Special Relativity Equation: Is This Accurate?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the accuracy and relevance of a set of equations purported to represent special relativity. Participants explore whether these equations are valid representations of the Lorentz transform and seek clarification on their meaning and context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a set of equations and questions their validity as representations of special relativity.
  • Another participant expresses confusion over the equations, suggesting they are equivalent and reduce to a simpler form.
  • A third participant suggests that the equations may be a garbled version of the Lorentz transform but lacks clarity on their coherence and meaning.
  • This participant provides a brief explanation of the Lorentz transform, including its purpose and the mathematical formulation, while noting the importance of context.
  • A fourth participant requests a link to the original statement for better understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the equations presented. Multiple competing views exist regarding their interpretation and relevance to special relativity.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights a lack of clarity regarding the definitions and assumptions underlying the presented equations, as well as the need for context to evaluate their accuracy.

Ryan Bruch
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
While surfing the internet, I came across a statement that this is the equation for special relativity:

Line 1: x = a + b
Line 2: x = a + b (c2/c2) with c = speed of light
Line 3: x = a + (y/c2) if y = b(c2)

Is this really the one? If not, is it relevant at all?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have no idea what those equations are, I have never seen them before. Also, they seem to all be the same since the c's will cancel from top to bottom and you'll just get x=a+b for all 3 "lines".
 
Ryan Bruch said:
While surfing the internet, I came across a statement that this is the equation for special relativity:

Line 1: x = a + b
Line 2: x = a + b (c2/c2) with c = speed of light
Line 3: x = a + (y/c2) if y = b(c2)

Is this really the one? If not, is it relevant at all?

This seems to be some garbled version of the Lorentz transform, but it's not coherent enough for me to be to be sure, as there is no explanation of what the equations mean. For more details on the Lorentz transform, see for instance the wiki article at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorentz_transformation&oldid=628048814

The Lorentz transform provides a transformation between the coordinates in two different inertial frames, moving relative to each other with velocity v. Because every event in space-time has one and only one set of coordinates, there is a 1:1 mapping between events and their coordinates. This implies there is also a 1:1 mapping between the coordinates between any two inertial frames, including the particular case we are interested in where the two inertial frames are in relative motion. The Lorentz transform provides this 1:1 mapping explicitly. Letting the coordinates in the first inertial frame (presumed stationary) be (t, x,y,z), and the coordinates in the second inertial frame (assumed to be moving with velocity v relative to the first inertial frame) be (t', x' y', z'), we can write the Lorentz transform as:

##t' = \gamma \left(t - vx/c^2\right) \quad x' = \gamma \left(x - vt \right) \quad y' = y \quad z'=z##

Here v is the velocity between frames, and ##\gamma = 1 / \sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}##
 
Last edited:
Ryan Bruch said:
While surfing the internet, I came across a statement..
How about providing a link to the statement so we can see the context?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K