming the Lorentz transformations are wrong, there is no need for me to derive them.

You seem to think that angular acceleration might somehow make the transformation of centripetal force different from the transformation of linear transverse force, but if you understood the ramifications of the clock postulate you would know that acceleration has no effect on time dilation or length contraction and we only need to consider the instantaneous tangential velocity of a particle to work out the transformations of an accelerating particle. So all I did was apply the Lorentz transformation (which does not need deriving because it is an accepted standard result) and the clock postulate (which does not need deriving because it is a postulate supported by experimental evidence).

Your main objection seems to be that, even though I get the correct result, the method I used is not complicated enough.
 
  • #193
kev said:
The transformation of force that you object to in #3 is the perfectly standard Lorentz transformation of force and unless you are claiming the Lorentz transformations are wrong, there is no need for me to derive them.

What has been explained to you is that the respective transformation is derived from the Lorentz transforms for translation. As such, it does NOT apply to rotation. Physics is not the process of mindless application of formulas cobbled from the internet.
So all I did was apply the Lorentz transformation (which does not need deriving because it is an accepted standard result) and the clock postulate (which does not need deriving because it is a postulate supported by experimental evidence).

You applied the inappropriate Lorentz transform. I do not expect you to understand that.
Your main objection seems to be that, even though I get the correct result, the method I used is not complicated enough.

My main objection is that you don't seem to know the domains of application of different formulas. I taught you how to derive the force transformation starting from the correct formulas: the transforms for rotating frames. You can't plug in willy-nilly the Lorentz transforms for translation.
 
  • #194
starthaus said:
What has been explained to you is that the respective transformation is derived from the Lorentz transforms for translation. As such, it does NOT apply to rotation. Physics is not the process of mindless application of formulas cobbled from the internet.

I showed you how the clock hypothesis means that the Lorentz transforms for translation can be applied to rotation. You basically have the same misconception as many beginners to relativity, that think Special Relativity can not be applied to cases involving acceleration. My process of application is not ""mindless". I used logic applied to information from reliable sources and then got a second opinion about the results I obtained from the more knowledgeable members of this forum like Dalespam.


starthaus said:
You applied the inappropriate Lorentz transform. I do not expect you to understand that.
I did not. If I had I would have got the wrong result, but I did not. Everyone but you in this thread says the results I got in #1 are correct. All you have done is changed the definitions to make your results look different. This is like saying the speed of light is 299792.458 km/s and not 299792458 m/s, when in fact both answers are correct but are using different units. You fail to understand that our results are in agreement and they only differ in that my results are obtained much quicker and more directly.
 
  • #195
kev said:
I showed you how the clock hypothesis means that the Lorentz transforms for translation can be applied to rotation.

The point is that you shouldn't try to apply the transforms derived for translation to a rotation exercise. This is precisely why special transforms have been derived for the case of rotation.
The type of hacks you keep attempting don't count as correct derivations , even if they produce the correct results by accident.
You basically have the same misconception as many beginners to relativity, that think Special Relativity can not be applied to cases involving acceleration.
LOL. You "forgot" the files that I wrote about accelerated motion in SR. You "forgot" the relativistic transforms for rotation that I tried to teach you.
I simply tried to teach you how to use the correct SR equations as they apply to rotation.
 
Last edited:
  • #196
kev said:
there is something wrong with rhs of your two equations:

if

\frac{d}{dt}( m_0 v)=q v x b

is true, then by the properties of simultaneous equations, it must follow that:

\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma m_0 v)= (q v x b) \gamma

lol.
 

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