Rigidly Constantly Accelerating Frame

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of a rigid frame undergoing constant proper acceleration, particularly focusing on the implications of its hyperbolic worldline and the concept of simultaneity in different frames. Participants explore the mathematical relationships and physical interpretations of these concepts, including the nature of surfaces of simultaneity and their relation to light cones.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that the worldline of a rigid frame under constant proper acceleration is hyperbolic, represented by a specific equation.
  • Another participant explains that in the instantaneous rest frame, the four-velocity vector points in the time direction, leading to the conclusion that anything orthogonal to this vector represents a line of simultaneity.
  • A participant questions the relationship between the hyperbolic equation and the lines of simultaneity, suggesting that they should be represented as ##x = \pm ct##.
  • Another participant clarifies that ##x = \pm ct## does not represent a surface of simultaneity, emphasizing that such surfaces consist of events sharing the same time coordinate in a given inertial frame.
  • One participant inquires about the existence of a single surface of simultaneity for different values of proper acceleration and seeks an expression for that surface.
  • A later reply notes that no surfaces of simultaneity are depicted in the referenced figure and discusses the relationship between the light cone and different hyperbolas corresponding to various worldlines.
  • The concept of the Rindler horizon is introduced, indicating that certain observers cannot receive information from specific regions of spacetime.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of surfaces of simultaneity and their mathematical representation. There is no consensus on how these concepts relate to the hyperbolic worldline and the light cone.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the definitions of simultaneity and the properties of light cones are not fully explored, leading to potential ambiguities in the discussion. The relationship between different frames and their respective surfaces of simultaneity remains unresolved.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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##?
 
##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. :)
 
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?
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K