Proof regarding composition of velocities

  • Thread starter Thread starter drnickriviera
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Composition Proof
drnickriviera
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



This is a problem from D'Inverno's "Introducing Einstein's Relativity".

If vAB is the velocity of B with respect to A, vBC is the velocity of C with respect to B, and vAC is the velocity of C with respect to A (all velocities are in relativistic units, that is, c=1), prove that if 0<vAB<1 and 0<vBC<1, then vAC<1.


Homework Equations



The problem should be resolvable with just the equation

vAC=(vAB+vBC)/(1+vABvBC).



The Attempt at a Solution



I understand that there are other ways to prove this, but I want to know this particular approach. I suspect it boils down to showing that the numerator is less than the denominator. I have tried reducing the denominator and/or increasing the numerator to find a greater expression that is less than one, but so far nothing has worked. I know this is really just a mathematical proof and has little to do with conceptual relativity, but I'd still like the solution.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You want to show (a+b)/(1+ab)<1 if 0<a<1 and 0<b<1, right? Write it as a*(1-b)+1*b<1. a*(1-b)+1*b is a linear function of b as b goes from 0 to 1, right also? It's a weighted average of a and 1. So it must hit it's max and min at b=0 or b=1.
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
You want to show (a+b)/(1+ab)<1 if 0<a<1 and 0<b<1, right? Write it as a*(1-b)+1*b<1. a*(1-b)+1*b is a linear function of b as b goes from 0 to 1, right also? It's a weighted average of a and 1. So it must hit it's max and min at b=0 or b=1.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand how those two (the original expression and the linear function) are equivalent. Could you explain a little more deeply?
 
Since a<1, b<1, we can rewrite them as: a=1-x, b=1-y, where x>0, y>0. This will make it a lot easier :smile:
 
Ok, that works. Thanks a lot!
 
drnickriviera said:
I'm sorry, I don't really understand how those two (the original expression and the linear function) are equivalent. Could you explain a little more deeply?

(a+b)/(1+ab)<1. Multiply both sides by (1+ab). (a+b)<1+ab. Subtract ab from both sides. a+b-ab<1. Collect terms and factor. (a-ab)+b<1, a*(1-b)+1*b<1.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top