Undergrad Time intervals measured by stationary and moving observers

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interpretation of time intervals measured by stationary and moving observers in the context of special relativity. It establishes that the spacetime interval, represented as dS² = ds², is invariant across different inertial reference frames. The confusion arises from comparing events in different frames, where the conditions for time dilation and simultaneity differ. The Lorentz Transformation is crucial for understanding these concepts, as it encapsulates time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz Transformation in special relativity
  • Familiarity with time dilation and length contraction concepts
  • Basic knowledge of spacetime intervals and their invariance
  • Concept of simultaneity in different reference frames
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Lorentz Transformation in detail
  • Explore the implications of time dilation and length contraction on moving observers
  • Research the relativity of simultaneity and its effects on event perception
  • Examine the role of the spacetime interval in relativistic physics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on special relativity, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to time intervals and observer effects in relativistic contexts.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
The definitions of "reference point" and "variable point" are that the reference point is where you calculate the derivative and the variable point is not.

Note that you could switch frames and do the calculation in the primed frame; then ##v'## would be the reference point and ##v## would be the variable point. Either choice is fine, but once you've made the choice you have to apply it consistently.
Thank you very much for your reply. What do you mean by "you have to apply it consistently"? Thank you again.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Hak said:
What do you mean by "you have to apply it consistently"?
I mean that once you have picked a reference frame, that defines for you which point is the "reference point" and which point is the "variable point". You don't have any choice then about which is which.
 
  • #33
PeterDonis said:
I mean that once you have picked a reference frame, that defines for you which point is the "reference point" and which point is the "variable point". You don't have any choice then about which is which.
Thank you very much. Sure, I agree. I am still, however, confused. When I had asked which definition of ##x## and ##a## was correct, @PeroK replied "##x = v'^2## and ##a = v^2##", not that the interchanged ones (i.e. ##x = v^2## and ##a = v'^2##) were fine too. In the light of what you told me, why are my calculations incorrect in post #21? Have I not been consistent with my choice of reference? Try looking at post #21 and, if you can and want to, let me know. Thank you very much again.
 
  • #34
Hak said:
When I had asked which definition of ##x## and ##a## was correct, @PeroK replied "##x = v'^2## and ##a = v^2##"
That's because he knew you were using the unprimed reference frame.

Hak said:
not that the interchanged ones (i.e. ##x = v^2## and ##a = v'^2##) were fine too.
That's because they're not fine if you have already chosen the unprimed reference frame.

Hak said:
In the light of what you told me, why are my calculations incorrect in post #21? Have I not been consistent with my choice of reference?
Obviously not, because in post #21 you switched reference frames (you didn't realize that's what you were doing when you said ##x = v^2##, ##a = v'^2##, but it was).
 
  • #35
PeterDonis said:
That's because he knew you were using the unprimed reference frame.That's because they're not fine if you have already chosen the unprimed reference frame.Obviously not, because in post #21 you switched reference frames (you didn't realize that's what you were doing when you said ##x = v^2##, ##a = v'^2##, but it was).
Thank you. Yes, I wrote ##L' (v'^2)## instead of ##L'(v^2)##, right?
 
  • #36
Hak said:
Thank you. Yes, I wrote ##L' (v'^2)## instead of ##L'(v^2)##, right?
The switching was in defining ##x = v^2## and ##a = v'^2## instead of the other way around.
 
  • #37
PeterDonis said:
That's because they're not fine if you have already chosen the unprimed reference frame.

I still cannot understand this. I would be grateful if you could explain it again in a way that I can understand it. Thank you very much for your contribution.
 
  • #38
PeterDonis said:
Obviously not, because in post #21 you switched reference frames (you didn't realize that's what you were doing when you said ##x = v^2##, ##a = v'^2##, but it was).
I guess I didn't really understand. So you can change the frame of reference, but you can't reverse ##x## and ##a##, right?
 
  • #39
Hak said:
I would be grateful if you could explain it again in a way that I can understand it.
I'm not sure what more I can say. When you define ##x = v'^2##, ##a = v^2##, you are choosing the unprimed frame. That's just a fact. There is no "explanation" for it. So if you say ##x = v^2##, ##a = v'^2##, that is inconsistent with choosing the unprimed frame. What more is there to say?
 
  • #40
Hak said:
So you can change the frame of reference, but you can't reverse ##x## and ##a##, right?
Wrong. Reversing ##x## and ##a## is changing the frame of reference. But then you have to start the whole analysis over from the beginning. You can't just reverse them in one equation, that was obtained by a series of approximations that assumed you were using the unprimed frame.
 
  • #41
PeterDonis said:
When you define ##x = v'^2##, ##a = v^2##, you are choosing the unprimed frame. That's just a fact. There is no "explanation" for it. So if you say ##x = v^2##, ##a = v'^2##, that is inconsistent with choosing the unprimed frame. What more is there to say?
I did not understand what calculations I should have done to choose the primed frame of reference. Should I change all the calculations in the unfolding to do that? Thank you very much.
 
  • #42
Hak said:
I did not understand what calculations I should have done to choose the primed frame of reference. Should I change all the calculations in the unfolding to do that?
See post #40.
 
  • #43
@PeterDonis Thank you so much for everything, I think I understand. You really gave me a great amount of help. Thank you again.
 
  • #44
Hak said:
@PeterDonis Thank you so much for everything, I think I understand. You really gave me a great amount of help. Thank you again.
You're welcome! :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 141 ·
5
Replies
141
Views
9K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K