How to Treat the x Coordinate in Lorentz Transformations?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
8 replies · 2K views
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:
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?).