Calc Magnitude of Proper Accel w/ 3-Vectors & 4-Vectors

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding an expression for the magnitude of proper acceleration in terms of three-velocities and three-accelerations, particularly within the context of special relativity. Participants explore various approaches, including the use of 4-vectors and alternative formulations, while considering the implications of their calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a method to calculate proper acceleration using 4-vectors, noting that it simplifies the process compared to using 3-vectors.
  • Another participant references Rindler's work, suggesting a specific expression for proper acceleration involving 3-velocities and 3-accelerations.
  • Some participants express agreement with the use of 3-vector formalism, while others seek clarification on this approach.
  • A participant introduces a rapidity-based method to derive the squared magnitude of proper acceleration, emphasizing the need for algebraic verification.
  • There are multiple formulations presented for the proper acceleration, with variations in notation and components, leading to some confusion about equivalence.
  • One participant attempts to reconcile different expressions and relates them to a Wikipedia article, indicating a potential overlap with established results.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the best approach to calculate proper acceleration, with some favoring 4-vector methods and others advocating for 3-vector formalism. There is no consensus on a single correct expression, as multiple formulations are discussed and compared.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the complexity of verifying the correctness of their derived expressions, indicating that further algebraic manipulation may be necessary. There are also references to specific texts and articles that may contain relevant expressions, but participants have not reached a definitive agreement on which is the most accurate or useful.

pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
10,480
Reaction score
1,635
I've been wondering if there is an expression for the magnitude of the proper acceleration of an observer in terms of three-velocities and three-accelerations.

I didn't find any, so I took a stab at calculating it. However, it was not at all convenient to do the calculations without 4-vectors, so I used them in my caculations. Even so perhaps the results could be mildly useful to someone who asks a question about acceleration in special realtivity (of which we get large numbers ) without a background in 4-vectors (of which there are also large numbers. The point is that one can see that given the 3-acceleration and 3-velocity of an observer, one can compute the invariant magnitude of the 4-acceleration which is just the magnitude of the acceleration that is experienced by an instantaneously co-moving observer.

Onto the calculations.

We start with defining the components of the 3-velocity as vx, vy, vz, and also the 3-acceleration ax=dx/dt, ay=dy/dt, az=dz/dt. I used geometric units, with c=1, though I'll attempt to put the necessary factors of c back in in the final result.

We can write the components of the 4-velocity as:

$$u^t = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-vx^2-vy^2-vz^2}} \quad u^x=\frac{vx}{\sqrt{1-vx^2-vy^2-vz^2}}$$$$ u^y=\frac{vy}{\sqrt{1-vx^2-vy^2-vz^2}} \quad u^z=\frac{vz}{\sqrt{1-vx^2-vy^2-vz^2}} $$

Then we can compute the 4-accerlation ##\alpha## as:

$$\alpha^t =\frac{d}{d\tau} u^t = \frac{du^t}{dt}\frac{dt}{d\tau} = u^t \,at \quad \alpha^x = \frac{d}{d\tau} u^x = \frac{du^x}{dt} \frac{dt}{d\tau} = u^t\,ax$$
$$\alpha^y = u^t \, ay \quad \alpha^z = u^t \, az$$

Then the square magnitude of the proper acceleration, ##A^2## is giving by

$$A^2 = (\alpha^x)^2+(\alpha^y)^2+(\alpha^z)^2-(\alpha^t)^2$$

Much computer algebra later we get the following expression for ##A^2##:

$$\frac{(1-\beta_y^2-\beta_z^2)\,ax^2 + (1-\beta_x^2-\beta_z^2)\,ay^2+(1-\beta_x^2-\beta_y^2)\,az^2 + 2\beta_x\beta_y\,ax\,ay +2\beta_x\beta_z\,ax\,az+2\beta_y\beta_z\,ay\,az}{ (1-\beta_x^2-\beta_y^2-\beta_z^2)^3}$$

where we have introduced ##\beta_x =\frac{vx}{c} \quad \beta_y = \frac{vy}{c} \quad \beta_z = \frac{vz}{c}##.

Hopefully this will serve as a motivation for why it's much easier to use 4-vectors to calculate proper accelerations, as the 4-vector expession ##(\alpha^x)^2+(\alpha^y)^2+(\alpha^z)^2-(\alpha^t)^2## is much simpler than the 3-vector expression.

As far as whether or not I made any errors - it's hard to say, but it seems to pass a few quick tests, namely the 1d case where only ##\beta_x## is nonzero, and the 2d case of the sliding block.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sorcerer and Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
I am pretty sure the computation you are looking for is available in Rindler's "Introduction to Special Relativity". I also have a vague memory of deriving it in my lecture notes. The correct expression is
$$
\alpha^2 = \gamma^4 \vec a^2 + \gamma^6 (\vec u \cdot \vec a)^2,
$$
where ##\alpha## is the proper acceleration, ##\vec u## the 3-velocity, and ##\vec a## the 3-acceleration.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SiennaTheGr8
pervect said:
Much computer algebra later
This would be my approach too!
 
Dale said:
This would be my approach too!
Well, it becomes significantly simpler if you actually use the 3-vector formalism instead of writing everything out in components.
 
Orodruin said:
Well, it becomes significantly simpler if you actually use the 3-vector formalism instead of writing everything out in components.
I am not sure what you mean by that.
 
Dale said:
I am not sure what you mean by that.
Instead of writing out all components explicitly, use ##\vec u## and ##\vec a##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Here is a rapidity-based approach.

##\vec{\beta} = \vec{v}/c##
##\gamma = (1 - \beta^2)^{-1/2}##
##\vec{\omega} = \gamma \vec{\beta}##
##\phi = \tanh^{-1}{\beta}##
Little circle means a proper-time-times-##c## derivative: ##\mathring{\phi} = (d \phi / d \tau)/c##

Four-acceleration (in my preferred units) is:

##\vec A = \mathring {\vec V} = (\mathring{\gamma}, \mathring{\vec \omega}) ##.

Its squared magnitude under (-+++) signature is:

##\vec A^2 = - \mathring{\gamma}^2 + \mathring{\vec \omega}^2 = - \left( \dfrac{d}{c \, d \tau} \, \cosh{\phi} \right)^2 + \left( \dfrac{d}{c \, d\tau} \left( \hat{\omega} \sinh{\phi} \right) \right)^2##.

Then:

##\vec A^2 = - (\sinh{\phi} \, \mathring{\phi})^2 + (\hat{\omega} \cosh{\phi} \, \mathring{\phi} + \mathring{\hat{\omega}} \sinh{\phi})^2##,

and since ##\hat{\omega} \cdot \mathring{\hat{\omega}} = 0##, ##\hat{\omega}^2 = 1##, and ##\cosh^{2}{\phi} - \sinh^{2}{\phi} = 1##:

##\vec A^2 = \mathring{\phi}^2 + \big( \mathring{\hat{\omega}} \sinh{\phi} \big)^2##.

If I didn't make any mistakes, that should be the squared proper acceleration. It would take some algebra to verify it. On first glance it checks out though—the second term vanishes in the instantaneous rest frame, as it should.
 
SiennaTheGr8 said:
If I didn't make any mistakes, that should be the squared proper acceleration. It would take some algebra to verify it.

Verified it by rewriting @Orodruin's expression like this:

##\gamma^4 \left( \dfrac{d}{c \, dt} (\beta \hat{\beta} ) \right)^2 + \gamma^6 \beta^2 \left( \dfrac{d \beta}{c \, dt} \right)^2##,

and subbing in hyperbolic functions.
 
pervect said:
I've been wondering if there is an expression for the magnitude of the proper acceleration of an observer in terms of three-velocities and three-accelerations.

That article has several expressions relating proper acceleration and 3-acceleration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity)#Proper_acceleration

At the end of that section, a formula equivalent to that of Orodruin appears, which is derived by noticing that the magnitude of proper acceleration corresponds to the magnitude of 4-acceleration.
 
  • #10
Orodruin said:
I am pretty sure the computation you are looking for is available in Rindler's "Introduction to Special Relativity". I also have a vague memory of deriving it in my lecture notes. The correct expression is
$$
\alpha^2 = \gamma^4 \vec a^2 + \frac{\gamma^6}{c^2} (\vec u \cdot \vec a)^2,
$$
where ##\alpha## is the proper acceleration, ##\vec u## the 3-velocity, and ##\vec a## the 3-acceleration.

I'm getting the above result now, which I format as ##\gamma^4 \,( \vec{a} \cdot \vec{a}) + \frac{\gamma^6}{c^2} \,( \vec{v} \cdot \vec{a})^2##, denoting the 3-velocity with ##\vec{v}## and the 3-acceleration with ##\vec{a}## - a slightly different choice of symbols. I don't think it's the same as what I was getting earlier :(. As of yet, I don't quite see if it's the same expression wiki gets. I don't have Rindler's textbook (I have seen it in the past). If I get to the library again I'll look it up though. I'd like to thank everyone for a good & helpful thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
pervect said:
I'm getting the above result now, which I format as ##\gamma^4 \,( \vec{a} \cdot \vec{a}) + \gamma^6 \,( \vec{v} \cdot \vec{a})##, denoting the 3-velocity with ##\vec{v}## and the 3-acceleration with ##\vec{a}## - a slightly different choice of symbols. I don't think it's the same as what I was getting earlier :(. As of yet, I don't quite see if it's the same expression wiki gets. I don't have Rindler's textbook (I have seen it in the past). If I get to the library again I'll look it up though. I'd like to thank everyone for a good & helpful thread.

Try this:

##\gamma^4 a^2 + \gamma^6 (\vec{v} \cdot \vec{a})^2 = \gamma^4 a^2 + \gamma^6 (va \cos{\theta})^2 = \gamma^6 a^2 \left( \gamma^{-2} + (v \cos{\theta})^2 \right)##,

where ##\theta## is the angle between ##\vec{v}## and ##\vec a##. In the parentheses, you have ##1 - v^2 + (v \cos{\theta})^2 = 1 - (v \sin{\theta})^2##, but ##v \sin{\theta}## is just the component of ##\vec{v}## that's perpendicular to ##\vec{a}##, so:

##\gamma^6 a^2 \left( 1 - v_{\perp \vec a}^2 \right)##.

Now define ##\gamma_{\perp} \equiv (1 - v_{\perp \vec a}^2)^{-1/2}##, and your (unsquared) proper acceleration is:

##\dfrac{\gamma^3 \vec a}{\gamma_{\perp}}##.

That matches what you see in Wikipedia, since the denominator is ##\gamma## for ##\vec v \perp \vec a## and unity for ##\vec v \parallel \vec a##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K