I Why are rotated parallel axes still parallel?

  • Thread starter Thread starter unified
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angle Axes
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the question of whether rotated axes in two parallel coordinate systems remain parallel after both are rotated through the same angle. It highlights the complexity introduced by relativity, where angles are coordinate-dependent, leading to confusion about the parallelism of bars placed at specific angles in different frames. Participants express uncertainty regarding the conditions under which the rotated axes maintain their parallelism, particularly when considering the effects of relative motion. The conversation also touches on the implications for deriving the Lorentz transformation, which assumes parallelism in its derivation. Ultimately, the consensus suggests that while physical bars may remain parallel in different inertial frames, their angles relative to coordinate axes can vary based on the frame definitions.
unified
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
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.
 
Moderator's note: Spin-off from another thread due to topic change. In the second link referenced, there is a claim about a physical interpretation of frame field. Consider a family of observers whose worldlines fill a region of spacetime. Each of them carries a clock and a set of mutually orthogonal rulers. Each observer points in the (timelike) direction defined by its worldline's tangent at any given event along it. What about the rulers each of them carries ? My interpretation: each...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K