Computing Thomas Precession: Part 2 | Francesco

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Coelum
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Computing Precession
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
7 replies · 2K views
Coelum
Messages
97
Reaction score
32
TL;DR
While computing the transformation matrix associated to Thomas precession - as described by Goldstein (7.3) - I cannot reproduce a step in the derivation. This is a step later than the one described in my previous post "Computing the Thomas precession".
Dear PFer's,
I am reproducing the steps to derive the expression for the Thomas precession, as described in Goldstein/Poole/Safko "Classical Mechanics". Hereafter an excerpt from the book describing the step I am currently working on.
Screenshot from 2022-08-30 10-18-29.png

Based on the text, the transformation S_3 -> S_1 should be the composition of a boost on the x" axis

1661847678210.png

and a boost on the y" axis

1661848318941.png

which, when composed assuming γ'=1, yield

1661848394308.png
.
The differences with (7.20) are:
  1. the '-' sign in elements [1,2], [2,2], [2,1], [3,1]
  2. the '0' in position [3,2]
  3. the element in position [2,3], which can be approximated as (dropping the " for readability):
    βxβyγ = γ(βyxx2 ≈ γ(βyx2 = γ(βyx)(1-1/γ2) = (γ-1/γ)βyx. Close, but not identical.
Can anybody help me understand?

Thanks,

Francesco
 
Physics news on Phys.org
vanhees71 said:
The Thomas precession is hard to calculate. Here's my attempt (Sect. 1.8):

https://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~hees/pf-faq/srt.pdf
Hi vanhees71,
thanks for your answer! I am not familiar enough with Lie algebra to follow your exposition. But I understand I will need to learn the mathematical tools you are using if I want to dig deeper.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Not to sound like a wise guy, but I've always thought the treatment of J.D. Jackson (I have a translation of the 1975 edition) to be the best: lucid and straight to the point.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Hi dextercioby, thanks for the pointer! In fact, the Thomas precession is discussed in section 11.8 of the second edition of Jackson's, though it requires reading the previous section on infinitesimal transformations.

As an update: I fixed all the issues except the '0' element in position [3,2]. That looks very strange: that element is certainly zero!
 
Just an idea: to first order in β, γ"-1 ≈ 0. It can replace 0 in position [3,2]...