| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"James Stokes" |
| Date: |
29 Nov 2004 10:07:27 AM |
| Object: |
Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
Hi group,
Well, I've finally completed my HSC (Australian equivalent of the
SATs) and have just returned from two weeks in China to celebrate for
schoolies. Anyway, now that I have an abundance of free time on my
hands, nerdy as always, I've decided to explore the intricacies of
spacetime using Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. However,
throughout the course of my readings, several questions have arisen
about the nature of spacetime and events. As I understand it, the
spacetime of relativity is Minkowski space R^{3,1} comprised of the
set of quadruples of real numbers R^4 endowed with a form g : R^8 -->
R that defines the squared distance between two points in R^{3,1}.
Objects in spacetime are regarded as timelike subsets of R^{3,1} known
as worldlines so that the tangent vector v to any point in the
worldline obeys g(v,v) < 0. When we transform from one inertial
observer to another, the components of the points comprising the
worldline change so as to maintain the value of g(v,v). Although the
worldline of an object changes from one observer to observer, it seems
to me that the object will pass through the same physical events
regardless of the observer. However, events in spacetime are defined
only in terms of points that are readily transformed into other points
in R^{3,1}. This appears to violate the ``Unity of Spacetime'' Taylor
and Wheeler attest to on the reverse front cover of their book. Do we
not need to add more structure to R^{3,1} to give events meaning, as
opposed to quadruples of real numbers? There are several other tidbits
I'd like to address but it's too late to rave on any longer. Let me
know what you think.
Thanks is advance.
Ciao!
--James
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
29 Nov 2004 11:07:23 AM |
|
|
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:a3ea3c76.0411290807.afc9528@posting.google.com...
Hi group,
Well, I've finally completed my HSC (Australian equivalent of the
SATs) and have just returned from two weeks in China to celebrate for
schoolies. Anyway, now that I have an abundance of free time on my
hands, nerdy as always, I've decided to explore the intricacies of
spacetime using Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. However,
throughout the course of my readings, several questions have arisen
about the nature of spacetime and events. As I understand it, the
spacetime of relativity is Minkowski space R^{3,1} comprised of the
set of quadruples of real numbers R^4 endowed with a form g : R^8 -->
R that defines the squared distance between two points in R^{3,1}.
Objects in spacetime are regarded as timelike subsets of R^{3,1} known
as worldlines so that the tangent vector v to any point in the
worldline obeys g(v,v) < 0.
Since they define the interval as the time separation squared
minus the space separation squared, that should be g(v,v) > 0.
When we transform from one inertial
observer to another, the components of the points comprising the
worldline change so as to maintain the value of g(v,v). Although the
worldline of an object changes from one observer to observer, it seems
to me that the object will pass through the same physical events
regardless of the observer.
Actually, the *equation* of the worldline changes from one
observer to another. The worldline itself is merely a collection
of events and does not change. See below...
However, events in spacetime are defined
only in terms of points that are readily transformed into other points
in R^{3,1}.
And events are defined as independent of any coordinate system, so
they are not defined as elements of R^{3,1} or as elements of R^4.
That should take away the objection you make below...
This appears to violate the ``Unity of Spacetime'' Taylor
and Wheeler attest to on the reverse front cover of their book. Do we
not need to add more structure to R^{3,1} to give events meaning, as
opposed to quadruples of real numbers? There are several other tidbits
I'd like to address but it's too late to rave on any longer. Let me
know what you think.
Thanks is advance.
Can I warmly recommend Robert Geroch's "General Relativity
from A to B"? If not, sorry, too late ;-)
It's an excellent introduction to Special Relativity as well.
Part of sample chapter available at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226288641/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2973639-0603821#reader-link
Check it out!
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
29 Nov 2004 04:05:27 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:fHIqd.4484$EP.243780@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3ea3c76.0411290807.afc9528@posting.google.com...
Hi group,
Well, I've finally completed my HSC (Australian equivalent of the
SATs) and have just returned from two weeks in China to celebrate for
schoolies. Anyway, now that I have an abundance of free time on my
hands, nerdy as always, I've decided to explore the intricacies of
spacetime using Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. However,
throughout the course of my readings, several questions have arisen
about the nature of spacetime and events. As I understand it, the
spacetime of relativity is Minkowski space R^{3,1} comprised of the
set of quadruples of real numbers R^4 endowed with a form g : R^8 -->
R that defines the squared distance between two points in R^{3,1}.
Objects in spacetime are regarded as timelike subsets of R^{3,1} known
as worldlines so that the tangent vector v to any point in the
worldline obeys g(v,v) < 0.
Since they define the interval as the time separation squared
minus the space separation squared, that should be g(v,v) > 0.
When we transform from one inertial
observer to another, the components of the points comprising the
worldline change so as to maintain the value of g(v,v). Although the
worldline of an object changes from one observer to observer, it seems
to me that the object will pass through the same physical events
regardless of the observer.
Actually, the *equation* of the worldline changes from one
observer to another. The worldline itself is merely a collection
of events and does not change. See below...
However, events in spacetime are defined
only in terms of points that are readily transformed into other points
in R^{3,1}.
And events are defined as independent of any coordinate system, so
they are not defined as elements of R^{3,1} or as elements of R^4.
That should take away the objection you make below...
This appears to violate the ``Unity of Spacetime'' Taylor
and Wheeler attest to on the reverse front cover of their book. Do we
not need to add more structure to R^{3,1} to give events meaning, as
opposed to quadruples of real numbers? There are several other tidbits
I'd like to address but it's too late to rave on any longer. Let me
know what you think.
Thanks is advance.
Can I warmly recommend Robert Geroch's "General Relativity
from A to B"? If not, sorry, too late ;-)
It's an excellent introduction to Special Relativity as well.
Part of sample chapter available at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226288641/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2973639-0603821#reader-link
Check it out!
Hi James
Congratulations on your HSC. I am from Australia so I know what it is
about. I did terrible on my HSC, just passed and was ***** off at the time
about further study so I waited a few years before doing my degree. Those
few years we a real godsend - my scholastics turned right around and I went
from just passing to getting good marks. A lot has to do with how committed
you are.
I really can not expand on Dirks excellent response except to point you to
some modern derivations of the Lorentz transformations and treatments of SR
that emphasize the POR rather than the speed of light. I think it is
important to understand SR is not a theory about light - rather it is a
theory about symmetry.
See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
under the heading of Relativity without c.
If you post at sci.physics.relativity you will find we still have a number
of people that believe in aether theories and Tom Roberts did an excellent
series of posts examining these theories and why SR is preferred:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838A838.81CE8090%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
I recall when I was you age I was very intrigued by the idea that Maxwell's
equations can be derived from Coulombs Law and Special Relativity. A paper
that does that, if you are interested is:
http://www.cse.secs.oakland.edu/haskell/SpecialRelativity.htm
For general physics both myself and Dirk highly recommend you seek out a
copy of the Feynman Lectures in Physics.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Stokes" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
30 Nov 2004 12:21:31 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<fHIqd.4484$EP.243780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:a3ea3c76.0411290807.afc9528@posting.google.com...
Hi group,
Well, I've finally completed my HSC (Australian equivalent of the
SATs) and have just returned from two weeks in China to celebrate for
schoolies. Anyway, now that I have an abundance of free time on my
hands, nerdy as always, I've decided to explore the intricacies of
spacetime using Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. However,
throughout the course of my readings, several questions have arisen
about the nature of spacetime and events. As I understand it, the
spacetime of relativity is Minkowski space R^{3,1} comprised of the
set of quadruples of real numbers R^4 endowed with a form g : R^8 -->
R that defines the squared distance between two points in R^{3,1}.
Objects in spacetime are regarded as timelike subsets of R^{3,1} known
as worldlines so that the tangent vector v to any point in the
worldline obeys g(v,v) < 0.
Since they define the interval as the time separation squared
minus the space separation squared, that should be g(v,v) > 0.
When we transform from one inertial
observer to another, the components of the points comprising the
worldline change so as to maintain the value of g(v,v). Although the
worldline of an object changes from one observer to observer, it seems
to me that the object will pass through the same physical events
regardless of the observer.
Actually, the *equation* of the worldline changes from one
observer to another. The worldline itself is merely a collection
of events and does not change. See below...
So this is basically akin to saying that the subset of points of
R^{3,1} changes, however, the set of events defining the worldline
remains unchanged.
However, events in spacetime are defined
only in terms of points that are readily transformed into other points
in R^{3,1}.
And events are defined as independent of any coordinate system, so
they are not defined as elements of R^{3,1} or as elements of R^4.
That should take away the objection you make below...
I defined Minkowski space earlier as the set of quadruples of reals
plus a form that defines that spacetime interval. How do we
mathematically define an event, and where do events exist in relation
to (R^4,g)?
This appears to violate the ``Unity of Spacetime'' Taylor
and Wheeler attest to on the reverse front cover of their book. Do we
not need to add more structure to R^{3,1} to give events meaning, as
opposed to quadruples of real numbers? There are several other tidbits
I'd like to address but it's too late to rave on any longer. Let me
know what you think.
Thanks is advance.
Can I warmly recommend Robert Geroch's "General Relativity
from A to B"? If not, sorry, too late ;-)
It's an excellent introduction to Special Relativity as well.
Part of sample chapter available at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226288641/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2973639-0603821#reader-link
Check it out!
The sample chapter ends at page 8, just when they begin discussing
events in spacetime ;). That's a pretty damn a cheap book. I'll see if
I can order it in from amazon or borrow it from the University of
Sydney library next year.
Dirk Vdm
Thanks.
--James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
30 Nov 2004 07:10:29 AM |
|
|
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3ea3c76.0411292221.6b2a277a@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:<fHIqd.4484$EP.243780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3ea3c76.0411290807.afc9528@posting.google.com...
Hi group,
Well, I've finally completed my HSC (Australian equivalent of the
SATs) and have just returned from two weeks in China to celebrate for
schoolies. Anyway, now that I have an abundance of free time on my
hands, nerdy as always, I've decided to explore the intricacies of
spacetime using Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. However,
throughout the course of my readings, several questions have arisen
about the nature of spacetime and events. As I understand it, the
spacetime of relativity is Minkowski space R^{3,1} comprised of the
set of quadruples of real numbers R^4 endowed with a form g : R^8 -->
R that defines the squared distance between two points in R^{3,1}.
Objects in spacetime are regarded as timelike subsets of R^{3,1} known
as worldlines so that the tangent vector v to any point in the
worldline obeys g(v,v) < 0.
Since they define the interval as the time separation squared
minus the space separation squared, that should be g(v,v) > 0.
When we transform from one inertial
observer to another, the components of the points comprising the
worldline change so as to maintain the value of g(v,v). Although the
worldline of an object changes from one observer to observer, it seems
to me that the object will pass through the same physical events
regardless of the observer.
Actually, the *equation* of the worldline changes from one
observer to another. The worldline itself is merely a collection
of events and does not change. See below...
So this is basically akin to saying that the subset of points of
R^{3,1} changes, however, the set of events defining the worldline
remains unchanged.
However, events in spacetime are defined
only in terms of points that are readily transformed into other points
in R^{3,1}.
And events are defined as independent of any coordinate system, so
they are not defined as elements of R^{3,1} or as elements of R^4.
That should take away the objection you make below...
I defined Minkowski space earlier as the set of quadruples of reals
plus a form that defines that spacetime interval. How do we
mathematically define an event, and where do events exist in relation
to (R^4,g)?
This appears to violate the ``Unity of Spacetime'' Taylor
and Wheeler attest to on the reverse front cover of their book. Do we
not need to add more structure to R^{3,1} to give events meaning, as
opposed to quadruples of real numbers? There are several other tidbits
I'd like to address but it's too late to rave on any longer. Let me
know what you think.
Thanks is advance.
Can I warmly recommend Robert Geroch's "General Relativity
from A to B"? If not, sorry, too late ;-)
It's an excellent introduction to Special Relativity as well.
Part of sample chapter available at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226288641/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2973639-0603821#reader-link
Check it out!
The sample chapter ends at page 8, just when they begin discussing
events in spacetime ;). That's a pretty damn a cheap book. I'll see if
I can order it in from amazon or borrow it from the University of
Sydney library next year.
No need to wait. If your math is up to is check out
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/frames.html.
Thanks
Bill
Dirk Vdm
Thanks.
--James
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
30 Nov 2004 12:06:25 PM |
|
|
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3ea3c76.0411292221.6b2a277a@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:<fHIqd.4484$EP.243780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3ea3c76.0411290807.afc9528@posting.google.com...
Hi group,
Well, I've finally completed my HSC (Australian equivalent of the
SATs) and have just returned from two weeks in China to celebrate for
schoolies. Anyway, now that I have an abundance of free time on my
hands, nerdy as always, I've decided to explore the intricacies of
spacetime using Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. However,
throughout the course of my readings, several questions have arisen
about the nature of spacetime and events. As I understand it, the
spacetime of relativity is Minkowski space R^{3,1} comprised of the
set of quadruples of real numbers R^4 endowed with a form g : R^8 -->
R that defines the squared distance between two points in R^{3,1}.
Objects in spacetime are regarded as timelike subsets of R^{3,1} known
as worldlines so that the tangent vector v to any point in the
worldline obeys g(v,v) < 0.
Since they define the interval as the time separation squared
minus the space separation squared, that should be g(v,v) > 0.
When we transform from one inertial
observer to another, the components of the points comprising the
worldline change so as to maintain the value of g(v,v). Although the
worldline of an object changes from one observer to observer, it seems
to me that the object will pass through the same physical events
regardless of the observer.
Actually, the *equation* of the worldline changes from one
observer to another. The worldline itself is merely a collection
of events and does not change. See below...
So this is basically akin to saying that the subset of points of
R^{3,1} changes, however, the set of events defining the worldline
remains unchanged.
However, events in spacetime are defined
only in terms of points that are readily transformed into other points
in R^{3,1}.
And events are defined as independent of any coordinate system, so
they are not defined as elements of R^{3,1} or as elements of R^4.
That should take away the objection you make below...
I defined Minkowski space earlier as the set of quadruples of reals
plus a form that defines that spacetime interval. How do we
mathematically define an event, and where do events exist in relation
to (R^4,g)?
An (ideal) event is a possible occurrence in the physical world that
lasts for an infinitesimally short duration of time and takes place in
an infinitesimally small region of space. For example, consider a very
small firecracker whose explosion take place very rapidly.
Now, I'm going to introduce some mathematics at the level of a first
course in linear algebra.
Choose one event as the event with respect to which all other events are
to be referenced. Then, spacetime is the collection of all events, and,
in special relativity, spacetime is modeled by a 4-dimensional abstract
vector space V with the reference event represented by the zero vector
for V. Spacetime is absolute, but, as will be seen below, views of
spacetime are relative.
Also included in the model for spacetime is a mapping g that maps pairs
of vectors in V into the set of real numbers. So, g(v,w) is a real
number for any vectors v,w in V.
Call v in V:
1) timelike if g(v,v) < 0;
2) lightlike if if v =/= 0 and g(v,v) = 0;
3) spacelike if g(v,v)>0.
V and g have the following properties:
4) g linear in each argument;
5) g(v,w) = g(w,v) for all v and w (symmetric);
6) timelike vectors exist;
7) v timelike, w =/=0, and g(v,w) =0 implies that w is spacelike.
Roughly, 7) says that since spacetime has, for any observer, one
dimension of time and 3 dimensions of space, a vector orthogonal to a
timelike vector has nowhere to go but into space.
A worldline is curve in V whose tangent vector is always timelike, so
you're right - worldlines are absolute. Being a bit more precise, a
worldline is a mapping, h say, that takes an interval I of the reals
into a subset of V.
h: I -> V.
h models the path in spacetime taken by an object. Often I is taken to
be the proper time values for the object, so h associates events in
spacetime with readings on the object's wristwatch.
Where does R^4 fit into all of this? Model an inertial reference frame
for spacetime by an orthonormal basis {v0, v1, v2, v3} for spacetime
with v0 pointing along the time axis of the spacetime and the other v's
point along the space axes of the frame. Then any v in V can be uniquely
expressed as
v = A*v0 + B*v1 + C*v2 + D*v2,
where A, B, C, and D are all real numbers, i.e., (A,B,C,D) is an element
of R^4.
(A,B,C,D) gives the coordinates of v with respect to the reference frame
{v0, v1, v2, v3}. Choosing a different reference frame results in a
different set of coordinates for v, i.e., in a different element of R^4.
Events in spacetime are absolute, but coordinates of events are not!
One final math point: at the start of all this I singled out an event
as the reference event. This *seems* to make one event special (but
actually doesn't), and can be avoided by modeling spacetime with an
affine space instead of a vector space.
My advice: study Taylor and Wheeler closely without worrying too much
about the abstract mathematics right now - there will plenty of time for
that later. While in high school, I learned special relativity from
Taylor and Wheeler.
Regards,
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
30 Nov 2004 04:53:12 PM |
|
|
"George Jones" <george_llew_jones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I807ML.C8x@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca...
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3ea3c76.0411292221.6b2a277a@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
in message news:<fHIqd.4484$EP.243780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3ea3c76.0411290807.afc9528@posting.google.com...
Hi group,
Well, I've finally completed my HSC (Australian equivalent of the
SATs) and have just returned from two weeks in China to celebrate for
schoolies. Anyway, now that I have an abundance of free time on my
hands, nerdy as always, I've decided to explore the intricacies of
spacetime using Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. However,
throughout the course of my readings, several questions have arisen
about the nature of spacetime and events. As I understand it, the
spacetime of relativity is Minkowski space R^{3,1} comprised of the
set of quadruples of real numbers R^4 endowed with a form g :
^8 -->
R that defines the squared distance between two points in R^{3,1}.
Objects in spacetime are regarded as timelike subsets of R^{3,1}
known
as worldlines so that the tangent vector v to any point in the
worldline obeys g(v,v) < 0.
Since they define the interval as the time separation squared
minus the space separation squared, that should be g(v,v) > 0.
When we transform from one inertial
observer to another, the components of the points comprising the
worldline change so as to maintain the value of g(v,v). Although the
worldline of an object changes from one observer to observer, it
seems
to me that the object will pass through the same physical events
regardless of the observer.
Actually, the *equation* of the worldline changes from one
observer to another. The worldline itself is merely a collection
of events and does not change. See below...
So this is basically akin to saying that the subset of points of
R^{3,1} changes, however, the set of events defining the worldline
remains unchanged.
However, events in spacetime are defined
only in terms of points that are readily transformed into other
points
in R^{3,1}.
And events are defined as independent of any coordinate system, so
they are not defined as elements of R^{3,1} or as elements of R^4.
That should take away the objection you make below...
I defined Minkowski space earlier as the set of quadruples of reals
plus a form that defines that spacetime interval. How do we
mathematically define an event, and where do events exist in relation
to (R^4,g)?
An (ideal) event is a possible occurrence in the physical world that
lasts for an infinitesimally short duration of time and takes place in
an infinitesimally small region of space. For example, consider a very
small firecracker whose explosion take place very rapidly.
Now, I'm going to introduce some mathematics at the level of a first
course in linear algebra.
Choose one event as the event with respect to which all other events are
to be referenced. Then, spacetime is the collection of all events, and,
in special relativity, spacetime is modeled by a 4-dimensional abstract
vector space V with the reference event represented by the zero vector
for V. Spacetime is absolute, but, as will be seen below, views of
spacetime are relative.
Also included in the model for spacetime is a mapping g that maps pairs
of vectors in V into the set of real numbers. So, g(v,w) is a real
number for any vectors v,w in V.
Call v in V:
1) timelike if g(v,v) < 0;
2) lightlike if if v =/= 0 and g(v,v) = 0;
3) spacelike if g(v,v)>0.
V and g have the following properties:
4) g linear in each argument;
5) g(v,w) = g(w,v) for all v and w (symmetric);
6) timelike vectors exist;
7) v timelike, w =/=0, and g(v,w) =0 implies that w is spacelike.
Roughly, 7) says that since spacetime has, for any observer, one
dimension of time and 3 dimensions of space, a vector orthogonal to a
timelike vector has nowhere to go but into space.
A worldline is curve in V whose tangent vector is always timelike, so
you're right - worldlines are absolute. Being a bit more precise, a
worldline is a mapping, h say, that takes an interval I of the reals
into a subset of V.
h: I -> V.
h models the path in spacetime taken by an object. Often I is taken to
be the proper time values for the object, so h associates events in
spacetime with readings on the object's wristwatch.
Where does R^4 fit into all of this? Model an inertial reference frame
for spacetime by an orthonormal basis {v0, v1, v2, v3} for spacetime
with v0 pointing along the time axis of the spacetime and the other v's
point along the space axes of the frame. Then any v in V can be uniquely
expressed as
v = A*v0 + B*v1 + C*v2 + D*v2,
where A, B, C, and D are all real numbers, i.e., (A,B,C,D) is an element
of R^4.
(A,B,C,D) gives the coordinates of v with respect to the reference frame
{v0, v1, v2, v3}. Choosing a different reference frame results in a
different set of coordinates for v, i.e., in a different element of R^4.
Events in spacetime are absolute, but coordinates of events are not!
One final math point: at the start of all this I singled out an event
as the reference event. This *seems* to make one event special (but
actually doesn't), and can be avoided by modeling spacetime with an
affine space instead of a vector space.
My advice: study Taylor and Wheeler closely without worrying too much
about the abstract mathematics right now - there will plenty of time for
that later. While in high school, I learned special relativity from
Taylor and Wheeler.
Regards,
George
Nice post George. I wish people had pointed things like that out to me when
I started learning relativity. I learnt the technicalities from Landau -
Classical Theory of Fields. I do NOT recommend it as the initial text. I
do however recommend Rindler - Introduction to Special Relativity where he
examines what you wrote about. I think it is very important to understand
that the coordinates are simply the representations of some abstract space
V. Tom Roberts expresses it very well I think when he says our instruments
and frames project the coordinates from that abstract space. Trouble is
Rindler does require, what in Australia, would be second year calculus and
linear algebra which the poster may not be familiar with; so Taylor and
Wheeler is probably a better choice.
Thanks
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Stokes" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
30 Nov 2004 06:26:44 PM |
|
|
"George Jones" <george_llew_jones@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<I807ML.C8x@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca>...
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
I defined Minkowski space earlier as the set of quadruples of reals
plus a form that defines that spacetime interval. How do we
mathematically define an event, and where do events exist in relation
to (R^4,g)?
An (ideal) event is a possible occurrence in the physical world that
lasts for an infinitesimally short duration of time and takes place in
an infinitesimally small region of space. For example, consider a very
small firecracker whose explosion take place very rapidly.
Now, I'm going to introduce some mathematics at the level of a first
course in linear algebra.
Choose one event as the event with respect to which all other events are
to be referenced. Then, spacetime is the collection of all events, and,
in special relativity, spacetime is modeled by a 4-dimensional abstract
vector space V with the reference event represented by the zero vector
for V. Spacetime is absolute, but, as will be seen below, views of
spacetime are relative.
Also included in the model for spacetime is a mapping g that maps pairs
of vectors in V into the set of real numbers. So, g(v,w) is a real
number for any vectors v,w in V.
Call v in V:
1) timelike if g(v,v) < 0;
2) lightlike if if v =/= 0 and g(v,v) = 0;
3) spacelike if g(v,v)>0.
V and g have the following properties:
4) g linear in each argument;
5) g(v,w) = g(w,v) for all v and w (symmetric);
6) timelike vectors exist;
7) v timelike, w =/=0, and g(v,w) =0 implies that w is spacelike.
Roughly, 7) says that since spacetime has, for any observer, one
dimension of time and 3 dimensions of space, a vector orthogonal to a
timelike vector has nowhere to go but into space.
A worldline is curve in V whose tangent vector is always timelike, so
you're right - worldlines are absolute. Being a bit more precise, a
worldline is a mapping, h say, that takes an interval I of the reals
into a subset of V.
h: I -> V.
h models the path in spacetime taken by an object. Often I is taken to
be the proper time values for the object, so h associates events in
spacetime with readings on the object's wristwatch.
Where does R^4 fit into all of this? Model an inertial reference frame
for spacetime by an orthonormal basis {v0, v1, v2, v3} for spacetime
with v0 pointing along the time axis of the spacetime and the other v's
point along the space axes of the frame. Then any v in V can be uniquely
expressed as
v = A*v0 + B*v1 + C*v2 + D*v2,
where A, B, C, and D are all real numbers, i.e., (A,B,C,D) is an element
of R^4.
(A,B,C,D) gives the coordinates of v with respect to the reference frame
{v0, v1, v2, v3}. Choosing a different reference frame results in a
different set of coordinates for v, i.e., in a different element of R^4.
Events in spacetime are absolute, but coordinates of events are not!
How is v absolute? If {v0, v1, v2, v3} undergoes a lorentz boost L in
the direction of v1, then the event v will become a new event Lv in V
according to
Lv = (A cosh(a) - B sinh(a))*v0 + (B cosh{a) - A sinh(a))*v1 + C*v2 +
D*v3.
Considering that the components of (A,B,C,D) transform in exactly the
same manner as v, namely (A cosh(a) - B sinh(a),B cosh{a) - A
sinh(a),C,D), it seems logical to assume the identity V = R^4. Isn't
this model just a mathematical restatement of (R^4,g)? It appears to
me that an event is just a mental concept that we keep in the back of
our minds to remind us of which points in R^4 correspond to the same
physical occurrences prior to Lorentz transformation.
One final math point: at the start of all this I singled out an event
as the reference event. This *seems* to make one event special (but
actually doesn't), and can be avoided by modeling spacetime with an
affine space instead of a vector space.
My advice: study Taylor and Wheeler closely without worrying too much
about the abstract mathematics right now - there will plenty of time for
that later. While in high school, I learned special relativity from
Taylor and Wheeler.
I'm trying to learn about spacetime both physically and abstractly so
that I can get the best of both worlds in terms of understanding.
Regards,
George
Thanks in advance.
--James
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Hobba" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
30 Nov 2004 08:10:55 PM |
|
|
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:a3ea3c76.0411301626.397912b8@posting.google.com...
"George Jones" <george_llew_jones@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<I807ML.C8x@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca>...
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
I defined Minkowski space earlier as the set of quadruples of reals
plus a form that defines that spacetime interval. How do we
mathematically define an event, and where do events exist in relation
to (R^4,g)?
An (ideal) event is a possible occurrence in the physical world that
lasts for an infinitesimally short duration of time and takes place in
an infinitesimally small region of space. For example, consider a very
small firecracker whose explosion take place very rapidly.
Now, I'm going to introduce some mathematics at the level of a first
course in linear algebra.
Choose one event as the event with respect to which all other events are
to be referenced. Then, spacetime is the collection of all events, and,
in special relativity, spacetime is modeled by a 4-dimensional abstract
vector space V with the reference event represented by the zero vector
for V. Spacetime is absolute, but, as will be seen below, views of
spacetime are relative.
Also included in the model for spacetime is a mapping g that maps pairs
of vectors in V into the set of real numbers. So, g(v,w) is a real
number for any vectors v,w in V.
Call v in V:
1) timelike if g(v,v) < 0;
2) lightlike if if v =/= 0 and g(v,v) = 0;
3) spacelike if g(v,v)>0.
V and g have the following properties:
4) g linear in each argument;
5) g(v,w) = g(w,v) for all v and w (symmetric);
6) timelike vectors exist;
7) v timelike, w =/=0, and g(v,w) =0 implies that w is spacelike.
Roughly, 7) says that since spacetime has, for any observer, one
dimension of time and 3 dimensions of space, a vector orthogonal to a
timelike vector has nowhere to go but into space.
A worldline is curve in V whose tangent vector is always timelike, so
you're right - worldlines are absolute. Being a bit more precise, a
worldline is a mapping, h say, that takes an interval I of the reals
into a subset of V.
h: I -> V.
h models the path in spacetime taken by an object. Often I is taken to
be the proper time values for the object, so h associates events in
spacetime with readings on the object's wristwatch.
Where does R^4 fit into all of this? Model an inertial reference frame
for spacetime by an orthonormal basis {v0, v1, v2, v3} for spacetime
with v0 pointing along the time axis of the spacetime and the other v's
point along the space axes of the frame. Then any v in V can be uniquely
expressed as
v = A*v0 + B*v1 + C*v2 + D*v2,
where A, B, C, and D are all real numbers, i.e., (A,B,C,D) is an element
of R^4.
(A,B,C,D) gives the coordinates of v with respect to the reference frame
{v0, v1, v2, v3}. Choosing a different reference frame results in a
different set of coordinates for v, i.e., in a different element of R^4.
Events in spacetime are absolute, but coordinates of events are not!
How is v absolute?
Have you studied linear algebra? The elements of a vector space exist
independent of their representations ie their components in a particular
basis.
If {v0, v1, v2, v3} undergoes a lorentz boost L in
the direction of v1, then the event v will become a new event Lv in V
according to
Lv = (A cosh(a) - B sinh(a))*v0 + (B cosh{a) - A sinh(a))*v1 + C*v2 +
D*v3.
In transforming to different coordinates you change your basis vectors and
hence the representation of the element of the vector space that corresponds
to the space-time event - you do not change the element ie the space-time
event. Tom Roberts epxresses this by saying your insrumnets take a
different projection eg see
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=3714210B.9081684A%40lucent.com
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3384368904d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=cf8cl0%24a4p%40netnews.proxy.lucent.com
'Go back and look at my building analogy. GEOMETRY affects the RELATIONSHIP
between a measuring tool and the object being measured, but NEITHER object
nor measuring tool is "affected". The underlying process is geometrical
projection: In Euclidean space, lay a rod of length L along the X axis;
measure it using a ruler parallel to the X axis and you obtain L. But if you
measure it with a ruler inclined wrt the X axis, you must PROJECT the ends
of the rod onto the ruler; do that perpendicular to the ruler and you get a
value smaller than L. The distance between the ends of the rod is a spatial
interval, and measuring with a ruler ivolved PROJECTING that interval onto
the ruler; while the value obtained varies with the relationshiop between
ruler and rod, neither ruler nor rod are "affected" by the inclination of
rod wrt ruler. The EXACT same thing happens with clocks in SR -- there is a
geometrical PROJECTION involved. A given clock PROJECTS a spacetime interval
onto its own trajectory. A moving clock is INCLINED in the X-T plane wrt a
clock at rest on the X axis. But this is hyperbolic geometry, so a clock
with an inclined trajectory (i.e. is moving) registers a smaller value for
the interval between two points (e.g. the departure and arrival of the
traveling twin/clock) than does a clock with a trajectory that is not
inclined (i.e. is not moving).'
Considering that the components of (A,B,C,D) transform in exactly the
same manner as v, namely (A cosh(a) - B sinh(a),B cosh{a) - A
sinh(a),C,D), it seems logical to assume the identity V = R^4. Isn't
this model just a mathematical restatement of (R^4,g)? It appears to
me that an event is just a mental concept that we keep in the back of
our minds to remind us of which points in R^4 correspond to the same
physical occurrences prior to Lorentz transformation.
Yes an event is a concept - the specific values the components has in a
certain coordinate system are not the same as the event itself which is
represented by an element of an abstract space.
One final math point: at the start of all this I singled out an event
as the reference event. This *seems* to make one event special (but
actually doesn't), and can be avoided by modeling spacetime with an
affine space instead of a vector space.
My advice: study Taylor and Wheeler closely without worrying too much
about the abstract mathematics right now - there will plenty of time for
that later. While in high school, I learned special relativity from
Taylor and Wheeler.
I'm trying to learn about spacetime both physically and abstractly so
that I can get the best of both worlds in terms of understanding.
I have previously pointed you to the following notes on GR by Sean Carroll -
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/frames.html. Have a
look at Chapter 1 'SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND FLAT SPACETIME'. To quote:
'A vector is a perfectly well-defined geometric object, as is a vector
field, defined as a set of vectors with exactly one at each point in
spacetime. (The set of all the tangent spaces of a manifold M is called the
tangent bundle, T(M).) Nevertheless it is often useful for concrete purposes
to decompose vectors into components with respect to some set of basis
vectors. A basis is any set of vectors which both spans the vector space
(any vector is a linear combination of basis vectors) and is linearly
independent (no vector in the basis is a linear combination of other basis
vectors). For any given vector space, there will be an infinite number of
legitimate bases, but each basis will consist of the same number of vectors,
known as the dimension of the space. (For a tangent space associated with a
point in Minkowski space, the dimension is of course four.)'
BTW the above is more complex than it needs to be for SR - but since the
notes are about GR it preempts what is needed later. Hope this helps.
Thnaks
Bill
Regards,
George
Thanks in advance.
--James
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
30 Nov 2004 01:19:07 PM |
|
|
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:a3ea3c76.0411292221.6b2a277a@posting.google.com...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<fHIqd.4484$EP.243780@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
"James Stokes" <dkjk@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:a3ea3c76.0411290807.afc9528@posting.google.com...
Hi group,
Well, I've finally completed my HSC (Australian equivalent of the
SATs) and have just returned from two weeks in China to celebrate for
schoolies. Anyway, now that I have an abundance of free time on my
hands, nerdy as always, I've decided to explore the intricacies of
spacetime using Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics. However,
throughout the course of my readings, several questions have arisen
about the nature of spacetime and events. As I understand it, the
spacetime of relativity is Minkowski space R^{3,1} comprised of the
set of quadruples of real numbers R^4 endowed with a form g : R^8 -->
R that defines the squared distance between two points in R^{3,1}.
Objects in spacetime are regarded as timelike subsets of R^{3,1} known
as worldlines so that the tangent vector v to any point in the
worldline obeys g(v,v) < 0.
Since they define the interval as the time separation squared
minus the space separation squared, that should be g(v,v) > 0.
When we transform from one inertial
observer to another, the components of the points comprising the
worldline change so as to maintain the value of g(v,v). Although the
worldline of an object changes from one observer to observer, it seems
to me that the object will pass through the same physical events
regardless of the observer.
Actually, the *equation* of the worldline changes from one
observer to another. The worldline itself is merely a collection
of events and does not change. See below...
So this is basically akin to saying that the subset of points of
R^{3,1} changes, however, the set of events defining the worldline
remains unchanged.
Indeed. The elements of R^{3,1} are not events, but merely
coordinate tuples of events, as measured or calculated by some
observer.
However, events in spacetime are defined
only in terms of points that are readily transformed into other points
in R^{3,1}.
And events are defined as independent of any coordinate system, so
they are not defined as elements of R^{3,1} or as elements of R^4.
That should take away the objection you make below...
I defined Minkowski space earlier as the set of quadruples of reals
plus a form that defines that spacetime interval. How do we
mathematically define an event, and where do events exist in relation
to (R^4,g)?
In the book events are not mathematically defined. T&W took great
care to do it strictly physically.
This appears to violate the ``Unity of Spacetime'' Taylor
and Wheeler attest to on the reverse front cover of their book. Do we
not need to add more structure to R^{3,1} to give events meaning, as
opposed to quadruples of real numbers? There are several other tidbits
I'd like to address but it's too late to rave on any longer. Let me
know what you think.
Thanks is advance.
Can I warmly recommend Robert Geroch's "General Relativity
from A to B"? If not, sorry, too late ;-)
It's an excellent introduction to Special Relativity as well.
Part of sample chapter available at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0226288641/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-2973639-0603821#reader-link
Check it out!
The sample chapter ends at page 8, just when they begin discussing
events in spacetime ;). That's a pretty damn a cheap book. I'll see if
I can order it in from amazon or borrow it from the University of
Sydney library next year.
Don't borrow it. This is definitely one to keep :-)
Enjoy
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Reflections on SR from a high school leaver |
29 Nov 2004 11:10:45 AM |
|
|
James Stokes wrote:
Hi group,
Well, I've finally completed my HSC (Australian equivalent of the
SATs) and have just returned from two weeks in China to celebrate for
schoolies.
Visit a doctor - ectoparasites; VDRL, the usual STD panel especially
including chlamydia.
Anyway, now that I have an abundance of free time on my
hands, nerdy as always, I've decided to explore the intricacies of
spacetime using Taylor and Wheeler's Spacetime Physics.
GPS works for the weak field approximation. Strong field also looks
OK,
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
However,
throughout the course of my readings, several questions have arisen
about the nature of spacetime and events. As I understand it, the
spacetime of relativity is Minkowski space R^{3,1} comprised of the
set of quadruples of real numbers R^4 endowed with a form g : R^8 -->
R that defines the squared distance between two points in R^{3,1}.
Objects in spacetime are regarded as timelike subsets of R^{3,1} known
as worldlines so that the tangent vector v to any point in the
worldline obeys g(v,v) < 0. When we transform from one inertial
observer to another, the components of the points comprising the
worldline change so as to maintain the value of g(v,v). Although the
worldline of an object changes from one observer to observer, it seems
to me that the object will pass through the same physical events
regardless of the observer.
Observed ordering and rates are negotiable - space-like and time-like
events.
However, events in spacetime are defined
only in terms of points that are readily transformed into other points
in R^{3,1}. This appears to violate the ``Unity of Spacetime'' Taylor
and Wheeler attest to on the reverse front cover of their book. Do we
not need to add more structure to R^{3,1} to give events meaning, as
opposed to quadruples of real numbers? There are several other tidbits
I'd like to address but it's too late to rave on any longer. Let me
know what you think.
Wihthin broad limits you can get any answer you want in a perturbative
approach from a large number of starting points. Versus empirical
observation, such theory always degenrates into "more studies are
needed for another decimal place." (Zeno's Funding Paradox) The
maths brought to bear constitute a rich assortment of approaches. John
Baez' pages and lots more,
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|