Spacetime Invariance and Lorentz Equations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the invariance of spacetime intervals, specifically that s^2 = s'^2 using the Lorentz equations. The user attempts to derive this relationship through algebraic manipulation but concludes that it implies spacetime is not invariant due to the dependence on gamma (y). Despite their algebraic efforts, they express frustration at potentially contradicting established physics. The thread invites clarification and assistance, highlighting the complexity of the problem. The conversation underscores the challenges in understanding Lorentz transformations and spacetime invariance.
LUphysics
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


So, I am working on a question that requires me to prove that s^2 = s'^2 from the Lorentz equations. It seemed like it'd be trivial... and then I ended up here a few hours later, not willing to waste any more time.

Homework Equations


By definition: s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2 & s'^2 = x'^2 - (ct')^2
And the Lorentz equations are x' = y(x - vt) & t' = y(t - vx/(c^2) ) --> y = gamma for the lazy man

The Attempt at a Solution


So I followed this line of algebra:
Start with: s'^2 = x'^2 - (ct')^2
Sub in Lorentz Equations: = [y(x - vt)]^2 - c^2*[y(t - vx/(c^2) )]^2
Factor out y and Expand Brackets: = y^2 { [x^2 - 2xvt + (vt)^2] - c^2*[t^2 -2xvt/c^2 + ((vx)^2)/(c^4))] }
Multiply in -c^2 over on the right: = y^2 [x^2 - 2xvt + (vt)^2 -(ct)^2 + 2xvt - (v^2*x^2)/(c^2)]
Eliminate the 2xvt terms: = y^2 [x^2 + (vt)^2 -(ct)^2 - (v^2*x^2)/(c^2)]
Now, t = x/c, so by applying this to the rightmost term: = y^2 [x^2 + (vt)^2 -(ct)^2 - (vt)^2]
Eliminate the (vt)^2 terms: = y^2 [x^2 - (ct)^2]
And recall that s^2 = x^2 - (ct)^2: Therefore: ==> s'^2 = y^2[s^2]

There's my dilemma. This would mean spacetime is NOT invariant, since it depends on gamma. I'm not quite prepared to call the people who invented this liars, or to say I'm better at math than them... but I thought my algebra was pretty good and it led me to this. So... what's the problem?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi LUphysics! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(have a gamma: γ :wink:)

Sorry, but this is almost unreadable :redface:

can you type it again, using the X2 tag just above the Reply box? :smile:
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top