Accelerating frame in special relativity

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
Let (t,x) be coordinates of some point P in some inertial frame O. Suppose that at (0,0) there is a particle that has velocity u and acceleration a in the frame O. If the origo of a frame O' is attached to this particle, then what are coordinates (t',x') of the point P in the frame O'?

Or does that acceleration have any effect on the coordinates? It would seem reasonable, if correct answer is that one must use coordinates that transform in the usual way similarly as without acceleration, but always choose the value of u that is correct instantaneously.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Or does that acceleration have any effect on the coordinates? It would seem reasonable, if correct answer is that one must use coordinates that transform in the usual way similarly as without acceleration, but always choose the value of u that is correct instantaneously.
That is reasonable, but there is also a definition of accelerated coordinates that is instructive as an outlook on GR. To use it, you
1. translate your coordinates such that the coordinates of your former origin satisfy v=t/x and x²-t²=1/a². Source:http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath422/kmath422.htm
2. Check whether the event P is in the Rindler wedge 0 < x, -x < t < x; if so, transform to the accelerated coordinates, if not, it lies behind the Rindler Horizon of the particle and is out of reach. Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates
If you're talking about a point in space rather than an event, it will generally fall back behind the particle an finally come to rest at the horizon, in strong analogy to the event horizon of a black hole.
 
The OP might also want to take a look at a couple of past threads on the topic or that wandered into the area of the topic besides the above references (which are good, esp. the mathpages url which is probably simpler than the wikipedia entry).

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=45261 (see my post #6)
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=174138 (see my post #5)

There are a few important things to point out:

1) "The" accelerated coordinate system of an accelerated observer isn't necessarily uniquely defined. The one I discuss in these links is a standard approach from a standard textbook, and takes the reasonable choice of using the inertial coordinates of an observer who co-moves with the origin of the coordinate system for the coordinates of an accelerating observer.

2) The coordinate system I describe above doesn't cover all of space-time. (See the remarks by Ich about the Rindler wedge) - it's only a local coordinate system.
 
Okey, the idea of co-moving frame looks good.

The individual equations in Wikipedia's article of Rindler coordinates didn't seem very complicated, although I didn't understand what precisely is achieved with them.

1) "The" accelerated coordinate system of an accelerated observer isn't necessarily uniquely defined.

So the co-moving frame is the most natural choice, but there exists also other ones? That seems strange, what kind of coordinates are they?
 
jostpuur said:
Okey, the idea of co-moving frame looks good.

The individual equations in Wikipedia's article of Rindler coordinates didn't seem very complicated, although I didn't understand what precisely is achieved with them.

The radar method gives one natural way of constructing these coorinates. I outlined such a construction here

Note the mistake in my construction:

t = \frac{e^{2at&#039;} + 1}{e^{2at&#039;} - 1}x

should be

t = \frac{e^{2at&#039;} - 1}{e^{2at&#039;} + 1}x.
 
GR allows arbitrary coordinates. Coordinates are just a set of numbers that give a label to some particular point, on the Earth for instance one might use lattitude and longitude. http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/chapter2.pdf with it's example of a rowboat with nails in it might be useful as an example of how coordinates, and "frames" are secondary to GR - what is important is the geometry, not the underlying coordinates, which are just numbers assigned to the events of space-time, i.e. the "nails" in the rowboat.

Because GR allows arbitrary coordinates, it needs a mechanism for turning coordinates into distances. This is the metric. The metric gives the distance (or, more precisely, the invariant Lorentz interval, which can serve as measure of either distance or time) between any two points, given their coordinates.

Note that the Earth's surface has a metric as well, and it serves the same purpose - it coverts \Delta latititude and \Delta longitude into distances (for small \Delta).
 
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Does the speed of light change in a gravitational field depending on whether the direction of travel is parallel to the field, or perpendicular to the field? And is it the same in both directions at each orientation? This question could be answered experimentally to some degree of accuracy. Experiment design: Place two identical clocks A and B on the circumference of a wheel at opposite ends of the diameter of length L. The wheel is positioned upright, i.e., perpendicular to the ground...
Back
Top