Can Relativistic Velocity Addition Ensure Speeds Stay Within Limits?

kreil
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
665
Reaction score
68

Homework Statement


Show that the addition of velocities implies the following:

- If | \vec V | < c in one inertial frame, then | \vec V | < c in any inertial frame

- If | \vec V | > c in one inertial frame, then | \vec V | > c in any inertial frame

Homework Equations


V^{x'}=\frac{V^x - v}{1-\frac{vV^x}{c^2}}...(1)

V^{y'}=\frac{V^y}{1-\frac{vV^y}{c^2}} \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}...(2)

V^{z'}=\frac{V^z}{1-\frac{vV^z}{c^2}} \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}...(3)

The Attempt at a Solution



If |V| < c, then we can write V^x = ac, for some constant a < 1. Then:

V^{x&#039;}=\frac{ac - v}{1-\frac{av}{c}}= c \left ( \frac{ac-v}{c-av} \right )

Since no assumptions are made about v (the relative speed between the inertial frames), I'm not sure how I can show this last fraction is less than 1..

Also, is it necessary to show this for each of V^x, V^y, V^z or is V^x sufficient? (If V=c, (1) gives the required answer of c but I don't think (2) or (3) do..)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't know if what I'm saying is correct, but I'd take the composition law for velocities.
Then showing that c is a critical point, that no increment of speed will pass the limit c.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula)s = {v+u \over 1+(vu/c^2)}

Then I'd take the derivative of one of the speeds, let's take u

\frac{\partial s}{\partial u} = \frac{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}{(1+\frac{uv}{c^2})^2}

Then take it to the limit for v --> c

\lim_{v \to c} \frac{\partial s}{\partial u} = \lim_{v \to c} \frac{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}{(1+\frac{uv} {c^2})^2} = 0This shows that:
When an object increases it's speed from zero to c, we can think of it as continuously changing it's reference frame.
You'll arrive to a point at which no matter how you try to increase your speed, the effect of your increment seen from the original frame will be zero.
That is, you cannot pass c, by adding up speed to u.
In the function c is in fact a critical point because it's derivatives goes to zero.
An onbject cannot increase it's speed over c, because any increment of speed will have no effect as seen from a "resting" frame.

Also, is it necessary to show this for each of LaTeX Code: V^x, V^y, V^z or is LaTeX Code: V^x sufficient? (If V=c, (1) gives the required answer of c but I don't think (2) or (3) do..)

I think it's enough V_x since any velocity addition can be seen as V_x +V_y + V_z taken as 3 separate steps.
 
Last edited:
Don't know if what I'm saying is correct, but I'd take the composition law for velocities.
Then showing that c is a critical point, that no increment of speed will pass the limit c.

I think the problem is simpler than this. For the first part, I just need to show that if an observer in the rest frame observes the velocity of a moving object V^x as less than c, then any observer in an inertial frame moving relative to the rest frame at speed v observes the velocity V^x&#039; as less than c as well.

For example, if V^x=c, the moving observer sees the object as moving at:

V^{x&#039;} = \frac{c-v}{1-v/c}=c \left ( \frac{c-v}{c-v} \right ) = c

Which is consistent with c being the maximum allowed speed in any inertial reference frame. Unfortunately when V^x is greater or less than c the proof isn't as straightforward.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top