Special Relativity-Lorentz Transformation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qyzren
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transformation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Lorentz transformation and the conditions for causal connection between two events, A and B, in the context of special relativity. Participants verify the inequality |Δx| ≤ c|Δt|, which indicates that events are causally connected if they lie within each other's light cones. The transformation maintains that all inertial observers agree on the causal relationship, confirming that if A occurs before B in one frame, it does so in all frames. The analysis employs Lorentz transformations and the concept of invariant intervals to establish these conclusions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity concepts, including causality and light cones.
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations and their mathematical implications.
  • Knowledge of invariant intervals in the context of spacetime.
  • Basic proficiency in algebra and manipulation of inequalities.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and implications of Lorentz transformations in detail.
  • Explore the concept of invariant intervals and their role in special relativity.
  • Learn about light cones and their significance in determining causal relationships.
  • Investigate the implications of causality in different inertial reference frames.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on theoretical physics, special relativity, and anyone looking to deepen their understanding of causal relationships in spacetime.

Qyzren
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Can you guys please verify/help me with some questions.

Consider 2 events, A & B. In frame S they are separated by Δx and Δt. It is reasonable to say that the events are causally connected if it is possible for a signal (such as a light pulse) to travel between them. We mean that one might have caused the other. Write down a relation (an inequality) between Δx and Δt that expresses this. Make sure your relation is still valid when Δx and/or Δt are negative (hint: use absolute values)

I was thinking, since I = -(cΔt)² + (Δx)² + (Δy)² + (Δz)², with Δy and Δz = 0. We have I = -(cΔt)² + (Δx)²

Since this is a time like interval or at most light like interval, I <= 0.
so -(cΔt)² + (Δx)² <= 0.

I believe this should be correct but i didn't use any absolute value signs... or should i express it in terms of Δt & Δx instead of its square?


Show that the concept of being causally connected is invarient, i.e, that all inertial observers will agree on whether A & B are causally connected.
We have -(cΔt)² + (Δx)²
I define a new frame S', with interval (cΔt', Δx', Δy', Δz').
Δy' & Δz' is 0.
so using lorentz transformations:
x = γ(x'+vt), t = γ(t'+vx'/c²)
-(cγt' + γvx'/c)² + (γx' + γvt')² <= 0
some expanding & simplifying gives
γ²t'²(v²-c²) + γ²x'²(1-v²/c²) <= 0
subbing in γ² for c²/(c²-v²) for the first product and 1/(1-v²/c²) for the second gives
-(ct')² + (x')² <= 0.
Therefore all inertial observers will agree on whether A & B are causally connected.

Does this make sense? Or am i doing the question wrong?

Suppose that A & B are causally connected, and that A occurs before B in frame S, Show that all observers will agree that A occurs before B.

I am not so sure about this one, but i thinking...
Suppose there is a time t > 0 between events A and B (and a distance x),
i have to show that t' in any reference frame is > 0
that is to say, the time between the events is always positive, meaning A happened first.

Something along those lines, if someone could help me and check my answers, that would be great.
Thanks everyone for helping.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey,
Looks fine to me. Their reference to absolute values means that you can write your condition as
|x|^2 <= c^2*|t|^2
then taking square roots
|x|<= (+-) c*|t|.
Drawing a t vs. x diagram with event A at the origin, this condition means that event B is *within* the forward or backward lightcone of event A. A non-causally connected event B would be outside of the light-cone of A. (You can exchange A with B everywhere in those sentences).

Your thinking on the last question is also fine, keeping in mind the causality condition you found is satisfied (i.e., you may use the condition in your chain of reasoning).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K