1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Ignoring a relationship.

  1. Jul 29, 2007 #1
    I'm sorry, but the formulae pertinent to this question are too difficult for my spotty knowledge of tex. This means that the only people who can help me with this are those who have a copy of Ryder's QFT available.

    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    My problem comes from page 58 of Ryder's QFT. I think the text is asking me to show that equation 2.180 is an example of equation 2.179 with an appropriate choice of [tex]a^\alpha[/tex].

    2. Relevant equations
    Too complicated for me to reproduce. Please refer to the book if you have it.

    3. The attempt at a solution
    Actually, I have a solution for this by differentiating the Lorentz transformation equations with respect to v and treating x as a constant. For instance:
    [tex]x' = \gamma(x + vt)[/tex]
    [tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial v}(x + vt)(1-v^2)^{-1/2}|(v = 0) = t(1-v^2)^{-1/2} + (x + vt)v(1-v^2)^{-3/2}|(v = 0) = t[/tex]
    I just feel funny about treating x as a constant when take the derivative with respect to v. If its wrong, what direction should I go? If it's right, why is it allowed to ignore the relation between x and [tex]\dot x[/tex]?
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 29, 2007 #2

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I don't have Ryder handy, but see "Euler-Lagrange equations". This is calculus of variations. It gives you a differential equation and the correct relation between x and x' will fall out in the end since it's built into the derivation.
     
  4. Jul 30, 2007 #3
    Thanks Dick, I will look into this. The equation I am working with is a straightforward partial derivative. I hope your reply will not turn away people who do have a copy of the Ryder book.
     
  5. Jul 30, 2007 #4

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Sorry. I'm looking at Ryder now, and it's not EL at all. But I'm not sure why you are worried either. v parametrizes the Lorentz transformation. x is just a variable in the transformation. They don't have much to do with each other. x isn't given to be a function of time, so you can't identify x' with v.
     
  6. Jul 30, 2007 #5
    Thanks Dick, I will ponder this for a while until I understand it. Are you saying that my derivation above is correct?
     
  7. Jul 30, 2007 #6

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It looks fine.
     
  8. Jul 30, 2007 #7
    Thanks again. I see what you mean about x being a variable in the transformation and not a function of time.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Ignoring a relationship.
Loading...