Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame

In summary, the conversation discusses the hyperbolic worldline of a rigid frame undergoing constant proper acceleration, which can be represented by the equation x^2 - c^2t^2 = (c^2/a_0)^2. The reasoning presented in the conversation focuses on the concept of lines of simultaneity in the instantaneous rest frame and how they are related to the Rindler horizon. The conversation also mentions the lack of surfaces of simultaneity in figure 9.16 and the equidistant nature of the world lines in the instantaneous rest frame.
  • #1
unscientific
1,734
13
We know that when a rigid frame, say a rocket undergoes constant proper acceleration, its worldline is hyperbolic. The equation is given by:

[tex] x^2 - c^2t^2 = \left( \frac{c^2}{a_0} \right)^2 [/tex]

zlapdy.png


Suppose P is such a worldline and worldine can also be written as:

10er9qq.png


I understand how these are derived up to this point. But it is the reasoning presented below that confuses me.

Things I don't understand:

  • Why does ## X \cdot U = 0 ## imply that "4-vector from origin to particle is a line of simultaneity for the instantaneous rest frame" ?
  • Why do these lines of simultaneity pass through (0,0)? Shouldn't they simply be ##x = \pm ct## based on the first picture?

2dhgvnr.png


For completeness, Fig. 9.16 showing the worldlines and lines of simultaneity are shown below:

292mja1.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
In the instantaneous rest frame, ##U## is pointing in the time direction, i.e., its components are (1,0,0,0). Anything orthogonal to this has time component zero and thus a line from the origin has zero change of dt in the instantaneous rest frame, i.e., it is a surface of simultaneity in that frame.
 
  • #3
Orodruin said:
In the instantaneous rest frame, ##U## is pointing in the time direction, i.e., its components are (1,0,0,0). Anything orthogonal to this has time component zero and thus a line from the origin has zero change of dt in the instantaneous rest frame, i.e., it is a surface of simultaneity in that frame.
That makes sense. What about point 2? I thought based on the formula of the hyperbola these lines of simultaneity should simply be ##x = \pm ct##?
 
  • #4
##x = \pm ct## is not a surface of simultaneity in any frame. A surface of simultaneity is simply a set of events with the same time coordinate in a given inertial frame, which means they are by definition space-like. The light cone is by definition ... well ... light-like. :)
 
  • #5
Orodruin said:
##x = \pm ct## is not a surface of simultaneity in any frame. A surface of simultaneity is simply a set of events with the same time coordinate in a given inertial frame, which means they are by definition space-like. The light cone is by definition ... well ... light-like. :)
So in fig 9.16, is there only one surface of simultaneity for different values of ##a_0##? How do I find an expression for that surface?
 
  • #6
unscientific said:
So in fig 9.16, is there only one surface of simultaneity for different values of ##a_0##? How do I find an expression for that surface?
No surfaces of simultaneity are drawn in 9.16 (at least not visible in that image, the original might have shown it clearer - by the way, you should also cite the original when quoting images and text). You have the light cone related to the origin and different hyperbola corresponding to different world lines with different constant proper acceleration. However, for each instantaneous rest frame for each of the world lines, they are all moving with velocity zero at the same time, i.e., time t=0 in that frame and they are equidistant at that time as well.

In addition, the light-like world line separating I and II is the Rindler horizon - no information can reach any of the observers from events contained in II or III.
 

What is a Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame?

A Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame, also known as an inertial frame, is a reference frame in which the laws of physics are consistent and unchanged. It is a frame of reference that is moving at a constant velocity and is not being accelerated or acted upon by any external forces.

What is the difference between a Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame and a Non-Inertial Frame?

A Non-Inertial Frame is a frame of reference that is accelerating or rotating, which means the laws of physics are not consistent within that frame. In contrast, a Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame is a frame of reference that is not accelerating or rotating, and therefore the laws of physics are consistent within that frame.

Why is the concept of Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame important in physics?

The concept of a Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame is important because it allows us to understand and analyze the motion of objects with respect to a fixed reference frame. It helps us to make accurate predictions about the behavior of objects and systems in motion.

How can one identify a Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame?

A Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame can be identified by observing the motion of objects within that frame. If the objects are moving at a constant velocity and not accelerating, then it can be assumed that the frame is inertial. Additionally, if the laws of physics are consistent and unchanged within that frame, it is likely a Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame.

What are some real-world examples of a Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame?

Some real-world examples of a Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame include a car moving at a constant speed on a straight road, a person skydiving at a constant velocity, or a satellite orbiting the Earth at a constant speed. In each of these scenarios, the frame of reference is not accelerating or rotating, and the laws of physics remain consistent.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
14
Views
965
  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
144
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
75
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
851
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
791
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
811
Back
Top