Relativity - Constant Acceleration

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Hartle's book on relativity, specifically dealing with a particle undergoing constant acceleration along the x-axis. The original poster is tasked with deriving parametric equations for position and time as functions of proper time, given initial conditions of position and velocity being zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration in a relativistic context, questioning the validity of their initial steps. Others raise concerns about the assumptions made regarding the definitions of acceleration and the frame of reference. Some participants suggest alternative interpretations of the problem, particularly regarding the nature of constant acceleration in the particle's rest frame.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations and approaches to the problem. Some have offered insights into the implications of using proper time versus coordinate time, while others have expressed uncertainty about the correctness of their reasoning. There is no explicit consensus, but several productive lines of inquiry have emerged.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of non-inertial frames and the implications of relativistic effects on acceleration and velocity. There is a noted confusion regarding the definitions and relationships between different measures of velocity in various frames of reference.

eep
Messages
225
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm working out of Hartle's book Gravity and had a question about Ch. 5 problem 7. The problem states that a particle has constant acceleration along the x-axis, that is, the acceleration when measured in it's instantaneous rest frame is always the same constant. They want me to get the parametric equations for x and t as functions of proper time [itex]\tau[/itex], assuming at t=0 that x=0 and v=0.

I assumed that since the acceleration is constant, the three-force is also constant. I can then use

[tex] \frac{dp}{dt} = F = ma[/tex]

for some constant a. Since F is constant I can integrate once to get

[tex] {\gamma}m\frac{dx}{dt} = mat[/tex]

Or, solving for [itex]\frac{dx}{dt}[/itex]

[tex] \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{at}{\sqrt{1+a^2t^2}}[/tex]

Using the relationship [itex]{d\tau}^2 = dt^2 - dx^2[/itex] I can arrive at

[tex] d\tau = dt\sqrt{(\frac{1}{1+a^2t^2})}[/tex]

Integrating and solving for t and letting [itex]\tau[/itex] = 0 when t=0 I get

[tex] t(\tau) = \frac{{\sin}h(a\tau)}{a}[/tex]

I can then solve for x and get

[tex] x(\tau) = \frac{{\cos}h(a\tau)}{a} - \frac{1}{a}[/tex]

due to the initial conditions. Did I do this right?

EDIT: I really just need to know if my first couple steps are right, as everything follows from that.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you assuming d^2x/dt^2 = a, or d^2x/dtau^2 = a ? It doesn't look to me as if your solution satisfies either criterion. I have to go, but once I've thought about this problem a bit more I'll try to give me own ideas for a solution.
 
Neither.

[tex] \frac{dp}{dt} = ma[/tex]

but

[tex] p = {\gamma}m\frac{dx}{dt}[/tex]

so

[tex] a = \frac{d({\gamma}\frac{dx}{dt})}{dt}[/tex]
 
Well then I disagree with your interpretation of the problem.
[tex]\frac{d({\gamma}\frac{dx}{dt})}{dt} = \frac{d(\frac{dx}{d\tau})}{dt}[/tex]
which is the rate of change an external observer would measure in the velocity
of the particle as measured in it's rest frame. Doesn't seem like that's what they're asking. As you stated it would give the result if a constant force were applied to a particle; that's not the same as constant acceleration in it's rest frame.

My interpretation would be that[itex]\frac{d^2x}{d\tau} = a[/itex]
Working this out a bit:

[tex] \frac{d^2\vec(x)}{d\tau^2} = \frac{d\vec(u)}{d\tau} = <br /> \gamma \frac{d^2x}{dt^2} ( \gamma^3 \frac{dx}{dt}, 1 - \gamma^3 \frac{dx}{dt})[/tex]
[tex] a = \gamma \frac{d^2x}{dt^2} (1 - \gamma^3 \frac{dx}{dt})[/tex]

I haven't worked it any further than that. Hartle covers 4-acceleration in that chapter, right? I know it was in that book; I wish I had it handy though.
 
Last edited:
How can F = ma work for an non-inertial frame? :confused:
 
If

[tex]\frac{d^2x}{d{\tau}^2} = a[/tex]

then...

[tex]\frac{dx}{d\tau} = a\tau[/tex]

and

[tex]x(\tau) = \frac{1}{2}a\tau^2[/tex]

due to initial conditions, no? 4-vectors are covered in the chapter...
 
Yeah, that seems all correct to me. And from the normalization condition you can find [itex]\frac{dt}{d\tau}[/itex], and integrate. In fact, it's the same as what you had above.

I know it seems wrong, because [itex]\frac{dx}{d\tau}[/itex] should go 1 and not infinity, but this isn't a physical situation. The more physical case would've been what you had above, with a constant three force, and in that case the limits check out.
 
I think that's what was confusing me, I had arrived at this answer before but thought I did something wrong since the limit approaches infinity! Let me make sure I'm understanding the notation right,

[itex]\frac{dx}{d\tau}[/itex] is the velocity of the particle as measured in it's "rest frame", correct? That confuses me as I always think of the rest frame as having no velocity, as the coordinate system is attached to the particle. [itex]\frac{dx}{dt}[/itex] would be the velocity measured by some other inertial frame, and depends on the relationship between [itex]t[/itex] and [itex]\tau[/itex]. I'm self-teaching myself out of this book so I'm never quite sure if I'm understanding things correctly.
 
I misspoke before. Define

[tex]x' = x - vt[/tex]
[itex]\frac{dx'}{d\tau}[/itex] is the velocity of the particle as measured in its rest frame, and will always be 0 by definition.
[itex]\frac{dx}{d\tau}[/itex] is the velocity at which the particle would see the origin moving away, which I think is the proper way to work this problem.

I'm starting to re-think my solution. It doesn't bother me that
[itex]\frac{dx}{d\tau}[/itex] goes to infinity as tau does, because tau will be bound by t due to time dilation effects. I worked it out, and

[tex]\frac{dt}{d\tau} = \sqrt{ 1 + (a\tau)^2} \rightarrow <br /> t(\tau) = (\tau / 2) \sqrt{1 + (a\tau)^2} + (1/2a)log( (a\tau) + \sqrt{1 + (a\tau)^2})[/tex]
[tex] \lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty} t(\tau) = \sqrt{(2t/a)}[/tex]
This gives

[tex] \lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty} x(t) = t \rightarrow \frac{dx}{dt} = 1[/tex]
as it should be.

I'd still feel a bit iffy handing this in, but I can rationalize it in my mind.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
4K