Analyzing Dynamics in Constant Acceleration w/Rindler & Equivalence

In summary: With respect to an inertial observer wouldn't it be unnecessary complex to try and figure out the path the accelerating observer sees my using RIndler coordinates to determine this?No. You can use Rindler coordinates to determine the path of an object that is in the environment of an accelerating system.
  • #1
e2m2a
354
11
TL;DR Summary
When to use RIndler coordinates or the principle of equivalence
Not sure when to use Rindler coordinates to analyze dynamics in a constant accelerating reference system. Rindler coordinates seem messy because they are always changing. Wouldn't it be easier to invoke the principle of equivalence and treat the environment of an accelerating system as a gravitational field? For example, suppose an observer in an accelerating frame with constant acceleration throws a ball at a 45 deg angle with respect to his system. According to this observer he will see the path of the ball as a parabola. With respect to an inertial observer wouldn't it be unnecessary complex to try and figure out the path the accelerating observer sees my using RIndler coordinates to determine this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
e2m2a said:
With respect to an inertial observer wouldn't it be unnecessary complex to try and figure out the path the accelerating observer sees my using RIndler coordinates to determine this?
Why would an inertial observer want to use Rindler coordinates?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
Ibix said:
Why would an inertial observer want to use Rindler coordinates?
To determine what the observer in the accelerated frame observes for the motion of the ball or am I really confused about this?
 
  • #4
e2m2a said:
Rindler coordinates seem messy because they are always changing.
No, they aren't. Look at the metric in Rindler coordinates. None of the metric coefficients are a function of Rindler coordinate time.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #5
e2m2a said:
Wouldn't it be easier to invoke the principle of equivalence and treat the environment of an accelerating system as a gravitational field?
Um, that's what you are doing when you use Rindler coordinates. Rindler coordinates are the natural coordinates for an observer at rest in a rocket with constant proper acceleration, and an object inside the rocket that is dropped in free fall will appear to accelerate downward due to the (pseudo-)gravitational field inside the rocket.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #7
e2m2a said:
To determine what the observer in the accelerated frame observes for the motion of the ball or am I really confused about this?
OK - but all the Rindler coordinates are is the "at rest" coordinates of the accelerated observer. You don't really need to use them except to express the final result if you want.

There's a close analogy with rotating coordinates in ordinary Euclidean geometry. It's often easier to work in Cartesian coordinates and solve a problem, write an object's path in terms of ##x,y,z## coordinates and then translate to polars and then rotating coordinates. There's nothing stopping you working entirely in the rotating coordinates, including all the inertial forces (Coriolis, etc) in your calculations, but you aren't obliged to do so.

Similarly, you can take your results in your inertial frame and transform them into the accelerated frame, or work in the accelerated frame where there's an inertial force (uniform gravitational field). Do whichever is easier.

Does that help?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #8
Ibix said:
OK - but all the Rindler coordinates are is the "at rest" coordinates of the accelerated observer. You don't really need to use them except to express the final result if you want.

There's a close analogy with rotating coordinates in ordinary Euclidean geometry. It's often easier to work in Cartesian coordinates and solve a problem, write an object's path in terms of ##x,y,z## coordinates and then translate to polars and then rotating coordinates. There's nothing stopping you working entirely in the rotating coordinates, including all the inertial forces (Coriolis, etc) in your calculations, but you aren't obliged to do so.

Similarly, you can take your results in your inertial frame and transform them into the accelerated frame, or work in the accelerated frame where there's an inertial force (uniform gravitational field). Do whichever is easier.

Does that help?
Yes. Making things as simple as possible is always the most efficient method. Thank you.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #9
e2m2a said:
Summary:: When to use RIndler coordinates or the principle of equivalence

Rindler coordinates seem messy because they are always changing.
Maybe you are doing something wrong. Rindler coordinates are both stationary and static. And Rindler observers form a timelike Killing vector field (which I guess is implied by the previous sentence). Can you explain what you mean here?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

1. What is constant acceleration?

Constant acceleration is the rate at which an object's velocity changes over time, while the direction of the acceleration remains constant. It is measured in units of distance per time squared, such as meters per second squared.

2. What is the Rindler equation?

The Rindler equation is a mathematical expression used to calculate the position of an object undergoing constant acceleration. It is given by x = x0 + v0t + (1/2)at2, where x is the final position, x0 is the initial position, v0 is the initial velocity, a is the acceleration, and t is the time elapsed.

3. How is the Rindler equation related to the Equivalence Principle?

The Rindler equation is derived from the Equivalence Principle, which states that the effects of gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable. In the case of constant acceleration, the Rindler equation can be used to calculate the position of an object in a gravitational field, as if it were undergoing acceleration.

4. What is the significance of analyzing dynamics in constant acceleration?

Analyzing dynamics in constant acceleration allows us to better understand the effects of acceleration and gravity on objects. It is also important in fields such as physics and engineering, where constant acceleration is often encountered in real-world scenarios.

5. How is constant acceleration different from uniform motion?

Constant acceleration involves a change in velocity over time, while uniform motion involves a constant velocity. In other words, an object undergoing constant acceleration is speeding up or slowing down, while an object in uniform motion maintains a constant speed and direction.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
18
Views
2K
Back
Top