How to Determine Frame Size with Lorentz Transformation

  • Thread starter Thread starter genxium
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dx Frame
genxium
Messages
137
Reaction score
2
First time posting in this section. I understand that this question could possibly be an old and common question about Lorentz Transformation, however I failed to find useful discussions or instructions online.

Assuming that there're 2 frames ##S, S'## where ##S'## moves along the ##x_{+}## axis of ##S## at constant speed ##v##. The frames coincide at ##<0,0,0,0>## (as well as their rectilinear coordinate axes) for a starting event ##P## and then measure ##<x, y, z, t>## and ##<x', y', z', t'>## respectively for event ##Q##.

According to Lorentz Transform I shall have:

##x'=\gamma \cdot (x-vt)##
##t'=\gamma \cdot (t-\frac{vx}{c^2})##

where ##\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}##

Now that ##\frac{dx'}{dx} = \gamma## which indicates that ##\frac{dx'}{dx}## is independent of the direction of ##v## along the ##x## axis. However it doesn't make sense to me here. If I introduce a 3rd frame ##S''## which moves along the ##x_{-}## direction of ##S## at a constant speed ##v##, then should I get ##\frac{dx''}{dx}=\gamma## as well and further ##dx'' = dx'## (which should NOT hold bcz ##S'## and ##S''## are dynamic to each other)? Did I make a mistake in the calculation?

I'm quite confused for how "some degree of symmetry" (for relation of ##dx, dx', dx''## above) could be achieved if Lorentz Transformation is true. Any help will be appreciated :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When there is more than one variable involved, it's not true that<br /> dx&#039; = \frac{dx&#039;}{dx}\,dx<br />The correct equation is <br /> dx&#039; = \frac{\partial x&#039;}{\partial x}\,dx + \frac{\partial x&#039;}{\partial y}\,dy + \frac{\partial x&#039;}{\partial z}\,dz + \frac{\partial x&#039;}{\partial t}\,dt<br />
 
Hi @DrGreg, I'm not sure how I should interpret your answer. Of course you're right about that ##dx' = \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} dx + \frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} dy + \frac{\partial x'}{\partial z} dz + \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t} dt##, however if ##dx, dy, dz, dt## are mutually independent then ##\frac{dx'}{dx} = \gamma## should still hold. Do you imply that ##dx, dy, dz, dt## can NEVER be mutually independent for any events ##P## and ##Q##?

I tried to put the classical thought experiment where ##P## is "emission of light along x+ axis of ##S##(as well as ##S'##)" and ##Q## is "detection of light somewhere in space-time of ##S##(as well as ##S'##)" into calculation. Now I have ##x=ct## of ##S## as variable dependency but I'm still lost in the maths :(

Maybe I shall re-describe the question this way: 2 observers Alice and Bob who remain still in frame ##S## and ##S'## respectively where ##S## and ##S'## are the same as stated in my original question. Alice learns Special Relativity and he figures out that currently for 2 specific events ##P, Q## Bob measures larger(or smaller maybe, haven't figured this out) time-elapsed ##dt'## than his own measurement ##dt##. Can Alice just reverse the direction of his ##x##-axis(i.e. rotate around the ##z##-axis) and say that "from now on Bob measures smaller ##dt'## than my ##dt##"? In short is measurement dependent upon "choice of coordinate axes" or "alignment of coordinate axes"?
 
genxium said:
Of course you're right about that ##dx' = \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} dx + \frac{\partial x'}{\partial y} dy + \frac{\partial x'}{\partial z} dz + \frac{\partial x'}{\partial t} dt##, however if ##dx, dy, dz, dt## are mutually independent then ##\frac{dx'}{dx} = \gamma## should still hold.
To put it more precisely, ##dx' = \gamma dx## is true provided ##dt = 0##. (In your question ##dy = dz = 0## always, so we can ignore those.)

Similarly, ##dx'' = \gamma dx## is true provided ##dt = 0##. When you come to compare S' with S'', however, you can only conclude that ##dx'' = dx'## whenever ##dt = 0##, when really what you are interested is when ##dt' = 0## (or ##dt'' = 0## if you are comparing S' with S'').
 
@DrGreg, that makes sense. Do you minding taking a look at this as well(quoted from my previous reply)?

2 observers Alice and Bob who remain still in frame ##S## and ##S′## respectively where ##S## and ##S′## are the same as stated in my original question. Alice learns Special Relativity and he figures out that currently for 2 specific events ##P,Q## Bob measures larger(or smaller maybe, haven't figured this out) time-elapsed ##dt′## than his own measurement ##dt##. Can Alice just reverse the direction of his ##x##-axis(i.e. rotate around the ##z##-axis) and say that "from now on Bob measures smaller ##dt′## than my ##dt##"? In short is measurement dependent upon "choice of coordinate axes" or "alignment of coordinate axes"?
 
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
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...

Similar threads

Replies
101
Views
6K
Replies
54
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Back
Top