Explanation of Galilean transformations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the Galilean transformation equation x' = x - vt, where x' represents the position in a moving reference frame. The confusion arises from the directionality of the transformation, specifically why vt is subtracted. The explanation emphasizes that when calculating the position of an event from a stationary observer's perspective (A) to a moving observer's perspective (B), the relative velocity (v) must be accounted for, resulting in the transformation x' = x - vt. This is illustrated through examples involving different velocities and positions of observers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly motion and reference frames.
  • Familiarity with the Galilean transformation equations.
  • Knowledge of relative velocity and how it affects position calculations.
  • Basic algebra skills for manipulating equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Galilean transformations in classical mechanics.
  • Explore the implications of relative motion in different inertial frames.
  • Learn about the limitations of Galilean transformations in the context of special relativity.
  • Examine practical applications of Galilean transformations in physics problems.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching classical mechanics, and anyone interested in understanding motion and reference frames in the context of Galilean transformations.

penroseandpaper
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

We've just started special relativity and I'm just wondering if you'd mind clarifying something for me.

The transformation is described as x'=x-vt, where x' is moving relative to x. However, in the diagram I've attached, x' is ahead of x ; so why is the transformation described with -vt? Is this because we're calculating x' with regards to frame a, which is "traveling" in the opposite direction to x'and therefore x' sits to the negative of x=0?

I'm confused because if that is the case, why isn't the positive x direction given as that opposite to x'?

Any advice or examples would be greatly appreciated.

Penn
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.jpeg
    Untitled.jpeg
    19 KB · Views: 265
Physics news on Phys.org
Just put some numbers in. An event at ##x = 100, t = 3## with ##v = 10##

The origin of the primed reference frame is at ##x = 30## at ##t = 3##, so the primed coordinate for the event is ##x' = 70##. That's the distance of the event from the primed origin. Which is the definition of the ##x'## coordinate for the event.

##x' = x - vt##

PS which is just what your diagram shows!
 
penroseandpaper said:
I'm confused because if that is the case, why isn't the positive x direction given as that opposite to x'?

Keep things simple. You have a pair of x and y axes. You have another pair of x and y axes. One of them is moving off to the right.

What you're doing in these transforms is asking what coordinates are assigned to any given event by two different observers.

Let's say B (the primed frame) is the one moving to the right relative to A, at velocity v, starting at x = 0 at t = 0.

How does A describe B's position? What equation does A use for x? Clearly it's x = vt, right?

Now, how does B describe his own position in primed coordinates? He says that from his point of view, the primed axes are not moving, because he's sitting at the origin of those axes. So he says x' = 0 for all time.

What if B is holding an object in front of him, at x' = a meters? It moves along with him, so A says that object is also moving at velocity v. So A says that object is at position x = a + vt and B says the object is at position x' = a. How do I get x' from x? x' = x - vt.

You're thinking in terms of x = x' + vt I think. Whatever x'(t) something is doing relative to the primed moving axes, x will add vt to that motion. But that makes x' = x - vt.

Suppose we have C moving at 20 m/s relative to A. So A describes C's motion as x = 20t.

Now suppose B is also moving at 20 m/s relative to A. Intuitively you understand that from B's point of view, C appears to be fixed, right? If you're in a fast moving car and you're next to another fast moving car with the same velocity, it stays fixed from your point of view. So A describes C as moving at speed 0, x' = 20t - 20t = 0.

Suppose C is moving at 20 m/s (relative to A) and B is moving at 21 m/s relative to A. You have no problem believing that from B's point of view, C will be receding at 1 m/s, right? A describes C's motion as x = 20t but B describes C's motion as x' = 20t - 21t = -1 t.

And suppose C is moving at 20 m/s and B is moving at 15 m/s. Again A says x = 20t for C, but B describes C's motion as x' = 20t - 15t = 5t.

Do you see that in every case, to get B's description of any motion from A's description, we subtract vt?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K
  • · Replies 146 ·
5
Replies
146
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K