Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction

  1. Jun 30, 2016 #1
    Does the lorentz fitzgerald contraction hypothesis contradicts the classical motion of rigid body?
    I am not sure but i think it doesn't contradicts the classical motion of rigid body.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 30, 2016 #2

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There is no such thing as a classically rigid body in relativity. Google and search here for "Born rigidity" for more.
     
  4. Jul 2, 2016 #3
    Born rigidity only applies when proper acceleration is involved it has absolutely nothing to do with relative motion without proper acceleration.
     
  5. Jul 2, 2016 #4

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This is not correct. It is perfectly possible to have a Born rigid geodesic congruence. The simplest example is a congruence of parallel inertial worldlines in Minkowski spacetime.
     
  6. Jul 2, 2016 #5
    Ok then, what is the difference between a Born rigid and a non Born rigid congruence of parallel intertial worldlines in Minkowski spacetime?

    If there is no acceleration it is totally useless to talk about something being Born rigid.
     
  7. Jul 2, 2016 #6

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    The first one exists and the second one doesn't. Every congruence of parallel inertial worldlines in Minkowski spacetime is Born rigid.
     
  8. Jul 3, 2016 #7

    clem

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    "Does the lorentz fitzgerald contraction hypothesis contradicts the classical motion of rigid body?"
    The classical definition of a rigid body, that it retains its shape when moving, is contradicted by special relativity. An SR definition of a rigid body is that it retains its shape in its instantaneous rest system, even while moving. You could look at
    arXiv:1105.3899.
     
  9. Jul 3, 2016 #8
    What is your definition of moving?

    In SR there is no such thing as absolute movement, all movement is relative.
    What is not relative is proper acceleration.
     
  10. Jul 3, 2016 #9

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This isn't a good definition as it stands, since, as MeJennifer points out, "moving" has no absolute meaning in relativity.

    In relativity, there is no such thing as a "rigid body" in the classical sense, because internal forces between different parts of an object are not instantaneous; they can only be transmitted at the speed of light. The best that can be done in relativity is Born rigidity. The technical definition of Born rigidity is that the congruence of worldlines that describes the body (one worldline for each point in the body) must have zero expansion and shear. Heuristically, this means the distances between different parts of the body are constant. However, the conditions under which this is even possible are quite restrictive, much more so than in Newtonian physics, because of the Herglotz-Noether theorem (which you can look up for more info).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction
  1. Lorentz contraction (Replies: 2)

Loading...