Momentary Co-Moving Reference Frame in SR

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the momentary co-moving reference frame (MCRF) in special relativity (SR), specifically focusing on the nature of basis vectors associated with the velocity four-vector. Participants explore the implications of these vectors for understanding four-acceleration and Lorentz transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the basis vectors associated with the velocity four-vector U are zero or if the coefficients in front of the basis vectors are zero, drawing a comparison to classical mechanics.
  • Another participant asserts that basis vectors must be linearly independent and therefore cannot be zero.
  • A later reply mentions the existence of an infinite number of possible basis vectors, emphasizing that they must be orthogonal to the timelike vector <1,0,0,0> and provides a convenient set of orthonormal spatial basis vectors.
  • It is noted that the use of geometrized units simplifies the discussion, as it allows the timelike vector to be considered a unit length vector.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the requirement for basis vectors to be linearly independent, but there is no consensus on the implications of this for the specific context of the MCRF and the nature of the coefficients versus the basis vectors.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the question of whether the coefficients or the basis vectors are responsible for the last three components of the four-velocity being zero, leaving this as an open point of inquiry.

Vitani1
Messages
51
Reaction score
9
TL;DR
What are the basis vectors?
In SR, for the momentary co-moving reference frame, U (the velocity four vector) takes the form (1,0,0,0). I'm wondering whether the basis vectors associated with this velocity are zero or if the coefficients in front of the basis vectors are zero. In classical mechanics we would say that the coefficients in front of the basis vectors are zero. I ask because the four-acceleration is defined as the proper-time derivative of this velocity and has components (0,x,y,z) hence the dot product of these two vectors is zero like in classical mechanics which makes sense. I also ask this because I'm trying to develop a lorentz transformation that takes a vector U in some frame to the MCRF frame using the lorentz matrix and if I know which it is (components or basis vectors) that cause the last 3 components of the four-velocity to be zero it would save me a lot of work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vitani1 said:
Summary:: What are the basis vectors?

I'm wondering whether the basis vectors associated with this velocity are zero or if the coefficients in front of the basis vectors are zero.
Basis vectors must be linearly independent. So they cannot be zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Vitani1
Thank you... this is what I thought.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
There are technically an infinite number of possible basis vectors - as other posters have mentioned, the only real requirement for the basis vecotrs is that they are linearly independent.

There are also an infinite number of possible spatial vectors that have unit length and are orthogonal to the timelike vector <1,0,0,0>. However, for the Minkowskii metric -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2, a convenient set of orthonormal spatial basis vectors ortohgonal to the vectors with components <1,0,0,0> are vectors with components <0,1,0,0>, <0,0,1,0>, <0,0,0,1>. Those are probably the vectors you are thinking of when you talk about "the" co-moving reference frame.

Note that I'm using geometrized units where c=1 for simplicity - otherwise <1,0,0,0> wouldn't be a unit length timelike vector.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vitani1

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 144 ·
5
Replies
144
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K