Minkowski diagrams without scales on axes

  • #1
425
23

Main Question or Discussion Point

Hi.

I have seen quite a lot of demonstrations of time dilation and length contraction that used standard Minkowski diagrams WITHOUT any scales on the axes at all. If I understand them correctly they seem to directly compare lengths, which would imply (I think) that the scaling on the ##ct/x## and ##ct'/x'## axes is the same.

But it is not. If in a standard Minkowski diagram the unit length on the axes of ##ct## and ##x## is given as ##U##, the unit length on the axes of ##ct'## and ##x'## is
$$U'=U\cdot \sqrt{\frac{1+\beta^2}{1-\beta^2}} .$$
I can see how Minkowski diagrams without scales can be used to talk about simultaneity or the temporal order of events in different inertial systems, but can they illustrate time dilation and length contraction where the actual length of intervals in time or space need to be compared? I doubt it because in the derivation of the angle between the ##ct## and ##ct'## axes one looks at all events with ##x'=0## and uses the Lorentz transform
$$0=x'=\gamma\cdot (x-vt)\Rightarrow \tan\alpha=\frac{x}{ct}=\frac{v}{c}$$
and analogously for the angle between the ##x## and ##x'## axes, which turns out to be ##\alpha## as well. The Lorentz factor ##\gamma## drops out in the derivation of the angle, so why should it turn up again in a graphical derivation of time dilation or length contraction?

Am I right about this and is it merely a coincidence that those demonstrations explain time dilation and length contraction qualitatively correct?

Second question:
Is there a way to construct ##U'## geometrically in a Minkowski diagram with given angle? I know there are symmetric Minkowski (Loedel) diagrams that cirumvent this problem, but they are far less common than the standard diagrams where the ##ct/x## system is at rest.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
29,044
5,317
I have seen quite a lot of demonstrations of time dilation and length contraction that used standard Minkowski diagrams WITHOUT any scales on the axes at all
Can you link to one such demonstration as a concrete example?
 
  • #3
425
23
I can: http://www.ep5.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/cz-physik1/Vorlesung26.pdf [Broken]
Slides 5 to 7. It's in German, but I think the diagrams are self-explanatory.

Or Wikibooks.

Also, Google Image Search for 'minkowski diagram time dilation' or 'minkowski diagram length contraction' finds quite a lot of diagrams without scales, but I haven't checked many of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
29,044
5,317
I can: http://www.ep5.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/cz-physik1/Vorlesung26.pdf [Broken]
Slides 5 to 7. It's in German, but I think the diagrams are self-explanatory
I agree with your criticism for this diagram.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
14,376
5,971
Yep, it's just wrong! Forget these lecture notes :-(. That's the reason, why I don't like Minkowski diagrams very much. It's more work to learn to draw and read them correctly than to do the analytical calculations!
 
  • #6
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,668
6,445
Second question:
Is there a way to construct ##U'## geometrically in a Minkowski diagram with given angle? I know there are symmetric Minkowski (Loedel) diagrams that cirumvent this problem, but they are far less common than the standard diagrams where the ##ct/x## system is at rest.
Yes, you can easily normalise arbitrary axes in a Minkowski diagram by drawing the hyperbolae ##x^2 - c^2 t^2 = \pm 1##. Just as you could normalise rotated axes in Euclidean space by drawing the circle ##x^2 + y^2 = 1##.
 
  • #9
425
23
Yes, you can easily normalise arbitrary axes in a Minkowski diagram by drawing the hyperbolae x2−c2t2=±1x^2 - c^2 t^2 = \pm 1. Just as you could normalise rotated axes in Euclidean space by drawing the circle x2+y2=1x^2 + y^2 = 1.
Thank you. Well I guess in most applications it's hugely impractical to really construct those hyperbolae geometrically, that's why I'm particularly thankful for
Also, see Ibix's interactive Minkowski diagram tool Interactive Minkowski diagrams
as I've been looking for an easy way to draw empty Minkowski diagrams.
 
  • #10
robphy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,490
720
In old related threads ( here and here ), I posted my diagrammer https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ti58l2sair
which could be modified to draw fancier diagrams.
ti58l2sair.png


There is a way to do quantitatively correct diagrams without explicitly using hyperbolas or detailed calculations.
I'll write more when I have the time.
 
  • #12
294
44
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the ct' axis going to be arctan(c/u) from the ct axis?
 
  • #13
robphy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,490
720
I think you mean the angle arctan(u/c) in degrees. When u=0, the angle will be zero degrees.
While degrees are useful for drawing with typical Euclidean tools, the angle between timelike directions is more naturally described by the rapidity (arc length along a unit hyperbola) as arctanh(u/c).
 
  • #14
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,668
6,445
arc length along a unit hyperbola
Also, just to clarify, this is the arc length with the Minkowski metric.
 
  • #15
425
23
There is a way to do quantitatively correct diagrams without explicitly using hyperbolas or detailed calculations.
I'll write more when I have the time.
Looking forward to this, I can't imagine how this could be possible.
 
  • #16
78
4
Yep, it's just wrong! Forget these lecture notes :-(. That's the reason, why I don't like Minkowski diagrams very much. It's more work to learn to draw and read them correctly than to do the analytical calculations!
Yes, but the spacetime diagram shows you how the different 3D worlds of simultanous events evolve though 4Dspacetime. You never get such a valuable 4D insight with only analytical calculations.
 
  • #17
78
4
Hi.

I know there are symmetric Minkowski (Loedel) diagrams that cirumvent this problem, but they are far less common than the standard diagrams where the ##ct/x## system is at rest.
That's no reason for not using them. If you need only two frames to deal with (as is mostly the case in exercises) there is no reason to use a Minkowski diagram. In a Loedel diagram it's a lot easier to consider each frame at rest because none of both frames has orthogonal axes. A layman often never gets that far with a Minkowski diagram where the orthogonal x,t frame is often erroneously treated as a preferred 'at rest' frame.

It's very easy to draw a two frame spacetime diagram with identical unit lengths. All you need is calculating the angle. Then make your own unit length as you like. But remember: the unit length is only valid for the two frames (don't be tempted using it on the vertical and horizontal grey orthogonal lines).
An Loedel example for v=.5773c:

Loedel%20diagram%20-_zpseaovj8z1.jpg
 
  • #18
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
14,376
5,971
That's a clever trick, using the light-cone coordinates in "invariant reference frame". The only trouble with this is that I have to get used to another type of space-time diagrams, which I don't find very intuitive anyway (no matter whether you have Minkowski or whatever other diagrams). For me, formulae are the intuitive picture ;-)).
 
  • #19
robphy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
5,490
720
  • #20
425
23
The representation of the twin paradox on the English Wikipedia vs. the German one:

295px-Twin_Paradox_Minkowski_Diagram.svg.png
143px-Zwillingsparadoxon.png


I'm not sure if the black dots on the axes of the English image are supposed to be a scale (which would be wrong), but I think it's highly misleading.
 
  • #21
vanhees71
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
14,376
5,971
According to the German Wikipedia the dots indicate one 1 proper time of the corresponding observers, and there the lines look (at least qualitatively) correct. In the English version the dots cannot describe the same proper time interval for both observers. It's not explained in the Wikipedia article what the dots mean to represent. It's the first time that I find a German Wikipedia physics article better than the corresponding English one ;-).
 

Related Threads on Minkowski diagrams without scales on axes

Replies
12
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
530
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
913
Top