Galilean Transformations and Postulates

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the nature of Galilean transformations, specifically how they apply to uniform and accelerated reference frames. It highlights that while standard transformations assume constant velocity, modifications can be made to account for time-dependent velocities without altering the time between events. The transformation for uniformly accelerated frames is presented as (t,x) → (t,x + 0.5*g*t²), which still preserves the necessary conditions for simultaneous events. In contrast, the discussion notes that in relativity, transformations must preserve the invariant quantity (ct)² - (x)², leading to the Poincaré group, which only allows uniform boosts. Overall, Arnold's interpretation suggests that classical mechanics permits time-dependent boosts, unlike relativistic frameworks.
RedX
Messages
963
Reaction score
3
I read that the form of a galilean transformation on the point (t,x) is the following:

constant velocity transform by velocity v: (t,x) ---> (t,x+vt)
translation transform by (t0,x0): (t,x)--->(t+t0,x+x0)
rotation transformation by rotation matrix R: (t,x)--->(t,Rx)

and that it is based on the following postulates: two observers observe the same time between events, and two observers measure the same distance for simultaneous events.

My question is, based on those two postulates, couldn't you modify the first transform to

(t,x)--->(t,x+vf(t))

This transformation preserves the time between events (it doesn't change time at all). It also preserves simultaneous distance:

|(x1+vf(t))-(x2+vf(t))|=|x1-x2|
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah, doesn't that just correspond to moving with an arbitrary velocity v(t)=vf(t)?
 
darkSun said:
Yeah, doesn't that just correspond to moving with an arbitrary velocity v(t)=vf(t)?

Yeah, but unfortunately the book I'm using (Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, V. Arnold) emphasizes that v is uniform.

If you take the simplest case of a uniformily accelerated reference frame, then the transformation would look like:

(t,x)--->(t,x+.5*g*t2)

This transformation preserves the time between two events, and the distance between simultaneous events. So two observers, one uniformily accelerating with respect to the other, observe the same time between events and the same distance between simultaneous events.

So according to Arnold, such a transformation is a gallilean transformation.

Bringing in relativity, things are much different. Instead of preserving time between events and distance between simultaneous events separately, you consider transformations that preserve:

(ct)^2-(x)^2

Here you can show that the Poincare group (as opposed to the gallilean group) is a 10-parameter group consisting of uniform boosts, rotations, and translations. The boosts have to be uniform and can't be a function of spacetime.

But it seems in classical mechanics, according to Arnold, you can have boosts that depend on time (so reference frames can be accelerated), although not space.
 
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...

Similar threads

Back
Top