I Principle of relativity in the proof of invariance of interval

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of the principle of relativity in relation to the invariance of spacetime intervals between two inertial frames. Participants clarify that both frames can be viewed as stationary or moving relative to each other, emphasizing the symmetry in their observations. The conversation references the second postulate of special relativity, which states that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, and how this leads to the conclusion of time dilation effects. Examples involving light clocks illustrate the practical application of these principles, particularly in understanding time dilation and simultaneity. The overall aim is to deepen the understanding of how these theoretical concepts manifest in physical scenarios.
  • #31
Mike_bb said:
First frame is stationary frame. Second frame is moving frame.
Only from one point of view.

The first postulate implies that:
"Second frame is stationary frame. First frame is moving frame."
is also an equally valid point of view.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
DrGreg said:
Only from one point of view.

The first postulate implies that:
"Second frame is stationary frame. First frame is moving frame."
is also an equally valid point of view.
Let's consider two cases for these statements:
1. First frame is stationary frame and second frame is moving frame.
Let's agree that we will see second frame from first frame. We obtain ##{ds_2}^2=k(V){ds_1}^2##
2. First frame is moving frame and second frame is stationary frame.
As we agreed above we will see second frame from first frame but we obtain the same result: ##{ds_2}^2=k(V){ds_1}^2##

Where did I go wrong?
 
  • #33
Mike_bb said:
Let's consider two cases for these statements:
1. First frame is stationary frame and second frame is moving frame.
Let's agree that we will see second frame from first frame. We obtain ##{ds_2}^2=k(V){ds_1}^2##
2. First frame is moving frame and second frame is stationary frame.
As we agreed above we will see second frame from first frame but we obtain the same result: ##{ds_2}^2=k(V){ds_1}^2##

Where did I go wrong?
You forgot to swap the frames in the second equation.
 
  • #34
Mike_bb said:
Ok. "The second system looks from the first is indistinguishable from the first system from the second"
I wrote about it when I provided drawings for this statement. It doesn't work as it's written. Where did I go wrong in posts #15 and #19?
Each picture in #15 and #19 contains a clock and a coordinate system, that move relative to each other.

But for a visualization of the reciprocity of the two frames a picture is helpful, that contains two coordinate systems that move relative to each other.
If the directions of the x- and z- axes in both frames ##S## and ##S'## are reversed, this does not effect the equation
##c^2dt'^2-dx'^2-dy'^2-dz'^2 = k(V) (c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2)##
but it interchanges the roles of ##S## and ##S'##. Then the following picture holds with primed and unprimed symbols interchanged:

Special_Relativity_Fig1.jpg
Source:​

Then with the principle of relativity follows also:
##c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 = k(V) (c^2dt'^2-dx'^2-dy'^2-dz'^2)##.
 
  • #35
Sagittarius A-Star said:
Each picture in #15 and #19 contains a clock and a coordinate system, that move relative to each other.

But for a visualization of the reciprocity of the two frames a picture is helpful, that contains two coordinate systems that move relative to each other.
If the directions of the x- and z- axes in both frames ##S## and ##S'## are reversed, this does not effect the equation
##c^2dt'^2-dx'^2-dy'^2-dz'^2 = k(V) (c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2)##
but it interchanges the roles of ##S## and ##S'##. Then the following picture holds with primed and unprimed symbols interchanged:

Source:​

Then with the principle of relativity follows also:
##c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2 = k(V) (c^2dt'^2-dx'^2-dy'^2-dz'^2)##.
Am I right that after the changes it will look like this?
qqq.jpg
 
  • #36
Mike_bb said:
Am I right that after the changes it will look like this?
View attachment 356492
The changes would also include to reverse directions of the x- and z- axes including the related arrows.
 
  • #37
Sagittarius A-Star said:
The changes would also include to reverse directions of the x- and z- axes.
I changed x- and -z- axes on the picture. Is it true?
 
  • Like
Likes Sagittarius A-Star
  • #38
  • Like
Likes Sagittarius A-Star
  • #39
Hello!

I have a question.
As was mentioned above, according to principle of relativity we have:

##{ds_2}^2=K(V){ds_1}^2## ##(1^*)##
##{ds_1}^2=K(V){ds_2}^2## ##(2^*)##

Let's consider these equations:

In equation ##(1^*)##: ##{ds_2}^2=K(V){ds_1}^2## coefficient ##K(V)## appropriate to interval ##{ds_1}^2##.
But in equation ##(2^*)##: ##{ds_1}^2=K(V){ds_2}^2## coefficient ##K(V)## must appropriate to interval ##{ds_2}^2##.
If we obtain this contradiction then there must be two different coefficients for ##(1^*)## and ##(2^*)##.

I have a doubt about this reasoning. How to solve this question? Where did I go wrong?
Thanks!
 
  • #40
Mike_bb said:
Hello!

I have a question.
As was mentioned above, according to principle of relativity we have:

##{ds_2}^2=K(V){ds_1}^2## ##(1^*)##
##{ds_1}^2=K(V){ds_2}^2## ##(2^*)##

Let's consider these equations:

In equation ##(1^*)##: ##{ds_2}^2=K(V){ds_1}^2## coefficient ##K(V)## appropriate to interval ##{ds_1}^2##.
But in equation ##(2^*)##: ##{ds_1}^2=K(V){ds_2}^2## coefficient ##K(V)## must appropriate to interval ##{ds_2}^2##.
If we obtain this contradiction then there must be two different coefficients for ##(1^*)## and ##(2^*)##.

I have a doubt about this reasoning. How to solve this question? Where did I go wrong?
Thanks!
There is no contradiction. If you substitute ##(1^*)## into ##(2^*)##, then you get
##{ds_1}^2=K(V)K(V){ds_1}^2##
 
  • Like
Likes bdrobin519 and Mike_bb
  • #41
Sagittarius A-Star said:
There is no contradiction. If you substitute ##(1^*)## into ##(2^*)##, then you get
##{ds_1}^2=K(V)K(V){ds_1}^2##
I thought about it. Do you mean that ##K(V)## is suitable for ##K(V){ds_1}^2## as coefficient for interval ##{ds_1}^2##?
 
  • #42
Mike_bb said:
I thought about it. Do you mean that ##K(V)## is suitable for ##K(V){ds_1}^2## as coefficient for interval ##{ds_1}^2##?
I mean that ##(K(V))^2=1##.
 
  • #43
Sagittarius A-Star said:
I mean that ##(K(V))^2=1##.
I mean another thing. We know that coeffiecient doesn't depend on coordinate and time of intervals. But we don't know what coefficient is appropriate for different intervals and are there different coefficients or not.
 
  • #44
Mike_bb said:
I mean another thing. We know that coeffiecient doesn't depend on coordinate and time of intervals. But we don't know what coefficient is appropriate for different intervals and are there different coefficients or not.
In posting #34 is described, why the same coefficient can be used.
 
  • #45
Sagittarius A-Star said:
In posting #34 is described, why the same coefficient can be used.
Is there another way how to explain it? Wiki says nothing about way that mentioned in posting#34.
 
  • #47
Sagittarius A-Star said:
Maybe the following summary is better to understand:

Source:
Book "Unusually Special Relativity" from Andrzej Dragon.
Hello!
I returned to beginning because I have a doubt. Am I right that for different intervals we have different coefficient K1(x,y,z,t); K2(x,y,z,t)... or we have one coefficient for different intervals K(x,y,z,t), i.e. ##{ds_2}^2=K1(x,y,z,t){ds_1}^2## and so on? How does it work in this context?

P.S. My attempt to obtain ##{ds_2}^2=K{ds_1}^2## and ##{ds_1}^2=K{ds_2}^2## is:

##{ds_2}^2=K1(x,y,z,t){ds_1}^2##
##{ds_1}^2=K2(x,y,z,t){ds_2}^2##

K1(x,y,z,t) doesn't depend on spacetime coordinate then we obtain constant K1;
K2(x,y,z,t) doesn't depend on spacetime coordinate then we obtain constant K2;

##{ds_2}^2=K1{ds_1}^2##
##{ds_1}^2=K2{ds_2}^2##

But it differs from ##{ds_2}^2=K{ds_1}^2## and ##{ds_1}^2=K{ds_2}^2##
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Mike_bb said:
##{ds_2}^2=K1{ds_1}^2##
##{ds_1}^2=K2{ds_2}^2##

But it differs from ##{ds_2}^2=K{ds_1}^2## and ##{ds_1}^2=K{ds_2}^2##
##K_1=K_2## because you can interchange the roles of the primed and unprimed frame, as described in posting #34.
 
  • #49
Sagittarius A-Star said:
##K_1=K_2## because you can interchange the roles of the primed and unprimed frame, as described in posting #34.
Thanks. It's one of possible ways.
But you wrote at the beginning of this topic: "The formulas you showed are reciprocal between both frames because inertial frames are homogeneous in spacetime and isotropic in space."

Coefficient doesn't depend on coordinate and time because specetime is homogenoeous. Could you explain in more details which of coordinate and time are involved ? Thanks!
 
  • #50
Sagittarius A-Star said:
##K_1=K_2## because you can interchange the roles of the primed and unprimed frame, as described in posting #34.
I found answer here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deriv..._and_Proof_of_Proportionality_of_ds2_and_ds′2

On what may
{\displaystyle a}
depend? It may not depend on the positions of the two events in spacetime, because that would violate the postulated homogeneity of spacetime.
But I can't understand how "violate the postulated homogeneity of spacetime"?
 
  • #51
Mike_bb said:
I found answer here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivations_of_the_Lorentz_transformations#Rigorous_Statement_and_Proof_of_Proportionality_of_ds2_and_ds′2


But I can't understand how "violate the postulated homogeneity of spacetime"?
From homogeneity of spacetime and isotropy of space follows that all coefficients in a transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates must be constants. Therefore, if you transform the coordinates of the spacetime interval formula i.e. from unprimed to primed coordinates, then you must get a polynomial of second order. A theorem of algebra states, that two irreducible polynomials of the same degree (i.e. quadratic), which share all their zeros (invariance of the speed of light!), can differ by at most a constant factor ##K##.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Hello, Sagittarius A-Star!
Mike_bb said:
See post

I decided to add more details to equations. Now equation contain coefficients a1 and a2 that depend on coordinates and time:

$$c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2 = a1(v\Delta t , L, \Delta t)c^2\Delta t'^2-\Delta x'^2$$
$$c^2\Delta t'^2-\Delta x'^2 = a2(v\Delta t , L, \Delta t)c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2$$

If $$a1(v\Delta t , L, \Delta t) = a2(v\Delta t , L, \Delta t)$$ then $$a1(v\Delta t , L, \Delta t) = a2(v\Delta t , L, \Delta t) = K$$

So:

$$c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2 = K(c^2\Delta t'^2-\Delta x'^2)$$
$$c^2\Delta t'^2-\Delta x'^2 = K(c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2)$$

Is it right?

Thanks!
 
  • #53
Sagittarius A-Star

In previous post I meant that coordinates and time are the same for two intervals in different coordinate systems (by Principle of Relativity). Am I right?
 
  • #54
Greetings Mike_bb,

I just saw the reply you made at https://math.stackexchange.com/ques...-infinitesimal-be-non-integer/5069096#5069096

I don't understand the proof you wrote there.
If you can prove
(1) ##c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2 = K(c^2\Delta t'^2-\Delta x'^2)## and
(2) ##c^2\Delta t'^2-\Delta x'^2 = K(c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2)##

Then you can plug the second equation into the first and get
##c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2 = K K(c^2\Delta t^2-\Delta x^2)##
So ##K=1## or ##-1##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
675
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
578
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K