Learning Lorentz Derivation: Solving x=vt+γx' vs. x=vt+x'/γ

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Lorentz transformation equations, specifically addressing the expressions x=vt+γx' and x=vt+x'/γ. Participants are exploring the reasoning behind these equations, examining potential misunderstandings, and discussing the implications of length contraction and simultaneity in special relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the expression x=vt+x'/γ is correct, while others maintain that x=vt+γx' is valid based on their derivations.
  • A participant describes their derivation involving the distance xa' and its transformation, leading to their conclusion about the correct expression.
  • Another participant challenges the transformation of distance xa', suggesting it does not behave as proposed and invokes the rod-and-barn paradox to illustrate their point.
  • Suggestions are made to draw Minkowski diagrams and apply Lorentz transformations to clarify the misunderstanding regarding simultaneity and length contraction.
  • Confusion is expressed over the notation used in the derivation, with calls for greater clarity in the definitions of variables.
  • Some participants point out that the reasoning presented contains errors that have been highlighted multiple times, indicating a lack of engagement with previous corrections.
  • There is mention of the ladder-barn paradox as a thought experiment relevant to understanding length contraction and simultaneity, though its application in the current context is questioned.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on the correctness of the expressions x=vt+γx' and x=vt+x'/γ. Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about the derivations and interpretations of special relativity principles.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion over notational clarity and the implications of simultaneity in their derivations. There are unresolved issues regarding the assumptions made in the derivations and the definitions of the variables used.

  • #31
jeremyfiennes said:
stated my synchronization procedure in #19.

That post was completely wrong.

jeremyfiennes said:
The time coordinate of a frame is the time on any clock stationary in that frame.

No, it's not. Do you understand that a time coordinate means an assignment of times to every event. Different events have different time coordinates. B's clock only assigns times to events that take place at B's location. A's clock only assigns times to events that take place at A's location. For an event that takes place anywhere else, you have to either do a calculation, or you have to use synchronized clocks.

You seem to have missed a critical fact, which is that clocks that are synchronized in A's frame are NOT synchronized in B's frame. You seem to think that you can use a single clock to synchronize clocks in both frames. That is not possible.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
PeterDonis said:
Is clock #3 at rest relative to clock #1 (at rest in frame A) or clock #2 (at rest in frame B)?
In frame A, clocks A(#1) and X(#3) are stationary, and B(#2) is moving at v.
 
  • #33
jeremyfiennes said:
In frame A, clocks A(#1) and X(#3) are stationary, and B(#2) is moving at v.

So you don't have multiple clocks at rest relative to B. Then you don't have a coordinate system set up for B.
 
  • #34
stevendaryl said:
That post was completely wrong.
It seems I am also confused about synchronization. I defined the time origin t=0 as the instant at which frames A and B space origins are coincident, with clock X at frame A x. A synchronizing signal from the frame A midpoint x/2 reaches all three clocks simultaneously. Since this procedure is independent of x, one can have a frame with as many synchronized clocks as one likes. I understood from the previous thread that the time coordinate of a frame is that on anyone of these clocks.
 
  • #35
stevendaryl said:
So you don't have multiple clocks at rest relative to B. Then you don't have a coordinate system set up for B.
A clock Xb, stationary in B, could be synchronized in the same way. Synchronization being an instantaneous procedure, velocities are irrelevant. The present question is however the B coordinates of an event stationary in A.
 
  • #36
jeremyfiennes said:
A clock Xb, stationary in B, could be synchronized in the same way. Synchronization being an instantaneous procedure, velocities are irrelevant.

No, it is not. If the third is stationary in A's frame, then it CAN'T be synchronized with B's clock.

The present question is however the B coordinates of an event stationary in A.

An "event" is a single point in space and time. It's not stationary in any frame, because it's not an object.

Anyway, I've tried to explain to you how to compute ##t'## in terms of ##t##. Here's a picture of the situation:

rel2.jpg


The event with coordinates ##(x,t)## in frame A is the event that would take place at the end of a stick of length ##x## held out by A, and on the end of that stick is a clock, synchronized with A's clock, showing time ##t##. The same event has coordinates ##(x',t')## in frame B, which would be an event that would take place on a stick of length ##x'## held out by B, on the end of which is a clock showing time ##t'##. We arrange it so that when B's clock shows time ##t'##, A's clock shows time ##t##, and they are right beside each other. So ##(x,t)## and ##(x',t')## are two different coordinates describing the same event.

Shown from the point of view of A's frame, we can reason as follows:
  1. The distance between B and his remote clock is ##x'## in his own frame.
  2. The distance between A and his remote clock is ##x-vt##.
  3. Because B's stick is length-contracted, we have: ##x-vt = x'/\gamma##
  4. In A's frame, his remote clock is synchronized with his personal clock, right next to him. So they both show time ##t##
  5. In A's frame, B's personal clock shows time ##t_1' = t/\gamma##, because B's clock is running slower than A's by a factor of ##\gamma##
  6. In A's frame, B's remote clock shows time ##t' = t_1' + \Delta t'##, where ##\Delta t'## is the offset of B's remote clock, relative to B's personal clock.
So we have the following relationship between A's coordinates ##(x,t)## and B's coordinates ##(x', t')##:

##x' = \gamma (x-vt)##
##t' = t_1' + \Delta t' = t/\gamma + \Delta t'##

So we have our transformation, except that we need to compute ##\Delta t'##, the offset, as measured in A's frame, between B's remote clock and B's personal clock.

I already went through how to compute ##\Delta t'##. There is only one choice that is consistent with light having speed ##c## in B's frame:

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

With that choice, B will measure time ##x'/c## for light to travel from him to the remote clock, and time ##x'/c## for it to travel back.
 

Attachments

  • rel2.jpg
    rel2.jpg
    14.5 KB · Views: 289
  • rel2.jpg
    rel2.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 346
  • #37
stevendaryl said:
No, it is not. If the third is stationary in A's frame, then it CAN'T be synchronized with B's clock.
Not with you. A synchronizing signal sent from frame A (x/2,0) synchronises all three clocks - A and B at their here coincident origins, and X at frame A x.
 
  • #38
stevendaryl said:
An "event" is a single point in space and time. It's not stationary in any frame, because it's not an object.
Agreed. But it is here defined in terms of its frame A location x, rather than the corresponding frame B x'.
 
  • #39
Closed for moderation.
It will reopen later today
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K