Insights Addition of Velocities (Velocity Composition) in Special Relativity

robphy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
7,250
Reaction score
2,732
The “Addition of Velocities” formula (more correctly, the “Composition of Velocities” formula) in Special Relativity
\frac{v_{AC}}{c}=\frac{ \frac{v_{AB}}{c}+\frac{v_{BC}}{c} }{1 + \frac{v_{AB}}{c} \frac{v_{BC}}{c}}
is a non-intuitive result that arises from a “hyperbolic-tangent of a sum”-identity in Minkowski spacetime geometry, with its use of hyperbolic trigonometry.
However, I claim it is difficult to obtain this by looking at the Galilean version of this formula and then motivating the special-relativistic version.
Instead, one should start with the Euclidean analogue (in what could be mistakenly called the “addition of slopes” formula… “composition of slopes” is better),
then do the special-relativistic analogue, then do the Galilean analogue (to obtain the familiar but unfortunately-“our common sense” formula).
In response to...

Continue reading...
 
  • Like
Likes martinbn, Demystifier, Drakkith and 2 others
Composition of slopes is also called the stacked wedge analogy.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
There is a strong analogy between relativistic boosts in a single direction and Euclidean rotations in a single plane. Such boosts or rotations may be composed, but whether they add or not is a property of the representation. In what follows, we deal first with composition of Euclidean rotations, and represent that in three different ways, using slopes, using angles, and using complex rotors. Then we deal with composition of boosts, using velocities, using rapidities, and using velocity factors.

The message here is the rotations can be composed, and boosts can be composed. Rotations don't really add. Addditive representations may be possible, but also multiplicative representations. Boosts don't really add either. Again, additive representations are possible, but also multiplicative representation.

COMPOSING EUCLIDEAN ROTATIONS IN A SINGLE 2D PLANE

Slopes ##\frac{y_j}{x_j}## are somewhat inconvenient representation for composing rotations in a plane. One composes slopes under rotation by using what might be called the slope addition formula, e.g. $$\frac yx=\frac{\frac{y_1}{x_1}+\frac{y_2}{x_2}}{1-\frac{y_1\cdot y_2}{x_1\cdot x_2}}.$$ This is immediate from the trigonometric addition formulation for tangents, e.g. $$\tan(\theta_1+\theta_2)=\frac{\tan\theta_1+\tan\theta_2}{1-(\tan\theta_1)\,(\tan\theta_2)}.$$

To compose a rotation that has a slope of 0.2 with a rotation that has a slope of 0.3, we calculate $$\frac{0.2+0.3}{1-0.2\times0.3}\approx0.532$$ as the slope of the composite rotation.

Rotations in a single plane are commutative and associative, and satisfy the any order property, regardless of representation. It can be convenient to use a representation that maps rotation onto a more familiar any-order operation, such as addition or multiplication.

Additive representation of rotations using angles
One may use angles $$\theta_j=\arctan\!2(y_j,x_j)$$ defined so that ##y_j/x_j=\tan\theta_j## and also so that the signs of ##x_j## and ##y_j## match the corresponding signs of ##\cos\theta_j## and ##\sin\theta_j##. (It is necessary in general to use ##\arctan2## because, if ##x<0##, i.e. if the angle is not acute, then usual arctan function will give an angle that is wrong by 180 degrees.)

When rotations compose, angles add, $$\theta=\sum_j\theta_j.$$

We shall, for our example, suppose that the slopes are correspond to acute angles.. Then the corresponding angles to the slopes 0.2 and 0.3 are the arctangents of these numbers, i.e. the angles 11.31 degrees and 16.70 degrees (or 0.197 radians and 0.292 radians). Adding these, we get 28.01 degrees (or 0.489 radians), which we note is also acute. The tangent of this angle is the slope, i.e. approximately 0.532. These angles are a little larger than small, and so the slopes are a little larger than the radian measure of the angles.

Multiplicative representation of rotations using complex numbers
Or one may use complex numbers $$z_j=x_j + i\cdot y_j.$$ It would be usual to to normalise these, $$\hat z_j=\frac{x_j + i\cdot y_j}{\sqrt{x_j^2+y_j^2}},$$ so that ##|\hat z_j|=1##. This is called a rotor, and it is unique. But we don't actually need to normalise. What matters is that that signs of the real and imaginary parts are each correct, and also that their ratio is correct.

Whether normalised or not, we compose rotations by multiplying the complex numbers, $$z=\prod_j z_j\text{ or }\hat z=\prod_k\hat z_j.$$

For (normalised) rotors, there is a simple relation between this multiplicative relation and the preceding additive representation $$\hat z_j=\exp(i\,\theta_j)=\cos\theta_j+i\cdot\sin\theta_j.$$

The slopes 0.2 and 0.3 can quickly be realised exactly as the (unnormalised) complex numbers ##1+0.2\cdot i## and ##1+0.3\cdot i##. To compose rotations, multiply the complex numbers, getting ##(1+0.2\cdot i)\times(1+0.3\cdot i)=0.94+0.5\cdot i## exactly. The slope of this is exactly ##0.5/0.94##, i.e. approximately 0.532 again

In any case, beyond a single plane, one must use matrix multiplication or some equivalent to compose rotations, because composition is no longer commutative. Addition or multiplication of scalars is commutative, so it cannot suffice.

We have spent some time setting up the rotational part of the analogy. Now we turn to boosts.

COMPOSING RELATIVISTIC BOOSTS IN A SINGLE 2D HYPERPLANE

Velocities ##x_j/t_j##are not a convenient form for composing boosts in a single spatial direction, e.g. the ##x\,t## plane. (We take ##c=1## here throughout, or equivalently, the ##t_j## here can be taken as shorthand for ##c\cdot t_j##.)

One can neverthless compose them using the relativistic velocity addition formula, e.g. $$\frac xt=\frac{\frac{x_1}{t_1}+\frac{x_2}{t_2}}{1+\frac{x_1\cdot x_2}{t_1\cdot t_2}},$$ which corresponds to the addition formula for hyperbolic tangents, e.g. $$\tanh(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)=\frac{\tan\alpha_1+\tan\alpha_2}{1+\tan\alpha_1\,\tan\alpha_2}.$$

To compose a boost that has a velocity of 0.2 with a boost in the same direction that has a velocity of 0.3, we calculate $$\frac{0.2+0.3}{1+0.2\times0.3}\approx0.472$$ as the velocity of the composed boost.

Like rotations in a single ##x\,y## plane, relativistic boosts in a single ##x\,t## plane are commutative and associative, and satisfy the any order property, regardless of representation. It can be convenient to use a representation that maps boosts onto a more familiar any-order operation, such as addition or multiplication.

Additive representation of boosts using rapidities
One may use rapidities, $$\alpha_j=\text{arctanh}\!(x_j/t_j)$$.

When boosts compose, properly defined rapidities add to give $$\alpha=\sum_j\alpha.$$

For velocities of 0.2 and 0.3, the rapidities are the inverse hyperbolic tangents 0.203 nepers and 0.310 nepers. These add to give a rapidity of 0.513 nepers. The hyperbolic tangent of this rapidity is approximately 0.472, which is the velocity of the composed boost. The velocities are a little larger than small, and so the neper measure of the rapidities are somewhat larger, numerically, than the corresponding velocities.

Multiplicative representation of boosts using velocity factors
Or one may use velocity factors,

$$f_j=\frac{1+\frac{x_j}{t_j}}{1-\frac{x_j}{t_j}}=\frac{t_j+x_j}{t_j-x_j}.$$

We compose boosts by multiplying velocity factors,

$$f=\prod_j f_j.$$

For velocities of ##0.2=\frac2{10}## and ##0.3=\frac3{10}##, the velocity factors are ##\frac{10+2}{10-2}=\frac32## and ##\frac{10+3}{10-3}=\frac{13}7##.

To compose, we multiply, ##\frac32\times\frac{13}7=\frac{39}{14}##, which gives the velocity factor of the composed boost. The velocity is then given by reverting (with the difference now in the numerator), e.g ##\frac{39-14}{39+14}=\frac{25}{53}.## This fractional result is exact if 0.2 and 0.3 are exact. Performing the division to 3 decimal places, we get 0.472 again.

We note that the velocity factor ##f## defined here is a two-way Doppler factor. It is the square of the ##k## found in Bondi's ##k##-calculus, which is the usual one-way relativistic Doppler factor. Since ##k## is non-negative, there is no loss of information. Multiplication survives application of a constant power the way that additivity survives application of a multiplicative scale factor. The square roots just make the calculations a bit more difficult.

Of course, with more than one spatial direction, one needs matrix multiplication (or equivalent) because boost composition is no longer commutative.

SUMMARY
Rotations in a single plane, or boosts in one space dimension, can be represented somewhat inconveniently by slopes or velocities, and somewhat more conveniently by an additive representation, angles or rapidities, or by a multiplicative representation, complex rotors or velocity factors. Interconverting between slope or velocity and thee the corresponding multiplicative representation is actually easier than interconverting with the corresponding additive representation.

In more dimensions, composing rotations and composing boosts become non-commutative, so no commutative scalar representation can work.

For details on the uses of velocity factors, including pedagogically, see my "Using ordinary multiplication to do relativistic velocity addition" available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0611192.
 
  • Like
Likes robphy and haushofer
A T Wilson said:
one may use velocity factors,
$$f_j=\frac{1+\frac{x_j}{t_j}}{1-\frac{x_j}{t_j}}=\frac{t_j+x_j}{t_j-x_j}.$$

This velocity factor f_j (the square of the doppler factor) has a geometric interpretation as the "aspect ratio of a causal diamond", where t_j+x_j and t_j-x_j are the edges of the diamond expressed in light-cone coordinates.
(The causal diamond of PQ, where Q is in the causal future of P,
is the intersection of the causal-future of and the causal-past of Q.
In (1+1)-Minkowski It's a parallelogram with lightlike-sides.
These edges can be associated with a radar measurement.)


The interpretation is based on works by David Mermin


See my article on "Relativity on Rotated Graph Paper",
where I make use of the aspect ratio and the area of a causal diamond:
 
Last edited:
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top