Transformation of velocity exceeding light speed

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of the velocity transformation formula, specifically v' = (v + V) / (1 + vV/c²), even when v exceeds the speed of light (c). Participants assert that the Lorentz transformation is only applicable for velocities less than c, emphasizing that velocity is defined as dx/dt, not as a simple ratio of position and time differences. The conversation concludes that the proposed application of the transformation for hypothetical velocities is incorrect, as it violates the fundamental principles of special relativity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz transformations in special relativity
  • Knowledge of the definition of velocity as a derivative (dx/dt)
  • Familiarity with the concept of inertial reference frames (IRFs)
  • Basic grasp of wave mechanics and dispersion relations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Lorentz transformations on velocities approaching the speed of light
  • Research the mathematical foundations of special relativity and its constraints
  • Explore the concept of velocity addition in different inertial frames
  • Examine the relationship between wave mechanics and special relativity, particularly in high-velocity scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the principles of special relativity and the behavior of velocities in different inertial reference frames.

sweet springs
Messages
1,223
Reaction score
75
In discussion with my friend, we reached a conclusion that transformation formula of velosity v to another IFR moving V, i.e.
v'=\frac{v+V}{1+vV/c^2}
is valid even if v is hypothetical velocity,i,e,
v=\frac{x_2-x_1}{t_2-t_1}
v'=\frac{x'_2-x'_1}{t'_2-t'_1}
where interval of ##(t_1,x_1)\rightarrow (t'_1,x'_1)## and ##(t_2,x_2)\rightarrow (t_2',x_2')## are time-like, space-lile, null, it doen't matter.
For example when ##t_2-t_1=0## ,##v=\pm \infty## is trandformed to
\pm \infty \rightarrow \frac{\pm \infty + V}{1+\pm \infty V/c^2}=\frac{c^2}{V}
Of course it is over c but it seems to work describing change of synchronicity.
I have never thought of such an application of the law so appreciate your comment whether it is OK or No Good.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sweet springs said:
i,e,

$$
v=\frac{x_2-x_1}{t_2-t_1}
$$
$$
v'=\frac{x'_2-x'_1}{t'_2-t'_1}
$$

where interval of ##(t_1,x_1)\rightarrow (t'_1,x'_1)## and ##(t_2,x_2)\rightarrow (t_2',x_2')## are time-like, space-lile, null, it doen't matter.

There are two problems here. First, "velocity" is ##dx / dt##, not ##(x_2 - x_1) / (t_2 - t_1)##. It's a derivative, not a ratio.

Second, the Lorentz transformation, which is where you're getting all this from, is only valid if ##dx / dt < 1## (or ##c## in conventional units). There is no such thing as a Lorentz transformation with ##v \ge 1##, because there is no such thing as an inertial frame with a null or spacelike "time axis".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sweet springs
Thanks. I will give some more details of the discussion.

----------------------
A stationary wave
\Psi/A=sin[\omega t]sin[k z]=\frac{1}{2} cos[kz-\omega t]-\frac{1}{2} cos[-kz-\omega t]
is transfomed to moving IFR of velocity v in z direction
\Psi/A=\Psi&#039;/A&#039;= sin[\omega \gamma (t&#039;+vz&#039;/c^2)]sin[k \gamma(z&#039;+vt&#039;)]=\frac{1}{2} cos[\gamma(k-\omega v/c^2)z&#039;-\gamma(\omega-kv)t&#039;]-\frac{1}{2} cos[-\gamma(k+\omega v/c^2)z&#039;-\gamma(\omega+kv)t&#039;]
where
dispersion relation \omega=u k,
for a wave going out
\omega&#039;_1=\gamma(\omega-kv)
k&#039;_1=\gamma(k-\omega v/c^2) 
for a wave coming in
\omega&#039;_2=\gamma(\omega+kv)
k&#039;_2=-\gamma(k+\omega v/c^2)
-------------------

We can easily confirm that velocity ##\omega'_1/k'_1## ##\omega'_2/k'_2## follow the addition rule.
Furthermore as for ##sin[\omega t]## where ##sin[0\cdot z + \omega t]## means velocity ##-\omega/0=\pm\infty## ,and ##sin[\omega \gamma (t'+vz'/c^2)]## where velocity is ##c^2/v > c##, these "velocities" seem satisfying the addition rule as mentioned in OP.
Is the velocity addition rule applicable also for such velocities exceeding c?

More clearly, as for the formula
x&#039;=\frac{x+V}{1+xV/c^2}
where x' is a quantity in moving IFR by velocity V, which corresponds to x in the original IFR, it is sure that this formula stands for x of ordinary velocity <c so this formula becomes the velocity addition rule in that case.
I am suggested that this formula also stands for x of extraordinary velocities exceeding c or even infinity as exemplified above. Is it all right?

PS The formula suggest that in all the IFRs, -c< ordinary speed <c and |extraordinary speed |>c . They are in the different regions and no contamination take place.
 
Last edited:
sweet springs said:
Is the velocity addition rule applicable also for such velocities exceeding c?

I've already answered this--the answer is no--and explained why.
 
PeterDonis said:
There are two problems here. First, "velocity" is dx/dt, not (x2−x1)/(t2−t1). It's a derivative, not a ratio.

As for the ratio , say, two events
A(t_A,z_A),B(t_B,z_A) be expressed as A(t&#039;_A,z&#039;_A),B(t&#039;_B,z&#039;_A) in change of IFRs where
t&#039;_A=\gamma(t_A+Vz_A/c^2), z&#039;_A=\gamma(z_A+Vt_A)
t&#039;_B=\gamma(t_B+Vz_B/c^2), z&#039;_B=\gamma(z_B+Vt_B)
Let us see how the ratio would be transformed
\frac{z&#039;_B-z&#039;_A}{t&#039;_B-t&#039;_A}=\frac{\gamma(z_B-z_A)+\gamma V(t_B-t_A)}{\gamma(t_B-t_A)+\gamma V(z_A-z_B)/c^2}=\frac{\frac{z_B-z_A}{t_B-t_A}+V}{1+V/c^2 \frac{z_B-z_A}{t_B-t_A}}
It is same as the velocity addition rule. There is no condition put between A and B, e.g. interval is time-like, space-like or null.

This includes the case if we take both A and B is on the same world line and very close to infinity zero then the ratio turns out to be velocity dz/dt.
 
Last edited:
sweet springs said:
There is no condition put between A and B, e.g. interval is time-like, space-like or null.

You are incorrect. The transformation you are using is a Lorentz transformation, which is only valid if the relative velocity is less than the speed of light. I have already explained why.

Since your question has been answered and you are simply repeating incorrect statements at this point, this thread is closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
992
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 123 ·
5
Replies
123
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K