I Relativistic Velocity Transformation: Diff. Operator Explained

Daniel5423
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm reading modern physics, Tipler 5th edition, pages 21 and 22, and I'm not understanding how the differentiation was done from the position to find the velocity.
Equation for position: x'= y(x - vt)
y is the gamma constant.

Then in the first step to find the velocity, a derivative was done:
dx'= y(dx - vdt)From the above equation, it was used to find the relativistic equation for velocity, and I understand that part. but what I don't understand is what the differential operator was is in the derivative, such as something like d/dt. If I take d/dt to both sides of the equation, then I do not see how the above equation was found. Could someone please explain to me what the differential operator was used to find the above equation? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Use dt'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2), and divide dx' by dt' to get dx'/dt'=v'.
 
Take two nearby events, (x,t) and (x+dx,t+dt). In the primed frame the coordinates of these two events are (x',t') and (x'+dx',t'+dt'). The Lorentz transforms give you a relationship between x' and x and t, and between x'+dx' and x+dx and t+dt. Then you should be able to get the relationship you want.

Formally, you should probably start with x+Δx (etc) and then take the limit as Δ becomes infinitesimal. Generally physicists just assume that would work (because it always does in physically realistic situations), but that attitude tends to drive mathematicians to drink.
 
  • Like
Likes sweet springs
Meir Achuz said:
dt'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)
I don't think this formula is correct. The RHS should have dt and dx or the LHS should not have dt'.
 
Daniel5423 said:
I'm reading modern physics, Tipler 5th edition, pages 21 and 22, and I'm not understanding how the differentiation was done from the position to find the velocity.
Equation for position: x'= y(x - vt)
y is the gamma constant.

Then in the first step to find the velocity, a derivative was done:
dx'= y(dx - vdt)From the above equation, it was used to find the relativistic equation for velocity, and I understand that part. but what I don't understand is what the differential operator was is in the derivative, such as something like d/dt. If I take d/dt to both sides of the equation, then I do not see how the above equation was found. Could someone please explain to me what the differential operator was used to find the above equation? Thanks.

Sounds like you're confusing the infinitesimal with the derivative.

First, the Lorentz transformation (using ##c=1##):

##\Delta x^\prime = \gamma (\Delta x - v \Delta t)##
##\Delta t^\prime = \gamma (\Delta t - v \Delta x)##.

Now, to find ##dx^\prime / dt^\prime##, there's a more "rigorous" way and there's a shortcut. The "rigorous" way is:

##\dfrac{dx^\prime}{dt^\prime} = \lim_{\Delta t^\prime \rightarrow 0} \dfrac{\Delta x^\prime}{\Delta t^\prime} = \lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} \dfrac{\gamma (\Delta x - v \Delta t)}{\gamma (\Delta t - v \Delta x)} = \dfrac{\lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} \left( \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t} - v \right)}{\lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} \left( 1 - v \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t} \right)} = \dfrac{\frac{dx}{dt} - v}{1 - v \frac{dx}{dt}}##.

The shortcut is to regard ##dx^\prime## and ##dt^\prime## as infinitesimals in the first place—i.e., infinitesimally small "versions" of the finite changes ##\Delta x^\prime## and ##\Delta t^\prime##—and just divide them. So use ##d##'s instead of ##\Delta##'s in the first equations above:

##d x^\prime = \gamma (d x - v \, d t)##
##d t^\prime = \gamma (d t - v \, d x)##

and divide:

##\dfrac{dx^\prime}{dt^\prime} = \dfrac{ \gamma (d x - v \, d t)}{\gamma (d t - v \, d x)} = \dfrac{\frac{dx}{dt} - v}{1 - v \frac{dx}{dt}}##.
 
  • Like
Likes sweet springs, PeroK and Orodruin
SiennaTheGr8 said:
Sounds like you're confusing the infinitesimal with the derivative.

First, the Lorentz transformation (using ##c=1##):

##\Delta x^\prime = \gamma (\Delta x - v \Delta t)##
##\Delta t^\prime = \gamma (\Delta t - v \Delta x)##.

Now, to find ##dx^\prime / dt^\prime##, there's a more "rigorous" way and there's a shortcut. The "rigorous" way is:

##\dfrac{dx^\prime}{dt^\prime} = \lim_{\Delta t^\prime \rightarrow 0} \dfrac{\Delta x^\prime}{\Delta t^\prime} = \lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} \dfrac{\gamma (\Delta x - v \Delta t)}{\gamma (\Delta t - v \Delta x)} = \dfrac{\lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} \left( \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t} - v \right)}{\lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0} \left( 1 - v \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t} \right)} = \dfrac{\frac{dx}{dt} - v}{1 - v \frac{dx}{dt}}##.

The shortcut is to regard ##dx^\prime## and ##dt^\prime## as infinitesimals in the first place—i.e., infinitesimally small "versions" of the finite changes ##\Delta x^\prime## and ##\Delta t^\prime##—and just divide them. So use ##d##'s instead of ##\Delta##'s in the first equations above:

##d x^\prime = \gamma (d x - v \, d t)##
##d t^\prime = \gamma (d t - v \, d x)##

and divide:

##\dfrac{dx^\prime}{dt^\prime} = \dfrac{ \gamma (d x - v \, d t)}{\gamma (d t - v \, d x)} = \dfrac{\frac{dx}{dt} - v}{1 - v \frac{dx}{dt}}##.

Thanks! That helped me understand it better.
 
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...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
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...
Back
Top