Special case of relativistic velocity addition law

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relativistic velocity addition law, specifically addressing how to express one velocity in terms of another. Participants explore the implications of a mathematical model that relates the velocities of two bodies approaching each other, examining the resulting equations and the nature of their solutions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a formula for the velocity of an approaching body, expressing it as $$w =\frac{2\cdot v}{1+\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}$$ and seeks to find the reverse relationship $$v_{1,2} =\frac{c^{2}\pm\sqrt{c^{4}-v^{2}\cdot c^{2}}}{2\cdot v}$$.
  • Another participant questions the presence of the factor of 2 in the denominator and suggests that one of the solutions exceeds the speed of light, labeling it a "spurious solution" that lacks physical meaning.
  • A later reply indicates that the initial setup may have confused the meanings of $$v$$ and $$w$$, proposing an alternative expression for $$v$$ in terms of $$w$$.
  • Participants discuss the validity of the roots, with some asserting that only one root has physical significance, while acknowledging the initial confusion in the formulation.
  • One participant expresses gratitude for the corrections and clarifications provided by others in the thread.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is a valid solution to the problem, but there is contention regarding the interpretation of the roots, particularly the physical relevance of one root over the other. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the mathematical expressions presented.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the definitions of the variables involved, particularly the roles of $$v$$ and $$w$$. The discussion also highlights the potential for multiple interpretations of the solutions derived from the equations.

IgorIGP
Messages
52
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
How can I express v(w) from $$w =\frac{2\cdot v}{1+\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}$$
- special case of relativistic velocity addition law (where v1=v2=v)?
Hi gentlemen. My model is simple. Imagine, I watch a body which approaches me with velocity of w which value I can measure . I know that this a body has velocity v in a some reference system which aproaches me with same velocity of v. This velocity needs to be calculated (I can not mesure it).
So when I know v the value of w can be expressed as
$$w =\frac{2\cdot v}{1+\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}$$
and when I do not know v but know w I should resolve the reverse task and... As I can see there is not a complicated quadratic equation, but I am confused by the ambiguity of the solution-2 roots, and the relative bulkiness of the expressions for these roots. That looks like
$$v_{1,2} =\frac{c^{2}\pm\sqrt{c^{4}-v^{2}\cdot c^{2}}}{v}$$
May be I made something (or everything) wrong? When it is a right formula what means the fact of two roots?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't get the 2 in the denominator, but otherwise it looks right. I suspect that if you check (edit: feed your solution for ##v## into your expression for ##w## - do you get ##w##?) and correct that, you'll find that one of the solutions exceeds light speed for all ##w##. That's a valid solution to the maths, but not physically meaningful - usually called a "spurious solution".

A trivial example: I have a square of area 4 - what's it's side length? The answer is ##\sqrt 4=\pm 2##. We discard the negative solution as physically meaningless. The same is happening in your question.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale and IgorIGP
IgorIGP said:
Summary: How can I express v(w) from $$w =\frac{2\cdot v}{1+\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}$$
- special case of relativistic velocity addition law (where v1=v2=v)?

Hi gentlemen. My model is simple. Imagine, I watch a body which approaches me with velocity of w which value I can measure . I know that this a body has velocity v in a some reference system which approach me with same velocity of v. This velocity needs to be calculated (I can not mesure it).
So when I know v the value of w can be expressed as
$$w =\frac{2\cdot v}{1+\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}$$
and when I do not know v but know w I should resolve the reverse task and... As I can see there is not a complicated quadratic equation, but I am confused by the ambiguity of the solution-2 roots, and the relative bulkiness of the expressions for these roots. That looks like
$$v_{1,2} =\frac{c^{2}\pm\sqrt{c^{4}-v^{2}\cdot c^{2}}}{2\cdot v}$$
May be I made something (or everything) wrong? When it is a right formula what means the fact of two roots?

The ##2v## on the denominator is wrong. Apart from that the formula looks correct. Only one solution is valid, though.

PS You seem to have swapped the meaning of ##v## and ##w## at some point. Assuming ##w## is the initial velocity and ##v## is the relativistic half of that, then you should get:

##v = \frac{c^2}{w}(1- \frac{1}{\gamma_w})##

Or, with a bit more algebra:

##v= c \sqrt{\frac{\gamma_w -1}{\gamma_w + 1}}##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: IgorIGP
Thank you very much gentlemen! I am sorry of my error. After reducing the fraction I've typed numerator in a reduced edition and the denominater remains in an old one. Thanks I've corrected the mistake with pleasure.
So you think the one root has physical meaning only?
 
IgorIGP said:
Thank you very much gentlemen! I am sorry of my error. After reducing the fraction I've typed numerator in a reduced edition and the denominater remains in an old one. Thanks I've corrected the mistake with pleasure.
So you think the one root has physical meaning only?

Yes. You set the problem up assuming ##0 < v < w##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: IgorIGP
That were great answers, thak you very much!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K