Derive Particle Speed in Terms of Invariant U.V | Relative 4-velocities Homework

scottJH
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


In a particular inertial frame of reference, a particle with 4-velocity V is observed by an
observer moving with 4-velocity U. Derive an expression for the speed of the particle
relative to the observer in terms of the invariant U · V

Homework Equations



##U.V=U'.V'##[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I used the relation the ##U.V=U'.V'## because U.V is invariant.

Using the rest frame of the observer I obtained

##U'.V' = -\gamma(u_R)c^2##

Then rearranging to find ##u_R## I obtained

##u_R = c*sqrt(1-(c^4/(U.V)^2))##

I'm just wondering if I used the correct method and got the correct result for ##u_R##

Any insight is appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
scottJH said:
I'm just wondering if I used the correct method and got the correct result for ##u_R##

Any insight is appreciated

Yes, your approach and result seem reasonable.
 
As a non-expert in relativity (far from it), I'm confused as to why a primed frame even needs to be introduced in this problem, since U and V are individually frame invariant. So the dot product of U and V can be calculated using the components of these vectors as reckoned with respect to any convenient reference frame. This is what scottH actually did. So why the need for the primes?

Chet
 
The point is that the rest frame of the observer is this convenient frame where you get an expression for the relative velocity in terms of the inner product. Naturally, once the derivation is done and the expression for the relative velocity in terms of the product is known, you can choose to evaluate ##U\cdot V## in any frame.
 
Orodruin said:
The point is that the rest frame of the observer is this convenient frame where you get an expression for the relative velocity in terms of the inner product. Naturally, once the derivation is done and the expression for the relative velocity in terms of the product is known, you can choose to evaluate ##U\cdot V## in any frame.
That's what I thought. So why the need for the primes?

Chet
 
Some people like to denote the same vector in different coordinate systems using primes for some reason ... I guess mostly for when writing in components instead of putting the prime on the indices.
 
  • Like
Likes Chestermiller
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