What's the difference between Lorentz factor for frames and for particles?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the distinction between the Lorentz factor for moving inertial reference frames and for particles in the context of special relativity. The Lorentz factor for frames is defined as λ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²), where v is the relative velocity between frames, while the Lorentz factor for particles is λp = 1/√(1 - u²/c²), where u is the particle's velocity. Time dilation for particles is a measurable physical effect, whereas time dilation for coordinate transformations is a property of the Lorentz transformation. Both concepts are interrelated, allowing derivations of one from the other.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of special relativity concepts
  • Familiarity with Lorentz transformations
  • Basic knowledge of proper time and coordinate systems
  • Mathematical proficiency in calculus and algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Lorentz transformations in detail
  • Explore the concept of proper time in different inertial frames
  • Learn about relativistic momentum and its implications
  • Investigate measurable effects of time dilation in particle physics
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying special relativity, educators teaching relativity concepts, and researchers in particle physics looking to deepen their understanding of time dilation effects.

BomboshMan
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Lorentz factor for moving inertial reference frames is

λ = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v<sup>2</sup>}{c<sup>2</sup>}}},

where v is the relative velocity between the frames. But in my textbook (I'm only just learning relativity), it says the Lorentz factor for a particle is

λp = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{u<sup>2</sup>}{c<sup>2</sup>}}},

where u is the velocity of the particle...but what's the difference between these two expressions?

The textbook introduces λp during the derivation of relativistic momentum, so I'm fine with where it came from, but then without explanation the book starts using it for time dilation Δt = λpΔ\tau. Little confused so would love it if someone could clear this up for me.

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There are two different, but related, concepts:
  1. Time dilation for a particle.
  2. Time dilation for a coordinate transformation.

For particle time dilation: (For simplicity, let's just look at one spatial dimension)
If a particle travels along some trajectory described by an equation such as:

x = f(t)

where (x,t) are coordinates in an inertial Cartesian coordinate system, then the proper time \tau experienced by the particle as it travels along the trajectory is given by:

\tau = \int \sqrt{1-\dfrac{v^2}{c^2}} dt

where v = \dfrac{df}{dt}

For coordinate transformation time dilation: (Again, just using one spatial dimension): Suppose you have two inertial Cartesian coordinate systems (x,t) and (x&#039;,t&#039;), such that the spatial origin of the primed system moves at speed v relative to the unprimed system. Let e_1 and e_2 be two events (points in spacetime). Let (\delta(x),\delta(t)) be their separation according to the unprimed coordinate system, and (\delta(x&#039;),\delta(t&#039;)) be their separation according to the primed coordinate system.

If

\delta(x&#039;) = 0

(so the two events take place at the same location, according to the primed coordinate system), then

\delta(t&#039;) = \sqrt{1-\dfrac{v^2}{c^2}} \ \delta(t)

Time dilation for particles is a physical effect, which is actually measurable. Time dilation for coordinate systems is just a property of a particular coordinate transformation (the Lorentz transformation). However, they are related, in the sense that the Lorentz transformation is what you would expect to apply if you create a coordinate system based on time-dilated clocks (so you can derive the LT from particle time dilation), and the other way around, if you assume that the laws of physics governing clocks is Lorentz-invariant and insensitive to past history of accelerations, then clock time dilation is derivable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K