I Why are rotated parallel axes still parallel?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter unified
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle Axes
unified
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
In relativity, angles are coordinate dependent. If this is true, then why are rotated parallel axes still parallel?
I tried posting this on the physicsstackexchange, but wasn't making any progress in understanding what's going on.
Suppose the axes in two coordinate systems S, S' are parallel. Now, suppose I rotate S through some angle ##\theta## and also rotate S' through the same angle ##\theta## It's not clear to me that the rotated axes will remain parallel. In relativity, angles are coordinate dependent. For example, if S and S' are parallel and S' moves at velocity ##\left| v \right| \hat x## relative to S, and someone in S' places a bar at an angle of ##\theta## with respect to the axis x', then this angle will not be the same as the angle relative to the x axis. If someone in S then places a bar at an angle ##\theta## with respect to x, then am I correct that this bar won't be parallel to the bar in S' since an observer in S measures the bars at different angles relative to the x axis? However, these bars are just rotated axes, both rotated at the same angle ##\theta##, but they're not parallel.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
unified said:
It's not clear to me that the rotated axes will remain parallel.
Is it a problem if they don't? Is there some reason why you think they should?
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
unified said:
Now, suppose I rotate S through some angle ##\theta## and also rotate S' through the same angle ##\theta## It's not clear to me that the rotated axes will remain parallel.
I was just wondering who is measuring the rotation angle. Is the quoted text meant to mean that the S frame's ##x## axis makes an angle ##\theta## with its un-rotated original as measured in S, and the S' frame's ##x'## axis makes the same angle ##\theta## with its un-rotated original as measured in S'? If so, I agree with Peter, and I don't immediately see that the rotated axes would still be parallel. At least not in general - it should hold for rotations in the plane perpendicular to the frames' travel directions.
 
Yes, that's correct. My motivation for asking this question is that the popular derivation of the formula for a generalized Lorentz transformation uses a rotation of the axes in this way, and it's assumed that they remain parallel.

Let me clarify.

Suppose S and S' have axes aligned with origins coinciding at t = t' = 0, and S' moves with velocity ##\left| v \right|## at an angle of ##\theta## relative to the x axis as measured in frame S. Then, to derive the Lorentz transformation from S to S', the usual solution is to rotate the x-y axes so that as measured in S, the rotated axis ##\bar x## makes an angle of ##\theta## with respect to the x axis. Also, rotate the x'-y' axes so that as measured in S', the rotated axis ##\bar x'## makes an angle of ##\theta## with respect to the x' axis. Now, assuming ##\bar S## and ##\bar S'## have parallel axes, then since ##\bar S'## moves with velocity ##\left| v \right|## ##\hat {\bar x}##, we can use Lorentz transformation formula that applies in this case, and then transform back to the original reference frames using the inverse rotation matrices.

I can't understand why ##\bar S## and ##\bar S'## have parallel axes.
 
Last edited:
unified said:
the popular derivation of the formula for a generalized Lorentz transformation uses a rotation of the axes in this way
It does? How so? Please give a specific reference.
 
unified said:
If someone in S then places a bar at an angle ##\theta## with respect to x, then am I correct that this bar won't be parallel to the bar in S' since an observer in S measures the bars at different angles relative to the x axis?
The Lorentz Transformation just applies a scale factor to the spatial dimensions along the relative motion of the two frames. So if two physical bars are parallel in one inertial frame, they are also parallel in every inertial frame.

But if you are talking about the angle of a physical bar to a coordinate axis, that depends on how you defined the frame axes, and can change even for Galilean Transformations.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
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...
Back
Top