How can I relate four formulas from special relativity to find a solution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OneEye
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation
OneEye
[SOLVED] Need help with derivation

I have four formulas from SR, and need to relate them. Two are the Lorentz Transform, one is a simple formula for velocity, and the fourth is the formula for the addition of velocity in SR.

1... x^\prime = { x-vt \over \sqrt { 1-{v^2 \over c^2} } } \quad 2... t^\prime = { { t-{v \over c^2 } x } \over \sqrt { 1-{v^2 \over c^2 } } } \quad 3... x^\prime = wt^\prime \quad 4... W={ v+w \over 1+{vw \over c^2 } }

Dr. Einstein says:

Relativity, page 39:

In the equation x'=wt' we must then express x' and t' in terms of x and t, making use of the first and fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation [equations (1) and (2), above)]. Instead of W=v+w, we then obtain the equation [(4) above].

(Hope that made sense.)

I have tried this, and got here:

w = { x^\prime \over t^\prime }

\Rightarrow w = { { x-vt \over \sqrt { 1- { v^2 \over c^2 } } } \over { { t - { v \over c^2 } x } \over \sqrt { 1- { v^2 \over c^2 } } }

\Rightarrow w = { x-vt \over t - { v \over c^2 } x }

...so then...

W=v+{ x-vt \over t - { v \over c^2 } x }

...and that's as far as I got. I am quite a ways away from equation (4), above.

Can anyone help me here?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
OneEye said:
I have four formulas from SR, and need to relate them. Two are the Lorentz Transform, one is a simple formula for velocity, and the fourth is the formula for the addition of velocity in SR.

1... x^\prime = { x-vt \over \sqrt { 1-{v^2 \over c^2} } } \quad 2... t^\prime = { { t-{v \over c^2 } x } \over \sqrt { 1-{v^2 \over c^2 } } } \quad 3... x^\prime = wt^\prime \quad 4... W={ v+w \over 1+{vw \over c^2 } }

Dr. Einstein says:



(Hope that made sense.)

I have tried this, and got here:

w = { x^\prime \over t^\prime }

\Rightarrow w = { { x-vt \over \sqrt { 1- { v^2 \over c^2 } } } \over { { t - { v \over c^2 } x } \over \sqrt { 1- { v^2 \over c^2 } } }

\Rightarrow w = { x-vt \over t - { v \over c^2 } x }

...so then...

W=v+{ x-vt \over t - { v \over c^2 } x }

...and that's as far as I got. I am quite a ways away from equation (4), above.

Can anyone help me here?

Yeah, as he said W is NOT v+w. Instead W is x/t. So continuing from
w = { x-vt \over t - { v \over c^2 } x }
divide the top and bottom by t
w = { \frac{x}{t}-v \over 1 - { v \over c^2 } \frac{x}{t} }
w = { W-v \over 1 - { Wv \over c^2 } }
Solve for W and you will get
W = { w+v \over 1 + { wv \over c^2 } }
 
DW,

Thanks for a quick and thorough response. I was kind of afraid to go there, because it seems to me that there is a pun here between v=x/t and W=x/t.

Clearly both are true in SOME sense, and it is also clear that v<>W (though in the abstract, W is a kind of v).

Do you think that you can spare me another moment and clear that up for me?

Thanks!
 
OneEye said:
DW,

Thanks for a quick and thorough response. I was kind of afraid to go there, because it seems to me that there is a pun here between v=x/t and W=x/t.

Clearly both are true in SOME sense, and it is also clear that v<>W (though in the abstract, W is a kind of v).

Do you think that you can spare me another moment and clear that up for me?

Thanks!

In this context, v is not x/t. W is. There are three velocities being related. There is w which is the velocity of some "thing" according to measurements made from the primed coodinate system. There is W which is the velocity of that same "thing" according to measurements made from the unprimed coordinate system. And then there is v which is the speed of one of the coordinate systems according to measurements made from the other.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
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...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
Back
Top