Time Lapses In Two Different Reference Frames

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that time experienced in a moving reference frame (S') is longer than in a stationary frame (S). It begins with the setup of two overlapping reference frames and the movement of S' along the positive x-axis of S. The invariant intervals for both frames are established, leading to a mathematical relationship that allows for the elimination of variables using Lorentz transformations. The main question raised is about the dismissal of the negative root when solving for time in the moving frame, particularly in scenarios where the relative speed (β) is zero or slightly different from zero. The conversation highlights the implications of the Lorentz Transformation in addressing ambiguities related to the sign of the time variable.
Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5
Hello,

I would like to prove that the time experienced in a moving reference frame is longer than in a stationary frame. Here is my solution:

Suppose that at time t = 0 two reference frames, S and S', origins coincide; similarly, the x,y, and z axes of the S-frame overlap with the corresponding axes of the S'-frame. Now, as time begins to progress, t > 0, S' will begin moving relative to S; and the way in which it will move is such that the origin of the S'-frame will move along the positive x-axis of the S-frame, and the speed at which it will move is \displaystyle \beta = \frac{v}{c}.

Now, suppose two arbitrary events occur, one of which is A, occurring when S and S' coincide, allowing us to infer the coordinates of both frames to be S(x=0, y=0, z=0, t=0) and S'(x'=0, y'=0, z'=0, t'=0); and let the second event be B, which occurs at some later time that is not necessarily the same in both frames.

The invariant interval in S:

\Delta s^2 = (\Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2) - \Delta t^2

\Delta s^2 = - t_B^2

The invariant interval in S':

\Delta s^2 = ((\Delta x^2~' + \Delta y^2~' + \Delta z^2~') - \Delta t^2~'

\Delta s^2 = x_B^2~' - t_B^2~'

Setting the two equal to each other,

- t_B^2 = x_B^2~' - t_B^2~'

Eliminate x_B~' using Lorentz's transformation, x_B~' = \gamma (x_B - \beta t_B) \implies x_B~' = - \gamma \beta t_B

- t_B^2 = \gamma^2 \beta^2 t_B^2 - t_B^2~'

Solving for t-prime

t_B~' = \pm \sqrt{t_B^2(1 + \gamma^2 \beta^2)}

My question is, for what reason can I simply dismiss the negative root, keeping only the positive root?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose β were zero, so that the two frames coincided for all times. Would you then lend credence to the negative root? Now, if β were only slightly different from zero, would that really change things significantly? Another answer is that the metrical equations with the squares were derived directly from the Lorentz Transformation. Although these equations are non-linear (leading to your ambiguity with regard to the sign), the Lorentz Transformation is linear and eliminates that ambiguity.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top