kleinwolf Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 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 (?)
ydoaPs Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 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.
D H Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 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.
kleinwolf Posted September 17, 2009 Author Posted September 17, 2009 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] )
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now