Does the presence of B change the velocity of C with respect to A?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of introducing a third observer, B, on the perceived velocity of a second observer, C, with respect to a first observer, A. The context includes the application of the velocity addition formula in the framework of special relativity, exploring how the presence of B might alter the velocity of C as observed by A.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the velocity addition formula must be applied correctly, noting that classical results do not hold in relativity.
  • One participant questions the assumption that if B moves at 0.2c with respect to A, then C must move at 0.3c with respect to B, suggesting this is not valid in relativistic contexts.
  • Another participant provides a visual representation of velocity addition, illustrating different velocities from A's perspective and calculating C's velocity relative to B and A using the formula.
  • There is a claim that the velocity of C relative to B can be determined using the velocity addition formula, leading to a specific value that is debated.
  • A later reply introduces the concept that generalized velocity addition is neither commutative nor associative, referencing a source for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the presence of B changes the velocity of C with respect to A. Some argue that it does not, while others explore the implications of B's presence and the calculations involved, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made regarding the velocities and the application of the velocity addition formula, which may depend on the specific definitions and contexts used by participants.

O Great One
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Let's say there are two observers A and C. C is moving .5c with respect to A. If we introduce a third observer which we will call B and B is moving at .2c with respect to A and is moving in the same direction as C and is inbetween A and C, and we now apply the velocity addition formula we get that C is now moving at (.5/1.06) or .47c relative to A.
So, does this mean that without B, C is moving at .5c relative to A and that with B, C is moving at .47 relative to A?
Does just the mere presence of B change the velocity of C with respect to A?

What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You may be using a classical result that v_CA=v_CB+v_BA that is not true in relativity.
B has no effect on v_CA.
 
O Great One said:
Let's say there are two observers A and C. C is moving .5c with respect to A. If we introduce a third observer which we will call B and B is moving at .2c with respect to A and is moving in the same direction as C and is inbetween A and C, and we now apply the velocity addition formula we get that C is now moving at (.5/1.06) or .47c relative to A.
How did you apply the velocity addition formula? It seems that you have assumed that if the speed of B with respect to A is 0.2c, then the speed of C with respect to B must be 0.3c. Not so.
So, does this mean that without B, C is moving at .5c relative to A and that with B, C is moving at .47 relative to A?
Does just the mere presence of B change the velocity of C with respect to A?
Of course not.

[oops... clem beat me too it]
 
Doc Al said:
How did you apply the velocity addition formula? It seems that you have assumed that if the speed of B with respect to A is 0.2c, then the speed of C with respect to B must be 0.3c. Not so.

Yes. That is what I was assuming. So, does that mean that the velocity of C relative to B is such that when you apply the velocity addition formula you get a velocity of C relative to A of .5c?
 
I'm a visual sort of guy, and there may be others out there, so I have attached a jpg of velocity addition for a slightly different scenario.

The image is taken from the perspective of A, for whom B is moving at 0.25c and C is moving at 0.666c.

Look at the red dashed lines, these are B's equivalents to A's blue dashed lines.

Using those you can see that for B, C is moving at 0.5c and A is moving at (minus) 0.25c.

[tex]v_{cB} = \frac{v_{cA} - v_{bA}}{1 + \frac{v_{bA}}{c}.\frac{v_{cA}}{c}}[/tex]

[tex]v_{cB} = \frac{0.66c - 0.25c}{1 + 0.25 * 0.666}[/tex]

[tex]v_{cB} = 0.5c[/tex]

Alternatively,

[tex]v_{cA} = \frac{v_{cB} - v_{bB}}{1 + \frac{v_{bB}}{c}.\frac{v_{cB}}{c}}[/tex]

[tex]v_{cA} = \frac{0.66c - 0.5c}{1 + 0.5 * 0.666}[/tex]

[tex]v_{cA} = 0.25c[/tex]

cheers,

neopolitan

PS just to make it clear, va[\sub] on the diagram means the velocity of A. However, that velocity has to be relative to something (in the diagram which is taken from the perspective of A, it is 0m/s, that's why it is a vertical line). In the equations I have added a capital letter indicating who the velocity is relative to, so vaA[\sub] would be the velocity of A relative to A, and vcA[\sub] would be the velocity of C relative to A.
 

Attachments

  • velocity addition.jpg
    velocity addition.jpg
    29.2 KB · Views: 507
Last edited:
O Great One said:
Yes. That is what I was assuming. So, does that mean that the velocity of C relative to B is such that when you apply the velocity addition formula you get a velocity of C relative to A of .5c?
Of course!

You can use the velocity addition formula to figure out the speed of C relative to B. (It turns out to be c/3, not .3c.)
 
Last edited:
To stretch it a bit further, the generalized velocity addition is neither commutative nor associative (see for instance Ungar).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K