Force Transform Applying: Question on a Specific Case

dan_b_
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
When I try to apply the force transformation (the 3 vector one) to the describe following situation, I find a result that I can't make sense of. Hopefully someone can tell me what I'm doing wrong. Suppose observers A and B are in inertial frames, and B travels in the +x direction relative to A. Object C is initially at rest relative to A, and is immediately next to A. In B's frame object C initially travels in the -x direction along with A.

Now consider what happens when an unbalanced force is exerted on object C in the +y direction when the force is described in the reference frame of A.

The object will accelerate in the +y direction when it is described in A's frame. I would think that the object must accelerate only in the +y direction in B's frame also (it cannot accelerate in the +x or -x direction), otherwise we would have a paradox. But once the object is moving in the +y direction relative to A and B, the relativistic transformation for the x component of force in B's frame suggests that the x component of force in B's frame will not be zero - even though the x component of force is zero in A's frame! This arises because the "power term" (the dot product of the force on object C in A's frame and the velocity of C in A's frame) that is present in the transformation will not be equal to zero. But this doesn't make sense to me. You can't have an x component of force in B's frame in this situation when there is no x component of force in A's frame; the object can't have an
x- component of acceleration in B's frame when it has no x-component of acceleration in A's frame. I suspect the only way out of this mess is that the dot product term in the force transformation must be zero for some reason, but I don't see why from the way that this thought experiment has been described. Can anyone please help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dan_b_ said:
You can't have an x component of force in B's frame in this situation when there is no x component of force in A's frame; the object can't have an
x- component of acceleration in B's frame when it has no x-component of acceleration in A's frame.
I am not sure why you believe this. It is not true.

The reason is easier to see if you work with four-vectors instead of three-vectors. When C is moving in the frame of A then the four-force has a component in the time direction. This component is boosted into the x direction in the frame of B.
 
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Thread 'Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?'
1. The Big Idea: According to Einstein’s relativity, all motion is relative. You can’t tell if you’re moving at a constant velocity without looking outside. But what if there is a universal “rest frame” (like the old idea of the “ether”)? This experiment tries to find out by looking for tiny, directional differences in how objects move inside a sealed box. 2. How It Works: The Two-Stage Process Imagine a perfectly isolated spacecraft (our lab) moving through space at some unknown speed V...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. The Relativator was sold by (as printed) Atomic Laboratories, Inc. 3086 Claremont Ave, Berkeley 5, California , which seems to be a division of Cenco Instruments (Central Scientific Company)... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativator-circular-slide-rule-simulated-with-desmos/ by @robphy
Back
Top