My Math Forum > Math Can this object be moved using a Lorentz transform?

 Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news

 January 19th, 2016, 08:07 AM #1 Senior Member     Joined: Jul 2015 From: Florida Posts: 154 Thanks: 3 Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry Can this object be moved using a Lorentz transform? There's a 3D object which has been created that contains certain features, the main feature of which is a defined relationship between some defined planes. It's this object here:
January 19th, 2016, 08:25 AM   #2
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,200
Thanks: 898

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by steveupson There's a 3D object which has been created that contains certain features, the main feature of which is a defined relationship between some defined planes. It's this object here:
The link seems to have moved on, though I did appreciate the "Pirate Banana Song."

As a Lorentz transformation doesn't move an object, just the reference frame it is observing it from, then what are you talking about? I can't think of any object that would be defined such that a Lorentz transformation would "not preserve it" in whatever manner.

-Dan

January 19th, 2016, 08:48 AM   #3
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2015
From: Florida

Posts: 154
Thanks: 3

Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry
Quote:
 Originally Posted by topsquark I can't think of any object that would be defined such that a Lorentz transformation would "not preserve it" in whatever manner. -Dan
Of course not, and that's exactly why I'm asking. The video is only 4 seconds and is a fragment of the animation that we are currently working on. It works when I try it.

edited to add> A few months ago I did not imagine that there existed such an object, but now I'm pretty sure that it does exist.

Last edited by steveupson; January 19th, 2016 at 08:53 AM.

 January 19th, 2016, 09:16 AM #4 Math Team     Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 2,200 Thanks: 898 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff. Okay, I understand about the video now. But the graphic still doesn't tell me what's going on? -Dan
 January 19th, 2016, 11:29 AM #5 Senior Member     Joined: Jul 2015 From: Florida Posts: 154 Thanks: 3 Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry Yes, that's the difficulty that I'm having. How can I possibly explain what I'm talking about? Thanks for your patience. The object represents a function that exists between two angles, each of which is formed between two planes. It's a novel approach. Nothing like it exists in any literature that's out there. If I can walk you through exactly how the object is created, then we might be able to move on to discuss what makes the object new and unique, and why I think it would resist all attempts at transformation. The first angle that we are concerned with is the elevation angle E. It is formed when we intersect a sphere with two planes, like this: The second angle is more complicated. It is formed between a plane of longitude and a "tangent" plane which lies in a conical orbit. The construction of the longitude plane is not too complicated, but its orientation is very specific. The orientation of the longitude plane is such that it intersects a point on a small circle which is constructed on the surface of the sphere at a 45 degree angle, like this: The "tangent" plane lies along the surface of a cone formed by the sphere center and the 45 degree small circle. As the elevation angle E is varied, the position of this tangent plane changes such that it remains coincident with the intersecting point on the circumference of the small circle, like this: [/U] If we call the angle that is made between the longitude plane and the tangent plane the angle $\displaystyle \alpha$, then the object is defined by the function: $\displaystyle \cot( \alpha) = \dfrac{1-\sin(E)}{\sin(E)}$ At least I think it is. My algebra is pathetic. Last edited by skipjack; January 19th, 2016 at 02:15 PM.
 January 19th, 2016, 01:32 PM #6 Math Team     Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 2,200 Thanks: 898 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff. Okay, just to check: Your object can only be composed by certain sets of defined angles, at least some of which will deform under a Lorentz transformation and thus no longer be definable as that type of object? Sounds more like a symmetry problem than a transformation problem. -Dan
 January 19th, 2016, 04:02 PM #7 Senior Member     Joined: Jul 2015 From: Florida Posts: 154 Thanks: 3 Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry You're probably correct, but it doesn't sound quite right to me. The way that I understand it (or not), an equation would be true in any frame, regardless of boost. In this case, the equation under transformation has only one quantity, and that quantity expresses the property of direction. There is no metric to it, if I understand the meanings correctly. It's a 3-dimensional object expressed in non-dimensional units. At least that's how I would categorize it. Since it has no metric, it wouldn't deform, would it? My question is whether or not the transformation would produce the same direction information as the original. Wouldn't the transformation give an alternative set that is parallel to the original, ie. not the same?
January 19th, 2016, 05:52 PM   #8
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,200
Thanks: 898

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by steveupson You're probably correct, but it doesn't sound quite right to me. The way that I understand it (or not), an equation would be true in any frame, regardless of boost. In this case, the equation under transformation has only one quantity, and that quantity expresses the property of direction. There is no metric to it, if I understand the meanings correctly. It's a 3-dimensional object expressed in non-dimensional units. At least that's how I would categorize it. Since it has no metric, it wouldn't deform, would it? My question is whether or not the transformation would produce the same direction information as the original. Wouldn't the transformation give an alternative set that is parallel to the original, ie. not the same?
In SR all reference frames have the same metric. I'm still not sure what the issue here is. A sphere in a static coordinate system will look like some kind of ellipse when viewed by a moving inertial reference frame. I was wondering if that kind of "deformation" was giving a problem. If not then I'm not understanding what your difficulty is. Sorry, my brain is numb tonight.

-Dan

January 19th, 2016, 06:30 PM   #9
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2015
From: Florida

Posts: 154
Thanks: 3

Math Focus: non-euclidean geometry
Quote:
 Originally Posted by topsquark In SR all reference frames have the same metric. I'm still not sure what the issue here is. A sphere in a static coordinate system will look like some kind of ellipse when viewed by a moving inertial reference frame. I was wondering if that kind of "deformation" was giving a problem. If not then I'm not understanding what your difficulty is. Sorry, my brain is numb tonight. -Dan
The thing is, there is no sphere.

There is no two-dimensional surface, other than planes.

And a circle on a plane, but no spheres.

 Tags lorentz, moved, object, transform

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post MarkFL New Users 14 November 26th, 2012 11:42 AM superbro Linear Algebra 4 March 1st, 2012 11:17 AM ben.g95 Physics 0 October 12th, 2011 04:20 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top