I Relating orthogonal accelerations in special relativity

LightPhoton
Messages
42
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
Reasoning for the validity of relation between orthogonal accelerations in special relativity
We want to relate acceleration in two frames, an inertial frame S, and the instantaneous inertial reference frame of the particle on which it is being accelerated, S', which is moving in the ##x## direction at the moment. Let the acceleration in S be ##(a_x,a_y)## and in S' be ##(a_x',a_y')##. We want a relationship between them.

Now, here Morin argues that when consider the ##y## component we can write ##dy=dy'## and that ##dt'=dt/\gamma##, thus

$$a_y'=d^2y'/dt'^2=d^2y/(dt/\gamma)^2=\gamma^2a_y\tag1$$

But this seems wrong since we are taking the derivative of a factor of ##\gamma## here. If we go into a bit more detail then,


$$a_y=\frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=\frac d{dt}\bigg(\frac{dy'}{\gamma dt'}\bigg)=\frac1{\gamma^2}a_y'+\underbrace{\frac{dy'}{dt'}}_{v'}\frac d{dt}\bigg(\frac1{\gamma}\bigg)$$

but since the particle is at rest with respect to itself ##(v'=0)##, the second term goes to zero and we get ##(1)##. Is this reasoning correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are applying the chain rule here, and I agree that's the formally correct approach. However note that the structure of the Lorentz transforms, which are aligned parallel to the x axis, tells you that the velocity of the particle is parallel to x (otherwise you couldn't use these transforms to reach its rest frame). Hence ##dy/dt=0## in any frame, not just the rest frame.

I think that's why Morin is taking a shortcut here.
 
  • Like
Likes LightPhoton
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
Back
Top