Quick question about lorentz transforms

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter spacelike
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lorentz
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the derivation of time dilation and length contraction using Lorentz transformations. The equations presented are Δt' = γΔt for time dilation and L' = L/γ for length contraction. The confusion arises when the user incorrectly applies the Lorentz transformation for length contraction, resulting in L' = γL instead of the correct formula. The resolution involves recognizing that the positions of the ends of a rod must be measured simultaneously in the moving frame to obtain the correct length contraction equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations
  • Familiarity with the concepts of time dilation and length contraction
  • Knowledge of the variable definitions in special relativity (e.g., γ, v, c)
  • Basic grasp of reference frames in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Lorentz transformations in detail
  • Learn about simultaneity in different reference frames
  • Explore the implications of special relativity on length contraction
  • Investigate practical applications of Lorentz transformations in physics
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators teaching special relativity, and anyone interested in understanding the nuances of Lorentz transformations and their applications in modern physics.

spacelike
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
So there's something that has bothered me for quite some time.

I know the normal equations of time dilation and length contraction are the following:
[tex]\Delta t'=\gamma \Delta t[/tex] and [tex]L'=\frac{L}{\gamma}[/tex]

where the primed variables are in reference frame S' and the unprimed variables are in reference frame S. With frame S' moving with velocity v relative to frame S.


Ok, so far so good. Now when we try to look at the same thing with Lorentz transformations (in other words: derive the above from Lorentz transformations)
we have:
[tex]t'=\gamma(t-\frac{v}{c^{2}}x)[/tex]
[tex]x'=\gamma(x-vt)[/tex]

When deriving time dilation we simply take it that the event which lasts duration t in reference frame S, is at x=0. Therefore we immediately get:
[tex]t'=\gamma t[/tex]
[tex]\Delta t'=t'_{2}-t'_{1}=\gamma t_{2}-\gamma t_{1}[/tex]
[tex]\Delta t'=\gamma \Delta t[/tex]

Great, that gives us time dilation as expected.. Now the problem I'm having is with length contraction. So starting again from the lorentz equation:
[tex]x'=\gamma(x-vt)[/tex]

This time we consider that we measure the length at t=0, leaving us with:
[tex]x'=\gamma x[/tex]
Now to get length:

[tex]L'=x'_{2}-x'_{1}=\gamma x_{2}-\gamma x_{1}=\gamma L[/tex]

That means that according to Lorentz transformations:
[tex]L'=\gamma L[/tex]

However, according to the formula for length contraction which I wrote at the top:
[tex]L'=\frac{L}{\gamma}[/tex]

These are totally opposite!
what am I doing wrong?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose [itex]x_1[/itex] and [itex]x_2[/itex] are the positions of the ends of a rod, in the unprimed frame. In the primed frame, the rod is moving, so to get the length of the rod in that frame, you have to measure the positions of the two ends at the same time in that frame.

However, the [itex]x_1^\prime[/itex] and [itex]x_2^\prime[/itex] that you've gotten from the Lorentz transformation, correspond to different times in the primed frame, even though you measured [itex]x_1[/itex] and [itex]x_2[/itex] at the same time (t = 0) in the unprimed frame. So [itex]x_2^\prime - x_1^\prime \ne L^\prime[/itex].
 
Thank you!
That cleared it up perfectly
So now I see that I would have to use [itex]x=\gamma(x'+vt)[/itex]
and that gives the correct equation for length contraction
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K