B Deriving the Lorentz transformations

TobilobaEinstein
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I have tried to derive the lorentz transformations but there is a part of it that requires substitution into two equations when t=0. How do I do that
I have tried to derive the lorentz transformations but there is a part of it that requires substitution into two equations when t=0. How do I do that
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please show what you have done so far. It is impossible to tell what you have done based on your vague description.
 
Just to add - there are many, many ways to derive the transforms depending on your starting point and familiarity with different techniques. So we need to know how you are approaching it before we can comment.

You can use LaTeX to write maths - there's a guide linked below the reply box if you don't know how it works.
 
Ibix said:
Just to add - there are many, many ways to derive the transforms depending on your starting point and familiarity with different techniques. So we need to know how you are approaching it before we can comment.

You can use LaTeX to write maths - there's a guide linked below the reply box if you don't know how it works.
Acacac
Ibix said:
Just to add - there are many, many ways to derive the transforms depending on your starting point and familiarity with different techniques. So we need to know how you are approaching it before we can comment.

You can use LaTeX to write maths - there's a guide linked below the reply box if you don't know how it works.
Actually I have found my answer. But please can you explain those other ways ?
 
TobilobaEinstein said:
Actually I have found my answer. But please can you explain those other ways ?
Not unless we know which one you found...but as this point you’ll be better served by google. You’ll find a bunch more derivations that wAy, and if you have trouble understanding something we can help you over the hard spot.

This thread seems to be at a good stopping point so is closed.
 
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
Back
Top