Invariance of the speed of light

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the invariance of the speed of light as described by the Lorentz transformation equations. Participants analyze the addition of velocities in the x-y plane, specifically addressing the case when the speed of a particle approaches the speed of light (c). The conversation highlights the challenges in deriving the invariance of the null cone from the transformation equations, with references to Szekeres' mathematical physics book. A successful approach involves using trigonometric identities and maintaining the Lorentz factor (γ) in calculations to demonstrate the invariance effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations
  • Familiarity with the concept of the speed of light (c)
  • Knowledge of trigonometric identities and their application in physics
  • Basic grasp of the Pythagorean theorem in the context of physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Lorentz transformations in detail to grasp their implications on velocity addition
  • Explore the derivation of the invariance of the speed of light using trigonometric identities
  • Learn about the Lorentz factor (γ) and its significance in relativistic physics
  • Investigate the concept of the null cone and its relevance in spacetime diagrams
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those focused on special relativity, mathematicians interested in the application of Lorentz transformations, and educators teaching the principles of relativistic motion.

littleHilbert
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Hello!

Consider the law of addition of velocities for a particle moving in the x-y plane:

u_x=\frac{u'_x+v}{1+u'_xv/c^2},\, u_y=\frac{u'_y}{\gamma(1+u'_xv/c^2)}

In the book by Szekeres on mathematical physics on p.238 it is said that if u'=c, then it follows from the above formulae that u=c, i.e. invariance of the speed of light under the given Lorentz boost, which is of course exactly what we wish, since a Lorentz boost must preserve the null cone.

The weird thing is that when I start with c^2=(u')^2=(u'_x)^2+(u'_y)^2 and try to apply the above formulae to simply get (u'_x)^2+(u'_y)^2=(u_x)^2+(u_y)^2, i.e. working backwards towards the invariance of the null cone, I get quickly lost in the actual computation, because it seems to be leading nowhere…nothing cancels out. It doesn't matter which boost one takes…it doesn't seem to work (at the moment).

It can't be that hard. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, and can't imagine that I missed some concept. Did anybody already see how the computation goes? Is there anything one should pay attention to? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
On the same page, Szekeres outlines a method that shows this.
 
If you mean using the angles in u_x=u \cos \theta,\, u_y=u \sin \theta, \, u'_x=u' \cos \theta',\, u'_y=u' \sin \theta' …does it really help? I tried to plug them in, too…but same thing…the computation gets lengthier and seems to be getting nowhere. There is actually no more on that page, except for the relation between the angles.
 
littleHilbert said:
If you mean using the angles in u_x=u \cos \theta,\, u_y=u \sin \theta, \, u'_x=u' \cos \theta',\, u'_y=u' \sin \theta' …does it really help? I tried to plug them in, too…but same thing…the computation gets lengthier and seems to be getting nowhere. There is actually no more on that page, except for the relation between the angles.

Yes, use ##u'_x = c \cos \theta'## and ##u'_y = c \sin \theta'## in

\frac{u_x}{c} = \frac{u'_x+v}{c+u'_xv/c},\, \frac{u_y}{c}=\frac{u'_{y}/\gamma}{(c+u'_xv/c)},

and calculate ##\left( u_{x}/c \right)^2 + \left( u_{y}/c \right)^2##.

In ##u_y##, keep the ##1/\gamma## in the numerator, so that ##1/\gamma^2 = 1 - v^2 / c^2##. Expand the squares, and write ##\sin^2 \theta' = 1 - \cos^2 \theta'##.
 
Oh yes, that sounds much more promising! I'll try this now…thanks in advance! :-)
 
OK, that was trivial...I knew it must be easy…if one arranges things the right way. I too was using the pythagorean theorem in order to get rid of some terms. But at the same time I was computing the difference u^2_x+u^2_y-c^2 to get 0…and yeah…somehow fell asleep.
Many thanks, George.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
8K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K