Galilean transformation paradox help

In summary: V*Ta, which is not what you get when using the Galilean Transformation.In summary, the two conventions have different results when applied to the same situation.
  • #1
kevinki
3
1
I'm getting quite stuck on this problem here.
Galileo said that Xb = Xa - V*Ta.
(This follows from dv = dx/t --> Xa - Xb = t*dv --> the above formula)
Thus, it is concluded Xa = Xb + V*Ta, but why?
In my thought experiment the objects are moving relative to each other,
thus if A is moving away from B, then B is moving away from A.
(I also read that it is convention for the Doppler-effect that V is + for source and observer approaching each other and - for source and observer receding each other)
So should V not be positive or negative for both equations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Moderator's note: moved to Classical Physics since it is about the Galilean transformation, not the Lorentz transformation.
 
  • #3
kevinki said:
I'm getting quite stuck on this problem here.
Galileo said that Xb = Xa - V*Ta.
(This follows from dv = dx/t --> Xa - Xb = t*dv --> the above formula)
Thus, it is concluded Xa = Xb + V*Ta, but why?
In my thought experiment the objects are moving relative to each other,
thus if A is moving away from B, then B is moving away from A.
Think about what the equations mean. I have a ruler at rest in front of me that shows what you've called Xa. I slide another ruler past it at a steady velocity V - that ruler shows Xb. If I decide to call the instant when the two rulers' zero points coincide time=0, then I can immediately see that the first expression tells me the Xb that corresponds to any given Xa at the time Ta - just think about where the origin of the second ruler (Xb=0) is in terms of Xa and Ta.

I can make the same argument starting with the second ruler. The only thing to note is that if the second ruler was moving in the +x direction according to the first then the first ruler must be moving in the -x direction according to the second - which is where the opposite sign comes from.

kevinki said:
(I also read that it is convention for the Doppler-effect that V is + for source and observer approaching each other and - for source and observer receding each other)
So should V not be positive or negative for both equations?
Different conventions can be used. The convention used above is that we pick a direction and call it +x, and velocities are positive in that direction. Note that V is the velocity measured in the "a" frame in both equations.
 
  • #4
kevinki said:
should V not be positive or negative for both equations?

No. You are mixing up different sign conventions which are used for different purposes.

For the Doppler effect, the sign convention is + for approaching and - for receding, because we are looking for the frequency shift as seen by the receiver. So the key thing is the motion of the source relative to the receiver. So if we change receivers, we change the sign convention.

For the Galilean transformation, there are two frames involved--as you've labeled them they are the a frame and the b frame. The equations you wrote are transformations from one frame to the other, and the key condition they must satisfy is that each one is the other's inverse. To make that work, we must adopt a sign convention for V such that the motion of a relative to b is opposite in sign from the motion of b relative to a.

In other words, the + direction of V picks out a direction in space that is the same for both a and b; it doesn't shift around when we switch frames. Or, to put it another way, the transformation equations as you have written them assume that we have constructed the two frames so that the + direction of V is the same direction in space (for example, pointing towards the star Canopus) for both.
 
  • #5
PeterDonis said:
No. You are mixing up different sign conventions which are used for different purposes.
PeterDonis said:
In other words, the + direction of V picks out a direction in space that is the same for both a and b; it doesn't shift around when we switch frames.
This makes it clearer

Yes, I did get it messed up.
I THINK to sum it up:
With the Doppler effect you assume that the receiver is static (therefore + and -)
With the Galilean Transformation you assume the environment is static (therefore fixed cartesian co-ordinate systems)

I think when you get caught up in special relativity, you forget there is such a thing as fixed directions in space.
It would seem more instinctual to use the + for approaching and - for receding convention, but with that you can not form the theory.
You would get Xb = Xa + V*Ta and Xa = Xb + V*Tb
 
  • #6
kevinki said:
I'm getting quite stuck on this problem here.
Galileo said that Xb = Xa - V*Ta.
(This follows from dv = dx/t --> Xa - Xb = t*dv --> the above formula)
Thus, it is concluded Xa = Xb + V*Ta, but why?
In my thought experiment the objects are moving relative to each other,
thus if A is moving away from B, then B is moving away from A.
(I also read that it is convention for the Doppler-effect that V is + for source and observer approaching each other and - for source and observer receding each other)
So should V not be positive or negative for both equations?

Why not look at it graphically? With the usual x-axis, the formula assumes that a positive ##V## is motion of b to the right, and that he origins coincide at ##t = 0##.

A point a distance ##X_a## from the a-origin at time ##t## will be ##X_a - Vt## from the b-origin, simply because the b-origin has moved ##Vt## to the right.

If you try to draw that, you may see what Galileo saw. (Assume ##V## is positive for simplicity.)

You can then look at it from b's perspective, with a moving to the the left at ##V##. You should get the same formula.
 

Related to Galilean transformation paradox help

1. What is the Galilean transformation paradox?

The Galilean transformation paradox refers to the apparent contradiction between two different equations used to describe the motion of objects in classical mechanics. These equations are the Galilean transformation, which describes the relationship between the positions and velocities of objects in different frames of reference, and the principle of relativity, which states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

2. How does the paradox arise?

The paradox arises because the Galilean transformation assumes that time is absolute, meaning that all observers will agree on the time that events occur. However, the principle of relativity states that the laws of physics should be the same in all frames of reference, regardless of their relative motion. This leads to a contradiction when considering the transformation of velocities between two different frames of reference.

3. How can the paradox be resolved?

The paradox can be resolved by considering the principles of special relativity, which were developed by Albert Einstein. These principles state that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference, but time and space are relative and can appear different to observers in different frames. This means that the Galilean transformation is only valid for low speeds, and at high speeds, the principles of special relativity must be used to accurately describe the motion of objects.

4. What are the implications of the Galilean transformation paradox?

The implications of the paradox are significant, as it led to the development of the theory of special relativity, which has been confirmed by numerous experiments and is an essential part of modern physics. The paradox also highlights the importance of carefully considering the assumptions and limitations of mathematical models in science.

5. How is the Galilean transformation paradox relevant today?

The Galilean transformation paradox is still relevant today, as it serves as a reminder of the limitations of classical mechanics and the need for more advanced models, such as those provided by the theory of special relativity, to accurately describe the behavior of objects at high speeds. It also serves as an example of how scientific theories can evolve and improve over time as new evidence and insights are discovered.

Similar threads

  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
10
Views
977
Replies
4
Views
775
  • Mechanics
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
643
  • Special and General Relativity
5
Replies
146
Views
6K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Back
Top