Understanding Special Relativity Through Polar Coordinates

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of polar coordinates in the context of Special Relativity, specifically focusing on the derivation of the interval between two events and the path that maximizes this interval. Participants explore the transition from Cartesian to polar coordinates and the implications for the metric used in Minkowski spacetime.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a metric in polar coordinates and attempts to derive the stationary path using the Euler-Lagrange equations, expressing confusion over the resulting differential equation.
  • Another participant questions the initial metric provided, suggesting that the transition to polar coordinates should involve a different formulation, specifically in the (t,r) plane.
  • A third participant introduces a commonly accepted metric for polar coordinates in flat spacetime, noting that including time in polar coordinates is unusual and suggesting that the approach may not align with standard practices.
  • A later reply indicates a misunderstanding regarding the use of "t" as a radial coordinate and clarifies the coordinate transformation that leads to a more complex metric than initially proposed.
  • Ultimately, one participant revises their approach and arrives at a corrected metric that aligns with expectations, confirming that the transformation yields the desired result of a straight line in Minkowski spacetime.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the appropriate metric for polar coordinates in the context of Special Relativity, with multiple competing views on the correct formulation and implications of the coordinate transformation. The discussion remains unresolved on certain aspects of the metric and its application.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of coordinate transformations, the dependence on specific definitions of polar coordinates, and unresolved complexities in the mathematical derivations presented.

arestes
Messages
84
Reaction score
4
Hi guys!
I was reviewing some basic stuff in Special Relativity, specifically the part where it can be proven that a straight line connecting two events is the path that maximizes the interval between these two events. The proof is easy using the metric with cartesian coordinates

[tex]ds^2 = -c^2dt^2 + dx^2[/tex]

but I should get the same using polar coordinates (I'm working with two dimensions for simplicity). In that case I should work with the interval element
[tex]ds^2 = -\theta_0^2dt^2 + t^2d\theta^2[/tex]
where t stands for a "radial" coordinate and [tex]\theta[/tex] is the angle in Minkowski spacetime and [tex]\theta_0[/tex] is a real constant that is there for dimensionality reasons . This way the interval is

[tex]\Delta s = \int_{p_1}^{p_2}d\theta \sqrt{-\theta_0^2 t'^2 + t^2}[/tex]
where [tex]t'[/tex] is the derivative of t wrt [tex]\theta[/tex]. Now, I will use the Euler-Lagrange equations to get the stationary path

[tex]\frac{d}{d\theta} \frac{\partial \sqrt{-\theta_0^2 t'^2 + t^2}}{\partial t'} = \frac{\partial \sqrt{-\theta_0^2 t'^2 + t^2}}{\partial t}[/tex]

Operating I get (I've checked this many times but please re-check it)

[tex]-\frac{t''}{t} + 2\frac{t'^2}{t^2} = \frac{1}{\theta_0^2}[/tex]
which, by changing variables [tex]t \rightarrow 1/y[/tex]
[tex]y'' - \frac{1}{\theta_0^2} y = 0[/tex]
which has as solutions hyperbolic sines and cosines or, equivalently, a multiple of a hyperbolic cosine with a phase. This should be wrong because what I expect is to get a straight line in Minkowski spacetime as solution. A straight line in polar coordinates is something of the form
[tex]t = t_0 sec[\frac{1}{\theta_0} \theta + \phi][/tex]
which means that the differential equation for y should have a PLUS sign in front of [tex]1/\theta_0^2[/tex].
What is wrong here?

Also, I would like to know as to what the best way to see whether the stationary function obtained by the E-L equations is a maximum or a minimum (or just a "saddle point") is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


I don't understand your metric.

Going from Cartesian to polar coords, you could work in the (t,r) plane instead of (t,x), in which case the metric is
[tex] ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dr^2[/tex]

The surface of a sphere of radius R is

[tex] ds^2=-c^2dt^2+R^2d\theta^2+R^2\sin(\theta)^2d\phi^2[/tex]

and you need two spatial dimensions. The 'straightest' path is a segment of a great circle connecting two points.
 
Last edited:


When people say polar coordinates in flat space-time, they usually mean the following metric:

[tex]ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dr^2 - r^2d\theta^2 - r^2sin^2(\theta)d\phi^2[/tex]

I've never seen anyone try and include time in polar coordinates. There is a hyper-spherical metric where there is a boost hyper-angle corresponding to Lorentz boost, but it still looks very different from what you're defining.
 


arestes said:
Hi guys!
I was reviewing some basic stuff in Special Relativity, specifically the part where it can be proven that a straight line connecting two events is the path that maximizes the interval between these two events. The proof is easy using the metric with cartesian coordinates

[tex]ds^2 = -c^2dt^2 + dx^2[/tex]

but I should get the same using polar coordinates (I'm working with two dimensions for simplicity). In that case I should work with the interval element
[tex]ds^2 = -\theta_0^2dt^2 + t^2d\theta^2[/tex]
where t stands for a "radial" coordinate and [tex]\theta[/tex] is the angle in Minkowski spacetime and [tex]\theta_0[/tex] is a real constant that is there for dimensionality reasons .
What is your coordinate transformation to your "polar coordinates"? Using the standard polar coordinate transformation:
[tex]x=r \; cos(\theta)[/tex]
[tex]t=r \; sin(\theta)[/tex]
I am getting a metric which is much more complicated than the one you posted, even setting c=1. It involves cross terms that do not cancel out:
[tex]d\theta^2 r^2 \cos (2 \theta )+dr^2 (-\cos (2 \theta ))+2<br /> d\theta dr r \sin (2 \theta )[/tex]
 
Last edited:


Hi guys! I just figured out my mistake... It was in the very metric you all said was wrong. To make it clear, I didn't want to work on the t-r plane. Also, I shouldn't have used "t" as the radial coordinate because it is not time as in cartesian coordinates. I didn't mean to work with time in polar coordinates, it gets mixed up with the spatial coordinate.

In any case, I get the same metric as DaleSpam with a minus sign. Using
[tex] x=r \; cos(\theta)[/tex]

[tex] ct=r \; sin(\theta)[/tex]
I get
[tex] ds^2 = -d\theta^2 r^2 \cos (2 \theta )+dr^2 (\cos (2 \theta ))- 2d\theta dr r \sin (2 \theta )[/tex]
and from here I get the desired result, namely-

[tex] r = r_0 sec\left[\theta + \phi_0\right] [/tex]
which describes a straight line in Minkowski spacetime.
I just did this for fun, since I knew that changing coordinates should give me the same result as using the standard Minkowski metric.

thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K