home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc8!mcirvin
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: A long-winded primer on four-vectors (part 1)
- Message-ID: <mcirvin.711851234@husc8>
- From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
- Date: 23 Jul 92 00:27:14 GMT
- References: <1992Jul21.182314.14031@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Jul22.123454.20826@email.tuwien.ac.at>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu
- Lines: 35
-
- gast@next.ben-fh.tuwien.ac.at (Gast) writes:
-
- >The article was a prety good overview about the subject of four-vectors.
- >Yet, two short remarks:
-
- >Remark 1:
- >If you don't set c=1, the coordinates of a point in a Minkowsky-space are
- >(if any doubt, consider the units):
-
- > a
- >x = (ct,x,y,z) (a is an upper index)
-
- >Therefore the transfromation above has to be
-
- > x -> x' = x cosh phi + ct sinh phi
- > t -> t' = x/c sinh phi + t cosh phi
-
- Right... I should have been more explicit about that.
- Through the whole article I'm setting c=1 except where I explicitly
- put it in. But I put it in when I discussed the values of cosh
- and sinh phi, which was a little inconsistent.
-
- >Remark 2:
- >Because of the metric there are two kinds of coordinates neccessary.
- [description of covariant and contravariant vectors]
-
- Right again... *that* I was omitting intentionally for simplicity;
- what I call four-vectors are always "upper-index" or contravariant
- vectors, in the article, except in the one spot where I define
- a lower-index vector.
-
- This becomes far more important in GR.
-
- --
- Matt McIrvin mcirvin@husc.harvard.edu Long live short .sigs
-