Special Relativity- Acceleration without Linear Algebra

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The original poster is attempting to derive a relationship for acceleration in special relativity without using linear algebra or four-vectors. They express concern about the complexity of the equations they are encountering and question whether it is feasible to derive such a relationship using only underclassman math.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of Lorentz transformations in differential form and explore the implications of treating certain variables as constants. There is an examination of the mathematical techniques involved in deriving acceleration from velocity transformations.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide hints and alternative notations to assist the original poster in their derivation. There is an ongoing exploration of assumptions made about the transformations and the mathematical techniques employed, with no clear consensus on the correctness of the derived relationships yet.

Contextual Notes

The original poster expresses uncertainty about the appropriateness of their question for the forum, indicating a potential mismatch in the expected level of discussion. They also mention previous experiences with deriving equations incorrectly, which adds to their hesitation.

Battlemage!
Messages
292
Reaction score
44

Homework Statement



I have been trying for a month to derive a relationship between the acceleration of a particle in a coordinate system at rest and one moving at some velocity. I have not taken Linear Algebra yet, so I can't do anything with matrices (as I often see relativity presented). I am trying to derive an acceleration without using four-vectors or matrices or any Linear Algebra. The problem is that I keep getting equations that seem unreasonably complicated. a.) Is it possible to derive an acceleration in special relativity using only underclassman math, and b.) How do I go about doing it?



Homework Equations



Lorentz transformation in one spatial and one time dimension, where τ is the time coordinate and ζ is the position coordinate for the moving system :


§ 1.1

dx = γ (dζ + vdτ)​

§ 1.2

dt = γ (dτ + v/c2 dζ )​





Lorentz velocity transformation then equals dx/dt, ==>

§ 2.1

dx/dt = (dζ/dτ + v )/(1 + v/c2 dζ/dτ)​





*I actually started with these, and then took the differentials:

x = γ (ζ + vτ)

and

t = γ (τ + v/c2 ζ )





The Attempt at a Solution



In getting the velocity transformation, I just took the differentials of the x to ζ and t to τ transformation, and then divided them. This doesn't seem to work for an acceleration though (and I think it CAN'T work for it), but that is what I've tried. An acceleration can be written as d2x/dt2, so I am assuming that can be read as "the differential of the differential of x DIVIDED BY the differential of time squared." If that is the case, I have the right idea but the wrong mathematical technique. I am getting something that appears to be unreasonably complex. Here is what I've been doing:

Differentials of § 1.1:


d(dx) = d [γ (dζ + vdτ)]

d2x = dγ (dζ + vdτ) + γ (d2ζ + dvdτ + vd2τ) * by product rule

Right here is where I start to get problems. I have no idea what I am supposed to do with vd2τ, because I have never seen an acceleration with a " d2t" in it.

The next problem I have is that when I divide the differential of the displacement equation with the square of the time equation I cannot simplify it in any meaningful way (at least to my eyes). I will carry out that operation so maybe someone can help.

dt2 = [γ (dτ + v/c2 dζ] [γ (dτ + v/c2 dζ] ==>

dt2 = γ22 + 2γv/c2dτdζ + γ2v2/c42


So, when I divide d2x by dt2, I get the following, and have NO idea where to go from there (assuming I haven't messed up at the very beginning)





d2x/dt2 = { dγ (dζ + vdτ) + γ (d2ζ + dvdτ + vd2τ)}/ { γ22 + 2γv/c2dτdζ + γ2v2/c42 }



d2x/dt2 = { γ3vdv/c2 (dζ + vdτ) + γ (d2ζ + dvdτ + vd2τ)}/ { γ22 + 2γv/c2dτdζ + γ2v2/c42 }



** I am assuming that dγ = d [ (1- v2/c2)-1/2]

= (-1/2)(1- v2/c2)-3/2 (-2vdv/c2)

= vdv/c2 * (1- v2/c2)-3/2

= γ3vdv/c2




Thanks to anyone who tries to help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Also, was this the correct place for this question? I can imagine where it might be at the beginning of upper classmen physics.
 
You're on the right track. I'm getting a headache from trying to follow your notation, so I'll use my own.

Start with the LT in differential form:

[tex]dx' = \gamma(dx - v dt)[/tex]

[tex]dt' = \gamma(dt - v dx/c^2)[/tex]

To get the velocity transformation (at least in one dimension), just calculate u' = dx'/dt'.

Once you get the velocity transformation, just repeat the process. Write the transformation in differential form (du' = etc.) and calculate a' = du'/dt'.

Here's a trick that might prove helpful:

[tex]dt' = \gamma(dt - v dx/c^2) = \gamma(dt - v u dt/c^2) = \gamma dt (1 - uv/c^2)[/tex]

Good luck!
 
Okay, I used your hint, but I did some other things too. Now, I made three assumptions, one of which is an assumption about mathematical technique (not sure if what I did was a "legal move"), and two were assumptions about the coordinate systems. I have reason to believe that what I did was correct, because I was able to derive Einstein's kinetic energy equation. However, I once derived the Lorentz factor incorrectly, even though I got the right answer, so I wouldn't be surprised if I just got lucky. I tried not to skip any steps, which makes it a lot longer, but I'm hoping that will help you see where I made mistakes. Anyway, please tell me if this is getting closer, or correct. Thanks!

Assumption 1

The first assumption is this: Because the Lorentz transformation is given by x' = γ (x - vt), and because the differential form of that transformation is dx' = γ (dx - vdt), I reason that you treat the v in gamma and the v in the transformation as constants. If you DIDN'T treat them as constants, then you'd have to use the product rule and the chain rule to take the differential of x' = γ (x - vt), and you'd end up with something more complex. I believe I have made the correct assumption here.
From there, to derive an acceleration relationship I started with the velocity transformation-u' = (u - v)/( 1 - uv/c2 )

and followed the steps you outlinedAssumption 2(mathematical technique assumption)

Then I tried to find du'. This is where I made a mathematical assumption. I assumed that when taking the differential, I only had to "distribute" the "d" to the numerator of the fraction. However, because I am treating all v's as constant, dv = 0, and I get the following:

du' = du/ (1- uv/c2 )
I then divided that by dt', which gave:du'/dt' = du*1/ (1- uv/c2 ) * 1/γdt (1- uv/c2 )
Assumption 3

There exists a situation in which u = v (for example, say that the particle is at rest in one of the two moving frames of reference). Therefore, (1- uv/c2 ) = (1-v2/c2) = γ-2. So, if I substitute that in, I get the following:du'/dt' = du/dt/γγ-2γ-2 = γ3du/dtI believe that the above is the acceleration relationship, at least for some special cases.
Now, the reason I think this is right: From this I derive E = mc2 (γ - 1)
Work, W, is given by the integral of force over some displacement, right? So,

∫mdu'/dt' dx' = ∫mγ3du/dt dx

from 0 to v.
Dealing with the du/dt integral: For slow speeds, m is constant, so

W = m∫γ3du/dt dx

next was:

W = m∫γ3 d2x/dt2 * dxW = m∫γ3 d2x/dt * dx/dt

W = m∫γ3 dv * v

W = m∫γ3 vdvPlugging in gamma gives:

W = m∫(1 - v2/c2)-3/2 vdvusing substitution, u = 1 - v2/c2 ==> -1/2c2du = vdv

which means that:

W = -1/2mc2∫u-3/2 du
W = -1/2mc2 (-2u-1/2)

W = mc2 [√(1 - v2/c2) ]

from 0 to v, which gives:
W = mc2 [√(1 - v2/c2) - √(1 - 02/c2)]

W = mc2 [√(1 - v2/c2) - (1)]
Which, FINALLY, is Einstein's kinetic energy equation,

W = E = mc2 (γ - 1)So, the questions are 1.) Did I derive the correct acceleration relationship?

du'/dt' =γ3du/dtand 2.) Did I derive the kinetic energy relationship correctly?

Or did I just get lucky?

Anyway, thanks a TON if you are patient enough to get through all this! I really do appreciate it.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K