Relative Velocity of two particles

[Starwanderer1]

Dont know if this has been discussed here before..
If two relativistic particles are traveling with speeds 'u' &'v' ,how to calculate the relative velocity?

 

[jtbell]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel.html

 

[Starwanderer1]

Much thanks!

 

[starthaus]

Dont know if this has been discussed here before..
If two relativistic particles are traveling with speeds 'u' &'v' ,how to calculate the relative velocity?

Depends:

1. If the particles are traveling at speeds "u" respectively "v" wrt a common frame of reference then the answer is u+v if they travel towards each other or u-v if they are travel in the same direction.

2. If particle A travels at speed "u" wrt a frame of reference and particle B travels at speed "v" wrt A then the answer is simply v.
(the speed "u" has no influence on the answer, this is not a problem about relativistic speed composition)

Judging by the way you asked your question, the answer is (surprisingly) the one at point 1.

 

[Fredrik]

Starthaus, you got most (if not all) of that wrong. Would you like to try again?

 

[starthaus]

Starthaus, you got most (if not all) of that wrong. Would you like to try again?

Yes, the second half of the answer was wrong, I wasn't paying attention, I corrected it.
The fact stands that the answer is option 1 and that, in any case, the answer has nothing to do with relativistic speed composition. In fact, the correct answer is orthogonal to relativity altogether.
Apparently the notion of "closing"and "separation" speed are not well known. The answer to the Op's question is, suprisingly, option 1. It is very simple to prove to yourself:

If two particles travel towards each other at speeds u and v measured in the SAME frame, then, they cover the distance between them according to the equation:X=x_1+x_2

So:

w=\frac{dX}{dt}=\frac{dx_1}{dt}+ \frac{dx_2}{dt}=u+v

If the particles "chase" each other, then, their "separation" is:

X=x_1-x_2

so, their relative speed is:

w=\frac{dX}{dt}=\frac{dx_1}{dt}- \frac{dx_2}{dt}=u-v

The above rules work just the same for accelerations and all the higher time derivatives.
Closing and separation speed work according to very different rules than the speed composition in SR. Neither answer (option 1 or 2 ) has anything to do with the relativistic composition of speeds.

 

[Ich]

Starthaus, you got most (if not all) of that wrong.

Guess what, according to Wikipedia, as well as the links therein, starthaus is right. There seems to be some kind of edit war, but I'd be interested whether there are reliable sources for this, IMHO nutty, definition. Can it be that there are serious relativists who define it as the vector difference of velocities in a common IS? Any sources?

 

[matheinste]

Guess what, according to Wikipedia, as well as the links therein, starthaus is right. There seems to be some kind of edit war, but I'd be interested whether there are reliable sources for this, IMHO nutty, definition. Can it be that there are serious relativists who define it as the vector difference of velocities in a common IS? Any sources?

Closing or separation speed has often come up and been explained in this forum although I cannot immediately give a link. The closing/separation speed of two material objects can approach 2c. But of course their velocity relative to each other is less than c as measured in either of their rest frames and no material object moves faster than c.

Matheinste.

 

[DrGreg]

Guess what, according to Wikipedia, as well as the links therein, starthaus is right.

Which Wikipedia article? There are dozens about various aspects of relativity.

 

[Ich]

Closing or separation speed has often come up

Yes, I know there were attemtps here to give the vector difference a name that distiguishes it from relative velocity. My concern is that the WP article calls exactly this quantity the "relative velocity". There are also links from trustworthy sites that give the same definition, albeit always in a non-relativistic context.
But what really bothers me (from the discussion to this article):

The expression “relative velocity” signifies the difference between the velocities of two objects, with the understanding that the individual velocities are each evaluated in terms of a single system of coordinates
[...]
References:
[...]
(5) Rindler, W., “Essential Relativity”.

Now that one is really scary.

 

[starthaus]

Guess what, according to Wikipedia, as well as the links therein, starthaus is right. There seems to be some kind of edit war, but I'd be interested whether there are reliable sources for this, IMHO nutty, definition. Can it be that there are serious relativists who define it as the vector difference of velocities in a common IS? Any sources?

thank you, Ich

The answer has nothing to do with relativity, it is just basic physics.
Besides, it is not a definition, it falls straight out of basic math.

 

[Ich]

Which Wikipedia article? There are dozens about various aspects of relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_velocity"

 

[Ich]

Hi starthaus

Well, as you can see, I acknowledge that there is some support for your point of view, so it's arguably inappropriate to call it wrong. That came as a surprise to me, and I bet quite a few other PF members are irritated, too.
However, I disagree with your (first) statement and with some of the definitions I've seen in the web. But this is a matter of semantics, where the only fault can be to use a nonstandard definition without explicitly saying so. I hereby grudgingly admit that you obviously did not use a nonstandard definition of the term.
Still, I'd be surprised if recent textbook authors on relativity really used that definition.

The answer has nothing to do with relativity, it is just basic physics.
Besides, it is not a definition, it falls straight out of basic math.

I disagree. IMHO, a resonable definition of the relative velocity of A and B would be B's velocity as measured by A, or the other way round. The definition (yes, it is a definition, not basic math) as a vector difference is theory dependent - even worse, depends on a theory known to be inaccurate for over 100 years now.

 

[matheinste]

Rindler in Relativity, Special, General and Cosmological. 2nd ed. Page 70 gives an equivalent vector formula and calls it, to distiguish it from relative velocity, mutual velocity and states that it is applicable equally to Newtonian and Relativistic kinematics.

In Essential Relativity. 2nd ed. Page 36 he also calls it mutual velocity and describes it as the time rate of change of the vector connecting the two particles in question.

Matheinste.

 

[starthaus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_velocity"

The article is perfectly correct. Basic stuff, something that gets taught in 9-th grade.

 

[starthaus]

Rindler in Relativity, Special, General and Cosmological. 2nd ed. Page 70 gives an equivalent vector formula and calls it, to distiguish it from relative velocity, mutual velocity and states that it is applicable equally to Newtonian and Relativistic kinematics.

Matheinste.

Yes, nothing exotic, basic physics. What's good for the Rindler is good for the goose :-)

 

[starthaus]

Hi starthaus

Well, as you can see, I acknowledge that there is some support for your point of view, so it's arguably inappropriate to call it wrong. That came as a surprise to me, and I bet quite a few other PF members are irritated, too.

Thank you, it is nice to see that sometimes people admit to be rash in their judgement. I have not seen it very often in this forum.
There is no reason to be irritated, this is perfectly basic physics (see Rindler "Relativity, Special, General and Cosmological". 2nd ed. Page 70)

However, I disagree with your (first) statement and with some of the definitions I've seen in the web. But this is a matter of semantics, where the only fault can be to use a nonstandard definition without explicitly saying so.

I did not use a nonstandard definition, moreover, I provided the mathematical support as to how we arrive to the expressions.

I hereby grudgingly admit that you obviously did not use a nonstandard definition of the term.
Still, I'd be surprised if recent textbook authors on relativity really used that definition.

See Rindler, exact page cited by "matheinste".

I disagree. IMHO, a resonable definition of the relative velocity of A and B would be B's velocity as measured by A, or the other way round. The definition (yes, it is a definition, not basic math) as a vector difference is theory dependent - even worse, depends on a theory known to be inaccurate for over 100 years now.

I think you share the same confusion with the other science advisors (jtbell and Fredrik-who, BTW, reacted quite violently but without any reason) , closing speed does NOT contradict relativity.
The closing/separation speed is the answer to the question posed in the OP. Relativistic speed composition is not the correct answer and, in fact, has nothing to do with the problem posed by the OP.

 

[Doc Al]

I think you share the same confusion with the other science advisors (jtbell, Fredrik-who reacted quite violently but without any reason) , closing speed does NOT contradict relativity.

Give us a break! Those advisors are well aware of the definition of closing speed and how it differs from the usual definition of relative velocity.

The closing/separation speed is the answer to the question posed in the OP. Relativistic speed composition is not the correct answer and, in fact, has nothing to do with the problem posed by the OP.

Really? The OP asked about the relative velocity, which is usually taken to mean the velocity of one object as measured in the frame of the other.

 

[starthaus]

Give us a break! Those advisors are well aware of the definition of closing speed and how it differs from the usual definition of relative velocity.

Really? The OP asked about the relative velocity, which is usually taken to mean the velocity of one object as measured in the frame of the other.

then the answer is Option 2 (i.e. v).
The point is that the correct answer has nothing to do with relativistic speed composition, so jtbell's reference to the hyperphysics page is wrong.

 

[DrGreg]

The original poster specifically asked about "relative velocity". In relativity, the "relative velocity of A relative to B" is assumed to mean "as measured by B" unless it's explicitly clear that the assumption is wrong. This is (u−v)/(1−uv/c²).

The "relative velocity of A relative to B as measured by C" (where C is not B) is not encountered very frequently. It is (u−v), where both u and v are measured by C. To avoid confusion it is often referred to as "closing velocity" or, as Rindler says, "mutual velocity".

The Wikipedia article on Relative velocity makes no mention of relativity in the text and therefore must be assumed to be about non-relativistic Newtonian mechanics, where this issue doesn't arise. In any case, I would dispute the wording of the definition given in the opening sentence. Please remember Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who wants to and therefore cannot be relied on for authority.

The point is, "closing velocity" (in this sense) is not the same as "relative velocity"; the question was phrased in terms of "relative velocity" and it's reasonable to assume that was what was meant unless the original poster would like to tell us otherwise.

 

[Doc Al]

The point is that the correct answer has nothing to do with relativistic speed composition, so jtbell's reference to the hyperphysics page is wrong.

That hyperphysics reference was a perfectly reasonable response to the OP's question. Lacking further details of what the OP actually intended, assuming 'u' and 'v' to be the speeds of the particles with respect to some third frame is entirely reasonable. (And seemed to satisfy the OP.)

 

[starthaus]

The original poster specifically asked about "relative velocity". In relativity, the "relative velocity of A relative to B" is assumed to mean "as measured by B" unless it's explicitly clear that the assumption is wrong. This is (u−v)/(1−uv/c²).

The "relative velocity of A relative to B as measured by C" (where C is not B) is not encountered very frequently. It is (u−v), where both u and v are measured by C. To avoid confusion it is often referred to as "closing velocity" or, as Rindler says, "mutual velocity".

The Wikipedia article on Relative velocity makes no mention of relativity in the text and therefore must be assumed to be about non-relativistic Newtonian mechanics, where this issue doesn't arise. In any case, I would dispute the wording of the definition given in the opening sentence. Please remember Wikipedia can be edited by anyone who wants to and therefore cannot be relied on for authority.

.

This is a nice, balanced answer, devoid of emotion. It underscores the importance of specifying the reference frame used for judgement in answering the question. You need to ask the OP what exactly was the reference frame for:

-measuring u and v
-measuring the relative speed between A and B

For example, if the speed (v) of particle B was specified wrt the frame co-moving with particle A then their relative speed as measured wrt A is ...v.

The point is, "closing velocity" (in this sense) is not the same as "relative velocity"; the question was phrased in terms of "relative velocity" and it's reasonable to assume that was what was meant unless the original poster would like to tell us otherwise

The naming convention varies depending on the author (see the wiki case). So, going by the naming convention is not a good way of solving the problem. Specifying the frame of reference is.

 

[starthaus]

That hyperphysics reference was a perfectly reasonable response to the OP's question. Lacking further details of what the OP actually intended, assuming 'u' and 'v' to be the speeds of the particles with respect to some third frame is entirely reasonable. (And seemed to satisfy the OP.)

Yes, it is reasonable, once you specify the frame of reference.
So are the other two choices.

 

[Fredrik]

I think it would be absurd to use the term "relative velocity" for the time derivative of the difference between the position coordinates of the two objects. When we say that a person walking inside a train has the velocity 5 m/s relative to the train, we mean that his velocity is 5 m/s in the inertial frame in which the train is stationary. To have "relative velocity of" mean something completely different than "velocity relative to" would only make sense if we wanted to cause as much confusion as possible.

The article is perfectly correct. Basic stuff, something that gets taught in 9-th grade.

It's too basic. That's the problem with it. No one knows relativity in 9th grade, so no need to distinguish between "my speed relative to the train is 5 m/s" and "the difference between my speed and the train's speed, both relative to the ground, is 5 m/s".

Yes, nothing exotic, basic physics.

It's not physics at all. It's just semantics. We're just talking about what the term "relative velocity" means, and what it should mean.

this is perfectly basic physics (see Rindler "Relativity, Special, General and Cosmological". 2nd ed. Page 70)
...
See Rindler, exact page cited by "matheinste".

I did, and as Matheinsteine already said, Rindler doesn't define relative velocity this way. The exact quote is:

"We call this, for lack of a better name, the mutual velocity between the particles in S, to distinguish it from the relative velocity, which is what one particle ascribes to the other."​

I think you share the same confusion with the other science advisors [...] closing speed does NOT contradict relativity.

Do you seriously think that we believe that it does, or is this just an insult?

The closing/separation speed is the answer to the question posed in the OP. Relativistic speed composition is not the correct answer and, in fact, has nothing to do with the problem posed by the OP.

You are incorrectly assuming that your interpretation of "relative velocity" is correct and all others wrong.

 

[starthaus]

I think it would be absurd to use the term "relative velocity" for the time derivative of the difference between the position coordinates of the two objects. When we say that a person walking inside a train has the velocity 5 m/s relative to the train, we mean that his velocity is 5 m/s in the inertial frame in which the train is stationary. To have "relative velocity of" mean something completely different than "velocity relative to" would only make sense if we wanted to cause as much confusion as possible.It's too basic. That's the problem with it. No one knows relativity in 9th grade, so no need to distinguish between "my speed relative to the train is 5 m/s" and "the difference between my speed and the train's speed, both relative to the ground, is 5 m/s".It's not physics at all. It's just semantics. We're just talking about what the term "relative velocity" means, and what it should mean.I did, and as Matheinsteine already said, Rindler doesn't define relative velocity this way. The exact quote is:

"We call this, for lack of a better name, the mutual velocity between the particles in S, to distinguish it from the relative velocity, which is what one particle ascribes to the other."​

Do you seriously think that we believe that it does, or is this just an insult?You are incorrectly assuming that your interpretation of "relative velocity" is correct and all others wrong.

Let me clarify, once and for all:

1. If u and v are specified wrt a frame C, then the relative speed of B wrt A as measured in frame C is v-u

2. If v is specified in frame of particle A then the relative speed of B wrt A is...v.

3. If u and v are specified wrt a frame C then the relative speed of B wrt A as measured wrt A is (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2)

The above is a description that is devoid of any naming convention, it is based solely on the choice of reference frames, as it should be.
Like I said, you need to be precise in terms of defining the frames of reference.

 

[Fredrik]

No that only defines how you want those terms defined.

 

[starthaus]

No that only defines how you want those terms defined.

I don't want anything, it is just an enumeration of the possibilities replete with their mathematical expression. It is pretty much the way I first wrote my answer and it is pretty much the way DrGreg phrased his. Why are you getting so adversarial? You have been this way from your very first post.

 

[Fredrik]

All I did in #5 was to point out that you got stuff wrong. That's the appropriate thing to do when someone is in fact wrong. I didn't bother to explain what exactly, because I figured you'd be capable of figuring that out on your own. After that, you have been suggesting this is only a matter of everyone but you (in particular me and jtbell) failing to understand high school stuff. That's pretty annoying.

Even in #25, you're saying that this is how things are defined, when you're just describing one possible way to define them.

 

[starthaus]

All I did in #5 was to point out that you got stuff wrong.

You did it in a demeaning way. Besides, the post was (and is ) correct, so there was no reason to behave this way.

Post #4 is the same as #25.
The only difference is that I added option 3 in post #25. Incidentally, that option was already there in the original post #4. So, I did not get "stuff wrong", you just over-reacted to the description of Option 1.

That's the appropriate thing to do when someone is in fact wrong. After that, you have been suggesting this is only a matter of everyone but you (in particular me and jtbell) failing to understand high school stuff. That's pretty annoying.

I apologize.

Even in #25, you're saying that this is how things are defined, when you're just describing one possible way to define them.

No, there are three possible descriptions based on the choice of frame of reference:

1. If u and v are specified wrt a frame C, then the relative speed of B wrt A as measured in frame C is v-u

2. If v is specified in frame of particle A then the relative speed of B wrt A is...v.

3. If u and v are specified wrt a frame C then the relative speed of B wrt A as measured wrt A is (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2)

 

[Fredrik]

1. If u and v are specified wrt a frame C, then the relative speed of B wrt A as measured in frame C is v-u

If we must have define a term for this concept, I would prefer it to be something like "separation rate in frame C" or something like that. I can't think of a more misleading term than "relative speed"/"relative velocity".

 

[atyy]

If A is a massive particle traveling inertially at v relative to inertial frame S, and P is a photon traveling at c relative to S, what is the speed of the photon relative to A?

 

[Matterwave]

c

 

[starthaus]

If we must have define a term for this concept, I would prefer it to be something like "separation rate in frame C" or something like that. I can't think of a more misleading term than "relative speed"/"relative velocity".

The terms I use are "closing speed" and "separation speed".

 

[starthaus]

If A is a massive particle traveling inertially at v relative to inertial frame S, and P is a photon traveling at c relative to S, what is the speed of the photon relative to A?

The photon travels at c wrt any frame, including the one comoving with A.

 

[atyy]

c

And what is the velocity of A relative to the photon?

And what is the relative velocity of A and the photon?

 

[starthaus]

And what is the velocity of A relative to the photon?

And what is the relative velocity of A and the photon?

There is no way to associate frames of reference to photons. So, the answer is "seven" :-)

 

[stevmg]

If u_x were positive and v_x were negative then without a relativistic correction the sepatartion speeds were u_x - v_x. As stated, basic physics. Writinig u_x and v_x as a fraction of c, it would be possible for this quantitiy to be >c. To wit, u_x = 0.8 and v_x were -0.6c, the speed of separation would be 1.4c. I know this was posited as in relation to the common frame of reference but is it possible to have a separation speed of >c?

I didn't know that was possible.

 

[starthaus]

If u_x were positive and v_x were negative then without a relativistic correction the sepatartion speeds were u_x - v_x. As stated, basic physics. Writinig u_x and v_x as a fraction of c, it would be possible for this quantitiy to be >c. To wit, u_x = 0.8 and v_x were -0.6c, the speed of separation would be 1.4c. I know this was posited as in relation to the common frame of reference but is it possible to have a separation speed of >c?

I didn't know that was possible.

Closing speed vcan be as large as 2c

 

[stevmg]

Closing or separation speed has often come up and been explained in this forum although I cannot immediately give a link. The closing/separation speed of two material objects can approach 2c. But of course their velocity relative to each other is less than c as measured in either of their rest frames and no material object moves faster than c.

Matheinste.

Never thought of it that way. Using that piece of info:

If one object A goes east from the Earth into space (don't take into account the 1000 mph of the Earth rotation near the equator) at 0.6c and a second object B goes west into space at 0.6c each object will be 180,000 km away from the Earth in opposite directions after 1 second or 360,000 km which makes the separation speed 360,000 km in 1 sec or 1.2c. Yet, of course, the separation speed relative to each other is 1.2/(1+.6*.6) = 1.2/1.36 = 0.8824c = 264,706km/sec. (I'm using 300K km/sec as c and not the exact 299000+ whatever it really is.)

That is weird!

OK, sports fans, then how far are they (A and B) "really" apart after 1 second? 360,000 km or 264,706 km?

 

[jtbell]

That depends on your definition of "really."

 

[Dale]

I acknowledge that there is some support for your point of view, so it's arguably inappropriate to call it wrong. That came as a surprise to me

Same here. I have always used the term "relative velocity" to refer to the velocity measured in the rest frame (v<c) and the term "closing velocity" or "separation velocity" to refer to the difference in velocities as measured in another frame (v<2c).

I suspect the OP was looking for the first. It is too bad that we have found yet another piece of unclear terminology.

 

[stevmg]

I suspect the OP was looking for the first. It is too bad that we have found yet another piece of unclear terminology.

Langauge is NOT precise and sometimes, no matter what language you speak, it takes two or three passes at a subject to convey what is really meant...

Any of you married? Ever try talking to a woman? 41+ years now and I do have the final word, "Yes, Dear."

I am not being flippant here. On a smaller scale that is what we run into in even technical jargon.

 

[Ich]

I do have the final word, "Yes, Dear."

Yes, in reply to a list of very precise instructions. Maybe we need more women in science.

 

[stevmg]

That depends on your definition of "really."

You win, jtbell, you caught me.

1) If reality means from S (where the Earth is the frame of reference (FR), then point B and A are 360,000 km apart. Let us say the path BEA is 360,000 km.

2) If reality means from S' (where B is the origin of the new FR) the path BEA is only 264,705.88 km (again, I'm using the exact 300k km/sec).

3) In S' path BE should be not 180,000 km but 144,000 km. (v = 0.6c, gamma = 0.8, L' = gamma*L

4) Again, in S' path EA should be 264,705.88 - 144,000 = 120,705.88 km. The reason for EA being shorter than BE is that EA is moving more quickly relative to B than is BE.

Now, I don't have any fellow students and I don't have any professors or "on-line" classrooms. You folks are all that (unless you can direct me to such a source.)

So, until then I would appreciate if after looking at my italicized comments 1 through 4 would you say they are correct?

My prior comment regarding the XX gender is not pejorative as I am sure they would say the same about men and both of us would be correct. Another example is talking to your kids. Insanity is inherited as you do get it from your children.

 

[yuiop]

If two relativistic particles are traveling with speeds 'u' &'v' ,how to calculate the relative velocity?

If A is traveling at velocity u relative to C and B is traveling at velocity v relative to C, then the relative velocity V_{AB} of A relative to B is:

V_{AB} = \frac{u-v}{(1-uv/c^2)}

and the relative velocity v_{BA} of B relative to A is:

V_{BA} = \frac{v-u}{(1-vu/c^2)}

Example 1
If according to C, A is traveling to the right at 0.9c and B is traveling to the left at -0.6c and the speed of light is c=1, then the magnitude of the relative velocity is (0.9+0.6)/(1+0.9*0.6) = 0.974c. The relative velocity of A according to B is +0.974c and the relative velocity of B according to A is -0.974c. The magnitude of the relative velocity is always less than the speed of light c.

The "separation velocity" of A and B according to C is 0.9c+0.6c = 1.5c.

Example 2
If according to C, A is traveling to the right at 0.9c and B is traveling to the right at 0.6c and the speed of light is c=1, then the relative velocity of A according to B is (0.9-0.6)/(1-0.9*0.6) = 0.6521c and the relative velocity of B according to A is (0.6-0.9)/(1+0.6*0.9) = -0.6521c.

The "closing velocity" of A and B according to C is 0.9c-0.6c = 0.3c.

All observers agree on the magnitude of the relative velocity of two particles.

See http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

 

[stevmg]

If A is traveling at velocity u relative to C and B is traveling at velocity v relative to C, then the relative velocity V_{AB} of A relative to B is:

V_{AB} = \frac{u-v}{(1-uv/c^2)}

and the relative velocity v_{BA} of B relative to A is:

V_{BA} = \frac{v-u}{(1-vu/c^2)}

Example 1
If according to C, A is traveling to the right at 0.9c and B is traveling to the left at -0.6c and the speed of light is c=1, then the magnitude of the relative velocity is (0.9+0.6)/(1+0.9*0.6) = 0.974c. The relative velocity of A according to B is +0.974c and the relative velocity of B according to A is -0.974c. The magnitude of the relative velocity is always less than the speed of light c.

The "separation velocity" of A and B according to C is 0.9c+0.6c = 1.5c.

Example 2
If according to C, A is traveling to the right at 0.9c and B is traveling to the right at 0.6c and the speed of light is c=1, then the relative velocity of A according to B is (0.9-0.6)/(1-0.9*0.6) = 0.6521c and the relative velocity of B according to A is (0.6-0.9)/(1+0.6*0.9) = -0.6521c.

The "closing velocity" of A and B according to C is 0.9c-0.6c = 0.3c.

All observers agree on the magnitude of the relative velocity of two particles.

See http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

I may be off base and I am new to this (as stated, I have no classmates, no professor, no online students with me except for this forum) but I have not seen this explained as succinctly as all you folks have done (starthaus, matheinstei, kev) when one uses the old fashioned Galilean concepts (separation and closing velocities which are always betwwen -2c and + 2c - which I didn't know until you folks pointed it out) versus the relative velocities as explained in SR even by Einstein. Thanks to you I have it now but if someone could corroborate my calculations from above that would "ice" it.

 

[starthaus]

I may be off base and I am new to this (as stated, I have no classmates, no professor, no online students with me except for this forum) but I have not seen this explained as succinctly as all you folks have done (starthaus, matheinstei, kev) when one uses the old fashioned Galilean concepts (separation and closing velocities which are always betwwen -2c and + 2c - which I didn't know until you folks pointed it out) versus the relative velocities as explained in SR even by Einstein. Thanks to you I have it now but if someone could corroborate my calculations from above that would "ice" it.

"separation/closing" speed are not specific to Galilean kinematics. They are equally applicable to SR. As I explained, the resultant composition of speeds is a function of the choice of reference frames. See post #25.

 

[stevmg]

Let me clarify, once and for all:

1. If u and v are specified wrt a frame C, then the relative speed of B wrt A as measured in frame C is v-u

2. If v is specified in frame of particle A then the relative speed of B wrt A is...v.

3. If u and v are specified wrt a frame C then the relative speed of B wrt A as measured wrt A is (u-v)/(1-uv/c^2)

The above is a description that is devoid of any naming convention, it is based solely on the choice of reference frames, as it should be.
Like I said, you need to be precise in terms of defining the frames of reference.

I do understand your explanation. What I meant was that once we hit velocities that required SR I was under the impression, WHICH WAS WRONG, that there always was a "relativistic" adjustment. Hence, with the explanations from you, matheinstei and kev, I see the appropriate usage of "separation/closing speeds" terminology even in SR.

You folks are the back-and-forth sounding board for my more elemental questions. If there is another site which I can do this without tying up this forum I would then be happy to go there but I have not found it. Certainly Yahoo Answers is not a good source as there is no place for give and take or interactive discussion.

 

[Doc Al]

You win, jtbell, you caught me.

1) If reality means from S (where the Earth is the frame of reference (FR), then point B and A are 360,000 km apart. Let us say the path BEA is 360,000 km.

After 1 second passes according to Earth clocks, the Earth observers will say that B and A are 360,000 km apart. Let's call this scenario #1. (Note that B frame observers will disagree that the Earth observers are measuring the positions of A and B at the same time.)

2) If reality means from S' (where B is the origin of the new FR) the path BEA is only 264,705.88 km (again, I'm using the exact 300k km/sec).

After 1 second passes according to the B frame clocks, the B frame observers will say that B and A are 264,705.88 km apart. Note that this is a completely different situation than scenario #1. (B and A are not in the same positions as they were when measurements were made in scenario #1.) Let's call this scenario #2.

3) In S' path BE should be not 180,000 km but 144,000 km. (v = 0.6c, gamma = 0.8, L' = gamma*L

4) Again, in S' path EA should be 264,705.88 - 144,000 = 120,705.88 km. The reason for EA being shorter than BE is that EA is moving more quickly relative to B than is BE.

To talk meaningfully about distances between A, E, and B, you must specify who is doing the measuring and what scenario you are interested in.

Things get complicated. In addition to clocks running slow, and distances shrinking, frames in relative motion will disagree about whether separated events took place at the same time or not. (The 'relativity of simultaneity'.)

 

[stevmg]

After 1 second passes according to Earth clocks, the Earth observers will say that B and A are 360,000 km apart. Let's call this scenario #1. (Note that B frame observers will disagree that the Earth observers are measuring the positions of A and B at the same time.)


After 1 second passes according to the B frame clocks, the B frame observers will say that B and A are 264,705.88 km apart. Note that this is a completely different situation than scenario #1. (B and A are not in the same positions as they were when measurements were made in scenario #1.) Let's call this scenario #2.


To talk meaningfully about distances between A, E, and B, you must specify who is doing the measuring and what scenario you are interested in.

Things get complicated. In addition to clocks running slow, and distances shrinking, frames in relative motion will disagree about whether separated events took place at the same time or not. (The 'relativity of simultaneity'.)

Appreciate the response, Doc Al.

- Point 1 - I am very aware that scenario #2 is different than scenario #1. Is the 264,705.88 km measurement in S' for BEA where E is moving away at 0.6c from B in S' (B as the origin) and A is moving away from E at 0.6c in S (E as the origin of S) hence requiring the relativistic velocity addition (where B is the origin of this frame of reference) correct? I am aware that 1 second in the S' FR is NOT the same as 1 sec in the original S with E being the origin of that FR.

- Point 2 - Is BE, again from B as the origin of the FR S' and E being Earth "moving away" at 0.6c, 144,000 km. Again, I am aware that the 144,000 km in S' (B as the origin of the FR S') is not the same as 144,000 km in S (E as the origin of S.)

- Point 3 - Is that difference calculated of 120,705.88 calculated as shown because this was all being done from FR S' correct in S'?

- Point 4 - Is the time of 1 second from B to A correct in S'?

- Point 5 - If Point 4 is correct (1 second in S') how would I split the time from B to E and from E to A in S' (B the origin)?