Derivation of Relativistic Momentum WITHOUT using Relativistic Mass?

In summary, the author of the article was trying to derive relativistic momentum without using relativistic mass, but was having trouble getting the velocity of the mass to match up with the velocity referred to in the gamma function.
  • #1
SamRoss
Gold Member
254
36
Derivation of Relativistic Momentum WITHOUT using Relativistic Mass?

Does anyone know a way to derive relativistic momentum without falling back on the concept of relativistic mass?

Also, if it is not already part of the derivation given, does anyone know how to show that relativistic momentum is conserved in elastic collisions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


I've always seen it the other way around: first you show that mv (where m is the classical mass) is not conserved in relativistic collisions, after taking time dilation etc. into account, but [itex]\gamma mv[/itex] is conserved; and then defining "relativistic mass" as [itex]\gamma m[/itex].

I don't know any Web sites offhand that use this treatment because I learned it from paper-and-ink books a long time ago, e.g. Beiser's modern physics textbook which I taught out of for several years. Or was it cuneiform tablets?...
 
  • #3


jtbell said:
I've always seen it the other way around: first you show that mv (where m is the classical mass) is not conserved in relativistic collisions, after taking time dilation etc. into account, but [itex]\gamma mv[/itex] is conserved

That's exactly the method I've been trying. In another thread I started, "Help with Relativistic Collision" (which so far no one has responded to), I consider an elastic collision. It's easy to show that mv is not conserved but so far I have not had success in showing that [itex]\gamma[/itex]mv is. Do you know how to show that it is?
 
  • #4


search 'four-velocity' on wikipeida, and it gives an explanation for the four-velocity. From there, you just multiply by the rest mass to get the four-momentum.
The 0'th component of the four-momentum is the relativistic energy and the 1,2,3 components of the four-momentum are the relativistic momentum.
 
  • #5


SamRoss said:
Does anyone know a way to derive relativistic momentum without falling back on the concept of relativistic mass?

Also, if it is not already part of the derivation given, does anyone know how to show that relativistic momentum is conserved in elastic collisions?

Try Goldstein, "Classical Mechanics", if you get get a hold of it.
 
  • #6


BruceW said:
search 'four-velocity' on wikipeida, and it gives an explanation for the four-velocity. From there, you just multiply by the rest mass to get the four-momentum.
The 0'th component of the four-momentum is the relativistic energy and the 1,2,3 components of the four-momentum are the relativistic momentum.

and once you have four momentum how do you prove conservation?
 
  • #7


In 1+1 dimensions, the answer to the OP is pretty trivial. Let m be invariant mass, [itex]m_r=\gamma m [/itex] relativistic mass. If you have a derivation that's written in terms of [itex]m_r[/itex], substitute [itex]\gamma m[/itex] for it everywhere, and you have a derivation without using relativistic mass.

The generalization from 1+1 to 3+1 dimensions also seems pretty trivial to me. If you've established [itex]m^2=E^2-p^2[/itex] and conservation of (E,p) in 1+1 dimensions, is there really any mystery about how to generalize p from a 1-vector to a 3-vector?
 
Last edited:
  • #8


SamRoss said:
and once you have four momentum how do you prove conservation?

I guess relativistic momentum is conserved for the same reason that classical momentum is conserved in the classical limit.
In the classical limit, we say momentum is conserved because the laws of physics are invariant under a change in the position of the origin of the coordinate system.
Maybe relativistic momentum is conserved for the same reason?
 
  • #9
bcrowell said:
In 1+1 dimensions, the answer to the OP is pretty trivial. Let m be invariant mass, [itex]m_r=\gamma m [/itex] relativistic mass. If you have a derivation that's written in terms of [itex]m_r[/itex], substitute [itex]\gamma m[/itex] for it everywhere, and you have a derivation without using relativistic mass.

I seem to be having trouble getting the velocity of the mass to match up with the velocity referred to in the gamma function (1-v2/c2)-1/2. Let me take you through my thinking. This is a simple derivation of relativistic mass using the classic elastic collision example http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/adair/phys222/chapt2/Special%20Relativity%20Part%20II%20a.pdf . On the last step the author gets to the point where she can say

mouy=m'uy/[itex]\gamma[/itex]

It seems innocent enough at first glance, but going back through the author's reasoning, it looks like that [itex]\gamma[/itex] is a function of v (the velocity between the two frames) as opposed to uy, which is what we would want for a consistent momentum formula.
 
  • #10
SamRoss said:
I seem to be having trouble getting the velocity of the mass to match up with the velocity referred to in the gamma function (1-v2/c2)-1/2. Let me take you through my thinking. This is a simple derivation of relativistic mass using the classic elastic collision example http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/adair/phys222/chapt2/Special%20Relativity%20Part%20II%20a.pdf . On the last step the author gets to the point where she can say

mouy=m'uy/[itex]\gamma[/itex]

It seems innocent enough at first glance, but going back through the author's reasoning, it looks like that [itex]\gamma[/itex] is a function of v (the velocity between the two frames) as opposed to uy, which is what we would want for a consistent momentum formula.

Perhaps this is less confusing: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity:_Dynamics
 
  • #11


SamRoss said:
Does anyone know a way to derive relativistic momentum without falling back on the concept of relativistic mass?

Also, if it is not already part of the derivation given, does anyone know how to show that relativistic momentum is conserved in elastic collisions?
I don't know if my own thread Derivation of momentum & energy formulas is the sort of thing you are looking for?
 
  • #12


Besides analyzing collisions, I've seen a derivation of the relativistic mass that goes something like this:

Take gravity to be a constant, downward acceleration. There is a long, straight pole parallel to the ground (and perpendicular to the gravitational acceleration) which is held up by another pole extending from the ground to its center of mass. In the reference frame in which the center of mass isn't moving, two equal masses suspended from the pole move in opposite directions with speed u. Clearly the net torque is always zero at any point in time. Here is an illustration of the system:

[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/icl8xvvNg.jpg [Broken]

Now analyze the system from the reference frame in which the left mass is at rest. Now the system looks like this:

[PLAIN]http://k.min.us/ibipRGSAQ.jpg [Broken]

From relativistic velocity addition, we know that (working in units where c=1):

[tex]u'=\frac{2u}{1+u^2}[/tex]

This velocity is less than what would be expected in a Newtonian system, yet (as we already know) the net torque must still be zero. We therefore conclude that the mass mu' must be greater than m0 to compensate.

From the fact that [itex]\tau_{net} =0[/itex]:

[tex]m_0gut = m_{u'}g(u'-u)t[/tex]

[tex]\frac{m_0}{m_{u'}} = \frac{u'}{u}-1[/tex]

Now if you get everything in terms of u' (solve the first equation for u and sub it into the above equation) you can simplify it down to:

[tex]\frac{m_0}{m_{u'}} = \sqrt{1-u'^2}[/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

1. What is the difference between relativistic momentum and relativistic mass?

Relativistic momentum is a measure of an object's motion in relation to the speed of light, while relativistic mass is a measure of an object's mass as it approaches the speed of light. The concept of relativistic mass is now considered outdated and has been replaced by the concept of relativistic momentum.

2. How is relativistic momentum derived without using relativistic mass?

Relativistic momentum is derived using the equation p = mv/√(1-v^2/c^2), where p is the relativistic momentum, m is the rest mass of the object, v is its velocity, and c is the speed of light. This equation is derived from the principles of special relativity and does not involve the concept of relativistic mass.

3. Why is the concept of relativistic mass considered outdated?

The concept of relativistic mass was introduced by Einstein in his theory of special relativity, but it has since been replaced by the concept of relativistic momentum. This is because the concept of relativistic mass can lead to confusion and misunderstandings, as it implies that an object's mass changes with its velocity, which is not the case.

4. Can relativistic momentum be applied to objects of any mass?

Yes, relativistic momentum can be applied to objects of any mass. However, its effects are more noticeable for objects with high velocities, close to the speed of light. For objects with low velocities, the relativistic momentum equation approximates to the classical momentum equation, p = mv.

5. How does the concept of relativistic momentum impact our understanding of the universe?

The concept of relativistic momentum is an essential component of special relativity, which is a fundamental theory in modern physics. It has revolutionized our understanding of the universe and has led to groundbreaking discoveries, such as the equivalence of mass and energy and the concept of space-time. It has also allowed us to accurately describe and predict the behavior of objects moving at high velocities, such as particles in particle accelerators and objects in space.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
102
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
67
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
998
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
2K
Back
Top