Jump to content

2D Lorentz-transform question


kleinwolf

Recommended Posts

If we consider 2 Lorentz transformation along x and y :

 

Lx

 

gammax -betax*gammax 0

 

-betax*gammax gammax 0

0 0 1

 

Ly

 

gammay 0 -betay*gammay

 

0 1 0

 

-betay*gammay 0 gammay

 

 

 

Why is L_x*L_y not equal to L_y*L_x ?

 

---------------------

BTW is it to confond with Lorenz, with his Goose (?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we consider 2 Lorentz transformation along x and y :

 

Lx

 

gammax -betax*gammax 0

 

-betax*gammax gammax 0

0 0 1

 

Ly

 

gammay 0 -betay*gammay

 

0 1 0

 

-betay*gammay 0 gammay

 

 

 

Why is L_x*L_y not equal to L_y*L_x ?

 

---------------------

BTW is it to confond with Lorenz, with his Goose (?)

 

Try again with LaTeX. It's incomprehensible as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general form for relativistic velocity addition is

 

[math]

\mathbf u + \mathbf v =

\frac

{\mathbf u + \mathbf v_{\parallel} + \sqrt{1-u^2/c^2}\,\mathbf v_{\perp}}

{1+\mathbf u\cdot\mathbf v/c^2}

[/math]

 

where [math]\mathbf v_{\parallel}[/math] and [math]\mathbf v_{\perp}[/math] are the components of [math]\mathbf v[/math] parallel and perpendicular to [math]\mathbf u[/math].

 

This obviously commutes only when the two velocities are parallel. When they aren't parallel you get Thomas precession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sorry, I couldn't find out how to make matrices with the tex commands.

 

I had several question from this out :

 

-It does not commute, so what corresponds physically to the order of addition of speed ?

 

-In 2D, the boost makes that Oxy is no more orthogonal (decomposition of L : [math]R^{-1}(\theta)L R(\theta),\theta=atg(v_y/v_x)[/math], where R is a rotation based on x and y component of v, and L a 1D boost with total v speed)

 

-In the Minkowski diagram, the boosts correspond to "lean" the t-axis towards x-axis. In 2D shouldn't then t-axis be leaned over every direction, such that the space x-y should be conical ?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

(Add.: Sorry, not conical, but curved, by considering that the Minkowski-angle theta between the phi-direction in the xy-plane and x'y'-frame:

 

[math] \theta=atan(vx/c*cos(\phi)+vy/c*sin(\phi)) [/math].

 

whereas with linear transformation of boost with rotation (see above) one gets :

 

[math]\theta=atan(vx/c)*cos(\phi)+atan(vy/c)*sin(\phi)[/math]

)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.