Skip to main content

Deriving the Vector Lorentz Transform, Backwards: EM II notes 2014_08_05

Summary:
Starting with the vector version of the Lorentz transform for a frame's position, we work backwards and arrive at the expressions and assumptions needed to derive it.  The derivation is not in the notes.  The transform is simply given along with a statement that it can be easily checked.

The notes derive the generic vector form of the Lorentz transforms in three dimensions.  The position transform is simply stated as:

$\vec{r}^{\prime} = \vec{r} + \dfrac{\gamma - 1}{v^2}\left(\vec{v}\cdot\vec{r}\right)\vec{v}-\gamma\vec{v}t$

A little massaging will make it more clear what's going on.  First, the mystery of the $v^2$

$\vec{r}^{\prime} = \vec{r} + \left(\gamma - 1\right)\left(\dfrac{\vec{v}}{v}\cdot\vec{r}\right)\dfrac{\vec{v}}{v}-\gamma\vec{v}t$

OK, so, we're taking the component of the $\vec{r}$ displacement vector that lies along $\vec{v}$ and then laying that in the $\vec{v}$ direction.  The $v^2$ was just to get us back to unit vectors in all cases.  The $\left(\gamma - 1\right)$ expression is interesting because it will come up in the Thomas precession.  Actually, I think we're looking at the exact same thing here.  the $\left(\gamma - 1\right)$ terms winds up being the contribution to the Thomas precession for each boost along a circular path.

Let's write down the one dimensional transform that we're aping just to look for any similarities.

$x^{\prime} = \gamma\left(x-vt\right)$

Expanding the $\left(\gamma - 1\right)$ term out gives us,

$\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}} - 1$

$ = \dfrac{1 - \sqrt{1-v^2}}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$

meh

Let's go down another path.  Starting again at

$\vec{r}^{\prime} = \vec{r} + \left(\gamma - 1\right)\left(\dfrac{\vec{v}}{v}\cdot\vec{r}\right)\dfrac{\vec{v}}{v}-\gamma\vec{v}t$

Let's take the middle term and write it as


$\left(\gamma - 1\right)\left(\dfrac{\vec{v}}{v}\cdot\vec{r}\right)\dfrac{\vec{v}}{v}$

$ = \gamma |r_v|\hat{v} - |r_v|\hat{v}$

Now, if you look at what's going on, we're pulling out the portion of  $\vec{r}$ along $\vec{v}$ and replacing it with a $\gamma$ scaled version of itself, exactly as we used the $\gamma$ scaled version of $x$ in the one dimensional equation.  Length contraction only happens along the direction parallel to the velocity.  To account for this, the expression first pulls the uncontracted component of the position vector in this direction out and then replaces it with the length contracted version.

Question:  This shows once again that the only direction that matters in special relativity is the direction parallel to the velocity.  Is there a proof of this somewhere?

Question:  If we were asked to derive this, is the above reasoning in reverse acceptable?  If not, what subtleties does it miss,and what do they teach?




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Cowbell! Record Production using Google Forms and Charts

First, the what : This article shows how to embed a new Google Form into any web page. To demonstrate ths, a chart and form that allow blog readers to control the recording levels of each instrument in Blue Oyster Cult's "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" is used. HTML code from the Google version of the form included on this page is shown and the parts that need to be modified are highlighted. Next, the why : Google recently released an e-mail form feature that allows users of Google Documents to create an e-mail a form that automatically places each user's input into an associated spreadsheet. As it turns out, with a little bit of work, the forms that are created by Google Docs can be embedded into any web page. Now, The Goods: Click on the instrument you want turned up, click the submit button and then refresh the page. Through the magic of Google Forms as soon as you click on submit and refresh this web page, the data chart will update immediately. Turn up the:

Cool Math Tricks: Deriving the Divergence, (Del or Nabla) into New (Cylindrical) Coordinate Systems

Now available as a Kindle ebook for 99 cents ! Get a spiffy ebook, and fund more physics The following is a pretty lengthy procedure, but converting the divergence, (nabla, del) operator between coordinate systems comes up pretty often. While there are tables for converting between common coordinate systems , there seem to be fewer explanations of the procedure for deriving the conversion, so here goes! What do we actually want? To convert the Cartesian nabla to the nabla for another coordinate system, say… cylindrical coordinates. What we’ll need: 1. The Cartesian Nabla: 2. A set of equations relating the Cartesian coordinates to cylindrical coordinates: 3. A set of equations relating the Cartesian basis vectors to the basis vectors of the new coordinate system: How to do it: Use the chain rule for differentiation to convert the derivatives with respect to the Cartesian variables to derivatives with respect to the cylindrical variables. The chain

The Valentine's Day Magnetic Monopole

There's an assymetry to the form of the two Maxwell's equations shown in picture 1.  While the divergence of the electric field is proportional to the electric charge density at a given point, the divergence of the magnetic field is equal to zero.  This is typically explained in the following way.  While we know that electrons, the fundamental electric charge carriers exist, evidence seems to indicate that magnetic monopoles, the particles that would carry magnetic 'charge', either don't exist, or, the energies required to create them are so high that they are exceedingly rare.  That doesn't stop us from looking for them though! Keeping with the theme of Fairbank[1] and his academic progeny over the semester break, today's post is about the discovery of a magnetic monopole candidate event by one of the Fairbank's graduate students, Blas Cabrera[2].  Cabrera was utilizing a loop type of magnetic monopole detector.  Its operation is in concept very sim