Does the Trajectory Formula Account for the Speed of Light Delay?

  • Thread starter kleinwolf
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Physics
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of a frame of reference and the trajectory of a particle as seen or observed by an observer. The question is whether this trajectory takes into account the delay imposed by the speed of light limit. The conversation delves into the use of x(t) and its ambiguity in non-relativistic and relativistic physics. A transformation is proposed to account for observed trajectories, but its formula and implications are not fully understood.

Does the non-contextual description x(t) takes 'c=v_max' into account ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 2 100.0%

  • Total voters
    2
  • #1
kleinwolf
295
0
Let suppose we have a frame of reference, in which a particle is decribed by [tex] \vec{x}(t) [/tex]...I don't give, on purpose, the context, if it is a classical framework, or a relativistic one...(Like somebody new, that does not even know what those word mean)...The question is : does this trajectory, which is, after some discussion with the non-knower, as seen (or oberseved or measured ??..not measured, because this would mean a radar like method...at least I suppose) by an observer at the origin, hence at x=0. So the question is : does this take into account the delay imposed by the speed of light limit, after another discussion with the same person who has to give an answer to the question ?
Do you think it takes the delay into account ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
kleinwolf said:
Let suppose we have a frame of reference, in which a particle is decribed by [tex] \vec{x}(t) [/tex]...I don't give, on purpose, the context, if it is a classical framework, or a relativistic one...(Like somebody new, that does not even know what those word mean)...The question is : does this trajectory, which is, after some discussion with the non-knower, as seen (or oberseved or measured ??..not measured, because this would mean a radar like method...at least I suppose) by an observer at the origin, hence at x=0. So the question is : does this take into account the delay imposed by the speed of light limit, after another discussion with the same person who has to give an answer to the question ?
Do you think it takes the delay into account ?

No, normally not. The standard usage of x(t) is to take it to be the *instantaneous* value of x at t. In non-relativistic physics, that's unambiguous, in relativistic physics, the t is the time parameter of the "obvious" foliation of spacetime (usually observer-related when observers are moving). But it does normally NOT take into account the delay for x to be observed. You can do that, of course, but that means t is not parametrising a spacelike foliation anymore, but is parametrising light cones.

As in non-relativistic physics, the lightcone is flat, it coincides with the spacelike foliation, so both notions are identical. But in relativistic physics, clearly the cone is not flat.
 
  • #3
So do you think that the following transformation [tex] x_o(t_o)=x(t_o-x_o(t_o))[/tex] could eventually be a transformation of a "time foliation" (in which I don't really understand that global time valid on the whole space)...to a sort of "observed trajectory" (the observer reamains at O)...or is there another formula, because i get trapped in kind of circular reasoning...: the third time argument should be t ot[tex] t_o[/tex] ?
 
  • #4
kleinwolf said:
So do you think that the following transformation [tex] x_o(t_o)=x(t_o-x_o(t_o))[/tex] could eventually be a transformation of a "time foliation" (in which I don't really understand that global time valid on the whole space)...to a sort of "observed trajectory"

Well, in string theory, one often works with the transformation

x+ = x + t
x- = x - t
y = y
z = z

I'm forgetting right now the name of this coordinate system... it has a specific name...
 
  • #5
Thanks, I suppose it is linked to the old-fashioned : retarded or advanced terms...which correspond two the two x+, x- (with c=1 of course) (depending on your consider observer->observed, or observed->observer transformation i suppose : if you observe x at t, it was at t-x (it is not there at 't'), whereas if it is at x in t, it will be observed at t+x...but do you know for the formula above, because it is not only an event coordinate transformation, it involves the whole trajectory (hence a dependence between x and t, or other way expressed : x+ and x-)...? (it seems to be an implicit notion..)
 

What is the purpose of descriptions in physics?

Descriptions in physics are used to explain and understand the behavior of the physical world. They allow us to make accurate predictions and create models of physical phenomena.

What are the different types of descriptions used in physics?

There are two main types of descriptions in physics: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative descriptions use words and concepts to describe properties and behaviors, while quantitative descriptions use numbers and mathematical equations to describe and measure physical phenomena.

How do descriptions in physics relate to scientific theories and laws?

Descriptions in physics are the building blocks of scientific theories and laws. They provide the evidence and explanations that support these overarching principles and help us understand the fundamental principles of the universe.

Why are precise and accurate descriptions important in physics?

Precise and accurate descriptions are crucial in physics because they allow us to make precise predictions and measurements. In order for scientific theories and laws to be valid, they must be supported by accurate and precise descriptions of physical phenomena.

How do descriptions in physics change and evolve over time?

Descriptions in physics are constantly evolving as new evidence and technologies become available. As our understanding of the physical world deepens, descriptions are refined and updated to better reflect our current understanding of the universe.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
146
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
34
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
64
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
747
Back
Top