Solving Exploding Question with Relativity

  • Thread starter Thread starter asdf1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a stationary body that explodes into two fragments, each with a specified mass and speed, and requires the determination of the original body's mass while considering relativistic effects.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the conservation of momentum in a relativistic context and question how to account for the speeds approaching the speed of light. There is also a debate about the interpretation of mass as either invariant mass or relativistic mass.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the definitions of mass in relativity, suggesting that the original mass could be simply derived from the invariant mass of the fragments. Others express confusion about the implications of relativistic mass and its relevance in this scenario.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of clarity regarding the terminology used in the problem, specifically whether "mass 1.0 kg" refers to rest mass or relativistic mass, which has led to differing interpretations among participants.

asdf1
Messages
734
Reaction score
0
In this question, "A stationary body explodes into two fragments each of mass 1.0 kg that move apart at speeds of 0.6c relative to the original body. Find the mass of the original body."

My first thought is that you need to use the law of conservation of momentum.

However, how do you take relativity into account since the pieces move near the speed of light?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That question may be misleading. If, by "mass 1.0 kg" it refers to rest mass, aka invariant mass, then the original mass was simply 2.0 kg. If it meant relativistic mass, then you need to derive the rest mass from that (i.e. m(root(1-v^2/c^2))).
 
@@a
jeepers! i didn't think of that...
getting more and more complexed~
 
Generally, 'mass' is taken to mean invariant mass (i.e. the mass at rest). If someone wanted to specify relativistic mass, they would say 'relativistic mass' or 'relative mass'. I think the whole idea of relativistic mass of an already massive object in SR is somewhat misleading and pointless. It is much more relevant to the relative mass of energy, such as binding energy, that does not have a rest mass.
 
wow~
thanks! :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K