How to Treat the x Coordinate in Lorentz Transformations?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Lorentz transformations in the context of a spaceship traveling from Earth to another planet and back. Participants are exploring how to correctly interpret the x-coordinate of events in different reference frames, particularly during the return journey of the spaceship.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are examining the treatment of the x-coordinate for the event of the spaceship returning to Earth, questioning whether it should be considered as 0 or 2D. There is also discussion about the implications of instantaneous turnaround and the introduction of a third reference frame during the return journey.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing differing viewpoints on the interpretation of the x-coordinate and the necessity of considering multiple frames of reference. Some participants are suggesting that the confusion arises from the nature of the turnaround and its effect on the coordinates used in the Lorentz transformations.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the twin paradox, which may influence the interpretations being discussed. Additionally, participants are referencing specific values for distance and velocity, which could affect the calculations and assumptions being made.

PhMichael
Messages
134
Reaction score
0
There's something about the lorentz transformations which is somewhat confusing to me, and that is how to treat the "x" coordinate. Supposing I have some spaceship which is moving from Earth to some other planet located at a distance "D" (from earth) with a velocity v. Now, the spacetime coordinates of the events "1. leaving earth" and "2. reaching the planet" are (the spaceship frame is {S'} and that of Earth is {S} ) :

Leaving earth:

[tex](x_{1},t_{1})=(x'_{1},t'_{1})=(0,0)[/tex]

Reaching the planet:

[tex](x_{2},t_{2})=(D, \frac{D}{v} )[/tex]

[tex](x'_{2},t'_{2})=(0 , \gamma (t_{2} - (v/c^{2})x_{2})=(0 , \gamma (t_{2} - (v/c^{2})D)[/tex]

Now comes the confusing point which is how to treat [tex]x_{3}[/tex] which corresponds to the event of returning back to Earth in the Earth's frame. (in the spaceship frame it is [tex]x'_{3} = 0[/tex] )

The Lorentz transformations relates coordinates and not distances so [tex]x_{3} = 0[/tex] because the spaceship returns to the origin of Earth and [tex]t_{3} = \frac{2D}{v}[/tex]. However, as I have seen in my notes:

[tex]x_{3} = 2D[/tex]

, that is, the distance that this spaceship travels is what is accounted for and not its coordinate.

Can anyone clear this point for me?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that must be a mistake in your notes. Assuming the turn-around is instantaneous, then in "earth coordinates" you will have x = 0, t = 2D/v for the spaceship returning on earth.

[Be aware, by the way, that you are basically working out the twin paradox.]
 
But if [tex](x_{3} , t_{3} ) = ( 0 , 2D/v )[/tex] then for [tex]t'_{3}[/tex] we'll have:

[tex]t'_{3} = \gamma (t_{3} - (v/c^{2}) x_{3} ) = \frac{2D/v}{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^{2}}}[/tex]

while the answer should be:

[tex]t'_{3} = \frac{(2D/v) - (2Dv/c^{2})}{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^{2}}}[/tex]

that is, [tex]x_{3} = 2D[/tex] and not [tex]x_{3} = 0[/tex]

Why?
 
Last edited:
Did you account for different Lorentz transformations because the ship is now traveling in the opposite direction?
 
Because there aren't only two frames S and S'. When the ship turns around, there's now a third frame, S''. There's a different set of Lorentz transformations that relate the coordinates in S to the coordinates in S''.
 
I haven't got that ... why have you introduced a third frame? and what is it?
 
wikipedia uses some terminology that I haven't heard of :D

anyway, I noticed that if I use that same table with the invariant then I get the right answer:

Invarinat: [tex]l^{2}= (\Delta x)^{2} - c^2 (\Delta t)^{2}[/tex]

[tex]1 \to 2[/tex]

[tex]24^{2} c^{2} - c^{2} 25^2 = 0^{2} - c^{2} (\Delta t')^{2} , t'_{1}=0[/tex]

[tex]t'_{2}=7 [yr][/tex]

=============================

[tex]2 \to 3[/tex]

[tex](0-24)^{2}c^{2}-(50-25)^{2}c^{2}=0^{2}-c^{2}(\Delta t')^{2} , t'_{2}=7[/tex]

[tex]t'_{3}=14 [yr][/tex]

which is strange because this invariant is obtaind from the Lorentz tansformation (isn't it?).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K