Atkisnon's derivation of \gamma factor.

  • #1
MathematicalPhysicist
Gold Member
4,341
233
So I am rereading David Atkinson's QFT book:
http://books.google.co.il/books/about/Quantum_Field_Theory.html?id=vbAnQAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y

And I am puzzled by what is written in pages 5-6 section 1.3 Special Theory of Relativity.

He writes down the transformation between two inertial frames, one moving at speed v compared to the other.

[tex] x'=\gamma (x-vt) \ y'=y \ z'=z[/tex]

Now he writes on page 6:
What is gamma?
From the uniformity of space, we see that \gamma may not depend on the coordinates (...).
In the absence of gravity, \gamma is independent of t,x,y,z but it may depend on v.
...
Rotational invariance therefore means that \gamma must be independent of the sign of v, i.e, it's a function only of v^2.
My problem is with the last conclusion, why can't we have \gamma to be any even function of v, like v^4 and so forth?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
185
3
any even function of v is a function of v^2.

v^4 = (v^2)^2
 
  • #4
185
3
don't feel bad. everybody misses stuff like that at times.

in fact you could come back and ask. really? every even function
of v is a function of v^2? those are two different things in principle,
even functions f(v) = f(-v) and f(v) = h(v^2) for some h.

it's not that hard to prove either.
 

Related Threads on Atkisnon's derivation of \gamma factor.

Replies
4
Views
841
  • Last Post
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
28K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
742
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
786
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
936
Replies
13
Views
527
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
735
Replies
4
Views
599
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Top