Relativistic RMS Speed


by Vodkacannon
Tags: relativistic, speed
Vodkacannon
Vodkacannon is offline
#1
Jan3-13, 03:05 PM
P: 38
How can we restrict the RMS speed of molecules to comply with relativity?

They obviously can't go at or faster than the speed of light.

If you are dealing with particles inside of very hot stars for example you may get very high erroneous speeds.

[itex]v = \sqrt{\frac{3KT}{m}}[/itex]

How could we manipulate this equation?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Internet co-creator Cerf debunks 'myth' that US runs it
Astronomical forensics uncover planetary disks in Hubble archive
Solar-powered two-seat Sunseeker airplane has progress report
mathman
mathman is offline
#2
Jan3-13, 03:12 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 5,942
I am not familiar with the equation you gave. However, increasing energy (heating particles up) close to relativistic speeds leads to increase in m rather than v.
Vodkacannon
Vodkacannon is offline
#3
Jan3-13, 03:23 PM
P: 38
Yes that may have been a more appropriate question for me to ask in hopes of connecting relativity and kinetic gas theory

jtbell
jtbell is offline
#4
Jan3-13, 03:29 PM
Mentor
jtbell's Avatar
P: 11,255

Relativistic RMS Speed


Quote Quote by Vodkacannon View Post
How could we manipulate this equation?
We don't.

Instead, we start from scratch and re-derive the Maxwell speed distribution using relativistic kinetic energy instead of non-relativistic kinetic energy. This appears to have what you are looking for:

The Maxwell Speed Distribution for Relativistic Speeds (PDF)

See equation 21 on page 4.
Vodkacannon
Vodkacannon is offline
#5
Jan3-13, 03:41 PM
P: 38
Quote Quote by jtbell View Post
We don't.

Instead, we start from scratch and re-derive the Maxwell speed distribution using relativistic kinetic energy instead of non-relativistic kinetic energy. This appears to have what you are looking for:

The Maxwell Speed Distribution for Relativistic Speeds (PDF)

See equation 21 on page 4.
Interesting. thanks. I had known about Maxwells Distribution laws before as it's in my AP textbook. I can see how the formula sort of resembles the plain old relativistic equations.
PAllen
PAllen is offline
#6
Jan3-13, 03:48 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,863
Quote Quote by jtbell View Post
We don't.

Instead, we start from scratch and re-derive the Maxwell speed distribution using relativistic kinetic energy instead of non-relativistic kinetic energy. This appears to have what you are looking for:

The Maxwell Speed Distribution for Relativistic Speeds (PDF)

See equation 21 on page 4.
It's interesting that this makes no mention of the Maxwell-Juttner distribution, which should be the applicable distribution. Do you know if this analysis is consistent with that? At a glance, it doesn't look like it would be.
bcrowell
bcrowell is offline
#7
Jan3-13, 03:53 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
bcrowell's Avatar
P: 5,500
Quote Quote by mathman View Post
However, increasing energy (heating particles up) close to relativistic speeds leads to increase in m rather than v.
This is the relativistic mass convention, which is very old-fashioned. Physicists today use the convention that mass is invariant, so, e.g., rather that writing p=mv with an m that is a function of v, they write [itex]p=m\gamma v[/itex], where m is a constant.
Bill_K
Bill_K is offline
#8
Jan3-13, 04:58 PM
Sci Advisor
Thanks
Bill_K's Avatar
P: 3,864
The Maxwell Speed Distribution for Relativistic Speeds (PDF)
I could be wrong, but I think the formula given in this paper is incorrect. Basically he's taking the density of states to be uniform in velocity space with a sharp cutoff imposed at v=c.

The correct approach is to use a uniform density in momentum space. For nonrelativity it doesn't matter since p = mv is linear, but it does matter in our case. In momentum space there is no cutoff, one integrates over all p out to infinity.
mathman
mathman is offline
#9
Jan4-13, 04:00 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 5,942
Quote Quote by bcrowell View Post
This is the relativistic mass convention, which is very old-fashioned. Physicists today use the convention that mass is invariant, so, e.g., rather that writing p=mv with an m that is a function of v, they write [itex]p=m\gamma v[/itex], where m is a constant.
Nitpicker - what would you call [itex]m\gamma [/itex]?
PAllen
PAllen is offline
#10
Jan4-13, 04:10 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,863
Quote Quote by mathman View Post
Nitpicker - what would you call [itex]m\gamma [/itex]?
m[itex]\gamma[/itex]

The reason I discourage calling it a mass is the temptation for those learning SR to substitute it into Newtonian formulas. There is only one common formula (momentum) for which this works.

F = m[itex]\gamma[/itex]a anyone?
KE = (1/2)m[itex]\gamma[/itex]v^2 anyone?

Another observation is that [itex]\gamma[/itex] is really part of the normalization of 4-velocity to be a unit 4-vector. The correct 4-force equation for constant mass particle is simply m * 4-acceleration.
mathman
mathman is offline
#11
Jan5-13, 02:20 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 5,942
Quote Quote by PAllen View Post
m[itex]\gamma[/itex]

The reason I discourage calling it a mass is the temptation for those learning SR to substitute it into Newtonian formulas. There is only one common formula (momentum) for which this works.

F = m[itex]\gamma[/itex]a anyone?
KE = (1/2)m[itex]\gamma[/itex]v^2 anyone?

Another observation is that [itex]\gamma[/itex] is really part of the normalization of 4-velocity to be a unit 4-vector. The correct 4-force equation for constant mass particle is simply m * 4-acceleration.
It may be old fashioned, but my understanding was that the total energy is mc2, which can be expanded as a series in v to get m0c2 +m0v2/2 + ... = rest mass energy + kinetic energy.
PAllen
PAllen is offline
#12
Jan5-13, 03:09 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,863
Quote Quote by mathman View Post
It may be old fashioned, but my understanding was that the total energy is mc2, which can be expanded as a series in v to get m0c2 +m0v2/2 + ... = rest mass energy + kinetic energy.
But KE, exactly, = mc^2(γ-1) [m being rest mass] which is completely different from substituting mγ into the Newtonian formula, getting (1/2)mγv^2. The point is that there is only one relativistic analog of Newtonian kinematic formulas for which you can pretend mγ plays the role of mass. So thinking there is a general concept of relativistic mass which is analogous to the m in Newtonian formulas leads only to a large number of common errors

[edit: Thinking more, I see the main reason for the shift is the wide adoption of 4-vectors for SR. In this scheme you have mU. for 4-momentum; m is rest mass, U is 4 velocity. No mγ in sight (it is internal to the 4-velocity). Then, 4-force is naturally mA, using 4-acceleration; no nonsensical transverse and longitudinal relativistic mass as seen in some ancient relativity books.]
mathman
mathman is offline
#13
Jan7-13, 04:08 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 5,942
Quote Quote by PAllen View Post
But KE, exactly, = mc^2(γ-1) [m being rest mass] which is completely different from substituting mγ into the Newtonian formula, getting (1/2)mγv^2. The point is that there is only one relativistic analog of Newtonian kinematic formulas for which you can pretend mγ plays the role of mass. So thinking there is a general concept of relativistic mass which is analogous to the m in Newtonian formulas leads only to a large number of common errors

[edit: Thinking more, I see the main reason for the shift is the wide adoption of 4-vectors for SR. In this scheme you have mU. for 4-momentum; m is rest mass, U is 4 velocity. No mγ in sight (it is internal to the 4-velocity). Then, 4-force is naturally mA, using 4-acceleration; no nonsensical transverse and longitudinal relativistic mass as seen in some ancient relativity books.]
The main point of the formulation I gave is that it is easy to see where the Newtonian KE comes from, since the correction term is ~ (v/c)2.
harrylin
harrylin is offline
#14
Jan9-13, 04:36 AM
P: 3,178
Quote Quote by PAllen View Post
m[itex]\gamma[/itex]

The reason I discourage calling it a mass is the temptation for those learning SR to substitute it into Newtonian formulas. There is only one common formula (momentum) for which this works.[..]
See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...y/SR/mass.html for a balanced discussion but note one glitch: the FAQ ignores that the second law of Newton is in fact F~dp/dt. It works fine like that.
Quote Quote by PAllen View Post
[..] [edit: Thinking more, I see the main reason for the shift is the wide adoption of 4-vectors for SR. [..]
Right. Notice that invariant mass and relativistic mass are alternative solutions to avoid the introduction of "longitudinal" and "transverse" mass concepts.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Speed of a Relativistic Particle? Introductory Physics Homework 1
Ender's Relativistic Speed Special & General Relativity 11
Speed of Pi Meson - Relativistic question Introductory Physics Homework 5
What happens after you travel at a relativistic speed Special & General Relativity 15
relativistic speed Advanced Physics Homework 4