Trying to follow i beginer's proof/derivation from relativity demistified.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Storm Butler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relativity
Storm Butler
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Trying to follow i "beginer's" proof/derivation from relativity demistified.

I'm trying to follow this proof/derivation in Relativity demystified basically the book is showing transformations and how they work according to the invariance of the speed of light. (im working on chapter 1 pg 9-13 in case anyone has the book). The first question i have is, at one point in the book they say that a flash of light moving out from some origin is described by the function of C^2*t^2=x^2+y^2+z^2 (i assume a circle). then they set that equal to zero as well as another coordinate system (F`), and since its in standard form (or something similar) aka only the x direction is moving the y and z and y` and z` cancel out so it leaves us with the equation c^2*t^2-x^2=c^2*t`^2-x`^2 then the author goes on to say "now we use the fact that the transformation is linear while leaving y an z unchanged. the linearity of the transformation means it must have the form x`=Ax+Bc*t
c*t`=Cx+Dc*t
im confused how is it linear aren't there squared terms and how did he rearrange these equations into these two linear equations?

I have more questions but this i all i will ask for now.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Why would there be squared terms? What he is calculating is just a "change of coordinates" transformation that has nothing to do with the "c^t^2= x^2+ y^2+ z^2" (which is NOT a circle but a sphere in three-space with radius ct).

And any linear function of x and t can be written "Ax+ Bt". The "c" is extracted from B to get the units write. If x is in "meters" and t is in "seconds" Then in x'= Ax+ Bt A is dimension less since x' and x already have the same units, meters. But t has "seconds" as units so B must have units of "meter/second" and it is simplest to write that as (B/c)ct= B'ct so B' is now dimensionless.
 


ok well if the transformation has nothing to do with the above function then where does it come from? sorry if i seem a bit slow on understanding this.
 


I can't say for sure without knowing what comes before this bit in the book (I don't have it myself), but the transformation doesn't really come from anywhere. Here's the deal: the book has explained why
c^2 t^2 - x^2=c^2 t'^2 - x'^2
(at least, given that you believe that the speed of light is invariant). And obviously, there must be some transformation between (t, x) and (t', x') - that is, if you're traveling at some particular speed, there must be some way for you to work out how a friend traveling at a different speed perceives the same events. The book says that this transformation is linear. Why linear? I forget what the accepted mathematical reasoning is, but you can do experiments to verify linearity of transformations. Anyway, since the transformation is linear, it can be expressed as
\begin{align}x' &= Ax + Bct\\t' &= Ct + Dx/c\end{align}
because all linear transformations look like that - it's just a definition. Hopefully you can follow things a bit better from there...
 


diazona said:
The book says that this transformation is linear. Why linear? I forget what the accepted mathematical reasoning is
It's an assumption. It's possible to make an assumption about something else and derive linearity from that, but that wouldn't be a "better" approach, just a different one. See this thread for a discussion.

diazona said:
Anyway, since the transformation is linear, it can be expressed as
\begin{align}x' &= Ax + Bct\\t' &= Ct + Dx/c\end{align}
because all linear transformations look like that - it's just a definition.
I would just like to add that I strongly prefer the matrix version of this equation, with units such that c=1:

\begin{pmatrix}C & D\\ A & B\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}t'\\ x'\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}t\\ x\end{pmatrix}

I have always found it very strange that introductory texts on SR are always using annoying units (c≠1) and never using matrices. I suppose the reason must be that instructors are assuming that their students aren't ready for matrices yet. That's what makes it so weird, because matrices are much easier than SR. It's an easy concept that makes the difficult concepts easier to understand.
 
Last edited:
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top