Constant Acceleration seen in an inertial frame

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the computation of position as a function of time, x(t), for a rocket experiencing constant acceleration in an inertial frame. Participants explore various approaches, including the use of four-vectors and the geometric interpretation of worldlines in both Minkowski and Galilean spacetimes.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an initial computation for x(t) but acknowledges it as incorrect, specifically noting a mistake in the time interval transformation.
  • Another participant suggests using four-acceleration and references the norm of four-acceleration as the proper acceleration measured by onboard accelerometers.
  • Several participants discuss the geometric interpretation of constant acceleration, with one noting that the world line of an object under constant acceleration resembles a hyperbola in Minkowski spacetime.
  • There is a suggestion to explore the relationship between worldline curvature and acceleration, with some participants questioning the nature of curvature in Galilean spacetime.
  • One participant identifies a mistake in their earlier calculations and provides a corrected expression for velocity and position as functions of time.
  • Another participant emphasizes that in Galilean spacetime, constant acceleration leads to a parabolic trajectory, raising questions about how to compute curvature in this context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of worldlines in Galilean spacetime and the implications of curvature. There is no consensus on the best approach to compute curvature or the interpretation of acceleration in different spacetime frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the relationship between acceleration and worldline curvature, particularly in Galilean spacetime, and the implications of invariant time under Galilean transformations.

lightarrow
Messages
1,966
Reaction score
64
I'm sorry, this topic has certainly already been covered, but I didn't find what I need.

I'm trying to compute x(t) in an inertial frame if a rocket has a constant acceleration "a" as measured with accelerometers inside of it.

I made these (clearly wrong) computations:

In a co-moving frame which speed v (with respect the stationary frame) equals the instantaneous speed of the rocket, the rocket is seen to acquire a speed du during the interval of time dt'. The variation of the speed, as seen from the stationary inertial frame is:

dv = (v + du)/(1 + v*du/c^2) - v = [1 - (v/c)^2]du

The interval of time in the inertial frame is:

dt = Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]dt' <-- this is the mistake

so: dv/dt = [1 - (v/c)^2]du/Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]dt' =

= Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]du/dt' = Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2]*a

Integrating I have v(t) proportional to sin(a*t) which is a clearly wrong result.

Can you help me?
Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you been introduced to four-vectors yet? If so, I think the way to go is to use the four-acceleration ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-acceleration ). The norm of the four-acceleration is the proper acceleration which is the acceleration measured by the accelerometers on board.

Warning: I haven't worked out your problem and I know that I am biased towards using four-vectors just about everywhere, even where they actually make the problem harder.
 
Link to FAQ, suggest trigonometric approach

See http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html .

If you want a slick approach, note that the world line of an object experiencing constant acceleration (constant magnitude and direction) is a hyperbola asymptotic to two null lines, the Minkowskian analog of a circle. This suggests (correctly) that problems involving constant acceleration can be solved by developing the Minkowski analog of ordinary trigonometry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris Hillman said:
See http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html .

If you want a slick approach, note that the world line of an object experiencing constant acceleration (constant magnitude and direction) is a hyperbola asymptotic to two null lines
It was exactly this that I wanted to find as result; it seems so trivial (and probably is) in the books, but I still haven't grasped it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed, the "uniformly [4-]accelerated worldline [in Minkowski spacetime]" is
the "curve of constant-[Minkowskian worldline-]curvature".

[Bonus:
Can you guess the curve of a "uniformly accelerated worldline in Galilean spacetime"?
..that is, the "curve of constant-[Galilean worldline-]curvature".]
 
lightarrow said:
Integrating I have v(t) proportional to sin(a*t) which is a clearly wrong result.

Can you help me?
Thanks.

Since you're getting (proportioanl to) sin, and the correct answer is (proportioanl to) sinh, start looking very closely for sign errors. (d^2/dt^2) sin(t) = -sin(t), (d^2/dt^2) sinh(t) = sinh(t).
 
Last edited:
robphy said:
Indeed, the "uniformly [4-]accelerated worldline [in Minkowski spacetime]" is
the "curve of constant-[Minkowskian worldline-]curvature".

[Bonus:
Can you guess the curve of a "uniformly accelerated worldline in Galilean spacetime"?
..that is, the "curve of constant-[Galilean worldline-]curvature".]
Circle. In the previous case hyperbola because the interval is constant there. So the curvature is proportional to the acceleration? And the interval is the analogous of the radius so the curvature is inversely proportional to it?
 
pervect said:
Since you're getting (proportioanl to) sin, and the correct answer is (proportioanl to) sinh, start looking very closely for sign errors. (d^2/dt^2) sin(t) = -sin(t), (d^2/dt^2) sinh(t) = sinh(t).
I've found the mistake: actually dt = dt'/Sqrt[1 - (v/c)^2] so:

dv/dt = a[1 - (v/c)^2]^(3/2) and integrating:

v(t) = at/Sqrt[1 + (at/c)^2] -->

x(t) = (c^2/a)Sqrt[1 + (at/c)^2] -->

--> x^2 - (ct)^2 = (c^2/a)^2
 
Last edited:
lightarrow said:
Circle. In the previous case hyperbola because the interval is constant there. So the curvature is proportional to the acceleration? And the interval is the analogous of the radius so the curvature is inversely proportional to it?

It's not the circle.
Actually, I don't think it's a hyperbola "because the interval is constant there."

Acceleration is primarily about worldline-curvature not intervals.

In case it's unclear, the Galilean spacetime is the spacetime structure underlying much of introductory physics.
 
  • #10
robphy said:
It's not the circle.
Actually, I don't think it's a hyperbola "because the interval is constant there."

Acceleration is primarily about worldline-curvature not intervals.

In case it's unclear, the Galilean spacetime is the spacetime structure underlying much of introductory physics.

We can say it's not a circle because topologically the worldine of any object in Gallilean spacetime can never be a circle. But as dt is invariant under a Gallilean transformation there's no useful metric that can be imposed on Gallilean spacetime, so talking about curvature of worldlines is redundant?
 
  • #11
robphy said:
It's not the circle.
Actually, I don't think it's a hyperbola "because the interval is constant there."

Acceleration is primarily about worldline-curvature not intervals.

In case it's unclear, the Galilean spacetime is the spacetime structure underlying much of introductory physics.
In the Galilean spacetime a constant acceleration is described by a parabola, but how do I compute the curvature? Why is it constant in it?
 
  • #12
lightarrow said:
In the Galilean spacetime a constant acceleration is described by a parabola, but how do I compute the curvature? Why is it constant in it?

Yes, the parabola (on a distance-vs-time graph or spacetime diagram).
Here is a poster of mine (from an AAPT conference) that describes it (page 16)
http://www.aapt-doorway.org/Posters/SalgadoPoster/SalgadoPoster.htm (the .pdf version is nicer)
The basic idea is that, in a plane,
curvature is a measure of the rate-of-change of the angle of the tangent-vector with respect to the arc-length.
In relativity terms,
[4-]acceleration is a measure of the rate-of-change of the rapidity of the 4-velocity-vector with respect to the proper-time.

jcsd said:
But as dt is invariant under a Gallilean transformation there's no useful metric that can be imposed on Gallilean spacetime, so talking about curvature of worldlines is redundant?

There is a degenerate metric that can be used. See above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 78 ·
3
Replies
78
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K